The founding and migration of I2a2b

Yes, there has been quite a bit of back and forth, but that wasn't what I was trying to say. Surnames are, I think, really irrelevant. That there is a D with a German name is not a surprise. Could be the result of a meeting between an Irishman on a walk-about or a sailor and a friendly German maid. And If that meeting had happened in the millenia before surnames, the result would still be a German surname. Or if they got married an Irish surname. For now, I would consider these to be outliers, but more data could certainly change that. For Isles B, the "Isles" part now does seem slightly wrong with 25% of the B being on the continent.

Let's assume, for lack of better information, that Aiden's map does represent the approximate distribution of C. It looks like about half of them are in Ireland and the other half on Britain, with a few outliers.

If C were born in Ireland, that would mean that something like half the population of C moved out of Ireland to Britain. And I think we are not able to suggest why it would be only the C moving east. The rest of the population mix would likewise have moved east - some kind of mass migration.

Half! I don't think even the famine gets to that kind of numbers moving east to England, does it? To Boston and New York, maybe, but England?

Much simpler to consider that C was born in England and, early on while the total numbers were still small, some of them moved on to Ireland. We would get the split distribution without having to postulate some great migration back to Britain. Ockham's razor.

I can see your reasoning here but Nordtvedt definately sees C as being 'born' in Ireland. Maybe you are right. 'Who' might C represent, if any 'tribal' folk? As I understand it, some Brythonic-speaking tribes were in Ireland prior to the Gaels, for example the Brigantes [also in northern England]. I wonder if they figure here in any way? Some of the Brigantes are supposed to have moved to Ireland from England. What do you think?
 
I can see your reasoning here but Nordtvedt definately sees C as being 'born' in Ireland. Maybe you are right. 'Who' might C represent, if any 'tribal' folk? As I understand it, some Brythonic-speaking tribes were in Ireland prior to the Gaels, for example the Brigantes [also in northern England]. I wonder if they figure here in any way? Some of the Brigantes are supposed to have moved to Ireland from England. What do you think?
Brigantes: There are no written records of the Brigantes before the Roman conquest of Britain; it is therefore hard to assess how long they had existed as a political entity prior to that. Most key archaeological sites in the region seem to show continued, undisturbed occupation from an early date, so their rise to power may have been gradual rather than a sudden, dramatic conquest, or it may be linked to the burning of the large hill fort at Castle Hill, Almondbury near Huddersfield, c.430BCE. Territorially the largest tribe in Britain, the Brigantes encompassed sub-tribes or septs such as the Gabrantovices on the Yorkshire Coast,[6] and the Textoverdi[7] further North near Hadrian's Wall. The names Portus Setantiorum and Coria Lopocarum suggest other groups, the Setantii and the Lopocares located on the Lancashire coast and the River Tyne respectively. A name Corionototae[8] is also recorded but since the name seems to derive from *Corion Toutas meaning "tribal army" or "people's army" it may have been a name for a military force or resistance against the Romans rather than any tribe or sub-tribe. The Carvetii may have been another sub-tribe, or they may have been separate from the Brigantes; they made up a separate civitas under Roman rule. from Wikipedia

Brythonic seems to have an association with, among others, Wales and Welch, so apparently that would rule them out for being our people.

The Brigantes are considered Celtic and are apparently relatively recent, e.g. 430 BC. We are looking for something about 3,000 years older than that. The quote indicates that the Brigantes did have a lot of sub-tribes, so maybe one of them would be possible, but really I would rule them out as being Johnny-come-latelys.

I would like to KN's reasoning on that. As I mentioned, I do not like to find myself in disagreement with him - he is the master. But doesn't his data have exactly the same weaknesses that Aiden's map does? Uncertain locations even as to country, data bias by clustering, and so forth?
 
