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

[Miroslav]

How could it have been a major haplogroup among those peoples if I2a-Slavic was a haplogroup present in only one single man who lived 300 BC(as TMRCA tells us)? Illyrians and Thracians were maybe hundreds of thousands at the time that I2a-Slavic was just one little person.

First and foremost - nomenclature: I2a-Slavic and I2a-Dinaric do not mean a thing in the current discussion, it's totally bogus to understand whether you mean I-CTS10228 (formed 5098 YBP; TMRCA 2213 YBP; i.e. 3148-263 BCE) or I-S17250 (formed 2341 YBP; TMRCA 1722 YBP; i.e. 391 BCE-228 CE).

You do not take into account that Illyrians and Thracians were widespread and that at the time of continuous mention of Illyrian tribes since c. 4th century BCE, they were at their downfall. They were not numerous, especially Illyrian tribes. They fought Macedonian, Celtic, Roman and inner Illyrians wars. Afterward happened Hunnic and Gothic invasion and plunder, their number diminished, and you think that a century after century of war and death this "slave" could not be someone from the wider Balkan area? You think that there existed some kind of impassable borders, that people from Illyrian times did not migrate to the north? That during Hunnic invasion some "slaves" could not arrive from Balkan to for e.g. Poland, and hence so many percentages in these parts of Europe?

If you see the countries with more I or I2a haplogroup individuals committed more crimes against people. If you notice the two countries that have killed more people in Europe are Germany and Serbia... On the other hand because Thracian lacked I2a they were soft people because they did not have I2a. So were Illyrians...

This is the most racistic and stereotypical nonsense I read these days. Where are moderators now? Also calling Thracian and Illyrians as soft is showing a total lack of understanding about their history and warfare.

The sad fact is that you're all so alike, and no, none of you are "pure" Slavs.

The image is about autosomal DNA, and as such it does not prove that haplogroup we discuss is Slavic at all.

TMRCA simply means Time to Most Recent Common Ancestor of a subclade or a mutation, and not when the actual migration happened. Therefore the migrations can only happen after the TMRCA lived. In this case after ~100 AD, when the Slavs were already expanding.

TMRCA of I-CTS10228 (263 BCE) is the average number of its subclade formation age, hence I-S17250 has a different formation age compared to TMRCA (391 BCE). From this is clear that I-CTS10228 formation age and TMRCA, as well I-S17250 TMRCA can not be used as an argument for Slavic migration. Even 200 years after I-S17250 TMRCA (228 CE) we are not talking about Slavic migration, yet Hunnic-Gothic invasion throught Eastern Europe, and as such it can be both an argument for indigenous Illyrian&Thracian or Slavic theory. If we take into account all formation ages and TMRCA of these two haplogroups, including formation age of I-CTS10228 (3148 BCE), then Slavic theory (ethnogenesis and migration) clearly can not be unilaterally and empirically supported with these numbers.

The ancestral clade of I-CTS10228 (I2a-Slavic) is in Poland in I-CTS4002*...

I am literally stunned with people's logic - if ancestral clade (moreover with only one sample!) was found somewhere in contemporary population it does not mean it was there in the ancient time period.

 

[Trojet]

I spoke about ybp .............ybp starts from 1950AD
So if you say it is 1850YBP , then it formed ~100AD .................or did you fabricate 1850 ?

ybp means year before present and that is 1950

Where did I say TMRCA ?

You need to stop fabricating issues :annoyed:

I think you are just a ***** fabricating numbers

I fabricated 1850 ybp for I-PH908 (Slavic South)?
You're embarrassing yourself.

Go get your glasses old man, and take a look at this pic:

 

[Miroslav]

I fabricated 1850 ybp for I-PH908 (Slavic South)...

You only confirmed his thought - if it is 1850 YBP then it can not be Slavic by origin.

To be more specific, the current I-PH908 formation age is listed as 1806 YBP (144 CE) and TMRCA as 1802 YBP (148 CE). So you get the point, with I-PH908, which was relative "recently" found, arguing the Slavic theory is counter-productive. You can only with its subclades, which at the moment have very low number of samples, argue in the near future the Slavic theory. That's the whole fuss from my side - lack of neutrality and objectivity at the current point of data we have.

 

[Garrick]

I fabricated 1850 ybp for I-PH908 (Slavic South)?
You're embarrassing yourself.

