Sarmatians, Serbs, Croats and I2a2

[MOESAN]

I came across something interesting:

EU7
Croats 44,8%
Lapps (Saami): 41,7%
Germans: 37,5%

EU19
Hungarians 60%
Poles 56%
Ukrainians 54%
Croats: 29%


Germanic-Dinaric haplogroup (Eu7 or I) is the most frequent in West Balkans (to 73% in Dalmatia and Herzegovina), reaching across Germany northwards to Scandinavia (48 %) and eastwards to Caucasus (58 %), Kurdistan and Teheran (to 34%). It includes 4 similar regional subtypes. The Germanic-Dinaric haplogroup is divisible into the Germanic haplogroup (I1), which is most common in Scandinavia, and the Dinaric haplogroup (I2), which is most common in the West Balkans.


.....21 Horithi, Horiti, C.'— Horigti, L. A Slavonic race, placed by Alfred the Great to the east of the Slavi Dalamenti, who occupied the district north-east of Moravia...... See note 23. R. T. Hampson,. Notes and Qrs, No 17,. p. 258.— S. W. Singer says,— The Horiti of Alfred are undoubtedly the Croati, or Crowati of Pomerania, who still pronounce their name Horuati, the h supplying the place of ch. Nor does it seem unreasonable to presume that the Harudes of Csesar (De Bel. Gall. I, 31, 37, 51) were also Croats; for they must have been a numerous and widely spread race. They are also called Charudes, *ApovO€^, The following passage from the Annales Fuldenses, A. 852, will strengthen this supposition ; — '' Inde transiens per Angros, Harudos,. Suabos, et Hosingos • . .. Thuxdngiam ingreditur." Notes and Qrs, No 20, p. 314


This would mean that the Harudes (Χαροῦδες) were in all likelihood a Slavic-Gothic alliance, which would account for their large numbers and highly regarded standing and privileged position. This root name is the genesis of the emerging 'Hrvati' ethnonym and people down to this day. (As seen it also had a part to play in topography, names and place names elsewhere, even the very Carpathians mountains...[Horvatya/Harvathi/Harvaða in the later Gothic epics] This again would partly explain and emphasize the truth of the descriptions of Croats being called Goths as well as Slavs in later Roman and Byzantine accounts also.


From the Polish territories called Lingonia seven or eight tribal clans arrived under Totilo. When they saw that the Croatian land would be suitable for habitation because in it there were few Roman colonies, they sought and obtained for their duke...The people called Croats...Many call them Goths, and likewise Slavs, according to the particular name of those who arrived from Poland and Bohemia..... (Historia Salonitana)


According to the etymologist, E. Forstemann, the Gothic root "Hroth!" had various forms such as Hruad, Hruat, Hroad, Hruot, and Chrout. During the time of 10th century Croatian King Stephen Držislav there is a Royal Inscription which in Latin reads "Dux Hroator" - "Duke of the Croats".

Prof. V. Giuffrida Ruggeri at the Anthropological Institute in Naples also offered the claim that long ago the original Croats of Europe were not Slavs, but rather Goths/Germanic who were then Slavicized

"The Saga of Hervör and Heithrek (Translated by Nora Kershaw in 1921)....notice the names..".....By her he had twelve sons. The eldest was Angantyr, then Hervarth, thenHjörvarth, Sæming and Hrani, Brami, Barri, Reifnir, Tind and Bui.......... "This pike at the mouth of the river, Has paid the penalty, For the slaughter inflicted on Heithrek, "Neath the Mountains of Harvathi....."

just to help:
these old studies with "EU..." haplogroups are outdated for a long time yet: all these Hgs were broken out in best defined HG's

 

[Ike]

Well it is quite clear Croats dwelled around Moravia. But you still haven't addressed the EU7 haplotype data which suggests they are closer to Saamis and Germans than to Slavs. It's especially interesting to note how Serbia or any neighbouring Slav countries isn't even close when it comes to EU7.

Haplogroup I2a1 peaks in Herzegovina. Every South Slavic ethnicity has got it in very high percentage, Croats are no exception. Check the data here. Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and Bosnia have almost the same percentage of Hg I. Macedonia is very close and I suppose the Montenegro could be even higher.


