Most I1 in Europe is not from Germans or Nordics

I think you may be onto something F.H (regarding I1a2 aka L22+). You may want to consider an adjustment to your thinking though... you have these northernly I1 clades very geographically regimented. This isn't how they look in reality. Keep I1 affinity for boat travel in mind when plotting the course of these groups. Their movements are more fluid than you're allowing for...
 
Last edited:
[/QUOTE] (Sparkey) You've repeated these claims several places, but they're both doubtful. The "28,000 year old H" is from Caramelli 2008, which did not conclusively determine a haplogroup, it only found some markers in common with HV and U (see Jean Manco). Similarly, the "25,000 year old H17" is from Alexeeva 2000, which was disputed as contamination per Ovchinnikov and Goodwin 2003, and only had one rare HVR1 mutation to go off of.
for the 28,000 year old H from south italy
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0002700 this study done on it said it was not contamination because they tested all people who had contact with it and none matjed. also here is a quote of what they said what type of mtdna it was they never mention haplogroups[/QUOTE] The Paglicci 23 individual carried a mtDNA sequence that is still common in Europe, and which radically differs from those of the almost contemporary Neandertals, demonstrating a genealogical continuity across 28,000 years, from Cro-Magnoid to modern Europeans. Because all potential sources of modern DNA contamination are known, the Paglicci 23 sample will offer a unique opportunity to get insight for the first time into the nuclear genes of early modern Europeans.
i dont know what they mean by squence but to me it seems they are saying it is mtdna h which takes up about 40% of Europeans not HV which takes up less than 1% or U which is about 15%. according to this wikpedia link they say it was H http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_DNA-tested_mummies they also contridiced themselves and said it has no for sure haplogroup but H is defintley a possibility. also it was identical to the Cambridge reference sequence i dont completly understand it but it is mtdna H2a2. and they call certain mutations in it rCRS which also corrspond with mtdna H and the 28,000 year mtdna in Italy had it so there is a good chance it had H. i guess i was wron hough it is not for sure H but there is a very good chance that is why it was first published as H.

the two 25,000 year old H17 in European Russia had the rCRS which means there is a good chance it had H. the only mutation that differed from rCRS was 16129A which according to the Phylo tree it is H17. unless it was contamination both samples where H17. this link says they where both for sure H17 or H27 http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com.au/p/ancient-mtdna-maps-of-europe.html

i dont know that much about the mutations of haplogroups but from what i have seen the two from russia where H17 or H27 unless it was contamination. also i have looked at lists of ancient dna and studies they did on it these scientits are very exact and they check a ton to see if it is contamination if they are not 150% sure it was not contamination they will say probable contamination even though all the ancient dna they test is probably not contamination. so the ones from Russia where almost defintley H17 or H27.

also u need to remeber there are alot of genetic historians who are fanatics about H in europe being from neloithic mid eastern farmers. so every h sample people find from pre neloithic europe those fanatics say it was probably contamination, say there is not enough info to say it was H, or just ignore it. so when ever they have paloithic european mtdna they will assume anything close to U is U but if it is probably H but has a possibility to be another haplogroup they will say it is that other haplogroup.

also there are two for sure 15,000 year old H samples in northern spain one had H6 but of course many people argued agianst it but they did many tests and they where H(unknown subclade) and H6. even though ii dont really trust age testing the age of almost all H subclades in europe are around the same age as in the south caucus and around iraq. here is a link to some age estimates of H subclades in Europe and middle east http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/2/436/T1.expansion.html

if these age estimates are true that means H has been in europe for over 30,000 years. i dont really trust the H sample from italy but i defintley think the two from Russia are legit. i saw that maciamo in the mtdna area of this webiste said H is over 35,000 years old not like over estimates that say 25,000. also those fanatics i was talking about think haplogroups are ur full ancestry even though they are just a duirect lineage.

