How did I2a-Din get to the Balkans?

How did I2a-Din get to the Balkans?


  • Total voters
    229
And what is the age of I2a1b1?
For poor classification se here.

I2a1b1 [L69.2/S163.2] (formerly known as I2a2a) is younger than its paternal clade which is estimated at 7500 ybp. I don't agree with the estimated TMRCA used by Nordtvedt. I view him as somewhat controversial in this respect, however his work more than makes up for this IMO.

The multiple effect of a genetically fit progenitor's descendants, especially if the group is somewhat isolated, will depict a false variance unsuitable for TMRCA calculation without the necessary adjustment. I squeezed in a lot of info in my previous sentence but the point is it is older than it looks, and E in the Balkans is also older than it looks.

The classifications used to depict STR clusters are not on the ISOGG site as they are experimental STR categories. Both R1a and I haplogroups alike continue to remain poorly defined compared to R1b-L11+ subclades where numerous SNP's make classification much easier.
 
That isn't very helpful, Dorianfinder. I'll fix it for you:

I => 23,000 years ago (maybe in Southern Europe somewhere)
I2 => 22,000 years ago (maybe in Southern Europe somewhere)
I2a2 => 13,000 years ago (somewhere in Europe, probably Eastern or Central)
I2a1 => 20,000 years ago (somewhere in Europe, not sure but maybe the Carpathian Basin)
I2a1a => 8,000 years ago (probably Iberia, definitely not Sardinia)
I2a1b => 13,000 years ago (somewhere in Europe, too dispersed to narrow down, probably not the Balkans)
I1 => 5,000 years ago (around Schleswig-Holstein)
I2a2a1 => 5,000 years ago (in Britain)

And I'll add another one:
I2a1b1a-Din => 2,500 years ago (somewhere around Belarus)
 
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.

The SNP tree for I2a has gotten better lately, although there are still some I2a1*'s, like Rassette and F. Sample sizes are fine for I2a-Din. At the FTDNA Project alone, you have hundreds, plus additional STR values from other sources. We do need more for Rassette (2 samples) and F (7 samples), but those are useful for comparing against other STR clusters.

Where I2a-Din is in the SNP tree is well established.
 
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 think every I subclade has been in Europe since their beginning, including I2c (see my I2c diversity map... based on the STR data available so far, it's showing a center of diversity in Western or Central Europe, maybe around Germany).

But as Shetop summarizes my argument, I'm not saying that "I2a-Din was Proto-Slavic but that it came to Balkans with Slavs. It wasn't there before Slavic expansion."

If we say things like "Germanic peoples spread I1," even though I1 is clearly from a pre-IE European lineage, why can't we say "Slavic peoples spread I2a-Din"?
 
The SNP tree for I2a has gotten better lately, although there are still some I2a1*'s, like Rassette and F. Sample sizes are fine for I2a-Din. At the FTDNA Project alone, you have hundreds, plus additional STR values from other sources. We do need more for Rassette (2 samples) and F (7 samples), but those are useful for comparing against other STR clusters.

Where I2a-Din is in the SNP tree is well established.

I was thinking more along the lines of those subclades immediately downstream of I2a-Din.
 
That isn't very helpful, Dorianfinder. I'll fix it for you:

I => 23,000 years ago (maybe in Southern Europe somewhere)
I2 => 22,000 years ago (maybe in Southern Europe somewhere)
I2a2 => 13,000 years ago (somewhere in Europe, probably Eastern or Central)
I2a1 => 20,000 years ago (somewhere in Europe, not sure but maybe the Carpathian Basin)
I2a1a => 8,000 years ago (probably Iberia, definitely not Sardinia)
I2a1b => 13,000 years ago (somewhere in Europe, too dispersed to narrow down, probably not the Balkans)
I1 => 5,000 years ago (around Schleswig-Holstein)
I2a2a1 => 5,000 years ago (in Britain)

And I'll add another one:
I2a1b1a-Din => 2,500 years ago (somewhere around Belarus)

I could save you the trouble and say that no clear ancient distribution patterns are forthcoming from modern sample testing alone.
 
I was thinking more along the lines of those subclades immediately downstream of I2a-Din.

