New map of Slavic Y-DNA

[mihaitzateo]

Sorry to burst your bubble but CTS10228 is Slavic. The disparity from autosomal to ydna could be explained by the fact that there is VERY LITTLE diversity in CTS10228 found in South Slavs. Suggesting they descend from a few common ancestors. Explaining why they have higher native admixture, but higher slavic YDNA due to the fact that they were successful in producing progeny.

You are not bursting my bubble .
I know that highest diversity of I2-CTS10228 is Carpathians from Moldavia.On the actual land of Romania.
Romanians and South Slavs are actually a lot more Western shifted that Poles.
And is known that Poles are having plenty of West German admixture and Baltic people admixture.
But, these Autosomal tests are reducing ethnicities to some not so refined calculus.
For example, Goths brought in Spain R1A clades.
If a Slav or a Baltic person was joining the Goths and live with them, for 100 years and his children were speaking Gothic as native language, were they anymore Slavs?
I think they were also East Germanics as ethnicity.
I highly doubt ethnicity is given only by maternal language, but by a lot more things.
A simple question, regarding the Croatians and Bosnians is why they always kept themselves away from Russians if they are so Slavs?
They speak a language with most of the words of Slavic origin, but is that enough to make them Slavs?

Ex-Yugos are preferring for migration in our days Germany or Italy, not Poland.
Why?
Ex-Yugos also mass-migrated to Austria.
I think the fact that South Slavs prefer to migrate in Germany and Austria shows quite clear they are actually still East Germanics, as ethnicity even if they speak a South Slavic language.
They have not been Slavizied enough.

In the history is told that Italy has a lot of influence from East Germans, while Spain was formed as a state by the Visigoths and Goths.
There is a clear thing,that Slavs had carried R1A clades and some North Germanics had also R1A - Norse, is also known Baltic speakers had R1A clades.
As for R1A in the Germanic people, except R1A-Norse seems to have come from assimilated Slavs and Baltic people, assimilated Scythian people etc.

I do not want to offend anyone, but today Poland is a very rich and peaceful state, which offers a lot more opportunities than Austria or Italy, for example.
However, you will see no ex-Yugos migrating to Poland instead you will see lots of ex-Yugos migrating to Germany, or going to work there and also, to Austria and Italy.
Why?
What is the logic behind the way in which South Slavs are making such a choice?
Another question, regarding the Romanians, this time, Romanians prefer to migrate most to Italy, 2nd-3rd to Germany and Spain.
Austria is also very liked by Romanians and UK, US are also on the list.
As for Russia , not even 1% of Romanians would like to go naturalize there. Poland, quite same.
Trust me, is not about money, because are Romanians that go to work on low salaries in Germany and take welfare instead of staying in Romania where they would have better conditions.
Same about Romanians going to Italy.
People are calling these things with the generic term "cultural differences".
Now, is not the "cultural differences" part of your ethnicity?
And if actually "cultural differences" are the more important factor for which someone can live and assimilate in a country, are not cultural differences more important than paternal lines?
How could I believe that some people living in swamps (the Slavs) came and started to live in the mountains, where are no plains, no swamps, as it is the case with Serbians, Croatians, Bosnians and Montenegrins and Macedonians?
I noticed a thing, that ex-Yugos have all their big cities near mountains.
Russians,Ukrainians, Poles do not have big cities near the mountains.
They actually have a fear of mountains.

 

[Dibran]

You are not bursting my bubble .
I know that highest diversity of I2-CTS10228 is Carpathians from Moldavia.On the actual land of Romania.
Romanians and South Slavs are actually a lot more Western shifted that Poles.
And is known that Poles are having plenty of West German admixture and Baltic people admixture.
But, these Autosomal tests are reducing ethnicities to some not so refined calculus.
For example, Goths brought in Spain R1A clades.
If a Slav or a Baltic person was joining the Goths and live with them, for 100 years and his children were speaking Gothic as native language, were they anymore Slavs?
I think they were also East Germanics as ethnicity.
I highly doubt ethnicity is given only by maternal language, but by a lot more things.
A simple question, regarding the Croatians and Bosnians is why they always kept themselves away from Russians if they are so Slavs?
They speak a language with most of the words of Slavic origin, but is that enough to make them Slavs?

Ex-Yugos are preferring for migration in our days Germany or Italy, not Poland.
Why?
Ex-Yugos also mass-migrated to Austria.
I think the fact that South Slavs prefer to migrate in Germany and Austria shows quite clear they are actually still East Germanics, as ethnicity even if they speak a South Slavic language.
They have not been Slavizied enough.

In the history is told that Italy has a lot of influence from East Germans, while Spain was formed as a state by the Visigoths and Goths.
There is a clear thing,that Slavs had carried R1A clades and some North Germanics had also R1A - Norse, is also known Baltic speakers had R1A clades.
As for R1A in the Germanic people, except R1A-Norse seems to have come from assimilated Slavs and Baltic people, assimilated Scythian people etc.