Anyway, neither Serbs or Croats can be connected with Goths like that, because those Hg's had split up in like Mesolithic times:

 

[TommyGun991]

Ok. The next thing that puzzles me is this south Slavic theory. Here's an excerpt from a study conducted by a guy who's well known here in the US:

Previous studies clearly concluded that most of Croatian men (‘owners’ of HgI) descended from the people who settled in Europe approximately 25000 years ago and survived the LGM in the Western Balkans refugium. Since the latest studies proposed a completely new background of R1b migration and since there are 27% of the R1a holders in Croatia, it could be concluded that more than 3/4 of the contemporary Croatian men are most probably the offspring of Old Europeans who came here before and after the LGM. The rest of the population are the offspring of people who arrived in this part of Europe trough the southeastern route, in the last 10000 years, mostly during the Neolithization process.

Croatian genetic heritage: Y-chromosome story

Dragan Primorac,Damir Marjanović,Pavao Rudan,Richard Villems, and Peter A. Underhil

How are Croats Slavs according to this? Or, are only Croats bearing R1a actually Slavic? If so, how come 34.3% of newcomers managed to assert their culture and language and completely destroy the national and cultural identities of the people that lived there at the time they came and make it so that the whole nation is regarded as Slavic when clearly only 1/3 of the population is actually Slavic? I've read somewhere that I2 still might be Slavic but I don't understand how that's possible since I2 originatated in the Balkans, which is far away from Russian and Ukranian steppes. This particular study doesn't even mention the Croat migration from the north ie the Slavic migration.

As for the Goths, how do interpret these linguistic overlaps and what can you say about Croats being called both Goths and Slavs across history?

 

[Ike]

Previous studies clearly concluded that most of Croatian men (‘owners’ of HgI) descended from the people who settled in Europe approximately 25000 years ago and survived the LGM in the Western Balkans refugium. Since the latest studies proposed a completely new background of R1b migration and since there are 27% of the R1a holders in Croatia, it could be concluded that more than 3/4 of the contemporary Croatian men are most probably the offspring of Old Europeans who came here before and after the LGM. The rest of the population are the offspring of people who arrived in this part of Europe trough the southeastern route, in the last 10000 years, mostly during the Neolithization process.

But why would you say that the rest came in the last 10.000 years? I think that R1a also came "recently". These are the latest migration maps, and I don't suppose there was much of R1a before 3000 B.C in Balkans. You can read in the main article that:

"Historically, no other part of Europe was invaded a higher number of times by steppe peoples than the Balkans. Chronologically, the first R1a invaders came with the westward expansion of the Yamna culture (from 4200 BCE), a succession of steppe migrations that lasted about 2000 years. Then came the Thracians (1500 BCE), followed by the Illyrians (around 1200 BCE), the Huns and the Alans (400 CE), the Avars, the Bulgars and the Serbs (all around 600 CE), and the Magyars (900 CE), among others. These peoples originated from different parts of the Eurasian steppes, anywhere between Eastern Europe and Central Asia, which is why such high STR diversity is found within Balkanic R1a nowadays. It is not yet possible to determine the ethnic origin for each variety of R1a, apart from the fact that about any R1a is associated with tribes from Eurasian steppe at one point in history."


Edit: I've founf the article you quoted:

" The latest studies in this field (20,21) suggest that Hg R membership, be it R1a-M17 or R1b-M269, in Europe is a more recent (post-LGM) event (about ≤15000 years ago). According to those recent findings, it is possible that these Hg R lineages began to spread from Western Asia into Europe soon after the ice sheets began to retract but before the arrival of farming in southeast Europe and Crete about 9000 years ago. So, this model suggests that 15000 -10000 years ago, Europe was inhabited by Mesolithic people, some being indigenous Hg I and some being post-glacial intrusive Hg R from West-Asia. Then, pioneering agriculturalists came from the Fertile Crescent and acquainted the local foragers with farming."


I think this is very brave estimate, and is probably wrong. Primorac is one of the first Croatian genetic researchers, and he is exploiting sensationalism here for his own gain In the context of last Balkan wars, statements like these draw a lot of attention in the area.

