# Population Genetics > Y-DNA Haplogroups > I1 >  The elusive non-Germanic I1

## sparkey

Firstly, it's important to preface any analysis of Haplogroup I1 with three important references:

The FTDNA Project raw data and clusteringMaciamo's mapNordtvedt's tree

Combined, we see that I1 is rather young (current Nordtvedt estimate seems to be ~4000 years old) and has a _very_ Germanic spread. It has a center of diversity around Schleswig-Holstein and a center of frequency north of there. Its initial expansion was likely out of the Nordic Bronze Age. The question I'd like to investigate is: Is there any I1 distribution that can be explained by a non-Germanic migration, and if so, what characteristics does it take?

Eupedia members have pointed out odd stretches of I1 into the Finns (evidence of a Uralic cluster?), the Balkans (evidence of a Slavic or Illyrian cluster?), and Ireland & Wales (evidence of a Celtic cluster?). But all these places _did_ have Germanic migrations, as well. Can the I1 there be clustered separately from these Germanic migrations?

I have looked at the data, but have had difficulty coming to any conclusion other than this: _If there is any non-Germanic I1, it has become non-Germanic only recently_. Let's look first at the distribution and dating of the major I1 subclades:

*I1f*: ~2000 years old with a particularly English distribution, although with some membership in Scotland, Ireland, Germany, Denmark, and even Poland.*I1d**: ~3000 years old with a very Nordic center of diversity but with a distribution everywhere, from Scandinavia to Turkey to Russia to the UK to Italy.*I1d1*: ~3000 years old with a more southern center of diversity than I1d*, but still an obviously Germanic distribution, with a lot of membership in the UK, and interesting membership in Croatia.*I1d3*: ~2000 years old with primary membership dominantly in Finland. I would suggest it to be Uralic if it wasn't for its obviously diverse (just less frequent) presence in the North Germanic countries, and its youth. As is, it looks like an expansion from Scandinavia on Finland.

So what of those spikes in interesting places? Not all I1 fits into subclades. Since Nordtvedt's STR clusters are the gold standard of I1 STR clusters, let's analyze them in the context of those:

*The Finnish spike*: There is Finnish membership in several I1 clusters, but the majority of Finnish I1 is clearly I1d3, synonymous with the Nortdvedt STR cluster of I1-Bothnian. The non-I1d3 I1 in Finland clearly joins Germanic STR clusters, but what of this I1d3? Its age (~2000 years) places it before the Migration Period, but keep in mind that the age of a haplogroup is the earliest, not the approximate average, date that would be calculated for the migration of that group. Since 2000 years ago goes only to the Classical Period, it seems apparent that this fits the Migration Period, with subsequent expansion within Finland, better than anything else. I say *Germanic*.*The Welsh spike*: The STR cluster membership and the diversity of I1 as a whole in Wales is very much parallel to the STR cluster membership and diversity of I1 as a whole in England. The only possible exceptions are Welsh membership in the Nordtvedt STR clusters of AS2 and AS4, where Welsh membership seems to be a bit higher than English membership. But the diversity within these clusters is very low--clearly low enough to be Medieval expansions--and due to their joint membership in England, there doesn't seem to be any reason to assume that they are anything but English expansions on Wales. I say *Germanic*.*The Irish spike*: The Irish clustering contrasts with the Welsh clustering in that it seems to be the product of migrations exclusively rather than any genetic expansions. Irish membership is dominated by the ubiquitous and most commonly English AS-gen STR cluster, and has a notably high membership in the Norse clusters. But it doesn't have any of its own ancient clusters, or even interesting expansions like you seem to have in Wales. The only possibility I see of a "Celtic" I1 here is _within_ the AS-gen cluster. But barring additional analysis of that, I say *Germanic*.*The spike in the Balkans*: This one is the least researched due to the lack of samples from the region, but so far, the most common cluster for Balkans members seems to be T2. T2 is an odd cluster that stretches from Ireland to the Balkans and seems to have common membership everywhere but at its center of diversity, which could indicate a displacement of I1 from its center of diversity (maybe close to Poland?). But although it's somewhat mysterious, T2's distribution is clearly not Slavic or Illyrian, and everything about it indicates Germanic, possibly a combination of East, North, and West Germanic, with its appearance in the Balkans apparently East Germanic. Other clusters present in the Balkans include different AS clusters, which are also apparently Germanic. So barring us finding an interesting Balkans-exclusive cluster, it appears that the spike (and I should probably use "spike" loosely because it really isn't all that common) in the Balkans is also *Germanic*.
Altogether, I can't find any I1 that can't be explained by a Germanic migration. Can you?

----------


## zanipolo

First of all, how relevant is this 10month old study
http://www.goggo.com/terry/Haplogrou...Migrations.pdf

Next, why does everyone assume I1 is a germanic HG, IMO, germany in early bronze age was only in the north, in central and southern Germany where gallic people and north of these "northern Germans" where the "Norse/nordic" people.

I1 could easily have migrated south from norway into northern germany , mixed , and then moved firstly, south and east from there.

I read recently, that original germanic lands in early bronze age where only ,( using modern borders,) flanders, netherlands, northern germany, poland and thenthe areas heading southeast to the carpathian mountains.

----------


## sparkey

> First of all, how relevant is this 10month old study
> http://www.goggo.com/terry/Haplogrou...Migrations.pdf


I'd never trust an analysis in Comic Sans.  :Laughing: 

Seriously, it's not an entirely unhelpful overview, and gives basically the same clustering results as Nordtvedt/the FTDNA Project do, but with more neutral names (like "BA" instead of "Bothnian"). You can refer to it if you want, but I don't see that it adds anything that I haven't already presented.




> Next, why does everyone assume I1 is a germanic HG, IMO, germany in early bronze age was only in the north, in central and southern Germany where gallic people and north of these "northern Germans" where the "Norse/nordic" people.
> 
> I1 could easily have migrated south from norway into northern germany , mixed , and then moved firstly, south and east from there.


Are you confusing _Germany_ with the _Germanic_ language family? I don't get your point. Of course Germanic languages arose toward the northern end of their modern distribution, and subsequently spread several directions from several different starting points.




> I read recently, that original germanic lands in early bronze age where only ,( using modern borders,) flanders, netherlands, northern germany, poland and thenthe areas heading southeast to the carpathian mountains.


Who says that? Germanic languages in the Carpathians shortly after the Bronze Age? Only a recent introduction to Denmark?

----------


## zanipolo

> I'd never trust an analysis in Comic Sans. 
> 
> Seriously, it's not an entirely unhelpful overview, and gives basically the same clustering results as Nordtvedt/the FTDNA Project do, but with more neutral names (like "BA" instead of "Bothnian"). You can refer to it if you want, but I don't see that it adds anything that I haven't already presented.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you confusing _Germany_ with the _Germanic_ language family? I don't get your point. Of course Germanic languages arose toward the northern end of their modern distribution, and subsequently spread several directions from several different starting points.


 I am referring to people as in culturally and mostly likely genetically and not langustically, btw , germanic language is well known in the ancient/dark ages times as inferior to the gallic/celtic in languages, we see this later as the germanic franks became gallic linguistically, germanic lombards became italo-gallic and the normans became gallic linguistically too......there are more examples
But languages is not what I refer too in previous post.

As I stated, I1 was originally norde/nordic ( be it norway, sweden and denmark )

----------


## zanipolo

> Who says that? Germanic languages in the Carpathians shortly after the Bronze Age? Only a recent introduction to Denmark?


The Bastanae and peucini where germanic tribes in the carpathian and north of these mountains, they started the proto german-slavic linguistic connection ..........but this is another thread

----------


## sparkey

> I am referring to people as in culturally and mostly likely genetically and not langustically, btw , germanic language is well known in the ancient/dark ages times as inferior to the gallic/celtic in languages, we see this later as the germanic franks became gallic linguistically, germanic lombards became italo-gallic and the normans became gallic linguistically too......there are more examples
> But languages is not what I refer too in previous post.


OK, let's be careful with our terminology then. I am referring to the migration of peoples who spoke, or who came directly from an ethnicity who originally spoke, a language that is a member of the Germanic language family.




> As I stated, I1 was originally norde/nordic ( be it norway, sweden and denmark )


I think if it originated in Norway, Sweden, or Denmark, then Denmark is the one, because its center of diversity has been pinpointed just south of there, in Schleswig-Holstein. But it's definitely possible that it was part of the Nordic Bronze Age.




> The Bastanae and peucini where germanic tribes in the carpathian and north of these mountains, they started the proto german-slavic linguistic connection ..........but this is another thread


The Bastarnae were well after the Bronze Age, and their existence doesn't really challenge anything, other than offering another possible Germanic source for Southeastern European I1. Unless you're saying that they contributed to a major Slavic, rather than Germanic, migration into the Carpatians, and carried that T2 cluster that I was talking about?

----------


## Taranis

Interesting analsyis, Sparkey! Very impressive.

I do have a question, however, which tackles both the I1 presence in Ireland/Wales as well as in Eastern Europe: while I totally agree that virtually all I1 can be reasonably explained with the Germanic migrations, is there any practial way to discern from the available data between any iron age migrations and the Migrations Period?

Otherwise, I would say 'there go my ideas about I1 in Ireland...'  :Laughing:

----------


## zanipolo

> I think if it originated in Norway, Sweden, or Denmark, then Denmark is the one, because its center of diversity has been pinpointed just south of there, in Schleswig-Holstein. But it's definitely possible that it was part of the Nordic Bronze Age.


You could be right as Schleswig-Holstein was migrated later by saxon, angels and jutes later on




> The Bastarnae were well after the Bronze Age, and their existence doesn't really challenge anything, other than offering another possible Germanic source for Southeastern European I1. Unless you're saying that they contributed to a major Slavic, rather than Germanic, migration into the Carpatians, and carried that T2 cluster that I was talking about?


i thought more of it being U instead of T2, .........more U4 or U5

----------


## sparkey

> Interesting analsyis, Sparkey! Very impressive.
> 
> I do have a question, however, which tackles both the I1 presence in Ireland/Wales as well as in Eastern Europe: while I totally agree that virtually all I1 can be reasonably explained with the Germanic migrations, is there any practial way to discern from the available data between any iron age migrations and the Migrations Period?
> 
> Otherwise, I would say 'there go my ideas about I1 in Ireland...'


It's pretty much a judgment call based on the available data, because it looks like all these I1 clusters are getting similar STR dating estimates of 2000-3000 years ago. A rule of thumb is that geographic separation between clusters is more likely to be the result of Iron Age migrations, like how we see that I1f is more West Germanic (I think), while I1d* is more North Germanic (pretty clearly), but the expansions on places we see within clusters are more indicative of Migration Period migrations, like the apparent expansion on Finland within I1d3.

I have trouble seeing how any Irish I1 is anything other than late Germanic influence, from the Migration Period onward. The Welsh clusters are interesting, though, and I may have been too quick to dismiss them. AS2 probably less so, as it stretches to the Continent and is more obviously Anglo-Saxon, but AS4 doesn't have much English membership and even has Irish membership. Maybe it's a bad assumption that AS4's English membership is representative of its origin, I'm not sure.

----------


## Shetop

There is one new circumstance which could affect analysis regarding Germanic people and their connection to I1. This new knowledge comes from recent breakthrough in development of structure in R1a.

Namely, the most of Scandinavian R1a has Z284 SNP, and at the same time this SNP is almost absent from other parts of Europe. So the question is can some conclusions be drawn from knowing this circumstance?

My view is that it does not mean I1 in different parts of Europe is not Germanic, but that it could maybe be used more for understanding more distant past of Germanic people.

----------


## sparkey

> i thought more of it being U instead of T2, .........more U4 or U5


I'm talking about I1 STR clusters, not mtDNA. I don't think there's an I1 STR cluster called U4 or U5.

See here for modals of the common ones (maybe outdated but shouldn't have changed much since then).

----------


## sparkey

> Namely, the most of Scandinavian R1a has Z284 SNP, and at the same time this SNP is almost absent from other parts of Europe. So the question is can some conclusions be drawn from knowing this circumstance?


Is it thought to be an expansion from the Northwestern edge of Corded Ware Culture? It sounds like it just by hearing about it, but I don't know if you have dates or anything regarding it. If so, it shouldn't affect I1 much, as I1 was, with some certainty, not part of Corded Ware. Though, if we find where else that R1a subclade ended up, it might help us draw a picture of which I1 came from Scandinavia in particular.

----------


## Shetop

I don't have data about age, but I've seen this map made by some Russian. Pins represent people tested positive to Z284. Great Britain has a lot of pins, but if I remember well R1a is much lower there than in Scandinavia, and origin of this R1a could be easily explained by Germanic migrations:

----------


## Taranis

> It's pretty much a judgment call based on the available data, because it looks like all these I1 clusters are getting similar STR dating estimates of 2000-3000 years ago. A rule of thumb is that geographic separation between clusters is more likely to be the result of Iron Age migrations, like how we see that I1f is more West Germanic (I think), while I1d* is more North Germanic (pretty clearly), but the expansions on places we see within clusters are more indicative of Migration Period migrations, like the apparent expansion on Finland within I1d3.


