New I2b map

Maciamo

Veteran member
Admin
Messages
9,869
Reaction score
3,137
Points
113
Location
Lothier
Ethnic group
Italo-celto-germanic
I have finally got round to creating a map of I2b. The frequencies being low in most of Europe I had to use a very fine scale, with gradient of 2% at a time. Sadly there isn't any extensive study of German and Swedish regions, so the extend of the two hotspots of I2b is far from accurate.

In Belgium, let's note that Wallonia has 7% of I2b, considerably more than the 4.5% in Flanders. It's strange since Flanders is supposed to be more Germanic, and the percentage of I1 doesn't vary much between the two regions (12% in Flanders and 11% in Wallonia).

Haplogroup-I2b.gif



There are many theories concerning the presence of I2b in Russia, Ukraine and Moldova.

1) They are remnants of Paleolithic hunter-gatherers.

2) I2b was part of the Indo-European haplogroups, and some pockets have survived around the Pontic-Caspian steppes.

3) The (Swedish) Vikings brought I2b to Russia, and the Ostrogoths to Moldova (Chernyakhov culture, which corresponds to the Gothic kingdom of Oium).

Personally I think that the third theory is the most likely. As for the I2b in around Greece, Albania, Bulgaria and northern Turkey, they must have been brought by the Visigoths at the end of the 4th century. The Visigoths would also explain I2b in Italy, south-east France and Iberia. Note that these regions all have a fairly proportional level of I1 too. Obviously the Suebi are responsible for the I1 and I2b (and R1b-U106 and R1a) in Galicia and Portugal, and the Normans for the same Germanic package in north-west Sicily.
 
Last edited:
I have finally got round to creating a map of I2b. The frequencies being low in most of Europe I had to use a very fine scale, with gradient of 2% at a time. Sadly there isn't any extensive study of German and Swedish regions, so the extend of the two hotspots of I2b is far from accurate.

Haplogroup-I2b.gif


There is a hotspot among Anatolian Greeks of Ionia region (6/89 = 6.7%) but it seems that only Greeks have it and not Turks so your map seems accurate if you take into acount who lives in Ionia nowadays (allthough for some places in Greece there are not any data about this specific subclade like your hotspot around Aetolia/Epirus)
 
Maciamo don't you use the new classification system for haplogroup I where I2b is named I2a2 and ex-I2a2 is named I2a1b?
 
Maciamo don't you use the new classification system for haplogroup I where I2b is named I2a2 and ex-I2a2 is named I2a1b?

Seconded; although, if Maciamo makes this change, he will need to update a lot of his old stuff accordingly to avoid confusion between current I2b and old I2b, as well as current I2a (and subclades) and old I2a (and subclades).

Current I2b would not make for a very interesting map, it would be <1% everywhere. I think there are about a half-dozen known families that carry it, most from Italy except one from Germany and one from Scotland.
 
Maciamo don't you use the new classification system for haplogroup I where I2b is named I2a2 and ex-I2a2 is named I2a1b?

No, I don't like the new nomenclature. It's confusing so I stick to the old one used everywhere on this site.
 
Sadly there isn't any extensive study of German and Swedish regions, so the extend of the two hotspots of I2b is far from accurate.

Good work first of all!
Where do you have the assumption of these hotspots from? And what regions are they roughly?
 
No, I don't like the new nomenclature. It's confusing so I stick to the old one used everywhere on this site.

That's an odd attitude. The hierarchical nomenclature is intended to represent the full tree of known SNPs, which in I2 now includes L460 (I2a) and L415/L416/L417 (I2b). The I2b SNPs are certainly non-private, so what do you intend to call the subclade they represent? It's not really a matter of whether you like it or not, it's just the case that there's a new I2b.

I agree that you should be consistent on your site and that it would be confusing to have only one map of old I2b be "I2a2," but it will be just as confusing if you never make the change, while everyone else does.
 
