How did I2a-Din get to the Balkans?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fire Haired

I really dont see any connection with I2a1b and Slavs. For one thing I2a1b is mainly in southeast Europe not slavic speaking areas.

---

...Eh? Those aren't mutually exclusive. Southeast Europe is largely Slavic speaking, and I2a-Din is higher in Slavic-speaking areas of Southeast Europe (for example, its frequency dips in Albania and Greece).

I suppose you're trying to argue that I2a-Din is not as common in the Slavic countries without Illyrian influence. But it's really not so much of a dip that it invalidates a Slavic connection to it: 21% in Ukraine, 18% in Belarus, 11% in Russia, 9% in Poland (including out members of the haplotype most common in the Balkans), etc. These are not particularly Illyrian places, but quite Slavic.

This, of course, leads to the question: Why do West Slavs and East Slavs have lower I2a-Din : R1a ratios than South Slavs? To me, the obvious answer is regional differences that were amplified during expansion. We also see regional differences among different Germanic peoples, and among different Celtic peoples, so why not among different Slavic peoples?

I've repeated this line of argument several times now, although I can forgive you if you don't have time to read through this whole thread. :embarassed:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fire Haired

The Balto Slavic language was spread by Corded ware culture there is no connection with I2a1b Slavs, or corded ware culture.

---

I agree that there is no obvious connection between I2a-Din and Corded Ware culture, other than that its initial launching point was once within Corded Ware culture. But as I just said, the Balto-Slavs were likely R1a dominant, and I suspect that the drift (or amplification) of I2a-Din within their population happened after (or as) they differentiated into Balts and Slavs. So this line of argument doesn't contradict me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fire Haired

In my opinion I2a1b is a Paloithic haplogroup that was able to survive migrations and invasions.

---

This doesn't contradict me either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fire Haired

&,000ybp it probably dominated all of eastern Europe except Russia which is where proto Indo Europeans would have been.

---

Then why do the 2 currently known subclades of I2a1b to have existed around that time not converge on Eastern Europe? One has its highest diversity in Western and Central Europe (with an interesting outlier in Iraq), and the other is evenly split between Western and Eastern Europe. If anything is clear about I2a1b, it's that we can't pin it down yet. Eastern Europe seems like far from a safe assumption at this point, much less speculating that it "dominated all of eastern Europe except Russia."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fire Haired

I1 is not yound at all i get sick of these young haplogroup predictions. The people that make these predictions dont even consider ancient Cultures like where they where at what time. They would realize there is no way I1 is less than 10,000 years old. The Scientits who figure all of the DNA stuff out are terrible at making conclusions on how it spread to figure that stuff out u need to be like a detective not a sceintits.

---

So they need to start from conclusions about how haplogroups map to ancient cultures, then work backwards to come up with dates, and, uh... ignore STR and SNP dating converging to give a young age for I1? :confused2:

What about STR and SNP dating makes you think they're so inaccurate? Just that they don't match the conclusions you've already made about I1?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fire Haired

how do u explain how spread out it is in Scandinavia

---

Because I1 and Scandinavia were both in the equation during the Germanic ethnogenesis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fire Haired

and why the rest of Europe has diff subclades than Scandinavia

---

They don't have different subclades entirely, at least of the common higher-level subclades, just different frequencies of the same ones. This is due to normal regional variance patterns that you get with every haplogroup.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fire Haired

and how I1 has so many subclades.

---

Having many subclades all expanding around the same time is evidence for rapid expansion out of a bottleneck. I would suggest its drift into, and expansion via, the early Germanic peoples is the main culprit.

...Eh? Those aren't mutually exclusive. Southeast Europe is largely Slavic speaking, and I2a-Din is higher in Slavic-speaking areas of Southeast Europe (for example, its frequency dips in Albania and Greece).
There is 20% I2a-Din in Székelys from Bukovina and 25% I2a-Din in Jász people from Jászság,Hungary.Gagauzes are not slavs.They have 24-32% I2a-Din.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gyms

There is 20% I2a-Din in Székelys from Bukovina and 25% I2a-Din in Jász people from Jászság,Hungary.Gagauzes are not slavs.They have 24-32% I2a-Din.