Go get your glasses old man, and take a look at this pic:

Yes, you confirmed that I-PH908 can be Illyrian marker.

 

[Trojet]

You only confirmed his thought - if it is 1850 YBP then it can not be Slavic by origin.

To be more specific, the current I-PH908 formation age is listed as 1806 YBP (144 CE) and TMRCA as 1802 YBP (148 CE). So you get the point - with I-PH908 arguing the Slavic theory is counter-productive.

The Time to Most Recent Common Ancestor of all I-PH908 (Slavic South) people is ~1850 ybp. According to you, there was no Slavs at 1850 ybp, and they only dropped out of the sky during the early Middle Ages. You all are embarrassing yourselves.

 

[Miroslav]

According to you, there was no Slavs at 1850 ybp, and they only dropped out of the sky during the Middle Ages. You all are embarrassing yourselves...

No, you're with your biased approach. I already mentioned you, the haplogroups formation age and TMRCA are not concordant with Early Slavic ethnogenesis and their later migration.

 

[MarkoZ]

@Trojet

You'll never get a good idea if you rely on what I presume to be commercial samples that are inevitably skewed in one direction or the other. Only comparisons between representative samples of equal size can reveal the phylogeography of a haplogroup. Single extant basal types are close to meaningless.

 

[Trojet]

@Trojet

You'll never get a good idea if you rely on what I presume to be commercial samples that are inevitably skewed in one direction or the other. Only comparisons between represrntative samples of equal size can reveal the geographic phylogeny of a haplogroup. Single extant basal types are close to meaningless.

Obviously, it's pretty clear by now that people like you cannot rely on these samples nor the TMRCA figures, if you don't like this evidence. There has to be some king of propaganda by everyone, whether it's FTDNA, YFull, Ken Norvedt, etc.

 

[Miroslav]

You'll never get a good idea if you rely on what I presume to be commercial samples that are inevitably skewed in one direction or the other...

Impossible to explain to others.

 

[MarkoZ]

Obviously, people like you cannot rely on these samples nor the TMRCA figures, if you don't like this evidence. There has to be some king of propaganda by all institutions, whether it's FTDNA, YFull, etc.

If a visit on yfull was enough to determine the ancient origins of the various haplotypes that would be awesome. R1b from Saudi Arabia or Italy, R1a from UK or Qatar. Though I doubt these conclusions will be very popular :grin:I'd gift you a BitCoin if you defended the origin of R1b in Saudi Arabia on one of the other anthrofora. The ensuing rage would be hilarious.

 

[A. Papadimitriou]

The Time to Most Recent Common Ancestor of all I-PH908 (Slavic South) people is ~1850 ybp. According to you, there was no Slavs at 1850 ybp, and they only dropped out of the sky during the early Middle Ages. You all are embarrassing yourselves.

Where do you think it was ~1850 ybp and why?

 

[Bergin]

TMRCA probably is not a sufficient criteria to determine origins. But it probably it is a necessary condition.

Sent from my SM-G903F using Eupedia Forum mobile app

 

[Trojet]

Where do you think it was ~1850 ybp and why?

I think you mean where the Most Recent Common Ancestor of I-PH908 could have lived at ~1850 ybp.
Given its geographical distribution, as I posted a picture of FTDNA samples, and upstream clades within I-CTS10228 where I-PH908 stems from, the most likely place would be the area of Poland, Ukraine, or somewhere just north of the Carpathians.

 

[Nik]

Why everyone ignored MarkoZ post about Romanians, Moldovans, and Ukrainians?

Although I'm Albanian, unlike the others I still can't say that I2a-Din came as a Slavic marker. Max I can accept is that Slavs might have forced this haplogroup to the current location.

One reason for this (completely not scientific) is that I know many people from tribes/areas in Montenegro where I2a-Din peaks and they're on average more brown eyed and Mediterranid looking than the others. Same applies to Herzegovinians. Don't roast me on this but I know hundreds and I notice these characteristics a lot coz I find their women very hot lol

Again (non scientific), many of these tribes/clans where I2a-Din are known to have been Vlachs or indigenous so the skepticism builds up.

 

[DuPidh]

I fabricated 1850 ybp for I-PH908 (Slavic South)?
You're embarrassing yourself.

