PDA

View Full Version : I1 Migration Story



mwauthy
09-06-2018, 06:42 PM
I1 more than likely has a Scandinavian origin and most of the early subclades probably do as well. The purpose of this thread is to give your opinion as to when, how, and with which subclade your paternal ancestor left Scandinavia (unless they are still living there).

I think that my mutations of I1-DF29-Z58-Z59-Z2041-Z2040-Z382-S26361-S16414-S22349-FGC24357 all have a Scandinavian origin (Denmark/Southern Sweden) and they can still be found there today. I think that between (0-500 CE) FGC24347 and S10350 left Denmark/Northern Germany/Frisia with either the Jutes, Angles, Saxons, or Frisians because those subclades no longer have matches in Scandinavia and are mostly found in the British Isles. My paper trail is Wallonia Belgium in 1663 CE. However, there is a family legend that our family migrated from the British Isles near the time of the religious wars in Europe.

What is your theory on your I1 migration story?

JonikW
09-06-2018, 07:10 PM
I guess my forefathers were somewhere around the Jutland peninsula 2,000 years ago (I match a couple of families from north Germany at about 2,500 ybp and Z140 is often considered broadly West Germanic). Then it's possible they became Danes and left Scania or perhaps Denmark proper with the Viking invaders of the late ninth to 11th centuries. That's based on my only Big Y match (which you can see in my signature) and the part of England where my direct paternal ancestors lived.

spruithean
09-06-2018, 09:10 PM
My theory right now is subject to change as more results come in for Big Y and other NGS tests.

As with all I1 I believe my early ancestors to have originated in southern Scandinavia, perhaps in southern Sweden or in Jutland, and from there they spread outward during the early stages of Germanic migration that eventually accelerated with the Migration Period and the eventual fall of the Western Roman Empire. From there if I take into account the calculated TMRCA and formed dates for my terminal SNP A14097 (1,700-1,850 YBP) it would seem given the current evidence that perhaps this lineage has something to do with the Kingdom of Bernicia, or Northumbria in general. Interestingly my closest Big Y matches are downstream of me and our lines branched off quite early from each other. Those two matches appear to be of British origin, with likely origins in Northern England/Southern Scotland or the English Midlands and another match is from Northern Ireland, who I have been unsuccessful at contacting, his surname is essentially the same as mine and we trace our family trees to the same era. Outside of that, other branches (including the branch that our own JMcB belongs to) of the larger Y3647 (Y7198) clade can be found in Scotland, England and Northern Ireland.

Considering the evidence and TMRCAs and other estimations Bernicia/Northumbria seem the most likely considering their period of power that spread their influence from the southern borders with Mercia to the Southern Uplands & the Lothians in Scotland. However, because we lack any continental results (for now, or AFAIK) a later Danelaw or Viking period origin seems less likely, but the possibility could be there if more data rolls in.

From a Northumbrian origin, perhaps either through early Anglian settlement in southern Scotland, or with later Anglo-Saxon arrivals fleeing the aftermath of 1066 my ancestor and his descendants ended up in Scotland, where their descendants took a Gaelic surname, and eventually migrated to the new world in the 1800s.

To summarize my theory:

Jutland/Southern Scandinavia to Northern England/Southern Scotland with either the Angles who would settle Bamburgh and found Bernicia or with Angles who first arrived in Deira, and later went north, from there they made their way to Scotland, adopted a Scottish surname and in the 1800s migrated to Canada.


My inner child would have much preferred a Viking origin theory, however considering the current evidence my specific origin theory predates the Vikings, and so far fits with the earlier wave of Germanic seafarers who made their way to Britain.

JonikW
09-06-2018, 09:38 PM
My inner child would have much preferred a Viking origin theory, however considering the current evidence my specific origin theory predates the Vikings, and so far fits with the earlier wave of Germanic seafarers who made their way to Britain.

Funny, I was the other way round spruithean. I've always been interested in the Vikings, have visited sites from Iceland to Norway to Russia and still often read the sagas; but the early Anglo-Saxons really have a hold on my feelings. I suppose it's the whole idea of Roman Britain coming to an earth-shattering end and families crossing the sea from the homelands to build new lives. In particular I enjoy studying their material culture in books and collections, from fibulae to pottery styles. The Migration Period is the most fascinating for me by a long way. I now suppose that my Y line was part of that same culture but on the other side of the North Sea from what I thought most likely. We missed the boat the first time round, waited a few hundred years and finally gave it a shot.

mwauthy
09-06-2018, 11:11 PM
My theory right now is subject to change as more results come in for Big Y and other NGS tests.

As with all I1 I believe my early ancestors to have originated in southern Scandinavia, perhaps in southern Sweden or in Jutland, and from there they spread outward during the early stages of Germanic migration that eventually accelerated with the Migration Period and the eventual fall of the Western Roman Empire. From there if I take into account the calculated TMRCA and formed dates for my terminal SNP A14097 (1,700-1,850 YBP) it would seem given the current evidence that perhaps this lineage has something to do with the Kingdom of Bernicia, or Northumbria in general. Interestingly my closest Big Y matches are downstream of me and our lines branched off quite early from each other. Those two matches appear to be of British origin, with likely origins in Northern England/Southern Scotland or the English Midlands and another match is from Northern Ireland, who I have been unsuccessful at contacting, his surname is essentially the same as mine and we trace our family trees to the same era. Outside of that, other branches (including the branch that our own JMcB belongs to) of the larger Y3647 (Y7198) clade can be found in Scotland, England and Northern Ireland.

Considering the evidence and TMRCAs and other estimations Bernicia/Northumbria seem the most likely considering their period of power that spread their influence from the southern borders with Mercia to the Southern Uplands & the Lothians in Scotland. However, because we lack any continental results (for now, or AFAIK) a later Danelaw or Viking period origin seems less likely, but the possibility could be there if more data rolls in.

From a Northumbrian origin, perhaps either through early Anglian settlement in southern Scotland, or with later Anglo-Saxon arrivals fleeing the aftermath of 1066 my ancestor and his descendants ended up in Scotland, where their descendants took a Gaelic surname, and eventually migrated to the new world in the 1800s.

To summarize my theory:

Jutland/Southern Scandinavia to Northern England/Southern Scotland with either the Angles who would settle Bamburgh and found Bernicia or with Angles who first arrived in Deira, and later went north, from there they made their way to Scotland, adopted a Scottish surname and in the 1800s migrated to Canada.


My inner child would have much preferred a Viking origin theory, however considering the current evidence my specific origin theory predates the Vikings, and so far fits with the earlier wave of Germanic seafarers who made their way to Britain.

Iím awaiting my Big Y results and yes I agree that my theory might change over the next 20 years as more data rolls in. I really thought my I1 was Frankish up until I received zero matches from Belgium and all of my matches were from the British Isles. I know some of the numbers are due to testing bias in the various countries but I canít ignore the data thatís in front of me.

mwauthy
09-06-2018, 11:17 PM
I guess my forefathers were somewhere around the Jutland peninsula 2,000 years ago (I match a couple of families from north Germany at about 2,500 ybp and Z140 is often considered broadly West Germanic). Then it's possible they became Danes and left Scania or perhaps Denmark proper with the Viking invaders of the late ninth to 11th centuries. That's based on my only Big Y match (which you can see in my signature) and the part of England where my direct paternal ancestors lived.

Yes your TMRCA and location is an excellent candidate for a Viking ancestor. Although one can never know for sure because a backwards migration is theoretically possible even if unlikely. More data and more matches will give more certainty to our theories.

Helgenes50
09-07-2018, 12:45 AM
What is your theory on your I1 migration story?

Thank you Mwauthy for this thread,

First of all, all my ( known) recent ancestry is Norman, West Normandy to be exact, next to the Channel Islands.
But now I have a doubt about the more recent origin of my paternal line, this being the first reason for my analyzes. The family tradition has always said that my third great-grandfather was a Russian soldier.

So I tested the BigY, then YFull, which I'm sure all my old matches (my last branch or Terminal SNP is supposed to go back to 1,500 years, before the Viking period) are Swedish and Finnish.

Now, for more recent periods, I don't know, a Swedish ancestor may have gone to Russia at different times, with the Varangians or after, he could very well be Danish, southern Sweden being part of the Kingdom of Denmark at the time of the Vikings (or Normans) and sailing west, which is likely, but not certain.

I am part of different groups, like L813 on FB and FTDNA

I1> L22> Z74> L813> I-Y18927> I-Y21736> I-Y20861> I-Y36690

dsm
09-07-2018, 01:25 AM
MWauthy,
A really good idea for a thread, and thus far am impressed by the detail being reported by participants.

My interest is not actually for myself but my adopted son who is I1. Thus far he is showing the same
pattern of likely UK origin before his ancestors migrated to Australia/New Zealand.

My greatest focus in research has been Jutland, the Sth Baltic, and the era between 850CE and 1066CE
I have a lot of data that suggests large numbers of 'Anglo/Saxon' & 'Danish' warrior leaders & families,
fled UK in around 1074 on several hundred ships, and went mostly to Byzantium where these people
became the new backbone of the Varangian guard. It had formerly been dominated by Scandinavians
particularly the Rhos (Scandinavians who traded through Russia to the Black Sea).

However, I also believe a large number of northern leaders & warrior class fled into Scotland to get away
from the armies of William during the period known as 'The Harrying of the North' (same reason the
ships left for Byzantium).

My own best summary of I1 in England is that very little came over with the Angles (IIRC, I1 is still weak
in Jutland today compared to R1b-U106, R1a, & perhaps on a par with R1b-P312. Just as U106 is strong
in East England but almost negligible on the west of England. I1 is the same in Denmark. i.e. strong in
East Denmark and Skaane but drops away rapidly through the island of Fyn and more so in Jutland.

So, I tend to be cautious about I1 arriving with the Jutes/Angles/Saxons & Frisians in the immediate
aftermath of the Roman collapse. However, because of the origins and mix of the 'Viking' invasions that started
with 'The Great Heathen Army' 865CE - I can believe more I1 were among them, and more among the Danish
who later invaded under Sweyn & Canute (1013CE to 1018CD). It can be argued that perhaps most I1 and
R1a and S1194 (apart from much Irish R1a & Orcadian R1a) came to Britain with the Viking and Danish
incursions between 865CE and 1018CE. The Jutes, Angles, Saxons & Frisians were apparently dominantly
U106, R1a, P312 & some I1.

The great thing about our various lines of research is how we can learn from each other especially when some
put a lot of focus into their own lines. (Mine is R1b-S1194 - brother clade to P312 & U106 & from my own research
also came to Britain with the Danish incursions. Our line of S1194 settled in Devon where we are less than 0.5%
of the Y-DNA found there. We appear to have had a home in the Sth Baltic and been part of the Danish territories).

The above are observations and as always get refined with other peoples input and expertise. The funny side of all
this DNA research for me is ....
"the more I learn, the less I know".

Doug M








.

mwauthy
09-07-2018, 02:26 AM
Thank you Mwauthy for this thread,

First of all, all my ( known) recent ancestry is Norman, West Normandy to be exact, next to the Channel Islands.
But now I have a doubt about the more recent origin of my paternal line, this being the first reason for my analyzes. The family tradition has always said that my third great-grandfather was a Russian soldier.

So I tested the BigY, then YFull, which I'm sure all my old matches (my last branch or Terminal SNP is supposed to go back to 1,500 years, before the Viking period) are Swedish and Finnish.

Now, for more recent periods, I don't know, a Swedish ancestor may have gone to Russia at different times, with the Varangians or after, he could very well be Danish, southern Sweden being part of the Kingdom of Denmark at the time of the Vikings (or Normans) and sailing west, which is likely, but not certain.

I am part of different groups, like L813 on FB and FTDNA

I1> L22> Z74> L813> I-Y18927> I-Y21736> I-Y20861> I-Y36690

As in your case and my case it seems there might be some validity to our family legends or traditions especially when there are no immediate matches to the immediate location of our paternal ancestry. What I find so fascinating about trying to solve the puzzle is that oftentimes multiple theories are plausible and can match the data.

JerryS.
09-07-2018, 02:31 AM
I figure I have I1 Y dna since my father's father's side..... is from the U.K. and I get some Scandinavian population groups as a primary with some oracles. Since we know Scandinavian people invaded the U.K. this seems only reasonable, however it is interesting that a small group in Sicily has the I1 Y dna as well.

mwauthy
09-07-2018, 02:38 AM
MWauthy,
A really good idea for a thread, and thus far am impressed by the detail being reported by participants.

My interest is not actually for myself but my adopted son who is I1. Thus far he is showing the same
pattern of likely UK origin before his ancestors migrated to Australia/New Zealand.

My greatest focus in research has been Jutland, the Sth Baltic, and the era between 850CE and 1066CE
I have a lot of data that suggests large numbers of 'Anglo/Saxon' & 'Danish' warrior leaders & families,
fled UK in around 1074 on several hundred ships, and went mostly to Byzantium where these people
became the new backbone of the Varangian guard. It had formerly been dominated by Scandinavians
particularly the Rhos (Scandinavians who traded through Russia to the Black Sea).

However, I also believe a large number of northern leaders & warrior class fled into Scotland to get away
from the armies of William during the period known as 'The Harrying of the North' (same reason the
ships left for Byzantium).

My own best summary of I1 in England is that very little came over with the Angles (IIRC, I1 is still weak
in Jutland today compared to R1b-U106, R1a, & perhaps on a par with R1b-P312. Just as U106 is strong
in East England but almost negligible on the west of England. I1 is the same in Denmark. i.e. strong in
East Denmark and Skaane but drops away rapidly through the island of Fyn and more so in Jutland.

So, I tend to be cautious about I1 arriving with the Jutes/Angles/Saxons & Frisians in the immediate
aftermath of the Roman collapse. However, because of the origins and mix of the 'Viking' invasions that started
with 'The Great Heathen Army' 865CE - I can believe more I1 were among them, and more among the Danish
who later invaded under Sweyn & Canute (1013CE to 1018CD). It can be argued that perhaps most I1 and
R1a and S1194 (apart from much Irish R1a & Orcadian R1a) came to Britain with the Viking and Danish
incursions between 865CE and 1018CE. The Jutes, Angles, Saxons & Frisians were apparently dominantly
U106, R1a, P312 & some I1.

The great thing about our various lines of research is how we can learn from each other especially when some
put a lot of focus into their own lines. (Mine is R1b-S1194 - brother clade to P312 & U106 & from my own research
also came to Britain with the Danish incursions. Our line of S1194 settled in Devon where we are less than 0.5%
of the Y-DNA found there. We appear to have had a home in the Sth Baltic and been part of the Danish territories).

The above are observations and as always get refined with other peoples input and expertise. The funny side of all
this DNA research for me is ....
"the more I learn, the less I know".

Doug M








.

Thanks for the detailed post and for the historical insights. I never thought before about how the Norman invasion of England might have affected Anglo-Saxon migration out of England.

I agree with your theory about I1 being more present in the Viking migrations of the British Isles than in the earlier migration period. In my particular case though I would need to see some matches still in Scandinavia today with a TMRCA from that time period. So far I donít but maybe that will change when I get more results.

C J Wyatt III
09-07-2018, 04:15 AM
I figure I have I1 Y dna since my father's father's side..... is from the U.K. and I get some Scandinavian population groups as a primary with some oracles.

Figuring does not work in this endeavor. Take and test and know for sure.

Jack

dsm
09-07-2018, 04:17 AM
Here are some excellent sources for what happened in England after William invaded. And just as an interesting aside, King Harold Godwinson - thought of as the last 'Anglo-Saxon' King of England, was actually half Danish. His father had married a Danish princess as a reward for help and support given to the Danes in the 1013-1018CE period.
Harold's family ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Godwinson#Family_background

Re Anglo-Saxon & Danish exodus from England after 1066 - 3 quotes & great reading ....

Quote 1 of 3:
'According to the recently discovered Chronicon universale anonymi Laudunensis, a group of English notables immigrated to Byzantium in 235 ships, reaching Constantinople in 1075. Some 4350 of the emigrants and their families remained in Constantinople in imperial service, while a majority of the refugees sailed to a place called Domapia, six days journey from Byzantium, conquered it and renamed it Nova Anglia (New England).[28]'

https://asnoc.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/english-refugees-in-the-byzantine-armed-forces-the-varangian-guard-and-anglo-saxon-ethnic-consciousness/



Quote 2 of 3:
'Nonetheless, warriors with a different origin began to arrive on the scene. After the Normans had conquered England in 1066, many of the established families preferred to seek their fortune in foreign lands. At first it seems that most of these exiles from England had Danish origins from the so-called Danelaw, and they subsequently followed the footsteps of their Danish cousins to Byzantium. But soon many Anglo-Saxons followed also, often making up the majority of the Guard. A chronicler at this point distinguishes between "Inglinoi", "Rhos" and "Vrangoi", ie between Anglo-Saxons, Russians and Scandinavians.'

http://www.soldiers-of-misfortune.com/history/varangian-guard.htm


Quote 3 of 3:
'In fact most historical sources and most historians suggest that the first wave of English refugees from the Norman yoke left England after the defeat of Hereward's resistance in Ely in 1072, and arrived in Byzantium in about 1074 in time to help a previous emperor, Michael Doukas, repel a barbarian siege. The earliest Byzantine mention of their presence in the Varangian Guard (which hitherto had comprised Scandinavians and Kiev Rus) is in 1080 when 'Angli' were listed as forming a part of the Guard. It is quite possible that in 1080/1 English 'reinforcements' had joined the earlier refugees.'

https://thewildpeak.wordpress.com/tag/varangian-guard/



Cheers Doug

JerryS.
09-07-2018, 04:28 AM
Figuring does not work in this endeavor. Take and test and know for sure.

Jack

what test? can you provide me a link?

dsm
09-07-2018, 05:01 AM
I figure I have I1 Y dna since my father's father's side..... is from the U.K. and I get some Scandinavian population groups as a primary with some oracles. Since we know Scandinavian people invaded the U.K. this seems only reasonable, however it is interesting that a small group in Sicily has the I1 Y dna as well.

JerryS,

The Norman conquest of Sicily is a very good source of how Scandinavian Y-DNA found its way there. It is one of the strong parts of the Norman push into Europe at a similar time as into England. An intriguing period that so few warriors could achieve so much.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_conquest_of_southern_Italy

D

dsm
09-07-2018, 05:09 AM
what test? can you provide me a link?

Jerry,
He is basically saying a guess has its element of doubt. A Natgeo2 or other Y-DNA capable test would confirm that I1 line. But naturally you have good reason to believe it is true. In my own family, we were all told we were of Scottish decent. I did some family DNA testing and to my surprise I found my granny had been withholding the truth, she was the illegitimate daughter of a Dane and her mother who was Irish. Suddenly we had a Danish great grandfather. - but it opened a whole new line of history. Have even been to his ancestral village in Sonderborg Jutland (and got family finder matches to his descendants after I got his grandson to do a Natgeo2 test ).

