Dedicated haplogroup pages

I2 clades have not moved very much since the Mesolithic, except perhaps I2a2 in Southeast Europe, but this issue remains indeed controversial.

I'm not sure that's quite true. We have:

-I2a2b moving out of Central Europe, probably with the Iron Age Celts
-I2a1a expanding on Sardinia
-I2a2a being an important part of certain expansions, especially Germanic (unfortunately probably as a minority clade just about every time)
-I2c-B expanding on the Eastern Mediterranean, especially Crete, and into Asia

...along with a few others. Although some I2 appears quite stationary (like Basque I2a1a, some of the small British minority I2's, "unexpanded" clades like I2b-ADR...), most have had some sort of apparent significant movement.

Then what pictures am I going to use to represent each subclade ?

This is the hard part. If I have some time later I can scout some out for you. I assume that you're thinking of doing pages for I2a1 (old I2a) and I2a2 (old I2b) in particular, and skipping I2b-ADR and I2c.

For I2a1, I'd definitely include something having to do with the Medieval Balkans, which we can all agree had significant I2a1b. Something representing the Kingdom of Bosnia would probably be appropriate. I2a1a is trickier because I'm not 100% sure when it expanded on Sardinia, so I wouldn't feel comfortable using their earliest tombs or anything. Nuraghes might be OK, though. We similarly can't be certain that Azilian culture was I2a1, but it seems likely to me, so it might be good to use Azilian artifacts.

For I2a2, I really think you should include Urnfield artifacts to represent I2a2b, as ancient samples of Urnfield culture have so far been more I2a2b than anything (6 out of 9). If there is a good picture of an artifact from the Lichtenstein Cave in particular, that would be even better. I2a2a is tough, though, because it always seems to be a minority everywhere, despite its ancientness and diversity throughout Europe. There's a good chance that British Grooved Ware culture had relatively high amounts of the now-rare I2a2a1 and I2a2a4 subclades, so maybe some Grooved Ware artifacts would be warranted.

I would be especially hard to make a page about your rare haplogroup I2c.

Yeah, though I think I2c could eventually get added to the main page. In case you missed it, here is the best-guess history I made based on input from fellow I2c Eupedians Kardu and haithabu. There are still some loose ends, like whether the Phrygians or the Galatians or someone else are most likely to have brought I2c-B to Asia, but it's a clean enough summary to start from before doing your own fact checking.
 
Here is what we have :

- Caucasians are very close autosomally, yet so divergent in Y-DNA frequencies
- many populations have extremely high frequencies of a single haplogroup (54% of G2a for the Adygei, 84% of J1 for the Dargins, 88% of J2 for the Ingush)
- there is little haplogroup diversity, especially among ethnic groups where one haplogroup exceeds 50% of the lineages.

What can this all mean ? In my opinion, it almost certainly means that local chieftains/kings have spread their own Y-DNA among their ethnic group for a few centuries. There might have been a lot of different haplogroup before that happened, as attested by larger populations (Georgians, Armenians, Azeri).

You are saying that all this g2a are just offspring of one man in few hundred years, what effectively makes them extraordinary close. People from diaspora and of those in Adigeya are then unprecedentedly close relatives somehow unknowable to them. You are effectively saying that these people have no memory of their paternal lineages at all. This means their fathers, or should I say one recent relative, forced one y dna in a bushfire like sexual marathon with women who craved to be impregnated by just one of many of petty chieftains.

The problem is that these people do have memory of their lineages for ages. And have old clans and family names just like Scottish people. Male lineage is considered to be the most valued thing there. Also there are many chieftains, but also council of elders, and the free people. There are even chieftains of higher and lower ranks.

