# Population Genetics > Y-DNA Haplogroups > I1 >  Most I1 in Europe is not from Germans or Nordics

## Fire Haired

i have noticed this websit's page about I1 http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_I1_Y-DNA.shtml assumes all of I1 is from Scandnvaiens or Germans but it seems like that can not be true for many reasons

Y DNA I1 is the only subclade of a haplogroup that is found in every spot in Europe in some areas Germans and Scandnaviens never migrated too or made very small un significant migrations like Macedonia where I1 is 3% and I1 is to popular like in some areas like Serbia at 6.5% where Germans and Scandnvaiens have had very small presence Scandnvaiens never made migrations to serbia or Macidonia but Germans did but the Germanic tribes had about 30-40% Y DNa R1b U106 and only 10-20% I1 then why dont we find R1b U106 with I1 usulley we dont which means they got it from non Germans and most I1 subclades in Europe are not found in Scandnavia

Scandinavians have almost only subclade I1a2 but I1a1 has never been reported in Scandnavia it only exists in Urlaic and Slavic speakers in eastern Europe, Baltics, Poland, Beluras, Switzerland, France,southwest England, and Turkey at about 1% but this website says it is in the confines of Germanic speakers but it is not in the core or source of ancient Germanic culture this means I1a1 is not from Germans or Scandinavians so at least for I1a1 it is from Mesolithic or Paleolithic continental Europeans and is evidence Y DNA I1 did not even orignate in Scandinavia it first started somewhere in Europe 20,000 years ago then migrated to Scandinavia with I1a and I1a2 about 10,000ybp but some I1a and I1b stayed in contential Europe

Y DNA I1a4 is also not found in Scandinavia it is only found in contiental Europe mainly Germany but there is no way it migrated south from Scandinavia to Germany in the last 4,000 years it is actulley pretty popular this is another I1 subclade that did not orignate in Scandnvaia i think there is a assumption that all I1 is German or Scandnvien but since I1 is estimated as 20,000-25,000 years old and humans did not arrive in Scandinavia till just 11,000ybp there has to be some left over in the rest of Europe and it seems there is I1a4 and I1a1 maybe also I1a3 which is almost only found outside of Scandinavia but sometimes in southern Scandinavia which could be because German language migrated from the south and Germanic y DNA R1b U106 and I2a2 are mainly found in southern Scandinavia and the Scandinavian subclade is I1a2 in my opinon not all I1 is German or Scandnvien i get sick of the assumptions and ignorance to ever think some might not be German or Scandinavian since it is so spread out in Europe and some subclades really are not Scandinavians or German that means they are left overs that have been speerated from Scandinavian branchs for over 10,00 years

Y DNA I1a which is found in Scandinavia as I1a2 and in continental Europe as I1a1, I1a3, and I1a4 is defintley over 10,000 years old in Scandnvaia almost 40% have I1a2 in finland they have I1a2c but it is rare in the rest of Scandnvaia so this means that finnish ancestors split from the rest of Scandnvai and formed I1a2c Finnish speak a Urlaic language not Germanic and they have almost no Germanic R1b U106 the real marker for the Germanic langauge is R1b U106 not I1a2 just when the German speakers conquered south Scandinavia 4,000ybp they inter married with native I1a2 so this is stronger evidence Finnish I1a2c has nothing to do with Germans and the first Indo European inter marriage with Finnish came with non Germanic people it was proto Balto Slavic's from Corded Ware culture 6,000-5,000ybo who had no I1a2 and had R1a1a1b so what this means is I1a2c is from before the bronze age aka before 6,000ybp also the Finnish Uralic language is estimated by experts to be 7,000 years old the Urlaic language came from Siberia and it also brought Y DNA N1c1 which is more popular than I1 in Finland the comb cermaic culture in north eastern Europe and northwest asia is belived to be the first Uralic speakers an it took up all of Finland 8,000ybp it also took up Baltic areas but modern Baltic people speak a Balto Indo European language that has been there for 5,000 years but they also have 30-40% N1c1 which is not found in any one else who borders them this means the Comb Ceramic really where Uralic and that Finnish I1a2c has been there for over 8,000 years my guess is I1a2c is 9,000-11,000 years old and that I1a2 is 10,000-15,000 years old and it came with the first Humans to Scandnavia 

but since I1a1, I1a3, I1a4 are there are other subclades besides I1a2 that descend from I1a and these subclades are all almost never found in Scandinavia and since I1a2 ia probably 10,000-15,000 years old that means they split from I1a2 well over 10,000 years ago and before humans ever went to Scandinavia this means they are not from Germanic or other Scandinavian migrations and that most I1 in continental Europe is not from Scandinavians even the I1 in Germany and Scandinavians are really just from one of many subclades of I1a and it is just random it became the dominant group in their ancestors and that Y DNA I1a may have been very popular in Europe before Indo European invasion Y DNA I1 may have been the most popular haplogroup on Europe period before Indo European invasion 6,000-4,000ybp and before Neloithic revolution 6,000-10,000ybp

anotherthing I1b which is the brother of I1a i have already proven I1a ia at least 10,000-15,000 years old then that means it split from its brother at least that long ago but I1b is never found in Scandinavia it is only foud rarely around Belgium and central Germany but people assume that it also came from Germans or Scandinavians without realizing it is never found in Scandinavia and split from Scandinavian I1a2 at least 10,000-15,000ybp there is no way it came from Scandinavia and i think people assume that all I1 in Germany is from Scandinavians well maybe it is that I1a in Scandinavia split from German I1a 12,000ybp and German I1a developed into I1a1, I1a3, and I1a4 and osme I1* in Germany formed into I1b 10,000-20,000ybp and I1 is popular in Germany because that is near the area the first Scandinavians migrated from 12,000ybp because if I1 in Germany came from the recent Germanic Scandinavian migrations in the last 2,500 years you would find Scandinavian I1a2 as the major German I1 which you don't that means there is no way it came from Scandnavia

----------


## pyromatic

It seems like the crux of your argument rests on your datings of I1 and its clades. If you'll refer to my comments on that in the "haplogroup i1a" thread, I'll simply state that most believe a younger age for I1.

Looking at the distribution of its clades, it becomes logical to assume a continental rather than a Scandinavian dispersal for I1; so in that regard I would agree that I1 did not disperse from Scandinavia. Let's ignore the sparsely represented Z131 and focus on the SNPs downstream of DF29. We come first to CTS6364/Z2336 which unites L22 and M227 along with a couple others. CTS6364 appears to have significant representation immediately east of Germany and south of the Baltic. As you pointed out, M227 is found in the south and east Baltic, while its brother clade, L22, is found to the north and west, implying a dispersal of L22 northwest from the continent into Scandinavia, along the way dispersing L205 and P109 before the "deeper" Scandinavian Z74 emerged from which L813 migrated west and CTS2208 headed east into Finland. L300 in this scenario could represent an unrelated migration into Finland, perhaps independent of a main host of L22 marching northwest. We then come to the mostly continental Z58 and its subclades which have a strong Germany/North Sea distrubution with some presence in Scandinavia; notably Z73 which has a Scandinavian distribution.

In this context, one may easily come to the conclusion of a northward migration of M253, perhaps along the major rivers of central Europe, differentiating as it disperses northwest and northeast into the areas that would become host to the Nordic Bronze age, the people of which would coalesce into a Germanic identify and its subsequent cultures.

----------


## Fire Haired

no i completly disagee with I1 spreading with Nordic bronze age the why is finland also I1 and they have I1a2c diffenrt subclade than rest of scandnvai what u said about it comming in nordic bronze age is not true at all Y DNA R1b U1o6, I2a2, and red hair came to scandnvai with teh German langauge German religion and nordic bronze age I1a2 was already completly settled scandnavia by then and Urlic speakers conquered finland all the way back 8,000 years ago and brought N1c1 I1a2c was laready dominte in finland 8,000 years ago this means scandnavien I1a2 is at least opver 10,000 years old ther eis no way it came in bronze age or any other age that started after 10,000 years ago your age estimtes are way way way way way way way way way way way to young the dots just dont connect I1 is pre Neolithic pre any thing that is not dumb cavemen times like Paleolithic and Mesolithic it is a hunter gather haplogroup i dont know exactly how they define the mutations and stuff in Y DNA haplogroups to figure out how big the population was but they do and from what have heard the I1 people in Scandinavia had a small population and where most likely hunter gathers for almost all their hostory

I1a2 in scandnavia is extremly ancient it pre dates teh German languages 4,000ybp and Uralic languages 8,000ybp it most likley comes from the first string human settlments in Scandnavia 10,000-12,000ybp since I1a2 was already spread out in finland and the rest of Scandinavia before uralic language 8,000ybp and that al I1a2 is scandnavien that I1a2 orignated in Scandinavia at least 10,000ybp in my opinion there is no doubt I1a2 is a marker of the first Scandinavians and since I1 is so old we still find I1 left overs in the rest of Europe liek I1a1, I1a3, I1a4, and I1b they split from Scandvien I1a4 over 12,000ybp I1 may have been the the most popular Y DNA haplogroup in europe before 10,000ybp

i think there needs to be tons of study of I1 it is very important to lear about europeans from over 10,000ybp and we need to learn how it spread extacley how old it is i already know it is defintley over 20,000 years old and we need to know where te ancestor of Scandnavien I1a2 is meaning I1a that can tell where teh first human to come to scandnavia came from i am guessing Germany since I1a1, I1a3, and I1a4 are 10-20% in Germany and since most mtDNA in Scandnavia is H1, H3, V, U5b1 all of these are from migrations that came form northern iberia about 15,000ybp experts call it the iberian refuge there is tons of evidence for it i wonder if I1a is in northern spain and southern france i saw one study from 2004 that searched for I* the highest amount was in France at about 5% from over 60 samples in normandy and southern france i think the more we study I1 and I2 the more we will know how people migrted acroos europe over 10,000ybp it seems I1 is much older than I2 and has been spread out in europe for at least 10,000 years and soon we will have y dna from people in Europe from over 10,000ybp maybe even 30,000ybp this will tell alot my best guess for y dna of lets say a person in germany from 15,000ybp is I1 or I1a

