How did I2a-Din get to the Balkans?

[how yes no 3]

You speak about Anti slavic propaganda, and you push Panslavism,

you even make pelasgians as IE and more specific Slavic,

you make Poland a Pelasgian nation,
you read Duridanov which connects mostly a part of Thracian with Slavic and as blind you did not search his work and in other languages, something which I am forced to do in the next days showing what Duridanov did not write

well pelasgians

compare Thyrrenians with island of Therra (cycladetic)
compare Pelasgians with Palestinians with Philistines with Faliski
search the lemnian stele
and if you want more Hattika Eretreia orchomenos relative cities of Pelasgian as we known by ancient Greek authors (Athens was Speaking Thyrrenian according Thoukidides if I remember correct.
Just also compare Ερετρεια Εret with Raetia


you speak of Anti-Slavic while you push Pan-Slavism

well the answer is no,

Slavic language has nothing to do with Thracian and Pelasgian
it is imported to Balkans by Great Moravia (Serbs) and low ucraine (Severi-Bulgars)

the case that Thracian and Slavic are IE does not mean that they were the same language,
in Fact I believe that Thracian was Centum, and I am waiting Taranis to search it by a good vocabulary
simply the existance of Thracian IE next to Scythian IE makes these 2 language to be near,
but soon I will write about that, proving that Thracian language was not Slavic,

now it is another case the people and another the language
Greeks once reached Indians,
Greek language once was spoken in such areas
what that mean?
that all Indians are Greeks?
cause the same is what you do, Poles as Pelasgians !!!!!
well global warming is raising sea lvl, if krakowy becomes a sea harbor in future then I might agree,

as for AVARS search better who were the Hrpt tribe
before you speak about Sherdana scirii serrians etc
if AVARS were J2 Hg then Hungary will be full of J2

now if R1a or J2 in Greece was from Avars then it will not be present in South Italy, in Grico people,


I believe that in 21 century Europe ignorance is not a crime, thinking even wrong is not a crime, but i wonder what is the limit, the boarder of the 2 above with payed focusing agendas.

I speak of continuity of tribal identities through preservation of genetics and tribal names, as 2 key constituents of identity. it is your mind that see everything through currently relevant language groups. When I compare words of different languages, I do not try to prove that e.g. Thracian = Slavic or Celtic = slavic or that Dacian = slavic or that Pelasgian = Slavic...or that Illyrian = Slavic or that Etruscan = Slavic...or that whatever language = Slavic.... I try to identify common words as indication of close or distant relation between tribes due to carrying perhaps similar haplogroups and due to perhaps common part of history with some of populations going through language shifts.....

How many times did I say that languages can change at very fast pace.... where are Celtic languages of central Europe now? how did latin spread from little village to big part of Europe and latin America in known history?
simply, on timescale where genetic is relevant, language groups have little impact as their distribution is rather recent and their history cannot be assumed to be strictly tied to genetics...

we can of course speculate about language issues e.g. about who were original PIE speaking people by comparing theories about spread of PIE language with spreads of haplogroups.......but languages are prone to changes that makes them unreliable marker of nations....

look how we all speak english here... what if EU would become authoritarian centralistic state that would for efficiency reasons impose a single language as official one....in few generations we would all be speaking english and in 1000 years there would be guys like you wondering how did english tribe overtook Europe whose people are clearly of english origin....and those would speculate how all R1b and R1a and I haplogroups and E-V13 is clearly ancient old english tribes...

its not me that is problem, you guys have problem with thinking in narrow categories of language groups that exist now, and with looking from point of interests of a single language group.....

I never said that R-458 was Slavic speaking when it was dominant on Balkan, nor that tribal names that are in my opinion about race name of I2a like: Serbs/Sarbans/Kurds/Scrodisci/Shedrana/Sardinian/Serdi/Serboi/Sart/Serres/Scirians/Serians
were originally Slavic speaking....

I just link genetic with race name preserved in tribal names.... i don't make hard claims about languages...it is your minds caged in current division into language groups who do that extra step and feels their group is jeopardized by what i say...


Regarding Avars, they were too bossy and too cruel, so in the end they were destroyed completely...like Huns... nothing is left from them in Europe...Magyars are a tribe that came later and took over in that time Slav settled Pannonia... genetic of Hungary will not have much to do with either Avars or Huns... you try to link Croats to Avars, ignoring the historical accounts from Byzantium that recorded how Croats were invited to settle Balkan in order to keep borders safe from Avars... why do you keep trying to put slavic people in obscure roles...isn't that indication of you being anti-slavic perhaps due to issue your country and your identity have concerning the name dispute with FYR Macedonia?

