Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Atlas of the Human Journey Revised

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Stevo
    Southern Sweden wasn't under water, though, and neither was Norway.

    I think I1a got to Scandinavia early, and that R1b may have only arrived in the Neolithic Period, perhaps as late as 2,000 B.C. or thereabouts.
    Yes, I read that agriculture arrived southern Scandinavia around 4000 BC. I now think that the first R1b in southern Sweden might have been farmers who were sort of "tied" to their farms and didn't therefore venture further north. The I1a people in west central Norway might still have been hunters and fur traders and could therefore migrate to Finland through central Sweden without mixing with the R1b people.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Stevo
      Southern Sweden wasn't under water, though, and neither was Norway.

      I think I1a got to Scandinavia early, and that R1b may have only arrived in the Neolithic Period, perhaps as late as 2,000 B.C. or thereabouts.

      I still have not seen any studies that confirm that I1a people were in Scandinavia before R1b. My understanding is that R1b3 is thought to be among the most ancient of all haplogroups in Sweden, for example. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that the populations existing at the time were homogenous.

      Personally, I think that my paternal ancestor and your paternal ancestor were probably sharing a few beers in the same caves before the LGM after kicking out the neanderthals. Now you pretend not to know us anymore. For shame, for shame

      John

      Comment


      • #18
        This old pciture is still present among the Lapps with their mixture of I1a, R1a and N3, N3 is probably less present in the Western Lapps. In some Lapp population R1a is also at a lower rate.

        I believe the high variation observed in that latest Swedish investigation of R1b has its reason in both long period of immigration and a rapid expanding agricultural population (mutation probabilites is pressed into lesser time frame because of many children in each generation) both of these produce higher variations. Finland also experienced rapid population growth but their initial Y-DNA population that primarly experienced this growth was less heteregenous both in haplogroup and haplotype mixture and it happend at a later time.

        Originally posted by Stevo
        Southern Sweden wasn't under water, though, and neither was Norway.

        I think I1a got to Scandinavia early, and that R1b may have only arrived in the Neolithic Period, perhaps as late as 2,000 B.C. or thereabouts.
        Last edited by Noaide; 19 August 2006, 04:39 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Johnserrat
          I still have not seen any studies that confirm that I1a people were in Scandinavia before R1b. My understanding is that R1b3 is thought to be among the most ancient of all haplogroups in Sweden, for example. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that the populations existing at the time were homogenous.
          John
          Maybe that is correct for the southern tip of Sweden, but a recent paper by Finnish Y-DNA they raised the question if the high rate of I1a seen in Ostrobothnia in Finland came from the Swedes why do they only see the I1a and not the R1b? Did the Swedes selectivly only allowed the I1a men to leave? Of course not, they could no way know what haplogroup they belonged to. So what is the explanation? The author for the Finnish paper suggested that the immigration could have happend before the arrival of R1b, or of course the I1a immigration come from a part of Sweden that was not yet really populated by R1b.

          I so recently a program on the where they said several cities in southern Sweden experienced so much immigration that they changed the primary language of these cities for some time, I think the language was German but my memory could trick me.

          Noaide

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Johnserrat
            I still have not seen any studies that confirm that I1a people were in Scandinavia before R1b. My understanding is that R1b3 is thought to be among the most ancient of all haplogroups in Sweden, for example. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that the populations existing at the time were homogenous.

            Personally, I think that my paternal ancestor and your paternal ancestor were probably sharing a few beers in the same caves before the LGM after kicking out the neanderthals. Now you pretend not to know us anymore. For shame, for shame

            John
            My idea is based on what I believe about the development of the Germanic language.

            I think the indigneous I1as contributed the non-IE substrate that was responsible for the Germanic consonant shift, but that's my opinion, inexpert and subject to revision when better info comes along.

            The Germanic language began among the Jastorf and Harpstedt cultures of Northern Germany and the Netherlands and moved north and south from there.