----------


## tjlowery87

lol,thats like saying celts are not r1b.lol

----------


## Fire Haired

> lol,thats like saying celts are not r1b.lol


are u commenting on my comment

----------


## tjlowery87

> It seems like the crux of your argument rests on your datings of I1 and its clades. If you'll refer to my comments on that in the "haplogroup i1a" thread, I'll simply state that most believe a younger age for I1.
> 
> Looking at the distribution of its clades, it becomes logical to assume a continental rather than a Scandinavian dispersal for I1; so in that regard I would agree that I1 did not disperse from Scandinavia. Let's ignore the sparsely represented Z131 and focus on the SNPs downstream of DF29. We come first to CTS6364/Z2336 which unites L22 and M227 along with a couple others. CTS6364 appears to have significant representation immediately east of Germany and south of the Baltic. As you pointed out, M227 is found in the south and east Baltic, while its brother clade, L22, is found to the north and west, implying a dispersal of L22 northwest from the continent into Scandinavia, along the way dispersing L205 and P109 before the "deeper" Scandinavian Z74 emerged from which L813 migrated west and CTS2208 headed east into Finland. L300 in this scenario could represent an unrelated migration into Finland, perhaps independent of a main host of L22 marching northwest. We then come to the mostly continental Z58 and its subclades which have a strong Germany/North Sea distrubution with some presence in Scandinavia; notably Z73 which has a Scandinavian distribution.
> 
> In this context, one may easily come to the conclusion of a northward migration of M253, perhaps along the major rivers of central Europe, differentiating as it disperses northwest and northeast into the areas that would become host to the Nordic Bronze age, the people of which would coalesce into a Germanic identify and its subsequent cultures.


I agree with this,not hairy firey

----------


## tjlowery87

> no i completly disagee with I1 spreading with Nordic bronze age the why is finland also I1 and they have I1a2c diffenrt subclade than rest of scandnvai what u said about it comming in nordic bronze age is not true at all Y DNA R1b U1o6, I2a2, and red hair came to scandnvai with teh German langauge German religion and nordic bronze age I1a2 was already completly settled scandnavia by then and Urlic speakers conquered finland all the way back 8,000 years ago and brought N1c1 I1a2c was laready dominte in finland 8,000 years ago this means scandnavien I1a2 is at least opver 10,000 years old ther eis no way it came in bronze age or any other age that started after 10,000 years ago your age estimtes are way way way way way way way way way way way to young the dots just dont connect I1 is pre Neolithic pre any thing that is not dumb cavemen times like Paleolithic and Mesolithic it is a hunter gather haplogroup i dont know exactly how they define the mutations and stuff in Y DNA haplogroups to figure out how big the population was but they do and from what have heard the I1 people in Scandinavia had a small population and where most likely hunter gathers for almost all their hostory
> 
> I1a2 in scandnavia is extremly ancient it pre dates teh German languages 4,000ybp and Uralic languages 8,000ybp it most likley comes from the first string human settlments in Scandnavia 10,000-12,000ybp since I1a2 was already spread out in finland and the rest of Scandinavia before uralic language 8,000ybp and that al I1a2 is scandnavien that I1a2 orignated in Scandinavia at least 10,000ybp in my opinion there is no doubt I1a2 is a marker of the first Scandinavians and since I1 is so old we still find I1 left overs in the rest of Europe liek I1a1, I1a3, I1a4, and I1b they split from Scandvien I1a4 over 12,000ybp I1 may have been the the most popular Y DNA haplogroup in europe before 10,000ybp
> 
> i think there needs to be tons of study of I1 it is very important to lear about europeans from over 10,000ybp and we need to learn how it spread extacley how old it is i already know it is defintley over 20,000 years old and we need to know where te ancestor of Scandnavien I1a2 is meaning I1a that can tell where teh first human to come to scandnavia came from i am guessing Germany since I1a1, I1a3, and I1a4 are 10-20% in Germany and since most mtDNA in Scandnavia is H1, H3, V, U5b1 all of these are from migrations that came form northern iberia about 15,000ybp experts call it the iberian refuge there is tons of evidence for it i wonder if I1a is in northern spain and southern france i saw one study from 2004 that searched for I* the highest amount was in France at about 5% from over 60 samples in normandy and southern france i think the more we study I1 and I2 the more we will know how people migrted acroos europe over 10,000ybp it seems I1 is much older than I2 and has been spread out in europe for at least 10,000 years and soon we will have y dna from people in Europe from over 10,000ybp maybe even 30,000ybp this will tell alot my best guess for y dna of lets say a person in germany from 15,000ybp is I1 or I1a


your using studies from 2004,you need to upgrade FELLA

----------


## Fire Haired

> your using studies from 2004,you need to upgrade FELLA


i dont know what part of what i was saying u where mentioning. It is a fact that Scandnvaiens have almost only subclade I1a2 While the rest of Europe has I1a1, I1a3, I1a4, and I1b and since the Germanic tribes migrtaed out of Denmark just 2,500ybp there is no way the I1 in Europe comes from Germans and it is way to spread out.

----------


## sparkey

I haven't had a lot of time to respond to posts like this from Fire Haired, but this is one of his I have the most to contest with, so here goes.




> Y DNA I1 is the only subclade of a haplogroup that is found in every spot in Europe


It's not really found in "every spot" in Europe. It is effectively absent from Sardinia. Also, it is not the "only" subclade that is so omnipresent... R1b comes to mind. It drops to low levels in places like Bosnia, but not lower than I1 is in Sardinia.




> in some areas Germans and Scandnaviens never migrated too or made very small un significant migrations like Macedonia where I1 is 3% and I1 is to popular like in some areas like Serbia at 6.5% where Germans and Scandnvaiens have had very small presence


You seem to be leaving out the East Germanic peoples, which included the Ostrogoths, whose own kingdom included part of modern-day Serbia! As for Macedonia, it's important to understand the history of the modern-day Republic of Macedonia and how it was controlled by Serbia or part of the same political unit as Serbia for much of the time after the fall of the Ostrogothic Kingdom. Plenty of time for internal gene flow within those political units to bring I1 into Macedonia.




> Scandnvaiens never made migrations to serbia or Macidonia but Germans did but the Germanic tribes had about 30-40% Y DNa R1b U106 and only 10-20% I1 then why dont we find R1b U106 with I1 usulley we dont which means they got it from non Germans and most I1 subclades in Europe are not found in Scandnavia


Not Germans (a West Germanic people with significant Celtic input in some regions), but East Germanic peoples. You're getting at an interesting pattern that I've noticed before, though... higher apparent I1 and R1a contributions than R1b-U106 contribution in places thought to have been settled by East Germanic peoples. More than anything, that seems to suggest that the percentages you provide there are wrong with respect to East Germanic peoples. Unfortunately, we don't have any modern East Germanic peoples left to compare percentages against.




> Scandinavians have almost only subclade I1a2 but I1a1 has never been reported in Scandnavia it only exists in Urlaic and Slavic speakers in eastern Europe, Baltics, Poland, Beluras, Switzerland, France,southwest England, and Turkey at about 1% but this website says it is in the confines of Germanic speakers but it is not in the core or source of ancient Germanic culture this means I1a1 is not from Germans or Scandinavians so at least for I1a1 it is from Mesolithic or Paleolithic continental Europeans and is evidence Y DNA I1 did not even orignate in Scandinavia it first started somewhere in Europe 20,000 years ago then migrated to Scandinavia with I1a and I1a2 about 10,000ybp but some I1a and I1b stayed in contential Europe


What nomenclature are you using here? I can't follow your logic at all with ISOGG nomenclature. That goes for most of your original post. Could you use terminal SNP nomenclature instead so that I can have some idea what you're getting at?




> but since I1 is estimated as 20,000-25,000 years old and humans did not arrive in Scandinavia till just 11,000ybp there has to be some left over in the rest of Europe


You're using the approximate clade age of I1 to estimate when it arrived places, but that's the wrong figure to use. Clade age only tells you when I1 split from I2... it doesn't tell you anything about how I1 got to where it is today. Instead use TMRCA estimations, which will tell you the time to the most recent common ancestor of I1 and its subclades.

----------


## Fire Haired

Can u leaders of Eupedia like Lebrok and U stop treating me like i am some type of ignorant idiot. I know alot about this stuff it does not matter if i am not a adult or have bad grammer. I am not trying to insult u i respect how much u know about genetics but i also want u to respect me. Actualley listen to my ideas even though i have such long and grammatically bad threads. I know i come to quick conclusions and i try to stop that I apologize for my bad grammer i am trying to improve and will be more open to other people's opinon.




> It's not really found in "every spot" in Europe. It is effectively absent from Sardinia. Also, it is not the "only" subclade that is so omnipresent... R1b comes to mind. It drops to low levels in places like Bosnia, but not lower than I1 is in Sardinia.


here is a map of I1 


I know there are some areas it does not exist u are correct. I1 though is to spread out for it all to be from Germanic tribes. I dont think the 6.5% I1 in serbia is from Germans. The Germanic tribes in the migration period would have had mainly R1b S21 not I1. I think what proves it is England has 30-40% R1b s21 like GErmans the reason is teh anglo saxons alot of I1 in England comes from Vikings not Anglo Saxons. If I1 in Serbia is from Germans where is the R1b S21 if all I1 in Europe is form GErmans and I1 is in almost all of Europe why isnt R1b S21 in almost every area of Europe it should be over 10% in Serbia. I really dont think We can keep saying all I1 is GErman that thread that guy from Albania made where he said he has teh orignal form of I1* is more evidence I1 is very old and very spread out in Europe because of that.

I1 is 4% of Crete but there is no German R1b S21 and in the migration period Germans never migrated to Crete so where did it come from.




