# Population Genetics > Y-DNA Haplogroups >  The Paleolithic Remnants: a map

## sparkey

One question that remains unanswered but that I'd like to explore goes like this: Where did the hunter-gatherers from Paleolithic Europe hold out against the Neolithic migrations? We already have a good idea of _who_ the remnant patrilineal descendants of those hunter-gatherers are: Haplogroup I people. At least, that's the only one we're sure of. Other intriguing possibilities include F* and A1a, and probably even more haplogroups can be pinpointed as Mesolithic, but for the moment, we'll operate under the assumption that Haplogroup I is the lone Y-DNA haplogroup representative of the Paleolithic Europeans. Some Haplogroup I subclades apparently expanded with the Neolithic arrivals. The most obvious to do so was I2a1a. But not all did, and some bottlenecked later or possibly remained bottlenecked for a long period of time before expanding later. So taking 6000 years ago as a starting point, around the time I2a1a began to expand, I took Nordtvedt's tree, raw data, and some speculation about different clades across the Internet to come up with this rough map of where the living Haplogroup I subclades that also existed 6000 years ago have their centers of diversity or suspected beginning points: 



Yes, this map is rough, and is probably not exhaustive. Surely, I don't have all the modern centers of diversity correct, centers of diversity nowadays are not the same as the centers of diversity were 6000 years ago, and we are likely to find more ancient subclades not currently represented in this map. But hopefully it will help spur discussion about who and where the Paleolithic remnants were once the Neolithic arrived, without the bias of modern haplogroup frequencies.

----------


## sparkey

Here are some initial thoughts from me:

The Rhine, the Elba, and the Atlantic Fringe seem uniquely rich in Paleolithic remnants.Southeast Europe is interestingly barren, indicating displacement of lineages from the area over time (although there could be bias here due to a lack of testing). Its main modern subclade (I2a1b1a) is an outlier that apparently expanded upon it much later.The far north and the southern islands, although rich in Haplogroup I nowadays, are barren as well, indicating that lineages expanded on those places, but weren't there to begin with.

----------


## razor

One of the immediate difficulties of this (otherwise plausible) map for the period 4000 BCE concerns I2a1b1a-Din (which only emerges in its allocated position in Scythian times.) If the recent grapevine from Verenic about a possible I2a (37+) individual in a Late Trypilian grave (we don't know exactly where: on the Dnister?) is substantiated then it is possible that this is indeed where Din arose when it did. But in 4000 BCE this individual would have been a I2a1* . And the problem is that we simply don't know whether the population of THIS particular kind of !2a1* stayed put, or outmigrated (westward? Along with IE colleagues), to be replaced subsequently by another I2a1* type in migrating from somewhere else (for instance from the area of Yastorf (or anywhere really) and eventually becoming Din... Yet another instance of where aDNA is so needed... The same problem exists for many other late developers from I2a1* of course.

----------


## sparkey

> One of the immediate difficulties of this (otherwise plausible) map for the period 4000 BCE concerns I2a1b1a-Din (which only emerges in its allocated position in Scythian times.) If the recent grapevine from Verenic about a possible I2a (37+) individual in a Late Trypilian grave (we don't know exactly where: on the Dnister?) is substantiated then it is possible that this is indeed where Din arose when it did. But in 4000 BCE this individual would have been a I2a1* . And the problem is that we simply don't know whether the population of THIS particular kind of !2a1* stayed put, or outmigrated (westward? Along with IE colleagues), to be replaced subsequently by another I2a1* type in migrating from somewhere else (for instance from the area of Yastorf (or anywhere really) and eventually becoming Din... Yet another instance of where aDNA is so needed... The same problem exists for many other late developers from I2a1* of course.


I agree with this in general... actually, I2a1b1a and I2a1b1* are basically the most closely related subclades on the map, so for them in particular, it's best to assume that at least one of their centers of diversity shifted dramatically in the time that followed.

