How did I2a-Din get to the Balkans?

How did I2a-Din get to the Balkans?


  • Total voters
    230
What is your ethnicity Gyms ??? Are you native Swedish or some immigrant ???
 
The Bulgars were - proportionally - about as numerous in Bulgaria, as British people were in British-ruled India.

So are you claiming that modern people of India are genetic descendants of British conquerors and colonizers ???

There is not even any detectable amount of R1b in India - and surely the British had some sex with the locals!
 
Lol,East Asian admixture has a lot of sources in Europe,not only Mongols.
Besides,in Bulgaria came Slavic speakers,the name is taken from some Turkic tribe,from what I remember.
As for the "depopulation" of Ukraine,are you very sure?
I can show you Romanians from Southern Romania,especially women looking identical to Ukrainian women.
So think again.
I think rather a part of Ukrainians emigrated to current day Romania and assimilated as Romanians.
Another part retired in the woods and repopulated Ukraine,when Mongols/Tatars left.
Also,what map you have with East Asian admixture is not accurate,in Ukraine,Romania,South Russia that admixture is lower than 2%.
In Northern Russia is higher as it is in Finland,but I doubt is from Tatars and Mongols,I think is from mixing with Finnic and Ugric people.
Finnic and Ugric people took East Asian admixture by living and mixing with Central Asian and Siberians who were already bearing East Asian admixture.
 
A thing,Tormenable,why Slavs are having 2 main paternal lines,I2-din and R1A?
From a genetic point of view,Eastern Slavs and Poles are more closed to Lithuanians and Latvians (this is how it seems to me;Belarussians and Russians are having significant N1C,Ukrainians are having less N1C,I think is like 4%-5%).
So I think that if genetic testing of maternal lines of Slavic and Balto-Slavic speakers would be made,maybe this would help to clarify the things a little.
 
It's absurd.I2a-"Din" is 2000-2300 years old.
Well are there any Slavic movements 2k years ago?
You do not find strange that highest concentrations of I2-din are in the mountainous areas?
I find this ^very weird.
 
Is there any map where only I2a-Din is pictured? Without other I2a clades.
It would be very helpful for understanding it's probable relations.
 
I2a Dinaric came through Slavs without a doubt, the genetic evidence is overwhelming. The reasons are similar to the case made against R1b being native in western Europe.

The common mistake people make when trying to envision such scenario is that they visiualize the ancient Slavs as giant soup pot composed mostly of R1a, I2a and N haplogroups, similar to modern northern Slavs. And it hard to imagine one getting a bowl of soup from that pot and getting mostly I2a haplogroups, it doesn't make sense. But that was not the case in ancient days. In ancient pre-Christian days, tribes were more segregated by haplogroup (kinsmen).



The best theory I've come accross is that I2a Dinaric was originally part of an eastern Jastorf culture branch called the Gubin group. These people branched out and migrated eastward sometime after 300 BC when the Scythian power collapsed and much land in western Ukraine became safe to settle. These I2a tribe entered a territory that was dominated by R1a tribes(whether Balto-Slavic or Iranian).The ancient Greeks record these new people as the Bastartnae, which many ancient authors were confused about whether they were Germanic or Scythian, with the conclusion that they were a mixed bastardized Germanics. Later the new bosses of the steppe (Samaritan tribes) disturb the settlements of I2a folks who are forced to retreat northwards bringing them into more contact and cooperation witht the local R1a tribes. Later the Germanic tribes invade the area and the I2a and their R1a neighbors cooperate and ally themselves against new power. It was by living with, cooperating, forming alliances with R1a tribes for 7 centuries that merged these people into one forming the Slavs, eventully I2a acquired the speech of their R1a neigbors. The Huns with the help of the early Slavs broke down the power of the Germanic tribes, and the rest in known history.


But I2a folks did not settle everywhere in the Slavic world. In some regions their presence was strong, and in some regions it was not present at all. In Poland the R1a substratum that was at one period dominated by eastern Germanic tribes seems to have had no relationship with the I2a tribes to east of them, yet they are Slavic too. The Balkan Slavs decent from tribes that had strong I2a mixture. The Serbs in particular seem to decent from a rare I2a tribe that originally did not even have any R1a clansman among them. Modern Serbs have in their body now haplogroups that were pre-Slavic in the Balkans. All these changes were brought about by civilization and Christianity that broke down the old Indo-European system of kinship. It is illogical to try and explain against I2a migration from Slavs based on modern northern Slavs haplogroup frequencies.
 
I2a Dinaric came through Slavs without a doubt, the genetic evidence is overwhelming. The reasons are similar to the case made against R1b being native in western Europe.

The common mistake people make when trying to envision such scenario is that they visiualize the ancient Slavs as giant soup pot composed mostly of R1a, I2a and N haplogroups, similar to modern northern Slavs. And it hard to imagine one getting a bowl of soup from that pot and getting mostly I2a haplogroups, it doesn't make sense. But that was not the case in ancient days. In ancient pre-Christian days, tribes were more segregated by haplogroup (kinsmen).



The best theory I've come accross is that I2a Dinaric was originally part of an eastern Jastorf culture branch called the Gubin group. These people branched out and migrated eastward sometime after 300 BC when the Scythian power collapsed and much land in western Ukraine became safe to settle. These I2a tribe entered a territory that was dominated by R1a tribes(whether Balto-Slavic or Iranian).The ancient Greeks record these new people as the Bastartnae, which many ancient authors were confused about whether they were Germanic or Scythian, with the conclusion that they were a mixed bastardized Germanics. Later the new bosses of the steppe (Samaritan tribes) disturb the settlements of I2a folks who are forced to retreat northwards bringing them into more contact and cooperation witht the local R1a tribes. Later the Germanic tribes invade the area and the I2a and their R1a neighbors cooperate and ally themselves against new power. It was by living with, cooperating, forming alliances with R1a tribes for 7 centuries that merged these people into one forming the Slavs, eventully I2a acquired the speech of their R1a neigbors. The Huns with the help of the early Slavs broke down the power of the Germanic tribes, and the rest in known history.


But I2a folks did not settle everywhere in the Slavic world. In some regions their presence was strong, and in some regions it was not present at all. In Poland the R1a substratum that was at one period dominated by eastern Germanic tribes seems to have had no relationship with the I2a tribes to east of them, yet they are Slavic too. The Balkan Slavs decent from tribes that had strong I2a mixture. The Serbs in particular seem to decent from a rare I2a tribe that originally did not even have any R1a clansman among them. Modern Serbs have in their body now haplogroups that were pre-Slavic in the Balkans. All these changes were brought about by civilization and Christianity that broke down the old Indo-European system of kinship. It is illogical to try and explain against I2a migration from Slavs based on modern northern Slavs haplogroup frequencies.
Wow, you made quite a story building it on supposition of few known historical events and our still rudimentary knowledge of genetics. In few years however we should know much better how it went. Hopefully ancient genomes start flooding in finally, from current trickling down.
 
Underhill in his 2009 paper claimed that M458 branch of R1a originated in Poland 10000 years ago and spread from there - map:

M458.png


Now we know that M458 is probably at least two times younger than this (YFull estimates: "formed 4600 ybp, TMRCA 4400 ybp"):

http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-M458/

Of course it could still originate in Poland - as Underhill proposed in 2009 - but +/- 4600 years ago, rather than 10000 years ago. Also with recent aDNA findings, it is clear that there was a lot of R1a in and around present-day Poland already in the Bronze Age. Note that in the Bronze Age people in those areas spoke Indo-European, but a Satem language (could be some Proto-Balto-Slavic or/and Iranic). R1a so abundant in the discussed area in the Bronze Age (as per ancient DNA evidence), was neither Celtic, nor Germanic.

If anything, those guys were more likely to be Celtic than Germanic. A Daco-Thracian link is sometimes also proposed.

We really need ancient Y-DNA from the Iron Age, to compare how things changed until then since the Bronze Age.
 
I am Polish but it's not your business.

I, you, Tomenable, LeBrok, who else?

Maybe we change forums language? :grin:

It will be easier... if so many Poles and other Slavs are here... :)
 
Wow, you made quite a story building it on supposition of few known historical events and our still rudimentary knowledge of genetics. In few years however we should know much better how it went. Hopefully ancient genomes start flooding in finally, from current trickling down.

It is not my theory so I do not wish to take credit for it. I came across some genetic forums under Slavic subsections where it was hatched. The theory made sense to me the same way Maciamo's proposed theory on R1b and R1a migrations made sense. The puzzle just fits. I suppose I should make maps to help folks visualize and simplify it (a good method utilized by Maciamo). The only question the theory leaves me with is why is I2a Dinaric the only I2 branch of its kind in the Jastorf culture, why are there no cousin branches(other than the far distant ones in the British Isles), but being the only branch would make sense why I2a Dinaric would be forced to leave the Jastorf zone in possible conflict with other Jastorfers who belonged to the main Germanic haplgroups and would treat the lonely branch as an outsider. It also explains why this branch of Jastorf was already mingleling with R1a folks (Przeworsk culture).


Here is something I saved when researching about the Jastorf culture Gubin branch.
 


M. Shchukin
Rome and the Barbarians in Central and Eastern Europe
1st Century B.C. - 1st Century A.D.
'Chapter IV
The Jastorf culture seen narrowly and broadly: "Jastorf culture" and "Jastorf civilisation".

At the same time as southern subalpine regions were witnessing the complex development of Celtic civilisation, a no less complex development of a new entity was taking place in the north, in the marshy and forested plains of Schleswig-Holstein, Hannover, Mecklenburg and Brandenburg. The inhabitants of this area, still living in the Bronze Age, had been cut off by events in the south from their sources of raw materials and were compelled to master the new material of iron, which was abundant in the marshy ores of the region.

Having lost contact with the southern cultures of Hallstatt and early La Tène which had already mastered iron, the northerners were to develop indigenous and unique types of iron products. At that time the Jutland area of central and northern Denmark were becoming depopulated due either to climatic change or to some other factors. In contrast, the plains of northern Germany, from the Weser to the Oder and the lower reaches of the Elbe, were densely settled. Thus, parallel to the Celtic emergence and even earlier (at Hallstatt D stage), the Jastorf culture takes shape, displaying features and a structure fundamentally different from the refined and fantastic civilisation of the Celts.101

Gustav Schwantes, who devoted his long life to studying this culture, saw its basic characteristics as "sobriety", "circumspection", "sparseness", "utilitarianism", all of which can be conveyed by the single German word 'Nüchternheit".102 However, this characterisation is somewhat exaggerated and is applicable only to early Jastorf, when this culture is compared to the rich culture of the Celts. If one compares the early Jastorf culture with its eastern neighbour, the so-called Pomeranian Culture in Poland, in terms of the form and beauty of artefacts the latter is not very different, its urns (the same bomb-like vessels with high necks) are sometimes decorated with the primitive representation of the human face.

The utilitarian Jastorfers only made objects which were designed for generally lower the vessels - with the overall shape consequently changing from pitcher-like to basin-like.104 There is a gradual increase in the number of polished ceramics, normally black but sometimes with a brown tint. There is also a gradual tendency towards decorating the vessels with stuck on knobs: this is particularly noticeable in the middle, Ripdorf stage of this culture. Another distinctive decorative technique emerges: this consists of alternating polished and deliberately roughened sections on the body and shoulders of the vessel. The vessels of this culture are also distinguished by small ear-handles.

Throughout its existence the Jastorf culture cremated its dead. The remains collected from a funeral pyre were placed in an urn. Initially the urns were often surrounded with stones or hidden beneath small stone pavings. Later stones were entirely left out of funerary constructions. Quite often, particularly at the intermediate stage, the urns were covered with bowls or, in their absence, one assumes with wooden lids.105 The ritual placement of weapons in graves occurs only at the later stages, and can be connected with certain events which will be discussed below.

The second half of the 3rd century BC witnessed the collapse of Celtic expansion and the Celts retreat from Italy and Thrace. This was the period of "central European consolidation", corresponding to the transition from early to middle La Tène (i.e. from LTB to LTC), when the Celts' northern neighbours probably took advantage of the former's military failures.106 The Celts and local celticised populations disappeared from southern and central Germany towards the close of La Tène B. These changes led to a transformation of the Jastorf culture, within whose sphere these areas lay.107 Jastorf and La Tene were coming increasingly into closer contact; Celtic metal products and ceramics became ever more popular; Celtic items began appearing even in northern Germany and local craftsmen began imitating these new stylish decorations and implements.108
Celtic and celtic-type fibulae became widespread and the Jastorf culture ceased being "Infibularis". In some areas early La Tène Celtic fibulae survived a long time, occasionally far out-living their prototypes. This caused German archaeologists considerable difficulties in chronological terms.109 As a result of internal change and Celtic influence, a middle Jastorf style emerged in the north of Central Europe: this marks the transition of Jastorf culture to its Ripdorf stage. Henceforth the Jastorf and La Tène styles function as two impulse waves, with a new wave cresting whilst the power of the first recedes.110

Who then were the carriers of this initially peculiar and "sobre", Jastorf-culture? R. Hachmann's views on the subject were as follows. 'Whilst for a long time the Celts were shaping history, the Jastorf culture remained outside the limelight of history. Therefore we only know about their ways and history through archaeological evidence. Positive evidence allows us to conclude that the Celts were the carriers of La Tene culture, but nothing comparable exists for the Jastorf culture. We can only speculate that if La Tene culture is rooted in the emergence of the Celts, then Jastorf culture must he similarly linked to the emergence of the Germans or some part of them.111

Later, when the Jastorf culture territory emerges into the light of history, Roman military leaders, merchants and historians report various German tribes in the territory between the Rhine and Vistula. But contemporary historical, archaeological and philological analysis helps us to discern within this Teutonic territory another population, neither German nor Celtic but intermediate between the two, a third group, whose language has not survived to our times.112 This group could have occupied an area extending southwards to the mid-German plateau on the right bank of the Rhine, northwards to the river Ruhr and in parts even to the river Lippe, eastwards to the river Leine. This people was strongly celticised, and was at the same level of development as the Celts in the oppida. They also constructed fortified semi-towns, used the pottery wheel, were metal workers (a manufacturing centre has been discovered in the Siegerland locale), manufactured iron weapons (a cache of which has been found), and minted coins. Their burials recall those of the Jastorfers, consisting of urns containing calcified bones cleared of funeral pyre debris, although the ceramics are quite distinctive. The Romans of Caesar's and subsequent times, during the expeditions of Drusus and Tiberius, called them Germanics. But this territory contains a concentration of toponyms which can not be interpreted in terms of either German or Celtic languages. An intermediate people indeed, neither German nor Celtic!

A similar situation exists on the southern periphery of the Jastorf culture area, along both sides of the Thüringerwald.113 Perhaps this same intermediate people account for the Bodenbach-Podmokly group which formed in the northern Czech region during La Tène B2. Here too we find a mixture of Celtic, Jastorf and local elements ones of Bilendorf or Bialov type and of the Silesian-Platenica group of the Lusatian culture which had existed in this area since the Bronze Age.114

It is quite possible that a good number of such groups X, Y and Z in fact account for many of the tribes comprising what the Romans called "Germania libera". These groups were to become Germans not so much because of their origins and language, but because their political and historical fate was linked up with that of different German tribes, who were also experiencing a continuing process of change and development.

A paradox surrounds the term "Germani". Amongst surviving sources it first appears in the "History" by Posidonius (135-51 BC), a 52-volume work covering the period 146-96 BC, which survives in fragments cited by other authors. Fragments from his 30th volume contain reference to the Germans as occupying the right bank of the Upper Rhine adjoining Celtic areas and remarks on their habit of drinking a barbaric mixture of milk and wine as accompaniment to roast meat. But Posidonius does not use the name "Germani" for the Cimbri and Teutons who were emerging from the area of Jastorf development and whom all later authors were to recognise as Germans.115

The area in which Posidonius places the Germani was most likely occupied by the intermediate people, one group of whom probably bore the name "Germani"; later the name was extended to the entire population of the Rhine-Danube basin. The historic Germans, the heirs of the Jastorf culture, were most likely not related to the "Germani" mentioned by Posidonius and, strictly speaking, were not Germans, never called themselves by that name and do not label themselves as such even today.

The complexity of the ethnic-political situation in ancient Germany is emphasised by the fact that the unity of the Jastorf culture was only relative. The Jastorf culture divided into comparatively small territorial groups which developed separately from each other.116
If the heartland encompassed eastern Hannover, Schleswig-Holstein and western Mecklenburg (i.e. Jastorf culture in the narrow sense), then surrounding it was a broad band of different cultural groups, whose similarity with the heartland and between themselves varied. Taken together, however, they comprised the Jastorf culture in a broad sense and constituted in effect Jastorf civilisation.117 Included in this is the Harpstedt-Nienburg group of the middle Weser, characterised by the very attenuated but equally crude Harpstedt pots and the superbly glazed Nienburg bowl-pots. The North Sea coastal monuments extending from Holland to the north of the Elbe comprise a special group. Excavations here have uncovered the so-called terpen or wurten, i.e. the many-layered settlements situated in sand dunes so as to avoid flooding during high tides. Some of these were continuously occupied up to the Middle Ages. The 'Stahlhauser" long-houses were built here, some up to 20 metres in length, one part of which was used as a residence while the other served as a barn. Comparatively few central and southern German settlements have been excavated, but these have yielded evidence of small column-structure buildings.

Burials of the north German population are known only in the eastern part: they are cremations, sometimes surrounded by a funerary mound. Male and female cemeteries were constructed separately. The ceramics display an intermingling of Jastorf and Harpstedt elements. In the east, the Jastorf cultural sphere in the broad sense encompasses the Warnow group of Mecklenburg and the Oder estuary, the related group along the Stettin coast, the Seen group of the south Mecklenburg lakes, and the Middle Elbe-Havel group.118

Special attention needs to be focussed on the Gubin group in the Oder-Neisse region. This is represented by two large cemeteries in Luboszyci near Zielona Gora and in Domaniowicy near Legnica. The Domaniowcy cemetery began with burials of the Pomeranian culture. At the time of the early "a" phase of NELT, it changes from a Pomeranian culture complex to one typical of the Gubin-type of Jastorf: this development occurs at the same time as the transformation of another Pomeranian culture burial complex in Nosocicy - only 20 kilometres to the east - into a Przeworsk cultural complex.120 The Gubin ceramics display some Przeworsk elements but earlier examples are generally similar to those of the Jastorf culture (early mingeling with R1a folks). These include polished and roughened bands on the vessels, urns covered with bowls, and the absence of weapons.

The historical events that caused the cultural changes in South-East Germany are unknown. One can only suggest that the Germans and non-Germans of the Jastorf culture were exerting pressure on the Celts and non-Celts of Central Europe. As a result a broad Jastorf-Celtic "contact" zone emerges in the middle reaches of the Elbe, in Saxony and Thuringia: simultaneously, northern groups proved to be under La Tène influence. The process of Latènisation had begun.
This development was accompanied not so much by a fundamental cultural transformation as by a relocation of monuments and groups, with old ones disappearing and new ones emerging. We know of at least 48 burial places in Northern Germany which were used through the early Jastorf and Ripdorf stages, whereas those spanning the Ripdorf and the later Seedorf number but two.121

