Printable View
I didn't imply that it was the Goths who brought CTS10228 to the Carpathian area, but that they absorbed it and spread it in the Balkans before the Slavs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dibran
It seems to me that the best candidates are the Celts who moved Eastwards and separated CTS10228 from his I2a-Disles cousin.
Bonjour ce sont des bulgaes (scythes) d ou le nom de serbes et croates .la premi�re migration c est faite � l �poque celtique et d autres par la suite
Hello there!
I've found an interesting article. I really can not decide is it something crazy bull****, or a valid theory. Bacisly, the author wrote that the I2a groups are connected with the Celts and Slavs. What do you think?
I mean I totally go it the I2a-Din group according to today's theory is a White Croatian/Slavic group, but who were they before the Slavicization? For me, the term "Slavic" is much more cultural and linguistic, than genetical.
I'm new here, so I cannot post a link, but you can find the article ,,Gavran and Golub ban" at the Oldeuropeanculture.blogspot site.
The admin of oldeuropeanculture is a nutcase serbian nationalist that nonstop lies and spreads misinformation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Szigmund
He nonstop claims all other south slavs as serbian and makes ridiculous claims going all the way to india. Not somebody to take seriously
Thank you!
The big problem I guess here is that after the Cucuteni-Trypillia Culture we haven't got a special group for the I2a1b variants, until the times of Migration Period... So if I'm not mistaken we see one culture close to one specific group, but after this period they mixed with the "newcomers", Slavic, German or other. After some of them arrived for new locations, some of them stayed in place, I guess so.
The strange thing what I often see on forums or articles that somebody see only percentages, somebody see only numbers. Often forget the historycal backgrounds, or circumstances.
My main question is: is there any typical I2a1b culture, after the Cucuteni-Tyrpillia? Who were the "Din" people before the Slavic ethnogenesis? Do we, or can we know anything for sure? Just the science didn't give answers for this question, or the interpretations from amateurs made the chaos?
As you can see I'm corious mostly in cultural connections. If the I2-Din is typical Slavic, than it's Slavic, but I see too many question marks with this topyc. Goths, Illyrians, Dalmatae, Tracians, Dacians... and basicly, everybody else, according to the personal preferences are connected to this haplogroup.
http://oldeuropeanculture.blogspot.c...d-goluban.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Szigmund
Slavs and Croatians have I2a1 haplotype or other branch so the link between Celts and Slavs is very old or in time when Slavs and Celts do not exist. This article that you mention is outdated.Quote:
Thursday, 22 May 2014
Here is something interesting about I2a2a1-M284 (formerly I2b1a) in Ireland. Ireland is very good for genetic genealogy research because of its clans and a long written history. I2a2a1 (M284) seems to have arisen in Britain, where it is most common.
I2-Din is not typical Slavic but branches of the same can be Slavic, Goth, Illyrian, Dalmatae, Tracian, Dacian etc, for now branch I-Y3120 can be Slavic and I-S17250 can be White Croatian.Quote:
Originally Posted by Szigmund
Dibran, you have mixed branches. Branch L161 or so-called Isles has no expansion among Slavs. It is called Isles because many tested L161 people in I2a project come from the British Isles. It was found among ancient samples in Britain, but also in several places around Europe including Eastern Europe. Also. it is present in modern Europeans all around the continent in very small percentages. I do not know if there is a specific Slavic subclade of L161.
For Slavs important is parallel branch L621 which consist of Dinaric and Disles. Disles is very rare in Europe, almost non-noticeable. The name is given by a combination of Dinaric and Isles, but on the phylogenetic tree, it is closer to Dinaric or I-CTS10228. The supposed time of formation is 11200 ybp. with TMRCA 6500 ybp. Among modern Slavs there is the only expansion of I-CTS10228>>Y3120, supposed time of formation is 3.800 ybp with TMRCA 2200 ybp.
