Is there an explanation why Bosnian Serbs have 7.5% of I1 gene, and Bosnian Croats 0% of I1.
And how come Bosnian Croats have such a high persentage of 71% of I2 gene?
Printable View
Is there an explanation why Bosnian Serbs have 7.5% of I1 gene, and Bosnian Croats 0% of I1.
And how come Bosnian Croats have such a high persentage of 71% of I2 gene?
No and nothing will. The debate reached a dead end. All the data confirms that the clade I-CTS10228 most probably originates somewhere in Central Europe before its subclade, roughly I-Y3120, moved to Eastern Europe where became an integral part of the Proto-Slavic ethnogenesis. From regions north of the Carpathians the subclades of I-Y3120 reached the Balkans. I-Y3120 with its subclades makes 99% of the today's percentage of the haplogroup I2 in the Balkans. Considering the Poll results, all the theories or opinions except "The Slavs" are completely debunked now. It is additionally supported by historical, archaeological, anthropological, atDNA and mtDNA among other facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Illyri
Population bottleneck and founder effect, but most probably sample bias.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuzlaq
For now, we can say that genetics of Bosnian Croats is probably autochthonous ie from pre-Turkish period.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuzlaq
Croats as Catholics (main enemies of the Ottomans) were left isolated. No one at that time(under Ottomans) became a Catholic. Croats mixed with each other in that isolation. For Bosnian Serbs, things are different because they are originally Orthodox and a large number of Orthodox Vlachs coming to Bosnia from all sides and this heterogeneity is visible in their genetics. There are also conversions to Orthodoxy and Islam. Bosniaks are somewhere in between.
Alright, makes sense. And what is your opinion about the origin of the i2a-din gene?
Did it come with slavs or is it native?
My opinion is that branches of I2a, more precisely behind branch https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-S17250/ originally coming with White Croatian tribe which is later divided to multiple communities.
Here is a topic where I have presented evidence and data that could support my theory. https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...ats-to-Croatia
I think it’s pretty clear it came to the Balkans with the Slavs. Dinaric should be an obsolete term. However, it appears to have first come from further west, as there are basal clades so far from France and Germany. A clade just below those was found in Hungary. The oddball is Y18331, which has very few Slavs, a good number of Jews and high diversity in Greece/south Balkans, implying a different migration pattern.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuzlaq
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dibran
There are 4-5 000 just from the recently excavated Salonica metroQuote:
Originally Posted by Demetrios
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dibran
Nothing from what it is written on Yfull about Y18331 makes sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralphie Boy
How in the world could all the descentands of I-Y18331 have a single ancestor going back to cople of centuries before the Slavic migrations , which person became the single father of the main lineage of Slavs and Central Europeans, spreading in all of eastern Europe and the Balkans with in 300 years(cause that's the age of the main subclasses that are ..geographically biased too)
Or we can go by the logical accam's razor and conclude:
The Adamov daiting method is way off and ages of the Haplogroups are much much older.
Of course if the dating is wrong, and the results produce either slightly younger or older profiles, then automatically all the internet genetic forums theories collapse like a Domino chain and with them many state promoting naratives, like the Slavisist replacement theory of native populations
Cause I would mean that the birth of the clades and their spread predate the recorded historical events.
The geographic spread of the downstream clades is another line of evidence that the Adamov dating formula is wrong. You can't claim A mass migration event occured when the TMRCA of the main lineages of Y18331 in a specific region alludes to 2-3 common ancestors from the 5th century based on this dating method, like in the case of Bosnia. And the paradoxes don't stop there, you have to conclude that patriarch and his ofsprinngs had some magic fertility wand (in a general era of plagues and population stagnation through out Europe)that aided them in replacing local lineages and becoming the main one overtime, or the areas were depopulated earlier.
Or the population of Bosnia in the 6th century after the massive relocation of Slavs(if we are to believe the historical records)was about 20 families of whom 10 were of
I2 patrimonial lineage.