 

[zanipolo]

I suppose it's possible that you're right here, considering that there is some overlap between the "Venetian" type and the "Armenian" type of I2c-B, but I suspect not at the moment, since both are younger than the early "Celtic" branches, and my theory suggests that there ought to be overlap, anyway.



I don't think that they only had one haplogroup, I just think that while I2c-B may fit the pattern you're describing, I2a-Din apparently doesn't. FWIW, I also think the Celts had I2a2b and others.

this sites states that I2a-Din N is more polish ( well today it is )

http://www.semargl.me/en/dna/ydna/haplotypes/

 

[sparkey]

in my posts

data comes from someone's effort, alike to what Maciamo do on this site, to collect published data for Asia and make maps of haplogroups...
https://sites.google.com/site/thelineagesofasia/

I have paid attention to map for haplogroup I (my guess is that it is mostly I2a2 as in Asia it is usually I2a2) and determined that it has hotspots that exactly match spread of Pasthun Sarbans, and also spread in Serica north of Tibet, and hotspot in Kyrgizstan/Uzbekistan where Sart people live...e.g. around this place http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margelan which is place where white Sart people live and place that has ancient tradition of silk production indicating origin from Serica...

regarding Kurds, their tribal name I relate to Sherdana, because after studying description of conquest of sea people it was clear that they were northerners, that majority of army was going via land, and that it was settlement wave with woman and children, that judging by order of conquest preserved in historic record, they did make cut from Black sea to south of Asia minor and than to Syria...

all this suggests key settlement exactly in Kurdish area which is strategic bridge between Black sea and Syria....

furthermore Kurds have significant European genetics (R1a+I2a) of rather recent origin.... Kurds have tribal name alike to Sherdana...
note that Sherdana give name Serbonian bog in Egypt...

Is there any evidence that the Haplogroup I in Kurds is I2a-Din, though? I recall someone here (I think it was Alan?) posting a summary of all of the Kurds that have done deep clade tests or significant STR testing, and the only Haplogroup I Kurds were an I1 individual, an I2a2a-Roots (old I2b1-Roots) individual, and maybe an I2c-B individual, out of 20-something total Kurds tested. None of the academic studies so far tested so much.

 

[zanipolo]

I speak of continuity of tribal identities through preservation of genetics and tribal names, as 2 key constituents of identity. it is your mind that see everything through currently relevant language groups. When I compare words of different languages, I do not try to prove that e.g. Thracian = Slavic or Celtic = slavic or that Dacian = slavic or that Pelasgian = Slavic...or that Illyrian = Slavic or that Etruscan = Slavic...or that whatever language = Slavic.... I try to identify common words as indication of close or distant relation between tribes due to carrying perhaps similar haplogroups and due to perhaps common part of history with some of populations going through language shifts.....

How many times did I say that languages can change at very fast pace.... where are Celtic languages of central Europe now? how did latin spread from little village to big part of Europe and latin America in known history?
simply, on timescale where genetic is relevant, language groups have little impact as their distribution is rather recent and their history cannot be assumed to be strictly tied to genetics...

we can of course speculate about language issues e.g. about who were original PIE speaking people by comparing theories about spread of PIE language with spreads of haplogroups.......but languages are prone to changes that makes them unreliable marker of nations....

look how we all speak english here... what if EU would become authoritarian centralistic state that would for efficiency reasons impose a single language as official one....in few generations we would all be speaking english and in 1000 years there would be guys like you wondering how did english tribe overtook Europe whose people are clearly of english origin....and those would speculate how all R1b and R1a and I haplogroups and E-V13 is clearly ancient old english tribes...

its not me that is problem, you guys have problem with thinking in narrow categories of language groups that exist now, and with looking from point of interests of a single language group.....

I never said that R-458 was Slavic speaking when it was dominant on Balkan, nor that tribal names that are in my opinion about race name of I2a like: Serbs/Sarbans/Kurds/Scrodisci/Shedrana/Sardinian/Serdi/Serboi/Sart/Serres/Scirians/Serians
were originally Slavic speaking....

I just link genetic with race name preserved in tribal names.... i don't make hard claims about languages...it is your minds caged in current division into language groups who do that extra step and feels their group is jeopardized by what i say...