How are Croats Slavs according to this? Or, are only Croats bearing R1a actually Slavic? If so, how come 34.3% of newcomers managed to assert their culture and language and completely destroy the national and cultural identities of the people that lived there at the time they came and make it so that the whole nation is regarded as Slavic when clearly only 1/3 of the population is actually Slavic? I've read somewhere that I2 still might be Slavic but I don't understand how that's possible since I2 originatated in the Balkans, which is far away from Russian and Ukranian steppes. This particular study doesn't even mention the Croat migration from the north ie the Slavic migration.

Yes, there is a strong connection between R1a and I2 that hasn't been decoded yet. Everything indicates that they entangled somewhere back in time, and that R1a was culturally stronger or greater in numbers, so it imposed it's language on I2. When did this happen and how, how long the process lasted is unknown. Probably started somewhere in Neolithic after the split of I2a1b branch.

Anyway, you are considering todays ratios of haplogroups, like there was a blank space and someone dropped in 2/3 of I2 and 1/3 of R1. There was probably 100% of I2 and there was constant migration of R1a. The current situation is the percentages you quoted, but it's just one moment in time. It changes constantly. And the change may not have be rapid. Suppose I2 was in the mountains, and disliked mingling with the plainmen, while R1a hadn't' felt comfortable high in the mountains. It's almost the same in the last thousand years.

There is also a question of what should be considered as Slavic? There are I2 branches that are definitely Slavic by language and culture. And one can also wonder by how much have I2 participated in the formation of Slavic concept. There is a stronghold of I2 in todays Moldavia and Ukraine. Not that far from steppes. We know they originated in Balkans, but they have been around there probably since the Bronze age. Also, that I2 is not the same as one in Balkans. So, did they knew about each other? Where they connected during the Bronze age? Did the Balkan migrations of R1b split them? There are a lot of questions yet to be answered in the future.

As for the Goths, how do interpret these linguistic overlaps and what can you say about Croats being called both Goths and Slavs across history?

Both Croats and Serbs have very interesting names that show up everywhere around, from Denmark to India
From the linguistic point there even may be no difference between the two words because SRB and CHRV are interchangeable. Spoken /s/ is often substituted with /c/, while /b/ is easily mistaken for /v/.

There are many toponyms and tribes from different location that resemble those words, so I think in the end it becomes unhelpful. I even take Latin and Greek writings doubtful cause I don't think they had enough facts, or were not interested to nail these thing right.

 

[Garrick]

MDS scaling in scientific paper from Regueiro et al. (published 2012) show that Croats and Slovenes are very close and they are closed to Ukrainians. On the other hand Serbs and Macedonians are close (slightly less Bosniacs) who are more Balkans. It is relatively new paper and for MDS has taken many previous studies. Abbreviations are: LIT = Lithuanians, EST = Estonians, SER = Serbs, MAC = Macedonians, BOS = Bosniacs, GRE = Greeks, CRE = Cretans, ALB = Albanians, KoAL = Kosovo Albanians, SYR = Syrians, LEB = Lebanese, IRN = North Iranians, IRS = South Iranians, POL = Poles, SLOK = Slovakians, SLOVE = Slovenians, CROA = Croats, UKR = Ukrainians, BEL = Belarusians, LAT = Latvians, TUR = Turkmenistans, ANA = Anatolian Turks, PAK = Pakistanis, UZB = Uzbekistanis, TAJ = Tajikistanis, IND = Indians.

 

[Eldritch]

MDS scalling in scientific paper from Regueiro et al. (published 2012) show that Croats and Slovenes are very close and they are closed to Ukrainians. On the other hand Serbs and Macedonians are close (slightly less Bosniacs) who are more Balkans. It is relatively new paper and for MDS sampling has taken many previous studies. Abbreviations are: LIT = Lithuanians, EST = Estonians, SER = Serbs, MAC = Macedonians, BOS = Bosniacs, GRE = Greeks, CRE = Cretans, ALB = Albanians, KoAL = Kosovo Albanians, SYR = Syrians, LEB = Lebanese, IRN = North Iranians, IRS = South Iranians, POL = Poles, SLOK = Slovakians, SLOVE = Slovenians, CROA = Croats, UKR = Ukrainians, BEL = Belarusians, LAT = Latvians, TUR = Turkmenistans, ANA = Anatolian Turks, PAK = Pakistanis, UZB = Uzbekistanis, TAJ = Tajikistanis, IND = Indians.

