PDA

View Full Version : I2a2 M423+



Tully
20-05-09, 08:39
1st time post -
this is an excellent site I must say!!!
Are there many I2a people out there. I have been identified as having the "C" isles haplotype.
There are a few tests going on at the moment on I2a Disles and I think I2a* which should bring up some new SNPs to further split the Isles / Dinaric types.
Some comment I've seen on the Web suggests I2a may have travelled through NW Europe to UK / Ireland from it's SE Europe origins. Any other lines of thought out there re this??
It will be interesting to see if the FTDNA I2a "walk thru the"Y" test I2*,Isles-D2,Disles,and M26-A, will turn up.
Is it generally agreed that the M423+ was a split off I2a? I've seen figures of 10,000 - 14,000 yrs ago?? If this is right there should be more identifying features??

Maciamo
22-05-09, 20:17
I2a2 certainly travelled from SE Europe to NW Europe, but it is impossible to know if it was with the Neolithic farmers or during Roman times (or later). It couldn't have been earlier considering the age of I2a2. My estimate for the age of I2a2 is roughly 8000 years old.

Tully
23-05-09, 07:36
I2a2 certainly travelled from SE Europe to NW Europe, but it is impossible to know if it was with the Neolithic farmers or during Roman times (or later). It couldn't have been earlier considering the age of I2a2. My estimate for the age of I2a2 is roughly 8000 years old.
Maciamo, so you think it more than likely that the Concentration of I2a2 Ireland was probably a later introduction from NW Europe?? Do you know off hand where the greatest concentration thus far of I2a2, is in NW Europe other the British Isles generally? Very little info this far away from Europe re the Haplogroups of our forebears. The internet is the best way but then you have to sieve a lot of dross at times. I suppose this is how the Romans who settled in Roman Britain felt?? Haha History repeats

Maciamo
23-05-09, 11:17
Maciamo, so you think it more than likely that the Concentration of I2a2 Ireland was probably a later introduction from NW Europe??

Ireland is in NW Europe. What do you mean ?

Tully
25-05-09, 04:40
I meant North Western Continental Europe. The concentrations of I2a2 and it's sub-clades seem to have a higher percentage in parts of Ireland than say England. Looking for a track & trace really. Do the Romans, or parts of Italy considered to be "Roman" show a high percentage of I2a2 haplotype?? Say 20%?? or lower??. I suppose many Adriatic peoples moved and assimilated into the Roman Empire & its colonising activities. All very interesting stuff. Regards

Maciamo
25-05-09, 10:57
The highest regional percentage of I2a2 in Italy is 2 or 3% on the Adriatic coast*. You won't find more anywhere in Western Europe. Most of the I2a in Western Europe is actually I2a* or I2a1. I2a2 is normally found in the Balkans. I2a1 peaks in Sardinia and radiates around the west Mediterranean coasts (Spain, France, Italy, North Africa). I2a is quite common all over Spain, but especially around the Pyrenees.

* Some cities on the southern Adriatic coast (like Foggia or Brindisi) sometimes exceed 10% of I2a, but these are very localised exceptions.

Tully
26-05-09, 04:43
The highest regional percentage of I2a2 in Italy is 2 or 3% on the Adriatic coast*. You won't find more anywhere in Western Europe. Most of the I2a in Western Europe is actually I2a* or I2a1. I2a2 is normally found in the Balkans. I2a1 peaks in Sardinia and radiates around the west Mediterranean coasts (Spain, France, Italy, North Africa). I2a is quite common all over Spain, but especially around the Pyrenees.

* Some cities on the southern Adriatic coast (like Foggia or Brindisi) sometimes exceed 10% of I2a, but these are very localised exceptions.
That's cool, it's going to be very interesting to see if FTDNA can pull up more identifying markers, STR's that can show where the I2a2 in Ireland spread from? I think there will be some preliminary results in mid June. Whether the age of introduction is relatively recent or ancient and it's pathway to Eire is holding my complete attention.

Maciamo
27-05-09, 17:16
I am pretty sure there will be more markers. It's just a matter of time.

Ua'Ronain
28-05-09, 20:25
Greetings, I am also my first post here and I have tested into M423-Isles-A1
if you follow Ken's new additions to the I tree located on ken's site knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net if you click on FounderHaps.xls My paternal line comes from south Ireland (Cork County)

I was wondering where you get 8,000 years for the age estimate of I2a2? I am by no means an expert in this field so I was wondering if by 8,000 years you mean that is when it split off from the rest of haplogroup I?

Do you know if there are any other areas of Europe with any M423-Isles-A1 that might give us clues about where the clade came from?

I remember ordering my DNA test thinking I would get more answers in general but I seem to have found many more questions than answers.

Maciamo
29-05-09, 20:28
I was wondering where you get 8,000 years for the age estimate of I2a2? I am by no means an expert in this field so I was wondering if by 8,000 years you mean that is when it split off from the rest of haplogroup I?

The split from I* is much older (about 24,000 years based on the current data). 8,000 years is the estimate age for the appearance of I2a2 itself. This is always older (sometimes a bit, sometimes a lot) than the TMCRA (time to most recent common ancestor shared by modern I2a2 people). This is because some lineages have died out and therefore cannot be taken into account in the calculation of the actual age of the defining mutations.

Haplogroup age estimations are still very unreliable and change a lot from year to year, but also from one specialist to another. Mutation rates are still a hotly debated issue and there is no concensus yet (not even close). So if someone says 10,000 years and another 5,000 years, there is no way to know who is right at present. My figures are averages from the most widely acknowledged estimations, some of which I have had to adapt to fit the chronology (some people just don't seem to realise that a subclade cannot be older than its parent haplogroup).

The age of the haplogroups mentioned on this website is often a bit older than you would find elsewhere because :

1) it's not just the TMRCA
2) it takes into account that only a small percentage of the European population has been tested so far and mostly in the British Isles, where the haplogroup diversiy is much lower than, say, in Anatolia or the Balkans. The more people will be tested and the older the age of the haplogroups will inevitably become. I don't know to what extent, but some of it has already been forecast in my estimations.



Do you know if there are any other areas of Europe with any M423-Isles-A1 that might give us clues about where the clade came from?

I haven't studied that in depth yet.



I remember ordering my DNA test thinking I would get more answers in general but I seem to have found many more questions than answers.

I think that is the case for most of us (geneticists included). The haplogroup tree keep evolving quickly and every new version leads to new interpretations or occasionally revolutionise our understanding of prehistoric migrations.

Ua'Ronain
03-06-09, 23:01
Not to be picky at all but I have noticed that here and Wikipedia never even mentions that there are I2a2 folk outside of southeast Europe. I was wondering if when you have the time you might be able to add the information about I2a2 Isles clades and what splits them from I2a2a-Dinaric (SE European populations) I remember reading on the rootsweb haplogroup I forum located here http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I that I2a2 has been found in over 200 Irish surnames, this from Ken Nordtvedt’s database. The direct quote is this “the bulk of I2a2-Isles is associated with Ireland. My
count of 200 is ONE per surname. It makes no sense for population studies
to keep a bunch from some surnames just because there is an active and
effective surname project administrator.” END QUOTE



I am sure you have seen the graph but if not it is located here http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net/ once there it is located by clicking the founderhaps.xml

Tully
05-06-09, 03:36
Ua' Ronain, It sure is going to be good when the I hpgroup tests at FTDNA are completed lets hope thay can provide more info on how all the I2a Isles clades got to Ireland. And how long they may have been domiciled in the Western Isles of the old UK. Maybe some come out this month.

Ua'Ronain
05-06-09, 04:34
I was reading that two people have taken the walk the Y, one is I2a2-Isles-D and the other is an I2* I hope we find out more useful information or even SNPs. There is a little chat on another forum about the oldest Irish Haplogroup. It is not just I2a2 Isles A but about all the isles clades, which is the oldest and some theory as to how it got there. It at least makes for a good read. I wont post the adress for the forum here (might be in bad taste to post links to other forums?) but if you want it send me a message.

Yorkie
27-12-09, 22:51
I2a2-Isles is believed to have been founded on the north German plain [Nordtvedt].

Neander
08-01-10, 01:55
I think I2a2 represent the Walachians from Moldavia who came in Balkans together with Slavs.

Therefore, it is found mostly in the countries were Vlachs are present: Greece, Albania, Serbs, Bosniaks, and the highest percentage is in Dalmacia where a lot of Mauro-Vlachs were assimilated in Croatian popullation.

Here is distribution of this haplogroup

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/HaplogroupI2.png

Marianne
08-01-10, 03:20
The colored areas of Greece are in perfect agreement with the spread of Vlachs. Note that the biggest part of the area they live is at the Pindos Mountains, in high altitudes that are very hard to approach, therefore mixing with other populations must have been very rare.

Sprinkles
08-01-10, 04:46
I think I2a2 represent the Walachians from Moldavia who came in Balkans together with Slavs.

Therefore, it is found mostly in the countries were Vlachs are present: Greece, Albania, Serbs, Bosniaks, and the highest percentage is in Dalmacia where a lot of Mauro-Vlachs were assimilated in Croatian popullation.

Here is distribution of this haplogroup

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/HaplogroupI2.png
You seem to be neglectful in your representation of facts and figures to arrive at a certain predestined image of which your mind presumes to be truth and acquainted with what best suites your needs. There's no evidence of what you're talking about. In the map you posted there is no evidence that I2a2 arises from Moldovia, and the frequency of the halplogroup indicates that the origin is in Hercegovina.

As per quoted from where you obtained your map:
"Almost all modern nations in Central and Southeastern Europe have native Vlach minorities: Hungary, Ukraine, Serbia, Croatia, Macedonia, Albania, Bosnia, Greece and Bulgaria. In other countries, the native Vlach population have been completely assimilated by the Slavic population and therefore ceased to exist: Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Montenegro. Only in Romania and the Republic of Moldova, the Vlach (Dacoromanian or Romanian proper) population consist an ethnic majority today."

I'm certain I2a2 would be descended from areas of mountainous regions. This would best fit the model of the frequency and the highest frequency being prevalent in mountainous regions of eastern europe (hercegovina).

The articulation of your post seems to omit evidence that any person with reasonable information would conclude it to be absurd.

Ie. "Mauro-Vlachs: Reports from the mid-11th century tell how the Morlachs lived in the mountainous regions of Montenegro, Bosnia (Stara Vlaška), Herzegovina and on the Dalmatian coast. In the 14th century, some Morlachs moved northward and settled in present-day Croatia where later they would serve as frontier guardians in the Military Frontier between the Habsburg (Croatia) and the Ottoman (Bosnia) Empires, an area sometimes known as Morlachia"

This, here, we're talking about migrations 1000-500 years ago, which are much to soon to be considered migrations that caused widespread gene flow to produce frequencies seen in the populations.

If you have any evidence of what you're proposing please present it.

Neander
08-01-10, 04:55
Look here:
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:UQyPjaewt5gJ:www.unipv.eu/on-line/Home/AreaStampa/documento2986.html+Y-chromosomal+evidence+of+the+cultural+diffusion+of+ agriculture+in+southeast+Europe&hl=en&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgiL3uyhWM08BGKKMHmbk-uKfOqSATrJt9IZJ-3ZLI69TAyX7wrYNkKHLXApuhuoTg814MTn4wZn-xA0hV7MRluvXY5CAW68d-jpr1bZ-gH6qhOJSpdn3j06R1QZeRATgR1SC0s&sig=AHIEtbRiRVlhCxwqwaVWLF2L1YU7G0uW2Q

The highest divergence is in Ukraine.

Haplogroup I2a2 cannot be Paleolithic, while it is very new. It is spread only in the areas which were affected by Slavs-Vlachs during the Dark Ages.

The highest frequency in Dalmacia show that it has invaded these lands.

How came this haplogroup to Dinaric Alps?? We know that Haplogroup I has its center in the Scandinavia. So it must came from there, but no any invasion can be except of Slavic-vlach invasion during dark ages.

Or maybe your theory, suit your needs?

Neander
08-01-10, 04:59
The Y-DNA I2a2b haplogroup is strongly correlated with the spread of Slavic languages, as is the subclade R1a1a7 [M458].

http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/peoplingeurope.shtml#conclusion

Neander
08-01-10, 05:00
Let be whatever, it is not illyrian, definitely.

Sprinkles
08-01-10, 05:07
Are you claiming that the frequency of i2a2 comes entirely from gene flow during the dark ages? If so, this claim is about as absurd as I have heard.


This is from your the beginning of your document document:
"East, respectively. In particular, whereas the Balkan microsatellite variation associated to J-M241 correlates with the Neolithic period, those related to E-V13 and I-M423 Balkan Y chromosomes are consistent with a late Mesolithic time frame. In addition, the low frequency and variance associated to I-M423 and E-V13 in Anatolia and the Middle East, support an European Mesolithic origin of these two clades. Thus, these Balkan Mesolithic foragers with their own autochthonous genetic signatures, were destined to become the earliest to adopt farming, when it was subsequently introduced by a cadre of migrating farmers from the Near East. These initial local converted farmers became the principal agents spreading this economy using maritime leapfrog colonization strategies in the Adriatic and transmitting the Neolithic cultural package to other adjacent Mesolithic populations. The ensuing range expansions of E-V13 and I-M423 parallel in space and time the diffusion of Neolithic Impressed Ware, thereby supporting a case of cultural diffusion using genetic evidence"

Sprinkles
08-01-10, 05:09
Let be whatever, it is not illyrian, definitely.
Funny, since the cultural capital of Illyria was in Stolac, Hercegovina. Secondly, haplogroup I2a2 has a high correlation with the presumed location of Illyrians, while, E1 does not show us any such correlation.

I think your post stands for itself in terms of synthesis and representation of information.

Neander
08-01-10, 05:12
I don't see facts here.

It seems that in the time when other I subclades lived in the far North, I2a2 pop out with magic wind in the Balkan. Isn't this absurde??

bosna501
31-03-10, 21:28
Yes Stolac in Bosnia was capital of Illyrians
and in Bosnia is absolut most of I2a2.

Sprinkles
01-04-10, 00:04
Yes Stolac in Bosnia was capital of Illyrians
and in Bosnia is absolut most of I2a2.
Bosna was considered Croatian under various governments in the past, and still should be today.

I2a2 of Bosnian muslims is lower than that of Hrvati in Herceg-Bosna. The muslims in Herceg-Bosna show more gene flow than the Croats from other Y-haplogroups.

Stolac was the capital of Illyria. Stolac is in Hercegovina, not Bosna. This would mean that Illyrians would be a higher percent of I2a2 (which is found in the Croatian populations).

bosna501
24-04-10, 16:13
Herceg-Bosna ??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Hercegovina not Bosnia ??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH

I think Adolf Hitler is your Forfather :)

Herceg-Bosna is a dream od stupid radical Catholics in Bosnia
and the Croatians in Croatia laugh about this stupid catholics.

Bosnians are the Nativ People of this Region this is prooved Fact
croatians and serbs come many later in this Region.
The Name Bosnia is orgin Illyrian Bosona.

See you later Adolf HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH

Yorkie
09-10-10, 17:56
There seems to be a great deal of confusion on this thread between the eastern and western forms of I2a2. According to ISOGG 2010 and the work of Ken Nordtvedt, I2a2a represents the 'Dinaric' form of I2a2 found in greatest numbers in the Balkans. Nordtvedt delineates between I2a2a-Dinaric North and I2a2a-Dinaric-South. These 'Dinaric' forms of I2a2 are effectively absent in western Europe and Britain/Ireland. Contrary to the theories of Rootsi et al [2004], Ken Nordtvedt has rejected a Balkan origin for these Dinaric forms, suggesting instead the Danube Basin.

There are three 'western' forms of I2a. Firstly, there is I2a3-Western, which is P37.2 positive and found near the north sea, in northern Germany and England.

Secondly, there is I2a2b-Isles which is positive for P37.2, M423 and L161. There are 8 separate subclades. Nordtvedt, who discovered them, suggests that the founder was on the north German plain. I2a2b-Isles is absent in eastern Europe except for a few hits in Poland. The bulk of the membership is in Ireland, Scotland and England [hence the 'Isles' tag] but there is now a decent, emerging continental membership with Germany in the lead, followed by France across the north European plain. Nordtvedt suggests a Neolithic origin for this Germany-founded I2a2b-Isles, and has said that 'Isles' may represent a genetic echo of some of the earliest post-LGM settlers. Conversely, Bryan Sykes [private correspondence] 'remains unconvinced by substantial dates' that I2a2 in Britain dates back this far. Sykes suggests instead that some of this I2a2b-Isles variety was carried by Anglo- Saxons. I also recently consulted Anatole Klyosov about this British/Irish I2a2; Anatole is of the view that most of it is 'ancient' but that some was brought by 'the invaders'.

Finally, there is the 'Disles' variety of I2a2a, called so by Nordtvedt because it is practically 'in the middle' of Dinaric and Isles varieties, leaning slightly towards the Dinaric. This variety has a hotspot in Scotland.

Maciamo
10-10-10, 09:51
There seems to be a great deal of confusion on this thread between the eastern and western forms of I2a2. According to ISOGG 2010 and the work of Ken Nordtvedt, I2a2a represents the 'Dinaric' form of I2a2 found in greatest numbers in the Balkans. Nordtvedt delineates between I2a2a-Dinaric North and I2a2a-Dinaric-South. These 'Dinaric' forms of I2a2 are effectively absent in western Europe and Britain/Ireland. Contrary to the theories of Rootsi et al [2004], Ken Nordtvedt has rejected a Balkan origin for these Dinaric forms, suggesting instead the Danube Basin.

In my opinion, I2a2 were nomadic hunter-gatherers of South-East Europe, occupying both the Balkans and the Danube basin, possibly as far as the Dnieper to the north, and Greece to the south.

The Neolithic expansion brought Near Eastern settlers (E-V13 and J2b), who established the first permanent settlements in Greece, Macedonia, Albania, Kosovo, Serbia, parts of Bulgaria, and along the Danube across Germany as far as Belgium and northern France. They effectively cut the I2a2 territory in two, forcing the the hunter-gatherers out of their farmlands, and creating in eastern Moldovan branch and and western Dinaric branch of I2a2 people.

The I2a2 people progressively adopted agriculture and stock breeding themselves. The Moldovan branch thus formed the Cucuteni-Tripolye Culture, which later came into conflict with the Indo-European (southern) R1b1b2 and (northern) R1a1a steppe people, who relied mostly on stock breeding (but knew agriculture), rode horses and acquired early the knowledge of Bronze metallurgy, which eventually gave them the military superiority needed to conquer their neighbours.

The nomadic nature of Mesolithic hunter-gatherers (Y-haplogroup I) make it entirely possible that some tribes of I2a2 ended up in Western Europe, where I2b lineages predominated. Likewise, I1 tribes of northern Europe, who apparently did not just occupy Scandinavia but also Poland and perhaps the Baltic and parts of north-western Russia, could have ended up locked in a corner of Macedonia or Kosovo, explaining why some studies found 10% of I1 there. It also explains the 2-3% of I1 inn Serbia or Bosnia, and the 3% of I2b in Albania, all possible results of nomadic tribes of hunter-gatherers who remained stuck in the Balkans after Near Eastern farmers created a corridor of farms and towns all along the Danube.

Shetop
10-10-10, 11:42
Questions for both Yorkie and Maciamo:
Do you agree with what seems to be mainstream opinion about E-V13 movement to Britain during Roman period? If you do agree, how can there be no I2a2 Dinaric in Britain?
What are your arguments for placing I2a2 Dinaric south of Carpathians before migration period? Yes, we all can see high frequencies of I2a2 Dinaric in the Balkans today, but what is the basis for claims that in period which was historically well described it was different?

I have no doubt that work of Ken Nordtvedt is very valuable but with this particular assumption he is making a mistake. My view is that I2a2 originated in western Ukraine. It was proto-Slavic marker and was spread to Southwest with Slavs.

And one question for Maciamo – can you provide a reference for 2-3% of I1 in Serbia? Recent study which had the biggest number of samples actually showed 7.82% of I1 in Serbia. I1 is not the topic but since it was mentioned I’ll say what I think – 90% of I1 in the Balkans is of Gothic origin.

Yorkie
10-10-10, 12:43
Questions for both Yorkie and Maciamo:
Do you agree with what seems to be mainstream opinion about E-V13 movement to Britain during Roman period? If you do agree, how can there be no I2a2 Dinaric in Britain?
What are your arguments for placing I2a2 Dinaric south of Carpathians before migration period? Yes, we all can see high frequencies of I2a2 Dinaric in the Balkans today, but what is the basis for claims that in period which was historically well described it was different?

I have no doubt that work of Ken Nordtvedt is very valuable but with this particular assumption he is making a mistake. My view is that I2a2 originated in western Ukraine. It was proto-Slavic marker and was spread to Southwest with Slavs.

And one question for Maciamo – can you provide a reference for 2-3% of I1 in Serbia? Recent study which had the biggest number of samples actually showed 7.82% of I1 in Serbia. I1 is not the topic but since it was mentioned I’ll say what I think – 90% of I1 in the Balkans is of Gothic origin.

I have never been wholly conviced that E-VI3 represents a genetic echo of the Romans in Britain. I am not completely against the idea, but remain open to persuasion.

Re the absence of I2a2a-Dinaric in Britain; this does indeed indicate to me that the Roman auxiliaries left few genetic traces in Britain. The clade is indeed absent, save for a puny list of around 9 people with British surnames who carry one of the 2 'Dinaric' varieties of I2a2. One suspects NPEs in these cases.

There is an I2a2a-Disles variety, which is 'mid-way' between I2a2a-Dinaric and the north Germany-founded I2a2b-Isles variety. Curiously, 'Disles' is slightly closer to Dinaric than to Isles. The hotspot for Disles is Scotland.

In my view, neither the Romans, Slavic peoples or 'Slavicised' Balkan peoples have made a significant contribution to the British gene-pool. I say that with respect and without wishing to cause offence.

Shetop
10-10-10, 13:02
There is this I2a2 issue going on for some time. It can be said it is a part of the bigger migration period story.

There are those who think migration period caused major population replacements in some parts of eastern Europe during migration period, and there are those who oppose it. When talking about I2a2 it is indicative that forum members from countries where I2a2 Dinaric is found, support the position of western Ukrainian origin of I2a2.

It would be in the interest of the people form Croatia, Bosnia, Slovenia, Serbia, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Montenegro to claim I2a2 is indigenous. But we don't do that, and the reason is simple - we all learned about Slavic migrations in the school.

As the matter affect, Balkans is the great region to understand the ways of Y-DNA in antiquity. Y-DNA was much more divided and correlation between languages and Y-DNA was very strong. Some would say it is simple way to look into the complex issue. But try to understand Balkans and you will see.

I will continue to insist that I2a2, I1, I2b, Q1b was absent from the Balkans before migration period. And R1a1 was present in much smaller frequencies.

Shetop
10-10-10, 13:11
In my opinion, I2a2 were nomadic hunter-gatherers of South-East Europe, occupying both the Balkans and the Danube basin, possibly as far as the Dnieper to the north, and Greece to the south.


The age of I2a2-Dinaric was estimated at 3600 years, then adjusted to 2550 years, now TMRCA ages are being recomputed.
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/I2aHapGroup/default.aspx?section=results

These two quotes don't go together. I know you were talking about I2a2 (not Dinaric), but how come only Dinaric is spread in the regions you described and Isles is not?

I2a2 Dinaric is that numerous and young at the same time, so we would have to know about movements of such a big number of people in recent history. Only explanation is Slavic migrations.

Yorkie
10-10-10, 19:47
There is this I2a2 issue going on for some time. It can be said it is a part of the bigger migration period story.

There are those who think migration period caused major population replacements in some parts of eastern Europe during migration period, and there are those who oppose it. When talking about I2a2 it is indicative that forum members from countries where I2a2 Dinaric is found, support the position of western Ukrainian origin of I2a2.

It would be in the interest of the people form Croatia, Bosnia, Slovenia, Serbia, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Montenegro to claim I2a2 is indigenous. But we don't do that, and the reason is simple - we all learned about Slavic migrations in the school.

As the matter affect, Balkans is the great region to understand the ways of Y-DNA in antiquity. Y-DNA was much more divided and correlation between languages and Y-DNA was very strong. Some would say it is simple way to look into the complex issue. But try to understand Balkans and you will see.

I will continue to insist that I2a2, I1, I2b, Q1b was absent from the Balkans before migration period. And R1a1 was present in much smaller frequencies.

I believe that Nordtvedt has recently expressed some sympathy for the idea that Slavic migrations might have spread I2a2a-Dinaric. He appears to favour somewhere north of the Balkans as an origin such as the Danube Basin rather than Ukraine though.

When we are comparing I2a2a-Dinaric with I2a2b-Isles, we need to remember that their branch lines separated ways some 12,000 years ago, and that they are separated by two SNPs. We are talking about two very different population groups. Isles has nothing to do with the Balkans, is absent there, and was founded in north Germany. That is why the distribution is roughly so...

Ireland, England, Scotland , Germany, France.

As stated before the few Polish Isles members seem to be from former German territories, and at least one [Krause] has a German name.

Yorkie
10-10-10, 20:08
In my opinion, I2a2 were nomadic hunter-gatherers of South-East Europe, occupying both the Balkans and the Danube basin, possibly as far as the Dnieper to the north, and Greece to the south.

The Neolithic expansion brought Near Eastern settlers (E-V13 and J2b), who established the first permanent settlements in Greece, Macedonia, Albania, Kosovo, Serbia, parts of Bulgaria, and along the Danube across Germany as far as Belgium and northern France. They effectively cut the I2a2 territory in two, forcing the the hunter-gatherers out of their farmlands, and creating in eastern Moldovan branch and and western Dinaric branch of I2a2 people.

