How did I2a-Din get to the Balkans?

[Sile]

I'm not familiar with this theory. I have read that the emergence of the Zarubintsy culture is associated with an eastward migration of people belonging to the Pomeranian culture into territory occupied by people of the Milograd culture, and the subsequent mixture between those cultures, which lasted for quite a long time (W. W. Siedow, Седов В. В., Славяние верхнево Поднепровья и Подвинья). The Zarubintsy culture is considered by some scholars Proto-Slavic as it seems to correspond with archaic Slavic hydronymy (Третьяков П. Н., Памятники зарубинецкой культуры). Milograd culture is considered by many scholars Balto-Slavic (before its differentiation into Proto-Slavic, West Baltic and East Baltic) or West Baltic, but Siedow wrote: "В лингвистической литературе высказывались предположения о формировании праславянского на основе одного из окраинных западнобалтийских диалектов или, наоборот, о происхождении западнобалтийских диалектов от одной из групп праславянских говоров." Also Bernstein wrote: "Нет сомнения в том, что балто-славянская сообщность охватила прежде всего праславянский, прусский, ятвяжский язык". So Proto-Slavic and West-Baltic were more closely related than was Proto-Slavic with East Baltic (let's remind you that according to more recent theories, there was no such a thing as a unified Baltic, which later splint into West Baltic and East Baltic - but there was Balto-Slavic which split directly into three branches: West Baltic, Slavic and East Baltic). By the end of the 1st century AD the Zarubintsy culture - according to Siedow - was conquered by Sarmatians, but part of their population escaped northward as refugees and settled in Prussia (archaeological prove of this are supposed to be the type of fibulae which had been previously produced by the Zarubintsy culture, and which start to appear in Prussia in the 2nd century AD). Before that, the Lusatian culture fell to Scythians (see page 76 here: http://www.parzifal-ev.de/uploads/media/gimbutas.pdf), so most likely the Pomeranian culture - which evolved out of the Lusatian culture (see below) had some Scythian admixture as well.

https://archive.org/details/TheBalts

If we add also your info about contribution of Gubin culture (I guess it contributed more to southern part of that culture than to its northern part), then we have a picture of Proto-Slavs emerging from a mixture of the following archaeological cultures: Milograd (West Balts? or Balto-Slavs?), Pomeranian ("Lusatian" - whoever those Lusatians were - mixed with Scythians) and Gubin (Germano-Celtic Bastarnae?). This would mean that those four peoples contributed to the ethnogenesis of Slavs. So they would be ancestors of Slavs, not some later addition to Slavs. So even if Bastarnae (or maybe Celts who influenced them) originally carried I2a-Din, then still it was part of Slavs since the beginning of their ethnogenesis. A later addition to Slavs - on the other hand - would be Sarmatians, to which the Zarubintsy culture fell by the end of the 1st century AD (according to Siedow). When it comes to the Pomeranian culture:



But it evolved as the result of Scythian influence on the Lusatian culture (see Marija Gimbutas in the link above).

The study by Haak et. al. 2015 found R1a Z280 in an individual of the Lusatian culture from Halberstadt in Germany.

I quoted all the details about that Z280 individual here (what is interesting, that guy was probably a redhead):

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...istoric-Europe?p=451553&viewfull=1#post451553

R1a Z280 is today present in all Slavic and Baltic populations in frequencies between ca. 10% and ca. 50% of all males.

================

All of this suggests that Proto-Slavs evolved out of an interesting mix of Balts (or Balto-Slavs as they are also called - but Balto-Slavic language was rather more similar to modern Baltic languages than to modern Slavic), Lusatians (maybe they spoke some unknown Indo-European language - Venedic, if such a language existed - some scholars hypothesize the existence of Venedic languages as yet another branch of IE), the Bastarnae or Peucini (Germano-Celtic), Scythians and - the final addition - Sarmatians.

I am probably starting to sound like Germanophiles who see "Germanicness" everywhere. :grin:

================

As for the Balto-Slavic past. There are several theories about this:

The graph illustrates several models of Balto-Slavic interactions, trying to explain similarities between the two groups (Schleicher - common ancestral language separating into Baltic and Slavic; Endzelins - two separate languages which came under influence of each other at some point; Rozwadowski - common ancestry, then separation, followed by becoming close neighbours again; Meillet - prolonged close influences despite lack of common ancestry; Kromer - common ancestry with Baltia never constituting a linguistic unity, but East Baltic and West Baltic groups separating directly from Balto-Slavic). Rozwadowski's model is also interesting.

Currently the mostly commonly accepted model when it comes to differentiation of Baltic is this first suggested by Kromer in 2003 - namely that there was no unified Baltic language (from which later West Baltic and East Baltic emerged), but that Balto-Slavic (which, however, was more similar to Baltic than to Slavic) split directly into three parts - West Baltic (now extinct), Slavic and East Baltic.

Here the theories of Schleicher and Endzelins are outlined:



There is also no perfect agreement on when did the separation of Slavic and Baltic (or both Baltic groups) take place.

Proposed dates range from ca. 1500 BCE to ca. 500 BCE (3500 - 2500 years ago):

Atkinson - 1400 BCE
Novotná & Blažek - 1400–1340 BCE
Sergei Starostin - 1210 BCE
Chang et. al. - 600 BCE (http://www.linguisticsociety.org/files/news/ChangEtAlPreprint.pdf)

===============================



Or maybe something like this:

Except that I2 is Non-Indo-European and Germanic people are Indo-European (despite Non-IE admixtures).

So it can only be Pre-Germanic rather than Germnaic. Or it can be Pre-Slavic.

