R1a says I'm Kurgan, am I also Viking?
 

According to the analysis of my yDNA by the Genographic Project, I'm in haplogroup R1a, so my direct ancestors are the "Kurgans." It has been well documented that the Kurgans were nomadic farmers who lived on the grassy steppes of the Ukraine and southern Russia 5000 to 7000 years ago. It is likely that they were the first to domesticate the horse (approximately 5000 years ago). It is possible (but my no means certain) that they also may be responsible for the birth of Indo-European languages. (See short discussion and links below.) Finding out the Kurgans are my direct ancestors I think is one of the two most interesting things I discovered from my yDNA analysis.

The other thing I learned that I found most interesting is that most men from Western Europe, especially Ireland, where my Cooley ancestors lived until they left Ireland for America in 1625, are NOT members of my haplogroup (R1a) -- my DNA matches that of men in Eastern Europe and Scandinavia much better. The haplogroup R1a - or, more precisely, its subclade R1a1 - which I'm a member of -- is said to indicate a "Norse Viking origin" when it is found among men of Irish or British descent like me. In fact, I just found out I can now get a "Norse Viking Tribe of Britain" certificate from Oxford Ancestors! (See http://www.oxfordancestors.com/service-tribes.html . However, also see http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb....lo_r1a_two.htm for a skeptical comment.)


Comments welcome.
-Donald

*** Some Genetics ***

Haplogroup R1a [my group] -- defined by the M17 (SNP marker) of the Y chromosome is associated with the Kurgan culture -- which existed in the Russian & Ukrainian Steppes north of the Black and Caspian Seas from 5000 to 7000 years ago. This DNA lineage is currently common in Slavic populations of Eastern Europe, central and western Asia, India, but it is not very common in some countries of Western Europe (e.g. France, or some parts of Great Britain) However, 23.6% of Norwegians, 18.4% of Swedes, 16.5% of Danes, 11% of Saami share this lineage.

Note that Haplogroup R1b [and NOT R1a] is the most common haplogroup in European populations. It is believed to have expanded throughout Europe as humans re-colonized after the last glacial maximum 10-12 thousand years ago.

*** The Kurgan Culture ***

The Kurgan people were an Indo-European culture existing during the fifth, fourth, and third millennia BC; they lived in northern Europe, from Russia across Germany, and various authorities have mounted a case for them being THE proto-Indo-European culture, from which all Indo-European cultures descend. The word kurgan means barrow or grave in Slavic and Turkic; Kurgan culture is characterized by pit-graves or barrows, a particular method of burial. They are also called the Pit-grave people, or Barrow people.

The earliest Kurgan sites are in the Ukraine and southern Russia, from which they spread by about 2000 BC to Europe, crossing the Dnieper River. Wherever Kurgan culture spread, it was marked by common elements unlike those of the surrounding Bronze-Age cultures. These are the characteristics of the Kurgan people:

They practiced animal husbandry; in rubbish dumps at Kurgan hill-forts and villages are found the bones of lots and lots of horses, many cattle, and a few pigs, sheep and goats. Few bones of wild game (such as deer) were found, so Kurgans were not a hunting culture. Horse-heads carved in diorite were found, with harness-marks cut into them to indicate bridles.

Kurgan horse-herders may have been like their possible decendents, the Scythians, who rode geldings only, their main herds being kept wild under stallions, and controlled through the mares which were hobbled near the settlements and milked regularly. Both wild-horse bones and bones of domesticated horses were found in Kurgan sites; modern bone-analysis specialists can apparently tell the difference between the two types.

***************
The Kurgan Hypothesis (The orgins of Indo-European language):

In 1956 Marija Gimbutas introduced her Kurgan hypothesis combining kurgan archaeology with linguistics to locate the origins of the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) speaking peoples. She tentatively named the culture "Kurgan" after their distinctive burial mounds and traced its diffusion into Europe. This hypothesis has had a significant impact on Indo-European research. Those scholars who follow Gimbutas identify a Kurgan culture as reflecting an early Indo-European ethnicity which existed in the steppes and southeastern Europe from the fifth to third millennia BC.
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan_culture

I think that Haplogroup "I" is associated with the Vikings, at least according to the following link: http://home.comcast.net/~whitathey/haplogroups.htm

"I" has an unusually high presence in Norway, Sweden and Denmark, where the Vikings originated. "I" is more present in those countries than R1a, and even R1b in the case of Sweden.