these fanatics are honestly spreading lies they say it is a fact mtdna H came to europe in neloithic and that europeans decend from those mid eastern neloithic invader. here are some links to big time media companies spreading these lies the list includes bbc i noticed they all came out around april23 and say alost word for word the same thing http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22252099 http://www.hngn.com/articles/2114/20130423/ancient-dna-unloceurope-s-dynamic-genetic-history.htm
http://www.newsnet14.com/?p=123512
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/...c-history-mystery-uncovered-using-ancient-dna
http://churnalism.sunlightfoundatio...ic/41dccf34d03d5183b2a94afb69b6743a/4/139877/
http://historical-nonfiction.tumblr...cient-eastern-europeans-magically-disappeared
http://www.livescience.com/28954-ancient-europeans-mysteriously-vanished.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/24/ancient-europeans-genetic-transformation_n_3142552.html

they need to realize mtdna H does not define being european. sami in far north scandnvai have less than 1% H.
aust. dna which tells ur full ancestry shows that europeans come from the Paleolithic age they usulley call the european group north european because it is more popular in north europe. there is aust. dna from la brana a hunter gather from spain who according to these fanatics had non modern european u5b2c1. in the globe13 test he had 71% north european so he was more european than almost all modern europeans and he was not a farmer. also he had 25% med that was most likely from farmer inter marriage. because at this time most of Spanish where farmers

There is aust dna from two farmers both had over 59% med so the farmers where actulley mainly non european. The hunter gathers these fanatics say where killed off by europeans ancestors where actulley the main ancestors of modern europeans.

i know i am speaking strongly against these people i hope i dont become a fanatic like them. i am willing to change my opinion about mtdan H if someone gives me good enough evidence.
 
Why would you change your thinking on hg. H in Europe? You're spot on.
 
nordicquarreler I have heard u mention the boat traval thing and hg I many times. I think u make some interesting points. can u please explain ur theory in dept. U know I write very long posts and I don't care how long your post is it can be 10 book pages or more if that is how long it takes u to show all of ur points.I have some doubts about ur theory because I don't think there is only one explanation for what happened to hg I people over thousands of years. because they where from different parts of Europe and had very different cultures but could have reacted in a similar way.I think u forget hg I2a1(western meditreaen), I2a2 (central Europe and possibly Britain and Ireland) where already conquered by hg G2a farmers in the Neolithic age. I made a thread showing my estimates on what y dna Neolithic Europeans had by sub tracking all y dna that came to Europe after the Neolithic age. G2a would have been about 60-75% in France, alps, most of Italy, and most of Spain, from y dna from Neolithic Spain, alps Italy, france, and central Germany totally support that because 26 of 31 had G2a. in eastern Europe during the Neolithic age the majority of the people still would have had I2a1b except for indo Europeans in central Russia. Scandinavians would have had almost 100% I1a2 except Finnish would have around 30-40%.so when hg R1b L11/P310 Germanic Italo speakers conquered western Europe they conquered mainly hg G2a people who where farmers not hg I hunter gathers. but I still think u make very good points and can u please explain ur theory in dept u know I write very long posts and I don't care how long your post is it can be 10 pages long I will still read it because I really want to know exactly why u think boat travel was important for hg I people running away from invading hg R1 and g2a.also what do u mean by I was spot on with hg H.
 
I think mtDNA hg. H has been solidly in Europe for at least 25,000 years. But, I don't believe paternal hg. I "ran away" from G2a though. The sheer numbers of hg. I vs. hg. G in Europe today doesn't indicate your hypothesis. You are correct in citing the fact that hg. G has more found remains, however this can be pegged to a farming lifestyle in areas that would favor preservation. I will send you a P.M. that might clear up some of my other theories.
 
Thanks, Andrew P.S. What's your ideas on haplogroup X (maternal) in the Americas?



The X in Native Americans is X2a and X2q. X2a is also found in Isreal Druze but X2a is only in Native Americans most though have X2a.
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/x

Somehow Native Americans ancestors had pre Colombian pre viking inter marriage with Caucasins. age estimates say it happened 12,000-17,000ybp and 23,000-36,000ybp. I do not think it came from Europe because so far the only Haplogroups found in Paloithic and Mesolithic Europeans is U, H, HV, and N. X starts to pop up in Neolithic samples but that could be because X is around 2% in Europe today and we dont have enough Paloithic and Mesolithic samples. I cant find any info on when X is suppose to have spread to Europe.