> You seem to be leaving out the East Germanic peoples, which included the Ostrogoths, whose own kingdom included part of modern-day Serbia! As for Macedonia, it's important to understand the history of the modern-day Republic of Macedonia and how it was controlled by Serbia or part of the same political unit as Serbia for much of the time after the fall of the Ostrogothic Kingdom. Plenty of time for internal gene flow within those political units to bring I1 into Macedonia


Like i said before where is the R1b S21 which was much more popular in the east Germans too. Even in Denmark R1b S21 is 30-40% lets say the east Germans where 100% form Denmark u would still see R1b S21 with I1. Please give me an answer for that i think it pretty much proves what u where saying wrong. Why is there so much I1 though if the Germans had a kingdom there for and then Serbia ruled Macodnia why is there so much I1 but o R!b S21. why is I1 4% in Crete but there has been NO GERMAN INFLUNCE




> What nomenclature are you using here? I can't follow your logic at all with ISOGG nomenclature. That goes for most of your original post. Could you use terminal SNP nomenclature instead so that I can have some idea what you're getting at?


I am getting this info from Wikpedia page in I1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I-M253. and Eupedia page on I1 http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_I1_Y-DNA.shtml

The I1a2 subclade is the dominate one in Scandinavia it takes up almost all I1 but it is very rare in Germany ad the rest of Europe. The I1 of teh rest of Europe is I1a1, I1a3, I1a4, and I1b so i concluded there is no way this came from migrations out of Denmark just 2,500-2,000ybp. I think u and maciamo need to investigate I1 more and not just assume it is all German or Nordic. the I1 in Germany was there before Germanic tribes ever migrated out of Denmark. 

Also I1 is much older than the German langauge. The I1a2c in Finland and Sami the German language and culture never took root there. They speak a Urlaic langauge which came with Kunda Cultue and Y DNA N1c1 7,000-8,000 years agohttp://www.eupedia.com/europe/neolit...rope_map.shtml later Uralics spread to northern Swedan and NOrway where Sami live.

The reason i agree with Maciamo that N1c1 and the Urlaic language and Kunda Culture came 7,000-8,000ybp is because the way N1c1 is distrubted in Europe.



Why is N1c1 so popular in the Baltic where they speak a Balto Indo European langauge. Indo European Y DNA R1a1a1b Corded ware culture conquered baltic area 5,000 years ago, but u still see a remain of the old Urlaic Y DNA. N1c1 is Mongoloid not Caucasian we have mtDNA from a area of Russia a few miles away from Finalnd and in the Uralic area from 7,500ybp three had Mongloid C1( from Uralics) 8 had Caucasin U2e, U5a, H, and U4. Caucasians where in Finland long before Mongoloid N1c1. Then Finnish must be mainly descended from the native Caucasians who lived there over 8,000ybp. Well what is the native Caucasian Y DNA haplogroup the only possibly answer is I1a2c. This means I1a2c is over 8,000 years old. and its common ancestor with other Scandinavian I1a2 is probably from over 10,000ybp and that modern Scandinavians are from the first settlers who came over 10,000ybp. And if lets say in the most strange and weird situation Caucasians conquered Mongoloids in that area 6,000ybp. Then they could not speak a Uralc langauge because the Caucasians would have nearly killed off all the Mongoloid and we have skulls of the earliest Scandinavians all where Caucasian not Mongoloid.

also Finnish and sami are the closest relatives to la brana hunter gather from 7,000ybp and 5,000 year old hunter gathers in swedan. the farmers spread a type of aust, dna most tests call Mediterranean Finnish and sami have less than 10% in the globe13 test while swedish have 26% if any one from swedan conquered uralic Finnish 6,000ybp or later Finnish would have more Mediterranean.

Finnish and sami are the last true Paleolithic Europeans They have been genetically sepertaed from other Europeans for over 10,000 years probably since the very very late Paleolithic age.

Since Scandinavian I1a2 has been there for over 10,000 years. and the rest of Europe like Serbians have mainly I1a1, I1a3, I1a4, and I1b. Well then they did not get it from Scandinavians in the last 10,000 years. These are I1 left overs that did not go into Scandinavia. I1 probably originated in southern Europe during the last ice age 26,600-19,000 years ago. I think it is about 25,000 years old and it probably originated in Iberia or France.

i know u disagree with me please give an arguement of how I1a2 could have spread to Finland in the last 8,000 years and become so popular. Show me how I1a1, I1a3, I1a4, and I1b come form Scandinavians in the last 2,500 years.

----------


## tjlowery87

great post sparkey

----------


## sparkey

> Can u leaders of Eupedia like Lebrok and U stop treating me like i am some type of ignorant idiot. I know alot about this stuff it does not matter if i am not a adult or have bad grammer. I am not trying to insult u i respect how much u know about genetics but i also want u to respect me. Actualley listen to my ideas even though i have such long and grammatically bad threads. I know i come to quick conclusions and i try to stop that I apologize for my bad grammer i am trying to improve and will be more open to other people's opinon.


Touchy touchy. I didn't mention your grammar or age, I only responded to your ideas I disagreed with.




> I know there are some areas it does not exist u are correct. I1 though is to spread out for it all to be from Germanic tribes. I dont think the 6.5% I1 in serbia is from Germans. The Germanic tribes in the migration period would have had mainly R1b S21 not I1. I think what proves it is England has 30-40% R1b s21 like GErmans the reason is teh anglo saxons alot of I1 in England comes from Vikings not Anglo Saxons. If I1 in Serbia is from Germans where is the R1b S21 if all I1 in Europe is form GErmans and I1 is in almost all of Europe why isnt R1b S21 in almost every area of Europe it should be over 10% in Serbia. I really dont think We can keep saying all I1 is GErman that thread that guy from Albania made where he said he has teh orignal form of I1* is more evidence I1 is very old and very spread out in Europe because of that.


As I said before, I _don't_ think I1 in Serbia is primarily from _Germans_ (a _West_ Germanic people) but from _East_ Germanic people like the Goths. It seems clear that much of the R1b-U106 in England came from Anglo-Saxons, but Anglo-Saxons were effectively Germans, i.e. West Germanic. We know that there are differences in haplogroup distributions between West and North Germanic peoples nowadays, so why not assume that the East Germanic people had a different haplogroup distribution as well? It doesn't make sense to assume that they had the high R1b-U106 levels like the West Germanic peoples, especially considering what we know about R1b-U106. R1b-U106's diversity patterns aren't quite as far east as I1's (IIRC), and certainly R1b-U106's close cousin clade P312 has its highest diversity to the west, probably in France. So unless an ancient study or something proves otherwise, it seems like a good assumption to me that East Germanic peoples had higher I1 than R1b-U106 (and probably also high R1a FWIW).




> I1 is 4% of Crete but there is no German R1b S21 and in the migration period Germans never migrated to Crete so where did it come from.


There was a minor Gothic invasion of Crete, although I doubt most I1 in Crete is from that. Presumably there was also internal migration within the Ottoman Empire, similar to R. of Macedonia. Also, with a small population like Crete, you're likely to get founder effects all over the place. Besides, I know that Maciamo gives 4% from the studies he's seen, but we're getting to noise levels when we get below 5%... I don't know if continued studies on Crete will give 4% every time.




> I am getting this info from Wikpedia page in I1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I-M253. and Eupedia page on I1 http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_I1_Y-DNA.shtml


Thanks. Could we use terminal SNP nomenclature instead and refer to the Nordtvedt trees? It gives a fuller picture of the subclade relationships and outliers than the January 2013 SNP tree does.




> The I1a2 subclade is the dominate one in Scandinavia it takes up almost all I1 but it is very rare in Germany ad the rest of Europe. The I1 of teh rest of Europe is I1a1, I1a3, I1a4, and I1b so i concluded there is no way this came from migrations out of Denmark just 2,500-2,000ybp. I think u and maciamo need to investigate I1 more and not just assume it is all German or Nordic. the I1 in Germany was there before Germanic tribes ever migrated out of Denmark.


Although I agree that I1-L22 is the best marker to track Scandinavian migration, and that most British and Continental I1 has a Continental origin rather than a Scandinavian one, I think you're exaggerating a couple of things. I1-L22 concentration in Scandinavia is more like a narrow majority than a genuinely dominant one (see the distribution of subclades among Scandinavian samples at the I1 Project). And I1-L22 isn't so absent from the Continent or Britain... see Semargl.me.

Of course, this is all somewhat besides the point, since I have no doubt that North Germanic peoples have basically always had the highest concentration of I1-L22, and I don't believe that it is North Germanic peoples who mainly spread I1 to Southeastern Europe.




> Also I1 is much older than the German langauge. The I1a2c in Finland and Sami the German language and culture never took root there.


I1-L22>L287 "Bothnian" is not really so concentrated among the Saami, it's much higher among western Finns with the greatest traditional links to Sweden. I know that doesn't explain its current frequencies... the only way I can explain those are through a founder effect, which makes sense considering the very young age and downstream nature of the clade. It's certainly not a diverse or upstream enough clade to use to make any points about the origin of I1, or the distribution of I1 in the rest of Europe.




> Since Scandinavian I1a2 has been there for over 10,000 years. and the rest of Europe like Serbians have mainly I1a1, I1a3, I1a4, and I1b. Well then they did not get it from Scandinavians in the last 10,000 years. These are I1 left overs that did not go into Scandinavia. I1 probably originated in southern Europe during the last ice age 26,600-19,000 years ago. I think it is about 25,000 years old and it probably originated in Iberia or France.


I disagree with your guess of when I1-L22 got to Scandinavia (I guess younger), but I don't think you need that point to reach your others. I agree that most I1 in Europe outside of Scandinavia has a Continental origin... you can tell be traversing the I1 tree. Similarly, I also think that I1 originated in Southern Europe. Its relationship with I2 indicates this. But none of this leads to the conclusion that the distribution of I1 is not principally the result of Germanic migrations, or that it is not relatively young.




> i know u disagree with me please give an arguement of how I1a2 could have spread to Finland in the last 8,000 years and become so popular.


I think it must have spread much more recently than 8000 YBP because it's not diverse at all... the Nordtvedt method gives less than 2000 years old for the main Finnish clade, not to mention that it spreads out into Sweden. But even if I'm wrong about that, the current distribution must have been a founder effect, because it is so far downstream in the SNP tree.




> Show me how I1a1, I1a3, I1a4, and I1b come form Scandinavians in the last 2,500 years.


I don't think this.

----------


## Fire Haired

> Touchy touchy. I didn't mention your grammar or age, I only responded to your ideas I disagreed with.


sorry over reaction!






