Serb with I1

despot said:
No of course not, I was kidding but it is interesting that the Thervingians settled south of Danube in large numbers thanks to the huns. I doubt they all got up and left to become Visigoths with Alaric and ramsack Rome with their women and children. I might be wrong but I think there is more I1 in Serbia than Poland, doubt I1 in Serbia is all from Slavic migrations, I have a lot of Polish relatives on 23andme and they are all R1a1a.
Click to expand...

You are wrong. Serbs and Poles have the same amount of I1. The big genetic difference between the two populations is that Serbs have a lot more I2 and Poles have a lot more R1a. So the Serbs have more of a haplotype that some people see as possibly having survived the last glacial maximum in the Balkans. If to be "Slavic" in a genetic sense is to be R1a, the Poles are more Slavic and the Serbs are more Balkan.
 
Aberdeen said:
You are wrong. Serbs and Poles have the same amount of I1. The big genetic difference between the two populations is that Serbs have a lot more I2 and Poles have a lot more R1a. So the Serbs have more of a haplotype that some people see as possibly having survived the last glacial maximum in the Balkans. If to be "Slavic" in a genetic sense is to be R1a, the Poles are more Slavic and the Serbs are more Balkan.
Click to expand...
I see, still interesting considering Poles have always been historically closer to I1 folk than people from Balkans.
 
If to be "Slavic" in a genetic sense is to be R1a, the Poles are more Slavic and the Serbs are more Balkan.
Click to expand...

Not sure why people associate Slavs only with R1a. First of all, certainly Proto-Slavs (before expansion) were not 100% R1a people. Secondly, most probably not all R1a subclades were present among Proto-Slavs (or at least not in high frequencies). Out of all R1a subclades, Z280 (and its subclade Z92) seems to be "the most Slavic" one. But it is also Baltic. So it appears to be Balto-Slavic, i.e. common already among the Balto-Slavic community before they split into Proto-Balts and Proto-Slavs. Also I2a1b seems to be a very Slavic Y HG:

Subclades_R1a.png


On the other hand, M458 and one of its subclades - L260 - appears to be either Proto-West Slavic (i.e. common among this branch of Slavs which migrated westward and became ancestors of modern West Slavs), or Pre-West Slavic (i.e. common among Non-Slavic people - maybe hypothetical Venedic-speaking populations or speakers of other extinct IE language - absorbed by Proto West Slavs):

CE_and_WS.png
 
First of all welcome to Eupedia Tomenable

Tomenable said:
Out of all R1a subclades, Z280 (and its subclade Z92) seems to be "the most Slavic" one. But it is also Baltic.
Click to expand...
Judging by lack of other major R1a subclades in Croats, Z280 minus Z92 is the prime candidate for Slavic ethos, if I may say so. Having said that the waters are still very muddy. We need to wait for ancient DNA to finally get this puzzle right.
 
Last edited:
Tomenable said:
Hi there, it's nice to be here, I've discovered a great forum. ;)

I googled "R1a M458 among Croats" and found that they have around 3% of M458 (not sure how much of L260 among this 3%):

https://www.google.pl/search?q=R1a+...hannel=sb&gfe_rd=cr&ei=ZGYPVNuXFISh8wen7YGgCQ

So probably that chart above could also look like this:
Click to expand...
Probably it won't change much, as it is hard to believe that 3% of ruling class could change language and culture to Slavic. Looks like something more ancient mixed into other cultures.
 
Sure but nobody says that all Proto-Slavs were M458 or that all of them were Z280. Or do you think that 100% of them had just one subclade?

When you discuss for example Germanic haplogroups and subclades, which of them do you think belonged to original Proto-Germanics? For example I1 is not an originally Germanic haplogroup. It did not belong to Indo-European rulling class which changed language and culture to Germanic.

Surely it was R1 (either a or b, or both), but of course only some subclades (and probably more than just one).

When it comes to R1b U106 - it isn't sure if it was originally Germanic, or assimilated later. R1a Z284 was probably Proto-Germanic. But only this?
 
Tomenable said:
When you discuss for example Germanic haplogroups and subclades, which of them do you think belonged to original Proto-Germanics? For example I1 is not an originally Germanic haplogroup. It did not belong to Indo-European rulling class which changed language and culture to Germanic.
Click to expand...

What makes you think this? I1 has a youngish TMRCA, but not younger than the ethnogenesis of Germanic peoples, unless you put that event well before the Nordic Bronze Age. I don't see anything contradictory in supposing that I1 could have been one of the markers present in the early Proto-Germanic peoples.

That said, if you're looking for potential Proto-Germanic haplogroups, have you considered I2-M223>Z76?
 