Here I used word petty here for a reason.
1. Among free adighe people chieftain was considered to be just one of many.
2. Also these chieftains were mainly among gray or white bearded people.
3. Their appearance was known to be understated, to arouse no suspicion for trying to differentiate himself among others, while having to prove his valor in battlefield and survive to an old age when he is considered to be ready for place of a chieftain.
4. Chieftains in Caucasus unlike all other people had nothing to do with hereditary rights. Every chieftain had to deserve such a place, being bravery or wisdom, and especially generosity.
5.Forcing one lineage in such a free society would be very much noticeable and considered as an insult to other free male lines. Chieftains were always aware of a possibility of being scrutinized by society they belonged to, so they were eager to prove no such intentions like forcing their offspring, ever existed in their minds. They were actually always trying to prove the opposite. This paternal behavioral model was very strong then and even Stalin, refused to acknowledge his son, when being captured by Germans who tried to exchange him for their generals.
6. Kings were not important in mountains, only clans and tribes, and a principle of equality. The kings you are referring to, did not exist in this areas. There were just princes in Kabarda (just one of 12 tribes) and their influence was not even close as those of original clans and tribes. Even clans in Kabarda in many cases did not listen to princes advices. Yes they were considered to be just advices. Russians did try to prepare the terrain for take over, and they tried to make influence through princes. This approach made some influence on people being divided into strict castes. But this was prior to Russian invasion, and it was contrary to original democratic ideas of this people. Even in such circumstances strict castes would exclude almost any possibility of mixing.
7. There are 12 tribes with lots of clans among adighe and everybody was aware of who is who and which line one belongs to. The Chieftain of one clan is of no such importance in other. So there are many chieftains (among equal people). Their word is considered to be a law only in cases when they assumed their position. Their customs and traditions are considered sacred, and any violation by a chieftain of them is sufficient to remove him from his post and cause him to be punished too. Circassians are a democratic people. The chieftain cannot make a decision in any public issue without consulting the public, thus implying a respect for the value of the individual. Whenever a public meeting is held the eldest of the group presides over the meeting, even if he is socially inferior.
 
Last edited:
So is there a possibility that even in your scenario one chieftain influenced all other y dna in all other clans and tribes. I think not. Even more so in a few hundred years and in frenzy like sexual dominance over free people. The factor of being divided in tribes and clans makes it almost imposible. And all mountain people be it in Caucasus or Montenegro who still live in such communities will acknowledge this. Clans are known to belong to one or two families. But clans are just forms of extended families that extends far back in time keeping their male line sacred. No clan would allow dominance of other one which is the best predisposition for keeping the status quo. Being that all the clans had g2a mostly there must have been a founding father cell with most of G2a before this clans were created.

The Caucasus is a place with many nations known to settle there in various times in its valleys. Adighe, Ingush were much higher in mountains and considered to be mountain people by the Caucasus people from valleys. These people from Caucasian plains were never displaced by Adighe nor Ingush … And they stayed there until some new invader made its own influence.

Polygamy as a model was known in Persian Shahs and Turkish sultans. It did happen only in rare cases in mountains, and that happened in recent times with the introduction of Islam.
But abduction for marriage was common in some places. Also this is what I believe a case of founding father effect. I must say something about G1 high numbers among Kazakhstan Magyars, it is certainly interesting case. It derives from a few male G lineages. They were known for not taking women from their clan but from all around them while keeping close ties with their male lines. I think this is the same case.

Male lineages were known to be better concentrated in one area in general among all Y dna. Autosomally they are similar probably because of introduction of beautiful women from all around Caucasus in a founding father base cell, a tradition continued for a long time until some of tribes became noticeably pretty, set their anthropological standards, and decided to keep their lines pure.

Here you are also talking about Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, lands mostly south of the main Caucasus range ravaged and attacked by multitude of armies. Land with noticeable amount of valleys through which many invaders crossed, and land in such geo-strategic locations that they were in contact with most of old civilizations, also established countries themselves, and compare them to isolated mountaineers like Adighe, Ingush ...
There might have been a lot of different haplogroup before that happened
We are not talking about garden of Eden here, but inhospitable mountains, harsh winters, lack of food for unprepared people, frequent avalanches... Sure for some who did learn to survive there it was a nice home. Even Adige in their history tried living in steppes on a few occasions. Better pastures were tempting and they did control neighboring steppes which they used for grazing their herds. They knew of primitive farming, shepherding, bee keeping.
 
Last edited:
The problem with I2 is that it's nowhere dominant in both haplogroup frequencies and autosomally speaking. Autosomal data makes me think Iberians have a very large composition of I2a1a* not reflected in the haplogroup frequencies, but in the rest of the populations it's not clear. Well, Sardinians for sure carry substantial, but they are still very eclectic to be representative of it. That's why I prefer to focus in Iberians in regards for this.

The rest of I2 it's really confusing in terms of autosomes, the only obvious thing is the present haplogroup distribution.
 
