The elusive non-Germanic I1

tjlowery87 said:
after talking to mr.knordvedt today it does seem that i1as7e and i1as4 are pre Anglo-Saxon,he also mentioned another one,i1 df29*
Click to expand...

Interesting. Could that mean that the British I1 could have been living at Doggerland before moving to today's Britain, or would that be too far back in time? I'm thinking that perhaps I1's cradle was in Doggerland and moved in different directions from there when the sea levels rose?
 
Grubbe said:
Interesting. Could that mean that the British I1 could have been living at Doggerland before moving to today's Britain, or would that be too far back in time? I'm thinking that perhaps I1's cradle was in Doggerland and moved in different directions from there when the sea levels rose?
Click to expand...

My guess is that Doggerland disappeared too long ago for a connection in this case. The AS4/AS7E/P/M227 branch hooks back up with the large Nordic L22 branch (probably originated in Denmark or thereabouts) ca. 4000 years ago per Nordtvedt... about 4500 years after Doggerland disappeared.

Doggerland seems too western to me to be I1's cradle. To figure that out, we need to look at the greatest outlier branches, Z131 and AS1212. AS1212 has a wide distribution from England to Russia and therefore doesn't narrow it down much, while Z131 is pretty clearly Central European and distributed a little south of what is typical for I1. Every other I1 branch is DF29+... and long story short, DF29+ looks to me to have the most diversity in northern Germany. Put it all together, and Germany seems like a better candidate for the I1 cradle than Doggerland.
 
sparkey said:
My guess is that Doggerland disappeared too long ago for a connection in this case. The AS4/AS7E/P/M227 branch hooks back up with the large Nordic L22 branch (probably originated in Denmark or thereabouts) ca. 4000 years ago per Nordtvedt... about 4500 years after Doggerland disappeared.

Doggerland seems too western to me to be I1's cradle. To figure that out, we need to look at the greatest outlier branches, Z131 and AS1212. AS1212 has a wide distribution from England to Russia and therefore doesn't narrow it down much, while Z131 is pretty clearly Central European and distributed a little south of what is typical for I1. Every other I1 branch is DF29+... and long story short, DF29+ looks to me to have the most diversity in northern Germany. Put it all together, and Germany seems like a better candidate for the I1 cradle than Doggerland.
Click to expand...

Sounds reasoable.
 
makes sense to me sparkey.great reply
 
i made a thread about thishttp://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...t-from-Germans-or-Nordics?p=411310#post411310 I1 is 20,000 years old German language 20,000 years old Germans migrated from Germany to Scandnavia 4,000ybp then bakc to Germany teh German markers are R1b U1o6 not I1 and the German langauge never exsisted in Finland and Finaldn has a diffenrt I1 subclade than Norway and Swedan they have I1a2c also Finnish have mainly Uralic N1c1 which came with Comb cormainc culture 8,000ybp this means I1a2c is at least 8,000 years old prpbably 9,000-11,000 years old at least

to me what u are saying is absoultly crazy u deny the facts if all I1 in Europe came from recent GErmanic migrations from Scandinavian just 2,500ybo then all I1 in Europe would be I1a2 which is the Scandinavians subclade but almost none including the types in Germany are I1a2 this means they are not from Scandinavians and are from the Paleolithic age since I1a2 is at least 10,000-15,000 years old so i dont understand why u people think lall I1 is German or Scandvien and that it is a recent Y DNA haplogroup it is the oldest subclade in Europe

and Finnish have spoken their Uralic language for 8,000 years and they got their I1a2c from the people that already lived there so i mean come one how stupid can people get obviously I1a2 is over 10,000-15,000 years old and most I1 in Europe is not from Germans or Scandinavians and I1 is very very very ancient from paleolithic probably 25,000ybp
 
I think, without going in details, Y-I1 stayed in N-Europe at low numbers during some times, and expanded by its subclades into Scandinavia AND Finland (not by force through Scandinavia, maybe a few ones along the southern shores of Baltic) before I-Eans - maybe were they proto-basque speakers??? (not absurd) - at last Neolithic-Copper ages came I-Ens of proto-baltic sort (Corded and Battle Axes) with a majority of Y-R1a, passed into Scandinavia from Denmark - at Bronze Age the Y-I1 subclades stayed south Baltic mixed with a lot of Y-R1b (the most of them R-U106 << directly from L11) and a few Y-R1a - the germanic "elaboration" took place in N-Germany-Denmark-southern Scandinavia, mixing these three major HGs plus some Neolithic HGs in little number - the corresponding demic '"boom" giving way to the Scandinavia more northern colonization so introduced more numerous Y-I1 bearers of the "continental" subclades we found later in almost all the countries colonized by following germanic emigrations -
its oversimplified but my purpose was to expose Y-I1 had not a monolithical history even if today we can say the most of the I1 subclades had their origin in the germanic cradle region and even some of the first subclades of Scandinavia reached our lands with germanic moves -
what would be very 'cool' : a deep regional study about the Norway and Swede distributions of Y-I1 subclades!
 
