Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 54

Thread: What is the Origin and History of I1 M253

  1. #1
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Overdrive1000 Experience Points3 months registered
    Fire Haired's Avatar
    Join Date
    24-06-13
    Posts
    689
    Points
    4,121
    Level
    18
    Points: 4,121, Level: 18
    Level completed: 68%, Points required for next Level: 129
    Overall activity: 42.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Df27(Spain)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5b2a2(Prussia)

    Ethnic group
    Celto-Germanic, Latino(~6%)
    Country: USA - California



    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.

    What is the Origin and History of I1 M253

    I know I have already made two threads about this. But I was shocked to see Eupedia I1 page agress with the idea it came to Scandinavia as I1a Df29 after the glaciers retreated and as the first human settlement 9,000-11,000ybp and developed into I1a2 L22 besides the 5,000-4,000 year old age estimates. I am still open to all the different ideas about the origin and history of I1. I want see a lot of orignated posts because I want to hear all the different theory's.

    For the history and origin of I1 M253 I have heard two main theory's. I1 M253 is around 15,000-20,000 years old and originated somewhere in non Nordic Europe then later developed into I1a Df29 spread to Scandinavia after the glaciers retreated starting about 9,000-11,000ybp and while in Scandinavia developed into I1a2 L22 and was the first major human settlement of Scandinavia. The other theory is that I1 is very young and spread to Scandinavia either in proto Balto Slavic speaking Corded ware culture(2,900-2,450bc) along side R1a1a1b1 Z282 but the I1 was for some reason much higher or spread somehow in the late Neolithic or bronze age. This is based on new very young age estimates of I1 at 5,000 years old(click here)

    I agree much more with the theory that I1 M253 is around 15,000-20,000 years old and developed into I1a Df29 in central Europe then migrated to Scandinavia about 9,000-11,000ybp developing into I1a2 L22 and was the original y DNA haplogroup of Scandinavia.(Here is kind of an explaination of my opinon(Theory I1 orignally Paleoithic central European). Eupedia's agree's (Eupedia I1 page) There are many reasons if I1 M253 came to Scandinavia only 5,000ybp or so. Then u are saying almost all Y DNA in Sweden and Norway from over 5,000ybp is gone. all the R1a(almost all under R1a1a1b1 Z283) came with Corded ware culture about 4,900-2,400ybp.
    The R1b(almost all R1b1a2a1a L11 mainly Germanic branch R1b1a2a1a1 S21) and I2a2 P214 is all from migration of proto Germanic speakers out of central Europe starting about 4,000-3,500ybp.


    Then ur saying their most popular Y DNA haplogroup I1(all under I1a Df29) came just 5,000ybp. The E1b1b, J1, J2, and G2a u can say is from Neolithic farmers so Funnel Beaker culture(6,300-4,800ybp) which those haplogroups are extremely rare J1 doesn't even hit 1% and J2 and G2a are only 1-5% in small areas of far southern Sweden and Norway. Then there is some but very very rare Uralic N1c1 which is more popular north well the closer u get to Uralic Finland and Suomi.

    Is there evidence of a huge kill of in Sweden and Norway that is what it would take. That is what happened in the British isles with Celtic invasions during the bronze age about 3,500-4,500ybp(British ancestry almost all from Celtic and Germanic invaders) the reason is conquest by war were the men die so there Y DNA lineages do to. That would be the only explanation.

    Another thing is I1 M253 in Scandinavia does not unique to Germanic(Swedish, Danish, Norwegian) or Uralic(Finnish and Soumi) speakers. We have a pretty good idea of were the N1c1 in Uralic is from. According to FTDNA it would have spread to north east Europe about 6,000ybp. It is connected to Kunda culture(7,000-8,000ybp) and Comb Cermic culture(6,200-4,000ybp) both cultures showing huge huge connections with the distribution of N1c1 in Europe. It would have arrived from Siberia which can explain the extra Mongliod results Finnish and Soumi get in so many aust dna tests other Europeans do not. Like I said before all R1a(almost all R1a1a1b1 Z283) came with Corded ware culture about 4,900-4,400ybp all R1b(almost all under R1b1a2a1a L11 then Germanic R1b1a2a1a1 S21) and I2a2 P214 came with Germanic languages and Nordic bronze age culture about 4,000-3,500ybp. Then all J1, J2, G2a, and E1b1b is probably Neolithic and are extremely rare. So what about I1 for some reason it cant be explained as if it is the foundation Y DNa hg of Scandinavia and its percentages were lowered by invaders overtime.

    Also according to Eupedia I1 page the majority of Scandinavian I1 is under I1a2 L22 unlike continental European I1 it shows Finnish I1 is from the same source as Norwegian and Swedish I1. More evidence that I1 in Finland is from before the foundation of Germanic speakers in Sweden and Norway which started about 3,500-4,000ybp. Is 80% of Finnish I1 is under unqiue Finnish subclades under I1a2 L22. The areas were red hair is at 1%, Germanic R1b S21 is at 1-5% and so is I2a2 P214 is western Finland areas with historical Swedish settlement and were Swedish is still spoken. But it doesn't explain the Finnish I1 subclades showing they came before the bronze age so over 4,000ybp. This also means Finnish I1 brother in Sweden and Norway are very old and pre bronze age and pre Germanic. And probably means Scandinavian I1 arrived before Corded ware culture because u have to remember there is a whole another world of I1 subclades in continental Europe and now we know the Scandinavian ones are probably from before Corded ware culture. If Corded ware didn't spread it who did. And I doubt anyone had the weapon technology over 6,000ybp when almost all Scandinavians were hunter gathers so kill off everyone and spread I1. The most likely answer I can see is it was the first y DNA haplogroup in Scandinavia well it came as I1a Df29 and later formed into I1a2 L22.

    This also means conteintal(mainly central) European I1a1 M227, I1a3 Z58, I1a4 Z63, and I1b Z131 have another origin and I1 M253 line that goes back over 11,000 years. I1 M253 then is a very old haplogroup I would guess 15,000-20,000ybp in central Europe.
    Last edited by Maciamo; 07-10-13 at 21:26.