Seconded; although, if Maciamo makes this change, he will need to update a lot of his old stuff accordingly to avoid confusion between current I2b and old I2b, as well as current I2a (and subclades) and old I2a (and subclades).

Current I2b would not make for a very interesting map, it would be <1% everywhere. I think there are about a half-dozen known families that carry it, most from Italy except one from Germany and one from Scotland.
You make sense but I think that the nomenclature should be revized because it gives better knowledge of how haplogroups are connected into the tree...
For example the new nomenclature of I allows us to place ex-I2c and I2b better because ex-I2b is closer to ex-I2a then ex-I2c is to either of them.
Anyway I get confused too with all this changing of names and sometimes I use R1b1b2 instead of R1b1a2 so anyone with less knowledge of Y-DNA nomenclature would get really messed up...
 
You make sense but I think that the nomenclature should be revized because it gives better knowledge of how haplogroups are connected into the tree...
For example the new nomenclature of I allows us to place ex-I2c and I2b better because ex-I2b is closer to ex-I2a then ex-I2c is to either of them.
Anyway I get confused too with all this changing of names and sometimes I use R1b1b2 instead of R1b1a2 so anyone with less knowledge of Y-DNA nomenclature would get really messed up...

I agree, I'm already using the new nomenclature in everything for I2. I've pretty much given up with writing the hierarchical form of R1b subclades, though. But I2 is still easy, even with this change.
 
I agree, I'm already using the new nomenclature in everything for I2. I've pretty much given up with writing the hierarchical form of R1b subclades, though. But I2 is still easy, even with this change.
Yes R1b1a2 is so well studied that includes sub-clades with 10 or 11 charachters used for their name...it is propably because most geneticists come from West Europe or US so they are more interested in R1b and it's sub-clades
 
That's an odd attitude. The hierarchical nomenclature is intended to represent the full tree of known SNPs, which in I2 now includes L460 (I2a) and L415/L416/L417 (I2b). The I2b SNPs are certainly non-private, so what do you intend to call the subclade they represent? It's not really a matter of whether you like it or not, it's just the case that there's a new I2b.

I agree that you should be consistent on your site and that it would be confusing to have only one map of old I2b be "I2a2," but it will be just as confusing if you never make the change, while everyone else does.

There will probably be another new nomenclature next year, so why not wait for it before changing everything ?
 
There will probably be another new nomenclature next year, so why not wait for it before changing everything ?
I guess that using R1b-M269 for R1b1a2 or R1b-L23 for R1b1a2a or R1b-U152 for R1b1a2a1a1b3 or E-V13 for E1b1b1a2 is less confusing for everyone
 
Good work first of all!
Where do you have the assumption of these hotspots from? And what regions are they roughly?

I have 3 maps of I2b, which all show the maximum of roughly 15% around the Harz mountains in Germany, but the data I compiled has an average of 7.5% for North Germany, 5% for East Germany and 6.5% for West Germany. Unfortunately I do not have accurate data by state.

Karlsson et al. 2006 gave 17% of I2b in Västerbotten province in northern Sweden, but no data for the adjacent provinces.
 
There will probably be another new nomenclature next year, so why not wait for it before changing everything ?

The current instability is in I2* and within current I2a2a. It's looking like there may be some rearranging downstream of I2a2a, and I2* is likely to become I2c. So, I think it's probably safe to start using "I2a2" for old I2b and "I2a1" for old I2a, at least, and probably also quite safe to use "I2a1a," "I2a1b," "I2a2a," and "I2a2b." Next year's tree is looking unlikely to change that on you. But it's true that hierarchical nomenclature changes so frequently that using it on anything that's meant to be permanent is asking for confusion... like, what happens if I2* unexpectedly shares an SNP with I2a rather than I2b? Then, current I2a2 would become I2a1b, and so forth...
 
clearing up the terms visi and ostro goths for this, I recently read a few books on the matter, Goths in ancient Poland being one and it was stated that the term visigoth and ostrogoth was only created only once the Goths settled on the black sea.

