Haplogroup R1a

[jpz79]

Ie Iran

".........- so I don't see how one can use this as a sign of origin or higher diversity of R1a in Iran."

It isn't the frequency of R1 subgroups that led the authors to this conclusion. Rather, it is the apparent regional clines:


"From the disparate M198 frequencies observed
for the north and south of Iran, it is possible to envision a
movement southward towards India where the lineage
may have had an infl uence on the populations south of the
Iranian deserts and where the Dash-e Lut desert would
have played a signifi cant role in preventing the expansion
of this marker to the north of Iran. The lower frequencies
of M198 in the region of Anatolia (11.8% in Greece [27]
and 6.9% in Turkey, with a statistically signifi cant longitudinal
correlation [2] ) and the Caucasus (10% in Georgia,
6% in Armenia and 7% in Azerbaijan) [24] suggests
that population movement was southward towards India
and then westward across the Iranian plateau. In addition,
the detection of rare R1-M173* and R1a-SRY1532 lineages
in Iran at higher frequencies than observed for either
Turkey, Pakistan or India suggests the hypothesis that
geographic origin of haplogroup R may be nearer Persia."


There saying that r1a1, R1, and R1a appears to decrease in frequency as you move outwardly from the Iranian plateau. Mere coincidence? Probably not.

I think that the region between Iran to Northwest India is a likely canditate for R1/R2 differentiation and subgroup origins (not to mention Indo-european orgins) because:

A) R2 is restricted to this region (and isn't found in Europe)
B) Several clines are moving outward from out and around the plateau.
C) STR diversity of R1/R2 is highest here. (Kivilsid, 2003)


I still feel that R1a1 may have actually originated in Ukraine (because last I understood, there is highest diversity there - an the R1a1 defining 49a/Taq ht 11 substem appears to have formed there), but just represents an R1a derived Nomadic Iranian tribe - specifically, the Scythians, and doesn't represent an IE invasion/migration. We know from history, that the scythians did make a movement into Iran. More exhaustive studies have to be done, to determine this for sure.

[Eki]

I recently tested my autosomal DNA at DNATribes and curiously had about as high match with the Nepal Sherpas as with Finns, Icelandic and Norwegians, and also had some relatively high matches in northern India (see the attached file). First I thought the Asian matches were flukes, but now I found this curious mention on a Shetland DNA project page that says an R1a individual had an exact match in Nepal. Could it be that R1a people came from Nepal/Northern India to Scandinavia or the other way around?

http://www.davidkfaux.org/shetlandislandsY-DNA.html

"Conclusions: The ancestors of Lawrence Mathewson of Aywick and Utrabister, Mid Yell, son of Matthew Thomason and grandson of Thomas Mathewson (of Copister, South Yell, d. 1687), were likely Norse Vikings (suggested by R1a grouping) who settled in Shetland circa 800 AD. Due to patronymics, the surnames of his surviving descendants in the male line today are either Mathewson or Williamson. The DNA signature is very rare. In worldwide DNA databases, the largest number of close matches is with the Altai people of Central Asia. The only exact matches in about 100,000 samples are found in Nepal, and Western Norway, as well as Shetland including the large family with the surname Blance from Delting, whose relationship has not yet been ascertained via genealogical record sources."

I found this Wikipedia article on historical distribution of red hair interesting. It says red hair is most common in Britain, the Nordic countries, the Baltic States, Russia and northern Germany, but is also sporadically found in Northern India, Pakistan and Iran:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_hair#Historical_Distribution

"A fragment by Xenophanes describes the Thracians as blue-eyed and red-haired, and Herodotus described the "Budini" (probably Udmurts and Permyak Finns) as being predominantly redheaded. The Berber and Kabylie populations of northern Algeria have occasional red heads. Red hair was also found in Asia, notably among the Tocharians. The 2nd millennium BC Caucasoid Tarim mummies in China were found with red and blonde hair.[1]

Boudica, the famous Celtic queen of the Iceni, was said by the Greek historian Dio Cassius to: "be tall and terrifying in appearance ... a great mass of red hair fell over her shoulders". The Roman Tacitus commented on the "red hair and large limbs of the inhabitants of Caledonia [Scotland]" (The Life of Agricola, Ch. 11), which he linked with some red haired German/Belgic Gaulish tribes.

