List of medieval Slavic tribesQuote:
Originally Posted by Asturrulumbo
Vaiunites
Printable View
List of medieval Slavic tribesQuote:
Originally Posted by Asturrulumbo
Vaiunites
You may be right, you may be right... I'm afraid I largely lose my historical compass of the Balkans during the Slavic migrations. I'll be sure to read about them soon
I'm pretty sure that Maciamo is using Martinez et al 2007 there, and now that I look at it, there is significant I2a, probably mostly I2a-Din-N, in the Peloponnese, although I2*, probably I2c-B is much higher in Crete. King et al 2008 is another good study I've seen of Crete, and that one is pretty explicit that the I2 in Crete is "I2*" (probably I2c-B because that's all we've found there so far and they didn't test the SNPs that define I2c).Quote:
Originally Posted by Asturrulumbo
It looks like there was a pretty direct Slavic influence in Greece based on this, more than I expected, unless some of the I2a-Din-N predated the Slavic expansion. The N cluster is nearly 2500 years old, after all.
I agree that this is problematic. The I2a2 in the Balkans cannot be Slavic or Sarmatian if it is so different from the I2a found in other parts of Eastern Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Asturrulumbo
When I say I favour the hypothesis of the Paleolithic continuity, I don't mean that I2a2-Din already existed in the Paleolithic, but that I2* was all over Europe in the Paleolithic, then only became I2a around the Mesolithic, I2a2 perhaps in the late Mesolithic or early Neolithic, and eventually I2a2-Din in the Chalcolithic or Bronze Age. It doesn't mean that the ancestors of the modern I2a-Din were already in the Balkans in the Paleolithic. However I look at it, I can't see how I2a-Din could have been in the Balkans before the Neolithic. A hypothesis that I like is that the I2a2 people from the Danube region were pushed away by Neolithic farmers (G2a) and moved to the Balkans and the Carpathians, where they evolved into different subclades.
Another possibility is that I2a2 came from Eastern Anatolia along with G2a during the Neolithic, and each variety of I2a2 developed once Neolithic farmers had settled permanently in one place.
Well I suppose we need better I2a testing in Greece (:=)). It wouldn't surprise me one bit to discover a lot of Greek-speaking I2a-Din there. After all the Slavs literally swamped Greece in the late 6th and (especially) early 7th century. In the context of the Byzantine reconquista, a tremendous number of them were captured and sold into slavery outside of Greece (hence the birth of the relevant "esclave"->"slave" term). But numbers will tell, and genes would have been left behind.
For me, ftdna results were enough to conclude that vast majority of I2a in Balkans is the same variety as the one found in other parts of eastern Europe: Y-Haplogroup I2a Project
But it isn't "so different"... the large majority of I2a in Eastern Europe as a whole is I2a-Din.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maciamo
Then why do we see only one very young I2a clade in the Balkans, with the older STR cluster of that clade outside of the Balkans? Like I said, you'd need a weird double-bottleneck for this pattern to occur, not to mention an inexplicably recent migration out of the Balkans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maciamo
The fact that the two closest clades to I2a-Din both have their centers of diversity in the British Isles, and the fact that outlier clades of I2a, like I2a1*-Rassette and I2a1*-F are very European and even Western European, lends poorly to this theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maciamo
Yes the link is 2006 , far younger than the link you provided as the 2 that are newer has no reference to our discussionQuote:
Originally Posted by sparkey
I read it that the german I1a went to sweden and not the slovenian one.
If you think the slovenian I1a HG is east germanic, then lets assume that R1a and I2a-din never arrived in western Balkans. Are you saying then, this germanic I1a reached northern greece and all of the western balkans in the great % that is there now.
Ok, but not part of this discussionQuote:
because the percentages are not significant once you eliminate the R1a and I2a-dinQuote:
Why can't the "Illyrian" marker(s) be R1b and Neolithic or Bronze Age markers like J2, E1b, G2a? Why does there have to have been Paleolithic remnants? Maybe they all drifted away.
