The elusive non-Germanic I1

Actually I am increasingly thinking that I1 is far older than Nordtvedt 's estimates. It doesn't make much sense that the bottleneck happened only 5,000 years ago. I would place it between 7,000 and 10,000 years before present.

I still find Nordtvedt's estimates ballpark correct and feel that I can make sense of them in light of history and archaeology. But let me play with your estimates and see if I come to the same conclusions if I do. If the TMRCA of I1 is 8,500ybp then here are some rough ages based on age ratios for subclades (very rough):

I1d: 5,000ybp
I1d-uN2: 3,500ybp
I1d3: 3,500ybp
Z58: 7,500ybp
Z63: 6,500ybp
AS4: 1,500ybp, clade age more like 7,500ybp
P: 6,500ybp, clade age more like 7,500ybp

That makes AS4 and P more clearly non-Germanic. I1d predates Corded Ware here (allowing expansion with it, rather than Germanic peoples) and I1d3 and uN2, basically a couple of northward expansions of I1d, happened just before the creation of Germanic. In this case, it seems that some I1d would be part of the initial Germanic peoples, but not all of it would, including the tricky I1d3 subclade.

So it makes a coherent story, at least. I'll concede the point if we find something conclusive like I1d3 in an ancient Finnish Battle Axe Culture sample.
 
Last edited:
I'm not found of old ancestors of modern dialects: the peculiarities of the South German (phonetically) owe more to previous non-germanic speaker people (celtic+rhetic) than to Suevi gone down from North - the same with Alemanni - it's said also that Suevi was, like Franks, new recombinaisons of diverses germanic tribes (and some celtic Belgae) -
for YI1, weight of East-Germanic (old appellation: W-Goths, O-Goths) could seam being heavier in Spain (But galica is a problem: Suevi only?)

you are correct on suevi as being frankish as its also stated that in the early middleages, vorpommern and hinterpommern germans spoke this frankish/suevi language. The court in Brandenberg noted this as these areas where suzerity of brandenberg
 
I still find Nordtvedt's estimates ballpark correct and feel that I can make sense of them in light of history and archaeology. But let me play with your estimates and see if I come to the same conclusions if I do. If the TMRCA of I1 is 8,500ybp then here are some rough ages based on age ratios for subclades (very rough):

I1d: 5,000ybp
I1d-uN2: 3,500ybp
I1d3: 3,500ybp
Z58: 7,500ybp
Z63: 6,500ybp
AS4: 1,500ybp, clade age more like 7,500ybp
P: 6,500ybp, clade age more like 7,500ybp

That makes AS4 and P more clearly non-Germanic. I1d predates Corded Ware here (allowing expansion with it, rather than Germanic peoples) and I1d3 and uN2, basically a couple of northward expansions of I1d, happened just before the creation of Germanic. In this case, it seems that some I1d would be part of the initial Germanic peoples, but not all of it would, including the tricky I1d3 subclade.

So it makes a coherent story, at least. I'll concede the point if we find something conclusive like I1d3 in an ancient Finnish Battle Axe Culture sample.

These dates look much more plausible to me.
 
It's pretty much a judgment call based on the available data, because it looks like all these I1 clusters are getting similar STR dating estimates of 2000-3000 years ago....
What are the interclade TMRCA's between I1a-M21, I1b-M227, I1c-M507, I1d-L22, I12-L211 and I1f-L338?
The same question for the subclades of I1d-L22?
 
What are the interclade TMRCA's between I1a-M21, I1b-M227, I1c-M507, I1d-L22, I12-L211 and I1f-L338?
The same question for the subclades of I1d-L22?

I'm having trouble finding them in a nice table for you. Before I was going primarily by the estimates Nordtvedt gave on his tree, but now that's collapsed into the PowerPoint that's awaiting additional calculations.

If you'd like to see Robb's calculations, he has them here, but he certainly gets older TMRCAs than Nordtvedt's method does.
 
