PDA

View Full Version : The founding and migration of I2a2b



jdanel
29-01-11, 02:22
I accept Ken Nordtvedt's conclusions about the timing of the founding of I2a2a and b.
It is the location that seems a problem to me.
----------------
The founding, migration and near extinction of I2a2b.

If I am reading his Warped Founders Tree correctly, I2a2a and I2a2b branched
off a proto I2a2 (that no longer exists?) about 13,000 years ago. That
requires that the founders were in the same geography at that time. If
northern Germany, how did all those !2a2a get all the way back down into the
Balkans? Difficult, if not impossible. Especially with the Carpathians in the way.
Much simpler to see the location as being the area of deltas of the Danube
and Dneister. Then, perhaps in the warm spell before the Younger Dryas, the
two groups migrated upriver - I2a2a going up the Danube and I2a2b going up
the Dneister - leading to a quick clean split. The impassibility of the
Carpathians reinforced and maintained the split over time.
The I2a2b moved on, seems likely, to Doggerland and the I2a2a were contained in the Balkans.

http://danel.us/resources/Grandfathers+Path6web2.gif
-----------
Doggerland Genetic Bottleneck: N >>> N*
Caused by the combined effects of the Younger Dryas, the 8.200 kiloyear climate event, Lake Agassiz drainage sharply raising sea level by 3 meters, and the three Storegga tsunamis.
-
As Doggerland submerged and the land divided, the I2a2b were split - a few
on the west side and a very few, perhaps as few as a single individual, on the east but the majority were trapped and slowly dying out on shrinking Doggerland islands where they were running out of firewood (as happened at Easter Island). They had neither the marine technology to escape the slowly rising water nor the wood to make boats. This was happening during the Younger Dryas glacial period so the population would have had a hard time maintaining themselves during this long time of land subsidence and bitter cold. A population collapse would seem very likely as a result.
-
Then, after the end of the Younger Dryas, there were four catastrophic events over the span of less than a couple hundred years. Lake Agassiz drained, raising the sea level 1 to 3 meters in a matter of only a few days time and causing the "8.2 kiloyear event", a cold period, perhaps 5˚ below normal, lasting about 3 centuries. This would have caused major habitat and resource destruction in the low flat islands and shorelines of Doggerland and severe disruption of the food supply resulting great loss of life.
-
Then the remnants of Doggerland were destroyed and the remaining I2a2b were nearly exterminated by the three devastating Storegga Tsunamis about 6,200 BC creating a major genetic "bottleneck" (e.g. N*=small). This "bottleneck" might go a long ways toward explaining the very long time between the founding of I2a2b about 13,000 ya and and the TMRCA only about 5,000 ya. It might also explain the relatively low numbers of I2a2b overall.
-
It is thought that the sea rise from Lake Agassiz and the Storegga tsunamis resulted in the opening of the English Channel, isolating those peoples who were on Britain. At first the channel opening may have been narrow enough and shallow enough to walk across at low tide, but the sea level continued rising at the rate of a meter a century, so the walking period did not last very long.

http://danel.us/resources/Doggerland+Isles+B.gif
----------------------
Thriving on Britain

Over on the west bank - in a large area now under water off East Anglia - Isles C was founded and thrived. The continued rise of sea level drove them to the west where they dispersed throughout Britain.
Isles A split off from a remnant of Isles B about 3000 BC. Then Isles C2 and D
split off from C about 2000 BC in Ireland.
-
Some 6,000 years after the tsunamis, and 2,500 years after the split of C and D, the Anglo-Saxon and other "late" invasions started conceivably containing some B from those very few folks left on the continent 6,000 years before. Isles is a minuscule part of the continental gene pool and therefore any contribution to the gene pool of Isles B in Britain and Ireland would be minuscule and add none at all to groups A, C, and D.
--------------
This is speculation, logical deduction, and conjecture, but it seems to fit the
currently known (to me) facts.
Thoughts? Poke holes in it so I can improve the hypothesis.
----------------
Excellent paper on the Storegga Tsunami:
The catastrophic final flooding of Doggerland by the Storegga Slide tsunami

http//sprint.clivar.org/soes/staff/ejr/Rohling-papers/2008-Weninger%20et%20al%20Documenta%20Praehistorica.pdf (http://sprint.clivar.org/soes/staff/ejr/Rohling-papers/2008-Weninger%20et%20al%20Documenta%20Praehistorica.pdf )

Yorkie
29-01-11, 10:59
The timing of the founding of I2a2a and b is not something that I know
anything about so I have to accept Ken Nordtvedt's conclusions about that.
It is the location that seems a problem to me.
----------------
The founding and migration
If I am reading his Warped Founders Tree correctly, I2a2a and I2a2b branched
off a proto I2a2 (that no longer exists?) about 13,000 years ago. That
requires that the founders were in the same geography at that time. If
northern Germany, how did all those !2a2a get all the way back down into the
Balkans? Difficult, if not impossible. Especially with the Carpathians in the way.
Much simpler to see the location as being the area of deltas of the Danube
and Dneister. Then, perhaps in the warm spell before the Younger Dryas, the
two groups migrated upriver - I2a2a going up the Danube and I2a2b going up
the Dneister - leading to a quick clean split. The impassibility of the
Carpathians reinforced and maintained the split over time.
The I2a2b moved on, seems likely, to Doggerland and the I2a2a were contained in the Balkans.
-----------
Doggerland Genetic Bottleneck: N >>> N*
Caused by the combined effects of the Younger Dryas, Lake Agassiz drainage, and the three Storegga tsunamis.
As Doggerland submerged and the land divided, the I2a2b were split - a few
on the west side and a very few on the east but the majority were trapped and slowly dying out on shrinking Doggerland islands where they were running out of firewood (as happened at Easter Island). They had neither the marine
technology to escape the slowly rising water nor the wood to make boats. This was happening during the Younger Dryas glacial period so the population would have had a hard time maintaining themselves during this long time of land subsidence and bitter cold. A population collapse would seem very likely as a result.
Then, at the end of the Younger Dryas, there were four catastrophic events
over the span of less than a couple hundred years. Lake Agassiz
drained, raising the sea level 1 to 3 meters in a matter of only a few days time. This would have caused major habitat and resource destruction in the low flat islands and shorelines of Doggerland resulting great loss of life. Then the remnants of Doggerland were destroyed and the remaining I2a2b were nearly exterminated by the three devastating Storegga Tsunamis about 6,200 BC creating a major genetic "bottleneck" (e.g. N*=small). This "bottleneck" might go a long ways toward explaining the very long time between the founding of I2a2b about 13,000 ya and and the TMRCA only about 5,000 ya. It might also explain the relatively low numbers of I2a2b overall.
[ Another intriguing idea is that the I2a2*, which has not yet been found anywhere, could have been driven to complete extinction by the combined effects of these catastrophies. ]
-------------------- --
Thriving on Britain
Over on the west bank - now England - Isles C was founded and thrived.
Isles A split off from a remnant of Isles B about 3000 BC. Then Isles C2 and D
split off from C about 2000 BC in Ireland.
Some 2,500 years after the split of C and D, the Anglo-Saxon invasion started
conceivably containing some B from those few folks left on the continent 6,000 years before. Certainly it seems this would have to be a minuscule contribution to the total gene pool of Isles B in Britain and Ireland and none at all to groups A, C, and D.
--------------
This is speculation, logical deduction, and conjecture, but it seems to fit the
currently known (to me) facts.
Thoughts? Poke holes in it so I can improve the hypothesis.
----------------
Excellent paper on the Storegga Tsunami:
The catastrophic final flooding of Doggerland by the Storegga Slide tsunami

sprint.clivar.org/soes/staff/ejr/Rohling-papers/2008-Weninger%20et%20al%20Documenta%20Praehistorica.pdf

You will have to add the hppt part because I can't post URLs yet.

Nordtvedt has dated I2a2b-Isles squarely in the Neolithic. However, there are those such as Tim Owen [see the Ingenta blog, 'Genes of the Cruthin' 2010, by Ian Adamson and Tim Owen] who have argued for a Mesolithic dating and an entry to Britain via Doggerland and possible links to the narrowblade culture.

Nordtvedt sees I2a2b-Isles as hitting the British shores around 6,000 years ago. There were other 'early I clades' too such as [the earliest] the Iberia-founded M26 I2a1, I2* and I2b1a-English.

According to Nordtvedt, I2a2b-Isles was founded in northern Germany. Perhaps it got there via LBK bands. From northern Germany, where the snp L161 was 'born', I2a2b-Isles was probably carried to Britain and Ireland via successive waves of people- pre-Celts, Celts and later Anglo-Saxons. Owen has conjectured that the Anglo-Saxons account for at least some of the I2a2b distribution in England and lowland Scotland. Apparently, Bryan Sykes is in agreement. One can envisage I2a2b carried across by Germanics in small quantities alongside I1, I2b1 and R1a1 in the historical period.

There are currently 8 subclades of I2a2b-Isles- A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2, D1, D2. There is a decent [for a small clade] distribution across the north European plain with examples of subclades A, C, and D as well as the oldest B subclade represented on the continent. Germany has most members.

The bulk of I2a2b-Isles is in Ireland. Here, Tim Owen has conjectured, there may be a link to the Cruthin- allegedly Ireland's earliest post-LGM inhabitants. Owen draws attention to a hotspot for subclades C and D around Rathcroghan in County Roscommon, which was once a Cruthin satellite settlement [see 'Genes of the Cruthin'], the bulk of Cruthin settlement being in Ulster.

In Ireland, the subclades appear to be concentrated in the western half of the island, in what are argubly 'refuge' areas. The distribution is spread thinly across the population. The suggestion here is of a relic, pre-Gaelic population, subsumed beneath an R1b-majority Gaelic one.

More research needs to be conducted on I2a2b. It is clearly north-west European and absent in eastern Europe. The branchlines between it and I2a2a separated some 13,000 years ago. Eventually, I hope, the databases will enlarge so that we are able to say more about this fascinating little clade.

jdanel
29-01-11, 16:26
Thank you for the reply, Yorkie.
-
There is a map of this at: groups.ancestry.com/group/35649022/media/124835614
You will have to add the http// part since, as a new member, I can't post a URL nor a graphic.
-
I just want to clarify a few points (the tone of these may seem argumentative, but it is not intended that way):

"The branchlines between it and I2a2a separated some 13,000 years ago"

Nordtvedt says I2a2b founded from whom? Who were the branchlines?, 13,000 years ago ≠ neolithic in northern Germany?

"snp L161 was 'born'" about 6,000 ya, but Nordtvedt shows the split about 13,000 ya. So L161 is not the split that defines the founding? What is? The extinct? I2a2*?

"One can envisage I2a2b carried across by Germanics in small quantities". Yes, minuscule amounts however.

"[for a small clade]" I am suggesting the Doggerland disasters as the cause of that Bottleneck smallness.

"There is a decent [for a small clade] distribution across the north European plain with examples of subclades A, C, and D" I have not found that data. Where should I be looking for it?

"A, C, and D ... on the continent" Given the founding dates of A, C, and D these would have to be back migrations, would they not?

" in what are argubly 'refuge' areas" Refuge from what? From the Anglo-Saxons and Danes and such as the ice was long since gone?

"The distribution is spread thinly across the population. The suggestion here is of a relic, pre-Gaelic population, subsumed beneath an R1b-majority Gaelic one." I agree, but this is in complete conflict with Sykes ideas, isn't it?

A quote from Tim Owen: "However, I am inclined to trust Ken Nordtvedt's age estimates of I2a2b-Isles, and my view is that in many cases our clade represents some of the oldest stock in Britain [possibly Cruthin]. Having said that, I tend to see I2a2b-Isles as possibly hitting the shores in different 'waves', at different times. I can, for example, imagine a tiny percentage of I2a2b-Isles being brought to England and lowland Scotland by lower-Elbe Germanics. I struggle to envisage the Norse carrying I2a2b-Isles though- as Rootsi et al [2004] said,I2a2 is 'absent' in Scandinavia... " Not too much agreement with Sykes in this: "trust Ken", "tiny percentage" and "struggle to envisage"

Yorkie
29-01-11, 20:48
Thank you for the reply, Yorkie.
-
There is a map of this at: groups.ancestry.com/group/35649022/media/124835614
You will have to add the http// part since, as a new member, I can't post a URL nor a graphic.
-
I just want to clarify a few points (the tone of these may seem argumentative, but it is not intended that way):

"The branchlines between it and I2a2a separated some 13,000 years ago"

Nordtvedt says I2a2b founded from whom? Who were the branchlines?, 13,000 years ago ≠ neolithic in northern Germany?

"snp L161 was 'born'" about 6,000 ya, but Nordtvedt shows the split about 13,000 ya. So L161 is not the split that defines the founding? What is? The extinct? I2a2*?

"One can envisage I2a2b carried across by Germanics in small quantities". Yes, minuscule amounts however.

"[for a small clade]" I am suggesting the Doggerland disasters as the cause of that Bottleneck smallness.

"There is a decent [for a small clade] distribution across the north European plain with examples of subclades A, C, and D" I have not found that data. Where should I be looking for it?

"A, C, and D ... on the continent" Given the founding dates of A, C, and D these would have to be back migrations, would they not?

" in what are argubly 'refuge' areas" Refuge from what? From the Anglo-Saxons and Danes and such as the ice was long since gone?

"The distribution is spread thinly across the population. The suggestion here is of a relic, pre-Gaelic population, subsumed beneath an R1b-majority Gaelic one." I agree, but this is in complete conflict with Sykes ideas, isn't it?

A quote from Tim Owen: "However, I am inclined to trust Ken Nordtvedt's age estimates of I2a2b-Isles, and my view is that in many cases our clade represents some of the oldest stock in Britain [possibly Cruthin]. Having said that, I tend to see I2a2b-Isles as possibly hitting the shores in different 'waves', at different times. I can, for example, imagine a tiny percentage of I2a2b-Isles being brought to England and lowland Scotland by lower-Elbe Germanics. I struggle to envisage the Norse carrying I2a2b-Isles though- as Rootsi et al [2004] said,I2a2 is 'absent' in Scandinavia... " Not too much agreement with Sykes in this: "trust Ken", "tiny percentage" and "struggle to envisage"

Hi. I'm just suggesting that the snp L161 was 'born' in northern Germany, and the date of 6,000 years ago is the first time it hit the British shores [probably entering via Scotland first, as is suggested by Owen].

The data is with Ken Nordtvedt, and also can be accessed by members of the Ancestry.com 'L161 I2a2b-Isles' group. Aiden Mulvihill compiled the map. It clearly shows members in A, C and D subclades on the continent. Nordtvedt has confirmed their presence too. Whether this is due to back-migration, I do not know.

Tim Owen's view is that the 'refuge' areas of the south-west, Connaught, parts of Ulster etc are 'refuges' for the pre-Celtic Cruthin and related peoples against the Gaelic incursions.

The only conflict between Owen and Sykes is in terms of the dating of I2a2 in Britain. Sykes is yet to be convinced by substantial dates that I2a2 dates to the Neolithic. He consequently sees all I2a2 as being brought to Britain and Ireland by 'invaders'- in England and Scotland by Anglo Saxons in the main , and in Ireland by Norse and Normans. Tim Owen's position is slightly different. He concurs with Nordtvedt's dating of I2a2 in Britain/Ireland but agrees with Sykes that in some cases the Anglo Saxons are responsible for carrying small quantities of I2a2b into England and lowland Scotland. He rejects the idea that Scandinavians were involved. His favoured Germanic carriers are definately Anglo-Saxons. Owen regards the vast bulk of I2a2b in Ireland as pre-Celtic. Originally, Nordtvedt just spoke about I2a2b as being echoes of the post-LGM settlers. Owen then suggested that different 'waves' of peoples, at different times, [pre-Celts, Celts and Anglo-Saxons, his 'lower-Elbe Germanics'] carried I2a2b to England and Scotland etc. Sykes has regarded I2a2 in Britain as having an 'invader' origin since at least the start of his Oxford Ancestors commercial testing.

Something else that might interest you. I am I2a2b on my Yline [and I1 on my Maternal Grandfather's Yline] and recently asked Peter Forster to run my haplotype through his huge, anonymised Cambridge data-base. Where was the hot-spot? England? Ireland? No... Germany! So, one rather suspects that there is more I2a2b out there on the continent than is realised. The public databases like SMGF and YSEARCH are limited. This find of Forster's is on an I2a2b-Isles D2 signature, not the oldest B subclade...

As an aside, Forster also confirmed a hot-spot of Norway for my Maternal Grandfather's I1 signature. It is worth having haplotypes reanalysed by his 'Roots for Real/Genetic Ancestor' team. Their database is much bigger than any Ysearch/SMGF database.

Which subclade of I2a2b you in, if any?

how yes no 2
29-01-11, 22:52
The timing of the founding of I2a2a and b is not something that I know
anything about so I have to accept Ken Nordtvedt's conclusions about that.
It is the location that seems a problem to me.
----------------
The founding and migration
If I am reading his Warped Founders Tree correctly, I2a2a and I2a2b branched
off a proto I2a2 (that no longer exists?) about 13,000 years ago. That
requires that the founders were in the same geography at that time. If
northern Germany, how did all those !2a2a get all the way back down into the
Balkans? Difficult, if not impossible. Especially with the Carpathians in the way.
Much simpler to see the location as being the area of deltas of the Danube
and Dneister. Then, perhaps in the warm spell before the Younger Dryas, the
two groups migrated upriver - I2a2a going up the Danube and I2a2b going up
the Dneister - leading to a quick clean split. The impassibility of the
Carpathians reinforced and maintained the split over time.
The I2a2b moved on, seems likely, to Doggerland and the I2a2a were contained in the Balkans.

great explanation!
there is some I2a2a as far as south Germany...
I2b probably did take Dniester route together with I2a2b...

Seneca's mention of Serians in Europe is related to Danube

and Byzantine emperor did record (though several centuries after the event) settlements of Serbs from Bohemia on Balkan...and Bohemia is on this route along the Danube...

