Sarmatians, Serbs, Croats and I2a2

[bicicleur 2]

My personal opinion is that it was majority I at least back to maybe 3000 BC. Of course, in the time window of it's emergence and 3000 BC, Hg I probably lived somewhere in Asia near Fertile Crescent.

As I recall, we have couple of hundred skeletons from Lepenski Vir, Vinca and Starcevo cultures, but there is still not much people here interested in those kind of research. I guess that prices of carbon dating and DNA analysis are way off the reasonable limit for current Balkan standards, so they don't even think about it. I know that EU is funding a lot of science projects here, and some are done in collaboration with students/colleagues from abroad. It's evident that more relevant research will be done in next 10 years and we will have definite results about DNA structure of Balkans BC, which will help us reconstruct the past events.

Lepenski Vir DNA would be very interesting.

 

[MOESAN]

I think that I HG appeared actually at more than 1 male,this mutation from IJ HG.
To be more concise,more males that were presenting IJ HG got this mutation,I.
I think IJ were something more South East,in today Middle-East,or Iran and developed different mutations,those who remained there,to J and those who came to Europe,to I.
Maybe these mutations were triggered by changes in the climate and so on.Or by change of food and other external factors.

OK for IJ localization: it could make sense -
but about a way of thinking: two "brother" HGs born from the same parent, are not obliged to have had their diverging new mutations in the same place before move...maybe Y-I appeared more wetsernly than Y-J ? (no proof, but to illustrate my first remark)

 

[Aberdeen]

................
Instead, I think the ancient Hellenic/ Greek culture (i.e. exemplified by Homer's Odyssey etc) is more representative of Haplogroup I's embryonic/proto "Illyrian-Germanic culture", rather than the Gravettian culture.
..............
(No pun intended!).

I think that's unlikely unless you can prove that haplotype I is associated with the IE expansion. The Odyssey is less than 3000 years old and depicts the type of warrior culture with chariots that we also find in ancient Irish stories, such as The Cattle Raid of Cooley. And where do you get the idea of an "Illyrian-Germanic culture" from?

 

[sparkey]

where has "Modern undifferentiated IJ" been found ? Iran ? elsewhere too ? In Iran they could be a remnant of a line that split of before the last ice age.

See Dienekes on Grugni et al. And I take it back about it being only one sample... looks like they found two, one Persian and one Mazandarani.

 

[bicicleur 2]

See Dienekes on Grugni et al. And I take it back about it being only one sample... looks like they found two, one Persian and one Mazandarani.

yes, I remember, I've seen this study before. Thanks

 

[Clarissant]

Can you tell me more about the Grimaldi people ?
Their dating seems uncertain, their stature is much smaller than paleolithic Europeans and it seems their skelletons have been found in only 1 place.
Some tribe that got disoriented and extinct it seems.

Hi Bicicleur

I've read these are some of the oldest skeletons found in Europe - dated 43,000 B.C. They are apparently complete. They were found in the caverns of Grimaldi (Baousse-Rousse), somewhere between Mentone and Ventimiglia (on the Italian side). They are some of most paleolithic caverns in Europe. Genetically speaking, they are modern humans.

Some theorists argue they are Khosian people that "walked" into Europe via the Gibraltar Straits, circa 45,000 B.C when the Great Glacial Ice Sheets of Europe started to melt. It seems they traversed all of Europe, Northern Asia and Mal'ta in Siberia/ Russia, north of Mongolia. They did not become extinct, as they are modern humans. They also seem to be responsible for the Gravettian and Aurignacian artifacts.

Thus, I think if you want to get really accurate, the first Europeans were actually African, and most probably Khoisan. Also, the dating of modern humans are theorised by some researchers to be even earlier thus older than what is conventionally dated for Cro-Magnon/ Neanderthal "hybrid" humans.

Cheers !

