PDA

View Full Version : haplogroup i1a



nordvik
05-12-12, 13:35
My dna haplogroup is haplogroup i1a what are its origins.I think its Germanic but i am not sure.Thanks

sparkey
05-12-12, 20:45
What is telling you that you are I1a? I need to know because there are different nomenclatures. Right now ISOGG uses "I1a" for I1 DF29+, which is most of I1. But FTDNA uses "I1a" for I1 M21+, which is almost none of I1.

nordvik
07-12-12, 17:20
I am talking in terms of ftdna.

sparkey
07-12-12, 20:48
I am talking in terms of ftdna.

Wow, FTDNA actually calls you I1a? That's incredibly rare. You should join the I1 Project (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/yDNA_I1) and once they place you in a group, you should post your kit number here so that we can see if we can tell you where you fit.

Jackson
07-12-12, 22:13
What is known about I1 M21+?

nordvik
08-12-12, 18:11
How exactly would one join the i1 project and what is so rare about i1a?

sparkey
10-12-12, 18:07
How exactly would one join the i1 project and what is so rare about i1a?

Sign into FTDNA, go to the I1 Project (click here (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/yDNA_I1)), and click "Join Request" at the top.

VMax
23-01-13, 04:28
Hey Everyone! New here - ready to rumble!

Anyone test positve for Z2541? What have your learned about it and the cluster group you belong too? I am awaiting results which will probaly be about a month away - ouch!


Good to be here!

sparkey
23-01-13, 19:38
Hey Everyone! New here - ready to rumble!

Anyone test positve for Z2541? What have your learned about it and the cluster group you belong too? I am awaiting results which will probaly be about a month away - ouch!


Good to be here!

Z2541 (formerly "ESc-13" I think) is a curious clade... a bit of an outlier among the West Germanic Z58 clades, and entirely confined to Scotland or near Scotland. Could be an example of early drift out of the proto-Germanic population into Celtic British populations. (Or maybe we just haven't found the later Continental source population yet.)

VMax
23-01-13, 20:12
Z2541 (formerly "ESc-13" I think) is a curious clade... a bit of an outlier among the West Germanic Z58 clades, and entirely confined to Scotland or near Scotland. Could be an example of early drift out of the proto-Germanic population into Celtic British populations. (Or maybe we just haven't found the later Continental source population yet.)

On the most recent chart in my Project there are three men who test positive for this SNP and their earliest ancestors were from NOR and PRT (guessing Portugal), the last guys was USA. And Nordtvedt's recent tree still has this with ESc-13 w/ a ? beside it. By the way why does he lable it 'ES' and not AS - I thought AS stood for Anglo-Saxon? What is ES?

Thanks!

sparkey
23-01-13, 21:10
On the most recent chart in my Project there are three men who test positive for this SNP and their earliest ancestors were from NOR and PRT (guessing Portugal), the last guys was USA. And Nordtvedt's recent tree still has this with ESc-13 w/ a ? beside it. By the way why does he lable it 'ES' and not AS - I thought AS stood for Anglo-Saxon? What is ES?

Thanks!

I'm not sure what ES stands for. East Scotland?

Anyway, great to hear that we're starting to find continental samples of it. Makes more sense in that case. Maybe we're looking a North Germanic Z58 clade? Norway, Portugal, and Scotland, hm...

VMax
23-01-13, 21:19
I'm not sure what ES stands for. East Scotland?

Anyway, great to hear that we're starting to find continental samples of it. Makes more sense in that case. Maybe we're looking a North Germanic Z58 clade? Norway, Portugal, and Scotland, hm...

