# Population Genetics > Y-DNA Haplogroups > I1 >  Theory: I1 originally from Paloithic Cro magnon central Europe not Scandinavia

## Fire Haired

*I1 M253 in Scandinavia is a offshoot of central European I1*
From what i have seen I1 M253 in Scandinavia is majority I1a2 L22 and that I1a2 L22 is only in Scandinavia and areas were there is historical Scandinavian settlement. In the rest of Europe I1 M253 is I1a1 M227, I1a3 Z58, I1a4 Z63, and I1b Z131. It is by far mainly in central Europe the rest in non central Europe was probably spread by Germanic tribes. So I1 in central Europe is much more diverse than I1M253 in Scandinavia which is majority I1a2. If I1 M253 originated in Scandinavia wouldn't u except that they would have the most subclades. I1b Z131 is very very rare and from what i have read only found around the Netherlands and western Germany. All of Scandinavian I1a2 L22 brothers are in central Europe same with its cousin I1b Z131.

It seems that I1 in Scandinavia is just a offshoot of the original I1a Df29 of central Europe that is hwy they only have one subclade. People i think are just assuming I1 is unque to Scandinavia and it originated there. Just like people assumed R1b M343 was unque and original to western Europe. 

*I1 M253 was the first Y DNA haplogroup to settle Scandinavia and is Much older than predicted*I have heard crazy age estimates for I1 M253 as 4,000-5,000 years old in Denmark or whatever. When u look at how I1 M253 is spread out mainly in Scandinavia it does not represent any non cultures in archaeology in the last 10,000 years. Those age estimates are complete BS i don't know why I1 M253 is always predicted to be so young. Pretty much 100% of Scandnavia Y DNA is I1 M253, N1c M46, R1a M420, R1b M434, and I2a2 P214. There is about 1-10% G2a P15, E1b1b M215, and J2 M172 in far southern Scandinavia but those can easily be explained as contact with other Europeans or Neolithic farmers. 

R1b M343 and I2a2 P214 in Scandinavia are basically distributed the same way. They are centered in southern Norway and Sweden and only barely exist in western Finland. Just about all R1b M343 in Scandinavia fall under Germanic Italo Celtic R1b L11 which originated in central Europe about 5,000-4,500ybp while proto Germanic Italo Celtic speakers were migrating from eastern Europe. I2a2 P214 originated in central Europe too probably over 10,000ybp and almost defintley migrated with R1b, Germanic languages, and brought red hair to Scandinavia(since it is distrubted the same way as those haplogroups) with the Nordic bronze age culture 4,000-3,500ybp. So the R1b M343 and I2a2 P214 is easily explained. R1a M420 in Scandinavia is the brother clade of Balto Slavic R1a M420 and can easily be explained by Corded ware culture which had settlement in southern Scandinavia 5,000-4,000ybp and spoke proto Balto Slavic. 

N1c M46 in Scandinavia is centered around Finland and Uralic speakers. It also perfectly matches the distributions of Kunda culture(8,000-6,000ybp) and Comb Cermaic culture (5,000-6,000ybp). Y DNA N period is originally mongliod and is very popular in northern Siberia it is estimated to have arrived in northeastern Europe including Finland from Siberia 10,000ybp. So N1c in Scandinavia is defintley from the spread of Uralic languages 10,000-6,000ybp. 

I1 M253 though in Scandinavia is very spread out and popular everywhere. No matter if the people speak a Germanic or Uralic language. It does not match any culture in archaeology in Scandinavia in the last 10,000 years. We know the first human settlement in Scandinavia came about 11,000ybp we have very very old human remains in Scandinavia dating around 10,000ybp and their skull shapes were Caucasian. N1c M46 is a Mongliod haplogroup there has to be a native European Caucasian haplogroup of Scandinavia and the only possible one is I1 M253. There is no way I1 M253 spread in Scandinavia in any recent migration and if there was one it had to be pre Uralic over 8,000ybp which to me means it was the first Y DNA haplogroup in Scandinavia.

So what this mean's is Scandnavien I1a2 is probably around 9,000-11,000 years old. Also that I1 itself is much older than 4,000-5,000 years old since I1a2 has brothers and a cousin in central Europe. It would make sense I1 it self originated in central Europe i would guess 15,000-20,000ybp.
*Custom made Migration map of I1 M253*


I know this is sloppy i used MS paint. I dont know were but it seems I1 M253 ancestral form took refuge ins southern Europe it could have been in Spain i dont know. There is a good chance Y DNA I originated in Europe so that would also change my map a bit. But once u get to I1 M253 that is exactly how i think it migrated. The numbers on the side like 9-11 represent thousands of years so 9,000-11,000 years ago.

----------


## pyromatic

Spamming your ill-informed age estimates does not make them correct. Your dates are fabrications made to fit your hypotheses. You have not once provided any data or evidence or back your assertions which, frankly, are old and tiring, given the frequency with which you post them, the length of your posts, and the near continuous stream of errors rendering your posts unreadable. The TMRCA for M253 is not over 10,000 bp. I have seen estimates from STRs calculations at 4000-5000 bp and from SNPs from the 1000 genomes projects in the 6000-7000 bp range. I haven't seen anyone seriously posit a Scandinavian origin and distribution of I1 in several years, certainly not since an explosion of SNP discoveries with geographic distributions suggesting alternative expansions. I'm not sure who you're debating here. The internet I1 community circa 2009?

I would caution anyone who is new to the field who is reading FH's posts to take them with several grains of salt and keep a very discerning mind. He spreads misinformation and half-baked conjectures based on imaginary data and fantasy.

I1 diverged from I in the paleolithic, as did R1a and R1b. I1 expanded in the neolithic, as did R1a and R1b. Where I1 spent the intervening tens of millennia is not known. There is no ancient DNA as of yet to provide any clues. We have only its current distribution and age estimates. I've argued it before, and I'll argue it again for a continental origin of the expansion of I1 into its present distribution. I suppose this is the one point where I agree with FH. It would seem that I1 expanded from perhaps the south Baltic shores which, given an estimated TMRCA for M253 of 4-5 kbp, would consistent with an association with the Corded Ware culture. We don't know how I1 would have come to be associated with CW. There is just no evidence or data to say anything.

My own suspicions are that I1 and some branches of I2 are associated with "Old Europe" in the Danube River valley which then migrated up the Danube and similar rivers in Europe into their current distributions several thousands of years ago for some reason. Perhaps they were overtaken by pastoral IEs from the steppes. Perhaps a changing climate forced them to adopt a new, pastoral and mobile economy which led them to migrate. Perhaps a combination of both. Again, there is no real evidence of this, just some random coincidences (e.g., skull shape of the Old Europeans and today's I1-heavy people); but it doesn't overtly clash with the accepted datings of I1 and its clades, and it provides an explanation for how I1 expanded which offers and explanation for the current distribution of its clades an their relationships to one another.

----------


## Fire Haired

TE]Spamming your ill-informed age estimates does not make them correct. Your dates are fabrications made to fit your hypotheses. You have not once provided any data or evidence or back your assertions[/QUOTE]

I came up with those age estimates by looking at what I1 subclades are where and pre historic cultures. I showed my reasons N1c Kunda culture 6,000-8,0000ybp and spread o Uralic languages, R1a Corded ware culture 4,000-5,000ybp, I2a2 and R1b Nordic Bronze age culture starting 3,500-4,000ybp and spread of Germanic languages in Scandinavia.

I1 in Scandinavia does not represent any of these cultures it is spread out in all of Scandinavia and seems to be the base haplogroup that was lessened by later y dna haplogroups. From eupedia's I1 page it says that most Scandinavian I1 is I1a2 while most of the I1 in the rest of Europe is I1a1, I1a3, and I1a4. Also that I1b the long lost cousin is only found around Netherlands and Germany. So from that it made no sense to say I1 in the rest of Europe is from Germanic migrations out of Scandinavia just over 2,000ybp not even age estimates would agree with that. 

Since I1 is so much more diverse in central Europe meaning it has more lineages than Scandinavia It would make sense it began there and Scandinavian I1a2 is just a offshoot of the I1a that already existed in central Europe. I cant really find any real data that gives percentages of I1 subclades in areas it gets annoying but i do know the basics.




> The TMRCA for M253 is not over 10,000 bp. I have seen estimates from STRs calculations at 4000-5000 bp and from SNPs from the 1000 genomes projects in the 6000-7000 bp range




So what i know age sestimates are uselly somewhat accurate they can give an idea how old a haplogroup is. BUt they have been wrong like there were estimates H6 is only been in Europe for 4,000 years then they find a 15,000 year old H6 sample in north Spain. Also some said mtDNA V was only 5,000-9,000 years old i think Wikpedia still says that u can look it up then they find two 12,000 year old V samples. U cant except them to get the estimates compeltly correct sometimes they might not be even close. Since like i said before I1 in Scandnavia does not represent any language family or culture in archaeology of Scandinavia in the last 10,000 years. The way it is spread out there is no way it is less than 10,000 years old.




> I haven't seen anyone seriously posit a Scandinavian origin and distribution of I1 in several years, certainly not since an explosion of SNP discoveries with geographic distributions suggesting alternative expansions. I'm not sure who you're debating here. The internet I1 community circa 2009?




quote fro Eupedia I1 page.

I1 branch is estimated to have split away 20,000 years ago and evolved in isolation in Scandinavia during the lat Paloithic and Mesolithic.
Quote from Wikpedia page on I1

Haplogroup I-M253 arose from haplogroup I-M170, which appears ancient in Europe. Haplogroup I-M253 has been estimated to be some 15,000 years old.[4] It is suggested that it initially dispersed from Denmark.[5]

I guess they said Denmark but it is still the Nordic Germanic idea just because it is so popular in those areas.

[QUOTE] I would caution anyone who is new to the field who is reading FH's post to take them with a grain of salt and keep a very discerning mind. He spreads misinformation and half-baked[ conjectures based on imagnary data and factasy(QUOTE]

I know i do say big things without giving my sources and some of the stuff i say i dont explain why. I will try to stop that. I dont see what i did wrong in this thread though. I said from what i have seen I1 in Scandnavia is majority I1a2 and the only other places with it had historical Scandinavian settlement. While in the rest of Europe is I1a1, I1a3, I1a4, and I1b. My only source would probably be Eupedia I1 page and other random stuff i cant remeber about I1. I dont see how u did any better than me with showing sources.




> I have seen estimates from STRs calculations at 4000-5000 bp and from SNPs from the 1000 genomes projects in the 6000-7000 bp range. I haven't seen anyone seriously posit a Scandinavian origin and distribution of I1 in several years, certainly not since an explosion of SNP discoveries with geographic distributions suggesting alternative expansions. I'm not sure who you're debating here. The internet I1 community circa 2009?




In all of that u assumed as much as i did and did not give sources.




> 1 diverged from I in the paleolithic, as did R1a and R1b. I1 expanded in the neolithic, as did R1a and R1b. Where I1 spent the intervening tens of millennia is not know




That is ur theory this thread is mine u are saying this is a fact just as it seems i was. Just saying if I1 spread in the Neloithic when according to Eupedia map of spread of farmin in Europe it was only in south Scandnavia. while I1 is spread out in all of Scandnavia.



How do u explain how well I1 is spread out in Scandnavia, Teh fact it exists in uralic and Germanic speakers and that URlaic languages and N1c probably came 7,000-8,000ybp with Kund culture. N1c is Mongliod the native Finnish were Caucasian tell me were is their native orignal Caucasian Y DNA haplogroup I1 is the only possibility, If I1 which is very popular in Finland 15-20% spread after N1c and Urlaic languages were strongly settled in Finland how would they be able to spread and become so popular. If anything conquering would be the best way when a people conquers like germanic and Italo celtic speakers did in west Europe they alot of times replace alot of the native male lineages because men die in wars. If they were conquered by people from swedan why do they still speak a Urlaic language. It just does not make sense to me.

Even Maciamo who makes everything on this website this R1b and R1a in Europe were spread with Bronze age Indo European migrations. Just about 100% of R1b in west Europe is R1b L11 which is the youngest branch of R1b. It even breaks down into language families R1b S116/P312 Italo celtic and R1b U106/U152 Germanic. U should read Eupedia's R1b page click here and my own thread about the spread of Germanic Italo celts click here. So it did not spread in the Neolithic it spread with Germanic and Italo Celtic languages in the bronze age. 

R1b migration map made by Eupedia


Also R1a1a1 seems to have also spread with Indo European languages mainliy Balto Slavic and Indo Iranian U should read Eupedia's R1a page it totally make's sense. ancient DNA from supposedly proto Balto Slavic and Indo iranian cultures came back as at least down stream as R1a1a so that is even more evidence.


I1 does not represent any migrations i have heard of in the Neolithic age so ur only evidence for it spreading in the Neolithic is age estimates.




> It would seem that I1 expanded from perhaps the south Baltic shores which, given an estimated TMRCA for M253 of 4-5 kbp, would consistent with an association with the Corded Ware culture.




I totall agree it was not orignally Nordic. To say it is from Corded ware culture in the Baltic's just 5,000-4,000ybp i dis agree with that. We do know for almost a fact Corded ware culture spoke proto Balto Slavic we already know from ancient remains they had at least some R1a1a and it seems they were majority R1a1a1a1b1 Z283. I1 is less popular in the Baltic's it probably has Scandnavian subclades. There is a R1a1a1a1b1 Z283 Scandinavian branch which is pretty spread out but not spread out the same way as I1 and not nearly as popular. I really doubt any form of a non Paloithic spread of I1 in Scandinavia. 

I1 and I2 people were not connected they had no idea what DNA was. Y DNA I it self is the only popular Paloithic Y DNA haplogroup in Europe that is all we know. This reminded me though most mtDNA is Europe is Paloithic U(U5, U8, U2), H(H1, H3, probably H17 and H27), HV(V), RO. In Aust DNA i like the globe13 test but almost all tests say the same thing the Paloithic group of Europe they call it north euro or north east euro because it is most popular in those areas but basically it shows the majority of Europeans ancestry is Paloithic. What makes euro's diff from other people is their common Paleolithic ancestry the reason why Y DNA I is probably so unpopular is because hunter gathers were conquered and killed by farmers since men fight and die in wars when a people is conquered they uselly keep most of the native blood and the maternal lineages but not paternal lineages.

----------


## pyromatic

> I came up with those age estimates by looking at what I1 subclades are where and pre historic cultures. I showed my reasons N1c Kunda culture 6,000-8,0000ybp and spread o Uralic languages, R1a Corded ware culture 4,000-5,000ybp, I2a2 and R1b Nordic Bronze age culture starting 3,500-4,000ybp and spread of Germanic languages in Scandinavia.




To translate: "I plucked these numbers from thin air, because I1 must absolutely be paleolithic in Northern Europe." The rest of your conclusions, which flow from your BS ages, are meaningless.

The only thing of interest is why you are compelled to write so many lengthy, nonsensical, gibberish posts in the first place. I have a sneaking suspicion that you're really a trollbot program written by some PhD student which crawls the web collecting random text and images associated with a topic, parses the text into gibberish, and posts it on forums in an experiment to see whether human subjects can detect it, something like a more sophisticated Turing test with sociological implications.

----------


## Fire Haired

> To translate: "I plucked these numbers from thin air, because I1 must absolutely be paleolithic in Northern Europe." The rest of your conclusions, which flow from your BS ages, are meaningless.


U call this thin air



> _ came up with those age estimates by looking at what I1 subclades are where and pre historic cultures. I showed my reasons N1c Kunda culture 6,000-8,0000ybp and spread o Uralic languages, R1a Corded ware culture 4,000-5,000ybp, I2a2 and R1b Nordic Bronze age culture starting 3,500-4,000ybp and spread of Germanic languages in Scandinavia._


That is good evidence and a though it throw. I dont see how ur Corded war culture idea was any better. U are going off of is age estimates which really make it hard to explain how I1 is spread out mainly in Scandinavia.




> The only thing of interest is why you are compelled to write so many lengthy, nonsensical, gibberish posts in the first place. I have a sneaking suspicion that you're really a trollbot program written by some PhD student which crawls the web collecting random text and images associated with a topic, parses the text into gibberish, and posts it on forums in an experiment to see whether human subjects can detect it, something like a more sophisticated Turing test with sociological implications.


I write this because i want to show my opinon. I do admit some of the stuff i say is assumtions are little sources i have read. If what i am saying is total giberish and BS prove me wrong.

----------


## pyromatic

Your opinion is wrong. What I am inferring from is the current distribution of I1's clades and their relationships to each other (e.g., CTS6364* is strongly distributed in Poland and from CTS6364 we come to L22 which has a strong northern bias from which you get to Z74 which is essentially a Scandinavian marker and finally from Z74 you get L813 which branches off to the west in Norway and CTS2208 which heads to the east in Finland) as well as their ages. Drop the phylogenetic tree on a map and trace it back temporospatially, and you may arrive at my conclusion. This is hardly similar to ascribing I1 to a paleolithic European culture because "it just has to be" and then picking an age that is consistent with that culture. At least with STR variance and SNP count differences, you have some objectivity.

----------


## Sile

> Spamming your ill-informed age estimates does not make them correct. Your dates are fabrications made to fit your hypotheses. You have not once provided any data or evidence or back your assertions which, frankly, are old and tiring, given the frequency with which you post them, the length of your posts, and the near continuous stream of errors rendering your posts unreadable. The TMRCA for M253 is not over 10,000 bp. I have seen estimates from STRs calculations at 4000-5000 bp and from SNPs from the 1000 genomes projects in the 6000-7000 bp range. I haven't seen anyone seriously posit a Scandinavian origin and distribution of I1 in several years, certainly not since an explosion of SNP discoveries with geographic distributions suggesting alternative expansions. I'm not sure who you're debating here. The internet I1 community circa 2009?
> 
> I would caution anyone who is new to the field who is reading FH's posts to take them with several grains of salt and keep a very discerning mind. He spreads misinformation and half-baked conjectures based on imaginary data and fantasy.
> 
> I1 diverged from I in the paleolithic, as did R1a and R1b. I1 expanded in the neolithic, as did R1a and R1b. Where I1 spent the intervening tens of millennia is not known. There is no ancient DNA as of yet to provide any clues. We have only its current distribution and age estimates. I've argued it before, and I'll argue it again for a continental origin of the expansion of I1 into its present distribution. I suppose this is the one point where I agree with FH. It would seem that I1 expanded from perhaps the south Baltic shores which, given an estimated TMRCA for M253 of 4-5 kbp, would consistent with an association with the Corded Ware culture. We don't know how I1 would have come to be associated with CW. There is just no evidence or data to say anything.
> 
> My own suspicions are that I1 and some branches of I2 are associated with "Old Europe" in the Danube River valley which then migrated up the Danube and similar rivers in Europe into their current distributions several thousands of years ago for some reason. Perhaps they were overtaken by pastoral IEs from the steppes. Perhaps a changing climate forced them to adopt a new, pastoral and mobile economy which led them to migrate. Perhaps a combination of both. Again, there is no real evidence of this, just some random coincidences (e.g., skull shape of the Old Europeans and today's I1-heavy people); but it doesn't overtly clash with the accepted datings of I1 and its clades, and it provides an explanation for how I1 expanded which offers and explanation for the current distribution of its clades an their relationships to one another.


IIRC - KenN states I1 as being continental baltic lands .ie, old prussia which makes it gothic and aestii people.

TerryRobb states I2 as being danubian from ( pannonia) up until the northern adriatic area ( croatia/slovenia)

----------


## pyromatic

There were no Goths or Aestii 5000 years ago. The expansion from a south Baltic or more central European locus would have occurred far in advance of the formation of these tribal identities. These tribes most certainly contained numerous paternal and maternal lineages.

----------


## Sile

> There were no Goths or Aestii 5000 years ago. The expansion from a south Baltic or more central European locus would have occurred far in advance of the formation of these tribal identities. These tribes most certainly contained numerous paternal and maternal lineages.


The marker was in the area, if these people became goths and aestiian, then it the same thing, if the goths and aestiian came from elsewhere, then who had the I1 that ken states?

----------


## pyromatic

I'd say these tribes formed in situ, which means that "Goths" would be I1, I2, R1a, R1b, etc. Most I1 would then not be Gothic, having expanded millennia earlier; and Goths therefore need not be I1.

----------


## tjlowery87

actually I emailed knordvedt after he said Prussia and he ment east Germany west Poland at the very north of those areas.

----------


## tjlowery87

I agree with this

----------


## tjlowery87

> Your opinion is wrong. What I am inferring from is the current distribution of I1's clades and their relationships to each other (e.g., CTS6364* is strongly distributed in Poland and from CTS6364 we come to L22 which has a strong northern bias from which you get to Z74 which is essentially a Scandinavian marker and finally from Z74 you get L813 which branches off to the west in Norway and CTS2208 which heads to the east in Finland) as well as their ages. Drop the phylogenetic tree on a map and trace it back temporospatially, and you may arrive at my conclusion. This is hardly similar to ascribing I1 to a paleolithic European culture because "it just has to be" and then picking an age that is consistent with that culture. At least with STR variance and SNP count differences, you have some objectivity.


I agree with this

----------


## Nobody1

> actually I emailed knordvedt after he said Prussia and he ment east Germany west Poland at the very north of those areas.


Did he specifically point out the Baltic coast?
Than that would be modern-day Pomerania; 
an area *Pytheas* (4th cen BC) ascribed to the _Teutones_ and_ Gutones_

----------


## tjlowery87

> Did he specifically point out the Baltic coast?
> Than that would be modern-day Pomerania; 
> an area *Pytheas* (4th cen BC) ascribed to the _Teutones_ and_ Gutones_


he has mentioned pomerinia/Prussia several times through email.(when I do get replys)

----------


## Nobody1

> he has mentioned pomerinia/Prussia several times through email.(when I do get replys)


Cool 
thanks for the info;

----------


## Sile

> Did he specifically point out the Baltic coast?
> Than that would be modern-day Pomerania; 
> an area *Pytheas* (4th cen BC) ascribed to the _Teutones_ and_ Gutones_


read from this link and links attached to this link

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.co...-06/1372263039

----------


## Nobody1

> read from this link and links attached to this link
> 
> http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.co...-06/1372263039


anything specific?

----------


## Sile

> anything specific?


just his comments ....or all as its not long in time to read

----------


## Nobody1

> just his comments ....or all as its not long in time to read


finished reading it;
and what happens now?

----------


## Sile

> Did he specifically point out the Baltic coast?
> Than that would be modern-day Pomerania; 
> an area *Pytheas* (4th cen BC) ascribed to the _Teutones_ and_ Gutones_


teutones are in Jutland , never seen them mentioned in Pomerania

Latin name for the Baltic Sea — _Mare Balticum_. the name '*Aistians*', taken from the Roman historian Tacitus, who in the book _Germania_ (98 A.D.) mentioned *gentes Aestiorum*, residing on the eastern shore of the Baltic Sea. The eastern Balts the *Neuri*, first mentioned by Herodotus in the 5th century B.C. (unfortunately, the question of their nationality is not settled beyond doubt). Moving through the centuries, the two Prussian tribes known to Ptolemy in the second century A.D., the *Sudovians* and *Galindians*; the *Curonians* noted in the Scandinavian sagas of the 7th century;* Prussians*, whose name appears in the 9th century in the writings of the so-called Bavarian Geographer; *Semigallians* in 870 A.D.; *Lithuanians* and *Lettigallians* in the 11th century; and, finally, *Galindians* (Goljad'), mentioned in Russian sources in 1058 and 1147 as living to the west of Moscow. 

I see no Teutones, maybe you can link me where its stated.

----------


## Nobody1

> teutones are in Jutland , never seen them mentioned in Pomerania
> 
> Latin name for the Baltic Sea — _Mare Balticum_. the name '*Aistians*', taken from the Roman historian Tacitus, who in the book _Germania_ (98 A.D.) mentioned *gentes Aestiorum*, residing on the eastern shore of the Baltic Sea. The eastern Balts the *Neuri*, first mentioned by Herodotus in the 5th century B.C. (unfortunately, the question of their nationality is not settled beyond doubt). Moving through the centuries, the two Prussian tribes known to Ptolemy in the second century A.D., the *Sudovians* and *Galindians*; the *Curonians* noted in the Scandinavian sagas of the 7th century;* Prussians*, whose name appears in the 9th century in the writings of the so-called Bavarian Geographer; *Semigallians* in 870 A.D.; *Lithuanians* and *Lettigallians* in the 11th century; and, finally, *Galindians* (Goljad'), mentioned in Russian sources in 1058 and 1147 as living to the west of Moscow. 
> 
> I see no Teutones, maybe you can link me where its stated.


Is this a text from Pytheas?

----------


## tjlowery87

That’s my best estimate right now.

- - - - 
Kenneth Nordtvedt

See:
"Tree for I1xL22xZ58"
"Tree for I1 Z58+ Z60-"
"Tree for I1 Z60+"
"Tree for I1 L22+"
"Tree for M223 x Z161"
"Tree for M223+ Z161+"
"Tree and Map for haplogroup I"
"The I1 modalities"
"The M223+ Modalities"


at http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net

These files are periodically updated as new information is obtained.


 
*From:* terry lowery 
*Sent:* Sunday, June 28, 2013 4:26 PM
*To:* ken 
*Subject:* hello




sorry to bother you today,i was wondering the mrca for i1 is east Germany ,west Poland area correct?the very north of those areas?

----------


## tjlowery87

that's all I know on the subject,is what he said on my above post which is a copy of email

----------


## Nobody1

@ Sile

I still dont know what you quoted (_is it from Wikipedia again?_) but it was def. not from _Pytheas_ 
Something from *Pytheas

James Cowles Prichard* - Ethnography of Europe (1841)
_Pliny in giving an account of the production of amber says, that according to Pytheas there was " an estuary of the ocean called Mentonomon, inhabited by the Guttones, a people of Germany. It reached six thousand furlongs in extent. From this place an island named Abalus was distant about one day's sail, on the shore of which the waves throw up pieces of amber. The inhabitants make use of it for fuel, or else sell it to their neighbours the Teutones" - Pliny adds, that Timaeus gave full credit to this story;_

"Pytheas credidit *Guttonibus* Germaniae genti, accoli Aestuarium oceani, MENTONOMON nomine, spatio stadiorum sex millium. Ab hoc die navigatione insulam abesse Abalum. Illo vero fluctibus advehi et esse concreti maris purgamentum. Incolas pro ligno ad eo uti, proximique *Teutonis* vendere"


So the *Guttones* were Germanic and so were the *Teutones*
needless to say that the _Goths_ [_to whom the Guttones are attributed_ - Cassiodorus] spoke an *Indo-European* _Germanic_ language 
in fact much closer to_ modern-day_ German than to any other _modern-day_ Germanic language;

----------


## tjlowery87

so im thinking somewhere between east Germany,and old Prussia area

----------


## pyromatic

We're talking about a dispersal and expansion millennia before these Germanic tribes came into existence. I1-bearing people may well have played a role in their formation and identity, but so did others. To say XX tribe == ZZ haplogroup is pointless. By the time we see various identifiable ethnic identities forming in Europe, they should invariably contain multiple haplogroups.

----------


## Fire Haired

pyromatic i hear what ur saying but i think that fact I1 M253 is not speacial for either Germanic speakers in Scandinavia(since 3,500-4,000ybp) or Uralic speakers(prob 8,000ybp but at least 6,000ybp). Like u were saying when the ethnic groups of modern europe were forming they had haplogroup from ethnic groups that lived before them maybe I1 M253 in Scandinavia is from a pre Germanic pre Uralic people group of Scandinavia.

It actulley is not pointless to say XX tribe is ZZ haplogroup. It is a fact Y DNA R1a1a1b2 Z93 spread with Indo Iranian languages. R1a1a1 M417 is one of the proto Indo European haplogroups. R1b L11 defintley is a marker and the main haplogroup of the spread of Germanic and Italo Celtic languages. From what we can see it is the only haplogroup they spread for Germanic Italo Celts and Indo Iranians. G2a P15 is a huge marker and main haplogroups of one of or the one people group that spread farming in Europe. 

There have been ethnic groups in Europe as long as their have been people in Europe. So u must be talking about modern language families like Germanic, Celtic, Italic, Slavic, Baltic, Uralic. Y DNA I is the only popular or the only Paloithic male lineage from Paloithic Europe. So the first settlers of Scandinavia 11,000ybp would have been probably 100% hg I. Since Uralic languages arrived about 8,000-6,000ybp with N1c, Corded war culture R1a 4,000-5,000ybp, Germanic languages R1b and I2a2 3,500-4,000ybp, Farmers G2a, E1b1b, possibly J2 6,000-4,000ybp. The only haplogroup in Scandinavia that does not seem to be from any of these migrations is I1 M253 so it makes sense to me that was the hg I haplogroup the first Scandinavians had.

----------


## pyromatic

I really wish you would quit asserting such statements as fact. They aren't. Not even close. I shall henceforth insist that L11 is a marker of trisomy. Why? Because it is.

----------


## Fire Haired

pyromatic i know i am trying to stop i should say probably or most likely. Seriously though for Indo Iranian R1a1a1b2 Z93 and Balto Slavic R1a1a1b2 Z283 and then proto Indo European R1a1a1 M417 it is so obvius it is coming close to saying fact. But i know that is not being a good thinking. It is crazy how in the 1800's British realized Hindi was related to European languages then they found more info found out there was a major language family in Europe and asia so they called it Indo European. Then they tracj migrations of pre historic culture's that for many very good reasons they say is the spread of Indo European languages mainly because of the kurgen theory. Now with Y DNA we have tracked a migrations and haplogroups that totally seem to have orignated with Indo Europeans. It is shcoking how much Indo European Y DNa there is.

We have been able to trace the spread of a culture, language, religion, and their Y DNA even though they lived in pre history. As we get more ancient DNA and just more DNA info am sure in the next 5 years the story of the spread of Indo European languages will be just about compeltly figured out. I am sure there will be history channel doc's or other professional docs all about Indo Europeans and they can include Y DNA.

----------


## Sile

> @ Sile
> 
> I still dont know what you quoted (_is it from Wikipedia again?_) but it was def. not from _Pytheas_ 
> Something from *Pytheas
> 
> James Cowles Prichard* - Ethnography of Europe (1841)
> _Pliny in giving an account of the production of amber says, that according to Pytheas there was " an estuary of the ocean called Mentonomon, inhabited by the Guttones, a people of Germany. It reached six thousand furlongs in extent. From this place an island named Abalus was distant about one day's sail, on the shore of which the waves throw up pieces of amber. The inhabitants make use of it for fuel, or else sell it to their neighbours the Teutones" - Pliny adds, that Timaeus gave full credit to this story;_
> 
> "Pytheas credidit *Guttonibus* Germaniae genti, accoli Aestuarium oceani, MENTONOMON nomine, spatio stadiorum sex millium. Ab hoc die navigatione insulam abesse Abalum. Illo vero fluctibus advehi et esse concreti maris purgamentum. Incolas pro ligno ad eo uti, proximique *Teutonis* vendere"
> ...


the guttones where on both sides of the vistula delta, going east from the Guttones into prussian lands where the Venedi, next to them the Aestii and then the modern Curonions old Semogitia. 
Semogitia meaning in lithuanian, from getia people.

Pytheus who sailed the baltic in *320BC* states

Pytheas *credidit Guttonibus Germaniae genti, accoli Aestuarium oceani, MENTO NOMON nomine, spatio stadiorum sex millium. Ab hoc die navigatione insulam abesse Abalum. Illo vero fluctibus advehi et esse concreti maris purgamentum.*
as translated -"Pytheas believed that the Guttones were of German race, living by the Aestuarian sea (Baltic sea), at the mouth of the river named NOMON, at the stretch of 6,000 stadii. Sailing a day. Pytheus never knew of any baltic people, so he called them germanics, but the river Nomon is stated.

the name *Mentonomon* (in nominative), its genitive form is *Metuonidis*.
_"Mentonomon" is unambiguously stated to be an aestuarium or "estuary" of 6000 stadia, which using the Herodotean standard of 600 feet per stadium is 681 miles. That number happens to be the distance from the mouth of the Skagerrak to the mouth of the Vistula_.

So what point you making?
I say the teutons and guttones where NOT neighbours and the Teutons did not bear the I1 that KenN states at the time in question

----------


## Nobody1

> the guttones where on both sides of the vistula delta, going east from the Guttones into prussian lands where the Venedi, next to them the Aestii and then the modern Curonions old Semogitia. 
> Semogitia meaning in lithuanian, from getia people.