I1 is also Pre-Germanic (it was probably absorbed by Proto-Germanic Indo-Europeans from LBK culture).

https://www.academia.edu/4835555/Gallo-Scythians

referred as Bastanae

https://www.academia.edu/4118437/Mediolana_and_the_Zaravetz_Culture


[h=2]Who Were The Bastarnae ?[/h] Filed under: Archaeology, History, Numismatics — 1 Comment
March 26, 2014










‘…the Bastarnæ, the bravest nation of all’.

(Appianus, Mithridatic Wars 10:69)





The most enigmatic ‘barbarian’ people to appear in southeastern Europe in the late Iron Age are undoubtedly the Bastarnae (Βαστάρναι / Βαστέρναι).

While archaeological/numismatic evidence indicates that the Bastarnae tribes had reached the Danube Delta as early as the second half of the 4th c. BC, they first appear in historical sources in connection with the events of 179 BC as allies of Philip V of Macedonia in his war with Rome (Livy 40:5, 57-58), and remain a constant factor in the history of southeastern Europe for over 500 years. Due to the fact that archaeologists have failed to associate a particular archaeological culture with the Bastarnae, the ethnic origin of this people has hitherto remained shrouded in mystery, with a lack of clarity on whether they were initially of Scythian, Germanic or Celtic origin. However, as illustrated below, a chronological analysis of the ancient sources relating to the Bastarnae in general, and archaeological, numismatic and linguistic evidence from the territory of the Bastarnae Peucini tribe in particular, enables us to finally shed some light on this question.






Bastarnae ‘Huşi-Vovrieşti type’ tetradrachms from the Celtic settlement at Pelczyska, Poland (2nd c. BC)
(see Balkancelts ‘The Celts in Poland’ article)






THE SOURCES


Later authors such as Dio Cassius (3rd c. AD – Dio LI.23.3, 24.2) and Zosimus (late 5th/early 6th c. AD – Zosimus I.34) define the Bastarnae as ‘Scythians’, and to a great extent this is true. By the late Roman period the Bastarnae tribes had been living in the region vaguely referred to as ‘Scythia’ for over half a millennium, and mixing with the local tribes (‘mixed marriages are giving them to some extent the vile appearance of the Sarmatians’ – Tac. Ger. 46). Thus, they were by this stage indeed Scythians, in the same way, for example, the Celtic Scordisci in Thrace are referred to in Roman sources as ‘Thracians’, having inhabited the region of Thrace for a number of centuries. However, as with the latter case, geographical situation by no means indicates ethnic origin.





Facial Reconstruction of a Bastarnae woman found in Burial # 9 at the Celtic settlement in Pelczyska, Poland

(see Balkancelts ‘Face of a Stranger’ article’)





While sources such as Strabo (early 1st c. AD – see below), and Tacitus (circa 100 AD; Tac. Ger. 43), are often cited to support the view that the Bastarnae were of Germanic origin, in fact, a closer analysis of the testimony of both these sources reveals that neither is in fact certain about who the Bastarnae were. While Strabo informs us that the Bastarnae lived mixed with the Thracian and Celtic tribes in Thrace, both north and south of the river, he also admits, ‘I know neither the Bastarnae, nor the Sarmatae nor, in a word, any of the peoples who dwell above the Pontus’ (Strabo VII, 2:4). Tacitus states the following:

‘Peucini, quos quidam Bastarnas, vocunt sermon cultu, sede ac domiciliis ut Germani agunt’ (Tac. op cit.)

i.e. – he informs us, not that the Bastarnae were Germani, but that they were ‘similar to the Germani’. In this case one should bear in mind that many of the Celts who migrated into southeastern Europe and Asia-Minor from the end of the 4th c. BC onwards originated from the Belgae group of Celtic tribes (see also ‘Galatia’ article), who are described in ancient sources as being most like the Germani.

The other ancient authors are clear on the ethnic origin of the Bastarnae. The earliest source, Polybius (200-118 BC; XXIV 9,13) refers to them as Celtic (Galatians), while Livy (59 BC – 17 AD) tells us that they had the same customs and spoke the same language as the Celtic Scordisci, and also mentions close military and political ties between the Bastarnae and Scordisci (Livy 40:57). Plutarch (46 – 120 AD; Aem. 9.6) refers to them as ‘Gauls on the Danube who are called Bastarnae’.





THE BASTARNAE IN THRACE



It was in the wake of the aforementioned events of 179 BC that the Peucini, the southern branch of the Bastarnae, were drawn south of the Danube into Thrace. They were at this stage a powerful military and political force in southeastern Europe, which is illustrated by the enthusiasm that Philip V of Macedonia showed at the prospect of being allied to them:
‘The envoys whom he had sent to the Bastarnae to summon assistance had returned and brought back with them some young nobles, amongst them some of royal blood. One of these promised to give his sister in marriage to Philip’s son, and the king was quite elated at the prospect of an alliance with that nation’ (Livy 40:5).
Although Philip’s sudden death meant that the joint attack on Rome by the Macedonians and Bastarnae came to nothing, by this time a large group of the (Peucini) Bastarnae had already migrated into Thrace, and a group of 30,000 of them subsequently settled in Dardania; another larger group of Bastarnae returned eastwards and settled in the area of today’s eastern Bulgaria (Livy 40:58), where Bastarnae kingdoms were established in the Dobruja area. At the beginning of the 1st c. AD Strabo (VII, 3:2) mentions that the ethnic make-up of this area consisted of a complex mix of Thracians, Scythians, Celts and Bastarnae:
“the Bastarnae tribes are mingled with the Thracians, more indeed with those beyond the Ister (Danube), but also with those this side. And mingled with them are also the Celtic tribes…”.

