How did I2a-Din get to the Balkans?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zanipolo

Which is the one to read ?

i see 2001, 2005 etc etc

---

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

Are you trying to say they are gothic and vandal HG in western balkans ,

---

Yes, principally Ostrogothic, at least that's my best guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zanipolo

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

---

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

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

---

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

true if its only 1 sub-clade of I1a ( I1) exists

---

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

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 HG

---

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 sparkey

Yes, principally Ostrogothic, at least that's my best guess.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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 %

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sparkey

But it isn't "so different"... the large majority of I2a in Eastern Europe as a whole is I2a-Din.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maciamo

It cannot be Proto-Slavic if it wasn't PIE to start with.

---

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.

Personally, I could stand behind Proto-Slavic hypothesis also.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maciamo

So I still think that I2a2 was in Europe before the Indo-Europeans.

---

No one is saying it wasn't.
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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sparkey

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.

---

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 razor

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.

---

I => 25,000 years ago (in the Balkans)
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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dorianfinder

I2a2 => 7,500 years ago (in the Dinaric Alps)

---

And what is the age of I2a1b1?
For poor classification se here.

Cf. http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net/T...r%20Hg%20I.pdf for the Nordtvedt I tree

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shetop

And what is the age of I2a1b1?
For poor classification se here.

---

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.

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dorianfinder

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.

---

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.

Where I2a-Din is in the SNP tree is well established.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knovas

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 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).

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"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sparkey

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.

Where I2a-Din is in the SNP tree is well established.

---

I was thinking more along the lines of those subclades immediately downstream of I2a-Din.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dorianfinder

I was thinking more along the lines of those subclades immediately downstream of I2a-Din.

---

Maybe you could explain this, because there are no subclades downstream I2a-Din.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sparkey

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)

---

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 Dorianfinder

I was thinking more along the lines of those subclades immediately downstream of I2a-Din.

---

...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.

What's downstream?

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.

---

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 Shetop

Maybe you could explain this, because there are no subclades downstream I2a-Din.

---

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 sparkey

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).

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 see sparkey. Your explanation makes sense, it's perfectly possible. I can't deny it ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sparkey

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.

---

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 Dorianfinder

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sparkey

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.