# Population Genetics > Y-DNA Haplogroups > I1 >  What is the Origin and History of I1 M253

## Fire Haired

*I know I have already made two threads about this. But I was shocked to see Eupedia I1 page agress with the idea it came to Scandinavia as I1a Df29 after the glaciers retreated and as the first human settlement 9,000-11,000ybp and developed into I1a2 L22 besides the 5,000-4,000 year old age estimates. I am still open to all the different ideas about the origin and history of I1. I want see a lot of orignated posts because I want to hear all the different theory's.* 

For the history and origin of I1 M253 I have heard two main theory's. I1 M253 is around 15,000-20,000 years old and originated somewhere in non Nordic Europe then later developed into I1a Df29 spread to Scandinavia after the glaciers retreated starting about 9,000-11,000ybp and while in Scandinavia developed into I1a2 L22 and was the first major human settlement of Scandinavia. The other theory is that I1 is very young and spread to Scandinavia either in proto Balto Slavic speaking Corded ware culture(2,900-2,450bc) along side R1a1a1b1 Z282 but the I1 was for some reason much higher or spread somehow in the late Neolithic or bronze age. This is based on new very young age estimates of I1 at 5,000 years old(click here) 

I agree much more with the theory that I1 M253 is around 15,000-20,000 years old and developed into I1a Df29 in central Europe then migrated to Scandinavia about 9,000-11,000ybp developing into I1a2 L22 and was the original y DNA haplogroup of Scandinavia.(Here is kind of an explaination of my opinon(Theory I1 orignally Paleoithic central European). Eupedia's agree's (Eupedia I1 page) There are many reasons if I1 M253 came to Scandinavia only 5,000ybp or so. Then u are saying almost all Y DNA in Sweden and Norway from over 5,000ybp is gone. all the R1a(almost all under R1a1a1b1 Z283) came with Corded ware culture about 4,900-2,400ybp. The R1b(almost all R1b1a2a1a L11 mainly Germanic branch R1b1a2a1a1 S21) and I2a2 P214 is all from migration of proto Germanic speakers out of central Europe starting about 4,000-3,500ybp.


Then ur saying their most popular Y DNA haplogroup I1(all under I1a Df29) came just 5,000ybp. The E1b1b, J1, J2, and G2a u can say is from Neolithic farmers so Funnel Beaker culture(6,300-4,800ybp) which those haplogroups are extremely rare J1 doesn't even hit 1% and J2 and G2a are only 1-5% in small areas of far southern Sweden and Norway. Then there is some but very very rare Uralic N1c1 which is more popular north well the closer u get to Uralic Finland and Suomi.

Is there evidence of a huge kill of in Sweden and Norway that is what it would take. That is what happened in the British isles with Celtic invasions during the bronze age about 3,500-4,500ybp(British ancestry almost all from Celtic and Germanic invaders) the reason is conquest by war were the men die so there Y DNA lineages do to. That would be the only explanation.

Another thing is I1 M253 in Scandinavia does not unique to Germanic(Swedish, Danish, Norwegian) or Uralic(Finnish and Soumi) speakers. We have a pretty good idea of were the N1c1 in Uralic is from. According to FTDNA it would have spread to north east Europe about 6,000ybp. It is connected to Kunda culture(7,000-8,000ybp) and Comb Cermic culture(6,200-4,000ybp) both cultures showing huge huge connections with the distribution of N1c1 in Europe. It would have arrived from Siberia which can explain the extra Mongliod results Finnish and Soumi get in so many aust dna tests other Europeans do not. Like I said before all R1a(almost all R1a1a1b1 Z283) came with Corded ware culture about 4,900-4,400ybp all R1b(almost all under R1b1a2a1a L11 then Germanic R1b1a2a1a1 S21) and I2a2 P214 came with Germanic languages and Nordic bronze age culture about 4,000-3,500ybp. Then all J1, J2, G2a, and E1b1b is probably Neolithic and are extremely rare. So what about I1 for some reason it cant be explained as if it is the foundation Y DNa hg of Scandinavia and its percentages were lowered by invaders overtime.

Also according to Eupedia I1 page the majority of Scandinavian I1 is under I1a2 L22 unlike continental European I1 it shows Finnish I1 is from the same source as Norwegian and Swedish I1. More evidence that I1 in Finland is from before the foundation of Germanic speakers in Sweden and Norway which started about 3,500-4,000ybp. Is 80% of Finnish I1 is under unqiue Finnish subclades under I1a2 L22. The areas were red hair is at 1%, Germanic R1b S21 is at 1-5% and so is I2a2 P214 is western Finland areas with historical Swedish settlement and were Swedish is still spoken. But it doesn't explain the Finnish I1 subclades showing they came before the bronze age so over 4,000ybp. This also means Finnish I1 brother in Sweden and Norway are very old and pre bronze age and pre Germanic. And probably means Scandinavian I1 arrived before Corded ware culture because u have to remember there is a whole another world of I1 subclades in continental Europe and now we know the Scandinavian ones are probably from before Corded ware culture. If Corded ware didn't spread it who did. And I doubt anyone had the weapon technology over 6,000ybp when almost all Scandinavians were hunter gathers so kill off everyone and spread I1. The most likely answer I can see is it was the first y DNA haplogroup in Scandinavia well it came as I1a Df29 and later formed into I1a2 L22.

This also means conteintal(mainly central) European I1a1 M227, I1a3 Z58, I1a4 Z63, and I1b Z131 have another origin and I1 M253 line that goes back over 11,000 years. I1 M253 then is a very old haplogroup I would guess 15,000-20,000ybp in central Europe.

----------


## sparkey

> For the history and origin of I1 M253 I have heard two main theory's. I1 M253 is around 15,000-20,000 years old and originated somewhere in non Nordic Europe then later developed into I1a Df29 spread to Scandinavia after the glaciers retreated starting about 9,000-11,000ybp and while in Scandinavia developed into I1a2 L22 and was the first major human settlement of Scandinavia. The other theory is that I1 is very young and spread to Scandinavia either in proto Balto Slavic speaking Corded ware culture(2,900-2,450bc) along side R1a1a1b1 Z282 but the I1 was for some reason much higher or spread somehow in the late Neolithic or bronze age. This is based on new very young age estimates of I1 at 5,000 years old(click here)


I think you're mischaracterizing the "young I1" theory somewhat. There's an important distinction to begin with between clade age (for which I think we agree that I1 has an ancient value) and TMRCA, which is where I1 seems to be young. So the "young I1" theory actually allows I1 to be over 15k years old in terms of clade age. 22k is a popular estimate of the branch date with I2.

In addition, even if I1 reached Scandinavia at the same time as R1a, it wouldn't imply that those who spread there had higher I1. Obviously, haplogroup frequencies could have changed significantly in the meantime. So, what's important isn't so much the date of introduction, but the date of expansion. Based on the approximate age of Scandinavian I1-L22, expansion of I1 _within_ the Nordic Bronze Age seems like a good guess for how I1 came to be so common in Scandinavia.

Also, I could be wrong, but Corded Ware seems too early to me to be proto-Balto-Slavic, although I suspect that proto-Balto-Slavic developed out of CW descendants.




> Then u are saying almost all Y DNA in Sweden and Norway from over 5,000ybp is gone. all the R1a(almost all under R1a1a1b1 Z283) came with Corded ware culture about 4,900-2,400ybp.


What's wrong with that? It was a very underpopulated region, not to mention that Y-DNA in general has a relatively quick replacement rate and often has founder effects. Besides, just because all I1 currently in Scandinavia descends from a post-5000YBP founder from the south, does not mean that no I1 existed in Scandinavia in the early period. Actually, it's a pretty good candidate to have existed among the small population there during the Paleolithic. (I'd argue that early I2-M223 may be an even better candidate, but that's a different topic.)




> Is there evidence of a huge kill of in Sweden and Norway that is what it would take. That is what happened in the British isles with Celtic invasions during the bronze age about 3,500-4,500ybp(British ancestry almost all from Celtic and Germanic invaders) the reason is conquest by war were the men die so there Y DNA lineages do to. That would be the only explanation.


You're totally wrong here, sorry. Simple population expansion, especially relative population expansion of those with better industries and founder effects within small expanding populations, would also explain the effect, and would do so more elegantly. Same thing with the British Isles. And most of the rest of Europe, actually.




