I2a2 M423+

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

It's not 100% clear when I2a-Isles got to the British Isles. I currently think that half of it (C/D) was there by the end of the Neolithic or at least the Bronze Age, and the other half (A/B) may have come mainly with the Anglo-Saxons. Although, that's different than what I used to think, and probably different than what I will think once I get more info.

I2a1b2-Isles is the most common I2a1 subclade in the British Isles. The only serious challenge comes from I2a1c1-Western. I2a1a is also anciently present, but is not particularly common. I2a1b1*-Disles, although exclusive to the British Isles, is very rare. I2a1b1a-Din is almost absent.
 
Hey Sparkey! This is probably a dumb question: How is the correlation between what is known from history and anthropological studies and what is being discovered strictly through genetic research normally established? I mean, how do we know arrive at the probability that I2a Isles got to the British Isles "at the end of the Neolithic or at least the Bronze Age"? Just curious here...
 
Hey Sparkey! This is probably a dumb question: How is the correlation between what is known from history and anthropological studies and what is being discovered strictly through genetic research normally established? I mean, how do we know arrive at the probability that I2a Isles got to the British Isles "at the end of the Neolithic or at least the Bronze Age"? Just curious here...

It's highly speculative and contentious right now. The evidence we have usually involves the estimated ages of subclades, and their comparative diversity in certain areas. These are known as "STR dating" or "TMRCA estimation" and "STR geographic diversity analysis." After we get those things, we make an educated guess. (Although some deny that these are useful tools at all, including influential genetic anthropologists like Dienekes, I definitely believe them to be very useful.) Sometimes we also have ancient DNA samples to look at, but unfortunately, we don't have any right now for I2a-Isles.

A good resource for Haplogroup I is Ken Nordtvedt's tree and map. For I2a-Isles, you're looking for "L161" or "I2a1b2-Isles" on that.
 
Sparkey,
in latest sampling from Serbia, the I2a2 M423 in Serbia is said to have very high diversity and it is estimated to be 9000 years old... so, it seems that Ken Nordvedt is based on his limited sample from "y family tree dna" database off for like 6500 years regarding age of I2a2-Din...or alternatively, some of I2a2 samples are not Dinaric

"High levels of Paleolithic Y-chromosome lineages characterize Serbia"
Maria Regueiro, Luis Rivera, Tatjana Damnjanovic, Ljiljana Lukovic, Jelena Milasin, Rene J. Herrera
 
Sparkey,
in latest sampling from Serbia, the I2a2 M423 in Serbia is said to have very high diversity and it is estimated to be 9000 years old... so, it seems that Ken Nordvedt is based on his limited sample from "y family tree dna" database off for like 6500 years regarding age of I2a2-Din...or alternatively, some of I2a2 samples are not Dinaric

"High levels of Paleolithic Y-chromosome lineages characterize Serbia"
Maria Regueiro, Luis Rivera, Tatjana Damnjanovic, Ljiljana Lukovic, Jelena Milasin, Rene J. Herrera

I've only read the abstract of that one, and I must say, the abstract is terrible. In it, they basically declare the R1a and I (both I2a and I1) to have been in the Balkans since the Paleolithic. Personally, I'd estimate 0% of R1a and I currently in the Balkans to have been there since the Paleolithic. So I'd really like to see their reasoning. Since it says that they tested 17 STRs each on 103 samples total, I doubt their analysis trumps Nordtvedt here.
 