The I2a2 people progressively adopted agriculture and stock breeding themselves. The Moldovan branch thus formed the Cucuteni-Tripolye Culture, which later came into conflict with the Indo-European (southern) R1b1b2 and (northern) R1a1a steppe people, who relied mostly on stock breeding (but knew agriculture), rode horses and acquired early the knowledge of Bronze metallurgy, which eventually gave them the military superiority needed to conquer their neighbours.

The nomadic nature of Mesolithic hunter-gatherers (Y-haplogroup I) make it entirely possible that some tribes of I2a2 ended up in Western Europe, where I2b lineages predominated. Likewise, I1 tribes of northern Europe, who apparently did not just occupy Scandinavia but also Poland and perhaps the Baltic and parts of north-western Russia, could have ended up locked in a corner of Macedonia or Kosovo, explaining why some studies found 10% of I1 there. It also explains the 2-3% of I1 inn Serbia or Bosnia, and the 3% of I2b in Albania, all possible results of nomadic tribes of hunter-gatherers who remained stuck in the Balkans after Near Eastern farmers created a corridor of farms and towns all along the Danube.

I can see the logic in your argument, Maciamo. I would love to talk to you via private email but for some reason I don't seem to be able to send messages on the site.

Your point about the nomadic nature of hunter-gatherers is a cogent one. You appear to be suggesting that the British/Irish and to some extent north European plain distribution of I2a2b-Isles could be down to this. The idea of I1 'locked in a corner' of Kosovo because of this same pattern of hunter-gatherer behaviour intrigues me too. Very, very interesting.

Shetop
10-10-10, 21:19
Let's assume I2a2 Din originated in the Danube Basin. Since you agree with Nordtvedt you agree that TMRCA of I2a2 Din lived 2550 years ago.

How many years would it take for I2a2 Din to grow in humbers enough so that it can spread in the large territory between Adriatic and Dnieper?

I would say it would take centuries. So it can't be I2a2 Din spread in both directions before the beginning of Common Era. Do you agree with that?

Has history described this period with regard to Danube Basin. I would say it had. In your opinion what event from history describes the spread of Slavs from the Danube Basin towards east?

There is no such event. With all do respect, your story is logically inconsistent.

I challenge you to answer me - what is logical inconsistency in the theory of spreading I2a2 Din from western Ukraine?

Yorkie
10-10-10, 23:56
Let's assume I2a2 Din originated in the Danube Basin. Since you agree with Nordtvedt you agree that TMRCA of I2a2 Din lived 2550 years ago.

How many years would it take for I2a2 Din to grow in humbers enough so that it can spread in the large territory between Adriatic and Dnieper?

I would say it would take centuries. So it can't be I2a2 Din spread in both directions before the beginning of Common Era. Do you agree with that?

Has history described this period with regard to Danube Basin. I would say it had. In your opinion what event from history describes the spread of Slavs from the Danube Basin towards east?

There is no such event. With all do respect, your story is logically inconsistent.

I challenge you to answer me - what is logical inconsistency in the theory of spreading I2a2 Din from western Ukraine?

Firstly, please moderate your tone- there is no need to 'challenge' anybody. I never said that I agreed with Nordtvedt 100% on everything. After pondering the evidence I think Nordtvedt is actually wrong re the Danube Basin. I have changed my view over the last few months. I happen to agree with you that Ukraine is more likely. I also agree that the Slavic migrations are probably responsible for the spreading of I2a2a-Dinaric. There...you see...life is full of surprises isn't it?

I also agree with Sykes that I2a2b-Isles was most likely brought by Anglo Saxons to Britain as well as the Neolithic settlers Nordtvedt associates with Isles.

You see, Shetop, or should I say 'k', I do listen to your logical arguments sometimes. Ken is a brilliant researcher but I can form my own opinions. LOL.

Shetop
11-10-10, 00:54
I apologize, I shouldn’t have it written that way. The thing is, our voices are much more silent then those of Nordtvedt or Maciamo, and I guess I wanted to be heard. But in the end I believe we all have best intentions.

Though, I don’t quite understand this comment with ‘k’. If it is what I think it is, maybe it should be ‘n’.

Yorkie
11-10-10, 11:33
I apologize, I shouldn’t have it written that way. The thing is, our voices are much more silent then those of Nordtvedt or Maciamo, and I guess I wanted to be heard. But in the end I believe we all have best intentions.

Though, I don’t quite understand this comment with ‘k’. If it is what I think it is, maybe it should be ‘n’.

That's ok. The reference to 'k' [made in good humour] was to an identity on another forum. Maybe I have the wrong poster?

Shetop
11-10-10, 13:09
I am Neba there... :rolleyes2:

Yorkie
11-10-10, 20:59
I am Neba there... :rolleyes2:

I must have mistaken you for someone else.

Re Isles and Dinaric- there may be 12,000 years between them, but they did share a common ancestor.

If Dinaric was founded in Ukraine, and Isles was founded in northern Germany, I wonder where I2a2a-Disles was founded? As previously outlined, this very small clade is slightly nearer to Dinaric than to Isles, and the hotspot is Scotland followed by Ireland.

how yes no 2
28-10-10, 23:18
Picture shows possible boundaries of haplogroup I around 100 AD. I think existence of haplogroup I outside these lines is unlikely (except some I2b in Balkans, I2a2b in Britain and might be I2a2b in Balkans).
What followed in the next several centuries should probably be called "Migration of Haplogroup I".
http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/7504/hgi.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/Roman_Empire_125.svg/757px-Roman_Empire_125.svg.png
on your figure, R1a for that time should match Venedi (and Fenni which is just a derivation from Venedi/Veni and is a part of later self-identification "(Slo)veni" ), since Venedi later moved north to fill in space left by Goths, and also towards west to fill in space vacated after movements of Germanic tribes (e.g. Suebes and Vandals to Iberian peninsula)
note that common terms used in past by Germans for Slavic people is Wends which is literally same as Veneds... (if someone is confused by dual naming Serbs/Serbi, Veneds/Venedi, Alans/Alani -s is germanic suffix for plural, while -i is Slavic suffix for plural)

and btw. R1a probably covered much larger area...
note that Venedi/Fenni have two separated settlements that match separated peaks of R1a in Poland and Russia... looking back at the historical map they were separated by passage of Goths towards the Black sea...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a4/GlobalR1a1a.png/800px-GlobalR1a1a.png

as for I2a2, it is a mistery where to place it and to what tribe(s) is it related...
its high variance above Black sea (see figure bellow) strongly indicates that it should be placed in area above Black sea, where at that time we find Sarmatae tribes... alternatively, strong variance of I2a2 above Black sea reflects later settlement of Goths around that area... it could also reflect people assimilated by Goths and/or Sarmatians...
interesting to notice is also the peak of I2a2 variance in Noricum..
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v17/n6/images/ejhg2008249f4.jpg http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v17/n6/full/ejhg2008249a.html

I think I2a2 on map of Shetop should be in areas of above Black sea and in Noricum...

its spread on Balkan can match settlements of Visigoths
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/450s.PNG
and kingdom of Ostrogoths
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f9/Ostrogothic_Kingdom.png/250px-Ostrogothic_Kingdom.png
with knowledge that Ostrogoths captured Byzantine lands by massive settlement in countryside

Totila's strategy was to move fast and take control of the countryside, leaving the Byzantine forces in control of well-defended cities, and especially the ports.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totila
and absence of I2a2 in Italy except in north part of it is explainable by

The Goths seem to have been thick on the ground in northern Italy; in the south they formed little more than garrisons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostrogoths


alternatively spread of I2a2 in Balkans may reflect proposed Sarmatian origin of Serbs and Croats...

tribe named Serbi is part of Asiatic Sarmatia in Caucasus imediatelly northeast of Alani tribe
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3e/Map_of_Colchis%2C_Iberia%2C_Albania%2C_and_the_nei ghbouring_countries_ca_1770.jpg/800px-Map_of_Colchis%2C_Iberia%2C_Albania%2C_and_the_nei ghbouring_countries_ca_1770.jpg

Osetians who are iranian speaking group of Caucasus, and considered to origin from Alans, do have in their northern towns Ardon and Digora respectively 32% and 13% of haplogroup I
http://www.eva.mpg.de/genetics/pdf/Nasidze.AnHG.2004.pdf
such local peaks indicate assimilated neighbouring population living north of them... that tribe could have easily been Sarmatian Serbi that were probably speaking similar or more likely same iranian language as all Sarmatians did...


As for Croats, their link to Sarmatians is from Carpatian mountains that were settled by Sarmatians and later by similarly named Croatians...

worth noting is the presence of I2a2 in areas away from historical influence of Goths (e.g. south Poland, Czech republic, Slovakia, west Ukraine) and where Sarmatian presence is historically confirmed (e.g. in Poland)..also where are "white Croatia" and "white Serbia" states from which Croats and Serbs settled Balkan...

on the other hand strong point for Gothic origin of I2a2 is that all the rest of I haplogroup seems to be Germanic... worth nothing is that Gothic origin of Balkan I2a2 would probabbly cause usage of Gothic alike languages, while Sarmatians that came from Slavic lands did already shift from their own language to Slavic one...

it is also plausible to explain I2a2 in Balkans with autochtone people of the region
e.g. high variance of I2a2 in Noricum can represent ancient Veneti population and Noricum might have been a point where R1a and I2a2 has met creating a melting pot in which today Slavs were created..such a scenario is further backed up by practically the same names Veneti and Venedi,

Russian primary chronicle from 1113 actually claims that Slavs are people from Noricum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_Chronicle

Among these seventy-two nations, the Slavic race is derived from the line of
Japheth, since they are the Noricians, who are identical with the Slavs.
from page 2 on http://www.utoronto.ca/elul/English/218/PVL-selections.pdf


it is also possible that I2a2 did settle Balkans in several waves including autochtone inhabitants, Goths, and Sarmatian Serbs and Croats...

Shetop
29-10-10, 00:10
Well how yes no, I've spent a lot of time and energy, and I came to the conclusion shown on the map. I could approximately even tell the year I2a2a-Din moved from its homeland.

I'm aware of all this information you wrote, but it would take really a lot of time to explain my views about other possibilities and why do I think they are not correct.

I'll just say that already in 450 AD all I2a2a-Din tribes spoke Slavic language. If you know this all other things have to fit into that fact.

Recommended reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sclaveni
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balto-Slavic_languages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayan_(Avar_Khagan)
http://www.s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/10_History/Ptolemy%20comments%20by%20Udaltsov%20En.htm
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/10/1964.full
http://www.roman-glory.com/images/img050101-05.jpg

Please try to have just one theory of yours, and then it would be easier to discuss.

PS: I like your "name" :cool-v:

how yes no 2
29-10-10, 02:01
Veneti might be the (or one of the) original source(s) of I2a2
.................................................. .........................
Vistula Veneti might have been the original position of Veneti next to places with dominant I1 and I2a1...
they live next to Vandals (I2a1) and their shared common origin is reflected in practically shared name Vandals/Veneti
Vistula Veneti are origin of later Venedi
key to mistery:

Although Tacitus listed the Venethi as a Germanic tribe, in his Getica, Jordanes equated the Venethi with the Sclavenes and Antes. Slavists such as Pavel Josef Šafařík have criticized Tacitus for erroneously identifying the Venethi as Germanic[1], due to the similar appearance of Slavs and Germans[2].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vistula_Veneti
thus in the time of Tacitus they were still Germanic, later by living in proximity of Slavic Sclavenoi (Fenni?) and Antes they merged into them... in time of Jordanes they are completely Slavic
.................................................. ................................................
Adriatic Veneti are the cause of big variance in Noricum...and cause of high frequency in north Italy....
.................................................. .................................................
Veneti also may explain British clades
a branch of Veneti lived in Bretagne (Britanny) in France
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ca/Gaul%2C_1st_century_BC.gif/643px-Gaul%2C_1st_century_BC.gif
from that area Britain was partly settled...
even some Scotish tribes origin from them...
and Welsh and Bretons language are considered similar..
.................................................. ..........
and I still need to explain big variance above Black sea...
could iranian Sarmatians be related to Germanic tribes?

Yorkie
29-10-10, 09:35
Veneti might be the (or one of the) original source(s) of I2a2
.................................................. .........................
Vistula Veneti might have been the original position of Veneti next to places with dominant I1 and I2a1...
they live next to Vandals (I2a1) and their shared common origin is reflected in practically shared name Vandals/Veneti
Vistula Veneti are origin of later Venedi
key to mistery:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vistula_Veneti
thus in the time of Tacitus they were still Germanic, later by living in proximity of Slavic Sclavenoi (Fenni?) and Antes they merged into them... in time of Jordanes they are completely Slavic
.................................................. ................................................
Adriatic Veneti are the cause of big variance in Noricum...and cause of high frequency in north Italy....
.................................................. .................................................
Veneti also may explain British clades
a branch of Veneti lived in Bretagne (Britanny) in France
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ca/Gaul%2C_1st_century_BC.gif/643px-Gaul%2C_1st_century_BC.gif
from that area Britain was partly settled...
even some Scotish tribes origin from them...
and Welsh and Bretons language are considered similar..
.................................................. ..........
and I still need to explain big variance above Black sea...
could iranian Sarmatians be related to Germanic tribes?


I don't see why the Veneti should explain the British I2a2 at all. Arguably, L161 I2a2b-Isles [I know you love Ken Nordtvedt's nomenclature...] was founded in northern Germany. From that geographical position there are several far more likely explanations as to how it was carried to Britain than via the Veneti.
If I2a2 is as old as Nordtvedt argues, then some could have been carried over in the early post-LGM scenario.
Bryan Sykes favours an Anglo Saxon origin for most British I2a2.
Arguably, there are other more likely possibilities too, rather than Veneti, such as La Tene Celts, Belgae etc. Maybe I2a2 came to Britain in these different 'waves'?
It is not impossible, of course, that the Veneti contributed some I2a2, but less likely I think than the other 'tribal' groups. They surely cannot have contributed it all. I2a2b [L161] has an emerging presence on the north European Plain with Germany predominating in terms of non-British and non-Irish members. So the link to the other groups seems to be more likely. In any case, would the Veneti carry L161 I2a2b, the form found in Britain? I would think it more likely that they carried I2a2a, which is absent in Britain/Ireland.

Shetop
29-10-10, 11:41
Veneti might be the (or one of the) original source(s) of I2a2

I thought about that but I coudn't figure out where did all R1a people (which today live in Poland, Moravia, Slovakia etc..) come from. Maybe you can be better than me in explaining that.




Adriatic Veneti are the cause of big variance in Noricum...and cause of high frequency in north Italy....


I also used to think that variance is very important clue. But look at this variance map for I2a2 (figure D): http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/10/1964/F3.large.jpg
It does not look the same as the one you were reffered to.
Also when great depopulation events happen (like in Poland or western Balkans), variance looses it's importance. But it is also possible that I'm making a mistake by disregarding it.

My main method is "going backwards through history", I see where ceratin Y-DNA is now and follow prevoius historical events, one by one, in order to get to some conclusions. This is unlike most people familiar with genetics - they find the oldest clade in some region and then set it as a place of origin. This partly worked with R1b, so now they think it will work everywhere.




Veneti also may explain British clades

Things are a bit more complicated than that. It won't work explaining everthing with common name of different tribes. Especially becuase of frequency of I2a2b, its age, current distribution etc. I simply disagree here.

Yorkie
29-10-10, 12:32
I thought about that but I coudn't figure out where did all R1a people (which today live in Poland, Moravia, Slovakia etc..) come from. Maybe you can be better than me in explaining that.




I also used to think that variance is very important clue. But look at this variance map for I2a2 (figure D): http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/10/1964/F3.large.jpg
It does not look the same as the one you were reffered to.
Also when great depopulation events happen (like in Poland or western Balkans), variance looses it's importance. But it is also possible that I'm making a mistake by disregarding it.

My main method is "going backwards through history", I see where ceratin Y-DNA is now and follow prevoius historical events, one by one, in order to get to some conclusions. This is unlike most people familiar with genetics - they find the oldest clade in some region and then set it as a place of origin. This partly worked with R1b, so now they think it will work everywhere.



Things are a bit more complicated than that. It won't work explaining everthing with common name of different tribes. Especially becuase of frequency of I2a2b, its age, current distribution etc. I simply disagree here.

Yes. To reiterate, there are far, far more likely 'tribal' carriers of L161 I2a2b-Isles to Britain [early post-LGM settlers, later La Tene Celts, Belgae, Anglo-Saxons] than the Veneti. I am genuinely astonished that the previous poster actually thinks the Veneti could be solely responsible for the British I2a2. That is a reductionist argument if ever I heard one. If the Veneti carried I2a2, it would be more likely to be the type that is absent in Britain- I2a2a-Dinaric.

Yorkie
29-10-10, 12:34
I thought about that but I coudn't figure out where did all R1a people (which today live in Poland, Moravia, Slovakia etc..) come from. Maybe you can be better than me in explaining that.




I also used to think that variance is very important clue. But look at this variance map for I2a2 (figure D): http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/10/1964/F3.large.jpg
It does not look the same as the one you were reffered to.
Also when great depopulation events happen (like in Poland or western Balkans), variance looses it's importance. But it is also possible that I'm making a mistake by disregarding it.

My main method is "going backwards through history", I see where ceratin Y-DNA is now and follow prevoius historical events, one by one, in order to get to some conclusions. This is unlike most people familiar with genetics - they find the oldest clade in some region and then set it as a place of origin. This partly worked with R1b, so now they think it will work everywhere.



Things are a bit more complicated than that. It won't work explaining everthing with common name of different tribes. Especially becuase of frequency of I2a2b, its age, current distribution etc. I simply disagree here.

I wonder if the previous poster who favours the Veneti realises that the branch line between I2a2b-Isles and I2a2a-Dinaric split 13,000 years ago? I2a2b is practically absent in eastern Europe and I2a2a [save for the very small I2a2a-Disles clade] is practically absent in the west.

LeBrok
29-10-10, 17:08
Also when great depopulation events happen (like in Poland or western Balkans), variance looses it's importance. But it is also possible that I'm making a mistake by disregarding it.


Great point, we have to keep in mind that whatever Veneti contributed in Poland, was almost completely wiped out. Right after the Goths walked through to the Black Sea the are of today's Poland was depopulated. I'm guessing, It was Attila the Hun doing.

Also there could be a connection to Adriatic Veneti. I'd swear the name sounds Italian, :), were also "i" is plural. There was a big settlement of R1b in Czechs area since La Tente, or so. Maybe part of Veneti Tribe moved south, part North-East.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Hallstatt_LaTene.png (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Hallstatt_LaTene.png)


I like reading your post How Yes No and enjoying your talk of quick arguments/thinking, though not sure how much of it will hold water after deep scrutiny and new genetic evidence in the future. You're are jumping to conclusions much too fast for my liking. I wish I had more time these days to indulge in it.

how yes no 2
29-10-10, 22:13
Yes. To reiterate, there are far, far more likely 'tribal' carriers of L161 I2a2b-Isles to Britain [early post-LGM settlers, later La Tene Celts, Belgae, Anglo-Saxons] than the Veneti. I am genuinely astonished that the previous poster actually thinks the Veneti could be solely responsible for the British I2a2. That is a reductionist argument if ever I heard one. If the Veneti carried I2a2, it would be more likely to be the type that is absent in Britain- I2a2a-Dinaric.
I never said solely...I said they might explain I2a2 in Britain...

I wonder if the previous poster who favours the Veneti realises that the branch line between I2a2b-Isles and I2a2a-Dinaric split 13,000 years ago? I2a2b is practically absent in eastern Europe and I2a2a [save for the very small I2a2a-Disles clade] is practically absent in the west.
those time numbers are extremely rough estimations that can be several times wrong....

science today is mostly not about search for truth, it is about publishing as much as possible of scientific papers... results of such a "science" are all those popular science news that are constantly conflicting each other - e.g. about how for instance this or that type of food or mutation in this or that gene is good for this or that health issue, in next news it is bad, than it has no influence..and so on...
same is with this stuff...can't be trusted...

there was not enough time in history of genetics to even develop proper model based on measurements.... so you have combination of probably incorrect model and of ad hoc parameters....

models are based on ideas about rate of mutations and average time between generations...ask anthropologist to tell you how time between generations changed in past and they will not really know...do you think genetics know? no, they just took reasonable numbers...that is values that sounded reasonable to them... I think they even took insanely high 30 years between generations.. and second thing they assume that mutation happens with certain rate... but thing is mutation rate is not really predictable and there is no solid idea about whether they can be described...
e.g. under influence on mutagenes from environment rate of mutation can change dramatically and differ a lot from any expected statistics...

as far as we know models used by genetic scientist to "determine" "age"are pure speculation...author can assume literary any parameters for his model since it is literary impossible to verify correctnes of both the model and the parameters.... and than people like you read the numbers and take them for granted...

plus, haplogrup being old doesnot say where it has splitted from parent haplogroup.. people tend to move a lot... especially when we look movements in large time windows of several thousand years... slow changes of place might leave a trace... but fast movement to distant places will not... and than it happens that 2 subbranches of same haplogroup (e.g. I2a2) are isolated in space..

back to Veneti and I2a2, isolated development of I2a2 dinaric and I2a2Isles is main reason why we should look for its origin among groups of same people who were already separated in very long past between near Britain and east Europe... that is where Veneti fits perfectly..because we know that tribes named Veneti lived in Britanny close to Great Britain, on north Adriatic, and around Vistula river in Poland.... this makes Veneti good candidate for carriers of I2a2... that coupled with Germanic origin of other I haplogroups and with knowing of Veneti recorded in distant history as Germanic tribe and in recent past as Slavic tribe, we can conclude that Veneti are pretty good candidate for the spread of I2a2...

how yes no 2
31-10-10, 01:33
I thought about that but I coudn't figure out where did all R1a people (which today live in Poland, Moravia, Slovakia etc..) come from. Maybe you can be better than me in explaining that.
I think that wave of R1a was in Europe before haplogroup I but very soon after R1b...maybe they have arrived in same wave since in Iran they were next to each other
R1b in areas of east Iran and R1a next to them more to east..
R1b could have taken the routes via Asia minor and Caucasus and R1a mostly around Caspian sea in that way R1b arrived to southern Europe and R1a to northern Europe... these arrivals might have been in nearly the same time....
see http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26060
Venedi are later wave and were probably mix of R1a and I2a2 since name Venedi is related to the name (V)Indi that is to origin of R1a from India which indicates R1a,,, while they are recorded in history first as Sarmatian tribe than as German, and few centuries later as Slavic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vistula_Veneti ) which is explainable by
Sarmatians and Germans being brothers by origin (I1 and I2) while Sarmatians probabbly have also harboured R1a and was culturally connected to it...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/Roman_Empire_125.svg/757px-Roman_Empire_125.svg.png
Fenni that are found around Venedi do match two peaks of R1a in Poland and Russia, and Venedi as I2a2 with some R1a are between them...

Fenni are fascinating tribe, living in touch with nature on lower level of technological development..in fact that fits well with pagan religion of Slavs that was more oriented to nature compared with religions of germanic tribes that were more about heroic deeds...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenni

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a4/GlobalR1a1a.png/800px-GlobalR1a1a.png
btw. I think R1a was a continuum from India to Poland (going around Caspian sea) until it was cut into 2 parts by carriers of haplogroup C3 which are Scythians or their ancestors ...
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26058

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/89/Haplogrupo_C3_%28ADN-Y%29.PNG/800px-Haplogrupo_C3_%28ADN-Y%29.PNG

I also used to think that variance is very important clue. But look at this variance map for I2a2 (figure D): http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/10/1964/F3.large.jpg
It does not look the same as the one you were reffered to.
Also when great depopulation events happen (like in Poland or western Balkans), variance looses it's importance. But it is also possible that I'm making a mistake by disregarding it.

variance is very important clue where it comes to distant past...
link that you posted was a result published few years before the one that I have posted... in meantime lot more samples were taken and graph of variance was improved...

how yes no 2
31-10-10, 03:38
Yes. To reiterate, there are far, far more likely 'tribal' carriers of L161 I2a2b-Isles to Britain [early post-LGM settlers, later La Tene Celts, Belgae, Anglo-Saxons] than the Veneti. I am genuinely astonished that the previous poster actually thinks the Veneti could be solely responsible for the British I2a2. That is a reductionist argument if ever I heard one. If the Veneti carried I2a2, it would be more likely to be the type that is absent in Britain- I2a2a-Dinaric.
Veneti in Britanny do enter Britain as part of the Celtic wave...

they probably arrived in Europe as a first wave of I2 (carrying both I2a1 and I2a2), in more or less same time as first R1b settlers (Basques).. and before other I haplogroups...
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26060

their origin is however the same with Sarmatian I2a1 and I2a2 carriers that came much later carrying the same tribal names - Veneti/Venedi and Vandali that settled in Germany
if you look map of haplogroup I
you may notice that M26 (I2a1) in Britanny in France matches pretty well the position of Veneti

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Haplogroup_I.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ca/Gaul%2C_1st_century_BC.gif/643px-Gaul%2C_1st_century_BC.gif

Veneti in Britanny were probably celticized with spread of Hallstat La-Tenne culture...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Hallstatt_LaTene.png

lack of R1a in west France indicates that the first Veneti came as I2 but without R1a
while later Sarmatian Veneti might have been mixed with R1a already before entering Europe as attested by both R1a and I2 in both areas of Adriatic and Vistula Veneti... in area of Vistula Veneti besides I2a2 was also I2a1 of Vandals that eventually moved with sarmatian Alans and germanic Suebes to Iberian peninsula where they settled south most part known today as Andalusia..

how yes no 2
31-10-10, 14:06
from Wales story
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?p=361416#post361416


http://www.jogg.info/32/bird_files/image028.jpghttp://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/british_prehistory/images/ironage_native_britain_tribes.gif
01: Caledones
02: Taexali
03: Carvetii
04: Venicones
05: Epidii
06: Damnonii
07: Novantae
08: Selgovae
09: Votadini
10: Brigantes
11: Parisi
12: Cornovii
13: Deceangli
14: Ordovices
15: Corieltauvi
16: Iceni
17: Demetae
18: Catuvellauni
19: Silures
20: Dubunni
21: Dumnonii
22: Durotriges
23: Belgae
24: Atrebates
25: Regni
26: Cantiaci
27: Trinovantes

It looks to me that Steven Bird have lied when he was claiming in his paper that there is no correlation between tribes and spread of E-V13, and that thus it can be explained only by settlements of retired Roman soldiers

I would say 13 (Deceangli), 12(Cornovi) and 16 (Iceni) were most E-V13, than 22(Durotriges) and 27(Trinovantes) somewhat less E-V13 and 2(Taexali),5 (Epidii), 3(Carvetii), 9(Votadini) even less...
these were probably first settlers... and in fact in this order of settlement... with Deceangli, Cornovi and Iceni being dominantly E-V13 wave, while next waves acquired E-V13 by assimilating previous inhabitants both in UK and continental Europe (before settling in UK)

I would expect that I2a2-Isles came with some of them...
My guess is Carvetti since tribal name is the same as for Croats (Hrvati in Croatian)
They might have arrive there as part of ancient Veneti that were present in Britanny..


