Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Atlas of the Human Journey Revised

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

  • Stevo
    replied
    Originally posted by Eki
    Then again, if the Germanic people really originated from the north and the Celtic lived south of them, it's possible that the Germanic were mostly I1a and they got R1b later from the Celtic:
    Not so simple.

    Celt and German are linguistic/cultural terms and not restricted to a single y-haplogroup.

    For one thing, most Germanicists agree that Proto-German probably originated with the Jastorf and neighboring Harpstedt cultures in Northern Germany and the Netherlands, both predominantly R1b areas.

    For another, and I have mentioned this before, Proto-German experienced a shift away from the original Indo-European consonants, which indicates the presence of a fairly suibstantial non-IE substrate population. Since that shift does not occur in other locales with less I and much more R, it seems likely that the I1a/I1c population may be responsible for it and were not originally speakers of any Indo-European language at all, let alone German.

    The sound shift that occurred in Proto-German seems to indicate that German is the product of the mixture and fusion of an Indo-European-speaking population with a non-Indo-European-speaking population.

    Thus there is in the very nature of Proto-German itself an indication that it was not the product of a single y-haplogroup but rather of the interaction of Indo-European and non-Indo-European elements.

    A further clue might be Finland itself, which has a large I1a population that apparently has inhabited that area for a long time. Not only does Finland not speak a Germanic language, it does not even speak an Indo-European language (although there are Swedes in Finland who speak Swedish).

    It seems to me that Proto-German arose out of the contact and interaction among and between tribal groups that were mainly R1b, I1a, I1c, and R1a.

    It is impossible to isolate any one of them and identify it as the Germanic y-haplogroup.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jim Denning
    replied
    Originally posted by Stevo
    There is also a possibility that at least some of the R1b1c in Turkey got there as a result of the historically documented movement of the Galatians across Europe and into Anatolia in the early part of the 3rd century B.C.

    Galatians were Keltoi steve

    Leave a comment:


  • Eki
    replied
    Then again, if the Germanic people really originated from the north and the Celtic lived south of them, it's possible that the Germanic were mostly I1a and they got R1b later from the Celtic:

    http://www.faqs.org/faqs/nordic-faq/...section-4.html

    During the 4th century Alexander the Great conquers Persia, and then,
    after his death, his realm is split in several large parts, whereafter
    Rome starts to expand.

    Then the Germanic culture began a slow expansion in southern
    direction: At year 100 B.C. the woods of Central Europe were home to
    both several Germanic tribes as well as to Celtic tribes, but in the
    North the Germanics dominated from Trondheim and Åland to the plains
    between River Rhine and River Neiße.

    The Roman Empire expanded through France; the Celtic area diminished
    and disappeared, and Germanic peoples became a major hassle for the
    Roman Army. The solution was in the long run that Germanic men came to
    take over the administration of the Empire and its armies at the same
    time as the Germanics were Romanized in culture, beliefs and language.

    As the Celts' dominance over Western Europe dissolved, the influences
    from the Mediterranean region again reached the Baltic Sea and
    Scandinavia. Trade with the Roman Empire increased, and might have
    contributed to the peculiar phase of the European history called the
    Migration Period when Germanic tribes and Asian tribes came to move
    around on the European continent.

    Leave a comment:


  • Eki
    replied
    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 found this nice concise introduction to the history of Norden. It says there were proto-Germanic people in South-Western Scandinavia between 2000 BC to 200 BC. I guess it's very possible that there were R1bs among them. But I still believe R1b didn't move to central and northern Scandinavia until late in the Iron Age and in the Middle Age.

    http://www.faqs.org/faqs/nordic-faq/...section-4.html

    For the following years, 2,000 B.C. - 200 B.C., the map of cultures in
    Northern Europe looks almost static:
    * In the North there are proto-Sámis hunting and moving all the way
    from the Ural mountains to the Norwegian coast.
    * From Gulf of Finland to River Volga there are proto-Finns,
    * and south of them Indo-European Balts and Slavs.
    * Denmark, Pomerania and the south-western Scandinavian peninsula
    were inhabited by proto-Germanic people.
    * In the South the domain of the Celts was south of River Elbe,
    stretching to the Pyrenées, to the Mediterranean and over the Alps
    and the Carpats.

    Leave a comment:


  • GregKiroKH
    replied
    Originally posted by lgmayka
    The first-mentioned R1b1c population is the one usually claimed to have spent the Ice Age in Iberia, and to have repopulated western Europe afterward.

    The mention of a second R1b1c population has no attribution. I can only assume it is an extrapolation from the finding of some R1b1c in modern Turkey. But I see no reason at all to assume that the R1b1c in Anatolia (modern Turkey) launched itself across eastern Europe. I would be more likely to believe that the native strains of R1b1c in eastern Europe came from a southern Ukrainian refugium, or from west Asia.
    Interesting thought . . . I do not think I can make a judgement. I thought I was over simplifying my facts when I thought each R1b1c had slightly different histories. So, I did not say anything. Maybe, it is too early to know for sure.

    Leave a comment:


  • F.E.C.
    replied
    I've noticed a funny thing about the new Geno Project.

    I've got two different accounts there: one for my Y-DNA results and one for my mt haplogroup.

    I've played the two Dr. Wells's mini footages in a row, one of them was about y-hg R1b and the other about mt-hg T.

