I2c frequency and diversity maps

which I2c subclades do you refer to as being Jewish............I have a relative who is this marker

correct me if I am wrong ..is I2c 12000 years old?

The Jewish cluster is in the PF3881- branch. If I recall correctly, your relative is I2c-PF3381>L1251, so not closely related.

Nordtvedt's current estimate of the I2c TMRCA is about 8000 years, with a clade age (as compared with I2b-L416) of about 12000 years.
 
There are some interesting developments for I2c following Big Y results and recent paleo tests. 8000 year old remain from Germany was tested as I2c and curiously he is on younger branch than me. Here is my result on YFull experimental tree based on Big Y test - YF03042
I2cK.jpg
 
There are some interesting developments for I2c following Big Y results and recent paleo tests. 8000 year old remain from Germany was tested as I2c and curiously he is on younger branch than me. Here is my result on YFull experimental tree based on Big Y test - YF03042
View attachment 7129

What ancient German are we talking about? I know of Motala2, which is a nearly 8000 year old sample, but from Sweden. Motala2 was tested as I2c L596+ PF3827+. PF3827+ was recently defined by ISOGG as the defining mutation for your branch of I2c, previously known as the B cluster. So you're more paternally more closely related to a Mesolithic Swede than I am. ISOGG now calls your branch I2c2, and mine I2c1.

I talked a bit about Motala2, and another ancient I2c2 that popped up in a Unetice sample, here: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...ages-in-Europe?p=449593&viewfull=1#post449593
 
What ancient German are we talking about? I know of Motala2, which is a nearly 8000 year old sample, but from Sweden. Motala2 was tested as I2c L596+ PF3827+. PF3827+ was recently defined by ISOGG as the defining mutation for your branch of I2c, previously known as the B cluster. So you're more paternally more closely related to a Mesolithic Swede than I am. ISOGG now calls your branch I2c2, and mine I2c1.

I talked a bit about Motala2, and another ancient I2c2 that popped up in a Unetice sample, here: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...ages-in-Europe?p=449593&viewfull=1#post449593

Sorry wrote Germany mechanically, instead of Sweden. These are the results from the new paper where they tested tens of of remains from Europe. Both I2c-s are in younger clade than mine.

Motala2 - Swedish Mesolithic 5898-5531 cal BCE - I0012 (Motala_HG) This is theMotala2 individual whose shotgun data was previously analyzed5. It belonged to haplogroup I2c2 (PF3827:22444389T→A), with the upstream haplogroup I2c (L597:18887888T→A) also supported.

Unetice_EBA - Unetice 2118-1961 cal BCE - I0116 (Unetice_EBA) This individual was assigned to haplogroup I2c2 (PF3827:22444389T
→A) and upstream haplogroups I2c (L597:18887888T→A), I2(M438:16638804A→G) were also supported.
 
Have you tested PF3827? You should be PF3827+.

I was tested for all known SNPs. Yes, I am PF3827+

SNPs (all):65623
Positive:1327 (2.02%)
Negative:51194 (78.01%)
Ambiguous:148 (0.23%)
No call:12951 (19.74%)
 
According to Ken Nordtvedt after seeing our BAM files:

"You are in the main population with Pogovac (Serbian) Korestky (Polish/Ukrainian ancestry) and Sacchini (Italian) of DYS393=14 L596 You four show 87 novel variants which the other L596 people do not have.


This means that 393=14 clade has its common ancestor with the other L596 probably more than 9000 years ago. So you are indeed of an ancient clade.


You show 33 snps that other three do not have. Those 33 novel variants indicate your common ancestor with those other three and indeed the rest of 393=14 L596 is at least 3500 ybp."
 
Hi.