For prehistory and early history of young subclade Y3120č found mostly among modern Slavic population, the most important are early diverge branches of L621 that I mentioned above. Also very important is to find early diverged subclades of I-CTS10228. On the level of I-CTS10228 there are +25 known SNPs and on the level of Y3120 there are +6 known SNPs. Every SNP is a possible new branch, these branches might be present in modern populations of Europe or extinct. Before we found it in modern populations or ancient samples, we can only hypothesize about the origin of Y3120 before its expansion in Eastern Europe. We miss about 1500-2000 years on Yfull tree.
Problem is that many people take for granted theories spread on the internet that do not have any support in current results and researches from Population Genetics. Many times ****** spread it as ultimate proven truth. Unfortunately, there is no portal on the internet that summarizes information from public projects and scientific studies about L621 and other haplogroups.
Some theories you mentioned in your posts. One is that L621 took part in the division of Balto-Slavic languages. According to linguistic theories (which might not be true), the division between Baltic and Slavic language happened 3.500-3.300 ypb.
If there is a population/haplogroup that influenced that division, the TMRCA of that haplogroup might be at least 3.500 years, and bearers of that haplogroup had to have a significant number in that time.
Currently, we know that Slavic branches of I-Y3120 were formed 2.200 ybp. Yfull calculations are not perfect, we can feel free to push it a little back in the past e.g 2.500-3.000 years ago, but it hardly had a significant number of bearers in that time considering that it might survived a long time bottleneck.
For now, it is the most important to find early subclades, we know that some of them exist in the modern population of Upper Rhine basin, but it is not enough for the final conclusion.
About Bastarnae/Germanic origin it is useless to talk. Migration of Bastarnae is historically confirmed, but there are no early subclades in areal of early Germanic Cultures. As I mentioned those subclades are found in Upper Rhine basin. It might be some known historical migration but also prehistorical. The same thing about Celtic migration which might be more plausible.
About Y-STR diversity, there are not many papers about it.
Ken Notdvedt as an early researcher suggested that the highest diversity is on the of I-CTS10228 is on the borders of Ukraine, Belarus and Poland.
Dragan Primorac claimed the highest diversity in Dalmatia.
Olga Utevska, a Ukrainian scientist, in her dissertation suggested two regions, one is around Upper Tisza Basin, in general, North Carpathians (E. Slovakia, NE Hungary, W. Ukraine, SE Poland), other is Dnieper Basin. I shared maps and paper here.
According to public projects on FTDNA, the highest diversity of I-CTS10228 is around North Carpathians. Many subclades are confirmed there, but no any I-Y18331.
I do not know for any research that found the highest diversity in Moldova. There is only one paper with haplotypes without DYS448. Tested people were from NW Romania, Moldova and Ukrainians from Moldova.
There are 3 most common branches among modern Slavic populations I-S17250, I-Y4460 and I-Z17855. They have somewhat different dispersion and expansion rates. The most common is I-S17250 (about 60% of confirmed people and about half of them are I-PH908). The second one is I-Y4460 (about 40%), both branches can be found almost elsewhere, first is the most common in Balkan, West Slavs and Western Ukraine, while I-Y440 has high share in rest of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, but there are members of this branch in Balkan, Poland, CZ, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania etc. The third one is I-Z17855 with about 5%, the branch is found mostly in Serbia, Bulgaria, Montenegro and region of Macedonia.
There is no expansion of I-Z17855 in Romania, Ukraine and Russia. Up to some degree, it might be present in Transylvania and North Carpathians. Most of the tested Romanians belong to S17250 and Y4460.
There are confirmed Z17855 in Poland, Slovakia, CZ, Ukraine and Russia, but its share in I-CTS10228 is very low.
Maps shared here are not accurate at all and no reference how shares were calculated. Making maps is not easy, first, you need to find all data from scientific studies to see the percentage of haplogroups than find tested people on deeper subclades on FTDNA or elsewhere. Looking at maps I can say only that guy who made it did not know the difference between Hungarian and Romanian surnames in Romania. Most tested Z17855 are Hungarians. But even if you know surname you cannot know ethnic origin of a person on the paternal line if it is not self-reported. Several people with Romanian surnames said that their paternal line is non-Romanian, administration in the past changed their surnames in Romanian.
