I2a2 M423+

[Yorkie]

Conjecture it certainly is, but so are all of the ideas you reference. Furthermore, many of your references apply to I2a and NOT AT ALL to I2a2b.

You continue to comment on I2a2, but this group does not exist. According to ISOGG, I2a2* has never been observed. NEVER. There are NO I2a2* anywhere. They have been extinct probably for many thousands of years.

Sykes and Forster "Believe"..., but where is the supporting data? There is NONE. Are they not using the 10 marker definitions that can barely classify down to I2, and are essentially useless at getting to I2a2b and Isles subclades? They may be right if you are talking about I2a, but that is NOT the subject of this discussion. And the same for Klyosov and Manco. Is it not Sykes who denies the existence of I2a2b? That being the case, anything he says can not be presumed to apply to I2a2b. Therefore his ideas are irrelevant to this discussion.

Evidence about the specifics of the journey? It is conjecture, in the strict technical meaning of that term. Where is the evidence that it is wrong? Again, none.

Nordtvedt has chosen, as a scientist properly should, to not participate in this level of conjecture, but he has not said it is wrong. The only comments he has made are that he differs in the details and that he is not going to go too far into this.

In addition to Rathcroghan, the Driscolls of Cork would certainly seem to qualify as a hotspot for A1. All of Ireland would seem to be a cool spot for B, as they are underrepresented there.

"Why are Sykes, Forster etc so wrong about some of the English and lowland Scots I2a2 coming from later Anglo-Saxon invasions? " Because they have zero, ZERO, data to support that for I2a2b. Show me the data. You are severely over-reading their info.

Do they actually put that final 2 on I2a2, or is that you doing that? The difference between I2a and I2a2b is like the difference between H and Hg in chemistry. You simply can not use them interchangeably, but that is what your comments seem to do.

"plain facts that A] Isles B would have formed part of the Anglo-Saxon make-up" I think that is pure baloney. Lets see the data that gets you past I2a.

"There are examples of ALL the subclades of I2a2b-Isles on the north European plain including C2 and D1, D2 which you associate with Ireland [I checked with Ken Nordtvedt]." I think KN has ONE Isles A on the continent, about 42 B, and a small handfull of C and D. These TRIVIAL numbers prove nothing. I can provide a hotspot of Isles A3 (that is not a typo and you saw it here first!) originating in Jamestown Virginia. I can go shake hands with over 50 of them. That is more than the total of continental Isles. That certainly doesn't prove A3 originated in Virginia.

"Your theory that Isles B people on the continent..." Not correct. My position is that SOME of the VERY FEW Isles B on the continent....

"All credible accounts state that the Anglo-Saxon invasions began in KENT." Why are you trying to restrict my comment to the Anglo-Saxons? There were several groups of invaders who all began at different points. Are you denying that the Anglo-Saxons went to East Anglia? Anglia, named after the Angles!!

A D2 hotspot in northern Germany? Show me some data to support that outlandish idea. And reread my comment on the A3 hotspot in Virginia.

"The 'waves' theory is supported by Jean Manco " Again, isn't she talking I2a and not I2a2b? Therefore irrelevant to this discussion..

"according to Nordtvedt, L161 I2a2b-Isles was founded..." That seriously overstates his position. "likely founded" would, I think, be more correct. He had been very careful to state that SNP can never be dated directly. And he has noted the similarity to I2a2a, which is located mainly in the Balkans and Black Sea area. And he notes the very great age of the line which essentially mandates that it was founded in one of the refugia because most of Europe was under ice at the time. Of the refugia, only the Eukraine makes any sense as a candidate location. Where and when on this line L161 was founded is unknowable. Likely founded on the North German plain is about the most that can be said, and even that is speculative.

"You re not suggesting that I2a2b-Isles all came at once are you?" Well, sort of, if you call a few thousand years from 7,000 to 3,000 BC "all at once".

The 'British' I2a2 I refer to [and you are just splitting hairs in your usual way- veiled hostility rather than pleasant communication between fellow researchers] is the same type referred to as I2a2b. You know perfectly well that I mean I2a2b-Isles. Forster tested my Isles D2 on his Cambridge database at 43 markers, not 12 and my 'hotspot' was northern Germany. Period, as you Americans are wont of saying. The comments made by Sykes, Manco and Klyosov refer to I2a2b-Isles. The testing, again, re Sykes and Forster was on 43 markers...

You know perfectly well that I am NOT suggesting that the Anglo-Saxons did not colonise East Anglia. The 32% levels of I1 there are due to Anglian colonisation. The invasions did NOT start there as you suggest though- they began in Kent. I find your comments here [as if I would not know that East Anglia was named after the Angles] as frankly insulting. The 'Dark Horror'...you have been reading too much Stephen King. It is amusing how Americans come up with these terms that no British person has ever heard of in connection with historical events.