I do not want to offend anyone, but today Poland is a very rich and peaceful state, which offers a lot more opportunities than Austria or Italy, for example.
However, you will see no ex-Yugos migrating to Poland instead you will see lots of ex-Yugos migrating to Germany, or going to work there and also, to Austria and Italy.
Why?
What is the logic behind the way in which South Slavs are making such a choice?
Another question, regarding the Romanians, this time, Romanians prefer to migrate most to Italy, 2nd-3rd to Germany and Spain.
Austria is also very liked by Romanians and UK, US are also on the list.
As for Russia , not even 1% of Romanians would like to go naturalize there. Poland, quite same.
Trust me, is not about money, because are Romanians that go to work on low salaries in Germany and take welfare instead of staying in Romania where they would have better conditions.
Same about Romanians going to Italy.
People are calling these things with the generic term "cultural differences".
Now, is not the "cultural differences" part of your ethnicity?
And if actually "cultural differences" are the more important factor for which someone can live and assimilate in a country, are not cultural differences more important than paternal lines?
How could I believe that some people living in swamps (the Slavs) came and started to live in the mountains, where are no plains, no swamps, as it is the case with Serbians, Croatians, Bosnians and Montenegrins and Macedonians?
I noticed a thing, that ex-Yugos have all their big cities near mountains.
Russians,Ukrainians, Poles do not have big cities near the mountains.
They actually have a fear of mountains.

You just tried to associate socio-economic and political entities with Ancestry. That kind of dismantles your entire argument by suggesting South Slavs migrate more to Germany or Italy so they must be Germanic! They keep themselves from Russia they are Germanic!

What does that even mean? Croatians are more western influenced via culture and way of life over generations. It has nothing to do with Ancestry. No haplgroup is particularly anything really. It is responsible for coding proteins, and makes up a total of 1 percent of your entire genome. It is not relevant for determining ancestry which is constantly fluctuating generation to generation.

For example. If you're genetically Chinese and are R1a-M458(like a sample of a Han Chinese on Yfull) it doesn't make him a Slav. All it means is that probably(given no ADNA to be sure) that his earliest paternal ancestor 1500 years ago was either a Germanized Slav, or Slav taken as slaves by the Mongols.

Y-DNA is accurate for predicting migratory patterns. If some clades of say R1a-Z280/M458 are more common and specific to the Balkans, then that clade would be Balkan given the passage of time. However its parent clade would indicate where it migrated from. Context is everything. I2a1b-CTS10228 may not be Slavic. However Slavs are not basal CTS10228. South Slavs are further down stream, younger clades which concord with the Slavic ethnogenesis and migration. For instance the most common clade of CTS10228 in Serbians and Bosnians is only 950 years old. Which means the founder of that line was only living 1000 years ago. You trace migrations the further back you go.

Most all clades of CTS10228 in the Balkans is not that diverse and far younger. Don't get me wrong. I am of the mind(theoretically speaking) that Z280/M458/CTS10228 was possibly found in Getae/Bastarnae/Proto-Slavs. I believe Proto-Slavs either trace a large part of their ancestry or if not have some relation to Getae and Bastarnae. However, the downstream clades to which most belong are a result of younger founders. The ethnogenesis of the Slavs likely occurred as some combination of the aforementioned elements among other admixtures. Which may be responsible for new founding clades and clusters.

Technically the earliest ancestor of R1a was in Siberia. but No one calls themselves Siberian. You need to refer to the clade in question to ascertain who the earliest founder was or may have been. Regardless of this, your genetic composition is what determines your ancestry. You wouldn't call a Native American or African American a Viking or Anglo if he had that YDNA would you? Because these are merely social constructs.

If you speak Slavic and practice Slavic culture and way of life, you are Slavic. Your YDNA is only defined by your earliest ancestor. My line most likely came with any assortment of Sklavenoi, Avars, Bulgars, or Goths. But im neither of those things. That defines the ancestor, not you. Theres also founder effects to take into consideration.

 

[mihaitzateo]

Ancestry?
What is that?
Is not related to your ancestors?
Now, we are debating how I2-CTS10228,also known was brought to Romania and actual South Slavic lands.
There was a Slavic migration around 600AD but not a big migration.
What I currently think is that actually the Slavs that migrated 600 AD gave the ruling class and kings,because they had this kind of skills and people from South of Danube changed their language after their language of the rulers, but the mass of the people from South of Danube have not changed.
There was genetic testing made and Bulgarians score to be very close to what genetic material was found in Thracian archeological sites.
If I remember correctly Bulgarians were closest to the Thracian archeological sites.
Dacians were not Thracians, were close to Thracians.
And as said before, saying that Slavs living in the swamps, mass migrated and settled in the mountains from ex-Yugoslavia makes no sense.
In those times was hard to live in the mountains, you would be needed some very serious skills to live in the mountains.
In the mountains is not like in the plains, you can make almost no agriculture, you need to raise some animals (sheep are most fit to be raised in the mountains), to make serious provisions for the long winter etc.
There is no record in history or in archeological sites related to Slavic speakers that they were raising sheep.