Any toughts on this entry?
https://phylogeographer.com/the-diff...-lived-200-bc/
It is a reasonable position.Quote:
Originally Posted by Szigmund
I-Y3120 have all the characteristics of an haplogroup that was "slavidized".
The distribution is too far from R1a-slavic.
Old diversity clusters (in Greece) are problematic for a Slavic origin.
My own view on this clade is that they were likely in the Balkan by ~300-200 BC, and looking at the moment at which they diversifies they could have been pushed east by Romans during Illyrian wars, and later fell under slavic influence.
But I guess that a Celtic injection in Balkans and then a "slavidization" could work aswell. Going for Illyrian origin or Celtic is a that point fairly similar.
Regarding ancient DNA, some I-P37 (I-L158) are identified in Hungary and Italy by 3000 BCE which fits fairly well with the possibilities mentioned above, at least better than with a Black-Sea origin.
A I-L161 sample from Patterson et al. 2021 has been found in Serbia and dates from 1900 BCE. This is the closest cousin of the L621 above I-Y3120.
Sadly, there is no L621 from that time period to help a bit with some more recent relatives.
But during bronze-age the family of Y3120 is attested in Balkan and around the Adriatic.
The date of separation of balkanic and Ukrainian sub-clade of Y3120 is not really matching with the Slavic origin.
Whereas, balkanic R1a are diversifying at the correct moment for the Slavic invasion.
Probably, the explanation is that a R1a elite manage to take over some Y3120 populations and "Slavidized" them.
The highest diversity if I-Y3120 is within Ukraine/Belarus. The bear entirety of Balkan Y3120 is the result of bottlenecks and founder effects. It was likely already with the Proto-Slavs by the time of its tmrca and was probably absorbed around the North East Carpathian arch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghurier
The Greek branch is a rare exception and shouldn't be used as some measuring stick to push its origin further south.
The explosion of Y3120 along with Z280 and some M458 branches under R1a coincides perfectly with the Slavic migrations.
Whilst it's predecessor was likely not Slavic, Y3120 was clearly more successful among Slavs than R1a was at least in regards to the South and East Slavs which arrived from around the North East Carpathian arch. Probably spreading from Polesie/Ukraine together with Z280 and R-L1029 under M458.
For sure, if we don't consider discordant elements from your theory ...Quote:
The Greek branch is a rare exception and shouldn't be used as some measuring stick to push its origin further south.
Yet, it sounds like cherry picking to me.
I don't know what estimator you use (maybe none), but mine (using FTDNA data) gives diversity centers around 200-100 BCE around Poland (East) and Greece (which have not a good coverage in this dataset, making this diversity spot very valuable) with a slightly lower diversity in between. It is not pointing toward Ukrainia/Belarus.Quote:
The highest diversity if I-Y3120 is within Ukraine/Belarus.
Therefore during its first stage of diffusion, 200 BCE, Y3120 was among a population that injected descendants around Poland and Greece.
It didn't fits well with Early-Slavs.
Yet, diversification of I-Y3120 didn't match well with the entrance of Slavs in the Balkans, which in fact invalidate a "bottle-neck --> founder effect" model, that would need the Y3120 diversification occuring later.Quote:
The bear entirety of Balkan Y3120 is the result of bottlenecks and founder effects.
The early stage of Y3120 diffusion around 200 BCE didn't fit spatially with a Slavic expansion. Some branches likely joined the Slavs a bit latter, but putting them among the Slavs by 200 BCE is not realy supported by data.
Kenn Nordvedt already did his job, and estimated that the diversity of this clade is somewhere in Ukraine indeed.
Even if that I2a2 (ancestor of Dinaric or related to ancestor of Dinaric) sample was true, the sample was from a cave and that group had injuries in their head and were suffering from malnutrition, the subsequent Dalmatian Iron Age sample bear no I2a2 and they are mostly J2b2-L283, so it might mean they were enemies.
If i have to guess for I2a lines in Prehistoric Balkans, i'll go with safer bet of I2a2-M223 Yamnaya derived.