I know Ken Nordtvedt DOES say with confidence that L161 I2a2b-Isles was founded in northern Germany. Ask him, if you don't believe me.

Jean Manco is talking about I2a2b-Isles NOT I2a.

Your real agenda, 'buddy', is to try to claim I2a2b-Isles as wholly ancient and Irish. The bulk is, but some of it, to coin an Americanism, ain't...:wary2:

 

[jdanel]

The 'British' I2a2 I refer to [and you are just splitting hairs in your usual way- veiled hostility rather than pleasant communication between fellow researchers] is the same type referred to as I2a2b. You know perfectly well that I mean I2a2b-Isles. Forster tested my Isles D2 on his Cambridge database at 43 markers, not 12 and my 'hotspot' was northern Germany. Period, as you Americans are wont of saying. The comments made by Sykes, Manco and Klyosov refer to I2a2b-Isles. The testing, again, re Sykes and Forster was on 43 markers...

You know perfectly well that I am NOT suggesting that the Anglo-Saxons did not colonise East Anglia. The 32% levels of I1 there are due to Anglian colonisation. The invasions did NOT start there as you suggest though- they began in Kent. I find your comments here [as if I would not know that East Anglia was named after the Angles] as frankly insulting. The 'Dark Horror'...you have been reading too much Stephen King. It is amusing how Americans come up with these terms that no British person has ever heard of in connection with historical events.

I know Ken Nordtvedt DOES say with confidence that L161 I2a2b-Isles was founded in northern Germany. Ask him, if you don't believe me.

Jean Manco is talking about I2a2b-Isles NOT I2a.

Your real agenda, 'buddy', is to try to claim I2a2b-Isles as wholly ancient and Irish. The bulk is, but some of it, to coin an Americanism, ain't...:wary2:

Come on Y________, there is no veiled hostility on my part. There is some frustration. I do not understand why an intelligent, generally logical, generally reasonable man would continue to push these debunked ideas and misinterpretations. I really don't understand why you do that.

But you are misinterpreting my comments, AGAIN.

And when I ask for data and proof, you present more unsubstantiated claims, putting words in the mouths of others, AGAIN.

I clearly labeled the part about the invasions as a speculation, but you seem to have overlooked that word and gone on to misinterpret my statements, AGAIN.

As to my agenda, there, AGAIN, you are misinterpreting. If I had an agenda, it might be that I2a2b is wholly ancient and Doggerlandish.

"some of it, to coin an Americanism, ain't..." If the founding was ancient, then all of it is, unless you are suggesting some spontaneous creation of more from time to time.

"terms that no British person has ever heard of in connection with historical events." My, my, my, you have a such a short memory. That term came from a colleague of Sykes. We - that is you and I - discussed it in another forum only a few months ago. And now "no British person"...

Drop the BS and bring the proof.

 

[Yorkie]

Come on Y________, there is no veiled hostility on my part. There is some frustration. I do not understand why an intelligent, generally logical, generally reasonable man would continue to push these debunked ideas and misinterpretations. I really don't understand why you do that.

But you are misinterpreting my comments, AGAIN.

And when I ask for data and proof, you present more unsubstantiated claims, putting words in the mouths of others, AGAIN.

I clearly labeled the part about the invasions as a speculation, but you seem to have overlooked that word and gone on to misinterpret my statements, AGAIN.

As to my agenda, there, AGAIN, you are misinterpreting. If I had an agenda, it might be that I2a2b is wholly ancient and Doggerlandish.

"some of it, to coin an Americanism, ain't..." If the founding was ancient, then all of it is, unless you are suggesting some spontaneous creation of more from time to time.

Drop the BS and bring the proof.

Well, the tone seemed hostile, as did the implications, i.e, don't listen to Yorkie, just listen to me etc.

Ok, let's start again. I agree with you that the bulk of I2a2b is ancient [post-LGM settlers] and very possibly 'Doggerlandish'. However, the presence on the north European plain, with Germany as hot-spot, of ALL the subclades, combined with opinions gleaned from Sykes, Forster, Klyosov and Jean Manco [and they are pertaining to I2a2b-Isles not I2a] makes me wonder if at least some of the English and lowland Scots I2a2b came later with the Anglo-Saxons. There is no 'proof' as in an article that I can reference, just their opinions when consulted. As we both know, precious little has been written about I2a2b in the scientific literature. Rootsi et al [2004] did not even test British respondents when looking at 'old I1b1'. Incidentally, Ken Nordtvedt thinks it 'possible' too that some I2a2b was carried by Anglo-Saxons but we are talking small amounts of an already small clade.

