# Population Genetics > Y-DNA Haplogroups >  Haplogroup IJ, the seafarers’ gene? (Entertainment Post)

## 2,6%Neanderthal

I am new to this forum and wanted to start with some entertaining coincidences I noticed. I am no scientist, I just have a loose interest for genetics (as I have for football and cooking :O). So don't take this as an attempt to define something scientifically, but rather as observations of a non-expert.

I was noticing that the Phoenicians (with a likely high J2 concentration) and the Vikings (with a likely high I concentration) are probably the most skilled navigators of ancient history. The former sailing from modern Lebanon to modern Iberia and mediterranean France, creating a sea commerce empire and the latter sailing to North America before Columbus and also being the ancestors of the Normans, another very skilled navigation people.


Etruscans, Greeks, Romans and Venetians were also very skilled navigators, and they all probably had high levels of J2.


Now, the thing that I and J2 have in common is that they both stem from haplogroup IJ making them more similar to each other than any other european haplogroups. All the other european haplogroups have more distant relationships with the IJ group. 


Is it possible that these navigation skills have something to do with them belonging to the haplogroup IJ and that the Indo-Eurasians were actually quite inept at navigation and learned these skills from the IJ (the Hellenics from the Minoans, the Italics from the Phoenicians/Etruscans/MagnaGreeks, the Germanics from the Palelolithic Northern Europeans)?


It also makes sense with the fact that the I and J, though in different times, most likely entered Europe from the Near East crossing routes that might have included long sea passages (Eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea) while the Indo-Eurasians, coming from the the steppes didn’t have so much to do with long sea distances. Indo-Eurasians look a lot like a earth people.


It also noticed two funny things:


1) John Lorimer Worden, of the U.S. Navy, commanding officer of the U.S.S. Monitor in the Battle of Hampton Roads, first historical confrontation between iron made ships, is thought to have belonged to haplogroup J2. 


2) that in the late 1700/first 1800 there was somebody called Horatio Nelson Worden who was born in Canada and died in the US. Might the great british admiral, therefore another skill seafarer, Horatio Nelson have been related to John Lorimer Worden and have been J2 too? 


I’d be curious to know the Haplogroup of Cristopher Columbus, Vasco De Gama and other great navigators. 
If anybody has anything to add to the topic "connection between genetics and sea-faring skills", maybe something more scientific than amateurs' observations, feel free to add!


Cheerio!

----------


## 2,6%Neanderthal

I can't post links because I don't have enough post.

Anyway I found the John L. Worden haplogroup on Wikipedia and a page talking about this mysterious Horatio Nelson Worden in Google.

Here's what it says:

Birthplace:
St Johns, , New Brunswick, Canada, 1798

Death:
Died August 18, 1870 in Port Huron, St Clair, Michigan, United States

----------


## 2,6%Neanderthal

I also found a (very) speculative article linking Phoenicians, Normans, Venetians and Templars. As I said I can't post links yet. You can find it on google: Another History of the Knights Templar, Part 7

----------


## Ha-Nasr

interesting theory, but what about j1 and i2, also some j2 people like Hittites and Persians weren't good navigators
on the other hand a lot of vikings carried the r1a haplogroup

----------


## 2,6%Neanderthal

> interesting theory, but what about j1 and i2, also some j2 people like Hittites and Persians weren't good navigators
> on the other hand a lot of vikings carried the r1a haplogroup


j1 remained mostly in the Middle-East and headed south to Arabia, unlike j2 who apparently crossed the mediterranean in mass, making it to Crete (Minoans), Tuscany and Sardinia (Etruscans) and even Iberia (Phoenicians) and started entirely new mediterranean civilizations. 

I2 also remained more confined to Internal Europe, while I1 occupied most of Scandinavia's atlantic shores. I was actually also present in Sardinia before the Etruscans, and later the Phoenicians conquered it. 

I should precise that I am not saying that IJ had some magic genetic trait that made them water-skilled. What I am suggesting is that some IJ people, primarily I1 and J2, because of their migration routes, found itself in contact to long sea paths much before all the other groups, developing advanced naval engineering and sea-faring techniques much before all the others. Those arriving in areas already civilized by these people might have lacked sea-faring skills and learnt most from them.