A thriving ‘barbarian’ culture emerged in this area (southeastern Romania/northeastern Bulgaria) during the 2nd/ 1st c. BC, based on a symbiotic relationship between these various groups and the Greek Black Sea colonies – a culture which was brought to a brutal end in the mid 1st c. BC by the destructive rampage of the Getic leader Burebista, which also paved the way for the Roman conquest of the Dobruja.







Bronze issue of the (Peucini) Bastarnae king Aelis (s. Dobruja region, Bulgaria – c. 180-150 BC).
- Jugate heads of the Dioskouroi right, in wreathed caps / jugate horse heads right; monogram & ΠΕ (for Peucini) below

(see also ‘Balkancelts ‘Peucini’ article)





In summary, an analysis of the ancient sources would appear to indicate that the Bastarnae tribes were initially of Celtic (Belgic) origin. This is confirmed by numismatic, archaeological, and linguistic evidence from the territory of the Bastarnae Peucini tribe in n.e. Bulgaria, s.e. Romania, Moldova and Ukraine. One should also note that the first archaeological/numismatic evidence of the presence of the Bastarnae in s.e. Europe (2nd half of the 4th c. BC) corresponds chronologically with the Celtic migration into the region.
It would therefore appear, based on the available scientific data, that the elusive Bastarnae tribes were not some mysterious Germanic people who appeared in southeastern Europe during this period, but that they, like the Galatians, were tribes of the Belgae group who migrated into the area during the Celtic expansion at the end of the 4th / beginning of the 3rd c. BC. Scientific evidence from the Dobruja region (loc cit) further indicates that the original Celto-Germanic (Belgic) nature of this culture subsequently underwent a fundamental metamorphosis due to prolonged contact and co-existence with the Hellenistic and Scythian cultures, the resulting fusion of Celtic, Hellenistic and Scythian cultural elements culminating in a unique and distinct Bastarnae ethnicity by the Roman period.



In the later Roman period the policy of ethnic engineering further strengthened the Bastarnae presence south of the Danube. Under the Emperor Probus (276-82) 100,000 of them were settled in Thrace (Historia Augusta Probus 18), and shortly afterwards Emperor Diocletian (284-305) carried out another ‘massive’ transfer of the Bastarnae population to the south of the Danube (Eutropius IX.25; see Balkancelts ‘Ethnic Engineering’ article). Thus, the Bastarnae presence on the territory of today’s Bulgaria, already well established since the 2nd c. BC, was further reinforced by the policies of both Probus and Diocletian.

 

[mihaitzateo]

I am not offended,but if someone would study Romanian and South Slavic will find cognates that are not found in other Slavic or IE languages.
I found a very strange cognate,Sardinian,Serbo-Croatian and Romanian has it and maybe,also some Albanian dialect,about a product made from sheep or pig intestines.
I also read a study about how the bride is taken,from her parents home and that is almost identical to what is happening in Transylvania,Romania.
A study about Serbo-Croatian people customs (Serbians,Montenegrins,Bosnians,Croatians and Slovenians).
I have a personal theory that Bosnians,Serbians,Croatians are coming from Transylvania,they were Dacians occupied by Roman Empire and moved on South of Danube,when Roman Empire retired.
Who knows,maybe most closed language from today languages to Dacian language is Serbo-Croatian?
Montenegrins I think are Dacians from South of Danube.
The fact that Albanians,Montenegrins,Serbians,Croatians,Bosnians are about 90% or more Dinarids,as phenotype shows they did not received too much genetic input in last thousands of years.
At Romanians,only 33% are Dinarids.
However,I think in mountain villages,percentage increases.

 

[mihaitzateo]

Gyms,only Romanians from a part of South Romania were called "Vlachs".
From wikipedia:
"The word Vlach is ultimately of Germanic origin, from the word Walha, "foreigner", "stranger", a name used by ancient Germanic peoples to refer to Romance-speaking and (Romanized) Celtic neighbours"
See Welsh,Wallons also,as example.
But they were not calling themselves "Vlachs" foreign people were calling them like that,because of their Romance language.
They were calling themselves "Munteni".
Go get a clue,Olt,a major river in Romania,from which another group of Romanians are taking their name,Olteni,is a word of Celtic origin,cognate to Olten district from Switzerland.
What is telling that?
That the name is preserved at least from the time of Dacians.
There 7 large areas of folklore in Romania,Moldova being one of them,which covers Moldova from Romania,Bessarabia and Bukovine.
These people are called "moldoveni" no one ever called them "Vlachi" because their accent have a little of Eastern Slavic sonority.
They also had a lot of contact to Eastern Slavs (especially Ukrainians) and they are having very few J2 and E-V13,but having high I2-din and also about 20% or even more R1A.
You should know that the term in Romanian ,even old Romanian,for Germans is "nemtzi" cognate to Slavic "nemczi" which means strangers.
Also in both Serbo-Croatian and Romanian (old Romanian) Italians are called "Taliani" - in Serbo Croatian "Talieni" in Romanian - plural form.

 

[Tomenable]

Please... Germanic peoples are linguistically Indo-Europeans, ethnically (or should I say genetically) they are mix of Indo-Europeans and proto-Europeans

You are not up-to-date with new findings. Germanic peoples are ethnically mostly Indo-Europeans.

