Printable View
Target: Croatian
Distance: 0.8581% / 0.00858078 | ADC: 0.25x
63.4 Slavic
16.8 Balkan
10.2 Germanic
9.6 Greco-Roman
This model is mostly accurate for Croats but the Greco-Roman is ruining it for me.
IMO for Croats I think it is this way:
65%-70% Slavic
5%-10% Germanic and other northern European group
25%-30% Balkanic
I2a-Din obviously came with Slavs let it go.
Using Croats to argue that every major Dinaric branch came from Slavs is not accurate, given current evidence. There are zero Croats and very few Slavs in Y18331. If this branch came with Slavs it should have many more Slavs in it today, like the other major Dinaric sub-branches. The MRCA estimates of major Y18331 sub-branches predate Slavic migrations to the Balkans. I agree that we need more evidence, like ancient or old samples of Y18331, to form better theories of origin. There are too many questions and contradictory evidence now to definitively ascribe Y18331’s origin in Greece and the Balkans to medieval Slavs.Quote:
Originally Posted by ihype02
It is a mistake to be trying and merge the R1b and I2a cases in relation to Celts. Despite that, i did show you that R-S28 is present in Eastern Europe, the Balkans, and Turkey (Galatia). This alone corroborates what i have been writing. But again, this doesn't account for the founder effect phenomenon and the growth one haplogroup might have had over others. Let me give you an example described in the Eupedia article of mtDNA X, "The only anomaly is the extremely low percentage of X in Sardinia (0.4%), which has a lot of G2a and harbours the modern population genetically closest to the Neolithic European farmers. This could have been caused by a founder effect in the small group of Neolithic farmers who settled in Sardinia, who by pure chance would have lacked mtDNA X. The 0.4% today could simply be the result of later migrations.". Take note that mtDNA X is largely seen as a Neolithic line, although some little could have also been expanded with the Indo-Europeans, but you understand what i am trying to say with the quote above, in regards to the founder effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by hrvat22
You write, "This means that older mutations have a source in central and western Europe and probable from there someone coming to south Poland (5,000 ybp)".
I believe the TMRCA of I-CTS10228 is more telling in terms of when I-Y3120 might have formed/expanded to eastern Europe because as aforementioned its sister clade I-Y81696 has basal samples from the region of northeastern France and southwestern Germany. Their current TMRCA per YFull is 1357 BCE, which coincides with the formation of the Lusatian culture (beginning at approximately 1300 BCE), located in most of modern Poland and parts of the Czech Republic, Slovakia, eastern Germany and western Ukraine. The Lusatian culture developed as a result of incoming influences from central Europe (Tumulus culture and Urnfield tradition) upon the Trzciniec culture, as well as its contemporary Hallstatt culture. Both of these influencing cultures are associated with Italo-Celts and proto-Celts respectively.
I write again, that I-Y3120 or I-Y18331 might not have been proven as Celtic or Bastarnae yet, but its surely suggested by the available evidence. And no, we don't know for sure that southern Poland was the source of it, as aforementioned it is suggestive, just like what i aforementioned above in relation to the Tumulus culture. These are still suggestions due to the lack of acnient relative samples as you have yourself confirmed in a prior comment.
You write, "Do you understand that Celts have their own genetics and it is R1b. I-Y18331 mutation went somewhere, and where we don't know yet. We will know this (based on living genetics) in a couple of years. Migrations up and down make no sense.".
I am not going to repeat myself with the R1b, please re-read what i wrote above. We know where I-Y18331 has the greatest variance, and this is Greece (southwestern Greece to be exact). Also, the aforementioned migrations happened, they are historically recorded; why don't they make sense? It's not like i am making them up. Go read Polybius, Pausanias, and other ancient authors.
You also write, "Return of someone from Greece to Belarus? Therefore in the future it will be shown that Ukraine is a probable source of this mutation.".
Those Belarusian and eastern European samples under I-Y23115 are not Slavic, not one of them, they are all Ashkenazim Jews and they belong to downstream clades. Also, their TMRCA is 900 CE. Furthermore, Ashkenazim Jews cluster autosomally with populations such as southern Italians and Greek islanders, which further shows that there was a south-to-north migration, not the opposite.
