How did I2a-Din get to the Balkans?

How did I2a-Din get to the Balkans?


  • Total voters
    230
Seems to me like a long shot. If I2a would belong to Triballi Thracians, the epicenter of I2a would have been somewhere between Serbia and Bulgaria. Not Bosnia-Croatia.

Also, notice that the peninsular Greeks, Ionian Greeks, Greek Islanders, Albanians, Albanian Macedonians, Western Anatolians, Cypriots and South Italians have higher rates of E-V13 and J2 than the - in part newly arrived - Slavic peoples. These haplogroups are indigenous to the ancient region and where present in the Balkans before most of the ethnic identities where formed. This means that they had all the time in the world to spread and dominate in the region.

It is important to note that I2b as a rule comes at the expense of E-V13 and J2. It's very hard to see very high J2 + E-V13 as well as high I2a in the same population. This means they are competing haplogroups in that region. A slight indication that it is a new arrival.


First of all Triballi is not in Bulgaria but in area of today Nis to Belingrad and Bosnia, a triangle area where I2a2 Din is High
Second E-v13 is connected with Arcado-Cypriots and copper or Chalkolithic Era , its expansion in Blakns is about 2000 Bc
Third, Greece
Greece might not Have High I2a2 Din but Has I at a range of >20% and in areas where Slavic population never went Like mountain Crete, nountain Crete has I HG as Also Agrinion and Serres, in Greece I is strong in all areas except peloponese,
In Agrinion I Haplogroup reach >35% as also in mountain Crete 20% and in Serres >30% high concentrations in Makedonia and Sterea
the case of Cyprus is probably after the mycenean colonisation that extend Even to Makedonians
remember that Makedonians occupy the island and build 2 Big cities, Ammohostos Famagusta if I remember was a Makedonian colony, that is why Cyprus has Big I HG instead of other population,
considering Agrinion and king Agrios who was Father of Paion who was Patriarch of Paionians (FyroM)
then surely I Hg existed in Greece much before the arrival of Slavic populations
considering the above we can not Reject I Hg as imported, at medieval times,
but the case of I2a2 only and that one only.

as you the I HG was in Balkans and in Fact could be either half of population once,
Although I2a2 Din is not that High

Now if I2a2 was Slavic then Severi would have Enough, Yet in the lands that Severi settled (Plovdiv area) I2a2 is weak but is Strong in Sofia land of Serdi who were considered Celtic population

on the other Hand we have I2a2 Din samples even to ucraine, but do we have in North of Bohemia were Serbs start to enter?

All I want to say is that the same results with your analysis and way of Thinking give the Thracian case,
Besides The Trballi are considered the 4rth type of south Thracians and their home lands is the triangle Nis Bosnia Donav west of Sofia (Serdi lands)
1 is Odrysse
2 Bryges Paionians
3 Spapeans Ciccones
4 Triballi
 
From what I've read, Ukrainians seem to have the highest I2a-Din diversity, with Poles a possible #2 (Poles become #1 if we restrict to I2a-Din-S only, although the Czechs are also important then and may challenge them for that title, as you indicate). Moldavians have a good amount of diversity, maybe #3 or even #2, consistent with the Ukranian diversity spike, but it seems to go down as you get farther from Ukraine, indicating that the origin is farther north than they are. Verenich's analysis is great for this, although I think that the forum he posted it on might be down now...
i was actually referring to:
1) old reference about low diversity of I2a-Din in Moldavia
2) Verenich's analysis with a map that according to my memory did show hotspots of diversity to be: Ukraine, Serbia and Czech republic... as far as i remember he has also pinpointed that Serbs have significantly higher diversity of I2a-din than Croats
 
After IE expansion, meaning groups of peoples that spoke languages that would today be classified as "Germanic."

it has a big meaning, since if we consider I Hg as Germanic Speaking and from area of Denmark starting point, Then we might Speak of a total different Way of IE expansion,
my point is that if the proto I Hg happened in Denmark, and Denmark was already IE and that I moved and mutate to east until Kurds and Ucraine, then we have a collapse of all our assumptions, cause it seems like all R1 are not IE and the spread of IE is due to I Hg in Europe,
Also we get that I in greece and in Kurds which is a later mutation of Denmark proto I
that means that Germanic population moved even to middle East yet that devastation are not known, except Bryges and Makedonians or some Caucas I Hg
that means that Brygians carrier of I moved to middle east and brought I there, so Brygian were Thracians so Thracian are a relative to Germanic,

All I want to say is that if I Hg is considered as Germanic speaking, then all theories about R1b and r1a collapse or tremble,
and then we might consider to start from a new basis,

That is why I asked, cause if we consider it as Germanic area origin which later get IE and accept later the language of IE carriers (Greek Slavic Germanic etc)
But if the 'mutation' of first I HG happened in a already Germanic speaking Land then we have a totaly different IE expansion
 
are czechs south slavs, ....no. Where they slavic in the ancient times ...no. So how can these west slavic people bring I2a-Din into the balkans?

