How did I2a-Din get to the Balkans?

[mrikë]

I'm personally somewhat wary of any attempts of racial classification (since the concept of 'race' is in itself rather flawed), but I would like to add something on the origin of the Albanian language: the first and foremost is that Albanian is obviously an Indo-European language and that today, it represents it's own branch amongst the language family. The general consensus is also that Albanian is descended from one of the so-called Paleo-Balkan languages (eg. Illyrian, Dacian, Thracian, etc.), but which of these was the ancestor of Albanian is contested. The problem is that all of these languages are rather scarcely attested, whereas Albanian literature itself is only attested from the 14th century onward. This means it's very difficult to connect Albanian with a specific Paleo Balkan language with absolute certainty.

Linguistically speaking I agree that it is rather difficult to prove an implicit connection between particularly Illyrian language and Albanian language, but if you are interested to read further on this topic I would suggest the works of Eqrem Çabej, who has worked out some very thorough and interesting arguments.

[Goga]

And they would have been I2a-Din dominant?

I2a-Din in the area near Belarus probably predated the R1a in the area, which probably came over with Corded Ware, which probably brought IE. I know that's a lot of "probably"s, but follow me here. If you accept all that, then we can say that there was probably a "lost" ethnicity from that area that was I2a-Din dominant, but it wasn't IE. Its culture would have been absorbed into the expanding proto-Balto-Slavs and, together with their R1a peoples, made the Slavs. That could explain why Baltic is thought to be more similar to proto-Balto-Slavic than Slavic... it's the influence of a lost non-IE group.

Of course, by the time they expanded on the Balkans, they would have "become" Slavs already. Any opinions on my speculation?

Yes, I don't think it's a Slavic subclade. But I think it is possible that it was carried by Slavic people (maybe an other Indo-Eruopean speaking group?) into the Balkans. but I'm still not sure who were the original I2a-din folks.

I think they were native Europeans from somewhere around the northern shores of the Black Sea. So it's a combination of paleolithic continuity and the Slavs.

[sparkey]

Thats a possibility.
But you d mean slavic linguistically and not purely genetically. correct?

Well think about it this way: Proto-Germanic probably didn't form until we got a mix that included something like R1a, R1b-U106, I1, and I2a2. In parallel, proto-Slavic could have formed as a mix of R1a and I2a-Din. We know that the closest linguistic group to the Slavs are the Balts, and they lack I2a-Din, so it's not inconceivable that Slavic wouldn't be "really" Slavic without the I2a-Din influence.

Razor brought up a great point, though... we shouldn't overstate I2a-Din's influence on anything prior to its expansion, since its TMRCA is so recent. Its carriers could have been normal Slavs within an R1a-dominant group who didn't know they were expanding a Paleolithic relic that barely survived. They just happened to do so due to drift.

[sparkey]

Yes, I don't think it's a Slavic subclade. But I think it is possible that it was carried by Slavic people (maybe an other Indo-Eruopean speaking group?) into the Balkans. but I'm still not sure who were the original I2a-din folks.

I think they were native Europeans from somewhere around the northern shores of the Black Sea. So it's a combination of paleolithic continuity and the Slavs.

Well feel free to tick "other" in the poll.

I think that the only reason an answer of "none of the above" would surprise me is that the expansion is so recent, we should expect it to be something covered by, or inferred by, history.

[Goga]

Well feel free to tick "other" in the poll.

I think that the only reason an answer of "none of the above" would surprise me is that the expansion is so recent, we should expect it to be something covered by, or inferred by, history.

I don't dare backstabbing Bodin who spend so much time on the Sarmatians origin of I2a-din. And he made some very good points! If I must choose, I will choose for the Sarmatians.

I just don't understand how I2a-Din also ended up in the Middle East. As far as I know there weren't 'Slavic' migrations into the Middle East. This is one of the biggest reasons why I don't think that I2a-din is 'Slavic'.

[Goga]

I've a question, which people in Europe were at that time so magnificent & powerfull that they could spread I2a-din in so much areas and so fast?

