Haplogroup R1a

[sitw]

It's also interesting to notice that the Khazars are said to have converted to Judaism. Maybe that explains my autosomal match with the Ashkenazi Jews in Budapest?

Eki has touched an interesting topic. According to the popular speculations, Khazars have largely contributed to the spread of Judaism across southern Russia, Ukraine and other parts of Europe. Eki's matches with Ashkenazi Jews might come from the very same source as probably my own matches (I am of Ashkenazi background) with people of Scandinavian heritage (surprisingly not with Russians or Ukrainians) and some with Indians. There is a possibility that the strong genetic link exists between Scandinavia/Finland and Asia of which Khazars appears a central piece and R1a distribution might serve as a relative evidence.
The results provided by Shetland Islands genealogical project that Eki has indicated, also somewhat add to this theory.

[Eki]

It's also interesting that according to Dupya et al ( http://vetinari.sitesled.com/norway.pdf ), the highest percentage of R1a in Norway is in the Middle Norway (31.5%) and according to Lappalainen et al ( http://vetinari.sitesled.com/finns.pdf ), the highest percentage of R1a1 in Finland is in Southern Ostrobothnia of west-central Finland (19%).

I can't find any good explanation for why R1a would have gone past southern Scandinavia or southern Finland before settling. I think it's more logical to assume they didn't, because they went straight above it to central Scandinavia.

Archaeological evidence for example in Högom, suggest that there was a petty kingdom in central Sweden around 600 AD. I think the trading route to central Norway might have gone through it:

http://194.165.231.32/hemma/pramqvist/hogom.html

[Kaiser]

Kaiser: I also had an autosomal match with Kachari (Northeast India). Do you know if there's a known link between Kachari and Kazhars? The names have a same ring, in my opinion.

Eki, No idea, really. But I know of a minor Jewish presence in North East India (Manipur & Mizoram); they are called Beni Menashe. Their Y-DNA composition has not been recorded and I don't know if they would link up with the Khazars, genetically or linguistically.

[Eki]

Eki, No idea, really. But I know of a minor Jewish presence in North East India (Manipur & Mizoram); they are called Beni Menashe. Their Y-DNA composition has not been recorded and I don't know if they would link up with the Khazars, genetically or linguistically.

That's an interesting piece of information that there are Jewish in North East India. Even if they wouldn't be linguistically linked to Kazhars, it didn't necessarily prove they weren't linked. As we know from migrants of today, their language can change in just two or three generations.

[Eki]

It seems that like Khazars, also Bnei Menashe are considered a candidate of the "lost tribes of Israel":

http://www.moshiach.com/features/tribes/burma.php

Mystery of the Ten Lost Tribes
Burma - Bnei Menashe
by Rabbi Marvin Tokayer

In the mountainous region which lies on both sides of the border between India and Myanmar (former Burma), lives the Menashe (Shinlung) tribe which numbers between 1-2 million people. They intermarried with the Chinese and look Chinese-Burmas, but the entire tribe is conscious of their Israeli ancestry.

Among the tribe of Menashe we can see the custom of animal sacrifice in the same way which had been done among the Ten Tribes of Israel.

The word Menashe appears often in their poetry and prayer. It is the name of their ancestor and they call themselves children of Menashe (Beni Menashe). When they pray, they say, "Oh, God of Menashe," which is from the name Manasseh, one of the Ten Lost Tribe of Israel

[Eki]

I think here's a nice map showing the Volga trade route that went from Byzantine Empire through Kazhar Khaganate to Scandinavia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Varangian_routes.png

[Eki]

I don't want to start a political debate here, but this note about the Khazars in an article about political uses of genetics is interesting concerning the topic discussed here:

http://www.azure.org.il/magazine/magazine.asp?Id=347&catID=4&showElement=True

"Another tactic has been to negate the Jewish claim to primacy by denying that Jews are in fact the descendants of the ancient Hebrews: “The claim made by the Zionists… that late nineteenth-century European Jews are direct descendants of ancient Palestinian Hebrews is what is preposterous here…. That they somehow descend from first-century Hebrews, despite the fact that they look like other Europeans, that they speak European languages is what is absurd.”30 Arthur Koestler’s book The Thirteenth Tribe is widely cited as proving “that most Ashkenazim are the descendants of convert Khazars [a Central Asian Turkic people that embraced Judaism to some extent in the eighth or ninth century, but disappeared from history not long thereafter] with closer ties to the Slavic people than to Semitic people.”31 They are, then, according to this view, mere interlopers in the Middle East with no historic claim to Israel."

[derinos]

What is the basis of Ethnic Origin?

This is a semi-humorous comment on the way claims for territorial rights are being justified by DNA-based ancient genetic presence on land now owned by others.
Is there no statute of limitations on such claims?
Some Welshmen want the English to go back to Germany and yield the British Isles to the Britons (after 1500 years). We know about Israel and its 2000 year claim on Palestine. Some Catholic Irish Ulstermen (500 years) want the Protestants to go back to Scotland. The Kurds have a very ancient claim to nationhood, against Turkey and Iraq. . The Basques could trump them all, over 10,000 years against upstarts France and Spain.
Now we have Macedonia, the Saami, and in the USA and Canada, the Originals or Native Americans. Dont start on the Aztecs, and Incas. And Texas?

