PDA

View Full Version : r1b and Gedrosian autosomal dna



alan
09-22-2013, 01:28 PM
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/autosomal_maps_dodecad.shtml#Gedrosian

It clearly bears an astonishing resemblance to R1b in Europe and SW Asia. It would be neccessary to also assume some like with the R1* and R* phases to fully explain its distribution in Asia.

One thing it really does not fit is R1a. That should not really be the case given both descendant from R1. It is clear to me that one or the other has lost the original R autosomal signature. It looks most likely that current Slavic area R1a is very low in Gedrosia. The lower traces in the urals and south Ukraine may be a faint echo of a former stronger presence. It seems to me however that what is largely now the Slavic zone does not have much Gedrosia and at some point in its history the Slavic R1a people mixed in with others to the point that their autosomal DNA was left with very little of its original pattern.

Anyway, I realise there are other options but I think this pattern needs explained and if nothing else does tell us something about R1a and b's diverging histories.

Fire Haired
09-22-2013, 01:49 PM
I don't think anything needs to explain. Ged is similar to the distribution of R1b1a2a L23 and descendants in Europe and the middle east mainly just Europe. I don't think it tells anything about R1*. Since R is the brother to Q the dominate hg of Native Americans and very popular in Siberians and the cousins of N dominate in north Asians and urlaic speakers and then O dominate in east asia. It most likely was Mongliod so has nothing to do with Caucasian Gedorsian. That is a basic thing I think most people forget about R1 and R it shows nothing about origin of European people or mid easterns. It became popular mainly with spread of Indo European languages but only deep subclades R1a1a1b S224 and R1b1a2a1a L11. Think about it even in the mid east around Iraq, Antolia, and Caucus sure about 20-30% but it is all under deep subclade R1b1a2a L23 and R1b1a2a2 Z2103 people expanded less than 10,000ybp.

alan
09-22-2013, 03:30 PM
Linking it only with L23 falls down in Asia though. You need to add R2 into the mix too explain the overall distribution and that would suggest that the autosomal DNA of R* and R1* was also originally Gedrosia. So, I think it looks like R1b and especially R1a moved into an area with different autosomal DNA. However, this may have not happened until much later. My observations on the huge change in the Ukraine true steppe area in just the last 300 years and millenia of change before that applies to autosomal DNA too. The Gedrosia map does show a much reduced but clear presence in the steppe and urals area on that map. That could be the faint echo of what was there 5000 years ago before the many populations upheavals almost erased the ancient pattern. That could be related to the original autosomal DNA of R1a and perhaps R1b elements in the area. Once in that area they would in all probability have taken on the autosomal DNA of the area - some sort of northern component of the hunter gatherer population of the area who are unlikely to have been R people. Not all but a lot of the R1a in eastern Europe is Slavic and the Slavs probably lived in east central Europe or thereabouts for 3000 years before their expansion so its hardly surprising that today most European R1a is no longer associated with Gedrosia. Even R1b's apparent association with Gedrosia, if it is real rather than coincidence, is after all only as a minority component. If I had to guess why R1b has a stronger association with it than R1a I would think that might be because R1b in Europe seems to date to its lightening spread west in the copper age while R1a in Europe today does have a strong association with the much later Slavic expansion, by which time the original autosomal component may had thousands of years to dilute.



I don't think anything needs to explain. Ged is similar to the distribution of R1b1a2a L23 and descendants in Europe and the middle east mainly just Europe. I don't think it tells anything about R1*. Since R is the brother to Q the dominate hg of Native Americans and very popular in Siberians and the cousins of N dominate in north Asians and urlaic speakers and then O dominate in east asia. It most likely was Mongliod so has nothing to do with Caucasian Gedorsian. That is a basic thing I think most people forget about R1 and R it shows nothing about origin of European people or mid easterns. It became popular mainly with spread of Indo European languages but only deep subclades R1a1a1b S224 and R1b1a2a1a L11. Think about it even in the mid east around Iraq, Antolia, and Caucus sure about 20-30% but it is all under deep subclade R1b1a2a L23 and R1b1a2a2 Z2103 people expanded less than 10,000ybp.

parasar
09-22-2013, 04:18 PM
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/autosomal_maps_dodecad.shtml#Gedrosian

It clearly bears an astonishing resemblance to R1b in Europe and SW Asia. It would be neccessary to also assume some like with the R1* and R* phases to fully explain its distribution in Asia.