---

The 15% as a whole in Hungary doesn't really contradict that these groups could be impacted by neighboring groups. It borders Serbia (35%) and Croatia (37%) after all. Besides, Hungary is usually counted as Central Europe rather than Southeast Europe.

The Romanians and Moldovans are more challenging, I admit, although it's worth noting that they are heavily I2a-Din-N, as opposed to the I2a-Din-S that is more prominent in the Slavic expansion on the Balkans. Could I2a-Din-N in Romanians and Moldovans be a leftover from the I2a-Din source population(s) before it drifted into, and expanded with, the Slavs? Maybe. If anybody has that, it's the Romanians and Moldovans.

On a related note, has anybody followed the discovery of the "I2a-Din-cousins" branch? Basically, a more ancient sample on the I2a-Din branch than I2a-Din-N has been found in a family in southern Poland. See Cullen. This may place the Dinaric branch more solidly in Central Europe, and imply that the early I2a-Din-N is an Eastern split off it, with perhaps I2a-Din-S a backmigration to Poland before its expansion on the Balkans. It may not help us solve which populations it belonged to, but it's an interesting indication that there may be more yet to find among modern populations...

"You're making an argument from modern frequency again. Haven't you read yet about why this is a poor line of reasoning?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shetop

Why do you think I2a-Din migrated "in BC times" ?

---

It would be because if the Illyrians are predominately R1b and that the I2a-Din arrived with the slavs in 500AD, then R1b would be more dominant than it is now in the areas of Croatia, Serbia etc. Instead I2a-Din dominates

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sile

It would be because if the Illyrians are predominately R1b and that the I2a-Din arrived with the slavs in 500AD, then R1b would be more dominant than it is now in the areas of Croatia, Serbia etc. Instead I2a-Din dominates

---

I don't know if this is also your opinion, but I am not following the logic there. Is it because Illyrian language was Indoeuropean (and R1b should be Indoeuropean also)? My opinion is that there are no real arguments for such scenario.

I mean, look at the Hungarians - the dominant haplogroups among them and the language they speak. That simple example knocks the above theory down. Both language and high frequency arguments are not those that should be considered as strong in that kind of analysis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gyms

"You're making an argument from modern frequency again. Haven't you read yet about why this is a poor line of reasoning?"

---

Are you trying to make a point by quoting me here?

Yes sparkey.Your arguments are based on modern frequencies and languages. "The 15% as a whole in Hungary doesn't really contradict that these groups could be impacted by neighboring groups. It borders Serbia (35%) and Croatia (37%) after all. Besides, Hungary is usually counted as Central Europe rather than Southeast Europe."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gyms

Yes sparkey.Your arguments are based on modern frequencies and languages. "The 15% as a whole in Hungary doesn't really contradict that these groups could be impacted by neighboring groups. It borders Serbia (35%) and Croatia (37%) after all. Besides, Hungary is usually counted as Central Europe rather than Southeast Europe."

---

My principal objection is with using modern frequencies to determine ancient frequencies, as Fire Haired was doing. But you brought up modern frequencies only. Using neighboring modern frequencies to determine the source of modern frequencies is less shaky ground.

That said, of course, performing a diversity analysis would tell us more. We need to look at the haplotype distribution of I2a-Din in Hungary, and which direction its cline points. Verenich sees a cline coming from the direction of Bosnia:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vadim Verenich

Two "arrows" - one, connecting Bosnia to Hungary, and another, linking Montenegro to Serbia - may represent more recent I2a2a population migrations of XV-XVII centuries.

---

Is that better?

"Is that better?" Who knows?We don`t know anything for sure. http://www.fsigenetics.com/article/S...102-6/abstract

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gyms

"Is that better?" Who knows?We don`t know anything for sure. http://www.fsigenetics.com/article/S1872-4973(13)00102-6/abstract

---

So you're not even willing to comment on an analysis until we know things for sure? How boring. I'll be looking at the evidence we have available while you wait on that.

Interesting citation by the way, looks like a follow up to the Wei 2012 paper Dienekes discussed here. In that one, their GENETREE estimates had a +/- range of 8,100 years (!) for R1b estimation, as opposed to the 1,000 years of the Rho method, which matched pretty much exactly with older STR+SNP methods. So I'm not entirely clear why this 2013 update is making it sound like they are now taking GENETREE out to be the most correct method, and suggesting that we need to shift all of our old STR+SNP estimations to be older just so that they line up with it. It'll be interesting to see if this is convincing enough to have other experts change their methodology, and what comes from that if they do. I wouldn't get my hopes up about that, though.

