Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

dnatribes dna tests??????????

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Eki
    replied
    Originally posted by F.E.C.
    Eki,
    my opinion is that the article reveals tha author's bias on some points, though I don't agree when you say that "not a lot of I1a had spread to south of Norway and Sweden".

    If your idea is that the Italian gene pool was so heavily influenced by the Germanic peoples you have to bring all of this to the extreme consequences:
    The Lombards and the Goths were those who came here in greatest number.
    Historians think both the Goths and the Lombards (the latter represent the last case of mass migration of an entire people to the Italian peninsula in history) were most likely from southern Scandinavia were R1a, R1b and (!)I1a(!) haplogroups are all but unusual.
    Then why so many R1bs and so few I1as (and also R1as)?
    I think the Goths might have been R1b or R1a. It's believed they were from Götaland or Gotland in Sweden. It's also believed a lot of them, if not all of them, left Sweden. Furthermore, if you look at the I1a haplomap, you'll see the almost black locus in Norway. I believe it means I1a originally spread from Norway. Some of it went through Sweden for example to Finland, but I don't believe it originated in Sweden, and I have not heard anyone to associate the Goths with Norway.

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

    "The Goths possibly originated in Scandinavia (more particularly, Gotland or Götaland; Jordanes' Scandza). They would have become separated from related tribes, the Gutar (Gotlanders) and the Götar (Geats), which are sometimes included in the term Goths[1] in about the 1st century BC (but the Gutasaga leaves open the possibility of prolongued contact). They migrated south-east along the Vistula during the 1st century (Jordanes' Gothiscandza; see Wielbark culture), settling in Scythia, which they called Oium "waterlands", from the 2nd century (see Chernyakhov culture). According to legendary accounts, the capital of this kingdom was Arheim, at the Dniepr."

    Leave a comment:


  • Eki
    replied
    Originally posted by F.E.C.
    Then why so many R1bs and so few I1as (and also R1as)?
    Like I said, I believe the I1a tribes in Norway and Sweden had not yet mixed so much with the R1b tribes in Denmark and Germany. There was a sea between them. I think the I1a started to spread in greater numbers only after they had developed better ships just before the Viking times (after 500 AD).

    Leave a comment:


  • F.E.C.
    replied
    Originally posted by Eki
    That's an interesting page, F.E.C. One of the comments suggested "Germanic barbarians went home after conquering and looting" as a possible explanation for the lack of I1a in Italy. I guess that's possible, but I also think it could be possible that not a lot of I1a had spread to south of Norway and Sweden back then and most of the Germanic tribes that invaded Italy were R1b and some might have been R1a. As you can see, there is more R1a in northern Italy than there is I1a:

    http://www.relativegenetics.com/geno...a_large_RG.jpg
    Eki,
    my opinion is that the article reveals tha author's bias on some points, though I don't agree when you say that "not a lot of I1a had spread to south of Norway and Sweden".

    If your idea is that the Italian gene pool was so heavily influenced by the Germanic peoples you have to bring all of this to the extreme consequences:
    The Lombards and the Goths were those who came here in greatest number.
    Historians think both the Goths and the Lombards (the latter represent the last case of mass migration of an entire people to the Italian peninsula in history) were most likely from southern Scandinavia were R1a, R1b and (!)I1a(!) haplogroups are all but unusual.
    Then why so many R1bs and so few I1as (and also R1as)?

    Leave a comment:


  • Eki
    replied
    Originally posted by F.E.C.
    http://dienekes.ifreepages.com/blog/...es/000576.html
    I understand this study is a bit old but I don't think things have changed meanwhile.
    That's an interesting page, F.E.C. One of the comments suggested "Germanic barbarians went home after conquering and looting" as a possible explanation for the lack of I1a in Italy. I guess that's possible, but I also think it could be possible that not a lot of I1a had spread to south of Norway and Sweden back then and most of the Germanic tribes that invaded Italy were R1b and some might have been R1a. As you can see, there is more R1a in northern Italy than there is I1a:

    http://www.relativegenetics.com/geno...a_large_RG.jpg

    Leave a comment:


  • F.E.C.
    replied
    EBurgess,

    I've heard M222 (the mutation for R1b1c7) could be found in France as well but I don't know much more.

    Leave a comment:


  • F.E.C.
    replied
    Originally posted by Eki
    I think there was a huge influx of Germanic tribes (R1b) to northern Italy in the Migration Period when the Roman empire collapsed. I think that was about 1,500 years ago.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Migration_Period

    But if the historians are right, the R1b tribes had already started to mix with the I1a tribes 500 years earlier? Shouldn't there then also be gradients of I1a in Italy, but there isn't?

    http://www.relativegenetics.com/geno...a_large_RG.jpg
    Yes Eki, after the downfall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD many different Germanic tribes entered Italy and settled not only in the North.

