PDA

View Full Version : I2a-Din came to the Balkans and Dinaric Alps with the Thracians, Dacians & Illyrians



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6

Maciamo
04-09-13, 15:05
I have given more thought about the origin of I2a-Din (L621>L147.2) and came to the following conclusion.

During the Mesolithic the I2a1 (P37.2) hunter-gatherers must have occupied a vast part of western, central and eastern Europe. Central and western European I2a1 lineages only survive at low frequencies in three newly identified subclades: L1286, L1294 and L880. The south-western M26 branch was absorbed by Neolithic farmers of the Cardium Pottery culture, whose descendants are found mostly in modern Sardinians and Basques.

The eastern branch, I2a1b (M423) were hunter-gatherers from the Carpathian region and/or from further north (Poland, Belarus, western Ukraine). Those in the Carpathian basin would have mixed with Middle Eastern Neolithic farmers and founded the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture (4800-3000 BCE). The whole region from Romania to Poland would then have been absorbed by the Proto-Indo-European Corded Ware culture (2900-2400 BCE).

After being Indo-Europeanized, I2a-L621 would have become the dominant paternal lineage among southern Slavs, while R1a remained dominant among northern Slavs.

The presence of I2a-L621 in Romania and Bulgaria could be attributed to the migration of the ancient Dacians and Thracians, who emerged as a mixture of of indigenous peoples (I2a1b) and Indo-Europeans (R1a) sometime between 3000 and 1500 BCE.

The Illyrians, an IE tribe who conquered the territory of former Yugoslavia circa 1200-1000 BCE, might have been an offshoot from the Dacians or the Thracians, or a closely related tribe from the Carpathian basin.

I used to think that I2a1b in the Dinaric Alps were the remnants of the original hunter-gatherers and that only the I2a1b outside the Dinaric Alps and Balkans were integrated to the Corded Ware culture and became Proto-Slavs, then Slavs. However there is so little difference between the Dinaric and other Eastern European I2a1b, all belonging to the same deep subclade (L621>CTS4002>...>L147.2) that they must all descend from a fairly recent ancestor and have expanded no earlier than 3000 to 1500 BCE.

Shetop
04-09-13, 21:45
I don't know if people here remember my opinion on this, but for this particular issue it is not even important.

First, I have a comment about a circumstance which should not be shallowly looked into.
Unfortunately, at this moment Romania is not sampled well enough. I only know about one research which has some data for Transylvania (the one mentioning Dracula :) ), and the sample was very small, 50 men from Cluj. 6 of them were I2a. Further, Hungary has less frequent I2a than Moldavia or Wallachia (or than Western Ukraine). So my conclusion is that I2a SHOULD NOT be linked to Carpathian basin, but to the regions on the outer side of the Carpathians. Where Carpathians as important natural factor should not be forgotten.

But existing or not existing link to Carpathian basin is less important than trying to find some firmer indication why I2a-L621 (as you call it) did not come even that early (I agree it "have expanded no earlier than 3000 to 1500 BCE", but you owe us explanation why not even later?).

And I think I have found something to think about. If your scenario is correct, then majority of these 3 haplogroups would have reached Sooutheast Europe in this order of appearance:
1. I2a-L621 (with Thracians etc...)
2. R1b-U152 (Celts)
3. R1a (Slavs)
Correct me if my assumption is wrong.

But we have a lucky circumstance that R1b-U152 is well explored haplogroup and your map here shows one striking pattern: http://www.eupedia.com/europe/maps_Y-DNA_haplogroups.shtml#R1b-S28
R1b-U152 drops in those exact regions where I2a-L621 and R1a increase. And then in addition to that, R1b-U152 has an area around Greece where it is recovering.

This R1b-U152 pattern makes me conclude that both I2a-L621 and R1a did come to Southeast Europe after R1b-U152, causing a large drop in frequency not just for R1b-U152 but also for other more frequent haplogroups. And if I2a-L621 did come after R1b-U152 then... should I write further? :smile:

sparkey
05-09-13, 03:43
This is actually one of the best counterpoints to the Slavic hypothesis of I2a-Din origins in the Balkans I've read. Shetop's challenge is also excellent.

One more challenge to it:

I2a-Din can be split into two haplotypes: "North" and "South." These are misnomers because "North," the older, has its highest frequency to the East (Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus, etc.) while "South" has its highest diversity to the West (Poland especially) and only its highest frequency in the Balkans. Considering that the greatest outlier I2a-Din (neither "North" nor "South") has been found in Poland, it's looking like the ancient migration was something like Poland > Ukraine > Poland > Balkans for the Balkans group. But this doesn't really match Poland > Romania > Balkans. So either something like a pooling point is throwing us off or we need to find something that better matches Poland > Ukraine > Poland > Balkans.

Fire Haired
05-09-13, 04:29
During the Mesolithic the I2a1 (P37.2) hunter-gatherers must have occupied a vast part of western, central and eastern Europe

How do we know this is true. All we know is that tow of its sons I2a1a M26 in western Europe and I2a1b M423 in eastern Europe became very popular in at least the Neolithic age i think over 10,000ybp.


Central and western European I2a1 lineages only survive at low frequencies in three newly identified subclades: L1286, L1294 and L880.

Can u please give their full names. I2a1c L1286, I2a1e 1294, I2a1d L880. It is easier to understand what exactley u are talking about when we can see how the haplogroups are connected. I2a1a M26 probably used to be very popular in western Europe. two out of 20 Y DNA samples from 5,000 year old southwestern France two had I2a1a M26(i think it was realsed as I2a1 but i put it through hg predictors all said M26 and i saw some articles not blogs say it was M26). Also two out of two 4,725 year old y DNA samples from Megalithic western France had I2a1a M26. There is no doubt before R1b1a2a1a L11 Germanic Italo Celtic invasions starting 5,000ybp I2a1a M26 was much more popular.

And it could have been the almost only Y DNA haplogroup of Mesolithic western Europeans.


The south-western M26 branch was absorbed by Neolithic farmers of the Cardium Pottery culture, whose descendants are found mostly in modern Sardinians and Basques.

So u are saying u think I2a1a M26 was in western Europe before farming so probably also over 10,000ybp. The reason why it is most popular in Sardine is because they never became Italic till Rome i am pretty sure. So they never got invaded in a major way by R1b L11 Germanic Italo Celts like the rest of western Europe was and maybe they had a founder effect like sparkey has said. Also with Basque even though they have over 80% Italo Celtic R1b P312 since they kept their native language it would make sense that is why they kept so much native I2a1a M26. Maybe Celts won early wars established R1b P312 in them then the native people made a comeback and I2a1a M26 raised a little but they still stayed mainly R1b P312.


After being Indo-Europeanized, I2a-L621 would have become the dominant paternal lineage among southern Slavs, while R1a remained dominant among northern Slavs.

When did slavic languages migrate to Yugoslavia Bulgaria area. Because ejust 2,000ybp those areas were Illyrain, Thracen, and Dacen not Slavic. So maybe the reason is slavic languages migrated there less than 2,000ybp and did not make a big genetic impact.


The presence of I2a-L621 in Romania and Bulgaria could be attributed to the migration of the ancient Dacians and Thracians, who emerged as a mixture of of indigenous peoples (I2a1b) and Indo-Europeans (R1a) sometime between 3000 and 1500 BCE.

What subclade of R1a would they have the Corded ware Balto Slavic R1a1a1b1 Z283. And according to what u say about R1b Indo European R1b L23 conquered that area of southeast Europe about 6,000 years ago. So maybe Thracens and Dacens are just random languages that formed and indo Europeans have been there for 6,000 years. There was never a migration from some other spot in Europe besides steppes u know 6,000-7,000ybp. I still think the I2a1b3 L621 was there before inddo European languages.


I used to think that I2a1b in the Dinaric Alps were the remnants of the original hunter-gatherers and that only the I2a1b outside the Dinaric Alps and Balkans were integrated to the Corded Ware culture and became Proto-Slavs, then Slavs. However there is so little difference between the Dinaric and other Eastern European I2a1b, all belonging to the same deep subclade (L621>CTS4002>...>L147.2) that they must all descend from a fairly recent ancestor and have expanded no earlier than 3000 to 1500 BCE.
I get what u are saying it is always good too look at the subclades. If u take out all R1a looking at Eupedia Y DNa tables. In Poland and other eastern Europe countries I2a1 P37.2 almost always is over 50%. I would guess almost all their I2a1 is I2a1b M423 so it may have been dominate in all of eastern Europe before Corded ware culture so over 5,000ybp. Maybe I2a1b M423 is alot older than age estimates. Or maybe the I2a1b M423 throughout eastern Europe is under the same deep subclades I2a1b3 L621 and I2a1b3a L147.2 is because they have mixed. i dont know.

Fire Haired
05-09-13, 04:34
Sheptop R1b U152 almost deifntley came to eastern Europe with Galatian's ( La Tene Gauls who migrated into east Europe and Anatolia) invasions from i think 400-200bc.
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-R1b-S28.gifhttp://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Hallstatt_La_Tene_map.gif

So it is really recent. I dont know about why it is 1-5% in Greece and southern tips of Yugoslavia and western tip of Anatolia. R1b U152/S28 it self was first spread in a major way by Urnfield culture. Then to Italy with italic languages and Villnoeaven culture and more in central and western Europe with Hallstat and La Tene Celtic cultures. click here (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?89535-R1b-L51-L11-Germanic-Italo-Celts-Rulers-and-conqueres-of-Bronze-Iron-age-west-Europe)

GloomyGonzales
05-09-13, 06:18
Sheptop R1b U152 almost deifntley came to eastern Europe with Galatian's ( La Tene Gauls who migrated into east Europe and Anatolia) invasions from i think 400-200bc.


It would be more reasonable to presume that R1b-U152 came in Eastern Europe with Romans but not Galatians. Galatians were real IE warriors that means they could not be R1b. Surely they were R1a.

Sile
05-09-13, 08:59
This is actually one of the best counterpoints to the Slavic hypothesis of I2a-Din origins in the Balkans I've read. Shetop's challenge is also excellent.

One more challenge to it:

I2a-Din can be split into two haplotypes: "North" and "South." These are misnomers because "North," the older, has its highest frequency to the East (Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus, etc.) while "South" has its highest diversity to the West (Poland especially) and only its highest frequency in the Balkans. Considering that the greatest outlier I2a-Din (neither "North" nor "South") has been found in Poland, it's looking like the ancient migration was something like Poland > Ukraine > Poland > Balkans for the Balkans group. But this doesn't really match Poland > Romania > Balkans. So either something like a pooling point is throwing us off or we need to find something that better matches Poland > Ukraine > Poland > Balkans.

What are the years in question. Clearly it is not "illyrian" even though they began on the Danube. it's as i stated before and what many net sites have, Britannica etc etc, the I2a-din is from Ukraine and Crimean areas and the only people that migrated from there to Moldavia and illyrian lands where the cimmerains in around 700BC.

As per historians, thracians and cimmerains are related.

The "Thraco-Cimmerian" complex seen from the perspective of the Urnfield and Hallstatt Period in southeastern Pannonia.


Carola Metzner-Nebelsick
The "Thraco-Cimmerian" complex, made up of mainly equestrian bronzes with East European roots, has traditionally been seen as a crucial component of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age transition in Central and Southeast Europe. The study is divided into an investigation of hoard finds [1000-750 B.C.], an analytical description of the Urnfield and Hallstatt Period [1300-500 B.C.] in Southeast Pannonia, and a typological analysis of the "Thraco-Cimmerian" complex with its importance for the transition between the Urnfield and Hallstatt Period. The illustrated catalogue includes the almost complete material from the cemeteries of Batina / Kiskoszeg, Dalj / Dálya, Pécs, and Erdut / Erdöd. As a main result, the widely held postulate of a single "Thraco-Cimmerian" invasion has yielded to a subtler, more complex picture. East-west contacts are now seen as part of a complexly interwoven relationship between very different cultural groups on both sides of the Carpathian Mountains. Here, a regionally and culturally differentiated integration and indigenous adaptation of eastern forms can be shown to span several generations within the context of cultural transformation.

and
http://www.academia.edu/1899497/Occupation_of_the_South_Pannonian_Soil_during_Anti quity_and_the_Migaration_Period_Sajkaska_revisited


there is so much about this on the net.

We clearly know this as well

http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/8238/v90x.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/109/v90x.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

Maciamo
05-09-13, 15:41
I don't know if people here remember my opinion on this, but for this particular issue it is not even important.

First, I have a comment about a circumstance which should not be shallowly looked into.
Unfortunately, at this moment Romania is not sampled well enough. I only know about one research which has some data for Transylvania (the one mentioning Dracula :) ), and the sample was very small, 50 men from Cluj. 6 of them were I2a. Further, Hungary has less frequent I2a than Moldavia or Wallachia (or than Western Ukraine). So my conclusion is that I2a SHOULD NOT be linked to Carpathian basin, but to the regions on the outer side of the Carpathians. Where Carpathians as important natural factor should not be forgotten.

You are right. I should have said the Carpathian region. I have corrected it.



But existing or not existing link to Carpathian basin is less important than trying to find some firmer indication why I2a-L621 (as you call it) did not come even that early (I agree it "have expanded no earlier than 3000 to 1500 BCE", but you owe us explanation why not even later?).

I was referring to the period when I2a-Din (L147.2) people merged with the Indo-European R1a to create the new ethnic groups I mentioned (Dacians, Thracians and Illyrians). Obviously I2-L147.2 also expanded geographically later on with the Slavic migrations.



And I think I have found something to think about. If your scenario is correct, then majority of these 3 haplogroups would have reached Sooutheast Europe in this order of appearance:
1. I2a-L621 (with Thracians etc...)
2. R1b-U152 (Celts)
3. R1a (Slavs)
Correct me if my assumption is wrong.

But we have a lucky circumstance that R1b-U152 is well explored haplogroup and your map here shows one striking pattern: http://www.eupedia.com/europe/maps_Y-DNA_haplogroups.shtml#R1b-S28
R1b-U152 drops in those exact regions where I2a-L621 and R1a increase. And then in addition to that, R1b-U152 has an area around Greece where it is recovering.

This R1b-U152 pattern makes me conclude that both I2a-L621 and R1a did come to Southeast Europe after R1b-U152, causing a large drop in frequency not just for R1b-U152 but also for other more frequent haplogroups. And if I2a-L621 did come after R1b-U152 then... should I write further? :smile:

Actually I believe that the Dacians, Thracians and Illyrians all carried R1a lineages too, although in smaller proportion than I2a-Din. The recent study on Serbia by Regueiro et al (http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/elsevier/high-levels-of-paleolithic-y-chromosome-lineages-characterize-serbia-6erSc1AyaP) showed that there was only 5.8% of R1a-M458 in Serbia against 14.6% of older R1a (which could be M417, S224 and/or Z283). In my opinion, the older R1a came principally with the Illyrians alongside I2a-Din.

As for R1b-U152, it is normal to find it in inverse proportions to I2a-L621 and R1a since it came with the Celtic migrations. I don't understand why you want I2a and R1a to have come after R1b-U152. It doesn't make any difference.

Maciamo
05-09-13, 15:55
This is actually one of the best counterpoints to the Slavic hypothesis of I2a-Din origins in the Balkans I've read. Shetop's challenge is also excellent.

One more challenge to it:

I2a-Din can be split into two haplotypes: "North" and "South." These are misnomers because "North," the older, has its highest frequency to the East (Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus, etc.) while "South" has its highest diversity to the West (Poland especially) and only its highest frequency in the Balkans. Considering that the greatest outlier I2a-Din (neither "North" nor "South") has been found in Poland, it's looking like the ancient migration was something like Poland > Ukraine > Poland > Balkans for the Balkans group. But this doesn't really match Poland > Romania > Balkans. So either something like a pooling point is throwing us off or we need to find something that better matches Poland > Ukraine > Poland > Balkans.

I am not saying that the Slavs didn't invade the Dinaric Alps and Balkans and bring more I2a-Din and R1a. They surely did, but the older Illyrian/Dacian/Thracian migration would have had something like 75% of I2a for 25% of R1a, while Slavic migrations would have had roughly the inverse proportion.

It would make sense if the southern cluster coincided with the Illyrian migrations, while the northern cluster was more Slavic. Of course there could be some overlap if both "clusters" already existed in the Late Neolithic. I believe that the higher diversity of the southern cluster should ultimately be in north-east Romania and Moldova. Unfortunately these are two seriously undersampled countries, so we may not have a clear picture of I2a-Din's genetic diversity yet.

Shetop
05-09-13, 17:24
There is no need to guess which is the other R1a (beside M458) in the Balkans, not just in Serbia. It is clearly R1a-Z280. And if it would have come with Illyrians as you suggest it would also be in inverse proportions with the Y-DNA Slavs contributed, as are in inverse proportions the other 5 haplogroups E-V13, R1b-ht35, J2, G2a and R1b-U152. And R1a-Z280 is not in that group of haplogroups but in the one with I2a and R1a-M458.

I have written about that several times. To use your language again, there are two groups which are in the inverse proportions in the Balkans and it is an important indicator. And it is not because I want those two groups to exist, but because it can be seen after brief analysis. It looks like I have to write it - all haplogroups which were in the Balkans before Slavs came, can be placed in one of those two groups. It is THE MARK left by the last big migration. Just look at the Gheg Albanians and Herzegovain Croats. It can be seen there. It is not 100% picture of the old and the new population but I think it is more than 80% of that picture.

I don't want I2a and R1a to have come after R1b-U152, it is the conclusion I have drawn. And if I2a (all of it) and R1a (all of it), which both belong to one of the two groups from above, came after R1b-U152, it means it could not have come neither with Thracians nor with Illyrians. The reason is simple - history says Celts moved to the region later than Illyrians and Thracians.

Garrick
06-09-13, 19:56
I have given more thought about the origin of I2a-Din (L621>L147.2) and came to the following conclusion.

During the Mesolithic the I2a1 (P37.2) hunter-gatherers must have occupied a vast part of western, central and eastern Europe. Central and western European I2a1 lineages only survive at low frequencies in three newly identified subclades: L1286, L1294 and L880. The south-western M26 branch was absorbed by Neolithic farmers of the Cardium Pottery culture, whose descendants are found mostly in modern Sardinians and Basques.

The eastern branch, I2a1b (M423) were hunter-gatherers from the Carpathian region and/or from further north (Poland, Belarus, western Ukraine). Those in the Carpathian basin would have mixed with Middle Eastern Neolithic farmers and founded the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture (4800-3000 BCE). The whole region from Romania to Poland would then have been absorbed by the Proto-Indo-European Corded Ware culture (2900-2400 BCE).

After being Indo-Europeanized, I2a-L621 would have become the dominant paternal lineage among southern Slavs, while R1a remained dominant among northern Slavs.

The presence of I2a-L621 in Romania and Bulgaria could be attributed to the migration of the ancient Dacians and Thracians, who emerged as a mixture of of indigenous peoples (I2a1b) and Indo-Europeans (R1a) sometime between 3000 and 1500 BCE.

The Illyrians, an IE tribe who conquered the territory of former Yugoslavia circa 1200-1000 BCE, might have been an offshoot from the Dacians or the Thracians, or a closely related tribe from the Carpathian basin.

I used to think that I2a1b in the Dinaric Alps were the remnants of the original hunter-gatherers and that only the I2a1b outside the Dinaric Alps and Balkans were integrated to the Corded Ware culture and became Proto-Slavs, then Slavs. However there is so little difference between the Dinaric and other Eastern European I2a1b, all belonging to the same deep subclade (L621>CTS4002>...>L147.2) that they must all descend from a fairly recent ancestor and have expanded no earlier than 3000 to 1500 BCE.

I think this is the proper way. Recent research in Serbia (Regueiro et al., 2012) show (what I assumed) that I2a2 in Serbia can be very old.

Regueiro et al. (2012) write (quote):

"Moreover, the age of I2a2-M423 chromosomes in Serbs based on accumulated Y-STR variation, is ~9000 years ago (Table 1)"

Shetop
06-09-13, 20:41
I think this is the proper way. Recent research in Serbia (Regueiro et al., 2012) show (what I assumed) that I2a2 in Serbia can be very old.

Regueiro et al. (2012) write (quote):

"Moreover, the age of I2a2-M423 chromosomes in Serbs based on accumulated Y-STR variation, is ~9000 years ago (Table 1)"

That research also says that calculation is "based on 15 loci". This is enough to take calculation as wrong.

There are plenty of other calculations made by reputable researchers with results that match each other, but are very different from that single one. I have no doubt who was more accurate.

Garrick
06-09-13, 21:22
That research also says that calculation is "based on 15 loci". This is enough to take calculation as wrong.

There are plenty of other calculations made by reputable researchers with results that match each other, but are very different from that single one. I have no doubt who was more accurate.

I know, and I've debated with Sparkley on another topic. What is important to note here that I2a2 is older in Balkans in comparison to the arrival of the Slavs. Thracians, Dacians and Illyrians were possible the bearers of this haplogroup (of course and some other haplogroups, for example Bird claims that the highest frequency of E1b1b (E-V13) were at Thracians and Dacians) but it is possible that I2a2 was before the advent of these tribes in the Balkans.

For me now it becomes interesting one questions, which haplogroup were belonged members of culture Lepenski Vir (Lepen Whirl), originated about 9,000 years ago (7,000 BC), reaching the peak between 5,300 BC and 4,800 BC, in eastern Serbia on the banks of the Danube. I started new thread about this interesting matter.

sparkey
06-09-13, 22:48
That research also says that calculation is "based on 15 loci". This is enough to take calculation as wrong.

There are plenty of other calculations made by reputable researchers with results that match each other, but are very different from that single one. I have no doubt who was more accurate.

More importantly, they use the Zhivotovsky method, which basically recommends taking a normal age estimate and multiplying it by about 3. Reverse the Zhivotovsky adjustment, and their estimate isn't too far away from others.

Eldritch
06-09-13, 22:59
I2a1b in Balkans is clearly of Slavic derivation and has nothing to do absolutely with indigenous Thraco Illyrians, which would have been mostly E-V13, J2 with probably a R1b elite.

Sile
06-09-13, 23:34
I2a1b in Balkans is clearly of Slavic derivation and has nothing to do absolutely with indigenous Thraco Illyrians, which would have been mostly E-V13, J2 with probably a R1b elite.

which slavic tribe, can you name it?

Eldritch
06-09-13, 23:35
which slavic tribe, can you name it?

Serbo-Croats from today Vistula area in Poland

Sile
06-09-13, 23:56
Serbo-Croats from today Vistula area in Poland

the Lugii tribe, is that who you mean?

Garrick
07-09-13, 00:10
More importantly, they use the Zhivotovsky method, which basically recommends taking a normal age estimate and multiplying it by about 3. Reverse the Zhivotovsky adjustment, and their estimate isn't too far away from others.

If American scientists tripled due to the method used, you indicate that I2a2 in the Balkans is about 3,000 years old, which is twice prior to the arrival of Slavs. And for R1a we agreed that is much older in Serbia and Balkans than the time of arrival of the Slavs.

Regueiro et al. claim that R1a in Serbia is Paleolithic, but if we can reduce for three times it is about 7,000-4,000 years old.

Authors write (quote):

"Three major episodes of gene flow have been described to explain the high R1a haplotype diversity in the Balkans: (1) re-colonization from the refugium in the Ukraine (early post-LGM, ~20–12 KYA) (Passarino et al., 2001; Semino et al., 2000); (2) migrations from the Pontic steppe associated with the Indo-European Kurgan culture (3000–1000 B.C.) (Rosser et al., 2000; Semino et al., 2000); and, more recently, (3) the massive Slavic migration (5th–7th centuries) (Barać et al., 2003; Peričić et al., 2005)."

It is interesting that R1a-M458 is not common in Serbia (only 5,8%). Authors explained that there were three episodes of arrival of R1a in Balkans (only the part of that in Serbia is Slavic). What is more interesting is that according to authors carriers of R1a are carriers the oldest haplogroup in the Balkans. But here is a question how long I2a2 in the Balkans can be long.

Shetop
07-09-13, 07:32
And for R1a we agreed that is much older in Serbia and Balkans than the time of arrival of the Slavs.

When did Europeans settle American continent and how old their genes are?
Beside that, you keep quoting Regueiro et al like it is a bible. This forum only, has several members which have much better understanding of history of Y-DNA in Europe, than authors of that document. If you want to get some real knowledge, put that document on a much lower position and find information which is relevant.

Shetop
07-09-13, 07:41
Thracians, Dacians and Illyrians were possible the bearers of this haplogroup

No, that is not significantly possible. This is because I2a-Din came to the Balkans after Celtic R1b-U152. And it is well known that Celts moved to the region after Thracians, Dacians and Illyrians.

So clear conclusion is I2a-Din should not be connected to Thracians etc.

On the other side there is no single piece of argument which would contradict connection between ALL Balkan I2a-Din and Slavic settlement of the Slavs.

