How did I2a-Din get to the Balkans?

[mihaitzateo]

diversity is not the same as frequency...

actually, from what i have read (not much data yet about diversity of I2a-din in official publications) Moldavians have lowest diversity and Croats relatively low diversity...biggest diversity is in part of Ukraine in Czech republic and Serbia..

Bosnia Croats have high frequency of I2a-Din but not so high diversity...

Croatian origin of big part of this people is disputed as Narentanes/Pagani were by Byzantine historians captured as unbaptized Serbs.... in last centuries people were classified as Serbs/Croats based on religion... catholic = Croat, orthodox = Serb

42% of I2a-Din in Croatia is big lie made by talking half of samples from 3 southern islands that were part of Narentania and where I2aDin is between 60 and 80%...
in reality, Croatia has I2a-Din on same level as Serbia - around 30%






well, that is hard to state as we do not know much about Dacians...
but yes, Croats did have state in Carpathians in part that is now Ukraine and south Poland and perhaps even Slovakia...
they may have been same people as Carpi and/or Heruli but there is no real proof for that yet...




as i said Croats do not have 42% of I2a-Din
its about how to lie with numbers...
i can take half samples from Sweden and half from Sardinia and say there is 25% I2a1 in Sweden, but there is 0%


regarding Neamt and Buhusi, if those counties are very different than rest of Romania, than they are not Dacians in origin..
neamt county is named after a word that means german in Slavic languages which is likely indication of germanic settlement...

Another genetic testing was made,but this time more general,in romanians from south.
Near Constanta,which is in south-east of Romania M170 (no ideea which clades,but I supose most is I2A-din) is almost 40%.
And is a higher percentage of E1,supose is E-V13,cause test was not that deep.
(14% romanians near ploiesti,9.7% romanians near constanta).

Near Ploiesti,M170 is almost 39% - again no ideea which clades,since no deep genetic testing was done.
But I supose is somehting like 30-31% I2a-din,I1A+I1C about 5-6% and 1% other M170 clades.
Here is that generic testing for Y DNA near Constanta and Ploiesti:
http://www.carswell.com.au/wp-conten...n-analysis.pdf
Whatever,results are weird enough.

[how yes no 3]

Another genetic testing was made,but this time more general,in romanians from south.
Near Constanta,which is in south-east of Romania M170 (no ideea which clades,but I supose most is I2A-din) is almost 40%.
And is a higher percentage of E1,supose is E-V13,cause test was not that deep.
(14% romanians near ploiesti,9.7% romanians near constanta).

Near Ploiesti,M170 is almost 39% - again no ideea which clades,since no deep genetic testing was done.
But I supose is somehting like 30-31% I2a-din,I1A+I1C about 5-6% and 1% other M170 clades.
Here is that generic testing for Y DNA near Constanta and Ploiesti:
http://www.carswell.com.au/wp-conten...n-analysis.pdf
Whatever,results are weird enough.

i will not ask how can you suppose numbers..... numbers can be predicted in an educated guess when one compares something with related cases or prehistory, but you are making a wild guess without any reasoning...

those are not new results....
they are from year 2006
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...5.00251.x/full

don't know why is it surprising for you?

as I said I2a-din spread along Danube....
both Ploesti and Constanca fit in that route....


but this is also not really Dacian area...
that is area of Roxolani (Sarmatians, one of Alan tribes, ruxs alans = "white" alans)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roxolani




btw. just wondering where would at 125 Ad on the map above be proto- west Slavs...that I say origin from Pelasgians via Pannonians... according to Russian primary chronicle they were pushed to settle Vistula river where they are called Lyaks.... a wild guess - Lugii seems to be closest match to this by location and name on the map above...perhaps they are by others also called Vandilli as they are of same R1a race As Venedi - probably proto-Balts... and from there comes usage of name Wend by Germans for Slavs and Jordanes saying that Slavs are race of Venethi...
Lugii, Lugi, Lygii, Ligii, Lugiones, Lygians, Ligians, Lugians, or Lougoi is it same tribal name as Lycians/Lukka/Lech/Lyakhs?

looking at the map they would nicely explain Poles in Poland... when Gothones go to Black sea they can spread northeast, when Burgundians go towards France they can spread west....
so it makes sense... but needs to be confronted with historical sources (not the same as schoolbook or historian interpretations of them)...also if we look movement of people alike to fluids moving from areas with higher pressure to ones with lower, it makes some sense that movement of Goths towards Black sea was caused by movement of Luigii deeper in their area which was caused by Roman empire spreading.........

another thing that attracts my attention is link between Sarmatians and I2a-din...this coupled with Scirri said by some to be Alanic people, by Carpatians being called both montes serrorum and montes Sarmatici makes me thing that Sarmatians might have been one of Serian branches afterall...
this fits well with historic mention of tribe Serboi in Sarmatia.... but Seneca says Serians dare to live unarmed among Sarmatians...so Serians cannot be = Sarmatians

on other hand we can map Ploesti and Constanca just to Roxolani = white Alans, not to Sarmatians and Alans in general.... especially because there are no traces of I2a-din in Iberia or north Africa....

this "white" makes me curious... white alans, white Syrian, white Sart. white Serbs (De administrando imperio says Serbs come to Balkan from land they call Boiki where they have been called white, and Croats come from land white Croatia where they were called white) ...this white is repeating pattern for I2a-din ...why?
white = west in iranic color system of marking sides of the world...
e.g. Sart people in Serica north of Tibet and white-Sart west of them in Uzbekistan and Kyrgizstan...
white Serbs in Bohemia makes sense, as we can assume existence of more east Serbs....

