How did I2a-Din get to the Balkans?

How did I2a-Din get to the Balkans?


  • Total voters
    230
Well for starters I2a-Din apparently didn't exist when the IE's expanded into this area. Perhaps some antecedent I2a did (Verenic alias Heimdale reported elsewhere that he has had an "unofficial" communication from a Ukrainian archaeologist that aDna tests on a late Trypilian (non-IE) gravesite has revealed the presence of M-170-->P 37.2 there (nothing more specific). That would be interesting but not that conclusive. After all we know that the closest I2a to I2a-Din (I2a-Disles, now located principally in the British Isles) separated from their MCRA about 4,600 BCE We don't know where (it could easily have been in Germany). And we have no idea where the clade immediately ancestral to I2a-Din was when "Papa" was born. People should really try to grasp the elementary fact that all those millions and millions of contemporary I2a-Din got started from this Papa. Two Papas actually Papa-N who initiated his family ca. 300 BCE and Papa-S who did the same when Augustus ruled the Roman Empire. And it takes a while for families to expand. They don't "assimilate" others: that is a cultural/linguistic phenomenon. We're talking about genetic expansion.
 
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?


Thats a possibility.
But you d mean slavic linguistically and not purely genetically. correct?

I looked at your theory and eliminated the y-dna of the "slavs" and looked at northern croatia, slovenia and pannonian areas and was left with this
R1b (U-106 ) = 15% to 23% .........could be from the austrians or a celtic branch
I1 = 9% to 10% ..............Old german marker
E1b1b = 3%
J2 = 3%
G2a = 3%
I2b = 2%
J1 = 1%

Total = less than 50 % ..........remainder was R1a1a at 37% , remainder was I2a-din

So, to conclude , it seems doubtful that I2a-din was brought to the balkans by the slavs ( unless R1a1a is not purely slavic and this was illyrian )
 
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

What makes my words a speculation and words of Dienekes a fact?
Why do you choose to believe what Dienekes says and not believe what Nordtvedt says?

Anyway there is still not any argument on this topic which would speak against arrival of I2a-Din with Slavs.
All those who voted for paleolithic continuity please try to agree on such argument and present it here.
 
I am yet unsure on my final opinion regarding this issue, however I cannot agree that I2a-Din is of Slavic origin.
It is interesting to note that I2a-din is most frequent in Croatia and Bosnia, for whose Slavic origins we cannot entirely account for. We first encounter "kroat't" written before the VIth century, however they did swamp the Balkans en masse with other barbaric tribes during the VI-VIIth century, throughout which period they embraced a Slavic language, but preserving their name original name (which in their native language is hrvat), as recent theories explain.
Regarding Bosnians, their history begins a little later. We first encounter the name Bosnia around the Xth century in Byzantine archives, in which it is stated that the region was partly ruled by Croatians and partly by Servs. Regarding their origins, I am unaware of any document that could seal all the flowing theories, however their unorthodox Christian cults account for a different folkloric perception than those of Slavs in general.

Most of the time I don't entirely agree with racial studies in the Balkans, because I believe they are incomplete and not thorough enough. Seeing that it is a very delicate topic, I believe one should approach it in that manner as well.
Since I am not able to provide complete anthropological facts, I shall only inform you that intermarriages between Croatians and Albanians are very common, as are those between Bosnians and Albanians, because Albanians consider them to be racially more alike with themselves.


pour fin:
"I am unaware whether the linguists have agreed upon an origin of the Albanian language, but I believe that anthropologists agree on classifying Albanians as one of the modern day European races, this being Dinaric." (L'es Races et l'historie", Pittards, pg.362)
 
pour fin:
"I am unaware whether the linguists have agreed upon an origin of the Albanian language, but I believe that anthropologists agree on classifying Albanians as one of the modern day European races, this being Dinaric." (L'es Races et l'historie", Pittards, pg.362)

I'm personally somewhat wary of any attempts of racial classification (since the concept of 'race' is in itself rather flawed), but I would like to add something on the origin of the Albanian language: the first and foremost is that Albanian is obviously an Indo-European language and that today, it represents it's own branch amongst the language family. The general consensus is also that Albanian is descended from one of the so-called Paleo-Balkan languages (eg. Illyrian, Dacian, Thracian, etc.), but which of these was the ancestor of Albanian is contested. The problem is that all of these languages are rather scarcely attested, whereas Albanian literature itself is only attested from the 14th century onward. This means it's very difficult to connect Albanian with a specific Paleo Balkan language with absolute certainty.
 