Regarding Avars, they were too bossy and too cruel, so in the end they were destroyed completely...like Huns... nothing is left from them in Europe...Magyars are a tribe that came later and took over in that time Slav settled Pannonia... genetic of Hungary will not have much to do with either Avars or Huns... you try to link Croats to Avars, ignoring the historical accounts from Byzantium that recorded how Croats were invited to settle Balkan in order to keep borders safe from Avars... why do you keep trying to put slavic people in obscure roles...isn't that indication of you being anti-slavic perhaps due to issue your country and your identity have concerning the name dispute with FYR Macedonia?

tribal name should not be taken for granted that it represents a historical race. this is silly
the original Prussians where baltic people and yet the germans took this name when the germanic teutons conquered prussia. Every one thiks today that prussia = germans

 

[Yetos]

I speak of continuity of tribal identities through preservation of genetics and tribal names, as 2 key constituents of identity. it is your mind that see everything through currently relevant language groups. When I compare words of different languages, I do not try to prove that e.g. Thracian = Slavic or Celtic = slavic or that Dacian = slavic or that Pelasgian = Slavic...or that Illyrian = Slavic or that Etruscan = Slavic...or that whatever language = Slavic.... I try to identify common words as indication of close or distant relation between tribes due to carrying perhaps similar haplogroups and due to perhaps common part of history with some of populations going through language shifts.....

How many times did I say that languages can change at very fast pace.... where are Celtic languages of central Europe now? how did latin spread from little village to big part of Europe and latin America in known history?
simply, on timescale where genetic is relevant, language groups have little impact as their distribution is rather recent and their history cannot be assumed to be strictly tied to genetics...

we can of course speculate about language issues e.g. about who were original PIE speaking people by comparing theories about spread of PIE language with spreads of haplogroups.......but languages are prone to changes that makes them unreliable marker of nations....

look how we all speak english here... what if EU would become authoritarian centralistic state that would for efficiency reasons impose a single language as official one....in few generations we would all be speaking english and in 1000 years there would be guys like you wondering how did english tribe overtook Europe whose people are clearly of english origin....and those would speculate how all R1b and R1a and I haplogroups and E-V13 is clearly ancient old english tribes...

its not me that is problem, you guys have problem with thinking in narrow categories of language groups that exist now, and with looking from point of interests of a single language group.....

I never said that R-458 was Slavic speaking when it was dominant on Balkan, nor that tribal names that are in my opinion about race name of I2a like: Serbs/Sarbans/Kurds/Scrodisci/Shedrana/Sardinian/Serdi/Serboi/Sart/Serres/Scirians/Serians
were originally Slavic speaking....

I just link genetic with race name preserved in tribal names.... i don't make hard claims about languages...it is your minds caged in current division into language groups who do that extra step and feels their group is jeopardized by what i say...


Regarding Avars, they were too bossy and too cruel, so in the end they were destroyed completely...like Huns... nothing is left from them in Europe...Magyars are a tribe that came later and took over in that time Slav settled Pannonia... genetic of Hungary will not have much to do with either Avars or Huns... you try to link Croats to Avars, ignoring the historical accounts from Byzantium that recorded how Croats were invited to settle Balkan in order to keep borders safe from Avars... why do you keep trying to put slavic people in obscure roles...isn't that indication of you being anti-slavic perhaps due to issue your country and your identity have concerning the name dispute with FYR Macedonia?

I only said about Hrpt which can be Hrvt and in satemization Srbt (k-h ->S)

the rest is up your imagination,
you said about anti-slavic but you do not see the Pan-Slavism in this thread in many posts,

ok keep your agenda,
the think that many do not accept in this forum, is that Y-Dna HG as also Linguistics is a tool for search, not for claim,

and for the info, search how many Slavic languages have the word Pekara, (bread maker-shop) then you will understand more about HG and linguistics

 

[how yes no 3]

Is there any evidence that the Haplogroup I in Kurds is I2a-Din, though? I recall someone here (I think it was Alan?) posting a summary of all of the Kurds that have done deep clade tests or significant STR testing, and the only Haplogroup I Kurds were an I1 individual, an I2a2a-Roots (old I2b1-Roots) individual, and maybe an I2c-B individual, out of 20-something total Kurds tested. None of the academic studies so far tested so much.

I did not see any evidence it is I2a-Din...at some point in past I read it somewhere and took it for granted.....

searching forum for related posts, i think you were making same mistake...

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?26619-I2a-origins-in-Kurdistan&p=374841&viewfull=1#post374841

Maciamo stated that Kurdish I2 is definetively I2a and in fact I2a2 as he remembers..
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showth...raqi-Kurdistan&p=371251&viewfull=1#post371251

it is likely to be some I2a older than i2a-din ....I2a-Din is a bit young to fit as already numerous into sea people scenario (around 1200BC that is 3200 bp)....

that is why i lately speak of I2a and not of I2a-Din when I speak of Kurds....

seems i missed that list you talk about......
but am pretty sure that I have seen on one of the forums some list with haplogroups of several Kurdish people and among them was a Sorani Kurd classified as I2a-Din....
having some I2a-Din and more of the older clade could fit well into time frame of sea peoples...

