This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Almost all Bosniaks have this as a dominant haplogroup, but Croats have it only in the south neer Dubrovnik. I checked out the Oxford uni studies on it. 77.78.196.134 ( talk) 22:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
My last change can be improved to highlight that this haplogroup can be found in tiny frequencies anywhere where Romans went during their conquests, which is true. Note that Serbs were not there during the Roman conquests, and that's why frequency is not noticable amongst them as sources confirm with numerous maps of spread of the haplogroup. 77.78.196.134 ( talk) 22:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, a little bit wrong, the highest frequency is in Herzegovina 72% (Croats in Bosnia), then Bosniaks (around 50 or 60% as I can remember), the lowest among Serbs in Bosnia (around 30%). All in all around 40% for all inhabitants in Bosnia. In Croatia it's the highest in Dalmatia (over 50%, on some Dalmatian islands over 75%), Croatian average of 34% is for Croatian mainland (Dalmatia not calculated in) Zenanarh ( talk) 13:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
it is written : "Haplogroup I2a1 (P41.2 (M359)) accounts for approximately 40% of all patrilines among the Sardinians" ... In fact 40% of Sardinians have M26 not P41 SNP. You can check the source you cited. (on p.19 I1b2-M26). SNP P41 is very rare in hg I. Medlare ( talk) 17:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Just want to second the above comment. The mutation associated with Sardinians is M26, not M359. This should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wavereader ( talk • contribs) 17:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Recent archeological evidence combined with on-site Y-DNA extraction from the Lichtenstein Cave has connected haplogroup I2 with urnfield culture. according to source [1]. It's nice, but wrong. According to this sentence added in the article it appears that I2 people were bearers of Urnfield culture, that's how it can be understood by anyone who is not too familiar to agenda.
Source: Thus, the Y-DNA, as was also the case for the mt-DNA, haplogroup distribution of the people in the Lichtenstein cave cannot be considered to be an accurate reflection of the haplogroup distribution of the peoples settling in the vicinity of the Lichtenstein cave in the Urnfield culture time period (1000 to 700 B.C.E.).
Haplos found in that cave are I2, R1a and R1b. Direction of Urnfield culture spread was from the Central Europe to the west and east during the Bronze Age. Direction of I2 spread was from the Western Balkans to the north and sporadically to the west during Neolithic. In fact there are no connections between Urnfield culture expansion and I2 expansion, wrong age, opposite direction. If there would be such investigation made in all Urnfield archeological locations in Europe, result would be probably multiple haplogroups, with the best possibility of R1b predominance, logically, concerning its distribution in comparison to Urnfield culture affected area. In the Western Balkans where I2a is found in the highest frequencies (in some micro-locations more than 75% of population), Urnfield culture appeared only in the peripheries, brought by the Bronze Age migrators from the west (like the Celts - their Balkan settlements and R1b distribution in the Balkans are largely overlapping). The Bronze and Iron Age cultures related to I2a people there would be rather Illyrian and Mediterranean. It's irrelevant to relate the Bronze Age cultures to Y-chrommosome genetic identities of Paleolithic or Neolithic origin/appearance. Zenanarh ( talk) 09:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The mentioned I2 hg is in fact I2b (formerly I1b2a, I1c or I2), not Dinaric I2a. Just look at STR DYS439=11. I2a has 439=13. And DYS385a,b=13,17 is probably 17,13 if Kittler test has been done. So, the people from Lichtenstein Cave probably had haplogroup I2b which is found among populations of Northwest Europe (Netherland, Germany) and is virtualy absent among Western Balkan population. I agree with you that relating any haplogroup with specific culture is inappropriate. -- Medlare ( talk) 22:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Other haplogroups were found in the Lichtenstein Cave (R1b, R1a) also, so I definitely consider that connection "Urnfield culture=I2b Hg" is misinterpretation of archeological results. What I found very interesting is that even 3000 years ago, despite many turmoils and migrations, the same haplogroup I2b was found at "right" place. So, it is worth mentioning. On the other side, any hint which could sugest that I2b Hg is Urnfield founder is unplausible and undocumented and, in my opinion, should be removed. -- Medlare ( talk) 09:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Lichtenstein Cave already exists, Ancient DNA too. Reference and link replaced to I2b section. Zenanarh ( talk) 16:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
As a biochemical doctor, and dealing on a daily basis with genetic material, I read this "discussion" and laugh. It is clear that none of you is actually a professional. My suggestion to you is: leave the science alone and to people who actually studied the subjects you so diletantly debate here.