Thanks for the clarifications. I know of the Torbesh, bus was unaware of the tendecy towards Turkic identification that you wrote of. Something similar is observed with a minority of the Muslim Pomaks (bulgarophones) and Roma (Gypsies) in Thrace, but most are against that stance. Other than that we also have a Turkish-speaking presence as well there, along the Pomaks and Roma.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspar
In terms of its spread as far as Greece, south Albania, Bulgaria, Turkey etc some of that could be from ottoman settlement. They took young kids from various balkan countries and brought them up to fight for them, could be that some i2a and other balkan subclades of the time (e-v13, r1b, j2b l283, r1a, i1) were spread through ottoman. Of course a lot of i2a was spread with Slavic invasion but this could have been another way it spread later on at a smaller rate
The genetic impact of Venetians, Westerns and Goths all combined in mainland Greece is insignificant to have made a major shift in the northeastern direction. Not to mention that Venetians for example are in fact closer to Mainlanders, genetically, than the Early Slavs are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralphie Boy
Mainland Greeks one averange can be modelled as 67% Myceanean + 33% Early Pagan Slavic (Poles are more northern as they have absorbed Baltic and Germanic admixture). Given the fact that early Slavs were largely R1a+I2a (and many are to this day like Poles, Croats, Bosnians, Ukrainians etc.) it is highly unlikely that I2a-din is not related with Slavs in Greece but I am sceptical about everything, since the Y-DNA does not match the autosomal impact (10-17% R1a).
But he didn't write of I2a-Din in Greece in a general manner, he wrote specifically of I-Y18331. You should also consider the following. We have no records of Celts or Bastarnae settling in Greece, only for their migrations, which suggests that whoever it was that settled (as the evidence suggests), he must have been part of an insignificant population in terms of size (maybe a single family or a few families). In that case, intermingling with the indigenous population would begin from early, in which case the autosomal impact of that community would have been small and autosomal assimilation of them rather quick. It's not like the Slavs who made mass migrations throughout the Balkans for centuries, and this is known from the historical records, but is also evident in both Y-DNA (probably mtDNA as well, although i am unfamiliar with it in this case) and atDNA (autosomal), as well as surviving toponyms.Quote:
Originally Posted by ihype02
In the case of the Celts that invaded Greece between 279-277 BCE, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_settlement_of_Southeast_Europe#Invasions_of _Greece, they were driven out and were obviously unwanted and seen as enemies, hence why we only have records of settlements in Thrace and Turkey/Anatolia (Galatia). So, if someone or some settled, they would be part of isolated and unrecorded cases.
As for the case of Bastarnae, who were invited to the Balkans by Philip V of Macedon and stayed below the Danube between 179-175 BCE, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastarnae#Allies_of_Philip_of_Macedon_(179%E2%80%9 38_BC), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dardanian-Bastarnae_war, we can hypothesize that some would have settled again in small numbers close to their ally (and the one who invited them), either as a small community or even as ambassadors of the Bastarnae in Pella (capital of Macedon). 4 years is not a small period after all. You should also take note that half (approximately 30,000) of the original Bastarnae mass returned back home after the incident in Thrace, and most of them had perished by the end of the Dardanian-Bastarnae War. So, we are talking about a few survivors that could have stayed, not a lot of them.
Early Slavs were largely R1a + I2a, yes, but the I2a that entered Greece via early Slavs seems to have been exclusively I-Z17855, I-Y4460, and I-S17250, which we do have in Greece as well. I-Y18331 though is a totally different case, and it is obviously not related with the Slavic migrations of the medieval era (beginning from the 6th century CE). If as you suggest I-Y18331 had come with the early Slavs, that means, due to their TMRCA, that it would have more than 600 years to grow and diversify within the broader proto-Slavic homeland, just like its relative clades. But, the fact that we only have three Slavic samples (who by the way all share their clades with Greeks), along with the fact that the greatest variance of the branch is observed in Greece, and the current TMRCA of I-Y3120 is 131 BCE, points to an earlier migration than that of the early Slavs. As aforementioned in another comment, very interestingly that TMRCA coincides with the historical arrival of Bastarnae to the south (only 44-48 years difference), therefore i believe they were the most likely proxy of the line.
Then, as @Aspar also pointed out, you also have the case of Jews in the clade, which points to the Hellenistic and early Imperial Roman eras, in terms of Greco-Roman conversion.
