Talk:Haplogroup R1a/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Haplogroup R1a. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

I reverted to remove this sentence "In India, haplogroup R1a is more diverse among tribal and lower caste populations, thus invalidating previous associations of this haplogroup with invading Indo-European migrants" as, well, it's inaccurate. Sforzas data (and later Wells as well) clearly showed a strong correlation between R1a and the old priest caste (Brahmin)). Second, the term "more diverse" is questionable as R1a has few clear haplotypes under it, so talking about diversity in the haplogroup is questionable. Third, what the data show - and this is explicitly shown by Sforza's PCA analysis is that the R1a group distribution fits exactly the profile of an invasion/migration from northwest.

Bottom line, the data leaves very little to the imagination and as far as I can tell, there seems to be a pretty strong consensus amongst the researchers. It would be nice with some solid references for that alternative theory. --Denoir 18:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

"In India haplogroup R1a is found in both the Hindu castes and tribal populations, and it is most diverse in tribal, rather than caste populations, therefore researchers have concluded that it is not necessarily a signature of Central Asian origin [1]."

It is absolutely wrong that diversity of R1a1-M17 in isolated tribes in deep south of india is higher than caste population. In Indian subcontinent the highest rates and highest diversity of R1a1-M17 is found in the populations of north west region of india and Pakistan.The areas of Pakistan and adjoining areas of north west india were the seats of indo-aryans. And we consider R1a1-M17 as genetic marker of our indo-aryan ancestors and it has nothing to do with eastern europe. Because our indo-aryan ancestors never mentioned anywhere in Rigveda that they have migrated from some place. They had nothing to do with other populations. They were the sons of the soil of eastern Afghanistan, Pakistan and north west india.We also have to include Afghanistan because all the pastuns in Pakistan are high in R1a1-M17. Pashtuns also make bulk of afghanistan population.

This section doesn't even make sense now. I don't know if someone was trying to mix the old stuff with Denoir's stuff, but I think it makes it sound very poorly written - and besides that, what is the statement now asserting? I say we take the hedging out and just say what Sforza's conclusions are, perhaps in contradistinction to whatever other evidence exists. If most scholars believe in the mass migration from the NW theory to date, then I say we include that. Joey 16:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Paper on Y-DNA :Different regional populations from Poland were studied in order to assess the genetic heterogeneity within Poland, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12107446&dopt=Abstract —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasz (talk • contribs) 11:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I've reformed a little the description of the distribution in Europe:

• Reformed the reference to Slavic peoples, because their non-Slavic neighbours such as Rumanians or Hungarians have simmilar proportions
• Supressed a comment on Vikings carrying the haplogroup to British islands. We actually don't know that: eve if it's an "inmigrant" haplogroup, it may have well arrived with other waves, such as Anglo-Saxons or Celts.
• I added a mention to its possible connection to IE expansion (only in Europe, not in India), mentioning that its frequency decreases towards the West and South, what wasn't very clear earlier.

A good map would be great. --Sugaar 12:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, oxford ancestors[1], one of the first to do these type of tests, an R1A1 match gives you a "Viking" certificate. From their website [2]:

Please note that the Y-Clan signatures we use for this service do not define the tribes; that was done by Man many centuries ago, but they do correlate (with a probability of up to 97%) with the haplogroups associated with these tribal assemblies. In the modern-day male population of the British Isles, three ancestral tribal groups account for the origins of 95% of Y-chromosomes: the Celts, the Anglo-Saxons/Danish Vikings and the Norse Vikings.

My guess is that either they've mapped surenames or traced the haplotypes of R1a most commonly found in Scandinavia [3]. --Denoir 12:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Those commercial sites are not very reliable on their descriptions of ancestry. They are pretty simplistic. They have mapped nothing: just searched for R1a1 and said happily "Viking!", based in this or that hypothesis.

I had forgotten about this discussion (sorry) so I'm discussing new changes (in the same line) below. --Sugaar 21:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, it's worth to mention that, particularly in the British Islands, there's a problem with the conceptualization of Celtic. We know from archaeology that Celts arrived in Britain in the last centuries BCE, particularly inside the expansion associated with La Tène culture. But today remaining Celtic-speakers (Irish, Welsh and Scotts) show comparatively little genetic input from that invasion, being instead (at least in Y-chromosome markers) closer to Basques and Gascons, who are clearly pre-Celtic.

So in this contemporary context, the people with greater aborigin blood are called Celts (and speak Celtic languages) but Celts actually came from the mainland (Rhin area) and today Celts have little to do genetically with them: they basically are celtizied pre-Celts. I know it's confuse but it's clear if you think about it.

So what is older is called "Celt" (by some) and what is newer is called Germanic (Anglo-Saxon or Viking). But there's more R1a1 in Germany than in Denmark. And Celts came from Germany while Anglo-Saxons and Vikings did from Denmark (and the nearby Low German area, so simmilar genetically that can't be taken apart).

But that's a simplistic analysis that ignores too many important facts of proto-history and genetic geography.

Just to reference you (or whoever may read it) I've uploaded an Y-chromosome map distribution of Europe in ImageShack [4] so you can see how Denmark is low in R1a while Germany is quite higher. This is very logical, as IEs migrated more strongly into modern Germany (Corded Ware culture) and less intensely in Denmark, heavily populated since epi-Paleolithic times and only secondarily affected by these IEs invasions (other areas of Scandinavia were much less densely populated at that time, specially Norway, that shows a lot of R1a). --Sugaar 22:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

At the end of the intro, the link to http://www.ajhg.org/AJHG/journal/issues/v78n2/42812/42812.html on The American Journal of Human Genetics website is subscription-only. (after the text: suggesting that it is not necessarily always a signature of exclusive Indo-European origin.) apers0n 11:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Including a reference [5].