I do think you have something wrong, though: modern I2a1b1a was probably I2a1b1* or at most I2a1b* in 4000BCE, not I2a1*.

----------


## razor

I'm still learning (:=)). Re your last point: is this because M-423= I2a1b* in the Nordtvedt map?

----------


## sparkey

> I'm still learning (:=)). Re your last point: is this because M-423= I2a1b* in the Nordtvedt map?


Well look at the Nordtvedt tree in particular. The TMRCA for I2a1b1 as a whole (both Dinaric and Disles) is ~6000 years, and for I2a1b it is ~13,000 years. So the SNP that defines I2a1b1 (L621) formed probably somewhere between 13,000 and 6,000 years ago. That means that the cluster that would become I2a1b1a probably already had L621 by then.

If you're still learning you pick up quick; I think you're easily one of the best contributors here already.  :Good Job:

----------


## zanipolo

I know the map is rough , but sardinia, pyrenenes and south western alps had the same HG - I2a1a* , basically a Med triangle

What is Rassette marker - a Norman HG and 
what represents I2b, the danish Cimbri who still reside in the Italian alps

----------


## Taranis

Great thread/map, Sparkey (as usual I should almost say by now  :Cool V:  )!

What was really surprising is the absence of I in both southern and northern Europe. In regard for southern Europe, I wonder if Maciamo is right and south-southwestern Europe (southern Iberia, Italy) was indeed E1b since the Mesolithic...  :Thinking:

----------


## razor

Thanks. I wasn't sure about L621 because of the question mark.

----------


## zanipolo

nice map to link, I do not know the accuracy though

http://www.goggo.com/terry/Haplogrou...ca_5,000BC.jpg

----------


## Taranis

> what represents I2b, the danish Cimbri who still reside in the Italian alps


Zanipolo, that statement is tripefold wrong:

- there were no Cimbri in 4000 BC (they appeared on the stage of the world only in the 2nd century BC)

- the Cimbri were virtually eradicated by the Roman military campaign against them.

- the Zimbern are totally unrelated with the Cimbri, and this should be clear from the name:
the tribal name 'Cimb(h)ri' is Pre-(Proto-)Germanic and would have been shifted to something akin to 'Ximbri' and later 'Himbri' in Proto-Germanic. In fact a cogante of 'Cimbri' exists still today in the region of Himmerland. In turn, German initial "z-" (pronounced 'ts') is a cognate with 't' in other Germanic languages (compare English 'timber').

----------


## sparkey

> I know the map is rough , but sardinia, pyrenenes and south western alps had the same HG - I2a1a* , basically a Med triangle


So far the center of diversity of the three closely related branches of I2a1a that expanded seems to be in Iberia, at least from what I have read. If there's new evidence I'd be interested. We clearly see an expansion on Sardinia, but that probably happened after I2a1a stopped being a hunter-gatherer haplogroup.




> What is Rassette marjer - a Norman HG and


Rassette is a single modern family in northern France so far. They represent one of these remnant populations that never saw much of a later expansion. Who knows if they moved with the Normans or if they have been in that spot since the Stone Age.




> what represents I2b, the danish Cimbri who still reside in the Italian alps


That's I2b-ADR, also quite rare. I don't have many clues about them, either, other than that they're more closely related to I2c than to I2a, and they seem to be geographically south of I2c.

----------


## zanipolo

> Zanipolo, that statement is tripefold wrong:
> 
> - there were no Cimbri in 4000 BC (they appeared on the stage of the world only in the 2nd century BC)
> 
> - the Cimbri were virtually eradicated by the Roman military campaign against them.
> 
> - the Zimbern are totally unrelated with the Cimbri, and this should be clear from the name:
> the tribal name 'Cimb(h)ri' is Pre-(Proto-)Germanic and would have been shifted to something akin to 'Ximbri' and later 'Himbri' in Proto-Germanic. In fact a cogante of 'Cimbri' exists still today in the region of Himmerland. In turn, German initial "z-" (pronounced 'ts') is a cognate with 't' in other Germanic languages (compare English 'timber').


