Maciamo's I2a2/I2a1b (P214) YDNA Map - How Up-to-Date Is It?


Regular Member
Reaction score
Seattle, Washington (Ballard)
Ethnic group
Irish/Scottish/British/Scandi/C Euro
Y-DNA haplogroup
mtDNA haplogroup
I got strong pushback on the I-M223 Project's Activity Feed at FTDNA when I referred to Maciamo's I2a2a/i2a1b (P214) YDNA Map:

Once again, I must point out to you that the map you refer to on the Eupedia page is badly out of date. It is exactly the same map that I found there in 2016; I downloaded and kept a copy of that map so I can confirm it has not changed.

Note that Maciamo states that M223 is 90% of P214. In FTDNA's own Haplotree, M223 makes up 88% of P214's branches, so it looks to scale fairly well, at least in that regard. I'm primarily interested in using it as a proxy for M223 distribution. Would incorporating more recent data appreciably alter its look? What is it about the methodologies behind the making of this map that ensures it remains relevant?


  • Haplogroup-I2b.png
    70.3 KB · Views: 165
Last edited:
I want to defend use of this map (I2a2) against criticism (that it is "out of date") in the I-M223 Project's Activity Feed, but don't have a reply other than "a map is as good as the mapmaker."

My sense is that the basic distribution pattern would not be significantly altered by the addition of more recent data and therefore shouldn't be rejected out-of-hand (as is happening). I'm thinking of the "hotspots" in central Germany, SW Scotland/NE Ireland, and Vasterbotten, Sweden, as well as the large "warm area" in Russia (Varangians?) - but lack a solid argument for why that should be so. (Should the hotspots in Bosnia and Sardinia in the P-37.2 map also be rejected? I don't think so.)

That Maciamo stated in his I2 article that 90% of P214 was M223, while the current percentage on FTDNA's HaploTree is 88%, shows that it scales very well, at least in that regard.

This thread has been viewed 2086 times.