> As I said before, I _don't_ think I1 in Serbia is primarily from _Germans_ (a _West_ Germanic people) but from _East_ Germanic people like the Goths. It seems clear that much of the R1b-U106 in England came from Anglo-Saxons, but Anglo-Saxons were effectively Germans, i.e. West Germanic. We know that there are differences in haplogroup distributions between West and North Germanic peoples nowadays, so why not assume that the East Germanic people had a different haplogroup distribution as well? It doesn't make sense to assume that they had the high R1b-U106 levels like the West Germanic peoples, especially considering what we know about R1b-U106. R1b-U106's diversity patterns aren't quite as far east as I1's (IIRC), and certainly R1b-U106's close cousin clade P312 has its highest diversity to the west, probably in France. So unless an ancient study or something proves otherwise, it seems like a good assumption to me that East Germanic peoples had higher I1 than R1b-U106 (and probably also high R1a FWIW).


The Goths according to almost all historians began in the Germanic langauge migrated out of Denmark just 2,500ybp in denmark today R1b S21 is 30-40%. Everywhere the German langauge is spoken today R1b s21 reaches about 30-40%. If east germans did not come from denmark they came from somehwere in germany they would have had over 30% r1b s21. so my argument still stands they would have had over 30% R1b s21 and at the most 40% I1a2 but that is not the type of I1 in eastern europe they have I1a1, I1a3, and I1a4 so if teh goths had that type of I1 then they came from central Europe (probably around Germany). and they would have even less I1 around 20% at the very most so they would have had more or just about as much r1b s21 and for some reason R1b s21 is not distributed the same way as I1a1, I1a3, and I1a4.

look at this R1b s21 matches areas of teh German langauge and even exists in where the east GErmanics lived 2,000ybp(modern poland)


the German langauge was started by R1b s21 not I1 or I2a2.




> There was a minor Gothic invasion of Crete, although I doubt most I1 in Crete is from that. Presumably there was also internal migration within the Ottoman Empire, similar to R. of Macedonia. Also, with a small population like Crete, you're likely to get founder effects all over the place. Besides, I know that Maciamo gives 4% from the studies he's seen, but we're getting to noise levels when we get below 5%... I don't know if continued studies on Crete will give 4% every time.


i am shocked the Germans migrated everywhere and then the Vikings the Germans dominted Europe after Rome it seems all they did was fight, raid, have kids, and migrate. there is about 1% I1a1, I1a3, and I1a4 in northern Antolia i doubt that is where they got it from. since there is no R1b s21 in that area of Europe i doubt it is from Germans period. I1 does exist in crete though i know it is probably not 4% but we cant ignore it. also r1b s21 actulley is pretty spread out it reaches all the way to Bulgaria that in my opinion shows it comes from those German migraters but I1 is still more popular and is found in areas R1b s21 is not but i am changing my opinon alot of I1 maybe most is from Germanic migrations but those Germans did not get the I1 from Scandinavians.



Thanks. Could we use terminal SNP nomenclature instead and refer to the Nordtvedt trees? It gives a fuller picture of the subclade relationships and outliers than the January 2013 SNP tree does.






> Although I agree that I1-L22 is the best marker to track Scandinavian migration, and that most British and Continental I1 has a Continental origin rather than a Scandinavian one, I think you're exaggerating a couple of things. I1-L22 concentration in Scandinavia is more like a narrow majority than a genuinely dominant one (see the distribution of subclades among Scandinavian samples at the I1 Project). And I1-L22 isn't so absent from the Continent or Britain... see Semargl.me.
> 
> Of course, this is all somewhat besides the point, since I have no doubt that North Germanic peoples have basically always had the highest concentration of I1-L22, and I don't believe that it is North Germanic peoples who mainly spread I1 to Southeastern Europe.
> 
> 
> 
> I1-L22>L287 "Bothnian" is not really so concentrated among the Saami, it's much higher among western Finns with the greatest traditional links to Sweden. I know that doesn't explain its current frequencies... the only way I can explain those are through a founder effect, which makes sense considering the very young age and downstream nature of the clade. It's certainly not a diverse or upstream enough clade to use to make any points about the origin of I1, or the distribution of I1 in the rest of Europe.


i am not talking about I1a2c1 aka I -L22>L287 i am talking about its father I1a2c. Which is almost only in Finland according to Maciamo's I1 page. i dont think u are considering N1c1 which came with Siberian Mongloid Uralic invasion 8,000ybp it is centered in eastern and central Finland that is probably why I1a2c1 is more popular in western Finland. since we have skull shapes of the first scandnaviens from over 10,000ybp they where Caucasin and the first settlments where in south Scandinavia meaning they came from Europe not east scandnvai. the 8,000 year old Kunda N1a1 Uralic culture people where not the first Scandinavians they conquered the native Caucasins. WHO WHER THOSE NATIVE CAUCASINS the people in FInalnd today are european white Caucasians( i dont know how to define it) it would be the best guess that they are mainly from the native CAucasins who first arrived over 10,000ybp. what was teh NATIVE *CAUCASIN* _Y DNA HAPLOGROUP_ probably I1a2c because what other Caucasin Y DNA haplogroups exist in finland. i guess R1a1a1b(R1 was orignalley Mongloid) but that came with Corded ware indo european culture there is some R1a was in mesloithic and paloithic western Europe i dont know about northern Europe. we know that Y DNA I has been in eruope for at least 30,000 years maybe orignated in Europe and that the europeans migrated to Scandinaviaa 10,000-15,000ybp their y dna was most likely sometype of hg I.

I1a2c is so popular in finalnd 30-40% if ur sayiny I1 is only about 7,000years old that means N1c1c has been in finalnd longer. then why is I1a2c so popular if I1a2c came to finland in lets say the bornze age from swedan 5,000ybp then tehyw ould have conquered the URalics. because when people groups conquer each othe rlike R1b indoe uropean conquered western europe the invading Y dna kind off replaces the native y dna. then it seems I1a2 conquered N1c1 then finnish would not be uralic

Also finnish and sami are the closest modern relatives to 7,000ybp Mesloithic hunter gather from north spain, and two 5,000 year old mesloithic hunter gathers from south swedan. http://fennoscandia.blogspot.com/201...saamis-ii.html

here is a map of the north european componet in la brana 7,000 year old hunter gather from north spain that is in modern west asians, europeans, and north africans. 


what this shows is smai and Finnish only still have high amounts of that north european component. what i am trying to say is sami and Finnish genetically where not affected by the Neolithic farmers like the rest of europe was. THEY ARE THE LAST MESOLITHIC AND PALEOLITHIC EUROPEANS. that stuff sami nationalist said about them being closest relatives to cro magnon man is true. since they have such little ancestry from Neolithic farmers there could not have been a major migration from swedan in the last 6,000 years that brought I1a2c. this also means sami and Finnish descend from a Paleolithic or Mesolithic group of Europeans that where genetically isolated for at least 6,000 years. to me this seems that they really are from the first Scandinavians who came 10,00-15,000ybp well the rest of Scandinavians do too but they have a Neolithic part of their ancestry too sami and Finnish dont.

to me it is very clear I1 is way older than 7,000 years old I1 is not from Indo Euoprean migrations 6,000ybp , Neloithic migrations 10,000-6,000ybp or Urlaic migrations 8,000ybp.

not everything a age tester says is true they are not perfect and in this situation their age estimte cant not be true the way I1 is disturbed the history of I1 everything leads to a much older age. what culture spread I1a2 in scandnavia 5,000ybp what culture existed in Finland and swedan there is no archaeology evidence for this.






> I disagree with your guess of when I1-L22 got to Scandinavia (I guess younger), but I don't think you need that point to reach your others. I agree that most I1 in Europe outside of Scandinavia has a Continental origin... you can tell be traversing the I1 tree. Similarly, I also think that I1 originated in Southern Europe. Its relationship with I2 indicates this. But none of this leads to the conclusion that the distribution of I1 is not principally the result of Germanic migrations, or that it is not relatively young.


i think everything leads to the conclusion not most put alot is not from german migrations. because like i have said many times where is the R1b s21 in serbia or crete. also everything points to a much older age of I1 i saw people estimating 5,000 years old are u freaking kidding me that is way to young. ur talking bronze age there is no archieloical evidence of a culture that existed in swedan and finland 5,000ybp. finnish culturalley and lingustiaclley have been seprated from other Scandinavians for 8,000 years but they still have I1a2. and the native Finnish before urlaic 8,000ybp where Caucasian 8,000 where is that native Caucasian y dna haplogroup. why is I1a2c so popular in finland 30-40% if it came from a migration just 5,000-4,000ybp where is the archaeology evidence of a major migration or invasion of Finalnd. if there was a major invasion they would not be speaking a urlaic language today the uralics would have been conquered because I1a2c is so popular. so if I1 is only 5,000 years old why is there so many subclades that woul dhave spread from 3,000-5,000 years ago they would have been the same culture where is the archaeology of a culture in Finland, Germany, norway, and swedan. to me I1 has to be at least 15,000 years old. it is obviously pre Neolithic Pre Indo European(bronze age), and pre Uralic.

maybe why I1 gets such young ages is because the people that had it lived in icy cold europe 20,000-15,000ybp and where hunter gathers that lived in small families so it wont have alot of diversty unlike R1a in India. and I1a that i think went to Scandinavia 10,000-15,000ybp they lived in icy cold Scandinavia and where also hunter gathers in small families. also Scandinavians(except more southern scandnaviens) stayed as mainly hunter gathers till just 4,000ybp.






> I think it must have spread much more recently than 8000 YBP because it's not diverse at all... the Nordtvedt method gives less than 2000 years old for the main Finnish clade, not to mention that it spreads out into Sweden. But even if I'm wrong about that, the current distribution must have been a founder effect, because it is so far downstream in the SNP tree.


i dont trust age estimtes they are not always accurate i have noticed estimates for haplogroup are uselly way to recent i think humans left Africa well over 100,000 years ago. the age estimate for mtdna H is 20,000-25,000 years old in the middle east. well then why are their two H17 samples in europen russia from 25,000ybp and a 28,000 year old H sample in southern italy. i think H is 40,000-50,000 years old and its ancestors are older than age estimates too. maciamo also thinks that H is over 35,000 years old and age estimates are oftenley to young. i am trying to say age estimtes are not fact maybe I1a2c1 is 2,000 years old but I1a2c was already in finland maybe not 8,000 years ago but I1a2 was probably.