Great thread. I'm new here and recently did the geno2 test and had my results transferred over to ftdna. At geno my y assignment was I-L41 but when I transferred my y group said it was under review. I was not able to find much about L41 so I tried looking at the markers and where they show up in the tree. Long story short, my deepest positive match seems to be BY20, which is about 8 levels or so below P215 (I have positives sprinkled throughout that portion of the tree on the way down to BY20, tho there is one branch off with two positives that is not an ancestor of BY20).
Anyway, my question is not about me, but in trying to make sense of this I went to check out the isogg tree and was struck by how different this portion of it is. The BY20 shows up as a part of Ic2~, and many of the matches that define those 8 or so levels are not even in their tree (including the 2 non-ancestor ones mentioned earlier). Furthermore, I was struck by how small the Ic2 portion of their tree is (especially compared to other sections of the I page; obviously I is one of the most common and studied groups).
Can someone explain why this is? Is it a function of simply not enough Ic2 people having been part of existing research? Generally speaking, are the subclade markers at a given level more or less indicative of a common timeframe (because I guess the other explanation could be that ic2 is just more recent, and thus less broadly existent).
I'm not even sure if I'm ic2 or not, though I expect all my matches being here imply that I am. In the isogg tree, the deepest common marker seems to be S6687, though I did not test positive for that directly, rather BY443 is shown as a descendent of S6687 on ftdna's tree and I tested positive for that (BY443 doesn't even show up on isogg's tree, so that could be meaningless). Anyway, assuming I'm reading these correctly and assuming both these trees gave some kind of validity, it seems I'd be something like I2c1a2 (as implied by S6687).
Lastly, are there any other good sources of info about this i2c branch? I've been looking around and this thread is all I could find so far.
Thanks and apologies if this is too much about me. My goal is to understand the trees tho, so it seemed relevant. :)
 
Hi.

Great thread. I'm new here and recently did the geno2 test and had my results transferred over to ftdna. At geno my y assignment was I-L41 but when I transferred my y group said it was under review. I was not able to find much about L41 so I tried looking at the markers and where they show up in the tree. Long story short, my deepest positive match seems to be BY20, which is about 8 levels or so below P215 (I have positives sprinkled throughout that portion of the tree on the way down to BY20, tho there is one branch off with two positives that is not an ancestor of BY20).
Anyway, my question is not about me, but in trying to make sense of this I went to check out the isogg tree and was struck by how different this portion of it is. The BY20 shows up as a part of Ic2~, and many of the matches that define those 8 or so levels are not even in their tree (including the 2 non-ancestor ones mentioned earlier). Furthermore, I was struck by how small the Ic2 portion of their tree is (especially compared to other sections of the I page; obviously I is one of the most common and studied groups).
Can someone explain why this is? Is it a function of simply not enough Ic2 people having been part of existing research? Generally speaking, are the subclade markers at a given level more or less indicative of a common timeframe (because I guess the other explanation could be that ic2 is just more recent, and thus less broadly existent).
I'm not even sure if I'm ic2 or not, though I expect all my matches being here imply that I am. In the isogg tree, the deepest common marker seems to be S6687, though I did not test positive for that directly, rather BY443 is shown as a descendent of S6687 on ftdna's tree and I tested positive for that (BY443 doesn't even show up on isogg's tree, so that could be meaningless). Anyway, assuming I'm reading these correctly and assuming both these trees gave some kind of validity, it seems I'd be something like I2c1a2 (as implied by S6687).
Lastly, are there any other good sources of info about this i2c branch? I've been looking around and this thread is all I could find so far.
Thanks and apologies if this is too much about me. My goal is to understand the trees tho, so it seemed relevant. :)
Send PM to sparkey (first post), he should be able to tell you more. Welcome to Eupedia navigio.
 
Anyway, my question is not about me, but in trying to make sense of this I went to check out the isogg tree and was struck by how different this portion of it is. The BY20 shows up as a part of Ic2~, and many of the matches that define those 8 or so levels are not even in their tree (including the 2 non-ancestor ones mentioned earlier). Furthermore, I was struck by how small the Ic2 portion of their tree is (especially compared to other sections of the I page; obviously I is one of the most common and studied groups).
Can someone explain why this is? Is it a function of simply not enough Ic2 people having been part of existing research? Generally speaking, are the subclade markers at a given level more or less indicative of a common timeframe (because I guess the other explanation could be that ic2 is just more recent, and thus less broadly existent).

The lack of defined I2c subclades doesn't have a lot to do with timeframe, although that does play a role. You're on the right track that it has more to do with the fact that relatively few people who have tested carry I2c, and so there's been less work done on defining its tree. And, honestly, I2c has gotten pretty good coverage lately, considering that it had zero SNPs of its own for a while. It's doing better than entire haplogroups like P.

Another good site that does something similar to ISOGG is YFull, and they also provide estimated ages to help put the timeframe into perspective.

I'm not even sure if I'm ic2 or not, though I expect all my matches being here imply that I am. In the isogg tree, the deepest common marker seems to be S6687, though I did not test positive for that directly, rather BY443 is shown as a descendent of S6687 on ftdna's tree and I tested positive for that (BY443 doesn't even show up on isogg's tree, so that could be meaningless). Anyway, assuming I'm reading these correctly and assuming both these trees gave some kind of validity, it seems I'd be something like I2c1a2 (as implied by S6687).

