Y-DNA haplogroups of ancient civilizations OFFTOPIC about British I2

[stuibhard]

I love this info.
I know this info comes from ISSOG and not you- but to say that the current population living in an area once inhabited by an ancient one still reflects that ancient one may be a stretch. Probably accurate to a degree but it can稚 be trusted in my opinion unless we are talking recent history (Vikings were the last of the great European migratory pushes and their migration via DNA is very obvious). Speaking only of Europe, the amount of wars, migration and intermingling has been so great that I知 not sure we can draw any conclusions that today痴 peoples reflect ancient populations.
To me, what is more telling is not what is represented genetically today within a given current population but rather what is absent from that population. For instance, I2 is non-existent in Scandinavia. Why is that so when it is older than the rest of Haplogroup I and had more opportunity to get there? Some force- either nature or man kept them out.
It should be pointed out as well that these ancient European cultures were built upon older, truly ancient groups, many which may now be extinct or marginally represented today due to the reasons sited earlier. I know this to be true because I belong to such a group.
My group is I2, still around today and found in very high concentrations in southeastern Europe and Sardinia・ut my family is from Scotland. Further investigation reveals me to be I2*-A, which is Ancient I2, meaning I have none of the later mutations that define present-day Slavs, Croats, Bosnians, Sardinians and the like. My group pre-dates even the known ancient cultures and peoples, so its not quite accurate to say I2 is a Slavic group (you aren't stating that but it is very common on the web)- but one can say that today it's various subclades are primarily found in modern-day southern Slavs in the highest concentrations.
I2*-A, and its cousins I2*-B and I2*-C are still found throughout Europe and just east of the Urals and into Anatolia but in extremely low frequencies in all areas. That diversity and low frequency is one of the distinctions of the group. Due to its age its likely had ample time to have its members slowly extinctualized by others. At one time it may have constituted a major group but so much time has passed, so many new groups have popped up, we may never know. This is likely true for R* or R1* which if it exists would be found likely farther to the east (I'm not up on that at all).
So, although I知 I2, I知 not a Slav. I知 the direct descendant of a people who split very early from the pack and are truly ancient. We were there before Stonehenge, before the Picts, before the Romans etc.

[Maciamo]

I love this info.
I know this info comes from ISSOG and not you- but to say that the current population living in an area once inhabited by an ancient one still reflects that ancient one may be a stretch. Probably accurate to a degree but it can't be trusted in my opinion unless we are talking recent history (Vikings were the last of the great European migratory pushes and their migration via DNA is very obvious). Speaking only of Europe, the amount of wars, migration and intermingling has been so great that I'm not sure we can draw any conclusions that today's peoples reflect ancient populations.

Until recently nobody had any idea of the real impact of mass migrations and wars on the genetic structure of a population. DNA tests helped clarify this.

It had long been speculated that the English descended almost exclusively from the Anglo-Saxons, Vikings and Normans. People were convinced that the ancient Britons, mixed with various peoples brought by the Roman occupation, were all killed or displaced to Wales and Cornwall by the Germanic invaders.

This interpretation of history was based entirely on modern linguistic evidence. DNA proved it to be utterly wrong. In Western England as much as half of the Y-DNA is of pre-Anglo-Saxon origin. Even in the most Germanic regions of East Anglia and Yorkshire (core of the Danelaw), 10 to 20% of the Y-DNA is not Germanic.

It is important to keep in mind that Y-DNA represents only the paternal lineages. In times of wars and migrations, men spread their DNA more than women. Rapes or local women were common, but so were cases of men-only groups of invaders who took local wives. Again, it was thought than Anglo-Saxon did not intermarry with Celtic Britons, but DNA tests in Anglo-Saxon cemeteries have shown otherwise.

There is no reliable way to determine the ethnic origins on the maternal side within Europe. Mitochondrial DNA can tell a European from an African or an Asian apart, but not a Europeans between themselves. It is my guess that the proportion of female Celto-Roman ancestors in England is at least 50% higher than on the paternal line.

For more information see my post Genetics of the British and Irish people.

The same is true of other regions. Greco-Roman DNA in Belgium or Spain represents about 10-15% of the total. Older Celtic lineages make up about 40% of the modern population in Belgium and over 60% in Spain. The big Frankish, Saxon and Frisian migrations to Belgium only account for about 50% of the Y-DNA.