*Pytheas* didnt record any of that; he just recorded the Teutones and Guttones - in *320 BC*





> Pytheus who sailed the baltic in *320BC* states
> Pytheas *credidit Guttonibus Germaniae genti, accoli Aestuarium oceani, MENTO NOMON nomine, spatio stadiorum sex millium. Ab hoc die navigatione insulam abesse Abalum. Illo vero fluctibus advehi et esse concreti maris purgamentum.*
> as translated -"Pytheas believed that the Guttones were of German race, living by the Aestuarian sea (Baltic sea), at the mouth of the river named NOMON, at the stretch of 6,000 stadii. Sailing a day. Pytheus never knew of any baltic people, so he called them germanics, but the river Nomon is stated.


I know what *Pytheas* states; since thats exactly the quote *i* posted - (_post #25_)
You only forget the part where he mentions the Teutones as their Neighbours





> the name *Mentonomon* (in nominative), its genitive form is *Metuonidis*.
> _"Mentonomon" is unambiguously stated to be an aestuarium or "estuary" of 6000 stadia, which using the Herodotean standard of 600 feet per stadium is 681 miles. That number happens to be the distance from the mouth of the Skagerrak to the mouth of the Vistula_.


*Thomas William Shore* - Origin of the Anglo-Saxon race (1906)
_The Goths and other Teutonic people of the Baltic are brought under the early notice of Pytheas, the renowned navigator of Marseilles, in the fourth century B. C. He tells us that he sailed up the Baltic in search of the amber coast, rounding the cape of what is now called Jutland, and proceeding about 6,000 stadia along the coasts of the Guttones and Teutones._ 


and since when is the Vistula no longer part of the Baltic coast?





> So what point you making?
> I say the teutons and guttones where NOT neighbours and the Teutons did not bear the I1 that KenN states at the time in question


The point i making is that *Pytheas* in *320 BC* recorded the Guttones (_Germaniae genti_) and the Teutones as neighbours on the Baltic coast; Both Germanic - (whatever Y-DNA Hg you assign to them is up to you);

----------


## Sile

> *Pytheas* didnt record any of that; he just recorded the Teutones and Guttones - in *320 BC*


I was saying this , Pytheus comments are after




> I know what *Pytheas* states; since thats exactly the quote *i* posted - (_post #25_)
> You only forget the part where he mentions the Teutones as their Neighbours


never seen it in the link I used.




> *Thomas William Shore* - Origin of the Anglo-Saxon race (1906)
> _The Goths and other Teutonic people of the Baltic are brought under the early notice of Pytheas, the renowned navigator of Marseilles, in the fourth century B. C. He tells us that he sailed up the Baltic in search of the amber coast, rounding the cape of what is now called Jutland, and proceeding about 6,000 stadia along the coasts of the Guttones and Teutones._ 
> 
> 
> and since when is the Vistula no longer part of the Baltic coast?


I am saying the teutones and guttones are not neighbours the teutons are not on the baltic coast but are in Jutland, the Vandili confederation of tribes sits between the teutons and Guttones.






> The point i making is that Pytheas in 320 BC recorded the Guttones (_Germaniae genti_) and the Teutones as neighbours on the Baltic coast; Both Germanic - (whatever Y-DNA Hg you assign to them is up to you);


Yes he did, but he did not know about any baltic tribes, this was 200years before ANY of the other historians wrote about the area. Herodous was the first to name any baltic tribes and that was the Neuri as baltic people

----------


## Sile

> I was saying this , Pytheus comments are after
> 
> 
> never seen it in the link I used.
> 
> 
> 
> I am saying the teutones and guttones are not neighbours the teutons are not on the baltic coast but are in Jutland, the Vandili confederation of tribes sits between the teutons and Guttones.
> 
> ...


Old I1 people as per KenN dates



Baltic people there and no germanics in the bronze-age




Archeology is Baltic type and baltic tribes in bronze-age




Germanic tribes in the iron -age, 
Vindili Confederation sits in the area in question, I see no teutonic in this area, maybe you have better eye sight than I.
Facts are the germanics entered the area of pomerania AFTER the baltic people already settled there

----------


## Nobody1

> never seen it in the link I used.


doesnt surprise me since you didnt quote the entire passage;

"Pytheas credidit *Guttonibus* Germaniae genti, accoli Aestuarium oceani, MENTONOMON nomine, spatio stadiorum sex millium. Ab hoc die navigatione insulam abesse Abalum. Illo vero fluctibus advehi et esse concreti maris purgamentum. incolas pro ligno ad ignem uti eo proximisque *Teutonis* vendere"





> I am saying the teutones and guttones are not neighbours the teutons are not on the baltic coast but are in Jutland, the Vandili confederation of tribes sits between the teutons and Guttones.


I understand that thats what your saying; 
i just dont get why your saying that when *Pytheas* clearly says it to the contrary

The Vandals were obviously not on the Baltic coast in the 4th cen BC;
The vandals were associated with the inland _Przeworsk culture_ still in the 2nd cen BC;
So no surprise they were not on the Baltic in the 4th cen BC - and *Pytheas* never recorded them there to begin with





> Yes he did, but he did not know about any baltic tribes, this was 200years before ANY of the other historians wrote about the area. Herodous was the first to name any baltic tribes and that was the Neuri as baltic people


Since when are the _Neuri_ a Baltic people?
Herodotus records them in what is today West Ukraine;

---

@ Sile post#34

Great so the Germanic tribes (Guttones & Teutones) pushed out the Balts during the Iron-age;
Well than theres your answer as to why *Pytheas* couldnt have recorded any Baltic tribes on the Baltic coast in the 4th cen BC;





> Germanic tribes in the iron -age, Vindili Confederation sits in the area in question, *I see no teutonic in this area, maybe you have better eye sight than I*.


fantastic remark;
you might notice that the map also shows the Alemanni in the _Dekumatsland_ that means its 3rd cen *AD*;

Ever heard of the Cimbrian war - _2nd cen. BC_ ?

well than you know why no Teutons are present on a map representing the Imperial Roman age of the 3rd cen. AD;

----------


## Sile

> doesnt surprise me since you didnt quote the entire passage;
> 
> "Pytheas credidit *Guttonibus* Germaniae genti, accoli Aestuarium oceani, MENTONOMON nomine, spatio stadiorum sex millium. Ab hoc die navigatione insulam abesse Abalum. Illo vero fluctibus advehi et esse concreti maris purgamentum. incolas pro ligno ad ignem uti eo proximisque *Teutonis* vendere"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that thats what your saying; 
> i just dont get why your saying that when *Pytheas* clearly says it to the contrary
> ...


goths are interesting topic, like the Geats of Sweden, the Gutes of Gotland, the Guttones on the vistula, their neighbours the Gepids, the Getae on the black sea .........we can discuss on another thread.
But this thread is about I1 and its proven that its not a germanic marker, neither is it a slavic marker. The only people on record as far as I see which matches KenN data are the baltic tribes.........who they are exactly we do not know, but we know there is west-baltic archeology and east-baltic archeology from the bronze-ages

----------


## Nobody1

> goths are interesting topic, like the Geats of Sweden, the Gutes of Gotland, the Guttones on the vistula, their neighbours the Gepids, the Getae on the black sea .........we can discuss on another thread.
> But this thread is about I1 and its proven that its not a germanic marker, neither is it a slavic marker. The only people on record as far as I see which matches KenN data are the baltic tribes.........who they are exactly we do not know, but we know there is west-baltic archeology and east-baltic archeology from the bronze-ages


We know exactly who the Baltic tribes are;
*Balts* are *Indo-Europeans*; 
In fact the language is one of the purest (most archaic) forms of the Indo-European language branch;

So if the Baltic tribes are I1 than so can other Indo-European groups be; (_Germanic / Slavic / Sarmatian_)

Do i think thats the case.....

----------


## Ike

> But this thread is about I1 and its proven that its not a germanic marker, neither is it a slavic marker.


What do you mean with Germanic? Linguistically?

----------


## Sile

> What do you mean with Germanic? Linguistically?


It can never be linguistic. 

The marker as noted by KenN , we eliminated germanic peoples and slavic peoples, whats is left from what we know is only baltic or maybe finnic.........do you have an idea.?
I am not saying it is not part of germanic, slavic, italic marker now

----------


## Sile

> We know exactly who the Baltic tribes are;
> *Balts* are *Indo-Europeans*; 
> In fact the language is one of the purest (most archaic) forms of the Indo-European language branch;
> 
> So if the Baltic tribes are I1 than so can other Indo-European groups be; (_Germanic / Slavic / Sarmatian_)
> 
> Do i think thats the case.....


with that comment, we might as well say all of Europe. The issue was when KenN found this I1 and he stated pomeranian and old prussian lands............who was there then that we know. I can only find it was Baltic people. So its baltic.

----------


## Ike

But where did you get that, that Baltic tribes were I1?

----------


## tjlowery87

i1 might have started in Baltic areas, but it was spread mostly throughout Europe by germanics,it could be paleoethic but its spread never really happen until it came in contact with r1b.

----------


## Ike

But what I don't get is what you consider Germanic? Those R1b that supposedly helped I1 spread around Europe? Where they have picked them up? Have they become Germanic before contact with I1, and gave them their language?

You think red R1 picked up I1 somewhere around Lithuania and took them around?

pathR1b.jpg

----------


## tjlowery87

Latvia is like 6 percent i1 and so is lithuiania,i wonder i1 went west after r1a moved in then went south and more west after contacting r1b.

----------


## Sile

> But where did you get that, that Baltic tribes were I1?


process of elimination by the guy that does I1

----------


## Sile

> But what I don't get is what you consider Germanic? Those R1b that supposedly helped I1 spread around Europe? Where they have picked them up? Have they become Germanic before contact with I1, and gave them their language?
> 
> You think red R1 picked up I1 somewhere around Lithuania and took them around?
> 
> pathR1b.jpg


what?
As the ice cap melted , northern european became more habitable, so people moved from south to north, you don't think they they where already in the north of europe and then moved from north to south to fill up void spaces in europe do you?

----------


## Sile

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...7.00429.x/full

*Throughout their history, the populations of the Baltic Sea region have been affected by migrations from both Western and Central Europe and from the east. The region was first settled both from the south-east and from the south soon after the retreat of the continental ice sheet some 12 000 years ago.*

The most common Y-DNA (paternal) haplogroup among Estonian men is *N*, found among 34 percent of those tested, followed by *R1a*, found in about 32 percent. *I1 is found in 15%*, R1b in 8%, T in 3.5%, I2* and/or I2a in 3%, E1b1b in 2.5%, J2 in 1%, I2b in 0.5%, and Q in 0.5%. 

Only areas on the baltic sea ,southern which have low I1 of less than 10% is latvians and lithuanians

----------


## Ike

> what?
> As the ice cap melted , northern european became more habitable, so people moved from south to north, you don't think they they where already in the north of europe and then moved from north to south to fill up void spaces in europe do you?


 Off course not. As we know by now I1 originated 5,000 years ago in Scandinavia. My problem is only with the name Germanic. I'm wondering when does something becomes Germanic. When they started speaking IE language or practice their religion or whatever? When were they Germanized? If they were Germanized at some point (3000. B.C. for example) that mens there were some Germans back then to Germanize them. Are those R1b? What defined them as Germans at that moment? Or I1 are the original Germans?

Did I1 got the langauge from R1a and then spread it to R1b, or it was the other way around?

----------


## Sile

> Off course not. As we know by now I1 originated 5,000 years ago in Scandinavia. My problem is only with the name Germanic. I'm wondering when does something becomes Germanic. When they started speaking IE language or practice their religion or whatever? When were they Germanized? If they were Germanized at some point (3000. B.C. for example) that mens there were some Germans back then to Germanize them. Are those R1b? What defined them as Germans at that moment? Or I1 are the original Germans?
> 
> Did I1 got the langauge from R1a and then spread it to R1b, or it was the other way around?


No, thats old facts, kenN the champion of I HG states ( at July 2013) that I1 originated in pomerania and old-Prussian lands. When it originated there where no germanics or nordics in the area

----------


## tjlowery87

if they where the most northern than I would consider them nordicc,eaither way when they mixed with r1a and r1b and went west was because of Germanic migration,and yes ken knordvedt agrees with that as well.

----------


## Jackson

Just looks to me then like a western/southwestern Baltic haplogroup later included in the Germanic peoples for whatever reason.

----------


## tjlowery87

> Just looks to me then like a western/southwestern Baltic haplogroup later included in the Germanic peoples for whatever reason.


yep,agreed

----------


## Nobody1

> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...7.00429.x/full
> 
> *Throughout their history, the populations of the Baltic Sea region have been affected by migrations from both Western and Central Europe and from the east. The region was first settled both from the south-east and from the south soon after the retreat of the continental ice sheet some 12 000 years ago.*
> 
> The most common Y-DNA (paternal) haplogroup among Estonian men is *N*, found among 34 percent of those tested, followed by *R1a*, found in about 32 percent. *I1 is found in 15%*, R1b in 8%, T in 3.5%, I2* and/or I2a in 3%, E1b1b in 2.5%, J2 in 1%, I2b in 0.5%, and Q in 0.5%.


But Estonians are not Baltic they are Finnic;
So do you mean the *non*-Indo-European _Finnic_ groups or the Indo-European _Baltic_ groups?





> Only areas on the baltic sea ,southern which have low I1 of less than 10% is latvians and lithuanians


That would be the Indo-European _Baltic_ (Balto-Slavic) groups;

----------


## tjlowery87

old Prussia territory is south east corner of Baltic sea,what does that have to do with finnic Estonia,they got a lot of i1 there right by finland.

----------


## Nobody1

> old Prussia territory is south east corner of Baltic sea,what does that have to do with finnic Estonia,they got a lot of i1 there right by finland.


exactly;
however Sile has demonstrated that the _modern-day_ Finnic [*non-Indo-European*] populations are more I1 
than the _modern-day_ Baltic [*Indo-European*] populations;
however on _post #36_ and _post #40_ he concludes that the Indo-European Baltic groups are to be strongly associated with I1;

so what went wrong?

----------


## Sile

> exactly;
> however Sile has demonstrated that the _modern-day_ Finnic [*non-Indo-European*] populations are more I1 
> than the _modern-day_ Baltic [*Indo-European*] populations;
> however on _post #36_ and _post #40_ he concludes that the Indo-European Baltic groups are to be strongly associated with I1;
> 
> so what went wrong?


You are far too nationalistic to understand about the ancients, you are the reverse of the slavic theoristes, they claim there never where baltic people from the oder eastwards, only slavic and you are the western germanic theorists who claim everything from Prussia going west was germanic. Both of these groups are always trying to destroy the existanence of any BALTIC people/tribes.

*Is Estonia in the BRONZE-AGE map under the term Baltic people or not?* YES or NO





So stop deflecting the issue and bringing into play iron-age or modern times this germanic rubbish

----------


## tjlowery87

:Laughing: 


> You are far too nationalistic to understand about the ancients, you are the reverse of the slavic theoristes, they claim there never where baltic people from the oder eastwards, only slavic and you are the western germanic theorists who claim everything from Prussia going west was germanic. Both of these groups are always trying to destroy the existanence of any BALTIC people/tribes.
> 
> *Is Estonia in the BRONZE-AGE map under the term Baltic people or not?* YES or NO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So stop deflecting the issue and bringing into play iron-age or modern times this germanic rubbish


 :Laughing:

----------


## Nobody1

> You are far too nationalistic to understand about the ancients, you are the reverse of the slavic theoristes, they claim there never where baltic people from the oder eastwards, only slavic and you are the western germanic theorists who claim everything from Prussia going west was germanic. Both of these groups are always trying to destroy the existanence of any BALTIC people/tribes.


what you do not understand is - whether *Germanic*, *Baltic* or *Slavic*;
Its All *Indo-European*;

So if you associate I1 with the Balts you associate it with the Indo-Europeans;

Is that the case?


PS: _modern-day_ Estonians are Finnic; _Bronze-age_ "Estonians" Indo-European Baltic; 
do you want to take a guess what happened?

----------


## Ike

I thought Baltic origin and language was originally defined by R1a Z280?

----------


## Sile

> what you do not understand is - whether *Germanic*, *Baltic* or *Slavic*;
> Its All *Indo-European*;
> 
> So if you associate I1 with the Balts you associate it with the Indo-Europeans;
> 
> Is that the case?


Further deflecting the issue by using Indo-european , I1 as stated and created 4500 years ago is from Baltic lands and peoples.




> PS: _modern-day_ Estonians are Finnic; _Bronze-age_ "Estonians" Indo-European Baltic; 
> do you want to take a guess what happened?


more deflection - why bring up modern day people ?

Just admit to the existence of the baltic people.

----------


## Sile

> I thought Baltic origin and language was originally defined by R1a Z280?


That's suppose to be the main and only SLAVIC marker

----------


## LeBrok

> *Is Estonia in the BRONZE-AGE map under the term Baltic people or not?* YES or NO


Yes, and that's why it confuses you. This map shows extend of bronze age culture, called Baltic culture by whomever created this map. The only reason for that name might be nothing more but its location. This map doesn't mean any connection between bronze age culture and today's Balts, or Balts 2k years ago. There, as well, could have been two different tribes living in same area few thousand years apart, right? Do you know of any paper making a connection between this bronze age culture and people who we call Balts?

----------


## LeBrok

> Further deflecting the issue by using Indo-european , I1 as stated and created 4500 years ago is from Baltic lands and people.


Keep in mind that I1 level in Lithuania is the same as in bordering Slavic countries.

----------


## Nobody1

> Further deflecting the issue by using Indo-european ,


What you consider _deflecting the issue_ - is actually just making Factual sense out of your statements;
or putting it into a context that corresponds with Historic reality;




> I1 as stated and created 4500 years ago is from Baltic lands and peoples.


Ok according to that definition I1 is an *Indo-European* (_Baltic_) lineage of the Corded-Ware Culture


Super, finally the Mystery is solved;

----------


## Noman

I wouldn't clap when you have made a totally nonsensical post like this. There's no such thing as an indo-european LINEAGE for starters. Nobody knows for sure what homeland Indo European languages came from, but it was almost surely r1a and r1b ancestors who spread it. Calling people with I DNA IE of 'lineage' is complely wrong and very strange thing to do.

It's believed that I originates in the Balkans and this makes a lot of sense. Further I believe they may actually be the ancient pre-classic greeks. I is spread all over the med in small levels and especially at all the megalithic sites. Since the r1b is so heavily entrenched in europe and iberia unless the visigoths did a whole lot of genociding in spain and north africa r1b is the original settlers after the ice age, who would have mixed in with the neanderthals during the ice age. And we get the highest derived neanderthal traits like negative blood type, morton's toe, etc. in the heavy r1b populations of basques and irish and welsh.

So I wasn't the main inhabitant of europe, they spread by the sea to ocen sites. This conforms to being the mycenaeans or perhaps even the phoenicians. There's lots of I in macedonia as well, and blonde hair. Accounts of what people looked like in those times, we can probably mostly take at face value. The heraclean culture believed they were "taking back" greece, as well. From who? The Is, who later were backbone of macedonia.

That part is speculative but regardless I seems to radiate out from the balkans, and yes OF COURSE the ancient estonians are related to the finns. 

So to the OP I agree somewhat and actually the balkan origin theory is the most commonly accepted. After all it's absolutely impossible I group was in northern europe before the ice age receded. It was absolutely covered with ice. Not to say it had zero inhabitants/adventurers but they would be a distinct minority.

----------


## Nobody1

1.) You completely missed the point;

2.) I dont get how thats even possible;

----------


## Sile

> Yes, and that's why it confuses you. This map shows extend of bronze age culture, called Baltic culture by whomever created this map. The only reason for that name might be nothing more but its location. This map doesn't mean any connection between bronze age culture and today's Balts, or Balts 2k years ago. There, as well, could have been two different tribes living in same area few thousand years apart, right? Do you know of any paper making a connection between this bronze age culture and people who we call Balts?


I already provided one paper, let me know EXACTLY what you need. I have many papers. 

But as per KenN states -* I believe, not part of the standard Germanic or Slavic language group,
> although part of the Indo-European language group. Perhaps related to
> Latvian?*


You misread the map..it states BALTIC culture in the bronze age.

----------


## Noman

> 1.) You completely missed the point;
> 
> 2.) I dont get how thats even possible;


I is not related to bell beaker, and Bell Beaker doesn't originate in baltic or have its greatest influence there. So there is no conclusion to miss because there's none you can make from that. I has most diversity in balkans and radiates out through there, and is the accepted place of origin.

Molecular clock nonsense is exactly that, too. First off it's meant as a minimum but more importantly it is based on the assumption there's no such thing as natural selection or backdrift, which is why no one takes it seriously. So you can't see one I pop up at the "right" time and think this is the great dandaddy of everyone with I group today.

----------


## Sile

> I is not related to bell beaker, and Bell Beaker doesn't originate in baltic or have its greatest influence there. So there is no conclusion to miss because there's none you can make from that. I has most diversity in balkans and radiates out through there, and is the accepted place of origin.
> 
> Molecular clock nonsense is exactly that, too. First off it's meant as a minimum but more importantly it is based on the assumption there's no such thing as natural selection or backdrift, which is why no one takes it seriously. So you can't see one I pop up at the "right" time and think this is the great dandaddy of everyone with I group today.


see my link on post # 47

It states as you say on I1
*The coalescense age of the haplogroup is about 5000 years lower than the age of the earliest archaeological findings from the Northern Baltic Sea region, which suggests a Neolithic arrival. There are two possible migration routes from Central Europe to the Northern Baltic Sea region* 

I thought it could be Lusatian culture, which matchesthe earliest findings by KenN in Pomerania and old-Prussia
*the Lusatian culture is taken to span part of the Iron Age as well (there is only a terminological difference) and is succeeded in Montelius VIIbc in northern ranges around the mouth of Vistula by the Pomeranian culture spreading south.*

----------


## Noman

Sile, I don't at all doubt your version of things FROM THAT POINT. That's pretty much just history. But I think I has a much older lineage than people credit.

It comes down to if we accept that the whole of europe got wiped out in a heartbeat or we don't. If we accept the low estimate dates mean something then we have to accept that, but aside from these date estimates this theory makes no sense. 

If r1b is a very recent arrival then how did it implant itself into basques without ever conquering them or changing their language? It fails this test.

If indo european languages all come from some swift brutal conquest why are the spanish and occitain areas clinging to their own type of italic indo european even today? Visigoths just didn't have an effect on spain or north africa, they came and went quickly and never conquered the berbs, so the r1bs were there all along.

Similarly for any small percentage of the data we have on I to make a lick of sense we have to put them back further and come up with a more complicated explanation. Also bell beaker in general...this kind of megaculture is not going to be all one people anyway or relate to language or dna all that closely.

The Eupedia article on IE is well written but it seems to be very unlikely. Ultimately language and genetics are not the same thing and language changes many times faster.




> Spamming your ill-informed age estimates does not make them correct.


But someone else spamming their own ridiculous age estimates that change every day is perfectly valid. The important thing to realize is these dates are a minimum. They could have formed 60k years ago for all we know, and so far all these clock estimates keep getting pushed further back over and over.




> There were no Goths or Aestii 5000 years ago. The expansion from a south Baltic or more central European locus would have occurred far in advance of the formation of these tribal identities. These tribes most certainly contained numerous paternal and maternal lineages.


Small tribes and ones that quickly expanded usually do have very homogenous DNA even today. We can also trace their migration back further than that in distance and time. But no, goths are almost surely not originally I. They are probably r1b but we don't know for sure.

----------


## Sile

> Sile, I don't at all doubt your version of things FROM THAT POINT. That's pretty much just history. But I think I has a much older lineage than people credit.
> 
> It comes down to if we accept that the whole of europe got wiped out in a heartbeat or we don't. If we accept the low estimate dates mean something then we have to accept that, but aside from these date estimates this theory makes no sense. 
> 
> If r1b is a very recent arrival then how did it implant itself into basques without ever conquering them or changing their language? It fails this test.
> 
> If indo european languages all come from some swift brutal conquest why are the spanish and occitain areas clinging to their own type of italic indo european even today? Visigoths just didn't have an effect on spain or north africa, they came and went quickly and never conquered the berbs, so the r1bs were there all along.
> 
> Similarly for any small percentage of the data we have on I to make a lick of sense we have to put them back further and come up with a more complicated explanation. Also bell beaker in general...this kind of megaculture is not going to be all one people anyway or relate to language or dna all that closely.
> ...


I agree with most of what you say, the issue on this forum is that the majority think then when one tribe move ...every person from that tribe moves as well, like some sort of red-indian tribes. The issue is that usually the very poor, ill or just the some did not want to move happened. 

IMO , the goths did not have the numbers to conquer but over time picked up "soldiers" on their travels, like it stated , the venedi, rugii, bastanae and aestii from the north baltic areas, ..........gather more from sarmatian and scythian etc from the black sea area.
The "royalty" of the goths was I1 and R1a in my opinion, but this got changed as they moved further westward.

But the thread is about I1, and I never ever believed it was Scandinavian/Germanic/Nordic in creation

----------


## nordicwarrior

> I wouldn't clap when you have made a totally nonsensical post like this. There's no such thing as an indo-european LINEAGE for starters. Nobody knows for sure what homeland Indo European languages came from, but it was almost surely r1a and r1b ancestors who spread it. Calling people with I DNA IE of 'lineage' is complely wrong and very strange thing to do.
> 
> It's believed that I originates in the Balkans and this makes a lot of sense. Further I believe they may actually be the ancient pre-classic greeks. I is spread all over the med in small levels and especially at all the megalithic sites. Since the r1b is so heavily entrenched in europe and iberia unless the visigoths did a whole lot of genociding in spain and north africa r1b is the original settlers after the ice age, who would have mixed in with the neanderthals during the ice age. And we get the highest derived neanderthal traits like negative blood type, morton's toe, etc. in the heavy r1b populations of basques and irish and welsh.
> 
> So I wasn't the main inhabitant of europe, they spread by the sea to ocen sites. This conforms to being the mycenaeans or perhaps even the phoenicians. There's lots of I in macedonia as well, and blonde hair. Accounts of what people looked like in those times, we can probably mostly take at face value. The heraclean culture believed they were "taking back" greece, as well. From who? The Is, who later were backbone of macedonia.
> 
> That part is speculative but regardless I seems to radiate out from the balkans, and yes OF COURSE the ancient estonians are related to the finns. 
> 
> So to the OP I agree somewhat and actually the balkan origin theory is the most commonly accepted. After all it's absolutely impossible I group was in northern europe before the ice age receded. It was absolutely covered with ice. Not to say it had zero inhabitants/adventurers but they would be a distinct minority.


 Welcome to the site, Mr. Wells. We've been waiting for your arrival. I'm shocked you actually credit hg. I with blonde hair though. I would have assumed you'd have us all dark brown and extra shaggy! :)

----------


## nordicwarrior

Now following your hypothesis Norman, I've come up with the natural conclusion... hg. I's "youth" would put us on a trajectory to take over all of Europe AND the Americas in say a thousand years or so. If we've already made such an enormous impact over most of Europe (roughly 15-20%), then we will assuredly be on the bullet train to haplogroup dominance in no time!

----------


## nordicwarrior

And lest you feel I'm "piling on" Norman, I do have one more tiny question that might pose a problem for your bold new theory... If R1b has been in Europe forever basically, kicking it with the Neanderthals, why does R1b have such a low level of European admixture vs. other groups? Enquiring minds want to know.

----------


## Fire Haired

> Welcome to the site, Mr. Wells. We've been waiting for your arrival


nordicquarrler, first i want to respond to what u said on the r1b l51-l11 Germanic Italo Celtic thread. It is true when Germanic speakers conquered south Scandinavia they did not really extreminte the native paternal lineages like Italo Celts did in most of west Europe. I dont think one people group like Germanic Italo celts is naturally some how superior to everyone else and can never lose. It is just how history played out they they were so successful. No ethnic group in human history as gone undeafted or is pure meaning not mixed in genetic's and culture. Alot of things ethnic groups take so much pride in was started by forigners that may have conquered their ancestors. No one is genetically purelly from one group except maybe Europeans over 10,000ybp, native Americans before European colonization, Austrlien abrognals, and other isolated people. But even those people were formed from mixing 10,000'sybp. So i am not saying Germanic Italo Celts are undefeatble. In a way their culture was but to an end and defeated by first Greece then Rome. 

nordicquarrler who is Mr. Wells. I hope it is Spencer Wells because i have questions about his Genographic porject. My dad took it and he got R P310. Which is also known as R1b L11 i know that is the western European type most likely spread with Germanic and Italo Celtic languages starting in the bronze age 5,000ybp. What subclades do u test past that i saw on google images people who got R1b U152 and U106. Do u test for L21 or other P312 subclades.

Also, If Spencer wells is on this website which i doubt i have another thing to say. Why on ur Genographic doc do u say R1b and R1a came were the first settlers of Europe there is like no evidence of that and no way is it true. It also said that Europeans and east asians are some how in the same family and that they devloped light skin together. For one thing Europeans light skin is unrelated in the genes to east asian light skin. Also Europeans are Caucasin like mid easterns and north africans, Europeans share so many mtDNA haplogroups with them and hg I the only for sure Paloithic European paternal lineage is the brother to y dna J the main paternal lineage of the mid east. Aust DNA proves Europeans, mid easterns, and north africans are in the same family.

Click here it shows how diff groups in globe13 aust dna test are related. The orignal European group from Paloithic Europe is called north euro and it is extremely related to west asian which is over 50% in the caucus, 44-50% form northern Iraq-Pakistan. Also clikc here according to this study the genes so far found to help cause pale skin in europeans exists in mid easterns and north africans at almost the same rate but this study stubbornly said it is only Europeans and said it must be inter marraige but when u look at other types of genetic's mid easterns have very very very little and alot of times no european blood. Everything points to Europeans grouping with mid easterns and north africans. 

Also Mongliod family i dont thing i need to explain that u know native americans, east asian looking people, polynesians are extremely related in the globe13 plot or graph to Austrlien Abrognals and Papue New gunines. They also have similar and very related Y DNA and mtDNA haplogroups so when u said in the doc that Austrlien abrognals were the first out of africa that cant be true because they had to of travled with mongliods ancestors too. Also in Y DNA and mtDNA all non Africans go back to the same family so they left africa together Caucasian have been in the mid east longer than astrlien abrognals in Australia. They did not make the first migration east either because all Asians are either mongliod or oceana so they migrated together. 

One thing i dont understand is Indians specifically Draviden indians they are a mystery. They have Caucasin skull shape same basic body build as Caucasians as high amounts of body hair more facial hair so basicalley they have all Caucasin features except their skin is much darker. Their group in the globe13 test called south asian if anything is more related to Mongliod Oceania family which makes sense since their kind of deep in asia but they are kind of inbetween Caucasin, Mongliod Oceania, and sub sahren african family. Their mtDNA and Y DNA haplogroups are most related to Oceanina mongliod since they have such Caucasian features i would think somehow they are connected with Caucasians.

Also in the doc i noticed u said everyone else in the world lost the original African features except the Negriod people of asia and austrila aka Oceania. I dont think we know what the first humans looked like it is a good guess to say they had black skin and nappy hair. I dont think u should be saying it on national television as a fact because we dont know. I really dont understand ur migration maps u just take areas which have had that haplogroup and put lines on them. The migration maps are total guess just going off of were it is popular today. I think ur project needs to say probably or maybe more not acting as if it has been proven because that leads people to believe things that may not be true and as if u know the whole human story.

I think u can explain to a west european with r1b that ur paternal lineage did not arrive in Europe probably till at the earliest 5,000ybp. Also that ur paternal lineage does not tell ur full ancestry u can explain to them the complicated history but always say probably or maybe and dont make things simple if their lie's.

----------


## kamani

> It's believed that I originates in the Balkans and this makes a lot of sense.


Maybe I1 originated in the Balkans in the paleolithic, who knows, but sometime in mid neolithic I1 almost went extinct and in the Bronze age it started expanding from germanic/nordic lands. The I1 that you see in the Balkans today is remnants from the -Illyrians/Thracians. I know because the percentage peaks with Albanians.

----------


## Noman

> Now following your hypothesis Norman, I've come up with the natural conclusion... hg. I's "youth" would put us on a trajectory to take over all of Europe AND the Americas in say a thousand years or so. If we've already made such an enormous impact over most of Europe (roughly 15-20%), then we will assuredly be on the bullet train to haplogroup dominance in no time!


Quite the opposite. There's no evidence of expansion, lots of evidence of shrinking. I also already said that the molecular clocks are nearly meaningless.




