How did I2a-Din get to the Balkans?

[sparkey]

So there are several threads, all recently active, where the focus of the conversation has turned to (often passionate) discussions about how I2a1b1a-Din, the most common Haplogroup I subclade in the Balkans, got to the Balkans. But we seem far from reaching consensus on this forum, so here's a poll to at least put our finger to the wind regarding the direction this forum is leaning.

I've included as options several different possibilities I've read:

Paleolithic continuity: I2a-Din has been in the Balkans since the Paleolithic, and present distribution outside of the Balkans is the result of migrations out of it. There is direct geographic continuity for this clade from Gravettian culture and/or the Balkans Ice Age refuge. Proponents point out the age of Haplogroup I and the frequency distribution of I2a-Din. I've read Maciamo articulate this view, but I'm not sure if he still holds it.

The Early Indo-Europeans: I2a-Din was brought to the Balkans by the Indo-European migrations. It was part of the "original" collection of Y-DNA of Indo-Europeans. Proponents point out that everywhere that Haplogroup I is dominant nowadays speaks an IE language. How yes no was fond of this theory for a while.

Sea Peoples: I2a-Din was brought to the Balkans by seafaring groups not otherwise mentioned in this poll. The migration happened before history or early in history. Proponents point to the frequency distribution and the lack of historical verification for later migrations. How yes no explored this idea, and recently Pyrub has advocated it.

The Sarmatians: I2a-Din was brought to the Balkans by the Sarmatians. Proponents of this view cite the STR dating estimate for the clade, the apparent Asian spillover of it, and the historical attestation to Sarmatians (but not Slavs) in the Balkans. Bodin has been the most vocal advocate of this theory here.

The Slavs: I2a-Din was brought to the Balkans by expanding Slavs in the 1st millennium CE. Proponents cite the age of the clade, expert STR diversity analysis by people like Nordtvedt and Verenich, and dispute that history doesn't verify the Slavic expansions. I have supported this view, as have a few other posters.

If you believe that multiple expansions resulted in the current I2a-Din distribution in the Balkans, indicate which you feel brought most or had the greatest impact. If you feel that the data is deficient, make your best educated guess.

 

[Maciamo]

This is a very tough question. So far I would opt for the Paleolithic continuity, although it doesn't really make sense based on the age estimate of this haplogroup (too young).

The Indo-Europeans hypothesis has the problem that the Balkans have far more I2a than R1a and R1b, unlike other IE regions. Ditto for the Slavs. Then, if it was Slavic, where would the previous population (from the Palaeolithic to the Roman era) have gone ? The Aromuns, presumably descended from the Roman-era population of the Balkans, have over 20% of I2a, more than the Slavic-speaking Macedonian neighbours.

 

[Dale Cooper]

I gave my vote to Paleolithic continuity, as also many other people along with official croatian genetical research... Article from Croatian genetical institute:

The data demonstrate that Croatian human population, as almost
any other European population, represents remarkable
genetic mixture. More than 3/4 of the contemporary
Croatian men are most probably the offspring of Old Europeans
who came here before and after the Last Glacial
Maximum. The rest of the population is the offspring of the
people who were arriving in this part of Europe through
the southeastern route in the last 10 000 years, mostly during
the neolithization process. We believe that the latest
discoveries made with the techniques for whole-genome
typing using the array technology, will help us understand
the structure of Croatian population in more detail, as well
as the aspects of its demographic history.



It could be concluded that Ychromosome
background may cluster all European men
within two main branches: ‘Old Europeans’ with the parental
lineages Hg I, possibly Hg G and Hg N who had already
been present in Europe before the LGM and who survived
this period in 4 European refugia, and ‘Early Farmers’ (Hg
E3b, Hg J2, some subclades of Hg G) who had still been on
‘summer vacation’ in Asia and Africa during the LGM and
arrived during the neolithization of Europe.
However, while the Wiik study does a reasonably good job
summarizing the earlier literature about Europe, it has recently
become clearer that the previously established model
(4) stating that Hg R dates from the Paleolithic should be
revised. The latest studies in this field (20,21) suggest that
Hg R membership, be it R1a-M17 or R1b-M269, in Europe is
a more recent (post-LGM) event (about ≤15 000 years ago).
According to those recent findings, it is possible that these
Hg R lineages began to spread from Western Asia into Europe
soon after the ice sheets began to retract but before
the arrival of farming in southeast Europe and Crete about
9000 years ago. So, this model suggests that 15 000 -10 000
years ago, Europe was inhabited by Mesolithic people,
some being indigenous Hg I and some being post-glacial
intrusive Hg R from West-Asia. Then, pioneering agriculturalists
came from the Fertile Crescent and acquainted the
local foragers with farming.