According to Regueiro et al in Gene (2012) high levels of paleolithic Y-chromosome lineages characterize Serbia (approximately 58%), in this percent was not included R1b (approximately 8% according to authors). Near eastern neolithic lineages (E and J subclades) are about 26,5%. It can be assumed that the people who inhabited Serbia in paleolithic, also inhabit today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garrick

According to Regueiro et al in Gene (2012) high levels of paleolithic Y-chromosome lineages characterize Serbia (approximately 58%), in this percent was not included R1b (approximately 8% according to authors). Near eastern neolithic lineages (E and J subclades) are about 26,5%. It can be assumed that the people who inhabited Serbia in paleolithic, also inhabit today.

---

Without reading the paper in-depth, they seem to have selected Y lineages as representative of the "Paleolithic" based on how old they seem to be in Europe (counting the Steppes in the case of R1a), not based on how old they seem to be in Serbia. High levels of Paleolithic European Y-DNA in Serbia does not imply that these lineages have been in Serbia since the Paleolithic, just that they were around Europe somewhere during the Paleolithic (probably) and are in Serbia now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sparkey

Without reading the paper in-depth, they seem to have selected Y lineages as representative of the "Paleolithic" based on how old they seem to be in Europe (counting the Steppes in the case of R1a), not based on how old they seem to be in Serbia. High levels of Paleolithic European Y-DNA in Serbia does not imply that these lineages have been in Serbia since the Paleolithic, just that they were around Europe somewhere during the Paleolithic (probably) and are in Serbia now.

---

No, authors are explicit (quote):

"The relatively old expansion time (14.0±3.3 KYA) (Supplementary Table 3), associated mean variance (0.384) and high haplotype diversity (0.9905±0.0178) (Table 1), also evident in the phylogenetic network (Supplementary Fig. 1C), among Serbian R1a1a-M198 carriers, are consistent with previous studies (Peričić et al., 2005; Semino et al., 2000; Wells et al., 2001) that suggest that the common ancestor for all R1a1a-M198 individuals in the Balkans existed in Paleolithic times. "

According to authors R1a (precisely R1a1a-M198) is very old in Serbia, and older from I branches (I1 and I2a) and all other today's haplogroups in the Serbia and Balkans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garrick

No, authors are explicit (quote):

"The relatively old expansion time (14.0±3.3 KYA) (Supplementary Table 3), associated mean variance (0.384) and high haplotype diversity (0.9905±0.0178) (Table 1), also evident in the phylogenetic network (Supplementary Fig. 1C), among Serbian R1a1a-M198 carriers, are consistent with previous studies (Peričić et al., 2005; Semino et al., 2000; Wells et al., 2001) that suggest that the common ancestor for all R1a1a-M198 individuals in the Balkans existed in Paleolithic times. "

According to authors R1a (precisely R1a1a-M198) is very old in Serbia, and older from I branches (I1 and I2a) and all other today's haplogroups in the Serbia and Balkans.

---

They may be right about R1a, although I'm worried about it being a possible pooling point. Serbia is fairly close to the highest diversity areas of R1a, and expansion of R1a into Serbia quite possibly could have been by those who had high R1a diversity already. I won't say much more about R1a because I haven't studied it as close as many others.

Serbia is not close to having the highest diversity of I1 or I2a, though. Neither can be traced to the Paleolithic there. It's possible that regional Haplogroup I is a backmigration; in fact, I'd argue that it's very likely. But the temporal separation there must be quite large to match with phylogenetic patterns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sparkey

They may be right about R1a, although I'm worried about it being a possible pooling point. Serbia is fairly close to the highest diversity areas of R1a, and expansion of R1a into Serbia quite possibly could have been by those who had high R1a diversity already. I won't say much more about R1a because I haven't studied it as close as many others.

Serbia is not close to having the highest diversity of I1 or I2a, though. Neither can be traced to the Paleolithic there. It's possible that regional Haplogroup I is a backmigration; in fact, I'd argue that it's very likely. But the temporal separation there must be quite large to match with phylogenetic patterns.