  2. #2
    Great Adventurer Achievements:
    Three FriendsTagger Second ClassOverdriveVeteran50000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Arm of Law
    sparkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    17-02-11
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,270
    Points
    68,877
    Level
    81
    Points: 68,877, Level: 81
    Level completed: 49%, Points required for next Level: 873
    Overall activity: 16.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2c1 PF3892+ (Swiss)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U4a (Cornish)

    Ethnic group
    3/4 Colonial American, 1/8 Cornish, 1/8 Welsh
    Country: USA - California



    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fire Haired View Post
    For the history and origin of I1 M253 I have heard two main theory's. I1 M253 is around 15,000-20,000 years old and originated somewhere in non Nordic Europe then later developed into I1a Df29 spread to Scandinavia after the glaciers retreated starting about 9,000-11,000ybp and while in Scandinavia developed into I1a2 L22 and was the first major human settlement of Scandinavia. The other theory is that I1 is very young and spread to Scandinavia either in proto Balto Slavic speaking Corded ware culture(2,900-2,450bc) along side R1a1a1b1 Z282 but the I1 was for some reason much higher or spread somehow in the late Neolithic or bronze age. This is based on new very young age estimates of I1 at 5,000 years old(click here)
    I think you're mischaracterizing the "young I1" theory somewhat. There's an important distinction to begin with between clade age (for which I think we agree that I1 has an ancient value) and TMRCA, which is where I1 seems to be young. So the "young I1" theory actually allows I1 to be over 15k years old in terms of clade age. 22k is a popular estimate of the branch date with I2.

    In addition, even if I1 reached Scandinavia at the same time as R1a, it wouldn't imply that those who spread there had higher I1. Obviously, haplogroup frequencies could have changed significantly in the meantime. So, what's important isn't so much the date of introduction, but the date of expansion. Based on the approximate age of Scandinavian I1-L22, expansion of I1 within the Nordic Bronze Age seems like a good guess for how I1 came to be so common in Scandinavia.

    Also, I could be wrong, but Corded Ware seems too early to me to be proto-Balto-Slavic, although I suspect that proto-Balto-Slavic developed out of CW descendants.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fire Haired View Post
    Then u are saying almost all Y DNA in Sweden and Norway from over 5,000ybp is gone. all the R1a(almost all under R1a1a1b1 Z283) came with Corded ware culture about 4,900-2,400ybp.
    What's wrong with that? It was a very underpopulated region, not to mention that Y-DNA in general has a relatively quick replacement rate and often has founder effects. Besides, just because all I1 currently in Scandinavia descends from a post-5000YBP founder from the south, does not mean that no I1 existed in Scandinavia in the early period. Actually, it's a pretty good candidate to have existed among the small population there during the Paleolithic. (I'd argue that early I2-M223 may be an even better candidate, but that's a different topic.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Fire Haired View Post
    Is there evidence of a huge kill of in Sweden and Norway that is what it would take. That is what happened in the British isles with Celtic invasions during the bronze age about 3,500-4,500ybp(British ancestry almost all from Celtic and Germanic invaders) the reason is conquest by war were the men die so there Y DNA lineages do to. That would be the only explanation.
    You're totally wrong here, sorry. Simple population expansion, especially relative population expansion of those with better industries and founder effects within small expanding populations, would also explain the effect, and would do so more elegantly. Same thing with the British Isles. And most of the rest of Europe, actually.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fire Haired View Post
    Another thing is I1 M253 in Scandinavia does not unique to Germanic(Swedish, Danish, Norwegian) or Uralic(Finnish and Soumi) speakers.
    What are you talking about? Who else is there?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fire Haired View Post
    So what about I1 for some reason it cant be explained as if it is the foundation Y DNa hg of Scandinavia and its percentages were lowered by invaders overtime.
    It can't be explained if you dismiss population expansion effects. And what about its phylogeny suggests a percentage "lowered by invaders overtime"? I suppose its pre-L22 bottleneck suggests that to some degree, but certainly not its Scandivian expansion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fire Haired View Post
    Also according to Eupedia I1 page the majority of Scandinavian I1 is under I1a2 L22 unlike continental European I1 it shows Finnish I1 is from the same source as Norwegian and Swedish I1. More evidence that I1 in Finland is from before the foundation of Germanic speakers in Sweden and Norway which started about 3,500-4,000ybp. Is 80% of Finnish I1 is under unqiue Finnish subclades under I1a2 L22. The areas were red hair is at 1%, Germanic R1b S21 is at 1-5% and so is I2a2 P214 is western Finland areas with historical Swedish settlement and were Swedish is still spoken. But it doesn't explain the Finnish I1 subclades showing they came before the bronze age so over 4,000ybp. This also means Finnish I1 brother in Sweden and Norway are very old and pre bronze age and pre Germanic.
    Finnish I1 is clearly overwhelmingly a young son clade of a primarily Scandinavian clade, therefore you think that Finnish I1 is ancient and pre-Germanic? I don't get this logic. Either way, we need a founder effect to explain Finnish (actually Bothnian--it's Swedish too) I1, so it doesn't tell us anything meaningful about its parent clade. I guess we could talk about Finnish population expansion patterns based on it, but little else can be said. We certainly can't claim that L22 is pre-CW in Scandinavia based on it.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassVeteran5000 Experience Points
    nordicquarreler's Avatar
    Join Date
    30-05-13
    Posts
    351
    Points
    5,638
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,638, Level: 22
    Level completed: 18%, Points required for next Level: 412
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I1 (M253)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H

    Ethnic group
    European mix
    Country: United States



    Excellent discussion. I'd like to add a few observations... the recent FTDNA population maps show some neat trends. M253, L22, and P30 have pretty close scatter shot patterns, even in the Americas. L258 is indeed hyper-specific to Finland, and it's downstream status looks like it hasn't had time to spread like the other groups. What I find interesting is the apparent affinity in I1 groups for the Atlantic seaboard/Appalachian mountains. Can this be linked to socio-economic factors like better access to funds to afford the test? More interest in this area vs. residents of the Mid-west or California? Maybe this group has an inherent attraction to broad leaf forests or mountainous regions? Who knows, but fascination nevertheless...
    Last edited by nordicquarreler; 23-09-13 at 23:48.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassVeteran5000 Experience Points
    nordicquarreler's Avatar
    Join Date
    30-05-13
    Posts
    351
    Points
    5,638
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,638, Level: 22
    Level completed: 18%, Points required for next Level: 412
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I1 (M253)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H

