# Population Genetics > Y-DNA Haplogroups >  Haplogroup I and Germanic people

## Haganus

Interesting to read about haplogroup I. This is the root of all the ancestors of the Germanic tribes. It means that it has arrived about 
4000 BC in Scandinavia. In those times there was no agriculture in Sweden, so members of haplogroup I descend from the Mesolithic hunters who lived in Western Europe (Germany and France).

It has been discovered that one third of the Germanic words is not
Indo-European. Perhaps these bearers of Haplogroup I spoke a language
with words which were not Indo-European.

What is known about the hair and eyes colours of haplogroup I?
Because I read that R1a had genes for fair hair. 

In 1943/1944 some skeletons were discoverd in Skane (south Sweden)
from 4 a 5000 BC. I read that they looked like the modern Swedes
and had a nordic appearance.

----------


## Maciamo

> Interesting to read about haplogroup I. This is the root of all the ancestors of the Germanic tribes. It means that it has arrived about 
> 4000 BC in Scandinavia. In those times there was no agriculture in Sweden, so members of haplogroup I descend from the Mesolithic hunters who lived in Western Europe (Germany and France).


It is partly correct. The ancestors of Germanic people belonged to haplogroup I1, and a bit to I2b as well, but not I2a.

Furthermore, they did not become "Germanic" until they blended with the Indo-European R1a people (from the Corded-Ware culture) and the latter arrival of R1b from Central Europe (date unknown, but probably between 2000 and 1000 BCE). The R1b brought the centum branch of Indo-European languages that would, after fusion with the existing language, become ancient Germanic.




> It has been discovered that one third of the Germanic words is not
> Indo-European. Perhaps these bearers of Haplogroup I spoke a language
> with words which were not Indo-European.


I believe that the various IE languages that developed in Western Europe are all dialects of the Proto-Italo-Celto-Germanic, that have partially absorbed the local languages of the region where they settled. In other words, Germanic and Italo-Celtic (now Romance) languages are all IE languages hybridised with pre-existing Neolithic tongues. 

The question is, did these Neolithic languages originated in the native European hunter-gatherers, in the Near-Eastern languages of the early farmers, or hybrids of both ? I prefer to favour the hybrid theory whenever in doubt. I just cannot believe that two groups of people merging into one would choose to speak only the language of one group without taking any loan words at all from the other. Naturally, one must have been dominant, at least for the grammatical structure. 




> What is known about the hair and eyes colours of haplogroup I?
> Because I read that R1a had genes for fair hair. 
> 
> In 1943/1944 some skeletons were discoverd in Skane (south Sweden)
> from 4 a 5000 BC. I read that they looked like the modern Swedes
> and had a nordic appearance.


We will know more about this soon. The Y-DNA, mtDNA and autosomal DNA for hair and eye colour of 250 individuals from the Funnelbeaker culture (aka TRB, 4000-2700 BCE) is currently being tested in Germany. I am really looking forward to see the results. This could confirm or disprove my whole theory about the Indo-Europeans bringing haplogroups R1a and R1b to Europe, and native Europeans belonging to haplogroup I. After all, the Genographic Project of National Geographic still insist that Paleolithic Western Europeans belonged to haplogroup R1b. I have clearly explained that this didn't make sense. I hope that ancient DNA tests will prove me right. 

I expect the Y-DNA results to belong primarily to haplogroup I1 or pre-I1 (a few defining mutations missing because they had not yet appeared in 3000 BCE), and possibly a bit of E1b1b, J2b and T, as Scandinavia was already a farming society.

I also think that the Indo-Europeans brought blond and red hair and blue eyes to Europe, based on the fact that all of them can be found in Central and South Asia, where haplogroup I is absent. But it is not impossible that fair hair and eyes existed in Europe before the IE migrations, if the mutations date from the Ice Age. It could very well be linked to mtDNA haplogroups U5, H1, H3 and/or V, which are found throughout Europe, including the IE homeland. But the very low incidence of fair hair and eyes among the Basques and Saami rather suggests that Europeans had dark hair and eyes before the Indo-European invasions.

----------


## Haganus

Probably the haplogroup of R1b arose in Anatolia and about 
5000 BC this haplogroup was present in areas north of Kaukasus.
But are there proves of their presence in Kaukasus Areas? 
How do the prehistorians know that the haplogroup arose in
Anatolia and not in Southwest Europa?

Erik

----------


## Maciamo

> Probably the haplogroup of R1b arose in Anatolia and about 
> 5000 BC this haplogroup was present in areas north of Kaukasus.
> But are there proves of their presence in Kaukasus Areas? 
> How do the prehistorians know that the haplogroup arose in
> Anatolia and not in Southwest Europa?
> 
> Erik


R1b didn't arise in Anatolia. It just spread to Europe from there. It isn't sure where exactly it first appeared, but in my opinion the most likely place between Central Asia and Mesopotamia around 20,000 years ago. Have a look at this supposed migration map of R1b through the ages. R1b is still present in the northern Caucasus nowadays, and its subclades are all older than those found in Western Europe. So it is not a back migration. Same for the Middle East and Central Asia.

----------


## Haganus

But how did scientists know that some squeletons in south Russia
and Kaukasus (5000 BC) had the haplogroup R1b? Are there proves?
Why were the Cro-Magnons from southwest France not R1b?

Erik

----------


## Maciamo

> But how did scientists know that some squeletons in south Russia
> and Kaukasus (5000 BC) had the haplogroup R1b? Are there proves?
> Why were the Cro-Magnons from southwest France not R1b?
> 
> Erik


So far, no Y-DNA older than 2600 BCE has been tested. It was in East Germany and all 3 samples were R1a1. The oldest Y-DNA tested in Russia dates from 1800–1400 BCE (Andronovo culture, north-east border of Kazakhstan, near Novosibirsk, so far away from the Caucasus) and the samples were R1a1 and C.

The oldest R1b sample discovered was in the Lichtenstein Cave (nothing to do with the country) in the Harz mountain in Central Germany. It dates from 1000 BCE. Out of 8 Y-DNA samples, 5 were I2b2, 2 were R1a1 and 1 was R1b. This is consistent with my theory that Western and Northern Europe was mostly peopled by haplogroup I, then the Indo-Europeans arrived and progressively replaced the I lineages by R1a (from 3200 BCE) and R1b (from 2000 BCE) ones. 

If the tests from the Funnelbeaker culture do not reveal the presence of R1a or R1b, then there is no reason to believe that it should be different for Western Europe. Unfortunately the oldest Y-DNA sample from the rest of Europe only dates from 500-700 CE (after the fall of the Roman Empire). However there are plenty of mtDNA samples from all periods, and this matches the migration patterns I have explained here.

----------


## Wilhelm

How is that in Castille (Spain) the haplogroup I is found in about 1/3 of people ? Any reason ? pre indo-european ? germanic ?

----------


## Maciamo

> How is that in Castille (Spain) the haplogroup I is found in about 1/3 of people ? Any reason ? pre indo-european ? germanic ?


It's mostly I2a and it is pre-Indo-European (Paleolithic).

----------


## Wilhelm

Is there any good map of haplogroup I in Europe ? Because the ones I have found are all bad. 
Castille is about 30+% of I , but they just show northern Spain as having I . 
I think Maciamo could do a good one.

----------


## Maciamo

> Is there any good map of haplogroup I in Europe ? Because the ones I have found are all bad. 
> Castille is about 30+% of I , but they just show northern Spain as having I . 
> I think Maciamo could do a good one.


I am planning to make one. The problem is always time.

----------


## rogers

If you Google "hapologroup I" go to the Wikkipedia link. It has a very good map of Hap I in Europe. 

BTW, I2a is not exclusive to Slavs, there are a number of Germans in FTDNA who belong to this subclade.

----------


## Wilhelm

> If you Google "hapologroup I" go to the Wikkipedia link. It has a very good map of Hap I in Europe. 
> 
> BTW, I2a is not exclusive to Slavs, there are a number of Germans in FTDNA who belong to this subclade.


The Wikipedia map is crap

----------


## mika68

what else speak group than ural-finnish speakers affected to indo-europeans germanic people?

Mika J

you can change your language, but not your genes.

----------


## rogers

> The Wikipedia map is crap


Care to elaborate?

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> Care to elaborate?


Wikipedia, particularly sections having to do with genetics, is highly suspect as regards information about any number of population groups. Monitoring of posts has decreased dramatically over the past few years and much information is just simply erroneous or terribly incomplete. Some of it so incredibly bad it is laughable. Use Wikipedia simply as nothing more than a starting point; as a source to reference legitimate footnoted material Don't believe something just because it is in print, particularly if it comes from Wikipedia.