Another animal that you could raise in the mountains, but is harder, are cows.
For the simple reason that a cow needs a lot to eat and needs more warm during winter, so you be needed to know to make a good stable to not have your cows frozen in the winter.
Also you would need to gather a large amount of hay during the spring, summer and autumn to have what to give during the winter to the cows to eat.

In the mountains for example is hard to raise pigs, which could be a survival food for the long and harsh winters of ex-Yugo.
People living in the swamps, 1300-1400 years ago did not knew how to live and survive in the winter in the mountains of ex-Yugo.
So, as said before, I do not believe at all that I2-CTS10228 was brought at some Slavs migration from 600 AD.

Another thing, there is known that Slavs were herding pigs as a survival food for the winter.
Now, in around 1000-1500 AD in Wallachia and Moldavia most people did not raised pigs.
They did not like to raise pigs, no idea why.
They raised sheep. Also, till some hundreds of years ago most Romanians lived in the mountains or near the mountains, not in the plains.
For the reason they did not liked to live in the plains.

So if Slavs migrated in mass when they came to Romania and ex-Yugo they somehow radically change their way of life and eating habits and started to like to live in the mountains and not in the swamps. They also stopped to eat a lot of pig meat and switched to eating sheep cheese and sheep meat.
I prefer to not believe this.

 

[Sneki]

There is no record in history or in archeological sites related to Slavic speakers that they were raising sheep.

So, do you want to say that Slavs first time saw sheep in Bysantine empire? Or that Slavs did not have sheep at all?
Sheep were domesticated 10 000 years ago, and farmers brought it to Europe 6000, 7000, 8000 years ago. Probability that no Slav had a sheep is less than 0,001%.

Even if you are right, argumentation that South Slavs are not actually Slavs because sheep farming is too complicated is hilarious.

Homo sapiens is able to live in deserts, in Himalaya, in Arctic and Yakutia, and it is impossible for a Slav to adjust to mountains?! Most of our mountain regions are rich with valleys, plateaus, arable land, and living there is sustainable. Populations were much smaller 1500 years ago.
Slavs lived in swamps because good lands and steps were too dangerous, not because they enjoyed it.
This could be the universal argumentation for everything. Example: NASA fabricated Moon landing. NASA is American, Americans are cowboys, and how could a cowboy possibly learn to build a spacecraft and fly it?
Not to mention Gagarin and USSR. As a Slav, he couldn't be able to take care of two sheep.
We live in a rapidly changing world of broadband internet, we are learning new skills every day, how can one seriously say something like that?!

 

[Dibran]

Ancestry?
What is that?
Is not related to your ancestors?
Now, we are debating how I2-CTS10228,also known was brought to Romania and actual South Slavic lands.
There was a Slavic migration around 600AD but not a big migration.
What I currently think is that actually the Slavs that migrated 600 AD gave the ruling class and kings,because they had this kind of skills and people from South of Danube changed their language after their language of the rulers, but the mass of the people from South of Danube have not changed.
There was genetic testing made and Bulgarians score to be very close to what genetic material was found in Thracian archeological sites.
If I remember correctly Bulgarians were closest to the Thracian archeological sites.
Dacians were not Thracians, were close to Thracians.
And as said before, saying that Slavs living in the swamps, mass migrated and settled in the mountains from ex-Yugoslavia makes no sense.
In those times was hard to live in the mountains, you would be needed some very serious skills to live in the mountains.
In the mountains is not like in the plains, you can make almost no agriculture, you need to raise some animals (sheep are most fit to be raised in the mountains), to make serious provisions for the long winter etc.
There is no record in history or in archeological sites related to Slavic speakers that they were raising sheep.

Another animal that you could raise in the mountains, but is harder, are cows.
For the simple reason that a cow needs a lot to eat and needs more warm during winter, so you be needed to know to make a good stable to not have your cows frozen in the winter.
Also you would need to gather a large amount of hay during the spring, summer and autumn to have what to give during the winter to the cows to eat.

In the mountains for example is hard to raise pigs, which could be a survival food for the long and harsh winters of ex-Yugo.
People living in the swamps, 1300-1400 years ago did not knew how to live and survive in the winter in the mountains of ex-Yugo.
So, as said before, I do not believe at all that I2-CTS10228 was brought at some Slavs migration from 600 AD.