Tomenable said:
Sure but nobody says that all Proto-Slavs were M458 or that all of them were Z280. Or do you think that 100% of them had just one subclade?

When you discuss for example Germanic haplogroups and subclades, which of them do you think belonged to original Proto-Germanics? For example I1 is not an originally Germanic haplogroup. It did not belong to Indo-European rulling class which changed language and culture to Germanic.

Surely it was R1 (either a or b, or both), but of course only some subclades (and probably more than just one).

When it comes to R1b U106 - it isn't sure if it was originally Germanic, or assimilated later. R1a Z284 was probably Proto-Germanic. But only this?
Click to expand...

Maybe you could define what you mean by proto-Germanic. German has more non-IE words than any other European language (except for Basque, obviously), and German seems to have taken form later than other IE languages in Europe, so the IE pastoralists possibly conquered Germany later than many other parts of Europe. And Germans have a real mixture of Y haplotypes -you could almost say that Germans re the mongrels of Europe, although on a national level R1b is huge, and I1 and R1a are about equal in being a distant second. If you look at the regions, R1b is strongest in the south and I1 and R1a are stronger in the north and east, although still lagging behind R1b. What interpretation do you put on those facts?
 
Which facts? There is no any single country in Europe where I1 is in majority.

Even in Scandinavian countries R1 (combined R1a and R1b) is more numerous than I1.

The highest number of I - but in this case mostly I2, not I1 - is in the Balkans.

Obviously I (both I2 and I1) belongs to pre-Indo-European folks of Europe. But so do few other haplogroups.

In general there is scarcity of data on prehistoric Y-DNA, very small samples. There is more data on mtDNA but it is harder to interpret.

I compiled data on ancient Y-DNA from two websites (Eupedia and Ancestral Journeys), and it still looks quite miserable:

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/adnaintro.shtml

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/ancient_european_dna.shtml

a_DNA_Samples.png


As you can see scarcity of data can lead to wrong conclusions.

For example we know that I haplogroup did not disappear from Europe after the Bronze Age, even though this chart suggests this.

I wonder what was that F* from the Neolithic period - ancestor of which haplogroup or haplogroups?

F is ancestral to G, H, I, J, K (any of these could split from those Neolithic F*s, right?). K is ancestral to R1, but also to several other HGs.

=====================================

Obviously apart from I haplogroup, also for example G haplogroup in Europe is pre-Indo-European:

Haplogroup_G2a.gif


I don't see anything contradictory in supposing that I1 could have been one of the markers present in the early Proto-Germanic peoples.
Click to expand...

Early Proto-Germanic peoples did not live in Scandinavia, but migrated to Scandinavia.

Scholars argue whether we can talk about Germanic language before migration to Scandinavia, or did it emerge in Scandinavia.

Anyway - Germanic is clearly an Indo-European language, despite its large number of loanwords from pre-Indo-European substrate. Vocabulary is not everything - for example English is counted as a Germanic language, even though it has a lot of words from Latin, French and other languages.

So people who brought Indo-European ancestral language of Germanic to Europe (including Scandinavia), were not of I1 haplogroup.

I1 belonged to pre-Indo-European communities of - mostly - hunter-gatherers. So did I2.

German has more non-IE words than any other European language (except for Basque, obviously)
Click to expand...

I am sure that Hungarian, Estonian, Finnish, Turkish and several other Non-IE languages of Europe also have more Non-IE words. ;)

you could almost say that Germans are the mongrels of Europe
Click to expand...

Yes they are but isn't this due to their historically warlike attitude and assimilation of a lot of Non-Germans?

BTW - when I wrote about Germanic I wrote about all Germanic-speakers, not just Germans.

Of course I1 haplogroup is most numerous in Scandinavia, not in actual Deutschland.
 
Tomenable said:
I wonder what was that F* from the Neolithic period - ancestor of which haplogroup or haplogroups?

F is ancestral to G, H, I, J, K (any of these could split from those Neolithic F*s, right?). K is ancestral to R1, but also to several other HGs.
Click to expand...

It doesn't make any sense to suggest that the F* in Neolithic Europe was a direct ancestor to G, H, I, J, or K. Is that what you mean? All of these haplogroups are older than the Neolithic. How could a carrier of F* in the Neolithic be their ancestor?

My best guess for what the Neolithic F*'s actually carried is H2-P96, a nowadays uncommon haplogroup split between Europe and West Asia. There are plenty of other possibilities, though, of course.

Tomenable said:
Early Proto-Germanic peoples did not live in Scandinavia, but migrated to Scandinavia.
Click to expand...

Possibly. But I1 seems to have done that as well.

Tomenable said:
So people who brought Indo-European ancestral language of Germanic to Europe (including Scandinavia), were not of I1 haplogroup.

