How did I2a-Din get to the Balkans?

How did I2a-Din get to the Balkans?


  • Total voters
    230
"send a scientific paper that this haplogroup wasn't on the Balkans 2600 <---> 1950 years ago"

Send a scientific paper that this haplogroup was on the Balkans 2600-1950 years ago!
 
Ok guys calm down I don't know much about TMRCA calculations but there is no reason to reject them entirely !! I mean when these calculations agree with our theories we accept them but when they don't we reject them and that's not reasonable.

You can be skeptical about TMRCA but what about the fact that we found individuals that are negative for L147.2 (dinaric) but not it's immediate ancestor in eastern Poland, Belarus, and western Ukraine. This area has been inhabited by the Slavs since before their historic migrations, two different lines of evidence now point to a Slavic origin.

by the way has there been any Y-dna tests done on the sorbs in Germany ? in the I2a1 map there is a concentration in east Germany in their area so I thought that was them but couldn't find anything online, if they indeed turn out to have a high amount of I2-Din then that would be a third line of evidence as there is no reason a Slavic group cut off from the rest of the Slavs would have I2-Din if it weren't Slavic.
 
You were on the road of the Steppe peoples from the ancient times.Alans,Sarmatians,Scyhtians.You invaded by Huns,Goths,Avars,Slavs,Bulgars,Magyars,Pechenegs,Cumans,Turks,Tatars.How can you be a direct descendants of Dacians?All We are sharing similar components.The other way to talk is not a scientific.
 
Last edited:
Ironside@
I never associated certain haplogroup with historical population,my reply above was irony to dupidh because he concluded that haplogroups that are carried by modern day Albanians must be or are Illyrian,even though the very term is vague and is historical issue,the same go with Dacian thing,everything you posted is claimed by some internet "charlatans" which that is not even their profession.Even if you go on wikipedia which does not follow this you will read much different things about this particular haplogroup,researching that was done back then by academics however nothing conclusive,there was some new papers about Slavic population generaly which if im not mistaken was sended to you by the user Markoz on your thread.
About Balkan population generaly we need samples from bronze/iron age,antiquity,middle ages so we can really conclude some things,which haplogroup were present and to what degree.
So far we do not have that much collection of genetics to conclude anything.
 
You were on the road of the Steppe peoples from the ancient times.Alans,Sarmatians,Scyhtians.You invaded by Huns,Goths,Avars,Slavs,Bulgars,Magyars,Pechenegs,Cumans,Turks,Tatars.How can you be a direct descendants of Dacians?This is just your feelings.All We are sharing same components.The other way to talk is not a scientific.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...rian-conquerors-inferred-from-mtDNA-and-Y-DNA

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00438-016-1267-z

Sample 12 is I2a1b3a>S17250.
Probability 63,42
Fitness 48,81

mtDNA: A12

Sample 17 is I2a1b3a>4460>4318
Probability 87,52
Fitness 29,66

mtDNA: H6a1a

Two of four samples are I2a-"Din"(50%).
 
Thanks for your informational answer.I know Magyars and Onogurs histories are very well.I interested in them.But Dna and admixtures are more complicated for me.That's exactly my point,Nothing can't be the same.Today,These historical events influences are so much for the local populations.
 
Lol.
Just because I2-Din is found in some groups of Vlachs in perhaps same amount as the South-Slavs we will declare the haplogroup as "Vlach" therefore pre-Slavic,what will you say then about other haplogroups that match between them,then the Romanians that show the same haplogroups as their South-Slavic neighbors.
Extremely inaccurate about the Stecak tombs also about that supposedly "Slavicization" of Vlachs in the 15th and 16 th century lol.
Apart from that i would like to tell you that "Vlach" in medieval Slavic tongue in Balkans meant a cattleman.
I would suggest you and other of this thread not to confuse language groups with haplogroups instead of giving advices to others.
Finally about '"antropology" observation,sorry it is again the South Slavs that mostly have the "Dinaric" appearance,and are tall and well build just like the "previous" population of that area is being described in contrast to others that wanna be "Illyrians".
I would just like to add that in in Albania we call Vlach, Vlah or Vleh, which in Albanian means Brother. This is in relation to "southern vlachs" which are fairly similar to us and of-course Greece. This name may have spread to all Latin speakers in the Balkans.
 
slav is nothing else than christian name for people who inhabited same territory for far longer than lying history books and 'science' exist. simple as that. there are two things history and science hate the most: eastern roman empire and slavic language.
 