Another thing, there is known that Slavs were herding pigs as a survival food for the winter.
Now, in around 1000-1500 AD in Wallachia and Moldavia most people did not raised pigs.
They did not like to raise pigs, no idea why.
They raised sheep. Also, till some hundreds of years ago most Romanians lived in the mountains or near the mountains, not in the plains.
For the reason they did not liked to live in the plains.

So if Slavs migrated in mass when they came to Romania and ex-Yugo they somehow radically change their way of life and eating habits and started to like to live in the mountains and not in the swamps. They also stopped to eat a lot of pig meat and switched to eating sheep cheese and sheep meat.
I prefer to not believe this.

I will formulate a more in depth response when I have the time. However, In short, all I will say is, believe it or not, it does not change the truth. Your passionate position on the matter doesn't change the facts. Even if CTS10228 is not Slavic, the clades South Slavs belong IS. There are no basal CTS10228 Slavs in the Balkans. They all belong to young clades DOWNSTREAM CTS10228 that concord with the Slavic Migration. Theres no diversity in South Slavic CTS10228 either. If South Slavs were basal CTS10228 then you could make a point. They are not though: Only a modern Frenchman is basal CTS10228 so far, and only a Greek/European Jew specific cluster is the oldest branch under CTS10228. The rest are young clades. Majority of Serbs and Bosnians are downstream PH908 which is quite young(between 500-1500 years). Even if for arguments sake that CTS10228 descends from Dacians, the clades most belong are not from dacians but their descendant. So it would only be a loose descent rather than direct. Most I2a1b-Din diversity is in Poland, meaning it expanded from there. Hence why I said Getae/Bastarnae are possible hacing occupied those areas . https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-CTS10228/

 

[mihaitzateo]

I will formulate a more in depth response when I have the time. However, In short, all I will say is, believe it or not, it does not change the truth. Your passionate position on the matter doesn't change the facts. Even if CTS10228 is not Slavic, the clades South Slavs belong IS. There are no basal CTS10228 Slavs in the Balkans. They all belong to young clades DOWNSTREAM CTS10228 that concord with the Slavic Migration. Theres no diversity in South Slavic CTS10228 either. If South Slavs were basal CTS10228 then you could make a point. They are not though: Only a modern Frenchman is basal CTS10228 so far, and only a Greek/European Jew specific cluster is the oldest branch under CTS10228. The rest are young clades. Majority of Serbs and Bosnians are downstream PH908 which is quite young(between 500-1500 years). Even if for arguments sake that CTS10228 descends from Dacians, the clades most belong are not from dacians but their descendant. So it would only be a loose descent rather than direct. Most I2a1b-Din diversity is in Poland, meaning it expanded from there. Hence why I said Getae/Bastarnae are possible hacing occupied those areas . https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-CTS10228/

I do not see anyone from Romania having this I-CTS10228.
And I know Romania has also up to 40% I2-din in some areas.
I suppose Romania does not have I-CTS10228 but some other types of I2-din.

 

[Srbadija]

If you speak Slavic and practice Slavic culture and way of life, you are Slavic. Your YDNA is only defined by your earliest ancestor. My line most likely came with any assortment of Sklavenoi, Avars, Bulgars, or Goths. But im neither of those things. That defines the ancestor, not you. Theres also founder effects to take into consideration.

Of course. Slavic is not ethnicity, it's linguistical group. At the end, no one can't impose you nationality. It is with what you are born, which language and tradition.

 

[Dibran]

I do not see anyone from Romania having this I-CTS10228.
And I know Romania has also up to 40% I2-din in some areas.
I suppose Romania does not have I-CTS10228 but some other types of I2-din.

I do not see anyone from Romania having this I-CTS10228.
And I know Romania has also up to 40% I2-din in some areas.
I suppose Romania does not have I-CTS10228 but some other types of I2-din.

Are you I2a1b-Din? Most of the clades are definitely associated with the Slavic expansion. Some perhaps can be associated in part with Getae or Bastarnae. If you go to Vayda's blog. He has the most up to date information/data as of 02/2018 for I2a1b-Din. Go to this site:http://blog.vayda.pl/en/i2a-dinaric-subclade-y3120-2/

As far as Romania is concerned, the most common I2 clusters are DinB and DinC. Din C makes up the overwhelming majority of Romanian I2a1b-Din and the branch is only 1650ypb to the most common ancestor. That is for the entirety of the branch. Meaning 45 percent of Romanian I2a1b-Din dates back to 350AD(common ancestor). This most likely can be the result of Vlach expansion. Considering this is the most common I2-Din cluster in the south Balkans. So far all Albanian data on I2a1b-Din seems to fall in Y12341 a sublade of DinC(Z17855) TMRCA 550AD. In the case of this cluster it most likely was assimilated Proto-Slavic tribe that moved with Vlach expansion. Considering its most prominant in Romania.