I'm personally somewhat wary of any attempts of racial classification (since the concept of 'race' is in itself rather flawed), but I would like to add something on the origin of the Albanian language: the first and foremost is that Albanian is obviously an Indo-European language and that today, it represents it's own branch amongst the language family. The general consensus is also that Albanian is descended from one of the so-called Paleo-Balkan languages (eg. Illyrian, Dacian, Thracian, etc.), but which of these was the ancestor of Albanian is contested. The problem is that all of these languages are rather scarcely attested, whereas Albanian literature itself is only attested from the 14th century onward. This means it's very difficult to connect Albanian with a specific Paleo Balkan language with absolute certainty.
Linguistically speaking I agree that it is rather difficult to prove an implicit connection between particularly Illyrian language and Albanian language, but if you are interested to read further on this topic I would suggest the works of Eqrem Çabej, who has worked out some very thorough and interesting arguments.
 
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?
Yes, I don't think it's a Slavic subclade. But I think it is possible that it was carried by Slavic people (maybe an other Indo-Eruopean speaking group?) into the Balkans. but I'm still not sure who were the original I2a-din folks.

I think they were native Europeans from somewhere around the northern shores of the Black Sea. So it's a combination of paleolithic continuity and the Slavs.
 
Thats a possibility.
But you d mean slavic linguistically and not purely genetically. correct?

Well think about it this way: Proto-Germanic probably didn't form until we got a mix that included something like R1a, R1b-U106, I1, and I2a2. In parallel, proto-Slavic could have formed as a mix of R1a and I2a-Din. We know that the closest linguistic group to the Slavs are the Balts, and they lack I2a-Din, so it's not inconceivable that Slavic wouldn't be "really" Slavic without the I2a-Din influence.

Razor brought up a great point, though... we shouldn't overstate I2a-Din's influence on anything prior to its expansion, since its TMRCA is so recent. Its carriers could have been normal Slavs within an R1a-dominant group who didn't know they were expanding a Paleolithic relic that barely survived. They just happened to do so due to drift.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I don't think it's a Slavic subclade. But I think it is possible that it was carried by Slavic people (maybe an other Indo-Eruopean speaking group?) into the Balkans. but I'm still not sure who were the original I2a-din folks.

I think they were native Europeans from somewhere around the northern shores of the Black Sea. So it's a combination of paleolithic continuity and the Slavs.

Well feel free to tick "other" in the poll.

I think that the only reason an answer of "none of the above" would surprise me is that the expansion is so recent, we should expect it to be something covered by, or inferred by, history.
 
Well feel free to tick "other" in the poll.

I think that the only reason an answer of "none of the above" would surprise me is that the expansion is so recent, we should expect it to be something covered by, or inferred by, history.
I don't dare backstabbing Bodin who spend so much time on the Sarmatians origin of I2a-din. And he made some very good points! If I must choose, I will choose for the Sarmatians.

I just don't understand how I2a-Din also ended up in the Middle East. As far as I know there weren't 'Slavic' migrations into the Middle East. This is one of the biggest reasons why I don't think that I2a-din is 'Slavic'.
 
I've a question, which people in Europe were at that time so magnificent & powerfull that they could spread I2a-din in so much areas and so fast?

Time and space are almost unreal. You must be almost supernatural to be able to do this. Or a great warrior like Genghis Khan or something...
 
