# Population Genetics > Y-DNA Haplogroups > I1 >  New phylogenetic tree of Haplogroup I1

## Maciamo

Here is the latest phylogeny of I1 subclades according to ISOGG and FTDNA.

----------


## St Delcambre

Great update. 

I have a question for Maciamo and/or Sparkey: 

Is the I1a3 sublcade and it's offshoots part of the older "Anglo-Saxon generic" grouping? I apologize if my question is poorly worded I'm just trying to get an understanding of what group I1a3 is associated with as it's where I fall, I1a3a1c to be exact.

----------


## sparkey

> Great update. 
> 
> I have a question for Maciamo and/or Sparkey: 
> 
> Is the I1a3 sublcade and it's offshoots part of the older "Anglo-Saxon generic" grouping? I apologize if my question is poorly worded I'm just trying to get an understanding of what group I1a3 is associated with as it's where I fall, I1a3a1c to be exact.


Basically, I1-AS ended up being defined by I1-Z58, with a few exceptions. Some weirder I1-AS, including some of which had ended up in the big "AS-generic" bag, turned out to be outliers outside of I1-Z58, and some weirder "non-AS" haplotypes ended up in I1-Z58. But as a whole, the correlation is pretty good. See Nordtvedt's Z58 tree.

----------


## zanipolo

Is the Z63 group the vistula gothic and crimean gothic as stated by KN in march 2012?

----------


## Maciamo

> Great update. 
> 
> I have a question for Maciamo and/or Sparkey: 
> 
> Is the I1a3 sublcade and it's offshoots part of the older "Anglo-Saxon generic" grouping? I apologize if my question is poorly worded I'm just trying to get an understanding of what group I1a3 is associated with as it's where I fall, I1a3a1c to be exact.


I personally don't like the naming of haplotypes as "Anglo-Saxon" when their geographic range is pan-Germanic or Non-Nordic-Germanic. I use the label 'West Germanic' for all Germanic peoples found in Britain, the Low Countries, France and Germany. That also includes southern offshoots like the Lombards in Italy. Most of the West Germanic subclades not limited to the British Isles are probably Frankish in origin. Those limited to Germany would be associated with other Germanic tribes like the Bavarians, Thuringians or the Alemanni.

----------


## Maciamo

> Is the Z63 group the vistula gothic and crimean gothic as stated by KN in march 2012?


The geographic distribution of I1-Z63 is much too wide (England, the Low Countries and West Germany...) to be exclusively Gothic. That's why I did not label it. But I agree that the Goths most probably carried Z63 lineages because this subclade is found in Central and Eastern Europe (especially Poland and Ukraine) as well as in Iberia and South Italy. I would expect to find it also in the southern Balkans (around Albania, Macedonia and Bulgaria). So far its absence from the Maghreb is another argument in favour of the Goths, since it was only the Vandals (and the non-Germanic Alans) who invaded North Africa.

The main counter argument against a Gothic origin of Z63 is its low incidence in Sweden, where the Goths supposedly originated. I would rather believe that Saxons from North Germany integrated the Gothic tribe before they migrated to Poland and Ukraine. That would explain everything.

----------


## zanipolo

> The geographic distribution of I1-Z63 is much too wide (England, the Low Countries and West Germany...) to be exclusively Gothic. That's why I did not label it. But I agree that the Goths most probably carried Z63 lineages because this subclade is found in Central and Eastern Europe (especially Poland and Ukraine) as well as in Iberia and South Italy. I would expect to find it also in the southern Balkans (around Albania, Macedonia and Bulgaria). So far its absence from the Maghreb is another argument in favour of the Goths, since it was only the Vandals (and the non-Germanic Alans) who invaded North Africa.
> 
> The main counter argument against a Gothic origin of Z63 is its low incidence in Sweden, where the Goths supposedly originated. I would rather believe that Saxons from North Germany integrated the Gothic tribe before they migrated to Poland and Ukraine. That would explain everything.


thats a good point, but I favour the goths originating in pomerania, migrating to sweden and then back again and finally to the black sea.

----------


## nordicwarrior

"Most of the West Germanic subclades not limited to the British Isles are probably Frankish in origin. Those limited to Germany would be associated with other Germanic tribes like the Bavarians, Thuringians, or the Alemanii."

Well I guess it depends on what time frame we are talking about (assuming we are specifically speaking of I1 carriers here)...It looks like they all squeezed through the base of Jutland into Northern Germany at some point based on the population maps. Were they all Angles at some earlier point, or just pass through members of Northern tribes?

I agree with your theory on Z 63 pollinating the Goths before they migrated into Poland/Ukraine.

----------


## nordicwarrior

Maciamo,
I had I1 being a large percentage of the ancient Charude tribe at one point (using basic verbage, trade routes, etc.) but everything I came up with could have applied equally to I2 or I1. I think the pitch resin/Harz mountain/Baltic vessels connection could have had huge impacts on early I1 movement while also explaining the strange donut hole in R1b around the Harz. Are there excavations planned in the bog areas of these mountains? That might explain alot...

----------


## nordicwarrior

If Charude/Harude carried Z58 that would explain some West Germanic spread (Arivistus, leader of the Suebi brought the Harude tribe with him west of the Rhine in the first century B.C.) Harude occupied same territory as the later Angels--that's why it's so important to get a fix on this tribe--were they proto Angels? What if Caesar's brutal victory in 58 B.C. drove the Harude deep into Harz mountains--that would explain later Thuringii I1 and some Saxon I1. And do the Hardsyssel and Hardanger areas of Western Jutland and Western Norway (both conjectured to be descendents of the Harude) carry increased levels of Z58? Help Sparkey! (I'm following the HAR root connection here.)

----------


## Maciamo

> thats a good point, but I favour the goths originating in pomerania, migrating to sweden and then back again and finally to the black sea.


That's another possibility. But then their settlements in southern Sweden must have been on a really big scale, perhaps overrunning of displacing the original inhabitants, since the region became know as Götaland to this land (+ the island of Gotland).