What I am basically loosely suggesting is that the building of sophisticated ships and development of navigation skills, a fundamental passage of europe's history, might not be accredited to Indo-Eurasians but rather to other groups: mainly Mediterrenean crossers (Original Sardinians, Minoan Cretans, Phoenicians, Etruscans) and Original Scandinavian inhabiters who lived on the norwegian coast long before the Indo-Eurasians arrived (let's call them "Pre-Vikings") and that the arriving Indo-Eurasians, both in the South (Hellenics and Italics) and in the North (Germanics) might have copied such achievements and later improved them.

1) Greek, Romans, Vikings and Normans (which are all mixes of R1 and either J2 or I1) might owe their great naval building and navigation skills, fundamental in the buildings or their empires, economies and sphere of influences, much more to their J2/I1 ancestors than to their R1 ancestors. 

2) In addition to the evident fact that both I1 and J2 stem from Haplogroup IJ while R1 steams from Haplogroup K, the CULTURAL (and not only GENETIC) similarities between I1 and J2 in contrast to the R1 should be explored. Combined they might have created a already quite distinct and big cultural background to European civilization, which the Indo-Eurasians later supplemented. This would give them equal credits as the Indo-Eurasians in defining was is today Europe. 

These are the essential points

----------


## Maleth

It is known that the Carthaginians (Phoenician breakaway) had superior war ships to the Romans until later during the Punic wars the Romans copied and improved on the Carthaginian designs.

Re Nelson on family tree dna there are 4 origins of the name R, E, J, and I (R the most common) https://www.familytreedna.com/public...ction=yresults. Which one did Horatio belong to?  :Thinking:

----------


## 2,6%Neanderthal

> Re Nelson on family tree dna there are 4 origins of the name R, E, J, and I (R the most common). Which one did Horatio belong to?



There's not so many J2, making it very unlikely that he was related to Officer Worden of the U.S. navy.

In turn there are quite a lot I Scandinavian on the list you gave me. Then there's also a lot of R1b British. Anyway, we know that Britain was conquered by Normans, which in turn come from Vikings (which considering the fact modern Norwegians have almost twice I haplogroups as they have R1b can very well defined as a I group, the same way Coastal Syria and Lebanon, home place of the Phoenicians, have significantly higher J2 as neighbouring Jordan and way higher than Saudi Arabia, which are dominantly J1) 

Might the name Nelson come from some the swedish/danish/norwegians Nilson, Nillsson etc..? If Horatio Nelson was indeed the descendant of some scandinavian Nilson/Nillsson, might have very well had I haplogroup.

----------


## Maleth

> There's not so many J2, making it very unlikely that he was related to Officer Worden of the U.S. navy.
> 
> In turn there are quite a lot I Scandinavian on the list you gave me. Then there's also a lot of R1b British. Anyway, we know that Britain was conquered by Normans, which in turn come from Vikings (which considering the fact modern Norwegians have almost twice I haplogroups as they have R1b can very well defined as a I group, the same way Coastal Syria and Lebanon, home place of the Phoenicians, have significantly higher J2 as neighbouring Jordan and way higher than Saudi Arabia, which are dominantly J1) 
> 
> Might the name Nelson come from some the swedish/danish/norwegians Nilson, Nillsson etc..? If Horatio Nelson was indeed the descendant of some scandinavian Nilson/Nillsson, might have very well had I haplogroup.


If i can remember well I read Horatio Nelson was R1b but I cannot find a link, so nothing sure there. Vikings invaded Britian since the 700's and possibly there would have been some viking settlements too. While we take it for granted that the Normans (that invaded Britian in 1066) are all Scandinavian, you have to remember that there were already people living in Normandy when Rollo and his clan settled there. They could have intermixed with the already existing population. They were known to adopt very fast to the local religion and speak the local language  :Wary: .

----------


## LeBrok

What about Portuguese and Spanish sailing armadas with overwhelming R1b in the area? Pretty much all the nations with substantial coastlines become great sailors at some point in time. 
In Norse/Vikings there was more R1a and R1b combine tnan I.

----------


## Engel

I lean towards hg I being good navigators as ancient Vikings came to the north America much before Columbus,

----------


## 2,6%Neanderthal

> What about Portuguese and Spanish sailing armadas with overwhelming R1b in the area? Pretty much all the nations with substantial coastlines become great sailors at some point in time. 
> In Norse/Vikings there was more R1a and R1b combine tnan I.


My main points here were

1) Which ancient group set the basics of naval engineering and navigation skills and who acquired it later. There seems to be a tendency towards I and J2 people developing complex ships and going long distances at sea before the indo-eurasians arrived and developed any kind of such skills. They might have adopted later.

