How did I2a-Din get to the Balkans?

[sparkey]

Because the term Slavic only appeared at its earliest time between 200 and 400AD according to slavic historians.

Right, and I'm arguing that it was mainly a 1st millennium CE expansion, which matches...

2 - I2a1b1a according to Ftdna in NOV 2011 found 40% of their tested people with this marker in Iberia. and it comprised of L160

L160+ is I2a1a1, not I2a1b1a (which is L621+ L147+). Those two clades are separated by nearly 20,000 years.

3 - KN stated in DEC 2011 that there are 11 types of I HG and this slavic ones which came from the Antes and sklavians happened after the Roman empire existed. It does not make sense that he lost over 1000 years

Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

Define what a Slav is?................if you read most web sites it designates a group similar to naming a Latin, british, iberian, scandinavian or celtic .........that is many tribes who had different HG and spoke the same tongue

A Slav is a speaker of a Slavic language. I fully expect that they had regional variations in their haplogroups, and have said so before.

 

[Diurpaneus]

here is an interesting view on slavs


http://aleria.info/temp/kijj9p50v5_8692.pdf

 

[alais]

It was removed.

 

[zanipolo]

Zanipolo
you didn't answer my question about I2a1b1 )))

?
which question, which post

EDIT - I read it and still do not understand what you are trying to say

 

[zanipolo]

Right, and I'm arguing that it was mainly a 1st millennium CE expansion, which matches...

Common Era (also Current Era^[1] or Christian Era^[2]), abbreviated as CE, is an alternative designation for the calendar era originally introduced by Dionysius Exiguus in the 6th century, traditionally identified with Anno Domini (abbreviated AD)

so you are saying this HG in question arrived in the balkans in the middle ages, thats 300 years after the "slavic migration"

L160+ is I2a1a1, not I2a1b1a (which is L621+ L147+). Those two clades are separated by nearly 20,000 years.

so ftdna are wrong

Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

I said that KN noted the marker in question came from central europe with the antes and sklavians. I am saying that does this appear to young.
How old is this marker?

It would indicate from what KN and yourself are saying is that its not a european marker , but more likely from the urals area

A Slav is a speaker of a Slavic language. I fully expect that they had regional variations in their haplogroups, and have said so before.

correct, so why do we refer to slavic as a terminology when we do not use this level of terminology elsewhere?

we say galicians , basques, etc etc instead of iberians

By saying slavic we are undermining the level of western tribes and overembelishing the slavic name.
Which brings the point on why do we call these tribes in the east who spoke a slavic tongue a slavic. its also detrimental to our discussions and leads to arguements

 

[sparkey]

Common Era (also Current Era^[1] or Christian Era^[2]), abbreviated as CE, is an alternative designation for the calendar era originally introduced by Dionysius Exiguus in the 6th century, traditionally identified with Anno Domini (abbreviated AD)

so you are saying this HG in question arrived in the balkans in the middle ages, thats 300 years after the "slavic migration"

I don't mean that they arrived in 1000 CE, I mean that most of the migrations occurred between 0 CE and 1000 CE. (Obviously we can probably get more precise than that, but that's what I meant by "first millennium CE.")

so ftdna are wrong

If they said that 40% of L160+ is in Iberia, then they're probably right. But I2a-Din is L160-.

I said that KN noted the marker in question came from central europe with the antes and sklavians. I am saying that does this appear to young.
How old is this marker?

Per Nordtvedt's estimates, I2a-Din is only about 2500 years old (I don't have the precise estimate or error bars handy, but that's what it is, roughly). Its most common subgroup in the Balkans, I2a-Din-S, is probably less than 2000 years old.

It would indicate from what KN and yourself are saying is that its not a european marker , but more likely from the urals area

Why would that follow? Didn't Balto-Slavic diverge into Baltic and Slavic in Europe? At which point, if I'm right that only Slavic picked up I2a-Din, then I2a-Din needs to have been European at that time.

correct, so why do we refer to slavic as a terminology when we do not use this level of terminology elsewhere?

we say galicians , basques, etc etc instead of iberians

By saying slavic we are undermining the level of western tribes and overembelishing the slavic name.
Which brings the point on why do we call these tribes in the east who spoke a slavic tongue a slavic. its also detrimental to our discussions and leads to arguements

I think it's a generally appropriate word to use for this analysis, since there is a relatively tight correlation between Slavic and I2a-Din (probably owing to I2a-Din's youth), and we're really only talking about one particular aspect of I2a-Din's spread ("how it got to the Balkans"). So, did most of the individuals who brought I2a-Din to the Balkans speak a Slavic language? I think so, so I think I can say that I2a-Din got to the Balkans via the Slavs.