If I recall an earlier KenN note saying the western I2a1 went from spain to venice and directly a line north of venice. I think he called it an anti R1a HG.Quote:
If I had to pick an existing haplogroup to be "the" Paleolithic remnant in the Balkans, I would guess I2b-ADR, which hasn't been found there yet AFAIK, but has been found in Italy, and could be a chunk of that "I2*" without I2b-ADR or I2c SNPs tested that's been found in the Balkans.
[[ I would not be so cowardly to guess such a broad upstream haplogroup
category as Hg I. I guess I2b-ADR L415+ L416+ L417+ found today on the
shores of the northern Adriatic Sea. Ken ]]
You refer to this comment above for I2b-ADR
http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net/T...r%20Hg%20I.pdf
I guess this I2b-ADR was a made up HG to catecorize Otzi in September 2011, prior to finding he was G2a
Huh? Yours is older, and the links I provided are relevant to I1 analysis, which is what we were talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by zanipolo
No, he's not saying that there are different I1a's, he's wondering which direction it went with respect to Slovenia.Quote:
Originally Posted by zanipolo
I'm not sure if I1 is old enough to have some pre-Germanic Eastern European components; if it does, they are possibly in the T2 STR cluster, but I doubt that the members in the AS clusters are anything other than East Germanic. That seems to place I1 as at least largely East Germanic in origin for its distribution in the Balkans and Greece. I don't see a "great percentage" to discount this, anyway... there's mostly single-digit I1 in the region.Quote:
Originally Posted by zanipolo
Oh, but it is. If the origin of I1 is Schleswig-Holstein, and the TMRCA of it is really as young as Nordtvedt calculates, then we should expect a tight coupling of I1 carriers and Germanic ancestry. That's my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by zanipolo
So? Why can't the R1a and I2a-Din be largely recent introductions? And why couldn't the Neolithic haplogroups have displaced the Paleolithic ones? Two major displacements could have resulted in practically no Paleolithic remnants in the region.Quote:
Originally Posted by zanipolo
That's old I2a1, or current I2a1a, not that closely related to I2a1b1a-Din.Quote:
Originally Posted by zanipolo
I2b-ADR isn't a made up clade, living people have it, just not very many. Nordtvedt guessed Ötzi to be I2b-ADR and was wrong... I suspect that I2b-ADR was generally more Southern during Ötzi's time, but the data on that clade is badly deficient. Maybe that's why we're all guessing it to be a missing link for any particular problem that pops up.Quote:
Originally Posted by zanipolo
Which is the one to read ?Quote:
Originally Posted by sparkey
i see 2001, 2005 etc etc
Are you trying to say they are gothic and vandal HG in western balkans ,Quote:
I'm not sure if I1 is old enough to have some pre-Germanic Eastern European components; if it does, they are possibly in the T2 STR cluster, but I doubt that the members in the AS clusters are anything other than East Germanic. That seems to place I1 as at least largely East Germanic in origin for its distribution in the Balkans and Greece. I don't see a "great percentage" to discount this, anyway... there's mostly single-digit I1 in the region.
In regards to percentages, they are single digit because the R1a and i2a-din makes them so.
You are smart enough to realise that percentage numbers are different based on the different number of foreigners in the area. so, if area A had 100 of I1a and area B likewise, if R1a entered areas A and B but, in A went 300 and in B went 500, then the percentage of I1a in area A is greater then in area B
So, they would not be single digit numbers for any region in the western balkans if you remove R1a and i2a-din
As an example, by using Maciano's y-dna country numbers for albania and removing the R1a and I2a
the following percentages occur once reconfigured
I1 - 3
I2b = 2
R1b = 21
G = 3
J2 = 25.5
J1 = 3
E1b1b = 37.5
T = 2
true if its only 1 sub-clade of I1a ( I1) existsQuote:
Oh, but it is. If the origin of I1 is Schleswig-Holstein, and the TMRCA of it is really as young as Nordtvedt calculates, then we should expect a tight coupling of I1 carriers and Germanic ancestry. That's my point.
thats what we are discussing, for your theory to work , another Hg had to be in the western balkans. I am trying to figure out if I1a is that HGQuote:
So? Why can't the R1a and I2a-Din be largely recent introductions? And why couldn't the Neolithic haplogroups have displaced the Paleolithic ones? Two major displacements could have resulted in practically no Paleolithic remnants in the region.
irrelevant at this time to have any impact on this discussionQuote:
I2b-ADR isn't a made up clade, living people have it, just not very many. Nordtvedt guessed Ötzi to be I2b-ADR and was wrong... I suspect that I2b-ADR was generally more Southern during Ötzi's time, but the data on that clade is badly deficient. Maybe that's why we're all guessing it to be a missing link for any particular problem that pops up.