The Vandals, Visigoths and Suebi left a minimal impact on the Iberian genetic make-up. Even in Galicia and northern Portugal, the old Suebi kingdom, Germanic haplogroup hardly reach 5% of the total.

No trace has yet been found of the Alans and Vandals in the Maghreb. It seems that the further away a population travelled from its homeland, and the lesser its lasting genetic impact.

All this to say that the impact of mass migrations has been grossly exaggerated by historians.

Wars since the Renaissance have not had much impact on the European population either. It is true that in the Americas Europeans freely killed or raped non-Christian civilians because it wasn't considered as a sin by the Church. They intermarried converted local women on a big scale because few European women would make the trip to the Americas in the early days (it was too rough and dangerous).

But in Europe things were radically different. Rapes did occasionally occur during wars, but it was usually condemned by the Church and/or by military leaders themselves. Napoleon has been known to execute some of his own soldiers (even officers) who were charged with raping locals. It was not considered civilised. Only soldiers ought to die in armed conflicts. The same is true today in Iraq. In that regard things haven't changed much since the 18th century (at least).

Belgium has been the battlefield of Europe for centuries. It was under Spanish administration for 250 years, and yet Spanish haplogroups are close to non-existent.

To me, what is more telling is not what is represented genetically today within a given current population but rather what is absent from that population. For instance, I2 is non-existent in Scandinavia. Why is that so when it is older than the rest of Haplogroup I and had more opportunity to get there? Some force- either nature or man kept them out.

You have to realise that haplogroup I arose over 20,000 years ago, during the Ice Age, at a time when northern Europe was a no-man's land, and even the south was sparsely populated.

It is likely that members of I* (note that the asterix means that there is no further subclade, so I2*-A as you wrote is not correct) spread to 3 or 4 different regions during the Ice Age. No one knows for sure, but I imagine that a first group of I* moved to the Franco-Cantabrian refuge, then expanded from there to Scandinavia at the end of the Ice Age. This group became I1.

Another group remained in the Balkans (where I probably arose), while a third group moved to the Middle East. The Balkanic group became I2*. The Middle-Eastern remained I*.

At the end of the Ice Age, some I2 moved north from Croatia straight to northern Germany. They became I2b. The rest remained in the Balkans and later developed the mutation for I2a.

A subgroup of I2a moved to Italy, and probably settled in Sardinia when low sea levels allowed passage from Italy, then remained landlocked for millennia when the waters receded. They became I2a2. Some migrated much later (probably from Roman times onwards) to north-east Spain and around the shores of the Mediterranean around Sardinia (Italy, North Africa), where I2a2 is found at low frequencies.

My group is I2, still around today and found in very high concentrations in southeastern Europe and Sardinia・ut my family is from Scotland. Further investigation reveals me to be I2*-A, which is Ancient I2, meaning I have none of the later mutations that define present-day Slavs, Croats, Bosnians, Sardinians and the like. My group pre-dates even the known ancient cultures and peoples, so its not quite accurate to say I2 is a Slavic group (you aren't stating that but it is very common on the web)- but one can say that today it's various subclades are primarily found in modern-day southern Slavs in the highest concentrations.
I2*-A, and its cousins I2*-B and I2*-C are still found throughout Europe and just east of the Urals and into Anatolia but in extremely low frequencies in all areas. That diversity and low frequency is one of the distinctions of the group. Due to its age its likely had ample time to have its members slowly extinctualized by others. At one time it may have constituted a major group but so much time has passed, so many new groups have popped up, we may never know. This is likely true for R* or R1* which if it exists would be found likely farther to the east (I'm not up on that at all).
So, although I知 I2, I知 not a Slav. I知 the direct descendant of a people who split very early from the pack and are truly ancient. We were there before Stonehenge, before the Picts, before the Romans etc.

Stonehenge is not so ancient in terms of genetics. It is only 5,000 years old. Most haplogroups are over 10,000 or 20,000 years old. Deep subclades may be 5,000 to 1,000 years old.

If you are I2a and from Scotland, you can either descend from someone from the Balkans or Iberia who moved to Britain in Roman times, or from a heterogeneous group of Neolithic farmers originating in the Near-East (composed of hg E, J2 and G2), who had mixed for a few thousands years with people from the Balkans (picking up I2a on the way) before making their way to Britain around 7,000 years ago. It is these early farmers who are thought to have built Stonehenge.

At present it is estimated that about 1% of all Scots and 2.5% of all English people belong to hg I2. It is less than the total of Near-Eastern haplogroups (E, G, J), which make up 4% of the Scottish population and 7% of the English one.

