How did I2a-Din get to the Balkans?

[Tomenable]

We were thankful for their help so we declared war on Japan in 1905. It officially lasted until 2006

That's interesting.

Never occupied by the Ottomans (thanks to caves) and fighting against a much stronger enemy for over 100 years.

Great achievements. :wink:

 

[clintCG]

That's interesting. Never occupied by the Ottomans (thanks to caves) and fighting against a much stronger enemy for over 100 years.

Great achievements. :wink:

It is because of solidarity with Russia, FFS. I was just telling you which countries helped us. And you claimed that Poles-Lithuanians helped. Please...

And about our "hiding in caves" read my previous post.

 

[Tomenable]

Nortvedt is of Scandinavian origin.
So I do not know how reliable is what he says about I2-din.

I do not get your point here.

He is of Scandinavian origin yet he claims that I2a-Din is Slavic. So he is not biased, but rather objective.

What nationalistic or other interest does he have in claiming that I2a-Din is Slavic ???

Would be really nice that I2-din is of Gothic origin

What exactly would be nice about it ??? And why it isn't nice if I2a-Din is of Slavic origin ???

esides,if you read that book about Goths,Gothica,written by Jordanes is told that Goths came from Sweden,

Jordanes wrote that they came under King Berig in three boats. Do you know how many people can travel in three boats ???

Maybe 90 people (counting 30 per boat). And this is the legendary part of his work, by the way. Ask any historian.

 

[Tomenable]

chair: stolica on croatian, stol on swedish.

And stolek in Polish. So what ???

 

[Tomenable]

Y-DNA haplogroups of Bulgarians (Eupedia + Underhill for R1a):

E1b1b - 23,5%
I2a - 20%
R1a - 17% (according to Underhill 17,6%, including 16,4% of Z280 and M458 combined - but Z280 more numerous)
R1b - 11%
J2 - 11%
G - 5%
I1 - 4%
J1 - 3%
I2b - 2%
T - 1,5%
Q - 0,5%
N - 0,5%
others - 1%

If we assume that all of Z280 & M458 + all of I2a is Slavic while nothing is Slavic from other haplogroups, then Bulgarians are still just 36% Slavic.

Montenegrin Y-DNA haplogroups (data from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20091845):

I2a ----- 29.68%
E1b1b -- 26.98%
R1b ----- 9.41%
R1a ----- 7.67% (another source says 9.4%)
I1 ------- 6.19%
J2a ----- 4.70%
J2b ----- 4.46%
G2a ----- 2.48%
Q1b ----- 1.98%
I2b ----- 1.73%
H ------- 1.49%
N ------- 1.49%
L ------- 1.24%
J1 ------ 0.50%

In the end it seems that you are similar genetically to Bulgarians. Also a "mixed genetic salad".

 

[Tomenable]

BTW - haplogroup E1b1b was found in Slavic graves from the island of Usedom / Uznam (together with R1a M458).

So it is possible that some of E1b1b also came to the Balkans with the Slavs.

 

[gyms]

Bernie Cullen:

"Some of you may have heard about the Estonian Biocentre's release of 307 Y
chromosome sequences (mentioned by Dienekes here):
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2015/02/estonian-biocentre-high-coverage-y.html

13 of the samples are listed as haplogroup I: 5 belong to I1, 1 from the
country of Georgia belongs to "I3", and 7 belong to I2a. All of these I2a
samples are I-CTS10228 "Dinaric".

The I-P37 project compared these Dinaric sequences to Big Y results and is
in the process of comparing them to the sequences in the Hallast study. See
more details below, and also see
http://i2aproject.blogspot.com/2015/03/i-cts10228-dinaric-samples-in-estonian.html

Bernie

Estonian Biocentre samples #18357 & 18359 from Belarus have
CTS10228>Y4460>Y3118>Y5598>CTS5779
Two Big Ys in the I2a Project have this result, and when we compared these
four I-CTS5779 sequences, we found no shared SNPs below CTS5779.