2) While at one point more modern nations (Spain, Portugal, Britain, Genoa, Venice, the USA) developed highly sophisticated skills, might it be that those individuals who stood out were descendents of either ancient Phoenicians/Carthagenians (J2), Ancient Sardinians (I2) or Ancient Scandinavians(I1)? I quoted Worden being SUPPOSEDLY J2, but it's not enough. We should have more information on Columbus, Da Gama etc..

----------


## 2,6%Neanderthal

Another mysterious group of ancient people whose origin scientists still haven't agreed on are the so-called Sea Peoples, basically pirates who thought to have played a fundamental element in the collapse of the Bronze Age and the destruction of entire populations in Greece, Anatolia and throughout the Mediterranean. 

From WIKIPEDIA:

The *Sea Peoples*, or *Peoples of the Sea*, are thought to have been a confederacy of seafaring raiders who could have possibly originated from either western Anatolia or southern Europe, specifically a region of the Aegean Sea, who sailed around the eastern Mediterreanean and invaded Anatolia, Syria, Canaan, Cyprus, and Egypt toward the end of the Bronze Age. However, the actual identity of the Sea Peoples has remained enigmatic and modern scholars have only the scattered records of ancient civilizations and archaeological analysis to inform them.


The Sea Peoples are documented during the late 19th Dinasty and especially during year 8 of Rameses II of the 20th Dynasty when they tried to enter or control the Egyptian territory. The Egyptian Pharaoh Merneptah explicitly refers to them by the term "the foreign-countries (or 'peoples') of the sea" (Egyptian _n3 ḫ3s.wt n<.t> p3 ym_) in his Great Karnak Inscription. Most scholars believe that they invaded Cyprus, Hatti and the Levant.


Among the Sea Peoples identified in Egyptian records are the Ekwesh, possibly a group of Bronze Age Greeks (Acheans); the Denyns, identified by some with the Greek Danaoi and by others with the Israelite tribe of Dan; the Teresh; the Tyhrrenians, possibly ancestors of the Etruscans; Lukka, an Anatolian people of the Aegean who may have given their name to the region of Lycia and the Lycian Language; the Sherden, possibly Sardinians or people of Sardis; the Shekelesh, identified possibly with the Italic People called Siculi (from Sicily); the Peleset, whose name is generally believed to refer to the Philistis, who might have come from Crete with the Tekrur (possibly Greek Teucrians) and who together were the only major member of the Sea Peoples thought to have migrated permanently to the Levant Evidence for migrations of whole peoples are not found on any of the contemporary inscriptions, but versions of a "migration hypothesis" represent the widely held interpretation among scholars of the ancient Near East.


Who where these peoples?

I2 Sardinians?
J2 Etruscans or Anatolians?
J2 Indigenous Aegeans?
R1b Italics?
R1b Celts?
Absurdly I1 Scandinavians? 


This passage of mediterranean/european history is rather intriguing, isn't it?

----------


## LeBrok

> My main points here were
> 
> 1) Which ancient group set the basics of naval engineering and navigation skills and who acquired it later. There seems to be a tendency towards I and J2 people developing complex ships and going long distances at sea before the indo-eurasians arrived and developed any kind of such skills. They might have adopted later.


You probably didn't notice, but the sophisticated shipbuilding happened after IE invasion, not before.




> 2) While at one point more modern nations (Spain, Portugal, Britain, Genoa, Venice, the USA) developed highly sophisticated skills, might it be that those individuals who stood out were descendents of either ancient Phoenicians/Carthagenians (J2), Ancient Sardinians (I2) or Ancient Scandinavians(I1)? I quoted Worden being SUPPOSEDLY J2, but it's not enough. We should have more information on Columbus, Da Gama etc..


 Keep in mind that Y DNA is only about 2% of whole genome and has nothing to do with logical thinking of a brain, or shipbuilding in particular.
J2 in Greece is about 15%, in Italy 10%, it is not overwhelming in any way and you are ignoring the fact that 85% and 90% respectively belong to none J2 HGs.
Also split between I and J happened so long ago that the populations might have nothing in common at all besides being both humans.