> And lest you feel I'm "piling on" Norman, I do have one more tiny question that might pose a problem for your bold new theory... If R1b has been in Europe forever basically, kicking it with the Neanderthals, why does R1b have such a low level of European admixture vs. other groups? Enquiring minds want to know.


I am not sure why you think this makes any sense, where you are going with it, sorry. If there was a giant indo european invasion then that is what should lead to a bunch of admixture. There's little admixture because there was no one to admix with! The invaders were from anatolia or caspian region, the Gs. If you look at bell beaker culture there's this funny hole in the middle and that's why. If they were from kiev then I'd expect a bunch of people with r1a or even east asian DNA mixed in.

You can tell neanderthal admixture from presence of neanderthal traits like negative blood type. If a population has 15% negative blood type it's at least 15% neanderthal, that's all there is to it. The only reason it's not completely uniform is from what admixing there has been, both to the north and due to massive arab invasion of spain

Some people complain that there should be a west to east clade but that makes no sense. The haplogroups were already separate (aside from fantasy world) before the ice thawed and went their merry ways from various refugiums. Time and again molecular clocks have been upset by factors of 5 or 10, meaning they are useless. 

Even as a comparison, they have no value. Every Y-dna is the same age! Some of them changed and some didn't. The reason some went bigger is due to natural selection and refugiums/bottlenecks. What's really amusing is that the two ideas that OoA rely on are both contradictory. If haplogroup separation happened due to bottlenecks and not natural selection, then how can we see a bunch of groups that are only 2k-5k years old. Aside from basque territory, eskimos and africa, there's nowhere so isolated as to provide the chance for random drift to create a whole new clade during what we consider normal weather, after wheel and horseback riding are commonly used.

----------


## Noman

> Maybe I1 originated in the Balkans in the paleolithic, who knows, but sometime in mid neolithic I1 almost went extinct and in the Bronze age it started expanding from germanic/nordic lands. The I1 that you see in the Balkans today is remnants from the -Illyrians/Thracians. I know because the percentage peaks with Albanians.


Yes, I agree on that.

----------


## Noman

Damn this thing for not letting me even QUOTE a link!

Before responding, no I am not spencer wells. Not that anyone really thought I was but I don't want to seem like I am impersonating him. 




> nordicquarrler, first i want to respond to what u said on the r1b l51-l11 Germanic Italo Celtic thread. It is true when Germanic speakers conquered south Scandinavia they did not really extreminte the native paternal lineages like Italo Celts did in most of west Europe. I dont think one people group like Germanic Italo celts is naturally some how superior to everyone else and can never lose.


They had superior technology. Only at the height of the roman era did they equal the celts on the battlefield from a one on one warrior perspective, and they learned even most of their battle tactics from nearby tribes. In metallurgy they lagged far behind, same in cavalry.

All the euro lineages of horse are actually iberian. For that matter there's a lot of evidence of neanderthal horseback riding but like la scoux used to be it is immediately shut down by the few who buy into it. Since we now know neanderthals were sea faring from basically the start, I don't see how this should be so shocking. But my guess is that riding warriors on the plains didn't happen right after the ice age, probably just a few horses made it through at all.




> It is just how history played out they they were so successful. No ethnic group in human history as gone undeafted or is pure meaning not mixed in genetic's and culture. Alot of things ethnic groups take so much pride in was started by forigners that may have conquered their ancestors. No one is genetically purelly from one group except maybe Europeans over 10,000ybp, native Americans before European colonization, Austrlien abrognals, and other isolated people. But even those people were formed from mixing 10,000'sybp. So i am not saying Germanic Italo Celts are undefeatble. In a way their culture was but to an end and defeated by first Greece then Rome.


The peacefully expanded out very rapidly when everyone else was stuck in middle east with no room to expand. R1a did the same, but in the north. The levant groups were more "civilized" but they did not border the wilderness so could not expand immediately without conquering their neighbors.

By contrast the r1b didn't expand and conquer a bunch of people (except the neanderthal who they subsumed completely). They have been fighting countless wars to drive out invasions and mostly pretty successful at it, at least until European Union and they decided to open the floodgates and let just anyone in.

Actually I think they lost a fair bit but those neanderthal genes are quite healthy, and seemingly the Y-DNA for R1B itself is also very heart healthy. Until recently, disease was the big destroyer of men once cities came to be. Negative blood type itself helps fight many diseases, too. So probably the population of r1b compared to the whole has shrunk and then slowly expanded quite a few times. Just like in the reconquista where a tiny minority slowly took down a giant majority.




> nordicquarrler who is Mr. Wells. I hope it is Spencer Wells because i have questions about his Genographic porject. My dad took it and he got R P310. Which is also known as R1b L11 i know that is the western European type most likely spread with Germanic and Italo Celtic languages starting in the bronze age 5,000ybp. What subclades do u test past that i saw on google images people who got R1b U152 and U106. Do u test for L21 or other P312 subclades.


I'd wait a couple years and get a full genome done. It's under 5k now and will be sub 1k by then. Hopefully it will get to 100 bucks but chances are they will try to keep prices higher than they need to be.

Turns out genomes probably won't be too useful for sorting out disease risk, but if you are interested in your roots then go for it. Maybe you have neanderthal X chromosome (most r1b do).




> Also, If Spencer wells is on this website which i doubt i have another thing to say. Why on ur Genographic doc do u say R1b and R1a came were the first settlers of Europe there is like no evidence of that and no way is it true. It also said that Europeans and east asians are some how in the same family and that they devloped light skin together. For one thing Europeans light skin is unrelated in the genes to east asian light skin. Also Europeans are Caucasin like mid easterns and north africans, Europeans share so many mtDNA haplogroups with them and hg I the only for sure Paloithic European paternal lineage is the brother to y dna J the main paternal lineage of the mid east. Aust DNA proves Europeans, mid easterns, and north africans are in the same family.


It's important to realize races aren't really descendants of each other. I can only think OoA has clung on so long now we have real evidence against because they are making a political statement to this effect, but boy it's a mixed up one. It's like saying that asians are proto-caucasians. Almost as good! And africans are barely a cave man!

So why do they cling to it? I don't know really, it's kind of weird. 

The reality is more like cousins. Everyone started off as some basal type of y-DNA. Some changed to other stuff, some didn't. The important part to realize is y-dna and mtDNA are not the only places this happens. For some things the top of the clade has neanderthal origin, for some chinese. So what's it mean? It means nothing in and of itself because your y-dna are mtDNA don't tell us your whole ancestry, it's just an average. Its only real use is for the potential tracking of migrations, unfortunately it's not too easy to get really ancient DNA, and it's expensive.




> Click it shows how diff groups in globe13 aust dna test are related. The orignal European group from Paloithic Europe is called north euro and it is extremely related to west asian which is over 50% in the caucus, 44-50% form northern Iraq-Pakistan. Also clikc according to this study the genes so far found to help cause pale skin in europeans exists in mid easterns and north africans at almost the same rate but this study stubbornly said it is only Europeans and said it must be inter marraige but when u look at other types of genetic's mid easterns have very very very little and alot of times no european blood. Everything points to Europeans grouping with mid easterns and north africans.


Skin color is multigenic and really it's the best way to determine the basic type. Most likely all three types come from hominids like neanderthal, one being neanderthal, one being something like peking man, one being whatever the homo sapiens mixed with in africa supposedly 100k years ago. Which kind of implies that they CAME to african, not evolved there.

So basically first we had multiregion, then with mtDNA we seemingly had support that humans evolved in africa. Now I think we have gone all the way back to multiregional (though OoA is still thrashing, it's done), and indeed we have evidence for suddenly going into africa. Basically we have way more archaeology than we used to when OoA came out, and much much more gnetic evidence, and it looks more and more like africa is a dead end. We still have no smoking gun for where the modern looking homo sapiens came from but it's probably in the central asian or south asian area. 

I did believe in OoA but now it's obviously false. Even looking at Y-DNA it starts to get hard to explain all the irregularities just like it would be if I were 5k years old). When we see clades in human genes that don't come from africa we know it's done.




> Also Mongliod family i dont thing i need to explain that u know native americans, east asian looking people, polynesians are extremely related in the globe13 plot or graph to Austrlien Abrognals and Papue New gunines. They also have similar and very related Y DNA and mtDNA haplogroups so when u said in the doc that Austrlien abrognals were the first out of africa that cant be true because they had to of travled with mongliods ancestors too. Also in Y DNA and mtDNA all non Africans go back to the same family so they left africa together Caucasian have been in the mid east longer than astrlien abrognals in Australia. They did not make the first migration east either because all Asians are either mongliod or oceana so they migrated together.


They WERE the first out, but they were the first out of ASIA. The black africans were the first INTO africa. The south indians are the remnants, with the purest ones being andamese islander. Which look just like black africans.

So we used to think we evolved in west africa and the black africans sat there for 200k years! Which even if you have a bad opinion of them, makes little sense. Indeed they expanded quickly in bantu expansion, so they are not dumb. So if we think a minute we can realize there's no cities because that's not where humans come from, they are newcomers. They did have cities or their direct descendants did, just not in africa.




> One thing i dont understand is Indians specifically Draviden indians they are a mystery. They have Caucasin skull shape same basic body build as Caucasians as high amounts of body hair more facial hair so basicalley they have all Caucasin features except their skin is much darker. Their group in the globe13 test called south asian if anything is more related to Mongliod Oceania family which makes sense since their kind of deep in asia but they are kind of inbetween Caucasin, Mongliod Oceania, and sub sahren african family. Their mtDNA and Y DNA haplogroups are most related to Oceanina mongliod since they have such Caucasian features i would think somehow they are connected with Caucasians.


They are a mix of anatomically south indians related to africa, austronesians who are related to africa but also asia, and caucasians who span the entirety of europe and a big portion of india.

Many of the artifacts you see in population studies are because we have no really good reference populations. What's a "germanic tribesman"? Nobody can tell you for sure. Is that "west asian" component shared with most europeans and africans some nonexistent tribe we don't know about any more? Sign of east west migration? Sign of west to east migration? Sign of a migration of lost jewish tribe from levant? It's simply impossible to know these answers for sure.




> Also in the doc i noticed u said everyone else in the world lost the original African features except the Negriod people of asia and austrila aka Oceania. I dont think we know what the first humans looked like it is a good guess to say they had black skin and nappy hair. I dont think u should be saying it on national television as a fact because we dont know. I really dont understand ur migration maps u just take areas which have had that haplogroup and put lines on them. The migration maps are total guess just going off of were it is popular today. I think ur project needs to say probably or maybe more not acting as if it has been proven because that leads people to believe things that may not be true and as if u know the whole human story.


It seels more books to go for a "we are all one!" kind of vibe. Also, until recently this made some sense. We also do have some ancient art in indus valley showing black people with corn rows. SO...it could be true. Likely it's true. Is it true? Well it's not fully true because there's also neanderthals to account for, and there's also peking man and there's also something newly discovered by Mike Hammer et. al. in Africa. 

To sort out this question we have to find DNA for these guys, too. The european skin DNA is actually the neanderthal skin DNA. The asian skin DNA is actually probably the denisovan (and maybe one more) hominid in asia. But it is likely that simply this is 100% factual.

Unfortunately on tv the "we believe" and maybes get taken out and the fact everything is so tentative doesn't come through. Also there's more than a few with a bit of an agenda and they tend to never use those words in the first place. A lot of people want to wipe any evidence of neanderthal existence off the face of the earth due to a misguided understanding of what natural selection is. It's not societal or racial, and those concepts go against natural selection. It's personal survival in peace time that it's mainly talking about, not "superior warrior dna" or something.





> I think u can explain to a west european with r1b that ur paternal lineage did not arrive in Europe probably till at the earliest 5,000ybp. Also that ur paternal lineage does not tell ur full ancestry u can explain to them the complicated history but always say probably or maybe and dont make things simple if their lie's.


I don't know what you are saying here, but I don't think it's the case it arrived so recently. Now the bell beaker incursion into the british isles did change the archaeological character of the isles but we find that the highest concentrations of r1b are away from the bell beaker areas. So the bell beakers were r1b but so were the original inhabitants. But a lot of traits like red hair, negative blood type, morton's toe, and a million others all got pushed into the corners.

So basically whicherever bell beaker tribes came in ahd admixed culturally and genetically with them but were also r1b. They were likely indo european speakers but to make long story short probably had been for a long long time, they didn't suddenly pick up a whole new culture and genetics as some people seem determined to say.

----------


## Noman

As far as curlyhair goes, I don't think it's true. We have a lot of andamese with straight hair. We really don't know where nappy hair comes from yet.

----------


## Sile

> As far as curlyhair goes, I don't think it's true. We have a lot of andamese with straight hair. We really don't know where nappy hair comes from yet.


3 posts to go before you can link.

patience has its rewards :Cool V:

----------


## Sile

What percentage of old/ancient royal lines dominated the servicing of Women........something along the lines of Shaka and the Zulus?

If I1 was central european, then it was either pannonian, noric, illyrian, venetic or dacian ( earliest known tribal societies). later would have been celtic/gallic.
Then again Herodotus states, that after the Indians, the most populous people are the Thracians.

----------


## Shetop

> Maybe I1 originated in the Balkans in the paleolithic, who knows, but sometime in mid neolithic I1 almost went extinct and in the Bronze age it started expanding from germanic/nordic lands. The I1 that you see in the Balkans today is remnants from the -Illyrians/Thracians. I know because the percentage peaks with Albanians.


I1 does not peak in Albanians. It is more or less evenly distributed throughout the Balkans.
I1 distribution differs from all other haplogroups in that region because it neither fits in pre migration period haplogroups (like E-V13, J2, R1b-L23 or G2a) nor it fits in migration period haplogroups (I2a-Din and R1a which most likely came with the Slavs).

The first thing that comes to mind is that I1 was there before Slavs came, but came after pre migration period haplogroups. One logical conclusion is that it came with the Goths.

But when you go deeper you see that this kind of thinking is not enough. Reason for that are I1 clades found in the Balkans. As I wrote on another topic, predominant I1 clades seem to be Z63 and P109 (there is also some Z58 in Romania and Bulgaria). At this moment it is not possible to assume distribution pattern for these two clades in the Balkans. For example, if one of those clades peaks among Gheg Albanians and drops in frequency among Slavic nations it would be clear that it is not of Germanic origin and that it has been in the Balkans for thousands of years.

So the way I see it, we have to wait and see some more thorough research which would provide us the needed I1 clades data. At this moment at least one of these two clades does appear to had come in Balkans with Germanic tribes, and that is for the simple reason mentioned in the first paragraph - I1 does not geographically fit neither with pre-Slavic nor with Slavic haplogroups.

----------


## Noman

> What percentage of old/ancient royal lines dominated the servicing of Women........something along the lines of Shaka and the Zulus?


All the celt and proto celt tribes were centered around women and that's why even today europe is more liberal in the true sense than anywhere else on earth. The patriarchal stuff came with the monarchies which came later from the east. Many of the royal lines are G which were the more eastern farmers who settled france and probably were related to the etruscans.

----------


## nordicwarrior

Norman... a few things. 1. Of course you aren't Spencer Wells, that was a joke. Your literal interpretation of my comment (F.H. made the same mistake) illustrates that I may have to be more careful with my audience. Not everyone shares my cunning wit I guess. 2. About the only thing I agree with you on is that all haplogroups are the same age. Even the ones that peeled off from the main trunk didn't stop evolving. 3. Celts have been breeding for negative blood type for YEARS. You wouldn't believe how easy it is to determine clotting factor, and their horse breeding/animal husbandry culture surely gave them a head-start here. I do think negative blood type came from Neanderthal and that the Norse had more of it initially. We didn't concern ourselves with this trait though, unlike the Druids.

----------


## nordicwarrior

I like you Norman. You charge into an I1 thread as a newbie, loudly and fearlessly proclaiming your ideas without letting fact and evidence slow you down. That shows massive cajones. I might make you an honorary Viking! Seriously, I look forward to our coming battles. You put it all out there, without parsing words... which is greatly appreciated. There are others on this site that hold your views, but won't announce their positions with such gusto. Nice to see this honesty. But please be warned, I am undefeated on these threads. A virtual master-debater. P.S. F.H. how do you have R1b conquering Southern Scandinavia? I have a decent chunk of R1b in Scandinavia brought in as slaves.

----------


## Noman

I said I know everyone knows I'm not spencer wells, but if I ignored the comment someone might think I am trying to pretend I am.

Interesting theory that there was conscious selection on negative blood type, had no idea it affected clotting. Even if so it should have led to other neanderthal genes hitchhiking, and ultimately unless you are trying hard to paint europeans as genocidal maniacs by birth you realize that natural selection does exist and that has to be how so many neanderthal characteristics have been kept (before homo sapiens came to europe they had very low numbers due to some massive climate change, otherwise they'd have failed to penetrate their territory as they had previously). 

There's also a strong selection against negative blood type when in a postive blood type society. So probably there's less in I haplogroup because they didn't go as far west and they had to deal with more incursion from the east. I figure probably they were the pre-classic greeks so there had to have been outside influence.

Things like morton's toe are very doubtful to be selected on and exist in maybe 10-20% of europeans. Unfortunately we don't have any detailed info on it like we do with blood type.

----------


## nordicwarrior

I apologize for my multiple response format-- keep getting timed out and my edit feature is on strike. Yes Noman, it's true that Celts (R1b) do hold their women in higher status when compared to other cultures, but this was learned from the neighboring Norse. Is there a "tribe" that treats their ladies better than the Swedes or the Norwegians? Plus any archeologist worth his student loans will tell you that the Venus carvings associated with Gravettian (Lespuge, Hohle Fels) indicate paleolithic peoples of Europe have always held females in elevated esteem.

----------


## nordicwarrior

Touching on the Sentinelese Islanders (this is one of my favorite fields of study-- uncontacted tribes) they only appear to be of sub-Saharan extraction at first glance. Their facial features and body type are quite unique. Could they have the most Denisovan admixture of living peoples? I don't know, but this is a fascinating subject that could probably use it's own thread.

----------


## Ike

> Maybe I1 originated in the Balkans in the paleolithic, who knows, but sometime in mid neolithic I1 almost went extinct and in the Bronze age it started expanding from germanic/nordic lands. The I1 that you see in the Balkans today is remnants from the -Illyrians/Thracians. I know because the percentage peaks with Albanians.


How do you know?What does *I1* have to do with Albany? All *I* are less than 10 % there. How have you connected something that peaks in Albania with Illyrians or Thracians? Why have you grouped Illyrians and Thracians together anyway?

----------


## Nobody1

The funniest thing is the Schizophrenia;
On one hand there is *NO* such thing as an Indo-European lineage or even a _substantial_ Indo-European migration 
and on the other hand I1 is constantly connected to Indo-Europeans;
I have read (on this thread) about Balts, Thracians, Illyrians, Noricans, Pannonian, Venetic, Dacian and also Gallic/Keltic;

Also looks like an Archaeological wonderland; 
Just randomly picking out Cultures without any sense behind it;

History has a documented time-line; 
sticking to it wouldnt be a bad idea;

----------


## nordicwarrior

> The funniest thing is the Schizophrenia;
> On one hand there is *NO* such thing as an Indo-European lineage or even a _substantial_ Indo-European migration 
> and on the other hand I1 is constantly connected to Indo-Europeans;
> I have read (on this thread) about Balts, Thracians, Illyrians, Noricans, Pannonian, Venetic, Dacian and also Gallic/Keltic;
> 
> Also looks like an Archaeological wonderland; 
> Just randomly picking out Cultures without any sense behind it;
> 
> History has a documented time-line; 
> sticking to it wouldnt be a bad idea;


 True that! I say let R1b and R1a fight that one out, they can have it. What I find interesting is that someone with Noman's viewpoint and myself are arguing about who has the closer tie to Neanderthal. This indicates a sea-change in Neanderthal acceptance/status.

----------


## kamani

> How do you know?What does *I1* have to do with Albany? All *I* are less than 10 % there. How have you connected something that peaks in Albania with Illyrians or Thracians? Why have you grouped Illyrians and Thracians together anyway?


In the Pericic study about ex-Jugoslavian countries, I1 peaks with Kosovar Albanians at about 5%. I have collected some data about South-Albanians and they have even more, at about 9%. That can't be the Goths, it's not paleolithic, not slavic, not roman. The most logical explanation is that is was the Illyrians or Thracians, or both.

----------


## tjlowery87

wow this forum has went from the Baltics all the way down to Albania,well the only thing I know is i1 in the north france all the way to Denmark and Scandinavia area is Germanic,it just makes sense,also with r1b-u1o6 being three.i don't know where it started but I believe before the r1 groups came along the where the most northern of european haplogroups,bascically still is.what u think nordicquarrler?i respect your sparkey and macimo opinion

----------


## sparkey

Is this a contest to see how many bad theories we can pack into one thread?


I1 is not likely to be over 10,000 years old in terms of TMRCA. Even if we add a Zhivotovsky-type "evolutionary" fudge factor to the date estimates to bring I1 to ~13,500 years old, we end up with it still being definitely younger that other haplogroups like I2, which end up being absurdly old (60,000+). So regardless of Fire Haired's theories, I1 very likely has a ~5,000 year TMRCA. 


Western Finland has high I1, but it is a child branch amidst an otherwise quite Germanic group. It's also quite young. So no matter who introduced it, it must owe its present distribution to a founder effect. As a result, regardless of whether or not Germanic peoples introduced it to Finland originally, it says nothing about the origins of I1 as a whole. 


Even if I1 originated in the Baltic, it was not likely spread by Balts. There is a temporal separation there. Balts could have *gasp* moved into, or formed within, the Pomeranian and Old Prussian region _after_ I1 started to spread! We're talking 5000 years ago, after all, long before "Balts" were ever recorded. One of the most obvious differences between Germanic and Baltic populations is the I1:N1c ratio, which is much, much larger in Germanic populations. 


R1b is not likely to be the Ice Age remnant of Western Europe. Even if you ignore STR and SNP dating as many seem to do nowadays, you have to contend with the fact that this is the question most clearly answered by the few ancient European Y-DNA samples we currently have. The earliest R1b we have is a Beaker sample. 

I'm pretty sure I've answered these all before in different threads. But thanks for the compendium, everybody.

----------


## sparkey

> Nobody knows for sure what homeland Indo European languages came from...





> What's a "germanic tribesman"? Nobody can tell you for sure.


Nobody, why have you been keeping these from us?

----------


## Ike

> What I find interesting is that someone with Noman's viewpoint and myself are arguing about who has the closer tie to Neanderthal. This indicates a sea-change in Neanderthal acceptance/status.


LoL. When you look at the Neanderthals from out point of view they seem primitive and disgusting, but once you consider how we looked and behaved back then, they seem like a cultural, civilized and empathic beings :) I predict Stormfront soon be renamed into "Neanderthal supremacy board". It would work on so many levels :)






> In the Pericic study about ex-Jugoslavian countries, I1 peaks with Kosovar Albanians at about 5%. I have collected some data about South-Albanians and they have even more, at about 9%. That can't be the Goths, it's not paleolithic, not slavic, not roman. The most logical explanation is that is was the Illyrians or Thracians, or both.


 I don't see it peaking in Albanians. Anyway, Pericic didn't even get any samples from Albania, but only from Kosovo and Macedonia. Her results show ~ 5% of I1 in Kosovo, Macedonia, Serbia and Herzegovina, and we could relate this to Kosovar Albanians recent spread, but it doesn't necessarily mean we can connect it with any of the alleged tribes. We don't even know if those tribes existed, and who they were. And those I1 could easily be remnants of one Norman crusader who fell sick and abandoned his mission.

I1p.jpg



Other sources show rise of I1 as you go away from Albania:

I1.jpg

----------


## kamani

> Other sources show rise of I1 as you go away from Albania:
> 
> I1.jpg


That's not a source thou, it is the Eupedia amateurly composed table. So I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree until we see more data.

----------


## tjlowery87

thanks sparkey

----------


## Ike

> That's not a source thou, it is the Eupedia amateurly composed table. So I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree until we see more data.


 Well, I believe the guys on Eupedia. If you don't, here, knock yourself out  :Smile: 

http://www.researchgate.net/publicat...038a84a851.pdf

----------


## Noman

> Is this a contest to see how many bad theories we can pack into one thread?
> 
> 
> I1 is not likely to be over 10,000 years old in terms of TMRCA. Even if we add a Zhivotovsky-type "evolutionary" fudge factor to the date estimates to bring I1 to ~13,500 years old, we end up with it still being definitely younger that other haplogroups like I2, which end up being absurdly old (60,000+). So regardless of Fire Haired's theories, I1 very likely has a ~5,000 year TMRCA. 
> 
> 
> Western Finland has high I1, but it is a child branch amidst an otherwise quite Germanic group. It's also quite young. So no matter who introduced it, it must owe its present distribution to a founder effect. As a result, regardless of whether or not Germanic peoples introduced it to Finland originally, it says nothing about the origins of I1 as a whole. 
> 
> 
> ...


100% junk science. It's not even that estimates are off, it's just an invalid way to estimate and completely meaningless.

If you know math a little better you wouldn't need an explanation (and now I will probably hear all about how great at math you are, but suffice to say no anthropologist is on the same planet as me on the subject). I touched on it a little but I could spend days on the topic and some still would poo poo me.

And again if you actually read original OoA theorie papers and all about nonsensical serial founder effects you have to realize this is completely contradictory. Either that or they are trying desperately to paint whole genotypes as founded by genocidal murderers. Except oh wait, all of europe shows huge amount of outbreeding compared to actual quick expanding populations like arabs and zulu, who did do large scale genocides of their neighbors. And again in 5k years the signs of this much inbreeding and genocide would be very clear, if they actually existed.




> True that! I say let R1b and R1a fight that one out, they can have it. What I find interesting is that someone with Noman's viewpoint and myself are arguing about who has the closer tie to Neanderthal. This indicates a sea-change in Neanderthal acceptance/status.


Change happens slowly but it's getting there. But I wouldn't bother to argue it. For starters there's not enough data to tell. Also the fact that the estimates we see keep climbing and are way off from the obvious numbers we get out of derived attributes is coherent with the idea of natural selection. Even in the most remore part of africa a lot of neanderthal genes have become fixed in the population, and as I said there's clades in the DNA of africans with neanderthal at the top as oldest, proving the case for multiregionalism.




> The funniest thing is the Schizophrenia;
> On one hand there is *NO* such thing as an Indo-European lineage


Yeah, of course there's not, just sound how nonsensical those words are strung together. We are speaking english so I guess we are Angles, eh?




> or even a _substantial_ Indo-European migration


Kiev must have had half a billion people if you think they populated all of europe like that. No, it was more like the Angles and Visigoths. Like sile said they came through and picked up locals as they went. We have documentation of this in historic times too, that's how the huns worked. Ten locals for each hun, and actual huns had no real impact on europe outside hungary.

And like I said there's refugiums they don't speak IE language at all, those are the places with the heaviest r1b. Sorry, this is busted. Of course you don't get r1b looking for it in the neolithic farmers. The more I think about that the more I think it was intentional. There's endless bones from standing stones tombs to test but maybe they are trying to make a political statement that europeans are all invaders and genocidal maniancs.

In ireland non IE language also survived almost to present times. So they never got replaced yet are r1b. Not only that but among the heaviest in r1b so they didn't get it out of any invasion.

If you read a few papers and look at how many lies and ridiculous gaffs you see in archaeology after following it as a hobby a few years, you realize it's about 80% politics, 10% scholarship, 10% science is being very generous.

For example for years and years they have been saying chimps are 99% human. NOPE! If you know about genetics, you know this is complete crap anyway. It's not just a bad estimate but a bald faced lie. Now it's down to 94% or something, but even two humans side by side can have more variation than that base pair by base pair. It's just made of nonsense.

Similarly they have said chimp is the nearest ancestor of man even though archaeology for any other species would say it's impossible. A human walks upright. So do gorillas. They are the closest, end of story. Recently they finally sequence a gorilla and guess what? 15% closer than a chimp.

Of course if you don't believe in natural selection you get some strange ideas in your head, but nobody would make this mistake for butterflies. You don't evolve upright walking one afternoon just for kicks. Once an upright walker exists then that niche is filled and no other species can benefit from moving in that direction because they'll be outcompeted, so they don't fo to that niche. That's why the lungfish has been stuck for a billion years in place. Lungfish are the ones who came out of the water and because mammals and reptiles and avians but they can't do anything but stay where they are now that all those animals are in the way.




> and on the other hand I1 is constantly connected to Indo-Europeans;
> I have read (on this thread) about Balts, Thracians, Illyrians, Noricans, Pannonian, Venetic, Dacian and also Gallic/Keltic;


Of course it's speculative. The IE complete repalcement is speculative, too. And in about 5 seconds of thinking and posting in this thread, pretty much disproven.

Things like that and out of africa make plenty of sense if you don't believe in natural selection, don't know ANY history at all, and COMPLETELY ignore all archeology. Only when I looked close at the archaeology did I realize it is impossible for humans to have evolved in africa, or for an exodus. 

Modern humans suddenly show up in africa right along the arabian border (where at some times they could walk right from australia).

At the same time the rest of africa is under the sway of the most archaic looking human ancestors imaginable, and now we have proof after they got to africa modern humans interbred with them. Now think a second. They interbred with them but those genes stayed in africa! Meaning they didn't migrate out at all...and how could they, they just arrived from elsewhere.

Probably almost everyone spoke IE before bell beaker even came to be. Like Siles said a language is not a tribe! Lingua franca of italic mediterranean is still the basis of spanish and portuguese and there was probably no gene flow at all.




> Also looks like an Archaeological wonderland; 
> Just randomly picking out Cultures without any sense behind it;


I gave some of the reasons behind it and pointed out that there's way too much spread of I to be accounted for in this time.




> History has a documented time-line; 
> sticking to it wouldnt be a bad idea;


We don't have anything for things you seem to regard as fact. We have no idea just supposition. Everything I posit for I fits the facts. Pre-classic greeks are totally unaccounted for but there's endless reams of archaeology to back this up.

Dieneke is an ok guy and actually looks at archaeology unlike most of these clowns, but even he goes into a fit when you look at archaeology about his homeland. Not just pots we have (and endless other artifacts), but endless nordic skulls from pre-classic greek. We also have way more blondes in greece than would logically come out of any r1b stock we know about (NONE!). And the further back we go the more blondes we have, more nordic features, etc.

The handwaving is pretty funny, too. Well we do have a lot of blondes is some areas but (lots of nonsense with populations) they're not that big a difference from and average of other european places!  :Laugh out loud:  You mean the other european places that have a lot of I in them? 

As if all physical traits are just random, like you could easily find michelle pfeiffer walking in the calahari, or in the russian steppes, or in a fishing village near beijing. Well you might, but they came from somewhere, and obviously archaeology says they were a big part of greece a long time. They are also what the spartans and macedonions were (and oh how any greek will deny the existence of macedonia). 

Possibly yes, these are even the pre-classic greeks.

It's an even wager to me at this point as to whether archaeology displays or hides more items, just try to get access to skulls at malta or clean side view pictures of natufian skulls. Don't like those answers, eh?

----------


## Noman

Right from india, not australia. Whoops. At times they could walk from india nearly to australia as well, though, guess that's why my brain farted.

And think of that, trying to write macedonia out of history. Trying much harder to write neanderthals out of history completely. Who does something like that? The mind boggles.

----------


## Nobody1

Great Logic!
Indo-Europeans *did not* exist because *Kiev* (_a city of the 9th cen AD_) is/was too small;

----------


## Noman

Well obviously I know a lot more of history than you, sorry to say but it's true. Your comments on the goths show you didn't even glance at wikipedia first. So obviously I know the city of kiev didn't exist yet.

That out of the way yup, kiev is around the area where the maykop civilization existed. This is probably the actual indo european homeland everyone is talking about. Again, maybe look at the wiki article for indo europeans as a starter before going into 4chan antics. We do know a lot about the migrations, enough to know there was no giant replacement.

----------


## Nobody1

> Well obviously I know a lot more of history than you, sorry to say but it's true. Your comments on the goths show you didn't even glance at wikipedia first. So obviously I know the city of kiev didn't exist yet.


Yes what is Pytheas, Plinius and Cassiodorus in comparison to Wikipedia;

I bet your knowledge could fill entire Libraries; 
I am eager to learn from you;




> That out of the way yup, kiev is around the area where the maykop civilization existed. This is probably the actual indo european homeland everyone is talking about. Again, maybe look at the wiki article for indo europeans as a starter before going into 4chan antics.