---

I read that you wrote that I2a was 8,500 years ago. And Regueiro et al. attempted to determine the age of I2 in Serbia (quote):

"The high haplotype diversity of I2a2-P37.2/M423 lineages in Serbia (0.9977±0.0094) also supports the hypothesis that the P37.2 mutation has been present in the Balkans before the LGM (Rootsi et al., 2004; Semino et al., 2000). Moreover, the age of I2a2-M423 chromosomes in Serbs based on accumulated Y-STR variation, is ~9000 years ago (Table 1) and is consistent with previously reported time frames in the Early Holocene, during the European Mesolithic period (Battaglia et al., 2009; Peričić et al., 2005; Rootsi et al., 2004; Underhill et al., 2007). Our data corroborate the previous assertion by Battaglia et al. (2009) that the autochthonous haplogroup I2a2-M423 is indicative of the adoption of farming by Mesolithic hunter–gatherers in the Balkans."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garrick

I read that you wrote that I2a was 8,500 years ago. And Regueiro et al. attempted to determine the age of I2 in Serbia (quote):

"The high haplotype diversity of I2a2-P37.2/M423 lineages in Serbia (0.9977±0.0094) also supports the hypothesis that the P37.2 mutation has been present in the Balkans before the LGM (Rootsi et al., 2004; Semino et al., 2000). Moreover, the age of I2a2-M423 chromosomes in Serbs based on accumulated Y-STR variation, is ~9000 years ago (Table 1) and is consistent with previously reported time frames in the Early Holocene, during the European Mesolithic period (Battaglia et al., 2009; Peričić et al., 2005; Rootsi et al., 2004; Underhill et al., 2007). Our data corroborate the previous assertion by Battaglia et al. (2009) that the autochthonous haplogroup I2a2-M423 is indicative of the adoption of farming by Mesolithic hunter–gatherers in the Balkans."

---

OK, I found the paper, and found the culprit for these unusually high estimates for I2a-Din in the Balkans:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Regueiro 2012

The age of microsatellite variation within haplogroups E, I and R was estimated as reported earlier by Zhivotovsky et al. (2004) and modified according to Sengupta et al. (2006).

---

I'm not familiar with the Sengupta method, but the Zhivotovsky method basically recommends tripling age estimates, so this paper actually comes pretty close to corroborating the Nordtvedt estimates if we reverse the Zhivotovsky adjustment. Additional difference (there's little) could come from the low number of STRs in this paper and the older mutation rate estimates.

Anyway, this doesn't invalidate the fact that Poland has the highest I2-L147.2 diversity. If it turns out that Zhivotovsky is right, then the likely backmigration happened earlier. But I think acceptance of Zhivotovsky is still a minority. Non-Zhivotovsky calculations have come closer to newer SNP-only estimates, for example. Some have been higher than Nordtvedt estimates, but usually at adjustments of about 1.1x, not 3x.

Edit: This also means that their conventional R1a age estimate is ~4700 YBP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sparkey

OK, I found the paper, and found the culprit for these unusually high estimates for I2a-Din in the Balkans:

I'm not familiar with the Sengupta method, but the Zhivotovsky method basically recommends tripling age estimates, so this paper actually comes pretty close to corroborating the Nordtvedt estimates if we reverse the Zhivotovsky adjustment. Additional difference (there's little) could come from the low number of STRs in this paper and the older mutation rate estimates.

Anyway, this doesn't invalidate the fact that Poland has the highest I2-L147.2 diversity. If it turns out that Zhivotovsky is right, then the likely backmigration happened earlier. But I think acceptance of Zhivotovsky is still a minority. Non-Zhivotovsky calculations have come closer to newer SNP-only estimates, for example. Some have been higher than Nordtvedt estimates, but usually at adjustments of about 1.1x, not 3x.

Edit: This also means that their conventional R1a age estimate is ~4700 YBP.

---

It is not easy to grasp movements that occurred thousands of years ago. Your contribution to these complex topics deserves high respect.