The current information, provided by Maciamo, about Haplogroup I2a1b (M423) lacks previous connection with Illyrians and currently considers it's expansion to the Balkan to have occured only with Slavic migration. There several issues with this consideration:

1) It's solely based on contemporary frequency in East European populations.

2) It's no based on critical and empirical approach as there are not enough evidence from Middle Age, Ancient and older sources from both East and Southeast Europe.

3) The conclusion is a simple ideological construction which ignores the possibility the haplgroup was widespread in both East and Southeast Europe, as well ignores the recent archeological research which concluded that there was no mass migration of Slavs, the Balkan i.e. Yugoslavian territory was not „uninhabited“ like previously ideologically considered by the historians, which emerged from 19th century romantic-idealistic historiography, and especially that the Croats and Serbs were only small tribes (neither migrated from western Ukraine), i.e. the population ethogenesis didn't change drastically, but the political and cultural/ethnical identity changed, in a similar way like during the Roman Empire when the indigenous population was Romanized, while after the fall of WRE and consolidation of Slavic policy the indigenous population was Slavicized through the centuries.

For example I will give another chronology in which will show that the age, both formation and TMRCA, do not correspond with the Slavic expansion i.e. migration to the Balkan at all. According to Yfull Ytree v5.02 (YBP calculated from 1950):

--- I-M423 (18,006 YBP): peak of LGM 18,000 YBP
---- I-Y3104 (13,655 YBP)
----- I-L621 (11,311 YBP): beginning of interglacial Holocene
------ I-CTS4002 (6,250 YBP): it corresponds to both early Cucuteni-Trypillian kulture in Romania-Ukraine, as well early Hvar-Lisičići culture in Dalmatia, and the end of Vinča culture.
------- I-CTS10228 (5,062 YBP): partial end of Cucuteni-Trypillian culure, end of Hvar-Lisičići culture, Indo-European expansion (R1a, R1b) in Europe
-------- I-S17250 (2,331 YBP: 381 BCE): see below
--------- TMRCA of I-S17250 is 1,731 YBP (219 CE) according to formation age of subclades I-Y4882 (1,993 YBP), I-Y5596 (1,972 YBP), I-Y30729 (2,346 YBP), I-PH908 (1,802 YBP) and many other individual sub-mutations, with personal speculation that to the I-Y5596 or I-PG908 subclades possibly belong most I2a-Dinaric in the Balkan.
---------- The I-Y5596 has TMRCA 1,658 YBP (292 CE) i.e it mostly branches into I-Z16971 (1,886 YBP: 64 CE), which TMRCA 1,478 YBP (472 CE) which drastically varies mostly between I-A815 (1,658 YBP) and I-Y12911 (917 YBP) i.e. 292-1033 CE, while the sample ID of other two alone branch ID is 1,924 YBP and 1,416 YBP i.e. 26-534 CE.
---------- The I-PG908 (in its own „info“ has TMRCA 1,879 YBP: 71 CE) branches into I-Z16983 (1,715 YBP: 235 CE), which TMRCA of 1,321 YBP, due to small number of branch ID, is calculated with I-Y4789 (1,633 YBP) with 7 sample ID and only 1 sample of YF07968 from 1,010 YBP which gives disproportionate 1,321 YBP, thus will only consider age of I-Y4789 which further branches. Its TMRCA is 1,618 YBP (332 CE), calculated with limited 7 samples which form a formula (2,192 YBP+1,282 YBP+1,177 YBP+1821 YBP)/4.