Samples #18429 from Bosnia and #20364 from Herzegovina have
CTS10228>S17250*. They share some novel variants with each other that were
not tested in Big Ys. There are several Big Y results in this I-S17250*
group, but we found no shared SNPs below S17250.

Sample #18440 from Russia (Chuvash) has a I-CTS10228* result. There are
only two known I-CTS10228* people in the I-P37 project, one is from Poland
and the other belongs to the "Jewish Dinaric cluster". Sample 18440 shares
two novel variants with the person in the Jewish Dinaric cluster. The
positions (Chr Y: 13203040 and 9853064) are close to the centromere and it
may be difficult to design primers to test these SNPs individually. We have
asked a related Jewish Dinaric cluster member to test 13203040 at YSeq.net

Sample #21452 from Russia (Vepsas ethnic group, from north of St.
Petersburg) has CTS10228>Y4460* (ie. Y3118- S8201-). A Big Y result
(ancestry Riga, 1600s) shares two positions with 21452: 21835651 and
22669350. Another shared NV is at 22271330, but it is inside the 125bp
repeat region.

Sample #21481 from Lithuania has CTS10228>Y4460>Y3118* (ie. Y559
result. There are three Big Y results in I-Y3118* but we found no
additional shared novel variants."

"Sample #18440 from Russia (Chuvash) has a I-CTS10228* result."!!!

 

[clintCG]

In the end it seems that you are similar genetically to Bulgarians. Also a "mixed genetic salad".

Research by iGenea did not target only ethnic Montenegrins in Podgorica (city in eastern part) hospital, but also at least quarter was composed of national minorities like Muslim Bosniaks, Albanians, Roma, etc. in other words a totally random pick in one multicultural city. And what did you expect?

I prefer to use results by surnames and clans. Some of them can be found on Serbian DNA project: http://poreklo.rs/srpski-dnk-projekat/naslovna/
By using those results we can see that there are only three clans in eastern part of country that carry E1b (and among them there are exepctions also).

Rest of country is I2a (over 50 percent). There are some exceptions of course: I1 P109 in Drobnjak clan on northwest, R1b in few smaller families, R1a in Zeta plain taken from autochtone population (Slavic population, which lived there before these three E1b clans of Albanian origin came).
Montenegrins (especially western) are same people with Herzegovians (both "Serbian" and "Croatian ones"), and share similar genetic constitution (except few easternmost clans of Albanian origin).

We could have continued discussion without your nationalistic insults. But OK, whatever floats your boat...

 

[mihaitzateo]

I have seen a study from Neamt county from Romania,which is a very mountainous area,an area that had a lot of forests in the past and now still has lots of forest.
People there had more than 40% I2-din.
How you explain this,since as you move in the plains of Moldavia,for example in Bessarabia,people have higher R1A,for example in Bessarabia R1A is about 30% and are clearly more light haired.The percent of I2-din also decreases,being 25% or so.
ClintCG explanation,with people that were I2-din before the Slavic expansion from 600 AD and moved to mountains,to escape Asian invaders,like Huns and so on,makes a lot of sense.I doubt I2-din was from Germanic people,I rather think it is from Dacian people,but that is another discussion.
Sadly,at the moment,except that study from Neamt county from Romania,there are no other studies about the paternal haplogroups of Romanian people living in the mountains.
I know it was a study made in Croatia and as you were moving South in Croatia,I2-din percentage was raising and R1A percentage was dropping.

 

[gyms]

mihaitzateo:"I doubt I2-din was from Germanic people,I rather think it is from Dacian people,but that is another discussion."

Please show me some Dacian haplogroups.

Sample #18440 from Russia (Chuvash) has a I-CTS10228* result.

Sample #21452 from Russia (Vepsas ethnic group, from north of St.
Petersburg) has CTS10228>Y4460* (ie. Y3118- S8201-).

