How did I2a-Din get to the Balkans?

How did I2a-Din get to the Balkans?


  • Total voters
    229
You may be right, you may be right... I'm afraid I largely lose my historical compass of the Balkans during the Slavic migrations. I'll be sure to read about them soon
 
Right now I'm using the Eupedia map Maciamo made

I'm pretty sure that Maciamo is using Martinez et al 2007 there, and now that I look at it, there is significant I2a, probably mostly I2a-Din-N, in the Peloponnese, although I2*, probably I2c-B is much higher in Crete. King et al 2008 is another good study I've seen of Crete, and that one is pretty explicit that the I2 in Crete is "I2*" (probably I2c-B because that's all we've found there so far and they didn't test the SNPs that define I2c).

It looks like there was a pretty direct Slavic influence in Greece based on this, more than I expected, unless some of the I2a-Din-N predated the Slavic expansion. The N cluster is nearly 2500 years old, after all.
 
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).

I agree that this is problematic. The I2a2 in the Balkans cannot be Slavic or Sarmatian if it is so different from the I2a found in other parts of Eastern Europe.

When I say I favour the hypothesis of the Paleolithic continuity, I don't mean that I2a2-Din already existed in the Paleolithic, but that I2* was all over Europe in the Paleolithic, then only became I2a around the Mesolithic, I2a2 perhaps in the late Mesolithic or early Neolithic, and eventually I2a2-Din in the Chalcolithic or Bronze Age. It doesn't mean that the ancestors of the modern I2a-Din were already in the Balkans in the Paleolithic. However I look at it, I can't see how I2a-Din could have been in the Balkans before the Neolithic. A hypothesis that I like is that the I2a2 people from the Danube region were pushed away by Neolithic farmers (G2a) and moved to the Balkans and the Carpathians, where they evolved into different subclades.

Another possibility is that I2a2 came from Eastern Anatolia along with G2a during the Neolithic, and each variety of I2a2 developed once Neolithic farmers had settled permanently in one place.
 
Well I suppose we need better I2a testing in Greece :)=)). It wouldn't surprise me one bit to discover a lot of Greek-speaking I2a-Din there. After all the Slavs literally swamped Greece in the late 6th and (especially) early 7th century. In the context of the Byzantine reconquista, a tremendous number of them were captured and sold into slavery outside of Greece (hence the birth of the relevant "esclave"->"slave" term). But numbers will tell, and genes would have been left behind.
 
For me, ftdna results were enough to conclude that vast majority of I2a in Balkans is the same variety as the one found in other parts of eastern Europe: Y-Haplogroup I2a Project
 
I agree that this is problematic. The I2a2 in the Balkans cannot be Slavic or Sarmatian if it is so different from the I2a found in other parts of Eastern Europe.

But it isn't "so different"... the large majority of I2a in Eastern Europe as a whole is I2a-Din.

When I say I favour the hypothesis of the Paleolithic continuity, I don't mean that I2a2-Din already existed in the Paleolithic, but that I2* was all over Europe in the Paleolithic, then only became I2a around the Mesolithic, I2a2 perhaps in the late Mesolithic or early Neolithic, and eventually I2a2-Din in the Chalcolithic or Bronze Age. It doesn't mean that the ancestors of the modern I2a-Din were already in the Balkans in the Paleolithic. However I look at it, I can't see how I2a-Din could have been in the Balkans before the Neolithic. A hypothesis that I like is that the I2a2 people from the Danube region were pushed away by Neolithic farmers (G2a) and moved to the Balkans and the Carpathians, where they evolved into different subclades.

Then why do we see only one very young I2a clade in the Balkans, with the older STR cluster of that clade outside of the Balkans? Like I said, you'd need a weird double-bottleneck for this pattern to occur, not to mention an inexplicably recent migration out of the Balkans.

Another possibility is that I2a2 came from Eastern Anatolia along with G2a during the Neolithic, and each variety of I2a2 developed once Neolithic farmers had settled permanently in one place.

The fact that the two closest clades to I2a-Din both have their centers of diversity in the British Isles, and the fact that outlier clades of I2a, like I2a1*-Rassette and I2a1*-F are very European and even Western European, lends poorly to this theory.
 
First of all, that link is from 2006, before much research had been done into I1 STR diversity. Secondly, read it more closely:



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.

Yes the link is 2006 , far younger than the link you provided as the 2 that are newer has no reference to our discussion

I read it that the german I1a went to sweden and not the slovenian one.

If you think the slovenian I1a HG is east germanic, then lets assume that R1a and I2a-din never arrived in western Balkans. Are you saying then, this germanic I1a reached northern greece and all of the western balkans in the great % that is there now.


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

Ok, but not part of this discussion


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.

because the percentages are not significant once you eliminate the R1a and I2a-din

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.