The second most common I2a1b type for Romanians which seems to be 15 percent of I2-Din is DinB cluster(Y4460) TMRCA 2200ypb. Common ancestor living 200BC. The most common clade under this cluster for Romanians seems to be Y3118 which also has a TMRCA of 2200ypb. This particular cluster in Romanians may be tied to Dacians, Getae, and Bastarnae(most likely) given the recent ancestor lived 200BC. We can theoretically state that this 15 percent of Romanian I2a1b-Din is possibly Dacian/Bastarn/Getae left overs. This cluster is not very common outside of Central/East European Slavs. Suggesting it didn't spread with Balkan slavs much.

So 60 percent give or take of Romanian I2a1b-Din is not as common in Balkan Slavs. This represents DinC/B. The rest falls into DinA, 30 percent give or take. Din A is the most common I2a1b-Din in the rest of the Balkans. DinA1 and DinA2 are the majority of Romanian DinA cluster. DinA1 and DinA2 are most prevalent in North/West/East Slavs. DinA3(PH908 and downstream clades) are the most common in the Balkans. Serbs/Bosnians/Croats especially.

So without DOUBT I2a1b-DinA is expanding with the Slavs. this makes up close 40 percent of Romanian I2a1b. DinB cluster makes up 15-20 percent of Romanian I2a1b-Din. This cluster is not so common. We can theoretically say it could have expanded with Dacians/Getae/Bastarnae. DinC is most common in Romania. However the age of the entire parent clade is only about 1600ypb. This is young. It most likely expanded with Proto-Slavs. Given how uncommon it is outside of Romanians, Bulgarians, Moldovans, Ukrainians Albanians. I assume it was an assimilated Proto-Slav that expanded with Vlachs(given its most common in these countries).

Obviously context is everything, but only about 15-20 percent of Romanian I2 may not be specifically Slavic. Maybe Proto-Slavic/Balto-Slavic etc.

 

[mihaitzateo]

@Dibran
If it is 350AD is possible to also be Goths.
200BC is possible to be Dacians expansion.
Did not knew that most I2-din from Romania is not same with I2-din from South Slavs, I have heard in the past, but forgot it.
I do not know what paternal HG I got, I will ask my uncle (father of my brother) to take a Y DNA and autosomal test.
I am living in Romania and getting testing would be quite complicated.
Thank you very much for providing so detailed info, is quite awesome.
Now I am wondering if it is possible to have I2-dinA brought between Slavs by Goths expansion.
Maybe Goths expanded North but not exactly from Romania lands, maybe they have lived somewhere else.
Later, these Gothic people remained between Slavs and got assimilated. Later Slavs migrated South and brought these assimilated Goths.
Is so few info about these freaking Goths....

Romania have not even a small interest to make archeological diggings and try find out which archeological sites from Romania belong to Dacians, which belong to Goths&other East Germanics, which sites belong to Slavs and so on.
I am sure in the existing archeological sites from Romania you could find bones and you could determine paternal lines of those bones, when is male bones.
Is not possible that Goths did not left archeological sites in Romania.
There is no Y DNA testing made between Romanians either.....meh....so weird.

 

[Dibran]

@Dibran
If it is 350AD is possible to also be Goths.
200BC is possible to be Dacians expansion.
Did not knew that most I2-din from Romania is not same with I2-din from South Slavs, I have heard in the past, but forgot it.
I do not know what paternal HG I got, I will ask my uncle (father of my brother) to take a Y DNA and autosomal test.
I am living in Romania and getting testing would be quite complicated.
Thank you very much for providing so detailed info, is quite awesome.
Now I am wondering if it is possible to have I2-dinA brought between Slavs by Goths expansion.
Maybe Goths expanded North but not exactly from Romania lands, maybe they have lived somewhere else.
Later, these Gothic people remained between Slavs and got assimilated. Later Slavs migrated South and brought these assimilated Goths.
Is so few info about these freaking Goths....

Romania have not even a small interest to make archeological diggings and try find out which archeological sites from Romania belong to Dacians, which belong to Goths&other East Germanics, which sites belong to Slavs and so on.
I am sure in the existing archeological sites from Romania you could find bones and you could determine paternal lines of those bones, when is male bones.
Is not possible that Goths did not left archeological sites in Romania.
There is no Y DNA testing made between Romanians either.....meh....so weird.

Goths definitely left a mark. But, I think it would be a hiccup in comparison to other moving groups lol. I could be wrong but I don't think they had long lasting settlements, so realistically there impact should be minimal. Though I imagine it would be more pronounced around Ukraine/Romania.