 

[zanipolo]

If they said that 40% of L160+ is in Iberia, then they're probably right. But I2a-Din is L160-.

so the difference between positive and negative is the distance between the balkans and Iberia ..........why did they use the same number L160

Per Nordtvedt's estimates, I2a-Din is only about 2500 years old (I don't have the precise estimate or error bars handy, but that's what it is, roughly). Its most common subgroup in the Balkans, I2a-Din-S, is probably less than 2000 years old.

so which I HG was in illyria, at 500BC 12a-Din but not I2a-Din-S.
seems weird to call something ( HGs) similare and not branching from this same named HG but migrating

Why would that follow? Didn't Balto-Slavic diverge into Baltic and Slavic in Europe? At which point, if I'm right that only Slavic picked up I2a-Din, then I2a-Din needs to have been European at that time.

Again, what is slavic which tribes? . Clearly it was proven recently that the Venedae where modern lithuains which are baltic, the bastanae are germanic same as peuccini and finni are finns

 

[Gosh]

There's a big problem today in Balkans- nationalism. Every nation claims that they are the eldest, smartest, strongest etc, etc. Therefore they use genetic researches on different ways. Nobody wants to feel themselves as members of some other ethnic groups although all of them are a big (and obvious) mixture of haplogroups.

That's the reason why we have (on this theme) 46% of people which proves that Dinaric South are genuine population there. There is not so many people who understand fundamental principles of mutations and STRs. They prefer to read nationalistic sites and enjoy in lies written there.

 

[Gosh]

?
which question, which post

EDIT - I read it and still do not understand what you are trying to say

Upssss....... I didn't see your post, sorry )))

If I understood you correctly, you prefer opinion that Illyrians were Din-S population? Right?

I put you a question, how is it possible if we know that Din-S is a young branch of I2a1? According to actual data it is obviously impossible.

 

[zanipolo]

I

Per Nordtvedt's estimates, I2a-Din is only about 2500 years old (I don't have the precise estimate or error bars handy, but that's what it is, roughly). Its most common subgroup in the Balkans, I2a-Din-S, is probably less than 2000 years old.



Why would that follow? Didn't Balto-Slavic diverge into Baltic and Slavic in Europe? At which point, if I'm right that only Slavic picked up I2a-Din, then I2a-Din needs to have been European at that time.



I think it's a generally appropriate word to use for this analysis, since there is a relatively tight correlation between Slavic and I2a-Din (probably owing to I2a-Din's youth), and we're really only talking about one particular aspect of I2a-Din's spread ("how it got to the Balkans"). So, did most of the individuals who brought I2a-Din to the Balkans speak a Slavic language? I think so, so I think I can say that I2a-Din got to the Balkans via the Slavs.

Then while I2a-Din cannot be "slavic" because it is about 2500 years which makes it 400BC , the I2a-Din-S can only be "slavic" IF and I say IF, it is much less than 2000 years old.

Your analysis contradicts Roman and Greek historians and all other historians of the time, in regards to the slav migration

 

[zanipolo]

Upssss....... I didn't see your post, sorry )))

If I understood you correctly, you prefer opinion that Illyrians were Din-S population? Right?

I put you a question, how is it possible if we know that Din-S is a young branch of I2a1? According to actual data it is obviously impossible.

the Thread question was concerning I2a-Din and NOT I2a-Din-S

KN says this I2a-Din came from central europe......since its age starts from 400 to 500BC , then its likely that the illyrians ( who inhabited central europe with the celts brought this HG into the balkans.
The greeks have no record of illyrians before 400BC, so where did they come from?

My idea is that these illyrians where pushed southward by the germanic people moving from west to east and the baltic people moving northeast to south west in the years in question.

Other illyric tribes brought other stems of I HG into northern illyrian lands.

Considering the term illyrian only refers to a confederation of tribes use by Roman historians which made up of tribes of dalmatians, pannonians, luburnians, etc etc.............all these tribes had different type of HGs.
If we consider all these tribes where illyrians, they would surely have dominated eastern europe and the balkans as a group ..........but they where not one race

 

[Taranis]

Why would that follow? Didn't Balto-Slavic diverge into Baltic and Slavic in Europe? At which point, if I'm right that only Slavic picked up I2a-Din, then I2a-Din needs to have been European at that time.