Vikings were part of that milennia-long IE expansion but Celts and Anglo-Saxons were too. Probably a good deal of R1a in Britain was brought by Celts (this is my opinion), together with also a good deal of haplogroup I (and continental branches of R1b).

The new writing is much more clear and less just imaginative. --Sugaar 21:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Changed some things in this paragraph:

The first carriers of the R1a1 haplotype are believed to have been nomadic pastoralists in Eurasian steppes about 10,000 years ago. Current theories point to them being the first speakers of the proto-Indo-European languages (the Kurgan culture) and the first ones to domesticate the horse.

It's obvious that 10,000 years ago, there was no Neolithic and therefore these people were no pastoralists yet. Rewrote that as "nomads of the Eurasian steppes".

Also it's not fully clear that they were the first ones to domesticate the horse, something that actually seems to have happened in nearby Ukraine inside a culture (Dniepr-Don culture) that wasn't yet IE/Kurgan. So I deleted that last comment.

And in this one:

R1a1 is spread across whole of Europe, with the highest concentrations found in Eastern Europe, with the highest percentage concentrations found in modern day Ukraine [1]

The link is broken and I have no reason to think Ukraine is highest in R1a1 than Poland or Russia. In fact Poland seems highest [6] (but by little margin). So I cut it after Eastern Europe - less pretentious but more informative. --Sugaar 21:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a problem with this paragraph:

The other two major genetic flow patters that can be seen from the R1a1 distribution are of the Slavic migrations from north eastern Europe to the Balkans as well as a distribution along the western coast of Europe and the British Isles which is believed to be connected to the Vikings.

There's also a lot of R1a1 in non-coastal continental Western Europe (Germany, France and even Iberia and Italy) in proportions not very distant from those of Britain. This could have arrived with Celtic (and maybe Germanic) migrations, along with some I.

Notice that Denmark is quite low in R1a1, so for the Vikings (basically Danes) to have caused such alteration in Britain, they would have needed to replace all the population, literally.

Also the claim is not sourced.

At this point, all that can be said about R1a1 in Europe is that its diffusion seems linked to IE migrations. The resolution of the studies is not good enough to give a better picture so far.

[7] says:

The range of the distribution of R1a1 across Eurasia can be seen as the light blue colored group in the map on the third page of Wells' Eurasian Heartland paper [8]. If Wells' theory is correct, the R1a1 haplogroup may have ridden on horseback from one end of Eurasia to the other. So the association of this haplogroup with the Vikings is, in truth, little more than a minor footnote in the history of the R1a1 group.

I think I'm deleting the whole paragraph too for the sake of encyclopedism. --Sugaar 21:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

There was a big study done out of UCL in the early 2000s, which was featured in a BBC series "Blood of the Vikings" Viking blood still flowing, BBC news, December 2001; A Y chromosome census of the British Isles, Capelli et al, Current Biology, Vol. 13, 979–984, May 27, 2003. The most prevalent haplogroup throughout the British Isles is R1b1c; this is assumed to be the aboriginal type. It can be distinguished from a Y-chromosome mix characteristic of Scandanavia, much less heavy in R1b1c, with more of hg I and R1a1, the R1a1 usually having a Y-STR haplotype distinctively close to "3.65"; and from a mix believed characteristic of Angles, Saxons and Danes, with more of hg I and more R1b1c than the Scaninavians, and less R1a1 and notably less "3.65" (but still much more than the assumed native British population).

[Interjected] The Scandinavian proper (Norway, Sweden) haplogroup cakes have less R1b (R1b1c is the most common for of it, almost all R1b are R1b1c, at least in Europe) but this does not apply to Denmark so much, probably because it was densely inhabited before the Metal Ages. See this map for reference (PDF source is at bottom left). --Sugaar 09:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The Angle/Saxon/Dane input was found particularly admixed in the East and North of England, and most prevalent in York (exactly as would be assumed from the history of the Anglos-Saxon and then Danish invasions). The Scandinavian input was particularly admixed in Orkney and Shetland, unsurprisingly, and also but to a lesser extent, and more admixed with the Angle/Saxon/Danish input in the Western Isles, the Isle of Man, and Cumbria (Penrith) - areas with Viking settlement in and around the Irish Sea. The journal paper includes estimates of how strong the admixing must have been.

[Interjected] Yes, there is clear Anglo/Saxon/Dane patrilinear input in England particularly and Norwegian one in Orkney and Shetland [9] but this is not infered directly from R1a but from overall comparison of the total Y DNA haplotypes see specially this graphic. --Sugaar 09:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

So I think it would be fair to say that this is indeed a genetic flow pattern which is reflected in the R1a1 distribution, albeit that rather than a pattern which can be seen from [just] the R1a1 distribution. Jheald 20:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

That would be only a bit closer to truth. It's important to point that Denmark is less strong in R1a1 than Germany (or even northern France) and therefore it's a little fantasious to link directly R1a to Vikings or Anglo-Saxons, when probably Celts had more to do with it (even if modern surviving Celtic-speakers have less of this haplogroup, paradoxically).