If you can summarizes the arguments and methodology here it would be helpfull.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawk
Of course if it is a work associated with a peer reviewed paper, the link to it will be helpfull (I'm too lazy, and not carring at that point, to look for it right now).
Mainly, how does he handle the Greek diversity ? Did he at least adressed it ? If not, it is a big flaw in his conclusion, as it is the main issue yet for a Slavic origin.
A key question is also to look at when, and with which dataset he estimated diversity.
Thus, maybe the guy did his job, and likely he did it well, but here is not the question.
A discussion should always be about the arguments. Many published paper with outdated data are just arriving to conclusion that we know can easily identify as incorrect. That's why science is not done in a "fix" setting, but that arguments always need to be discussed and re-assessed .
Anyway, just as a comment, the way you present this is an "authority argument". You don't provide the elements to reach a conclusion, you provide a "name" and hiis "conclusion" (without even a link presenting the concerned work). It is not a valid scientific demonstration.
I'm not saying this guy is wrong or right, but i want to see the arguments ;) .
PS : for the discussion, here is my own diversity map build using FTDNA data (it has been build over a 200 years time window after TMRCA ... I don't explain methodology in details unless some questions will be asked, because likely people here don't really care) :
https://i.postimg.cc/qRKMBCFb/map-di...120-dt-200.png
I think you speak of the Patterson et al. 2021 sample ?Quote:
Even if that I2a2 (ancestor of Dinaric or related to ancestor of Dinaric) sample was true
We can agree that it is misdated looking at its mtDNA, there is no point to bring back this sample in the discussion.
This is a long shot.Quote:
the sample was from a cave and that group had injuries in their head and were suffering from malnutrition, the subsequent Dalmatian Iron Age sample bear no I2a2 and they are mostly J2b2-L283, so it might mean they were enemies.
I explain: when you sample a population, this population have a given diversity, let assume you want to sample a population with ~100 different haplogroups ... if you just take ~10 samples there is no way you'll probe all the diversity, even if you take ~100 samples.
Therefore, when an haplogroup is not found somewhere, the correct and scientific way of speaking of its absence is by :
1- Quoting its presence in a completely unrelated cultural and geographical context (yet there is no ~2000 ybp Y3120 ancient samples).
2- Giving an exclusion level at which we can exclude it a given location (not even from a culture, just from a given location)
For instance, let assume an haplogroup carried by ~5% of a given population.
How many sample do you need to expect to see one ? Obvious answear : ~20 samples.
But then you have statistical fluctuations, meaning that after finding 20 undependent samples you might be lucky and have several of those guys, or unlucky and have none of them.
To be able to claim a 3-sigma exclusion of the presence of an haplogroup (with a 5% occurance) you need roughly ~150 uncorrelated samples at a given location.
We are very far from such statistical depth (I know it is not easy to understand for people not habituated to play with undersampled data).
Ancient DNA have not the statistical depth to probe rare clades, for rare clades it rely on luck.
I2 is mainly paleolithic lineage, we know I2-P37 family is all over south Europe, this lineage is carried by surviving branches that got incorporated in susequent cultures.
There is no reasons to think that such process didn't hapened in the Balkans, we have not enough sample to say so.
It would be an amazing surprises if there is no I2 and no G2a in EIA Balkans (at least, ancient DNA is not even close to be able to prove such thing, if we stay on a scientific discussion).
The Adriatic coast in western Balkan seems to be J-L283 dominated, what is the status of more inland populations ? We don't know yet.
reasoning by saying "Itested culture X at one location then all location are likely the same." is very dangerous. Just look at IE cultures ... playing that game you'll conclude that R1b is the IE tracers if you just look western Europe, or that it is R1a if you look in the East. And then, we see that these culture have a diversity older than the beginning of their cultures.
And nearly all culture where the same, they were having a mix of very diverse haplogroups.
There is a lot of Balkanic old samples for I2a ... under I-P37 in northern Balkan by 3000 BCE. Not really a bet when you have samples.Quote:
If i have to guess for I2a lines in Prehistoric Balkans, i'll go with safer bet of I2a2-M223 Yamnaya derived.