Brigantes: There are no written records of the Brigantes before the Roman conquest of Britain; it is therefore hard to assess how long they had existed as a political entity prior to that. Most key archaeological sites in the region seem to show continued, undisturbed occupation from an early date, so their rise to power may have been gradual rather than a sudden, dramatic conquest, or it may be linked to the burning of the large hill fort at Castle Hill, Almondbury near Huddersfield, c.430BCE. Territorially the largest tribe in Britain, the Brigantes encompassed sub-tribes or septs such as the Gabrantovices on the Yorkshire Coast,[6] and the Textoverdi[7] further North near Hadrian's Wall. The names Portus Setantiorum and Coria Lopocarum suggest other groups, the Setantii and the Lopocares located on the Lancashire coast and the River Tyne respectively. A name Corionototae[8] is also recorded but since the name seems to derive from *Corion Toutas meaning "tribal army" or "people's army" it may have been a name for a military force or resistance against the Romans rather than any tribe or sub-tribe. The Carvetii may have been another sub-tribe, or they may have been separate from the Brigantes; they made up a separate civitas under Roman rule. from Wikipedia

Brythonic seems to have an association with, among others, Wales and Welch, so apparently that would rule them out for being our people.

The Brigantes are considered Celtic and are apparently relatively recent, e.g. 430 BC. We are looking for something about 3,000 years older than that. The quote indicates that the Brigantes did have a lot of sub-tribes, so maybe one of them would be possible, but really I would rule them out as being Johnny-come-latelys.

I would like to KN's reasoning on that. As I mentioned, I do not like to find myself in disagreement with him - he is the master. But doesn't his data have exactly the same weaknesses that Aiden's map does? Uncertain locations even as to country, data bias by clustering, and so forth?

Well, there are plenty of historians who argue that there were Brythonic tribes in Ireland before the coming of the Gaels, and the Brigantes are nearly always mentioned. However, I am not necessarily saying that they do link to Isles C. Nordtvedt seems fairly confident that C was born in Ireland and that D is an off-shoot. I suppose I could email him to ask his reasoning on this if you wish?

You ask me a straight question, and I'll give you a straight answer. Yes, Ken's data is weak in terms of numbers etc. That is without doubt. Isles is a tiny clade. Not everyone [Anatole Klyosov, for example] agrees with Ken's codification of clades and methods of dating. I have a great respect for Ken though. He has helped me a great deal over the last 4 years.
 
Well, there are plenty of historians who argue that there were Brythonic tribes in Ireland before the coming of the Gaels, and the Brigantes are nearly always mentioned. However, I am not necessarily saying that they do link to Isles C. Nordtvedt seems fairly confident that C was born in Ireland and that D is an off-shoot. I suppose I could email him to ask his reasoning on this if you wish?

You ask me a straight question, and I'll give you a straight answer. Yes, Ken's data is weak in terms of numbers etc. That is without doubt. Isles is a tiny clade. Not everyone [Anatole Klyosov, for example] agrees with Ken's codification of clades and methods of dating. I have a great respect for Ken though. He has helped me a great deal over the last 4 years.
We are in full agreement in our respect for KN and his work. He saw something early on that others did not see, and he has pursued it despite skepticism from some major players in the field. As time has provided more data, his concepts seem to be getting stronger, not weaker. Unlike some who drew early conclusions and seem to have entrenched themselves in defense of their initial positions and the reputations built thereon, Ken has shown himself to be willing to modify his concepts as new data has come in. He is seeking truth, not fame.

I am confident that his handling of the scientific information in the dna is as good as it can be, given the very small sample size. The data problems in KN's and Aiden's information I am referring to are in the non-scientific information, that is, in the very loosy-goosy way in which the geographic origins are self-reported by the sample donors. What conclusions could be drawn and where would the pushpin be placed if the location is reported as "perhaps Ireland"? To point out that this is a weakness in the data is not in any way to disparage Ken's or Aiden's work.

Ptolemy's map has its flaws, but we still refer to it. I suspect we may be referring to Aiden's map for a very long time as well.

When (when, not if) SNPs are discovered to support KN's clades, much of the opposition will have to fall away. L161 is just the first one. That is solid scientific evidence. There will be more. But SNPs do not improve or strengthen the state of the geographic information.
-----------

I would like very much to know Ken's thoughts on this, but it would be proper to frame the questions in such a way that his answers would not be required to constitute an endorsement of any particular firm position.

