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

[Shetop]

Results is I2a2 in the Balkans is 3,000 years ago. It is much earlier than Slavic expansion.

The result you have reached does not say when did I2a2 come to the Balkans, but it is the date of the most recent common ancestor. Why would you directly relate TMRCA and settlement of a group of people?

In that sense I asked you about Europeans on American continent, but you missed it. You need to improve understanding of the concepts here. We can't talk about conclusions if your arguments are not realistic.

[Garrick]

The result you have reached does not say when did I2a2 come to the Balkans, but it is the date of the most recent common ancestor. Why would you directly relate TMRCA and settlement of a group of people?

In that sense I asked you about Europeans on American continent, but you missed it. You need to improve understanding of the concepts here. We can't talk about conclusions if your arguments are not realistic.

I think you didn't understand this (no offense), maybe I was not clear.

Regueiro et al. claim that I2a2 in Serbs is 9000 years ago.

Authors write (Quote):

"The high haplotype diversity of I2a2-P37.2/M423 lineages in Serbia (0.9977±0.0094) also supports the
hypothesis that the P37.2 mutation has been present in the Balkans before the LGM (Rootsi et al., 2004; Semino et al., 2000). Moreover, the age of I2a2-M423 chromosomes in Serbs based on accumulated Y-STR variation, is ~9000 years ago (Table 1)"

Sparkley and I debated about this and reduced the number 9000 for 300%. Those result is 3000. This is not much scientific, but you agree that it may have logic.

But here I don't want to make a point if the I2a2 chromosomes in Serbs are 9000 or 3000 years old, or between or whatever. I just wanted to say how is derived number 3000.

And for paper of Regueiro et al. This paper is important (but I don't think it is bible). The paper is published in renowned journal: Gene (in 2012). In the paper participated three American and three Serbian scientists. Since this is scientific research paper it would be good that someone refutes authors arguments with another scientific paper. Opinions from the heads have a lower weight.

About Thracian haplogroups, you can see that I refer to the paper of Bird (2007) who claim that main Thracian haplogroup is E1b1b (E-V13). And probably the part of E1b1b (E-V13) in Serbs came from Thracian tribes. But I also appreciate all those who claim that Thracian haplogroups are I2a2 and R1a. There are two groups of opinions. Maybe, as Tracians were big group tribes, different tribes belonged to different haplogroups, or tribes (or some of the tribes) were mix. We trying to answer this questions bearing in the mind that it will be performed researches haplogroups of Thracians, Dacians, Illyrians etc. and we will know more about this important issues.

[Sile]

I think you didn't understand this (no offense), maybe I was not clear.

Regueiro et al. claim that I2a2 in Serbs is 9000 years ago.

Authors write (Quote):

"The high haplotype diversity of I2a2-P37.2/M423 lineages in Serbia (0.9977±0.0094) also supports the
hypothesis that the P37.2 mutation has been present in the Balkans before the LGM (Rootsi et al., 2004; Semino et al., 2000). Moreover, the age of I2a2-M423 chromosomes in Serbs based on accumulated Y-STR variation, is ~9000 years ago (Table 1)"

Sparkley and I debated about this and reduced the number 9000 for 300%. Those result is 3000. This is not much scientific, but you agree that it may have logic.

But here I don't want to make a point if the I2a2 chromosomes in Serbs are 9000 or 3000 years old, or between or whatever. I just wanted to say how is derived number 3000.

And for paper of Regueiro et al. This paper is important (but I don't think it is bible). The paper is published in renowned journal: Gene (in 2012). In the paper participated three American and three Serbian scientists. Since this is scientific research paper it would be good that someone refutes authors arguments with another scientific paper. Opinions from the heads have a lower weight.

About Thracian haplogroups, you can see that I refer to the paper of Bird (2007) who claim that main Thracian haplogroup is E1b1b (E-V13). And probably the part of E1b1b (E-V13) in Serbs came from Thracian tribes. But I also appreciate all those who claim that Thracian haplogroups are I2a2 and R1a. There are two groups of opinions. Maybe, as Tracians were big group tribes, different tribes belonged to different haplogroups, or tribes (or some of the tribes) were mix. We trying to answer this questions bearing in the mind that it will be performed researches haplogroups of Thracians, Dacians, Illyrians etc. and we will know more about this important issues.