Well, this is definitely a compelling point, and I have nothing to argue against that. What I actually also find surprising here is the situation in Finland.




> I have trouble seeing how any Irish I1 is anything other than late Germanic influence, from the Migration Period onward. The Welsh clusters are interesting, though, and I may have been too quick to dismiss them. AS2 probably less so, as it stretches to the Continent and is more obviously Anglo-Saxon, but AS4 doesn't have much English membership and even has Irish membership. Maybe it's a bad assumption that AS4's English membership is representative of its origin, I'm not sure.


Well, I must admit that my original consideration was that I1 in Ireland seemed to be too high to be considered solely the source of late Germanic influence (in the case of Ireland, only the Vikings and the English). From that perspective, as well as the generally high concentrations of I1 in the British Isles, the idea came to me if there might have been an iron age migration component to I1. However, I must say that I largely discarded this already:

There has been an interesting archaeological argument (somebody here brought this up a while ago): first off, La-Tene influence in Ireland is obviously rather peripherial, and it entered Ireland from the north. This suggests that the transmission was largely through cultural contact, rather than a population influx (unlike in Britain). What, of course, also speaks against it, is that I1 does not correlate very well at all with U152 on the British Isles.

So yes, I agree with you that with the highest likelihood, I1 in both Ireland and Wales has to be explained via Germanic influence.

----------


## Shetop

> Pins represent people tested positive to Z284.


Actually what I wrote is wrong. They are mostly predicted Z284 based on STR markers.

----------


## sparkey

> I don't have data about age, but I've seen this map made by some Russian. Pins represent people tested positive to Z284. Great Britain has a lot of pins, but if I remember well R1a is much lower there than in Scandinavia, and origin of this R1a could be easily explained by Germanic migrations:


That map makes it look to me like it is primarily confined to North Germanic peoples and their descendants, although not exclusively. Britain has a massively biased sample size, and the lack of it on the southern coast of England, but tremendous amount in Scotland, is telling. So I think that we should expect I1 just about everywhere that we see R1a-Z284, but we're probably not going to see R1a-Z284 everywhere we see I1. That's my initial impression. The corollary is that if we find I1 in places where R1a-Z284 isn't, we can't declare that I1 non-Germanic.

----------


## zanipolo

> I'd never trust an analysis in Comic Sans. 
> 
> Seriously, it's not an entirely unhelpful overview, and gives basically the same clustering results as Nordtvedt/the FTDNA Project do, but with more neutral names (like "BA" instead of "Bothnian"). You can refer to it if you want, but I don't see that it adds anything that I haven't already presented.


you did not drill deep enough to my link,

see map below
http://www.goggo.com/terry/HaplogroupI1/

----------


## sparkey

> you did not drill deep enough to my link,
> 
> see map below
> http://www.goggo.com/terry/HaplogroupI1/


Oh I see, he places I1d3 as nearly 1000 years older than Nordtvedt does, and suggests that it came out of Finland. If true, that does change the picture in Finland significantly. Still, I'm hesitant to trust his dating, which is much older for I1 as a whole as well. His suggestion in his map that "AABA" (I think that maps to Nordtvedt's AS clusters?) originated in England nearly 4000 years ago seems wrong on its face, and also makes me think that the map is meant as more of a schematic than an in-depth historical migration analysis. At least, as a schematic, it doesn't preclude there being no major non-Germanic I1 migrations or expansions.

----------


## Asturrulumbo

I mostly agree, however, I am rather confused, as assuming that both I1 and R1b-U106 came to Iberia with the Germanic migrations (which I believe is the case), why is there much more I1 than U106 in Iberia, and why is I1 relatively widespread (3%, a fair amount compared to other parts of Iberia) in places like Extremadura, and infrequent (0.5%) in places like Castilla&León?

----------


## sparkey

> I mostly agree, however, I am rather confused, as assuming that both I1 and R1b-U106 came to Iberia with the Germanic migrations (which I believe is the case), why is there much more I1 than U106 in Iberia, and why is I1 relatively widespread (3%, a fair amount compared to other parts of Iberia) in places like Extremadura, and infrequent (0.5%) in places like Castilla&León?


Here's a question that you may be able to answer better than me: Where did East Germanic peoples settle vs. West Germanic peoples in Iberia? I have a feeling that answering that will help us here. While I1 seems to have been relatively equal in frequency among the different Germanic branches, R1b-U106 seems to have been most common among West Germanic peoples in particular. 

And if it still mismatches... we'll need to analyze the diversity of I1 and R1b-U106 in different areas, to see if any founder effects are throwing us off. Frequency distributions can be misleading...

----------


## zanipolo

> Here's a question that you may be able to answer better than me: Where did East Germanic peoples settle vs. West Germanic peoples in Iberia? I have a feeling that answering that will help us here. While I1 seems to have been relatively equal in frequency among the different Germanic branches, R1b-U106 seems to have been most common among West Germanic peoples in particular. 
> 
> And if it still mismatches... we'll need to analyze the diversity of I1 and R1b-U106 in different areas, to see if any founder effects are throwing us off. Frequency distributions can be misleading...


Did west germanic tribes migrate is the question ..............as goths, vandals, burgundians, lombards, Heruli etc etc where all east -germanic or southern swedish people

----------


## sparkey

> Did west germanic tribes migrate is the question ..............as goths, vandals, burgundians, lombards, Heruli etc etc where all east -germanic or southern swedish people


You don't think any Franks or Suebi ended up in Iberia?

----------


## zanipolo

> You don't think any Franks or Suebi ended up in Iberia?


No I do not, the franks only settled in northern france and converted to the gallic tongue and introduced/began L'oil language while in southern france they kept L'oc language

----------


## Asturrulumbo

> Here's a question that you may be able to answer better than me: Where did East Germanic peoples settle vs. West Germanic peoples in Iberia? I have a feeling that answering that will help us here. While I1 seems to have been relatively equal in frequency among the different Germanic branches, R1b-U106 seems to have been most common among West Germanic peoples in particular. 
> 
> And if it still mismatches... we'll need to analyze the diversity of I1 and R1b-U106 in different areas, to see if any founder effects are throwing us off. Frequency distributions can be misleading...


Well, Sueves (west Germanic), who settled around Gallaecia, lived around what is now eastern Germany and northern Bohemia, while Visigoths... Well, these travelled all over Europe:

----------


## zanipolo

> Well, Sueves (west Germanic), who settled around Gallaecia, lived around what is now eastern Germany and northern Bohemia, while Visigoths... Well, these travelled all over Europe:


half way into reading the book Goths and it states that visigoths means west goth and ostrogoth means east goth. The visigoths never appeared prior to when goths settled in sarmatia. The westgoths where from Scanza in southern sweden as well as gotland, while the ostrogoths where from east german and baltic lands. 
so, the visigoths could only be swedish HG and not east or west germanic

Are suevi west germanic tribe ? , they appear in history as being south of mecklenbug basically just bordering old east and west germany.
The suebi where known to fashion their hair in the "suebian knot" which is basically a finnic fashion. But then again , some say they where on the Rhine with the macromanni tribe .........seems to me thay have never been truly positioned 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suebian_knot
if they are from Holstein, then they would have been nordic at the time in question

----------


## Asturrulumbo

> half way into reading the book Goths and it states that visigoths means west goth and ostrogoth means east goth. The visigoths never appeared prior to when goths settled in sarmatia. The westgoths where from Scanza in southern sweden as well as gotland, while the ostrogoths where from east german and baltic lands. 
> so, the visigoths could only be swedish HG and not east or west germanic
> 
> Are suevi west germanic tribe ? , they appear in history as being south of mecklenbug basically just bordering old east and west germany.
> The suebi where known to fashion their hair in the "suebian knot" which is basically a finnic fashion. But then again , some say they where on the Rhine with the macromanni tribe .........seems to me thay have never been truly positioned 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suebian_knot
> if they are from Holstein, then they would have been nordic at the time in question


Yes, I was showing the Visigoths' migrational history from their migration to Scandinavia (at which time they weren't differentiated from the Ostrogoths) until their arrival to Iberia. East Germanic has a linguistic, not geographical, connotation.
The Sueves were indeed West Germanic, specifically (along with others) the ancestors of the Upper German dialects spoken today. It should be noted, however, that only around 20,000-50,000 Sueves migrated to Iberia, while the rest migrated south and came to form part of the Alamanni (the name of Swabia comes from the Sueves).

----------


## sparkey

> Oh I see, he places I1d3 as nearly 1000 years older than Nordtvedt does, and suggests that it came out of Finland. If true, that does change the picture in Finland significantly. Still, I'm hesitant to trust his dating, which is much older for I1 as a whole as well.


By the way, if anyone is interested in the technical aspects of the above disagreement between Nordtvedt's calculations vs. Robb's calculations of TMRCAs, there is an interesting discussion going on right now, so far like this:




> My contention is that one should not put too much faith in the ASD/Variance method for computing TMRCA.





> Yeah, for years we have been stressing this on this list --- coalescence age estimate is not a tree tmrca estimate --- and you have been estimating coalescence age





> I have just been applying your ASD/Variance formula for purposes of this discussion in regards to TMRCA. I use a completely different methodology myself for the TMRCA and the other things I want to estimate. Just used the ASD method to illustrate one problem with it, and to share that finding with others.
> 
> So effectively, we are now in agreement (and as you say, the people on this list have been stressing this) that one should not put too much faith into the ASD/Variance method -- which you have implemented as part of your Generations6.xls script -- for estimating what one might have thought was the TMRCA.
> 
> I certainly agree with that.





> No, we are not effectively in agreement. There are several kinds of variance packages:
> 
> Self Variance ---> coalescence age
> Variance from founder ---> TMRCA
> Interclade Variance ---> TMRCancestralnode
> 
> And there are even nested variances which combine correlated variances to measure special ancient branch intervals.
> 
> You can not make a combined statement under the combo description "ASD/Variance method" to grade all variances.
> ...


As I mentioned, who is better at TMRCA calculations will affect our interpretation of the Finnish spike in particular, and maybe also the Welsh spike, as the older the dating is (that is, if Robb is right), the less likely it is Germanic in those areas.

----------


## zanipolo

> By the way, if anyone is interested in the technical aspects of the above disagreement between Nordtvedt's calculations vs. Robb's calculations of TMRCAs, there is an interesting discussion going on right now, so far like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think we need to view and accept both men as they seem to know what they are talking about, besides KN last sentence basically says he will not argue the point. :Thinking:  and will accept the view

As for me, I find TR site easier to understand, but thats probably because I do not know anywhere near enough the subject as you do  :Smile: 

TR map does bring another aspect especially the J2 area


TR's terminology
*AAA appears to be the oldest grouping and it is widely spread across northern Europe, although it peaks in England and Germany. 

In the "AAA" cluster/clan, each "A" means an ancestral value at the appropriate STR marker. And any "B" would mean a derived (mutated) value.*

----------


## sparkey

Has anyone been following the latest round of SNPs coming out for I1? One of the most interesting results so far is that I1*-P (a largely Polish/possibly Pomeranian-centered one) and I1*-AS4 (the weirder Welsh one) are turning up negative for SNPs while others are positive, and T2 got its own SNP but is negative for others. This will likely place all 3 clusters a bit further back on the I1 tree than their STRs suggested. It will be really interesting to see how Nordtvedt's TMRCA calculations go after being informed by these new SNPs. The new calculations will probably have a lot to say about the question presented in this thread.

In the meantime, while we wait for this to be finalized, Nordtvedt has a new approximated I1 tree to give an idea, called "Tree for I1.ppt" here. Robb has also been doing updates.

----------


## Shetop

> Has anyone been following the latest round of SNPs coming out for I1? One of the most interesting results so far is that I1*-P (a largely Polish/possibly Pomeranian-centered one) and I1*-AS4 (the weirder Welsh one) are turning up negative for SNPs while others are positive, and T2 got its own SNP but is negative for others. This will likely place all 3 clusters a bit further back on the I1 tree than their STRs suggested. It will be really interesting to see how Nordtvedt's TMRCA calculations go after being informed by these new SNPs. The new calculations will probably have a lot to say about the question presented in this thread.
> 
> In the meantime, while we wait for this to be finalized, Nordtvedt has a new approximated I1 tree to give an idea, called "Tree for I1.ppt" here. Robb has also been doing updates.


Thank you for this information.
Btw, until there isn't some new development which would imply different conclusion, for me, I-Z63 spread through Eastern Europe with Goths.