In short, if the formation age and TMRCA are compared to historical events, like formation or migration of specific ethnical/cultural identity, then it empirically can not be used as a support i.e it absolutely no way indicates a correlation with Slavic expansion in Eastern Europe, more specifically, migration from Eeastern Europe toward Balkan between 550-750 CE.

Not only that, even the ethnogenesis origin of Slavic people, quote: „According to Polish historian Gerard Labuda, the ethnogenesis of Slavic people is the Trzciniec culture[37] from about 1700 to 1200 BC. The Milograd culture hypothesis posits that the pre-Proto-Slavs (or Balto-Slavs) originated in the seventh century BC–first century AD culture of northern Ukraine and southern Belarus. According to the Chernoles culture theory, the pre-Proto-Slavs originated in the 1025–700 BC culture of northern Ukraine and the third century BC–first century AD Zarubintsy culture. According to the Lusatian culture hypothesis, they were present in north-eastern Central Europe in the 1300–500 BC culture and the second century BC–fourth century AD Przeworsk culture“ does not correlate anyhow with the formation age and TMRCA of older subclades I-CTS10228 and I-S17250.

It can be theorized that the formation of I2a-Dinaric i.e. I-CTS10228 (3,112 BCE) was caused by some climate or social-historical events which caused the expansion, for example of the population of the Cucuteni-Trypillian and other cultures, and their change of lifestyle from mostly sedentary to nomadic or vice versa, and were assimilated by the Indo-Europeans (R1a and R1b).

However, the problem with the migration theory, according to which the populations with I2a-Dinaric originally lived in Carphatian Mountains and near Vistula River, which were slavicized making the Proto-Slavs with R1a in that area and only after then migrated to the south, is in the fact that between I-CTS10228 and I-S17250 is a time difference in formation of incredible 2,731 years or at least 136-109 generations. It indicates an extreme isolation and social-historical events which did not support the formation of new subclades, while in Europe at the time was period of Bronze Age and Iron Age. It is impossible that in such active and developing social-historical events in Western, Central and Eastern Europe, there was no mutation for almost 3,000 years in population who was allegedly located in Central-Eastern Europe. Such an extreme isolation at the time could have only happen in Southeast Europe i.e Dinaric Alps and Balkan mountains.

This difference in 2,731 years could be explained by autochthonous theory i.e. multidisciplinary by archeological research. According to Alojz Benac, who analyzed archeological and ethno-cultural elements on Western Balkan (mostly area of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Western Serbia, Kosovo, part of Dalmatia and Albania), and A. Stipčević (1991), gave the most plausible and best formulated theory on the origin of Illyrians. According to Benac there exist four stages of development in Illyrian tribal communities:

1) „Pre-Illyrians“ are basic substrate which emerged along other groups in the end of Neolithic (Baden, Kostolac, Vučedol, culture with ribbon ceramics and Bell Beaker did not serve as a substrate yet as an additional element, and their disappearance is linked to the movement of the Indo-Europeans from the east). According to Benac, the research in 1970s during this period recorded a duration of Neolithic retardation throughout the Chalcolithic or Copper Age, in which the primary role played the Hvar-Lisičići (note Brač, Korčula and Hvar 54-67%, Herzegovina c. 70% I2a-Dinaric) and the Adriatic variant of the Vučedol culture.

2) „Proto-Illyrians“ developed in the period of Indo-Europeans expansion, and in the end of Neolithic on Balkan occured „Illyrization“. According to research of the settlements and culture there was no immigration in the Bronze Age, so in the location of Glasinac can be seen uninterrupted development of culture from Bronze to Iron Age.

3) „Early-Illyrians“ developed in the end of Bronze Age at the time of so-called Dorian migration c. 1,200 BCE, and spread of Urnfield culture, which did not significantly affect the stability on the narrow part of Western Balkan or Illyrian ethnogenesis.
4) „Illyrians“ developed in the Iron Age.