How can a question be wrong ?? ................I did leave out the question mark which is my fault

----------


## Taranis

> How can a question be wrong ?? ................I did leave out the question mark which is my fault


Sorry, that's my fault now. I really thought that was a statement, not a question.  :Ashamed:

----------


## sparkey

> nice map to link, I do not know the accuracy though
> 
> http://www.goggo.com/terry/Haplogrou...ca_5,000BC.jpg


Just a little outdated. [Edit: just noticed the date of June 2011, wow this field of study moves fast for me to call that oudated!] I2a (new I2a1) was certainly more widespread. I2b (new I2a2) is about right, but probably also had a wider spread. I2* (new I2c and I2b) was probably in Central Europe rather than Eastern Europe. I'm not sure that E is in the right spot. But the overall estimate is still as good a rough best-guess as any.

----------


## Knovas

Good job sparkey.

I2a's, specially I2a1a*(Pyrenees marker) and the other two listed in Iberia, are surely included in the Southwestern cluster from the latest Dodecad calculator. Difficult to say something about the rest.

----------


## zanipolo

> Sorry, that's my fault now. I really thought that was a statement, not a question.


no problem - my issue initially

Talking on cimbri in Italy, there is a new project commenced
http://www.gaia.es/multilinguae/pdf/Cimbri.PDF
which bascially says cimbri where bavarian........but thats for another thread

also, the 7 towns of cimbri still exist in the veneto today

----------


## sparkey

> Good job sparkey.
> 
> I2a's, specially I2a1a*(Pyrenees marker) and the other two listed in Iberia, are surely included in the Southwestern cluster from the latest Dodecad calculator. Difficult to say something about the rest.


Agreed; I might add that I1 is probably a part of Northwestern (although Northwestern clearly extends farther than I1 does, into more Celtic populations).

----------


## Knovas

Yes sparkey, that's very likely, and turns to the problem of the difficulty to know how huge is autosomally speaking I1 in, let's say Scandinavia, being so difficult to separate properly from R1b. We can asume Scandinavians have a lot of I1 autosomes, while the British a lot of R1b, but, speacially in the first case...¿wich percent aprox? ¿40,50,60%? Who knows.

In Iberia seems there is no such problem, quite clear that the Southwestern indicates very strong I2a composition, being the rest almost entirely R1b (Northwestern). Don't know if the Southwestern could include a little of R1b, but in my opinion seems to be a very pure I2a sharp, although would be better too see it in a more accurate K=12 style. I'm sure Dienekes' would do a great job if finally improves this analysis.

Again, very ilustrative map.

----------


## spongetaro

> Great thread/map, Sparkey (as usual I should almost say by now  )!
> 
> What was really surprising is the absence of I in both southern and northern Europe. In regard for southern Europe, I wonder if Maciamo is right and south-southwestern Europe (southern Iberia, Italy) was indeed E1b since the Mesolithic...


A team of archeologist is trying to extract mesolithic DNA from Corsica. Hope it will give us the answer.




> The exceptional discovery of burials about 9,000 years old - probably containing the oldest human remains ever found in Corsica (France) - will allow a better understanding of the history of early settlement of the island and of the Mediterranean.
> On a hill near the village of Sollacaro, Southern Corsica, nestled under a huge ball-shaped block of eroded granite which served as a shelter for prehistoric peoples, the location has been excavated by a team of archaeologists from several French universities, assisted by a Danish colleague. 
> "It is evidence of human presence on the island during the Mesolithic period (from 10,000 to 5000 BCE)," said Joseph Cesari, regional curator of archaeological and historic monuments, in presenting the discovery this week. Having uncovered the bones of four or five adults, a teenager, and a baby spread over an area of a few square meters on the site of Campo Stefano during the past several months, efforts in recent weeks have revealed the almost complete skeleton of another adult.
> Patrice Courtaud - palaeontologist and researcher at CNRS and a specialist in Bordeaux Mesolithic burial practices, said, "...there are very few multiple burials, particularly in Corsica", adding that, "We still know little about the people of the Mesolithic, a period marking the beginning of agricultural settlement". *If researchers can extract DNA from bones, this will "help to further our knowledge of genetics, nutrition and lifestyle in general," says Courtaud*.