> Another thing is I1 M253 in Scandinavia does not unique to Germanic(Swedish, Danish, Norwegian) or Uralic(Finnish and Soumi) speakers.


What are you talking about? Who else is there?




> So what about I1 for some reason it cant be explained as if it is the foundation Y DNa hg of Scandinavia and its percentages were lowered by invaders overtime.


It can't be explained if you dismiss population expansion effects. And what about its phylogeny suggests a percentage "lowered by invaders overtime"? I suppose its pre-L22 bottleneck suggests that to some degree, but certainly not its Scandivian expansion.




> Also according to Eupedia I1 page the majority of Scandinavian I1 is under I1a2 L22 unlike continental European I1 it shows Finnish I1 is from the same source as Norwegian and Swedish I1. More evidence that I1 in Finland is from before the foundation of Germanic speakers in Sweden and Norway which started about 3,500-4,000ybp. Is 80% of Finnish I1 is under unqiue Finnish subclades under I1a2 L22. The areas were red hair is at 1%, Germanic R1b S21 is at 1-5% and so is I2a2 P214 is western Finland areas with historical Swedish settlement and were Swedish is still spoken. But it doesn't explain the Finnish I1 subclades showing they came before the bronze age so over 4,000ybp. This also means Finnish I1 brother in Sweden and Norway are very old and pre bronze age and pre Germanic.


Finnish I1 is clearly overwhelmingly a young son clade of a primarily Scandinavian clade, therefore you think that Finnish I1 is ancient and pre-Germanic? I don't get this logic. Either way, we need a founder effect to explain Finnish (actually Bothnian--it's Swedish too) I1, so it doesn't tell us anything meaningful about its parent clade. I guess we could talk about Finnish population expansion patterns based on it, but little else can be said. We certainly can't claim that L22 is pre-CW in Scandinavia based on it.

----------


## nordicwarrior

Excellent discussion. I'd like to add a few observations... the recent FTDNA population maps show some neat trends. M253, L22, and P30 have pretty close scatter shot patterns, even in the Americas. L258 is indeed hyper-specific to Finland, and it's downstream status looks like it hasn't had time to spread like the other groups. What I find interesting is the apparent affinity in I1 groups for the Atlantic seaboard/Appalachian mountains. Can this be linked to socio-economic factors like better access to funds to afford the test? More interest in this area vs. residents of the Mid-west or California? Maybe this group has an inherent attraction to broad leaf forests or mountainous regions? Who knows, but fascination nevertheless...

----------


## nordicwarrior

To elaborate, I would have thought we would see a defined band stretching from Pennsylvania, thru parts of West Virginia, into Ohio, Northern Indian, and especially up into Minnesota (because of it's famed Scandinavian heritage). This isn't what we see though. Maybe we need more testing; or maybe we need to rethink or settlement models of the Americas.

----------


## Fire Haired

> I think you're mischaracterizing the "young I1" theory somewhat. There's an important distinction to begin with between clade age (for which I think we agree that I1 has an ancient value) and TMRCA, which is where I1 seems to be young. So the "young I1" theory actually allows I1 to be over 15k years old in terms of clade age. 22k is a popular estimate of the branch date with I2.
> 
> In addition, even if I1 reached Scandinavia at the same time as R1a, it wouldn't imply that those who spread there had higher I1. Obviously, haplogroup frequencies could have changed significantly in the meantime. So, what's important isn't so much the date of introduction, but the date of expansion. Based on the approximate age of Scandinavian I1-L22, expansion of I1 _within_ the Nordic Bronze Age seems like a good guess for how I1 came to be so common in Scandinavia.
> 
> Also, I could be wrong, but Corded Ware seems too early to me to be proto-Balto-Slavic, although I suspect that proto-Balto-Slavic developed out of CW descendants.


Sparkey on the I1 page Maciamo showed how I1a2 L22 could not have spread with Nordic bronze age culture or Germanic languages. The reason is Finland has 80% of their own unque subclades which are not distributed the same way as Y DNa Germanic languages and Nordic bronze age brought R1b S21 and I2a2 P213. So it would have expanded before German languages every came to Scandinavia. Since Nordic bronze age culture did exist in Finland and was only in far far far far southern Scandinavia and is not that old it would have started 3,500-4,000ybp it doesn't make sense to say that is when I1a2 L22 spread. Actulley I1a would be higher than R1a. The reason is it is higher in both Uralic Finland and Germanic Swedan and Norway even though they have separate branches of I1a2 L22 which would mean if I1a2 L22 spread with R1a it was higher before it hit Finland or Swedan and Norway unless u want to say it randomly got higher twice.

about the Balto Slavic stuff we do know they spoke the ancestral language. We will never know exactley when proto Balto Slavic started but if they didnt speak that they spoke proto proto Balto Slavic i think u get what i am saying. Also to say I1 which would have been a newlly devloped haplogroup would be mor epopula than R1a for migrating Corded ware people is kind of hard to understand. Since from what we know the only Y DNA haplogroup they spread is R1a1a1b1 Z283 and it is dominte in eastern Europe. The Corded ware thing has so many holes it is just a attempt to an explaintion with the very young age estimates.




> What's wrong with that? It was a very underpopulated region, not to mention that Y-DNA in general has a relatively quick replacement rate and often has founder effects. Besides, just because all I1 currently in Scandinavia descends from a post-5000YBP founder from the south, does not mean that no I1 existed in Scandinavia in the early period. Actually, it's a pretty good candidate to have existed among the small population there during the Paleolithic. (I'd argue that early I2-M223 may be an even better candidate, but that's a different topic.)


Till the bronze age spread into central Europe 5,000-4,000ybp the vast vast majority of Scandnavians were still hunter gathers. Is there evdience of a huge migration and kill off in Scandnavia. Did those stone age hunter gathers have the weapons to kill off so many people. If u look at history the first times u see serious kill off's i think is the Neloithic with mainly G2a and E1b1b in Europe agianst hg I subclades acroos europe. Of Course the Indo europeans are the best example over all. BUt i get what i am saying it is still kind of crazy to say a people group was killed off so badley. Also i think u know about the aust dna connections with sami and finnish and mesloithic hunter gather samples. Also in globe13 north euro is the only group that existed in pre neloithic europe sami and finnish have the highest. They have very low Med which came in the Neloithic and existed as popular till today so if Scandnavcians decend from invaders who just 5,000ybp from conteintal europe u should except to see more med and not to be so close to mesloithic hunter gathers.




> You're totally wrong here, sorry. Simple population expansion, especially relative population expansion of those with better industries and founder effects within small expanding populations, would also explain the effect, and would do so more elegantly. Same thing with the British Isles. And most of the rest of Europe, actually.


So ur saying for some reason when Indo Iranians spread to India, when proto proto Balto Slavs or whatever spread to eastern europe, when Germanic and Italo Celts spread acroos western europe, For some reason ina ll those cases u can give an explaintion for their high amount of Y Dna that is not conquest seriosuly, It happened everytime u can keep giving that same explaintion why doesnt it happen to other people groups and why isnt it more common, Conquest is the ibvious answer id ont get why everyone is so agianst it. The Indo iranians said they conquered india in the Rig veda how else to u force ur language, religion, culture, and force people to be apart of ur tribe besides conquest. In irish tradtion they say their celtic ancestors conquered ireland from the Fir blog u should read book of invasions it was written over 1,000 years ago and it is based on pre christian(St. Patrick) irish tradtion and i think its liget they kept the tradtion that they were the conqueres just like the English.

Look at england and lowlands of Scotland two Germanic languages have been spoken English and Scots. why do u think Germanic R1b S21 and also I1 (orignally not Germanic) is so popular in those areas conquest. So my theory totally makes the most sense and we have so many written records from those germans decendts just a few hundred years later and the English historians or whatever have a pretty good idea how Germanic tribes Angeals, Jutes, and Saxons conquered those areas.




> Norway are very old and pre bronze age and pre Germanic.Finnish I1 is clearly overwhelmingly a young son clade of a primarily Scandinavian clade, therefore you think that Finnish I1 is ancient and pre-Germanic? I don't get this logic. Either way, we need a founder effect to explain Finnish (actually Bothnian--it's Swedish too) I1, so it doesn't tell us anything meaningful about its parent clade. I guess we could talk about Finnish population expansion patterns based on it, but little else can be said. We certainly can't claim that L22 is pre-CW in Scandinavia based on it.