If its 3000 years old , then its start of iron-age and as most historians known the Thracian Triballi people are part of the origins of the serbs ( and lets not go down the path that the thracian where slavic people) .

The term "Triballians" appears frequently in Byzantine and other European works of the Middle Ages, referring exclusively to Serbs.^{[13][14][15][16][17]} Some of these authors clearly explain that "Triballian" is synonym to "Serbian".^{[18][19][20][21][22]} For example, Niketas Choniates (or Acominatus, 1155–1215 or-16) in his history about Emperor Ioannes Komnenos: "... Shortly after this, he campaigned against the nation of Triballians (whom someone may call Serbians as well) ..."^[23] or the much later Demetrios Chalkondyles (1423–1511), referring to an Islamized Christian noble: "... This Mahmud, son of Michael, is Triballian, which means Serbian, by his mother, and Greek by his father."^[24] or Mehmed the Conqueror when referring to the plundering of Serbia.^[25]

Much of the territory occupied by the Celts in the area of todays’ Serbia / northern Bulgaria had previously been controlled by the Thracian Triballi tribe. Of all the Thracians, the Triballi had been most affected by the Celtic migrations of the 4^th / 3^rd c. BC. This tribe had previously inhabited an area which extended from the Morava river in the west, where Herodotus located the Triballian plain, to the Oescus (Iskar) river in the east.

The celts where the scordisci who destroyed the triballi ...............maybe why the existing triballians chose a new name ...servians which became seerbian

[Garrick]

If its 3000 years old , then its start of iron-age and as most historians known the Thracian Triballi people are part of the origins of the serbs ( and lets not go down the path that the thracian where slavic people) .

The term "Triballians" appears frequently in Byzantine and other European works of the Middle Ages, referring exclusively to Serbs.^{[13][14][15][16][17]} Some of these authors clearly explain that "Triballian" is synonym to "Serbian".^{[18][19][20][21][22]} For example, Niketas Choniates (or Acominatus, 1155–1215 or-16) in his history about Emperor Ioannes Komnenos: "... Shortly after this, he campaigned against the nation of Triballians (whom someone may call Serbians as well) ..."^[23] or the much later Demetrios Chalkondyles (1423–1511), referring to an Islamized Christian noble: "... This Mahmud, son of Michael, is Triballian, which means Serbian, by his mother, and Greek by his father."^[24] or Mehmed the Conqueror when referring to the plundering of Serbia.^[25]

Much of the territory occupied by the Celts in the area of todays’ Serbia / northern Bulgaria had previously been controlled by the Thracian Triballi tribe. Of all the Thracians, the Triballi had been most affected by the Celtic migrations of the 4^th / 3^rd c. BC. This tribe had previously inhabited an area which extended from the Morava river in the west, where Herodotus located the Triballian plain, to the Oescus (Iskar) river in the east.

The celts where the scordisci who destroyed the triballi ...............maybe why the existing triballians chose a new name ...servians which became seerbian

I know that Thracian tribes were Serbs (Triballi and other), but here is main question about their haplogroups: I2a2, R1a, E1b1b (E-V13), or mix?

[Yaan]

where did you find facts proving your affirmations here:
Galatians = "real IE warriors" ??? how and why? they were Celtic speaking tribes well linked to more Western and sedentary ones and they kept contacts with their "metropolitan tribes" even after reaching far eastern Europe (or what I red whas fairy tales) - the galatian mercenaries kept in touch until very late with their homelands -
or you have some unrevealed new facts by the hand?
xconcerning Y-R1b-U152-S28, the Romans forces apparently were stationed too in South of S-E Europe and there you do 'nt find this HG - it has some weight only in Croatia and Creta, for I know - but here too, maybe there are new data?
it is sure, the U-152 of "archaïcal zone" of Creta are a mystery
no offense!