Go get your glasses old man, and take a look at this pic:

You don't know this ***** yet? He is a nasty provocateur that do not use logic or facts to argue for anything. Simply *****. He is very active in Illyrian or Albanian matters and does nothing but litter the topics about matters I mentioned. Look what he writes in language section of these forums:
"[h=2]Berbers and Albanians, E haplogroup and linguistic similarity[/h]

​

Berber languages are quite suitable for comparison with the Albanian because among the Berbers Ehaplogroup (similar subgroup as Albanians) is prevalent,they belong to North Africa and have preserved their distinctiveness despite the influence of Arabic and French.

I give the example of comparing Albanian words with languages Berbers of Morocco and Algeria (first part) and the language of the Tuareg (part two), the Tuareg language seems more suitable because it had less Arab and French influence, due to the greater isolation of the population."
You can go and see the forum. Its still active.

The only thing he understands is the middle finger. Don't waste your time.

​

 

[Trojet]

Why everyone ignored MarkoZ post about Romanians, Moldovans, and Ukrainians?

Although I'm Albanian, unlike the others I still can't say that I2a-Din came as a Slavic marker. Max I can accept is that Slavs might have forced this haplogroup to the current location.

One reason for this (completely not scientific) is that I know many people from tribes/areas in Montenegro where I2a-Din peaks and they're on average more brown eyed and Mediterranid looking than the others. Same applies to Herzegovinians. Don't roast me on this but I know hundreds and I notice these characteristics a lot coz I find their women very hot lol

Again (non scientific), many of these tribes/clans where I2a-Din are known to have been Vlachs or indigenous so the skepticism builds up.

Nik, to be honest with you, as an Albanian myself also, I would be for I2a-Din (or as we call it now I2a-Slavic) to be Pre-Slavic in the Balkans. But trust me bro, in today's age there is just no evidence of that, but to the contrary as I stated in my previous posts.

 

[Trojet]

@DuPidh,

I was aware of "Sile" and his posts, but somehow I had forgotten about him, since I haven't been very active in this forum lately. Thanks for the reminder.

 

[gyms]

Trojet:"Obviously, it's pretty clear by now that people like you cannot rely on these samples nor the TMRCA figures, if you don't like this evidence."

Evidence for what?

 

[Fatherland]

Why everyone ignored MarkoZ post about Romanians, Moldovans, and Ukrainians?

Although I'm Albanian, unlike the others I still can't say that I2a-Din came as a Slavic marker. Max I can accept is that Slavs might have forced this haplogroup to the current location.

One reason for this (completely not scientific) is that I know many people from tribes/areas in Montenegro where I2a-Din peaks and they're on average more brown eyed and Mediterranid looking than the others. Same applies to Herzegovinians. Don't roast me on this but I know hundreds and I notice these characteristics a lot coz I find their women very hot lol

Again (non scientific), many of these tribes/clans where I2a-Din are known to have been Vlachs or indigenous so the skepticism builds up.

The same question can be asked why you ignored the other posts?

Pigmentation has no relevance, blond people existed across the Balkans before the Slavs and Germanic movements. There's no difference in the South Slavs and Albanians when it comes to pigmentation really. No offense, it just seems you haven't paid attention to all this.
I'm blond, blue eyed and pale-skinned myself(and very tall at 198cm) & typical Gheg in autosomal plots/admixture with slight northwestern shift.

Vlachs are similar to the host population of their country so you can't use that as an argument and they do have quite a handful of different haplogroups.
They did infact mingle with Slavs due to common religion of Orthodoxy and so did the Tosks to a lesser extent.
Vlachs R1a frequency is 21.5% in FYROM alone.

Ghegs, especially from the northern tribes are infact the population one should always look at and we see a strong continuity between three main haplogroups since the Classic times; J2b2, R1b-L23 and EV13 with virtually non-existing I2a-Slavic. J2b2-L283 and R1b-L23 frequencies increases the more deeper you get into Gheg tribal territory.


I2a-Slavic and R1a along with some mtDNA are the markers that carried significant North-Eastern admixture into the Balkans.
I've seen many South Slavs, particularily Bosnians and Croats get more than 50% North Slavic on DNA.land and that tells you something.


My DNA.land results are almost purely Balkan, seen some Ghegs get 100%

 

[gyms]

Evidence? Trojet,show me one single ancient Slavic I2a1b............!