How did I2a-Din get to the Balkans?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gisulf Langobardoru

Why the Croats are blonde and the slovenian are black hair if they all descend from Sclaveni?

---

My only explanation is that Slovenia has had much more settlers in the region. (as well as possible indigenous peoples) and they may be mostly Slavic in genetics; but some or more or less of them have Germanic, Italic and possibly archaic Celtic admix.

What strikes me as very interesting about the Yugoslav people (south slavs) is that they tend to be, both male and female; extremely tall or above average in height for most Europeans. (kind of like Scandinavians or Dutch/Germans) however they lack similar features to Nords/Germanics - Perhaps it is the abundance of the I lineages, in the region.

Sorry if this explanation was too complex. (but to my knowledge; Slovenia and Hungary is a major European crossroads area - just like France and Italy. And lesser Poland, Scandinavia and Ireland -- where more homogeneity is seen.)

Edit: Also, from my observations ... This may also explain why Finns carry N1c but are also very tall. It may be haplogroup I. People with haplogroup I (both I1 and I2) often show very tall height. While R1b (from my observation) tends to have the shortest descendants. (Portugal for example: the average man is height 1.72m) R1a seems to be in the middle.

Also, European Mythology (or folk-wisdom) has always characterized the Celts as a "small" people. (In contrast to the Germanics and especially Nords,who are seen as taller.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korbyn

I have debated this before on the Eupedia genetics comment board; in particular pages for Haplogroup I2 and sometimes R1a; and to my conclusion it is likely that Haplogroup I2 is an archaic Slavic lineage.


I also have a (premature) theory that Slavs may actually be the Dacians or Thracians. (or related) Which would explain why Yugoslavs carry more I2 at a higher frequency than other Slavs (R1a); just like their Romanian neighbors.

My theory is that the Yugoslavs are the more archaic Slavic people. Despite what Albanian nationalists may tell you; there is more evidence, conclusive to me, at least; that Albanians are nothing more than a Black-Sea people. And there was no Slavic invasion in 6 AD. (It could be; that Slavs are Dacians or Thracians, or related. Which would explain why both tribes and languages went extinct around these centuries; while the Slavic people were first written about during 5th or 6th AD.)

---

I2 indeed is arhaic lineage, but it can't be proto-slavic since Slavic in indo-european language, and language proto-European I2 carriers spoke will never be known. Paleolithic European languages shifted to invading indo-european newscomers from steppes. Slavic in linguistic cathegory, so it makes sense to associate their marker with people who spoke it's earliest language variant.

I can't see any empirical evidence that Dacians or Thracians would be Slavic. Do you have any back up for such claims ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korbyn

In other words; I am suggesting that other Slavs, especially Western Slavs (Polish and Sorbians) may actually be Indo-Iranians that carry a high abundance of R1a. (this also may be the case with other R1a carrying Eastern Europeans - such as the Hungarians (Ugric) and even the Balts.

(If you ever get the chance; notice how Serbia has only 15% of R1a but is totally abundant in I2a. Same with Bosnians and Croats. While on the contrary; it seems that the Polish and Sorbs lack haplogroup I2a2 at a large frequency, which is very odd.)

---

R1a is Slavic marker, but not only marker that Slavic speakers carried. As already said, high prevalence of I2-dinaric among South Slavs could be due to founder effect.

Poles don't lack I2a, it is quite frequent in southeastern Poland. Indo-Iranians ? Please. Iranic clade of R1a is Z93, and Slavs have almost none of it.

Quote:

---

There is also a tons load of historical evidence of a Scythian (Sarmatian and other Indo-Iranian) migration into the Carpathians. Some based on (mostly) Greco-Roman sources.

Another thing to consider is the high abundance of R1a and other haplogroups in Hungary; while it also lacks N1c abundance and Hungarians speak a Uralic tongue. Which >>> seems to suggest Hungary is a crossroads nation. Kind of like France or Italy.)

Am I suggesting that Western Slavs are actually Scythians (Indo-Iranians) that speak a Slavic language? And the Hungarians (Ugrics) are too -- Yes I am.

This hypothesis may also explain why traces of Indo-Iranian are found today in Hungarian culture. Such as the extinct Jassic (Ossetian) language: the Jassic dialect and Jassic language.

---

Wrong.

Quote:

---

On the other hand; based on genetic and historical research ... the Albanians show more evidence with being from the East. (Caucasus and Anatolia) which seems to suggest they may be a Black Sea peoples. Could it be, perhaps Albanians are from Anatolia (or at least) relatives to the Phrygians? This would suggest the Albanians are not indigenous to the Balkans' and the Slavic peoples have more merit/evidence of longer habitation. << The only con to this theory is that Albanian is a satem language while Greek and Armenian are centum; and there seems to be little to no evidence of Anatolian or Illyrian either being centum or satem.