Also about maps of Hungary and Serbia. In Hungarian sample are calculated people of South Slavic and Rusyn origin. On the map of Serbia are included dinaric north results of Serbs from Croatia and Bosnia with a higher share of S17250, while Serbia and Montengro have about 7-9% percent of I-Z17855 which is similar to Bulgaria and Macedonia.
Albanians in anonymous studies have about 9% I-CTS10228, about 3% are DYS448=19 and 6% percent are dinaric north. Inthat 6% are surely people negative on Z17855 because some of them might belong to Y4460, S17250 and even one haplotype seems to be A2512. In the time when maps were made only one Albanian was confirmed as I-Z17855>A1221. So how did someone calculate 9% of Z17855 in Albania?
In the best case it is 4%-5%? I wrote a lot about the possibility that most of Albanian I-CTS10228 are Z17855, it is the only hypothesis based on STR matches.
Vlach people are a mystery, several of them are I-CTS10228 (both dinaric south and north), no one is tested on deeper subclades.
Greece has the highest diversity of I-CTS10228 in Balkan for now, at least a half ethnic Greeks with Dinaric results are I-Y18331. How this subclade finish in Greece nobody knows. Except for Greece and downstream Jews, two people from Russia are confirmed positive on this SNP.
Bastarnae lived in Moldova and settled in nowadays Bulgaria and Dardania. No one is these areas is confirmed to belong to this branch yet. Also no historical sources about the settlement of Bastarnae in Greece, especially in the southern part of the country.
Slavs were bearers of I-CTS10228 for sure, but I would not exclude many other possible migrations, some of them are Carpi, Costoboci (that overrun Greece), Huns, Goths, Kutrigurs and so on. It not clear if some branches were present North of Danube and Carpathians before Slavs entered the area.
“Greece has the highest diversity of I-CTS10228 in Balkan for now, at least a half ethnic Greeks with Dinaric results are I-Y18331. How this subclade finish in Greece nobody knows. Except for Greece and downstream Jews, two people from Russia are confirmed positive on this SNP.
Bastarnae lived in Moldova and settled in nowadays Bulgaria and Dardania. No one is these areas is confirmed to belong to this branch yet. Also no historical sources about the settlement of Bastarnae in Greece, especially in the southern part of the country.
Slavs were bearers of I-CTS10228 for sure, but I would not exclude many other possible migrations, some of them are Carpi, Costoboci (that overrun Greece), Huns, Goths, Kutrigurs and so on. It not clear if some branches were present North of Danube and Carpathians before Slavs entered the area.”
The parsimonious explanation for Y18331’s origin seems to be the northern Black Sea region or thereabouts. The Russian from Tobolsk and the Chuvash male who are Y18331 may have ancestral roots from there. How else could they be connected to the Greeks? The estimated MRCA of the Greeks and East European Jews in downstream A10959 (an exclusive Greco-Jewish branch) may have lived around 2,000 years ago.
There are no Y18331 Balkan Slavs so far.
Since the idea that I2a-CTS10228>Y3120 might not be Slavic keeps coming back, I am posting a summary of what the current data tells about it's origins and arrival to the Balkans.
Ancient DNA:
1- The earliest I2a-CTS10228 found so far is a Polish 9th cent I-S17250. It's closest relative on the YFull tree is from Ukraine.
2- I2a is absent in a 5th-6th cent cemetery in Hungary. This was a Longobard cemetery in use during and after the Germanic migrations but before the Slavic ones. Small sample (21) but there were several Germanic lines, and even a few more southern ones, but no I2a.
Modern DNA:
1- SNP diversity
As can be seen on YFull. Out of 5 major I-Y3120 branches:
-2 are only found in in Eastern Europe (Y3120* & Y4460) -tmrca 2200 for Y4460
-1 is most diverse in Greece, secondly in Eastern Europe (Y18331) - tmrca 2200
-1 is pretty even in diversity between Eastern Europe & the Balkans (I-S17250) - tmrca 1800
-1 is more diverse in the Balkans, secondly in Eastern E. with MRCA equal/close to the whole branch (I-Z17855) -tmrca 1600
So Eastern Europe currently has more branches, more diversity within them, and more distant MRCAs.
