How did I2a-Din get to the Balkans?

How did I2a-Din get to the Balkans?


  • Total voters
    230
so now we do not speak of Teutonic knights, but about Saxon craftman...sure there were settlements of Saxon in Transylvania, but neither Targu Neamt, nor Piatra Neamt are in Transylvania (and btw. Transylvania is by far biggest chunk of Romania)compare mapshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piatra_Neamțhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Târgu_Neamţhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transylvaniain fact link that you gave provide three maps showing: initial Saxon settlements, remaints in 17th century, and population of counties by nationality in year 1930. Neither of those map have any Saxon or German people in Naemt county

about these 'Saxons' workmen there has been a not too old survey about those who claim saxon origins in Romania - this survey concluded that there DNA was close to Germans but also too Belgian people where Y-I2a1b is not very common (even if a litle more common in Bavaria) - nothing to do with the percentages of Pietra Neamt(ç) -
answering to other people on the topic I say that if we speak about late Goths we are no more speaking about genuine previous germanic people and with so a mixture of winners-loosers I believe it 'll not be too easy to link a precise tribe to a precise ancient HG - furthermore, the lineages of Y-I2a was ancient enough yet around the Carpathians highlands, and could concern Illyrians and other I-E(ized) peoples of the region as well - to attribute a well-defined precise cultural identity to the first bearers of Y-I2 'DIn' can be very hard, i believe...
 
One thing you guys need always to remember is that I2-Din did not exist before c. 300 BCE (when its first Patriarch was born). And other I2's could not be "converted" to it: they had to be genetically produced. So a lot of theories are just plain impossible if Nordvedt and Verenich are right (and so far no one has proven them not to be.) But since Slavs cannot be demonstrated to have existed as a definable cultural and linguistic community before the very beginning of our era, there is a window of opportunity here. The first I2-Din would not have been a Slav. Nor his daddy. The closest cousins today are West Europeans. Which may or may not be significant. I think it is, but I don't yet quite know how in terms of recorded history and archaeology.
 
One thing you guys need always to remember is that I2-Din did not exist before c. 300 BCE (when its first Patriarch was born). And other I2's could not be "converted" to it: they had to be genetically produced. So a lot of theories are just plain impossible if Nordvedt and Verenich are right (and so far no one has proven them not to be.) But since Slavs cannot be demonstrated to have existed as a definable cultural and linguistic community before the very beginning of our era, there is a window of opportunity here. The first I2-Din would not have been a Slav. Nor his daddy. The closest cousins today are West Europeans. Which may or may not be significant. I think it is, but I don't yet quite know how in terms of recorded history and archaeology.

your are right in some way (even if I find astonishing enough trusting into so precise results in STRs calculations in a so absolute way)
but: the problems are diverse: and arguments can come to confirm or infirm theories
Slavs are older than their historical coming in sight- I agree it says nothing about their carrying of Y-I2a1b 'Din' neither for nor against (in my mind they was Y-R1a for the most and can have known their final cristallization as Slavs including a lot of Y-I2a1 of previous different origin but living in S-Ukraina
- the presence (a scarce one) of 'cousins' in Western Europe don't prove clearly anything - the great age of their ancestor don't prove they are a long time ago in the regions of their present location (Western Europe) -
- different things: the present day localisation of a HG 'X' (more worth than a HT) >< the place of origin of this HG 'X' >< the population where ONE OF THE carriers of an upstream HG 'Y' underwent the mutation that defines the HG 'X'>< the localisation of this last population - when trying to find out the origin and the process of concretion of a culture we can't exclude the problem of the 'mother' population or 'mother' populationS (HG 'Y')...

said this, which and where is the closest upstream HG (SNP) of I2a1b-'Din' (because I'm not sure to be up-to-date about the very last results about that

thank beforehand
 
I2a-din southhttp://www.familytreedna.com/public/I2aHapGroup/default.aspx?section=ymaphotspots in south Poland and north Poland match exactly locations of Scirii on this map showing situation at 200 AD
700px-Europe-200ad.jpg
http://historyatlas.wikia.com/wiki/Europe
 
I2a-din southhttp://www.familytreedna.com/public/I2aHapGroup/default.aspx?section=ymaphotspots in south Poland and north Poland match exactly locations of Scirii on this map showing situation at 200 AD
700px-Europe-200ad.jpg
http://historyatlas.wikia.com/wiki/Europe

i went into the link, where exactly does it say this as half the links in the link do not work as well as no mention of scirii
 