The only people that can bring I2a-din into the balkans was from Central europe. If there was no slavs there at that time, how did it happen

The hobbyist analysis that Gosh cross-posted earlier claimed Prague Culture as the likely source, which seems feasible to me. You present an interesting challenge, though: If the proposal is that South Slavic peoples are more closely related to West than to East Slavic peoples, why do South Slavic languages share more in common with East Slavic? The answer is apparently: since the separation of the South Slavic peoples dates back to the early days of what might be called a "Slavic" culture, probably before the differentiation of the Slavic language, that means that West and South Slavic languages didn't develop their unique characteristics until after they separated. Since they were initially smaller populations than East Slavic, their languages probably evolved more quickly as a result.

Obviously, the above is a lot of speculation on my part, trying to make sense of the pieces of this puzzle that I understand the least, so as always, I'm open to any corrections or counter-analysis.
 
it has a big meaning, since if we consider I Hg as Germanic Speaking and from area of Denmark starting point,

...before we go any farther, the proposal is that the large majority of I1 (not all of I) expanded with Germanic peoples, who were mostly R1a+R1b otherwise. And that proposal shouldn't affect our analysis of I2a-Din in the Balkans significantly.
 
A question for Sparkey:

I don't have the exact reference but as I remember, Nordtvedt's calculations for the MRCA of Din-N was ca. 300 BCE and Din-S ca. 30 BCE But as you pointed out earlier this is not quite the same thing as the putative date for the emergence of the clade as such. Again, I vaguely remember that Nordtvedt also calculated that. Do you have the figures handy?
 
A question for Sparkey:

I don't have the exact reference but as I remember, Nordtvedt's calculations for the MRCA of Din-N was ca. 300 BCE and Din-S ca. 30 BCE But as you pointed out earlier this is not quite the same thing as the putative date for the emergence of the clade as such. Again, I vaguely remember that Nordtvedt also calculated that. Do you have the figures handy?

I don't have the raw number with error bars handy, but looking at his tree, it looks like I2a-Din and I2a-Disles diverged ca. 6000 YBP. Is that what you're looking for?
 
I don't have the raw number with error bars handy, but looking at his tree, it looks like I2a-Din and I2a-Disles diverged ca. 6000 YBP. Is that what you're looking for?

Partly. You mean the ancestor of I2a-Din presumably (back ca. 4000 BCE). Some continuing I2a1* or I2a1b* type. But what I was wondering about is the actual (not surviving) initiator of I2a-Din as I2a1b1a (Nordt. nomencl.) distinct from the MRCA. Or is that a misunderstanding?
 
Partly. You mean the ancestor of I2a-Din presumably (back ca. 4000 BCE). Some continuing I2a1* or I2a1b* type. But what I was wondering about is the actual (not surviving) initiator of I2a-Din as I2a1b1a (Nordt. nomencl.) distinct from the MRCA. Or is that a misunderstanding?

As in, when did the first individual to have the defining SNP of I2a-Din live? That would be between when I2a-Din and I2a-Disles diverged, and the TMRCA of I2a-Din. So, it's a range, not a specific date estimate, that we're looking at for that.
 
I do not know why you do not take the ancient Serbians as non-slavic , but a thracian race...the Triballi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triballi

most ancient, dark ages and medieval historians say the serbian come from this thracian tribe, that where pushed eastward by the illyrians coming down from the north and later conquered by the gaulish scordisci.
well, only source that talks about arrival of Serbs to Balkan is De administrando imperio, and it states that they have arrived from Boiki (Bavaria/Bohemia) where they have also originally dwellt.. this fits well with I2a -Din south spread among south slavs and to some extent in Germany, but not in east Europe...Bohemia/Bavaria also has place names Srby several times and in part of Bavaria neighbouring Bohemia is town that was known as Serviodurum... Bohemia and Serbia are also 2 of 3 centers of diversity for I2a-Din.. hence Prague culture reconstruction pointed out earlier in this thread makes lot of sense...

btw. it is more or less very clear that I2a-Din has spread went along Danube and further along Black sea and into Asia.....this is in fact perfect match with 3 centers of I2a Din diversity: Bohemia (starting point for voyage down the Danube), Serbia (mid point) and Ukraine (end point) ...

authors that you speak about do not speak about settlement of Serbs, they just call them Triballians...
in same way some authors were using name Scythians for Huns and made similar generalizations by using a barbarian tribe from more distant history to name the one from their reality... its not something that can be 100% trusted... it was often derogatory...like when we say some person is Vandal...