I think that's unlikely unless you can prove that haplotype I is associated with the IE expansion. The Odyssey is less than 3000 years old and depicts the type of warrior culture with chariots that we also find in ancient Irish stories, such as The Cattle Raid of Cooley. And where do you get the idea of an "Illyrian-Germanic culture" from?

Thanks for your comment Aberdeen

As far as I'm aware, The Odyssey was written/ recorded well after its oral tradition commenced. It also features themes that resemble the ancient Gilgamesh epic. Consequently, some theorists have suggested The Odyssey, as an oral tradition, could actually be more ancient than the believed 1200- 800 B.C. dating. In this way, perhaps new elements were added to the more ancient original oral version of The Odyssey which reflect a later epoch i.e. the setting of the Trojan War.

Also, the theorist Lord, in "Homer as Oral Poet", conjectured a close cultural/ literary relationship between the Homeric and Balkan oral traditions/ poems. So, it seems there is evidence of a cultural diffusion of sorts between ancient Hellenic Greece and Illyria/ the West Balkans, perhaps even a single historical cultural reservoir. But this isn't so surprising, as they are geographic neighbours.

Furthermore, if you look at the haplogroup profile of modern Greece, while more diverse than the West Balkans, it has some surprisingly similar features to the West Balkans; namely a haplogroup I presence as well as a significant haplogroup J and haplogroup Ra presence. Hence, to better illustrate the comparatively close Illyrian/ Germanic/ Hellenic cultural (even genetic) ancestry, there is a diagram in Wikipedia under "Genetic History of the Turkish People" which shows comparative haplogroup profile affinities of several European nations. You will notice that Greece and Germany [even France] are comparatively closer in haplogroup composition than England and Turkey. Thus, if "Germanic" countries, particularly Scandinavian countries, have high concentrations of haplogroup I - just as West Balkan countries, it would then follow that Illyria/ West Balkans/ "Germanic"-Scandinavian/ ancient Hellenic Greece, share a (notable) degree of cultural/ genetic heritage. Thus, citing the evidence above, there seems to me significant support for theorising a combined Illyrian/ ancient Hellenic/proto-Germanic (proto-Celtic) culture, even ancestry.

As for the Irish sagas, perhaps these reflect Ireland's "indigenous" haplogroup I oral traditions (i.e. proto-Germanic/ proto-Viking?)/proto-Celtic/ Illyrian oral tradition)? Thus, they would "echo" its Hellenic cultural/ ancestral heritage, (which were probably codified and formally written down at a far later date), but with the addition of Irish (Viking?) folklore and themes.

Cheers !

 

[Aberdeen]

Hi Bicicleur

I've read these are some of the oldest skeletons found in Europe - dated 43,000 B.C. They were found in the caverns of Grimaldi (Baousse-Rousse), somewhere between Mentone and Ventimiglia (on the Italian side). They are some of most paleolithic caverns in Europe. They are apparently complete. Genetically speaking, they are modern humans.

Some theorists argue they are Khosian people that "walked" into Europe via the Gibraltar Straits, circa 45,000 B.C when the Great Glacial Ice Sheets of Europe started to melt. It seems they traversed all of Europe, Northern Asia and Mal'ta in Siberia/ Russia, north of Mongolia. They did not become extinct, as they are modern humans. They also seems to be responsible for the Gravettian and Aurignacian artifacts.

Thus, I think if you want to get really accurate, the first Europeans were actually African, and most probably Khoisan. Also, the dating of modern humans are theorised by some researchers to be even earlier thus older than what is conventionally dated for Cro-Magnon/ Neanderthal "hybrid" humans.

Cheers !




Thanks for your comment Aberdeen!

As far as I'm aware, The Odyssey was written/ recorded well after its oral tradition commenced. It also features themes that resemble the ancient Gilgamesh epic. Consequently, some theorists have suggested The Odyssey, as an oral tradition, could actually be more ancient than the believed 1200- 800 B.C. dating. In this way, perhaps new elements were added to the oral version of The Odyssey which reflect a later epoch i.e. the setting of the Trojan War.