----------


## sparkey

> A team of archeologist is trying to extract mesolithic DNA from Corsica. Hope it will give us the answer.


Great find, that's perfect if they can get some Y-DNA out of it. I don't have a good prediction for what they would have carried in terms of Y-DNA.

----------


## sparkey

Today's update:

Switched position of I2c-C and I2c-A as I2c-C has more diversity to the northMoved I2a1*-Tibor to its correct location (I was totally off before)... but still a data deficient cladeMoved I2a1b2-A/B to the Continent based on Yorkie's observations about it... but I still want more Continental samples of it to be sure that this change is correct
This has made the Rhine look even more diverse among Paleolithic remnants, and makes I2a1b1a look even more like an outlier among I2a1 subclades.

----------


## bertrand

There is one hypothesis that no one is ever willing to consider:
It is that the Cro-magnon got instinct like the Neanderthal before them. Just because they were modern humans doesn't mean that they passed their genes on to us.

Haplogroup I seems to have come to Europe around the Ice Age maximum, no?

So, I wouldn't be surprised if the hunter gatherers of the pre-Ice Age got wiped out by the new comers after the ice age. 

Just by looking at the % of R1b in Western Europe today or the % of Bantu in Africa today, shows how the last wave of immigration can really wipe out most of the previous waves.

----------


## sparkey

> There is one hypothesis that no one is ever willing to consider:
> It is that the Cro-magnon got instinct like the Neanderthal before them. Just because they were modern humans doesn't mean that they passed their genes on to us.
> 
> Haplogroup I seems to have come to Europe around the Ice Age maximum, no?
> 
> So, I wouldn't be surprised if the hunter gatherers of the pre-Ice Age got wiped out by the new comers after the ice age. 
> 
> Just by looking at the % of R1b in Western Europe today or the % of Bantu in Africa today, shows how the last wave of immigration can really wipe out most of the previous waves.


I'm willing to consider the possibility. I suspect that there were different groups of Paleolithic Europeans who had different Y-DNA haplogroups, with Haplogroup I being the only one known to have survived to today.

Haplogroup I has its center of diversity in Europe, so it probably arose there, and it has an age of 22,000 YBP or so, meaning that it probably arrived there before then (LGM was more like 18,000 YBP). Haplogroup IJ is probably old enough (~38,000 YBP IIRC) to suppose that it was present among the oldest Cro-Magnons, and Haplogroup I is probably a descendant of such an IJ line.

It's difficult for me to imagine how a post-LGM Haplogroup I would work... I suppose it would be multiple migrations (I1*, different types of I2a1*, I2a2*, and pre-I2b/I2c) all into Europe with subsequent extinction in Asia. Or, the STR dating is too old... but I've never heard that criticism of Nordtvedt, only that his estimates are too young. All of this seems simply less clean than assuming that Haplogroup I is probably Cro-Magnon.

----------


## zanipolo

> I am pretty convinced that he is wrong. I2a1a is more diverse in Iberia than in Sardinia, suggesting an expansion the other direction. I2a1b1a has a North-to-South cline, not a West-to-East one like he suggests. And the I2a1c1 direction he suggests is odd... it probably has a link to the Rhine, not so much to Southern France. More likely, these subclades were spread more widely across Europe in 5000BC. See my Paleolithic Remnants map for my idea of what a picture of I subclades prior to their expansions (starting ~4000BC) would look like.


so what is the new code for I2b and how did it only be in denmark and northeast italy

----------


## sparkey

> so what is the new code for I2b and how did it only be in denmark and northeast italy


Sorry, I'm not sure what you're asking here. You mean, what is the new name for old I2b? It's I2a2, which you can see in the map as the black (I2a2a) and light blue (I2a2b) dots.

