Something terrible happened in Europe of that time and that's the reason why hg-I practically disappeared.
|Forum||Europe Travel Guide||Facts & Trivia||Genetics||History||Linguistics|
|Eupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum|
According to Klyosov, there's a 12kyo R1a in Balkans founded in some countries there (derived from M Pericic work and that's the only source for that statement). The next one are R1a from Bukovina with TMRCA cca 5,5kyo. After that there's a lot of subgroups with estimated TMRCA from 5kyo to less.
You can't speak about " number of observed mutations and their positions" if you have a main haplogroup which TMRCA is estimated on 2200 years! To be more concise, you can... BUT forget fictional 14000 years in that case.
Their calculations aren't good for themselves, not for me. They subscribed that work and they will be ashamed, not me. What will you say about "calculations" of some "scientists" which they published not so long ago and which claimet that TMRCA of R1b in western Europe is 9+ kyo????
Something terrible happened in Europe of that time and that's the reason why hg-I practically disappeared.
It should be added, it is not wholly clear if, and to what degree, the various Sea Peoples were Indo-Europeans at all. If the Sherdana were the same as the (Paleo-) Sardinians, they were a non-Indo-European people(s).
Last edited by Taranis; 03-04-12 at 18:08.
an alternative hypothesis:
one of the Y-R1a, the 'iranic' one, close I suppose to the indian-pakistan one, is a local form without any link with I-Eans, and the only I-Ean one is the slavic one that was shared by the old satem half-nomads of Siberia that colonized iranic lands as did their cousins Scythes, Sarmatians etc...
just a bet
An interesting thing told about thracians by Herodotus:
That they considered shamefull to till the land and they considered war as most noble activity,that they liked to plunder.
I do not think thracians disapeared,by they turned to christian orthodoxy and they calmed down with the wars.
Take for example first constitution used in Serbia,Romania Bulgaria and Russia,that was based on Roman Empire laws and was given in 1219 by Saint Sava a serbian :
I am not pan-slavist,as someone here was telling,I am just telling that south slavs (those with lots I2A din south) are thracians,because there are some words coming from same root which is not latin in south slavic languages,romanian and/or greek and/or albanian and/or bulgarian .For romanian and south slavic there are even more words.In romanian a lot from agricultural terms are pretty similar with bulgarian words.And Sântana de Mureș–Chernyakhov culture- shows that these people were practicing agriculture before 5th century.
I do not deny that most romanian words are taken from latin (and I did not included here the words taken from french,which are another 22% of the romanian words).
Take for example the word used for cat:
romanian matza (in romanian is written MẤȚĂ but I typed the Ț as tz to helped you with pronunciation) - serbo-croatian macika - albanian macja - bulgarian kotka with romanian cognate cotoi (this word is used for calling a male cat,a tomcat).
To help pronounce,I will write cotoi as kotoi (c and k are pronounced same in romanians as south slavs are pronouncing k).
romanian vrabie - serbo-croatian vrabac - bulgarian vrabche
romanian fasole - albanian fasule - greek fasolia
romanian pajiste - serbo-croatian livada - -bulgarian livada - greek livadi - albanian livadh
However,the word livada is used in romanian for orchard which is not that far as meaning from meadow.
the cereal you call hop (humulus) in english (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humulus)
romanian hamei - serbo-croatian hmelj - bulgarian khmel
(i from romanian is pronounced same as serbo-croatian j).
The word for hen:
romanian gaina (from latin,galina) - serbo-croatian kokoška - bulgarian kokoshka - greek kóta
(š is same with sh or romanian letter Ș)
However,in romanian for cock,the male of the hen you are using the word COCÓȘ which if you want to use south-slavic writting is kokoš (sure is known by romanian scientists that this come from some slavic language).
Sure there are other words also,gave only a few examples here.
Also is very likely that some greeks had also I2A din south since I think the thracian ilyrians and greeks were living quite mixed.
Take for example the name of the mountains from Romania,Carpathians,that come from Karpata which in actual macedonian language means rock.
Also,the agricultural terms in romanian in bulgarians are in lots of cases same.
So it seems there were also some kind of peacefull thracians,that did not considered shamefull to practice agriculture.