East Scotland - sounds good! Well if I come back positive for this snp then we will have one whose ealiest ancestor was from England - although that is from Census records so I guess an earlier ancestor from Scotland could be possible?

spruithean
01-02-13, 23:49
I1-M21+?! Wow.

mencor
09-03-13, 13:44
Britains DNA have tested my Y-DNA and report markers are carried for M258, M253 and S438 which, according to ISOGG (2013), indicates a haplogroup of I1a. As I don't carry a marker for M227, S142, S244 or S243, I'm not I1a1, I1a2, I1a3 or I1a4 respectively but simply I1a*. Does anyone know of any details for this specific subgroup such as distribution or frequency?

spruithean
12-03-13, 05:48
Britains DNA have tested my Y-DNA and report markers are carried for M258, M253 and S438 which, according to ISOGG (2013), indicates a haplogroup of I1a. As I don't carry a marker for M227, S142, S244 or S243, I'm not I1a1, I1a2, I1a3 or I1a4 respectively but simply I1a*. Does anyone know of any details for this specific subgroup such as distribution or frequency?

Have you checked the Haplogroup I1 DNA Project at FTDNA? Take a look there. I1-DF29* looks to be all over the place.

tumi
29-03-13, 21:52
A lot of what is now lowland scotland was settled by angles in the early period of anglo saxon migrations and that area was then in england and following the norman conquest and subsequent waste by William the bastard fled into lowland Scotland so I1 dna would not be unusual in Scotland especialy if it is germanic as opposed to norse value.

Jackson
30-03-13, 18:38
A lot of what is now lowland scotland was settled by angles in the early period of anglo saxon migrations and that area was then in england and following the norman conquest and subsequent waste by William the bastard fled into lowland Scotland so I1 dna would not be unusual in Scotland especialy if it is germanic as opposed to norse value.

True. People often seem to overlook this.

Alan
31-03-13, 20:45
A lot of what is now lowland scotland was settled by angles in the early period of anglo saxon migrations and that area was then in england and following the norman conquest and subsequent waste by William the bastard fled into lowland Scotland so I1 dna would not be unusual in Scotland especialy if it is germanic as opposed to norse value.

Sorry I had to correct. Norse are Germanic too. So talking about German and Norse would makes more sense since Germanic includes the Norse too.

spruithean
01-04-13, 04:33
Sorry I had to correct. Norse are Germanic too. So talking about German and Norse would makes more sense since Germanic includes the Norse too.

I agree with this Germanic should be used to include all groups from that root culture. Although, Germanic can be broken down into smaller groups for specificity.

adamo
11-04-13, 18:01
You say that you are a member of haplogroup I1a. Thus, you are part of the most northerly distributed branch of the paternal I haplogroup. Globally, the highest frequencies of this subgroup of haplogroup I are found in Scandinavia; in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark to be more precise. In Norway , this haplogroup can be found in about 35-40% of males. Same for Sweden ( 35-40%). In Denmark, the percentage of i1a is about 10 percentage points less (30%) of males. It can also be found in 30% of Finns although the latter also have VERY high frequencies of haplogroup N, thus severely differentiating them from the bulk of European males. As an interesting side note, your haplogroup and particular subclade can also be found in (15-20%) of English men , especially those from the Danelaw regions of England due to viking conquests and Danish Migrations. in 15% of German men, from northern Germany in particular, in 15-20% of Dutch men, and also in certain Belgian and French males. And also in about on third (33%) of Icelandic men, pointing to a link between Icelanders and Vikings from Scandinavia.

Fire Haired
02-07-13, 07:09
My dna haplogroup is haplogroup i1a what are its origins.I think its Germanic but i am not sure.Thanks
here is a thread that explians i1a in Scandnavia and contential Europe http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28850-Most-I1-in-Europe-is-not-from-Germans-or-Nordics