Garrick
07-09-13, 11:08
When did Europeans settle American continent and how old their genes are?
Beside that, you keep quoting Regueiro et al like it is a bible. This forum only, has several members which have much better understanding of history of Y-DNA in Europe, than authors of that document. If you want to get some real knowledge, put that document on a much lower position and find information which is relevant.

We can be conservative and ignore all new researches. We can say science no longer has anything new to say. We can stay in the belief that I2a2 and R1a came to the Balkan 1,500 years ago with Slavs and deny new findings.

But science is progressing. You can see Regueiro et al. (2012) claim about Balkan I2a2 9,000 years ago. And in the debate that I had with Sparkley we reduced for 3x claims these authors. Results is I2a2 in the Balkans is 3,000 years ago. It is much earlier than Slavic expansion.

For R1a things are more apparent. R1a in the Balkans is very very old. You know a lot of authors have claimed, not only Regueiro et al. Probably from all today's haplogroups in the Balkans R1a is the oldest. And Regueiro et al. find only 5,8% R1a-M458 among Serbs, versus older 14,8%.

You can see that R1a is very stable in the Balkans. All Balkan populations have a share R1a, in fairly equal measure. Understandably, Croats and Slovenes have the most (due to the movements of Slavs), but every Balkan population has. R1a came in three big waves in the Balkans, first wave was a long long time ago, estimates of different scientists ranging from 20,000 years to 7,000 years.

Today, who says that R1a came to the Balkans first time with Slavs in the 5th century is similar as to say that atoms are the smallest known particles, that no new elements after Mendeleyev or that planets in Solar systems are the only planets in the Universe. But science has advanced and we know that this is no longer true.

For me it is interesting to find out to which haplogroups belonged the members of old Balkan cultures, for example people who created the culture at Lepen Whirl, eastern Serbia (peak about 7,000 years ago). Skeletons of these people has been saved and probably it is possible to determine haplogroups (I started thread on it).

Also Vincha culture (Serbia, Romania) who had early period (7,500-6,800 years ago) and late period (6,800-6,200 years ago). Researches of this kind will surely be performed and we see results.

Ike
07-09-13, 11:55
the Lugii tribe, is that who you mean?

Wikiquote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lugii):
According to the Slavonic hypotheses, the word Lugi may be a spelling for Slavonic лю΄дїе (~liudey), meaning people. In modern Serbian, the word луг (lug) means "small forest". Thus the word Lugii could indicate "forest people". Serbs have many versions of this word in use today, and all relate to forest, wood and swamp land. There is a possibility that the Lusatian Sorbs, whose land in their own language and in Polish bears the name Łużyce, adjective łużycki, are among their descendants. The term Łużyce/łużycki is possibly akin to Lugii.

MOESAN
07-09-13, 14:52
It would be more reasonable to presume that R1b-U152 came in Eastern Europe with Romans but not Galatians. Galatians were real IE warriors that means they could not be R1b. Surely they were R1a.

where did you find facts proving your affirmations here:
Galatians = "real IE warriors" ??? how and why? they were Celtic speaking tribes well linked to more Western and sedentary ones and they kept contacts with their "metropolitan tribes" even after reaching far eastern Europe (or what I red whas fairy tales) - the galatian mercenaries kept in touch until very late with their homelands -
or you have some unrevealed new facts by the hand?
xconcerning Y-R1b-U152-S28, the Romans forces apparently were stationed too in South of S-E Europe and there you do 'nt find this HG - it has some weight only in Croatia and Creta, for I know - but here too, maybe there are new data?
it is sure, the U-152 of "archaïcal zone" of Creta are a mystery
no offense!

Ike
07-09-13, 15:25
Celtic language is from IE family. Do we count them as IE people or not?

Shetop
07-09-13, 17:15
Results is I2a2 in the Balkans is 3,000 years ago. It is much earlier than Slavic expansion.

The result you have reached does not say when did I2a2 come to the Balkans, but it is the date of the most recent common ancestor. Why would you directly relate TMRCA and settlement of a group of people?

In that sense I asked you about Europeans on American continent, but you missed it. You need to improve understanding of the concepts here. We can't talk about conclusions if your arguments are not realistic.

Garrick
07-09-13, 19:47
The result you have reached does not say when did I2a2 come to the Balkans, but it is the date of the most recent common ancestor. Why would you directly relate TMRCA and settlement of a group of people?

In that sense I asked you about Europeans on American continent, but you missed it. You need to improve understanding of the concepts here. We can't talk about conclusions if your arguments are not realistic.

I think you didn't understand this (no offense), maybe I was not clear.

Regueiro et al. claim that I2a2 in Serbs is 9000 years ago.

Authors write (Quote):

"The high haplotype diversity of I2a2-P37.2/M423 lineages in Serbia (0.9977±0.0094) also supports the
hypothesis that the P37.2 mutation has been present in the Balkans before the LGM (Rootsi et al., 2004; Semino et al., 2000). Moreover, the age of I2a2-M423 chromosomes in Serbs based on accumulated Y-STR variation, is ~9000 years ago (Table 1)"

Sparkley and I debated about this and reduced the number 9000 for 300%. Those result is 3000. This is not much scientific, but you agree that it may have logic.

But here I don't want to make a point if the I2a2 chromosomes in Serbs are 9000 or 3000 years old, or between or whatever. I just wanted to say how is derived number 3000.

And for paper of Regueiro et al. This paper is important (but I don't think it is bible). The paper is published in renowned journal: Gene (in 2012). In the paper participated three American and three Serbian scientists. Since this is scientific research paper it would be good that someone refutes authors arguments with another scientific paper. Opinions from the heads have a lower weight.

About Thracian haplogroups, you can see that I refer to the paper of Bird (2007) who claim that main Thracian haplogroup is E1b1b (E-V13). And probably the part of E1b1b (E-V13) in Serbs came from Thracian tribes. But I also appreciate all those who claim that Thracian haplogroups are I2a2 and R1a. There are two groups of opinions. Maybe, as Tracians were big group tribes, different tribes belonged to different haplogroups, or tribes (or some of the tribes) were mix. We trying to answer this questions bearing in the mind that it will be performed researches haplogroups of Thracians, Dacians, Illyrians etc. and we will know more about this important issues.

Sile
07-09-13, 20:01
I think you didn't understand this (no offense), maybe I was not clear.

Regueiro et al. claim that I2a2 in Serbs is 9000 years ago.

Authors write (Quote):

"The high haplotype diversity of I2a2-P37.2/M423 lineages in Serbia (0.9977±0.0094) also supports the
hypothesis that the P37.2 mutation has been present in the Balkans before the LGM (Rootsi et al., 2004; Semino et al., 2000). Moreover, the age of I2a2-M423 chromosomes in Serbs based on accumulated Y-STR variation, is ~9000 years ago (Table 1)"

Sparkley and I debated about this and reduced the number 9000 for 300%. Those result is 3000. This is not much scientific, but you agree that it may have logic.

But here I don't want to make a point if the I2a2 chromosomes in Serbs are 9000 or 3000 years old, or between or whatever. I just wanted to say how is derived number 3000.

And for paper of Regueiro et al. This paper is important (but I don't think it is bible). The paper is published in renowned journal: Gene (in 2012). In the paper participated three American and three Serbian scientists. Since this is scientific research paper it would be good that someone refutes authors arguments with another scientific paper. Opinions from the heads have a lower weight.

About Thracian haplogroups, you can see that I refer to the paper of Bird (2007) who claim that main Thracian haplogroup is E1b1b (E-V13). And probably the part of E1b1b (E-V13) in Serbs came from Thracian tribes. But I also appreciate all those who claim that Thracian haplogroups are I2a2 and R1a. There are two groups of opinions. Maybe, as Tracians were big group tribes, different tribes belonged to different haplogroups, or tribes (or some of the tribes) were mix. We trying to answer this questions bearing in the mind that it will be performed researches haplogroups of Thracians, Dacians, Illyrians etc. and we will know more about this important issues.

If its 3000 years old , then its start of iron-age and as most historians known the Thracian Triballi people are part of the origins of the serbs ( and lets not go down the path that the thracian where slavic people) .

The term "Triballians" appears frequently in Byzantine and other European works of the Middle Ages, referring exclusively to Serbs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbs).[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triballi#cite_note-13)[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triballi#cite_note-14)[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triballi#cite_note-15)[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triballi#cite_note-16)[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triballi#cite_note-17) Some of these authors clearly explain that "Triballian" is synonym to "Serbian".[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triballi#cite_note-JSTOR1-18)[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triballi#cite_note-19)[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triballi#cite_note-20)[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triballi#cite_note-21)[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triballi#cite_note-22) For example, Niketas Choniates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niketas_Choniates) (or Acominatus, 1155–1215 or-16) in his history about Emperor Ioannes Komnenos: "... Shortly after this, he campaigned against the nation of Triballians (whom someone may call Serbians as well) ..."[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triballi#cite_note-23) or the much later Demetrios Chalkondyles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demetrios_Chalkondyles) (1423–1511), referring to an Islamized Christian noble: "... This Mahmud, son of Michael, is Triballian, which means Serbian, by his mother, and Greek by his father."[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triballi#cite_note-24) or Mehmed the Conqueror (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehmed_the_Conqueror) when referring to the plundering of Serbia.[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triballi#cite_note-25)

Much of the territory occupied by the Celts in the area of todays’ Serbia / northern Bulgaria had previously been controlled by the Thracian Triballi tribe. Of all the Thracians, the Triballi had been most affected by the Celtic migrations of the 4th / 3rd c. BC. This tribe had previously inhabited an area which extended from the Morava river in the west, where Herodotus located the Triballian plain, to the Oescus (Iskar) river in the east.

The celts where the scordisci who destroyed the triballi ...............maybe why the existing triballians chose a new name ...servians which became seerbian

Garrick
07-09-13, 20:23
If its 3000 years old , then its start of iron-age and as most historians known the Thracian Triballi people are part of the origins of the serbs ( and lets not go down the path that the thracian where slavic people) .

The term "Triballians" appears frequently in Byzantine and other European works of the Middle Ages, referring exclusively to Serbs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbs).[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triballi#cite_note-13)[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triballi#cite_note-14)[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triballi#cite_note-15)[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triballi#cite_note-16)[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triballi#cite_note-17) Some of these authors clearly explain that "Triballian" is synonym to "Serbian".[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triballi#cite_note-JSTOR1-18)[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triballi#cite_note-19)[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triballi#cite_note-20)[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triballi#cite_note-21)[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triballi#cite_note-22) For example, Niketas Choniates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niketas_Choniates) (or Acominatus, 1155–1215 or-16) in his history about Emperor Ioannes Komnenos: "... Shortly after this, he campaigned against the nation of Triballians (whom someone may call Serbians as well) ..."[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triballi#cite_note-23) or the much later Demetrios Chalkondyles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demetrios_Chalkondyles) (1423–1511), referring to an Islamized Christian noble: "... This Mahmud, son of Michael, is Triballian, which means Serbian, by his mother, and Greek by his father."[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triballi#cite_note-24) or Mehmed the Conqueror (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehmed_the_Conqueror) when referring to the plundering of Serbia.[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triballi#cite_note-25)

Much of the territory occupied by the Celts in the area of todays’ Serbia / northern Bulgaria had previously been controlled by the Thracian Triballi tribe. Of all the Thracians, the Triballi had been most affected by the Celtic migrations of the 4th / 3rd c. BC. This tribe had previously inhabited an area which extended from the Morava river in the west, where Herodotus located the Triballian plain, to the Oescus (Iskar) river in the east.

The celts where the scordisci who destroyed the triballi ...............maybe why the existing triballians chose a new name ...servians which became seerbian

I know that Thracian tribes were Serbs (Triballi and other), but here is main question about their haplogroups: I2a2, R1a, E1b1b (E-V13), or mix?

Yaan
07-09-13, 20:44
where did you find facts proving your affirmations here:
Galatians = "real IE warriors" ??? how and why? they were Celtic speaking tribes well linked to more Western and sedentary ones and they kept contacts with their "metropolitan tribes" even after reaching far eastern Europe (or what I red whas fairy tales) - the galatian mercenaries kept in touch until very late with their homelands -
or you have some unrevealed new facts by the hand?
xconcerning Y-R1b-U152-S28, the Romans forces apparently were stationed too in South of S-E Europe and there you do 'nt find this HG - it has some weight only in Croatia and Creta, for I know - but here too, maybe there are new data?
it is sure, the U-152 of "archaïcal zone" of Creta are a mystery
no offense!
It is 2.1% in Bulgaria and the second biggest kind of R1b after R1b-HT35(L23). It is observed mostly in South Central and South East of Bulgaria :)

Yaan
07-09-13, 20:47
On topic majority of Bulgaria I2a is I2a Din N, we also have some I2a Din S. Thrchains I connected with E-V13, J2b2 and R1b Ht35 :)
I2a is clearly one of the 3 Slavic markers together with R1a-Z280 and R1a-M458 as if it was carried by Thrchians I strongly doubt that.:) But without ancient samples we can say nothing. Bulgarian Muslims are said to be direct link to Thrachians, there are only a few tested( in Greece take make a big research but hide results) the one that we know of are R1b-HT35/L23 and E-V13 there is one R1a, not sure which subgroup :)

LeBrok
07-09-13, 20:49
Wikiquote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lugii):
According to the Slavonic hypotheses, the word Lugi may be a spelling for Slavonic лю΄дїе (~liudey), meaning people. In modern Serbian, the word луг (lug) means "small forest". Thus the word Lugii could indicate "forest people". Serbs have many versions of this word in use today, and all relate to forest, wood and swamp land. There is a possibility that the Lusatian Sorbs, whose land in their own language and in Polish bears the name Łużyce, adjective łużycki, are among their descendants. The term Łużyce/łużycki is possibly akin to Lugii.
Very interesting, although this region is considered to belong to Celtic influence in iron age till Slavic Expansion, even by polish archaeologists.

Ike
07-09-13, 21:35
Well, according to R1a (http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/R1a_migration_map.jpg) and R1b (http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/R1b-migration-map.jpg) maps it seems both cultures reached the central Europe around 2500 BC. I have to believe archaeologists, but I'm eagerly wondering what will DNA analysis say.

Diurpaneus
26-12-13, 09:04
Here you'll fiind many interesting articles about Thracians, some of them regarding the north-pontic region:




Battle Chariots, "Mycenaean" Ornaments.

Spread of Tin Bronze and the Rise of
Sabatinovka-Coslogeni-Noua Cultural Unit




Thracian, Baltic and Indo-Aryan hydronyms

of North Pontic area




About the character of the Scythian-Thracian contacts
in the Lower Danube in the 4th c. B.C.



https://archive.org/stream/ThracianWorldAtCrossroadOfCivilizationsProceedings Of7thInternational/bulgaria_thracology7_djvu.txt

MOESAN
26-12-13, 13:35
Very interesting, although this region is considered to belong to Celtic influence in iron age till Slavic Expansion, even by polish archaeologists.

the Lugi / Liuday (slavic) links seems to me very improbable on the phonetic aspect -
the celtic or more egnerally a kentum pertainance seems to me more likely (°lug = "light", breton 'luc'h', latine 'lux') - in a satem language I would be expecting something based on ?** luz- ??? - the Celts were known for their love for magnifying personal and tribal names - only speculation of my part, it 's true

MOESAN
03-01-14, 22:31
It is 2.1% in Bulgaria and the second biggest kind of R1b after R1b-HT35(L23). It is observed mostly in South Central and South East of Bulgaria :)

I never said it was absent from all the Balkans (Maciamo maps by instance) but I said its centers of gravity were not in the more romanized areas - no offense -
concerning it presence in the most archaic zone of Creta I 'll look at this island history: had the Urnfields people some influence there?

happy and active new year

gyms
04-01-14, 10:23
This is actually one of the best counterpoints to the Slavic hypothesis of I2a-Din origins in the Balkans I've read. Shetop's challenge is also excellent.

One more challenge to it:

I2a-Din can be split into two haplotypes: "North" and "South." These are misnomers because "North," the older, has its highest frequency to the East (Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus, etc.) while "South" has its highest diversity to the West (Poland especially) and only its highest frequency in the Balkans. Considering that the greatest outlier I2a-Din (neither "North" nor "South") has been found in Poland, it's looking like the ancient migration was something like Poland > Ukraine > Poland > Balkans for the Balkans group. But this doesn't really match Poland > Romania > Balkans. So either something like a pooling point is throwing us off or we need to find something that better matches Poland > Ukraine > Poland > Balkans.
Is there any Thracian Y aDNA?

Sile
04-01-14, 10:50
Is there any Thracian Y aDNA?

We know one is R1b 100% as the area was a stopping spot for R1b.

I2a* is another as this is with the related cimmerains.

E is a strong choice for number 3

and some G2a, J, T as well

Beavrrit
08-01-14, 23:30
Why do so many want or only can imagine/understand Haplogroup sub-clades as "identifiable" with or assigned to some known ethnicities of the last thousands years, or those that appear from the shadows into the extant written records of the Mediterranean Ancient Classic historical times? With all the changes in ethnic-identities even within a couple centuries, or one millenia -if to stretch it- as with transformations WITHIN an ethnicity or a morphed complex of many Y-dna/mt-dna combos.....WHY so many still want to identify as "themselves & un-changed" even the Myrmidons of Achiles or the Romans of Marcus Aurelius days.... to his modern city or county neighborhood residents? As if XV or XXV centuries and multiple immigrants waves haven't passed into their mix to become else new and ever more complex?Or as if we could identify modern results in % among haplogroups within a local segment of a modern population..... with whatever it WAS the average percents in any given portion of time in History?.... as if no populations tumbling and changes happened (and we know CHANGES DID and continue happening)?

LeBrok
09-01-14, 02:06
Why do so many want or only can imagine/understand Haplogroup sub-clades as "identifiable" with or assigned to some known ethnicities of the last thousands years, or those that appear from the shadows into the extant written records of the Mediterranean Ancient Classic historical times? With all the changes in ethnic-identities even within a couple centuries, or one millenia -if to stretch it- as with transformations WITHIN an ethnicity or a morphed complex of many Y-dna/mt-dna combos.....WHY so many still want to identify as "themselves & un-changed" even the Myrmidons of Achiles or the Romans of Marcus Aurelius days.... to his modern city or county neighborhood residents? As if XV or XXV centuries and multiple immigrants waves haven't passed into their mix to become else new and ever more complex?Or as if we could identify modern results in % among haplogroups within a local segment of a modern population..... with whatever it WAS the average percents in any given portion of time in History?.... as if no populations tumbling and changes happened (and we know CHANGES DID and continue happening)?
Good question. I'll give it a try.
It is all because of human social nature. We all want to belong to a group, and if we find a continuity with a strong historic group then even better. Also in men there is a romantic warrior aspect. It feels good to identify yourself with brave warriors, strong armies, superheroes. These are very emotionally positives for our psyche.

Welcome to Eupedia Beavrrit.

Sile
09-01-14, 03:47
Why do so many want or only can imagine/understand Haplogroup sub-clades as "identifiable" with or assigned to some known ethnicities of the last thousands years, or those that appear from the shadows into the extant written records of the Mediterranean Ancient Classic historical times? With all the changes in ethnic-identities even within a couple centuries, or one millenia -if to stretch it- as with transformations WITHIN an ethnicity or a morphed complex of many Y-dna/mt-dna combos.....WHY so many still want to identify as "themselves & un-changed" even the Myrmidons of Achiles or the Romans of Marcus Aurelius days.... to his modern city or county neighborhood residents? As if XV or XXV centuries and multiple immigrants waves haven't passed into their mix to become else new and ever more complex?Or as if we could identify modern results in % among haplogroups within a local segment of a modern population..... with whatever it WAS the average percents in any given portion of time in History?.... as if no populations tumbling and changes happened (and we know CHANGES DID and continue happening)?

Because some people are too stupid to realise that when the ancients moved, be it hunters or farmers, they went together in many different haplogroups. When geneticists say or find a marker is associated with one area, it does not mean there where no other markers there at the same time as well. some people do not see this, they have a nationalistic approach , ie borders

gyms
09-01-14, 12:53
Extremly important questions.As an example:

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I/2014-01/1389215560

From: Rossa Mullen < [email protected] ([email protected])>
Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Update on Ancient I in Europe
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 14:16:58 -0800 (PST)
References: <[email protected]>
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Did you find out any more info on the current Russian sample that was supposed to be similar to one of the old samples?

From: "Kenneth Nordtvedt" < [email protected] ([email protected])>
Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Update on Ancient I in Europe
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 15:27:31 -0700
References: <[email protected]><[email protected] ahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <[email protected] ahoo.com>
Yes, it is derived for the standard snp now for Dinaric I ------ CTS5966

kamani
09-01-14, 14:03
Yes, it is derived for the standard snp now for Dinaric I ------ CTS5966

What does it mean? (I got lost in the academic language)

gyms
09-01-14, 17:32
What does it mean? (I got lost in the academic language)

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I/2014-01/1389215560

Beavrrit
09-01-14, 22:34
Must be the American in me who mistrust that way of digging one roots or sees this as silly (or suspect it, even fascistic). We all belong to nationalities or ethnic minorities within larger federation/confederations. It may feel good... but it also may border or fall over the edge into the dangerous, such "Master-race" pseudo-romanticism. There were more than "warriors" or super-heroes "gods" in Historic times or the darker and murkier "Legend-times" before written o oral traditional tales, infecting the straight record or what much we possibly sift from those archaeological digs and blood samples genetic trail traces. I am aiming to welcome as much truth from it, not some feel-good dope off from "my (sad or not) reality". It may be entertaining at times to read these highly imaginative spinning comments from others, but sometimes it gets heavy to bear the blurring of fantasy-wanna-turn-as-if-reality clouds, etc... and they leave you wondering from which Chinatown smoke-lair they are writing from and WHAT and from where they puffed it. Or comic book of Marvel? But hey, thanks for the answer and refreshing welcoming warning to reboot and take it not at face value, as if a serious web-site?

james stock
09-01-14, 22:57
Must be the American in me who mistrust that way of digging one roots or sees this as silly (or suspect it, even fascistic). We all belong to nationalities or ethnic minorities within larger federation/confederations. It may feel good... but it also may border or fall over the edge into the dangerous, such "Master-race" pseudo-romanticism. There were more than "warriors" or super-heroes "gods" in Historic times or the darker and murkier "Legend-times" before written o oral traditional tales, infecting the straight record or what much we possibly sift from those archaeological digs and blood samples genetic trail traces. I am aiming to welcome as much truth from it, not some feel-good dope off from "my (sad or not) reality". It may be entertaining at times to read these highly imaginative spinning comments from others, but sometimes it gets heavy to bear the blurring of fantasy-wanna-turn-as-if-reality clouds, etc... and they leave you wondering from which Chinatown smoke-lair they are writing from and WHAT and from where they puffed it. Or comic book of Marvel? But hey, thanks for the answer and refreshing welcoming warning to reboot and take it not at face value, as if a serious web-site?

Are you a bot?

Beavrrit
09-01-14, 23:05
Because some people are too stupid to realise that when the ancients moved, be it hunters or farmers, they went together in many different haplogroups. When geneticists say or find a marker is associated with one area, it does not mean there where no other markers there at the same time as well. some people do not see this, they have a nationalistic approach , ie borders That too, a good and hard to avoid Reality -submerged or conveniently ignored. And since most modern nationalities are of recent creation, included the state of Issreal -to exclude others at the seclusion of a (very complex and mixed up) unique ethnicity, however ancient its origins may be- as past human groups didn't have these "fixed barriers", and much less for the individuals or tribal families intermarrying neighbours or distant groups...WHY do so many imagine the Past as if modern times (or III Reich epic propaganda) and ignore the looooooonger and darker period of the human record, our common Past too before nationalities, before these "warrior-heroic-tribes" they want to identify with as if still around? Because those tribes sprouted and evolved from those many more millenias of darker ages without written records and much more little sedentary "states" with much common with others over large tracts of land ACROSS MANY MODERN NATIONS BORDER BARRIERS. As if even the Proto-Celtic or proto-Bell beaker ethnicities' few centuries of boiling changes were to be lasting until today, while the whole Neolithic or Mesolithic longer centuries that made them didn't matter. Because they had no written records, or Auto-bahn superhighways, that makes them assume no mobility or mixing of populations and rising and falling/evolution of new ethnic identities with patched work of the many around even back then?

Beavrrit
09-01-14, 23:07
What means a "bot"? Off the boat? Are you a Native American Indian to call me so?

sparkey
10-01-14, 00:43
Interesting psychological/anthropological analysis, Beavrrit, but I've yet to see anything substantive that actually disputes that haplogroup subclades can sometimes be "identifiable with or assigned to some known ethnicities of the last thousands years." I hold that many in the genetic anthropology community make these sorts of associations not because they want it to be so, but because it's what genetic diversity analyses indicate. Although not wholly divorced from the phenomenon of people making false identifications with ancient populations, such analyses are in no way dictated by such tendencies. I mean, why post such a thing in this thread to begin with? Do you think anybody here is associating a haplogroup subclade with an ancient population out of wishful thinking?