thing is I2a-Din is very typical trace for south Slavs....and I2a is clearly related to tribal names such as Sardinians, Serbs, and in Asia people like Kurds, Sarbans and white Sart... therefore I assume it was in distant past kind of name for a race not for tribes... Serians/Serres

even in Greece there is Serres area and is reach in I2a-Din and is also where ancient Greek history document speaks of Serres/Serians living...

relation between the name and haplogroup is for me more clear as reconstruction of its spread around Danube gives us another related tribal name Scordisci/Serdi...

and reconstruction of sea peoples conquest with Sherdana having same tribal name (and living behind only single place name - of a lake in Egypt called Serbonian bog) again correlates with spread of I2a...sea people conquest, by analysis of order of conquest, clearly must have had actual stronghold in Kurdish area of today....but isn't Kurd in fact same tribal name as Sherdana? and what about Kurds being different from environment due to R1a and I2a genetics?

Pomponius Mela speaks of Asia settled starting from east by Indians, Serres and Scythians... today people who partially originate from those Serres are white Sarts, pashtun Sarbans and Kurds..

Seneca speaks of Serians along Danube, rulling over Scythians, in Serica (north of Tibet) and red sea...
this is again mapped easily to I2a-din...rulling over Scythians = east Europe and north of Black sea... its clear I2a-Din has spread along the Danube, regarding Serica today hotspot of haplogroup I is in that area and in people who were known as Sart and white Sart..only question is red sea... but not all people live genetic impact... we know that red sea was where Sherdana had clashes with Egypt...



essentially, what I claim is that Serb/Serd/Serian was a name of a race of I2a people, like Arabs are race related to J1 and Chinese related people with O... in fact, knowing that Swedes are associated with spread of I1 and Suebi (Swabians) with I2b and I1 we can speak of it being ancient race name for haplogroup I or its part...

Serbs of today are just one small leaf of that tree... and their direct ancestors were not the Sherdana of sea people who gave Kurds, but according to only historic source writing about them some people who have in 7th century come down Danube from Bohemia where they have also originally dwellt (not necessarily continuously)...
it is question whether those were Scordisci who lived along Danube originally from Slovakia to Greece and Bulgaria or Scirri who were recorded in Baltic areas where we can find I2a-Din south and also recorded in Bavaria, and also placed by some authors into Alans, same as Caucasian Serboi were put among Sarmatians /Alans . Or were perhaps Scordisci and Scirri/Scirrians in fact same people or two related branches in tree of I2a-Din?

Triballians also lived along this Danube route, so they probably also had significant I2a-Din...so they were probably also of Serb/Serd/Sard/Serian race, but probably not ancestors of the Serbs who came to Balkans in 7th century...



The serbs did not bring any I2a into the blakans if they where always in the balkans, they are in majority E HG.
Its one reason to this day the serbs want their ancient homeland of kosovo

it is easy to see that I2a-Din was for long time spread along Danube... I2a-Din was probably not originally present in Greece (except for Seres and Macedonia area and Cypress to which it came from sea peoples) and Albania...but was present and in fact very likely dominant along Danube.... for long long time....

I believe that Balkan was originally settled by R1a...those would be Pelasgians or flatland/field/sea people...same tribal name is Poles (Poljaci with Slavic Polje = field)... again poles/pelast/pelasgians is originally about race name not nation or tribe name.. this is a race name for R1a1a7-M458 branch that is dominant in west Slavs... this branch has highest diversity in Serbia where a common ancestor is estimated to have lived 14KYA

another race name for R1a is Rasena/Russians/Thracians/Rašani......in Europe this is related to R1a1a*(xM458) dominant in east Slavs... for samples in Serbia this branch has most distant common ancestor 11 KYA

this all indicates long history of the spread of R1a in Balkan and east Europe prior to arrival of E-V13 and J2 people....

reference about estimated age of R1a in Serbia:
High levels of Paleolithic Y-chromosome lineages characterize Serbia
Maria Regueiro, Luis Rivera, Tatjana Damnjanovic, Ljiljana Lukovic, Jelena Milasin, Rene J. Herrera


when E-V13 and J2 proto-Greek tribes and later Illyrians came to Balkan they have partly assimilated partly pushed out Pelasgians to Pannonia where they are known as Pannonians...with spread of Roman empire they went to Poland.... similarly center of R1a Thracians pushed by Roman empire moves towards Russia



The only south slavs that came to the balkans was the bulgars, all the rest where not ancient slavic people.
i think Bulgars could have been originally same as Serbs and Croats and Macedonians - I2a din people... but part of those who lived in Caucasus....and perhaps became mixed with some turkic people... e.g. Huns...
 
diversity is not the same as frequency...

actually, from what i have read (not much data yet about diversity of I2a-din in official publications) Moldavians have lowest diversity and Croats relatively low diversity...biggest diversity is in part of Ukraine in Czech republic and Serbia..