I have finally found the time to create the page for Haplogroup I2. There is still work to do (as always), but that's a start. For the photos I chose the paintings of Lascaux to show the Paleolithic link. They date from 17,000 years ago, which is approximately the age of I2 (but of course we don't know and Lascaux might have been painted by I*, IJ or F people). In the middle is a female statuette from the Cucuteni-Trypillian Culture, which I believe was one of the most representative I2 Neolithic cultures. This kind of statuettes (also called Venus figurines) have a continuity in Europe dating back to the Paleolithic, especially in Central Europe and Southern France, which once again may well be I2 people or their I* ancestors. The picture on the right represents Bogatyrs, which were medieval Slavo-Germanic warriors descended in part from Swedish Vikings, who may have brought I2a2a (former I2b1) to Eastern Europe. If not they may still be I2a1b (former I2a2), so it works too.
 
Great job again, Maciamo, the I2 page looks good. I think the pictures are appropriate... and I wouldn't be too worried about using Lascaux. In my opinion, they are even more likely to have been I2 dominant than Cucuteni-Trypillian Culture, who also seem likely but are east of most I2 subclade centers of diversity. (Most likely explanation IMHO: most I2 subclades had been pushed westward prior to modern expansions).

Some minor proofreading suggestions, I won't dispute the content:

Maciamo said:
I2a1 is estimated to be 8,000 years old.

Do you mean I2a1a? That's ballpark correct for it, but too young for I2a1.

Maciamo said:
There are two major subclades : I2b2a (M223) and I2b2b (L38/S154), further subdivided in at least 4 subclades each, although little is known about them yet. The subclade I2b1a (M284+) occurs almost exclusively in Britain, where it seemingly developed about 3,000 years ago.

Should be I2a2a, I2a2b, and I2a2a1.

Maciamo said:
Groups A and C seem to have expanded respectively during the Celtic Bronze and Iron ages, alongside R1b-S116/P312.

I think you got the "respectively" backwards, at least, if you're going by what I've had to say about it recently. I think C matches better the Bronze Age and A the Iron Age.
 
It's a good beginning ;)
 
Great job again, Maciamo, the I2 page looks good. I think the pictures are appropriate... and I wouldn't be too worried about using Lascaux. In my opinion, they are even more likely to have been I2 dominant than Cucuteni-Trypillian Culture, who also seem likely but are east of most I2 subclade centers of diversity. (Most likely explanation IMHO: most I2 subclades had been pushed westward prior to modern expansions).

Some minor proofreading suggestions, I won't dispute the content:



Do you mean I2a1a? That's ballpark correct for it, but too young for I2a1.



Should be I2a2a, I2a2b, and I2a2a1.



I think you got the "respectively" backwards, at least, if you're going by what I've had to say about it recently. I think C matches better the Bronze Age and A the Iron Age.

so do you think terry Robb, I for Italy around 5000BC is wrong
http://www.goggo.com/terry/HaplogroupI1/European_Haplogroup_locations_circa_5,000BC.jpg
 
Great job again, Maciamo, the I2 page looks good. I think the pictures are appropriate... and I wouldn't be too worried about using Lascaux. In my opinion, they are even more likely to have been I2 dominant than Cucuteni-Trypillian Culture, who also seem likely but are east of most I2 subclade centers of diversity. (Most likely explanation IMHO: most I2 subclades had been pushed westward prior to modern expansions).

Some minor proofreading suggestions, I won't dispute the content:



Do you mean I2a1a? That's ballpark correct for it, but too young for I2a1.



Should be I2a2a, I2a2b, and I2a2a1.



I think you got the "respectively" backwards, at least, if you're going by what I've had to say about it recently. I think C matches better the Bronze Age and A the Iron Age.

Sorry about that. I have been working with 38°C fever today. I can't concentrate as well as usual.
 

I am pretty convinced that he is wrong. I2a1a is more diverse in Iberia than in Sardinia, suggesting an expansion the other direction. I2a1b1a has a North-to-South cline, not a West-to-East one like he suggests. And the I2a1c1 direction he suggests is odd... it probably has a link to the Rhine, not so much to Southern France. More likely, these subclades were spread more widely across Europe in 5000BC. See my Paleolithic Remnants map for my idea of what a picture of I subclades prior to their expansions (starting ~4000BC) would look like.
 
Sorry about that. I have been working with 38°C fever today. I can't concentrate as well as usual.

Good job in spite of that! Get well soon.
 
Maciamo, undoubtedly you have the best graphics of anyone writing on population genetics on the Internet and are deservedly the envy of everyone else for this.

