New haplogroup I2a map

but where are studies which would show more than 15 percent of I2a for Belarus then?
 
but where are studies which would show more than 15 percent of I2a for Belarus then?

Wiik gets an average 29.7% of I. He cites Balanovsky, Rootsi, Laitinen, Rosser and Nasidze, but doesn't give the detail of the calculation.

I checked each study, but only Rosser gives clear percentages of I for Belarus (34%) but the sample is small (n=41) and subclades aren't distinguished. It is the same study that found 42% of haplogroup I in the Bulgarians, with an even smaller sample size (only 24 individuals !).

I will lower the percentage of I2a for Belarus from 25% to 18% in the Y-DNA table. Balanovsky's average is about 18%. If it is less I don't know what other haplogroup to increase without contradicting other studies.
 
Are all the studies above accesible to public?
Anyway,I don't believe Belarus has 25 percent of I2a,at least not until I see scientific study which shows that exact numbers.
Also I see that Estonia for example has 15 percent of I1,why can't Belarus then as well have close numbers?we also could add 1-2 percent of I2b.
 
Laitinen doesn't give any I numbers for Belarus as I can see
 
OK,I see you've lowered it.That is alright.
That study which shows 42% for Bulgarians and 34% for Belarus is very weird...
 
That I map shows the ancestrors of the I.E origin . The glacial refuge of europeans !
 
And what's even more interesting,and I haven't noted that yet,that this,latest study states that Ukrainians,and Poles as well,have no I2a at all:
www.unipv.eu/on-line/Home/AreaStampa/documento2986.html
The sampling is good,92 Ukrainians and 99 Poles.So,no objections can be made,not at all.

how to explain that suddenly?seems that haplogroup I is still misterious and has to be defined more properly.
 
One definite conclusion that can be made from these numbers is that I2a haplogroup hasn't got absolutely any connection with Slavic people.
If there was any 'hope',now it's dead.
 
What's your secret agenda denying I2a to anyone else but Croatians. Will this make you super special or something? Are you starting new religion for Croats?
Why study showing none I2a in Slavs is right, if it shows any must be wrong? Do you have any other proof, maybe a legend or something?
 
What's your secret agenda denying I2a to anyone else but Croatians. Will this make you super special or something? Are you starting new religion for Croats?
Why study showing none I2a in Slavs is right, if it shows any must be wrong? Do you have any other proof, maybe a legend or something?
Nope,I'm not gonna feel superior,you got it totally wrong.I only care about accuracy.
Actually,I would propose Maciamo to cut down I2a percentage for Croatia,since last study shows 34 percent and Eupedia lists 42 percent.
But he seems busy and rarely replying on posts.
 
And what's even more interesting,and I haven't noted that yet,that this,latest study states that Ukrainians,and Poles as well,have no I2a at all:
www.unipv.eu/on-line/Home/AreaStampa/documento2986.html
The sampling is good,92 Ukrainians and 99 Poles.So,no objections can be made,not at all.

how to explain that suddenly?seems that haplogroup I is still misterious and has to be defined more properly.

It might be an omission or a mistake since the same study shows 10-20% og I2a2 on the map on page 6.
 
One definite conclusion that can be made from these numbers is that I2a haplogroup hasn't got absolutely any connection with Slavic people.
If there was any 'hope',now it's dead.

Well I don't quite agree. The Slavs are an Indo-European people descending from the R1a1a (forest-)steppe people, but they assimilated a lot of I2a2 people from Old Europe before Proto-Indo-European speakers spoke Proto-Slavic. Just like Proto-Germanic Indo-Europeans assimilated Paleolithic I1 people in Scandinavia, Proto-Slavs were an R1a majority with a substantial I2a2 minority. Proto-Slavic speakers might well have borrowed a few words from the language of the Cucuteni-Tripolye people.

Slavic language probably developed around Ukraine, Poland and Belarus, then re-expanded to Russia, bringing I2a2 (and maybe a bit of northern Polish I1) with them. Just look at Kuban Cossacks in the North Caucasus or European Russians in Siberia and Central Asia; their haplogroups are the same and found in the same proportions are European Russians. It's easy to imagine how I2a2 (but also E-V13, J2 or I1) might have spread around East Slavic countries this way.
 
It might be an omission or a mistake since the same study shows 10-20% og I2a2 on the map on page 6.
There is always a possibility,of course,but i doubt they would left out those numbers and noone would know nothing 'just like that'.
On page 6 I just see slightly colored area,as if leaving the possibility there are slight percentages of I2a.Same thing is for central Italy on the map,they probably gave an approximation based on geographical proximity with west Balkans.
 
Well I don't quite agree. The Slavs are an Indo-European people descending from the R1a1a (forest-)steppe people, but they assimilated a lot of I2a2 people from Old Europe before Proto-Indo-European speakers spoke Proto-Slavic. Just like Proto-Germanic Indo-Europeans assimilated Paleolithic I1 people in Scandinavia, Proto-Slavs were an R1a majority with a substantial I2a2 minority. Proto-Slavic speakers might well have borrowed a few words from the language of the Cucuteni-Tripolye people.

Slavic language probably developed around Ukraine, Poland and Belarus, then re-expanded to Russia, bringing I2a2 (and maybe a bit of northern Polish I1) with them. Just look at Kuban Cossacks in the North Caucasus or European Russians in Siberia and Central Asia; their haplogroups are the same and found in the same proportions are European Russians. It's easy to imagine how I2a2 (but also E-V13, J2 or I1) might have spread around East Slavic countries this way.
That's a well put theory,but I doubt Slavs have brought any I2a2 with them,nothing more than R1b or I1 for example.I've explained why many times on this site,I'm lazy to do it again.
Though,one more reason might be added:negligible amounts(0% !) of I2a in Poland and Ukraine.
 
That's a well put theory,but I doubt Slavs have brought any I2a2 with them,nothing more than R1b or I1 for example.I've explained why many times on this site,I'm lazy to do it again.
Though,one more reason might be added:negligible amounts(0% !) of I2a in Poland and Ukraine.

I have seen plenty of studies of Poland or Russia, and I2a2 is not negligible.
 
I guess, Joro, the truth is different than what you imagined. And errors, well they happen all the time and they always will. That's why you need to combine many studies and average the numbers for greater probability to be closer to the truth. Exactly what Maciamo is doing. On top of it we are probably good 10 years when bigger studies are done with greater resolution and confirmed by others. But so far this is the best Maciamo can do with existing data.
If you still don't like it so much, stop complaining and make your own map. And why not? You seam to know much better. Looking forward to checking your map and complaining about it.
 
Well,in search for scientific truth there are always errors.I admit I was wrong,although actually It is not me who was wrong but scientists who made that study which listed erroneous numbers for I2a in certain countries.
 

This thread has been viewed 179753 times.

Back
Top