----------


## Maciamo

> Has anyone been following the latest round of SNPs coming out for I1? One of the most interesting results so far is that I1*-P (a largely Polish/possibly Pomeranian-centered one) and I1*-AS4 (the weirder Welsh one) are turning up negative for SNPs while others are positive, and T2 got its own SNP but is negative for others. This will likely place all 3 clusters a bit further back on the I1 tree than their STRs suggested. It will be really interesting to see how Nordtvedt's TMRCA calculations go after being informed by these new SNPs. The new calculations will probably have a lot to say about the question presented in this thread.
> 
> In the meantime, while we wait for this to be finalized, Nordtvedt has a new approximated I1 tree to give an idea, called "Tree for I1.ppt" here. Robb has also been doing updates.


That's very interesting indeed. We can in all likelihood rule out an Anglo-Saxon or Norman/Viking origin for the Welsh I1*-AS4 then. 

I expected that the Bothnian I1 would predate the Germanic core of I1, as I explained in the Haplogroup I1 page. It also makes sense to find I1 pre-dating the Germanic expansion I1 in other places around Scandinavia like Pomerania/Poland (and probably also Germany and the Low Countries) as it is unlikely that I1 was present only in Scandinavia before the Bronze Age.

----------


## sparkey

> Btw, until there isn't some new development which would imply different conclusion, for me, I-Z63 spread through Eastern Europe with Goths.


[I-Z63 is the new SNP-based name for I1-T2] Agreed... the distribution still seems to imply that I1-Z63 is wholly Germanic, despite the fact that it is a little further back in the tree than expected. It's hard for me to see the possibility for another conclusion at the moment.




> We can in all likelihood rule out an Anglo-Saxon or Norman/Viking origin for the Welsh I1*-AS4 then... It also makes sense to find I1 pre-dating the Germanic expansion I1 in other places around Scandinavia like Pomerania/Poland (and probably also Germany and the Low Countries) as it is unlikely that I1 was present only in Scandinavia before the Bronze Age.


Also agreed... it's looking like I1*-AS4 and I1*-P may be the non-Germanic I1 this topic is looking for. At least, they're suddenly the best candidates. That conclusion is pending plenty more analysis, of course.




> I expected that the Bothnian I1 would predate the Germanic core of I1, as I explained in the Haplogroup I1 page.


I don't see that we've learned anything more here about I1d3, which means that we still disagree about it.

----------


## Maciamo

> [I-Z63 is the new SNP-based name for I1-T2]
> I don't see that we've learned anything more here about I1d3, which means that we still disagree about it.


It depends how you look at it. If Z58 is the only true Germanic branch, then I1-L22 (Norse, Ultra-Norse, Bothnian), I1-T2, I1-AS4, I1-P and I1b all evolved outside the core of Germanic culture that developed in the Bronze Age around Denmark, North Germany and southern Sweden. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case and the I1d-Norse and I1d-Ultra-Norse were only absorbed in the Iron Age expansion of Germanic peoples.

It's either this or all I1 are Germanic. It doesn't make much sense to say that the Polish and Welsh branches are non-Germanic but the Norse and Bothnian ones are Germanic, as both split before the Z58 mutation appeared.

----------


## sparkey

> It depends how you look at it. If Z58 is the only true Germanic branch, then I1-L22 (Norse, Ultra-Norse, Bothnian), I1-T2, I1-AS4, I1-P and I1b all evolved outside the core of Germanic culture that developed in the Bronze Age around Denmark, North Germany and southern Sweden. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case and the I1d-Norse and I1d-Ultra-Norse were only absorbed in the Iron Age expansion of Germanic peoples.
> 
> It's either this or all I1 are Germanic. It doesn't make much sense to say that the Polish and Welsh branches are non-Germanic but the Norse and Bothnian ones are Germanic, as both split before the Z58 mutation appeared.


Huh? Why can't some founders be Germanic (Z58 MRCA, L22 MRCA, Z63 MRCA) and some not be (P MRCA, AS4 MRCA)? I don't think that "Z58 is the only true Germanic branch," at least not with what I know right now.

I1d is pretty Norse but its center of diversity is somewhere around southern Sweden IIRC, which seems within range to have been part of the Germanic core.

AS4, meanwhile, has a center of diversity squarely in Wales, and P has one in Pomerania. So a Germanic origin, or at least a Migration Period spread, is more questionable for them. That's all I see this saying.

----------


## Maciamo

> Huh? Why can't some founders be Germanic (Z58 MRCA, L22 MRCA, Z63 MRCA) and some not be (P MRCA, AS4 MRCA)? I don't think that "Z58 is the only true Germanic branch," at least not with what I know right now.
> 
> I1d is pretty Norse but its center of diversity is somewhere around southern Sweden IIRC, which seems within range to have been part of the Germanic core.
> 
> AS4, meanwhile, has a center of diversity squarely in Wales, and P has one in Pomerania. So a Germanic origin, or at least a Migration Period spread, is more questionable for them. That's all I see this saying.


It's not a matter of whether the I1d (L22) branch was ever Germanic or not, but *when* it became Germanic. 

We cannot talk of Germanic people before the Indo-Europeans moved to Scandinavia. The first wave was the R1a people of the Corded ware in the Early Bronze Age (2800-2500 BCE), but this branch being more closely related to Baltic and Slavic peoples, it is doubtful that it was already Proto-Germanic. The second wave came with R1b sometime between 2500 and 1200 BCE (perhaps several successive waves from Central Europe). I think it is only once R1b came into the mix that we can really talk about a (Proto-)Germanic culture and ethnicity shaping up. The cradle of Germanic "civilization" would thus correspond to the Nordic Bronze Age in Denmark, southern Sweden and coastal southern Norway, but ultimately expanding from Denmark and Scania. 

My hypothesis here is that this original core around Denmark and Scania included only I1-Z58 lineages alongside R1a and R1b (+ minor lineages like G2a, J2 and E1b1b). The people in central and northern Sweden and Norway, as well as in Finland, would have been predominantly I1d (L22) and R1a by the time the true (Proto-)Germanic speakers moved up to from Denmark and Scania in the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age (the period circa 1200-200 BCE). _After that_, of course, I1d became Germanic. But I am pretty sure that the original core of Proto-Germanic culture never included central and northern Sweden and Norway. I also doubt that all the inhabitants of central and northern Sweden were wiped out by the Germanic expansion. They must have belonged to something, and the best candidate is I1d, justly because it is also found among the Finns and the Saami, who have R1a lineages but very little R1b, and do not speak Germanic languages.

----------


## MOESAN

> The Bastanae and peucini where germanic tribes in the carpathian and north of these mountains, they started the proto german-slavic linguistic connection ..........but this is another thread


You use curious namings for languages: 'gallic' was a celtic variant but Franks do'nt take a 'gallic' language but an italic one, the roman of Gaule. I am not aware of so 'proto-german-slavic' connection: what is that? i was aware of some loan words on the 
two sides, not of a "proto-something"
to speake only of gen and on the spreading of Y-I1, I think like Maciamo and others that the present day evidence send us again and again to the Germanic people, by the way of 1- development from a knot around Denmark-South Scandinavia, on every direction 2- the Great Invasions (Volkerwanderungen?) 3- Vikings
I suppose the first Y-I1 was south the Baltic sea (what language? close to basque? finno-ugric?) before going to Scandinavia and that a lot of them mixed after that with a good number of Y-R1b-U106 bearers and others under influence of indo-european speakers (these others perhaps?) becoming the indentified 'Germans' and crossing to Scandinavia in a second wave (the more Western there) - hard to be sure but I think that roughly speaking Y-R1a bearers (Corded?) played a different role and that maybe they could be the speakers of the indo-european 'satem' language introduced in Scandinavia (a survey on substrat in lappish-saami language stating they was a sort of basque and a sort of 'satem' (? proto-balt-slavic: it could make sense) I-E before the adoption of finnic language in North Scandinavia) - I have to look again to the few things I have on archeology there, I know someones say that Y-R1a have two different origins in Scandinavia
evidently, individuals Y-I1 bearers could have emerged among the celtic world but a very few if any....

----------


## MOESAN

> I mostly agree, however, I am rather confused, as assuming that both I1 and R1b-U106 came to Iberia with the Germanic migrations (which I believe is the case), why is there much more I1 than U106 in Iberia, and why is I1 relatively widespread (3%, a fair amount compared to other parts of Iberia) in places like Extremadura, and infrequent (0.5%) in places like Castilla&León?


present day scandinavian 'Germanic' people show a bigger amount of I1 than R-U106 (even the Danish people but fewer) - In Ireland and in Scotland too (Vikings) - and yet, Eastern Scandinavian have more I1 than Western in proportion... I think that the germanic invaders of High Middle Ages Spain had almost all of them an most ancient south scandinavian origin, didn' t?

----------


## MOESAN

> Yes, I was showing the Visigoths' migrational history from their migration to Scandinavia (at which time they weren't differentiated from the Ostrogoths) until their arrival to Iberia. East Germanic has a linguistic, not geographical, connotation.
> The Sueves were indeed West Germanic, specifically (along with others) the ancestors of the Upper German dialects spoken today. It should be noted, however, that only around 20,000-50,000 Sueves migrated to Iberia, while the rest migrated south and came to form part of the Alamanni (the name of Swabia comes from the Sueves).


I'm not found of old ancestors of modern dialects: the peculiarities of the South German (phonetically) owe more to previous non-germanic speaker people (celtic+rhetic) than to Suevi gone down from North - the same with Alemanni - it's said also that Suevi was, like Franks, new recombinaisons of diverses germanic tribes (and some celtic Belgae) - 
for YI1, weight of East-Germanic (old appellation: W-Goths, O-Goths) could seam being heavier in Spain (But galica is a problem: Suevi only?)

----------


## sparkey

> It's not a matter of whether the I1d (L22) branch was ever Germanic or not, but *when* it became Germanic. 
> 
> We cannot talk of Germanic people before the Indo-Europeans moved to Scandinavia. The first wave was the R1a people of the Corded ware in the Early Bronze Age (2800-2500 BCE), but this branch being more closely related to Baltic and Slavic peoples, it is doubtful that it was already Proto-Germanic. The second wave came with R1b sometime between 2500 and 1200 BCE (perhaps several successive waves from Central Europe). I think it is only once R1b came into the mix that we can really talk about a (Proto-)Germanic culture and ethnicity shaping up. The cradle of Germanic "civilization" would thus correspond to the Nordic Bronze Age in Denmark, southern Sweden and coastal southern Norway, but ultimately expanding from Denmark and Scania. 
> 
> My hypothesis here is that this original core around Denmark and Scania included only I1-Z58 lineages alongside R1a and R1b (+ minor lineages like G2a, J2 and E1b1b). The people in central and northern Sweden and Norway, as well as in Finland, would have been predominantly I1d (L22) and R1a by the time the true (Proto-)Germanic speakers moved up to from Denmark and Scania in the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age (the period circa 1200-200 BCE). _After that_, of course, I1d became Germanic. But I am pretty sure that the original core of Proto-Germanic culture never included central and northern Sweden and Norway. I also doubt that all the inhabitants of central and northern Sweden were wiped out by the Germanic expansion. They must have belonged to something, and the best candidate is I1d, justly because it is also found among the Finns and the Saami, who have R1a lineages but very little R1b, and do not speak Germanic languages.


Well, you're right that the expansion of I1 out of its severe bottleneck seems to correspond roughly with the arrival of Corded Ware culture, which is prior to the Nordic Bronze Age and the corresponding likely arrival of R1b-U106 and the formation of proto-Germanic, and therefore I1 is older (TMRCA-wise) than Germanic peoples. But still, the diversity pattern and age of I1d subclades makes it seem to me that it expanded out of southern Sweden or nearby _after_ the formation of proto-Germanic... at least, that's my best guess due to the relative youth of the Bothnian and "ultra-Norse" lines.

That leaves the question of _what haplogroups were the central Swedish, Norwegian, Finnish, etc. peoples_? I agree that if I reject I1-L22 as one, I ought to have a backup for what they were. My first thought is to look at the Saami and guess major N1c dominance. Is there a reason not to think that?

----------


## Maciamo

> Well, you're right that the expansion of I1 out of its severe bottleneck seems to correspond roughly with the arrival of Corded Ware culture, which is prior to the Nordic Bronze Age and the corresponding likely arrival of R1b-U106 and the formation of proto-Germanic, and therefore I1 is older (TMRCA-wise) than Germanic peoples. But still, the diversity pattern and age of I1d subclades makes it seem to me that it expanded out of southern Sweden or nearby _after_ the formation of proto-Germanic... at least, that's my best guess due to the relative youth of the Bothnian and "ultra-Norse" lines.


Actually I am increasingly thinking that I1 is far older than Nordtvedt 's estimates. It doesn't make much sense that the bottleneck happened only 5,000 years ago. I would place it between 7,000 and 10,000 years before present.