 

[how yes no 3]

and for the info, search how many Slavic languages have the word Pekara, (bread maker-shop) then you will understand more about HG and linguistics

i do not understand your point...

Pekara comes from PIE
it is practically the same word as 'bakery'

south Slavs have 'pekara' other Slavs 'pekarna' and 'piekarna' which are same words...

 

[zanipolo]

I did not see any evidence it is I2a-Din...at some point in past I read it somewhere and took it for granted....

it is likely to mostly be older i2a though....I2a-Din is a bit young to fit as already numerous into sea people scenario (around 1200BC that is 3200 bp)....

that is why i lately speak of I2a and not of I2a-Din when I speak of Kurds....

seems i missed that list you talk about......
but am pretty sure that I have seen on one of the forums some list with haplogroups of several Kurdish people and among them was a Sorani Kurd classified as I2a-Din....
having some I2a-Din and more of the older clade could fit well into time frame of sea peoples...

none in the link i provided on page 341

 

[Gosh]

High levels of Paleolithic Y-chromosome lineages characterize Serbia
Maria Regueiro, Luis Rivera, Tatjana Damnjanovic, Ljiljana Lukovic, Jelena Milasin, Rene J. Herrera

paper estimates that R1a-M458 is in Serbia 14kya old, while in other Slavic areas (R1a-M458 is Slavic only marker and rare outside of europe) it is 11kya...this means R1a-M458 must have spread to Poland from Balkan... this could have been in times of Pelasgians or perhaps before...

Do you realy believe in everything you've read in your life?

Even these few words are stupid enough to continue discussion about that.
People who worked on this paper don't understand anything about genetics (yes, I'm sure in that) but they don't understand history at all!!!

Where we can see that R1a-M458 14kyo? Can you show me a few persons from Serbia in public databases with that marker?

You can't but you'll continue with your fairytale. This paper is something the worst in popular genetics together with the latest Croatian paper which will "explain" to some nationalists that Croats are in Dalmatia "for at least 7000 years in continuity". It is much easier to lie than to tell truth.

 

[razor]

this sites states that I2a-Din N is more polish ( well today it is )

http://www.semargl.me/en/dna/ydna/haplotypes/

This map is about as accurate as a soccer game in minute 1 or a baseball game in the first half of the first inning =)) I see my name on its list but I have no spot on the map and I'm certainly not in Poland. As in many other matters (aDNA included) we have to wait for more testing in Ukraine.

 

[Taranis]

i do not understand your point...

Pekara comes from PIE
it is practically the same word as 'bakery'

south Slavs have 'pekara' other Slavs 'pekarna' and 'piekarna' which are same words...

You talk about PIE but you have no idea about linguistic methodology and apparently do not want to know anything about that.

Exhibit A:

I never said that R-458 was Slavic speaking when it was dominant on Balkan, nor that tribal names that are in my opinion about race name of I2a like: Serbs/Sarbans/Kurds/Scrodisci/Shedrana/Sardinian/Serdi/Serboi/Sart/Serres/Scirians/Serians
were originally Slavic speaking....

Exhibit B:

Pelasgi(ans) are good guess due to same key word used for tribal name
polje = field => Poljaci
Pelagos = field, flatland, sea (probably loan word from Pelasgian language to Greek) => Pelazgi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelasgians

those are pretty strong indications that west Slavs origin from ancient Balkan people very likely from Pelasgians.....

Two superficially similar words ~2800 years apart are for "pretty strong indications"?

I speak of continuity of tribal identities through preservation of genetics and tribal names, as 2 key constituents of identity.

Preservation of tribal identities through genetics? I think that classifies as a form of Lamarckism.

i will add that only extremely biased people with strong anti-slavic agenda can apriori discard all these thoughts above as rubish and threaten with ban to people who dare to think about it...
i thought in 21 century in europe I will not need to fight for freedom to say what i think.....

And of course everybody who disagrees with you is "extremely biased and has a strong anti-slavic agenda".

Let's forget genetics and forget languages for a moment: denying historically documented events (Roman-Marcomannic interaction 1st through 3rd centuries AD) is something else...

 

[how yes no 3]

actually, just found the list I talked about - Sorani Kurd was I2a2a (old I2b1) not I2a-Din as I thought...

 

[how yes no 3]

Do you realy believe in everything you've read in your life?