Interpretation of the Bosnia and Herzegovina Y-chromosome tree by Marjanović et al (28), according to which the territories of today’s Croatia and Bosnia
and Herzegovina were probably part of the Balkan Last Glacial Maximum refugium



Croatian Y-chromosome population structure according to data published by Semino et al (4) Approximately 45% of the examined Croatians probably
originated from the Old Europeans who mostly survived the Last Glacial Maximum (LG M) in the Western Balkan refugium. In addition, almost 30% of
them came from the Ukrainian LG M refugium and 10% from postglacial intrusion from Western Asia (20,21), previously described by Semino as Old Europeans
from Iberian refugium (4). The rest of the Croatian men (approximately 15%) originated from Early Farmers who brought agriculture into Europe

Regarding the Old Europeans, additional analysis of more
than 1000 Hg I Y chromosomes from 60 population samples
revealed several subclades in Europe, with divergent
geographic distributions (30). Authors suggested that haplogroup
I provided an excellent record of pre-LGM differentiation
followed by geographic contraction, isolation,
and subsequent post-LGM expansions and spreading. Occurrence
of I1a in Scandinavia is consistent with a post-
LGM recolonization of northwestern Europe from Franco-
Cantabria. The expansion of I1b* in the wider Adriatic
area suggested demographic processes that started from
a refugium located in that region, whereas, I1c covers a
considerable part of Europe, with the highest frequencies
in northwestern Europe. It is suggested that haplogroup
I originated from a pre-LGM pool of Europeans (28,000-
23 000 years ago). Also, it appears that I1a, I1b, and I1c diverged
from I*, possibly during the post-LGM recolonization
of Europe. Regarding the Old Europeans in this area,
high short tandem repeat diversity within I1b* lineages
in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia supports the view
that the P37 short nucleotide polymorphism may have
been present in the Balkan area before the LGM. This implies
that the territories of these two countries were probably
very attractive for ‘summer vacation’ during the LGM.
from the Middle East.

Here is a full work of Croatian genetical research combined with european:

http://www.cmj.hr/2011/52/3/21674820.htm

 

[Taranis]

Let me say this, I'm personally quite torn regarding I2a-Din. Generally, the idea that Haplogroup I as a whole is Paleolithic/Mesolithic in Europe is almost certain at this point. However, wether the I2a peak in the western Balkans is ancient or the result of a more recent founder effect, I'm quite divided on and I have come to no conclusion to this for myself.

The latest studies in this field (20,21) suggest that
Hg R membership, be it R1a-M17 or R1b-M269, in Europe is
a more recent (post-LGM) event (about ≤15 000 years ago).
According to those recent findings, it is possible that these
Hg R lineages began to spread from Western Asia into Europe
soon after the ice sheets began to retract but before
the arrival of farming in southeast Europe and Crete about
9000 years ago.

Well Dale, I am terribly sorry, I do not know what your source is, but this view regarding Haplogroups R1a/R1b is hopelessly outdated. We know for sure now that both R1a and R1b entered Europe significantly later than the end of the last ice age. The oldest occurence known thus far of R1a in Europe is from a site near Eulau, Germany, which dates back to the Corded Ware Culture (circa 2600 BC). The oldest find of R1b in Europe (thus far!) is from Lichtenstein Cave in northern Germany, which dates into the Urnfield Culture (1000 BC). Both the Neolithic sites of France (Treilles) and Germany (Derenburg) yielded no R1a or R1b what so ever.

 

[zanipolo]

The latest I read, although I am sceptical

The very ancient Greek writers state that north of helles where only a people called Thraci. The area they covered was, the balkans and as far north as the baltic sea, incorporating, modern poland as well as czech, slovak, hungarian, bulgarian, rumanian, ex yugoslav area etc etc. The continued to push in a southern direction. The HG I in Balkans originated from these northern lands.

I will state, if you believe in the tales of Homer, you might believe in this.

I voted for paleolithic

 

[sparkey]

I'm surprised that Paleolithic continuity is getting such a strong hearing so far. I have a strong feeling that an ancestor clade of I2a-Din passed through the Balkans or at least the Carpathian Basin, quite possibly I* or early I2* or I2a* or even IJ. But I2a-Din is waaay down the SNP tree, with none of its cousin clades having their centers of diversity in the Balkans. Looking at Nordtvedt's tree makes it clear how young the clade is. And the "S" cluster, which is more common in the Balkans than the "N" cluster, is even younger than the clade as a whole.