Scordisci are as well spread along this route.... from them tribe named Serdi entered Thrace...

http://www.euratlas.net/geography/europe/rivers/dniester.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Danubemap.jpg/800px-Danubemap.jpg

btw. this source area between Dniester and Danube is roughly Moldova... Moldova has high frequency of I2a2 but the variance is low there, much lower than area just northeast of it above Black sea... so perhaps the source was above Black sea and still the routes of spread towards west were twofold as indicated by you...

spread could have been all around Black sea,,,as Veneti are on south shores of Black sea... later when Veneti moved to Europe they settled also in area of north Adriatic coast and due to that today there is variance hotspot in Slovenia....
according to Jordanes, early Slavs belong to populous race of Veneti

jdanel
30-01-11, 00:19
Y_____, I think we may be in about 99% agreement.
-
So the born date is the 13,500 y.a., yes? (For that date, Moldova is getting my vote for now.) Then what points to the arrival in Britain as being 6,000 year ago? As opposed to 8,200 y.a. for the Storegga/Agassiz events?
----------------
"It clearly shows members in A, C and D subclades on the continent. "
One A in France, 2 D in Denmark, and 5 C elsewhere. I wouldn't suggest that shows much of a continental presence for them. Low enough to be considered irrelevant, maybe?
"So, one rather suspects that there is more I2a2b out there on the continent than is realised." Yes, definitely B, but maybe not A, C, and D. What does Forster mean by hotspot on that D2? Is he running comparisons on enough markers to make that distinction? (some suspect Sykes is not)
---------------
"6,000 years ago is the first time it hit the British shores [probably entering via Scotland first, as is suggested by Owen]" How about East Anglia, near where the landbridge was and where, at that time, the narrowest gap probably was?
-----------------
"Tim Owen's view is that the 'refuge' areas of the south-west, Connaught, parts of Ulster etc are 'refuges' for the pre-Celtic Cruthin and related peoples against the Gaelic incursions." I think this must be the case, but...
Sykes says "in Ireland by Norse and Normans." If so, then the clear zone around Dublin on Aiden's map would be filled with various I2a2, when in fact it is devoid of such. And also would be stronger in the Anglo Saxon areas, but it is not.
Yes, some tiny bit showed up with the later invaders, but the vast majority seems to be from the early invaders.
-----------------------
I am Isles A1 with my closest - 750 y.a. - links to O'Driscolls of Cork. The genealogy says Cheshire and Bristol, but no dna matches from anywhere in England yet.
-------------------------
This is the url for the hi-resolution map. http://danel.us/resources/Grandfathers+Path7.gif (http://danel.us/resources/Grandfathers+Path6.gif)

http://danel.us/resources/Grandfathers+Path7web.jpg

jdanel
30-01-11, 00:46
http://danel.us/resources/Grandfathers+Path6web2.gif

jdanel
30-01-11, 02:27
TMRCA, per Nordtvedt May 2010

L161 – Isles-A --- 1500 years
L161 – Isles-B --- 5370 years including Continental haplotypes
L161 – Isles-B --- 4740 years excluding all Continental haplotypes
L161 – Isles-C --- 2730 years
L161 – Isles-D --- 2520 years

spongetaro
30-01-11, 02:29
it could be interesting to link I2a2 with red hair features in Scotland and Ireland

jdanel
30-01-11, 02:53
A quote from a posting by Dr. Nordtvedt:

"a prolonged cold period of over a thousand years duration --- the Younger Dryas. It was probably the most recent severe demographic setback our ancestors around Europe experienced. Although y haplogroup I (y-Hg I) was by then a mature-in-age haplogroup, being perhaps 10,000 years old already, I conclude from collecting and examining between five and ten thousand haplotypes of y-Hg I today that only nine males emerged from Younger Dryas with surviving male-line descendants today. These Younger Dryas Nine now have tens of millions of male descendants in Europe and elsewhere on the globe where Europeans have settled in recent centuries.

These nine Hg I males were ancestors, indeed very ancient ancestors, of various European* haplogroup TMRCAs (founders) with present population names:

I1
I2*
I2a*
I2a1
I2a2a
I2a2b
I2a3
I2b1
I2b2

Note: There are no known haplotypes today of haplogroups I* and I2b*; this is an artifact to some degree of the accidental order of y-SNP discoveries and the haplogroup naming rules --- today's inventory of known y-SNPs being just a drop in the bucket compared to all existing y-SNPs in the phylogenetic tree. The tree, drawn to time scale, without the names on it, more closely represents the nature of our phylogenetic knowledge today.

12,000 B.P. each of these nine males were not alone; each was living in a surrounding hunter-gatherer male population of immediate family, extended family, clan, tribe, etc. Some of these neighboring males carried y haplotypes very close to one of the nine and descended from common ancestors not too much further back in time. These clades of haplotypes surrounding each of the nine could be counted in the tens, hundreds, maybe even thousands of contemporaries.

But due to very high extinction probabilities for these male lines, exceeding 99 percent, these nine lucky ones emerged as sole representatives of their clades having surviving lines today. Many y-clades no doubt went completely extinct in that era."

And in a different post: "We are looking at a species at the razor edge of overall extinction in
Europe until the last several millenia --- at least that's my perspective right now. Ken"

----------------
The Younger Dryas was tough, but so were those folks. It didn't kill them off, but it probably kept population growth to near zero. The tsunamis and the Lake Agassiz drainage were killers, though.

jdanel
30-01-11, 03:10
"Timeline of key events from Interclade and Intraclade Variances
-
13,500 b.p. The two branch lines eventually leading to I2a2a-Dinaric and I2a2b-Isles separate.
-
6,000 b.p. Two branch lines eventually leading to I2a2b-Isles-B(&A) and to I2a2b-Isles-C(&D) separate
-
5,600 b.p. TMRCA for 17 Continental members of Clade B
-
4.800 b.p. TMRCA for 34 Isles members of Clade B (A/B node about the same time)
-
3,900 b.p. TMRCA of Clade C (C/D node about the same time)
-
2,500 b.p. TMRCA of Clade D
-
1,500 b.p. TMRCA of clade A"
-
per Nordtvedt, Mar 2010
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I/2010-03/1270062919

end of quote -

The 13,500 location seems to fit Moldova.

All the rest may have happened in what I shall call "Greater East Anglia" as that large area of Doggerland to the west of the the early English Channel as it formed.

There has to be a real name for that location. Anybody know what it is?

jdanel
30-01-11, 03:58
it could be interesting to link I2a2 with red hair features in Scotland and Ireland
I think the I2a2b are black hair, blue eyes, and very pale skin. In the US they may be called "Black Irish" because of the hair color. I have heard that this term is not used or recognized in Ireland.

The "red hair" conversation is being done on another thread.

iapodos
30-01-11, 14:05
I think the I2a2a are black hair, blue eyes, and very pale skin. In the US they may be called "Black Irish" because of the hair color. I have heard that this term is not used or recognized in Ireland.

The "red hair" conversation is being done on another thread.

I don't believe that I2a2a have black hair at all. Why? Because the black hair is probably among rearest hair color among Slavic peoples which are typical representatives of I2a2a. I was wroting about that here:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26164

So the red hair is really interesting to be investigated considering early descriptions of Slavs and I2a2 distribution.

And I don't see what makes you believe that division of I2a2a and I2a2b happened in Moldavia? Upper Danube basin (region of today Moravia and around Viennna) was much probably place for division. It is close to region were some I2a* haplotypes also exist. (Alpine and France variant). Some I2a2* population lived in Danube Basin for long time and Danube was their entrance to Europe, not the region north of Carpathians as you suggested.
Lepenski vir culture is clear evidence of that.

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

In the region of Moldavia there is no other I haplotypes except I2a2Dinaric North ( end those due to recent migrations of Slavs), and I don't understand what makes you to think that it was region of diferenentation between I2a2a and I2a2b.

jdanel
30-01-11, 15:43
[QUOTE=iapodos;364554]I don't believe that I2a2a have black hair at all. W

OOPS, I meant I2a2b, my family.

jdanel
30-01-11, 15:49
And I don't see what makes you believe that division of I2a2a and I2a2b happened in Moldavia? Upper Danube basin (region of today Moravia and around Viennna) was much probably place for division. It is close to region were some I2a* haplotypes also exist. (Alpine and France variant). Some I2a2* population lived in Danube Basin for long time and Danube was their entrance to Europe, not the region north of Carpathians as you suggested.
Lepenski vir culture is clear evidence of that.



I do not disagree with that for most of the I2 variants, but if I2a2b were in the Danube basin back then, why are they not there now? All the others are still represented there to some extent.

It would require some sort of selective extinction of the I2a2b in the Danube. Has anyone suggested a mechanism for this selective extinction?

However, if we consider that the I2a2a were in those lovely protected lands along the Danube where they were easily able to thrive and multiply. If I2a2b had been there, they would have thrived too. But they did not. Why not? They were up on the northern plain suffering the vicissitudes of the Younger Dryas and, to use Nordtvedt's phrase, "at the razor edge of overall extinction"

Beyond that, it is not clear to me that I2a2a and I2a2b separated from each other directly. It seems that they probably both branched off a prior variety of I2a2-something, could be I2a2* or something else. So I am not saying, and doubt, that Mr. I2a2b's father was Mr. I2a2a. Just saying that they were not all that far apart geographically. Maybe the distance from Moldova to the Danube. Mr. I2a2a could very well have been born somewhere up the Danube from another I2a2-something father. This is why I did not draw an intersection of a and b. I think this is what Nordtvedt is saying in the quote back up in message 11.

How is Lepinski Vir evidence for any of this? One might very well expect that I2a2a would be there, but the only way it could have any bearing on this is if I2a2b were found there. Has Y-dna from Lepinski Vir been published?

spongetaro
30-01-11, 16:20
I think the I2a2b are black hair, blue eyes, and very pale skin. In the US they may be called "Black Irish" because of the hair color. I have heard that this term is not used or recognized in Ireland.




How can you make the diffrence between I2a2b Irish and All the other R1b Irish

[/QUOTE]The "red hair" conversation is being done on another thread.[/QUOTE]


Which thread ?

jdanel
30-01-11, 19:14
How can you make the diffrence between I2a2b Irish and All the other R1b Irish

The "red hair" conversation is being done on another thread.[/QUOTE]


Which thread ?[/QUOTE]
Here for one:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25346

Yorkie
30-01-11, 21:43
I think the I2a2b are black hair, blue eyes, and very pale skin. In the US they may be called "Black Irish" because of the hair color. I have heard that this term is not used or recognized in Ireland.

The "red hair" conversation is being done on another thread.

I don't see any evidence for this at all. I am I2a2b but fair-haired and blue-eyed. We inherit genes from so many lines of ancestry. Perhaps my fair-hair and blue eyes are inherited from my maternal Grandfather who was I1? Or they may have come from my father who is obviously I2a2b? Who knows? I have never undergome autosomal testing.

I think the so-called 'Black Irish' are many, many times more likely to be R1b.

how yes no 2
30-01-11, 21:47
I don't see any evidence for this at all. I am I2a2b but fair-haired and blue-eyed. We inherit genes from so many lines of ancestry. Perhaps my fair-hair and blue eyes are inherited from my maternal Grandfather who was I1? Or they may have come from my father who is obviously I2a2b? Who knows? I have never undergome autosomal testing.

I think the so-called 'Black Irish' are many, many times more likely to be R1b.
exactly...
I do not think that Y-DNA is directly related to hair and eyes color...
from what I understand, Y-DNA is just very small part of our genetics...

Yorkie
30-01-11, 22:05
Y_____, I think we may be in about 99% agreement.
-
So the born date is the 13,500 y.a., yes? (For that date, Moldova is getting my vote for now.) Then what points to the arrival in Britain as being 6,000 year ago? As opposed to 8,200 y.a. for the Storegga/Agassiz events?
----------------
"It clearly shows members in A, C and D subclades on the continent. "
One A in France, 2 D in Denmark, and 5 C elsewhere. I wouldn't suggest that shows much of a continental presence for them. Low enough to be considered irrelevant, maybe?
"So, one rather suspects that there is more I2a2b out there on the continent than is realised." Yes, definitely B, but maybe not A, C, and D. What does Forster mean by hotspot on that D2? Is he running comparisons on enough markers to make that distinction? (some suspect Sykes is not)
---------------
"6,000 years ago is the first time it hit the British shores [probably entering via Scotland first, as is suggested by Owen]" How about East Anglia, near where the landbridge was and where, at that time, the narrowest gap probably was?
-----------------
"Tim Owen's view is that the 'refuge' areas of the south-west, Connaught, parts of Ulster etc are 'refuges' for the pre-Celtic Cruthin and related peoples against the Gaelic incursions." I think this must be the case, but...
Sykes says "in Ireland by Norse and Normans." If so, then the clear zone around Dublin on Aiden's map would be filled with various I2a2, when in fact it is devoid of such. And also would be stronger in the Anglo Saxon areas, but it is not.
Yes, some tiny bit showed up with the later invaders, but the vast majority seems to be from the early invaders.
-----------------------
I am Isles A1 with my closest - 750 y.a. - links to O'Driscolls of Cork. The genealogy says Cheshire and Bristol, but no dna matches from anywhere in England yet.
-------------------------
http://danel.us/resources/Grandfathers+Path6.gif

This is the url for the map. I am going to try to post it here when I get the size reduced enough.

Nordtvedt suggested the date of 6,000 years for when I2a2b first hit the shores. My mathematics is not up to me arguing why not.

As far as I recall, Nordtvedt had a full record of continental members for each subclade. I wish I could find them, and might email to get them again. There are more members for the continent than Aiden's map shows. There are Ds in Belgium and Germany for a start. Ken described continental membership himself as 'decent' recently.

Forster tested me on 43 markers- enough resolution to make Germany the hotspot. Don't forget, his Cambridge database is one of the biggest globally.

As I said previoualy, I too think the bulk [which is located in Ireland] came with the 'early invaders', i.e, pre-Celts. However, the English and lowland Scots distribution suggests the Anglo-Saxons played a part, as Sykes too suggests. It may be a small part but it is worth emphasising. What concerns me is an accurate picture of I2a2b, as I am sure that that is the same for you. In the past, people tended to regard I2a2b-Isles as Ken calls it as an 'Irish' clade. Clearly, that is no longer tenable with enough membership elsewhere, especially in England, to challenge any idea of an Irish monopoly on the clade.

What does intrigue me, and I wonder what your view on this is, why there appears to be an absence of I2a2b in Wales?

No offence intended but I seriously don't think we can tie I2a2b in Ireland with black hair etc. The so-called 'Black Irish' are far more likely to be R1b. In any case, some I2a2b are fair-haired Englishmen [admittedly, in my case, with an I1 Maternal Grandfather who gets more Norwegian matches than British].

Good to see that there are fellow researchers out there like your good self with a passion for I2a2b. We really don't have enough data as yet though.

jdanel
30-01-11, 23:29
Wales is a very interesting question and I have not seen anyone post a reasonable suggestion as to why that might be. The clear zone (to whatever extent that it is not just a data artifact) around Dublin does have a probable cause, but not Wales so far as I know. No idea at all.

43 markers should be plenty. Too bad we can't get open access to the data, linking through y-search or some such.

Maybe the 6,000 years relates to the timing of the AB/CD node independent of geography. If the 8,200 years is out, then we need a way to get the continentals back across the channel with their TMRCA of 5,600 years. By 6,000 ya, the English Channel was a serious obstacle.

As to the hair - I yield.

Yorkie
31-01-11, 15:13
Wales is a very interesting question and I have not seen anyone post a reasonable suggestion as to why that might be. The clear zone (to whatever extent that it is not just a data artifact) around Dublin does have a probable cause, but not Wales so far as I know. No idea at all.

43 markers should be plenty. Too bad we can't get open access to the data, linking through y-search or some such.

Maybe the 6,000 years relates to the timing of the AB/CD node independent of geography. If the 8,200 years is out, then we need a way to get the continentals back across the channel with their TMRCA of 5,600 years. By 6,000 ya, the English Channel was a serious obstacle.

As to the hair - I yield.

I'll email Ken and try to find out the up to date breakdown of continental members in the subclades. There is more data than on Aiden's map [good though it is].

Yorkie
31-01-11, 21:24
From March 2010 [Rootsweb], Ken Nordtvedt gave the following breakdown of continental members [Germany, France, Belgium etc] of the subclades of L161 I2a2b-Isles:

Clade A: 0/48
Clade B: 17/51
Clade C: 7/55
Clade D: 6/68

So there were then 30 continentals out of 222 known 'Isles' haplotypes.

jdanel
31-01-11, 23:16
No Clade A. Surprising.

17 B may be what we expected and C being the next oldest may be expected to be proportional, but D, being the youngest and about equal to C, is another surprise.

Do you have any thoughts on why this shakes out like this?

If the C and D were due to some random back migration over time, why not A? Seems very odd.

-----
222 total is not too far from the number on Aiden's map. Maybe it just needs a minor update.

----
I think KN said he has looked through tens of thousands of tests. I wonder how large the number of total samples is that contains our 222 intrepid souls. A couple of tens of thousands would put us in the 1% range.

Yorkie
01-02-11, 01:01
No Clade A. Surprising.

17 B may be what we expected and C being the next oldest may be expected to be proportional, but D, being the youngest and about equal to C, is another surprise.

Do you have any thoughts on why this shakes out like this?

If the C and D were due to some random back migration over time, why not A? Seems very odd.

-----
222 total is not too far from the number on Aiden's map. Maybe it just needs a minor update.

----
I think KN said he has looked through tens of thousands of tests. I wonder how large the number of total samples is that contains our 222 intrepid souls. A couple of tens of thousands would put us in the 1% range.

JD,
Actually, I have an update for you- Ken emailed me back with some more up to date statistics:

Clade A: 1/53
Clade B: 18/65
Clade C: 5/63
Clade D: 6/80

Maybe he reclassified a few haplotypes, but this is the score as of now. So the latest figure is 30 continentals out of 261 known 'Isles' haplotypes. That we are a little group is beyond doubt. Mind you, I only think of the paternal Y line as part of my ancestry [which it is]. I am equally 'into' my Maternal Grandfather's I1 and my Mtdna U5a1. We are the product of many ancestral lines after all.

As to why C and D pan out the way they do, I haven't really an answer. I think Aiden suggested back-migration. If so, when? What a puzzle this is.

By the way, I can't access the Ancestry.com group and have lost Aiden's home email. If you are in touch, please ask him to contact me.

jdanel
01-02-11, 06:24
First, lets be clear that I do not understand the mathematics, but I have been looking at the equations on KN's home page.

It seems to me that the built in uncertainties based on statistics of a small number of data points (and 222 is a small number) and somewhat inexact variabilities could easily have a range that would include the 8,200 year event.

6,000 may be the peak on the probability curve, but it is probably a quite wide and flat curve.

jdanel
01-02-11, 06:43
Y_____, I have sent Aiden a message to contact you.

The new numbers are then:

Britain & Ireland Continent
Clade A: 52 1
Clade B: 47 18
Clade C: 58 5
Clade D: 74 6

This seems regular enough that there may not be any firm conclusions to be drawn. But I will do it anyway.