A lot of scientists claim that R1a in Serbia and Balkans is Paleolithic, and their serious scientific research cannot be neglected. Their papers were published in relevant scientific journals. Certainly on the methods can be argued but it is clear that strict scientific findings cannot be ignored. Is R1a in Serbia and Balkans 20,000 years ago, 10,000 years or younger, the fact is that it is very old.

Reguiero et al. (2012) write (quote):

“Three major episodes of gene flow have been described to explain the high R1a haplotype diversity in the Balkans: (1) re-colonization from the refugium in the Ukraine (early post-LGM, ~20–12 KYA) (Passarino et al., 2001; Semino et al., 2000); (2) migrations from the Pontic steppe associated with the Indo-European Kurgan culture (3000–1000 B.C.) (Rosser et al., 2000; Semino et al., 2000); and, more recently, (3) the massive Slavic migration (5th–7th centuries) (Barać et al., 2003; Peričić et al., 2005).”

According authors first expansion R1a in the Balkans was between 20,000 and 12,000 years ago. Prior to the researches performed in the Balkans and published studies about haplogroups there were those who thought that the R1a first time came to the Balkans in the fifth century BC with the expansion of Slavs. We can all agree that it was a mistake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garrick

It is not easy to grasp movements that occurred thousands of years ago. Your contribution to these complex topics deserves high respect.

---

And thank you for bringing the study to my attention and challenging my assumptions. This is productive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garrick

A lot of scientists claim that R1a in Serbia and Balkans is Paleolithic, and their serious scientific research cannot be neglected. Their papers were published in relevant scientific journals. Certainly on the methods can be argued but it is clear that strict scientific findings cannot be ignored. Is R1a in Serbia and Balkans 20,000 years ago, 10,000 years or younger, the fact is that it is very old.
...
According authors first expansion R1a in the Balkans was between 20,000 and 12,000 years ago. Prior to the researches performed in the Balkans and published studies about haplogroups there were those who thought that the R1a first time came to the Balkans in the fifth century BC with the expansion of Slavs. We can all agree that it was a mistake.

---

As mentioned, non-Zhivotovsky estimates using this study has a lower than 10k year estimate by a lot, but not so much to suggest that the R1a in the Balkans is the result of an expansion out of a single lineage from the Slavs. The R1a in the Balkans isn't necessarily Paleolithic (I can't construct that scenario with the younger estimate), but it seems clear that it's older than the Slavs, layered, or pooled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taranis

Let me say this, I'm personally quite torn regarding I2a-Din. Generally, the idea that Haplogroup I as a whole is Paleolithic/Mesolithic in Europe is almost certain at this point. However, wether the I2a peak in the western Balkans is ancient or the result of a more recent founder effect, I'm quite divided on and I have come to no conclusion to this for myself.



Well Dale, I am terribly sorry, I do not know what your source is, but this view regarding Haplogroups R1a/R1b is hopelessly outdated. We know for sure now that both R1a and R1b entered Europe significantly later than the end of the last ice age. The oldest occurence known thus far of R1a in Europe is from a site near Eulau, Germany, which dates back to the Corded Ware Culture (circa 2600 BC). The oldest find of R1b in Europe (thus far!) is from Lichtenstein Cave in northern Germany, which dates into the Urnfield Culture (1000 BC). Both the Neolithic sites of France (Treilles) and Germany (Derenburg) yielded no R1a or R1b what so ever.

---

Evidence says to me r1a has always been right where it is. How can you say it's not always been there without providing an example of something there in the same place before it was. What a joke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noman

Evidence says to me r1a has always been right where it is. How can you say it's not always been there without providing an example of something there in the same place before it was. What a joke.

---

"Right where it is?" Like Sweden? India? The United States?

OK, I get what you mean--Eastern Europe, with high concentrations in Balto-Slavs and some others. I do think that R1a (or at least R1a1a) has its MRCA location in or around the Eurasian Steppe, so Eastern Europe could have very ancient R1a indeed. The Balkans aren't exactly at the epicenter of that region, though, so it is likely younger there. One tricky thing about the Balkans is that it isn't entirely clear what its late Paleolithic composition was. If it was mainly I2, as many suggest, then the I2 presence there collapsed and then came back via its Western descendants. I think "not enough data to say for sure" is a valid response.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sparkey

"Right where it is?" Like Sweden? India? The United States?