Sile
10-01-14, 00:59
Interesting psychological/anthropological analysis, Beavrrit, but I've yet to see anything substantive that actually disputes that haplogroup subclades can sometimes be "identifiable with or assigned to some known ethnicities of the last thousands years." I hold that many in the genetic anthropology community make these sorts of associations not because they want it to be so, but because it's what genetic diversity analyses indicate. Although not wholly divorced from the phenomenon of people making false identifications with ancient populations, such analyses are in no way dictated by such tendencies. I mean, why post such a thing in this thread to begin with? Do you think anybody here is associating a haplogroup subclade with an ancient population out of wishful thinking?

well terms being used in this forum and others , as an example, R1a is slavic and I1 is germanic etc, is distorting the truth to gain, either some nationalistic lands or to prove that in old history ( ancients ) that they existed. Its to justify the existence of the nation they are in, not realising that nations only emerged in the 18th century.............pure paranoia

Aberdeen
10-01-14, 02:39
well terms being used in this forum and others , as an example, R1a is slavic and I1 is germanic etc, is distorting the truth to gain, either some nationalistic lands or to prove that in old history ( ancients ) that they existed. Its to justify the existence of the nation they are in, not realising that nations only emerged in the 18th century.............pure paranoia

In many cases, it's perhaps less paranoia than a tendency to generalize. It should be obvious that some of us have a new-found interest in DNA, as a result of having our own DNA analysed recently, but are generalists without much knowledge of genetics.

Plutarch
10-01-14, 14:31
I2a1 P37.2
I2a1b L178/S328, M423

I2a1b1 M359.2/P41.2

I2a1b2 L161.1/S185

I2a1b3 L621/S392 (Former I2a2a in the Y2010 tree, L69.2)

I2a1b3a L147.2 (din s/n)


I-M423[edit]
Haplogroup I-M423 is the most frequent Y-chromosome Haplogroup I-M170 in Central and Eastern European populations, reaching its peak in the Western Balkans, most notably in Dalmatia (50-60%[1]) and Bosnia-Herzegovina (up to 71%,[17] avg. 40-50%[1]). A greater variance of this group has been found in Ireland and Great Britain, but overall frequency is very low (2-3%). Haplogroup I-M423 is virtually absent in Fennoscandia, Western and Southwestern Europe.

I-L69.2 (L69.2(=T)/S163.2) {rs9786274} is typical of the South Slavic populations of south-eastern Europe, being highest in Bosnia-Herzegovina (>50%).[1] Haplogroup I-L69.2 is also commonly found in north-eastern Italians.[12] There is also a high concentration of I-L69.2 in north-east Romania, Moldova and western Ukraine. Several groups have determined the common occurrence of this subclade in the South Slavic-speaking populations to be the result of "pre-Slavic" paleolithic settlement in the region. Peričić et al. for instance places its expansion to have occurred "not earlier than the YD to Holocene transition and not later than the early Neolithic”.


Can somebody help me to decide Which of those two are Illyrian, i. e. Bosnian moslems and Croats, M423 or L69.2, since L147.2 is probably original Croat, Serb and bosnian Serb?

Eldritch
10-01-14, 16:25
Can somebody help me to decide Which of those two are Illyrian, i. e. Bosnian moslems and Croats, M423 or L69.2, since L147.2 is probably original Croat, Serb and bosnian Serb?


None of them is.

gyms
10-01-14, 17:13
Several groups have determined the common occurrence of this subclade in the South Slavic-speaking populations to be the result of "pre-Slavic" paleolithic settlement in the region.

This is outh ofdate.

Lazaridis, I. et al. (2013), Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for Europeans, pre-print online 23 December 2013. http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2013/12/23/001552


Analysis of ancient DNA can reveal historical events that are difficult to discern through study of present-day individuals. To investigate European population history around the time of the agricultural transition, we sequenced complete genomes from a ~7,500 year old early farmer from the Linearbandkeramik (LBK) culture from Stuttgart in Germany and an ~8,000 year old hunter-gatherer from the Loschbour rock shelter in Luxembourg. We also generated data from seven ~8,000 year old hunter-gatherers from Motala in Sweden. We compared these genomes and published ancient DNA to new data from 2,196 samples from 185 diverse populations to show that at least three ancestral groups contributed to present-day Europeans. The first are Ancient North Eurasians (ANE), who are more closely related to Upper Paleolithic Siberians than to any present-day population. The second are West European Hunter-Gatherers (WHG), related to the Loschbour individual, who contributed to all Europeans but not to Near Easterners. The third are Early European Farmers (EEF), related to the Stuttgart individual, who were mainly of Near Eastern origin but also harbored WHG-related ancestry. We model the deep relationships of these populations and show that about ~44% of the ancestry of EEF derived from a basal Eurasian lineage that split prior to the separation of other non-Africans.


Loschbour, Heffingen [LSB 1] (6220-5990 BC): dark hair, 50% probability of blue eyes. Y-DNA I2a1b* (L178+, M423+, P37.2+, L460+, M438+, L68+, P38+, M170+, M359.2-, L161.1-, L621-)

Motola males c. 6000 BC:

Motola 2: I* (P38+ , U179+ , L41+, M253-, L37-)
Motola 3: I2 (L68+, M258+, U179+, L181-, L417-)
Motola 9: I* (P38+, P40-)
Motola 12: I2a1b* (L178+, M423+, P37.2+, L460+, L68+, M170+, M258+, U179+, M359.2-, L621-)
(Jean M)
http://www.anthrogenica.com/images/BittenFruit_fluid/misc/progress.gif

Plutarch
11-01-14, 03:00
So, you claim that other Bosnians like Croats and moslems from I2a Happlotypes also belong, "just like 99% of the Serbs" to the I2a1b3a L147.2 (din s/n) subcluster?

kamani
11-01-14, 05:17
Several groups have determined the common occurrence of this subclade in the South Slavic-speaking populations to be the result of "pre-Slavic" paleolithic settlement in the region.

This is outh ofdate.

Lazaridis, I. et al. (2013), Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for Europeans, pre-print online 23 December 2013. http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2013/12/23/001552


Analysis of ancient DNA can reveal historical events that are difficult to discern through study of present-day individuals. To investigate European population history around the time of the agricultural transition, we sequenced complete genomes from a ~7,500 year old early farmer from the Linearbandkeramik (LBK) culture from Stuttgart in Germany and an ~8,000 year old hunter-gatherer from the Loschbour rock shelter in Luxembourg. We also generated data from seven ~8,000 year old hunter-gatherers from Motala in Sweden. We compared these genomes and published ancient DNA to new data from 2,196 samples from 185 diverse populations to show that at least three ancestral groups contributed to present-day Europeans. The first are Ancient North Eurasians (ANE), who are more closely related to Upper Paleolithic Siberians than to any present-day population. The second are West European Hunter-Gatherers (WHG), related to the Loschbour individual, who contributed to all Europeans but not to Near Easterners. The third are Early European Farmers (EEF), related to the Stuttgart individual, who were mainly of Near Eastern origin but also harbored WHG-related ancestry. We model the deep relationships of these populations and show that about ~44% of the ancestry of EEF derived from a basal Eurasian lineage that split prior to the separation of other non-Africans.


Loschbour, Heffingen [LSB 1] (6220-5990 BC): dark hair, 50% probability of blue eyes. Y-DNA I2a1b* (L178+, M423+, P37.2+, L460+, M438+, L68+, P38+, M170+, M359.2-, L161.1-, L621-)

Motola males c. 6000 BC:

Motola 2: I* (P38+ , U179+ , L41+, M253-, L37-)
Motola 3: I2 (L68+, M258+, U179+, L181-, L417-)
Motola 9: I* (P38+, P40-)
Motola 12: I2a1b* (L178+, M423+, P37.2+, L460+, L68+, M170+, M258+, U179+, M359.2-, L621-)
(Jean M)
http://www.anthrogenica.com/images/BittenFruit_fluid/misc/progress.gif
So in a nutshell, the south-slavic I2a-Din did not exist 8000 years ago, because around that time all we find is its distant ancestors.

gyms
11-01-14, 07:49
"So in a nutshell, the south-slavic I2a-Din did not exist 8000 years ago, because around that time all we find is its distant ancestors. "

Yes ,in Northern Europe and Scandinavia.

Plutarch
11-01-14, 09:06
I actually think that Slaws were begotten through Sarmatians and Gets (Thracians) in Sarmizegetusa. Now, Thracians are a mix of a majority of I2a and R1a. Wasn't there any analysis of the skeletons of those preceeding populations?

james stock
11-01-14, 18:29
"So in a nutshell, the south-slavic I2a-Din did not exist 8000 years ago, because around that time all we find is its distant ancestors. "

Yes ,in Northern Europe and Scandinavia.

No, you cannot prove with the existence of an older branch that the younger branch doesn't exist, even in Northern Europe or Scandinavia. It doesn't logically follow.

gyms
11-01-14, 19:29
"Now, Thracians are a mix of a majority of I2a and R1a. "
OK. but how do you know that?Is there any Thracian aDNA?

gyms
11-01-14, 19:32
No, you cannot prove with the existence of an older branch that the younger branch doesn't exist, even in Northern Europe or Scandinavia. It doesn't logically follow.
Riht.According to Ken Nordtvedt y haplogroup I2a1b3a is 2030 years old.

adamo
14-01-14, 19:57
How did an I2a3* alpine (L233-) man end up in the Pisa region of Tuscany, any suggestions or info on this branch would be much appreciated. Which migrations could have brought it and where is it most frequent?

adamo
15-01-14, 11:46
Would it have arrived via recent migration or is it a piece of italian pre-history?

sparkey
15-01-14, 17:34
How did an I2a3* alpine (L233-) man end up in the Pisa region of Tuscany, any suggestions or info on this branch would be much appreciated. Which migrations could have brought it and where is it most frequent?


Would it have arrived via recent migration or is it a piece of italian pre-history?

Nordtvedt places it at over 3000 years old, and its center of diversity seems to be north of Italy (although samples of it are sparse), indicating that it probably came from the north within the last 3000 years. I'm having trouble getting more specific than that. Perhaps a Cisalpine Gaul marker that drifted westward from the Senigallia area to the Pisa area in the Middle Ages or something? (Total speculation without much ground.)

adamo
15-01-14, 18:54
So it's quite young....it's difficult cause there's a lot of Europe north of Italy on both sides lol, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with celts that's the particularity, there really isn't any info on this subclade it's depressing.

adamo
16-01-14, 00:45
What region of Europe more or less is it found in? Germany, holland? At what frequency?

Dule84
31-12-15, 18:13
For me it is interesting to find out to which haplogroups belonged the members of old Balkan cultures, for example people who created the culture at Lepen Whirl, eastern Serbia (peak about 7,000 years ago). Skeletons of these people has been saved and probably it is possible to determine haplogroups (I started thread on it).

Also Vincha culture (Serbia, Romania) who had early period (7,500-6,800 years ago) and late period (6,800-6,200 years ago). Researches of this kind will surely be performed and we see results.

"After quite a number of old tested DNA from Neolithic sites in region Starcevo primarily as well as the surrounding Neolithic cultures, there is little doubt that the majority of the population consisted of Vinca population is predominantly belonged to haplogroup G2a. He is here and there to be some Cro-Magnon and I haplogroups. In autosomal dna today nearest formerly Vinca were the inhabitants of Sardinia."

This information is not 100% official

LeBrok
01-01-16, 00:02
"After quite a number of old tested DNA from Neolithic sites in region Starcevo primarily as well as the surrounding Neolithic cultures, there is little doubt that the majority of the population consisted of Vinca population is predominantly belonged to haplogroup G2a. He is here and there to be some Cro-Magnon and I haplogroups. In autosomal dna today nearest formerly Vinca were the inhabitants of Sardinia."

This information is not 100% official
This seems to be right. Welcome to Eupedia Dule84.

Cip
08-09-16, 15:55
I2a1b in Balkans is clearly of Slavic derivation and has nothing to do absolutely with indigenous Thraco Illyrians, which would have been mostly E-V13, J2 with probably a R1b elite.

Then how do you explain the I2a-Din in kurdish population and the hi % of I2a in Vlachs and Romanian all around in Balkans?

slodok
15-10-16, 18:00
Did Dinaric anthropology is closer to Cro Magnon than any one from *old* I haplogrups.Something stink big time.

DuPidh
15-10-16, 19:54
Then how do you explain the I2a-Din in kurdish population and the hi % of I2a in Vlachs and Romanian all around in Balkans?


Explanation: Before Slavs making it to the Balkans spend a lot of time in Romania. Many Slavs were absorbed in today's Romanian population. Its believed that the initial homeland of I2a is Ukraine-Romania border. Same thing for Kurd's its Slavic invasion.

DuPidh
15-10-16, 20:38
Dinarics are often considered a sub-race of white race. They have physical traits that makes them distinguishable. But one can not say that I2 is responsible for Dinaricity. Dinarics are present all over Europe and if my observations are right Dinarics appear where early farmers are present. Dinaricity is not a Slavic trait. Its almost nonexistent in Poland, Russia, Belarus etc...

gyms
15-10-16, 21:10
Dinaric for I2a... is a nickname invented by Ken Nordtvedt. It's nothing.

LeBrok
16-10-16, 02:39
Dinarics are often considered a sub-race of white race. Never heard that before. You should change your friends.

DuPidh
16-10-16, 13:56
Never heard that before. You should change your friends.

Really! Google "Coon and races" and you will hear about it. Coon was an anthropologist at Harvard. Its not my invention. Dinaricity is a physical characteristic that I can not define, that distinguishes the person from other Europeans. Coon thought that Dinarics were byproduct of Mediterraneans meeting the Nordics or something like that. Other words hybrids of Mediterranean looking people with Celts or other European sub races. You never noticed that a German physically looks different from an Italian? My view was that Ia is not responsible for dinaricity since some south Slavic countries are not Dinarics.

DuPidh
16-10-16, 14:06
Never heard that before. You should change your friends.

You appear indoctrinated beyond repair! I2a got the name for the reason I am saying. What do you think today genetics people do not read their predecessors?

LeBrok
16-10-16, 17:21
You appear indoctrinated beyond repair! I2a got the name for the reason I am saying. What do you think today genetics people do not read their predecessors?I have no idea what you're saying. Try again using prefrontal cortex.

Cip
17-10-16, 14:59
Explanation: Before Slavs making it to the Balkans spend a lot of time in Romania. Many Slavs were absorbed in today's Romanian population. Its believed that the initial homeland of I2a is Ukraine-Romania border. Same thing for Kurd's its Slavic invasion.

Agree that slavs spent time in Romania, were absorbed in Romanian population and I agree that I2a initial homeland was Ukraine-Romania border.
But I want to ask you: If I2a homeland and slavs homeland it is not the same, how do you say that I2a -din is slavic? If slavs came to Romania with the I2a-din, than the procentege should pick in the slavs in balkan, not in the Romanian Vlachs. Bulgarians that are slavs have less I2a than Romanians, and their I2a is higher in north ar the border with Romania. In Greece, Albania, Macedonia also I2a from the vlachs. It must predate slavs. I believe it must have been Dacian, Thracian. Slavs never went to Kurdistan. The Thracians cold have arrived at some point in Kurdistan.

Milan
17-10-16, 15:06
Agree that slavs spent time in Romania, were absorbed in Romanian population and I agree that I2a initial homeland was Ukraine-Romania border.
But I want to ask you: If I2a homeland and slavs homeland it is not the same, how do you say that I2a -din is slavic? If slavs came to Romania with the I2a-din, than the procentege should pick in the slavs in balkan, not in the Romanian Vlachs. Bulgarians that are slavs have less I2a than Romanians, and their I2a is higher in north ar the border with Romania. In Greece, Albania, Macedonia also I2a from the vlachs. It must predate slavs. I believe it must have been Dacian, Thracian. Slavs never went to Kurdistan. The Thracians cold have arrived at some point in Kurdistan.
"Nationalization" of haplogroups might harm :) By the same token if i follow your logic Romanians have higher R1a than Bulgarians and Macedonians who are Slavic,Moldavians even more? you will say that R1a is Slavic then,so you appear to carry more "Slavic" haplogroups as Romanians(Romance speakers) than Slavs themselves.
This is linguistic groups to be clear,to my knowledge the Thracians and Dacians did not spoke Latin language either,so your claim to fit the mythos of your own origin and your supposed "Thracianess" and "Dacianess" giving explanation of certain haplogrups is not at all higher than your neighbors.
Vlachs and Romanians dwell in different places despite both of them were Romanized,their "origin" or place of dwelling might not be some,i mean obvious geography and distribution of haplogroups.
Haplogroup does not equote language.
You are Romanian and forget the haplogroups,if you want to think that you are Dacian and I2 is Dacian,then you do think that way and you will be Dacian.

In Kurdistan could have migrated the Cimmerians who were neighbors of Thracians and no one else according to written sources,but i do not exclude possibility if this haplogroup in fact migrated from Anatolia in Balkans and spread further even if there is no such proofs,more testing can tell us.

Cip
18-10-16, 10:20
"Nationalization" of haplogroups might harm :) By the same token if i follow your logic Romanians have higher R1a than Bulgarians and Macedonians who are Slavic,Moldavians even more? you will say that R1a is Slavic then,so you appear to carry more "Slavic" haplogroups as Romanians(Romance speakers) than Slavs themselves.
This is linguistic groups to be clear,to my knowledge the Thracians and Dacians did not spoke Latin language either,so your claim to fit the mythos of your own origin and your supposed "Thracianess" and "Dacianess" giving explanation of certain haplogrups is not at all higher than your neighbors.
Vlachs and Romanians dwell in different places despite both of them were Romanized,their "origin" or place of dwelling might not be some,i mean obvious geography and distribution of haplogroups.
Haplogroup does not equote language.
You are Romanian and forget the haplogroups,if you want to think that you are Dacian and I2 is Dacian,then you do think that way and you will be Dacian.

In Kurdistan could have migrated the Cimmerians who were neighbors of Thracians and no one else according to written sources,but i do not exclude possibility if this haplogroup in fact migrated from Anatolia in Balkans and spread further even if there is no such proofs,more testing can tell us.


I agree with almost everything you said, we only need to stereotype and stretch some ideas to explain the bigger picture.
We have no writen records of dacian language, from names and clues it seems dacian was a satem language related to iranian and baltic (R1a presence maybe), very different from latin. The big mistery is that Roman empire only conquered a small territory of Dacia for a short period of time, but their descendants the romanians (including vlachs, moldavians) are all homogeneous latin speeking population with hi % of I2a-din spread out from Dnieper to the Balkans fitting quite enough the dacian-thracian territory. The mystery is how a new haplogroup (I2a-din) aprox 300-500 BC fill in accurately this area with latin language. The only reasonable explication seems to be that Roman Empire conquered Dacia and assimilated linguisticaly a small specialised part of population, maybe dacian families of shepherds with a semi-nomadic life dealing with transhumance. They were constantly migrating from the mountains to the plains in winter and summer to the same predetermined routes, they must of have had same cultural advantage and a noncombativ caracter to survive. This explain why after so many migrations, populations replacement and wars in 2000 years they kept latin language in the same dacian teritory. Normaly Romania should be a slavic speaking country, if it wasnt for those I2a-din latin speeking shepherds.
So I believe I2a-din lineages should not be linked to the later slavic migration, but to the earlier thracian-dacian substratum, their rapid massive spread in Balkans being a boost of roman civilization and their way of life.

gyms
18-10-16, 11:10
The Daco-Roman Myth The present-day Transylvania was inhabited in Roman times by the people known by Greeks as Gæta, whom Romans called Dacii, that were a Thracian people. The supporters of the Daco-Roman continuity assert that the Dacians were colonized by Romans in such a way that they adopted Latin language and became the ancestors of present-day Romanians (or even dare to say that the Dacians' language was close to Latin, which is utterly improbable). The occupation lasted about 160 years only, a period that was characterized not by an idyllic relationship between the two peoples but by violent rebellions of the Dacians against the invaders with consequent retaliation and repression. After the Romans evacuated Dacia because of the imminent Barbaric invasions, which actually happened, the hypothetical Daco-Romans were supposed to have survived for about a millennium hidden in caves and forests in Transylvania, not being noticed by the different peoples that populated the land in successive waves of immigration. Of course, there is not a single document that might prove such a theory, and from a logical viewpoint is quite unlikely that an entire people would be completely ignored by all Germanic and Eurasian settlers for such a long period.
http://www.imninalu.net/myths-Vlach.htm

The Roman withdrawal from Dacia was followed by a reasonably peaceful time. By then, however, wars and epidemics have made significant inroads into the local population. This made it possible for the departing Romans to take a major portion of the remaining inhabitants with them -- primarily those most closely allied with them -- and settle them within the boundaries of the new borders. The former Dacia was left as the spoils, battle ground and living space to the Goths, Carps, Sarmatians, Gepids and Vandals. The complete excavation of some contemporary cemeteries could irrevocable prove -- or disprove -- the continued survival of a "Romanized Dacian population". We know of no such excavation in contemporary Romania. It must be noted that in the Latin Dacian inscriptions we find that the majority of names are Oriental rather than Latin (Italian). Perhaps Christian inroads had already begun under the Roman rule. In Pannonia we have evidence of episcopal sees, shortly after the Roman occupation. Such evidence from Dacia is lacking. Even more damaging is the almost complete absence of place names of Latin origin in the area of present Transylvania. Rome is remembered only by the name of some rivers. (The recently introduced place names -- e.g., Cluj-Napoca -- have been revived artificially after an interval of almost 2000 years
http://historicaltextarchive.com/books.php?action=nextchapter&bid=14&cid=2

Cip
19-10-16, 10:32
I agree and it is a fact that:
-Dacian and latin were very different satem-centum language
-Dacians and Roman rulers had no pacefull relationship

How do you explain:
1. Why are romanian in Moldavia? Moldavia was dacian land never ruled by romans, it should be iranian, turcic, germanic, or slavic teritory, not latin romanian. From Dnister and even from Bug to the west there were romanian speakers, and after them came the layer of slavic migration. If it was revers how did they get there? Did they migrate against the est-west flow of barbaric asians and succeded concuering the land?
2.The romanised latin speaking vlachs/romanians ocupied exactly the territory of old Dacia? Why and how?


Don't you think that at least a part of stabil dacian population was latinised and survived better in the land than the unlatinised dacians. Most likely families of shepherds dealing with transhumance in the same teritory, not matering what barbaric people crossed the plaines.

Milan
19-10-16, 12:46
I agree and it is a fact that:
-Dacian and latin were very different satem-centum language
-Dacians and Roman rulers had no pacefull relationship

How do you explain:
1. Why are romanian in Moldavia? Moldavia was dacian land never ruled by romans, it should be iranian, turcic, germanic, or slavic teritory, not latin romanian. From Dnister and even from Bug to the west there were romanian speakers, and after them came the layer of slavic migration. If it was revers how did they get there? Did they migrate against the est-west flow of barbaric asians and succeded concuering the land?
2.The romanised latin speaking vlachs/romanians ocupied exactly the territory of old Dacia? Why and how?


Don't you think that at least a part of stabil dacian population was latinised and survived better in the land than the unlatinised dacians. Most likely families of shepherds dealing with transhumance in the same teritory, not matering what barbaric people crossed the plaines.
I'll try to get some clues,even i never researched the Romanization and emergence of Latin speaking people in Dacia.
If we take a look at Roman limes where many legions were stationed and had contact with local population is exactly Dacia,lower Danube,see limes Moesiae corespond to Moldova;
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Limes_and_borders.gif
Limes Moesiae and other Roman Walls in Romania
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c0/Roman_Byzantine_Gothic_Walls_Romania_Plain.svg/800px-Roman_Byzantine_Gothic_Walls_Romania_Plain.svg.png
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/11/60/0f/11600fdf7ae1dcbc7a4e851e6be014f5.jpg


Then if we take a look at Via Egnatia,one of the most important roads in Balkans in Roman empire,corespond to distribution of Vlachs.
http://cultureroutesinturkey.com/c/via-egnatia/files/2011/12/Map-Via-Egnatia-modern-names-660x351.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Map-balkans-vlachs.png

This people must had language of contact with local population dealing in many issues,some guarding the road,other the borders.
Even thought this legions or border guards were mostly of local origin in my opinion,that's why so many emperors will emerge from Balkans later on.
On the other hand there is agreement that Thracian language survived Roman demise on Balkans were Slavicizied.

Cip
20-10-16, 15:23
Look, i don't have an agenda, I don't want to nationalise a Haplogroup, all humans are good and bad, no matter ethnicity or nationality. My main interest is linguistics and etymology. I join here to find some answers.