Time and space are almost unreal. You must be almost supernatural to be able to do this. Or a great warrior like Genghis Khan or something...

[Taranis]

Linguistically speaking I agree that it is rather difficult to prove an implicit connection between particularly Illyrian language and Albanian language, but if you are interested to read further on this topic I would suggest the works of Eqrem Çabej, who has worked out some very thorough and interesting arguments.

In my opinion, the most promising arguments come from reconstructed Proto-Albanian (thanks to the abundance of Albanian loans from Greek and Latin), even though the term "Proto-Albanian" is a bit confusing as we are talking about what the Albanian language would have looked in the 1st century BC or so. I must also add that while there is a lot support for the Illyrian hypothesis, I think that the other hypotheses (Dacian and Thracian) should not be readily dismissed.

Regarding I2a-Din, I personally think that the hypothesis that it originates from an unknown culture who's Y-lineages accidentally happened to survive amongst the Proto-Slavs is quite a plausible one. We can think perhaps of this as analoguous to how I1 may have survived in Scandinavia.

I've a question, which people in Europe were at that time so magnificent & powerfull that they could spread I2a-din in so much areas and so fast?

Time and space are almost unreal. You must be almost supernatural to be able to do this. Or a great warrior like Genghis Khan or something...

Actually, the Slavic migrations fit this scenario pretty well.

[zanipolo]

Well think about it this way: Proto-Germanic probably didn't form until we got a mix that included something like R1a, R1b-U106, I1, and I2a2. In parallel, proto-Slavic could have formed as a mix of R1a and I2a-Din. We know that the closest linguistic group to the Slavs are the Balts, and they lack I2a-Din, so it's not inconceivable that Slavic wouldn't be "really" Slavic without the I2a-Din influence.

Razor brought up a great point, though... we shouldn't overstate I2a-Din's influence on anything prior to its expansion, since its TMRCA is so recent. Its carriers could have been normal Slavs within an R1a-dominant group who didn't know they were expanding a Paleolithic relic that barely survived. They just happened to do so due to drift.

As per link below where KenN has said that I1a ( I1) has 2 indigenous areas. one in germany where it migrated to Sweden and the other in Slovenia
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.co...-08/1156297440

It seems reasonable then that this I1a marker is the "illyrian" marker. If you remove the "slavic" migration markers of R1a and I2a-din and you convert the remainder as a percentage of 100% , then I1a will be over 55%.

If you then use maciano y-dna country figures of I1 we have the following
northeast italy = 3.7%
Slovenia = 9.5%
Hungary ( pannonia) = 8%
serbia = 6.5%
Macedonia = 10%
North greece = 5.5%
croatia = 8%
bosnia = 2.5%
albania = 2%

granted the bigger the number of migrants the smaller the I1a % for that area

Since slav historians have said many a time that the heart of the slavic migration in the balkans was on the borders of bosnia, albania and montengro , this will explain the low percentage of I1a in those areas and the very high I2a-din

I wonder why maciano has NO montengro stats in his y-dna country....maybe because it formed only in 2007.

Anyway, if this is heading in the correct direction, your theory on I2a-din in the western balkans would be correct.

[sparkey]

As per link below where KenN has said that I1a ( I1) has 2 indigenous areas. one in germany where it migrated to Sweden and the other in Slovenia
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.co...-08/1156297440

First of all, that link is from 2006, before much research had been done into I1 STR diversity. Secondly, read it more closely:

As pertains to Slovenia, it is much more likely
> that the I1a originates from the native ``I`` already found there which
> later moved north from the slavic regions into Scandinavia (instead of the
> other way around, which is ludicrous). Exactly one of the suggestions of
> this thread, although I would not rule out historic era spread of the
> Germans.

