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

The influences exerted by foreign peoples cannot be
assessed exactly for lack of sufficient adequate original
records. Undoubted anthropological evidence is only available
from the west of Transdanubia. In this region the Slavic
and the Frankish populations may have made their impact on
conquering Hungarians and their descendants (Wenger 1970;

Éry 1992). In the eastern region it is only the earthwork of
Szabolcs in the territory of early settling from where anthropological
finds referring to the presence of Bulgarians (or
perhaps Alans) are known of (Szathmáry 1981).

https://www2.sci.u-szeged.hu/ABS/Acta HP/44-95.pdf



 
Miroslav said:
We already have some kind of consensus on Eupedia when you have on I2 article pushed ideological hypothesis. The forum is another thing, however, both this and Serbian DNA Project among others are not official and reliable sources someone can cite. Maciamo and others are the ones who decide to make a stand for specific hypothesis promotion. It's their problem they support and promote a theory not based on any evidence, and ignorance of contradicting information. Well, if you're making names, then sincerely we really can not have consensus with people like you who do not know when was Bronze Age in Europe.

"The evidence is overwhelming", what you say is just a funny mantra, nothing more or less. Stop to repeat and misguide yourself and others, there is no evidence. Unless you want to act according to the quote by A. Hitler "If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed".
Click to expand...

I can confirm about Serbian DNA project. A lot of good people including Croats and Bosniacs participate in this website. Problem is what some people (probably pan-Slavic or pro-Russian orientation) wanted to increase R1a and they conducted research for more people who belonging to one family lineage. Of course they were all R1a.

For serious research sampling is one of basic things for reliability survey. Therefore if in above mentioned web site there are a lot R1a findings it is not a true picture of distribution of haplogroups in Serbia and it is not reliable because of sampling.

Eupedia data taken from scientific studies are reliable, they can be changed with new findings but not so much.
 
Bergin said:
Angela, is there any academic consensus regarding the story line of I2a-Din? Or is it an open question requesting new samples?
Click to expand...

Very little is certain in any aspect of genetics, but as I said before, the academicians and virtually everyone in the hobbyist community except people from the Balkans like Garrick and Miroslav believe that this particular lineage of I2a existed in more northern areas and became part of the Slavic speaking community there, only arriving in the Balkans with the Slavic migrations of early Medieval times.

It seems to an uninterested observer that people who have been pumped with "Slavic" propaganda since the 1800s and maybe even before just want to have it both ways. They want to be "Slavic", despite all the evidence that most of them are at least half and often more definitely not "Slavic", and at the same time they want to be "indigenous", so they go through these contortions trying to show that the only y marker which could possibly be "Slavic" is indigenous, which would mean that the Slavic languages are also "indigenous", which is patently absurd. For one thing, except for some ethnocentrist linguists from the Balkans who are mostly ignored, every linguist in the world knows that Slavic is a relatively recent language, and every archaeologist, anthropologist and geneticist in the world knows that there was a migration by Slavic speaking peoples into the Balkans after the fall of the Western Empire and the weakening of the Eastern Empire. It was just a slightly later later Barbarian invasion.

You can't just look at the arguments for this y lineage being "indigenous". You have to look at the whole pattern or story that is being sold. If this lineage is not "Slavic", where did all the "Slavic" ancestry come from? There's far too little R1a to account for it. So, it has to be "Slavic". It also has to be "indigenous" for some people, but that would require us to believe that it was already in the Balkans before the arrival of Slavic speaking peoples in the Middle Ages. In that case what the heck y dna did those people carry? Simple, for these type of people. We'll just pretend that all the archaeologists relying on data and all the historians relying on actual documents are wrong and that there was no "Slavic" migration.

The whole thing is utterly ridiculous. How even someone who has been brainwashed by an education system and a culture under the control of autocrats and fifty or more years behind the times can believe this illogical and a-scientific narrative is beyond me. Of course, this is the Balkans....
 