----------


## pyromatic

If you put no faith in the age-calculations based on SNPs or STRs, how exactly are you producing these age estimates? It seems you're simply making them up.

----------


## Fire Haired

> If you put no faith in the age-calculations based on SNPs or STRs, how exactly are you producing these age estimates? It seems you're simply making them up.


i look at age estimates and other ways to figure out how old a haplogroup is. I did not make these up i put alot of dots together from history, archaeology, and other types of DNA and that is how i got those ages.

----------


## nordicwarrior

1. You have a doggedly one-track mind which is an excellent attribute for this field of study.

2. F.H., your youth shouldn't be a limiting factor in these threads. But, if you want to sit at the adult dinner table, it's important that you don't pick your nose and play with your food. Using little to no punctuation-- and frankly pretty horrible spelling on a written forum such as Eupedia is bad manners. It shows a lack of concern for your reader. 

3. I too have issues with the clade ages of I1 (please see my previous posts on the subject). 

4. I'm in agreement that I1 was located all over the continent (and Scandinavia)... check out my "hide out theory" were I've incorporated these population flows into my model. 

5. Buy a used copy of Strunk and White to help with your writing.

----------


## nordicwarrior

What's up with the site? I lectured junior on spelling and grammar, yet I can't edit my previous post to correct my mistakes--how did I get locked out of the edit function?

----------


## hope

> What's up with the site? I lectured junior on spelling and grammar, yet I can't edit my previous post to correct my mistakes--how did I get locked out of the edit function?




 :Laughing:  NQ ..I have a list of things I find "ironic", your post may well be added to it!

----------


## inver2b1

> *i look at age estimates and other ways to figure out how old a haplogroup is*. I did not make these up i put alot of dots together from history, archaeology, and other types of DNA and that is how i got those ages.


Magic 8 ball?

----------


## Knovas

> *I did not make these up*

----------


## Fire Haired

I made the estimates myself that does not mean i randomly gave a date. I put together clues from history, archaeology, and other types of DNA. I use SNP's and STR age estimates as one of the things i use to figure out the age of haplogroups. 

Age estimates have been proven to be to recent before. I dont know if they estimate mtdna hg's age differently from y dna hg but age estimates for mtdna H are 20,000-25,000ybp and 25,000-30,000ybp it would have originated in the middle east probably south caucus. Then why are there two 25,000ybp H17 samples in European Russia and one 28,000 year old H sample from far southern Italy.

It was already in southern Italy 28,000ybp who knows when it first got there plus it had a subclade in European Russia 25,000ybp. H probably arrived in Europe 33,000-36,000ybp and began in the mid east 35,000-50,000ybp. That is almost twice the age they estimated so who knows how old y dna I1 is.

----------


## hope

> I made the estimates myself that does not mean i randomly gave a date. I put together clues from history, archaeology, and other types of DNA. I use SNP's and STR age estimates as one of the things i use to figure out the age of haplogroups.




FH..this type of thing is out of my field, so I cannot say how accurate or inaccurate your points are...but I will say your enthusiasm is to be admired.
Keep your posts tidy so they are easy to read and your points not lost. Listen when the more experienced members try to point you in the right direction. Sparkey has already replied in an attempt to share his opinions..so you are being read.  :Smile:

----------


## pyromatic

We're all eagerly awaiting your I1-CTS2208 remains dated to 8000 years ago. Actually, I'd take any ancient remains found to belong to I1 or pre-I1.

----------


## ElHorsto

> what this shows is smai and Finnish only still have high amounts of that north european component. what i am trying to say is sami and Finnish genetically where not affected by the Neolithic farmers like the rest of europe was.


Thats true, but they also were less affected by indo-europeans, who themselves were probably mostly paleolithic europeans, although from a different refuge probably and/or admixed with west_asian and maybe others. The map resembles the Saami component from Dodecad K3 (EDIT: not Dodecad but Structure by V. Verenich), which was the first run that has split the North_euro component into two components. I don't think the Saami component is the only paleolithic component, otherwise the separation of Lithuanians/Latvians and Finns/Estonians is hard to explain because they are actually very similar (cluster commonly in most runs, low Fst distance).

----------


## Fire Haired

> We're all eagerly awaiting your I1-CTS2208 remains dated to 8000 years ago. Actually, I'd take any ancient remains found to belong to I1 or pre-I1.


 The Rise project excepts to have 100-150 Y DNA, mtDNA(complete mitchondiral genome), and austomnal DNA from 5,000-4,000 year old human remains in south Scandinavia and central Europe. I predict mainly R1a1a1b for Polish remains because they are from from Indo European cultures like corded ware where R1a1a has already been found in their remains. I also predict some I2a1b a little G2a, and possibly some I1a1, I1a3, I1a4

For Germany probably alot of R1b L11 because that is where proto Germanic Italo Celts where 5,000ybp and 4,600 year old R1b samples have been found there already. I also predict German remains will also have alot of I2a2, I1a1, I1a3, and I1a4 also some G2a. There will probably be almost only I1a2 for Scandinavian samples unless the remains are foreigners.

They also except to get a full genome from a 7,000 year old hunter gather in Denmark. If they get the Y DNA haplogroup that will be huge because it will probably be I1a2 and prove it is much older than 4,000ybp. Also that I1a( quickly developed into I1a2) people where the first to settle Scandinavia 10,000-15,000ybp and modern Scandinavians are their descendants.

here is a link to where i got my info http://polishgenes.blogspot.com/2013...ndinavian.html

----------


## Fire Haired

> Thats true, but they also were less affected by indo-europeans, who themselves were probably mostly paleolithic europeans, although from a different refuge probably and/or admixed with west_asian and maybe others. The map resembles the Saami component from Dodecad K3, which was the first run that has split the North_euro component into two components. I don't think the Saami component is the only paleolithic component, otherwise the separation of Lithuanians/Latvians and Finns/Estonians is hard to explain because they are actually very similar (cluster commonly in most runs, low Fst distance).


i am sorry but i do not know that much about aust. DNA. i just found this map on the internet. I knew it meant Sami and Finnish are closest modern relatives to La Brana (7,000 year old hunter gather north Spain). I had no idea it was from the Dodecad K3 or that they had two serrate north euro components in K3 and that Sami have their own version which is what La brana( 7,000 year old hunter gather north Spain) had. At least it seems that is what u are saying. 

So are u saying there are diff types of north euro in some types of Aust. DNA tests. Thanks for giving me information on where that map came from and what it is really showing.

----------


## ElHorsto

> i am sorry but i do not know that much about aust. DNA. i just found this map on the internet. I knew it meant Sami and Finnish are closest modern relatives to La Brana (7,000 year old hunter gather north Spain). I had no idea it was from the Dodecad K3 or that they had two serrate north euro components in K3 and that Sami have their own version which is what La brana( 7,000 year old hunter gather north Spain) had. At least it seems that is what u are saying. 
> 
> So are u saying there are diff types of north euro in some types of Aust. DNA tests. Thanks for giving me information on where that map came from and what it is really showing.


Well, I was just remembering this old thread: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...ht=super+saami
(scroll further down for the figure)

I have to correct myself: it was not DODECAD, but STRUCTURE v3, and that's not exactly the origin of that map, it just resembles the results, however. I don't remember where I have seen it first, will tell you if I remember.

regarding STRUCTURE v3:
The blue bars in the graph likely correspond to IEans, the red ones clearly correspond to Ajv52 Ajv70 samples from Gotland. It is ironic that at such a low resolution a split of the north_europ component happened, whereas higher order runs didn't, however. 
Note how not Finns but rather Mordvins (Mr) (or Mari?) and Udmurts appear close to these neolithic swedsh hunter-gatherers. Finns have gotten more of the IEan component in this run, which is not too surprising because Finns have big local variations and a history of constant and slow population influx from the south into a different founder population.

----------


## Fire Haired

When u say IEns do u mean Indo Europeans?

The swedish hunter gathers where 100% of the red bar so i guess their closest relatives on this chart are 
1. Sam(probably Sami)
2. mr( maybe mordavien)
3.ud( maybe udmurt)
4. Km?????
5.Gbrang????????

Otzie and Gok4 seem to be very close and have alot more of the red bar than most people in Europe which makes them closer to the Swedish hunter gathers. Otzie and Gok4 seem close to alot of Europeans. what exactley does the red bar, blue bar, and green bar mean. I can tell this is not the same as aust. dna test where they give names like north euro or meditreaen.

----------


## nordicwarrior

THANK YOU for working on your punctuation, F.H. It's getting easier to follow your line of thinking.

Something else you may want to consider. Instead of fixating on I1a2, I1a1, I1...b4u812 (joking on the last one) you may want to switch over to the more accurate SNP systems. Z58, L22, Z140 are far more specific and more telling than the older method.

**EDIT**

Here's a little window into how this works...

We are all fishing for the truth. DNA testing is a fairly new development so we are all learning about our tribal journeys throughout history. So on this large scale fishing trip... the first STR tests could be likened to acquiring an on-board radar that gives you an indication of where the fish might be. (Kind of clumsy, but far better than nothing.)

As more and more SNP population results come back and the giant puzzle of humanity's travels starts coming together, using SNP results is going to be like fishing on a clear lake with a glass-bottom boat. No comparison really.

----------


## zanipolo

> When u say IEns do u mean Indo Europeans?
> 
> The swedish hunter gathers where 100% of the red bar so i guess their closest relatives on this chart are 
> 1. Sam(probably Sami)
> 2. mr( maybe mordavien)
> 3.ud( maybe udmurt)
> 4. Km?????
> 5.Gbrang????????
> 
> Otzie and Gok4 seem to be very close and have alot more of the red bar than most people in Europe which makes them closer to the Swedish hunter gathers. Otzie and Gok4 seem close to alot of Europeans. what exactley does the red bar, blue bar, and green bar mean. I can tell this is not the same as aust. dna test where they give names like north euro or meditreaen.