[stuibhard]

I guess where I'm having a problem with your argument is that you are saying there are haplogroups unique to Spain. Is that a fact? I think there may be subclades that are more prevalent than some but no single one truly defining an ethnicity or culture really anywhere in Europe. We may see trending but that's it. That's why I find what's not in the population more interesting that what's in. In this regard Europe is as mixed as the US- maybe even more so.

I'm aware that Group I is 20K years old which is the real reason why I don't consider Celts, Romans etc to be ancients...but rather simply older European "mother cultures". 20K is neolithic, pre-structure, truly primitive.

I've been told by geneticists that the asterisk in I2* tells us two things- the asterisk means we haven't classified it yet and that its likely an old version of I. The I2*-A, B and C therefore are subclades of this I2* but are not truly official yet...not until the asterisk is removed.

Stonehenge is indeed old...it was old when the old when the Celts showed up

[stuibhard]

Also. You mentioned (correctly) that the British Isles has roughly 1-2% of the total population as I2. From what I've been able to piece together we don't even fall into that statistic as the I2 cited in the percentage is a much younger subclade (associated with Danelaw-types). I believe only 40 or so people total have been found in the British Isles with what would be called I2*-A. I2*-B seems to trend father east (Turkey, Byelorus, Poland, Hungary) and I2*-C seems to trend in north central Europe (mainly Germany) but again, all very spread out, very few individuals

[stuibhard]

I'm not I2a. From Dr. Ken Nordtvedt "This is the extremely old, upstream haplogroup in I
It is M253-, P37.2-, M223-, and S33-. The last SNP tagging means I2* is NOT the haplogroup with 10 at DYS455, 12 at DYS454, and 19-19 at YCAIIa,b. It is S33+ and if tested for the new P214 would be found positive although M223-"

[Maciamo]

I guess where I'm having a problem with your argument is that you are saying there are haplogroups unique to Spain. Is that a fact?

Sorry, but where did I say that some haplogroups unique to Spain ?

I think there may be subclades that are more prevalent than some but no single one truly defining an ethnicity or culture really anywhere in Europe.

A modern person's haplogroup does not correlate with ethnicity. It might have a few millennia ago, if a region was composed almost exclusively of a certain haplogroup. But Europe is mixed nowadays, so ethnicities are combinations of haplogroups. Being Scandinavian means to have about one third of R1b, one third of R1a, and one third of I1 among one's ancestors. Being Spanish means about half of R1b and a mixture of E, J and I (with a tiny bit of G and R1a). Of course the percentage of admixture varies from region to region. But you just can't say that a Spaniard would happens to be I1 is Germanic just because he is I1. It's the admixture that counts. It is more revealing to know about the admixture of your ancestors' region of origin that just knowing your own haplogroup.

We may see trending but that's it. That's why I find what's not in the population more interesting that what's in. In this regard Europe is as mixed as the US- maybe even more so.

The USA will always be more mixed than Europe because it was built on immigration from all parts of Europe + other continents. Cosmopolitan cities like NYC or LA are obviously more mixed than Utah or Wisconsin.

I'm aware that Group I is 20K years old which is the real reason why I don't consider Celts, Romans etc to be ancients...but rather simply older European "mother cultures". 20K is neolithic, pre-structure, truly primitive.

20k is Paleolithic, not Neolithic. In Europe it predates agriculture and bronze working by over 10 to 15k years.

I've been told by geneticists that the asterisk in I2* tells us two things- the asterisk means we haven't classified it yet and that its likely an old version of I. The I2*-A, B and C therefore are subclades of this I2* but are not truly official yet...not until the asterisk is removed.
Stonehenge is indeed old...it was old when the old when the Celts showed up

Haplogroups and subclades are being "officially" redefined all the time. Different systems are used at the same time by different people. The most common classifications are those of the ISOGG and FamilyTreeDNA.

The subclades of I2 currently used are I2a and I2b, each further subdivided. I2a1 is most common in Sardinia. I2a2 is more common in the Balkans. I2b1 has the highest prevalence in North Germany and the Benelux, but also in Denmark, Sweden, northern France and Britain.

There is no such thing as I2c at the moment.