----------


## Wilhelm

> Care to elaborate?


Because It is not accurate AT ALL.

----------


## willy

> It is partly correct. The ancestors of Germanic people belonged to haplogroup I1, and a bit to I2b as well, but not I2a.
> 
> Furthermore, they did not become "Germanic" until they blended with the Indo-European R1a people (from the Corded-Ware culture) and the latter arrival of R1b from Central Europe (date unknown, but probably between 2000 and 1000 BCE). The R1b brought the centum branch of Indo-European languages that would, after fusion with the existing language, become ancient Germanic.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that the various IE languages that developed in Western Europe are all dialects of the Proto-Italo-Celto-Germanic, that have partially absorbed the local languages of the region where they settled. In other words, Germanic and Italo-Celtic (now Romance) languages are all IE languages hybridised with pre-existing Neolithic tongues. 
> 
> The question is, did these Neolithic languages originated in the native European hunter-gatherers, in the Near-Eastern languages of the early farmers, or hybrids of both ? I prefer to favour the hybrid theory whenever in doubt. I just cannot believe that two groups of people merging into one would choose to speak only the language of one group without taking any loan words at all from the other. Naturally, one must have been dominant, at least for the grammatical structure. 
> ...


The DNA evolution of northen europeans I1 (fair air and eyes color) was similar to R1a the refuge was near the black sea for those 2 haplogroups the spread of R1a to South Asia was long time after that period .http://www.livescience.com/health/080131-blue-eyes.html "indo europeans" (there is not yet evidences about the origin of this langage or culture) was first europeans on the Black Sea area like I1c or R1a etc ... 
''The mutations responsible for blue eye colour most likely originate from the north-west part of the Black Sea region, where the great agricultural migration of the northern part of Europe took place in the Neolithic periods about 6,000 to 10,000 years ago,'' the researchers report in the journal Human Genetics.

----------


## Wilhelm

> The DNA evolution of northen europeans I1 (fair air and eyes color)


Actually being fair haired has nothing to do with being I1.

----------


## willy

> Actually being fair haired has nothing to do with being I1.


yes may be actually but I talk about scandinavians or germanic Nordic people I1c or R1a and the origin of that mutation . It is also of course linked to mtDNA haplogroups on the Black Sea area of that Neolithic periods .

----------


## Woden

> The DNA evolution of northen europeans I1 (fair air and eyes color) was similar to R1a


Oh really? How about a scientific source for that extravagant claim?

Hgs. I and R last had common ancestry 45,000 years ago (Hg. IJK) prior to the IE (Hgs. R) invasions 4,000 years ago.

Northern Europeans are *racially hybrid Eurasians*.




> the refuge was near the black sea for those 2 haplogroups


Nonsense! Again, how about a scientific source for the extravagant claim that Hg. I was in some refuge "near the black sea"?

----------


## willy

http://www.dnaheritage.com/images/ma...logroups_2.jpg
The refuge was near the black sea for those 2 haplogroups I and R1a those human groups refugees during the ice age around the Black Sea have converged to same physical traits humans had taken refuge for so long that their DNA had naturally picked up mutations, and consequently can be defined into different haplogroups but haplogroup is not all DNA just a non-coding DNA . They was no asiatic no eurasian around the black sea during the cold. Ukraina (homeland refuge R1a) is still Europe not Asia !

----------


## seananton

"I believe that the various IE languages that developed in Western Europe are all dialects of the Proto-Italo-Celto-Germanic, that have partially absorbed the local languages of the region where they settled. In other words, Germanic and Italo-Celtic (now Romance) languages are all IE languages hybridised with pre-existing Neolithic tongues." Maciamo

I am sure Maciamo's view is fully justified. A hundred years ago one of the German scholars studying Old Irish came to the conclusion after working on its peculiar syntax that the structure of Irish Gaelic had been changed by the influence of the pre existing none IE language, he ascribed these changes to the presence of a language which he believed to be related to the Berber group.

This would make sense because one of the easiest routes into Ireland is up the west coast of Iberia, a route that was followed by the Gaels themselves.

I am sorry that I can't remember the name of the gentleman responsible for this theory.

----------


## Yorkie

> The DNA evolution of northen europeans I1 (fair air and eyes color) was similar to R1a the refuge was near the black sea for those 2 haplogroups the spread of R1a to South Asia was long time after that period .http://www.livescience.com/health/080131-blue-eyes.html "indo europeans" (there is not yet evidences about the origin of this langage or culture) was first europeans on the Black Sea area like I1c or R1a etc ... 
> ''The mutations responsible for blue eye colour most likely originate from the north-west part of the Black Sea region, where the great agricultural migration of the northern part of Europe took place in the Neolithic periods about 6,000 to 10,000 years ago,'' the researchers report in the journal Human Genetics.


In relation to specific groups within I haplogroup and their foundation places:

The work of Ken Nordtvedt and the work of Peter Underhill supports the idea that I1 was founded around Denmark, post LGM.

Nordtvedt suggests a Danube Basin founder for I2a2a-Dinaric; a north German founder for L161 I2a2b-Isles; and an Iberian founder for M26 I2a1.

----------


## Catchabus

> In relation to specific groups within I haplogroup and their foundation places:
> 
> The work of Ken Nordtvedt and the work of Peter Underhill supports the idea that I1 was founded around Denmark, post LGM.
> 
> Nordtvedt suggests a Danube Basin founder for I2a2a-Dinaric; a north German founder for L161 I2a2b-Isles; and an Iberian founder for M26 I2a1.


Yorkie,

Do you know Prof. Nordtvedt's view on I2b1 (M223)?

----------


## Yorkie

> Yorkie,
> 
> Do you know Prof. Nordtvedt's view on I2b1 (M223)?


Yes. Ken calls this 'I2b1-Continental' [there are 2 forms], and this is the main form of I2b1 [old I1c]. I believe that it may have been founded in northern France and from there brought upwards to Scandinavia. The densest distribution is north-west Germany and Netherlands, then up to Denmark and even southern Sweden and Norway. When found in Britain, it is usually seen as more of a signal of Anglo Saxon invaders than Scandinavians. Nordtvedt dates I2b1 to 2,650 BC.

----------


## Catchabus

Thanks. You seem very knowledgeable about Hg I yourself. Would you associate the Vandals with I2b1? I wonder how this Germanic group ended up in Sicily, where I’m from. The best bet may be Norman (possibly Lombard) because of the historical record, but I wonder also if it could have been one of the “barbarian” tribes; e.g., Vandals.

----------


## Yorkie

> Thanks. You seem very knowledgeable about Hg I yourself. Would you associate the Vandals with I2b1? I wonder how this Germanic group ended up in Sicily, where I’m from. The best bet may be Norman (possibly Lombard) because of the historical record, but I wonder also if it could have been one of the “barbarian” tribes; e.g., Vandals.


 Thanks, I do my best! I don't know for sure [who does?] but I suspect that you are on the right lines here regarding either Normans or earlier Vandals. What is certain is that you possess a Ydna line of Germanic/Scandinavian origin. I personally think the Sicilian location makes Norman incursions most likely. The thing about the Normans is that they were a rather mixed bunch. For example, the 1066 invasion force that landed in Hastings [my country, England] contained warriors and nobles who descended from Norwegians and Danes, alongside Bretons, Flemings, Franks, Gascons, Picards etc. One clue in your case, and it is only a slim one, is that generally I2b1 is more associated with lowland Germanic countries than with Scandinavia. Maybe you descend from Frankish-Norman stock?

----------


## Catchabus

Thanks again; especially that final clue. The town I come from in NW Sicily does have a historical connection with the Normans, who built a church there in 1090 (still extant).

----------


## Yorkie

> Thanks again; especially that final clue. The town I come from in NW Sicily does have a historical connection with the Normans, who built a church there in 1090 (still extant).


Does your family name have any suggestions of Norman origins? Do you possess pedigrees or a paper-trail which might suggest Norman ancestry?

----------


## Catchabus

> Does your family name have any suggestions of Norman origins? Do you possess pedigrees or a paper-trail which might suggest Norman ancestry?


I’m afraid not. The name is common in NW Sicily and I have come across some records (other people’s genealogy) showing it has been there since at least 1700. Determining a paper trail for my family is nearly impossible.

I can only base this belief on anecdotal evidence, starting with the church dedicated to St. George built by the Normans at the end of the 11th century, as well as the town’s castle. Also, light colored eyes (blue, hazel) are very common (I’d say close to 50%), and light colored hair, especially among the young, is also common, including a few red heads.