No one really knows where the Sciri were between the time of Pliny's informant (Pliny's work came out in ca. 75 CE we don't know when his informant wrote-- it could have been considerably earlier) and the 5th century. The map is just an arbitrary guess.
 
some interesting notes on this link below and also the internal links. this is for I2a and others

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/05/24/1100723108.full.pdf

While reading some notes in regards to KN and the I2a-din, it was noted by others that KN states that I2a-din originated south of Masuria ( mazoria) ( Poland) and migrated to the balkans, some say taken by Illyrians as there original home was central europe ( the area of hungary, Poland )...........I am speaking of the bronze age.

I know this has been brought up about 20 years ago by kruhe and earlier Kalinnos, but with latest testing, I can see that it might fit the scenario very well. Even if we take Tery Robb scenario it still fits,

The question is where the illyrians neighbours of the east-germanics or where they also germanic ( before germanic was born ).

some later notes on celtic and germanic union has Illyrian words
http://books.google.com.au/books?id...l=en#v=onepage&q=illyrians in germany&f=false

Needs more study on the matter
 
some later notes on celtic and germanic union has Illyrian words
http://books.google.com.au/books?id...l=en#v=onepage&q=illyrians in germany&f=false

Needs more study on the matter

This is incorrect. The Celtic word for "iron" is not derived from the PIE word for 'metal' (Latin "aes", Sanskrit "ayas"), but from the PIE word for "blood": Latin "aser", Classical Greek "eas", Armenian "aryun" (արյուն), Hittite "esHar", Latvian "asins", Tocharian "ysar" - all which mean blood. The Celtic name almost certainly derives from the color of iron ore. In Antiquity, the Greeks too had the idea too to name iron ore "blood colored" (the Greek word for blood is "haima"), which is where the term "hematite" (the scientific name of iron ore) comes from.

Also, why should the Hallstatt Culture have been Illyrian, as the book suggests? There is absolutely no evidence of Illyrian place names from the former Hallstatt areas in Antiquity.
 
some interesting notes on this link below and also the internal links. this is for I2a and others

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/05/24/1100723108.full.pdf

The Treilles samples? Those were I2a1a, of course, which is quite distinct from I2a-Din.

While reading some notes in regards to KN and the I2a-din, it was noted by others that KN states that I2a-din originated south of Masuria ( mazoria) ( Poland) and migrated to the balkans, some say taken by Illyrians as there original home was central europe ( the area of hungary, Poland )...........I am speaking of the bronze age.

You're conflating what KN says with what "others" say, and bringing in something (a Bronze Age expansion) that is chronologically well before what KN suggests is possible. Also, a "South of Poland" origin makes a lot of sense for I2a-Din-S, but probably not as much sense for I2a-Din as a whole, per Verenich's more precise analysis, which places it farther east.

Needs more study on the matter

As always. (y)
 
Ken must be take with great caution for his many mistake.

He has before some SNP placed Ht/STR into 'clade' he 'discover' only to later with new SNP find these are not in any such clade but are different SNP.
Also, Ken makes many claims about predict the age of these clades, and these have fallen to the real science the same way his non-clade falled to science advance.

Only were Ken is useful in truth at all is to mimic and repeat fact about mostly the newest I1 SNP because he make himself informed even before these are released. This is not Ken discovered, but only repeated for the gain of others however.

The claims that Ken discover you cannot often have a long wait until they are shown faulty.
 
this is perfectly aligned with my assumption that Germanic Scirii were also I2a-Din people...last mentions of Scirii are in teritory of Romania....

You must answer first what you mean by germanic. There is no question it is proven by ancient DNA that I2 is found in ancient sample in what is today modern 'germany'.

The problem is, there is I2 found in EVERY culture of europe, slav/germ/celt/med.

I2 is not like many other Hg that is some way restrict to one arriving land-conquering people, and its samples in Europe are so old (and not joined by ANY I1) that they may predate of arriving slav/germ/celt/med cultures.