but Strabo speaking of white syrians in Cappodokia (likely ancestors of Kurds?) says they are actually whiter than other syrians and he equates Syrians with Sumerians.... maybe that was different...

actually, big part of I2a-Din in Ploesti and Constanca may have arrived later than Alans
it is where Slavic Severians setlled.. Severians are by some argued to be same as Serbs...
those would be east Serbs
while white or west Serbs went from Bohemia to Serbia...





it may also be due to Bulgars... as I said I believe they were originally I2a-Din like Serbs, Croats and Macedonians.... in Caucasus they had state roughly in area where previously Serboi tribe was... i think they were somewhat turkicized but spoke more or less same language as Serbs when they arrived to Balkan...in medieval south Slavic historic script "letopis popa Dukljanina" confusing data is given about south Slavs being Goths and about Bulgarians being large settlement of people speaking same language...which is contrary to understanding of modern scholar history according to which non-Slavic Bulgars took over language from subjugated Slavic people...

whole region from where Bulgars come was turkicized... e.g. looking at map from 650 AD there are turkic Sabirs in place where earlier Serboi were, which were I guess those Serians of Seneca who dared to leave their homes unguarded among Sarmatians... i think today Chuvash people partially origin from those Sabirs...

[pipinnacanus]

Everyone who has looked at current I1 samples will tell you that it's remarkably young in terms of TMRCA

Irrelevant, but when you rely on "everyone" as your citation its a good indicator of your intent to make the case that you want and you dont need any science or reproducable fact for that, you would be as well off in a fantasy role playing environment.

The center of diversity of I1 is around Schleswig-Holstein per Nordtvedt, by the way. There are no ancient clades with apparent origins far from that discovered so far.

Nordvedt has no scientific credibility. He long ago start with being 'answer-man' and got to enjoy it too much, and cannot stop.Nordvedt is selling his own stories, and gaining happy adherents with promises that cannot be reproduced except with magic figures that he has deduced which later fail. these also resulted in people with similar STR being placed in 'clades' he 'discover' who later are not even within same SNP when later identified. He is a hobbyist who lurks on message boards, not a scientist cautiously revealing only fact. He deals in whimsy that is regularly overturned.When Ken started, few ancient Y-samples existed and identifying his claims as unsupported was only based on his failure to use caution in his claims but could not be a full refutation since we had no data from ancient remains.TODAY, we have every modern Hg turned up in one or more ancient samples, EXCEPT alone - Hg I1. Now the burden is on Ken to explain this and why. It is not turning up in even one random sample while EVERYTHING else is, because I1 was not part of the continental Hg of these early germanic tribal populations or anyone else on the continent at that time.

Who do you propose the Svears were, if not Germanic? And you're saying they brought I1 to Scandinavia from where...? And again, you're reading too much into the lack of ancient DNA.

I will not critique Ken and then do the same I point out in he actions. I must preface by saying I cannot promise any certainty only logic.I think that I1 is a early Ugric/Balto-Slavic population left behind in central scandinavia as the Ugric population recedes to the east. The I1 is about as germanic originally as are the Ugric Saami who they neighbor.They are absent on the continent, your champion Ken has had more than a decade to show one in-situ sample from the tribal continent. Every other hg is there. only I1 is absent as many warned when ken ran off on the message boards with his ''facts'' that he has magically concluded and can offer such iron assurances.One decade, every other Hg found.

Then why is North German I1 of the same subclade as English I1 for the most part? And Scandinavian-type I1 is much rarer there?

Well, the same Svearish Ugric/balto-slavics who burst out of scandinavia to colonize and loot the continent, also go to the British Isles, and create well documented settlements there. Are you asking this for real?

Nobody's worried, because we haven't had any samples other than Birger Jarl where I1 was seriously expected. OK, seriously. Listen up. We only have diversity analysis now. We haven't expected more ancient I1 than we have. And diversity analysis still indicates strong ties between Haplogroup I1 and Germanic peoples.

You should be. If you were looking to do more than defend claims that are based only on modern population demographic.If you are honestly trying to reach fact, and ascertain truth, you would be worried. If you are not worried, its because you are only interested in something that can bend to support your pet theory and desire, and will happily discount that which interferes with your pet theory or historical wish.We are not talking about a minor thing. We are talking about every single Hg that is present in modern european populations, have all been found at least once in a ancient sample dating to or before tribal times with only one exception.That one exception is I1- I1 is most likely a vestgial Ugric/Balto-Slavic population that was based out of central Scandinavia and like its I2 cousins on the continent, it "adopted into" the culture that conquered its lands. Where ever I1 is found, its fellow traveller R1a-M17 along with asian Q and Ugric-Baltic 'N' are present.To refute this, or disprove me, all you need to do is show ONE lone single I1 sample from any ancient sample on the Euro continent, and you cannot and will not be able to do this, because it was not THERE at that time.If I were someone trying to keep hopes alive for what I knew was a collapsed theory that rewrites almost everything that ken has been promoting, I would do the same thing you are and demand to 'WAIT' endlessly to forever stall the admission that I1 is a vestigial Ugric/Balto-Slavic population that sat silently in central scandinavia until around the Dark Ages when the confluence of factors favored its expansion south into europe.

