The elusive non-Germanic I1

Here's a question that you may be able to answer better than me: Where did East Germanic peoples settle vs. West Germanic peoples in Iberia? I have a feeling that answering that will help us here. While I1 seems to have been relatively equal in frequency among the different Germanic branches, R1b-U106 seems to have been most common among West Germanic peoples in particular.

And if it still mismatches... we'll need to analyze the diversity of I1 and R1b-U106 in different areas, to see if any founder effects are throwing us off. Frequency distributions can be misleading...

Did west germanic tribes migrate is the question ..............as goths, vandals, burgundians, lombards, Heruli etc etc where all east -germanic or southern swedish people
 
Did west germanic tribes migrate is the question ..............as goths, vandals, burgundians, lombards, Heruli etc etc where all east -germanic or southern swedish people

You don't think any Franks or Suebi ended up in Iberia?
 
You don't think any Franks or Suebi ended up in Iberia?

No I do not, the franks only settled in northern france and converted to the gallic tongue and introduced/began L'oil language while in southern france they kept L'oc language
 
Here's a question that you may be able to answer better than me: Where did East Germanic peoples settle vs. West Germanic peoples in Iberia? I have a feeling that answering that will help us here. While I1 seems to have been relatively equal in frequency among the different Germanic branches, R1b-U106 seems to have been most common among West Germanic peoples in particular.

And if it still mismatches... we'll need to analyze the diversity of I1 and R1b-U106 in different areas, to see if any founder effects are throwing us off. Frequency distributions can be misleading...

Well, Sueves (west Germanic), who settled around Gallaecia, lived around what is now eastern Germany and northern Bohemia, while Visigoths... Well, these travelled all over Europe:
Roman_Empire_125.png

Visigoth_migrations.jpg
 
Well, Sueves (west Germanic), who settled around Gallaecia, lived around what is now eastern Germany and northern Bohemia, while Visigoths... Well, these travelled all over Europe:
Roman_Empire_125.png

Visigoth_migrations.jpg

half way into reading the book Goths and it states that visigoths means west goth and ostrogoth means east goth. The visigoths never appeared prior to when goths settled in sarmatia. The westgoths where from Scanza in southern sweden as well as gotland, while the ostrogoths where from east german and baltic lands.
so, the visigoths could only be swedish HG and not east or west germanic

Are suevi west germanic tribe ? , they appear in history as being south of mecklenbug basically just bordering old east and west germany.
The suebi where known to fashion their hair in the "suebian knot" which is basically a finnic fashion. But then again , some say they where on the Rhine with the macromanni tribe .........seems to me thay have never been truly positioned
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suebian_knot
if they are from Holstein, then they would have been nordic at the time in question
 
half way into reading the book Goths and it states that visigoths means west goth and ostrogoth means east goth. The visigoths never appeared prior to when goths settled in sarmatia. The westgoths where from Scanza in southern sweden as well as gotland, while the ostrogoths where from east german and baltic lands.
so, the visigoths could only be swedish HG and not east or west germanic

Are suevi west germanic tribe ? , they appear in history as being south of mecklenbug basically just bordering old east and west germany.
The suebi where known to fashion their hair in the "suebian knot" which is basically a finnic fashion. But then again , some say they where on the Rhine with the macromanni tribe .........seems to me thay have never been truly positioned
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suebian_knot
if they are from Holstein, then they would have been nordic at the time in question

Yes, I was showing the Visigoths' migrational history from their migration to Scandinavia (at which time they weren't differentiated from the Ostrogoths) until their arrival to Iberia. East Germanic has a linguistic, not geographical, connotation.
The Sueves were indeed West Germanic, specifically (along with others) the ancestors of the Upper German dialects spoken today. It should be noted, however, that only around 20,000-50,000 Sueves migrated to Iberia, while the rest migrated south and came to form part of the Alamanni (the name of Swabia comes from the Sueves).
 
Oh I see, he places I1d3 as nearly 1000 years older than Nordtvedt does, and suggests that it came out of Finland. If true, that does change the picture in Finland significantly. Still, I'm hesitant to trust his dating, which is much older for I1 as a whole as well.

