I2a-Din came to the Balkans and Dinaric Alps with the Thracians, Dacians & Illyrians

Ken Nordtvedt was "relevant" when we did not have so many SNPs, and with time his work will become even less "relevant". The STR marker DYS488=19/20 differed between Dinaric North and South, but today is known that very similar STR haplotypes can be shared within haplogroups which diverged over 2000 years, and DYS488=19 fit SNP I-PH908. Using his work as an argument is being outdated and counter-productive.
 
I agree; that seems to be the opinion of almost everyone who is taking an objective view of this material.

Except - we do not have any evidence. Objective viewpoint is based on evidence, your objective viewpoint actually ignores the factual reality, but there's still no evidence. Nothing. Ancient sample with the haplogroup was not found in whole Europe, yet they highlight it was not found in the Balkan. Wow, what a logical premise. There several issues with the proposed Slavic origin and expansion which firstly need to be objectively answered:

1. The formation age and TMRCA empirically can not be used as a support for Slavic migration between 550-750 CE

2. The ethnogenesis origin of Slavic people does not correlate anyhow with the formation age and TMRCA of older subclades I-CTS10228 and I-S17250

3. Between I-CTS10228 and I-S17250 is a time difference of formation age of incredible 2,731 years or at least 136-109 generations which are impossible that in such active and developing social-historical events of Bronze Age and Iron Age in Western, Central, and Eastern Europe, there was no mutation for almost 3,000 years
 
Except - we do not have any evidence. Objective viewpoint is based on evidence, your objective viewpoint actually ignores the factual reality, but there's still no evidence. Nothing. Ancient sample with the haplogroup was not found in whole Europe, yet they highlight it was not found in the Balkan. Wow, what a logical premise. There several issues with the proposed Slavic origin and expansion which firstly need to be objectively answered:

1. The formation age and TMRCA empirically can not be used as a support for Slavic migration between 550-750 CE

2. The ethnogenesis origin of Slavic people does not correlate anyhow with the formation age and TMRCA of older subclades I-CTS10228 and I-S17250

3. Between I-CTS10228 and I-S17250 is a time difference of formation age of incredible 2,731 years or at least 136-109 generations which are impossible that in such active and developing social-historical events of Bronze Age and Iron Age in Western, Central, and Eastern Europe, there was no mutation for almost 3,000 years

It seems you don't even understand what TMRCA means. It simply is a Time to Most Recent Common Ancestor of a subclade, and not when the actual expansion happened. Therefore the expansion can only happen after the TMRCA lived. (After 300 BC in this case, when the Slavs expanded). The "Formed Age" doesn't really mean anything in this case, it's all about TMRCAs. The big discrepancy between "Formed Age" and TMRCA simply means that this clade had a long bottleneck (example lines daughtering out), and this "tribe" only expanded rapidly after 300 BC, the time when its Most Recent Common Ancestor lived. This subclade (I2a-Din aka CTS10228) is now the most common Y-haplogrup among Slavic nations.

True, I2a-CTS10228 mutation has not been found anywhere in ancient DNA yet, but that's because the vast majority of aDNA samples come from before this mutation even existed in great numbers 300 BC and later. And therefore its ancestral clade, I2a-M423, has been found in ancient DNA multiple times North of the Balkans, and nowhere in the Balkans. Or better read my previous post again in case you missed it:

Absolutely! Certain people who don't like these facts, are using the thumb down button.

I2a1-Dinaric (I2a1-CTS10228) has a TMRCA of only ~2300 ybp as can be seen here. Meaning everyone who has this mutation descends from the the same patrilineal ancestor who lived around 2300 ybp. This mutation is spread in significant percentages throughout the Slavic world (the main one). And it's virtually in-existent in places where the Slavs barely set any foot, like Italy and the mountains of North Albania, etc.