Also, the theorist Lord, in "Homer as Oral Poet", conjectured a close cultural/ literary relationship between the Homeric and Balkan oral traditions/ poems. So, it seems there is evidence of a cultural diffusion of sorts between ancient Hellenic Greece and Illyria/ the West Balkans, perhaps even a single historical cultural reservoir. But is this so surprising? They are neighbours after all...

Furthermore, if you look at the haplogroup profile of modern Greece, while more diverse than the West Balkans, it has some surprisingly similar features to the West Balkans; namely a haplogroup I presence as well as a significant haplogroup J and haplogroup Ra presence.
Furthermore, to better illustrate the comparatively close Illyrian/ Germanic/ Hellenic cultural (even genetic) ancestry, there is a diagram in Wikipedia under "Genetic History of the Turkish People" which shows comparative haplogroup profile affinities of several European nations. You will notice that Greece and Germany [even France] are comparatively closer in haplogroup composition than England and Turkey. Thus, if "Germanic" countries, particularly Scandinavian countries, have high concentrations of haplogroup I - just as West Balkan countries, it would then follow that Illyria/ West Balkans/ "Germanic"-Scandinavian/ ancient Hellenic Greece, share a (notable) degree of cultural/ genetic heritage. Thus, citing the evidence above, there seems to me significant support for theorising a combined Illyrian/ ancient Hellenic/proto-Germanic (proto-Celtic) culture, even ancestry.

As for the Irish sagas, perhaps these reflect Ireland's "indigenous" haplogroup I oral traditions (i.e. proto-Germanic/ proto-Viking?)/proto-Celtic/ Illyrian oral tradition) recorded at a later date?

Cheers

Parry and Lord did some good work with their theory about oral poetry, although I wouldn't accept all they say as gospel. And yes, both the Epic of Giligamesh and The Odyssey no doubt were first written down long after the main stories of both epics were first composed. After all, both stories are about the doings of heros in stratified societies. However, they seem have originally been composed in different times and in different cultures. For example, the Epic of Giligamesh talks about Giligamesh's dominant behaviour towards his people being inappropriate, whereas in The Odyssey the stratification of society is taken as a given. Perhaps the Epic of Giligamesh still retains some echoes of a time (Copper Age or early Bronze Age) when people were still uncomfortable with the notion of powerful and violent leaders, whereas Homer's world is one where warriors in chariots take glory in their fighting ability, so perhaps his story still reflects the values of the IE invaders. I see quite a bit of cultural similarity between The Odyssey and an old Irish tale, such as The Cattle Raid of Cooley, whereas the Epic of Giligamesh, to me, describes a very different world. But of course the Bronze Age IE world didn't last forever, and it may never have existed in the deep, gloomy forests of Germany. By the time the German language evolved about 2500 years ago, Germany was well into the Iron Age. And while there's limited DNA information from earlier periods, there seems to be considerable cultural and genetic differences now between the Balkans and the Germanic world. WTF is (proto-Germanic/proto-Viking?)(proto-Celtic/Illyrian oral tradition? Were you drunk when you wrote that? And no, the Irish sagas don't reflect "Ireland's "indigenous" haplogroup I oral traditions". IMO, the Irish sagas reflect the values of Bronze Age Celtic invaders, who were neither proto-Germanic nor Illyrian. Any "indigenous" culture of Ireland, whether Paleolithic, Mesolithic or Neolithic, has long since vanished.

 

[Diurpaneus]

I would associate the Sarmatians with R1a and Gets with I2a. They fused to Slaws in Sarmizegetusa.

That's not a bad idea; but place it further ,to NE.
Jan Bouzek("The Art of Phalerae in Broader Context") calls the Chernoles culture-"Getic".
Chernoles pottery style has its origin in the Lower Danube area.