Estonian Biocentre samples #18357 & 18359 from Belarus have
CTS10228>Y4460>Y3118>Y5598>CTS5779
Two Big Ys in the I2a Project have this result, and when we compared these
four I-CTS5779 sequences, we found no shared SNPs below CTS5779.

The YFull tree now has dates if you click on the tree. For each nodes you get the number of SNPs with a pop)up showing these SNPs and 2 dates : "formed" and TMRCA.
Here is a link to the IJ, I, I1 and I2 simple tree : http://www.yfull.com/tree/IJ/ and a more detailed I2 tree (with dates) is at http://www.yfull.com/tree/I2/

One first comment. It's a little unclear for me why there is no proportionality between the number of SNP at a node and the time interval from "formed" to TMRCA. If anyone on this list has the beginning of an answer I am interested.

According to this timing , one reading is as follows : IJ entered Europe by the East and very first modern humans (east of Europe, still in contact with Turkey -remember that it was possible to cross by land at that time) are dated from 46500 to 43000. So, by 43000 bp IJ is evolving "in situ" to I by isolation from the parental group as they get deeper into Europe. Very first proto-aurignacians are dated from -41000. So there is a little gap but I think it's close enough when considering error bars.
I is dated from 43000 to 27500 which is interesting because 28000 is the commonly accepted date for the aurignacian / gravetian limit. So, roughly, this tree on a chrnological basis is finding a good fit between I haplogroup and the Aurignacian culture. Now, while I1 is difficult to fit with any known timing I2 might fit with the Gravetian culture dates.
Is it possible that Aurignacian and Gravetian are in such a ontinuity ? I leave it open for discussion.

Didier Vernade

 

[mihaitzateo]

Gyms,from what I know are two branches of I2-din,I2-din South and I2-din North.
I guess this thread is about I2-dinaric,both branches.
But this thread suppose that I2 din should have came from somewhere in Balkans.
However,I think highest diversity of I2-din is found somewhere in Romanian Carpathians so this would rather support the idea that the I2-din mutation appeared here .
So the right question would be,from where I2 got in Carpathians and Balkans,not I2-din.
I do not know what kind of I2-din was found in Belarus or in Russia,but is very possible that I2-din spread from Balkans and Carpathians Eastwards and Northwards till Belarus and Russia.
Austria have significant I2-din,Hungary have significant I2-din ,etc.
EDIT:
very interesting information found on Igenea:
http://www.igenea.com/en/forum/d/haplogroup-i2i2a1-i2a2/721
They are saying,most I2-din from Bulgaria and Greece is I2-din North,same with most I2-din from Poland and Ukraine,while most I2-din from ex-Yugo,is I2-din South.
EDIT2:
@ClintCG:
What you have quoted from that physical resemblances,is extremely interesting.
I have found some guy on inet that was presenting about Serbs and he was saying that Serbs moved to Balkans from today land of Saxony,in South Germany.

 

[gyms]

http://www.yfull.com/tree/IJ/


http://www.yfull.com/tree/I2/

Igmayka on Anthrogenica wrote:

Geno 2.0 results have identified two SNPs that split Dinaric, and three more that define it. All five are now available for order from FTDNA.

CTS10228 and CTS5966 were ancestral in one south-central Polish Dinaric, but derived in about seven other Dinarics across Central-Eastern Europe.

CTS10936, CTS11768, and CTS4002 were derived in all eight Dinarics, but ancestral in the nearest related clade (Disles).