Perhaps these:

About the Bottleneck (I am pretty sure he is considering the idea that there may be a bottleneck because he has a file bottleneck.ppt on his site) - Have you developed a range of time in which this bottleneck may have happened, and if so, is the 8.2 kiloyear event perhaps within that time range? Is it possible that the bottleneck and the 8.2 kiloyear event coincide?

Would the distribution of C, considering the geographic data uncertainties, leave open the possibility that C was founded on Britain? How wide is the estimated time range and the geographic area for the founding?

I think these may be fair questions that would not require that he tie himself to any premature conclusions. What other questions would you suggest?
 
Ok, I'll put these questions to Ken. I can't think of any others yet. I'll come back to you when I get an answer. Bear in mind that it is early Friday evening at the time of writing. Ken usually replies swiftly to me, but he might be relaxing this weekend away from the world of haplogroups.
 
Ken Nordtvedt's reply:

'I2a2b-Isles C clades have TMRCA of 2,700 years. They look pretty Irish to me, although certainly not completely so. As to where the clades were founded, I nicknamed them 'Isles' not 'Emerald Isles', so I'm not about to pinpoint their foundings any more than geographical. There is an Irish tilt to all the clades of I2a2b, though some more strongly than others.

Present interclade distances suggest Isles B and Isles C branch lines went their own way very long ago, and then D later derived from the C bunch and A derived from the B bunch. So, there may be 2 histories here....'

Tantalizing words indeed from the Master himself...
 
Ken Nordtvedt's reply:

'I2a2b-Isles C clades have TMRCA of 2,700 years. They look pretty Irish to me, although certainly not completely so. As to where the clades were founded, I nicknamed them 'Isles' not 'Emerald Isles', so I'm not about to pinpoint their foundings any more than geographical. There is an Irish tilt to all the clades of I2a2b, though some more strongly than others.

Present interclade distances suggest Isles B and Isles C branch lines went their own way very long ago, and then D later derived from the C bunch and A derived from the B bunch. So, there may be 2 histories here....'

Tantalizing words indeed from the Master himself...
Tantalizing and, to me, it is a great relief to see that I may not be in a state of contradiction or disagreement. KN says: "As to where the clades were founded, I nicknamed them 'Isles' not 'Emerald Isles'" That would pretty much seem to leave the door open.
 
Here is a bit about Bell Beaker Culture and the copper that was mined at Killarney. Another of Europe’s best-preserved copper mines has been discovered at Mount Gabriel in County Cork, which was worked for several centuries in the middle of the second millennium.[6] Mines in Cork and Kerry are believed to have produced as much as 370 tonnes of copper during the Bronze Age. As only about 0.2% of this can be accounted for in excavated bronze artifacts, it is surmised that Ireland was a major exporter of copper during this period. This seems to closely overlap the time and range of Isles A.

Furthermore Isles A have some suspected associations with sea trade from western Cork and reaching to France and Iberia going back millenia.

"Bell beakers spread from continental Europe to Britain and Ireland around 2500BC. However, the pattern of spread of bell beakers from Europe indicate that it spread to Ireland through southern England.Beaker pottery may have initially been traded. Some of it will have come with people from the continent, after a time it will have been made locally. But the rapid spread of this fashion from Europe around 2500BC after several hundred years of very conservative pottery styles in Britain (e.g. grooved ware) indicates hugely increased contacts with Europe.
To me it seems that the first flowering of sophisticated societies in Wessex in the second half of the third millennium BC was based on some kind of trade with Europe. This trade brought European goods, such as beakers, as well as European ideas into southern England. In a more distorted form, those same goods and ideas also reached Ireland.
The trade of goods back to Europe may well have been, at least in part, of highly valuable arsenic bronze. I suspect that what made Wessex flourish was that ability to control the trade from Ireland to the continent.§
The middlemen and traders living and working in southern England could have worked together. More likely they formed rival centres, with settlements of people living (all year) at Durrington Walls, near Stonehenge and, arguably, in the West Kennet enclosures near Avebury. And during that early flowering of culture, based on the arsenic bronze trade from Ireland, they built the great monuments at Avebury and Stonehenge (and perhaps Stanton Drew) that we see today."


http://armchairprehistory.com/2010/...s-island-and-the-perils-of-the-cornish-coast/


The copper was mined on Ross Island at Killarney, near to my Isles A ancestors, and perhaps shipped on the Bristol Avon through Wiltshire, near my most distant genealogical patriarch, and on to the continent, so both my dna and genealogy fall on different points of this very ancient trade route.