The DiGaetano paper, Differential Greek and northern African migrations to Sicily are supported by genetic evidence from the Y chromosome, includes my hometown, Caccamo, and the results indicate the presence of I1, R1a, and I2b1. However, the sample size is small and, more troubling, includes some questionable data. I have a direct match with one mini haplotype, but it’s classified as I1 (M253).

Link to paper: http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v...hg2008120a.pdf

Link to supporting data: http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v...g2008120x1.xls

----------


## bud

I2b1 has a hot spot in Sardinia no doubt from Norman invasion, I would think given its vicinity Sicily would have a few people with that line.

----------


## Yorkie

> I2b1 has a hot spot in Sardinia no doubt from Norman invasion, I would think given its vicinity Sicily would have a few people with that line.


bud,
I didn't know that. Whereabouts exactly is the hotspot in Sardinia? As far as I was aware it was M26 I2a1 that had a Sardinian hotspot.

----------


## RH NEG-I

> Yes. Ken calls this 'I2b1-Continental' [there are 2 forms], and this is the main form of I2b1 [old I1c]. I believe that it may have been founded in northern France and from there brought upwards to Scandinavia. The densest distribution is north-west Germany and Netherlands, then up to Denmark and even southern Sweden and Norway. When found in Britain, it is usually seen as more of a signal of Anglo Saxon invaders than Scandinavians. Nordtvedt dates I2b1 to 2,650 BC.


 Forgive my lack of real understanding here but arent the Viking invaders of Scotland different from the Anglo Saxons? I ask this because My ancestors can be traced to Northern Scotland (inverness). I think about 20 percent of Northern Scots are I1 as I am.

----------


## Regulus

Northern Scotland was settled by an appreciable amount of Scandinavians. The Earldom of Orkney survived for some time past the Viking era. You should be able to find a decent amount of information on related haplogroups on this forum. I think that you are on track. I would go with Scandinavians as being the most likely because I have never seen any evidence of Anglo-Saxon settlements in that part of Scotland.

Semper Fi

----------


## Yorkie

> Northern Scotland was settled by an appreciable amount of Scandinavians. The Earldom of Orkney survived for some time past the Viking era. You should be able to find a decent amount of information on related haplogroups on this forum. I think that you are on track. I would go with Scandinavians as being the most likely because I have never seen any evidence of Anglo-Saxon settlements in that part of Scotland.
> 
> Semper Fi


The Scandinavian influence in Scotland, as you suggest, is largely Norwegian. They would certainly carry I1.

I agree regarding Anglo-Saxon settlement; in Scotland this is largely limited to the Anglian settlements of Lothian, in lowland Scotland.

Scandinavian I1 genes in northern Scotland might also, in the cases of a few individuals in Norman-descended Clans [usually the chieftain lines], actually hail from the Normans. Certainly, the rather mixed Normans- which included Flemings, Franks, Bretons etc-might have brought I1 to northern Scotland in some cases.

----------


## Regulus

> The Scandinavian influence in Scotland, as you suggest, is largely Norwegian. They would certainly carry I1.
> 
> I agree regarding Anglo-Saxon settlement; in Scotland this is largely limited to the Anglian settlements of Lothian, in lowland Scotland.
> 
> Scandinavian I1 genes in northern Scotland might also, in the cases of a few individuals in Norman-descended Clans [usually the chieftain lines], actually hail from the Normans. Certainly, the rather mixed Normans- which included Flemings, Franks, Bretons etc-might have brought I1 to northern Scotland in some cases.


 
The point about Normans in the lines of the nobility does make sense. I have no idea about YDNA of aristocratic descendants in Ireland, but what you wrote could work there too as a number of the surnames there are from Norman nobility.

----------


## Yorkie

> The point about Normans in the lines of the nobility does make sense. I have no idea about YDNA of aristocratic descendants in Ireland, but what you wrote could work there too as a number of the surnames there are from Norman nobility.


I agree that, in theory, it _could_ work regarding the descendants of Strongbow's Cambro-Normans in Ireland. There has been an awful lot of emigration from Ireland since then though, and I1 is effectively absent in Ireland. It _does_ occur but more in Ulster where it conceivably might be an echo of the more 'recent' Williamite Planters of largely 'Border' English and lowland Scots origin. Isolated cases of I1 in Ireland might also be echoes of earlier Elizabethan Planters [I am thinking of Dublin, Wexford etc[, or even earlier than Strongbow's Normans i.e, echoes of the Norse and Danes that raided and temporarily settled in Ireland. At any rate, there is not much I1 there, north or south.

----------


## Regulus

Thanks for following that up. Either way, there would definitely be less in Ireland than Northern Scotland with the Norwegians or East England with the Danes. Those two are areas where they settled in larger numbers.

----------


## Yorkie

> Thanks for following that up. Either way, there would definitely be less in Ireland than Northern Scotland with the Norwegians or East England with the Danes. Those two are areas where they settled in larger numbers.


 There is a little overlap re the Danes and Norse [Norwegians]. People tend to think of the Danes as mainly raiding and settling east of the Pennines, and mainly England. That is largely true, but there is some evidence of Danish settlement across the Pennines in east Cheshire, and in lowland Scotland. The Norwegians have a considerable legacy in the Northern Isles and Hebrides, and were the major Scandinavian input in mainland Scotland [Argyll etc], and England west of the Pennines, especially Cumberland, Lancashire and the Wirral in west Cheshire.
In north Yorkshire though, there is a bit of overlap with some Norwegian influence creeping over into the Dales alongside Danish, and we must remember that for a while York or _Jorvik_ was in the hands of Norwegians.

I often reflect though that a Swedish element in the Viking raiders has been grossly underestimated. My Maternal Grandfather's I1 haplotype [a Yorkshireman who descends from an east Cheshire landed family] matches the Western Norway modal but there are many, many Swedish matches for his 'Scandinavian' I1 signature, with 23 at 390, 14, 14 at 385a,b, 13 at 462, 12 and 28 at 389i/389ii and 12, 14, 15, 16 at 464a,b,c,d. I would like to bet that there was a decent showing of Swedes, especially from Skane, in the raiding parties of Danes and Norwegians.

----------


## Regulus

> There is a little overlap re the Danes and Norse [Norwegians]. People tend to think of the Danes as mainly raiding and settling east of the Pennines, and mainly England. That is largely true, but there is some evidence of Danish settlement across the Pennines in east Cheshire, and in lowland Scotland. The Norwegians have a considerable legacy in the Northern Isles and Hebrides, and were the major Scandinavian input in mainland Scotland [Argyll etc], and England west of the Pennines, especially Cumberland, Lancashire and the Wirral in west Cheshire.
> In north Yorkshire though, there is a bit of overlap with some Norwegian influence creeping over into the Dales alongside Danish, and we must remember that for a while York or _Jorvik_ was in the hands of Norwegians.
> 
> I often reflect though that a Swedish element in the Viking raiders has been grossly underestimated. My Maternal Grandfather's I1 haplotype [a Yorkshireman who descends from an east Cheshire landed family] matches the Western Norway modal but there are many, many Swedish matches for his 'Scandinavian' I1 signature, with 23 at 390, 14, 14 at 385a,b, 13 at 462, 12 and 28 at 389i/389ii and 12, 14, 15, 16 at 464a,b,c,d. I would like to bet that there was a decent showing of Swedes, especially from Skane, in the raiding parties of Danes and Norwegians.


 
Interesting. Swedes mostly went East with Danes (who went East and West) where Varangians (and Rus by the Finns) was used to describe them. But I would not doubt that some individuals or small groups went West with Danes or Norwegians. Their language and culture would have made such contacts easy I would think.

----------


## Yorkie

> Interesting. Swedes mostly went East with Danes (who went East and West) where Varangians (and Rus by the Finns) was used to describe them. But I would not doubt that some individuals or small groups went West with Danes or Norwegians. Their language and culture would have made such contacts easy I would think.


There are just so many Swedish matches for my Grandfather's I1 and others like it that I am forced to the conclusion that Swedes played a bigger part in the Viking raids than is usually acknowledged. I don't know enough about archaeology, distinctly Swedish jewellry etc to say more, but I seem to recall that the earlier Anglo Saxon burial discovered at Sutton Hoo in Suffolk had some links to Sweden too. Logically, looking at a map of Scandinavia, Sweden is only 'next door' to Norway and Denmark after all. I really do think it has been overlooked as a source of genetic input to the British gene-pool. The influence might be relatively small, but I bet it is there.

----------


## Regulus

You are probably right. I tend to defer to the math, in this case, DNA. 
"Danes" may just have been a general term for them to the Anglo-Saxons.