The problem with the vlachs is that the linguistics shows that they are descendants from the same group of people as romanians and not separated, parallel romanised populations. Their common origin is also supported by the traditions, clothes, songs and legends.
Place of origin is very disputed, so lets see:
The I2a is a european Hg with the highest diversity in North and West of the continent. The I2a-din is young, and the clues indicates that it came to Balkans from the area of Belarus-Poland. It could of have camed only in one of this 2 scenarios: 1. with the thracians/dacians or 2. With the slavic migration.
Thracian language seem to be a satem language related to iranian and baltic. The Baltic - Thracian connection sustain the presence of the Poland-baltic area I2a in thracian population. The Cimerians are considered to be in the same group with thracians/dacians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thraco-Cimmerian). The Cimerians must of have taken the I2a in the Kurdish population. The few words that remained from dacian language are almost exactly like todays kurdish. Also todays romanian has words in common only with kurdish (different from any other language). There are lots of strong archaeological links between north Black Sea people and dacians.
The fact that I2a-din population is more consistent with the thracian/dacian/cimerian origin, and in balkans with the vlachs it makes me believe the origin of I2a-din is stongly linked with this map:
http://cronicaeuropeana.ro/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Vlahi-1.jpg
The map is based on linguistics. The initial poin of origin is belived to be Banat region in SV Romania.
Based on linguistics and other factors, for the Istro-Romanians in Croatia it has been determined they came from Banat in X-XIII centuries, later than other vlachs, maybe this is the reason why their I2a-din-S is younger than the I2a-din-N from Romania and balkans.
The Via Egnatia is below the Jiracek line it was in stong greek language influence, it could not be responsable for the latinisation of the romanian people and vlachs population.
http://cronicaeuropeana.ro/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Jirecek.jpg
http://cultureroutesinturkey.com/c/via-egnatia/files/2011/12/Map-Via-Egnatia-modern-names-660x351.jpg
The I2a-din in balkan resembles best the distribution of latinised daco-thracians that expanded from Banat and Transilvania. A part of those people were slavicised. See the map of those populations before 1940:
http://www.cespe.ro/images/harta_aromani.jpg

I don't know, but for me seems the best scenario

DuPidh
20-10-16, 16:44
Look, i don't have an agenda, I don't want to nationalise a Haplogroup, all humans are good and bad, no matter ethnicity or nationality. My main interest is linguistics and etymology. I join here to find some answers.

The problem with the vlachs is that the linguistics shows that they are descendants from the same group of people as romanians and not separated, parallel romanised populations. Their common origin is also supported by the traditions, clothes, songs and legends.
Place of origin is very disputed, so lets see:
The I2a is a european Hg with the highest diversity in North and West of the continent. The I2a-din is young, and the clues indicates that it came to Balkans from the area of Belarus-Poland. It could of have camed only in one of this 2 scenarios: 1. with the thracians/dacians or 2. With the slavic migration.
Thracian language seem to be a satem language related to iranian and baltic. The Baltic - Thracian connection sustain the presence of the Poland-baltic area I2a in thracian population. The Cimerians are considered to be in the same group with thracians/dacians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thraco-Cimmerian). The Cimerians must of have taken the I2a in the Kurdish population. The few words that remained from dacian language are almost exactly like todays kurdish. Also todays romanian has words in common only with kurdish (different from any other language). There are lots of strong archaeological links between north Black Sea people and dacians.
The fact that I2a-din population is more consistent with the thracian/dacian/cimerian origin, and in balkans with the vlachs it makes me believe the origin of I2a-din is stongly linked with this map:
http://cronicaeuropeana.ro/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Vlahi-1.jpg
The map is based on linguistics. The initial poin of origin is belived to be Banat region in SV Romania.
Based on linguistics and other factors, for the Istro-Romanians in Croatia it has been determined they came from Banat in X-XIII centuries, later than other vlachs, maybe this is the reason why their I2a-din-S is younger than the I2a-din-N from Romania and balkans.
The Via Egnatia is below the Jiracek line it was in stong greek language influence, it could not be responsable for the latinisation of the romanian people and vlachs population.
http://cronicaeuropeana.ro/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Jirecek.jpg
http://cultureroutesinturkey.com/c/via-egnatia/files/2011/12/Map-Via-Egnatia-modern-names-660x351.jpg
The I2a-din in balkan resembles best the distribution of latinised daco-thracians that expanded from Banat and Transilvania. A part of those people were slavicised. See the map of those populations before 1940:
http://www.cespe.ro/images/harta_aromani.jpg

I don't know, but for me seems the best scenario

Vlahs in the Balkans are not numerous. They consists of less than 5% of population of the countries where they live. They also score high in R1b. Its believed that they came from southern Romania population of Vlahia. But they can not be responsible for all I2a in The Balkans. Whenever you have Slavs in the Balkans you also have high occurrence of Haplogroup I2a, which means they are responsible for its presence. But i2a has its own subgroups which leads to possibility that some I2a could be paleolithic.

LABERIA
20-10-16, 17:11
Vlahs in the Balkans are not numerous. They consists of less than 5% of population of the countries where they live. They also score high in R1b. Its believed that they came from southern Romania population of Vlahia. But they can not be responsible for all I2a in The Balkans. Whenever you have Slavs in the Balkans you also have high occurrence of Haplogroup I2a, which means they are responsible for its presence. But i2a has its own subgroups which leads to possibility that some I2a could be paleolithic.

I don't know nothing from haplogroups, but i want to say you something that can help you to have an clear view. Until 200 years ago in a territory that include the territory of the today modern states of South Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, Kosova, Albania, FYROM, Greece including many islands until Crete, lived two great ethnic groups, Vlachs and Albanians. Vlach were something more numerous than Albanians. But there was not an border between this two ethnic groups. The distribution of this people in Balcan was complicated, but roughly, in North Balcan, South Croatia, Serbia, vlachs were majority, meanwhile in Greece majority were Albanians. What's happened later, how this ethnic groups were assimilated, it's another story. Everywhere you go in Balcan, still today you find Vlachs and Albanians, everywhere. This was the big picture of Balcan 200-250 years ago. The majority of the population of the modern states mentioned by me in this post are originary from this two ethnic groups.

Milan
20-10-16, 17:18
http://cronicaeuropeana.ro/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Jirecek.jpg
http://cultureroutesinturkey.com/c/via-egnatia/files/2011/12/Map-Via-Egnatia-modern-names-660x351.jpg


I don't know, but for me seems the best scenario
Jiricek line mean nothing in this scenario.Also the Vlach language is influenced by Greek,on the same token Albanian language words of Latin origin many are shared with Romanian,which led some scholars to say that Albanians came from Dacia too,maybe?
Jiricek line is from 1911;
More recent scholars have revised it somewhat: Kaimio (1979) places Dalmatia and Moesia Superior in the Latin area and Moesia Inferior in the Greek sphere. MacLeod (1982) suggests that there may not have been "an official language policy for each and every aspect of life" but that "individual Roman officials [made] common sense ad hoc decisions". He also points out that during that time, when the area was under the Roman rule, "even in Greek areas... Latin was the dominant language in inscriptions recording public works, on milestones, and in the army".

I am guessing about language distribution and "Romanization",but you about haplogroups even more,i gave proposal about the Cimmerians and Kurds but i don't rush with conclusions.

LABERIA
20-10-16, 17:28
Jiricek line mean nothing in this scenario.Also the Vlach language is influenced by Greek,on the same token Albanian language words of Latin origin many are shared with Romanian,which led some scholars to say that Albanians came from Dacia too,maybe?
Jiricek line is from 1911;
More recent scholars have revised it somewhat: Kaimio (1979) places Dalmatia and Moesia Superior in the Latin area and Moesia Inferior in the Greek sphere. MacLeod (1982) suggests that there may not have been "an official language policy for each and every aspect of life" but that "individual Roman officials [made] common sense ad hoc decisions". He also points out that during that time, when the area was under the Roman rule, "even in Greek areas... Latin was the dominant language in inscriptions recording public works, on milestones, and in the army".

I am guessing about language distribution and "Romanization",but you about haplogroups even more,i gave proposal about the Cimmerians and Kurds but i don't rush with conclusions.

Pls, save our time and don't start with koçi-boçi theories of Garrick about the ethnogenesis of Albanians from Dacia.

Milan
20-10-16, 17:30
I don't know nothing from haplogroups, but i want to say you something that can help you to have an clear view. Until 200 years ago in a territory that include the territory of the today modern states of South Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, Kosova, Albania, FYROM, Greece including many islands until Crete, lived two great ethnic groups, Vlachs and Albanians. Vlach were something more numerous than Albanians. But there was not an border between this two ethnic groups. The distribution of this people in Balcan was complicated, but roughly, in North Balcan, South Croatia, Serbia, vlachs were majority, meanwhile in Greece majority were Albanians. What's happened later, how this ethnic groups were assimilated, it's another story. Everywhere you go in Balcan, still today you find Vlachs and Albanians, everywhere. This was the big picture of Balcan 200-250 years ago. The majority of the population of the modern states mentioned by me in this post are originary from this two ethnic groups.
Phantasmagoria again?
Take a break.
I know that Albanians once inhabited entire Illyricum with less numerous Romanized (Vlachs) kin but the damned Slavs came what you can do.

Milan
20-10-16, 17:34
Pls, save our time and don't start with koçi-boçi theories of Garrick about the ethnogenesis of Albanians from Dacia.
I gave example of his own words,but you don't get the clue,i will never bring your origin in question :)
You are Illyrians,from the southern ones ;)

LABERIA
20-10-16, 18:09
I gave example of his own words,but you don't get the clue,i will never bring your origin in question :)
You are Illyrians,from the southern ones ;)

Discussing the ethnogenesis of Albanians is not an taboo. I have no problems to discuss even your alternative theories. The problem is that both of you, serbs and Fyromskis are always so alternative when you discuss this topic. Also, it's boring when i ask someone ten times about A and he ten times answer always about B. There is no more discussion then.

LABERIA
20-10-16, 18:27
Phantasmagoria again?
Take a break.
I know that Albanians once inhabited entire Illyricum with less numerous Romanized (Vlachs) kin but the damned Slavs came what you can do.

I think i explained very well Phantasmagoria, using to illustrate it some photos from the capital of your country in the thread Macedonians.
Irony can be funny. But it can not be an argument and also can be really boring. Accompained this with the distortion of the words, then you are one step from charlatanism.

Cip
20-10-16, 18:48
Guys, we do not have enough historical and archaeological research for Romanians and Albanians so it is room for interpretation, I am open to any opinion, pls not offensive.

The fact is that from linguistics we can determine prety good that the latinisation of albanian language was a separate and parallel process from the latinisation of the romanian/vlach. It was carried out according to different phonetic processes. So those popuations were in diffrent parts in same time.
There were only a few words found that are borrowed from abanian to romanian and from romanian to abanian. But the big fact is that almost all the non-latin words in albanian and romanian are the same, and are not found in any other language in the word. Those words are common to albanian and romanian before the process of latinisation, from the old substratum.
That sugest that when latinisation begin in Balkans, albanian and romanian ancestors were linguisticly related people that lived in different areas. The most likely scenario albanians-ilirians and romanian-dacians.

Aaron1981
21-10-16, 18:38
I2a-M423 (Dinaric type) came to the Balkans....with Slavic language and migrations. Sorry folks, the node all these men are on is only 2200 years old as per Yfull and underwent rapid expansion. The ancestor to this branch apparently existed in Poland (sample on Yfull) and separated quite a bit earlier. However, it could have been anywhere in the north east AFAIK.

Milan
23-10-16, 15:04
Discussing the ethnogenesis of Albanians is not an taboo. I have no problems to discuss even your alternative theories. The problem is that both of you, serbs and Fyromskis are always so alternative when you discuss this topic. Also, it's boring when i ask someone ten times about A and he ten times answer always about B. There is no more discussion then.
How can be a taboo,you are a Shqiptar from northern Epyrus don't pretend being something else.

LABERIA
23-10-16, 16:04
How can be a taboo,you are a Shqiptar from northern Epyrus don't pretend being something else.

You are free to open a new thread and to elaborate your theories. This is not an invitation, it's an challenge.

Milan
23-10-16, 16:30
You are free to open a new thread and to elaborate your theories. This is not an invitation, it's an challenge.

Thanks for your challenge but I don't waste my time on such irrelevant for me things,might be around to point when phantasmagoria strikes you again.

LABERIA
23-10-16, 16:49
Thanks for your challenge but I don't waste my time on such irrelevant for me things,theories of historical Epirus.I might be around to point when phantasmagoria strikes you again.
If you don't accept the challenge, why do you continue to talk? Why you quoted me this time? It's not an pleasure for me to discuss with you, honestly last time when we discussed about South Albania in the thread about Illyrians, was really boring. Do you want to quote part of this discussion here?
BTW, seems that you have learned a new word, Phantasmagoria. Congratulations.

Milan
23-10-16, 17:05
If you don't accept the challenge, why do you continue to talk? Why you quoted me this time? It's not an pleasure for me to discuss with you, honestly last time when we discussed about South Albania in the thread about Illyrians, was really boring. Do you want to quote part of this discussion here?
BTW, seems that you have learned a new word, Phantasmagoria. Congratulations.

I talk when I want and reply where i want,the word describe perfectly your cause it's not coincidence,phantasmagoria in medical use.I can use it discusing with you,my Illyrian friend from Epirus.Was not boring talking about Ottoman,Turko Albanian hero Ali Pasha,Bashibozuk bandit chieftain hero of Epirus,much like the previous Pyrrhus of Epirus.

LABERIA
23-10-16, 17:08
I talk when I want and reply where i want,must be boring,the word describe perfectly your cause it's not coincidence,phantasmagoria in medical use.I can use it discusing with you,my Illyrian friend from Epirus :D

OK, now show some respect for the other members. Exist other ways to elaborate your opinions and theories without derailing this thread with your ad hominem attacks.

LABERIA
23-10-16, 17:34
I talk when I want and reply where i want,the word describe perfectly your cause it's not coincidence,phantasmagoria in medical use.I can use it discusing with you,my Illyrian friend from Epirus.Was not boring talking about Ottoman,Turko Albanian hero Ali Pasha,Bashibozuk bandit chieftain hero of Epirus,much like the previous Pyrrhus of Epirus.

Since you edited this post, i want to add that i have never talk about Ali Pasha of Tepelena with you. Many famous French and European personalities contemporary with him, compared him with Napoleon Bonaparte.
You don't have an personality like him. Probably the most important personality in the history of your "nation", was the chief of UDB, who packed you as "macedonian".
But let me repeat again, this your posts are off-topic.

Milan
23-10-16, 17:51
Since you edited this post, i want to add that i have never talk about Ali Pasha of Tepelena with you. Many famous French and European personalities contemporary with him, compared him with Napoleon Bonaparte.
You don't have an personality like him. Probably the most important personality in the history of your "nation", was the chief of UDB, who packed you as "macedonian".
But let me repeat again, this your posts are off-topic.
Big hero he was attacking local Vlachs and Greeks and other non armed population,what a chieftain,I know you are proud of him words are speaking. I don't have personality like him my ancestors were decent people to their faith and country they did not sold that for amount of comfort,land and rights in Ottoman system,which on the contrary to you I'm proud of.That thing you might never learn.

LABERIA
23-10-16, 17:59
Big hero he was attacking local Vlachs and Greeks and other non armed population,what a chieftain,I know you are proud of him words are speaking and thanks god I don't have personality like him my ancestors were decent people to their faith and country they did not sold that for amount of comfort or land which is on what I'm proud of.That thing you might never learn.

How can be categorised your posts here, linguistics, history, genetics?

Milan
23-10-16, 18:19
How can be categorised your posts here, linguistics, history, genetics?

Tiny part of history of my friend Laberia in glorious Illyrian Epirus after Pyrrhus.Things he likes to discuss.

LABERIA
23-10-16, 18:26
Tiny part of history of my friend Laberia in glorious Illyrian Epirus after Pyrrhus.Things he likes to discuss.

OK, but you are derailing this thread. And another problem is that you don't know nothing from history. If you continue to derail this thread and with ad hominem attacks, i am sorry but i will report you to the mods as a trolll.

Milan
23-10-16, 18:36
OK, but you are derailing this thread. And another problem is that you don't know nothing from history. If you continue to derail this thread and with ad hominem attacks, i am sorry but i will report you to the mods as a trolll.

Come down Laberia,this were your favorite conversations but you can't withstand attacks on same basis,OK I'm out don't report me :)))

LABERIA
23-10-16, 18:52
Come down Laberia,this were your favorite conversations but you can't withstand attacks on same basis,OK I'm out don't report me :)))

I don't know what conversation are you referring.
TBH, i don't see you in a historical discussion. I think you can give an important contribution in linguistics, especially with your theories about slavs, Thracians, etc. But please, don't start that discussion here.

Milan
23-10-16, 19:12
I don't know what conversation are you referring.
TBH, i don't see you in a historical discussion. I think you can give an important contribution in linguistics, especially with your theories about slavs, Thracians, etc. But please, don't start that discussion here.
Laberia you know very well your favorite topic is Balkans and glorious history of Albanians.
Historical context of Laberia post Macedonians;

Let me explain you something. During the middle age(i don`t know when this started) with Macedonian were known Albanians and not some Bulgars who lost their way in the corridors and drawers of UDB.

Kosovo news/site also agrees.
https://scontent-otp1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14642304_1845371202345823_6404479904892244264_n.jp g?oh=d959f172f284933205f98090e418f50b&oe=58A1DFA7

LABERIA
23-10-16, 19:16
Laberia you know very well your favorite topic is Balkans and glorious history of Albanians.
Historical context of Laberia post Macedonians;


Kosovo news/site also agrees.
https://scontent-otp1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14642304_1845371202345823_6404479904892244264_n.jp g?oh=d959f172f284933205f98090e418f50b&oe=58A1DFA7

There is others i will add among them Pyrrhus of Epirus and Ali Pasha etc

And what you want from me?

Milan
23-10-16, 19:38
And what you want from me?
Nothing.
If you call other people names,they will/can also.
If you disrespect them,they will/can also.
Just to show you how is to have conversation with a person that carry a discussion in your way.Just attacked you with your "weapon" and you aren't so pleasant as i see.
On the other hand we can have discussion much better than that if we like.

LABERIA
23-10-16, 19:59
Nothing.
If you call other people names,they will/can also.
If you disrespect them,they will/can also.
Just to show you how is to have conversation with a person that carry a discussion in your way.Just attacked you with your "weapon" and you aren't so pleasant as i see.
On the other hand we can have discussion much better than that if we like.

I have never show disrespect, i think you are wrong. Can you tell me when happened this?
About you personally i think that you are just funny. Only your contribution in this forum is making us laughing. That's all.

Milan
23-10-16, 20:08
I have never show disrespect, i think you are wrong. Can you tell me when happened this?
About you personally i think that you are just funny. Only your contribution in this forum is making us laughing. That's all.

Many times,just search them even in this thread.That's why you becomed so touchy,started to behave as kid,threatening to report me,your IQ and knowledge sorry is not as high as you think it is,have met many with behavior such is yourself,change your tactic for now,backward a bit for the century.Leave alone other forum members.

LABERIA
23-10-16, 20:19
Many times,just search them even in this thread.That's why you becomed so touchy your IQ sorry is not as high as you think it is,have met many with behavior such is yourself,backward a bit for the century.

I explained once and i want to repeat again. First discussion with you was in the thread about Illyrians. I remember that i asked you many times about A and you always answered about B. Your behavior was scandalous,typical behavior of a trolll. Also, you are a mediocre poster. You don't know nothing about history or linguistics, etc.
Everything i have said here, i am ready to repeat again and it's not necessary to ask me ten times, only once, politely if you can, but i doubt.

Milan
23-10-16, 20:30
I explained once and i want to repeat again. First discussion with you was in the thread about Illyrians. I remember that i asked you many times about A and you always answered about B. Your behavior was scandalous,typical behavior of a trolll. Also, you are a mediocre poster. You don't know nothing about history or linguistics, etc.
Everything i have said here, i am ready to repeat again and it's not necessary to ask me ten times, only once, politely if you can, but i doubt.

You can see how silly you are calling someone trolll and asking him to be polite,I doubt you have capacity to ask question either let alone to expect from you to know anything apart reading nationalistic propaganda such I posted above,don't pretend something that you aren't I showed already who you are and what you follow.Go cry now so Ali Pasha can return with all his glorious deeds.

LABERIA
23-10-16, 20:41
You can see how silly you are calling someone trolll and asking him to be polite,I doubt you have capacity to ask question either let alone to expect from you to know anything apart reading nationalistic propaganda such I posted above,don't pretend something that you aren't I showed already who you are and what you follow.Go cry now so Ali Pasha can return with all his glorious deeds.

Do you want to find our discussion in the thread about Illyrians? Let me repeat something, stop derailing this thread. I don't like to see my post to be transfered in the thread Balcan disagreement. If you think that my posts are nationalistic, etc, find the thread where you can explain all this. If this thread don't exist, open a new thread. Don't derail this thread.
And about Ali Pasha, i don't understand why you are so obsessed with him, i have never discussed about him.

Milan
23-10-16, 20:53
Do you want to find our discussion in the thread about Illyrians? Let me repeat something, stop derailing this thread. I don't like to see my post to be transfered in the thread Balcan disagreement. If you think that my posts are nationalistic, etc, find the thread where you can explain all this. If this thread don't exist, open a new thread. Don't derail this thread.
And about Ali Pasha, i don't understand why you are so obsessed with him, i have never discussed about him.
Go and find,just because he was from your region,so touchy you become when one call him bandit,is amusing for your Bonaparte.

LABERIA
23-10-16, 21:47
Go and find, The question is here, go and explain your opinion: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31750-Illyrian-and-Albanian-a-linguistic-approach/page17?p=479178#post479178
just because he was from your region,so touchy you become when one call him bandit,is amusing for your Bonaparte. I repeat, i have never discussed with you or other members about Ali Pasha of Tepelena and i don`t understand why you bring always him in this discussion. Since you insist: Vie d'Ali Pacha, visir de Janina, surnommé Aslan, ou le Lion by Beauchamp, Alphonse de, 1767-1832
https://ia902608.us.archive.org/BookReader/BookReaderImages.php?zip=/25/items/viedalipachavisi00beau/viedalipachavisi00beau_jp2.zip&file=viedalipachavisi00beau_jp2/viedalipachavisi00beau_0011.jp2&scale=4&rotate=0

LABERIA
23-10-16, 22:00
Laberia you know very well your favorite topic is Balkans and glorious history of Albanians. Historical context of Laberia post Macedonians; And after this you quote this post:
Let me explain you something. During the middle age(i don`t know when this started) with Macedonian were known Albanians and not some Bulgars who lost their way in the corridors and drawers of UDB. It`s absolutely true what i said:
Well, let me explain you something, since you are a new "nation" and have to learn a lot of things. It is accepted by all serious scholars, that Albanians are a paleo-balcanic people. Such is and the Albanian language. The only people that has survived from ancient times are Albanians and Vlachs. But concerning the origin of Aromanian there are still uncertainties. The only language that has survived from ancient times, (apart from Greek, which as we know was the language of the Church and the administration of the ERE), is the Albanian language. I do not know that the Albanians have any connection with Atlantis.But i agree with all the list of name posted by you. Let me ad an another name, Macedonian. Yes, during during the Middle Ages, frequently in different sources, the Albanians are mentioned as Macedonian. During the Middle Ages the Albanians are usually identified with the name Macedonian. For example in the epic poem of Tzanes Koronaios, of 16th century, to honour a Albanian stradioto (mercenary of Venice) writes for example: http://s29.postimg.org/us9z5o5c7/image.jpg "And they were living in Macedonia, (that is) Arta and Angellokastro, Giannena and Albania"... for him for example Macedonia,Epiros and Albania were the same. http://s17.postimg.org/md1df0rsv/image.jpg "And gathered archonts, the Lacedaimonites(the Spartans) and other good stradioti, Macedonians"...meaning the Albanian stradioti of Mercurio Bua... http://s29.postimg.org/i8arb3l6v/image.jpg "With a strong power made him a general, the sir Mercurio commanding four hundred horsemen, With special Macedonians, who all gave an oath to be always faithfull to the king, and get killed for him"... Also during the XVII was in Kingdom of Naples Italy, a famous Regiment, "Il reggimento Real Macedone del Regno di Napoli", "The Real Macedonian regiment of the Kingdom of Naples". This regiment was composed entirely with Albanian soldiers. And it is normal for people to ask, how is it possible that some Slav want to call themselves Macedonians? One name, Tito. “It is of no significance that there is no "Macedonian conscience". For example, during the October Revolution of 1917 there was no Belarus. We created it and no one today denies it” Joseph Stalin Ok?
Kosovo news/site also agrees. https://scontent-otp1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14642304_1845371202345823_6404479904892244264_n.jp g?oh=d959f172f284933205f98090e418f50b&oe=58A1DFA7 Listen, internet is full with every kind of bloggers, pseudoscholars etc. We have our scholars, universities, institutions, etc. I don`t spend my time with bloggers, but i prefer to read this people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_of_Sciences_of_Albania
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Tirana
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_of_Albanological_Studies
This are our scholars, respected by their colleagues worldwide.