 

[LeBrok]

That's not a bad idea; but place it further ,to NE.
Jan Bouzek("The Art of Phalerae in Broader Context") calls the Chernoles culture-"Getic".
Chernoles pottery style has its origin in the Lower Danube area.

Wasn't Sarmatian one of Iranic languages and not very closely related to Slavic?

 

[Aberdeen]

Wasn't Sarmatian one of Iranic languages and not very closely related to Slavic?

Yes. I have read that the Ossetians are more or less the descendants of the Sarmatians. And it seems to be a mystery as to exactly where the Slavs came from and why they became so dominant in eastern Europe. However, I think some people assume that any linguistic or cultural groups that came out of eastern Europe or western Asia must be somehow connected to one another.

 

[Clarissant]

Parry and Lord did some good work with their theory about oral poetry, although I wouldn't accept all they say as gospel. And yes, both the Epic of Giligamesh and The Odyssey no doubt were first written down long after the main stories of both epics were first composed. After all, both stories are about the doings of heros in stratified societies. However, they seem have originally been composed in different times and in different cultures. For example, the Epic of Giligamesh talks about Giligamesh's dominant behaviour towards his people being inappropriate, whereas in The Odyssey the stratification of society is taken as a given. Perhaps the Epic of Giligamesh still retains some echoes of a time (Copper Age or early Bronze Age) when people were still uncomfortable with the notion of powerful and violent leaders, whereas Homer's world is one where warriors in chariots take glory in their fighting ability, so perhaps his story still reflects the values of the IE invaders. I see quite a bit of cultural similarity between The Odyssey and an old Irish tale, such as The Cattle Raid of Cooley, whereas the Epic of Giligamesh, to me, describes a very different world. But of course the Bronze Age IE world didn't last forever, and it may never have existed in the deep, gloomy forests of Germany. By the time the German language evolved about 2500 years ago, Germany was well into the Iron Age. And while there's limited DNA information from earlier periods, there seems to be considerable cultural and genetic differences now between the Balkans and the Germanic world. WTF is (proto-Germanic/proto-Viking?)(proto-Celtic/Illyrian oral tradition? Were you drunk when you wrote that? And no, the Irish sagas don't reflect "Ireland's "indigenous" haplogroup I oral traditions". IMO, the Irish sagas reflect the values of Bronze Age Celtic invaders, who were neither proto-Germanic nor Illyrian. Any "indigenous" culture of Ireland, whether Paleolithic, Mesolithic or Neolithic, has long since vanished.

Of course you're free to align yourself with a theory/ theorist that you deduce is more accurate. In this case, I feel as though Lord's polemic is sound & supported by ample evidence. But you are free to disagree.

As for the Illyrian/ Hellenic / Germanic reference, I'm recognising the shared cultural and genetic heritage of these regions (as discussed previously). For example, Germany and Greece are comparatively close re genetic profiles, whereas the aforementioned groups are comparatively very different to Turkey/ England/ UK/ Iberia, which collectively share a genetic (cultural?) history.

So, my understanding is thus:

If we view the comparative haplogroup evidence, we can see clearly that Turkey, England, Spain, Ireland, Scotland are close re genetics. We can also extrapolate further that they are far less "Germanic", (genetically speaking), and that's due largely to the following reasoning:

• The ethnographic descriptive term "Germanic" appears to be attributed where there is a prevalence of haplogroup I in a region/ ethnogroup considered to have had Germanic influence/ culture or ethnic groups. Indeed, to reiterate a notable distinction, Turkey/ England/ UK /Iberia etc have a very similar haplogroup profile which are comparatively very different from Scandinavia and other Germanic nations (and Greece/ West Balkans). And the Balkans have the highest haplogroup I concentrations. And while I wouldn't call the Illyrian Balkans or Hellenic Greece "Germanic", I definitely consider these regions/ cultures to have carried significant genetic/ cultural antecedents of the so-called Germanic/ Scandinavian / Celtic genetics and cultures.
  