2- STR diversity
It has been calculated (here, p.26) that haplotypes with:
- DYS448=19 (I2a-DinSouth) are most diverse in the Poland-Belarus area
- DYS448=20 (I2a-DinNorth) are most diverse in Ukraine
To summarize, current data suggest a huge expansion out of Eastern Europe which reached the Balkans no earlier than the 5-6th century CE.
Questioning whether one branch was spread by Slavs in no way denies that much of CTS10228 was spread by Slavs. The East Europeans in Y18331 appear to be all Jewish men, and thus not “Slavs,” per se. Isn’t that peculiar, and doesn’t that raise a bit of a red flag? Why are all the Y18331 East Europeans Jewish males and not “indigenous” people? Jews migrated to East Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ownstyler
The apparently Greco-Jewish branch, Y18331-A10959, further split an estimated 2,000 years ago into Greek Y66192 and Jewish Y23115 (the Jews are downstream of Y23115). Why are there no Jewish males in Y66192 and vice-versa? Why are there no East European Slavs or Balkan Slavs in the entire Y18331 branch? There’s one Chuvash male and one Russian male from the city of Tobolsk in Y18331, very far away from East Europe. Since the parent branch Y18331 is an estimated 2,200 years old, and the major subbranches are estimated to have split off very soon thereafter, could they not have been carried or spread by some other East European people? Not only Slavs lived in East Europe or north of the Black Sea, and the major branches formed a long time ago.
I gave ample evidence that I-Y3120 expanded out of Eastern Europe. I was not saying that every single line was spread by Slavs, but the overwhelming majority probably was, and the great expansion experienced by this branch was first and foremost due to the Slavic expansion and migration. Not everything is already set in stone, but I presented the likeliest scenario with the current data.
You raised a lot of questions but gave no alternative explanations. Yes, the ethnic origins of Y18331 may still be debated, but it probably started in Eastern Europe too.
[QUOTE=Ralphie Boy;571610]Why are all the Y18331 East Europeans Jewish males and not “indigenous” people? Jews migrated to East Europe./QUOTE]
If you believe that the Y18331 in Eastern Europe is due to a Jewish migration, how do you explain the absence of this branch in the Middle East, or wherever you think these Jewish people moved from? Right now, it seems more likely that Y23115 started in Eastern Europe and was then spread by the descendants of a person or family who converted to Judaism there.
“You raised a lot of questions but gave no alternative explanations.”
In post #1435 above, I posited that the northern Black Sea region may have been where Y18331 formed. That might explain the connections to the Chuvash and Russian in Tobolsk, based on possible historical migrations. I do not believe that Y18331 formed in Greece, and that people migrated from there to East Europe. It seems pretty clear that Y3120 came from the north, and Slavs brought subbranches to the Balkans.
Maybe Y18331 is an eastern Slavic haplogroup, but major subbranches may have formed very quickly, per estimates. Maybe it’s a rare Slavic branch. The Greeks and Jews in Y18331-A2512-A10959 may have had a common ancestor an estimated 2,000 years ago. Where did that person live, and why are there no Slavs, if you will, in the haplogroup, either in East Europe or the Balkans? There is even a subbranch of A10959-Y66192 (Greek branch) that formed an estimated 1,000 years later, Y66804.
We also have an old scientific paper (2007) in which it is concluded that to Britain possible come some Roman soldiers from Balkans (E1b) and it is not mentioned I2a-CTS10228>Y3120.
http://www.jogg.info/pages/32/bird.htm
That I2a-CTS10228 peoples in that time exist in the Balkans then and they would probably come to Britain.
There is also lack of I2a-CTS10228 in the Italians and if at time of Ilirians I2a-CTS10228 exist among them this should be seen in today's Italians.
Agreed with this.Quote:
Originally Posted by hrvat22
And at the same time Italy has alot of J2b2-L283, which peaks in Gheg Albanians. Central & North Italy in particular.
