New haplogroup I2a map

Croats and Serbs is difficult for others to understand.

For example:

Croats are mostly R1a but they tend to present as I using a targeted survey of selected regions and limited samples.

On the other hand there are Serbs who would like to see greater participation of the R1a but I haplogroup is dominantly among the Serbs.

Croat ultra-nationalists tend to reject Slavic origin of Croats and try to search for Iranian (read Arian) and Gothic (read Germanic) theories of origin. Being close to Germanic origin is why they desperatelly need I haplogroup.

Serb ultra-nationalsts are on other hand pan-Slavic and pro-Russian, and they desperatelly need more R1a in Serbs in order to be of the same origin as other Slavic nations.

Those preferences were clearly induced by historical, cultural and religious developments.

Croats are catholics and people who lived for long time in Austro-Hungarian empire where politically and culturally dominant people were Germans. In that state however, Croats were second order citizens but still well respected and integrated in the state, and many of them felt that state as their own. Due to that Croat nationalists tend to observe Germanic as higher worth than Slavic and try to relate themselves to Germanic people.

Serbs on other hand are ortodox and spent few honderd years under Turkish dominantion. Turkish domination was very fierce and every Serb living under Turkey rule dreamed of liberation. They saw inspiration for liberation of Turks in successes of ortodox Russian state who historically had same enemy - Turkey. Thus, Serb nationalists were traditionally inspired by Russians and thus have strong pan-Slavic orientation.

Btw. religion played big part in ex-yu wars as well. Wars were only between people of different religions e.g. there were wars between ortodox Serbs and catholic Croats in Croatia and Bosnia, between ortodox Serbs and Bosnian musilms (Bosnia muslims are Slavic people who converted to islam during Turkish occupation), also (which is less known in west media) during war in Bosnia there was for long time war between catholic Croats and Bosnia muslims, there was war in Macedonia between ortodox Macedonians and muslim Albanians, and there was war between ortodox Serbs and Albanian muslims (Kosovo and Macedonia Albanians are exclusively muslim population)...

There were no wars between catholic Slovenia and catholic Croatia, between ortodox Serbia and ortodox Montenegro, between ortodox Serbia and ortodox Macedonia...

All these wars were just revived second world war wars... when Croatia was nazi puppet state that included Bosnia, and when big Albania was nazi puppet state that included Kosovo and west Macedonia.

Problem was that comunists were not making multi-ethnic multi-religious society but instead tried to make single nation with single religion called communism, so they did suppress all nationalisms and religions. This worked quite well while strongman Tito was in power. However, after his death and when comunism died in whole east Europe, communistic religion was desintegrating and with it also Yugoslav national identity. Pandora's box was wide open by set of irresponsible politicians collecting political points with nationalistic campaigns and by media they controlled...
 
Yes so may be the communist power was more adapted to these communities ?
 
Yes so may be the communist power was more adapted to these communities ?
it is hard to say that...

people were happier and had much higher moral values, and much better life...

but in a way wars has showed that all those values were superficial as communist ideology was easily replaced with nationalism as ideology... esentially, black and white division of the world was just remapped to different dualistic divisions between competing groups (from the ones defining comunism as opposed to capitalism to the ones defining nations as opposed to competing nations)...

problem with all ideologies and religions is that they need enemies in order to define and extend their borders... logically, this leads to conflicts and wars...

what Balkan need is long period of living in peace, so that people living there can free themselves from identifying self in being 'for' and 'against' some groups ... people with strong individual personalities were not easily brainwashed by hate spreading media machines and by the black and white world views that those medias were imposing...

still, this individualism should not be on account of suppresing nationalism as it was done in communism, but by transforming nationalism into broader view in which there is clear awareness how all people share same rather recent origin and that thus nations are more as branches of the same tree than they are competitors ...

problem with highly individualistic people is that they will not organize in the group to defend their values when attacked by some homogeneous group
 
History is interesting guys. Iranians/Aryans were most likely R1a or I2a people, or mixture. Now Goths landed at Black Sea for couple hundred years and picked up Arianism as a religion, maybe even from proto Serbs. :petrified:
Then they moved to western Europe and became Christians with Aryan influence. Then for next thousand years everybody thought that Goths, therefore Germanic people, where Aryans.
Now through genetic testing we learnt that Aryans who went south to India and Iran, as per Sanskrit, where mostly R1a people.
Now, that's a twist, lol.
 
I just thought that it would be a good idea to clarify the whole
Arian/Aryan thing. In case someone gets the mistaken impression since the words have the same sound.