[sparkey]

Irrelevant, but when you rely on "everyone" as your citation its a good indicator of your intent to make the case that you want and you dont need any science or reproducable fact for that, you would be as well off in a fantasy role playing environment.

There is less STR variation in I1 than in most other haplogroup clades, such as I2. That's a fact. TMRCA calculations are performed based on STR variation, informed by subclade modals. Hence, everyone (Nordtvedt, Robb, Klyosov...) who has looked at current samples of it concludes that it's young in terms of TMRCA.

Nordvedt has no scientific credibility. He long ago start with being 'answer-man' and got to enjoy it too much, and cannot stop.Nordvedt is selling his own stories, and gaining happy adherents with promises that cannot be reproduced except with magic figures that he has deduced which later fail. these also resulted in people with similar STR being placed in 'clades' he 'discover' who later are not even within same SNP when later identified. He is a hobbyist who lurks on message boards, not a scientist cautiously revealing only fact. He deals in whimsy that is regularly overturned.

That's an interesting assault on Nordtvedt's character. But attacking him doesn't really invalidate any points that I make. Not to mention that his STR clusters have generally been accurate, and when they haven't been (such as being unable to separate all the "I1-AS" members), it's been due to convergence in young clades like I1, which is unavoidable. That doesn't change the quality of his TMRCA calculations or diversity analysis.

When Ken started, few ancient Y-samples existed and identifying his claims as unsupported was only based on his failure to use caution in his claims but could not be a full refutation since we had no data from ancient remains.TODAY, we have every modern Hg turned up in one or more ancient samples, EXCEPT alone - Hg I1. Now the burden is on Ken to explain this and why. It is not turning up in even one random sample while EVERYTHING else is, because I1 was not part of the continental Hg of these early germanic tribal populations or anyone else on the continent at that time.

You're wrong. Some clades with no ancient European samples: J2, I2a1*, I2a1b, I2a2a, I2b, I2c, T, Q, L, J1 (unless that "F*" was really J1)...

There simply haven't been that many ancient DNA tests yet. Which one do you think should have resulted in I1 if Nordtvedt is right? The Urnfield samples? I wouldn't expect it there. The Corded Ware samples? I wouldn't expect it there. The Treilles samples? I wouldn't expect it there. Avellaner? Ötzi? What? Until you answer that, I'm done arguing with you about the implications of ancient samples.

Well, the same Svearish Ugric/balto-slavics who burst out of scandinavia to colonize and loot the continent, also go to the British Isles, and create well documented settlements there. Are you asking this for real?

I'm asking it as a challenge, and you're not answering it satisfactorally. The point is that I1-Z58 is common between North Germans and the English, but much less common in Scandinavia. Meanwhile, I1-L22 is very common in Scandinavia and in some other places we might expect it, like Mann, but it's relatively uncommon in North Germans and the English as a whole. That pattern is consistent with an I1-Z58-heavy population shared between the North Germans and the English, but not the Scandinavians.

You should be. If you were looking to do more than defend claims that are based only on modern population demographic.If you are honestly trying to reach fact, and ascertain truth, you would be worried. If you are not worried, its because you are only interested in something that can bend to support your pet theory and desire, and will happily discount that which interferes with your pet theory or historical wish.

What do you suppose my desire is? I'm not even I1.

[Yetos]

The hobbyist analysis that Gosh cross-posted earlier claimed Prague Culture as the likely source, which seems feasible to me. You present an interesting challenge, though: If the proposal is that South Slavic peoples are more closely related to West than to East Slavic peoples, why do South Slavic languages share more in common with East Slavic? The answer is apparently: since the separation of the South Slavic peoples dates back to the early days of what might be called a "Slavic" culture, probably before the differentiation of the Slavic language, that means that West and South Slavic languages didn't develop their unique characteristics until after they separated. Since they were initially smaller populations than East Slavic, their languages probably evolved more quickly as a result.

Obviously, the above is a lot of speculation on my part, trying to make sense of the pieces of this puzzle that I understand the least, so as always, I'm open to any corrections or counter-analysis.

I think the answer is in who accepted Cyrillic and the translation of Bible and who stood in The Latina,
consider Slavic population were divided after the 'cut' (Schisma) of the church,
Poles Ucraines follow the West Church, while Serbs Bulgars (Severi) followed the East church,

Also an interesting case is that Serbs came from Central Europe and NoRTH OF Bohemia,
Severi came from Ucraine through Romania but from Mountain road, and Bulgars (non Slavic) from the Sea
and I don't remember Croats primary area, I think it was east of hungary

[razor]

As in, when did the first individual to have the defining SNP of I2a-Din live? That would be between when I2a-Din and I2a-Disles diverged, and the TMRCA of I2a-Din. So, it's a range, not a specific date estimate, that we're looking at for that.

Is this what is called the "interclade node"?

[sparkey]

Is this what is called the "interclade node"?

The interclade node of multiple haplogroups is when they began to diverge from one another. That's earlier than when they developed their defining SNPs.

[razor]

The interclade node of multiple haplogroups is when they began to diverge from one another. That's earlier than when they developed their defining SNPs.

So at the the moment, the only thing we can say about the origin of I2-Din is that it began sometime after ca. 4000 BCE and sometime before ca. 300 BCE, in connection with the L147.2 definer (as of now) /and we don't know when that was/. We also can't say for sure where it had its inception (indeed we can't even say that with respect to the group's MRCA)...

[mihaitzateo]

I just remember of how you were saying in old romanian language at a script that describe history - letopisetz.