There is also M223 branche well documented in the lower Danube bassin.
Nordtvedt determined possible direction of I2a migration towards Romania, Bulgaria and Greece is behind them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghurier
http://www.waughfamily.ca/Ancient/Tr...r%20Hg%20I.pdf
The Greeks had their colonies around Azov and from these sides some I2a branches could come. Also, these branches could later be brought by first Slavs from the Ukrainian territory, so this "diversity" may be of artificial origin. Later Slavic migrations also came to Greece. So to claim something on the basis of "diversity" at this point doesn’t make sense.
What we know for know about the I-CTS10228 is that he has a source probably in southeastern Poland. Belarus "diversity" also doesn't tell us much for now.
There is no need for such a long answer for such an easy task. The I2a2-Dinaric hotspot today is Croatia/Bosnia and then Serbia in Balkans, the Viminacium paper showed us Pre-Slavic Y-DNA, and Post-Slavic where I2a2-Dinaric shows itself. All match, the artifical Greek diversity is simply not possible in reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghurier
Worthless arguing with someone who bases his "theories" on modern distribution and repeatedly confuses TMRCA estimates with actual migrations, while also ignoring ancient DNA. He does the same thing with his J2b-L283 "theories" and long walls.
Yes, that's what I noticed here, people don't feel the utility of argumenting ... I will just quote something from http://www.waughfamily.ca/Ancient/Tr...r%20Hg%20I.pdf :Quote:
There is no need for such a long answer for such an easy task.
Most people here definitely fit the bill.Quote:
The map of conjectured movement of Haplogroup I clades should not be over-interpreted.
This is often done on the various internet forums.
Diversification require conditions to occure.Quote:
Worthless arguing with someone who bases his "theories" on modern distribution and repeatedly confuses TMRCA estimates with actual migrations, while also ignoring ancient DNA. He does the same thing with his J2b-L283 "theories" and long walls.
For instance intense diversification cannot occur without a given level of migration/expansion (because of competition beween lineages). This is well known, apparently not on forums.
Yes, TMRCA matches very well with expansion/migration times. Just look at major well documented haplogroups, R1b for instance.
It works perfectly well.
Major cultural event induce diversification event because it produce population displacement (look at the ~3200 ybp event).
Apparently you don't understand the basics of haplogroup diversification mecanisms. Which is very funny considering your recurrent attempts to make authority arguments.
Expansion/migration produces isolation of descendants and then diversification (claiming otherwise would imply a total ignorance of what is diversification). This is a well known fact, again.
By the way, you can look at R1a diversification too, it match perfectly invasion times.
I don't expect you to admit the fact, because it will challenge too much your belief.
But then you are just ignoring a probe because you don't understand it and because it didn't imply what you want.
If this probe was going in your direction, you would welcome it so hard ! You are blinded by the conclusion you want, to a point that you barely try to understand the data.
I never ignored ancient DNA, in fact my models are always cross-checked with ancient DNA. I suspect that you don't really place ancient DNA in their context.Quote:
while also ignoring ancient DNA.
In fact both my I-Y3120 and J-L283 models are consistent with known ancient DNA (considering the current coverage).
Contrary to your J-L283 theories (you ignore some anoying samples).
From my past interaction with you, you were ignoring current coverage to make some fallacious claims, and you went as far as using automal DNA of a 400 CE sample above the autosomal DNA of a 100 CE sample ... That was very funny by the way (because it finished to show me that you was not even trying to pretend to do science, you just went full-ideology).
Clearly, you went "wild" when on another forum I shared a diffusion model that was not fitting your ideology.
Please handle it, and try to discuss the arguments (i have no hope at that point, you didn't discuss argument, you just put DNA samples on a google map ... not even understanding the importance of having a coverage map to interpret the sample distribution).
Anyway, as I was saying, I-Y3120 is likely a clade integrated among Slaves in northern Balkans during the slavic expansion.
It fit most of the data ... stopping here, no-one here want/can speak of the arguments.