All i could find is X1 is only found in the middle east and north and east africa and is the main X subclade in those places, while X2 is the only subclade of European, central Asian, SIBERIAN, and north American andis the only X subclade for those areas. This link says http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180497/ X2 expanded in Eurasia most likely in the Last glacial Maximum 26,500-19,000ybp. So i guess X2 may have came to Europe much earlier than the Neolithic. There is some X in southwestern Siberia but it has sucbclades found in the south caucus and this group of siberians has a total of 27% Caucasin mtDNA so it is from recent caucasin inter marriage and not the sources of native americans X2. also X was found in northern siberia where native americans orignated one had the orignal form X2* and X2b so that is also probably not the sources of Native American X2g and X2a.

The only two possibilities for Native American X2a and X2q. are migration from Europe 12,000-26,000ybp or mid eastern inter married with Siberians who later migrated to north America about 12,000-26,000ybp. X2 did not come from the first migration in north america or from the original family native Americans descend from. It is restricted to north east north Americans.

also i think X2 might be connected with y dna R1. because the same native americans with X2 also have 40-60% of the original form of R1. So what may have happened is mid easterns with mtdna X2 inter married with Siberians with y dna R1 about 20,000ybp. Then mid easterns formed a R1b branch about 15,000-20,000ybp and Europeans somehow also got R1 possibly from mid easterns who brought X2. Then European formed R1a about 15,000-20,000ybp.

Then somehow Europeans in the steppes(central Russia) with R1a inter married with mid easterns and also got R1b. These where Indo Europeans or Indo Europeans ancestors(Dneiper Donets culture, Yamna, Maykop, etc.). Then Indo Europeans Balto Slavs(Corded ware Culture) conquered eastern Europe and spread R1a1a1b1, Italo Celtic Germanic conquered western Europe (Unetice, Nordic bronze age cultures) and spread R1b L11/P310. Indo Iranians(Afanasevo, Adronovo cultures etc.) conquered much of central Asia, south Siberia, west China, India and Iran area and spread R1a1a1b2. There are more but i dont have enough room to mention all Indo Europeans.

I wonder if their is a trace of mtDNA X2 and Indo European migrations. Or if there is alot of X2 around the steppes(central Russia) probably not.
 
Last edited:
Wow, I hadn't heard of the 40-60% of R1 linked to the maternal X tribes. Could you source that by chance? I'm a big proponent of Solutreans Theory but I had most of the males lines belonging to hgs. I or G. The Native American Indians have legends of the land holding a population of giants that had red hair. In the myths the Indians killed the male giants and took their women. Solutreans would put the Atlantic voyage(s) at 21.000 to 17,000 years ago.
 
Wow, I hadn't heard of the 40-60% of R1 linked to the maternal X tribes. Could you source that by chance? I'm a big proponent of Solutreans Theory but I had most of the males lines belonging to hgs. I or G. The Native American Indians have legends of the land holding a population of giants that had red hair. In the myths the Indians killed the male giants and took their women. Solutreans would put the Atlantic voyage(s) at 21.000 to 17,000 years ago.
This legend might have started at Viking times. Vikings arrived to western coasts around 1,000AD, had few settlements, and then slowly vanished.
 
Wow, I hadn't heard of the 40-60% of R1 linked to the maternal X tribes. Could you source that by chance? I'm a big proponent of Solutreans Theory but I had most of the males lines belonging to hgs. I or G. The Native American Indians have legends of the land holding a population of giants that had red hair. In the myths the Indians killed the male giants and took their women. Solutreans would put the Atlantic voyage(s) at 21.000 to 17,000 years ago.

Singh 2008 puts the question of Native American Y-DNA R origins in the air, but it's pretty clear that the R1 that mtDNA X carriers tend to have is simply European-introduced R1 (typically R1b), not R1* as Fire Haired indicates. Just look at any Native American DNA Project, like this one.
 
wikpedia says the same but they still have some R1* which would have come to north america over 15,000ybp. it did not come from the same migraton the main ancestors of native americans came. Also i think there is R1* in siberia.
 
yeah I still think i1 was spread mostly by Germanic /northern people.
 
i have noticed this websit's page about I1 http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_I1_Y-DNA.shtml assumes all of I1 is from Scandnvaiens or Germans but it seems like that can not be true for many reasons