The 'source' population was there for some I2a2b-Isles to have been included in the Anglo-Saxon genetic make-up, as Nordvedt considers the clade to have been founded in northern Germany.

I don't honestly see any problem with this Anglo-Saxon connection for some English/Scots I2a2b. Notice that there is an absence in Wales of I2a2b-Isles. Maybe that in itself is a hint as to an Anglo-Saxon connection for the English/Scots I2a2b?

The opinions of Sykes and Forster in particular, should be taken seriously. Sykes classifies I2a2b when found in Englishmen as probably Anglo-Saxon via Oxford Ancestors. Of course, the criticism is that this is just using 12 marker haplotypes, but he has examined my 43 marker haplotype and come to the same conclusion. Sykes remains 'unconvinced' by the lack of substantial early dating for I2a2b in Britain. Nordtvedt has never made his dating 'public' in the sense of journal publication.

Forster has one of the biggest databases in the world. Again, on 43 markers his anonymised database clearly showed Germany as the hotspot for my I2a2b-Isles D2. He too thinks the Anglo-Saxons brought it.

Now, can you really blame me for thinking that there might be an Anglo-Saxon link here? If the English and Scots Isles signatures were attached solely to individuals with Irish surnames, I would rule it out, but that is far from the case. Additionally, the continental distribution is growing with no Irish surnames there.

 

[jdanel]

Well, the tone seemed hostile, as did the implications, i.e, don't listen to Yorkie, just listen to me etc.

Ok, let's start again. I agree with you that the bulk of I2a2b is ancient [post-LGM settlers] and very possibly 'Doggerlandish'. However, the presence on the north European plain, with Germany as hot-spot, of ALL the subclades, combined with opinions gleaned from Sykes, Forster, Klyosov and Jean Manco [and they are pertaining to I2a2b-Isles not I2a] makes me wonder if at least some of the English and lowland Scots I2a2b came later with the Anglo-Saxons. There is no 'proof' as in an article that I can reference, just their opinions when consulted. As we both know, precious little has been written about I2a2b in the scientific literature. Rootsi et al [2004] did not even test British respondents when looking at 'old I1b1'. Incidentally, Ken Nordtvedt thinks it 'possible' too that some I2a2b was carried by Anglo-Saxons but we are talking small amounts of an already small clade.

The 'source' population was there for some I2a2b-Isles to have been included in the Anglo-Saxon genetic make-up, as Nordvedt considers the clade to have been founded in northern Germany.

I don't honestly see any problem with this Anglo-Saxon connection for some English/Scots I2a2b. Notice that there is an absence in Wales of I2a2b-Isles. Maybe that in itself is a hint as to an Anglo-Saxon connection for the English/Scots I2a2b?

The opinions of Sykes and Forster in particular, should be taken seriously. Sykes classifies I2a2b when found in Englishmen as probably Anglo-Saxon via Oxford Ancestors. Of course, the criticism is that this is just using 12 marker haplotypes, but he has examined my 43 marker haplotype and come to the same conclusion. Sykes remains 'unconvinced' by the lack of substantial early dating for I2a2b in Britain. Nordtvedt has never made his dating 'public' in the sense of journal publication.

Forster has one of the biggest databases in the world. Again, on 43 markers his anonymised database clearly showed Germany as the hotspot for my I2a2b-Isles D2. He too thinks the Anglo-Saxons brought it.

Now, can you really blame me for thinking that there might be an Anglo-Saxon link here? If the English and Scots Isles signatures were attached solely to individuals with Irish surnames, I would rule it out, but that is far from the case. Additionally, the continental distribution is growing with no Irish surnames there.

Can you blame for having some doubts about this when:

The opinions of Sykes, et al. that you mention are not written down and therefore available for scrutiny as to what they might mean, what conditions might apply, etc, and

The opinions they have written do not relate to I2a2b, and

The data that would prove this is held in private databases, again not subject to scrutiny, and

None of the public databases show any support whatsoever for these contentions.

Really.

"The 'source' population was there for some I2a2b-Isles to have been included in the Anglo-Saxon genetic make-up, as Nordvedt considers the clade to have been founded in northern Germany." The clade, and/or its pre-L161 antecedents, came through northern Germany maybe 9,000 years ago and seem to have suffered several "bottleneck" situations since. It is really a major stretch to suggest that they were still there 7,000 years later in the heyday of the Anglo-Saxons, especially when the public info does not support this at all in any way.