Could this be a common finding among the Isles A?
 
Last edited:
Here is a bit about Bell Beaker Culture and the copper that was mined at Killarney. Is seems to closely overlap the time and range of Isles A.

Furthermore Isles A have some suspected associations with sea trade from western Cork and reaching to France and Iberia going back millenia.

"Bell beakers spread from continental Europe to Britain and Ireland around 2500BC. However, the pattern of spread of bell beakers from Europe indicate that it spread to Ireland through southern England.Beaker pottery may have initially been traded. Some of it will have come with people from the continent, after a time it will have been made locally. But the rapid spread of this fashion from Europe around 2500BC after several hundred years of very conservative pottery styles in Britain (e.g. grooved ware) indicates hugely increased contacts with Europe.
To me it seems that the first flowering of sophisticated societies in Wessex in the second half of the third millennium BC was based on some kind of trade with Europe. This trade brought European goods, such as beakers, as well as European ideas into southern England. In a more distorted form, those same goods and ideas also reached Ireland.
The trade of goods back to Europe may well have been, at least in part, of highly valuable arsenic bronze. I suspect that what made Wessex flourish was that ability to control the trade from Ireland to the continent.§
The middlemen and traders living and working in southern England could have worked together. More likely they formed rival centres, with settlements of people living (all year) at Durrington Walls, near Stonehenge and, arguably, in the West Kennet enclosures near Avebury. And during that early flowering of culture, based on the arsenic bronze trade from Ireland, they built the great monuments at Avebury and Stonehenge (and perhaps Stanton Drew) that we see today."


http://armchairprehistory.com/2010/...s-island-and-the-perils-of-the-cornish-coast/


The copper was mined on Ross Island at Killarney, near to my Isles A ancestors, and perhaps shipped on the Bristol Avon through Wiltshire, near my most distant genealogical patriarch, and on to the continent, so both my dna and genealogy fall on different points of this very ancient trade route.


Could this be a common finding among the Isles A?

I do not know, JD. As I understand it, subclade A of L161 I2a2b-Isles has a particular hotspot in the O'Driscolls of Cork area. I wonder if in-depth research into their clann history might reveal something.
 
I do not know, JD. As I understand it, subclade A of L161 I2a2b-Isles has a particular hotspot in the O'Driscolls of Cork area. I wonder if in-depth research into their clann history might reveal something.
Being an A1 with O'Driscoll related dna, I am trying to pursue that, but records are scarce and difficult to access from my rural southern USA location.
 
Being an A1 with O'Driscoll related dna, I am trying to pursue that, but records are scarce and difficult to access from my rural southern USA location.

I appreciate the difficulties. In view of what you were saying previously, you might find Stephen Oppenheimer's comments on the distribution of old I1b2 [now M26 I2a1] and old I1b [now L161 I2a2b-Isles] in Britain and Ireland interesting.

In 'The Origins of the British' [2007], now considered well out-of-date by many who wouldn't know one end of a test-tube from the other, Oppenheimer says little about I1b [I2a2] in the West. However, he does say that it is 'very uncommon' but has, 'a similar age and distribution to I1b2 [now I2a1] in the western British isles'. This distribution, according to Oppenheimer, dates to the Mesolithic, and covers the Channel Islands, northern Wessex, south-west England, Wales and Ireland. There is no attempt to split the old I1b [I2a2] into the 'Isles' and 'Dinaric' types favoured by Nordtvedt, and the Mesolithic dating precedes Nordtvedt's Neolithic dating of the earliest Isles B clades.