What about a declaration that all land belongs to the occupants on a given (retroactive surprise) declaration day?

Dateline 1955.
A friend was attempting to obtain health services benefits on behalf of a Canadian disabled man. Here is the conversation, which was helped by a Finnish interpreter:

Were you in the army in WW2? Yes.
Then you may be eligible for disabled Veterans' benefits.
Good.
Where did you come from when you entered Canada?
Finland.
What passport did you have?
Russian.
(But now I have a Canadian passport.)
What were you in the Army?
A Feldswebel.
That's German, isn't it?
Yes, it was the German Army.
I don't think the Canadian Veterans department would recognise that.

I ask myself, would a YDNA test have been of any use?

[lgmayka]

What about a declaration that all land belongs to the occupants on a given (retroactive surprise) declaration day?

That would simply reward rapacious oppressors at the expense of oppressed victims.

Besides, you are confusing two completely different issues: personal ownership of land vs. political boundaries and structures. With respect to personal land ownership, most lawsuits simply endeavor to secure enforcement of existing legal documents (e.g., treaties with Native American tribes, or land grants to Mexican-Americans in the Southwest). Everyone has, and ought to have, the right to secure enforcement of legally binding documents. I don't see how anyone who believes in the American Constitution and the rule of law can possibly disagree with that.

The issue of political boundaries and structures is somewhat more difficult. Certain issues are obvious, of course. For example, any law that attempts to prevent indigenous people from speaking their own language, maintaining their own culture, or worshipping according to their own religion is clearly unjust. But beyond that, matters get stickier.

Everyone wants to draw their own boundaries, because as Massachusetts Governor Gerry (of 'gerrymander' fame) showed in 1812, he who draws the boundaries effectively decides the winners. Draw the boundaries of the Middle East one way, and you get the current Israel, Turkey, and Iraq. Draw the boundaries another way, and you get Palestine and Kurdistan. It is not at all clear which set of boundaries is more 'correct', or even which principles to apply to determine boundary correctness. (There are many such principles, all of them reasonable, but many of them contradictory.)

[Eki]

Were you in the army in WW2? Yes.
Then you may be eligible for disabled Veterans' benefits.
Good.
Where did you come from when you entered Canada?
Finland.
What passport did you have?
Russian.
(But now I have a Canadian passport.)
What were you in the Army?
A Feldswebel.
That's German, isn't it?
Yes, it was the German Army.
I don't think the Canadian Veterans department would recognise that.

That's a bit like one of the most well-known Finnish WW2-hero Lauri Törni (aka Larry Thorn) who first served in the Finnish army, then a short while in the German SS, then back to Finland, then back to Germany and after WW2 he served in the US army and died in the Vietnam war:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauri_T%C3%B6rni

[Eki]

After reading this site about magic and paganism in Scandinavia,
I started to wonder if the Vanir in Scandinavian mythology were
the same as Rus (maybe I1a?) and the Aesir lead by Odin were
the same as Khazars (maybe R1a?). According to the sagas,
the Aesir and the Vanir first fought against each other but
later were allies. Historians also say that the Rus and
the Khazars were sometimes allies and sometimes enemies:

http://www.eutopia.no/Volvewitch.htm#10

"And I take a closer look at the Dejbjerg wagons, the Grusian axes and the typical Frey figurines found both in Denmark and in Caucasus. All of it adds to evidence linking the peoples who lived along the north-eastern shores of the Black Sea with the peoples who settled Scandinavia, around 2000 years ago.

When all is said and done, some questions still remain, one of them being: Why here? I have established with some credibility that if we look for a good time and reason for them to leave their homeland, then 90 BCE, during the extensive Roman offensive and occupation of this region, provided both the time and the initiative to bring your people and your valuables away to a place of safety. But why go north?
Well, the Romans had, most likely, closed off the Strait of Bosporus, and they would also prevent anyone from passing south of the Alps. Odin initially tried going up the Volga, but here the Rus denied him passage. To the east, there were the Iranians to contend with, and to the north-west, their arch enemy the Schytians would have welcome the battle and the riches. All that remained, was free passage up the Danube, through the land of their Thracian cousins, first west, then turn sharply right at the top, please, and enter the Teuton forests at your peril.

They did, and one reason must have been that they had heard tales of the huge Kimber Exodus of ca. 130 BCE, leaving so much of the northern lands nearly void of people. And I believe that one of the reasons why this explanation, despite the evidence to support it, has not been accepted, not even properly researched (other than by individuals without funds) is because of national pride. It does not sit well with some people that we, the Scandinavians, were once occupants of these countries, refugees from Asia Minor, crowding out the Rus (the native Swedish population, who also created Russia), the 'Finns', the Sami and other locals, just like it must be difficult for some Australians to accept that they are descended from convicts, or for some English to digest the fact that their forefathers were Danish and Norwegian marauders. An example of this is the fact that Scandinavian historians still hotly debate if Denmark was populated by Swedes, or Sweden by Danes, or both countries by Germans, as if those national labels had any meaning 2000 years ago. "

[banrjeer]

Kushash, if r1a originated in India, why then it is not concentric around India. It took one way, one track traffic, north only. It seems like most hyplotypes spread in a concentric way from the root location.