One thing it really does not fit is R1a. That should not really be the case given both descendant from R1. It is clear to me that one or the other has lost the original R autosomal signature. It looks most likely that current Slavic area R1a is very low in Gedrosia. The lower traces in the urals and south Ukraine may be a faint echo of a former stronger presence. It seems to me however that what is largely now the Slavic zone does not have much Gedrosia and at some point in its history the Slavic R1a people mixed in with others to the point that their autosomal DNA was left with very little of its original pattern.

Anyway, I realise there are other options but I think this pattern needs explained and if nothing else does tell us something about R1a and b's diverging histories.

I agree this does not fit R1a. It does not fit R1b either as there is no R1b in many of the populations where Gedrosia peaks - Baloch, Brahui etc., who have significant amounts of R1a.
To me it appears that Gedrosia/Baloch is the old mtDNA N (& Y F, G, H) connecting western Europe, Caucasus, and South Asia.

AJL
09-22-2013, 04:28 PM
If this component corresponds to any yDNA group it is G, which as we know is likely much older than R-anything in Europe.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Haplogrupo_G_%28ADN-Y%29.PNG

Fire Haired
09-22-2013, 05:08 PM
Linking it only with L23 falls down in Asia though. You need to add R2 into the mix too explain the overall distribution and that would suggest that the autosomal DNA of R* and R1* was also originally Gedrosia. So, I think it looks like R1b and especially R1a moved into an area with different autosomal DNA. However, this may have not happened until much later. My observations on the huge change in the Ukraine true steppe area in just the last 300 years and millenia of change before that applies to autosomal DNA too. The Gedrosia map does show a much reduced but clear presence in the steppe and urals area on that map. That could be the faint echo of what was there 5000 years ago before the many populations upheavals almost erased the ancient pattern. That could be related to the original autosomal DNA of R1a and perhaps R1b elements in the area. Once in that area they would in all probability have taken on the autosomal DNA of the area - some sort of northern component of the hunter gatherer population of the area who are unlikely to have been R people. Not all but a lot of the R1a in eastern Europe is Slavic and the Slavs probably lived in east central Europe or thereabouts for 3000 years before their expansion so its hardly surprising that today most European R1a is no longer associated with Gedrosia. Even R1b's apparent association with Gedrosia, if it is real rather than coincidence, is after all only as a minority component. If I had to guess why R1b has a stronger association with it than R1a I would think that might be because R1b in Europe seems to date to its lightening spread west in the copper age while R1a in Europe today does have a strong association with the much later Slavic expansion, by which time the original autosomal component may had thousands of years to dilute.

R1a and R1b I don't think define into one aust dna group. Like Native Americans and Pre Neolithic Europeans are in most tests I have seen. I don't think you should be throwing out such big theory's that Gedrosian is original for R1a and R1b. So far it only shows connections to R1b1a2a L23 and its subclades in Europe and kind of the the Near east. Is there is trace of Gedrosian in R1b1a V88 central Africans probably not. R1a1 M17 most likely originated in eastern or central Europe according to FTDNA about 8,000ybp. R1a it self may have first come to the Near east with Indo Iranian languages just 3,000-3,500ybp and deep subclade R1a1a1b2 Z93 so why would Gedrosian be connected with R1a.

IS their a trace of Gedrosian in heavy R1a1a1b2 Z93 south Siberians, central Asian Turkic tribes(got it from Indo Iranians like Sycthians they conquered in the middle ages) probably not. Since R1b1 P25 almost defintley originated in the Near east and R1b1a P297 was the first to go out of the near east into Russia and formed into R1b1a1 M73 is their a trace of Gedrosian in R1b1a M73. and R1b1a2a L23 probably left from the Near east into southeast Europe or Russia 6,000-10,000ybp it a strong trace of Gedrosian but they probably got that from inter marriage with another people in the NEar east I don't think it shows any signs about the origin of R1b and defintley not R1a.

Also people do need to Understand R1 or at least R were probably originally Mongliod at least their father P.