---

How can Albanians be from east when their genetic overlap is with Central Italians (Tuscans) and Greeks (Greeks having more of eastern, Slavic ancestry).

No, Albanians are oldest inhabitants of Balkans and genetics celarly shows it, having Balkan specific Y-dna and native Balkan neolithic component in lot higher proportions than Southern Slavs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korbyn

My only explanation is that Slovenia has had much more settlers in the region. (as well as possible indigenous peoples) and they may be mostly Slavic in genetics; but some or more or less of them have Germanic, Italic and possibly archaic Celtic admix.

What strikes me as very interesting about the Yugoslav people (south slavs) is that they tend to be, both male and female; extremely tall or above average in height for most Europeans. (kind of like Scandinavians or Dutch/Germans) however they lack similar features to Nords/Germanics - Perhaps it is the abundance of the I lineages, in the region.

---

There are no Yugoslav people.

I sugest to stop using such simplified generalizations and study autosomal admixture of South Slavs. Regarding height, it varies. Herzegovina and Dalmatia are tallest which does seem connected to I2 hg. However it is not true for entire Croatia.

Quote:

---

Sorry if this explanation was too complex. (but to my knowledge; Slovenia and Hungary is a major European crossroads area - just like France and Italy. And lesser Poland, Scandinavia and Ireland -- where more homogeneity is seen.)

---

Agreed with Hungary, but Slovenia is not very diverse. Croatia has been major crossroads, and our regional differeces are far greater than Slovene. Serbia is possibly even more diverse (at least genetically). Most homogenous southerstern Europeans are Kosovo Albanians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaxCRO

It's ridiculous to claim Serbs came from Croats as everything points they were two closely related tribes living next to each other somwhere in Central Europe.

Proto-Croat and Proto-Serbs probably had similar haplogroup variety upon southern migrations.

---

Where were this tribes?
All i can found for the name Serb for example in the middle ages in Serbia define social status and social organization,the "tribes" however were another matter and we have them by names.
When i say social status i mean like the commoners,plebs,warriors,nobility etc
Similarly Pohl proposed about the Croatians;
Pohl noted that the Kronsteiner's merit was that, instead of the previously usual "ethnic" ethnogenesis, he proposed a "social" one.As such, Croatian name would not be an ethnonym, but a social designation for a group of elite warriors which ruled over the conquered Slavic population.

Vlach for example was cattleman in various laws.

The same is true in later times Serb and likewise Bulgarian in Ottoman empire was denoting the Christians,plebs (commoners)
Nations came into being a bit later..

Quote:

---

To claim Byzantine sources as completely accurate now in 21st century, is pretty bold.

---

True.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaxCRO

I can't see any empirical evidence that Dacians or Thracians would be Slavic. Do you have any back up for such claims ?

---

Yes. Just translate english word "Fortress" to the various Southern Slavic dialects, and voila: you may be in for a surprise here:

tvrđava

https://translate.google.com/#en/bs/Fortress

Here is the classic location of a Dacian city, called Ziridava:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziridava#Etymology

In the Dacian (North Thracian) language dava means city, town, fortress.^[10]
Vasile Pârvan considers that the form Ziri- is the same with a form Giri- (cf. Zermi and Germi).^[9] Ziri- corresponds to the Proto-Indo-European root ǵʰel- 'to shine, gold' so that Ziridava means "The gold fortress".^[11]

So this root-word "dava" seems to exist in the Southern Slav dialects, for Fortress; as well as the hypothetical Fortress in ancient Dacian/Thracian. But is totally absent in most other Slavic language groups. Could it just be linguistic borrowing? I think not. As well as the high abundance of Haplogroup I2 in South Slavs along with their neighbors the Romanians and Bulgarians; it seems to correlate that Slavs may have been related or are Dacians / Thracians.

More proof, is that Slavs were not documented until the 6th century AD:

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

(Also notice: By the 6th century AD, the various native Iranian ethnic groups of Eastern Europe, comprising the Scythians, Sarmatians, and Alans had been assimilated and absorbed (e.g. Slavicisation) by the Early (Proto)-Slavic population of the region.^{[3][4][5][6] -- this seems to confirm my suspicions that Western Slavs especially; are actually Sarmatians that speak a Slavic tongue. Which is why they lack the Dinaric I2 in the Balkans.)}


While, this is also the same history as when Dacians and Thracians both apparently went extinct:

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

"probably by the 6th century AD"

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

"Fifth century"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaxCRO

How can Albanians be from east when their genetic overlap is with Central Italians (Tuscans) and Greeks (Greeks having more of eastern, Slavic ancestry).

