|Forum||Europe Travel Guide||Facts & Trivia||Genetics||History||Linguistics|
|Eupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum|
I ran some numbers from Y-dna country in regards to eliminating the R1a and I2a and got these numbers for I1a ( I1) ...rounded to nearest half %Good point, I1 may be higher than we might expect, but it's not impossible that they could have expanded due to cultural selection. As usual, Y-DNA magnifies the effect of migration.
That looks about like what I would expect, although E1b may also have a bit of a founder effect itself... my guess is that R1b, J2, and E1b would have been dominant together, with G2a an interesting Neolithic marker and I1 mostly Germanic. That "I2b" is probably dominated by I2a2a2-Cont3, which I have already brought up.
AUStria = 29.5
NEItaly = 10
SLOvenia = 31.5
CROtia = 28.5
HUNgary = 23
SERbia = 19
BOSnia = 9
ALBania = 4.5
MACedonia = 24.5
NGreece = 13.5
Montenegro is missing ...maybe its a mix of BOS and ALB
Clearly the very high E Hg for albania and bosnia dominate these areas and could indicate a different tribe , maybe the thracians
Pa'ura vanta'jo omo, gninte
Fear profits man, nothing
Then, there are other subclades of I2a2 in Western Europe (I2a-Isles), which surely have nothing to do with the Slavs and point at a common origin in continental Europe (somewhere between France and Ukraine). So I still think that I2a2 was in Europe before the Indo-Europeans. This is further corroborated by the fact that I2a1 was found in Neolithic France. Yet, until then it was thought that I2a1 was also fairly young* like I2a2. That's why you can't trust STR dating.
* In 2004, Rootsi et al. estimated the age of I2a* between 4000 and 8000 years old. This is almost impossible if its subclade I2a1 already existed 5000 years ago (Treilles site).
Follow me on Facebook and Twitter ------------------------ My profile on Academia.edu and on ResearchGate ------------------------ Check Wa-pedia's Japan Guide----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone?", Winston Churchill.
I agree with Maciamo here. There's probably an exception in the I subclades (¿I2c?), but the rest seem to be in the continental Europe since the beginning.
I voted for the paleolithic continuity hypothesis and would add a founder effect in the Dinaric Alpine region.
Strong levels are found throughout the Balkans with 4% in modern-day Turkey but what is more significant to me is its 'Slavic' presence in Russia. This suggests strongly a link to the paleolithic Balkans as haplogroup I is definitely not a West Asian/Caucasian marker. The spread to Russia and Sarmatian lands followed the Balkan Refugium repopulation of Eurasia.
The weakness in this theory is based on the assumption that related subclades would have to be found throughout the region as well. I believe this assumption is generally valid however I would not place too much emphasis on it in this context as most I subclades would have been wiped out during the severe climactic events that overwhelmed Europe circa 10 000ybp. In addition one could add that the various I haplgroup subclades would have left the Balkan Refugium many thousands of years ago and would have been thinned out by then.
My social anthropological view of I in the Balkans is based on an erratic diffusion model between 10 and 5 thousand ybp following a period of entrapment (refuge) within the southern extremities of Europe. The pre-LGM period would have most certainly shown a Europe-wide distribution that was severely disrupted and abruptly cut short by the big freeze.
Sardinia and Iberia back up the continuity of this haplogroup from a pre-Glacial period. The difference concerning the Balkans is that repopulation spread further and wider in a Northeasterly direction as the Balkans were much less conducive to agriculture with its rocky landscape. The fertile plains of West Sarmatia and the mild climate of the North Balkan coastline share many parallels.
Personally, I could stand behind Proto-Slavic hypothesis also.
The problem is following - if two very close varieties like I2a2-Din and I2a2-Isles are completely geographically separated why would there have to be geographical continuity for two more distant subclades as I2a2 and I2a2-Din are?