First of all, when analyzing the Germanic and Swedish I1, you can't discount the impact of Finnish migration to Sweden which has been considerable and part of the "Germanic I1" in Sweden is Finnish.

Second of all, you can't analyze the Finnish I1 if you don't know the history of Finland. Finnish people, as non-germanic and how they are seen now, are not only the people migrating and bringing the Finno-Ugric language but they are in fact a mix of different peoples. It's merely a game of chance that in the end the Finno-Ugric and Finnish language became dominant in the country.
The Western Finnish region of Satakunta which is almost exclusively Finnish-speaking (compared to e.g.Finland Proper) and has been so already before the annexation of Finland to Swedish kingdom and the further Swedish migrations to Finland is the region with the highest density of I1, somewhere around 50%. That percentage is significantly higher than the regions with historical migration from Sweden, like Finland proper with 35% I1. This undoubtedly shows that the core migration from Sweden did not bring I1 to Finland, and the unique subclade to Finland also tells the same story. Finns and Scandinavians have a common history long before that time.

The Finno-ugric migrations to Finland with majority n1c1, I believe, came from 2 major directions. One migration from the Baltic states to Southwest Finland (common ancestral base with the originally Finnic Balts - Estonians still today, and the others who used to be Finno-Ugric speakers) and another came via East and Russia to Eastern Finland - these are more like the Finno-Ugric peoples of Russia nowadays. Of course these 2 have a common root somewhere along the way, but they were still clearly separated at some point long before migrating to Finland.

On the other hand Finland has also had a migration of pre-germanic peoples to the Western shores of Finland. These people, best Y-DNA traces in Satakunta with I1, were akin to Germanic peoples of that time. They mixed heavily with the Finno-Ugric population and in time language shifted to Finno-Ugric as for a reason or another the Finno-Ugrics were dominant or more advanced compared to these people. The third component of people are the original people of Scandinavia and Finland, the Saami, who were on one side forced further up north and on one side mixed with the newcomers. Tavastians in south-central Finland are clearly a mix of the Finns proper / Satakunta people and Saami. Also written history confirms that these were Finns proper who had hunting areas more to the centre and north and stumbled upon the Saami living there.

So all these migrations need to be considered when analyzing the Finnish I1. Discounting Finns as completely separate from Germanics is not true, but of course the Finnish language makes it logical to associate them with only the Finno-ugric language bearers, but that is not the complete picture.
 
Rikala said:
First of all, when analyzing the Germanic and Swedish I1, you can't discount the impact of Finnish migration to Sweden which has been considerable and part of the "Germanic I1" in Sweden is Finnish.

Second of all, you can't analyze the Finnish I1 if you don't know the history of Finland. Finnish people, as non-germanic and how they are seen now, are not only the people migrating and bringing the Finno-Ugric language but they are in fact a mix of different peoples. It's merely a game of chance that in the end the Finno-Ugric and Finnish language became dominant in the country.
The Western Finnish region of Satakunta which is almost exclusively Finnish-speaking (compared to e.g.Finland Proper) and has been so already before the annexation of Finland to Swedish kingdom and the further Swedish migrations to Finland is the region with the highest density of I1, somewhere around 50%. That percentage is significantly higher than the regions with historical migration from Sweden, like Finland proper with 35% I1. This undoubtedly shows that the core migration from Sweden did not bring I1 to Finland, and the unique subclade to Finland also tells the same story. Finns and Scandinavians have a common history long before that time.

The Finno-ugric migrations to Finland with majority n1c1, I believe, came from 2 major directions. One migration from the Baltic states to Southwest Finland (common ancestral base with the originally Finnic Balts - Estonians still today, and the others who used to be Finno-Ugric speakers) and another came via East and Russia to Eastern Finland - these are more like the Finno-Ugric peoples of Russia nowadays. Of course these 2 have a common root somewhere along the way, but they were still clearly separated at some point long before migrating to Finland.

On the other hand Finland has also had a migration of pre-germanic peoples to the Western shores of Finland. These people, best Y-DNA traces in Satakunta with I1, were akin to Germanic peoples of that time. They mixed heavily with the Finno-Ugric population and in time language shifted to Finno-Ugric as for a reason or another the Finno-Ugrics were dominant or more advanced compared to these people. The third component of people are the original people of Scandinavia and Finland, the Saami, who were on one side forced further up north and on one side mixed with the newcomers. Tavastians in south-central Finland are clearly a mix of the Finns proper / Satakunta people and Saami. Also written history confirms that these were Finns proper who had hunting areas more to the centre and north and stumbled upon the Saami living there.