Bosnia Croats have high frequency of I2a-Din but not so high diversity...

Croatian origin of big part of this people is disputed as Narentanes/Pagani were by Byzantine historians captured as unbaptized Serbs.... in last centuries people were classified as Serbs/Croats based on religion... catholic = Croat, orthodox = Serb

42% of I2a-Din in Croatia is big lie made by talking half of samples from 3 southern islands that were part of Narentania and where I2aDin is between 60 and 80%...
in reality, Croatia has I2a-Din on same level as Serbia - around 30%






well, that is hard to state as we do not know much about Dacians...
but yes, Croats did have state in Carpathians in part that is now Ukraine and south Poland and perhaps even Slovakia...
they may have been same people as Carpi and/or Heruli but there is no real proof for that yet...




as i said Croats do not have 42% of I2a-Din
its about how to lie with numbers...
i can take half samples from Sweden and half from Sardinia and say there is 25% I2a1 in Sweden, but there is 0%


regarding Neamt and Buhusi, if those counties are very different than rest of Romania, than they are not Dacians in origin..
neamt county is named after a word that means german in Slavic languages which is likely indication of germanic settlement...

Another genetic testing was made,but this time more general,in romanians from south.
Near Constanta,which is in south-east of Romania M170 (no ideea which clades,but I supose most is I2A-din) is almost 40%.
And is a higher percentage of E1,supose is E-V13,cause test was not that deep.
(14% romanians near ploiesti,9.7% romanians near constanta).

Near Ploiesti,M170 is almost 39% - again no ideea which clades,since no deep genetic testing was done.
But I supose is somehting like 30-31% I2a-din,I1A+I1C about 5-6% and 1% other M170 clades.
Here is that generic testing for Y DNA near Constanta and Ploiesti:
http://www.carswell.com.au/wp-content/documents/homogenous-balkan-analysis.pdf
Whatever,results are weird enough.
 
Another genetic testing was made,but this time more general,in romanians from south.
Near Constanta,which is in south-east of Romania M170 (no ideea which clades,but I supose most is I2A-din) is almost 40%.
And is a higher percentage of E1,supose is E-V13,cause test was not that deep.
(14% romanians near ploiesti,9.7% romanians near constanta).

Near Ploiesti,M170 is almost 39% - again no ideea which clades,since no deep genetic testing was done.
But I supose is somehting like 30-31% I2a-din,I1A+I1C about 5-6% and 1% other M170 clades.
Here is that generic testing for Y DNA near Constanta and Ploiesti:
http://www.carswell.com.au/wp-content/documents/homogenous-balkan-analysis.pdf
Whatever,results are weird enough.

i will not ask how can you suppose numbers..... numbers can be predicted in an educated guess when one compares something with related cases or prehistory, but you are making a wild guess without any reasoning...

those are not new results....
they are from year 2006
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-1809.2005.00251.x/full

don't know why is it surprising for you?

as I said I2a-din spread along Danube....
both Ploesti and Constanca fit in that route....


but this is also not really Dacian area...
that is area of Roxolani (Sarmatians, one of Alan tribes, ruxs alans = "white" alans)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roxolani

Roman_Empire_125.png



btw. just wondering where would at 125 Ad on the map above be proto- west Slavs...that I say origin from Pelasgians via Pannonians... according to Russian primary chronicle they were pushed to settle Vistula river where they are called Lyaks.... a wild guess - Lugii seems to be closest match to this by location and name on the map above...perhaps they are by others also called Vandilli as they are of same R1a race As Venedi - probably proto-Balts... and from there comes usage of name Wend by Germans for Slavs and Jordanes saying that Slavs are race of Venethi...
Lugii, Lugi, Lygii, Ligii, Lugiones, Lygians, Ligians, Lugians, or Lougoi is it same tribal name as Lycians/Lukka/Lech/Lyakhs?

looking at the map they would nicely explain Poles in Poland... when Gothones go to Black sea they can spread northeast, when Burgundians go towards France they can spread west....
so it makes sense... but needs to be confronted with historical sources (not the same as schoolbook or historian interpretations of them)...also if we look movement of people alike to fluids moving from areas with higher pressure to ones with lower, it makes some sense that movement of Goths towards Black sea was caused by movement of Luigii deeper in their area which was caused by Roman empire spreading.........

another thing that attracts my attention is link between Sarmatians and I2a-din...this coupled with Scirri said by some to be Alanic people, by Carpatians being called both montes serrorum and montes Sarmatici makes me thing that Sarmatians might have been one of Serian branches afterall...
this fits well with historic mention of tribe Serboi in Sarmatia.... but Seneca says Serians dare to live unarmed among Sarmatians...so Serians cannot be = Sarmatians

on other hand we can map Ploesti and Constanca just to Roxolani = white Alans, not to Sarmatians and Alans in general.... especially because there are no traces of I2a-din in Iberia or north Africa....