According to Benac, like other archeologists, there's clear difference and existence of sub-groups among Illyrians i.e. generally one narrow area between river Aoös/Vjosë and Mat in Albania (note high E1b1b), and one wide area along the Adriatic coast and its hinterland (note high I2a-Dinaric). While in the narrow area the main role had Neolithic and Eneolithic (Copper) cultures type Maliq, elements of Baden and Kostolac, some from Epir-Macedonia, and Vučedol-Corded Ware; in the wide area is distinctively backward Hvar-Lisičići component (later substrate and part of Illyrian tribes in Bosnia and Herzegovina, e.g. Dassareti and Autariatae) and late Vučedol culture group (Ljubljansko Barje type).

The sudden formation of I-S17250 (2,331 YBP: 381 BCE) directly corresponds to the Celtic invasion/settlement of Southeastern Europe in the 4th century BCE and political degradation of the many Illyrian tribes in the hinterland, including the „the once greatest and most powerful Illyrian people“ (Strabo) tribe of Autariatae (between river Bosnia and Drina), Ardiaei (between Neretva and Albania), Dardani and so on.

Strabo, Book VII, Chapter 5: "for those who were most powerful in earlier times were utterly humbled or were obliterated, as, for example, among the Galatae the Boii and the Scordistae, and among the Illyrians the Autariatae, Ardiaei, and Dardanii, and among the Thracians the Triballi; that is, they were reduced in warfare by one another at first and then later by the Macedonians and the Romans... Now the Autariatae were once the largest and best tribe of the Illyrians. In earlier times they were continually at war with the Ardiaei over the salt-works on the common frontiers... At one time when the Autariatae had subdued the Triballi, whose territory extended from that of the Agrianes as far as the Ister, a journey of fifteen days, they held sway also over the rest of the Thracians and the Illyrians; but they were overpowered, at first by the Scordisci, and later on by the Romans, who also subdued the Scordisci themselves, after these had been in power for a long time".

At the time many tribes fought against the Macedonians, while later Roman-Illyrian wars from 3rd century BCE were only the start of end. Thing which is indicative, is that in the same period (4th century BCE) is dated the first historical, at least constant, mention of the Illyrians, and that their tribes are losing political influence due to mutual (due to various reasons) wars and better organized and developed Celts.

Those same Illyrians did not vanish in the literal sense of the Ancient chronicles, yet their ethno-political influence vanished and as such is of no interest to foreign historians or policies. After the Macedonian and Celtic events, the Roman used the situation to expand and succeeded. The Illyrians culture and hillforts are destroyed or arrogate, and they're Romanized (in the wide area, not in narrow Albania) from which emerged a mass population later known as semi-romanized Vlachs.

The TMRCA of I-S17250 (219 CE) i.e. its subclades between 332-472 CE could indicate: Constitutio Antoniniana granted citizenship in 212 CE to all free Roman Empire men, later Crisis of the Third Century (235–284 CE); invasion of the Goths and Huns which caused many social distortions and migrations, and as result end of the Roman Empire in 476 CE. There is no need that I-S17250 was located only north of Danube because these events/migrations could have influencedpopulations on both side of the Danube border. However, they do not indicate later 550-750 migration of the Slavs.

The issue with the I2a-Dinaric Slavic migration theory are, beside these age differences which do not correlate with Slavic migration, archeological research which showed that there was no mass migration nor Balkan was uninhabited, rather can be followed continuity of cultural sources between Ancient and Middle Ages. With this agree historians whether about history or identity of Illyrians and Croats (i.e. Slavs) in the Balkan (D. Džino and F. Curta), as well genetic research which are in correlation "Father Tongue hypothesis" i.e. Mother Tongue and Y Chromosomes (Science, 2011): "focusing on prehistoric language shift in already settled areas, examples worldwide show that as little as 10-20% of prehistoric male immigration can (but need not) cause a language switch, indicating an elite imposition such as may have happened with the appearance of the first farmers or metalworkers in the neolithic, bronze and iron ages", with the fact the recent "Croatian national reference Y-STR haplotype databse" (2012) with 1,100 Y-DNA samples divided in five regions of Croatia showed in eastern, southern and western 18.64-20.00%, while in central and northern 23.64-29.09% of R1a; while according to Eupedia, percentage in BiH is 15%, Serbia 16%, Bulgaria 17%, Macedonia 13.5%, and Montenegro 7.5%, which arrived with the Slavs in Middle Age (2016 research consideration). The I2a showed exactly the opposite regional percentage in Croatia, from northern and central 25.45-31.82%, western and eastern 36.82-40.00%, southern 54.55%.
 