"Notice that there is an absence in Wales of I2a2b-Isles. Maybe that in itself is a hint as to an Anglo-Saxon connection for the English/Scots I2a2b?" If that were true, then Ireland should likewise be devoid of I2a2b. The situation is actually the reverse. Therefore, it is not true, and suggests the lack of any A/S connection.

"Sykes classifies I2a2b when found in Englishmen..." Does he report this classification? Has Sykes ever reported to an individual, "Yes, you are I2a2b Isles-x"? How does he do the classification? What are his decision rules? Can his classifications be replicated by anyone else?

"hotspot for my I2a2b-Isles D2..." How many D2 did he find in this hotspot? How many D2 or Isles A did he find on the continent? (Nordtvedt had just one A and only six D.) And how does Forster make a classification? This is important because both FTDNA and Ancestry seem to have some problems with their classifications. (That could perhaps be to encourage more testing as this is revenue to both??) Still, the decision rules need to be made public. Do you know what they are?

"He too thinks the Anglo-Saxons brought it." If the Anglo-Saxons brought it, how did it get to be tilted Irish? I'm sorry, dude, but that is just ludicrous.

"individuals with Irish surnames..." All of what we are discussing was so long ago that people didn't have surnames - so they are really irrelevant. And certainly the Scots don't have Doggerlandish surnames either.

"the continental distribution is growing with no Irish surnames there." Yes, but with some suspiciously English names. And even so, the total continental population of I2a2b is less than 60 individuals in the public info. That small a number is totally submerged in the margin of error.

So you are telling me there is no proof. Am I to take it all on faith?

 

[Yorkie]

Can you blame for having some doubts about this when:

The opinions of Sykes, et al. that you mention are not written down and therefore available for scrutiny as to what they might mean, what conditions might apply, etc, and

The opinions they have written do not relate to I2a2b, and

The data that would prove this is held in private databases, again not subject to scrutiny, and

None of the public databases show any support whatsoever for these contentions.

Really.

"The 'source' population was there for some I2a2b-Isles to have been included in the Anglo-Saxon genetic make-up, as Nordvedt considers the clade to have been founded in northern Germany." The clade, and/or its pre-L161 antecedents, came through northern Germany maybe 9,000 years ago and seem to have suffered several "bottleneck" situations since. It is really a major stretch to suggest that they were still there 7,000 years later in the heyday of the Anglo-Saxons, especially when the public info does not support this at all in any way.

"Notice that there is an absence in Wales of I2a2b-Isles. Maybe that in itself is a hint as to an Anglo-Saxon connection for the English/Scots I2a2b?" If that were true, then Ireland should likewise be devoid of I2a2b. The situation is actually the reverse. Therefore, it is not true, and suggests the lack of any A/S connection.

"Sykes classifies I2a2b when found in Englishmen..." Does he report this classification? Has Sykes ever reported to an individual, "Yes, you are I2a2b Isles-x"? How does he do the classification? What are his decision rules? Can his classifications be replicated by anyone else?

"hotspot for my I2a2b-Isles D2..." How many D2 did he find in this hotspot? How many D2 or Isles A did he find on the continent? (Nordtvedt had just one A and only six D.) And how does Forster make a classification? This is important because both FTDNA and Ancestry seem to have some problems with their classifications. (That could perhaps be to encourage more testing as this is revenue to both??) Still, the decision rules need to be made public. Do you know what they are?

"He too thinks the Anglo-Saxons brought it." If the Anglo-Saxons brought it, how did it get to be tilted Irish? I'm sorry, dude, but that is just ludicrous.

"individuals with Irish surnames..." All of what we are discussing was so long ago that people didn't have surnames - so they are really irrelevant. And certainly the Scots don't have Doggerlandish surnames either.

"the continental distribution is growing with no Irish surnames there." Yes, but with some suspiciously English names. And even so, the total continental population of I2a2b is less than 60 individuals in the public info. That small a number is totally submerged in the margin of error.

So you are telling me there is no proof. Am I to take it all on faith?

Sykes DOES classify I2a2b signatures like mine as Anglo-Saxon if the background is English, and not just on 12 marker haplotypes.He is unconvinced that we can date I2a2b back to the Neolithic in Britain. As was the case with Forster, the reanalysis both conducted was on a 43 marker haplotype. I can't help it if there is little written on I2a2b, or if Forster's data is anonymised. As for Nordtvedt, ask him- he has said that it is 'possible' that the Anglo-Saxons carried some I2a2b. In all cases, these people ARE referring to I2a2b NOT I2a

Jean Manco is referring to I2a2b too NOT I2a in this quote from 'The Peopling of Europe'...