I'd keep it as it is. --Sugaar 09:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You have to keep in mind, you cannot separate a single patrilineal ancestry (the Y haplotype) to a whole culture (i.e. belonging to just celtic or germanic), when it was shared only 20 to 40 thousand years ago. Before such cultures were differentiated. They all intermixed, one male figure was not the progenitor of just the celts or the germanics; 20 to 40 thousand years ago was before the neolithic or proto-indo-european cultures were even separated into celtic or germanic. Generations switched generation to generation between having an R* and having an I* ancestor. Because of daughters. Nagelfar 02:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You Mention The Gene Being Present In Iberia And Italy, I Dont Suppose You Looked At This Map Showing Viking Settlments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Viking_expansion.png - Catintheoven 21:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Swid has changed the graphic format diff and now it seems more confuse. It looks like R1a is higher in the tree than R1b. I think it would be better to revert to the previous format. Please discuss. --Sugaar 22:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't R1a1 more specific than R1a? It would make sense R1a would cover a larger group and be more logical to have it's own page. Redirecting R1a to R1a1 however doesn't make any sense to me at all. Nagelfar 01:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I think the non-R1a1 branches of R1a are extremely small in the present population, and much of the published literature refers to the M17 change, which defines the R1a1 group.

Some of this may also be confusion created by a changing of existing terminology; I believe that in the past R1a may have been defined by the M17 change. --Saforrest 02:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Direct nucleotide sequence comparison (line by line) will show the diferences. I put the data sometime ago on PL.wiki.. but it was deleted by wrongfull admin szwedzki, thats a lot of work and i dont have heart (at least now) to do this again :( . Nasz 05:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I still think it should link to R1a and just have the majority of the article on the subject of R1a1. What if there needs to be information on R1a proper but there isn't enough to constitute an article while it redirects here? Such information should be at the top of the R1a article whereas the bulk of the article could still be on the subject of R1a1 since it is downsteam of R1a. It makes no sense to redirect a base haplogroup to something downstream for those reasons. Nagelfar [Timestamp missing]

I removed the tables Nasz created so painstakingly. I think they are a good idea but the graphical form and the number of spelling mistakes (too many to list here) made them much below Encyclopedia quality. The quality "n" is not explained and generally has no sense outside of the scope of the cited paper. There was no explanation that the second and third columns are in percents. How should we know that "IE" means Russia according to Nasz? I also believe that skipping the people which have 0% of R1 or R1a1 is not very scientific. That result is no less interesting that high percentages in other population groups.

[Interjected] N: right I didn’t list all zeros, I listed some, you can add more. You don’t know what mean N, I even inserted link to counter but later it didn’t cross my mind that somebody reading population sample may don’t know it :) It's unnecessary. But if you think it will help community, fell free to add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasz (talk • contribs) 22:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[Interjected] F: How should we know that... N follow the link to source. It's there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasz (talk • contribs) 22:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If someone has some free time and is eager to change the data into proper tables with good captions, feel free. However I do not believe that any of them should be posted "as is". --Friendly Neighbour 16:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

To make it even worse, the paper never gives 36% for the whole Russia. Nasz, have you averaged the parts of Russia yourself without thinking about the needed weights? Or is it pure fantasy on your part? --Friendly Neighbour 16:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

N: ok you are right here. 36% it for Russia 'Pomor' and 43% for 'Russiam North' 47% for 'Russian Tashkent' <here see Kyrgiz

Could you next time at least read the relevant Talk pages to see detailed explanations why you were reverted

N: when you see correctable typo you can fix it, it’s take less time, then elaborate on that. But if you need to talk to me that’s ok :). You may also restrain your habit to revert, instead strive to edit.

Look at the map: first link in 'external links'. Don’t use one y 2000 (Semino at all) reference as omni quote for all data. The source just has double digit population samples. I encourage you to find and quote more YDNA papers.

46 << 60 the ... about Russia if you like you can add Rusia I will not oppose, I can make for Russia exception ;) but will it be true? 'the highest frequency in Europe' again see the map.

Why do you like at the top of the article to have “Lower frequencies of R1a1 are found among populations of West Asia” ?

Even lover frequencies are perhaps in equatorial Africa. Anyway the enigmatic 'West Asia' is in fact linked to south west Asia. It’s perhaps somebody surprising personal discovery but this is good for blog rather. Nasz 22:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they are better now. Not ideal but good enough to stay here. Generally, the whole tables from the two papers should be copied to Human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroups and only referenced from the specific haplogroup articles. That would make more sense IMHO. But as long as it is not done I believe your tables can stay. --Friendly Neighbour 08:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You reverted my improvements to the introduction (I had corrected the list of countries and added percentages). You also removed the reference I added (the paper you found!). And you still insist that Russia is part of Central Europe. I repaired this and I hope you will not revert me without explaining why. I left the Iceland info from your edit, removed the West Asia repetition. And Nasz, remember: We should not link directly to outside graphics on Wikipedia articles. This way it is hard to know the source of the figure and how reliable it is. You should just cite the paper or web site as the source. --Friendly Neighbour 08:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

While the tables are in principle good, they are hopelessly outdated and contain some very dubious claims (such as the British being 0% R1a1 which is nonsense - Scotland for instance is a major R1a1 cluster center). The differentiation between R1 and R1a1 are also questionable- plain R1 is rare and that column is in fact R1b. So if we are to have both, it should be one level up, grouped under R1. Also the tables would probably be better in map form. As things are now, I would remove them as they do more harm than good. --Denoir 17:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I did not revert the tables for the second time because I felt guilty of reverting Nasz too often. However the general level of his edits is definitely below par. But that's another story as I have no idea what I can do about that: I do not have time to check and correct his every edit. While I was away from home for 4 hours, he again reverted me on two articles. (I'm happy to say that his edits were not reverts) --Friendly Neighbour 19:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

N http://www.ucl.ac.uk/tcga/tcgapdf/capelli-CB-03.pdf there is UK Y census, very detailed paper. 1-8 % , no totals.

N: " below par " ... :(, I rather tend to disagree :) I think one thesis which radiculed you FN and was named "absurd" is no longer so absurd t.u. The PL-HU relation.