Oh you mean the I1 Project? I thought you meant my link to Nordtvedt. For the I1 Project, I was referring to the raw data, not the studies they refer to on their homepage.Quote:
Originally Posted by zanipolo
Yes, principally Ostrogothic, at least that's my best guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by zanipolo
Good point, I1 may be higher than we might expect, but it's not impossible that they could have expanded due to cultural selection. As usual, Y-DNA magnifies the effect of migration.Quote:
Originally Posted by zanipolo
That looks about like what I would expect, although E1b may also have a bit of a founder effect itself... my guess is that R1b, J2, and E1b would have been dominant together, with G2a an interesting Neolithic marker and I1 mostly Germanic. That "I2b" is probably dominated by I2a2a2-Cont3, which I have already brought up.Quote:
Originally Posted by zanipolo
Multiple subclades exist, but there's no special Balkans subclade... I1 in the Balkans has so far fit neatly into existing "Germanic" subclades of I1.Quote:
Originally Posted by zanipolo
To me, it's odd that you're targeting I1... that seems the least likely to be Illyrian of the remaining markers once you subtract R1a and I2a-Din.Quote:
Originally Posted by zanipolo
You do realise that the 200 year of ostrogothic rule for western balkans would apply to italy as well in the issue of I1a ......you want to go down this line?Quote:
Originally Posted by sparkey
I ran some numbers from Y-dna country in regards to eliminating the R1a and I2a and got these numbers for I1a ( I1) ...rounded to nearest half %Quote:
Good point, I1 may be higher than we might expect, but it's not impossible that they could have expanded due to cultural selection. As usual, Y-DNA magnifies the effect of migration.
That looks about like what I would expect, although E1b may also have a bit of a founder effect itself... my guess is that R1b, J2, and E1b would have been dominant together, with G2a an interesting Neolithic marker and I1 mostly Germanic. That "I2b" is probably dominated by I2a2a2-Cont3, which I have already brought up.
AUStria = 29.5
NEItaly = 10
SLOvenia = 31.5
CROtia = 28.5
HUNgary = 23
SERbia = 19
BOSnia = 9
ALBania = 4.5
MACedonia = 24.5
NGreece = 13.5
Montenegro is missing ...maybe its a mix of BOS and ALB
Clearly the very high E Hg for albania and bosnia dominate these areas and could indicate a different tribe , maybe the thracians
You are probably right about that. But I am still sceptical about I2a-Din coming from the steppes with the Indo-Europeans, the Sarmatians or the Slavs. If it was PIE, we would find much more of it in Siberia, Central Asia and South Asia. If it was Sarmatian, there would also be more in Central Asia, because that is where the Sarmatians originally came from before moving to the Pontic Steppe. It cannot be Proto-Slavic if it wasn't PIE to start with.Quote:
Originally Posted by sparkey
Then, there are other subclades of I2a2 in Western Europe (I2a-Isles), which surely have nothing to do with the Slavs and point at a common origin in continental Europe (somewhere between France and Ukraine). So I still think that I2a2 was in Europe before the Indo-Europeans. This is further corroborated by the fact that I2a1 was found in Neolithic France. Yet, until then it was thought that I2a1 was also fairly young* like I2a2. That's why you can't trust STR dating.
* In 2004, Rootsi et al. estimated the age of I2a* between 4000 and 8000 years old. This is almost impossible if its subclade I2a1 already existed 5000 years ago (Treilles site).