----------


## zanipolo

> Sorry, I'm not sure what you're asking here. You mean, what is the new name for old I2b? It's I2a2, which you can see in the map as the black (I2a2a) and light blue (I2a2b) dots.


so, its around Magdeburg and Silesia

why do you have the old ones as well on your map

----------


## sparkey

> so, its around Magdeburg and Silesia


Broadly, yes, certain subclades originated somewhere near those areas. I'd caution against getting too precise though... think of it as a best-guess.




> why do you have the old ones as well on your map


Those aren't old ones, those are new ones. Old I2*-ADR is now I2b. It's a tiny subclade, as Maciamo mentions on his I2 page. Haven't I explained this to you already?

----------


## zanipolo

> Those aren't old ones, those are new ones. Old I2*-ADR is now I2b. It's a tiny subclade, as Maciamo mentions on his I2 page. Haven't I explained this to you already?


yes you have, but the numbers are less than a hand full ( I2*-ADR ( Adriatic)), not worth the effort.

Plus you are going against KN July2011 statement, that he stated that this haplotype is the extreme "frontier" of the basque haplotype. So , I am dumbfounded to see another I branch. Basically looks like morphying

----------


## sparkey

> yes you have, but the numbers are less than a hand full ( I2*-ADR ( Adriatic)), not worth the effort.


Perhaps not for your purposes, but it is for mine.




> Plus you are going against KN July2011 statement, that he stated that this haplotype is the extreme "frontier" of the basque haplotype. So , I am dumbfounded to see another I branch. Basically looks like morphying


I'm confused as to what you're trying to tell me. That I'm off on I2a2? Or on I2b-ADR? Or on the "Basque haplotype" (I assume I2a1a)?

----------


## zanipolo

> Perhaps not for your purposes, but it is for mine.


fair enough, your choice




> I'm confused as to what you're trying to tell me. That I'm off on I2a2? Or on I2b-ADR? Or on the "Basque haplotype" (I assume I2a1a)?


If we take KN june2011 comments, he states the basque ends at the "frontier" of Venice. You know or someone else introduce I2b-ADR, for the Venice area. This I2b in TR map you have rejected even though its in the german alps.
You now state that I2a2 , which was I2b is in Magdeburg, Silesian areas , clearly east germanic.
I would like to know, does this I2b-ADR come from the KN "basque" statement, the TR germanic alps or your ( or whoever) east germanic?
If its "your" east germanic, then why was the theory of the jutland to NE italy line discarded recently. ? .........because it did not pursue the rhine route? We cannot have a west to east to Venice and from there south to north.

This handful of I2b-ADR clearly does not deserve a mention unless you are saying it "morphed" from a combination of I strains.

The numbers are so low that I can make a statement and claim its from the 3000 settled dutch/frisian troops brought by John Ernest of Nassau to Venice in 1615-1618. Clearly introducing settlement by military personnel to doctor results and arguements.
Again I state , the numbers are insignificant.

----------


## sparkey

[Mod note: Moving this discussion with zanipolo from the Dedicated Haplogroup Pages thread to the Paleolithic Remnants thread...]




> I would like to know, does this I2b-ADR come from the KN "basque" statement, the TR germanic alps or your ( or whoever) east germanic?
> If its "your" east germanic, then why was the theory of the jutland to NE italy line discarded recently. ? .........because it did not pursue the rhine route? We cannot have a west to east to Venice and from there south to north.


Your understanding of the temporal aspect is a bit off here. I'm only suggesting that our best guess for where I2b-ADR was located 6000 years ago is in NE Italy, based on its modern distribution. That's a long time before things like East Germanic migrations. It is more likely a Cardium Pottery relic or something. We have very few samples, and I'm sort of assuming that the diversity is going to be highest in NE Italy, as we have a sample or two from there IIRC, despite it being a very thinly sampled area... suggesting a higher frequency there which _may_ correspond with higher diversity. I'm definitely willing to revisit I2b-ADR as more comes in.