Clade A O'Driscolls in Cork are thought to include group of seafaring traders with regular trade with France, Spain, and England. Surely somebody must have jumped ship in some port or other. But there is only that one lonely continental. Odd.

I still think the C and D continentals are random events, not back "migrations" - but somebody jumping ship or leaving a "souvenir" during a walk-about - at the rate of about one or two per millenium for each clade. At that really really-low rate, maybe Clade A is not that far off target either.

The B, with fewer than the other clades in UK and more than 25% on the continent, would seem support for the splitting of B with the splitting of Doggerland concept.

I also wonder if the B2 would be selectively in England or B1 on the continent or vv. Could he break it down like that perhaps? That would really be getting into small number statistics.

jdanel
01-02-11, 15:45
"O'Rahilly's historical model ... distinguished four separate waves of Celtic invaders:
The Cruithne or Priteni (c. 700 – 500 BC)
The Builg or Érainn (c. 500 BC)
The Laigin, the Domnainn and the Gálioin (c. 300 BC)
The Goidels or Gael (c. 100 BC)"

These dates are millenia AFTER Isles people were already in Britain. So, even though this model is known to have errors, it seems that it would be impossible for Isles A to be Érainn or Fir Bolg and for Isles C or D to be Cruithne. We were there long before these later invaders.

In the legends, who was always already there when the invaders arrived?

The Fomorians.

Maybe that's who we are.

Yorkie
01-02-11, 16:43
"O'Rahilly's historical model ... distinguished four separate waves of Celtic invaders:
The Cruithne or Priteni (c. 700 – 500 BC)
The Builg or Érainn (c. 500 BC)
The Laigin, the Domnainn and the Gálioin (c. 300 BC)
The Goidels or Gael (c. 100 BC)"

These dates are millenia AFTER Isles people were already in Britain. So, even though this model is known to have errors, it seems that it would be impossible for Isles A to be Érainn or Fir Bolg and for Isles C or D to be Cruithne. We were there long before these later invaders.

In the legends, who was always already there when the invaders arrived?

The Fomorians.

Maybe that's who we are.

It depends on 'who' you think the Cruthin were. Tim Owen and Ian Adamson regard the Cruthin as the very earliest post-LGM settlers in Ireland. To reiterate, Owen mentions a hotspot for C and D in Rathcroghan, Roscommon; an alleged Cruthin satellite settlement.

Regarding D subclade of 'Isles', there is some in England and Scotland too, including East Anglia and London, and for people with non-Irish surnames. It occurs in Belgium and Germany as well, whether by random event, back-migration or magic, I do not know...

jdanel
01-02-11, 17:58
So if the Cruthin were Celtic, they were much too late. And If pre-Celtic, then maybe.

Or both:

Considering that Isles may be about 1% of the population, maintaining a cultural identity would seen to be a very difficult thing. We are seeing this in modern times with the on-going extinction of small languages everywhere.

There may be a lower threshold for the ability to maintain a culture and it may be as high as 5% to 10%.

(this is a subject that I know very little about. African-Americans are about 10% of the US population and those efforts to maintain a distinctive culture seem to me to be borderline successful, but unsustainable. So 10% looks to be below the threshold. On the other hand, Latinos with 20% or more in some areas are apparently maintaining theirs. But we are looking at a very short timeline on these events, so we will have to wait to see how it comes out.).

If so, Isles has been below the threshold, basically from the beginning.

This could have resulted in tiny minority pre-Cruthin peoples, like Isles, quickly taking on - melting into - the Cruthin culture, and thus thoroughly clouding the issue.

The same applies to Isles A and the Corcu Shogain of Cork, which appears to have been a tiny and isolated branch of the main Sogain from up in Ui Maine territory. Probably(?) Isles A of Cork melted into the Corcu Shogain which melted into the dominant culture.

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

I'm not sure the surname is important since they were only taken up a few hundred years ago. In my own case, my dna says Cork a long time ago perhaps among pre-Sogain folks, but the surname is apparently from Cheshire about 500 years ago. That leaves a millenium or so for one of those random events to have eventually generated my surnamed ancestor in England.

jdanel
01-02-11, 20:14
I have been using this as a TMRCA calculator. The variables are from about 2006. Is this still the appropriate one to use or is there a better one?

http://dna-project.clan-donald-usa.org/tmrca.htm

Yorkie
01-02-11, 20:54
So if the Cruthin were Celtic, they were much too late. And If pre-Celtic, then maybe.

Or both:

Considering that Isles may be about 1% of the population, maintaining a cultural identity would seen to be a very difficult thing. We are seeing this in modern times with the on-going extinction of small languages everywhere.

There may be a lower threshold for the ability to maintain a culture and it may be as high as 5% to 10%.

(this is a subject that I know very little about. African-Americans are about 10% of the US population and those efforts to maintain a distinctive culture seem to me to be borderline successful, but unsustainable. So 10% looks to be below the threshold. On the other hand, Latinos with 20% or more in some areas are apparently maintaining theirs. But we are looking at a very short timeline on these events, so we will have to wait to see how it comes out.).

If so, Isles has been below the threshold, basically from the beginning.

This could have resulted in tiny minority pre-Cruthin peoples, like Isles, quickly taking on - melting into - the Cruthin culture, and thus thoroughly clouding the issue.



The same applies to Isles A and the Corcu Shogain of Cork, which appears to have been a tiny and isolated branch of the main Sogain from up in Ui Maine territory. Probably(?) Isles A of Cork melted into the Corcu Shogain which melted into the dominant culture.

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

I'm not sure the surname is important since they were only taken up a few hundred years ago. In my own case, my dna says Cork a long time ago perhaps among pre-Sogain folks, but the surname is apparently from Cheshire about 500 years ago. That leaves a millenium or so for one of those random events to have eventually generated my surnamed ancestor in England.

Tim Owen and Ian Adamson ['Genes of the Cruthin' blog, 2010] see the Cruthin not as Celts but as the earliest, post-LGM settlers to Ireland. Owen links L161 I2a2b-Isles to them. However, in England and lowland Scotland Owen suggests that some must have arrived via Anglo-Saxons. Re the latter, Bryan Sykes, Anatole Klyoso and Jean Manco share that view.

Your take on the Irish scenario is interesting, JD. You see them as a tiny minority 'joining' the Cruthin. That is a fascinating idea, but if so, who were the Cruthin then? I think they were I2a2b-Isles.

The 'Isles' clades C and D definately have a hotspot in the former Cruthin satellite settlement of Rathcroghan. I don't see any other patterns with early I clades like that. It appears that M26 I2a1 got to the shores before L161 I2a2b-Isles, and maybe I2b1a-English might have, but the German-founded 'Isles' has a 'refuge' type distribution in Ireland most suggestive of a pre-Gaelic folk. Whatever the truth is, one thing is for sure, that in Ireland the R1bs won the demographic war.

I agree with you re surnames. Sometimes they are important but sometimes not. I noticed in the Wirral Project that some men bearing R1a1 and I1 'Viking' signatures bore Anglo-Saxon names.

how yes no 2
01-02-11, 22:20
"O'Rahilly's historical model ... distinguished four separate waves of Celtic invaders:
The Cruithne or Priteni (c. 700 – 500 BC)
The Builg or Érainn (c. 500 BC)
The Laigin, the Domnainn and the Gálioin (c. 300 BC)
The Goidels or Gael (c. 100 BC)"

These dates are millenia AFTER Isles people were already in Britain. So, even though this model is known to have errors, it seems that it would be impossible for Isles A to be Érainn or Fir Bolg and for Isles C or D to be Cruithne. We were there long before these later invaders.

In the legends, who was always already there when the invaders arrived?

The Fomorians.

Maybe that's who we are.


The race are known as the Fomoire or Fomoiri, names that are often Anglicised as Fomorians, Fomors or Fomori. Later in Middle Irish they are also known as the Fomóraig. The etymology of the name Fomoire (plural) has been cause for some debate. Medieval Irish scholars thought the name contained the element muire "sea", owing to their reputation as sea pirates.[1] In 1888, John Rhys was the first to suggest that it is an Old Irish word composed of fo "under/below" and muire "sea", concluding that it may refer to beings whose (original) habitat is under the sea.[2] Observing two instances of the early genitive form fomra, Kuno Meyer arrives at the same etymology, but takes it to refer to land by the sea.[3] Whitley Stokes and Rudolf Thurneysen, on the other hand, prefer to connect the second element *mor with a supposed Old English cognate mara "mare" (which survives today in the English word night-mare).[4][5] Building on these hypotheses, Marie-Louise Sjoestedt interprets the combination of fo and the root *mor as a compound meaning "inferior" or "latent demons".[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fomorians

Fomor might be corruption of Gomer ...


According to tractate Yoma, in the Talmud, Gomer is identified as the ancestor of the Gomermians, modern Germans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gomer

this relation of potentially I2a2-Isles Fomorians with Gomer makes sense as modern Germans do correlate with spread of haplogroup I, namely I1 and I2b

hm, this is fun to read...


In Irish mythology, the Fomoire (or Fomorians) are a semi-divine race said to have inhabited Ireland in ancient times. They may have once been believed to be the beings who preceded the gods, similar to the Greek Titans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fomorians


In Islamic folklore, the Persian historian Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari (c. 915) recounts a Persian tradition that Gomer lived to the age of 1000, noting that this record equalled that of Nimrod, but was unsurpassed by anyone else mentioned in the Torah.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gomer

btw. Serians/Seres whom I believe to be ancestors of I2a2 Serbs also lived long

The Greek geographer Strabo mentioned the Seres in his "Geographia", written early in the 1st century, in two passages. He also alludes to the longevity of the Seres, said to exceed two hundred years, and quotes from "some writers":

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

btw. you can read more on Serians of Seneca e.g. here
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showpost.php?p=362464&postcount=17
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showpost.php?p=362515&postcount=22
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showpost.php?p=363170&postcount=122

I think that spread of haplogroup I started in Persia in province of Kerman

Historical documents refer to Kerman as "Karmania", "Kermania", "Germania" and "Žermanya", which means bravery and combat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerman_province

for more details see http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showpost.php?p=361413&postcount=25


The modern-day Georgian word for hero, გმირი, gmiri, is derived from the word Gimirri.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cimmerians


The Hebrew name Gomer is widely considered to refer to the Cimmerians (Akkadian Gimirru, "complete"), who dwelt on the Eurasian Steppes[4] and attacked Assyria in the late 7th century BC. The Assyrians called them Gimmerai ; the Cimmerian king Teushpa was defeated by Assarhadon of Assyria sometime between 681 and 668 BC.[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gomer


The Cimmerian occupation of Lydia was brief, however, possibly due to an outbreak of plague. Between 637 and 626 BC, they were beaten back by Alyattes II of Lydia. This defeat marked the effective end of Cimmerian power. The term Gimirri was used about a century later in the Behistun inscription (ca. 515 BC) as a Babylonian equivalent of Persian Saka (Scythians). Otherwise Cimmerians disappeared from western Asian historical accounts, and their fate was unknown. It has been speculated that they settled in Cappadocia, known in Armenian as Գամիրք, Gamir-kʿ (the same name as the original Cimmerian homeland in Mannae).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cimmerians

Gomer island in Cappadocia in Asia minor and north of Black sea are today I2a2 areas...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2b/Noahsworld_map.png/402px-Noahsworld_map.png

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Noahsworld_map.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Noahsworld_map.jpg

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup_I2a.gif




The medieval myth of Partholon says that his followers were the first to invade Ireland after the flood, but the Fomorians were already there: Seathrún Céitinn reports a tradition that the Fomorians, led by Cíocal, had arrived two hundred years earlier and lived on fish and fowl until Partholon came, bringing the plough and oxen. Partholon defeated Cíocal in the Battle of Magh Ithe, but all his people later died of plague.
Then came Nemed and his followers. Ireland is said to have been empty for thirty years following the death of Partholon's people, but Nemed and his followers encountered the Fomorians when they arrived. At this point Céitinn reports another tradition that the Fomorians were seafarers from Africa, descended from Noah's son Ham. Nemed defeated them in several battles, killing their leaders Gann (1) and Sengann (1) (note that there were two Fir Bolg kings of the same name), but two new Fomorian leaders arose: Conand son of Faebar, who lived in Conand's Tower on Tory Island, County Donegal, and Morc son of Dela (note that the first generation of the Fir Bolg were also said to be sons of Dela).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fomorians

seafarers may be related to sea peoples...but it also can be about haplogroup E spread from Africa, also because they do origin from Noah's son Ham, while Gomer is son of Noah's son Japhet...

link to fir-Bolgars is interesting... as Bulgars are also among south Slavs and I2a2 is somewhat concentrated in South Slavs...
besides I personally think that names Serbs, Macedonians, Bulgars might be derived from mythical queen of Sheba who was in south of her country known as Makeda, and among Arabs as Balkis....
proto-Bulgars are supposed to be non-Slavic people who were akin to Huns and Avars and took over language from Slavic people over whom they rulled...however some medieval chronicle of south Slavs claims that south Slavs are Goths and that Bulgars did speak same language as them...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronicle_of_the_Priest_of_Duklja
btw. south Slavs are not Goths...Goths were perhaps I1 or R1b dominant...Slavs are according to Jordanes of Veneti race and I have elsewhere shown indications for that....

Serians might be same as Cimmerians though...and Veneti might be offspring of Cimmerians/Gomer as well...

Riphath (ree-fath)- a crusher, Gomer's second son (Gen. 10:3, 1 Chronicles 1:6), supposed by Josephus to have been the ancestor of the Paphlagonians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riphath



....at the present time, they say, there are no Eneti to be seen in Paphlagonia, though some say that there is a village12 on the Aegialus13 ten schoeni14 distant from Amastris. But Zenodotus writes "from Enete,"15 and says that Homer clearly indicates the Amisus of today. And others say that a tribe called Eneti, bordering on the Cappadocians, made an expedition with the Cimmerians and then were driven out to the Adriatic Sea.16 But the thing upon which there is general agreement is, that the Eneti, to whom Pylaemenes belonged, were the most notable tribe of the Paphlagonians, and that, furthermore, these made the expedition with him in very great numbers, but, losing their leader, crossed over to Thrace after the capture of Troy, and on their wanderings went to the Enetian country,17 as it is now called. According to some writers, Antenor and his children took part in this expedition and settled at the recess of the Adriatic, as mentioned by me in my account of Italy.18 It is therefore reasonable to suppose that it was on this account that the Eneti disappeared and are not to be seen in Paphlagonia. [9]
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0198:book=12:chapter =3&highlight=thracian,eneti

I hold that Eneti separated in Thrace giving Vistula Veneti, Adriatic Veneti and Sarmatian Venedi (who are likely same as Antes)

jdanel
02-02-11, 03:20
Earliest in Ireland? I don't see how that can be.

The distribution of Isles B is much underrepresented in Ireland such that I think they did not go to Ireland at all until recently in the plantations and such of the past few hundreds of years.

If Isles B had gone to Ireland back around the time of Doggerland, they should outnumber the C and D in Ireland. But they don't. In fact, they are rather scarce looking to Aiden's map.

Who went to Ireland? Isles C did, that seems clear. When did they go? Sometime after their founding about 4,000 BC. Shall we guess 3,500 BC? That would give them barely enough time to build up a population and migrate the distance. It would seem to rule them out as being among the earliest post-LGM settlers, though.

The earliest people in Ireland got there about 7,000 BC, which is a very long time before the Isles C even existed. When the C arrived, the place was already pretty well populated and their migrating band(s) would have found itself as a tiny minority in the general population, therefore subject to being assimilated.

The things I find on the Cruthin date them from times pre-Roman through to the Middle Ages. All of these times are about 3,000 years after C arrived in Ireland. So whoever the Cruthin were, Isles C were pre-Cruthin.

To postulate that Isles were earliest post-LGM and Cruthin requires several very shaky assumptions:
• that Isles B got to Ireland. If so why such small numbers now?
• that their offshoots, the Isles C and D, replaced them somehow.
• that they populated well enough to form a large and powerful tribe and they did it in the midst of other people who did not share that success.
• that then they drastically shrunk down to their present 1% or 2% share of the population.

So here is the timeline:

7000 BC earliest post-LGM settlers.
3500 BC Isles C arrives in Ireland as a small migrating band.
500 BC Cruthin either arrive or develop from the indigenous peoples
500 BC Celts begin to arrive.

The time suggests that the burden of proof is to show that the Cruthin were not Celts, rather than the other way around.

Perhaps the people of Rathcroghan adopted Cruthin/Celtic culture the way the Khazars may have adopted Judaism.

Yorkie
02-02-11, 10:34
Earliest in Ireland? I don't see how that can be.

The distribution of Isles B is much underrepresented in Ireland such that I think they did not go to Ireland at all until recently in the plantations and such of the past few hundreds of years.

If Isles B had gone to Ireland back around the time of Doggerland, they should outnumber the C and D in Ireland. But they don't. In fact, they are rather scarce looking to Aiden's map.

Who went to Ireland? Isles C did, that seems clear. When did they go? Sometime after their founding about 4,000 BC. Shall we guess 3,500 BC? That would give them barely enough time to build up a population and migrate the distance. It would seem to rule them out as being among the earliest post-LGM settlers, though.

The earliest people in Ireland got there about 7,000 BC, which is a very long time before the Isles C even existed. When the C arrived, the place was already pretty well populated and their migrating band(s) would have found itself as a tiny minority in the general population, therefore subject to being assimilated.

The things I find on the Cruthin date them from times pre-Roman through to the Middle Ages. All of these times are about 3,000 years after C arrived in Ireland. So whoever the Cruthin were, Isles C were pre-Cruthin.

To postulate that Isles were earliest post-LGM and Cruthin requires several very shaky assumptions:
• that Isles B got to Ireland. If so why such small numbers now?
• that their offshoots, the Isles C and D, replaced them somehow.
• that they populated well enough to form a large and powerful tribe and they did it in the midst of other people who did not share that success.
• that then they drastically shrunk down to their present 1% or 2% share of the population.

So here is the timeline:

7000 BC earliest post-LGM settlers.
3500 BC Isles C arrives in Ireland as a small migrating band.
500 BC Cruthin either arrive or develop from the indigenous peoples
500 BC Celts begin to arrive.

The time suggests that the burden of proof is to show that the Cruthin were not Celts, rather than the other way around.

Perhaps the people of Rathcroghan adopted Cruthin/Celtic culture the way the Khazars may have adopted Judaism.

According to Nordtvedt, Isles B got to Ireland around 6,000-7,000 years ago from the north German plain and he has conjectured that C and D were 'born' in Ireland.