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_the_Turkish_people

NB: Thus I use the 'proto' prefix to highlight that it might not be accurate to call prehistory haplogroup I people Illyrian/ Germanic/ Hellenic /Celtic outright, as these terms can not be assigned/ superimposed onto people in prehistory. Thus, I'm discussion very ancient people, in the mists of prehistory, which later became known as Illyrians/ Germanic/ Hellenes/ Celts etc. a

 

[bicicleur 2]

Hi Bicicleur

I've read these are some of the oldest skeletons found in Europe - dated 43,000 B.C. They are apparently complete. They were found in the caverns of Grimaldi (Baousse-Rousse), somewhere between Mentone and Ventimiglia (on the Italian side). They are some of most paleolithic caverns in Europe. Genetically speaking, they are modern humans.

Some theorists argue they are Khosian people that "walked" into Europe via the Gibraltar Straits, circa 45,000 B.C when the Great Glacial Ice Sheets of Europe started to melt. It seems they traversed all of Europe, Northern Asia and Mal'ta in Siberia/ Russia, north of Mongolia. They did not become extinct, as they are modern humans. They also seem to be responsible for the Gravettian and Aurignacian artifacts.

Thus, I think if you want to get really accurate, the first Europeans were actually African, and most probably Khoisan. Also, the dating of modern humans are theorised by some researchers to be even earlier thus older than what is conventionally dated for Cro-Magnon/ Neanderthal "hybrid" humans.

Cheers !

Hi Clarissant,

I have some doubts.
The dating is indirect, but 45000 BC might be correct.
Gravettian appeared only 30000 BC.
First modern humans in Europe would have been Bohùnicians in Moravia, 50000 year old, tough they didn't find skelletons.
The Gibraltar Strait was never dry land, alltough during the ice ages ( 125000 year ago and 20000 year ago ) it was quite narrow.
The main problem is, they found only these 2 skelletons, in only 1 location.
They found many Cro Magnon bones and skelletons in Europe, they were much taller than the Grimaldi.

There is some A1a Y DNA in Europe today.
I would think they crossed Gibraltar some 20 - 25000 year ago.
A1a probably was in North Western Africa then, before Y haplo E1b1 toke over, coming from North Eastern Africa

 

[bicicleur 2]

what is the haplogroup of those Khosian people ?

 

[Aberdeen]

Of course you're free to align yourself with a theory/ theorist that you deduce is more accurate. In this case, I feel as though Lord's polemic is sound & supported by ample evidence. But you are free to disagree.

As for the Illyrian/ Hellenic / Germanic reference, I'm recognising the shared cultural and genetic heritage of these regions (as discussed previously). For example, Germany and Greece are comparatively close re genetic profiles, whereas the aforementioned groups are comparatively very different to Turkey/ England/ UK/ Iberia, which collectively share a genetic (cultural?) history.

So, my understanding is thus:

If we view the comparative haplogroup evidence, we can see clearly that Turkey, England, Spain, Ireland, Scotland are close re genetics. We can also extrapolate further that they are far less "Germanic", (genetically speaking), and that's due largely to the following reasoning:

• The ethnographic descriptive term "Germanic" appears to be attributed where there is a prevalence of haplogroup I in a region/ ethnogroup considered to have had Germanic influence/ culture or ethnic groups. Indeed, to reiterate a notable distinction, Turkey/ England/ UK /Iberia etc have a very similar haplogroup profile which are comparatively very different from Scandinavia and other Germanic nations (and Greece/ West Balkans). And the Balkans have the highest haplogroup I concentrations. And while I wouldn't call the Illyrian Balkans or Hellenic Greece "Germanic", I definitely consider these regions/ cultures to have carried significant genetic/ cultural antecedents of the so-called Germanic/ Scandinavian / Celtic genetics and cultures.
  