I have looked at the data, but have had difficulty coming to any conclusion other than this: If there is any non-Germanic I1, it has become non-Germanic only recently. Let's look first at the distribution and dating of the major I1 subclades:
I1f: ~2000 years old with a particularly English distribution, although with some membership in Scotland, Ireland, Germany, Denmark, and even Poland.
I1d*: ~3000 years old with a very Nordic center of diversity but with a distribution everywhere, from Scandinavia to Turkey to Russia to the UK to Italy.
I1d1: ~3000 years old with a more southern center of diversity than I1d*, but still an obviously Germanic distribution, with a lot of membership in the UK, and interesting membership in Croatia.
I1d3: ~2000 years old with primary membership dominantly in Finland. I would suggest it to be Uralic if it wasn't for its obviously diverse (just less frequent) presence in the North Germanic countries, and its youth. As is, it looks like an expansion from Scandinavia on Finland.


So what of those spikes in interesting places? Not all I1 fits into subclades. Since Nordtvedt's STR clusters are the gold standard of I1 STR clusters, let's analyze them in the context of those:


.....
The spike in the Balkans: This one is the least researched due to the lack of samples from the region, but so far, the most common cluster for Balkans members seems to be T2. T2 is an odd cluster that stretches from Ireland to the Balkans and seems to have common membership everywhere but at its center of diversity, which could indicate a displacement of I1 from its center of diversity (maybe close to Poland?). But although it's somewhat mysterious, T2's distribution is clearly not Slavic or Illyrian, and everything about it indicates Germanic, possibly a combination of East, North, and West Germanic, with its appearance in the Balkans apparently East Germanic. Other clusters present in the Balkans include different AS clusters, which are also apparently Germanic. So barring us finding an interesting Balkans-exclusive cluster, it appears that the spike (and I should probably use "spike" loosely because it really isn't all that common) in the Balkans is also Germanic.
Altogether, I can't find any I1 that can't be explained by a Germanic migration. Can you?


in latest sampling from Serbia (103 people sampled)


there is 2.9% of I1-M253 and 4.9% of its downstream clade I1-P109 (I1d1 in Sparkey's text above)... that is quite high value...


btw. speaking of haplogroup I, there is also one individual (~1%) with I2b1c-P78 and 29.1% of I2a2


"High levels of Paleolithic Y-chromosome lineages characterize Serbia"
Maria Regueiro, Luis Rivera, Tatjana Damnjanovic, Ljiljana Lukovic, Jelena Milasin, Rene J. Herrera
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037811191200073X
 
sparkey said:
Combined, we see that I1 is rather young (current Nordtvedt estimate seems to be ~4000 years old) and has a very Germanic spread.
The question I'd like to investigate is: Is there any I1 distribution that can be explained by a non-Germanic migration, and if so, what characteristics does it take?

Nordvedt's math claims based on STR mutation assumptions are LONG blown out of the water. They are utter guesswork that is based on completely disproven STR mutational theories that he also proposed and are not scientific.

I1 is the only Hg that is pretty specific to only one tribe- the Svears - of what is today central sweden and norway. That is also where Kens own paternal Male ancestors come from and they are Svearish.
Svearish likely does not = 'german'. They simply conquer a long-time ruling Geatish population that were germanic and absorbed their language and culture over time before the conquest. Calling Svear I1 'germanic' is no different than calling the mongoloid 'Saami' Germanic, since they also absorbed Geatish language., culture and ancestry, in their homelands just north of the Svears, who were just north of the lands of the Geats.

My problem is the opposite of yours, in that I do not see any clear indication that I1 is ancestrally or tribally germanic since it is completely absent from the genetic archeology on the european continent until the dark ages expansion, when Svearish-descent swedes and norwegians start migrating south into a europe depopulated by plagues and later the 30 years war.

sparkey said:
Eupedia members have pointed out odd stretches of I1 into the Finns
Altogether, I can't find any I1 that can't be explained by a Germanic migration. Can you?

I1 is present alone in Finns, while the 1/3 of R1b for instance in Swedes in absent in the Finns, because the Geats were not joining the Svears in the conquest of Finnmark. The Svears had conquered the Geats and taken control of scandinavia and the Svears (I1) alone took on the conquest of Finnmark. Thus, there is only I1 with no R1b as would be the case in the entire population of south sweden / geats had also been part of the invasion.

No one knows when the Svears got to central scandia, where they came from or who they are, but they are the source of I1, and we do not know that they are 'germanic' at all, anymore than there neighbors, the Saami.
 