Regarding clusters, the most common Balkan cluster of I2a1b-Din is DinA3(PH908). This is only 5 percent in Romanian I2a1b-Din. It reaches its highest percentage in Bosnia(over 40 percent), Croatia(over 30 percent), Serbia(about 30 percent), Montenegro(27 oercent roughly), Macedonia(15 percent), Bulgaria(roughly 10 percent), and Romania(just shy of 5 percent). http://blog.vayda.pl/en/i2a-dinaric-subclade-y3120-2/dina-subclade-s17250/dina3-subclade-ph908/

Take a look at this graph illustrating. Most common Slavic I2a1b-Din type is DinA. especially A3(PH908). Which is low in Romania compared to B/C clusters. I was shocked to see most Albanian I2a1b-Din so far was shared with the most common Romanian C cluster. So even if it was assimilated Proto-Slav, it looks like it could have moved with Vlachs through Albania.

 

[JajarBingan]

So it seems Dacians and Goths were actually closed people.

Not at all.

I recommend this book to you. It's a good entry point to archaeology and old cultures from the territory of Romania and neighbouring countries.
It has over 100 pages covering from Mesolithic to the Medieval period. It should prep you for debate.

https://carturesti.ro/carte/marea-i...78448915?p=2&t=c_quick-search&s=Marea+istorie

http://www.laurafrunza.com/2018/06/13/marea-istorie-ilustrata/

 

[mihaitzateo]

Goths definitely left a mark. But, I think it would be a hiccup in comparison to other moving groups lol. I could be wrong but I don't think they had long lasting settlements, so realistically there impact should be minimal. Though I imagine it would be more pronounced around Ukraine/Romania.

Regarding clusters, the most common Balkan cluster of I2a1b-Din is DinA3(PH908). This is only 5 percent in Romanian I2a1b-Din. It reaches its highest percentage in Bosnia(over 40 percent), Croatia(over 30 percent), Serbia(about 30 percent), Montenegro(27 oercent roughly), Macedonia(15 percent), Bulgaria(roughly 10 percent), and Romania(just shy of 5 percent). http://blog.vayda.pl/en/i2a-dinaric-subclade-y3120-2/dina-subclade-s17250/dina3-subclade-ph908/

Take a look at this graph illustrating. Most common Slavic I2a1b-Din type is DinA. especially A3(PH908). Which is low in Romania compared to B/C clusters. I was shocked to see most Albanian I2a1b-Din so far was shared with the most common Romanian C cluster. So even if it was assimilated Proto-Slav, it looks like it could have moved with Vlachs through Albania.

Thank you very much for the info!
A3 I think could be spread by the Goths, because I see it in Poland and Germany and also in Italy.
Is A3 also present in Iberia, probability to have spread by Goths increases.
I was curious about A3, is it also present in Sweden, to see if the legend that Goths came from somewhere in South Sweden makes any sense.
In fact is very possible that Goths migration played a big part in forming of the Slavs ethnicity.
I do not know to have Slavic language mentioned anywhere till 600 AD.
And Goths could have actually lived in Poland and Germany,not in Scandinavia and started to migrate from Poland and Germany, Southwards and Eastwards.
After they migrated to Romania, Balkans they moved towards Iberia passing through Italy.
But as they moved their paternal lines changed as they mixed with and assimilated local people.

 

[mihaitzateo]

Not at all.

I recommend this book to you. It's a good entry point to archaeology and old cultures from the territory of Romania and neighbouring countries.
It has over 100 pages covering from Mesolithic to the Medieval period. It should prep you for debate.

https://carturesti.ro/carte/marea-i...78448915?p=2&t=c_quick-search&s=Marea+istorie

http://www.laurafrunza.com/2018/06/13/marea-istorie-ilustrata/

Oh really.
And to whom Dacians were related, to Celto-Italic people?
Or they were related to Iranic people?
Because you know that modern history discovered that actually Romans/Italic people and Gaulish people had a fusion between them.
Or somehow Slavs existed and Slavic language existed but there is no trace of Slavic language left because Greek and Italian historians were "racist".
NATO have paid these historians to write even about the existence of Finns, but not about the existence of Slavs.
Oh wait, in those times NATO did not even existed and Roman Empire was the strongest empire in Europe, North Africa and Middle East and their historians actually wrote what they knew, without any sentiments or feeling involved.
And Greek historians wrote the same, they wrote what they knew.
Slavs might have been hidden very well in those dense forests from Poland or Russia actual lands that Greek and Italian historians knew even about Finns, Celts but did not knew about Slavs.
Or actually Slavs as an ethnicity appeared after Goths and various Iranic tribes migration which could explain why Poles have as tradition that their nobility was Sarmatians.