It is 2.1% in Bulgaria and the second biggest kind of R1b after R1b-HT35(L23). It is observed mostly in South Central and South East of Bulgaria :)

[Yaan]

On topic majority of Bulgaria I2a is I2a Din N, we also have some I2a Din S. Thrchains I connected with E-V13, J2b2 and R1b Ht35 :)
I2a is clearly one of the 3 Slavic markers together with R1a-Z280 and R1a-M458 as if it was carried by Thrchians I strongly doubt that.:) But without ancient samples we can say nothing. Bulgarian Muslims are said to be direct link to Thrachians, there are only a few tested( in Greece take make a big research but hide results) the one that we know of are R1b-HT35/L23 and E-V13 there is one R1a, not sure which subgroup :)

[LeBrok]

Wikiquote:
According to the Slavonic hypotheses, the word Lugi may be a spelling for Slavonic лю΄дїе (~liudey), meaning people. In modern Serbian, the word луг (lug) means "small forest". Thus the word Lugii could indicate "forest people". Serbs have many versions of this word in use today, and all relate to forest, wood and swamp land. There is a possibility that the Lusatian Sorbs, whose land in their own language and in Polish bears the name Łużyce, adjective łużycki, are among their descendants. The term Łużyce/łużycki is possibly akin to Lugii.

Very interesting, although this region is considered to belong to Celtic influence in iron age till Slavic Expansion, even by polish archaeologists.

[Ike]

Well, according to R1a and R1b maps it seems both cultures reached the central Europe around 2500 BC. I have to believe archaeologists, but I'm eagerly wondering what will DNA analysis say.

[Diurpaneus]

Here you'll fiind many interesting articles about Thracians, some of them regarding the north-pontic region:




Battle Chariots, "Mycenaean" Ornaments.

Spread of Tin Bronze and the Rise of
Sabatinovka-Coslogeni-Noua Cultural Unit




Thracian, Baltic and Indo-Aryan hydronyms

of North Pontic area




About the character of the Scythian-Thracian contacts
in the Lower Danube in the 4th c. B.C.



https://archive.org/stream/ThracianW...logy7_djvu.txt

[MOESAN]

Very interesting, although this region is considered to belong to Celtic influence in iron age till Slavic Expansion, even by polish archaeologists.

the Lugi / Liuday (slavic) links seems to me very improbable on the phonetic aspect -
the celtic or more egnerally a kentum pertainance seems to me more likely (°lug = "light", breton 'luc'h', latine 'lux') - in a satem language I would be expecting something based on ?** luz- ??? - the Celts were known for their love for magnifying personal and tribal names - only speculation of my part, it 's true

[MOESAN]

It is 2.1% in Bulgaria and the second biggest kind of R1b after R1b-HT35(L23). It is observed mostly in South Central and South East of Bulgaria :)

I never said it was absent from all the Balkans (Maciamo maps by instance) but I said its centers of gravity were not in the more romanized areas - no offense -
concerning it presence in the most archaic zone of Creta I 'll look at this island history: had the Urnfields people some influence there?

happy and active new year

[gyms]

This is actually one of the best counterpoints to the Slavic hypothesis of I2a-Din origins in the Balkans I've read. Shetop's challenge is also excellent.

One more challenge to it:

I2a-Din can be split into two haplotypes: "North" and "South." These are misnomers because "North," the older, has its highest frequency to the East (Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus, etc.) while "South" has its highest diversity to the West (Poland especially) and only its highest frequency in the Balkans. Considering that the greatest outlier I2a-Din (neither "North" nor "South") has been found in Poland, it's looking like the ancient migration was something like Poland > Ukraine > Poland > Balkans for the Balkans group. But this doesn't really match Poland > Romania > Balkans. So either something like a pooling point is throwing us off or we need to find something that better matches Poland > Ukraine > Poland > Balkans.

Is there any Thracian Y aDNA?

[Sile]

Is there any Thracian Y aDNA?

We know one is R1b 100% as the area was a stopping spot for R1b.

I2a* is another as this is with the related cimmerains.

E is a strong choice for number 3

and some G2a, J, T as well

[Beavrrit]

Why do so many want or only can imagine/understand Haplogroup sub-clades as "identifiable" with or assigned to some known ethnicities of the last thousands years, or those that appear from the shadows into the extant written records of the Mediterranean Ancient Classic historical times? With all the changes in ethnic-identities even within a couple centuries, or one millenia -if to stretch it- as with transformations WITHIN an ethnicity or a morphed complex of many Y-dna/mt-dna combos.....WHY so many still want to identify as "themselves & un-changed" even the Myrmidons of Achiles or the Romans of Marcus Aurelius days.... to his modern city or county neighborhood residents? As if XV or XXV centuries and multiple immigrants waves haven't passed into their mix to become else new and ever more complex?Or as if we could identify modern results in % among haplogroups within a local segment of a modern population..... with whatever it WAS the average percents in any given portion of time in History?.... as if no populations tumbling and changes happened (and we know CHANGES DID and continue happening)?