this "white" makes me curious... white alans, white Syrian, white Sart. white Serbs (De administrando imperio says Serbs come to Balkan from land they call Boiki where they have been called white, and Croats come from land white Croatia where they were called white) ...this white is repeating pattern for I2a-din ...why?
white = west in iranic color system of marking sides of the world...
e.g. Sart people in Serica north of Tibet and white-Sart west of them in Uzbekistan and Kyrgizstan...
white Serbs in Bohemia makes sense, as we can assume existence of more east Serbs....

but Strabo speaking of white syrians in Cappodokia (likely ancestors of Kurds?) says they are actually whiter than other syrians and he equates Syrians with Sumerians.... maybe that was different...

actually, big part of I2a-Din in Ploesti and Constanca may have arrived later than Alans
it is where Slavic Severians setlled.. Severians are by some argued to be same as Serbs...
those would be east Serbs
while white or west Serbs went from Bohemia to Serbia...



Slavic_tribes_in_the_Balkans.png


it may also be due to Bulgars... as I said I believe they were originally I2a-Din like Serbs, Croats and Macedonians.... in Caucasus they had state roughly in area where previously Serboi tribe was... i think they were somewhat turkicized but spoke more or less same language as Serbs when they arrived to Balkan...in medieval south Slavic historic script "letopis popa Dukljanina" confusing data is given about south Slavs being Goths and about Bulgarians being large settlement of people speaking same language...which is contrary to understanding of modern scholar history according to which non-Slavic Bulgars took over language from subjugated Slavic people...

whole region from where Bulgars come was turkicized... e.g. looking at map from 650 AD there are turkic Sabirs in place where earlier Serboi were, which were I guess those Serians of Seneca who dared to leave their homes unguarded among Sarmatians... i think today Chuvash people partially origin from those Sabirs...

Pontic_steppe_region_around_650_AD.png
 

Attachments

  • Pontic_steppe_region_around_650_AD.png
    Pontic_steppe_region_around_650_AD.png
    26.5 KB · Views: 49
Last edited:
Everyone who has looked at current I1 samples will tell you that it's remarkably young in terms of TMRCA
Irrelevant, but when you rely on "everyone" as your citation its a good indicator of your intent to make the case that you want and you dont need any science or reproducable fact for that, you would be as well off in a fantasy role playing environment.
sparkey said:
The center of diversity of I1 is around Schleswig-Holstein per Nordtvedt, by the way. There are no ancient clades with apparent origins far from that discovered so far.
Nordvedt has no scientific credibility. He long ago start with being 'answer-man' and got to enjoy it too much, and cannot stop.Nordvedt is selling his own stories, and gaining happy adherents with promises that cannot be reproduced except with magic figures that he has deduced which later fail. these also resulted in people with similar STR being placed in 'clades' he 'discover' who later are not even within same SNP when later identified. He is a hobbyist who lurks on message boards, not a scientist cautiously revealing only fact. He deals in whimsy that is regularly overturned.When Ken started, few ancient Y-samples existed and identifying his claims as unsupported was only based on his failure to use caution in his claims but could not be a full refutation since we had no data from ancient remains.TODAY, we have every modern Hg turned up in one or more ancient samples, EXCEPT alone - Hg I1. Now the burden is on Ken to explain this and why. It is not turning up in even one random sample while EVERYTHING else is, because I1 was not part of the continental Hg of these early germanic tribal populations or anyone else on the continent at that time.
Who do you propose the Svears were, if not Germanic? And you're saying they brought I1 to Scandinavia from where...? And again, you're reading too much into the lack of ancient DNA.
I will not critique Ken and then do the same I point out in he actions. I must preface by saying I cannot promise any certainty only logic.I think that I1 is a early Ugric/Balto-Slavic population left behind in central scandinavia as the Ugric population recedes to the east. The I1 is about as germanic originally as are the Ugric Saami who they neighbor.They are absent on the continent, your champion Ken has had more than a decade to show one in-situ sample from the tribal continent. Every other hg is there. only I1 is absent as many warned when ken ran off on the message boards with his ''facts'' that he has magically concluded and can offer such iron assurances.One decade, every other Hg found.
Then why is North German I1 of the same subclade as English I1 for the most part? And Scandinavian-type I1 is much rarer there?
Well, the same Svearish Ugric/balto-slavics who burst out of scandinavia to colonize and loot the continent, also go to the British Isles, and create well documented settlements there. Are you asking this for real?
Nobody's worried, because we haven't had any samples other than Birger Jarl where I1 was seriously expected. OK, seriously. Listen up. We only have diversity analysis now. We haven't expected more ancient I1 than we have. And diversity analysis still indicates strong ties between Haplogroup I1 and Germanic peoples.
You should be. If you were looking to do more than defend claims that are based only on modern population demographic.If you are honestly trying to reach fact, and ascertain truth, you would be worried. If you are not worried, its because you are only interested in something that can bend to support your pet theory and desire, and will happily discount that which interferes with your pet theory or historical wish.We are not talking about a minor thing. We are talking about every single Hg that is present in modern european populations, have all been found at least once in a ancient sample dating to or before tribal times with only one exception.That one exception is I1- I1 is most likely a vestgial Ugric/Balto-Slavic population that was based out of central Scandinavia and like its I2 cousins on the continent, it "adopted into" the culture that conquered its lands. Where ever I1 is found, its fellow traveller R1a-M17 along with asian Q and Ugric-Baltic 'N' are present.To refute this, or disprove me, all you need to do is show ONE lone single I1 sample from any ancient sample on the Euro continent, and you cannot and will not be able to do this, because it was not THERE at that time.If I were someone trying to keep hopes alive for what I knew was a collapsed theory that rewrites almost everything that ken has been promoting, I would do the same thing you are and demand to 'WAIT' endlessly to forever stall the admission that I1 is a vestigial Ugric/Balto-Slavic population that sat silently in central scandinavia until around the Dark Ages when the confluence of factors favored its expansion south into europe.
 