Both light skin and lactase persistence in European populations were spread by Indo-European migrations:

"High frequency of lactose intolerance in a prehistoric hunter-gatherer population in northern Europe":

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/10/89

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1471-2148-10-89

Here we investigate the frequency of an allele (-13910*T) associated with lactase persistence in a Neolithic Scandinavian population. From the 14 individuals originally examined, 10 yielded reliable results. We find that the T allele frequency was very low (5%) in this Middle Neolithic hunter-gatherer population, and that the frequency is dramatically different from the extant Swedish population (74%).

We conclude that this difference in frequency could not have arisen by genetic drift and is either due to selection or, more likely, replacement of hunter-gatherer populations by new immigrants.

The most probable reason for this, is the population replacement in Scandinavia - as revealed by genetic studies:

"Ancient DNA Reveals Lack of Continuity between Neolithic Hunter-Gatherers and Contemporary Scandinavians":

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(09)01694-7?cc=y

Lactose tolerance was spread by Indo-Europeans, who were pastoralists and whose diet largely consisted of dairy (milk):

Lactase persistence gene allows you to consume more dairy products and drink more milk.

That's what Proto-Indo-European pastoralists did.

So modern Scandinavians are descendants of Indo-European immigrants, not of prehistoric Scandinavians.

Archaeology only confirms this conclusion, that Scandinavia was colonized by IE immigrants:

http://dienekes.blogspot.fi/2015/02/scandinavian-team-looking-for-indo.html

“Two thousand years ago, we started having Kurgan graves in Scandinavia,” said Ellingvag. The commonalities between burial mounds in Norway and Scythian/Saka mounds in Kazakhstan are striking, he said. “[The Scythian people] had these ornaments, these animal ornaments, which are very, very important in Scandinavian art … and the ornaments are actually quite similar, which is striking, it’s very special.”

 

[Tomenable]

Lactase persistence is more common in Northern Europe than in Southern Europe today.

This is in agreement with recent findings that Northern Europeans have more of Indo-European ancestry.

By contrast Southern Europeans have more ancestry from Middle Eastern Neolithic farmers.

 

[arvistro]

According to this map
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1566/863
it actually looks like Germanic (or Germano Celtic?)/non-Germanic, rather than North/South in Europe. With Baltic states and East Slavs looking as yellow, as Spain and other South Euros. Not sure where exactly Poland borders are, it looks like part of it is drawn yellow too.

Indeed, LP frequency can vary from 15–54% in eastern and southern Europe to 62–86% in central and western Europe, and to as high as 89–96% in the British Isles and Scandinavia (from text in link above)

 

[Tomenable]

Percent of lactose intolerance in Southern Europe is much higher than in Eastern Europe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase_persistence#Distribution

Percent of Lactase Persistence (according to Bersaglieri 2004):

Sardinians (Italy) 7.1%
Tuscans (Italy) 6.3%
North Italians 35.7%
French (France) 43.1%
French Basques 66.7%
Orcadians 68.8%
Swedes and Finns 81.5%
Irish people 90.0%

Since Irish, Basques and Finnish people are not Germanic (or at least no more than Orcadians or Swedes), I don't see any correlation.

And Basques are a strange case, since their Y-DNA is Indo-European even though they speak a Non-Indo-European language.

BTW:

Lactose intolerance is a little different. Before the genetics of lactose digestion were understood, the test for lactose tolerance/intolerance was rather artifical and involved drinking a measured amount of milk of a certain quality and seeing the effects. It had been noted that individuals varied considerably. Some could drink half a glass of milk happily whlist others got sick from the smallest amount. Others could of course consume large quantities of the stuff with no ill effects whatsoever. Whatever the merits of the tolerance/intolerance tests, it was a line, however artificial. So, whilst Bersaglieri's data show 92.9% of Sardinians are Lactase non persistent, Lactose intolerance tests show 86% of Sardinians to be Lactose intolerant.

 

[Angela]

Gentlemen, I have no personal stake in the matter at hand, but perhaps it's as well, in this as in all matters, to be a little more precise and not make generalizations that are not actually supported by the data? Haak et al:
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-...aiCQmTRqE/w350-h365-no/Haak_et_al_Fig_3_small.

So, while Corded Ware and other LN/EBA people in elite burials were mostly "Yamnaya Indo-European", northern Europeans today are about 50% Yamnaya, which is about half EHG and half "Armenian" like. Actually, I would maintain that their "Yamnaya" percentage is inflated even at 50%, but that's a topic for another thread.

As for the "Yamnaya Indo-Europeans" spreading some of the light pigmentation genes, Yamnaya Indo-Europeans from Samara were dark haired, dark eyed, and not particularly fair skinned (lots of SLC24A5, but very little SLC42A5 and some other light pigmentation genes.) I don't quite see how that particular group could have done much spreading of light pigmentation. It's of course true that Yamnaya people from more westerly areas or more northerly areas than Samara might have had a different and more "light" set of alleles, more similar perhaps to the Samara HG rather than to the Karelia HG. We'll have to wait and see. We may be seeing a series of localized founder effects.

Looking at the distribution of light pigmentation alleles in Genetiker's work (I make no personal assertions as to its 100% accuracy) to which Fire-Haired directed our attention, it seems that in terms of skin pigmentation SLC42A5has a "hot spot" in the SHG of Scandinavia (Motala) If this result is duplicated in the forthcoming paper, perhaps it spread from there by various processes and at various times? (Interesting that WHG should lack these alleles, and then they show up in a WHG/ANE hunter group, but mutations happen where they happen. Also interesting that this Motala group should have samples with alleles that correlate with fair hair and fair skin, and also code for the EDAR Mongoloid mutation (4/7). Ancient dna always surprises.)