In south slavic is called ljetopis.

Is just nonsense,highest percentage of I2A din is in hutsuls,they are living in Romanian and Ukraine Carpathians,they have same popular costumes as romanians and serbs (and think croats) and so on.
Is the propaganda that want to say romanians,serbs,croats and montenegrins are not here from thousands of years,but they came from somewhere.
Almost all geniticians accept that I is from proto-europeans,however,some people from here are negating obvious truth,and want to tell that I2A din was not from here,as Nortvedt also clearly states,but that some migratory people came here.
Look how most people voted here,Paleolithic continuity,stop with the nonsense,the people from here were called either thracians,either dacians,either south slavs.
You can not explain the resemblance of popular costumes from serbs,romanians with popular costumes in which dacians are painted on Trajan column,if you do not accept that dacians are same with south slavs and from here is I2A-din.

Go google and look at the popular costumes of hutsuls,at the popular costumes of romanians,at the popular costumes of serbians and of croats.

[zanipolo]

well, only source that talks about arrival of Serbs to Balkan is De administrando imperio, and it states that they have arrived from Boiki (Bavaria/Bohemia) where they have also originally dwellt.. this fits well with I2a -Din south spread among south slavs and to some extent in Germany, but not in east Europe...Bohemia/Bavaria also has place names Srby several times and in part of Bavaria neighbouring Bohemia is town that was known as Serviodurum... Bohemia and Serbia are also 2 of 3 centers of diversity for I2a-Din.. hence Prague culture reconstruction pointed out earlier in this thread makes lot of sense...

btw. it is more or less very clear that I2a-Din has spread went along Danube and further along Black sea and into Asia.....this is in fact perfect match with 3 centers of I2a Din diversity: Bohemia (starting point for voyage down the Danube), Serbia (mid point) and Ukraine (end point) ...

authors that you speak about do not speak about settlement of Serbs, they just call them Triballians...
in same way some authors were using name Scythians for Huns and made similar generalizations by using a barbarian tribe from more distant history to name the one from their reality... its not something that can be 100% trusted... it was often derogatory...like when we say some person is Vandal...

thing is I2a-Din is very typical trace for south Slavs....and I2a is clearly related to tribal names such as Sardinians, Serbs, and in Asia people like Kurds, Sarbans and white Sart... therefore I assume it was in distant past kind of name for a race not for tribes... Serians/Serres

even in Greece there is Serres area and is reach in I2a-Din and is also where ancient Greek history document speaks of Serres/Serians living...

relation between the name and haplogroup is for me more clear as reconstruction of its spread around Danube gives us another related tribal name Scordisci/Serdi...

and reconstruction of sea peoples conquest with Sherdana having same tribal name (and living behind only single place name - of a lake in Egypt called Serbonian bog) again correlates with spread of I2a...sea people conquest, by analysis of order of conquest, clearly must have had actual stronghold in Kurdish area of today....but isn't Kurd in fact same tribal name as Sherdana? and what about Kurds being different from environment due to R1a and I2a genetics?

Pomponius Mela speaks of Asia settled starting from east by Indians, Serres and Scythians... today people who partially originate from those Serres are white Sarts, pashtun Sarbans and Kurds..

Seneca speaks of Serians along Danube, rulling over Scythians, in Serica (north of Tibet) and red sea...
this is again mapped easily to I2a-din...rulling over Scythians = east Europe and north of Black sea... its clear I2a-Din has spread along the Danube, regarding Serica today hotspot of haplogroup I is in that area and in people who were known as Sart and white Sart..only question is red sea... but not all people live genetic impact... we know that red sea was where Sherdana had clashes with Egypt...



essentially, what I claim is that Serb/Serd/Serian was a name of a race of I2a people, like Arabs are race related to J1 and Chinese related people with O... in fact, knowing that Swedes are associated with spread of I1 and Suebi (Swabians) with I2b and I1 we can speak of it being ancient race name for haplogroup I or its part...

Serbs of today are just one small leaf of that tree... and their direct ancestors were not the Sherdana of sea people who gave Kurds, but according to only historic source writing about them some people who have in 7th century come down Danube from Bohemia where they have also originally dwellt (not necessarily continuously)...
it is question whether those were Scordisci who lived along Danube originally from Slovakia to Greece and Bulgaria or Scirri who were recorded in Baltic areas where we can find I2a-Din south and also recorded in Bavaria, and also placed by some authors into Alans, same as Caucasian Serboi were put among Sarmatians /Alans . Or were perhaps Scordisci and Scirri/Scirrians in fact same people or two related branches in tree of I2a-Din?

Triballians also lived along this Danube route, so they probably also had significant I2a-Din...so they were probably also of Serb/Serd/Sard/Serian race, but probably not ancestors of the Serbs who came to Balkans in 7th century...





it is easy to see that I2a-Din was for long time spread along Danube... I2a-Din was probably not originally present in Greece (except for Seres and Macedonia area and Cypress to which it came from sea peoples) and Albania...but was present and in fact very likely dominant along Danube.... for long long time....