If you read any of Ian Adamson's books on the Cruthin [eg, 'The Ancient Kindred'], you will encounter vigorous arguments in favour of the Cruthin as the very earliest settlers in Ireland. Adamson puts many accounts of the Cruthin down to Gaelic hegemony etc.

jdanel
02-02-11, 17:12
Yes, "conjectured", and he could be right. I am not one to disagree at all with KN on facts, but conjecture is another matter.

That scenario requires answers to the questions:
How is it that C and D got back to England and came to outnumber B there?
Why do C and D outnumber B in Ireland, especially considering "plantation effect"?

"It appears that M26 I2a1 got to the shores before L161 I2a2b-Isles, and maybe I2b1a-English might have" Yep, and others too?

I think we agree on this:

Our folk were not first into Ireland, but they were pretty early - a very long time before the famous later invaders.

Certainly there was an indigenous culture. Whether it is the same one that is later identified as Cruthin is a question that time and archaeology may yet resolve.

Here is the problem I have: How could our small group have become so populous that all by themselves they became a large and powerful people and then nearly disappeared?

I think the "all by themselves" may be the problem. A large and powerful culture is generally an amalgam of all the smaller cultures found in that geography. That is how empire building works - the smaller groups are absorbed or they are killed. Our guys were not killed off, at least not entirely.

I agree that our folks were a part of that large powerful culture, but it was not exclusively our folks.

This may be a just semantic situation.
---------
It seems clear that D was born in Ireland, but it does not seem clear at all that C was.

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

Yorkie
02-02-11, 20:00
JD,
Are you sure that C and D outnumber B in England? I thought that there was more B.

According to Nordtvedt, C was 'born' in Ireland and D is an off-shoot of C.

jdanel
02-02-11, 22:47
JD,
Are you sure that C and D outnumber B in England? I thought that there was more B.

According to Nordtvedt, C was 'born' in Ireland and D is an off-shoot of C.
I am not sure. That idea is admittedly based on the partial data on Aiden's map, compounded by the very severe lack of knowledge among those individuals reporting samples as to where those data points actually belong. Then there may be substantial data bias by multiple samples from closely related family members. We are many samples and a long time from being able to draw any really firm conclusions.

If C were born in Ireland, then there seems to have been a truly astonishing amount of migration from Ireland to England. That seems the reverse of the generally accepted view of the situation, doesn't it?

I think KN made that conjecture quite some time back and he was careful to note that it was not an established fact. With more data having come in and different ideas floated around, I wonder if he still holds that view. It hasn't been all that long since this was considered an almost exclusively Irish clade. The addition of the English and Scottish and the continentals has caused major revisions to that view and to all the associated hypotheses. Except for those of Mr. Sykes who seems to hold firm despite new information that seems to completely undermine some of them, at least for L161.

Yorkie
03-02-11, 16:11
I am not sure. That idea is admittedly based on the partial data on Aiden's map, compounded by the very severe lack of knowledge among those individuals reporting samples as to where those data points actually belong. Then there may be substantial data bias by multiple samples from closely related family members. We are many samples and a long time from being able to draw any really firm conclusions.

If C were born in Ireland, then there seems to have been a truly astonishing amount of migration from Ireland to England. That seems the reverse of the generally accepted view of the situation, doesn't it?

I think KN made that conjecture quite some time back and he was careful to note that it was not an established fact. With more data having come in and different ideas floated around, I wonder if he still holds that view. It hasn't been all that long since this was considered an almost exclusively Irish clade. The addition of the English and Scottish and the continentals has caused major revisions to that view and to all the associated hypotheses. Except for those of Mr. Sykes who seems to hold firm despite new information that seems to completely undermine some of them, at least for L161.

There has been a lot of migration between Britain and Ireland over the last thousand years, to say the least. However, some of the Cs and Ds in England/Scotland have non-Irish surnames. The same goes for some of the Cs and Ds on the continent. There is a 'Krause' from Germany in D, for example. There are a fair few English and Scots surnames in there. I don't know what to make of this yet. What I do know, based on the continentals and English/Scots distribution, is that we cannot any longer regard L161 I2a2b-Isles as exclusively Irish. I wonder if the 'Isles' tag will apply in a few years time too when hopefully we have more data and more snps to work with?

jdanel
03-02-11, 17:10
There has been a lot of migration between Britain and Ireland over the last thousand years, to say the least. However, some of the Cs and Ds in England/Scotland have non-Irish surnames. The same goes for some of the Cs and Ds on the continent. There is a 'Krause' from Germany in D, for example. There are a fair few English and Scots surnames in there. I don't know what to make of this yet. What I do know, based on the continentals and English/Scots distribution, is that we cannot any longer regard L161 I2a2b-Isles as exclusively Irish. I wonder if the 'Isles' tag will apply in a few years time too when hopefully we have more data and more snps to work with?
Yes, there has been quite a bit of back and forth, but that wasn't what I was trying to say. Surnames are, I think, really irrelevant. That there is a D with a German name is not a surprise. Could be the result of a meeting between an Irishman on a walk-about or a sailor and a friendly German maid. And If that meeting had happened in the millenia before surnames, the result would still be a German surname. Or if they got married an Irish surname. For now, I would consider these to be outliers, but more data could certainly change that. For Isles B, the "Isles" part now does seem slightly wrong with 25% of the B being on the continent.

Let's assume, for lack of better information, that Aiden's map does represent the approximate distribution of C. It looks like about half of them are in Ireland and the other half on Britain, with a few outliers.

If C were born in Ireland, that would mean that something like half the population of C moved out of Ireland to Britain. And I think we are not able to suggest why it would be only the C moving east. The rest of the population mix would likewise have moved east - some kind of mass migration.

Half! I don't think even the famine gets to that kind of numbers moving east to England, does it? To Boston and New York, maybe, but England?

Much simpler to consider that C was born in England and, early on while the total numbers were still small, some of them moved on to Ireland. We would get the split distribution without having to postulate some great migration back to Britain. Ockham's razor.

Yorkie
03-02-11, 21:02
Yes, there has been quite a bit of back and forth, but that wasn't what I was trying to say. Surnames are, I think, really irrelevant. That there is a D with a German name is not a surprise. Could be the result of a meeting between an Irishman on a walk-about or a sailor and a friendly German maid. And If that meeting had happened in the millenia before surnames, the result would still be a German surname. Or if they got married an Irish surname. For now, I would consider these to be outliers, but more data could certainly change that. For Isles B, the "Isles" part now does seem slightly wrong with 25% of the B being on the continent.

Let's assume, for lack of better information, that Aiden's map does represent the approximate distribution of C. It looks like about half of them are in Ireland and the other half on Britain, with a few outliers.

If C were born in Ireland, that would mean that something like half the population of C moved out of Ireland to Britain. And I think we are not able to suggest why it would be only the C moving east. The rest of the population mix would likewise have moved east - some kind of mass migration.

Half! I don't think even the famine gets to that kind of numbers moving east to England, does it? To Boston and New York, maybe, but England?

Much simpler to consider that C was born in England and, early on while the total numbers were still small, some of them moved on to Ireland. We would get the split distribution without having to postulate some great migration back to Britain. Ockham's razor.

I can see your reasoning here but Nordtvedt definately sees C as being 'born' in Ireland. Maybe you are right. 'Who' might C represent, if any 'tribal' folk? As I understand it, some Brythonic-speaking tribes were in Ireland prior to the Gaels, for example the Brigantes [also in northern England]. I wonder if they figure here in any way? Some of the Brigantes are supposed to have moved to Ireland from England. What do you think?

jdanel
04-02-11, 00:48
I can see your reasoning here but Nordtvedt definately sees C as being 'born' in Ireland. Maybe you are right. 'Who' might C represent, if any 'tribal' folk? As I understand it, some Brythonic-speaking tribes were in Ireland prior to the Gaels, for example the Brigantes [also in northern England]. I wonder if they figure here in any way? Some of the Brigantes are supposed to have moved to Ireland from England. What do you think?
Brigantes: There are no written records of the Brigantes before the Roman conquest of Britain; it is therefore hard to assess how long they had existed as a political entity prior to that. Most key archaeological sites in the region seem to show continued, undisturbed occupation from an early date, so their rise to power may have been gradual rather than a sudden, dramatic conquest, or it may be linked to the burning of the large hill fort at Castle Hill, Almondbury near Huddersfield, c.430BCE. Territorially the largest tribe in Britain, the Brigantes encompassed sub-tribes or septs such as the Gabrantovices on the Yorkshire Coast,[6] and the Textoverdi[7] further North near Hadrian's Wall. The names Portus Setantiorum and Coria Lopocarum suggest other groups, the Setantii and the Lopocares located on the Lancashire coast and the River Tyne respectively. A name Corionototae[8] is also recorded but since the name seems to derive from *Corion Toutas meaning "tribal army" or "people's army" it may have been a name for a military force or resistance against the Romans rather than any tribe or sub-tribe. The Carvetii may have been another sub-tribe, or they may have been separate from the Brigantes; they made up a separate civitas under Roman rule. from Wikipedia

Brythonic seems to have an association with, among others, Wales and Welch, so apparently that would rule them out for being our people.

The Brigantes are considered Celtic and are apparently relatively recent, e.g. 430 BC. We are looking for something about 3,000 years older than that. The quote indicates that the Brigantes did have a lot of sub-tribes, so maybe one of them would be possible, but really I would rule them out as being Johnny-come-latelys.

I would like to KN's reasoning on that. As I mentioned, I do not like to find myself in disagreement with him - he is the master. But doesn't his data have exactly the same weaknesses that Aiden's map does? Uncertain locations even as to country, data bias by clustering, and so forth?

Yorkie
04-02-11, 10:32
Brigantes: There are no written records of the Brigantes before the Roman conquest of Britain; it is therefore hard to assess how long they had existed as a political entity prior to that. Most key archaeological sites in the region seem to show continued, undisturbed occupation from an early date, so their rise to power may have been gradual rather than a sudden, dramatic conquest, or it may be linked to the burning of the large hill fort at Castle Hill, Almondbury near Huddersfield, c.430BCE. Territorially the largest tribe in Britain, the Brigantes encompassed sub-tribes or septs such as the Gabrantovices on the Yorkshire Coast,[6] and the Textoverdi[7] further North near Hadrian's Wall. The names Portus Setantiorum and Coria Lopocarum suggest other groups, the Setantii and the Lopocares located on the Lancashire coast and the River Tyne respectively. A name Corionototae[8] is also recorded but since the name seems to derive from *Corion Toutas meaning "tribal army" or "people's army" it may have been a name for a military force or resistance against the Romans rather than any tribe or sub-tribe. The Carvetii may have been another sub-tribe, or they may have been separate from the Brigantes; they made up a separate civitas under Roman rule. from Wikipedia

Brythonic seems to have an association with, among others, Wales and Welch, so apparently that would rule them out for being our people.

The Brigantes are considered Celtic and are apparently relatively recent, e.g. 430 BC. We are looking for something about 3,000 years older than that. The quote indicates that the Brigantes did have a lot of sub-tribes, so maybe one of them would be possible, but really I would rule them out as being Johnny-come-latelys.

I would like to KN's reasoning on that. As I mentioned, I do not like to find myself in disagreement with him - he is the master. But doesn't his data have exactly the same weaknesses that Aiden's map does? Uncertain locations even as to country, data bias by clustering, and so forth?

Well, there are plenty of historians who argue that there were Brythonic tribes in Ireland before the coming of the Gaels, and the Brigantes are nearly always mentioned. However, I am not necessarily saying that they do link to Isles C. Nordtvedt seems fairly confident that C was born in Ireland and that D is an off-shoot. I suppose I could email him to ask his reasoning on this if you wish?

You ask me a straight question, and I'll give you a straight answer. Yes, Ken's data is weak in terms of numbers etc. That is without doubt. Isles is a tiny clade. Not everyone [Anatole Klyosov, for example] agrees with Ken's codification of clades and methods of dating. I have a great respect for Ken though. He has helped me a great deal over the last 4 years.

jdanel
04-02-11, 15:49
Well, there are plenty of historians who argue that there were Brythonic tribes in Ireland before the coming of the Gaels, and the Brigantes are nearly always mentioned. However, I am not necessarily saying that they do link to Isles C. Nordtvedt seems fairly confident that C was born in Ireland and that D is an off-shoot. I suppose I could email him to ask his reasoning on this if you wish?

You ask me a straight question, and I'll give you a straight answer. Yes, Ken's data is weak in terms of numbers etc. That is without doubt. Isles is a tiny clade. Not everyone [Anatole Klyosov, for example] agrees with Ken's codification of clades and methods of dating. I have a great respect for Ken though. He has helped me a great deal over the last 4 years.
We are in full agreement in our respect for KN and his work. He saw something early on that others did not see, and he has pursued it despite skepticism from some major players in the field. As time has provided more data, his concepts seem to be getting stronger, not weaker. Unlike some who drew early conclusions and seem to have entrenched themselves in defense of their initial positions and the reputations built thereon, Ken has shown himself to be willing to modify his concepts as new data has come in. He is seeking truth, not fame.

I am confident that his handling of the scientific information in the dna is as good as it can be, given the very small sample size. The data problems in KN's and Aiden's information I am referring to are in the non-scientific information, that is, in the very loosy-goosy way in which the geographic origins are self-reported by the sample donors. What conclusions could be drawn and where would the pushpin be placed if the location is reported as "perhaps Ireland"? To point out that this is a weakness in the data is not in any way to disparage Ken's or Aiden's work.

Ptolemy's map has its flaws, but we still refer to it. I suspect we may be referring to Aiden's map for a very long time as well.

When (when, not if) SNPs are discovered to support KN's clades, much of the opposition will have to fall away. L161 is just the first one. That is solid scientific evidence. There will be more. But SNPs do not improve or strengthen the state of the geographic information.
-----------

I would like very much to know Ken's thoughts on this, but it would be proper to frame the questions in such a way that his answers would not be required to constitute an endorsement of any particular firm position.

Perhaps these:

About the Bottleneck (I am pretty sure he is considering the idea that there may be a bottleneck because he has a file bottleneck.ppt on his site) - Have you developed a range of time in which this bottleneck may have happened, and if so, is the 8.2 kiloyear event perhaps within that time range? Is it possible that the bottleneck and the 8.2 kiloyear event coincide?

Would the distribution of C, considering the geographic data uncertainties, leave open the possibility that C was founded on Britain? How wide is the estimated time range and the geographic area for the founding?

I think these may be fair questions that would not require that he tie himself to any premature conclusions. What other questions would you suggest?

Yorkie
04-02-11, 19:57
Ok, I'll put these questions to Ken. I can't think of any others yet. I'll come back to you when I get an answer. Bear in mind that it is early Friday evening at the time of writing. Ken usually replies swiftly to me, but he might be relaxing this weekend away from the world of haplogroups.

Yorkie
05-02-11, 20:56
Ken Nordtvedt's reply:

'I2a2b-Isles C clades have TMRCA of 2,700 years. They look pretty Irish to me, although certainly not completely so. As to where the clades were founded, I nicknamed them 'Isles' not 'Emerald Isles', so I'm not about to pinpoint their foundings any more than geographical. There is an Irish tilt to all the clades of I2a2b, though some more strongly than others.

Present interclade distances suggest Isles B and Isles C branch lines went their own way very long ago, and then D later derived from the C bunch and A derived from the B bunch. So, there may be 2 histories here....'

Tantalizing words indeed from the Master himself...

jdanel
05-02-11, 23:12
Ken Nordtvedt's reply:

'I2a2b-Isles C clades have TMRCA of 2,700 years. They look pretty Irish to me, although certainly not completely so. As to where the clades were founded, I nicknamed them 'Isles' not 'Emerald Isles', so I'm not about to pinpoint their foundings any more than geographical. There is an Irish tilt to all the clades of I2a2b, though some more strongly than others.

Present interclade distances suggest Isles B and Isles C branch lines went their own way very long ago, and then D later derived from the C bunch and A derived from the B bunch. So, there may be 2 histories here....'

Tantalizing words indeed from the Master himself...
Tantalizing and, to me, it is a great relief to see that I may not be in a state of contradiction or disagreement. KN says: "As to where the clades were founded, I nicknamed them 'Isles' not 'Emerald Isles'" That would pretty much seem to leave the door open.

jdanel
06-02-11, 06:11
Here is a bit about Bell Beaker Culture and the copper that was mined at Killarney. Another of Europe’s best-preserved copper mines has been discovered at Mount Gabriel in County Cork, which was worked for several centuries in the middle of the second millennium.[6] Mines in Cork and Kerry are believed to have produced as much as 370 tonnes of copper during the Bronze Age. As only about 0.2% of this can be accounted for in excavated bronze artifacts, it is surmised that Ireland was a major exporter of copper during this period. This seems to closely overlap the time and range of Isles A.

Furthermore Isles A have some suspected associations with sea trade from western Cork and reaching to France and Iberia going back millenia.

"Bell beakers spread from continental Europe to Britain and Ireland around 2500BC. However, the pattern of spread of bell beakers from Europe indicate that it spread to Ireland through southern England.Beaker pottery may have initially been traded. Some of it will have come with people from the continent, after a time it will have been made locally. But the rapid spread of this fashion from Europe around 2500BC after several hundred years of very conservative pottery styles in Britain (e.g. grooved ware) indicates hugely increased contacts with Europe.
To me it seems that the first flowering of sophisticated societies in Wessex in the second half of the third millennium BC was based on some kind of trade with Europe. This trade brought European goods, such as beakers, as well as European ideas into southern England. In a more distorted form, those same goods and ideas also reached Ireland.
The trade of goods back to Europe may well have been, at least in part, of highly valuable arsenic bronze. I suspect that what made Wessex flourish was that ability to control the trade from Ireland to the continent.§
The middlemen and traders living and working in southern England could have worked together. More likely they formed rival centres, with settlements of people living (all year) at Durrington Walls, near Stonehenge and, arguably, in the West Kennet enclosures near Avebury. And during that early flowering of culture, based on the arsenic bronze trade from Ireland, they built the great monuments at Avebury and Stonehenge (and perhaps Stanton Drew) that we see today."


http://armchairprehistory.com/2010/05/08/stonehenge-avebury-ross-island-and-the-perils-of-the-cornish-coast/


The copper was mined on Ross Island at Killarney, near to my Isles A ancestors, and perhaps shipped on the Bristol Avon through Wiltshire, near my most distant genealogical patriarch, and on to the continent, so both my dna and genealogy fall on different points of this very ancient trade route.


Could this be a common finding among the Isles A?

Yorkie
06-02-11, 19:51
Here is a bit about Bell Beaker Culture and the copper that was mined at Killarney. Is seems to closely overlap the time and range of Isles A.

Furthermore Isles A have some suspected associations with sea trade from western Cork and reaching to France and Iberia going back millenia.