I'm not I2a. From Dr. Ken Nordtvedt "This is the extremely old, upstream haplogroup in I
It is M253-, P37.2-, M223-, and S33-. The last SNP tagging means I2* is NOT the haplogroup with 10 at DYS455, 12 at DYS454, and 19-19 at YCAIIa,b. It is S33+ and if tested for the new P214 would be found positive although M223-"

If you are S33+, then you are I2b. I2b is native of north-western Europe, so it is hard to tell if yours is pre-Roman or came with the Anglo-Saxons.

[sparkey]

If you are S33+, then you are I2b. I2b is native of north-western Europe, so it is hard to tell if yours is pre-Roman or came with the Anglo-Saxons.

To be clear, stuibhard said that he is S33-, not S33+, meaning that he is I2*. The "A" thing is one of the clusters assigned at the I2* Project, and is not based on SNPs. Right now there are 4 known main I2* clusters: A, B, C, and ADR. Ken Nordtvedt guesses that A, B, and C diverged from one another about 8000 years ago, and that ADR diverged from A, B, and C about 13,000 years ago, not too long after I2b broke off from I2*.

As far as what we can then deduce about the history of stuibhard's patriline: not much. I2*-A seems to have an affinity toward Northwest Europe, but I don't see an obvious correlation otherwise. I don't think we can begin to say that I2*-A is the original British population. For example, I am also I2*-A, but my line is Swiss, not British. Maybe some I2*-A was part of the original British population, but who knows beyond that. Not enough data.

I2*-B and I2*-ADR are the clusters that have had the most interest, apparently. I2*-B is interesting in that it is the dominant strain of I outside of Europe, stretching all the way to Armenia, as well as being the dominant strain of I in Crete. Yet, it also has a fairly young MRCA, indicating that it may have spread Eastward, with an origin closer to the same places where I2*-A and I2*-C are found (the distribution of those clusters make me think "Beaker culture"). I2*-ADR actually has had SNP(s?) recently discovered for it, and will probably become I2c eventually, but it has a very small sample size. "ADR" stands for "Adriatic," and the distribution looks to me like it may anciently belong to the Printed Cardium Pottery culture. That's getting pretty speculative without a larger sample size, but it's hard not to associate it with the non-I2a I2 in the Printed Cardium Pottery culture in Maciamo's Neolithic and Bronze Age migration maps.


Yes, my first post bumped an old thread, I promise I won't make a habit of it.

[Eochaidh]

Yes, my first post bumped an old thread, I promise I won't make a habit of it.

But when the old thread is as interesting as this one, it is well worth a bump. Otherwise, a lot of old gems are lost.

[sparkey]

I'm bumping this thread again because I have more to say now regarding the original topic, which, to paraphrase, was regarding whether or not a component of I2*-A was pre-Stonehenge.

Let's get some dates:

10000 BC: End of Ice Age, Britain starts to have sparse habitation after.
8000 BC: Oldest evidence of civilization around Stonehenge.
3100 BC: Stonehenge 1
3000 BC: Stonehenge 2
3000 BC: Approximate I2*-A MRCA
2900 BC: Grooved Ware culture begins
2600 BC: Work begins on Stonehenge 3
2400 BC: Beaker culture begins
1600 BC: Work ends on Stonehenge 3
1200 BC: Large migration into Britain, probably Celtic

Based on the MRCA alone, I think we can rule out I2*-A as being associated with pre-Grooved Ware British people, including the original builders of the site that predated the main Stonehenge 3 site. I2*-A's modern distribution, which stretches to Switzerland, also indicates that if we are to postulate a Grooved Ware component, it must have branched early on.

So, I've done some preliminary cluster analysis of STRs. I won't post the full result here, but basically I found this: the North British component of I2*-A (of which stuibhard is a part) branched from the rest early on, probably at the MRCA. The rest appears to have a consistently Beaker-esque spread from South Britain to Switzerland, quite possibly being entirely restricted to the component of Beaker culture that fed into Germanic culture.

What then should we say about the North British component? Well, it is interesting in that it has a nice tree structure to it and exclusive geographic distribution in North Britain (both North England and Scotland), that indicate its relative ancientness in North Britain. Stonehenge is in South Britain, but both Grooved Ware and Beaker cultures were pan-British, so these I2*-A individuals could have passed through South Britain at the right time. So, I favor either a Grooved Ware or early Beaker origin to the I2*-A in North Britain, making them contemporary with Stonehenge builders... although the data is still lacking to determine much more for certain.

Also, SNP searching is currently ongoing for a North British I2*-A individual, so my clustering may be put to the test soon and we may gain a clearer understanding if the search is successful.