GBrang = Great Britain Argyle which = the gaelic push from ireland into west pictish lands in scotland

----------


## Fire Haired

> GBrang = Great Britain Argyle which = the gaelic push from ireland into west pictish lands in scotland


thanks for the info

----------


## ElHorsto

> When u say IEns do u mean Indo Europeans?


Yes.




> The swedish hunter gathers where 100% of the red bar so i guess their closest relatives on this chart are 
> 1. Sam(probably Sami)
> 2. mr( maybe mordavien)
> 3.ud( maybe udmurt)


Most likely yes.




> 4. Km?????
> 5.Gbrang????????


I guess Km means Komi.




> Otzie and Gok4 seem to be very close and have alot more of the red bar than most people in Europe which makes them closer to the Swedish hunter gathers. Otzie and Gok4 seem close to alot of Europeans. what exactley does the red bar, blue bar, and green bar mean. I can tell this is not the same as aust. dna test where they give names like north euro or meditreaen.


I guess the red, blue and green just has not been given a name yet. And Ötzi and Gok4 have no blue, thus I guess it added up a little on the red bar instead. Don't know how exactly it works but if blue and red bars are not distant then some overlapping remnants of blue could have shifted more easily to the red bar in some specific cases.

----------


## ElHorsto

> And Ötzi and Gok4 have no blue, thus I guess it added up a little on the red bar instead.


It also can be that some atlantic_med (green) is included in the red bars of hunter autosomal. Then the analysis might have reversed the interpretaion by saying Ötzi has some Paleolithic admixture when actually it is the other way around.

Here are other great maps from the same guy (Loxias, done using GEDmatch).

----------


## zanipolo

> It also can be that some atlantic_med (green) is included in the red bars of hunter autosomal. Then the analysis might have reversed the interpretaion by saying Ötzi has some Paleolithic admixture when actually it is the other way around.
> 
> Here are other great maps from the same guy (Loxias, done using GEDmatch).


Loxias..........in my opinion one of the best and most accurate plotters I have seen, I do not know how he does it.

----------


## zanipolo

I1 as per KenN in pommerania and Prussia .............are the goths baltic people?




Does artifacts mean anything?





what about Bromme culture, could that take a KenN I1 from prussia to denmark or was it too early?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bromme_culture

----------


## Fire Haired

I think I1a defintley came to Scandinavia 10,000-15,000 years ago because the kund Uralic culture from Siberia conquered Finland and northeast Europe 8,000 years ago the uralics where Mongoloid the native Finnish we know where European. Because we have their skeletal remains and some mtDNA. modern Finnish have about 30-40% Mongloid Y DNA N1c1 and 30-40% European I1a2c. 

I1a2 is probably the native European Y DNA because There is no archaeological evidence a culture from Swedan migrating or conquered Uralic's in the last 8,000 years. also y DNA I1a2 is restricted to only Scandinavia and the only other areas in europe it is found outside of scandnavia are in areas Vikings raided. there is no Achieolgicakl evidence of a Neolithic or bronze age culture that existed in Swedan, Norway, and Finland so that means there is no way I1a2 L22 spread in Scandnavia in the last 10,000 years.

Since Scandinavian I1a2 L22 brothers I1a1 Df29, I1a3 Z58,and I1a4 Z63 are mainly found in Germany. i think the I1a DF29 migration into scandnavia from Germany through Denmark came 10,000-15,000ybp possibly Brommer and Ahrensburg cultures. but since these cultures existed over 11,000 years ago and we have only some remains that are probably 100's of years apart from each other we barley know what culture these people had. So how do we know it was people from eastern Germany that migrated to Scandinavia. Since Germany is literalley right under Scandinavia I1a Df29 defintley migrated out of Germany to Scandinavia at some point.

----------


## LeBrok

> I think I1a defintley came to Scandinavia 10,000-15,000 years ago because the kund Uralic culture from .


Because of Ice Age there was no human settlement in Scandinavia before 9k years ago.

----------


## Fire Haired

the oldest human remians in norway are 11,200 years old http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...man_settlement
and almost all of Scandinavia was settled 8,000 years ago because siberian kunda culture conquered people who already lived there

we have 11 mtdna samples at the border of finland and Russia from 7,500ybp so there where people in finland just 1,500ybp after first humans arrived in Scandinavia I think u are confused with 9,000 bc which is really 11,000 years ago.

7 had Caucasian U, four had U4 which is most popular in modern Europe but i dont know if it originated in Europe, two had U2e which specifically european 37,985ybp mtdna from far western european russia had U2, one had specifically european U5a two 31,155 year old mtdna from Czech republic had U5 which originated in Europe over 50,000 years ago,

two had Mongoloid C1 which is most popular in Siberia today,

one had Caucasin mtDNA H which originated around the south caucus and Iraq about 40,000-50,000 years ago two 25,000 year old H17 samples where found in european Russia, one 28,000 year old H sample was found in far south italy.

what this shows is people in Finland 7,500ybp where european and descended from people who came to Europe over 40,000 years ago aka Cro Magnon, but there was some Mongoloid Siberian influence that probably came from Uralics.

i but 10,000-15,000ybp just to be safe i know they probably first came 10,000-11,00ybp.

----------


## sparkey

> one had Caucasin mtDNA H which originated around the south caucus and Iraq about 40,000-50,000 years ago two 25,000 year old H17 samples where found in european Russia, one 28,000 year old H sample was found in far south italy.


You've repeated these claims several places, but they're both doubtful. The "28,000 year old H" is from Caramelli 2008, which did _not_ conclusively determine a haplogroup, it only found some markers in common with HV and U (see Jean Manco). Similarly, the "25,000 year old H17" is from Alexeeva 2000, which was disputed as contamination per Ovchinnikov and Goodwin 2003, and only had one rare HVR1 mutation to go off of.

----------


## LeBrok

> the oldest human remians in norway are 11,200 years old http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...man_settlement
> and almost all of Scandinavia was settled 8,000 years ago because siberian kunda culture conquered people who already lived there
> 
> i but 10,000-15,000ybp just to be safe i know they probably first came 10,000-11,00ybp.


Sorry, I didn't have time to check my writing, it is 9,000 BC, time from last Ice age snap called Younger Dryas.

----------


## nordicwarrior

I think you may be onto something F.H (regarding I1a2 aka L22+). You may want to consider an adjustment to your thinking though... you have these northernly I1 clades very geographically regimented. This isn't how they look in reality. Keep I1 affinity for boat travel in mind when plotting the course of these groups. Their movements are more fluid than you're allowing for...

----------


## Fire Haired

_[/QUOTE] (Sparkey)_ You've repeated these claims several places, but they're both doubtful. The "28,000 year old H" is from Caramelli 2008, which did _not conclusively determine a haplogroup, it only found some markers in common with HV and U (see Jean Manco). Similarly, the "25,000 year old H17" is from Alexeeva 2000, which was disputed as contamination per Ovchinnikov and Goodwin 2003, and only had one rare HVR1 mutation to go off of.for the 28,000 year old H from south italy_ http://www.plosone.org/article/info:...l.pone.0002700 this study done on it said it was not contamination because they tested all people who had contact with it and none matjed. also here is a quote of what they said what type of mtdna it was they never mention haplogroups[/QUOTE] The Paglicci 23 individual carried a mtDNA sequence that is still common in Europe, and which radically differs from those of the almost contemporary Neandertals, demonstrating a genealogical continuity across 28,000 years, from Cro-Magnoid to modern Europeans. Because all potential sources of modern DNA contamination are known, the Paglicci 23 sample will offer a unique opportunity to get insight for the first time into the nuclear genes of early modern Europeans.[QUOTE]

i dont know what they mean by squence but to me it seems they are saying it is mtdna h which takes up about 40% of Europeans not HV which takes up less than 1% or U which is about 15%. according to this wikpedia link they say it was H http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_DNA-tested_mummies they also contridiced themselves and said it has no for sure haplogroup but H is defintley a possibility. also it was identical to the Cambridge reference sequence i dont completly understand it but it is mtdna H2a2. and they call certain mutations in it rCRS which also corrspond with mtdna H and the 28,000 year mtdna in Italy had it so there is a good chance it had H. i guess i was wron hough it is not for sure H but there is a very good chance that is why it was first published as H.

the two 25,000 year old H17 in European Russia had the rCRS which means there is a good chance it had H. the only mutation that differed from rCRS was 16129A which according to the Phylo tree it is H17. unless it was contamination both samples where H17. this link says they where both for sure H17 or H27 http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot...of-europe.html

i dont know that much about the mutations of haplogroups but from what i have seen the two from russia where H17 or H27 unless it was contamination. also i have looked at lists of ancient dna and studies they did on it these scientits are very exact and they check a ton to see if it is contamination if they are not 150% sure it was not contamination they will say probable contamination even though all the ancient dna they test is probably not contamination. so the ones from Russia where almost defintley H17 or H27.

also u need to remeber there are alot of genetic historians who are fanatics about H in europe being from neloithic mid eastern farmers. so every h sample people find from pre neloithic europe those fanatics say it was probably contamination, say there is not enough info to say it was H, or just ignore it. so when ever they have paloithic european mtdna they will assume anything close to U is U but if it is probably H but has a possibility to be another haplogroup they will say it is that other haplogroup. 

also there are two for sure 15,000 year old H samples in northern spain one had H6 but of course many people argued agianst it but they did many tests and they where H(unknown subclade) and H6. even though ii dont really trust age testing the age of almost all H subclades in europe are around the same age as in the south caucus and around iraq. here is a link to some age estimates of H subclades in Europe and middle east http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/conten...expansion.html

if these age estimates are true that means H has been in europe for over 30,000 years. i dont really trust the H sample from italy but i defintley think the two from Russia are legit. i saw that maciamo in the mtdna area of this webiste said H is over 35,000 years old not like over estimates that say 25,000. also those fanatics i was talking about think haplogroups are ur full ancestry even though they are just a duirect lineage.

these fanatics are honestly spreading lies they say it is a fact mtdna H came to europe in neloithic and that europeans decend from those mid eastern neloithic invader. here are some links to big time media companies spreading these lies the list includes bbc i noticed they all came out around april23 and say alost word for word the same thing http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22252099 http://www.hngn.com/articles/2114/20...ic-history.htm
http://www.newsnet14.com/?p=123512
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/n...ng-ancient-dna
http://churnalism.sunlightfoundation...743a/4/139877/
http://historical-nonfiction.tumblr....ly-disappeared
http://www.livescience.com/28954-anc...-vanished.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3142552.html

they need to realize mtdna H does not define being european. sami in far north scandnvai have less than 1% H.
aust. dna which tells ur full ancestry shows that europeans come from the Paleolithic age they usulley call the european group north european because it is more popular in north europe. there is aust. dna from la brana a hunter gather from spain who according to these fanatics had non modern european u5b2c1. in the globe13 test he had 71% north european so he was more european than almost all modern europeans and he was not a farmer. also he had 25% med that was most likely from farmer inter marriage. because at this time most of Spanish where farmers

There is aust dna from two farmers both had over 59% med so the farmers where actulley mainly non european. The hunter gathers these fanatics say where killed off by europeans ancestors where actulley the main ancestors of modern europeans. 

i know i am speaking strongly against these people i hope i dont become a fanatic like them. i am willing to change my opinion about mtdan H if someone gives me good enough evidence.