Another great evidence we have now is ancient DNA. In the recent paper Genomic History of Southeastern Europe, which sampled a good amount of samples throughout the Balkans/Europe and throughout different time periods, not a single I2a1-M423 or L621 (where I2a1-Dinaric descends from) was found in the Balkans, instead it's​ found north of the Balkans, as can be seen here. There was one I2a-P37 found in present day Serbia. But since the authors didn't report M423 or L621 (where I2a1-Dinaric descends from), it means it was negative for these, and likely an extinct I2a lineage, or possibly I2a1-M26 (Sardinian branch).

For the Slavic readers (the rest can use Google translate), the following well written article comes from the admin of the Serbian DNA Project who analyzes the genetic make up of the Serbs and recent ancient DNA results. In one of the paragraphs he states (translated from Serbian):

Source: http://dnk.poreklo.rs/genetska-slika-lepenskog-vira-vince/
 
Great points Trojet and Angela.
 
It seems you don't even understand what TMRCA means... True, I2a-CTS10228 mutation has not been found anywhere in ancient DNA yet, but that's because the vast majority of samples come from before this mutation even happened (Bronze Age and Earlier)...

Oh, my God, I am speechless. I can not argue with a wall who does not understand a thing yet think is smarter than others, but is not. Useless discussion with people who do not understand history, archeology (when was Bronze Age time period) nor genetics (I2a-Din is not I-CTS10228)...
 
Oh, my God, I am speechless. I can not argue with a wall who does not understand a thing yet think is smarter than others, but is not. Useless discussion with people who do not understand history, archeology nor genetics.
Why does he not understand?
Is there any historical, archeological or genetical data pointing towards a paleo-balkanic origin of I2a-Din? Maybe he missed these data?
Or are you trying to imply that a huge portion Poles and Russians came from the Dinaric mountains too? Do you really believe that?

You really do not ask for much do you? Only that all other europeans have to act blind towards all known facts about the slavs, just to adapt your crazy theory into our perception of european history?
 
Oh, my God, I am speechless. I can not argue with a wall who does not understand a thing yet think is smarter than others, but is not. Useless discussion with people who do not understand history, archeology (when was Bronze Age time period) nor genetics (I2a-Din is not I-CTS10228)...

Seriously?! I can't believe I'm even having a debate with someone​ like you.

For example, this comes from the admin of the Serbian DNA Project:
The Serbs are predominantly descendants of the Slavs. Y-haplogroups which are genetically of Slavic signature are I2a-CTS10228 (also knows as I2a-Dinaric), R1a-Z280, and R1a-M458, which all together make up over half of Serbian paternal lineages.

Source: http://dnk.poreklo.rs/genetska-slika-lepenskog-vira-vince/

Peace out!
 
It seems you don't even understand what TMRCA means. It simply is a Time to Most Recent Common Ancestor of a subclade, and not when the actual expansion happened. Therefore the expansion can only happen after the TMRCA lived. (After 300 BC in this case, when the Slavs expanded). The "Formed Age" doesn't really mean anything in this case, it's all about TMRCAs. The big discrepancy between "Formed Age" and TMRCA simply means that this clade had a long bottleneck (example lines daughtering out), and this "tribe" only expanded rapidly after 300 BC, the time when its Most Recent Common Ancestor lived.

You might want to read up on this again. The margin of error applies in either direction. I doubt that over the course of a few centuries the mutation rate will be stable enough for reliable estimates.
 
I -CTS10228 mostly spreads in the Balkan after Osmanic onquest XIV, XV and XVI century with Vlachs migration not with Slavic migration. This is well historically documented: "NEDIM FILIPOVIĆ Islamizacija u BiH i islamizacija Vlaškog stanovništva u Bosni – Islamizacija Vlaha između 15 i 16 vijeka".
 
Absolutely! Certain people who don't like these facts, are using the thumb down button.

I2a1-Dinaric (I2a1-CTS10228) has a TMRCA of only ~2300 ybp as can be seen here. Meaning everyone who has this mutation descends from the the same patrilineal ancestor who lived around 2300 ybp. This mutation is spread in significant percentages throughout the Slavic world (the main one). And it's virtually in-existent in places where the Slavs barely set any foot, like Italy and the mountains of North Albania, etc.