Y DNA I1 is the only subclade of a haplogroup that is found in every spot in Europe in some areas Germans and Scandnaviens never migrated too or made very small un significant migrations like Macedonia where I1 is 3% and I1 is to popular like in some areas like Serbia at 6.5% where Germans and Scandnvaiens have had very small presence Scandnvaiens never made migrations to serbia or Macidonia but Germans did but the Germanic tribes had about 30-40% Y DNa R1b U106 and only 10-20% I1 then why dont we find R1b U106 with I1 usulley we dont which means they got it from non Germans and most I1 subclades in Europe are not found in Scandnavia
Haplogroup_I1.gif

I1-tree.gif

Ofcourse the Germanic peoples which were in some extent of Scandinavian or Nordic ancestry settled the Balkans, such as the Goths, Gepids, Heruls and probably even Longobards.
 
I1 is found, interestingly, in 27% of Dutch men (most of it I1-M253) and 14-25% of Belgian and French men, depending on the region. Same goes for the English. Peaks of I in England are at about 33% in a few regions; areas with 20% I are common across England. Most of this I, as for the latter countries, is of the Scandinavian variety (I1a).
 
I1 is found, interestingly, in 27% of Dutch men (most of it I1-M253) and 14-25% of Belgian and French men, depending on the region. Same goes for the English. Peaks of I in England are at about 33% in a few regions; areas with 20% I are common across England. Most of this I, as for the latter countries, is of the Scandinavian variety (I1a).

I think the Dutch have something like 18% or 20% I1 and 5-10% I2b, so i guess that squares up with 27% I if that's what you mean? Of course it all must vary by region somewhat too.
 
That's exactly what I mean : )
 
[...]I1 though is to spread out for it all to be from Germanic tribes. I dont think the 6.5% I1 in serbia is from Germans. The Germanic tribes in the migration period would have had mainly R1b S21 not I1. I1 is 4% of Crete but there is no German R1b S21 and in the migration period Germans never migrated to Crete so where did it come from.
You use "Germans," in a loose way... not eastern or western in specifics. I'm unsure who is German to you. Certainly the Goths (both factions) came through to settle the north Black Sea area. The Germanic Lombards and Ostrogoths are known to have taken all of Italy and laid out some DNA. The Ostrogoths did fight in the employ of the Eastern Orthodox Church/Byzantines (Constantinople). Crete is around 450 mi. and under the control of the Byzantines.

I think what proves it is England has 30-40% R1b s21 like GErmans the reason is teh anglo saxons alot of I1 in England comes from Vikings not Anglo Saxons.
Viking v. Anglo-Saxon. Pretty much one in the same. Angles, Saxons, Danes, Jutes, Scandinavians, Frisians, Franks, and others originating in what is now Holland, Denmark and extreme northern Germany. Wave after wave after wave of invaders moved through GB from 300 to now. The Viking period was brief (800-1050AD) and Germanic people that originated as Angles, Jutes, etc. The Germanic people seem to have been cohesive genetically... tribes joining other tribes... interbreeding. At any rate, it looks like a M253 smashing of England, sending the Celts (R1b) scurrying for the western areas.

If I1 in Serbia is from Germans where is the R1b S21 if all I1 in Europe is form GErmans and I1 is in almost all of Europe why isnt R1b S21 in almost every area of Europe it should be over 10% in Serbia. I really dont think We can keep saying all I1 is GErman that thread that guy from Albania made where he said he has teh orignal form of I1* is more evidence I1 is very old and very spread out in Europe because of that.
Just in light reading, it looks like I1 basically overpowered Rb1 just in sheer numbers. I have read where I1 is the oldest and original haplogroup for Europe. In Serbia it approaches 40% of the population and R1b barely registering. However in Croatia R1a and R1b are around 50% of the population. Go figure. Possibly those with Rb1 were found undesirable in appearance to I1 and they had their heads chopped off (in the Migration Period). Just saying...
 
Viking v. Anglo-Saxon. Pretty much one in the same. Angles, Saxons, Danes, Jutes, Scandinavians, Frisians, Franks, and others originating in what is now Holland, Denmark and extreme northern Germany. Wave after wave after wave of invaders moved through GB from 300 to now. The Viking period was brief (800-1050AD) and Germanic people that originated as Angles, Jutes, etc. The Germanic people seem to have been cohesive genetically... tribes joining other tribes... interbreeding. At any rate, it looks like a M253 smashing of England, sending the Celts (R1b) scurrying for the western areas.