OK, I get what you mean--Eastern Europe, with high concentrations in Balto-Slavs and some others. I do think that R1a (or at least R1a1a) has its MRCA location in or around the Eurasian Steppe, so Eastern Europe could have very ancient R1a indeed. The Balkans aren't exactly at the epicenter of that region, though, so it is likely younger there. One tricky thing about the Balkans is that it isn't entirely clear what its late Paleolithic composition was. If it was mainly I2, as many suggest, then the I2 presence there collapsed and then came back via its Western descendants. I think "not enough data to say for sure" is a valid response.

---

In Serbia dominant haplogroup is I. According Mirabal et al. (2010) I2a2 is 38,5%, I1 is 7,8% and I2b1 is 1,67%. I assumed that I2a2 (or perhaps I1) is the oldest haplogroup in Serbia and region but science says it is R1a. Although Regueiro et al. (2012), claim that I2a2 is old in Serbia about 9000 years, it is less than R1a for which authors claim that it is the 20,000-12,000 years ago. And other authors, for example Klyosov, claim that R1a is very old in Serbia (more than 10,000 years).

Possible that you’re right, that Balkan I2a2 had wrong way. Although for me is very unusual that all I bearers left the Balkans and then some back from North and East most in the form of I2a2. And it is very unusual link between R1a and I2a2. Serbs and Upper Macedonians (and slightly less Bosniacs) are quite different from Slavic population (Croats and Slovenes are much closer, first of all to Ukrainians), but they speak South Slavic language. It is big mystery. Serbs and Upper Macedonians are very Balkans people, perhaps most typical Balkan people watching haplogroups, which is not surprising as they are in the center of the Balkan Peninsula.

R1a indeed could be old in Balkans, according to FTDNA project there's some Old European R1a found in Greece and Macedonia.

I2a1b on the other hand isn't old in the region and most likely got there with Slavic invasions.

You think I2a1b got in Balkans with the latest Slavic invasion of ~ 600 AD? Deviations suggest that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eldritch

R1a indeed could be old in Balkans, according to FTDNA project there's some Old European R1a found in Greece and Macedonia.

I2a1b on the other hand isn't old in the region and most likely got there with Slavic invasions.

---

It is probably that R1a is the oldest in Balkans. Klyosov (2009) claims that R1a can be old in Serbia, Kosovo, Macedonia (today’s FYROM or Upper Macedonia) and Bosnia 11,650 +-1,550 years. According Regueiro et al. (2012) R1a in Serbia can be 20,000-12,000 years old.

But I2a2 (or newer nomenclature I2a1b) is mystery because carriers of I haplogroup had very unusual roads. It would be logical that haplogroup I is the oldest in the Balkan, but for some reason that we don’t know, the oldest carriers of I haplogroup has no in the Balkans. Or we still lack some knowledge to arrange a mosaic.

According to Regueiro et al. (2012, Gene) I2a2 (I2a1b) is about 9,000 years old in Serbia. You claim it is 1,500 years. Maybe authors are right, maybe no, but what is certain is that further researches are needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garrick

It is probably that R1a is the oldest in Balkans. Klyosov (2009) claims that R1a can be old in Serbia, Kosovo, Macedonia (today’s FYROM or Upper Macedonia) and Bosnia 11,650 +-1,550 years. According Regueiro et al. (2012) R1a in Serbia can be 20,000-12,000 years old.

But I2a2 (or newer nomenclature I2a1b) is mystery because carriers of I haplogroup had very unusual roads. It would be logical that haplogroup I is the oldest in the Balkan, but for some reason that we don’t know, the oldest carriers of I haplogroup has no in the Balkans. Or we still lack some knowledge to arrange a mosaic.

According to Regueiro et al. (2012, Gene) I2a2 (I2a1b) is about 9,000 years old in Serbia. You claim it is 1,500 years. Maybe authors are right, maybe no, but what is certain is that further researches are needed.