Another great evidence we have now is ancient DNA. In the recent paper Genomic History of Southeastern Europe, which sampled a good amount of samples throughout the Balkans/Europe and throughout different time periods, not a single I2a1-M423 or L621 (where I2a1-Dinaric descends from) was found in the Balkans, instead it appears north of the Balkans, as can be seen here. There was one I2a-P37 found in present day Serbia. But since the authors didn't report M423 or L621 (where I2a1-Dinaric descends from), it means it was negative for these, and likely an extinct I2a lineage, or possibly I2a1-M26 (Sardinian branch).

For the Slavic readers (the rest can use Google translate), the following well written article comes from the admin of the Serbian DNA Project who analyzes the genetic make up of the Serbs and recent ancient DNA results. In one of the paragraphs he states (translated from Serbian):

Source: http://dnk.poreklo.rs/genetska-slika-lepenskog-vira-vince/
This makes great sense, thanks!
 
Thanks for the informative posts regarding the Slavic I2 that exists in the Balkan Slavs, Trojet.
 
Seriously?!...

The one who is shocked is me. Literally, how many times I have to tell you the by I2a-Din is not meant I-CTS10228, yet I2-L621 (L147.2+), just read for once the article "Haplogroup I2 (Y-DNA)" by Eupedia, also since you mention so much Nordtvedt, by I2a2-Dinaric is meant to be even I-M423, while by "Dinaric" cluster or "Dinaric-North" or "Dinaric-South" is meant I-CTS10228.

Thanks for the informative posts regarding the Slavic I2 that exists in the Balkan Slavs, Trojet.

These Albanian accounts cheering each other so much, regardless of "objectivity" and "informativeness", cringe, double accounts? :unsure:
 
The jaundiced eye sees all things yellow
 
Why the term Slavic migrations? When talking about Germanic, Anglo-Saxon or Indo-European it's expansions? The term Slav for the most part is not really a race or ethnicity or country it's a linguistic identity just like Germanic, Anglo-Saxon, or Indo-European or whatever. But where Slavic languages expanded it can only be a migration? I smell double standards there.
As far as I2a-Din for now it does seem very plausible it might have come to the Balkans carrying the Slavic language. But again it becomes very sketchy when labeling a hg to one linguistic group, as it's obvious there are many R1a carriers who don't speak a Slavic language as there are I2a-Din like Romanians who don't speak a Slavic language.
So I don't agree with handling this question as its just Slavic migrations. It sounds very black and white and simplistic and usually it's people who aren't Slavic that are content with that opinion, rather than it being the "objective" opinion.

Because unfortunately everything what is related for the Balkans is politics.

Science, scientific evidence, even common sense, does not help.

For example I read transcripts between Communist friends, comrade Stalin and comrade Enver Hoxha, how they agreed that Albanians are descendant of Ilyrians what Stalin loved especially after dissolution with Tito.

Communists were projected all areas of life and especially they loved to re-tailor history, archeology, anthropology etc.

Unfortunately nothing changed in the Balkans even today.

Politics is often more important than scientific facts and evidence.

For example Russian experts point out that I-CTS10228 is Slavic marker. It can be related with any evidence but you can notice that Russians generally prefer it because if carriers of I-CTS10228 are Slavic origin Russia can have big influence on population in that region, if no, this influence can be much smaller. What is more important science or politics in this case?

About TMCRA, there are eight and more different methods and they give different results. But hobbyists Nordtvedt and Klyosov get very similar result. I will not speculate about their result.

But we have two samples I-CTS10228* one is from Poland but one is from Alsace (France-Germany border). What does that say? Were I-CTS10228 carriers in wider European areas (where dominated R1a or R1b carriers, or I2a carriers themselves)? Where we can find third I-CTS10228*, in Austria, Slovenia, Croatia, Hungary, Serbia... We don't know, only can speculate. And if we see older brother I-FGC20479 he is found in British isles. I-CTS10228, I-FGC20479, and related clades (we can go to ancestor I-P37 if you want) are everywhere in Europe.