But I have a number of differences regarding the unsourced narrative for haplogroup G. I will bring them up piecemeal in installments as time permits in coming days or weeks.

In the opening sentences, you remark:
"The highest genetic diversity within haplogroup G is found between the Levant and the Caucasus, another good indicator of its region of origin."

Diversity could certainly be one of the indicators of place of origin, as could frequency in the population.

But the current evidence of most diversity for haplogroup G, suggests the most diversity found among available samples would be in multiple European countries. This is based on the 2700 G samples in the haplogroup G project tested at Family Tree DNA.
THIS IS THE MOST RECENT OF SEVERAL ATTEMPTS TO POST THIS ITEM. THE LATEST INDICATES I CANNOT INCLUDE A LINK BECAUSE I DO NO POST OFTEN ENOUGH. READERS WHO WANT TO KNOW THE LINK WILL APPARENTLY HAVE TO WRITE ME AT MY E-MAIL ADDRESS AT THE BOTTOM. HOWEVER, THAT IS ALSO APPARENTLY FORBIDDEN SO YOU WILL HAVE TO GOOGLE KEYWORDS HAPLOGROUP G PROJECT and MY NAME TO GET MY E-MAIL ADDRESS.


There are eight major SNP subgroups of G based on counts within the numbers of samples: G1, G2a1/G2a1a, G2a2b, G2a3a, G2a3b1a1, G2a3b1a1a, G2a3b1a2, G2a3b1a3, G2c. I included G2a3b1a1 because it occurs in high numbers among the Adyghe/Circassian population of the western Caucasus, but is not so major a group in Europe. And G2c in Europe is so far found only in countries in which Ashkenazi Jews have lived. Several have surnames suggesting Italian origins though not living there. These categories correspond to the latest ISOGG listing of the G tree
LINK REMOVED BY MACIAMO'S SOFTWARE HERE

Only four of these eight groups have been tested in published studies using population samples, and we presently have to rely on samples of non-European persons tested at the commercial labs to determine whether some subgroups might occur in the non-European countries. Their STR markers from the labs can be used somewhat to match them with the STR marker values provided in some population studies.

We have so far found all eight of these subgroups in the more populous European countries but no place outside Europe.

This does not mean I am advocating for Europe as the place of origin of these G subgroups, but only pointing out that the evidence for places outside Europe is not well developed at this point.

Referring again to your comment
"The highest genetic diversity within haplogroup G is found between the Levant and the Caucasus, another good indicator of its region of origin."

This location you describe seems to coincide with Armenia. We are been fortunate to have a very active, well-funded Armenia project. We have found six of these G subgroups among Armenians though in small numbers. The various studies of the Armenian population seem to find about an average of 11% G in that country, which is lower in frequency than some of its neighbors.
LINK REMOVED HERE BY MACIAMO'S SOFTWARE SYSTEM

But we have not been as fortunate in having such well tested men from the countries surrounding Armenia, and the extent of the G diversity in them is unclear at this point. We recently found the first two G2a3b1a3 men from North Ossetia, and one turned up in the 1000 Genomes Project in a man from Beijing, China, of all places. Some of the G subgroups can be deduced from the haplotypes of men in n.w. China, but others can't. The ethnic groups of n.w China are known to have G intermixture but almost no testing for subgroups. A G2a2b man turned up in the commercial lab among a Bakthiari man from Iran, but no hint of this in the published studies. Egypt has almost no subgroup testing, and the same situation applies to Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikstan. The more we test in India, the more diverse the G in that country seems and could have major subgroups of its own not yet identified.

Which brings me to two other points (a) the frequency of one of the subgroups could help to point to origin, and (b) knowing the distribution of just haplogroup G in general can be misleading. I will tackle the last point first. Virtually no one belongs to general G or general G2. Almost all can be assigned to a G subgroup, and the worldwide frequency distribution for a G subgroup is typically radically different from the general G map suggesting separate migrations. Constructing valid subgroup maps requires testing for these in non-European countries, and such studies are rare.

And does the frequency distribution really help in isolating the origins of G subgroups? In the case of the Circassian G2a3b1a1 men and the Ossetian G2a1a men, their high frequency counts would suggest origins there. But the two Caucasus studies last year (Balanovsky and Yunubaev) both concluded that the Caucasian population is basically of Near Eastern origins though they did not single out haplogroup G for this conclusion.