----------


## sparkey

> If Charude/Harude carried Z58 that would explain some West Germanic spread (Arivistus, leader of the Suebi brought the Harude tribe with him west of the Rhine in the first century B.C.) Harude occupied same territory as the later Angels--that's why it's so important to get a fix on this tribe--were they proto Angels? What if Caesar's brutal victory in 58 B.C. drove the Harude deep into Harz mountains--that would explain later Thuringii I1 and some Saxon I1. And do the Hardsyssel and Hardanger areas of Western Jutland and Western Norway (both conjectured to be descendents of the Harude) carry increased levels of Z58? Help Sparkey! (I'm following the HAR root connection here.)


Doesn't look like Western Norway and Western Jutland have elevated Z58, although Danish samples are limited in general. These maps help with an understanding of Norwegian I1 subclades in particular: L22 map and Z58 map. Looks like Norwegian Z58 is concentrated in Eastern Norway, with Western Norway being exclusively L22 from that sample set.

----------


## nordicwarrior

Those were great maps, thanks Sparkey. So much for my Harude I1 Z58 theory (at this point anyway). What the Z58 map does reinforce however is that Suebi were probably the tribe (or people really) responsible for I1's success in Germany, France, Netherlands, really all of Northwestern and North Central Europe.

----------


## zanipolo

> The geographic distribution of I1-Z63 is much too wide (England, the Low Countries and West Germany...) to be exclusively Gothic. That's why I did not label it. But I agree that the Goths most probably carried Z63 lineages because this subclade is found in Central and Eastern Europe (especially Poland and Ukraine) as well as in Iberia and South Italy. I would expect to find it also in the southern Balkans (around Albania, Macedonia and Bulgaria). So far its absence from the Maghreb is another argument in favour of the Goths, since it was only the Vandals (and the non-Germanic Alans) who invaded North Africa.
> 
> The main counter argument against a Gothic origin of Z63 is its low incidence in Sweden, where the Goths supposedly originated. I would rather believe that Saxons from North Germany integrated the Gothic tribe before they migrated to Poland and Ukraine. That would explain everything.


After consideration, I see also a Thuringian marker with some old saxon for Z63

the vandals IIRC split in Spain or before into silingi and hasdingi groups, the alans going more with hasdingi. these vandals brought I from the black sea area, maybe a gothic legacy or vandalian

The teutonic knights recruited for their baltic tribes campaign only thuringian, saxon and varini people, basically north- northeast people. western "franconian" germans seem to be missing

----------


## zanipolo

> Those were great maps, thanks Sparkey. So much for my Harude I1 Z58 theory (at this point anyway). What the Z58 map does reinforce however is that Suebi were probably the tribe (or people really) responsible for I1's success in Germany, France, Netherlands, really all of Northwestern and North Central Europe.


did you mean the heruli people?

----------


## nordicwarrior

I have the original Heruli as heavily R M269 actually. I think they were forced out of Zealand by I1, and then went on their lengthy journey picking up various y-haplogroups over time. The excavation sites on Zealand are finding quite a bit of Celtic/R1b signature items and surprising little I1 from what I can tell. But I have the Cimbri as heavily R M269 too.

----------


## zanipolo

> I have the original Heruli as heavily R M269 actually. I think they were forced out of Zealand by I1, and then went on their lengthy journey picking up various y-haplogroups over time. The excavation sites on Zealand are finding quite a bit of Celtic/R1b signature items and surprising little I1 from what I can tell. But I have the Cimbri as heavily R M269 too.


a good idea on the cimbri is to see if the HG you mentioned is also in NE-Italy. the new 2012 languages still has many cimbri pockets of people from the ancient times there

see my link ...north italian languages in eupedia

----------


## St Delcambre

> Most of the West Germanic subclades not limited to the British Isles are probably Frankish in origin. Those limited to Germany would be associated with other Germanic tribes like the Bavarians, Thuringians or the Alemanni.


Maciamo, I'm FAR from an expert but these were my exact thoughts, and as a matter of fact the "Frankish Connection" was going to be a follow question to my first. I came across a map of people who were L573 and noticed most of the results were located in the Northwestern quadrant of Germany, all throughout The Benelux, and Northern France (namely Northeastern), which were essentially the Frankish "hotspots" according to the little bit of history I've read about them. 

I'd be very interested in seeing if there are other knowledgeable researches who also share this prediction.

----------


## Maciamo

> Maciamo, I'm FAR from an expert but these were my exact thoughts, and as a matter of fact the "Frankish Connection" was going to be a follow question to my first. I came across a map of people who were L573 and noticed most of the results were located in the Northwestern quadrant of Germany, all throughout The Benelux, and Northern France (namely Northeastern), which were essentially the Frankish "hotspots" according to the little bit of history I've read about them. 
> 
> I'd be very interested in seeing if there are other knowledgeable researches who also share this prediction.


Yes, it's true that so far, with the limited amount of data available, L573 looks primarily Frankish. 

As for the Saxons, their presence was not limited to North Germany and England either. They were a more important influence than the Franks in coastal Flanders, as suggested by the frequency of place names ending in -gem, ghem, ingem, and inghem between Boulogne-sur-Mer and Brussels via Lille, Bruges and Ghent (see map) mirroring the -gham and ingham in East England. Those names contrast sharply with the more typical Frankish names found in Limburg (e.g. in -hoven and -ingen) and along the Sambre-Meuse axis (Hainaut to Liège), which were also predominantly in -ingen (though Frenchified to -ange, -agne, -gnée, -gny and -gnies).

----------


## nordicwarrior

After further reviewing the Z58 map-- I going to have to walk back my earlier statement that members of this line would of have had to squeeze through Jutland to make it into the Continent. I think the "center stripe" through Germany to almost Zurich indicates foot movement (probably with at least some boat usage up the rivers), but the coastal flags along the Netherlands and Belgium look like boat landings (Danes and/or Saxons).

----------


## nordicwarrior

So maybe the interior flags could be descendents of the ancient Suebi tribe, and the coastal flags could indicate "newer" I1 movements, possibly out of Hedeby.

I made the critical mistake of forgetting how much this haplogroup liked their boats. The population in Portugal and the Italian coast of course indicate boat settlements, but another mystery is the sparse Z58 in all of France.

Also, why would Z58 go so far north into coastal Norway and also the Finnish coast?

----------


## nordicwarrior

I realize that I have just mirrored alot of what Maciamo said on 1/3/13, except I see much of the coastal Z58 as Dane rather than Saxon.

