New I1 map

The reason I ask this is because the distribution in Iberia corresponds better with the maximum extend of Celtic influence on the Iberian penninsula (3rd century BC) than it does with Germanic influence (the Suebi are often cited as the source of I1 in Iberia). However, what about the Visigoths, why were they not such significant bearers of I1 if the Suebi were?

I've asked myself the same question too. One of the options is that Suebi came directly and quickly from Germania to Portugal, and Goths were wondering around Europe for almost one thousand years. Possibly long enough to get their I1 substantially deluded. Also most Visigoths left for Africa, but Suebi stayed in Portugal for ever, completely giving their I1 to locals.
 
Good post as usual, Taranis. Naturally, I'm not going to defend a 100% Migration Period spread of I1, I think that even though it is very young and its spread is quite recent in the grand scheme of things, it must have had some sort of an earlier spread as well. 4200 years ago predates the Nordic Bronze Age, which I suspect is where it was confined to at one point, but you obviously can't keep it all in one place. I don't think that it was a major haplogroup among proto-Celtic peoples, although it must have been a minor one after some point; similarly, it looks like it could have been a significant contributing population to modern Finnic peoples. Probably, whatever original I1 among them is representative of the contribution of the Nordic Bronze Age diaspora within them (I really have trouble imagining that the contribution could have come earlier than the Nordic Bronze Age--although I suppose that it is possible).

Thank you. :)

My point with the Atlantic region is that it would not have needed to ever have been any major component, nor that it would necessarily have arrived with the Proto-Celts in the Atlantic region, it would have been sufficient if I1 arrived in Central Europe by the Bronze Age and spread from there subsequently. I just noted that there may be a small Celtic component to I1, which would explain the approximately 1-5% of I1 we find in certain areas that saw considerable Celtic but negligible Germanic influence.

Still, the correlation between I1 and Germanic peoples remains one of the better correlations between Y-DNA haplogroups and language families. And it still seems to me that Anatolian and Black Sea I1 maps best to East Germanic peoples. There could be earlier I1 there as well, but if we're talking the most likely origin of a given I1 sample, that seems to me to be it.

Otherwise, I absolutely I agree that the main correlation is between I1 and the Germanic peoples, and that this explains the bulk of the patterns we see.

I've asked myself the same question too. One of the options is that Suebi came directly and quickly from Germania to Portugal, and Goths were wondering around Europe for almost one thousand years. Possibly long enough to get their I1 substantially deluded. Also most Visigoths left for Africa, but Suebi stayed in Portugal for ever, completely giving their I1 to locals.

This is also a possibility, especially considering the intermingling of the Goths already before the migration period. Just a small nitpick though, the Visigoths didn't leave for Africa, it was the Vandals who did that. The Visigoths were the ones who ended up controlling virtually the entire Iberian penninsula at the eve of the invasion by the Umayyad Caliphate.
 
Last edited:
Thank you. :)

My point with the Atlantic region is that it would not have needed to ever have been any major component, nor that it would necessarily have arrived with the Proto-Celts in the Atlantic region, it would have been sufficient if I1 arrived in Central Europe by the Bronze Age and spread from there subsequently. I just noted that there may be a small Celtic component to I1, which would explain the approximately 1-5% of I1 we find in certain areas that saw considerable Celtic but negligible Germanic influence.



Otherwise, I absolutely I agree that the main correlation is between I1 and the Germanic peoples, and that this explains the bulk of the patterns we see.



This is also a possibility, especially considering the intermingling of the Goths already before the migration period. Just a small nitpick though, the Visigoths didn't leave for Africa, it was the Vandals who did that. The Visigoths were the ones who ended up controlling virtually the entire Iberian penninsula at the eve of the invasion by the Umayyad Caliphate.

vandal haplogroup was I2a1. Sardinians have a very high HG I in them, and it was related with Germanics/Vandals or other northern europeans.
Since we can work backwards from Sardinia, then we can confirm that the I2 is eastern germanic, while I1 is western germanic ( I excluded nordic at this time) .
The vandals would have been the Vendenae ( swedish word for vandal is Vendel) , which comprised of the east germanic Lugii tribe and bastarnae tribe, while the Goths once eliminating the Aestii, Venedi and Rugii , baltic tribes ( these became known as the Vidivarii in 200AD ) would be I1 ( same as nordic and western germanic tribes.)

http://www.duerinck.com/goths.html
 
vandal haplogroup was I2a1. Sardinians have a very high HG I in them, and it was related with Germanics/Vandals or other northern europeans.
Since we can work backwards from Sardinia, then we can confirm that the I2 is eastern germanic, while I1 is western germanic ( I excluded nordic at this time) .

Are you saying that Sardinians are Germanic people ? They have the darkest hair in Europe, darker even than North Africa. Not an ounce of Germanicity.
 
Are you saying that Sardinians are Germanic people ? They have the darkest hair in Europe, darker even than North Africa. Not an ounce of Germanicity.