I've only read the abstract of that one, and I must say, the abstract is terrible. In it, they basically declare the R1a and I (both I2a and I1) to have been in the Balkans since the Paleolithic. Personally, I'd estimate 0% of R1a and I currently in the Balkans to have been there since the Paleolithic. So I'd really like to see their reasoning. Since it says that they tested 17 STRs each on 103 samples total, I doubt their analysis trumps Nordtvedt here.
I've only read the abstract of that one, and I must say, the abstract is terrible. In it, they basically declare the R1a and I (both I2a and I1) to have been in the Balkans since the Paleolithic. Personally, I'd estimate 0% of R1a and I currently in the Balkans to have been there since the Paleolithic. So I'd really like to see their reasoning. Since it says that they tested 17 STRs each on 103 samples total, I doubt their analysis trumps Nordtvedt here.
well, you may not like claim that R1a is paleolithic in Europe, but there are two things to distinguish: estimated age and diversity of haplogroups which is done in standard ways, and the way that is interpreted...so it is funny that you deny very standard calculations based on not liking interpretation that you btw did not read yet...how many samples from Serbia are in y family tree DNA I2a project?1-2?here we talk about 29.1% hence 29 people from one geographical region with I2a2its quite clear that such big sample can easily give results about higher diversity if there is one...paper estimates age of I2a2 in Serbs at 9000 year old and I have absolutely no reason to doubt it...paper is published in renowned jurnal, it has passed review, so it is good enough...what peer review did forum thoughts of Nordvedt passed through? what is his sample size on I2a2 in Serbia?anyway, since you judge paper that you didnot read, let me point out few key points in their interpretation of datait is never stated that paleolithic and neolithic lineages is about those lineages being in Balkan...its about age of lineages and extreme high diversity of R1a and I2a2 in Serbia...R1a1a-M198 has particularly high haplotype diversity in Serbia (0.9905±0.0178). They say how typically 3 major waves are used to describe R1a in southeast Europe:1) recolonization from the refugium in the Ukraine (early post-LGM, ~20–12 KYA)2) Kurgan culture expansion 3) massive Slavic expansion they quote Gimbutas opinion that Kurgan expansion resulted in spread of IE languages...and Zerjal et al that haplogroup R1a is believed to be majority of Kurgan gene poolthey point out that Kurgan ancient DNA samples from south Siberia supports the assumption of Zerjal (Keyser et al 2009) as all individuals except one with haplogroup C do belong to R1a1 lineages...than they point out that estimated range expansion ((14.0±3.3 KYA) , mean variance (0.384) and high diversity (0.9905±0.0178) among Serbian R1a1a-M198 carriers, are consistent with previous studies (Peričić et al., 2005; Semino et al., 2000; Wells et al., 2001) that suggest the common ancestor for all R1a1a-M198 individuals in the Balkans existed in Paleolithic times.Note that they do not explicitly say existed in Balkan in Paleolithic times... but existed in Paleolithic times...the indicate that previous research shows that R1a1a7 displays high diversity among Slavic and Finno-Ugric peoples (coalescent time ~11 KYA) and the most diversity of R1a1a* among Indo-Aryan andDravidian speakers (coalescent time in India ~14 KYA) (Underhill et al., 2010). However,analysis of both chromosomes in Serbia revealed higher R1a1a7-M458 diversity than R1a1a*(xM458) diversity - respectively 14 KYA and 11 KYA.Then they conclude that therefore, this high diversity and estimated age of microsatellite variation in Serbia, might be inflated by the aforementioned superimposed migrations involving R1a individuals that penetrated Europe thus placing the R1a haplogroup more recent in time, during the early Holocene (Klyosov, 2009), rather than representing a deeper Paleolithic signal in Europe (Peričić et al., 2005; Semino et al., 2000). So I do not know why are you biased and judge article without reading it...I will agree that title is provocative... they also show maps with frequencies of different haplogroups and also maps with supposed paleolithic (R1a and I) and neolithic (E, J, G and R1b) haplogroups... they interpret the two maps in sense that those maps are hallmarks of an expansion, possibly of farmers from the Near East pushing on Mesolithic settlements against the bottom of a geographical sack or obstacle, the Adriatic Sea.I do not really completelly agree with that... I think that most R1a and I2a2 in Serbia came with Serbs... but I do think that ancestors of Serbs were also there before as Scordisci and Serians and earlier in past also as Sherdana, and in my interpretation of "sea peoples" known facts, I explain that Kurds are in fact genetically and by tribal name derived from Sherdana.... so I can agree that large R1a and I2a2 populations were present in Balkans in long past... but not continuously...so I think that we witness kind of Paleolithic vs neolithic lineages waves of taking over Serbia (it is kind of cross-road country with big strategical significance).... last waves being roman empire pushing out Scordisci resulting in expansion of neolithic waves from Greece and Illyria, and return of paleolithic wave in shape of proto-Serbs.. while Serbs of today I see as result of proto-Serbs mixing with previous mostly neolithic lineages...
 
and if you do not like the way in which my previous post looks like...
I do not like it either...

my account is messed up (not welcome sign?) so that 9 0 f 10 times I try to load page (when logged in) or post I get "server to busy" message or "error, page cannot be found"... when my post does break through, I can see it lacks all the spaces and newlines... so not much I can do about it...if you mind it, complain to Maciamo...
 
btw. though it is painful for wishful thinking of many west european racists, R1a is rightfully called Paleolithic as based on data it clearly is paleolithic in Europe (not necessarily on Balkan) as:


1) R1a1a7 (M458) is confined to Europe where center of cluster is in Poland
2) the lineage has in Serbs estimated age of 14 KYA which falls in Paleolithic times...
 
well, you may not like claim that R1a is paleolithic in Europe, but there are two things to distinguish: estimated age and diversity of haplogroups which is done in standard ways, and the way that is interpreted...