Keep in mind that new I2b is _not_ closely related to old I2b. I2b-ADR is actually more closely related to my subclade, I2c. Understanding where I2b originated is important for anchoring I2c, but it's a bit too distant to have it inform our understanding of I2a2.




> This handful of I2b-ADR clearly does not deserve a mention unless you are saying it "morphed" from a combination of I strains.


I don't know what you mean, "morphed." The whole point of my map was to include all the little clades as well, so that we can better understand the picture 6000 years ago. After that, some subclades got lucky and expanded (I2a1a, I2a1b1a, I1...) and some remained bottlenecked (I2b, I2c-C, I2a1*-Tibor...). The small ones don't really inform our understanding of things like Classical and Medieval migrations, which seems to be your purpose. But they give us an understanding of the origin of their relative clades, and a better picture of Haplogroup I as a whole.




> The numbers are so low that I can make a statement and claim its from the 3000 settled dutch/frisian troops brought by John Ernest of Nassau to Venice in 1615-1618. Clearly introducing settlement by military personnel to doctor results and arguements.
> Again I state , the numbers are insignificant.


The diversity of I2b-ADR, even though it is a small clade, is too high for that. Although not exceptionally diverse, it beats some much larger clades, including I2c-B and I think I2a-Din-S, which nobody would suggest that about.

----------


## zanipolo

> [Mod note: Moving this discussion with zanipolo from the Dedicated Haplogroup Pages thread to the Paleolithic Remnants thread...]
> 
> 
> 
> Your understanding of the temporal aspect is a bit off here. I'm only suggesting that our best guess for where I2b-ADR was located 6000 years ago is in NE Italy, based on its modern distribution. That's a long time before things like East Germanic migrations. It is more likely a Cardium Pottery relic or something. We have very few samples, and I'm sort of assuming that the diversity is going to be highest in NE Italy, as we have a sample or two from there IIRC, despite it being a very thinly sampled area... suggesting a higher frequency there which _may_ correspond with higher diversity. I'm definitely willing to revisit I2b-ADR as more comes in.
> 
> Keep in mind that new I2b is _not_ closely related to old I2b. I2b-ADR is actually more closely related to my subclade, I2c. Understanding where I2b originated is important for anchoring I2c, but it's a bit too distant to have it inform our understanding of I2a2.
> 
> 
> ...


As per Familytree site, this link from 28 Nov.2011 shows that I2b-ADR has only 11 results.
6 NE italians, 1 slovene, 3 croats, 1 tyrolean
http://sites.google.com/site/bobsdna...logroup-modals

Could we be looking at an eastern alp Rhaetian people, prior to Gallic invasions

----------


## sparkey

> As per Familytree site, this link from 28 Nov.2011 shows that I2b-ADR has only 11 results.
> 6 NE italians, 1 slovene, 3 croats, 1 tyrolean
> http://sites.google.com/site/bobsdna...logroup-modals
> 
> Could we be looking at an eastern alp Rhaetian people, prior to Gallic invasions


We've also got 1 Bavarian and 1 Scot at the FTDNA Project.

Rhaeti are within range, I would think.

----------


## razor

> [Mod note: Moving this discussion with zanipolo from the Dedicated Haplogroup Pages thread to the Paleolithic Remnants thread...]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> /.../ I2b-ADR, even though it is a small clade [and /added/GK] not exceptionally diverse /.../ beats some much larger clades, including I2c-B and I think I2a-Din-S


Has anyone done the WTY with either variant (so far) of I2-Din?

----------


## sparkey

> Has anyone done the WTY with either variant (so far) of I2-Din?


Yeah, I think multiple have. I know at least one was done in March and they found L147 per David Reynolds.

----------


## razor

> Yeah, I think multiple have. I know at least one was done in March and they found L147 per David Reynolds.