I believe that Balkan was originally settled by R1a...those would be Pelasgians or flatland/field/sea people...same tribal name is Poles (Poljaci with Slavic Polje = field)... again poles/pelast/pelasgians is originally about race name not nation or tribe name.. this is a race name for R1a1a7-M458 branch that is dominant in west Slavs... this branch has highest diversity in Serbia where a common ancestor is estimated to have lived 14KYA

another race name for R1a is Rasena/Russians/Thracians/Rašani......in Europe this is related to R1a1a*(xM458) dominant in east Slavs... for samples in Serbia this branch has most distant common ancestor 11 KYA

this all indicates long history of the spread of R1a in Balkan and east Europe prior to arrival of E-V13 and J2 people....

reference about estimated age of R1a in Serbia:
High levels of Paleolithic Y-chromosome lineages characterize Serbia
Maria Regueiro, Luis Rivera, Tatjana Damnjanovic, Ljiljana Lukovic, Jelena Milasin, Rene J. Herrera


when E-V13 and J2 proto-Greek tribes and later Illyrians came to Balkan they have partly assimilated partly pushed out Pelasgians to Pannonia where they are known as Pannonians...with spread of Roman empire they went to Poland.... similarly center of R1a Thracians pushed by Roman empire moves towards Russia




i think Bulgars could have been originally same as Serbs and Croats and Macedonians - I2a din people... but part of those who lived in Caucasus....and perhaps became mixed with some turkic people... e.g. Huns...

De administrando imperio does not talk about the arrival of the serbs but of the severians. According to russian and slavic historians, the Poles came from east of modern Kiev and the Severians from east of the Poles.

I do not know why you disregard your thracian roots, be it triballi or seres , both are thracian tribes. There is nothing wrong with being part of extinct name be it thracian, trojan, Illyrian, gothic, gallic, raeti and dozens or others. You fail to understand that serbs are not originally slavic and there history is in the balkans, same as bosnians, thay say they came from the gothic Bosni tribe , which does not exist, but they came from another thracian tribe called bessi ( besi) .
Being overun and ruled by the gaulish scordisci does not make you gaulish/celtic, because the romans overun your area as well, I do not see you saying you are roman.

The I2a-Din was central european, be it illyrian like I said or Celtic from Boii or others. Its odd the illyrians and celtics never clashed but lived side by side and merged in different areas, be it noricum, pannonia and others

In the comments of vandals/vandelli/vendelli, well they where not a tribe but a confederation of different tribes, I already produced map, these tribes where the goths, gepids, lugii, rugii, burgundians, longobards, and others

[zanipolo]

The hobbyist analysis that Gosh cross-posted earlier claimed Prague Culture as the likely source, which seems feasible to me. You present an interesting challenge, though: If the proposal is that South Slavic peoples are more closely related to West than to East Slavic peoples, why do South Slavic languages share more in common with East Slavic? The answer is apparently: since the separation of the South Slavic peoples dates back to the early days of what might be called a "Slavic" culture, probably before the differentiation of the Slavic language, that means that West and South Slavic languages didn't develop their unique characteristics until after they separated. Since they were initially smaller populations than East Slavic, their languages probably evolved more quickly as a result.

Obviously, the above is a lot of speculation on my part, trying to make sense of the pieces of this puzzle that I understand the least, so as always, I'm open to any corrections or counter-analysis.

Is this I2a-Din have any relation with I2a L69?

prague culture depending what years you speak of would be celtic boii as per what taranis says about the boii.

[Yetos]

I just remember of how you were saying in old romanian language at a script that describe history - letopisetz.

In south slavic is called ljetopis.

Is just nonsense,highest percentage of I2A din is in hutsuls,they are living in Romanian and Ukraine Carpathians,they have same popular costumes as romanians and serbs (and think croats) and so on.
Is the propaganda that want to say romanians,serbs,croats and montenegrins are not here from thousands of years,but they came from somewhere.
Almost all geniticians accept that I is from proto-europeans,however,some people from here are negating obvious truth,and want to tell that I2A din was not from here,as Nortvedt also clearly states,but that some migratory people came here.
Look how most people voted here,Paleolithic continuity,stop with the nonsense,the people from here were called either thracians,either dacians,either south slavs.
You can not explain the resemblance of popular costumes from serbs,romanians with popular costumes in which dacians are painted on Trajan column,if you do not accept that dacians are same with south slavs and from here is I2A-din.

Go google and look at the popular costumes of hutsuls,at the popular costumes of romanians,at the popular costumes of serbians and of croats.

nop you point in a wrong way of understanding,

this has nothing to do with propaganda of a state etc,
but with understanding better migration and Human History,
and stop the charlatans of every country that are paid to make propaganda,
the difference among South Slavs and Thracians is big enough, even in Linguistic and in culture,
simply south Slavic accepted Thracian culture by time, that as also the heritage culture they carry create and their new alliances and religion create modern states in Balkans,

a good example is Cumans, they entered Balkans, they create villages and cities, in Serbia FyroM Romania Albania, but no body talks about them,
if you look modern Cumans they sing and dance just like Serbs Albanians Romanians Greeks, but were they Thracians or Greeks etc?

De administrando imperio does not talk about the arrival of the serbs but of the severians. According to russian and slavic historians, the Poles came from east of modern Kiev and the Severians from east of the Poles.

I do not know why you disregard your thracian roots, be it triballi or seres , both are thracian tribes. There is nothing wrong with being part of extinct name be it thracian, trojan, Illyrian, gothic, gallic, raeti and dozens or others. You fail to understand that serbs are not originally slavic and there history is in the balkans, same as bosnians, thay say they came from the gothic Bosni tribe , which does not exist, but they came from another thracian tribe called bessi ( besi) .
Being overun and ruled by the gaulish scordisci does not make you gaulish/celtic, because the romans overun your area as well, I do not see you saying you are roman.