...well there are a couple of British ones upstream per SNP testing (all L343+), and thanks to the fact that British-origin people test with FTDNA more than anybody, their sample sizes are about as good as we can hope for. I2a-Disles is a particularly rare clade, so it's the smallest by quite a bit, but I2a-Isles is very well attested.

What's downstream?
 
I could save you the trouble and say that no clear ancient distribution patterns are forthcoming from modern sample testing alone.

Then why were you using it as evidence for your point? It's not clear, and there is evidence otherwise, that the ancestors of I2a-Din have been in the Balkans through their existence.
 
Maybe you could explain this, because there are no subclades downstream I2a-Din.

I am not on the team looking specifically at the I haplogroup so please take what I am saying with a pinch of salt. Generally, the more SNPs are allocated to the phylogeny of a haplogroup the easier it becomes to pinpoint suitable candidates for a y-dna walk through. When one is swimming too far upstream this cannot be done efficiently without taking too much of a risk and not having enough skeleton to add to. Haplogroup I has got some ways to go before many more SNPs will begin rolling in ... until then clusters need to be formed using slow-moving STR markers, in some cases these can be as good as an SNP, however only SNP's can be allocated to a position making it essential in phylogeny development.
 
I think every I subclade has been in Europe since their beginning, including I2c (see my I2c diversity map... based on the STR data available so far, it's showing a center of diversity in Western or Central Europe, maybe around Germany).

But as Shetop summarizes my argument, I'm not saying that "I2a-Din was Proto-Slavic but that it came to Balkans with Slavs. It wasn't there before Slavic expansion."

If we say things like "Germanic peoples spread I1," even though I1 is clearly from a pre-IE European lineage, why can't we say "Slavic peoples spread I2a-Din"?
I see sparkey. Your explanation makes sense, it's perfectly possible. I can't deny it ;)
 
Then why were you using it as evidence for your point? It's not clear, and there is evidence otherwise, that the ancestors of I2a-Din have been in the Balkans through their existence.

My point was about the estimated age to the TMRCA. I only highlighted the Balkans for I2a to accentuate the paternal link to the Dinaric Alps and I2a2.
 
My point was about the estimated age to the TMRCA. I only highlighted the Balkans for I2a to accentuate the paternal link to the Dinaric Alps and I2a2.

OK. I think the value of the point dries up once it's clear that I2a-Din's ancestor clades were more likely not from the Balkans, than from the Balkans. Because then we can't look and say, "Hey, its ancestor was in the Balkans 11,000 years ago, and 7,500 years ago." If that changes to "Well actually it looks more like it was somewhere in Europe, maybe close-ish to the Balkans 20,000 years ago, and maybe even further away from the Balkans 13,000 years ago" then the usefulness of the whole thing goes away.

Point taken about the unreliability of STR dating, though... Nordtvedt's estimate does have fairly large error bars, which is why I resist saying things like "I2a-Din's MRCA lived in 300BCE." But suppose we pushed I2a-Din's TMRCA back all the way to its parent clade (I2a1b1). Then it's still less than 6,000 years old... and still has a diversity gradient coming down from the North. So Paleolithic continuity still fails.
 
But suppose we pushed I2a-Din's TMRCA back all the way to its parent clade (I2a1b1). Then it's still less than 6,000 years old... and still has a diversity gradient coming down from the North. So Paleolithic continuity still fails.

Great point.
 
Point taken about the unreliability of STR dating, though...
Nordtvedt's estimate does have fairly large error bars, which is why I resist saying things like "I2a-Din's MRCA lived in 300BCE." But suppose we pushed I2a-Din's TMRCA back all the way to its parent clade (I2a1b1). Then it's still less than 6,000 years old... and still has a diversity gradient coming down from the North. So Paleolithic continuity still fails.