 

[Tomenable]

I2a-Din is found among 25,6% - 26,0% of inhabitants of the region of Polesie, according to Kushnierevich 2013:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29632-Poland-more-Germanic-or-Slavic/page3

2. Good indicator to show differences between Polish and Ukrainian/Belorussian populations is to check frequencies of subclades of haplogroup I and combined with frequency of haplgroup R1a. (various studies, reference points marked in yellow on map)

Belarus:		I1/I2a1/I2a2	R1a		sample size
South West	9.8/17.2/0	46.7		122			(Klyosov 2013)
West Polesia	8.3/25.6/0	44.6		121			(Kushnierevich 2013)
East Polesia	4.2/26/0	42.7		96			(Kushnierevich 2013)
Average		7.4/22.9/0	44.7		339
Ukraine:
Lviv		4.6/20.8/2.6	44.8		154			(Mielnik-Sikorska 2012 predicted by http://predictor.ydna.ru/)
Poland:
Zamość		4/14.1/0	56.6		99			(Battaglia 2009)
Białystkok		3.2/17.2/2.2	53.8		186			(Pepinski 2004 predicted by http://predictor.ydna.ru/)
Mazovia		5.1/12.9/2.4	56.5		255			(Stoltyszewski 2006 predicted by http://predictor.ydna.ru/)
Kurpie		7/8.2/1.9	61.4		158			(Rębała 2012)
Bydgoszcz	6.1/7.6/0.8	57.6		132			(Wozniak 2010 predicted by http://predictor.ydna.ru/)
Northern Poland	7.3/10.9/1.8	55		507			( Pawłowski 2003 predicted by http://predictor.ydna.ru/)
Kociewie		8.2/5.7/1.9	57.6		158			( Rębała 2012)
Gdańsk		6.7/10.1/1.9	57.7		208			( Rębała 2005 predicted by http://predictor.ydna.ru/)
Kashubia		13.7/2.9/1.5	62.3		204			( Rębała 2012)
Polish cost	10.3/5.1/1.3	59		78			( Wozniak 2010 predicted by http://predictor.ydna.ru/)
Average		7.2/9.5/1.6	57.8		1985
Sorbs:		9.8/3.3/1.6	65		123			( Rębała 2012)
Slovakia:
Bratislava		5.5/15/1.8	45.1		164			(Rębała 2012)
Czech Republic:
Average		5.1/8.6/2.7	34.2		257			( Luca 2006)

And according to one of users from our forum - Sile - the region of Polesie is the original homeland of Slavs:

As recently stated by historians and archeologists.............the slavs originate from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polesia

Slav origins

This seems to confirm that I2a-Din expanded to the Balkans and elsewhere from Polesie, together with Slavs.

 

[clintCG]

OK, but where did all R1a go in Dinaric area? Why is there only 5-6 percent R1a in Herzegovina, and 70 percent of I2a Din? There must exist more logical explanation other than "pure coincidence".
I am not familiar with claims that it is homeland of Slavs, but it might be true. However, we don't find most of diversity there (as we should find in homeland of I2a Din). We find most diversity in Poland somewhere around course of Vistula.
Also several peoples were present on same area (both Slavic and Germanic tribes)

And about comparing skulls from "Gothic" and Medieval Slavic cultures: some of so called "Gothic cultures" were inhabited by Slavs for a great period of time. Wielbark culture existed untill end of 4th century: and by that time most of Goths already made it to the Balkans and Ukraine.

 

[Tomenable]

I am not familiar with claims that it is homeland of Slavs

Here more about this theory:

THE Slavs form with the Balts (the Letts, Lithuanians, Prussians) the Balto­Slavonic group of the Indo-European family. Their languages have much in common with German on the one hand and with Iranian on the other. The differentiation of Balto-Slavonic into Old Baltic and Old Slavonic, and then of Old Slavonic into the separate Slavonic languages was caused partly by the isolation of the various tribes from one another, and partly by mutual assimilation and the influence of related dialects and unrelated languages. Thus it is not a matter of genealogy only, but is partly due to historical and political developments.
Until lately the place where the Old Balto-Slavonic branched off from the other Indo-European languages and the place of origin of the Slavs were matters of dispute. But in 1908 the Polish botanist Rostafinski put forward from botanical geography evidence from which we can fix the original home of the Balto-Slavs (and consequently that of the Germans too, for the Balts could only have originated in immediate proximity to the Germans). The Balto-Slavs have no expressions for beech (fagus sylvatica), larch (larix europaea), and yew (taxus baccata), but they have a word for hornbeam (carpinus betulus). Therefore their original home must have been within the hornbeam zone but outside of the three other tree-zones, that is within the basin of the middle Dnieper. Hence Polesie — the marshland traversed by the Pripet, but not south or east of Kiev—must be the original home of the Slavs. The North Europeans (ancestors of the Kelts, Germans, and Balto­Slavs) originally had names for beech and yew, and therefore lived north of the Carpathians and west of a line between Konigsberg and Odessa. The ancestors of the Balto-Slays crossed the beech and yew zone and made their way into Polesie; they then lost the word for beech, while they transferred the word for yew to the sallow (Slav. iva, salix caprea) and the black alder (Lithuan. yëva, rhamnus frangula), both of which have red wood. It is not likely that the tree-zones have greatly shifted since, say, B.C. 2000. For while the zones of the beech and yew extend fairly straight from the Baltic to the Black Sea, the boundary of the hornbeam forms an extended curve embracing Polesie. The reason for this curve is the temperate climate of Polesie which results from the enormous marshes and is favourable to the hornbeam, which cannot withstand great fluctuations of temperature. And this curve must have been there before the rise of the Old Balto-Slavonic language, otherwise the Balto-Slavs living without the limit of the beech and yew could not have possessed a word for the hornbeam. According to a tradition the Goths in their migration from the Vistula to the Pontus about the end of the second century A.D. came to a bottomless marshland, obviously on the upper Niemen and Pripet, where many of them perished. At that time the impassable morasses of Polesie had already existed for centuries, though their enormous depths may first have become marshland in historic times owing to the activity of the beaver—which raises dams of wood in order to maintain a uniform water level; and, as floating leaves and other remains of plants stuck in the dams, a gradually thickening layer of peat was formed from them and the land became continually more marshy. It follows that though the curve of the hornbeam boundary may have been a little smaller in prehistoric times than it is now, it cannot have been greater, and there can be no objection to the argument from the four tree-boundaries.

 

[mihaitzateo]

Romania has highest percentage of I2-din North,Bosnia,Serbia highest percentage of I2-din South.
Poland,Ukraine have also significant I2-din North.
How can this be explained?
Maybe I2-din South was not brought by Slavic migration from around 600 AD,since is very sparse in Ukraine,Poland.
Would be nice to have some maps with I2-din South and I2-din North,maybe those will make things clearer.

 

[Tomenable]

Romanians have a significant Slavic admixture, even though they've often tended to deny this for political, nationalistic and racist purposes.

Here something about this - how Romanian history was being politicized and influenced by various ideologies:

From "History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness":