"Bell beakers spread from continental Europe to Britain and Ireland around 2500BC. However, the pattern of spread of bell beakers from Europe indicate that it spread to Ireland through southern England.Beaker pottery may have initially been traded. Some of it will have come with people from the continent, after a time it will have been made locally. But the rapid spread of this fashion from Europe around 2500BC after several hundred years of very conservative pottery styles in Britain (e.g. grooved ware) indicates hugely increased contacts with Europe.
To me it seems that the first flowering of sophisticated societies in Wessex in the second half of the third millennium BC was based on some kind of trade with Europe. This trade brought European goods, such as beakers, as well as European ideas into southern England. In a more distorted form, those same goods and ideas also reached Ireland.
The trade of goods back to Europe may well have been, at least in part, of highly valuable arsenic bronze. I suspect that what made Wessex flourish was that ability to control the trade from Ireland to the continent.§
The middlemen and traders living and working in southern England could have worked together. More likely they formed rival centres, with settlements of people living (all year) at Durrington Walls, near Stonehenge and, arguably, in the West Kennet enclosures near Avebury. And during that early flowering of culture, based on the arsenic bronze trade from Ireland, they built the great monuments at Avebury and Stonehenge (and perhaps Stanton Drew) that we see today."


http://armchairprehistory.com/2010/05/08/stonehenge-avebury-ross-island-and-the-perils-of-the-cornish-coast/


The copper was mined on Ross Island at Killarney, near to my Isles A ancestors, and perhaps shipped on the Bristol Avon through Wiltshire, near my most distant genealogical patriarch, and on to the continent, so both my dna and genealogy fall on different points of this very ancient trade route.


Could this be a common finding among the Isles A?

I do not know, JD. As I understand it, subclade A of L161 I2a2b-Isles has a particular hotspot in the O'Driscolls of Cork area. I wonder if in-depth research into their clann history might reveal something.

jdanel
07-02-11, 00:26
I do not know, JD. As I understand it, subclade A of L161 I2a2b-Isles has a particular hotspot in the O'Driscolls of Cork area. I wonder if in-depth research into their clann history might reveal something.
Being an A1 with O'Driscoll related dna, I am trying to pursue that, but records are scarce and difficult to access from my rural southern USA location.

Yorkie
07-02-11, 18:46
Being an A1 with O'Driscoll related dna, I am trying to pursue that, but records are scarce and difficult to access from my rural southern USA location.

I appreciate the difficulties. In view of what you were saying previously, you might find Stephen Oppenheimer's comments on the distribution of old I1b2 [now M26 I2a1] and old I1b [now L161 I2a2b-Isles] in Britain and Ireland interesting.

In 'The Origins of the British' [2007], now considered well out-of-date by many who wouldn't know one end of a test-tube from the other, Oppenheimer says little about I1b [I2a2] in the West. However, he does say that it is 'very uncommon' but has, 'a similar age and distribution to I1b2 [now I2a1] in the western British isles'. This distribution, according to Oppenheimer, dates to the Mesolithic, and covers the Channel Islands, northern Wessex, south-west England, Wales and Ireland. There is no attempt to split the old I1b [I2a2] into the 'Isles' and 'Dinaric' types favoured by Nordtvedt, and the Mesolithic dating precedes Nordtvedt's Neolithic dating of the earliest Isles B clades.

My view is that a percentage of the I2a2b in England and lowland Scotland comes from the Germanic incursions, but the bulk of I2a2b is ancient. I too have wondered if the oldest clades date back to the late Mesolithic and maybe a link to the narrowblade culture. However, I don't see any Welsh or Channel Islands distribution of I2a2b as Oppenheimer seems to. Sykes does not agree with Oppenheimer's dating of I2a2 in Britain, seeing it as more recent, hence the Anglo-Saxon possibility.

I draw your attention to Oppenheimer's take on the distribution of I2a1 and I2a2 because of what you said re I2a2b-Isles A and the sea- trade route, Wessex and Ireland etc. Oppenheimer seems to link I2a1 in particular with the spread of cardial ware.

jdanel
07-02-11, 23:53
More on the copper mining: Another of Europe’s best-preserved copper mines has been discovered at Mount Gabriel in County Cork (about 15 km west of Skibbereen), which was worked for several centuries in the middle of the second millennium.[6] Mines in Cork and Kerry are believed to have produced as much as 370 tonnes of copper during the Bronze Age. As only about 0.2% of this can be accounted for in excavated bronze artifacts, it is surmised that Ireland was a major exporter of copper during this period.

This one is right in the middle of Driscoll territory.

jdanel
08-02-11, 00:01
We do have some Isle of Man representation.

on Ysearch:

SNC8Q matches me 48/67, name Kinley
N7FK5 matches me 46/67, name Kinley
A9D2B matches me 46/67, name Kinley
There is also a Kinley on Ancestry.com classified A1/A2, who might be one of these.

how yes no 2
08-02-11, 02:19
I am not really familiar with exact spread of I2a2-Isles branches... By looking at familytreedna maps of found samples it seems to me that there might be correlation between I2a2-Isles branches and spread of Megalithic cultures in UK and Brittany...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Megalithic_Culture.PNG

is there correlation of I2a2-Isles with spreads of I1 or I2b1 in UK?

jdanel
08-02-11, 05:04
"Oppenheimer seems to link I2a1 in particular with the spread of cardial ware."

Problem with that is the I2a1 goes back perhaps to a mesolithic arrival in Ireland and these potteries are neolithic.

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

About the arrival of farming in UK: some suggest farming arrived first in Ireland with immigrants from the south and then spread to England more by diffusion than migration.

If that were correct, it might explain some of our population distribution problems. Isles C met and adopted farming, e.g. became neolithic, and flourished, while Isles B was still clinging to a difficult mesolithic seacoast lifestyle and barely survived. This would give C a head start and so a bigger population with effect lasting to the present.

Is there anything in this idea?

Yorkie
08-02-11, 13:02
"Oppenheimer seems to link I2a1 in particular with the spread of cardial ware."

Problem with that is the I2a1 goes back perhaps to a mesolithic arrival in Ireland and these potteries are neolithic.

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

About the arrival of farming in UK: some suggest farming arrived first in Ireland with immigrants from the south and then spread to England more by diffusion than migration.

If that were correct, it might explain some of our population distribution problems. Isles C met and adopted farming, e.g. became neolithic, and flourished, while Isles B was still clinging to a difficult mesolithic seacoast lifestyle and barely survived. This would give C a head start and so a bigger population with effect lasting to the present.

Is there anything in this idea?

There might be something in the idea re subclade C. As Ken has hinted, maybe there are 2 distinct histories here- that of A/B and that of C/D. Tim Owen's idea that there could have been different 'waves' of Isles to Britain strikes me as possible. It is not beyond doubt that C and D were 'born' in Ireland. We need more data. There is enough C and D on the continent, relatively speaking, to challenge the idea that both were 'born' in Ireland in my view. There are D's in England with non-Irish surnames. Aiden has mentioned to me, a while ago, the English-leanings of subclade D. I am an example..

Thanks for the info on Isle of Man members.

Yorkie
08-02-11, 13:08
I am not really familiar with exact spread of I2a2-Isles branches... By looking at familytreedna maps of found samples it seems to me that there might be correlation between I2a2-Isles branches and spread of Megalithic cultures in UK and Brittany...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Megalithic_Culture.PNG

is there correlation of I2a2-Isles with spreads of I1 or I2b1 in UK?

I certainly think that there may be a connection with the earliest B subclades of I2a2b-Isles and Megaliths, but strictly in the north-west, far west and centre west groups you usefully draw our attention to as L161 I2a2b-Isles was likely founded on the north German plain. Maybe M26 I2a1 links to the southern Med exampes?

The bulk of I2a2b is in Ireland but there is a 'decent' distribution in England and lowland Scotland [plus some continentals] for a tiny clade. The English and lowland Scots distribution covers areas that I1 and I2b1 are found, but I1 is a much younger clade. Bryan Sykes, for example, sees this British I2a2 as most likely brought to England and Scotland by the Anglo-Saxons and remains 'yet to be convinced by substantial dates' that I2a2 in Britain can date to Neolithic/Mesolithic. As you may have gathered, I think Tim Owen ['Genes of the Cruthin' blog] is correct in that L161 I2a2-Isles came from both recent and ancient 'waves' of people.

jdanel
08-02-11, 17:56
I certainly think that there may be a connection with the earliest B subclades of I2a2b-Isles and Megaliths, but strictly in the north-west, far west and centre west groups you usefully draw our attention to as L161 I2a2b-Isles was likely founded on the north German plain. Maybe M26 I2a1 links to the southern Med exampes?

The bulk of I2a2b is in Ireland but there is a 'decent' distribution in England and lowland Scotland [plus some continentals] for a tiny clade. The English and lowland Scots distribution covers areas that I1 and I2b1 are found, but I1 is a much younger clade. Bryan Sykes, for example, sees this British I2a2 as most likely brought to England and Scotland by the Anglo-Saxons and remains 'yet to be convinced by substantial dates' that I2a2 in Britain can date to Neolithic/Mesolithic. As you may have gathered, I think Tim Owen ['Genes of the Cruthin' blog] is correct in that L161 I2a2-Isles came from both recent and ancient 'waves' of people.
Oppenheimer suggests that the Anglo-Saxon genetic input was about 5% of the local population. If, as Sykes insists, I2a2 came with them and now constitutes about 2% of the local population, it is mathematically required that the incoming Anglo Saxons would have to have been about 40% I2a2. There is no indication at all in the Anglo Saxon source areas of anything like this. In fact, the reverse is true. There at the source, I2a2 may be very much less than 1%, perhaps 1% of 1%.

Any and all later incoming waves would have diluted the I2a2 base, not reinforced it, because the same math applies to them.

Therefore, I2a2b, virtually all of it, was here before them. In those invasions, maybe less than ten individuals total who were I2a2 and more likely, the number of those who survived combat, the difficulties of colonization, disease, and accident to procreate with the local women is, I think, zero.

Unless I have got some fundamental misunderstanding of the math here (always possible), the idea that I2a2 was brought by the Anglo Saxons is utterly absurd - a "flat earth" level of absurd. Why this idea is still hanging around, I don't know.

Tell me why I am wrong.

Eochaidh
08-02-11, 20:30
I was planning on posting the following pictures sometime and this thread seems a good place as they have to do with pre-R1b Ireland. I was sparked to do so by the map entitled Megalithic Ireland which I believe is incorrect.

These maps are taken from a paper derived from a survey done by the Ordnance Survey of Ireland and Professor Ruaidhri (Rory) De Valera. I lost the link to the paper, so I put a PDF of it on my site: http://ringofgullion.com/graphics/dna/Nuallain.pdf

There are seven distinct epochs in prehistoric Ireland and only the last two are R1b related, so the other five tie into the introduction of the I clades into Ireland and this thread.

I wonder how the four different types of Megaliths tie in with the discussion in this thread. There is controversy as to whether each style was introduced by a new people or by the evolution of the original group. Different I2a2b groups?

What I think is interesting is that the artifacts of all but the Bell Beaker Peoples, are almost entirely in the northern half of the island if you take a line from the Shannon estuary on the west and connect it to the Boyne River on the east. Celtic mythology also speaks of the early Celts dividing the island into Eber's half and Heremon's half, along about the same line. So it seems likely that the influence for them came from Scotland and not directly from France or Spain.

The following are the epochs and the rough dates for each.

Mesolithic: about 6,000 - 4,000 BCE

Neolithic: 4,000 - 2,000 BCE
Court Tombs
Passage Tombs
Portal Tombs (Dolmens)
Wedge Tombs

Bell Beaker: 2,000 - about 500 BCE

LaTene: about 500BCE

Mesolithic
http://ringofgullion.com/graphics/dna/irishmeso.gif

Court Tombs (the oldest)
http://ringofgullion.com/graphics/dna/courts.jpg

Passage Graves (next oldest)
http://ringofgullion.com/graphics/dna/PassageGraves.jpg

Portal Tombs/Dolmens (next oldest)
http://ringofgullion.com/graphics/dna/dolmens.jpg

Wedge Tombs (youngest and overlapped the early Bronze age)
http://ringofgullion.com/graphics/dna/wedge-nolan.jpg

Bell Beaker cist graves
http://ringofgullion.com/graphics/dna/cists-nolan.jpg

LaTene Celts
http://ringofgullion.com/graphics/dna/LaTene.gif

Yorkie
08-02-11, 20:56
Oppenheimer suggests that the Anglo-Saxon genetic input was about 5% of the local population. If, as Sykes insists, I2a2 came with them and now constitutes about 2% of the local population, it is mathematically required that the incoming Anglo Saxons would have to have been about 40% I2a2. There is no indication at all in the Anglo Saxon source areas of anything like this. In fact, the reverse is true. There at the source, I2a2 may be very much less than 1%, perhaps 1% of 1%.

Any and all later incoming waves would have diluted the I2a2 base, not reinforced it, because the same math applies to them.

Therefore, I2a2b, virtually all of it, was here before them. In those invasions, maybe less than ten individuals total who were I2a2 and more likely, the number of those who survived combat, the difficulties of colonization, disease, and accident to procreate with the local women is, I think, zero.

Unless I have got some fundamental misunderstanding of the math here (always possible), the idea that I2a2 was brought by the Anglo Saxons is utterly absurd - a "flat earth" level of absurd. Why this idea is still hanging around, I don't know.

Tell me why I am wrong.

I'll tell you why you are wrong, if you like. Though, I must say that there is no need for the bold print.

To begin with, Oppenheimer's 5% estimate for Anglo-Saxon contributions to the gene-pool have been hotly contested as a gross under-estimation. Evidence from Capelli et al, Weale et al and others suggest that the Anglo-Saxons made a considerably larger impact. Others who line up against Oppenheimer's 5% claim are Sir Walter Bodmer who has recently conducted a systematic genetic survey of the British people, and Ken Nordtvedt.

Interestingly too, Oppenheimer based a lot of his work on that of Peter Forster. I have had email contact with Forster recently [his company reanalysed my Ydna results] and he agrees with Sykes that Anglo Saxons are a possibility for 'carriers' of I2a2b to Britain. Anatole Klyosov is of the same view, though he agrees with Tim Owen that most came before the advent of the Anglo-Saxons. Recently too, Jean Manco in The Peopling of Europe suggested that Anglo-Saxons may have carried I2a2b to Britain from Germany along with earlier Celts.

To reiterate my view; a percentage of the English and lowland Scots I2a2b is likely to have arrived with the Anglo-Saxons. There is evidence of a continental, mainly German presence for I2a2b, and enough serious scientists like Sykes and Forster consider it less than a 'Flat Earth' idea that Anglo-Saxons carried I2a2. Sykes has said so since the beginning of Oxford Ancestors, when I2a2 was I1b.

The bulk of I2a2b in Britain seems more ancient, and as Tim Owen says may be connected with pre-Gaelic tribes in the Irish context.

In my opinion, it is Oppenheimer who grossly under-estimates Anglo-Saxon contributions, and you have taken his figure of 5% as the 'math' to work from. Oppenheimer's 5% is truly 'utterly absurd'. Sir Walter Bodmer The Face of Britain, 2006] estimated that Northumberland and Durham were 77% Anglo-Saxon; Sussex and Kent were 71% Anglo-Saxon; Cumbria was 56% Anglo-Saxon; Oxfordshire was 49% Anglo-Saxon etc. These results indicate that 5% is the real 'Flat Earth' theory.

Any questions?

jdanel
08-02-11, 22:00
I'll tell you why you are wrong, if you like. Though, I must say that there is no need for the bold print.

To begin with, Oppenheimer's 5% estimate for Anglo-Saxon contributions to the gene-pool have been hotly contested as a gross under-estimation. Evidence from Capelli et al, Weale et al and others suggest that the Anglo-Saxons made a considerably larger impact. Others who line up against Oppenheimer's 5% claim are Sir Walter Bodmer who has recently conducted a systematic genetic survey of the British people, and Ken Nordtvedt.

Interestingly too, Oppenheimer based a lot of his work on that of Peter Forster. I have had email contact with Forster recently [his company reanalysed my Ydna results] and he agrees with Sykes that Anglo Saxons are a possibility for 'carriers' of I2a2b to Britain. Anatole Klyosov is of the same view, though he agrees with Tim Owen that most came before the advent of the Anglo-Saxons. Recently too, Jean Manco in The Peopling of Europe suggested that Anglo-Saxons may have carried I2a2b to Britain from Germany along with earlier Celts.

To reiterate my view; a percentage of the English and lowland Scots I2a2b is likely to have arrived with the Anglo-Saxons. There is evidence of a continental, mainly German presence for I2a2b, and enough serious scientists like Sykes and Forster consider it less than a 'Flat Earth' idea that Anglo-Saxons carried I2a2. Sykes has said so since the beginning of Oxford Ancestors, when I2a2 was I1b.

The bulk of I2a2b in Britain seems more ancient, and as Tim Owen says may be connected with pre-Gaelic tribes in the Irish context.

In my opinion, it is Oppenheimer who grossly under-estimates Anglo-Saxon contributions, and you have taken his figure of 5% as the 'math' to work from. Oppenheimer's 5% is truly 'utterly absurd'. Sir Walter Bodmer The Face of Britain, 2006] estimated that Northumberland and Durham were 77% Anglo-Saxon; Sussex and Kent were 71% Anglo-Saxon; Cumbria was 56% Anglo-Saxon; Oxfordshire was 49% Anglo-Saxon etc. These results indicate that 5% is the real 'Flat Earth' theory.

Any questions?
Now we are getting somewhere. We are in agreement that "the bulk" is more ancient.

The question is what amount is that bulk. Lets say we have a pre-existing population with a specific (but unknown) percentage of I2a2. The Anglo-Saxons invade. If their percentage of I2a2 was the same, then the percentage in the post-invasion population would not change. If invaders percentage was more then the post invasion population would be higher and vv.

What is the percentage of I2a2 in the source lands? Almost none. 1% of 1%? And this resulted because almost all the I2a2 from the source areas went selectively with the invading army? No?, so where are they?

Are these English areas high in Saxon not also relatively low in I2a2?

OK, so the I2a2 came with the Anglo-Saxons and then, what, selectively dissociated themselves from the Saxons and took off for Ireland leaving England lower in I2a2, producing the "Irish tilt" mentioned by KN?

more math:

If:
Ireland is 2% and that is representative of the whole population including pre-invasion England,
and
post-invasion England is 1% (Irish tilt)
and
the Dark Horror was 50% replacement,
then
the math still requires a 0% content in the invaders.