What Maciamo and Knovas et al. seem to be completely ignoring is the age of I2a-Din as a subclade. We don't know where its ancestral Daddy roamed. But we do know that the specific I2a-Din subclade did not begin to exist until ca. 300 BCE. On the basis of current historical and archaeological knowledge, an assumption of the Balkans as roaming grounds cannot explain its expansion. Unless you have Daddy migrate northward very soon after 300 BCE (with progeny). But what in the archaeology or documented historical facts can support this? On the other hand, the Nordtvedt/Verenic computations not only point to a 2340/2040 BP founding age for Din N+S but also to ca. 1200-1500 BP as its age of "expansion" (which also fits in very well with historical events), I think they have made their case, for the time being at any rate. But the issue of the whereabouts of Granddaddy whence Daddy Din mutated is still very much open. My favourite scenario is a migration southeastward of Daddy with the Bastarnians (in the 3rd c. BCE) from the area of the Yastorf culture, and eventual participation of his progeny in Slavic ethnogenesis with associated R1a's and others. That would make Daddy a Germanic fellow traveller. And would explain some very early Germanic borrowings into the Slavic languages (especially in the area of military and political terminology) as well as the nearly complete Germanic character of the recorded names of the leadership of the Antes and Sclavini in the 6th century as per Byzantine chroniclers. It would also explain the mysterious Dulibians (Dud-Leiba). But this is obviously a different issue.
I2 => 17,000 years ago (in the Balkans)
I2b => 13,000 years ago (in Central Europe)
I2a => 11,000 years ago (in the Balkans)
I2a1 => 8,000 years ago (in Sardinia)
I2a2 => 7,500 years ago (in the Dinaric Alps)
I2b1 => 9,000 years ago (in Germany)
I1 => 5,000 years ago (in Scandinavia)
I2b1a => less than 3,000 years ago (in Britain)
The multiple effect of a genetically fit progenitor's descendants, especially if the group is somewhat isolated, will depict a false variance unsuitable for TMRCA calculation without the necessary adjustment. I squeezed in a lot of info in my previous sentence but the point is it is older than it looks, and E in the Balkans is also older than it looks.
The classifications used to depict STR clusters are not on the ISOGG site as they are experimental STR categories. Both R1a and I haplogroups alike continue to remain poorly defined compared to R1b-L11+ subclades where numerous SNP's make classification much easier.
That isn't very helpful, Dorianfinder. I'll fix it for you:
I => 23,000 years ago (maybe in Southern Europe somewhere)
I2 => 22,000 years ago (maybe in Southern Europe somewhere)
I2a2 => 13,000 years ago (somewhere in Europe, probably Eastern or Central)
I2a1 => 20,000 years ago (somewhere in Europe, not sure but maybe the Carpathian Basin)
I2a1a => 8,000 years ago (probably Iberia, definitely not Sardinia)
I2a1b => 13,000 years ago (somewhere in Europe, too dispersed to narrow down, probably not the Balkans)
I1 => 5,000 years ago (around Schleswig-Holstein)
I2a2a1 => 5,000 years ago (in Britain)
And I'll add another one:
I2a1b1a-Din => 2,500 years ago (somewhere around Belarus)
Where I2a-Din is in the SNP tree is well established.
my I2c diversity map... based on the STR data available so far, it's showing a center of diversity in Western or Central Europe, maybe around Germany).
But as Shetop summarizes my argument, I'm not saying that "I2a-Din was Proto-Slavic but that it came to Balkans with Slavs. It wasn't there before Slavic expansion."
If we say things like "Germanic peoples spread I1," even though I1 is clearly from a pre-IE European lineage, why can't we say "Slavic peoples spread I2a-Din"?
Point taken about the unreliability of STR dating, though... Nordtvedt's estimate does have fairly large error bars, which is why I resist saying things like "I2a-Din's MRCA lived in 300BCE." But suppose we pushed I2a-Din's TMRCA back all the way to its parent clade (I2a1b1). Then it's still less than 6,000 years old... and still has a diversity gradient coming down from the North. So Paleolithic continuity still fails.