Angela said:
They want to be "Slavic", despite all the evidence that most of them are at least half and often more definitely not "Slavic", and at the same time they want to be "indigenous", so they go through these contortions trying to show that the only y marker which could possibly be "Slavic" is indigenous, which would mean that the Slavic languages are also "indigenous", which is patently absurd.
Click to expand...

No, exactly the opposite.

Angela said:
If this lineage is not "Slavic", where did all the "Slavic" ancestry come from? There's far too little R1a to account for it.
Click to expand...

There is more than enough R1a for Slavic ancestry, the imposition of social-cultural identity and language. The amount of R1a could have diminished in specific regions due to Black death as well many wars and migrations, with local-regional founder effect in favor of I2a (which is highest in Bosnia and Herzegovina from where happened many migrations in all cardinal directions during the Ottoman invasion) compared to R1a. First and foremost, nobody knows what number those Slavs arrived, specifically Croatian and Serbian tribes. If those medieval Slavs from 6th-8th century arrived from, for example, Southern Poland, Bohemia, and Bavaria, and predominantly were hg-I2a, which is roughly speaking highest in the Roman province of Dalmatia, then it certainly contradicts the fact that the Sorbs (related to the Serbs) are over 63% R1a. The historically closest population to the so-called White Croats and Serbs are Sorbs, with similarly isolated local-regional founder effect, and they do not show such haplogroup percentage distribution. The same thing is with Croatian provinces in Pannonia, or Slovenian country - these parts are considered to be more "Slavic", yet independently of the many migrations in the last 500 years, they are lowest in I2a percentage. The current discussion is pointless from the perspective if it ignores the broad reality and that it is based on contemporary population percentage while ignoring contradictions.
 
Angela said:
Very little is certain in any aspect of genetics, but as I said before, the academicians and virtually everyone in the hobbyist community except people from the Balkans like Garrick and Miroslav believe that this particular lineage of I2a existed in more northern areas and became part of the Slavic speaking community there, only arriving in the Balkans with the Slavic migrations of early Medieval times.

It seems to an uninterested observer that people who have been pumped with "Slavic" propaganda since the 1800s and maybe even before just want to have it both ways. They want to be "Slavic", despite all the evidence that most of them are at least half and often more definitely not "Slavic", and at the same time they want to be "indigenous", so they go through these contortions trying to show that the only y marker which could possibly be "Slavic" is indigenous, which would mean that the Slavic languages are also "indigenous", which is patently absurd. For one thing, except for some ethnocentrist linguists from the Balkans who are mostly ignored, every linguist in the world knows that Slavic is a relatively recent language, and every archaeologist, anthropologist and geneticist in the world knows that there was a migration by Slavic speaking peoples into the Balkans after the fall of the Western Empire and the weakening of the Eastern Empire. It was just a slightly later later Barbarian invasion.

You can't just look at the arguments for this y lineage being "indigenous". You have to look at the whole pattern or story that is being sold. If this lineage is not "Slavic", where did all the "Slavic" ancestry come from? There's far too little R1a to account for it. So, it has to be "Slavic". It also has to be "indigenous" for some people, but that would require us to believe that it was already in the Balkans before the arrival of Slavic speaking peoples in the Middle Ages. In that case what the heck y dna did those people carry? Simple, for these type of people. We'll just pretend that all the archaeologists relying on data and all the historians relying on actual documents are wrong and that there was no "Slavic" migration.

The whole thing is utterly ridiculous. How even someone who has been brainwashed by an education system and a culture under the control of autocrats and fifty or more years behind the times can believe this illogical and a-scientific narrative is beyond me. Of course, this is the Balkans....
Click to expand...

Agreed and great post.