Maybe the 5% is "flat earth", but I still get zero I2a2b invaders with 50%. Zero or very near to it.

So the bulk = ~99% and the rest are outliers of some kind.

I think I will hang on to the "absurd", but the bold type was really over the top. The basic cause of the absurdity is the lack of an appropriate source population, whether Anglo Saxon or any other.

Yorkie
09-02-11, 11:23
Now we are getting somewhere. We are in agreement that "the bulk" is more ancient.

The question is what amount is that bulk. Lets say we have a pre-existing population with a specific (but unknown) percentage of I2a2. The Anglo-Saxons invade. If their percentage of I2a2 was the same, then the percentage in the post-invasion population would not change. If invaders percentage was more then the post invasion population would be higher and vv.

What is the percentage of I2a2 in the source lands? Almost none. 1% of 1%? And this resulted because almost all the I2a2 from the source areas went selectively with the invading army? No?, so where are they?

Are these English areas high in Saxon not also relatively low in I2a2?

OK, so the I2a2 came with the Anglo-Saxons and then, what, selectively dissociated themselves from the Saxons and took off for Ireland leaving England lower in I2a2, producing the "Irish tilt" mentioned by KN?

more math:

If:
Ireland is 2% and that is representative of the whole population including pre-invasion England,
and
post-invasion England is 1% (Irish tilt)
and
the Dark Horror was 50% replacement,
then
the math still requires a 0% content in the invaders.

Maybe the 5% is "flat earth", but I still get zero I2a2b invaders with 50%. Zero or very near to it.

So the bulk = ~99% and the rest are outliers of some kind.

I think I will hang on to the "absurd", but the bold type was really over the top. The basic cause of the absurdity is the lack of an appropriate source population, whether Anglo Saxon or any other.

I suspect that there is more I2a2 'out there' than current estimates show. Remember that Forster tested my I2a2b subclade D2 signal recently on 43 markers and got Germany as a hotspot. I recall too, Bryan Sykes replying to an email of mine and saying that old I1b signatures cropped up fairly frequently in Orkney and Norway. Now, that contradicts the stats elsewhere. Maybe there was more I2a2 in northern Germany then than there is now, and maybe the current estimates of I2a2 in Britain are too low?

Re the bulk being ancient- I have always said that. That is in line with Tim Owen's 'Genes of the Cruthin', where a percentage is thought to be Germanic and the bulk pre-Gaelic.

jdanel
09-02-11, 17:06
I suspect that there is more I2a2 'out there' than current estimates show. Remember that Forster tested my I2a2b subclade D2 signal recently on 43 markers and got Germany as a hotspot. I recall too, Bryan Sykes replying to an email of mine and saying that old I1b signatures cropped up fairly frequently in Orkney and Norway. Now, that contradicts the stats elsewhere. Maybe there was more I2a2 in northern Germany then than there is now, and maybe the current estimates of I2a2 in Britain are too low?

Re the bulk being ancient- I have always said that. That is in line with Tim Owen's 'Genes of the Cruthin', where a percentage is thought to be Germanic and the bulk pre-Gaelic.
"I suspect that there is more I2a2 'out there' than current estimates show"

"Maybe there was more I2a2 in northern Germany then than there is now, and maybe the current estimates of I2a2 in Britain are too low?"

These are certainly possible. We are dealing with the statistics of very small numbers where the "nugget effect" or the lack thereof is a very serious problem and the next sample through the door can change everything. It has not been all that long since the presence of the continentals was thought odd. Now that group is well established. Who can even imagine what future data will show? Albanians, maybe.

But to change the algebra, it would take a really massive discovery of such and that seems quite unlikely.

With the data that now exists, any Gaelic or later "waves" are so tiny as to fall well within the margin of error for the sampling, processing, and recording.

That being the case, this "wave theory" should join the "ether theory" in the dustbin - interesting ideas in their time, but now shown to be entirely wrong unless rescued by possible, but unlikely, future discoveries.

Yorkie
09-02-11, 19:09
"I suspect that there is more I2a2 'out there' than current estimates show"

"Maybe there was more I2a2 in northern Germany then than there is now, and maybe the current estimates of I2a2 in Britain are too low?"

These are certainly possible. We are dealing with the statistics of very small numbers where the "nugget effect" or the lack thereof is a very serious problem and the next sample through the door can change everything. It has not been all that long since the presence of the continentals was thought odd. Now that group is well established. Who can even imagine what future data will show? Albanians, maybe.

But to change the algebra, it would take a really massive discovery of such and that seems quite unlikely.

With the data that now exists, any Gaelic or later "waves" are so tiny as to fall well within the margin of error for the sampling, processing, and recording.

That being the case, this "wave theory" should join the "ether theory" in the dustbin - interesting ideas in their time, but now shown to be entirely wrong unless rescued by possible, but unlikely, future discoveries.

I don't know if you are joking about the Albanians, but Ken does indeed have three 'outlier' Albanian I2a2b-Isles haplotypes alongside the Germans, Belgians, French etc. :satisfied:

Yorkie
09-02-11, 19:21
I was planning on posting the following pictures sometime and this thread seems a good place as they have to do with pre-R1b Ireland. I was sparked to do so by the map entitled Megalithic Ireland which I believe is incorrect.

These maps are taken from a paper derived from a survey done by the Ordnance Survey of Ireland and Professor Ruaidhri (Rory) De Valera. I lost the link to the paper, so I put a PDF of it on my site: http://ringofgullion.com/graphics/dna/Nuallain.pdf

There are seven distinct epochs in prehistoric Ireland and only the last two are R1b related, so the other five tie into the introduction of the I clades into Ireland and this thread.

I wonder how the four different types of Megaliths tie in with the discussion in this thread. There is controversy as to whether each style was introduced by a new people or by the evolution of the original group. Different I2a2b groups?

What I think is interesting is that the artifacts of all but the Bell Beaker Peoples, are almost entirely in the northern half of the island if you take a line from the Shannon estuary on the west and connect it to the Boyne River on the east. Celtic mythology also speaks of the early Celts dividing the island into Eber's half and Heremon's half, along about the same line. So it seems likely that the influence for them came from Scotland and not directly from France or Spain.

The following are the epochs and the rough dates for each.

Mesolithic: about 6,000 - 4,000 BCE

Neolithic: 4,000 - 2,000 BCE
Court Tombs
Passage Tombs
Portal Tombs (Dolmens)
Wedge Tombs

Bell Beaker: 2,000 - about 500 BCE

LaTene: about 500BCE

Mesolithic
http://ringofgullion.com/graphics/dna/irishmeso.gif

Court Tombs (the oldest)
http://ringofgullion.com/graphics/dna/courts.jpg

Passage Graves (next oldest)
http://ringofgullion.com/graphics/dna/PassageGraves.jpg

Portal Tombs/Dolmens (next oldest)
http://ringofgullion.com/graphics/dna/dolmens.jpg

Wedge Tombs (youngest and overlapped the early Bronze age)
http://ringofgullion.com/graphics/dna/wedge-nolan.jpg

Bell Beaker cist graves
http://ringofgullion.com/graphics/dna/cists-nolan.jpg

LaTene Celts
http://ringofgullion.com/graphics/dna/LaTene.gif


Thanks for this interesting contribution. Tim Owen ['Genes of the Cruthin' blog] has argued that the oldest subclade of I2a2b-Isles, clade B [B1, B2] probably entered Britain from Germany, via Doggerland, in the late Mesolithic, entering Scotland first before moving on to Ireland. He has conjectured that there may be a link to the Narrowblade culture which replaced the Broadblade culture. Maybe this is your 'from Scotland' influence.

There were other pre-R1b I haplogroup clades supposedly around in the age of Megaliths. According to Nordtvedt, it appears that M26 I2a1 arrived first from Iberia. Other 'rivals' to I2a2b-Isles are I*and I2b1a.

jdanel
09-02-11, 21:20
I don't know if you are joking about the Albanians, but Ken does indeed have three 'outlier' Albanian I2a2b-Isles haplotypes alongside the Germans, Belgians, French etc. :satisfied:
I had read about the Albanians. I put that little blue dotted arrow at the mouth of the Danube on the Grandfathers' Path map (message 6 back on page 1 of this thread) just for them.

how yes no 2
17-02-11, 01:11
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fomorians

Fomor might be corruption of Gomer ...


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

this relation of potentially I2a2-Isles Fomorians with Gomer makes sense as modern Germans do correlate with spread of haplogroup I, namely I1 and I2b
.....

Gomer island in Cappadocia in Asia minor and north of Black sea are today I2a2 areas...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2b/Noahsworld_map.png/402px-Noahsworld_map.png

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Noahsworld_map.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Noahsworld_map.jpg

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup_I2a.gif




The medieval myth of Partholon says that his followers were the first to invade Ireland after the flood, but the Fomorians were already there: Seathrún Céitinn reports a tradition that the Fomorians, led by Cíocal, had arrived two hundred years earlier and lived on fish and fowl until Partholon came, bringing the plough and oxen. Partholon defeated Cíocal in the Battle of Magh Ithe, but all his people later died of plague.
Then came Nemed and his followers. Ireland is said to have been empty for thirty years following the death of Partholon's people, but Nemed and his followers encountered the Fomorians when they arrived. At this point Céitinn reports another tradition that the Fomorians were seafarers from Africa, descended from Noah's son Ham. Nemed defeated them in several battles, killing their leaders Gann (1) and Sengann (1) (note that there were two Fir Bolg kings of the same name), but two new Fomorian leaders arose: Conand son of Faebar, who lived in Conand's Tower on Tory Island, County Donegal, and Morc son of Dela (note that the first generation of the Fir Bolg were also said to be sons of Dela).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fomorians

seafarers may be related to sea peoples...but it also can be about haplogroup E spread from Africa, also because they do origin from Noah's son Ham, while Gomer is son of Noah's son Japhet...
...


seafarers from Africa could be Garamantes !!
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showpost.php?p=365078&postcount=86

but this may more likely be about spread of I2a1 in UK...

31-08-12, 20:35
My haplogroup is I2a2b. My father has a rare genetic disease called Hereditary hemochromatosis(HHC), which is caused by the C282Y mutation. HHC is present across Europe and prevalent in parts of Scandinavia. I believe my family was in Nance, France before 1066 and participated in the Norman invasion of England in 1066 and settled in Cornwall. Here is a message that I posted in the Nance family genealogy forum: I believe I found "The French Connection". I read in the Cornwall history that our ancestors were believed to have come to England from France with the Norman conquest in 1066. Then, after checking multiple genetic Y-DNA matches with the surname "LYON". I came to the conclusion that Nance and Lyon families have the same ancestor from France. The city of Nance, France and the city of Lyon, France are only 80 miles from each other! I'm going to try and trace the matching Lyon(s) bloodlines that we are genetically related to and see if that leads us to a common ancestor for both families....Chris Nance

sparkey
31-08-12, 20:54
It's very unlikely that anybody from Cornwall with the surname Nance has their surname derived from Nance, France. Nance (properly spelled nans) is Cornish for valley. Also, the Lyons you match with seem to be from Scotland... I'd guess that the derivation of their name is from the English word lion.

31-08-12, 22:41
It's very unlikely that anybody from Cornwall with the surname Nance has their surname derived from Nance, France. Nance (properly spelled nans) is Cornish for valley. Also, the Lyons you match with seem to be from Scotland... I'd guess that the derivation of their name is from the English word lion.

If you google "Lyon Family Crest and History" (I can't post links), you will see that the Lyon surname originates in the Norman settlement Lyons-la-Foret in France, before migrating to Scotland. They were granted lands by Duke William of Normandy for their assistance in the Battle of Hastings in 1066. Lyon and Nance bloodlines combine at some point. I'm tracing the Lyon men with Y-DNA matches to me to see how far back I can go. I'm anxiously awaiting my 37 marker test from FTDNA, I only have 12 markers now...Chris Nance

sparkey
31-08-12, 23:01
If you google "Lyon Family Crest and History" (I can't post links), you will see that the Lyon surname originates in the Norman settlement Lyons-la-Foret in France, before migrating to Scotland. They were granted lands by Duke William of Normandy for their assistance in the Battle of Hastings in 1066. Lyon and Nance bloodlines combine at some point. I'm tracing the Lyon men with Y-DNA matches to me to see how far back I can go. I'm anxiously awaiting my 37 marker test from FTDNA, I only have 12 markers now...Chris Nance

One thing among many I don't like about House of Names is how it only gives one etymology. Ancestry is better:


Scottish, English and French: from Old French, Middle English lion (Latin leo, genitive leonis), hence a nickname for a fierce or brave warrior, or a habitational name for someone living at a house distinguished by the sign of a lion.

Scottish, English, French, and Dutch: habitational name from the city of Lyon in south central France (English name: Lyons), or from the smaller Lyons-la-Forêt in Eure, Normandy. The name of the former is recorded in the 1st century bc as Lugdunum and is from the name of a Celtic god Lug (or this as a personal name, from a word meaning ‘brightness’) + dunon ‘hill fort’.

Scottish and English: from the name Leo(n) (from Latin leo ‘lion’, or the cognate Greek leon), borne by numerous early martyrs and thirteen popes.

Irish: reduced Anglicized form of Gaelic Ó Laighin (see Lane 2).

Besides, I can guarantee you that you won't find the Lyons to be your closest matches the more you test. Other Nances have already tested 67 markers... see ySearch IDs N8ZUX and GF7U2. They are pretty close to the Lyons (GD of 6 on 67), but even closer to other surnames, namely Grimes and Malone (GD of 0 to 2 on 37).

01-09-12, 15:54
Thanks for your help in being an objective voice in my quest for family history. I noticed that Grimes and Malone are close. I'll have to examine it when my 37 marker comes in. I am the co-administrator of the Nance DNA project, so I can go ahead and check with those other Nances. Here is a theory, that I hope to prove with ancestry, but if not, I'll discover the true story someday. I believe the Lyon and Nance families were both Norman invaders in 1066.
The Lyon family that we share ancestry with came to America from Scotland. The Lyon family story is more well known than Nance. The Lyon family were Normans at one time living in Lyons-de-Foret in Normandy France. They were granted huge tracts of land in Scotland for their help in the Battle of Hastings. Robert the Bruce is an example of one of these Lyon families. Yesterday, I traced the Lyon line that I matched genetically back to Scotland, but no further yet.
In the Nance Register(this is available online as pdf), a letter written by Elijah Nance (Padstow, Cornwall) in 1856 says that the same thing happened with the Nance family in Padstow, Cornwall. He says the Nance family came from the city of Nantes in Normandy, France to Padstow, Cornwall, England in 1066 with the Norman Invasion with William the Conquerer. I propose, as Pete Nance did, that Nances are Normans, thus Scandinavian(perhaps Danish) in Origin. Here is a quote from the letter he wrote:
AFTER THAT BATTLE (OF HASTINGS) DETACHMENTS OF THE ARMY WERE SENT INTO ALL PARTS OF ENGLAND TO TAKE AND CONFISCATE WHAT PROPERTY THEY THOUGHT FIT, AND GENERAL PRIDEAUX CAME TO PADSTOW, IN CORNWALL, AND MY FOREFATHER ESTABLISHED HIMSELF OF THE BARTON OF QUANDRADU, SO THAT THE NAME OF NANCE AND PRIDEAUX HAVE BEEN RESIDENTS AT PADSTOW FOR ABOUT SEVEN HUNDRED AND NINETY YEARS LAST PAST.....................
NEARLY FORTY YEARS SINCE I WAS AT THE STEWARDS HOUSE OF THE ESQUIRE PRIDEAUX, THAT GENTLEMAN ASKED ME WHERE MY FAMILY CAME FROM, I TOLD HIM FROM NANTES, IN NORMANDY, AND THAT MY FAMILY WERE ADVENTURERS WITH THE PRIDEAUX FAMILY, HE SAID HE BELIEVED IT, FOR HE SO FREQUENTLY MET WITH THE NAME OF NANCE IN THE WRITINGS OF THE PRIDEAUX.
BE IT REMEMBERED WITH YOU THAT WHEN THE NORMANS CAME TO
ENGLAND THEY HAD BUT ONE NAME (A CHRISTIAN NAME), BUT THEY TOOK TO
THEMSELVES A SURNAME, AND MY FOREFATHER, AS HE CAME FROM NANTES, IN NORMANDY, WROTE HIS NAME NANCE, AS I SUPPOSE, BEING A MILDER WAY OF PRONOUNCING THE NAME CORRECTLY(IN ENGLISH).

01-09-12, 16:35
It is also possible that the Malone family in Ireland also came with the Norman invasion of Connacht, Ireland?
The Norman invasion in Connacht, Ireland in 1175 was led by William de Burgh. The Malone name was first found in Connacht after that invasion. The name Grimes is of Norse-Viking pre 7th century origins, and the derivation is probably from the personal name "Grimr", which appears in the Olde Danish and Olde Swedish as "Grim". It does not appear in England until after the Norman invasion. Many of the Normans were Danes. Thus, the Nance, Grimes, Malone, and Lyon could all be of Norman ancestry.