----------


## 2,6%Neanderthal

> You probably didn't notice, but the sophisticated shipbuilding happened after IE invasion, not before.
> 
> Keep in mind that Y DNA is only about 2% of whole genome and has nothing to do with logical thinking of a brain, or shipbuilding in particular.
> J2 in Greece is about 15%, in Italy 10%, it is not overwhelming in any way and you are ignoring the fact that 85% and 90% respectively belong to none J2 HGs.
> Also split between I and J happened so long ago that the populations might have nothing in common at all besides being both humans.


The Phoenicians (J2) who crossed the entire mediterranean (which for that age was something as tough as for the Spaniards to cross the atlantic), the ancestors of the Etruscans who from Western Anatolia reached Tuscany (J2) were hardly Indo-Eurasians. Both these people traded extensively with each other and with the Greeks by sea before Rome even existed.

The people who first reached the island of Sardinia (I2) were hardly Indo-Eurasians. Whoever made such crossing must have had very sophisticated ships for that age. 

If you google Image a "Carthaginian Ship" and then you compare it with a "Viking Ship" which was build centuries later, you would notice the first being much more advanced than the latter, even though it was built much earlier. 

The Viking Ship was nevertheless a great achievement for that age and I wonder whether such ships had began to be built much before by indigenous populations. 

From the website "Heritage History: Punic Wars" :

"Rome's next move was utterly radical and unprecedented in military history. Although she had next to no ship-building or sea-faring experience, she captured a Carthaginian trireme, copied it, and in two months had a fleet of 150 ships. In the meantime, the Romans built model ships on land to train rowers and sailers, and to cap things off, invented a movable ramp that would hook onto enemy ships so they could board and engage in hand-to-hand combat, at which they excelled."

Which would actually prove that the Indo-Eurasians were basically a fighting earth people. Even at naval battles they had to find a way to engage in some sort of direct physical contact because they knew that was their strenght. 

Same goes for the non-Indo-Eurasian Minoans and the Indo-Eurasian Myceneans. On an article called "Minoan and Mycenaean Notes" it states quite clearly that Minoans had very sophisticated ships and that the Myceneans, a earth warrior people, basically learnt (among many other things) from the Minoans how to navigate. They lacked this skills COMPLETELY. It is the same exact pattern between the Chartagenians and the Romans.

Might a similar pattern have arosed between pre-Indo-Eurasian Scandinavians and the arriving Indo-Eurasians? Sadly we have much less record of these populations than we have of the Mediterraneans, but it wouldn't suprise me if it was so. 


As for I and J being entirely different people, I searched the time of origin of IJ and J.

IJ is believed to be born somewhere 35,000 and 40,000 years before present. 
I is believed to have detached from IJ somewhere 25,000 and 30,000 years before present.
J2 is supposed to have detached from J somewhere 20,000 years before present.

As you can see the moment in history when I detached from J is not so far from the point J2 detached from J1. 

These haplogroups are not SO distant in time.

Finally, I would like to repeat that I AM NOT SUGGESTING THAT I or J might have some sort of intellectual advantage. I am suggesting that they had to do with water and development of sophisticated naval engeneering and sailing skill much earlier than Indo-Eurasians the same way the Indo-Eurasians developed ground war techniques much before, coming from the steppes. 

Ground War and Naval Skills are two fundamental elements of european politics and strategy whose origin might be owed to two entirely different groups. Clearly at one point they interacted and the former learned from the latter and vice versa. The same way the Romans copied Carthagenian ships in the first punic war, the Carthagenian probably learnt from roman ground war, otherwise Hannibal wouldn't have crossed the alps in the second punic war and engaged the romans in direct earth war. 

After reading the bit about Romans copying Carthagenian ships and Myceneans copying Minoan ships I begin to think this theory might be much more realistic than I thought. And that the legendary Sea Peoples who played a big role in the end of the Bronze Age might very well not have been Indo-Eurasians.

----------


## 2,6%Neanderthal

This policy whereby you can't post links before 10 posts is quite annoying o_O. I need just one more anyway

----------


## Nobody1

> After reading the bit about Romans copying Carthagenian ships and Myceneans copying Minoan ships I begin to think this theory might be much more realistic than I thought. And that the legendary Sea Peoples who played a big role in the end of the Bronze Age might very well not have been Indo-Eurasians.