----------


## AjBridges

Is it possible these Saxons who had influence in Flanders area blended into the Frankish empire or at least some of them? I believe my ancestry to be Frankish, but if they did blend into the Frankish empire, I might originally be Saxon? Any thoughts?

----------


## Maciamo

> Is it possible these Saxons who had influence in Flanders area blended into the Frankish empire or at least some of them? I believe my ancestry to be Frankish, but if they did blend into the Frankish empire, I might originally be Saxon? Any thoughts?


Not only is it possible, I strongly believe it to be the case. Flanders has traditionally been regarded as Frankish, but the toponymy clearly shows that the language spoken at first was Saxon in what would become the County of Flanders. It also makes sense since there were Saxon settlements all along the North Sea/Channel coast as far as Picardy (or perhaps even Normandy, like Dieppe).

----------


## nordicwarrior

Hopefully this map from Princeton.edu will transfer over...
Image: "Viking Magyar and Saracen Invasions of 9th and 10th Centuries "
Please note the orange Viking/Danish arrows from Jutland into Bremen, Ghent, Quentovic, Rouen area, and Nantes. These invaders were known for their quick assimilation into existing tribes.

----------


## nordicwarrior

Also, it's interesting to see how far West the Magyars advanced, this probably had a large influence on the relocation of Suebi I1.

----------


## nordicwarrior

I can't get it to transfer. Google or look for--Viking, Magyar, and Saracen Invasions in 9th and 10th Century Europe. Neat map.

----------


## Maciamo

> I can't get it to transfer. Google or look for--Viking, Magyar, and Saracen Invasions in 9th and 10th Century Europe. Neat map.


I have edited your post above. You should click on the 'Insert Image' icon (third from the right in Quick Reply mode) and paste your URL there.

----------


## AjBridges

Due to the postulation of Saxon settlement and participation in the Frankish empire it makes me wonder of their participation In the Carolingian empire. To read about the Arnulflings they seem to be more German?

----------


## Maciamo

> Due to the postulation of Saxon settlement and participation in the Frankish empire it makes me wonder of their participation In the Carolingian empire. To read about the Arnulflings they seem to be more German?


The Saxons of Flanders were mostly peasants and fishermen. The Frankish nobility was established in what is now Wallonia, namely in Tournai (original Merovingian capital) and Liège/Herstal (original Carolingian capital). Since noble titles were conferred almost exclusively to relatives and close friends at least until the 9th century, my guess is that the people who had the greatest genetic impact on the rest of Europe were this Frankish nobility, who was given land throughout the empire and married foreign nobles all around Europe. Saxon peasants stayed in Flanders only became the ancestors of present-day population of Nord-Pas-de-Calais and the western part of what is now called Flanders (which includes more Frankish territories like Brabant and Limburg).

----------


## AjBridges

Maciamo, thank you for indulging me. I understand your point about the Saxon in Flanders, but then if you were not noble there wasn't else much to do but be a peasant, fisherman or farmer. From my understanding even soldiers were farmers back then and would not be called if it was planting or harvesting season.My point is that there was some integration, even if by nobles as you say. I believe it is important to note that the kingdoms were split for a good time. (Ottonian dynasty) (Arnulf of Carinthia).Sorry, can't leave links yet. Also I am by no means an expert, yet I enjoy participating from what I have studied.

----------


## nordicwarrior

There's a fantastic map on wikimedia titled "The Roman Empire in A.D. 125". It color codes linguistic groups and includes the locations of mines. I personally don't like "stopping" at the Franks as a genetic tribe because it doesn't appear on the oldest maps. I try to view the I-J, I, I1 as a genetic flow through history, and the Franks seem like they are a grouping of older tribes folded into a newer identity (maybe caused by invaders from the east?) Please take a look at that Roman Empire map and see if what I'm talking about with the Suebi getting pushed westward makes sense. On wikimedia you can blow up the map for much greater detail.(I can say that because I think I'm either Angle, Saxon, Danish, or Frankish--need to get subclades tested)

----------


## LeBrok

> Maciamo, thank you for indulging me. I understand your point about the Saxon in Flanders, but then if you were not noble there wasn't else much to do but be a peasant, fisherman or farmer. From my understanding even soldiers were farmers back then and would not be called if it was planting or harvesting season.


Exactly, Germanic and Slavic tribes back than consisted of farmers doubling as warriors with hereditary leadership (who became nobilities during feudalism). That was in contrast with Roman career soldiers who dominated Europe for few hundred of years.

----------


## AjBridges

Nordicwarrior, I see your point about the Franks. Even the Suebis were known to be a group of many tribes that shared some commonalities. Nice map. I'm not so sure that I am of the opinion the Suebis were driven out of Prussia by the Huns. Another argument is that these western migrations filled the vacuum after the Roman Empire moved out of the area. The Suebis we know were actually invited to settle in Gaul by the Sequani. Other Germanic tribes such as the Visigoths and the Burgundians were allocated lands by the Roman Empire. These allocations included agricultural lands along with the roman slaves to work the land. The purpose of these allocations of lands is thought to stabilize Gaul and Spain. Some of these lands were vacated 3rd century so the Romans felt that better have some tax paid than no tax. So, LeBrok not only were these part time soldiers, farmers, but many of them became significant agricultural estate landowners who they themselves received taxes from Gallo-Romans living in Gaul.

----------


## AjBridges

NordicWarrior, I trace my paternal line back to Saint Arnulf of Metz, so I'm comfortable saying Frankish for now, but yet still would like to know more, especially about the Arnulflings and earlier Germanic tribes and where they fit into the picture.Here is another map that is interesting. Well I can't leave a link but google "map Gallia tribe towns."

----------


## AjBridges

Crap, I just noticed you were asking about the Magyars, it's possible but I haven't studied the Magyar invasion yet so really can't answer.

----------


## nordicwarrior

I agree AJ, I think the Suebi were probably a mixed bag y-haplogroupwise, but I figure they had a healthy bit of I1. What has drawn me to that tribe is the fact that they show up on the earliest of maps. I did know about Sequani's invitation, but the Germanic tribes suffered such a severe thrashing by the Romans--I don't know if much I1 would have been left behind (in that wave anyway). The Celts would have popped right back in...Also that is cool that you can get so far back with a specific person in history. I've gotten to the 1700's using family information, but I'm still in America at this point. Hopefully this site and familytreedna will get me back to Europe.