I agree with Maciamo here. There's probably an exception in the I subclades (¿I2c?), but the rest seem to be in the continental Europe since the beginning.
I voted for the paleolithic continuity hypothesis and would add a founder effect in the Dinaric Alpine region.
Strong levels are found throughout the Balkans with 4% in modern-day Turkey but what is more significant to me is its 'Slavic' presence in Russia. This suggests strongly a link to the paleolithic Balkans as haplogroup I is definitely not a West Asian/Caucasian marker. The spread to Russia and Sarmatian lands followed the Balkan Refugium repopulation of Eurasia.
The weakness in this theory is based on the assumption that related subclades would have to be found throughout the region as well. I believe this assumption is generally valid however I would not place too much emphasis on it in this context as most I subclades would have been wiped out during the severe climactic events that overwhelmed Europe circa 10 000ybp. In addition one could add that the various I haplgroup subclades would have left the Balkan Refugium many thousands of years ago and would have been thinned out by then.
My social anthropological view of I in the Balkans is based on an erratic diffusion model between 10 and 5 thousand ybp following a period of entrapment (refuge) within the southern extremities of Europe. The pre-LGM period would have most certainly shown a Europe-wide distribution that was severely disrupted and abruptly cut short by the big freeze.
Sardinia and Iberia back up the continuity of this haplogroup from a pre-Glacial period. The difference concerning the Balkans is that repopulation spread further and wider in a Northeasterly direction as the Balkans were much less conducive to agriculture with its rocky landscape. The fertile plains of West Sarmatia and the mild climate of the North Balkan coastline share many parallels.
I think he is not arguing I2a-Din was Proto-Slavic but that it came to Balkans with Slavs. It wasn't there before Slavic expansion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maciamo
Personally, I could stand behind Proto-Slavic hypothesis also.
No one is saying it wasn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maciamo
The problem is following - if two very close varieties like I2a2-Din and I2a2-Isles are completely geographically separated why would there have to be geographical continuity for two more distant subclades as I2a2 and I2a2-Din are?
What Maciamo and Knovas et al. seem to be completely ignoring is the age of I2a-Din as a subclade. We don't know where its ancestral Daddy roamed. But we do know that the specific I2a-Din subclade did not begin to exist until ca. 300 BCE. On the basis of current historical and archaeological knowledge, an assumption of the Balkans as roaming grounds cannot explain its expansion. Unless you have Daddy migrate northward very soon after 300 BCE (with progeny). But what in the archaeology or documented historical facts can support this? On the other hand, the Nordtvedt/Verenic computations not only point to a 2340/2040 BP founding age for Din N+S but also to ca. 1200-1500 BP as its age of "expansion" (which also fits in very well with historical events), I think they have made their case, for the time being at any rate. But the issue of the whereabouts of Granddaddy whence Daddy Din mutated is still very much open. My favourite scenario is a migration southeastward of Daddy with the Bastarnians (in the 3rd c. BCE) from the area of the Yastorf culture, and eventual participation of his progeny in Slavic ethnogenesis with associated R1a's and others. That would make Daddy a Germanic fellow traveller. And would explain some very early Germanic borrowings into the Slavic languages (especially in the area of military and political terminology) as well as the nearly complete Germanic character of the recorded names of the leadership of the Antes and Sclavini in the 6th century as per Byzantine chroniclers. It would also explain the mysterious Dulibians (Dud-Leiba). But this is obviously a different issue.
The R1a and I2a subclades have a poor classification system which has hindered progress IMO. I assume the classifications used such as Rassette and F and Din are based on STR values, right? If so then there is a very real problem here as one will need to test many more individuals in the Balkans to do an STR analysis than would otherwise be the case with ydna SNP testing. Either way I think you are not able to compare STR values from the Balkans as the sample sizes are limited.Quote:
Originally Posted by sparkey
I => 25,000 years ago (in the Balkans)Quote:
Originally Posted by razor
I2 => 17,000 years ago (in the Balkans)
I2b => 13,000 years ago (in Central Europe)
I2a => 11,000 years ago (in the Balkans)
I2a1 => 8,000 years ago (in Sardinia)
I2a2 => 7,500 years ago (in the Dinaric Alps)
I2b1 => 9,000 years ago (in Germany)
I1 => 5,000 years ago (in Scandinavia)
I2b1a => less than 3,000 years ago (in Britain)
And what is the age of I2a1b1?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorianfinder
For poor classification se here.
