How did I2a-Din get to the Balkans?

How did I2a-Din get to the Balkans?


  • Total voters
    230
I realize this topic has been untouch for months by now, but I have to contribute. I believe that I2a is both Slavic and indigenous Dinaric. I2a could have been that ancient Croats left the Balkans for Ukraine, and then migrated back southwest. Western Ukrainians have high frequencies of I2a, and many Ukrainian last names common in the west are supposed to be from the White Croats. Also the Cucuteni-Trypillians were I2 and located near the origin of the Slavs.

On the other hand, most of southern Europe would have been I2 before the Indo-Europeans, and it is hard to imagine what would have been there before R1a, R1b, J1, J2, E1b1b, etc. except for maybe some small amount of G in certain areas. I think we need to do more tests and research into what subclades of I2a1b came from when and just more tests for South Slavs, Vlachs, Gheg Albanians, etc. in particular.
Then cast your vote here:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...oup-of-Cucuteni-Trypillian-(Tripolye)-culture
 
I have actually seen more blond Slovenes and dark-haired Croats… at least there are very few blond-haired Herzegovinians (Bosnian Croats). We aren't necessarily descendants of the Sclaveni because there was another tribe; the Antes, and together they became Slavs. Also R1a in Croatia is only found at high frequencies in Slavonia where the most conservative elements of Slavic culture are found.
 
I have actually seen more blond Slovenes and dark-haired Croats… at least there are very few blond-haired Herzegovinians (Bosnian Croats). We aren't necessarily descendants of the Sclaveni because there was another tribe; the Antes, and together they became Slavs. Also R1a in Croatia is only found at high frequencies in Slavonia where the most conservative elements of Slavic culture are found.
There was Avars,Bulgars and many others.

https://books.google.se/books?id=9l...e&q=nomad peoples in balkan peninsula&f=false
 
Who, the Slavonians?

The Avars were a Turkic group (or possibly Mongol[15]), possibly with a ruling core derived from the Rouran that escaped the Göktürks. They entered Pannonia in the 7th century AD, forcing the Lombards to flee to Italy. They continuously raided the Balkans, contributing to the general decline of the area that had begun centuries earlier. After their unsuccessful siege on Constantinople in 626, they limited themselves to Pannonia. They ruled over the Pannonian Slavs that had already inhabited the region. By the 10th century, the Avar confederacy collapsed due to internal conflicts, Frankish and Slavic attacks. The remnant Avars were subsequently absorbed by the Slavs and Magyars.
The Bulgars, a people of Central Asia, most believed Turko-Altaian and Indo-Arian.[citation needed] The major Bulgar wave commenced with the arrival of Asparuh's Bulgars. Asparuh was one of Kubrat's, the Great Khan, successors. They had occupied the fertile plains of the Ukraine for several centuries until the Khazars swept their confederation in the 660s and triggered their further migration. One part of them — under the leadership of Asparuh — headed southwest and settled in the 670s in present-day Bessarabia. In 680 AD they invaded Moesia and Dobrudja and formed a confederation with the local Slavic tribes who had migrated there a century earlier. After suffering a defeat at the hands of Bulgars and Slavs, the Byzantine Empire recognised the sovereignty of Asparuh's Khanate in a subsequent treaty signed in 681 AD. The same year is usually regarded as the year of the establishment of Bulgaria (see History of Bulgaria). A smaller group of Bulgars under Khan Kouber settled almost simultaneously in the Pelagonian plain in western Macedonia after spending some time in Panonia. Some Bulgars actually entered Europe earlier with the Huns. After the disintegration of the Hunnic Empire the Bulgars dispersed mostly to eastern Europé.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Balkans
 
The Avars were a Turkic group (or possibly Mongol[15]), possibly with a ruling core derived from the Rouran that escaped the Göktürks. They entered Pannonia in the 7th century AD, forcing the Lombards to flee to Italy. They continuously raided the Balkans, contributing to the general decline of the area that had begun centuries earlier. After their unsuccessful siege on Constantinople in 626, they limited themselves to Pannonia. They ruled over the Pannonian Slavs that had already inhabited the region. By the 10th century, the Avar confederacy collapsed due to internal conflicts, Frankish and Slavic attacks. The remnant Avars were subsequently absorbed by the Slavs and Magyars.
The Bulgars, a people of Central Asia, most believed Turko-Altaian and Indo-Arian.[citation needed] The major Bulgar wave commenced with the arrival of Asparuh's Bulgars. Asparuh was one of Kubrat's, the Great Khan, successors. They had occupied the fertile plains of the Ukraine for several centuries until the Khazars swept their confederation in the 660s and triggered their further migration. One part of them — under the leadership of Asparuh — headed southwest and settled in the 670s in present-day Bessarabia. In 680 AD they invaded Moesia and Dobrudja and formed a confederation with the local Slavic tribes who had migrated there a century earlier. After suffering a defeat at the hands of Bulgars and Slavs, the Byzantine Empire recognised the sovereignty of Asparuh's Khanate in a subsequent treaty signed in 681 AD. The same year is usually regarded as the year of the establishment of Bulgaria (see History of Bulgaria). A smaller group of Bulgars under Khan Kouber settled almost simultaneously in the Pelagonian plain in western Macedonia after spending some time in Panonia. Some Bulgars actually entered Europe earlier with the Huns. After the disintegration of the Hunnic Empire the Bulgars dispersed mostly to eastern Europé.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Balkans