If this is true (I1a originated in or near Slovenia) and that this indigneous I1a was not later swamped by the spread of more northerly Germanics spreading to the south and bringing the I1a from north Germany,
then a detailed study of Slovenian I1a should show its uniqueness and lack of forms only later developed further north. In fact, that was the relevance of pointing out the absence of DYS462 = 13 I1a (found primarily in Scandinavia) in the Slovenian collection. Austria is also called Ostmark (east frontier) in some language, and that is a reminder that Germanic peoples in the post-Roman era pushed their settlement to the east and south.

Basically he's saying that based on what he knew at the time (back in 2006) it seemed more likely that the migration pattern was Slovenia to Scandinavia rather than Scandinavia to Slovenia, but he refused to rule out a Germanic migration into the Balkans.

But a Germanic migration into the Balkans is what seems more likely now. Take a look at Slovenian samples in the I1 Project. None stretch their STR patterns outside of existing, principally Germanic clusters like AS-gen and T2. The best explanation for them now is likely East Germanic origin.

Nordtvedt has since placed the center of diversity of I1 around Schleswig-Holstein.

It seems reasonable then that this I1a marker is the "illyrian" marker. If you remove the "slavic" migration markers of R1a and I2a-din and you convert the remainder as a percentage of 100% , then I1a will be over 55%.

Why can't the "Illyrian" marker(s) be R1b and Neolithic or Bronze Age markers like J2, E1b, G2a? Why does there have to have been Paleolithic remnants? Maybe they all drifted away.

If I had to pick an existing haplogroup to be "the" Paleolithic remnant in the Balkans, I would guess I2b-ADR, which hasn't been found there yet AFAIK, but has been found in Italy, and could be a chunk of that "I2*" without I2b-ADR or I2c SNPs tested that's been found in the Balkans.

[Asturrulumbo]

Well Sparkey, you may have been right about me confusing I2a as a whole with I2a-Din. If the MRCA for I2a-Din is 3000 years, then it is quite
reasonable to think the Slavic migrations were responsible for it, even if I2a-Din was not a proto-Slavic haplogroup. However, I would like to know about a map comparing I2a as a whole and I2a-Din. Is there such thing? The reason for this is that I do find strange that I2a predominates in the mountainous areas, where one would expect the older haplogroups to survive... But maybe those are other kinds of I2a

[Shetop]

However, I would like to know about a map comparing I2a as a whole and I2a-Din. Is there such thing?

There is this wikipedia I2a1b1-Din map.
And there is Balanovsky I2a1b map, where you have to exclude Great Britain because subclade found there is mostly not Dinaric.

[sparkey]

Well Sparkey, you may have been right about me confusing I2a as a whole with I2a-Din. If the MRCA for I2a-Din is 3000 years, then it is quite
reasonable to think the Slavic migrations were responsible for it, even if I2a-Din was not a proto-Slavic haplogroup. However, I would like to know about a map comparing I2a as a whole and I2a-Din. Is there such thing? The reason for this is that I do find strange that I2a predominates in the mountainous areas, where one would expect the older haplogroups to survive... But maybe those are other kinds of I2a

As far as I know, nearly 100% of all I2a in the Balkans is I2a-Din. All other I2a subclades are west of it, except maybe I2a2a2-Cont3, which is geographically all around the Balkans, but mostly north of it. A bit of the I2a we see may be I2a2a2-Cont3, which is older than I2a1b1a-Din, but I doubt much of it is based on the respective FTDNA projects. And I2a2a2 will be tested as "I2b" in most studies, because it's only recently had its hierarchical name changed, and it's P37-.

[Asturrulumbo]

As far as I know, nearly 100% of all I2a in the Balkans is I2a-Din.

Really, almost 100%? That's problematic from any point of view, then (especially with the recent dating for the MRCA). What about Albania and Greece, for example? I simply can't see so much Slavic influence there (especially in places such as the Peloponnese).

[sparkey]

Really, almost 100%? That's problematic from any point of view, then. What about Albania and Greece, for example? I simply can't see so much Slavic influence there (especially in places such as the Peloponnese).

Greek I2a people are mostly I2a-Din-N, which is the cluster of I2a-Din with higher presence in Ukraine, Poland, Belarus, Russia, etc., and is older than I2a-Din-S. See the I2a Project. I'm not sure what that means.