Direct proof is always the ultimate confidence creator.

D

C J Wyatt III
09-07-2018, 05:35 AM
Jerry,
He is basically saying a guess has its element of doubt. A Natgeo2 or other Y-DNA capable test would confirm that I1 line. But naturally you have good reason to believe it is true. In my own family, we were all told we were of Scottish decent. I did some family DNA testing and to my surprise I found my granny had been withholding the truth, she was the illegitimate daughter of a Dane and her mother who was Irish. Suddenly we had a Danish great grandfather. - but it opened a whole new line of history. Have even been to his ancestral village in Sonderborg Jutland (and got family finder matches to his descendants after I got his grandson to do a Natgeo2 test ).

Direct proof is always the ultimate confidence creator.

D

Yes, you really don't know until you know.

I first got into genetic genealogy thinking I would find the missing link which would connect my patrilineal Wyatt line to Sir Thomas Wyatt. I was expecting something like R1b for the haplogroup. Instead it came back I1. Through a lot of work I was able to determine that my 7th great grandfather likely was a William Wyatt who was indentured in Barbados in 1659. However on the right side of the Atlantic, the line appears to trace back to a Holcombe line.

I started out with FTDNA's Y-37 test and later upgraded to Y-67, plus did some individual Y-SNP testing. At this point, I am ready to do Big-Y when I get the funds together.

Jerry, you just missed out on FTDNA's latest sale, but another one will probably be along at the end of the year if you want to wait. I would recommend Y-37 which should give you your upper level haplogroup and some indication of whether you have any matches on your patrilineal line. That might be enough to answer your questions, but if you decided to ecpand your testing, that is a good level to build on.


Here's a link to FTDNA's Y-DNA tests:

https://www.familytreedna.com/products/y-dna

Hope this helps.

Jack

JerryS.
09-07-2018, 05:38 AM
Jerry,
He is basically saying a guess has its element of doubt. A Natgeo2 or other Y-DNA capable test would confirm that I1 line. But naturally you have good reason to believe it is true. In my own family, we were all told we were of Scottish decent. I did some family DNA testing and to my surprise I found my granny had been withholding the truth, she was the illegitimate daughter of a Dane and her mother who was Irish. Suddenly we had a Danish great grandfather. - but it opened a whole new line of history. Have even been to his ancestral village in Sonderborg Jutland (and got family finder matches to his descendants after I got his grandson to do a Natgeo2 test ).

Direct proof is always the ultimate confidence creator.

D

I've traced my father's father's et al (Y-dna) side to 1757 when the first came from England to the Virginia colony.

since my father's X line doesn't factor at all in this, and nothing from my mother's side matters here either, its reasonable to infer that I1, isn't it?

C J Wyatt III
09-07-2018, 05:52 AM
I've traced my father's father's et al (Y-dna) side to 1757 when the first came from England to the Virginia colony.

since my father's X line doesn't factor at all in this, and nothing from my mother's side matters here either, its reasonable to infer that I1, isn't it?

I inferred R1b for myself, but I was wrong. Even if a line traces back to a particular region, you always have the possibility of a NPE (non paternal event). Those pesky NPE's can occur in a lot of different ways.

I would not give myself very good odds of guessing the upper level Y-DNA haplogroup group of someone who traces ancestry back to the British Isles (or about anywhere else for that matter). That is what the tests are for.

Jack

dsm
09-07-2018, 06:16 AM
I've traced my father's father's et al (Y-dna) side to 1757 when the first came from England to the Virginia colony.

since my father's X line doesn't factor at all in this, and nothing from my mother's side matters here either, its reasonable to infer that I1, isn't it?

Jerry, yes especially if you and your father directly resemble your grandfather.

Funnily I don't but do closely resemble my uncle - it was a family joke that he was my real father but we know he did not meet my mother until after I was born. And I got my uncle tested via Natgeo2 and am able to show he was my uncle and not my father - I never 'really' doubted it but it nagged me enough that I traced it.

D

JonikW
09-07-2018, 08:33 AM
First, I'd like to add my thanks to mwauthy for starting this thread, which is seeing some excellent comments and observations. Posting yesterday made me go back to YFull to see if I had any new matches. I haven't, but they've removed the "new" tag from my sample and that of my Swedish cousin and in the process have recalibrated the TMRCA date. We now have 1,280 ybp, which is the year 738 under their methodology. Basically then, while this is closer to 865 than it is to 500, it is only an estimate so everything's up for grabs again regarding Anglo-Saxon or Viking roots. Fascinating and frustrating at the same time!
I agree with other posters about the importance of evidence and I'll have to hope for a number of new matches before drawing conclusions.
I was fascinated by Doug's insights and look forward to more aDNA from the Anglo-Saxons (the study on an AS cemetery in Cambridgeshire should be coming up relatively soon). So far we only have one ancient AS sample and he was I1 (as Doug and others say, much, much more data is needed to build an accurate picture).
I'm very pleased so far that I tested Big Y this year, in particular because I feel it's given me the knowledge that my ancestors came to England in one of the Germanic waves of the first millennium or so (my TMRCA with the match in Sweden and more distant cousins in north Germany at 2,500 ybp). I've long been aware of cultural links between Scandinavia and Britain that date back to the Neolithic and Bronze Age (parallels between, for example, the Medway tombs and some in Scandinavia; and solar motifs on rock carvings in Derbyshire and Scandinavia, for example) so at least I feel I can rule such an origin out now. In itself, Z140 and some other I1 subclades look old enough for bearers to have arrived in England in prehistory, as well as with the more obvious AS, Viking and Norman migrations.

Stephen1986
09-07-2018, 08:58 AM
I've not really tested much further than Y67 on FTDNA for my own patrilineal line. As far as I know, the Smith line goes back to the mid-18th century in Goosnargh, Lancashire (not too far from my home city of Preston) and my 6x great grandfather Henry Smith (born c1740, his father may have been called James). I'm I-P109/I1a1b1 as far as I know.

Judith
09-07-2018, 09:32 AM
what test? can you provide me a link?

Hi Jerry you already have some advice on deeper testing but for a superficial y dna result you can do living DNA, but it is not quick. That way you get some great autosomal analytics on where your ancestors came from within the British Isles in addition to both a y and mtdna result. Guessing never works, from the distribution of the y dna compared with my ancestral locations I thought my brother would be one of the R lines but he was I2 instead. Good luck with it!

spruithean
09-07-2018, 10:41 AM
First, I'd like to add my thanks to mwauthy for starting this thread, which is seeing some excellent comments and observations. Posting yesterday made me go back to YFull to see if I had any new matches. I haven't, but they've removed the "new" tag from my sample and that of my Swedish cousin and in the process have recalibrated the TMRCA date. We now have 1,280 ybp, which is the year 738 under their methodology. Basically then, while this is closer to 865 than it is to 500, it is only an estimate so everything's up for grabs again regarding Anglo-Saxon or Viking roots. Fascinating and frustrating at the same time!
I agree with other posters about the importance of evidence and I'll have to hope for a number of new matches before drawing conclusions.
I was fascinated by Doug's insights and look forward to more aDNA from the Anglo-Saxons (the study on an AS cemetery in Cambridgeshire should be coming up relatively soon). So far we only have one ancient AS sample and he was I1 (as Doug and others say, much, much more data is needed to build an accurate picture).
I'm very pleased so far that I tested Big Y this year, in particular because I feel it's given me the knowledge that my ancestors came to England in one of the Germanic waves of the first millennium or so (my TMRCA with the match in Sweden and more distant cousins in north Germany at 2,500 ybp). I've long been aware of cultural links between Scandinavia and Britain that date back to the Neolithic and Bronze Age (parallels between, for example, the Medway tombs and some in Scandinavia; and solar motifs on rock carvings in Derbyshire and Scandinavia, for example) so at least I feel I can rule such an origin out now. In itself, Z140 and some other I1 subclades look old enough for bearers to have arrived in England in prehistory, as well as with the more obvious AS, Viking and Norman migrations.

I've often wondered about some Z140 and other I1 clades predating both AS, Viking and later Norman era migrations. Some clades seem entirely restricted to the Isles, with no representation on the continent. Could be testing bias, or perhaps something else. I'm not sure which clades under F2642 could be pre-Migration Period as I-F2642 (SBT-A1) is seen in the Iceland study. Considering SBT-A1 was mostly "Gaelic" in his ethnic origin with some "Norse" added in, yet plotting closer to England, perhaps his direct paternal line was Anglo-Saxon, with later Scandinavian and Gaelic admixture.

I hope that Cambridgeshire Anglo-Saxon study reveals some interesting aDNA for both Y-DNA and autosomal DNA, we could definitely use it.

Interesting to think from one of the earlier posts in here that perhaps the Anglo-Saxons didn't carry much I1. I think they carried a fair amount despite the modern weakness of I1 in Denmark. One of the first aY-DNA from an Anglo-Saxon at the Teesside was I-M253 (noted as I-S107 in the study).

EDIT: the Anglo-Saxons most certainly fled north to Scotland and elsewhere in the aftermath of 1066, especially more noble houses of the time. We know Tostig Godwinson was a close friend of the King of Scotland in his time and Tostig's deputy Copsi had spent some exile in Orkney. Also worth noting that some of the Godwinson brothers had spent their exile in Ireland and a generation later with the sons of Harold Godwinson attempting to invade England from Ireland with Irish forces. I don't think Anglo-Saxon interaction with Ireland and Scotland is as non-existent as it might appear at first glance.

Some of the later AS nobles in Northern Northumbria and the Lothians were of seemingly mixed origins with one of them being the progenitor of the House of Dunbar and a descendant of this early Anglo-Scottish earl was a descendant of the King of Scotland.

mwauthy
09-07-2018, 12:03 PM
what test? can you provide me a link?

In the more Germanic areas of the British Isles I1 is only around 15% of the Y haplogroups so mathematically odds are you are probably not I1. Testing is the only way to know for sure. If youíve done the Ancestry ethnicity estimate you can run your raw data through Wegene for free and they will let you know if you are I1 or not. Thatís what I did for my father. Wegene assigned him to I1a2 or basically I-Z58.

mwauthy
09-07-2018, 12:15 PM
Yes, you really don't know until you know.

I first got into genetic genealogy thinking I would find the missing link which would connect my patrilineal Wyatt line to Sir Thomas Wyatt. I was expecting something like R1b for the haplogroup. Instead it came back I1. Through a lot of work I was able to determine that my 7th great grandfather likely was a William Wyatt who was indentured in Barbados in 1659. However on the right side of the Atlantic, the line appears to trace back to a Holcombe line.

I started out with FTDNA's Y-37 test and later upgraded to Y-67, plus did some individual Y-SNP testing. At this point, I am ready to do Big-Y when I get the funds together.

Jerry, you just missed out on FTDNA's latest sale, but another one will probably be along at the end of the year if you want to wait. I would recommend Y-37 which should give you your upper level haplogroup and some indication of whether you have any matches on your patrilineal line. That might be enough to answer your questions, but if you decided to ecpand your testing, that is a good level to build on.


Here's a link to FTDNA's Y-DNA tests:

https://www.familytreedna.com/products/y-dna

Hope this helps.

Jack

Did you ever get your results back from YSEQ for I-S10350? According to the I1 project data there are two Holcomb(e)s who tested positive for S10350 like myself. Iím waiting for my Big Y results to see if I match their subclades downstream of S10350.

The surname Holcombe is Anglo-Saxon in origin most likely and is derived from the Old English elements of Hol (which means deep or hollow) and cumb(which means valley).

JerryS.
09-07-2018, 12:15 PM
1 69.1% German (Dodecad) + 30.9% Tuscan (HGDP)
2 78.2% CEU (HapMap) + 21.8% Greek (Dodecad)
3 67.1% German (Dodecad) + 32.9% O_Italian (Dodecad)
4 73.7% Orkney (1000 Genomes) + 26.3% Greek (Dodecad)
5 74.4% Orcadian (HGDP) + 25.6% Greek (Dodecad)
6 79.1% CEU (HapMap) + 20.9% Sicilian (Dodecad)
7 61.6% German (Dodecad) + 38.4% TSI (HapMap)
8 61.3% German (Dodecad) + 38.7% N_Italian (Dodecad)
9 71.7% German (Dodecad) + 28.3% C_Italian (Dodecad)
10 80% CEU (HapMap) + 20% S_Italian (Dodecad)
11 75.6% Argyll (1000 Genomes) + 24.4% Sicilian (Dodecad)
12 80.9% CEU (HapMap) + 19.1% Sephardic_Jews (Behar)
13 52.2% British (Dodecad) + 47.8% Romanians_14 (Behar)
14 78.6% CEU (HapMap) + 21.4% S_Italian_Sicilian (Dodecad)
15 51.7% Cornwall (1000 Genomes) + 48.3% Romanians_14 (Behar)
16 76.2% N._European (Xing) + 23.8% Greek (Dodecad)
17 75.4% Orcadian (HGDP) + 24.6% Sicilian (Dodecad)
18 74.8% Orkney (1000 Genomes) + 25.2% Sicilian (Dodecad)
19 54.5% Kent (1000 Genomes) + 45.5% Romanians_14 (Behar)
20 57.4% Dutch (Dodecad) + 42.6% Romanians_14 (Behar)



1 92.7% French (HGDP) + 7.3% Abhkasians (Yunusbayev) @ 0.78
2 66.5% British (Dodecad) + 33.5% C_Italian (Dodecad) @ 0.8
3 74% Cornwall (1000 Genomes) + 26% Ashkenazi (Dodecad) @ 0.81
4 92.3% French (HGDP) + 7.7% Georgians (Behar) @ 0.82
5 64.4% Cornwall (1000 Genomes) + 35.6% O_Italian (Dodecad) @ 0.83
6 66.4% Mixed_Germanic (Dodecad) + 33.6% Tuscan (HGDP) @ 0.84
7 63.7% British (Dodecad) + 36.3% O_Italian (Dodecad) @ 0.84
8 73.7% Kent (1000 Genomes) + 26.3% Ashkenazi (Dodecad) @ 0.85
9 67.3% Cornwall (1000 Genomes) + 32.7% C_Italian (Dodecad) @ 0.87
10 64.1% Kent (1000 Genomes) + 35.9% O_Italian (Dodecad) @ 0.87
11 71.6% Mixed_Germanic (Dodecad) + 28.4% C_Italian (Dodecad) @ 0.88
12 65.4% Mixed_Germanic (Dodecad) + 34.6% TSI30 (Metspalu) @ 0.88
13 73.2% Cornwall (1000 Genomes) + 26.8% Sicilian (Dodecad) @ 0.89
14 60.9% British (Dodecad) + 39.1% Tuscan (HGDP) @ 0.89
15 66.9% Kent (1000 Genomes) + 33.1% C_Italian (Dodecad) @ 0.89
16 73.1% Cornwall (1000 Genomes) + 26.9% Ashkenazy_Jews @ 0.9
17 77.6% Cornwall (1000 Genomes) + 22.4% Sephardic_Jews (Behar) @ 0.9
18 61.7% CEU30 (1000Genomes) + 38.3% Tuscan (HGDP) @ 0.9
19 77.3% Kent (1000 Genomes) + 22.7% Sephardic_Jews (Behar) @ 0.9
20 69% Mixed_Germanic (Dodecad) + 31% O_Italian (Dodecad) @ 0.91

1 90.9% Austrian (derived) + 9.1% Greek_Cretan (derived) @ 2.09
2 76.9% Austrian (derived) + 23.1% Romania (derived) @ 2.1
3 86.6% Austrian (derived) + 13.4% Greek_South (derived) @ 2.13
4 92.6% Austrian (derived) + 7.4% Turk (derived) @ 2.13
5 89.5% Austrian (derived) + 10.5% Italian-South (derived) @ 2.13
6 88.2% Austrian (derived) + 11.8% Greek_Center (derived) @ 2.14
7 92.8% Austrian (derived) + 7.2% Cypriot (derived) @ 2.14
8 88.7% Austrian (derived) + 11.3% Greek_East (derived) @ 2.14
9 86.7% Austrian (derived) + 13.3% Greek_North (derived) @ 2.16
10 89% Austrian (derived) + 11% Italian-Center (derived) @ 2.16
11 90.1% Austrian (derived) + 9.9% Sicilian (derived) @ 2.17
12 91% Austrian (derived) + 9% Ashkenazim (derived) @ 2.18
13 92.8% Austrian (derived) + 7.2% Jew_Syria (derived) @ 2.19
14 90.5% Austrian (derived) + 9.5% Greek_Azov (derived) @ 2.19
15 93.3% Austrian (derived) + 6.7% Lebanese (derived) @ 2.19
16 93.7% Austrian (derived) + 6.3% Iraqi (derived) @ 2.22
17 58.8% Serbian (derived) + 41.2% Welsh (derived) @ 2.22
18 93.8% Austrian (derived) + 6.2% Armenian (derived) @ 2.24
19 92.4% Austrian (derived) + 7.6% Jew_Algeria (derived) @ 2.24
20 93.8% Austrian (derived) + 6.2% Kurd (derived) @ 2.25





1 DK + NO + NO + Tuscan @ 4.805030
2 English + NO + South_&_Central_Swedish + Tuscan @ 4.808498
3 DK + NO + South_&_Central_Swedish + Tuscan @ 4.814041
4 NO + NO + NO + Tuscan @ 4.819273
5 English + NO + NO + Tuscan @ 4.830765
6 English + South_&_Central_Swedish + South_&_Central_Swedish + Tuscan @ 4.846118
7 NO + NO + South_&_Central_Swedish + Tuscan @ 4.876229
8 DK + South_&_Central_Swedish + South_&_Central_Swedish + Tuscan @ 4.883138
9 DK + DK + South_&_Central_Swedish + Tuscan @ 4.921634
10 NL + NO + NO + Tuscan @ 4.931489
11 NL + NO + South_&_Central_Swedish + Tuscan @ 4.952838
12 DK + DK + NO + Tuscan @ 4.952845
13 NO + South_&_Central_Swedish + South_&_Central_Swedish + Tuscan @ 4.992786
14 NO + NO + Tuscan + West_&_Central_German @ 4.995282
15 NL + South_&_Central_Swedish + South_&_Central_Swedish + Tuscan @ 5.026899
16 DK + English + South_&_Central_Swedish + Tuscan @ 5.039971
17 NO + South_&_Central_Swedish + Tuscan + West_&_Central_German @ 5.044879
18 DK + English + NO + Tuscan @ 5.098952
19 DK + NL + South_&_Central_Swedish + Tuscan @ 5.123560
20 DK + NL + NO + Tuscan @ 5.139149



