How did I2a-Din get to the Balkans?

motzart said:

Couple problems with that. We don't have any Anglo Saxon Y DNA or Suebi DNA at all so your point is just an assumption.

Click to expand...

I think it's a reasonable assumption based on diversity patterns of Germanic-looking subclades like I1-Z58 and R1b-U106. You think it's a problematic assumption that Anglo-Saxons and Suebi carried those?

sparkey said:

I don't see the connection. The populations that Goths contributed to did not remain Gothic, so of course they fluctuated afterward, and they would have even if they had, since how the population fluctuates internally doesn't depend on how they got there. Anyway, even if we accept the idea that all Goths left their homeland and left no remnants, I would still expect to see remnant neighboring tribes with similar genetics. Groups like the Anglo-Saxons, Suebi, etc. left behind plenty of peoples of related (and even their own) tribes with practically indistinguishable genetics, and we get nice comparisons between modern populations near their origins and at their destinations. Are the Goths supposed to be different?

Click to expand...

There is no historical proof for Goths assimilating other peoples. Goths left remnants of course, but not very large (in Poland). And we still don't know how much connection do eastern Germanic peoples of Goths and Vandals have with other Germanic peoples.
But let's ask counter-question: if I2a Din was brought by Slavs, then why don't Slavs that are today in Poland have similar genetics to southern ones? I need some evidence that I2a was brought by Slavs.

clintCG said:

But let's ask counter-question: if I2a Din was brought by Slavs, then why don't Slavs that are today in Poland have similar genetics to southern ones? I need some evidence that I2a was brought by Slavs.

Click to expand...

Well, (Southern) Poland is a hotspot for I2a-Din-S diversity. I don't think we expect the Poles and the Slavs in the Balkans to look very similar in terms of haplogroup subclade percentage, though, even if I2a-Din was largely transmitted to the Balkans via Poland. Too many effects from substrata, superstrata, population fluctuation over time, etc.

sparkey said:

Well, (Southern) Poland is a hotspot for I2a-Din-S diversity. I don't think we expect the Poles and the Slavs in the Balkans to look very similar in terms of haplogroup subclade percentage, though, even if I2a-Din was largely transmitted to the Balkans via Poland. Too many effects from substrata, superstrata, population fluctuation over time, etc.

Click to expand...

I expect Poles and Balkan Slavs to have same percentage of haplogroups, because that is where Balkan Slavs came from, according to current official version of history. I don't think concentration of R1a can shrink from 56 percent in Poles (where Croatian homeland was), to under 15 percent in Dalmatian Croats, and in same way I don't think anything could explain how can Sorbs have 65 percent of R1a while Montenegrins (who, according to history, came from western Poland/eastern Germany) have like 8 percent of it. Again, I ask you, if Slavs brought I2a Din indeed, then how can modern concentration of haplogroups in Balkans differ so much from original Slavic homeland?
On the other hand, (southern) Poland has highest diversity of I2a-Din, and that is where Goths lived before they migrated to south and Slavs moved in. IMO both diversity and concentration patterns of I2a-Din represent migrations of Goths very good.

clintCG said:

I expect Poles and Balkan Slavs to have same percentage of haplogroups, because that is where Balkan Slavs came from, according to current official version of history. I don't think concentration of R1a can shrink from 56 percent in Poles (where Croatian homeland was), to under 15 percent in Dalmatian Croats, and in same way I don't think anything could explain how can Sorbs have 65 percent of R1a while Montenegrins (who, according to history, came from western Poland/eastern Germany) have like 8 percent of it. Again, I ask you, if Slavs brought I2a Din indeed, then how can modern concentration of haplogroups in Balkans differ so much from original Slavic homeland?
On the other hand, (southern) Poland has highest diversity of I2a-Din, and that is where Goths lived before they migrated to south and Slavs moved in. IMO both diversity and concentration patterns of I2a-Din represent migrations of Goths very good.

Click to expand...

I2a in balkans is an assumption of modern slavs that the marker is slavic. Because the cimmerians who came from southern Ukraine to the balkans in 700 BC ( 1400 years before the slavs ) carried this marker. The slavs ASSUME that cimmerians are slavs and continually make a claim to absorb indigenous tribes from various areas

"I need some evidence that I2a was brought by Slavs."

There is absolutely no evidece for that.

gyms said:

"I need some evidence that I2a was brought by Slavs."

There is absolutely no evidece for that.

Click to expand...