Both R1a and I2a-Slav served as the main components differentiating Slavic-admixed people with the Classic Balkans. They also brought mtdna lineages with them.
Northeastern shift in Balkan Slavs is high compared to the rest of the Balkan inhabitants - except Romanians who also have high I2a-Slav and R1a, still southern shifted compared to South Slavs bar south Bulgarians who have more of the Classic Balkan haplogroups.
This difference is huge even between a Balkan Slav and Classic Balkan neighbor(Albanian, Greek) living next-door with them.

Albanians are basically "Northwestern-shifted mainland Greeks" or "Eastern-shifted Tuscans" in most of the Gedmatch calculators I've seen.

My DNAland:

oWSGF8z.png
 
Apsurdistan said:
How am I gonna ask any viable questions when you just say "there is no evidence" what do you mean there's no evidence of what?
Click to expand...

That's the issue - the given "answers" which can be read on this or similar sites, at least on the topic of this haplogroup, are not based on anything relevant and confirmed about the haplogroup. There is no ancient sample, was it thousands or several centuries old, was it from e.g. Poland or Bosnia and Herzegovina (preferably both) and so on. Neutrality is not shown as is pushed a specific theory which currently has missing links and is simply too soon to throw it to people as a "fact" or "mainstream" consideration. We are at the stage of theorization, there's nothing relevant enough to snap and say "that's it!". My primary issue is the lack of neutrality, which common people do not know.

Apsurdistan said:
What is your major beef with Trojet cuz he claims that I2a1b hasn't been found in ancient Balkans and that the subclade is too young to not be Slavic?
Click to expand...

Contradictory logic and premature conclusion ignoring the fact the samples have a strongly isolated locality, period, number tendency, from which according to the I2a1-P37.2 sample list, can not be concluded anything what happened after LGM refugia migration, even that is speculative. The subclade formation age and TMRCA do not correspond with Slavic ethnogenesis formation and much later medieval migration. Its young age does not exclude it was present in the Balkan or broad region from both sides of Danube river.

Apsurdistan said:
And it's found in significant percentages only in Slavic countries or semi-Slavic like Romania Hungary. And you think that he's wrong. Why?
Click to expand...

That's not a strong argument considering that social-cultural-ethnic identity steadily changed. Instead of cultural, you could use geographical argument.

Apsurdistan said:
...why some people from my own neck of the woods just vehemently want to deny any idea of a Slavic expansion and that those are mainly our roots. Is it that important how long our ancestors dwelled in the Balkans and stayed on one patch of dirt? I just don't get what's the fuss.
Click to expand...

Ideology. The primary issue with historiography during the Yugoslavian period was in the fact the archeology research could not confirm massive Slavic migration nor that Balkan was uninhabited, while ethnography research conclusion that many Dinaric traditions among both South Slavic, or Vlachian, or Albanian populations have a non-Slavic origin, yet mostly considered Illyrian.
 
Fatherland said:
Agreed and great post.

Both R1a and I2a-Slav served as the main components differentiating Slavic-admixed people with the Classic Balkans. They also brought mtdna lineages with them.
Northeastern shift in Balkan Slavs is high compared to the rest of the Balkan inhabitants - except Romanians who also have high I2a-Slav and R1a, still southern shifted compared to South Slavs bar south Bulgarians who have more of the Classic Balkan haplogroups.
This difference is huge even between a Balkan Slav and Classic Balkan neighbor(Albanian, Greek) living next-door with them.

Albanians are basically "Northwestern-shifted mainland Greeks" or "Eastern-shifted Tuscans" in most of the Gedmatch calculators I've seen.

My DNAland:

oWSGF8z.png
Click to expand...
Exactly so, particularly the bolded portion, as I 've been saying since the days of the dodecad calculators.

For the members of the "flat earth society", however, that's easily taken care of. Autosomal analysis, which is the focus of the major genetics labs in the world, is irrelevant. :rolleyes: See, you can believe anything you want as long as you're willing to blind your eyes to science.
 