[LeBrok]

Why do so many want or only can imagine/understand Haplogroup sub-clades as "identifiable" with or assigned to some known ethnicities of the last thousands years, or those that appear from the shadows into the extant written records of the Mediterranean Ancient Classic historical times? With all the changes in ethnic-identities even within a couple centuries, or one millenia -if to stretch it- as with transformations WITHIN an ethnicity or a morphed complex of many Y-dna/mt-dna combos.....WHY so many still want to identify as "themselves & un-changed" even the Myrmidons of Achiles or the Romans of Marcus Aurelius days.... to his modern city or county neighborhood residents? As if XV or XXV centuries and multiple immigrants waves haven't passed into their mix to become else new and ever more complex?Or as if we could identify modern results in % among haplogroups within a local segment of a modern population..... with whatever it WAS the average percents in any given portion of time in History?.... as if no populations tumbling and changes happened (and we know CHANGES DID and continue happening)?

Good question. I'll give it a try.
It is all because of human social nature. We all want to belong to a group, and if we find a continuity with a strong historic group then even better. Also in men there is a romantic warrior aspect. It feels good to identify yourself with brave warriors, strong armies, superheroes. These are very emotionally positives for our psyche.

Welcome to Eupedia Beavrrit.

[Sile]

Why do so many want or only can imagine/understand Haplogroup sub-clades as "identifiable" with or assigned to some known ethnicities of the last thousands years, or those that appear from the shadows into the extant written records of the Mediterranean Ancient Classic historical times? With all the changes in ethnic-identities even within a couple centuries, or one millenia -if to stretch it- as with transformations WITHIN an ethnicity or a morphed complex of many Y-dna/mt-dna combos.....WHY so many still want to identify as "themselves & un-changed" even the Myrmidons of Achiles or the Romans of Marcus Aurelius days.... to his modern city or county neighborhood residents? As if XV or XXV centuries and multiple immigrants waves haven't passed into their mix to become else new and ever more complex?Or as if we could identify modern results in % among haplogroups within a local segment of a modern population..... with whatever it WAS the average percents in any given portion of time in History?.... as if no populations tumbling and changes happened (and we know CHANGES DID and continue happening)?

Because some people are too stupid to realise that when the ancients moved, be it hunters or farmers, they went together in many different haplogroups. When geneticists say or find a marker is associated with one area, it does not mean there where no other markers there at the same time as well. some people do not see this, they have a nationalistic approach , ie borders

[gyms]

Extremly important questions.As an example:

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.co...-01/1389215560

From: Rossa Mullen < [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Update on Ancient I in Europe
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 1458 -0800 (PST)
References: <[email protected]>
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Did you find out any more info on the current Russian sample that was supposed to be similar to one of the old samples?

From: "Kenneth Nordtvedt" < [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Update on Ancient I in Europe
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 1531 -0700
References: <[email protected]><138921941 [email protected]>
In-Reply-To: <[email protected] yahoo.com>
Yes, it is derived for the standard snp now for Dinaric I ------ CTS5966

[kamani]

Yes, it is derived for the standard snp now for Dinaric I ------ CTS5966

What does it mean? (I got lost in the academic language)

[gyms]

What does it mean? (I got lost in the academic language)

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.co...-01/1389215560

[Beavrrit]

Must be the American in me who mistrust that way of digging one roots or sees this as silly (or suspect it, even fascistic). We all belong to nationalities or ethnic minorities within larger federation/confederations. It may feel good... but it also may border or fall over the edge into the dangerous, such "Master-race" pseudo-romanticism. There were more than "warriors" or super-heroes "gods" in Historic times or the darker and murkier "Legend-times" before written o oral traditional tales, infecting the straight record or what much we possibly sift from those archaeological digs and blood samples genetic trail traces. I am aiming to welcome as much truth from it, not some feel-good dope off from "my (sad or not) reality". It may be entertaining at times to read these highly imaginative spinning comments from others, but sometimes it gets heavy to bear the blurring of fantasy-wanna-turn-as-if-reality clouds, etc... and they leave you wondering from which Chinatown smoke-lair they are writing from and WHAT and from where they puffed it. Or comic book of Marvel? But hey, thanks for the answer and refreshing welcoming warning to reboot and take it not at face value, as if a serious web-site?