----------


## nordicwarrior

By going off of a matching surname with a goodly amount of hits on the 37 marker test, I'm going to infer a Z-60 and Z-140 subclade. This would be I1a3a1a. Now I need to pry my wallet open and verify for certain.

----------


## AjBridges

You would be in good company in the Z140 subclade. I am in 3B myself. When looking at these clades and the different sizes of them it makes me wonder if the size of the clades as described by Ken Nordvedt AS* etc.. Also tells as to which Germanic tribes they may associate with? I'll leave it for someone to try and answer IF the question can be understood? I haven't had my coffee yet but am about to. Cheers.

----------


## MOESAN

> Hopefully this map from Princeton.edu will transfer over... Image: "Viking Magyar and Saracen Invasions of 9th and 10th Centuries " Please note the orange Viking/Danish arrows from Jutland into Bremen, Ghent, Quentovic, Rouen area, and Nantes. These invaders were known for their quick assimilation into existing tribes.


 I 'm not sure at all Danes Vikings assimilated and were so welcomed in all the places they sacked and ruled... there are big differences according to places, I suppose (they assimilated sometimes, becoming the ruling class and marrying local wives, it 's true, but not everywhere)

----------


## nordicwarrior

That's a good point Moesan. It isn't lost on the Canon of English Literature either. From the "Beauty and the Beast" all the way to "Finnigan's Wake", the issue of the I1 invader brutality is addressed. But, when you consider the fact that R1b steam-rolled through Europe (genetically speaking) and now has all the royal lineages... Is haplogroup I1 to blame for not curling into a ball and ceasing to exist?

----------


## nordicwarrior

I have an interesting question, why did R1b and R1a move into Scandanavia in the first place? Why would two different strains of haplogroup R move into territories populated by large, animal skin wearing, technologically disadvantaged brutes and then also have to deal with long, cold winters? If you see the answer, you have solved the key to much of European history.Why do most people visit Sweden and Norway today?

----------


## kamani

> I have an interesting question, why did R1b and R1a move into Scandanavia in the first place? Why would two different strains of haplogroup R move into territories populated by large, animal skin wearing, technologically disadvantaged brutes and then also have to deal with long, cold winters? If you see the answer, you have solved the key to much of European history.Why do most people visit Sweden and Norway today?


 interesting question, I guess the answer is "for the women". That's what they took at least, when they got there. Made it a patriarchal society so they could have a whole bunch of them at the same time. Kinda crazy isn't it.

----------


## nordicwarrior

Kamani, you are correct sir. When R1b does it, it is "civilizing the barbarians". When I1 does it, it's something else... But let's look at the bright side--the Anglo-Saxon/Viking/Norman genetic contributions saved the British from all looking like Frodo Baggins (kidding!-I kid because I love.)So yes I1 gave the world Humphred Chimpden Earwicker and Warren Buffet. But then R1b gave us Prince Charles and Fred Phelps the infamous preacher. Um, let's call it a draw?

----------


## Yetos

> Kamani, you are correct sir. When R1b does it, it is "civilizing the barbarians". When I1 does it, it's something else... But let's look at the bright side--the Anglo-Saxon/Viking/Norman genetic contributions saved the British from all looking like Frodo Baggins (kidding!-I kid because I love.)So yes I1 gave the world Humphred Chimpden Earwicker and Warren Buffet. But then R1b gave us Prince Charles and Fred Phelps the infamous preacher. Um, let's call it a draw?


 ahahaha damn I can not post even an icon. so instead of frodo they all become Sam and king Theoden looking like? poor Shire thats why Frodo went West, to escape from Nords? so Celts of islands looked like Frodo? BTW nice joke,

----------


## nordicwarrior

Yetos, glad you like my humor, although I think I was a bid rough on Prince Charles earlier. He seems like a pleasant enough fellow actually.

And speaking of Tolkein, I've been doing some research regarding his approaches to haplogroups. When I get enough info together, I will start a thread on it.

----------


## nordicwarrior

I don't think Z 140 was Frankish. It has a wide area of dispersal which indicates they stayed on the water for a longer period of time.

----------


## nordicwarrior

For any I1 members out there (actually for anyone who's a fan of well made documentaries) I highly recommend the three part series by BBC called Vikings. The presenter is Neil Oliver (who always does a good job) and the host channel on youtube is Douglas Allen. If you search for "BBC Vikings" it should pop right up.

----------


## nordicwarrior

Oops, before I get a bunch of messages... I should clarify that Vikings were also made up of R1b, R1a, I2, and probably a few more. Also the term Viking was more of a job description (or a term for violent wandering) than anything else.

----------


## LeBrok

> Oops, before I get a bunch of messages... I should clarify that Vikings were also made up of R1b, R1a, I2, and probably a few more. Also the term Viking was more of a job description (or a term for violent wandering) than anything else.


Good recovery  :Grin:  It's so nice when you're inclusive.

----------


## St Delcambre

> Yes, it's true that so far, with the limited amount of data available, L573 looks primarily Frankish. 
> 
> As for the Saxons, their presence was not limited to North Germany and England either. They were a more important influence than the Franks in coastal Flanders, as suggested by the frequency of place names ending in -gem, ghem, ingem, and inghem between Boulogne-sur-Mer and Brussels via Lille, Bruges and Ghent (see map) mirroring the -gham and ingham in East England. Those names contrast sharply with the more typical Frankish names found in Limburg (e.g. in -hoven and -ingen) and along the Sambre-Meuse axis (Hainaut to Liège), which were also predominantly in -ingen (though Frenchified to -ange, -agne, -gnée, -gny and -gnies).


I hate to get too far ahead as this is all still speculative, but are there any subclades that so far seem to be linked to the Visigoths, Burgundians, and Normans? I understand quite well that none of these tribes are limited to I1 or any other (haplogroup for that matter) but now I find myself curiously wondering: "Who left the biggest genetic footprint in modern-day France out of the Burgundians, Visigoths, Normans, or Franks?"

----------


## Maciamo

> I hate to get too far ahead as this is all still speculative, but are there any subclades that so far seem to be linked to the Visigoths, Burgundians, and Normans? I understand quite well that none of these tribes are limited to I1 or any other (haplogroup for that matter) but now I find myself curiously wondering: "Who left the biggest genetic footprint in modern-day France out of the Burgundians, Visigoths, Normans, or Franks?"


