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.
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.
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.
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 was thinking more along the lines of those subclades immediately downstream of I2a-Din.
I could save you the trouble and say that no clear ancient distribution patterns are forthcoming from modern sample testing alone.
Maybe you could explain this, because there are no subclades downstream I2a-Din.
I see sparkey. Your explanation makes sense, it's perfectly possible. I can't deny itI 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"?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
This thread has been viewed 1041840 times.