Talk:Haplogroup I2 (Y-DNA)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of genetic genealogy, genetics-based population history, and associated theory and methods. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

	MCB Portal This article is within the scope of the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information. The WikiProject's current monthly collaboration is focused on improving Restriction enzyme.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article is on a subject of low-importance within molecular and cellular biology.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] Precision

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)

As I wrote on the editor's talk page, this needs a verifiable source, and if the source has to be interpreted that sounds like original research and thus can't be added. I'm not sure what 'Romans' means in this context, the vast majority of the Legions came from outside Rome and Italy.Doug Weller (talk) 07:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/22/10/1964#TBL1 <<< Sure, this is the text I tried to transfer in to words on the article, if you can find a better way, feel free. Also please find a way to add this to references. And also please note the pictures of the map that the Strongest frequency is in 'Bosniak' areas of Bosnia at the time of research and that it steeply looses frequency as you move away from those areas. Also majority of related articles come to that conclusion, that this haplogroup is unique to Bosniaks and South Croatians. Second part is that We do in deed find this haplogroup in United Kingdom at a increased rate, I am also trying to justify this somehow with words, my only way out was to mention the Roman times, if you can find a better way, please try it. 77.78.198.115 (talk) 16:05, 26 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)

Thanks. Too much of the article was unreferenced (in one case there was a reference but the editor clearly didn't know what it was to, he just put a surname and a year!). I'll take a look at it.Doug Weller (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is another one which underlines the first reference http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1181996 note "It reaches its highest incidences in Croatia (31%) and Bosnia (40%), encompassing almost 80%–90% of I (table 1). In western Europe" 77.78.198.115 (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well done, it looks like a very good source. You really should register, you know, with a username and not just an IP address.Doug Weller (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I am hounded down by anti-Bosniak editors, who are a big team who have a Skyscraper in Serbia somewhere and will hunt me down every time I edit something with a nickname, which has a hint that Bosniaks are not originally Serbs. Of course I do not care about who is who, I just try to transfer to Wikipedia from what I find in .gov and such about each subject, but it becomes useless when the "lets exterminate Bosniaks lobby" is so vast. 77.78.198.115 (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I understand completely. But I'm not an Osmanagic fan.Doug Weller (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Who cares about Osmanagic? The Japanese Satelite using thermal and radar technology confirmed that it really is a pyramid shaped man made object down there, Osmanagic just discovered it. There are probably 1000's of pyramids all over.. 77.78.209.109 (talk) 16:01, 27 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)

Ok I will re-read it all again when I get time Noonien Soong (talk) 23:23, 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)

[edit] Lichtenstein Cave

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)

Oops you're right, didn't check. Whatever, don't you think this information about the cave is useless? Especially written that way, when source strictly draws the line between investigation and conclusions as this one. It's not problem with me, I understand it, but try to imagine reaction of an avarage user (ie "I2 invented Urnfield culture" LOL), there's already a lot of misinterpretation concerning pre-historic genetics. It should be removed or changed to more accurate information, but not in the definition form, as edited here. Maybe there should be an article specialised for genetic-archeological locations and results like this one. It would be very interesting and useful, but distinguished from "definition" articles about haplos like this one. Zenanarh (talk) 06:57, 27 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)

Yes, it's interesting but nothing new or specifical. The same results were given in some mtDNA analysis: a body of a frozen hunter (Ötzi the Iceman) in the Austrian Alps, 5.000 years old, was genetically similar to the modern population in the same region; remains of Cheddar man in southern England, 9.000 years old - similar results. Genetic science has changed many things in historiography in general. Modern history is compilation of a few disciplines, genetics included. Until 20 years ago everything was explained by massive migrations. New magical word is "assimilation": only small groups were moving, the main part of the population was static, but influenced and assimilated. In some cases it seems the most of the migrators were groups of the warriors, not all tribes or peoples. Distribution of Y-chrommosome haplogroups is much more dynamic than mtDNA one! Of course it doesn't apply to global human migrations through long periods of time that we can read from genetic investigations.

Lichtenstein Cave already exists, Ancient DNA too. Reference and link replaced to I2b section. Zenanarh (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)