By the way, if anyone is interested in the technical aspects of the above disagreement between Nordtvedt's calculations vs. Robb's calculations of TMRCAs, there is an interesting discussion going on right now, so far like this:

Terry Robb said:
My contention is that one should not put too much faith in the ASD/Variance method for computing TMRCA.

Ken Nordtvedt said:
Yeah, for years we have been stressing this on this list --- coalescence age estimate is not a tree tmrca estimate --- and you have been estimating coalescence age

Terry Robb said:
I have just been applying your ASD/Variance formula for purposes of this discussion in regards to TMRCA. I use a completely different methodology myself for the TMRCA and the other things I want to estimate. Just used the ASD method to illustrate one problem with it, and to share that finding with others.

So effectively, we are now in agreement (and as you say, the people on this list have been stressing this) that one should not put too much faith into the ASD/Variance method -- which you have implemented as part of your Generations6.xls script -- for estimating what one might have thought was the TMRCA.

I certainly agree with that.

Ken Nordtvedt said:
No, we are not effectively in agreement. There are several kinds of variance packages:

Self Variance ---> coalescence age
Variance from founder ---> TMRCA
Interclade Variance ---> TMRCancestralnode

And there are even nested variances which combine correlated variances to measure special ancient branch intervals.

You can not make a combined statement under the combo description "ASD/Variance method" to grade all variances.
And one should certainly not use one that does not estimate tmrca in reaching a judgment about abilities to estimate tmrca.

I think agreement can be said for the statement that self-variance estimations of coalescence age (as well as its true value) are dependent on structural details inside a tree resulting in interpretation cloudiness.

As I mentioned, who is better at TMRCA calculations will affect our interpretation of the Finnish spike in particular, and maybe also the Welsh spike, as the older the dating is (that is, if Robb is right), the less likely it is Germanic in those areas.
 
By the way, if anyone is interested in the technical aspects of the above disagreement between Nordtvedt's calculations vs. Robb's calculations of TMRCAs, there is an interesting discussion going on right now, so far like this:









As I mentioned, who is better at TMRCA calculations will affect our interpretation of the Finnish spike in particular, and maybe also the Welsh spike, as the older the dating is (that is, if Robb is right), the less likely it is Germanic in those areas.

I think we need to view and accept both men as they seem to know what they are talking about, besides KN last sentence basically says he will not argue the point.:unsure: and will accept the view

As for me, I find TR site easier to understand, but thats probably because I do not know anywhere near enough the subject as you do :)

TR map does bring another aspect especially the J2 area


TR's terminology
AAA appears to be the oldest grouping and it is widely spread across northern Europe, although it peaks in England and Germany.

In the "AAA" cluster/clan, each "A" means an ancestral value at the appropriate STR marker. And any "B" would mean a derived (mutated) value.
 
Has anyone been following the latest round of SNPs coming out for I1? One of the most interesting results so far is that I1*-P (a largely Polish/possibly Pomeranian-centered one) and I1*-AS4 (the weirder Welsh one) are turning up negative for SNPs while others are positive, and T2 got its own SNP but is negative for others. This will likely place all 3 clusters a bit further back on the I1 tree than their STRs suggested. It will be really interesting to see how Nordtvedt's TMRCA calculations go after being informed by these new SNPs. The new calculations will probably have a lot to say about the question presented in this thread.

In the meantime, while we wait for this to be finalized, Nordtvedt has a new approximated I1 tree to give an idea, called "Tree for I1.ppt" here. Robb has also been doing updates.
 
Has anyone been following the latest round of SNPs coming out for I1? One of the most interesting results so far is that I1*-P (a largely Polish/possibly Pomeranian-centered one) and I1*-AS4 (the weirder Welsh one) are turning up negative for SNPs while others are positive, and T2 got its own SNP but is negative for others. This will likely place all 3 clusters a bit further back on the I1 tree than their STRs suggested. It will be really interesting to see how Nordtvedt's TMRCA calculations go after being informed by these new SNPs. The new calculations will probably have a lot to say about the question presented in this thread.

In the meantime, while we wait for this to be finalized, Nordtvedt has a new approximated I1 tree to give an idea, called "Tree for I1.ppt" here. Robb has also been doing updates.