Last, you should consider southern Greece in terms of R1a frequency (approximately 10.5%), since this is where the largest variance of I-Y18331 is observed, not northern Greece. Autosomally Peloponnese seems to have 0.2%-14.4% of ultimate Slavic admixture (not accounting for intermixed Slavs that could have also migrated later). Also, i assume that the frequency of I-Y18331 in Greece is probably around half of the total I-CTS10228, which would mean around 4.5% for southern Greece. Therefore, regardless of the autosomal influence (significant or insignificant) from the original settlers (2100 years ago), we can see that this clade is not even very frequent within the broader Greek population (or the southern Greek population). That last point is also one additional reason why autosomal influence of the assumed original settlers might be small.
^^^
Even if Slavs were mixed by the time they arrived in Peloponnese (I don't think they were that much mixed) that figure 0.2% to 14% is a joke. (I don't mean to start a war or provoke anyone)
One recent study (done after the paper on Peloponnese) on Crete concludes the percentage of Slavic ancestry in Crete is 17% to 28% using northern Slavs (which I think it's really higher that it should be), I guess we must accept that too or we can accept only what we like.
Ashkenazi Jews clearly have substantial Slavic ancestry though (15%-25%) so that clade in them might have came with Slavs.
Take note that 0.2% is only observed at south Tsakonia, which is part of its lower average, namely 0.2%-0.9%. The actual average among individuals outside Mani and Tsakonia is 4.4%-14.4%, again for ultimate Slavic admixture, not intermixed cases. The sample size of the paper which includes these numbers is 241, therefore not small. By the way, i am not provoked. Autosomal DNA aside, i believe we should pay closer attention to the small frequency of I-Y18331 in Greece by its own.Quote:
Originally Posted by ihype02
Can you cite the other paper, i would like to go over it.
The Ashkenazim Jewish clade, namely I-Y23115, doesn't have any Slavic samples from the best of my knowledge, and even if it did have one i am unfamiliar with, that doesn't suggest that there was a Slavic proxy, rather the opposite (Jewish proxy). Also, the TMRCA of I-Y23115 is 900 CE. Last, frequency of I clades in Ashkenazim Jews is 4%, while they also have 10% R1a, and possibly other clades that could be of Slavic origin, which would explain their Slavic admixture. I am using Eupedia as reference, https://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml.
''In Table S5, we list the source populations that provided the strongest evidence of admixture (exponential amplitude and decay more than four standard errors higher than zero). A series of populations from western (CEU), northern (CEU, Estonian), and Eastern (Ukrainian, Russian) Europe produce admixture estimates of approximately 17%–28% dating to the medieval period.''Quote:
Originally Posted by Demetrios
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...1111/ahg.12328
No one knows for sure if that clade is Slavic but if it is not, then the fact that it is in Ashkanazi Jews is probably a coincidence. Sorry I don't believe in mass conversion hypothesis of old Greeks into Judaism that Anthrogenica members are promoting.
I saw the quote and the actual Table S5, and probably a lot of that frequency has to do with CEU (western Europe) "if medieval", rather than actual Slavic populations which you mentioned in your prior comment. It doesn't specify. But if you go at Table S5 you see that CEU (western Europe) shows the highest frequency between the aforementioned populations, namely at 28.1%. Also, the paper seems to suggest that some of that could also be due to ancient migrations on the island, such as Mycenaean and Dorian Greeks. For example, "These results might reflect past settlements to Crete from Europe. Indeed, Crete was invaded from the North by the Myceneans and the Dorians in prehistoric or early historic times. These were Greek tribes which, together with the Minoans and other prehistoric inhabitants of the island, shaped the genetic structure of the Cretan population.".Quote:
Originally Posted by ihype02
I am not going to expand on a possible mass Greco-Roman conversion to Judaism. But aside of that, the aforementioned haplogroup accounts for very little of the Ashkenazim Jewish paternal haplogroups. As aforementioned, I Y-DNA in general with all its subclades accounts for 4% of their lines. Who knows, maybe I-Y18331 accounts for only 0.50% (if not less) for all we know. Therefore even if you negate the possibility of a mass Greco-Roman conversion you still cannot exclude the assimilation of such small numbers. Other than that, Ashkenazim Jews are autosomally a Mediterranean population, so most of them obviously came from the South.