In fact position of Carvetti matches the position of M26 (I2a1) in UK same as position of Veneti matches position of M26 in Britanny, as can be seen here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Haplogroup_I.png

Shetop
31-10-10, 15:34
how yes now i have a question for you.

If this link Veneti<->I2a2 is that strong, and name of the tribe is of high significance as you describe, how come not even one nation with higher I2a2 frequency has the name Veneti today?

Actually name Veneti is used for naming groups of people only until 8th century or maybe even earlier.

Btw, I forgot to ask you in previous posts - did Slavic settlement of the Balkans actually happened and who were the tribes who settled Balkans? Where those Veneti? And if we know that some Veneti also lived in the western Balkans how come doubled name Veneti have completely gone from history? And all that having in mind significance of the tribe name you based your theory on.

I am impressed by the energy with witch you are trying to resolve almost everything but there are so many details missing from your stories. I'll say again understanding what was going on in eastern Europe between 200 AD and 650 AD is answer to all of your questions. And there is so many information that you are simply disregarding. It won't work like that.

I'll shortly describe what I have found out. I could write 20 A4 pages but I don't have the time nor I'm paid to do that. This map is great to understand the situation in Eastern Europe right before Huns invaded:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/East_europe_3-4cc.png

Huns came to Pannonia around 400 AD and also moved North to Moravia, Bohemia and Poland. These regions were almost completely depopulated. One of the result was I2a1 moving from Central Europe through Iberia and North Africa to Sardinia. Also some I1 tribes moved west, but many I1 people were subjected to Huns (Goths) and there were those who remained to be free. Free Germanic tribes and Roman Empire eventually defeated Huns. During the period I described many I1 people settled in Pannonia and Balkans which explains I1 there.

After collapse of the Hunnic Empire many I2a2+R1a people moved south to Romania and they came to Wallachian plain around 500 AD (Sclavines). R1a people (Veneti) which probably had previously moved from Vistula towards Northeast (escaping from Huns) came back in second part of 5th century.

Around 560 AD Avars come to Europe. They move North of Carpathians in order to enter Pannonian plain through Moravia. At this period they also push large part of I2a2 from western Ukraine to Elbe River Basin and significant part of R1a from Poland and Moravia to western Pannonia with R1a even reaching Istria.

Around 610 AD many Sclavines from Wallachian plain move inside Balkans to Bulgaria, Macedonia and Greece.

In first decades of 7th century Avars experienced a great defeat from Byzantine Empire and Croats and after that Croats (I2a2) move from Northeast Bohemia to Dalmatia and part of them to South Pannonia.
Very soon after that Serbs (I2a2) move to the lands east of Croats.
This Slavic settlement but also previous invasions by Huns and Avars resulted in E-V13 moving much further southeast than they were just a couple of centuries before.

So Croats are today mix of I2a2 Slavs, R1a Slavs (R1a came several decades before), R1b (indigeous) and also some other Y-DNA.
Serbs are a mix of I2a2, E-V13 (indigenous), R1a Slavs and some other Y-DNA.

So it is definitely not as simple as ascribing one tribe name to I2a2 for solution. There are also many other details which I must have missed but as I said this is not my job. I just don't want some things to be shown completely wrong as they obviously do by the people with much greater influence than mine. I also recommend you do some reading about Prague-Korchak, Ipotesti-Candesti and Penkovka cultures.

And because my friend Yorkie would certainly react I have to say that all I2a2 I was writing about is I2a2a Dinaric. In Britain exists another variety I2a2b Isles which is several thousands years older then Dinaric and has completely different history unknown to me. Disregarding help which genetics provides to understanding history is also very wrong.

how yes no 2
31-10-10, 17:57
how yes now i have a question for you.
If this link Veneti<->I2a2 is that strong, and name of the tribe is of high significance as you describe, how come not even one nation with higher I2a2 frequency has the name Veneti today? Actually name Veneti is used for naming groups of people only until 8th century or maybe even earlier.

from adriatic Veneti there was middle age Venetian republic...
they were earlier wave and were latinized and had different language than later waves of Veneti...
also from Veneti comes name Wends, which is alternative name of Sorbs
So, Sorbs still have that name, and till recently it was the name by which Germans were talking about all Slavs...
worth mentioning is that Serbs and Croats, while together might go under Sarmatians have their own ancient names... there are other I2 Sarmatians besides them... and Veneti might be one of them...
clue to that is that Vistula Veneti are first mentioned in history as Sarmatian Venedi who settled in Germania..

Roman historian Pliny the Elder in Natural History (Liber IV: 96-97) mentions a tribe called Sarmatian Venedi (Latin Sarmatae Venedi). Subsequently, Tacitus in Germania (46) mentions Venethi; when comparing these to Germani and Sarmatae, however, Tacitus associates them with the former, stating that their habits are different from those of the Sarmatae.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vistula_Veneti

Btw, I forgot to ask you in previous posts - did Slavic settlement of the Balkans actually happened and who were the tribes who settled Balkans? Where those Veneti? And if we know that some Veneti also lived in the western Balkans how come doubled name Veneti have completely gone from history? And all that having in mind significance of the tribe name you based your theory on.

tribes keep their names, but their language and culture can change
they also assimilate conquered tribes which can alter somewhat their genetical imprint...
Adriatic Veneti arrived to Europe before Vistula Veneti, and were latinized...their language and culture became alike other italics...
Vistula Veneti first were germanized than slavicized..
such changes of languages and culture are possible just by living next to some tribes since IE languages in distant past didnot differ as much as now
IE languages origin from iran where they were already spoken by haplogroups I, R1a, R1b, probably G2a as well... in fact more distant is language from the one spoken in Iran, more distant in time was the settlement of people carrying that language...
e.g. Slavic is most similar to iranian languages and is thus more recent cultural and linguistic wave... however there is R1a in Europe much older than that wave...

I am impressed by the energy with witch you are trying to resolve almost everything but there are so many details missing from your stories. I'll say again understanding what was going on in eastern Europe between 200 AD and 650 AD is answer to all of your questions. And there is so many information that you are simply disregarding. It won't work like that.

I am trying to solve puzzle by gathering pieces...if you have better clues you should share them and not just point out how you know better...

I'll shortly describe what I have found out. I could write 20 A4 pages but I don't have the time nor I'm paid to do that. This map is great to understand the situation Eastern Europe right before Huns invaded:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/East_europe_3-4cc.png
good link, very informative (if correct)
it shows that everywhere north of proto-Slavic was layer of Balts, and north of them layer of Fines, while south of them were Goths and Sarmatians,,,interestingly Sarmatians between Visigoths and Ostrogoths...

Huns cameto Pannonia around 400 and also moved North to Moravia, Bohemia and Poland. These regions were almost completely depopulated. One of the result was I2a1 moving from Central Europe through Iberia and North Africa to Sardinia. Also some I1 tribes moved west, but many I1 people were subjected to Huns (Goths) and there were those who remained to be free. Free Germanic tribes and Roman Empire eventually defeated Huns. During the period I described many I1 people settled in Pannonia and Balkans which explains I1 there.

incorrect, arrival of Huns has no direct connection with I2a1 going to Sardinia...nor did they really depopulate large areas...
in fact, Roman empire was crumbling, and Suebs, Alans and Vandals used opportunity to conquer Iberian peninsula...
The Suebic, Alan and Vandal kingdoms in Gallaecia in Iberian peninsula were established around year 410, while Huns reach Panonia only around 400 and it takes decades to spread their kingdom far away into central and north Europe..
movements of people did last for some years...
So, in fact it was opposite from what you claim..Suebs,Alans and Vandals did not move cause they were afraid of Huns, but movement of Suebs, Vandals and Alans created lot of space in central Europe and allowed Huns to easily enter and create big empire...
some of I2a1 came to Sardinia only when Vandals were pushed out of Iberian peninsula by Visigoths which was much later...other I2a1 might have been there from ancient settlement waves that in fact gave name Sardinia similar to names of other carriers of haplogroup I (Suebi, Swedes, Sarbans, Serbs..)

The Huns first appeared in Europe in the 4th century. They show up north of the Black Sea around 370. The Huns crossed the Volga river and attacked the Alans, who were then subjugated. Jordanes reports that the Huns were led at this time by Balamber while modern historians question his existence, seeing instead an invention by the Goths to explain who defeated them.[8] The Huns and Alans started plundering Greuthungic settlements.[8] The Greuthungic king, Ermanaric, committed suicide and his great-nephew, Vithimiris, took over. Vithimiris was killed during a battle against the Alans and Huns in 376. This resulted in the subjugation of most of the Ostrogoths.[8] Vithimiris' son, Viderichus, was only a child so command of the remaining Ostrogothic refugee army fell to Alatheus and Saphrax. The refugees streamed into Thervingic territory, west of the Dniester.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns
As you can see, subjected tribes were not rounded off, but became vasals that joined them in future conquests... that is how Hun empire spread until number of Huns in it became too little to maintain in charge of it...

The literary sources, Priscus and Jordanes, preserve only a few names and three words of the language of the Huns, which have been studied for more than a century and a half. Our sources do not give the meaning of any of the names, only of the three words. These words (medos, kamos, strava) do not seem to be Turkic,[25] but probably a satem Indo-European language similar to Slavic and Dacian.[26]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns
Preserved words of Huns have resemblance to Slavic and not to Turkic...
Huns might have been just another iranian tribe, as they are first recorded in area of Sarmatians...

The 5th century Armenian historian Moses of Khorene, in his "History of Armenia," introduces the Hunni near the Sarmatians and describes their capture of the city of Balkh ("Kush" in Armenian) sometime between 194 and 214, which explains why the Greeks call that city Hunuk. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/Invasions_of_the_Roman_Empire_1.png/800px-Invasions_of_the_Roman_Empire_1.png
Trajectory of Huns clearly indicates they have focused on attacking Roman empire and not on killing half of north Europe as you imagine... in fact, subjugated tribes typically joined them in further conquers... why on earth would they kill all potential sources of their soldiers and completely vacate most of north Europe as you envision...
Huns were tribal union, they would include subjugated tribes in it...

Free Germanic tribes and Roman Empire eventually defeated Huns. During the period I described many I1 people settled in Pannonia and Balkans which explains I1 there.

This is correct, e.g. Goths settled east Balkan and Gepids Panonia..
In Serbia additional source of I1 can be that Serbs came to Serbia from white Serbia that is most likely area of east Germany where Sorbs still carry the name of tribal union that was established there... there Serbs might have assimilated some I1 tribes...

After collapse of the Hunnic Empire many I2a2+R1a people moved south to Romania and they came to Wallachian plain around 500 AD (Sclavines). R1a people (Veneti) which probably had previously moved from Vistula towards Northeast (escaping from Huns) came back in second part of 5th century.

you make many assumptions here......
you claim Venedes to be R1a and Sclavines to be R1a+I2a2 while I think it was in fact opposite...

Around 560 AD Avars come to Europe. They move North of Carpathians in order to enter Pannonian plain through Moravia. At this period they also push large part of I2a2 from western Ukraine to Elbe River Basin and significant part of R1a from Poland and Moravia to western Pannonia with R1a even reaching Istria.

no, they actually entered Panonia from Romania...
Bizantium bought them off, so they stopped attacking Byzantium and started a spread towards north...all the way to Baltic, than Byzantium used them against Slavs in Scythia minor...when they established empire (tribal union in which Slavic was lingua franca) helped by Byzantium, they turned against Byzantium...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Avars

Around 610 many Sclavines from Wallachian plain move inside Balkans to Bulgaria, Macedonia and Greece.
yes, because now Byzantium was weakened by attacks of Avars

In first decades of 7th century Avars experienced a great defeat from Byzantine Empire and Croats and after that Croats (I2a2) move from Northeast Bohemia to Dalmatia and part of them to South Pannonia.
Very soon after that Serbs (I2a2) move to the lands east of Croats.
This Slavic settlement but also previous invasions by Huns and Avars resulted in E-V13 moving much further southeast than they were just a couple of centuries before.
yes, that's correct... but in fact kingdom of Ostrogoths was major cause of movement of E-V13 from Dalmatia and Bosnia deeper into Byzantium
compare Ostrogoth kingdom with spread of frequence and variance of E-V13 and you will see it clearly
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f9/Ostrogothic_Kingdom.png/250px-Ostrogothic_Kingdom.png
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v17/n6/images/ejhg2008249f4.jpg

So Croats are today mix of I2a2 Slavs, R1a Slavs (R1a came several decades before), R1b (indigeous) and also some other Y-DNA.
Serbs are a mix of I2a2, E-V13 (indigenous), R1a Slavs and some other Y-DNA.
Croats are mix of slavicized I2a2 Croats, R1a from Iran, from Slavs and previous R1a waves in Europe, I1 from Goths, R1b from Celts...
Serbs are mix of slavicized I2a2 Serbs, E-V13 from previous inhabitants, some R1a from iran, Slavs and previous R1a waves, I1 from Goths, some assimilated in east Germany and some perhaps was carried from their iranian homeland...

where exactly are those issues strongly contradicting things that I have stated, and where can you exactly claim that my assumptions are wrong and your correct?
main difference seems that you assume Veneti as R1a, and Sclavenoi as R1a and I2a2, while I believe it was opposite...
the reason I belive opposite is that we find I2a1 on place of ancient Veneti in Britanny, because we find I2a2 in north Italy where Adriatic Veneti lived...
Additional reason for my assumption is that Veneti are recorded in early history as Sarmatian tribe... than later as Germanic one, and in the very end as Slavic one... as I have already pinpointed haplogroup I1 is related to Germanic tribes and I2 dominantly to Serbs/Croat related Sarmatian tribes... some of I2 was merged in germanic tribes upon initial settlement of Sarmatian Veneti (and probably Vandals as well) in Germany...

So it is definitely not as simple as ascribing one tribe name to I2a2 for solution. There are also many other details which I must have missed but as I said this is not my job. I just don't want some things to be shown completely wrong as they obviously do by the people with much greater influence than mine.
right..
but you made more assumptions than me and did not try to relate your assumptions to genetics and tribal name continuity...


I also recommend you do some reading about Prague-Korchak, Ipotesti-Candesti and Penkovka cultures.
those are proto-Slavs...
but in 4th century R1a and I2a2 were already mixed and most Srmatians already slavicized (which is normal since for iranian tribes from late waves, Slavic was by far most similar language)

And because my friend Yorkie would certainly react I have to say that all I2a2 I was writing about is I2a2a Dinaric. In Britain exists another variety I2a2b Isles which is several thousands years older then Dinaric and has completely different history unknown to me. Disregarding help which genetics provides to understanding history is also very wrong.
As I explained, I2 in Britain might be related to Veneti who lived in Britanny...this Veneti have arrived in previous wave of settlement... they were celticized with spread of La Tenne culture... reason to propose Veneti as source of I2 is that their historically attested location corresponds well to spread of M26 in Britanny.... similarly we have places with historically atteded Veneti name coupled with I2 north of Adriatic and around Vistula... for me this is clear indication of possible happenings...

Shetop
31-10-10, 18:14
I'll just add to my statements about Huns and Avars:


The paths of this Great Migration of Peoples led in part through the Polish lands, and the Germanic tribes living here joined the movement themselves, with the result of an almost complete, in the course of 5th century, depopulation of Poland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland_in_Antiquity#Hun_advance.2C_barbarian_migra tions_in_Europe.2C_depopulation_of_Poland


So in 567 king Cunimund's Gepid kingdom was attacked by two directions: from the west came the Lombards, from the north, through Moravia and the Danube, the Avars. Bayan crushed Cunimond's forces and made a cup from his defeated enemy's skull as a present (and warning) for his ally Alboin (who is famously quoted as having forced Cunimond's daughter Rosamund, whom he had taken as war bride, to drink from it, sealing his own fate). Then the Avar horde marched against Sirmium, by now firmly held by Gepid remnants and a Byzantine garrison led by general Bonosus. In the meantime large numbers of Slavs settled in Pannonia in the wake of the Avars; and in 568 Alboin and his Lombards deemed it wise to move for the half-ruined but promising lands of Italy where they would establish a long-lasting kingdom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayan_I

Everything else I leave to you...

how yes no 2
31-10-10, 18:59
I think R1a was already there but not really organized...
thing is that Slavic languages are most similar to Iranian, Indian...
I explain it with idea that before Scythians split it in 2 parts there was R1a continum from India via Bactria and Sogdiana, next to Caspian lake all the way to Poland ..
this continuum kept language development synchronized with the one in India and Iran, while European R1b and I1 IE speakers developed their languages in isolation from parent iranian language...
I2 came to Europe fairly recently (in time imediatelly following Scythian expansion) as Sarmatians - Serbs, Croats, Sarmatian Vistula Veneti (there were also non I2 Sarmatians as Alans who were dominantly G2a) and they might have been not slavicized at all... perhaps they already spoke more or less same language with proto-Slavic...
that explains otherwise weird phrase that still exists in Serbia ("speak serbian so that the whole world can understand you") which perhaps indicates that the languages they met on their way to Balkan were more or less the same...

how yes no 2
31-10-10, 20:35
I'll just add to my statements about Huns and Avars:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland_in_Antiquity#Hun_advance.2C_barbarian_migra tions_in_Europe.2C_depopulation_of_Poland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayan_I
Everything else I leave to you...
Poland was mostly depopulated because Vandals moved out to seize the opportunity to live in better land...
as for Avars it seems that you were right..
still, I fail to see relevance of the exact path that Avars took to R1a & I2a story

DejaVu
01-11-10, 01:58
Vandals also known as The Varangians or Varyags.

Information from Wikipedia:

History
As early as 911, Varangians are mentioned as fighting as mercenaries for the Byzantines. About 700 Varangians served along with Dalmatians as marines in Byzantine naval expeditions against the Emirate of Crete in 902 and a force of 629 returned to Crete under Constantine Porphyrogenitus in 949. A unit of 415 Varangians was involved in the Italian expedition of 936. It is also recorded that there were Varangian contingents among the forces that fought the Arabs in Syria in 955. During this period, the Varangian mercenaries were included in the Great Companions.
In 988 Basil II requested military assistance from Vladimir I of Kiev to help defend his throne. In compliance with the treaty made by his father after the Siege of Dorostolon (971), Vladimir sent 6,000 men to Basil. In exchange, Vladimir was given Basil's sister, Anna, in marriage. Vladimir also agreed to convert to Christianity and to bring his people into the Christian faith.

Function
The duties and purpose of the Varangian Guard were similar—if not identical—to the services provided by the Kievan druzhina, the Norwegian hird, and the Scandinavian and Anglo-Saxon housecarls. The Varangians served as the personal bodyguard of the emperor, swearing an oath of loyalty to him; they had ceremonial duties as retainers and acclaimers and performed some police duties, especially in cases of treason and conspiracy. They were headed by a separate officer, the akolouthos, who was usually a native Byzantine.

Norse sagas
According to the sagas, the West Norse entered the service of the Guard considerably later than the East Norse. The Laxdœla saga, informs that the Icelander Bolli Bollason, born c. 1006, was the first known Icelander or Norwegian in the Varangian Guard. Travelling to Constantinople via Denmark, he spent many years in the Varangian Guard; "and was thought to be the most valiant in all deeds that try a man, and always went next to those in the forefront."The saga also records the finery his followers received from the Emperor, and the influence he held after his return to Iceland.


From around 1540, the Swedish king had been styled, Suecorum, Gothorum et Vandalorum Rex: King of the Swedes, Goths and Vendes. Carl XVI Gustaf, dropped the title in 1973 and now styles himself simply as King of Sweden.

DejaVu
01-11-10, 02:10
From Wikipedia

The European Avars, or Ancient Avars, were a highly organized nomadic confederacy of mixed origins. They were ruled by a khagan, who was surrounded by a tight-knit retinue of nomad warriors, an organization characteristic of Turkic groups. Although the name Avar first appeared in the mid fifth century, the Avars of Europe enter the historical scene in the mid sixth century A.D., when they established a pax spanning considerable areas of Central and Eastern Europe. Avar rule persisted over much of the Pannonian Plain up to the early 9th century.

The archaeologist from Republic of Macedonia Ivan Mikulčić revealed the presence not only of the Kuber group, but an entire Bulgar archaeological culture throughout Macedonia and eastern Albania. He describes the traces of Bulgars in this region, which consist of typical fortresses, burials, various products of metallurgy and pottery (including treasures with supposed Bulgar origin or ownership), lead seals, minted from Kuber, amulets, etc. However, part of this could actually represent traces of Avar presence. They are known to have raided as far south as Macedonia, and the material culture of the Avars was very similar to the Bulgars.

LeBrok
01-11-10, 09:34
Poland was mostly depopulated because Vandals moved out to seize the opportunity to live in better land...
as for Avars it seems that you were right..
still, I fail to see relevance of the exact path that Avars took to R1a & I2a story
Oh yea, Vandals left fertile land of Poland for semi-desert south Spain? Why not closer move to Pannonia?
We need a better reason for Vandals departure.

LeBrok
01-11-10, 09:49
[QUOTE=how yes no;361439]I think R1a was already there but not really organized...
thing is that Slavic languages are most similar to Iranian, Indian...
I explain it with idea that before Scythians split it in 2 parts there was R1a continum from India via Bactria and Sogdiana, next to Caspian lake all the way to Poland ..
this continuum kept language development synchronized with the one in India and Iran,[QUOTE]
How did you keep the language synchronized through 4 thousand kilometers back then? Did they have satellite TV, or common language in schools? Even though Sanskrit or Iranian belong to the same family with Slavic, there was not much in common even 1500 years ago. What I mean is that they wouldn't be able to understand each other. The Slavic/Baltic split must have happened 3 000 years ago, Slavic/Sanskrit/Iranian probably 5-6 thousand.
Actually Baltic is closer related to Sanskrit than Slavic, you might better look for some common hg between Baltic and Iranian then.

DejaVu
01-11-10, 16:54
Sanskrit - Prenunciation: Samskrtam = self draw.

Sam skrtam in Macedonian slavic language (closest to Old church slavonic)
means self draw.

Macedonian slavic and Sanskrit have over 6000 similar, some are related words, and are similar in grammatical structure.

Sanskrit is a member of the Indo-Iranian sub-family of the Indo-European family of languages. Its closest ancient relatives are the Iranian languages Old Persian and Avestan. Within the wider Indo-European language family, Sanskrit shares characteristic sound changes with the Satem languages (particularly the Slavic and Baltic languages), and also with Greek.

Yorkie
13-11-10, 20:50
from adriatic Veneti there was middle age Venetian republic...
they were earlier wave and were latinized and had different language than later waves of Veneti...
also from Veneti comes name Wends, which is alternative name of Sorbs
So, Sorbs still have that name, and till recently it was the name by which Germans were talking about all Slavs...
worth mentioning is that Serbs and Croats, while together might go under Sarmatians have their own ancient names... there are other I2 Sarmatians besides them... and Veneti might be one of them...
clue to that is that Vistula Veneti are first mentioned in history as Sarmatian Venedi who settled in Germania..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vistula_Veneti

tribes keep their names, but their language and culture can change
they also assimilate conquered tribes which can alter somewhat their genetical imprint...
Adriatic Veneti arrived to Europe before Vistula Veneti, and were latinized...their language and culture became alike other italics...
Vistula Veneti first were germanized than slavicized..
such changes of languages and culture are possible just by living next to some tribes since IE languages in distant past didnot differ as much as now
IE languages origin from iran where they were already spoken by haplogroups I, R1a, R1b, probably G2a as well... in fact more distant is language from the one spoken in Iran, more distant in time was the settlement of people carrying that language...
e.g. Slavic is most similar to iranian languages and is thus more recent cultural and linguistic wave... however there is R1a in Europe much older than that wave...