1 74% English (Dodecad) + 26% Ashkenazi (Dodecad) @ 0.87
2 74.5% Kent (1000Genomes) + 25.5% Ashkenazi (Dodecad) @ 0.89
3 74% English (Dodecad) + 26% Ashkenazy_Jews (Behar) @ 0.95
4 75.6% Cornwall (1000Genomes) + 24.4% Ashkenazi (Dodecad) @ 0.97
5 74.5% Kent (1000Genomes) + 25.5% Ashkenazy_Jews (Behar) @ 1.02
6 91.3% French (HGDP) + 8.7% Balkars (Yunusbayev) @ 1.02
7 91.1% French (HGDP) + 8.9% Kumyks (Yunusbayev) @ 1.03
8 91.5% French (HGDP) + 8.5% North_Ossetians (Yunusbayev) @ 1.05
9 71.5% British_Isles (Dodecad) + 28.5% Ashkenazi (Dodecad) @ 1.06
10 71.8% British (Dodecad) + 28.2% Ashkenazi (Dodecad) @ 1.06
11 75.7% Cornwall (1000Genomes) + 24.3% Ashkenazy_Jews (Behar) @ 1.07
12 71.3% Irish (Dodecad) + 28.7% Ashkenazi (Dodecad) @ 1.12
13 91.3% French (HGDP) + 8.7% Adygei (HGDP) @ 1.12
14 90.6% French (Dodecad) + 9.4% Chechens (Yunusbayev) @ 1.13
15 78.2% Kent (1000Genomes) + 21.8% Sephardic_Jews (Behar) @ 1.14
16 73.4% English (Dodecad) + 26.6% Sicilian (Dodecad) @ 1.14
17 71.6% British_Isles (Dodecad) + 28.4% Ashkenazy_Jews (Behar) @ 1.15
18 58.9% English (Dodecad) + 41.1% O_Italian (Dodecad) @ 1.16
19 71.8% British (Dodecad) + 28.2% Ashkenazy_Jews (Behar) @ 1.16
20 59.6% Kent (1000Genomes) + 40.4% O_Italian (Dodecad) @ 1.16




1 64.4 Croatian + 35.6 Portuguese @ 1.39
2 88.1 South_German + 11.9 Sephardic_Jew @ 1.4
3 86.7 South_German + 13.3 Ashkenazy_Jew @ 1.42
4 61.3 Hungarian + 38.7 Portuguese @ 1.44
5 87.2 South_German + 12.8 Sicilian @ 1.45
6 71 South_German + 29 Montenegrin @ 1.52
7 86.2 Utahn_White + 13.8 Sephardic_Jew @ 1.53
8 84.5 Utahn_White + 15.5 Ashkenazy_Jew @ 1.54
9 92 South_German + 8 Egyptian @ 1.54
10 50.4 Norwegian + 49.6 Italian @ 1.55
11 90.5 Utahn_White + 9.5 Egyptian @ 1.55
12 54.2 Italian + 45.8 Swedish @ 1.56
13 91.9 South_German + 8.1 Samaritian @ 1.56
14 81 South_German + 19 Albanian @ 1.57
15 77.6 English + 22.4 Sicilian @ 1.57
16 58.9 Slovenian + 41.1 Portuguese @ 1.59
17 79.2 English + 20.8 Sephardic_Jew @ 1.59
18 85.1 Utahn_White + 14.9 Sicilian @ 1.61
19 74 Scottish + 26 Sicilian @ 1.61
20 75.8 Scottish + 24.2 Sephardic_Jew @ 1.63


Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50 Norwegian +50 Italian @ 1.620151


Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50 Swedish +25 Portuguese +25 Greek_Thessaly @ 0.964493


Using 4 populations approximation:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 Swedish + Swedish + Portuguese + Greek_Thessaly @ 0.964493
2 Swedish + Norwegian + Portuguese + Greek_Thessaly @ 1.075507
3 Polish + North_German + Portuguese + Albanian @ 1.106073
4 Hungarian + South_German + Serbian + Portuguese @ 1.121520
5 Polish + Scottish + Portuguese + Greek_Thessaly @ 1.137257
6 North_German + Slovenian + Bulgarian + Portuguese @ 1.140830
7 Hungarian + Utahn_White + Serbian + Portuguese @ 1.142349
8 Swedish + Swedish + Portuguese + Greek_Central @ 1.148676
9 English + Slovenian + Macedonian + Portuguese @ 1.163651
10 North_German + Slovenian + Romanian + Portuguese @ 1.172692
11 Lithuanian + South_German + Portuguese + Tuscan @ 1.175224
12 Polish + Swedish + Portuguese + Tuscan @ 1.178285
13 Utahn_White + Croatian + Serbian + Portuguese @ 1.178750
14 Irish + Irish + Macedonian + Portuguese @ 1.180291
15 Scottish + Hungarian + Macedonian + Portuguese @ 1.191980
16 Polish + Norwegian + Portuguese + Greek_Thessaly @ 1.197330
17 North_German + Slovenian + Montenegrin + Portuguese @ 1.199262
18 North_German + Hungarian + Romanian + Portuguese @ 1.199430
19 Slovenian + South_German + Serbian + Portuguese @ 1.213212
20 Polish + North_German + Portuguese + Greek_Thessaly @ 1.214472



1 Norwegian @ 19.798374
2 Greek @ 21.205164
3 Sicilian @ 28.451424
4 Russian @ 31.049303
5 Turks_Istanbul @ 34.395576
6 Finnish @ 35.517170
7 Estonian @ 37.618797
8 Turks_Balikesir @ 38.682121
9 Turks_Aydin @ 38.747105
10 Lithuanian @ 38.928043
11 Turkmen_Afghan @ 43.494293
12 Uzbek @ 44.225742
13 Kurds_N @ 44.282520
14 Kurds_C @ 44.331623
15 Tajik_Pomiri @ 44.437351
16 Turks_Adana @ 45.077026
17 Turks_Kayseri @ 45.655128
18 Iraqi_Chaldeans @ 46.705856
19 Kurds_F @ 46.833839
20 Kurds_E @ 47.022793

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Greek +50% Norwegian @ 5.383189


Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Greek +25% Norwegian +25% Norwegian @ 5.383189


Using 4 populations approximation:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 Greek + Greek + Norwegian + Norwegian @ 5.383189
2 Adygei + Estonian + Estonian + Stuttgart @ 5.450416
3 BA_Sintashta + Norwegian + Sardinian + Turks_Trabzon @ 5.488712
4 Corded_Ware_LN + Norwegian + Sardinian + Turks_Trabzon @ 5.488712
5 Adygei + Estonian + Lithuanian + Stuttgart @ 5.533626
6 BA_Sintashta + Greek + Sardinian + Tajik_Pomiri @ 5.649039
7 Corded_Ware_LN + Greek + Sardinian + Tajik_Pomiri @ 5.649039
8 Adygei + Lithuanian + Lithuanian + Stuttgart @ 5.652093
9 Greek + Norwegian + Norwegian + Turks_Istanbul @ 5.924913
10 Adygei + Finnish + Lithuanian + Stuttgart @ 5.929885
11 Adygei + Estonian + Finnish + Stuttgart @ 5.959781
12 Adygei + Lithuanian + Russian + Sardinian @ 6.016831
13 BA_Sintashta + Greek + Sardinian + Turks_Istanbul @ 6.036592
14 Corded_Ware_LN + Greek + Sardinian + Turks_Istanbul @ 6.036592
15 BA_Sintashta + Sardinian + Sicilian + Tajik_Pomiri @ 6.070326
16 Corded_Ware_LN + Sardinian + Sicilian + Tajik_Pomiri @ 6.070326
17 Abkhasian + Lithuanian + Lithuanian + Sardinian @ 6.084281
18 BA_Sintashta + Sardinian + Turks_Istanbul + Turks_Istanbul @ 6.098576
19 Corded_Ware_LN + Sardinian + Turks_Istanbul + Turks_Istanbul @ 6.098576
20 Abkhasian + Estonian + Lithuanian + Sardinian @ 6.112906


I hope I used the spoiler thing right. but as you can see, depending upon which calculator model I use and which oracle choice is used, I get some Scandinavian as a primary population. that seems to indicate a favorable chance of my English/Scottish/North German heritage to be influenced by the I1 would it not? I know this isn't a substitute for another test.

msmarjoribanks
09-07-2018, 12:37 PM
Autosomal doesn't tell you anything about YDNA (it might suggest a mystery in some cases, that's all).

R1b is extremely common in the UK, including for people with some Scandinavian heritage (lots of people have Scandinavian heritage and it's not from their dad's dad's dad's dad's and so on). Also, my cousin whose patrilineal line is actually Scandinavian is R-U106. You have no idea without testing.

Besides, most fun thing about Y-lines is getting more into the specifics, like people are talking about here. Test (or try the WeGene).

mwauthy
09-07-2018, 01:02 PM
First, I'd like to add my thanks to mwauthy for starting this thread, which is seeing some excellent comments and observations. Posting yesterday made me go back to YFull to see if I had any new matches. I haven't, but they've removed the "new" tag from my sample and that of my Swedish cousin and in the process have recalibrated the TMRCA date. We now have 1,280 ybp, which is the year 738 under their methodology. Basically then, while this is closer to 865 than it is to 500, it is only an estimate so everything's up for grabs again regarding Anglo-Saxon or Viking roots. Fascinating and frustrating at the same time!
I agree with other posters about the importance of evidence and I'll have to hope for a number of new matches before drawing conclusions.
I was fascinated by Doug's insights and look forward to more aDNA from the Anglo-Saxons (the study on an AS cemetery in Cambridgeshire should be coming up relatively soon). So far we only have one ancient AS sample and he was I1 (as Doug and others say, much, much more data is needed to build an accurate picture).
I'm very pleased so far that I tested Big Y this year, in particular because I feel it's given me the knowledge that my ancestors came to England in one of the Germanic waves of the first millennium or so (my TMRCA with the match in Sweden and more distant cousins in north Germany at 2,500 ybp). I've long been aware of cultural links between Scandinavia and Britain that date back to the Neolithic and Bronze Age (parallels between, for example, the Medway tombs and some in Scandinavia; and solar motifs on rock carvings in Derbyshire and Scandinavia, for example) so at least I feel I can rule such an origin out now. In itself, Z140 and some other I1 subclades look old enough for bearers to have arrived in England in prehistory, as well as with the more obvious AS, Viking and Norman migrations.

This is especially true since TMRCAs are not exact and can have a margin of error of several hundred years.

mwauthy
09-07-2018, 01:11 PM
@ JerryS, As msmarjoribanks was saying you canít use autosomal data to infer Y haplogroup assignment. I have a friend who is 100% British ancestry with a large percentage of Scandinavian influence and he was assigned E-V13.

msmarjoribanks
09-07-2018, 04:18 PM
Even though I'm not aware of any personal I1 connections, I'm finding this thread extremely interesting. I love it when Y-DNA allows people to find out more (or have the potential to find out more) about deep ancestry/distant ancestors like this, and how they might have ended up where they did.

C J Wyatt III
09-07-2018, 05:34 PM
Did you ever get your results back from YSEQ for I-S10350? According to the I1 project data there are two Holcomb(e)s who tested positive for S10350 like myself. Iím waiting for my Big Y results to see if I match their subclades downstream of S10350.

The surname Holcombe is Anglo-Saxon in origin most likely and is derived from the Old English elements of Hol (which means deep or hollow) and cumb(which means valley).

Not yet, though I am hoping for the result any day.

Though the name Holcombe can trace to pre-Norman times, I have seen some suggestions that the actual bloodline is Norman. Just another complication which may or may not be true.

In looking for Holcombe links just now, I came across Andrew and Thomas Holcombe who settled in Barbados in 1663. That means the NPE in my line may have taken place in Barbados. I hope I will be able to find some other Wyatt patrilineal lines which go through my 7th great grandmother, Rebekah Eivens. If the haplogroup is different and ties into another Wyatt line, then the NPE in Barbados is very likely.

I am waiting for your Big Y results almost as much as you are :)

Jack

C J Wyatt III
09-07-2018, 05:47 PM
I hope I used the spoiler thing right. but as you can see, depending upon which calculator model I use and which oracle choice is used, I get some Scandinavian as a primary population. that seems to indicate a favorable chance of my English/Scottish/North German heritage to be influenced by the I1 would it not? I know this isn't a substitute for another test.

The Y-DNA test is the most reliable and stable of all of the DNA tests for genetic genealogy. There are so many possibilities about what the Y-haplogroup could be, that I wouldn't even think about guessing.


Jack

mwauthy
09-07-2018, 06:47 PM
Not yet, though I am hoping for the result any day.

Though the name Holcombe can trace to pre-Norman times, I have seen some suggestions that the actual bloodline is Norman. Just another complication which may or may not be true.

In looking for Holcombe links just now, I came across Andrew and Thomas Holcombe who settled in Barbados in 1663. That means the NPE in my line may have taken place in Barbados. I hope I will be able to find some other Wyatt patrilineal lines which go through my 7th great grandmother, Rebekah Eivens. If the haplogroup is different and ties into another Wyatt line, then the NPE in Barbados is very likely.

I am waiting for your Big Y results almost as much as you are :)

Jack

A Norman connection would be interesting. It would also explain why I have a French/Germanic surname. Wauthy is short for Wauthier which comes from the Old High German Walthari or Waldhari. Wald meaning ruler or power and hari meaning army. The name Wautier was introduced into England by the Normans where it evolved into Walter. The name backwards is Harold or Hariwald. It would also explain why my ancestors would choose to move to a French speaking village in Belgium when they moved from the British Isles possibly at the end of the 30 Years War.

The only problems though is that the TMRCAs donít match up properly right now for a Viking arrival into Normandy and I currently have zero matches from Northern France.

Helgenes50
09-07-2018, 07:03 PM
A Norman connection would be interesting. It would also explain why I have a French/Germanic surname. Wauthy is short for Wauthier which comes from the Old High German Walthari or Waldhari. Wald meaning ruler or power and hari meaning army. The name Wautier was introduced into England by the Normans where it evolved into Walter. The name backwards is Harold or Hariwald. It would also explain why my ancestors would choose to move to a French speaking village in Belgium when they moved from the British Isles possibly at the end of the 30 Years War.

The only problems though is that the TMRCAs donít match up properly right now for a Viking arrival into Normandy and I currently have zero matches from Northern France.

This doesn't prove anything. The number of French, because of the law forbidding to do genetic tests, is really weak
A simple example for now I am the only Norman on this forum, with eight great grand parents of same origin.
In this case, very difficult for you to find matches in Northern France, especially in Normandy

mwauthy
09-07-2018, 07:36 PM
This doesn't prove anything. The number of French, because of the law forbidding to do genetic tests, is really weak
A simple example for now I am the only Norman on this forum, with eight great grand parents of same origin.
In this case, very difficult for you to find matches in Northern France, especially in Normandy

I definitely agree that the lack of testing or minimal testing in certain countries or regions is troubling and can definitely affect migration theories. The fact that DNA testing is illegal in France seems completely absurd to me and a total intrusion of the government into the private lives of its citizens.

Wallonia Belgium definitely has testing issues as well. When I look at maps for I1, R1b-U106, and R1b-U152 I see less than 5 results for each group even though there are thousands of members in those particular projects at FTDNA. The Flemish part of Belgium or more Frankish influenced part has better testing numbers. However, I have zero matches there as well.

spruithean
09-07-2018, 08:01 PM
Autosomal doesn't tell you anything about YDNA (it might suggest a mystery in some cases, that's all).

R1b is extremely common in the UK, including for people with some Scandinavian heritage (lots of people have Scandinavian heritage and it's not from their dad's dad's dad's dad's and so on). Also, my cousin whose patrilineal line is actually Scandinavian is R-U106. You have no idea without testing.

Besides, most fun thing about Y-lines is getting more into the specifics, like people are talking about here. Test (or try the WeGene).

To echo this statement,

Having a certain percentage of Scandinavian autosomal DNA does not necessarily mean that your Y-line is I1. Y-DNA has nothing to do with autosomal DNA, as you can have cases where rarer haplogroups show up in ethnic groups you wouldn't expect. Like I-Z140 showing up in Bashkir clans. A so called "West Germanic" haplogroup found in certain paternal lines of an ethnic group who certainly are not Germanic. All it takes is a family, or an individual belonging to a "rarer" haplogroup migrating and his descendants eventually becoming indistinguishable from the individuals who were "indigenous" to the group. An example of this could be with Scandinavian men in the Hebrides, eventual adoption of Gaelic culture and language, marriage to Gaelic women, their descendants would speak Gaelic and have a Gaelic culture. Usually this group is referred to as Norse-Gael, or Gall-Ghaeil (Irish)/Gall-Ghŗidheil (Scots Gaelic). However the case with the Norse-Gaels is they are usually noted in history to be separate from the English and Irish. So it might not be the best example.

In my own case, my autosomal DNA says I'm pretty much a blend of Isles and Continental W.Europe with some trace amounts here and there. My surname being a Celtic surname originally had me fully expecting to be in R1b, but that's not the case. It's obvious my paternal line has a different migration story than what I had expected initially.

The only way to know is to take a Y-DNA test.

JonikW
09-07-2018, 08:59 PM
I think for I1 the best chance of us all discovering our ancient origins will come through aDNA. If I1 really was as localised in the Migration Period as Doug theorised earlier, burial practices could have profound implications for what we can find out. The Saxons generally favoured inhumation from an early date in England, and the Jutes of Kent also practised it. The Angles, however, mostly used cremation, which will severely limit what we can find out about them through DNA. If I-M253 was broadly Scandinavian in the Migration Period, the Saxons, being more southerly, might be expected to carry more U106 and the Angles more I1, particularly if Frank Stenton was right about them being the most northerly of the three continental peoples. (He cites English Anglian cruciform brooches and wrist clasps having Scandinavian parallels - I've seen some of these artefacts in Norway - as well as Theudebert's letter to Justinian where he claims to be lord of the Jutes, and parallels between the law and field systems of Kent and the Rhineland as part of his evidence that the Jutes in the homeland were south of the Angles.) Even if we dismiss that view and place the Angles in the middle of the Jutland peninsula as is conventional, many have thought it likely they were also settled in Funen, Zealand and Scania (Angelholm). Again, if that geography made them more likely to be I1, the available evidence will be limited and we'll end up with plenty of U106 in the Saxons of England with invisible I-M253.

ADD: Did I1 mostly move down into Friesland, the broader Netherlands and Germany with the Mischgruppe of Migration-era peoples? Any thoughts?

C J Wyatt III
09-07-2018, 10:36 PM
I think for I1 the best chance of us all discovering our ancient origins will come through aDNA. If I1 really was as localised in the Migration Period as Doug theorised earlier, burial practices could have profound implications for what we can find out. The Saxons generally favoured inhumation from an early date in England, and the Jutes of Kent also practised it. The Angles, however, mostly used cremation, which will severely limit what we can find out about them through DNA...