My view is that a percentage of the I2a2b in England and lowland Scotland comes from the Germanic incursions, but the bulk of I2a2b is ancient. I too have wondered if the oldest clades date back to the late Mesolithic and maybe a link to the narrowblade culture. However, I don't see any Welsh or Channel Islands distribution of I2a2b as Oppenheimer seems to. Sykes does not agree with Oppenheimer's dating of I2a2 in Britain, seeing it as more recent, hence the Anglo-Saxon possibility.

I draw your attention to Oppenheimer's take on the distribution of I2a1 and I2a2 because of what you said re I2a2b-Isles A and the sea- trade route, Wessex and Ireland etc. Oppenheimer seems to link I2a1 in particular with the spread of cardial ware.
 
More on the copper mining: Another of Europe’s best-preserved copper mines has been discovered at Mount Gabriel in County Cork (about 15 km west of Skibbereen), which was worked for several centuries in the middle of the second millennium.[6] Mines in Cork and Kerry are believed to have produced as much as 370 tonnes of copper during the Bronze Age. As only about 0.2% of this can be accounted for in excavated bronze artifacts, it is surmised that Ireland was a major exporter of copper during this period.

This one is right in the middle of Driscoll territory.
 
We do have some Isle of Man representation.

on Ysearch:

SNC8Q matches me 48/67, name Kinley
N7FK5 matches me 46/67, name Kinley
A9D2B matches me 46/67, name Kinley
There is also a Kinley on Ancestry.com classified A1/A2, who might be one of these.
 
I am not really familiar with exact spread of I2a2-Isles branches... By looking at familytreedna maps of found samples it seems to me that there might be correlation between I2a2-Isles branches and spread of Megalithic cultures in UK and Brittany...
Megalithic_Culture.PNG


is there correlation of I2a2-Isles with spreads of I1 or I2b1 in UK?
 
"Oppenheimer seems to link I2a1 in particular with the spread of cardial ware."

Problem with that is the I2a1 goes back perhaps to a mesolithic arrival in Ireland and these potteries are neolithic.

------------------

About the arrival of farming in UK: some suggest farming arrived first in Ireland with immigrants from the south and then spread to England more by diffusion than migration.

If that were correct, it might explain some of our population distribution problems. Isles C met and adopted farming, e.g. became neolithic, and flourished, while Isles B was still clinging to a difficult mesolithic seacoast lifestyle and barely survived. This would give C a head start and so a bigger population with effect lasting to the present.

Is there anything in this idea?
 
"Oppenheimer seems to link I2a1 in particular with the spread of cardial ware."

Problem with that is the I2a1 goes back perhaps to a mesolithic arrival in Ireland and these potteries are neolithic.

------------------

About the arrival of farming in UK: some suggest farming arrived first in Ireland with immigrants from the south and then spread to England more by diffusion than migration.

If that were correct, it might explain some of our population distribution problems. Isles C met and adopted farming, e.g. became neolithic, and flourished, while Isles B was still clinging to a difficult mesolithic seacoast lifestyle and barely survived. This would give C a head start and so a bigger population with effect lasting to the present.

Is there anything in this idea?

There might be something in the idea re subclade C. As Ken has hinted, maybe there are 2 distinct histories here- that of A/B and that of C/D. Tim Owen's idea that there could have been different 'waves' of Isles to Britain strikes me as possible. It is not beyond doubt that C and D were 'born' in Ireland. We need more data. There is enough C and D on the continent, relatively speaking, to challenge the idea that both were 'born' in Ireland in my view. There are D's in England with non-Irish surnames. Aiden has mentioned to me, a while ago, the English-leanings of subclade D. I am an example..

Thanks for the info on Isle of Man members.
 
I am not really familiar with exact spread of I2a2-Isles branches... By looking at familytreedna maps of found samples it seems to me that there might be correlation between I2a2-Isles branches and spread of Megalithic cultures in UK and Brittany...
Megalithic_Culture.PNG


is there correlation of I2a2-Isles with spreads of I1 or I2b1 in UK?