N I agree to last FN edit: Microsatelite data alone do not prove place of origin, only point to population where originated. But, if we add archeological data, the locations of oldest kurgans ... Since the paper is on population genetics – OK. Your edition is more precise and other paper should be quoted (what is easy) to link this recognized population to geographic location Nasz 03:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think short quotes do not violate (c)

Giuseppe Passarino &a q1 "emerged in Ukraine, probably in a Palaeolithic population. Thereafter, the spread of this lineage toward Europe, Asia, and India occurred at different waves over a few thousands years. At present this seems to indicate the influence of the Ukraine Palaeolithic groups in the gene pool of modern populations"

It is + for autochthonous school. Right / why ? Nasz 04:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

We can always add something like "However, according to one school (citation here), Ukraine was the actual birthplace of this lineage" or something similar. In an encyclopedia we have to report all respectable views but be careful not to mislead the reader into thinking this is an established fact. --Friendly Neighbour 06:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

P4. Comparing Y chromosome haplogroup frequencies and surnames of Norse and Irish origins in men in Northern Ireland

• EK Conant, DP Berrar, AJ Bjourson, CS Downes.
• University of Ulster, Coleraine, Northern Ireland.
• http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/jil/ums/umj076/076(1)051.pdf

Q: "Ten Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) were tested in 244 men from Northern Ireland. Additionally, a subset of 157 of these individuals were typed for 17 Short Tandem Repeats (STRs)."

Y Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration

• Michael E. Weale,*1 Deborah A. Weiss,†1 Rolf F. Jager,*‡ Neil Bradman,* and

Mark G. Thomas*

• The Centre for Genetic Anthropology, Departments of Biology and Anthropology, University College London,

University of London; †Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis; and ‡Faculteit Biologie, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/19/7/1008.pdf Table 2 Hg1=r1a1

• Ashbourne (n 54)

Southwell (n 70) Bourne (n 12) EAST ANGLIA Fakenham (n 53) N. Walsham (n 26) FRIESLAND (n 94) NORWAY (n 83) = 26.5

• Total 392 samples

Average ~7% Obscure formating - manual data extraction required. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nasz (talk • contribs) 08:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

The consolidated listing that Nasz has made for us here is very useful and valuable thing.

But I can't help finding that such a large block of undigested data isn't good for the shape of the article as a whole, and makes the article harder for readers to take in. Perhaps it's a pity in a way that nobody is keeping up an external page, like this one for Hg J2a-M410. [10], that we can't just link to.

One solution might be to move the data tables off this page to a separate new page, Haplogroup R1a1 (Y-DNA) population frequencies. Do people think this would be a good idea ? -- Jheald 14:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

I think its ok to move the data o separate page after making graphical summary. The best summary will be a map showing the % data and microsatelite diversity data, with place of origin and movement. Not all data are clear, some have substantial differences, and also not all available papers are jet collected. So far some sentences in this article contradict the tables so is essential to keep it together. Nasz 00:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

67.171.213.134 (Talk) (→Origins - The highest haplotype diversity only indicates that the M17 mutation probably occurred among the population that was ancestral to modern populations of East/Central Europe.)

• 'probably occurred among the population' not probably but certainly. The string of codons is certain. We can with very high probability map what was the sequence before and after microsatelite mutation. If single mutation has probability P then Multiple mutations are calculated by P^n or P1*P2*... (Pn) thus occurrence of probability of multiple mutations decreases exponentially.
• What could be deducted from microsatelite diversity in different geographical locations?

If there is Location where tree originated from mutation M is located then and another location where diversity tree of M2 is located is unlikely that group of people will segregate itself after bunch of mixed people will settle in given region. Especially the hypothetical rapid increase of population from small group can be rejected. There is sometime given theory that Slovian rapidly accelerated his population colonizing 'empty territory' *1 and time of this spread, in this allochtonic theory is given for about 5th century ad. Genetic data from microsatelite diversity in Y chromosome reject this theory.

• Although it may be considered scenario that Slovian tribes separated itself in very ancient time and all living together on small area somehow maintained the ancestral division. But this hypothetical conception eventually supporting allochtonical origin of Slovians has mathematical difficulties. What is most certain is that geographical separation support microsatelite diversity.
• For example diversity in India r1a1 is less than diversity in Europe. I think mathematical model may be constructed to test accept or reject what for me is the most probable that the diversity is linked to separated locations where it originated.

Add 1(quite unique dogmate of empty land is in this 'theory' is postulated) Where else in world empty, ready to take, land existed before? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.244.169 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 6 February 2007 its me Nasz 06:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC) but the wiki system log off occured.

One thing I'm not clear about in the tables: the column headed R1 (M186). It looks like in some of the studies this includes R1b; while in others it is strictly R1 xR1a,R1b. Are there even some studies where the R1a count in included?

It would be useful to clarify this, in view of Nasz's point about expecting to see more R1* close to the origin point of R1. Jheald 06:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

All: if the R1 in these tables is not R1* but mostly R1b ,clearly this table misrepresents the facts. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.48.46.141 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 8 February 2007

Yes you are right that is not very correct, now there are r1 mixed with w1b :(.

I included the data, but for the other R group I didn’t do good checking. My intention was to present the rest of R1 as the pool from which R1a1 is derived. Although R1b mutation is originating also from R1 ancestor, also the frequency or R1b may carry some useful gene (tico/a)-logical information. Please check it and, of course, fix it. Since R1-(r1a) +R1b ilustrate the gene pool is not very big roblem but for clarity of data it will be goot to separate.

If the data say specifically r1b I think it will be good to split this group to two 1) r1 2) r1b.

Anyway it will be good to have all branches of the tree in tables, but here I think r1b r1 r1a1 will be sufficient.

I think it will be very useful to show the specific sequence to illustrate where and how the particular mutation occurred and how different are particular R groups. Now as I suppose for many readers it is rather unknown.