    Ethnic group
    European mix
    Country: United States



    To elaborate, I would have thought we would see a defined band stretching from Pennsylvania, thru parts of West Virginia, into Ohio, Northern Indian, and especially up into Minnesota (because of it's famed Scandinavian heritage). This isn't what we see though. Maybe we need more testing; or maybe we need to rethink or settlement models of the Americas.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Overdrive1000 Experience Points3 months registered
    Fire Haired's Avatar
    Join Date
    24-06-13
    Posts
    689
    Points
    4,121
    Level
    18
    Points: 4,121, Level: 18
    Level completed: 68%, Points required for next Level: 129
    Overall activity: 42.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Df27(Spain)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5b2a2(Prussia)

    Ethnic group
    Celto-Germanic, Latino(~6%)
    Country: USA - California



    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    I think you're mischaracterizing the "young I1" theory somewhat. There's an important distinction to begin with between clade age (for which I think we agree that I1 has an ancient value) and TMRCA, which is where I1 seems to be young. So the "young I1" theory actually allows I1 to be over 15k years old in terms of clade age. 22k is a popular estimate of the branch date with I2.

    In addition, even if I1 reached Scandinavia at the same time as R1a, it wouldn't imply that those who spread there had higher I1. Obviously, haplogroup frequencies could have changed significantly in the meantime. So, what's important isn't so much the date of introduction, but the date of expansion. Based on the approximate age of Scandinavian I1-L22, expansion of I1 within the Nordic Bronze Age seems like a good guess for how I1 came to be so common in Scandinavia.

    Also, I could be wrong, but Corded Ware seems too early to me to be proto-Balto-Slavic, although I suspect that proto-Balto-Slavic developed out of CW descendants.
    Sparkey on the I1 page Maciamo showed how I1a2 L22 could not have spread with Nordic bronze age culture or Germanic languages. The reason is Finland has 80% of their own unque subclades which are not distributed the same way as Y DNa Germanic languages and Nordic bronze age brought R1b S21 and I2a2 P213. So it would have expanded before German languages every came to Scandinavia. Since Nordic bronze age culture did exist in Finland and was only in far far far far southern Scandinavia and is not that old it would have started 3,500-4,000ybp it doesn't make sense to say that is when I1a2 L22 spread. Actulley I1a would be higher than R1a. The reason is it is higher in both Uralic Finland and Germanic Swedan and Norway even though they have separate branches of I1a2 L22 which would mean if I1a2 L22 spread with R1a it was higher before it hit Finland or Swedan and Norway unless u want to say it randomly got higher twice.

    about the Balto Slavic stuff we do know they spoke the ancestral language. We will never know exactley when proto Balto Slavic started but if they didnt speak that they spoke proto proto Balto Slavic i think u get what i am saying. Also to say I1 which would have been a newlly devloped haplogroup would be mor epopula than R1a for migrating Corded ware people is kind of hard to understand. Since from what we know the only Y DNA haplogroup they spread is R1a1a1b1 Z283 and it is dominte in eastern Europe. The Corded ware thing has so many holes it is just a attempt to an explaintion with the very young age estimates.

    What's wrong with that? It was a very underpopulated region, not to mention that Y-DNA in general has a relatively quick replacement rate and often has founder effects. Besides, just because all I1 currently in Scandinavia descends from a post-5000YBP founder from the south, does not mean that no I1 existed in Scandinavia in the early period. Actually, it's a pretty good candidate to have existed among the small population there during the Paleolithic. (I'd argue that early I2-M223 may be an even better candidate, but that's a different topic.)
    Till the bronze age spread into central Europe 5,000-4,000ybp the vast vast majority of Scandnavians were still hunter gathers. Is there evdience of a huge migration and kill off in Scandnavia. Did those stone age hunter gathers have the weapons to kill off so many people. If u look at history the first times u see serious kill off's i think is the Neloithic with mainly G2a and E1b1b in Europe agianst hg I subclades acroos europe. Of Course the Indo europeans are the best example over all. BUt i get what i am saying it is still kind of crazy to say a people group was killed off so badley. Also i think u know about the aust dna connections with sami and finnish and mesloithic hunter gather samples. Also in globe13 north euro is the only group that existed in pre neloithic europe sami and finnish have the highest. They have very low Med which came in the Neloithic and existed as popular till today so if Scandnavcians decend from invaders who just 5,000ybp from conteintal europe u should except to see more med and not to be so close to mesloithic hunter gathers.

    You're totally wrong here, sorry. Simple population expansion, especially relative population expansion of those with better industries and founder effects within small expanding populations, would also explain the effect, and would do so more elegantly. Same thing with the British Isles. And most of the rest of Europe, actually.
    So ur saying for some reason when Indo Iranians spread to India, when proto proto Balto Slavs or whatever spread to eastern europe, when Germanic and Italo Celts spread acroos western europe, For some reason ina ll those cases u can give an explaintion for their high amount of Y Dna that is not conquest seriosuly, It happened everytime u can keep giving that same explaintion why doesnt it happen to other people groups and why isnt it more common, Conquest is the ibvious answer id ont get why everyone is so agianst it. The Indo iranians said they conquered india in the Rig veda how else to u force ur language, religion, culture, and force people to be apart of ur tribe besides conquest. In irish tradtion they say their celtic ancestors conquered ireland from the Fir blog u should read book of invasions it was written over 1,000 years ago and it is based on pre christian(St. Patrick) irish tradtion and i think its liget they kept the tradtion that they were the conqueres just like the English.

    Look at england and lowlands of Scotland two Germanic languages have been spoken English and Scots. why do u think Germanic R1b S21 and also I1 (orignally not Germanic) is so popular in those areas conquest. So my theory totally makes the most sense and we have so many written records from those germans decendts just a few hundred years later and the English historians or whatever have a pretty good idea how Germanic tribes Angeals, Jutes, and Saxons conquered those areas.