What is interesting because above mentioned clades were in the wider European areas their carriers were been associated with other expansions, for example Goths. I comment this with one Russian expert but he rejected that argument, he prefers that E-V13 carriers are related with Illyrians and I2a carriers with Slavs (Russians embrace Albanian speculations but new studies mainly by Western scientists give totally different picture). Regardless of his expertise (Russian scientists participate in many world top genetic genealogy research and publish alone or a part of a world expert teams in prominent international journals what is logical because of developed science and Russia and a lot of Institutes) I ask myself if his attitude is very trivial and unscientific, if it is really science or politics has a connection.

It will be many new findings and new studies and we will know better. Therefore better not to speculate. Really I would like if it is possible to determine which haplogroups belonged to the Roman emperors of Illyrian origin and members of upper classes Illyrian origin in the Balkans in the Roman epoche.

Illyrians dissapeared as political entity probably in 2-4 century and their language dissapeared because they are Romanised (according scientific evidence, especially newer studies, Albanian nothing to do with Illyrian) but with new samples we will have more knowledge about their genetics.

Someone should not be surprised if it varied by regions and if it changed with time.
 
Because unfortunately everything what is related for the Balkans is politics.

Science, scientific evidence, even common sense, does not help.

For example I read transcripts between Communist friends, comrade Stalin and comrade Enver Hoxha, how they agreed that Albanians are descendant of Ilyrians what Stalin loved especially after dissolution with Tito.

Communists were projected all areas of life and especially they loved to re-tailor history, archeology, anthropology etc.

Unfortunately nothing changed in the Balkans even today.

Politics is often more important than scientific facts and evidence.

For example Russian experts point out that I-CTS10228 is Slavic marker. It can be related with any evidence but you can notice that Russians generally prefer it because if carriers of I-CTS10228 are Slavic origin Russia can have big influence on population in that region, if no, this influence can be much smaller. What is more important science or politics in this case?

About TMCRA, there are eight and more different methods and they give different results. But hobbyists Nordtvedt and Klyosov get very similar result. I will not speculate about their result.

But we have two samples I-CTS10228* one is from Poland but one is from Alsace (France-Germany border). What does that say? Were I-CTS10228 carriers in wider European areas (where dominated R1a or R1b carriers, or I2a carriers themselves)? Where we can find third I-CTS10228*, in Austria, Slovenia, Croatia, Hungary, Serbia... We don't know, only can speculate. And if we see older brother I-FGC20479 he is found in British isles. I-CTS10228, I-FGC20479, and related clades (we can go to ancestor I-P37 if you want) are everywhere in Europe.

What is interesting because above mentioned clades were in the wider European areas their carriers were been associated with other expansions, for example Goths. I comment this with one Russian expert but he rejected that argument, he prefers that E-V13 carriers are related with Illyrians and I2a carriers with Slavs (Russians embrace Albanian speculations but new studies mainly by Western scientists give totally different picture). Regardless of his expertise (Russian scientists participate in many world top genetic genealogy research and publish alone or a part of a world expert teams in prominent international journals what is logical because of developed science and Russia and a lot of Institutes) I ask myself if his attitude is very trivial and unscientific, if it is really science or politics has a connection.

It will be many new findings and new studies and we will know better. Therefore better not to speculate. Really I would like if it is possible to determine which haplogroups belonged to the Roman emperors of Illyrian origin and members of upper classes Illyrian origin in the Balkans in the Roman epoche.

Illyrians dissapeared as political entity probably in 2-4 century and their language dissapeared because they are Romanised (according scientific evidence, especially newer studies, Albanian nothing to do with Illyrian) but with new samples we will have more knowledge about their genetics.

Someone should not be surprised if it varied by regions and if it changed with time.

The only your contribution in this forum from many years is your pathological hate against Albanians. You are sick person. You know this and this give you pleasure.
 
The only your contribution in this forum from many years is your pathological hate against Albanians. You are sick person. You know this and this give you pleasure.
Seems like Garrick's propaganda managed to fester in here for many years like a plague.
 
Seems like Garrick's propaganda managed to fester in here for many years like a plague.