That's too bad about the burial practices, but I do not see autosomal DNA coming to the rescue. Heck, we even do not have a good idea about how to interpret autosomal during the most recent few hundred years.

Jack

spruithean
09-07-2018, 10:50 PM
I think for I1 the best chance of us all discovering our ancient origins will come through aDNA. If I1 really was as localised in the Migration Period as Doug theorised earlier, burial practices could have profound implications for what we can find out. The Saxons generally favoured inhumation from an early date in England, and the Jutes of Kent also practised it. The Angles, however, mostly used cremation, which will severely limit what we can find out about them through DNA. If I-M253 was broadly Scandinavian in the Migration Period, the Saxons, being more southerly, might be expected to carry more U106 and the Angles more I1, particularly if Frank Stenton was right about them being the most northerly of the three continental peoples. (He cites English Anglian cruciform brooches and wrist clasps having Scandinavian parallels - I've seen some of these artefacts in Norway - as well as Theudebert's letter to Justinian where he claims to be lord of the Jutes, and parallels between the law and field systems of Kent and the Rhineland as part of his evidence that the Jutes in the homeland were south of the Angles.) Even if we dismiss that view and place the Angles in the middle of the Jutland peninsula as is conventional, many have thought it likely they were also settled in Funen, Zealand and Scania (Angelholm). Again, if that geography made them more likely to be I1, the available evidence will be limited and we'll end up with plenty of U106 in the Saxons of England with invisible I-M253.

ADD: Did I1 mostly move down into Friesland, the broader Netherlands and Germany with the Mischgruppe of Migration-era peoples? Any thoughts?

Frank Stenton's take on the Angles being the more northerly of the Anglo-Saxon tribes was rather recent news to me awhile ago, however given the evidence it makes sense. If the Angles practiced more cremation compared to the inhumation graves of their Saxon and Jutish "compatriots" we might find a distinct lack of aDNA from the earlier pre-Christian time period (and even the early Christian period). We'd have to depend more on later graves and their potential to provide Anglian aDNA (NO3423 Teesside Anglo-Saxon comes to mind). There might be something to the notion that the Angles were the most northerly of the three, I know the parent I-A13241 clade of mine has branches in Sweden in Finland, which could be coincidental or something worth more investigation.

One thing that might influence the ability to retrieve early Anglo-Saxon DNA could be the soil in certain parts of Britain, we know soil pH has an affect on DNA preservation, and bone preservation.

While this link (https://indo-european.info/ie/Germanic#Haplogroup_I1-M253)doesn't explicitly say anything in regards to Friesland, Netherlands and Germany it seems to insinuate that Northern Germany and Jutland were somewhat dominated by R-U106 up to the Skagerrak strait, while I-M253 was limited to Northern Scandinavia, this seems to be supported given the apparent weakness of I-M253 in Jutland compared to R and this could be due to the relatively late Danish settlement of Jutland.


After an obscure period of internal development (regarding lineages and admixture), the situation in Northern Germany and Scandinavia before the Iron Age probably corresponded loosely to the present situation. R1b1a1a2a1a1-U106 lineages probably occupied Jutland and the northern Scandinavian territory around the Skagerrak strait, while communities with I1-M253 lineages were confined to northern Scandinavia, given the quite late invasion of Jutland by Danes.

The irruption of Germanic peoples in central, east, and west Europe including the Roman Empire – the Barbarian Invasions from Classical sources, renamed the Migration Period since the Romantic era – suggests a R1b1a1a2a1a1-U106-dominated West Germanic area, and Viking migrations point to different clans belonging to R1b1a1a2a1a1-U106, I1-M253, and R1a1a1b1a3-Z284 lineages in the North Germanic area.

JonikW
09-07-2018, 11:01 PM
That's too bad about the burial practices, but I do not see autosomal DNA coming to the rescue. Heck, we even do not have a good idea about how to interpret autosomal during the most recent few hundred years.

Jack

I was purely referring there to Y DNA, Jack. Spruithean's point about soil is interesting too. From memory bones haven't survived as well from East Anglia for example as Wiltshire. Again that might result in us finding out more about the Saxons than the Angles, particularly as testing will presumably often pick the easiest sites to sample.

C J Wyatt III
09-07-2018, 11:07 PM
I was purely referring there to Y DNA, Jack. Spruithean's point about soil is interesting too. From memory bones haven't survived as well from East Anglia for example as Wiltshire. Again that might result in us finding out more about the Saxons than the Angles, particularly as testing will presumably often pick the easiest sites to sample.

Nevermind! I agree about the Y. I think we are making great strides with it.


Jack

mwauthy
09-08-2018, 12:00 AM
I remember watching a documentary where an English archeologist postulates that there never was an Anglo-Saxon invasion and that it was invented by the Venerable Bede. The archaeologist used evidence to show how the farms in eastern England were continuously farmed prior to and during the migration period with no evidence of population replacement. He asserted that culturally and genetically there was a continuous flow between Eastern England and Frisia even during the Roman occupation.

spruithean
09-08-2018, 12:07 AM
I remember watching a documentary where an English archeologist postulates that there never was an Anglo-Saxon invasion and that it was invented by the Venerable Bede. The archaeologist used evidence to show how the farms in eastern England were continuously farmed prior to and during the migration period with no evidence of population replacement. He asserted that culturally and genetically there was a continuous flow between Eastern England and Frisia even during the Roman occupation.

I believe that was Francis Pryor's documentary (https://youtu.be/iejwIpAKPyg).

JonikW
09-08-2018, 12:13 AM
I remember watching a documentary where an English archeologist postulates that there never was an Anglo-Saxon invasion and that it was invented by the Venerable Bede. The archaeologist used evidence to show how the farms in eastern England were continuously farmed prior to and during the migration period with no evidence of population replacement. He asserted that culturally and genetically there was a continuous flow between Eastern England and Frisia even during the Roman occupation.

That must have been Francis Pryor. I've enjoyed his TV appearances and books (he's a top archaeologist) but his anti-migration theories (basically one population from Mesolithic times to the present) were absurd even before we had any DNA evidence of the past. That was all part of the reaction from the sixties onwards against the migration theories that had prevailed before.

EDIT: spruithean beat me to it.

mwauthy
09-08-2018, 02:32 AM
That must have been Francis Pryor. I've enjoyed his TV appearances and books (he's a top archaeologist) but his anti-migration theories (basically one population from Mesolithic times to the present) were absurd even before we had any DNA evidence of the past. That was all part of the reaction from the sixties onwards against the migration theories that had prevailed before.

EDIT: spruithean beat me to it.

Yes that was the one. For the layman history and genealogy hobbyist such as myself itís sometimes difficult to navigate the presuppositions of historical understanding with actual accessible empirical data.

spruithean
09-08-2018, 05:50 PM
I think at this point Pryor's "Invasion that never was" theory is debunked. However, unfortunately, there are still some websites out there that believe no Anglo-Saxons came to Britain, and some of their main evidence for their theory is still Oppenheimer's work.

JonikW
09-08-2018, 06:14 PM
I agree. On a side note, I was looking at some Anglo-Saxon cemetery books today and am pleased to say there are quite a number of early Anglian skeletal remains. The problem may be that in some cases the artefact styles and dating may be slightly different from the adjoining cremations so they may not be exactly the same people if it ever comes to DNA testing.

oz
09-08-2018, 08:44 PM
What is known about I1? Very little. It is native to Europe but it is the most scarcely discovered hg in all the ancient aDna studies predating the medieval period. Its TMRCA is also very odd, all branches are dated to around 4.5 thousand years before present. But the I-M253 is presumed to have split off from I2 around 27,000 years ago. That's one massive mysterious gap. This hg apparently has experienced a profound and almost impossible isolation somewhere in Scandinavia?
Or... very few I1 men survived all that time somewhere in Europe and with some miracle during the early bronze age or late Neolithic period managed to thrive in Scandinavia then started to spread out from there through various Germanic/Nordic migrations.

Either way there's very little information on the subject and lack of ancient aDna to connect the dots about the origin of my ancestor. All I'm left with is to speculate that my Y dna ancestor was in some kind of Germanic migration to Eastern Europe and the Balkans who got assimilated at some point with Slavic/North Balkan people. When and with which migration I have no clue there's just simply no ancient Dna or even enough information on modern distribution of the I1-Z63 subclade and even less about Y6228 for me to connect any dots.
It feels like chasing after a myth and trying to prove it's real with hard evidence that's simply not there.

Best I can do is eventually order a deep Y marker test from Ftdna and see what kind of matches I get and it will hopefully provide some useful clues.

spruithean
09-08-2018, 09:58 PM
What is known about I1? Very little. It is native to Europe but it is the most scarcely discovered hg in all the ancient aDna studies predating the medieval period. Its TMRCA is also very odd, all branches are dated to around 4.5 thousand years before present. But the I-M253 is presumed to have split off from I2 around 27,000 years ago. That's one massive mysterious gap. This hg apparently has experienced a profound and almost impossible isolation somewhere in Scandinavia?
Or... very few I1 men survived all that time somewhere in Europe and with some miracle during the early bronze age or late Neolithic period managed to thrive in Scandinavia then started to spread out from there through various Germanic/Nordic migrations.

Either way there's very little information on the subject and lack of ancient aDna to connect the dots about the origin of my ancestor. All I'm left with is to speculate that my Y dna ancestor was in some kind of Germanic migration to Eastern Europe and the Balkans who got assimilated at some point with Slavic/North Balkan people. When and with which migration I have no clue there's just simply no ancient Dna or even enough information on modern distribution of the I1-Z63 subclade and even less about Y6228 for me to connect any dots.
It feels like chasing after a myth and trying to prove it's real with hard evidence that's simply not there.

Best I can do is eventually order a deep Y marker test from Ftdna and see what kind of matches I get and it will hopefully provide some useful clues.

Agreed!

I1 is certainly a haplogroup with a strange chunk of its history missing. There clearly was some sort of massive bottleneck effect with the majority of descending lineages belonging to the DF29 branch.

The distinct lack of I1 in aDNA is disheartening, especially when suspects for I1 turn out to be R clades :laugh: as much as I find Haplogroup R fascinating, my own personal bias toward I1 takes a hit.

I think given the I1 we have found in aDNA from Hungary to Langobard-Alemanni graves, to NBA Scandinavia, Anglo-Saxon Teesside and Iceland we can be sure it was definitely present in Europe. It's also worth noting that I-M170 is found in areas alongside I2, obviously some ancestor of M253 was walking around at that point.

dsm
09-08-2018, 10:40 PM
Yes that was the one. For the layman history and genealogy hobbyist such as myself it’s sometimes difficult to navigate the presuppositions of historical understanding with actual accessible empirical data.

As best I have been able to work out,
I Haplogroup (particularly I1) were SHG (Scandinavian Hunter Gatherers) who were in the region of Sweden at the end of the last glacial maxim which was declining 16,000 ybp.

SHG are one of the few HG groups (which in West & Nth Europe include WHG (Western) and EHG (Eastern) who held out against the influx of EEF (Early European Farmers 7,000-8,000 YBP) and the infamous 'metal age invasion' of the Yamnaya groups that swept into middle Europe as the R1a (Cordedware peoples) and R1b (parent HG of the rest of us) 4900-4500 ybp.

I1 today have their densest populations around Stockholm. The Goths (Ostrogoths & Visigoths) were believed to be dominantly I haplogroup.
I2 (IIRC) are today best represented in the Balkans.

So what we do know is that I1 are one of the oldest surviving Y-DNA lines in this part of Europe, that is, a group who survived in substantial numbers vs the N & G etc: who largely got displaced.

12,000 ybp, Doggerland was still above the Nth Sea in many places. I HG people could walk to what is Britain and the evidence is that they did. I1 HG are believed to have mixed with the WHG already in what is today the UK. At the other end, I1 also appear to have mixed with EHG in parts of Russia. Doggerland: https://www.nationalgeographic.org/maps/doggerland/

While it can be argued that some I1 came to England with the Vikings & Danes, it is also reasonable to accept they were already in UK from the earliest of times. The one big spoiler as to what Y-DNA survived in UK after 4500-4300 ybp, is that we are told in the 2018 Olalde et al., study that the British Isles underwent a 90% Y-DNA replacement in as little as 300 years around 4500 ybp and P312 became the new dominant Y-DNA in the British Isles and this remains so in the Isles up to today but, with a 30% estimated influx of R1b-U106 from Nth Jutland (Jutes), Schleswig (middle Jutland Angles), West Saxons (lower Jutland/Hamburg but now called Holstein) and of course their brothers the post Roman era Frisians. Anyone interested should Google Ingavones. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingaevones - a very interesting story. This article paints a picture of a common people who had a common bond in language and origin. That tends to be supported by what we know of the DNA.

Bell Beakers (dominantly R1b-P312) - change Britain ...
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/21/arrival-of-beaker-folk-changed-britain-forever-ancient-dna-study-shows

The people arriving in East & South Britain post Romana, may well have come to Britain as much to escape a severe climate event as to 'invade'. For myself, I believe they were invited over after the collapse of Roman influence in the region, they came, and because things were so bad 400CE-600CE back in Frisia & Jutland, they came across in big numbers. What constitutes 'big numbers' in 400-600CE gets interesting. It may only be some 10,000s at most. The Angles were said to have left their increasingly swampy farmlands around Schleswig en-masse & settled in what became Anglia. Anglia had been the home of the Iceni tribes of whom Queen Boudicca had been the ruler until the Romans basically wiped them out. The Angles moved into to a very sparsely populated area. The Jutes are believed to have settled in Kent and the Saxons 'over time' became strong around Hampshire Wiltshire Sussex & eventually the London region including Middlesex & Essex. Over time the Angles also expanded nth to over what is today the Scottish border (Northumbria). As to the Angles homeland back in Jutland, it has a history of fluctuating between firm farmland and swamp over 100s/1000s of years. That whole Jutland area is very flat. It is not hilly at all. The sea around Denmark is very shallow too. A slight change in water level up or down, changes the land form dramatically. Even today, Danes build windfarms up to 30 Kms off shore because the sea is so shallow.

Getting back to why so many people from Jutland wanted to move over to England. My research convinces me that it was as much a major climate event and a desire to secure a safer homeland. Anyone familiar with the coast of Nth Netherlands up to the top of Jutland will know that that coast and region has suffered many inundations and severe weather events over many 1000s of years. If anyone wants to read about the period 300CE-700CE and how the Frisian Islands all but went under water, plus the sea inundated Nth Netherlands by several kilometers, and did so for 100s of years, google 'Dunkirk II Transgression' - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkirk_transgression

I am satisfied for many reasons that this put great pressure on the inhabitants of Jutland & Frisia to get away. For the Frisians it would be a case of either battling inland or seeking new homes in Britain and for most Jutlanders it was a case of go over to Britain or suffer one of the worst prolonged weather / inundation events in known history. For the Saxons it was also a choice of battle inland (which some may well have done) or join the influx into Britain. This was made easy because at this same time the Romans had left a vacuum in Britain & much of the Continent. But, however one views the pressure created by the Dunkisk II Transgression, it meant people had to move.

In a nutshell. These Jutlanders & Frisians arriving in Britain was not a simple event by any means. It appears to have had many coinciding factors that allowed it to happen. There are many studies of the landform and layers of the coastal areas of the North Sea that back up the story of a massive inundation of that coast. If we accept this did happen (as per link above) then there were many very big motivations for people to get away from where they were. Having made such a decision, the next choice was where to go. Britain post Romana was a very inviting place to go to and, if we accept that the population was not dense especially in the East side of Britain, and that the numbers of Jutlanders (Jutes, Angles, Saxons plus of course Frisians) were not really huge numbers, then we have a more comprehensive and convincing story as to who when where & why came to Britain post Romana 400CE and later.

Doug M

JonikW
09-08-2018, 10:59 PM
As best I have been able to work out,
I Haplogroup (particularly I1) were SHG (Scandinavian Hunter Gatherers) who were in the region of Sweden at the end of the last glacial maxim which was declining 16,000 ybp.

SHG are one of the few HG groups (which in West & Nth Europe include WHG (Western) and EHG (Eastern) who held out against the influx of EEF (Early European Farmers 7,000-8,000 YBP) and the infamous 'metal age invasion' of the Yamnaya groups that swept into middle Europe as the R1a (Cordedware peoples) and R1b (parent HG of the rest of us) 4900-4500 ybp.

I1 today have their densest populations around Stockholm. The Goths (Ostrogoths & Visigoths) were believed to be dominantly I haplogroup.
I2 (IIRC) are today best represented in the Balkans.

So what we do know is that I1 are one of the oldest surviving Y-DNA lines in this part of Europe, that is, a group who survived in substantial numbers vs the N & G etc: who largely got displaced.

12,000 ybp, Doggerland was still above the Nth Sea in many places. I HG people could walk to what is Britain and the evidence is that they did. I1 HG are believed to have mixed with the WHG already in what is today the UK. At the other end, I1 also appear to have mixed with EHG in parts of Russia. Doggerland: https://www.nationalgeographic.org/maps/doggerland/

While it can be argued that some I1 came to England with the Vikings & Danes, it is also reasonable to accept they were already in UK from the earliest of times. The one big spoiler as to what Y-DNA survived in UK after 4500-4300 ybp, is that we are told in the 2018 Olalde et al., study that the British Isles underwent a 90% Y-DNA replacement in as little as 300 years around 4500 ybp and P312 became the new dominant Y-DNA in the British Isles and this remains so in the Isles up to today but, with a 30% estimated influx of R1b-U106 from Nth Jutland (Jutes), Schleswig (middle Jutland Angles), West Saxons (lower Jutland/Hamburg but now called Holstein) and of course their brothers the post Roman era Frisians. Anyone interested should Google Ingavones. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingaevones - a very interesting story. This article paints a picture of a common people who had a common bond in language and origin. That tends to be supported by what we know of the DNA.

Bell Beakers (dominantly R1b-P312) - change Britain ...
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/21/arrival-of-beaker-folk-changed-britain-forever-ancient-dna-study-shows

The people arriving in East & South Britain post Romana, may well have come to Britain as much to escape a severe climate event as to 'invade'. For myself, I believe they were invited over after the collapse of Roman influence in the region, they came, and because things were so bad 400CE-600CE back in Frisia & Jutland, they came across in big numbers. What constitutes 'big numbers' in 400-600CE gets interesting. It may only be some 10,000s at most. The Angles were said to have left there swampy farmlands around Schleswig en-masse & settled in what became Anglia. Anglia had been the home of the Iceni tribes of whom Queen Boudicca had been the ruler until the Romans basically wiped them out. The Angles moved into to a very sparsely populated area. The Jutes are believed to have settled in Kent and the Saxons 'over time' became strong around Hampshire Wiltshire Sussex & eventually the London region including Middlesex & Essex. Over time the Angles also expanded nth to over what is today the Scottish border (Northumbria).