Well, I do think that R1a is Paleolithic in (certain parts of) Europe, I just doubt that extant R1a in the Balkans in particular is so old, at least entirely. I'm sure you agree that at least some of it came later, like you mentioned later in your post above. That's why I'm criticizing the abstract of this particular paper for apparently claiming that all I1, I2a, and R1a has been in the Balkans since the Paleolithic. That's the way it makes it sound.

I suspect that Serbia is a pooling point for R1a, but admit that I haven't done as much research into it as I have Haplogroup I, and I am always interested in evidence one way or another.

so it is funny that you deny very standard calculations based on not liking interpretation that you btw did not read yet...

Someone has offered me a copy, so I'll analyze it more if I receive it. But the abstract doesn't really present what they found other than frequencies of a few haplogroups and the declaration that I1, I2a, and R1a are Paleolithic without any real rationale. Maybe the paper will be better than the abstract.

how many samples from Serbia are in y family tree DNA I2a project?1-2?here we talk about 29.1% hence 29 people from one geographical region with I2a2its quite clear that such big sample can easily give results about higher diversity if there is one...

I count 7 members from Serbia, plus many more in neighboring areas, plus the fact that all but one had more markers than 17, which is rather low, plus the fact that Nordtvedt doesn't only look at the I2a Project...

paper estimates age of I2a2 in Serbs at 9000 year old and I have absolutely no reason to doubt it...

A good reason to doubt it is that 9,000 years ago is before every estimate I've seen of the TMRCA of I2a1b1 (Disles and Dinaric together). Perhaps they found an out member of I2a1b1? If so, that's a remarkable find that I'd like to see. Their abstract doesn't mention anything like that, though.
 
Well, I do think that R1a is Paleolithic in (certain parts of) Europe, I just doubt that extant R1a in the Balkans in particular is so old, at least entirely. I'm sure you agree that at least some of it came later, like you mentioned later in your post above. That's why I'm criticizing the abstract of this particular paper for apparently claiming that all I1, I2a, and R1a has been in the Balkans since the Paleolithic. That's the way it makes it sound.
part of it surely came with Slavs... but that is also what authors of the paper wrote later in text.... that high diversity of R1a is likely due to several waves of migration...however, they have right to call R1a1a7-M458 Paleolithic in Europe..as it is confined to Europe and this research estimates its age to 14KYA which falls in Paleolithic times...
I suspect that Serbia is a pooling point for R1a, but admit that I haven't done as much research into it as I have Haplogroup I, and I am always interested in evidence one way or another.
I am sure there are different layers of R1a.... part of it surely came with Slavic speaking tribes... but maybe not so much as many people think...I believe Pelasgians were dominantly R1a and ancient Macedonians probably as well...e.g. I remember one work that did sample and compare Albanians from west Macedonia (FYRM) with (FYRM) Macedonians...and R1a was more or less the same in both and in fact larger than in Montenegro...while difference between Albanians and Macedonians was I2a2....Albanians had almost none and Macedonians more or less on level of other south Slavs...also I2a2 has its absolute dominance in Herzegovina which is in fact part of Dinaric mountains, where Serbs and I guess also Croats initially settled.... which makes sense as mountains are strategic positions in turbulent times and areas, and a tribe is on a mountain much safer and can defend itself and expand much more easily....
A good reason to doubt it is that 9,000 years ago is before every estimate I've seen of the TMRCA of I2a1b1 (Disles and Dinaric together). Perhaps they found an out member of I2a1b1? If so, that's a remarkable find that I'd like to see. Their abstract doesn't mention anything like that, though.
looking at supplementary data of the paper, there is one M423 sample with 385a = 15, so I guess it is one DIsles indeed... and 448 = 19 in 21 of remaining 28 M423 samples, hence probably 21 Din-S, 7 Din-N and 1 DIsles...but someone who knows more should look at it....
 
looking at supplementary data of the paper, there is one M423 sample with 385a = 15, so I guess it is one DIsles indeed... and 448 = 19 in 21 of remaining 28 M423 samples, hence probably 21 Din-S, 7 Din-N and 1 DIsles...but someone who knows more should look at it....

OK, I just took a look myself. I did a quick run of modal comparisons of the I2a1b samples to Disles and Din-S, and got closer to Din-S on all but two, both of which got 4 to Din-S and 3 to Disles. There was also one that was a curiously high 6 from Din-S (but still farther from Disles at 7).

My interpretation of these:

The first 4/3 GD seems to be clearly a Din-S due to its 19 at 448, not to mention its 16 at DYS19 and 14 at 385a. It converges with Disles on 389II, 391, 439, and 458, all of which are faster mutating. So no real doubt that this isn't the TMRCA extender we're looking for.