----------


## DejaVu

Haplogroup I in Germany, Sweden and Denmark.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/11...an-y-strs.html

North Germany:
I1: 18%
I2a: 1%
I2b: 5%
R1a: 23%
R1b: 38%
G2a: 3.5%
J2: 4%
J1: 0.5%
E1b1b: 5.5%
T: 1%
Q: 2%
N1c1: 1.5%

East Germany:
I1: 19.5%
I2a: 1%
I2b: 3%
R1a: 25%
R1b: 36%
G2a: 4%
J2: 2%
J1: 0%
E1b1b: 7.5%
T: 1%
Q: 1%
N1c1: 1%

West Germany:
I1: 13%
I2a: 2.5%
I2b: 7%
R1a: 9%
R1b: 47%
G2a: 5%
J2: 5%
J1: 0%
E1b1b: 8%
T: 1.5%
Q: 0.5%
N1c1: 1.5%

South Germany:
I1: 9.5%
I2a: 5%
I2b: 3%
R1a: 9.5%
R1b: 48.5%
G2a: 7.5%
J2: 5.5%
J1: 1%
E1b1b: 7.5%
T: 1.5%
Q: 0.5%
N1c1: 0.5%

Denmark:
I1: 30.5%
I2a: 0.5%
I2b: 5%
R1a: 12.5%
R1b: 44.5%
G2a: 1%
J2: 3%
J1: 0%
E1b1b: 2.5%
T: 0%
Q: 0%
N1c1: 1.5%

Sweden:
I1: 42%
I2a: 0%
I2b: 2%
R1a: 23.5%
R1b: 21%
G2a: 0.5%
J2: 1%
J1: 0%
E1b1b: 1%
T: 0%
Q: 0.5%
N1c1: 7%

----------


## RH NEG-I

> The Scandinavian influence in Scotland, as you suggest, is largely Norwegian. They would certainly carry I1.
> 
> I agree regarding Anglo-Saxon settlement; in Scotland this is largely limited to the Anglian settlements of Lothian, in lowland Scotland.
> 
> Scandinavian I1 genes in northern Scotland might also, in the cases of a few individuals in Norman-descended Clans [usually the chieftain lines], actually hail from the Normans. Certainly, the rather mixed Normans- which included Flemings, Franks, Bretons etc-might have brought I1 to northern Scotland in some cases.


I have also heard that the Sinclaire family of France is I1. They were supposedly the last vestiges of the Knight's Templar who fled to Scotland and were given asylum by the Macdonald Clan in the Hebrides . Of course the Macdonalds also joined forces at one time with thier one time enemies, the Vikings against the Stuarts. One small point of interest- The crest of the Macdonald clan shows a very Nordic symbol..the raven. My Sir Name is Mcdonell.

----------


## RH NEG-I

> Northern Scotland was settled by an appreciable amount of Scandinavians. The Earldom of Orkney survived for some time past the Viking era. You should be able to find a decent amount of information on related haplogroups on this forum. I think that you are on track. I would go with Scandinavians as being the most likely because I have never seen any evidence of Anglo-Saxon settlements in that part of Scotland.
> 
> Semper Fi


Semper Fi...

----------


## how yes no 2

> Interesting to read about haplogroup I. This is the root of all the ancestors of the Germanic tribes.


not all I is Germanic.

But actually, there are details that made me wonder whether that was always the case.....

this is Kerman province located in Persia, Iran... it matches by shape the south most spread of haplogroup I in Asia...







> Historical documents refer to Kerman as "Karmania", "Kermania", "*Germania*" and "Žermanya", which means *bravery and combat*.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerman_province



> The first historical record of the *Cimmerians* appears *in Assyrian annals* in the year 714 BC. These describe how a people termed the *Gimirri* helped the forces of Sargon II to defeat the kingdom of Urartu. Their original homeland, called Gamir or Uishdish, seems to have been located within the buffer state of Mannae. The later geographer Ptolemy placed the Cimmerian city of Gomara in this region. After their conquests of Colchis and Iberia in the First Millennium BC, the Cimmerians also came to be known as *Gimirri in Georgian*. According to Georgian historians[8], the Cimmerians played an influential role in the development of both the Colchian and Iberian cultures. The *modern-day Georgian word for hero, გმირი, gmiri, is derived from the word Gimirri*. This refers to the Cimmerians who settled in the area after the initial conquests.
> Some modern authors assert that the Cimmerians included mercenaries, whom the Assyrians knew as Khumri, who had been resettled there by Sargon. Later Greek accounts describe the Cimmerians as having previously lived on the steppes, between the Tyras (Dniester) and Tanais (Don) rivers. Greek and Mesopotamian sources note several Cimmerian kings including Tugdamme (Lygdamis in Greek; mid-7th century BC), and Sandakhshatra (late-7th century).
> 
> The Cimmerian occupation of Lydia was brief, however, possibly due to an outbreak of plague. Between 637 and 626 BC, they were beaten back by Alyattes II of Lydia. This defeat marked the effective end of Cimmerian power. The term Gimirri was used about a century later in the Behistun inscription (ca. 515 BC) as a *Babylonian equivalent of Persian Saka (Scythians)*. Otherwise Cimmerians disappeared from western Asian historical accounts, and their fate was unknown. It has been speculated that they settled in Cappadocia, known in Armenian as Գամիրք, Gamir-kʿ (the same name as the original Cimmerian homeland in Mannae).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cimmerians




> The Hebrew name *Gomer* is widely considered to refer to the *Cimmerians* (Akkadian *Gimirru, "complete"*), who dwelt on the Eurasian Steppes[4] and attacked Assyria in the late 7th century BC. The Assyrians called them Gimmerai ; the Cimmerian king Teushpa was defeated by Assarhadon of Assyria sometime between 681 and 668 BC.[5]
> The Cimbri were a tribe settled in Denmark ca. 200 BC, who were variously identified in ancient times as Cimmerian, Germanic or Celtic. In later times, some scholars connected them with the Welsh people, and descendants of Gomer.
> ...
> According to tractate Yoma, in the Talmud, Gomer is identified as the ancestor of the Gomermians, modern Germans.



if we look at the world known to Hebrews we can see the location of Gomer ..



and position of Gomer does fit well with I2a2 spread as it is found north of Black sea and as an island in east part of Asia minor...

----------


## how yes no 2

> Haplogroup I in Germany, Sweden and Denmark.
> http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/11...an-y-strs.html
> 
> North Germany:
> I1: 18%
> I2a: 1%
> ....
> N1c1: 7%


Are you aware that you are here quoting someone's comment as a proof?
Try to find more credible sources...
you keep quoting some alternative history sites... e.g. some british israelite sect and similar sources....

information is as credible (and useful for reasoning about it) as its source is...

----------


## DejaVu

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_h..._ethnic_groups*
*Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic groups*
Listed here are notable ethnic groups by Y-DNA haplogroups based on relevant studies. The data is presented in two columns for each haplogroup with the first being the sample size (_n_) and the second the percentage in the haplogroup designated by the column header. The samples are taken from individuals identified with the ethnic and linguistic designations in the first two columns.

*Haplogroup I*
Denmark: 38.7 %
Sweden: 37,5% & 40% (2 tests)
Germany: 37,5%

Never presented them as proof only linked as all do here with source where it came from, if fake or not its not my problem all should check sources before believing in anything here, even your word matching. All posts here on this forum are interesting so continue to post as you all have done so far.

----------


## Yorkie

> You are probably right. I tend to defer to the math, in this case, DNA. 
> "Danes" may just have been a general term for them to the Anglo-Saxons.


I've just had my Maternal Grandfather's I1 haplotype [which is in Nordtvedt's L22 I1-Norse category], reanalysed by Arne Roehl and Peter Forster at Roots For Real and despite many close Swedish matches the Norwegian hits predominate. Roehl seems very confident that the haplotype is 'relatively recent' and sees Norway as the most likely origin.

----------


## Regulus

Interesting, thanks. I am going to have to get mine done.

----------


## Wilhelm

Haplogroup I is NOT germanic. First of all, haplogroup I is paleolithic pre-Indoeuropean and germanics are Indoeuropeans. Second: The highest percentage of haplogroup I is found in non-germanic areas, such as Bosnia and Sardinia.

----------


## Garrick

> Haplogroup I is NOT germanic. First of all, haplogroup I is paleolithic pre-Indoeuropean and germanics are Indoeuropeans. Second: The highest percentage of haplogroup I is found in non-germanic areas, such as Bosnia and Sardinia.


Wilhelm
Generally I is the highest in Bosnia and Herzegovina, also I is high in Serbia.

Distribution I

Bosnia Herzegovina, 65%, Pericic et al (2005)
Serbia, 48%, Mirabal et al (2010)

In the Balkans, I2a2 is the dominant.