almost all Y DNA I1 is I1a the Scandnavien subclade is I1a2 the conteintal European subclades are I1a1, I1a3, and I1a4 Finnish have I1a2c other Scandviens almost never have that Finnish speak a Urlaic language that is 8,000 years old the Uralic language got there from Siberia 8,000ybp and brough Y DNA N1c1 Y DNa I1a2c was already dominte in Finland 8,000ybp it is probably 9,000-11,000 years old this also means the Scandinavian subclade I1a2 is defintley over 10,000 years old and that the orignal I1a probably is around 15,000 years old and that Scandnavien I1a2 split from Contiental European I1a1, I1a3, and I1a4 about 15,000ybp so if u have I1a2 then that means u have a direct paternal ancestry that goes back to Scandnavia if u have I1a1, I1a3, or I1a4 u have a contiental European direct paternal ancestry

pyromatic
02-07-13, 08:08
here is a thread that explians i1a in Scandnavia and contential Europe
(link removed; I cannot post links, even in comments)

almost all Y DNA I1 is I1a the Scandnavien subclade is I1a2 the conteintal European subclades are I1a1, I1a3, and I1a4 Finnish have I1a2c other Scandviens almost never have that Finnish speak a Urlaic language that is 8,000 years old the Uralic language got there from Siberia 8,000ybp and brough Y DNA N1c1 Y DNa I1a2c was already dominte in Finland 8,000ybp it is probably 9,000-11,000 years old this also means the Scandinavian subclade I1a2 is defintley over 10,000 years old and that the orignal I1a probably is around 15,000 years old and that Scandnavien I1a2 split from Contiental European I1a1, I1a3, and I1a4 about 15,000ybp so if u have I1a2 then that means u have a direct paternal ancestry that goes back to Scandnavia if u have I1a1, I1a3, or I1a4 u have a contiental European direct paternal ancestry

Where exactly are you getting these age estimates? They're wildly off from the consensus in the I1 community of a TMRCA for I1 of about 5000 years before present.

Additionally, to my knowledge there exists absolutely no I1 or pre-I1 in the historical record or ancient DNA. So to claim the L287 was in Finland 8000 years ago is at best speculative.

I would also caution against claiming that "almost all" Scandinavian I1 is L22+. From observations of the public data in the various FTDNA projects, it would seem it's more like 35% in Denmark, 45% in Norway, and 50% in Sweden.

Additionally L22 certainly has a northern bias, but it likely did not arise in Scandinavia and therefore does not necessarily imply Scandinavian paternity. There are even certain subclades which show little association with modern Scandinavian populations; like L205 which has a low lands/North Sea distribution.

I might also ask you consider proofreading your posts. They're nearly indecipherable.

EDIT:

It's actually rather coincidental that we were discussing dating of I1, as Terry Rob, a well-known contributor to the I1 mailing list, just posted new datings relying on the number of SNPs differentiating one haplogroup from another. From his calculations which assume a CT split at 70k ybp, I1 is 6500 years old, compared with his calculation for the age of R1b-P312 at 6100 years.

I'd refer you to his webpage, goggo.com/terry/HaplogroupI1/#CompleteGenomicsTMRCA

LeBrok
02-07-13, 08:27
I might also ask you consider proofreading your posts. They're nearly indecipherable.

I agree. Make sure your posts are easily readable and straight to the point, more research and much less jumping to quick conclusions. Doing so you will get more people understanding what you ment and engaged in conversation.

Fire Haired
02-07-13, 08:29
Where exactly are you getting these age estimates? They're wildly off from the consensus in the I1 community of a TMRCA for I1 of about 5000 years before present.

Additionally, to my knowledge there exists absolutely no I1 or pre-I1 in the historical record or ancient DNA. So to claim the L287 was in Finland 8000 years ago is at best speculative.

I would also caution against claiming that "almost all" Scandinavian I1 is L22+. From observations of the public data in the various FTDNA projects, it would seem it's more like 35% in Denmark, 45% in Norway, and 50% in Sweden.

Additionally L22 certainly has a northern bias, but it likely did not arise in Scandinavia and therefore does not necessarily imply Scandinavian paternity. There are even certain subclades which show little association with modern Scandinavian populations; like L205 which has a low lands/North Sea distribution.

I might also ask you consider proofreading your posts. They're nearly indecipherable.