I certainly think that there may be a connection with the earliest B subclades of I2a2b-Isles and Megaliths, but strictly in the north-west, far west and centre west groups you usefully draw our attention to as L161 I2a2b-Isles was likely founded on the north German plain. Maybe M26 I2a1 links to the southern Med exampes?

The bulk of I2a2b is in Ireland but there is a 'decent' distribution in England and lowland Scotland [plus some continentals] for a tiny clade. The English and lowland Scots distribution covers areas that I1 and I2b1 are found, but I1 is a much younger clade. Bryan Sykes, for example, sees this British I2a2 as most likely brought to England and Scotland by the Anglo-Saxons and remains 'yet to be convinced by substantial dates' that I2a2 in Britain can date to Neolithic/Mesolithic. As you may have gathered, I think Tim Owen ['Genes of the Cruthin' blog] is correct in that L161 I2a2-Isles came from both recent and ancient 'waves' of people.
 
I certainly think that there may be a connection with the earliest B subclades of I2a2b-Isles and Megaliths, but strictly in the north-west, far west and centre west groups you usefully draw our attention to as L161 I2a2b-Isles was likely founded on the north German plain. Maybe M26 I2a1 links to the southern Med exampes?

The bulk of I2a2b is in Ireland but there is a 'decent' distribution in England and lowland Scotland [plus some continentals] for a tiny clade. The English and lowland Scots distribution covers areas that I1 and I2b1 are found, but I1 is a much younger clade. Bryan Sykes, for example, sees this British I2a2 as most likely brought to England and Scotland by the Anglo-Saxons and remains 'yet to be convinced by substantial dates' that I2a2 in Britain can date to Neolithic/Mesolithic. As you may have gathered, I think Tim Owen ['Genes of the Cruthin' blog] is correct in that L161 I2a2-Isles came from both recent and ancient 'waves' of people.
Oppenheimer suggests that the Anglo-Saxon genetic input was about 5% of the local population. If, as Sykes insists, I2a2 came with them and now constitutes about 2% of the local population, it is mathematically required that the incoming Anglo Saxons would have to have been about 40% I2a2. There is no indication at all in the Anglo Saxon source areas of anything like this. In fact, the reverse is true. There at the source, I2a2 may be very much less than 1%, perhaps 1% of 1%.

Any and all later incoming waves would have diluted the I2a2 base, not reinforced it, because the same math applies to them.

Therefore, I2a2b, virtually all of it, was here before them. In those invasions, maybe less than ten individuals total who were I2a2 and more likely, the number of those who survived combat, the difficulties of colonization, disease, and accident to procreate with the local women is, I think, zero.

Unless I have got some fundamental misunderstanding of the math here (always possible), the idea that I2a2 was brought by the Anglo Saxons is utterly absurd - a "flat earth" level of absurd. Why this idea is still hanging around, I don't know.

Tell me why I am wrong.
 
Last edited:
I was planning on posting the following pictures sometime and this thread seems a good place as they have to do with pre-R1b Ireland. I was sparked to do so by the map entitled Megalithic Ireland which I believe is incorrect.

These maps are taken from a paper derived from a survey done by the Ordnance Survey of Ireland and Professor Ruaidhri (Rory) De Valera. I lost the link to the paper, so I put a PDF of it on my site:
http://ringofgullion.com/graphics/dna/Nuallain.pdf

There are seven distinct epochs in prehistoric Ireland and only the last two are R1b related, so the other five tie into the introduction of the I clades into Ireland and this thread.


I wonder how the four different types of Megaliths tie in with the discussion in this thread. There is controversy as to whether each style was introduced by a new people or by the evolution of the original group.
Different I2a2b groups?

What I think is interesting is that the artifacts of all but the Bell Beaker Peoples, are almost entirely in the northern half of the island if you take a line from the Shannon estuary on the west and connect it to the Boyne River on the east. Celtic mythology also speaks of the early Celts dividing the island into Eber's half and Heremon's half, along about the same line. So it seems likely that the influence for them came from Scotland and not directly from France or Spain.