As for I2A in Iran,is known that Alexander Macedon had some thracian allies:
And if some of the macedonian greeks fighting for Alexander Macedon were bearing also I2A there could be an explanation for I2A in Iran.
and Thracians had Alphabet similar Greek and not Cyrilic,
and there is enough vocabulary that shows connections with Germanic languages,
and many of these words exist in modern Greek
the next step maybe is to claim that Greeks are Slavs also?
among Thrakologists even today there is an argue if they were Anatolian origin or North Eurasian,
it is a IE family of languages isotones to Greek specially late Hellenistic and Con/polis.
we talk about a language that is still vivid among modern Europeans, Baltic Germans and Scandinavians Balkanic Slavs Greeks but is assimilated according each one
that is why Duridanov's Sgar exist as καρφι and σκαρπελο ιν Γρεεκ, as Sharp in English etc,
when we Speak about Thracian we probably speak about one of the older Languages in Europe, and possible mother of many modern.
about Alexander and I Hg that is my question to Sparkey in a different way,
read my posts #287 #302 and Sparkey's answers #301 #303
I still can't find which is older the I2a2 DIn or the other forms of I HG that exists in Greek in Kurds Cyprus etc,
BTW the most fanatic as Thracians be I2a was me,
but seems I was wrong about timing era,
ΠΑΣΑ ΕΠΙΣΤΗΜΗ ΧΩΡΙΖΟΜΕΝΗ ΑΡΕΤΗΣ
ΠΑΝΟΥΡΓΙΑ ΟΥ ΣΟΦΙΑ ΦΑΙΝΕΤΑΙ
A very strange thing I saw is that in Thessaloniki according to some test is about 25% R1A1.
How is that possibile?
Other weird results of Y DNA from Greece:
Look at the greeks from Nea Nikomedeia (G1) they got 21% R1a1 and almost 20% R1B.
Do not really think in Balkans you can associate some Y DNA with a certain ethnicity.
So I think I2a din south is from old thracians,which seems to be more than one people,old greeks, dacians and ilyrians (since I can not explain the percentage of I2A in albanians ).There were clans in albanians so if some foreigner would have come here,I doubt he could breed a lot to have in such percentage I2A din south in albanians.I also think that because how uniform albanians are looking this proves that I2A din south in albanians is very old there.
Could not be brought by some migrations (I2A-din south) since is present in greek islands and also at pretty significant percentage in Lerna which is very south of Greece.
A lot of old greeks were also liking war a lot,they calmed down because they became christian orthodox not because they disapeared.
No ideea why Ken Nordvedt says that about I2A din south,I doubt any migrators ever got to Crete or to Lerna.
Because the Byzantine Empire fall in 1453 and that is not that far away,till than South Greece was defended really well.And after was defended by turks and I2A-din south is not from turks for sure.
if you read History Athens was Burned and massacre 2 times by Christians Byzantines or Romans (from my mind now pass Belissarius and Ioustinianus)
on the other hand South Greece has significant R1b ( L20 I think which is Anatolian and explain a Lot about the Greek language and Grammar as part of Greco-Aryan)
the case of R1a is not in Thessaloniki district but in South parts of Upper Mekedonia, and West North parts of Thessaly and East mountain Epirus and spreads down to Locris and from there to south Italy, which is road that is known as Dorian migration, - return of Temenides.
I was expected to be the same of R1a that is in Kurds or Scandinavians but it seems to be the same old Central Europe from Baltic to Aegean R1a Z458,
yet it existance in South Italy surely makes it Dorian, but not its existace in Central North Europe,
The gennetic of Greece and generally of Aegean was not Clear I believe from ancient times,
Yet I believe that Greeks moved to East after Alexander, West after Romans and been reduced, or even eliminated to some areas like Athens, where I expect G Hg to be higher,
personally to me it seems like Myceneans were minor Asians newcomers than the Grekoi of Tanagraia the elder Greeks of Dodona,
now when we Speak about Makedonians, a good observation is the Pieri Thracians(Orpheus) and the Bryges Thracians, (Gordium case etc) the connection of Makedonians with some Thracian tribes is obvious, but yet the R1a in Greece seems to be in areas that no Thracians are mentioned, but Dorians,
ΠΑΣΑ ΕΠΙΣΤΗΜΗ ΧΩΡΙΖΟΜΕΝΗ ΑΡΕΤΗΣ
ΠΑΝΟΥΡΓΙΑ ΟΥ ΣΟΦΙΑ ΦΑΙΝΕΤΑΙ
I do not see how is germanic sharp closer to greek written thracian "sgar" from Slavic oštar
sg is easily greek transcription of "št"
sgar -> (o)štar
note that like Slavic Thracian also doesnot have 'p' in the end as related Germanic and Greek words...