Nordvedt's math claims based on STR mutation assumptions are LONG blown out of the water. They are utter guesswork that is based on completely disproven STR mutational theories that he also proposed and are not scientific.

According to you? I've discussed challenges to STR dating, here and elsewhere.

I1 is present alone in Finns, while the 1/3 of R1b for instance in Swedes in absent in the Finns, because the Geats were not joining the Svears in the conquest of Finnmark. The Svears had conquered the Geats and taken control of scandinavia and the Svears (I1) alone took on the conquest of Finnmark. Thus, there is only I1 with no R1b as would be the case in the entire population of south sweden / geats had also been part of the invasion.

One thing is clear about Finnish I1 (I1d3), and that's that it is uniform and hence young. It is also apparently shared mainly by people on the Eastern part of Sweden. Since the diversity pattern is clearly Sweden->Finland, we can agree that it went from Sweden to Finland, but Finnish-type I1 isn't seen at the same levels anywhere else. That means that present distributions can't be explained by migration proportions alone, they must be combined with genetic expansions within the Finnish population.

That is to say, Finnish I1 is not clearly non-Germanic, based on what we know right now.
 
According to you? I've discussed challenges to STR dating, here and elsewhere.

One thing is clear about Finnish I1 (I1d3), and that's that it is uniform and hence young. It is also apparently shared mainly by people on the Eastern part of Sweden. Since the diversity pattern is clearly Sweden->Finland, we can agree that it went from Sweden to Finland, but Finnish-type I1 isn't seen at the same levels anywhere else. That means that present distributions can't be explained by migration proportions alone, they must be combined with genetic expansions within the Finnish population.

That is to say, Finnish I1 is not clearly non-Germanic, based on what we know right now.

I disagree with your logic.
I1 in Scandinavia is most likely a element of a early time when Ugric-Balto-Slavic populations were much father west than the Finnic-Ugric-Balt-Slavic populations we see or recognize today in the Baltic states, Finland, and north Russia. Everywhere I1 exists it is joined by R1a-M17, which offers a major clue to its origins.

The Svearish Ugric-Balto-Slavic element in central scandinavia was subordinate in tech and exploration for a long time to the militarily dominant Geats-Goths to their south, as the centuries pass and the culture and structure of the Geats are assumed by the Svears (I1).
As the Geats begin to decine in power due to losses in warfare and/or manpower the I1 Svears who are originally likely a Ugric/Balto-Slavic population, rise to power and take control of the Scandinavian continent and the Geatish population who does not flee.

I think you will find a component of I1 that is SNP differentiated and predates the Conquest of Finnmark by Sweden, as well as common Swedish I1 that are residue of the conquest of Finnmark and its aftermath. What you find almost zero of is R1b,
since the Goths-Geats were vassals already conquered in scandinavia by the Svears and not offered a co-equal status in Svearish conquest of the lands to the east.

There is no DNA evidence beyond the early fabrications Nordtvedt wove to guard flanks of his theories that insist this I1 was part of early continental germanic tribal groups. It is obvious without question that I1 is overwhelmingly 'Svearish', and most likely I1 orignated as a probably Northern Ugric-Balto-Slavic group.

The I1 you see amongst 'germanic' populations today is a result migrations from well-known population explosion and migration from Scandinavia into Northern Europe, at the same time of large depopulation of northern euro lands along with other regions of europe at the onset of the dark ages.

There is nothing tribally 'germanic' about I1 no matter how many nonsense early-tribal names Ken uses to attach to a I1 or R1b SNP/Str set.

No I1 is found in pre-dark ages samples on the continent because it was not a component of these germanic populations until the (probably Ugric-balto-slavic) Svear descended populations start to migrate into europe starting around 700-800 A.D. for historically well-known reasons and well document movements.

200 years ago, almost no males in Arizona or California had a R1b Y-line. Today, only 200 years later, most males in those places are R1b Y-line, so assuming I1 is 'germanic' in any way, when it is not even found amongst early germanic population samples, is like assuming a R1b-m269 californian is probably of Apache male descent.

A matter of only a few decades or centuries is of extreme import. At colonization of California, R1b males had a distinct advantage, just as at the onset of the dark ages, for specific reasons, the masses of Svear-descended landless males leaving scandinavia for the lands of the northern continent of europe had advantages to their colonization efforts that begin rather late in european history.
 