I1 belonged to pre-Indo-European communities of - mostly - hunter-gatherers. So did I2.
Click to expand...

Your conclusion doesn't follow. What's wrong with this chronological order?:
1. Early Indo-Europeans move into Europe (R1, etc. carriers)
2. Early Indo-Europeans absorb some I1 and I2 carriers into their population
3. Proto-Germanic forms from this Indo-European-speaking mixed group

It's like you're identifying the earliest Indo-European speakers in Europe with Proto-Germanic peoples. That's pushing Proto-Germanic back in time further than I think most would.
 
I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make, Tomenable. Yes, Uralic and Turkish languages - I'll admit to a western European bias in not bothering to discuss them in the German context, but they didn't contribute to the creation of German, as far as I can tell. And the Uralic languages seem to have moved west from Russia after IE languages arrived in Europe, and Turkish certainly did. My point was that German consists of of mixture of pre-Indo-European words (possibly contributed by I1 folk, although there's no way to know that) and Indo-European speakers who had already been in Europe for quite a while before German emerged. So it makes no sense to talk about proto-German IE invaders, if that's what you were trying to talk about, since German developed fairly late in situ from a fusion of two language groups that were already present in Europe. And if you're talking about proto-Germans in the genetic sense, Germany is a genetic salad, as I said, and quite different from Scandinavia in some respects, so if you want to talk about proto-Germans it does matter whether the Germanic languages developed in Germany or Scandinavia. And I don't think that's clear. So, since the German language was a late bloomer, and since it probably developed in one of two different parts of Europe that have somewhat different genetic profiles, I really think the term "proto-German" is not something you can apply to any of the incoming Indo-Europeans.

I probably shouldn't have bothered with this post. Sparkey covered the subject well with his comments.
 
Ok, Sparkey and Aberdeen, your explanations are quite convincing. ;)

When it comes to Slavic haplogroups, here I wrote about my thoughts on what HGs Slavs could have during the LCS period:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...ginally-Slavic?p=439251&viewfull=1#post439251

We notice, that:

1) R1a-Z280 is common for all Slavs & Balts
2) I2a1b is common or quite common for all Slavs
3) M458 is common or quite common for all Slavs
4) L260 is only common for West Slavs
4) Z92 is only common for East Slavs
5) N1c1 is very common only for Balts

Z92 originated from Z280 while L260 originated from M458.

It seems that Z280 existed already among Balto-Slavs, yet before they split into Slavs and Balts.

M458 and I2a1b in my opinion also existed already among LCS people*, but most likely not only among them.

*LCS = Late Common Slavic, speakers of Slavic shortly before the great Slavic migrations and expansion.
Click to expand...

Do you think it is possible that Balto-Slavs or Early Slavs / LCS speakers had also some I1?

How to explain almost equal distribution of I1 among Croats, West Ukrainians, Belarusians and Lithuanians (4,5 - 5,6 % each)?

On the other hand Russians and Poles each have few percent more of I1 than the four groups mentioned above.
 
Maybe I1* came from the Balkans(Late Paleolithic) and spread northward to Scandinavia during the Mesolithic(or later) when it became inhabitable. After all, there is still a lot of similarities between Nordids and Dinarids physically.
 
Hello,
My mother's brother is I1-L22, P109-, Z75- with no matches at 67 STRs (closest match on ySearch is at GD of 14). Any thoughts on this? He is Pomak from Bulgaria.
 
I did the Big Y at ftdna. My subclade is I1-Z63+ (Z63+, BY151+, L849+, S2078+ PR683-, V68-, Y6375-) Closest match at zero SNP difference is only one male, a Dutchman. It is I-S2077* at yfull. I-S2077 * FGC9504/Y4102 age: 3397 ybp
 
Trifud said:
Hello,
My mother's brother is I1-L22, P109-, Z75- with no matches at 67 STRs (closest match on ySearch is at GD of 14). Any thoughts on this? He is Pomak from Bulgaria.
Click to expand...

Could be from the Goths in Bulgaria?
 
Bosnian with I1 results from NatGeo geno 2.0
We're there man, kind of endangered in the Balkans but we're there.
I should've emigrated to Sweden instead of the US, better living standard there anyway.
 
I am a Serb with I1-M227 result. I found on the Internet that M227 could have been spread by Varangians. Does anyone know something about Varangians in the Balkans, specifically in the medieval Serbia. When did they could get here?

Some also say that we could be from Goths or Herules. Which theory is more likely?

I know that M227 has three subgroups - A11380, Y19809 and Y7213. Are there some information about them, because I couldn't find anything.


Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
 
I know a guy from the UK he is English Irish Scottish and Welsh he has J2 so it's possible that a Serb could be I1 his Mt is still H1 lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 61029 times.

Back
Top