Even these few words are stupid enough to continue discussion about that.
People who worked on this paper don't understand anything about genetics (yes, I'm sure in that) but they don't understand history at all!!!

Where we can see that R1a-M458 14kyo? Can you show me a few persons from Serbia in public databases with that marker?

there are different methodologies to estimate diversity...

those articles were written by people whose job is research in genetics...their papers pass through harsh peer review before they can be published in renown scientific journals...
you did not even read the paper, but you have "opinion"....
it sounds a bit like when a housewife speaks about fixing space ship and of dumb engineers..... or cleaning lady about Einstein's theory and dumb physicists...

 

[how yes no 3]

You talk about PIE but you have no idea about linguistic methodology and apparently do not want to know anything about that.
Exhibit A:

I never said that R-458 was Slavic speaking when it was dominant on Balkan, nor that tribal names that are in my opinion about race name of I2a like: Serbs/Sarbans/Kurds/Scrodisci/Shedrana/Sardinian/Serdi/Serboi/Sart/Serres/Scirians/Serians
were originally Slavic speaking....

Exhibit B:

Pelasgi(ans) are good guess due to same key word used for tribal name
polje = field => Poljaci
Pelagos = field, flatland, sea (probably loan word from Pelasgian language to Greek) => Pelazgi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelasgians

those are pretty strong indications that west Slavs origin from ancient Balkan people very likely from Pelasgians.....

Two superficially similar words ~2800 years apart are for "pretty strong indications"?

for a person who is into languages you should know the meaning of the word "indication"...
indication is not a proof, it is a clue


as always, you cut out a part of a claim and than massacre it with requiring super precision...

if R-M458 has highest diversity (indicating paleolithic settlement) in Balkan and has highest frequency in Poland and practically doesnot exist outside of Europe, already that is pretty good indication that population from which west Slavs origin have moved to Poland from Balkans

furthermore, I have noticed year ago by comparing known Pelasgian areas in ancient Greece with R1a, that Pelasgians seems to correlate with R1a...

finally, Pelasgians and Poljaci both having similar sounding tribal name of same meaning ("field people") in case it is not a coincidence strongly enforces previous indication ..but note that this is not standalone claim.....as it builds upon R1a trace

you cannot understand/appreciate my ideas if you focus just on linguistic part... what i suggest is always based on a set of clues pointing in same direction....
its like trying to understand a book by focusing on repeatedly reading a single sentence that is not what you expected...and instead of reading a book arguing about the sentence... but the sentence is such that it is clear only if you read a book...

Preservation of tribal identities through genetics? I think that classifies as a form of Lamarckism.

i think you think too precise so you are not able to see bigger picture...

perhaps I did not express myself clearly, but i think it was clear what i wanted to say...
a population is defined by its genetics and is carrier of a tribal identity...
tribal identity is associated with a race name/tribal name which is carried by the population.....
population undergoes historic events in which its race does not change but its language may....
there are big chances that haplogroup spread correlates with race name... like J1 with Arabs, O with Chinese people, I1 and I2b with germanic people (Gomer in bible times).....

on other hand, languages can change rapidly like languages of latin America and of big part of Europe have changed in recent history (recent from point of view of genetic developments timescale not from point of view of individual person)...

And of course everybody who disagrees with you is "extremely biased and has a strong anti-slavic agenda".

not everybody...i was talking about you
e.g. sparkey always points out his arguments like gentleman, you argue like raper... you put yourself in higher worth position... you speak like teacher to stupid kids... no respect...

and you repeatedly try to put ancestors of Slavic people in Asia before 5th century... which is a theory, and in fact a bad one as R-M458 and I2a-Din show...but you still claim it as an absolute truth and try to exterminate any other possible explanation by calling it having agenda of pan-slavic revisionist fantasies or whatever......

what if arrival of Slavic people from Asia in 5th century is your pan-Germanic fantasy?
genetics clearly shows it is just fantasy... but you do not accept arguments against your beliefs...against your ideology

Let's forget genetics and forget languages for a moment: denying historically documented events (Roman-Marcomannic interaction 1st through 3rd centuries AD) is something else...

what on earth do you talk about?
about your misinterpretation of what I said...

that Serbs come to Balkan from Bohemia where they have also originally dwellt is not even my claim, but from historic document "De administrando imperio" written by Byzantine emperror....

let me repeat again, when I try to figure out this, I do not claim that ancestors of Serbs did speak slavic... which means linguistically one should look into serbian language and see whether there are words that origin from other candidate languages (which is what I tried with Celtic, but it turned out that there were much less shared words than expected)

 

[MOESAN]

this sites states that I2a-Din N is more polish ( well today it is )

http://www.semargl.me/en/dna/ydna/haplotypes/

just a question of method: these maps show the countries distribution by haplotype - what we need more is the haplotype distribution by country - a lot of the conclusions we try to take out of thses statistics are biased...