    Norway are very old and pre bronze age and pre Germanic.Finnish I1 is clearly overwhelmingly a young son clade of a primarily Scandinavian clade, therefore you think that Finnish I1 is ancient and pre-Germanic? I don't get this logic. Either way, we need a founder effect to explain Finnish (actually Bothnian--it's Swedish too) I1, so it doesn't tell us anything meaningful about its parent clade. I guess we could talk about Finnish population expansion patterns based on it, but little else can be said. We certainly can't claim that L22 is pre-CW in Scandinavia based on it.
    My logiv is the same logic Maciamo has it is that Finnish I1a2 L22 subclades are not found in the same areas as Y DNa spread with Germanic languages into Scandnavia R1b S21 and I2a2 P214. Therfore it did not spread with Germans and came to Finland from Swedan before Germanic languages arrived in Swedan so those age esitmates at 2,000ybo u know is wrong. I dont know that much about this but maybe the reason why we find so many I1 founder effects is because they were hunter gathers in very very small tribes were evryone comes from one father pretty much. So were talking about pre Corded ware preople who were farmers were talking about hunter gathers.

    It seems so hard to explain I1 in Scandnavia with the age estimates they give i cant see any liget explainations. Have u even considered that since hg I was dominte or the only hg in western europeans I2a1a M26, eastern Europeans I2a1b M423, central Europe I2a2 P214 right before farming spread or they may have i guess it is debatlble, But still hg I is a dominte pre Neloithic European Y Dna haplogroup doesnt it make sense that it was a very heavy or only hg I people that first settled scandnavia just 11,000-9,000ybp. Why would Corded ware mainly R1a1a1b Z283 with some I2a1b and Neloithic lineages G2a, E1b1b, maybe J1 and J2 they were already diverse in y DNA why would they spread mainly I1a2 L22. also we need to try to understand the story of non Scandnavian I1 so all subclades not I1a2 L22.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Overdrive1000 Experience Points3 months registered
    Fire Haired's Avatar
    Join Date
    24-06-13
    Posts
    689
    Points
    4,121
    Level
    18
    Points: 4,121, Level: 18
    Level completed: 68%, Points required for next Level: 129
    Overall activity: 42.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Df27(Spain)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5b2a2(Prussia)

    Ethnic group
    Celto-Germanic, Latino(~6%)
    Country: USA - California



    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    nordicqueller u know why the Minnesota Vikings are called that is there are tons of Swedish, Norwegian, and Danish that's why I1 is so high there. in northern India everyone is pretty much German or Polish and there is also a big group of Scandinavians. Also English surnames not surprisingly are common in America. I guess a lot can be Irish, welsh, Scottish and Cornish and also some European immigrants Anglicized their last names I know people who say their families did that. But still there are a lot of last names so direct male lines in the Us going back to England were I1 is about 15%. And overall the biggest amount of blood from a single ethnic group is the USA are Germans about 50% of America is at least part German and they also have around 15% I1.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    24-12-12
    Posts
    28
    Points
    4,317
    Level
    19
    Points: 4,317, Level: 19
    Level completed: 17%, Points required for next Level: 333
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: United States



    I think it's very important to emphasize here that L22 is not Scandinavian, nor is Scandinavian I1 wholly L22+. When I look at the data available at the FTDNA I1 project, a bit over half of Swedish I1 is L22+; a tad less than half in Norway is L22+, and about one third of Danish I1 is L22+. Finnish I1 is strongly L22+ (~80%) but for reasons sparkey illustrated above. There are other clades of I1 of significance in Scandinavia, where people expect little I1 diversity and that L22+ essentially dominates. We also see not insignificant fractions of I1 that are L22+ well outside of Scandinavia - England (~25%), France (25%), Ireland (25%), Scotland (25%), Netherlands (~20%), Poland (15%), etc. I think more likely markers that appeared in and expanded from Scandinavian would be Z73 and Z74, whereas CTS6364 and subsequent clades represent expansion from the south Baltic.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    24-12-12
    Posts
    28
    Points
    4,317
    Level
    19
    Points: 4,317, Level: 19
    Level completed: 17%, Points required for next Level: 333
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Fire Haired View Post
    nordicqueller u know why the Minnesota Vikings are called that is there are tons of Swedish, Norwegian, and Danish that's why I1 is so high there. in northern India everyone is pretty much German or Polish and there is also a big group of Scandinavians. Also English surnames not surprisingly are common in America. I guess a lot can be Irish, welsh, Scottish and Cornish and also some European immigrants Anglicized their last names I know people who say their families did that. But still there are a lot of last names so direct male lines in the Us going back to England were I1 is about 15%. And overall the biggest amount of blood from a single ethnic group is the USA are Germans about 50% of America is at least part German and they also have around 15% I1.
    How exactly are you able to claim that in northern India, everyone is pretty much German or Polish? I've not seen any such claim previously, nor have I seen data or analyses to support such a claim. This is ludicrous.

    I'm not sure how you arrived at 15% for the frequency of I1 in the US. Then again, I'm not sure how you arrive at any of the figures you cite. I've seen one study in which the overall frequency of I1 in modern Americans is 6% with a frequency in European-Americans of ~12%. (http://hammerlab.biosci.arizona.edu/...ammer_2005.pdf)

  9. #9
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Overdrive1000 Experience Points3 months registered
    Fire Haired's Avatar
    Join Date
    24-06-13
    Posts
    689
    Points
    4,121
    Level
    18
    Points: 4,121, Level: 18
    Level completed: 68%, Points required for next Level: 129
    Overall activity: 42.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Df27(Spain)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5b2a2(Prussia)

    Ethnic group
    Celto-Germanic, Latino(~6%)
    Country: USA - California



    Quote Originally Posted by pyromatic View Post
    How exactly are you able to claim that in northern India, everyone is pretty much German or Polish? I've not seen any such claim previously, nor have I seen data or analyses to support such a claim. This is ludicrous.