Miroslav said:
gyms said:
Why we underestimate the role of women? .../QUOTE]

You should read Father Tongue hypothesis
Click to expand...

I agree for the most -
language shift depends on diverse factors (number, social organisation...), I already posted about this (as opposants to my thoughts!); but I 'm tempted to think that a male elite doesn' t change language so easily except in some very unbalanced cases, and I don't put too much credit in the "mother's tongue" myth -
Click to expand...
 
Miroslav, Garrick, Milan and Dinarid, you can down thumb me and anyone else who shows up your illogic until kingdom come. . It's just ultra-nationalistic obfuscation and everyone knows it. Who do you think you're kidding? Everyone else in the amateur community knows that this whole argument is nonsense, and as for the academics, you're not even on their radar.

You keep spamming the same distorted arguments over and over again, and harassing other members, and you're all going to get infractions. Everyone else is tired of being on this merry-go-round.
 
Miroslav said:
Autosomal DNA is not of much use if we're discussing for a period older than 300 years. There several possible reasons some populations are more closely related than to others.
Click to expand...

I suggest you start reading some dna academic papers rather than the blogs run by ultra-nationalists.

We have and can analyze autosomal dna from 2500 BC and before.
 
Angela said:
I suggest you start reading some dna academic papers rather than the blogs run by ultra-nationalists...
Click to expand...

You missed the point.

Angela said:
Miroslav, Garrick, Milan and Dinarid...
Click to expand...

Nice, throwing around ultra-nationalistic labels to us (you could have use Fascism or Nazism instead, they are more popular nowadays), calling us illogical spammers of distorted arguments (shameful), yet on this site to people is sold illogical contradictions and biased ignorance as factual reality. Literally, on this last few pages the primary issue was the lack of evidence and neutrality, but according to you nobody should care about it and only biased viewpoint should be interpreted and allowed? The evidence and rationalization are pointless in post-modernist worldview, and anyone who points this issue should be banned. Is this what you support? Ban all those who you do not agree with while befriending those who spam useless cheering posts like we're in elementary school, who don't know the difference between haplogroups nomenclature, history, archeology, whatever as long as they accept the narrative? How convenient.
 
Angela said:
Very little is certain in any aspect of genetics, but as I said before, the academicians and virtually everyone in the hobbyist community except people from the Balkans like Garrick and Miroslav believe that this particular lineage of I2a existed in more northern areas and became part of the Slavic speaking community there, only arriving in the Balkans with the Slavic migrations of early Medieval times.

It seems to an uninterested observer that people who have been pumped with "Slavic" propaganda since the 1800s and maybe even before just want to have it both ways. They want to be "Slavic", despite all the evidence that most of them are at least half and often more definitely not "Slavic", and at the same time they want to be "indigenous", so they go through these contortions trying to show that the only y marker which could possibly be "Slavic" is indigenous, which would mean that the Slavic languages are also "indigenous", which is patently absurd. For one thing, except for some ethnocentrist linguists from the Balkans who are mostly ignored, every linguist in the world knows that Slavic is a relatively recent language, and every archaeologist, anthropologist and geneticist in the world knows that there was a migration by Slavic speaking peoples into the Balkans after the fall of the Western Empire and the weakening of the Eastern Empire. It was just a slightly later later Barbarian invasion.

You can't just look at the arguments for this y lineage being "indigenous". You have to look at the whole pattern or story that is being sold. If this lineage is not "Slavic", where did all the "Slavic" ancestry come from? There's far too little R1a to account for it. So, it has to be "Slavic". It also has to be "indigenous" for some people, but that would require us to believe that it was already in the Balkans before the arrival of Slavic speaking peoples in the Middle Ages. In that case what the heck y dna did those people carry? Simple, for these type of people. We'll just pretend that all the archaeologists relying on data and all the historians relying on actual documents are wrong and that there was no "Slavic" migration.