When i say that i have read almost everything about Albanians in this forum, you have to believe me. It's just disgusting.
 
Oh, my God, I am speechless. I can not argue with a wall who does not understand a thing yet think is smarter than others, but is not. Useless discussion with people who do not understand history, archeology (when was Bronze Age time period) nor genetics (I2a-Din is not I-CTS10228)...

Because facts don't matter. Nor can there be a different opinion despite the fact that it is based on evidence.

Well you noticed certain discrepancies and who wants use proper nomenclature he or she should write I-CTS10228.
 
Here we go again. Another academic or at least semi-academic thread ruined by this Balkan nonsense.

I don't want to see polemics here any more, I don't want to see politics here any more, I don't want to see the same point spammed over and over again.

Make your points and move on. If you don't agree, try the novel step of agreeing to disagree like normal people.

Garrick, watch your step. Ditto for Laberia. You're always the worst offenders.
 
Because unfortunately everything what is related for the Balkans is politics.

Science, scientific evidence, even common sense, does not help.

For example I read transcripts between Communist friends, comrade Stalin and comrade Enver Hoxha, how they agreed that Albanians are descendant of Ilyrians what Stalin loved especially after dissolution with Tito.

Communists were projected all areas of life and especially they loved to re-tailor history, archeology, anthropology etc.

Unfortunately nothing changed in the Balkans even today.

Politics is often more important than scientific facts and evidence.

For example Russian experts point out that I-CTS10228 is Slavic marker. It can be related with any evidence but you can notice that Russians generally prefer it because if carriers of I-CTS10228 are Slavic origin Russia can have big influence on population in that region, if no, this influence can be much smaller. What is more important science or politics in this case?

About TMCRA, there are eight and more different methods and they give different results. But hobbyists Nordtvedt and Klyosov get very similar result. I will not speculate about their result.

But we have two samples I-CTS10228* one is from Poland but one is from Alsace (France-Germany border). What does that say? Were I-CTS10228 carriers in wider European areas (where dominated R1a or R1b carriers, or I2a carriers themselves)? Where we can find third I-CTS10228*, in Austria, Slovenia, Croatia, Hungary, Serbia... We don't know, only can speculate. And if we see older brother I-FGC20479 he is found in British isles. I-CTS10228, I-FGC20479, and related clades (we can go to ancestor I-P37 if you want) are everywhere in Europe.

What is interesting because above mentioned clades were in the wider European areas their carriers were been associated with other expansions, for example Goths. I comment this with one Russian expert but he rejected that argument, he prefers that E-V13 carriers are related with Illyrians and I2a carriers with Slavs (Russians embrace Albanian speculations but new studies mainly by Western scientists give totally different picture). Regardless of his expertise (Russian scientists participate in many world top genetic genealogy research and publish alone or a part of a world expert teams in prominent international journals what is logical because of developed science and Russia and a lot of Institutes) I ask myself if his attitude is very trivial and unscientific, if it is really science or politics has a connection.

It will be many new findings and new studies and we will know better. Therefore better not to speculate. Really I would like if it is possible to determine which haplogroups belonged to the Roman emperors of Illyrian origin and members of upper classes Illyrian origin in the Balkans in the Roman epoche.

Illyrians dissapeared as political entity probably in 2-4 century and their language dissapeared because they are Romanised (according scientific evidence, especially newer studies, Albanian nothing to do with Illyrian) but with new samples we will have more knowledge about their genetics.

Someone should not be surprised if it varied by regions and if it changed with time.

Ok. But autosomal dna shows we are definitely pretty closely related to other Slavs. My results so far have shown I am even close to west Russians just as much as I am to Greeks, Italians, other Balkanites, Germans or if not even closer. Even though they're pretty far from us geographically. I'd like to know if Romanians on average are closer to Russians than we are. If we are closer than they are then that does say something about a connection other than linguistic. If they are closer to Russians than we are then this adna stuff doesn't really say much, it just basically corresponds to geography.
 

This thread has been viewed 568806 times.

Back
Top