----------


## sparkey

> Actually I am increasingly thinking that I1 is far older than Nordtvedt 's estimates. It doesn't make much sense that the bottleneck happened only 5,000 years ago. I would place it between 7,000 and 10,000 years before present.


I still find Nordtvedt's estimates ballpark correct and feel that I can make sense of them in light of history and archaeology. But let me play with your estimates and see if I come to the same conclusions if I do. If the TMRCA of I1 is 8,500ybp then here are some rough ages based on age ratios for subclades (very rough):

I1d: 5,000ybp
I1d-uN2: 3,500ybp
I1d3: 3,500ybp
Z58: 7,500ybp
Z63: 6,500ybp
AS4: 1,500ybp, clade age more like 7,500ybp
P: 6,500ybp, clade age more like 7,500ybp

That makes AS4 and P more clearly non-Germanic. I1d predates Corded Ware here (allowing expansion with it, rather than Germanic peoples) and I1d3 and uN2, basically a couple of northward expansions of I1d, happened _just_ before the creation of Germanic. In this case, it seems that some I1d _would_ be part of the initial Germanic peoples, but not all of it would, including the tricky I1d3 subclade.

So it makes a coherent story, at least. I'll concede the point if we find something conclusive like I1d3 in an ancient Finnish Battle Axe Culture sample.

----------


## zanipolo

> I'm not found of old ancestors of modern dialects: the peculiarities of the South German (phonetically) owe more to previous non-germanic speaker people (celtic+rhetic) than to Suevi gone down from North - the same with Alemanni - it's said also that Suevi was, like Franks, new recombinaisons of diverses germanic tribes (and some celtic Belgae) - 
> for YI1, weight of East-Germanic (old appellation: W-Goths, O-Goths) could seam being heavier in Spain (But galica is a problem: Suevi only?)


you are correct on suevi as being frankish as its also stated that in the early middleages, vorpommern and hinterpommern germans spoke this frankish/suevi language. The court in Brandenberg noted this as these areas where suzerity of brandenberg

----------


## Maciamo

> I still find Nordtvedt's estimates ballpark correct and feel that I can make sense of them in light of history and archaeology. But let me play with your estimates and see if I come to the same conclusions if I do. If the TMRCA of I1 is 8,500ybp then here are some rough ages based on age ratios for subclades (very rough):
> 
> I1d: 5,000ybp
> I1d-uN2: 3,500ybp
> I1d3: 3,500ybp
> Z58: 7,500ybp
> Z63: 6,500ybp
> AS4: 1,500ybp, clade age more like 7,500ybp
> P: 6,500ybp, clade age more like 7,500ybp
> ...


These dates look much more plausible to me.

----------


## Mikewww

> It's pretty much a judgment call based on the available data, because it looks like all these I1 clusters are getting similar STR dating estimates of 2000-3000 years ago....


What are the interclade TMRCA's between I1a-M21, I1b-M227, I1c-M507, I1d-L22, I12-L211 and I1f-L338?
The same question for the subclades of I1d-L22?

----------


## sparkey

> What are the interclade TMRCA's between I1a-M21, I1b-M227, I1c-M507, I1d-L22, I12-L211 and I1f-L338?
> The same question for the subclades of I1d-L22?


I'm having trouble finding them in a nice table for you. Before I was going primarily by the estimates Nordtvedt gave on his tree, but now that's collapsed into the PowerPoint that's awaiting additional calculations.

If you'd like to see Robb's calculations, he has them here, but he certainly gets older TMRCAs than Nordtvedt's method does.

----------


## how yes no 2

> I have looked at the data, but have had difficulty coming to any conclusion other than this: If there is any non-Germanic I1, it has become non-Germanic only recently. Let's look first at the distribution and dating of the major I1 subclades:
> I1f: ~2000 years old with a particularly English distribution, although with some membership in Scotland, Ireland, Germany, Denmark, and even Poland.
> I1d*: ~3000 years old with a very Nordic center of diversity but with a distribution everywhere, from Scandinavia to Turkey to Russia to the UK to Italy.
> I1d1: ~3000 years old with a more southern center of diversity than I1d*, but still an obviously Germanic distribution, with a lot of membership in the UK, and interesting membership in Croatia.
> I1d3: ~2000 years old with primary membership dominantly in Finland. I would suggest it to be Uralic if it wasn't for its obviously diverse (just less frequent) presence in the North Germanic countries, and its youth. As is, it looks like an expansion from Scandinavia on Finland.
> 
> 
> So what of those spikes in interesting places? Not all I1 fits into subclades. Since Nordtvedt's STR clusters are the gold standard of I1 STR clusters, let's analyze them in the context of those:
> 
> ...



in latest sampling from Serbia (103 people sampled)


there is 2.9% of I1-M253 and 4.9% of its downstream clade I1-P109 (I1d1 in Sparkey's text above)... that is quite high value... 


btw. speaking of haplogroup I, there is also one individual (~1%) with I2b1c-P78 and 29.1% of I2a2


"High levels of Paleolithic Y-chromosome lineages characterize Serbia"
Maria Regueiro, Luis Rivera, Tatjana Damnjanovic, Ljiljana Lukovic, Jelena Milasin, Rene J. Herrera 
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...7811191200073X

----------


## pipinnacanus

> Combined, we see that I1 is rather young (current Nordtvedt estimate seems to be ~4000 years old) and has a _very_ Germanic spread. 
> The question I'd like to investigate is: Is there any I1 distribution that can be explained by a non-Germanic migration, and if so, what characteristics does it take?


Nordvedt's math claims based on STR mutation assumptions are LONG blown out of the water. They are utter guesswork that is based on completely disproven STR mutational theories that he also proposed and are not scientific.

I1 is the only Hg that is pretty specific to only one tribe- the Svears - of what is today central sweden and norway. That is also where Kens own paternal Male ancestors come from and they are Svearish.
Svearish likely does not = 'german'. They simply conquer a long-time ruling Geatish population that were germanic and absorbed their language and culture over time before the conquest. Calling Svear I1 'germanic' is no different than calling the mongoloid 'Saami' Germanic, since they also absorbed Geatish language., culture and ancestry, in their homelands just north of the Svears, who were just north of the lands of the Geats.

My problem is the opposite of yours, in that I do not see any clear indication that I1 is ancestrally or tribally germanic since it is completely absent from the genetic archeology on the european continent until the dark ages expansion, when Svearish-descent swedes and norwegians start migrating south into a europe depopulated by plagues and later the 30 years war.




> Eupedia members have pointed out odd stretches of I1 into the Finns 
> Altogether, I can't find any I1 that can't be explained by a Germanic migration. Can you?


I1 is present alone in Finns, while the 1/3 of R1b for instance in Swedes in absent in the Finns, because the Geats were not joining the Svears in the conquest of Finnmark. The Svears had conquered the Geats and taken control of scandinavia and the Svears (I1) alone took on the conquest of Finnmark. Thus, there is only I1 with no R1b as would be the case in the entire population of south sweden / geats had also been part of the invasion.

No one knows when the Svears got to central scandia, where they came from or who they are, but they are the source of I1, and we do not know that they are 'germanic' at all, anymore than there neighbors, the Saami.

----------


## sparkey

> Nordvedt's math claims based on STR mutation assumptions are LONG blown out of the water. They are utter guesswork that is based on completely disproven STR mutational theories that he also proposed and are not scientific.


According to you? I've discussed challenges to STR dating, here and elsewhere.




> I1 is present alone in Finns, while the 1/3 of R1b for instance in Swedes in absent in the Finns, because the Geats were not joining the Svears in the conquest of Finnmark. The Svears had conquered the Geats and taken control of scandinavia and the Svears (I1) alone took on the conquest of Finnmark. Thus, there is only I1 with no R1b as would be the case in the entire population of south sweden / geats had also been part of the invasion.


One thing is clear about Finnish I1 (I1d3), and that's that it is uniform and hence young. It is also apparently shared mainly by people on the Eastern part of Sweden. Since the diversity pattern is clearly Sweden->Finland, we can agree that it went from Sweden to Finland, but Finnish-type I1 isn't seen at the same levels anywhere else. That means that present distributions can't be explained by migration proportions alone, they must be combined with genetic expansions within the Finnish population.

That is to say, Finnish I1 is not clearly non-Germanic, based on what we know right now.

----------


## pipinnacanus

> According to you? I've discussed challenges to STR dating, here and elsewhere.
> 
> One thing is clear about Finnish I1 (I1d3), and that's that it is uniform and hence young. It is also apparently shared mainly by people on the Eastern part of Sweden. Since the diversity pattern is clearly Sweden->Finland, we can agree that it went from Sweden to Finland, but Finnish-type I1 isn't seen at the same levels anywhere else. That means that present distributions can't be explained by migration proportions alone, they must be combined with genetic expansions within the Finnish population.
> 
> That is to say, Finnish I1 is not clearly non-Germanic, based on what we know right now.


I disagree with your logic. 
I1 in Scandinavia is most likely a element of a early time when Ugric-Balto-Slavic populations were much father west than the Finnic-Ugric-Balt-Slavic populations we see or recognize today in the Baltic states, Finland, and north Russia. Everywhere I1 exists it is joined by R1a-M17, which offers a major clue to its origins.

The Svearish Ugric-Balto-Slavic element in central scandinavia was subordinate in tech and exploration for a long time to the militarily dominant Geats-Goths to their south, as the centuries pass and the culture and structure of the Geats are assumed by the Svears (I1). 
As the Geats begin to decine in power due to losses in warfare and/or manpower the I1 Svears who are originally likely a Ugric/Balto-Slavic population, rise to power and take control of the Scandinavian continent and the Geatish population who does not flee. 

I think you will find a component of I1 that is SNP differentiated and predates the Conquest of Finnmark by Sweden, as well as common Swedish I1 that are residue of the conquest of Finnmark and its aftermath. What you find almost zero of is R1b,
since the Goths-Geats were vassals already conquered in scandinavia by the Svears and not offered a co-equal status in Svearish conquest of the lands to the east. 

There is no DNA evidence beyond the early fabrications Nordtvedt wove to guard flanks of his theories that insist this I1 was part of early continental germanic tribal groups. It is obvious without question that I1 is overwhelmingly 'Svearish', and most likely I1 orignated as a probably Northern Ugric-Balto-Slavic group.

The I1 you see amongst 'germanic' populations today is a result migrations from well-known population explosion and migration from Scandinavia into Northern Europe, at the same time of large depopulation of northern euro lands along with other regions of europe at the onset of the dark ages. 

There is nothing tribally 'germanic' about I1 no matter how many nonsense early-tribal names Ken uses to attach to a I1 or R1b SNP/Str set.

No I1 is found in pre-dark ages samples on the continent because it was not a component of these germanic populations until the (probably Ugric-balto-slavic) Svear descended populations start to migrate into europe starting around 700-800 A.D. for historically well-known reasons and well document movements.

200 years ago, almost no males in Arizona or California had a R1b Y-line. Today, only 200 years later, most males in those places are R1b Y-line, so assuming I1 is 'germanic' in any way, when it is not even found amongst early germanic population samples, is like assuming a R1b-m269 californian is probably of Apache male descent. 

A matter of only a few decades or centuries is of extreme import. At colonization of California, R1b males had a distinct advantage, just as at the onset of the dark ages, for specific reasons, the masses of Svear-descended landless males leaving scandinavia for the lands of the northern continent of europe had advantages to their colonization efforts that begin rather late in european history.

----------


## sparkey

> I disagree with your logic. 
> I1 in Scandinavia is most likely a element of a early time when Ugric-Balto-Slavic populations were much father west than the Finnic-Ugric-Balt-Slavic populations we see or recognize today in the Baltic states, Finland, and north Russia. Everywhere I1 exists it is joined by R1a-M17, which offers a major clue to its origins.


What archaeological culture are you mapping to this supposed Western "Ugric-Balto-Slavic" population? Just the Svears? Because I see some evidence of cultures that were likely proto-Germanic (Nordic Bronze Age) and I suppose those in Sweden and nearby, but outside of the Nordic Bronze Age, to have been Uralic. There may have been some extinct non-Germanic IE as well, but Balto-Slavic? There's no evidence of a truly Balto-Slavic people so early in Scandinavia, as far as I know.

Also, if I1 is oldest in Scandinavia, why is only I1-L22 apparently ancient there, with other I1 subclades (including the very commonly West Germanic I1-Z58) more ancient elsewhere? And although it's basically true that I1-L22 is a fellow traveller with R1a, that's not necessarily true for I1-Z58. The few places with no significant North Germanic, Corded Ware, or Slavic influence, but with West Germanic influence, indeed have some I1, but little R1a. Think former Wessex, South Wales, Western France...




> The Svearish Ugric-Balto-Slavic element in central scandinavia was subordinate in tech and exploration for a long time to the militarily dominant Geats-Goths to their south, as the centuries pass and the culture and structure of the Geats are assumed by the Svears (I1). 
> As the Geats begin to decine in power due to losses in warfare and/or manpower the I1 Svears who are originally likely a Ugric/Balto-Slavic population, rise to power and take control of the Scandinavian continent and the Geatish population who does not flee.