The whole thing is utterly ridiculous. How even someone who has been brainwashed by an education system and a culture under the control of autocrats and fifty or more years behind the times can believe this illogical and a-scientific narrative is beyond me. Of course, this is the Balkans....
Click to expand...

Never wanted to "argue" with you,maybe you had bad day today,but when i do not agree i do not.How many countries have you visited in your lifetime except of Italy or USA,to which country in the Balkans you have been?
I see you're not very tolerant toward anything "east" by your perception,what do you really know of other cultures,be they from Balkans,Eastern Europe or middle East,have you ever visited any? because i doubt.

In reality i was opening threads about Slavs and threads i was interested in,all are signed under my name Milan some from other accounts,anyone can read them,i had debates with Taranis and also some Albanians who were joining from time to time "objective" just like they are on this thread.You was not participating there however.

Your entire post is non-sense.

Angela said:
Miroslav, Garrick, Milan and Dinarid, you can down thumb me and anyone else who shows up your illogic until kingdom come. . It's just ultra-nationalistic obfuscation and everyone knows it. Who do you think you're kidding? Everyone else in the amateur community knows that this whole argument is nonsense, and as for the academics, you're not even on their radar.

You keep spamming the same distorted arguments over and over again, and harassing other members, and you're all going to get infractions. Everyone else is tired of being on this merry-go-round.
Click to expand...

Ban is preferable than infraction.
 
gyms said:
Apsurdistan:"And it's found in significant percentages only in Slavic countries or semi-Slavic like Romania Hungary."

Are Romania and Hungary "semi-Slavic" ?

You are absurd indeed. Is the Sun "semi-Slavic" too?
Click to expand...

Lol even though you misunderstood the terminology I made up and yes it's sloppy, the funny way you replied to it is gonna get the green button approval!
 
Angela said:
Very little is certain in any aspect of genetics, but as I said before, the academicians and virtually everyone in the hobbyist community except people from the Balkans like Garrick and Miroslav believe that this particular lineage of I2a existed in more northern areas and became part of the Slavic speaking community there, only arriving in the Balkans with the Slavic migrations of early Medieval times.

It seems to an uninterested observer that people who have been pumped with "Slavic" propaganda since the 1800s and maybe even before just want to have it both ways. They want to be "Slavic", despite all the evidence that most of them are at least half and often more definitely not "Slavic", and at the same time they want to be "indigenous", so they go through these contortions trying to show that the only y marker which could possibly be "Slavic" is indigenous, which would mean that the Slavic languages are also "indigenous", which is patently absurd. For one thing, except for some ethnocentrist linguists from the Balkans who are mostly ignored, every linguist in the world knows that Slavic is a relatively recent language, and every archaeologist, anthropologist and geneticist in the world knows that there was a migration by Slavic speaking peoples into the Balkans after the fall of the Western Empire and the weakening of the Eastern Empire. It was just a slightly later later Barbarian invasion.

You can't just look at the arguments for this y lineage being "indigenous". You have to look at the whole pattern or story that is being sold. If this lineage is not "Slavic", where did all the "Slavic" ancestry come from? There's far too little R1a to account for it. So, it has to be "Slavic". It also has to be "indigenous" for some people, but that would require us to believe that it was already in the Balkans before the arrival of Slavic speaking peoples in the Middle Ages. In that case what the heck y dna did those people carry? Simple, for these type of people. We'll just pretend that all the archaeologists relying on data and all the historians relying on actual documents are wrong and that there was no "Slavic" migration.

The whole thing is utterly ridiculous. How even someone who has been brainwashed by an education system and a culture under the control of autocrats and fifty or more years behind the times can believe this illogical and a-scientific narrative is beyond me. Of course, this is the Balkans....
Click to expand...

I love how she pretends to know "cuz she claims to have the academia knowledge" that she knows more about our own history and culture better than us who have lived it. And discriminating against the Balkans on top of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 571035 times.

Back
Top