There's an article South Slavic origin and I2a-Dinaric South (PH908) by South Slavic DNA Blog, which summarizes information on the migration of South Slavs and I-PH908. It is very long, but as other members said and evidence suggest, it is more than evident that the South Slavs are more or less 50% autosomal descendants of a medieval population hence they, with a partial exception of Slovenians, they plot differently on PCA from other Slavs. It also has an analysis of a general route of migration for I-PH908 and according to all the information the conclusion is that the haplogroup most probably was not brought by both Serbs and Croats to the Balkans. The origin of the route of migration is evidently, at least generally, somewhere in the Eastern Carpathians, where did live Croatian tribes, but not Serbian tribes, however according to historical sources both Croats and Serbs did not migrate from there yet German-Czech-Polish border.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad82
A very good argument that I-PH908 did not arrive with the West Slavic tribes, including medieval Sorbs/Serbs and Czech Croats, are the Y-DNA results of the most Western South Slavic people - Slovenians - who are genetically closest to the West Slavs whose common ancestry most probably dates to the 7th century, for which it is cited The paternal perspective of the Slovenian population and its relationship with other populations:
Slovenians are often forgotten from the discussion, but the fact the Slovenians have such a low frequency of I-PH908, that there's a low frequency and variation of I-PH908 among West Slavs, including Lusatian Sorbs who have 0% I-PH908, it can be hardly argued anymore that it arrived with the medieval Serbs and most probably even Croats who also lived and migrated from today's German-Czech-Polish border. People often ignore that contemporary ethnonym ≠ genetics, and as for now the overall scientific data and conclusion is this, probably it will be a hard pill to swallow for some people obsessed proving their nationalistic pride.Quote:
The differentiation of the Slovenian population from the rest of the Balkan populations is based primarily on the lower frequency of the I2a1b-M423 haplogroup. The calculated age of this specific haplogroup together with the variation peak detected in the suggested Slavic homeland could represent a signal of Slavic migration arising from medieval Slavic expansions. However, the strong genetic barrier around the area of Bosnia and Herzegovina, associated with the high frequency of the I2a1b-M423 haplogroup, could also be a consequence of a Paleolithic genetic signal of a Balkan refuge area, followed by mixing with a medieval Slavic signal from modern-day Ukraine ... Furthermore, the genetic proximity of the Slovenian, Slovakian and, to some extent, the Czech populations, whose territory was united in the early days of Slavic settlement under the Samo’s tribal union, is of particular note (Barford, 2001). The homogeneous genetic strata of these three Slavic countries could reflect a common ancestral Slavic population in the central European region, which was later divided by the settlement of German tribes in the region of modern-day Austria and was influenced (mostly in the Slovenian population) by the South Slavic genetic pool ... AMOVA revealed the highest variation between groups when the Slovenian population was grouped together with other West Slavic populations, suggesting that the West Slavic populations and the Slovenian population are more genetically similar to each other compared with the South Slavic language group, which consists of the Slavic Balkan population and Slovenian population. This finding favours a hypothesis that suggests an origin of the Slovenian language in the West Slavic language group (Bezlaj, 1967; Grafenauer, 1950; Zˇ uzˇek, 2007).
@Miroslav
So from what I understand, you're saying I2 didn't arrive with Croats and Serbs? Then who did it arrive with?
Well, seemingly that is what current information implies. Here or else can be read exceptional claims that the I2-PH908 surely or majorly arrived with the Croats or Serbs or both, but where's the exceptional evidence? The argumentation also has logical fallacies due to ethnocentrism. For example, contemporary Serbs tend to interpret the 0% among Sorbs as evidence there's no genetical connection between them or question if the Sorbs are "real Serbs" at all, rather than considering the continuity of ethnic identity with genetical discontinuity among Serbs and question if they are "real Serbs" at all. Likewise for example, when we read claims about the arrival with (White) Croats, if we put aside the fact "other" Croats did live around Carpathians and possibility they participated in Pannonian Avars activity all around the Balkans, it doesn't explain the frequency and variation in Bulgaria because they had nothing to do with Bulgarian territory. There's many samples from Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova and so on, it had to arrive with/also with other Slavs, and there indeed arrived many Slavic tribes to the Balkans (see this and this image), not to mention that Croats, Serbs and else were probably like Bulgars, a confederation of various smaller tribes who didn't neccessarily originate from the "original" tribe.Quote:
Originally Posted by HiveMindTerror
There are some SNP links between White Serbia and Balkan Serbs through I-Z16983 (TMRCA 1650 ybp), Czechs in cluster I-Y6651 are descended from sub-ethnic group Chodove which are connected to Nabian Serbs. Also a German parallel to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Miroslav
Also I heard an argument from Serbian admin that the large presence of PH908 is not as required if the presence of Serbs there (in White Serbia) was brief, as well as that Sorbs do not descend from the Serbs, that they lived little bit to the north of them. But I can't comment much on that.