Irrelevant, but when you rely on "everyone" as your citation its a good indicator of your intent to make the case that you want and you dont need any science or reproducable fact for that, you would be as well off in a fantasy role playing environment.

There is less STR variation in I1 than in most other haplogroup clades, such as I2. That's a fact. TMRCA calculations are performed based on STR variation, informed by subclade modals. Hence, everyone (Nordtvedt, Robb, Klyosov...) who has looked at current samples of it concludes that it's young in terms of TMRCA.

Nordvedt has no scientific credibility. He long ago start with being 'answer-man' and got to enjoy it too much, and cannot stop.Nordvedt is selling his own stories, and gaining happy adherents with promises that cannot be reproduced except with magic figures that he has deduced which later fail. these also resulted in people with similar STR being placed in 'clades' he 'discover' who later are not even within same SNP when later identified. He is a hobbyist who lurks on message boards, not a scientist cautiously revealing only fact. He deals in whimsy that is regularly overturned.

That's an interesting assault on Nordtvedt's character. But attacking him doesn't really invalidate any points that I make. Not to mention that his STR clusters have generally been accurate, and when they haven't been (such as being unable to separate all the "I1-AS" members), it's been due to convergence in young clades like I1, which is unavoidable. That doesn't change the quality of his TMRCA calculations or diversity analysis.

When Ken started, few ancient Y-samples existed and identifying his claims as unsupported was only based on his failure to use caution in his claims but could not be a full refutation since we had no data from ancient remains.TODAY, we have every modern Hg turned up in one or more ancient samples, EXCEPT alone - Hg I1. Now the burden is on Ken to explain this and why. It is not turning up in even one random sample while EVERYTHING else is, because I1 was not part of the continental Hg of these early germanic tribal populations or anyone else on the continent at that time.

You're wrong. Some clades with no ancient European samples: J2, I2a1*, I2a1b, I2a2a, I2b, I2c, T, Q, L, J1 (unless that "F*" was really J1)...

There simply haven't been that many ancient DNA tests yet. Which one do you think should have resulted in I1 if Nordtvedt is right? The Urnfield samples? I wouldn't expect it there. The Corded Ware samples? I wouldn't expect it there. The Treilles samples? I wouldn't expect it there. Avellaner? Ötzi? What? Until you answer that, I'm done arguing with you about the implications of ancient samples.

Well, the same Svearish Ugric/balto-slavics who burst out of scandinavia to colonize and loot the continent, also go to the British Isles, and create well documented settlements there. Are you asking this for real?

I'm asking it as a challenge, and you're not answering it satisfactorally. The point is that I1-Z58 is common between North Germans and the English, but much less common in Scandinavia. Meanwhile, I1-L22 is very common in Scandinavia and in some other places we might expect it, like Mann, but it's relatively uncommon in North Germans and the English as a whole. That pattern is consistent with an I1-Z58-heavy population shared between the North Germans and the English, but not the Scandinavians.

You should be. If you were looking to do more than defend claims that are based only on modern population demographic.If you are honestly trying to reach fact, and ascertain truth, you would be worried. If you are not worried, its because you are only interested in something that can bend to support your pet theory and desire, and will happily discount that which interferes with your pet theory or historical wish.

:rolleyes: What do you suppose my desire is? I'm not even I1.
 