According to the* Karnak* inscription (Year5 of Merenptah) the Sea-peoples came from the North; Which in the case of Egypt would be Anatolia; And in Greek classical history as well as mythology the _Tyrrhenian pirates_ are notorious; All reasons i believe the Sea-peoples were Pelasgians/Maeonians (after the Trojan war i.e. the former allies of Troja/Iliad); And the Sea-peoples did not end the Bronze-age they were a factor for the Bronze-age collapse in the east Mediterranean; The Bronze-age continued and in other parts of Europe was further expanding with the Urnfield-complex;

I agree with your main idea that sea-faring/nautical-expeditions were not an Indo-European trademark; And your examples of Rome and Mycenaean Greece are good examples;

----------


## bicicleur

the first sailor was haplogroup C2 , he got to Sahul - New Guinea and further till Solomon Islands 30000 years ago.
G2a sailed the Egean Sea 13000 years ago. He spread cardium pottery from Anatolia to Sardinia 8200 years ago and from Sardinia till Mondego Bay, Portugal 7500 years ago
O1 sailed from Taiwan till Luzon, Philippines , 5000 years ago , 3600 years ago he discovered the Fiji Islands and thereafter started to sail the Pacicfic and Indian Oceans
Minoans were haplogroup J2a, sailing the eastern mediterranean 5000 years ago , first IJ ofspring sailing

----------


## LeBrok

> I agree with your main idea that sea-faring/nautical-expeditions were not an Indo-European trademark; And your examples of Rome and Mycenaean Greece are good examples;


 Sure. let's say that IE mostly R1 people were not close to the sea for most of the time, probably landlocked and did not have extensive experience of building sea worthy vessels. For that reason their engagement in shipbuilding is delayed when compared to other Mediterranean Cultures. But it doesn't mean that seafaring gene exists in J2 people. Obviously there is no shipbuilding gene, and after all there were only commercial vessels or war ships to enjoy back then. They didn't have yachts to crouse just for pleasure. There might be a gene of adventure and love of roaming/cruising, but if there is one it surely exists in R1 Indo-Europeans too. They had arrived from far away to every place in Europe and they were the ones who took substantial part in exploring and conquering the whole world during colonization period of second half of last millenium. And yes they traveled in most sophisticated vessels in history, and still do.
There is still a lot of J2 in Crete, Cyprus and Lebanon, but are there modern ship building facilities, or new ship technologies being invented, to further their sea loving genes?

----------


## Nobody1

> Sure. let's say that IE mostly R1 people were not close to the sea for most of the time, probably landlocked and did not have extensive experience of building sea worthy vessels. For that reason their engagement in shipbuilding is delayed when compared to other Mediterranean Cultures. But it doesn't mean that seafaring gene exists in J2 people. Obviously there is no shipbuilding gene, and after all there were only commercial vessels or war ships to enjoy back then. They didn't have yachts to crouse just for pleasure. There might be a gene of adventure and love of roaming/cruising, but if there is one it surely exists in R1 Indo-Europeans too. They had arrived from far away to every place in Europe and they were the ones who took substantial part in exploring and conquering the whole world during colonization period of second half of last millenium. And yes they traveled in most sophisticated vessels in history, and still do.
> There is still a lot of J2 in Crete, Cyprus and Lebanon, but are there modern ship building facilities, or new ship technologies being invented, to further their sea loving genes?


Exactly; And i see it the same way that these are two pairs of shoes; 
The one shoe being that a certain Y-DNA Hg is predestined (exclusively) for ship building and navigation which i also seriously doubt; Now it might be the case that the Phoenicians and Minoans (pos. also the Sea-peoples) were dominantly J2 (M410/M12) and the Vikings/Varangians dominantly of I-M170 (M253) but i also do not see that as *the* reason for why they were great mariners;

The other shoe is the historical context of Indo-Europeans simply adopting the naval-skills from the pre-existing or non-Indo-European neighboring pops.; Which is striking in the case of the Romans (Latins/Umbrians) and Mycenaean Greeks who were still dwelling on hill-sites as most notably Rome and Mycenae itself;

----------


## 2,6%Neanderthal

> Sure. let's say that IE mostly R1 people were not close to the sea for most of the time, probably landlocked and did not have extensive experience of building sea worthy vessels. For that reason their engagement in shipbuilding is delayed when compared to other Mediterranean Cultures. But it doesn't mean that seafaring gene exists in J2 people. Obviously there is no shipbuilding gene, and after all there were only commercial vessels or war ships to enjoy back then. They didn't have yachts to crouse just for pleasure. There might be a gene of adventure and love of roaming/cruising, but if there is one it surely exists in R1 Indo-Europeans too. They had arrived from far away to every place in Europe and they were the ones who took substantial part in exploring and conquering the whole world during colonization period of second half of last millenium. And yes they traveled in most sophisticated vessels in history, and still do.
> There is still a lot of J2 in Crete, Cyprus and Lebanon, but are there modern ship building facilities, or new ship technologies being invented, to further their sea loving genes?