No, Albanians are oldest inhabitants of Balkans and genetics celarly shows it, having Balkan specific Y-dna and native Balkan neolithic component in lot higher proportions than Southern Slavs.

---

They are not the oldest inhabitants. What it shows is that they Albanians are the most homogeneous in the Balkans region, though. (that is quite evident, for the past century their population has increased almost 4x fold.) E-V13 can be found at a very high frequency in the Westernmost part of Turkey/Anatolia. And even parts of Crete and Greece. Look at this E-V13 map:

Attachment 7833

However, in Italy E-V13 is almost as common as it is in Germany ... not a very reliable source to use Italy as an example. You can also notice a sharp uprise of E-V13 around the Caucasus / Iran / Azerbaijani borders. If Albanians truly are indigenous; then why is E-V13 missing in places like Sardinia and Basque country (more archaic DNA) at higher frequencies?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korbyn

They are not the oldest inhabitants. What it shows is that they Albanians are the most homogeneous in the Balkans region, though. (that is quite evident, for the past century their population has increased almost 4x fold.) E-V13 can be found at a very high frequency in the Westernmost part of Turkey/Anatolia. And even parts of Crete and Greece. Look at this E-V13 map:

---

It's common in Greece and Anatolia exactly because it is native Balkan marker (V13 is European clade of Northeast African Hg E). Greeks lived in Western Anatolia before the Turks. It's their lagacy. Not to mention numerous Albanians that migrated to Ottoman Empire.

Yes, their population suddenly expolded and that is reason why they lack haplogroup variety. Albanians are not newscomers to Balkans because their aDNA is much more native to the peninsula than South Slavic is.

Quote:

---

However, in Italy E-V13 is almost as common as it is in Germany ... not a very reliable source to use Italy as an example.

---

I'm talking about autosomal admixture, which is almost indistinguishable from Tuscans and Greeks.

Quote:

---

If Albanians truly are indigenous; then why is E-V13 missing in places like Sardinia and Basque country (more archaic DNA) at higher frequencies?

---

Albania is not as isloated as your examples. Anyway, Balkans is closest to Anatolia, where presumably neolithic farmer E-carriers came from.

Indigenous is relative term. Thracian YDNA found in Balkan was R1a. It's not so simplistic as people assume. We need more ancient samples.

I also don't buy that Albanians are Illyrians either. According to Greek mythology; the Illyrians may have merely been a large federation of Celtic Tribes. Kind of like Gauls:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._(English).jpg


Also, here is a map that I found:

http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s...llryians-1.jpg

Funny how it is surrounded by Celts in the Austro-Hungary area, and Gauls in the Alps area. And only parts of ancient "Illyria" cover modern day Albania. The Albanian theory of them being Illyrian is very weak.

My theory about the Slavs being derived from Dacian and Thracian may sound outlandish; but it seems to make perfect sense, at least to me. In any case, the only thing it proves (if it is correct) is that these Illyrians were merely Celts that migrated out of the Balkans, and it could be that Slavs (if relatives to Dacians?) only migrated there, possibly as a place of refuge. (remember the Roman conquest and they sacked the Thracians in the 5th and 6th century; modern day Romania and Bulgaria.)

I have an idea that Albanians may actually be from Anatolia - and possibly related to the Phrygians?

Attachment 7834

--

Also, if I am correct about these theories ... this means that the Slavic invasion theory is nonsense - and suggests that Phrygians are the real invaders. (if Slavs are indeed Thracian or related to Thracians.)

Also, let it be known that Romans and Greeks saw Slavs as savages and Barbarians, just like Celts. And there is evidence of Roman leaders, especially Julius Caesar, writing bullcrap and slander on certain Celtic peoples. (like the Gauls) in order to provoke Roman soldiers into attacking them. So if Dacians/Thracians went extinct in 6th AD, and Slavs arrived then, it could be a smear campaign. And Slavs are actually the Dacians and Thracians that survived East Roman conquest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaxCRO

I'm talking about autosomal admixture, which is almost indistinguishable from Tuscans and Greeks.

---

If anything (in my case) this only proves that Albanians have some Greco-Roman or more preferably, Anatolian in them. Italy has it's fair share of Greek ancestry as well. (mostly in the Middle of Italy and the South.)