You have no idea what you are talking about and many of your "arguments" are more politically motivated than scientifically. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
59.101.51.64 (
talk) 23:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I have their chapter summarizing their research in Celtic from the West - they specifically refer to evidence that there was gene flow (migration) from the La Tene origin area into North-East Ireland. Please do not remove this again. If it helps I can put a quote from the paragraph in the book that says just this. Jembana ( talk) 00:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for this discussion on my talk page, Hans. I have added the full gist of the reference so all can see its import and qualifications. Note that the reference is 2011 so maybe add your findings around it (without deleting my text please) in chronological order (latest last would be good). Jembana ( talk) 04:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Just to clarify, Nordvedt has never worked as a genealogist in an accredited research laboratory or published any of his "findings" in peer-reviewed journals. He is a physicist by training, and a genealogist by interest active for such commercial establishments as FamilyTreeDNA and ancestry.com. Needless to say, he is uncitable until his work has been truly and scientifically verified and reviewed. 90.230.54.125 ( talk) 17:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I've removed these as unsourced. But the real problem is probably that it's a silly idea. Those added included a minor Russian actor living today, Myles Standish, etc. You could probably add the articles of thousands upon thousands of people on Wikipedia. None of them will be noted for having a particular marker though. Dougweller ( talk) 10:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
No I-L69.2 in Ukraine? Really? --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii 20:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Haplogroup I-M438. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
The opening paragraph seems to imply that this haplogroup is directly correlated with height (when controlling for other genes/geography), which seems unlikely and isn't mentioned anywhere in the given references. I've removed it, is this alright? Crom daba ( talk) 14:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Almost all Bosniaks have this as a dominant haplogroup, but Croats have it only in the south neer Dubrovnik. I checked out the Oxford uni studies on it. 77.78.196.134 ( talk) 22:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
My last change can be improved to highlight that this haplogroup can be found in tiny frequencies anywhere where Romans went during their conquests, which is true. Note that Serbs were not there during the Roman conquests, and that's why frequency is not noticable amongst them as sources confirm with numerous maps of spread of the haplogroup. 77.78.196.134 ( talk) 22:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, a little bit wrong, the highest frequency is in Herzegovina 72% (Croats in Bosnia), then Bosniaks (around 50 or 60% as I can remember), the lowest among Serbs in Bosnia (around 30%). All in all around 40% for all inhabitants in Bosnia. In Croatia it's the highest in Dalmatia (over 50%, on some Dalmatian islands over 75%), Croatian average of 34% is for Croatian mainland (Dalmatia not calculated in) Zenanarh ( talk) 13:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
it is written : "Haplogroup I2a1 (P41.2 (M359)) accounts for approximately 40% of all patrilines among the Sardinians" ... In fact 40% of Sardinians have M26 not P41 SNP. You can check the source you cited. (on p.19 I1b2-M26). SNP P41 is very rare in hg I. Medlare ( talk) 17:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Just want to second the above comment. The mutation associated with Sardinians is M26, not M359. This should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wavereader ( talk • contribs) 17:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Recent archeological evidence combined with on-site Y-DNA extraction from the Lichtenstein Cave has connected haplogroup I2 with urnfield culture. according to source [1]. It's nice, but wrong. According to this sentence added in the article it appears that I2 people were bearers of Urnfield culture, that's how it can be understood by anyone who is not too familiar to agenda.
Source: Thus, the Y-DNA, as was also the case for the mt-DNA, haplogroup distribution of the people in the Lichtenstein cave cannot be considered to be an accurate reflection of the haplogroup distribution of the peoples settling in the vicinity of the Lichtenstein cave in the Urnfield culture time period (1000 to 700 B.C.E.).