The Aryans, as a tribe/group, were an ethnic/cultural subset of Iranians peoples. That makes them similar in that case to other Iranian-derived groups such as Scythians (and their offshoots), Medes, Mitanni, Persians possibly Yue-chi, and others that still exist today.

Arian, however, is a word that derives from a completely different source. Arius of Alexandria, a priest in Egypt in the days before the adoption on the Nicene Creed by the Church, began to teach that the Son was not of the same substance as the Father and therefore was created at some point. This differed quite a bit from what the Orthodox (both of East and West before their split) Christians said.
Arius’ teaching spread throughout much of the Church, it found a disproportionate amount of support by Eastern Bishops. It gained so many influential supporters that Jerome wrote “The world awoke to find itself Arian”.
It was not until the major ecumenical council of Nicea, where the Emperor Constantine was even asked to sort of act as host, that the Church itself officially rejected Arianism. It continued to have support among some for some time after, especially among the Goths and other Germans, who had been converted to Christianity by Arian missionaries.(I can't remember the missionaries' names and don't have time to look them up) Adherence to Arianism was to be a factor in discord between ruler and subject in places such as Spain, which came to be ruled by Visigoths. Adoption of Orthodox/Catholicism was to be a source of unity and stronger foundation for the power of the Frankish Kings.

It was not until the 19th century racial theorists got involved in confusing the terms Nordic and Aryan and by extension losing the whole picture of what Indo-Europeans were that some came to the conclusion that the Christianity of the Goths was called Arian because they themselves were Aryan.

To sum it up: Goths and Aryans, while both IE, both belong to wider base-IE groups (Goth origin in other Germanics- Aryans origin in Iranians) and are not otherwise related.

Arian Christianity was the name given to the teaching that gained much ground in the early Church until its rejection and subsequent adoption of the Nicene Creed (influenced much by Athanasius)

The same pronunciation of Aryan-Arian is pure coincidence.
 
Aaaaaaaaaaaaah, that's how it really went. Thanks Regulus. :)
If it comes to history you are living reincarnation of Wiki. My hat's off.
 
You give too much, too much. In reality, I am just a loser with no life. My wife would be much happier if I did not have my nose buried in books.
 
geography of I2a2b

The timing of the founding of I2a2a and b is not something that I know
anything about so I have to accept Ken Nordtvedt's conclusions about that.
It is the location that seems a problem to me.

----------------

The founding and migration

If I am reading his Warped Founders Tree correctly, I2a2a and I2a2b branched
off a proto I2a2 (that no longer exists?) about 13,000 years ago. That
requires that the founders were in the same geography at that time. If
northern Germany, how did all those !2a2a get all the way back down into the
Balkans? Difficult, if not impossible. Especially with the Carpathians in the way.

Much simpler to see the location as being the area of deltas of the Danube
and Dneister. Then, perhaps in the warm spell before the Younger Dryas, the
two groups migrated upriver - I2a2a going up the Danube and I2a2b going up
the Dneister - leading to a quick clean split. The impassibility of the
Carpathians reinforced and maintained the split over time.

The I2a2b moved on, seems likely, to Doggerland and the I2a2a were contained
in the Balkans.

-----------

Doggerland Genetic Bottleneck: N* <<< N
Caused by the Younger Dryas, Lake Agassiz drainage, and the Storegga tsunamis

As Doggerland submerged and the land divided, the I2a2b were split - a few
on the west side and a very few on the east but the majority were trapped and
slowly dying out on shrinking Doggerland islands where they were running out
of firewood (as happened at Easter Island). They had neither the marine
technology to escape the slowly rising water nor the wood to make boats. This
was happening during the Younger Dryas glacial period so the population would
have had a hard time maintaining themselves during this long time of land
subsidence and bitter cold. A population collapse would seem very likely as a result.

Then, at the end of the Younger Dryas, there were four catastrophic events
over the span of less than a couple hundred years. Lake Agassiz
drained, raising the sea level 1 to 3 meters in a matter of only a few days time.
This would have caused major habitat and resource destruction in the low flat islands
and shorelines of Doggerland resulting great loss of life. Then the remnants of Doggerland
were destroyed and the remaining I2a2b were nearly exterminated by the three
devastating Storegga Tsunamis about 6,200 BC creating a major genetic "bottleneck"
(e.g. N*=small). This "bottleneck" might go a long ways toward explaining the very long
time between the founding of I2a2b about 13,000 ya and and the TMRCA only about
5,000 ya. It might also explain the relatively low numbers of I2a2b overall.