'I2a2b -L161 has several clusters, according to Nordtvedt, the earliest of which has a TMRCA of 3,370 BC and probably arose in Germany. So its ancestors may have been among farmers leaving the Balkans to create the first farming culture of Central Europe- the LBK'. Jean has since suggested an alternative scenario involving a later date and dairy farming [prior to Germany].

Additionally, Jean goes on to say about I2a2b-Isles...

'From there [Germany] it could have passed into the British Isles with the Celts and to some extent with the Anglo-Saxons'.

So, you see, JD, it is NOT just me that believes I2a2b-Isles was brought to Britain in different 'waves' and that a percentage was carried by the Germanic Anglo-Saxons.

You really don't like the idea of any Anglo-Saxon involvement in the story of I2a2b-Isles, do you? I suspect that is true of certain people on Ancestry.com too....

 

[jdanel]

Sykes DOES classify I2a2b signatures like mine as Anglo-Saxon if the background is English, and not just on 12 marker haplotypes.He is unconvinced that we can date I2a2b back to the Neolithic in Britain. As was the case with Forster, the reanalysis both conducted was on a 43 marker haplotype. I can't help it if there is little written on I2a2b, or if Forster's data is anonymised. As for Nordtvedt, ask him- he has said that it is 'possible' that the Anglo-Saxons carried some I2a2b. In all cases, these people ARE referring to I2a2b NOT I2a

Jean Manco is referring to I2a2b too NOT I2a in this quote from 'The Peopling of Europe'...

'I2a2b -L161 has several clusters, according to Nordtvedt, the earliest of which has a TMRCA of 3,370 BC and probably arose in Germany. So its ancestors may have been among farmers leaving the Balkans to create the first farming culture of Central Europe- the LBK'. Jean has since suggested an alternative scenario involving a later date and dairy farming [prior to Germany].

Additionally, Jean goes on to say about I2a2b-Isles...

'From there [Germany] it could have passed into the British Isles with the Celts and to some extent with the Anglo-Saxons'.

So, you see, JD, it is NOT just me that believes I2a2b-Isles was brought to Britain in different 'waves' and that a percentage was carried by the Germanic Anglo-Saxons.

You really don't like the idea of any Anglo-Saxon involvement in the story of I2a2b-Isles, do you? I suspect that is true of certain people on Ancestry.com too....

It is not that I don't like it - it might add some glamour.

But I do not see any data that supports it - only opinions unsupported by data or only supported by hidden data or contradicted by the public data..

"DOES classify I2a2b signatures like mine as Anglo-Saxon if the background is English" And where are the modern continental Anglo-Saxons - the missing 'source population' - who are I2a2b? Certainly the lonely 42 Isles B on the continent are not a sufficient answer to that question.

And what does he classify them if the background is unknown or known to be not English?

"'I2a2b -L161 has several clusters, according to Nordtvedt, the earliest of which has a TMRCA of 3,370 BC and probably arose in Germany. So its ancestors may have been among farmers leaving the Balkans to create the first farming culture of Central Europe- the LBK'. Jean has since suggested an alternative scenario involving a later date and dairy farming [prior to Germany]."

This is completely consistent with what is shown on the Grandfather map. In this context, however, I think that "Germany" could refer to anywhere from Doggerland to Moldova. Most likely Doggerland.

"He is unconvinced that we can date I2a2b back to the Neolithic in Britain." So all those I2a2b are post neolithic? Absurd. When does he date it to? And how does he explain the distribution? The devil is in the details.

"it is 'possible' that the Anglo-Saxons carried some I2a2b..."; "and that a percentage..." I agree under the condition that the percentage may be out about the 6th decimal place where the info is lost in the margin of error - and so any assertion of it is useless and misleading.

 

[Yorkie]

It is not that I don't like it - it might add some glamour.

But I do not see any data that supports it - only opinions unsupported by data or only supported by hidden data or contradicted by the public data..

"DOES classify I2a2b signatures like mine as Anglo-Saxon if the background is English" And where are the modern continental Anglo-Saxons - the missing 'source population' - who are I2a2b? Certainly the lonely 42 Isles B on the continent are not a sufficient answer to that question.

And what does he classify them if the background is unknown or known to be not English?

"'I2a2b -L161 has several clusters, according to Nordtvedt, the earliest of which has a TMRCA of 3,370 BC and probably arose in Germany. So its ancestors may have been among farmers leaving the Balkans to create the first farming culture of Central Europe- the LBK'. Jean has since suggested an alternative scenario involving a later date and dairy farming [prior to Germany]."

This is completely consistent with what is shown on the Grandfather map. In this context, however, I think that "Germany" could refer to anywhere from Doggerland to Moldova. Most likely Doggerland.