which, taken together with other words, of course still doesnot mean Thracian was Slavic language but probably closer to it than to Germanic or greek...which makes sense as it is known that it was satem language....
btw. 'št' does sound more sharp than 'sg'
regarding R1a in greece, yfamilytreedna has only 5 samples: 1 has german name, 1 bulgarian, 1 turkish...
from remaining 3, 2 have R1a that is shared with Kurdish area in Turkey and Armenia and not with europe, indicating some old spread...
but familytreedna has in general way too little samples that are not from west Europe to conclude anything about east Europe or Asia in general...
R1a in Greece may be related to Dorians....as it is in general ellevated in those areas.... I think Slavs came as dominantly I2a people as this is key distinguishing factor of south Slavs from other Balkan populations
i think I2a was present in north of Thracia...because I have concluded that I2a has spread along Danube from ancient times....but I do not believe it was dominant in all Thracians.....
conquest of sea peoples was described as conspiracy of Northerners from all lands,,, Peleset and Tjekker warriors are depicted with ox-carts (this could not have been by ships in my opinion) and woman and children... so we speak of massive settlement wave comming from north, which must have left imprint in genetics of the conquered area...
very likely those nations had divided the conquered area into interest zones...
look how R1a, G, Q and N spread far from their native areas - from Black sea and Caucasus all the way to Egypt.. G is though probably somewhat earlier spread to west of Asia minor...
key people among northerners were R1a I think.. Q was perhaps among R1a people indicating that conquest originally came from north shores of Black sea - Ukraine area... and spread of N could have come before as it doesnot really correlate with Q and R1a...
from all these Northerners, I think that only Sherdana were I2a (they settled Kurdish areas from north of Black sea probably with large R1a and small Q admixture) people, that they were backbone of attack and that they have made bridge between Black sea and Mediteranean and settled in Kurdish areas
I think Sherdana (without R1a admixture) also were present from before in west and southwest parts of Asia minor (that branch would have been Willusa and they got in that conquest after fall of Arzawa an extension of the sea coast into what was west part of Arzawa)
this was 3200 years before present.... which is in times older than I2a-Din
at the time I2a was probably dominant around Danube and around Black sea which is from where I think they spread to Kurdish areas......they were sea people as Black sea is sea as well...
this is questionable but at that time they could perhaps still have been in language and culture considered the same tribe as people who settled Sardinia and west Mediteranean (probably much earlier and perhaps from west part of Asia minor)..
Last edited by how yes no 3; 06-04-12 at 00:55.
according to the people FTDNA tested so far
Pa'ura vanta'jo omo, gninte
Fear profits man, nothing
Haplogroup I2a2a Dinaric (or new I2a1b1a Dinaric) associated with the Germanic Goths
in his recent spread map Dr. Ken Nordtvedt himself locates the start of the I2a2a Dinarics,
from now on, namley around the middle course of the Vistula. Wich is modern day Pomerania.
Estimated age: about 2500 years ago.
Dr. Ken Nordtvedt mentioned, a while ago:
I2a2a Dinaric is just too young to not have been the result of a sudden expansion not much more than
2000 years ago.
It is well testified, that 2000 years ago, the Vistula area were still part of Germania. And the Wielbark culture, associated with the Goths, appeared also in the Vistula area about the same time period like the haplogroup I2a2a Dinaric.
The Wielbark culture also had a sudden expansion out of the Vistula, not much more than 2000 years ago.
Spreading out into the same directions like the I2a2a Dinarics in Ken Nordtvedts new spread map.
