Originally posted by Sovius
The problem is not the argument that R1a was introduced from the Middle East. This is plausible. The problem is in explaining the increase in R1a. Under the traditional theory, Slavs with high R1a migrated south and intermixed with the local people. R1a diffused. This would explain why R1a levels decreased from north to south.
Your argument, however, is that R1a was introduced in the Balkans from the Middle East and that it spread north. This would mean that R1a was not present in Europe prior to this. And as Balkan people migrated north, they intermixed with the indigenous people of the north. However, under this theory, R1a increases, not decreases. This is not plausible. The empirical evidence does not support it.
This can be explained if R1a was introduced into Europe from central Asia and the Middle East. In other words, R1a entered from two different sources: north eastern Europe and the Balkans. We know, for example, that R1a is common in Lebanon and Syria. The origin of this R1a is probably in Iran or elsewhere in the Middle East. So if this R1a subclade entered the Balkans, it appears to be different in origin than the R1a in northern and central European Slavs.
The point of this analysis is to show there are problems with this theory.
Comment