PDA

View Full Version : which haplogroup had Doggerland people?



spongetaro
03-11-11, 13:16
Until the end of the Mesolithic,Great britain was linked to the European continent.
Paleolithic Scandinavan people evolved from pre I1 to become I1 which is the last branch of pre I1 haplogroups.
How come you don't find pre I1 people or other branches of pre I1 in Northern Europe, Britain especially.
Given that Britain was linked to Netherland and Denmark, pre I1 people could have move to Britain but nowadays you only find I2a2 isles there as paleolithic haplogroup.

What happened to the other pre I1 people?
http://nextnature.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/2007_dogger_re-engineered_satelite_photo_530.jpg

sparkey
03-11-11, 17:33
Until the end of the Mesolithic,Great britain was linked to the European continent.
Paleolithic Scandinavan people evolved from pre I1 to become I1 which is the last branch of pre I1 haplogroups.
How come you don't find pre I1 people or other branches of pre I1 in Northern Europe, Britain especially.
Given that Britain was linked to Netherland and Denmark, pre I1 people could have move to Britain but nowadays you only find I2a2 isles there as paleolithic haplogroup.

What happened to the other pre I1 people?

The best living candidates for Doggerland haplogroups seem to be I2a2a-Cont, including its British subclade I2a2a4-Cont2c; I2a2a-Roots, including its British subclade I2a2a1-Isles; and I2a1b2-Isles, which has a continental cluster "B." All of these are split between the continent and Britain and have TMRCAs that allow for them to be dated to Doggerland. I2a1b1-Disles/Dinaric and I2a1c1-Western are also possibilities, although they present more complicated pictures.

None of these are certain, though, as all of the TMRCAs of their subclades date to after Doggerland. This also implies that the Doggerland people carried now-extinct subclades.

But it definitely seems that they were I2a L460+ dominant. The problem with I1 is that it is simply too far east for Doggerland... although it's not impossible that Doggerland people could have carried now-extinct branches of I1, probably as minority clades.

spongetaro
04-11-11, 12:21
The best living candidates for Doggerland haplogroups seem to be I2a2a-Cont, including its British subclade I2a2a4-Cont2c; I2a2a-Roots, including its British subclade I2a2a1-Isles; and I2a1b2-Isles, which has a continental cluster "B." All of these are split between the continent and Britain and have TMRCAs that allow for them to be dated to Doggerland. I2a1b1-Disles/Dinaric and I2a1c1-Western are also possibilities, although they present more complicated pictures.

None of these are certain, though, as all of the TMRCAs of their subclades date to after Doggerland. This also implies that the Doggerland people carried now-extinct subclades.

But it definitely seems that they were I2a L460+ dominant. The problem with I1 is that it is simply too far east for Doggerland... although it's not impossible that Doggerland people could have carried now-extinct branches of I1, probably as minority clades.


Thank you. It seems that Pre I1 people had a little capicity of expansion compared to I2a at that time.
Also, what's your opinion on the fact that I2a is low in Scandinavia?

sparkey
04-11-11, 17:33
Thank you. It seems that Pre I1 people had a little capicity of expansion compared to I2a at that time.
Also, what's your opinion on the fact that I2a is low in Scandinavia?

Well, Mesolithic Scandinavia had a low population, right? I'm not sure what haplogroup would have dominated Scandinavia during the Mesolithic, although pre-I1 is very possible. It doesn't seem to have any modern descendants, unless the generally accepted dating of I1 is too young (currently places it well after the Mesolithic), or the center of diversity analysis incorrect (currently places the I1 MRCA as being from Schleswig-Holstein rather than Scandinavia). I know Maciamo has recently challenged the generally accepted dating.

Either way, it seems like we have plenty of opportunity for outside haplogroups to expand on Scandinavia and displace the population that was there, which I would guess to have been a mix of pre-I1 and I2a or something. And that seems to be what happened, with N1c, R1a, I1, and R1b expanding from different directions to it.