I disagree with your logic.
I1 in Scandinavia is most likely a element of a early time when Ugric-Balto-Slavic populations were much father west than the Finnic-Ugric-Balt-Slavic populations we see or recognize today in the Baltic states, Finland, and north Russia. Everywhere I1 exists it is joined by R1a-M17, which offers a major clue to its origins.

What archaeological culture are you mapping to this supposed Western "Ugric-Balto-Slavic" population? Just the Svears? Because I see some evidence of cultures that were likely proto-Germanic (Nordic Bronze Age) and I suppose those in Sweden and nearby, but outside of the Nordic Bronze Age, to have been Uralic. There may have been some extinct non-Germanic IE as well, but Balto-Slavic? There's no evidence of a truly Balto-Slavic people so early in Scandinavia, as far as I know.

Also, if I1 is oldest in Scandinavia, why is only I1-L22 apparently ancient there, with other I1 subclades (including the very commonly West Germanic I1-Z58) more ancient elsewhere? And although it's basically true that I1-L22 is a fellow traveller with R1a, that's not necessarily true for I1-Z58. The few places with no significant North Germanic, Corded Ware, or Slavic influence, but with West Germanic influence, indeed have some I1, but little R1a. Think former Wessex, South Wales, Western France...

The Svearish Ugric-Balto-Slavic element in central scandinavia was subordinate in tech and exploration for a long time to the militarily dominant Geats-Goths to their south, as the centuries pass and the culture and structure of the Geats are assumed by the Svears (I1).
As the Geats begin to decine in power due to losses in warfare and/or manpower the I1 Svears who are originally likely a Ugric/Balto-Slavic population, rise to power and take control of the Scandinavian continent and the Geatish population who does not flee.

I just don't see anything to support this total language family and genetic dichotamy between the Svears and the Geats.

I think you will find a component of I1 that is SNP differentiated and predates the Conquest of Finnmark by Sweden, as well as common Swedish I1 that are residue of the conquest of Finnmark and its aftermath.

What are you talking about? I1d3? I've already addressed that at length.

What you find almost zero of is R1b,
since the Goths-Geats were vassals already conquered in scandinavia by the Svears and not offered a co-equal status in Svearish conquest of the lands to the east.

But if you're right, we should also find comparable levels of R1a, which we don't. The only logical conclusion I can see is a genetic expansion of I1d3 within the Finnish population.

And even if that wasn't the case, it's fairly obvious that levels of R1b-U106 vary within different Germanic populations, as do R1a levels, and to a lesser degree, I1 levels.

There is no DNA evidence beyond the early fabrications Nordtvedt wove to guard flanks of his theories that insist this I1 was part of early continental germanic tribal groups. It is obvious without question that I1 is overwhelmingly 'Svearish', and most likely I1 orignated as a probably Northern Ugric-Balto-Slavic group.

Actually, as we've been finding out more about I1, it has begun to look more like I1 (or at least the I1 L22- clades, which is most I1) originated south of Scandinavia. Ancient Continental subclades have been identified through SNP testing and subsequent modal comparisons.

The I1 you see amongst 'germanic' populations today is a result migrations from well-known population explosion and migration from Scandinavia into Northern Europe, at the same time of large depopulation of northern euro lands along with other regions of europe at the onset of the dark ages.

You still haven't addressed my objections to this regarding the subclade dichotamy.

No I1 is found in pre-dark ages samples on the continent because it was not a component of these germanic populations until the (probably Ugric-balto-slavic) Svear descended populations start to migrate into europe starting around 700-800 A.D. for historically well-known reasons and well document movements.

Actually, it's because we haven't really tested enough ancient Germanic samples. But nice try.

200 years ago, almost no males in Arizona or California had a R1b Y-line. Today, only 200 years later, most males in those places are R1b Y-line, so assuming I1 is 'germanic' in any way, when it is not even found amongst early germanic population samples, is like assuming a R1b-m269 californian is probably of Apache male descent.

A matter of only a few decades or centuries is of extreme import. At colonization of California, R1b males had a distinct advantage, just as at the onset of the dark ages, for specific reasons, the masses of Svear-descended landless males leaving scandinavia for the lands of the northern continent of europe had advantages to their colonization efforts that begin rather late in european history.