The hobbyist analysis that Gosh cross-posted earlier claimed Prague Culture as the likely source, which seems feasible to me. You present an interesting challenge, though: If the proposal is that South Slavic peoples are more closely related to West than to East Slavic peoples, why do South Slavic languages share more in common with East Slavic? The answer is apparently: since the separation of the South Slavic peoples dates back to the early days of what might be called a "Slavic" culture, probably before the differentiation of the Slavic language, that means that West and South Slavic languages didn't develop their unique characteristics until after they separated. Since they were initially smaller populations than East Slavic, their languages probably evolved more quickly as a result.

Obviously, the above is a lot of speculation on my part, trying to make sense of the pieces of this puzzle that I understand the least, so as always, I'm open to any corrections or counter-analysis.

I think the answer is in who accepted Cyrillic and the translation of Bible and who stood in The Latina,
consider Slavic population were divided after the 'cut' (Schisma) of the church,
Poles Ucraines follow the West Church, while Serbs Bulgars (Severi) followed the East church,

Also an interesting case is that Serbs came from Central Europe and NoRTH OF Bohemia,
Severi came from Ucraine through Romania but from Mountain road, and Bulgars (non Slavic) from the Sea
and I don't remember Croats primary area, I think it was east of hungary
 
As in, when did the first individual to have the defining SNP of I2a-Din live? That would be between when I2a-Din and I2a-Disles diverged, and the TMRCA of I2a-Din. So, it's a range, not a specific date estimate, that we're looking at for that.

Is this what is called the "interclade node"?
 
Is this what is called the "interclade node"?

The interclade node of multiple haplogroups is when they began to diverge from one another. That's earlier than when they developed their defining SNPs.
 
The interclade node of multiple haplogroups is when they began to diverge from one another. That's earlier than when they developed their defining SNPs.
So at the the moment, the only thing we can say about the origin of I2-Din is that it began sometime after ca. 4000 BCE and sometime before ca. 300 BCE, in connection with the L147.2 definer (as of now) /and we don't know when that was/. We also can't say for sure where it had its inception (indeed we can't even say that with respect to the group's MRCA)...
 
I just remember of how you were saying in old romanian language at a script that describe history - letopisetz.

In south slavic is called ljetopis.

Is just nonsense,highest percentage of I2A din is in hutsuls,they are living in Romanian and Ukraine Carpathians,they have same popular costumes as romanians and serbs (and think croats) and so on.
Is the propaganda that want to say romanians,serbs,croats and montenegrins are not here from thousands of years,but they came from somewhere.
Almost all geniticians accept that I is from proto-europeans,however,some people from here are negating obvious truth,and want to tell that I2A din was not from here,as Nortvedt also clearly states,but that some migratory people came here.
Look how most people voted here,
Paleolithic continuity,stop with the nonsense,the people from here were called either thracians,either dacians,either south slavs.
You can not explain the resemblance of popular costumes from serbs,romanians with popular costumes in which dacians are painted on Trajan column,if you do not accept that dacians are same with south slavs and from here is I2A-din.

Go google and look at the popular costumes of hutsuls,at the popular costumes of romanians,at the popular costumes of serbians and of croats.
 
well, only source that talks about arrival of Serbs to Balkan is De administrando imperio, and it states that they have arrived from Boiki (Bavaria/Bohemia) where they have also originally dwellt.. this fits well with I2a -Din south spread among south slavs and to some extent in Germany, but not in east Europe...Bohemia/Bavaria also has place names Srby several times and in part of Bavaria neighbouring Bohemia is town that was known as Serviodurum... Bohemia and Serbia are also 2 of 3 centers of diversity for I2a-Din.. hence Prague culture reconstruction pointed out earlier in this thread makes lot of sense...

btw. it is more or less very clear that I2a-Din has spread went along Danube and further along Black sea and into Asia.....this is in fact perfect match with 3 centers of I2a Din diversity: Bohemia (starting point for voyage down the Danube), Serbia (mid point) and Ukraine (end point) ...

authors that you speak about do not speak about settlement of Serbs, they just call them Triballians...
in same way some authors were using name Scythians for Huns and made similar generalizations by using a barbarian tribe from more distant history to name the one from their reality... its not something that can be 100% trusted... it was often derogatory...like when we say some person is Vandal...

thing is I2a-Din is very typical trace for south Slavs....and I2a is clearly related to tribal names such as Sardinians, Serbs, and in Asia people like Kurds, Sarbans and white Sart... therefore I assume it was in distant past kind of name for a race not for tribes... Serians/Serres

even in Greece there is Serres area and is reach in I2a-Din and is also where ancient Greek history document speaks of Serres/Serians living...

relation between the name and haplogroup is for me more clear as reconstruction of its spread around Danube gives us another related tribal name Scordisci/Serdi...

and reconstruction of sea peoples conquest with Sherdana having same tribal name (and living behind only single place name - of a lake in Egypt called Serbonian bog) again correlates with spread of I2a...sea people conquest, by analysis of order of conquest, clearly must have had actual stronghold in Kurdish area of today....but isn't Kurd in fact same tribal name as Sherdana? and what about Kurds being different from environment due to R1a and I2a genetics?