[james stock]

Must be the American in me who mistrust that way of digging one roots or sees this as silly (or suspect it, even fascistic). We all belong to nationalities or ethnic minorities within larger federation/confederations. It may feel good... but it also may border or fall over the edge into the dangerous, such "Master-race" pseudo-romanticism. There were more than "warriors" or super-heroes "gods" in Historic times or the darker and murkier "Legend-times" before written o oral traditional tales, infecting the straight record or what much we possibly sift from those archaeological digs and blood samples genetic trail traces. I am aiming to welcome as much truth from it, not some feel-good dope off from "my (sad or not) reality". It may be entertaining at times to read these highly imaginative spinning comments from others, but sometimes it gets heavy to bear the blurring of fantasy-wanna-turn-as-if-reality clouds, etc... and they leave you wondering from which Chinatown smoke-lair they are writing from and WHAT and from where they puffed it. Or comic book of Marvel? But hey, thanks for the answer and refreshing welcoming warning to reboot and take it not at face value, as if a serious web-site?

Are you a bot?

[Beavrrit]

Because some people are too stupid to realise that when the ancients moved, be it hunters or farmers, they went together in many different haplogroups. When geneticists say or find a marker is associated with one area, it does not mean there where no other markers there at the same time as well. some people do not see this, they have a nationalistic approach , ie borders

That too, a good and hard to avoid Reality -submerged or conveniently ignored. And since most modern nationalities are of recent creation, included the state of Issreal -to exclude others at the seclusion of a (very complex and mixed up) unique ethnicity, however ancient its origins may be- as past human groups didn't have these "fixed barriers", and much less for the individuals or tribal families intermarrying neighbours or distant groups...WHY do so many imagine the Past as if modern times (or III Reich epic propaganda) and ignore the looooooonger and darker period of the human record, our common Past too before nationalities, before these "warrior-heroic-tribes" they want to identify with as if still around? Because those tribes sprouted and evolved from those many more millenias of darker ages without written records and much more little sedentary "states" with much common with others over large tracts of land ACROSS MANY MODERN NATIONS BORDER BARRIERS. As if even the Proto-Celtic or proto-Bell beaker ethnicities' few centuries of boiling changes were to be lasting until today, while the whole Neolithic or Mesolithic longer centuries that made them didn't matter. Because they had no written records, or Auto-bahn superhighways, that makes them assume no mobility or mixing of populations and rising and falling/evolution of new ethnic identities with patched work of the many around even back then?

[Beavrrit]

What means a "bot"? Off the boat? Are you a Native American Indian to call me so?

[sparkey]

Interesting psychological/anthropological analysis, Beavrrit, but I've yet to see anything substantive that actually disputes that haplogroup subclades can sometimes be "identifiable with or assigned to some known ethnicities of the last thousands years." I hold that many in the genetic anthropology community make these sorts of associations not because they want it to be so, but because it's what genetic diversity analyses indicate. Although not wholly divorced from the phenomenon of people making false identifications with ancient populations, such analyses are in no way dictated by such tendencies. I mean, why post such a thing in this thread to begin with? Do you think anybody here is associating a haplogroup subclade with an ancient population out of wishful thinking?

[Sile]

Interesting psychological/anthropological analysis, Beavrrit, but I've yet to see anything substantive that actually disputes that haplogroup subclades can sometimes be "identifiable with or assigned to some known ethnicities of the last thousands years." I hold that many in the genetic anthropology community make these sorts of associations not because they want it to be so, but because it's what genetic diversity analyses indicate. Although not wholly divorced from the phenomenon of people making false identifications with ancient populations, such analyses are in no way dictated by such tendencies. I mean, why post such a thing in this thread to begin with? Do you think anybody here is associating a haplogroup subclade with an ancient population out of wishful thinking?

well terms being used in this forum and others , as an example, R1a is slavic and I1 is germanic etc, is distorting the truth to gain, either some nationalistic lands or to prove that in old history ( ancients ) that they existed. Its to justify the existence of the nation they are in, not realising that nations only emerged in the 18th century.............pure paranoia