New haplogroup I2a map

Alan said:
I dont care what this "union" is going to be called. If the border between the Kurds is going to be opened and Kurds become at least the autonomic status of Scotland than I am fine with this. It doesent matter for me to which "Union" or "Kingdom" we belong.
Click to expand...


sorry goga will might tell me not to speak politics, and he may be right

my antennas catch a small parliament in Diyarbakir about Kurdish affairs and perhaps a small philologist Facultat , nothing more, at least for present,
also enter of azeris in a union like russia -bellaruss,
and that is rumors, no official no proven, nothing serius,
about the independence of Kurds, I hope every one gets the 'air' and land so not his ID to be lost,
the rest are for big sharks,
 
I'll be glad if Kurds get independence for them. I don't know how things are actually for this, but since they have national conscience, ¿why not?
 
in my opinion, there will be a kurdish country having some lands from both turkey and ıraq (iran and syria are questionable) because;

kurds want thier own country, and they work hard for it.
turkish ppl also dont want to live with kurds anymore

it is too sad that this new child will born with the help of ultra democratic US. of course, the increasing presence of petrol in futures kurdistan is just a coincidence.
 
barbarian said:
in my opinion, there will be a kurdish country having some lands from both turkey and ıraq (iran and syria are questionable) because;

kurds want thier own country, and they work hard for it.
turkish ppl also dont want to live with kurds anymore

it is too sad that this new child will born with the help of ultra democratic US. of course, the increasing presence of petrol in futures kurdistan is just a coincidence.
Click to expand...

Actually I am very convinced about that kurdish lands in Iran will belong to it too. Just see the recent political issues. However I don´t know about Syria because it is a rather small part.

If Turks really dont want to live with Kurds, I am fine with this. Better be "good neighbors " than a "big bad family" where both sites are hating each other.
 
barbarian said:
in my opinion, there will be a kurdish country having some lands from both turkey and ıraq (iran and syria are questionable) because;

kurds want thier own country, and they work hard for it.
turkish ppl also dont want to live with kurds anymore

it is too sad that this new child will born with the help of ultra democratic US. of course, the increasing presence of petrol in futures kurdistan is just a coincidence.
Click to expand...


it is not only the Kurds,
about 6-9 parliaments are about to be in Turkey,
under a big 1 in Ankara


turkey is about to be the super power again in region,
in hat case needs all population united
so it is gonna give some 'freedoms' to pomaks kurds armenians etc
under a supervision of Ankara,
something like USA or Germany
 
iapetoc said:
it is not only the Kurds,
about 6-9 parliaments are about to be in Turkey,
under a big 1 in Ankara


turkey is about to be the super power again in region,
in hat case needs all population united
so it is gonna give some 'freedoms' to pomaks kurds armenians etc
under a supervision of Ankara,
something like USA or Germany
Click to expand...

wow. could you tell me those 6-9 parliaments?
 
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
serbia.jpg


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

Haplogroup_I2a.gif




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
200px-CroatianSerbs.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Serbian_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=3al...istrando imperio&pg=PA165#v=onepage&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)

WestBalkans800.png



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....
 
I have reworked a bit the map. I have added a new shade for >50% to bring out more contrast.
 
sparkey has already reminded me this project and I thought it was good to post it here: http://www.familytreedna.com/public/I2aHapGroup/default.aspx?section=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.
 
Knovas said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Knovas said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

http://cullengene.blogspot.com/2011/10/l672-placed-in-i-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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ok sparkey, I'll have a look to the thread when it's ready. I'm sure you'll find the best aproximation ;)
 
Joro said:
Which study for Bulgarians shows over 40% of I2a?
I've seen one and it gives 0% of I2a for them.
Click to expand...
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??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 181066 times.

Back
Top