I counted three Dins on these lists, including the L147. I think I'll go the route myself when my FTDNA preliminaries are done.

----------


## sparkey

So Nordtvedt has recently run TMRCA calculations on I2a1a L277+ L247- and I2a1a L277+ L247+, two recently-ish discovered subclades of I2a1a which will become "I2a1a2*" and "I2a1a2a" once ISOGG updates its tree. Unlike the other I2a1a subclades, these appear to be bottlenecks that didn't really expand with the Neolithic, and are both very rare today. Both fit my definition of a "Paleolithic Remnant" and ought to get put into the map.

The I2a1a2* should be easy, as it is split between Switzerland, the Rhineland, and the Sudetenland, so it can join the rest of the plethora of I2's in that region, with the distinction of being the sole I2a1a there. I2a1a2a will be trickier, as we only know of it in Mexicans who don't know where their families came from. Presumably Spain in the Castilian region... the surnames are Hernandez and Jasso... any opinions?

See also Bernie Cullen.

----------


## sparkey

OK, I added the I2a1a2's. I2a1a2a's position is a somewhat informed guess, based on "Jasso" being very Navarre-centered.

----------


## razor

> Well look at the Nordtvedt tree in particular. The TMRCA for I2a1b1 as a whole (both Dinaric and Disles) is ~6000 years, and for I2a1b it is ~13,000 years. So the SNP that defines I2a1b1 (L621) formed probably somewhere between 13,000 and 6,000 years ago. That means that the cluster that would become I2a1b1a probably already had L621 by then.


A requested clarification: Nordtvedt has Disles as I2a1b1 while you (unless I'm mistaken) have it as I2a1b1* on your excellent map. Why the asterisk? Is it because (unlike I2a1b1a's L-147) Disles still has no clearly differentiating SNP? Or is there another reason?

----------


## sparkey

An interesting update for I2a1b: a weird haplotype of this group, apparently closest to I2a1b2-Isles, has been found in _Iraq_. The surname is Abd Alghaffaar. Making sense of I2a1b has been challenging enough already, and now this! I'm not ready to say what it means yet. I'll await calculations for it.


And to answer razor:




> A requested clarification: Nordvedt has Disles as I2a1b1 while you (unless I'm mistaken) have it as I2a1b1* on your excellent map. Why the asterisk? Is it because (unlike I2a1b1a's L-147) Disles still has no clearly differentiating SNP? Or is there another reason?


That's the reason. I don't know of any I2a1b1*'s that are not Disles.

----------


## how yes no 2

sparkey, what you think of possibility for Bryges - Brigantes connection?

I explained ideas in http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthr...l=1#post390599

(check also previous few posts for links in mythology....)

----------


## sparkey

> sparkey, what you think of possibility for Bryges - Brigantes connection?
> 
> I explained ideas in http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthr...l=1#post390599
> 
> (check also previous few posts for links in mythology....)


My first thought is that the tribal names are cognates ("high" or "mountain" type derivation), but are not the same tribe. I think we'll need something more compelling to suggest otherwise at this point, like evidence of other haplogroups in common. Probably, the best default assumption about I2a1b is that it diversified in migrations that are not strongly reflected or remembered among modern or even Classical populations.

----------


## sparkey

Today's update: I2a1a* is split in two, both around France. I had it wrong, and it is now a better approximation.

----------


## Knovas

Thanks sparkey, now it seems to be right.

Here is the tree from where the update comes to ilustrate:
L277L247L707.jpg

----------


## razor

I have two additional questions about the map. Rereading the Wiki I2 article, I noticed that there seem to be at least three surviving reps. of I2a1b (the ancient Hg from which the Isles groups, as well as Disles and Dinaric evolved). Apparently 2 in Germany and 1 in Poland. Is there a reason why it isn't dotted somewhere?