Last edited:
Well,after what Maciamo have researched this HG originated in Switzerland,12500 years ago.
This makes very clear that I2-din is NOT related to Slavic expansion.
Since is found in Switzerland,cannot either be related to Celtic migrations,since Celts came from East .
So Paleolithic continuity I think is most plausible hypothesis.
 
There could have been a northern and southern Slavic group at the time of the ethnogenesis of the Slavic peoples, some what similar to the development of the Indo-Europeans in the steppes. Ukraine shows quite high rates of I2a and diversity there. I wouldn't be surprised if historically there was a Slavic core in the area that stretched further south. When Germanic tribes spread west and left central Europe open it might have caused(most certainly did ) a massive migration in all directions from both northern and southern groups , one where the northern group spread west and south west and were the southern one spread mainly south and also south west. I know linguistics isn't indicative of genetic origin always but many times it is correlated.
 
First there was movement to Ukraine from Balkan in Russian Turkish war,in creation of Romania in Wlach revolution and economic migration to east under Ottoman so there is recent influx.In reality for Balkan Din is actually corresponding to Dinaric modal haplotype from Pericic paper some 10 years ago.After the paper Ken Northvead go crazy on Roots web developing new calculus with only one reason to send Dinaric to the north out of Balkan.Ken for this work has received from Clinton medal.And most of his work has gone as his bresnan web.He brags openly for his political activity and you guys believe him.Population genetics is not a science because of politics.Any geneticist who worked on these research know by comparative study that Din in Balkan correspond to Dinaric anthropological type well know in anthropology.Even variation in Din can be identified.Only by this anyone of anthropologist can predict haplogroup.Now we can easy see results from anthropological finds in necropolis/burials from different periods to see presence of dinaric anthropology and its variation.Anthropology is science and we know that Dinaric type is dominant in second and first millennium before Christ in Balkan area.If Din has come with Slav migration we can expect in time of 6 to 10 century AD rise in Dinaric type.BUT result actually shows FALL.What is up is Leptodolohomorphic type with dolihocrany known like Slavic type which is haplogroup R east.From 17 to 19 century this type R from 20-30% fall to 10-15% and it is simple why,..genetic drift in Balkan.Hopefully some day will be done arrcheogenetic testing on dinaric skeletons from 2 and 1 millenium bc and all will be known again...
 
Great points ...in all nonsense
The current information, provided by Maciamo, about Haplogroup I2a1b (M423) lacks previous connection with Illyrians and currently considers it's expansion to the Balkan to have occured only with Slavic migration. There several issues with this consideration:

1) It's solely based on contemporary frequency in East European populations.

2) It's no based on critical and empirical approach as there are not enough evidence from Middle Age, Ancient and older sources from both East and Southeast Europe.

3) The conclusion is a simple ideological construction which ignores the possibility the haplgroup was widespread in both East and Southeast Europe, as well ignores the recent archeological research which concluded that there was no mass migration of Slavs, the Balkan i.e. Yugoslavian territory was not „uninhabited“ like previously ideologically considered by the historians, which emerged from 19th century romantic-idealistic historiography, and especially that the Croats and Serbs were only small tribes (neither migrated from western Ukraine), i.e. the population ethogenesis didn't change drastically, but the political and cultural/ethnical identity changed, in a similar way like during the Roman Empire when the indigenous population was Romanized, while after the fall of WRE and consolidation of Slavic policy the indigenous population was Slavicized through the centuries.