I am trying to solve puzzle by gathering pieces...if you have better clues you should share them and not just point out how you know better...

good link, very informative (if correct)
it shows that everywhere north of proto-Slavic was layer of Balts, and north of them layer of Fines, while south of them were Goths and Sarmatians,,,interestingly Sarmatians between Visigoths and Ostrogoths...

incorrect, arrival of Huns has no direct connection with I2a1 going to Sardinia...nor did they really depopulate large areas...
in fact, Roman empire was crumbling, and Suebs, Alans and Vandals used opportunity to conquer Iberian peninsula...
The Suebic, Alan and Vandal kingdoms in Gallaecia in Iberian peninsula were established around year 410, while Huns reach Panonia only around 400 and it takes decades to spread their kingdom far away into central and north Europe..
movements of people did last for some years...
So, in fact it was opposite from what you claim..Suebs,Alans and Vandals did not move cause they were afraid of Huns, but movement of Suebs, Vandals and Alans created lot of space in central Europe and allowed Huns to easily enter and create big empire...
some of I2a1 came to Sardinia only when Vandals were pushed out of Iberian peninsula by Visigoths which was much later...other I2a1 might have been there from ancient settlement waves that in fact gave name Sardinia similar to names of other carriers of haplogroup I (Suebi, Swedes, Sarbans, Serbs..)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns
As you can see, subjected tribes were not rounded off, but became vasals that joined them in future conquests... that is how Hun empire spread until number of Huns in it became too little to maintain in charge of it...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns
Preserved words of Huns have resemblance to Slavic and not to Turkic...
Huns might have been just another iranian tribe, as they are first recorded in area of Sarmatians...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/Invasions_of_the_Roman_Empire_1.png/800px-Invasions_of_the_Roman_Empire_1.png
Trajectory of Huns clearly indicates they have focused on attacking Roman empire and not on killing half of north Europe as you imagine... in fact, subjugated tribes typically joined them in further conquers... why on earth would they kill all potential sources of their soldiers and completely vacate most of north Europe as you envision...
Huns were tribal union, they would include subjugated tribes in it...

This is correct, e.g. Goths settled east Balkan and Gepids Panonia..
In Serbia additional source of I1 can be that Serbs came to Serbia from white Serbia that is most likely area of east Germany where Sorbs still carry the name of tribal union that was established there... there Serbs might have assimilated some I1 tribes...

you make many assumptions here......
you claim Venedes to be R1a and Sclavines to be R1a+I2a2 while I think it was in fact opposite...

no, they actually entered Panonia from Romania...
Bizantium bought them off, so they stopped attacking Byzantium and started a spread towards north...all the way to Baltic, than Byzantium used them against Slavs in Scythia minor...when they established empire (tribal union in which Slavic was lingua franca) helped by Byzantium, they turned against Byzantium...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Avars

yes, because now Byzantium was weakened by attacks of Avars
yes, that's correct... but in fact kingdom of Ostrogoths was major cause of movement of E-V13 from Dalmatia and Bosnia deeper into Byzantium
compare Ostrogoth kingdom with spread of frequence and variance of E-V13 and you will see it clearly
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f9/Ostrogothic_Kingdom.png/250px-Ostrogothic_Kingdom.png
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v17/n6/images/ejhg2008249f4.jpg

Croats are mix of slavicized I2a2 Croats, R1a from Iran, from Slavs and previous R1a waves in Europe, I1 from Goths, R1b from Celts...
Serbs are mix of slavicized I2a2 Serbs, E-V13 from previous inhabitants, some R1a from iran, Slavs and previous R1a waves, I1 from Goths, some assimilated in east Germany and some perhaps was carried from their iranian homeland...

where exactly are those issues strongly contradicting things that I have stated, and where can you exactly claim that my assumptions are wrong and your correct?
main difference seems that you assume Veneti as R1a, and Sclavenoi as R1a and I2a2, while I believe it was opposite...
the reason I belive opposite is that we find I2a1 on place of ancient Veneti in Britanny, because we find I2a2 in north Italy where Adriatic Veneti lived...
Additional reason for my assumption is that Veneti are recorded in early history as Sarmatian tribe... than later as Germanic one, and in the very end as Slavic one... as I have already pinpointed haplogroup I1 is related to Germanic tribes and I2 dominantly to Serbs/Croat related Sarmatian tribes... some of I2 was merged in germanic tribes upon initial settlement of Sarmatian Veneti (and probably Vandals as well) in Germany...

right..
but you made more assumptions than me and did not try to relate your assumptions to genetics and tribal name continuity...

those are proto-Slavs...
but in 4th century R1a and I2a2 were already mixed and most Srmatians already slavicized (which is normal since for iranian tribes from late waves, Slavic was by far most similar language)
As I explained, I2 in Britain might be related to Veneti who lived in Britanny...this Veneti have arrived in previous wave of settlement... they were celticized with spread of La Tenne culture... reason to propose Veneti as source of I2 is that their historically attested location corresponds well to spread of M26 in Britanny.... similarly we have places with historically atteded Veneti name coupled with I2 north of Adriatic and around Vistula... for me this is clear indication of possible happenings...

With regard to I2a2 and the Veneti, I respectfully suggest that you are a little confused. You refer to I2a2 earlier, and above to the 'spread of M26 in Brittany'. Let me unpack this for you....

1] The SNP M26 is not associated with I2a2. It is associated with I2a1, according to ISOGG 2010. I2a1 was founded in Iberia.

2] As my friend Shetop says in a previous posting, the type of I2a2 found in Britain and Ireland is I2a2b, and it is positive for L161. It was probably founded in northern Germany, and is effectively absent in eastern Europe. It probably got to Germany as part of the LBK migrations from the Danube region. It probably was carried to Britain and Ireland by different 'waves' of people from pre-Celtic settlers, to Celts and to later Anglo-Saxons. There are currently 8 subclades of I2a2b, and there is some continental membership across the north European plain, with German members currently predominating.

3] I do not think that the Veneti made any genetic impact on Britain. The Veneti would have carried the eastern 'Dinaric' variety of I2a2- I2a2a. It is absent in Britain and Ireland. As Shetop has cogently argued, this I2a2a-Dinaric was spread with the Slavic migrations. Despite having a common ancestor, I2a2b-Isles and I2a2a-Dinaric branch lines parted company between 12,000 and 13,000 years ago. All I2a2s are 'distant cousins' [as I jokingly refer to Shetop], but in truth I2a2a-Dinaric played no part in the genetic history of Britain and Ireland.

I hope this is helpful.

how yes no 2
13-11-10, 21:05
With regard to I2a2 and the Veneti, I respectfully suggest that you are a little confused. You refer to I2a2 earlier, and above to the 'spread of M26 in Brittany'. Let me unpack this for you....

1] The SNP M26 is not associated with I2a2. It is associated with I2a1, according to ISOGG 2010. I2a1 was founded in Iberia.

I was aware of this...
My idea is that some tribal names tend to be preserved for very very long periods of time...
what I had in mind with the theory is that the tribal name Veneti is ancient old and that it preceeds split of I2

same as we have name Sardinia for ancient old settlement of I2a1, and names Suebi and Swedes for I1 carriers, Serbs for some of Balkan I2a2 carriers, Sarbans for carriers of unidentified subgroup of I among Pashtuns, and as area in Persia matching spread of haplogroup I is called Kerman/Germania ...

Btw. area of highest concentration of I2a2 in Balkans (among Bosinan Croats) used to be area with settlement of tribe Sardeates

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/IllyricumAD6RomanConditionofTribes.png/718px-IllyricumAD6RomanConditionofTribes.png



2] As my friend Shetop says in a previous posting, the type of I2a2 found in Britain and Ireland is I2a2b, and it is positive for L161. It was probably founded in northern Germany, and is effectively absent in eastern Europe. It probably got to Germany as part of the LBK migrations from the Danube region. It probably was carried to Britain and Ireland by different 'waves' of people from pre-Celtic settlers, to Celts and to later Anglo-Saxons. There are currently 8 subclades of I2a2b, and there is some continental membership across the north European plain, with German members currently predominating.
yes, that makes sense..
e.g. position of Carvetti tribe in uk doesnot match spread of I2a2, but seems to be related to I2a1...
in fact I am curious about detailed Y DNA data for areas where Carvetti and Helvetti tribes lived..
whole idea is that, while culture and languages may change, tribal groups in ancient history did tend to preserve self-identity in the form of tribal names...


3] I do not think that the Veneti made any genetic impact on Britain. The Veneti would have carried the eastern 'Dinaric' variety of I2a2- I2a2a. It is absent in Britain and Ireland. As Shetop has cogently argued, this I2a2a-Dinaric was spread with the Slavic migrations. Despite having a common ancestor, I2a2b-Isles and I2a2a-Dinaric branch lines parted company between 12,000 and 13,000 years ago. All I2a2s are 'distant cousins' [as I jokingly refer to Shetop], but in truth I2a2a-Dinaric played no part in the genetic history of Britain and Ireland.
my arguments are russian primary chronicle saying that Slavs are Noricans, and Jordanes saying that they are of Veneti race.. and early Slavs being identified as Venedi, Anti and Sklavinas... where both Anti & Venedi are likely corruption of original Eneti... while previously Anti were identified as Sarmatian tribe...and even early Venedi were identified as Sarmatian tribe... that is how I came up with Veneto-Sarmatian origin of I2 haplogroups... but of course that is just an idea...




I hope this is helpful.
every constructive remark is helpful...

Yorkie
14-11-10, 11:32
I was aware of this...
My idea is that some tribal names tend to be preserved for very very long periods of time...
what I had in mind with the theory is that the tribal name Veneti is ancient old and that it preceeds split of I2

same as we have name Sardinia for ancient old settlement of I2a1, and names Suebi and Swedes for I1 carriers, Serbs for some of Balkan I2a2 carriers, Sarbans for carriers of unidentified subgroup of I among Pashtuns, and as area in Persia matching spread of haplogroup I is called Kerman/Germania ...

Btw. area of highest concentration of I2a2 in Balkans (among Bosinan Croats) used to be area with settlement of tribe Sardeates

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/IllyricumAD6RomanConditionofTribes.png/718px-IllyricumAD6RomanConditionofTribes.png



yes, that makes sense..
e.g. position of Carvetti tribe in uk doesnot match spread of I2a2, but seems to be related to I2a1...
in fact I am curious about detailed Y DNA data for areas where Carvetti and Helvetti tribes lived..
whole idea is that, while culture and languages may change, tribal groups in ancient history did tend to preserve self-identity in the form of tribal names...


my arguments are russian primary chronicle saying that Slavs are Noricans, and Jordanes saying that they are of Veneti race.. and early Slavs being identified as Venedi, Anti and Sklavinas... where both Anti & Venedi are likely corruption of original Eneti... while previously Anti were identified as Sarmatian tribe...and even early Venedi were identified as Sarmatian tribe... that is how I came up with Veneto-Sarmatian origin of I2 haplogroups... but of course that is just an idea...



every constructive remark is helpful...

If M26 I2a1 was founded in Iberia I don't see a link with Carvetti. It predates the Carvetti by thousands of years, and was probably the earliest clade to hit British shores. We are talking of a completely different haplogroup here in M26 I2a1- the focus is on I2a2 [old I1b1].

So, do you now agree that I2a2 [which is the focus of the thread] in its L161 I2a2b form certainly made an impact on the British/Irish gene-pool, but the eastern form, I2a2a-Dinaric made no impact? That is the scenario suggested by genetic evidence. I2a2b-Isles [me, if you like] and I2a2a-Dinaric [Shetop, if you like] are very different populations, though very distantly related.

I see the absence of I2a2a-Dinaric in Britain as further evidence that the Slavic migrations carried the eastern form. However, there is a relatively rare form of I2a2a called I2a2a-Disles [halfway between Isles and Dinaric] which leans slightly towards I2a2a-Dinaric, and is found mainly in Scotland. This is a bit of an enigma. Jean Manco in 'The Peopling of Europe' suggested that I2a2a-Disles came to Britain via Yamnaya bands.

how yes no 2
14-11-10, 14:54
If M26 I2a1 was founded in Iberia I don't see a link with Carvetti. It predates the Carvetti by thousands of years, and was probably the earliest clade to hit British shores. We are talking of a completely different haplogroup here in M26 I2a1- the focus is on I2a2 [old I1b1]
We do not have a clue where M26 was founded, we know where it is found now...

So, do you now agree that I2a2 [which is the focus of the thread] in its L161 I2a2b form certainly made an impact on the British/Irish gene-pool, but the eastern form, I2a2a-Dinaric made no impact? That is the scenario suggested by genetic evidence. I2a2b-Isles [me, if you like] and I2a2a-Dinaric [Shetop, if you like] are very different populations, though very distantly related.

there is nothing to agree or not agree there... issue that I2a2-Dinaric and I2a2-Isles are separate branches is a fact... but point is if you go long enough back in time, there was a point in time where same people carried parent type of those two branches... this time might have in fact been much more recent than now proposed by genetists, since their models are based on lopt of assumptions and parameters set completely ad-hoc...


I see the absence of I2a2a-Dinaric in Britain as further evidence that the Slavic migrations carried the eastern form. However, there is a relatively rare form of I2a2a called I2a2a-Disles [halfway between Isles and Dinaric] which leans slightly towards I2a2a-Dinaric, and is found mainly in Scotland. This is a bit of an enigma. Jean Manco in 'The Peopling of Europe' suggested that I2a2a-Disles came to Britain via Yamnaya bands.

yes, it's very likely scenario that Slavic migrations carried this haplogroup...
question is who were those people before they are mentioned in history as Slavs... were they:

1) of Veneti race as claimed by Jordanes, who lived in time when Slavs appeared on historical scene
2) from Noricum (which places them in location or nearby Adriatic Veneti) as claimed by Russian primary chronicle
3) Sarmatians, as Anti and Venedi were first recorded as Sarmatian tribes
4) Pannonians (e.g. many "ïllyrian" tribes of west Balkan are classified as Pannonian Illyrian tribe, where designation Illyrian likely only means that they lived in Illyria)... Panonians being pre-Slavic is plausible scenario explaining why are there no traces of Illyrian or Gothic languages in ex-Yugoslavia...

in fact, question is were all those Veneto-Sarmatian-Pannonian tribes a continuum of genetically and culturally related tribes that actually were pre-Slavic substrate?

when historians talk about Illyrian tribes, it is often about tribes who lived in Illyria... not about their origin...
Strabo records that Illyria was depopulated before his time in wars of Dacians and Celtic tribes... real Illyrians moved south to hills of Albania, while area was settled according to Strabo with Pannonian tribes....

among those "Illyrian" (as geographically residing in area of Illyria) Pannonian tribes are mentioned Oseriates, Jasi, Breuci...even Dalmatae...

many of those tribes are not classified e.g. Scordisci

I have already explained how Oseriates self-identity is clearly Slavic tribal name....http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showpost.php?p=361742&postcount=35

this indicates that Pannonians might have been pre-Slavic tribe..

Jasi was the name of an Illyrian tribe[88][116] subtribe of Pannonians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illyrian_tribes#Jasi

I have excplained here that exactly the same tribe is called Jaziges and classified as Sarmatian tribe in only slightly later period...
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showpost.php?p=361597&postcount=25

this indicates that there was no real difference between Pannonians and Sarmatians.... it's just that one lived in Pannonia others in Sarmatia... it was a continuum spreading over most of east Europe (spread to west Poland and Bohemia happened only after Suebi and Vandali moved away, and spread to Balkan happened after Illyria was depopulated in wars between Dacians and Celtic tribes)...

in my opinion, Veneti, Pannonians and Sarmatians are pre-Slavic nations...

we can see that clearly in statement of Jordanes who lived in times when Slavic names emerges in history accounts
he wrote following around 551 AD:

Quote:
Within these rivers lies Dacia, encircled by the lofty Alps as by a crown. Near their left ridge, which inclines toward the north, and beginning at the source of the Vistula, the populous race of the Venethi dwell, occupying a great expanse of land. Though their names are now dispersed amid various clans and places, yet they are chiefly called Sclaveni and Antes. (35) The abode of the Sclaveni extends from the city of Noviodunum and the lake called Mursianus to the Danaster, and northward as far as the Vistula. They have swamps and forests for their cities. The Antes, who are the bravest of these peoples dwelling in the curve of the sea of Pontus, spread from the Danaster to the Danaper, rivers that are many days' journey apart. (36) But on the shore of Ocean, where the floods of the river Vistula empty from three mouths, the Vidivarii dwell, a people gathered out of various tribes.
http://people.ucalgary.ca/~vandersp/.../jordgeti.html

these are same Antes/Anti who were before classified as one of main Sarmatian tribes... even Venedi were originally classified as Sarmatian tribe...

they are all of Veneti race, and they are genetically likely to be mix of R1a and I2a2...

some of them are wrongly classified as Illyrian tribes, based on their position in Illyria, where they spread to in times after Illyria was depopulated in war between Dacians and celtic tribes...

west Balkans or Illyria was depopulated in a war between Dacians and Celtic tribes... original Illyrians moved south to Albania.. however term Illyria was still used for west Balkans... so the Pannonians who settled there were now called Illyrian Pannonian tribes ...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Celts_in_Illyria_%26_Pannonia.png



how come on same place is hole in R1b, high variance and low frequency of both E-V13 and J2b2? isn't that an indication of massive depopulation event that have happened there?....
hole in R1b might indicate that this was the case after the celtic tribes have already spread to west Balkan....

Strabo has recorded that Illyria was depopulated much before his time (63/64 BC – ca. AD 24) and settled by Pannonians..


I shall first describe Illyria, which approaches close to the Danube, and to the Alps which lie between Italy and Germany, taking their commencement from the lake in the territory of the Vindelici, Rhæti, and Helvetii.7 [2]
The Daci depopulated a part of this country in their wars with the Boii and Taurisci, Keltic tribes whose chief was Critasirus. The Daci claimed the country, although it was separated from them by the river Parisus,8 which flows from the mountains to the Danube, near the Galatæ Scordisci, a people who lived intermixed with the Illyrian and the Thracian tribes. The Illyrians were destroyed by the Daci, while the Scordisci were frequently their allies.
The rest of the country as far as Segestica,9 and the Danube, towards the north and east, is occupied by Pannonii, but they extend farther in an opposite direction.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0239:book=7:chapter= 5&highlight=

Strabo (63/64 BC – ca. AD 24) - Geographica


Btw. Scordisci are of unclear origin...

The ethnic affiliation of the Scordisci has been debated by historians. Some refer to them as Celtic[4][5][6],Thracian[7] or Illyrian[8] or a Celtic mix of the above[9].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scordisci


The Scordisci (Greek,"Σκορδίσκοι") were an ancient Celtic tribe centered in what would become the Roman Provinces of lower Pannonia, Moesia and present-day Serbia at the confluence of the Savus[1] (Sava), Dravus[2] (Drava) and Danube rivers. They were historically notable from the beginning of the third century B.C. until the turn of the common era. At their zenith, their influence stretched over regions comprising parts of the present-day Austria, Croatia, Hungary, Serbia, Slovenia, Slovakia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Their tribal name may be connected to the name of the Scordus[3] mountain (Šar mountain) which was located between the regions of Illyria and Paionia.

Sclavenoi = Slavs
Scordisci = Sordisci which has clear Sord/Sorb root...

in my opinion Scordisci were same origin as Serdi, Sardeates, Serretis, Serapilli... tribes... that explains influence of Scordisci extending through "parts of the present-day Austria, Croatia, Hungary, Serbia, Slovenia, Slovakia and Bosnia and Herzegovina."... I would say that these tribes were originally I2a2 dominant..... reason to conclude that is that we see same Sard/Sarb self-identification in Sardinia (dominant I2a1), in Pashtun Sarbans, and settlers of Sogdiana and Serrica (set apart from neighbours by branch of haplogroup I)
(see http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26076)

btw. Shar mountain is in south Kosovo..

Scordisci did in fact exist on wide area of historical influence of later Serbs...

we have tribe that doesnot exactly fit as either Celtic, Illyrian ...tribal name and position matching spread of later Serbs...

only historical evidence of settlements of Serbs from white Serbia to Balkan (proposed to have happened in 7th century), is 10th century text of Byzantine emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos or Porphyrogenitus... his work has other ilogical moments and its trustworthiness is often debated among historians... btw. note that in this document he calls Serbs by the name Sarbans

he describes that settlement of white Serbs was first in very small area of north Greece (Servia (Σέρβια, transliteration: Serbia) in the province of Thessalonica) that emperor gave them where they settled for a short while and than decided to move further north... if this settlement was very populous how could it fit in very small area of one town... so we have single town settlement wave that imediatelly afterwards spread to cover most of west Balkans... that makes no sense...

white is colour that in iranic/steppe nations had designation west...
e.g. Belorus is in fact WhiteRus ("belo" = white in Slavic, and white had meaning west) , white Croatia was west Croatia... white Serbia was west Serbia...

in my opinion Scordisci were same origin as Serdi, Sardeates, Serretis, Serapilli tribes and white Serbs were likely to have been not very populous west most branch of the same people (white Serbia or Boika being probably Bohemia named by Boii tribe), and when Rome empire was falling a part, a part of those people moved back to their homeland ...

Yorkie
14-11-10, 20:39
We do have an idea of where M26 I2a1 was founded. The researcher Ken Nordtvedt has argued for Iberia.

how yes no 2
20-11-10, 21:51
I see the absence of I2a2a-Dinaric in Britain as further evidence that the Slavic migrations carried the eastern form. However, there is a relatively rare form of I2a2a called I2a2a-Disles [halfway between Isles and Dinaric] which leans slightly towards I2a2a-Dinaric, and is found mainly in Scotland. This is a bit of an enigma. Jean Manco in 'The Peopling of Europe' suggested that I2a2a-Disles came to Britain via Yamnaya bands.

the name Scotland might be related to Scythians... not just linguistic similarity, but also mythology and genetics of R1a and I2a2 points out to it...


Some legends of the Picts; the Gaels; the Hungarians; Serbs and Croats (among others) also include mention of Scythian origins. In the second paragraph of the 1320 Declaration of Arbroath the élite of Scotland claim Scythia as a former homeland of the Scots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythians


The Declaration of Arbroath is a declaration of Scottish independence, made in 1320. It is in the form of a letter submitted to Pope John XXII, dated 6 April 1320, intended to confirm Scotland's status as an independent, sovereign state and defending Scotland's right to use military action when unjustly attacked.
http://www.geo.ed.ac.uk/home/scotland/arbroath_english.html

from the declaration:

Most Holy Father and Lord, we know and from the chronicles and books of the ancients we find that among other famous nations our own, the Scots, has been graced with widespread renown. They journeyed from Greater Scythia by way of the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Pillars of Hercules, and dwelt for a long course of time in Spain among the most savage tribes, but nowhere could they be subdued by any race, however barbarous. Thence they came, twelve hundred years after the people of Israel crossed the Red Sea, to their home in the west where they still live today. The Britons they first drove out, the Picts they utterly destroyed, and, even though very often assailed by the Norwegians, the Danes and the English, they took possession of that home with many victories and untold efforts; and, as the historians of old time bear witness, they have held it free of all bondage ever since. In their kingdom there have reigned one hundred and thirteen kings of their own royal stock, the line unbroken a single foreigner.
http://www.geo.ed.ac.uk/home/scotland/arbroath_english.html

We know that Scythians are R1a carriers...

unlike the rest of UK and Ireland there is R1a in Scotland and northeast Ireland...

I would say that those Scythians settled among Picts whom they claim to have destroyed, which is why I guess they were later referred to as Picts... initially, Picts were subdued and Scythians were ruling elite... later names Pict and Scotish mixed up as boundaries between two merged ethnic groups disappeared......


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a4/GlobalR1a1a.png/800px-GlobalR1a1a.png

look at the map representing 3 different ethnic groups in uk and ireland in the mid-5th century AD, between the Roman departure and the founding of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms.
green - Mainly Goidelic areas.
blue - Mainly Pictish areas.
red - Mainly Brythonic areas.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Map_Gaels_Brythons_Picts.png/465px-Map_Gaels_Brythons_Picts.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaels

R1a falls into Pictish part, and one of three UK DIsles samples from familytreedna
( http://www.familytreedna.com/public/I2aHapGroup/default.aspx?section=ymap ) project falls there as well (there is one in northeast Ireland as well)...

If you look at distribution of Gaelic languages in Scotland, you can see that Picts were not the carriers of that language, though some of them might have been assimilated into it...thus they were not celtic tribe originally but were partly celticized...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/ScotlandGaelicSpeakers2001.gif/395px-ScotlandGaelicSpeakers2001.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaels

Picts


The Picts were a confederation of Celtic tribes living in what was later to become eastern and northern Scotland from before the Roman conquest of Britain until the 10th century, when they merged with the Gaels. They lived to the north of the Forth and Clyde rivers, and spoke the extinct Pictish language, thought to have been related to the Brythonic languages spoken by the Britons to the south. They are assumed to have been the descendants of the Caledonii and other tribes named by Roman historians or found on the world map of Ptolemy.
....
In writings from Ireland, the name Cruthin, Cruthini, Cruthni, Cruithni or Cruithini (Modern Irish: Cruithne) was used to refer to the Picts and to a group of people who lived alongside the Ulaid in eastern Ulster.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picts

R1a in Ireland matches position of Cruithin and Darini

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Keltoi_Tribes.PNG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darini

later in those areas as tribal name appears Ulaids and even later area is named Ulster
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/IrelandUlster.png

and I2a2DIsles sample in Ireland from familytreedna is from same area...

Darini seems to have been very warlike people...