---

I am I2a2-DinS.Is this slavic?
Admix Results: (Dodekad K7b Oracle-X Population Fitting)

#	Population	Percent
1	South_Asian	0.00
2	West_Asian	16.61
3	Siberian	1.72
4	African	0.00
5	Southern	19.37
6	Atlantic_Baltic	60.53
7	East_Asian	1.77

Pct. Calc. Option 2

1	Hungarians	59.29%
2	Finnish	11.10%
3	Yemen_Jews	9.79%
4	Lithuanians	7.92%
5	Cypriots	7.53%
6	Romanians	2.17%
7	Tu	1.09%
8	Korean	1.08%
9	Sephardic_Jews	0.02%
10	Uygur	0.01%

an article about homeland of slavs.......again, south belarussia and northern ukraine ............from Polish and Russian discussion

all Slavic populations constitute a mixture of three major components (R1a-M458, R1a-Z280 and I2a-Din) and it is obvious that the putative expansion of the Early Slavs from their hypothetical homeland (likely encompassing Southern Belarus and NW Ukraine where those three Y-DNA components show the most balanced frequencies) would lead to some significant differences in their relative frequencies at the particular end points of their journey, especially when these Early Slavs constituted a mixture of some smaller tribes that were sharing a common language and culture but their genetic background could have beeen quite different. Thus, they ended up with the R1a-M458 clade showing the highest frequency among the Western Slavs, R1a-Z280 dominating among the Eastern Slavs and I2a-Din being most frequent among the Southern Slavs. Actually, it would be almost impossible to maintain exactly the same original composition of all those Y-DNA components in every Slavic subpopulation.

I figure the I2a-Din is L69 branch

I don't see that as much of an argument. Where three frequencies are balanced now days means nothing. We can't even know if they were balanced at the beginning.

So Sile; your hypothesis is hg I1a waited out the LGM in the Iberian peninsula then moved to Central Europe first and then to Scandinavia. Probably somewhere near Germany one branch split off and went towards Belarussia/Poland then from this original Slavic homeland R1a and I2a lineages poured at the same time south and eastwards with the r1a more ending up across all the Eastern Europe and i2a being the Slavic marker that decided to heavily colonize more the Balkans region.....I doubt it.

Seems to be significant for the discussion, check page 27: http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/s...1/001552-3.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shetop

Seems to be significant for the discussion, check page 27: http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/s...1/001552-3.pdf

---

Population Genetic and Craniometric Characterization of an Avar Period Individual from Croatia

Matthew D Teasdale, Noreen von CramonTaubadel, Eppie R Jones, Mario Šlaus, Russell L McLaughlin, Daniel G Bradley, Ron Pinhasi

The Avars were a Eurasian equestrian population that migrated from the East to Europe where they settled in the general area of the Carpathian basin and established a kingdom that lasted from the 6th to the 9th century AD (Curta 2006; Curta and Kovalev 2008). The Avars had a rich material culture, which has allowed for the tracking of their migrations and the subsequent assimilation of local populations as they became more sedentary (Sinor 1990; Curta and Kovalev 2008). These archaeological resources make the Avars an appropriate population for the study of early medieval population movements. Next generation sequencing (NGS) (Metzker 2009) has revolutionized the field of ancient DNA, by providing the ability to rapidly sequence thousands of ancestry informative genetic markers in archaeological samples. These markers can then be used to compare ancient samples to modern reference populations of known geographic origin (SanchezQuinto et al. 2012; Skoglund et al. 2012). The assessment of an ancient populations affinities and variability based on craniometric data is commonplace in biological anthropology (von CramonTaubadel and Pinhasi 2011; Pinhasi and von CramonTaubadel 2012), however thus far no study has combined both NGS genetic and craniometric analyses. In this paper we present the results of a combined genetic/craniometric analysis to characterise the affinity of an Avar period individual from Croatia with excellent osteological preservation. Preliminary results from both of these analyses suggest that this individual shares a closer relationship with modern day European populations than those of the proposed Avar homeland in central Asia.


So what we get from this is that there was a male living in Hvar, Croatia around 500AD that was haplogroup Q. It would be nice to see where he fell within European autosomal DNA, and it is not surprising at all that he does not fall within central Asian DNA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by james stock

Population Genetic and Craniometric Characterization of an Avar Period Individual from Croatia

So what we get from this is that there was a male living in Hvar, Croatia around 500AD that was haplogroup Q.

---

How do you know it was haplogroup Q?
I don't think that info is correct.

Quote:

---

How do you know it was haplogroup Q?
I don't think that info is correct.