Getting back to why so many people from Jutland wanted to move over to England. My research convinces me that it was as much a major climate event and a desire to secure a safer homeland. Anyone familiar with the coast of Nth Netherlands up to the top of Jutland will know that that coast and region has suffered many inundations and severe weather events over many 1000s of years. If anyone wants to read about the period 300CE-700CE and how the Frisian Islands all but went under water, plus the sea inundated Nth Netherlands by several kilometers, and did so for 100s of years, google 'Dunkirk II Transgression' - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkirk_transgression

I am satisfied for many reasons that this put great pressure on the inhabitants of Jutland & Frisia to get away. For the Frisians it would be a case of either battling inland or seeking new homes in Britain and for most Jutlanders it was a case of go over to Britain or suffer one of the worst prolonged weather / inundation events in known history. For the Saxons it was also a choice of battle inland (which some may well have done) or join the influx into Britain. This was made easy because at this same time the Romans had left a vacuum in Britain & much of the Continent. But, however one views the pressure created by the Dunkisk II Transgression, it meant people had to move.

In a nutshell. These Jutlanders & Frisians arriving in Britain was not a simple event by any means. It appears to have had many coinciding factors that allowed it to happen. There are many studies of the landform and layers of the coastal areas of the North Sea that back up the story of a massive inundation of that coast. If we accept this did happen (as per link above) then there were many very big motivations for people to get away from where they were. Having made such a decision, the next choice was where to go. Britain post Romana was a very inviting place to go to and, if we accept that the population was not dense especially in the East side of Britain, and that the numbers of Jutlanders (Jutes, Angles, Saxons plus of course Frisians) then we have a more comprehensive story.

Doug M

The Reich paper will be interesting for what it may turn up about both I1 and U106 in pre-Roman and Roman Britain. It's interesting that the history of the Anglian areas of England is a blank until Penda in the 7th century, whose authority apparently rested on the fact that he was descended from the kings of the Anglian homelands. I'd like to know what his haplogroup was... In the south the picture is clearer. It appears the Saxons took much of their lands before 500. Then there was a battle that Gildas calls Mons Badonicus, which they lost. Adding the sources together this seems to have resulted in 50 years or so when the Saxons were unable to progress (with some back migration to Frankish lands). Then they rallied, reached the Severn and cut off the West Country Britons from their compatriots for good.
Doug, out of interest what subclade does your adopted son have?
Afterthought: I personally think most I1 came to England with the Anglo-Saxons. That's for two reasons. I see too many British/Continental TMRCA pairings at the right level on YFull to think otherwise, and all the evidence suggests the AS movement from Scandinavia and further south was on a much larger scale than the post 865 incursions (even more so for the Normans).

Eihwaz
09-08-2018, 11:23 PM
What is known about I1? Very little. It is native to Europe but it is the most scarcely discovered hg in all the ancient aDna studies predating the medieval period. Its TMRCA is also very odd, all branches are dated to around 4.5 thousand years before present. But the I-M253 is presumed to have split off from I2 around 27,000 years ago. That's one massive mysterious gap. This hg apparently has experienced a profound and almost impossible isolation somewhere in Scandinavia?
Or... very few I1 men survived all that time somewhere in Europe and with some miracle during the early bronze age or late Neolithic period managed to thrive in Scandinavia then started to spread out from there through various Germanic/Nordic migrations.

Either way there's very little information on the subject and lack of ancient aDna to connect the dots about the origin of my ancestor. All I'm left with is to speculate that my Y dna ancestor was in some kind of Germanic migration to Eastern Europe and the Balkans who got assimilated at some point with Slavic/North Balkan people. When and with which migration I have no clue there's just simply no ancient Dna or even enough information on modern distribution of the I1-Z63 subclade and even less about Y6228 for me to connect any dots.
It feels like chasing after a myth and trying to prove it's real with hard evidence that's simply not there.

Best I can do is eventually order a deep Y marker test from Ftdna and see what kind of matches I get and it will hopefully provide some useful clues.

I like to think of the archaeological provenance of YDNA I1 as similar to that of mtDNA V (not geographical, mind you) - both have extremely spotty attestation in ancient genomes, but both seem to have exploded post-Iron-Age.

JonikW
09-08-2018, 11:26 PM
I like to think of the archaeological provenance of YDNA I1 as similar to that of mtDNA V (not geographical, mind you) - both have extremely spotty attestation in ancient genomes, but both seem to have exploded post-Iron-Age.

Yes, and I've got both! A lot still to learn....

mwauthy
09-08-2018, 11:27 PM
What is known about I1? Very little. It is native to Europe but it is the most scarcely discovered hg in all the ancient aDna studies predating the medieval period. Its TMRCA is also very odd, all branches are dated to around 4.5 thousand years before present. But the I-M253 is presumed to have split off from I2 around 27,000 years ago. That's one massive mysterious gap. This hg apparently has experienced a profound and almost impossible isolation somewhere in Scandinavia?
Or... very few I1 men survived all that time somewhere in Europe and with some miracle during the early bronze age or late Neolithic period managed to thrive in Scandinavia then started to spread out from there through various Germanic/Nordic migrations.

Either way there's very little information on the subject and lack of ancient aDna to connect the dots about the origin of my ancestor. All I'm left with is to speculate that my Y dna ancestor was in some kind of Germanic migration to Eastern Europe and the Balkans who got assimilated at some point with Slavic/North Balkan people. When and with which migration I have no clue there's just simply no ancient Dna or even enough information on modern distribution of the I1-Z63 subclade and even less about Y6228 for me to connect any dots.
It feels like chasing after a myth and trying to prove it's real with hard evidence that's simply not there.

Best I can do is eventually order a deep Y marker test from Ftdna and see what kind of matches I get and it will hopefully provide some useful clues.

I think doing Big Y 500 is paramount to having an educated guess about the actual migration path of your paternal ancestor. Iíve seen I-Z63 all the way west in Iceland and I-Z58 all the way east in central Russia.

mwauthy
09-08-2018, 11:46 PM
@ dsm Thanks for the informative post. Iíve thought about a possible pre-Roman migration of I1 to Belgium and the British Isles with maybe the Belgae tribes. However, unless the TMRCAs are way off it doesnít make much sense in my case because I have Swedish and Danish matches up to 2000 years before present.

dsm
09-09-2018, 12:08 AM
The Reich paper will be interesting for what it may turn up about both I1 and U106 in pre-Roman and Roman Britain. It's interesting that the history of the Anglian areas of England is a blank until Penda in the 7th century, whose authority apparently rested on the fact that he was descended from the kings of the Anglian homelands. I'd like to know what his haplogroup was... In the south the picture is clearer. It appears the Saxons took much of their lands before 500. Then there was a battle that Gildas calls Mons Badonicus, which they lost. Adding the sources together this seems to have resulted in 50 years or so when the Saxons were unable to progress (with some back migration to Frankish lands). Then they rallied, reached the Severn and cut off the West Country Britons from their compatriots for good.
Doug, out of interest what subclade does your adopted son have?
Afterthought: I personally think most I1 came to England with the Anglo-Saxons. That's for two reasons. I see too many British/Continental TMRCA pairings at the right level on YFull to think otherwise, and all the evidence suggests the AS movement from Scandinavia and further south was on a much larger scale than the post 865 incursions (even more so for the Normans).


JonikW, My adopted son is I1-M253 then they upgraded him to I-Z138. I ran his raw data through Eurogenes K36 and he is painted as very British Isles all round. I show up as more Scandinavian than he does but that is the way autoDNA can work.

For myself, am in doubt that we will learn any great new insights from studies of AS in UK, but am really open on the issue of how much I HG will show up in AS analysis vs U106, R1a & Scandinavian P312. However, my 'take a punt' guess will be U106 dominates & R1a / P312 & I1 will fight for a distant 2nd place.

What we do know of course is that Juland did appear to have both Swedish and Norse peoples moving in and out a lot. The famous Viking town of Hedeby is in the middle of Jutland (Hedeby was alongside Schleswig & in the Angles heartland) and there can be no doubt that Holstein was right in the heart of Baltic & West European trade. There are many Hansiatic League trading towns in Holstien and the adjacent West Pomerania area. Hamburg being one of the more famous ones and a lynch-pin. http://hejsonderborg.dk/hedeby-a-viking-town/


As a kid I was at school in several parts of the Sth of England even living near Battle in Sussex while home was just over the border in Kent. Also lived in the New Forest & loved it. It is such a treat to be in and among history and to be able to 'touch it and feel it' which we could do there. My family are Devon folk with a long history around Ottery St Mary close by Exeter. Have visited the area a few times. Also lived in Walton for a while before returning to Australia/NZ.

D

dsm
09-09-2018, 12:19 AM
@ dsm Thanks for the informative post. I’ve thought about a possible pre-Roman migration of I1 to Belgium and the British Isles with maybe the Belgae tribes. However, unless the TMRCAs are way off it doesn’t make much sense in my case because I have Swedish and Danish matches up to 2000 years before present.

Re TMCRA dates, I used to look closely at them until I found they had more holes in them than swiss cheese. Today I regard them as a helpful guide but nothing more.

I sent in 2 kits to YFull - both are me. But one was Big Y & the other was FGC Y-Elite. The TMRCA between my own 2 kits is 125 years - that was just one 'hole' in the cheese :)
I won't go into the several other 'holes' as by and large I really like and appreciate what YFull do and offer. But, TMCRA dates are just too iffy.

Cheers D

JonikW
09-09-2018, 12:27 AM
JonikW, My adopted son is I1-M253 then they upgraded him to I-Z138. I ran his raw data through Eurogenes K36 and he is painted as very British Isles all round. I show up as more Scandinavian than he does but that is the way autoDNA can work.

For myself, am in doubt that we will learn any great new insights from studies of AS in UK, but am really open on the issue of how much I HG will show up in AS analysis vs U106, R1a & Scandinavian P312. However, my 'take a punt' guess will be U106 dominates & R1a / P312 & I1 will fight for a distant 2nd place.

What we do know of course is that Juland did appear to have both Swedish and Norse peoples moving in and out a lot. The famous Viking town of Hedeby is in the middle of Jutland and there can be no doubt that Holstein was right in the heart of Baltic & West European trade. There are many Hansiatic League trading towns in Holstien and the adjacent West Pomerania area. Hamburg being one of the more famous ones and a lynch-pin.

As a kid I was at school in several parts of the Sth of England even living near Battle in Sussex while home was just over the border in Kent. Also lived in the New Forest & loved it. It is such a treat to be in and among history and to be able to 'touch it and feel it' which we could do there. My family are Devon folk with a long history around Ottery St Mary close by Exeter. Have visited the area a few times. Also lived in Walton for a while before returning to Australia/NZ.

D

Thanks for that thought-provoking post. Off topic for a sec, but I know Battle well. I'm taking my family there for our annual visit to the 1066 reenactment in October. That's quite an event, with talks, displays and the actual reenactment. My son's just turned 18 but is begging to go with us so I must have done something right over the years of dragging him round ancient sites. Perhaps he'll become the next I1 guru. We really need one, that's for sure.

mwauthy
09-09-2018, 01:52 AM
Re TMCRA dates, I used to look closely at them until I found they had more holes in them than swiss cheese. Today I regard them as a helpful guide but nothing more.

I sent in 2 kits to YFull - both are me. But one was Big Y & the other was FGC Y-Elite. The TMRCA between my own 2 kits is 125 years - that was just one 'hole' in the cheese :)
I won't go into the several other 'holes' as by and large I really like and appreciate what YFull do and offer. But, TMCRA dates are just too iffy.

Cheers D

How many more private snps did you get with the 30% more coverage with FGC? I think YFULL bases TMRCAs on the number of snps. So if you had more with FGC than with Big Y then that might account for the 125 year discrepancy.

dsm
09-09-2018, 03:21 AM
How many more private snps did you get with the 30% more coverage with FGC? I think YFULL bases TMRCAs on the number of snps. So if you had more with FGC than with Big Y then that might account for the 125 year discrepancy.

YFull have a smoothing algorithm that takes into account # of base-pairs in the analysis.

125 years is their minimum std of deviation for TMRCA. But back to dates in general I can illustrate areas where the formed dates are guesses and can show 4 sub-branches of my own Y-DNA YFull tree that cover 4 major mutational branches but are all given the same formed date of 4800 ybp. S1194 formed 4800 ybp , a sub-branch CTS4528 formed 4800 ybp, a next sub-branch S17624 formed 4800 ybp. By their own calculations we should be seeing around 450 years between S1194 and S17624.

Then we can follow a different line from S1194....
S1194 formed 4800 ybp TMCRA 4800, a next mutation down CTS4528 formed 4800 ybp, TMCRA 4800, then S14328 formed 4800 & TMCRA 4800, then a next mutation S1196 formed 4800 ybp TMCRA 4800, then next mutation S1199 formed 4800 ybp but this one showing TMCRA of 3200.

Again I don't regard this as a big problem, just a good reason to be careful with these dates and never to regard them as gospel, but just a very good guide to be used with sensible caution.

Cheers D

mwauthy
09-09-2018, 04:18 AM
YFull have a smoothing algorithm that takes into account # of base-pairs in the analysis.

125 years is their minimum std of deviation for TMRCA. But back to dates in general I can illustrate areas where the formed dates are guesses and can show 4 sub-branches of my own Y-DNA YFull tree that cover 4 major mutational branches but are all given the same formed date of 4800 ybp. S1194 formred 4800 ybp , next sub-branch CTS4528 formed 4800 ybp, next sub-branch S17624 formed 4800 ybp. By their own calculations we should be seeing around 600 years between S1194 and S17624.

Then we can follow a different line from S1194....
S1194 formed 4800 ybp TMCRA 4800, next mutation down CTS4528 formed 4800 ybp, TMCRA 4800, then S14328 formed 4800 & TMCRA 4800, then next mutation S1196 formed 4800 ybp TMCRA 4800, then next mutation S1199 formed 4800 ybp but this one showing TMCRA of 3200.

Again I don't regard this as a big problem, just a good reason to be careful with these dates and never to regard them as gospel, but just a very good guide to be used with sensible caution.

Cheers D

Yeah I always wondered why I-DF29, I-Z58, and I-Z138 all had the same formed date and TMRCA of 4600 years before present.

Iím still waiting for my Big Y 500 results. Does ftdna offer any type of formed dates or TMRCAs when people receive results? Reason being they have so many more samples than YFULL and I heard TMRCAs become more accurate the more samples there are for a particular snp.

dsm
09-09-2018, 05:16 AM
Yeah I always wondered why I-DF29, I-Z58, and I-Z138 all had the same formed date and TMRCA of 4600 years before present.

I’m still waiting for my Big Y 500 results. Does ftdna offer any type of formed dates or TMRCAs when people receive results? Reason being they have so many more samples than YFULL and I heard TMRCAs become more accurate the more samples there are for a particular snp.

I understand that FTDNA are looking at offering dates but have not made the commitment yet.

YFull have done a pretty good job despite the points I raised and to their credit gave it a good try. Iain McDonald (U106 Project admin) has his own approach but even Iain has adjusted his start dates as more U106 dna has been analysed.

Iain McDonalds method ... http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/pipeline-summary.pdf


YFull's pages on calcs can now only be found by going to a YFull tree and clicking on the info tags.
Try them at https://www.yfull.com/tree/i1/

Click on 'info' or mouse over a date.




Presently we have a big dilemma (us R1b folk) in that the very latest formed dates for P312, U106 and even my own S1194 branch, seem to show dates older than the arrival of Yamnaya into middle Europe. But, we have no ancient DNA finds for any of our sub-clades closer to the Steppes than the region of Bohemia (around Czech republic). There is a U106 burial recently identified at Csepel Island in Hungary (in Budapest) however the island (between the cities of Buda & Pest) was considered a trading post between various peoples in the Bronze Age.

I1 DNA is afaict, much better understood in ancient terms, because it is such an old Y-DNA line and has survived so well into the modern world.

D

oz
09-09-2018, 06:57 AM
I think doing Big Y 500 is paramount to having an educated guess about the actual migration path of your paternal ancestor. I’ve seen I-Z63 all the way west in Iceland and I-Z58 all the way east in central Russia.

Will look into it.

$650 for the big y? That's insanely expensive. What about the Y111 for $350 is it worth it? Will I get a downstream of Y6228 snp results?

Adrian Stevenson
09-09-2018, 08:43 AM
Y111 is worth doing but I would save up and wait for a discount sale at Xmas and go for Big Y. Best thing I did.

Cheers, Ade.

JonikW
09-09-2018, 09:40 AM
Y111 is worth doing but I would save up and wait for a discount sale at Xmas and go for Big Y. Best thing I did.

Cheers, Ade.

Ade, did you get any matches with a TMRCA that might give a rough clue about your I1 migration path?

EDIT: Big Y was the best thing I ever did too, along with submitting the results to YFull. I love YFull's SNP matching tool. It makes it so easy to see who you match and at what level.

JonikW
09-09-2018, 09:41 AM
Duplicate post...

authun
09-09-2018, 10:07 AM
I think doing Big Y 500 is paramount to having an educated guess about the actual migration path of your paternal ancestor. I’ve seen I-Z63 all the way west in Iceland and I-Z58 all the way east in central Russia.

It's not reliable and paper trails and historical records are still required. I knew I was P109 when I had the Big Y which showed my terminal SNP as I-S14887, under I-S3662. This is in all probability southern Scandinavian peninsular/Jutland and I live in Yorkshire. It is very easy to draw a straight line and say 9th/10th century viking settlers, but it would be wrong. All the paper trail show a Worcestershire presence for many centuries, not a hot bed of viking activity. So, how did they get to Worcestershire? The historical record suggests that they could have come from the March of Flanders and were resettled, in England, by Henry 1st. This is based on the surname being a placename which historical records show was in the Pas de Calais area, French Flanders. There is also an important clue, the occupation. In this case the move is associated with horse breeding. So, if they did come to Worcestershire from Pas de Calais, how did they get there from Scandinavia? Archaeology shows that many of the germanic graveyards in the area are pre Frankish and appear to be associated with the roman limes in Gaul. This was firstly manned by germanics in roman service, followed by laeti, civilian settlement allowed by the romans but then overrun by germanics as the empire crumbled. Jutes appear to have settled in Kent, only 22 miles on the other side of the Channel, it is not unreasonable to assume that Jutes settled in Pas de Calais a well. Some historians like Edward James think there might have been a single kingdom either side of the channel. When the Franks took the area of Pas de Calais over, they claimed hegemony over east Kent automatically. West Kent invaded East Kent as a result. There are many posibilities but the concept of north germanics settling on the gallic coast before migrating to Britain, perhaps centuries later, is highly plausible when considering how one might get from Scandinavia to Worcestershire. One single migration does not seem likely.