The people where seperated as Visigoth if you where originally from lands west of the vistula river on the baltic sea and ostrogoths if you where east of the vistula river, so ostrogoths where the baltic people of aestii and venedi and germanic people of the peucini and Bastanae and some finni.

Geberic was succeeded by the most famous of the Gothic kings, Hermanaric (Eormenric, Iormunrekr), whose deeds are recorded in the traditions of all Teutonic nations.
He conquered the Heruli, the Aestii, the Venedi, and a number of other tribes.


Since the ostrogoths basically went only as far as the french-italian border in their invasion of the west and the visigoths went into iberia, would there be different markers of I due to this gothic system of seperation.
 
Last edited:
Very interesting map, thanks Maciamo.
I'll go with option 3, explanation of Goths movement.
The might have originated from the hot spot in north Sweden. From polish archeology we know that Goths landed around year 0 at south shore of Baltic sea. They went rather quickly south to Black Sea. They went through land of Veneti pretty much peacefully. We find Goth's settlements just beside local villages. Same period of time, two cultures side by side.
By estimates, their march south is took about 150 years. It makes sense from this map that in such short time and peaceful journey they didn't leave genetic trail of their march south. They had spent much longer time at Black sea and this is where they left elevated level of I2b.
 
Good work first of all!
Where do you have the assumption of these hotspots from? And what regions are they roughly?

what I recognise is the epirus area of Greece
- veneto and friuli of northern italy
- etruscan lands in middle italy
- south france, could be the migration of the east germanic burgundians , who settled there for a long time
vasterbotten IIRC is the northern part of sweden - i think sami people

and the german area today would be modern saxony, in ancient times it could be the chatti tribe
 
Personally I think that the third theory is the most likely. As for the I2b in around Greece, Albania, Bulgaria and northern Turkey, they must have been brought by the Visigoths at the end of the 4th century. The Visigoths would also explain I2b in Italy, south-east France and Iberia. Note that these regions all have a fairly proportional level of I1 too. Obviously the Suebi are responsible for the I1 and I2b (and R1b-U106 and R1a) in Galicia and Portugal, and the Normans for the same Germanic package in north-west Sicily.

I wonder

Visigoths left so strong marks in Balkans, but not in Spain?

we know from historical times that visgoths created the kingdoms in spain, the Visgothian era of Iberian peninsula Theudis is a known Visigoth king against Vandals,
we know they ruled at Spania,
so I expect that their merks will be stronger than in italy and balkans, especially west,

On the other hand from Strabo we know that visigoths first map mark is the area of today North Bulgaria south romania, North of Haimos Mt to carpathian Mt which is also low %
 
I wonder

Visigoths left so strong marks in Balkans, but not in Spain?

I don't know how to explain that. There is considerable I1 and I2b all the way the Visigoths and Ostrogoths settled, from the Moldova region to the southern Balkans, and from Italy to southern France, but much less in Spain. Perhaps it is that the bulk of the Gothic people remained around the Black Sea and only a relatively small army of elite Visigoths conquered Spain, but were too few to have an impact, or spread out so much around France and Iberia that the percentage they represented in each region was very small. Moldova and Epirus are small, compact areas compared to Iberia + South France.
 
I don't know how to explain that. There is considerable I1 and I2b all the way the Visigoths and Ostrogoths settled, from the Moldova region to the southern Balkans, and from Italy to southern France, but much less in Spain. Perhaps it is that the bulk of the Gothic people remained around the Black Sea and only a relatively small army of elite Visigoths conquered Spain, but were too few to have an impact, or spread out so much around France and Iberia that the percentage they represented in each region was very small. Moldova and Epirus are small, compact areas compared to Iberia + South France.
But this wouldn't explain why autosomally the Iberians have the highest North-European levels of all Southern Europe (see genetic projects such as Dodecad or Eurogenes).
 

This thread has been viewed 99978 times.

Back
Top