PDA

View Full Version : Was I2a-CTS10228 (dinaric) an ancient Slavic king ?



IronSide
15-01-17, 00:01
The subclade itself seems to have formed 5300 years before present however its TMRCA is 2200 years according to https://www.yfull.com/tree/I2/
a minority of individuals negative for CTS10228 were found in eastern Poland, Belarus and western Ukraine indicating that this is where the lineage survived since the
calcolithic.

so this lineage survived in relative insignificance compared to the R1a Majority for 3000 years before expanding very quickly 2200 years ago to become a major Slavic lineage.

similar situations have been observed for E-M81 in the Maghreb and J2-Y7800 among the Chechens and Ingushs and both were explained by the proliferation of kings lineages.

the earliest Slavic king is Boz (died c. 380) who was king of the Antes, an early Slavic tribe. He might have been one of his early descendants.

Milan.M
15-01-17, 09:33
Right king Boz lineage become most dominant in south east Europe for 1500 years,what could lineage of Alexander or some his generals be then,Gengis Khan,hell whats with so many emperors from there,Chechnya is the same size right.But Boz descendants fertile people more than anyone.

IronSide
15-01-17, 11:46
Sarcastic ?
Descent from Ghengis Khan is actually one of the primary examples of this phenomena (Proliferation of kings lineage) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180246/

in primitive societies men with power typically had more children than the rest of the group. They were positively selected because of their statues, and of course polygamy which was the norm for chieftains and kings.

lets for the sake of explanation name this phenomena(a lineage expanding rapidly in a short period of time) a "genetic explosion" . Not every king or chieftain will make his mark on the genetic map, however when we observe such an "explosion" especially if we eliminate the possibility of a founder effect given that I2a-Din was in the same place for 3000 years without increasing its frequency, then you seriously have to consider an "elite proliferation" hypothesis.

I2a-Din in former Yugoslavia is the one that's due to a founder effect. One explanation would be that the South Slavs originated in western Ukraine, where the ratio of I2a to R1a was higher.
It is still a major Slavic lineage eastern and western Slavs, a 25 % frequency in Ukraine is at least 11 million people and 9 % in Poland is 3.5 million, almost equal to the entire population of bosnia.

Milan.M
15-01-17, 12:06
Do you compare the lineage of Gengis Khan to I2 a din and king Boz,and right R1a in India is perhaps like entire north Europe R1a combined.What that has to do with anything.

MarkoZ
15-01-17, 12:37
I think I2a1b1 in the Balkans generally has an inverse correlation with autosomal Central-Eastern European affinity. Had it arrived with the Slavs, we'd see peaks in the flatlands and not in the mountainous regions traditionally inhabited by presumably Latin speaking herders (assuming that the Slavic ethnogenesis began in the Chernoles culture as is commonly held and the Slavs who settled in the Balkans came from within the vicinity of this original core). It's only with the Ottoman incursions that those herders completely assimilated into Slavic culture and began to settle in the flatlands more frequently.

I think this recent publication supports this: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0135820

From the summary:


Combining all lines of evidence, we suggest that the major part of the within-Balto-Slavic genetic variation can be primarily attributed to the assimilation of the pre-existing regional genetic components, which differed for West, East and South Slavic-speaking peoples as we know them today.

Cip
15-01-17, 13:32
Boz and his sons and his nobles were kiled by gots. His Y-hg is dead line.

IronSide
15-01-17, 14:41
I think I2a1b1 in the Balkans generally has an inverse correlation with autosomal Central-Eastern European affinity. Had it arrived with the Slavs, we'd see peaks in the flatlands and not in the mountainous regions traditionally inhabited by presumably Latin speaking herders (assuming that the Slavic ethnogenesis began in the Chernoles culture as is commonly held and the Slavs who settled in the Balkans came from within the vicinity of this original core). It's only with the Ottoman incursions that those herders completely assimilated into Slavic culture and began to settle in the flatlands more frequently.