I just don't see anything to support this total language family and genetic dichotamy between the Svears and the Geats.




> I think you will find a component of I1 that is SNP differentiated and predates the Conquest of Finnmark by Sweden, as well as common Swedish I1 that are residue of the conquest of Finnmark and its aftermath.


What are you talking about? I1d3? I've already addressed that at length.




> What you find almost zero of is R1b,
> since the Goths-Geats were vassals already conquered in scandinavia by the Svears and not offered a co-equal status in Svearish conquest of the lands to the east.


But if you're right, we should also find comparable levels of R1a, which we don't. The only logical conclusion I can see is a genetic expansion of I1d3 within the Finnish population.

And even if that wasn't the case, it's fairly obvious that levels of R1b-U106 vary within different Germanic populations, as do R1a levels, and to a lesser degree, I1 levels.




> There is no DNA evidence beyond the early fabrications Nordtvedt wove to guard flanks of his theories that insist this I1 was part of early continental germanic tribal groups. It is obvious without question that I1 is overwhelmingly 'Svearish', and most likely I1 orignated as a probably Northern Ugric-Balto-Slavic group.


Actually, as we've been finding out more about I1, it has begun to look more like I1 (or _at least_ the I1 L22- clades, which is most I1) originated south of Scandinavia. Ancient Continental subclades have been identified through SNP testing and subsequent modal comparisons.




> The I1 you see amongst 'germanic' populations today is a result migrations from well-known population explosion and migration from Scandinavia into Northern Europe, at the same time of large depopulation of northern euro lands along with other regions of europe at the onset of the dark ages.


You still haven't addressed my objections to this regarding the subclade dichotamy.




> No I1 is found in pre-dark ages samples on the continent because it was not a component of these germanic populations until the (probably Ugric-balto-slavic) Svear descended populations start to migrate into europe starting around 700-800 A.D. for historically well-known reasons and well document movements.


Actually, it's because we haven't really tested enough ancient Germanic samples. But nice try.




> 200 years ago, almost no males in Arizona or California had a R1b Y-line. Today, only 200 years later, most males in those places are R1b Y-line, so assuming I1 is 'germanic' in any way, when it is not even found amongst early germanic population samples, is like assuming a R1b-m269 californian is probably of Apache male descent. 
> 
> A matter of only a few decades or centuries is of extreme import. At colonization of California, R1b males had a distinct advantage, just as at the onset of the dark ages, for specific reasons, the masses of Svear-descended landless males leaving scandinavia for the lands of the northern continent of europe had advantages to their colonization efforts that begin rather late in european history.


No, saying that R1b is Apache isn't analogous, because I'm not talking about frequency, I'm talking about diversity and subclade analyses.

----------


## pipinnacanus

> Actually, it's because we haven't really tested enough ancient Germanic samples. But nice try.


You can personally wait as long as you want. Until you can show one ancient sample in-situ your argument is repetitive constant bluster to sell something that cant be proven in the slightest. 




> No, saying that R1b is Apache isn't analogous, because I'm not talking about frequency, I'm talking about diversity and subclade analyses.


Your talking about anything you can grasp onto to try to sustain a case that you have not actually made, but want to sell for some reason. Science is not about what you feel or what you hope for. No one needs DNA data for that. You dont need to "sell" double-blind reproduceable results, because they sell themselves.

You are introducing your own personal whim and insisting that despite any factual basis in even one sample it is valid and can be argued as factual. I am saying at the very, very best, your argument is unproven, and at worst its a sham.

----------


## zanipolo

> You can personally wait as long as you want. Until you can show one ancient sample in-situ your argument is repetitive constant bluster to sell something that cant be proven in the slightest. 
> 
> 
> 
> Your talking about anything you can grasp onto to try to sustain a case that you have not actually made, but want to sell for some reason. Science is not about what you feel or what you hope for. No one needs DNA data for that. You dont need to "sell" double-blind reproduceable results, because they sell themselves.
> 
> You are introducing your own personal whim and insisting that despite any factual basis in even one sample it is valid and can be argued as factual. I am saying at the very, very best, your argument is unproven, and at worst its a sham.


just to clear up what you are ultimately saying...correct me if I am wrong.
You saying, that we have no "live" DNA from the ancient and its all currently "morphed" into another strain and that old ancient DNA can ONLY be accurate from bodies of the period....like Otzi

----------


## sparkey

> You are introducing your own personal whim and insisting that despite any factual basis in even one sample it is valid and can be argued as factual. I am saying at the very, very best, your argument is unproven, and at worst its a sham.


I'm making arguments based on what evidence we have, and I'm open to counter-analyses of the same or better quality. It's not based at all on how I "feel" or what I "hope for," and I'm beginning to take such accusations as personal insults. I'm clearly not making the claim that I've proven anything, and I'm not misleading anybody into thinking that I have, so it can't be a sham, either.

Produce a quality counter-analysis, or drop it.

----------


## nordvik

What would the haplogroup i1a be to you

----------


## nordicwarrior

I have to say Pipinnacanus does present some difficult to refute ideas here. With Denmark now testing ancient y-results, much of this mystery SHOULD be solved. In the meantime Pipinnacanus has indeed pulled me both north and east regarding my opinion of proto I1. Grudgingly.

I do have some questions though. Instead of shrouding the R1a M17/R1a Z284 connection to I1 in layers of mystery--why not spit it out? Was I1 enslaved by early R1a? I'm also interested Pipinnacanus's thinking on Z58's initial location vs. L22's. He's so cryptive in his version of I1 beginnings, I'd be surprised if he doesn't include spacecraft and giant vacuum cleaners in his explanation. I really would like to hear the entire hypothesis though. No joke. 

So come on back to the fray Pipicanaus. Maybe 100 people on planet Earth find haplogroups of ancient Nordic tribes intriguing. You've got nowhere else to expound your theories...

----------


## nordicwarrior

By the way, does anyone know if is there a status update on the Danish findings? Or maybe a "finnish by date" that the scholars are aiming towards?

----------


## sparkey

> I have to say Pipinnacanus does present some difficult to refute ideas here. With Denmark now testing ancient y-results, much of this mystery SHOULD be solved. In the meantime Pipinnacanus has indeed pulled me both north and east regarding my opinion of proto I1. Grudgingly.


I wonder what he said that's difficult to refute? He never even talks about subclades or diversity.




> I do have some questions though. Instead of shrouding the R1a M17/R1a Z284 connection to I1 in layers of mystery--why not spit it out? Was I1 enslaved by early R1a?


There are a few issues to address there, perhaps the most important being how common slavery was during the late Neolithic period, when R1a is thought to have arrived. I doubt it's likely that they had anything resembling chattel slavery. Another couple of issues are that the R1a expansion seems to predate the I1 expansion (was the population that was supposedly being enslaved actually I1 dominant?) and how many generations it would have taken for invading and indigenous populations to have become indistinguishable (so maybe I1 was "enslaved" for 30 years or something, nothing more, and then they got all mixed together).

----------


## nordicwarrior

> I wonder what he said that's difficult to refute? He never even talks about subclades or diversity.
> 
> 
> 
> There are a few issues to address there, perhaps the most important being how common slavery was during the late Neolithic period, when R1a is thought to have arrived. I doubt it's likely that they had anything resembling chattel slavery. Another couple of issues are that the R1a expansion seems to predate the I1 expansion (was the population that was supposedly being enslaved actually I1 dominant?) and how many generations it would have taken for invading and indigenous populations to have become indistinguishable (so maybe I1 was "enslaved" for 30 years or something, nothing more, and then they got all mixed together).


The three things that keep pestering me about proto/early I1 location in Northern Europe are:

1. The shortage of I1 remains found in the region. If I1 had been there for a sizable chunk of time, more ancient I1 should be showing up... I did find some I1 remains, in a cemetery in Central Germany that dates back to 450 A.D.-550 A.D. (Pipicananus had claimed 700-800 A.D. as the introduction period so he was off there) , but this overall I1 shortage does make me think. Is it due to burial practices? Doggerland being underwater? Or the fact that I1 was further north or east?
2. The Nordic meta-myths having their origins in Finland.
3. The I1 map distribution map... epicenter is in between East Sweden and West Finland.

The age of I1 and it's TMRCA has bounced around enough at this point to have me frustrated. Until this genetic dating gets more precise, we might have to look at other methods to start dating I1. 

I don't like agreeing with Pipicanus one bit... but these are issues that should be examined further.

----------


## MOESAN

> The three things that keep pestering me about proto/early I1 location in Northern Europe are:
> 
> 1. The shortage of I1 remains found in the region. If I1 had been there for a sizable chunk of time, more ancient I1 should be showing up... I did find some I1 remains, in a cemetery in Central Germany that dates back to 450 A.D.-550 A.D. (Pipicananus had claimed 700-800 A.D. as the introduction perioed so he was off there) , but this overall I1 shortage does make me think. Is it due to burial practices? Doggerland being underwater? Or the fact that I1 was further north or east?
> 2. The Nordic meta-myths having their origins in Finland.
> 3. The I1 map distribution map... epicenter is in between East Sweden and West Finland.
> 
> The age of I1 and it's TMRCA has bounced around enough at this point to have me frustrated. Until this genetic dating gets more precise, we might have to look at other methods to start dating I1. 
> 
> I don't like agreeing with Pipicanus one bit... but these are issues that should be examined further.


there is more than an epicenter of Y-I1: in Sweden, it's not the more eastern regions that show the denser concentration of it - 
Eastern Norway possess big % of it too; all that even if present day Saami reach something as 50% of it - 
and the Nordtvedt analysis of Y-I1 subclades seams showing a Denmark origin, the more nordic subclades seaming downstream - in Scandinavia (apart from finnic lands) Y-I1 seams as being come there AFTER Y-R1a by example - I think two waves of Y-I1 entered Scandinavia-Finnland: a first one (culture unkown to me) that evolved or that has been finnicized after, pushed northwards maybe by I-E Y-R1a (corded?) and/or Y-R1b (alone???) - I think a second wave, germanized after germanic cirstallization (I saw it in denmark-N-Germany) send there other Y-I1 from the Continent, mixed again to Y-R1a and Y-R1b (the most: U106 and downstream) - question: the datations of first I1...

----------


## nordicwarrior

> there is more than an epicenter of Y-I1: in Sweden, it's not the more eastern regions that show the denser concentration of it - 
> Eastern Norway possess big % of it too; all that even if present day Saami reach something as 50% of it -...


You are are correct sir... and this is the final piece that really got me paying attention to a more unorthodox approach. If you study the Z58+ and L22+ maps, they show markers that follow the journey out of Finland (or even western Russia), into Sweden...through Sweden via an overland route (slightly north of the center part of the country) into Norway, and finally to the western and even northern coasts of Norway.

So I guess Nordvedt could still technically be correct... I1 could have formed in Northern Germany or Jutland and stayed really small...then somehow exploded when it hit Finland and/or Russia. But if we don't see any I1 remains on the European continent or especially Jutland, then we may have to rethink this track. That's why the Danish y-studies are so important. STR and SNP dating just aren't there yet from what I can see.

----------


## sparkey

> 1. The shortage of I1 remains found in the region. If I1 had been there for a sizable chunk of time, more ancient I1 should be showing up... I did find some I1 remains, in a cemetery in Central Germany that dates back to 450 A.D.-550 A.D. (Pipicananus had claimed 700-800 A.D. as the introduction period so he was off there) , but this overall I1 shortage does make me think. Is it due to burial practices? Doggerland being underwater? Or the fact that I1 was further north or east?


The reason we haven't found any is because we haven't sampled any, as I kept trying to explain to pipinnacanus. The Danish study will be the first prehistoric one where there is a reasonable expectation that we might find some I1. And even then, it's not a sure thing, even if the Jutland or Northern Germany theories are correct. It depends on the sample sizes. And even if we get huge sample sizes and show that there was no I1 in Denmark in the Mesolithic, we still have to figure out where it was. I don't know of a good reason to assume northeast. If Denmark and Germany were ruled out, I'd guess directly east, like maybe Poland or even Belarus. Belarus is intriguing because, although there is no current evidence of ancient I1 there AFAIK, it is severely undersampled. But I1 is just too young in Finland to look closely there.




> 2. The Nordic meta-myths having their origins in Finland.


That doesn't seem correct. Norse myths are largely shared with other Germanic groups; Finnish myths are largely shared with Estonian myths. Am I misunderstanding what you mean?




> 3. The I1 map distribution map... epicenter is in between East Sweden and West Finland.


Yeah, but almost all that Finnish I1 is I1d3. Try to figure out the distribution of the earliest branches instead of downstream clades like I1d3 if you want to determine I1 origins. Although much rarer, I1-Z131 tells a much more important story in terms of origins than I1d3 does. It is distributed in Belgium, the Czech Republic, Germany, etc. Central Europe again? Hm...