My logiv is the same logic Maciamo has it is that Finnish I1a2 L22 subclades are not found in the same areas as Y DNa spread with Germanic languages into Scandnavia R1b S21 and I2a2 P214. Therfore it did not spread with Germans and came to Finland from Swedan before Germanic languages arrived in Swedan so those age esitmates at 2,000ybo u know is wrong. I dont know that much about this but maybe the reason why we find so many I1 founder effects is because they were hunter gathers in very very small tribes were evryone comes from one father pretty much. So were talking about pre Corded ware preople who were farmers were talking about hunter gathers.

It seems so hard to explain I1 in Scandnavia with the age estimates they give i cant see any liget explainations. Have u even considered that since hg I was dominte or the only hg in western europeans I2a1a M26, eastern Europeans I2a1b M423, central Europe I2a2 P214 right before farming spread or they may have i guess it is debatlble, But still hg I is a dominte pre Neloithic European Y Dna haplogroup doesnt it make sense that it was a very heavy or only hg I people that first settled scandnavia just 11,000-9,000ybp. Why would Corded ware mainly R1a1a1b Z283 with some I2a1b and Neloithic lineages G2a, E1b1b, maybe J1 and J2 they were already diverse in y DNA why would they spread mainly I1a2 L22. also we need to try to understand the story of non Scandnavian I1 so all subclades not I1a2 L22.

----------


## Fire Haired

nordicqueller u know why the Minnesota Vikings are called that is there are tons of Swedish, Norwegian, and Danish that's why I1 is so high there. in northern India everyone is pretty much German or Polish and there is also a big group of Scandinavians. Also English surnames not surprisingly are common in America. I guess a lot can be Irish, welsh, Scottish and Cornish and also some European immigrants Anglicized their last names I know people who say their families did that. But still there are a lot of last names so direct male lines in the Us going back to England were I1 is about 15%. And overall the biggest amount of blood from a single ethnic group is the USA are Germans about 50% of America is at least part German and they also have around 15% I1.

----------


## pyromatic

I think it's very important to emphasize here that L22 is not Scandinavian, nor is Scandinavian I1 wholly L22+. When I look at the data available at the FTDNA I1 project, a bit over half of Swedish I1 is L22+; a tad less than half in Norway is L22+, and about one third of Danish I1 is L22+. Finnish I1 is strongly L22+ (~80%) but for reasons sparkey illustrated above. There are other clades of I1 of significance in Scandinavia, where people expect little I1 diversity and that L22+ essentially dominates. We also see not insignificant fractions of I1 that are L22+ well outside of Scandinavia - England (~25%), France (25%), Ireland (25%), Scotland (25%), Netherlands (~20%), Poland (15%), etc. I think more likely markers that appeared in and expanded from Scandinavian would be Z73 and Z74, whereas CTS6364 and subsequent clades represent expansion from the south Baltic.

----------


## pyromatic

> nordicqueller u know why the Minnesota Vikings are called that is there are tons of Swedish, Norwegian, and Danish that's why I1 is so high there. in northern India everyone is pretty much German or Polish and there is also a big group of Scandinavians. Also English surnames not surprisingly are common in America. I guess a lot can be Irish, welsh, Scottish and Cornish and also some European immigrants Anglicized their last names I know people who say their families did that. But still there are a lot of last names so direct male lines in the Us going back to England were I1 is about 15%. And overall the biggest amount of blood from a single ethnic group is the USA are Germans about 50% of America is at least part German and they also have around 15% I1.


How exactly are you able to claim that in northern India, everyone is pretty much German or Polish? I've not seen any such claim previously, nor have I seen data or analyses to support such a claim. This is ludicrous.

I'm not sure how you arrived at 15% for the frequency of I1 in the US. Then again, I'm not sure how you arrive at any of the figures you cite. I've seen one study in which the overall frequency of I1 in modern Americans is 6% with a frequency in European-Americans of ~12%. (http://hammerlab.biosci.arizona.edu/...ammer_2005.pdf)

----------


## Fire Haired

> How exactly are you able to claim that in northern India, everyone is pretty much German or Polish? I've not seen any such claim previously, nor have I seen data or analyses to support such a claim. This is ludicrous.
> 
> I'm not sure how you arrived at 15% for the frequency of I1 in the US. Then again, I'm not sure how you arrive at any of the figures you cite. I've seen one study in which the overall frequency of I1 in modern Americans is 6% with a frequency in European-Americans of ~12%. (http://hammerlab.biosci.arizona.edu/...ammer_2005.pdf)


I never said I1 is 15% in white americans what I said is it is around 15% in Germany and I am going off of Eupedia Y DNa maps. And about northern indian that doesn't matter.

----------


## Fire Haired

[QUOTEI think it's very important to emphasize here that L22 is not Scandinavian, nor is Scandinavian I1 wholly L22+. When I look at the data available at the FTDNA I1 project, a bit over half of Swedish I1 is L22+; a tad less than half in Norway is L22+, and about one third of Danish I1 is L22+. Finnish I1 is strongly L22+ (~80%) but for reasons sparkey illustrated above. There are other clades of I1 of significance in Scandinavia, where people expect little I1 diversity and that L22+ essentially dominates. We also see not insignificant fractions of I1 that are L22+ well outside of Scandinavia - England (~25%), France (25%), Ireland (25%), Scotland (25%), Netherlands (~20%), Poland (15%), etc. I think more likely markers that appeared in and expanded from Scandinavian would be Z73 and Z74, whereas CTS6364 and subsequent clades represent expansion from the south Baltic. ][/QUOTE]That is exactly what I would except since I1 is about 15% in Germany and proto Germanic languages came to swedan and Norway about 3,500-4,000ybp with R1b S21 and I2a2 P214 which add up to be pretty popular they also brought non L22 I1 subclades. Which can explain why non Germanic Finland has vast majority L22. ALso since Germanic languaes stayed very far north till the Iron age when they migrate south they brought L22 which can explain why it is 25% of I1 in Germanic countries like England also Vikings. I have to admit L22 is mainly Scandinavian by far and most non Scandinavian I1 is not L22. nd Finland which has had the least contact ith central Europe has 80% L22 that is evidence is was people with 100% L22 who brought I1 to Scandinavia or it developed from I1a Df29 while migrating in Scandinavia.

----------


## pyromatic

L22 did not expand from Scandinavia but rather into it and subsequently into western Finland. Scandinavian I1 has a bias toward L22, but not necessarily the converse.

I'd also love to see a citation for an age estimate of proto-Germanic of 4 kybp. Your conjectures are just awful.

You still don't care to elaborate about your assertion of the autosomal clustering of northern Indians?

----------


## nordicwarrior

I think he meant Northern Indiana... the mistake was a carry over from my post where I had left off the "a". My apologies. And Pyromatic, you are correct in your I1 summary. For some reason F.H. can't/won't look at the FTDNA population maps that show a much different story than he is telling. (The maps tell us more than all of our combined biased conjecture.)

----------


## Fire Haired

> I think he meant Northern Indiana... the mistake was a carry over from my post where I had left off the "a". My apologies. And Pyromatic, you are correct in your I1 summary. For some reason F.H. can't/won't look at the FTDNA population maps that show a much different story than he is telling. (The maps tell us more than all of our combined biased conjecture.)


I had no idea there were FTDNA I1 population maps. I did look them up what u have to know is what percentage of the I1 is from what country. If there is more L22 in England than Finland on the map could just mean there were more English samples than Finnish not that it is more popular. Also how many people tested for a certain subclade and how many from eacg country then u can start to get accurate percentages but maybe some of those peoples tested for those subclades because they were negative for another. So Idont think u can use those maps to show real percentages I might be able to give an idea. The Genetic section of this website is growing like a few months ago it was nothing compared to what it is now. Macimao keeps adding stuff hopefully he can make I1 subclade maps. I would really like to see a Germanic Italo Celtic?? R1b L11 map of Indo European r1a1a1 M417 or I guess R1a1a1b S224 map of the old world. He has a lot of options for new maps.