Fire Haired
09-22-2013, 05:12 PM
If this component corresponds to any yDNA group it is G, which as we know is likely much older than R-anything in Europe.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Haplogrupo_G_%28ADN-Y%29.PNG

I don't think it is really connected to a single Y DNA haplogroup. Just any that spread out of a certain area that had a lot of Gedrosian spread it to where ever they migrated. There is a trace of North Euro in globe13 in Indo Iranian speakers like Kurds but it doesn't exist in near by non Indo Iranian speakers like Assyrians. I bet there is somewhat of a trace of North Euro in R1a1a1b2 Z93 in asia. That doesn't mean North Euro is only from R1a or that R1a originated in North Euro. JUst proto Indo Iranian speakers and R1a1a1b1 Z93 originated in eastern Europe probably in northern Russia. JUst like how R1b1a2a L23 or its father R1b1a2 M269 or grandfather R1b1a P297 spread out of Europe from the north near east area were there is a lot of Gedrosian.

parasar
09-22-2013, 10:36 PM
If this component corresponds to any yDNA group it is G, which as we know is likely much older than R-anything in Europe.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Haplogrupo_G_%28ADN-Y%29.PNG

I agree. G is the one we even at present see as the connection.

An ancient find from Europe also yielded F* - http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000536 - perhaps the trace F* and P96 we still see in western Europe are remnants.

"F* has been observed in two individuals in Portugal, possibly representing a remnant of 15th and 16th century contact of Portugal with India." http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpF.html

AJL
09-22-2013, 11:21 PM
I don't think it is really connected to a single Y DNA haplogroup. Just any that spread out of a certain area that had a lot of Gedrosian spread it to where ever they migrated. There is a trace of North Euro in globe13 in Indo Iranian speakers like Kurds but it doesn't exist in near by non Indo Iranian speakers like Assyrians. I bet there is somewhat of a trace of North Euro in R1a1a1b2 Z93 in asia. That doesn't mean North Euro is only from R1a or that R1a originated in North Euro. JUst proto Indo Iranian speakers and R1a1a1b1 Z93 originated in eastern Europe probably in northern Russia. JUst like how R1b1a2a L23 or its father R1b1a2 M269 or grandfather R1b1a P297 spread out of Europe from the north near east area were there is a lot of Gedrosian.

And yet you seem so sure of an absolute link between haplogroups and language families. Do you see the inconsistency in your own thought?

Nirvana
09-22-2013, 11:52 PM
I agree. G is the one we even at present see as the connection.

I really don't see the map of gedrosia overlapping with G haplogroup, better than R1b. The map you have showed is in low resolution but gedrosia on Caucasus is on the opposite side from G group which is on the western side. Also the maps provided by firehaired seem to have gedrosia on the rise toward GB, which is totally opposite in case of G. Who brought gedrosia to GB?

F and G seem to be very old, so we should see F in Europe before Portuguese samples, as well as in Iran. So I assume you base your opinion more on the presumed origin of F than the map. I see that there are some wild theories by Firehaired but I agree on his point that one Hg does not equal one component, especially the old ones.

Fire Haired
09-22-2013, 11:52 PM
And yet you seem so sure of an absolute link between haplogroups and language families. Do you see the inconsistency in your own thought?

That is way different you know the very very very very good evidence with the connection with certain y DNA hg's and Indo European languages(Y DNA spread by Indo Europeans (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1337-Y-DNA-spread-by-Indo-Europeans-(R1a1a1-M417-R1b1a2a1-L51)-(R1b-L23-R1b-M73-Etc-))). Whats your opinon on this What is the origin and history of I1
(http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1359-What-is-the-history-and-origin-of-I1)
connecting aust dna is much harder I think you should be able to understand what I mean. When you word it like connecting Y DNa with language families you make it sound difficult but really it makes a lot of sense. I am hoping that big time INdo European experts will see the obvious connection with certain y DNA and use it to figure out more about Indo Europeans instead of being stubborn about it.

rms2
09-23-2013, 12:08 AM
I'm thinking Alan accidentally posted this in the R1a General subforum but intended it for R1b General.

parasar
09-23-2013, 02:14 AM
I really don't see the map of gedrosia overlapping with G haplogroup, better than R1b. The map you have showed is in low resolution but gedrosia on Caucasus is on the opposite side from G group which is on the western side. Also the maps provided by firehaired seem to have gedrosia on the rise toward GB, which is totally opposite in case of G. Who brought gedrosia to GB?

F and G seem to be very old, so we should see F in Europe before Portuguese samples, as well as in Iran. So I assume you base your opinion more on the presumed origin of F than the map. I see that there are some wild theories by Firehaired but I agree on his point that one Hg does not equal one component, especially the old ones.

mtDNA N as I had mentioned above in the thread. As to what their Y DNA was, my speculation is that it was F* the trace remnants of which we still see in western Europe. F-G and F-H are the more numerous remnants, the latter restricted to South Asia. More than current haplogroup maps, I'm persuaded by the age of Gedrosia (likely >500 generations) and the haplogroups present in western Europe more than 500 generations ago.