 

[zanipolo]

if R-M458 has highest diversity (indicating paleolithic settlement) in Balkan and has highest frequency in Poland and practically doesnot exist outside of Europe, already that is pretty good indication that population from which west Slavs origin have moved to Poland from Balkans

"which west slavs"? ............. why do they have to be slavic, why where they not , hunnic, thracian, illyrian, celts, germanics etc etc

perhaps I did not express myself clearly, but i think it was clear what i wanted to say...
a population is defined by its genetics and is carrier of a tribal identity...

a population has many genetic Hgs and so tribal identity does not apply

tribal identity is associated with a race name/tribal name which is carried by the population.....

true to a degree

population undergoes historic events in which its race does not change but its language may....

false, the germanic saxon, angels and jutes in england have changed their race

there are big chances that haplogroup spread correlates with race name... like J1 with Arabs, O with Chinese people, I1 and I2b with germanic people (Gomer in bible times).....

no chance this applies as time passes.....maybe in the bronze-age, but by Roman times this is lost.

not everybody...i was talking about you
e.g. sparkey always points out his arguments like gentleman, you argue like raper... you put yourself in higher worth position... you speak like teacher to stupid kids... no respect...

why am I always left out!?

that Serbs come to Balkan from Bohemia where they have also originally dwellt is not even my claim, but from historic document "De administrando imperio" written by Byzantine emperror....

you again start your history of europe after the germanic migrations to the balkans and the west ...........you know there was history in the bronze and iron ages as well

let me repeat again, when I try to figure out this, I do not claim that ancestors of Serbs did speak slavic... which means linguistically one should look into serbian language and see whether there are words that origin from other candidate languages (which is what I tried with Celtic, but it turned out that there were much less shared words than expected)

all european languages borrowed words from other languages over time and amended these words into their own. inland based people gather words on sea animals from other languages is an example.

 

[zanipolo]

just a question of method: these maps show the countries distribution by haplotype - what we need more is the haplotype distribution by country - a lot of the conclusions we try to take out of thses statistics are biased...

no problem....I just presented another site, be it good or bad depends on the individual

 

[Yetos]

for a person who is into languages you should know the meaning of the word "indication"...
indication is not a proof, it is a clue


as always, you cut out a part of a claim and than massacre it with requiring super precision...

if R-M458 has highest diversity (indicating paleolithic settlement) in Balkan and has highest frequency in Poland and practically doesnot exist outside of Europe, already that is pretty good indication that population from which west Slavs origin have moved to Poland from Balkans

furthermore, I have noticed year ago by comparing known Pelasgian areas in ancient Greece with R1a, that Pelasgians seems to correlate with R1a...

finally, Pelasgians and Poljaci both having similar sounding tribal name of same meaning ("field people") in case it is not a coincidence strongly enforces previous indication ..but note that this is not standalone claim.....as it builds upon R1a trace

you cannot understand/appreciate my ideas if you focus just on linguistic part... what i suggest is always based on a set of clues pointing in same direction....
its like trying to understand a book by focusing on repeatedly reading a single sentence that is not what you expected...and instead of reading a book arguing about the sentence... but the sentence is such that it is clear only if you read a book...



i think you think too precise so you are not able to see bigger picture...

perhaps I did not express myself clearly, but i think it was clear what i wanted to say...
a population is defined by its genetics and is carrier of a tribal identity...
tribal identity is associated with a race name/tribal name which is carried by the population.....
population undergoes historic events in which its race does not change but its language may....
there are big chances that haplogroup spread correlates with race name... like J1 with Arabs, O with Chinese people, I1 and I2b with germanic people (Gomer in bible times).....

on other hand, languages can change rapidly like languages of latin America and of big part of Europe have changed in recent history (recent from point of view of genetic developments timescale not from point of view of individual person)...


not everybody...i was talking about you
e.g. sparkey always points out his arguments like gentleman, you argue like raper... you put yourself in higher worth position... you speak like teacher to stupid kids... no respect...

and you repeatedly try to put ancestors of Slavic people in Asia before 5th century... which is a theory, and in fact a bad one as R-M458 and I2a-Din show...but you still claim it as an absolute truth and try to exterminate any other possible explanation by calling it having agenda of pan-slavic revisionist fantasies or whatever......