----------


## nordicwarrior

> I had no idea there were FTDNA I1 population maps. I did look them up what u have to know is what percentage of the I1 is from what country. If there is more L22 in England than Finland on the map could just mean there were more English samples than Finnish not that it is more popular. Also how many people tested for a certain subclade and how many from eacg country then u can start to get accurate percentages but maybe some of those peoples tested for those subclades because they were negative for another. So Idont think u can use those maps to show real percentages I might be able to give an idea. The Genetic section of this website is growing like a few months ago it was nothing compared to what it is now. Macimao keeps adding stuff hopefully he can make I1 subclade maps. I would really like to see a Germanic Italo Celtic?? R1b L11 map of Indo European r1a1a1 M417 or I guess R1a1a1b S224 map of the old world. He has a lot of options for new maps.


 I don't put much emphasis on what country produced what subclade because paternal dna doesn't really follow national boundaries. The 
FTDNA population maps for the I1 clades seem very precise because this website plants the flag from whatever town or village the participant or participant ancestor claims...

----------


## pyromatic

It is my understanding that the linguistic datings of the fracturing of PIE into its subsequent daughter languages and such is really the major constraint in our understanding of the people of Europe - one which places the greatest constraints on dates. So I must ask, how exactly do you date proto-Germanic to 2500-3000 B.C.? My understanding is that proto-Germanic is much younger. The Nagau B helmet dated to 400 B.C. contains an inscription attesting to the Germanic sound-shift, but it does not demonstrate all innovations common to the Germanic languages, suggesting it was inscribed at a period when proto-Germanic had not yet splintered into daughter languages. As the dating of the helmet places an upper bound on the time from the present to when proto-Germanic splintered, I must ask how exactly proto-Germanic entered Scandinavia at 3000 B.C. but managed to remain a single, cohesive language with that spoken in the other Germanic areas for another 2500 years. Why was a single language spoken for 2500 years before people decided they'd rather not speak the same language, giving rise to some 58 languages in the subsequent 2000 years? That's a rather odd phenomenon, especially when one considers that a language evolves in one millennium into something completely incomprehensible to the original speakers.

I1 in Germany is a smaller fraction of the whole compared to Scandinavia, because Germany was already populated by people when I1 began expanding. People love to cite that I1 constitutes a little over 50% of the population in Västra Götaland in Sweden. There're only 1.5 million people in that county today, which means only about 410,000 men belong to I1 in that region. Germany's population stands at 81M, assuming half male, that's 6 million I1, more than the total number of men in Sweden. Haplogroup fractions today are a function of many variables. To interpret them grossly as the result of conquest or relative reproductive fitness in a vacuum void of founder effect is absolutely idiotic.

What would be interesting is to calculate the coalescence of the various I1 clades in each geographically distinct region and compare them with their clade's overall coalescence.

----------


## Fire Haired

I never said proto Germanic was spoken in 3,000c I said 3,500-4,000ybp. You would have to be crazy to think proto Germanic was spoken as recently as 400bc. The first Germanic culture we know of is Nordic bronze age culture starting 3,500-4,000ybp and it lasted till 500bc. R1b S21 the true Germanic y DNA haplogroup is estimated as 4,000-5,500 years old probably migrated north and spoke the ancestral language to Germanic 4,000ybp.

----------


## nordicwarrior

> ...I1 in Germany is a smaller fraction of the whole compared to Scandinavia, because Germany was already populated by people when I1 began expanding...
> 
> What would be interesting is to calculate the coalescence of the various I1 clades in each geographically distinct region and compare them with their clade's overall coalescence.


 If it's indeed true that I1's "youthful" status accounts for the percentages that we now see in Northern Europe (and I must here that I'm not yet set on I1's age), wouldn't it then follow that I1 is a hyper-successful branch? If this group was able to achieve fairly high percentages/populations for such a young clade... I'm thinking it stands to reason I1 will be increasing it's collective numbers rapidly in the future. Certainly I1 has benefited from European success in settling the New World (not to mention I1 repeated intrusions into Great Britain). Pyromatic, what age do you assign to I1 specifically if I may ask? I think it would be helpful to attach age estimates-- I have it between 10,000 and 5,000 years ago. I do like your coalescence calculation idea... but I1 subclade movements are illustrated clearly with the recent FTDNA maps. Would it be possible for someone to link these FTDNA maps to this thread by the way?

----------


## Fire Haired

> If it's indeed true that I1's "youthful" status accounts for the percentages that we now see in Northern Europe (and I must here that I'm not yet set on I1's age), wouldn't it then follow that I1 is a hyper-successful branch? If this group was able to achieve fairly high percentages/populations for such a young clade... I'm thinking it stands to reason I1 will be increasing it's collective numbers rapidly in the future. Certainly I1 has benefited from European success in settling the New World (not to mention I1 repeated intrusions into Great Britain). Pyromatic, what age do you assign to I1 specifically if I may ask? I think it would be helpful to attach age estimates-- I have it between 10,000 and 5,000 years ago. I do like your coalescence calculation idea... but I1 subclade movements are illustrated clearly with the recent FTDNA maps. Would it be possible for someone to link these FTDNA maps to this thread by the way?


If it is true I1 is young I guess under 10,000 years old and became so popular in central Europe and Scandinavia very quickly. Does not mean it will od that in the future. I1a Df29 8,000-11,000ybp may have arrived in Scandinavia when there were pretty much no other humans there and formed into I1a2 L22. The success of a y DNA haplogruops has to do with what people belong to it and other factors there is no genetic destiny or whatever. R1b1a2a1a L11, R1a1a1b1 Z283, R1a1a1b2 Z93 became extremely popular in just the last 5,000 years because very successful Indo European people belonged mainly to them. You should look at this websites I1 page Maciamo agrees more with I1a Df29 being the first y DNA haplogroup in Scandinavia. He also says that the non Finnish subclades of I1a2 and just I1 period in Finland are in the same areas as Germanic R1b S21. I would not be surprised if non i1a2 subclades of I1 in Sweden and Norway are distributed in a similar way to I2a2 P214 and Germanic R1b S21. But some may have come through central Europe before Germanic languages spread there.

----------


## Tabaccus Maximus

> wouldn't it then follow that I1 is a hyper-successful branch?


Not sure about that. If you get ship-wrecked on an un-inhabited tropical island, paleolithic-continuity theorists will parachute in with cheek swabs so they can later conclude that Haplogroup "I1" has been there since the paleolithic due to being statistically omni-present.

The real answer lies with density, founding and other factors such as is the case in the North.

I'll bet I-M170 and most of it's downstream clades settled and fermented in the Southern Balkans from Anatolia where they came to be part of the body of the Starcevo Culture and the later Vinca Culture in the Neolithic. Their 'neolithic package' was brought from the Near East where they departed from a Paleolithic "I-J" and being seperated by the Bosporus Strait, north and south.

Perhaps "I" trickeled slowly out of the Balkans, but I think the URNFIELD (R-S26 + I1* +I2*=Balkan warrior caste IMO) needs much more attention. Some sort of event may explain M170's bizarre distribution around Europe. It could be multiple founding events from Germanic migrations, one or several bottlenecks early or late, or possibly something else?

----------


## nordicwarrior

> ...Some sort of event may explain M170's bizarre distribution around Europe. It could be multiple founding events from Germanic migrations, one or several bottlenecks early or late, or possibly something else?


 I've postulated M170's distribution is related to the R clades sweeping in from the East with a couple of huge advantages. 1. The horse. 2. Population advantages. If we look at the clusters of M170... we have hold-overs all based in "horse difficult" terrain (ie. the rocky island of Hvar, Sardinia, and the geographically unique islands found off the West coast of Finland). Finland itself would nullify the horse advantage because of it's numerous swamp-like regions. Plus the islands of Hvar, Sardinia, and those in the Baltic would give an advantage to the aboriginal boat travelling clans.

----------


## nordicwarrior

I call it my "Island Hide-Out Theory". (Developed it by looking at the Hunnic Invasions and also the Mongols... with the idea that history doesn't repeat itself exactly, but it does seem to come in waves.)

----------


## nordicwarrior

Stop the presses. While reviewing the genesis of this hideout theory... I realize I owe a huge thanks to Kamani. I got so wrapped up strengthening /building/shaping this concept that I forgot the main idea is Kamani's. Actually he was the first to link terrain and military dominance to haplogroup success. My apologies Kamani.