[ Another intriguing idea is that the I2a2*, which has not yet been found anywhere, could
have been driven to complete extinction by the combined effects of these catastrophies. ]

----------------------

Thriving on Great Britain

Over on the west bank - now England - Isles C was founded and thrived.
Isles A split off from a remnant of Isles B about 3000 BC. Then Isles C2 and D
split off from C about 2000 BC in Ireland.

Some 2,500 years after the split of C and D, the Anglo-Saxon invasion started
conceivably containing some B from those few folks left on the continent 6,000
years before. Certainly it seems this would have to be a minuscule contribution
to the total gene pool of Isles B in Britain and Ireland and none at all to groups
A, C, and D.

--------------

This is speculation, logical deduction, and conjecture, but it seems to fit the
currently known (to me) facts.

Thoughts? Poke holes in it so I can improve the hypothesis.

There is a map of this at: groups.ancestry.com/group/35649022/media/124835614
You will have to add the http// part since, as a new member, I can't post a URL
nor a graphic.
 
Last edited:
The timing of the founding of I2a2a and b is not something that I know
anything about so I have to accept Ken Nordtvedt's conclusions about that.
It is the location that seems a problem to me.

----------------

The founding and migration

If I am reading his Warped Founders Tree correctly, I2a2a and I2a2b branched
off a proto I2a2 (that no longer exists?) about 13,000 years ago. That
requires that the founders were in the same geography at that time. If
northern Germany, how did all those !2a2a get all the way back down into the
Balkans? Difficult, if not impossible. Especially with the Carpathians in the way.

Much simpler to see the location as being the area of deltas of the Danube
and Dneister. Then, perhaps in the warm spell before the Younger Dryas, the
two groups migrated upriver - I2a2a going up the Danube and I2a2b going up
the Dneister - leading to a quick clean split. The impassibility of the
Carpathians reinforced and maintained the split over time.

The I2a2b moved on, seems likely, to Doggerland and the I2a2a were contained
in the Balkans.

-----------

Doggerland Genetic Bottleneck: N* <<< N
Caused by the Younger Dryas, Lake Agassiz drainage, and the Storegga tsunamis

As Doggerland submerged and the land divided, the I2a2b were split - a few
on the west side and a very few on the east but the majority were trapped and
slowly dying out on shrinking Doggerland islands where they were running out
of firewood (as happened at Easter Island). They had neither the marine
technology to escape the slowly rising water nor the wood to make boats. This
was happening during the Younger Dryas glacial period so the population would
have had a hard time maintaining themselves during this long time of land
subsidence and bitter cold. A population collapse would seem very likely as a result.

Then, at the end of the Younger Dryas, there were four catastrophic events
over the span of less than a couple hundred years. Lake Agassiz
drained, raising the sea level 1 to 3 meters in a matter of only a few days time.
This would have caused major habitat and resource destruction in the low flat islands
and shorelines of Doggerland resulting great loss of life. Then the remnants of Doggerland
were destroyed and the remaining I2a2b were nearly exterminated by the three
devastating Storegga Tsunamis about 6,200 BC creating a major genetic "bottleneck"
(e.g. N*=small). This "bottleneck" might go a long ways toward explaining the very long
time between the founding of I2a2b about 13,000 ya and and the TMRCA only about
5,000 ya. It might also explain the relatively low numbers of I2a2b overall.

[ Another intriguing idea is that the I2a2*, which has not yet been found anywhere, could
have been driven to complete extinction by the combined effects of these catastrophies. ]

----------------------

Thriving on Great Britain

Over on the west bank - now England - Isles C was founded and thrived.
Isles A split off from a remnant of Isles B about 3000 BC. Then Isles C2 and D
split off from C about 2000 BC in Ireland.

Some 2,500 years after the split of C and D, the Anglo-Saxon invasion started
conceivably containing some B from those few folks left on the continent 6,000
years before. Certainly it seems this would have to be a minuscule contribution
to the total gene pool of Isles B in Britain and Ireland and none at all to groups
A, C, and D.

--------------

This is speculation, logical deduction, and conjecture, but it seems to fit the
currently known (to me) facts.

Thoughts? Poke holes in it so I can improve the hypothesis.

There is a map of this at: groups.ancestry.com/group/35649022/media/124835614
You will have to add the http// part since, as a new member, I can't post a URL
nor a graphic.