I1-P109 would be Norman, or Danish + Norwegian Viking in general.

I1-Z63 would have been present among the Visigoths, though not only among them.

Too little data from France at present to say anything about the Burgundians.

----------


## Eldritch

What about I-M223?

----------


## Selwyn Greenfrith

> I hate to get too far ahead as this is all still speculative, but are there any subclades that so far seem to be linked to the Visigoths, Burgundians, and Normans? I understand quite well that none of these tribes are limited to I1 or any other (haplogroup for that matter) but now I find myself curiously wondering: "Who left the biggest genetic footprint in modern-day France out of the Burgundians, Visigoths, Normans, or Franks?"


The latest additions to modern-day France - Nord Pas de Calais (Noord-Nauw van Calais) and Elsass Lothringen would outstandingly hold the biggest Germanicness/footmark. Thus it would be best if these two lastmost additions to France were left out of things otherwise they might befuddle and aslant any answer you seek.

----------


## nordicwarrior

Are the various I1 branches now specific enough to start attaching y-DNA time frames to tribal groups? That might help determine gene flow. For example, if you have TMRCA from familytreedna (that goes far back) or a famous relative in ancient history that you can link to--that would enable us to start producing a collective genetic time/place matrix for each tribe.

----------


## nordicwarrior

I guess something else to factor is the privacy issue. We are able to get so detailed that we will be dealing with individual surnames. This is an evolving field that has incredible benefits, but also a few pitfalls. I don't know the answer here...

----------


## Balder

> thats a good point, but I favour the goths originating in pomerania, migrating to sweden and then back again and finally to the black sea.


Nah, Mostly like the Goths originated in Southern Denmark/Northern Germany during the Jastolf culture. 

I don't necessarily agree with the Swedish origin for the Goths, but nor do I dismiss it. My guess is that the truth lies somewhere in between, that is some kind of 'Swedish origin' but that much was happening then and that the Goths who fought against the Romans probably did not have much to do with Götaland, perhaps they had heard stories of an origin from there.

East Germanic Goths derives from the same ancient proto-Germanic word as Swedish Gaets (Götar in Swedish), Swedish Gutar (who did inhabits island of Gotland) and Danish Jütar/Jyder (Jutes) in (Jutland, Jylland).

Pre-Goths moved from what is now northern Germany and Jutland, Denmark to Sweden possibly during the pre period run-up to of the Vendel Era, to what is today Sweden. With Götaland, south Sweden, with the island of Gotland in the east, a possible 'colony' of the pre-Goths and Goths.





> Gautr, Gauti, Guti, Gothus and Geat are name forms based on the same Proto-Germanic root, *ǥud*





> Another modern hypothesis (the so-called "Jutish hypothesis"), accepted by the Oxford English Dictionary, states that the Jutes are identical with the Geats, a people who once lived in southern Sweden. In primary sources the Geats are referred to as Eotas, Iótas, Iútan, and Geátas.


Götaland
Gotland
Jylland
Goth


Hence the mix up. And that's why the whole origin of the Goths originated in Sweden is debated. They mostly could have originated in southern Denmark (Jutland)/North Germany (Holsten).

----------


## MOESAN

> Nah, Mostly like the Goths originated in Southern Denmark/Northern Germany during the Jastolf culture. 
> 
> I don't necessarily agree with the Swedish origin for the Goths, but nor do I dismiss it. My guess is that the truth lies somewhere in between, that is some kind of 'Swedish origin' but that much was happening then and that the Goths who fought against the Romans probably did not have much to do with Götaland, perhaps they had heard stories of an origin from there.
> 
> East Germanic Goths derives from the same ancient proto-Germanic word as Swedish Gaets (Götar in Swedish), Swedish Gutar (who did inhabits island of Gotland) and Danish Jütar/Jyder (Jutes) in (Jutland, Jylland).
> 
> Pre-Goths moved from what is now northern Germany and Jutland, Denmark to Sweden possibly during the pre period run-up to of the Vendel Era, to what is today Sweden. With Götaland, south Sweden, with the island of Gotland in the east, a possible 'colony' of the pre-Goths and Goths.
> 
> 
> ...


_without enter in the details of the discussion, I say I 've some difficulty to accept as a God's truth the links made by someones between Jut- (Jutland/Jylland), Geat and Got/Göt a.s.o. ... for phonetic reasons (at this stage of history): 
ö << o -- # ea
G >> /j/ is swedish norse (and some german dialects of Eastern Germany)but among north Scandinavian it occurs only in a front-vowels environment (palatizing) and in danish it doesn't occur, by the way!!! so before knowing more (intermediary forms of proved same origin) in don't accept the link Goth/God or Gud with Jut, but_ _the link Jut/Geat is more suitable even if my knowledge there is too scarce_

----------


## zanipolo

> Nah, Mostly like the Goths originated in Southern Denmark/Northern Germany during the Jastolf culture. 
> 
> I don't necessarily agree with the Swedish origin for the Goths, but nor do I dismiss it. My guess is that the truth lies somewhere in between, that is some kind of 'Swedish origin' but that much was happening then and that the Goths who fought against the Romans probably did not have much to do with Götaland, perhaps they had heard stories of an origin from there.
> 
> East Germanic Goths derives from the same ancient proto-Germanic word as Swedish Gaets (Götar in Swedish), Swedish Gutar (who did inhabits island of Gotland) and Danish Jütar/Jyder (Jutes) in (Jutland, Jylland).
> 
> Pre-Goths moved from what is now northern Germany and Jutland, Denmark to Sweden possibly during the pre period run-up to of the Vendel Era, to what is today Sweden. With Götaland, south Sweden, with the island of Gotland in the east, a possible 'colony' of the pre-Goths and Goths.
> 
> 
> ...


historians are equally divided in respect to............ if the Geats are the Goths.....the Geats seem to have concentrated in invading jutland and future Frisian lands on the north sea. These south swedish Geats, maybe where germanic , but.....
The gu(a)ts are purely on gotland.

I am going with the historians who say goths where originally Baltic people who became linguistically Germanic over time due to the smallish "spit" of water called the Baltic sea........if the Phoenicians can sail from the levant to Spain in around 2000BC , then surely the Baltic people could sail ALL around the Baltic sea, which is only a quarter of the size of the Med.