----------


## Tabaccus Maximus

> I've postulated M170's distribution is related to the R clades sweeping in from the East with a couple of huge advantages


I agree with your two major points: 1) I-M170 was amalgamated with at least 1 major R clade, probably a R1b (S21 I would guess)...and 2) that it spread from the East (Balkans and SW Black Sea) 
Here's my wag on I-M170's distribution in Europe... *(a little long, I apologize in advance)*
1. Native distribution in Balkans and Southwestern rim of Black Sea. In the Balkans it fermented into the Starcevo and later Vinca culture where it may have represented a sizable portion of the population. Due to its areal contact in the Black Sea, both cultures, generally viewed as non-IE, still are sometimes difficult to identify taxonomically.
2. _Possible_ initial gene-flow into Central Europe with Linear Beaker and later Funnel Beaker Cultures  Although both are considered non-Indo-European, its been suggested both cultures saw a slow creep of Western Black Sea cultural influences. 
3. Major expansion out of the Balkans during the Urnfield expansion. The Urnfielders, in my view, brought new technology, Balkan metallurgy and religion into Central Europe. I think a new Balkan warrior caste composed of (R1b-S261*, I1*, I2*, ?) imposed itself culturally or militarily on the Unetice people (P-312 and R1a) in what was anciently the Beaker/Corded zone contact area. This is where I think the bulk of M170 now present in Europe got its beginning.  The nucleus of Urnfield collapsed with the 're-awakening' of Western (proto-Celt) people. One remnant of Urnfield being Jastorf, which was the cultural thread of early pre-proto-Germanics in the North (IMO) and who heavily influenced an already Urnfieldized Nordic Bronze age culture.
Heavy representation of Haplogroup I in Scandinavia due exclusively to low population density.
4. I1* ad I2* clades spill into every crevice of Europe with the Germanic migrations leaving a puzzling picture due to founder effect.
Whatever the age of M-170, if it amalgamated into a culture with a clade of R1b, it would naturally appear more diverse solely due to the fact that it was probably native in the area of amalgamation, ie. the SW Black Sea or Balkans, whereas the R1b clade in the mixture was a migrant. If there was in fact a major expansion out of the Balkans or South Eastern Europe, what you will see is a caste of very young R1b moving into Europe with very little diversity and apparent age, AND a great many clades of I* with unlimited diversity. 
As tribal migrations of North Sea peoples carpet bomb Europe in later years, founder events put clades of I* in different places like England, Sardinia, Spain, Northern France, etc... you get a very bizarre picture of very low diversity of isolated clades in localized areas.

----------


## sparkey

> 1. Native distribution in Balkans and Southwestern rim of Black Sea. In the Balkans it fermented into the Starcevo and later Vinca culture where it may have represented a sizable portion of the population. Due to its areal contact in the Black Sea, both cultures, generally viewed as non-IE, still are sometimes difficult to identify taxonomically.


Then why haven't we seen high diversity or outlier I1 in the Vinča culture region? Undersampling? I would guess a Neolithic culture like Vinča to have expanded majority lineages within its region, which would probably make I1 a clearer part of the regional Neolithic package of haplogroups, as well as older than it appears now. I will personally be very surprised if you're right about this.




> 2. _Possible_ initial gene-flow into Central Europe with Linear Beaker and later Funnel Beaker Cultures  Although both are considered non-Indo-European, its been suggested both cultures saw a slow creep of Western Black Sea cultural influences.


It's interesting, though, that LBK has _not_ shown I1 in its ancient samples. To me, that, along with the phylogeny, indicates that the principal spread of I1 postdates LBK. Perhaps it was a minority haplogroup within LBK, maybe at the northern periphery of that culture? (Highly speculative of course.)




> 3. Major expansion out of the Balkans during the Urnfield expansion. The Urnfielders, in my view, brought new technology, Balkan metallurgy and religion into Central Europe. I think a new Balkan warrior caste composed of (R1b-S261*, I1*, I2*, ?) imposed itself culturally or militarily on the Unetice people (P-312 and R1a) in what was anciently the Beaker/Corded zone contact area. This is where I think the bulk of M170 now present in Europe got its beginning.  The nucleus of Urnfield collapsed with the 're-awakening' of Western (proto-Celt) people. One remnant of Urnfield being Jastorf, which was the cultural thread of early pre-proto-Germanics in the North (IMO) and who heavily influenced an already Urnfieldized Nordic Bronze age culture.


But Urnfield ancient samples haven't shown I1 either. I'm not sure I understand what pattern you're seeing to suggest that the I1 likely in Jatorf to have been from the same component that introduced Urnfield to the North, as opposed to its more northerly influences (NBA, Lusatian, or the native-turned-Urnfield "North Urnfield" group). 




> Heavy representation of Haplogroup I in Scandinavia due exclusively to low population density.


This I agree with, except to note that geographic proximity helped.




> I1* ad I2* clades spill into every crevice of Europe with the Germanic migrations leaving a puzzling picture due to founder effect.
> Whatever the age of M-170, if it amalgamated into a culture with a clade of R1b, it would naturally appear more diverse solely due to the fact that it was probably native in the area of amalgamation, ie. the SW Black Sea or Balkans, whereas the R1b clade in the mixture was a migrant. If there was in fact a major expansion out of the Balkans or South Eastern Europe, what you will see is a caste of very young R1b moving into Europe with very little diversity and apparent age, AND a great many clades of I* with unlimited diversity. 
> As tribal migrations of North Sea peoples carpet bomb Europe in later years, founder events put clades of I* in different places like England, Sardinia, Spain, Northern France, etc... you get a very bizarre picture of very low diversity of isolated clades in localized areas.


Agreed that the picture is complicated, but I would only associate a few of these complications with the Germanic expansions--specifically I1 and most I2-M223 subclades. The thing is, few other I subclades fit this pattern or the Balkans expansion pattern, and indeed, ancient minority and outlier subclades prefer to cluster in Western and Central Europe in a way that we wouldn't expect if the Balkans played a major role in its Neolithic distribution. Take I2-M26 in particular. It has _no apparent connection to the Balkans_ and yet it has one of the most easily identifiably Neolithic spreads, backed up by both its molecular diversity and ancient DNA. Rather, it seems to have spread from the West. In fact, I have much more difficulty finding _any_ Haplogroup I subclades that seem to share an early spread into Europe with early proto-R1b-L11 than I do those that don't. Even the I2 common in the Balkans (I2a-Din) doesn't seem to have spread from there. So my thought is that R1b passed through the Balkans _long after_ Haplogroup I did, and that the Halpogroup I expansions that connected with R1b expansions happened after R1b had already drifted into the local Haplogroup I-carrying areas.

----------


## pyromatic

> If it's indeed true that I1's "youthful" status accounts for the percentages that we now see in Northern Europe (and I must here that I'm not yet set on I1's age), wouldn't it then follow that I1 is a hyper-successful branch? If this group was able to achieve fairly high percentages/populations for such a young clade... I'm thinking it stands to reason I1 will be increasing it's collective numbers rapidly in the future. Certainly I1 has benefited from European success in settling the New World (not to mention I1 repeated intrusions into Great Britain). Pyromatic, what age do you assign to I1 specifically if I may ask? I think it would be helpful to attach age estimates-- I have it between 10,000 and 5,000 years ago. I do like your coalescence calculation idea... but I1 subclade movements are illustrated clearly with the recent FTDNA maps. Would it be possible for someone to link these FTDNA maps to this thread by the way?



It looks like all the major haplogroups in Europe underwent rapid neolithic expansion, not just I1, which I think is consistent with a change in lifestyle or better farming and pastoralism, not necessarily better reproductive fitness or extermination of other groups. These haplogroups just happened to be borne by those who were really good at feeding large families. In this context, once the technological/economic playing field was leveled in Europe, the frequencies of the haplogroups became essentially fixed as population growth becomes approximately equal. It would be interesting to find data suggesting any one haplogroup is expanding at the expense of another in the modern era. When you say age, do you mean time of divergence from I or TMRCA of all I1-bearing men today? Those are two very different numbers.