The second question is more general. Is there a difference between estimated MRCA of an existing clade and estimated time of beginning of that clade? I remember reading this somewhere but have forgotten where. I ask particularly because of the localization of my own clade (I2a1b1a) on the map. It didn't yet exist in 4000BCE so the dot probably stands for an ancestral group. The MRCA has been calculated at ca. 300 BCE and 30 BCE for N and S variants of I2a1b1a. Is the clade initiation age a little older?

----------


## sparkey

> I have two additional questions about the map. Rereading the Wiki I2 article, I noticed that there seem to be at least three surviving reps. of I2a1b (the ancient Hg from which the Isles groups, as well as Disles and Dinaric evolved). Apparently 2 in Germany and 1 in Poland. Is there a reason why it isn't dotted somewhere?


Wikipedia always seems to have misinformation; they used to claim that I* exists, for example. As for extant I2a1b*, I'm unaware of them. They would tell us a lot about I2a1b as a whole if we confirm them... basically anchoring I2a1b around the northern part of Central Europe, where we haven't seen much diversity of I2a1b yet. They don't seem to be in the I2a Project at FTDNA if they exist, though. If you could provide me with something more concrete (a STR dating estimate relative to the other I2a1b clades is especially important) then I'll consider putting them in.




> The second question is more general. Is there a difference between estimated MRCA of an existing clade and estimated time of beginning of that clade? I remember reading this somewhere but have forgotten where. I ask particularly because of the localization of my own clade (I2a1b1a) on the map. It didn't yet exist in 4000BCE so the dot probably stands for an ancestral group. The MRCA has been calculated at ca. 300 BCE and 30 BCE for N and S variants of I2a1b1a. Is the clade initiation age a little older?


The TMRCA is the time to the most recent common ancestor of all currently tested individuals in a clade... for I2a1b1a, 300 BCE or so. What's more interesting for I2a-Din for this map, though, is when it split with Disles... around 4000 BCE. So, they both had distinct ancestors living around this time. Obviously, the I2a-Disles and I2a-Din positions on the map are going to be among the worst approximations for where the ancestors of those clades lived around 4000BCE, and it will be difficult to get any better, because both are very young in terms of TMRCA.

----------


## razor

Wikipedia's info about the three existing I2a1b's in Germany and Poland is supposedly based on the following article:
Peter Underhill et al., New phylogenetic relationships for Y-chromosome haplogroup I: Reappraising its Phylogeography and Prehistory, in Rethinking the Human Evolution, ed. P. Mellars et al. (2007), pp. 33-42.

That's all I have. I haven't actually read it.

----------


## sparkey

Today's update: Added I2a2a-X and I2a2a-XX, both of which are small clades with highest diversity around Germany somewhere so far, with X more western than XX. They were known before, but have only recently been confirmed as ancient via SNP testing. I2a2a-X is now defined by L1227 and L1228, and I2a2a-XX is now defined by L1226.

With I2a2a-X, that line straight down the border between Western Europe and Central Europe now effectively includes a representative from every major I2 branch.

----------


## zanipolo

> Today's update: Added I2a2a-X and I2a2a-XX, both of which are small clades with highest diversity around Germany somewhere so far, with X more western than XX. They were known before, but have only recently been confirmed as ancient via SNP testing. I2a2a-X is now defined by L1227 and L1228, and I2a2a-XX is now defined by L1226.
> 
> With I2a2a-X, that line straight down the border between Western Europe and Central Europe now effectively includes a representative from every major I2 branch.


check updates 7, 8, 9 and 10 ( march and April 2012)

http://www.goggo.com/terry/HaplogroupI1/

----------


## sparkey

> check updates 7, 8, 9 and 10 ( march and April 2012)
> 
> http://www.goggo.com/terry/HaplogroupI1/


What's the purpose? 7 is Robb's STR-based decision tree; 8 is a query form for 7; 9 is within I1; 10 is his (not yet fully refined and therefore currently wildly inaccurate, but promising) SNP-based TMRCA calculation method.

----------


## ihype02

Bump .....

----------