I think this recent publication supports this: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0135820

From the summary:


R1b among the Basques is a similar situation I believe to I2a in the Dinaric mountains, they were not the original population and yet they are dominant.

the paper shows similarities between east and west Slavs in terms of autosomal DNA and common mtDNA haplogroups that they don't share with the southern Slavs, well they have larger amounts of R1a coupled with the common maternal lineages that probably predate them so logically they would be similar. If a founder effect of I2a-Din among the expanding southern Slavs were to mingle with existing populations with different mtDNA and Y-DNA than their eastern and western counterparts then surely they will be different autosomally.

It's age(2200 years) and place of origin(western Ukraine, Belarus) as well as its existence in every Slavic country points to it's Slavic origin.

Is there a possibility that they weren't Slavs ? illyrians ? thracian ? Paleolithic people(it's age is too young) ? and if they were any of the previous then how can we explain the massive increase in numbers ?

gyms
15-01-17, 16:18
[QUOTE=Cip;499393]Boz and his sons and his nobles were kiled by gots. His Y

What's the Y-hg of Boz?

MarkoZ
15-01-17, 16:35
The point is that I2a decreases gradually among the more typically Central-Eastern European populations of the Western Balkans - the most obvious examples being Slovenes and Kajkavian Croats. At a regional level the general pattern indicates that where I2a peaks, people are less similar to the probable Slavic core population in Central Ukraine. Had it spread with the Slavs, two distinct founder effects would have been required: the older in the Romanian Carpathians, the younger in the Dinaric Alps - both to the exclusion of R1a. The distribution is quite clearly decoupled from the expansion of R1a1a1b1a1 that could in part be linked to the Slavic migrations with reason.

I think a much better match would perhaps be found in the morphologically Thraco-Iranian Bronze Age hoards found all over Eastern Europe. Although these tell us very little about the languages spoken by the people they belonged to of course.

Cip
15-01-17, 18:34
Boz and his sons carry a Y-DNA Haploroup. He was killed so whatever Y-Dna Hg he had I2a, R1a, R1b etc. it was gone with his and his sons death so no posible link to I2a dinaric descendents.

Miroslav
02-03-17, 22:55
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%.

Nik
19-03-17, 14:44
@Miroslav

Nice post mate. I've reached the same conclusion after considering many studies on genetics, history, and archaeology.

Balkanac
28-03-17, 17:30
Very nice post

Trojet
19-06-17, 02:32
The subclade itself seems to have formed 5300 years before present however its TMRCA is 2200 years according to https://www.yfull.com/tree/I2/

a minority of individuals negative for CTS10228 were found in eastern Poland, Belarus and western Ukraine indicating that this is where the lineage survived since the
calcolithic.

so this lineage survived in relative insignificance compared to the R1a Majority for 3000 years before expanding very quickly 2200 years ago to become a major Slavic lineage.

similar situations have been observed for E-M81 in the Maghreb and J2-Y7800 among the Chechens and Ingushs and both were explained by the proliferation of kings lineages.

the earliest Slavic king is Boz (died c. 380) who was king of the Antes, an early Slavic tribe. He might have been one of his early descendants.

Interesting thought! That's certainly a possibility that he could've been some ancient prominent Slavic king.

IronSide
21-06-17, 20:31
Not necessarily, I abandoned this idea, many lineages suffer from bottlenecks then expand rapidly because of availability of land, resources, new technology ... etc.

There are R1a Slavic subclades that mirror the same behavior, I don't remember them but check Maciamo's page on R1a, he mentions some of them.

Daemon2017
15-07-17, 13:50
Antes, most possible, were balts, not slavs. So, Boz was king of balts.
But it's have no meaning, because antes were assimilated by slavs in a few centuries.

Szigmund
13-05-19, 15:55
Maybe I didn't get something. So what is your conclusion, Miroslav? I2-Din is a local, Illyrian haplogroup?