Pomponius Mela speaks of Asia settled starting from east by Indians, Serres and Scythians... today people who partially originate from those Serres are white Sarts, pashtun Sarbans and Kurds..

Seneca speaks of Serians along Danube, rulling over Scythians, in Serica (north of Tibet) and red sea...
this is again mapped easily to I2a-din...rulling over Scythians = east Europe and north of Black sea... its clear I2a-Din has spread along the Danube, regarding Serica today hotspot of haplogroup I is in that area and in people who were known as Sart and white Sart..only question is red sea... but not all people live genetic impact... we know that red sea was where Sherdana had clashes with Egypt...



essentially, what I claim is that Serb/Serd/Serian was a name of a race of I2a people, like Arabs are race related to J1 and Chinese related people with O... in fact, knowing that Swedes are associated with spread of I1 and Suebi (Swabians) with I2b and I1 we can speak of it being ancient race name for haplogroup I or its part...

Serbs of today are just one small leaf of that tree... and their direct ancestors were not the Sherdana of sea people who gave Kurds, but according to only historic source writing about them some people who have in 7th century come down Danube from Bohemia where they have also originally dwellt (not necessarily continuously)...
it is question whether those were Scordisci who lived along Danube originally from Slovakia to Greece and Bulgaria or Scirri who were recorded in Baltic areas where we can find I2a-Din south and also recorded in Bavaria, and also placed by some authors into Alans, same as Caucasian Serboi were put among Sarmatians /Alans . Or were perhaps Scordisci and Scirri/Scirrians in fact same people or two related branches in tree of I2a-Din?

Triballians also lived along this Danube route, so they probably also had significant I2a-Din...so they were probably also of Serb/Serd/Sard/Serian race, but probably not ancestors of the Serbs who came to Balkans in 7th century...





it is easy to see that I2a-Din was for long time spread along Danube... I2a-Din was probably not originally present in Greece (except for Seres and Macedonia area and Cypress to which it came from sea peoples) and Albania...but was present and in fact very likely dominant along Danube.... for long long time....

I believe that Balkan was originally settled by R1a...those would be Pelasgians or flatland/field/sea people...same tribal name is Poles (Poljaci with Slavic Polje = field)... again poles/pelast/pelasgians is originally about race name not nation or tribe name.. this is a race name for R1a1a7-M458 branch that is dominant in west Slavs... this branch has highest diversity in Serbia where a common ancestor is estimated to have lived 14KYA

another race name for R1a is Rasena/Russians/Thracians/Rašani......in Europe this is related to R1a1a*(xM458) dominant in east Slavs... for samples in Serbia this branch has most distant common ancestor 11 KYA

this all indicates long history of the spread of R1a in Balkan and east Europe prior to arrival of E-V13 and J2 people....

reference about estimated age of R1a in Serbia:
High levels of Paleolithic Y-chromosome lineages characterize Serbia
Maria Regueiro, Luis Rivera, Tatjana Damnjanovic, Ljiljana Lukovic, Jelena Milasin, Rene J. Herrera


when E-V13 and J2 proto-Greek tribes and later Illyrians came to Balkan they have partly assimilated partly pushed out Pelasgians to Pannonia where they are known as Pannonians...with spread of Roman empire they went to Poland.... similarly center of R1a Thracians pushed by Roman empire moves towards Russia




i think Bulgars could have been originally same as Serbs and Croats and Macedonians - I2a din people... but part of those who lived in Caucasus....and perhaps became mixed with some turkic people... e.g. Huns...

De administrando imperio does not talk about the arrival of the serbs but of the severians. According to russian and slavic historians, the Poles came from east of modern Kiev and the Severians from east of the Poles.

I do not know why you disregard your thracian roots, be it triballi or seres , both are thracian tribes. There is nothing wrong with being part of extinct name be it thracian, trojan, Illyrian, gothic, gallic, raeti and dozens or others. You fail to understand that serbs are not originally slavic and there history is in the balkans, same as bosnians, thay say they came from the gothic Bosni tribe , which does not exist, but they came from another thracian tribe called bessi ( besi) .
Being overun and ruled by the gaulish scordisci does not make you gaulish/celtic, because the romans overun your area as well, I do not see you saying you are roman.

The I2a-Din was central european, be it illyrian like I said or Celtic from Boii or others. Its odd the illyrians and celtics never clashed but lived side by side and merged in different areas, be it noricum, pannonia and others

In the comments of vandals/vandelli/vendelli, well they where not a tribe but a confederation of different tribes, I already produced map, these tribes where the goths, gepids, lugii, rugii, burgundians, longobards, and others
 

This thread has been viewed 1061817 times.

Back
Top