Not sure if that helps, but I'll give you a bit of a background on the Slavic languages:

A common Proto-Balto-Slavic language was probably still spoken in the bronze age (perhaps as late as the early iron age), however due to the fact that the Baltic languages are more different from each other than the Slavic languages are from each other, it stands to reason Proto-Baltic began to fragment significantly earlier, as early as the mid-1st millennium BC.

In contrast, the Proto-Slavic language didn't begin to fragment into it's daughter branches (ie. West Slavic, South Slavic, East Slavic - from which the modern Slavic languages stem) until the Migration Period. There's a wide range of Germanic loanwords into Proto-Slavic, ranging from Proto-Germanic to Gothic, which suggests a time period of multiple centuries of language contact with Germanic tribes (approximately 1st century BC to 4th century AD). So by the time the Slavs show up on the stage of history, they were still probably speaking with a common language that only began to diversify in the following centuries.

So, my opinion is that Nordtvedt's estimates regarding I2a-Din are consistent with the above described scenario.

 

[Gosh]

@zanipolo

the Thread question was concerning I2a-Din and NOT I2a-Din-S

It is almost the same haplogroup. We're not talking only about the Din-N but about Dinaric in general. Both of them are parts of I2a-Din.

KN says this I2a-Din came from central europe......since its age starts from 400 to 500BC , then its likely that the illyrians ( who inhabited central europe with the celts brought this HG into the balkans.

Where we can find proofs for that? Which historical source says that Illyrians lived in CE?
About which Celts we can speak if we have the lowest European level of R1b in the regions settled with Din-S?

The greeks have no record of illyrians before 400BC, so where did they come from?

I can't answer on that question because I don't have historical documents which talks about that.

My idea is that these illyrians where pushed southward by the germanic people moving from west to east and the baltic people moving northeast to south west in the years in question.

It is just an idea. Not a scientific fact. Do you agree with me?

Even more, a level of Din-N in historical Illyria today is "funny" comparing with Din-S.


rgds

 

[sparkey]

Then while I2a-Din cannot be "slavic" because it is about 2500 years which makes it 400BC , the I2a-Din-S can only be "slavic" IF and I say IF, it is much less than 2000 years old.

Your analysis contradicts Roman and Greek historians and all other historians of the time, in regards to the slav migration

Obviously, we expect populations to have more than one carrier of a given haplogroup, so TMRCAs should be older than the migrations they're tied to. No contradiction.

 

[Yetos]

Not sure if that helps, but I'll give you a bit of a background on the Slavic languages:

A common Proto-Balto-Slavic language was probably still spoken in the bronze age (perhaps as late as the early iron age), however due to the fact that the Baltic languages are more different from each other than the Slavic languages are from each other, it stands to reason Proto-Baltic began to fragment significantly earlier, as early as the mid-1st millennium BC.

In contrast, the Proto-Slavic language didn't begin to fragment into it's daughter branches (ie. West Slavic, South Slavic, East Slavic - from which the modern Slavic languages stem) until the Migration Period. There's a wide range of Germanic loanwords into Proto-Slavic, ranging from Proto-Germanic to Gothic, which suggests a time period of multiple centuries of language contact with Germanic tribes (approximately 1st century BC to 4th century AD). So by the time the Slavs show up on the stage of history, they were still probably speaking with a common language that only began to diversify in the following centuries.

So, my opinion is that Nordtvedt's estimates regarding I2a-Din are consistent with the above described scenario.

Indeed that is what I am trynig to express,
But in that family where only these 3 or a few more,
could the connection you describe to be from another language?
I mean could that connection be due to Scythian?

I mean that Scythians R1a gave language to I2 Din who moved south?
or the pass of Scythians- Thracians to West and North left behind these 3 languages?

 

[Diurpaneus]

Florin Curta's book "The Making of The Slavs" is a much more realistic approach.


http://home.arcor.de/maknews/CurtaCon2.pdf

 

[Gosh]

Florin Curta's book "The Making of The Slavs" is a much more realistic approach.


http://home.arcor.de/maknews/CurtaCon2.pdf

I've taken a quick look at that document. I couldn't catch a point but I've found an interesting citation:

The greater part of Slavic loans in Romanian seem to be of literary origin (Church literature, charters, and
popular literature). See Nandris 1939. Only fifteen words can be attributed to a Common Slavic influence
on the basis of their phonetical treatment. For a complete list and discussion, see Mihaila 1973:16;
Duridanov 1991:15. All fifteen words appear in all Romanian dialects, both north and south of the Danube
river. See Mihaila 1971:355. One of the earliest loans is schiau (pi. schei), a word derived from the Slavic

It is very interesting if we know how Romanian language looked like 500 years ago. Besides of that, today's Romania is full of Slavic toponymes. That region was settled with so called "7 Slavic tribes" for some period of time.
BTW, contemporary Romanian genetics, similar like Hungarian contain about 50% of R1a/I2a1.