We are deviating enormously from the main point of the post.

First of all, we are not talking about modern nations. We are talking about a period in which humans went from having NO SKILL in some field and DEVELOPED IT OUT NOTHING. Basically they went from zero to this: 

Roman_ships.jpg
this is a Carthagenian ship.

Modern nations are the consequence of later cultural and economic development , as well as a melting pot of people from different ethnic background. Many great american scientists were Jewish and today Asians top the list of brilliant graduates in American Universities. Their success has more to do with the fact that they were living in a country that fostered scientific research and economic development than the fact that they were Jewish. Had they been living in Soviet Russia, another white country, I doubt they would have achieved such success.

Second, I am not attacking some sort of "sacred superiority" (= Nazi crap) of the "aryans", nor I am I suggesting the superiority of some other "race" (= Counter-Nazi crap), I am just a fella interested in noticing fundamental links of human history and linking them to genetics and paths human followed to understand how it is that we are what we are today. And by the way I am a white man living in Europe with 99,7% european genetic background. My interest is entirely non-personal, I am not one of those who uses genetics for self-fullfilment purposes. I frankly don't need that. 

Now my observations lead me to believe that there are certain element of fundamental human development that have affected us all as europeans and that were started by populations different than the indo-eurasians. 

One of this is naval engineering and seafaring skills. How many centuries or more would have the Myceneans and the Romans have employed to develop a ship so sophisticated as the one the Phoenician were using already in 1400 BC (not to mention a Carthagenian one) if they hadn't basically copied from Minoans and Carthagenians? 

Let's assume a Viking 1700 AD ship was entirely the product of Indo-Eurasians (which might not be true, the original scandinavian I component might have helped if my theory was true - so by doing this comparison I am actually employing an hypothesis that goes against my point and to the advantage of yours). Still do you realized that a Viking ship is way less sophisticated than a Phoenician ship that was built more than 3000 years before?

This

viking-ship-model1.jpg

was built more than 3000 years LATER than this:

ZVD9030.jpg

After 3000 years the non-mediterreanan Indo-Eurasians still couldn't build a ship as sophisticated as the one the Phoenician/Carghagenia or the Mediterrenean indo-eurasians who copied from them built. 

How many years would have they employed if Rome (or the Myceneans) hadn't entirely copied the already sophisticated Carthagenian (or Minoans) one? 4000? 5000? 6000? Without the Chartagenian input into western society through Rome, would have western society be so advanced in naval engeneering as to build ships that would allow spaniards to cross the ocean some 1800 years after the Punic wars? I have somehow strong doubts. If they didn't manage in 3000 years (the Phoenician-Viking Time Gap), why would have they managed in 1800 (the PunicWars-AmericanDiscovery Time Gap)?

The same identical reasoning could be applied to the Alphabet. The Greek one is derived by the Phoenician one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_alphabet) 

The latin alphabet derives from the greek and was introduced into Rome by the Etruscans
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_alphabet)

And I won't even start with the Arabic Alphabet (we're going even away from J2 into J1 territory here, but still IJ in a sense), without which Galileo, Newton and co would have had to find an entirely different way of doing calculations.

Now, if what you are stating is that without the influence of such cultural elements from such populations, the first Indo-Eurasians would have just one day sit at the table and in a matter of two weeks come out with sophisticated ships, alphabets and counting numbers after they didn't develop them for millenia when they were living in the steppes - or even later if you considered Germanic tribes at the time of Rome didn't use an alphabet - then I am afraid your suggestions are not so serious.

Sure the Indo-Eurasians and all other populations of the world improved naval building and sea-faring skills in modern. Didn't the Japanese have one of the strongest fleet in WWII? Don't the Chinese today have a great navy? Won't emerging countries like Brazil or India build them and probably achieve scientific discoveries while they do so? Sure they will. 

If I wanted to use modern nations to prove my point, I could have quoted the Kingdom of the Two Sicily, basically Southern Italy, with a majority J2, and mentioned the fact that the first school of Naval Engineers was created in Naples around 1834.