what if arrival of Slavic people from Asia in 5th century is your pan-Germanic fantasy?
genetics clearly shows it is just fantasy... but you do not accept arguments against your beliefs...against your ideology



what on earth do you talk about?
about your misinterpretation of what I said...

that Serbs come to Balkan from Bohemia where they have also originally dwellt is not even my claim, but from historic document "De administrando imperio" written by Byzantine emperror....

let me repeat again, when I try to figure out this, I do not claim that ancestors of Serbs did speak slavic... which means linguistically one should look into serbian language and see whether there are words that origin from other candidate languages (which is what I tried with Celtic, but it turned out that there were much less shared words than expected)

R1a M-458 exist >10% in Sarendo S Itay, probably is after Slavic devastation and settlement etrified:
also don't forget to mention that except Serdi, Sherdana, Sardenians, Scirii, Serrians, Serbs, Scordicii, Sardanapalus, Sharpedon, sardeis, sorbones, in Paris, Skudra, skoder Saracenes are the old Slavic population while in Centum Karditsa Karducks Karadanians Kurds

PS do not forget Shaar is after Sherdana but we miss the d
and Kim Kardasyan is the mother of all the above :cool-v:


while the father is Sadam only he forget to put the R so to be Sardam


PS2 and even think that I speak non sense .
I speak with Genetic data like all these population share the R1a which is a 'clear evidence' a 'trade mark' of Slavic population HG R1a

PS3 I wonder if Swedes are sons of Sadam also and they forget the R and their original name is Swerdes :innocent:


BTW I love your method :heart:

I have just prove that Swedish are Serbs and Slavic but they did not know it yet :cool-v:



I wonder were Saracenes Slavic also?



sory that is my last post about your method

I am certain that in your next post you surely connect Myceneans with Myseans with Moesians and finaly with Moggolians

I am pretty certain that chinese or Sines come from Mount Sinai and they were semitic origin and they change the m to n like Senitic-Sines-chinese :ashamed2:

 

[how yes no 3]

R1a M-458 exist >10% in Sarendo S Itay, probably is after Slavic devastation and settlement etrified:
also don't forget to mention that except Serdi, Sherdana, Sardenians, Scirii, Serrians, Serbs, Scordicii, Sardanapalus, Sharpedon, sardeis, sorbones, in Paris, Skudra, skoder Saracenes are the old Slavic population while in Centum Karditsa Karducks Karadanians Kurds

Iapetoc, you just prove that you didnot understand anything from what I was talking because your mind is formatted to think in categories of modern language groups....

I never told that M-458 was originally slavic, nor that tribal names whose spread clearly correlates with I2a were originally Slavic. It is your mind that tells you that....

Opposite to what you say R1a-M458 in Sarendo south Italy is another indication of what I am claiming - that R1a-M458 is ancient old in Balkans and that it was there before south Slavs.... in same time I say it is that, originally Balkan, R1a-M458 that spread to north to give west Slavs... how difficult is it to understand those things?

All my theories relate tribal names and genetic traces... I do not speak of tribal name as part of
Sarbans/Serbs/Sardi/Serdi/Sherdana/Scordisci/ pattern without first establishing clear relation to I2a...its clear that above are variants of tribal name for a race of I2a people... another branch of this pattern is about Scirians/Serians/Serres/Siraces, but there I have name clash with J2 Syrians/Sumerians....
regarding Swedi and Suebi we might be seeing extension of tribal name pattern to haplogroup I pattern....
and if we add Arabs as J1 and Syrians and Sumerians as J2....
I think this could in ancient times have been even race name for populations carrying IJ haplogroup....
i never said all these tribal names = Serbs... on contrary I said many times that modern Serbs are just a small leaf on a big tree that is related via genetics and name...

in general, I am sure I did find some interesting links... and more important my theories did converge....


on other hand all your theories are just your often weird interpretations of words in other languages via Greek language...and you keep jumping from one theory to another.....

so your post above is more about your posts in general than about my posts... you see this as a struggle about who was before on Balkan - Greeks or Slavic people.... I see it as a history of movement of populations, originally organized in tribes via their races...

btw. Macedonians were not Hellenic people originally.. area has clearly quite different genetics .. and lets not forget that a Macedonian king had difficulties participating in Olympic Games as it was seen that there is no place there for a foreigner coming from barbarian people... he was admitted only when he showed that his own family, unlike the rest of population, was having hellenic origin... so I do not see why Greece has a problem with people calling their country Macedonia....its not like name was invented now... it is used for centuries for that area...in fact it was used for that area since times of Roman empire... btw. did you ever wonder how come Italy is not molesting Romania for carrying the name of Roman empire?