Haplos found in that cave are I2, R1a and R1b. Direction of Urnfield culture spread was from the Central Europe to the west and east during the Bronze Age. Direction of I2 spread was from the Western Balkans to the north and sporadically to the west during Neolithic. In fact there are no connections between Urnfield culture expansion and I2 expansion, wrong age, opposite direction. If there would be such investigation made in all Urnfield archeological locations in Europe, result would be probably multiple haplogroups, with the best possibility of R1b predominance, logically, concerning its distribution in comparison to Urnfield culture affected area. In the Western Balkans where I2a is found in the highest frequencies (in some micro-locations more than 75% of population), Urnfield culture appeared only in the peripheries, brought by the Bronze Age migrators from the west (like the Celts - their Balkan settlements and R1b distribution in the Balkans are largely overlapping). The Bronze and Iron Age cultures related to I2a people there would be rather Illyrian and Mediterranean. It's irrelevant to relate the Bronze Age cultures to Y-chrommosome genetic identities of Paleolithic or Neolithic origin/appearance. Zenanarh ( talk) 09:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The mentioned I2 hg is in fact I2b (formerly I1b2a, I1c or I2), not Dinaric I2a. Just look at STR DYS439=11. I2a has 439=13. And DYS385a,b=13,17 is probably 17,13 if Kittler test has been done. So, the people from Lichtenstein Cave probably had haplogroup I2b which is found among populations of Northwest Europe (Netherland, Germany) and is virtualy absent among Western Balkan population. I agree with you that relating any haplogroup with specific culture is inappropriate. -- Medlare ( talk) 22:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Other haplogroups were found in the Lichtenstein Cave (R1b, R1a) also, so I definitely consider that connection "Urnfield culture=I2b Hg" is misinterpretation of archeological results. What I found very interesting is that even 3000 years ago, despite many turmoils and migrations, the same haplogroup I2b was found at "right" place. So, it is worth mentioning. On the other side, any hint which could sugest that I2b Hg is Urnfield founder is unplausible and undocumented and, in my opinion, should be removed. -- Medlare ( talk) 09:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Lichtenstein Cave already exists, Ancient DNA too. Reference and link replaced to I2b section. Zenanarh ( talk) 16:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
As a biochemical doctor, and dealing on a daily basis with genetic material, I read this "discussion" and laugh. It is clear that none of you is actually a professional. My suggestion to you is: leave the science alone and to people who actually studied the subjects you so diletantly debate here.
You have no idea what you are talking about and many of your "arguments" are more politically motivated than scientifically. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
59.101.51.64 (
talk) 23:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I have their chapter summarizing their research in Celtic from the West - they specifically refer to evidence that there was gene flow (migration) from the La Tene origin area into North-East Ireland. Please do not remove this again. If it helps I can put a quote from the paragraph in the book that says just this. Jembana ( talk) 00:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for this discussion on my talk page, Hans. I have added the full gist of the reference so all can see its import and qualifications. Note that the reference is 2011 so maybe add your findings around it (without deleting my text please) in chronological order (latest last would be good). Jembana ( talk) 04:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Just to clarify, Nordvedt has never worked as a genealogist in an accredited research laboratory or published any of his "findings" in peer-reviewed journals. He is a physicist by training, and a genealogist by interest active for such commercial establishments as FamilyTreeDNA and ancestry.com. Needless to say, he is uncitable until his work has been truly and scientifically verified and reviewed. 90.230.54.125 ( talk) 17:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I've removed these as unsourced. But the real problem is probably that it's a silly idea. Those added included a minor Russian actor living today, Myles Standish, etc. You could probably add the articles of thousands upon thousands of people on Wikipedia. None of them will be noted for having a particular marker though. Dougweller ( talk) 10:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
No I-L69.2 in Ukraine? Really? --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii 20:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Haplogroup I-M438. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
The opening paragraph seems to imply that this haplogroup is directly correlated with height (when controlling for other genes/geography), which seems unlikely and isn't mentioned anywhere in the given references. I've removed it, is this alright? Crom daba ( talk) 14:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)