Linguistically speaking I agree that it is rather difficult to prove an implicit connection between particularly Illyrian language and Albanian language, but if you are interested to read further on this topic I would suggest the works of Eqrem Çabej, who has worked out some very thorough and interesting arguments.

In my opinion, the most promising arguments come from reconstructed Proto-Albanian (thanks to the abundance of Albanian loans from Greek and Latin), even though the term "Proto-Albanian" is a bit confusing as we are talking about what the Albanian language would have looked in the 1st century BC or so. I must also add that while there is a lot support for the Illyrian hypothesis, I think that the other hypotheses (Dacian and Thracian) should not be readily dismissed.

Regarding I2a-Din, I personally think that the hypothesis that it originates from an unknown culture who's Y-lineages accidentally happened to survive amongst the Proto-Slavs is quite a plausible one. We can think perhaps of this as analoguous to how I1 may have survived in Scandinavia.


I've a question, which people in Europe were at that time so magnificent & powerfull that they could spread I2a-din in so much areas and so fast?

Time and space are almost unreal. You must be almost supernatural to be able to do this. Or a great warrior like Genghis Khan or something...

Actually, the Slavic migrations fit this scenario pretty well.
 
Well think about it this way: Proto-Germanic probably didn't form until we got a mix that included something like R1a, R1b-U106, I1, and I2a2. In parallel, proto-Slavic could have formed as a mix of R1a and I2a-Din. We know that the closest linguistic group to the Slavs are the Balts, and they lack I2a-Din, so it's not inconceivable that Slavic wouldn't be "really" Slavic without the I2a-Din influence.

Razor brought up a great point, though... we shouldn't overstate I2a-Din's influence on anything prior to its expansion, since its TMRCA is so recent. Its carriers could have been normal Slavs within an R1a-dominant group who didn't know they were expanding a Paleolithic relic that barely survived. They just happened to do so due to drift.

As per link below where KenN has said that I1a ( I1) has 2 indigenous areas. one in germany where it migrated to Sweden and the other in Slovenia
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2006-08/1156297440

It seems reasonable then that this I1a marker is the "illyrian" marker. If you remove the "slavic" migration markers of R1a and I2a-din and you convert the remainder as a percentage of 100% , then I1a will be over 55%.

If you then use maciano y-dna country figures of I1 we have the following
northeast italy = 3.7%
Slovenia = 9.5%
Hungary ( pannonia) = 8%
serbia = 6.5%
Macedonia = 10%
North greece = 5.5%
croatia = 8%
bosnia = 2.5%
albania = 2%

granted the bigger the number of migrants the smaller the I1a % for that area

Since slav historians have said many a time that the heart of the slavic migration in the balkans was on the borders of bosnia, albania and montengro , this will explain the low percentage of I1a in those areas and the very high I2a-din

I wonder why maciano has NO montengro stats in his y-dna country....maybe because it formed only in 2007.

Anyway, if this is heading in the correct direction, your theory on I2a-din in the western balkans would be correct.
 
As per link below where KenN has said that I1a ( I1) has 2 indigenous areas. one in germany where it migrated to Sweden and the other in Slovenia
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2006-08/1156297440

First of all, that link is from 2006, before much research had been done into I1 STR diversity. Secondly, read it more closely:

Ken Nordtvedt said:
As pertains to Slovenia, it is much more likely
> that the I1a originates from the native ``I`` already found there which
> later moved north from the slavic regions into Scandinavia (instead of the
> other way around, which is ludicrous). Exactly one of the suggestions of
> this thread, although I would not rule out historic era spread of the
> Germans.

If this is true (I1a originated in or near Slovenia) and that this indigneous I1a was not later swamped by the spread of more northerly Germanics spreading to the south and bringing the I1a from north Germany,
then a detailed study of Slovenian I1a should show its uniqueness and lack of forms only later developed further north. In fact, that was the relevance of pointing out the absence of DYS462 = 13 I1a (found primarily in Scandinavia) in the Slovenian collection. Austria is also called Ostmark (east frontier) in some language, and that is a reminder that Germanic peoples in the post-Roman era pushed their settlement to the east and south.