            I think it was brought north mainly by the R1bs and R1as, but who knows really?

            It is fairly certain that Indo-Europeans were already at a fairly advanced Neolithic stage when they moved into Scandinavia, so Eki might not be too far off.

            2,000 B.C. or thereabouts is still pretty doggone ancient.
            Last edited by Stevo; 19 August 2006, 08:55 PM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Noaide
              Maybe that is correct for the southern tip of Sweden, but a recent paper by Finnish Y-DNA they raised the question if the high rate of I1a seen in Ostrobothnia in Finland came from the Swedes why do they only see the I1a and not the R1b? Did the Swedes selectivly only allowed the I1a men to leave? Of course not, they could no way know what haplogroup they belonged to. So what is the explanation? The author for the Finnish paper suggested that the immigration could have happend before the arrival of R1b, or of course the I1a immigration come from a part of Sweden that was not yet really populated by R1b.

              I so recently a program on the where they said several cities in southern Sweden experienced so much immigration that they changed the primary language of these cities for some time, I think the language was German but my memory could trick me.

              Noaide
              Could you please provide the link to the Finnish study? I'm particularly interested in seeing the time frame for the swedish immigration.

              Recent immigration would not show the STR diversity to lead researchers to believe that R1b is one of the most ancient haplogroups in Sweden. The two studies appear to be in direct conflict.

              John

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Stevo
                My idea is based on what I believe about the development of the Germanic language.

                I think the indigneous I1as contributed the non-IE substrate that was responsible for the Germanic consonant shift, but that's my opinion, inexpert and subject to revision when better info comes along.

                The Germanic language began among the Jastorf and Harpstedt cultures of Northern Germany and the Netherlands and moved north and south from there.

                I think it was brought north mainly by the R1bs and R1as, but who knows really?

                It is fairly certain that Indo-Europeans were already at a fairly advanced Neolithic stage when they moved into Scandinavia, so Eki might not be too far off.

                2,000 B.C. or thereabouts is still pretty doggone ancient.
                I'm curious as to why you believe that I1as would have adopted IE without invasion, but R1b did not? If IE was introduced by way of invasion, wouldn't I1a be a better candidate for introducing IE to a R1b indigenous population, at least in Scandinavia?

                It would be nice if some scientists would compile the STR diverstities for various haplogroups on a detailed country by country basis. We should not be left guessing.

                John

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Johnserrat
                  Could you please provide the link to the Finnish study? I'm particularly interested in seeing the time frame for the swedish immigration.

                  Recent immigration would not show the STR diversity to lead researchers to believe that R1b is one of the most ancient haplogroups in Sweden. The two studies appear to be in direct conflict.

                  John
                  Here's the link to the study:

                  http://vetinari.sitesled.com/finns.pdf

                  As you can see in Table 1, the Finnish-speaking Southern Ostrobothnia has even more I1a (46.55%) than the Swedish-speaking Ostrobothnia (36%). I think this might mean that most of the early Scandinavian immigrants had already changed their language to Finnish before Sweden conquered Finland in the 12th century and new waves of Swedish immigrants, this time containing R1b, arrived.

                  My closest matches with the British suggest we shared a common ancestor at latest in around 1000 AD, most likely in Norway. Archeological findings in Finnish Southern Ostrobothnia and Satakunta provinces, which share a lot of common with findings from Central Sweden and Norway, make me believe around 500 AD is a more accurate guess.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Noaide
                    I so recently a program on the where they said several cities in southern Sweden experienced so much immigration that they changed the primary language of these cities for some time, I think the language was German but my memory could trick me.
                    That's interesting. Old Norse called towns/trading places "kaupang", the modern Finnish word for a town/city is "kaupunki". In modern Swedish, the word for a town/city is "stad" after the German word "stadt". Maybe it's possible that German has had a strong impact on modern Scandinavian languages in the early medieval times.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Johnserrat
                      I'm curious as to why you believe that I1as would have adopted IE without invasion, but R1b did not? If IE was introduced by way of invasion, wouldn't I1a be a better candidate for introducing IE to a R1b indigenous population, at least in Scandinavia?