Nirvana
09-23-2013, 12:14 PM
As to what their Y DNA was, my speculation is that it was F* the trace remnants of which we still see in western Europe.

F that fathered G is probably closer to out of Africa timing, and CF split. F that fathered HIJK is maybe closer to where H is restricted as you said. What would be strange is that G, most diverse in ME and south Caucasus would lose much of this component since this component would have covered the entire known world (except Africa). If only F spread it to GB, or south of it during LGM, it would be strange to see it on the rise toward GB, in today's maps. Knowing its turbulent history, it could also be a product of subsequent incursions of various warrior cultures on the island.

alan
09-23-2013, 01:16 PM
I'm thinking Alan accidentally posted this in the R1a General subforum but intended it for R1b General.

LOL I hadnt noticed that. Can a moderator shift the threadto R1b general


I must admit I dont have a lot of faith in ydna lining up with autosomal dna. This one though is interesting as it does have an uncanny general distribution resemblance to R1b. Just to make clear I dont see any gedrosia dominated group spreading across Europe, just a group who happen to have SOME of it. If you read into steppe archaeology in a bit of depth you quickly find it wasnt the sort of pure untouched hunter zone that some think it is. There are multiple contacts with the area to the south in the several millenia leading up to 3000BC. So, the probability to me is that the groups closest to this interface may well have gained elements of gedrosia and other southerly DNA. The present autosomal DNA of the western steppes is probably overwhelmingly Slavic and derived from groups who spend many millenia off the true steppe before settling there in modern times. They cannot be taken as a safe proxy for Neolithic or copper age steppe peoples.

What I would expect from ancient steppe peoples is significant variation. In the west nearer the Dnieper there was probably a lot of Balkan farmer genes mixing in and this would probably have got less and less as you headed east. In the area from the Crimea/Azov/Don Caucasus genes would surely have been present, whatever they were, including Neolithic and Maykop input. There has also been suggestions of contacts around the Caspian-Urals areas from around Iran and west central Asia. Anyway, I would definately have expected the Neolithic and copper age people of the steppes to be variable from east to west and from north to south due to proximity or distance from varying southerly impulses. There may have been some homogenising periods where aridity would have driven people together but this would largely have been within a major river valley with large areas in between left unsettled. So, there may have ended up with distinct autosomal mixes within each of the great rivers of the western steppes. There may have been some difference within each river as its environment varied from true to forrest steppe. Certainly in the period before nomadic pastoralism, there must have been huge barriers of dry open steppe between the major rivers that must have kept some genetic distinction between the river valleys.

So IMO anyone who expects that the western steppe of the past was homogeneous in terms of any type of yDNA before the rise of mobile pastoralism really hasnt considered the archaeological record. There was probably some commonality from shared elements like hunter substrate, some trading elite elements etc, but they must have also been divergent. I certainly think the idea that the western steppes was some sort of primeval homogeneous area is wrong. Homogeneity was probably not even possible until mobile pastoralism was developed. Even then I doubt it was. Problem is modern population studies are bordering useless in the region if you want to know about the population before 1700AD and ancient DNA seems to keep focussing on a slightly too late period. What I would like to see is yDNA from a selection of pre-Yamnaya cultures across the western steppes. The aim should be to test individuals from as many sites as possible, not lots of people from a single burial ground. The latter may be interesting in terms of social structure but the chances are you may be looking at the male descendants of a single great granddad or the like to its not telling you anything other than the social structure of one extended family with a recent shared ancestor.

Nirvana
09-23-2013, 03:02 PM
I must admit I dont have a lot of faith in ydna lining up with autosomal dna.

I agree with parasar about mtdna being neglected. Being more stationary we could argue it being the true carrier of components. Something like the flowers and the bees comparison in terms mtdna to ydna. In case of Britain, an isolated mtdna could have survived the Neolithic shift of mtdna on the island and northern Europe, resembling R1b movements.

I would not totally dismiss ydna connection though,but would be a bit more cautious with assumptions.

