New haplogroup I2a map

[iapetoc]

No i dont know?
i am serious

ok soon you hear it,
I read it in a blog, based on older post in an NY magazine,

edirne erzerum ankara polis diyabakir attaleia-myrsina, don't remember rest


Nothing is official, just antennas, means journalistic rumors,

[how yes no 2]

even according to Maciamo's conservative table I2a-Din in Serbia amounts to 34.5% (Mirabal's study shows 38.5% of I2a-Din and ~48% haplogroup I for Serbia)

however that is not clear from the map that Maciamo made...

this is Serbia


I want to see range between 30 and 40% for Serbia and not a hole that should be in Kosovo and north Albania





Another thing is hotspot in Croatia and Herzegovina...
thing is it is somewhat lower than on map... it is strongest in area of Pagania and in areas where Serbs lived in Croatia

e.g. look at Figure 4 in work from the work where your data for Croatia comes from

Review of Croatian Genetic Heritage as Revealed by
Mitochondrial DNA and Y Chromosomal Lineages
Marijana Peričić, Lovorka Barać Lauc, Irena Martinović Klarić, Branka
Janićijević, Pavao Rudan

although the work is recently hidden from public display, it can still be found on internet....


compare I1b in Figure 4 with historic data - I1b is Serb settled areas in Croatia plus Pagania

this is map of Serb settlements in Croatia prior to wars according to official census

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republi...erbian_Krajina

according to only historical source talking about origin of people from Pagania they are in his time unbaptized Serbs

http://books.google.nl/books?id=3al1...page&q&f=false


on this map you can see where is Pagania - at least south part of west Herzegovina (hotspot of I2a-Din in Bosnia) plus islands Hvar and Korčula (hotspot of I2a-Din in Croatia)




regarding 42% of I2a-Din in tables for Croatia, it comes from same work due to taking half samples from low populated islands of Pagania where I2a-Din is around 50-60% and half samples from rest of Croatia where it is much less.... it is very far from truth to have 42% as number characterizing Croatia as whole... it is like claiming Italy has 45% of I2a1 based on half samples from certain area of Sardinia and half from rest of Italy....

[Maciamo]

I have reworked a bit the map. I have added a new shade for >50% to bring out more contrast.

[Knovas]

sparkey has already reminded me this project and I thought it was good to post it here: http://www.familytreedna.com/public/...ction=yresults

There only appear different samples with names and usually the countries listed, but it's not bad to get an idea. It's curious while checking I2a1 (I2a1a), that there are quite English + Irish participants listed, as well as people of likely Angloamerican descent. Together with Iberians they are the most numerous, wich seem to reinforce the strong I2a1a link with Western Europe, specially the Atlantic fringe. There is evident lack of French data in the project, since they should have a substantial percent of this subclade.

I think more research is required in that issue, specially between the British.

[sparkey]

There only appear different samples with names and usually the countries listed, but it's not bad to get an idea. It's curious while checking I2a1 (I2a1a), that there are quite English + Irish participants listed, as well as people of likely Angloamerican descent. Together with Iberians they are the most numerous, wich seem to reinforce the strong I2a1a link with Western Europe, specially the Atlantic fringe. There is evident lack of French data in the project, since they should have a substantial percent of this subclade.

It's obviously sample bias with FTDNA Projects, though. FTDNA Projects are always people paying for their own test and then joining voluntarily. Obviously, this always skews the results in favor of British people and Anglo-Americans.

But I2a1a, as I have argued, was probably the most widespread Haplogroup I subclade during the Neolithic, and I don't doubt that it spread all over Western Europe by the Bronze Age, and probably had some minor expansions in such places. I bet that I2a1b2-Isles beat it in terms of frequency in British Grooved Ware Culture, though (and is a lot of what we see on Maciamo's map for modern I2a). Probably a non-trivial amount of I2a1a in Britain is Roman in origin.

[Knovas]

I think Romans were more likely plain I2a (old nomenclature) rather than I2a1a. So in my opinion the percent brought by them could perfectly be modest. I opt for a very ancient presence between the British, and I'd like to see if with more samples the percent gets increased. Actually the Eupedia spreadsheet still needs more examples of them.

[sparkey]

I think Romans were more likely plain I2a (old nomenclature) rather than I2a1a. So in my opinion the percent brought by them could perfectly be modest. I opt for a very ancient presence between the British, and I'd like to see if with more samples the percent gets increased. Actually the Eupedia spreadsheet still needs more examples of them.

Plain I2a (old nomenclature) as in, new nomenclature, I2a1*-F, I2a1*-Rassette, I2a1*-Tibor? The super rare ones? We don't find a lot of I2a1* nowadays, and I would expect an expansion rather than a tight bottleneck if the Romans carried a certain subclade.

I'm unsure of the percentage of Neolithic vs. Roman I2a1a in the British, but if there are multiple sources, I suspect that those are the two. It would seem to fit more poorly with the other migrations into Britain, other than maybe the Beakers, who are still a mystery to me.

[Knovas]

Because of the "Romanization" practise one can expect lots of possibilities. The genetic impact out of Italy they had, it's certainly especulation when try to fix it aproximately. We can't deny a very strong cultural influence though, it's what precisely can cause more confusion while thinking that in genetic terms was also important. Not necessarily.

[Knovas]

Here is a little work by Bernie Cullen centered in what 23andme calls I2a1*

http://cullengene.blogspot.com/2011/...-m26-tree.html

In my case (as most others), it's impossible to distinguish the exact subclade because I have a T in both rs2538852 and rs2350606, and the rest of the SNP's are not tested by 23andme.

[sparkey]

Here is a little work by Bernie Cullen centered in what 23andme calls I2a1*

http://cullengene.blogspot.com/2011/...-m26-tree.html

In my case (as most others), it's impossible to distinguish the exact subclade because I have a T in both rs2538852 and rs2350606, and the rest of the SNP's are not tested by 23andme.

Thanks for this link, I just realized that I'm in error putting I2a1a* (the L160- group) in my Paleolithic Remnants map near Navarre with the others. I think I was confusing those who have not tested L160 with those who have tested negative for L160. I'll update that when I get a chance. I guess the center of diversity of L160- ends up around Normandy.

[Knovas]

Ok sparkey, I'll have a look to the thread when it's ready. I'm sure you'll find the best aproximation ;)

[Yaan]

Which study for Bulgarians shows over 40% of I2a?
I've seen one and it gives 0% of I2a for them.

Studies give between 27-37% of I2a for Bulgarians! So the map need to be fixed! Visit Family Tree DNA,23and me, and see the only study in Bulgarians!!
I2a did not belong to Croatia, haplogorups did not belong to people! So in your funny fake study what haplogorups did we have??

[Yaan]

No replay from Joro, that try to privatize a haplogorup. Maybe he learned about genes and come to his senses. Cheers!