The following are the epochs and the rough dates for each.


Mesolithic: about 6,000 - 4,000 BCE


Neolithic: 4,000 - 2,000 BCE

Court Tombs
Passage Tombs
Portal Tombs (Dolmens)
Wedge Tombs

Bell Beaker: 2,000 - about 500 BCE


LaTene: about 500BCE

Mesolithic
irishmeso.gif


Court Tombs (the oldest)
courts.jpg


Passage Graves (next oldest)
PassageGraves.jpg


Portal Tombs/Dolmens (next oldest)
dolmens.jpg


Wedge Tombs (youngest and overlapped the early Bronze age)
wedge-nolan.jpg


Bell Beaker cist graves
cists-nolan.jpg


LaTene Celts
LaTene.gif

 
Oppenheimer suggests that the Anglo-Saxon genetic input was about 5% of the local population. If, as Sykes insists, I2a2 came with them and now constitutes about 2% of the local population, it is mathematically required that the incoming Anglo Saxons would have to have been about 40% I2a2. There is no indication at all in the Anglo Saxon source areas of anything like this. In fact, the reverse is true. There at the source, I2a2 may be very much less than 1%, perhaps 1% of 1%.

Any and all later incoming waves would have diluted the I2a2 base, not reinforced it, because the same math applies to them.

Therefore, I2a2b, virtually all of it, was here before them. In those invasions, maybe less than ten individuals total who were I2a2 and more likely, the number of those who survived combat, the difficulties of colonization, disease, and accident to procreate with the local women is, I think, zero.

Unless I have got some fundamental misunderstanding of the math here (always possible), the idea that I2a2 was brought by the Anglo Saxons is utterly absurd - a "flat earth" level of absurd. Why this idea is still hanging around, I don't know.

Tell me why I am wrong.

I'll tell you why you are wrong, if you like. Though, I must say that there is no need for the bold print.

To begin with, Oppenheimer's 5% estimate for Anglo-Saxon contributions to the gene-pool have been hotly contested as a gross under-estimation. Evidence from Capelli et al, Weale et al and others suggest that the Anglo-Saxons made a considerably larger impact. Others who line up against Oppenheimer's 5% claim are Sir Walter Bodmer who has recently conducted a systematic genetic survey of the British people, and Ken Nordtvedt.

Interestingly too, Oppenheimer based a lot of his work on that of Peter Forster. I have had email contact with Forster recently [his company reanalysed my Ydna results] and he agrees with Sykes that Anglo Saxons are a possibility for 'carriers' of I2a2b to Britain. Anatole Klyosov is of the same view, though he agrees with Tim Owen that most came before the advent of the Anglo-Saxons. Recently too, Jean Manco in The Peopling of Europe suggested that Anglo-Saxons may have carried I2a2b to Britain from Germany along with earlier Celts.

To reiterate my view; a percentage of the English and lowland Scots I2a2b is likely to have arrived with the Anglo-Saxons. There is evidence of a continental, mainly German presence for I2a2b, and enough serious scientists like Sykes and Forster consider it less than a 'Flat Earth' idea that Anglo-Saxons carried I2a2. Sykes has said so since the beginning of Oxford Ancestors, when I2a2 was I1b.

The bulk of I2a2b in Britain seems more ancient, and as Tim Owen says may be connected with pre-Gaelic tribes in the Irish context.

In my opinion, it is Oppenheimer who grossly under-estimates Anglo-Saxon contributions, and you have taken his figure of 5% as the 'math' to work from. Oppenheimer's 5% is truly 'utterly absurd'. Sir Walter Bodmer [in Robin McKie's The Face of Britain, 2006] estimated that Northumberland and Durham were 77% Anglo-Saxon; Sussex and Kent were 71% Anglo-Saxon; Cumbria was 56% Anglo-Saxon; Oxfordshire was 49% Anglo-Saxon etc. These results indicate that 5% is the real 'Flat Earth' theory.

Any questions?
 

This thread has been viewed 105710 times.

Back
Top