    In Campania, for example, the Lombard Duchy of Benevento has lasted for centuries, coming to an end just at the eve of the Normans' coming to Sicily.

    I don't think this difference is entirely due to the Germanic invasions of that period.

    I1as in Italy seem to be very few:
    http://dienekes.ifreepages.com/blog/...es/000576.html
    I understand this study is a bit old but I don't think things have changed meanwhile.
    Last edited by F.E.C.; 26 May 2006, 12:40 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Eki
    replied
    Originally posted by F.E.C.
    R1b individuals could have been living in Italy for more than 10.000 years, nevertheless there's a huge difference between North and South (http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read...-09/1125597419).
    But maybe you can argue it's not long enough...
    I think there was a huge influx of Germanic tribes (R1b) to northern Italy in the Migration Period when the Roman empire collapsed. I think that was about 1,500 years ago.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Migration_Period

    But if the historians are right, the R1b tribes had already started to mix with the I1a tribes 500 years earlier? Shouldn't there then also be gradients of I1a in Italy, but there isn't?

    http://www.relativegenetics.com/geno...a_large_RG.jpg

    Leave a comment:


  • EBurgess
    replied
    You know, these discussions will take on a whole new dimension when the sub-clades are broken down even further.

    I think we are starting to see better geography on some of these sub-clades as we break through and get clades that are more recent than 5000 years ago. Ultimately these sub-branches will give us a much better picture.

    The NW Irish R1b1c7 is very exciting if it holds up to being contained in the UK. Problem is, without massive participation in europe, how can you really be certain?

    For the older designations, has there been any succesful Y-dna readings from ancient corpses?

    Leave a comment:


  • F.E.C.
    replied
    Originally posted by Eki
    I mean that over a long time, the percentages of different haplogroups in different parts of a country will even out.
    R1b individuals could have been living in Italy for more than 10.000 years, nevertheless there's a huge difference between North and South (http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read...-09/1125597419).
    But maybe you can argue it's not long enough...

    Leave a comment:


  • Eki
    replied
    Originally posted by EBurgess
    Not sure what you mean? Only males have this designation. Once R1B always R1b. T
    I mean that over a long time, the percentages of different haplogroups in different parts of a country will even out. At least that's what I believe in. For example, if you look at the haplomaps below, you'll notice that central Norway has much more I1a than southern Norway, and southern Norway has much more R1b than central Norway:

    http://www.relativegenetics.com/geno...a_large_RG.jpg

    http://www.relativegenetics.com/geno...b_large_RG.jpg

    I also believe that in the next 10,000, all Norway will be the same blue color. But of course we won't be here to witness it.

    Leave a comment:


  • EBurgess
    replied
    Not at all. I just think it's odd that I1a and R1b could have co-existed in southern Norway and southern Sweden thousands of years without inter-marrying.
    Not sure what you mean? Only males have this designation. Once R1B always R1b. This label is really a point in time and nothing else. We all co-existed for tens of millenia with both groups. The only thing that can change for the R1b label is to discover new SNPs which would refine the groupings.

    R1Bs ancestors were P and his descendants may be R1b1C etc... No amount of intermmariage will change these. The changes have nothing to do with reproduction, but rather mutations of unknown origin happening over millenia.

    You would be hard pressed to prove any ethnicity or country or boundary was originally composed of a unique haplogroup. The time depth for these labels goes to far back.

    Leave a comment:


  • Eki
    replied
    Originally posted by Stevo
    How are you using the word Nordic?

    Do you mean "people who reside in a northern country" or "members of the Nordic subdivision of the European Geographical Race"?
    To me (and I guess to most Nordic people) "Nordic countries" mean the countries that are members of the Nordic Council, ie. Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden:

    http://www.norden.org/start/start.asp?lang=6

    I think the word "Nordic" is better defined than the word "Scandinavian". Geographically, "Scandinavia" means just the Scandinavian Peninsula, ie. Sweden, Norway and Finnish Lappland. Linguistically, it means those speaking a Scandinavian language, i.e. Swedes, Danes, Norse, Icelandic and Swedish-speaking Finns. Culturally, it usually means the same as "Nordic".