Where have we seen I2a in significant amounts in the Peloponnese? As far as I'm aware, most I2 in the Peloponnese and Crete is I2c-B, not I2a-Din.

[Asturrulumbo]

Where have we seen I2a in significant amounts in the Peloponnese? As far as I'm aware, most I2 in the Peloponnese and Crete is I2c-B, not I2a-Din.

Right now I'm using the Eupedia map Maciamo made

[Shetop]

Really, almost 100%? That's problematic from any point of view, then. What about Albania and Greece, for example? I simply can't see so much Slavic influence there (especially in places such as the Peloponnese).

List of medieval Slavic tribes
Vaiunites

[Asturrulumbo]

You may be right, you may be right... I'm afraid I largely lose my historical compass of the Balkans during the Slavic migrations. I'll be sure to read about them soon

[sparkey]

Right now I'm using the Eupedia map Maciamo made

I'm pretty sure that Maciamo is using Martinez et al 2007 there, and now that I look at it, there is significant I2a, probably mostly I2a-Din-N, in the Peloponnese, although I2*, probably I2c-B is much higher in Crete. King et al 2008 is another good study I've seen of Crete, and that one is pretty explicit that the I2 in Crete is "I2*" (probably I2c-B because that's all we've found there so far and they didn't test the SNPs that define I2c).

It looks like there was a pretty direct Slavic influence in Greece based on this, more than I expected, unless some of the I2a-Din-N predated the Slavic expansion. The N cluster is nearly 2500 years old, after all.

[Maciamo]

Really, almost 100%? That's problematic from any point of view, then (especially with the recent dating for the MRCA). What about Albania and Greece, for example? I simply can't see so much Slavic influence there (especially in places such as the Peloponnese).

I agree that this is problematic. The I2a2 in the Balkans cannot be Slavic or Sarmatian if it is so different from the I2a found in other parts of Eastern Europe.

When I say I favour the hypothesis of the Paleolithic continuity, I don't mean that I2a2-Din already existed in the Paleolithic, but that I2* was all over Europe in the Paleolithic, then only became I2a around the Mesolithic, I2a2 perhaps in the late Mesolithic or early Neolithic, and eventually I2a2-Din in the Chalcolithic or Bronze Age. It doesn't mean that the ancestors of the modern I2a-Din were already in the Balkans in the Paleolithic. However I look at it, I can't see how I2a-Din could have been in the Balkans before the Neolithic. A hypothesis that I like is that the I2a2 people from the Danube region were pushed away by Neolithic farmers (G2a) and moved to the Balkans and the Carpathians, where they evolved into different subclades.

Another possibility is that I2a2 came from Eastern Anatolia along with G2a during the Neolithic, and each variety of I2a2 developed once Neolithic farmers had settled permanently in one place.

[razor]

Well I suppose we need better I2a testing in Greece (:=)). It wouldn't surprise me one bit to discover a lot of Greek-speaking I2a-Din there. After all the Slavs literally swamped Greece in the late 6th and (especially) early 7th century. In the context of the Byzantine reconquista, a tremendous number of them were captured and sold into slavery outside of Greece (hence the birth of the relevant "esclave"->"slave" term). But numbers will tell, and genes would have been left behind.

[Shetop]

For me, ftdna results were enough to conclude that vast majority of I2a in Balkans is the same variety as the one found in other parts of eastern Europe: Y-Haplogroup I2a Project

[sparkey]

I agree that this is problematic. The I2a2 in the Balkans cannot be Slavic or Sarmatian if it is so different from the I2a found in other parts of Eastern Europe.

But it isn't "so different"... the large majority of I2a in Eastern Europe as a whole is I2a-Din.