I think you're placing yourself correctly, although I don't think that either S6687 or BY443 place you very precisely in the I2c tree. IIRC they imply that you're on the older, more European branch, as opposed to the younger branch with more spillover into Asia. Have you done a FTDNA STR test? If so, try joining the I2b/I2c Project.

Lastly, are there any other good sources of info about this i2c branch? I've been looking around and this thread is all I could find so far.

The aforementioned I2b/I2c Project, and Bob May's site (linked from there) has some research. Not a lot of it is speculative about its history and relationship to cultures, though.
 
Thanks sparkey.

Thanks for the yfull link. It's cool to be able to see the presumed age of these subclades. Though interesting how different it is from isogg. It's also interesting that ft's tree is so much deeper. Most comments I've seen have implied ft is usually behind the times, and given this section of the tree hadn't really existed for very long at isogg I would have expected ft's instead to be empty. :) do you think ft just builds these out as they encounter people with new snps?

Anyway, it looks like yfull's I-6635 is isogg's I2c1, and I have a few of those markers. But below that it's inconclusive.
It doesn't look like I was tested for L1251 and I can't find anything else that matches under it on the yfull tree. I also wasn't able to find anything in isogg's under there except that 6687, but that was based on ft's likely dubious tree and it merely being an ancestor of 443.

I haven't yet done any STRs because I wanted to try and figure out my haplogroup first in case that might impact what further testing I might do. Since ft couldn't figure it out, I thought I'd try myself. :) but obviously I'm brand new at this.

That group page looks great tho. I'll do more reading there. Thanks again for your response!
 
In view of the study about Ice Age Europe http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reich/Reich_Lab/Welcome_files/FuQ_nature17993.pdf
and the spread of Gravettian into Anatolia during LGM http://maajournal.com/Issues/2004/Vol-1/Full1.pdf
I'd guess I2 and the early I2a/b/c branches developped after 21.6 ka in the area of the Karain/Belbidi/Belbasi caves west of Antalya together with a minority of C1a2.

I2Z2647/CTS2257/PF3704 * Z2652/CTS4568/PF3733 * Z2662/PF3798+61 SNPsformed 27500 ybp, TMRCA 21600 ybp

From there they returned to Europe 14 ka when forests started to regrow as the 'Villabruna people'

youngerdryas.png

geometric microliths were invented in India 35 ka
20 ka they were in the southern Levant Kebaran culture
Villabruna people brougth the technology to Europe
with this technology the Villabruna people replaced all I* people in Europe (both Magdalenian and Eprigravettian) except a few I1

Belgian_series_from_Clark's_The_Mesolithic_Age_in_Britain_Wellcome_M0015183.jpg

which subclades of I2a/b/c developped where depended on subsequent founder effects and later migrations
 
Hello everyone

in the spirit of keeping this thread alive ... I would like to post this riddle ...

Considering where I come from ... How in seven hells did I get this haplogroup ??

I really feel alone in this corner of the world
 
Hello everyone

in the spirit of keeping this thread alive ... I would like to post this riddle ...

Considering where I come from ... How in seven hells did I get this haplogroup ??

I really feel alone in this corner of the world

It's pretty common among ethnicities from the Caucasus and Anatolia, although I'm not sure I've seen it in an Arabian before. I'd assume it was drift somehow from the places where it's more common in Asia, fairly recently in genetic terms (like last 1000 years or so).
 
My theory involves the janissaries of the ottoman empire .. christian boys were taken from their families and raised as an elite slave army for the sultan. it must have happened during the Ottoman-Saudi war of 1811, my tribe got involved and were soundly defeated. To prevent another revolt the ottomans stationed for 20 years before leaving again.

I was expecting something common in this land like j1-l222 or j1-z640. however I do like the result, especially the nobility link.
I always felt elite for some reason ;)

reading this thread it seems you all came to the conclusion that the mushki and phrygian were responsible for its existence in the Caucasus, a TMRCA for i2c2 of about 3500 ybp would fit that narrative. but from where did the mushkis come from ?
we have four germans , a scot and an english, are they armenian merchants from venice or genoa or are they possibly the leftovers from the mushki or phrygian migration ?

another question, what haplogroups do you think were present among the mushki or phrygians ? I dont think i2c2 came alone in that adventure.
 