If I recall an earlier KenN note saying the western I2a1 went from spain to venice and directly a line north of venice. I think he called it an anti R1a HG.

[[ I would not be so cowardly to guess such a broad upstream haplogroup
category as Hg I. I guess I2b-ADR L415+ L416+ L417+ found today on the
shores of the northern Adriatic Sea. Ken ]]
You refer to this comment above for I2b-ADR

http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net/Tree and Map for Hg I.pdf

I guess this I2b-ADR was a made up HG to catecorize Otzi in September 2011, prior to finding he was G2a
 
Yes the link is 2006 , far younger than the link you provided as the 2 that are newer has no reference to our discussion

Huh? Yours is older, and the links I provided are relevant to I1 analysis, which is what we were talking about.

I read it that the german I1a went to sweden and not the slovenian one.

No, he's not saying that there are different I1a's, he's wondering which direction it went with respect to Slovenia.

If you think the slovenian I1a HG is east germanic, then lets assume that R1a and I2a-din never arrived in western Balkans. Are you saying then, this germanic I1a reached northern greece and all of the western balkans in the great % that is there now.

I'm not sure if I1 is old enough to have some pre-Germanic Eastern European components; if it does, they are possibly in the T2 STR cluster, but I doubt that the members in the AS clusters are anything other than East Germanic. That seems to place I1 as at least largely East Germanic in origin for its distribution in the Balkans and Greece. I don't see a "great percentage" to discount this, anyway... there's mostly single-digit I1 in the region.

Ok, but not part of this discussion

Oh, but it is. If the origin of I1 is Schleswig-Holstein, and the TMRCA of it is really as young as Nordtvedt calculates, then we should expect a tight coupling of I1 carriers and Germanic ancestry. That's my point.

because the percentages are not significant once you eliminate the R1a and I2a-din

So? Why can't the R1a and I2a-Din be largely recent introductions? And why couldn't the Neolithic haplogroups have displaced the Paleolithic ones? Two major displacements could have resulted in practically no Paleolithic remnants in the region.

If I recall an earlier KenN note saying the western I2a1 went from spain to venice and directly a line north of venice. I think he called it an anti R1a HG.

That's old I2a1, or current I2a1a, not that closely related to I2a1b1a-Din.

[[ I would not be so cowardly to guess such a broad upstream haplogroup
category as Hg I. I guess I2b-ADR L415+ L416+ L417+ found today on the
shores of the northern Adriatic Sea. Ken ]]
You refer to this comment above for I2b-ADR

http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net/Tree and Map for Hg I.pdf

I guess this I2b-ADR was a made up HG to catecorize Otzi in September 2011, prior to finding he was G2a

I2b-ADR isn't a made up clade, living people have it, just not very many. Nordtvedt guessed Ötzi to be I2b-ADR and was wrong... I suspect that I2b-ADR was generally more Southern during Ötzi's time, but the data on that clade is badly deficient. Maybe that's why we're all guessing it to be a missing link for any particular problem that pops up.
 
Huh? Yours is older, and the links I provided are relevant to I1 analysis, which is what we were talking about.

Which is the one to read ?

i see 2001, 2005 etc etc



I'm not sure if I1 is old enough to have some pre-Germanic Eastern European components; if it does, they are possibly in the T2 STR cluster, but I doubt that the members in the AS clusters are anything other than East Germanic. That seems to place I1 as at least largely East Germanic in origin for its distribution in the Balkans and Greece. I don't see a "great percentage" to discount this, anyway... there's mostly single-digit I1 in the region.
Are you trying to say they are gothic and vandal HG in western balkans ,

In regards to percentages, they are single digit because the R1a and i2a-din makes them so.
You are smart enough to realise that percentage numbers are different based on the different number of foreigners in the area. so, if area A had 100 of I1a and area B likewise, if R1a entered areas A and B but, in A went 300 and in B went 500, then the percentage of I1a in area A is greater then in area B
So, they would not be single digit numbers for any region in the western balkans if you remove R1a and i2a-din

As an example, by using Maciano's y-dna country numbers for albania and removing the R1a and I2a
the following percentages occur once reconfigured
I1 - 3
I2b = 2
R1b = 21
G = 3
J2 = 25.5
J1 = 3
E1b1b = 37.5
T = 2


Oh, but it is. If the origin of I1 is Schleswig-Holstein, and the TMRCA of it is really as young as Nordtvedt calculates, then we should expect a tight coupling of I1 carriers and Germanic ancestry. That's my point.
true if its only 1 sub-clade of I1a ( I1) exists

So? Why can't the R1a and I2a-Din be largely recent introductions? And why couldn't the Neolithic haplogroups have displaced the Paleolithic ones? Two major displacements could have resulted in practically no Paleolithic remnants in the region.
thats what we are discussing, for your theory to work , another Hg had to be in the western balkans. I am trying to figure out if I1a is that HG




I2b-ADR isn't a made up clade, living people have it, just not very many. Nordtvedt guessed Ötzi to be I2b-ADR and was wrong... I suspect that I2b-ADR was generally more Southern during Ötzi's time, but the data on that clade is badly deficient. Maybe that's why we're all guessing it to be a missing link for any particular problem that pops up.
irrelevant at this time to have any impact on this discussion
 
Which is the one to read ?

i see 2001, 2005 etc etc

Oh you mean the I1 Project? I thought you meant my link to Nordtvedt. For the I1 Project, I was referring to the raw data, not the studies they refer to on their homepage.