Here's a link to the naval achievement of the Two Sicilies: http://www.realcasadiborbone.it/en/h...military/navy/

Now, has this do to with them being J2? No. At that point of history naval engineering had already reached such a sophistication throughout Europe and beyond and knowledge had been spread so much that it really didn't matter anymore.

We are talking about pre-classical times. We are talking about people who introduced this whole branch of technology out of nothing. My observation is that they were NOT Indo-Eurasian population and that they might have been people coming all from the IJ group. The only way you can challenge my observation is to find some sophisticated ship built by indo-eurasians who had never come into contact with mediterraneans or original scandinavians. Some celt in Ireland/northern France? Some "aryan" in the Caspian Sea? Not come up with modern countries who built their ships after the Minoan/Phoenician and possibly original scandinavian cultures had already been well absorbed into overall western country.

If you find me a group of original R1 Celts in Ireland or Scotland (very sea exposed places) who, without ever coming into significant contact with J2/I2 Mediterraneans or I1 Original Scandinavians, way before the age of the Punic Wars, the Roman Empire and the Norman Invasions, managed to build something as sophisticated as a Phoenician/Carthagenian ship OUT OF NOTHING, then I'd be glad to change my view. Quoting later post-medieval nation really doesn't do that. 

I can do that with the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies and possibly other modern nations quite easily too, but I don't, because I think it is too modern to be useful to this debate.

Be careful not to find some ships that might prove Phoenician-Celtic contacts (as you know somebody debated Phoenician present in Ireland) because you would end up strenghtening my point.

----------


## 2,6%Neanderthal

By re-reading my post I actually noticed that the Vikings built sophisticated (not as much as the Phoenician but still advanced) ships that the origianal Irish and Scots did not?

The difference between Vikings and Irish/Scots is the much larger presence of Paleolithic-European I in the Vikings than in the British Isles BEFORE Norman Invasions. This might further strengthen my initial point of IJ.

----------


## bicicleur

IMHO the Viking ships originated in Fosna-Hensbacka culture.
They were reindeer hunters (Ahrensberg culture) who transformed themselves into fishermen and sealhunters.
They started sailing the Norwegian Trench and the Norwegian fjords in their kanoes 12000 years ago.
I believe they were haplo I1. 7500 years later they still lived in the fjords. After contact with Indo-Europeans they developped their boats into precursors of the Viking ships.

I don't believe shipbuilding has anything to do with y DNA. It is just being in the right place under the right circumstances.

----------


## Nobody1

> Some celt in Ireland/northern France? Some "aryan" in the Caspian Sea? Not come up with modern countries who built their ships after the Minoan/Phoenician and possibly original scandinavian cultures had already been well absorbed into overall western country.
> 
> If you find me a group of original R1 Celts in Ireland or Scotland (very sea exposed places) who, without ever coming into significant contact with J2/I2 Mediterraneans or I1 Original Scandinavians, way before the age of the Punic Wars, the Roman Empire and the Norman Invasions, managed to build something as sophisticated as a Phoenician/Carthagenian ship OUT OF NOTHING, then I'd be glad to change my view. Quoting later post-medieval nation really doesn't do that. 
> 
> Be careful not to find some ships that might prove Phoenician-Celtic contacts (as you know somebody debated Phoenician present in Ireland) because you would end up strenghtening my point.


I am again not going to specify anything to a Hg;
But the Gaulish/Keltic *Veneti* of Armorica are recorded to have had sophisticated vessels during the Gallic-wars (58-50BC); De Bel.Gal. III/VIII - _the Veneti both have a very great number of ships, with which they have been accustomed to sail to Britain, and excel the rest in their knowledge and experience of nautical affairs_ 

However Armorica was on the pos. route of the Phoenician/Punic tin-trades (Strabo/Pliny/Diodorus);

----------


## bicicleur

> By re-reading my post I actually noticed that the Vikings built sophisticated (not as much as the Phoenician but still advanced) ships that the origianal Irish and Scots did not?
> 
> The difference between Vikings and Irish/Scots is the much larger presence of Paleolithic-European I in the Vikings than in the British Isles BEFORE Norman Invasions. This might further strengthen my initial point of IJ.