View attachment 5988

Just based on Y-DNA frequencies

 

[Ike]

And it doesn't say much. What is considered more Balkan? If it's I and E percentage, than "Serbs, Macedonians and slightly less Bosnians" is right.

Primorac interprets the existance of R in Europe some 10 kya as it being an old European stock, but there is no sign of it in Balkan at that time. Now we will have a war of which one is older European - E or R, while we're still not 100 % sure if they are European indeed.

 

[Garrick]

We try to explore but there are more articles today. There are more scientists who write that R1a in the Balkans is the oldest, for example scientist Klyosov (2009) writes that R1a1 can be old in the Serbia, Kosovo, Macedonia and Bosnia: 11,650 +- 1,550 years (calculated by two different methods). Only we can suppose that R1a repeatedly came to the Balkans in the various epochs over thousands of years.

And it doesn't say much. What is considered more Balkan? If it's I and E percentage, than "Serbs, Macedonians and slightly less Bosnians" is right.

But studies show that today Slovenians and Croats are closed to Ukrainians, but Serbs, Macedonians (Upper Macedonians or Slav Macedonians), Bosniacs, have several common characteristics of the Balkans heritage (if we can call it) in comparasion with other Balkan nations today. This is no easy matter and further research is needed to shed more light. There is a link I2 and R1a, but maybe there is a link between I2 and E1b-V13. There are indications that the Thracians were bearers these haplogroups, and maybe at Serbs, Macedonians (Upper or Slav Macedonians) and Bosniacs the part these of haplogroups is of Thracian.

Primorac interprets the existance of R in Europe some 10 kya as it being an old European stock, but there is no sign of it in Balkan at that time. Now we will have a war of which one is older European - E or R, while we're still not 100 % sure if they are European indeed.

Regueiro et al. are explicit (quote from their paper):

"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.

 

[Plutarch]

I would associate the Sarmatians with R1a and Gets with I2a. They fused to Slaws in Sarmizegetusa.

 

[Clarissant]

Ike wrote: "There was probably 100% of I2 and there was constant migration of R1a..." in the Balkan region.

My reply: I would agree that Ike's postulation is very plausible. However, perhaps it would be more accurate to state that Haplogroup I, whatever subclade, originated in the Illyrian (i.e. Balkan) region. Thus haplogroup I seems to be the indigenous, original Old European haplogroup that had its roots in haplogroup J (originating in the middle east and/ or north-east Africa).

However, I note the following caveats:

• Haplogroup I probably shared Europe with older, more ancient haplogroup branches that were of non-European haplogroups originally. These very ancient, non-European haplogroups probably lived in Europe prior to haplogroup J/ haplogroup I's settlement in Illyria/ (Greece?).

• Haplogroup I might accurately be called a Germanic haplogroup (deriving its name from the levant/ mid east provence of Kerman/ Germani). However, I think it's more accurate to call haplogroup I and its subclades an Illyrian haplogroup that became a very significant haplogroup of the ethnographically named tribes/ "teams"** called Croats/ Herzegovinians/ Dalmatians/ Serbs/ Bosnians/ Slovenians/ Sardinians/ Germans/ Goths/ Vikings/ Scandinavians/ Celts etc.

• As Ike noted, perhaps haplogroup I and happlogroup R were more or less always living side by side within tribes or as neighbours. In this way, perhaps it is futile and nonsense to apply an ethnographic term to a lone haplogroup or haplogroup subclade i.e. Slavic, Germanic, Gothic, Celtic etc identities were always an amalgam of haplogroups I and R (and possibly other haplogroups too). Therefore, they represent linguistic/ historical (perhaps morphological?) demarcations, not individual haplogroups/ regional identities. etc.

• The only meaningful European demarcations are linguistic ones i.e. Romance language, Uralic language, IE language etc (that do not separate neatly along haplogroup boundaries). In this way, ethnographic terms such as Mongol/ Finno-Ugaric/ Semitic/ Germanic/ Slavic/ Scandic/ Celtic etc should be seen as a broad tribal/ "team" ** name with its "players"/ members deriving from many diverse places/ representing diverse haplogroups. Therefore no ethnographic nor national terms can be seen as indicative of one "pure" haplogroup.