The next will be include data on microsatelite research, but this is in early stage.

It is also 'slightly' posible that all/some branches of the tree are not correct (i readed it some time ago).

Nasz 06:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I cleared up an extremely confused paragraph on R1a1 vs. R1*. Please try to write in coherent English. Now, the argument seems to be that we would expect to find R1a1 as well as R1* in the area where R1a1 originated. This is true, provided there is any frequency of R1* anywhere. If R1* has just virtually disappeared everywhere, its absence in India is meaningless. Even then, if youargue that R1 originated in Central Asia, and spread to both Europe and India, and that R1b originated in Europe some 20kya, and R1a originated in India some 10kya. R1* may have been suppressed in India, but not in Europe.

       R1
       |
       +--------+ (20kya)
+------+(10kya) |
|      |        |
R1a    |        |
|      |        |
R1a1   R1*     R1b

The question is, do we have R1a* anywhere. If not, there is no conclusion from this. If we find an area where both R1a* and R1a1 are above average, this will be our likely candidate of R1a1 origin. As it is, the "no R1* in India" paragraph is just misguided "original research". dab (𒁳) 12:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Nasz, your paragraph is confused, and after you clean it up it is mistaken original research. Now stop trolling this article with your witticisms. dab (𒁳) 18:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a mention of the fact the it is found in high percentages in Turkic people? Why do we keep advertizing the Indo-European aspect of it more than anything else? Is it because what the current scientific majority agrees on? It seems a bit biased to me. --Kupirijo 05:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

care to point us to a study on that? Nobody is objecting, as you can see, but someone has to do it. dab (𒁳) 12:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Do not have time to go through pubmed for other than my research. I am writing my dissertation right now. Sorry. I am a biologist by training and an amateur linguist. I will keep in touch. I remember you from your edits on proto-Greek and related articles (XMK, etc). I am kind of saddened that nobody on wikipedia discussions noticed my comments on the Greek-Cypriot dialect which shows the breadth of Greek "dialects". Especially the voicing of the now-fricatives (φ, χ, θ) like in XMK (especially in liquid environments). It seems the training and knowledge of the Greek language in the Classics departments in the West is very limited, narrow-minded and Athenocentric nevertheless. Are you a classicist by training? Cheers. --Kupirijo 19:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

linguist and physicist, not classicist as such. Yes, obviously everyone is "Athenocentric", not just in the "West", Attic Greek is, after all, the main source of medieval and modern Greek. But you are welcome to add your material to Arcadocypriot so it isn't lost in discussion archives. dab (𒁳) 10:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I know. I find it annoying when Modern Greeks themselves do not appreciate the breadth of their own culture. Of course you cannot deny that the "West" also contributed to the "Renaissance" of "Athenocentricism" (see "Renaissance", "Enlightment", "Romanticism" etc.) --Kupirijo 03:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

For the first time I read that finnish Hungary has 60% of R1a1? Where is this data come from? Ukraine - 60%? Again. I was participating in Genographic Project, got my results, absolutely different data. Poland - 40%, Russia - about the same, West Iran - 35%. I really don't like to think that someone tries to adjust the data just for the good old "blue eyes, brown eyes" fun. Please if you enter the data, make a reference. The source of the data, method, sample size, CI, unbiasness.

Even according to the sources listed 95%-CI for Hungary is 14.0 – 28.7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.230.126.71 (talk • contribs) 21:56-22:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Saami in the Asia Table!!! High frequencies of many other Finno-Ugric people are missing. Have a look Tambets et al. 2004, American Journal of Human Genetics 74: 661-682. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.192.197.251 (talk • contribs) 12:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Then please do us a favor and insert the proper numbers. Yes, the popular view on R1a1 is biased and nationalists are definitely at work: nothing indicates the original carriers of the gene being anything more but a substratum to later migrations. This substratum originates from the Ukrainian LGM refuge‎ and is strongly confined to ancient genetic barriers, that probably predated the IE "blue eyes" advance a few thousand years. If you are looking for blue eyes you should check on other genes. I would choose Hg I1c, but according to scholarly wisdom about this gene "geographic and linguistic correlations across the continent were insignificant". I wonder if this might be true to any gene (and especially R1a1), or whether we just have to wait for some proper analyses by a new generation of scholars being raised with genetics. Rokus01 14:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Everythig written in this article is a bull shit and totally wrong. R1a1 originated in region any where from northwest india , pakistan , afghanistan and souther central asia. It has reached in europe from these lands and not the other way around. The highest rate and greatest diversity in r1a1 lineages is also found in this area according to new research papers.This is a pitty that some stupid idiot has changed the original R1a1 page from wikipedia which has solid proof of what I wrote. And now this R1a1 page looks like a fantasy page with self claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.58.115.244 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

EU Hun areas? What does it mean. European Hungary areas? This is nonsense, because all of Hungary is in Europe. I don't think molecular genetics is pseudoscience (despite that as a Muslim I reject evolution). You have to write in intelligible way, in proper English. --Al-Bargit 19:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

yes you are right EU usualy (I) mean Europe. 'Hun areas' in Europe in the article Huns are marked in green clolor. But if you like you can change it to 'Areas inhabitated in Europe by Huns' it will be more wordy and les fuzzy.