If I remember correctly; Italy has an Abereshe (catholic Albanian?) group in Italy. Which may be where some of this J2b is to be found on there:

Attachment 7835

There is no doubt in my mind that the Albanians are NOT Illyrians; and are probably not even indigenous to the Balkans. It only proves to me that they came from the Caucasus or Anatolia region. The only reason they carry these specific haplogroups was because they were reduced to a small population; and then homogeneously interbred with each other, upon settling in the former Illyria / Greece area. Could it be that they are Phrygians? It would also explain why a lot of their neighbors (Greeks as well as Slavic peoples?) carry smaller proportions of J2b too.

The high frequency of J2b seen in Mordovians in Russia and even Ukrainians also seems to correlate with a Caucasus / Anatolian (Black Sea) origin for J2b.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korbyn

If anything (in my case) this only proves that Albanians have some Greco-Roman or more preferably, Anatolian in them. Italy has it's fair share of Greek ancestry as well. (mostly in the Middle of Italy and the South.)

If I remember correctly; Italy has an Abereshe (catholic Albanian?) group in Italy. Which may be where some of this J2b is to be found on there:

Attachment 7835

There is no doubt in my mind that the Albanians are NOT Illyrians; and are probably not even indigenous to the Balkans. It only proves to me that they came from the Caucasus or Anatolia region. The only reason they carry these specific haplogroups was because they were reduced to a small population; and then homogeneously interbred with each other, upon settling in the former Illyria / Greece area. Could it be that they are Phrygians? It would also explain why a lot of their neighbors (Greeks as well as Slavic peoples?) carry smaller proportions of J2b too.

The high frequency of J2b seen in Mordovians in Russia and even Ukrainians also seems to correlate with a Caucasus / Anatolian (Black Sea) origin for J2b.

---

And at the conclusion of your theory, the Albanians are some emigrants from Asia and slavs are native populations of Balcanic Peninsula. lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korbyn;483660


There is no doubt in my mind that the Albanians are NOT Illyrians; and are probably not even indigenous to the Balkans. It only proves to me that they came from the Caucasus or Anatolia region. The only reason they carry these specific haplogroups was because they were reduced to a small population; and then homogeneously interbred with each other, upon settling in the former Illyria / Greece area. Could it be that they are [B

Phrygians[/B]? It would also explain why a lot of their neighbors (Greeks as well as Slavic peoples?) carry smaller proportions of J2b too.

The high frequency of J2b seen in Mordovians in Russia and even Ukrainians also seems to correlate with a Caucasus / Anatolian (Black Sea) origin for J2b.

---

There's no way you can know that. We find yDna related to E-V13 and we find J2 not too far from modern day Albania in the mid-to late Neolithic.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...=Sopot+culture

See also the results for this Thracian.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...=Sopot+culture

We also know now that there was related yDna "E" in the Near East in the Neolithic, so I think the path into Europe is now pretty clear, and how early it was...

Arbereshe:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...=Sopot+culture

It is the "Slavic" y clades which are late arrivals into the Balcans.

Let's not derail this thread, though; it's about I2a Din

I was thinking my I2a was Balkan but with a deep subclade my haplotype peaks among English and Germans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gisulf Langobardoru

Why the Croats are blonde and the slovenian are black hair if they all descend from Sclaveni?

---

Do not be offensed, but your steep affirmation is a bit erroneous. Slovenians as a whole are just a bit "fairer" than Croatians. Central Northern Croatians are as fair if not a bit more, but Croatia is a strectched country with very different geography and pops according to places (as for pigmentation, as for stature and head:body forms.)
None of the two countries is fair as a whole, rather dark-middle or middle-dark. Dalmatian Croats and Bosnian Croats tend to be darker and taller. There is no question here of an opposition as Swedes against Portugueses for pigmentation (an obsession?).
For the Sclaveni, I avow at my great shame I never saw them!
By the way, these differences among Croats, even if not dramatic, show the today ethnicities can mask partly different origins in far past, almost in every country.
Often I forget to recall, but others do the work, that male Y-haplos, whatever their primal links with a genetic makup, lost a lot of these links over time; some moves implied males only or nearly, who took females on their way. Even when they had "their" females, even when a kind of osmosis took place, the ruling pops tended to pass more of their own Y haplos, but lost a part of their first auDNA.
Have a good week-end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korbyn

My only explanation is that Slovenia has had much more settlers in the region. (as well as possible indigenous peoples) and they may be mostly Slavic in genetics; but some or more or less of them have Germanic, Italic and possibly archaic Celtic admix.

What strikes me as very interesting about the Yugoslav people (south slavs) is that they tend to be, both male and female; extremely tall or above average in height for most Europeans. (kind of like Scandinavians or Dutch/Germans) however they lack similar features to Nords/Germanics - Perhaps it is the abundance of the I lineages, in the region.