"He is unconvinced that we can date I2a2b back to the Neolithic in Britain." So all those I2a2b are post neolithic? Absurd. When does he date it to? And how does he explain the distribution? The devil is in the details.

"it is 'possible' that the Anglo-Saxons carried some I2a2b..."; "and that a percentage..." I agree under the condition that the percentage may be out about the 6th decimal place where the info is lost in the margin of error - and so any assertion of it is useless and misleading.

We will have to agree to differ re the Anglo-Saxons and I2a2b.

We DO agree that the bulk is ancient, at least Neolithic, and linked to Ireland. What makes you so confident about Doggerland as a foundation place? I agree that I2a2b may have entered Britain via Doggerland, perhaps heading for Scotland first, but Nordtvedt favours northern Germany as a foundation place. I am not sure that we can stretch it to include Doggerland to Moldova. I think Ken means the geographical location equivalent to today's north Germany. I like the idea of Doggerland but 'liking' is not sufficient.

 

[jdanel]

We will have to agree to differ re the Anglo-Saxons and I2a2b.

We DO agree that the bulk is ancient, at least Neolithic, and linked to Ireland. What makes you so confident about Doggerland as a foundation place? I agree that I2a2b may have entered Britain via Doggerland, perhaps heading for Scotland first, but Nordtvedt favours northern Germany as a foundation place. I am not sure that we can stretch it to include Doggerland to Moldova. I think Ken means the geographical location equivalent to today's north Germany. I like the idea of Doggerland but 'liking' is not sufficient.

"confident about Doggerland as a foundation place?"

I am not confident that it was founded any particular place.

That location is unknowable, now and probably forever.

But we are not really discussing the unknown location of Mr. L161, the founder, who really could have been back at the mouth of the Dneister. Not likely, but could have been, or any place in between.

We are really discussing the location of our MRCA - that Pre-isles guy who lived somewhere about 6,000 ya., which is right on the meso/neo boundary. Since we think there is probably a late meso presence on Britain, that seems to me to establish the arrival somewhat before that time.

Furthermore, it is clear that there has been a major bottleneck in the genetics and population about 6,000 BC give or take a bunch. The only apparent, and blindingly obvious, mechanism is the Storegga Tsunamis and the sinking of Doggerland at 6,200 BC. The strength of these coincidences is just too much to ignore.

Doggerland is a relatively new concept and the tsunami info is only a couple of years old. It could well be that KN mentioned northern Germany before he became aware of Doggerland. There is no reason for him to change his statement because it is all conjecture, but I wonder, if he were back at at square one on that decision, would he include Doggerland as part, perhaps the biggest, of the possibilities.

What facts would cause one to prefer someplace further east, ignoring that dandy bottleneck mechanism right there at the right time and the right place?

Nothing that I am aware of.

 

[Yorkie]

"confident about Doggerland as a foundation place?"

I am not confident that it was founded any particular place.

That location is unknowable, now and probably forever.

But we are not really discussing the unknown location of Mr. L161, the founder, who really could have been back at the mouth of the Dneister. Not likely, but could have been, or any place in between.

We are really discussing the location of our MRCA - that Pre-isles guy who lived somewhere about 6,000 ya., which is right on the meso/neo boundary. Since we think there is probably a late meso presence on Britain, that seems to me to establish the arrival somewhat before that time.

Furthermore, it is clear that there has been a major bottleneck in the genetics and population about 6,000 BC give or take a bunch. The only apparent, and blindingly obvious, mechanism is the Storegga Tsunamis and the sinking of Doggerland at 6,200 BC. The strength of these coincidences is just too much to ignore.

Doggerland is a relatively new concept and the tsunami info is only a couple of years old. It could well be that KN mentioned northern Germany before he became aware of Doggerland. There is no reason for him to change his statement because it is all conjecture, but I wonder, if he were back at at square one on that decision, would he include Doggerland as part, perhaps the biggest, of the possibilities.

What facts would cause one to prefer someplace further east, ignoring that dandy bottleneck mechanism right there at the right time and the right place?

Nothing that I am aware of.

You may well be right re the bottleneck, tsunami and Doggerland. Maybe I/we should put this directly to Ken Nordtvedt?

 

[jdanel]

You may well be right re the bottleneck, tsunami and Doggerland. Maybe I/we should put this directly to Ken Nordtvedt?

I would love to know his thoughts if he would agree to comment on these conjectures.

 

[North Italian I2a2]

***First time post!***

Hello everyone! I am not a student of genetics or an expert in any way at all in this subject. I am just trying to find out a bit more about my ancestral roots. I am of Northern Italian origin (Piedmont region) on my paternal line. Also half Italian on my maternal line. My paternal haplogroup is I2a2. I'm not sure what subclade I belong to.