> The age of I1 and it's TMRCA has bounced around enough at this point to have me frustrated. Until this genetic dating gets more precise, we might have to look at other methods to start dating I1.


How much do you think it has bounced around? Nordtvedt's methodology has kept it at between 4000-5000YBP for as long as I can remember, and Robb always seems to have a systematically older date, but not too much, and his SNP dating agrees roughly as well. Klyosov hasn't updated his 4000YBP estimate, I don't think, which roughly corresponds to Nordtvedt's estimate for the Z58/L22 branching event.

----------


## LeBrok

> How much do you think it has bounced around? Nordtvedt's methodology has kept it at* between 4000-5000YBP* for as long as I can remember, and Robb always seems to have a systematically older date, but not too much, and his SNP dating agrees roughly as well. Klyosov hasn't updated his 4000YBP estimate, I don't think, which roughly corresponds to Nordtvedt's estimate for the Z58/L22 branching event.


It makes sense. This is the time when agriculture was embraced around Baltic Sea region. I1 was the most successful clad of I in the area to adopt agriculture first, therefore spreading around the fastest. 
If agriculture spread to Scandinavia via Bell Beaker culture it would mean that I1 could come and spread from North Germany and Denmark area.
There is also a big chance that big scale agriculture of north came through Corded Ware culture. They were the ones first using copper axes on big scale, superior to stone axes to clear thick northern forest, making fields for wheat and meadows for herds. The later was important too, because most likely they were the ones bringing lactose persistent gene to North, from steppe. R1a folks spreading farming through forests from steppe to north of Europe. If this scenario is the one, it would mean that I1 learned agriculture somewhere around Poland, and carried it over to Scandinavia together with R1a. Making I1 most successful I in this region.

----------


## ElHorsto

> It makes sense. This is the time when agriculture was embraced around Baltic Sea region. I1 was the most successful clad of I in the area to adopt agriculture first, therefore spreading around the fastest. 
> If agriculture spread to Scandinavia via Bell Beaker culture it would mean that I1 could come and spread from North Germany and Denmark area.


And since northern Germany is a very fertile soil (maybe also Poland, I don't know), it is a likely place for ancient growth of agricultural populations, probably I1.

----------


## tjlowery87

so who is right ken wityh 4000- 5000 yrs ago or terry with 7000 yrs ago?

----------


## nordicwarrior

TJ, it's actually a larger window than that... Nordvedt's timeline could be as late 4,000 and Robb's could timeline could be as early as 10,000-- so potentially that leaves a 6,000 year window. Sparkey may have more up to date data though, but the last I read the window could be this large.

To me it seems like the SNP's are driving the numbers earlier, but again Sparkey is the expert so I'm going to defer to him...

----------


## tjlowery87

thank you i appreciate it

----------


## nordicwarrior

Here's something I've been mulling over... and it would effect all y-DNA haplogroups, although some possibly more than others. 

Our planet has a long history of climate shifts (ice-ages followed by warming events) which would seem to be directly related to solar output. So my thought is, what if the y-mutations are not constant? What if the change rate increases with solar radiation peaks, and then genetic alterations calm down with lower solar activity and cooler weather? Maybe the evolutionary line isn't a straight x/y axis line of mutational events, but a series of accelerated bursts reliant on solar radiation followed by calm periods... I wonder if there's a way to capture this potential fly in the ointment. Food for thought anyway.

----------


## tjlowery87

ive never really thought about it like that before,,,make you think.


would i1p and i1as4 wales be considered nordic non germanic

----------


## spruithean

I think they mentioned those two clades in previous posts in this thread.

I1-P and I1-AS4 are odd. Almost as odd as the 14/22/15 complex, at least the complex group is odd to me!

----------


## tjlowery87

does anyone have any new info on the i1p and as4 wales

----------


## tjlowery87

is the place of origin for i1 still north gernamy?

----------


## nordicwarrior

Most probably TJ, Northern Germany or Jutland. Danish scientists are going back and testing older remains for y-haplogroups, so these new data points should enable us to build a more accurate history of I1's journey through time.

I'm a bit of a non-conformist though and am looking East and North in the meantime... our I1 line in particular is highly mobile because of the boat connection, so this factor adds an extra wrinkle in placing the tribe. We are lucky to have guys like Ken Nordvedt and Terry Robb crunching numbers which has helped enormously in the hunt. If they say Northern Germany/Jutland, that's almost certainly where it's at, but this is an emerging field so I do like to keep options on the table.

----------


## tjlowery87

one thing i keep hearing is that i1 is nordic,is the pre germanic i1 nordic ,thanks

----------


## spruithean

I1 can be considered "Nordic" in the pre-Germanic era, but not in the Scandinavian Nordic sense of the later era.

----------


## LeBrok

> Here's something I've been mulling over... and it would effect all y-DNA haplogroups, although some possibly more than others. 
> 
> Our planet has a long history of climate shifts (ice-ages followed by warming events) which would seem to be directly related to solar output. So my thought is, what if the y-mutations are not constant? What if the change rate increases with solar radiation peaks, and then genetic alterations calm down with lower solar activity and cooler weather? Maybe the evolutionary line isn't a straight x/y axis line of mutational events, but a series of accelerated bursts reliant on solar radiation followed by calm periods... I wonder if there's a way to capture this potential fly in the ointment. Food for thought anyway.


Theoretically it should have an effect. Some recent explosions of near supernovas might have effect too, lots of Gama rays. Or some of our ancestors living in areas of radioactive rocks or radioactive well water might have effect of accelerating mutation.
I can bet that some of them found and played with warm, glowing, magical rocks. Surely they were punished by gods and died, but others afraid of these rocks survived, with more mutations than they could wish for.

One a margin here I would like to mention how weird nature can be. There are people born with two different DNA, called Chimera.
One DNA is of new cell, the other can migrated (cell fusion) from a mother in later stages. The skin sample of dna could give different results than hart dna.
Other nature screw-ups are people born with three sex chromosomes XXY. How am I? lol

----------


## tjlowery87

thank you for answearing



> I1 can be considered "Nordic" in the pre-Germanic era, but not in the Scandinavian Nordic sense of the later era.

----------


## nordicwarrior

TJ, this should be an easy question to answer, but right now it isn't. Simply put, we don't know where proto I1 became I1. Some say the Balkans, some say Iran, some say the Caucus... it's still up in the air. If it is one of these three, then pre-Germanic I1 simply wouldn't be Nordic because it wasn't located in the North. If it came into existence in Central Europe... not Nordic. Northern Germany gets cloudier, and if came into existence in Jutland... then I would call early I1 Nordic. This is a subjective answer though. 

It sounds like you are Z63 from your description which is an interesting line. If I remember correctly, it has flagged in what is now England, Germany, and Russia (or close to Russia anyway). So now it's time to do your homework... did you have any 37 matches on your STR's? If so where? Start sending emails. On FTDNA are other surnames popping up with matches in the various projects? Try to link to a famous person in history or at least a core tribal group. 

And regarding your Norse question... it sounds like you might be Anglo-Saxon at some point. If you can link to the Anglyn tribe especially (or anything further North), I would consider that Nordic. Again this is subjective. Some people may disagree, but if that's the case send them a link to the wikipedia I1 map and tell them to pound some sand. If Spencer Wells can call R1b Cro-Magnon, you can call Anglyn tribe Norse. You have my permission. Which isn't worth much... but you have it nevertheless. :)

----------


## tjlowery87

lol thanks for the info and advice

----------


## nordicwarrior

Lebrok I'm glad you said that about the meteor radiation-- I was thinking the exact same thing! They didn't have Fukushima back then (thankfully), but if Grog handled some warm, glowing rocks to heat his cave for the night, well that could have some interesting side effects for the future Grog Jr. And the supernova idea is spot on too, those things can shoot a defined laser of energy that could focus over Earth and cause some serious damage and/or advancements genetic speaking.

----------


## tjlowery87

i believe terry robb and ken nordvedt both say that i1 is from northern germany

----------


## zanipolo

> i believe terry robb and ken nordvedt both say that i1 is from northern germany


agree, but the question was the non-germanic I1

----------


## LeBrok

> Lebrok I'm glad you said that about the meteor radiation--


 More like natural uranium deposits found in crust of Earth. Same sources where we get fuel to fission/atom reactors. It is rare but naturally occurring, and if poor bastards found it accidentally, the very heavy warm rocks,....let's put it this way, something magical happened on many levels.

----------


## Jackson

> More like natural uranium deposits found in crust of Earth. Same sources where we get fuel to fission/atom reactors. It is rare but naturally occurring, and if poor bastards found it accidentally, the very heavy warm rocks,....let's put it this way, something magical happened on many levels.


I1 - Fuelled by your friendly neighbourhood radiation.

----------


## MOESAN

where could we find the 'exit' out this thread, please?


seriously, the must of non-germanized Y-I1 could have been proto-basque speaking or finnicized in Scandinavia - the remnant in Denmark-Germany became germanized - among neo-celtic population I do'nt know, there were/are still very scarce... some Belgae??? some Pre-Neolithic scarce and lost tribes ? or some (mixed with as scarce Y-R1a and R1b) post-BB of Wessex and First Tumuli wave in W-Armoric???

----------


## nordicwarrior

[QUOTE=MOESAN;404501]where could we find the 'exit' out this thread, please?[ /QUOTE]

You're right Moesan, we need to wrap this up so we can get back to a fifteen page thread where Albanians and Greeks fight a three thousand year old turf war. Which is exciting for me personally because I'm neither Albanian nor Greek. :)

----------


## LeBrok

> I1 - Fuelled by your friendly neighbourhood radiation.





> You're right Moesan, we need to wrap this up so we can get back to a fifteen page thread where Albanians and Greeks fight a three thousand year old turf war.


lol, good start to the day.

----------


## spruithean

Why would we close this thread? It can be a very interesting discussion. 

Moesan, why should it be closed because you think you know the answer? It is a discussion of something we don't know much about.

----------


## nordicwarrior

I agree Spruithean, I think there's some meat left on the bone here. I did want to clarify a couple of points I made earlier regarding the constant (or lack thereof) mutation rate. 

If radiation spikes from the sources mentioned above (with solar flucuation being the most probable) jiggled the rate, that would make it difficult to predict ALL y-haplogroup timescale branching... not just hg I or I1. We would essentially have a moving target. Throw in the fact that some y-hg's might be more radiation resistant and you have quite a puzzle.

Svante Paabo has something interesting to say about the genetic testing of modern humans that the readers of this thread might want to check out. Keep in mind Paabo's lab discovered Fox P2 and of course was instrumental in Neanderthal's game changing genetic exploration. 

At the end of a talk by Dr. Dennis Stanford--Head of Archaelogy Division of the U.S. Museum of Natural History-- on Solutreans Theory... Paabo and Stanford have an great exchange. Check youtube video titled "Solutreans: First Americans". It's 1 hr. 31 minutes long, but save time and forward to 1 hr. 16 minutes and 45 seconds in to see Paabo's participation. Paabo says he is skepical of reading modern human remains because of contamination. Did he mean living populations? Recently deceased populations? I don't know, but if the heavy hitters are having issues with these topics at least we are in good company.

----------


## spruithean

I think the the thing that makes research harder is trying to call one haplogroup "Celtic" or "Slavic" or what have you. People migrate, breed regardless. You could have someone with the strangest haplogroup in the area at the time who was the most "Germanic" person in the tribe.

Though it is interesting to try and identify what group of people a certain line of yours may be connected with. I know for my direct paternal line it doesn't help that the paper trail stops due to lack of records and the lack of info I've yet to find on the haplogroup I belong too lol.

I would think some Haplgroups mutate more than others, whether that is due to radiation or not I don't know. But I bet there are some families and groups who mutate faster and others slower leading to all kinds of variations and interesting results.

----------


## nordicwarrior

> I think the the thing that makes research harder is trying to call one haplogroup "Celtic" or "Slavic" or what have you. People migrate, breed regardless. You could have someone with the strangest haplogroup in the area at the time who was the most "Germanic" person in the tribe.
> 
> Though it is interesting to try and identify what group of people a certain line of yours may be connected with. I know for my direct paternal line it doesn't help that the paper trail stops due to lack of records and the lack of info I've yet to find on the haplogroup I belong too lol.
> 
> I would think some Haplgroups mutate more than others, whether that is due to radiation or not I don't know. But I bet there are some families and groups who mutate faster and others slower leading to all kinds of variations and interesting results.


Exactly, always important to remember that race does not equal y-haplogroup. And regarding y-DNA stability, I think I read somewhere that hg E is particulary stable... but I can't remember where I read this. 

I've noticed that some of us in the New World (U.S. Canada) have a strong interest in these fields because in a way we've been "cut-off" from parts of our heritage. But that's a seperate thread!