Humanist
09-23-2013, 03:37 PM
A couple of bits from a post of mine (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:34U-ghPs4cAJ:www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/29537-Your-theory-about-the-spread-of-R-M269-in-europe/page4+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us), back in March 2012, on another forum:


I have posted this elsewhere before. Here is a bit more, from the paper linked to below.

The Urartian Substratum in Armenian
by JAC Greppin - 2008

One wonders how Hurrians fits in here. It appears that the Hurrians, first known in Syria, pressed westward (from Central Asia, as some hint [Burney and Lang 1971]) south of the Caspian Sea in the later third millennium, eventually being stopped by the Hittite nation in central Anatolia. The Urartians, a millennium later, were not able to press farther westward because of the pressure from the northward pushing Assyrian culture. Accordingly, the Urartians, having established major cities and fortresses in the south-Caspian region, turned northwest and came into the sub-Caucasus, where they eventually founded major citadels from Van to Erebuni. Apparently the Urartians were pushed farther northward by the Armenians after the eighth-sixth centuries, and found their permanent home in Daghestan. There their language seems closest to the Lezgian branch of the Daghestani group. Yet the Daghestani group was already in place certainly by the early fourth millennium and Urkesh was settled by 2400 (Steinkeller 1998:96, Salvini 1998), and Urartian could not be a part of the Daghestani group, and in fact it seems closest to the Lezgian group within proto-Daghestani. The Lezgian group was already well-formed by the time Urartians intruded, and Urartian became a separate Lezgian language along with the already established nine other languages in the Proto-Lezgian group. It seems unlikely that these Urartians came south into the sub-Caucasus forming this culture stretching from Yerevan to Van and further. Rather, it seems to be the opposite of that: Lezgian was part of a larger group (coming from Central Asia?) certainly by the fifth millennium into the Caucasus and the sub-Caucasus, a time when the first hints of a permanent culture were forming there. The Urartians established a colony in the sub-Caucasus and the rest of that proto-Daghestani group passed under the Caspian Sea on its way into the Caucasus, where they remained in the area now called Daghestan.

Because it seems clear that there is a relationship between Hurrian, Urartian and languages of Daghestan, we can accept the views of many that the Hurrians and Urartians were affiliated with the Early-Trans-Caucasian culture which was in place as early as 5000 BC. Obviously, the ETC culture was not original in the Caucasus had to come from somewhere. Considering the westward direction the people at Urkesh were going, a Central Asia origin is quite reasonable.

Following Buccellati's discoveries at Urkesh (2007), which showed, as always suspected, that it was a city related to the Hurrian culture as known in central Anatolia, we can make further hypotheses. Buccellati suggests that great Urkesh was destroyed sometimes around 2300, though the site was inhabited under Akkadian suzerainty until 1300. But somehow it revived itself a few hundred years afters it near total destruction in 2300 and then rolled dramatically into central Anatolia at the very end of the second millennium. These are the Hurrians whom we know from a cuneiform literature who in the late third millennium extended themselves well into Hittite territory and further developed their writing under the influence of the Hittite and Akkadian civilizations that surrounded these westward invading Hurrians. That the Hurrians came from the East has been suggested at least since Burney and Lang (1971). It is hard to imagine that a people in Syria (the 'Hurrians' of Urkesh), having a large and prosperous culture, could have been destroyed and then revived themselves a few centuries later and stormed successfully into central Anatolia. It is likely that the people of Urkesh and the later known Hurrians were two separate but related peoples, but of similar (Central Asian?) origin. Indeed, the title of the kings at Urkesh was enda (see Ivanov 2002 and Wegner 2007:232-33), a term not used among the Hurrians of central Anatolia, who, only a few centuries later, used the more common word ewri.

There is cause to think that there were at least three Hurro-Urartian invasions into eastern Anatolia and Daghestan in the third millennium or earlier. One was the invasion by the Hurrian-like people of Urkesh, perhaps as early as the late fifith millennium. They were routed in the mid third millennium and moved north into the Caucasus, becoming one of the North-East Caucasian peoples, bearing a language, quite similar to Anatolian-Hurrian and at least a part of the Daghestani group (but I think more precisely the Lezgian group). The actual Hurrians who penetrated central Anatolia seem not to have reached the Caucasus, but were absorbed in central Anatolia, not to be heard of again and, because of their south central location, had only a doubtful effect on the Armenians. That Urkesh is secondarily related to the Hurrian people of central Anatolia is sure, and that can imply that the Urkesh people are also related to the Daghestani Early Trans Caucasian culture certainly appears likely. Considering that the people who populated Urkesh came as early as the fifth millennium, as suggested by Buccellati, there are enough millennia open for a later non-Urkesh Hurrian population to come in to Central Anatolia, and then the later arrival of the Urartians, who seem clearly to be a form of our existing Lezgian group, and whose vocabulary appears in Armenian as reconstructed loan words.
The relatively R-M269 rich Lezgins and Muslim Tats are from Daghestan. The highest Iranian R-M269 frequencies are found near the S Caspian shore.