    I'm not sure how you arrived at 15% for the frequency of I1 in the US. Then again, I'm not sure how you arrive at any of the figures you cite. I've seen one study in which the overall frequency of I1 in modern Americans is 6% with a frequency in European-Americans of ~12%. (http://hammerlab.biosci.arizona.edu/...ammer_2005.pdf)
    I never said I1 is 15% in white americans what I said is it is around 15% in Germany and I am going off of Eupedia Y DNa maps. And about northern indian that doesn't matter.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Overdrive1000 Experience Points3 months registered
    Fire Haired's Avatar
    Join Date
    24-06-13
    Posts
    689
    Points
    4,121
    Level
    18
    Points: 4,121, Level: 18
    Level completed: 68%, Points required for next Level: 129
    Overall activity: 42.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Df27(Spain)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5b2a2(Prussia)

    Ethnic group
    Celto-Germanic, Latino(~6%)
    Country: USA - California



    [QUOTEI think it's very important to emphasize here that L22 is not Scandinavian, nor is Scandinavian I1 wholly L22+. When I look at the data available at the FTDNA I1 project, a bit over half of Swedish I1 is L22+; a tad less than half in Norway is L22+, and about one third of Danish I1 is L22+. Finnish I1 is strongly L22+ (~80%) but for reasons sparkey illustrated above. There are other clades of I1 of significance in Scandinavia, where people expect little I1 diversity and that L22+ essentially dominates. We also see not insignificant fractions of I1 that are L22+ well outside of Scandinavia - England (~25%), France (25%), Ireland (25%), Scotland (25%), Netherlands (~20%), Poland (15%), etc. I think more likely markers that appeared in and expanded from Scandinavian would be Z73 and Z74, whereas CTS6364 and subsequent clades represent expansion from the south Baltic. ][/QUOTE]That is exactly what I would except since I1 is about 15% in Germany and proto Germanic languages came to swedan and Norway about 3,500-4,000ybp with R1b S21 and I2a2 P214 which add up to be pretty popular they also brought non L22 I1 subclades. Which can explain why non Germanic Finland has vast majority L22. ALso since Germanic languaes stayed very far north till the Iron age when they migrate south they brought L22 which can explain why it is 25% of I1 in Germanic countries like England also Vikings. I have to admit L22 is mainly Scandinavian by far and most non Scandinavian I1 is not L22. nd Finland which has had the least contact ith central Europe has 80% L22 that is evidence is was people with 100% L22 who brought I1 to Scandinavia or it developed from I1a Df29 while migrating in Scandinavia.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    24-12-12
    Posts
    28
    Points
    4,317
    Level
    19
    Points: 4,317, Level: 19
    Level completed: 17%, Points required for next Level: 333
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: United States



    L22 did not expand from Scandinavia but rather into it and subsequently into western Finland. Scandinavian I1 has a bias toward L22, but not necessarily the converse.

    I'd also love to see a citation for an age estimate of proto-Germanic of 4 kybp. Your conjectures are just awful.

    You still don't care to elaborate about your assertion of the autosomal clustering of northern Indians?

  12. #12
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassVeteran5000 Experience Points
    nordicquarreler's Avatar
    Join Date
    30-05-13
    Posts
    351
    Points
    5,638
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,638, Level: 22
    Level completed: 18%, Points required for next Level: 412
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I1 (M253)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H

    Ethnic group
    European mix
    Country: United States



    I think he meant Northern Indiana... the mistake was a carry over from my post where I had left off the "a". My apologies. And Pyromatic, you are correct in your I1 summary. For some reason F.H. can't/won't look at the FTDNA population maps that show a much different story than he is telling. (The maps tell us more than all of our combined biased conjecture.)

  13. #13
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Overdrive1000 Experience Points3 months registered
    Fire Haired's Avatar
    Join Date
    24-06-13
    Posts
    689
    Points
    4,121
    Level
    18
    Points: 4,121, Level: 18
    Level completed: 68%, Points required for next Level: 129
    Overall activity: 42.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Df27(Spain)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5b2a2(Prussia)

    Ethnic group
    Celto-Germanic, Latino(~6%)
    Country: USA - California



    Quote Originally Posted by nordicquarreler View Post
    I think he meant Northern Indiana... the mistake was a carry over from my post where I had left off the "a". My apologies. And Pyromatic, you are correct in your I1 summary. For some reason F.H. can't/won't look at the FTDNA population maps that show a much different story than he is telling. (The maps tell us more than all of our combined biased conjecture.)
    I had no idea there were FTDNA I1 population maps. I did look them up what u have to know is what percentage of the I1 is from what country. If there is more L22 in England than Finland on the map could just mean there were more English samples than Finnish not that it is more popular. Also how many people tested for a certain subclade and how many from eacg country then u can start to get accurate percentages but maybe some of those peoples tested for those subclades because they were negative for another. So Idont think u can use those maps to show real percentages I might be able to give an idea. The Genetic section of this website is growing like a few months ago it was nothing compared to what it is now. Macimao keeps adding stuff hopefully he can make I1 subclade maps. I would really like to see a Germanic Italo Celtic?? R1b L11 map of Indo European r1a1a1 M417 or I guess R1a1a1b S224 map of the old world. He has a lot of options for new maps.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassVeteran5000 Experience Points
    nordicquarreler's Avatar
    Join Date
    30-05-13
    Posts
    351
    Points
    5,638
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,638, Level: 22
    Level completed: 18%, Points required for next Level: 412
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I1 (M253)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H

    Ethnic group
    European mix
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Fire Haired View Post
    I had no idea there were FTDNA I1 population maps. I did look them up what u have to know is what percentage of the I1 is from what country. If there is more L22 in England than Finland on the map could just mean there were more English samples than Finnish not that it is more popular. Also how many people tested for a certain subclade and how many from eacg country then u can start to get accurate percentages but maybe some of those peoples tested for those subclades because they were negative for another. So Idont think u can use those maps to show real percentages I might be able to give an idea. The Genetic section of this website is growing like a few months ago it was nothing compared to what it is now. Macimao keeps adding stuff hopefully he can make I1 subclade maps. I would really like to see a Germanic Italo Celtic?? R1b L11 map of Indo European r1a1a1 M417 or I guess R1a1a1b S224 map of the old world. He has a lot of options for new maps.
    I don't put much emphasis on what country produced what subclade because paternal dna doesn't really follow national boundaries. The
    FTDNA population maps for the I1 clades seem very precise because this website plants the flag from whatever town or village the participant or participant ancestor claims...