Another thing, R is derived from the same root as P,Q,N,O. Why they are not present in India as well, just r1a. The only explanation would be that P,Q,N,O derived from r1a somewhere in eurasia.It doesn't seems likely.Now, does it?

If you look at the descendant lineages of r1 India seems to be quite centrally placed.

r1* is found in egypt, jordan, oman and yemen, chad? and cameroon.
R2 is found in India and decreases gradually into central asia.
r1a locus seems to be in pakistan, western india. It is found in Iran afghanistan?, kurdistan. Highest diversity in the world is in pakistan.
the survival of r1* along with K in west asia indicates small relict populations left behind but it should be fairly close to the place of origination.

So the origins of r1a is ideally placed in west or southwest asia. N, O, P, Q are all found if a larger region including west , south and southeast asia is thought of. The presence of older mutations higher up in the y tree should have a larger regional spread and but frequency is expected to be small where the breeding populations are large.

Q is found in yemen and india, O is found in south asia and K is found as far away as australia. r1a did not make it to southeast asia but its ancestors certainly did.

[Rudra]

India, R1a and castes

If R1a originated in India, there wouldnt have been much difference between upper castes and lower castes. However that is the case. See article below

Deccan Chronicle, Jan 14, 2007

http://www.deccan.com/home/homedetails.asp#Lower%20castes%20genetically%20closer

Hyderabad, Jan. 14: People belonging to lower castes are genetically closer to tribal groups than they are to upper castes, a study conducted by the Hyderabad-based Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB) has discovered. Experts from the CCMB believe that this finding adds credence to the theory that lower castes emerged from tribal populations. A senior scientist at the centre, Dr Kumarasamy Thangaraj, said the origin of the caste system in India has been the subject of heated debate among anthropologists and historians.

Many of them had suggested that the caste system began with the arrival of speakers of Indo-European languages from Central Asia about 3,500 years ago. “However, there has been no consensus on this so far,” he added.

In the latest study, CCMB scientists analysed the Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA of three tribal populations of southern India and compared the results with the available data from across the Indian subcontinent. They did not find any significant difference in mitochondrial DNA among Indian tribal and caste populations. On the other hand, the study of the Y-chromosome lineage revealed distinct distribution patterns among caste and tribal populations. “The paternal lineage of Indian lower castes shows closer affinity to the tribal populations than to upper castes,” said Dr Thangaraj.

A significant aspect of the study is that its Y-SNP data provides compelling genetic evidence for the tribal origin of the lower caste populations. It gives substance to the theory that lower caste groups may have emerged from hierarchical divisions existing within the tribal groups much before the arrival of the Aryans. Indo-Europeans may have established themselves as upper castes over this already developed caste-like class structure within the tribes.

Indian society has been subject to multiple waves of migration in historicand prehistoric times. The first was the ancient Palaeolithic migration by early humans. This was followed by the early Neolithic migration, probably of proto-Dravidian speakers. About 3,500 years ago, the Indo-European speakers arrived. “Indian tribal and caste populations emerge from the genetic heritage of Pleistocene southern and western Asians,” said Dr Thangaraj. “At the same time, the paternal lineage of Indian castes is more closely related to the Central Asians.”

The results suggest that the Indian subcontinent was settled soon after the famous out-of-Africa expedition, and that there had been no complete extinction or replacement of the initial settlers. Rather, they were supplemented and restructured by later waves of migrations.

[lgmayka]

The results suggest that the Indian subcontinent was settled soon after the famous out-of-Africa expedition, and that there had been no complete extinction or replacement of the initial settlers. Rather, they were supplemented and restructured by later waves of migrations.

Spencer Wells' book on the Genographic Project describes the first Indian inhabitants by working backward from Australia. Wells says that the predominant haplogroups among Australian Aborigines are yDNA C and mtDNA M. He then points out that in southern India, mtDNA M still has about 40-50% share, whereas yDNA C (not C3) has only a 5% share.

The implication is that southern India was first populated by the same tribes of people who went on to Australia (from Africa). Later-arriving tribes apparently imposed a dominance that almost wiped out the earlier men but preserved the earlier women.

[cacio]

Rudra:

interesting article. It must refer to the paper Genetic affinities among the lower castes and the tribal groups of India: inference from Y chromosome and mitochondrial dna. by thanseem, thangaraj et al.

Its results are somewhat similar to Sengupta's paper. Neither of the two claims that all Indian R1a arrived with the Aryans. They claim that there must have been an earlier substratum of R1a, which was later incremented by the Aryan arrival, which generated the large frequency of R1a among the higher castes. Neither of the two is very clear about the origin of R1a (India, central Asia?), with Sengupta overall more Indo-centric. Of course, one may hypothesize a birth of R1a in Pakistan, a dispersal, and then a return into India with the Aryans. But again, I don't have the impression that either paper had a definitive answer as to the birthplace of R1a.

cacio