On your side, you apprently think that some Early Slavs entered Greece in 200 BCE (it sounds fringe theory to me, but you look confident) ... I'm waiting so hard for the publication ;) .
Only 39% voted through Slavs, and this thread was made in 2011. This shows you what a total clown circus the theories on the Y-DNA in modern Balkan countries were. A haplogroup that is so obviously linked to the Slavic expansion in the Balkans, dictated by simple common sense, was voted to be Paleolithic. And it's so funny to see this French guy continue on with the same idiotic theory, and posting his walls of text that nobody will read. Not surprising since he really cannot fathom that there are such things as ancient DNA samples.
You see it today with all the stupid theories on E-V13 and even the "Sardinian origin" of J2-L283 up until recently. People really love to overcomplicate things when in reality it's quite simple.
No other arguments than "it is obvious" have been noted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fustan
In science, you should always be suspicious about peoples proposing an "obvious" truth ...
Especially when they are unable to propose arguments in favor of this "truth" ....
Btw, my "idiotic" theories ... especially for J-L283, when some places will get ancient DNA coverage you might have some hard times !!!
For now Nordvedt is confirmed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghurier
Southeastern Poland is probably the original area of the White Croats.Quote:
According to Pamjav et. al. (2019) and Fóthi et al. (2020), the distribution of ancestral subclades like of I-CTS10228 among contemporary carriers indicates a rapid expansion from Southeastern Poland, is mainly related to the Slavs and their medieval migration, and the "largest demographic explosion occurred in the Balkans".
First, thanks hrvat22 for the argumented response, it gives hope to see that some peoples around can still discuss theories without going wild.
This is an alternative theory, mainly a "chance" re-clustering.Quote:
Originally Posted by hrvat22
Which in fact I found unlikely due to the lack of extra-lineage not being in Greece.
But if diversity is discarded for Greece, why would it be relevant for Ukrainia ?Quote:
Later Slavic migrations also came to Greece. So to claim something on the basis of "diversity" at this point doesn’t make sense.
Point is, I-Y3120 and R1a-Slavic distribution are far from fitting.
To explain such mismatch, you generally need a founder effect. Such founder effect is not observe on the Y3120 population.
Therefore, it appears that during the earlier phases of the Slavec expansion Y3120 was not travelling with R1a.
It seems hard to explain the extinction of Y3120 by genetic drift in most of the R1a area.
Whereas among the Y3120 we have few R1a diversifying at the correct moment.
Yet, I stay on my position, the diversification patern looks more like the one of a clade falling under Slavic domination than a clade conquering new territories.
[/quote]What we know for know about the I-CTS10228 is that he has a source probably in southeastern Poland. Belarus "diversity" also doesn't tell us much for now.[/QUOTE]
Why southeastern Poland ?
Yet, the cousin clades seems to have a more western distribution !
Yeah, it is pretty obvious that it's a Y-DNA that came with Slavs. Also just look at it's Y-FULL matches. It became numerous through a bottleneck / founder effect. According to Nordtvedt it was only a coincidence that R1a did not become as numerous in the Balkans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fustan
There were other branches of I2a in the Balkans and they were absorbed by Illyrians and Thracians. Some might of even come with Illyrians and Thracians. Who knows.
Slavs were also one of the last Indo-European speakers to enter Europe.
As you can notice on my diversity map, it matches fairly well.Quote:
Originally Posted by hrvat22
Then, if we start the diffusion from southeastern Poland for Y3120, we can discuss where it was "before" that.
Basically my point is that Y3120 was likely Slavidized in such area that southeastern Poland (and probably no earlier than ~0-100 CE).
What I'm not agreeing with is an earlier location in Ukrainia (which seems to be the position of some peoples around)
Commenting the map you proposed in attachment, I mostly agree, maybe I won't go for a that "north" location of the Y3120 branch.
Then this map didn't really adress the question of Y3120 prior ~200 BCE (anyway, it didn't place Y3120 clade near Azov-Sea ...).
Provyn proposed a Celtic diffusion on his blog.