Ever heard of Sredny Stog and Yamna of the _Caspian-Pontic steppes_ ???
The expansion of the Kurgan culture complex I-IV ???

PS: Maykop is much further south than Kiev; Its a culture zone of the southern Caucasus/East _Black Sea_ area; In fact Maykop is nowhere near Kiev;




> We do know a lot about the migrations, enough to know there was no giant replacement.


A replacement of what?

----------


## Fire Haired

I cant belive what i am hearing who would connect I1 with Indo Europeans. What Indo Europeans are u talking about is it Balto Slavic Corded ware culture in eastern Europe 5,000-4,000ybp, Germanic Italo Celtic Unetice and late Bell Beaker culture 5,000-4,000ybp. Why is I1 around 30% in uralic non Indo European speaking Finnish. R1a1a1 M417 seems to have spread out of Ukriane one of the biggest headquaters for early Indo European culture it spread with Indo Iranian languages in asia and Balto Slavic in east europe. R1b L51 seems to have spread with Germanic and Italo Celtic languages. I1 is of course in the hg I family it is Paloithic and Mesloithic European what would have had to happen is Indo Europeans picked it up after inter marrying then spread it.

If u look at the Y DNA of Scandnavia it all can be explained except I1. R1a came with Corded ware culture 5,000-4,000ybp, N1c came with Kunda culture and uRlaic languages 6,000-8,000ybp, R1b came with nordic bronze age culture and Germanic languages 4,000-3,500ybp, G2a, E1b1b, J2, and J1 came with Farming and contact with other Europeans later on in history. The rest of Scandnavain Y DNA is I1 were did it come form and what did Y DNA is left of the Norwegian and Swedish from 6,000ybp because according to ur theory there is none left. Since Swedish, norwiegan, and finnish all have over 60% blonde or just fair hair and eyes they obvisouly are related makes sense since they live near each other the only thing that connectecs them in Y DNA is really I1.

If I1 came to Swedan and Norway just 5,000ybp that means 6,000ybp people in central Norway and Swedan Y DNA no longer exists i doubt they were exterminated i thin their Y DNA was I1. If u say that i1 spread to Scandinavia just 5,000ybp then u are also saying those people are the source for high amounts of blonde hair in Scandinavia that also means they would have exterminated the people already there. This theory turns out to sound absolutely crazy. Think about it when people extreminte another people mainly in ancient times it was done by the sword and spear and men died inw ars which lead to their y dna being partly replaced by the winner of the war that is what italo celts did in west europe. So if a blonde haired I1 people exterminated who ever lived in Scandinavia before them everyone should have I1 and also i doubt Uralic languages would survive since they would have been conquered. 

In my opinion the 60% fair hair and fair eyes and the I1 in Scandinavia are from the same people who were the orignal settlers of Scandinavia 11,000ybp. The reason why Paleolithic ancestry and Paloithic paternal lineages in Scandnavia have survived so much better than for example Spain is because They are so far away from the action farming barely spread to Scandinavia and spread very late 5,000-4,000ybp. It is absouley crazy to say the people in the most northern Border of Europe have 100% ancestry from Neloithic and bronze age arrivals. Have'nt any of u heard that Finnish and Sami are the closest living relatives to a 7,000 year old hunter gather from north spain. When loking at aust dna which tells ur full ancestry there are diff types of test the one i like is globe13 they call the paloithic european group well almost all tests do North Euro because that is were it is most popular. Finnish and Sami have the most in Europe neloithic age brough med, southwest asian, and west asian to europe if Scandinavians come from Neloithic and Bronze age arrivals they should have as high med, southwest asian, and west asian as Germans but they have much less.

----------


## Noman

I will believe in complete IE replacement just as soon as someone can tell me what was in europe before r1b.

It's not G, we know the neolithic farmers are new arrivals.

I would be a great candidate except HEY, I isn't even that old! The granddad of all Is was trundling around europe with his hundred sons from conquered slave wives at the time, or however it is people are trying to paint I's hilarious early arrival to existence.

I already heard about africans in europe several times. I haven't heard anyone suggest it was arabs yet but someone is bound to manage to make the leap somehow, once they finally eliminate all trace of neanderthals and pre-classic greeks.

edit: also, they found the oldest Y-DNA root in cameroon, right where a giant r1b incursion occurred 15k years ago. They ALSO found one in france but they discount that because they figure it was some kind of african immigrant from many generations back.

Now france is right where I expect to see neanderthal DNA show up, but in a cosmopolitan environment it will just be isolated cases here and there.

Since cameroon is also the place in africa that r1b invaded, if they did admix with neanderthal directly then we could hope to see some proto neanderthal y-dna (neanderthal dna is right off A00). Now if we find some full neanderthal DNA in africa or lots of A00 in the likey spots in europe then it will be telling.

----------


## sparkey

> 100% junk science. It's not even that estimates are off, it's just an invalid way to estimate and completely meaningless.
> 
> If you know math a little better you wouldn't need an explanation (and now I will probably hear all about how great at math you are, but suffice to say no anthropologist is on the same planet as me on the subject).


All STR and SNP estimates are wrong, because NOMAN IS A MATH GENIUS!




> I touched on it a little but I could spend days on the topic and some still would poo poo me.


You haven't touched on the subject, other than a "they're always changing" line of argument that ignores _why_ some changes have happened, and what the actual areas of dispute are. Shouldn't you be trying harder than giving up after having convinced absolutely no one?




> And again if you actually read original OoA theorie papers and all about nonsensical serial founder effects you have to realize this is completely contradictory. Either that or they are trying desperately to paint whole genotypes as founded by genocidal murderers.


Founder effects only happen because of genocidal murderers!  :Uzi: 

Not like this is a normal pattern in population genetics or anything.




> Except oh wait, all of europe shows huge amount of outbreeding compared to actual quick expanding populations like arabs and zulu, who did do large scale genocides of their neighbors. And again in 5k years the signs of this much inbreeding and genocide would be very clear, if they actually existed.


You don't see the anachronism of your comparison here?




> Similarly they have said chimp is the nearest ancestor of man even though archaeology for any other species would say it's impossible. A human walks upright. So do gorillas. They are the closest, end of story. Recently they finally sequence a gorilla and guess what? 15% closer than a chimp.


Uh... no. I assume you're talking about Scally 2012, which showed that "15% of the human genome is closer to the gorilla genome than it is to chimpanzee, and 15% of the chimpanzee genome is closer to the gorilla than human." That means that it actually _reinforced_ the idea that chimps are more closely related to humans than gorillas are. You know, because 15% isn't more than 50%. I thought you were the math genius?

----------


## sparkey

> I will believe in complete IE replacement just as soon as someone can tell me what was in europe before r1b.
> 
> ...
> 
> I would be a great candidate except HEY, I isn't even that old! The granddad of all Is was trundling around europe with his hundred sons from conquered slave wives at the time, or however it is people are trying to paint I's hilarious early arrival to existence.


What are you talking about? Haplogroup I dates to the Paleolithic, even using those STR estimates that you find to be generally too young. I1 bottlenecked, but I2 has a lot of diversity in Europe.

----------


## Nobody1

> I will believe in complete IE replacement just as soon as someone can tell me what was in europe before r1b


There was no such thing as a _Complete IE replacement_;

The Indo-Europeans inter-mixed with the pre-existing populations forming new Indo-European societies (_distinct branches_) that were a hybrid of Indo-Europeans and pre-Indo-Europeans;

You will find evidence for that in the fields of Linguistics, Archaeology, Anthropology and even in Historical accounts;

This inter-mixing didnt just occur in Europe it occurred in the entire Indo-European range from Europe - Tarim Basin; In Anatolia (Hittites), Iranian Plateau, Indus valley etc.

And all share a *common* Indo-European root - _Urheimat_

The _Complete Replacement_ scenario only exists in your Universe not in reality;


*George Bradshaw* - Bradshaw's illustrated hand-book to Switzerland and the Tyrol (1899)
_Swiss Lake-dwellings - In his careful investigations of pile dwellings, Dr. Studer met with two extreme types of skulls, the brachycephalic and the dolikoccphalic; the former, at Schaffis and Lüschery (Lake of Bienne), belonging to the pure Stone period, and the latter, at Vinolz and Sutz, to the Bronze period. The facts point to an invasion by the Bronze men, involving a complete transformation of the group of domestic animals; the horse appears for the first time, and new races of sheep and dogs replace the older forms of the Stone period. The occurrence of mesocephalic, and even considerably shortened skulls, in the Bronze period, shows that there was no extinction of the brachycephalic race, but that the two races mixed
_
Caucasoid races:
Nordoid (dolichocephalic) - Mediterranid (dolichocephalic) - Alpinoid (brachycephalic) - Armenoid (brachycephalic)

----------


## Fire Haired

> I will believe in complete IE replacement just as soon as someone can tell me what was in europe before r1b.




R1b is a Y DNA haplogroup which is a passed down from father to son exactly like a last name. It does not tell ur full ancestry Not all Europeans have R1b either only around 50% of west Europeans. Well all Europeans are white u know that they all come from a similar ancestry if u think IE's replaced the former population of west europe u must think they were white well then how do u explain Sami and Finnish who are extremley pale pigmentated but dont speak a Indo European language. They have had almost nothing to do with Indo Europeans. Also 7,000 year old hunter gather from north spain so pre indo european west europe his aust dna(tell full ancestry) in the globe13 test was 71% north euro which is a distinct group it originated in Europe is the most popular group in europe and is what makes europeans distnct it pretty mcuh defines being european. I think it should be called Paloithic European because that is what it is it is most popular east of Germany and north of Romania because those areas had the least non European inter marriage that came mainly in the Neolithic. 

When u look at aust DNA there is no doubt all Europeans derive from the same Paloithic family that probably arrived in Europe or mixed with many groups that arrived from the mid east 30,000-60,000ybp. The fact all Europeans have pale skin that blonde hair is so popular mainly in the areas paleolithic european north euro dominate which means it probably goes back to Europeans Paloithic ancestors. Europeans are a distinct ethnic group there is no way they come from mid eastern farmers that arrived in the last 10,000 years. The diff indo european groups that conquered almost all of bronze to iron age europe were almost defintley also European genetically they came from mainly around Russia and Ukraine and we have 6,000 year old DNA from INdo European cultures in Ukraine which shows they were Euro's. So it is very hard to detect how much ancestry europeans have from the pre indo europeans and the indo Europeans who invaded. My guess is mainly pre indo european.

----------


## Noman

> R1b is a Y DNA haplogroup which is a passed down from father to son exactly like a last name. It does not tell ur full ancestry Not all Europeans have R1b either only around 50% of west Europeans. Well all Europeans are white u know that they all come from a similar ancestry if u think IE's replaced the former population of west europe u must think they were white well then how do u explain Sami and Finnish who are extremley pale pigmentated but dont speak a Indo European language. They have had almost nothing to do with Indo Europeans.


I don't know what point you're making, maybe you misunderstand me.

I'm saying that the Indo Europeans did NOT bring r1b to europe.

I'm saying the whole of everything from north africa to anatolia was all r1b not long after ice age. R1A was further north and went perhaps as far as the heart of india today. We have a ton of I dna in indus valley today and lots of historic references to it so this seems the most likely.


SO HERE'S THE THING.

Obviously, if I is very new then how did this happen, and when? We are talking about mostly historic times here.

So if we take the word of people like sparky who read their first paper, or excerpts in the news, and take the *****-math of english and cultural anthropology grad students seriously we get these very early (meaning new) ages. 

Ok.

So what was in all this area we call west europe nowadays before the r1b suddenly showed up?

The reason I ask is that it goes to the core of the methodology of these molecular clocks.

Now we already know europe is continuously inhabited for as much as 20 million years by human ancestors. We have 10+ million year old fossils of hominids with no teeth that obviously got cared for by their family, a human trait.

Now the neanderthals supposedly went extinct, and the neolithich farmers came about 8k years ago (or something) and didn't spread out that far for a long time and their y-dna has practically disappeared. So who built all the standing stones and all that?

If we say it's R* then it means we have a big contradiction, that's my point. The idea of molecular clocks hinge on the giant assumption that they are neutral markers. It's basically a null hypothesis. It's saying all differences in genotypes comes from a series of bottlenecks and founder effects. 

But the bottleneck HAS to be the ice age, simply has to. Bottlenecks don't happen in an expansion. So you could respond and say that natural selection is at work but AGAIN contradiction. See we already made the harebrained assumption natural selection doesn't affect it (and indeed for whole OoA nonsense to be true it implies there's no natural selection of any kind, it seems like they want to purposely attack random selection.

So that's it really, molecular clocks disproven. It doesn't require more than that and if guys like sparky can't see it, well you can't teach somebody a math degree over the internet. If I could then I would truly be a math genius.

And with molecular clock dispelled we can just ignore all this crap, because everything stupid we hear about hinges on it in some ways. Basically it's numbers pulled out of someone's behind to justify the story they want to tell. It's circular logic based only on itself. I've seen clocks calibrated to the clovis site in america as well. It's just assuming what you want to believe is true and working backward from there.

edit: tr oll-math. You can't say *****? Weird.

----------


## Noman

> There was no such thing as a _Complete IE replacement_;
> 
> The Indo-Europeans inter-mixed with the pre-existing populations forming new Indo-European societies (_distinct branches_) that were a hybrid of Indo-Europeans and pre-Indo-Europeans;
> 
> You will find evidence for that in the fields of Linguistics, Archaeology, Anthropology and even in Historical accounts;
> 
> This inter-mixing didnt just occur in Europe it occurred in the entire Indo-European range from Europe - Tarim Basin; In Anatolia (Hittites), Iranian Plateau, Indus valley etc.
> 
> And all share a *common* Indo-European root - _Urheimat_
> ...


Good. Finally you are almost on the same page as everyone else!!!

Now just look at the eupedia article for more details, replacement of y-dna is exactly what's being said.

Nobody is disputing any migration occurred but if you think the origin of r1b is that far east and that recently that's when you are in fantasy land.

Like I said, who was there before these relative newcomers got here?

The whole point of this seems to be to try and make europeans feel even more guilty. The r1as are the ones doing the large migrations in the FAR east. As soon as I see some R1B dna from ancient gedrosia or that maykop is half r1a and half r1b then I will shut up. I'll also shut up if I see a bunch of ancient dna in europe that's associated with hunter gatherers that turns out to be some other dna type.

But logically there's this huge gap that has nobody in it if we believe this crap. And if the people in it are R* then read my last post. That means that the molecular clocks are invalid and the circular logic loop is broken. And we come back to the original topic of when and where the I haplogroup comes from.

Plenty of bones to sample from megalithic culture, but some people won't like the answers because they have little to do with the people living there now.

Plenty of nordic looking greek skulls to sample. Plenty of indus valley bones to sample. I was puzzled they have skipped over these completely to sample neolithic farmers, but I am sure it's political. Pakistand and Greece won't go along with that, and the whole idea of craniometry being "racist" came down from the english royals when it became obvious the current round-headed citizens were invaders and the long-headed ones with more neanderthal dna were the previous inhabitants.

----------


## Noman

And actually let me clarify and say I think it could well be R* that came out after the ice age and haven't made that clear. Either way it busts the molecular clock, though, because if it's something you can treat as a neutral marker that won't happen during an expansion.

Basically the mistake for molecular clock is simple. Imagine a couple homeless guys. You observer them 5 minutes then you project his movements back 2 weeks.

Problem one is they don't move the same speed all the time, sometimes they don't move at all (bottleneck) and this can last indefintely.

Problem two is they can move backwards, too. A lot of time they just mill about. (drift)

Problem three is you happen to be observing them in the middle of a bank robbery. (modern civilization, opposite of bottleneck where it's easy to survive, unprecedented expansion)

Problem four is that sometimes one of the bums accidentally finds something cool and ALL the bums rush over to the other bum no matter how far away they are(natural selection).

If these minor problems weren't there molecular clock would be great.

----------


## Noman

I took grad school classes for computer science in simulations, you literally find out the first day of class why you can't do stuff like that. What you can and can't simulate is the first topic you need to know or conclusion you come up with is meaningless.

Why cant we simulate an aircraft's drag by its shape? This is a big argument I had once. Long story short, we have wind tunnels for a reason. But it comes down to the same idea, some things don't simulate, simply can't be calculated and genetics of this kind is one of them. Unfortunately with these lame models there is no real world test to prove the lie, an exploding airplane on the other hand is very dramatic.

DNA from ancient skeletons will eventually make it clear but nobody can force them to investigate the obvious test of their hypotheses if they don't want to.

----------


## Nobody1

> Good. Finally you are almost on the same page as everyone else!!!


Glad to hear your _everyone else_;
But since we are all on the same page in that there was a _pre_-Indo-European population and 
an Indo-European population (_emerging from the East/Caspian-Pontic steppes_); 
than whats the problem to begin with?

The fact that the Indo-European migration was substantial and dominant is evident in Archaeology and Linguistics;
But it wasnt an Ethnic cleansing - far from it;

i have written some posts on that topic; 
maybe you misunderstood me before;





> Nobody is disputing any migration occurred but if you think the origin of r1b is that far east and that recently that's when you are in fantasy land. Like I said, who was there before these relative newcomers got here?


I wouldnt know about the *origins* of R1b and i wouldnt associate _the Origins_ of R1b with the Indo-Europeans;
I have repeatedly stated that i (personally) consider R1b to be both *pre*-Indo-European as well as Indo-European;
Depending on sub-clade - with R1b-*U106* and R1b-*U152* being the Indo-European lineages;

However what has been revealed so far is that_ Neolithic_ sites are heavily G2a;
Treilles = 20x G2a / 2x I2a1
Ötzi = G2a(L91)
Spain = 5x G2a / 1x E-V13

Where as in the _Chalcolithic_ there is R1a in Eulau (_Corded-Ware_) and R1b in Kromsdorf (_Bell-Beaker_)

So the only thing to safely conclude is that *pre*-Indo-European (Europe) was def. G2a/E-V13/I2a1; _prob. maybe more will follow_ 
as for all the rest - all of us on the same page have to simply wait for more data;

_Haak et al 2008_ -Eulau
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/47/18226.long
_Keller et al 2012_ - Ötzi
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal...ncomms1701.pdf
_Lacan et al 2011_ - Neolithic Spain
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20....full.pdf+html





> Plenty of bones to sample from megalithic culture, but some people won't like the answers because they have little to do with the people living there now.and the whole idea of craniometry being "racist" came down from the english royals when it became obvious the current round-headed citizens were invaders and the long-headed ones with more neanderthal dna were the previous inhabitants.


The _Bell-Beaker_ king of Stonehenge was "Bavarian"; I dont think the British were too happy with that;
http://www.munichfound.com/archives/id/82/article/1578/


PS: most of the modern-day British are in fact _Dolichocephalic_ however the Beaker-folks 
of the Round-Barrows were _Brachycephalic_; 

History never stands still; Thats why the Documented time-line is important;

----------


## nordicwarrior

Noman, what makes your musings so compelling (to me anyway) is that I've wrestled with a lot of these same issues. Trust me, you aren't the only one here that's questioned foundational fundamentals. I've argued against the accuracy of molecular clocks in painful detail on Eupedia (please check my account(s) for verification. You have the political agenda at 80%, I have it closer to 90%-5%-5%. But alas, this takes us to the next step. Taking pot-shots at others' theories is fun (I should know because I'm pretty skilled at it and it makes me happy); defending your own models... eh, not so much. So I'm handing you the podium. It's your world. Tell us tribal movements WITH dates so that we have a better idea of where you want to go with this. For example, how long do you have hg. I in Macedonia before they decided to spread? Please be as specific as possible.

----------


## nordicwarrior

And about your math qualifications, don't be afraid to expound on your conclusions. There are some bright people working on this stuff (some may be even reading this wacky thread). Remember, our guru (Ken N.) was instrumental in mapping the moon's gravitional field for NASA so he probably knows how to crunch a few numbers. And even more impressive than that, Ken alters his model based on what new facts show. Not everyone in this arena is brave enough to do that. P.S. TJ thanks for lumping me in with Maciamo and Sparkey-- I'm honored.

----------


## nordicwarrior

One last thing, don't hesitate to go "off road" if you feel you must. I ponder Sumerian creation myth for breakfast. If you think you've located an undiscovered rabbit hole, let's hear about it.

----------


## Noman

> Noman, what makes your musings so compelling (to me anyway) is that I've wrestled with a lot of these same issues. Trust me, you aren't the only one here that's questioned foundational fundamentals. I've argued against the accuracy of molecular clocks in painful detail on Eupedia (please check my account(s) for verification. But alas, this takes us to the next step.


I think most people do question them but like I said the problem is they are not testing the hypothesis. I read all this "and here in mesolithic these are the haplogroups" woa woa slow down. This is much like if you said "and now in 2525 the president of the united states is Karl Ryan".

There seems to be less and less interest in addressing criticism, and more in putting out some political based polemic. 

Speaking of Spencer Wells lately there's more and more evidence stacking up that there's 50k+ year old sites in south america. Now to me clovis first means that you would have had to arrive in north america and immediately head south as fast as you can and spend a couple thousand years building pyramids for all the finds down there to make sense.

So lately it does turn out a lot of sites look to be 50k+ years and his comment on it in regards to out of africa is it must be "an extinct hominid that lived before humans and was replaced". So basically anything to stick to the same lame theory, no matter how sketchy.




> Taking pot-shots at others' theories is fun (I should know because I'm pretty skilled at it and it makes me happy);


Yeah and that's what real science is about. Data and rejecting hypotheses. If you are not finding ways to reject hypotheses it's not really science. I have to say there's few papers even in computer science (which I have to read ad nauseum) that take this part seriously, but this is the meat, it's the only way you can actually make real progress.

There's a very closed model for academia and the reason is largely to hide behind safe little walls to protect your own pet theories (and therefore your career). At archaeology conferences they often show any actual fossils as quickly as possible and at distorted angles to blunt criticism.

So how seriously can you take them?

I remember the uproar about the flores man and how silly it was BUT that's how it's supposed to be. You work hard to reject as many hypotheses as possible so eventually what's left is very close to the truth.




> defending your own models... eh, not so much. So I'm handing you the podium. It's your world. Tell us tribal movements WITH dates so that we have a better idea of where you want to go with this. For example, how long do you have hg. I in Macedonia before they decided to spread? Please be as specific as possible.


The wild theorizing is not the science part. Having I be the pre-classic greeks is highly conjectural in the first place. I admit that part right off the bat. The problem is, other parties are making wild conjectures and instead of labeling them as such they come out and say it's absolute fact, and not in some forum discussion they make a huge set of papers and write three books and then a few years later it's all proven wrong and you find out they made up half of it in the first place. So they are not scientists, they are song and dance men. 




> And about your math qualifications, don't be afraid to expound on your conclusions. There are some bright people working on this stuff (some may be even reading this wacky thread). Remember, our guru (Ken N.) was instrumental in mapping the moon's gravitional field for NASA so he probably knows how to crunch a few numbers. And even more impressive than that, Ken alters his model based on what new facts show. Not everyone in this arena is brave enough to do that. P.S. TJ thanks for lumping me in with Maciamo and Sparkey-- I'm honored.


The thing is you don't need to be a math genius to disprove molecular clock, I just did it. Even the provisio that it's "formed sometime before x" is clue enough it's meaningless. After all this sentences was typed sometime before you read it, no big revelation there.

And no I am not a math genius. I like to think I am more of a GENERAL genius! ;) 

And I know a former head of nasa and one of the FAA who died a bit back was in the family if that establishes my credentials. Sad fact is, like I said this is highly politicized, simply defending reality makes you a racist pseudoscientist and you'd be very foolish to reveal your ID online especially if you are someone for whom public opinion is an issue. For me it actually is, but that probably sounds more grandiose than the truth. For that matter I think it's foolish for anyone to do so, save that for academic papers and pictures of kittens.

When I say model, too, I am not just talking about "how things are" but the maths they come up with to explain away any effect of natural selection. I'm talking about founder effects and alleged genetic mutation rates and lots of silly stuff that in the end mean nothing. Basically they come up with a model that says how something could happen, and then claim because it could happen, therefore it did happen. It's like that with OoA. It could have happened that way (though this now looks highly unlikely) so they provide the numbers that would make the model work, then they pull out the molecular clock data from these figures and presto you're done. But it's not actually evidence it DID happen let alone proof, and it leaves a bunch of unexplained questions.

The model is being seen as the thing that proves something, when all it is is the shape of your hypothesis, something that fits the numbers. Now you have to test that hypothesis, but why bother when you can fire anyone who questions it on the grounds they are a racist psudoscientist?

So the model is pointless it's the facts we need to learn more about the I group. Like I said that's conjecture, though. 

For the r1b though, which is kind of why I came into this thread, I do think that the Rs probably formed before ice age. I highly doubt that they migrated in as the origin of r1b relatively recently and I've said exactly why. We have loads of historical evidence against it and populations that never got converted which are also r1b even though genes flow less quickly than language.

Really, that's it. Now I have mentioned how to test the hypothesis for each scenario but so far no one wants to, that is they don't want to test they are right they want to just say they are right and go unchallenged. I'd love to have the hypothesis tested and figure out for sure what happened. OTOH seemingly no one on the other side is all that eager to test pre-classic greek DNA, or to test stone henge DNA, or to test gedrosian DNA. We'll have to see that to know for sure.

And I was right when it comes to gorillas being closer than chimps, can't tell you how vociferously people argued against that. Then as usual when the punchline comes they act like they expected it all along, no big deal.

Future predictions:
Human gorilla ancestor in europe or asia about 30 million years ago.
Hominid with strong chin found in china 300k+ years ago, real source of "modern" humans.
More AOO found in Ireland or France or Basque country and attributed to african descent many centuries back.
Ancient I DNA that breaks molecular clock.
Ancient R1B in iberia that proves iberian expansion of (most but not all r1b).
More genes that have neanderthal as ancestral clade.
Hopefully, some neanderthal descended y-DNA or mtDNA.
Ancient Australian y-DNA that is further upstream than A00.

----------


## pyromatic

I'd love to respond to some of the idiocy raised here, but there is no time. The recess bell is sounding, children, time to form a line.

----------


## Noman

Show me some real content to dispute, I am open to any interpretations you have but real data of some kind would be even better.

----------


## nordicwarrior

> ...The wild theorizing is not the science part. Having I be the pre-classic greeks is highly conjectural in the first place. I admit that part right off the bat. The problem is, other parties are making wild conjectures and instead of labeling them as such they come out and say it's absolute fact, and not in some forum discussion they make a huge set of papers and write three books and then a few years later it's all proven wrong and you find out they made up half of it in the first place. So they are not scientists, they are song and dance men...


 Bingo, I agree totally. That leaves us with the hard data we have in front of us: 1. STR and SNP mutations on the Y chromosome that allow for paternal haplogroup mapping of living folks. 2. Same thing for Mtdna results which also gift us with the ability to map groupings of maternal signatures (again of people who are alive today) 3. A minute number of successfully tested ancient remains which anchor a select few hg.'s firmly in space/time. 4. Autosomal results that convey the most overall information, but due to their complexity and limited time on the market are more open to interpretation. This "cloudiness" doesn't completely eliminate their value because we can harvest some verifiable tidbits from autosomal. Soooo, when we stick to the aforementioned facts, we have to conclude that paternal hg.'s I and G were the first into Europe. Now this in no way precludes R1b from having their own sizeable Neanderthal admixture because of course Neanderthal's range was huge and not limited to Europe. And to put a bow on this, conjecture is certainly enjoyable... but if we stray too far from hard fact-- all of the sudden we're seriously debating Bigfoot's penchant for extra spicy beef jerky over the standard, traditional flavor.

----------


## ebAmerican

Noman I don't think you understand how this works (debating or critiquing). We don't need to prove your comments false. You need to prove your comments true. You are making these wide sweeping comments that go against most accepted theories about history. It's very interesting what you are proposing, but everything that you have stated is your opinion only, and nobody is interested in your opinion. They are interested in research that can back up their opinion or disprove it. You stated a claim of 50K year old sites in South America, please include your sources. I'm very interested in alternate theories, but I have very little respect for those who debate without proper reference. If you don't have references, then you need to clearly state that these are unfounded theories, and your opinion only. I don't have time to fact check your statements. It's your responsibility to cover your own theories. Don't misunderstand me I'm not knocking any of your comments (some are interesting), but you need to back them up.

"Now we already know europe is continuously inhabited for as much as 20 million years by human ancestors. We have 10+ million year old fossils of hominids with no teeth that obviously got cared for by their family, a human trait."

Where is your source?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...oneer-Man.html

The oldest known human ancestor fossil in Europe is 1.3 million years old, and possibly more will be found that date to 1.8 million years. This is a far cry from 20 million years or even your 10 million years. Lucy is only 3.2 million years old.

----------


## sparkey

Time for Noman's mathematical disproof of STR and SNP dating! It is:




> The idea of molecular clocks hinge on the giant assumption that they are neutral markers. It's basically a null hypothesis. It's saying all differences in genotypes comes from a series of bottlenecks and founder effects. 
> 
> But the bottleneck HAS to be the ice age, simply has to. Bottlenecks don't happen in an expansion. So you could respond and say that natural selection is at work but AGAIN contradiction. See we already made the harebrained assumption natural selection doesn't affect it (and indeed for whole OoA nonsense to be true it implies there's no natural selection of any kind, it seems like they want to purposely attack random selection.





> Basically the mistake for molecular clock is simple. Imagine a couple homeless guys. You observer them 5 minutes then you project his movements back 2 weeks.
> 
> Problem one is they don't move the same speed all the time, sometimes they don't move at all (bottleneck) and this can last indefintely.
> 
> Problem two is they can move backwards, too. A lot of time they just mill about. (drift)
> 
> Problem three is you happen to be observing them in the middle of a bank robbery. (modern civilization, opposite of bottleneck where it's easy to survive, unprecedented expansion)
> 
> Problem four is that sometimes one of the bums accidentally finds something cool and ALL the bums rush over to the other bum no matter how far away they are(natural selection).
> ...


I can put it more simply than Noman does: An assumption of the molecular clock model is that natural selection of the particular STR values and SNPs being measured does not occur frequently enough among parallel lineages for it to affect calculations. (Ignore the parts above about bottlenecks and founder effects--the model doesn't _assume_ anything about their existence, it only _detects them provided that its assumptions are correct_. Noman is arguing that there are other reasons for the apparent bottlenecks and founder effects that the model seems to be detecting.)

What's more, I can name some other assumptions that the model makes:
The mutation rates being used are accurate (in practice, this assumption has caused the most problems)The mutation rates are static over the course of time being measuredAmount of time per generation has an accurate estimate, and is static (or modeled) 

The question is, do any of these assumptions fail to such a degree as to render the calculations systematically incorrect? I've yet to be convinced that any do. Regarding natural selection in particular: The most highly weighted STRs in these calculations, by far, are the slowest mutating ones. _If_ certain STR values have had advantages in the past (evidence is currently lacking to demonstrate different STR values making major differences in reproduction), the odds of closely-related parallel lineages reaching them at the same time is only as high as the STR mutation rate allows, and we've already said that it's slow. It would also be apparent that totally unrelated lineages from the same place at the same time would converge to those values, and we don't really see that. Add to that the fact that the SNPs that are shared among different lineages only seem to be shared due to the fact that they are unstable, and there's additional confirmation that natural selection does not affect our calculations significantly.




> The thing is you don't need to be a math genius to disprove molecular clock, I just did it. Even the provisio that it's "formed sometime before x" is clue enough it's meaningless. After all this sentences was typed sometime before you read it, no big revelation there.


Uh... calculation of TMRCAs is meaningless because it doesn't calculate clade ages? Why aren't TMRCAs useful on their own? Knowing the approximate TMRCA of I1, for instance, tells a lot about its spread, more than its clade age does, in fact.




> The model is being seen as the thing that proves something, when all it is is the shape of your hypothesis, something that fits the numbers. Now you have to test that hypothesis, but why bother when you can fire anyone who questions it on the grounds they are a racist psudoscientist?


No one is firing anyone here. And I don't think anyone is taking a model as proof of anything. I take it as evidence to be coupled with geographical diversity analysis of phylogenies and, whenever we can get it, ancient DNA. Which, by the way, so far does not corroborate your ideas about Western Europe being dominantly R1b immediately after the Ice Age. Nobody1 has already listed Treilles, Ötzi, and Spain; I would add the LBK samples (Haak 2010: 2x F*, 1x G2a) and La Pierre Fritte (Lacan 2011: 2x I2a1a). Where's the R1b before the Chalcolithic?