Basically he's saying that based on what he knew at the time (back in 2006) it seemed more likely that the migration pattern was Slovenia to Scandinavia rather than Scandinavia to Slovenia, but he refused to rule out a Germanic migration into the Balkans.

But a Germanic migration into the Balkans is what seems more likely now. Take a look at Slovenian samples in the I1 Project. None stretch their STR patterns outside of existing, principally Germanic clusters like AS-gen and T2. The best explanation for them now is likely East Germanic origin.

Nordtvedt has since placed the center of diversity of I1 around Schleswig-Holstein.

It seems reasonable then that this I1a marker is the "illyrian" marker. If you remove the "slavic" migration markers of R1a and I2a-din and you convert the remainder as a percentage of 100% , then I1a will be over 55%.

Why can't the "Illyrian" marker(s) be R1b and Neolithic or Bronze Age markers like J2, E1b, G2a? Why does there have to have been Paleolithic remnants? Maybe they all drifted away.

If I had to pick an existing haplogroup to be "the" Paleolithic remnant in the Balkans, I would guess I2b-ADR, which hasn't been found there yet AFAIK, but has been found in Italy, and could be a chunk of that "I2*" without I2b-ADR or I2c SNPs tested that's been found in the Balkans.
 
Well Sparkey, you may have been right about me confusing I2a as a whole with I2a-Din. If the MRCA for I2a-Din is 3000 years, then it is quite
reasonable to think the Slavic migrations were responsible for it, even if I2a-Din was not a proto-Slavic haplogroup. However, I would like to know about a map comparing I2a as a whole and I2a-Din. Is there such thing? The reason for this is that I do find strange that I2a predominates in the mountainous areas, where one would expect the older haplogroups to survive... But maybe those are other kinds of I2a
 
Well Sparkey, you may have been right about me confusing I2a as a whole with I2a-Din. If the MRCA for I2a-Din is 3000 years, then it is quite
reasonable to think the Slavic migrations were responsible for it, even if I2a-Din was not a proto-Slavic haplogroup. However, I would like to know about a map comparing I2a as a whole and I2a-Din. Is there such thing? The reason for this is that I do find strange that I2a predominates in the mountainous areas, where one would expect the older haplogroups to survive... But maybe those are other kinds of I2a

As far as I know, nearly 100% of all I2a in the Balkans is I2a-Din. All other I2a subclades are west of it, except maybe I2a2a2-Cont3, which is geographically all around the Balkans, but mostly north of it. A bit of the I2a we see may be I2a2a2-Cont3, which is older than I2a1b1a-Din, but I doubt much of it is based on the respective FTDNA projects. And I2a2a2 will be tested as "I2b" in most studies, because it's only recently had its hierarchical name changed, and it's P37-.
 
As far as I know, nearly 100% of all I2a in the Balkans is I2a-Din.
Really, almost 100%? That's problematic from any point of view, then (especially with the recent dating for the MRCA). What about Albania and Greece, for example? I simply can't see so much Slavic influence there (especially in places such as the Peloponnese).
 
Really, almost 100%? That's problematic from any point of view, then. What about Albania and Greece, for example? I simply can't see so much Slavic influence there (especially in places such as the Peloponnese).

Greek I2a people are mostly I2a-Din-N, which is the cluster of I2a-Din with higher presence in Ukraine, Poland, Belarus, Russia, etc., and is older than I2a-Din-S. See the I2a Project. I'm not sure what that means.

Where have we seen I2a in significant amounts in the Peloponnese? As far as I'm aware, most I2 in the Peloponnese and Crete is I2c-B, not I2a-Din.
 
Where have we seen I2a in significant amounts in the Peloponnese? As far as I'm aware, most I2 in the Peloponnese and Crete is I2c-B, not I2a-Din.
Right now I'm using the Eupedia map Maciamo made
Haplogroup_I2a.gif
 

This thread has been viewed 1091196 times.

Back
Top