For example I will give another chronology in which will show that the age, both formation and TMRCA, do not correspond with the Slavic expansion i.e. migration to the Balkan at all. According to Yfull Ytree v5.02 (YBP calculated from 1950):

--- I-M423 (18,006 YBP): peak of LGM 18,000 YBP
---- I-Y3104 (13,655 YBP)
----- I-L621 (11,311 YBP): beginning of interglacial Holocene
------ I-CTS4002 (6,250 YBP): it corresponds to both early Cucuteni-Trypillian kulture in Romania-Ukraine, as well early Hvar-Lisičići culture in Dalmatia, and the end of Vinča culture.
------- I-CTS10228 (5,062 YBP): partial end of Cucuteni-Trypillian culure, end of Hvar-Lisičići culture, Indo-European expansion (R1a, R1b) in Europe
-------- I-S17250 (2,331 YBP: 381 BCE): see below
--------- TMRCA of I-S17250 is 1,731 YBP (219 CE) according to formation age of subclades I-Y4882 (1,993 YBP), I-Y5596 (1,972 YBP), I-Y30729 (2,346 YBP), I-PH908 (1,802 YBP) and many other individual sub-mutations, with personal speculation that to the I-Y5596 or I-PG908 subclades possibly belong most I2a-Dinaric in the Balkan.
---------- The I-Y5596 has TMRCA 1,658 YBP (292 CE) i.e it mostly branches into I-Z16971 (1,886 YBP: 64 CE), which TMRCA 1,478 YBP (472 CE) which drastically varies mostly between I-A815 (1,658 YBP) and I-Y12911 (917 YBP) i.e. 292-1033 CE, while the sample ID of other two alone branch ID is 1,924 YBP and 1,416 YBP i.e. 26-534 CE.
---------- The I-PG908 (in its own „info“ has TMRCA 1,879 YBP: 71 CE) branches into I-Z16983 (1,715 YBP: 235 CE), which TMRCA of 1,321 YBP, due to small number of branch ID, is calculated with I-Y4789 (1,633 YBP) with 7 sample ID and only 1 sample of YF07968 from 1,010 YBP which gives disproportionate 1,321 YBP, thus will only consider age of I-Y4789 which further branches. Its TMRCA is 1,618 YBP (332 CE), calculated with limited 7 samples which form a formula (2,192 YBP+1,282 YBP+1,177 YBP+1821 YBP)/4.

In short, if the formation age and TMRCA are compared to historical events, like formation or migration of specific ethnical/cultural identity, then it empirically can not be used as a support i.e it absolutely no way indicates a correlation with Slavic expansion in Eastern Europe, more specifically, migration from Eeastern Europe toward Balkan between 550-750 CE.

Not only that, even the ethnogenesis origin of Slavic people, quote: „According to Polish historian Gerard Labuda, the ethnogenesis of Slavic people is the Trzciniec culture[37] from about 1700 to 1200 BC. The Milograd culture hypothesis posits that the pre-Proto-Slavs (or Balto-Slavs) originated in the seventh century BC–first century AD culture of northern Ukraine and southern Belarus. According to the Chernoles culture theory, the pre-Proto-Slavs originated in the 1025–700 BC culture of northern Ukraine and the third century BC–first century AD Zarubintsy culture. According to the Lusatian culture hypothesis, they were present in north-eastern Central Europe in the 1300–500 BC culture and the second century BC–fourth century AD Przeworsk culture“ does not correlate anyhow with the formation age and TMRCA of older subclades I-CTS10228 and I-S17250.

It can be theorized that the formation of I2a-Dinaric i.e. I-CTS10228 (3,112 BCE) was caused by some climate or social-historical events which caused the expansion, for example of the population of the Cucuteni-Trypillian and other cultures, and their change of lifestyle from mostly sedentary to nomadic or vice versa, and were assimilated by the Indo-Europeans (R1a and R1b).