In the end we already know the Germanic people claimed falsely the prussians as germans, there is all likelihood they did the same with the Goths

----------


## Balder

> _without enter in the details of the discussion, I say I 've some difficulty to accept as a God's truth the links made by someones between Jut- (Jutland/Jylland), Geat and Got/Göt a.s.o. ... for phonetic reasons (at this stage of history): 
> ö << o -- # ea
> G >> /j/ is swedish norse (and some german dialects of Eastern Germany)but among north Scandinavian it occurs only in a front-vowels environment (palatizing) and in danish it doesn't occur, by the way!!! so before knowing more (intermediary forms of proved same origin) in don't accept the link Goth/God or Gud with Jut, but_ _the link Jut/Geat is more suitable even if my knowledge there is too scarce_


I was referring to the proto-Germanic 'dialect' continuum emerged during Late-Nordic Bronze age and early Jastorf period. 

The Swedish language is derived from dǫnsk tunga/dansk tunga ("Danish tongue"). 
http://www.sweden.se/upload/Sweden_s...ka_spraket.pdf

A source in English: 
http://www.academia.edu/1659454/The_...avian_Identity





> _the link Goth/God or Gud with Jut, but_ _the link Jut/Geat is more suitable even if my knowledge there is too scarce_


Götar (Gaets), Goths and Jutes being the same people is the most accepted theory among modern Scandinavians historians , especially among Danes.

And academic Danish article on:
http://www.nomos-dk.dk/folket/olrik2.html
http://www.denstoredanske.dk/Danmark...gen_om_Bjovulf

----------


## Balder

An old text on Gaets/Jutes/Goths 'common' origin 
http://www.tidsskrift.dk/index.php/h...ew/31883/61494

----------


## Balder

> historians are equally divided in respect to............ if the Geats are the Goths.....the Geats seem to have concentrated in invading jutland and future Frisian lands on the north sea. These south swedish Geats, maybe where germanic , but.....
> The gu(a)ts are purely on gotland.
> 
> I am going with the historians who say goths where originally Baltic people who became linguistically Germanic over time due to the smallish "spit" of water called the Baltic sea........if the Phoenicians can sail from the levant to Spain in around 2000BC , then surely the Baltic people could sail ALL around the Baltic sea, which is only a quarter of the size of the Med.
> 
> In the end we already know the Germanic people claimed falsely the prussians as germans, there is all likelihood they did the same with the Goths


Well. Goths were core Germanic, not assimilated one. 

According to Pliny in his Natural History, the Greek explorer explored northern/northwestern Europe on a sailing expedition in the 4th century BC. He got as far as present-day Denmark/Southern Sweden and is the first person to have written about the Germanic tribes in the literate, historical record. One of the tribes he met there was called the Gutones- literally the Goths.

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

----------


## Nobody1

*Wulfila* Bible confirms that the Goths (_Ostrogoths_) were Germanic.
But neither _Wulfila_ nor _Pytheas_ nor _Tacitus_ confirm *the Goths* to be from modern day Sweden or related to the _Geats_.

*Joseph Bosworth* - A Dictionary of the Anglo-Saxon Language (1838)
_"Strabo* assures us, that Pytheas, about 325 before Christ, undertook a voyage to explore the amber coasts in the Baltic. He sailed to Thüle, probably Tellemark on the west borders of Norway, then turned southward and passed the cape of Jutland, and proceeded eastward along the coasts of the Guttones and Teutones. If credit be given to this account of Pytheas, the Goths, at this early period, had extended far over Europe, and had arrived on the coast of the Baltic."_
_"We know, upon the better authority of Tacitus, who wrote with great precision towards the end of the first century in the christian era, that in his time the Goths were near the mouth of the Vistula._"

It was *Jordanes* _'Getica'_ (551 AD) that linked the Goths to Scandza and the _Geats_. But all other classical writers before him from Pytheas to Tacitus clearly link the Goths to the Baltic region between _Oder_ and _Vistula_. Which explains why German is closer to Gothic than any Scandinavian language.

*Encyclopaedia Britannica Vol.16*
_The modern German, a language spoken in a far greater extent than any other of modern Europe, resembles the Gothic Gospels more than the present Danish, Norwegian, or Swedish;_

*Gothic lords prayer*; *Vaterunser* from the *Codex Argenteus* 6th cen. AD Ostrogothic Ravenna N. Italy.

http://languageserver.uni-graz.at/ls...d=000000004249

----------


## zanipolo

> Well. Goths were core Germanic, not assimilated one. 
> 
> According to Pliny in his Natural History, the Greek explorer explored northern/northwestern Europe on a sailing expedition in the 4th century BC. He got as far as present-day Denmark/Southern Sweden and is the first person to have written about the Germanic tribes in the literate, historical record. One of the tribes he met there was called the Gutones- literally the Goths.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pytheas


IIRC, Pytheas states the goths where 660 stradi ( a term for distance ) from dannish area on the coast next to a river so basically it places them on the lower vistula river where it meets the sea...and pliny confirms this area and calls them gutones 300 years later.

----------


## zanipolo

> *Wulfila* Bible confirms that the Goths (_Ostrogoths_) were Germanic.
> But neither _Wulfila_ nor _Pytheas_ nor _Tacitus_ confirm *the Goths* to be from modern day Sweden or related to the _Geats_.
> 
> *Joseph Bosworth* - A Dictionary of the Anglo-Saxon Language (1838)
> _"Strabo* assures us, that Pytheas, about 325 before Christ, undertook a voyage to explore the amber coasts in the Baltic. He sailed to Thüle, probably Tellemark on the west borders of Norway, then turned southward and passed the cape of Jutland, and proceeded eastward along the coasts of the Guttones and Teutones. If credit be given to this account of Pytheas, the Goths, at this early period, had extended far over Europe, and had arrived on the coast of the Baltic."_
> _"We know, upon the better authority of Tacitus, who wrote with great precision towards the end of the first century in the christian era, that in his time the Goths were near the mouth of the Vistula._"
> 
> It was *Jordanes* _'Getica'_ (551 AD) that linked the Goths to Scandza and the _Geats_. But all other classical writers before him from Pytheas to Tacitus clearly link the Goths to the Baltic region between _Oder_ and _Vistula_. Which explains why German is closer to Gothic than any Scandinavian language.
> 
> ...