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_the_Turkish_people

NB: Thus I use the 'proto' prefix to highlight that it might not be accurate to call prehistory haplogroup I people Illyrian/ Germanic/ Hellenic /Celtic outright, as these terms can not be assigned/ superimposed onto people in prehistory. Thus, I'm discussion very ancient people, in the mists of prehistory, which later became known as Illyrians/ Germanic/ Hellenes/ Celts etc. a

Your comments don't make much sense to me. First of all, if you're talking about Albert Lord, he worked with Parry to develop a theory about oral poetry. He wasn't involved in the study of genetics. Also, there's not much in the way of cultural affinities connecting Turkey to Atlantic Europe, at least not since the end of the Neolithic. Turkish isn't even an IE language- it was brought to Turkey in the Middle Ages by invading Turks who were originally from Central Asia. Greek is IE, but less closely related to German, Gaelic, English or Spanish than they are to each other, with English being a Germanic language with a lot of French grafted on to it. And the genetic profile of Turkey and Greece match each other much better than they match Germany, Britain, Ireland or Spain. If you refer to the very handy list of genetic profiles for different European countries that Maciamo has provided for us in the Genetics section of this website, you'll see that both Turkey and Greece have a lot more J2 and E1b1b than Britain or Spain, and a lot less R1b. The interesting thing about Britain, Ireland and Spain is just how dominant R1b is in those countries. And of course Germany has a lot more R1b than Greece or Turkey but less than Britain or Spain. Turkey has a lot less I haplotype than any of the other countries. As for the Illyrians, people can't seem to agree as to who they were, although some of us see a connection to the Albanians. If you buy yourself an atlas, you'll see how close Greece and Turkey are to one another, and how far they are from Spain, Britain and Ireland. And of course there are a lot of cultural affinities between Greece and Turkey today, simply because the Turks occupied Greece for centuries. And that might have affected the genetic similarities just as much as proximity did.

 

[Dianatomia]

you'll see that both Turkey and Greece have a lot more J2 and E1b1b than Britain or Spain, and a lot less R1b.

Unlike Greeks, Turks do not have a lot of E-V13. Germans and Brits have more of it. E1b is a far bigger variety.

And of course there are a lot of cultural affinities between Greece and Turkey today, simply because the Turks occupied Greece for centuries. And that might have affected the genetic similarities just as much as proximity did.

Central Asian markers brought by Turks in the middle ages are absent in Greeks, so that rules out genetic similarities because of Turkish occupation. There is some degree of overlap from before that.

 

[Aberdeen]

Unlike Greeks, Turks do not have a lot of E-V13. Germans and Brits have more of it. E1b is a far bigger variety.


Central Asian markers brought by Turks in the middle ages are absent in Greeks, so that rules out genetic similarities because of Turkish occupation. There is some degree of overlap from before that.

E1b1b is more common in Greece (21%) than in Turkey (11%), but it's considerably higher in both those countries than it is in German (5.5%) and England (2%). I don't know about "central Asian markers". Can you explain about that?

 

[sparkey]

My personal opinion is that it was majority I at least back to maybe 3000 BC.

3000 BC is a bit of a stretch on the TMRCA calculations for Balkan Haplogroup I subclades, unless you subscribe to Zhivotovsky's method or if you think all TMRCA calculations are useless. Or perhaps you think the original Balkan lines went extinct over 3000 years or so in favor of spreading I2a-Din? I'm trying to figure out the logic behind your opinion. The only way I can figure Illyrians to have been Haplogroup I majority would be under a hypothesis like Maciamo's combined with a relatively late arrival of Illyrians (say by 1500 BC rather than 3000 BC). And even then I find a Slavic expansion a cleaner explanation.

Of course, in the time window of it's emergence and 3000 BC, Hg I probably lived somewhere in Asia near Fertile Crescent.