• In summary, I would call:

• 
  [*=2]Haplogroup I (Central European), an Illyrian haplogroup indigenous to Europe:
  i.e. Illyrian-Balkan-Dalmatian-Croat-Serb-Hellenic/ Hallstatt-Celtic-Germanic-Gothic-Ostrogothic-Viking-Scandinavian/ Celtic/ originating from Palestinian-Semitic J Haplogroup (with roots in the Levant/ Palestine/ Middle East & possibly North East Africa/ Ethiopia)

​

• 
  [*=2]Haplgroup Ra (East European), an Indo-European-Aryan-Sarmatian haplogroup derived from Eurasia:
  i.e. Gothic-Slavic-Viking/ Polish-Rus-Finno-Ugaric/ Aryan-Iranic-Mongol Haplogroup (with roots in Asia, India)

​

• 
  [*=2]Haplogroup Rb (West European), a Basque-Celtic-Roman-Turkic Haplogroup derived from central Africa and Khazakstan:
  i.e. Central-North-West African-Berber-Iberian-Basque-UK/ Celtic-Gothic-Roman-Ottoman-Egyptian/ French-Italian haplogroup (with roots in Central & North Africa/ Egypt/ Khazakstan-Khazaria/ Turkey).

​

• At a foundational level, it appears all Europeans (indeed, all humanity in fact) derived from Africa at one stage, and then from there as follows:

• 
  [*=2] Haplogroup Rb moved from West Africa/ Cameroon / North Africa to Iberia / Spain/ Turkey / UK/ Western & Northern Europe/ Germany/ Ireland/ Italy/ France / Iceland etc. (Heartland/ origin appears to be West Africa/ Cameroon/Chad/ North Africa/ Egypt/ Basque Country/ Khazakstan-Khazaria/ Ottoman-Turkey).

​

• 
  [*=2]Haplogroup Ra moved to Asia and India then onto Eastern Europe.(Heartland/ origin appears to be in Aryan/ Iranic regions i.e. India/ Iran/ Persia/ Sarmatia/ Poland-Russia).

​

• 
  [*=2] Haplogroup J moved to the Middle East then morphed into the indigenous European haplogroup I in Illyria (Balkans/ including Greece?), spreading throughout Europe, especially Scandinavia / Iceland / Ukraine/ Central Europe / Germany and Sardinia etc. (Heartland/ origin appears to be in the West Balkans/ Greece/ Palestine).

 

[sparkey]

My reply: I would agree that Ike's postulation is very plausible. However, perhaps it would be more accurate to state that Haplogroup I, whatever subclade, originated in the Illyrian (i.e. Balkan) region. Thus haplogroup I seems to be the indigenous, original Old European haplogroup that had its roots in haplogroup J (originating in the middle east and/ or north-east Africa).

What does "whatever subclade" mean? I'm not sure what you're proposing exactly. That the MRCA of Haplogroup I lived in the Balkans? That all subclades originated in the Balkans? That at least one subclade originated in the Balkans (and if so, which)?

• Haplogroup I probably shared Europe with older, more ancient haplogroup branches that were of non-European haplogroups originally. These very ancient, non-European haplogroups probably lived in Europe prior to haplogroup J/ haplogroup I's settlement in Illyria/ (Greece?).

Haplogroup C-V20 is a popular choice for a pre-Haplogroup I lineage.

• Haplogroup I might accurately be called a Germanic haplogroup (deriving its name from the levant/ mid east provence of Kerman/ Germani). However, I think it's more accurate to call haplogroup I and its subclades an Illyrian haplogroup that became a very significant haplogroup of the ethnographically named tribes/ "teams"** called Croats/ Herzegovinians/ Dalmatians/ Serbs/ Bosnians/ Slovenians/ Sardinians/ Germans/ Goths/ Vikings/ Scandinavians/ Celts etc.

I think both would be misnomers. There are Haplogroup I lineages that have never been carried by Germanic or Illyrian peoples, and even though it's plausible that very early Haplogroup I branches could have been present in what became Illyria, it's doubtful that the Illyrians of the Classical Age had Haplogroup I in significant concentrations. I would only call it "Illyrian" if I was sure that most lineages were once carried by Illyrians.

• As Ike noted, perhaps haplogroup I and happlogroup R were more or less always living side by side within tribes or as neighbours. In this way, perhaps it is futile and nonsense to apply an ethnographic term to a lone haplogroup or haplogroup subclade i.e. Slavic, Germanic, Gothic, Celtic etc identities were always an amalgam of haplogroups I and R (and possibly other haplogroups too). Therefore, they represent linguistic/ historical (perhaps morphological?) demarcations, not individual haplogroups/ regional identities. etc.