It is certainly possible that the ancestors of the Druze and Syrian Alawites, in ancient times, were located farther north than their present locations suggest. So, rather than Israel, Lebanon, and Syria, they may have been concentrated in N Syria and what are today Turkish lands, farther to the north. The "SW Asian" value observed in Druze is 23.1%. The Samaritans, in contrast, have 32.1 % of this component. While both have ~50% of the "Caucasus" component. That is a rather significant difference (~9), for populations who are today not very far removed from each other geographically.

I am not sure how, if at all, this fits in with R-M269, but here are the European populations from Dodecad, with "Gedrosia" and "Caucasus" components listed. And, whether they are predominantly R1a, R1b, or a rough split. Where uncertain, I referred to Eupedia's frequencies. Sorted in descending order by the "Gedrosia" component. R1b in blue. R1a in red. R1b/R1a indicates a bit more R1b than R1a. R1b/R1a and R1a/R1b in green. The pieces will not fall into place, I reckon, until we have a few more aDNA results. Because, in my opinion, as it stands now, no scenario seems to jibe with the fragments that have been passed down (survived) through the centuries regarding human history, the DNA data of modern peoples, and the limited aDNA data.


Population Gedrosia Caucasus
Argyll_1KG 13.1 0.5 R1b
Orcadian 12 0 R1b
Irish_D 11.9 0.2 R1b
Orkney_1KG 11.8 0 R1b
Cornwall_1KG 11.4 2 R1b
British_D 11.3 1.3 R1b
CEU30 10.6 3.3 R1b
English_D 10.6 3.1 R1b
Kent_1KG 10.5 3.6 R1b
Dutch_D 9.9 4.8 R1b
French_Basque 9.8 0 R1b
British_Isles_D 9.5 2.2 R1b
Norwegian_D 8.2 0.1 R1b/R1a
French_D 8.1 7.9 R1b
French 7.9 8.4 R1b
Swedish_D 7.7 1.2 R1b/R1a
Cataluna_1KG 7.3 9.2 R1b
German_D 7.3 9.8 R1b
Andalucia_1KG 7.2 12.9 R1b
Extremadura_1KG 6.9 10.7 R1b
Castilla_La_Mancha_1KG 6.8 8.8 R1b
Valencia_1KG 6.8 9.9 R1b
Spaniards 6.5 10.8 R1b
Aragon_1KG 6.3 8.8 R1b
O_Italian_D 6.2 28.5 R1b
Spanish_D 6.2 8.8 R1b
Portuguese_D 6 9.7 R1b
Cypriots 5.8 49.3 R1b
Cantabria_1KG 5.7 8.9 R1b
N_Italian_D 5.7 22.8 R1b
S_Italian_Sicilian_D 5.5 36.5 R1b
Castilla_Y_Leon_1KG 5.4 10 R1b
Galicia_1KG 5.1 11.1 R1b
TSI30 5 28.6 R1b
C_Italian_D 4.8 32.1 R1b
Tuscan 4.8 30.5 R1b
North_Italian 4.5 22.9 R1b
Sicilian_D 4.5 36.5 R1b
Chuvashs 4.5 10.2 R1a
Hungarians 4.1 16.2 R1a
Mordovians_Y 4 12.3 R1a
Greek_D 3.3 37.4 R1b/R1a
Bulgarian_D 3.3 30.1 R1a
Romanians 3 28.4 R1a/R1b
Russian 2 9.2 R1a
Russian_D 1.8 11.7 R1a
Bulgarians_Y 1.5 30.7 R1a
FIN30 0.9 1.3 R1a/R1b
Polish_D 0.5 12.1 R1a
Finnish_D 0.3 1.3 R1a/R1b
Ukranians_Y 0.3 16.4 R1a
Russian_B 0.2 14.3 R1a
Sardinian 0 20.9 R1b
Lithuanian_D 0 10.1 R1a
Lithuanians 0 8 R1a