----------


## Fire Haired

> It looks like all the major haplogroups in Europe underwent rapid neolithic expansion, not just I1, which I think is consistent with a change in lifestyle or better farming and pastoralism, not necessarily better reproductive fitness or extermination of other groups. These haplogroups just happened to be borne by those who were really good at feeding large families. In this context, once the technological/economic playing field was leveled in Europe, the frequencies of the haplogroups became essentially fixed as population growth becomes approximately equal. It would be interesting to find data suggesting any one haplogroup is expanding at the expense of another in the modern era. When you say age, do you mean time of divergence from I or TMRCA of all I1-bearing men today? Those are two very different numbers.


 You know that almost all of Scandinavia did not begin to farm till the bronze and iron age so that definitely does not explain around 40% I1 in areas of Scandinavia that were not farming in the Neolithic age. You should look at this websites I1 page even they disagree and say in Scandnavia it came with maybe the earliest human settlement, plus it did even originate in Scandinavia it originated in continental Europe probably central probably in the Palaeolithic age. I am kind of sick about arguing the obvious. There is no way I1 spread in Scandinavia during the Neolithic, copper, or bronze age it probably came before N1c1c and with the first human settlement in Scandinavia. That does not mean that it originated in Scandinavia is definitely originated in continental Europe probably central. Just wait till we have the ancient DNA and new info comes in.

----------


## nordicwarrior

> You know that almost all of Scandinavia did not begin to farm till the bronze and iron age so that definitely does not explain around 40% I1 in areas of Scandinavia that were not farming in the Neolithic age. You should look at this websites I1 page even they disagree and say in Scandnavia it came with maybe the earliest human settlement, plus it did even originate in Scandinavia it originated in continental Europe probably central probably in the Palaeolithic age. I am kind of sick about arguing the obvious. There is no way I1 spread in Scandinavia during the Neolithic, copper, or bronze age it probably came before N1c1c and with the first human settlement in Scandinavia. That does not mean that it originated in Scandinavia is definitely originated in continental Europe probably central. Just wait till we have the ancient DNA and new info comes in.


 I actually agree with your entire statement F.H. I1 probably split off from M170 SOMEWHERE on the continent, but didn't fully thrive until the throngs of R1b began to spread out through Northern Europe/Scandinavia and the gap in technology was equalized (either through warfare capture or more likely trade) I do think the main clan of I1 used Aland and the islands off of Turku in Finland to hide-out during the initial R1b sweeps. To me that is the only thing that would explain the current maps. P.S. Sparkey what do you think of the whole "Island Hideout" theory?

----------


## nordicwarrior

> ...once the technological/economic playing field was leveled in Europe, the frequencies of the haplogroups became essentially fixed as population growth becomes approximately equal. It would be interesting to find data suggesting any one haplogroup is expanding at the expense of another in the modern era. When you say age, do you mean time of divergence from I or TMRCA of all I1-bearing men today? Those are two very different numbers.


 Both estimates would be appreciated. I agree that the balance between R1b lines and I1 clades seems to be fixed over their current regions, but I think both groups did carve big chunks out of each other's respective numbers in the past. The first arrivals of R1b probably decimated I1 members, but the much later Anglo-Saxon, Viking, and even Norman invasions cost the various R1b lines a heavy toll. I don't see these ratios changing relative to each other, but both R1b and I1 will certainly lose out to the huge urban influx we now see in England, Germany, Sweden, etc. European pie charts will have to make room for the various clades of J2, E, A, the H's and R1's from India... really the whole alphabet.

----------


## Fire Haired

> I actually agree with your entire statement F.H. I1 probably split off from M170 SOMEWHERE on the continent, but didn't fully thrive until the throngs of R1b began to spread out through Northern Europe/Scandinavia and the gap in technology was equalized (either through warfare capture or more likely trade) I do think the main clan of I1 used Aland and the islands off of Turku in Finland to hide-out during the initial R1b sweeps. To me that is the only thing that would explain the current maps. P.S. Sparkey what do you think of the whole "Island Hideout" theory?


I strongly dis agree with the idea that I1 did not become popular in Scandinavia till Germanic R1b S21(I guess other R1b too) invasion starting just 3,500ybp. Maciamo on the I1 page already made the point how 80% of Finnish I1 is under specifc Finnish I1a2 L22 subclades. While Scandinavian I1 subclades are found in the same areas as R1b and I2a2 P214 on the west coast which is all from Swedish inter marriage,. But the Finnish I1a2 L22 subclades do not come from the bronze age and Maciamo said Mesloithic age 6,000-7,000ybp I would say just whenever the first hu8mans made it to Finland. So 80% of Finnish I1 is under their own I1a2 L22 subclades and 5% under Scandinavian L22 subclades I guess then 15% of 28% of their y DNA is under other I1a Df29 subclades most typical for continental Europe. All I know is that the majority of I1 in Sweden and Norway is under I1a2 L22 once I heard I think 58%. So that would leave about 42% of 30-37% of their y DNA to non L22 I1 subclades. I guarantee it has similar distribution to R1a Z284 or to R1b S21, I2a2 P214, and red hair. R1a Z283 would have come to Sweden and Norway through central Europe about 4,500-5,000ybp which was apart of proto Balto Slavic speaking Corded ware culture. R1b S21, I2a2 P214, and red hair(or just over 1%) all came to Sweden and Norway with proto Germanic languages at the earliest 3,500-4,000ybp through central Europe. Or other contact people in Norway and Sweden have had with central Europeans throughout history could effect how much non I1a2 L22 I1 they have. But since Finland has had such little contact with central Europe it makes sense why Norway and Sweden would have more non L22 I1.

----------


## Tabaccus Maximus

> In fact, I have much more difficulty finding any Haplogroup I subclades that seem to share an early spread into Europe with early proto-R1b-L11 than I do those that don't. Even the I2 common in the Balkans (I2a-Din) doesn't seem to have spread from there. So my thought is that R1b passed through the Balkans long after Haplogroup I did, and that the Halpogroup I expansions that connected with R1b expansions happened after R1b had already drifted into the local Haplogroup I-carrying areas.


Let me suggest that R1b-M269 entered Europe from multiple locations and times, so any correlation between I-M170 would probably be with clades of R-U106/S21 and it may not be a clean correlation given the sparse settlements of the North Sea and Scandinavia. 
I 'would not' expect to see any correlation at the level of R-L21.
Even though its very likely M170 was seeping into Europe as a minority haplotype with LBK or FBK, I would guess that the majority of LBK and FBK paternal lines in Western Europe were culled starting in the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age.
I find the Urnfield an interesting topic for "I" followers in that it begins in what could only be SE Europe and ends with Jastorf, among others. Of course the majority of the human population in the Urnfield horizon were descended from Tumulus people, but there seems to be an introduction of a new social order and cultural traits associated with the SE.
Emphasis on a type of cremation burial, axes, so forth. The evidence of "hill forts" I think is indicitive of an embattled social caste or at least the presence of a non-native aristocracy.
If in fact Urnfield involved a warrior caste of SE Indo-Europeans, there would certainly be an amalgam of men that had high diversity of Haplotype I and probably low diversity of R1b. So it would seem at least a substantial amount of I's distribution in Europe could be attributed to Urnfield and its high frequency and variability in the North is deceptive because of density and from where it spread.
The Urnfield began its expansion around the time of the Brnoze Age collapse, which was especially violent in the Aegean and Balkans. Increasing violence of Scythians pushed Cimmerians, Thracians and Phrygians from their native abodes into places like the Balkans which may have either pushed Balkan refugees into Europe or maybe the entire episode turned into one big land grab with every nation for himself, Balkanites included.

It's in this environment that appears to be the ideal primordial ooze that a language like pre-proto-Germanic to have evolved.
Perhaps the so-called "Thraco-Cimmerian Hypothesis" could be better explained by a maintenance of Cultural contact with the Balkans during the Urnfield phase ultimately ending with the Hallstat phase.