 

[Taranis]

for a person who is into languages you should know the meaning of the word "indication"...
indication is not a proof, it is a clue

No, the quintessential question is: can you test it? The point in linguistics, at least when talking distant relationships, is NOT that words sound superficially similar, but that you can prove that a word, if you account for the respective sound laws, is a cognate with a word in another language. You would not recognize real cognates. Let me remind you that:


1) sound laws have no exceptions. they will apply to ALL words in a language


2) if they seemingly have exceptions, these are conditioned by their own set of rules (ie only at the beginning of a word, or only between vowels, etc.).


3) sound laws have no memory


All your supposed "tribal names" were merely based on superficial (read: anything that sounds superficially like the word "Serb") similarities, totally ignoring if it is even viable to change a sound to another. To pick up your own example:


Kurds
Sarbans
Sart
Serbs
Serdi
Serians
Serres
Scirians
Scordisci
Sherdana


According to you "sh" is the same as "s" is the same as "k" is the same as "sk", and "b" is th esame as "d" is the same as "t" is the same as "i" is the same as "Ø” (missing). Also "a" = "e" = "i" = "o" = "u". Even if we completely disregard the fact that these nams are spoken in completely different areas and different times, here is no regularity at work here.


Let's talk about genetics now though...

if R-M458 has highest diversity (indicating paleolithic settlement) in Balkan and has highest frequency in Poland and practically doesnot exist outside of Europe, already that is pretty good indication that population from which west Slavs origin have moved to Poland from Balkans

The assumption that R1a-M458 is Paleolithic is flawed. You're ignoring both the fact R1a-M458 is probably a relatively young subclade of R1a, as well as the structure of R1a as a whole (regretably, Maciamo hasn't made a tree there yet as he did for R1b, which would be helpful in visualizing the situation, but he has things listed here). In any case:


Most R1a anywhere is part of the R1a1a1 (aka R1a-M417) clade, which is in turn dominated by the subclade R1a-Z645. This clade in turn is dominated by two subclades: R1a-Z93 (which is basically the Asian branch of R1a, dominant in India) and R1a-Z283 (the main European branch). Now, the subclade you mentioned (M458) is in turn a subclade of R1a-Z283, meaning it's fairly high up in the "tree", meaning it is almost certainly NOT Paleolithic.

you cannot understand/appreciate my ideas if you focus just on linguistic part... what i suggest is always based on a set of clues pointing in same direction....
its like trying to understand a book by focusing on repeatedly reading a single sentence that is not what you expected...and instead of reading a book arguing about the sentence... but the sentence is such that it is clear only if you read a book...

That's not true. You have your own pre-fabricated direction/goal, and you gather all pieces of evidence that point into that direction and ignore everything else. You way of proceeding here is not much different from creationists or conspiracy theorists on that issue.

i think you think too precise so you are not able to see bigger picture...


perhaps I did not express myself clearly, but i think it was clear what i wanted to say...
a population is defined by its genetics and is carrier of a tribal identity...
tribal identity is associated with a race name/tribal name which is carried by the population.....
population undergoes historic events in which its race does not change but its language may....
there are big chances that haplogroup spread correlates with race name... like J1 with Arabs, O with Chinese people, I1 and I2b with germanic people (Gomer in bible times).....

Well, and I (and others) have told you that this is pure fantasy. There is no tribal identity that miraculously endures millennia regardless of what language people speak, and in my opinion you're entering the realm of esoterics when you claim such a tribal identity is tied with Y-DNA. It also makes you into something of a male chauvinist because, let's remember that only men have Y chromosomes...

and you repeatedly try to put ancestors of Slavic people in Asia before 5th century... which is a theory, and in fact a bad one as R-M458 and I2a-Din show...but you still claim it as an absolute truth and try to exterminate any other possible explanation by calling it having agenda of pan-slavic revisionist fantasies or whatever......

I have never claimed that Slavic peoples were in Asia before the 5th century AD, unless "Eastern Europe" is already "Asia" for you (it certainly isn't for me). Also, as I elaborate above, R1a-M458 (nor I2a-Din) doesn't dispute that in any way.

what if arrival of Slavic people from Asia in 5th century is your pan-Germanic fantasy?
genetics clearly shows it is just fantasy... but you do not accept arguments against your beliefs...against your ideology

But perhaps you are right, and then ancient authors like Strabo, Ptolemy and Cassius Dio were all as biased as I am when they didn't make a single reference of Slavic presence in Central Europe, and for inventing the presence of the Boii and later the Marcomanni in Bohemia...