Paleolithic continuity theory is outdated, so only two possible carriers that could have brought it in such a large number were Goths and Slavs. I assume it is much more probable that Goths brought I2a Din rather than Slavs.

Sile said:

I2a in balkans is an assumption of modern slavs that the marker is slavic. Because the cimmerians who came from southern Ukraine to the balkans in 700 BC ( 1400 years before the slavs ) carried this marker. The slavs ASSUME that cimmerians are slavs and continually make a claim to absorb indigenous tribes from various areas

Click to expand...

Yes, they assume it is Slavic only because Yugoslavians are linguistically Slavic today. I am not familiar with fact that Cimmerians brought I2a Din with them, and their arrival on Balkans is probably too old for arrival of I2a Din. Current spread of I2a Din is result of sudden expansion from Poland that happened around 2000 years ago.

clintCG said:

Yes, they assume it is Slavic only because Yugoslavians are linguistically Slavic today. I am not familiar with fact that Cimmerians brought I2a Din with them, and their arrival on Balkans is probably too old for arrival of I2a Din. Current spread of I2a Din is result of sudden expansion from Poland that happened around 2000 years ago.

Click to expand...

They didn't need to come in numbers. The expansion could have happened when they have gotten to Balkans 1,500 years ago. Balkans were depopulated at this time and it would help expansion of population of newcomers.

Well I need more evidence to even consider Cimmerians as carriers of I2a Din...

IIRC Ken Nordtvedt and Vadim Verenich estimate the age of formation of I2a1b1 as 2800 years ago and its TMRCA as 2500 years ago. Place of formation was Eastern or East-Central Europe according to them. This young age combined with its presence among Slavic (especially East Slavic and South Slavic) populations and its lack of presence among Baltic populations, suggests that this mutation originally formed in one of members of the Proto-Slavic community around year 800 BCE. The time when the Balto-Slavic community split (an event illustrated by the graph below), forming Proto-Slavs and the other two groups (Proto East Balts and Proto West Balts - according to Kromer's 2003 theory) has been variously estimated at between 1500 BCE and 500 BCE, but most authors place it between 1400 and 1200 BCE:

Atkinson - 1400 BCE
Novotná & Blažek - 1400–1340 BCE
Sergei Starostin - 1210 BCE
Chang et. al. - 600 BCE



If this mutation is younger than the split of the Balto-Slavic community, then this fact nicely explains why I2a1b1 is present among Slavs but not among Balts. Had this lineage been present among Balto-Slavs before they split some 3400 - 3200 years ago, it should be present among both Balts and Slavs today (unless it was so small in numbers that - just by chance - only Slavs inherited it, and not Balts).

Now when it comes to R1a:

hrvat22 said:

The point is that Croats belong R1a Z280

Click to expand...

This claim is completely wrong.

Data from Underhill 2014 shows that Croats have the highest proportion of M458 in entire R1a among South Slavs (read below).

Among Slavic and Baltic populations, when it comes to people with haplogroup R1a, two major clades dominate - Z280 and M458.

The age of these two clades is:

http://www.yfull.com/tree/R1a/

Z280:

Time when mutation emerged (in one male) - ca. 5000 years ago (95% probability that in period 5600 - 4400 y.a.).
Time of the most recent common ancestor - ca. 4800 years ago (95% probability that in period 5400 - 4200 y.a.).

M458:

Time when mutation emerged (in one male) - ca. 5000 lat temu (95% probability that in period 5600 - 4400 y.a.).
Time of the most recent common ancestor - ok. 4500 lat temu (95% probability that in period 5400 - 4200 y.a.).

=================================================

Distribution of percentage shares of these clades within all of R1a forms an interesting continuum (but also a clinal distribution in some areas).

If individuals with R1a haplogroup in each population = 100%, then respective shares of Z280 and M458 within that R1a are:

Population (R1a Z280 / R1a M458 / other clades of R1a) - according to Underhill 2014 (+ Ukrainians from Lviv & Lithuanians from another - Russian - source, as well as alternative data for Russians, Poles and Belarusians from the same Russian source):