• Do you realy belive Al-Bargit that PNAS is the source of pseudo science ? PNAS is a kind of newspaper of the United States National Academy of Sciences

Nasz 20:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

see also

PNAS isn't a "source of pseudoscience", Nasz, but you have the propensity to turn even the best of sources into nonsensical gibberish. dab (𒁳) 10:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Relatively high frequencies are also found in Northern Europe, Iran 25% (mainly Persians), and the largest being 23% in Iceland, and it is believed to have been spread across Europe by the Indo-Europeans, and later by the Germanic migration, which accounts for the existence of it in, among other places, the British Isles

How the Germanic migration can spread the R1a1 gen not spreding it to Germans ? Łook in tables how many % of R1a1 have Germans < this looks like pure nonsens, but if somebody twisting sources he may later realy belive in that twisted knowledge. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.13.244.169 (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

sheesh, if you check the edit history, you will find that this replaces "Vikings", Nasz. Germanic migration didn't originate in Germany, it originated in Scandinavia, and spread to Britain and Germany. How about using your account again, btw? dab (𒁳) 18:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No i dont want to use my account. You baned me for one day Nasz ban wikipedia for longer:) Anyway do you see Dab that your logic is full of falacy? You did lock out the article, fine. Let it witnes the data manipulation wikipedia administrator do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.244.169 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• right, feel free to "ban" Wikipedia, and "bear witness" somewhere else, then. dab (𒁳) 12:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Any One Know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catintheoven (talk • contribs) 21:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ideally it doesn't do anything, or else the dispersion of the gene would be influenced by environmental factors. At best I could imagine a protection against some kind of extinct disease, anyway most genes don't show clear activity. Interesting question. Rokus01 00:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"Corded Ware people aren't Proto-Indo-Europeans, they were "Kurganized", that is, at best partially descended from PIEans." Anyway, partially descended from PIEans they were, just like any other people adopting an IE language somewhere in (pre-colonial)history. For instance Indians: this people was not "kurganized", but definitely "IE-fied" and the same phrase would apply: "at best partially descended from PIEans". However, the Indians show notable high concentrations of R1a1, but other IE people/PIE descendends don't. Most notably the Netherlands/Rhineland region, named as the most widely accepted site of origin to the Kurganized Corded Ware cultures (J. P. Mallory,EIEC p. 53), show low R1a1 occurences. The correlation between IE and R1a1 is just not as tight, nor tidy. Corded Ware is generally considered strongly tied with PIE and there is no way kurganization should account for less R1a1, so this is a notable anomaly worth mentioning. Rokus01 00:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

you are stating the obvious. IE isn't PIE. PIE may or may not have been correlated with R1a, but descendant branches of IE languages certainly aren't directly correlated. I invite you to present a sourced discussion of "kurganization", but your conflation of IE with PIE as it was is flawed. I completely disagree with all of "Corded Ware is generally considered strongly tied with PIE and there is no way kurganization should account for less R1a1", and you'll need to back this up closely. "Kurganization" is a process of cultural diffusion, not of genetic descent. dab (𒁳) 10:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The PIE label just point to the speakers of the ancestral IE language at a certain stage that could be reconstructed, assuming a certain time of divergence. There is not any agreement on when this divergence really started, or where convergence or shared development ended. The main problem is that on linguistic grounds it is doubtful (and not generally accepted) this could have happened well before halfway the Yamnaculture. The strength of the Kurgan-hypothesis is the flexibility in combining two separate archeological areas that traditionally are considered uninterrupted, but slightly contradictory cultural horizons towards current IE populations, by coining the word "kurganization". The Kurgan-hypothesis puts forward that IE originated in the east, but spread to the west by a complex process of assimilation and convergence. Note this did not deter scholars from incorporating Corded Ware into the Indo-European homeland without contradicting the Kurgan hypothesis (most notably Lothar Kiklian and Alexander Häusler). Note: PIE and IE homeland are two separate things. Mallory says (1987, p257): "Perhaps our only recourse is to return to our strict definition of the Proto-Indo-European homeland as where the Indo-European languages were spoken in the period 4500-2500 BC." This definition of PIE obviously includes Corded Ware. The acceptance might be reluctant, but by lack of anything better it is the best we have and this bitter truth is certainly generally accepted. Remember Wikipedia should not advocate any particular view, nor perform OR to prove one theory is better than the other one.

Second, you invite me to a sourced discussion on Kurganization. By Gimbutas this has been described culturally. Read Mallory p253: "If we read between the lines, this case seems to suggest that the transformations seen across later Neolithic and Eneolithic communities in Central Europe were in the general direction of increasing pastoral and aggressive tendencies in societies, which could best be explained by the intrusion of pastoralists who took their ultimate origin from the steppe." Indeed, no negative or positive evidence could be provided thus far: "It is not that the model is wrong; there is just not enough evidence proposed to evaluate it seriously."

It has been proposed the Nordic race as a whole is a "recent" introduction to Northern Europa, being a mixture of local Cro-Magnoids and Pontic-like (gracile Mediterranean) subtypes of the white race. I you want we can persue this question whether or not there has been genetic contact during kurganization. However, be aware this has never been an issue so investigating on this will bear considerable risks of OR in favor of a particular interpretation of the Kurgan-hypothesis.

The low R1a1 concentrations in Corded Ware homelands thus could be explained two ways. First, like you advocate, this could point to the absence of genetic contact between Kurgan cultures and Corded Ware. However, such an absence would be contradictory to the spread of R1a1 together with IE language elsewhere. Moreover, such an absence of genetic contact cannot be assumed here without doing OR, since this assumption has never been made. Second, this could point to a wrong popular understanding of the initial spread of R1a1. We already discussed the link between this gene and Kurgan is not as clear cut as represented in popular magazines: first, because the gene is a lot older than the kurgans and already must have reached a certain diffusion pattern in Northern Europe by the time the Kurgans emerged, and second because no genetic evidence exists this gene was exclusively tied to Kurganpeople from the onset. Early Kurgan migrations could perfectly have brought their language without the gene, moreover, insisting on anything else would impose a non-existent doctrine to the world, which would be clearly OR. The main concentrations of the gene nowadays are still not in Kurgan territory, but in the surroundings of Poland-Hongary, an area that has been drawn into the Kurgan culture only during or a little after the kurganization of Corded Ware. Not any doctrine demands the origin of R1a1 to be exclusively related to the Kurgans, or not to have contracted higher concentrations of this gene only during expansion.