All the Big Y results have done is help firm up on the origin, not the route taken. paper trails, written histories etc are still required to provide clues, not proof, as to what happened.

spruithean
09-09-2018, 11:56 AM
Yeah I always wondered why I-DF29, I-Z58, and I-Z138 all had the same formed date and TMRCA of 4600 years before present.

Iím still waiting for my Big Y 500 results. Does ftdna offer any type of formed dates or TMRCAs when people receive results? Reason being they have so many more samples than YFULL and I heard TMRCAs become more accurate the more samples there are for a particular snp.

FTDNA does not yet offer TMRCA calculations, however if you are in the appropriate Haplogroup project you might be able to glean an estimate from one of the administrators of the project who is knowledgable about the subject. I know the admin for the Z140 project passed along some estimates and formulas to me for my Big Y results.


Will look into it.

$650 for the big y? That's insanely expensive. What about the Y111 for $350 is it worth it? Will I get a downstream of Y6228 snp results?

Y111 tests STRs, it will not provide any SNP results. Big Y500 tests both SNPs and STRs.

mwauthy
09-09-2018, 02:52 PM
Will look into it.

$650 for the big y? That's insanely expensive. What about the Y111 for $350 is it worth it? Will I get a downstream of Y6228 snp results?

Big Y 500 includes Y111 so youíll just be paying twice for the same thing if you purchase Big Y 500 later. Also, as others have mentioned Y111 deals with strs not snps.

Waiting for a sale is the way to go. I just purchased Big Y 500 for $499 during this past summer sale and my friend got it for $449 on the last day of the sale. There probably will be a similar sale around Christmas.

If money is an issue reaching out to other relatives might help. My father paid for half of my test because he is interested about the results too. I also have around 20 male uncles and cousins who are each going to toss in $25 to do a test as well so that our family can have our own terminal branch on the haplotree.

mwauthy
09-09-2018, 03:29 PM
I understand that FTDNA are looking at offering dates but have not made the commitment yet.

YFull have done a pretty good job despite the points I raised and to their credit gave it a good try. Iain McDonald (U106 Project admin) has his own approach but even Iain has adjusted his start dates as more U106 dna has been analysed.

Iain McDonalds method ... http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/pipeline-summary.pdf


YFull's pages on calcs can now only be found by going to a YFull tree and clicking on the info tags.
Try them at https://www.yfull.com/tree/i1/

Click on 'info' or mouse over a date.




Presently we have a big dilemma (us R1b folk) in that the very latest formed dates for P312, U106 and even my own S1194 branch, seem to show dates older than the arrival of Yamnaya into middle Europe. But, we have no ancient DNA finds for any of our sub-clades closer to the Steppes than the region of Bohemia (around Czech republic). There is a U106 burial recently identified at Csepel Island in Hungary (in Budapest) however the island (between the cities of Buda & Pest) was considered a trading post between various peoples in the Bronze Age.

I1 DNA is afaict, much better understood in ancient terms, because it is such an old Y-DNA line and has survived so well into the modern world.

D

A project administrator in a different thread also mentioned snps can have a variability of 1-10 generations or around 30-300 years.

How many more private snps did you get with your FGC Elite test than with your Big Y test? Do some of your snps have two different names; one name with a FGC prefix and one with a BY prefix?

oz
09-09-2018, 03:36 PM
Big Y 500 includes Y111 so you’ll just be paying twice for the same thing if you purchase Big Y 500 later. Also, as others have mentioned Y111 deals with strs not snps.

Waiting for a sale is the way to go. I just purchased Big Y 500 for $499 during this past summer sale and my friend got it for $449 on the last day of the sale. There probably will be a similar sale around Christmas.

If money is an issue reaching out to other relatives might help. My father paid for half of my test because he is interested about the results too. I also have around 20 male uncles and cousins who are each going to toss in $25 to do a test as well so that our family can have our own terminal branch on the haplotree.

No unfortunately I don't have anyone who'd be interested pitching in for my big y. This is only my hobby no one that I know is interested in this genetics stuff.

I can afford paying for it actually, but I would insult myself first and foremost paying that much money on a y dna test it just seems like a waste of money.
I might consider it if they drop the price at least below $500 in the future.

JonikW
09-09-2018, 03:53 PM
No unfortunately I don't have anyone who'd be interested pitching in for my big y. This is only my hobby no one that I know is interested in this genetics stuff.

I can afford paying for it actually, but I would insult myself first and foremost paying that much money on a y dna test it just seems like a waste of money.
I might consider it if they drop the price at least below $500 in the future.

I hope they do drop the price. In the meantime it all depends how interested you are. I'm very happy that I forked out for it during a sale.

mwauthy
09-09-2018, 04:14 PM
I hope they do drop the price. In the meantime it all depends how interested you are. I'm very happy that I forked out for it during a sale.

I also am looking forward to the fact that itís not just a one time rewarding experience where you learn some results and thatís it. Until the day I die I can constantly get new matches and new branches in the haplotree as more men test. Itís the gift to myself that keeps on giving. Lastly, I also feel a duty to the science to test to uncover these new snps. If it werenít for the people who tested before us we wouldnít have the knowledge we have now.

oz
09-10-2018, 07:17 PM
I also am looking forward to the fact that it’s not just a one time rewarding experience where you learn some results and that’s it. Until the day I die I can constantly get new matches and new branches in the haplotree as more men test. It’s the gift to myself that keeps on giving. Lastly, I also feel a duty to the science to test to uncover these new snps. If it weren’t for the people who tested before us we wouldn’t have the knowledge we have now.

That's a valid point, I thought about that also. But I'm sticking with my decision when they lower it below $500 I'm ordering.

Btw how long does it take to get the results?
Also when they offer a discount or drop the price if someone could notify me I'd appreciate it.

spruithean
09-10-2018, 08:31 PM
That's a valid point, I thought about that also. But I'm sticking with my decision when they lower it below $500 I'm ordering.

Btw how long does it take to get the results?
Also when they offer a discount or drop the price if someone could notify me I'd appreciate it.

If I remember correctly I ordered Big Y 11/19/2017 and I had my results on 04/18/2018, however the final date of completion is incorrect in terms of SNPs, as that date is for the completion of the 500 STRs. My initial Big Y results were finished 01/17/2018.

The Y-111 was batched 11/22/2017 and was completed 12/13/2017.

I think the FTDNA subforum on Anthrogenica stays pretty up to date with FTDNA sales. Also Roberta Estes' blog often has updates on promotions, sales and coupons and such for FTDNA.

JonikW
09-10-2018, 09:04 PM
I ordered a month later than spruithean and got my results a couple of months later than he did, probably because I was in a large sale batch. I'd got to A4577 through Yseq but never would have got to my Swedish match without Big Y. And like mwauthy said, who knows what other matches I may get one day?

Jotun
09-03-2019, 08:33 AM
I guess my forefathers were somewhere around the Jutland peninsula 2,000 years ago (I match a couple of families from north Germany at about 2,500 ybp and Z140 is often considered broadly West Germanic). Then it's possible they became Danes and left Scania or perhaps Denmark proper with the Viking invaders of the late ninth to 11th centuries. That's based on my only Big Y match (which you can see in my signature) and the part of England where my direct paternal ancestors lived.

You have your Y DNA as R1b though. This is an I related post.

Jotun
09-03-2019, 08:54 AM
Haplogroup I split off from IJK in Europe in great antiquity, contemporary Y chromosomal haplogroups were C and F from memory. Pretty difficult to tell at this stage where I split off from the main branch but it was earlier than the cave paintings in Lascaux. In my estimation populations in Europe would have been relatively thin on the ground at that time due to difficult conditions of living and the megafaunal predators around at that time. Combine this with the Younger Dryas event which would see a drastic de-populating of Europe around 10k BC. Enter haplogroup R1b from Asia who had technology which enabled rapid population growth and voila. The modern landscape of European population is beginning to form.

This is of course all I can piece together currently. It is known that haplogroup I had dark skin and blue eyes while they were genetically the Western Hunter Gatherers, i.e. before the farmers and North Eurasians came to Europe.

JonikW
09-03-2019, 09:15 AM
You have your Y DNA as R1b though. This is an I related post.

It is indeed. I have an (M) next to the R1b and a (P) next to I1. So my paternal line is I1.

spruithean
09-03-2019, 10:20 AM
You have your Y DNA as R1b though. This is an I related post.

Anthrogenica has added extra fields for maternal (M) and paternal (P) mitochondrial and Y-haplogroups. So Y-DNA (P) is the paternal Y-line of a user, while Y-DNA (M) is their maternal grandfather's Y-DNA. Same can be said for mtDNA, only in reverse, (M) being the mtDNA lineage from one's mother and (P) being the mtDNA lineage of their father (which he inherited from his own mother).

Kaltmeister
09-08-2019, 01:54 PM
I posted this text about the relationship between I1 and EHG in the thread on Eastern Hunter Gatherers:


Refering to the well known paper by GŁnther et alies on the early peopling of Scandinavia, it would seem to me that in the very north of that area there lived an islolated, homogenious population with haplogroup I1 and an autosomal stock that has been named "Eastern Hunter Gatherer". For explanation: The paper states that by the year 11.700, people live in the north and south of Scandinavia, beeing divided by the ice shield in the middle of the peninsula. Although the center is icy, the very north is not, for the Gulf Stream offers an ice-free habitat. Both groups use different stone working technologies, so there are in fact two different peoples. GŁnther e.a. assume that the northern group entered the area from the east (for that: EASTERN Hunter-Gatherers), but it seems much more likely that they have spent there in isolation since the time of the Last Glacial Maximum - this constellation offers to us also an explanation on the extreme bottleneck of haplogroup I1.

The people in the south entered from northern Germany. I think that they originally came from the northern coast of Doggerland that has also been kept ice free by the Gulf Stream, from where they had to flee into the continent when the water rose. The Gulf Stream offered two isolated, habitable coastal areas, where I2 and I1 survived the cold millenia. So the southern Scandinavian group had haplogroup I2, their autosomal equipment was "Western Hunter Gatherer" (WHG).

When the Scandinavian ice shield finally melted, these two people met in the middle and mixed, the new admixture was called "Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherer" (SHG). On the long run, I1 and EHG became dominant. We can assume that they pushed their I2-brothers back into northern Germany.

As soon as it was possible,even before the ice shield disappeared, I1-EHG moved from the north coast to the south-east into Karelia and layered the local population. Their autosomal footprint was found in three dead bodies, excavated in the area: One is R1b, one R1a and one haplogroup J. So noone of the original bearers was found, probably because they built their own, separated social layer that used to burn their dead bodies. But the scientists realized that there is a new admixture in all of them - and called it Eastern Hunter Gatherer. Objections?33022

Kaltmeister
09-08-2019, 01:54 PM
Quoting from the paper:

"As the ice sheet retracted from northern Europe after the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), around 23,000 years ago, new habitable areas emerged, allowing plants and animals to recolonize the Scandinavian peninsula (hereafter referred to as Scandinavia). There is consistent evidence of human presence in the archaeological record from approximately 11,700 years before present (BP) both in southern and northern Scandinavia. At this time, the ice sheet was still dominating the interior of Scandinavia, but recent climate modeling shows that the Arctic coast of (modern-day) northern Norway was ice free. Similarities in late-glacial lithic technology (direct blade percussion technique) of Western Europe and the oldest counterparts of Scandinavia appearing around 11,000 calibrated (cal) BP have been used to argue for an early postglacial migration from southwestern Europe into Scandinavia, including areas of northern Norway. However, studies of another lithic technology, the “pressure blade” technique, which first occurred in the northern parts of Scandinavia around 10,200 cal BP, indicates contact with groups in the east and possibly an eastern origin of the early settlers The first genetic studies of Mesolithic human remains from central and eastern Scandinavian hunter-gatherers (SHGs) revealed similarities to two different Mesolithic European populations, the “western hunter-gatherers” (WHGs) from western, central, and southern Europe and the “eastern hunter-gatherers” (EHGs) from northeastern and eastern Europe." [...]

https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.2003703&fbclid=IwAR2BwwV_bY0yePmQzsFuAd6lJ_1eu8Hmb5BefAZ0j tzqDAuUMdH9dXmkBBI

spruithean
09-08-2019, 08:35 PM
I have no objections to your theory here. At this point we really lack the right data we need for I1 in regards to its origins.

Thanks for sharing your theory about I1's origins!

Kaltmeister
09-10-2019, 10:35 AM
As we will see, the outlined scenario for the origin of I1/EHG can potentially solve all (or most) problems connected to the question of the origin of the Y-haplogroup I1. I will add some information time after time to complete the view on that topic. The first one will deal with the infamous I1-"bottleneck", the 312 common SNPs and the phenomenon that all living I1-males descend from one single line. You will agree that all tries to explain this fact have one thing in common: They are extremely unlikely and do not give us a satisfying answer. "All I1-people but one were killed by invaders, but that last one was adopted by an invader-king, became a king himself and had a lot of offspring" - this sounds likewise desperate and ridiculous to me. Also, the idea of a "founder-effect" (another idea) cannot explain the dominance of I1 in contemporary Scandinavia.

Now let's look what really happened: When the ice proceeded to the Last Glacial Maximum, about 28.000 years ago, the early Europeans had to evade the unhabitable areas to find a space to survive. It is important to realize, that the causes and the progression of ice ages are not really understood yet, and most people think that it just got cold and the ice moved from the north down into Europe. But that is not correct. In this scenario Doggerland, for example, would have been completely covered by ice and could under no circumstances offer a living space for Palaeolithic hunter-gatherer-cultures. The archaeological finds on the bottom of the North Sea tell us a different story, and so the maps, that used to show Doggerland under a gigantic ice shied have changed: Now it is shown ice-free. Why is that?
The answer is that ice ages are caused by glaciers, and glaciers have their origin in mountainous regions. A slight increase in athmospheric precipitation, probably caused by an increasing Gulf Stream ( that has always changed its intensity up and down in earth history), starts feeding the glaciers in four main regions: The Scandinavian mountains, the British mountains, the Alps and the Pyrenees. They move into the plains, very slowly of course: From the Alps and Pyrenees into the middle of Europe, from the British and Scandinavian mountains into all directions. The glaciers bring the cold and make the land inhabitable. There is indication that the middle of Europe was de facto depopulated land, southern Europe offered a refugium, because it was too warm for the ice to proceed. But in the very north there was also a refugium, because the Gulf Stream kept the coasts ice-free. In this situation the European people had to make a decision where to go to survive. (de facto they just evaded the ice and "stranded" somewhere). The only place to live in the northern half of Europe was probably the warm coast - the population, that belonged nearly exclusively to haplogroup I, divided into those that went to the north of Doggerland and those that reached the north coast of Scandinavia. Both were isolated there for a very long time, and that initiated the separation into haplogroup I2 and I1. They learned to "live by the sea" (fishing etc.), they built boats - that's why we found the oldest boats in this very region.
When the Glacial Maximum was over, the ice started melting - and Doggerland started drowning. So the I2-people had to evade to the south step by step, and finally entered central Europe. Some followed the coast by boat, they are the founders of the Megalithic cultures. The I1-people stayed in isolation - the gigantic ice shield in the Scandinavian mountains remained there for thousands of years, making all population exchange impossible. When the ice was gone they started their expansion to the south and south-east. A general decrease in temperature - not an ice age, that is something different - made them give up their original home later. The distribution of haplogroup I1 today tells us the same story.

Now for the bottleneck: The space in the northern refugium was very limited, only a certain number of families could survive there. Time after time, male lines died out, because they had no offspring or just daughters. So, given enough time with a limited population, after some millenia all male lines but one disappeared. This doesn't mean only one male survived, their number remained constant. No, when the process was over, all living males belonged to the same line. Some people may think that this won't happen. But there are observed similar developments refering to the family names in closed societies: The number of names in a given country with limited population declines all the time, because lines die out - an extrapolation into the future shows that at the end all people in that county would have the same name, unless they take new ones to choose an individual identity. The smaller the population, the faster the process.
In Y-genetics there is a similar development: We have mutations, initiating new lines regularily. So the rule ist: If the dying-out of male lines goes faster than the occurance of new mutations, all males will belong to the same line at the end. Did it go faster? We could experiment with computer simulation models to find evidence on this, but the given situation makes it very likely: It is a fact that in more than 20.000 years only one male I1-line survived. There is no better explanation for this phenomenon.

We can now also say why all very old finds of haplogroup I1 are pre- (I prefer: proto-) I1. Those are the very few individuals that escaped the refugium before the ice melted. They left before the unification of male lines had finished, or they lack the further development of the Y-SNPs in the refugium. But, as they were alone, they failed to found a population that could outlast the time. Noone of them has any offspring today. When the ice shield was gone finally, the group expanded to the south and grew - now the development changed to the opposite: The population grew faster than male lines disappeared, and that is the reason for the I1-diversity we have today. But, it is built on the one stock that survived the time in the ice.

mwauthy
09-10-2019, 01:37 PM
Interesting theory! I have a couple of questions. If I misread what you wrote I apologize.

1. So patrilineal ancestors of modern I1 were living in Northeastern Scandinavia during the last Ice Age? When do you think their patrilineal ancestors first entered Scandinavia after entering Southeastern Europe around 43,000 years ago?

2. Could the tmrca for modern I1 be a lot older than 4,600 ybp if they were an isolated small group with small numbers with slower mutation rates?

3. So I1 started autosomally mixing with R1a, R1b, and I2 after the last Ice Age around 9,000 years ago but no evidence currently exists for I1 during those times because they burned their dead?

4. Pre-I1 found from Hungary to Spain were people who escaped the Scandinavian refuge at some point?

5. Where do you think the I1 and I2 split occurred in Europe?

JonikW
09-10-2019, 02:41 PM
As we will see, the outlined scenario for the origin of I1/EHG can potentially solve all (or most) problems connected to the question of the origin of the Y-haplogroup I1. I will add some information time after time to complete the view on that topic. The first one will deal with the infamous I1-"bottleneck", the 312 common SNPs and the phenomenon that all living I1-males descend from one single line. You will agree that all tries to explain this fact have one thing in common: They are extremely unlikely and do not give us a satisfying answer. "All I1-people but one were killed by invaders, but that last one was adopted by an invader-king, became a king himself and had a lot of offspring" - this sounds likewise desperate and ridiculous to me. Also, the idea of a "founder-effect" (another idea) cannot explain the dominance of I1 in contemporary Scandinavia.