The north of Europe is dominated by I1, countries:

Sweden, Norway, Denmark,

and areas:

Western Finland and Northern Germany.

The descendants of I1 today are primarily found among the the bordering Celtic and Uralic populations in Scandinavia and Northern Germanic populations of northern Europe.

Iceland and Britany also have significant male population I1.

Interestingly, in Serbia I1 is 7,8%.

It can be found that I1 indicates the Viking marker, or to be called the Old Scandinavian and Old German even, but certainly it is questionable if this is correct.

----------


## iapodos

As far I understand it is not right way to try to assign one whole haplogroup with the nation, even if the nation is quite ancient as Germans, Celts or Slavs. Each of these groups were genetically diverse with one or two dominating haplogroups. Germans I1,I2b, R1b and R1a, Slavs R1a and I2a2, Celts R1b etc.
Isn't it good answer to this question dna results from Lichenstein cave from 1000BC. Even then it was genetically diverse society with I2b, R1a and R1b people living together on one place.
On the other hand, it would be interesting to extract indoeuropean an pre-indoeuropean part from each of those nation. Story about german substrate in language is well known (about 30% percent words in germanic languages are not indoeuropean). It is heritage of paleoeuropeans in Germans. Nobody does such exploration for Slavic languages, and Slavs also have significant amount of paleoeuropeans. It would be interesting to find out which slavic words are not indoeuropean and have same root with same words in germanic substrate.
I hope I have found one. It is serbian, and slavic word for plum- šljiva. Well known drink slivovitza (or brandy from sliva)
That is what I find on wikipedia about šljiva etymology:
The word "sloe" comes from Old English slāh - the same word is noted in Middle Low German (historically spoken in Lower Saxony), Middle Dutch "sleuuwe" or contracted form "slē" (from which come Modern Low German words: "slē", "slī", and Modern Dutch "slee"), Old High German "slēha", "slēwa" (from which come Modern German "Schlehe". All these come from Common Germanic root *slaiχwōn. Cf. West Slavic / Polish "śliwa" plum of any species, including sloe "śliwa tarnina" – root present in other Slavic languages, e.g. Serbian/Croatian šljiva / шљива and likely to be an early borrowing into Proto-Indo-European from the languages of pre-Indo-European population of Europe.

----------


## Yorkie

> Haplogroup I is NOT germanic. First of all, haplogroup I is paleolithic pre-Indoeuropean and germanics are Indoeuropeans. Second: The highest percentage of haplogroup I is found in non-germanic areas, such as Bosnia and Sardinia.


I disagree here. Germanics are a mixture of Indo-European and 'native' European stock. They are effectively a cocktail of I1, I2b1, R1b and R1a1. Any Population Geneticist would tell you this. That is how the 'Germanic' people were formed. They are certainly not 'pure' Indo-Europeans.

The highest percentage of I haplogroup- you refer to I2a2a and M26 I2a1 respectively- is found in non-Germanic areas, yes. However, the north-western form of I2a2- I2a2b was founded in northern Germany. Additionally, when searching for genetic echoes of Germanics, all Population Geneticists worth their salt look for I1.

----------


## Regulus

> I disagree here. Germanics are a mixture of Indo-European and 'native' European stock. They are effectively a cocktail of I1, I2b1, R1b and R1a1. Any Population Geneticist would tell you this. That is how the 'Germanic' people were formed. They are certainly not 'pure' Indo-Europeans.
> 
> The highest percentage of I haplogroup- you refer to I2a2a and M26 I2a1 respectively- is found in non-Germanic areas, yes. However, the north-western form of I2a2- I2a2b was founded in northern Germany. Additionally, when searching for genetic echoes of Germanics, all Population Geneticists worth their salt look for I1.


It is interesting that the Germanics were believed by many to have been largely such a mixture even before DNA confirmed it (Although DNA also gave us much more detail) Even works from the 60s had the first IE waves (I guess now R1b1b2?) merging with the Ertebolle people, who were still in a sub-Neolithic, much of a hunter-gatherer culture. This happened in modern-day Denmark, lower modern-day Norway and Sweden and along the coast from the Netherlands to the Poland. From what I have learned here in the forum, these people were likely predominantly I group. I assume that R1a would have mixed in later, maybe from contact with proto-Slavs. Classical sources described Germans not only as tall, but particularly as having large frames. It is possible that physical traits from I peoples may have been the main contributor of this feature for which early Germans are known. The I peoples appear to have continued much of the way of life that was practiced throughout much of Europe during the Ice Age.

----------


## LeBrok

R1a moved into center of europe about 5 000 years ago with Battle Axe Culture.
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/neolit...rope_map.shtml

----------


## Regulus

> R1a moved into center of europe about 5 000 years ago with Battle Axe Culture.
> http://www.eupedia.com/europe/neolit...rope_map.shtml


I would agree with the Battle-Axe culture being the most likely and primary R1a carrier in that area.
That groups seems to me to be a huge contributor to the proto-Slavs amd Balts as well as the Germanics.

----------


## Yorkie

> R1a moved into center of europe about 5 000 years ago with Battle Axe Culture.
> http://www.eupedia.com/europe/neolit...rope_map.shtml


I agree absolutely. From there, the Indo-European carriers of R1a1 and R1b mixed with the 'native' I haplogroup carriers and we have the emergence of the Germanic peoples.

As I said before, when looking for traces of Germanic peoples, Population Geneticists have tended to use I1 and R1a1 as markers rather than R1b. This is obviously because I1 and R1a1 are effectively absent in Celtic lands. There may well be Germanic-leaning R1b clades like U106/S21 and U198/S29 but R1b in general is plentiful in Celtic countries and is associated with the spread of Celtic languages. Some see I1 as the 'core' of the Germanic peoples, but to me the 'core' is an I1/I2b1/R1b/R1a1 mixture. All these haplogroups, with a tiny dash of I2a2b, went to make the Germanic folk. The percentages vary though between different countries, ie, Norway has more R1a1 etc.

----------


## how yes no 2

> I agree absolutely. From there, the Indo-European carriers of R1a1 and R1b mixed with the 'native' I haplogroup carriers and we have the emergence of the Germanic peoples.


what about Klyosov who says that R1a is ancient old in area of Macedonia, Serbia, Bosnia and much younger in all other areas of the world taken together....

now, if it has recently came from somewhere to Balkan, than it should be by far oldest there and not in Balkan, right?

----------


## Yorkie

> what about Klyosov who says that R1a is ancient old in area of Macedonia, Serbia, Bosnia and much younger in all other areas of the world taken together....
> 
> now, if it has recently came from somewhere to Balkan, than it should be by far oldest there and not in Balkan, right?


Sorry but I don't follow your point here, how yes no. I am defining the Germanic peoples as a mixture of Indo-European [R1a1, R1b] and 'native' European [I1, I2b1, and I2a2b] haplogroups. 

I have read Klyosov [a little bit, most is in Russian] and I am not disputing the dating of R1a1 as R1a1 is not my area. However, I do believe that there is overwhelming evidence that R1a1 was brought to northern Europe by the Kurgan 'Battle Axe' culture.

----------


## how yes no 2

> Sorry but I don't follow your point here, how yes no. I am defining the Germanic peoples as a mixture of Indo-European [R1a1, R1b] and 'native' European [I1, I2b1, and I2a2b] haplogroups. 
> 
> I have read Klyosov [a little bit, most is in Russian] and I am not disputing the dating of R1a1 as R1a1 is not my area. However, I do believe that there is overwhelming evidence that R1a1 was brought to northern Europe by the Kurgan 'Battle Axe' culture.


oops, sorry...
I wanted to quote LeBrok



> R1a moved into center of europe about 5 000 years ago with Battle Axe Culture


this seems to be in contradiction with Klyosov's observation about R1a... as according to Klyosov R1a was already present in Balkan, which is close to center of Europe and as Balkan was, as far as I think, not the source of Battle Axe culture...

what might have happened is that spread from Balkan went first to east, and than returned to Europe as Battle Axe culture...

----------


## Yorkie

That's ok. Incidentally, I respect Klyosov's views but I think the consensus view of 5,000 years ago is more likely.

----------


## LeBrok

Klyosov could be right, but we need to find dna evidence from central and south Europe before 5000 years ago, to be sure. The oldest R1a so far in central Europe was found in Saxony and dated as 4600 years old. That's what we are certain so far. The rest are hypothesis.

----------


## Regulus

Just a thought to make sure that all of us on on the same sheet of music-

Those of us that mention the Battle Axe Culture as a carrier of R1a are probably referring to that of the Volga Battle Axe culture specifically.