I wonder how well these Phoenician ships did on the Atlantic or the North Sea , where they came only sporadically

Maybe these ships were not as advanced as they seem

----------


## Ha-Nasr

I heard that they found Phoenician statues in south east Brazil

----------


## LeBrok

> We are deviating enormously from the main point of the post.
> 
> First of all, we are not talking about modern nations. We are talking about a period in which humans went from having NO SKILL in some field and DEVELOPED IT OUT NOTHING. Basically they went from zero to this: 
> 
> Attachment 6413
> this is a Carthagenian ship.
> 
> Modern nations are the consequence of later cultural and economic development , as well as a melting pot of people from different ethnic background. Many great american scientists were Jewish and today Asians top the list of brilliant graduates in American Universities. Their success has more to do with the fact that they were living in a country that fostered scientific research and economic development than the fact that they were Jewish. Had they been living in Soviet Russia, another white country, I doubt they would have achieved such success.
> 
> ...


Thanks, good compilation and research.




> The same identical reasoning could be applied to the Alphabet. The Greek one is derived by the Phoenician one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_alphabet) 
> 
> The latin alphabet derives from the greek and was introduced into Rome by the Etruscans
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_alphabet)
> 
> And I won't even start with the Arabic Alphabet (we're going even away from J2 into J1 territory here, but still IJ in a sense), without which Galileo, Newton and co would have had to find an entirely different way of doing calculations.


In this case we might want to talk about brilliance of people like phoenicians with substantial J2. Phoenicians were really extraordinary in many regards, and Jews of course. Coming from fertile Crescent they might have had a head start. If one can assume that farming makes people smarter by implementing more competition than among hunter-gatherers. We might also look into ancients with big proportions of E1b1b being extraordinary, as they came from long line of farmers.




> Now, if what you are stating is that without the influence of such cultural elements from such populations, the first Indo-Eurasians would have just one day sit at the table and in a matter of two weeks come out with sophisticated ships, alphabets and counting numbers after they didn't develop them for millenia when they were living in the steppes - or even later if you considered Germanic tribes at the time of Rome didn't use an alphabet - then I am afraid your suggestions are not so serious.


 Yes, it took a long time to civilise Northern Tribes. I don't remember saying anything about two weeks or coming from nothing. Obviously everything in genetic or technological respect takes rather long time to fruition. 




> Sure the Indo-Eurasians and all other populations of the world improved naval building and sea-faring skills in modern. Didn't the Japanese have one of the strongest fleet in WWII? Don't the Chinese today have a great navy? Won't emerging countries like Brazil or India build them and probably achieve scientific discoveries while they do so? Sure they will.


That was my point that people surrounded by sea sooner or later will produce sophisticated ships. They don't need to be of certain haplotype.




> Now, has this do to with them being J2? No. At that point of history naval engineering had already reached such a sophistication throughout Europe and beyond and knowledge had been spread so much that it really didn't matter anymore.


 Now you're confusing me. Could you read the thread title out loud?




> We are talking about pre-classical times. We are talking about people who introduced this whole branch of technology out of nothing. My observation is that they were NOT Indo-Eurasian population and that they might have been people coming all from the IJ group.


 Why don't you drop the I haplogroup already. Vikings were fairly recent and mainly of IE haplogroups and we have to wait to almost end of first millenium AD to see decent boat of substantial hg I influence. Looks like hg I, being so old, didn't show any interest in seafaring till pretty much recent times.





> The only way you can challenge my observation is to find some sophisticated ship built by indo-eurasians who had never come into contact with mediterraneans or original scandinavians. Some celt in Ireland/northern France? Some "aryan" in the Caspian Sea? Not come up with modern countries who built their ships after the Minoan/Phoenician and possibly original scandinavian cultures had already been well absorbed into overall western country.


 I'm not historien on shipbuilding. Are you saying that Chinese or Indians borrowed phoenician ship building technology?




> If you find me a group of original R1 Celts in Ireland or Scotland (very sea exposed places) who, without ever coming into significant contact with J2/I2 Mediterraneans or I1 Original Scandinavians, way before the age of the Punic Wars, the Roman Empire and the Norman Invasions, managed to build something as sophisticated as a Phoenician/Carthagenian ship OUT OF NOTHING, then I'd be glad to change my view. Quoting later post-medieval nation really doesn't do that.


 Let's concentrate on J2. However, in Phoenician concept, how can you be sure that it wasn't the E1b1b being a substantial force in seafaring.

----------


## bicicleur

> I heard that they found Phoenician statues in south east Brazil


yes and they told phoenician ships came to Cornwall to get tin for their bronze alloys

these stories proved to be false

----------