 

[Srbadija]

Oh really.
And to whom Dacians were related, to Celto-Italic people?
Or they were related to Iranic people?
Because you know that modern history discovered that actually Romans/Italic people and Gaulish people had a fusion between them.
Or somehow Slavs existed and Slavic language existed but there is no trace of Slavic language left because Greek and Italian historians were "racist".
NATO have paid these historians to write even about the existence of Finns, but not about the existence of Slavs.
Oh wait, in those times NATO did not even existed and Roman Empire was the strongest empire in Europe, North Africa and Middle East and their historians actually wrote what they knew, without any sentiments or feeling involved.
And Greek historians wrote the same, they wrote what they knew.
Slavs might have been hidden very well in those dense forests from Poland or Russia actual lands that Greek and Italian historians knew even about Finns, Celts but did not knew about Slavs.
Or actually Slavs as an ethnicity appeared after Goths and various Iranic tribes migration which could explain why Poles have as tradition that their nobility was Sarmatians.

What if they called all of them with name "Scythians" ?

Or actually Slavs as an ethnicity appeared after Goths and various Iranic tribes migration which could explain why Poles have as tradition that their nobility was Sarmatians.

Not correct. Remove all Germanic and Iranic words from Slavic, and nothing will be changed. Slavic would still be Slavic.

 

[Srbadija]

Thank you very much for the info!
A3 I think could be spread by the Goths, because I see it in Poland and Germany and also in Italy.
Is A3 also present in Iberia, probability to have spread by Goths increases.
I was curious about A3, is it also present in Sweden, to see if the legend that Goths came from somewhere in South Sweden makes any sense.
In fact is very possible that Goths migration played a big part in forming of the Slavs ethnicity.
I do not know to have Slavic language mentioned anywhere till 600 AD.
And Goths could have actually lived in Poland and Germany,not in Scandinavia and started to migrate from Poland and Germany, Southwards and Eastwards.
After they migrated to Romania, Balkans they moved towards Iberia passing through Italy.
But as they moved their paternal lines changed as they mixed with and assimilated local people.

What Goths? Late-Proto-Slavic was formed in 1 year AD with kiev culture.

 

[Fatherland]

Thank you very much for the info!
A3 I think could be spread by the Goths, because I see it in Poland and Germany and also in Italy.
Is A3 also present in Iberia, probability to have spread by Goths increases.
I was curious about A3, is it also present in Sweden, to see if the legend that Goths came from somewhere in South Sweden makes any sense.
In fact is very possible that Goths migration played a big part in forming of the Slavs ethnicity.
I do not know to have Slavic language mentioned anywhere till 600 AD.
And Goths could have actually lived in Poland and Germany,not in Scandinavia and started to migrate from Poland and Germany, Southwards and Eastwards.
After they migrated to Romania, Balkans they moved towards Iberia passing through Italy.
But as they moved their paternal lines changed as they mixed with and assimilated local people.

Not likely at all. In Italy the A3 clade is less than 0.2%. Germany less than 0.6%, so Goths or Bastarnae theory is clearly impossible no matter how we twist and turn it.

Therefore it was not from Goths, but only Slavs.

Romanian church-script was Slavic before they switched to a Latinized scripture within the last 100 years. It proves there was a strong hint of Slavicization in former Dacia.

 

[Sile]

Oh really.
And to whom Dacians were related, to Celto-Italic people?
Or they were related to Iranic people?
Because you know that modern history discovered that actually Romans/Italic people and Gaulish people had a fusion between them.
Or somehow Slavs existed and Slavic language existed but there is no trace of Slavic language left because Greek and Italian historians were "racist".
NATO have paid these historians to write even about the existence of Finns, but not about the existence of Slavs.
Oh wait, in those times NATO did not even existed and Roman Empire was the strongest empire in Europe, North Africa and Middle East and their historians actually wrote what they knew, without any sentiments or feeling involved.
And Greek historians wrote the same, they wrote what they knew.
Slavs might have been hidden very well in those dense forests from Poland or Russia actual lands that Greek and Italian historians knew even about Finns, Celts but did not knew about Slavs.
Or actually Slavs as an ethnicity appeared after Goths and various Iranic tribes migration which could explain why Poles have as tradition that their nobility was Sarmatians.