Milan
23-10-16, 22:22
And after this you quote this post: It`s absolutely true what i said: Ok? Listen, internet is full with every kind of bloggers, pseudoscholars etc. We have our scholars, universities, institutions, etc. I don`t spend my time with bloggers, but i prefer to read this people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_of_Sciences_of_Albania
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Tirana
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_of_Albanological_Studies
This are our scholars, respected by their colleagues worldwide.
You are confused,those that you Shqiptar from Epirus call Bulgars as well their neighbors present day Bulgarians,Serbians were called with names such is Moesians,Paeonians,Thracians,Tribalians,Macedonian s by various historians that tell us nothing let alone drawing conclusion such is yours.
Yugoslavism was found as Illyrian movement so what,that's not significant.

​And it is normal for people to ask, how is it possible that some Slav want to call themselves Macedonians? One name, Tito.
If you knew anything about history of that region,you would know that even before Tito was born there was adherents to "Macedonism" but your knowledge is so poor that you know only how to insult,you little nationalist coward,like most of you nationalists are.

Milan
23-10-16, 22:25
The question is here, go and explain your opinion: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31750-Illyrian-and-Albanian-a-linguistic-approach/page17?p=479178#post479178 I repeat, i have never discussed with you or other members about Ali Pasha of Tepelena and i don`t understand why you bring always him in this discussion. Since you insist: Vie d'Ali Pacha, visir de Janina, surnommé Aslan, ou le Lion by Beauchamp, Alphonse de, 1767-1832
https://ia902608.us.archive.org/BookReader/BookReaderImages.php?zip=/25/items/viedalipachavisi00beau/viedalipachavisi00beau_jp2.zip&file=viedalipachavisi00beau_jp2/viedalipachavisi00beau_0011.jp2&scale=4&rotate=0
As i see everything is answered there, you might have problems reading and understanding,even you bothered to find a "document" for Bonaparte a Ottoman Muslim bandit that destoyed and burned entire villages you should be ashamed instead.

LABERIA
23-10-16, 22:54
You are confused man,those that you Shqiptar from Epirus call Bulgars as well their neighbors were called with names such is Moesians,Paeonians,Thracians,Tribalians,Macedonian s by various historians that tell us nothing let alone drawing conclusion such is yours.
Yugoslavism was found as Illyrian movement so what,that's not significant.

If you knew anything about history of that region,you would know that even before Tito was born there was adherents to "Macedonism" but your knowledge is so poor that you know only how to insult,you little nationalist coward,like most of you nationalists are.

Answer to this:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31750-Illyrian-and-Albanian-a-linguistic-approach/page23?p=493104#post493104

LABERIA
23-10-16, 22:55
As i see everything is answered there, you might have problems reading and understanding,even you bothered to find a "document" for Bonaparte a Ottoman Muslim bandit that destoyed and burned entire villages you should be ashamed instead.

Don't try to enter in a discussion that you don't know nothing.

Milan
23-10-16, 23:00
Don't try to enter in a discussion that you don't know nothing.
Shqiptar are you descendant of the Turko-Albanian Ottoman Pasha?

Milan
23-10-16, 23:03
Answer to this:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31750-Illyrian-and-Albanian-a-linguistic-approach/page23?p=493104#post493104
You have the answers if know how to read or go back to school again,even better yet you answer them is your country not mine.

LABERIA
23-10-16, 23:05
Shqiptar are you descendant of the Turko-Albanian Ottoman Pasha?
Why was he attacking local Vlach and Greek population?
You are an ridiculous coward. Answer to this:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31750-Illyrian-and-Albanian-a-linguistic-approach/page23?p=493104#post493104

Milan
23-10-16, 23:49
You are an ridiculous coward. Answer to this:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31750-Illyrian-and-Albanian-a-linguistic-approach/page23?p=493104#post493104
Go there now and you can start answering you little ancient Illyrian coward :D

LABERIA
24-10-16, 00:03
Go there now and you can start answering you little ancient Illyrian coward :D

First of all this kind of epithets you can use with your friends in your filthy forums.

Milan
24-10-16, 00:06
First of all this kind of epithets you can use with your friends in your filthy forums.
They suit your behavior here,you was asking for them almost a year,go and answer now,"ancient" illyrian or whatever you are,you don't even know.

Milan
24-10-16, 01:34
If there will be admin around and if he/she wants can move this posts in Balkan disagreements,cause there is page and a half discussed nothing on the topic,from about number 95 or bit earlier,he/she can ban me too :laughing: thanks.

Cip
24-10-16, 10:53
OMG guys!!! does anybody even care or about the topic: I2a from thracians, dacians,illirians???

LABERIA
24-10-16, 11:38
OMG guys!!! does anybody even care or about the topic: I2a from thracians, dacians,illirians???

The problem is that this ridiculous trooll Milan, decided to derail this thread. This is the problem.

Milan
24-10-16, 12:22
The problem is that this ridiculous trooll Milan, decided to derail this thread. This is the problem.
Just stop writing here and go answer the questions you was looking for.
Maybe next time you will be more carefull what you will write,so we can avoid that you funny nationalist coward.

Belmonde
25-10-16, 01:37
One more thought. After being Indo-Europeanized, I2a-Din became dominant haplogroup of the Illyrians and Daco-Thracians, thereafter of the South Slavs.

MaxCRO
25-10-16, 14:45
One more thought. After being Indo-Europeanized, I2a-Din became dominant haplogroup of the Illyrians and Daco-Thracians, thereafter of the South Slavs.

Most likely it wasn't original Illyrian bloodiline. Even though South Slavs of the past shared ideas of Illyrian origin, in Croatia Pan-Slavic romantic movement of 19th century was called Illyrian.
The reason it is probably not native HG is that according to archeology and Byzantine sources, Roman province of Dalmatia was depopulated before Slavic and Avar invasions. One of the reason for it is plague epidemic.

tiami
08-12-16, 12:14
it came with Illyrians, Thracians, Dacians from where? it looks to me that the only thing it metters that we came from somewhere after Someone (Summerians would be a good choice here) was already there.

tiami
28-12-16, 19:37
Most likely it wasn't original Illyrian bloodiline. Even though South Slavs of the past shared ideas of Illyrian origin, in Croatia Pan-Slavic romantic movement of 19th century was called Illyrian.
The reason it is probably not native HG is that according to archeology and Byzantine sources, Roman province of Dalmatia was depopulated before Slavic and Avar invasions. One of the reason for it is plague epidemic.

so where were I2 people in times of Rome? they fell from the sky? how were they called? because there's not a single evidence they were not in the same place as in last couple of 10.ooo years. who are Slavs for you then R1a or I2? what you are suggesting is that some Avars and Slavs with all the children and woman and logistic problems managed to beat the greatest army of that time who concqured half of the world just 200 years before??? let's use some common sense please. roman trieras were called 'liburnian', all Illyrian emperors were from Dalmatian Cavalry, even Rome doesn't become empire until they conquer Illyricum. if you knew your history you would be awere that illyrian pirates became slavic pirates in one generation ;) roman and venetian ships had to pay to sail in Adriatic Sea for centuries..

Miroslav
02-03-17, 21:55
The current information about Haplogroup I2a1b (M423) lacks previous connection with Illyrians and currently considers it's expansion to the Balkan to have occured only with Slavic migration. There several issues with this consideration:

1) It's solely based on contemporary frequency in East European populations.

2) It's no based on critical and empirical approach as there are not enough evidence from Middle Age, Ancient and older sources from both East and Southeast Europe.

3) The conclusion is a simple ideological construction which ignores the possibility the haplgroup was widespread in both East and Southeast Europe, as well ignores the recent archeological research which concluded that there was no mass migration of Slavs, the Balkan i.e. Yugoslavian territory was not „uninhabited“ like previously ideologically considered by the historians, which emerged from 19th century romantic-idealistic historiography, and especially that the Croats and Serbs were only small tribes (neither migrated from western Ukraine), i.e. the population ethogenesis didn't change drastically, but the political and cultural/ethnical identity chnaged, in a similar way like during the Roman Empire when the indigenous population was Romanized, while after the fall of WRE and consolidation of Slavic policy the indigenous population was Slavicized through the centuries.

For example I will give another chronology in which will show that the age, both formation and TMRCA, do not correspond with the Slavic expansion i.e. migration to the Balkan at all. According to Yfull Ytree v5.02 (YBP calculated from 1950):

--- I-M423 (18,006 YBP): peak of LGM 18,000 YBP
---- I-Y3104 (13,655 YBP)
----- I-L621 (11,311 YBP): beginning of interglacial Holocene
------ I-CTS4002 (6,250 YBP): it corresponds to both early Cucuteni-Trypillian kulture in Romania-Ukraine, as well early Hvar-Lisičići culture in Dalmatia, and the end of Vinča culture.
------- I-CTS10228 (5,062 YBP): partial end of Cucuteni-Trypillian culure, end of Hvar-Lisičići culture, Indo-European expansion (R1a, R1b) in Europe
-------- I-S17250 (2,331 YBP: 381 BCE): see below
--------- TMRCA of I-S17250 is 1,731 YBP (219 CE) according to formation age of subclades I-Y4882 (1,993 YBP), I-Y5596 (1,972 YBP), I-Y30729 (2,346 YBP), I-PH908 (1,802 YBP) and many other individual sub-mutations, with personal speculation that to the I-Y5596 or I-PG908 subclades possibly belong most I2a-Dinaric in the Balkan.
---------- I-Y5596 has TMRCA 1,658 YBP (292 CE) i.e it mostly branches into I-Z16971 (1,886 YBP: 64 CE), which TMRCA 1,478 YBP (472 CE) which drastically varies mostly between I-A815 (1,658 YBP) and I-Y12911 (917 YBP) i.e. 292-1033 CE, while the sample ID of other two alone branch ID is 1,924 YBP and 1,416 YBP i.e. 26-534 CE.
---------- The I-PG908 (in its own „info“ has TMRCA 1,879 YBP: 71 CE) branches into I-Z16983 (1,715 YBP: 235 CE), which TMRCA of 1,321 YBP, due to small number of branch ID, is calculated with I-Y4789 (1,633 YBP) with 7 sample ID and only 1 sample of YF07968 from 1,010 YBP which gives disproportionate 1,321 YBP, thus will only consider age of I-Y4789 which further branches. Its TMRCA is 1,618 YBP (332 CE), calculated with limited 7 samples which form a formula (2,192 YBP+1,282 YBP+1,177 YBP+1821 YBP)/4.

In short, if the formation age and TMRCA are compared to historical events, like formation or migration of specific ethnical/cultural identity, then it empirically can not be used as a support i.e it absolutely no way indicates a correlation with Slavic expansion in Eastern Europe, more specifically, migration from Eeastern Europe toward Balkan between 550-750 CE.

Not only that, even the ethnogenesis origin of Slavic people, quote: „According to Polish historian Gerard Labuda, the ethnogenesis of Slavic people is the Trzciniec culture[37] from about 1700 to 1200 BC. The Milograd culture hypothesis posits that the pre-Proto-Slavs (or Balto-Slavs) originated in the seventh century BC–first century AD culture of northern Ukraine and southern Belarus. According to the Chernoles culture theory, the pre-Proto-Slavs originated in the 1025–700 BC culture of northern Ukraine and the third century BC–first century AD Zarubintsy culture. According to the Lusatian culture hypothesis, they were present in north-eastern Central Europe in the 1300–500 BC culture and the second century BC–fourth century AD Przeworsk culture“ does not correlate anyhow with the formation age and TMRCA of older subclades I-CTS10228 and I-S17250.

It can be theorized that the formation of I2a-Dinaric i.e. I-CTS10228 (3,112 BCE) was caused by some climate or social-historical events which caused the expansion, for example of the population of the Cucuteni-Trypillian and other cultures, and their change of lifestyle from mostly sedentary to nomadic or vice versa, and were assimilated by the Indo-Europeans (R1a and R1b).

However, the problem with the migration theory, according to which the populations with I2a-Dinaric originally lived in Carphatian Mountains and near Vistula River, which were slavicized making the Proto-Slavs with R1a in that area and only after then migrated to the south, is in the fact that between I-CTS10228 and I-S17250 is a time difference in formation of incredible 2,731 years or at least 136-109 generations. It indicates an extreme isolation and social-historical events which did not support the formation of new subclades, while in Europe it is the period of Bronze Age and Iron Age. It is impossible that in such active and developing social-historical events in Western, Central and Eastern Europe, there was no mutation for almost 3,000 years. Such an extreme isolation at the time could have only happen in Southeast Europe i.e Dinaric Alps and Balkan mountains.

This difference in 2,731 years could be explained by autochthonous theory i.e. multidisciplinary by archeological research. According to Alojz Benac, who analyzed archeological and ethno-cultural elements on Western Balkan (mostly area of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Western Serbia, Kosovo, part of Dalmatia and Albania), and A. Stipčević (1991), gave the most plausible and best formulated theory on the origin of Illyrians. According to Benac there exist four stages of development in Illyrian tribal communities:

1) „Pre-Illyrians“ are basic substrate which emerged along other groups in the end of Neolithic (Baden, Kostolac, Vučedol, culture with ribbon ceramics and Bell Beaker did not serve as a substrate yet as an additional element, and their disappearance is linked to the movement of the Indo-Europeans from the east). According to Benac, the research in 1970s during this period recorded a duration of Neolithic retardation throughout the Chalcolithic or Copper Age, in which the primary role played the Hvar-Lisičići (note Brač, Korčula and Hvar 54-67%, Herzegovina c. 70% I2) and the Adriatic variant of the Vučedol culture.

2) „Proto-Illyrians“ developed in the period of Indo-Europeans expansion, and in the end of Neolithic on Balkan occured „Illyrization“. According to research of the settlements and culture there was no immigration in the Bronze Age, so in the location of Glasinac can be seen uninterrupted development of culture from Bronze to Iron Age.

3) „Early-Illyrians“ developed in the end of Bronze Age at the time of so-called Dorian migration c. 1,200 BCE, and spread of Urnfield culture, which did not significantly affect the stability on the narrow part of Western Balkan or Illyrian ethnogenesis.
4) „Illyrians“ developed in the Iron Age.

According to Benac, like other archeologists, there's clear difference and existence of sub-groups among Illyrians i.e. generally one narrow area between river Aoös/ Vjosë and Mat in Albania (note high E1b1b), and one wide area along the Adriatic coast and its hinterland (high I2a-Dinaric). While in the narrow area the main role had Neolithic and Eneolithic (Copper) cultures type Maliq, elements of Baden and Kostolac, some from Epir-Macedonia, and Vučedol-Corded Ware; in the wide area is distinctively backward Hvar-Lisičići component (later substrate and part of Illyrian tribes in Bosnia and Herzegovina, e.g. Dassareti and Autariatae) and late Vučedol culture group (Ljubljansko Barje type).

The sudden formation of I-S17250 (2,331 YBP: 381 BCE) directly corresponds to the Celtic invasion/settlement of Southeastern Europe in the 4th century BCE and political degradation of the many Illyrian tribes in the hinterland, including the „the once greatest and most powerful Illyrian people“ (Strabo) tribe of Autariatae (between river Bosnia and Drina), Ardiaei (between Neretva and Albania), Dardani and so on.

Strabo, Book VII, Chapter 5: "for those who were most powerful in earlier times were utterly humbled or were obliterated, as, for example, among the Galatae the Boii and the Scordistae, and among the Illyrians the Autariatae, Ardiaei, and Dardanii, and among the Thracians the Triballi; that is, they were reduced in warfare by one another at first and then later by the Macedonians and the Romans... Now the Autariatae were once the largest and best tribe of the Illyrians. In earlier times they were continually at war with the Ardiaei over the salt-works on the common frontiers... At one time when the Autariatae had subdued the Triballi, whose territory extended from that of the Agrianes as far as the Ister, a journey of fifteen days, they held sway also over the rest of the Thracians and the Illyrians; but they were overpowered, at first by the Scordisci, and later on by the Romans, who also subdued the Scordisci themselves, after these had been in power for a long time".

At the time many tribes fought against the Macedonians, while later Roman-Illyrian wars from 3rd century BCE were only the start of end. Thing which is indicative, is that in the same period (4th century BCE) is dated the first historical, at least constant, mention of the Illyrians, and that their tribes are losing political influence due to mutual (due to various reasons) wars and better organized and developed Celts.

Those same Illyrians did not vanish in the literal sense of the Ancient chronicles, yet their ethno-political influence vanished and as such is of no interest to foreign historians or policies. After the Macedonian and Celtic events, the Roman used the situation to expand and succeeded. The Illyrians culture and hillforts are destroyed or arrogate, and they're Romanized (in the wide area, not in narrow Albania) from which emerged a mass population later known as semi-romanized Vlachs.

The TMRCA of I-S17250 (219 CE) i.e. its subclades between 332-472 CE could indicate: Constitutio Antoniniana granted citizenship in 212 CE to all free Roman Empire men, later Crisis of the Third Century (235–284 CE); invasion of the Goths and Huns which caused many social distortions and migrations, and as result end of the Roman Empire in 476 CE. There is no need that I-S17250 was located only north of Danube because these events/migrations could have influencedpopulations on both side of the Danube border.

The issue with the I2a-Dinaric Slavic migration theory are, beside these age differences which do not correlate with Slavic migration, archeological research which showed that there was no mass migration nor Balkan was uninhabited, rather can be followed continuity of cultural sources between Ancient and Middle Ages. With this agree historians whether about history or identity of Illyrians and Croats (i.e. Slavs) in the Balkan (D. Džino and F. Curta), as well genetic research which are in correlation "Father Tongue hypothesis" i.e. Mother Tongue and Y Chromosomes (Science, 2011): "focusing on prehistoric language shift in already settled areas, examples worldwide show that as little as 10-20% of prehistoric male immigration can (but need not) cause a language switch, indicating an elite imposition such as may have happened with the appearance of the first farmers or metalworkers in the neolithic, bronze and iron ages", with the fact the recent "Croatian national reference Y-STR haplotype databse" (2012) with 1,100 Y-DNA samples divided in five regions of Croatia showed in eastern, southern and western 18.64-20.00%, while in central and northern 23.64-29.09% of R1a; while according to Eupedia, percentage in BiH is 15%, Serbia 16%, Macedonia 13.5%, and Montenegro 7.5%, which arrived with the Slavs in Middle Age ("Genetic heritage of Croatians in the Southeastern European gene pool", 2016, consideration). The I2a showed exactly the opposite regional percentage in Croatia, from northern and central 25.45-31.82%, western and eastern 36.82-40.00%, southern 54.55%.

Fatherland
08-06-17, 02:15
New studies confirm I2a1b-Din has nothing to do with Illyrians.

Zero I2a1b in Ancient Balkans.

Fustan
08-06-17, 02:16
New studies confirm I2a1b-Din has nothing to do with Illyrians.

Zero I2a1b in Ancient Balkans.

Meanwhile J2b2-L283, R1b and the father of E-V13 was found just a few weeks ago in Bronze Age Croatia (Proto-Illyrian sample).

Fatherland
08-06-17, 02:26
Meanwhile J2b2-L283, R1b and the father of E-V13 was found just a few weeks ago in Bronze Age Croatia (Proto-Illyrian sample).
Illyrians certainly carried J2b2, EV13 and R1b-L23(which exists among Old-Balkan populations and is empty in South Slavs apart from Bulgarians who are in a big part Thracians).

Miroslav
09-06-17, 06:25
The haplogroup is zero in whole Europe. Your argument is invalid. There was a small sample for ancient Croatia, as well no tested sample for the most part of ancient Balkan i.e. Bosnia and Herzegovina especially where is the highest percentage of I2a-Din. No comment about with mumbo-jumbo theories that I2a-Din came with Turkic-speaking tribes :laughing:

Apsurdistan
09-06-17, 07:36
Just let them claim the Ilyrian or w/e heritage they want for God's sake. Why does it matter so much?

LeBrok
09-06-17, 16:09
Just let them claim the Ilyrian or w/e heritage they want for God's sake. Why does it matter so much? Actually, a good point. :)

Fatherland
09-06-17, 16:12
The haplogroup is zero in whole Europe. Your argument is invalid. There was a small sample for ancient Croatia, as well no tested sample for the most part of ancient Balkan i.e. Bosnia and Herzegovina especially where is the highest percentage of I2a-Din. No comment about with mumbo-jumbo theories that I2a-Din came with Turkic-speaking tribes :laughing:
Your posts are extremely ignorant when it has been pointed out that the highest diversity of I2a1b-Din is in further Eastern Europe between Poland and Ukraine. In Bosnia it reaches among the lowest diversity which obviously speaks of a rapid, recent expansion straight out of further Eastern Europe.

For the same reason EV13 did not originate in Kosovo, despite peaking there.

Open-mindedness gets us far.

The fact that they found Ancient J2b2-L283 in an area(Dalmatia) where in modern times J2b2-L283 there reaches 2-4% MAX while I2a1b-"Din" peaks nowadays(nonexistant back in the Bronze Age) says alot.

Miroslav
10-06-17, 04:04
The fact that they found Ancient J2b2-L283 in an area(Dalmatia) where in modern times J2b2-L283 there reaches 2-4% MAX while I2a1b-"Din" peaks nowadays(nonexistant back in the Bronze Age) says alot.

Oh my God... Do you understand that only 7 out of 14 samples from a different time period, culture, and locality in Croatia had Y-DNA result? There was only ONE local (Veliki Vanik) sample from Bronze Age (1700-1500 BCE) with J2b2a haplogroup. You're building a whole theory on 1 sample. Please, everyone knows that population in Albania has the lowest average IQ in Europe (below 90 IQ), don't act like a specimen with such level of cognitive ability. What you're writing about was already discussed. You did not bring anything constructive to the discussion.

Garrick
10-06-17, 11:11
Oh my God... Do you understand that only 7 out of 14 samples from a different time period, culture, and locality in Croatia had Y-DNA result? There was only ONE local (Veliki Vanik) sample from Bronze Age (1700-1500 BCE) with J2b2a haplogroup. You're building a whole theory on 1 sample. Please, everyone knows that population in Albania has the lowest average IQ in Europe (below 90 IQ), don't act like a specimen with such level of cognitive ability. What you're writing about was already discussed. You did not bring anything constructive to the discussion.

You're right but unfortunately it is useless discussion, because they don't want facts.

In Serbia, in culture of Lepen Whirl I2a is found on more locations and epochs, the oldest one is I2a1-p37 in Padina, 8753-8351 BC.

Some Albanians thought that E-V13 will be found in Lepen Whirl and Vinca.

But no, other haplogroups in Lepen Whirl are R1b1a-L754 (probably R1b1a2-V88) and in Vinca G2a (three samples 5604-4460 BC).

Nowhere haplogroups represented at today's Ghegs E-V13, R1b-ht35, J2b.

Fatherland
10-06-17, 13:00
Oh my God... Do you understand that only 7 out of 14 samples from a different time period, culture, and locality in Croatia had Y-DNA result? There was only ONE local (Veliki Vanik) sample from Bronze Age (1700-1500 BCE) with J2b2a haplogroup. You're building a whole theory on 1 sample. Please, everyone knows that population in Albania has the lowest average IQ in Europe (below 90 IQ), don't act like a specimen with such level of cognitive ability. What you're writing about was already discussed. You did not bring anything constructive to the discussion.
In any regard, my IQ is well past three-digit. Insults wont do you well, considering your posting history.

It is not wrong to state that the ancestors of the Serbs and Croats were brought by the Huno-Avars, simply because it is correct.

Albanians and most of Greeks resisted Turkic admixture.

http://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/East-Asian-admixture.gif

In 400 AD+ during the migration period, I2a1b-"Din" was somewhere in Ukraine according to the diversity there, tagging on with the R1a carriers to the Balkans, along with the more diverse Huno-Avars.

Fatherland
10-06-17, 13:29
You're right but unfortunately it is useless discussion, because they don't want facts.

In Serbia, in culture of Lepen Whirl I2a is found on more locations and epochs, the oldest one is I2a1-p37 in Padina, 8753-8351 BC.

Some Albanians thought that E-V13 will be found in Lepen Whirl and Vinca.

But no, other haplogroups in Lepen Whirl are R1b1a-L754 (probably R1b1a2-V88) and in Vinca G2a (three samples 5604-4460 BC).

Nowhere haplogroups represented at today's Ghegs E-V13, R1b-ht35, J2b.
You don't seem to have a bit of knowledge about the subject.

L23, the highest clade in Albanians by 99% represents the forefather of the Western and Nordic world. R1b as a whole barely reaches 3% in Serbs and Bosnians.