> And I was right when it comes to gorillas being closer than chimps, can't tell you how vociferously people argued against that.


No, you weren't, see my response above. Unless you're using a different source? Can't you cite it?

----------


## tjlowery87

welp,so far I haven't read anything that make me think that i1 in northwest Europe isn't from Germanic migration.the title of the thread was about i1.it makes sense if it started in north central Europe then moved north,the snps kind of show that with the cts6364....I think

----------


## Sonnenburg

Hello. K. Nordtvedt map March 2013 shows M253 landing in Pomerania. Is it possible that proto-indoeuropeans Pre-German lets say, 
mixed-fought with I1 and brought about German tribe ? Word -Teuton is related to Lithuanian- Tauta -people.

----------


## Noman

> Noman I don't think you understand how this works (debating or critiquing). We don't need to prove your comments false. You need to prove your comments true.


That's exactly true exacept that since what I have been doing is mostly pointing out where other theories fail.




> You are making these wide sweeping comments that go against most accepted theories about history.


Actually that's not true in the least. Even the pre-classic greek theory is not new in the least. That one is more a possibility than anything.

Multiregionalism was accepted theory a long time. And like I said out of africa is on the way out already. It should have fallen apart completely as soon as the first neanderthal dna was confirmed, but they keep lamely trying to prop it up even though its original proponent has long since denied it.




> It's very interesting what you are proposing, but everything that you have stated is your opinion only, and nobody is interested in your opinion.


Not true in the least, you just have not followed events that well.




> They are interested in research that can back up their opinion or disprove it. You stated a claim of 50K year old sites in South America, please include your sources.


There's more and more all the time that may be 50k+. I suggest you go to google.com. 




> I'm very interested in alternate theories, but I have very little respect for those who debate without proper reference. If you don't have references, then you need to clearly state that these are unfounded theories, and your opinion only.


A simple wikipedia check on R would pull up the knowledge that it's believed to have been heavily involved with the repopulation of eurasia after the ice age. 

Another one would show that it's believed that the C haplogroup originates in India. Meaning that if OoA is true then there was a big migration to india followed by a bunch of migrations out of india including a back migration.

Google could show you a lot about negative blood type.

Google could show you that indeed there's genes with clades with neanderthal or asians as the root. When I say something like "mike hammer et al" that IS a refence. There's a reference right there showing genes that have clade with neanderthal at the root. And it's in the x chrmosome, you could read the wiki on that to learn why that's interesting. Shows strong evidence of selection (supporting multiregionalism) as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvoiPUHfOXI

The end of the video is interesting. He also talks about intermixing of africans with an archaic human about 100k years ago which is very odd if OoA has any validity.

I don't mind to explain myself on specific points, but this kind of general complaint is not helpful. Tell me what you have a problem with and I can elucidate, when it comes to basic facts like early inhabitance of the americas I simply expect anyone who's followed archaeology even halfheartedly to know already. 

This is a forum not a research paper, you are going to have to educate yourself a little too if you are interested in a subject.




> I don't have time to fact check your statements. It's your responsibility to cover your own theories.


I don't have a single new theory.... 

Google first, ask second, comment only when you feel you really know what you are talking about or else have the courtesy to label it speculative, like I did with the pre-classic greek theory. Which is not my own theory it's been a theory that crops up occasionally for hundreds of years. However due to greeks wanting to crush macedonion nationalism I doubt we will ever know for sure. We do know they were not the same as current greeks, their own histories tell us that and so does archaeology. If you want details you will have to actually learn about history and archaeology, it's not some kotaku blurb I read or something.




> Don't misunderstand me I'm not knocking any of your comments (some are interesting), but you need to back them up.


But you should knock them if you can, as I said, that's the idea. But generalized "NO YOU ARE WRONG!" comments are just polemics they are not debate and don't go anywhere. I need specific complaints. The guy before you, nobody's rambling and sparkey's attempts at pedantry don't have any real content.

For example it's unbearably banal to post a link saying what the molecular clock is after someone said they don't think molecular clock has any value. OTOH if he came out and said the reasons I used to invalidate molecular clock are wrong and could give valid reasons it's another story. If he can't, it's invalid, done. 

And those have all been brought up before and ignored completely in papers as well, so that means they have gone into the realm of psuedopscientists simply making up whatever crap they want. That is they have been challenged formally and they have just completely ignored it, so that shows how strong their case is.

Double that with the link to indo europeans by nobody1. Thanks dude! I totally never heard of them that's why I registered to tell you how ridiculous your ramblings about them are! Because I wanted to learn about them and have not been reading every scrap on them for 20 years now.




> "Now we already know europe is continuously inhabited for as much as 20 million years by human ancestors. We have 10+ million year old fossils of hominids with no teeth that obviously got cared for by their family, a human trait."


If you ask in a sensible manner I don't mind to provide a specific source. 

Now OTOH I can't even get someone to give me a straight answer when I demand to know what the haplotypes in europe were before r1b. So who is being unreasonable? Who can't support their theories? I am talking to some people who obviously don't know the very basics because these molecular clocks aren't meant to be used in such a way in the first place and you can go right to wikipedia and see no one knows if bell beaker was indo european or for certain where it came from.

I will gather a few sources for that later when I have more time.




> Where is your source?
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...oneer-Man.html
> 
> The oldest known human ancestor fossil in Europe is 1.3 million years old,


That's not true.




> and possibly more will be found that date to 1.8 million years. This is a far cry from 20 million years or even your 10 million years. Lucy is only 3.2 million years old.


There's no fully human people anywhere more than a million years ago or so. Depending on your definition maybe not until just 200k years ago. But I am guessing as far back as heidelbergensis that they are basically human.

However there's human ancestor fossils in europe and asia going back 50 million years. Furthermore while we are pretty sure some simple tools go back 4 million years in africa there's nothing in africa that can be taken seriously as a human chimp ancestor, what they have been searching for all this time.

First off humans are closer to gorillas anyway, which should be obvious.

http://www.nature.com/news/gorilla-j...e-club-1.10185

About 15% closer. So chances are good you are never going to find a human chimp ancestor by looking for skulls that are under 400 ml and 7 million years old.

Second, there's only ONE possible human chimp ancestor given for africa and many elsewhere, and this ancestor is way too recent, brain is way too small, and the skull is not contiguous with later artifacts that belong to genuine hominids. It might be a chimp ancestor but not human. Forgive me for not searching for the reference but if you don't know about this guy already then frankly you really are out of your depth.

And here we go, an obvious very early human ancestor in europe at 12 million years. It doesn't necessarily mean "into africa" as the article claims. It probably means multiregionalism is the winner, and with all the recent archaeology like this coming up I think it's pretty obviously the case. But I think europe is not central enough and migration oriented theories are frankly very naive and for any species but humans they are generally shot down without consideration (just like something stupid like a human chimp ancestor would be).

I am pretty sure this is the one that had old individuals obviously cared for by the rest of the tribe, also the hands are telling too, good for simple tools like chimps use.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...-european.html


Now we go back 47 million years and here we go! Meet ida. 

http://setiorganization.wordpress.co...l-pit-germany/

This one shows all the signs of being a human ancestor, and has a bit or arboreal features and generally looks like a root ancestor of the whole hominae line.

Ida is significant because unlike a afarensis fossils some still feebly try to link to humans, it has the signs of a proper human foot! This is significant because you generally become more derived from past antecedents, as I mentioned with the gorillas and chimps in passing. Meaning that if one ancestor had a more proper foot for walking upright you don't go backwards then forwards, not when it comes to big things. So if you find a monkey with a hoof, probably it's not a human ancestor. If you find one with a tail it probably diverged way back from human ancestors at Ida, and once it was lost it never came back!

Lucy is not a human ancestor. There's really no evidence of evolution in africa except tools. Homo sapiens shows up fully formed at 160k years. 

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/fossils/ardipithecus

Ardepithecus has more humanlike hands and feet, and it's apparently a knuckledragger like chimps. So again, lucy just looks like a protochimp fossil, not even as advanced as this older fossil which we can reject because it's more complete and so obviously NOT an upright walker. And if we didn't hop skip right from chimp ancestor to human then we should not expect something this recent to be so primitive.

I am trying to find a resource to explain this concept without sending you to college classes because without it you might have trouble realizing what is and isn't possible or anyway likely.

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/...g_fossils.html

Anyway, stephen jay gould is a pseudoscientist hack who tries hard to make the case against natural selection. Since his death he's been outed as an actual fraud (let me refer you to google). Most of what he says is a joke but Hawks in this post applies this least derived-most derived logic as well as the idea of bottlenecks. The lung fish is in a bottleneck because it can't go in deep water due to competition with gill fish, and it can't leave the water (even though its ancestors did just that!) because of competition from those creatures which already did that. If it jumped out of the water it would be eaten by birds, which share the same common ancestor (believe it or not). Similarly you won't get upright walking evolving twice. Anyone suggesting it needs a big rubber mallet to the top of their head.

And there's more to look at to show there's no evidence for human common ancestor with anything in africa, or of any evolution there until very recently. 

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/fossils/...tion-2010.html

So what does this mean? This is significant for a lot of reasons. First off I am not a creationist, but the reason the obsession with chimps has been so big is simple, a desperate attempt to "prove" human eolvution. Which is a silly task because you can't really prove things absolutely with archaeology and people who are operating on faith can't have their faith proved away with logic.

So we look at the malapa "homo erectus" closely and it shows a couple things. First off obviously it's not a human ancestor, second off lucy is not a human ancestor because lucy is even less like a human ancestor than these guys in some ways, and with a close look here it's obvious they are just chimps. 

They have the same brain size, live in the same environment, and eat the exact same diet as chimps, and critically they are knucledraggers. Now this is just how biology works, a move from knuckledragger to upright walker is a big deal and it's almost certainly only going to happen once. Once there's others of a basic type to compete with then you can't really become that type yourself, you are stuck in an evolutionary rut. They are just like the lungfish. They are superficially slightly different from 20 million years ago but not much.

The only reason these guys were exciting is they have smaller face and teeth compared to many primates. But in the meantime we've since found living primates with smaller teeth. That means this superficial characteristic that is a big difference between modern looking more "gracile" and more "robust" or archaic ancestors is not always a good guage of much of anything.

Then we have turkana boy. We heard reports he was 6'2" with a normal human brain size, but it turns out he is 5'3" and has a 600 ml brain. And here's another reason that archaeologists like to compare to chimps and not gorillas. A gorilla can have an 800 ml brain. It doesn't sound all that impressive, since average brain today is something like 1300-1400 and some brains exceed 2000. Because his growth plates are closed we can see he's not going to grow any more, for a chimp growth stops right at 8 years old. So really this is not much more advanced than a chimp.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkana_Boy

So turkana boy is about 1.8 million years if I remember. The interesting thing here is he's right on the border of the levant, like every single modern human fossil recovered in africa. So where'd he come from to get there? If he did evolve right there, why? There's this whole big african continent and an even bigger eurasian continent. He might have been part of our dna legacy because the narrow hips are intriguing. But again, if you look at a gorilla instead of a chimp then a light goes off because guess who has a giant torso in comparison to a human, and very narrow hips?

So the problem here is we can't establish anything with a large brain in africa until fully formed humans show up. OTOH we have large brained neanderthals in europe 300k+ years ago, brains larger than modern humans. 500k years ago we have peking man (the real homo erectus) with brains at 800-100 ml, getting very close to human size, and altogether looking very human.

But only 300k-125k years ago we have some of the most brutish hominids who are human ancestors in africa, looking much less human. This is at the same time that modern humans are known to be in northeast africa! 


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peking_Man

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_rhodesiensis

Compare these two and tell me which look more human. Now remember that the mike hammer et all paper (look at the video if you like, instead) shows admixture with the modern humans around this time with the ancient hominids.

So that looks nothing like out of africa. It's bizarre to me that the out of africa theory doesn't even hinge on any real evidence of a migration, either. They don't say "here's some fossils here and here's some there, look how it seems humans are moving from south to north. Nope! They just looked at some mtDNA clades and saw africans were at the root and went with it, as if one race could give birth to another like mommy and daddy and there's no individuals.

I don't think it started as an afrocentric theory but it's basically clear that it's a very silly one. Like the IE theory I have to wonder if its continued support is some lame European Union funded nonsense to try to make people relinquish any nationalism and not mind all the globalization going on so much. But while it came pretty recently and was accepted fast unfortunately these theories don't die quick once they get accepted.

----------


## Noman

Also keep in mind african americans have half as much negative blood type as european americans and hispanics about the same percentage. Neanderthal is part of virtually all of our heritages aside from a few reference populations of hunter gatherers in africa and it would be a shame to see that continue to be marginalized to such a degree.

Like a redheaded stepchild. Which is fitting as egyptians sacrificed redheads and we know now that comes from neanderthal ancestry. Stop the hate and racism towards the few remaining neanderthal ;)

edit: actually it's a part of EVERYONE's heritage, the percentages we see in papers are the % difference from reference "most african" populations in isolated villages.

----------


## Fire Haired

Most native American R1 is R1b but some do have R1*. R period is orignally Mongliod obvisouly u guys dont understand the human y dna family tree. It is the brother of Q the dominte Native American and central Siberian Y DNa haplogroup. It is also the cousin of N and O N is dominate in north Siberia and Urlaic speakers and O is dominate in east asians.

NOrdic queller about the X2 it has nothing to do with Vikings. That story about red haired giants is intresting but how do u know it is aout Vikings. What percentage of south scandnavians and Danish have red hair like 3%. Also they had iron weapons and their livellyhood was killing i doubt indians with ston weapons could kill them. Unless they were straved and those were their children. If they did take their women they the women would have only about 1% X2 like modern south Scandnavians and Danish so it does not make sense.

Click here it kind of explains native american X2. Their subclades are X2a and X2g the only other people found with X2a are Druze in Isreal not Europeans. X2g is a specfic Native American subclade also studies on it estimated that X2 arrived in north America 15,000ybp!!!!!! It either is from mid east to siberia to north america or mid east to europe to north america. The X2 is Siberia is of diff subclades and probably from recent inter marriage with mid easterns. I doubt they found ancestral forms in Europe either so it is kind of a mystery. I just made a thread about ancient Native American DNA samples. It shocked me they have a 10,300 year old Y DNA sample from British Colombia Canada and it had specifcalley native American Q1a3a1a.

----------


## kamani

> However due to greeks wanting to crush macedonion nationalism I doubt we will ever know for sure. We do know they were not the same as current greeks, their own histories tell us that and so does archaeology. If you want details you will have to actually learn about history and archaeology, it's not some kotaku blurb I read or something.


I think you're getting yourself into some sharky waters with this. What is your view on the Macedonian tribes? How do you tie that to I1?

----------


## Nobody1

> Double that with the link to indo europeans by nobody1. Thanks dude! I totally never heard of them that's why I registered to tell you how ridiculous your ramblings about them are! Because I wanted to learn about them and have not been reading every scrap on them for 20 years now.


Dont Mention it;
If you need any additional information on Kiev - let me know;

----------


## tjlowery87

what is yalls opinion on how i1 got to north west Europe,i think it started in north central Europe,went to Nordic Europe,and then mixed with germanics mostly,and spread from there

----------


## Noman

> Most native American R1 is R1b but some do have R1*. R period is orignally Mongliod obvisouly u guys dont understand the human y dna family tree. It is the brother of Q the dominte Native American and central Siberian Y DNa haplogroup. It is also the cousin of N and O N is dominate in north Siberia and Urlaic speakers and O is dominate in east asians.
> 
> NOrdic queller about the X2 it has nothing to do with Vikings. That story about red haired giants is intresting but how do u know it is aout Vikings. What percentage of south scandnavians and Danish have red hair like 3%. Also they had iron weapons and their livellyhood was killing i doubt indians with ston weapons could kill them. Unless they were straved and those were their children. If they did take their women they the women would have only about 1% X2 like modern south Scandnavians and Danish so it does not make sense.
> 
> Click here it kind of explains native american X2. Their subclades are X2a and X2g the only other people found with X2a are Druze in Isreal not Europeans. X2g is a specfic Native American subclade also studies on it estimated that X2 arrived in north America 15,000ybp!!!!!! It either is from mid east to siberia to north america or mid east to europe to north america. The X2 is Siberia is of diff subclades and probably from recent inter marriage with mid easterns. I doubt they found ancestral forms in Europe either so it is kind of a mystery. I just made a thread about ancient Native American DNA samples. It shocked me they have a 10,300 year old Y DNA sample from British Colombia Canada and it had specifcalley native American Q1a3a1a.


It's more like R is a superset of mongols. Nobody1 and a few others have this idea like something originates one places then moves to a new place but it's been all R for a long time. Obviously since there's r1b in native americans it didn't spring up overnight. Some time before last ice age it was all R and they are probably what were mixing with neanderthals and when ice age bottleneck came it seprated out into several groups of R1b and R1a and they spread out from refugiums. 

Which pretty much has to be for north american r1b and for like a million things I pointed out already. So when it went from r to r1a and r1b isn't too clear but it's pretty clear that the areas r are in today have effectively speaking always been where it was, it's nothing new. It's not a couple lame invasions slaughtering imaginary natives of europe (which were presumably yet some other haplogroup no one will even name).

So it's not me making up some BS I just came in here to point out the eupedia article and some of the people ih here have made up some unsupportable BS that constitutes "original research" and is not even a theory backed by any research.

----------


## nordicwarrior

> ...NOrdic queller about the X2 it has nothing to do with Vikings. That story about red haired giants is intresting but how do u know it is aout Vikings. What percentage of south scandnavians and Danish have red hair like 3%. Also they had iron weapons and their livellyhood was killing i doubt indians with ston weapons could kill them. Unless they were straved and those were their children. If they did take their women they the women would have only about 1% X2 like modern south Scandnavians and Danish so it does not make sense...


 Thank you for mentioning X2 F.H. I'm a proponent of Clovis being brought over by Solutreans, and I have Solutrean's male lineage belonging to proto I1, I2, G, or a combo of these three. X2 in North America is much too old to be linked to the Vikings. I also think both blonde AND red hair have been in Europe for a looonngg time-- mutations causing red hair occupy several loci and this condition really isn't traceable to one haplogroup. P.S. Could you please correct the spelling in your thread title? I bet it would look like we all jumped about twenty collective I.Q. points if you made this happen.

----------


## nordicwarrior

Noman, I thought I answered your question about who was in Europe before R1b very clearly... both paternal hg's I and G. Basically you are claiming that R1b has been in Europe for eons, but where is a single piece of ancient R1b remains? Nowhere. I'm afraid you're dealing in pure fantasy at this point. Show me some proof, at least a tiny shard of it...

----------


## Mikewww

> ...
> I'm saying that the Indo Europeans did NOT bring r1b to europe.
> 
> I'm saying the whole of everything from north africa to anatolia was all r1b not long after ice age. R1A was further north and went perhaps as far as the heart of india today. We have a ton of I dna in indus valley today and lots of historic references to it so this seems the most likely.
> ....


I'm sorry, but I still don't understand your logic.

What do you think R1b could not have come into Europe with Indo-European language speakers?

What is your evidence that the "whole of everything from north africa to anatolia was r1b not long after the ice age" ? I know you think so, but why should we?

----------


## Nobody1

> We have a ton of I dna in indus valley today and lots of historic references to it so this seems the most likely.


Can you provide a source to your tons of _I dna_ in the Indus-Valley?

----------


## Noman

> Noman, I thought I answered your question about who was in Europe before R1b very clearly... both paternal hg's I and G. Basically you are claiming that R1b has been in Europe for eons, but where is a single piece of ancient R1b remains? Nowhere. I'm afraid you're dealing in pure fantasy at this point. Show me some proof, at least a tiny shard of it...


We know G arrived with neolithic farmers who were recent arrivals, so that's out. The Is are mixed with r1b wherever the more ancient type is, so they were likely there, too. We haven't sampled any ancient hunter gatherers and we can't expect to find R or R1b before we do.




> It's not a couple lame invasions slaughtering imaginary natives of europe (which were presumably yet some other haplogroup no one will even name).


One last thing, there's a parallel here between how r1b is viewed and how OoA works. The idea is wholesale migrations lke the jode family packs up its belonging but on a much more massive scale and little trickles here and there. For multiregionism you don't need to have massive migrations and before horse domestication and wheel there's no evidence of that ever happening at all let alone being the norm.

----------


## Ike

> It's more like R is a superset of mongols.


There are stories about Asians and CaucAsians being the sons of Japhets, as there are other theories...


semitic-haplogroup-cf-and-descendants7.jpg

----------


## nordicwarrior

> ...We know G arrived with neolithic farmers who were recent arrivals, so that's out. The Is are mixed with r1b wherever the more ancient type is, so they were likely there, too. We haven't sampled any ancient hunter gatherers and we can't expect to find R or R1b before we do...


 That's it? That's your proof? I can't even figure out if you meant "the more ancient type" would belong to I or R (pronoun overload). Well my friend, you've built yourself a beautiful house of cards. Don't spend to much on the furnishings...

----------


## Nobody1

> That's it? That's your proof? I can't even figure out if you meant "the more ancient type" would belong to I or R (pronoun overload). Well my friend, you've built yourself a beautiful house of cards. Don't spend to much on the furnishings because a light wind will topple it right over...


Proof ? who needs Proof ?
If Noman says so than thats proof enough - no attached sources needed;
got that Mr. NOrdic queller ?

----------


## Noman

> That's it? That's your proof? I can't even figure out if you meant "the more ancient type" would belong to I or R (pronoun overload). Well my friend, you've built yourself a beautiful house of cards. Don't spend to much on the furnishings...


What's it for what?

I have written a couple novels here at this point. Obviously r1b radiated out of iberia right after ice age. The reason I asked the question about what's supposed to be there, I already explained. It's because it shows the molecular clock is BS. So if (as wikipedia says) R is responsible for resettling eurasia, it would have been full of R at some point, and since then (during an expansion) it magically turned into r1b. But the molecular clock depends on the assumption there's no selection at work, and without selection that would not happen in an expansion. 

Therefore the molecular clock assumption is wrong, and therefore the previous theory before the stupid clock estimate comes back, that r1b radiated out of iberia right after the ice age (and probably other places as well).

See the point now? The whole point is that the molecular clock estimate is wrong, makes no sense, is an impossibility. Since that's the only reason anyone said r1b didn't exist at beginning of ice age we can ditch this nonsense and get back to planet earth, reality.

So yeah, that's it, that's "all". Nothing more is needed to show this is possible. The proof obviously, is hunter gatherer DNA, which I am sure will eventually come about.

----------


## nordicwarrior

I don't buy into the molecular clock either. It can give us clues to ages, but it's not firm enough to hang a hat on-- not yet anyway. If your theory is correct, Europe should be littered with R1b remains. And it ain't.

----------


## nordicwarrior

What honks me off about Noman's fantasy is that there's a cabal of ultra-elite Celto R1b insiders following this same script. If and when the crews from the University of Edinburgh or the boys from Stanford find a "mysteriously" well-preserved 60,000 year old R1b fellow wrapped in corn husks on the Isle of Man-- I'm going to sit tight and wait for Svante Paabo and/or the scientist from Max Planck to weigh in and maybe dig a little deeper. Yeah, I said it. The politics and ego involved in y-DNA is humorous, sad, frustrating... all of the above.

----------


## nordicwarrior

**EDIT** Actually 60,000 years would be a bit too much and would collapse the whole Out of Africa concept. Let me adjust that to 30,000 years. Oh, and let's put him somewhere in frozen Scandinavia because I1 in the Nordic countries really seems to bother my Celtic cousins.

----------


## Noman

We haven't tested anything but the neolithic farmers that were doing their best to murder off all the hunter gatherers. It is in fact full of remains that might belong to r1b like from under stonehenge and a few similar sites. However no one bothers to test them, like I said.

In fact we only have results of a total of something like 50 neolithic people tested from all of europe, unless I have missed a lot somewhere. So it's a little early to call it a day.




> What honks me off about Noman's fantasy is that there's a cabal of ultra-elite Celto R1b insiders following this same script. If and when the crews from the University of Edinburgh or the boys from Stanford find a "mysteriously" well-preserved 60,000 year old R1b fellow wrapped in corn husks on the Isle of Man-- I'm going to sit tight and wait for Svante Paabo and/or the scientist from Max Planck to weigh in and maybe dig a little deeper. Yeah, I said it. The politics and ego involved in y-DNA is humorous, sad, frustrating... all of the above.


Well if it makes you feel better I came to the conclusion on my own and am most probably not r1b (I will find out once full sequencing is cheap enough to justify doing it out of mere curiosity). I don't think 60k is needed or even 20k. Just find someone in Iberia at 5000 BC and we can put this this whole outside invasion crap on the garbage heap. The one where europe is practically speaking repopulated in the 500 years between the rise of the wheel and the beginning of recorded history. Who knows maybe I will have neadnerthal y-dna but most probably something of no excitement whatsoever.

And true if the wrong people find it, it could be suspect. That is why people poo poo everything to come out of china, but honestly very little of it comes from actual chinese people and most of it was from before the China Strong! talk of the last decade or so.

----------


## Tabaccus Maximus

First of all, whatever presence R1 has in Native American populations is probably in all actuality, R1b. It's not inconcievable that R1 came to America via some other mode than solely Western European and therefore upstream varieties or non-typical WE varities, like from West African slaves or people from the Med Sea.

The Spanish probably brought a wealth of R diversity given their own history and the more recent history leading up to 1496 when the Moors were finally expelled from Granada.

Also, people often forget that in the early days of Jamestown there were Armenians/Iranian/Turks and Pols. They were brought for the silk industry, or lack of, and disappeared into the population with racoon hats and one eyed dogs. Some of the first Spanish Floridians were Greek. That's the other history of the United States. 
In essence, there is a high bar to leap to prove that any R1 exists in low frequency in the pre-Columbian Americas.

Having said that, if proven true, it would be sensational.

----------


## Sile

> welp,so far I haven't read anything that make me think that i1 in northwest Europe isn't from Germanic migration.the title of the thread was about i1.it makes sense if it started in north central Europe then moved north,the snps kind of show that with the cts6364....I think


listen, I do not know why yourself and others deny about the existence of Baltic tribes/peoples. But logic dictates the area in question was neither Germanic nor Slavic. it was middle bronze-age period.
Below is a further article on I1 in old-prussia

Blue is question and red is reply by Ken

Hi Ken,

Up until now I have believed that I1 held a strong correlation with the 
Nordic Bronze Age culture (before the Indo Europeans came) and that 
significant numbers moved south into Germany and Poland giving rise to some 
of the older clades we see there today. You are suggesting the opposite 
approach is true where I1 groups from Germany and Poland moved north into 
Jutland and beyond. My "Out of Jutland" observations are based on the fact 
that there seem to be as many CTS6364* in Scandinavia as on the more densely 
populated Old Prussia area and that modern Jutland appears to hold the most 
I1 diversity. I realize too, that some of the older clades also have an 
eastern bias like M227 and my own Z63 but that could be explained by 
migrations in later times, no? Perhaps counter to your Prussian origin, we 
have those DF29- folks that, although few, seem to have a more western axis 
in Britain and the Low Countries with a Czech family in the mix. So my 
question is what gives you the !
impression that the sequence is that Jutland was populated in significant 
numbers second and the continent first if CTS6364* people seem to exist in 
both and given diversity seems greater near Jutland than today's Pomerania? 
For instance, do the CTS6364* Continentals appear more distantly related to 
the CTS6364* Scandinavian. We all know you have vast knowledge on this 
topic, but just want to know more.

Thanks
Paul

[[CTS6364+ is the gateway to both L22+ and a portion of L22- which includes 
a couple more easterly Europe clades as well as an eastern Scandinavian 
(Finn/Swede) clade. And the generic CTS6364+ L22- includes a robust cluster 
from the ancient Old Prussia territory. The early clades of L22+ which are 
Z74- show a transitional geographic territory which is not decisively 
Scandinavian. And then throwing in the demographically robust Z63+ 
population with its eastern tendencies relative to Z58+ I1, and then 
checking out the temporal order of the nodes to all these divisions of I1, 
it leads me to think the earliest I1 populations which started to flourish 
only about 4500 years ago were more easterly than Holstein area. More like 
Pomerania or Prussia. But I don't think we can bet the ranch on any of 
these scenarios yet.

Scandinavia probably was populated by multiple migrations, bringing 
different types of I1 as well as other haplogroups at different times into 
Scandinavia. And Jutland being one of the links, its diversity if unusually 
large which I don't really know is the case, could very well be explained by 
its location as compared to deep Scandinavia which is more like a 
geographical cul de sac. Denmark actually is quite sparse in representing 
the deep Scandinavian clades; I think there was negligible " back migration" 
from Sweden or Norway.

The deep-in-Scandinavia clades and subhaplogroups of I1 L22+ are later 
(Z74+) branch lines of the tree, and are the best bets for founders having 
lived solidly up in Scandinavia. These populations also show younger 
tmrcas.

Only in old familiar Europe with all its boundaries and present day 
"countries" or cantons of the EU would we be "debating" Jutland versus 
Holstein versus Pomerania as a place of origin 4500 years ago. How few 
hours could one drive from one end to the other of this small region? KN]]


See:
"Tree for I1xL22xZ58"
"Tree for I1 Z58+ Z60-"
"Tree for I1 Z60+"
"Tree for I1 L22+"
"Tree for M223 x Z161"
"Tree for M223+ Z161+"
"Tree and Map for haplogroup I"
"The I1 modalities"
"The M223+ Modalities"


at http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net

----------


## nordicwarrior

> ...In fact we only have results of a total of something like 50 neolithic people tested from all of europe, unless I have missed a lot somewhere. So it's a little early to call it a day...


 So you're 0 for 50. At least you've got spunk-- or maybe a hard head? And about this Neolithic farmer massacre, look at any color coded European haplogroup map and glance over hg. I vs. hg G (or hg. E or J). That comment is pure nonsense.

----------


## Noman

> So you're 0 for 50. At least you've got spunk-- or maybe a hard head? And about this Neolithic farmer massacre, look at any color coded European haplogroup map and glance over hg. I vs. hg G (or hg. E or J). That comment is pure nonsense.


It's like looking for russian fishermen at 50 german dentist's offices and giving up because you didn't find any, or rather looking at 50 people in 3 german dentist's offices and only two are russian fishermen.

http://hauridna.com/haplogroups/haplogroup-g/

Sources seem to agree that g comes out of caucas or anatolia. Now the etruscans were probably mostly G and they believed they came from anatolia, and their cattle has anatolian DNA.

They are spread pretty thin to start with which is why they have more or less disappeared in modern times.

Among those neolithic farmers (most all of them come from one site in france where we expected to find G) there's a handful of I, maybe 10%. There's also a handful of I in ever single area that didn't become part of the bell beaker megaculture. And right by all the megalithic sites. This implies that the I were generally spread into the r1b HG and to the neolithic farmers who were in scattered communities and not ever the majority.

We basically know that the G ane e1b came in around neolithic time and introduced farming. 

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2008/05...e-studies.html

If there's any other studies let me know but here's a rundown on what we have.

Neolithic *Linearbandkeramik* from Derenburg [2 F*(xG,H,I,J,K), 1 G2a3] (5,500–4,900 cal B.C)

Neolithic *Spain* [5 G2a, 1 E-V13] (5000 BC)

Neolithic *Ötzi* from the Alps [G2a4] (3300 BC)
Prehistoric South *Siberians* from Krasnoyarsk and here [10 R1a1, 1 C(xC3)]

Neolithic *southwestern France* from Treilles [20 G2a, 2 I2a] (3000 BC)
Neolithic *Megalithic France* from la Pierre Fritte [2 I2a1]
Neolithic Bell Beaker from *Kromsdorf* Germany [2 R1b] (2800-200 BC)
Bronze Age from *Tarim basin* in Xiaohe [7 R1a1a]
Eneolithic Corded Ware *Germans* [3 related R1a]

Bronze Age Lichtenstein Cave in *Germany* [estimated presence I1b2*, R1a1, R1b1c] (2000 BC)

Ancient *Mongolian* Xiongnu [1 R1a1]
Aboriginals from *Canary Islands* [E-M78, E-M81, J-M267, E-M33, I-M170, K-M9, P-M45, R-M269] (200 BC-500 AD)
Late Antique *Basques* [4 I, 2 R1b3d, 19 R1(xR1a1), 2 R-M173] (600-700 AD)
Late Antique Imperial Roman from *Bavaria* [2 R1b, 2 I1, 2 E1b1b, 2 I1/G2a] (700 AD)
Medieval *Germans* from Ergolding, Bavaria, Germany [4 R1b (two siblings), 2 G2a] (700 AD)

Medieval *Germans (?)* from Usedom, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany [E1b1b, R1a1a7]

Medieval *Swedes* from Stockholm [2 I1, probably related]





So far as I know that's all the DNA remotely relavent and then some.