Today, red hair is most commonly found at both the west and eastern fringes of modern Europe. It is associated with those in Great Britain (more specifically the Scots, Welsh and Cornish) and Ireland. A high proportion of redheads is found in Scotland where 13% of the population has red hair. Ireland too has many redheads, as many as 10% of the Irish population have ginger or strawberry blond hair, while it is thought that up to 35% carry a recessive "ginger gene".[2] Red hair is most common in northernmost England, in which it has a frequency of over 15 percent. Red hair has a frequency of over 10 percent in Wales. [3] However, red or reddish-tinged hair is also found in other Caucasian populations particularly in the Nordic countries, the Baltic States, Russia and Northern Germany.

In Asia, darker or mixed tinges of red-hair can be found today sporadically from Northern India, Iran and Pakistan, where it can be found most commonly amongst those of Iranian descent, such as the Pashtuns, all the way to Japan."

[sitw]

But what if R1a left Western Asia to several directions, India, South-eastern Europe and Scandinavia?

This thought has much better ground rather considering the original root of 1Ra located in Western Asia (or South Eastern Europe) than in India. It also plays well enough with Spencer Wells “Kurgan people” theory. Though, the time of R1a origin within last 10000 - 15000 years does not seem to be well evidenced. I wonder what genetic lineage belong to the recently discovered human relics in Russia’s Voronezh region.

http://www.kommersant.com/p-9856/r_530/Kostenki_euhominids_earliest/

[Eki]

“Indian tribal and caste populations emerge from the genetic heritage of Pleistocene southern and western Asians,” said Dr Thangaraj.
.
.
.
The spread of 1Ra in Scandinavia does not support the India version either, since the origin of Norwegians and Swedes is traced to the South Eastern Europe and Western Asia.

But what if R1a left Western Asia to several directions, India, South-eastern Europe and Scandinavia?

[sitw]

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 speculations in respect to the origin of 1Ra from India don't seem to be well founded.
It is known that the greatest concentrations of 1Ra are, in particular, amidst the eastern Slavic populations of Poland, Russia, Ukraine, as well as in central Asia's Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and eastern Iran (of which Y chromosome has not significantly been influenced). The origin of Slavs is not quite identified, however the most convincing theories are those that imply South Eastern Europe and Western Asia as the main source. It is rather doubtful that Slavs' ancestors have inherited R1a from India. The spread of 1Ra in Scandinavia does not support the India version either, since the origin of Norwegians and Swedes is traced to the South Eastern Europe and Western Asia.

[cacio]

lgmayka:

hmm, if he doesn't cite any proof, then probably he doesn't have it. Then it's probably just guesswork, which may make sense, given that C and D guys are found all around the Asian coast, while the F-K guys display a different pattern.

I went to a presentation by Spencer Wells, and he didn't really cite any fundamental results, at least about this migration. He just talked about some Filipino negrito group (they are Ksomething), and Chad (he didn't say the hap, other than it shows a migration from the ME. So may be they are J or R1).

Anyway, for this thread, I see as more interesting the very recent identification of what seems the most ancient modern human presence in Europe - in a site near Moscow. A proof of the route of R1 guys into Europe?

cacio

[lgmayka]

does the statement on C come from the new book? Intriguing, I should read the book. It sounds like a statement about the out of Africa waves, a C-D coastal wave and an F wave (by land?). Does he have any proof about this, or is it just speculation?

Yes, the statement on C comes from his new book.

I presume that his evidence is in the test results he has collected from all over the world. Unfortunately, no one else can examine these right now.

[cacio]

lgmayka:

does the statement on C come from the new book? Intriguing, I should read the book. It sounds like a statement about the out of Africa waves, a C-D coastal wave and an F wave (by land?). Does he have any proof about this, or is it just speculation?

cacio

[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

[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.

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.

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.

[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. "

[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

[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.)