I see very clearly that not one culture or ethnic of europe can claim I2 because it is remnants of a aboriginy that live in europe before these modern culture come in or maybe even exist. Some place like in Balkans they are sheiled by mountain and terrain and more manage to survive, but in places with less protective land or no mountain the I2 aboriginy are mistreate and kill by new cultures who come on to rule over the I2 left in europe.

try to place I2 as being the germ/celt/slav/med is not going to work because they are subjected to all these peoples, and today they are found to some degree among the population of all these peoples they manage to adopt into.
 
The Treilles samples? Those were I2a1a, of course, which is quite distinct from I2a-Din.



You're conflating what KN says with what "others" say, and bringing in something (a Bronze Age expansion) that is chronologically well before what KN suggests is possible. Also, a "South of Poland" origin makes a lot of sense for I2a-Din-S, but probably not as much sense for I2a-Din as a whole, per Verenich's more precise analysis, which places it farther east.



As always. (y)

I2a -Din is older than germanic or slavic its older than the Unitice culture in which the illyrians where in the centre of.
Historians tells us, that I2a-din is found south of the Galindian people , these people are west-baltic people of modern masuria.
History also says that the first recorded name of illyrian by Greek historians happened only in the 4th century BC.
History also tells us that Illyrians never came from the east (be it the steppes or anatolia)
History tells us that Alexander the great father, Philip was the first to confront the illyrians.

The only conclusion is that I2a-din came from slovak, hungarian and southern polish area and was brought into the balkans by the Illyrians. prior to this the balkans had E1b in the south and J2 in the north ( I am speaking of the major Haplotype).

What year was I2a - 13000 years BC or earlier?

Q- when did these Sythians and Sarmatians become slavic?
 
You must answer first what you mean by germanic. There is no question it is proven by ancient DNA that I2 is found in ancient sample in what is today modern 'germany'.

The problem is, there is I2 found in EVERY culture of europe, slav/germ/celt/med.

I2 is not like many other Hg that is some way restrict to one arriving land-conquering people, and its samples in Europe are so old (and not joined by ANY I1) that they may predate of arriving slav/germ/celt/med cultures.

I see very clearly that not one culture or ethnic of europe can claim I2 because it is remnants of a aboriginy that live in europe before these modern culture come in or maybe even exist. Some place like in Balkans they are sheiled by mountain and terrain and more manage to survive, but in places with less protective land or no mountain the I2 aboriginy are mistreate and kill by new cultures who come on to rule over the I2 left in europe.

try to place I2 as being the germ/celt/slav/med is not going to work because they are subjected to all these peoples, and today they are found to some degree among the population of all these peoples they manage to adopt into.

I agree that germanic people arrived where they where after the I2a-din arrived in the balkans
 
Remember that After the Two World Wars Germany lost a lot historic Germanic territory in the east! Poland was located much more to the east!
 
The problem is, there is I2 found in EVERY culture of europe, slav/germ/celt/med.

We're not talking about I2, we're talking about its subclade, I2a-Din (I2a1b1a in Nordtvedt's hierarchy).
 
I2a -Din is older than germanic or slavic its older than the Unitice culture in which the illyrians where in the centre of.

Maybe for Slavic, but I think that proto-Germanic is likely older or comparable and Unetice Culture is certainly older. Remember that the estimate for its TMRCA is ~2500 YBP, and even if you think that's too young an estimate, you have to acknowledge that it's a young subclade as far as I2 subclades go.

Historians tells us, that I2a-din is found south of the Galindian people , these people are west-baltic people of modern masuria.

Historians don't tell us anything about I2a-Din, what are you talking about?

The only conclusion is that I2a-din came from slovak, hungarian and southern polish area and was brought into the balkans by the Illyrians. prior to this the balkans had E1b in the south and J2 in the north ( I am speaking of the major Haplotype).

Actually, this theory works decently given the diversity, as long as we assume that Nordtvedt's estimates are too young, considering that we're really just talking about I2a-Din-S when we talk about coming down from Poland and nearby. But I don't see a reason to assume an Illyrian migration in the same way that we have a Slavic migration. Why can't they be more ancient in the area, like the Albanians and the Hellenes? In which case, the Illyrians would have been mostly J2, R1b, and E1b themselves.

What year was I2a - 13000 years BC or earlier?

I2a is about 21,000 years old. But we're talking about I2a-Din, which is much, much younger.
 

This thread has been viewed 1064472 times.

Back
Top