Sorry if this explanation was too complex. (but to my knowledge; Slovenia and Hungary is a major European crossroads area - just like France and Italy. And lesser Poland, Scandinavia and Ireland -- where more homogeneity is seen.)

Edit: Also, from my observations ... This may also explain why Finns carry N1c but are also very tall. It may be haplogroup I. People with haplogroup I (both I1 and I2) often show very tall height. While R1b (from my observation) tends to have the shortest descendants. (Portugal for example: the average man is height 1.72m) R1a seems to be in the middle.

Also, European Mythology (or folk-wisdom) has always characterized the Celts as a "small" people. (In contrast to the Germanics and especially Nords,who are seen as taller.)

---

The most I read this thread, the most I doubt of my eyes.
Where did you red (or guess) Celts were "small" in European Mythology (is there somewhere something like an "European Mythology"? Are you speaking of 'korrigans' of the Breton legends, or of the 'leaprechan's' (sorry for the spelling) of Ireland?
here are only some sources, Julius Caesr among them, saying the Celts were rather taller than the rather short Romans, but varying by regions and as a whole a bit shorter than the Germans. Nothing scientific here but surely some reality, nevertheless.
...
Y-I seems to me linked to Late Paleolithic/Early Mesolithic people, over the whole Europe. I1 were surely more northern but was not "scandinavian" because nobody lived in far North during LGL. And some found an Y-I1 among farmers in Neolithic Hungary.
I think Y-I2 was more spred (as well the ancestors of I2a1a, I2a1b and I2a2), and already separated by distance in more than a group, what can be verified by its today subclades broad and specific distribution.
Since we are doing bets, I suppose the most of I2a1b was centered around Balkans and Carpathians, in HGs world. A first flow of Y-G2 farmers from W-Anatolia had pushed a lot of them. Concerning Cucuteni-Tripolye final period, I wonder if a second Neolitic wave mostly Y-J2 and aware of some metal realities did not take the strong side upon a mix of first Y-G2 farmers and of pre-Neolithic Y-E-V13 - from Adriatic shores but expanded into the Central Balkans rivers network and became farmers too. The Y-I2 were denser in the highlands, refuges and in the Dniestr region; osmosis came after in Tripolye: the mixed males had a strong 'mediterranean' component when the females were more of 'archaic' types if I red well. It is even said (in Wiki?) that the 'archaii' element was rather stronger in the previous phases than later. So, reinforcement from southern people? Before colonization of the Steppes?
From this scheme we can suppose the Northern part of Tripolye was inhabited by more Y-I2 people of more 'archaic' types. It's this northern part which stayed aside the first (I-E?) moves westwards from Steppes (boomerang effect? Y-R1b dominant new people) and received later the most northern Y-R1a Balto-Slavic tribes before becoming the Slavs? They stayed aside because they were between mountainous North Carpathians and marsh lands, not too interesting at first sight. Among them the first rulers Y-J2/Y-EV13/Y-G2 lost weight in %s.
All the way, the lost in 'gedrosia' among Balts and Slavs cannot be pure hazard. It seems the 'gedrosia' rich tribes from East took a more southern road and colonized Europe before more northern Y-R1a imposed themselves in continental East-Europe, what they had begun to do in Northern Plain.
Concerning Y-I2a1 in ex-Yugoslavia and possible autochtony, I wait more clues about subclades. It could be possible there were very more Y-E1b-V13 people there...All bets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LABERIA

And at the conclusion of your theory, the Albanians are some emigrants from Asia and slavs are native populations of Balcanic Peninsula. lol.

---

Not entirely, but somewhat true.

Concerning Tripolye imput, let's look at maps about auDNA, and Y haplos G/J/E.
Concerning ratios Y-R1a/Y-I2a1b, it's possible first "true" Slavs (Pripet marsh?) had a stronger ratio I2/R1a? ('dinaric' types in West Ukraina: Galacia and Co). The more R1a shifted would be due to more Baltic? Or more simply, "true" Slavs were R1a but the most of the tribes who colonized West Balkans passed through Carpathians (some mtDNA surveys about today close but drifted pops in Galicia/Ruthenia with diverse links with Ukraina and Croatia)...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MOESAN

The most I read this thread, the most I doubt of my eyes.
Where did you red (or guess) Celts were "small" in European Mythology (is there somewhere something like an "European Mythology"? Are you speaking of 'korrigans' of the Breton legends, or of the 'leaprechan's' (sorry for the spelling) of Ireland?
here are only some sources, Julius Caesr among them, saying the Celts were rather taller than the rather short Romans, but varying by regions and as a whole a bit shorter than the Germans. Nothing scientific here but surely some reality, nevertheless.