    Originally posted by Stevo
    I get the impression that you and a couple of others here regard R1b as some sort of "inferior grade" of y-dna.
    Not at all. I just think it's odd that I1a and R1b could have co-existed in southern Norway and southern Sweden thousands of years without inter-marrying. However, I find it likely R1b had already been in Denmark and Germany for a long time, but they had been separated by the Baltic Sea from I1a in Norway and Sweden until the first century BC like historians claim. If inter-marrying had happened since 10,000 years ago, I think the gradient lines inside Sweden and Norway would have disappeared and blended into one single color.

    Originally posted by Stevo
    1. The Swedish researchers at the study mentioned by Mike Maddi concluded that R1b is one of the earliest major male lineages in Sweden.
    The researchers didn't give any exact figures. They just used the phrase "one of the oldest". To a 20 year old, a 50 year old could look like an old geezer. In geology, million years is not that long. In history, 1000 years might be considered old. In anthropology 1000 years is not that old.

    Leave a comment:


  • F.E.C.
    replied
    Originally posted by Stevo
    What really puzzles me is why someone would be so dead set against the idea that R1b arrived in Scandinavia in prehistoric times. I get the impression that you and a couple of others here regard R1b as some sort of "inferior grade" of y-dna. Of course, such an idea is ridiculous, especially since R1b is without a doubt the most prolific and successful y-haplogroup in Europe, just in terms of numbers if nothing else.
    Are we, in 2006, leaving behind us that old method of discrimination known as racism to joyfully embrace haplogroupism ?

    Leave a comment:


  • Stevo
    replied
    Originally posted by Eki
    Probably those of us who want to find the truth about the Nordic pre-history. I guess us Nordic people find it more interesting than others. Recent archeological findings suggest that there were humans in Finland already about 120,000 years ago. Those were probably Neanderthals and they most likely didn't stay. Archeology also shows that there were people here in the Stone Age, but it's not known who they were and if they stayed. It's not even known who the Bronze Age people were and if they stayed. At least I want to find answers to those questions.

    http://www.susiluola.fi/eng/index_eng.php
    How are you using the word Nordic?

    Do you mean "people who reside in a northern country" or "members of the Nordic subdivision of the European Geographical Race"?

    There are plenty of members of the latter who have never lived in Finland or the Scandinavian countries, and there are plenty of folks who live in Finland and Scandinavia who are not Nordic.

    What really puzzles me is why someone would be so dead set against the idea that R1b arrived in Scandinavia in prehistoric times. I get the impression that you and a couple of others here regard R1b as some sort of "inferior grade" of y-dna. Of course, such an idea is ridiculous, especially since R1b is without a doubt the most prolific and successful y-haplogroup in Europe, just in terms of numbers if nothing else.

    1. The Swedish researchers at the study mentioned by Mike Maddi concluded that R1b is one of the earliest major male lineages in Sweden.

    2. R1b is very well represented in all of the Scandinavian countries.

    3. R1b is by far the single largest y-haplogroup in Denmark.

    4. Norway has its own unique R1b modal haplotype, and the R1b in Denmark is
    also primarily of a modal haplotype unique to the North Sea-Baltic littoral.

    5. A number of R1b Shetland Islanders, descendants of the Norwegian Vikings
    who settled there, share the R1b-Norwegian modal haplotype. At least one
    Shetland family, the Sinclairs, claim descent from Rognvald, Jarl of Moer in
    Norway, and they are R1b (see David Faux's Shetland Island Project).

    6. Different types of prehistoric skeletal remains have been found in
    Scandinavia, among them Cro-Magnon.

    It is pretty well accepted that R1b is associated with Cro-Magnons. Combe-Capelle skeletons have also been found in Scandinavia in connection with Gravettian artifacts. Those things have been associated with y-haplogroup I.

    Early on the wandering bands of hunter-gatherers were probably separate. Later they mingled. The same story occurred pretty much everywhere.

    To me the truth seems pretty obvious.

    But I am not motivated by a mysterious animus against a particular y-haplogroup.
    Last edited by Stevo; 26 May 2006, 09:43 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Eki
    replied
    Originally posted by Stevo

    Really, in the end, who cares whether or not R1b got to Scandinavia early?
    Probably those of us who want to find the truth about the Nordic pre-history. I guess us Nordic people find it more interesting than others. Recent archeological findings suggest that there were humans in Finland already about 120,000 years ago. Those were probably Neanderthals and they most likely didn't stay. Archeology also shows that there were people here in the Stone Age, but it's not known who they were and if they stayed. It's not even known who the Bronze Age people were and if they stayed. At least I want to find answers to those questions.

    http://www.susiluola.fi/eng/index_eng.php

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X