I am saying that vandals ( east germanic ) inhabited sardinia, later it was the Aragonese ( catalans) , Spaniards, italians and before all of that, it was the phoenicians/carthagians and romans. The I haplo mark is the vandal mark. Thats what I am saying.

Besides, the aragonese associated with navarra people in the pyrennes, a basque people would have mixed and settled with the aragonese in sardinia in the early middle ages.

This colour hair issue is a joke, I see black haired germans, red haired, so what
 
vandal haplogroup was I2a1. Sardinians have a very high HG I in them, and it was related with Germanics/Vandals or other northern europeans.
Since we can work backwards from Sardinia, then we can confirm that the I2 is eastern germanic, while I1 is western germanic ( I excluded nordic at this time) .
The vandals would have been the Vendenae ( swedish word for vandal is Vendel) , which comprised of the east germanic Lugii tribe and bastarnae tribe, while the Goths once eliminating the Aestii, Venedi and Rugii , baltic tribes ( these became known as the Vidivarii in 200AD ) would be I1 ( same as nordic and western germanic tribes.)

http://www.duerinck.com/goths.html

Sorry, just no. There is no reason what so ever to assume that I2a is associated with Germanic peoples. Certainly not in Sardinia.
 
Sorry, just no. There is no reason what so ever to assume that I2a is associated with Germanic peoples. Certainly not in Sardinia.

If its not a vandal mark, then I2a P-37 which is in sardinia is the most common mark for the illyrians.

It cannot be phoenician, greek or levant.

The only other is goth but they have no P-37
 
Sardinians are really rare. Even in admixture analysis there's nothing clear on them, except for the fact they appear to hold the largest Southern European genetic in average (although the proportions are truly unknown).

Acording to Eupedia I2a1 originated in Sardinia. However, I think that the Pyrenees are the most likely place to explain its origin and expansion. The high presence in Sardinia is the result of an ancient bottleneck in my opinion, nothing else. There must be sources talking about this, since the information showed at 23andme clearly opts for the origin in the Pyrenees.
 
If its not a vandal mark, then I2a P-37 which is in sardinia is the most common mark for the illyrians.

It cannot be phoenician, greek or levant.

The only other is goth but they have no P-37

What? Why should it be now Illyrian? That's just making it worse. The Vandals were in Sardinia at least for a (short) while, while the Illyrians never were there. I think the obvious solution is that Sardinian I is a leftover from the island's "aboriginal" population (I know the term is problematic, but in the context of Sardinian I am thinking of the Nuraghic Civilization).
 
Last edited:
The type of haplogroup I in Sardinia (I2a1a) would almost certainly have been the most common type of haplogroup I during the Neolithic, considering that it has the oldest TMRCA of any of the major haplogroup I branches, and that it has been found significantly in ancient DNA samples together with G2a. Its apparent correlation with G2a in some cases, combined with the high G2a in Sardinia (15%, the highest in Europe), make me think that it spread as early as the Neolithic into Sardinia alongside G2a with the expansion of farming into the region. A slightly later migration corresponding with the Nuragic civilization is also possible.
 
Sorry, just no. There is no reason what so ever to assume that I2a is associated with Germanic peoples. Certainly not in Sardinia.

I completely agree. Besides, haplogroup I2a1, the type found in Sardinia, was already in south-west Europe during the Neolithic, as the ancient DNA from Treilles in Languedoc attests.
 
Where are you getting your data for I1 frequencies in different regions of Britain? It seems unexpected, for example, that Kent is as low as Devon in its I1 levels, considering that Devonians cluster closely with the Cornish and Kent not so much in studies like Oppenheimer. I would expect Kent to be consistent with the rest of East England, especially because they are thought to be descendants of Jutes, but I don't have any studies on hand that would contradict you right now.

Sorry for the late reply. The lower frequency of I1 in Kent comes from Capelli et al. 2003
 
What? Why should it be now Illyrian? That's just making it worse. The Vandals were in Sardinia at least for a (short) while, while the Illyrians never were there. I think the obvious solution is that Sardinian I is a leftover from the island's "aboriginal" population (I know the term is problematic, but in the context of Sardinian I am thinking of the Nuraghic Civilization).

I read the Eupedia recommended book

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-26476.html?

which states , that the Illyrian ( messapic )and sardinian langauges are the same and that this was due to illyrian immigration into sardinia. The Illyrians as per Roman historians where the best mariners they encounted. The Romans even copied the Illyrian ships because they where so good.
 
I read the Eupedia recommended book

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-26476.html?

which states , that the Illyrian ( messapic )and sardinian langauges are the same and that this was due to illyrian immigration into sardinia. The Illyrians as per Roman historians where the best mariners they encounted. The Romans even copied the Illyrian ships because they where so good.