Looking at maps of the following I-M170 and comparing with R1b-S21 and later migration period, I do see some correlation, of course it could be in part due to the geographic overlap of FBK. 
I-M438/I-M253
(M253 being young enough that it was essentially born in the North shortly after its Urnfield expansion)
I-M436 (Urnfield derived, later Germanic spread)
I-M423 (may have been too young during Urnfield expansion from Balkans and the reason why its frequency is low in Europe)
I-M26 (Urnfield derived, later Germanic spread)

----------


## LeBrok

> It looks like all the major haplogroups in Europe underwent rapid neolithic expansion, not just I1, which I think is consistent with a change in lifestyle or better farming and pastoralism, not necessarily better reproductive fitness or extermination of other groups. These haplogroups just happened to be borne by those who were really good at feeding large families. In this context, once the technological/economic playing field was leveled in Europe, the frequencies of the haplogroups became essentially fixed as population growth becomes approximately equal. It would be interesting to find data suggesting any one haplogroup is expanding at the expense of another in the modern era.


Nicely put, I like this logic. I think we will find few exceptions, but not many. Main factor will always be food production/survival of offspring and economy in general.

----------


## sparkey

> Looking at maps of the following I-M170 and comparing with R1b-S21 and later migration period, I do see some correlation, of course it could be in part due to the geographic overlap of FBK. 
> I-M438/I-M253
> (M253 being young enough that it was essentially born in the North shortly after its Urnfield expansion)
> I-M436 (Urnfield derived, later Germanic spread)
> I-M423 (may have been too young during Urnfield expansion from Balkans and the reason why its frequency is low in Europe)
> I-M26 (Urnfield derived, later Germanic spread)


I'm not following your subclade analysis, sorry.
"I-M438/I-M253" is all known Haplogroup I.
"I-M436" is unlikely to be Urnfield derived (way too old) although it does seem to be a good candidate to have had a majority of its carriers within the reach of Urnfield at one time.
"I-M423" is definitely older than Urnfield as well, although its most major subclade (I2a-Din) is young. Its frequency is not low in Europe, it is ultrafrequent in the Balkans.
"I-M26" is again too old to be Urnfield derived, and it has a pretty clear west-to-east diversity trend within its primary subclade.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you mean by "derived."

----------


## sparkey

> I do think the main clan of I1 used Aland and the islands off of Turku in Finland to hide-out during the initial R1b sweeps. To me that is the only thing that would explain the current maps. P.S. Sparkey what do you think of the whole "Island Hideout" theory?


I think that if the "Island Hideout" theory was true, we would see higher diversity of Haplogroup I lineages on the islands, and lower correlation between Haplogroup I subclades and subclades of other haplogroups. As is, it seems like in more cases, we're looking at either founder effects (e.g. Sardinian I2-M26 or Finnish I1-L22) or expansions alongside, rather than away from, other haplogroups (e.g. British I1-Z58). Or possibly even both effects at the same time (perhaps I2a-Din in the Balkans?).

----------


## Tabaccus Maximus

> I'm not following your subclade analysis, sorry.
> "I-M438/I-M253" is all known Haplogroup I.
> "I-M436" is unlikely to be Urnfield derived (way too old) although it does seem to be a good candidate to have had a majority of its carriers within the reach of Urnfield at one time.
> "I-M423" is definitely older than Urnfield as well, although its most major subclade (I2a-Din) is young. Its frequency is not low in Europe, it is ultrafrequent in the Balkans.
> "I-M26" is again too old to be Urnfield derived, and it has a pretty clear west-to-east diversity trend within its primary subclade.
> 
> Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you mean by "derived."



I mean derived, as in SE Europe for the most part (M-170). I am also fine with the ages of the various clades, however deep, so I'm not implying they mutated the eve of a calvary charge, rather they must have matured for many thousands of years in the Near East/Balkans. 
I-M253 is way too young to know what culture in which it originated. Linear Pottery Culture, Funnel Beaker and Urnfield all probably brought M-170 from SE Europe into Central Europe and any one of them could have been father to this particular line, and of course this mutation happened with one man, so it must have taken quite awhile to reach its present locality.


This is the challenge with M170's European distribution analysis.
1) The donor population (SE Europe) was probably large and the population of temperate Europe was mostly small or sparse during the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age.
2) The donor's origin (I-M170) was probably realitively close to its Near Eastern founding, therefore the donor was at its maximum diversity. (Much unlike R1b)
This could create a picture of what would falsely look like bottlenecking of M-170's European descendants where you have a scatter shot distribution pattern.
3) The population it partly spawned in temperate Europe exploded in the Iron Age and early Medieval period.
4) It's descendants were part of a population of highly successful migrationists 

Of course I relish the fact that I-M253's age has been recalculated to the Bronze Age, because of course it was marker for paleolithic Europe just yesterday being found in a supposed relict population.

----------


## nordicwarrior

> ...Of course I relish the fact that I-M253's age has been recalculated to the Bronze Age, because of course it was marker for paleolithic Europe just yesterday being found in a supposed relict population.


Uh oh. You're not one of those R1b supporters that think your clade was the founding paternal line of Europe are you? 

And by the way, what paternal haplogroup (or maternal for that matter) ISN'T descended from highly successful migrationists?

----------


## Fire Haired

TE do you seriously think I M170 came to Europe with farming when its age estimates are 25,000-30,000 years old. I1 in Scandinavia so I1a2 L22 deifntley did not come with farming since there in the Neolithic age almost all Scandinavians were hunter gathers. Austomally Finnish and Soumi are closest to Mesolithic and Neolithic European hunter gathers and very far from Neolithic and copper age farmers.

----------


## Fire Haired

> Uh oh. You're not one of those R1b supporters that think your clade was the founding paternal line of Europe are you? 
> 
> And by the way, what paternal haplogroup (or maternal for that matter) ISN'T descended from highly successful migrationists?


TE said nothing about R1b being the original paternal lineage of Europe the only person who still thinks that might be Spencer Wells. I don't know that much about world history but it seems like in Native Americans their Y DNA percentages are just chance has nothing to do with conquering or because their branch was more successful than another. But it seems like that is true in Neolithic Europe for G2a, E1b1b(mainly V13), J2b maybe other J2 subclades, and possibly some J1. I think the farmers may have spread by domination and conquering because they had a better way to survive than the hunter gathers. It is crazy how austomal DNA of Neolithic farmer in Southern Sweden and copper age farmer in alps Italy are nearly identical and are closest to modern Sardinia(Sardinia last of the European farmer race). There is a huge obvious difference between farming European and hunter gather European mtDNA and austomal DNA(Reconstructing the Human Past using Ancient and Modern Genomes). And I think most Indo European languages were spread by conquest Germanic Italo Celtic R1b1a2a1a L11, Balto Slavic(Corded ware culture) R1a1a1b1 Z283, Indo Iranian and Tocherian? R1a1a1b2 Z93, maybe more. It seems like to me humans didn't have the organization and technology like Metal weapons to do mass conquering before the bronze age. The link I showed above about the difference between European farmers and hunter gathers. I wish they made the point that it is not like okay modern northern Europeans come from hunter gathers and southern Europeans come from farmers. Its that northern Europeans kept more hunter gather blood probably because their farther north. Also in austomal DNA tests i have no idea how they get the results and all that stuff but i do know the tests with uniquely Europeans groups they are always most popular in the same areas of Europe and so far are dominate in Mesolithic and Neolithic European hunter gathers usually their called North Euro or Atlantic Baltic. They probably used to be 100% in Europe before the Neolithic age and I think results from St. Forvar(mtDNA U4b1) 8,673 year old hunter gather in Sweden might be evidence of that.

----------


## Tabaccus Maximus

> Uh oh. You're not one of those R1b supporters that think your clade was the founding paternal line of Europe are you? 
> 
> And by the way, what paternal haplogroup (or maternal for that matter) ISN'T descended from highly successful migrationists?


Ok, you got me, but I mean in relative terms. And quite honestly to say that R1a and R1b haven't had a numerically explosive and very wide migratory territory in relative terms I think would be inaccurate.

Basically my point was that many clades I-M170 dispersed in Europe were in fact spread with Indo-Europeans from SE Europe and the Balkans. I think clades of M170 may have begun to spread in the early Linear Band Ware culture and was probably highly represented in the Balkan "Vinca" culture, but I sincerely doubt that it was present in Europe before the Neolithic.

----------


## adamo

No; the indo-Europeans belonged solely to the R branch of the y-DNA tree: certainly R1's a and b and possibly R2 as well. The first European males seem to have belonged to hg I whereas the second arrivals to Europe where probably R of the R1b variety.