  15. #15
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    24-12-12
    Posts
    28
    Points
    4,317
    Level
    19
    Points: 4,317, Level: 19
    Level completed: 17%, Points required for next Level: 333
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: United States



    3 out of 3 members found this post helpful.
    It is my understanding that the linguistic datings of the fracturing of PIE into its subsequent daughter languages and such is really the major constraint in our understanding of the people of Europe - one which places the greatest constraints on dates. So I must ask, how exactly do you date proto-Germanic to 2500-3000 B.C.? My understanding is that proto-Germanic is much younger. The Nagau B helmet dated to 400 B.C. contains an inscription attesting to the Germanic sound-shift, but it does not demonstrate all innovations common to the Germanic languages, suggesting it was inscribed at a period when proto-Germanic had not yet splintered into daughter languages. As the dating of the helmet places an upper bound on the time from the present to when proto-Germanic splintered, I must ask how exactly proto-Germanic entered Scandinavia at 3000 B.C. but managed to remain a single, cohesive language with that spoken in the other Germanic areas for another 2500 years. Why was a single language spoken for 2500 years before people decided they'd rather not speak the same language, giving rise to some 58 languages in the subsequent 2000 years? That's a rather odd phenomenon, especially when one considers that a language evolves in one millennium into something completely incomprehensible to the original speakers.

    I1 in Germany is a smaller fraction of the whole compared to Scandinavia, because Germany was already populated by people when I1 began expanding. People love to cite that I1 constitutes a little over 50% of the population in Västra Götaland in Sweden. There're only 1.5 million people in that county today, which means only about 410,000 men belong to I1 in that region. Germany's population stands at 81M, assuming half male, that's 6 million I1, more than the total number of men in Sweden. Haplogroup fractions today are a function of many variables. To interpret them grossly as the result of conquest or relative reproductive fitness in a vacuum void of founder effect is absolutely idiotic.

    What would be interesting is to calculate the coalescence of the various I1 clades in each geographically distinct region and compare them with their clade's overall coalescence.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Overdrive1000 Experience Points3 months registered
    Fire Haired's Avatar
    Join Date
    24-06-13
    Posts
    689
    Points
    4,121
    Level
    18
    Points: 4,121, Level: 18
    Level completed: 68%, Points required for next Level: 129
    Overall activity: 42.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Df27(Spain)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5b2a2(Prussia)

    Ethnic group
    Celto-Germanic, Latino(~6%)
    Country: USA - California



    I never said proto Germanic was spoken in 3,000c I said 3,500-4,000ybp. You would have to be crazy to think proto Germanic was spoken as recently as 400bc. The first Germanic culture we know of is Nordic bronze age culture starting 3,500-4,000ybp and it lasted till 500bc. R1b S21 the true Germanic y DNA haplogroup is estimated as 4,000-5,500 years old probably migrated north and spoke the ancestral language to Germanic 4,000ybp.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassVeteran5000 Experience Points
    nordicquarreler's Avatar
    Join Date
    30-05-13
    Posts
    351
    Points
    5,638
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,638, Level: 22
    Level completed: 18%, Points required for next Level: 412
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I1 (M253)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H

    Ethnic group
    European mix
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by pyromatic View Post
    ...I1 in Germany is a smaller fraction of the whole compared to Scandinavia, because Germany was already populated by people when I1 began expanding...

    What would be interesting is to calculate the coalescence of the various I1 clades in each geographically distinct region and compare them with their clade's overall coalescence.
    If it's indeed true that I1's "youthful" status accounts for the percentages that we now see in Northern Europe (and I must here that I'm not yet set on I1's age), wouldn't it then follow that I1 is a hyper-successful branch? If this group was able to achieve fairly high percentages/populations for such a young clade... I'm thinking it stands to reason I1 will be increasing it's collective numbers rapidly in the future. Certainly I1 has benefited from European success in settling the New World (not to mention I1 repeated intrusions into Great Britain). Pyromatic, what age do you assign to I1 specifically if I may ask? I think it would be helpful to attach age estimates-- I have it between 10,000 and 5,000 years ago. I do like your coalescence calculation idea... but I1 subclade movements are illustrated clearly with the recent FTDNA maps. Would it be possible for someone to link these FTDNA maps to this thread by the way?

  18. #18
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Overdrive1000 Experience Points3 months registered
    Fire Haired's Avatar
    Join Date
    24-06-13
    Posts
    689
    Points
    4,121
    Level
    18
    Points: 4,121, Level: 18
    Level completed: 68%, Points required for next Level: 129
    Overall activity: 42.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Df27(Spain)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5b2a2(Prussia)

    Ethnic group
    Celto-Germanic, Latino(~6%)
    Country: USA - California



    Quote Originally Posted by nordicquarreler View Post
    If it's indeed true that I1's "youthful" status accounts for the percentages that we now see in Northern Europe (and I must here that I'm not yet set on I1's age), wouldn't it then follow that I1 is a hyper-successful branch? If this group was able to achieve fairly high percentages/populations for such a young clade... I'm thinking it stands to reason I1 will be increasing it's collective numbers rapidly in the future. Certainly I1 has benefited from European success in settling the New World (not to mention I1 repeated intrusions into Great Britain). Pyromatic, what age do you assign to I1 specifically if I may ask? I think it would be helpful to attach age estimates-- I have it between 10,000 and 5,000 years ago. I do like your coalescence calculation idea... but I1 subclade movements are illustrated clearly with the recent FTDNA maps. Would it be possible for someone to link these FTDNA maps to this thread by the way?
    If it is true I1 is young I guess under 10,000 years old and became so popular in central Europe and Scandinavia very quickly. Does not mean it will od that in the future. I1a Df29 8,000-11,000ybp may have arrived in Scandinavia when there were pretty much no other humans there and formed into I1a2 L22. The success of a y DNA haplogruops has to do with what people belong to it and other factors there is no genetic destiny or whatever. R1b1a2a1a L11, R1a1a1b1 Z283, R1a1a1b2 Z93 became extremely popular in just the last 5,000 years because very successful Indo European people belonged mainly to them. You should look at this websites I1 page Maciamo agrees more with I1a Df29 being the first y DNA haplogroup in Scandinavia. He also says that the non Finnish subclades of I1a2 and just I1 period in Finland are in the same areas as Germanic R1b S21. I would not be surprised if non i1a2 subclades of I1 in Sweden and Norway are distributed in a similar way to I2a2 P214 and Germanic R1b S21. But some may have come through central Europe before Germanic languages spread there.