However, the problem with the migration theory, according to which the populations with I2a-Dinaric originally lived in Carphatian Mountains and near Vistula River, which were slavicized making the Proto-Slavs with R1a in that area and only after then migrated to the south, is in the fact that between I-CTS10228 and I-S17250 is a time difference in formation of incredible 2,731 years or at least 136-109 generations. It indicates an extreme isolation and social-historical events which did not support the formation of new subclades, while in Europe at the time was period of Bronze Age and Iron Age. It is impossible that in such active and developing social-historical events in Western, Central and Eastern Europe, there was no mutation for almost 3,000 years in population who was allegedly located in Central-Eastern Europe. Such an extreme isolation at the time could have only happen in Southeast Europe i.e Dinaric Alps and Balkan mountains.

This difference in 2,731 years could be explained by autochthonous theory i.e. multidisciplinary by archeological research. According to Alojz Benac, who analyzed archeological and ethno-cultural elements on Western Balkan (mostly area of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Western Serbia, Kosovo, part of Dalmatia and Albania), and A. Stipčević (1991), gave the most plausible and best formulated theory on the origin of Illyrians. According to Benac there exist four stages of development in Illyrian tribal communities:

1) „Pre-Illyrians“ are basic substrate which emerged along other groups in the end of Neolithic (Baden, Kostolac, Vučedol, culture with ribbon ceramics and Bell Beaker did not serve as a substrate yet as an additional element, and their disappearance is linked to the movement of the Indo-Europeans from the east). According to Benac, the research in 1970s during this period recorded a duration of Neolithic retardation throughout the Chalcolithic or Copper Age, in which the primary role played the Hvar-Lisičići (note Brač, Korčula and Hvar 54-67%, Herzegovina c. 70% I2a-Dinaric) and the Adriatic variant of the Vučedol culture.

2) „Proto-Illyrians“ developed in the period of Indo-Europeans expansion, and in the end of Neolithic on Balkan occured „Illyrization“. According to research of the settlements and culture there was no immigration in the Bronze Age, so in the location of Glasinac can be seen uninterrupted development of culture from Bronze to Iron Age.

3) „Early-Illyrians“ developed in the end of Bronze Age at the time of so-called Dorian migration c. 1,200 BCE, and spread of Urnfield culture, which did not significantly affect the stability on the narrow part of Western Balkan or Illyrian ethnogenesis.
4) „Illyrians“ developed in the Iron Age.

According to Benac, like other archeologists, there's clear difference and existence of sub-groups among Illyrians i.e. generally one narrow area between river Aoös/Vjosë and Mat in Albania (note high E1b1b), and one wide area along the Adriatic coast and its hinterland (note high I2a-Dinaric). While in the narrow area the main role had Neolithic and Eneolithic (Copper) cultures type Maliq, elements of Baden and Kostolac, some from Epir-Macedonia, and Vučedol-Corded Ware; in the wide area is distinctively backward Hvar-Lisičići component (later substrate and part of Illyrian tribes in Bosnia and Herzegovina, e.g. Dassareti and Autariatae) and late Vučedol culture group (Ljubljansko Barje type).

The sudden formation of I-S17250 (2,331 YBP: 381 BCE) directly corresponds to the Celtic invasion/settlement of Southeastern Europe in the 4th century BCE and political degradation of the many Illyrian tribes in the hinterland, including the „the once greatest and most powerful Illyrian people“ (Strabo) tribe of Autariatae (between river Bosnia and Drina), Ardiaei (between Neretva and Albania), Dardani and so on.

Strabo, Book VII, Chapter 5: "for those who were most powerful in earlier times were utterly humbled or were obliterated, as, for example, among the Galatae the Boii and the Scordistae, and among the Illyrians the Autariatae, Ardiaei, and Dardanii, and among the Thracians the Triballi; that is, they were reduced in warfare by one another at first and then later by the Macedonians and the Romans... Now the Autariatae were once the largest and best tribe of the Illyrians. In earlier times they were continually at war with the Ardiaei over the salt-works on the common frontiers... At one time when the Autariatae had subdued the Triballi, whose territory extended from that of the Agrianes as far as the Ister, a journey of fifteen days, they held sway also over the rest of the Thracians and the Illyrians; but they were overpowered, at first by the Scordisci, and later on by the Romans, who also subdued the Scordisci themselves, after these had been in power for a long time".