 

[Taranis]

Florin Curta's book "The Making of The Slavs" is a much more realistic approach.

http://home.arcor.de/maknews/CurtaCon2.pdf

Realistic? I'm not sure I can agree with that. The article takes a heavy opposition to the concept of a Proto-Slavic homeland. But, it fails to realize something: that the Slavic language evidently has a history before the Migrations Period, a history that is clearly spanning centuries. Where, if not in some form of "homeland", did this history of interaction with other ethnic groups take place?

 

[Yetos]

I've taken a quick look at that document. I couldn't catch a point but I've found an interesting citation:



It is very interesting if we know how Romanian language looked like 500 years ago. Besides of that, today's Romania is full of Slavic toponymes. That region was settled with so called "7 Slavic tribes" for some period of time.
BTW, contemporary Romanian genetics, similar like Hungarian contain about 50% of R1a/I2a1.

Well I do not know about 1500 Ad Romanian language,

But I know from 1750 and after and believe is about same,
remember that Greek revolt started in Romania, and many documents in Latin and in Greek alphabet exist,
it seems like they had 2 major Latin based Dialects with more Greco-Byzantine and Turkish and Russian
the moldo-wallachian and the moesian,

the language seems to be similar Aromani people, closest the type of Moesian Vlachs firstly, then to moschopolis Vlachs, and the farther is kutsuk Vlachs,
it seems like at 1780 Romanian parts as moesia moldavia etc were almost modern Romanian speaking

so the case of slavic toponyms as also Cumans etc it is older,
By what I know romania was speaking latin-romanian much before the Con/polis fall.

I wonder the areas that these Slavic toponyms are?

 

[Yetos]

The thing that we all are missing is this,

Slavic people are the ones who today speak Slavic language,
Slavic people are the biggest part of Europe today,
Slavic language as mother language also,
so it can't be here in Europe as SLavic and Greeks Romans did not found them so many they are,

so what Happened?
for me the time of roman empire collapse we have the Goths people moving west, probably even before we might had similar,
but sudenly we find the Slavic people,
Slavic people so many millions where were they hiden?

my personal believe is that they had another exonym so geographers to describe them,
they can devastate 200 millions today from Central asia. neither to be so many in North Russia.
so who were they?
the older substractum of Europe as described are Thracian+Getae in Balkans and ucraine until far (almost baltic) and Scythians and Saurmates, could Finland hold all Slavs? surely not could Baltic lands hide all those Slavs? again no,
so they were near, maybe west of Urals already.

so what had happened?
for me it seems like Scythians who enter Romania as Scythia minor etc and Sarmates create a unification movement,
the case of Bulgaria, where Slavic Severi with Huno-Bulgars of Asparuch IS A GOOD EXAMPLE,

seems like cooperation of Scythians with Sarmates, devastate west and South to the Lands that Goths left, and create new kingdoms, in one of them Great-Moravia someone study their language, creates an Alphabet,
The change of Religion and the acceptance of Cyrillic creates the Slavic and the Slavs of Today.
meaning that old alliances, older dialects, are erased and a new era starts,

similar phainomena we find in Greece when majority accepts the Attic in written Speach,
in Germany after Goethe etc

So considering today someone as Slav is mostly after the linguistic determination,

now about the genetics of Slavs, until one year all here would say R1a M17
suddenly we find I2a2 DIN
what does that mean?
Slavic language does not change,
but what change?
the how pure is nation?
or who is older in that land?
Are we starting a new war in Balkans? and start propaganda?
simply not.

then? what?
I2a DIN in primary in ex-Yugoslavia, now if I am I2a what?
I am a Serb? I am a Croat? I am a Bosnian? I am a Cernagoran one? I am ROmanian?

the problem is
IS I2a DIN autochthonus in Dinaric Alps?
IS I2a DIN primary after one or 2 or 3 migrations?
IF I2a DIN is after a devastation then? Starting Land Ucraine? Slovakia? Baltic?

and I wonder? is I2a DIN primary a IE HG mark? or it learn the language? and from which HG?