No, saying that R1b is Apache isn't analogous, because I'm not talking about frequency, I'm talking about diversity and subclade analyses.
 
Actually, it's because we haven't really tested enough ancient Germanic samples. But nice try.

You can personally wait as long as you want. Until you can show one ancient sample in-situ your argument is repetitive constant bluster to sell something that cant be proven in the slightest.

sparkey said:
No, saying that R1b is Apache isn't analogous, because I'm not talking about frequency, I'm talking about diversity and subclade analyses.

Your talking about anything you can grasp onto to try to sustain a case that you have not actually made, but want to sell for some reason. Science is not about what you feel or what you hope for. No one needs DNA data for that. You dont need to "sell" double-blind reproduceable results, because they sell themselves.

You are introducing your own personal whim and insisting that despite any factual basis in even one sample it is valid and can be argued as factual. I am saying at the very, very best, your argument is unproven, and at worst its a sham.
 
You can personally wait as long as you want. Until you can show one ancient sample in-situ your argument is repetitive constant bluster to sell something that cant be proven in the slightest.



Your talking about anything you can grasp onto to try to sustain a case that you have not actually made, but want to sell for some reason. Science is not about what you feel or what you hope for. No one needs DNA data for that. You dont need to "sell" double-blind reproduceable results, because they sell themselves.

You are introducing your own personal whim and insisting that despite any factual basis in even one sample it is valid and can be argued as factual. I am saying at the very, very best, your argument is unproven, and at worst its a sham.

just to clear up what you are ultimately saying...correct me if I am wrong.
You saying, that we have no "live" DNA from the ancient and its all currently "morphed" into another strain and that old ancient DNA can ONLY be accurate from bodies of the period....like Otzi
 
You are introducing your own personal whim and insisting that despite any factual basis in even one sample it is valid and can be argued as factual. I am saying at the very, very best, your argument is unproven, and at worst its a sham.

I'm making arguments based on what evidence we have, and I'm open to counter-analyses of the same or better quality. It's not based at all on how I "feel" or what I "hope for," and I'm beginning to take such accusations as personal insults. I'm clearly not making the claim that I've proven anything, and I'm not misleading anybody into thinking that I have, so it can't be a sham, either.

Produce a quality counter-analysis, or drop it.
 
What would the haplogroup i1a be to you
 
I have to say Pipinnacanus does present some difficult to refute ideas here. With Denmark now testing ancient y-results, much of this mystery SHOULD be solved. In the meantime Pipinnacanus has indeed pulled me both north and east regarding my opinion of proto I1. Grudgingly.

I do have some questions though. Instead of shrouding the R1a M17/R1a Z284 connection to I1 in layers of mystery--why not spit it out? Was I1 enslaved by early R1a? I'm also interested Pipinnacanus's thinking on Z58's initial location vs. L22's. He's so cryptive in his version of I1 beginnings, I'd be surprised if he doesn't include spacecraft and giant vacuum cleaners in his explanation. I really would like to hear the entire hypothesis though. No joke.

So come on back to the fray Pipicanaus. Maybe 100 people on planet Earth find haplogroups of ancient Nordic tribes intriguing. You've got nowhere else to expound your theories...
 
Last edited:
By the way, does anyone know if is there a status update on the Danish findings? Or maybe a "finnish by date" that the scholars are aiming towards?
 
I have to say Pipinnacanus does present some difficult to refute ideas here. With Denmark now testing ancient y-results, much of this mystery SHOULD be solved. In the meantime Pipinnacanus has indeed pulled me both north and east regarding my opinion of proto I1. Grudgingly.

I wonder what he said that's difficult to refute? He never even talks about subclades or diversity.

I do have some questions though. Instead of shrouding the R1a M17/R1a Z284 connection to I1 in layers of mystery--why not spit it out? Was I1 enslaved by early R1a?

There are a few issues to address there, perhaps the most important being how common slavery was during the late Neolithic period, when R1a is thought to have arrived. I doubt it's likely that they had anything resembling chattel slavery. Another couple of issues are that the R1a expansion seems to predate the I1 expansion (was the population that was supposedly being enslaved actually I1 dominant?) and how many generations it would have taken for invading and indigenous populations to have become indistinguishable (so maybe I1 was "enslaved" for 30 years or something, nothing more, and then they got all mixed together).
 