Thank you for this information.
Btw, until there isn't some new development which would imply different conclusion, for me, I-Z63 spread through Eastern Europe with Goths.
 
Has anyone been following the latest round of SNPs coming out for I1? One of the most interesting results so far is that I1*-P (a largely Polish/possibly Pomeranian-centered one) and I1*-AS4 (the weirder Welsh one) are turning up negative for SNPs while others are positive, and T2 got its own SNP but is negative for others. This will likely place all 3 clusters a bit further back on the I1 tree than their STRs suggested. It will be really interesting to see how Nordtvedt's TMRCA calculations go after being informed by these new SNPs. The new calculations will probably have a lot to say about the question presented in this thread.

In the meantime, while we wait for this to be finalized, Nordtvedt has a new approximated I1 tree to give an idea, called "Tree for I1.ppt" here. Robb has also been doing updates.

That's very interesting indeed. We can in all likelihood rule out an Anglo-Saxon or Norman/Viking origin for the Welsh I1*-AS4 then.

I expected that the Bothnian I1 would predate the Germanic core of I1, as I explained in the Haplogroup I1 page. It also makes sense to find I1 pre-dating the Germanic expansion I1 in other places around Scandinavia like Pomerania/Poland (and probably also Germany and the Low Countries) as it is unlikely that I1 was present only in Scandinavia before the Bronze Age.
 
Btw, until there isn't some new development which would imply different conclusion, for me, I-Z63 spread through Eastern Europe with Goths.

[I-Z63 is the new SNP-based name for I1-T2] Agreed... the distribution still seems to imply that I1-Z63 is wholly Germanic, despite the fact that it is a little further back in the tree than expected. It's hard for me to see the possibility for another conclusion at the moment.

We can in all likelihood rule out an Anglo-Saxon or Norman/Viking origin for the Welsh I1*-AS4 then... It also makes sense to find I1 pre-dating the Germanic expansion I1 in other places around Scandinavia like Pomerania/Poland (and probably also Germany and the Low Countries) as it is unlikely that I1 was present only in Scandinavia before the Bronze Age.

Also agreed... it's looking like I1*-AS4 and I1*-P may be the non-Germanic I1 this topic is looking for. At least, they're suddenly the best candidates. That conclusion is pending plenty more analysis, of course.

I expected that the Bothnian I1 would predate the Germanic core of I1, as I explained in the Haplogroup I1 page.

I don't see that we've learned anything more here about I1d3, which means that we still disagree about it.
 
[I-Z63 is the new SNP-based name for I1-T2]
I don't see that we've learned anything more here about I1d3, which means that we still disagree about it.

It depends how you look at it. If Z58 is the only true Germanic branch, then I1-L22 (Norse, Ultra-Norse, Bothnian), I1-T2, I1-AS4, I1-P and I1b all evolved outside the core of Germanic culture that developed in the Bronze Age around Denmark, North Germany and southern Sweden. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case and the I1d-Norse and I1d-Ultra-Norse were only absorbed in the Iron Age expansion of Germanic peoples.

It's either this or all I1 are Germanic. It doesn't make much sense to say that the Polish and Welsh branches are non-Germanic but the Norse and Bothnian ones are Germanic, as both split before the Z58 mutation appeared.
 
It depends how you look at it. If Z58 is the only true Germanic branch, then I1-L22 (Norse, Ultra-Norse, Bothnian), I1-T2, I1-AS4, I1-P and I1b all evolved outside the core of Germanic culture that developed in the Bronze Age around Denmark, North Germany and southern Sweden. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case and the I1d-Norse and I1d-Ultra-Norse were only absorbed in the Iron Age expansion of Germanic peoples.

It's either this or all I1 are Germanic. It doesn't make much sense to say that the Polish and Welsh branches are non-Germanic but the Norse and Bothnian ones are Germanic, as both split before the Z58 mutation appeared.

Huh? Why can't some founders be Germanic (Z58 MRCA, L22 MRCA, Z63 MRCA) and some not be (P MRCA, AS4 MRCA)? I don't think that "Z58 is the only true Germanic branch," at least not with what I know right now.