There is at least one text that considers Balkan Avars part of the 'Sclavenic' nations. (De administrando imperio)
 
The Avars were a Turkic group (or possibly Mongol[15]), possibly with a ruling core derived from the Rouran that escaped the Göktürks. They entered Pannonia in the 7th century AD, forcing the Lombards to flee to Italy. They continuously raided the Balkans, contributing to the general decline of the area that had begun centuries earlier. After their unsuccessful siege on Constantinople in 626, they limited themselves to Pannonia. They ruled over the Pannonian Slavs that had already inhabited the region. By the 10th century, the Avar confederacy collapsed due to internal conflicts, Frankish and Slavic attacks. The remnant Avars were subsequently absorbed by the Slavs and Magyars.
The Bulgars, a people of Central Asia, most believed Turko-Altaian and Indo-Arian.[citation needed] The major Bulgar wave commenced with the arrival of Asparuh's Bulgars. Asparuh was one of Kubrat's, the Great Khan, successors. They had occupied the fertile plains of the Ukraine for several centuries until the Khazars swept their confederation in the 660s and triggered their further migration. One part of them — under the leadership of Asparuh — headed southwest and settled in the 670s in present-day Bessarabia. In 680 AD they invaded Moesia and Dobrudja and formed a confederation with the local Slavic tribes who had migrated there a century earlier. After suffering a defeat at the hands of Bulgars and Slavs, the Byzantine Empire recognised the sovereignty of Asparuh's Khanate in a subsequent treaty signed in 681 AD. The same year is usually regarded as the year of the establishment of Bulgaria (see History of Bulgaria). A smaller group of Bulgars under Khan Kouber settled almost simultaneously in the Pelagonian plain in western Macedonia after spending some time in Panonia. Some Bulgars actually entered Europe earlier with the Huns. After the disintegration of the Hunnic Empire the Bulgars dispersed mostly to eastern Europé.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Balkans

So are you saying that they were responsible for the R1a? According to Wikipedia, Modern Avar men have only 1.7-2.4% R1a, and I fail to see how they would be different from the ancient population.
 
It's pre-Slavic, but it most likely came to Balkans with Slavic migrations.

There are no ancient findings of Dinaric-type I2 in southeastern Europe, yet. I would expect ancient Illyrians ans Thracians mainly carried haplogroups found in modern Albanians, rather than I2.

High frequencies of I2 among Romanians can be explained by Slavic settlements in Dacia, since they used Church Slavonic and had heavy Slav influenced-vocabulary, until linguistic purifications of 20th century.
 
There is at least one text that considers Balkan Avars part of the 'Sclavenic' nations. (De administrando imperio)

There are no ''Balkan Avars'' , as Avars settled mainly in Carpathian Basin.

They were most likely Turkic, mixed with Slavs and other peoples too, just like Huns.

Ohter than that, they weren't bilogically or ethnically Slavic for sure.
 
There are no ''Balkan Avars'' , as Avars settled mainly in Carpathian Basin.

They were most likely Turkic, mixed with Slavs and other peoples too, just like Huns.

Ohter than that, they weren't bilogically or ethnically Slavic for sure.

I said 'Balkan Avars' to differentiate them from Caucasian Avars who speak a North-East Caucasian language. Others use terms like 'Pannonian Avars'.

In the text I mentioned a group called Avars is located near Danube (east of Dalmatia most likely) and are labeled as a 'Sclavenic nation'. Τhey expelled the Roman settlers of Dalmatia who were settled there by Diocletian and most of them were expelled from there by the Croats, That's the story in the text.

ἔθνη Σκλαβήνικα ἄοπλα ὄντα, ἅτινα καὶἌβαροι ἐκαλοῦντο.

It makes sense that they were Turkic. And it's likely that he called them 'Sclavenic' because when he wrote the text they had already been slavicized. Some have argued that he used Croat sources. The Avars who had remained there were a minority and it makes sense that they would have adopted the language of the majority.

I find annoying taking things for granted though.
 
I said 'Balkan Avars' to differentiate them from Caucasian Avars who speak a North-East Caucasian language. Others use terms like 'Pannonian Avars'.

In the text I mentioned a group called Avars is located near Danube (east of Dalmatia most likely) and are labeled as a 'Sclavenic nation'. Τhey expelled the Roman settlers of Dalmatia who were settled there by Diocletian and most of them were expelled from there by the Croats, That's the story in the text.



It makes sense that they were Turkic. And it's likely that he called them 'Sclavenic' because when he wrote the text they had already been slavicized. Some have argued that he used Croat sources. The Avars who had remained there were a minority and it makes sense that they would have adopted the language of the majority.