See:
https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2015/03/07/phenotype-snps-from-prehistoric-europe/

Lactase persistence is another issue. Yamnaya and EHG were lactose intolerant as were the Neolithic farmers. The gene first shows up in central Europe. This is the data from the genetiker site. Only the bold is the derived allele.
CM6, rs182549, ability to digest milk Alberstedt LN I0118 CC
Corded Ware LN I0103 CC
Esperstedt MN I0172 CC
LBK EN I0054 CC
Spain EN I0410 CC
Spain EN I0412 CC
Spain MN I0408 CC
Unetice EBA I0047 CC
Yamnaya I0231 CC
Yamnaya I0443 CC
MCM6, rs4988235, ability to digest milk
Alberstedt LN I0118 GG
Baalberge MN I0560 GG
Baalberge MN I0807 GG
Bell Beaker LN I0108 GG
Bell Beaker LN I0111 GG
Bell Beaker LN I0112 GA
Bell Beaker LN I0806 GG
BenzigerodeHeimburg LN I0058 GG
BenzigerodeHeimburg LN I0059 GG
BenzigerodeHeimburg LN I0171 GG
Corded Ware LN I0103 GG
Corded Ware LN I0104 GG
Esperstedt MN I0172 GG
Halberstadt LBA I0099 GG
Karelia HG I0061 GG
LBK EN I0022 GG
LBK EN I0025 GG
LBK EN I0026 GG
LBK EN I0046 GG
LBK EN I0054 GG
LBK EN I0100 GG
LBK EN I0659 GG
LBK EN I0821 GG
Motala HG I0011 GG
Motala HG I0012 GG
Motala HG I0013 GG
Motala HG I0014 GG
Motala HG I0015 GG
Motala HG I0016 GG
Motala HG I0017 GG
Samara HG I0124 GG
Spain EN I0409 GG
Spain EN I0410 GG
Spain EN I0412 GG
Spain EN I0413 GG
Spain MN I0405 GG
Spain MN I0406 GG
Spain MN I0407 GG
Spain MN I0408 GG
Unetice EBA I0047 GG
Unetice EBA I0114 GG
Unetice EBA I0116 GG
Unetice EBA I0117 GG
Unetice EBA I0164 GA
Yamnaya I0231 GG
Yamnaya I0357 GG
Yamnaya I0370 GG
Yamnaya I0429 GG
Yamnaya I0438 GG
Yamnaya I0443 GG
Yamnaya I0444 GG

 

[clintCG]

You are not up-to-date with new findings. Germanic peoples are ethnically mostly Indo-Europeans.
Both light skin and lactase persistence in European populations were spread by Indo-European migrations:
"High frequency of lactose intolerance in a prehistoric hunter-gatherer population in northern Europe":

Sorry, what I meant to say is that by haplogroups they are mix of Indo-Europeans and proto-Europeans, not by autosomal DNA...
I do not know much about lactose tolerance so I'm going to skip that part.
But part when you claim that light skin gene is of only Indo-European origin is a big lie. European light skin is of Neanderthal origin
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...s-genetics-migration-africa-eurasian-science/

"For example, the Neanderthal version of the skin gene POU2F3 is found in around 66 percent of East Asians, while the Neanderthal version of BNC2, which affects skin color, among other traits, is found in 70 percent of Europeans".

"Two studies published concurrently in Nature and Science on Wednesday suggest that while the Neanderthal contribution to our genomes was modest, it may have proved vitally important.

Some parts of non-African genomes are totally devoid of Neanderthal DNA, but other regions abound with it, including those containing genes that affect our skin and hair. This hints that the Neanderthal gene versions conferred some benefit, and were kept during evolution".

You can not survive for a long time in northern climate with dark skin... Neanderthals had light skin, and quite often they had light eyes and hair, and it is obvious that European genes for light pigmentation is of Neanderthal origin.

I will quote Peter Frost on hair and eye pigmentation:
"For others still, this color diversity arose through random factors: genetic drift, founder effects, relaxation of natural selection, etc. But these factors could not have produced such a wide variety of hair and eye hues in the 35,000 years that modern humans have inhabited Europe. The hair-color gene (MC1R) has at least 7 alleles that exist only in Europe and the same is probably true for the eye-color gene (OCA2). If we take the hypothesis of a relaxation of selection, nearly a million years would be needed to accumulate this amount of diversity. Moreover, it is odd that the same sort of diversification has evolved at two different genes whose only point in common is to color a facial feature".




But let's not go in off-topic further and further.


My point is that I2a1b Din was already common among proto-Germanic peoples, just like clades of some other haplogroups were, regardless of whether they are proto-European (Indo-Europeanized) or Indo-European.
Area where Isles, Disles and Dinaric split from I2a M423 does not match eastern Europe. Nor can its concentration gradient in Yugoslavia be explained with Slavic migration...

 

[Tomenable]

But part when you claim that light skin gene is of only Indo-European origin is a big lie. European light skin is of Neanderthal origin

Sorry but Neanderthals lived across most of Eurasia, from the Altai Mountains (bones found recently) to Iberia. Maybe even in China.

But the 8000-year-old Loschbour hunter (from what is now Luxembourg) had dark skin, for example.

So apparently not everywhere people interbred with Neanderthals. There were only few instances of interbreeding.

Ancestors of Indo-Europeans and East Asians could interbreed with Neanderthals - ancestors of other Non-Indo-Europeans perhaps did not.

It is possible that only later Indo-Europeans spread Neanderthal genes from one corner of Eurasia to most of the continent.