http://books.openedition.org/ceup/934

(...) The Slavs, as is well known, had a significant influence on the Romanian language, as well as on early Romanian institutions and culture. In fact the appreciation of their role has also swung between extremes, according to the changing ideological and political conjuncture. In the Latinist phase, and in nineteenth-century historiography in general until quite late on, the Slav factor was eliminated or drastically minimized. The tendency is easily explained in the context of the process of modernization of Romanian society and the desperate attempt (with partial and temporary success) to escape from the Slav space of the continent. It is worth noting that up to B. P. Hasdeu, modern Romanian historians did not even know Slavonic or the various Slav languages, a paradoxical situation given the Slavonic packaging of medieval Romanian culture. Hasdeu himself, who was educated in a Slav environment and who could be considered the first Romanian Slavicist, did not prove to be an upholder of Slav influence. While he sought to moderate Latinism by recourse to the Dacian substratum, where the Slavs were concerned he strove to limit their impact on the Romanian synthesis. Hasdeu considered that the Romanian people had been fully formed when it entered into relations with the Slavs. Slav words had come into the Romanian language not by ethnic contact but through political, religious, and cultural links over some seven centuries, up to the time of Matei Basarab and Vasile Lupu. The reaction towards rehabilitating the Slavs and Slavonic culture in Romanian history came from the Junimists of the late nineteenth century as a reply to Latinism and, in a sense, as an exercise in rising above national complexes. I have already mentioned Panu’s suggestions in this direction. What caused a sensation, however, was the Etymological Dictionary (1870-1879) of Alexandru Cihac, a close associate of Junimea. The etymologies established by Cihac led to the unexpected conclusion that the lexical base of the Romanian language was more Slav (and of other origins) than Latin: two-fifths Slav elements, one-fifth Turkish, and likewise one-fifth Latin. Romanian became a mixed language in which Turkisms and words of Latin origin had about the same weight. The almost simultaneous publication of the dictionaries of Laurian and Cihac illustrates the extremes between which the interpretation of the Romanian language, and of origins and influences in general, was evolving (with the necessary observation that Cihac’s work is appreciated by specialists as being far superior to Laurian’s linguistic fantasies). This etymological Gordian knot was cut by Hasdeu with his seductive theory of the circulation of words. The structure of a language—Hasdeu shows—is not given by the mere number of words but by their circulation. Some words are almost forgotten, preserved only in dictionaries, while others are in constant use. Their value is thus very different. “It is true that Slavisms and even Turkisms exist in no small numbers among the Romanians; in circulation, however—that is, in the most vital activity of Romanian speech, in its most organic movement—they lose out almost completely in comparison with Latinisms.” It is possible to formulate complete sentences only with words of Latin origin, but no sentence is possible using exclusively words of other origins. Hasdeu’s demonstration turned the relationship round again, away from the emphasis on Slav influence. The Slav factor, however, was forcefully highlighted by Ioan Bogdan. For him, the Slavs became a constituent element of the Romanian synthesis: “The influence of the Slav element in the formation of our nation is so evident that we may say without exaggeration that we cannot even speak of a Romanian people before the absorption of Slav elements by the native Roman population in the course of the sixth to tenth centuries." In the Romanian language there are “an enormous number of Slav elements”, adopted either directly, through cohabitation, or through political and literary contacts. The Slavonic language was used in the church and the state, and even in “the day-to-day business of the Romanians” until the sixteenth or seventeenth century; and in the life of the state “almost all our old institutions are either of Slav origin or contain, alongside a few elements inherited from the Romans, a greater number of Slav elements”. Romanian-Bulgarian relations in particular are treated by Ioan Bogdan in a manner which Romanian nationalism could not fail to find disagreeable. While we, the Romanians, “were departing more and more from Roman culture and becoming savage”, the Bulgarians, “who came like barbarians over us, took from their Byzantine neighbors, under the protective wings of an organized and powerful state, a civilization which was then advanced, that of Byzantium, which was none other than the continuation, in a Greek form with oriental influences, of the old Roman civilization”. For three centuries the Bulgarian tsardom ruled north of the Danube; this is the period in which many Slav elements of culture and political organization penetrated Romanian society. (...)

And here on how nationalistic and racist attitudes, which were changing over time, affected theories of Romanian archaeology:

[Note: Nestor mentioned in this text is not a Medieval Russian chronicler, but a 20th century Romanian archaeologist]:

http://s23.postimg.org/6a69edicr/Romania_Slavs.png

 

[mihaitzateo]

I think Slavs is just a gross forgery.
Why?
Simple,because Thracians and Dacians could not just vanish.
So we have so called "Slavs" which are actually Thracians that have various influences.
We have Ukrainians,Russians,Belarusians,which have strong North Germanic (Varangian) influences and are heavily mixed with Fino-Ugric people.
We have West Slavs which are from Thracians that suffered strong influences from West Germanic people.
We have South Slavs,which are Dacians,strongly influenced by East Germanic people.
We have Romanians,which are Thracians that suffered strong influences from Romance people.
I am talking about cultural influences.Not about language. Is clear that Bosnia,Serbia,Montenegro have a certain style,in their villages,in their towns,in how a house of a peasant looks and so on.
That Poles,Czechs,Slovaks have a different style,that Russians and Bellarusians and Ukrainians have again a different style.
Romanians are closed culturally to Slavs,but are not identical,they have various different things.