----------


## spruithean

> Exactly, always important to remember that race does not equal y-haplogroup. And regarding y-DNA stability, I think I read somewhere that hg E is particulary stable... but I can't remember where I read this. 
> 
> I've noticed that some of us in the New World (U.S. Canada) have a strong interest in these fields because in a way we've been "cut-off" from parts of our heritage. But that's a seperate thread!


You share very little in common with your very distant yDNA uber-grandfather. You share more in common with your recent kin group. 

I can see that as being somewhat true. It is especially frustrating (or infuriating) when a genealogical paper trail doesn't take to specific locations in the old world of some of your ancestors.

Perhaps that thread will soon be created.

----------


## MOESAN

> Why would we close this thread? It can be a very interesting discussion. 
> 
> Moesan, why should it be closed because you think you know the answer? It is a discussion of something we don't know much about.


I don't think I know the answer (very often, I make suppositions upon what I have at hand, like others) - but sometimes I felt we were far from the thread core... Sorry if I shock somebody...

----------


## spruithean

> I don't think I know the answer (very often, I make suppositions upon what I have at hand, like others) - but sometimes I felt we were far from the thread core... Sorry if I shock somebody...


It's okay. I just didn't see why the thread should be closed. We can always get back to the original questions.

----------


## tjlowery87

heres an idea,youve heard of the term celto-german or celto germanic,would that apply to i1as4

----------


## tjlowery87

i guess that what it means i read it online......celtic culture german dna

----------


## spruithean

Yes, I have heard of the term "Celto-Germanic" or "Germano-Celtic" often implies a mixture of Celtic and Germanic culture, genetics, etc. 

You should know you share very little in common with your distant yDNA ancestor. For example say he was an Angle settling in Britain. The only thing you inherited from him was his y-chromosome. You have more in common with your recent kin.

----------


## tjlowery87

yeah i know its just fun to talk about..lol
thanks for replying though

----------


## MOESAN

[QUOTE=spruithean;404523]I think the the thing that makes research harder is trying to call one haplogroup "Celtic" or "Slavic" or what have you. People migrate, breed regardless. You could have someone with the strangest haplogroup in the area at the time who was the most "Germanic" person in the tribe.

if no haplogroup nor autosomals mean have any signification in regard of History, I think we can all of us close definitely all these useless threads and go to pub to have true human contacts! - haplogroups are not "celtic" nor "slavic" but at some point of History they have been (maybe?) linked statistically to some human group for a time and so can help us to "tell the story", have they not?

----------


## spruithean

Oh they certainly have and can help use tell the story.

What I'm trying to say I guess, it is difficult and sometimes completely useless to try and assign labels to someone's Haplogroup. 

Yes, going to a pub for some real human contact is probably much healthier!

----------


## tjlowery87

what do you all think of i1as7eL121+, L123+, L124+, L125+, L1274+, L1275+, L157.1+, L186+, L187+, L343+, L345+, L64+, L75+, L80+, L81+, L840+, M253+, M91+, P30+, P40+,
here is some snps thanks

----------


## tjlowery87

i forgot to mention its only found in england

----------


## tjlowery87

> what do you all think of i1as7eL121+, L123+,  L124+, L125+, L1274+, L1275+, L157.1+, L186+, L187+, L343+, L345+, L64+, L75+, L80+, L81+, L840+, M253+, M91+, P30+, P40+,
> here is some snps thanks


i forgot to mention its only found in england and ken nordvedt says its about 1400 yrs old thanks

----------


## tjlowery87

any takers......not sure if this would quillify for germanic or not

----------


## spruithean

> what do you all think of i1as7eL121+, L123+, L124+, L125+, L1274+, L1275+, L157.1+, L186+, L187+, L343+, L345+, L64+, L75+, L80+, L81+, L840+, M253+, M91+, P30+, P40+,
> here is some snps thanks


Those SNPs define you as "I1". You would need to get further tests to determine if you were I1a1, I1a2, I1a3, I1a4, etc.




> any takers......not sure if this would quillify for germanic or not


It could be anything... but all bets are on Germanic or something along those lines?

----------


## tjlowery87

thanks you

----------


## tjlowery87

i ment to put thank you

----------


## tjlowery87

i believe it defining markers are L1274 and L1275

----------


## tjlowery87

heres some negative snps for i1as7L1237-, L1243-, L1244-, L1247-, L1248-, L205-, L258-, L287-, L296-, L300-, L338-, L410-, L573-, L592-, L802-, L803-, L813-, M21-, M227-, M72-, P259-, Z131-, Z133-, Z138-, Z58e

----------


## tjlowery87

its off of snp df29

----------


## tjlowery87

anybody got any ideas about the snps that turned up negative

----------


## tjlowery87

any body know if the negatiuve snps make this look more like germanic or non germanic

----------


## tjlowery87



----------


## tjlowery87



----------


## spruithean

> i believe it defining markers are L1274 and L1275


"L1274 and L1275 are approximately at M253. Listed 1 December 2012." - ISOGG 2013 Haplogroup tree
http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpI.html




> anybody got any ideas about the snps that turned up negative


The SNPs that are negative look like a lot of the SNPs that define the subgroups of I1. If you are negative for DF29 you will be "I1*". 




> any body know if the negatiuve snps make this look more like germanic or non germanic


Hard to say, but somewhere down the line at some point in your tree on many sides (and probably your yDNA line) was some Germanic peoples.

----------


## tjlowery87

I also wonder about i1p in the british isles?i1as7e is located mostly in Yorkshire and in south west england

----------


## nordicwarrior

What's the situation with I1 SNP grouping M227? Could this be the link between I and the later lines of I1 (or maybe the bridge between I1 and I2?)

----------


## tjlowery87

also ken knordvedt has the tmrca for i1p,i1as4 and i1 as7e to be about 2700 yrs ago

----------


## sparkey

> What's the situation with I1 SNP grouping M227? Could this be the link between I and the later lines of I1 (or maybe the bridge between I1 and I2?)


M227 is interesting because it's on the same branch as I1-P/AS4/AS7E, the one with the non-Germanic feel to much of its distribution, but it's a greater outlier than the others, and its TMRCA is older than all the others put together. So even though we may be having visions of all kinds of interesting populations when looking at its erratic distribution ranging from the West Country of England to Tatarstan, it may be that multiple migrations and populations are responsible for it. Unfortunately, it's not really common enough to get more specific about, AFAIK.

I commented about it before, and not much has changed since then:




> I'm not sure we know enough yet about I1-M227 to be entirely sure about it, but it looks promising to have expanded from east of the Germanic core area. As with all I1, we'll need to stay geographically to the North in our analysis of where it launched from. Since it currently has a distribution from Ukraine to Sweden, and into Lithuania, my best guess right now is a connection with what is now northern Poland. Nordtvedt gives it a TMRCA of 3000 YBP. I'm not sure yet what populations match that pattern.

----------


## tjlowery87

im thinking i1as7e ,and i1as4s parent clade might came with the celts I don't think there was any i1 there before then,i think the parent clade came to the isles when the celts mingled with northern folks(pre-Germanic).the parent clade would have been in the isle before anglo Saxons,but I don't think it came before the celts its seems there would be a lot more non Germanic i1 if it did.thanks

----------


## tjlowery87

after talking to mr.knordvedt today it does seem that i1as7e and i1as4 are pre Anglo-Saxon,he also mentioned another one,i1 df29*

----------


## Grubbe

> after talking to mr.knordvedt today it does seem that i1as7e and i1as4 are pre Anglo-Saxon,he also mentioned another one,i1 df29*


Interesting. Could that mean that the British I1 could have been living at Doggerland before moving to today's Britain, or would that be too far back in time? I'm thinking that perhaps I1's cradle was in Doggerland and moved in different directions from there when the sea levels rose?

----------


## sparkey

> Interesting. Could that mean that the British I1 could have been living at Doggerland before moving to today's Britain, or would that be too far back in time? I'm thinking that perhaps I1's cradle was in Doggerland and moved in different directions from there when the sea levels rose?


My guess is that Doggerland disappeared too long ago for a connection in this case. The AS4/AS7E/P/M227 branch hooks back up with the large Nordic L22 branch (probably originated in Denmark or thereabouts) ca. 4000 years ago per Nordtvedt... about 4500 years after Doggerland disappeared.

Doggerland seems too western to me to be I1's cradle. To figure that out, we need to look at the greatest outlier branches, Z131 and AS1212. AS1212 has a wide distribution from England to Russia and therefore doesn't narrow it down much, while Z131 is pretty clearly Central European and distributed a little south of what is typical for I1. Every other I1 branch is DF29+... and long story short, DF29+ looks to me to have the most diversity in northern Germany. Put it all together, and Germany seems like a better candidate for the I1 cradle than Doggerland.

----------


## Grubbe

> My guess is that Doggerland disappeared too long ago for a connection in this case. The AS4/AS7E/P/M227 branch hooks back up with the large Nordic L22 branch (probably originated in Denmark or thereabouts) ca. 4000 years ago per Nordtvedt... about 4500 years after Doggerland disappeared.
> 
> Doggerland seems too western to me to be I1's cradle. To figure that out, we need to look at the greatest outlier branches, Z131 and AS1212. AS1212 has a wide distribution from England to Russia and therefore doesn't narrow it down much, while Z131 is pretty clearly Central European and distributed a little south of what is typical for I1. Every other I1 branch is DF29+... and long story short, DF29+ looks to me to have the most diversity in northern Germany. Put it all together, and Germany seems like a better candidate for the I1 cradle than Doggerland.


Sounds reasoable.

----------


## tjlowery87

makes sense to me sparkey.great reply

----------


## Fire Haired

i made a thread about thishttp://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...310#post411310 I1 is 20,000 years old German language 20,000 years old Germans migrated from Germany to Scandnavia 4,000ybp then bakc to Germany teh German markers are R1b U1o6 not I1 and the German langauge never exsisted in Finland and Finaldn has a diffenrt I1 subclade than Norway and Swedan they have I1a2c also Finnish have mainly Uralic N1c1 which came with Comb cormainc culture 8,000ybp this means I1a2c is at least 8,000 years old prpbably 9,000-11,000 years old at least 

to me what u are saying is absoultly crazy u deny the facts if all I1 in Europe came from recent GErmanic migrations from Scandinavian just 2,500ybo then all I1 in Europe would be I1a2 which is the Scandinavians subclade but almost none including the types in Germany are I1a2 this means they are not from Scandinavians and are from the Paleolithic age since I1a2 is at least 10,000-15,000 years old so i dont understand why u people think lall I1 is German or Scandvien and that it is a recent Y DNA haplogroup it is the oldest subclade in Europe

and Finnish have spoken their Uralic language for 8,000 years and they got their I1a2c from the people that already lived there so i mean come one how stupid can people get obviously I1a2 is over 10,000-15,000 years old and most I1 in Europe is not from Germans or Scandinavians and I1 is very very very ancient from paleolithic probably 25,000ybp

----------


## MOESAN

I think, without going in details, Y-I1 stayed in N-Europe at low numbers during some times, and expanded by its subclades into Scandinavia AND Finland (not by force through Scandinavia, maybe a few ones along the southern shores of Baltic) *before I-Eans* - maybe were they proto-basque speakers??? (not absurd) - at last Neolithic-Copper ages came I-Ens of proto-baltic sort (Corded and Battle Axes) with a majority of Y-R1a, passed into Scandinavia from Denmark - at Bronze Age the Y-I1 subclades stayed south Baltic mixed with a lot of Y-R1b (the most of them R-U106 << directly from L11) and a few Y-R1a - the germanic "elaboration" took place in N-Germany-Denmark-southern Scandinavia, mixing these three major HGs plus some Neolithic HGs in little number - the corresponding demic '"boom" giving way to the Scandinavia more northern colonization so introduced more numerous Y-I1 bearers of the "continental" subclades we found later in almost all the countries colonized by following germanic emigrations - 
its oversimplified but my purpose was to expose Y-I1 had not a monolithical history even if today we can say the most of the I1 subclades had their origin in the germanic cradle region and even some of the first subclades of Scandinavia reached our lands with germanic moves - 
what would be very 'cool' : a deep regional study about the Norway and Swede distributions of Y-I1 subclades!

----------


## Rikala

First of all, when analyzing the Germanic and Swedish I1, you can't discount the impact of Finnish migration to Sweden which has been considerable and part of the "Germanic I1" in Sweden is Finnish.

Second of all, you can't analyze the Finnish I1 if you don't know the history of Finland. Finnish people, as non-germanic and how they are seen now, are not only the people migrating and bringing the Finno-Ugric language but they are in fact a mix of different peoples. It's merely a game of chance that in the end the Finno-Ugric and Finnish language became dominant in the country.
The Western Finnish region of Satakunta which is almost exclusively Finnish-speaking (compared to e.g.Finland Proper) and has been so already before the annexation of Finland to Swedish kingdom and the further Swedish migrations to Finland is the region with the highest density of I1, somewhere around 50%. That percentage is significantly higher than the regions with historical migration from Sweden, like Finland proper with 35% I1. This undoubtedly shows that the core migration from Sweden did not bring I1 to Finland, and the unique subclade to Finland also tells the same story. Finns and Scandinavians have a common history long before that time.