Now let's look what really happened: When the ice proceeded to the Last Glacial Maximum, about 28.000 years ago, the early Europeans had to evade the unhabitable areas to find a space to survive. It is important to realize, that the causes and the progression of ice ages are not really understood yet, and most people think that it just got cold and the ice moved from the north down into Europe. But that is not correct. In this scenario Doggerland, for example, would have been completely covered by ice and could under no circumstances offer a living space for Palaeolithic hunter-gatherer-cultures. The archaeological finds on the bottom of the North Sea tell us a different story, and so the maps, that used to show Doggerland under a gigantic ice shied have changed: Now it is shown ice-free. Why is that?
The answer is that ice ages are caused by glaciers, and glaciers have their origin in mountainous regions. A slight increase in athmospheric precipitation, probably caused by an increasing Gulf Stream ( that has always changed its intensity up and down in earth history), starts feeding the glaciers in four main regions: The Scandinavian mountains, the British mountains, the Alps and the Pyrenees. They move into the plains, very slowly of course: From the Alps and Pyrenees into the middle of Europe, from the British and Scandinavian mountains into all directions. The glaciers bring the cold and make the land inhabitable. There is indication that the middle of Europe was de facto depopulated land, southern Europe offered a refugium, because it was too warm for the ice to proceed. But in the very north there was also a refugium, because the Gulf Stream kept the coasts ice-free. In this situation the European people had to make a decision where to go to survive. (de facto they just evaded the ice and "stranded" somewhere). The only place to live in the northern half of Europe was probably the warm coast - the population, that belonged nearly exclusively to haplogroup I, divided into those that went to the north of Doggerland and those that reached the north coast of Scandinavia. Both were isolated there for a very long time, and that initiated the separation into haplogroup I2 and I1. They learned to "live by the sea" (fishing etc.), they built boats - that's why we found the oldest boats in this very region.
When the Glacial Maximum was over, the ice started melting - and Doggerland started drowning. So the I2-people had to evade to the south step by step, and finally entered central Europe. Some followed the coast by boat, they are the founders of the Megalithic cultures. The I1-people stayed in isolation - the gigantic ice shield in the Scandinavian mountains remained there for thousands of years, making all population exchange impossible. When the ice was gone they started their expansion to the south and south-east. A general decrease in temperature - not an ice age, that is something different - made them give up their original home later. The distribution of haplogroup I1 today tells us the same story.

Now for the bottleneck: The space in the northern refugium was very limited, only a certain number of families could survive there. Time after time, male lines died out, because they had no offspring or just daughters. So, given enough time with a limited population, after some millenia all male lines but one disappeared. This doesn't mean only one male survived, their number remained constant. No, when the process was over, all living males belonged to the same line. Some people may think that this won't happen. But there are observed similar developments refering to the family names in closed societies: The number of names in a given country with limited population declines all the time, because lines die out - an extrapolation into the future shows that at the end all people in that county would have the same name, unless they take new ones to choose an individual identity. The smaller the population, the faster the process.
In Y-genetics there is a similar development: We have mutations, initiating new lines regularily. So the rule ist: If the dying-out of male lines goes faster than the occurance of new mutations, all males will belong to the same line at the end. Did it go faster? We could experiment with computer simulation models to find evidence on this, but the given situation makes it very likely: It is a fact that in more than 20.000 years only one male I1-line survived. There is no better explanation for this phenomenon.

We can now also say why all very old finds of haplogroup I1 are pre- (I prefer: proto-) I1. Those are the very few individuals that escaped the refugium before the ice melted. They left before the unification of male lines had finished, or they lack the further development of the Y-SNPs in the refugium. But, as they were alone, they failed to found a population that could outlast the time. Noone of them has any offspring today. When the ice shield was gone finally, the group expanded to the south and grew - now the development changed to the opposite: The population grew faster than male lines disappeared, and that is the reason for the I1-diversity we have today. But, it is built on the one stock that survived the time in the ice.

I enjoyed reading your theory. Personally I expect that I2 and I1 were once quite widely distributed in Europe after the Ice Age before nearly dying out. But I think it's obvious that Scandinavia has played the pivotal role in the modern development and expansion of I1. As always we need more samples.

spruithean
09-10-2019, 05:25 PM
I think we're already seeing early signs that pre-I1 was fairly spread across Europe if the samples we have so far are anything to go by, 2 from Spain, some from Central Europe and Scandinavia, and like you say, only the modern I1 lineage survived. We are quite a bit farther ahead than we were a few years ago!

Kaltmeister
09-11-2019, 09:36 AM
Interesting theory! I have a couple of questions. If I misread what you wrote I apologize.

1. So patrilineal ancestors of modern I1 were living in Northeastern Scandinavia during the last Ice Age? When do you think their patrilineal ancestors first entered Scandinavia after entering Southeastern Europe around 43,000 years ago?

2. Could the tmrca for modern I1 be a lot older than 4,600 ybp if they were an isolated small group with small numbers with slower mutation rates?

3. So I1 started autosomally mixing with R1a, R1b, and I2 after the last Ice Age around 9,000 years ago but no evidence currently exists for I1 during those times because they burned their dead?

4. Pre-I1 found from Hungary to Spain were people who escaped the Scandinavian refuge at some point?

5. Where do you think the I1 and I2 split occurred in Europe?


Some questions are already answered in the text:

1. I1 and I2 separated, when two populations of haplogroup I were forced by the ice into two different northern refugia. That implies both were haplogroup I (M170) before. So the time of separation and entering of Scandinavia would have been about 28.000 years ago, maybe a bit later - at this time the glaciers started expanding to the Glacial Maximum. This is quite close to the estimated dates given for the separation of I1/I2 by geneticists.

2. I have thought about this, too. In my opinion the number of mutations under these conditions would be the same, but maybe someone has a better idea. However, the TMRCA would have to be the time when the isolation was left, because at this point the diversification starts. And the TMRCA is, if I see things right, calculated by the SNPs that occured since then. So the frequency of new SNPs in isolation would have no influence on that.
My intuition tells me that the TMRCA given today is not correct, it is just too young. A geneticist told me that it can differ +/- 2000 years easily with the methods we are using today. The generation length, for example, could be variable between different populations and under special conditions. I would expect at least the Erteboelle-culture to be I1-dominated, and that starts about 5.300 years BC.

3. Correct. Before there must have been a very homogenious EHG/I1-population. As for the cremation ritus, we know that the Vikings had it, and religious conviction can last for very long times. The Arabian traveller Ibn Fadlan reports:

Why the Rūs burn their dead

[One of the Rūs was standing beside me] and I heard him speak to my interpreter. I asked the latter [what he had said.] He replied:
‘You Arabs are fools!’
[‘Why is that?’ I asked him.]
He said:‘Because you put the men you love most, [and the most noble among you,] into the earth, and the earth and the worms and insects eat them. But we burn them [in the fire] in an instant, so that at once and without delay they enter Paradise.’
Then he began to laugh in a very excessive way. I asked him why he was laughing and he said:
‘His Lord, for love of him, has sent a wind that [will bear] him hence within the hour.’

4. correct

5. Look at the text: "In this situation the European people had to make a decision where to go to survive. (de facto they just evaded the ice and "stranded" somewhere). The only place to live in the northern half of Europe was probably the warm coast - the population, that belonged nearly exclusively to haplogroup I, divided into those that went to the north of Doggerland and those that reached the north coast of Scandinavia. Both were isolated there for a very long time, and that initiated the separation into haplogroup I2 and I1."

We can assume that they started in Europe somewhere north of the Alps. Otherwise they would have ended up in a southern refugium.

Kaltmeister
09-11-2019, 10:44 AM
I made this simple sketch about a year ago to understand the diversification of male lines in the isolation. I would encourage everyone, who is interested in that topic, to do something similar, for it is very helpful to visualize abstract issues to get a better understanding. You need to imagine many more branch-offs on any of the branches that are already drawn. But they have one thing in common: They all have dead ends. Only one line, in this sketch it starts on the left bottom, survives and finally leads, after 312 branch-offs, to DF29. The proto-I1-finds we have, like StoraFŲrvar11, are also on this very line, but they branch off earlier in time, so they don't share all the DF29-SNPs.


33065

mwauthy
09-11-2019, 12:36 PM
Some questions are already answered in the text:

1. I1 and I2 separated, when two populations of haplogroup I were forced by the ice into two different northern refugia. That implies both were haplogroup I (M170) before. So the time of separation and entering of Scandinavia would have been about 28.000 years ago, maybe a bit later - at this time the glaciers started expanding to the Glacial Maximum. This is quite close to the estimated dates given for the separation of I1/I2 by geneticists.

2. I have thought about this, too. In my opinion the number of mutations under these conditions would be the same, but maybe someone has a better idea. However, the TMRCA would have to be the time when the isolation was left, because at this point the diversification starts. And the TMRCA is, if I see things right, calculated by the SNPs that occured since then. So the frequency of new SNPs in isolation would have no influence on that.
My intuition tells me that the TMRCA given today is not correct, it is just too young. A geneticist told me that it can differ +/- 2000 years easily with the methods we are using today. The generation length, for example, could be variable between different populations and under special conditions. I would expect at least the Erteboelle-culture to be I1-dominated, and that starts about 5.300 years BC.

3. Correct. Before there must have been a very homogenious EHG/I1-population. As for the cremation ritus, we know that the Vikings had it, and religious conviction can last for very long times. The Arabian traveller Ibn Fadlan reports:

Why the Rūs burn their dead

[One of the Rūs was standing beside me] and I heard him speak to my interpreter. I asked the latter [what he had said.] He replied:
‘You Arabs are fools!’
[‘Why is that?’ I asked him.]
He said:‘Because you put the men you love most, [and the most noble among you,] into the earth, and the earth and the worms and insects eat them. But we burn them [in the fire] in an instant, so that at once and without delay they enter Paradise.’
Then he began to laugh in a very excessive way. I asked him why he was laughing and he said:
‘His Lord, for love of him, has sent a wind that [will bear] him hence within the hour.’

4. correct

5. Look at the text: "In this situation the European people had to make a decision where to go to survive. (de facto they just evaded the ice and "stranded" somewhere). The only place to live in the northern half of Europe was probably the warm coast - the population, that belonged nearly exclusively to haplogroup I, divided into those that went to the north of Doggerland and those that reached the north coast of Scandinavia. Both were isolated there for a very long time, and that initiated the separation into haplogroup I2 and I1."

We can assume that they started in Europe somewhere north of the Alps. Otherwise they would have ended up in a southern refugium.

Thanks for the replies to my questions. Your theory is definitely an interesting one and worth thinking about. Like you I think it seems extremely improbable that pre-I1 would be spread all across Europe and then would become completely wiped out except for 1 patrilineal line that would move into Scandinavia during the late Neolithic or early Bronze Age and then completely dominate. I have a few more questions for you.

1. Why do you think I2 did not have have such an extreme bottleneck as I1 if they were also isolated for a similarly long time?

2. Also why do you think I2 was so successful in Southeastern Europe if Doggerland wasn’t flooded until 6,500-6,200 B.C.? Wouldn’t it have been hard for I2 to compete against local tribesmen that had been living in the southern refuge for several millennia prior?

3. If some I2 escaped to Southeastern Europe after the Last Glacial Maximum why were they more successful than similar pre-I1 escapees from Scandinavia that migrated across Europe from Hungary to Spain?

Kaltmeister
09-11-2019, 09:43 PM
1. There are two reasons: First, Doggerland is a flat land and started drowning soon after the end of the LGM, although the process continued for a very long time - even in the last centuries, land on the continental coast was taken away by the North Sea. In northern Scandinavia the continental shelf is steep, and the loss of land minimal; nobody had to leave the area when the water came. So groups of I2-people were driven south into the continent much earlier. The second is, that their way to the south was open: As soon as the ice retreated, it was possible to move into central Europe (and from there also into southern Scandinavia). I1 in northern Scandinavia was captured in the ice, the glaciers made it (almost) impossible to leave the area. It is hard to say when the isolation ended, but GŁnther e.a. say, when people lived in the north and south 11.700 years ago (EHG and WHG), the ice was still there: "There is consistent evidence of human presence in the archaeological record from approximately 11,700 years before present (BP) both in southern and northern Scandinavia. At this time, the ice sheet was still dominating the interior of Scandinavia, but recent climate modeling shows that the Arctic coast of (modern-day) northern Norway was ice free."

At what point of time in history was the ice gone? Wikipedia says: "It wasn't until 7000 BC that all of Svealand and the modern coastal regions of northeastern Sweden were free of ice." ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_prehistory ). That would be the time when I1/EHG started their expansion to the south. So the answer is: I1 lived for many millenia in a real isolation. I2 was bound to a refugium, but not that strict and for a much shorter time period.


2. First, the I2-migration happened in big groups, clans or tribes were moving into new areas. Unlike the I1-adventurers that left their home alone or in small groups, losing contact to their homeland, I2/WHG-people could hold ground in the areas they entered. They mixed with the local population though. Second, there is something that nobody mentions, altough I find it obvious: These people were killers, the most dangerous kind of man around. Areas with I2-population still have the highest body height today. Tall and leptosome men, trained to hunt and kill big game in organized, cooperative groups (even mammouths). The peaceful farmers were no match for them, and it is very unlikely the WHG were just assimilated. It is more likely that they layered the farming population, getting in control of the society. We will have to check, what haplogroups we find in upper class and lower class graves.

3. is already answered in 2. It is a question of the number of people moving into new areas. There has to be a critical mass to hold ground.

Kaltmeister
09-11-2019, 10:22 PM
Thanks for the replies to my questions. Your theory is definitely an interesting one and worth thinking about.

I have to admit that this is not my theory. It has been developed by H.K. Horken 1972 in his book "Ex Nocte Lux". Horken's book deals primarily with a new ice age theory, giving the Gulf Stream a leading role in the genesis and disappearance of ice ages. The idea is, very unconventional, that an increasing Gulf Stream causes more rain, in the mountain regions more snow, feeding the glaciers. The glaciers grow into the plains and bring the cold. So we have the paradox situation that warm water in the northern hemisphere causes cold conditions on the continent.
The effect turns over, because the glaciers bind a lot of water and the sea gets so shallow, that the Gulf Stream can no longer pass the Faroese threshold. It collapses, no more snow goes down on the mountains, the glaciers shrivel. In some chapters he deals with the refugia of the ice age people (in fact he has three groups: One in Doggerland, one in northern Scandinavia and one in northern Russia. But the haplogroups tell us there can be only two of them...)

The book is written in German, but someone found the ice age theory that convincing and actual, that he translated parts of it into English. The anthropological aspects that are the most interesting in my opinion, do not play a major role in this excerpt. If you are really interested in the topic though, you can read it here, it starts on page 73: http://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp107_chinese_book_reviews.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2ePaLKb I5M81X22-_Jk1IAUJ-MqVVE2tM3Wy2qd3SOs4aQTMPgxpWa5tI

I have just adapted the theory to the level of information we have today. Obviously Horken had no idea about haplogroups. For that it is remarkable how good his view goes with the distribution of haplogroups we get from fossils today. He also offers us an explanation on the I1-bottleneck. And long time before archaeologists directed their attention to Doggerland, he wrote that during the Ice Age the sea level was approximately 150 m lower than it is today, and that the continental shelf was once habitable land and had played a key role in European prehistory.

Kaltmeister
09-17-2019, 11:36 AM
Next to "Ex Nocte Lux" there are some more theories that locate a people in an area "close to the north pole" for thousands of years. Here is a selection:


- William Fairfield Warren in : Paradise Found - The Cradle of the Human Race at the North Pole (1885). Warren placed Atlantis at the North Pole, as well as the Garden of Eden, Mount Meru, Avalon and Hyperborea. He believed all these mythical lands were folk memories of a former inhabited far northern seat where man was originally created.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Fairfield_Warren?fbclid=IwAR3qJ3pjhASX7e1G jggx8VNHdGnfZDrPZGMmBAjIL

- John Rhys in: Lectures on the origin and growth of religion as illustrated by Celtic heathendom (1886). Rhys analyses Celtic mythology and locates the home of their Indoeuropean ancestors in Scandinavia.

- Bal Gangadhar Tilak in "The arctic home in the Vedas". Inspired by Warren he analysed the Vedas, holy tradition of the Hindu religion and found that they describe a lost "home in the ice". The cosmology makes it very clear that the Aryans originate from an area somewhere close to the North Pole.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Arctic_Home_in_the_Vedas

- Felice Vinci in "The Baltic Origins of Homer's Epic Tales". Vinci shows that the Greeks' origin is in the Baltic region in Scandinavia. He also locates the home of their Indoeuropean ancestors: It is northern Scandinavia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Baltic_Origins_of_Homer%27s_Epic_Tales

- The Russian archaeologist Leo Klejn. In a respond to the Steppe theory developed by Haak, Lazaridis, Reich e.a. he shows in a very convincing way that Yamnaya is not the origin of Indoeuropean language. If you look into the discussion that is also documented in the linked text, you will see that he has the better arguments. Klejn locates the Indoeuropean home in Scandinavia.

https://www.academia.edu/35551662/Discussion_Are_the_Origins_of_Indo-European_Languages_Explained_by_the_Migration_of_t he_Yamnaya_Culture_to_the_West

Generalissimo
09-17-2019, 12:34 PM
- The Russian archaeologist Leo Klejn. In a respond to the Steppe theory developed by Haak, Lazaridis, Reich e.a. he shows in a very convincing way that Yamnaya is not the origin of Indoeuropean language. If you look into the discussion that is also documented in the linked text, you will see that he has the better arguments. Klejn locates the Indoeuropean home in Scandinavia.

https://www.academia.edu/35551662/Discussion_Are_the_Origins_of_Indo-European_Languages_Explained_by_the_Migration_of_t he_Yamnaya_Culture_to_the_West

He doesn't have any real arguments.

His so called arguments are based on his lack of understanding of the data.

Kaltmeister
09-17-2019, 01:17 PM
So what mistake is he making in your opinion?

spruithean
09-17-2019, 02:59 PM
I think most of the data we have now shows that IE did not originate in Scandinavia. I1 is definitely not originally an IE haplogroup IMO.

ADW_1981
09-17-2019, 03:29 PM
It seems to have spread there earlier than M269+ though. Take for example the recent Estonian ship burials. The men were said to have originated near Stockholm and were R1a, I1, and N1c. A similar pattern can be observed for the western most Norwegians who settled Iceland, very few M269+ in the ethnic ancient Norwegian samples (remove the UK shifted L21+ samples). I1 may have been an indigeneous element among the Single Grave culture with expanding R1a CWC.

JMcB
09-17-2019, 03:44 PM
Next to "Ex Nocte Lux" there are some more theories that locate a people in an area "close to the north pole" for thousands of years. Here is a selection:


- William Fairfield Warren in : Paradise Found - The Cradle of the Human Race at the North Pole (1885). Warren placed Atlantis at the North Pole, as well as the Garden of Eden, Mount Meru, Avalon and Hyperborea. He believed all these mythical lands were folk memories of a former inhabited far northern seat where man was originally created.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Fairfield_Warren?fbclid=IwAR3qJ3pjhASX7e1G jggx8VNHdGnfZDrPZGMmBAjIL

- John Rhys in: Lectures on the origin and growth of religion as illustrated by Celtic heathendom (1886). Rhys analyses Celtic mythology and locates the home of their Indoeuropean ancestors in Scandinavia.