The cognate Dari(o) ("agitation, tumult, rage") is a form widely attested in the Gaulish language, especially in personal names.[4] An example from the Welsh language is cynddaredd ("rage"). Thus the Darini may have been considered a people "of great violence", or descendants of a "God of Tumult". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darini

Perhaps, Darini are counterpart of Greek Dorians who gave Spartans and Macedonians, and who, as it seems, have also had dominant R1a and some I2a2

in fact, Caledonii in Scotland, Macedoni in ancient Macedonia, and Lacedaemon as a name for area around Sparta all seems to have same origin, same as Ireland Darini and Greek Dorian tribal names are related...it is not just linguistic connection but also connection by common genetic origin - haplogroups R1a and I2a2....

note also that I2a2 in Greece is also strongest in Dorian settled areas of Peloponese and ancient Macedonia... I would expect some or dominant DIsles among the I2a2 found there... btw. look also again at R1a distribution... R1a in area of antic Macedonia is much stronger than among south Slavic nations north of it (FYRM, Bulgaria, Serbia...)

anyway, we can clearly see that mix of R1a and I2a2 is not recent... that it existed long time ago...before a tribe from Scythia departed to Spain and from there to Scotland...

from the Declaration of Arbroath

They journeyed from Greater Scythia by way of the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Pillars of Hercules, and dwelt for a long course of time in Spain among the most savage tribes, but nowhere could they be subdued by any race, however barbarous. Thence they came, twelve hundred years after the people of Israel crossed the Red Sea, to their home in the west where they still live today.
we can see that this is ancient old mix... perhaps from times before I2a2-Dinaric mutation appeared...

what I also find quite interesting is that as a reference point in time they take the time when people of Israel crossed the Red Sea

how yes no 2
20-11-10, 23:29
Caledonia is the Latin name given by the Romans to the land in today's Scotland north of their province of Britannia, beyond the frontier of their empire. Modern use is as a romantic or poetic name for Scotland as a whole.
Original usage
The original use of the name, by Tacitus, Ptolemy, Lucan and Pliny the Elder, referred to the area (or parts of the area) also known as Pictavia or Pictland north of the Antonine Wall in today's Scotland.[1] The name may be related to that of a Pictish tribe, the Caledonii, one amongst several in the area, though perhaps the dominant tribe which would explain the binomial Caledonia/Caledonii. Their name can be found in Dùn Chailleann, the Scottish Gaelic word for the town of Dunkeld meaning "fort of the Caledonii", and in that of the mountain Sìdh Chailleann or Schiehallion, the "fairy [hill] of the Caledonians". According to Historia Brittonum the site of the seventh battle of the mythical Arthur was a forest in what is now Scotland, called Coit Celidon in early Welsh. Traces of such mythology have endured until today in Midlothian: near the town centre of Edinburgh stands an old volcanic mountain called Arthur's Seat.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caledonia

They journeyed from Greater Scythia by way of the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Pillars of Hercules, and dwelt for a long course of time in Spain among the most savage tribes, but nowhere could they be subdued by any race, however barbarous.
http://www.geo.ed.ac.uk/home/scotland/arbroath_english.html
and if we look at tribes in Iberia...
at 300 BC there is still a tribe Caladuni there
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b5/Iberia_300BC.svg/727px-Iberia_300BC.svg.png
click on link bellow to zoom the map...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Iberia_300BC.svg
in fact, next to Caladuni is tribe Seurbi
the whole area is painted as partly Celtic, partly pre-Celtic proto-IndoEuropean

The Seurbi were an ancient Celtic tribe of Gallaecia, living in the north of modern Portugal, in the province of Minho, between the rivers Cávado and Lima (or even reaching the river Minho).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seurbi

btw. nearby is also a tribe named Helleni

bosna501
18-12-10, 22:20
Bosona is Illyrian

Garrick
19-12-10, 03:38
bosna501

It is difficult for one can assuredly claim that Bosnia is Illyrian, or to links haplogroup I2a2 that prevails in Serbia and Bosnia, as Illyrian, because there are contrary opinions.

With Illyrians one can connect one of haplogroup early farmers, i.e. E1b haplogroup (for example some Russian sources this haplogroup call Иллирийцы, хамитский род - Illyrian, Hamitic race), which is represented mainly by Albanians (peak in Kosovo), Greeks (peak in Peloponesse), Romanians and other Balkan people, and certainly it has a presence in Bosnia and Serbia.

how yes no 2
19-12-10, 04:48
bosna501
It is difficult for one can assuredly claim that Bosnia is Illyrian, or to links haplogroup I2a2 that prevails in Serbia and Bosnia, as Illyrian, because there are contrary opinions.
With Illyrians one can connect one of haplogroup early farmers, i.e. E1b haplogroup (for example some Russian sources this haplogroup call Иллирийцы, хамитский род - Illyrian, Hamitic race), which is represented mainly by Albanians (peak in Kosovo), Greeks (peak in Peloponesse), Romanians and other Balkan people, and certainly it has a presence in Bosnia and Serbia.

true, in fact E-V13 shows highest variance in areas of Dalmatia, which indicates it was very numerous there for very long time.... this increased variance area matches historical spread of Illyrians.. low frequency with no nearly matching variance in nearby settlements indicates mass genocide of Illyrian people in Croatia and Bosnia...

and this is in accordance with history data... according to Strabo ( 63/64 BC – ca. AD 24) Dacians did (at unrecorded time before his writing) depopulate most of Illyria (Bosnia and Croatia)... Illyrians survived in Montenegro and Albania (along coast from recesse of Adriatic till the bay of Kotor) ... Serbia was never part of Illyria, but it had related previous inhabitants, as Scordisci (who judging by their tribal name might have even been proto-Serbs or related to them) lived together/mixed with Illyrians and Thracians...
that is why E-V13 is high in Serbia, but larger in Montenegro...
besides south of Serbia (roughly Kosovo area) was inhabited with wild Dardanian tribe (if I recall well they were civilized nation before Troyan war, but after it they moved to Balkans and started living as savages without houses, civilized and savage classification done by Greek authors was likely mostly about living in houses or not)...


I shall first describe Illyria, which approaches close to the Danube, and to the Alps which lie between Italy and Germany, taking their commencement from the lake in the territory of the Vindelici, Rhæti, and Helvetii.7 [2]
The Daci depopulated a part of this country in their wars with the Boii and Taurisci, Keltic tribes whose chief was Critasirus. The Daci claimed the country, although it was separated from them by the river Parisus,8 which flows from the mountains to the Danube, near the Galatæ Scordisci, a people who lived intermixed with the Illyrian and the Thracian tribes. The Illyrians were destroyed by the Daci, while the Scordisci were frequently their allies.
The rest of the country as far as Segestica,9 and the Danube, towards the north and east, is occupied by Pannonii, but they extend farther in an opposite direction.
....
The Breuci, Andizetii, Ditiones, Peirustæ, Mazæi, Daisitiatæ, whose chief was Baton, and other small obscure communities, which extend to Dalmatia, and almost to the Ardiæi to the south, are Pannonians. The whole mountainous tract from the recess of the Adriatic bay to the Rhizonic gulf,17 and to the territory of the Ardiæi, intervening between the sea and Pannonia, forms the coast of Illyria.
...
The Dardanii are entirely a savage people, so much so that they dig caves beneath dungheaps, in which they dwell; yet they are fond of music, and are much occupied in playing upon pipes and on stringed instruments. They inhabit the inland parts of the country, and we shall mention them again in another place. [8]


http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0239:book=7:chapter= 5&highlight=

Strabo (63/64 BC – ca. AD 24), Geography


I do not claim that Albanians origin from Illyrians and Dardanians in cultural sense (as the current culture and language might have been imposed to them by any later settled tribe e.g. by Keramisians), but genetically I think this is likely to be the case...


Khan Kuber (or Kouver) was a Bulgar leader, brother of Khan Asparukh and member of the Dulo clan, who according to the Miracles of St Demetrius, in the 670s was the leader of a mixed Christian population of Bulgars, ‘Romans’, Slavs and Germanic people[1] that had been transferred to the Srem region in Pannonia by the Avars 60 years earlier[2][3]. The Miracles of St Demetrius states that, circa 680 AD, Kuber had a falling out with the Avar khagan, and after repelling an Avar attack, led his followers of around 70,000 people,[4] from Srem and to Macedonia (modern Republic of Macedonia). The Byzantines initially called his people Sermisianoi (after their former settlement - Sirmium), and later the Keramisians (after their new place: the Keramissian plain in Greater Macedonia).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuber

this settlement was large enough to influence culture and language of previous inhabitants... in fact, Albanian language is by many described as very mixed language with lot of loan words from different IE languages... it is satem while Illyrian is thought to have been centum... it has no own maritime vocabulary while Illyrians were sea related people... Albanian is completely alien (no match in both meaning and form) to few preserved illyrian words ....so, I think that most of the language spoken by modern Albanians is due to Keramisians... they were probably culturally dominant compared to Illyrians and especially to Dardanians and thus their language prevailed... still, there must be considerable amount of Illyrian words who are preserved in their vocabulary...

Yorkie
19-12-10, 14:57
the name Scotland might be related to Scythians... not just linguistic similarity, but also mythology and genetics of R1a and I2a2 points out to it...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythians


http://www.geo.ed.ac.uk/home/scotland/arbroath_english.html

from the declaration:

http://www.geo.ed.ac.uk/home/scotland/arbroath_english.html

We know that Scythians are R1a carriers...

unlike the rest of UK and Ireland there is R1a in Scotland and northeast Ireland...

I would say that those Scythians settled among Picts whom they claim to have destroyed, which is why I guess they were later referred to as Picts... initially, Picts were subdued and Scythians were ruling elite... later names Pict and Scotish mixed up as boundaries between two merged ethnic groups disappeared......


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a4/GlobalR1a1a.png/800px-GlobalR1a1a.png

look at the map representing 3 different ethnic groups in uk and ireland in the mid-5th century AD, between the Roman departure and the founding of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms.
green - Mainly Goidelic areas.
blue - Mainly Pictish areas.
red - Mainly Brythonic areas.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Map_Gaels_Brythons_Picts.png/465px-Map_Gaels_Brythons_Picts.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaels

R1a falls into Pictish part, and one of three UK DIsles samples from familytreedna
( http://www.familytreedna.com/public/I2aHapGroup/default.aspx?section=ymap ) project falls there as well (there is one in northeast Ireland as well)...

If you look at distribution of Gaelic languages in Scotland, you can see that Picts were not the carriers of that language, though some of them might have been assimilated into it...thus they were not celtic tribe originally but were partly celticized...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/ScotlandGaelicSpeakers2001.gif/395px-ScotlandGaelicSpeakers2001.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaels

Picts



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picts

R1a in Ireland matches position of Cruithin and Darini

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Keltoi_Tribes.PNG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darini

later in those areas as tribal name appears Ulaids and even later area is named Ulster
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/IrelandUlster.png

and I2a2DIsles sample in Ireland from familytreedna is from same area...

Darini seems to have been very warlike people...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darini

Perhaps, Darini are counterpart of Greek Dorians who gave Spartans and Macedonians, and who, as it seems, have also had dominant R1a and some I2a2

in fact, Caledonii in Scotland, Macedoni in ancient Macedonia, and Lacedaemon as a name for area around Sparta all seems to have same origin, same as Ireland Darini and Greek Dorian tribal names are related...it is not just linguistic connection but also connection by common genetic origin - haplogroups R1a and I2a2....

note also that I2a2 in Greece is also strongest in Dorian settled areas of Peloponese and ancient Macedonia... I would expect some or dominant DIsles among the I2a2 found there... btw. look also again at R1a distribution... R1a in area of antic Macedonia is much stronger than among south Slavic nations north of it (FYRM, Bulgaria, Serbia...)

anyway, we can clearly see that mix of R1a and I2a2 is not recent... that it existed long time ago...before a tribe from Scythia departed to Spain and from there to Scotland...

from the Declaration of Arbroath

we can see that this is ancient old mix... perhaps from times before I2a2-Dinaric mutation appeared...

what I also find quite interesting is that as a reference point in time they take the time when people of Israel crossed the Red Sea

The minute levels of R1a1 in Scotland come from Norse Vikings in the north, and Angles in the south. R1a1 is effectively absent from Ulster. When it is found there, the most likely sources are either Danish/Norwegian Viking or from English and Lowland Scots Williamite Planters rather than Cruthin.

how yes no 2
19-12-10, 16:04
The minute levels of R1a1 in Scotland come from Norse Vikings in the north, and Angles in the south. R1a1 is effectively absent from Ulster. When it is found there, the most likely sources are either Danish/Norwegian Viking or from English and Lowland Scots Williamite Planters rather than Cruthin.

yes, we have more or less agreed about that few weeks ago
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26103

Garrick
23-12-10, 02:41
how yes no
Illyrian and many old Greek tribes were originally E1b1b.

How about Dacians?

I think, Dacians were originally E1b1b also.

how yes no 2
23-12-10, 11:47
how yes no
Illyrian and many old Greek tribes were originally E1b1b.

How about Dacians?

I think, Dacians were originally E1b1b also.
I am not sure about that...
Romania has less E-V13

it may be truth as genetic relief of Romania was probably heavily changed during Roman conquests and movements of people

Garrick
23-12-10, 23:10
I am not sure about that...
Romania has less E-V13

it may be truth as genetic relief of Romania was probably heavily changed during Roman conquests and movements of people

It is fundamentally important question if it may be truth.

There are opinions that the Dacians (and Thracians also) are originally E1b1b.

If it is true: Illyrians, Greek tribes, Thracians and Dacians are probably the same root, early (Neolithic) farmers.

Kalevy Week (2008) about Balkan:

"Clans E3b, J and G and represent the Early Farmers."

how yes no 2
23-12-10, 23:36
it is hard to say anything about it as many tribes passed through Romania and settled there... however all these tribes were moving in from E-V13 poor areas... so in past E-V13 must have been stronger, but it does not necessarily mean it was dominant...

how yes no 2
24-12-10, 14:09
The whole mountainous tract from the recess of the Adriatic bay to the Rhizonic gulf,17 and to the territory of the Ardiæi, intervening between the sea and Pannonia, forms the coast of Illyria.
... Strabo
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0239:book=7:chapter= 5&highlight=#note5

I did previously misinterpret this....
Even though he states that Illyria was depopulated by Dacians, Illyrian coast in time of Strabo writing was not in Albania and Montenegro, but only from Kotor bay in west Montenegro to Istra in Croatia...

he used phrase "recess of Adriatic bay" also to explain position of Veneti...

and in fact, Adriatic coast north of Kotor bay is very weak in E, even on islands... so, while we can relate Dardanians wirh haplogroup E, it is very questionable whether that can be done with Illyrians... I think not...

Garrick
25-12-10, 21:40
it is hard to say anything about it as many tribes passed through Romania and settled there... however all these tribes were moving in from E-V13 poor areas... so in past E-V13 must have been stronger, but it does not necessarily mean it was dominant...

how yes no
It is better to shift this discussion to the topic about E1b1b, and I answered to this your post on the topic:

"New map of E1b1b in Europe and the Middle East".

Browns44
01-03-11, 03:02
Recently I sent in a sample of my DNA so I could get a better understanding of my paternal history. While I knew 12 generations of my fathers family back to Lincolnshire, England or around 400 years I wanted to find out more.
Long story short, turns out I belong to Subclade I2a2. Which is interesting as my report said the largest group sharing this Subclade are not in England but Sardinia. So here is my question, anyone got any ideas how this minority Subclade in England got there from it's majority standing in Sardinia?

Here I was thinking due to my last name that I was from a long line of Vikings out of norther Europe, but now find out about 14000 years ago it started for me in the Mediterranean growing olives. Not a bad thing, but a mystery to me. So humor me as I am new to this so please share with me clues, ideas or places to search.

Sprinkles
01-03-11, 07:47
Recently I sent in a sample of my DNA so I could get a better understanding of my paternal history. While I knew 12 generations of my fathers family back to Lincolnshire, England or around 400 years I wanted to find out more.
Long story short, turns out I belong to Subclade I2a2. Which is interesting as my report said the largest group sharing this Subclade are not in England but Sardinia. So here is my question, anyone got any ideas how this minority Subclade in England got there from it's majority standing in Sardinia?

Here I was thinking due to my last name that I was from a long line of Vikings out of norther Europe, but now find out about 14000 years ago it started for me in the Mediterranean growing olives. Not a bad thing, but a mystery to me. So humor me as I am new to this so please share with me clues, ideas or places to search.

Thanks,
Tim
Trueblood
100,000 years ago you were still an ape. Growing olives? Grow a brain, moron.

You're still an ape, apparently.

Antigone
01-03-11, 08:10
Is there any reason to be so incredibly rude?

Regulus
01-03-11, 15:18
100,000 years ago you were still an ape. Growing olives? Grow a brain, moron.

You're still an ape, apparently.


What is wrong with you? That was horribly rude.

iapodos
01-03-11, 15:42
This words of Sprinkles asks for reaction of Administrator.

Yorkie
05-03-11, 11:37
Recently I sent in a sample of my DNA so I could get a better understanding of my paternal history. While I knew 12 generations of my fathers family back to Lincolnshire, England or around 400 years I wanted to find out more.
Long story short, turns out I belong to Subclade I2a2. Which is interesting as my report said the largest group sharing this Subclade are not in England but Sardinia. So here is my question, anyone got any ideas how this minority Subclade in England got there from it's majority standing in Sardinia?

Here I was thinking due to my last name that I was from a long line of Vikings out of norther Europe, but now find out about 14000 years ago it started for me in the Mediterranean growing olives. Not a bad thing, but a mystery to me. So humor me as I am new to this so please share with me clues, ideas or places to search.

I think your testing company is probably useing out of date nomenclature. If they mention a Sardinian origin they most likely mean that you are M26 I2a1. If so, yours is a good candidate for the very earliest clade to hit the British shores from its Iberian foundation place.

On the other hand, if you are L161 I2a2b, your ancestors might have been pre-Celts, Celts or even Anglo-Saxons. This is a clade nearly as old as M26 I2a1, but with a northern German founder. It is split into 8 subclades and sometimes called 'I2a2b-Isles'.

From the Sardinia reference it sounds very much as if you belong in M26 I2a1.

Oh, by the way, please ignore Sprinkles' paralytically stupid and callow comments. He is quite obviously a social inadequate with a chip on both shoulders. Most of us on here are mature adults, not silly little boys. :good_job:

Browns44
05-03-11, 21:19
Baron,

Thanks for your insight and your thoughtful response!

Yorkie
06-03-11, 16:49
Baron,

Thanks for your insight and your thoughtful response!

Anytime, bud. We are all on a learning curve, just at different stages, and we should all try to help each other rather than score points like the jack-ass previously. :smile:

Actually, I've just read your private message to me and it seems that you are actually not in M26 I2a1 but rather in I2a2. You mentioned Sardinia before which led me to think that you were in I2a1. However, you supply details that show you are positive for both P37.2 and M423 SNPs, which put you squarely in I2a2 [old I1b1].

Because you are of English stock, I assume that you will be also positive for SNP L161, which would put you in the north-west European L161 I2a2b clade [or I2a2b-Isles, as Ken Nordtvedt calls it], rather than the east European I2a2a-Dinaric. Please can you send me your STR markers by private email and I'll be able to tell you which of the 8 subclades of I2a2b-Isles that you belong in.

If you are in L161 I2a2b-Isles, this means that you belong to a very ancient clade, and a very small one. Nordtvedt has suggested that the earliest clade of I2a2b was founded in northern Germany in the Neolithic, and hit the British shores some 6,000 years ago. There is some English, Scots and Irish [the bulk is in Ireland] distribution of I2a2b, with a small presence across the north European plain, with Germany predominating. Arguably, a range of peoples brought this small clade to Britain from northern Germany- pre-Celts, Celts and later Anglo-Saxons.

What I think has happened in your case is that Genebase have tested you correctly, i.e, you are positive for P.37.2 and M423 which put you in I2a2, but they might have used old, out of date descriptions of haplogroup distribution. M26 I2a1 is found in Sardinia, but certainly not your I2a2 clade.

Send me your STR markers, and I'll assign you to a subclade of probably L161 I2a2b-Isles...

Sprinkles
06-03-11, 18:15
Wrong post, wrong thread.

Regulus
06-03-11, 23:57
Wrong post, wrong thread.


Why are you stalking the new guy?

Browns44
09-03-11, 04:11
Did you get my last email with the info you requested?

Gungnir
09-03-11, 08:34
I recently tested I2a2b with 23andMe which also gave me the Sardinia information. I have been told though that apparently I am 12a2a Disles. Can anyone help me understand what this means please?

As far as I know my paternal line comes from the British Isles. My surname is Dowell which comes from the Gaelic DubhGhaill which was the name the locals gave to the Danish vikings. I could be wrong on that matter though. Just what I read on the internet. Any help is greatly appreciated.

how yes no 2
09-03-11, 22:14
I recently tested I2a2b with 23andMe which also gave me the Sardinia information. I have been told though that apparently I am 12a2b Disles. Can anyone help me understand what this means please?

As far as I know my paternal line comes from the British Isles. My surname is Dowell which comes from the Gaelic DubhGhaill which was the name the locals gave to the Danish vikings. I could be wrong on that matter though. Just what I read on the internet. Any help is greatly appreciated.

Denmark Viking origin for some of I2a2-DIsles and I2a2-Isles makes sense to me.

If we look at spread of I2* which is most widespread ancestor branch of I2a2-DIsles and I2a2-Isles
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/I2nosubcladeM170P215/default.aspx?section=ymap

one of 3 lines of its spread was from Italy to Denmark...(others are line from around Black sea to Baltic, and UK line....)

btw. locations of I2a people you can find in this project:
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/I2aHapGroup/default.aspx?section=ymap

Yorkie
11-03-11, 20:57
Did you get my last email with the info you requested?
Sincerely sorry to take so long to reply- academic work got in the way. I did indeed receive the info you sent me. I can easily assign you now to the following clade:

L161 I2a2b-Isles 'B1'. Your STR markers fit neatly into Ken Nordtvedt's 'Isles B1'. This is the oldest subclade of I2a2b-Isles [there are 8] and it was probably founded in north Germany in the Neolithic. The clade first hit Britain around 6,000 years ago, but may have been carried by different 'waves' of peoples- pre-Celtic farmers, Celts and later Anglo-Saxons. There is some 'B1' in England, Scotland, Ireland and across the north European plain with Germany predominating.

L161 I2a2b-Isles is also positive for P37.2 and M423 SNPs. The branch-lines between 'Isles' and the east-European form- I2a2a-Dinaric- separated ways some 7,000 years ago.

If you need any more help, just ask. :good_job:

jdanel
16-03-11, 01:45
Hello Y_____, I see you are still pushing that "wave theory" despite the complete absence of a source population.

For the rest of you, here is the story of I2a2b:

Our Pre-Isles people were living in Doggerland until the tsunamis and sea level rise submerged the land at 6,200 BC. They migrated toward an area now underwater off East Anglia. There our Isles B founder was born about 6,000 BC. These were a mesolithic hunter/gatherer people living a precarious existence. But they did survive and the sea level did continue to rise driving them to the west. The Pre-Isles group may not have been so lucky, as the number of their descendants seems very small. More about that presently.

About 4,000 BC the founder of C1 was born, whether to a B1 parent or to a Pre-Isles parent is not clear. The C1 became a relatively prolific branch. This was about the time that neolithic practices took hold, so that may account for their success. It may also be because they had slightly different circumstances.

The first neolithic farmers to arrive in southern Ireland seem to have been using seeds adapted to the climate of Spain. These did not do well in Ireland and the resulting crop failures may have caused a regression to mesolithic status for those folks. When the crop fails, you eat the cow, and you are back to hunter/gatherer. The archaeological facts correspond astonishingly well to the legend of Parthelon who arrived in boats from the south bringing oxen and plough, but whose efforts failed in a fairly short time.

The farmers of northern Europe were using crops that were much more hardy in colder climates. When these seeds reached northern Ireland, perhaps carried by the hands of the C1, the neolithic revolution really took off. The map in the link below shows the success of the neolithic people mostly in the north.

Perhaps 3,500 BC, some C1 arrived in the north of Ireland where their successful ways continued, based perhaps on having the right seed stock. They were a minority population but they may have built up locally strong tribal groups and positions - like Rathcroghan. As time went on, their culture may have evolved and merged into the Cruthin. [The legend of Nemed does not seem to fit with what we hypothesize about the C1 and the Fir Bolg were very much too recent to fit either, so the legends seem to have skipped the Isles-C.]

In Ireland, C2, D1, and D2 were founded and spread.

Back over in southeast England, about 2,800 BC the founder of A1 was born (again whether to a B1 parent or to a Pre-Isles parent is not clear, but I would bet on Pre-Isles.) followed shortly by A2. The A1 seem to have moved west across southern England and on to Cork, where their main population seems to remain. The time and location correspond very well with the production of copper in Cork and trading in copper across England to the continent.

The A2 spread northwards and are found in England and across into northern Ireland.

All of these were in Ireland and Britain a very long time, thousands of years, before any of the more famous invaders - Celtic, Iberian, AngloSaxon, Fir Bolg, Milesian, etc, etc.. - arrived.

But they were not the first.

The modern population of Isles-B seems to be disproportionately small and Pre-Isles is nearly extinct.

There is a speculation that would account for that: we must remember that they were living in East Anglia. When the famous invaders - the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, etc, etc. - began arriving, East Anglia is where the invasions began and the invaders just kept coming. The locals were subjected to centuries of continuous warfare that resulted in a massive ethnic cleansing called the "Dark Horror". As much as 85% of the male population were killed and the women taken as wives for the invaders. A few surviving male children were shipped or traded back to the continent as captives where their descendants are still found in very small numbers as erratic occurrences of Isles B1.

(Cheerful corrections cheerfully welcomed)


Here is a nice summary of the history:

http://www.doveslightcoven.0catch.com/March/mesoneolithic.htm


Here is a map that shows the whole journey:

http://danel.us/resources/Grandfathers+Path9.pdf


And another that shows the events since Doggerland:

http://danel.us/resources/Doggerland+Isles+B.gif


And if you want to do your own subclade work:

http://danel.us/resources/Subclade+Predictor+TMRCA+ancestry+format+v5.xls

I would ask all of you I2a+ folks to do two things:

1) post your results on ysearch.org and
2) join ancestry.com i2a2b group (it's free) and also post your results there.

jdanel
16-03-11, 01:55
xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Yorkie
16-03-11, 21:38
Hello Y_____, I see you are still pushing that "wave theory" despite the complete absence of a source population.

For the rest of you, here is the story of I2a2b:

Our Pre-Isles people were living in Doggerland until the tsunamis and sea level rise submerged the land at 6,200 BC. They migrated toward an area now underwater off East Anglia. There our Isles B founder was born about 6,000 BC. These were a mesolithic hunter/gatherer people living a precarious existence. But they did survive and the sea level did continue to rise driving them to the west. The Pre-Isles group may not have been so lucky, as the number of their descendants seems very small. More about that presently.