Both show a huge sudden expansion into the southeast of Europe and the Balkan. I do not want to over-interpret things. But this can not be a coincidence anymore. It is undoubtedly, and way too obvious now what was going on here.
The movments of the slavic people, on the other hand, appear centuries later. Moving slowly from the
southeast to the northwest of Europe. (According to historian Peter Heather).
The Goths moved the other way around, exactly the same way like the I2a2a Dinarics in reference to the new spread map from Dr. Ken Nordtvedt. (From the northwest to the southeast and the Balkan area.)
Concerning I2a2a Dinaric, no ethnics of people, in that number, at that time and particular place,
could come into question, other than the Germanics/Goths. This is the only plausible explanation.
How hard you may try to twist it. You always end up with the same conclusion. You can certainly rule out the Slavs.
The Goths as well as the I2a2a Dinarics, presenting obviously the same estimated age, demonstrating both a huge sudden expansion at the same time period and pointing into the same directions in the southeast of Europe.
I can not see anything slavic in this group, last not least because of the very close relationship between I2a2a Dinarics and the I2a2a Disles on the British isles.
At this point, let us not forget the close relationship between I2a and I2b in general.
Basically you can say, that pretty much all I2a2a Dinaric members in todays eastern Europe are culturally slavic people!
But the oddity about it is, they display ethnically Gothic/Germanic roots. Most of recent published maps about the migration of Germanic tribes, show the movment of the Goths and how they left their traces mainly in eastern Europe.
Most of the scientific up-to-date maps show also, that the Goths did not come from Scandinavia. That was a long time legende from Jordanes.
And we should not mistake Germanic with Germans in case of the Goths. The Germanic Goths are not ancestors of todays german people. The Goths left their DNA mainly in eastern Europe as we can clearly retrace. And very little in Germany.
That counts for I2a2a Dinaric north as well as Dinaric souths.
Most people, until now, are still strongly convinced that haplogroup I2a2a Dinaric must be of slavic origin, because of it�s high presence in eastern Europe and the Balkan areas. Wich seemed to be the logical conclusion, in the first point of view.
But this is deffinately not longer tenable.
Peter Heather the modern day historian and expert of the Goths wrote something very interesting in this connection in his last published book (Empires and Barbarians) concerning the slavic expansion:
The Slavs came primary from the southeast and moved slowly sometimes even step by step to the west. But not all Germanic settlements were left when the Slavs moved into the northwest in the 6th century. There were still many farmers and familys in their Germanic homelands. The slavic people took over and the Germanics, have been assimilated by the arrivng slavic population. And the slavic language became the dominat one in these areas.
(The Crimea seemed to be an exception. There was a gothic dialect spoken until the 17th century.)
This absorption or assimilation-process happend amazingly peaceful. At least, at the begin of the slavic expansion.
Without these Germanic settlers, the slavic empire could have never reached the size as it is, in that short period of time, says Heather.
The Goths did not just come with an conquering army to eastern Europe. They came with their entire tribe. Thousends and thousends of woman and children, farmers and warriors spread all across eastern Europe and the Balkan.
They marched off to Belarus, conquer and settle in Moldavia and Romania (Dacia). Sacking Greece (Athens, Sparta) and even
Rhodes, Cyprus and Crete were targets of their attacks. Battles in Turkey (Adrianople). Occupation of Albania 489-535.
Also Settlements in western Hungary (Pannonia). 255 The Goths invade Macedonia. Taking over Moesia (Bulgaria) later known as the Moesian Goths. Ulfilias made the Gothic translation of the Bible for them. Raids in Belgrade, just to name a few well testyfied operations in the east. Bosnia was under the control of Theodoric the Great and his Ostrogothic Kingdom between 490-535. Dr. G. Rus, professor at the University of Liubljana, was taking detailed studys of Croatian and Bosnian origins. Professor Rus had proved that there were two large Gothic migrations into Bosnia and Croatia (Dalmatia).
That�s why we still see most of I2a2a Dinarics in eastern Europe and the Balkan area today. Of course, in western areas as well,
like italy (The sack of Rome, The Battle of Mons Lactarius near Naples, Ravenna the Ostogothic kingdom).