But once you get precise enough along subclade trees, there are often correlations between haplogroup distributions and language families. It wouldn't be unreasonable to associate I2-L38 with Celts, would it? Or I1-Z58 with Germanic people? Heck, if the hypothesis linking early Haplogroup I to Gravettian culture proves true, would it be unreasonable to call Haplogroup I "Gravettian?"

• 
  [*=2] Haplogroup J moved to the Middle East then morphed into the indigenous European haplogroup I in Illyria (Balkans/ including Greece?), spreading throughout Europe, especially Scandinavia / Iceland / Ukraine/ Central Europe / Germany and Sardinia etc. (Heartland/ origin appears to be in the West Balkans/ Greece/ Palestine).

It's worth clarifying that Haplogroup J is a brother of Haplogroup I, not a parent. There is also a third brother, modern undifferentiated IJ, which has been found in a single sample in Iran.

 

[Aberdeen]

What does "whatever subclade" mean? I'm not sure what you're proposing exactly. That the MRCA of Haplogroup I lived in the Balkans? That all subclades originated in the Balkans? That at least one subclade originated in the Balkans (and if so, which)?



Haplogroup C-V20 is a popular choice for a pre-Haplogroup I lineage.



I think both would be misnomers. There are Haplogroup I lineages that have never been carried by Germanic or Illyrian peoples, and even though it's plausible that very early Haplogroup I branches could have been present in what became Illyria, it's doubtful that the Illyrians of the Classical Age had Haplogroup I in significant concentrations. I would only call it "Illyrian" if I was sure that most lineages were once carried by Illyrians.



But once you get precise enough along subclade trees, there are often correlations between haplogroup distributions and language families. It wouldn't be unreasonable to associate I2-L38 with Celts, would it? Or I1-Z58 with Germanic people? Heck, if the hypothesis linking early Haplogroup I to Gravettian culture proves true, would it be unreasonable to call Haplogroup I "Gravettian?"



It's worth clarifying that Haplogroup J is a brother of Haplogroup I, not a parent. There is also a third brother, modern undifferentiated IJ, which has been found in a single sample in Iran.

I guess I lost my ancestral language. I can't speak Gravettian.

I think most people who don't know much about DNA assume that IJ is a parent clade to I and J. That's what I assumed, and I was quite surprised the first time I read that that wasn't the case.

 

[sparkey]

I think most people who don't know much about DNA assume that IJ is a parent clade to I and J. That's what I assumed, and I was quite surprised the first time I read that that wasn't the case.

IJ is a parent clade to I and J. "Modern undifferentiated IJ," though, would be a different lineage negative for I and J SNPs that also descends from IJ, and hence would be a brother to I and J. Does that make sense?

 

[mihaitzateo]

I think that I HG appeared actually at more than 1 male,this mutation from IJ HG.
To be more concise,more males that were presenting IJ HG got this mutation,I.
I think IJ were something more South East,in today Middle-East,or Iran and developed different mutations,those who remained there,to J and those who came to Europe,to I.
Maybe these mutations were triggered by changes in the climate and so on.Or by change of food and other external factors.

 

[Aberdeen]

IJ is a parent clade to I and J. "Modern undifferentiated IJ," though, would be a different lineage negative for I and J SNPs that also descends from IJ, and hence would be a brother to I and J. Does that make sense?

Not really. However, like I said, my knowledge of DNA is quite limited. I'm on much better ground when talking about history or archeology, although I don't pretend to be a professional historian or archeologist.

 

[sparkey]

I think that I HG appeared actually at more than 1 male,this mutation from IJ HG.
To be more concise,more males that were presenting IJ HG got this mutation,I.
I think IJ were something more South East,in today Middle-East,or Iran and developed different mutations,those who remained there,to J and those who came to Europe,to I.
Maybe these mutations were triggered by changes in the climate and so on.Or by change of food and other external factors.

IJ to I is not just 1 mutation, it's 11! According to ISOGG, those are: L41/PF3787, M170/PF3715, M258/PF3721, P19_1, P19_2, P19_3, P19_4, P19_5, P38, P212/PF3580, PF3742/U179. The odds of multiple lineages getting these same slow-mutating SNPs are astronomical.

