R1a and the dispersal of Indo-germanic languages

[Shubotai]

Haplogroup R1a is generally associated with the dispersal of Indo-germanic languages. But what are the odds that the Indo-germanic language family comes solely from R1a-M420 (https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1491469638080.jpg) rather than originating at the root of R1? Apparently, this solves some of the problems but it creates some new at the same time.

Specifically, it helps explain the genetic background of Tocharians who came to be 92% R1a with 0% R1b, while speaking a centum language, although there is a thousand years interval between the Tarim mummies samples and the first documented Tocharian texts. It is consistent with many eastern Indo-germanic branches having unique R1a subclades like the Balto-Slavic, Indo-Iranic and certain ancient Balkan languages like Illyrian, Thracian and Dacian. Also, it necessitates modern Albanian being the descendant of the Illyrian language or a Dacian language that moved southwestern. Further, it sheds some light regarding the linguistic ancestors of divergent R1a subclades. Finally, it may nail better the timeframe since R1a is estimated around 22,000-25,000 years BCE with R1b estimated at around 18,000 years BCE, while R1 is much earlier.

However, it cannot explain the general absence of R1a subclades from western and southern Europe where Romance languages are mostly spoken, as well as from various Balkan and Middle-Eastern Indo-germanic languages. It is possible regardless that R1b carriers had been more time in Europe and had their own languages and later converged to Indo-germanic languages mainly of the centum type. In other words, adopting heavy type languages while retaining some softer linguistic aspects of their own, but with the lack thereof adequate R1a subclades. Particularly in the case of Romance languages we would then have to settle with an initial acquisition of the language in the area north of the Alps by R-M458 and the subsequent dispersal within southwestern Europe by the Romans. In the Balkans, the presence of R-L260 and R-L1029 in certain regions could explain however at some degree latin varieties like Istro-Romanian or Vlach.

R1a-tree (https://i.pinimg.com/originals/2e/c4/e6/2ec4e6790e9a74f4f6072b3b4981d7f0.jpg)

R1a Indo-germanic languages

R1a-YP1272 Dacian and Illyrian languages
R1a-YP1051 Thracian language
R1a-L664 Celtic languages
R1a-Z284 Germanic languages
R1a-Z92 Baltic languages
R1a-CTS1211 Slavic languages
R1a-M458 Romance languages?
R1a-L657 Indo-Aryan languages
R1a-Z2124 Iranic languages

106559

[Norb]

how could L664 of spoken Celtic languages if it was the sole Germanic NW European subclade of R1a, it was found mainly in coastal areas of the North Sea which I doubt Celts inhabited. Z284 is a Scandinavian clade

[Shubotai]

I would imagine they moved earlier to the British Isles forming the base of the Celts and the germanic migrations later brought more R-L664 lines.

Of course, it could be germanic definitely, particularly the Ingaevonic branch which was found in the North Sea coast. Then R-Z284's linguistic origins would still be obscured and we would still have to explain the Celtic languages. Given that R-L664 is kind of divergent, it could have set the base for all Germanic, Celtic and Romance languages. This is a role that could have also been played by R1a-YP1272, an other divergent subclade that moved early into western Europe, although not as likely. Aside from that, R-L1029 is the main R1a subclade of ethnic Germans today. So why couldn't all three of them be germanic, right? But it seems a little far-fetched to me.

And in any case, none of these lines can explain the Celtic expansion in mainland Europe which was quite big, so treating the Celtic branch seperately as it came to be known from a number of insular languages.

I forgot to mention the number one possibility, which is since R1b coalesced 4-7 thousands years after R1a, its first members could have picked up what already existed and expanded later forming the centum branch. As it happens with any rare subclade which usually coalesces within the limits of an already defined linguistic area.

[Tauromachos]

Are you Greek or Albanian?

[Shubotai]

I am Greek. But what kind of a question is that? Greek is known to be a centum language, but there is still uncertainty around the Albanian language, where it actually placed on the satem-centum spectrum, but it is more probably satem which poses some questions for its original R1a lines.