And Austria and Bavaria. In Austria (Hemmaberg) they recently discovered the biggest Ostrogothic cemetery (more than 400 graves) ever found.
But many I2a2a Dinaric members, are from Pomerania and the Ukraine. It is not surprising. Pomerania was the homeland of the Goths and the Ukraine their biggest settlement after the great migration. On the other hand, a great number of different tribes from all over eastern areas joint the Goths as well. And centuries later, when the Goths finally arrived in Spain, they were already strongly mixed up.
That�s one of the reasons you see only a few I2a2a Dinarics in Spain, so far. In Spain the Goths rule over a huge area but provide only a small Gothic leadership, with their capital in Toledo. Wich was completely wiped out by the arabian conquest in the 8th century.
The Goths had certainly more haplogroups then just I2a2a Dinaric, but this one seems to displays one of their dominat ones.
So far, this haplogroup is the only comprehensible one. The only one striking so clear, because of the young estimated age.
But even if, I2a2a Dinaric was way older than the estimations, It would not really effect the basic picture we have here right now.
After all, we can face enough evidence for a very obvious connection between the Germanics/Goths and the haplogroup I2a2a Dinaric north as well as south.
answer to Claus
I am sure of nothing yet but I have no big confidence in huge population migrating over huge territories and leaving high levels of DNA even if some exceptions could be found... and Y-I2a2 (now: I2a1b?) DIN do not seam to me bearing a lot of nordic-like phenotypes - sure Y-I1 bears more and for this fact I believe the bulk of these two kinds of HGs even if genetically close on the Y, was separated for a long time - I maintain my first feeling: I1 South of the Baltic Sea, with contacts with Y-R1b-U106 in West and with N1 in East opposed to I2a1b-DIN (N & S) between Central Europe and ALL the Carpathian region, as a previous source - if Goths carried some I2, (why not?) it is not to say I2 was their most heavy HG at all... it is giving too much weight to this moving people in the making of populations of parts of Europe that suffered a lot of occupations, colonizations, coming back and so on...
I feel that Y-I2a1b has taken part in more than one culture and language from the Chalcolithic period to the slavicization of the High (Dark?) Middle Ages - its part in Western Europe is very very light...
to keep on, if we agree with you, the eastern Germany and the Poland regions was the nest of Y-I2a1b (or I have understood nothing): in my mind, at the sunrise of History I saw better these lands occupied by a lot of Y-R1a (western) of previous 'Corded' nature or Battle Axes cultures, more or less, that found before them some Y-I1 and maybe less Y-R-U106 and why not in east some Y-N1...- this former population augmented latter by other R1a of slavic culture - in the meanwhile some other cultures as the Tumuli of Poland and their (maybe) descendants of Urnfields culture that gave way to the Lusacian facies can have send some other populations from South-central and North-West-Central Europe but they did not take the "power" (neither cultural nor demic) over this whole area (East Germany and Poland): Poland has not a lot of Y-I2a1b and a part of them is SURELY of recent slavic period "origine" - the other I2 came perhaps with this movements of the period between Unetice and Lusacian culture - If I do not mistake, Goths first records are from very later than these late events? How could they carry a majority of Y-I2a1?
Pomerania does not have the highest diversity of I2a-Din, Ukraine probably does.
Most of the rest of your analysis crumbles in light of this. Obviously, the Goths didn't come from Ukraine, so they match the diversity pattern poorly. Also, your explaination for why other places the Goths settled have no I2a-Din at all is unsatisfactory, not to mention the other places that East Germanic peoples settled in general.
For a better correlation to the Goths, look at Eastern European I1 (which I admit is surprisingly frequent in some areas).
Now if you read a little history you will see that in Latium it can be found also a good percentage of I2A.
No ideea what type it is.But if it is I2A-din south is clearly that is from colonists brought from Balkans.
Most present Y DNA in Campania in Italy is J2 and in Latium (central Italy) is also about 25% J2 and this could be one of the sources of the significant percentages of J2 in South Romania and Serbia.I am not really sure if continental greeks had a significant percentage of J2,before Roman Empire conquered them.