I think most of the rest of Europe other than Scandinavia and Northern Germany would have had more I2a than I1. Although not all of the rest of Europe would have been I2a dominant at the start of the Neolithic... my guess is that there were areas with more I2c and I2b, hard to pinpoint due to their rarity and central location; and much of Southern Europe more E1b (assuming the Mesolithic theory of E1b is correct).

Sile
04-11-11, 23:30
as of yesterday on TV , I saw a documentary on ancients rivers in europe and it was shown on the map on the TV that the Thames and the Rhine rivers where 1 river. Since ancient people usually followed and lived besides water courses, is it not plausible the some I2a split form I1 at these times

sparkey
04-11-11, 23:45
as of yesterday on TV , I saw a documentary on ancients rivers in europe and it was shown on the map on the TV that the Thames and the Rhine rivers where 1 river. Since ancient people usually followed and lived besides water courses, is it not plausible the some I2a split form I1 at these times

No, an I2a-dominant population would fit well with a combined Thames/Rhine, with maybe the upper Rhine having more I2c (probably as part of a continuous frequency transition, the population would have had both). I don't think anyone is proposing the Rhine as being a historically I1-dominant river. The lower Elbe is closer to where we might find I1 peoples, what was it like back then? Another possibility is the Eider (actually a better one geographically), what about that one?

Sile
05-11-11, 07:04
would the I1 in Noricum ( eastern austria ) , then be I1 associated with the Rugii ( noricum was called Rugiland ) , who came with the goths and where previously, on the baltic sea ( between the lower elbe and lower vistula rivers ) who previously where from western norway be the same type of I1 ?
They would have brought R1a as well

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

I do know , they never followed the visi or ostro goths further than austria

m227 comes to mind

Archduke Doggerland
03-08-14, 23:23
That's interesting considering: h t t p://oceanfield.ca/index.php/y-dna-primer/r1ba2a1a1a

sparkey
04-08-14, 18:20
That's interesting considering: h t t p://oceanfield.ca/index.php/y-dna-primer/r1ba2a1a1a

I definitely doubt R1b-U106 as an important Doggerland clade. When we're talking Doggerland, we're talking Mesolithic at the most recent. But I see no indication that R1b was in the area at all during the Mesolithic, much less a younger subclade like U106.

Archduke Doggerland
11-08-14, 12:19
Show me so much as one, just one, human bone pulled from the dogger bank that has been tested and found to have something other than R1b1a2a1a1a DNA! I don't think it's been done yet or else we would have heard about it. So your theory, so far,s just a theory.
- Archduke Doggerland

sparkey
11-08-14, 18:57
I didn't claim to have anything better than a hypothesis, although it is a hypothesis that fits better with current evidence than the hypothesis that R1b-U106 was important in Doggerland. We may not have ancient samples from Doggerland, but we have samples from elsewhere in Mesolithic Europe, as well as from Neolithic pre-Copper Age Europe, and so far none, about 40 samples (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/adnaintro.shtml), have turned up as R1b at all. Add to that the fact that we have STR and SNP dating techniques pointing toward a post-Neolithic European R1b expansion, and that we have much better candidates for what haplogroups Doggerland peoples carried (I2a-L460 subclades), and we end up with a pretty convincing set of evidence, don't you think? Are you going to argue that there's an equally convincing case to be made that R1b-U106 was important in Doggerland?

Athiudisc
13-08-14, 02:59
Show me so much as one, just one, human bone pulled from the dogger bank that has been tested and found to have something other than R1b1a2a1a1a DNA! I don't think it's been done yet or else we would have heard about it.

Show me so much as one, just one, human bone pulled from the Dogger Bank that has been tested and found to have R1b.

Doggerland appears to have been lost thousands of years before R1b entered Europe.

Archduke Doggerland
18-08-14, 06:00
I agree that the DNA of Doggerland needs much more study. I would suggest that large caissons, as is used in bridge construction, be dropped in he shallows of dogger bank, pump the water out and start digging. I would like to see the results. R1b1a2a1a1a - U106 never ceases to amaze me. It includes the House of Wettin, from Theodoric I of Wettin down to Prince Albert and Queen Elizabeth II (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha). Even King Tut was R1b1a2.