  19. #19
    Tabaccus Maximus Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Tabaccus Maximus's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-10-12
    Posts
    169
    Points
    2,901
    Level
    15
    Points: 2,901, Level: 15
    Level completed: 51%, Points required for next Level: 149
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - SRY 2627
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1a

    Ethnic group
    Galo-Germanic Atlantic Fringe
    Country: USA - Texas



    Quote Originally Posted by nordicquarreler View Post
    wouldn't it then follow that I1 is a hyper-successful branch?
    Not sure about that. If you get ship-wrecked on an un-inhabited tropical island, paleolithic-continuity theorists will parachute in with cheek swabs so they can later conclude that Haplogroup "I1" has been there since the paleolithic due to being statistically omni-present.

    The real answer lies with density, founding and other factors such as is the case in the North.

    I'll bet I-M170 and most of it's downstream clades settled and fermented in the Southern Balkans from Anatolia where they came to be part of the body of the Starcevo Culture and the later Vinca Culture in the Neolithic. Their 'neolithic package' was brought from the Near East where they departed from a Paleolithic "I-J" and being seperated by the Bosporus Strait, north and south.

    Perhaps "I" trickeled slowly out of the Balkans, but I think the URNFIELD (R-S26 + I1* +I2*=Balkan warrior caste IMO) needs much more attention. Some sort of event may explain M170's bizarre distribution around Europe. It could be multiple founding events from Germanic migrations, one or several bottlenecks early or late, or possibly something else?

  20. #20
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassVeteran5000 Experience Points
    nordicquarreler's Avatar
    Join Date
    30-05-13
    Posts
    351
    Points
    5,638
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,638, Level: 22
    Level completed: 18%, Points required for next Level: 412
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I1 (M253)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H

    Ethnic group
    European mix
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Tabaccus Maximus View Post
    ...Some sort of event may explain M170's bizarre distribution around Europe. It could be multiple founding events from Germanic migrations, one or several bottlenecks early or late, or possibly something else?
    I've postulated M170's distribution is related to the R clades sweeping in from the East with a couple of huge advantages. 1. The horse. 2. Population advantages. If we look at the clusters of M170... we have hold-overs all based in "horse difficult" terrain (ie. the rocky island of Hvar, Sardinia, and the geographically unique islands found off the West coast of Finland). Finland itself would nullify the horse advantage because of it's numerous swamp-like regions. Plus the islands of Hvar, Sardinia, and those in the Baltic would give an advantage to the aboriginal boat travelling clans.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassVeteran5000 Experience Points
    nordicquarreler's Avatar
    Join Date
    30-05-13
    Posts
    351
    Points
    5,638
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,638, Level: 22
    Level completed: 18%, Points required for next Level: 412
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I1 (M253)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H

    Ethnic group
    European mix
    Country: United States



    I call it my "Island Hide-Out Theory". (Developed it by looking at the Hunnic Invasions and also the Mongols... with the idea that history doesn't repeat itself exactly, but it does seem to come in waves.)

  22. #22
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassVeteran5000 Experience Points
    nordicquarreler's Avatar
    Join Date
    30-05-13
    Posts
    351
    Points
    5,638
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,638, Level: 22
    Level completed: 18%, Points required for next Level: 412
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I1 (M253)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H

    Ethnic group
    European mix
    Country: United States



    Stop the presses. While reviewing the genesis of this hideout theory... I realize I owe a huge thanks to Kamani. I got so wrapped up strengthening /building/shaping this concept that I forgot the main idea is Kamani's. Actually he was the first to link terrain and military dominance to haplogroup success. My apologies Kamani.

  23. #23
    Tabaccus Maximus Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Tabaccus Maximus's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-10-12
    Posts
    169
    Points
    2,901
    Level
    15
    Points: 2,901, Level: 15
    Level completed: 51%, Points required for next Level: 149
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - SRY 2627
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1a

    Ethnic group
    Galo-Germanic Atlantic Fringe
    Country: USA - Texas



    Quote Originally Posted by nordicquarreler View Post
    I've postulated M170's distribution is related to the R clades sweeping in from the East with a couple of huge advantages
    I agree with your two major points: 1) I-M170 was amalgamated with at least 1 major R clade, probably a R1b (S21 I would guess)...and 2) that it spread from the East (Balkans and SW Black Sea)
    Here's my wag on I-M170's distribution in Europe... (a little long, I apologize in advance)
    1. Native distribution in Balkans and Southwestern rim of Black Sea. In the Balkans it fermented into the Starcevo and later Vinca culture where it may have represented a sizable portion of the population. Due to its areal contact in the Black Sea, both cultures, generally viewed as non-IE, still are sometimes difficult to identify taxonomically.
    2. Possible initial gene-flow into Central Europe with Linear Beaker and later Funnel Beaker Cultures Although both are considered non-Indo-European, its been suggested both cultures saw a slow creep of Western Black Sea cultural influences.
    3. Major expansion out of the Balkans during the Urnfield expansion. The Urnfielders, in my view, brought new technology, Balkan metallurgy and religion into Central Europe. I think a new Balkan warrior caste composed of (R1b-S261*, I1*, I2*, ?) imposed itself culturally or militarily on the Unetice people (P-312 and R1a) in what was anciently the Beaker/Corded zone contact area. This is where I think the bulk of M170 now present in Europe got its beginning. The nucleus of Urnfield collapsed with the 're-awakening' of Western (proto-Celt) people. One remnant of Urnfield being Jastorf, which was the cultural thread of early pre-proto-Germanics in the North (IMO) and who heavily influenced an already Urnfieldized Nordic Bronze age culture.
    Heavy representation of Haplogroup I in Scandinavia due exclusively to low population density.
    4. I1* ad I2* clades spill into every crevice of Europe with the Germanic migrations leaving a puzzling picture due to founder effect.
    Whatever the age of M-170, if it amalgamated into a culture with a clade of R1b, it would naturally appear more diverse solely due to the fact that it was probably native in the area of amalgamation, ie. the SW Black Sea or Balkans, whereas the R1b clade in the mixture was a migrant. If there was in fact a major expansion out of the Balkans or South Eastern Europe, what you will see is a caste of very young R1b moving into Europe with very little diversity and apparent age, AND a great many clades of I* with unlimited diversity.
    As tribal migrations of North Sea peoples carpet bomb Europe in later years, founder events put clades of I* in different places like England, Sardinia, Spain, Northern France, etc... you get a very bizarre picture of very low diversity of isolated clades in localized areas.