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/R1b-tree.png

Garrick
10-06-17, 13:33
You don't seem to have a bit of knowledge about the subject.

L23, the highest clade in Albanians represents the forefather of the Western and Nordic world.

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/R1b-tree.png

No, you don't know.

You event didn't read original scientific text.

R1b1a-L754 found in Lepen Whirl in Serbia are probably R1b1a2-V88.

Fatherland
10-06-17, 13:35
No, you don't know.

You event didn't read original scientific text.

R1b1a-L754 found in Lepen Whirl in Serbia are probably R1b1a2-V88.

R1b in Serbs and Bosnians is critically low, this is the ancestor of the Nordic, Germanic and Celtic world, it spread its influence eastwards carrying Northern components as we have seen in EHG samples:

http://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-R1b-L23.gif


L23:

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/R1b-tree.png

Garrick
10-06-17, 13:54
R1b in Serbs and Bosnians is critically low, this is the ancestor of the Nordic, Germanic and Celtic world, it spread its influence eastwards carrying Northern components as we have seen in EHG samples:

http://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-R1b-L23.gif

Why do you change topic?

Nobody spoke, neither about whole R1b haplogroup, nor about R1b-ht35.

I gave results for Lepen Whirl, in Serbia, where scientists found only I2a and R1b1a-L754 (it is probably V88), period 9221-5838 BC.

There is a good recent topic:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34173-does-R1b-V88-originate-from-the-Iron-Gate

No found R1b-ht35 which is typical, among others (Armenians, Anatolians, etc), for Ghegs.

Fatherland
10-06-17, 14:06
Why do you change topic?

Nobody spoke, neither about whole R1b haplogroup, nor about R1b-ht35.

I gave results for Lepen Whirl, in Serbia, where scientists found only I2a and R1b1a-L754 (it is probably V88), period 9221-5838 BC.

There is a good recent topic:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34173-does-R1b-V88-originate-from-the-Iron-Gate

No found R1b-ht35 which is typical, among others (Armenians, Anatolians, etc), for Ghegs.
Nothing wrong with that as Eastward migrations did happen from Europe.

R1b-L23 is the proper name for it, as you can see in the tree, Germanic, Nordic, Celtic, Italic, Atlantic branched off it. R1b-L23 was high in Ancient Spartans and it was high in Illyrians combined with J2b2, as Illyrians were Indo-European.

Garrick
10-06-17, 14:17
Nothing wrong with that as Eastward migrations did happen from Europe.

R1b-L23 is the proper name for it, as you can see in the tree, Germanic, Nordic, Celtic, Italic, Atlantic branched off it. R1b-L23 was high in Ancient Spartans and it was high in Illyrians combined with J2b2, as Illyrians were Indo-European.

First R1b in the Balkans according new founds were R1b1a-L754.

It is possible that they were any extinct branch L754* but it is more probably they were V88, today this branch is not in the Balkans.

Similar results for R1b1a-L754 found in Spain, if it is probably R1b-V88 it means that once R1b-V88 carriers lived in Europe and together with I2a.

Miroslav
10-06-17, 18:12
It is not wrong to state that the ancestors of the Serbs and Croats were brought by the Huno-Avars, simply because it is correct.

Literally, you do not know anything about the history of Europe and migration period when you mix Huns with Avars (different tribes and time period) and consider that Serbs and Croats were brought by your made-up "Huno-Avars". It is not correct anyhow, what you write is some pseudoscientific fiction which doesn't have any correct argumentation, hence your "conclusions" are not worth losing time. Please, next time inform yourself what you're discussing about and think about it before your write it down.

Apsurdistan
14-06-17, 04:52
Lol thanks Huno-Avars for bringing us to the most beautiful and diverse region of Europe for us to settle. How nice of them.

Nik
14-06-17, 07:54
As I've mentioned before, my opinion is that I2a-Din is rather a representative of a Northern and North-Eastern (Pannonian, Dacian) population that was pushed further South and South-West by any of the barbarian incursions.

Perhaps you guys can come to an agreement or at least understand each other better if you simply say that "the Illyrii proprie dicti were indeed E-V13, J2b, and R1b predominantly, while their more northern cousins had more I2a".

Ps: I dont think I2a-Din is a Slavic marker at all. It's way too common among Romanians, Moldavians, and Vlachs (even in Albania) to be Slavic. Why would the ruling Slavs accept the identity and language of the nomadic highland Vlachs in such huge numbers anyway?!

Fatherland
14-06-17, 20:59
As I've mentioned before, my opinion is that I2a-Din is rather a representative of a Northern and North-Eastern (Pannonian, Dacian) population that was pushed further South and South-West by any of the barbarian incursions.

Perhaps you guys can come to an agreement or at least understand each other better if you simply say that "the Illyrii proprie dicti were indeed E-V13, J2b, and R1b predominantly, while their more northern cousins had more I2a".

Ps: I dont think I2a-Din is a Slavic marker at all. It's way too common among Romanians, Moldavians, and Vlachs (even in Albania) to be Slavic. Why would the ruling Slavs accept the identity and language of the nomadic highland Vlachs in such huge numbers anyway?!
The clade is too young to have been established among old-Balkan populations.

The only person with that marker existed about 2500 years ago in Poland. TMRCA is a powerful tool. Tosks and Vlachs have it due to assimilating Slavs. Vlach haplogroups vary per region, this is not a homogenous population by any means.

Keep this example in mind: All I1 carriers descend from the same paternal ancestor of 3100 years ago and look how many they are now in Scandinavia and elsewhere since the migration period. Central and Eastern Europe along with the Balkans was and still is way more densely populated than Scandinavia.

Scandinavia today is only 16 million total pop while eastern half of Europe I'd estimate around 350 million.

Garrick
14-06-17, 22:47
The clade is too young to have been established among old-Balkan populations.

The only person with that marker existed about 2500 years ago in Poland. TMRCA is a powerful tool. Tosks and Vlachs have it due to assimilating Slavs. Vlach haplogroups vary per region, this is not a homogenous population by any means.

Keep this example in mind: All I1 carriers descend from the same paternal ancestor of 3100 years ago and look how many they are now in Scandinavia and elsewhere since the migration period. Central and Eastern Europe along with the Balkans was and still is way more densely populated than Scandinavia.

Scandinavia today is only 16 million total pop while eastern half of Europe I'd estimate around 350 million.

No. If we speak about I-CTS10228 it formed 5300 before and nobody knows where.

People can speculate it was barely surviving, about possible bottleneck and what is reason.

Earlier clades are everywhere around Europe including Balkans and some of them are very very old, I2 is one of the oldest European haplogroups.

Fatherland
14-06-17, 23:19
No. If we speak about I-CTS10228 it formed 5300 before and nobody knows where.

People can speculate it was barely surviving, about possible bottleneck and what is reason.

Earlier clades are everywhere around Europe including Balkans and some of them are very very old, I2 is one of the oldest European haplogroups.
Wrong. 2500 years is the I2a1b-Din TMRCA, from the diversity of Poland-Ukraine.

Miroslav
14-06-17, 23:26
Perhaps you guys can come to an agreement or at least understand each other better if you simply say that "the Illyrii proprie dicti were indeed E-V13, J2b, and R1b predominantly, while their more northern cousins had more I2a".

On the basis of currently available sample results, we simply can not. Haplogroup I2a1 is rare compared to I2a2 in ancient samples from whole Europe, then where is this I2a-Din? Nobody knows. The information about the haplogroup we have on Eupedia is a bunch of ideological and contradicting hypothesis without any evidence. It is simply ridiculous.


No. If we speak about I-CTS10228 it formed 5300 before and nobody knows where.

A number of people who do not know the difference between I-CTS10228 and I-S17250 is too damn high. A wonder they do not even know which subclade is known as I2a-Din.


Wrong. 2500 years is the I2a1b-Din TMRCA...

Tell me, which haplogroup subclade I2a1b-Din is?

Fatherland
14-06-17, 23:37
Tell me, which haplogroup subclade I2a1b-Din is?
As young as 2200 years is the TMRCA of CTS10228. When it formed is not relevant, many groups are formed earlier than that.
It fits perfectly with the Slavic migrations southward.

http://s13.postimg.org/ossn8zu7r/I2a1b2a1.png

So far, the only known basal sample of CTS10228* is a man from South-Eastern Poland:


I-CTS10228* id:YF01476 POL [PL-PK]


PL-PK stands for PL-Podkarpackie (Subcarpathian Voivodeship), near Ukrainian border:

Miroslav
14-06-17, 23:48
...

Which subclade is I2a1b-Din?

Fatherland
14-06-17, 23:56
Which subclade is I2a1b-Din?
The answer is right before your eyes. You are wasting my time with your low-quality posts.

Miroslav
14-06-17, 23:59
The answer is right before your eyes. You are wasting my time with your low-quality posts.

Sorry, but it is not. You're wasting my time trying to warn you that you're using the wrong terminology. Your other posts are even less important to address.

gyms
15-06-17, 00:00
"It fits perfectly with the Slavic migrations southward."

Slavic migration?

https://www.academia.edu/1246700/White_Croatia_and_the_arrival_of_the_Croats_an_int erpretation_of_Constantine_Porphyrogenitus_on_the_ oldest_Dalmatian_history_in_Early_Medieval_Europe_ 19_2011_204-31

Fatherland
15-06-17, 00:01
Sorry, but it is not. You're wasting my time trying to warn you that you're using the wrong terminology. Your other posts are even less important to address.
That's due to you lacking the intelligence as evident from all of your posts.

Y-Full explains everything.

Miroslav
15-06-17, 00:04
"It fits perfectly with the Slavic migrations southward."

The formation age and TMRCA do not fit perfectly anyhow with the Slavic migrations, not even with the formation of the Slavs BCE.

Fatherland
15-06-17, 00:06
The formation age and TMRCA do not fit perfectly with the Slavic migrations.
After 700 years there would be quite a sizeable number of I2a1b-slaves to take take them southwest as evident by the TMRCA(only one person).
If that person didn't live through, R1a would have been substantially higher in South Slavic populations.

Miroslav
15-06-17, 00:08
After 700 years there would be quite a sizeable number of I2a1b-slaves to take take them south as evident by the TMRCA(only one person).

Yes, another one of those arguments from the pub. So credible, incredible. Tell us one more.

Cip
15-06-17, 00:16
There are not much samples from Balkans. As the time i am sure new clades will be aded and TMRCA will also be pushed back. I2a-din dont match slavic migration. There is I2a-din in Kurdistan with others balkanic Y Hg and in Massagetae teritory. How to explain that, if I2a-din was slavic?

Fatherland
15-06-17, 00:22
There are not much samples from Balkans. As the time i am sure new clades will be aded and TMRCA will also be pushed back. I2a-din dont match slavic migration. There is I2a-din in Kurdistan with others balkanic Y Hg and in Massagetae teritory. How to explain that, if I2a-din was slavic?
Kurdistan and Turkey was a huge settlement for Mamlukes and Balkan Janissaries. It's also modern. People move around, deal with it.

Massagetae territory has nothing of the I2a-"Din" as we know.

Cip
15-06-17, 00:37
There are only 1000 reasons why Mamlukes and Balkan Janissaries has noting to do with Kurdistan...
Look at massagetae teritory in this map:
http://www.ancient-origins.net/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/Asia-in-323-BC.jpg?itok=DpghzeeK
and the I2a hotspot in the same place in this map:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/lFpAJXBHyxs/hqdefault.jpg

Fatherland
15-06-17, 00:39
There are only 1000 reasons why Mamlukes and Balkan Janissaries has noting to do with Kurdistan...
Look at massagetae teritory in this map:

and the I2a hotspot in the same place in this map:

No reports of the clade again. Romania became high in I2a1b-Din after the Slavic invasions, not to mention the Turkic tribes that arrived aswell with other haplogroups.

You can find the answer yourself by looking at all Romanian 23andme results.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6722-Romanian-23andme

Cip
15-06-17, 00:42
Apart from a small minority of I2c, all you see in Kurdistan and massagetae teritory is I2a-dinaric

Fatherland
15-06-17, 00:45
Apart from a small minority of I2c, all you see in Kurdistan and massagetae teritory is I2a-dinaric
It doesn't fall into it. I2a-Din alone is only present in Eastern Europe and parts of Turkey due to recent history.

That's reality.

Cip
15-06-17, 00:47
No reports of the clade again. Romania became high in I2a1b-Din after the Slavic invasions, not to mention the Turkic tribes that arrived aswell with other haplogroups.

You can find the answer yourself by looking at all Romanian 23andme results.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6722-Romanian-23andme


All i can see in the link you add here is romanians are more than 99% european and proves nothing regarding I2a-din

Fatherland
15-06-17, 00:48
All i can see in the link you add here is romanians are more than 99% european and proves nothing regarding I2a-din
Here's all you need to know on I2a-Din. Ken Nordtvedt named this, noone else. I-CTS10228

http://s13.postimg.org/ossn8zu7r/I2a1b2a1.png

Cip
15-06-17, 00:51
Do you understand my argument:
1. I2a-din in Kurdistan
2. I2a-din in Massagetae teritory
3. TMRCA can change with more sample they get

Fatherland
15-06-17, 00:53
Do you understand my argument:
1. I2a-din in Kurdistan
2. I2a-din in Massagetae teritory
3. TMRCA can change with more sample they get

Wrong. There's no report of it, you're just ignorant. And in regards to Kurdistan, people moved around.

Massagetae has no "din" sample, to simplify it for you as you seem to have difficulties with the English language.

All I2 is not "Din", only a part of it, a very small part ancestrally.

The I in Massagetae territory if it exists, is of an older source than I2-"Din" and most likely spread to these areas with along with other haplogroups.

Cip
15-06-17, 00:59
Wrong. There's no report of it, you're just ignorant. And in regards to Kurdistan, people moved around.

Massagetae has no "din" sample, to simplify it for you as you seem to have difficulties with the English language.

All I2 is not Din, only a part of it, a very small part ancestrally.

I dont care if I2a-din is slavic or not, i am G2a. But your approach is really stupid. in particular: "people moved around", with this words they can explain all haplogroups in all populations of the planet and close the Eupedia forum. Genial:"people moved around"!!! wow

Fatherland
15-06-17, 01:00
I dont care if I2a-din is slavic or not, i am G2a. But your approach is really stupid. in particular: "people moved around", with this words they can explain all haplogroups in all populations of the planet and close the Eupedia forum. Genial:"people moved around"!!! wow
If you have any questions, ask genetic genealogist Ken Nordtvedt.

In his own words: "I2a2a Dinaric is just too young to not have been the result of a sudden expansion not much more than 2000 years ago."

Stop coping.

Garrick
15-06-17, 02:36
Wrong. 2500 years is the I2a1b-Din TMRCA, from the diversity of Poland-Ukraine.

You are wrong, you speculate, even you didn't read (or understood) what I wrote.

I didn't speak neither about TMRCA nor about several TMRCA methods which can give different results.


Very precise, you can read what I wrote:

1. I-CTS10228 formed before 5300 years.

TRUE or FALSE


2. Nobody knows where I-CTS10228 formed (5300 years ago)

TRUE or FALSE


You "know" it is Poland. No, you can be badly mistaken.

What we have for now, two samples who classified as I-CTS10228*

One is from Poland and other is from Alsace (border area between France and Germany). Nobody can know where third sample can be found.


3. What about time difference between 5300 years and TMRCA 2300 years, it is: 3000 years.

TRUE or FALSE


Maybe someone thinks I-CTS10228 was under glass bell 3000 years and jumped.

But things don't function so.

We don't know neither what's happened nor about territory movement, of course we can speculate, for example about bottleneck and reasons for it.

...
I-CTS10228 has older brother it is I-FGC20479 formed 5300 years ago, found on British isles.

If we investigate movements of haplogroup I-P37 formed 21200 years ago we can see wider areas of Europe, including Balkans, Eastern Europe, Western Europe etc.

I-P37 is Paleolithic European haplogroup, very old in Europe.

Many thousand years after, first Neolitic farmers entered in Europe (G2a, C1) and more later E-V13 etc.
...

This is an overview, and without of speculation.

Trojet
15-06-17, 03:19
Apart from a small minority of I2c, all you see in Kurdistan and massagetae teritory is I2a-dinaric

You are wrong! There is no I2a-Dinaric in Kurdistan!

I2a-Dinaric (I-CTS10228) in the Balkans was spread by the Slavic migrations. This is what all the evidence points to.

Angela
15-06-17, 03:25
You are wrong! There is no I2a-Dinaric in Kurdistan!

I2a-Dinaric (I-CTS10228) in the Balkans was spread by the Slavic migrations. This is what all the evidence points to.

I agree; that seems to be the opinion of almost everyone who is taking an objective view of this material.

Trojet
15-06-17, 04:03
I agree; that seems to be the opinion of almost everyone who is taking an objective view of this material.

Absolutely! Certain people who don't like these facts, are using the thumb down button.

I2a1-Dinaric (I2a1-CTS10228) has a TMRCA of only ~2300 ybp as can be seen here (https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-CTS10228/). Meaning everyone who has this mutation descends from the the same patrilineal ancestor who lived around 2300 ybp. This mutation is spread in significant percentages throughout the Slavic world (the main one). And it's virtually in-existent in places where the Slavs barely set any foot, like Italy and the mountains of North Albania, etc.

Another great evidence we have now is ancient DNA. In the recent paper Genomic History of Southeastern Europe (http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/05/30/135616), which sampled a good amount of samples throughout the Balkans/Europe and throughout different time periods, not a single I2a1-M423 or L621 (where I2a1-Dinaric descends from) was found in the Balkans, instead it appears north of the Balkans, as can be seen here (http://biorxiv.org/highwire/filestream/42639/field_highwire_adjunct_files/1/135616-2.xlsx). There was one I2a-P37 found in present day Serbia. But since the authors didn't report M423 or L621 (where I2a1-Dinaric descends from), it means it was negative for these, and likely an extinct I2a lineage, or possibly I2a1-M26 (Sardinian branch).

For the Slavic readers (the rest can use Google translate), the following well written article comes from the admin of the Serbian DNA Project who analyzes the genetic make up of the Serbs and recent ancient DNA results. In one of the paragraphs he states (translated from Serbian):

The Serbs are predominantly descendants of the Slavs. Y-haplogroups which are genetically of Slavic signature are I2a-CTS10228 (also knows as I2a-Dinaric), R1a-Z280, and R1a-M458, which all together make up over half of Serbian paternal lineages.
Source: http://dnk.poreklo.rs/genetska-slika-lepenskog-vira-vince/

Apsurdistan
15-06-17, 05:25
Why the term Slavic migrations? When talking about Germanic, Anglo-Saxon or Indo-European it's expansions? The term Slav for the most part is not really a race or ethnicity or country it's a linguistic identity just like Germanic, Anglo-Saxon, or Indo-European or whatever. But where Slavic languages expanded it can only be a migration? I smell double standards there.
As far as I2a-Din for now it does seem very plausible it might have come to the Balkans carrying the Slavic language. But again it becomes very sketchy when labeling a hg to one linguistic group, as it's obvious there are many R1a carriers who don't speak a Slavic language as there are I2a-Din like Romanians who don't speak a Slavic language.
So I don't agree with handling this question as its just Slavic migrations. It sounds very black and white and simplistic and usually it's people who aren't Slavic that are content with that opinion, rather than it being the "objective" opinion.

Bergin
15-06-17, 05:39
Why the term Slavic migrations? When talking about Germanic, Anglo-Saxon or Indo-European it's expansions? The term Slav for the most part is not really a race or ethnicity or country it's a linguistic identity just like Germanic, Anglo-Saxon, or Indo-European or whatever. But where Slavic languages expanded it can only be a migration? I smell double standards there.
As far as I2a-Din for now it does seem very plausible it might have come to the Balkans carrying the Slavic language. But again it becomes very sketchy when labeling a hg to one linguistic group, as it's obvious there are many R1a carriers who don't speak a Slavic language as there are I2a-Din like Romanians who don't speak a Slavic language.
So I don't agree with handling this question as its just Slavic migrations. It sounds very black and white and simplistic and usually it's people who aren't Slavic that are content with that opinion, rather than it being the "objective" opinion.

Hi apsurdistan, everything is possible, we have to solve a puzzle at the end.
I am not a fan of nationalistic habits and wold be pretty happy to find I2-din being local. actually would even make some sense (and company).
but empiric facts are that albanians have a huge IDB at 1.5k years ago. There is an association with it, the balkans was changing because of northern movements. It will be hard to digest facts about people living north of albania and have no genetic memory of it. Maybe it just requires a good explanation, but up to now i am skeptical.

Trojet
15-06-17, 06:10
For the record, my previous post is in response to those who are still pushing for the "indigeneous" theory of I2a-Dinaric​ in the Balkans, which obviously there is no evidence of in light of all recent data. But to the contrary everything points that it came to the Balkans with the Slavic expansions. There is nothing nationalistic about this, it's just the evidence. Obviously just because someone has the I2a-CTS10228 mutation, which defines the I2a-Din, does not mean is Slav. It just points that one of their many ancient ancestors who happens to come from the direct paternal line, lived around 300 BC in a Slavic society. Why Slavic society? Because the Slavs existed at the time when the MRCA of the CTS10228 mutation lived (ca. 300 BC), and considering the geographical distribution of this mutation since that time (Or better refer to my previous post for the evidence). This is not about all I2a branches.

For those who would like to understand these things better, I encourage them to read other sources/forums to be better informed. And test your DNA at FTDNA, join haplogroup projects, etc. This is nothing against Eupedia, but some users here have (nationalistic) agendas and are spreading misleading information.

Apsurdistan
15-06-17, 06:30
Well you can keep calling it Slavic migrations I'll call it Slavic expansions. My ancestors are not just migrants who somehow inhabit more territory in Europe than any other non-Slavic people. That's not only merited by "migrations" and it's not nationalistic it's an objective fact.

LABERIA
15-06-17, 06:35
Hi apsurdistan, everything is possible, we have to solve a puzzle at the end.
I am not a fan of nationalistic habits and wold be pretty happy to find I2-din being local. actually would even make some sense (and company).
but empiric facts are that albanians have a huge IDB at 1.5k years ago. There is an association with it, the balkans was changing because of northern movements. It will be hard to digest facts about people living north of albania and have no genetic memory of it. Maybe it just requires a good explanation, but up to now i am skeptical.


As I've mentioned before, my opinion is that I2a-Din is rather a representative of a Northern and North-Eastern (Pannonian, Dacian) population that was pushed further South and South-West by any of the barbarian incursions.

Perhaps you guys can come to an agreement or at least understand each other better if you simply say that "the Illyrii proprie dicti were indeed E-V13, J2b, and R1b predominantly, while their more northern cousins had more I2a".

Ps: I dont think I2a-Din is a Slavic marker at all. It's way too common among Romanians, Moldavians, and Vlachs (even in Albania) to be Slavic. Why would the ruling Slavs accept the identity and language of the nomadic highland Vlachs in such huge numbers anyway?!
There is an alternative theory that maybe explains this. It's not supported by the mainstream of the historians but it is always a theory:

1971
Titos Jochalas:
On Albanian Migration to Greece

1. Constantine Sathas and the Proponents of his Theory

The well-known theory of Jakob Philipp Fallermayer, according to which the ancient Greeks disappeared completely as a result of the Slavic invasions of the 6th century A.D. was still being discussed in Greece and abroad when the Greek scholar Constantine Sathas contradicted his supposition. According to Sathas, the Albanians, as allies of the Avars, had already penetrated the country in the 6th century. The invaders from the north, who devastated all the land around them on their advance down to the Peleponnese, were not Slavs, but Albanians.

Sathas based his theory not only on toponomastic and onomastic evidence in the Peleponnese that had shown ties between the Greek and Albanian languages, but also on the relationship between Albanian and the Greek dialect of Tsakonia. He also noted that Byzantine historians had gotten things mixed up and instead of ‘Albanians’ had written about ‘Slavs.’ He pointed to a text by Chalcocondyles who had claimed that the Albanians arrived in the Peloponnese much earlier. In furtherance of his theory, Sathas even claimed that there was already an Albanian colony on Cyprus in the 4th century. It is evident that such a theory, not supported by mediaeval source material, was easy to contradict. On the one hand, place names in the Peloponnese cannot only be explained from Greek or Albanian, and on the other hand, it cannot be said that all Byzantine historians were completely ignorant and confused historical events. The passage in Chalcocondyles does not refer to Albanians in the 6th century, but to Albanians in general who settled in the Peloponnese in the early 15th century.