- Bal Gangadhar Tilak in "The arctic home in the Vedas". Inspired by Warren he analysed the Vedas, holy tradition of the Hindu religion and found that they describe a lost "home in the ice". The cosmology makes it very clear that the Aryans originate from an area somewhere close to the North Pole.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Arctic_Home_in_the_Vedas

- Felice Vinci in "The Baltic Origins of Homer's Epic Tales". Vinci shows that the Greeks' origin is in the Baltic region in Scandinavia. He also locates the home of their Indoeuropean ancestors: It is northern Scandinavia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Baltic_Origins_of_Homer%27s_Epic_Tales

- The Russian archaeologist Leo Klejn. In a respond to the Steppe theory developed by Haak, Lazaridis, Reich e.a. he shows in a very convincing way that Yamnaya is not the origin of Indoeuropean language. If you look into the discussion that is also documented in the linked text, you will see that he has the better arguments. Klejn locates the Indoeuropean home in Scandinavia.

https://www.academia.edu/35551662/Discussion_Are_the_Origins_of_Indo-European_Languages_Explained_by_the_Migration_of_t he_Yamnaya_Culture_to_the_West

Frankly, most of this sounds like nonsense. I think you would be better off sticking with the mainstream scholars like Reich, et al.

spruithean
09-17-2019, 04:55 PM
Next to "Ex Nocte Lux" there are some more theories that locate a people in an area "close to the north pole" for thousands of years. Here is a selection:


- William Fairfield Warren in : Paradise Found - The Cradle of the Human Race at the North Pole (1885). Warren placed Atlantis at the North Pole, as well as the Garden of Eden, Mount Meru, Avalon and Hyperborea. He believed all these mythical lands were folk memories of a former inhabited far northern seat where man was originally created.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Fairfield_Warren?fbclid=IwAR3qJ3pjhASX7e1G jggx8VNHdGnfZDrPZGMmBAjIL

- John Rhys in: Lectures on the origin and growth of religion as illustrated by Celtic heathendom (1886). Rhys analyses Celtic mythology and locates the home of their Indoeuropean ancestors in Scandinavia.

- Bal Gangadhar Tilak in "The arctic home in the Vedas". Inspired by Warren he analysed the Vedas, holy tradition of the Hindu religion and found that they describe a lost "home in the ice". The cosmology makes it very clear that the Aryans originate from an area somewhere close to the North Pole.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Arctic_Home_in_the_Vedas

- Felice Vinci in "The Baltic Origins of Homer's Epic Tales". Vinci shows that the Greeks' origin is in the Baltic region in Scandinavia. He also locates the home of their Indoeuropean ancestors: It is northern Scandinavia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Baltic_Origins_of_Homer%27s_Epic_Tales

- The Russian archaeologist Leo Klejn. In a respond to the Steppe theory developed by Haak, Lazaridis, Reich e.a. he shows in a very convincing way that Yamnaya is not the origin of Indoeuropean language. If you look into the discussion that is also documented in the linked text, you will see that he has the better arguments. Klejn locates the Indoeuropean home in Scandinavia.

https://www.academia.edu/35551662/Discussion_Are_the_Origins_of_Indo-European_Languages_Explained_by_the_Migration_of_t he_Yamnaya_Culture_to_the_West

Theories presenting IE originating in Scandinavia or the North Pole are a bit much (and thanks to current data, extremely unlikely) and I think the result of taking certain translations of religious texts too literally IMO (hopefully no one gets offended by my opinion here) when they say that the homeland was "cold". I highly doubt the Celts originated in Scandinavia, let alone the entirety of the proto-Indo-European people. So far most seem to argue for the Pontic-Caspian Steppe for PIE, though I don't really want to wade into that as that always results in a gigantic thread...


It seems to have spread there earlier than M269+ though. Take for example the recent Estonian ship burials. The men were said to have originated near Stockholm and were R1a, I1, and N1c. A similar pattern can be observed for the western most Norwegians who settled Iceland, very few M269+ in the ethnic ancient Norwegian samples (remove the UK shifted L21+ samples). I1 may have been an indigeneous element among the Single Grave culture with expanding R1a CWC.

I1 is a weird case though, the pre-I1 samples are from far and wide in Europe (Scandinavia, Hungary, Spain), while modern I1 lineages are quite prevalent in the North of Europe (and sort of restricted if you will), with a relatively late TMRCA. When you say spread before M269 do you mean in terms of spread in Europe? The Salme ship burials were the result of early raiding activity out of Scandinavia (before Lindsifarne). I don't really know what to make of I1 as to whether it was an indigenous element in SGC or what, likely a result of my own minimal knowledge of the SGC and other cultural complexes. Though it does seem like modern I1 has an origin in Scandinavia, so perhaps that fits with being indigenous in SGC?

Kaltmeister
09-17-2019, 06:36 PM
I think most of the data we have now shows that IE did not originate in Scandinavia. I1 is definitely not originally an IE haplogroup IMO.

For this it is worth to deal with the text by Leo Klejn I linked up there. Kleijn and Baranowsky (Klejn is archaeologist, Baranowsky geneticist) show that the "Yamnaya genetic component" (Haak, Lazaridis, Reich) has its highest density today in Scandinavia and decreases in southern and eastern direction. This looks like there was an initial expansion to the south-east into Ukraine, layering the local population. The same expansion went into the Baltic area and the middle of Europe - this is why we have the same component here, too. But he has a lot of more good arguments making it very unlikely that Yamnaya is the home of IE. If you are interested in those questions, take a time and look into the discussion.

33242

Kaltmeister
09-17-2019, 06:50 PM
Theories presenting IE originating in Scandinavia or the North Pole are a bit much (and thanks to current data, extremely unlikely) and I think the result of taking certain translations of religious texts too literally IMO (hopefully no one gets offended by my opinion here) when they say that the homeland was "cold". I highly doubt the Celts originated in Scandinavia, let alone the entirety of the proto-Indo-European people. So far most seem to argue for the Pontic-Caspian Steppe for PIE, though I don't really want to wade into that as that always results in a gigantic thread...

I don't like endless discussions either. I would just like to open a perspective that is not present in the current discussions and has a lot of good arguments on its side though. As for Tilak, you shouldn't argue on him in a dismissive way without reading these theories, or at least "about" these theories. Tilak is a brilliant academic thinker - it is not just about beeing cold in the home of the Indoeuropeans. The Vedas describe astronomical details that can only be observed in an area north of the Polar Circle: Certain star constellations, Midnight Sun, a night that endures several months etc. This can not be observed in the Ukrainean steppe.

BillMC
03-29-2021, 09:59 PM
Could it be possible that I1 first came to the British Isles during the Bell Beaker or Iron Age Celtic migrations? The reason I ask is because all the companies who tested my DNA have me as 100% British Isles. FTDNA's revised analysis has me as 84% British Isles and 16% eastern European, consisting of 1% Baltic and 15% Magyar. Now while I appreciate the fact that Goths may have settled in Hungry and Vikings may have settled in the east Baltic region I find it hard to imagine any of them migrating to the British Isles from any of these places LOL.

BTW I am assuming that when a DNA testing company says that your DNA is British or Irish they are refering to the pre Roman era.

Megalophias
03-29-2021, 10:20 PM
BTW I am assuming that when a DNA testing company says that your DNA is British or Irish they are refering to the pre Roman era.
They are not distinguishing pre-Roman ancestry or anything like that (though it'd be nice if they could!). They are looking at how you are related to modern people from those regions.

spruithean
03-30-2021, 12:02 AM
Could it be possible that I1 first came to the British Isles during the Bell Beaker or Iron Age Celtic migrations? The reason I ask is because all the companies who tested my DNA have me as 100% British Isles. FTDNA's revised analysis has me as 84% British Isles and 16% eastern European, consisting of 1% Baltic and 15% Magyar. Now while I appreciate the fact that Goths may have settled in Hungry and Vikings may have settled in the east Baltic region I find it hard to imagine any of them migrating to the British Isles from any of these places LOL.

BTW I am assuming that when a DNA testing company says that your DNA is British or Irish they are refering to the pre Roman era.

Y-DNA has nothing to do with your autosomal DNA or your ethnicity estimates at all. You share very little DNA if any with an extremely distant direct paternal ancestor outside of Y-DNA. It is entirely possible to have a Germanic Y-chromosome and autosomally appear British or Irish or what have you.

BillMC
03-30-2021, 12:28 AM
Y-DNA has nothing to do with your autosomal DNA or your ethnicity estimates at all. You share very little DNA if any with an extremely distant direct paternal ancestor outside of Y-DNA. It is entirely possible to have a Germanic Y-chromosome and autosomally appear British or Irish or what have you.

According to FTDNA my ancient ancestry is 51% hunter gatherer, 41% famer and 8% metal worker. Now considerring the fact that I1 is associated with the hunter gatherers on the northern part of the Continent, would part of my autosomal DNA be associated with my Y haplogroup? or is the whole of my 51% entirely indigenuous British Isles? That would be quite a lot considering that according to a certain documentary after the Bronze Age invasions of the British Isles only 10% of British DNA was hunter gatherer. Yet as I understand it a lot more of it survived in Scandinavia.

leorcooper19
03-30-2021, 01:17 AM
BTW I am assuming that when a DNA testing company says that your DNA is British or Irish they are refering to the pre Roman era.

They're not; all mainstream direct-to-consumer DNA ancestry tests have their regions based on modern populations, not ancients. When they say you are 100% British and Irish, they mean you are 100% similar to their British and Irish reference population made up by (hopefully lots) of modern individuals with deep roots in the isles.


According to FTDNA my ancient ancestry is 51% hunter gatherer, 41% famer and 8% metal worker. Now considerring the fact that I1 is associated with the hunter gatherers on the northern part of the Continent, would part of my autosomal DNA be associated with my Y haplogroup? or is the whole of my 51% entirely indigenuous British Isles? That would be quite a lot considering that according to a certain documentary after the Bronze Age invasions of the British Isles only 10% of British DNA was hunter gatherer. Yet as I understand it a lot more of it survived in Scandinavia.

Your I1 lineage and your Hunter-Gatherer ancestry are related, but only partially. You do directly descend from European Hunter-Gatherers on your paternal line, but it is impossible that all Hunter-Gatherer-derived ancestry is from your paternal line. In reality, going back in your tree you are sure to have tons of I1 and I2 in addition to maternal-derived HG lineages that, in aggregate, represent your uniparental ties to your European HG ancestry. But any one given I line may not have supplied any HG-derived ancestry to your other chromosomes, which make up your autosomal DNA. And remember, the admixture event between European HGs and EEFs took place many thousands of years ago.

BillMC
03-30-2021, 04:31 PM
They are not distinguishing pre-Roman ancestry or anything like that (though it'd be nice if they could!). They are looking at how you are related to modern people from those regions.

I must have approached the wrong companies. My motivation for doing DNA ancestry tests was not for tracing distant cousins, but because of my interest in ancient and medieval history and how my ancesters fitted into it.

BillMC
03-30-2021, 04:37 PM
Your I1 lineage and your Hunter-Gatherer ancestry are related, but only partially. You do directly descend from European Hunter-Gatherers on your paternal line, but it is impossible that all Hunter-Gatherer-derived ancestry is from your paternal line. In reality, going back in your tree you are sure to have tons of I1 and I2 in addition to maternal-derived HG lineages that, in aggregate, represent your uniparental ties to your European HG ancestry. But any one given I line may not have supplied any HG-derived ancestry to your other chromosomes, which make up your autosomal DNA. And remember, the admixture event between European HGs and EEFs took place many thousands of years ago.

IMO due to my high level of hunter gatherer DNA, my ancestry must be very ancient British or very Scandinavian. The reason why I conclude this is because according to a documentry about Bronze Age migrations only 10% of British DNA was hunter gatherer after Bronze Age invasions, while in Scandinavia it was still at a much higher level. Hence the reason why I1 and I2 is still relatively higher there than other parts of Europe.

xenus
03-30-2021, 07:57 PM
The British Isles had a genetic turnover with the Bronze Age migration of the Bell Beaker Culture. The 90% figure is quoted for the population replacement. The neolithic population originated from the spread of farming from Anatolia to Europe. I don't think there is any evidence of I1 in Britain before the Anglo-Saxons actually.

BillMC
03-31-2021, 10:33 PM
The British Isles had a genetic turnover with the Bronze Age migration of the Bell Beaker Culture. The 90% figure is quoted for the population replacement. The neolithic population originated from the spread of farming from Anatolia to Europe. I don't think there is any evidence of I1 in Britain before the Anglo-Saxons actually.

I was just toying with that idea in order to make some kind of historical sense of my ancestry being 100% British Isles. It has now been explained to me that when DNA testing companies refer to your ancestry being 'British' they are refering to recent ancestry.

Nevertheless early genetic historieans such as Brian Sykes and Stephen Oppenheimer promoting the idea that I1 did arrive in the British Isles before the Dark Ages. Their ideas on this seem to have now been discredited.

spruithean
04-03-2021, 12:41 AM
I was just toying with that idea in order to make some kind of historical sense of my ancestry being 100% British Isles. It has now been explained to me that when DNA testing companies refer to your ancestry being 'British' they are refering to recent ancestry.

Nevertheless early genetic historieans such as Brian Sykes and Stephen Oppenheimer promoting the idea that I1 did arrive in the British Isles before the Dark Ages. Their ideas on this seem to have now been discredited.

It really isn't so strange that your autosomal DNA when given an ethnicity estimate comes back with 100% British Isles. The Y-Chromosome is not involved in autosomal DNA ethnicity estimations. Wherever your I1 ancestor came from, you have very little in common with him save for the haplogroup at this point (and being his descendant). We both have a similar situation here, we both have Gaelic surnames (IIRC from a thread you posted a few years ago) yet we belong to I1 branches that are typically associated with West Germanic groups as opposed to North Germanic groups. Each of our respective Y-line ancestors may have been Germanic migrants to the Isles, but at some point any of that cultural association was lost and eventually their descendants adopted their respective surnames and their descendants likely saw themselves as Scottish or whichever culture they were exposed to long after their ancestors arrived in the Isles from elsewhere.

Agamemnon
04-03-2021, 01:22 AM
I was just toying with that idea in order to make some kind of historical sense of my ancestry being 100% British Isles. It has now been explained to me that when DNA testing companies refer to your ancestry being 'British' they are refering to recent ancestry.

Nevertheless early genetic historieans such as Brian Sykes and Stephen Oppenheimer promoting the idea that I1 did arrive in the British Isles before the Dark Ages. Their ideas on this seem to have now been discredited.

Ha, Oppenheimer... I still remember reading his Origins of the British more than a decade back, certainly was a captivating read but almost every claim he made has been soundly invalidated. From R1b arriving in the Isles with elusive Epipaleolithic and Mesolithic migrants from Iberia to the strange fringe theories he pushed in favour of Germanic being spoken in the Isles during the Iron Age, to say that his claims have aged badly would be quite the understatement.

As spruithean has just told you, your paternal ancestors definitely were Germanic settlers (most likely Ingvaeonic-speaking) who were Gaelicised in the long run. Based on its distribution and phylogeny, which respectively mirror the distribution (including in the ancient DNA record) and branching of the Germanic languages, a pre-Germanic arrival for I-M253 in Britain makes no sense. If pre-Anglo-Saxon cases are eventually found, this should best be interpreted as a sign of Germanic admixture. The same counts for R1b-U106, R1a-Z284 and other similar lineages for the exact same reasons.

JerryS.
04-03-2021, 04:36 AM
It really isn't so strange that your autosomal DNA when given an ethnicity estimate comes back with 100% British Isles. The Y-Chromosome is not involved in autosomal DNA ethnicity estimations. Wherever your I1 ancestor came from, you have very little in common with him save for the haplogroup at this point (and being his descendant). We both have a similar situation here, we both have Gaelic surnames (IIRC from a thread you posted a few years ago) yet we belong to I1 branches that are typically associated with West Germanic groups as opposed to North Germanic groups. Each of our respective Y-line ancestors may have been Germanic migrants to the Isles, but at some point any of that cultural association was lost and eventually their descendants adopted their respective surnames and their descendants likely saw themselves as Scottish or whichever culture they were exposed to long after their ancestors arrived in the Isles from elsewhere.

really? so my autosomal data is not based on anything my father gave me?

spruithean
04-03-2021, 05:27 AM
really? so my autosomal data is not based on anything my father gave me?

How did you come to that conclusion? You inherit autosomal DNA from both parents. A Y-Chromosome is not an autosome, it’s an allosome.

JerryS.
04-03-2021, 06:14 AM
How did you come to that conclusion? You inherit autosomal DNA from both parents. A Y-Chromosome is not an autosome, it’s an allosome.

I misunderstood. Thanks

xenus
04-16-2021, 10:24 PM
I was just toying with that idea in order to make some kind of historical sense of my ancestry being 100% British Isles. It has now been explained to me that when DNA testing companies refer to your ancestry being 'British' they are refering to recent ancestry.

Nevertheless early genetic historieans such as Brian Sykes and Stephen Oppenheimer promoting the idea that I1 did arrive in the British Isles before the Dark Ages. Their ideas on this seem to have now been discredited.

I wouldn't use "discredited" exactly. Popsci writing is necessary for the public to digest scientific research and i don't think making a few guesses that turn out wrong hurts their credibility. On a personally I couldn't even read Sykes "The Seven Daughters of Eve" because his haplogroup nickname scheme made me cringe.

xenus
04-16-2021, 10:50 PM
Ha, Oppenheimer... I still remember reading his Origins of the British more than a decade back, certainly was a captivating read but almost every claim he made has been soundly invalidated. From R1b arriving in the Isles with elusive Epipaleolithic and Mesolithic migrants from Iberia to the strange fringe theories he pushed in favour of Germanic being spoken in the Isles during the Iron Age, to say that his claims have aged badly would be quite the understatement.

As spruithean has just told you, your paternal ancestors definitely were Germanic settlers (most likely Ingvaeonic-speaking) who were Gaelicised in the long run. Based on its distribution and phylogeny, which respectively mirror the distribution (including in the ancient DNA record) and branching of the Germanic languages, a pre-Germanic arrival for I-M253 in Britain makes no sense. If pre-Anglo-Saxon cases are eventually found, this should best be interpreted as a sign of Germanic admixture. The same counts for R1b-U106, R1a-Z284 and other similar lineages for the exact same reasons.
Exactly, it's already unshakeable set in stone from the evidence we have now. The distance between Scandinavia and the UK isn't huge and pre-Anglo-Saxon Germanic admixture here and there wouldn't be shocking because it doesn't change the fact that the genetic evidence backs up the name of the "migration period"