That book looks to me like complete fabrication and fantasy especially because the book makes the tentative connection between Albanians and Illyrians (which in my opinion, is not the case, because Albanian is a Satem language, and links should be sought towards Dacian or Thracian, and not Illyrian). Furthermoe, there is no evidence whatsoever for Illyrian names in Sardinia. Beside, it would make no sense from the geographic perspective: how could there be Illyrians in Sardinia if they never settled in Italy, either.

Maciamo brought up the very good point that I2a1 has also been found at the Neolithic site of Treilles. It is far more probable hence that Sardinian I2a1 is indeed of Neolithic origin, which in turn also makes a connection between I2a1 and the Nuraghic civilization of Sardinia fairly probable.
 
That book looks to me like complete fabrication and fantasy especially because the book makes the tentative connection between Albanians and Illyrians (which in my opinion, is not the case, because Albanian is a Satem language, and links should be sought towards Dacian or Thracian, and not Illyrian). Furthermoe, there is no evidence whatsoever for Illyrian names in Sardinia. Beside, it would make no sense from the geographic perspective: how could there be Illyrians in Sardinia if they never settled in Italy, either.

Maciamo brought up the very good point that I2a1 has also been found at the Neolithic site of Treilles. It is far more probable hence that Sardinian I2a1 is indeed of Neolithic origin, which in turn also makes a connection between I2a1 and the Nuraghic civilization of Sardinia fairly probable.

what do you mean never settled in Italy - messapic are illyrian in apulia, North picene are illyrian and later celtic mix ( semones) in Romagna Italy.
My theory that Veneti ( adriatic ) where originally Illyrian as per town names, carni in Friuli although later turned celtic .............anyway its irrelevant for the discussion if you think that book is a sham
 
what do you mean never settled in Italy - messapic are illyrian in apulia, North picene are illyrian and later celtic mix ( semones) in Romagna Italy. My theory that Veneti ( adriatic ) where originally Illyrian as per town names, carni in Friuli although later turned celtic

Sorry, but my statement that there is no evidence for Illyrian languages in Italy holds. Yes, Messapic clearly was a non-Italic language, yes, but I don't think a connection with the Illyrian languages is necessary. With North Picene, it is not even sure if the language was actually Indo-European. Likewise, the Veneti were distinct from the Illyrians as well.

.............anyway its irrelevant for the discussion if you think that book is a sham

It should be pretty obvious that the book is sham, shouldn't it? I mean, the author explicitly uses the wording "Albanian". This only makes sense if the author has some kind of a weird nationalist agenda.
 
I have revised my map of haplogroup I1,

I

Dear Maciamo,
I would have expected Belgium and Northern France (Nord, pas de Calais: Saxons, Franks, Frisians + Danes) to be around 15% and Normandy (Danes+ Franks) + Picardy (Franks) to be around 10%.
Mertens even put 20% I1 in the flemish population
Journal of Genetic Genealogy, 3(2):19-25, 2007
Y-Haplogroup Frequencies in the Flemish Population
Gerhard Mertens
 
It should be pretty obvious that the book is sham, shouldn't it? I mean, the author explicitly uses the wording "Albanian". This only makes sense if the author has some kind of a weird nationalist agenda.
How can this be true when the author itself is Sardinian?
 
Dear Maciamo,
I would have expected Belgium and Northern France (Nord, pas de Calais: Saxons, Franks, Frisians + Danes) to be around 15% and Normandy (Danes+ Franks) + Picardy (Franks) to be around 10%.
Mertens even put 20% I1 in the flemish population
Journal of Genetic Genealogy, 3(2):19-25, 2007
Y-Haplogroup Frequencies in the Flemish Population
Gerhard Mertens

in a survey about Y DNA in germanic-sepaking Belgium, I red:
Y-I1:
minimum: Limburg: 5,7% (small sample: nb: 70)
more often, between 11,2% in Western Antwerpen (nb: 80) and 21,2% in Oost-Antwerpen-Kempen (nb: 86) - in ~middle: 15,7% in West Vlanderen (nb: 141)
total dutch speaking Belgium: I1 = 13,3% (nb 695: serious enough)
I recall East England shows some regions about 25 to 33% of Y-I1
 
That book looks to me like complete fabrication and fantasy especially because the book makes the tentative connection between Albanians and Illyrians (which in my opinion, is not the case, because Albanian is a Satem language, and links should be sought towards Dacian or Thracian, and not Illyrian). Furthermoe, there is no evidence whatsoever for Illyrian names in Sardinia. Beside, it would make no sense from the geographic perspective: how could there be Illyrians in Sardinia if they never settled in Italy, either.

Maciamo brought up the very good point that I2a1 has also been found at the Neolithic site of Treilles. It is far more probable hence that Sardinian I2a1 is indeed of Neolithic origin, which in turn also makes a connection between I2a1 and the Nuraghic civilization of Sardinia fairly probable.

I think Bertrand said that illiryan is poorly known because of mixings with more northern W-balkanic languages more akin to venetic, he seams considering genuine S-Illyrian as a satem language - what is true? maybe I red in a wrong way?
 

This thread has been viewed 55037 times.

Back
Top