Now coming to language:
If Romanians had Romance speakers as ruling class,this is what gave Romanian language and part of the culture,the style of cities and so on.
As for Serbians,Montenegrins,Bosnians these people with their high percentage of I2-din South seems to be the remnants of the Dacians.
How the languages are so closed?
Is possible that Thracians influenced by Viking or East Germanic people expanded South,they were genetically a mix of populations,but they were speaking something closed to today Slavic language.
A clear thing is that Slavs are not attested before 600 AD.
Baltic people are closed to Slavs,as language but culturally,they have things that Slavs do not have.
It is also possible that Baltic people conquered Thracians and that this is how Slavic people as an ethnicity appeared.
Anyway,the language I think have few in common with paternal lines,to impose a language to a conquered people,is enough to have the ruling class speaking that language.
It is very possible that R1A bearers brought Slavic language to South Slavs,they were just the ruling elite.

As for what Tormenable is saying,about skull measurements from Croatia being identical to those form Poland,that is just a myth.
Poland and Croatia have different phenotypes,not only one phenotype.
It is not possible to have a Baltid from Poland have same skull measurements with a Dinarid from Croatia.
How can you say Tormenable that Croatians and Poles are same race,when most Poles are Baltids as phenotypes while most Croats are Dinarids?
Come on,be serious.


As for common language,or closed languages,would anyone tell that people from South America are same race with Spaniards,or would call them Spaniards,because they are speaking Spanish?
No,is just that the conquerors were Spaniards,which imposed the language there.
See,how easy a language can be imposed to a conquered population?

 

[Sile]

I think Slavs is just a gross forgery.
Why?
Simple,because Thracians and Dacians could not just vanish.
So we have so called "Slavs" which are actually Thracians that have various influences.

Slavic is a cultural and liguistic terminology af various peoples from southern belarus and northern Ukraine, they have no ethnicity .............they emerged AFTER the end of the Roman empire, which is why I2a-Din cannot be slavic , because its older than slavic.
All these "slavs" did in the past was to take in any peoples that needed a refuge in the heavy forested area which I mentioned above.

Using the term Slavic is detrimental for finding out true genetic origins of markers

Slavic is exactly like the term Celtic .............neither have ethnicity.............I am still unsure about the term Germanic

 

[mihaitzateo]

Slavic is a cultural and liguistic terminology af various peoples from southern belarus and northern Ukraine, they have no ethnicity .............they emerged AFTER the end of the Roman empire, which is why I2a-Din cannot be slavic , because its older than slavic.
All these "slavs" did in the past was to take in any peoples that needed a refuge in the heavy forested area which I mentioned above.

Using the term Slavic is detrimental for finding out true genetic origins of markers

Slavic is exactly like the term Celtic .............neither have ethnicity.............I am still unsure about the term Germanic

Would be nice to know a little more about the history of the people speaking proto-Slavic (from what I understand was same language with Old Church Slavonic),or what was called,that moved South of Europe,around 600 AD.
I was saying that culturally there are South Slavs,Eastern Slavs and Western Slavs,which are quite different.
What I have seen,at cities from Serbia or Croatia,these rather reminds of cities from Italy,than those from Russia.
Cities from Czech and Slovak republics,rather reminds of Germans burgs.
And I think between Western Slavs,Czech and Slovaks are quite different from a cultural point of view,compared to Poles.