                      It would be nice if some scientists would compile the STR diverstities for various haplogroups on a detailed country by country basis. We should not be left guessing.

                      John
                      Because I think R1bs were among the original Indo-Europeans, that's why.

                      In Indo-European-speaking regions with large majority R1b populations, one does not find the sorts of changes to IE - e.g., the Germanic consonant shift - that took place with regard to Germanic. That is also true in majority R1a regions.

                      That is a pretty good indicator that neither R1b nor R1a populations were responsible for the characteristic moves away from Indo-European that took place in Proto-Germanic.

                      Who does that leave as the non-IE substrate responsible for the changes in Germanic?

                      If I1a is responsible for the non-IE changes in Germanic, it can hardly be responsible for introducing IE to anyone.

                      It is also worth noting that Finland, which has a sizeable proportion of I1a, does not speak an Indo-European language.

                      Of course, all this has to be taken with a huge grain of salt. Y-dna is independent of language. There is no way for us to know who was responsible for what back in the dim mists of time before history began to be recorded.
                      Last edited by Stevo; 20 August 2006, 09:30 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Stevo
                        Of course, all this has to be taken with a huge grain of salt. Y-dna is independent of language. There is no way for us to know who was responsible for what back in the dim mists of time before history began to be recorded.
                        True, and IE might as well have spread with mtDNA. The small children likely spent more time with their mothers than with their fathers, who spent a lot of time hunting, trading and making war, and therefore the kids first learnt the language their mother spoke.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          I looked at my results again tonight, and found the changes rather exciting. The journey for my mtdna haplogroup (B) still had the same overall gist, but it appeared to be more detailed.

                          I think the older description for it expressed confusion about how haplogroup B is found Native Americans, since they said it isn't found in Siberia. This new description, however, says it is, indeed, found in about 3% of the native Siberian population. Pretty big turnaround.

                          Also, I noticed the results page mentions the mtDNA haplogroup, along with the subclade. Did it always tell participants which subclade we belonged to, if any?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Because I think R1bs were among the original Indo-Europeans, that's why.
                            If that is true; it's interesting that Indo-Aryans who migrated/invaded India didn't carry any R1bs among them. I mean you don't find R1bs among Brahmins of India(well, the benchmark for any outsider influence). However, they still have very high percentage of R1a1, J2a and G2(40-60%)(along with R2, H and L which are not really associated with IE, so most probably pre-Indo-Aryan Indian input). Where does it put the origin of Indo-Aryans?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by father_R2
                              If that is true; it's interesting that Indo-Aryans who migrated/invaded India didn't carry any R1bs among them. I mean you don't find R1bs among Brahmins of India(well, the benchmark for any outsider influence). However, they still have very high percentage of R1a1, J2a and G2(40-60%)(along with R2, H and L which are not really associated with IE, so most probably pre-Indo-Aryan Indian input). Where does it put the origin of Indo-Aryans?
                              I did not say that R1bs were the only original Indo-Europeans.

                              I don't have all the answers, but I believe R1a spread PIE to the East. R1b spread PIE to the West. There's not enough R1a in the West to account for its spread there; what R1a is in the West can be attributed to later, fairly well-documented movements, e.g., the Vikings into Britain, the Slavonic tribes into Eastern and Southern Europe.

                              It may be that PIE developed among the small group of R1s in Central Asia and was carried west by the founding R1b patriarch and southeast by the founding R1a patriarch.

                              I know that goes against some of the prevailing wisdom. It means either that PIE is older than currently believed or that R1b and R1a are younger.

                              I really don't see any more reason to view the Brahmins of India as the genetic key to the PIE riddle than there is to view the people of Western Europe in that way.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                I did not say that R1bs were the only original Indo-Europeans.
                                I didn't imply that.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X