Joey37
16-05-19, 14:28
I2a-Din may be a crucial clue as to the location of the very first Slavs. The upper Vistula River and Carpathian Mountains area is the favored place of origin in my theories for the Early Slavic M458 expansion. I think that it is very possible that in the early expansion while I2a-Din expanded to the south along the mountains and some through the mountains down the Tisza River to become the earliest South Slavs, the clade ancestral to my YP-445 (which is YP-444, interestingly enough) was part of a group that expanded west through the Moravian Gate to become the early Czech/Moravian/south Polabian tribes.

Nik
16-05-19, 15:00
Maybe I didn't get something. So what is your conclusion, Miroslav? I2-Din is a local, Illyrian haplogroup?
Originally Celtic then absorbed by various Carpathian tribes, eventually getting Romanized and Slavicized.

gyms
16-05-19, 20:17
Maybe I didn't get something. So what is your conclusion, Miroslav? I2-Din is a local, Illyrian haplogroup?

"The extremely high status of I2a Magyars might explain how it became dominant among some Slavs."(markod)
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/38193-Huns-Avars-and-Hungars?p=571730#post571730

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2019/04/03/597997.full.pdf

Ownstyler
16-05-19, 21:24
There is no evidence that I2a-Din (I-CTS10288) was Celtic.

Dibran
16-05-19, 21:30
"The extremely high status of I2a Magyars might explain how it became dominant among some Slavs."(markod)
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/38193-Huns-Avars-and-Hungars?p=571730#post571730

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2019/04/03/597997.full.pdf


Nope. The elites were not positive for the South Slavic subclusters under I2. They were also shotgun calls. Including the shotgun calls for M458 and Z280. All it means is somewhere closer to the steppe some older clades may have been absorbed prior to migration and spread with Magyars. The I2 and Z280 clades they had are not at all present in anyone other than a few cases where Z280 in the elites was similar with Z280 in some Hungarians.

They were a loose tribal confederation. Not homogenous by any stretch.

gyms
16-05-19, 22:56
Nope. The elites were not positive for the South Slavic subclusters under I2. They were also shotgun calls. Including the shotgun calls for M458 and Z280. All it means is somewhere closer to the steppe some older clades may have been absorbed prior to migration and spread with Magyars. The I2 and Z280 clades they had are not at all present in anyone other than a few cases where Z280 in the elites was similar with Z280 in some Hungarians.

They were a loose tribal confederation. Not homogenous by any stretch.

Same shit different day.

Aspar
17-05-19, 05:59
"The extremely high status of I2a Magyars might explain how it became dominant among some Slavs."(markod)
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/38193-Huns-Avars-and-Hungars?p=571730#post571730
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2019/04/03/597997.full.pdf
Indeed, those Magyar conquerors were from the end of the 9th century if I am not mistaken and the whole I2a-Dinaric has a TMRCA of 2200 years if we follow YFULL estimate.
Therefore, the TMRCA of I2a-Dinaric during the time of the conquering Magyars was only 1100 years.
Extremely little time for such a huge expansion and plus the study for the conquering Magyars as you mentioned showed that the burials with the highest status belonged to I2a-Dinaric men!
Your point was spot on, the high status of I2a-Dinaric might explain it's star like expansion ever since 2200 ybp!
Which tribe or people were carriers of the ancestor of I2a-Dinaric?
Probably some tribe that attacked the Roman Empire during the first century BC as shown by TMRCA of I-Y18331, a predominantly Greek branch of I2a-Dinaric and also by the fact that older lineages can be found in North-Western Europe only.
A truly remarkable group is I2a-Dinaric!

Aspar
17-05-19, 06:06
Nope. The elites were not positive for the South Slavic subclusters under I2. They were also shotgun calls. Including the shotgun calls for M458 and Z280. All it means is somewhere closer to the steppe some older clades may have been absorbed prior to migration and spread with Magyars. The I2 and Z280 clades they had are not at all present in anyone other than a few cases where Z280 in the elites was similar with Z280 in some Hungarians.