The Steppe Battle Axe culture, which may be what others are thinking about when they see "Battle Axe culture", should be more associated with the Proto Thraco-Cimmerians, who dominated the steppe at that time. 

To the East of both were the proto Iranians, who would eventually would provide the group that was to push the Cimmerians completely off the steppe, the Scythians.

It came to me that someone may dispute the position that a group may have carried R1a but that he may have a different particular group in mind when he sees the words "Battle Axe Culture".

I think that the Steppe Battle Axe culture also could have carried R1a. I just wanted to clarify this because the topic was about the R1a group that mixed in to become Germans, and that appears to be the Volga group.

----------


## LeBrok

I mean the Corded Ware Culture as per my link. It is also known as Battle Axe culture, and I like this name better for some reason. :)
Anyway the one that went into central Europe 5000 years ago.

----------


## Regulus

I have noticed that Corded Ware is more commonly used now. 
Maybe someone could comment if the Corded Ware would be specific to the Volga Battle Axe culture or if there was a type of overlap.

----------


## Yorkie

> I have noticed that Corded Ware is more commonly used now. 
> Maybe someone could comment if the Corded Ware would be specific to the Volga Battle Axe culture or if there was a type of overlap.


As far as I am aware, the Corded Ware culture took in all from the Rhine to the Volga, so they are the same thing essentially.

----------


## Regulus

That sounds reasonable.

----------


## Yorkie

Getting back to the thread topic; I definately don't think can talk about the Germanic people as being 'Indo-European' or 'native European' as they are clearly a mixture of both, with the main cocktail ingredients of I1, R1a1 and R1b.

Some regard I1 as 'the core' of the Germanic people though. One can easily understand why this is. From a population genetics perspective, I1 [and R1a1 for that matter] are far more use than R1b for tracing echoes of the Germanics. This is simply because both I1 and R1a1 are effectively absent from Celtic lands. R1b, whilst having Germanic-leaning clades such as U198/S29 and U106/S21 is quite obviously abundant in Celtic lands. Whether hobbyists like it or not, and some most definately hate the idea, most Population Geneticists still regard R1b as essentially a 'Celtic marker'. That will frustrate those who claim that their U106 came to northern England with the Danes or Angles but it is there nevertheless. If one finds I1 genes, inevitably Germanics follow...

----------


## Regulus

> Just a thought to make sure that all of us on on the same sheet of music-
> 
> Those of us that mention the Battle Axe Culture as a carrier of R1a are probably referring to that of the Volga Battle Axe culture specifically.
> 
> The Steppe Battle Axe culture, which may be what others are thinking about when they see "Battle Axe culture", should be more associated with the Proto Thraco-Cimmerians, who dominated the steppe at that time. 
> 
> To the East of both were the proto Iranians, who would eventually would provide the group that was to push the Cimmerians completely off the steppe, the Scythians.
> 
> It came to me that someone may dispute the position that a group may have carried R1a but that he may have a different particular group in mind when he sees the words "Battle Axe Culture".
> ...


I think that I need to make a correction here:

 I started looking at this in more detail and realized that I entirely missed the "Baltic' Battle Axe Culture". This may very well be a more likely candidate than the "Volga" one since it is much closer and is associated with proto-Balts, who could possibly be a if not the source of R1a in Germanic people. I remember reading at some point that the proto-Germanic language could have influence from proto Balts or Slavs.

Sorry Yorkie, I will keep it to haplogroup "I" in this thread from now on.

----------


## Yorkie

> I think that I need to make a correction here:
> 
> I started looking at this in more detail and realized that I entirely missed the "Baltic' Battle Axe Culture". This may very well be a more likely candidate than the "Volga" one since it is much closer and is associated with proto-Balts, who could possibly be a if not the source of R1a in Germanic people. I remember reading at some point that the proto-Germanic language could have influence from proto Balts or Slavs.
> 
> Sorry Yorkie, I will keep it to haplogroup "I" in this thread from now on.


 No need to apologise. Just a quickie re R1a1... I think there is a difference between the form of R1a1 found in the Germanic gene-pool [Scandinavia, Germany, England, Scotland, Northern Isles etc] and the Slavic gene-pool [Poland etc]. A new snp was discovered last year which delineates between them. The Corded Ware Eulau remains found in Germany recently were of a Germany-leaning form. 

Back to I haplogroup and Germanics. I definately think that the 23 at 390, 14, 14 at 385a,b, 13 at 462 and 12, 14, 15, 16 form [corresponding to Nordtvedt's 'Norse' I1 and Barac's 'Nordic' form] is prevalent in deep Scandinavia and a 'Viking' indicator. My English Grandfather's I1 is of this type and the closest matches are Norway followed by Sweden. This 23 at 390, 13 at 462 I1 is nearly always an indicator of Norse ancestry in British men. Maybe this form is the one carried from Germany up into Scandinavia in the colonisation period by the Teutons?

----------


## Regulus

Wow, that is a lot to follow for a new guy.

Could the I1 have been there when the R1b and/or R1a migants arrived?
Just trying to get a feel on the haplogroups and times - it is still very new to me.

I had been thinking along the lines of I1 being possibly carried by the Ertebolle people, but I am very open to those who know more.

----------


## how yes no 2

> No need to apologise. Just a quickie re R1a1... I think there is a difference between the form of R1a1 found in the Germanic gene-pool [Scandinavia, Germany, England, Scotland, Northern Isles etc] and the Slavic gene-pool [Poland etc]. A new snp was discovered last year which delineates between them. The Corded Ware Eulau remains found in Germany recently were of a Germany-leaning form.


 I do not think this is really correct....
what you say is based on gross misinterpretation of the article that was discussed on the thread http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25925 ... 

article does not claim what some people on forum wanted to see in it.... I have explained my viewpoint here http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showpos...5&postcount=15

----------


## Yorkie

> I do not think this is really correct....
> what you say is based on gross misinterpretation of the article that was discussed on the thread http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25925 ... 
> 
> article does not claim what some people on forum wanted to see in it.... I have explained my viewpoint here http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showpos...5&postcount=15


Howyesno,
This has to be discussed on another thread really, but I will answer your points. I do not consider that I have 'grossly misinterpreted' anything. From Underhill [2009] it seems clear that R1a1 was _already_ in Germany during the Corded Ware period- some 4,500 years ago. The Slavs did not 'give' this to Germany, as they did not enter Central Europe until 1,500 years ago.

Secondly, as Underhill [ibid] shows, Slavic R1a1 mainly falls into the M458 subclade, which is virtually absent in Germany and Scandinavia.

We really must not hijack this thread re R1a1- it is about I haplogroup.

----------


## Yorkie

> Wow, that is a lot to follow for a new guy.
> 
> Could the I1 have been there when the R1b and/or R1a migants arrived?
> Just trying to get a feel on the haplogroups and times - it is still very new to me.
> 
> I had been thinking along the lines of I1 being possibly carried by the Ertebolle people, but I am very open to those who know more.


 Based on Ken Nordtvedt's calculations, TMRCA of I1 was around 3,500 years ago, and probably living in the vicinity of modern-day Denmark. Underhill seems to support this position.

----------


## Yorkie

> Wow, that is a lot to follow for a new guy.
> 
> Could the I1 have been there when the R1b and/or R1a migants arrived?
> Just trying to get a feel on the haplogroups and times - it is still very new to me.
> 
> I had been thinking along the lines of I1 being possibly carried by the Ertebolle people, but I am very open to those who know more.


Well, according to the calculations of Ken Nordtvedt [and seemingly supported by Underhill], TMRCA of I1 was around 3,500 years ago and living in the vicinity of present-day Denmark. I1 is a young clade.

----------


## Regulus

I defer to the experts in this case. I do not get to take Genetics 101 until I pass Introduction to Genetics.

----------


## how yes no 2

> Howyesno,
> This has to be discussed on another thread really, but I will answer your points. I do not consider that I have 'grossly misinterpreted' anything. From Underhill [2009] it seems clear that R1a1 was _already_ in Germany during the Corded Ware period- some 4,500 years ago. The Slavs did not 'give' this to Germany, as they did not enter Central Europe until 1,500 years ago.
> 
> Secondly, as Underhill [ibid] shows, Slavic R1a1 mainly falls into the M458 subclade, which is virtually absent in Germany and Scandinavia.
> 
> We really must not hijack this thread re R1a1- it is about I haplogroup.


we are not highjacking thread, as those are related issues.... since I am pretty sure that in early Slavs haplogroup I was dominant haplogroup...