The Finno-ugric migrations to Finland with majority n1c1, I believe, came from 2 major directions. One migration from the Baltic states to Southwest Finland (common ancestral base with the originally Finnic Balts - Estonians still today, and the others who used to be Finno-Ugric speakers) and another came via East and Russia to Eastern Finland - these are more like the Finno-Ugric peoples of Russia nowadays. Of course these 2 have a common root somewhere along the way, but they were still clearly separated at some point long before migrating to Finland.

On the other hand Finland has also had a migration of pre-germanic peoples to the Western shores of Finland. These people, best Y-DNA traces in Satakunta with I1, were akin to Germanic peoples of that time. They mixed heavily with the Finno-Ugric population and in time language shifted to Finno-Ugric as for a reason or another the Finno-Ugrics were dominant or more advanced compared to these people. The third component of people are the original people of Scandinavia and Finland, the Saami, who were on one side forced further up north and on one side mixed with the newcomers. Tavastians in south-central Finland are clearly a mix of the Finns proper / Satakunta people and Saami. Also written history confirms that these were Finns proper who had hunting areas more to the centre and north and stumbled upon the Saami living there.

So all these migrations need to be considered when analyzing the Finnish I1. Discounting Finns as completely separate from Germanics is not true, but of course the Finnish language makes it logical to associate them with only the Finno-ugric language bearers, but that is not the complete picture.

----------


## LeBrok

> First of all, when analyzing the Germanic and Swedish I1, you can't discount the impact of Finnish migration to Sweden which has been considerable and part of the "Germanic I1" in Sweden is Finnish.
> 
> Second of all, you can't analyze the Finnish I1 if you don't know the history of Finland. Finnish people, as non-germanic and how they are seen now, are not only the people migrating and bringing the Finno-Ugric language but they are in fact a mix of different peoples. It's merely a game of chance that in the end the Finno-Ugric and Finnish language became dominant in the country.
> The Western Finnish region of Satakunta which is almost exclusively Finnish-speaking (compared to e.g.Finland Proper) and has been so already before the annexation of Finland to Swedish kingdom and the further Swedish migrations to Finland is the region with the highest density of I1, somewhere around 50%. That percentage is significantly higher than the regions with historical migration from Sweden, like Finland proper with 35% I1. This undoubtedly shows that the core migration from Sweden did not bring I1 to Finland, and the unique subclade to Finland also tells the same story. Finns and Scandinavians have a common history long before that time.
> 
> The Finno-ugric migrations to Finland with majority n1c1, I believe, came from 2 major directions. One migration from the Baltic states to Southwest Finland (common ancestral base with the originally Finnic Balts - Estonians still today, and the others who used to be Finno-Ugric speakers) and another came via East and Russia to Eastern Finland - these are more like the Finno-Ugric peoples of Russia nowadays. Of course these 2 have a common root somewhere along the way, but they were still clearly separated at some point long before migrating to Finland.
> 
> On the other hand Finland has also had a migration of pre-germanic peoples to the Western shores of Finland. These people, best Y-DNA traces in Satakunta with I1, were akin to Germanic peoples of that time. They mixed heavily with the Finno-Ugric population and in time language shifted to Finno-Ugric as for a reason or another the Finno-Ugrics were dominant or more advanced compared to these people. The third component of people are the original people of Scandinavia and Finland, the Saami, who were on one side forced further up north and on one side mixed with the newcomers. Tavastians in south-central Finland are clearly a mix of the Finns proper / Satakunta people and Saami. Also written history confirms that these were Finns proper who had hunting areas more to the centre and north and stumbled upon the Saami living there.
> 
> So all these migrations need to be considered when analyzing the Finnish I1. Discounting Finns as completely separate from Germanics is not true, but of course the Finnish language makes it logical to associate them with only the Finno-ugric language bearers, but that is not the complete picture.


Very interesting. Welcome to Eupedia Rikala.
Do you know subclades of I1 in Finish populations? Here is Maciamo's take on I1:

And whole interesting article:
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_I1_Y-DNA.shtml

----------


## Sile

> First of all, when analyzing the Germanic and Swedish I1, you can't discount the impact of Finnish migration to Sweden which has been considerable and part of the "Germanic I1" in Sweden is Finnish.
> 
> Second of all, you can't analyze the Finnish I1 if you don't know the history of Finland. Finnish people, as non-germanic and how they are seen now, are not only the people migrating and bringing the Finno-Ugric language but they are in fact a mix of different peoples. It's merely a game of chance that in the end the Finno-Ugric and Finnish language became dominant in the country.
> The Western Finnish region of Satakunta which is almost exclusively Finnish-speaking (compared to e.g.Finland Proper) and has been so already before the annexation of Finland to Swedish kingdom and the further Swedish migrations to Finland is the region with the highest density of I1, somewhere around 50%. That percentage is significantly higher than the regions with historical migration from Sweden, like Finland proper with 35% I1. This undoubtedly shows that the core migration from Sweden did not bring I1 to Finland, and the unique subclade to Finland also tells the same story. Finns and Scandinavians have a common history long before that time.
> 
> The Finno-ugric migrations to Finland with majority n1c1, I believe, came from 2 major directions. One migration from the Baltic states to Southwest Finland (common ancestral base with the originally Finnic Balts - Estonians still today, and the others who used to be Finno-Ugric speakers) and another came via East and Russia to Eastern Finland - these are more like the Finno-Ugric peoples of Russia nowadays. Of course these 2 have a common root somewhere along the way, but they were still clearly separated at some point long before migrating to Finland.
> 
> On the other hand Finland has also had a migration of pre-germanic peoples to the Western shores of Finland. These people, best Y-DNA traces in Satakunta with I1, were akin to Germanic peoples of that time. They mixed heavily with the Finno-Ugric population and in time language shifted to Finno-Ugric as for a reason or another the Finno-Ugrics were dominant or more advanced compared to these people. The third component of people are the original people of Scandinavia and Finland, the Saami, who were on one side forced further up north and on one side mixed with the newcomers. Tavastians in south-central Finland are clearly a mix of the Finns proper / Satakunta people and Saami. Also written history confirms that these were Finns proper who had hunting areas more to the centre and north and stumbled upon the Saami living there.
> 
> So all these migrations need to be considered when analyzing the Finnish I1. Discounting Finns as completely separate from Germanics is not true, but of course the Finnish language makes it logical to associate them with only the Finno-ugric language bearers, but that is not the complete picture.


Thanks
It makes sense that the baltic tribes on the south of the baltic sea where present before there where tribes in Finland and Sweden.
What you say brings to mind the old story of the kvens coming from latvia, samogitia and old prussia lands to western finland , satakunda and the bothia gulf region .

We even have people like ptolemy stating the Fenni in these south baltic lands.
It makes sense that these baltic tribes had I1 and N1 before the Northern tribes of scandinavia

----------


## sparkey

Thanks Rikala, very interesting take. Out of curiosity, when do you date this admixture event?:




> On the other hand Finland has also had a migration of pre-germanic peoples to the Western shores of Finland. These people, best Y-DNA traces in Satakunta with I1, were akin to Germanic peoples of that time. They mixed heavily with the Finno-Ugric population and in time language shifted to Finno-Ugric as for a reason or another the Finno-Ugrics were dominant or more advanced compared to these people.


"Pre-Germanic" tells me that you suspect that the event was relatively ancient, but the I1-Bothnian subclade so common in Finland has a TMRCA of only about 2000YBP using Nordtvedt's method. How can we square that?




> Do you know subclades of I1 in Finish populations?


They are dominantly I1-Bothnian, with a bit of its close cousin I1-L300 (which Maciamo says belongs to Finland, but has some Swedish representation and is therefore "Bothnian" as well) and a bit of other subclades that are more common elsewhere.

----------


## Rikala

LeBrok and Sile: Thanks!

I know the general details about I1, but not a huge expert - partly because I'm actually n1c1 myself. I'm sure that a big % of my ancestors were I1 though (ancestors from Finland proper and Satakunta), and I also have 2 confirmed R1a1 based on ftDNA projects. I'm basically completely western Finnish myself and have quite some ancestry from Swedes and Germans migrating to Finland, not that long ago in a historical perspective, so that combined with such a predominate Western Finnish ancestry (not that common anymore in a Finland where people have moved around) I always cluster to the extreme western corner of the Finnish cluster. 

Sparkey: I left the time frames out purposefully because it's just too hard to say :) I think the Finno-Ugric ancestors of Finns in the Baltic etc. stayed there relatively late until migrating..

Edit: i put some time frames originally but I think they were too late, and it's very hard to speculate on non-written history, I just can't have enough knowledge to put something here.

----------


## Salbrox

Without cluttering the EUpedia tree with all possibly relevant recent SNP's that have been recently found, there is one change to that L22-cluster that probably should be made and is already made by ISOGG and Nordtvedt. The SNP Z74 (there are others but this is the most widely used to mark the difference) downstream of L22 is upstream of both L287 and L813, making them phylogenetically more close to each other than to the rest of L22-subclades.

----------


## Salbrox

FTDNA's freshly updated tree now places both L813+ and L287+ results under I1-Z74.

----------


## Grubbe

The I1 tree is in great need of update in my opinion. Preferably with only the SNP names and not the "I1a1", "I1a2" etc. names that change all the time and is really now most confusing.

----------


## Grubbe

> First of all, when analyzing the Germanic and Swedish I1, you can't discount the impact of Finnish migration to Sweden which has been considerable and part of the "Germanic I1" in Sweden is Finnish.
> 
> Second of all, you can't analyze the Finnish I1 if you don't know the history of Finland. Finnish people, as non-germanic and how they are seen now, are not only the people migrating and bringing the Finno-Ugric language but they are in fact a mix of different peoples. It's merely a game of chance that in the end the Finno-Ugric and Finnish language became dominant in the country.
> The Western Finnish region of Satakunta which is almost exclusively Finnish-speaking (compared to e.g.Finland Proper) and has been so already before the annexation of Finland to Swedish kingdom and the further Swedish migrations to Finland is the region with the highest density of I1, somewhere around 50%. That percentage is significantly higher than the regions with historical migration from Sweden, like Finland proper with 35% I1. This undoubtedly shows that the core migration from Sweden did not bring I1 to Finland, and the unique subclade to Finland also tells the same story. Finns and Scandinavians have a common history long before that time.
> 
> The Finno-ugric migrations to Finland with majority n1c1, I believe, came from 2 major directions. One migration from the Baltic states to Southwest Finland (common ancestral base with the originally Finnic Balts - Estonians still today, and the others who used to be Finno-Ugric speakers) and another came via East and Russia to Eastern Finland - these are more like the Finno-Ugric peoples of Russia nowadays. Of course these 2 have a common root somewhere along the way, but they were still clearly separated at some point long before migrating to Finland.
> 
> On the other hand Finland has also had a migration of pre-germanic peoples to the Western shores of Finland. These people, best Y-DNA traces in Satakunta with I1, were akin to Germanic peoples of that time. They mixed heavily with the Finno-Ugric population and in time language shifted to Finno-Ugric as for a reason or another the Finno-Ugrics were dominant or more advanced compared to these people. The third component of people *are the original people of Scandinavia and Finland, the Saami*, who were on one side forced further up north and on one side mixed with the newcomers. Tavastians in south-central Finland are clearly a mix of the Finns proper / Satakunta people and Saami. Also written history confirms that these were Finns proper who had hunting areas more to the centre and north and stumbled upon the Saami living there.
> 
> So all these migrations need to be considered when analyzing the Finnish I1. Discounting Finns as completely separate from Germanics is not true, but of course the Finnish language makes it logical to associate them with only the Finno-ugric language bearers, but that is not the complete picture.


While I find your post overall very interesting, I am not so sure I agree about the Saami being the original people of all Scandinavia. As far as I know, there is debate about this. And some suggest that the Saami came rather late to the more southern parts of Norway, at least (that is the northern Hedmark region for instance).

----------


## Greying Wanderer

If - and it's just an if - y dna I hotspots represent Mesolithic descended people (usually in remote and/or mountainous regions) who managed the forager -> farmer transition before they were swamped by farmers then the age of each clade ought to relate to the time each group's territory was being encroached on by farmers.

That is Sardinian I clade(s) (if it's indigenous) ought to be much older than Welsh I because farmers arrived in Sardinia earlier and Finnish I ought to be young because farmers arrived there late.

The ancestral I of all three might be the same age but if the bottle-necked I represents a forager -> farmer transition then the trigger would be the arrival of the first farmers.

----------