So Paleolithic continuity requires either: (1) The STR dating is unreliable to the point of being junk, and the date is wrong nearly tenfold. Or (2) a massive bottleneck down to clusters N and S by ca. 2500 years ago, followed by an expansion of only N outside of the Balkans, followed by another bottleneck of S, which then expanded in the Classical Age or later (maybe with the Illyrians)? (1) seems very unlikely to me and (2) doesn't seem to fit what we know about the history of the region or the other haplogroups in the region.

What migration pattern does fit the cluster dating? Well, an expansion out of a small subset of an expanding population from the North during the 1st millennium CE would fit it. Sounds like the Slavs, or at least a Southerly subset of them that mixed with I2a-Din people who could have been there well before the R1a carriers.

 

[Asturrulumbo]

I would also (cautiously, very cautiously) point towards it being Palaeolithic (or the Mesolithic) for the simple reason that if I2a weren't the Palaeolithic/Mesolithic haplogroup there was in that region, I don't see which could; as well as the fact that I see rather improbable that it entered (en masse, that is) at another time:
1. Early Indo-Europeans: Were this the case, this zone would have been a hotspot for Indo-European migration, and archaeology tells of quite the contrary:

In the Western Balkans there are few remains to connect with these bronze-using "proto-Illyrians", except in western Serbia and eastern Bosnia.

John Wilkes, The Illyrians, p. 34
And while in these areas there does appear to have been an Indo-European migration (though not nearly as large as in other places), in places where there is a higher concentration (such as the Croatian Islands & coast as well as western,southern & central Bosnia) there is no evidence of a migration, all the contrary (ibid).
2. Sea peoples: There is no evidence (archaeological or otherwise) of an intrusion of this area that I know of...
3. Sarmatians: In my opinion, Sarmatians are very closely related to Scythians, and they are both Iranic peoples, and they were probably R1a in their majority (especially East Iranians, as West Iranians had much more hg. J)
4. Slavs: I believe what may be a telling point against this theory is the lack of R1a (otherwise omnipresent in all other Slavic peoples) in this region.

...a Southerly subset of them that mixed with I2a-Din people who could have been there well before the R1a carriers.

This may be possible, but in my opinion only for some (perhaps most, certainly not all) of the I2a.

 

[Shetop]

4. Slavs: I believe what may be a telling point against this theory is the lack of R1a (otherwise omnipresent in all other Slavic peoples) in this region.

I don't understand this. Is R1a Slavic by default? What you wrote is not an argument but stereotype.
Do you know that Slavic language was not spoken in any part of Poland territory 1600 years ago? And today in Poland R1a has frequency of more than 50%. So what happened there? Did this people migrate to Poland or something else happened? If they did migrate I don't see why similar thing could not have happened with I2a-Din - they migrated to Balkans.

There is one thing I liked about your post - you tried to point out an evidence against each of those options.

From what I read from the beginning of this topic - there is no credible argument which would point out that "The Slavs" theory doesn't hold.
On the other side age of the clade is strong argument against paleolithic continuity.

 

[Sile]

interesting read
English version commences at half way
http://www.dacia.org/regalion

http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi35.htm


"A number of Baltic terms for bodies of water (especially rivers) stem from the most ancient stratum of Indo-European hydronymy. These terms occupy an important position for resolution of questions regarding the pre-history of Indo-European peoples, including their mutual relations, their place of origin, their ancient migrations, etc." "In the last several decades, it has been frequently noted in linguistic writings that Baltic toponymy in many respects embraces the ambit of Central Europe, particularly to the relation between Baltic and Illyrian (as well as to the Eastern neighbors of the latter, the Thracians and Dacians). The archaeologist T Sulimirski and the linguists I Duridanov and W Porzig are of the opinion that the Baltic, Thracian, and Dacian peoples were long neighbors to each other in the pre-Christian era."

http://www.v-stetsyuk.name/en/Iron/Migration.html

 

[Sile]

I don't understand this. Is R1a Slavic by default? What you wrote is not an argument but stereotype.
Do you know that Slavic language was not spoken in any part of Poland territory 1600 years ago? And today in Poland R1a has frequency of more than 50%. So what happened there? Did this people migrate to Poland or something else happened? If they did migrate I don't see why similar thing could not have happened with I2a-Din - they migrated to Balkans.

There is one thing I liked about your post - you tried to point out an evidence against each of those options.

From what I read from the beginning of this topic - there is no credible argument which would point out that "The Slavs" theory doesn't hold.
On the other side age of the clade is strong argument against paleolithic continuity.