MOESAN
01-09-12, 18:13
1- names of different origins can be confused in an identical spelling (LYONS, JEKYLL, WIGAN, COHEN...)- it occurred several times for several surnames everywhere where foreign names was assimiliated to local names or autochtonal surnames assimilated to rulers foreign names - for Nance, the dominant opinion is that it is a genuine cornish name 'nans' (welsh 'nant' "valley", breton 'nant'/'ant' "furrow") BUT it could be some 'Nance' of other origin: the hardest is to prove it!!! for Lyons, it is very more evident: town or village name, "lions" (the animal), gaelic names and so on...
2- I found - the only placename NANCE I found in France is in the Jura, not too far from LYONS, in the Rhône valley and the only NANS I found are in Franche-Comté - the Normandy village is LYONS-LA-FORÊT, not the big town of LYON, that surely never procured soldiers to William the Conqueror !?!
3- Norvegians have very few Y-I2a2 ofr I know, Danes and some regions of Sweden (late immigrations of foreigners? see Vaesterbotten) have more - I know it is not a decisive point for some scattered families-
Things are not always simple -
have a good evening and hold on

02-09-12, 16:43
The city of Nantes, in Normandy France, is where my the Nance family in England came from according to the letter I cited above from the Nance Register written by Elijah Nance (Padstow, Cornwall) in 1856. He said they came from Nantes, France in 1066. The name was spelled phonetically as NANS instead of Nantes from 1066 until the 1500's when my direct ancestor, John Nance Esquire(1533-1607), changed the spelling from NANS to NANCE, which the spelling has been ever since. John Nance Esquire was married to Margery Nance, maiden name Arundell of Trerice(1543-1610). Her father, Sir John Arundell (1495-1560), nicknamed "Tilbury Jack" (or Jack of Tilbury), was a commander of the English Royal Navy at the time of King Henry VIII and Edward VI and twice High Sheriff of Cornwall. I say this so that it can be noted that this is a documented historical fact. I appreciate the help you all have given me. The Family names that are similar to Nance genetically are LYON (not Lyons), GRIMES, and MALONE. If any of you know of others, I'd appreciate hearing them. Thanks, Chris Nance

04-09-12, 21:26
I joined the I2a2b-Isles group on Ancestry.com. It categorized the Nance haplotype as Isles B1. I notice that along with Lyon, Trueblood is an genetically similar surname. My theory is that the Isles B1 group took part in the Norman invasion of England in 1066.

pipinnacanus
04-09-12, 22:23
Thanks for your help in being an objective voice in my quest for family history.
In the Nance Register(this is available online as pdf), a letter written by Elijah Nance (Padstow, Cornwall) in 1856 says that the same thing happened with the Nance family in Padstow, Cornwall. He says the Nance family came from the city of Nantes in Normandy, France to Padstow, Cornwall, England in 1066 with the Norman Invasion
Here is a quote from the letter he wrote:
AFTER THAT BATTLE (OF HASTINGS) DETACHMENTS OF THE ARMY WERE SENT INTO ALL PARTS OF ENGLAND TO TAKE AND CONFISCATE WHAT PROPERTY THEY THOUGHT FIT, AND GENERAL PRIDEAUX CAME TO PADSTOW, IN CORNWALL, AND MY FOREFATHER ESTABLISHED HIMSELF OF THE BARTON OF QUANDRADU, SO THAT THE NAME OF NANCE AND PRIDEAUX HAVE BEEN RESIDENTS AT PADSTOW FOR ABOUT SEVEN HUNDRED AND NINETY YEARS LAST PAST.....................
NEARLY FORTY YEARS SINCE I WAS AT THE STEWARDS HOUSE OF THE ESQUIRE PRIDEAUX, THAT GENTLEMAN ASKED ME WHERE MY FAMILY CAME FROM, I TOLD HIM FROM NANTES, IN NORMANDY, AND THAT MY FAMILY WERE ADVENTURERS WITH THE PRIDEAUX FAMILY, HE SAID HE BELIEVED IT, FOR HE SO FREQUENTLY MET WITH THE NAME OF NANCE IN THE WRITINGS OF THE PRIDEAUX.
BE IT REMEMBERED WITH YOU THAT WHEN THE NORMANS CAME TO
ENGLAND THEY HAD BUT ONE NAME (A CHRISTIAN NAME), BUT THEY TOOK TO
THEMSELVES A SURNAME, AND MY FOREFATHER, AS HE CAME FROM NANTES, IN NORMANDY, WROTE HIS NAME NANCE, AS I SUPPOSE, BEING A MILDER WAY OF PRONOUNCING THE NAME CORRECTLY(IN ENGLISH).

OK.
Stop and use your brain for a second.
This letter is supposedly written around the year 1900 by a man making claims concerning events around the year 1066.
If I write a letter today in the year 2012, full of self-serving claims that no actual evidence exists for, concerning events 850 years ago, making up fantasy claims that strike my fancy about my noble warrior heritage,.. what would be the degree of truthfulness or FACTUAL basis that you would attribute to my assertions about alleged claims handed down to me orally from ancestors 850 years ago???

Hopefully, pretty much ZERO% likely factual would be your response. NO ONE has any oral history from that long ago unless they are a couple royal families that are well known and well documented. Anyone claiming this sort of nonsense is making up what suits their own personal fantasy and hoping for dupes to repeat such nonsense.

In the same way I could not possibly speak authoritatively or have any inherited knowledge from paternal line ancestors passed to me in 2012 from 850 years ago.. neither does the guy you are citing from 1900 a.d. claiming personal details about a very pedestrian family heritage from 850 years before his own birth.

This sort of nonsense gets passed around a lot by delusionals who think that because you can get a DNA result or written account of something that goes back 200 years, this means time was frozen in that entire region or area over the preceding millenia and proves whatever their personal fetish is,when its easily refutable and preposterous.

Even in the .005% of the population that has even a fragment of data going back into their purported paternal line ancestry from 850 years ago, its pretty certain that one or more Non-Paternal Events (NPT) of one sort of another happened across nearly a Millenia of generations - It is exceedingly unlikely that your paternal heritage, or even the most royal of families heritage is truly unbroken and constant across a Millenia. The HG/Snp you bear is simply the last time that it was introgressed or adopted, etc..

Lastly, most people within the common population were not even using a surname of 'Lyon' etc.. till many hundreds of after the Norman Invasion, no one would really be cognizant of 'Norman' heritage by that point in time, and literally NONE of the 1900 a.d. account you are paying reverence to has a single ounce of possible truth to it.

There are many different sources for common surnames and most are adopted pretty late in history, they do not relate to one another genetically in most cases, or all the Irish named "King" would share the same Ht and all be descended from the same traceable royals, which is not the case and never has been.

LeBrok
05-09-12, 02:41
I agree with last post. Somebody mentioned before that even royals can't trace their heritage more than 800 years, not even British queen Elizabeth the II. Even the best written records loose trace in Dark Ages, Black Death did lots of mess in Europe too, plus every palace and castle, where records were kept, went through big fire several times, not mentioning that people like falsify records all the time, especially when big money come into play.
And even if there are records, to prove that one comes from straight line from a person that lived 1000 years ago it is not easier by any measure. One would need to find remains and run DNA tests to be almost 100% sure.

10-09-12, 22:42
156 years ago, he wrote the letter about events that occurred 790 years prior to that.
I take the letter for what it is, a possibility. I personally can only genetically trace my line back to the 1700's.
Two other Nances that I do not know took DNA tests also and we matched and traced our common ancestor back to the 1700s and proved our common ancestor. What I hope to do is find offspring of the ancestor that was prior to the one we confirmed and compare their genetic test results to ours. If you can do this far enough back, you can get closer to confirming you genetic heritage one step at a time. I'm not claiming Royal heritage at all, just claiming that some of the Isles B1 could possibly be of Norman heritage, or maybe something else. There is nothing spectacular about that at all. The whole idea of grouping similar haplotypes together is so that we can form a theory as to the migration and heritage of our early ancestors.

jdanel
30-09-12, 02:14
For L161, this is a speculative extension of Nordtvedt's hypothesis.

http://ecbiz126.inmotionhosting.com/~danelu5/page2.html

It is a much improved, updated and clarified version of post #1 in this thread.

I would appreciate your thoughts and corrections.

jdanel
30-09-12, 02:28
Here is a summary:

L161 may have been founded on the north German plain or near the mouth of the Dneister River on the Black Sea. That founder was an early version of Isles B.

The founding of the other Isles sublades are more easily generalized:

Isles A may be the easiest to locate. There are virtually no Isles A outside the British Isles, therefore the branching of Isles A from Isles B, about 5,700 to 5,200 years ago, occurred in Britain. Isles B was relatively successful early on resulting in a TMRCA of about 5,370 years. Isles A was not so lucky: something catastrophic, probably several catastrophies over a span of time, happened to Isles A that resulted in bottlenecks leading to the TMRCA of only 1,500 years.

The few surviving Isles A formed a diaspora to the north and west and Ireland. Isles B largely escaped that fate perhaps because they were further inland and had a better climate in Southwest England.

● Location of Isles C developing from Isles B - 4,500 y.a., and then branching off Isles D - 3,800 y.a.:

Isles C first branched off from Isles B rootstock about 4,500 years ago. Shortly thereafter, 700 years later, Isles D branched off from Isles C and the modern distribution of Isles D is heavily weighted to Ireland. That suggests that the branching was among people living in Ireland at that time. It also suggests that some Isles C went into Ireland about 4,000 years ago where Isles D was soon founded about 3,800 y.a.


● Further branching of the Subclades

Each of the subclades has branched. There are now A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2, D1, D2, and D3

After the presumed diaspora of A, the subclade A1 is strong in Ireland, particularly around Cork, and A2 may be more heavily weighted in Northern England and Scotland. A small split of A1 developed and almost went extinct in Southwest England south of Bristol (The RD family. Perhaps at one time it would have qualified as subclade A3).

I do not know if there is a geographic split between B1 and B2, but B as a whole seems to be widely and evenly spread over the British Isles.

C1, C2, D1, and D2 are all heavily weighted to Ireland so, with the exception of C1, I would suggest they were founded there.

As to D3, it is weighted to Scotland, so it seems likely that there may be some important relationship to Dál Riata

● Subclades A, B, C, and D on the east side of the English Channel - after 4,500 y.a.:

So far, there has been only two Isles A found on the east side (and both use an English spelling of the surname). There are about a dozen total of Isles C and Isles D. The rest, another two dozen, are Isles B. All of these very few occurrences of A, B, C, and D east of the English Channel could be the legacy of individual traders and travellers at any time.

Jean Manco suggests there was a significant amount of slave trading by the Anglo-Saxons and others shipping native Britons, probably including our ancestors, west to Europe and the Mediterranean. This could account for that dozen instances of Isles C and Isles D and some Isles B found on the continent and elsewhere.

● TMRCA ● ● ● If L161 is so ancient, why is the TMRCA so short?</h3>

(TMRCA = Time to Most Recent Common Ancestor)

The TMRCA for Isles B is about 5,370 years. If Isles B were very much older, say 12,000 years or even older - 13,500 years, there would need to be a number of reasons for that short TMRCA.

Such reasons may very well exist:, i.e. known bottleneck events. The more severe the bottleneck, the more the TMRCA is moved.

The first obvious event was the Younger Dryas. That could have moved the TMRCA to about 12,000 years, which is interestingly close to the branching of Dinaric.

The next obvious bottlenecks are the flooding of Doggerland, the tsunamis, and the harsh climate change associated with the drainage of Lake Agassiz 8,200 years ago. That could have moved the TMRCA to 9,000 years.

The next is the catastrophic climate event of 4,500 years ago. Tree ring data proves that this event had severe worldwide effects, but the causes are subject to intense speculation: comets, volcanics, etc. Two very large volcanic events in Iceland seem fairly likely since they are not all that distant. The “1627 BC events” perhaps a series of volcanic eruptions from Iceland to Greece, also produced a decade of severe climate.

It is not at all necessary that the bottlenecking event be a huge catastrophe. The normal daily disasters: famine, fire, flood, war and pestilence can effectively, but more slowly, cause the TMRCA to move forward.

The cumulative effect of all these could have moved the TMRCA for Isles B from the founding 13,500 to the 5,370 we find in the data.

For Isles A, the effects of the Anglo-Saxon invasions may have been drastic enough to shorten the TMRCA to 1,500 years.

● Conclusion:

These dates are strong evidence that our L161-Isles B ancestors have been in Britain at least since the flooding of Doggerland before the opening of the English Channel 8,200 years ago during the mesolithic.

This would be long before dairy herding, before farming, before Celts, before Danes or Norse or Vikings, before Jutes or Belgae or Angles or Saxons.

● Timeline
(y.a. = years ago)

110,000 y.a. __The "Last Glacial Period" begins and lasts until about 10,000 y.a.
15,000 y.a. ___Post-glacial repopulation of Southern England begins
14,700 y.a. ___Bølling-Allerød interstadial - a warm and moist period begins abruptly
13,500 y.a. ___L161 founded perhaps near the Black Sea
12,800 y,a, ___The Younger Dryas little ice age begins lasting 1,300 years
9,000 y.a. ____Post-glacial repopulation of Ireland begins in Cork
8,300 y.a. ____Flooding of Doggerland and Storegga Slide tsunamis
8,200 y.a. ____English Channel opened - Isles B on the west and L161-East on the east
6,500 y.a. ____Mesolithic / Neolithic transition
6,500 y.a. ____Isles B develops into Isles A in East Anglia and into Isles C in the English Midlands
6,500 y.a. ____Alghaffar branches off L161-East
6,000 y.a. ____Farming introduced into England
6,000 y.a. ____ Isles A branches off from Isles B, probably in East Anglia
5,700 y.a. ____Modern Isles B develops probably Southern England
5,370 y.a. ____TMRCA of continental group of Isles B derived from Bronze Age traders?
5,000 y.a. ____Windmill Hill culture-East Anglian tribe (Isles B?) begin constructing Stonehenge
4,800 y.a. ____Mt. Pleasant henge constructed in Dorset (by Isles B?)
4,740 y.a. ____TMRCA Isles B British group
4,500 y.a. ____Bronze Age begins in Britain
4,500 y.a. ____The horse domesticated in Britain
4,500 y.a. ____Isles C branches off from Isles B in the Northern England-Scotland-Ulster area?
4,000 y.a. ____part of Isles C migrates into Ireland<br>
4,050 y.a. ____Seahenge constructed in Norfolk (Isles B? or Isles A?)
3,800 y.a. ____Part of a migrating group of Isles C develops into Isles D in Ireland, perhaps near Rathcroghan
2,800 y.a. ____Iron Age begins in Britain
2,730 y.a. ____TMRCA of Isles C
2,520 y.a. ____TMRCA of Isles D
1,850 y.a. ____The great Antonine Plague
1,750 y.a. ____The Plagues of Cyprian and Aurelian - 20 years of plagues
1,500 y.a. ____TMRCA of Isles A
1,500 y.a. ____Anglo-Saxon invasion, slave trade flourishes
1,480 y.a. ____Plague of Justinian, TBJ erupts. "AD 536 Events" Two decades of famine.
1,450 y.a. ____The diaspora of Isles A

sparkey
01-10-12, 19:30
For L161, this is a speculative extension of Nordtvedt's hypothesis.

http://ecbiz126.inmotionhosting.com/~danelu5/page2.html

It is a much improved, updated and clarified version of post #1 in this thread.

I would appreciate your thoughts and corrections.

Comments as I read it...


It is thought that hg I was founded east of the Black Sea about 25,000 BC.

It seems likely that haplogroup I split from IJ east of the Black Sea, but where is 25,000 BC coming from? That's in-between the approximate date it split from IJ (~35,000 YBP) and its TMRCA (~22,000 YBP... by which time there's no evidence of remnants east of the Black Sea, so a better assumption is a MRCA west of the Black Sea).


The ice eventually forced the I / M170 to move back south until they found a survivable climate called a “refugium” in Ukraine. They lived in the Ukraine Refugium for about 10,000 years. While they were living there, another SNP called M438 developed about 21,000 BC. We associate M438 with haplogroup I2 and another subsequent SNP P37 with I2a1.

I seriously doubt that modern haplogroup I carriers descend patrilineally from anyone in the Ukraine refuge. More likely some descend from the Franco-Iberian refuge (I2a seems like a great candidate, and maybe even I1 also) and maybe some from the Adriatic refuge as well (I2b/I2c? That's my best guess...). The thing is, Ukraine has relatively little haplogroup I diversity, while the Atlantic Fringe and the Rhine have tons. I could be wrong, of course, but we have basically no evidence of a Ukraine refuge connection to haplogroup I at the moment, so I don't think it makes sense to put into this sort of narrative.

I know you favor M423+ as coming from the Black Sea region, and there's a chance you might be right about that, but M423+ definitely seems to be the outlier on its branch if that's the case.


The northwest shore of the Black Sea seems most likely to me because of the proximity to the Dinaric who also branched off from M423.

That doesn't seem likely to me. Probably the L147+ group had a MRCA from that region, but I'm not convinced about the others yet. The M423+ branch as a whole is difficult to pin anywhere since it has outliers from the Black Sea region and even Iraq, but the fact both of its branches have representation in the British Isles gives us a clue. I'm not saying that it originated in the British Isles, but I think it was closer to there than you're indicating. Especially considering that the closest cousins to M423+ are solidly anchored to France, and the next closest cousins to Western Europe.


Recent findings of L161 in Romania, Albania, and Greece and perhaps even Iran may suggest a source closer to the mouth of the Deister River on the Black Sea.

I don't think that's enough if they fit into one of the existing branches. Although, you go on to mention "L161-East." I'm curious about these. What is their TMRCA? How about their TMRCA with the rest of Isles (assuming they didn't branch off of A, B, C, D)? You say that Alghaffar branched off of them, does Alghaffar really have a more recent TMRCA with "L161-East" than with Isles-B?

jdanel
02-10-12, 07:11
Thank you. S____ for the excellent comments. I have interspersed my reasoning and questions in between your comments.


http://www.eupedia.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png OriginallyPosted by L161Timeline
Itis thought that hg I was founded east of the Black Sea about 25,000BC.
Itseems likely that haplogroup I split from IJ east of the Black Sea,but where is 25,000 BC coming from? That's in-between the approximatedate it split from IJ (~35,000 YBP) and its TMRCA (~22,000 YBP... bywhich time there's no evidence of remnants east of the Black Sea, soa better assumption is a MRCA west of the Black Sea).

Originally from National Geographic. Corrected to: hg I-M170 was founded east of the Black Sea about 33,000 BC.
I will get to the map correction later.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png OriginallyPosted by L161TimelineTheice eventually forced the I / M170 to move back south until theyfound a survivable climate called a “refugium” in Ukraine. Theylived in the Ukraine Refugium for about 10,000 years. While they wereliving there, another SNP called M438 developed about 21,000 BC. Weassociate M438 with haplogroup I2 and another subsequent SNP P37 withI2a1.
Iseriously doubt that modern haplogroup I carriers descendpatrilineally from anyone in the Ukraine refuge. More likely somedescend from the Franco-Iberian refuge (I2a seems like a greatcandidate, and maybe even I1 also) and maybe some from the Adriaticrefuge as well (I2b/I2c? That's my best guess...). The thing is,Ukraine has relatively little haplogroup I diversity, while theAtlantic Fringe and the Rhine have tons.I could be wrong, of course, but we have basically no evidence of aUkraine refuge connection to haplogroup I at the moment, so I don'tthink it makes sense to put into this sort of narrative.

I am interpreting the big purple spot on the distribution map as the connection. Does it not mean that?

If the founding was east of the Black Sea, then they must have gone through the Ukraine Refugium on their travels to the west, no? The low diversity in Ukraine could be an indicator of more recent bottlenecking (and therefore not much information content in that data?).

The question is also, wherever the founder was born, where were the descendants during the Younger Dryas? Looking at the distribution map and asking where they would have gone to seek shelter, the obvious answer is the Ukraine Refuge. Ir doesn't seem obvious how they would have gotten to anywhere else. And since M423 is pretty much absent in the Franco-Iberian (as shown on the distribution map), wouldn't that rule it out?