First off we see tons of r1a, looks like it's been all over the place and then some. If anything it's lost some ground not been gaining (which unlike what some say is what we should expect to see). 

Then we see that r1b is all over, too.

The only standouts are at one study in france we didn't expect to find any r1b anyway, which accounts for 22 of the less than 50 neolithics we have tested, and one in spain where we would hope to find r1b but didn't. Then we get 2/2 r1b in bell beaker 5k years ago. So when you put it in those terms it's not as bad as it sounds especially since everything in BC times is full of r1b. Especially since again, the DNA found with the other two sites is associated with the inland route of farming. Spain is at least as concerned about nationalism as greece, and in all likelihood will be splintering apart, so no surprise they choose a safe bet. I am guessing if they find/choose more HG and nomad sites they will get more r1b, but aside from site selection I believe they are hard to find as well.

Now since you were humorously talking of elite edinburgh r1bs, think of who many of the Gs are. They are the ones deciding who gets funded in the first place. They could care less about finding filthy commoner DNA and if anything would rather none is found so as not to give anyone the idea that they had some kind of claim to their own land.

----------


## Noman

And also another r1b in lichtenstein forgot that one, 2000bc. So so far half the sites have r1b. Two out of four sites. And we shouldn't expect to find r1b in the inland route farmers. So picture is not that grim. Also there is r1b around time of christ in the canaries so it's hard to see how it's there and in maykop or wherever it's supposed to be coming into existence at the same time unless it was ubiquitous at some point.

Just give one berber with r1b at 1000 bc or sooner and it's sewn up. BTW let's not forget tuetenkhaman was r1b. They also sacrified redheads, which had to come from somewhere.

I'd like to see some trojan dna, too. If we have an ancient berber, a trojan and a pharoh as r1b then it's been ubiquitous in eurasia since pretty much forever.

Dieneke also has a comment that would do well for some of the sillier pedantics out there:




> This highlights the need to avoid Y-STR based calculations on modern populations for inferring patterns of ancient history, and not to conflate TMRCAs with "dates of arrival": _"In short: a particular TMRCA is consistent with either the arrival of the lineage long before and long after the TMRCA in a particular geographical area."_


It's a quote of him quoting the paper. Basically don't take these stupid clock estimates seriously.

----------


## Noman

> First of all, whatever presence R1 has in Native American populations is probably in all actuality, R1b. It's not inconcievable that R1 came to America via some other mode than solely Western European and therefore upstream varieties or non-typical WE varities, like from West African slaves or people from the Med Sea.
> 
> The Spanish probably brought a wealth of R diversity given their own history and the more recent history leading up to 1496 when the Moors were finally expelled from Granada.
> 
> Also, people often forget that in the early days of Jamestown there were Armenians/Iranian/Turks and Pols. They were brought for the silk industry, or lack of, and disappeared into the population with racoon hats and one eyed dogs. Some of the first Spanish Floridians were Greek. That's the other history of the United States. 
> In essence, there is a high bar to leap to prove that any R1 exists in low frequency in the pre-Columbian Americas.
> 
> Having said that, if proven true, it would be sensational.


This is old news I just forgot about it. But many tribes came across not all that long ago. There's even I found in south america tribes that we're pretty sure are untouched.

----------


## nordicwarrior

So the earliest R1b is Neolithic Bell Beaker Kromsdorf... at 2800B.C.-- kind of what the standard models would tell us, right? You should review Maciamo's list of royalty (with associated haplogroups) before making the statement that hg. G offspring are European shot-callers. Maybe a few hundred years ago... the Western World has been under the thumb of a very limited R1b clan for some time now. Plus I love how you say "sources seem to agree"... since when do you ever pay attention to sources? :)

----------


## sparkey

> First off humans are closer to gorillas anyway, which should be obvious.
> 
> http://www.nature.com/news/gorilla-j...e-club-1.10185
> 
> About 15% closer.


I finally got a source on Noman's claim that humans are closer to gorillas than to chimps! And... it's a _Nature_ article on Scally 2012, as I suspected. You know, Scally 2012, the study that showed that 15% of the human genome is closer to gorillas, _and the rest is closer to chimps_.

Noman, that result doesn't mean what you think it does.

----------


## Nobody1

> Also there is r1b around time of christ in the canaries so it's hard to see how it's there and in maykop or wherever it's supposed to be coming into existence at the same time unless it was ubiquitous at some point.


the study actually clearly states:

_The origin and prevalence of the prehispanic settlers of the Canary Islands has attracted great multidisciplinary interest. However, direct ancient DNA genetic studies on indigenous and historical 17th-18th century remains, using mitochondrial DNA as a female marker, have only recently been possible. In the present work, the analysis of Y-chromosome polymorphisms in the same samples, has shed light on the way the European colonization affected male and female Canary Island indigenous genetic pools, from the conquest to present-day times._

Didnt know Jesus was still alive 300-400 years ago;





> So when you put it in those terms it's not as bad as it sounds especially since everything in BC times is full of r1b.


Those "BC times" is the Chalcolithic (or Eneolithic) and therefore it looks very bad and grim concerning your wild claims since the Chalcolithic (BC) occurs* after* the Neolithic (BC); 

But dont bother about a documented time-line; your theories arent about factual history anyways;


PS: Most of those studies you have compiled from Dienekies were already posted by Me [post #116] and Sparkey [post #125]
And None prove your point; maybe post them again on page 8; but i doubt things will change on page 8 as well;

----------


## Noman

> So the earliest R1b is Neolithic Bell Beaker Kromsdorf... at 2800B.C.-- kind of what the standard models would tell us, right?


I can see this is pointless arguing with you.

If we get some bell beaker in the south with a large sample that are all I and get some r1b in far east then that's what I expect to see to confirm the crazy invisible migration theory.

Otherwise, no, that's exactly what I expect to prove my case. But to really prove it would take some iberian r1b as well, bonus points for an ancient berber or anatolian. Since nobody has tested/found any southern bell beaker bones then no conclusion can be drawn there. But if r1b is really so recent there must be a heck of a story behind it to account for all the places its spread that are unnacountable in historic time and unrelated to IE language.




> You should review Maciamo's list of royalty (with associated haplogroups) before making the statement that hg. G offspring are European shot-callers. Maybe a few hundred years ago... the Western World has been under the thumb of a very limited R1b clan for some time now. Plus I love how you say "sources seem to agree"... since when do you ever pay attention to sources? :)


 I pay attention to sources a lot more than you obviously, if you don't know that. Sometimes I do reject them, especially if they are not archaeologists and come to a conclusion I know is impossible on those grounds, or make a basic logic error as is often the case. You also didn't know of these studies all of which I have followed closely or you would not say 0/50 flippantly like that.

I have seen that thread maybe a year ago. I also saw maseiamo state in another thread there's no known dna for any medieval kings.

However he capetian line is all G. If you know geneology you could infer quite a few others are G as well from that.

If it turns out habsburgs are r1b then sure that's the case but if so it's a pretty new development, and unless that is the case then I have to call shenanigans, not true. And I don't expect the freakish melonheads and jutting chins of the habsburgs to turn out to be r1b, though anything is possible. By looks I'd say E1b or G but it's hard to say.

edit:looks like they found a few more r1b but they are all relatively recent and not the ones I'd really be interested in, whether for historic times or because they run anything today.

----------


## sparkey

Noman, do you accept my debunking of your claim that humans are closer to gorillas than to chimps? Failing to do so will say a lot about your personality and motives.

----------


## Noman

> Noman, do you accept my debunking of your claim that humans are closer to gorillas than to chimps? Failing to do so will say a lot about your personality and motives.


I haven't read anything you've said for several posts, just like nobody1. Sorry but I don't care about the opinion of people who sit there and call me an idiot and show they don't have basic manners, and who can't debate using logic instead of polemics. Especially if they then abuse their mod authority to give me an infraction for doing the same in a more polite manner. Now if you gave an infraction to all those people then I applaud your hoesty, but I know you didn't. 

You show yourself out as a petty emotional being deviod of logic like most of humanity. That's 'what kind of person' you are.

Science is not the same as scholarship and you have already shown you don't know what scientific method is about so frankly nothing you say has any value whatsoever. 

But no I would not accept anyone saying that without some actual data behind it, not just genetic but archaeological as well. Even if you were to somehow make an infallible case that human-chimp ancestor exists which is more modern than a human-gorilla ancestor the only human chimp ancestor as recent as 7 million years, the only one in africa, is extremely sketchy. Probably even sketchier than the idea that homo sapiens evolved primarily from rhodiensis which for the reasons I stated and more, I see as absolutely busted.

If you knew the history of where the 7 million years figure came from then you'd realize both what crap molecular clock is and what crap the idea that this fossil is a human chimp ancestor is. I expect to see it at more like 20 million years. Just like ebamerican you have just stumbled on this crap recently, now you put 20 minutes of thought into it and think you will debunk the guy that has been saying this would be the result for something like 20 years now.

When you manage to make serious predictions on your own and not parrot stuff you heard from others, then maybe I will listen to something you have to say.

In ten years you will be telling some guy how you knew all along humans were closer to chimps, and the next clown like you will be telling me how stupid I am for the next theory I have. I know because I can been through this cycle my whole life, over and over and over like the twilight zone.

In short I am happy with what I wrote towards ebamerican, and it took me a long time, and I don't really care about your opinion. So, you can like it or lump it. The IE dispute is a different story, I think the article on eupedia should be labeling "r1b genoicide of indigenous peoples, as told by the European Union ministry of propaganda" and I don't think it follows any accepted pattern of how IE language spread. I don't doubt migrations took place but certainly not in this crazy manner, and indeed the studies on r1a show r1a has been right where it is for some time now, which I expect will eventually be shown for r1b.

So people can choose at this point which they think makes more sense, and obviously you and nobody1 are far in one camp and I am in another. People like nordicquarreler don't agree but obviously have some sense and can entertain new ideas but after a certain point there's no reason to hash over the same spartan data set in hopes of making a point. Perhaps some other people reading along may find my thoughts interesting and use them as a starting point for their own theories.

----------


## nordicwarrior

F.H., I don't always agree with your viewpoints, but I'd like to take this time to let you know that your effort to improve grammar, spelling, sentence structure, etc. have gone a long way toward making you a novice scholar here on Eupedia. You have a logical approach and your knowledge of historical tribes is impressive for someone your age. I think your intellect has been sharpened by participating in these threads... like a knife that's been cared for by a skilled chef. Noman, I feel like I'm talking to a hammer during our exchanges. No offense sir, but you aren't that much smarter than the average bear-- although you talked a good game initially. Come to the table with some solid evidence and you might find a warm reception. Until then, maybe chill out, read some more posts, do deeper research, and work on having some humility. Rant off.

----------


## nordicwarrior

P.S. I hope you're not a Turling test F.H.! I forget who said that the other day, but I must admit I did a goofy guffaw when I read that comment... please tell me I wasn't duped. Either way, that shows either your impressive progress or some amazing programming ability.

----------


## sparkey

Was it too predictable that Noman would reject such a straightforward debunking? This guy can't admit a single mistake, like referencing an article that says that humans and chimps are more closely related than either is to gorillas, and saying that it says that humans are more closely related to gorillas. 




> I haven't read anything you've said for several posts, just like nobody1. Sorry but I don't care about the opinion of people who sit there and call me an idiot and show they don't have basic manners, and who can't debate using logic instead of polemics.


Projection much? I've never called you an idiot, while you called me austistic. 




> Especially if they then abuse their mod authority to give me an infraction for doing the same in a more polite manner. Now if you gave an infraction to all those people then I applaud your hoesty, but I know you didn't. You show yourself out as a petty emotional being deviod of logic like most of humanity.


I'll quote what you posted that I gave an infraction to, and I'll let others decide if I'm abusing my mod authority:




> ...everyone from outside western civilization... lies about everything to rewrite history to make their mudhole look like it's the center of civilization. 
> 
> Everyone in europe proper is an argumentative, anal retentive know-it-all character....


If you find anyone else making these sorts of broad insults, let me know.




> But no I would not accept anyone saying that without some actual data behind it, not just genetic but archaeological as well.


So you're rejecting your own source? This is rich.  :Laughing:

----------


## nordicwarrior

Listen Noman, I read your last post fully and I think I was a tad harsh on you. You do have at least two very compelling points... 1. R1b has as at least as much Neanderthal as hg. G and I do (although I think they picked it up in the Russian Steppes or somewhere much further East than Europe) 2. The human to chimp/ape gap doesn't feel right to many of us (including the "big boys"). It doesn't even matter that much if chimp or ape is closer to us... the lab coats are majorly missing something for the massive amount of human evolution to have happened SO very quickly. And yes they do know this. Does FoxP2 mutate faster than any other known segment (and does it cause secondary mutations)? Was the rocket of homo sapien advancement caused by magic mushrooms? (I've heard this discussed by serious scientists). Hybrid theory? Little green men? Something important happened on our rock and it happened FAST. So any way, we have some sharp elbows on this site, but all of us are after the same thing... the truth. Help us find it.

----------


## Noman

Sorry guys I would not have said anything and was planning to ignore him and nobody1 from here on out already but I noticed that hateful little post talking about 'what kind of person you are'. 

If you think you have made a logical case for your position you have no need for any of that nonsense, or for the approval of others sharing your opinion for that matter.

----------


## nordicwarrior

Group hug. The irony surrounding the whole lack of Paleolithic R1b discussion is this... where is the ancient I1 in Europe??? The oldest found (according to my limited knowledge anyway) is about 350A.D.-550A.D., yes that's A.D. I have discussed numerous reasons for the dearth of I1 in Europe, (most involve an intense connection of I1 to water travel/kayak/sailing/etc.) so I guess it's a party foul for me to demand R1b proof when I can't produce it either. All that said, I think Maciamo's R1b clade map shows the most realistic progressions for what we know now. Side note: I'm well aware of the 50,000 year old sites in South America. continued...

----------


## nordicwarrior

And what's weird is that I watched a fantastic video about a year ago where an American female archeologist talked all about her discovery of REALLY old remains (I think she might have carbon dated the surrounding layer at 200,000 years ago) maybe it was 50,000 though-- either way it would shatter all current models because they we're talking New World peoples. Anyway she couldn't believe the data, she re-tested and re-tested and looked for any thing to pull off the dates and couldn't do it. She stuck to her guns and it cost her career. She was extremely credible and now it seems scrubbed from google and the other engines. Anyone have any info. about her? The fact that it seems scrubbed weirds me out more than the discovery itself.

----------


## sparkey

> The irony surrounding the whole lack of Paleolithic R1b discussion is this... where is the ancient I1 in Europe??? The oldest found (according to my limited knowledge anyway) is about 350A.D.-550A.D., yes that's A.D. I have discussed numerous reasons for the dearth of I1 in Europe, (most involve an intense connection of I1 to water travel/kayak/sailing/etc.) so I guess it's a party foul for me to demand R1b proof when I can't produce it either.


It depends on exactly what you're proposing about I1. The expectations of the ancient DNA are different if we're proposing something different about I1 than Paleolithic R1b proponents are proposing about R1b.

Those who say that R1b has been the dominant haplogroup in Western Europe since the end of the Ice Age are contradicted by the lack of R1b in Europe before the Chalcolithic. Even with the small number of ancient samples, it has gotten so severe already that the only way to explain it away now is to say that the samples systematically excluded populations that were likely to be R1b. That, though, seems unlikely, since the existence of I2a1a in the Neolithic samples shows that hunter-gather populations joined the Neolithic farmers to some degree, and it doesn't make much sense to suggest that populations who _didn't_ take up farming ended up the largest after the Neolithic.

On the other hand, "conventional" predictions about I1 suggest that it was a minority North/Central European haplogroup that didn't really expand until toward the end of the Neolithic. If that's true, then we should expect it to be present in North/Central Europe during the Neolithic, but in very small amounts that are not all that likely to show up in the limited samples we have. The Danish samples that are supposed to come out at some point offer some promise, but even they're not a slam dunk.

If, however, we say that I1 was widespread in Europe by the beginning of the Neolithic, as Fire Haired does_, then_ we have a problem.

----------


## nordicwarrior

> It depends on exactly what you're proposing about I1. The expectations of the ancient DNA are different if we're proposing something different about I1 than Paleolithic R1b proponents are proposing about R1b.
> 
> Those who say that R1b has been the dominant haplogroup in Western Europe since the end of the Ice Age are contradicted by the lack of R1b in Europe before the Chalcolithic. Even with the small number of ancient samples, it has gotten so severe already that the only way to explain it away now is to say that the samples systematically excluded populations that were likely to be R1b. That, though, seems unlikely, since the existence of I2a1a in the Neolithic samples shows that hunter-gather populations joined the Neolithic farmers to some degree, and it doesn't make much sense to suggest that populations who _didn't_ take up farming ended up the largest after the Neolithic.
> 
> On the other hand, "conventional" predictions about I1 suggest that it was a minority North/Central European haplogroup that didn't really expand until toward the end of the Neolithic. If that's true, then we should expect it to be present in North/Central Europe during the Neolithic, but in very small amounts that are not all that likely to show up in the limited samples we have. The Danish samples that are supposed to come out at some point offer some promise, but even they're not a slam dunk.
> 
> If, however, we say that I1 was widespread in Europe by the beginning of the Neolithic, as Fire Haired does_, then_ we have a problem.


 Fantastic summary-- I agree 100%. That's why you the man.

----------


## Noman

> Group hug. The irony surrounding the whole lack of Paleolithic R1b discussion is this... where is the ancient I1 in Europe??? The oldest found (according to my limited knowledge anyway) is about 350A.D.-550A.D., yes that's A.D. I have discussed numerous reasons for the dearth of I1 in Europe, (most involve an intense connection of I1 to water travel/kayak/sailing/etc.) so I guess it's a party foul for me to demand R1b proof when I can't produce it either. All that said, I think Maciamo's R1b clade map shows the most realistic progressions for what we know now. Side note: I'm well aware of the 50,000 year old sites in South America. continued...


Along with the Gs in the study, in france, are also a few Is. And the time of that was what, 3000 BC?

If I am going to be intellectually honest, that is the best argument that there's no r1b back then. I don't expect to find R1B or R* with the Gs but the fact is we did find some Is nearby which we also might expect to remain separate. But this could also mean the Is were more settled by then and the Rs still more like wandering hunter gatherers, or just that the Is were more towards that area and maybe r1bs were starting to integrate in other areas.

But this is all going off of 4 studies, none of which are as far back as we'd like and only one studying the populations we really care about the most for the sake of resolving the issue.

----------


## nordicwarrior

> Along with the Gs in the study, in france, are also a few Is. And the time of that was what, 3000 BC?..


 Correct. I was specifically talking about I1 though rather than hg. I as a whole... I don't know of any found I1 found in Europe that can date earlier than 300A.D. I think we can all agree that we need more studies... maybe we will hear an update from the digs in Denmark soon.

----------


## Noman

There are two I1 finds I linked to as well, I think. One was about 2000 BC.

So enough I finds and I'll will have to call it a day, but I am not ready to give up hope yet, not til we see some iberian bell beaker at the least.

----------


## nordicwarrior

> There are two I1 finds I linked to as well, I think. One was about 2000 BC.
> 
> So enough I finds and I'll will have to call it a day, but I am not ready to give up hope yet, not til we see some iberian bell beaker at the least.


 Wow, you're not kidding. I am amazed that I somehow missed this sample (probably doesn't help that I can't read German and this is from a PhD thesis written in that language.) Anyway, this pushes my personal knowledge of I1 in Europe back 2,300 years in one swoop. Cool. Very, very cool.

----------


## Fire Haired

wait nordicquarrler are u saying. Noman has a source from a Germn phd theiss paer saying ther was a I1 sample from 2,000bc aka 4,000ybp. Also i herad nothing of that I1 sample from 300-400d ancient Eurasian dna i thought showed all ancient dna frm euraisa. But i found out that they did not update on alot of y dna found in china some samples are 6,000 years old click here to see it. Click It is talking about New porjects which except to have 100-150 y dna, mtdna(full mtdan genomes), and ust dn from 4,000-5,000 year old north eur nd centrl euro bronze ge skelotons i think they are all from corded ware culture. Also they mention a project says they except to get a full genome of a bunch of neloithic danish and a 7,000 year old dnaish hunter gather.

Look at this quote from the article



> This data will be compared against both published and unpublished ancient datasets and with modern datasets


It says unpublished ancient dna databases meaning they dont make public all of the dna they find. click here there was a project by germans on Yamna culture DNA, Catcomb culture, and i think Sycthians. It was started two years ago and they first mentioned a idea of their results in june 2013. All they said about 5,000 nd 6,000 year old yamna smples in southern ukrine and russia is there where no Mongliod mtdna haplogroups found they had pale skin dark eyes. Also that they were very unrelated to catcomb and 3,000 year od sythian remains in tagar russia. They also said they had 6 y dna samples from kurgens but for some reason even two months later wont make them public. They have obviously tons of y dna and mtdna but wont make it public.

This is kind of annoying that there is probably alot of ancient dna that is not public. Why are they not making them public what hurt does it do. Plus it seems these dna projects get he results and don't release them for another year or so. Also they dont update on how they are doing with getting the dna.

----------


## Nobody1

> wait nordicquarrler are u saying. Noman has a source from a Germn phd theiss paer saying ther was a I1 sample from 2,000bc aka 4,000ybp.


Of course he doesnt;
Its 1000-700 BC; his own source even states 3000 years ago 
_"This was apparently a Bronze Age (3000 years ago) family burial site"_
and he calculates 2000 BC - a classical Noman;

_Göttingen University_ (2006) - *p.12*
http://www.genebaze.cz/res/LC/LC.pdf
also clearly states *1000-700 BC* *- Urnfield* _Bronze-age_ [Unstrut-Gruppe]

---

Im not too sure about that (maybe Sparkey knows more) but from what i have read so far the I1 app. turned into I2b2(L38)
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.co...-05/1211058850

Def. needs to be double-checked;

----------


## nordicwarrior

There's a lot to chew on in these last few comments. It looks like the Lichtenstein Cave find was I1b in 2008 but this branch was reclassified as I2 according to ISOGG 2013, so I guess ancient I1 (I-M253) remains a mystery. F.H. your finds have some interesting implications... especially the Eurogenes blog referencing high amounts of hg. N and R1a in China (and even a K* sample). That is wild stuff. I hadn't seen the Ancestral Journeys listing before either-- that a nice, easy to use format to check dates. Also...

----------


## nordicwarrior

A neighboring thread on Eurogenes touched on the "Ancient Admixture in Human History" study (by Patterson et al) that if I'm reading correctly, bolters the Solutreans contribution to the New World. Sparkey did you happen to see this report? If so, what is your opinion on this one?

----------


## pyromatic

> Of course he doesnt;
> Its 1000-700 BC; his own source even states 3000 years ago 
> _"This was apparently a Bronze Age (3000 years ago) family burial site"_
> and he calculates 2000 BC - a classical Noman;
> 
> _Göttingen University_ (2006) - *p.12*
> http://www.genebaze.cz/res/LC/LC.pdf
> also clearly states *1000-700 BC* *- Urnfield* _Bronze-age_ [Unstrut-Gruppe]
> 
> ...


Refer to pp 245-249 for STR values.

Haplogroup "Y1" is predicted to be I2b.
Haplogroup "Y2" is predicted to be I2b.
Haplogroup "Y3" is predicted to be R1b.
Haplogroup "Y5" is predicted to be R1a.
Haplogroup "Y6" is predicted to be I2b.
Haplogroup "Y4" is likely I2b but has a whopping 5 STRs given.

The I2b from the predictor refers to I2a2 in the current nomenclature.

I'm missing the I1 in this thesis. Where did you say it was?

----------


## sparkey

Hans De Beule has a great writeup on the Lichtenstein Cave. Not particularly relevant to I1, though.




> A neighboring thread on Eurogenes touched on the "Ancient Admixture in Human History" study (by Patterson et al) that if I'm reading correctly, bolters the Solutreans contribution to the New World. Sparkey did you happen to see this report? If so, what is your opinion on this one?


Where are you seeing something suggesting the Solutrean hypothesis in that paper? I see this figure:



That suggests a common "North Eurasian" ancestry, with Siberia as an intermediate between this common ancestry and the Americas, which is pretty conventional. I suppose the Solutrean hypothesis also predicts a relationship between Native Americans and Europeans, so since the resolution here isn't great (I don't think--I haven't delved into the paper too much), we can say that it doesn't directly support or contradict it, right?

----------


## Fire Haired

nordicquarreler isn't solutrean just a style of sprea making and making of other tools. That existed around France and Spain 22,000-17,000 We don’t really know exactly who they were genetically. Of course we know they were western Caucasians so European-mid eastern type of people because of their skull shape and the two mtdna samples we have. European people are a ethnic group that was formed way way back in the Paleolithic so Solutrean were almost defintley European. All the aust DNA tests I have looked at they say they found the Paleolithic European group they call it north euro, north east euro, or atlantic Baltic. Orignally before farming spread Europeans would have had 100% north Euro I think it should be called Paloithic European or just European. So if we can some how find European blood in some native americans and be able to proof it is from before it is very ancient then that is huge evidence either Solutrean or another group of Europeans came over. Maybe we can find some North Euro in native American tribes that have no records of inter marrying with Europeans. What I think would really proof it is if Native Americans had their own subclade of Y DNA I2a I guess it would be called I2a3. Or if they had another hg I subclade.

----------


## Nobody1

> Refer to pp 245-249 for STR values.
> 
> Haplogroup "Y1" is predicted to be I2b.
> Haplogroup "Y2" is predicted to be I2b.
> Haplogroup "Y3" is predicted to be R1b.
> Haplogroup "Y5" is predicted to be R1a.
> Haplogroup "Y6" is predicted to be I2b.
> Haplogroup "Y4" is likely I2b but has a whopping 5 STRs given.
> 
> ...


Ask Noman;
He claimed it was I1 (2000BC) based on this
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.co...-02/1202055729

I didnt;
I posted [on_ post #174_] the _Göttingen_ (2006) study 
and pointed out that its* not* 2000BC but 1000-700BC and app. I2b;
Was my post really that difficult to understand?

----------


## Balder

I1 originated in the belly of a star, are you happy now?

----------


## nordicwarrior

> nordicquarreler isn't solutrean just a style of sprea making and making of other tools. That existed around France and Spain 22,000-17,000 We don’t really know exactly who they were genetically. Of course we know they were western Caucasians so European-mid eastern type of people because of their skull shape and the two mtdna samples we have. European people are a ethnic group that was formed way way back in the Paleolithic so Solutrean were almost defintley European. All the aust DNA tests I have looked at they say they found the Paleolithic European group they call it north euro, north east euro, or atlantic Baltic. Orignally before farming spread Europeans would have had 100% north Euro I think it should be called Paloithic European or just European. So if we can some how find European blood in some native americans and be able to proof it is from before it is very ancient then that is huge evidence either Solutrean or another group of Europeans came over. Maybe we can find some North Euro in native American tribes that have no records of inter marrying with Europeans. What I think would really proof it is if Native Americans had their own subclade of Y DNA I2a I guess it would be called I2a3. Or if they had another hg I subclade.


 Native American meta-myth teaches that the land was already occupied by red hair giants and that the Indian warriors slew the male giants and mated with their women. The European haplogroup that "proves" this theory (yes I know this is highly controversial) is maternal X2 centered around New York state into southern Canada. The age of X2 in the Americas matches Solutreans proposed Atlantic voyage. Ice Age conditions would have made this journey much easier due to pack ice and the seal/sea-lion populations. Plus we have the matching projectile technology of Clovis and Solutreans (which according to those "fluent" in this field-- is no small feat.)

----------


## Fire Haired

I doubt that story of red haired giants means anything. The soplutreans almost defintley would have been white skinned just like mod euro's but i doubt any red hair. The history of red hair is extremely mysterious. All i have been able to come up with is it was spread to west euro by Germanic Italo Celts with R1b L51-L11 from Russia starting 5,000ybp. Also Indo Iranians who spread all over Asia had high amounts of red hair. Then the udmurts in central Russia so red hair defintley was popular in Russia 10,000-20,000ybp but i dont know if it existed any were else. The red hair maps i have seen only count areas with 1% or more since red hair is so recessive it does not really show exactly how red hair is spread out. I have met Redheads from Moscow, Sicily, and Romania all those areas have less than 1%. Most Indo Iranian speaking countriues or ethnic groups like Iran, Kurds, Kalash, Pashuten have at least some red hair. Red hair also exists in the Kablye berbers(second biggest berber ethnic group) in the atalas mountains of Mooroco. There was someone from my church who went there and the non Kablye thought he was a kablye because he had pale skin. Some Kablye groups have 18% blonde hair so there was European inter marriage at some point.I know that Finnish and Balto Slavs have the highest amount of fair hair and eyes but under 1% red hair but maybe they have red beards which shows the gene is there. There are even some Samartien redheads the Samartiens are mentioned in the new testament they are like fake jews. They left the Jewish faith well they think they are right and they only breed with each other. There are only 700 left there have been aust dna tests on all of them not one drop of European blood they are typical people from the area of Syria and Palestine. Most have brownish skin but i saw pictures of them during passover they look extremely European and some did have red hair and freckles. So i dont know it is defintley possible there was some red hair in solutreans.Even if the solutrean thing is true or that another group of Europeans brought X2 to North America 15,000-20,000ybp. They were no there before Native Americans ancestors because new DNA studies have shown their ancestors probably arrived 20,000-35,000ybp. some of the oldest human remains in north america some people said looked like Caucasians turned out to have specifically native american y dna and mtdna haplogroups. So if if Europeans went over there 15,000-20,000ybp there probably would have already been native Americans in that area. If a group of Europeans went over i doubt many survived the journey. I guess it may have taken 100's or 1,000's of years so they could have kept reproducing it was not one group. There still would have been alot less than Indians i guess if those spear points really are solutrean then they were kind off successful.'Why would they leave only mtDNA X2 which had just arrived from the mid east. Two solutrean mtDNA samples from Spain had U and at least RO or one of its descendants. They were probably mainly U5, H(later formed into H1 and H3), and HV(later formed into V) so why dont we find native american U12 and H25. Maybe there was like a bottle neck and the group of solutrean that went to North america had vast majority X2. Since there would be a obvious phiscal difference between Solutrean people and native Americans and solutreans would have been a super small minority. Maybe the Solutreans were assimilated or out numbered by alliances of Indians who killed them off.

----------


## Noman

But if that were true we come to another nonsensical thing in the mass migration west before history. Well first off the fact that in the times you're talking about you still have r1a right where it is now and then some. And of course there's not that much r1a in europe and it doesn't have that kind of east west spread.

But more than that if you look at where red hair is, it is almost all above the 45th parallel. 

And of course it all centers around the west except tiny patches here and there. So it looks very much like something that originated in that area and has been there a very very long time.

Then there's also the issue that I has mixed in to r1a WAY more than r1b has (itself a baffling contradiction), and there's no almost no red hair among I-dense countries, and it only came to be there in numbers at all in historic times.

R1b had some recent big migrations but in neolithic and before that the people who've migrated a whole lot are the I not the r1b.

The places with recent germanic r1b introgression in england also have the least red hair. Wales is similar to ireland in numbers, but in the NW of Ireland there was historically way more, and most of ireland has been quite washed out; there's more irish people and irish features per capita in the USA than in ireland itself these days. So again we see features pushed to the edges that any germanics just didn't have.

So obviously this celtic r1b comes from somewhere else or it's been in the vicinity a very long time. I'm guessing basically it was all along eurasia running west to east from around ireland at some point. That's why you hear descriptions of red hair in khazars, tarim, troy, etruscans, etc., in places it virtually doesn't exist today.

Below 45th parallel it starts to be a curse instead of a blessing due to skin cancer, and since it's so recessive it just had to be hugely widespread to get so many acient sources for it. Which again points to it being just as I said from start, R group spread out and was always dominant over eurasia ever since ice age broke. Then it lost major ground to incursions of farmers who had much huger populations, and it slowly absorbed most of them by integrating in to their societies or conquering them, taking on a lot of features like darker hair and eyes.