EDIT:

It's actually rather coincidental that we were discussing dating of I1, as Terry Rob, a well-known contributor to the I1 mailing list, just posted new datings relying on the number of SNPs differentiating one haplogroup from another. From his calculations which assume a CT split at 70k ybp, I1 is 6500 years old, compared with his calculation for the age of R1b-P312 at 6100 years.

I'd refer you to his webpage, goggo.com/terry/HaplogroupI1/#CompleteGenomicsTMRCA

Y DNA and mtDNA age estimates have been proven to be very unaccurate alot of times like they said Y DNa g2a3 is 4,000 years old then find a 7,000 year old sample in Germany but it orignated in caucus so it is probably around 10,000 years old since it spread with farming to Europe dont trust age estimates to haplogroups they are sometimes accurate and uaulley not they will uslley have some truth but sometimes are way off and i think they are way off on I1

this is why i say I1a2 is 12,000-16,000 years old Finnish have I1a2c that is unque for them so they got it seperate from other scandnaviens Finnish speak a Urlaic language that is estimated o be 7,000 years old and they have mainly Uralic Y DNA N1c1 the Comb Cermic culture is belived to be the uralic culture that conquered native I1a2c and it was in finland 8,000 years ago also Baltic area was apart of COmb Cermic but modern baltic hspeak a Balto Indo European laguage that has been there since corded ware culture 5,000ybp but theys till have 30-40% Uralic N1c1 unlike their eastern european neighbors N1c1 in europe matches areas of Comb Cermic culture 8,000ybp this means they really where the Uralics and that N1c1 came after I1a2c in Finland that means I1a2c is onver 8,000 years old and its common ancestors with other Scandnavien I1a2 is from over 10,000ybo

also there is no way I1 is under 10,000 years old because German langauge migrated to scandavua with Y DNA R1b U106 about 4,000ybp I1a2 was already dominte and Scandavien I1a2 subclades are differnt from finnish I1a2c and that I1a2 subclades where already dominte in Scandnvia beofe German languages 4,000ybp and they are deep subclades so no way I1 is only 5,000 years old and the thing i said about Uralic studd so Y DNA I1a2 is at least 10,000-15,000 years old and I1 is in every spot in Europe non Scandnvaiens have I1a1, I1a3, I1a4, and I1b they are seperate from I1a2 and have been seperated from scandvauen I1a2 about 15,000ybp I1 it self it [probably at least 20,000 years old

i think right now looking at ages of languages and cultures and other stuff is the best way to figure out age estimtes to haplogroups because age estimates are uslley way to young and way off sometimes they are accurate but just going of common ancestor stuff cultures languages ages these are my estimates for I1 and from what i have heard teh age estimtes for I1* is 20,000-25,000 years old

pyromatic
02-07-13, 09:02
Dating these clades accurately certainly appears to be difficult, but you jump from "unaccurate" to definitely rather quickly. You still don't reveal your source for these dates. I also don't know how you claim Finnish to have diverged 6000 years ago. Your argument is essentially: I1-L287 was in Finland before N1c. N1c arrived with Finnish speakers. I think Finnish is at least 6000 years old. Therefore I1-L287 is really old. You offer no supporting data or evidence of I1's presence in Finland prior to N1c or the age of the Finnish language. To my understanding, and granted I'm no linguist, the entire Finno-Ugric language family is dated to 4000 years. This hardly is consistent with an age of Finnish of 6000 years. Even IF it were, there's no reason to believe I1-L287 didn't migrate after a Uralic culture was established in the region.

Time and time again, you simply insist on your dates and that I1 or some clade of it "was already dominte" in a region. There is no evidence of this.

Your posts are so illogical and ill-formed so as to be the work of a t-r-o-l-l.