The I2a-Din was central european, be it illyrian like I said or Celtic from Boii or others. Its odd the illyrians and celtics never clashed but lived side by side and merged in different areas, be it noricum, pannonia and others

In the comments of vandals/vandelli/vendelli, well they where not a tribe but a confederation of different tribes, I already produced map, these tribes where the goths, gepids, lugii, rugii, burgundians, longobards, and others

nope, the road of Severi is beside the road of Bulgars, they came both from Ucraine Moldavia
Severi came first to Romania (Karpatheia) and from there enter Central Bulgaria, Bulgars enter from minor Scythia, to East Bulgaria,
that is why although Bulgars were Huns relative speaking, Bulgaria is a Slavic speaking,
these 2 and the older Thracians and the Serdi create the modern Bulgaria

Serbs and Croats,
Serbs and Croats is another cooperation, that is why the language in 1800 was Serbo-Croatian, and not Severian or Bulgarian.
Serbs and Croat are mentioned to act together from the times of 'white Serbia' and white Croatia and white Russia (Bella Serbia Bella croatia Bella Russia, in Germanic Weiss (west) Serbia weiss croatia Weiss Russ) from there moved west
to Bohemia the Serbs to East Hungary the Croats,
and from there enter Balkans but from the same passage. today's Beograd,
First the Serbs who moved to Nis, to Skopje and then back to Dunav,
then Croats who passed Beograd move to Croatia inland and then to Dalmatia,
so modern Serbs are the Serbs the Thracians and the remnants of Celts east of dinaric Alps
Modern Croats are the Croats the Dalmatians and the population that exist before,
the big difference among inland Croats (not Dalmatians) and Serbs and Bosnians is religion,

The Severi became synonym of what Byzantines call Bulgarians, Severi split and gave the Gorani, Pomaks (the tamrash) etc
Serbs are a clear river culture, the aquatic system of Central Balkans, the one Triballi wanted to control.
Severi are an open country and mountain culture mostly roaming with their animals

[how yes no 3]

I just remember of how you were saying in old romanian language at a script that describe history - letopisetz.

In south slavic is called ljetopis.

letopis in Serbia, ljetopis is more what people in Montenegro or Croatia or Bosnia would say...

its a coin word
leto = summer/year (year is more arhaic meaning)
pisati = to write
it literrary means "writing (down) years" = chronicle

it is Slavic word.... perhaps it was used in medival romanian

but that is just confirmation of what is known - that medieval Romanian was much closer to Slavic than modern one, and that was result of big Slavic admixture.....

Is just nonsense,highest percentage of I2A din is in hutsuls,they are living in Romanian and Ukraine Carpathians,they have same popular costumes as romanians and serbs (and think croats) and so on.
Is the propaganda that want to say romanians,serbs,croats and montenegrins are not here from thousands of years,but they came from somewhere.

area of Carpathians on border of Ukraine and Romania was core of white Croatia.... it is possible that Dacian Carpi Germanic Heruli and Slavic Hrvati (Croats) are same people....but it is just my speculation...

Almost all geniticians accept that I is from proto-europeans,however,some people from here are negating obvious truth,and want to tell that I2A din was not from here,as Nortvedt also clearly states,but that some migratory people came here.

I2a is present in Danube basin and Morava valley system for long time.... but in my opinion not continuously on all parts of it.... spread of roman empire pushed parts of it up the Danube and down the Danube...

Look how most people voted here,

Paleolithic continuity,stop with the nonsense,the people from here were called either thracians,either dacians,either south slavs.
You can not explain the resemblance of popular costumes from serbs,romanians with popular costumes in which dacians are painted on Trajan column,if you do not accept that dacians are same with south slavs and from here is I2A-din.

i have no indications that Dacians are same as south Slavs...in fact there is no I2a-Din South in Romania....hence those were perhaps related perhaps also dominant I2a-Din people but not the same people...
the tribal name Dacians I tend to link more to R1b...but am not sure yet...

De administrando imperio does not talk about the arrival of the serbs but of the severians. According to russian and slavic historians, the Poles came from east of modern Kiev and the Severians from east of the Poles.

sure it does.... there is a chapter on serbs and a chapter on Croats, and chapter of some other south Slavic tribes like Narentanes (area of south Croatia and Croatian Herzegovina) that are classified as Serbs....
http://books.google.nl/books?id=3al1...page&q&f=false

http://books.google.nl/books?id=3al1...&lpg=PP1&dq=de administrando imperio&pg=PA153#v=onepage&q&f=false

I do not know why you disregard your thracian roots, be it triballi or seres , both are thracian tribes. There is nothing wrong with being part of extinct name be it thracian, trojan, Illyrian, gothic, gallic, raeti and dozens or others. You fail to understand that serbs are not originally slavic and there history is in the balkans, same as bosnians, thay say they came from the gothic Bosni tribe , which does not exist, but they came from another thracian tribe called bessi ( besi) .

I do not negate that some tribes of I2a-din race that spread serb alike tribal names were considered Thracian possible tribes of that race among Thracians are e.g. Triballi and Serdi... I say that only historic source says that modern Serbs origin from people who come from Bohemia and that this is matching other evidence - like divergency of I2a-din, place names, river names, presence of I2a-din south in germany but not in east europe.... my theory is just that those people in fact didnot come but came back to place from which roman empire has pushed them out....