I wonder what he said that's difficult to refute? He never even talks about subclades or diversity.



There are a few issues to address there, perhaps the most important being how common slavery was during the late Neolithic period, when R1a is thought to have arrived. I doubt it's likely that they had anything resembling chattel slavery. Another couple of issues are that the R1a expansion seems to predate the I1 expansion (was the population that was supposedly being enslaved actually I1 dominant?) and how many generations it would have taken for invading and indigenous populations to have become indistinguishable (so maybe I1 was "enslaved" for 30 years or something, nothing more, and then they got all mixed together).

The three things that keep pestering me about proto/early I1 location in Northern Europe are:

1. The shortage of I1 remains found in the region. If I1 had been there for a sizable chunk of time, more ancient I1 should be showing up... I did find some I1 remains, in a cemetery in Central Germany that dates back to 450 A.D.-550 A.D. (Pipicananus had claimed 700-800 A.D. as the introduction period so he was off there) , but this overall I1 shortage does make me think. Is it due to burial practices? Doggerland being underwater? Or the fact that I1 was further north or east?
2. The Nordic meta-myths having their origins in Finland.
3. The I1 map distribution map... epicenter is in between East Sweden and West Finland.

The age of I1 and it's TMRCA has bounced around enough at this point to have me frustrated. Until this genetic dating gets more precise, we might have to look at other methods to start dating I1.

I don't like agreeing with Pipicanus one bit... but these are issues that should be examined further.
 
Last edited:
The three things that keep pestering me about proto/early I1 location in Northern Europe are:

1. The shortage of I1 remains found in the region. If I1 had been there for a sizable chunk of time, more ancient I1 should be showing up... I did find some I1 remains, in a cemetery in Central Germany that dates back to 450 A.D.-550 A.D. (Pipicananus had claimed 700-800 A.D. as the introduction perioed so he was off there) , but this overall I1 shortage does make me think. Is it due to burial practices? Doggerland being underwater? Or the fact that I1 was further north or east?
2. The Nordic meta-myths having their origins in Finland.
3. The I1 map distribution map... epicenter is in between East Sweden and West Finland.

The age of I1 and it's TMRCA has bounced around enough at this point to have me frustrated. Until this genetic dating gets more precise, we might have to look at other methods to start dating I1.

I don't like agreeing with Pipicanus one bit... but these are issues that should be examined further.

there is more than an epicenter of Y-I1: in Sweden, it's not the more eastern regions that show the denser concentration of it -
Eastern Norway possess big % of it too; all that even if present day Saami reach something as 50% of it -
and the Nordtvedt analysis of Y-I1 subclades seams showing a Denmark origin, the more nordic subclades seaming downstream - in Scandinavia (apart from finnic lands) Y-I1 seams as being come there AFTER Y-R1a by example - I think two waves of Y-I1 entered Scandinavia-Finnland: a first one (culture unkown to me) that evolved or that has been finnicized after, pushed northwards maybe by I-E Y-R1a (corded?) and/or Y-R1b (alone???) - I think a second wave, germanized after germanic cirstallization (I saw it in denmark-N-Germany) send there other Y-I1 from the Continent, mixed again to Y-R1a and Y-R1b (the most: U106 and downstream) - question: the datations of first I1...
 
there is more than an epicenter of Y-I1: in Sweden, it's not the more eastern regions that show the denser concentration of it -
Eastern Norway possess big % of it too; all that even if present day Saami reach something as 50% of it -...

You are are correct sir... and this is the final piece that really got me paying attention to a more unorthodox approach. If you study the Z58+ and L22+ maps, they show markers that follow the journey out of Finland (or even western Russia), into Sweden...through Sweden via an overland route (slightly north of the center part of the country) into Norway, and finally to the western and even northern coasts of Norway.

So I guess Nordvedt could still technically be correct... I1 could have formed in Northern Germany or Jutland and stayed really small...then somehow exploded when it hit Finland and/or Russia. But if we don't see any I1 remains on the European continent or especially Jutland, then we may have to rethink this track. That's why the Danish y-studies are so important. STR and SNP dating just aren't there yet from what I can see.
 

This thread has been viewed 110440 times.

Back
Top