In any case I-Z16983 does look like a hg of proto-Serbs in tribal sense who might not have been that numerous but rather a tribe which assimilated other Slavic tribes. Other PH908 clades might have had different paths.
Wikipedia on Chodove:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspurg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChodoveQuote:
During the medieval period, the monarchy of the Kingdom of Bohemia recruited the ancestors of the Chodové from ethnic enclaves within the western Carpathian Mountain region near the borders of what is today Slovakia, Poland, and southwestern Ukraine [citation needed] (possibly including Silesia), relocating these communities to serve as guards along the borders between Bohemia and Bavaria from possible Germanic expansion into Bohemia.
If the above information was correct then Chodové arrved from the area that was in historical sources known as White Croatia, only after the hypothetical outmigration of Serbs might have occurred.
That makes sense as White Croatia has been regarded as a potential source area of PH908 not to mention high fequencies of the said haplogroup in present day Croatian male population.
It is not true. That group was first mentioned in the 13th-14th century (Late Middle Ages), while the mentioned connection to scholarly invented so-called "Nabian Serbs" is part of one of the fringe theories which tried to trace their ancestry to the Early Middle Ages.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspurg
It sounds far-fetched. The presence of the Serbs was not brief because are mentioned there in the 7th century and according to historical sources they previously were subjects of the Franks. The refusal to connect Serbs with the Sorbs is problematic because the Lusatian tribes are mentioned only in subsequent centuries, some consider them as Serbian tribes, or Serbian assimilated, while others as separate, so either have direct or close ancestry and relationship, and that's based on historical, archaeological and linguistical evidence. The presence of PH908 is required, and not only, but I2 overall, considering the proximity and relation with Lusatian Slavs and yet that is not the case with contemporary Sorbs. The issue with the Sorbs is that they are the Slavs who have the lowest frequency of I2 (4%). That cannot be ignored, that's a fact, evidence, which must be taken into consideration regarding the regional ethnogenesis through history.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspurg
Yes, it's a possibilty, but considering the evidence, it does not look like a subclade or haplogroup representing "proto-Serbs" at all. It should be R1a-M458, which is found among both Sorbs and Serbs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspurg
It would be also after the outmigration and assimilation of White Croats in the region. We are not dealing with Serbs and Croats anymore for centuries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonomyro
We are dealing with the I2a-Din haplogroup and its migration paths. Now we see another evidence that supports its origin from, or nearby, the territory of the early medieval White Croatia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Miroslav
I find it amusing how often White Croatia is mentioned by historians. I thought it was more a mythical state? I've also read that most South Slavs were probably settlers from many small tribes that scattered across the Balkans, and that "Croats" and "Serbs" emerged from among these many tribes to gradually become the most powerful and relevant. Eventually they absorbed the neighbouring smaller tribes, until the modern ethnic groups came into being.
Also, Miroslav, I assumed haplogroup I2a-Din came from southern Ukraine and Poland? I believe it spikes in frequency in south-western Ukraine. It's also worth noting that early Croats were considered East Slavs, before they moved more into Poland. There was an East Slavic tribal confederation called the Antes, and that name stuck around in the Croatian language with many Croatian boys being traditionally named Ante.
It was not neccessarilly a state but a region populated by (White) Croats. Neither It was mythical because it was mentioned in more then one historical source.Quote:
Originally Posted by HiveMindTerror