One thing that's counter-intuitive about what we know about I2c2 currently is that we have a better idea of its prehistoric location than about how it spread within a historical timeframe. That's thanks to its appearance in ancient samples, as I discussed here, and its almost absurd modern distribution pattern.

I think that the Mushkis/Phrygians are a reasonable guess for how it ended up in Asia. I've also put forward the Galatians as a possibility. We don't really know.

Similarly, the Janissaries are a possibility for how an Arabian lineage might have I2c2, but I have to wonder, do you have any additional supporting evidence? 1811 is pretty recent. I don't know about how easy it is to do Arabian genealogy, but for Americans with colonial ancestry like me, we can often take our family lineages even farther back than 1811.
 
1811 is actually being generous, I can trace my genealogy to my great great great grandfather, we don't know who his father was.
assigning the generous amount of 30 years to a generation (at that time they married at 15) would lead you to 1840 ? I reasoned that the war of 1811 was close coupled with the fact that I have a foreign haplogroup whose distribution is within the territory of the enemy. I raise my palms in surrender, I have no further evidence.

Except a legend that says we Intermarried with turks ..... but that's not legendary

The Phrygians and most of the sea people that went to Anatolia probably carried R1b-Z2103 in great numbers, right ? suppose that I2c2 is mainly associated to this branch of R1b.

We know from Herodotus that the Phrygians initially dwelt in the southern Balkans under the name of Brygs, but where were they before that ?


I will propose that they were somewhere in Germany, close to the Rhine. these facts support my idea :


1- thats where we find I2c2 german members and in that same area we find some R1b-Z2103 members along with several other R1b branches such as R1b-DF27 , R1b-U152 , and R1b-U106.
2- Linguist Eric Hamp suggests that the Phrygian language was related to Italo-Celtic in a hypothetical "Northwest Indo-European" group.
3- this area can be considered the base from which R1b-U152 migrated to Italy , R1b-DF27 to southern france and spain , and R1b-U106 to the Netherlands and Scandinavia, and I say R1b-Z2103 to the Balkans and Anatolia with whom we associate I2c2.

that means the pre-Phrygians moved east and south to Anatolia in the same manner the Galatians do later. I would provide sources but I cant because of low post count.


feel free to criticize, with criticism we refine our theories and get closer to the truth.
 
Well then ill criticise myself, the linguistic argument is weak and the "base" that i'm probably talking about is the Urnfield Culture ?? some people have associated this culture with the sea people but that's all conjecture.

I2c2 in Armenia must have arrived with the migration of the Armenians themselves who probably belonged to R1b-Z2103 before mixing with the indigenous Urartian population, an early noble clan could have belonged to I2c2 thus explaining the apparently old nobility connection and its unusual elevated frequency.

And so I assume that I2c2 existed in prehistoric cultures of the Danubian basin before the indo-european invasions and assimilation of previous lineages, R1b-L51 could have assimilated some I2c2 from the Pannonian plain before establishing Unetice Culture in central Europe, and so we find I2c2 in Unetice culture samples, the Celts from succeeding cultures could have distributed it in the British isles and France.

Those who remained in The Danube valley with R1b-Z2103 would later migrate with the Armenians and perhaps the Dorians, who also settled Crete and gave their dialect to the island. The Greeks would then distribute it further in their colonies (I2c is found in Calabria in south Italy, in Spain, and Abkhazia in north west Caucasus).

The eastern European Jews could have migrated from the Caucasus since their group also includes Georgians and Azerbaijanis.

One possible weakness to this beautiful story is the fact that the danube basin or the balkans in general is low in I2c diversity, which is higher in southern Germany possibly in areas of Urnfield and Hallstatt cultures, However no known migration from these cultures to the Caucasus is documented.
 
Last edited:
Could I2c2 in Europe be the result of Alan migrations ?

Alani_map.jpg

compare it with the project map https://www.familytreedna.com/public/I2nosubcladeM170P215?iframe=ymap
consider also the Spanish results not showing on the map.

Upon the Hunnic defeat of the Goths on the Pontic Steppe around 375 AD, many of the Alans migrated westwards along with various Germanic tribes.

If the Alans settled the area that would later become Normandy, then it wouldnt be so strange to find I2c2 in England and Scotland. These north Caucasian people would also distribute R1a-Z93 in Spain,Tunis, Sicily and England(with the Normans).
 

This thread has been viewed 115265 times.

Back
Top