----------


## Fire Haired

R1a maybe existed 17,000-22,000ybp it defintley was not popular anywhere it could have originated in Europe but we dont know. Indo European R1a1a1 M417 spread out of around Ukraine before Indo European expanision of R1a it was not that spread out and probably very rare except in Ukriane. I realy really really doubt any solutreans had R1a.what evidence do u have that R1a has mixed more with hg I than R1b. U have to realize hg I is not unifed hg I1 and hg I2a1b lineages split over 20,000 years ago do u really think nordic's felt a connection with eastern European I2a1b. They had no cultural connections the hg I people were not a unified group of people at all. hg I does not tell ur full ancestry actulley all Europeans trace most of their ancestry to a hg I people it is the only for sure Paleolithic European paternal lineage. hg I2a1b people in Yugoslavia have much higher amounts of med in globe13 aust dna test which most likely came in the neloithic and they have alot higher southwest Asian and west asian than I1 Scandinavians. That could be a reason why they have so much more dark hair. hg I is just a direct male lineage if u want to get full ancestry look at austmol dna. U are coming up with quick conclusions. No matter how u but it red hair in Europe orignally came from a hg I people the red hair that seems to have spread with Indo Europeans probably comes from a Paloithic - Mesloithic I2a1b people. red hair itself though might bo back 50,000-60,000ybp in the mid east since smartiens who dont have a drop of European blood according to aust dna some have red hair and freckles.When u say R1b what R1b are u talking about. Nota ll R1b people were unifed almost non were u need to start naming subclades. R1b L51 and L51 seems to have spread in the early bronze age starting 5,000ybp to west Europe with Germanic Italo Celtic languages and possibly red hair. The R1b people in turkey 5,000ybp did not give a crap what people with R1b were doing in Germany they were not unified u need to get that. R1b L11 and R1b Z2103 lineages are just as sperater to each other as they are to some hg I people. Are u freaking kidding me can u stop making these quick conclusions with nothing to back u up. Red hair is very popular in England according to all the maps i have looked at it is 5-10% it is the second most popular spot for red hair in all of europe. Irish people are Irish okay no arguing that sure they have a tiny bit of blood from Germanic people including South Scandinavian Vikings. The Insular Celts used to dointe all of Ireland and Britian they were split with the Gealic's in Ireland and the Brythonic's in Britain including Scotland used to be the Picts. Y DNa R1b L21 takes up the vast majority of their Y DNA overall about 90% is either R1b L21 or another R1b P312 Italo Celtic subclade. They invaded in the bronze age probably 3,000-4,000ybp. They are a ethnic group and it seems like they almost completly killed off the natives of Britian and Irleand. We cant find one for sure paternal lineage that was in Neolithic Britain and Ireland except some G2a. Red hair shows a huge correlation with R1b L11 in west europe and it seems like Insular Celts are nearly 100% from original R1b L11 Germanic Italo celts which would be why they have so much red hair. The 45th parrel thing Maciamo started i think is total BS!!! red hair still stays at 1-3% deep into Italy, southern France, Apls, and northern Spain. what about red hair decreasing as u get east of Germany did he mention that it is probably the same issue. Who ever the people group or blood flow in west europe taht is the source of red hair just deceases as u go south of France and east of Germany. I think the reason why red hair is higher in Denmark than spain even though both were conquered by Germanic Italo Celts. Is because the natives of Denmark were majority blonde haired and light eyes the natives of spain almost only dark haired and eyed so red hair had a better chance to pop up wen mixing with light haired people. Redheads do just fins south of the 45th parrel what real evidence do have that we just die of skin cancer and stuff like that. The south in the US has the highest mount of red hair in all of America it is about 5-10% so it is actulley one of the top places for red hair in the world. The south is sunny and depressing they are under the 45th parrel but it seems redheads do just fine. Also red hair still pops up in Indo Iranian speaking ethnic groups in Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Turkey the Kalash, Kurdish, Pashuten, Pamiri and those people are under the 45th parrel plus they are all brown skinned it is amazing red hair was able to stay alive. U don know that hg R was originally mongliod r1b had nothing to do with Europeans till 6,000-8,000ybp. the hg R people dont exist just random groups of people who received some male lineages that are hg R. It gets annoying how simplfy haplogroups not naming subclades and act like everyone no matter how deep the subclade is connected.

----------


## nordicwarrior

> ... It gets annoying how simplfy haplogroups not naming subclades and like everyone no matter how deep the subclade is connected.


 Yes, but we need to be careful not to do the same thing with red hair. Red heads are not monolithic, and even Neanderthal had strains of reddish hair (located on different spots on their genome than modern humans.) Also we are looking at blonde and red hair through the prism of 21st century experience. Maybe Native Americans and much earlier European peoples viewed these traits through their own unique lense. Lastly, I think red hair can be attributed to more y-dna groups than R1b.

----------


## nordicwarrior

For example, if you lived in eleventh century coastal Korea and a boatload of folks with light brown hair pulled onto shore, you might explain to your village that these strange visitors had red hair. If two weeks later, some true redheads from say Scotland arrived-- only then would the Koreans see the difference.

----------


## MOESAN

> For example, if you lived in eleventh century coastal Korea and a boatload of folks with light brown hair pulled onto shore, you might explain to your village that these strange visitors had red hair. If two weeks later, some true redheads from say Scotland arrived-- only then would the Koreans see the difference.


it is a detail but of some importance: you are right here: a lot of southern "dark" Europeans use to confuse 'blond' and 'red' hairs (in spanish, 'rubio' has I believe, the meaning of "blond" OR "red" haired - and too, they considere very often a middle brown haired man as a "blond", by contrast with their dominantly dark hairs - and on all these threads people confuse constantly "blond" and "red"
SO IT IS OF POOR VALUE TAKING THE ANCIENTS REPORTS (GREEKS/ROMANS/ARABS) AS A SCIENTIFIC STATING

----------


## Noman

> R1a maybe existed 17,000-22,000ybp it defintley was not popular anywhere it could have originated in Europe but we dont know.


These same kind of estimates said that blue eyes developed 5k years ago and that red hair 10k years ago. now we know neanderthal had red hair, and light eyes. WHOOPS!

TMRCA means absolutely nothing. Even if the time estimate part is correct and you can trace common ancestor back to a particular time IT MEANS NOTHING. If you have a big expansion OR you have a bottleneck this can easily happen. So like the concept itself, it hinges on random distribution which we absolutely know doesn't exist. No bottlenecks, no giant expansions, no wars, no natural selection. Basically if there were no history and no biology then we could make assumptions like this. 




> Indo European R1a1a1 M417 spread out of around Ukraine before Indo European expanision of R1a it was not that spread out and probably very rare except in Ukriane. I realy really really doubt any solutreans had R1a.what evidence do u have that R1a has mixed more with hg I than R1b.


Because that's just factually the case.




> U have to realize hg I is not unifed hg I1 and hg I2a1b lineages split over 20,000 years ago do u really think nordic's felt a connection with eastern European I2a1b. They had no cultural connections the hg I people were not a unified group of people at all.


Proving that culture is nothing to do with genetics. Just like how hitler and the nazis were identifyiing themselves with the nordics and identifying the aryans with the nordics too. We happen to be talking about genetics not culture. There is no indo european race but there is certain some originating red haired race or in this case megagroup of races.




> hg I does not tell ur full ancestry actulley all Europeans trace most of their ancestry to a hg I people it is the only for sure Paleolithic European paternal lineage.


There's no real evidence of that, any more than there is hard evidence that the africans today originated there, and there's evidence I has been all over the place from north africa to gedrosia. It can't have originated where it is now, it goes under the ice periodically, it had to originate elsewhere. The only connect you could have is cro magnon skulls. 

Does cro magnon I seem all that nordic? Skull analysis can be tricky but I'd say modern nords are similar but quite a bit different. I'd say besides cro magnon I the answer is a resounding no. If anything we ought to look for neanderthal features to find real europeans, and we find that in the irish, basque, and a few others. Definitely not so much in the nordics.




> hg I2a1b people in Yugoslavia have much higher amounts of med in globe13 aust dna test which most likely came in the neloithic and they have alot higher southwest Asian and west asian than I1 Scandinavians. That could be a reason why they have so much more dark hair. hg I is just a direct male lineage if u want to get full ancestry look at austmol dna. U are coming up with quick conclusions. No matter how u but it red hair in Europe orignally came from a hg I people the red hair that seems to have spread with Indo Europeans probably comes from a Paloithic - Mesloithic I2a1b people. red hair itself though might bo back 50,000-60,000ybp in the mid east since smartiens who dont have a drop of European blood according to aust dna some have red hair and freckles.When u say R1b what R1b are u talking about. Nota ll R1b people were unifed almost non were u need to start naming subclades. R1b L51 and L51 seems to have spread in the early bronze age starting 5,000ybp to west Europe with Germanic Italo Celtic languages and possibly red hair. The R1b people in turkey 5,000ybp did not give a crap what people with R1b were doing in Germany they were not unified u need to get that. R1b L11 and R1b Z2103 lineages are just as sperater to each other as they are to some hg I people. Are u freaking kidding me can u stop making these quick conclusions with nothing to back u up. Red hair is very popular in England according to all the maps i have looked at it is 5-10% it is the second most popular spot for red hair in all of europe. Irish people are Irish okay no arguing that sure they have a tiny bit of blood from Germanic people including South Scandinavian Vikings. The Insular Celts used to dointe all of Ireland and Britian they were split with the Gealic's in Ireland and the Brythonic's in Britain including Scotland used to be the Picts. Y DNa R1b L21 takes up the vast majority of their Y DNA overall about 90% is either R1b L21 or another R1b P312 Italo Celtic subclade. They invaded in the bronze age probably 3,000-4,000ybp. They are a ethnic group and it seems like they almost completly killed off the natives of Britian and Irleand. We cant find one for sure paternal lineage that was in Neolithic Britain and Ireland except some G2a. Red hair shows a huge correlation with R1b L11 in west europe and it seems like Insular Celts are nearly 100% from original R1b L11 Germanic Italo celts which would be why they have so much red hair. The 45th parrel thing Maciamo started i think is total BS!!! red hair still stays at 1-3% deep into Italy, southern France, Apls, and northern Spain. what about red hair decreasing as u get east of Germany did he mention that it is probably the same issue. Who ever the people group or blood flow in west europe taht is the source of red hair just deceases as u go south of France and east of Germany. I think the reason why red hair is higher in Denmark than spain even though both were conquered by Germanic Italo Celts. Is because the natives of Denmark were majority blonde haired and light eyes the natives of spain almost only dark haired and eyed so red hair had a better chance to pop up wen mixing with light haired people. Redheads do just fins south of the 45th parrel what real evidence do have that we just die of skin cancer and stuff like that. The south in the US has the highest mount of red hair in all of America it is about 5-10% so it is actulley one of the top places for red hair in the world. The south is sunny and depressing they are under the 45th parrel but it seems redheads do just fine.


Yeah I know more than a few who have skin cancer. Red hair and light skin means weeded out, especially thousands of years ago. Now we have air conditioning and indoor jobs obviously it's not as bad but it's still an issue.




> Also red hair still pops up in Indo Iranian speaking ethnic groups in Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Turkey the Kalash, Kurdish, Pashuten, Pamiri and those people are under the 45th parrel plus they are all brown skinned it is amazing red hair was able to stay alive.


The numbers drop off very quick from where I said.



> U don know that hg R was originally mongliod r1b had nothing to do with Europeans till 6,000-8,000ybp.


Maybe (and more likely) what we call a mongoloid had nothing to do with east asians at the time. I find that much more likely given how much population expansion the han have had since agriculture came. Tarim had red hair. Manchu was not asian, north china was not asian. The problem is we don't have real reference populations but this is what all archaeology says, even the ultra nationalists in china have to admit this. Not to mention how many chinese girls look very nearly absolutely caucasian, with thicker hair and somewhat smaller breasts. 



> the hg R people dont exist just random groups of people who received some male lineages that are hg R. It gets annoying how simplfy haplogroups not naming subclades and act like everyone no matter how deep the subclade is connected.


but H I G are all sister clades. They ARE somewhat related.

----------


## nordicwarrior

> ...Does cro magnon I seem all that nordic? Skull analysis can be tricky but I'd say modern nords are similar but quite a bit different. I'd say besides cro magnon I the answer is a resounding no. If anything we ought to look for neanderthal features to find real europeans, and we find that in the irish, basque, and a few others. Definitely not so much in the nordics...


 "Real Europeans", hmm I don't agree with this premise for a couple reasons. Number one, Neanderthal had an enormous range that was not limited to Europe... and so R1a, R1b, N, O, etc. could have gotten massive exposure to this admixture even if they didn't set foot West of Hungary. Number two... in the highly unlikely event that ONLY hg. I or even G had Neanderthal code... we've all been mixing in Europe for the last 5,000 years or so and now EVERYONE in Europe would have basically the same amount of Neanderthal genome coursing through their veins. But to say Nordics don't have any ties to Cro-Magnon... or even that Celts are more closely related to these early residents? I'd like to place a wager... if Cro Magnon is proven to be the father of R1b Basque or R1b Irish, or R1b anything in the next year... I will drink a smoothie made from the ample tufts of hair sprouting from my shoulders. Of course you would have to take the opposing side (but with the same consequences). Nordics have plenty of Cro-Magnon traits, trust me on this one.

----------


## Noman

Yeah I did not really mean to say real europeans. I guess "most ancient" is better. And I suspect the range of neanderthals was basically the same as R is today minus india. I suspect I spent a lot of time in the most north areas at some point, as well. Where I originates back in the ice age is one of the bigger question marks out there, in my mind. I guess somewhere between r1a and r1b.

cromag 1 btw does look pretty slavic to me, like a much larger slav/alpinid mix.

----------


## Nobody1

App. _G2a(L91)_ *Neolithic* _farmer/herdsman_ *Ötzi* holds the record of being the most _Neanderthal_;

Prof. John Hawks (2012) - _Uni. of Wisconsin_
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/...iced-2012.html

_"He has substantially greater sharing with Neanderthals than any other recent person we have ever examined"_


Whatever the significance behind the Bull-run on _Neanderthal_ genetics is 
- looks like the *Tuscans* are winning it;

Prof. John Hawks (2012) - _Uni. of Wisconsin_
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/...ions-2012.html

----------


## Fire Haired

Noman i am kind of sick of crazy things u say. Redheads in the Paleoithic age could find ways to survive they had human brains and souls they would not just die out if they are south of the 45th parrel. The 45th parrel thing was started by Maciamo there is no real hard evidence. Also those stimates for blue eyes being only 6,000ybp is total BS. When u look at how European ethic groups have formed over time there common ancestors and all of that stuff blue eyes goes way way way back over 20,000ybp for sure. Europeans all come from the same paleothic famly aust dna has proven that. Europeans ancestors had been settling europe 10,000's of ybp i guess they made post last ice age migrations 15,000-19,000ybp but they would have been very spread out in europe i would assume 30,000ybp. They would have already been light skinned had alot of blue eyes and non brown hair in those times. I cant wait till we can get pigmentation genes from people for example lascux cave to prove they looked no diff from modern people in france. I have heard some ligit age estimates that say blonde hair became popular 11,000-20,000ybp starting right when the last ice age ended but the thing is that light skin light hair and eyes did not just randomly spread acroos Europe the founding population of all Europeans had those features and they populated Europe when no one else was there or who ever was there before went extinct. We already have pigmentation genes from 3,800 year old early indo Iranians who left yamna culture in central Russia 5,000ybp they had mainly blonde hair and light eyes showing those features are much older than the age estimates. Plus they dont have any european descendants or people mainly decended from them because they migrated to central asia.Noman the fact is that hg I people had no idea they had hg I. So u cant unite them all as the same people they were as diff from each other as they were to Indo Europeans. U cant just call people hg I u need to add subclades and cultures. No man are u freaking kidding me of curse mongliod 30,000ybp is what mongliod is today. FACT HG R AND R! WERE ROIGNALLY MONGLIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Chinese are one ethnic group like Germans not all white people are GErman just because there wee Indo IRanian redheads in west china 4,000ybpd and before chinese does not mean there were no east asians there. thE tarium mummies had almost all east asian mtdna haplogroups they mixed with the east asian people that alreayd lived there. When u look at aust dna not just ur assumptions on their physical features mongliods and caucasins are very UNRELATED. they are about as related to each other as they are to sub sharen africans. MOngliod form in the same family as austrlien abrognals and other black looking people in asia it is suprsing but true DNA has proven it. I call it the Mongliod Oceania race. I get sick of these stupid consipericy people with the tarium mummies saying china used to be white. 42,000 year old mtDNA sample near bejing guess what it had specifically mongliod mtdna B its subclade B4'5 also they had other i think aust dna info and they found out it was in the mongliod family its closest relatives east Asians but it did not form into any specif group it still had the ancestral form of all of them. Look at native Americans we have 14,300ybp mtdna and 10,300ybp y dna in north america with specif native american haplogroups they have been in america for over 20,000 years. WHERE DID THEY COME FROM ASIA THIS MEANS THERE WERE MONGLIODS IN ASIA BACK THEN.sure all H G and I are sister actulley brother clades since we are talking about y dna which only men have. All human father lines go back to the same father of humanity all mamel lines do to u go back to the same father as ur dog but that means nothing. We have been separated for so long that hg I1a and hg I1b people dont care about each other.

----------


## Nobody1

*Kijeong Kim et al 2010* - R1a1 male in 2,000-year old Mongolian Xiongnu
_This is the first genetic evidence that a male of distinctive Indo-European lineages (R1a1) was present in the Xiongnu of Mongolia. This might indicate an Indo-European migration into Northeast Asia 2,000 years ago._...._The genetic evidence of U2e1 and R1a1 may help to clarify the migration patterns of Indo-Europeans and ancient East-West contacts of the Xiongnu Empire._

The inter-mixture you (_Fire Haired_) describe in the Tarim basin is exactly the pattern that occurred across the entire Indo-European range; 
The emerging Indo-Europeans mixed with the pre-existing populations (_most notably the female part_/_mtDNA_);
Whether in Europe, Anatolia (Hatti), Indus Valley, Iranian plateau and _of course_ Tarim basin;
These pre-existing populations are Archaeologically/Historically/Anthropologically and now (_partially for now_) Genetically determined;

PS: its *not* _Mongliod_ its - M O N G O L O I D 
or Altaic [A L T A I C]

----------


## Noman

> Noman i am kind of sick of crazy things u say. Redheads in the Paleoithic age could find ways to survive they had human brains and souls they would not just die out if they are south of the 45th parrel.


The way natural selection works is that you have more personal success, usually a tiny bit more, that adds up to more surviving children over time. When you have red hair and pale skin it's great for absorbing more sunlight in arctic like areas. 

People in africa didn't decide to be black, they darkened up because everyone who didn't had major health problems.




> The 45th parrel thing was started by Maciamo there is no real hard evidence. Also those stimates for blue eyes being only 6,000ybp is total BS. When u look at how European ethic groups have formed over time there common ancestors and all of that stuff blue eyes goes way way way back over 20,000ybp for sure. Europeans all come from the same paleothic famly aust dna has proven that. Europeans ancestors had been settling europe 10,000's of ybp i guess they made post last ice age migrations 15,000-19,000ybp but they would have been very spread out in europe i would assume 30,000ybp. They would have already been light skinned had alot of blue eyes and non brown hair in those times.


Humans and their ancestors have inhabited europe since there's been humans and human ancestors. I seriously doubt they were all black haired and black eyed and skinned until 5k years ago. I am pretty sure the opposite has happened and those features have introgressed from elsewhere.




> I cant wait till we can get pigmentation genes from people for example lascux cave to prove they looked no diff from modern people in france.


We already do, they were neanderthals, they had reddish hair but not quite the same as people with red hair today.




> I have heard some ligit age estimates that say blonde hair became popular 11,000-20,000ybp starting right when the last ice age ended but the thing is that light skin light hair and eyes did not just randomly spread acroos Europe the founding population of all Europeans had those features and they populated Europe when no one else was there or who ever was there before went extinct. We already have pigmentation genes from 3,800 year old early indo Iranians who left yamna culture in central Russia 5,000ybp they had mainly blonde hair and light eyes showing those features are much older than the age estimates.


The obvious truth is anything we consider european has been on the way out for thousands of years. They try so very hard to prove otherwise to further the corporate/european union agenda to keep borders open so that they can contnue to have cheap, desperate workers and whenever possible to disposess anyone who has any wealth so they can suck it up themselves. That's where all those dumb studies come from.

Also, like I said, having the MRCA be young is a good sign it's actually on the way out. On the way in or the way out, but it's obvious which is more likely.




> Plus they dont have any european descendants or people mainly decended from them because they migrated to central asia.Noman the fact is that hg I people had no idea they had hg I. So u cant unite them all as the same people they were as diff from each other as they were to Indo Europeans.


Just like being blonde didn't suddenly become popular, the people in I all have a common descent. And in order for the I clade to form there had to be some time when they really were pressed together all as one people.




> U cant just call people hg I u need to add subclades and cultures. No man are u freaking kidding me of curse mongliod 30,000ybp is what mongliod is today. FACT HG R AND R! WERE ROIGNALLY MONGLIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


So why is it ok for mongoloids to stay the same but not europeans? 




> Chinese are one ethnic group like Germans


Chinese are most certainly NOT one ethnic group. They also had more ethnic groups than they do now and drove most of them out.

And guess what? Before agriculture they were not a big part of much of anything. So don't think they were dominating anything, they really weren't.




> not all white people are GErman just because there wee Indo IRanian redheads in west china 4,000ybpd and before chinese does not mean there were no east asians there.


Yes it does, the ughyar moved in to tarim valley around 300 bc. The mongols had also been soaking up a great deal of the surrounding tribes a long time before then. The whole group started off looking about the same.

Guess what the khazars looked like? Red hair and blue eyes, with Q haplotype being the main one and r1a1 as next. Now the same area is covered with black haired more asian people with the same haplotypes but different looks. Because they have been taking a ton of DNA from the east since agriculture started.




> thE tarium mummies had almost all east asian mtdna haplogroups they mixed with the east asian people that alreayd lived there. When u look at aust dna not just ur assumptions on their physical features mongliods and caucasins are very UNRELATED.


Yet they weren't, always. You believe that red haird people evolved from mongols but it's pretty clear there was no evolution, just washing out, of the red haired people who were there a long time.



> they are about as related to each other as they are to sub sharen africans. MOngliod form in the same family as austrlien abrognals and other black looking people in asia it is suprsing but true DNA has proven it. I call it the Mongliod Oceania race. I get sick of these stupid consipericy people with the tarium mummies saying china used to be white.


The north of china was, that's just a fact. The han ethnic group group of south china is what we think of as chinese today, and is also overwhelming all of asia with massive immigration.

The mongols soaked up a lot of korean, han, whatever the hell else over 15k years.




> 42,000 year old mtDNA sample near bejing guess what it had specifically mongliod mtdna B its subclade B4'5 also they had other i think aust dna info and they found out it was in the mongliod family its closest relatives east Asians but it did not form into any specif group it still had the ancestral form of all of them. Look at native Americans we have 14,300ybp mtdna and 10,300ybp y dna in north america with specif native american haplogroups they have been in america for over 20,000 years. WHERE DID THEY COME FROM ASIA THIS MEANS THERE WERE MONGLIODS IN ASIA BACK THEN.


Eskimos only came over about 2k years ago or something, and you would certainly not say that all native americans are "mongoloid". No one denies dark hair and dark eyes have been around a long time but plenty of people wo are Q don't have mongoloid features, and never ever did. I suspect that's more like how Q was when it first formed.




> sure all H G and I are sister actulley brother clades since we are talking about y dna which only men have. All human father lines go back to the same father of humanity all mamel lines do to u go back to the same father as ur dog but that means nothing. We have been separated for so long that hg I1a and hg I1b people dont care about each other.


 :Laugh out loud: 

Kind of like how the mongoloids don't care about their redheaded Q ancestors any more. Also there's tales all over north and south america about red headed tribes of giants that arrived before the current inhabitants. Thankfully, they killed them all off for us (which seems to be the fate in much of the world even today).

Also, lots of 8 foot tall skepetons in south america with that weird deformed head look.

----------


## Noman

> having the MRCA be young is a good sign it's actually on the way out. On the way in or the way out, but it's obvious which is more likely.


This applies double for I groups. Especially if it's true that they were the major inhabitants of europe until 5k years ago when IE came as everyone seems to think. The way they are spread around so thin all over makes it obvious if nothing else does.

----------


## Fire Haired

> The way natural selection works is that you have more personal success, usually a tiny bit more, that adds up to more surviving children over time. When you have red hair and pale skin it's great for absorbing more sunlight in arctic like areas. 
> 
> People in africa didn't decide to be black, they darkened up because everyone who didn't had major health problems.


I know it seems that things evolve but it still seems impossible. Natural selection seems really impossible maybe we just cant explain why things change. I am a redhead and alot of my relatives are on my dad's side it is the most popular hair color the red hair genes are extremely strong in my DNA. I am as much as a redhead as possible i know what it is like more than u. I don't endure cold any better than a black person my extremely pale skin does not give me an advantage at all. I dont see how i would survive better in ice age Europe than a black person would. The only negative thing is i get sun burned a little more easily than the average white person but there is nothing majorly differnt. Red hair goes very deep under the 45th parrel.

It is easy to explain why red hair does not cover all of Italy and Spain as 1% or above. Because the celtic blood in Spain became less and less the more south they went and the dark hair genes dominate more than the light hair genes in Denmark which is why red hair from Germans survived better in Denmark than red hair from Celts in Spain. Same probably with italics and Celts in the alps and Italy. What about the decline of red hair as u get east of Germany why doesnt maciamo talk about that. The Sycthians and other Indo Iranians tribes lived in very sunny desert like areas of central Asia and they had high amounts of red hair but did fine from 4,000-1,500ybp till they were conquered by central Asian turkic tribes. 



Even after over 4,000 years of inter marrying with brown skinned and dark haired mid easterns red hair still pops up in Indo Iranian speakers today and they live i very sunny desert like area's.




> Humans and their ancestors have inhabited europe since there's been humans and human ancestors. I seriously doubt they were all black haired and black eyed and skinned until 5k years ago. I am pretty sure the opposite has happened and those features have introgressed from elsewhere.





> We already do, they were neanderthals, they had reddish hair but not quite the same as people with red hair today


It is alot more complicated than what u say sure relatives to humans have lived in Europe for over a million years. But that does not mean they were humans ancestors only off shoots of the same family while humans ancestors could have stayed in africa that whole time. Our human family would have begun in sub shara africa 200,000-400,000ybp. Then the family it seems all non sub sharen africans come from migrated to north africa and the mid east over 100,000ybp. Then they split into Caucasins and Oceania mongliod or they came from separate migrations out of Africa. Oceania mongliod migrated to India then further into asia splitting into Mongliods and Oceania i dont know maybe 80,000ybp Oceania going south and Mongliods north. Caucasins stayed in the mid east and groups of Caucasians would have made it to Europe first over 55,000ybp. The founder population of all modern Europeans probably arrived from a mix of diff groups or one group anywhere from 30,000-60,000ybp.

Yes some Neanderthals i think the ones they tested were from spain and they had very pale skin and red hair i think they were only 50,000 years old. Their red hair and pale skin came from a diff source than what mod Europeans have so that does not matter when arguing a older age for Europeans paleness. I also wnat to say we dont know who the neanderthals were. I have looked at so many of their skulls and so many from diff ages and regions look so diff. When u look at a Caucasian skull and the type African americans have so west African they look extremely similar u have to study it to see the difference. Even though their ancestors have been split for probably around 150,000-250,000 years. But if neanderthal skulls looked so obviously diff they probably were very unrelated compared to all modern humans today. I think the so called Neanderthal is just random some what related breds that might have come in multiple migrations. So when they have that DNA from Neanderthals and say they can tell u how much DNA u have from them if that is liget they are only talking about some Neanderthals.




> The obvious truth is anything we consider european has been on the way out for thousands of years. They try so very hard to prove otherwise to further the corporate/european union agenda to keep borders open so that they can contnue to have cheap, desperate workers and whenever possible to disposess anyone who has any wealth so they can suck it up themselves. That's where all those dumb studies come from.
> 
> Also, like I said, having the MRCA be young is a good sign it's actually on the way out. On the way in or the way out, but it's obvious which is more likely.


What are u trying to say.




> Just like being blonde didn't suddenly become popular, the people in I all have a common descent. And in order for the I clade to form there had to be some time when they really were pressed together all as one people.


That is true but many mainly hg I people like Sardines and Yugoslaians inter married alot with non hg I people. sure their paternal line stayed mainly hg I but their ancestry came mainlyf rom probably not hg I people. in the globe13 aust dna test the onlyf or sure group to be unque to Europeans and existed in the Paleolithic age in North Euro which is extremely rare only 16% in Sardine people who have over 35% hg I2a1a Most of their ancestry came from farmers in the Neolithic age.




> So why is it ok for mongoloids to stay the same but not europeans?


U dont get what i am saying the first hg R people were Mongliods they were not apart of the Caucasin bloodline they were in the Mongliod bloodline. 50,000ybp Europeans ancestors most likely had tannish skin they are still in the European bloodline.




> Chinese are most certainly NOT one ethnic group. They also had more ethnic groups than they do now and drove most of them out.
> 
> And guess what? Before agriculture they were not a big part of much of anything. So don't think they were dominating anything, they really weren't


Yes they are sure they have many tribes but they all go back to the first Chinese speakers. There where many Germanic tribes but they were still all German. Han chinese and some othe group of Chinese dont come from completly diff sources they come from the orignal Chinese source. Maybe not completely geneticalley but defintley in language.





> Yes it does, the ughyar moved in to tarim valley around 300 bc. The mongols had also been soaking up a great deal of the surrounding tribes a long time before then. The whole group started off looking about the same.
> 
> Guess what the khazars looked like? Red hair and blue eyes, with Q haplotype being the main one and r1a1 as next. Now the same area is covered with black haired more asian people with the same haplotypes but different looks. Because they have been taking a ton of DNA from the east since agriculture started.


No it does not. 4,000ybp is not that long ago epxlain how almost all tarium mummies had mongliod mtdna haplogroups. There were mongliods everywhere but for some reason refused to go to the tarium basin after living in east asia for over 40,000 years does that make any sense. Khazars were not red haired and blue eyes sure some Indo iranian tribes 2,000-4,000ybp who did not inter marry did have around 3-15% red hair but Khazars did not. Y dna Q is not popular any where in asia except central siberera get ur facts together at least try to check stuff in Wikipedia before throwing out lie's. The European light features in central asia all come form Indo Iranian migrations starting 5,000ybp. Unified Indo Iranian tribes who kept their European blood seem to have all been killed off in the early mid ages that is why they dont exist they were very famous and we have alot of their ancient DNA but they were not the only iron and bronze age central Asians. I do think that east Asian like all Turkic speakers are very recent in central asia but i may be wrong. 




> Yet they weren't, always. You believe that red haird people evolved from mongols but it's pretty clear there was no evolution, just washing out, of the red haired people who were there a long time


I dont believe red hair evolved out of Mongliod that is crazy talk. red hair in central asia from what we know is only from Indo Iranians that started migrating there at the earliest 5,000ybp.




> The north of china was, that's just a fact. The han ethnic group group of south china is what we think of as chinese today, and is also overwhelming all of asia with massive immigration.
> 
> The mongols soaked up a lot of korean, han, whatever the hell else over 15k years.


U are making up consipircy theorys with no evidence to put down mongliod people to make them feel recent. I get sick of that when it is done on whites. did u read when i mentioned 42,000 year old mtdna sample near bejing with specifcalley mongliod B4'5 and aust dna proving it was in the mongliod family. Mongoloids are from what i can see the first and only settlers of places like Korea and probably Japan. 




> Eskimos only came over about 2k years ago or something, and you would certainly not say that all native americans are "mongoloid". No one denies dark hair and dark eyes have been around a long time but plenty of people wo are Q don't have mongoloid features, and never ever did. I suspect that's more like how Q was when it first formed.


Have u even looked up when Eskeoms came. from what i have looked up on google the Eskemo Aluet language is probably 4,000 years old. I am sorry i cant find the link but i looked at this genetic stuff about native americans and eskemo inuit people. Native Americans ancestors when looking at mtdna and y dna haplogroups most likely arrived over 20,00ybp eskemo inuit ancestors 6,000-10,000ybp. When u look at the globe13 aust da groups of mongliod's artic which represents easta sian looking people in north america is closest to native american not east asian. Originally native Americans ancestors may have looked east asian.