WeS = Western Slavs
SoS = Southern Slavs
EaS = Eastern Slavs
Balt = Balts

[WeS] Czechs-----------------------------(20,2 / 79,8 / 0,0)
[WeS] Czechs Utah------------------------(19,9 / 70,0 / 10,1)
[SoS] Croatia interior-----------------------(32,0 / 68,0 / 0,0)
[WeS] Poland------------------------------(42,0 / 58,0 / 0,0)
[EaS] Ukrainians Cherkassy-----------------(46,9 / 53,1 / 0,0)
[WeS] Poland (another source)--------------(51,7 / 48,3 / 0,0)
[WeS] Slovakia-----------------------------(52,1 / 46,2 / 1,7)
[WeS] Poles Wroclaw-----------------------(56,8 / 43,2 / 0,0)
[SoS] Bulgaria------------------------------(51,2 / 42,0 / 6,8)
[EaS] Ukrainians Lviv------------------------(58,2 / 41,8 / 0,0)
[EaS] Ukrainians Ivano-Frankivsk-------------(60,0 / 40,0 / 0,0)
[EaS] Belarusians Brest----------------------(61,4 / 38,6 / 0,0)
[EaS] Russians Kostroma--------------------(62,6 / 37,4 / 0,0)
[EaS] Ukrainians Donetsk--------------------(67,4 / 30,4 / 2,2)
[EaS] Belarusians (another source)-----------(69,7 / 30,3 / 0,0)
[SoS] Macedonians--------------------------(72,7 / 27,3 / 0,0)
[EaS] Russians Pskov------------------------(72,6 / 25,8 / 1,6)
[EaS] Russians Oryol-------------------------(76,4 / 23,6 / 0,0)
[SoS] Serbia---------------------------------(64,9 / 23,2 / 11,9)
[EaS] Belarusians (Underhill)------------------(76,8 / 23,2 / 0,0)
[SoS] Bosnia--------------------------------(80,2 / 19,8 / 0,0)
[EaS] Russians (another source)--------------(80,8 / 19,2 / 0,0)
[EaS] Russians Belgorod----------------------(81,2 / 18,8 / 0,0)
[Balt] Lithuanians----------------------------(81,8 / 18,2 / 0,0)
[EaS] Ukrainians Khmilnyk---------------------(84,3 / 15,7 / 0,0)
[EaS] Ukrainians Akkerman--------------------(88,4 / 11,6 / 0,0)
[SoS] Slovenia-------------------------------(83,9 / 10,7 / 5,4)
[SoS] Herzegovina----------------------------(93,8 / 6,2 / 0,0)

Chart:



And graph:

http://s29.postimg.org/n8pi0uko7/Graph_Clades.png



=======================================

And here a map showing the percentage share of M458 among total R1a (based on data from Underhill, data from the other source not included):

Boundaries of frequency areas are approximate / conventional (since Underhill collected samples mostly from specific cities or groups of locations):

Tomenable said:

IIRC Ken Nordtvedt and Vadim Verenich estimate the age of formation of I2a1b1 as 2800 years ago and its TMRCA as 2500 years ago. Place of formation was Eastern or East-Central Europe according to them. This young age combined with its presence among Slavic (especially East Slavic and South Slavic) populations and its lack of presence among Baltic populations, suggests that this mutation originally formed in one of members of the Proto-Slavic community around year 800 BCE. The time when the Balto-Slavic community split (an event illustrated by the graph below), forming Proto-Slavs and the other two groups (Proto East Balts and Proto West Balts - according to Kromer's 2003 theory) has been variously estimated at between 1500 BCE and 500 BCE, but most authors place it between 1400 and 1200 BCE

Click to expand...

Interestingly, Baltic clades N-L550 and N-L1025 have similar ages and TMRCAs as I2a1b1:

N1c1a1a1a (L550): found throughout the Baltic and North Slavic countries
N1c1a1a1a1 (L1025): found especially in Balto-Slavic countries, with a peak in Lithuania and Latvia

N-L550 formed 3300 ybp, TMRCA 2700 ybp
N-L1025 formed 2700 ybp, TMRCA 2500 ybp

Now compare this to I2a1b1 which (according to Nordtvedt & Verenich) formed 2800 ybp, TMRCA 2500 ybp.

Data on distribution of N1c1a (old name N3) and R1a in Lithuania - from Kasperaviciute 2004:

http://genofond.invint.net/genofond.ru/LoadFile50a7.pdf?file_id=966



Map (southern region marked as SA - inhabited largely by ethnic Poles - has 61,8% R1a and only 29,4% N3):

As for I2a1b frequencies:

Croats - 37,8%
Ukrainians from Lviv - 22,1%
Belarusians - 17,9%
Russians - 11,7%
Poles - 6,4% (according to some other studies more)
Lithuania - 3,5%

IIRC it was Nordtvedt himself who located I2a Din TMRCA in middle course of Vistula

Click to expand...