They were a loose tribal confederation. Not homogenous by any stretch.

The elites were not positive for S17250 as only this branch was tested.
All other branches are dominated by Slavic speakers but Y18331 only which is dominated by Greeks.
Plus by the time of these Magyar conquerors I2a-Dinaric was only 1100 years old as shown by YFULL.
Therefore the point that I2a-Dinaric became dominant among the Slavic speakers because of elite dominance is very real!

Leka
17-05-19, 15:59
Therefore the point that I2a-Dinaric became dominant among the Slavic speakers because of elite dominance is very real!
Yeah, right. CTS10228 exploded among the hillbilly Slavic farmers. Wake up kid

Dibran
17-05-19, 17:51
The elites were not positive for S17250 as only this branch was tested.
All other branches are dominated by Slavic speakers but Y18331 only which is dominated by Greeks.
Plus by the time of these Magyar conquerors I2a-Dinaric was only 1100 years old as shown by YFULL.
Therefore the point that I2a-Dinaric became dominant among the Slavic speakers because of elite dominance is very real!

Not really. They were shotgun calls on low resolution samples. Most of the Magyar elite were neither I2 or R1a. If they were confirmed I haven't seen any updates stating as such.

Aspar
17-05-19, 18:49
Not really. They were shotgun calls on low resolution samples. Most of the Magyar elite were neither I2 or R1a. If they were confirmed I haven't seen any updates stating as such.

From the actual study: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2019/04/03/597997.full.pdf


The genetic profile of the Avar and Conqueror leader groups seems considerably different, as latter groupis distinguished by the significant presence of European Hg-s; I2a1a2b-L621, R1b1a1b1a1a1-U106 and theFinno-Permic N1a1a1a1a2-Z1936 branch.

https://i.postimg.cc/VNqV57tW/L621.png (https://postimages.org/)

As you can see, the elites are I2a-L621 and R1a so the Magyars were I2a-L621 indeed or at least the elite was!

The furthest down the line they got is I-L621!
The last time I checked on the YFULL tree, I-L621 is dominated by Slavic speakers: https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-L621/
With the oldest branches found in Western Europe, however as the Magyars were, are in Eastern Europe, it's more probable they were some other branch which can be found in Eastern Europe, other than S17250 for which the Conquerors were tested negative!
On the tree, I can see Magyars positive on I-Y4460 and and I-Y5595, and it's more logical to guess one of these two branches for the Conquerors!

bained
19-05-19, 20:51
They could have been I-Z17855 also. It's still found in eastern Hungary and will link them with Proto-Bulgars = Onogur tribe. It will also explain why the max is located mostly in Northern Bulgaria and Southern Macedonia - Asparuh and Kuber.

Aspar
19-05-19, 21:53
They could have been I-Z17855 also. It's still found in eastern Hungary and will link them with Proto-Bulgars = Onogur tribe. It will also explain why the max is located mostly in Northern Bulgaria and Southern Macedonia - Asparuh and Kuber.

I agree with this...
If the Magyar elite could have belong to a branch of I-L621, I don't see a reason why the Bulgars wouldn't have been the initiators of this branch in the Balkans.
There is a big possibility that Z17855 was spread by the Bulgars because as you mentioned, this branch is the most common one in Macedonia and Bulgaria.
Probably the place where the Bulgars and the Magyars could have absorbed this branch is in the Pontic steppe.
From the Pontic steppe I-L621 spread in all directions and was absorbed by the Greeks, the Huns, the Wends(Western Slavs) and others.
Now who and when brought this branch to the Pontic steppe is yet to be seen but it was not by the proto-Bulgars for sure.
One possibility I have been thinking of are the Hallstatt Celts who are known to have migrated in the Balkans, in Ukraine but also to the Pontic steppe where they intermingled with the Scythians: https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/the-united-states-and-britain-in-bible-prophecy/celts-and-scythians-linked-by-archaeological-discoveries
Thus, this might be one possibility how this branch ended up in the Magyar conquerors!

bained
19-05-19, 22:23
Yeah, plus the Bulgars claim lineage from single person called Avitohol, a mythical khan from which they all descent.