yes and old nordic and old english texts always indicated that the Goths and the Geats where not the same people

----------


## Balder

> _ so before knowing more (intermediary forms of proved same origin) in don't accept the link Goth/God or Gud with Jut, but_ _the link Jut/Geat is more suitable even if my knowledge there is too scarce_


I managed to find a source in English on:

JUTES & "THE JUTISH HYPOTHESIS" IUTI, IUTAE, GOTHS, GUDAI, GETAE EUCII, ÉOTENAS, JOTUNS, ÉOTAS, IÓTAS, IÚTAN, GÉATAS, GAUTIR, GUTAR, GÖTAR, EUDOESES,
http://www.protogermanic.com/2011/09...uti-iutae.html

----------


## Balder

> IIRC, Pytheas states the goths where 660 stradi ( a term for distance ) from dannish area on the coast next to a river so basically it places them on the lower vistula river where it meets the sea...and pliny confirms this area and calls them gutones 300 years later.



Well Pytheas' description of where the Teutones and Guttones (neighbors) lived agrees with Jutland and its islands to the East; the culture of millet in the north, and of wheat in the south, and the abundance of honey: there is also, about a degree to the north of the latitude of 55 deg. 34' a part of the coast still denominated Thyland. 

Also, the account of Pytheas, of the sea, air, and earth, seemed to be confounded in one element, is supposed by Malte Brun to allude to the sandy downs of Jutland, whose hills shift with the wind; the marshes, covered with a crust of sand, concealing from the traveller the gulf beneath, and the fogs of a peculiarly dense nature which frequently occur. 

And the famous reference of dangerous _The Scandiae islands_ of Greek and Roman antiquity is just the region of southern Sweden, along the Danish Islands between Jutland, across the Strait of  Øresund. The description fit perfectly here.

The Scandiae islands of antiquity is possibly reference to Skanör med Falsterbo:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skan%C3%B6r-Falsterbo



> The peninsula forms the southwesternmost tip of the Scandinavian Peninsula. It marks the border between the Baltic Sea and the Øresund, the sound that separates the Danish island Zealand from the southern Swedish province of Scania.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavia#Etymology



> The names Scania and Scandinavia are considered to have the same etymology and the southernmost tip of what is today Sweden was called Scania by the Romans. The name is possibly derived from the Germanic root *Skaðin-awjo, which appears in Old Norse as Skáney. According to some scholars, the Germanic stem can be reconstructed as *Skaðan- meaning "danger" or "damage" (English scathing, German Schaden, Swedish skada). Skanör in Scania, with its long Falsterbo reef, has the same stem (skan) combined with -ör, which means "sandbanks".

----------


## Balder

In relation to the reference of _Baltia Islands_ where the Guttones of Pytheas lived near of Teutones in Jutland (Thyland), is also uncertain and full of speculations but the most accepted is that:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...try=baltia-geo




> Yet each is found in Pytheas. Hence the likelihood of two names to the same locality, and the confusion arising therefrom. Again, the fact of the name being strange to the present Germans makes the assumption of an erroneous application of it all the more likely.
> *
> Name for name, nothing represents the ancient Baltia so closely as the Great and the Little Belts between the Danish isles and Jutland. But these are the names of straits of water, not of islands of land. Yet the present writer believes that the Baltia of Pytheas was the island of Fyen or Sealand (one or both), and that the name Baltia is retained in that of the waters that bound them.
> *
> He would not, however, believe this, if there had been no change in language. Had that been uniform from the beginning, the confusion which he assumes would have been illegitimate.





> Another speculation connects itself with the root Balt--. In the article AVARI, a principle which will bear a wide application has been suggested. It is as follows: when the name of a non-historical individual coincides with that of an historical population (or locality), the individual is to be considered as an eponymus. 
> 
> *Now, the legends of the country of the Getae connected them with the Guttones of the Baltic; indeed, when the name Goth became prominent, the original seat of the stock was laid on that sea, sometimes on the southern coast in the amber-country, sometimes as far north as Scandinavia.*
> 
> More than this, the two royal lines were those of the Balt-ungs (Baltidae), and the Amal-ungs(Amalidae). For a Balt, or an Amal, as real personages, we look in vain. Populations, however, to which they were Eponymi, we find in the two localities Baltia and Abalus--associated localities in the accredited mother-country


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


The Guttones (Goths) of Pytheas were from Denmark (possibly the Islands) close to their neighbors Teutones of Jutland (Thyland of Pyheas). Both could have been the same people, regional differences and lease only. 

However, the origin of the Goths is still uncertain, I don't dismiss a 'Swedish origin' at all.  My guess is that the truth lies somewhere in between Southern Sweden, Denmark and Northern Germany.

Those Germanic confederations of antiquity did not have the concept of ethnicities that we have today. They pretty much were the product of the same origin - the Nordic Bronze age and Jastorf culture. Fair were moving, separating it into confederations and/or adopting local identity, or cheftain name, etc. 

In somehow maintaining the same linguistic base emerged within the proto-Germanic (just take a look at the Grimm's law). Hence the mix up of confederation names and origins.

----------


## MOESAN

[QUOTE=Balder;405881]I was referring to the proto-Germanic 'dialect' continuum emerged during Late-Nordic Bronze age and early Jastorf period. 

The Swedish language is derived from dǫnsk tunga/dansk tunga ("Danish tongue"). 
http://www.sweden.se/upload/Sweden_s...ka_spraket.pdf

A source in English: 
http://www.academia.edu/1659454/The_...avian_Identity


Götar (Gaets), Goths and Jutes being the same people is the most accepted theory among modern Scandinavians historians , especially among Danes.

And academic Danish article on:
http://www.nomos-dk.dk/folket/olrik2.html

i'll look at your academic article about this tribes names correlation, thanks for that! (I give my thoughts without thinking they were a Bible extract!)
but concerning swedish = danish language origin, my selfmade knowledge of languages tell me it is an oversimplification - all of these languages are from old nordic germanic languages and show some reasonable diverging evolutions where swedish and norwegian dialects stayed closer one to another than to danish modern dialects and language - the prestige of some stage of sanish "tongue" history could have influenced swedish (as bokmaal of Norway) but as a whole the non-continental dialects of germanic are still closer within them except the Skane and surrounding southern swedish dialects which keep the marks of Denmark domination - I can mistake, it 's true...