In closing this first installment, I would like to point out that Oetzi, the Iceman, was referred to as having the G2a4 mutation last August by the curator of his remains in an interview, and that designation is used at Eupedia. G2a4 did not appear in the listing for the 2008 revision of G subgroups by the scientists of the Y-DNA consortium. The L91 mutation was subsequently identified. Off the record conversations with population geneticists suggests that L91 is seemingly the mutation under discussion, but I have no proof of it due to lack of publication of the Iceman's genome. But G2a4 was abolished in January 2012 both at ISOGG and also in Family Tree's draft of the new Y tree and at Wikipedia. This was due to confirmation that L223 is a mother group for L91. So now the known Y trees would place the Iceman's category as G2a2b pending a new publication by the consortium which will have the last say on this.

Ray Banks
Administrator, Haplogroup G Project
Content expert, ISOGG's Y Tree
 
Maciamo, undoubtedly you have the best graphics of anyone writing on population genetics on the Internet and are deservedly the envy of everyone else for this.

Thank you.

But I have a number of differences regarding the unsourced narrative for haplogroup G.

It is unsourced because it is my personal hypothesis based on the data available, my knowledge of prehistory/archaeology and logical deduction.


In the opening sentences, you remark:
"The highest genetic diversity within haplogroup G is found between the Levant and the Caucasus, another good indicator of its region of origin."

Diversity could certainly be one of the indicators of place of origin, as could frequency in the population.

West Asia is also the place of highest genetic diversity.


But the current evidence of most diversity for haplogroup G, suggests the most diversity found among available samples would be in multiple European countries. This is based on the 2700 G samples in the haplogroup G project tested at Family Tree DNA.

In commercial tests, maybe, but that's only because the Middle East is cruelly under-represented. I prefer to take into account scientific studies rather than commercial tests with self-reported ancestry, especially when they test mainly North Americans like FTDNA.


THIS IS THE MOST RECENT OF SEVERAL ATTEMPTS TO POST THIS ITEM. THE LATEST INDICATES I CANNOT INCLUDE A LINK BECAUSE I DO NO POST OFTEN ENOUGH. READERS WHO WANT TO KNOW THE LINK WILL APPARENTLY HAVE TO WRITE ME AT MY E-MAIL ADDRESS AT THE BOTTOM. HOWEVER, THAT IS ALSO APPARENTLY FORBIDDEN SO YOU WILL HAVE TO GOOGLE KEYWORDS HAPLOGROUP G PROJECT and MY NAME TO GET MY E-MAIL ADDRESS.

Every forum member needs to have minimum 10 posts before posting links to discourage spammers. It is not very difficult to post a few short comments to reach that number, is it ? You could start by introducing yourself in the Member Lounge or comment on a few other threads, as they are plenty of interesting topics here. A single sentence is enough to count as a post - no need to write a novel each time.

Then why do you feel the need to complain about this in a thread about haplogroups and in block letters when you could have sent me a PM or posted a thread in the Support section ? I find this kind of behaviour rather inappropriate, if not childish.


There are eight major SNP subgroups of G based on counts within the numbers of samples: G1, G2a1/G2a1a, G2a2b, G2a3a, G2a3b1a1, G2a3b1a1a, G2a3b1a2, G2a3b1a3, G2c. I included G2a3b1a1 because it occurs in high numbers among the Adyghe/Circassian population of the western Caucasus, but is not so major a group in Europe. And G2c in Europe is so far found only in countries in which Ashkenazi Jews have lived. Several have surnames suggesting Italian origins though not living there. These categories correspond to the latest ISOGG listing of the G tree

Sorry, but you are only basing your hypothesis based on the FTDNA database, which is completely insufficient. I see no need to further argue with you as we don't have the same standards to evaluate the origins of haplogroups, and that would just be a waste of time for the both of us. We will see who was right once we get more data, in particular Neolithic and pre-Neolithic DNA from the Middle East.

LINK REMOVED BY MACIAMO'S SOFTWARE HERE

You are giving me far too much credit. This forum runs on the vBulletin software, designed by Jelsoft Enterprises. It is not "my" software. Have you never posted on a vBulletin forum before ? They are all over the Internet.

If you really want to post a link, either get your 10 posts or remove the http://www. in front of the link. You are the only member so far who has not understood this and managed to publicly complain about it.
 