The second 4/3 GD is similar except that it is apparently Din-N. If we adjust for 448, then we get an apparent Din-N with minor convergence with Disles on fast mutating markers. Still nothing to challenge what we already knew.

The 6/7 (the 15-13-19 one) is curious in that its GD is distant enough from both to make its status as either potentially questionable, although at only 16 markers (I had to drop one due to it not being present in FTDNA data), it still leaves room for more markers to establish its place. But again, all its differences are on fast mutating markers, which doesn't tell us enough. I'm really guessing this one to be Din-N, which it is closer to than either Din-S or Disles, especially due to the 20 at DYS448.

Finally, the 15 at 385a is indeed curious, but it has a tiny GD overall from Din-N (I believe 2 or 3, I don't have the Din-N modal handy but it's only 4 from Din-S), compare to 7 vs. Disles. That indicates it is Din-N with a rare convergence on a slow mutating value.

So... with nothing reaching above a 5 GD on the measured markers, when the modal GD from Din-S to Disles is 7 on the same markers, I think we see that everything they sampled falls within I2a-Din. Nordtvedt's TMRCA calculation for I2a1b1 as a whole is 6,000 YBP, meaning that someone is wrong here. I'm still guessing it's the authors of this paper, thanks to their sampling of too few markers, and using older methodology, including Zhivotovsky et al, which is one I've read has some erroneous mutation rates.
 
Hello all!

I am formerly North Italian I2a2. Since I just got my results from FTDNA and they tell me I am I2a2b, I changed my handle here to reflect this. I had signed up for the Y-DNA 37 marker test. The results point to a surprising "exact match" at the 12 marker level: IRELAND. I am more confused then ever... I thought the results would point to a continental origin (Doggerland?). But, not so...

Cheers!
 
Hello all!

I am formerly North Italian I2a2. Since I just got my results from FTDNA and they tell me I am I2a2b, I changed my handle here to reflect this. I had signed up for the Y-DNA 37 marker test. The results point to a surprising "exact match" at the 12 marker level: IRELAND. I am more confused then ever... I thought the results would point to a continental origin (Doggerland?). But, not so...

Cheers!

So, you only have 12 out of 37 markers so far? I suggest you wait for all 37 before drawing conclusions.

It will be really interesting if you're in one of the "Irish" groups, though. Are your results in the FTDNA I2a Project yet?
 
So, you only have 12 out of 37 markers so far? I suggest you wait for all 37 before drawing conclusions.

It will be really interesting if you're in one of the "Irish" groups, though. Are your results in the FTDNA I2a Project yet?

Nothing at all came out of the 37 marker test. What does this mean?? I guess I'll never know if I'm in one the "Irish" groups, right? Another weird thing...they matched me to some person in New Zealand. Anyway, I did join one of the names projects and I will be joining the FTDNA I2a Project soon.
 
Nothing at all came out of the 37 marker test. What does this mean?? I guess I'll never know if I'm in one the "Irish" groups, right? Another weird thing...they matched me to some person in New Zealand. Anyway, I did join one of the names projects and I will be joining the FTDNA I2a Project soon.

Let me know which kit number you are in the I2a Project once you join. I'm guessing that nothing comes up because you're an outlier among current samples.
 
Let me know which kit number you are in the I2a Project once you join. I'm guessing that nothing comes up because you're an outlier among current samples.

it would be interesting to know if he came from northwest, north central or northeast.

If its northwest , it seems he would be a majority minority in a hugely R1b 152
 
There is one that I know of and is Isles B
Y search AHZRH is from north west Italy near Turin
 
I'm currently in communication with Nordtvedt, and according to him, three marker values in my Y-chromosome haplotype - DYS511=9, DYS446=12, and DYS640=12 - place my haplotype as an outlier within Isles D with no real matches yet. The only other two matches share my surname and, as such, are certainly of my family. I've just never met them. That's exciting in a way, I guess, but I was really hoping for more answers to come out of researching my DNA. I wish I2a1b2 had more representation. It's frustrating to have so little carriers to compare DNA to, and to find so little information on the haplogroup that didn't come from Nordtvedt himself.

Oftentimes websites, such as 23andme, don't even seem to KNOW about Isles, describing I2a1 as a solely Eastern European haplogroup.
 
Oftentimes websites, such as 23andme, don't even seem to KNOW about Isles, describing I2a1 as a solely Eastern European haplogroup.

23 and me do not test the L161 snp only the M423 one ,
Because of this its no wonder that we all come from the Balkins
Isles is a name that Ken Nordtvedt invented to describe L161 people , its his invention and his alone . No lab uses this naming system at all .

 
Guess that explains why most of the information I can find on our haplogroup only comes from Nordtvedt.
 

This thread has been viewed 152707 times.

Back
Top