Besides, not any doctrine could be allowed to be mentioned without also mentioning exceptions to the rule or anomalous facts. We are not here to OR on the ultimate consequences of a theory. I think the statement that R1a1 is not too tightly connected to PIE, is not far fetched: this statement just reflects facts, without contradicting theory. Rokus01 13:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, you mean "Beaker culture homeland", not "Corded ware homeland". Secondly, I don't see an R1a minimum in that suggested homeland (Netherlands/Flandres), I see a straightforward east-to-west gradient, with a minimum in central France, precisely where Beaker culture never reached. I don't know how you can draw any of your conclusions from this evidence, but I take it to beautifully support that "Beaker culture" was a "kurganized" culture with maybe 10% incidence of R1a, accounting for the spread of R1a, such as it is, to Wester Europe. I am not proposing anything like a 100% (or even 80%) correlation of R1a, Kurgan and PIE. I am just saying your "Corded ware" paragraph is flawed, and removed it as OR. dab (𒁳) 13:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the area involved is in between Rhine and Vistula according to Hausler. The area between Rhine and Weser is only the westernmost part of this and indeed considered "just" the origin of Beakerfolk, Franks and Saxons (although interesting for harbouring unreduced, basically unaltered nordic Cro-Magnids, a predominant physical Corded Ware type). However, the picture I had in mind is this. Please note the exceptionally steep gradient to the west of the Vistula, reaching minimum R1a1 levels near the Rhine. Nowhere in the world the gradient is that steep. Around the North Sea the R1a1 level is increasing a bit, but this is traced back to Viking invasions that happened a lot later. Also look at this (page 2), where the purple R1a1 (M17)pieces of pie are prominent in Easern Europe, but negligible in Western Europe: which is a better lead, since the blue gradient mentioned before is naturelly just a computer generated thing. As a matter of fact I can not reproduce the 10% occurence you mention. Just because the levels are so low it is hard to get clear tables for showing with R1a1 levels that comprise all alleles.

I suppose the edit should be rephrased. However, the anomalous feature is a fact, especially when compared to the R1a1 levels of Asiatic people in comparison to the levels found in the Kurgan homelands. To me this is not OR but just reading measurements and graphs. Rokus01 17:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Here some digital details: Read the European R1a1 measurements (referred to as M17 or Eu19) here. Czechs and Slovakians read 26,7%, Germans read 6.2% (a 4X drop) and Holland a mere 3.7%, nearing white noise levels and even surpassed by never kurganized/never steppe invaded Italy (4%). While low R1a1 levels in Indo-European SW Europe could be explained away by the second Urheimat theory, this only shifts the problem back to the second Urheimat itself: Why this anomaly in Corded Ware homeland territory, so closeby to and thoroughly affected by Kurganfolk? Why the tendency is different from the tendency elsewhere? But of course I am not going to answer this questions in public and OR. I just note these facts are noteworthy and relevant. Rokus01 20:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I do follow you, but I just don't see any problem here, unless you would want to argue for a European Urheimat. Culture and language may be transferred either together with or independently of genes. The latter case is kurganization, where a population is "IE-ized" without notable gene-flow. Yes, the gradient is impressive, but it doesn't clash with any prediction: we simply appear to learn that there was no major gene drift to Western Europe in Beaker times. This may be interesting in itself, but it doesn't in any way impinge on the hypothesis that the Beaker culture is related to the spread of IE languages. The "OR" I was denouncing is precisely your implication that it somehow does. And don't forget that the picture may be partly due to historical Slavic migration: If you 'subtract' the maximum in Poland, you get a nice and steady gradient all the way from Ukraine to France, fitting the "Corded Ware horizon". dab (𒁳) 21:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your labelling observed facts "OR" just for the reason they apparently infringe on existing theories, generally accepted or not. Like discussed before somewhere, this "generally accepted" thing is nice to popular synoptics but hardly scientific and reading secondary sources like Mallory or Lichardus you will find out contradictory facts are inherent to each theory thusfar proposed, and never skewed. We have to agree on synoptics, but let's try to avoid brainwashing! Thus I painstakingly pointed out the anomalous low R1a1 gene level in Corded Ware cq. Beakerfolk homelands (by the way, in Dutch publications they hardly make the difference for being so closely tied) does not necessarily infringe on kurganization. Like Mallory also pointed out that absence of physical proof to kurgan elements in western Europe (most notably the Baalberge culture that shared burial types with both Yamnaya an Corded) did not infringe to the Kurgan Hypothesis. Sure, the Slavic migrations could have increased the R1a1 concentration to the west, or otherwise could be indiguous there and in support of the Lusatian=Proto-Slavic hypothesis, but both scenarios would raise other questions, like why the highest concentrations are not found more to the east or otherwise why the R1a1 did no blur more at Corded Ware times. Barrier analysis (Alexander Varzari, 5.2.4) show a clear gene barrier along the Vistula ("This finding suggests that across the history the geographic boundary, dividing Southeast Europe from Eastern Europe was more transparent for the reciprocal flows than the boundary between Eastern and Western Europe"), without even mentioning the Hg I1c distribution (Rootsi figure 1) showing such a blurring indeed occurred somewhere lost in time. "The problem" as you call it is not the validity of theory, but the flawed simplistic view on R1a1 being unequivocally tied to such a Kurgan theory. I propose the R1a1 gene already had a distribution pattern long before the Kurgans emerged and that Kurganfolk just hooked on somewhere in history during or after the kurganization process. If such facts also happen to support a North Western European origin of PIE, I am sorry, but this does not change facts being valid, relevant and worth mentioning. Rokus01 12:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