I was going to continue with a discussion of the parts of your haplogroup G narrative which are inconsistent with both the Family Tree data and the published studies, but much of what I got from the first posting were personal attacks because I am did not know in advance how your posting system would work when I tried to provide a link. I had to retype the text multiple times because it kept rejecting my posting.

It is also nonsense to exclude the information from the Family Tree DNA database because it is "insufficient." In many cases these are the most tested samples available and provide far more information that the testing for general G available in most studies.

The whole idea of footnoting data is to allow a second party to see the context of the data, and when one just says "Trust me" I have the correct information, there is no way to evaluate the information.

In any event, it is clear from the first installment that disagreement with anything in your narrative is an exercise in futility. And it is best to move on to more productive activities.

Ray Banks
Administrator, Haplogroup G Project
 
I was going to continue with a discussion of the parts of your haplogroup G narrative which are inconsistent with both the Family Tree data and the published studies, but much of what I got from the first posting were personal attacks because I am did not know in advance how your posting system would work when I tried to provide a link.

You are the one who attacked me for no reason, when you could just have asked nicely and in the appropriate section or by PM why you couldn't post links (although I believe the forum does tell you that you need minimum 10 posts to put a link). I really don't like your aggressive attitude, which is partly why I have no desire to discuss further with you. I was well disposed enough towards you when you joined though, as I spontaneously offered to give you more visibility on the forum and granted you extra advantages (as explained by PM) by "promoting" you to the Y-DNA Project Admin usergroup. You can't blame me for not trying to be nice and friendly at first, but if you react as discourteously as you did, don't expect another tone from me.
 
I sympathize a little with Ray about the difficulty of posting links, it seems arbitrary and capricious. And I had the same problem, when I tried to start a thread here about Z196. But I agree with Maciamo that, once one is forced to study the rules, it is bone simple to post ten times -- and then get on with the more interesting (or argumentative) part of one's agenda.

Some of the craziest people on the planet post here regularly, and are made to feel welcome. I don't really see much of a problem, unless they behave offensively toward others. The excessively freewheeling discussion often brings out someone with actual expertise, to correct it. And those people are also welcomed.
 
It may not be doable to jump into an old conversation, but this I2b2a feels like nobody cares, or even knows he exists. Are there any other I2b2a's out there? Can anyone tell me who I am?
 
It may not be doable to jump into an old conversation, but this I2b2a feels like nobody cares, or even knows he exists. Are there any other I2b2a's out there? Can anyone tell me who I am?

I2b2a is the old nomenclature for what is current Nordtvedt I2a2b1, and I2a2b in ISOGG (which doesn't recognize your subclade for some reason). I suppose FTDNA and/or 23andMe may still call it "I2b2a."

I2a2b1 is a very rare clade, only represented by the surnames Fuchs, Brion, and Butler at the FTDNA Project. It is the earliest known branch off of I2a2b, but it branched after the initial expansion of I2 as a whole in the Neolithic, hence it shares a point of origin with the rest of I2a2b in my Paleolithic Remnants map. Although we have too few I2a2b1 samples right now to know exactly how it spread, the spread of the rest of I2a2b has been shown by Hans de Beule to correspond tightly with Alpine Celtic migrations (although it's older than them), and I2a2b has been found in the apparently proto-Celtic Urnfield Culture. I don't know of a reason right now to assume that the spread of I2a2b1 was significantly different than the spread of the rest of I2a2b.
 
I just wanted to let you know that I have revised and considerably expanded the pages on haplogroup I1 and haplogroup I2. I have also updated the phylogenetic trees. I hadn't done it for 3 years, so it really needed to be done.

I have also added many new famous members over the last few weeks, including Nicholas Cage (E-M34), Sting (I1), Elvis Presley (most probably I2c1), King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands (R1a-Z280), Benjamin Netanyahu (R1a-Z93), Che Guevara (R1b-L21), Kevin Bacon (R1b), and Robert Downey Jr. (R1b).
 
I have also added many new famous members over the last few weeks, including Nicholas Cage (E-M34), Sting (I1), Elvis Presley (most probably I2c1), King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands (R1a-Z280), Benjamin Netanyahu (R1a-Z93), Che Guevara (R1b-L21), Kevin Bacon (R1b), and Robert Downey Jr. (R1b).

Really cool! If I have time, I'll try to do some follow-up confirmation of the Chuck Norris and Elvis Presley haplogroups and add them to my Searching for Famous I2 Carriers thread once I'm done with that.
 

This thread has been viewed 81318 times.

Back
Top