So all these migrations need to be considered when analyzing the Finnish I1. Discounting Finns as completely separate from Germanics is not true, but of course the Finnish language makes it logical to associate them with only the Finno-ugric language bearers, but that is not the complete picture.
Click to expand...

Very interesting. Welcome to Eupedia Rikala.
Do you know subclades of I1 in Finish populations? Here is Maciamo's take on I1:
I1-tree.gif

And whole interesting article:
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_I1_Y-DNA.shtml
 
Rikala said:
First of all, when analyzing the Germanic and Swedish I1, you can't discount the impact of Finnish migration to Sweden which has been considerable and part of the "Germanic I1" in Sweden is Finnish.

Second of all, you can't analyze the Finnish I1 if you don't know the history of Finland. Finnish people, as non-germanic and how they are seen now, are not only the people migrating and bringing the Finno-Ugric language but they are in fact a mix of different peoples. It's merely a game of chance that in the end the Finno-Ugric and Finnish language became dominant in the country.
The Western Finnish region of Satakunta which is almost exclusively Finnish-speaking (compared to e.g.Finland Proper) and has been so already before the annexation of Finland to Swedish kingdom and the further Swedish migrations to Finland is the region with the highest density of I1, somewhere around 50%. That percentage is significantly higher than the regions with historical migration from Sweden, like Finland proper with 35% I1. This undoubtedly shows that the core migration from Sweden did not bring I1 to Finland, and the unique subclade to Finland also tells the same story. Finns and Scandinavians have a common history long before that time.

The Finno-ugric migrations to Finland with majority n1c1, I believe, came from 2 major directions. One migration from the Baltic states to Southwest Finland (common ancestral base with the originally Finnic Balts - Estonians still today, and the others who used to be Finno-Ugric speakers) and another came via East and Russia to Eastern Finland - these are more like the Finno-Ugric peoples of Russia nowadays. Of course these 2 have a common root somewhere along the way, but they were still clearly separated at some point long before migrating to Finland.

On the other hand Finland has also had a migration of pre-germanic peoples to the Western shores of Finland. These people, best Y-DNA traces in Satakunta with I1, were akin to Germanic peoples of that time. They mixed heavily with the Finno-Ugric population and in time language shifted to Finno-Ugric as for a reason or another the Finno-Ugrics were dominant or more advanced compared to these people. The third component of people are the original people of Scandinavia and Finland, the Saami, who were on one side forced further up north and on one side mixed with the newcomers. Tavastians in south-central Finland are clearly a mix of the Finns proper / Satakunta people and Saami. Also written history confirms that these were Finns proper who had hunting areas more to the centre and north and stumbled upon the Saami living there.

So all these migrations need to be considered when analyzing the Finnish I1. Discounting Finns as completely separate from Germanics is not true, but of course the Finnish language makes it logical to associate them with only the Finno-ugric language bearers, but that is not the complete picture.
Click to expand...

Thanks
It makes sense that the baltic tribes on the south of the baltic sea where present before there where tribes in Finland and Sweden.
What you say brings to mind the old story of the kvens coming from latvia, samogitia and old prussia lands to western finland , satakunda and the bothia gulf region .

We even have people like ptolemy stating the Fenni in these south baltic lands.
It makes sense that these baltic tribes had I1 and N1 before the Northern tribes of scandinavia
 
Thanks Rikala, very interesting take. Out of curiosity, when do you date this admixture event?:

Rikala said:
On the other hand Finland has also had a migration of pre-germanic peoples to the Western shores of Finland. These people, best Y-DNA traces in Satakunta with I1, were akin to Germanic peoples of that time. They mixed heavily with the Finno-Ugric population and in time language shifted to Finno-Ugric as for a reason or another the Finno-Ugrics were dominant or more advanced compared to these people.
Click to expand...

"Pre-Germanic" tells me that you suspect that the event was relatively ancient, but the I1-Bothnian subclade so common in Finland has a TMRCA of only about 2000YBP using Nordtvedt's method. How can we square that?

LeBrok said:
Do you know subclades of I1 in Finish populations?
Click to expand...

They are dominantly I1-Bothnian, with a bit of its close cousin I1-L300 (which Maciamo says belongs to Finland, but has some Swedish representation and is therefore "Bothnian" as well) and a bit of other subclades that are more common elsewhere.
 
LeBrok and Sile: Thanks!