Fire Haired
03-07-13, 01:57
Dating these clades accurately certainly appears to be difficult, but you jump from "unaccurate" to definitely rather quickly. You still don't reveal your source for these dates. I also don't know how you claim Finnish to have diverged 6000 years ago. Your argument is essentially: I1-L287 was in Finland before N1c. N1c arrived with Finnish speakers. I think Finnish is at least 6000 years old. Therefore I1-L287 is really old. You offer no supporting data or evidence of I1's presence in Finland prior to N1c or the age of the Finnish language. To my understanding, and granted I'm no linguist, the entire Finno-Ugric language family is dated to 4000 years. This hardly is consistent with an age of Finnish of 6000 years. Even IF it were, there's no reason to believe I1-L287 didn't migrate after a Uralic culture was established in the region.


Time and time again, you simply insist on your dates and that I1 or some clade of it "was already dominte" in a region. There is no evidence of this.


Your posts are so illogical and ill-formed so as to be the work of a t-r-o-l-l.


i do have evidence comb cermic culture which took p most of northeast europe including Finland 7,000-8,000ybp matches the map of Uralic N1c1 in europe even baltic people who have been speaking a Indo European Balto language for 5,000 years but before tha they where uralic here is a migration map on this website which they agree with me that comb cermic had n1c1 http://www.eupedia.com/europe/neolithic_europe_map.shtml also encyclopedia Wikipedia says proto Urali existed 7,000-10,000ybp http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/619069/Uralic-languages


also mtDDNA from northeast and northern europe from 7,000-8,000ybp had all Caucasian mtDNA U mainly specifically European U5 and U5b and they also had H but one fro 7,000ybp had specifically Siberian C1 which most experts belive is because uralics http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1003296 where starting to come to northeast Europe this means before teh Urlaic langaguge came European where the first in North east europe i really dont think that should suprise anyone since it was Europeans who lived in Finalnd before northeast asian Uralic with N1c1 invaded that means teh native Y DNa was Caucasin most likley in teh Y DNa I family since from what we know the only pre Neolithic European Y DNA haplogroups are I, C7, and F96 but I is by far the most popular and since Finnish have about 30-40% Y DNA I1a2c it would make alot of sense that is what the natives had before N1c1 came because I1a2c is the only pre Uralic, Pre Indo European, Pre middle eastern inter marraige from Greco roman age Y DNA in Finland so i think I1a2c is defintley what Finnish had over 8,000ybp also on this website their page for I1 said I1a2c in Finland would have come from swedan or norway but before teh bronze age aka before 6,000ybphttp://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_I1_Y-DNA.shtml (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_I1_Y-DNA.shtml)


or many reasons most of Swedan and Norway became Germanic speakers by 4,000-3,500ybp the germanic signature is Y DNA R1b S21 so if there was a major migration into Finland from Norway or swedan in the last 4,000 years u would find teh German language and Y DNA R1b S21 also since I1a2c is so popular in Finland the Uralic language was founded 7,000ybp in finland but lets say u are right N1c1 came before I1a2c then I1a2 came in another migration within the last 7,000 years well according to u teh urlaic language is like 4,000 years old so maybe even more recent neither wway cane be true first i showed u the only possible source for I1a2 in finalnd in the last 4,00 years is norway and swedan and they became germanic 4,000ybp so then modern finalnd would be germanic and have Y DNA R1b s21 which they dont and if it happened over 4,000ybp u still would not find the Uralic language in finland because of Uralic N1c1 is native itw ould have been conquered by I2a1c so the URalic language would have also been conquered that is what happens when a people group is conquered the old fashion way not eh way rome did the way vikings and the huns did they kill off everyone and rape the women the invading Y DNA kills off the native Y DNA and the invading culture language and religion takes away the native culture lanuage and religion and u dont find that in finalnd also if the Uralics are native to finland u are saying east asians are native to finland which we all know is absolutely crazy if Caucasian I1a2c conquered native N1c1 mongloids then teh mtdan in finland would be mongoloid not Caucasian it is so obvious the native to Finalnd hd Caucasin I1a2c and Caucasin mtDNA i have tons of evidence I1a2c has been in finland for over 8,000 years what u are saying is mongloid are native to Finland and same with n1c1 that is totally not true ancient DNA and everything else disagrees with u