----------


## sparkey

> Basically my point was that many clades I-M170 dispersed in Europe were in fact spread with Indo-Europeans from SE Europe and the Balkans. I think clades of M170 may have begun to spread in the early Linear Band Ware culture and was probably highly represented in the Balkan "Vinca" culture, but I sincerely doubt that it was present in Europe before the Neolithic.


I don't see this at all upon close inspection of the subclades. I'm guessing you mean something like:

*Neolithic farmers from the East*
M26

*Indo-Europeans*
M436
M423

*??? What are all these doing having their highest diversity in Europe if they were late arrivals???*
L1294 ("F")
L880 ("NF")
L1286 ("Western" & "Alpine")
L596
L416
I1

It doesn't make sense to me to posit I as post-Neolithic based on the number of little ancient subclades in Europe, but not outside of Europe. R1b, for example, doesn't see that pattern at all, as it has no real ancient subclade diversity and few outliers in Europe, but lots of that in West Asia. I, on the other hand, has a great deal of subclade diversity and outliers in Europe, but little to speak of in West Asia. And that's not to mention that the M26 diversity pattern is West-to-East _and_ has been shown to have existed in the Neolithic, indicating that it was in the West at the beginning of the Neolithic.

----------


## pyromatic

> You know that almost all of Scandinavia did not begin to farm till the bronze and iron age so that definitely does not explain around 40% I1 in areas of Scandinavia that were not farming in the Neolithic age. You should look at this websites I1 page even they disagree and say in Scandnavia it came with maybe the earliest human settlement, plus it did even originate in Scandinavia it originated in continental Europe probably central probably in the Palaeolithic age. I am kind of sick about arguing the obvious. There is no way I1 spread in Scandinavia during the Neolithic, copper, or bronze age it probably came before N1c1c and with the first human settlement in Scandinavia. That does not mean that it originated in Scandinavia is definitely originated in continental Europe probably central. Just wait till we have the ancient DNA and new info comes in.


That farming arrived in Scandinavia from continental Europe at the same time I1 begins to expand from continental Europe, I think, is no coincidence. Scandinavia was likely sparsely populated then, which would for the relatively high frequency of I1 there today. You're sick about arguing the obvious? You must possess the thickest skull that could possibly cluster with AMH such that insulting you wouldn't even register.

----------


## Jagtig

The "founders" basically lived in an area roughly from Gotland in the German Sea to the area now known as the Crimea. The boats were first made with twisted hemp smeared with pitch, and they lived by carrying Mediterranean goods to Europe and Eurasian goods, including slaves, to the Mediterranean. At the time I chose for my novelistic approach to the question, it was the transition to Ottoman rule from Roman rule that characterized the area, but I suspect that archaeologists will someday find evidence that the Dniepper was used for long-distance transport 10,000 years ago, when the first I haploclads were expanding from their origin spots in the Caucasus, and things like furs, ivory and gems found their origin in trading posts manned by I clad people and transported in boats crewed by the same.

----------


## Jagtig

I know this presumes a lot, but when you see the extreme fineness of "Chalcolithic" goods as exemplified by Native American workmanship, assuming this "newer" clad was roughly of that group, then it starts to make sense. Just because wealth is extracted from animals, for the most part, and doesn't involve the manufacture of iron implements, doesn't exclude high skills where boat making and other such tasks are concerned.

----------


## Jagtig

> It looks like all the major haplogroups in Europe underwent rapid neolithic expansion, not just I1, which I think is consistent with a change in lifestyle or better farming and pastoralism, not necessarily better reproductive fitness or extermination of other groups. These haplogroups just happened to be borne by those who were really good at feeding large families. In this context, once the technological/economic playing field was leveled in Europe, the frequencies of the haplogroups became essentially fixed as population growth becomes approximately equal. It would be interesting to find data suggesting any one haplogroup is expanding at the expense of another in the modern era. When you say age, do you mean time of divergence from I or TMRCA of all I1-bearing men today? Those are two very different numbers.


I have an interesting combination that may be of interest to you and this group; that is, I-M253 and X2b. Get the picture? The paternal line appears to be protogroup for those that later went up the Dnieper and down the Duna to colonize the lands around the German Sea, and the maternal haplogroup appears to the one that split in two at the same geographical location that gave rise to I-M253, and was carried by persons (Vikings?) all the way to the Midwest of the United States. Like they say, "Can't make this stuff up."

----------


## brazos

My ancestors were Norman English and came to Virginia in the mid 1600's. Then south to Georgia and Alabama. There are many English people in the south and southern Appalachia. Maybe that I1 came south and along the eastern seaboard and the Appalachians with these Norman English, as mine did.

----------


## brazos

The Normans had a lot of I1 did they not? Many Norman derived English settled Virginia and the eastern seaboard, most moved south and into the Appalachians. Could that be who you are pertaining too?

----------


## Azzurro

It doesn’t seem like its been posted but there is some major news for I1 and might be very relevant to the history of I1. The oldest I1 appears in Mesolithic Scandinavia according to the Y snp calls done by Genetiker in Stora Karlösa, Sweden; dating from 7073-6810 BC in the Mesolithic Scandinavian paper that was released earlier this month. 

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2018...avia/#comments

----------


## mwauthy

> It doesn’t seem like its been posted but there is some major news for I1 and might be very relevant to the history of I1. The oldest I1 appears in Mesolithic Scandinavia according to the Y snp calls done by Genetiker in Stora Karlösa, Sweden; dating from 7073-6810 BC in the Mesolithic Scandinavian paper that was released earlier this month. 
> 
> https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2018...avia/#comments


I’m not sure if I’m reading it right but I1-DF29-Z58-Z59-CTS8747-Z60-Z140-Z141-Y6231-Y7277-Y7278-Y7398 is in bold. Does this mean that this sample dated 7073-6810 BC was positive for all of those I1a snps? Wouldn’t that mean that the TMRCAs of the current I1 phylogenetic tree are way off?

----------


## Azzurro

> I’m not sure if I’m reading it right but I1-DF29-Z58-Z59-CTS8747-Z60-Z140-Z141-Y6231-Y7277-Y7278-Y7398 is in bold. Does this mean that this sample dated 7073-6810 BC was positive for all of those I1a snps? Wouldn’t that mean that the TMRCAs of the current I1 phylogenetic tree are way off?


No it doesn’t mean that the sample is positive for all those snps bolded, its too old for it to be any of current TMRCA of I1 subclades, he’s just simply I1-M253, which is still relevant because the ancestor of all I1 branches has been found.

----------


## mwauthy

> No it doesn’t mean that the sample is positive for all those snps bolded, its too old for it to be any of current TMRCA of I1 subclades, he’s just simply I1-M253, which is still relevant because the ancestor of all I1 branches has been found.


Why was that one line of snps in bold while the other ones weren’t? Also, was this sample positive for all 302 snps associated with I1?

----------


## Azzurro

> Why was that one line of snps in bold while the other ones weren’t? Also, was this sample positive for all 302 snps associated with I1?


For that you would need to ask Genetiker himself, he posts here every once in awhile. My understanding is that sample cannot be that specific clade because he is not positive for the ones above. I don’t think so but the sample was positive for a number of them, the TMRCA of all I1 carriers is 4600 ybp or 2600 BC, this individual is much before that date.

----------


## mwauthy

> For that you would need to ask Genetiker himself, he posts here every once in awhile. My understanding is that sample cannot be that specific clade because he is not positive for the ones above. I don’t think so but the sample was positive for a number of them, the TMRCA of all I1 carriers is 4600 ybp or 2600 BC, this individual is much before that date.


About 5000 years prior to the TMRCA. Perhaps the ancestors of Mr. DF29 were in Scandinavia shortly after the last ice age as opposed to entering with Corded Ware. Who knows!

----------


## Azzurro

> About 5000 years prior to the TMRCA. Perhaps the ancestors of Mr. DF29 were in Scandinavia shortly after the last ice age as opposed to entering with Corded Ware. Who knows!


That is a very plausible scenario! Actually seems to potentially be the case, the sample should be sent to Yfull to see if he’s ancestral to all I1 carriers.

----------


## Hollywood

Correlation does not imply causation but the I1 bottle neck and the Storegga Slide occurred roughly within the same ballpark time frame. Perhaps they were Doggerlandians (Doggerlandites?).

----------