 

[Diurpaneus]

http://www.imninalu.net/myths-Vlach.htm

The article manipulates the many existing uncertainties towards an extreme direction,without taking a critical approach.
It is very convenient to choose the amnesia moments;and our hypocrisy does that quite often.

The Romans intensively exploited the province Dacia Traiana for its very rich deposits of gold,iron and salt.
Thus,the use of Latin became a necessity.

Some linguistic evidence

It is very hard for a language to preserve the peripheral words,because of the simplifying impulse.
These tendencies affect even the native speakers.
In the case of Latin,this simplification inevitably occured in the Imperial Age,due its tremendous expansion.
So, these apparently meaningless words can be used for tracking the "genuine"Romans.

Romanian has several,here's one of them:

bade(addressing formula to an elder man,elder brother,lover)
THE ONLY CORRESPONDENCE- A COUPLE OF WORDS FROM A LAZIO DIALECT
bade-old man
bad-to grow old
Badea is a usual Romanian family name.

Also,several common words of Latin origin preserved only in the Transylvanian dialect:

nea(snow),Latin nix,nivis
pacurar(shepherd), from pecorarius
arina(sand),from arena
june(young man), from juvenis
ai(garlic),from alium

The province Dacia Traiana stretched along the Carpathians,so do the Romanians,this can't be coincidental.
Any person with a decent line of thought realizes the importance of this event in the Romanian ethnogenesis.Though, it clearly wasn't the only Romance imput.


Transylvania was a peripheral area within both Hunnic and Avar confederations,cause the steppe peoples preferred the lowlands,while the Gepids peaked in the northern parts.



P.S. You're obviously capable of changing the environment;not in this way,though.

 

[Ike]

You should know that the term in Romanian ,even old Romanian,for Germans is "nemtzi" cognate to Slavic "nemczi" which means strangers..

"Nemczi" is more close to "mute".

 

[gyms]

The article manipulates the many existing uncertainties towards an extreme direction,without taking a critical approach.
It is very convenient to choose the amnesia moments;and our hypocrisy does that quite often.

The Romans intensively exploited the province Dacia Traiana for its very rich deposits of gold,iron and salt.
Thus,the use of Latin became a necessity.

Some linguistic evidence

It is very hard for a language to preserve the peripheral words,because of the simplifying impulse.
These tendencies affect even the native speakers.
In the case of Latin,this simplification inevitably occured in the Imperial Age,due its tremendous expansion.
So, these apparently meaningless words can be used for tracking the "genuine"Romans.

Romanian has several,here's one of them:

bade(addressing formula to an elder man,elder brother,lover)
THE ONLY CORRESPONDENCE- A COUPLE OF WORDS FROM A LAZIO DIALECT
bade-old man
bad-to grow old
Badea is a usual Romanian family name.

Also,several common words of Latin origin preserved only in the Transylvanian dialect:

nea(snow),Latin nix,nivis
pacurar(shepherd), from pecorarius
arina(sand),from arena
june(young man), from juvenis
ai(garlic),from alium

The province Dacia Traiana stretched along the Carpathians,so do the Romanians,this can't be coincidental.
Any person with a decent line of thought realizes the importance of this event in the Romanian ethnogenesis.Though, it clearly wasn't the only Romance imput.


Transylvania was a peripheral area within both Hunnic and Avar confederations,cause the steppe peoples preferred the lowlands,while the Gepids peaked in the northern parts.



P.S. You're obviously capable of changing the environment;not in this way,though.

http://www.icr.ro/files/items/12669_1_History and Myth in the Romanian Consciousness_Lucian Boia.pdf

 

[Tomenable]

An anthropological paper about Croats:

https://ariets.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/15311416.pdf

(...) Our results showed marked craniometrical similarities between early medieval Croat and medieval Polish series. Among all of the 39 analyzed European sites, the two exhibiting the greatest similarities were Nin, a site representing the nucleus of the early medieval Croat state (72), and Cedynia, a Polish site located approximately 75 km south of the Baltic Sea. Conversely, the 5 analyzed Iranian sites exhibited no similarity with the early medieval Croat sites and were all located in the diametrically opposite part of the scatter plot. These results suggest that early medieval Croats were of Slavic ancestry, and that early medieval Croats and Poles at one time shared a common homeland. Recent genetic analyses of the nonrecombining Y chromosome from 25 extant European and Middle Eastern populations support the Slavic affiliation of the Croats, and also indicate significant genetic similarities between modern Croats and Poles (1). (...)

 

[Tomenable]

As for Slavic expansion into the Balkans:

South Slavonic tribes were raiding Roman lands from their homeland north of the Danube river in what is now southern Romania since around the 490s, but they started to settle south of the Danube (in Balkans "proper") only since around 545. First settlements from ca. 545 - 550 were established in eastern Bosnia, Lower and Upper Moesia, and Little Scythia - including the regions of Ulmetum and Adina. Around the same time (ca. 550) first Slavic immigrants probably reached what is now Slovenia (they could be the same tribe which had besieged Durazzo in 547). Second wave of Slavs came to Slovenia after 568 (this time from the north, most probably from Moravia). According to John of Ephesus and Menander Protector another major wave of Slavs (Menander wrote that their strength was 100,000 but he didn't specify whether that included only warriors or all people) broke into Thrace and Thessaly as far as the Great Walls of Constantinople in period 577 - 580, and settled in vast areas. Sources mention that those Slavs were led by a war chief named Ardagast or Radogost (Ардагаст), and a king named Musokios. They could also reach as far as Greece "proper" already by ca. 580, when they sacked Athens, for which there is archaeological evidence (other sources indicate that Slavs started to settle in Attica and the Peloponnese only later, around 610). In 599 Pope Gregory I in a letter to Exarch of Italy wrote that Slavs had already seized most of Istria, and were penetrating into the Italian Peninsula. After mentioned invasions by Slavs, in 584 AD Byzantine Emperor Maurice sent emissaries to the Khagan of the Avars - Bayan I -, asking him for help against Slavs. The Avars initially worked as Byzantine allies against the Slavs. In 584 Ardagast with his Slavs besieged Constantinople but was repulsed by combined Byzantine-Avar forces, and later lost two more battles against Byzantine and Avar forces led by certain Comentiolus (the battle of Erginia River and the battle of Ansinon, near Hadrianopole). Comentiolus also pushed the Slavic settlers out of the region of Astica. In 585 the Byzantines-Avars decided to attack the original South Slavic lands across the Danube - forces under command of Priscus and Gentzon crossed the river at Dorostolon (present-day Silistra) and surprise-attacked the Slavs in their native territory (as most of their forces had long been campaigning in the Byzantine part of Balkans). They attacked at midnight and defeated the Slavs, Ardagast fell on a tree stump and was almost captured, luckily he was near a river and eluded the attackers. But later alliances switched - the Avars abandoned their Byzantine allies and instead started to cooperate with the Slavs, having subordinated some of their tribes (most notably the southern branch of Dudlebes), and having signed alliances with other tribes. So the conquest and colonization of most of the Balkans by the Slavs could be completed with Avar help in the early 600s. Avars were not very numerous but they were excellent horsemen, while Slavs comprised all of the infantry and crews of the navy, as well as some of the horsemen too.

But despite repeated attempts the Slavs-Avars never managed to capture two heavily fortified coastal cities - Constantinople and Thessalonica.

Croats and Serbs is another story. They came to the Balkans much later, in the 2nd half of the 7th century, invited by the Byzantines to fight against Avars and South Slavic tribes (ancestors of modern Bosniaks, Herzegovinians, Montenegrins, Macedonians, Bulgarians) in Dalmatia. Croats and Serbs were originally West Slavs. Slovenes emerged from two waves of Slavic immigration - one from the east (South Slavs) and one West Slavic - from the north - but which came earlier than Serbo-Croatian speakers. Before coming to the Balkans, Croats had established their tribal state somewhere around the Carpathian Mountains. It was called White Croatia. Ancestors of Serbs on the other hand, migrated in two directions - one wave settled in Germany (those became Sorbs), one in the Balkans.

==============================

Chronological differentiation of Slavic languages (Starostin 2004):

Dates along the X axis represent time since Common Slavic, while dates within the tree represent years:

Serbian could as well be named Serbo-Croatian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbo-Croatian

According to this diagram, Common Slavic started to differentiate itself already between 130 AD and 270 AD.

This only supports written sources (Jordanes, Procopius, etc.) which say that Slavs were divided into several nations already in the 6th century.

So Slavs were not culturally monolithic by that time, and there already existed several distinct Slavic dialects / languages.

Polish language started to differentiate from Czecho-Slovak already around 780 AD according to this data.

 

[Tomenable]

Some groups of Slavic people also penetrated into Italy through Istria.

That was reported for example by Pope Gregory I in his letter (dated 599 AD) to Exarch of Italy:

"(...) It deeply afflicts and disquiets me the Slavic nation that menace us. It afflicts me from what I already suffer from you, it disquiets me because they have already started to penetrate into the Italic Peninsula through Istria. (...)" - Pope Gregory I

Also later there were Slavic raids against Italy, and some settlements were established in Italy by Slavic pirates coming across the Adriatic Sea.

Some episodes are mentioned for example in "Historia Langobardorum" written by Paul the Deacon in the 8th century AD:

"Historia Langobardorum", Book 4, chapter XLIV:

Then on the death of Arichis, who had held the dukedom fifty years, Aio, his son, was made leader of the Samnites, [1] and still Radoald and Grimoald [2] obeyed him in all things as their elder brother and lord. When this Aio had already governed the dukedom of Beneventum a year and five months, the Slavs came with a great number of ships and set up their camp not far from the city of Sipontum (Siponto). They made hidden pit-falls around their camp and when Aio came upon them in the absence of Raduald and Grimoald and attempted to conquer them, his horse fell into one of these pit-falls, the Slavs rushed upon him and he was killed with a number of others.

"Historia Langobardorum", Book 6, chapter XXIV:

When Ado who we said was caretaker [1] had died at Forum Julii, Ferdulf, a man tricky and conceited, who came from the territories of Liguria, obtained the dukedom. Because he wanted to have the glory of a victory over the Slavs, he brought great misfortune upon himself and the people of Forum Julii. He gave sums of money to certain Slavs to send upon his request an army of Slavs into this province, and it was accordingly done. But that was the cause of great disaster in this province of Forum Julii. The freebooters of the Slavs fell upon the flocks and upon the shepherds of the sheep that pastured in their neighborhoods and drove away the booty taken from them. The ruler of that place, whom they called in their own language "sculdahis," [2] a man of noble birth and strong in courage and capacity, followed them, but nevertheless he could not overtake the freebooters. Duke Ferdulf met him as he was returning thence and when he asked him what had become of these robbers, Argait, for that was his name, answered that they had escaped. Then Ferdulf in rage thus spoke to him: "When could you do anything bravely, you whose name, Argait, comes from the word coward," [3] and Argait, provoked by great anger, since he was a brave man, answered as follows: "May God so will that you and I, duke Ferdulf, may not depart from this life until others know which of us is the greater coward." When they had spoken to each other in turn, these words, in the vulgar tongue [4] it happened not many days afterwards, that the army of the Slavs, for whose coming duke Ferdulf had given his sums of money, now arrived in great strength. And when they had set their camp upon the very top of a mountain and it was hard to approach them from almost any side, duke Ferdulf, coming upon them with his army, began to go around that mountain in order that he could attack them by more level places. Then Argait of whom we have spoken thus said to Ferdulf: "Remember, duke Ferdulf, that you said I was lazy and useless and that you called me in our common speech a coward, but now may the anger of God come upon him who shall be the last of us to attack those Slavs," and saying these words, he turned his horse where the ascent was difficult on account of the steepness of the mountain, and began to attack the fortified camp of the Slavs. Ferdulf, being ashamed not to attack the Slavs himself, through the same difficult places, followed him through those steep and hard and pathless spots, and his army too, considering it base not to follow their leader, began also to press on after him. Consequently the Slavs, seeing that they were coming upon them through steep places, prepared themselves manfully, and fighting against them more with stones and axes [1] than with arms they threw them nearly all from their horses and killed them. And thus they obtained their victory, not by their own strength, but by chance. There all the nobility of the Friulans perished. There duke Ferdulf fell and there too he who had provoked him was killed. And there so great a number of brave men were vanquished by the wickedness and thoughtlessness of dissension as could, with unity and wholesome counsel, overthrow many thousands of their enemies.

==========================

One of most important Italian bases of ethnically Slavic pirates and settlers in Central Italy was Bari.

There were also some Slavic settlements in Calabria - Slavic language was spoken there until the 12th century.

Among Muslim invaders of Southern Italy and Sicily, there were also Slavic mercenaries and people of ethnic Slavic descent:

(...) In the third decade of the 10th century, due to Byzantine threat, came from Tripoli Emir Masud the Slav (Masud Sāqlābi) - of Slavic descent - and together with his druzhina he captured the strategically important castle of Santa Agata. From the same period we have information about Slavic settlements on Sicily - one of them was called Sclafani - and about the district of Palermo called Hārat as-Sāqāliba. Also bases of Slavic pirates existed on that island - those could be pirates from the South Slavic tribe of Narentines, who during their pirate raids plundered even the coasts of Spain. Last information about Slavs in that region is from the 12th century. (...)

 

[mihaitzateo]

Romanian and South Slavs are a lot more closed from a cultural point of view,I mean folk customs,folk songs,traditional foods ,traditional drinks and so on,than South Slavs are to East Slavs or to West Slavs.
Serbo-Croatians are Dacian people speaking heavy Slavic influenced language,they also have stronger Italic influence,than Romanians,especially Serbians,Montenegrins,Romanians are not so pure Dacians,are more mixed people,but also culturally Dacian people.
Transilvania,Serbia,Croatia,Montenegro,Bosnia have traditional drink a distilled drink,made from prunes,while Ukrainians,Russians,Belarusians,Poles have vodka.
Bulgarians also have traditional drink wine,besides Rakja.
All these people,Bulgarians,Serbians,Montenegrins,Croatians,Bosnians and Romanians likes a lot forests and mountains,they do not like steppes or plains,as it is the case with Russians or Ukrainians or Poles,who are planes/steppes dwelling people.
You do not find weird that the capital of Bulgaria,Sofia,the capital of Montenegro,Podgorica,the capital of Bosnia,Sarajevo,the capital of Serbia,Belgrade,the capital of Croatia,Zagreb are located very closed to mountains?
What about Moscow,Kiev,Warsaw?These are located in the plains.
Old capital of Romania,Targoviste,was also very closed to the mountains,20-30km north of Targoviste are some mountains.
Dacians people were mountain loving people.

if you take pictures from Cluj and from Zagreb,you would not say are taken in different towns.
Did anyone took any tests of the R1A from Croatia to see is a Slavic clade ?
I doubt.
While Bosnia,Serbia,have not so significant percentages of R1A and Montenegro have very low percentages of R1A,5% or lower.

 

[Tomenable]

How can Serbo-Croatians be "Dacian" if they came from the area of present-day Poland and Czechoslovakia.

Above I quoted an anthropological paper which says that Early Medieval Croatian skulls were identical with Early Medieval Polish skulls.

Romanians also have a lot of Slavic influence, especially in southern Romania. Later they became Vlachicized linguistically.

Did anyone took any tests of the R1A from Croatia to see is a Slavic clade ?

Croats have a lot of R1a and it is mostly M458 and Z280. Serbs have less of R1a and it is more diverse. Serbs are more genetically mixed.

Sorbs in East Germany have common ancestors with Serbs in the Balkans. And Sorbs in East Germany also happen to have quite a lot of I2a-Din.

What about Moscow,Kiev,Warsaw?These are located in the plains.

For most of Polish history, Cracow was the capital of Poland. And Cracow is near the mountains.

Warsaw became the capital of Poland only during the 1600s. Also several other cities were capitals of Poland for brief periods of time.

while Ukrainians,Russians,Belarusians,Poles have vodka.

Poland has always been the battleground between beer, vodka and wine. Vodka took the upper hand in Communist times.

if you take pictures from Cluj and from Zagreb,you would not say are taken in different towns.

That's because both cities were influenced by German (or Central European in general) cultural patterns.

While Bosnia,Serbia,have not so significant percentages of R1A

They do - both have between 15% and 20% R1a (I forgot exact numbers, but I can check later). These are significant percentages.

 

[Hauteville]

I have voted for paleolithic continuity.

 

[Tomenable]

Paleolithic continuity is now least probable because of the young age of I2a-Din (according to new estimates).