The paper at very least suggest an 17% contribution by northern Slavs which is still high. IMO the Slavic contribution in Crete is 5%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Demetrios
For Peloponnese, IMO, it is around 20%-25% assuming they were a little mixed before they arrived.
Concerning the aforementioned paper, it doesn't specify the exact medieval Slavic contribution. For example, it also says 16.2% Orcadian, 34.6% French, 53.4% Tuscan, among others. Those frequencies don't make any sense, even if we account for the standard errors mentioned. And take note that the Tuscan frequency is supposedly dated to 98-1860 CE.Quote:
Originally Posted by ihype02
The frequencies you suggest seem reasonable to me, but for a proximal source, not ultimate. I believe an ideal sample to trace the ultimate source would be the medieval Slav from Sungir. By the way, he happens to belong in a clade under I-S17250, and is dated to 730-850 ybp. Here is also an autosomal map based on his Global 25, https://i.ibb.co/0QT4DQt/T0-If4-L4-Medieval-Slav.png. Are there any other medieval Slavs available?
Yes but it is the same for the Peloponnesians, the other study shows about 50% genetic affinity with the Spanish, but it does not mean half of Peloponnesians are Spanish. Those percentages represent the genetic affinity, not exactly actual ancestry, so 3-8% affinity with Poles can be translated that there never was a Slavic invasion, that's why it is so low.Quote:
Originally Posted by Demetrios
I believe the Germanic contribution of Goths was about 5% in Sicily autosomally, a little bigger by Y-DNA (they carry +5% pure Germanic lineages plus Goths carried some non Germanic linages such as E-V13). You can count Germanic placenames in Tuscany and Sicily in your fingers, in that figurative sense of course. On the other hand hunderds of Slavic toponyms did pop out of nowhere in Peloponnese.
One Goth sample from Eastern Germany had E-V13, so it looks like they already had it in their ranks.Quote:
Originally Posted by ihype02
There is a very interesting book that talks about genetics, it is in Serbian language written by author Jovan Marjanovic. Haplogroup I is indigenous to Europe, I2a-Din know widespread thanks to Dacian expansion outside the Balkans
The Ashkenazi Jews are all downstream of Y23115, in sub-clades. There is no Y23115* sample yet. That clade split with the south Balkan clade Y66192 an estimated 2,100 years ago. If true that’s long before Slavs moved into the south Balkans. Somewhere descendants of the parent clade A10959 lived together, a very long time ago, if the MRCA estimate is reasonably accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Demetrios
There might be a non-Jewish sample from east Europe in Y23115, per the FTDNA I2a blog (not confirmed yet). He matches with Jews at 25 and 37 markers and has a tiny amount of Ashkenazi Jewish in his autosomal profile. There are many Jewish surnames in the FTDNA I2a chart (confirmed or suspected Y23115 sub-branches), from different east European countries, implying that this branch had a lot of time to migrate to various places. Could it be possible that so many people converted to Judaism in different areas, who were originally Slavic or Baltic, with so very few if any non-Jewish modern samples from these places? Perhaps, but it seems very unusual.
What is the most ancient i2a-din we have in balkans? I believe J2b l283 and r1b Z2103 have already been found from around 2000 BCQuote:
Originally Posted by Milojevic
I don't believe it was Sea People as they were perhaps some J2 variant!
I am also related to Imperial Romans! My haplogroup was V-19 very interesting. I would like to know more about them
Is it older than J variants?Quote:
Originally Posted by Milojevic
I have to look at the book, I don't remember but the I and J are parentsQuote:
Originally Posted by angeleyes2
The ancestor of haplogroup I2 would have appeared around 22,000 years old. The I2a1 with the P37.2 marker would be 21,000 years old according to Kenneth Nordtvedt, if you want I will do a topic on the origin of the I2a1 dinaric haplogroup,
For the origin of the Slavs if we base ourselves on the ancient medieval Bohemian, Polish, Czech, Russian and German texts the original home of the Slavs would be Pannonia, and the ancient texts of antiquity that the Serbs would have lived in Moesia, according to Pius II the Serbs are the descendants of the Moesians
The haplogroup I2a1 was found in the archaeological excavations of Lepinski vir on bones, the I2a-Din is a descendant of the I2a1Quote:
Originally Posted by TaktikatEMalet