I find annoying taking things for granted though.

Alright, but we have to take Byzantine sources with reserve, as many appear to be hisorically not completely accurate.

Avars were allied with Slavs, but we can't know what the ratio of Avars to Slavs was. Possibly there were many Slavs, as Avars Khaganate later dissapeared and people couldn't have. Yet in countries like Hungary we find low frequencies of East Eurasian haplogroups, while R1a is frequent. I think remaining Avars (those that weren't exterminated by Croats or Franks ) assimilated in Panonnian populations, but they weren't originally Avar to begin with.

Avars could have been another mainly Slav group, led by Turkic elite. Yet the ''originals'' are definitelly not Slavic.

Their rampage in Dalmatia was short lasting, as well. The terrain did not fit horse riding group like them, and later they (and their unknown Slavic allies) were conquered by incoming Croats. According to sources Croats allowed defeated Avars to live and assimilate with them, but probably their numbers were so small they didn't seriously influence Croat ethnogenesis .
 
For the Avars there is theories they were Iranic too,no written work survive.Taking in consideration they were steppe people and constantly on the move they could have spoken any language that was used as "lingua franca" at that time in the steppe.
But in the Avar kingdom later on Slavic becomed lingua franca and the spoken language.
For the Avar settlement i doubt they settled in the mountainous Balkans,that's why they choosed Pannonia which is extented steppe and suitable for their horses with pastures,they weren't sailors we know that they ordered the Sclavenes to make them ships and with combined force together with Persians besieged Constantinople.
 
I know also about That,
Avars were Iranian linguistic relatives,
 
Alright, but we have to take Byzantine sources with reserve, as many appear to be hisorically not completely accurate.

Avars were allied with Slavs, but we can't know what the ratio of Avars to Slavs was. Possibly there were many Slavs, as Avars Khaganate later dissapeared and people couldn't have. Yet in countries like Hungary we find low frequencies of East Eurasian haplogroups, while R1a is frequent. I think remaining Avars (those that weren't exterminated by Croats or Franks ) assimilated in Panonnian populations, but they weren't originally Avar to begin with.

Avars could have been another mainly Slav group, led by Turkic elite. Yet the ''originals'' are definitelly not Slavic.

Their rampage in Dalmatia was short lasting, as well. The terrain did not fit horse riding group like them, and later they (and their unknown Slavic allies) were conquered by incoming Croats. According to sources Croats allowed defeated Avars to live and assimilate with them, but probably their numbers were so small they didn't seriously influence Croat ethnogenesis .
Croats appear as Avar enemies in the texts.
The narative later Constantine Porphyrogenitus is talking about that emperor Heraclius granted some land to Serbs or Croats,could be connected in fact with this alliances between them,anyway their migration is considered to have taken place right in this period.
The empire at the time of the siege.
RE0623nGRAYmarked.jpg
 
Croats appear as Avar enemies in the texts.
The narative later Constantine Porphyrogenitus is talking about that emperor Heraclius granted some land to Serbs or Croats,could be connected in fact with this alliances between them,anyway their migration is considered to have taken place right in this period.

You have Genetics and prove this, part with Serbs, you can not..

How can Serbians come as allies at same time, from same place and frome same Croatian ancestor when Porfirogenet claims that Serbs came from somewhere else to Greece and from Greece in part of Dalmatia...People with these genetic path do not exist..

Logical explanation for this is that they come as Croats, which are divided and become this or that..
 
You have Genetics and prove this, part with Serbs, you can not..

How can Serbians come as allies at same time, from same place and frome same Croatian ancestor when Porfirogenet claims that Serbs came from somewhere else to Greece and from Greece in part of Dalmatia...People with these genetic path do not exist..

Logical explanation for this is that they come as Croats, which are divided and become this or that..

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

Proto-Croat and Proto-Serbs probably had similar haplogroup variety upon southern migrations.
To claim Byzantine sources as completely accurate now in 21st century, is pretty bold.
 
I have debated this before on the Eupedia genetics comment board; in particular pages for Haplogroup I2 and sometimes R1a; and to my conclusion it is likely that Haplogroup I2 is an archaic Slavic lineage.


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

My theory is that the Yugoslavs are the more archaic Slavic people. Despite what Albanian nationalists may tell you; there is more evidence, conclusive to me, at least; that Albanians are nothing more than a Black-Sea people. And there was no Slavic invasion in 6 AD. (It could be; that Slavs are Dacians or Thracians, or related. Which would explain why both tribes and languages went extinct around these centuries; while the Slavic people were first written about during 5th or 6th AD.)
 
In other words; I am suggesting that other Slavs, especially Western Slavs (Polish and Sorbians) may actually be Indo-Iranians that carry a high abundance of R1a. (this also may be the case with other R1a carrying Eastern Europeans - such as the Hungarians (Ugric) and even the Balts.

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


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

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

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

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

--

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

This thread has been viewed 1064923 times.

Back
Top