Dacians, before converting to Latin language - spoke thraco-illyrian
.
The Relationship between the Thraco-Illyrian, Italic, and Celtic Language.
Indo-Europeanists divide the Celtic and Italic languages into two major groups: the Q-dialects and P-dialects. The Q-Celtic dialects were those which were separated earlier from the main group such as Proto-Irish and Proto-Celtiberian, according to the treatment of Proto-Indo-European labiovelars in these languages. The P-dialects turned the labiovelars into bilabials, while Q-dialects turned the labiovelars into simple velars. Instead, east of the Pyrenees, the Celtic dialects have turned the Proto-Indo-European labiovelars into labials, like in Osco-Umbrian.
Thraco-Dacian and Illyrian were related to Italic (especially Oscan and Umbrian) and Celtic (especially Continental Celtic). To the east, they had to have been in contact with the Balto-Slavic group which has many loanwords from Thraco-Dacian. As I mentioned above, this language had some important phonological features in common with Italic and Celtic languages and, to a lesser extent, it shared some (other) features with the Balto-Slavic group.
Thraco-Dacian (and Illyrian) treated the labiovelars differently, according to the phonological environment. Thus, those followed by front vowels (a, o, u) lost their velar feature, turning into a labial (p or b), while those followed by e or i turned first into simple velars, which later, perhaps in Late Thraco-Dacian (preserved as such in Romanian), turned into affricates or sibilants (see infra). This second phonological aspects brings Thraco-Dacian and Illyrian closer to the Balto-Slavic group. Regarding the treatment of labiovelars in the Italic languages, the situation is identical to the Celtic group, namely, Latin and Faliscan, which migrated earlier into the Italian Peninsula, kept the labiovelars, unlike Oscan and Umbrian, which have the same treatment of labiovelars as Continental Celtic.

 

[Dibran]

Thank you very much for the info!
A3 I think could be spread by the Goths, because I see it in Poland and Germany and also in Italy.
Is A3 also present in Iberia, probability to have spread by Goths increases.
I was curious about A3, is it also present in Sweden, to see if the legend that Goths came from somewhere in South Sweden makes any sense.
In fact is very possible that Goths migration played a big part in forming of the Slavs ethnicity.
I do not know to have Slavic language mentioned anywhere till 600 AD.
And Goths could have actually lived in Poland and Germany,not in Scandinavia and started to migrate from Poland and Germany, Southwards and Eastwards.
After they migrated to Romania, Balkans they moved towards Iberia passing through Italy.
But as they moved their paternal lines changed as they mixed with and assimilated local people.

Doubtful, as A3(PH908) is the most represented in all Slavic countries and most surely connected to their expansion. The only ones that could in theory possibly be connected to goths are B and C, as they takes a dive further westward. Most I2-Din in Sweden is due to the Slavic expansion, its relatively very low there.

Personally, I think most Goths were in reality Proto-Balts/Proto-Slavs with a Germanic Elite.

 

[Dibran]

Dacians, before converting to Latin language - spoke thraco-illyrian
.
The Relationship between the Thraco-Illyrian, Italic, and Celtic Language.
Indo-Europeanists divide the Celtic and Italic languages into two major groups: the Q-dialects and P-dialects. The Q-Celtic dialects were those which were separated earlier from the main group such as Proto-Irish and Proto-Celtiberian, according to the treatment of Proto-Indo-European labiovelars in these languages. The P-dialects turned the labiovelars into bilabials, while Q-dialects turned the labiovelars into simple velars. Instead, east of the Pyrenees, the Celtic dialects have turned the Proto-Indo-European labiovelars into labials, like in Osco-Umbrian.
Thraco-Dacian and Illyrian were related to Italic (especially Oscan and Umbrian) and Celtic (especially Continental Celtic). To the east, they had to have been in contact with the Balto-Slavic group which has many loanwords from Thraco-Dacian. As I mentioned above, this language had some important phonological features in common with Italic and Celtic languages and, to a lesser extent, it shared some (other) features with the Balto-Slavic group.
Thraco-Dacian (and Illyrian) treated the labiovelars differently, according to the phonological environment. Thus, those followed by front vowels (a, o, u) lost their velar feature, turning into a labial (p or b), while those followed by e or i turned first into simple velars, which later, perhaps in Late Thraco-Dacian (preserved as such in Romanian), turned into affricates or sibilants (see infra). This second phonological aspects brings Thraco-Dacian and Illyrian closer to the Balto-Slavic group. Regarding the treatment of labiovelars in the Italic languages, the situation is identical to the Celtic group, namely, Latin and Faliscan, which migrated earlier into the Italian Peninsula, kept the labiovelars, unlike Oscan and Umbrian, which have the same treatment of labiovelars as Continental Celtic.

We know relatively little about these peoples. In reality, most certainly they were not related or loosely related if that. Illyrian and Thracian may share some relation as is evidenced by their YDNA. Language was however different. Dacians overlapped with Thracians and may share relation via border regions but not directly. The only people who can be possibly connected to each other are Getae and Dacians. Roman and Greek writers lumped these people together no different than modern ignorants who lump all Balkan peoples together.

 

[JajarBingan]

Oh really.
And to whom Dacians were related, to Celto-Italic people?

They were a fusion of Gáva-Holigrady, Basarabi and Babadag cultures. On a meta level they were related to Getae, Odrysians and other Thracian confederations.
Getae, who lived in the extra-Carpathic space, had closer ties to the Greek world via the Odrysians.
Dacians, who dwelled mostly in the intra-Carpathic space, had visible Celtic La Tene influences, at least at the level of societal organisation.