I'm more aligned with peoples being pushed toward Greece/Poland by Roman attack on Balkans (mainly due to southern inclination of cousin clades, and considering diversification time that would match well with such timescale).
"In 2011 Nordtvedt has confirmed I-L69.2 is not older than 2,800 years. In his last comments about Haplogroup I tree and the conjectured spread map, he locates the start of the I-L69.2 lineage around the middle course of the Vistula.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghurier
So far, most or all of those who are negative for S17250 have patrilineage originating near the Carpathians, particularly southeastern Poland and extreme western Ukraine. That pattern may change with more sampling, of
course Date: 20 May 2014"
These are informations 7-10 years ago when the vast majority of today's I2a Balkan YFull mutations did not exist. Nothing has changed since then except that Southeast Poland has been scientifically confirmed through scientific papers as a source of Balkan I2a branches.
As far I know R1a Croats have the highest percentage of branch Z280. Why don't they have other R1a branches in such a percentage? Probably because in the area of their ancestral homeland with I2a peoples lived mostly R1a Z280 peoples. It is possible that they were even homogeneous neighbors there and not completely mixed.Quote:
Therefore, it appears that during the earlier phases of the Slavec expansion Y3120 was not travelling with R1a.
It seems hard to explain the extinction of Y3120 by genetic drift in most of the R1a area.
Whereas among the Y3120 we have few R1a diversifying at the correct moment.
For that answer, we need to know local Carpathian migration route of R1a peoples, but we don't know that yet. It is possible that some I2a branches lived isolated in central or eastern Ukraine and from there, as isolated groups moving and towards Greece etc.
Quote:Probably in the area of the French-German border.Quote:
As you can notice on my diversity map, it matches fairly well.
Then, if we start the diffusion from southeastern Poland for Y3120, we can discuss where it was "before" that.
It is possible that part of the I2a branch left Southeast Poland before Slavization.Quote:
Basically my point is that Y3120 was likely Slavidized in such area that southeastern Poland (and probably no earlier than ~0-100 CE).
What I'm not agreeing with is an earlier location in Ukrainia (which seems to be the position of some peoples around)
Because it was a non-existent mutation at that time. We know the main directions from that map. But over time, some new migrations will be known as new branches and mutations are discovered, but so far new discoveries have not challenged Southeast Poland as a source. Normally all of this must ultimately be proven by archaeogenetics.Quote:
Commenting the map you proposed in attachment, I mostly agree, maybe I won't go for a that "north" location of the Y3120 branch.
Then this map didn't really adress the question of Y3120 prior ~200 BCE (anyway, it didn't place Y3120 clade near Azov-Sea ...).
I do not know. Concrete evidence for this theory needs to be seen.Quote:
Provyn proposed a Celtic diffusion on his blog.
I'm more aligned with peoples being pushed toward Greece/Poland by Roman attack on Balkans (mainly due to southern inclination of cousin clades, and considering diversification time that would match well with such timescale).
The south Balkan branch Y18331 Greeks look like they did pretty well in the Greek or Byzantine world, belonging to multiple sub-branches. They may have been in this world since at least the Slavic migration period. It looks like their ancestors did a bee-line to the south Balkans from wherever was their homeland, bypassing much of the Balkans and heading for the south.Quote:
Originally Posted by hrvat22
Interesting read:
http://www.genealogywise.com/profile...cts10228-y3120
There are scientific papers one should read and not this ideological driven amateur pseudoscience.Quote:
Originally Posted by Szigmund
The I2a-Slav sample from Patterson et. al has a mtDNA that split in the 13th century and has Slavic auDNA it was a contaminated sample and does not cluster with IA Illyrians.
As other already responded it is indeed garbage. There's nothing interesting about it. The guy is known for advancing autochtonous theory which long time ago became debunked but he is doing it by misunderstanding and misinterpreting scientific data and YFull Ytree making ridiculous false claims including about scientific papers like by Utevska that it wasn't based on any scientific evidence, data, source, study. The guy is a lunatic. Incredible nobody there removed this blog post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Szigmund
Ahh, okay. Unfortunately I am not able to delete the post.