Sorta... but depends on the region. Anglo-Saxons would have had a slightly different subclade distribution than Vikings, and it's possible to tell the difference in some cases. Most of England (the Southeast especially) shows more affinity to the Netherlands and nearby, hence likely more Anglo-Saxon, while in some areas in the British Isles, we see affinity to Scandinavia. I'm thinking of Orkney in particular, which heavily tilts toward Scandinavia according to People of the British Isles.


Just in light reading, it looks like I1 basically overpowered Rb1 just in sheer numbers. I have read where I1 is the oldest and original haplogroup for Europe. In Serbia it approaches 40% of the population and R1b barely registering. However in Croatia R1a and R1b are around 50% of the population. Go figure. Possibly those with Rb1 were found undesirable in appearance to I1 and they had their heads chopped off (in the Migration Period). Just saying...

You're mixing I1 with I as a whole here. Most Haplogroup I in the Balkans is in fact I2.
 
personal bets:
I think Y-I1 is geographically northern european - its age could be tied to the "cutting" apparently done drom Y-I2 by Y-R1b people -
Y-I* was maybe not southern at all, but central european (even in the hardest times of LGM, NEVER WAS CENTRAL EUROPE VOID OF INHABITANTS spite what is commonly said- this bet could explain why Y-I is AND northern AND southern, but weakened around Don (Danau) river?... - the Y-I2* and Y-I2a1a descendants (do'nt forget the non-stop dynamic in SNPs creation) in N-E Spain and Sardinia could very well be arrived there more recently, by Sea from Adriatic coasts (Dalmatia) or from central Europe (at what time?: no idea: 9000-7000 BC?)-
I have some difficulty to imagine the rare Y-I1 downstream SNPs in Southern Europe as independant sets - for me, Y-I1 (all SNPs) are from Northern Europe, either became germanic speaking or finnic speaking (maybe some traces among Celts and Balts but very few) - maybe at older stage a kind of proto-basque language??? too speculative???
surely a wave of I1 colonized Scandinavia and Finland (artic culture?) before the germanic stage of I-Ean, but as a whole, this Y-I1 SNPs were germanized about the 1000 BC, perhaps a bit earlier, and they saw their brothers Y-I1 (other SNPs) coming with this germanization along with R1B and R1a (of Corded origin) -
after that, naturally, the respective distributions of Y-R1b, R1a and I1 variated according to geography and E-Germanics came partly from Scandinavia had higher percentages of I1 and R1a as opposed to R1b (rather U106) than the West germanics, as said yet - in northerwn slavic (russian lands) the Y-I1 can be germanic in some places, NOT in other places (earlier arrived) according to History - but in south Europe I think Y-I1 came with Germanics: I believe I1 was previously dwelled South the Baltic Sea so the scandinavian germanics that occupied previously E-Germanic and even Baltic tribes coasts could have taken a bit more Y-I 's with younger SNPs born outside Scandinavia-
but when I see an Y-I1 in Portugal, Spain, Italy, Balkans, I cannot pass without thinking in Germanics, whatever the birthplace of the tribe...
we see the SNPs (downtream) of Y-I1 of N-continental Europe in Scandinavia and the ones of Scandinavia in N-continental Europe (but the first ones not in Finland), the two in the British Isles, only the respective percentages change...
 
I think the Dutch have something like 18% or 20% I1 and 5-10% I2b, so i guess that squares up with 27% I if that's what you mean? Of course it all must vary by region somewhat too.

18% is the % given by Maciamo for Y-11 (state of the Netherlands) I red somewhere Frisians had about 28% of I1 - the maximum in England would be in East Anglia (Norforlk and...) about 30%33% (strong in Yorkshire too: nothing astonishing a time again...
 
18% is the % given by Maciamo for Y-11 (state of the Netherlands) I red somewhere Frisians had about 28% of I1 - the maximum in England would be in East Anglia (Norforlk and...) about 30%33% (strong in Yorkshire too: nothing astonishing a time again...

It does make sense, afterall you can't expect a sudden boundary between Denmark and north Germany, or at least not that sudden. :)
 

This thread has been viewed 59499 times.

Back
Top