it seems all u trust is dna age tests and u dont think it is possible to figure it out on ur own by connecting the dots by looking at history it does not matter if a spell badly i have better arguments and better information and u actulley have resources all u say is i have heard it is only 4,000 years old I1 is not a neloithic or brozne age haplogroup i dont care if people age it as 6,000 years old all other evidence points to it being very very very very very very very ancient mt estimte is at least 20,000 years old and from what i have sen on eupedia I1 page and wikpedia I1 is either 20,000-25,000 years old or 17,000 years old and i think there will be tons of new evidence that will show Y DNA I1a2 came with the first human migration into Scandinavia over 10,000ybp and i guess u wont believe me till we actulley have Y DNA fro people in swedan from 7,000ybp which we will have very very soon because of new projects they are doing like the rise there is no rarly evidence I1 in Scandinavia came from recent migrations like in bronze or Neolithic age because then where is the native Y DNA we know many humans lived in Scandinavia over 7,000ybp because we have some of their DNA we know they where Caucasian by their dna and skull shapes where is the native Caucasian Y DNA i think it is obvious that I1a2 is that group

nordicquarreler
03-07-13, 03:48
I can't follow your comment because of the utter lack of punctuation. It is actually inconsiderate to make lengthy statements while not using commonly accepted grammer techniques. There are posters on this site who have English as a second or third language who are more easily understood.

If you have a disorder or brain injury I will somehow make allowances, but if you're plain lazy-- I can't hang with your comments anymore.

This is a shame because obviously you have done a fair amount of genetic research and I'd like very much to converse further...

nordicquarreler
03-07-13, 04:08
The odd part is I think I agree with large chunks of your ideas, but I can't follow closely enough to be sure!

Fire Haired
03-07-13, 05:40
I can't follow your comment because of the utter lack of punctuation. It is actually inconsiderate to make lengthy statements while not using commonly accepted grammer techniques. There are posters on this site who have English as a second or third language who are more easily understood.

If you have a disorder or brain injury I will somehow make allowances, but if you're plain lazy-- I can't hang with your comments anymore.

This is a shame because obviously you have done a fair amount of genetic research and I'd like very much to converse further...

I will try to be less lazy

tjlowery87
06-07-13, 04:00
Dating these clades accurately certainly appears to be difficult, but you jump from "unaccurate" to definitely rather quickly. You still don't reveal your source for these dates. I also don't know how you claim Finnish to have diverged 6000 years ago. Your argument is essentially: I1-L287 was in Finland before N1c. N1c arrived with Finnish speakers. I think Finnish is at least 6000 years old. Therefore I1-L287 is really old. You offer no supporting data or evidence of I1's presence in Finland prior to N1c or the age of the Finnish language. To my understanding, and granted I'm no linguist, the entire Finno-Ugric language family is dated to 4000 years. This hardly is consistent with an age of Finnish of 6000 years. Even IF it were, there's no reason to believe I1-L287 didn't migrate after a Uralic culture was established in the region.

Time and time again, you simply insist on your dates and that I1 or some clade of it "was already dominte" in a region. There is no evidence of this.

Your posts are so illogical and ill-formed so as to be the work of a t-r-o-l-l.
I agree pyromatic

bulldogdave83
31-12-16, 08:21
Hello everyone, I am new to this forum. I recently received my Y-DNA and BigY results through FTDNA and discovered that my haplogroup subclade is I-A6826 which is downstream of I1-Z138. Does anyone share the same subclade or know the origins of it?

Rethel
01-01-17, 14:06
I think its Germanic but i am not sure.Thanks

No, it is not.
It is pre-Germanic, even pre-Indoeuropean.
Something Vasconic-like.