The "east germanic " tribes migrated en-masse to the west and left empty lands in polish areas. east german tribes that left, longobards, burgundians, goths, vandals, heruli, and many many more

 

[Asturrulumbo]

I don't understand this. Is R1a Slavic by default? What you wrote is not an argument but stereotype.
Do you know that Slavic language was not spoken in any part of Poland territory 1600 years ago? And today in Poland R1a has frequency of more than 50%. So what happened there? Did this people migrate to Poland or something else happened? If they did migrate I don't see why similar thing could not have happened with I2a-Din - they migrated to Balkans.

I never mentioned R1a was exclusively Slavic, but if Proto-Slavs (the ancestors of all Slavs) had it in their majority, then by extension a population with a low amount of R1a is unlikely to have Slavs among their main ancestors.
If I2a is not Palaeolithic, then it may well be Mesolithic, and in my opinion an undervalued possibility is that some (or perhaps all...) came to the Balkans with the Neolithic expansion.
Edit: Yes, I have analyzed this and it would seem to me that there are at least legitimate possibilities that either I2a came during the Mesolithic from the Mediterranean or from the Middle East during the Neolithic, maybe both. I* may be Paleolithic...

 

[LeBrok]

The "east germanic " tribes migrated en-masse to the west and left empty lands in polish areas. east german tribes that left, longobards, burgundians, goths, vandals, heruli, and many many more

That's true, from archeology we know that current territory of Poland was greatly depopulated just before Slavic expansion.
However, some indigenous people had survived there. We know that, because big number of toponyms and hydronyms is not of Slavic origin with Vistula river on top of the list.

 

[A. Tamar Chabadi]

I posted this in DNA Forums sometime ago in a similar discussion...I hope this helps.

"What do any of you think of this from Ken Nordtvedt?

From: "Ken Nordtvedt"
Subject: [DNA] Did Dinaric I2a2 MRCA ancestors move southeast rather thannorthwest?
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 12:00:57 -0600

I want to describe a growing oddity --- at least to me --- concerning the haplogroup I2a2-Dinaric. This is the clade which the early academics in European population studies said originated in southeast Europe just after the LGM, because, I assume, that's where today it is found at highest frequency (Bosnia, Croatia....).

1. First oddity is the very youthfulness of I2a2-Dinaric. It's MRCA looks to be only about 3000 years old by standard age estimates. I1, by comparison, seems 4000 years old; I2a1-M26+ looks 8000 years old; some clades of haplogroup I found in the British Isles look 6000 years old, etc.

2. Second oddity is the nature of the three nearest cousin clades to I2a2-Dinaric in the tree of haplogroup I

Closest cousin is I2a2-Disles which at the moment is not separated from I2a2-Disles by a snp. Disles clade is found primarily in the British Isles. The node where branches to Disles and to Dinaric part ways looks to be at least 5000 years ago.

Next closest cousin is I2a2-Isles separated from I2a2-Dinaric by two snps. I2a2-Isles is found mainly in the British Isles, although some evidence of presence in France and north German plain exists for the older two of the four clades of I2a2-Isles. I2a2-Isles clades started to branch apart from each other at least 6000 years ago, while the node where I2a2-Dinaric branch line and I2a2-Isles branch line parted ways occured 12,000 years ago.

Next closest cousin is I2a-F whose ancestral line branched off even earlier than 12,000 years ago, and prior to the M423 snp which shows derived for both I2a2-Dinaric and I2a2-Isles. I2a-F is found mainly in France and British Isles (Scotland)

Although I'm very willing to consider luck a big factor where the single ancestral lines of the old y tree roamed between their nodes, or deciding which branch lines survived and which went extinct, I here start to see a trend (or just patterns in the clouds?); it seems the ancestral line going back from the I2a2-Dinaric MRCA may have lived in more northwesterly Europe for thousands of years and then later wandered back to the Balkans before its Dinaric MRCA came onto the scene? We really have no reason to put I2a2-Dinaric in southeast Europe earlier than about 3000 years ago.

The nodes where I2a-Western (also of northwest Europe) and western Mediterranean's I2a1 M26+ branch lines parted from the branch line leading to the previously mentioned clades are far back in time --- at the beginning of the LGM.

Ken"

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2009-08/1249581657

 

[sparkey]

I posted this in DNA Forums sometime ago in a similar discussion...I hope this helps.

Yes, very helpful. As I mentioned, Nordtvedt's analysis tends to support "The Slavs" as the answer, and Nordtvedt himself finds the Slavs as a best-guess. The possibility that I2a-Din is a backmigration to Southeast Europe is very high. And I wonder if the fact that so many still favor Paleolithic continuity is due to confusion between I2a and I2a-Din.