Although research has shown that Sathas’ theory was wrong, it was nevertheless revived a few years later by S. G. Panayotopoulos and P. Kanelidis. Both of them relied on place names on the Mani (Maina) peninsula which they took as Albanian and on parallels between the customs of the Albanians and the Maniots, and concluded that the Albanians must have settled in the Peleponnese long before the 15th century. In two of his articles, D. Kambouroglous regarded this position as unfounded. Sathas’s theory, that seemed to have been completely forgotten, arose again in 1928, but from a different aspect. It was Petros Fourikis who derived the word ‘Mani’ from the Alb. man (mulberry tree) and held the view that the Albanians must have been in the Peleponnese from the 10th century onwards since the word Mani was mentioned by K. Porphyrogennetos. Fourikis’ work was, however, rejected by both linguists and historians.

The old theory was brought up again by Kostas Mbiris, which shows just how deeply ingrained the idea of an early arrival of the Albanians was among some Greeks.
So the question is:
This famous slavic invasion of Greece, was really a slavic invasion or Slavs were just a small group, an elite meanwhile the bulk were Vlachs and Albanians?
The key of this puzzle is hidden in the history of this two nations, Vlachs and Albanians, once the two biggest ethnic groups of this Peninsula, until 200 years ago.

Apsurdistan
15-06-17, 07:54
For the record, my previous post is in response to those who are still pushing for the "indigeneous" theory of I2a-Dinaric​ in the Balkans, which obviously there is no evidence of in light of all recent data. But to the contrary everything points that it came to the Balkans with the Slavic expansions. There is nothing nationalistic about this, it's just the evidence. Obviously just because someone has the I2a-CTS10228 mutation, which defines the I2a-Din, does not mean is Slav. It just points that one of their many ancient ancestors who happens to come from the direct paternal line, lived around 300 BC in a Slavic society. Why Slavic society? Because the Slavs existed at the time when the MRCA of the CTS10228 mutation lived (ca. 300 BC), and considering the geographical distribution of this mutation since that time (Or better refer to my previous post for the evidence). This is not about all I2a branches.

For those who would like to understand these things better, I encourage them to read other sources/forums to be better informed. And test your DNA at FTDNA, join haplogroup projects, etc. This is nothing against Eupedia, but some users here have (nationalistic) agendas and are spreading misleading information.

I like that you changed it from Slavic migration to Slavic expansion when I pointed out the double standard in terminology. Respect Trojet!

gyms
15-06-17, 08:07
Ken Nordtvedt is NOT genetic genealogiskt!

gyms
15-06-17, 08:21
Therese is not a single scientific evidence for that.Do You have any slavic I2a-din aDNA?

Milan.M
15-06-17, 08:25
.................

gyms
15-06-17, 10:39
http://www.kroraina.com/bulgar/setton.html

The fifteenth-century Greek ecclesiastic, Isidore, Metropolitan of Kiev (1437-1442), a prominent figure in the Councils of Ferrara and Florence, declares in a petition which he addressed about 1429 to the Patriarch of Constantinople, in behalf of the then Metropolitan of Monemvasia, that the Onogur Bulgars took Corinth without a struggle. This statement has never been taken seriously, but it seems to me that the weight of the evidence, which we shall examine as we proceed, is entirely in favor of the fundamental truth of Isidore's statement, although he has, to be sure, erred in both the time and circumstances of the Bulgaric occupation of Corinth.

Avar and Slav invasions into the Balkan peninsula (c.575-625): the nature of the numismatic evidence

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-roman-archaeology/article/avar-and-slav-invasions-into-the-balkan-peninsula-c575625-the-nature-of-the-numismatic-evidence/56B881189293DE69AC09FCF8A547423B

The Hungarians strengthened their control over the Carpathian Basin by defeating a Bavarian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Bavaria) army in a battle fought at Brezalauspurc (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pressburg) on July 4, 907. They launched a series of plundering raids (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_invasions_of_Europe) between 899 and 955 and also targeted the Byzantine Empire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire) between 943 and 971. However, they gradually settled in the Basin and established a Christian monarchy, the Kingdom of Hungary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Hungary_in_the_Middle_Ages) around 1000.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_conquest_of_the_Carpathian_Basin

gyms
15-06-17, 10:50
Kenneth Leon Nordtvedt (born 1939) is a senior researcher specializing in relativistic theories of gravity. He was born on April 16, 1939, in Chicago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago), Illinois (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois). Nordtvedt graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Institute_of_Technology) (1960) and Stanford University (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_University) (Ph.D., 1964) and was a junior fellow in the Harvard Society of Fellows (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Society_of_Fellows) (1963-1965). During this same period he was staff physicist at the MIT Instrumentation Laboratory project to develop the Apollo Mission's navigation and guidance system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Nordtvedt

Balkanite
15-06-17, 11:00
He is also an active genetic genealogist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_genealogy) by interests. He has done his own research into genetic haplogroups (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroups), particularly the Y DNA group I (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I_(Y-DNA)), to which he belongs.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Nordtvedt#cite_note-3)[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Nordtvedt#cite_note-4)

Garrick
15-06-17, 11:28
He is also an active genetic genealogist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_genealogy) by interests. He has done his own research into genetic haplogroups (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroups), particularly the Y DNA group I (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I_(Y-DNA)), to which he belongs.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Nordtvedt#cite_note-3)[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Nordtvedt#cite_note-4)

Objectively Nordtvedt and Klyosov who got similar result for TMRCA are not genetic genealogists, they are hobbyists, Nordtvedt didn't write for scientific journals, and Klyosov published some articles in less respectable scientific journals.

Russian school is very active to prove that I2a Din is part of Slavic expansion.

But problem is a lot of speculations about this topic with little facts and in that way everyone speaks what he or she wants, and sometimes only propaganda.

Garrick
15-06-17, 11:31
The key of this puzzle is hidden in the history of this two nations, Vlachs and Albanians, once the two biggest ethnic groups of this Peninsula, until 200 years ago.

It is totally without evidence, even is useless to comment.

Nonsense.

gyms
15-06-17, 11:45
"An estimate of their common ancestor came up with a time to most recent common ancestor of 3000 years ago, and I was thereafter hooked on the new hobby, especially with regard to Y Haplogroup I."

Ken Nordtvedt – Genetic Genealogy Interview
https://www.familytreedna.com/learn/news/ken-nordtvedt-genetic-genealogy-interview/

Miroslav
15-06-17, 12:41
Ken Nordtvedt was "relevant" when we did not have so many SNPs, and with time his work will become even less "relevant". The STR marker DYS488=19/20 differed between Dinaric North and South, but today is known that very similar STR haplotypes can be shared within haplogroups which diverged over 2000 years, and DYS488=19 fit SNP I-PH908. Using his work as an argument is being outdated and counter-productive.

Miroslav
15-06-17, 12:52
I agree; that seems to be the opinion of almost everyone who is taking an objective view of this material.

Except - we do not have any evidence. Objective viewpoint is based on evidence, your objective viewpoint actually ignores the factual reality, but there's still no evidence. Nothing. Ancient sample with the haplogroup was not found in whole Europe, yet they highlight it was not found in the Balkan. Wow, what a logical premise. There several issues with the proposed Slavic origin and expansion which firstly need to be objectively answered:

1. The formation age and TMRCA empirically can not be used as a support for Slavic migration between 550-750 CE

2. The ethnogenesis origin of Slavic people does not correlate anyhow with the formation age and TMRCA of older subclades I-CTS10228 and I-S17250

3. Between I-CTS10228 and I-S17250 is a time difference of formation age of incredible 2,731 years or at least 136-109 generations which are impossible that in such active and developing social-historical events of Bronze Age and Iron Age in Western, Central, and Eastern Europe, there was no mutation for almost 3,000 years

Trojet
15-06-17, 13:21
Except - we do not have any evidence. Objective viewpoint is based on evidence, your objective viewpoint actually ignores the factual reality, but there's still no evidence. Nothing. Ancient sample with the haplogroup was not found in whole Europe, yet they highlight it was not found in the Balkan. Wow, what a logical premise. There several issues with the proposed Slavic origin and expansion which firstly need to be objectively answered:

1. The formation age and TMRCA empirically can not be used as a support for Slavic migration between 550-750 CE

2. The ethnogenesis origin of Slavic people does not correlate anyhow with the formation age and TMRCA of older subclades I-CTS10228 and I-S17250

3. Between I-CTS10228 and I-S17250 is a time difference of formation age of incredible 2,731 years or at least 136-109 generations which are impossible that in such active and developing social-historical events of Bronze Age and Iron Age in Western, Central, and Eastern Europe, there was no mutation for almost 3,000 years

It seems you don't even understand what TMRCA means. It simply is a Time to Most Recent Common Ancestor of a subclade, and not when the actual expansion happened. Therefore the expansion can only happen after the TMRCA lived. (After 300 BC in this case, when the Slavs expanded). The "Formed Age" doesn't really mean anything in this case, it's all about TMRCAs. The big discrepancy between "Formed Age" and TMRCA simply means that this clade had a long bottleneck (example lines daughtering out), and this "tribe" only expanded rapidly after 300 BC, the time when its Most Recent Common Ancestor lived. This subclade (I2a-Din aka CTS10228) is now the most common Y-haplogrup among Slavic nations.

True, I2a-CTS10228 mutation has not been found anywhere in ancient DNA yet, but that's because the vast majority of aDNA samples come from before this mutation even existed in great numbers 300 BC and later. And therefore its ancestral clade, I2a-M423, has been found in ancient DNA multiple times North of the Balkans, and nowhere in the Balkans. Or better read my previous post again in case you missed it:


Absolutely! Certain people who don't like these facts, are using the thumb down button.

I2a1-Dinaric (I2a1-CTS10228) has a TMRCA of only ~2300 ybp as can be seen here (https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-CTS10228/). Meaning everyone who has this mutation descends from the the same patrilineal ancestor who lived around 2300 ybp. This mutation is spread in significant percentages throughout the Slavic world (the main one). And it's virtually in-existent in places where the Slavs barely set any foot, like Italy and the mountains of North Albania, etc.

Another great evidence we have now is ancient DNA. In the recent paper Genomic History of Southeastern Europe (http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/05/30/135616), which sampled a good amount of samples throughout the Balkans/Europe and throughout different time periods, not a single I2a1-M423 or L621 (where I2a1-Dinaric descends from) was found in the Balkans, instead it's​ found north of the Balkans, as can be seen here (http://biorxiv.org/highwire/filestream/42639/field_highwire_adjunct_files/1/135616-2.xlsx). There was one I2a-P37 found in present day Serbia. But since the authors didn't report M423 or L621 (where I2a1-Dinaric descends from), it means it was negative for these, and likely an extinct I2a lineage, or possibly I2a1-M26 (Sardinian branch).

For the Slavic readers (the rest can use Google translate), the following well written article comes from the admin of the Serbian DNA Project who analyzes the genetic make up of the Serbs and recent ancient DNA results. In one of the paragraphs he states (translated from Serbian):

Source: http://dnk.poreklo.rs/genetska-slika-lepenskog-vira-vince/

Fatherland
15-06-17, 13:35
Great points Trojet and Angela.

Miroslav
15-06-17, 13:51
It seems you don't even understand what TMRCA means... True, I2a-CTS10228 mutation has not been found anywhere in ancient DNA yet, but that's because the vast majority of samples come from before this mutation even happened (Bronze Age and Earlier)...

Oh, my God, I am speechless. I can not argue with a wall who does not understand a thing yet think is smarter than others, but is not. Useless discussion with people who do not understand history, archeology (when was Bronze Age time period) nor genetics (I2a-Din is not I-CTS10228)...

Balkanite
15-06-17, 14:02
Oh, my God, I am speechless. I can not argue with a wall who does not understand a thing yet think is smarter than others, but is not. Useless discussion with people who do not understand history, archeology nor genetics.
Why does he not understand?
Is there any historical, archeological or genetical data pointing towards a paleo-balkanic origin of I2a-Din? Maybe he missed these data?
Or are you trying to imply that a huge portion Poles and Russians came from the Dinaric mountains too? Do you really believe that?

You really do not ask for much do you? Only that all other europeans have to act blind towards all known facts about the slavs, just to adapt your crazy theory into our perception of european history?

Trojet
15-06-17, 14:05
Oh, my God, I am speechless. I can not argue with a wall who does not understand a thing yet think is smarter than others, but is not. Useless discussion with people who do not understand history, archeology (when was Bronze Age time period) nor genetics (I2a-Din is not I-CTS10228)...

Seriously?! I can't believe I'm even having a debate with someone​ like you.

For example, this comes from the admin of the Serbian DNA Project:

The Serbs are predominantly descendants of the Slavs. Y-haplogroups which are genetically of Slavic signature are I2a-CTS10228 (also knows as I2a-Dinaric), R1a-Z280, and R1a-M458, which all together make up over half of Serbian paternal lineages.

Source: http://dnk.poreklo.rs/genetska-slika-lepenskog-vira-vince/

Peace out!

MarkoZ
15-06-17, 14:25
It seems you don't even understand what TMRCA means. It simply is a Time to Most Recent Common Ancestor of a subclade, and not when the actual expansion happened. Therefore the expansion can only happen after the TMRCA lived. (After 300 BC in this case, when the Slavs expanded). The "Formed Age" doesn't really mean anything in this case, it's all about TMRCAs. The big discrepancy between "Formed Age" and TMRCA simply means that this clade had a long bottleneck (example lines daughtering out), and this "tribe" only expanded rapidly after 300 BC, the time when its Most Recent Common Ancestor lived.

You might want to read up on this again. The margin of error applies in either direction. I doubt that over the course of a few centuries the mutation rate will be stable enough for reliable estimates.

doku
15-06-17, 14:35
I -CTS10228 mostly spreads in the Balkan after Osmanic onquest XIV, XV and XVI century with Vlachs migration not with Slavic migration. This is well historically documented: "NEDIM FILIPOVIĆ Islamizacija u BiH i islamizacija Vlaškog stanovništva u Bosni – Islamizacija Vlaha između 15 i 16 vijeka".

Balkanite
15-06-17, 14:51
Absolutely! Certain people who don't like these facts, are using the thumb down button.

I2a1-Dinaric (I2a1-CTS10228) has a TMRCA of only ~2300 ybp as can be seen here (https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-CTS10228/). Meaning everyone who has this mutation descends from the the same patrilineal ancestor who lived around 2300 ybp. This mutation is spread in significant percentages throughout the Slavic world (the main one). And it's virtually in-existent in places where the Slavs barely set any foot, like Italy and the mountains of North Albania, etc.

Another great evidence we have now is ancient DNA. In the recent paper Genomic History of Southeastern Europe (http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/05/30/135616), which sampled a good amount of samples throughout the Balkans/Europe and throughout different time periods, not a single I2a1-M423 or L621 (where I2a1-Dinaric descends from) was found in the Balkans, instead it appears north of the Balkans, as can be seen here (http://biorxiv.org/highwire/filestream/42639/field_highwire_adjunct_files/1/135616-2.xlsx). There was one I2a-P37 found in present day Serbia. But since the authors didn't report M423 or L621 (where I2a1-Dinaric descends from), it means it was negative for these, and likely an extinct I2a lineage, or possibly I2a1-M26 (Sardinian branch).

For the Slavic readers (the rest can use Google translate), the following well written article comes from the admin of the Serbian DNA Project who analyzes the genetic make up of the Serbs and recent ancient DNA results. In one of the paragraphs he states (translated from Serbian):

Source: http://dnk.poreklo.rs/genetska-slika-lepenskog-vira-vince/
This makes great sense, thanks!

Fustan
15-06-17, 20:32
Thanks for the informative posts regarding the Slavic I2 that exists in the Balkan Slavs, Trojet.

Miroslav
15-06-17, 21:03
Seriously?!...

The one who is shocked is me. Literally, how many times I have to tell you the by I2a-Din is not meant I-CTS10228, yet I2-L621 (L147.2+), just read for once the article "Haplogroup I2 (Y-DNA)" by Eupedia, also since you mention so much Nordtvedt, by I2a2-Dinaric is meant to be even I-M423, while by "Dinaric" cluster or "Dinaric-North" or "Dinaric-South" is meant I-CTS10228.


Thanks for the informative posts regarding the Slavic I2 that exists in the Balkan Slavs, Trojet.

These Albanian accounts cheering each other so much, regardless of "objectivity" and "informativeness", cringe, double accounts? :thinking:

Balkanite
15-06-17, 21:19
The jaundiced eye sees all things yellow

Garrick
15-06-17, 22:39
Why the term Slavic migrations? When talking about Germanic, Anglo-Saxon or Indo-European it's expansions? The term Slav for the most part is not really a race or ethnicity or country it's a linguistic identity just like Germanic, Anglo-Saxon, or Indo-European or whatever. But where Slavic languages expanded it can only be a migration? I smell double standards there.
As far as I2a-Din for now it does seem very plausible it might have come to the Balkans carrying the Slavic language. But again it becomes very sketchy when labeling a hg to one linguistic group, as it's obvious there are many R1a carriers who don't speak a Slavic language as there are I2a-Din like Romanians who don't speak a Slavic language.
So I don't agree with handling this question as its just Slavic migrations. It sounds very black and white and simplistic and usually it's people who aren't Slavic that are content with that opinion, rather than it being the "objective" opinion.

Because unfortunately everything what is related for the Balkans is politics.

Science, scientific evidence, even common sense, does not help.

For example I read transcripts between Communist friends, comrade Stalin and comrade Enver Hoxha, how they agreed that Albanians are descendant of Ilyrians what Stalin loved especially after dissolution with Tito.

Communists were projected all areas of life and especially they loved to re-tailor history, archeology, anthropology etc.

Unfortunately nothing changed in the Balkans even today.

Politics is often more important than scientific facts and evidence.

For example Russian experts point out that I-CTS10228 is Slavic marker. It can be related with any evidence but you can notice that Russians generally prefer it because if carriers of I-CTS10228 are Slavic origin Russia can have big influence on population in that region, if no, this influence can be much smaller. What is more important science or politics in this case?

About TMCRA, there are eight and more different methods and they give different results. But hobbyists Nordtvedt and Klyosov get very similar result. I will not speculate about their result.

But we have two samples I-CTS10228* one is from Poland but one is from Alsace (France-Germany border). What does that say? Were I-CTS10228 carriers in wider European areas (where dominated R1a or R1b carriers, or I2a carriers themselves)? Where we can find third I-CTS10228*, in Austria, Slovenia, Croatia, Hungary, Serbia... We don't know, only can speculate. And if we see older brother I-FGC20479 he is found in British isles. I-CTS10228, I-FGC20479, and related clades (we can go to ancestor I-P37 if you want) are everywhere in Europe.

What is interesting because above mentioned clades were in the wider European areas their carriers were been associated with other expansions, for example Goths. I comment this with one Russian expert but he rejected that argument, he prefers that E-V13 carriers are related with Illyrians and I2a carriers with Slavs (Russians embrace Albanian speculations but new studies mainly by Western scientists give totally different picture). Regardless of his expertise (Russian scientists participate in many world top genetic genealogy research and publish alone or a part of a world expert teams in prominent international journals what is logical because of developed science and Russia and a lot of Institutes) I ask myself if his attitude is very trivial and unscientific, if it is really science or politics has a connection.

It will be many new findings and new studies and we will know better. Therefore better not to speculate. Really I would like if it is possible to determine which haplogroups belonged to the Roman emperors of Illyrian origin and members of upper classes Illyrian origin in the Balkans in the Roman epoche.

Illyrians dissapeared as political entity probably in 2-4 century and their language dissapeared because they are Romanised (according scientific evidence, especially newer studies, Albanian nothing to do with Illyrian) but with new samples we will have more knowledge about their genetics.

Someone should not be surprised if it varied by regions and if it changed with time.

LABERIA
15-06-17, 23:04
Because unfortunately everything what is related for the Balkans is politics.

Science, scientific evidence, even common sense, does not help.

For example I read transcripts between Communist friends, comrade Stalin and comrade Enver Hoxha, how they agreed that Albanians are descendant of Ilyrians what Stalin loved especially after dissolution with Tito.

Communists were projected all areas of life and especially they loved to re-tailor history, archeology, anthropology etc.

Unfortunately nothing changed in the Balkans even today.

Politics is often more important than scientific facts and evidence.

For example Russian experts point out that I-CTS10228 is Slavic marker. It can be related with any evidence but you can notice that Russians generally prefer it because if carriers of I-CTS10228 are Slavic origin Russia can have big influence on population in that region, if no, this influence can be much smaller. What is more important science or politics in this case?

About TMCRA, there are eight and more different methods and they give different results. But hobbyists Nordtvedt and Klyosov get very similar result. I will not speculate about their result.

But we have two samples I-CTS10228* one is from Poland but one is from Alsace (France-Germany border). What does that say? Were I-CTS10228 carriers in wider European areas (where dominated R1a or R1b carriers, or I2a carriers themselves)? Where we can find third I-CTS10228*, in Austria, Slovenia, Croatia, Hungary, Serbia... We don't know, only can speculate. And if we see older brother I-FGC20479 he is found in British isles. I-CTS10228, I-FGC20479, and related clades (we can go to ancestor I-P37 if you want) are everywhere in Europe.

What is interesting because above mentioned clades were in the wider European areas their carriers were been associated with other expansions, for example Goths. I comment this with one Russian expert but he rejected that argument, he prefers that E-V13 carriers are related with Illyrians and I2a carriers with Slavs (Russians embrace Albanian speculations but new studies mainly by Western scientists give totally different picture). Regardless of his expertise (Russian scientists participate in many world top genetic genealogy research and publish alone or a part of a world expert teams in prominent international journals what is logical because of developed science and Russia and a lot of Institutes) I ask myself if his attitude is very trivial and unscientific, if it is really science or politics has a connection.

It will be many new findings and new studies and we will know better. Therefore better not to speculate. Really I would like if it is possible to determine which haplogroups belonged to the Roman emperors of Illyrian origin and members of upper classes Illyrian origin in the Balkans in the Roman epoche.

Illyrians dissapeared as political entity probably in 2-4 century and their language dissapeared because they are Romanised (according scientific evidence, especially newer studies, Albanian nothing to do with Illyrian) but with new samples we will have more knowledge about their genetics.

Someone should not be surprised if it varied by regions and if it changed with time.

The only your contribution in this forum from many years is your pathological hate against Albanians. You are sick person. You know this and this give you pleasure.

Fatherland
15-06-17, 23:49
The only your contribution in this forum from many years is your pathological hate against Albanians. You are sick person. You know this and this give you pleasure.
Seems like Garrick's propaganda managed to fester in here for many years like a plague.

LABERIA
16-06-17, 00:04
Seems like Garrick's propaganda managed to fester in here for many years like a plague.

When i say that i have read almost everything about Albanians in this forum, you have to believe me. It's just disgusting.

Garrick
16-06-17, 00:34
Oh, my God, I am speechless. I can not argue with a wall who does not understand a thing yet think is smarter than others, but is not. Useless discussion with people who do not understand history, archeology (when was Bronze Age time period) nor genetics (I2a-Din is not I-CTS10228)...

Because facts don't matter. Nor can there be a different opinion despite the fact that it is based on evidence.

Well you noticed certain discrepancies and who wants use proper nomenclature he or she should write I-CTS10228.

Angela
16-06-17, 01:57
Here we go again. Another academic or at least semi-academic thread ruined by this Balkan nonsense.

I don't want to see polemics here any more, I don't want to see politics here any more, I don't want to see the same point spammed over and over again.

Make your points and move on. If you don't agree, try the novel step of agreeing to disagree like normal people.

Garrick, watch your step. Ditto for Laberia. You're always the worst offenders.

Apsurdistan
16-06-17, 02:06
Because unfortunately everything what is related for the Balkans is politics.

Science, scientific evidence, even common sense, does not help.

For example I read transcripts between Communist friends, comrade Stalin and comrade Enver Hoxha, how they agreed that Albanians are descendant of Ilyrians what Stalin loved especially after dissolution with Tito.

Communists were projected all areas of life and especially they loved to re-tailor history, archeology, anthropology etc.

Unfortunately nothing changed in the Balkans even today.

Politics is often more important than scientific facts and evidence.

For example Russian experts point out that I-CTS10228 is Slavic marker. It can be related with any evidence but you can notice that Russians generally prefer it because if carriers of I-CTS10228 are Slavic origin Russia can have big influence on population in that region, if no, this influence can be much smaller. What is more important science or politics in this case?

About TMCRA, there are eight and more different methods and they give different results. But hobbyists Nordtvedt and Klyosov get very similar result. I will not speculate about their result.

But we have two samples I-CTS10228* one is from Poland but one is from Alsace (France-Germany border). What does that say? Were I-CTS10228 carriers in wider European areas (where dominated R1a or R1b carriers, or I2a carriers themselves)? Where we can find third I-CTS10228*, in Austria, Slovenia, Croatia, Hungary, Serbia... We don't know, only can speculate. And if we see older brother I-FGC20479 he is found in British isles. I-CTS10228, I-FGC20479, and related clades (we can go to ancestor I-P37 if you want) are everywhere in Europe.