 

[Ike]

I think both would be misnomers. There are Haplogroup I lineages that have never been carried by Germanic or Illyrian peoples, and even though it's plausible that very early Haplogroup I branches could have been present in what became Illyria, it's doubtful that the Illyrians of the Classical Age had Haplogroup I in significant concentrations. I would only call it "Illyrian" if I was sure that most lineages were once carried by Illyrians.

My personal opinion is that it was majority I at least back to maybe 3000 BC. Of course, in the time window of it's emergence and 3000 BC, Hg I probably lived somewhere in Asia near Fertile Crescent.

As I recall, we have couple of hundred skeletons from Lepenski Vir, Vinca and Starcevo cultures, but there is still not much people here interested in those kind of research. I guess that prices of carbon dating and DNA analysis are way off the reasonable limit for current Balkan standards, so they don't even think about it. I know that EU is funding a lot of science projects here, and some are done in collaboration with students/colleagues from abroad. It's evident that more relevant research will be done in next 10 years and we will have definite results about DNA structure of Balkans BC, which will help us reconstruct the past events.

 

[Clarissant]

Sparkey wrote: If..."Haplogroup I to Gravettian culture proves true, would it be unreasonable to call Haplogroup I "Gravettian?"

My reply: I think the Gravettian culture is evidence of an African culture/ civilization within Europe, not an indigenous European culture in ancient Europe. For example, the Venus of Lespugue figurine (seen as the paragon of Gravettian culture), is shaped liked certain women of African lineage that have a propensity towards a genetic trait known as Steatopygia i.e. very large buttocks. It's a characteristic of African Khoisan females, (as well the Pygmy females of Central Africa and Andamanese Negritos females of the Andaman). Indeed, the Grimaldi skeletons found in Monaco (dating from circa 43,000 B.C.) are similar to the Khoisan of South Africa...and the Khoisan people are the "oldest" people in the world, so it is very likely they inhabited Europe, or the landmass that included Europe in prehistory.

Instead, I think the ancient Hellenic/ Greek culture (i.e. exemplified by Homer's Odyssey etc) is more representative of Haplogroup I's embryonic/proto "Illyrian-Germanic culture", rather than the Gravettian culture.

I will flesh out my remaining thoughts in the following post....bear with me please...it might take a while to address all the rebuttals! (No pun intended!).

 

[bicicleur 2]

IJ is a parent clade to I and J. "Modern undifferentiated IJ," though, would be a different lineage negative for I and J SNPs that also descends from IJ, and hence would be a brother to I and J. Does that make sense?

where has "Modern undifferentiated IJ" been found ? Iran ? elsewhere too ? In Iran they could be a remnant of a line that split of before the last ice age.

 

[bicicleur 2]

Sparkey wrote: If..."Haplogroup I to Gravettian culture proves true, would it be unreasonable to call Haplogroup I "Gravettian?"

My reply: I think the Gravettian culture is evidence of an African culture/ civilization within Europe, not an indigenous European culture in ancient Europe. For example, the Venus of Lespugue figurine (seen as the paragon of Gravettian culture), is shaped liked certain women of African lineage that have a propensity towards a genetic trait known as Steatopygia i.e. very large buttocks. It's a characteristic of African Khoisan females, (as well the Pygmy females of Central Africa and Andamanese Negritos females of the Andaman). Indeed, the Grimaldi skeletons found in Monaco (dating from circa 43,000 B.C.) are similar to the Khoisan of South Africa...and the Khoisan people are the "oldest" people in the world, so it is very likely they inhabited Europe, or the landmass that included Europe in prehistory.

Instead, I think the ancient Hellenic/ Greek culture (i.e. exemplified by Homer's Odyssey etc) is more representative of Haplogroup I's embryonic/proto "Illyrian-Germanic culture", rather than the Gravettian culture.

I will flesh out my remaining thoughts in the following post....bear with me please...it might take a while to address all the rebuttals! (No pun intended!).

Can you tell me more about the Grimaldi people ?
Their dating seems uncertain, their stature is much smaller than paleolithic Europeans and it seems their skelletons have been found in only 1 place.
Some tribe that got disoriented and extinct it seems.