----------


## nordicwarrior

Why would you change your thinking on hg. H in Europe? You're spot on.

----------


## Fire Haired

nordicquarreler I have heard u mention the boat traval thing and hg I many times. I think u make some interesting points. can u please explain ur theory in dept. U know I write very long posts and I don't care how long your post is it can be 10 book pages or more if that is how long it takes u to show all of ur points.I have some doubts about ur theory because I don't think there is only one explanation for what happened to hg I people over thousands of years. because they where from different parts of Europe and had very different cultures but could have reacted in a similar way.I think u forget hg I2a1(western meditreaen), I2a2 (central Europe and possibly Britain and Ireland) where already conquered by hg G2a farmers in the Neolithic age. I made a thread showing my estimates on what y dna Neolithic Europeans had by sub tracking all y dna that came to Europe after the Neolithic age. G2a would have been about 60-75% in France, alps, most of Italy, and most of Spain, from y dna from Neolithic Spain, alps Italy, france, and central Germany totally support that because 26 of 31 had G2a. in eastern Europe during the Neolithic age the majority of the people still would have had I2a1b except for indo Europeans in central Russia. Scandinavians would have had almost 100% I1a2 except Finnish would have around 30-40%.so when hg R1b L11/P310 Germanic Italo speakers conquered western Europe they conquered mainly hg G2a people who where farmers not hg I hunter gathers. but I still think u make very good points and can u please explain ur theory in dept u know I write very long posts and I don't care how long your post is it can be 10 pages long I will still read it because I really want to know exactly why u think boat travel was important for hg I people running away from invading hg R1 and g2a.also what do u mean by I was spot on with hg H.

----------


## nordicwarrior

I think mtDNA hg. H has been solidly in Europe for at least 25,000 years. But, I don't believe paternal hg. I "ran away" from G2a though. The sheer numbers of hg. I vs. hg. G in Europe today doesn't indicate your hypothesis. You are correct in citing the fact that hg. G has more found remains, however this can be pegged to a farming lifestyle in areas that would favor preservation. I will send you a P.M. that might clear up some of my other theories.

----------


## Fire Haired

> Thanks, Andrew P.S. What's your ideas on haplogroup X (maternal) in the Americas?





The X in Native Americans is X2a and X2q. X2a is also found in Isreal Druze but X2a is only in Native Americans most though have X2a. http://www.familytreedna.com/public/x

Somehow Native Americans ancestors had pre Colombian pre viking inter marriage with Caucasins. age estimates say it happened 12,000-17,000ybp and 23,000-36,000ybp. I do not think it came from Europe because so far the only Haplogroups found in Paloithic and Mesolithic Europeans is U, H, HV, and N. X starts to pop up in Neolithic samples but that could be because X is around 2% in Europe today and we dont have enough Paloithic and Mesolithic samples. I cant find any info on when X is suppose to have spread to Europe.

All i could find is X1 is only found in the middle east and north and east africa and is the main X subclade in those places, while X2 is the only subclade of European, central Asian, _SIBERIAN_, and north American andis the only X subclade for those areas. This link says http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180497/ X2 expanded in Eurasia most likely in the Last glacial Maximum 26,500-19,000ybp. So i guess X2 may have came to Europe much earlier than the Neolithic. There is some X in southwestern Siberia but it has sucbclades found in the south caucus and this group of siberians has a total of 27% Caucasin mtDNA so it is from recent caucasin inter marriage and not the sources of native americans X2. also X was found in northern siberia where native americans orignated one had the orignal form X2* and X2b so that is also probably not the sources of Native American X2g and X2a. 

The only two possibilities for Native American X2a and X2q. are migration from Europe 12,000-26,000ybp or mid eastern inter married with Siberians who later migrated to north America about 12,000-26,000ybp. X2 did not come from the first migration in north america or from the original family native Americans descend from. It is restricted to north east north Americans. 

also i think X2 might be connected with y dna R1. because the same native americans with X2 also have 40-60% of the original form of R1. So what may have happened is mid easterns with mtdna X2 inter married with Siberians with y dna R1 about 20,000ybp. Then mid easterns formed a R1b branch about 15,000-20,000ybp and Europeans somehow also got R1 possibly from mid easterns who brought X2. Then European formed R1a about 15,000-20,000ybp. 

Then somehow Europeans in the steppes(central Russia) with R1a inter married with mid easterns and also got R1b. These where Indo Europeans or Indo Europeans ancestors(Dneiper Donets culture, Yamna, Maykop, etc.). Then Indo Europeans Balto Slavs(Corded ware Culture) conquered eastern Europe and spread R1a1a1b1, Italo Celtic Germanic conquered western Europe (Unetice, Nordic bronze age cultures) and spread R1b L11/P310. Indo Iranians(Afanasevo, Adronovo cultures etc.) conquered much of central Asia, south Siberia, west China, India and Iran area and spread R1a1a1b2. There are more but i dont have enough room to mention all Indo Europeans. 

I wonder if their is a trace of mtDNA X2 and Indo European migrations. Or if there is alot of X2 around the steppes(central Russia) probably not.

----------


## nordicwarrior

Wow, I hadn't heard of the 40-60% of R1 linked to the maternal X tribes. Could you source that by chance? I'm a big proponent of Solutreans Theory but I had most of the males lines belonging to hgs. I or G. The Native American Indians have legends of the land holding a population of giants that had red hair. In the myths the Indians killed the male giants and took their women. Solutreans would put the Atlantic voyage(s) at 21.000 to 17,000 years ago.

----------


## LeBrok

> Wow, I hadn't heard of the 40-60% of R1 linked to the maternal X tribes. Could you source that by chance? I'm a big proponent of Solutreans Theory but I had most of the males lines belonging to hgs. I or G. The Native American Indians have legends of the land holding a population of giants that had red hair. In the myths the Indians killed the male giants and took their women. Solutreans would put the Atlantic voyage(s) at 21.000 to 17,000 years ago.


This legend might have started at Viking times. Vikings arrived to western coasts around 1,000AD, had few settlements, and then slowly vanished.

----------


## sparkey

> Wow, I hadn't heard of the 40-60% of R1 linked to the maternal X tribes. Could you source that by chance? I'm a big proponent of Solutreans Theory but I had most of the males lines belonging to hgs. I or G. The Native American Indians have legends of the land holding a population of giants that had red hair. In the myths the Indians killed the male giants and took their women. Solutreans would put the Atlantic voyage(s) at 21.000 to 17,000 years ago.


Singh 2008 puts the question of Native American Y-DNA R origins in the air, but it's pretty clear that the R1 that mtDNA X carriers tend to have is simply European-introduced R1 (typically R1b), not R1* as Fire Haired indicates. Just look at any Native American DNA Project, like this one.

----------


## Fire Haired

wikpedia says the same but they still have some R1* which would have come to north america over 15,000ybp. it did not come from the same migraton the main ancestors of native americans came. Also i think there is R1* in siberia.

----------


## tjlowery87

yeah I still think i1 was spread mostly by Germanic /northern people.

----------


## Kotroman

> i have noticed this websit's page about I1 http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_I1_Y-DNA.shtml assumes all of I1 is from Scandnvaiens or Germans but it seems like that can not be true for many reasons
> 
> Y DNA I1 is the only subclade of a haplogroup that is found in every spot in Europe in some areas Germans and Scandnaviens never migrated too or made very small un significant migrations like Macedonia where I1 is 3% and I1 is to popular like in some areas like Serbia at 6.5% where Germans and Scandnvaiens have had very small presence Scandnvaiens never made migrations to serbia or Macidonia but Germans did but the Germanic tribes had about 30-40% Y DNa R1b U106 and only 10-20% I1 then why dont we find R1b U106 with I1 usulley we dont which means they got it from non Germans and most I1 subclades in Europe are not found in Scandnavia


Ofcourse the Germanic peoples which were in some extent of Scandinavian or Nordic ancestry settled the Balkans, such as the Goths, Gepids, Heruls and probably even Longobards.

----------


## adamo

I1 is found, interestingly, in 27% of Dutch men (most of it I1-M253) and 14-25% of Belgian and French men, depending on the region. Same goes for the English. Peaks of I in England are at about 33% in a few regions; areas with 20% I are common across England. Most of this I, as for the latter countries, is of the Scandinavian variety (I1a).

----------


## Jackson

> I1 is found, interestingly, in 27% of Dutch men (most of it I1-M253) and 14-25% of Belgian and French men, depending on the region. Same goes for the English. Peaks of I in England are at about 33% in a few regions; areas with 20% I are common across England. Most of this I, as for the latter countries, is of the Scandinavian variety (I1a).


I think the Dutch have something like 18% or 20% I1 and 5-10% I2b, so i guess that squares up with 27% I if that's what you mean? Of course it all must vary by region somewhat too.