Iknow you favor M423+ as coming from the Black Sea region, and there'sa chance you might be right about that, but M423+ definitely seems tobe the outlier on its branch if that's the case.


M423 is really almost a dartboard choice. If you connect the locations shown for M423 on the hg I distribution map, it produces a path like the one described. Maybe future data will be able to give us better information.


http://www.eupedia.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png OriginallyPosted by L161TimelineThe northwestshore of the Black Sea seems most likely to me because ofthe proximity to the Dinaric who also branched off from M423.
Thatdoesn't seem likely to me. Probably the L147+ group had a MRCA fromthat region, but I'm not convinced about the others yet. The M423+branch as a whole is difficult to pin anywhere since it has outliersfrom the Black Sea region and even Iraq, but the fact both of itsbranches have representation in the British Isles gives us a clue.I'm not saying that it originated in the British Isles, but I thinkit was closer to there than you're indicating. Especially consideringthat the closest cousins to M423+ are solidlyanchoredto France, and the next closest cousins to Western Europe.

That is correct about the MRCAs , but modern MRCA don't really tell us much about the location of the MDCA. The paragraph about the shortness of the TMRCA relative to the founding dates was hopefully intended to address that.

This Dneister River assumption is to avoid the question as to how the Dinaric would have gotten back to the Balkans from northwest Europe. It this is the founding location, just a short trip up the Danube and hang a left gets them there. That seems the simplest solution, but certainly not guaranteed to be correct.


http://www.eupedia.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png OriginallyPosted by L161TimelineRecentfindings of L161 in Romania, Albania, and Greece and perhaps evenIran may suggest a source closer to the mouth of the Deister River onthe Black Sea.
Idon't think that's enough if they fit into one of the existingbranches. Although, you go on to mention "L161-East." I'mcurious about these. What is their TMRCA? How about their TMRCA withthe rest of Isles (assuming they didn't branch off of A, B, C, D)?You say that Alghaffar branched off of them, does Alghaffar reallyhave a more recent TMRCA with "L161-East" than withIsles-B?


I don't know anything about these, except they are said to exist, and so would seem to me to move the center of mass in that direction. It is similar to the Dinaric question, “how did they get back to there from Western Europe?” Much simpler if the founding was closer to there.

sparkey
02-10-12, 18:05
I am interpreting the big purple spot on the distribution map as the connection. Does it not mean that?

The distribution map gives frequency, not diversity. Of course, diversity is more important evidence for extrapolating origin.

Ukraine has a lot of I2a-Din diversity, but not a lot else. It has a little bit of I2-M223 and I1, but isn't exceptionally diverse in them AFAIK.


If the founding was east of the Black Sea, then they must have gone through the Ukraine Refugium on their travels to the west, no?

Not necessarily. See the evidence for the spread of Gravettian culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravettian_culture)... it probably started around the Crimean mountains, but by the LGM, had developed into successor cultures like the Solutrean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean) (Franco-Iberian refuge). IMHO Gravettian culture is a very good candidate for the origin of all modern haplogroup I, although admittedly, that's probably extrapolating farther back than we ought to.

I guess you could say that they must have passed through what would become the Ukraine refuge at the LGM.


The low diversity in Ukraine could be an indicator of more recent bottlenecking (and therefore not much information content in that data?).

I'm sure there was some bottlenecking of haplogroup I in Ukraine, and it's theoretically possible that I2a was in the Ukraine refuge and bottlenecked there after spreading elsewhere during the Mesolithic (we really just need all the other subclades in place by the end of the Mesolithic for the modern patterns to work). It's just a less likely scenario given the evidence we have, I think.

You can keep your hypothesis on your page, of course... I like that you explore the alternate possibilities for I2a-Isles. Just offering my opinion, which could be wrong too. :good_job:


The question is also, wherever the founder was born, where were the descendants during the Younger Dryas? Looking at the distribution map and asking where they would have gone to seek shelter, the obvious answer is the Ukraine Refuge. Ir doesn't seem obvious how they would have gotten to anywhere else. And since M423 is pretty much absent in the Franco-Iberian (as shown on the distribution map), wouldn't that rule it out?

I'm talking about early undifferentiated I2a as being likely present at the Franco-Iberian refuge during the LGM. By the Mesolithic, there are some fairly apparent cultures to place its descendants in. IMHO: Azilian is likely for I2a1a, Sauvetterian is likely for I2a2b and maybe the French I2a1 outliers and I2a1c (which is a bit confusing itself), and Maglemosian is likely for I2a2a. The Younger Dryas happened just before the development of these, so, where do they all seem to have come from? The Franco-Iberian region looks likely, based on the archaeology I'm familiar with.

That still leaves us with I2a1b, which has a modern distribution that give us little clues to Mesolithic continuity. Is it the last remnant of a Ukraine LGM refuge I2a? I don't think that's likely... all of I2a would have been in the same spot 20,000 years ago, and based on all the others, the best guess looks to be the Franco-Iberian refuge. Could I2a1b have drifted to the Ukraine refuge between the LGM and the Younger Dryas? Sure... but what's the mechanism, or associated culture?


M423 is really almost a dartboard choice. If you connect the locations shown for M423 on the hg I distribution map, it produces a path like the one described. Maybe future data will be able to give us better information.

Yeah, hopefully we'll find more outliers, or some ancient samples. It's the most difficult I subclade to say anything definite about.


That is correct about the MRCAs , but modern MRCA don't really tell us much about the location of the MDCA. The paragraph about the shortness of the TMRCA relative to the founding dates was hopefully intended to address that.

I agree that ancient bottlenecking makes extrapolating the ancient migrations of I2a1b in particular very difficult. I would disagree if you're suggesting that we can't say much about where I2a as a whole was anchored, though. We've got a lot of subclades other than confusing I2a1b to point us there... I2a1a, I2a1c, I2a1*-F, I2a1*-NF, I2a2b, and I2a2a. All point west except maybe I2a2a, which is more central. Even with bottlenecking, I doubt that this is meaningless.


This Dneister River assumption is to avoid the question as to how the Dinaric would have gotten back to the Balkans from northwest Europe. It this is the founding location, just a short trip up the Danube and hang a left gets them there. That seems the simplest solution, but certainly not guaranteed to be correct.

I don't think that a direct movement from northwest Europe to the Balkans is plausible, either. It would have to have been movement from northwest Europe back to the Ukraine region, and then down to the Balkans, if it's true that I2a1b began expanding from northwest Europe.


I don't know anything about these, except they are said to exist, and so would seem to me to move the center of mass in that direction.

Have a link? The idea of an L161-East cluster as an older branch than A, B, C, and D is an important one to establish where L161 originally launched from. It would be especially interesting if we could show that the Eastern European samples belonged to L161-East. I've assumed that the Eastern European samples belonged to the B cluster until now.

jdanel
04-10-12, 01:36
That answer gives me a lot to think about, and done nicely too. Thank you, S_____.


The idea of an L161-East cluster as an older branch than A, B, C, and D is an important one to establish where L161 originally launched from. It would be especially interesting if we could show that the Eastern European samples belonged to L161-East. I've assumed that the Eastern European samples belonged to the B cluster until now.

L161-east is just me artificially dividing the isles bunch from all the other L161 using an hypothetical STR set for the "Doggerland Patriarch" . I think they are all members of B cluster - or maybe a pre-B group.

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

I hope I have understood your comments correctly. As a result of your info, I have done a major rewrite of the section. Still a work in progress, it now reads:



● Ancestors of L161


L161 is descended from haplogroup (hg) I which has SNP M170. It is thought that Hg I-M170 was founded east of the Black Sea about 33,000 BC during a warm interglacial period in the Weichsellian ice age. During this period, Hg I-M170 and the paleolithic Gravettian Culture spread from Ukraine to Spain. Afterwards, the Weichsellian returned fiercely. The maximum glacial ice coverage was reached about 23,000 BC, followed by the post-Weichsellian warm period. During the warm period a new SNP called M438-I2 developed about 19,500 BC, followed shortly by SNP L460-I2a about 18.500 BC, and P37-I2a1 about 18,000 BC.


[Just a note about the ice ages and the refugia. The ice age was not just one event. The ice came and went about ten times. When the ice was great, the people moved south and lived in survivable climates called "refugia." There were several of these refugia: in Spain and southwest France (Franco-Iberian), in the Balkans, and in Ukraine. When the weather warmed up, the people spread northwards and laterally covering great territory. Then another wave of ice came back and they were driven back into the refugia. The warm spells and cold spells have names like Weichsellian (cold with eight warm spells, followed by a warm spell), Oldest Dryas (cold), Bølling-Allerød (warm), Younger Dryas (cold), and Boreal (warm).]


The post-Weichsellian warm period ended and an ice age called the "Oldest Dryas" began about 17,000 BC. The ice forced the I-M170 and all the dispersed subgroups to move back to refugia. Various tribes of Hg I may have been in all of the refugia. They lived in the refugia, off and on, until about 14,670 years ago when the Bolling-Allerod warm spell abruptly began.


I2a1-P37 was, without doubt, present in the Franco-Iberian Refugium and developed several subgroups there that later spread out widely, notably M26 Sardinian. which is found in Spain, France, and Sardinia. That much is clear.


However other SNPs that developed from P37 present a bit of a mystery. M423-I2a1b developed about 13,800 BC. M423 is found mainly north and west of the Black Sea and, oddly, in Britain. From it have developed two other SNPs: L161-Isles and L69-I2a1a Dinaric, both about 13,000 years ago during the Bølling-Allerød warm period before the Younger Dryas ice age. Dinaric is found mainly in the Balkans and L161 is found, with a very few exceptions, in Britain.




<img alt="" src="http://danel.us/resources/m423.gif" width="800" height="600" />

Distribution of Haplogroup I and it subgroup M423


The mystery is this: Since it is known that P37 was in the Franco-Iberian refuge, if M423 was founded there or near there, how did M423, Dinaric, and L161-Isles get to their present locations? A mass migration eastward to the Black Sea seems unlikely.


Here is a possible solution: P37 spread during the post-Weichsellian warm period before the Oldest Dryas and so could have travelled widely across Europe at the time. A few (or even just one) P37 made their way eastward and found themselves in the Ukraine Refugium during the Oldest Dryas. It was there during that time that M423 was born and subsequently both L161 and L69-Dinaric. M423 expanded from there to the present location centered around Ukraine, and L69-Dinaric migrated up the Danube and into the Balkans. To suggest a parallel from fiction, Jean Auel's story of the travels of Jondalar, our fictional P37, from France to the Black Sea and back, begetting children along the way, would seem to suit.<sup><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_Children" target="_blank">[36]</a></sup> One of "Jondalar's" Black Sea descendants would be the founder of M423.

This may seem very farfetched, but consider this: P37 had been founded only 1000 years, say 40 generations before the onset of the Oldest Dryas. The total population of P37 could not have been very great, and most of them were probably in the Franco-Iberian refuge.


Which leaves the question as to how L161 got to Britain. L161 branched off from M423 about 13,500 y.a. somewhere in their territory.


● Location of L161 founding


The geographic location where the founder lived is uncertain. Nordtvedt originally suggested the North German plain. Recent findings of L161 in Romania, Albania, and Greece and perhaps even Iran may suggest a source closer to the mouth of the Deister River on the Black Sea. At the time of the founding the North German plain was enjoying the Bølling-Allerød warm period after the Oldest Dryas ice age ended. This pleasant setting was soon changed by the onset of a little ice age known as the "Younger Dryas" that lasted for 1,300 years.


There are basically four possibilities as to the founding location. First: Founded on the North German Plain and then L161 moved west from there, (braving the Younger Dryas ice age on those northern plains?). Second: L161 was founded "up north" but was driven by the little ice age southward down to the shores of the Black Sea. Third: L161 was founded in that zone of M423 on the northwest shore of the Black Sea. Fourth: L161 was founded somewhere else altogether. The first seems like an exinction situation. The second and third seem equally likely, The fourth, well, we may all be wrong.


I prefer the third, i.e. founded along the shore of Black Sea at the mouth of the Dneister River. After the Younger Dryas ended 11,500 y.a., the L161 migrated northward up the Dneister River and on westward, leaving some dna remnants along the way. The path taken by L161 is shown on this map as the light blue line from the Black Sea to Britain.


<img alt="" src="http://danel.us/resources/Grandfathers Path11.gif" width="860" height="600" /></a><br />


Perhaps supporting the idea that L161 spent the early years after the founding near the Black Sea are that
a.) M423 is scarce in the other refugia zones;
b.) Modern M423 is found in a wide circle around Ukraine;
c.) Dinaric branched off M423. The descendants of that branching are very heavily located in the area west of the Black Sea;
d.) L161 branched off from M423.
e.) L147-I2a1b3a, another branching of M423 is also located north and west of the Black Sea

Here are links to a “family tree” of <a href="http://danel.us/resources/I2a+Hypothetical+family+tree+L161+Isles+B.gif" target="_blank">haplogroup I </a>and of <a href="http://danel.us/resources/Doggerland+Patriarch+family+tree.gif" target="_blank">L161 Isles Clades</a>.

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

I just noticed the L147 (branched from M423) on Nordtvedt's map.

He has P37 on Greece. I wonder if there is any meaning to that.

sparkey
04-10-12, 18:02
L161-east is just me artificially dividing the isles bunch from all the other L161 using an hypothetical STR set for the "Doggerland Patriarch" . I think they are all members of B cluster - or maybe a pre-B group.

"All members of B cluster" to me would suggest Migration Period flow eastward. "A pre-B group" would make me reconsider some of my presuppositions. So hopefully we get more detailed STR analyses of eastern I2a1b2 in the future.


I hope I have understood your comments correctly. As a result of your info, I have done a major rewrite of the section.

I like it better now... fewer things to argue about. :good_job:


I just noticed the L147 (branched from M423) on Nordtvedt's map.

He has P37 on Greece. I wonder if there is any meaning to that.

Nordtvedt's map is a schematic, where the endpoints of the arrows and general direction of the paths mean more than their specific paths and branching locations. Notice the cluster of arrow endpoints just east of the Rhine and along the Atlantic Fringe, for example... those support some of the points I've been making.

jdanel
04-10-12, 18:54
I like it better now... fewer things to argue about. :good_job:


Good. I don't mind differing on speculations, but It is my intention to avoid contradictions with facts. Of the still several things to argue about, do you see any of them as factually incorrect?

Dan Zavoianu
28-03-13, 09:38
More research needs to be conducted on I2a2b. It is clearly north-west European and absent in eastern Europe. The branchlines between it and I2a2a separated some 13,000 years ago. Eventually, I hope, the databases will enlarge so that we are able to say more about this fascinating little clade.

Hello! I'm I2a2b according to 23and me and my family lives in central Romania for generations. What do you think on that?

Dan Zavoianu
28-03-13, 09:48
I'm I2a2b and not the only one. My father and ancestors lived for at least 200 years near where you see Craiova at the Center of Romania roughly close to Danube..


great explanation!
there is some I2a2a as far as south Germany...
I2b probably did take Dniester route together with I2a2b...

Seneca's mention of Serians in Europe is related to Danube

and Byzantine emperor did record (though several centuries after the event) settlements of Serbs from Bohemia on Balkan...and Bohemia is on this route along the Danube...

Scordisci are as well spread along this route.... from them tribe named Serdi entered Thrace...

btw. this source area between Dniester and Danube is roughly Moldova... Moldova has high frequency of I2a2 but the variance is low there, much lower than area just northeast of it above Black sea... so perhaps the source was above Black sea and still the routes of spread towards west were twofold as indicated by you...

spread could have been all around Black sea,,,as Veneti are on south shores of Black sea... later when Veneti moved to Europe they settled also in area of north Adriatic coast and due to that today there is variance hotspot in Slovenia....
according to Jordanes, early Slavs belong to populous race of Veneti

Dan Zavoianu
28-03-13, 09:52
Hi!

I'm I2a2b and I live in central Romania between the Carpathians Mountains and the Danube..
So we are not extinct ok?
:)))))


I do not disagree with that for most of the I2 variants, but if I2a2b were in the Danube basin back then, why are they not there now? All the others are still represented there to some extent.

It would require some sort of selective extinction of the I2a2b in the Danube. Has anyone suggested a mechanism for this selective extinction?

However, if we consider that the I2a2a were in those lovely protected lands along the Danube where they were easily able to thrive and multiply. If I2a2b had been there, they would have thrived too. But they did not. Why not? They were up on the northern plain suffering the vicissitudes of the Younger Dryas and, to use Nordtvedt's phrase, "at the razor edge of overall extinction"

Beyond that, it is not clear to me that I2a2a and I2a2b separated from each other directly. It seems that they probably both branched off a prior variety of I2a2-something, could be I2a2* or something else. So I am not saying, and doubt, that Mr. I2a2b's father was Mr. I2a2a. Just saying that they were not all that far apart geographically. Maybe the distance from Moldova to the Danube. Mr. I2a2a could very well have been born somewhere up the Danube from another I2a2-something father. This is why I did not draw an intersection of a and b. I think this is what Nordtvedt is saying in the quote back up in message 11.

How is Lepinski Vir evidence for any of this? One might very well expect that I2a2a would be there, but the only way it could have any bearing on this is if I2a2b were found there. Has Y-dna from Lepinski Vir been published?

Eldritch
01-04-13, 00:26
Edit wrong thread.

jdanel
28-09-17, 21:38
It has been a while. Here is a pdf of the latest map of the hypothetical history of Isles A, extrapolating from the Olalde paper.

https://lookaside.fbsbx.com/file/Hypothetical%20history%20of%20Isles%20A.pdf?token= AWwW4hU9H5fHcPM59CAul2RMOon48mWDHcdhJ038CenkVFJya8 yCiYEUTzJmeMfeRRj37-1ppLgBJZH37FeBh-fqHS_gM-VlKAh3PTlkKO_uphGbel-NhhYf_OUeLdVfQNwSrfqhAamtUYwm5QBmTaUuH2agq5lPGbhFh 8qSNY4Hz2IcR7RABAW1p5uF7_JakAXCyPimIwwhuYZZdFMXP51 L (https://lookaside.fbsbx.com/file/Hypothetical%20history%20of%20Isles%20A.pdf?token= AWwW4hU9H5fHcPM59CAul2RMOon48mWDHcdhJ038CenkVFJya8 yCiYEUTzJmeMfeRRj37-1ppLgBJZH37FeBh-fqHS_gM-VlKAh3PTlkKO_uphGbel-NhhYf_OUeLdVfQNwSrfqhAamtUYwm5QBmTaUuH2agq5lPGbhFh 8qSNY4Hz2IcR7RABAW1p5uF7_JakAXCyPimIwwhuYZZdFMXP51 L)

and a jpg:

9325