About 4,000 BC the founder of C1 was born, whether to a B1 parent or to a Pre-Isles parent is not clear. The C1 became a relatively prolific branch. This was about the time that neolithic practices took hold, so that may account for their success. It may also be because they had slightly different circumstances.

The first neolithic farmers to arrive in southern Ireland seem to have been using seeds adapted to the climate of Spain. These did not do well in Ireland and the resulting crop failures may have caused a regression to mesolithic status for those folks. When the crop fails, you eat the cow, and you are back to hunter/gatherer. The archaeological facts correspond astonishingly well to the legend of Parthelon who arrived in boats from the south bringing oxen and plough, but whose efforts failed in a fairly short time.

The farmers of northern Europe were using crops that were much more hardy in colder climates. When these seeds reached northern Ireland, perhaps carried by the hands of the C1, the neolithic revolution really took off. The map in the link below shows the success of the neolithic people mostly in the north.

Perhaps 3,500 BC, some C1 arrived in the north of Ireland where their successful ways continued, based perhaps on having the right seed stock. They were a minority population but they may have built up locally strong tribal groups and positions - like Rathcroghan. As time went on, their culture may have evolved and merged into the Cruthin. [The legend of Nemed does not seem to fit with what we hypothesize about the C1 and the Fir Bolg were very much too recent to fit either, so the legends seem to have skipped the Isles-C.]

In Ireland, C2, D1, and D2 were founded and spread.

Back over in southeast England, about 2,800 BC the founder of A1 was born (again whether to a B1 parent or to a Pre-Isles parent is not clear, but I would bet on Pre-Isles.) followed shortly by A2. The A1 seem to have moved west across southern England and on to Cork, where their main population seems to remain. The time and location correspond very well with the production of copper in Cork and trading in copper across England to the continent.

The A2 spread northwards and are found in England and across into northern Ireland.

All of these were in Ireland and Britain a very long time, thousands of years, before any of the more famous invaders - Celtic, Iberian, AngloSaxon, Fir Bolg, Milesian, etc, etc.. - arrived.

But they were not the first.

The modern population of Isles-B seems to be disproportionately small and Pre-Isles is nearly extinct.

There is a speculation that would account for that: we must remember that they were living in East Anglia. When the famous invaders - the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, etc, etc. - began arriving, East Anglia is where the invasions began and the invaders just kept coming. The locals were subjected to centuries of continuous warfare that resulted in a massive ethnic cleansing called the "Dark Horror". As much as 85% of the male population were killed and the women taken as wives for the invaders. A few surviving male children were shipped or traded back to the continent as captives where their descendants are still found in very small numbers as erratic occurrences of Isles B1.

(Cheerful corrections cheerfully welcomed)


Here is a nice summary of the history:

http://www.doveslightcoven.0catch.com/March/mesoneolithic.htm


Here is a map that shows the whole journey:

http://danel.us/resources/Grandfathers+Path9.pdf


And another that shows the events since Doggerland:

http://danel.us/resources/Doggerland+Isles+B.gif


And if you want to do your own subclade work:

http://danel.us/resources/Subclade+Predictor+TMRCA+ancestry+format+v5.xls

I would ask all of you I2a+ folks to do two things:

1) post your results on ysearch.org and
2) join ancestry.com i2a2b group (it's free) and also post your results there.


Well, JD, this is all fine and dandy but it is conjecture all the same. You say that there is no 'source population'? What do you mean? I know from email correspondence that Bryan Sykes and Peter Forster certainly believe some I2a2 was carried by Anglo-Saxons. So does Anatole Klyosov, and also Jean Manco in 'The Peopling of Europe'. Certainly, the bulk of I2a2b-Isles is far, far older but where on earth do you get the evidence to be so specific about the 'journey' of I2a2b and the individual pathways of the subclades? Even Ken Nordtvedt doesn't know this much. Aside from the hotspot of C and D around Rathcroghan, I see no pattern other than a tendency for the Irish distribution to be towards the west in refuge areas. I2a2b-Isles is spread thinly across the Irish population.

The bulk of I2a2b-Isles is in Ireland, but there is sufficient in England, lowland Scotland and across the north European plain [for a small clade] to say that the Irish do not have a monopoly on I2a2b. Why are Sykes, Forster etc so wrong about some of the English and lowland Scots I2a2 coming from later Anglo-Saxon invasions?

By the way, your reference to 'the Dark Horror' eludes me. I have heard of the 'Dark Ages' but where do you get your evidence from to suggest that this was a common name for the Anglo-Saxon invasions? You are wrong for a start about the invasions beginning in East Anglia. All credible accounts state that the Anglo-Saxon invasions began in KENT. Your theory that Isles B people on the continent descend from natives taken there by Anglo-Saxon invaders is blown apart by the plain facts that A] Isles B would have formed part of the Anglo-Saxon make-up, being founded and having a presence on the north European plain- it would have been carried to Britain by Anglo-Saxons in some cases, and B] There are examples of ALL the subclades of I2a2b-Isles on the north European plain including C2 and D1, D2 which you associate with Ireland [I checked with Ken Nordtvedt].

Incidentally, just to remind you, when Forster ran my I2a2b-Isles D2 signature [43 markers] through his huge, Cambridge database, many times the size of Ysearch, the hotspot came back as northern Germany. This does not suggest back-migration but that there is more I2a2b 'out there' on the continent than is recorded in the limited, biased public databases. After all, according to Nordtvedt, L161 I2a2b-Isles was founded in northern Germany.

Your advice to fellow 'Islesmen' to join the Ancestry.com group is fair enough, but membership is not 'free' for good. I contributed a great deal to the group, but in January was informed that membership had 'expired'. It seems I have to pay money to 'upgrade' to continue. Or is that just in my case for daring to challenge a few orthodoxies? :wary2:

The 'waves' theory is supported by Jean Manco in 'Peopling of Europe, by the way. You re not suggesting that I2a2b-Isles all came at once are you?

Gungnir
16-03-11, 22:58
What role does Disles play in any of this?

jdanel
16-03-11, 23:14
Well, JD, this is all fine and dandy but it is conjecture all the same. You say that there is no 'source population'? What do you mean? I know from email correspondence that Bryan Sykes and Peter Forster certainly believe some I2a2 was carried by Anglo-Saxons. So does Anatole Klyosov, and also Jean Manco in 'The Peopling of Europe'. Certainly, the bulk of I2a2b-Isles is far, far older but where on earth do you get the evidence to be so specific about the 'journey' of I2a2b and the individual pathways of the subclades? Even Ken Nordtvedt doesn't know this much. Aside from the hotspot of C and D around Rathcroghan, I see no pattern other than a tendency for the Irish distribution to be towards the west in refuge areas. I2a2b-Isles is spread thinly across the Irish population.

The bulk of I2a2b-Isles is in Ireland, but there is sufficient in England, lowland Scotland and across the north European plain [for a small clade] to say that the Irish do not have a monopoly on I2a2b. Why are Sykes, Forster etc so wrong about some of the English and lowland Scots I2a2 coming from later Anglo-Saxon invasions?

By the way, your reference to 'the Dark Horror' eludes me. I have heard of the 'Dark Ages' but where do you get your evidence from to suggest that this was a Common name for the Anglo-Saxon invasions. You are wrong for a start about the invasions beginning in East Anglia. All credible accounts state that the Anglo-Saxon invasions began in KENT. Your theory that Isles B people on the continent descend from natives taken there by Anglo-Saxon invaders is blown apart by the plain facts that A] Isles B would have formed part of the Anglo-Saxon make-up, being founded and having a presence on the north European plain- it would have been carried to Britain by Anglo-Saxons in some cases, and B] There are examples of ALL the subclades of I2a2b-Isles on the north European plain including C2 and D1, D2 which you associate with Ireland [I checked with Ken Nordtvedt].

Incidentally, just to remind you, when Forster ran my I2a2b-Isles D2 signature [43 markers] through his huge, Cambridge database, many times the size of Ysearch, the hotspot came back as northern Germany. This does not suggest back-migration but that there is more I2a2b 'out there' on the continent than is recorded in the limited, biased public databases. After all, according to Nordtvedt, L161 I2a2b-Isles was founded in northern Germany.

Your advice to fellow 'Islesmen' to join the Ancestry.com group is fair enough, but membership is not 'free' for good. I contributed a great deal to the group, but in January was informed that membership had 'expired'. It seems I have to pay money to 'upgrade' to continue. Or is that just in my case for daring to challenge a few orthodoxies? :wary2:

The 'waves' theory is supported by Jean Manco in 'Peopling of Europe, by the way. You re not suggesting that I2a2b-Isles all came at once are you?


Conjecture it certainly is, but so are all of the ideas you reference. Furthermore, many of your references apply to I2a and NOT AT ALL to I2a2b.

You continue to comment on I2a2, but this group does not exist. According to ISOGG, I2a2* has never been observed. NEVER. There are NO I2a2* anywhere. They have been extinct probably for many thousands of years.

Sykes and Forster "Believe"..., but where is the supporting data? There is NONE. Are they not using the 10 marker definitions that can barely classify down to I2, and are essentially useless at getting to I2a2b and Isles subclades? They may be right if you are talking about I2a, but that is NOT the subject of this discussion. And the same for Klyosov and Manco. Is it not Sykes who denies the existence of I2a2b? That being the case, anything he says can not be presumed to apply to I2a2b. Therefore his ideas are irrelevant to this discussion.

Evidence about the specifics of the journey? It is conjecture, in the strict technical meaning of that term. Where is the evidence that it is wrong? Again, none.

Nordtvedt has chosen, as a scientist properly should, to not participate in this level of conjecture, but he has not said it is wrong. The only comments he has made are that he differs in the details and that he is not going to go too far into this.

In addition to Rathcroghan, the Driscolls of Cork would certainly seem to qualify as a hotspot for A1. All of Ireland would seem to be a cool spot for B, as they are underrepresented there.

"Why are Sykes, Forster etc so wrong about some of the English and lowland Scots I2a2 coming from later Anglo-Saxon invasions? " Because they have zero, ZERO, data to support that for I2a2b. Show me the data. You are severely over-reading their info.

Do they actually put that final 2 on I2a2, or is that you doing that? The difference between I2a and I2a2b is like the difference between H and Hg in chemistry. You simply can not use them interchangeably, but that is what your comments seem to do.

"plain facts that A] Isles B would have formed part of the Anglo-Saxon make-up" I think that is pure baloney. Lets see the data that gets you past I2a.

"There are examples of ALL the subclades of I2a2b-Isles on the north European plain including C2 and D1, D2 which you associate with Ireland [I checked with Ken Nordtvedt]." I think KN has ONE Isles A on the continent, about 42 B, and a small handfull of C and D. These TRIVIAL numbers prove nothing. I can provide a hotspot of Isles A3 (that is not a typo and you saw it here first!) originating in Jamestown Virginia. I can go shake hands with over 50 of them. That is more than the total of continental Isles. That certainly doesn't prove A3 originated in Virginia.

"Your theory that Isles B people on the continent..." Not correct. My position is that SOME of the VERY FEW Isles B on the continent....

"All credible accounts state that the Anglo-Saxon invasions began in KENT." Why are you trying to restrict my comment to the Anglo-Saxons? There were several groups of invaders who all began at different points. Are you denying that the Anglo-Saxons went to East Anglia? Anglia, named after the Angles!!

A D2 hotspot in northern Germany? Show me some data to support that outlandish idea. And reread my comment on the A3 hotspot in Virginia.

"The 'waves' theory is supported by Jean Manco " Again, isn't she talking I2a and not I2a2b? Therefore irrelevant to this discussion..

"according to Nordtvedt, L161 I2a2b-Isles was founded..." That seriously overstates his position. "likely founded" would, I think, be more correct. He had been very careful to state that SNP can never be dated directly. And he has noted the similarity to I2a2a, which is located mainly in the Balkans and Black Sea area. And he notes the very great age of the line which essentially mandates that it was founded in one of the refugia because most of Europe was under ice at the time. Of the refugia, only the Eukraine makes any sense as a candidate location. Where and when on this line L161 was founded is unknowable. Likely founded on the North German plain is about the most that can be said, and even that is speculative.

"You re not suggesting that I2a2b-Isles all came at once are you?" Well, sort of, if you call a few thousand years from 7,000 to 3,000 BC "all at once".

jdanel
17-03-11, 04:28
What role does Disles play in any of this?
G_________, you raise a real mystery. There are two mysteries. One is where did Disles come from. The other is why is Wales devoid - or nearly so - of Isles groups. There are several speculations, but nobody has a good idea.

Yorkie
17-03-11, 09:18
Conjecture it certainly is, but so are all of the ideas you reference. Furthermore, many of your references apply to I2a and NOT AT ALL to I2a2b.

You continue to comment on I2a2, but this group does not exist. According to ISOGG, I2a2* has never been observed. NEVER. There are NO I2a2* anywhere. They have been extinct probably for many thousands of years.

Sykes and Forster "Believe"..., but where is the supporting data? There is NONE. Are they not using the 10 marker definitions that can barely classify down to I2, and are essentially useless at getting to I2a2b and Isles subclades? They may be right if you are talking about I2a, but that is NOT the subject of this discussion. And the same for Klyosov and Manco. Is it not Sykes who denies the existence of I2a2b? That being the case, anything he says can not be presumed to apply to I2a2b. Therefore his ideas are irrelevant to this discussion.

Evidence about the specifics of the journey? It is conjecture, in the strict technical meaning of that term. Where is the evidence that it is wrong? Again, none.

Nordtvedt has chosen, as a scientist properly should, to not participate in this level of conjecture, but he has not said it is wrong. The only comments he has made are that he differs in the details and that he is not going to go too far into this.

In addition to Rathcroghan, the Driscolls of Cork would certainly seem to qualify as a hotspot for A1. All of Ireland would seem to be a cool spot for B, as they are underrepresented there.

"Why are Sykes, Forster etc so wrong about some of the English and lowland Scots I2a2 coming from later Anglo-Saxon invasions? " Because they have zero, ZERO, data to support that for I2a2b. Show me the data. You are severely over-reading their info.

Do they actually put that final 2 on I2a2, or is that you doing that? The difference between I2a and I2a2b is like the difference between H and Hg in chemistry. You simply can not use them interchangeably, but that is what your comments seem to do.

"plain facts that A] Isles B would have formed part of the Anglo-Saxon make-up" I think that is pure baloney. Lets see the data that gets you past I2a.

"There are examples of ALL the subclades of I2a2b-Isles on the north European plain including C2 and D1, D2 which you associate with Ireland [I checked with Ken Nordtvedt]." I think KN has ONE Isles A on the continent, about 42 B, and a small handfull of C and D. These TRIVIAL numbers prove nothing. I can provide a hotspot of Isles A3 (that is not a typo and you saw it here first!) originating in Jamestown Virginia. I can go shake hands with over 50 of them. That is more than the total of continental Isles. That certainly doesn't prove A3 originated in Virginia.

"Your theory that Isles B people on the continent..." Not correct. My position is that SOME of the VERY FEW Isles B on the continent....

"All credible accounts state that the Anglo-Saxon invasions began in KENT." Why are you trying to restrict my comment to the Anglo-Saxons? There were several groups of invaders who all began at different points. Are you denying that the Anglo-Saxons went to East Anglia? Anglia, named after the Angles!!

A D2 hotspot in northern Germany? Show me some data to support that outlandish idea. And reread my comment on the A3 hotspot in Virginia.

"The 'waves' theory is supported by Jean Manco " Again, isn't she talking I2a and not I2a2b? Therefore irrelevant to this discussion..

"according to Nordtvedt, L161 I2a2b-Isles was founded..." That seriously overstates his position. "likely founded" would, I think, be more correct. He had been very careful to state that SNP can never be dated directly. And he has noted the similarity to I2a2a, which is located mainly in the Balkans and Black Sea area. And he notes the very great age of the line which essentially mandates that it was founded in one of the refugia because most of Europe was under ice at the time. Of the refugia, only the Eukraine makes any sense as a candidate location. Where and when on this line L161 was founded is unknowable. Likely founded on the North German plain is about the most that can be said, and even that is speculative.

"You re not suggesting that I2a2b-Isles all came at once are you?" Well, sort of, if you call a few thousand years from 7,000 to 3,000 BC "all at once".

The 'British' I2a2 I refer to [and you are just splitting hairs in your usual way- veiled hostility rather than pleasant communication between fellow researchers] is the same type referred to as I2a2b. You know perfectly well that I mean I2a2b-Isles. Forster tested my Isles D2 on his Cambridge database at 43 markers, not 12 and my 'hotspot' was northern Germany. Period, as you Americans are wont of saying. The comments made by Sykes, Manco and Klyosov refer to I2a2b-Isles. The testing, again, re Sykes and Forster was on 43 markers...

You know perfectly well that I am NOT suggesting that the Anglo-Saxons did not colonise East Anglia. The 32% levels of I1 there are due to Anglian colonisation. The invasions did NOT start there as you suggest though- they began in Kent. I find your comments here [as if I would not know that East Anglia was named after the Angles] as frankly insulting. The 'Dark Horror'...you have been reading too much Stephen King. It is amusing how Americans come up with these terms that no British person has ever heard of in connection with historical events. :laughing:

I know Ken Nordtvedt DOES say with confidence that L161 I2a2b-Isles was founded in northern Germany. Ask him, if you don't believe me.

Jean Manco is talking about I2a2b-Isles NOT I2a.

Your real agenda, 'buddy', is to try to claim I2a2b-Isles as wholly ancient and Irish. The bulk is, but some of it, to coin an Americanism, ain't...:wary2:

jdanel
17-03-11, 10:31
The 'British' I2a2 I refer to [and you are just splitting hairs in your usual way- veiled hostility rather than pleasant communication between fellow researchers] is the same type referred to as I2a2b. You know perfectly well that I mean I2a2b-Isles. Forster tested my Isles D2 on his Cambridge database at 43 markers, not 12 and my 'hotspot' was northern Germany. Period, as you Americans are wont of saying. The comments made by Sykes, Manco and Klyosov refer to I2a2b-Isles. The testing, again, re Sykes and Forster was on 43 markers...

You know perfectly well that I am NOT suggesting that the Anglo-Saxons did not colonise East Anglia. The 32% levels of I1 there are due to Anglian colonisation. The invasions did NOT start there as you suggest though- they began in Kent. I find your comments here [as if I would not know that East Anglia was named after the Angles] as frankly insulting. The 'Dark Horror'...you have been reading too much Stephen King. It is amusing how Americans come up with these terms that no British person has ever heard of in connection with historical events. :laughing:

I know Ken Nordtvedt DOES say with confidence that L161 I2a2b-Isles was founded in northern Germany. Ask him, if you don't believe me.

Jean Manco is talking about I2a2b-Isles NOT I2a.

Your real agenda, 'buddy', is to try to claim I2a2b-Isles as wholly ancient and Irish. The bulk is, but some of it, to coin an Americanism, ain't...:wary2:
Come on Y________, there is no veiled hostility on my part. There is some frustration. I do not understand why an intelligent, generally logical, generally reasonable man would continue to push these debunked ideas and misinterpretations. I really don't understand why you do that.

But you are misinterpreting my comments, AGAIN.

And when I ask for data and proof, you present more unsubstantiated claims, putting words in the mouths of others, AGAIN.

I clearly labeled the part about the invasions as a speculation, but you seem to have overlooked that word and gone on to misinterpret my statements, AGAIN.

As to my agenda, there, AGAIN, you are misinterpreting. If I had an agenda, it might be that I2a2b is wholly ancient and Doggerlandish.

"some of it, to coin an Americanism, ain't..." If the founding was ancient, then all of it is, unless you are suggesting some spontaneous creation of more from time to time.

"terms that no British person has ever heard of in connection with historical events." My, my, my, you have a such a short memory. That term came from a colleague of Sykes. We - that is you and I - discussed it in another forum only a few months ago. And now "no British person"...

Drop the BS and bring the proof.

Yorkie
17-03-11, 11:03
Come on Y________, there is no veiled hostility on my part. There is some frustration. I do not understand why an intelligent, generally logical, generally reasonable man would continue to push these debunked ideas and misinterpretations. I really don't understand why you do that.

But you are misinterpreting my comments, AGAIN.

And when I ask for data and proof, you present more unsubstantiated claims, putting words in the mouths of others, AGAIN.

I clearly labeled the part about the invasions as a speculation, but you seem to have overlooked that word and gone on to misinterpret my statements, AGAIN.

As to my agenda, there, AGAIN, you are misinterpreting. If I had an agenda, it might be that I2a2b is wholly ancient and Doggerlandish.

"some of it, to coin an Americanism, ain't..." If the founding was ancient, then all of it is, unless you are suggesting some spontaneous creation of more from time to time.

Drop the BS and bring the proof.

Well, the tone seemed hostile, as did the implications, i.e, don't listen to Yorkie, just listen to me etc.

Ok, let's start again. I agree with you that the bulk of I2a2b is ancient [post-LGM settlers] and very possibly 'Doggerlandish'. However, the presence on the north European plain, with Germany as hot-spot, of ALL the subclades, combined with opinions gleaned from Sykes, Forster, Klyosov and Jean Manco [and they are pertaining to I2a2b-Isles not I2a] makes me wonder if at least some of the English and lowland Scots I2a2b came later with the Anglo-Saxons. There is no 'proof' as in an article that I can reference, just their opinions when consulted. As we both know, precious little has been written about I2a2b in the scientific literature. Rootsi et al [2004] did not even test British respondents when looking at 'old I1b1'. Incidentally, Ken Nordtvedt thinks it 'possible' too that some I2a2b was carried by Anglo-Saxons but we are talking small amounts of an already small clade.

The 'source' population was there for some I2a2b-Isles to have been included in the Anglo-Saxon genetic make-up, as Nordvedt considers the clade to have been founded in northern Germany.

I don't honestly see any problem with this Anglo-Saxon connection for some English/Scots I2a2b. Notice that there is an absence in Wales of I2a2b-Isles. Maybe that in itself is a hint as to an Anglo-Saxon connection for the English/Scots I2a2b?

The opinions of Sykes and Forster in particular, should be taken seriously. Sykes classifies I2a2b when found in Englishmen as probably Anglo-Saxon via Oxford Ancestors. Of course, the criticism is that this is just using 12 marker haplotypes, but he has examined my 43 marker haplotype and come to the same conclusion. Sykes remains 'unconvinced' by the lack of substantial early dating for I2a2b in Britain. Nordtvedt has never made his dating 'public' in the sense of journal publication.

Forster has one of the biggest databases in the world. Again, on 43 markers his anonymised database clearly showed Germany as the hotspot for my I2a2b-Isles D2. He too thinks the Anglo-Saxons brought it.

Now, can you really blame me for thinking that there might be an Anglo-Saxon link here? If the English and Scots Isles signatures were attached solely to individuals with Irish surnames, I would rule it out, but that is far from the case. Additionally, the continental distribution is growing with no Irish surnames there.

jdanel
17-03-11, 12:30
Well, the tone seemed hostile, as did the implications, i.e, don't listen to Yorkie, just listen to me etc.

Ok, let's start again. I agree with you that the bulk of I2a2b is ancient [post-LGM settlers] and very possibly 'Doggerlandish'. However, the presence on the north European plain, with Germany as hot-spot, of ALL the subclades, combined with opinions gleaned from Sykes, Forster, Klyosov and Jean Manco [and they are pertaining to I2a2b-Isles not I2a] makes me wonder if at least some of the English and lowland Scots I2a2b came later with the Anglo-Saxons. There is no 'proof' as in an article that I can reference, just their opinions when consulted. As we both know, precious little has been written about I2a2b in the scientific literature. Rootsi et al [2004] did not even test British respondents when looking at 'old I1b1'. Incidentally, Ken Nordtvedt thinks it 'possible' too that some I2a2b was carried by Anglo-Saxons but we are talking small amounts of an already small clade.

The 'source' population was there for some I2a2b-Isles to have been included in the Anglo-Saxon genetic make-up, as Nordvedt considers the clade to have been founded in northern Germany.

I don't honestly see any problem with this Anglo-Saxon connection for some English/Scots I2a2b. Notice that there is an absence in Wales of I2a2b-Isles. Maybe that in itself is a hint as to an Anglo-Saxon connection for the English/Scots I2a2b?

The opinions of Sykes and Forster in particular, should be taken seriously. Sykes classifies I2a2b when found in Englishmen as probably Anglo-Saxon via Oxford Ancestors. Of course, the criticism is that this is just using 12 marker haplotypes, but he has examined my 43 marker haplotype and come to the same conclusion. Sykes remains 'unconvinced' by the lack of substantial early dating for I2a2b in Britain. Nordtvedt has never made his dating 'public' in the sense of journal publication.

Forster has one of the biggest databases in the world. Again, on 43 markers his anonymised database clearly showed Germany as the hotspot for my I2a2b-Isles D2. He too thinks the Anglo-Saxons brought it.

Now, can you really blame me for thinking that there might be an Anglo-Saxon link here? If the English and Scots Isles signatures were attached solely to individuals with Irish surnames, I would rule it out, but that is far from the case. Additionally, the continental distribution is growing with no Irish surnames there.
Can you blame for having some doubts about this when:

The opinions of Sykes, et al. that you mention are not written down and therefore available for scrutiny as to what they might mean, what conditions might apply, etc, and

The opinions they have written do not relate to I2a2b, and

The data that would prove this is held in private databases, again not subject to scrutiny, and

None of the public databases show any support whatsoever for these contentions.

Really.

"The 'source' population was there for some I2a2b-Isles to have been included in the Anglo-Saxon genetic make-up, as Nordvedt considers the clade to have been founded in northern Germany." The clade, and/or its pre-L161 antecedents, came through northern Germany maybe 9,000 years ago and seem to have suffered several "bottleneck" situations since. It is really a major stretch to suggest that they were still there 7,000 years later in the heyday of the Anglo-Saxons, especially when the public info does not support this at all in any way.