When I say I favour the hypothesis of the Paleolithic continuity, I don't mean that I2a2-Din already existed in the Paleolithic, but that I2* was all over Europe in the Paleolithic, then only became I2a around the Mesolithic, I2a2 perhaps in the late Mesolithic or early Neolithic, and eventually I2a2-Din in the Chalcolithic or Bronze Age. It doesn't mean that the ancestors of the modern I2a-Din were already in the Balkans in the Paleolithic. However I look at it, I can't see how I2a-Din could have been in the Balkans before the Neolithic. A hypothesis that I like is that the I2a2 people from the Danube region were pushed away by Neolithic farmers (G2a) and moved to the Balkans and the Carpathians, where they evolved into different subclades.

Then why do we see only one very young I2a clade in the Balkans, with the older STR cluster of that clade outside of the Balkans? Like I said, you'd need a weird double-bottleneck for this pattern to occur, not to mention an inexplicably recent migration out of the Balkans.

Another possibility is that I2a2 came from Eastern Anatolia along with G2a during the Neolithic, and each variety of I2a2 developed once Neolithic farmers had settled permanently in one place.

The fact that the two closest clades to I2a-Din both have their centers of diversity in the British Isles, and the fact that outlier clades of I2a, like I2a1*-Rassette and I2a1*-F are very European and even Western European, lends poorly to this theory.

[zanipolo]

First of all, that link is from 2006, before much research had been done into I1 STR diversity. Secondly, read it more closely:



Basically he's saying that based on what he knew at the time (back in 2006) it seemed more likely that the migration pattern was Slovenia to Scandinavia rather than Scandinavia to Slovenia, but he refused to rule out a Germanic migration into the Balkans.

But a Germanic migration into the Balkans is what seems more likely now. Take a look at Slovenian samples in the I1 Project. None stretch their STR patterns outside of existing, principally Germanic clusters like AS-gen and T2. The best explanation for them now is likely East Germanic origin.

Yes the link is 2006 , far younger than the link you provided as the 2 that are newer has no reference to our discussion

I read it that the german I1a went to sweden and not the slovenian one.

If you think the slovenian I1a HG is east germanic, then lets assume that R1a and I2a-din never arrived in western Balkans. Are you saying then, this germanic I1a reached northern greece and all of the western balkans in the great % that is there now.

Nordtvedt has since placed the center of diversity of I1 around Schleswig-Holstein.

Ok, but not part of this discussion

Why can't the "Illyrian" marker(s) be R1b and Neolithic or Bronze Age markers like J2, E1b, G2a? Why does there have to have been Paleolithic remnants? Maybe they all drifted away.

because the percentages are not significant once you eliminate the R1a and I2a-din

If I had to pick an existing haplogroup to be "the" Paleolithic remnant in the Balkans, I would guess I2b-ADR, which hasn't been found there yet AFAIK, but has been found in Italy, and could be a chunk of that "I2*" without I2b-ADR or I2c SNPs tested that's been found in the Balkans.

If I recall an earlier KenN note saying the western I2a1 went from spain to venice and directly a line north of venice. I think he called it an anti R1a HG.

[[ I would not be so cowardly to guess such a broad upstream haplogroup
category as Hg I. I guess I2b-ADR L415+ L416+ L417+ found today on the
shores of the northern Adriatic Sea. Ken ]]
You refer to this comment above for I2b-ADR

http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net/T...r%20Hg%20I.pdf

I guess this I2b-ADR was a made up HG to catecorize Otzi in September 2011, prior to finding he was G2a

[sparkey]

Yes the link is 2006 , far younger than the link you provided as the 2 that are newer has no reference to our discussion

Huh? Yours is older, and the links I provided are relevant to I1 analysis, which is what we were talking about.

I read it that the german I1a went to sweden and not the slovenian one.

No, he's not saying that there are different I1a's, he's wondering which direction it went with respect to Slovenia.

If you think the slovenian I1a HG is east germanic, then lets assume that R1a and I2a-din never arrived in western Balkans. Are you saying then, this germanic I1a reached northern greece and all of the western balkans in the great % that is there now.