---

I meant small for Celts in terms of shortness. (height) and body morph. (Ectomorph to Mesomorph; skinny to normal)

Many Celts and non-Celts (such as the Greeks and Romans) documented that they (Celts) were a predominantly "tiny" people; also with very pale, milky skin. (average height for men was about possibly 177 cm (5'8, more or less) and for women it was probably about 157 cm (about 5'1 and a half, more or less) [to the contrary of Germans, who were about over 6 feet. (188 centimetre average for males?)

(I read somewhere that the Dutch have the most archaic Germanic ancestry. However, I do not know if that is true. But it could explain why they are so tall.)

This may have been a disadvantage to the Celts, since they waged war in a similar way like Germans; but were too small to be as tough or robust. If you dig deep in history; Greeks and Romans notified and referred to Celts, Germans and Slavs as "Barbarians" and "savage/uncivilized".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MOESAN

The most I read this thread, the most I doubt of my eyes.
Where did you red (or guess) Celts were "small" in European Mythology (is there somewhere something like an "European Mythology"? Are you speaking of 'korrigans' of the Breton legends, or of the 'leaprechan's' (sorry for the spelling) of Ireland?
here are only some sources, Julius Caesr among them, saying the Celts were rather taller than the rather short Romans, but varying by regions and as a whole a bit shorter than the Germans. Nothing scientific here but surely some reality, nevertheless.
...
Y-I seems to me linked to Late Paleolithic/Early Mesolithic people, over the whole Europe. I1 were surely more northern but was not "scandinavian" because nobody lived in far North during LGL. And some found an Y-I1 among farmers in Neolithic Hungary.
I think Y-I2 was more spred (as well the ancestors of I2a1a, I2a1b and I2a2), and already separated by distance in more than a group, what can be verified by its today subclades broad and specific distribution.
Since we are doing bets, I suppose the most of I2a1b was centered around Balkans and Carpathians, in HGs world. A first flow of Y-G2 farmers from W-Anatolia had pushed a lot of them. Concerning Cucuteni-Tripolye final period, I wonder if a second Neolitic wave mostly Y-J2 and aware of some metal realities did not take the strong side upon a mix of first Y-G2 farmers and of pre-Neolithic Y-E-V13 - from Adriatic shores but expanded into the Central Balkans rivers network and became farmers too. The Y-I2 were denser in the highlands, refuges and in the Dniestr region; osmosis came after in Tripolye: the mixed males had a strong 'mediterranean' component when the females were more of 'archaic' types if I red well. It is even said (in Wiki?) that the 'archaii' element was rather stronger in the previous phases than later. So, reinforcement from southern people? Before colonization of the Steppes?
From this scheme we can suppose the Northern part of Tripolye was inhabited by more Y-I2 people of more 'archaic' types. It's this northern part which stayed aside the first (I-E?) moves westwards from Steppes (boomerang effect? Y-R1b dominant new people) and received later the most northern Y-R1a Balto-Slavic tribes before becoming the Slavs? They stayed aside because they were between mountainous North Carpathians and marsh lands, not too interesting at first sight. Among them the first rulers Y-J2/Y-EV13/Y-G2 lost weight in %s.
All the way, the lost in 'gedrosia' among Balts and Slavs cannot be pure hazard. It seems the 'gedrosia' rich tribes from East took a more southern road and colonized Europe before more northern Y-R1a imposed themselves in continental East-Europe, what they had begun to do in Northern Plain.
Concerning Y-I2a1 in ex-Yugoslavia and possible autochtony, I wait more clues about subclades. It could be possible there were very more Y-E1b-V13 people there...All bets.

---

It's the alternative anthrofora universe where you don't need any data to support the things you affirm.

http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by LABERIA http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/...post-right.png
And at the conclusion of your theory, the Albanians are some emigrants from Asia and slavs are native populations of Balcanic Peninsula. lol.

Quote:

---

Korbyn: Not entirely, but somewhat true.

---

Both modern and ancient dna and linguistics strongly suggest that the Slavs are the late comers to the Balkans. Of course, modern south Slavs have ancestry from the Neolithic migrations, the Copper Age and Bronze Age migrations, and the Slavic migrations. Each ethnic group just has different percentages of those ancient, now extinct populations.