They previously located I1 TMRCA in Scandinavia and R1b TMRCA in Spain - both of which turned out to be wrong.

So such assumptions are not reliable. What you really need are ancient DNA samples.

The following info was announced around April 2014:

"This year [2014] begins a major research program, the goal of which is to examine ancient DNA from several dozen archaeological sites from the area of Poland. This project is supposed to test ancient DNA of inhabitants of Poland from pre-Roman, Roman, early Medieval and Medieval times and compare it to DNA of modern inhabitants. Research is going to last at least 5 years, its authors are - among others - prof. Hanna Koćka-Krenz and prof. Janusz Piontek."

So we must wait until 2019.

This still doesn't explain it and perfectly supports my theory. Why is there so much difference between Hezegovina and Slavonia Croats? Don't they all descend from same Slavs? Why do then Slavonians have over 50 percent of R1a and Herzegovinians and Montenegrins have only about 6 percent of R1a?

It is because Slavs settled in northern Yugoslavia, in lands suitable for farming (R1a carriers), and Goths (I2a1b) settled in Dinaric Alps. If they were all Slavic as modern history claims they would all have same amount of HG's. It is just like our medieval history sources tell us...

Reason why there is some I2a1b in Ukraine is because it comes from Gothic leftovers. As we know from history bigger part of Goths migrated over Danube to Balkans while smaller part was subdued by Huns and remained on Black Sea coast. Even Gothic dialect was spoken in Crimea until 19th century.

Assumption that it is Slavic comes from the fact that today carriers of I2a1b are linguistically Slavic, which they were not in the past.

Also 3-4 thousand years of I2a1 continuity in Neolithic hunter-gatherer Scandinavians support my theory (from Motala to Ajvide), as well as evidence for depopulation at that time.
It is clear that I2a1 got to Poland from Scandinavia, not from eastern Europe, and I2a1b in Poland existed long before any Slavic or proto-Slavic tribe entered it.

BTW no chance there is so much R1a even in northern Croatia as you listed it on map.

Assumption that it is Slavic comes from the fact that today carriers of I2a1b are linguistically Slavic, which they were not in the past.

Click to expand...

In the past the extent of South Slavic languages was larger than it is today.

On the other hand, the extend of East Slavic languages was smaller in the past than today.

Map: Territories inhabited by Slavic peoples in the mid-9th century (around year 850 AD):

(thick black lines) ludność słowiańska w zdecydowanej przewadze ======== Slavic population constitutes vast majority
(thin black lines) ludność słowiańska w rozproszeniu ================== dispersed settlement of Slavic population
(small red circles) ludność słowiańska poza głównym terytorium osiedlenia == Slavic people outside of main settlement area



Boundaries of ethnic Slavic territories in year 850 AD underlined:



Map posted above is originally from:

"Słowianie, ich wędrówki, siedziby i otoczenie etniczne we wczesnośredniowiecznej Europie"
("Slavs, their migrations, homelands and ethnic environment in Early Medieval Europe")
by Adam Sengebusch

And another similar map (also for year ca. 850 AD - as you can see it shows a bit larger extent of East Slavic territory):

BTW no chance there is so much R1a even in northern Croatia as you listed it on map.

Click to expand...

You did not understand what the map says, apparently. Take a look at the chart I posted above.

^ Below is continuation of my posts from previous page (read discussion on page 31 first):

Also 3-4 thousand years of I2a1 continuity in Neolithic hunter-gatherer Scandinavians support my theory (from Motala to Ajvide), as well as evidence for depopulation at that time.

Click to expand...

There was lack of continuity between Neolithic Scandinavians and Scandinavians of Bronze & Iron Ages (see: Malmström et. al. 2009).

Also, there is a very long long way from I2a1 to I2a1b1. For example Sardinians are I2a1a, not I2a1b (and certainly not I2a1b1).

I2a was present not only in prehistoric Scandinavia but in most of Mesolithic and Neolithic Europe.

Check for example I2a1 from Loschbour (5960-5750 BCE) or I2a from Tiszaszölös-Domaha'za in Hungary (5780-5650 BCE).

And more anient I2a in Hungary was discovered at Apc-Berekalja I (Lengyel culture), dating to 4490-4360 BCE.

There is also Neolithic I2a1 from Starčevo culture in Croatia, at site Vinkovci Jugobanka, dated 5840-5480 years BCE.