I know the general details about I1, but not a huge expert - partly because I'm actually n1c1 myself. I'm sure that a big % of my ancestors were I1 though (ancestors from Finland proper and Satakunta), and I also have 2 confirmed R1a1 based on ftDNA projects. I'm basically completely western Finnish myself and have quite some ancestry from Swedes and Germans migrating to Finland, not that long ago in a historical perspective, so that combined with such a predominate Western Finnish ancestry (not that common anymore in a Finland where people have moved around) I always cluster to the extreme western corner of the Finnish cluster.

Sparkey: I left the time frames out purposefully because it's just too hard to say :) I think the Finno-Ugric ancestors of Finns in the Baltic etc. stayed there relatively late until migrating..

Edit: i put some time frames originally but I think they were too late, and it's very hard to speculate on non-written history, I just can't have enough knowledge to put something here.
 
Without cluttering the EUpedia tree with all possibly relevant recent SNP's that have been recently found, there is one change to that L22-cluster that probably should be made and is already made by ISOGG and Nordtvedt. The SNP Z74 (there are others but this is the most widely used to mark the difference) downstream of L22 is upstream of both L287 and L813, making them phylogenetically more close to each other than to the rest of L22-subclades.
 
FTDNA's freshly updated tree now places both L813+ and L287+ results under I1-Z74.
 
The I1 tree is in great need of update in my opinion. Preferably with only the SNP names and not the "I1a1", "I1a2" etc. names that change all the time and is really now most confusing.
 
Rikala said:
First of all, when analyzing the Germanic and Swedish I1, you can't discount the impact of Finnish migration to Sweden which has been considerable and part of the "Germanic I1" in Sweden is Finnish.

Second of all, you can't analyze the Finnish I1 if you don't know the history of Finland. Finnish people, as non-germanic and how they are seen now, are not only the people migrating and bringing the Finno-Ugric language but they are in fact a mix of different peoples. It's merely a game of chance that in the end the Finno-Ugric and Finnish language became dominant in the country.
The Western Finnish region of Satakunta which is almost exclusively Finnish-speaking (compared to e.g.Finland Proper) and has been so already before the annexation of Finland to Swedish kingdom and the further Swedish migrations to Finland is the region with the highest density of I1, somewhere around 50%. That percentage is significantly higher than the regions with historical migration from Sweden, like Finland proper with 35% I1. This undoubtedly shows that the core migration from Sweden did not bring I1 to Finland, and the unique subclade to Finland also tells the same story. Finns and Scandinavians have a common history long before that time.

The Finno-ugric migrations to Finland with majority n1c1, I believe, came from 2 major directions. One migration from the Baltic states to Southwest Finland (common ancestral base with the originally Finnic Balts - Estonians still today, and the others who used to be Finno-Ugric speakers) and another came via East and Russia to Eastern Finland - these are more like the Finno-Ugric peoples of Russia nowadays. Of course these 2 have a common root somewhere along the way, but they were still clearly separated at some point long before migrating to Finland.

On the other hand Finland has also had a migration of pre-germanic peoples to the Western shores of Finland. These people, best Y-DNA traces in Satakunta with I1, were akin to Germanic peoples of that time. They mixed heavily with the Finno-Ugric population and in time language shifted to Finno-Ugric as for a reason or another the Finno-Ugrics were dominant or more advanced compared to these people. The third component of people are the original people of Scandinavia and Finland, the Saami, who were on one side forced further up north and on one side mixed with the newcomers. Tavastians in south-central Finland are clearly a mix of the Finns proper / Satakunta people and Saami. Also written history confirms that these were Finns proper who had hunting areas more to the centre and north and stumbled upon the Saami living there.

So all these migrations need to be considered when analyzing the Finnish I1. Discounting Finns as completely separate from Germanics is not true, but of course the Finnish language makes it logical to associate them with only the Finno-ugric language bearers, but that is not the complete picture.
Click to expand...

While I find your post overall very interesting, I am not so sure I agree about the Saami being the original people of all Scandinavia. As far as I know, there is debate about this. And some suggest that the Saami came rather late to the more southern parts of Norway, at least (that is the northern Hedmark region for instance).
 
If - and it's just an if - y dna I hotspots represent Mesolithic descended people (usually in remote and/or mountainous regions) who managed the forager -> farmer transition before they were swamped by farmers then the age of each clade ought to relate to the time each group's territory was being encroached on by farmers.

That is Sardinian I clade(s) (if it's indigenous) ought to be much older than Welsh I because farmers arrived in Sardinia earlier and Finnish I ought to be young because farmers arrived there late.

The ancestral I of all three might be the same age but if the bottle-necked I represents a forager -> farmer transition then the trigger would be the arrival of the first farmers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 110692 times.

Back
Top