Curiously, I am told that several of my genetic markers appear to be "Isles". For instance, I am G at rs9786274. Whatever this actually means I'm not sure. But I am fascinated by the fact that even though I have documented evidence (complete family trees) that my direct ancestors came from Northern Italy, genetically, I am an "Isles" person...

In order to possibly get new insights into this puzzle, a few months ago I participated in a YDNA-SNPs-Comparison Project, administered by someone by the name of Adriano Squecco. He e-mailed me the results in a spreadsheet with all kinds of data which of course, I cannot understand.

Does anyone here have any suggestions?

THANK YOU ALL!

 

[sparkey]

***First time post!***

Welcome! I can probably help you figure out more about this.

Hello everyone! I am not a student of genetics or an expert in any way at all in this subject. I am just trying to find out a bit more about my ancestral roots. I am of Northern Italian origin (Piedmont region) on my paternal line. Also half Italian on my maternal line. My paternal haplogroup is I2a2. I'm not sure what subclade I belong to.

Curiously, I am told that several of my genetic markers appear to be "Isles". For instance, I am G at rs9786274. Whatever this actually means I'm not sure. But I am fascinated by the fact that even though I have documented evidence (complete family trees) that my direct ancestors came from Northern Italy, genetically, I am an "Isles" person...

What "G at rs9786274" means is that you don't have the L69 SNP that defines other branches of "I2a2" (nowadays called "I2a1b" most places, and I'll use that term from now on). The first of three main branches of I2a1b is I2a1b1a, or "I2a-Din," which is the main subclade in the Balkans. The population of Bosnia has a tremendously high amount of I2a-Din at nearly 50%. The other two are much more rare. I2a1b1*, or I2a-Disles, is a tiny subclade mostly restricted to Scotland. I2a1b2, or I2a-Isles, is probably yours. It is somewhat of an out member in this group, and is also the oldest. It is most frequent in Britain and Ireland, but more likely arose around Northern Germany, and is frequently associated with Doggerland. A Northern Italian carrier of it would suggest to me someone with a Germanic background in the distant past. And if you want to go even farther in the distant past, understand that all of Haplogroup I represents Paleolithic European remnants, as opposed to more recent arrivals, like R1b.

Have you taken any STR tests? If not, my guess is that, since your Isles line is continental, you likely belong to the "B" cluster, which is the oldest. If so, you can confirm this by comparing to individuals at the I2a FTDNA Project. I would be very surprised if you were in, say, an Irish cluster.

In order to possibly get new insights into this puzzle, a few months ago I participated in a YDNA-SNPs-Comparison Project, administered by someone by the name of Adriano Squecco. He e-mailed me the results in a spreadsheet with all kinds of data which of course, I cannot understand.

Can you tell if he tested L161? That's the one that defines Isles.

 

[jdanel]

***First time post!***

Hello everyone! I am not a student of genetics or an expert in any way at all in this subject. I am just trying to find out a bit more about my ancestral roots. I am of Northern Italian origin (Piedmont region) on my paternal line. Also half Italian on my maternal line. My paternal haplogroup is I2a2. I'm not sure what subclade I belong to.

Curiously, I am told that several of my genetic markers appear to be "Isles". For instance, I am G at rs9786274. Whatever this actually means I'm not sure. But I am fascinated by the fact that even though I have documented evidence (complete family trees) that my direct ancestors came from Northern Italy, genetically, I am an "Isles" person...

In order to possibly get new insights into this puzzle, a few months ago I participated in a YDNA-SNPs-Comparison Project, administered by someone by the name of Adriano Squecco. He e-mailed me the results in a spreadsheet with all kinds of data which of course, I cannot understand.

Does anyone here have any suggestions?

THANK YOU ALL!

Sparkey has given you excellent info - I only wish to add a couple of things:

How far back does your family tree go? We are talking about a group that has origins - depending on what specifically you are talking about - as far back as 6,000 BC and MRCA 1,500 years or more.

If you are Isles A, C, or D, then it is clear that you have an Isles connection and your ancestors somehow sometime came from the Isles.

The source of B is still open to dispute. Many (most?) believe that it had an origin on the continent and that those very few Bs still on the continent could trace back to them. The other side of this question is that B is also an Isles group and that those few isolated Bs on the continent can be accounted for by medieval-to-modern travel and by the slave trading practices of the Anglo-Saxons. (see for instance Jean Manco's article: http://www.buildinghistory.org/bristol/saxonslaves.shtml )

So which are you?