"Notice that there is an absence in Wales of I2a2b-Isles. Maybe that in itself is a hint as to an Anglo-Saxon connection for the English/Scots I2a2b?" If that were true, then Ireland should likewise be devoid of I2a2b. The situation is actually the reverse. Therefore, it is not true, and suggests the lack of any A/S connection.

"Sykes classifies I2a2b when found in Englishmen..." Does he report this classification? Has Sykes ever reported to an individual, "Yes, you are I2a2b Isles-x"? How does he do the classification? What are his decision rules? Can his classifications be replicated by anyone else?

"hotspot for my I2a2b-Isles D2..." How many D2 did he find in this hotspot? How many D2 or Isles A did he find on the continent? (Nordtvedt had just one A and only six D.) And how does Forster make a classification? This is important because both FTDNA and Ancestry seem to have some problems with their classifications. (That could perhaps be to encourage more testing as this is revenue to both??) Still, the decision rules need to be made public. Do you know what they are?

"He too thinks the Anglo-Saxons brought it." If the Anglo-Saxons brought it, how did it get to be tilted Irish? I'm sorry, dude, but that is just ludicrous.

"individuals with Irish surnames..." All of what we are discussing was so long ago that people didn't have surnames - so they are really irrelevant. And certainly the Scots don't have Doggerlandish surnames either.

"the continental distribution is growing with no Irish surnames there." Yes, but with some suspiciously English names. And even so, the total continental population of I2a2b is less than 60 individuals in the public info. That small a number is totally submerged in the margin of error.

So you are telling me there is no proof. Am I to take it all on faith?

Yorkie
17-03-11, 19:22
Can you blame for having some doubts about this when:

The opinions of Sykes, et al. that you mention are not written down and therefore available for scrutiny as to what they might mean, what conditions might apply, etc, and

The opinions they have written do not relate to I2a2b, and

The data that would prove this is held in private databases, again not subject to scrutiny, and

None of the public databases show any support whatsoever for these contentions.

Really.

"The 'source' population was there for some I2a2b-Isles to have been included in the Anglo-Saxon genetic make-up, as Nordvedt considers the clade to have been founded in northern Germany." The clade, and/or its pre-L161 antecedents, came through northern Germany maybe 9,000 years ago and seem to have suffered several "bottleneck" situations since. It is really a major stretch to suggest that they were still there 7,000 years later in the heyday of the Anglo-Saxons, especially when the public info does not support this at all in any way.

"Notice that there is an absence in Wales of I2a2b-Isles. Maybe that in itself is a hint as to an Anglo-Saxon connection for the English/Scots I2a2b?" If that were true, then Ireland should likewise be devoid of I2a2b. The situation is actually the reverse. Therefore, it is not true, and suggests the lack of any A/S connection.

"Sykes classifies I2a2b when found in Englishmen..." Does he report this classification? Has Sykes ever reported to an individual, "Yes, you are I2a2b Isles-x"? How does he do the classification? What are his decision rules? Can his classifications be replicated by anyone else?

"hotspot for my I2a2b-Isles D2..." How many D2 did he find in this hotspot? How many D2 or Isles A did he find on the continent? (Nordtvedt had just one A and only six D.) And how does Forster make a classification? This is important because both FTDNA and Ancestry seem to have some problems with their classifications. (That could perhaps be to encourage more testing as this is revenue to both??) Still, the decision rules need to be made public. Do you know what they are?

"He too thinks the Anglo-Saxons brought it." If the Anglo-Saxons brought it, how did it get to be tilted Irish? I'm sorry, dude, but that is just ludicrous.

"individuals with Irish surnames..." All of what we are discussing was so long ago that people didn't have surnames - so they are really irrelevant. And certainly the Scots don't have Doggerlandish surnames either.

"the continental distribution is growing with no Irish surnames there." Yes, but with some suspiciously English names. And even so, the total continental population of I2a2b is less than 60 individuals in the public info. That small a number is totally submerged in the margin of error.

So you are telling me there is no proof. Am I to take it all on faith?

Sykes DOES classify I2a2b signatures like mine as Anglo-Saxon if the background is English, and not just on 12 marker haplotypes.He is unconvinced that we can date I2a2b back to the Neolithic in Britain. As was the case with Forster, the reanalysis both conducted was on a 43 marker haplotype. I can't help it if there is little written on I2a2b, or if Forster's data is anonymised. As for Nordtvedt, ask him- he has said that it is 'possible' that the Anglo-Saxons carried some I2a2b. In all cases, these people ARE referring to I2a2b NOT I2a

Jean Manco is referring to I2a2b too NOT I2a in this quote from 'The Peopling of Europe'...

'I2a2b -L161 has several clusters, according to Nordtvedt, the earliest of which has a TMRCA of 3,370 BC and probably arose in Germany. So its ancestors may have been among farmers leaving the Balkans to create the first farming culture of Central Europe- the LBK'. Jean has since suggested an alternative scenario involving a later date and dairy farming [prior to Germany].

Additionally, Jean goes on to say about I2a2b-Isles...

'From there [Germany] it could have passed into the British Isles with the Celts and to some extent with the Anglo-Saxons'.

So, you see, JD, it is NOT just me that believes I2a2b-Isles was brought to Britain in different 'waves' and that a percentage was carried by the Germanic Anglo-Saxons.

You really don't like the idea of any Anglo-Saxon involvement in the story of I2a2b-Isles, do you? I suspect that is true of certain people on Ancestry.com too....:laughing:

jdanel
17-03-11, 20:26
Sykes DOES classify I2a2b signatures like mine as Anglo-Saxon if the background is English, and not just on 12 marker haplotypes.He is unconvinced that we can date I2a2b back to the Neolithic in Britain. As was the case with Forster, the reanalysis both conducted was on a 43 marker haplotype. I can't help it if there is little written on I2a2b, or if Forster's data is anonymised. As for Nordtvedt, ask him- he has said that it is 'possible' that the Anglo-Saxons carried some I2a2b. In all cases, these people ARE referring to I2a2b NOT I2a

Jean Manco is referring to I2a2b too NOT I2a in this quote from 'The Peopling of Europe'...

'I2a2b -L161 has several clusters, according to Nordtvedt, the earliest of which has a TMRCA of 3,370 BC and probably arose in Germany. So its ancestors may have been among farmers leaving the Balkans to create the first farming culture of Central Europe- the LBK'. Jean has since suggested an alternative scenario involving a later date and dairy farming [prior to Germany].

Additionally, Jean goes on to say about I2a2b-Isles...

'From there [Germany] it could have passed into the British Isles with the Celts and to some extent with the Anglo-Saxons'.

So, you see, JD, it is NOT just me that believes I2a2b-Isles was brought to Britain in different 'waves' and that a percentage was carried by the Germanic Anglo-Saxons.

You really don't like the idea of any Anglo-Saxon involvement in the story of I2a2b-Isles, do you? I suspect that is true of certain people on Ancestry.com too....:laughing:
It is not that I don't like it - it might add some glamour.

But I do not see any data that supports it - only opinions unsupported by data or only supported by hidden data or contradicted by the public data..

"DOES classify I2a2b signatures like mine as Anglo-Saxon if the background is English" And where are the modern continental Anglo-Saxons - the missing 'source population' - who are I2a2b? Certainly the lonely 42 Isles B on the continent are not a sufficient answer to that question.

And what does he classify them if the background is unknown or known to be not English?

"'I2a2b -L161 has several clusters, according to Nordtvedt, the earliest of which has a TMRCA of 3,370 BC and probably arose in Germany. So its ancestors may have been among farmers leaving the Balkans to create the first farming culture of Central Europe- the LBK'. Jean has since suggested an alternative scenario involving a later date and dairy farming [prior to Germany]."

This is completely consistent with what is shown on the Grandfather map. In this context, however, I think that "Germany" could refer to anywhere from Doggerland to Moldova. Most likely Doggerland.

"He is unconvinced that we can date I2a2b back to the Neolithic in Britain." So all those I2a2b are post neolithic? Absurd. When does he date it to? And how does he explain the distribution? The devil is in the details.

"it is 'possible' that the Anglo-Saxons carried some I2a2b..."; "and that a percentage..." I agree under the condition that the percentage may be out about the 6th decimal place where the info is lost in the margin of error - and so any assertion of it is useless and misleading.

Yorkie
17-03-11, 22:15
It is not that I don't like it - it might add some glamour.

But I do not see any data that supports it - only opinions unsupported by data or only supported by hidden data or contradicted by the public data..

"DOES classify I2a2b signatures like mine as Anglo-Saxon if the background is English" And where are the modern continental Anglo-Saxons - the missing 'source population' - who are I2a2b? Certainly the lonely 42 Isles B on the continent are not a sufficient answer to that question.

And what does he classify them if the background is unknown or known to be not English?

"'I2a2b -L161 has several clusters, according to Nordtvedt, the earliest of which has a TMRCA of 3,370 BC and probably arose in Germany. So its ancestors may have been among farmers leaving the Balkans to create the first farming culture of Central Europe- the LBK'. Jean has since suggested an alternative scenario involving a later date and dairy farming [prior to Germany]."

This is completely consistent with what is shown on the Grandfather map. In this context, however, I think that "Germany" could refer to anywhere from Doggerland to Moldova. Most likely Doggerland.

"He is unconvinced that we can date I2a2b back to the Neolithic in Britain." So all those I2a2b are post neolithic? Absurd. When does he date it to? And how does he explain the distribution? The devil is in the details.

"it is 'possible' that the Anglo-Saxons carried some I2a2b..."; "and that a percentage..." I agree under the condition that the percentage may be out about the 6th decimal place where the info is lost in the margin of error - and so any assertion of it is useless and misleading.

We will have to agree to differ re the Anglo-Saxons and I2a2b.

We DO agree that the bulk is ancient, at least Neolithic, and linked to Ireland. What makes you so confident about Doggerland as a foundation place? I agree that I2a2b may have entered Britain via Doggerland, perhaps heading for Scotland first, but Nordtvedt favours northern Germany as a foundation place. I am not sure that we can stretch it to include Doggerland to Moldova. I think Ken means the geographical location equivalent to today's north Germany. I like the idea of Doggerland but 'liking' is not sufficient.

jdanel
17-03-11, 22:43
We will have to agree to differ re the Anglo-Saxons and I2a2b.

We DO agree that the bulk is ancient, at least Neolithic, and linked to Ireland. What makes you so confident about Doggerland as a foundation place? I agree that I2a2b may have entered Britain via Doggerland, perhaps heading for Scotland first, but Nordtvedt favours northern Germany as a foundation place. I am not sure that we can stretch it to include Doggerland to Moldova. I think Ken means the geographical location equivalent to today's north Germany. I like the idea of Doggerland but 'liking' is not sufficient.
"confident about Doggerland as a foundation place?"

I am not confident that it was founded any particular place.

That location is unknowable, now and probably forever.

But we are not really discussing the unknown location of Mr. L161, the founder, who really could have been back at the mouth of the Dneister. Not likely, but could have been, or any place in between.

We are really discussing the location of our MRCA - that Pre-isles guy who lived somewhere about 6,000 ya., which is right on the meso/neo boundary. Since we think there is probably a late meso presence on Britain, that seems to me to establish the arrival somewhat before that time.

Furthermore, it is clear that there has been a major bottleneck in the genetics and population about 6,000 BC give or take a bunch. The only apparent, and blindingly obvious, mechanism is the Storegga Tsunamis and the sinking of Doggerland at 6,200 BC. The strength of these coincidences is just too much to ignore.

Doggerland is a relatively new concept and the tsunami info is only a couple of years old. It could well be that KN mentioned northern Germany before he became aware of Doggerland. There is no reason for him to change his statement because it is all conjecture, but I wonder, if he were back at at square one on that decision, would he include Doggerland as part, perhaps the biggest, of the possibilities.

What facts would cause one to prefer someplace further east, ignoring that dandy bottleneck mechanism right there at the right time and the right place?

Nothing that I am aware of.

Yorkie
18-03-11, 00:57
"confident about Doggerland as a foundation place?"

I am not confident that it was founded any particular place.

That location is unknowable, now and probably forever.

But we are not really discussing the unknown location of Mr. L161, the founder, who really could have been back at the mouth of the Dneister. Not likely, but could have been, or any place in between.

We are really discussing the location of our MRCA - that Pre-isles guy who lived somewhere about 6,000 ya., which is right on the meso/neo boundary. Since we think there is probably a late meso presence on Britain, that seems to me to establish the arrival somewhat before that time.

Furthermore, it is clear that there has been a major bottleneck in the genetics and population about 6,000 BC give or take a bunch. The only apparent, and blindingly obvious, mechanism is the Storegga Tsunamis and the sinking of Doggerland at 6,200 BC. The strength of these coincidences is just too much to ignore.

Doggerland is a relatively new concept and the tsunami info is only a couple of years old. It could well be that KN mentioned northern Germany before he became aware of Doggerland. There is no reason for him to change his statement because it is all conjecture, but I wonder, if he were back at at square one on that decision, would he include Doggerland as part, perhaps the biggest, of the possibilities.

What facts would cause one to prefer someplace further east, ignoring that dandy bottleneck mechanism right there at the right time and the right place?

Nothing that I am aware of.

You may well be right re the bottleneck, tsunami and Doggerland. Maybe I/we should put this directly to Ken Nordtvedt?

jdanel
18-03-11, 01:03
You may well be right re the bottleneck, tsunami and Doggerland. Maybe I/we should put this directly to Ken Nordtvedt?
I would love to know his thoughts if he would agree to comment on these conjectures.

North Italian I2a2
27-01-12, 19:05
***First time post!***

Hello everyone! I am not a student of genetics or an expert in any way at all in this subject. I am just trying to find out a bit more about my ancestral roots. I am of Northern Italian origin (Piedmont region) on my paternal line. Also half Italian on my maternal line. My paternal haplogroup is I2a2. I'm not sure what subclade I belong to.

Curiously, I am told that several of my genetic markers appear to be "Isles". For instance, I am G at rs9786274. Whatever this actually means I'm not sure. But I am fascinated by the fact that even though I have documented evidence (complete family trees) that my direct ancestors came from Northern Italy, genetically, I am an "Isles" person...

In order to possibly get new insights into this puzzle, a few months ago I participated in a YDNA-SNPs-Comparison Project, administered by someone by the name of Adriano Squecco. He e-mailed me the results in a spreadsheet with all kinds of data which of course, I cannot understand.

Does anyone here have any suggestions?

THANK YOU ALL!

sparkey
27-01-12, 19:29
***First time post!***

Welcome! I can probably help you figure out more about this.


Hello everyone! I am not a student of genetics or an expert in any way at all in this subject. I am just trying to find out a bit more about my ancestral roots. I am of Northern Italian origin (Piedmont region) on my paternal line. Also half Italian on my maternal line. My paternal haplogroup is I2a2. I'm not sure what subclade I belong to.

Curiously, I am told that several of my genetic markers appear to be "Isles". For instance, I am G at rs9786274. Whatever this actually means I'm not sure. But I am fascinated by the fact that even though I have documented evidence (complete family trees) that my direct ancestors came from Northern Italy, genetically, I am an "Isles" person...

What "G at rs9786274" means is that you don't have the L69 SNP that defines other branches of "I2a2" (nowadays called "I2a1b" most places, and I'll use that term from now on). The first of three main branches of I2a1b is I2a1b1a, or "I2a-Din," which is the main subclade in the Balkans. The population of Bosnia has a tremendously high amount of I2a-Din at nearly 50%. The other two are much more rare. I2a1b1*, or I2a-Disles, is a tiny subclade mostly restricted to Scotland. I2a1b2, or I2a-Isles, is probably yours. It is somewhat of an out member in this group, and is also the oldest. It is most frequent in Britain and Ireland, but more likely arose around Northern Germany, and is frequently associated with Doggerland. A Northern Italian carrier of it would suggest to me someone with a Germanic background in the distant past. And if you want to go even farther in the distant past, understand that all of Haplogroup I represents Paleolithic European remnants (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?26944-The-Paleolithic-Remnants-a-map), as opposed to more recent arrivals, like R1b.

Have you taken any STR tests? If not, my guess is that, since your Isles line is continental, you likely belong to the "B" cluster, which is the oldest. If so, you can confirm this by comparing to individuals at the I2a FTDNA Project (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/I2aHapGroup). I would be very surprised if you were in, say, an Irish cluster.


In order to possibly get new insights into this puzzle, a few months ago I participated in a YDNA-SNPs-Comparison Project, administered by someone by the name of Adriano Squecco. He e-mailed me the results in a spreadsheet with all kinds of data which of course, I cannot understand.

Can you tell if he tested L161? That's the one that defines Isles.

jdanel
28-01-12, 00:42
***First time post!***

Hello everyone! I am not a student of genetics or an expert in any way at all in this subject. I am just trying to find out a bit more about my ancestral roots. I am of Northern Italian origin (Piedmont region) on my paternal line. Also half Italian on my maternal line. My paternal haplogroup is I2a2. I'm not sure what subclade I belong to.

Curiously, I am told that several of my genetic markers appear to be "Isles". For instance, I am G at rs9786274. Whatever this actually means I'm not sure. But I am fascinated by the fact that even though I have documented evidence (complete family trees) that my direct ancestors came from Northern Italy, genetically, I am an "Isles" person...

In order to possibly get new insights into this puzzle, a few months ago I participated in a YDNA-SNPs-Comparison Project, administered by someone by the name of Adriano Squecco. He e-mailed me the results in a spreadsheet with all kinds of data which of course, I cannot understand.

Does anyone here have any suggestions?

THANK YOU ALL!


Sparkey has given you excellent info - I only wish to add a couple of things:

How far back does your family tree go? We are talking about a group that has origins - depending on what specifically you are talking about - as far back as 6,000 BC and MRCA 1,500 years or more.

If you are Isles A, C, or D, then it is clear that you have an Isles connection and your ancestors somehow sometime came from the Isles.

The source of B is still open to dispute. Many (most?) believe that it had an origin on the continent and that those very few Bs still on the continent could trace back to them. The other side of this question is that B is also an Isles group and that those few isolated Bs on the continent can be accounted for by medieval-to-modern travel and by the slave trading practices of the Anglo-Saxons. (see for instance Jean Manco's article: http://www.buildinghistory.org/bristol/saxonslaves.shtml )

So which are you?

--------------------------

Here is a "quick and dirty" (it isn't perfect and isn't very well tested) predictor to make a guess at which group you may be in:

“Quick and Dirty” classification within I2a
P 37.2 I2a
1 if 437 = 16 is F
2 if 388 = 15 either western or I2a west isles
3 and 385b = 16 then west isles
M26 I2a1
4 if YCA-IIa = 11 I2a1
M423 I2a2a
5 if 385a = 14 either DinaricN or S
6 and 448 = 19 then DinS
7 if 385a = 15 then Disles
L161 I2a2b
8 if 394(19a) = 16 is B1
9 if 391 = 10 is D1
10 if 392 = 12 is C2
11 if 389ii = 29 is A2
12 If 390 = 25
and 391 ≠ 10 then B2
13 If 454 = 12
and 389ii ≠ 29 then A1
14 if 385a = 11
and 391 ≠ 10 then D2
15 if none of the above then maybe C1

North Italian I2a2
29-01-12, 20:01
Hi Sparkey!Thank you for your insights! I will definitely check into joining the I2a FTDNA Project ASAP. I am not sure I’vetaken any STR tests. Also, I have no clue whether or not Adriano tested L161. Ichecked the spreadsheet he sent me and I found nothing related to it. But, I ama layman here… I was wondering if you might be interested in checking out thedata he sent me directly. I’d be more than happy to e-mail it to you. And I’dbe grateful if you could help me decipher it. If you’re interested, let meknow.
Thank youonce again!

Dan

North Italian I2a2
29-01-12, 20:54
How far back does your family tree go? We are talking about a group that hasorigins - depending on what specifically you are talking about - as far back as6,000 BC and MRCA 1,500 years or more.
If you are Isles A, C, or D, then it is clearthat you have an Isles connection and your ancestors somehow sometime came fromthe Isles.
So which areyou?
Here is a"quick and dirty" (it isn't perfect and isn't very well tested)predictor to make a guess at which group you may be
Hi jdanel!Thank you for your reply. Regarding your question about my family tree, we cantrace my father’s paternal line as far back as the year 1700, and his maternalline as far back as the early 1800s. My ancestors on both these lines lived in theNorthwestern region of the Italic peninsula, called Piedmont, very close to theFrench border. I fully understand this has no significance in terms of ourgenetic roots which go back thousands of years. In fact, when I found out there were some “Isles”markers in my genetic makeup I thought that perhaps sometime during the RomanEmpire, which had rather porous borders, one of my ancestors may have beendeployed to the province of Britannia, or a Briton may have been brought to theItalic peninsula. Obviously, this is all meaningless conjecture.
I have noclue if I am an A, B, C or D. But I’d love to find out!!! This is the verypurpose of my joining this forum. I’d love to be able to use the “Quick andDirty” prediction test that you suggested but I am a layman…I wouldn’t knowwhere to start. This why I sent my raw data to people like Adriano Squecco,with the purpose of finding out more about my Y DNA. Unfortunately, I am unableto read/interpret his findings myself.

mul
31-01-12, 22:49
It sounds to me that the test you have done is from 23andme , because you said that you have sent your results to Adriano Squecco . At the moment all you get from the 23andme is the M423 snp and not the L161 that covers the Isles guys. M423 covers a range of I2a groups including Isles
G at rs9786274. is an indication of Isles because Dinaric and Diles has a T at this rs number

North Italian I2a2
03-02-12, 16:20
Thank you mul! Yes, I had the 23andMe test done. That's where I got my raw data. What I need to know is WHICH of the tests offered by FTDNA is best for me, so I can have a better picture of where I stand in terms of my Isles genetic heritage. Should I go for the basic? Would this be enough? I have no clue...

sparkey
03-02-12, 18:33
Thank you mul! Yes, I had the 23andMe test done. That's where I got my raw data. What I need to know is WHICH of the tests offered by FTDNA is best for me, so I can have a better picture of where I stand in terms of my Isles genetic heritage. Should I go for the basic? Would this be enough? I have no clue...

I'd be surprised if Y-DNA 37 wasn't enough for you. Every STR in jdanel's post is covered by it. You'd also be able to order an SNP test afterward, but probably won't even need to if you get the 37 marker test.

North Italian I2a2
05-02-12, 21:22
Thank you Sparkey. I will take the Y-DNA 37 test and see what comes out. Can't wait!!! :-)

MOESAN
08-02-12, 16:42
some questions:
at what time put you this 'Neolithic' in the Isles???
what are the %s of I2a2 (I2a1b)-Isles respectively to others Y-I2a-... s in Ireland, Brittain, Europe? (because %s among only I2a-Isles bearers by country don"t make sense to me)
for the fun because I am "short" for this thread, what about Bell Beakers (-2900?) in the Isles? (and others send with germanic invasions, of course)
thanks beforehand

sparkey
08-02-12, 18:35
some questions:
at what time put you this 'Neolithic' in the Isles???
what are the %s of I2a2 (I2a1b)-Isles respectively to others Y-I2a-... s in Ireland, Brittain, Europe? (because %s among only I2a-Isles bearers by country don"t make sense to me)
for the fun because I am "short" for this thread, what about Bell Beakers (-2900?) in the Isles? (and others send with germanic invasions, of course)
thanks beforehand

It's not 100% clear when I2a-Isles got to the British Isles. I currently think that half of it (C/D) was there by the end of the Neolithic or at least the Bronze Age, and the other half (A/B) may have come mainly with the Anglo-Saxons. Although, that's different than what I used to think, and probably different than what I will think once I get more info.

I2a1b2-Isles is the most common I2a1 subclade in the British Isles. The only serious challenge comes from I2a1c1-Western. I2a1a is also anciently present, but is not particularly common. I2a1b1*-Disles, although exclusive to the British Isles, is very rare. I2a1b1a-Din is almost absent.

North Italian I2a2
09-02-12, 23:56
Hey Sparkey! This is probably a dumb question: How is the correlation between what is known from history and anthropological studies and what is being discovered strictly through genetic research normally established? I mean, how do we know arrive at the probability that I2a Isles got to the British Isles "at the end of the Neolithic or at least the Bronze Age"? Just curious here...

sparkey
10-02-12, 01:09
Hey Sparkey! This is probably a dumb question: How is the correlation between what is known from history and anthropological studies and what is being discovered strictly through genetic research normally established? I mean, how do we know arrive at the probability that I2a Isles got to the British Isles "at the end of the Neolithic or at least the Bronze Age"? Just curious here...

It's highly speculative and contentious right now. The evidence we have usually involves the estimated ages of subclades, and their comparative diversity in certain areas. These are known as "STR dating" or "TMRCA estimation" and "STR geographic diversity analysis." After we get those things, we make an educated guess. (Although some deny that these are useful tools at all, including influential genetic anthropologists like Dienekes, I definitely believe them to be very useful.) Sometimes we also have ancient DNA samples to look at, but unfortunately, we don't have any right now for I2a-Isles.