Being overun and ruled by the gaulish scordisci does not make you gaulish/celtic, because the romans overun your area as well, I do not see you saying you are roman.

scordisci/serdi is derived from same tribal name as Serbi... hence tribal name may origin from those people...
they did spread along Danube that matches spread of i2a-din and matches precisely the location
where russian primary chronicle places Danubian slavs prior to expansion of Roman empire...

The I2a-Din was central european, be it illyrian like I said or Celtic from Boii or others. Its odd the illyrians and celtics never clashed but lived side by side and merged in different areas, be it noricum, pannonia and others

I2a-din spread along Danube and is correlating everywhere in Europe and Asia with names alike to Serbs... Scordisci are one of the tribal names that fit in this I2a-Din Serian/Serres/ Scirii(Sciriians)/ white-Syrian/Scordisci/Kurds/Sherdana(with place named after them being Serbonian bog)/ white Sart, Sart, Serres, Serboi.... correlation is very clear...

but you try to tell me that original Serbs were E-V13, that they got tribal name and I2a-din from Scordisci... than why would that E-V13 be original when they are not dominant in genetics nor carrier of identity (= tribal name)

[Diurpaneus]

Romanians,South Slavs,Albanians and Carpathian Slavs they all wear Dacian shoes.
Romanian opinca
Albanian opinge


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opanak

http://www.eliznik.org.uk/RomaniaPor...oot_opinci.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorals

http://www.photographium.com/sites/d...ania._1923.jpg


Could be related to Puchov or Lipnitsa culture


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Púchov_culture


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipiţa_culture

[Gosh]

Romanians,South Slavs,Albanians and Carpathian Slavs they all wear Dacian shoes.
Romanian opinca
Albanian opinge

)))) Are they really Dacian?

In sanskrit, word wopanah means- a shoe. Even in Thai language we can meet this word. Moreover, Celts also worn them.

Constantine Porphirogenetus claimed that Serbs got that name from their shoes "which worn slaves" (obviously from similar sounding of words Serb and serv (a slave)).

[mihaitzateo]

pisati = to write

Old romanian word, pisanie ,means an inscription:
http://www.webdex.ro/online/dictionar/pisanie
http://translate.google.com/#ro|en|pisanie
Lawl.
Also županŭ from serbian/croat and old romanian word jupan meaning some kind of boyar.
http://dexonline.ro/definitie/jupan
The things are becoming more and more obvious.
Romania never ever fought against Serbia,in our history is never mentioned about that.
Guess why.
We have a word in Romania,that our best neighbours are Black Sea and Serbia.

[mihaitzateo]

Romanians,South Slavs,Albanians and Carpathian Slavs they all wear Dacian shoes.
Romanian opinca
Albanian opinge


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opanak

http://www.eliznik.org.uk/RomaniaPor...oot_opinci.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorals

http://www.photographium.com/sites/d...ania._1923.jpg


Could be related to Puchov or Lipnitsa culture


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Púchov_culture


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipiţa_culture

Great finding!

[zanipolo]

nop you point in a wrong way of understanding,

this has nothing to do with propaganda of a state etc,
but with understanding better migration and Human History,
and stop the charlatans of every country that are paid to make propaganda,
the difference among South Slavs and Thracians is big enough, even in Linguistic and in culture,
simply south Slavic accepted Thracian culture by time, that as also the heritage culture they carry create and their new alliances and religion create modern states in Balkans,

a good example is Cumans, they entered Balkans, they create villages and cities, in Serbia FyroM Romania Albania, but no body talks about them,
if you look modern Cumans they sing and dance just like Serbs Albanians Romanians Greeks, but were they Thracians or Greeks etc?




nope, the road of Severi is beside the road of Bulgars, they came both from Ucraine Moldavia
Severi came first to Romania (Karpatheia) and from there enter Central Bulgaria, Bulgars enter from minor Scythia, to East Bulgaria,
that is why although Bulgars were Huns relative speaking, Bulgaria is a Slavic speaking,
these 2 and the older Thracians and the Serdi create the modern Bulgaria

Serbs and Croats,
Serbs and Croats is another cooperation, that is why the language in 1800 was Serbo-Croatian, and not Severian or Bulgarian.
Serbs and Croat are mentioned to act together from the times of 'white Serbia' and white Croatia and white Russia (Bella Serbia Bella croatia Bella Russia, in Germanic Weiss (west) Serbia weiss croatia Weiss Russ) from there moved west
to Bohemia the Serbs to East Hungary the Croats,
and from there enter Balkans but from the same passage. today's Beograd,
First the Serbs who moved to Nis, to Skopje and then back to Dunav,
then Croats who passed Beograd move to Croatia inland and then to Dalmatia,
so modern Serbs are the Serbs the Thracians and the remnants of Celts east of dinaric Alps
Modern Croats are the Croats the Dalmatians and the population that exist before,
the big difference among inland Croats (not Dalmatians) and Serbs and Bosnians is religion,

The Severi became synonym of what Byzantines call Bulgarians, Severi split and gave the Gorani, Pomaks (the tamrash) etc
Serbs are a clear river culture, the aquatic system of Central Balkans, the one Triballi wanted to control.
Severi are an open country and mountain culture mostly roaming with their animals

either way serdi or triballi , they are both thracian and that means not slavic and that means they did not bring any HG into the balkans except what they where born with.
or are you saying the thracians had I2a-Din