The only heavily hg Q people i can think of is native americans and east asian looking native people of america and central siberns. There is no doubt the first hg Q people would have been Mongliod looking. ANtive Americans count as Mongliod looking they have the highcheck bons and many other of the same features There is a native american center by my house some full bloded native americans go to my school and most have slanted eyes when i first saw them i thought they were like dark skinned east asians. 




> Kind of like how the mongoloids don't care about their redheaded Q ancestors any more. Also there's tales all over north and south america about red headed tribes of giants that arrived before the current inhabitants. Thankfully, they killed them all off for us (which seems to be the fate in much of the world even today).
> 
> Also, lots of 8 foot tall skepetons in south america with that weird deformed head look.


Like i have been saying the red hair that existed and kind of still exists in central asia is from R1a1a1b2 Z93 Indo Iranian migrations out of Russia starting at the earliest 5,000ybp. What evidence do u have with y dna Q being connected with red hair. I dont know how true those native american stories are and who knows how popular they were. There are probably many similar storys that sound like people are talking about aliens or something. Native Americans ancestors spread acrros north and south america from 25,000-10,000ybp. So those stories would have to very very old if those red haired people were there before them i doubt they could keep the same story for that long. Also there is no such thing as a red haired people red hair at the highest gets up to 15-20% in some Insular Celts of Ireland and Britain and the Uralic speaking Udmurts of Volga Russia.

----------


## Fire Haired

> This applies double for I groups. Especially if it's true that they were the major inhabitants of europe until 5k years ago when IE came as everyone seems to think. The way they are spread around so thin all over makes it obvious if nothing else does.


U do know that 31 y dna samples from neloithic and chaloithic west europe 24 had G2a, 4 had i2a1a, one had E V13, and twohad posibly F or one of its decendants. hg I was dominte in Europe 10,000ybp or more. Farmers brought G2a maybe some J1 and J2 and E V13 either came with farmers 9,000-6,000ybp or in the mesloithic age probably 11,000-10,000ybp.

----------


## Sile

> I know it seems that things evolve but it still seems impossible. Natural selection seems really impossible maybe we just cant explain why things change. I am a redhead and alot of my relatives are on my dad's side it is the most popular hair color the red hair genes are extremely strong in my DNA. I am as much as a redhead as possible i know what it is like more than u. I don't endure cold any better than a black person my extremely pale skin does not give me an advantage at all. I dont see how i would survive better in ice age Europe than a black person would. The only negative thing is i get sun burned a little more easily than the average white person but there is nothing majorly differnt. Red hair goes very deep under the 45th parrel.
> 
> It is easy to explain why red hair does not cover all of Italy and Spain as 1% or above. Because the celtic blood in Spain became less and less the more south they went and the dark hair genes dominate more than the light hair genes in Denmark which is why red hair from Germans survived better in Denmark than red hair from Celts in Spain. Same probably with italics and Celts in the alps and Italy. What about the decline of red hair as u get east of Germany why doesnt maciamo talk about that. The Sycthians and other Indo Iranians tribes lived in very sunny desert like areas of central Asia and they had high amounts of red hair but did fine from 4,000-1,500ybp till they were conquered by central Asian turkic tribes. 
> 
> 
> 
> Even after over 4,000 years of inter marrying with brown skinned and dark haired mid easterns red hair still pops up in Indo Iranian speakers today and they live i very sunny desert like area's.
> 
> 
> ...


you forgot the ancient Thracians had red hair, they traded women for other women with pure red hair
Maybe they are associated with the Udmurts as the thracians are also noted as light eyes and red hair, usually green or grey by the many Greek and roman historians

----------


## Noman

I just told you, the khazars had red hair and blue eyes, they don't exist any more except in other populations.

The red haird folk in the americas were supposedly encountered by conquistadors, who killed them. They killed several who were supposedly 9 foot tall but eventually threw the bodies overboard. 

http://xavianthaze.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/the-conquistadors-encounters-with-giants.html#{%22color%22%3A%22%23828282%22%2C%22ba ckgroundColor%22%3A%22%23ffffff%22%2C%22unvisitedL inkColor%22%3A%22%23e86c14%22%2C%22fontFamily%22%3 A%22Arial%2C%20Verdana%22}

There's another alleged encounter, they didn't see them personally but saw blankets woven from their hair.

There was a giant sized mummy found in yellowstone as well, a woman but almost 7 foot tall.

This is over the entirety of the north and south americas, by people who never traveled far, and didn't speak each other's languages and would have to travel through often cannibal territory to interact with each other.

In south america, entirety of the polynesians who'd settled there got wiped out. Most of the rest died out due to disease. So called hispanics average 60+% caucasian and only 20% native DNA, the rest being blacks and middle east (like sephardic jews). Mix varies country to country.

For 400 years blood fevers would take the natives in south america. Whole cities simply died off due to disease. They are finding now cities the spaniards never saw, deep in the jungles, that died from plagues.

Point is, it's pretty hard to say what was there because it's largely not there any more, and you don't get stories like this (and some proof) without some kind of basis.




> U do know that 31 y dna samples from neloithic and chaloithic west europe 24 had G2a, 4 had i2a1a, one had E V13, and twohad posibly F or one of its decendants. hg I was dominte in Europe 10,000ybp or more. Farmers brought G2a maybe some J1 and J2 and E V13 either came with farmers 9,000-6,000ybp or in the mesloithic age probably 11,000-10,000ybp.


I spent about 5 pages saying why I don't think that's a big problem. almost all those results come from one study, and half the only 4 studies do have r1b.

----------


## Noman

Speaking of thrace and redheads. Thracian-born Roman emperor Maximinus Thrax was an 8 foot tall redheaded giant. Compare the look of his profile to "the irish giant" and other super tall people. Interesting to me, but when we see multiple skeletons of 8 foot tall guys this gets waved away like it's well within the range of humans and not a big deal. Same with cranial volumes of 1800-2000 ml. 

Sure, some people alive today are that tall or have that large of a brain but they are literally one in a billion. That's about how few people make it to 8 foot tall. They do the same thing on the other end all the time, too. So we find this pinhead population of "hominid" while normal human size brains are around and they claim it's a human ancestor even though a sub 800 ml NORMAL intelligence human skull is extremely rare. Sometimes I wonder, it's just like "whatever fits the most popular theory of the day and is still a significant discovery" is what wil be claimed every day, not simply report what the facts are which usually go against one or the other rule.

Also we were talking about peopling of americas.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/02...icans-and.html

So southern altaians and native americans share common ancestry. Meaning that yes, you can have a big shift in what the same haplogroup looks like, as these south altaians are basically caucasian while the northeast guys are what you are talking about, FH.

----------


## Nobody1

*Kevin Alan Brook* - The Jews of Khazaria (2006)_
For example, Gardizi reported a legend of the origin of the Kyrgyz people wherein a Khazar nobleman named Bashqird befriended the 'Saqlabs' (Slavs) and called another group of people whom he led the 'Khirkhiz'. He added that it was said that the Saqlabs mixed with the Khirkhiz and that this explains the incidence of red hair and white skin among the Khirkhiz._

Slavs + Kyrgyz = Ginger
Who would have thought;

All those Turk folks with Caucasoid features actually did inter-mix with Caucasoids; whether Slavs, Scythians or Tocharians;
Or any other Indo-Europeans of the vicinity; Is this all Surprising - not really;

----------


## sparkey

> These same kind of estimates said that blue eyes developed 5k years ago and that red hair 10k years ago. now we know neanderthal had red hair, and light eyes. WHOOPS!


Meaning that Neanderthals admixture is how modern Europeans must have acquired red hair and light eyes? Aren't you the one who is always talking about natural selection producing the same result among parallel lineages? Besides, Neanderthals had variable pigmentation.




> TMRCA means absolutely nothing. Even if the time estimate part is correct and you can trace common ancestor back to a particular time IT MEANS NOTHING. If you have a big expansion OR you have a bottleneck this can easily happen. So like the concept itself, it hinges on random distribution which we absolutely know doesn't exist. No bottlenecks, no giant expansions, no wars, no natural selection. Basically if there were no history and no biology then we could make assumptions like this.


It tells you the approximate date of when the clade began expanding. That will tell you the approximate time period of its initial expansion in a region, provided you've isolated possible pooling point effects. You know that abundance of I2-M26 we've found in ancient samples? Yeah, TMRCA calculations of I2-M26 predicted that, because it has the highest TMRCA of regional Haplogroup I clades.

Not sure if a recent TMRCA is due to a bottleneck or a founder effect during an expansion of a large existing population? Look at the most closely related clades. Nothing nearby = an expansion out of a bottleneck. Lots of things nearby in a fleshed out tree = expansion from within a larger existing population.

TMRCA calculation doesn't assume a lack of bottlenecks, expansions, or wars. We've already gone over this. Provided that its other assumptions are correct (including a lack of extreme natural selection bias on sampled markers), it should _detect_ them.




> Originally Posted by Fire Haired
> 
> what evidence do u have that R1a has mixed more with hg I than R1b.
> 
> 
> Because that's just factually the case.


Maybe it's "factually the case" for I2a-Din, a geographic outlier from the I2a family which had a large Eastern European expansion, but it's "factually the case" for few other Haplogroup I subclades I can think of. _Maybe_ I1 and I2-M223, but even those have nice links with R1b-U106 in addition to R1a.




> There's no real evidence of that, any more than there is hard evidence that the africans today originated there, and there's evidence I has been all over the place from north africa to gedrosia. It can't have originated where it is now, it goes under the ice periodically, it had to originate elsewhere. The only connect you could have is cro magnon skulls.


What's this "evidence I has been all over the place from north africa to gedrosia"? Every major Haplogroup I subclade has its greatest diversity in Europe. I definitely suspect that it was in Europe during the Ice Age. My best guess, subject to revision, is the Franco-Iberian refuge for I2a, the Adriatic refuge for I2b-ADR and I2c, and "probably one of those" for I1 (not enough deep tree data for that one right now). I don't see any subclades that I would place outside of Europe during the Ice Age.




> Also, like I said, having the MRCA be young is a good sign it's actually on the way out. On the way in or the way out, but it's obvious which is more likely.





> This applies double for I groups. Especially if it's true that they were the major inhabitants of europe until 5k years ago when IE came as everyone seems to think. The way they are spread around so thin all over makes it obvious if nothing else does.


Nope, a recent TMRCA does not indicate that anything is "on the way out." An "on the way out" marker would have low frequency _but not necessarily low molecular diversity_. Why would an old lineage "on the way out" suddenly look young? Besides, Haplogroup I isn't really "spread around so thin"; there are many places very high in Haplogroup I, like Scandinavia, Bosnia, Sardinia...

If, hypothetically, R1b is in the process of gradually overcoming Haplogroup I due to some selection pressure, we're likely to continue to have higher molecular diversity in Haplogroup I than in European R1b until it is very close to extinction. Even if there were only two I carriers left, with one being I1 and the other I2-M223, it would look more ancient than R1b in Europe.

----------


## Noman

All crap I heard before, I could care less. No that's not true, some new crap in there. All nonsense, though, wish I didn't bother.

I expected and probably deserved some attack for linking to what amounts to LEGENDS OF BIGFOOT. Of course I do think it probably says something, though is greatly exaggerated. But it's weird to me the pseudoscience crap gets all stops pulled out for this particular thread and no other.

May as well start to talk about punctuated equilibrium. Stephen Jay Gould is dead so someone's going to have to come up with some new "science" to show europeans are alien invaders.




> *Kevin Alan Brook* - The Jews of Khazaria (2006)_
> For example, Gardizi reported a legend of the origin of the Kyrgyz people wherein a Khazar nobleman named Bashqird befriended the 'Saqlabs' (Slavs) and called another group of people whom he led the 'Khirkhiz'. He added that it was said that the Saqlabs mixed with the Khirkhiz and that this explains the incidence of red hair and white skin among the Khirkhiz._
> 
> Slavs + Kyrgyz = Ginger
> Who would have thought;
> 
> All those Turk folks with Caucasoid features actually did inter-mix with Caucasoids; whether Slavs, Scythians or Tocharians;
> Or any other Indo-Europeans of the vicinity; Is this all Surprising - not really;


I could argue a turk is a caucasoid. They seem to come from caucaus, how much more caucasoid can you be? It's mix with east that makes them look somewhat otherwise, just like it's mix with levant that gives the jews with J paternity their look.

----------


## Noman

> I know it seems that things evolve but it still seems impossible. Natural selection seems really impossible maybe we just cant explain why things change. I am a redhead and alot of my relatives are on my dad's side it is the most popular hair color the red hair genes are extremely strong in my DNA. I am as much as a redhead as possible i know what it is like more than u. I don't endure cold any better than a black person my extremely pale skin does not give me an advantage at all. I dont see how i would survive better in ice age Europe than a black person would. The only negative thing is i get sun burned a little more easily than the average white person but there is nothing majorly differnt. Red hair goes very deep under the 45th parrel.


Funny a lot of "scientists" have tried to chalk things up as 100% "drift" as well. That's really the biggest tenant of original out of africa. Basically it doesn't make any sense, though. You have no reason for big changes to go in a particular direction. If you are in a neutral state stuff changes back and forth randomly, you don't become new stuff on a group basis. 

If you were outside a lot you'd absorb a lot more vitamin D than most white people, and way more than most black people, in low sunlight kind of area. Which doesn't matter a lot today but used to.




> It is easy to explain why red hair does not cover all of Italy and Spain as 1% or above. Because the celtic blood in Spain became less and less the more south they went and the dark hair genes dominate more than the light hair genes in Denmark which is why red hair from Germans survived better in Denmark than red hair from Celts in Spain. Same probably with italics and Celts in the alps and Italy. What about the decline of red hair as u get east of Germany why doesnt maciamo talk about that. The Sycthians and other Indo Iranians tribes lived in very sunny desert like areas of central Asia and they had high amounts of red hair but did fine from 4,000-1,500ybp till they were conquered by central Asian turkic tribes.


Which says that things happened as I was talking about. At end of ice age R group settled all of eurasia and went hog wild growing all over the place. However even though they have tons of r1a in India theya re all pretty dark skinned and haired. The idea is they have had some selection to not die in the immense sunlight of lower lattitudes. The red hair is being weeded out. A lot of this is just mixing in, but most of the scientists today treat everything like it's mixing a cake and that leads to some really dumb conclusions. Truth is for african americans they have taken on european genes very unequally, meaning that selection is happening. Probably mostly for disease resistance.





> It is alot more complicated than what u say sure relatives to humans have lived in Europe for over a million years. But that does not mean they were humans ancestors only off shoots of the same family while humans ancestors could have stayed in africa that whole time. Our human family would have begun in sub shara africa 200,000-400,000ybp. Then the family it seems all non sub sharen africans come from migrated to north africa and the mid east over 100,000ybp. Then they split into Caucasins and Oceania mongliod or they came from separate migrations out of Africa. Oceania mongliod migrated to India then further into asia splitting into Mongliods and Oceania i dont know maybe 80,000ybp Oceania going south and Mongliods north. Caucasins stayed in the mid east and groups of Caucasians would have made it to Europe first over 55,000ybp. The founder population of all modern Europeans probably arrived from a mix of diff groups or one group anywhere from 30,000-60,000ybp.


So go back and read my post about african and european potential human ancestors. The heidelbergensis is an ancestor of everyone, no one seems to dispute that. The neanderthal is an ancestor probably of everyone but possibly just everyone but about 1% of africa. Recent evidence shows rhodiensis is only the ancestor of a similarly tiny portion of the human ancestry, it also shows all the supposed chimp-human missing links don't make any sense at all, and modern humans suddenlys how up at 160k years ago and not in sub saharan africa but right by the levant meaning they came from elsewhere. So everything being said about out of africa is actually completely backwards.

Because the missing part is obviously out there and probably related to peking man. To tie up where modern humans come from you have to have a large brained hominid with a chin. Which sounds a lot like peking man. In africa we don't have either of those things, the only thing close is rhodiensis but clearly modern humans exist at the same time as rhodiensis.




> Yes some Neanderthals i think the ones they tested were from spain and they had very pale skin and red hair i think they were only 50,000 years old. Their red hair and pale skin came from a diff source than what mod Europeans have so that does not matter when arguing a older age for Europeans paleness. I also wnat to say we dont know who the neanderthals were. I have looked at so many of their skulls and so many from diff ages and regions look so diff. When u look at a Caucasian skull and the type African americans have so west African they look extremely similar u have to study it to see the difference.


Not really, they are quite distinct, and we have a pretty good record of them in europe at least. Their range will expand even more as russia and or soviet states do some archaeology.

Neanderthal skull has a big prefrontal area, unibrow, occiptal bun which no pure african has and few europeans have, and a forhead that slopes backwards. Also deep set eyes like many europeans. Critically the corner of eyes are set way back. Everything else we see is the opposite and in rhodiensis actually juts forward and to me looks very alien.

Black africans mostly have a pretty standard blend of east versus west features, in cameroon many of them have skulls pretty similar to cro magnon 1. Only a few in west africa seem to have something akin to heavy faces that is a bit similar to neanderthal. I don't think it comes from rhodiensis (I keep spelling it wrong but can't be bothered to care, sorry), because that doesn't look like anything in modern humans except maybe some of the odder looking people in the levant seem to have a slight amount of sharp edges around their eye sockets that just forward. I think they got it rather where they come from which is India, not africa. Andamese have those similar heavy faces and austronesians have it even more heavily, so I have little doubt that's what happened, unless we can find some new artifacts in africa to say otherwise.

Not everyone with a heavy face is a neanderthal, and not many black african people have that heavy a face. Those that do are similar to much different austronesian look.

The only times you see the term "negroid" used for old skulls is because it's when neanderthal had not been discovered yet. If you know what they look like it's hard to mistake.




> Even though their ancestors have been split for probably around 150,000-250,000 years. But if neanderthal skulls looked so obviously diff they probably were very unrelated compared to all modern humans today. I think the so called Neanderthal is just random some what related breds that might have come in multiple migrations. So when they have that DNA from Neanderthals and say they can tell u how much DNA u have from them if that is liget they are only talking about some Neanderthals.


Maybe what happened is just like the indian r1as!

The largest group of immigrants absorbed the smaller group of neanderthal. Over time the y-dna of neanderthal trickled out OR SO WE ASSUME AFTER SAMPLING ONE IN A THOUSAND INDIVIDUALS FROM A CONVENIENCE SAMPLE! 

Note this convenience sample is also mostly people who don't know their ancestry, ie people who are either of uncertain parentage or have immigrated recently. So that's a pretty terrible sample to look for the oldest inhabitants in.

So the r1a kept their y-dna but they look very similar to the other people in india.

Just like some of the altaics with the same y-dna look exactly the same as the populations around them.

And just like happened with Q haplogroup.

They have soaked up a lot of genes around them but kept the same y-dna.




> U dont get what i am saying the first hg R people were Mongliods they were not apart of the Caucasin bloodline they were in the Mongliod bloodline. 50,000ybp Europeans ancestors most likely had tannish skin they are still in the European bloodline.


Yeah, obviously but why can't it go the other way? We know it can't go your way because red hair is recessive so it couldn't just change like that. It would have to be a foudner effect from an older population. Like I said, going back to pre ice age or even a couple ice ages ago then spreading out. This doesn't happen over night.




> Yes they are sure they have many tribes but they all go back to the first Chinese speakers. There where many Germanic tribes but they were still all German. Han chinese and some othe group of Chinese dont come from completly diff sources they come from the orignal Chinese source. Maybe not completely geneticalley but defintley in language.


The germans all had a different language. Every little city in germany had its own language. There's no one single german ethnicity, no single chinese ethnicity, not now not then, there just isn't and wasn't.




> No it does not. 4,000ybp is not that long ago epxlain how almost all tarium mummies had mongliod mtdna haplogroups. There were mongliods everywhere but for some reason refused to go to the tarium basin after living in east asia for over 40,000 years does that make any sense. Khazars were not red haired and blue eyes sure some Indo iranian tribes 2,000-4,000ybp who did not inter marry did have around 3-15% red hair but Khazars did not. Y dna Q is not popular any where in asia except central siberera get ur facts together at least try to check stuff in Wikipedia before throwing out lie's. The European light features in central asia all come form Indo Iranian migrations starting 5,000ybp. Unified Indo Iranian tribes who kept their European blood seem to have all been killed off in the early mid ages that is why they dont exist they were very famous and we have alot of their ancient DNA but they were not the only iron and bronze age central Asians. I do think that east Asian like all Turkic speakers are very recent in central asia but i may be wrong.


Popularity is nothing to do with it  :Laugh out loud: 

Khazars are not in ukrain any more, they don't really exist any more except as part of east europe and part of (some) ashkenazi jews. And yes they did have red hair and blue eyes and have Q haplotype. They tested the royal burial mounds. 




> I dont believe red hair evolved out of Mongliod that is crazy talk. red hair in central asia from what we know is only from Indo Iranians that started migrating there at the earliest 5,000ybp.


Drift isn't really evolution. Say a white guy marries a black girl 1/10 times. So over time all the features darken up a bit but probably most of his ancestors still have european y-dna and mtdna. That's just exactly how it is in india. The south asians are obviously very related to blacks from africa and andamese look vert similar.




> U are making up consipircy theorys with no evidence to put down mongliod people to make them feel recent. I get sick of that when it is done on whites. did u read when i mentioned 42,000 year old mtdna sample near bejing with specifcalley mongliod B4'5 and aust dna proving it was in the mongliod family. Mongoloids are from what i can see the first and only settlers of places like Korea and probably Japan.


Nobody is less recent, but they didn't have all the same features. And the east asian population expansion is a very real phenomenon and huge. 




> Have u even looked up when Eskeoms came. from what i have looked up on google the Eskemo Aluet language is probably 4,000 years old. I am sorry i cant find the link but i looked at this genetic stuff about native americans and eskemo inuit people. Native Americans ancestors when looking at mtdna and y dna haplogroups most likely arrived over 20,00ybp eskemo inuit ancestors 6,000-10,000ybp. When u look at the globe13 aust da groups of mongliod's artic which represents easta sian looking people in north america is closest to native american not east asian. Originally native Americans ancestors may have looked east asian.


Well peruvians look nothing like asians so....

There's also chance that some siberians came from america, the other way around. Language age doesn't mean anything, but the language is related to basque if that tells you anything.




> The only heavily hg Q people i can think of is native americans and east asian looking native people of america and central siberns. There is no doubt the first hg Q people would have been Mongliod looking. ANtive Americans count as Mongliod looking they have the highcheck bons and many other of the same features There is a native american center by my house some full bloded native americans go to my school and most have slanted eyes when i first saw them i thought they were like dark skinned east asians. 
> 
> Like i have been saying the red hair that existed and kind of still exists in central asia is from R1a1a1b2 Z93 Indo Iranian migrations out of Russia starting at the earliest 5,000ybp. What evidence do u have with y dna Q being connected with red hair. I dont know how true those native american stories are and who knows how popular they were. There are probably many similar storys that sound like people are talking about aliens or something. Native Americans ancestors spread acrros north and south america from 25,000-10,000ybp. So those stories would have to very very old if those red haired people were there before them i doubt they could keep the same story for that long. Also there is no such thing as a red haired people red hair at the highest gets up to 15-20% in some Insular Celts of Ireland and Britain and the Uralic speaking Udmurts of Volga Russia.


I told you already. DNA tests plus physical descriptions plus living descendants. What more do you need?

Obviously huge migrations did happen when huns came and tamerlane and ghengis khan etc. and they have greatly mongolized a big portion of the planet, that's just a fact.

----------


## Noman

To clarify one bit, most europeans have some neanderthal features. Some have a LOT of them. Black africans have ZERO features of rhodiensis which would supposedly be what modern humans evolve from. Black africans with heavy faces don't really have features like the modern humans who show up in NE corner of africa 160k years ago either, but look more like some austronesians who in turn look like some of the fossils in china. Only people who have any features REMOTELY like rhodiensiensis are a few in the levant here and there with much narrower but still protruding eye sockets, but barely any.

So the archaeology (and now dna) says modern looking humans came out of asia, including black africans. They mixed heavily with the natves but neanderthal also makes up a decent amount of euro dna. South african hominids survie only in a bit of west africa and levant. 

This kind of east to west push with occasional back migrations has been going on in all recorded history and that's where the main population is. It also fits with all archaeology and dna evidence. So maybe that's the way it's been since the beginning.

----------


## Noman

> Of course he doesnt;
> Its 1000-700 BC; his own source even states 3000 years ago 
> _"This was apparently a Bronze Age (3000 years ago) family burial site"_
> and he calculates 2000 BC - a classical Noman;
> 
> _Göttingen University_ (2006) - *p.12*
> http://www.genebaze.cz/res/LC/LC.pdf
> also clearly states *1000-700 BC* *- Urnfield* _Bronze-age_ [Unstrut-Gruppe]
> 
> ...


I said it was about 2000bc because I barely glanced at it originally and was not looking at it as someone asked about it. That's because I am not really trying to prove there's I1 in europe which hopefully nobody disagrees with.

But thanks for making my case for me, if there's no I1 showing up in ancient studies then ffs we obviously haven't done enough studies to make any kind of conclusion. All 4 of them put together don't say a heck of a lot, but it's taken as proof positive in here that the entirety of north africa and west europe got wholly populated by r1b race from iran in pre roman iron age. Even though we have zero indo european language input in iberia and north africa aside from italic and still have some non IE language surviving.

----------


## nordicwarrior

Hands down, I1 threads have the most pound for pound entertainment value vs. the other paternal groups. Of course I'm bias... but c'mon folks. Where else do you get talk of giants, gingers, 20,000 year old trans-Atlantic voyages, etc. etc. Must be genetic.

----------


## Fire Haired

> Hands down, I1 threads have the most pound for pound entertainment value vs. the other paternal groups. Of course I'm bias... but c'mon folks. Where else do you get talk of giants, gingers, 20,000 year old trans-Atlantic voyages, etc. etc. Must be genetic.


There is no way those stories of giant people with red hair from native Americans is connected with Caucasian X2 that arrived in north america estimates at 15,000-20,000ybp. I think it could have come from Europe but where is the ancestral form of the Native American X2 or the same subclades. the other way it would have come is mid east to Siberia to America but there was not evidence Native American X2 was from Siberia or that X2 existed in Siberia at that time but the Druze are the only other people who have X2a. I still think it was mid east to siberia to america.

What does hg I1 have anything to do with that. But Eric the red was the first European person we know of who discovered north America and he had red hair and probably hg I1. But would have got his red hair from is Germanic Italo Celtic ancestry so R1b1a2a1a L11 people who inter married with hg I1. and before that the red hair is from some random non Indo European people around Russia and Ukraine who did not have hg I1 or R1b maybe the best way to trace it is mtDNA. But Europeans and mid easterns have so many of the same basic haplogroups u would have to go really deep in subclades.

----------


## nordicwarrior

You are very literal, F.H. The odd circumstances concerning maternal X in the America's is this population's epicenter is located in what is modern day New York state (and slightly north into the neighboring border of Canada). There is no trail of X leading from Siberia to Alaska or anywhere near the Pacific side. That is an enormous problem with the traditional trans-Siberian models. All of the topics mentioned in my comment happen to be addressed in an I1 thread, I'm not saying I1 was Solutreans...

----------


## Fire Haired

Is there any sign of a source from Europe no. So that is why i think it is a mystery. Europe would make sense since it is northeastern North America but would it really be possible and why wouldnt they spread the more dominte mtDNA U(mainly U5) and H(mainly H1 and H3). Its confusing i think Siberia would make the most sense a migration from Europe it would have to be a small group with almost only X2 including X2a which has been found in Israeli Jews but not Europe or Siberia..

----------


## nordicwarrior

> Is there any sign of a source from Europe no. So that is why i think it is a mystery. Europe would make sense since it is northeastern North America but would it really be possible and why wouldnt they spread the more dominte mtDNA U(mainly U5) and H(mainly H1 and H3). Its confusing i think Siberia would make the most sense a migration from Europe it would have to be a small group with almost only X2 including X2a which has been found in Israeli Jews but not Europe or Siberia..


 Not to split hairs, F.H... but the branch of Old World X2 is found in the DRUZE not the Jews. The Druze have an amazing collection of various strands of paternal and maternal haplogroups. Of course they should be studied further because members of this Middle Eastern religious tradition have quite a story to tell. I don't know why maternal H or U didn't make it over to the Americas... but they didn't. The Atlantic route isn't that wild of an idea when considering the Ice Age conditions (ice bergs/seals/walrus/frozen fresh water) and hg. I's (that's paternal I) seemingly hard-wired drive for boat travel.

----------


## Fire Haired

> Not to split hairs, F.H... but the branch of Old World X2 is found in the DRUZE not the Jews. The Druze have an amazing collection of various strands of paternal and maternal haplogroups. Of course they should be furthered studied because this members of this Middle Eastern religious tradition have quite a story to tell. I don't know why maternal H or U didn't make it over to the Americas... but they didn't. The Atlantic route isn't that wild of an idea when considering the Ice Age conditions (ice bergs/seals/walrus/frozen fresh water) and hg. I's (that's paternal I) seemingly hard-wired drive for boat travel.


I defintley think Europe is a possible source but i dont think the evidence is overwhelming. U know there is no way genetically hg I is hardwired for boat travel anymore than hg C is but i defintley think it is possible. If they find a Native American branch of Y DNA F, C V20, or I i think groups of Europeans did come around that time or before that would prove it.

----------


## nordicwarrior

Oh, F.H. I forgot to mention something else. Spend a few minutes watching some videos of folks actually travelling over the Atlantic in row boats. Yes row boats. I had no idea so many people have and are planning to do this nutty feat. And most make it unassisted. Now if we sprinkle the ocean with a smattering of ice sheets allowing for Hgar to periodically fill his grocery bag with fresh seal meat and his "old school" animal hide canteens with melt water-- all of the sudden we have a clear picture of Solutrean's successful journey.

----------


## nordicwarrior

Attention moderators... why are my posts not featured in the "latest posts" category? All of F.H. recent responses have been listed but none of mine have. What's up with that?

----------


## adamo

mtdna X2 is most prevalent in rare middle eastern communities, upon exiting Africa and then the Middle East, these females penetrated deep into Asia ending up in extreme northeastern Siberiawhere they crossed the Bering straight into the America's, they are only present in northern America, in Iroquois and Algonquin female lineages (north American Amerindians.)

----------


## adamo

There is a 25-30% high across much of the eastern portion of northern America spanning New York State and other nearby regions.

----------


## nordicwarrior

> ...these females penetrated deep into Asia ending up in extreme northeastern Siberiawhere they crossed the Bering straight into the America's...


 Can you site your sources for this claim? I know maternal X has a spike in Georgia (I would hardly call that extreme northeastern Siberia) and I remember reading about/seeing another much smaller echo spike that penetrated more deeply into Russia, but it wasn't any further East than Tomsk. P.S. Moderators I'm back on the lastest postings highlights, so thanks for fixing that...

----------


## MOESAN

my bets: Y-I1 is maybe a not too old SNP but born by an upstream that were present in North central Europe long time ago yet BUT in small numbers - uneasy to say how it took some demic increase - it was surely present in Scandinavia before any other HG (look at Saami, at this time proto-Saami) , came from the continent - subclades occuped south Baltic coasts, and Finland, this last not by force through Scandinavia - a first erratic dispersal - in Scandinavia we can imagine the SNPs knew a first demic increase with agriculture in some place not everyplace because the osmose took time, we know that (no mixing at first) -
at pre-bronze it seems 'corded' affiliated people took foot in Scandinavia, almost sure with a proto- or complete satem language, and came far northwards unti Lappony (Saamy lad) - it seems they ware pushed northward by new arrivants in true Bronze Age, into Norway where R1a is very denser than in sweden and Denmark, even in Norway the distribution is denser in northern parts - I believe these new people were proto-germanic ones (some proto-celtic ones more in Western Norway, through sea and N-Jutland, at iron Ages???) and that they created a cultural region centered around Denmark by osmose, where Y-R1a (fewer), Y-R1b-U106 (a lot) AND OTHER SNPs of Y-I1 (a lot too) stayed in N-Germany-Denmark were involved (plus some Y-I2a2) - 
_so Y-I1 saw different subclades of itself introduced in Scandinavia at different times under different cultural labels... but yes I agree, it was first on the continent (very evident)_

----------


## MOESAN

I said that but I say again, Y-I1 seems (for the most, not for all) a newer newcomer in Scandinavia than does Y-R1a !!!)

----------