A good resource for Haplogroup I is Ken Nordtvedt (http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net/)'s tree and map (http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net/Tree and Map for Hg I.pdf). For I2a-Isles, you're looking for "L161" or "I2a1b2-Isles" on that.

how yes no 2
11-02-12, 23:45
Sparkey,
in latest sampling from Serbia, the I2a2 M423 in Serbia is said to have very high diversity and it is estimated to be 9000 years old... so, it seems that Ken Nordvedt is based on his limited sample from "y family tree dna" database off for like 6500 years regarding age of I2a2-Din...or alternatively, some of I2a2 samples are not Dinaric

"High levels of Paleolithic Y-chromosome lineages characterize Serbia"
Maria Regueiro, Luis Rivera, Tatjana Damnjanovic, Ljiljana Lukovic, Jelena Milasin, Rene J. Herrera

sparkey
12-02-12, 04:54
Sparkey,
in latest sampling from Serbia, the I2a2 M423 in Serbia is said to have very high diversity and it is estimated to be 9000 years old... so, it seems that Ken Nordvedt is based on his limited sample from "y family tree dna" database off for like 6500 years regarding age of I2a2-Din...or alternatively, some of I2a2 samples are not Dinaric

"High levels of Paleolithic Y-chromosome lineages characterize Serbia"
Maria Regueiro, Luis Rivera, Tatjana Damnjanovic, Ljiljana Lukovic, Jelena Milasin, Rene J. Herrera

I've only read the abstract of that one, and I must say, the abstract is terrible. In it, they basically declare the R1a and I (both I2a and I1) to have been in the Balkans since the Paleolithic. Personally, I'd estimate 0% of R1a and I currently in the Balkans to have been there since the Paleolithic. So I'd really like to see their reasoning. Since it says that they tested 17 STRs each on 103 samples total, I doubt their analysis trumps Nordtvedt here.

how yes no 2
12-02-12, 14:54
I've only read the abstract of that one, and I must say, the abstract is terrible. In it, they basically declare the R1a and I (both I2a and I1) to have been in the Balkans since the Paleolithic. Personally, I'd estimate 0% of R1a and I currently in the Balkans to have been there since the Paleolithic. So I'd really like to see their reasoning. Since it says that they tested 17 STRs each on 103 samples total, I doubt their analysis trumps Nordtvedt here.
I've only read the abstract of that one, and I must say, the abstract is terrible. In it, they basically declare the R1a and I (both I2a and I1) to have been in the Balkans since the Paleolithic. Personally, I'd estimate 0% of R1a and I currently in the Balkans to have been there since the Paleolithic. So I'd really like to see their reasoning. Since it says that they tested 17 STRs each on 103 samples total, I doubt their analysis trumps Nordtvedt here.well, you may not like claim that R1a is paleolithic in Europe, but there are two things to distinguish: estimated age and diversity of haplogroups which is done in standard ways, and the way that is interpreted...so it is funny that you deny very standard calculations based on not liking interpretation that you btw did not read yet...how many samples from Serbia are in y family tree DNA I2a project?1-2?here we talk about 29.1% hence 29 people from one geographical region with I2a2its quite clear that such big sample can easily give results about higher diversity if there is one...paper estimates age of I2a2 in Serbs at 9000 year old and I have absolutely no reason to doubt it...paper is published in renowned jurnal, it has passed review, so it is good enough...what peer review did forum thoughts of Nordvedt passed through? what is his sample size on I2a2 in Serbia?anyway, since you judge paper that you didnot read, let me point out few key points in their interpretation of datait is never stated that paleolithic and neolithic lineages is about those lineages being in Balkan...its about age of lineages and extreme high diversity of R1a and I2a2 in Serbia...R1a1a-M198 has particularly high haplotype diversity in Serbia (0.9905±0.0178). They say how typically 3 major waves are used to describe R1a in southeast Europe:1) recolonization from the refugium in the Ukraine (early post-LGM, ~20–12 KYA)2) Kurgan culture expansion 3) massive Slavic expansion they quote Gimbutas opinion that Kurgan expansion resulted in spread of IE languages...and Zerjal et al that haplogroup R1a is believed to be majority of Kurgan gene poolthey point out that Kurgan ancient DNA samples from south Siberia supports the assumption of Zerjal (Keyser et al 2009) as all individuals except one with haplogroup C do belong to R1a1 lineages...than they point out that estimated range expansion ((14.0±3.3 KYA) , mean variance (0.384) and high diversity (0.9905±0.0178) among Serbian R1a1a-M198 carriers, are consistent with previous studies (Peričić et al., 2005; Semino et al., 2000; Wells et al., 2001) that suggest the common ancestor for all R1a1a-M198 individuals in the Balkans existed in Paleolithic times.Note that they do not explicitly say existed in Balkan in Paleolithic times... but existed in Paleolithic times...the indicate that previous research shows that R1a1a7 displays high diversity among Slavic and Finno-Ugric peoples (coalescent time ~11 KYA) and the most diversity of R1a1a* among Indo-Aryan andDravidian speakers (coalescent time in India ~14 KYA) (Underhill et al., 2010). However,analysis of both chromosomes in Serbia revealed higher R1a1a7-M458 diversity than R1a1a*(xM458) diversity - respectively 14 KYA and 11 KYA.Then they conclude that therefore, this high diversity and estimated age of microsatellite variation in Serbia, might be inflated by the aforementioned superimposed migrations involving R1a individuals that penetrated Europe thus placing the R1a haplogroup more recent in time, during the early Holocene (Klyosov, 2009), rather than representing a deeper Paleolithic signal in Europe (Peričić et al., 2005; Semino et al., 2000). So I do not know why are you biased and judge article without reading it...I will agree that title is provocative... they also show maps with frequencies of different haplogroups and also maps with supposed paleolithic (R1a and I) and neolithic (E, J, G and R1b) haplogroups... they interpret the two maps in sense that those maps are hallmarks of an expansion, possibly of farmers from the Near East pushing on Mesolithic settlements against the bottom of a geographical sack or obstacle, the Adriatic Sea.I do not really completelly agree with that... I think that most R1a and I2a2 in Serbia came with Serbs... but I do think that ancestors of Serbs were also there before as Scordisci and Serians and earlier in past also as Sherdana, and in my interpretation of "sea peoples" known facts, I explain that Kurds are in fact genetically and by tribal name derived from Sherdana.... so I can agree that large R1a and I2a2 populations were present in Balkans in long past... but not continuously...so I think that we witness kind of Paleolithic vs neolithic lineages waves of taking over Serbia (it is kind of cross-road country with big strategical significance).... last waves being roman empire pushing out Scordisci resulting in expansion of neolithic waves from Greece and Illyria, and return of paleolithic wave in shape of proto-Serbs.. while Serbs of today I see as result of proto-Serbs mixing with previous mostly neolithic lineages...

how yes no 2
12-02-12, 15:08
and if you do not like the way in which my previous post looks like...
I do not like it either...

my account is messed up (not welcome sign?) so that 9 0 f 10 times I try to load page (when logged in) or post I get "server to busy" message or "error, page cannot be found"... when my post does break through, I can see it lacks all the spaces and newlines... so not much I can do about it...if you mind it, complain to Maciamo...

how yes no 2
12-02-12, 16:17
btw. though it is painful for wishful thinking of many west european racists, R1a is rightfully called Paleolithic as based on data it clearly is paleolithic in Europe (not necessarily on Balkan) as:


1) R1a1a7 (M458) is confined to Europe where center of cluster is in Poland
2) the lineage has in Serbs estimated age of 14 KYA which falls in Paleolithic times...

sparkey
13-02-12, 21:31
well, you may not like claim that R1a is paleolithic in Europe, but there are two things to distinguish: estimated age and diversity of haplogroups which is done in standard ways, and the way that is interpreted...

Well, I do think that R1a is Paleolithic in (certain parts of) Europe, I just doubt that extant R1a in the Balkans in particular is so old, at least entirely. I'm sure you agree that at least some of it came later, like you mentioned later in your post above. That's why I'm criticizing the abstract of this particular paper for apparently claiming that all I1, I2a, and R1a has been in the Balkans since the Paleolithic. That's the way it makes it sound.

I suspect that Serbia is a pooling point for R1a, but admit that I haven't done as much research into it as I have Haplogroup I, and I am always interested in evidence one way or another.


so it is funny that you deny very standard calculations based on not liking interpretation that you btw did not read yet...

Someone has offered me a copy, so I'll analyze it more if I receive it. But the abstract doesn't really present what they found other than frequencies of a few haplogroups and the declaration that I1, I2a, and R1a are Paleolithic without any real rationale. Maybe the paper will be better than the abstract.


how many samples from Serbia are in y family tree DNA I2a project?1-2?here we talk about 29.1% hence 29 people from one geographical region with I2a2its quite clear that such big sample can easily give results about higher diversity if there is one...

I count 7 members from Serbia, plus many more in neighboring areas, plus the fact that all but one had more markers than 17, which is rather low, plus the fact that Nordtvedt doesn't only look at the I2a Project...


paper estimates age of I2a2 in Serbs at 9000 year old and I have absolutely no reason to doubt it...

A good reason to doubt it is that 9,000 years ago is before every estimate I've seen of the TMRCA of I2a1b1 (Disles and Dinaric together). Perhaps they found an out member of I2a1b1? If so, that's a remarkable find that I'd like to see. Their abstract doesn't mention anything like that, though.

how yes no 2
14-02-12, 01:26
Well, I do think that R1a is Paleolithic in (certain parts of) Europe, I just doubt that extant R1a in the Balkans in particular is so old, at least entirely. I'm sure you agree that at least some of it came later, like you mentioned later in your post above. That's why I'm criticizing the abstract of this particular paper for apparently claiming that all I1, I2a, and R1a has been in the Balkans since the Paleolithic. That's the way it makes it sound.part of it surely came with Slavs... but that is also what authors of the paper wrote later in text.... that high diversity of R1a is likely due to several waves of migration...however, they have right to call R1a1a7-M458 Paleolithic in Europe..as it is confined to Europe and this research estimates its age to 14KYA which falls in Paleolithic times...
I suspect that Serbia is a pooling point for R1a, but admit that I haven't done as much research into it as I have Haplogroup I, and I am always interested in evidence one way or another.I am sure there are different layers of R1a.... part of it surely came with Slavic speaking tribes... but maybe not so much as many people think...I believe Pelasgians were dominantly R1a and ancient Macedonians probably as well...e.g. I remember one work that did sample and compare Albanians from west Macedonia (FYRM) with (FYRM) Macedonians...and R1a was more or less the same in both and in fact larger than in Montenegro...while difference between Albanians and Macedonians was I2a2....Albanians had almost none and Macedonians more or less on level of other south Slavs...also I2a2 has its absolute dominance in Herzegovina which is in fact part of Dinaric mountains, where Serbs and I guess also Croats initially settled.... which makes sense as mountains are strategic positions in turbulent times and areas, and a tribe is on a mountain much safer and can defend itself and expand much more easily....
A good reason to doubt it is that 9,000 years ago is before every estimate I've seen of the TMRCA of I2a1b1 (Disles and Dinaric together). Perhaps they found an out member of I2a1b1? If so, that's a remarkable find that I'd like to see. Their abstract doesn't mention anything like that, though.looking at supplementary data of the paper, there is one M423 sample with 385a = 15, so I guess it is one DIsles indeed... and 448 = 19 in 21 of remaining 28 M423 samples, hence probably 21 Din-S, 7 Din-N and 1 DIsles...but someone who knows more should look at it....

sparkey
14-02-12, 02:40
looking at supplementary data of the paper, there is one M423 sample with 385a = 15, so I guess it is one DIsles indeed... and 448 = 19 in 21 of remaining 28 M423 samples, hence probably 21 Din-S, 7 Din-N and 1 DIsles...but someone who knows more should look at it....

OK, I just took a look myself. I did a quick run of modal comparisons of the I2a1b samples to Disles and Din-S, and got closer to Din-S on all but two, both of which got 4 to Din-S and 3 to Disles. There was also one that was a curiously high 6 from Din-S (but still farther from Disles at 7).

My interpretation of these:

The first 4/3 GD seems to be clearly a Din-S due to its 19 at 448, not to mention its 16 at DYS19 and 14 at 385a. It converges with Disles on 389II, 391, 439, and 458, all of which are faster mutating. So no real doubt that this isn't the TMRCA extender we're looking for.

The second 4/3 GD is similar except that it is apparently Din-N. If we adjust for 448, then we get an apparent Din-N with minor convergence with Disles on fast mutating markers. Still nothing to challenge what we already knew.

The 6/7 (the 15-13-19 one) is curious in that its GD is distant enough from both to make its status as either potentially questionable, although at only 16 markers (I had to drop one due to it not being present in FTDNA data), it still leaves room for more markers to establish its place. But again, all its differences are on fast mutating markers, which doesn't tell us enough. I'm really guessing this one to be Din-N, which it is closer to than either Din-S or Disles, especially due to the 20 at DYS448.

Finally, the 15 at 385a is indeed curious, but it has a tiny GD overall from Din-N (I believe 2 or 3, I don't have the Din-N modal handy but it's only 4 from Din-S), compare to 7 vs. Disles. That indicates it is Din-N with a rare convergence on a slow mutating value.

So... with nothing reaching above a 5 GD on the measured markers, when the modal GD from Din-S to Disles is 7 on the same markers, I think we see that everything they sampled falls within I2a-Din. Nordtvedt's TMRCA calculation for I2a1b1 as a whole is 6,000 YBP, meaning that someone is wrong here. I'm still guessing it's the authors of this paper, thanks to their sampling of too few markers, and using older methodology, including Zhivotovsky et al, which is one I've read has some erroneous mutation rates.

North Italian I2a2b
26-03-12, 18:33
Hello all!

I am formerly North Italian I2a2. Since I just got my results from FTDNA and they tell me I am I2a2b, I changed my handle here to reflect this. I had signed up for the Y-DNA 37 marker test. The results point to a surprising "exact match" at the 12 marker level: IRELAND. I am more confused then ever... I thought the results would point to a continental origin (Doggerland?). But, not so...

Cheers!

sparkey
26-03-12, 18:40
Hello all!

I am formerly North Italian I2a2. Since I just got my results from FTDNA and they tell me I am I2a2b, I changed my handle here to reflect this. I had signed up for the Y-DNA 37 marker test. The results point to a surprising "exact match" at the 12 marker level: IRELAND. I am more confused then ever... I thought the results would point to a continental origin (Doggerland?). But, not so...

Cheers!

So, you only have 12 out of 37 markers so far? I suggest you wait for all 37 before drawing conclusions.

It will be really interesting if you're in one of the "Irish" groups, though. Are your results in the FTDNA I2a Project (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/I2aHapGroup) yet?

North Italian I2a2b
08-05-12, 20:52
So, you only have 12 out of 37 markers so far? I suggest you wait for all 37 before drawing conclusions.

It will be really interesting if you're in one of the "Irish" groups, though. Are your results in the FTDNA I2a Project yet?

Nothing at all came out of the 37 marker test. What does this mean?? I guess I'll never know if I'm in one the "Irish" groups, right? Another weird thing...they matched me to some person in New Zealand. Anyway, I did join one of the names projects and I will be joining the FTDNA I2a Project soon.

sparkey
08-05-12, 22:39
Nothing at all came out of the 37 marker test. What does this mean?? I guess I'll never know if I'm in one the "Irish" groups, right? Another weird thing...they matched me to some person in New Zealand. Anyway, I did join one of the names projects and I will be joining the FTDNA I2a Project soon.

Let me know which kit number you are in the I2a Project once you join. I'm guessing that nothing comes up because you're an outlier among current samples.

zanipolo
08-05-12, 23:01
Let me know which kit number you are in the I2a Project once you join. I'm guessing that nothing comes up because you're an outlier among current samples.

it would be interesting to know if he came from northwest, north central or northeast.

If its northwest , it seems he would be a majority minority in a hugely R1b 152

mul
09-05-12, 20:06
There is one that I know of and is Isles B
Y search AHZRH is from north west Italy near Turin

Keegah
11-05-12, 00:54
I'm currently in communication with Nordtvedt, and according to him, three marker values in my Y-chromosome haplotype - DYS511=9, DYS446=12, and DYS640=12 - place my haplotype as an outlier within Isles D with no real matches yet. The only other two matches share my surname and, as such, are certainly of my family. I've just never met them. That's exciting in a way, I guess, but I was really hoping for more answers to come out of researching my DNA. I wish I2a1b2 had more representation. It's frustrating to have so little carriers to compare DNA to, and to find so little information on the haplogroup that didn't come from Nordtvedt himself.

Oftentimes websites, such as 23andme, don't even seem to KNOW about Isles, describing I2a1 as a solely Eastern European haplogroup.

mul
13-05-12, 00:01
Oftentimes websites, such as 23andme, don't even seem to KNOW about Isles, describing I2a1 as a solely Eastern European haplogroup.

23 and me do not test the L161 snp only the M423 one ,
Because of this its no wonder that we all come from the Balkins
Isles is a name that Ken Nordtvedt invented to describe L161 people , its his invention and his alone . No lab uses this naming system at all .

Keegah
13-05-12, 06:14
Guess that explains why most of the information I can find on our haplogroup only comes from Nordtvedt.

SteveS
25-06-12, 05:26
Nothing at all came out of the 37 marker test. What does this mean?? I guess I'll never know if I'm in one the "Irish" groups, right? Another weird thing...they matched me to some person in New Zealand. Anyway, I did join one of the names projects and I will be joining the FTDNA I2a Project soon.

Hi North Italian I2a2b,

I have a similar problem...

My FTDNA test came back as Isles C2 - the weird thing is, the prevalence of my surname in the Mediterranean and Europe,
plus English texts that refer to my surname "Sard", point to a Sardinian origin - But you can't beat genetics as a marker to your true origin.

Doesn't discount an unwed mother passing on her surname, or just a surname change. People have moved about freely since the iron age as well - so could've been a traveller...

I can only genuinely trace family back to a 1770 marriage in Bermondsey, London, although I have a strong lead from a Sard family in the 1600's, and a Richardi Sard in the 1500's (sounds a little Italian?)... No Irish or Scottish in the mix as of yet...

My surname is very prevalent in the Balearic Islands, Spain, Northern Italy and France - but there are also some in Sweden...

So it is odd (but not unexpected or impossible - given the UK history of my family) to find the I2a2b, given I was sure it would be from an area where the name most frequently occurs..!!

zanipolo
25-06-12, 08:57
Hi North Italian I2a2b,

I have a similar problem...

My FTDNA test came back as Isles C2 - the weird thing is, the prevalence of my surname in the Mediterranean and Europe,
plus English texts that refer to my surname "Sard", point to a Sardinian origin - But you can't beat genetics as a marker to your true origin.

Doesn't discount an unwed mother passing on her surname, or just a surname change. People have moved about freely since the iron age as well - so could've been a traveller...

I can only genuinely trace family back to a 1770 marriage in Bermondsey, London, although I have a strong lead from a Sard family in the 1600's, and a Richardi Sard in the 1500's (sounds a little Italian?)... No Irish or Scottish in the mix as of yet...

My surname is very prevalent in the Balearic Islands, Spain, Northern Italy and France - but there are also some in Sweden...

So it is odd (but not unexpected or impossible - given the UK history of my family) to find the I2a2b, given I was sure it would be from an area where the name most frequently occurs..!!

I as well, have surname issues with north Italy. I was told its either from
Praetor = Roman for Magistrate
Pretor = Venetian for Magistrate
Pretor = Pomeranian for reed dweller
Prator = English for low lands person
Prater = tyrolean for mountain top person

My DNA people range from North Italy, slovenia, tyrol, baden, netherlands, england and ireland
with 15% north east european, 11% celto-germanic and 3% f*


which one I can choose?..........hmmm

sparkey
25-06-12, 17:36
My FTDNA test came back as Isles C2 - the weird thing is, the prevalence of my surname in the Mediterranean and Europe, plus English texts that refer to my surname "Sard", point to a Sardinian origin - But you can't beat genetics as a marker to your true origin.

Doesn't discount an unwed mother passing on her surname, or just a surname change. People have moved about freely since the iron age as well - so could've been a traveller...

I can only genuinely trace family back to a 1770 marriage in Bermondsey, London, although I have a strong lead from a Sard family in the 1600's, and a Richardi Sard in the 1500's (sounds a little Italian?)... No Irish or Scottish in the mix as of yet...

My surname is very prevalent in the Balearic Islands, Spain, Northern Italy and France - but there are also some in Sweden...

So it is odd (but not unexpected or impossible - given the UK history of my family) to find the I2a2b, given I was sure it would be from an area where the name most frequently occurs..!!

You're right that Isles C2 is far removed from being Sardinian... effectively all Sardinian I2 is I2a1a, not I2a-Isles.

Here's a possibility: Perhaps "Sard" in your case is a variant of "Sherrard." They have similar distributions (http://www.ancestry.com/learn/facts/default.aspx) in Britain, and Sherrard is also present in Ireland, as we'd expect from an Isles C2 family. The -ard ending could also indicate some other similar truncation that only becomes synonymous with "a Sardinian" by coincidence.

SteveS
27-06-12, 11:12
Thanks Sparkey and Zanipolo,

Sherrard may be a distinct possibility, some have said the English Sard may have evolved from another surname - so this may be a good place to start.... There are quite a few in France (but the motherload is on the Balearic Islands)...

The book, Surnames of the United Kingdom: A Concise Etymological Dictionary Henry Harrison puts the definition as...

SARD (Fr.) Sardinian [Fr. Sarde; f. Sardi, the name of the early inhabitants of Sardinia, the Gr. Sardo (Zapoio)...


I am not sure what the (Fr.) stands for... France? From?, and I assume the FR. Sarde; f. Sardi ... Gr. Sardo... are other derivatives of the name?

But an English derivative sounds more likely given the Isles result.....!!

Thanks for all the help...

Cheers

zanipolo
27-06-12, 12:11
Thanks Sparkey and Zanipolo,

Sherrard may be a distinct possibility, some have said the English Sard may have evolved from another surname - so this may be a good place to start.... There are quite a few in France (but the motherload is on the Balearic Islands)...

The book, Surnames of the United Kingdom: A Concise Etymological Dictionary Henry Harrison puts the definition as...

SARD (Fr.) Sardinian [Fr. Sarde; f. Sardi, the name of the early inhabitants of Sardinia, the Gr. Sardo (Zapoio)...


I am not sure what the (Fr.) stands for... France? From?, and I assume the FR. Sarde; f. Sardi ... Gr. Sardo... are other derivatives of the name?

But an English derivative sounds more likely given the Isles result.....!!

Thanks for all the help...

Cheers

It could be Zardo - popular surname in piedmont
Sartori popular in veneto
Zardon popular in friuli

or it could be Sordo = deaf person

Sardo is a person from Sardegna

Sardegna people usually have names ending in is or u

SteveS
03-07-12, 09:18
Thanks Zanipolo

There are also a lot of Sardo and Sardi in Italy (plus those in Italy that have dropped the vowel at the end and are just called "Sard") - the Sardinian reference has been in my family, verbally, for many generations - although I am open to it being incorrect too....

The name occurs the most in the Balearic Islands (believe it or not!)....

It will be interesting to find out more...

Thanks for all your help..!!!

zanipolo
03-07-12, 09:57
Thanks Zanipolo

There are also a lot of Sardo and Sardi in Italy (plus those in Italy that have dropped the vowel at the end and are just called "Sard") - the Sardinian reference has been in my family, verbally, for many generations - although I am open to it being incorrect too....

The name occurs the most in the Balearic Islands (believe it or not!)....

It will be interesting to find out more...

Thanks for all your help..!!!

Sardinia was also under the kingdom of Aragon ( Catalans ) for a long time, it could also have some link there. I would not go lower than the 13th century because most people never had a surname ...unless you are nobility

SteveS
05-07-12, 11:15
Thanks for that : )

It is certainly an avenue I will look at.... As it keeps genetics in line with the name...

People have travelled about over the ages.... and many, I suspect, surnames may be less than 500 years old in some cases... or even changed from another name for whatever reason...

Your help has been invaluable Zanipolo - Thank you...

10-08-12, 17:39
Thanks Yorkie, I just learned that I am I2a2b M423+ L161+. That make me I2a2b-Isles! I am new to this. What are the 8 separate subclades? My last name originates in Cornwall, England as far as I can tell. Would you say this is likely?
Thanks, Chris Nance

sparkey
10-08-12, 17:56
Thanks Yorkie, I just learned that I am I2a2b M423+ L161+. That make me I2a2b-Isles! I am new to this. What are the 8 separate subclades? My last name originates in Cornwall, England as far as I can tell. Would you say this is likely?
Thanks, Chris Nance

Another Cornish I2! You and JFWR both now.

I'm somewhat familiar with your surname. It means "valley" in Cornish, and is related in that way to other Cornish surnames that start with "Nan-"... the surname Nancarrow pops up in my ancestry, and it has "Nance" as part of its origin ("Nance-carrow", meaning "valley of deer.")

Did you test STR markers so that we can determine which subcluster you belong to?

13-08-12, 18:55
Sparky, here are my STR markers. Thanks for your help! I'm a newbie....Chris Nance



DYS393

DYS390

DYS19

DYS391

DYS385

DYS426

DYS388

DYS439

DYS389I

DYS392

DYS389II



13

24

16

11

12-15

11

12

11

13

11

30

sparkey
13-08-12, 20:57
Sparky, here are my STR markers. Thanks for your help! I'm a newbie....Chris Nance



DYS393
DYS390
DYS19
DYS391
DYS385
DYS426
DYS388
DYS439
DYS389I
DYS392
DYS389II


13
24
16
11
12-15
11
12
11
13
11
30




It looks like you fit into cluster B1, although the confidence is low-ish with only 12 markers. 37 would have fit you in with more confidence. Anyway, if I'm right and you indeed cluster in B1, then you're in the oldest group, and the group that more certainly has continental origins. That is, it's likely that your ancestors came to Britain post-Stonehenge, alongside the Iron Age Celts or Belgae or Anglo-Saxons or something like that that's relatively late (as you can tell, it's tough to say for sure which one it was). The B1 cluster is one of the few in I2 with anybody famous (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?27655-Searching-for-famous-I2-carriers). Namely, Oliver Winchester (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Winchester), namesake of the Winchester Rifle, was I2a1b2-Isles-B1. Your ancestors probably diverged from his about 2000-4000 years ago, something like that.