Also, R1a and R1b are sister groups, as they share the M173 mutation common to R1, so they are quite close anyway. It could be that R1b was the local population, while R1a were the Indo-European conquerors that eventually imposed their languages and cultures on almost the whole of Europe. But this is just a theory; I do not have any hard evidence. It is not uncommon to see a minority blend with the majority and impose its culture.

Why R1a Irishmen may have Norse Vikings as ancestors
 

Yes, haplogroup I is more associated with Scandinavians,than is haplogroup R1a. However, R1a is found at very high percentages in Western Norway. Hence if one's ancestors lived in Ireland or England, and their yDNA is haplogroup R1a (instead of the much more common R1b), then it is likely (but not certain) that their ancestors got to Ireland via Norway. In other words, their ancestors were likely Norse Vikings. At least this is my understanding, but I'm far from an expert, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong. One thing is for sure, R1a types had to get to Ireland somehow (and mine lived there at least as far back as the 1500s), it appears the Norse Viking route is the best explanation. Oxford Ancestors agrees, and gives R1a men with Irish & English ancestors "Norse Viking Tribe of Britain" Certificates.

Here is part of what the person who set up the interesting website http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb....plogroups.html said (go there to read the rest):

"R1a is found at very high percentages in Western Norway, where it reaches 30%. Some researchers believe the Icelandic Sagas, which describe a migration of a population from Asia beyond the Ural mountains, to Norway, may actually be based in fact. [This is the homeland area of haplogroup R1a -- the Kurgan area in the steppes of Russia and Central Asia.] Thor Heyerdahl, of Kon Tiki fame, spent the remaining years of his life attempting to prove this theory -- and DNA evidence is seeming to prove him right. The Swedes have long believed this legend, and the emergence of a specific type of Scandinavian R1a with a Central Asian motif seems to support this account.

The MacDonalds have determined that their progenitor, Somerled, belonged to haplogroup R1a (of the same Central Asian motif) and it seems this holds true for most of the pseudo-aristocracy of Scandinavia. R1a is found at levels of less than 1% in most regions of Ireland, and at levels of 1-3% in England, and only slightly higher in Scotland. The highest concentrations of this haplogroup are seen in areas of Britain colonized by the Norse Vikings. One of the leading DNA experts has called R1a the only sure proof of Norse Viking origins when seen in men of deep British ancestry."

I see that EthnoAncestry has just listed their Product 5 (R1a breakdown) as available. As an R1a (70 R1a on Athey, 18 R1b, 15 J2, all others single digit) on 37 STRs, I'm wondering what I would really learn by finding out I am an R1a1a, for instance. Anyone know what the breakdown tells us?

R1a1
 

I think the R1a1 (M17) marker is very confusing, and I really want to learn more about it and how these people (Kurgan) spread around the world. This is what I have read so far:

The R1a1 is said to originate from the Kurgan culture, and were the first men to use horses and also the origin of the Indo-European language group. But some also say that the idea that R1a1 originates from Kurgan Culture is questionable?

R1a1 is rare in West Europe, but for some reason a lot of people in Scandinavia have this haplogroup. It is more commonly found some parts of Eastern Europe.

I know that some Jewish groups have this haplogroup, but ironically, in west Europe the R1a1 haplogroup is called the "Aryan" marker. It indicates Viking ancestry in the British Isles. When found in Jewish persons, it indicates that they have ancestors in Eastern Europe. Some say, and I hope I don't offend anyone, that these were East Europeans that converted to the jewish religion a long time ago.

People from the highest cast in India, are also often R1A1.

30% of people in West Norway and many people from Iceland are R1a1. This haplogroup can also be found in some parts of Ireland and Scotland.

I am a Norwegian with haplogroup R1a1, and my family is Norwegian on both sides for many generations back.

The theory is that the Vikings were R1a1, and their ancestors came from some other part of the world than the rest of Europe. But from where, why and when?

Skeptic Here
 

I highly doubt that these hard and fast theories will hold up over time, i.e., that a certain prehistoric haplogroup (like R1a) can indicate a certain historic (Viking) ancestry, because by historical times, it is quite likely that ethnic groups already resembled modern groups, meaning they were mixed.

Let me start at the beginning. A haplogroup indicates only the point of divergence from the previous common ancestor, invariably in prehistoric times. For example, your R1a ancestors became isolated in the Ukraine area during the last ice age, mutated, and thus R1a was born, from that relatively homogenous group. These were the "Kurgan" culture.

But by historical times (when the ethnonyms become more recognizable, like "Viking" or "Roman"), groups had already significant gene flow.