Cf. http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net/T...r%20Hg%20I.pdf for the Nordtvedt I tree
I2a1b1 [L69.2/S163.2] (formerly known as I2a2a) is younger than its paternal clade which is estimated at 7500 ybp. I don't agree with the estimated TMRCA used by Nordtvedt. I view him as somewhat controversial in this respect, however his work more than makes up for this IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shetop
The multiple effect of a genetically fit progenitor's descendants, especially if the group is somewhat isolated, will depict a false variance unsuitable for TMRCA calculation without the necessary adjustment. I squeezed in a lot of info in my previous sentence but the point is it is older than it looks, and E in the Balkans is also older than it looks.
The classifications used to depict STR clusters are not on the ISOGG site as they are experimental STR categories. Both R1a and I haplogroups alike continue to remain poorly defined compared to R1b-L11+ subclades where numerous SNP's make classification much easier.
That isn't very helpful, Dorianfinder. I'll fix it for you:
I => 23,000 years ago (maybe in Southern Europe somewhere)
I2 => 22,000 years ago (maybe in Southern Europe somewhere)
I2a2 => 13,000 years ago (somewhere in Europe, probably Eastern or Central)
I2a1 => 20,000 years ago (somewhere in Europe, not sure but maybe the Carpathian Basin)
I2a1a => 8,000 years ago (probably Iberia, definitely not Sardinia)
I2a1b => 13,000 years ago (somewhere in Europe, too dispersed to narrow down, probably not the Balkans)
I1 => 5,000 years ago (around Schleswig-Holstein)
I2a2a1 => 5,000 years ago (in Britain)
And I'll add another one:
I2a1b1a-Din => 2,500 years ago (somewhere around Belarus)
The SNP tree for I2a has gotten better lately, although there are still some I2a1*'s, like Rassette and F. Sample sizes are fine for I2a-Din. At the FTDNA Project alone, you have hundreds, plus additional STR values from other sources. We do need more for Rassette (2 samples) and F (7 samples), but those are useful for comparing against other STR clusters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorianfinder
Where I2a-Din is in the SNP tree is well established.
I think every I subclade has been in Europe since their beginning, including I2c (see my I2c diversity map... based on the STR data available so far, it's showing a center of diversity in Western or Central Europe, maybe around Germany).Quote:
Originally Posted by Knovas
But as Shetop summarizes my argument, I'm not saying that "I2a-Din was Proto-Slavic but that it came to Balkans with Slavs. It wasn't there before Slavic expansion."
If we say things like "Germanic peoples spread I1," even though I1 is clearly from a pre-IE European lineage, why can't we say "Slavic peoples spread I2a-Din"?
I was thinking more along the lines of those subclades immediately downstream of I2a-Din.Quote:
Originally Posted by sparkey
Maybe you could explain this, because there are no subclades downstream I2a-Din.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorianfinder
I could save you the trouble and say that no clear ancient distribution patterns are forthcoming from modern sample testing alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by sparkey
...well there are a couple of British ones upstream per SNP testing (all L343+), and thanks to the fact that British-origin people test with FTDNA more than anybody, their sample sizes are about as good as we can hope for. I2a-Disles is a particularly rare clade, so it's the smallest by quite a bit, but I2a-Isles is very well attested.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorianfinder
What's downstream?