  24. #24
    Great Adventurer Achievements:
    Three FriendsTagger Second ClassOverdriveVeteran50000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Arm of Law
    sparkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    17-02-11
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,270
    Points
    68,877
    Level
    81
    Points: 68,877, Level: 81
    Level completed: 49%, Points required for next Level: 873
    Overall activity: 16.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2c1 PF3892+ (Swiss)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U4a (Cornish)

    Ethnic group
    3/4 Colonial American, 1/8 Cornish, 1/8 Welsh
    Country: USA - California



    Quote Originally Posted by Tabaccus Maximus View Post
    1. Native distribution in Balkans and Southwestern rim of Black Sea. In the Balkans it fermented into the Starcevo and later Vinca culture where it may have represented a sizable portion of the population. Due to its areal contact in the Black Sea, both cultures, generally viewed as non-IE, still are sometimes difficult to identify taxonomically.
    Then why haven't we seen high diversity or outlier I1 in the Vinča culture region? Undersampling? I would guess a Neolithic culture like Vinča to have expanded majority lineages within its region, which would probably make I1 a clearer part of the regional Neolithic package of haplogroups, as well as older than it appears now. I will personally be very surprised if you're right about this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tabaccus Maximus View Post
    2. Possible initial gene-flow into Central Europe with Linear Beaker and later Funnel Beaker Cultures Although both are considered non-Indo-European, its been suggested both cultures saw a slow creep of Western Black Sea cultural influences.
    It's interesting, though, that LBK has not shown I1 in its ancient samples. To me, that, along with the phylogeny, indicates that the principal spread of I1 postdates LBK. Perhaps it was a minority haplogroup within LBK, maybe at the northern periphery of that culture? (Highly speculative of course.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Tabaccus Maximus View Post
    3. Major expansion out of the Balkans during the Urnfield expansion. The Urnfielders, in my view, brought new technology, Balkan metallurgy and religion into Central Europe. I think a new Balkan warrior caste composed of (R1b-S261*, I1*, I2*, ?) imposed itself culturally or militarily on the Unetice people (P-312 and R1a) in what was anciently the Beaker/Corded zone contact area. This is where I think the bulk of M170 now present in Europe got its beginning. The nucleus of Urnfield collapsed with the 're-awakening' of Western (proto-Celt) people. One remnant of Urnfield being Jastorf, which was the cultural thread of early pre-proto-Germanics in the North (IMO) and who heavily influenced an already Urnfieldized Nordic Bronze age culture.
    But Urnfield ancient samples haven't shown I1 either. I'm not sure I understand what pattern you're seeing to suggest that the I1 likely in Jatorf to have been from the same component that introduced Urnfield to the North, as opposed to its more northerly influences (NBA, Lusatian, or the native-turned-Urnfield "North Urnfield" group).

    Quote Originally Posted by Tabaccus Maximus View Post
    Heavy representation of Haplogroup I in Scandinavia due exclusively to low population density.
    This I agree with, except to note that geographic proximity helped.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tabaccus Maximus View Post
    I1* ad I2* clades spill into every crevice of Europe with the Germanic migrations leaving a puzzling picture due to founder effect.
    Whatever the age of M-170, if it amalgamated into a culture with a clade of R1b, it would naturally appear more diverse solely due to the fact that it was probably native in the area of amalgamation, ie. the SW Black Sea or Balkans, whereas the R1b clade in the mixture was a migrant. If there was in fact a major expansion out of the Balkans or South Eastern Europe, what you will see is a caste of very young R1b moving into Europe with very little diversity and apparent age, AND a great many clades of I* with unlimited diversity.
    As tribal migrations of North Sea peoples carpet bomb Europe in later years, founder events put clades of I* in different places like England, Sardinia, Spain, Northern France, etc... you get a very bizarre picture of very low diversity of isolated clades in localized areas.
    Agreed that the picture is complicated, but I would only associate a few of these complications with the Germanic expansions--specifically I1 and most I2-M223 subclades. The thing is, few other I subclades fit this pattern or the Balkans expansion pattern, and indeed, ancient minority and outlier subclades prefer to cluster in Western and Central Europe in a way that we wouldn't expect if the Balkans played a major role in its Neolithic distribution. Take I2-M26 in particular. It has no apparent connection to the Balkans and yet it has one of the most easily identifiably Neolithic spreads, backed up by both its molecular diversity and ancient DNA. Rather, it seems to have spread from the West. In fact, I have much more difficulty finding any Haplogroup I subclades that seem to share an early spread into Europe with early proto-R1b-L11 than I do those that don't. Even the I2 common in the Balkans (I2a-Din) doesn't seem to have spread from there. So my thought is that R1b passed through the Balkans long after Haplogroup I did, and that the Halpogroup I expansions that connected with R1b expansions happened after R1b had already drifted into the local Haplogroup I-carrying areas.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    24-12-12
    Posts
    28
    Points
    4,317
    Level
    19
    Points: 4,317, Level: 19
    Level completed: 17%, Points required for next Level: 333
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: United States



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by nordicquarreler View Post
    If it's indeed true that I1's "youthful" status accounts for the percentages that we now see in Northern Europe (and I must here that I'm not yet set on I1's age), wouldn't it then follow that I1 is a hyper-successful branch? If this group was able to achieve fairly high percentages/populations for such a young clade... I'm thinking it stands to reason I1 will be increasing it's collective numbers rapidly in the future. Certainly I1 has benefited from European success in settling the New World (not to mention I1 repeated intrusions into Great Britain). Pyromatic, what age do you assign to I1 specifically if I may ask? I think it would be helpful to attach age estimates-- I have it between 10,000 and 5,000 years ago. I do like your coalescence calculation idea... but I1 subclade movements are illustrated clearly with the recent FTDNA maps. Would it be possible for someone to link these FTDNA maps to this thread by the way?

    It looks like all the major haplogroups in Europe underwent rapid neolithic expansion, not just I1, which I think is consistent with a change in lifestyle or better farming and pastoralism, not necessarily better reproductive fitness or extermination of other groups. These haplogroups just happened to be borne by those who were really good at feeding large families. In this context, once the technological/economic playing field was leveled in Europe, the frequencies of the haplogroups became essentially fixed as population growth becomes approximately equal. It would be interesting to find data suggesting any one haplogroup is expanding at the expense of another in the modern era. When you say age, do you mean time of divergence from I or TMRCA of all I1-bearing men today? Those are two very different numbers.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •