How did I2a-Din get to the Balkans?

How did I2a-Din get to the Balkans?


  • Total voters
    229
Disles and Isles may be more diverse in Britain but they are downstream of Dinaric.

They are not downstream of Dinaric.

Has anyone thought about Cucuteni-Trypillian culture as the location of the I2a1b1 founder? Disles could have been carried to Britain by the advancing Indo-Europeans and Dinaric eventually became a part of the Proto-Slavic community.
 
Disles and Isles may be more diverse in Britain but they are downstream of Dinaric. All Disles and Isles have the SNPs common to Dinaric however the inverse is not true.

Then we have basic misunderstanding what I2a-Din is, because I think your interpretation is not correct. Nordtvedt gave the name "Dinaric" so you should check his work related to this issue.
 
They are not downstream of Dinaric.

Has anyone thought about Cucuteni-Trypillian culture as the location of the I2a1b1 founder? Disles could have been carried to Britain by the advancing Indo-Europeans and Dinaric eventually became a part of the Proto-Slavic community.

Post #83

My mistake, they are parallel not downstream sorry I meant that Dinaric was formed well before Disles and Isles not that it was the parent clade. I think what may have given sparkey the idea that Disles and Isles may have formed during a similar time-frame or even preceded the formation of I2a1b1a Dinaric is that I2a1b1 Disles and I2a1b2 Isles are shorter designations (written in a shorter form).

I agree with Kenneth Nordtvedt on most everything but have reservations regarding his interclade estimation method for TMRCA approximations regarding I2a-Din. I believe the mutation rate and random aspect of crossover within isolated populations with a founder-type distribution pattern (definite hotspot) are prone to younger estimates. My estimates only differ wrt I2a-Din as this clade suggests founder effect and multiple effect within several Balkan populations.

The distribution of I2a-Din is indicative of an older subclade than Disles and Isles. I strongly suspect too that Disles and Isles have a few more SNPs in common with Dinaric in effect making them likely branches of a descendant of one of Dinaric's relative clades; not Dinaric itself. I would not be surprised if within Dinaric there are a number of subclades waiting to be discovered and that within one of those lies a parent clade of Disles and Isles.
 
Last edited:
The distribution of I2a-Din is indicative of a significantly older (approx.1000yrs) subclade than Disles and Isles. I strongly suspect too that Disles and Isles have a few more SNPs in common with Dinaric in effect making them likely branches of a descendant of one of Dinaric's relative clades; not Dinaric itself. I would not be surprised if within Dinaric there are a number of subclades waiting to be discovered and that within one of those lies a parent clade of Disles and Isles.

Well so far we have I2a-Din and I2a-Disles as L621+ L161- but I2a-Isles as L161+ L621-. The distinction between I2a-Din and I2a-Disles is L147, with I2a-Din being L147+ and I2a-Disles being L147-. The only one of these that is particularly volatile AFAIK is L147. So I2a-Din has no chance of being a parent of I2a-Isles, and only a particularly unlikely chance of being a parent of I2a-Disles (it would have to have switched L147 back to - right after it had gained it, and the existing STR diversity analysis would have to be junk).
 
Has anyone thought about Cucuteni-Trypillian culture as the location of the I2a1b1 founder? Disles could have been carried to Britain by the advancing Indo-Europeans and Dinaric eventually became a part of the Proto-Slavic community.

It's within range, and wouldn't surprise me. I still wonder about its parent I2a1b, though, and whether it's just a coincidence that both I2a1b2-Isles and I2a1b1*-Disles ended up confined to Britain. Maybe there are other outliers like Disles that we just haven't found yet that will clue us in.
 
@ terranova

In the estimates you supply Ken Nordtvedt clearly states that he used L147+ individuals and L147+ is a downstream SNP in the I2a-Din subclade used to distinguish the Disles from the continental Dinaric. All this TMCRA suggests is the age of L147, an SNP that formed after the split of Disles from its continental I2a parent clade. In fact, L147 may not be Dinaric it is most likely only a branch within Dinaric that formed relatively recently.
 
Well so far we have I2a-Din and I2a-Disles as L621+ L161- but I2a-Isles as L161+ L621-. The distinction between I2a-Din and I2a-Disles is L147, with I2a-Din being L147+ and I2a-Disles being L147-. The only one of these that is particularly volatile AFAIK is L147. So I2a-Din has no chance of being a parent of I2a-Isles, and only a particularly unlikely chance of being a parent of I2a-Disles (it would have to have switched L147 back to - right after it had gained it, and the existing STR diversity analysis would have to be junk).

L147 is currently being used to separate Disles from Dinaric as you say, I do not see why Dinaric is younger than Disles and Isles if it carries L147 as you seem to suggest. It's a red herring really, L147 is simply an SNP that may have formed after Disles left the continent.
 
In the estimates you supply Ken Nordtvedt clearly states that he used L147+ individuals and L147+ is a downstream SNP in the I2a-Din subclade used to distinguish the Disles from the continental Dinaric. All this TMCRA suggests is the age of L147, an SNP that formed after the split of Disles from its continental I2a parent clade. In fact, L147 may not be Dinaric it is most likely only a branch within Dinaric that formed relatively recently.

No, all Dinaric is L147+ AFAIK.
 
With historians and genetic historians claiming that Roman-illyrian troops served in britain during the Roman occupation, does it not make sense to see if I2a-din is present there.
If it is not , then we can assume that it came to the Balkans after the Roman empire died in the west. If it is present, then this i2a-din was present in the west balkans prior to Roman occupation of Illyricum
 
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.

@ Sparkey

Please explain what ancestor clades you are referring to here. Where do you believe these ancestral clades were originally from?
 
@ Sparkey

Please explain what ancestor clades you are referring to here. Where do you believe these ancestral clades were originally from?

I2a1b1 => evidence is against being from the Balkans because no I2a1b1 subclade has its center of diversity there (currently 1 in the British Isles and 1 in Eastern Europe outside of the Balkans)
I2a1b => evidence is against being from the Balkans because no I2a1b subclade has its center of diversity there (currently 1 in the British Isles and 1 split between the British Isles and Eastern Europe outside of the Balkans)
I2a1 => evidence is against being from the Balkans because no I2a1 subclade has its center of diversity there (currently 1 in Western Europe and 1 split between the British Isles and Eastern Europe outside of the Balkans)

etc...
 
With historians and genetic historians claiming that Roman-illyrian troops served in britain during the Roman occupation, does it not make sense to see if I2a-din is present there.
If it is not , then we can assume that it came to the Balkans after the Roman empire died in the west. If it is present, then this i2a-din was present in the west balkans prior to Roman occupation of Illyricum

Good point. I2a-din is not present in Britain, nor anywhere else where the Romans went. I2a-disles is found mainly in Scotland which was not a part of Roman Britain. I think it's highly unlikely that any of the I2a1b clades were Illyrian.

EDIT Another interesting thing is that the Arbereshe from Italy were found to have almost no I2a-din compared to Albanians who have a much higher percentage, but this I2a-din appears to be a late introduction.
 
I2a1b1 => evidence is against being from the Balkans because no I2a1b1 subclade has its center of diversity there (currently 1 in the British Isles and 1 in Eastern Europe outside of the Balkans)
I2a1b => evidence is against being from the Balkans because no I2a1b subclade has its center of diversity there (currently 1 in the British Isles and 1 split between the British Isles and Eastern Europe outside of the Balkans)
I2a1 => evidence is against being from the Balkans because no I2a1 subclade has its center of diversity there (currently 1 in Western Europe and 1 split between the British Isles and Eastern Europe outside of the Balkans)

etc...

Thanks for replying, I cannot reply to you as I do not have the comparison of variance between the various European regions in front of me. But if you have seen the figures and the variance within the Balkans is comparatively lower then why not place a reference to the figures here so that people can make an informed opinion? After all you are the one who asked the question and now claim to have STR variance figures that suggest the I2a1b1 subclades are older outside the Balkans. If you know the answer why ask the question Sparkey?
 
Thanks for replying, I cannot reply to you as I do not have the comparison of variance between the various European regions in front of me. But if you have seen the figures and the variance within the Balkans is comparatively lower then why not place a reference to the figures here so that people can make an informed opinion? After all you are the one who asked the question and now claim to have STR variance figures that suggest the I2a1b1 subclades are older outside the Balkans. If you know the answer why ask the question Sparkey?

Razor already linked to Vadim Verenich's analysis, that is probably the best out there. Sorry that it does require DNA Forums registration to view, I have summarized it a little here already, but it's best to view the original.

For interclade analysis, Nordtvedt is the best, as usual.

Or try your hand with the raw data... the largest collection I know of is at the I2a Project.

I don't claim to have the answer to my own question... Hopefully, I've been able to communicate what I know, what I don't know, why I made the choice in my own poll that I did, and what it would take to swing me to another choice. I want to hear what others have to say. To be honest, I was expecting more to defend the Sarmatians, and fewer to defend Paleolithic continuity.

Maybe it would be best to rank the choices from most to least likely. I would put them like this:

(1) The Slavs (best based on what we know about history and I2a-Din)
--gap--
(2) The Sarmatians (also fits history, I suppose, but poorer correlation to I2a-Din so far... we'll need more Eastern I2a-Din to lend credence to this theory)
--gap--
(3) Paleolithic continuity (I think that dating it back this far is impossible, so this needs a demonstration of a recent double-bottleneck in the Balkans to explain modern I2a-Din... discovering close, native Balkan relative clades of I2a-Din would help this one)
(4) Sea Peoples (would explain the distribution relatively cleanly, but needs some actual archaeological accounting and a badly wrong date estimate based on STRs, or a double-bottleneck)
--gap--
(5) The Early Indo-Europeans (can be safely discarded IMHO... wrong everything)
 
Razor already linked to Vadim Verenich's analysis, that is probably the best out there. Sorry that it does require DNA Forums registration to view, I have summarized it a little here already, but it's best to view the original.

For interclade analysis, Nordtvedt is the best, as usual.

Or try your hand with the raw data... the largest collection I know of is at the I2a Project.

I don't claim to have the answer to my own question... Hopefully, I've been able to communicate what I know, what I don't know, why I made the choice in my own poll that I did, and what it would take to swing me to another choice. I want to hear what others have to say. To be honest, I was expecting more to defend the Sarmatians, and fewer to defend Paleolithic continuity.

Maybe it would be best to rank the choices from most to least likely. I would put them like this:

(1) The Slavs (best based on what we know about history and I2a-Din)
--gap--
(2) The Sarmatians (also fits history, I suppose, but poorer correlation to I2a-Din so far... we'll need more Eastern I2a-Din to lend credence to this theory)
--gap--
(3) Paleolithic continuity (I think that dating it back this far is impossible, so this needs a demonstration of a recent double-bottleneck in the Balkans to explain modern I2a-Din... discovering close, native Balkan relative clades of I2a-Din would help this one)
(4) Sea Peoples (would explain the distribution relatively cleanly, but needs some actual archaeological accounting and a badly wrong date estimate based on STRs, or a double-bottleneck)
--gap--
(5) The Early Indo-Europeans (can be safely discarded IMHO... wrong everything)

I had a look at the data and find the difference in variance a moot point considering its spread and the poor interclade definition as I have mentioned previously. You are not wrong for looking at the variance but I feel you have been swayed somewhat by the pan-slavists who frequent forum discussions. I would be very cautious linking the Sarmatians and/or Slavs with Dinaric for a couple of reasons.

1. The distribution within the Balkans is reminiscent of a much older migration, that is if one did take place, than the Slavic expansion of the 6th-7th cent. AD.
2. Montenegrins, Croatians, Serbians and Bosniaks are three distinct peoples, despite what some panslavists want us to believe. I believe the Serb and Bosniak communities are early Balkan.
3. Greek and Armenian I2a puts the Slav and Sarmatian theories in the realm of fantasy.
4. No links have been found linking Disles and Isles to Sarmatia or the Baltoslavic regions.

I agree wholeheartedly regarding the Sea Peoples and believe we simply do not know enough about them, however it remains a possibility and is not mutually exclusive to a Balkan Paleolithic continuity thesis, in fact they fit rather well.
 
Last edited:
I voted for Other.
I think that I2a-Dinarics got to Balkan as Ostrogoths. This would also explain presence of I2* in Georgia, Armenia and Turkey as those would be people who did not complete their voyage to Balkan and NW Italy. TMRCA for Dinarics would be older as it probably belonged to clan chiefs while TMRCA for Ia*s would be younger branches that remained behind.
Second option would be Gepids who lived little bit north of Balkan and have joined Huns later on. This aliance with Huns allowed them to spread into areas where I2a-Ds are found today.
This option may not be liked by many and is based on observation that there is not much (if any) genetic footprint left by Huns or Magyars in Europe which lead me to believe that people in old times might have commited infanticide against Asian babies while Gepid's babies lived on.

I do not think Dinarics lived in Balkan during Roman Empire as their dna were not found in graves of Roman soldiers from Illyria (graves from Wales seem to indicate hg E as Illyrian).
They are too young for Paleolithic continuity and even if they were not again they were not part of Roman armies so they would have not lived in Balkan.

I think that early Indo-Europeans were more of R1a and R1b folks.
I do not think we were Sea people as we don't have much of seafaring experience. During medivial times Bosnian Kingdom waged wars against both Raguscan and Venetian and took most of land in east Adriatic but those Bosnians had no navy at all.

There is very little R1a in parts of Balkan for it to be mainly Slavic migration.
Don't know much about Sarmatians to make any comments.
 
1. The distribution within the Balkans is reminiscent of a much older migration, that is if one did take place, than the Slavic expansion of the 6th-7th cent. AD.

Why is that? What about distribution within the Balkans is reminiscent of a much older migration?
 
Why is that? What about distribution within the Balkans is reminiscent of a much older migration?

The frequency in isolated populations of primarily non-Slavic communities strongly suggests that it would have had to have been introduced in pre-Slavic times. Armenian levels of I2a and Greek I2a1* suggests that I2a may have been part of an early Illyro/Phrygian exchange, Phrygian being the Armenian I2a so prominent today.

The King paper showed significantly higher levels of I2a in the Peloponnese compared to North Greece. The King paper found I2a2a (Former I2b1 in the Y2010 tree) at relatively low frequencies throughout Greece from the North to the isolated Lasithi Plateau on Crete. The Battaglia study found a sturdy 17.5% of Greek Macedonian men to be I2a1*. Despite the complex variation of Turkey's genetic make-up and the relevant insignificance of Armenian I2a within the broader Anatolian context, it still reaches 4% in the Turkish population.
 
Last edited:

This thread has been viewed 1055828 times.

Back
Top