Are you trying to say they are gothic and vandal HG in western balkans ,

Yes, principally Ostrogothic, at least that's my best guess.

In regards to percentages, they are single digit because the R1a and i2a-din makes them so.
You are smart enough to realise that percentage numbers are different based on the different number of foreigners in the area. so, if area A had 100 of I1a and area B likewise, if R1a entered areas A and B but, in A went 300 and in B went 500, then the percentage of I1a in area A is greater then in area B
So, they would not be single digit numbers for any region in the western balkans if you remove R1a and i2a-din

Good point, I1 may be higher than we might expect, but it's not impossible that they could have expanded due to cultural selection. As usual, Y-DNA magnifies the effect of migration.

As an example, by using Maciano's y-dna country numbers for albania and removing the R1a and I2a
the following percentages occur once reconfigured
I1 - 3
I2b = 2
R1b = 21
G = 3
J2 = 25.5
J1 = 3
E1b1b = 37.5
T = 2

That looks about like what I would expect, although E1b may also have a bit of a founder effect itself... my guess is that R1b, J2, and E1b would have been dominant together, with G2a an interesting Neolithic marker and I1 mostly Germanic. That "I2b" is probably dominated by I2a2a2-Cont3, which I have already brought up.

true if its only 1 sub-clade of I1a ( I1) exists

Multiple subclades exist, but there's no special Balkans subclade... I1 in the Balkans has so far fit neatly into existing "Germanic" subclades of I1.

thats what we are discussing, for your theory to work , another Hg had to be in the western balkans. I am trying to figure out if I1a is that HG

To me, it's odd that you're targeting I1... that seems the least likely to be Illyrian of the remaining markers once you subtract R1a and I2a-Din.
 
Yes, principally Ostrogothic, at least that's my best guess.

You do realise that the 200 year of ostrogothic rule for western balkans would apply to italy as well in the issue of I1a ......you want to go down this line?


Good point, I1 may be higher than we might expect, but it's not impossible that they could have expanded due to cultural selection. As usual, Y-DNA magnifies the effect of migration.



That looks about like what I would expect, although E1b may also have a bit of a founder effect itself... my guess is that R1b, J2, and E1b would have been dominant together, with G2a an interesting Neolithic marker and I1 mostly Germanic. That "I2b" is probably dominated by I2a2a2-Cont3, which I have already brought up.
I ran some numbers from Y-dna country in regards to eliminating the R1a and I2a and got these numbers for I1a ( I1) ...rounded to nearest half %

AUStria = 29.5
NEItaly = 10
SLOvenia = 31.5
CROtia = 28.5
HUNgary = 23
SERbia = 19
BOSnia = 9
ALBania = 4.5
MACedonia = 24.5
NGreece = 13.5

Montenegro is missing ...maybe its a mix of BOS and ALB

Clearly the very high E Hg for albania and bosnia dominate these areas and could indicate a different tribe , maybe the thracians
 
But it isn't "so different"... the large majority of I2a in Eastern Europe as a whole is I2a-Din.

You are probably right about that. But I am still sceptical about I2a-Din coming from the steppes with the Indo-Europeans, the Sarmatians or the Slavs. If it was PIE, we would find much more of it in Siberia, Central Asia and South Asia. If it was Sarmatian, there would also be more in Central Asia, because that is where the Sarmatians originally came from before moving to the Pontic Steppe. It cannot be Proto-Slavic if it wasn't PIE to start with.

Then, there are other subclades of I2a2 in Western Europe (I2a-Isles), which surely have nothing to do with the Slavs and point at a common origin in continental Europe (somewhere between France and Ukraine). So I still think that I2a2 was in Europe before the Indo-Europeans. This is further corroborated by the fact that I2a1 was found in Neolithic France. Yet, until then it was thought that I2a1 was also fairly young* like I2a2. That's why you can't trust STR dating.


* In 2004, Rootsi et al. estimated the age of I2a* between 4000 and 8000 years old. This is almost impossible if its subclade I2a1 already existed 5000 years ago (Treilles site).
 
I agree with Maciamo here. There's probably an exception in the I subclades (¿I2c?), but the rest seem to be in the continental Europe since the beginning.
 