Then why were you using it as evidence for your point? It's not clear, and there is evidence otherwise, that the ancestors of I2a-Din have been in the Balkans through their existence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorianfinder
I am not on the team looking specifically at the I haplogroup so please take what I am saying with a pinch of salt. Generally, the more SNPs are allocated to the phylogeny of a haplogroup the easier it becomes to pinpoint suitable candidates for a y-dna walk through. When one is swimming too far upstream this cannot be done efficiently without taking too much of a risk and not having enough skeleton to add to. Haplogroup I has got some ways to go before many more SNPs will begin rolling in ... until then clusters need to be formed using slow-moving STR markers, in some cases these can be as good as an SNP, however only SNP's can be allocated to a position making it essential in phylogeny development.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shetop
I see sparkey. Your explanation makes sense, it's perfectly possible. I can't deny it ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by sparkey
My point was about the estimated age to the TMRCA. I only highlighted the Balkans for I2a to accentuate the paternal link to the Dinaric Alps and I2a2.Quote:
Originally Posted by sparkey
OK. I think the value of the point dries up once it's clear that I2a-Din's ancestor clades were more likely not from the Balkans, than from the Balkans. Because then we can't look and say, "Hey, its ancestor was in the Balkans 11,000 years ago, and 7,500 years ago." If that changes to "Well actually it looks more like it was somewhere in Europe, maybe close-ish to the Balkans 20,000 years ago, and maybe even further away from the Balkans 13,000 years ago" then the usefulness of the whole thing goes away.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorianfinder
Point taken about the unreliability of STR dating, though... Nordtvedt's estimate does have fairly large error bars, which is why I resist saying things like "I2a-Din's MRCA lived in 300BCE." But suppose we pushed I2a-Din's TMRCA back all the way to its parent clade (I2a1b1). Then it's still less than 6,000 years old... and still has a diversity gradient coming down from the North. So Paleolithic continuity still fails.
Great point.Quote:
Originally Posted by sparkey
What I like about Nordtvedt is his strict and cautious scientific approach to all this. He operates with SNP's even more than with STR's. He keeps retesting and refining. His latest surmise for TMRCA of I2a-Din is interesting in that the more he tests and refines the "younger" the subclade gets (not by much but some). I have no idea of how Dorianfinder gets his dates and the "I don't care for N's analysis" approach is of course not particularly persuasive. It would help to have something more precise. It's Nordtvedt who discovered the British Disles older brother to Din. As for Verenic's adaptations cf. the thread here, esp. from posts 113 ff. http://dna-forums.org/index.php?/top..._1#entry221867Quote:
Originally Posted by sparkey
Unfortunately we can't get aDNA from the Slavic homeland area because of the cremation ritual. But the possibility of checking exists for some of the Wielbark and Chernyakhiv gravesites, once the Ukrainans get their act together. We could see if there is any I2a1b1 there.
Vadim Verenich's analysis is great. The diversity charts are very helpful... For those who aren't DNA Forums members, his maps indicate diversity spikes outside the Balkans, namely in Ukraine/Moldova (probably close to the expansion point of I2a-Din-N) and Austria, except one around Bosnia/Serbia, which looks to me like the expansion point of I2a-Din-S. There are also interesting "isolates" in Belarus, Greece, and a few other places, and a general molecular diversity pattern that spans Eastern Europe (but not most of the Balkans outside of that Bosnia/Serbia point). He compares these maps favorably to "Slavic expansion" maps.Quote:
Originally Posted by razor
Have you managed to figure out the route-relationship between the east European 'Dinaric' forms of I2a and the north-western forms such as L161 'Isles' and the tiny 'Disles' clade? What are the frequency distributions suggesting? If the Balto-Slavic hypothesis is studied in depth I think one will find Southern European countries share the up-stream clades and the north the down-stream ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by sparkey
The different I2a1b clades have their modern centers of diversity too dispersed to figure out a route-relationship. The modern frequency distributions aren't going to help much, either. It's quite clear that both Disles and Isles have their centers of diversity in Britain, so it's appropriate to assume that both formed there. Does that mean that Dinaric came out of Britain, since 2 clades being in Britain and 1 being out means that the highest place of diversity of I2a1b as a whole is in Britain? Not necessarily, of course... but I suspect that it may be closer to the right place than the Balkans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorianfinder
Disles and Isles may be more diverse in Britain but they are parallel to Dinaric. All Disles and Isles have the SNPs common to Dinaric however the inverse is not true.Quote:
Originally Posted by sparkey
Edited: correction, downstream should be parallel. Please read #83 for explanation.