Croats came after serbs (they came from north Carphatians,goths are not mountain dwelers) and they are very low on J2,bosniacs think are same with besi and not goths and since they were mountain dwelers lesser latin colonists went there.
I have based what is told above on the following pdf,page 72:
No ideea how accurate are the datas from there,looked on family tree DNA for Campania and indeed there is a significant percentage of J (22 are J from 69 so about 30% from which from which 20 are j2) but not over 50% how is told in that pdf cited above.
Sure some older population of Italy/latins got some R1B clades also,since in Sardigna you can find above 20% R1B and this can be only from Roman Empire colonists.
(no ideea might be also from Spain,who knows,I do not know the history of Sardigna too well;whatever are other various proofs of presence of some R1B clades in latins do not really think R1B is linked only with germanics and celts).
The sonority of dacian kings names is similar with romanian sonority (Decebal is typical romanian name) while the sonority of the names of goths kings is ending in ic like Atanaric,Alaric Teodoric etc.
Beside the Bible translated by Ulfila still exists and gothic language was a germanic language why in romanian there are almost no words taken from gothic?
In serbo-croatian might be few common words I have no ideea about this.
Population STR/Hg diversity (which was your original 'Ken-told-me' Citation) can be irrelevant due to population die off, tribal migrations, and variances that cannot be reproduced without having all the facts. Thus, having a modern diversity of Hg in Denmark within modern Hg results, does not prove or disprove anything, even if it is factual..
It is itself easily skewed by migrational factors, plagues, wars, migrations. The fall back simplistic argument about young age within the entire I1 Hg is also irrelevant since the age timelines anyone is talking about are all beyond the tribal populations that we could in any way recognize. If I1 is 2,500 or 4,000 or 8,000 years old it makes little difference since all are older than the time frames we are discussing. You seem to fall onto this as desperation or to change the initial case you made, yet it is no firmer ground for you.
If it seems harsh, then its probably because the saying goes like this - 'the truth hurts'.Originally Posted by sparkey
If the truth was fun, everyone would tell the truth.
All your nonsense come from a message board cruiser who promises thing he cant possibly know, and tell things that no one can confirm other than his figures that he deduce. This is called deception.
I1 is a element of the Ugric balto-slavs. Ken fabricated promises that all come from his math magic that tell his followers what they want a promise of.
In the real world, his promises cannot be double-blind tested they can only be a article of FAITH.
Science is not the church, not faith. The Germanic populations according to Ken were primarily I1, yet in all the ancient DNA of regions which have major germanic introgression, NO I1.
You change argument like clothing, to avoid this reality. You started this with claims that I1 is always seemingly germanic, using Ken as your arguments shield, and as this crumbled you start retreating and admit that some I1 is Finnic-Ugric.
I1 began as a non-germanic Hg and is not part of the continental germanic tribes until late in the historical period.
This is probably the most ridiculous and desperate argument that I may have ever seen.Originally Posted by sparkey
I said varieties of all European Hg HAVE been found in at least one ancient sample.
You begin to list Semite Y-Hg, ASIAN-MONGOLOID Y-Hg, sub-SNP categories of I2.. which is nonsense. The asian and semite are not indigenous european, and the fact that not every FTdna recognized variant of I2 is in a ancient sample does not change the fact that many ancient Y-dna samples ARE I2.
I1 is a major modern Hg, and is not present in the european Hg on the continent in any ancient samples. Since you cannot affect that you make a nonsense argument to deflect.
I would not expect I1 anyplace except in the Central Scandinavian Pennisula, in a ancient sample. Which is why there arent any.Originally Posted by sparkey
You are really in no position to challenge anyone since you already admitted you core hypothesis is wrong and that Finn I1 is not 'germanic'.Originally Posted by sparkey
You are following a simplistic logic of a linear thinking simple person, and attempting to build a case for a necessity that I1 in England has to come from angles or saxons, despite the fact the Hg is not provably part of the source population.
While there are a dozen ways for your scenario (that I do not lend any agreement is actually correct btw) to be explained, the most logical would be that the population likely to leave central scandinavia and go to Germany as a tribal population, would also be the more adventurous to go on a similar voyage to the british isles as they have already shown a cultural proclivity to wander.