Anyway, from a greek perspective, there is some R1a in areas where Dorians settled like Crete, but none specific R1a subclades typified yet. The majority still has to be slavic though. For the language, it is as mentioned, an Indo-germanic language which was none other than ancient Greek replaced the native languages and while locals adopted it the language became softer. It is needless to say that a lot of the vocabulary today comes from Indo-germanic roots different than the ones in ancient times, meaning it has evolved for a long time, and the occurences between Greek and Sanskrit are one of the highest along with German so this goes really deep.

[Tauromachos]

I am Greek. But what kind of a question is that? Greek is known to be a centum language, but there is still uncertainty around the Albanian language, where it actually placed on the satem-centum spectrum, but it is more probably satem which poses some questions for its original R1a lines.

Anyway, from a greek perspective, there is some R1a in areas where Dorians settled like Crete, but none specific R1a subclades typified yet. The majority still has to be slavic though.


Shubotai sounds Albanian to me and jomonjin does too

What is a Greek jomonjin?

[Shubotai]

These are all for fun, get over it. Subotai was a turkic name.

Jōmonjin is a japanese term referring to the early populations in Japan. It is a reference to my maternal line K2b, which is an ancient greek lineage from Thessaly.

[Tauromachos]

These are all for fun, get over it. Subotai was a turkic name.

Jōmonjin is a japanese term referring to the early populations in Japan. It is a reference to my maternal line K2b, which is an ancient greek lineage from Thessaly.

Why don't you call yourself Greek Ainu?

They have more to do with Ancient Greeks

[Shubotai]

Because the earliest correspondence of K2b in our area is with C1a2. But besides that, I hold mtdna K to be satem in origin anyway.

As you said, Ainu are more closely related to Greeks because of their maternal line N9b, which is still of their own though.

[Token]

Proto-Indo-European can't be older than 4500BC, which is much later than the formation of both R1b and R1a.
There is no certainty that the Tarim mummies were Tocharian-speakers. The mummies are dated to more than 2k years before the earliest attested inscription in Tocharian.
Indo-European society was strongly patriarchal (i.e kinship groups were defined by shared paternal descent), which makes it propitious to extreme founder effects. The earliest Indo-Europeans seems to have carried a myriad of haplogroups, including certain clades of J1 and I2. R1b-L51 and R1a-M417 seems to have been two initially marginal steppe haplogroups that had a lot of luck during the conquest of Central Europe. In the Proto-Indo-European stage both of them were dwarfed by R1b-Z2103.
There is no reason to try to explain all IE branches with R1a. If anything the Indo-European status of R1a is more uncertain than that of R1b, since no R1a came up in the archeological cultures typically associated with the earliest Indo-Europeans as of yet.

[Artek]

These SNPs can hardly be associated originally and wholly with any of these groups, what is especially striking is an association of CTS1211 with Slavs, YP1272 with Illyrians, YP1051 with Thracians and M458 with Romance languages.

YP1272 is an forest/forest steppe EHG haplogrup whereas CTS1211 is just a Corded Ware marker along with M458. Z92 remains strongly Baltic (aside maybe 1 biggest branch of YP569) but originally was just a NE Euro CWC group. YP1051 remains a mystery up to this day. L664 is a western CWC marker, hard to say whether it was present among the Celtic people or not (but a part of it could have been present among them, that also goes to some now rare branches of Z280).

[gixajo]

And YP5000 ?

[Shubotai]

YP5000 is one of the five primary subclades of Z280, so according to this approach, a branch akin to Baltic and Slavic. But realistically it occured within an already existing group, for instance Germans. Where it goes from there is up to you, as you know your family history better. When some more men or ancient samples with the same subclade are found positive a cluster can be formed and from their recorded locations a history can be made.

I checked however the ISOGG R tree (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JvXoBCBBk42DIF7BYPaLsQ1jojN3etgDR8pByaTRnq4/edit#gid=1078904281) and don't see it listed so maybe a change of some sort is up to come. So let's make a tree here:

R-Z280

Z92/S205
CTS1211
S24902
YP5000
FT6375


Honestly, at this time, all I can say is that this mutation occured from basal Z280* in some man at some point in time for some reason and there is quite a few of any haplogroup in its basal form and rare mutations like this can happen literally tomorrow from father to son.