---

Yeah, you're right. I don't know the haplogroup, my mistake. I thought I saw someone say it was haplogroup Q on another website but I must have misread it.

Yes.All I2a people was geneticists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taranis

Well Dale, I am terribly sorry, I do not know what your source is, but this view regarding Haplogroups R1a/R1b is hopelessly outdated. We know for sure now that both R1a and R1b entered Europe significantly later than the end of the last ice age. The oldest occurence known thus far of R1a in Europe is from a site near Eulau, Germany, which dates back to the Corded Ware Culture (circa 2600 BC). The oldest find of R1b in Europe (thus far!) is from Lichtenstein Cave in northern Germany, which dates into the Urnfield Culture (1000 BC). Both the Neolithic sites of France (Treilles) and Germany (Derenburg) yielded no R1a or R1b what so ever.

---

There's been no ancient r1a or r1b found in west asia though, either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aristocephalic

There's been no ancient r1a or r1b found in west asia though, either.

---

well there is the r1a Andronovo, but that is rather central asia than west asia
is there any ancient dna tested in west asia ?

The Sarmatian idea is very appealing to me personally, and I have seen numerous examples cited of Serbo-Croatian words, including the Croatian endonym itself, of supposed Iranic derivation, ditto for certain regional customs. But the Paleolithic continuity theory probably makes the most sense, all things considered. I realize that I2a-Din is a young subclade, but could it not have evolved in situ in the Balkans, from an older clade? Admittedly I haven't read through this entire thread, so this idea has probably been dismissed for reasons that I'm entirely ignorant of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skaheen15

I realize that I2a-Din is a young subclade, but could it not have evolved in situ in the Balkans, from an older clade?

---

It could not.
There is no sensible explanation how did I2a-Din made its way to Northern Russia, but it could not make it to Italy. Absurdity of such an assumption is amplified with the argument that such a young clade migrations would have to be well described by some known historical events or processes. And there are no such.

This is a good thread but it spans 3 years and we have so much more data now than then.

I have leaned towards paleolithic continuity, for the simple reason that some of the oldest Y DNA we have found in Europe has been I2a1b. As to explain the absence in Italy my guess was that the Alps were glacial at the time I2a Din was expanding making Italy inaccessible, and by the time they WERE accessible the area was already inhabited by G2a which expanded into Italy along the Mediterranean from Greece preventing a significant expansion. This theory has a lot of problems though, mainly the distribution of the Cardium Pottery Culture, which seems to have been spread by G2a into Europe, but exists in Croatia/Bosnia where we see little G2a and the highest I2a1b. So it would be in one area a cultural diffusion and in one area the result of migration..? Doesn't make sense.

What also doesn't make sense is the high frequency of I2a1 M26 in Sardinia, Autosomally Sardinia is mostly EEF with little WHG, yet on the other hand the Motala/Lochsbur men we are using as the yardstick for WHG are I2a1...

The Slav explanation I see as the worst and most nonsensical, there would have to be more R1a if this was the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by motzart

This is a good thread but it spans 3 years and we have so much more data now than then.

I have leaned towards paleolithic continuity, for the simple reason that some of the oldest Y DNA we have found in Europe has been I2a1b. As to explain the absence in Italy my guess was that the Alps were glacial at the time I2a Din was expanding making Italy inaccessible, and by the time they WERE accessible the area was already inhabited by G2a which expanded into Italy along the Mediterranean from Greece preventing a significant expansion. This theory has a lot of problems though, mainly the distribution of the Cardium Pottery Culture, which seems to have been spread by G2a into Europe, but exists in Croatia/Bosnia where we see little G2a and the highest I2a1b. So it would be in one area a cultural diffusion and in one area the result of migration..? Doesn't make sense.

What also doesn't make sense is the high frequency of I2a1 M26 in Sardinia, Autosomally Sardinia is mostly EEF with little WHG, yet on the other hand the Motala/Lochsbur men we are using as the yardstick for WHG are I2a1...

The Slav explanation I see as the worst and most nonsensical, there would have to be more R1a if this was the case.

---

Another thing need explaining ...............since the northern part of the adriatic sea did not exist and Italy and the balkans where joined as far south as modern Ancona, then why is there very little of this marker in the northern and central Italy if its a balkan marker?