I'm not sure if I1 is old enough to have some pre-Germanic Eastern European components; if it does, they are possibly in the T2 STR cluster, but I doubt that the members in the AS clusters are anything other than East Germanic. That seems to place I1 as at least largely East Germanic in origin for its distribution in the Balkans and Greece. I don't see a "great percentage" to discount this, anyway... there's mostly single-digit I1 in the region.

Ok, but not part of this discussion

Oh, but it is. If the origin of I1 is Schleswig-Holstein, and the TMRCA of it is really as young as Nordtvedt calculates, then we should expect a tight coupling of I1 carriers and Germanic ancestry. That's my point.

because the percentages are not significant once you eliminate the R1a and I2a-din

So? Why can't the R1a and I2a-Din be largely recent introductions? And why couldn't the Neolithic haplogroups have displaced the Paleolithic ones? Two major displacements could have resulted in practically no Paleolithic remnants in the region.

If I recall an earlier KenN note saying the western I2a1 went from spain to venice and directly a line north of venice. I think he called it an anti R1a HG.

That's old I2a1, or current I2a1a, not that closely related to I2a1b1a-Din.

[[ I would not be so cowardly to guess such a broad upstream haplogroup
category as Hg I. I guess I2b-ADR L415+ L416+ L417+ found today on the
shores of the northern Adriatic Sea. Ken ]]
You refer to this comment above for I2b-ADR

http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net/T...r%20Hg%20I.pdf

I guess this I2b-ADR was a made up HG to catecorize Otzi in September 2011, prior to finding he was G2a

I2b-ADR isn't a made up clade, living people have it, just not very many. Nordtvedt guessed Ötzi to be I2b-ADR and was wrong... I suspect that I2b-ADR was generally more Southern during Ötzi's time, but the data on that clade is badly deficient. Maybe that's why we're all guessing it to be a missing link for any particular problem that pops up.

[zanipolo]

Huh? Yours is older, and the links I provided are relevant to I1 analysis, which is what we were talking about.

Which is the one to read ?

i see 2001, 2005 etc etc

I'm not sure if I1 is old enough to have some pre-Germanic Eastern European components; if it does, they are possibly in the T2 STR cluster, but I doubt that the members in the AS clusters are anything other than East Germanic. That seems to place I1 as at least largely East Germanic in origin for its distribution in the Balkans and Greece. I don't see a "great percentage" to discount this, anyway... there's mostly single-digit I1 in the region.

Are you trying to say they are gothic and vandal HG in western balkans ,

In regards to percentages, they are single digit because the R1a and i2a-din makes them so.
You are smart enough to realise that percentage numbers are different based on the different number of foreigners in the area. so, if area A had 100 of I1a and area B likewise, if R1a entered areas A and B but, in A went 300 and in B went 500, then the percentage of I1a in area A is greater then in area B
So, they would not be single digit numbers for any region in the western balkans if you remove R1a and i2a-din

As an example, by using Maciano's y-dna country numbers for albania and removing the R1a and I2a
the following percentages occur once reconfigured
I1 - 3
I2b = 2
R1b = 21
G = 3
J2 = 25.5
J1 = 3
E1b1b = 37.5
T = 2

Oh, but it is. If the origin of I1 is Schleswig-Holstein, and the TMRCA of it is really as young as Nordtvedt calculates, then we should expect a tight coupling of I1 carriers and Germanic ancestry. That's my point.

true if its only 1 sub-clade of I1a ( I1) exists

So? Why can't the R1a and I2a-Din be largely recent introductions? And why couldn't the Neolithic haplogroups have displaced the Paleolithic ones? Two major displacements could have resulted in practically no Paleolithic remnants in the region.

thats what we are discussing, for your theory to work , another Hg had to be in the western balkans. I am trying to figure out if I1a is that HG

I2b-ADR isn't a made up clade, living people have it, just not very many. Nordtvedt guessed Ötzi to be I2b-ADR and was wrong... I suspect that I2b-ADR was generally more Southern during Ötzi's time, but the data on that clade is badly deficient. Maybe that's why we're all guessing it to be a missing link for any particular problem that pops up.

irrelevant at this time to have any impact on this discussion