At the time many tribes fought against the Macedonians, while later Roman-Illyrian wars from 3rd century BCE were only the start of end. Thing which is indicative, is that in the same period (4th century BCE) is dated the first historical, at least constant, mention of the Illyrians, and that their tribes are losing political influence due to mutual (due to various reasons) wars and better organized and developed Celts.

Those same Illyrians did not vanish in the literal sense of the Ancient chronicles, yet their ethno-political influence vanished and as such is of no interest to foreign historians or policies. After the Macedonian and Celtic events, the Roman used the situation to expand and succeeded. The Illyrians culture and hillforts are destroyed or arrogate, and they're Romanized (in the wide area, not in narrow Albania) from which emerged a mass population later known as semi-romanized Vlachs.

The TMRCA of I-S17250 (219 CE) i.e. its subclades between 332-472 CE could indicate: Constitutio Antoniniana granted citizenship in 212 CE to all free Roman Empire men, later Crisis of the Third Century (235–284 CE); invasion of the Goths and Huns which caused many social distortions and migrations, and as result end of the Roman Empire in 476 CE. There is no need that I-S17250 was located only north of Danube because these events/migrations could have influencedpopulations on both side of the Danube border. However, they do not indicate later 550-750 migration of the Slavs.

The issue with the I2a-Dinaric Slavic migration theory are, beside these age differences which do not correlate with Slavic migration, archeological research which showed that there was no mass migration nor Balkan was uninhabited, rather can be followed continuity of cultural sources between Ancient and Middle Ages. With this agree historians whether about history or identity of Illyrians and Croats (i.e. Slavs) in the Balkan (D. Džino and F. Curta), as well genetic research which are in correlation "Father Tongue hypothesis" i.e. Mother Tongue and Y Chromosomes (Science, 2011): "focusing on prehistoric language shift in already settled areas, examples worldwide show that as little as 10-20% of prehistoric male immigration can (but need not) cause a language switch, indicating an elite imposition such as may have happened with the appearance of the first farmers or metalworkers in the neolithic, bronze and iron ages", with the fact the recent "Croatian national reference Y-STR haplotype databse" (2012) with 1,100 Y-DNA samples divided in five regions of Croatia showed in eastern, southern and western 18.64-20.00%, while in central and northern 23.64-29.09% of R1a; while according to Eupedia, percentage in BiH is 15%, Serbia 16%, Bulgaria 17%, Macedonia 13.5%, and Montenegro 7.5%, which arrived with the Slavs in Middle Age (2016 research consideration). The I2a showed exactly the opposite regional percentage in Croatia, from northern and central 25.45-31.82%, western and eastern 36.82-40.00%, southern 54.55%.
 
Any geneticist who worked on these research know by comparative study that Din in Balkan correspond to Dinaric anthropological type well know in anthropology... Now we can easy see results from anthropological finds in necropolis/burials from different periods to see presence of dinaric anthropology and its variation...

Can you give your source? As well I would note that anthropological research of skeletons below Stećak tombs (mainly in Herzegovina) since the 1980s concluded that they belong to clean Dinaric anthropological type, indicating non-Slavic origin, yet autochthonous Vlachian population. In this region, the contemporary population is predominantly I-M423 (over 60-70%). There really could be a correlation between the Dinaric haplogroup and anthropological type, however anthropological features are related to autosomal DNA and hence it is doubtful to some degree. It needs immediate confirmation.
 
You guys might want to check the new samples from the latest paper.
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/05/09/135616.figures-only

I think I saw a few I2a1b, but I don't know if they are DIN.
The Y-dna info is in supplementary table 1. The sample I0017 is positive for L147.2. It was fond in Sweden and dated 5700 BC. Sounds funny regarding the predicted generation time. Better check with an expert.

Note: there were a lot of unspecified I found, Balkans also, but I don't know if they couldn't test deeper or if they just didn't do it.
 
Via Huno-Avars.
 
For the vote: Slavs. Anything else is coping, especially with the new information.
 

This thread has been viewed 1065111 times.

Back
Top