----------


## adamo

That's exactly what I mean : )

----------


## C-in-fl-usa

> [...]I1 though is to spread out for it all to be from Germanic tribes. I dont think the 6.5% I1 in serbia is from Germans. The Germanic tribes in the migration period would have had mainly R1b S21 not I1. I1 is 4% of Crete but there is no German R1b S21 and in the migration period Germans never migrated to Crete so where did it come from.


You use "Germans," in a loose way... not eastern or western in specifics. I'm unsure who is German to you. Certainly the Goths (both factions) came through to settle the north Black Sea area. The Germanic Lombards and Ostrogoths are known to have taken all of Italy and laid out some DNA. The Ostrogoths did fight in the employ of the Eastern Orthodox Church/Byzantines (Constantinople). Crete is around 450 mi. and under the control of the Byzantines.




> I think what proves it is England has 30-40% R1b s21 like GErmans the reason is teh anglo saxons alot of I1 in England comes from Vikings not Anglo Saxons.


Viking v. Anglo-Saxon. Pretty much one in the same. Angles, Saxons, Danes, Jutes, Scandinavians, Frisians, Franks, and others originating in what is now Holland, Denmark and extreme northern Germany. Wave after wave after wave of invaders moved through GB from 300 to now. The Viking period was brief (800-1050AD) and Germanic people that originated as Angles, Jutes, etc. The Germanic people seem to have been cohesive genetically... tribes joining other tribes... interbreeding. At any rate, it looks like a M253 smashing of England, sending the Celts (R1b) scurrying for the western areas. 




> If I1 in Serbia is from Germans where is the R1b S21 if all I1 in Europe is form GErmans and I1 is in almost all of Europe why isnt R1b S21 in almost every area of Europe it should be over 10% in Serbia. I really dont think We can keep saying all I1 is GErman that thread that guy from Albania made where he said he has teh orignal form of I1* is more evidence I1 is very old and very spread out in Europe because of that.


Just in light reading, it looks like I1 basically overpowered Rb1 just in sheer numbers. I have read where I1 is the oldest and original haplogroup for Europe. In Serbia it approaches 40% of the population and R1b barely registering. However in Croatia R1a and R1b are around 50% of the population. Go figure. Possibly those with Rb1 were found undesirable in appearance to I1 and they had their heads chopped off (in the Migration Period). Just saying...

----------


## sparkey

> Viking v. Anglo-Saxon. Pretty much one in the same. Angles, Saxons, Danes, Jutes, Scandinavians, Frisians, Franks, and others originating in what is now Holland, Denmark and extreme northern Germany. Wave after wave after wave of invaders moved through GB from 300 to now. The Viking period was brief (800-1050AD) and Germanic people that originated as Angles, Jutes, etc. The Germanic people seem to have been cohesive genetically... tribes joining other tribes... interbreeding. At any rate, it looks like a M253 smashing of England, sending the Celts (R1b) scurrying for the western areas.


Sorta... but depends on the region. Anglo-Saxons would have had a slightly different subclade distribution than Vikings, and it's possible to tell the difference in some cases. Most of England (the Southeast especially) shows more affinity to the Netherlands and nearby, hence likely more Anglo-Saxon, while in some areas in the British Isles, we see affinity to Scandinavia. I'm thinking of Orkney in particular, which heavily tilts toward Scandinavia according to People of the British Isles.





> Just in light reading, it looks like I1 basically overpowered Rb1 just in sheer numbers. I have read where I1 is the oldest and original haplogroup for Europe. In Serbia it approaches 40% of the population and R1b barely registering. However in Croatia R1a and R1b are around 50% of the population. Go figure. Possibly those with Rb1 were found undesirable in appearance to I1 and they had their heads chopped off (in the Migration Period). Just saying...


You're mixing I1 with I as a whole here. Most Haplogroup I in the Balkans is in fact I2.

----------


## MOESAN

personal bets:
I think Y-I1 is geographically northern european - its age could be tied to the "cutting" apparently done drom Y-I2 by Y-R1b people -
Y-I* was maybe not southern at all, but central european (even in the hardest times of LGM, NEVER WAS CENTRAL EUROPE VOID OF INHABITANTS spite what is commonly said- this bet could explain why Y-I is AND northern AND southern, but weakened around Don (Danau) river?... - the Y-I2* and Y-I2a1a descendants (do'nt forget the non-stop dynamic in SNPs creation) in N-E Spain and Sardinia could very well be arrived there more recently, by Sea from Adriatic coasts (Dalmatia) or from central Europe (at what time?: no idea: 9000-7000 BC?)-
I have some difficulty to imagine the rare Y-I1 downstream SNPs in Southern Europe as independant sets - for me, Y-I1 (all SNPs) are from Northern Europe, either _became_ germanic speaking or finnic speaking (maybe some traces among Celts and Balts but very few) - maybe at older stage a kind of proto-basque language??? too speculative???
surely a wave of I1 colonized Scandinavia and Finland (artic culture?) before the germanic stage of I-Ean, but as a whole, this Y-I1 SNPs were germanized about the 1000 BC, perhaps a bit earlier, and they saw their brothers Y-I1 (other SNPs) coming with this germanization along with R1B and R1a (of Corded origin) -
after that, naturally, the respective distributions of Y-R1b, R1a and I1 variated according to geography and E-Germanics came partly from Scandinavia had higher percentages of I1 and R1a as opposed to R1b (rather U106) than the West germanics, as said yet - in northerwn slavic (russian lands) the Y-I1 can be germanic in some places, NOT in other places (earlier arrived) according to History - but in south Europe I think Y-I1 came with Germanics: I believe I1 was previously dwelled South the Baltic Sea so the scandinavian germanics that occupied previously E-Germanic and even Baltic tribes coasts could have taken a bit more Y-I 's with younger SNPs born outside Scandinavia-
but when I see an Y-I1 in Portugal, Spain, Italy, Balkans, I cannot pass without thinking in Germanics, whatever the birthplace of the tribe...
we see the SNPs (downtream) of Y-I1 of N-continental Europe in Scandinavia and the ones of Scandinavia in N-continental Europe (but the first ones not in Finland), the two in the British Isles, only the respective percentages change...

----------


## MOESAN

> I think the Dutch have something like 18% or 20% I1 and 5-10% I2b, so i guess that squares up with 27% I if that's what you mean? Of course it all must vary by region somewhat too.


18% is the % given by Maciamo for Y-11 (state of the Netherlands) I red somewhere Frisians had about 28% of I1 - the maximum in England would be in East Anglia (Norforlk and...) about 30%33% (strong in Yorkshire too: nothing astonishing a time again...

----------


## Jackson

> 18% is the % given by Maciamo for Y-11 (state of the Netherlands) I red somewhere Frisians had about 28% of I1 - the maximum in England would be in East Anglia (Norforlk and...) about 30%33% (strong in Yorkshire too: nothing astonishing a time again...


It does make sense, afterall you can't expect a sudden boundary between Denmark and north Germany, or at least not that sudden. :)

----------


## marcellus

I have done the Big Y and transferred my BAM file to Yfull. I'm I1a and my terminal was dated ca 1450 years old!

----------


## Garrick

According *Serbian DNA project* (sample for now is 992 individuals):

Serbs; I1 = *9,17%*

It is even more than Maciamo found in scientific papers (8,5%)

...
Small part I1 in Serbia and generally Balkans origin from Goths, Gepids, Heruls, Longobards.

I1 was in Balkans earlier, scientists will research, we will see new studies.

----------


## Dinarid

The original Germanic speakers were clearly R1b, although I think it wouldn't be unreasonable to suggest that the spread of R1b and I1 is related to Germanic expansion.

----------


## Ukko

*
If you dont know shit about Uralic-Finnic or Germanic origins you should shut up and stop spreading lies.*

This forums if full of ignorant people, here are some links again, I have doubts if you can read them based on your writings.





> What do we know about the prehistory of languages and cultures in areas, such as Northern Europe that do not have written documents or large extinct cities? For decades, archaeology and linguistics, two disciplines weaving together multiple interdisciplinary aspects have fostered a dialogue focusing on cultural and linguistic networks, mobility and contacts between people. This book sheds new light on cultural diffusion and language change in prehistoric Northern Europe with special emphasis on the northern Baltic Sea area. The rise of agriculture, identification of new cultural waves in terms of language are topics that outline the early prehistory in the North. The book contains twelve articles by linguists and archaeologists, evidence drawn from various Finno-Ugric and Indo-European languages, and up-to-date insights into the research of prehistoric Northern Europe.








> *Riho Grünthal*: Introduction: an interdisciplinary perspective on prehistoric Northern Europe [*PDF*]
> *Mika Lavento*: Cultivation among hunter-gatherers in Finland – evidence of activated connections? [*PDF*]
> *Charlotte Damm*: From Entities to Interaction: Replacing pots and people with networks of transmission [*PDF*]
> *Luobbal Sámmol Sámmol Ánte* (*Ante Aikio*): An essay on Saami ethnolinguistic prehistory [*PDF*]
> *Asko Parpola*: Formation of the Indo-European and Uralic (Finno-Ugric) language families in the light of archaeology: Revised and integrated 'total' correlations [*PDF*]
> *Tiit-Rein Viitso*: Early Metallurgy in Language: The History of Metal Names in Finnic [*PDF*]
> *Karl Pajusalu*: Phonological Innovations of the Southern Finnic Languages [*PDF*]
> *Petri Kallio*: The Prehistoric Germanic Loanword Strata in Finnic [*PDF*]
> *Guus Kroonen*: Non-Indo-European root nouns in Germanic: evidence in support of the Agricultural Substrate Hypothesis [*PDF*]
> ...

----------


## Apsurdistan

The Goths maybe? They were in the Balkans

----------


## Apsurdistan

Yo Ustasha up there. calm down with the Xenophobia.
Bosnians are not Turkish or Arabic or whatever. These genetic projects have proven that. Which makes you even more ignorant now flaunting your dumb ideologies. I'm not even religious (and most Bosnians are very secular) but Bosnia is not Islamic occupied. It's a colony of NATO and the EU (not an official member but controlled by their banks nonetheless) just like your precious Croatia.

----------