Highly doubtful. The Fertile Crescent has much less Haplogroup I diversity than Europe, and there have been plenty of Mesolithic and Neolithic Haplogroup I finds, including the Loschbour and Motala samples, which carried fairly close brother clades to I2a-Din. I think it's beginning to look like I2a1b is broadly a Northern European clade.

As I recall, we have couple of hundred skeletons from Lepenski Vir, Vinca and Starcevo cultures, but there is still not much people here interested in those kind of research.

Yeah, somebody has gotta get on the genetic analysis of these. The Balkans seem to have a lot of relative latecomers in their paternal DNA compared to most of Europe, so it's difficult to use modern DNA to extrapolate what their DNA was like in the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods. It could look the same, or completely different than what we've been seeing in Western and Central Europe. I have no good guesses for what we might find in those.

 

[sparkey]

I think the Gravettian culture is evidence of an African culture/ civilization within Europe, not an indigenous European culture in ancient Europe. For example, the Venus of Lespugue figurine (seen as the paragon of Gravettian culture), is shaped liked certain women of African lineage that have a propensity towards a genetic trait known as Steatopygia i.e. very large buttocks. It's a characteristic of African Khoisan females, (as well the Pygmy females of Central Africa and Andamanese Negritos females of the Andaman). Indeed, the Grimaldi skeletons found in Monaco (dating from circa 43,000 B.C.) are similar to the Khoisan of South Africa...and the Khoisan people are the "oldest" people in the world, so it is very likely they inhabited Europe, or the landmass that included Europe in prehistory.

There are many problems with this hypothesis, including:

• The figures don't show steatopygia. Steatopygia is characterized by the angle between the back and the buttocks, not just a large buttocks. The figures don't have this angle. Much more likely is that they're an exaggeration based on the valued female physical characteristics of their culture.
• Even if they did, it would be possible that steatopygia was once more widespread than it is now.
• If you're proposing a Gibraltar area introduction of these African lineages, it conflicts with the archaeology of the Gravettian culture, which shows an origin near Crimea.
• Is there any evidence of Khoisan even in North Africa?

Instead, I think the ancient Hellenic/ Greek culture (i.e. exemplified by Homer's Odyssey etc) is more representative of Haplogroup I's embryonic/proto "Illyrian-Germanic culture", rather than the Gravettian culture.

Then why is there so little Haplogroup I diversity in Hellenic/Greek areas? For having its early stages there, it sure looks like a latecomer to there. And how old do you think Haplogroup I is anyway? It's not really on the same timescale as Homer...

 

[gyms]

Clarissant:And the Balkans have the highest haplogroup I concentrations.

Maybe.


From: "Debbie Kennett" <[email protected]>
Subject: [yDNAhgI] I2a now predicted as L201 (G1a1b)
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 19:28:02 +0100
I have a project member who was previously predicted to be I2a and is now
predicted to be G-L201 (G1a1b). I presume the change is as a result of using
37 markers for the predictions rather than just 12 markers. His 37-marker
matches include people whose terminal SNP is listed as P37 (G1a1b), which
appears to be synonymous with L201, and one person whose terminal SNP is
L233 (I2a1b). P37 seems to be one of those SNPs that occurs in multiple
haplogroups. I presume this is a convergence problem where it's difficult to
distinguish the two haplogroups on 37-marker results. I note that a number
of people in the I2a project are now all in haplogroup G. Are they really Gs
or is this a problem with the new algorithms?

 

[sparkey]

Clarissant:And the Balkans have the highest haplogroup I concentrations.

Maybe.

The new FTDNA haplotree and prediction algorithm are garbage. For example, they've defined my clade out of existence by setting L68 as phyloequivalent to L460, they predict me incorrectly as I2-M223, and they predict other members of I2-L596 nonsensically to "N1a1aC," which isn't even a real haplogroup subclade. Seems that the same sort of nonsense is happening to I2a-Din. Hopefully they fix it soon.