What is interesting because above mentioned clades were in the wider European areas their carriers were been associated with other expansions, for example Goths. I comment this with one Russian expert but he rejected that argument, he prefers that E-V13 carriers are related with Illyrians and I2a carriers with Slavs (Russians embrace Albanian speculations but new studies mainly by Western scientists give totally different picture). Regardless of his expertise (Russian scientists participate in many world top genetic genealogy research and publish alone or a part of a world expert teams in prominent international journals what is logical because of developed science and Russia and a lot of Institutes) I ask myself if his attitude is very trivial and unscientific, if it is really science or politics has a connection.

It will be many new findings and new studies and we will know better. Therefore better not to speculate. Really I would like if it is possible to determine which haplogroups belonged to the Roman emperors of Illyrian origin and members of upper classes Illyrian origin in the Balkans in the Roman epoche.

Illyrians dissapeared as political entity probably in 2-4 century and their language dissapeared because they are Romanised (according scientific evidence, especially newer studies, Albanian nothing to do with Illyrian) but with new samples we will have more knowledge about their genetics.

Someone should not be surprised if it varied by regions and if it changed with time.

Ok. But autosomal dna shows we are definitely pretty closely related to other Slavs. My results so far have shown I am even close to west Russians just as much as I am to Greeks, Italians, other Balkanites, Germans or if not even closer. Even though they're pretty far from us geographically. I'd like to know if Romanians on average are closer to Russians than we are. If we are closer than they are then that does say something about a connection other than linguistic. If they are closer to Russians than we are then this adna stuff doesn't really say much, it just basically corresponds to geography.

Bergin
16-06-17, 02:10
Angela, is there any academic consensus regarding the story line of I2a-Din? Or is it an open question requesting new samples?

Miroslav
16-06-17, 02:34
Angela, is there any academic consensus regarding the story line of I2a-Din? Or is it an open question requesting new samples?

Academic sources are mostly stuck at I-M423 subclade and, at least in Croatian academic sources, over a decade unanimously consider autochthonous origin. Everything else, especially Eupedia and genetic hobbyists (Klyosov's work is labeled as pseudoscientific), are not academic sources. Currently, we are at the stage of ideological theorization, anyone who is trying to sell one or another story is simply a demagogue, but the scientific consideration is at least official or mainstream, which many forget. That's why the topic is discussed so extensively at forums, we do not have any ancient sample with I-CTS10228 subclade.

Miroslav
16-06-17, 02:42
Ok. But autosomal dna shows we are definitely pretty closely related to other Slavs...

Autosomal DNA is not of much use if we're discussing for a period older than 300 years. There several possible reasons some populations are more closely related than to others.

Trojet
16-06-17, 02:42
Angela, is there any academic consensus regarding the story line of I2a-Din? Or is it an open question requesting new samples?

There will never be any "consensus" at Eupedia if we discuss these things with people named Miroslav, etc.

What we currently know about I2a-Din aka I2a-CTS10228 is what I posted in my recent posts here. Take this from someone who has been deeply involved in this field for years now. Bottom line: In today's age of Next Generation Sequencing and ancient DNA, the evidence is overwhelming that it came to the Balkans with Slavic expansions.

In light of all this evidence, anyone who still pushes for the "indigeneous" theory is either not (well) informed in this field, or is intentionally spreading misleading information due to nationalistic reasons.

Of course Angela is welcomed to add anything else.

Miroslav
16-06-17, 02:48
There will never be any "consensus" at Eupedia if we discuss these things with people names Miroslav, etc...

We already have some kind of consensus on Eupedia when you have on I2 article pushed ideological hypothesis. The forum is another thing, however, both this and Serbian DNA Project among others are not official and reliable sources someone can cite. Maciamo and others are the ones who decide to make a stand for specific hypothesis promotion. It's their problem they support and promote a theory not based on any evidence, and ignorance of contradicting information. Well, if you're making names, then sincerely we really can not have consensus with people like you who do not know when was Bronze Age in Europe.

"The evidence is overwhelming", what you say is just a funny mantra, nothing more or less. Stop to repeat and misguide yourself and others, there is no evidence. Unless you want to act according to the quote by A. Hitler "If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed".

Apsurdistan
16-06-17, 03:12
Ok you guys are just starting to have an argument on a personal level. It's not helping the others who are trying to learn something by absorbing FACTUAL information.

Miroslav
16-06-17, 03:51
Ok you guys are just starting to have an argument on a personal level. It's not helping the others who are trying to learn something by absorbing FACTUAL information.

The most important fact in the objective discussion is finding if something is or is not a fact, and a fact is there's still no evidence. All those who want to learn something factual need to understand that before they go to read both Eupedian or some other project presentation of the haplogroup origin and expansion. If you, and those with a similar level of understanding, want to learn something and change the current conversation, a good start would be a list of questions.

Apsurdistan
16-06-17, 04:19
How am I gonna ask any viable questions when you just say "there is no evidence" what do you mean there's no evidence of what? If there's no evidence then what is all the arguing about, we shouldn't even be having the discussion then.
I could ask a whole bunch of quesrions, I don't even know where to start though.
What is your major beef with Trojet cuz he claims that I2a1b hasn't been found in ancient Balkans and that the subclade is too young to not be Slavic? And it's found in significant percentages only in Slavic countries or semi-Slavic like Romania Hungary. And you think that he's wrong. Why?
Pardon me if I misunderstood or missed anything but I'm trying to follow...

A. Papadimitriou
16-06-17, 05:45
How am I gonna ask any viable questions when you just say "there is no evidence" what do you mean there's no evidence of what? If there's no evidence then what is all the arguing about, we shouldn't even be having the discussion then.
I could ask a whole bunch of quesrions, I don't even know where to start though.
What is your major beef with Trojet cuz he claims that I2a1b hasn't been found in ancient Balkans and that the subclade is too young to not be Slavic? And it's found in significant percentages only in Slavic countries or semi-Slavic like Romania Hungary. And you think that he's wrong. Why?
Pardon me if I misunderstood or missed anything but I'm trying to follow...

What we know is that E1b1b1a1b1 existed close to Split ~8000 years ago. I don't know how they interpret it but it could mean that E1b1b subclades found in Europe played a role in Cardial Neolithic (?).
And then there is the J2b2a in Vrgorac in Bronze Age Croatia (1700-1500 BCE) which maybe has something to do with historical Illyrians.
I think those are the only things we know about Western Balkans. The rest would be educated guesses. The argument 'hasn't been found' isn't valid because the samples are minimal. Other arguments may be more convincing.

Apsurdistan
16-06-17, 06:19
Yeah I guess to summarize Miroslav is saying there's just not enough ancient DNA evidence the CTS-(i don't know the number it's too long w/e it is) sublcade to jump to conclusions. And he's right same thing can be said about I1 and its subclades. But Trojet is also right and others who wanna jump on that bandwagon.

And another thing I don't know why some people from my own neck of the woods just vehemently want to deny any idea of a Slavic expansion and that those are mainly our roots. Is it that important how long our ancestors dwelled in the Balkans and stayed on one patch of dirt? Either way it was all a long time ago and whatever the case may be we still probably have a significant portion of indigenous Balkan and of course broadly European genetics. And is it really that relevant for today? I just don't get what's the fuss. I do want to know about mankind history especially my own roots but I'll accept facts or whatever seems the most plausible whatever it may be.

Milan.M
16-06-17, 07:57
What we know is that E1b1b1a1b1 existed close to Split ~8000 years ago. I don't know how they interpret it but it could mean that E1b1b subclades found in Europe played a role in Cardial Neolithic (?).
And then there is the J2b2a in Vrgorac in Bronze Age Croatia (1700-1500 BCE) which maybe has something to do with historical Illyrians.
I think those are the only things we know about Western Balkans. The rest would be educated guesses. The argument 'hasn't been found' isn't valid because the samples are minimal. Other arguments may be more convincing.
I agree.However that sample is from Bronze age,the first mention of Illyrians is much later yet not specifically defined area,many people later were lump under that name even the Pannonians,the rest is archeological speculations like for many other people with some proposing migration from Lusatian culture and so on or Vucedol in this matter.Much like "Indo Europeans".Illyria like province much like Germania was inhabited by people of different origins or different languages not a kin.Encheleans were perhaps the first Illyrians by name in mythology either living near present Ohrid or maybe Montenegro.See Illyrii proprie dicti of Pliny also.Same goes with name Slav first was applied to much smaller group of people before it shifted.Hence the constructed history based on more "facts" than on guess can be their first mention according to moderate historians like Curta or Danijel Dzino.The second also write about Illyrians.Reconstructing cultures and also migrations were wild guesses of Romanticists,Nazis and ideologicaly charged people.Just see how many cultures are attributed to Slavs and some even take this hypothesis as fact even today.Edit: my guess for haplogroups J2b2 and E1b1b is that both of them were farmers creating the Cardial culture and later intermixing with G2a farmers from further inland,mixing was easy cause all were farmers,then finaly mixing with hunter gatherers (I2a and others) maybe after adopting agriculture or common way of life,later will come the steppe people creating the happy family we know today.I'll leave the so called migration period from here.

Garrick
16-06-17, 08:54
Here we go again. Another academic or at least semi-academic thread ruined by this Balkan nonsense.

I don't want to see polemics here any more, I don't want to see politics here any more, I don't want to see the same point spammed over and over again.

Make your points and move on. If you don't agree, try the novel step of agreeing to disagree like normal people.

Garrick, watch your step. Ditto for Laberia. You're always the worst offenders.

I mentioned politics and not by accident, but honestly I'm not interested more to write about it, only several sentences now.

Russian scientists (and I had polemics with on of them) strongly pushed idea that I-CTS10228 is Slavic marker.

Do you know why, because if it is true Russia can have strong influence in the Balkans on Southern Slavic countries.

If it is science or politics, unfortunately it is much more politics.

It is the easiest way that Garrick does not participate in the forum.

Honestly, I'm only interested for science and truth, but I'm an individual, some strategists developed whole system.

Unfortunately when it comes to the Balkans politics is ahead of science and truth.

zanipolo
16-06-17, 08:58
https://www.academia.edu/2490281/Cultural_Treasure_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina_editio n-Prehistoric_and_Ancient_Period-_Book_2-_Illyrian_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina-an_Overview_of_a_Cultural_Legacy_Ancient_Illyrians _of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina

A. Papadimitriou
16-06-17, 10:37
I agree.However that sample is from Bronze age,the first mention of Illyrians is much later yet not specifically defined area,many people later were lump under that name even the Pannonians,the rest is archeological speculations like for many other people with some proposing migration from Lusatian culture and so on or Vucedol in this matter.Much like "Indo Europeans".Illyria like province much like Germania was inhabited by people of different origins or different languages not a kin.Encheleans were perhaps the first Illyrians by name in mythology either living near present Ohrid or maybe Montenegro.See Illyrii proprie dicti of Pliny also.Same goes with name Slav first was applied to much smaller group of people before it shifted.Hence the constructed history based on more "facts" than on guess can be their first mention according to moderate historians like Curta or Danijel Dzino.The second also write about Illyrians.Reconstructing cultures and also migrations were wild guesses of Romanticists,Nazis and ideologicaly charged people.Just see how many cultures are attributed to Slavs and some even take this hypothesis as fact even today..

Yes, I agree with you. We said for example that there are no Illyrians in Homer. I am also aware that in Middle Ages the term was used for South Slavs, basically Bosnians, Croats and Serbs but currently we can say that J2b2a etc. may have something to do with some Illyrians.

gyms
16-06-17, 10:55
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Apsurdistan http://www.eupedia.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?p=511790#post511790)
Ok. But autosomal dna shows we are definitely pretty closely related to other Slavs...

The mean population pairwise genetic distances for South Slavs (DNei = 0.239 for NRY; FST = 0.0009 for autosomal data) (Tables A,B in S1 File (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0135820#pone.0135820.s007)) are comparable or higher to the ones for East Slavs despite the smaller region within the Balkan Peninsula that they occupy. Furthermore, Slovenians lie close to the non-Slavic-speaking Hungarians, whereas eastern South Slavs group is located together with non-Slavic-speaking but geographically neighboring Romanians and, to some extent, with Greeks.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0135820

Milan.M
16-06-17, 11:05
Yes, I agree with you. We said for example that there are no Illyrians in Homer. I am also aware that in Middle Ages the term was used for South Slavs, basically Bosnians, Croats and Serbs but currently we can say that J2b2a etc. may have something to do with some Illyrians.

As a bronze age haplogroup certainly was present among people called Illyrians,I do not know to what extend but except Albanians It is present also in Greeks and to lesser extent South Slavs.Thus I will think of it as "farmer" haplogroup,bronze age balkan not as ethnic marker if we can speak of present or antuquity "ethnicities" when this haplogroup entered the Balkans, as some here try.Illyrians and Greeks were different people,if this was ethnic marker they should have been same.

gyms
16-06-17, 11:12
Apsurdistan:"And it's found in significant percentages only in Slavic countries or semi-Slavic like Romania Hungary."

Are Romania and Hungary "semi-Slavic" ?

You are absurd indeed. Is the Sun "semi-Slavic" too?

DuPidh
16-06-17, 11:37
Yes, I agree with you. We said for example that there are no Illyrians in Homer. I am also aware that in Middle Ages the term was used for South Slavs, basically Bosnians, Croats and Serbs but currently we can say that J2b2a etc. may have something to do with some Illyrians.

Slavs are like Greeks. They claim everything! The way Slavs claim Illyrians are Slavs ,so do Greeks claim Epiros is Greek. Its the same sickness. Megalomania! Greeks claim Anatolia is Greek, Macedonia is Greek, Epiros is Greek, Cyprus is Greek, the moon, the sun etc... But the DNA shows otherwise... When Dna of Greeks is studied Greece is divided in small parcels east,west, Center, south, islands, north, Thesalia etc.. as it was Germany. Why is the division done you think? To hide the fact that genetically Greeks Macedonians are Bulgarians, Thesalians are Albanians, Cretans are Middle Eastern etc.. In other words genetically Greeks are not a nation but a collection of local populations. Had Greeks been a nation genetically speaking their haplogroups would have been pronounced the way Albanians are!

A. Papadimitriou
16-06-17, 12:58
Slavs are like Greeks. They claim everything! The way Slavs claim Illyrians are Slavs ,so do Greeks claim Epiros is Greek. Its the same sickness. Megalomania! Greeks claim Anatolia is Greek, Macedonia is Greek, Epiros is Greek, Cyprus is Greek, the moon, the sun etc... But the DNA shows otherwise... When Dna of Greeks is studied Greece is divided in small parcels east,west, Center, south, islands, north, Thesalia etc.. as it was Germany. Why is the division done you think? To hide the fact that genetically Greeks Macedonians are Bulgarians, Thesalians are Albanians, Cretans are Middle Eastern etc.. In other words genetically Greeks are not a nation but a collection of local populations. Had Greeks been a nation genetically speaking their haplogroups would have been pronounced the way Albanians are!

You seem to care more about what Greeks are than the Greeks themselves. Find something else to do.

Fatherland
16-06-17, 13:35
Apsurdistan:"And it's found in significant percentages only in Slavic countries or semi-Slavic like Romania Hungary."

Are Romania and Hungary "semi-Slavic" ?

You are absurd indeed. Is the Sun "semi-Slavic" too?
Hungarians absorbed a lot of Slavs who lived in the Carpathian basin, it is no surprise.
Romania who was a crossroad for many invaders, the same thing happened there.

gyms
16-06-17, 14:10
Fatherland:"Hungarians absorbed a lot of Slavs who lived in the Carpathian basin, it is no surprise."

The reverse is also true:Slavs absorbed a lot of Hungarians.

BTW:

https://books.google.se/books?id=4NYTCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=Slavic+presence+in+Carpathian+basin+in+IX.+cent ury&source=bl&ots=hZf1y-VFWY&sig=Dsv_VfdHvBsC1_RROafNO_7N54Q&hl=sv&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjD_aLpqMLUAhVjEJoKHShfDn0Q6AEIZzAJ#v=on epage&q=Slavic%20presence%20in%20Carpathian%20basin%20in %20IX.%20century&f=false

gyms
16-06-17, 14:48
The influences exerted by foreign peoples cannot be
assessed exactly for lack of sufficient adequate original
records. Undoubted anthropological evidence is only available
from the west of Transdanubia. In this region the Slavic
and the Frankish populations may have made their impact on
conquering Hungarians and their descendants (Wenger 1970;

Éry 1992). In the eastern region it is only the earthwork of
Szabolcs in the territory of early settling from where anthropological
finds referring to the presence of Bulgarians (or
perhaps Alans) are known of (Szathmáry 1981).

https://www2.sci.u-szeged.hu/ABS/Acta%20HP/44-95.pdf

Garrick
16-06-17, 19:07
We already have some kind of consensus on Eupedia when you have on I2 article pushed ideological hypothesis. The forum is another thing, however, both this and Serbian DNA Project among others are not official and reliable sources someone can cite. Maciamo and others are the ones who decide to make a stand for specific hypothesis promotion. It's their problem they support and promote a theory not based on any evidence, and ignorance of contradicting information. Well, if you're making names, then sincerely we really can not have consensus with people like you who do not know when was Bronze Age in Europe.

"The evidence is overwhelming", what you say is just a funny mantra, nothing more or less. Stop to repeat and misguide yourself and others, there is no evidence. Unless you want to act according to the quote by A. Hitler "If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed".

I can confirm about Serbian DNA project. A lot of good people including Croats and Bosniacs participate in this website. Problem is what some people (probably pan-Slavic or pro-Russian orientation) wanted to increase R1a and they conducted research for more people who belonging to one family lineage. Of course they were all R1a.

For serious research sampling is one of basic things for reliability survey. Therefore if in above mentioned web site there are a lot R1a findings it is not a true picture of distribution of haplogroups in Serbia and it is not reliable because of sampling.

Eupedia data taken from scientific studies are reliable, they can be changed with new findings but not so much.

Angela
16-06-17, 19:49
Angela, is there any academic consensus regarding the story line of I2a-Din? Or is it an open question requesting new samples?

Very little is certain in any aspect of genetics, but as I said before, the academicians and virtually everyone in the hobbyist community except people from the Balkans like Garrick and Miroslav believe that this particular lineage of I2a existed in more northern areas and became part of the Slavic speaking community there, only arriving in the Balkans with the Slavic migrations of early Medieval times.

It seems to an uninterested observer that people who have been pumped with "Slavic" propaganda since the 1800s and maybe even before just want to have it both ways. They want to be "Slavic", despite all the evidence that most of them are at least half and often more definitely not "Slavic", and at the same time they want to be "indigenous", so they go through these contortions trying to show that the only y marker which could possibly be "Slavic" is indigenous, which would mean that the Slavic languages are also "indigenous", which is patently absurd. For one thing, except for some ethnocentrist linguists from the Balkans who are mostly ignored, every linguist in the world knows that Slavic is a relatively recent language, and every archaeologist, anthropologist and geneticist in the world knows that there was a migration by Slavic speaking peoples into the Balkans after the fall of the Western Empire and the weakening of the Eastern Empire. It was just a slightly later later Barbarian invasion.

You can't just look at the arguments for this y lineage being "indigenous". You have to look at the whole pattern or story that is being sold. If this lineage is not "Slavic", where did all the "Slavic" ancestry come from? There's far too little R1a to account for it. So, it has to be "Slavic". It also has to be "indigenous" for some people, but that would require us to believe that it was already in the Balkans before the arrival of Slavic speaking peoples in the Middle Ages. In that case what the heck y dna did those people carry? Simple, for these type of people. We'll just pretend that all the archaeologists relying on data and all the historians relying on actual documents are wrong and that there was no "Slavic" migration.

The whole thing is utterly ridiculous. How even someone who has been brainwashed by an education system and a culture under the control of autocrats and fifty or more years behind the times can believe this illogical and a-scientific narrative is beyond me. Of course, this is the Balkans....

Bergin
16-06-17, 20:35
Of course, this is the Balkans....

T.I.B.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHsrr0JJMbY
(from blood diamonds).

Sorry for the spam but couldn't resist.

Trojet
16-06-17, 20:42
Great post Angela!

Somehow I missed this thread started by Tomenable regarding I2a-Din aka I2a-CTS10228 until just now. For anyone who hasn't read it, I strongly suggest it, very informative: www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31961-I2a1b2a1-(I-CTS10228)-a-strong-marker-of-Slavic-expansion

gyms
16-06-17, 20:59
Why we underestimate the role of women?
"In all cases, it is primarily through adults, especially mothers, that language is passed on to Children."
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2011002/article/11453-eng.htm

Miroslav
16-06-17, 21:13
They want to be "Slavic", despite all the evidence that most of them are at least half and often more definitely not "Slavic", and at the same time they want to be "indigenous", so they go through these contortions trying to show that the only y marker which could possibly be "Slavic" is indigenous, which would mean that the Slavic languages are also "indigenous", which is patently absurd.

No, exactly the opposite.


If this lineage is not "Slavic", where did all the "Slavic" ancestry come from? There's far too little R1a to account for it.

There is more than enough R1a for Slavic ancestry, the imposition of social-cultural identity and language. The amount of R1a could have diminished in specific regions due to Black death as well many wars and migrations, with local-regional founder effect in favor of I2a (which is highest in Bosnia and Herzegovina from where happened many migrations in all cardinal directions during the Ottoman invasion) compared to R1a. First and foremost, nobody knows what number those Slavs arrived, specifically Croatian and Serbian tribes. If those medieval Slavs from 6th-8th century arrived from, for example, Southern Poland, Bohemia, and Bavaria, and predominantly were hg-I2a, which is roughly speaking highest in the Roman province of Dalmatia, then it certainly contradicts the fact that the Sorbs (related to the Serbs) are over 63% R1a. The historically closest population to the so-called White Croats and Serbs are Sorbs, with similarly isolated local-regional founder effect, and they do not show such haplogroup percentage distribution. The same thing is with Croatian provinces in Pannonia, or Slovenian country - these parts are considered to be more "Slavic", yet independently of the many migrations in the last 500 years, they are lowest in I2a percentage. The current discussion is pointless from the perspective if it ignores the broad reality and that it is based on contemporary population percentage while ignoring contradictions.

Miroslav
16-06-17, 21:15
[QUOTE=gyms;511847]Why we underestimate the role of women? .../QUOTE]

You should read Father Tongue hypothesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Tongue_hypothesis)

Fatherland
16-06-17, 21:20
Very little is certain in any aspect of genetics, but as I said before, the academicians and virtually everyone in the hobbyist community except people from the Balkans like Garrick and Miroslav believe that this particular lineage of I2a existed in more northern areas and became part of the Slavic speaking community there, only arriving in the Balkans with the Slavic migrations of early Medieval times.

It seems to an uninterested observer that people who have been pumped with "Slavic" propaganda since the 1800s and maybe even before just want to have it both ways. They want to be "Slavic", despite all the evidence that most of them are at least half and often more definitely not "Slavic", and at the same time they want to be "indigenous", so they go through these contortions trying to show that the only y marker which could possibly be "Slavic" is indigenous, which would mean that the Slavic languages are also "indigenous", which is patently absurd. For one thing, except for some ethnocentrist linguists from the Balkans who are mostly ignored, every linguist in the world knows that Slavic is a relatively recent language, and every archaeologist, anthropologist and geneticist in the world knows that there was a migration by Slavic speaking peoples into the Balkans after the fall of the Western Empire and the weakening of the Eastern Empire. It was just a slightly later later Barbarian invasion.

You can't just look at the arguments for this y lineage being "indigenous". You have to look at the whole pattern or story that is being sold. If this lineage is not "Slavic", where did all the "Slavic" ancestry come from? There's far too little R1a to account for it. So, it has to be "Slavic". It also has to be "indigenous" for some people, but that would require us to believe that it was already in the Balkans before the arrival of Slavic speaking peoples in the Middle Ages. In that case what the heck y dna did those people carry? Simple, for these type of people. We'll just pretend that all the archaeologists relying on data and all the historians relying on actual documents are wrong and that there was no "Slavic" migration.

The whole thing is utterly ridiculous. How even someone who has been brainwashed by an education system and a culture under the control of autocrats and fifty or more years behind the times can believe this illogical and a-scientific narrative is beyond me. Of course, this is the Balkans....

Agreed and great post.

Both R1a and I2a-Slav served as the main components differentiating Slavic-admixed people with the Classic Balkans. They also brought mtdna lineages with them.
Northeastern shift in Balkan Slavs is high compared to the rest of the Balkan inhabitants - except Romanians who also have high I2a-Slav and R1a, still southern shifted compared to South Slavs bar south Bulgarians who have more of the Classic Balkan haplogroups.
This difference is huge even between a Balkan Slav and Classic Balkan neighbor(Albanian, Greek) living next-door with them.

Albanians are basically "Northwestern-shifted mainland Greeks" or "Eastern-shifted Tuscans" in most of the Gedmatch calculators I've seen.

My DNAland:

http://i.imgur.com/oWSGF8z.png