 

[Sile]

Yes, very helpful. As I mentioned, Nordtvedt's analysis tends to support "The Slavs" as the answer, and Nordtvedt himself finds the Slavs as a best-guess. The possibility that I2a-Din is a backmigration to Southeast Europe is very high. And I wonder if the fact that so many still favor Paleolithic continuity is due to confusion between I2a and I2a-Din.

I do not favour your slavic argument due to the fact , that modern areas of Dalmatia, croatia, slovenia, slavonia in the ancient times would have been what???........... was it an old I2* from the east germans and unassociatied with the slavs, was it r1a1a , maybe a g2a in the dinaric alps.
As i stated before , the E is too far south to have been a central and northern "illyrian" HG.

It ok to say one thing, but if logically you leave a void on what is historically known, then the new logic is askew

 

[razor]

Well, another way of looking at it is this. Assuming that Nortdvedt is right, there was no I2a-Din N/S before the very end of the first millennium BCE. (The previous populations and haplogroup subclades don't matter, since the present populations do not derive from them except via I2a-Din N/S). If we just look at absolute numbers rather than percentages (and also keep in mind the uncertain nature of ALL testings we blandly use in these arguments) there are FAR MORE I2a-Din N/S individuals today in the North than in the South). For instance (just for the sake of argument and without nitpicking) the 50% Maciamo table for Bosnia-Herzegovina represents 2 million people, whereas the 21% for Ukraine represents 10 million... We can far more easily explain how Slavs (partly I2a-Din) moved en masse to B/H on the basis of historical records than we can explain the reverse movement. Remember that we are talking about events post-CE. As Verenic correctly stated, the case is closed (until new SNP's are discovered, or a better mathematician than Nortdverdt emerges (don't hold your breath =)).

 

[Shetop]

As i stated before , the E is too far south to have been a central and northern "illyrian" HG.

What was predominant haplogroup in western Europe before R1b came? And where are descendants of those people now?
The same answer can be used when explaining arrival of I2a-Din.

I can also say that I support what sparkey said about Albanians that their gene pool is probably closest to the one from pre-Slavic central and western Balkans. I would just add that western Croatia and Slovenia probably had high frequency of R-U152 in antiquity.

 

[zanipolo]

What was predominant haplogroup in western Europe before R1b came? And where are descendants of those people now?
The same answer can be used when explaining arrival of I2a-Din.

I can also say that I support what sparkey said about Albanians that their gene pool is probably closest to the one from pre-Slavic central and western Balkans. I would just add that western Croatia and Slovenia probably had high frequency of R-U152 in antiquity.

Albanians? ....even though the Albani tribe did not arrive in the area until 100AD . Roman historians have no knowledge of albanians until 100AD ( Albani)
These Albani people is what the albanians want to associate with the illyrians

from the net
Again, speculating, it appears that the Illyrians can be associated closely with I1b*, the Thracians with E3b1a2, and the Greeks with a later
immigration, primarily of J2.

if you look at this link, then you see that Albanians are new to the balkans
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2008/07/expansion-of-e-v13-explained.html

On the Y Chromosome Haplotype of the First Farmers in the ...

hrcak.srce.hr/file/2797
nice map on this link

 

[Goga]

Maybe there was just another 'lost' Indo-European (proto-Balkanic) group that has been assimilated by Slavic group (Slavic tribes included this group and 'Slavinised' them). I mean a separated Indo-European group that lived between Germanic and Slavic tribes in Europe.

Not Slavic, nor Germanic but something different and an extinct group that didn't survived Slavic attacks from the east.

 

[sparkey]

Maybe there was just another 'lost' Indo-European (proto-Balkanic) group that has been assimilated by Slavic group (Slavic tribes included this group and 'Slavinised' them). I mean a separated Indo-European group that lived between Germanic and Slavic tribes in Europe.

Not Slavic, nor Germanic but something different and an extinct group that didn't survived Slavic attacks from the east.

And they would have been I2a-Din dominant?

I2a-Din in the area near Belarus probably predated the R1a in the area, which probably came over with Corded Ware, which probably brought IE. I know that's a lot of "probably"s, but follow me here. If you accept all that, then we can say that there was probably a "lost" ethnicity from that area that was I2a-Din dominant, but it wasn't IE. Its culture would have been absorbed into the expanding proto-Balto-Slavs and, together with their R1a peoples, made the Slavs. That could explain why Baltic is thought to be more similar to proto-Balto-Slavic than Slavic... it's the influence of a lost non-IE group.

Of course, by the time they expanded on the Balkans, they would have "become" Slavs already. Any opinions on my speculation?