--------------------------

Here is a "quick and dirty" (it isn't perfect and isn't very well tested) predictor to make a guess at which group you may be in:

“Quick and Dirty” classification within I2a
P 37.2 I2a
1 if 437 = 16 is F
2 if 388 = 15 either western or I2a west isles
3 and 385b = 16 then west isles
M26 I2a1
4 if YCA-IIa = 11 I2a1
M423 I2a2a
5 if 385a = 14 either DinaricN or S
6 and 448 = 19 then DinS
7 if 385a = 15 then Disles
L161 I2a2b
8 if 394(19a) = 16 is B1
9 if 391 = 10 is D1
10 if 392 = 12 is C2
11 if 389ii = 29 is A2
12 If 390 = 25
and 391 ≠ 10 then B2
13 If 454 = 12
and 389ii ≠ 29 then A1
14 if 385a = 11
and 391 ≠ 10 then D2
15 if none of the above then maybe C1

 

[North Italian I2a2]

Hi Sparkey!Thank you for your insights! I will definitely check into joining the I2a FTDNA Project ASAP. I am not sure I’vetaken any STR tests. Also, I have no clue whether or not Adriano tested L161. Ichecked the spreadsheet he sent me and I found nothing related to it. But, I ama layman here… I was wondering if you might be interested in checking out thedata he sent me directly. I’d be more than happy to e-mail it to you. And I’dbe grateful if you could help me decipher it. If you’re interested, let meknow.
Thank youonce again!

Dan

 

[North Italian I2a2]

How far back does your family tree go? We are talking about a group that hasorigins - depending on what specifically you are talking about - as far back as6,000 BC and MRCA 1,500 years or more.

If you are Isles A, C, or D, then it is clearthat you have an Isles connection and your ancestors somehow sometime came fromthe Isles.
So which areyou?
Here is a"quick and dirty" (it isn't perfect and isn't very well tested)predictor to make a guess at which group you may be

Hi jdanel!Thank you for your reply. Regarding your question about my family tree, we cantrace my father’s paternal line as far back as the year 1700, and his maternalline as far back as the early 1800s. My ancestors on both these lines lived in theNorthwestern region of the Italic peninsula, called Piedmont, very close to theFrench border. I fully understand this has no significance in terms of ourgenetic roots which go back thousands of years. In fact, when I found out there were some “Isles”markers in my genetic makeup I thought that perhaps sometime during the RomanEmpire, which had rather porous borders, one of my ancestors may have beendeployed to the province of Britannia, or a Briton may have been brought to theItalic peninsula. Obviously, this is all meaningless conjecture.
I have noclue if I am an A, B, C or D. But I’d love to find out!!! This is the verypurpose of my joining this forum. I’d love to be able to use the “Quick andDirty” prediction test that you suggested but I am a layman…I wouldn’t knowwhere to start. This why I sent my raw data to people like Adriano Squecco,with the purpose of finding out more about my Y DNA. Unfortunately, I am unableto read/interpret his findings myself.

 

[mul]

It sounds to me that the test you have done is from 23andme , because you said that you have sent your results to Adriano Squecco . At the moment all you get from the 23andme is the M423 snp and not the L161 that covers the Isles guys. M423 covers a range of I2a groups including Isles
G at rs9786274. is an indication of Isles because Dinaric and Diles has a T at this rs number

 

[North Italian I2a2]

Thank you mul! Yes, I had the 23andMe test done. That's where I got my raw data. What I need to know is WHICH of the tests offered by FTDNA is best for me, so I can have a better picture of where I stand in terms of my Isles genetic heritage. Should I go for the basic? Would this be enough? I have no clue...

 

[sparkey]

Thank you mul! Yes, I had the 23andMe test done. That's where I got my raw data. What I need to know is WHICH of the tests offered by FTDNA is best for me, so I can have a better picture of where I stand in terms of my Isles genetic heritage. Should I go for the basic? Would this be enough? I have no clue...

I'd be surprised if Y-DNA 37 wasn't enough for you. Every STR in jdanel's post is covered by it. You'd also be able to order an SNP test afterward, but probably won't even need to if you get the 37 marker test.

 

[North Italian I2a2]

Thank you Sparkey. I will take the Y-DNA 37 test and see what comes out. Can't wait!!!

 

[MOESAN]

some questions:
at what time put you this 'Neolithic' in the Isles???
what are the %s of I2a2 (I2a1b)-Isles respectively to others Y-I2a-... s in Ireland, Brittain, Europe? (because %s among only I2a-Isles bearers by country don"t make sense to me)
for the fun because I am "short" for this thread, what about Bell Beakers (-2900?) in the Isles? (and others send with germanic invasions, of course)
thanks beforehand