look, if you reread my comments, you will see that I am not objecting to "observed facts" but to your implications surrounding them. What we have is the gradient. What this implies for the "Indo-Europeanity" of the Beaker people seems to be your own conclusion. Let's just agree to stick to reporting from reliable sources, avoiding claims in Wikipedia's voice, and we'll get along fine. I only just realize that you are trying to spin things towards a "North Western European origin of PIE". If you can cite an argument to that effect, fine, but don't attempt to arrange various gradients of your choice to make it appear likely. Nobody ever suggested the "simplistic view on R1a1 being unequivocally tied to such a Kurgan theory"; that such a view would be flawed goes almost without saying and isn't the topic of our discussion. dab (𒁳) 12:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I will promise you not to combine sources OR like matching the Hg I1c distribution (Rootsi figure 1) with the R1a1 distribution here and point out how the downsloping R1a1 gradient towards the centre of Ukrainian LGM refuge or Kurgan-territory concurs with an anomalous increase of I1c. It is not up to Wikipedia to point out an alternative location of the secondary PIE homeland and advance on a comprehensive scholarly PIE stance that would actualize on Haplogroup information. Rokus01 15:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the correspondence of your I1c maximum with the R1a minimum in the Ukraine. But yes, I would prefer you didn't jump to conclusions about the Bronze Age. This distribution may be related to Gothic, Slavic, and/or Turkic-Hungarian migrations for all we can tell, it's really far from obvious, and we have to rely on speculations forwarded in peer-reviewed literature. thanks, dab (𒁳) 16:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I am getting the picture. You insist on extending "PIE" to the "secondary Urheimat" so you can say "PIE was spoken in the Netherlands". That's silly. PIE by 2500 was definitely broken up, and Mallory's "only recourse" is taken out of context, and cannot be used in any way as a mainstream definition of "PIE". We precisely do learn from R1a1 data that there was no mass migration to the west, and that the "kurganized" cultures, far from being "PIE" proper, will have been hybrid cultures transformed by superstrate influence. Exactly what happened everywhere else (Greece, India). dab (𒁳) 16:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Observations to the Hg I1c distribution (the highest concentrations corresponding exactly to the Baalberge findings and having correlations to the distribution of Bronze age Beakerfolk to the west) would have a better place on the Haplogroup I3c article, I would agree on that.
However, you are wrong in my intentions and insist on your WP:AGF.
Your observations on the definition of PIE do not contradict the definition by Mallory I supplied and I invite you to cite sources that unambiguously exclude Kurganized Corded Ware territory from being PIE! Where did you read such a view is generally accepted? Is Hausler generally rejected? Does Mallory explicitly adhere to such a view? The genetic origins to PIE may be in the Ukraine, but PIE is a linguistic term, not anthropological, and rather refers to the linguistic unity until the time of break-up, thus (though reluctantly agreed upon by Mallory) after kurganization.
It is OK to me that Wikipedia should advocate a generally accepted view, but please don't invent new doctrines. The same applies to your OR on kurganization. No clear archeological definition or linguistic process specifications exist on the subject of "kurganization", since these have never been provided, so please don't theorize on counter-evidence being "thus" necessarily evidence to a strictly cultural hybridization without mixing: read my quote of Mallory above. Or otherwise supply a clear reference to the contrary on this subject. Grammaticalization does not assume the perfect transfer of language by second language acquistion alone. Experts are waiting for more evidence on the subject, the absence of evidence is never taken as negative evidence, like explicitly noted by Mallory.
Excuse me, the Kurgan-hypothesis is presented as "generally accepted", but your views on Kurganization as a purely linguistic process and PIE as having anthropological meaning are not. Those views are not generally accepted and, applied to Wikipedia articles, at risk of OR. Rokus01 17:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

it is you who are happily mixing archaeological terms (kurganization) with linguistics (PIE). It is boring to have you parrot my concerns back at me. I am tiring of these nonsensical debates with you (we already had them on your talkpage, re Scythians). It is you who are attempting to cobble together some tenuous argument about R1a1, kurganization and Beaker culture. Find us a reference that links the three terms explicitly, or I'll be happy to just drop the topic and remove the paragraph in question. dab (𒁳) 18:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense? I invited you kindly to sustain the views you are pushing so hard. Kurganization does not imply second language acquisition only: not just because this would defy anything generally accepted and known about grammaticalization. To the contrary, absence of physical intrusion by and mixing with Kurganfolk has never been an issue. I don't mind you like to fight my arguments, but please don't resort to rhetorics and attacks ad hominem. About those Scythians, I think some mediator is still waiting for your input. And yes, let me admit one thing: a Kurgan theory inspired on Scythian anachronisms is flawed by definition and won't survive by just Wikipedia administrators denying the changes of progress and documented human influx since the 5th century BC from the far East (Britannica, Prehistoric Peoples an Cultures). Regards, Rokus01 21:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You just reverted a sourced edit. Your particular interpretations about kurganization and PIE homelands don't have anything to do with the R1a1 levels going down west from the gene barrier described by Alexander Varzari, 5.2.4. This is all the reference needed to confirm what eyes can see, and the same applies to the TBK-I Haplogroup that have already been noted in scientific papers. Don't let me accuse you of Administrator abuse to deliberately quell facts and POV pushing, since until now I considered you overzealous but not unreasonable. Rokus01 20:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Correction: you did not remove a sourced edit, it slipped my notice we already reached an agreement on the mere fact of anomaly. Rokus01 20:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)