Finally there is I2a1b L161+, CTS1293+ from Els Trocs in Spain, dated 5310-5206 BCE (see Haak 2015).

As well as I2a1b from Funnelbeaker culture dating to 3360-3086 BCE. And I2a1 from France (Treilles, Aveyron) dated 3000 BCE.

Finally more I2a1 from Dolmen of La Pierre Fritte, Villeneuve-sur-Yonne in France, dated 2750-2725 BCE.

Why is there so much difference between Hezegovina and Slavonia Croats? Don't they all descend from same Slavs?

Click to expand...

Slavs were already divided into distinct tribes when they were first described by people of the Mediterranean world.

So no - they don't all descend from "same Slavs". From Slavs, but not same ones. From different groups of Slavs.

Croats for example came to the Balkans from what is now Czechoslovakia. Croats came to the Balkans relatively late, but mixed with other Slavs who had already been there before them (most likely ancestors of Slovenes and Bosniaks). Most of Slavic groups had come to the Balkans before Croats, from areas of Ukraine-Moldova, crossing Romania on their way. And before crossing the Danube and flooding into the Balkans, those Slavs had settled north of the Danube in southern Romania.

If they were all Slavic as modern history claims they would all have same amount of HG's.

Click to expand...

Wrong. First of all you have random drift (due to which frequencies can change), and secondly you have founder effects.

Slavs dispersed in various directions and those migrating groups certainly did not have identical frequencies of haplogroups.

Imagine somewhere near the Ukrainian-Belarusian borderland there lived - let's say - 360 thousand Proto-Slavic males including 160 thousand Z280, 120 thousand M458, 60 thousand I2a1b1 and 20 thousand other haplogroups. And now that bunch of 360 k divided into three groups of 120 k each, one migrated westward to Central Europe, one southward to the Balkans, one eastward to Russia.

It is possible that among those who migrated westward there was - just by chance - more of M458.

Among those who came to the Balkans there could be - on ther other hand - more of I2a1b1.

If you are assuming that when people migrate they spread haplogroups always in the same proportion, then entire world should have the same structure of haplogroups (since all humans dispersed originally from one place - most likely North-Eastern Africa).

Reason why there is some I2a1b in Ukraine is because it comes from Gothic leftovers. As we know from history bigger part of Goths migrated over Danube to Balkans while smaller part was subdued by Huns and remained on Black Sea coast. Even Gothic dialect was spoken in Crimea until 19th century.

Click to expand...

Frequency distribution of I2a1b in Ukraine totally does NOT correspond to places where Gothic leftovers lived.

Gothic leftovers lived in Crimea, while the highest % of I2a1b is in the opposite end - in Western & Northern Ukraine.

======================

Take a look at this map (note this sharp decline of I2a1b exactly in the Slavic-Italian ethnic borderland; note also how West Slavic Sorbs - "cousins" of South Slavic Serbs - near the East German-Czech border have a high % of I2a1b):



As you can see the highest frequency of I2a1b is in Western and Northern Ukraine - most Slavic parts of Ukraine (video below):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXhLsJrj_N8


Among Ukrainians from Lviv (Western Ukraine) I2a1b is as frequent as 22,1% - according to this Russian data:

It is clear that I2a1 got to Poland from Scandinavia

Click to expand...

What ??? That would make absolutely no sense, because I2a1 is clearly not related to Germanic peoples.

There is no genetic continuity between Neolithic Scandinavians and Germanic Scandinavians (see Malmström et. al. 2009).

Moreover, as I already wrote above, I2a1 is common among Mesolithic and Neolithic samples of ancient DNA from entire Europe discovered so far. You are clearly not up-to-date with ancient DNA findings if you think that it was found only in Sweden.

I listed ancient I2a1 from other countries (Hungary, France, Spain, Croatia, Luxembourg, Germany) in my post above.

But the point is, that I2a1 is not I2a1b1. There are dozens of SNPs (and dozens of centuries) separating the two.

Also remember that we have virtually no samples of ancient Y-DNA from Eastern Europe. This will change only in the following years.

Coming back to that map posted above:

note this sharp decline of I2a1b exactly in the Slavic-Italian ethnic borderland

Click to expand...

And this is crucial. Because Goths did not stop their migration in what is now Slovenia.

They entered Italy, they sacked Rome, established a kingdom. So why there is so little of I2a1b in Italy ???

Simply because I2a1b has absolutely nothing to do with Goths. Northern Italy has <1% of it.