"Dinaric" among other "racial" types was more process of evolution perhaps could be tied to certain haplogroup that was dominant in the said region or maybe not.
As far the Dinaric noses goes long ago i have read article that such noses evolve due to mountainous region,the sharp air on height.
So i personally doubt that kind of appearance came from Ukraine in the 6th century,or earlier the steppe,since the appearance of "Illyrians" and "Thracians" we know from coins,statues,roman emperors many of which had Dinaric appearance.
Finally the haplogroup "I" carriers i think are tallest in Europe and they contributed to that.Even nowadays where we find the tallest people the dominant haplogroup is I whether I2 in Balkans or I1 in Northern Europe.
That is just my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angela

It's the alternative anthrofora universe where you don't need any data to support the things you affirm.

http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by LABERIA http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/...post-right.png
And at the conclusion of your theory, the Albanians are some emigrants from Asia and slavs are native populations of Balcanic Peninsula. lol.





Both modern and ancient dna and linguistics strongly suggest that the Slavs are the late comers to the Balkans. Of course, modern south Slavs have ancestry from the Neolithic migrations, the Copper Age and Bronze Age migrations, and the Slavic migrations. Each ethnic group just has different percentages of those ancient, now extinct populations.

---

How is that true,have you compared for example the inhabitants from Bulgaria and Macedonia to northern Greeks or Central or Southern Albanian and what is the difference between haplogroups there?which haplgroups is later or newer? how you sort them i would be curious to know? let's leave the languages alone from haplogroups,not always they go hand in hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angela

There's no way you can know that. We find yDna related to E-V13 and we find J2 not too far from modern day Albania in the mid-to late Neolithic.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...=Sopot+culture

See also the results for this Thracian.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...=Sopot+culture

We also know now that there was related yDna "E" in the Near East in the Neolithic, so I think the path into Europe is now pretty clear, and how early it was...

Arbereshe:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...=Sopot+culture

It is the "Slavic" y clades which are late arrivals into the Balcans.

Let's not derail this thread, though; it's about I2a Din

---

I don't have sources or anything. But this hardly convinces me otherwise. Sorry. The Sumerians of modern Iraq were believed to be both J1 and J2, predominantly. Possibly some R1b and R1a as well. So to say that J2 or even J1 are archaic in Albanians and even other Europeans, seems a bit silly to me. (even if it were true; it does not discredit my Albanian migration theory.) Also, another thing to consider is that Albanians' third most common haplogroup is Greco-Anatolian R1b. (found exclusively among Greeks, Northern Turkey and even Armenia.):

Attachment 7836

If anything; the unusual Y-DNA patterns in the Albanians suggests to me that they are more homogeneous; and lesser indigenous. We must also remember that Southern Slavs as well as Greeks carry the E-V13 and J1b (subclade) as well. If anything; it points to Albanians picking up these haplogroups, and afterwards (after this admixture) they also somehow became homogeneous. (this would make sense, seeing as Albania about a century ago was nearly less than 1 million people.)

Edit: It is also very interesting that both R1b and the J2b subclade appear in Mordovians at a higher than average frequency. It definitely suggests to me now, upon seeing this map; Albanians definitely arrived into the Balkans from near the Black Sea. Greco-Anatolian R1b and the subclade of J2b found in both Albanians and (ahem, uralic speaking) Mordovians seems like there may be some kind of link, here. I have no idea where the E-V13 came from. Possibly; it was picked up by Albanians from indigenous Balkanic peoples, whom later assimilated into Albanians? It would also explain why Greeks and South Slavs also have a higher than average abundance of E-V13. This would be the only stump or con to my theory for a more recent Albanian migration -- but I am also thinking more that their E-V13 is exaggerated, simply because of homogeneity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angela

Both modern and ancient dna and linguistics strongly suggest that the Slavs are the late comers to the Balkans. Of course, modern south Slavs have ancestry from the Neolithic migrations, the Copper Age and Bronze Age migrations, and the Slavic migrations. Each ethnic group just has different percentages of those ancient, now extinct populations.

---

My only explanation for that; is what I stated above. I believe that Slavs may very well be related or relative to Thracians or Dacians.

And if I am right about Illyrians being merely a federation of Celts put on a map (just like Gauls) and not a distinct tribe of it's own culture/tongue; then that means many of these Illyrian supposed "Celts" migrated out of the Balkans to the North and/or West. That would leave the door open for Slavs to later migrate (or "invade", which I doubt) into former Illyria. But this here could possibly be an explanation for why Dinaric I2 is more recent/young. (it may have nothing to do with Slavic invasion.)

Edit: in other words, whomever this Illyrians were (if not Albanians or even Slavs or Thracians) - I am basically saying that before 5 or 6 AD; they obviously left the Balkans. I could see no other place to migrate but Northern and/or Western. My belief right now, is that Illyrians may have been a distinct Celtic tribe of some sort.