[zanipolo]

sure it does.... there is a chapter on serbs and a chapter on Croats, and chapter of some other south Slavic tribes like Narentanes (area of south Croatia and Croatian Herzegovina) that are classified as Serbs....
http://books.google.nl/books?id=3al15wpFWiMC&lpg=PP1&dq=de administrando imperio&pg=PP11#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.nl/books?id=3al1...&lpg=PP1&dq=de administrando imperio&pg=PA153#v=onepage&q&f=false


I do not negate that some tribes of I2a-din race that spread serb alike tribal names were considered Thracian possible tribes of that race among Thracians are e.g. Triballi and Serdi... I say that only historic source says that modern Serbs origin from people who come from Bohemia and that this is matching other evidence - like divergency of I2a-din, place names, river names, presence of I2a-din south in germany but not in east europe.... my theory is just that those people in fact didnot come but came back to place from which roman empire has pushed them out....




scordisci/serdi is derived from same tribal name as Serbi... hence tribal name may origin from those people...
they did spread along Danube that matches spread of i2a-din and matches precisely the location
where russian primary chronicle places Danubian slavs prior to expansion of Roman empire...


I2a-din spread along Danube and is correlating everywhere in Europe and Asia with names alike to Serbs... Scordisci are one of the tribal names that fit in this I2a-Din Serian/Serres/ Scirii(Sciriians)/ white-Syrian/Scordisci/Kurds/Sherdana(with place named after them being Serbonian bog)/ white Sart, Sart, Serres, Serboi.... correlation is very clear...

but you try to tell me that original Serbs were E-V13, that they got tribal name and I2a-din from Scordisci... than why would that E-V13 be original when they are not dominant in genetics nor carrier of identity (= tribal name)

what page on this link?

you stated in February 2011 that serbs where originally Triballi of thracian stock , now you change your mind?

Yes I am saying the original serbs where thracian and where E HG and inherited maybe I from tthe celts or Illyrians , as both conquered the triballi

[Diurpaneus]

@ Gosh

About opinca.Sanskrit,Dacian/Thracian,Slavic is Satem,while Celtic is Centum.
Albanian also has this word.

[mihaitzateo]

The term used in macedonian ,opinci is identic with the romanian word.
Macedonian is also a south slavic language.
Look at this popular dance from Serbia,from mountains:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ssIt3IMcx8
Look at the men costume,that is almost identical with some romanian popular costumes.
Hats are exactly as dacians are depicted to have on Trajan's column and trousers.
There are also romanian popular costumes who have such hats,identical.
Look at this serbian traditional wolf ritual:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Rp6R...eature=related
(can someone translate what the old women is telling?)
Now it is know that dacians were linked to wolves.
And look what is written there:
"Societies in the Serbia respected the wolf. Old Slavs featured their major god Dazbog as a Lame Wolf. Wolves had a strong symbolical meaning amongst the Slavs which was preserved throughout history and then carried on into the Christian era.

The wolf has always played an important role in Serbian folklore, customs and tradition.

It used to be believed that wolves scare away evil spirits and ghosts and protect children from illness and because of this parents gave their children names which derived from the word «wolf»."
Look here also:
http://www.slavorum.com/index.php?topic=1434.15
"One of the most prominent Koledo procession are the wolf-men (vučari).
- It is a procession of young men covered with wolf's skin. They carry a dead wolf with them, filled with straw, through whose body a rod was pulled. The wolf, according to the old religion, represented a man's alter ego, the incarnation of a soul of an ancestor, so the procession was actually composed of deceased ancestors. It was believed that the soul of every Serb could appear in wolf form ."

- Vesna Marjanovic, ethnologist and author of "Masks, masking and rituals in Serbia""
Look at the video with another wolf ritual:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7XpQ...layer_embedded

And is a tradition in Serbia to put names that contain wolf in them because that is good for the one bearing that name.

Now in romanian you tell at werewolf vârcolac.
And in bulgarian that is върколак which written with latin characters is varcolac.
And in serbian this is called vukodlak.
In czech is vlkodlak,in polish wilkolak,in russian also have the form vurdalak,in ukrainian also have the form vovkulak,in latvian vilkatis,in lithuanian vilkolakis.
This means a man who is transforming into a wolf,in english translation werewolf.
It seems that similar rituals were present at dacians from Romania and Bulgaria also,but were lost.
I think thracians are exactly the slavs,and dacians are the slavs which have mostly I2A.
You will see that in Poland,Czechia,Ukraine,Russia I2A is pretty present.And in Poland were villages of vlachs,is atested documentary.

[Gosh]

@ Gosh

About opinca.Sanskrit,Dacian/Thracian,Slavic is Satem,while Celtic is Centum.
Albanian also has this word.

That's right
but.... I don't know how you could find that this word is exactly of Dacian origin?

Now we know that Sanskrit is formed on the basis of PIE language. That means.... that word already existed in Europe at least 4000 years ago. PIE culture is formed in Balkans.

[Yetos]

I thing we going away from the subject,

Thracian at least from the know vocabulary that is written in Hellenistic has nothing to do with Slavic neither with scythian
but mostly with Greek Anatolian Germanic baltic, it was neither satem for me.

[sparkey]

Is this I2a-Din have any relation with I2a L69?

Sorry, I almost missed this question...

Yes, I2a-Din is L69+. I2a-L69 is also known as I2a1b1, and includes I2a1b1a (AKA I2a-Din) and I2a1b1* (AKA I2a-Disles).

[razor]

With the small point: Nordtvedt's site has Disles as I2a1b1 rather than I2a1b1*