    Whereas on the R1b part the Doctor's comment was evidently involved, it was on the contrary amusing to see the different verve he had in talking about the T part...he was bored to death!
    Comeon Spencer! I want to see the excitment in your eyes when you talk about T! We're relatives afterall...on the Y-DNA side

    Leave a comment:


  • Stevo
    replied
    There is also a possibility that at least some of the R1b1c in Turkey got there as a result of the historically documented movement of the Galatians across Europe and into Anatolia in the early part of the 3rd century B.C.

    Leave a comment:


  • lgmayka
    replied
    Originally posted by GregKiroKH
    I am a little confused from this thread about the first and second R1b1c populations. Can someone enlighten me?
    The first-mentioned R1b1c population is the one usually claimed to have spent the Ice Age in Iberia, and to have repopulated western Europe afterward.

    The mention of a second R1b1c population has no attribution. I can only assume it is an extrapolation from the finding of some R1b1c in modern Turkey. But I see no reason at all to assume that the R1b1c in Anatolia (modern Turkey) launched itself across eastern Europe. I would be more likely to believe that the native strains of R1b1c in eastern Europe came from a southern Ukrainian refugium, or from west Asia.

    Leave a comment:


  • GregKiroKH
    replied
    Most of the work I saw in the 1980s had to do with skulls and physical features. I think we know a lot about how the Cro-Magnon people looked. Reading an article on autosomes from

    http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/m...b78qa6vedc.pdf

    It stated the problems of reading ancient DNA. I think much has changed in genetics since 1999. I was wondering about the various R1b populations. I do not know much about them.

    the Aurignacian culture (32,000 - 21,000 BC) of the Cro-Magnon people, the first modern humans to enter Europe. The Cro-Magnons were the first documented human artists, making sophisticated cave paintings.

    The present-day population of R1b in Western Europe are believed to be the descendants of a refugium in the Iberian peninsula (Spain and Portugal), where the R1b1c haplogroup may have achieved genetic homogeneity. As conditions eased with the Allerød Oscillation in about 12,000 BC, descendants of this group migrated and eventually recolonised all of Western Europe, leading to the dominant position of R1b in variant degrees from Iberia to Scandinavia, so evident in haplogroup maps.

    A second R1b1c population, reflected in a somewhat different distribution of haplotypes of the more rapidly varying Y-STR markers, appear to have survived alongside other haplogroups in Asia Minor, from where they spread out to repopulate Eastern Europe.



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1b_%28Y-DNA%29
    I am a little confused from this thread about the first and second R1b1c populations. Can someone enlighten me? Please . . .

    Leave a comment:


  • lsmc1022
    replied
    I am assuming that they are making these changes based on the results of people who have submitted their DNA. Is this correct? Have they posted the number of respondents through the genographic project? I'd be interested in knowing how many people have participated. I've done it as has my husband and I also have a male relative who I've sent a kit to, as well as a friend. So that's four new samples to add to the mix.

    Leave a comment:


  • Johnserrat
    replied
    S TRANGSRUD: You are correct that FTDNA used to confirm I1a1 by testing P40. Apparently P40 did not delineate a separate subclade. However, I1a1 is still alive. It was formerly I1a4 and M227 is tested to confirm this subclade. I have tested negative for M227 and, as such, am clearly not I1a1.

    I overlooked the fact that the confirmed I1a1s on YSEARCH may have been confirmed using P40. I have no way to know without contacting the individuals involved, which I think I may do despite the fact that, even though they are my closest matches at the 37 marker level, they are probably still not related to me in the past 1,500 years.

    Thank you for your comment.

    John

    Leave a comment:


  • s trangsrud
    replied
    the label I1a1 is no longer being used

    Originally posted by Johnserrat
    Thank you for the very interesting link. I had previously believed that Finland had a quite homogenous population but apparently this is not true. The absence of R1b is puzzling when R1b3 is said to be among Sweden's oldest haplogroups. The german Hanseatic League certainly cannot be the source for the swedish R1b3s because that was a relatively recent migratory event.

    In terms of matches with british people, I note that british people are over-represented in the various databases. I also have a lot of 12/12 matches with british people which completely disappear at the 25 and 37 level. Ironically, even though I am confirmed as I1a, my closest STR matches at 37 markers have been haplogroup I1a1. I must have some missing relatives out there somewhere!

    I find it fascinating that there are such differences in migration patterns between y-dna and mt-dna in many areas. Currently, there does not seem to be a good archeological or linguistic explanation for this disparity.

    John
    I think I saw that all I1a's have the marker they were using to determine I1a1. Anybody that was I1a1 before, should now be labeled I1a.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by Sonia
    Hi,

    If I read the map correctly, did you notice how they also have Hap B headed toward Australia? I'm not B, but found that interesting.
    Hello Sonia

    Yes, I did notice...seems the B haplogroup is more extensive than I thought it was. I wish I could find the old map I printed out, but I left it at my parents' house, so I won't be able to get it until this weekend.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sonia
    replied
    mtDNA Haplogroup B

    Originally posted by JanBrenda
    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... snip
    Hi,

    If I read the map correctly, did you notice how they also have Hap B headed toward Australia? I'm not B, but found that interesting.

    Leave a comment:


  • Eki
    replied
    Originally posted by Johnserrat
    In terms of matches with british people, I note that british people are over-represented in the various databases.
    True, most of my Norwegian matches have unfortunately only tested 12 markers, and not so many Norwegians have tested themselves. The MRCA calculations I made with some of British origin were 19/21 matches. The MRCA was 26 generations, MLE (Most Likely Estimate) was 21 generations and the 95% confidence interval was from 6 to 70 generations.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X