The problem is best illustrated in Italy. Say you wanted to track the haplogroup of the Romans. It is fairly well documented that a variety of the European haplogroups (remember, which existed since pre-history) existed in Italy in historical (Roman) times. So, which was the Roman haplogroup? Well, they probably had 2-5. Ditto the Vikings.

It is also impossible to tell the mechanism for which a haplogroup reached a region. R1a in Britain could have come from Indo-European conquerors, Goths in the Roman Army, Anglo-Saxon invaders, Vikings, or the bastard children of visiting continental royalty. In sum, all R1a really tells you is that, in prehistoric times, you were Kurgan.

The labs are working on identifying microstrains. Again Italy. In Italy, there is a high presence of J. They next identified J2. Now they have identified various markers on J2, at least seven that I know of. J2 is common in the Mediterranean. By looking at these micro-micro lines/markers, they believe they can tell you whether your J2 substrain was the result of the ancient Italians, ancient Etruscans, ancient Greeks, Jewish admixture or Moorish invasions. Incidentally, despite all this, the researchers preach caution on all the IDs except for a very few, which they are SURE about. There are many mysteries still to be solved...

Finally, I should tell you that I, as an educated student of history, science and DNA, am VERY skeptical about the current state of identifying the Indo-Europeans. Remember that for years, and YEARS, and YEARS, scholars have debated this. First the evidence was archaeological, then linguistic, now biological.

Those who think our era is somehow special exhibit the same hubris every past generation has made the mistake to exhibit. We could be just as wrong as the scientific avante garde in the 1500s who banished Galileo for his beliefs.

Logic to me dictates that the current IE theories are way off. The idea that IEs were R1a is preposterous: It would mean that vast quantities of Europe (Spain, France, England, Italy, etc. or over 1/2 the land mass) all of the sudden began spoking Indo-European languages without any male genetic admixture.

Nonsense. Impossible. Has never happened.

The rival theory that IEs were J2 is also to me unlikely, but for reasons I will spare you here.

I for one believe the IE haplogroup is I, for a variety of reasons. One thing should be so intuitive as to escape attack: Indo-European is the language of most Europeans. And Haplogroup I is the only haplogroup that is almost exclusively European. It is spread over the whole of Europe, and the nations (Persia, etc.) that are not in Europe that speak an IE language. The proposed I homeland of Croatia would fit with all the linguistic models based on tree species, etc. in proto-IE.

Of course, I'm willing to accept any model, if you can articulate it plausibly.

Mikey

------------------

According to a thesis by Rootsi the I halogroup is also well representet in the Saami (1/3) and at lower frequencies inn the Finn populations. So I would not dear say it is a strict Viking hg.

http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Rootsi2004.pdf

Scandinavians have visited and settled in Finland and northern parts of Scandinavia before, during and after Viking times, so it's not surprising to find haplogroup I there. Among my (haplogroup I) relatively close matches are even Greenland Inuits, an Australian Aboriginal and a Native American. However, all those noted they were "European admixture". So, a Finn or a Saami of haplogroup I are most likely a Finn (Scandinavian admixture) and a Saami (Scandinavian admixture).

I disagree, you are actually contribute to some quite old "Germania Power" stereotypes here. If the Saami "I" was contributed by Norwegian settlers, the Saami male population also predictably should have a high frequency of R1a and R1b that the Norwegian male population have. Or is it in your opinion that old those viking actually already then knew what haplogroup they belonged to and only the "I" fellows went northwards?

Let me compare it for you:

Norwegian Y-DNA composition:

I = 40.3%
R1a = 23.6%
R1b = 27.8%
N3 = 6.9%

Saami Y-DNA compostion:

I = 25.9%
R1a = 11%
R1b = 3.9%
N3 = 47.2%

I can promise you that the admixure with Norwegians have been limited. The Saami "I" came to Scandinavia earlier than the Norwegian "I".

The female Saami lines has even have less in common with the Norwegian female lines or all other neighbouring peoples showing a long history in the area.

:eek:

The ratio I/R1a is about the same (about 2 to 1) among both Saami and Norwegians. For some reason the ratio I/R1b is much higher among Norwegians. Could it be that R1b is more frequent in southern Norway than in the north? Maybe southern Norway was already settled by hg R1b when hg I arrived, so that the hg I people had to look for land further north? Or maybe hg I people arrived first but R1b people forced them northwards?

If it was the Saami who brought the haplogroup I to Norway and not the other way around, why do the non-Saami Norwegians have much higher percentage of the haplogroup I (40% vs 26%)?