Interesting speculations. I think I2a2 got to northern Germany via LBK bands, and that the snp L161 was 'born' there. I2a2b-Isles was then carried to Britain via successive 'waves' of peoples- pre-Celts, Celts and later Anglo-Saxons. The Anglo-Saxons probably account for some of the English and lowland Scots distribution. I have asked Bryan Sykes about this, and he is in agreement.

There are examples of subclades A, C and D on the continent, by the way, not just the oldest B subclade.
 
Please Dear Maciamo since when we Zazaki speakers became Turks? I have never seen a member of my family calling him self Turk. We speak a Northiranic language related to Parthian and are ethnicly kurdish.

I agree with you. I am a Kurmanci Kurd and assimilation is a Crime against humanity.
 
I just thought that it would be a good idea to clarify the whole
Arian/Aryan thing. In case someone gets the mistaken impression since the words have the same sound.

The Aryans, as a tribe/group, were an ethnic/cultural subset of Iranians peoples. That makes them similar in that case to other Iranian-derived groups such as Scythians (and their offshoots), Medes, Mitanni, Persians possibly Yue-chi, and others that still exist today.

Arian, however, is a word that derives from a completely different source. Arius of Alexandria, a priest in Egypt in the days before the adoption on the Nicene Creed by the Church, began to teach that the Son was not of the same substance as the Father and therefore was created at some point. This differed quite a bit from what the Orthodox (both of East and West before their split) Christians said.
Arius’ teaching spread throughout much of the Church, it found a disproportionate amount of support by Eastern Bishops. It gained so many influential supporters that Jerome wrote “The world awoke to find itself Arian”.
It was not until the major ecumenical council of Nicea, where the Emperor Constantine was even asked to sort of act as host, that the Church itself officially rejected Arianism. It continued to have support among some for some time after, especially among the Goths and other Germans, who had been converted to Christianity by Arian missionaries.(I can't remember the missionaries' names and don't have time to look them up) Adherence to Arianism was to be a factor in discord between ruler and subject in places such as Spain, which came to be ruled by Visigoths. Adoption of Orthodox/Catholicism was to be a source of unity and stronger foundation for the power of the Frankish Kings.

It was not until the 19th century racial theorists got involved in confusing the terms Nordic and Aryan and by extension losing the whole picture of what Indo-Europeans were that some came to the conclusion that the Christianity of the Goths was called Arian because they themselves were Aryan.

To sum it up: Goths and Aryans, while both IE, both belong to wider base-IE groups (Goth origin in other Germanics- Aryans origin in Iranians) and are not otherwise related.

Arian Christianity was the name given to the teaching that gained much ground in the early Church until its rejection and subsequent adoption of the Nicene Creed (influenced much by Athanasius)

The same pronunciation of Aryan-Arian is pure coincidence.


Yes I have that story, the later mistake of Thoule hidden mansories, the Zaratustra approach of Νιτσε,
the blond hair people were the Aryans etc, and the mistake of Swastika, which a west minor asian symbol to older Iranian/Aryan etc.

some wise quys even claim that Greeks are not ancient Greeks cause they are not blond,
 
Kawa thank you I appreciated it.
 
Sooner or later Kurds will have their own country. I think, first Kurds of Iraq will separate creating a new country, and eventually Turkey will have to agree for their Kurds secession.

I thought that Bush would have done this when invaded Iraq, but he didn't had guts or right vision.
 
lebrok, I hope so my friend.
 
I hope so too. The Kurds have bee pushed around and treated with contempt for far too long. They are a brave people who deserve better.
 
Sooner or later Kurds will have their own country. I think, first Kurds of Iraq will separate creating a new country, and eventually Turkey will have to agree for their Kurds secession.

I thought that Bush would have done this when invaded Iraq, but he didn't had guts or right vision.

my antennas catch another story,

the Turkey federation that has Kurds and Azeris in 1 state with about 6-9 federal states
something like Germany or usa
a Turkish Union that may take parts of iraque and azerbaizan
 
And I heard a different story. A Turkish Union? I'm sorry that this topic is not about politics, but a Turkish Union? Why not a Kurdish Union? I catch here and there that Turkey is on brink to get divided. Like it was agreed according the Treaty of Sèvres.
 
I dont care what this "union" is going to be called. If the border between the Kurds is going to be opened and Kurds become at least the autonomic status of Scotland than I am fine with this. It doesent matter for me to which "Union" or "Kingdom" we belong.
 

This thread has been viewed 179790 times.

Back
Top