Secondly, there are differential impacts over time that enlarge one population or regional gene pool in a disparate manner to its SNP neighbors over time or conversely deplete it. Conflating the modern Hg/SNP distribution as being symbolic of what existed in that place 1500 years earlier is more often wrong than it is right, and its what got the Ken acolytes spouting the proclamations about I1 being THE germanic Hg in the first place. While modern Hg distro is a really bad indicator of ancient populations,....
leaning on SNP differentials within modern distros is literally insane.
I dont read minds or care. As guess, I think you want to have something to say, are interested in Hg I due to your own results and feel "because Ken said so" is good enough for you.Originally Posted by sparkey
I do not find Ken to be even remotely credible beyond modern STR counting and tallying of results gleaned from FTDNA tables.
He makes un-serious and nonsensical leaps into pronouncements about ancient or historical genetics that are baseless. Unless you are quoting his STR tallies from databases, or the SNP data that he did not originate but only repeats.. he is in no way a valid or trustworthy source.
Last edited by pipinnacanus; 07-04-12 at 01:37. Reason: html container
A very strange thing that greek language have in common with serbo-croatian,bulgarian and macedonian language and no other indo-european language have this:
the presence and usage of aorist mode for verbs:
I think this is a clear inheritance from thracian language.
Ok is present also in french language,but there is from another source,think is old proto-indo-european.
How can you explain that first constitution that was given in Serbia in 1219 was based on Roman law and this constitution was used also in Romania and in Bulgaria and in Rusia?
How it can be explained that serbian and bulgarian kings are calling themselves Tzar/Tsar which comes from latin Cezar while ancient romanians where calling Constantinopole Tzarigrad?
Did you noticed that are words in serbo-croatian very closed with latin,that are in common use as the word for mouse - latin mus serbo-croatian miš sure are others also.
From which most strange is how you call in romanian tata,serbo-croatian tata and bulgarian tate (seems bashta is most used in bulgarian) which is common with latin - tata italian language do not have this word anymore!
Since this is a word very often used.
Eyes,another word very used,have in serbo-croatian oči,romanian ochi bulgarian очи (ochi written in latin alphabet) latin oculus and ...italian occhi so almost same word in romanian,italian and bulgarian serbo-croatian (forgot to add pronounciation for romanian and italian is same bulgarian rather same with serbo-croatian,you do not hear the h pronounced in serbo-croatian and bulgarian).
On another thread here (that with albanian language) was told about a common word from old romanian serbo-croatian and sardignian and sardignian is very close to latin also.
Do you have any evidence to the contrary of what I had originally said, by the way? That I1 is relatively young in terms of TMRCA. You may be the only person I've discussed I1 with who disagrees with that simple premise.
...skip some junk about how much you don't like Ken Nordtvedt and how you don't understand that I'm using more than just what he says in my analysis...
...skip your theory that doesn't fit the data and your rather unkind words toward me...
...skip your nonsense theory, since I've already explained why it doesn't fit the data...
Sorry for threating people here in a previous message to sue them and sorry for suspecting people here on evil thoughts toward romanians.
I got a weird way to understand history,sure is only because of me.
Both are the descendants of Cro-Magnon. There is very little slavic ancestry in the Dinaric Alps. People in Croatian Dalmatia, Herzegovina, Northern Montenegro, and South-Western Serbia look completely different from Slavic populations. The skin tone, skull shape, and other physical features are very different. Slavs usually have wide faces, large cheekbones, light hair and skin, relatively short bodies, short arms and legs, and small noses: essentially the original Indo-European features. Dinaric and other Cro-Magnon descendants have long faces (but also somewhat wide compared to Mediterranean neolithic farmer people), long legs, great height (highest in Europe, and perhaps the world if u don't include certain small isolated tribes in Eastern Africa), olive skin, dark hair and eyes, thick bones, wide shoulders, fast development of muscles, and probably above average testosterone levels.What's strange is that I2a1b2-Isles's closest cousin, I2a1b1-Dinaric, is only really found among the Slavic populations of Eastern Europe, centered in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Be wary of people who tend to glorify the past, underestimate presence, and demonize the future.