Dibran
22-05-19, 16:59
From the actual study: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2019/04/03/597997.full.pdf



https://i.postimg.cc/VNqV57tW/L621.png (https://postimages.org/)

As you can see, the elites are I2a-L621 and R1a so the Magyars were I2a-L621 indeed or at least the elite was!

The furthest down the line they got is I-L621!
The last time I checked on the YFULL tree, I-L621 is dominated by Slavic speakers: https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-L621/
With the oldest branches found in Western Europe, however as the Magyars were, are in Eastern Europe, it's more probable they were some other branch which can be found in Eastern Europe, other than S17250 for which the Conquerors were tested negative!
On the tree, I can see Magyars positive on I-Y4460 and and I-Y5595, and it's more logical to guess one of these two branches for the Conquerors!

Just because it is in a study does not mean it is confirmed. Shot Gun calls are not always reliable but of course they can be legit as well. I suppose it depends on the resolution of the test. They were not tested any further sure, and the most major of its Slavic branches was negative. They also were not even tested for Z17855 or parent clade CTS10228 which unifies 99% of Slavic I2a. Of course there are some randoms. All we know is they were L621 Which has a TMRCA of 6500ypb. No Slavs are apart of this specific clade, they are further down stream almost COMPLETELY under CTS10228.

All it means is an ancestral L621 migrated from North/West Europe at some time in the ancient past before coming back with Magyars. It remains to be seen if they split L621 forming a steppe specific branch, or if they do go further downstream into CTS10228 sharing clades with Slavs. Perhaps they possess the aforementioned clades you referenced.

Its still just you guessing, theres no basis for any of it. Slavs all fall under CTS10228 with those being negative for this clade being rare in Slavs. L621 is the progenitor of those who would go on to participate in the Slavic migration. It does not make Slavs all Magyars now, nor does it make Magyars Slavic. They already are negative for one major branch associated with Slavs. Given the age of L621, all I2a-Din Slavs share a common ancestor to 4500BC. So unless these tests are confirmed and tested with higher resolution to confirm a placement in CTS10228 or further down, its just guess work on your part.

For all we know they form a completely separate branch. All this proves is that L621 may have migrated East long ago, further lending support that some clades became part of the Slavs. Even CTS10228 split off from L621 very long ago. There are a few branches between L621 and CTS10228.

As far as I know these elites didn't have Slavic admixture. Of I-Y4460 and and I-Y5595 that is possible, but again just guesswork until further resolution testing can confirm it.

Even the CTS1211 has a TMRCA of 4400ybp and it hasn't been confirmed whether they split the branch forming their own clade or whether they belong to clades found in Hungarians or Slavs.

Take me for example. I was believed to be negative for M458 due to some no calls on various platforms. I was believed to be L1029-YP263 with ancestry via morely(usually spot on). So nothing added up. It was only when I did a full genome sequencing that it was revealed I was L1029 but actually negative downstream including YP263 which morely predicted. Turned out I formed an Albanian specific founder clade under potentially Proto-Slavic L1029. Only full genomes sequencing confirmed my true assignment. Most of these samples are low resolution which is problematic enough. Jumping the gun and making assumptions and then thumbing me down doesn't make what you're saying fact, until there is evidence to solidify it.

More and more clades are being discovered. It is one track minded to assume they have to belong to clades we already know and not to clades that may yet be undiscovered or could have died out/had minimal success.

gyms
24-05-19, 11:49
Ancient DNA Reveals Matrilineal Continuity in Present-Day Poland over the Last Two Millennia
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4206425/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4206425/)

I cannot find any ancient slavic Y-DNA study.
So far there is no scientific evidence for your favorite statement,Dibran.