What I like about Nordtvedt is his strict and cautious scientific approach to all this. He operates with SNP's even more than with STR's. He keeps retesting and refining. His latest surmise for TMRCA of I2a-Din is interesting in that the more he tests and refines the "younger" the subclade gets (not by much but some). I have no idea of how Dorianfinder gets his dates and the "I don't care for N's analysis" approach is of course not particularly persuasive. It would help to have something more precise. It's Nordtvedt who discovered the British Disles older brother to Din. As for Verenic's adaptations cf. the thread here, esp. from posts 113 ff. http://dna-forums.org/index.php?/to...1867__hl__heimdale__fromsearch__1#entry221867

Unfortunately we can't get aDNA from the Slavic homeland area because of the cremation ritual. But the possibility of checking exists for some of the Wielbark and Chernyakhiv gravesites, once the Ukrainans get their act together. We could see if there is any I2a1b1 there.
 
Last edited:
As for Verenic's adaptations cf. the thread here, esp. from posts 113 ff. http://dna-forums.org/index.php?/to...1867__hl__heimdale__fromsearch__1#entry221867

Vadim Verenich's analysis is great. The diversity charts are very helpful... For those who aren't DNA Forums members, his maps indicate diversity spikes outside the Balkans, namely in Ukraine/Moldova (probably close to the expansion point of I2a-Din-N) and Austria, except one around Bosnia/Serbia, which looks to me like the expansion point of I2a-Din-S. There are also interesting "isolates" in Belarus, Greece, and a few other places, and a general molecular diversity pattern that spans Eastern Europe (but not most of the Balkans outside of that Bosnia/Serbia point). He compares these maps favorably to "Slavic expansion" maps.
 
OK. I think the value of the point dries up once it's clear that I2a-Din's ancestor clades were more likely not from the Balkans, than from the Balkans. Because then we can't look and say, "Hey, its ancestor was in the Balkans 11,000 years ago, and 7,500 years ago." If that changes to "Well actually it looks more like it was somewhere in Europe, maybe close-ish to the Balkans 20,000 years ago, and maybe even further away from the Balkans 13,000 years ago" then the usefulness of the whole thing goes away.

Point taken about the unreliability of STR dating, though... Nordtvedt's estimate does have fairly large error bars, which is why I resist saying things like "I2a-Din's MRCA lived in 300BCE." But suppose we pushed I2a-Din's TMRCA back all the way to its parent clade (I2a1b1). Then it's still less than 6,000 years old... and still has a diversity gradient coming down from the North. So Paleolithic continuity still fails.

Have you managed to figure out the route-relationship between the east European 'Dinaric' forms of I2a and the north-western forms such as L161 'Isles' and the tiny 'Disles' clade? What are the frequency distributions suggesting? If the Balto-Slavic hypothesis is studied in depth I think one will find Southern European countries share the up-stream clades and the north the down-stream ones.
 
Have you managed to figure out the route-relationship between the east European 'Dinaric' forms of I2a and the north-western forms such as L161 'Isles' and the tiny 'Disles' clade? What are the frequency distributions suggesting? If the Balto-Slavic hypothesis is studied in depth I think one will find Southern European countries share the up-stream clades and the north the down-stream ones.

The different I2a1b clades have their modern centers of diversity too dispersed to figure out a route-relationship. The modern frequency distributions aren't going to help much, either. It's quite clear that both Disles and Isles have their centers of diversity in Britain, so it's appropriate to assume that both formed there. Does that mean that Dinaric came out of Britain, since 2 clades being in Britain and 1 being out means that the highest place of diversity of I2a1b as a whole is in Britain? Not necessarily, of course... but I suspect that it may be closer to the right place than the Balkans.
 
The different I2a1b clades have their modern centers of diversity too dispersed to figure out a route-relationship. The modern frequency distributions aren't going to help much, either. It's quite clear that both Disles and Isles have their centers of diversity in Britain, so it's appropriate to assume that both formed there. Does that mean that Dinaric came out of Britain, since 2 clades being in Britain and 1 being out means that the highest place of diversity of I2a1b as a whole is in Britain? Not necessarily, of course... but I suspect that it may be closer to the right place than the Balkans.

Disles and Isles may be more diverse in Britain but they are parallel to Dinaric. All Disles and Isles have the SNPs common to Dinaric however the inverse is not true.

Edited: correction, downstream should be parallel. Please read #83 for explanation.
 

This thread has been viewed 1055002 times.

Back
Top