I1d is pretty Norse but its center of diversity is somewhere around southern Sweden IIRC, which seems within range to have been part of the Germanic core.

AS4, meanwhile, has a center of diversity squarely in Wales, and P has one in Pomerania. So a Germanic origin, or at least a Migration Period spread, is more questionable for them. That's all I see this saying.
 
Huh? Why can't some founders be Germanic (Z58 MRCA, L22 MRCA, Z63 MRCA) and some not be (P MRCA, AS4 MRCA)? I don't think that "Z58 is the only true Germanic branch," at least not with what I know right now.

I1d is pretty Norse but its center of diversity is somewhere around southern Sweden IIRC, which seems within range to have been part of the Germanic core.

AS4, meanwhile, has a center of diversity squarely in Wales, and P has one in Pomerania. So a Germanic origin, or at least a Migration Period spread, is more questionable for them. That's all I see this saying.

It's not a matter of whether the I1d (L22) branch was ever Germanic or not, but when it became Germanic.

We cannot talk of Germanic people before the Indo-Europeans moved to Scandinavia. The first wave was the R1a people of the Corded ware in the Early Bronze Age (2800-2500 BCE), but this branch being more closely related to Baltic and Slavic peoples, it is doubtful that it was already Proto-Germanic. The second wave came with R1b sometime between 2500 and 1200 BCE (perhaps several successive waves from Central Europe). I think it is only once R1b came into the mix that we can really talk about a (Proto-)Germanic culture and ethnicity shaping up. The cradle of Germanic "civilization" would thus correspond to the Nordic Bronze Age in Denmark, southern Sweden and coastal southern Norway, but ultimately expanding from Denmark and Scania.

My hypothesis here is that this original core around Denmark and Scania included only I1-Z58 lineages alongside R1a and R1b (+ minor lineages like G2a, J2 and E1b1b). The people in central and northern Sweden and Norway, as well as in Finland, would have been predominantly I1d (L22) and R1a by the time the true (Proto-)Germanic speakers moved up to from Denmark and Scania in the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age (the period circa 1200-200 BCE). After that, of course, I1d became Germanic. But I am pretty sure that the original core of Proto-Germanic culture never included central and northern Sweden and Norway. I also doubt that all the inhabitants of central and northern Sweden were wiped out by the Germanic expansion. They must have belonged to something, and the best candidate is I1d, justly because it is also found among the Finns and the Saami, who have R1a lineages but very little R1b, and do not speak Germanic languages.
 
The Bastanae and peucini where germanic tribes in the carpathian and north of these mountains, they started the proto german-slavic linguistic connection ..........but this is another thread

You use curious namings for languages: 'gallic' was a celtic variant but Franks do'nt take a 'gallic' language but an italic one, the roman of Gaule. I am not aware of so 'proto-german-slavic' connection: what is that? i was aware of some loan words on the
two sides, not of a "proto-something"
to speake only of gen and on the spreading of Y-I1, I think like Maciamo and others that the present day evidence send us again and again to the Germanic people, by the way of 1- development from a knot around Denmark-South Scandinavia, on every direction 2- the Great Invasions (Volkerwanderungen?) 3- Vikings
I suppose the first Y-I1 was south the Baltic sea (what language? close to basque? finno-ugric?) before going to Scandinavia and that a lot of them mixed after that with a good number of Y-R1b-U106 bearers and others under influence of indo-european speakers (these others perhaps?) becoming the indentified 'Germans' and crossing to Scandinavia in a second wave (the more Western there) - hard to be sure but I think that roughly speaking Y-R1a bearers (Corded?) played a different role and that maybe they could be the speakers of the indo-european 'satem' language introduced in Scandinavia (a survey on substrat in lappish-saami language stating they was a sort of basque and a sort of 'satem' (? proto-balt-slavic: it could make sense) I-E before the adoption of finnic language in North Scandinavia) - I have to look again to the few things I have on archeology there, I know someones say that Y-R1a have two different origins in Scandinavia
evidently, individuals Y-I1 bearers could have emerged among the celtic world but a very few if any....
 