R1a that is in Germany already for 4500 years is the same as the one that is dominant in Poland and Russia... look at data in appendix of that work....or read carefully my reply on that thread...

and btw. R1a probably has nothing to do with early Slavs...
spread of early Slavs has clear signature of I2a2...
R1a are probably assimilated Scythian, Sarmatian and other native people of those areas...who were probably speaking similar language with early Slavs...

very Slavic Serbs and Macedonians have up to 15% R1a...and according to Klyosov that R1a is on Balkan for thousand years before their arrival.... 

according to 
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...21235/suppinfo
(testing done for 179 individuals from Serbia)

Serbia has 48% of haplogroup I which is in fact more than Germany...

haplogroup____Serbia____Montenegro
I1_____________7.8%_____6.2%
I2b1___________1.67%___1.73%
I2a2 __________*38.5%* ___29.2%
E1b1b _________ 17.3%___27.0%
R1a____________*14.5%*____*7.4%*
R1b____________ 4.5%____9.4% 
J1______________0.6% ___0.5%
J2a ____________3.3%____4.7%
J2b ____________1.7% ___4.5%
G2a____________2.2%____2.5%
N ______________3.3% ___1.5%
Q _____________1.7%____2.0%
H______________2.2% ___1.5%
L_______________0.6%____1.2%


now, ethnic Albanians from Macedonia who never mixed with Slavic people have approximatelly the same R1a percentage as Slavic Serbs and Macedonians .... and Slavic people of Montenegro (who considered themselves Serbs till recently) have only around half of that value ..

http://www.bjmg.edu.mk/UploadedImages/pdf/11-18.pdf

_______________Macedonians__Albanians__other___tot al 
E1b1b1a-M78_________*15.6*______*28.8*____14.3____19.8
E1b1b1b-M81 _________–_________1.8______– ____0.6
E1b1b1c1-M34________2.4________1.8______ –____2.0
G-M201______________3.8________2.7______4.8___3.5
H-M69_______________1.4________1.8_____14.3___2.3
1*(xI1,I2a,I2b1)-M170 __–_________1.8_____4.8___0.9
I1-M253______________1.9________6.3_____–_____3,2
I2a-P37b_____________*27.5*_______*1.8*_____–_____17.5
I2b1-M223____________1.9________1.8____4.8____2.0
J*(xJ1a,J2)-12f2_______3.3________1.8_____–_____2.6
J2*(xJ2a4b,J2b)-M172__4.7________2.7_____9.5____4.4
J2a4b-M67____________2.8________2.7_____9.5____3.2
J2b2-M241____________*5.2*________*13.5*____4.8____7.9
L-M22________________0.5_________–______–_____0. 3
N1c-Tat______________0.5_________–______–_____0.3
P*(xR1)-92R7__________0.5_________–_____4.8____0.6
R1*-M173_____________0.5_________–______–_____0.3
R1a1-SRY1532_________*14.2*_______*12.6*____4.8____13.1
R1b1-P25_____________*11.4*_______*18.0*____23.8___14.3
T-M70________________1.9_________–_______–____1. 2
-----------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL people__________211________111 ____21____343


difference between Slavic Macedonians and Albanians is that Macedonians are distinguished by I2a2 and Albanians by E-V13, J2b2 and R1b and even I1, both groups of haplogroup distinguishing for Slavs and for Albanians are superimposed on same base substratum consisting of R1a and G2a...
this is clear indication that Slavs who settled Macedonia were I2a2...
I2a2 is common dominant denominator for all south Slavs, while other genetics is quite different... 

early Slavs are according to Jordanes the race of Veneti... and I have indicated on many places throughout forum reasons why Veneti are dominantly I2a2 people.....in fact they are likely source of I2a people....e.g. search for only two I2a* samples found..... one is I2a*-P37.2-France and other is I2a*-P37.2-Alpine
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/...x?section=ymap

of those (only two found) I2a* samples, one is exact match with location of Veneti of Brittany/Gaul, other with Veneti of Adriatic...

besides early Slavs are Venedi, Sclavini and Antes/Anti, Anti being obvious tribal name derivation from Eneti (Veneti origin from Paphlagonia Eneti), and Venedi being obviously same tribal name as Veneti....


I2a2 shows exact correlation with core and directions of spread as early Slavs...R1a shows nothing alike... 

btw. on Balkan R1a hotspot strongly correlates with ancient Macedonians.... it is more present in Greek Macedonia than in all neighbouring Slavic countries... and shape of its spread is exact match with teritory of ancient Macedonia... 

or look at Hungary...R1a hotspot in Hungary is a line through center of Hungary...Magyars settled in center of Hungary, while previous assimilated people (also many Slavic people) one can expect on outskirts of their settlement... and indeed south Slavs, central Ukraine and Romania cluster with east/west Hungary but not with center... (see http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/11...an-y-strs.html)

----------


## Yorkie

I agree with Underhill that there is a difference in the German/Scandinavian R1a1 and the type found in Poland, Russia etc. Again, the type found in Poland, Russia etc is largely in M458. That is absent in Germanic/Scandinavian lands. There _is_ a difference...

----------


## how yes no 2

> I agree with Underhill that there is a difference in the German/Scandinavian R1a1 and the type found in Poland, Russia etc. Again, the type found in Poland, Russia etc is largely in M458. That is absent in Germanic/Scandinavian lands. There _is_ a difference...


you did not even bother to read my post....

I dare you to:

1) quote the sentence of Underhill that claims that German/Scandinavian R1a1 is different than the one found in Poland, Russia... 

2) to point out that difference in the supplementary data


here is abstract with link to supplementary info...

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v...g2009194a.html

this is supplementary info, look at table and point out the data that indicate your claims....

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v...g2009194a.html

and this is complete text on web site of one of the authors

http://www.draganprimorac.com/wp-con...etics-2009.pdf

----------


## how yes no 2

> Again, the type found in Poland, Russia etc is largely in M458. That is absent in Germanic/Scandinavian lands. There _is_ a difference...


really? 
read the table from supplement info of that paper...
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v...g2009194x4.pdf

west Netherlands - out of 4.3% R1a, all is M458
southeast Denmark - 4.3% is M458, 8.7% other R1a
east Germany - 10.6% of 29.8% R1a is M458
central Germany - 10.5% out of 15.8% is M458
south Germany - 6.6% out of 11% is M458
....
west Poland - only 6.7% out of 26.7% is M458
east Poland - only 15.4% out of 46.2% is M458
central Ukraine - only 5.4% out of 46.4% is M458
central Belorusia - only 4% out of 42% is M458
south Russia - only 11.9% out of 62.2% is M458
Serbia - only 3.5% out of 15.9% is M458
Croatia mainland - only 2.8% out of 26.9% is M458
....

in fact, looking at data, your statement is laughable attempt to separate R1a of west Europe from R1a of east Europe... while it is obviously same area of influence of R1a with few streams of subbranches thoroughly mixed across Europe...

and btw. Underhill never speaks of different R1a in west and east Europe, but about differences between R1a in Europe and the one in Asia.....issue is that R1a in Iran, India, Pakistan...does not have M458....which makes M458 very European development.... thus, completely opposite from yours and Maciamo's claim in that thread...

next time read the paper and not Maciamo's post about the paper...

----------


## Yorkie

I am not prepared to engage in debate with you if you 'dare' me to prove things, and refer to my argument as 'laughable'. Usually, you and I get on fine so I am surprised at your change of attitude. The forum is for debate not 'life or death' battles. 

I stand by what I said. The type of R1a1 found in Germany and Scandinavia is different to that found in the 'eastern' lands of Poland and Russia. The R1a1 in Germany and Scandinavia was already there in the Corded Ware period, and was not from Poland. The recent Eulau remains show this- the R1a1 found was near the German modal, with close matches to west Europeans.

----------


## how yes no 2

> I am not prepared to engage in debate with you if you 'dare' me to prove things, and refer to my argument as 'laughable'. Usually, you and I get on fine so I am surprised at your change of attitude. The forum is for debate not 'life or death' battles. 
> 
> I stand by what I said. The type of R1a1 found in Germany and Scandinavia is different to that found in the 'eastern' lands of Poland and Russia. The R1a1 in Germany and Scandinavia was already there in the Corded Ware period, and was not from Poland. The recent Eulau remains show this- the R1a1 found was near the German modal, with close matches to west Europeans.


this is not about you, in general I do respect a lot your reasoning on this forum....
this is about this particular unargumented claim that you keep making and that is laughable as it is based on reading Maciamo's post and not on paper that Maciamo has misinterpreted....Maciamo is knowledgable person, but as most other people he tends to see what he wants to see...and in this case he has just misinterpreted that paper.... that is not really a problem, as everyone can misinterpret something... problem is that you have read his misinterpretation and taken it for granted, and as a result you keep claiming something that is just not based on facts...