Dibran
25-05-19, 19:03
Ancient DNA Reveals Matrilineal Continuity in Present-Day Poland over the Last Two Millennia


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4206425/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4206425/)

I cannot find any ancient slavic Y-DNA study.
So far there is no scientific evidence for your favorite statement,Dibran.

Of course not. Germans also found some 2000 male remains at Tolense field from 2013(potentially Lusatian) and they have yet to extract the YDNA. Agenda much?

Even when there is evidence staring you in your ignorant face you will ignore it. Why? Because it would hurt your little Scandinavian brain to be descended from the Slavic tribes that raided AND settled in Sweden, including carrying raids upto Denmark. Theres quite a few samples of I2a1b in the middle ages. They're all Slavs. Highest I2a1b diversity? In Slavs. nearly 100 percent of I2a1b is found(be it modern or medieval samples) entirely in Slavs. R1a has an even wider spread than I2a1b.

I guess they could have never left a mark in your brain. You say I2a1b is not Slavic, others say R1a is not Slavic. Where does that leave the Slavic tribes?

Just get used to it. Outside of Slavs there is literally no major clades of I2a1b specific to Germans or Scandinavians. Certainly no major representation either.

If you are anything under CTS10228 your ancestor was a Proto-Slav that raided Scandinavia with the Pomeranian "Vikings". Idk why it bothers you so much. L621, the forefather to CTS10228, was found in Motala. So it originally moved from Northern Europe. Thats about as much comfort as I can give you.

However, your MRCA I2a1b-CTS10228, was a Proto-Slav. In your case, a Pomeranian Viking, or a Wend. 99 percent of modern CTS10228 are all from bottlenecks, and founder effects within the last 1000-2000 years that occurred among Slavs. So if you belong to CTS10228 your earliest progenitor in the distant past was a Slav. Doesn't mean you are a Slav.

Discovering a pre-CTS10228 clades in a non-Slavic culture also wouldn't make your line any less Slavic. It would only mean the ancestor to your ancestor wasn't a Slav but that his descendants survived through, and expanded with, the Slavs.

Get used to it.

ratchet_fan
20-07-20, 02:49
Of course not. Germans also found some 2000 male remains at Tolense field from 2013(potentially Lusatian) and they have yet to extract the YDNA. Agenda much?

Even when there is evidence staring you in your ignorant face you will ignore it. Why? Because it would hurt your little Scandinavian brain to be descended from the Slavic tribes that raided AND settled in Sweden, including carrying raids upto Denmark. Theres quite a few samples of I2a1b in the middle ages. They're all Slavs. Highest I2a1b diversity? In Slavs. nearly 100 percent of I2a1b is found(be it modern or medieval samples) entirely in Slavs. R1a has an even wider spread than I2a1b.

I guess they could have never left a mark in your brain. You say I2a1b is not Slavic, others say R1a is not Slavic. Where does that leave the Slavic tribes?

Just get used to it. Outside of Slavs there is literally no major clades of I2a1b specific to Germans or Scandinavians. Certainly no major representation either.

If you are anything under CTS10228 your ancestor was a Proto-Slav that raided Scandinavia with the Pomeranian "Vikings". Idk why it bothers you so much. L621, the forefather to CTS10228, was found in Motala. So it originally moved from Northern Europe. Thats about as much comfort as I can give you.

However, your MRCA I2a1b-CTS10228, was a Proto-Slav. In your case, a Pomeranian Viking, or a Wend. 99 percent of modern CTS10228 are all from bottlenecks, and founder effects within the last 1000-2000 years that occurred among Slavs. So if you belong to CTS10228 your earliest progenitor in the distant past was a Slav. Doesn't mean you are a Slav.

Discovering a pre-CTS10228 clades in a non-Slavic culture also wouldn't make your line any less Slavic. It would only mean the ancestor to your ancestor wasn't a Slav but that his descendants survived through, and expanded with, the Slavs.

Get used to it.

Sounds like some people are big Carlos Quiles followers. The idiot is now arguing R1a-M458 is not Slavic.