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illyri...reek_mythology

Also, notice the image to the right:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...English%29.jpg

Where the Greeks mythologically seem to suggest that these "Illyrians" have more in common with Celts.


Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illyrian_languages#Celtic

It seems to me that the name borrowings in Illyrian are more plentiful in Celtic than in Greek or even Thracian. This is particularly interesting; and raises the question of why Albanians lost a substantial amount of Celtic influence (to me); if they are indeed descendants of Illyrians. Makes no sense to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Milan

"Dinaric" among other "racial" types was more process of evolution perhaps could be tied to certain haplogroup that was dominant in the said region or maybe not.
As far the Dinaric noses goes long ago i have read article that such noses evolve due to mountainous region,the sharp air on height.
So i personally doubt that kind of appearance came from Ukraine in the 6th century,or earlier the steppe,since the appearance of "Illyrians" and "Thracians" we know from coins,statues,roman emperors many of which had Dinaric appearance.
Finally the haplogroup "I" carriers i think are tallest in Europe and they contributed to that.Even nowadays where we find the tallest people the dominant haplogroup is I whether I2 in Balkans or I1 in Northern Europe.
That is just my opinion.

---

In the copper-age in North-Italy .....100% of all Remedello culture samples are I2a ...........there is also the swiss sample of Bichon who is I2a

I do not know which story you are trying to portray for these I2 people that you speak about

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korbyn

My only explanation for that; is what I stated above. I believe that Slavs may very well be related or relative to Thracians or Dacians.

And if I am right about Illyrians being merely a federation of Celts put on a map (just like Gauls) and not a distinct tribe of it's own culture/tongue; then that means many of these Illyrian supposed "Celts" migrated out of the Balkans to the North and/or West. That would leave the door open for Slavs to later migrate (or "invade", which I doubt) into former Illyria. But this here could possibly be an explanation for why Dinaric I2 is more recent/young. (it may have nothing to do with Slavic invasion.)

Edit: in other words, whomever this Illyrians were (if not Albanians or even Slavs or Thracians) - I am basically saying that before 5 or 6 AD; they obviously left the Balkans. I could see no other place to migrate but Northern and/or Western. My belief right now, is that Illyrians may have been a distinct Celtic tribe of some sort.

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illyri...reek_mythology

Also, notice the image to the right:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...English%29.jpg

Where the Greeks mythologically seem to suggest that these "Illyrians" have more in common with Celts.


Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illyrian_languages#Celtic

It seems to me that the name borrowings in Illyrian are more plentiful in Celtic than in Greek or even Thracian. This is particularly interesting; and raises the question of why Albanians lost a substantial amount of Celtic influence (to me); if they are indeed descendants of Illyrians. Makes no sense to me.

---

The Gallic peoplewhere the biggest race in
bronze-age Europe.

they had all France, Belgium, north-italy, southern and central Germany, Switzerland and western Austria..............they neighboured the illyrians of eastern Austria and then started to absorb them into gallic/celtic culture. by 250 BC the illyrians had been celtinized.
There was even a failed campaign to bring Greece under gallic/celtic rule

IMO
The illyrians bordered the lusatian culture and their origins where eastern Austria and Hungaria ( pannonia ) lands ...........over time they moved south and either replaced or absorbed the thracians in the western balkans.
By the time of the Great illyrian revolt against Rome, they massed mostly in pannonia and central bosnia.

I doubt very much these "illyrians" saw themselves as one ethnic race ............I believe they where only named Illyrians because of the Greeks and also because Rome called the area they resided as Illyricum ( celtic name )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Milan

How is that true,have you compared for example the inhabitants from Bulgaria and Macedonia to northern Greeks or Central or Southern Albanian and what is the difference between haplogroups there?which haplgroups is later or newer? how you sort them i would be curious to know? let's leave the languages alone from haplogroups,not always they go hand in hand.

---

Couldn't agree more. Apparently what people fail to realize is that Albanians carry E-V13 at an enormous amount, because as stated before; they have bred very high for the last century; after independence from the Ottoman Empire. They are merely homogeneous, which is why E-V13 is so high. Not because they are indigenous.

The Kosovars have more E-V13 but the samples are too small to be conclusive. (less than 50-100 samples taken from Kosovar men? And most were E-V13? How is this proof of anything? 1,000 Kosovar Albanian samples would be more defined, and E-V13 would probably dwindle down to average to below average, in the Balkans. Maybe even Serbs or Bulgarians would surpass them in E-V13 frequency. I would not at all, be surprised.)