I voted for the paleolithic continuity hypothesis and would add a founder effect in the Dinaric Alpine region.

Strong levels are found throughout the Balkans with 4% in modern-day Turkey but what is more significant to me is its 'Slavic' presence in Russia. This suggests strongly a link to the paleolithic Balkans as haplogroup I is definitely not a West Asian/Caucasian marker. The spread to Russia and Sarmatian lands followed the Balkan Refugium repopulation of Eurasia.

The weakness in this theory is based on the assumption that related subclades would have to be found throughout the region as well. I believe this assumption is generally valid however I would not place too much emphasis on it in this context as most I subclades would have been wiped out during the severe climactic events that overwhelmed Europe circa 10 000ybp. In addition one could add that the various I haplgroup subclades would have left the Balkan Refugium many thousands of years ago and would have been thinned out by then.

My social anthropological view of I in the Balkans is based on an erratic diffusion model between 10 and 5 thousand ybp following a period of entrapment (refuge) within the southern extremities of Europe. The pre-LGM period would have most certainly shown a Europe-wide distribution that was severely disrupted and abruptly cut short by the big freeze.

Sardinia and Iberia back up the continuity of this haplogroup from a pre-Glacial period. The difference concerning the Balkans is that repopulation spread further and wider in a Northeasterly direction as the Balkans were much less conducive to agriculture with its rocky landscape. The fertile plains of West Sarmatia and the mild climate of the North Balkan coastline share many parallels.
 
It cannot be Proto-Slavic if it wasn't PIE to start with.

I think he is not arguing I2a-Din was Proto-Slavic but that it came to Balkans with Slavs. It wasn't there before Slavic expansion.

Personally, I could stand behind Proto-Slavic hypothesis also.


So I still think that I2a2 was in Europe before the Indo-Europeans.

No one is saying it wasn't.
The problem is following - if two very close varieties like I2a2-Din and I2a2-Isles are completely geographically separated why would there have to be geographical continuity for two more distant subclades as I2a2 and I2a2-Din are?
 
What Maciamo and Knovas et al. seem to be completely ignoring is the age of I2a-Din as a subclade. We don't know where its ancestral Daddy roamed. But we do know that the specific I2a-Din subclade did not begin to exist until ca. 300 BCE. On the basis of current historical and archaeological knowledge, an assumption of the Balkans as roaming grounds cannot explain its expansion. Unless you have Daddy migrate northward very soon after 300 BCE (with progeny). But what in the archaeology or documented historical facts can support this? On the other hand, the Nordtvedt/Verenic computations not only point to a 2340/2040 BP founding age for Din N+S but also to ca. 1200-1500 BP as its age of "expansion" (which also fits in very well with historical events), I think they have made their case, for the time being at any rate. But the issue of the whereabouts of Granddaddy whence Daddy Din mutated is still very much open. My favourite scenario is a migration southeastward of Daddy with the Bastarnians (in the 3rd c. BCE) from the area of the Yastorf culture, and eventual participation of his progeny in Slavic ethnogenesis with associated R1a's and others. That would make Daddy a Germanic fellow traveller. And would explain some very early Germanic borrowings into the Slavic languages (especially in the area of military and political terminology) as well as the nearly complete Germanic character of the recorded names of the leadership of the Antes and Sclavini in the 6th century as per Byzantine chroniclers. It would also explain the mysterious Dulibians (Dud-Leiba). But this is obviously a different issue.
 
The fact that the two closest clades to I2a-Din both have their centers of diversity in the British Isles, and the fact that outlier clades of I2a, like I2a1*-Rassette and I2a1*-F are very European and even Western European, lends poorly to this theory.

The R1a and I2a subclades have a poor classification system which has hindered progress IMO. I assume the classifications used such as Rassette and F and Din are based on STR values, right? If so then there is a very real problem here as one will need to test many more individuals in the Balkans to do an STR analysis than would otherwise be the case with ydna SNP testing. Either way I think you are not able to compare STR values from the Balkans as the sample sizes are limited.
 
What Maciamo and Knovas et al. seem to be completely ignoring is the age of I2a-Din as a subclade. We don't know where its ancestral Daddy roamed. But we do know that the specific I2a-Din subclade did not begin to exist until ca. 300 BCE.

I => 25,000 years ago (in the Balkans)
I2 => 17,000 years ago (in the Balkans)
I2b => 13,000 years ago (in Central Europe)
I2a => 11,000 years ago (in the Balkans)
I2a1 => 8,000 years ago (in Sardinia)
I2a2 => 7,500 years ago (in the Dinaric Alps)
I2b1 => 9,000 years ago (in Germany)

I1 => 5,000 years ago (in Scandinavia)
I2b1a => less than 3,000 years ago (in Britain)
 

This thread has been viewed 1042434 times.

Back
Top