R1a1 in Germany, Poland and Scandinavia cannot be separated based on paper of Underhill, because neither the text, nor the supplement data of that paper, indicates such a split.... from that paper you can only conclude that there is difference between spread of R1a in Europe and in Asia, and that difference is that M458 is lacking in Asia....... now, it is very laughable when you say that you agree with Underhill in something that he never said... It is as if I would say that I agree with you that elephants are animals whose skin color has pattern of white stripes on pink background...

R1a in Europe are people of same origin...we can debate about timelines when they settled certain areas, we can divide them in subbranches and subbranches of subbranches, and try to trace their voyage...we can debate about their original culture... e.g. my opinion is that their original culture was not Slavic, as I am pretty sure that Slavic language and culture is due to spread of I2a2...I associate R1a with Scythians, Sarmatians, ancient Macedonians....in later period some of those people became Germanic, some Slavic.... 

we can debate about many things....but it makes no sense if you keep insisting that Underhill claimed something that he did not claim... if you claim someone claimed something, you need to be able to prove that...otherwise your argument is worthless... than we can as well make discussions of type: I agree with Churchill that all English are liers... or I agree with Charles Darwin that English people are distinguished from other people by their skin that is green colored and decorated with big blue and red rotating spots...

btw. considering attempts to see R1a as Slavic and haplogroup I as Germanic, and R1b as Celtic, important thing to keep in mind is also that split of proto-Indo european language to Slavic, Celtic and Germanic was much much more recent in time compared to timeline of splits of those haplogroups...
those cultures and languages are relatively recent development...

however, tribal names might be preserved for longer times, and I think that tribal name Germans (which is something completelly different from Germans of today or even from Germanic people/languages/cultures) might be related to haplogroup I, because I believe that province of Kerman (also Kermania, Germania, Zermanya) in Persia, Iran, is the location of original source of haplogroup I (the shape of province matches haplogroup I* spread and looks as very likely place of origin for haplogroup I).... this Germania/Kerman related name was still preserved in Gomer people of Asia minor whose last settlement in Cappodocia and traditional location north of Black sea do match spread of I2a2... 

my guess is that I* came to existence in Persia, that branch of it settled areas around Black sea and that from there a branch went towards Scandinavia... I1 probably developed somewhere on way from Black sea to Scandinavia, while I2 developed around Black sea.... I2 has later spread as indicated by jdanel in thread http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26211
in two directions: I2b2 and I2a2-Isles developed and spread along northern route following Dniester, while I2a2-Dinaric settled southern route along Danube.... those spreads were for long time physically separated by Carpathians which resulted in separate spreads......and I guess I2a1 is earlier spread to south

----------


## jdanel

> R1b didn't arise in Anatolia. It just spread to Europe from there. It isn't sure where exactly it first appeared, but in my opinion the most likely place between Central Asia and Mesopotamia around 20,000 years ago. Have a look at this supposed migration map of R1b through the ages. R1b is still present in the northern Caucasus nowadays, and its subclades are all older than those found in Western Europe. So it is not a back migration. Same for the Middle East and Central Asia.


How it is that the R1b went from the Ukraine Refuge, up the Danube through the middle of the I2a2a, and out the west end of the basin, leaving the I2a2a in situ and uneffected?.

----------


## how yes no 2

> How it is that the R1b went from the Ukraine Refuge, up the Danube through the middle of the I2a2a, and out the west end of the basin, leaving the I2a2a in situ and uneffected?.




It may be that I2a2 was above Black sea at the time and still not along Danube... R1b went around them (see how R1b is absent in area north of Black sea) and than along the Danube... I2a2 spread later along Danube... but more likely the R1b that went through Caucasus took northern path, while Danube path was taken by R1b that entered Europe from Asia minor...

----------


## how yes no 2

I2a in north Africa is I2a1... 



but who could have spread it there?

I think it might be Garamantes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garamantes

tribal name is very alike to Germans



> In the 1960s, archaeologists excavated part of the *Garamantes' capital* (modern Germa, about 150 km west of modern-day *Sebha*) and named it Garama (An earlier capital, Zinchecra, was located not far from the later Garama.). Current research indicates that the Garamantes had about *eight major towns*, three of which have been examined as of 2004. In addition they had a large number of other settlements. 
> ....
> The Garamantes were *farmers and merchants*. Their diet consisted of grapes, figs, barley and wheat. They traded wheat, salt and slaves in exchange for imported wine and olive oil, oil lamps and Roman tableware. According to Strabo and Pliny, the Garamantes quarried amazonite in the Tibesti Mountains.
> ....
> The ruins include numerous tombs, forts, and cemeteries. The Garamantes constructed a *network of underground tunnels and shafts to mine the fossil water from under the limestone layer under the desert sand.* The dating of these foggara is disputed, they appear between 200 BC to 200 AD but continued in use until at least the seventh century and perhaps later.[1] The network of tunnels is known to Berbers as Foggaras. The *network allowed agriculture to flourish, but used a system of slave labor to keep it maintained.*
> 
> The Garamantes were probably present as tribal people in the Fezzan by 1000 BC. They appear in the written record for the first time in the 5th century BC. *According to Herodotus, they were "a very great nation"* who herded cattle, farmed dates, and hunted the "Ethiopian Troglodytes", or "cave-dwellers" who lived in the desert, from four-horse chariots.[2] Roman depictions describe them as bearing ritual scars and tattoos. Tacitus wrote that they assisted the rebel Tacfarinas and raided Roman coastal settlements. According to Pliny the Elder, Romans eventually grew tired of Garamantian raiding and Lucius Cornelius Balbus captured 15 of their settlements in 19 BC.
> 
> 
> ...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garamantes

----------


## Yorkie

The Garamantians are related to Berbers, and I think that any similarity of the name to Germans is highly likely to be a phonetic accident. If they carry M26 I2a1, there may be some connection to Iberia, Spain. The clade appears to have been founded in Iberia, and it does not appear to have any Germanic connection. I can't see one at any rate. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that it is almost certain that this M26 I2a1 came from the Iberian peninsular with no involvement of Germanic peoples whatsoever.

Glad to see that we are talking about I haplogroup again...

----------


## how yes no 2

> The Garamantians are related to Berbers, and I think that any similarity of the name to Germans is highly likely to be a phonetic accident.


Garamantes are mixed in Berbers nowdays...
they do not exist as separate people...

and Berbers do correlate with I2a1 spread...







> If they carry M26 I2a1, there may be some connection to Iberia, Spain. The clade appears to have been founded in Iberia, and it does not appear to have any Germanic connection. I can't see one at any rate. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that it is almost certain that this M26 I2a1 came from the Iberian peninsular with no involvement of Germanic peoples whatsoever.
> 
> Glad to see that we are talking about I haplogroup again...


you do not understand, I never claimed that they are Germanic in culture or language....
what I speak of is that tribal name Germans is being related to ancient history of haplogroup I, same as tribal name Serbs is....

now, as I explained in previous posts Gomer are considered forefathers of Germans... but Gomer/Cimmerian locations in Asia minor and above Black sea are matched with I2a2...now we have Garamantes that were likely I2a1 dominant...... in my opinion this is good indicator of shared tribal name (which doesnot neceserilly indicate same culture and language, as culture and language can change...) Germans accross haplogroup I branches...

on other hand we have Sardinia/Serb/Sarbans/Suebi/Swedes as another stream of names stemming from haplogroup I.... note that this is also not about culture but about preservation of tribal name.....

well, note that modern town nearest to discovered capital of Garamantes bears name Sebha....

I do not think those are coincidences...

anyway, speaking of prehistoric Iberia

look at hotspot of I2a1 



hotspot are Carpetani ...but look at position just next to them on south... tribe peculiarry named Germani...now, you may call it coincidence...but in my view, this is yet another indicator of my theory that in ancient history people did tend to preserve tribal names while their cultures and languages were much more easily changed...



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...eria_300BC.svg

----------


## kronach

I speak romanian and I can asure you that there are more similarities between romanian and germanic languages than between italian or spanish and germanic languages. BTW I speak spanish and russian as well.

friend = prieten
dad = tata

The problem of western europens is that you don't know much about East Europe and their languages. Most of easterners visited at least once the West Europe and they can compare better who is who, besides this they know some english, some german, some french and so on, so they can compare western languages with their eastern ones. How much of you know russian, ukranian, romanian and so on? Russian have a lot of common words with all germanic languages, especially with northern brench, it seems like russians are slavonized germanic people. I also visited Spain, France, Italy, Germany and I can say that the most handsome people live in Ukraine, Russia, Belarus.

----------