----------


## Balder

> i'll look at your academic article about this tribes names correlation, thanks for that! (I give my thoughts without thinking they were a Bible extract!)


As I said, I don't necessarily agree in all with the Swedish origin for the Goths, nor do I dismiss it. As for the Goths, seeing they spoke an old Germanic language, so they did originate from the proto-Germanic urheimat e.g. South-Scandinavia/Jutland /Northern Germany (Nordic Bronze age to iron age Jastorf culture).

Also, as I said above, Gautr, Gaut, Gauti, Guti, Gothus and Geat are name forms based on the same Proto-Germanic root, *ǥud*.




> *Gautr*, *Gauti*, *Guti*, *Gothus* and *Geat* are name forms based on the same Proto-Germanic root, _*ǥuđ-_ (see _God_). *Gapt* is generally considered to be a corruption of *Gaut*.
> *The names may represent the eponymous founder of an early tribe ancestral to the Gautar (Geats), Gutans (Goths) and Gutes (Gotlanders).* 
> Gaut was one of Odin's names and the name forms are thought to be echoes of an ancient ancestry tradition among Germanic tribes, such as that of Yngvi, Freyr and the Ingaevones.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaut
Andersson, Thorsten. (1996) "Göter, goter, gutar" in _Journal Namn och Bygd, Uppsala.
_http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi...c-l&D=0&P=8323

Just a close evident common linguistic and 'tribal' designations of both Geats, Gutes (and their two homelands Götaland and Gotland) and Goths but also in place-names such as Göta Älv/Götaälven (älven = the river) in Sweden as of all Jordanes classical believe. 

My guess is that the 'ethnos' origin of them lies somewhere in between, that is some kind of 'Swedish origin' but that much was happening then. And since they spoke an old Germanic language, they came from somewhere into the area of the proto-Germanic language and culture i.e. Scandinavia, Jutland and Northern Germany, most likely near some of the places connected to their name. 

Another East Germanic tribe -the Burgundians- also have several place names in Scandinavia connected to them such as Burgundarholm (old Norse name for the island of Bornholm) or Borgund in Norway (both likely derived from borg = castle).

Several different ancient Germanic tribes did not rename both themselves, their homeland, rivers and whatnot after Roman books they could hardly read, really far fetched. Rather they were generally the same 'core' northern Iron age people of whom named themselves into confederations after a river, a cheftain, or a 'montain', a tree, a beach, whatever they lived nearby, hence why we have so many "goths" or "burgunds" and why they share an etymological origin in the same word. 

The fact is the Goths from Roman historical literature were an old Iron Age, unquestionable, Germanic tribe, its origin in mainland Scandinavia (Sweden), currently debated. It would not be unlikely that their ethnogenesis, meant the origin of Proto-Germanic root word, *ǥud* can still be traced back to some place in Jutland or Holsten (Northern Germany) and from there spread as happened during all Iron Age Germanic culture.

And that's why the whole origin of the Goths originated in Sweden is debated in somehow.

Only the time, recent studies and genetic testing will tell.




> but concerning swedish = danish language origin, my selfmade knowledge of languages tell me it is an oversimplification - all of these languages are from old nordic germanic languages and show some reasonable diverging evolutions where swedish and norwegian dialects stayed closer one to another than to danish modern dialects and language - the prestige of some stage of sanish "tongue" history could have influenced swedish (as bokmaal of Norway) but as a whole the non-continental dialects of germanic are still closer within them except the Skane and surrounding southern swedish dialects which keep the marks of Denmark domination - I can mistake, it 's true...


Yes, but the separation began at the end of the Viking age, late medieval era. That is, 1000 years ago. Already the proto-Germanic 'dialect' continuum emerged during Late-Nordic Bronze age and early Jastorf period existed to 2000-2500 years ago. Hence my argument of a 'common' origin between Jutes, Gaets and Goths. This debate in recent years has become common among Swedish and Danish historians.

Scania, and the rest of Southern Sweden tips (where I come from), really have a modern close Danish intonation and linguistic semantic for obvious historical reasons of that the region until the 17th century, was the core part Eastern of old Danish kingdom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sk%C3%A5neland

----------


## Balder

Could have been the 'first' Goths originated on the island of Fyn (Funen) in Denmark?

That route between central-southern Sweden and the Danish island of Fyn was already known to 3000 years ago, before of the solidification (ethogenesis) of I.E Germanic 'culture' into the area. 






Ingemar Nordgren "Göter-källan" (the origin of the goths). 



> Unfortunately his remarks resulted in an unfair discussion, where the basic idea of Ingemar got lost. As his idea gives an answer to the discussion about the names of Gauts, I will bring it up again. 
> 
> According to Ingemar the Gauts were people who believed their kings to descend from the warrior god Gaut. Their ancestors in Scandinavia mostly were Ingviones - farmers worshipping the old fertility god Ing. As a consequence the Gauts was a religios group - not a single people. Therefore we have Gauti, Geats, Gauthigothi, Goeter, Guter and maybee Juter. Most of them were different tribes or people.
> 
> They knew each other from the trade routes on the Baltic Sea and Kattegat, where Gotland was as a trade center connected to the Bernstein Route. When some of them had to leave Scandinavia they first settled near the mouth of Wistula, where some of the local tribes maybe already were Gauts. At last a group of Gauts followed the trade route to the Black Sea where they became known as the Goths. This group may have consisted of several tribes from Scandinavia and the south-eastern shores of the Baltic Sea.


http://www.svavarsson.is/wp-content/...11/Herular.pdf

----------


## Grubbe

There is a new revision of the I1 tree again: http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpI.html

So now the tree here http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_I1_Y-DNA.shtml is out of date.

----------


## nordicwarrior

Using the most recent ISOGG revisions that Grubbe linked plus the continually updated I1 SNP maps on FTDNA it should be possible to start connecting some dots. I've already noticed some thought provoking trends. Interested to see what some other folks have to say here...

----------


## tumi

Do you mean angles or just saxons as i live in a traditionally anglian area of england and ing (people) ham (hamlet) are common place names here in mercia england?
I apologise this question refers to maciamos remarks about flanders with saxon place names.

----------