I mostly agree, however, I am rather confused, as assuming that both I1 and R1b-U106 came to Iberia with the Germanic migrations (which I believe is the case), why is there much more I1 than U106 in Iberia, and why is I1 relatively widespread (3%, a fair amount compared to other parts of Iberia) in places like Extremadura, and infrequent (0.5%) in places like Castilla&León?

present day scandinavian 'Germanic' people show a bigger amount of I1 than R-U106 (even the Danish people but fewer) - In Ireland and in Scotland too (Vikings) - and yet, Eastern Scandinavian have more I1 than Western in proportion... I think that the germanic invaders of High Middle Ages Spain had almost all of them an most ancient south scandinavian origin, didn' t?
 
Yes, I was showing the Visigoths' migrational history from their migration to Scandinavia (at which time they weren't differentiated from the Ostrogoths) until their arrival to Iberia. East Germanic has a linguistic, not geographical, connotation.
The Sueves were indeed West Germanic, specifically (along with others) the ancestors of the Upper German dialects spoken today. It should be noted, however, that only around 20,000-50,000 Sueves migrated to Iberia, while the rest migrated south and came to form part of the Alamanni (the name of Swabia comes from the Sueves).

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?)
 
It's not a matter of whether the I1d (L22) branch was ever Germanic or not, but when it became Germanic.

We cannot talk of Germanic people before the Indo-Europeans moved to Scandinavia. The first wave was the R1a people of the Corded ware in the Early Bronze Age (2800-2500 BCE), but this branch being more closely related to Baltic and Slavic peoples, it is doubtful that it was already Proto-Germanic. The second wave came with R1b sometime between 2500 and 1200 BCE (perhaps several successive waves from Central Europe). I think it is only once R1b came into the mix that we can really talk about a (Proto-)Germanic culture and ethnicity shaping up. The cradle of Germanic "civilization" would thus correspond to the Nordic Bronze Age in Denmark, southern Sweden and coastal southern Norway, but ultimately expanding from Denmark and Scania.

My hypothesis here is that this original core around Denmark and Scania included only I1-Z58 lineages alongside R1a and R1b (+ minor lineages like G2a, J2 and E1b1b). The people in central and northern Sweden and Norway, as well as in Finland, would have been predominantly I1d (L22) and R1a by the time the true (Proto-)Germanic speakers moved up to from Denmark and Scania in the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age (the period circa 1200-200 BCE). After that, of course, I1d became Germanic. But I am pretty sure that the original core of Proto-Germanic culture never included central and northern Sweden and Norway. I also doubt that all the inhabitants of central and northern Sweden were wiped out by the Germanic expansion. They must have belonged to something, and the best candidate is I1d, justly because it is also found among the Finns and the Saami, who have R1a lineages but very little R1b, and do not speak Germanic languages.

Well, you're right that the expansion of I1 out of its severe bottleneck seems to correspond roughly with the arrival of Corded Ware culture, which is prior to the Nordic Bronze Age and the corresponding likely arrival of R1b-U106 and the formation of proto-Germanic, and therefore I1 is older (TMRCA-wise) than Germanic peoples. But still, the diversity pattern and age of I1d subclades makes it seem to me that it expanded out of southern Sweden or nearby after the formation of proto-Germanic... at least, that's my best guess due to the relative youth of the Bothnian and "ultra-Norse" lines.

That leaves the question of what haplogroups were the central Swedish, Norwegian, Finnish, etc. peoples? I agree that if I reject I1-L22 as one, I ought to have a backup for what they were. My first thought is to look at the Saami and guess major N1c dominance. Is there a reason not to think that?
 
Well, you're right that the expansion of I1 out of its severe bottleneck seems to correspond roughly with the arrival of Corded Ware culture, which is prior to the Nordic Bronze Age and the corresponding likely arrival of R1b-U106 and the formation of proto-Germanic, and therefore I1 is older (TMRCA-wise) than Germanic peoples. But still, the diversity pattern and age of I1d subclades makes it seem to me that it expanded out of southern Sweden or nearby after the formation of proto-Germanic... at least, that's my best guess due to the relative youth of the Bothnian and "ultra-Norse" lines.

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.
 

This thread has been viewed 110462 times.

Back
Top