The German pressure on the Celts increased progressively. The Jastorfers of Saxony, having probably partly absorbed the bearers of the local Billendorf culture, moved southwards into the Czech region, where a distinctive Bodenbach-Podmokly group was already emerging towards the end of LT B2. In turn, Celtic-type objects become widespread among the Jastorfers: these include mid- and late-La Tène fibulae, open-work belt tips, wheel-turned pottery, weaponry. The weapons (swords, spears, shield bosses) appear increasingly in burials, and warriors are increasingly placed in separate burial groups. The pottery remains three-part in design, but the long neck form disappears. The pottery consists primarily of bowl-pots, either polished or polished-and-roughened, often with small ear-handles or with stuck-on ornamental elements. Facetted rims appear and constitute a typical feature of the NELT epoch. The northern areas provide evidence of the popularity of metal Holstein belts made of square, decorated metal plates linked with chains: these are modelled on the chain-belts of Celtic women. These belts carry protruding crescent ornaments which, together with other occasional discoveries, might indicate more distant contacts with the Celtic-Illyrian population of southern Transdanubia.

These developments must have been gradual and probably spanned about two centuries. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to determine a chronology here, given that we have no exact absolute dates either for the upper limit of LT B or the beginning of LT C1, the beginning of NELT and its "a" and "b" stages, or the limits of LT C1 and LT C2.

It is also difficult to correlate historical and archaeological events even when datings exist for both. This is because an archaeological dating by its nature denotes a span of time while a historical dating fixes a point in time: thus, the time given by an archaeological dating may in reality span two or three different historical datings. This problem is magnified in relation to the Jastorf culture because the pace of change varies so much between its component groups.

The following approximate sequence of events can only be proposed very hypothetically. At some early point of "latènisation", perhaps when the Podmokly group was emerging in the Czech locale, the pressure of population moving southwards caused an exodus of some of the bearers of east Jastorf culture together with their eastern neighbours of the Pomeranian culture. Perhaps the pattern of this relocation can be traced by mapping the distribution of crown-shaped neckrings (Kronenhalsringe). Isolated examples of these artefacts, a symbol of power or some other attribute of German leaders and definitely not intended as objects of trade, have been found far to the south-east of the area where they predominate, i.e. Denmark, Northern Germany and Western Pomerania.122 They have been found in Rumania, contemporaneously with the Poianes,t,i-Lukashevka culture which bears many elements deriving from the eastern variant of Jastorf civilisation, particularly of the Gubin type.123 They have been found in the Ukraine, specifically in Vilkov within the Lvov area, in Zales'e within the Ternopol area, in Dashievo within the Vinnitsa area, and in the small village of Leski on the river Desna basin where four examples were found together (see illustrations 7, 16) (pretty much western Ukraine).124 All these discoveries were accidental and their relation either to local early Iron Age cultures or to the Zarubintsy culture which emerged here on the threshold of NELT remains unclear. But even if warrior bands headed by leaders who wore crown-shaped neckrings did not reach the Desna region, then they must have operated somewhere nearby and contributed, even if indirectly, to the conditions which gave rise to the Zarubintsy culture. These same conditions are also recorded in the northern Black Sea littoral at the turn of the 3rd-2nd centuries BC by the decree honouring Protogenos. At that time Olbia was newly-arrived Galatians and Sciri. We shall return to this later.

We could expect the next stage of basic change to come towards the end of the 2nd century BC, when, according to written sources, climatic change forced the inhabitants of Denmark and Northern Germany, in particular the Cimbri and Teutons, to move in search of new areas for settlement and thus to come into conflict first with the Celts and then with the legions of Marius.

But it remains unclear whether these marches caused the Celtic La Tène culture to shift from C2 to D1 or the cultures of the NELT area to cross from its early to middle stage or for that matter from phase "b" to "c" within the middle stage.*

Archaeology provides only indirect evidence of these marches. Perhaps it was the warriors returning from such expeditions to Denmark who brought with them trophies which were sacrificed to Germanic gods and cast into the marshes. This would explain the discovery in Denmark of the remains of chariots whose rich decorations included moustachioed Celtic masks125, as well as the famous Gundestrup silver cauldron decorated with a veritable pantheon of Celtic deities, probably the work of some eastern-Celtic-Thracian master from the middle Danube126 or a local artist who was familiar with Celtic and Dacian art objects.127 Perhaps at the same time other artefacts, such as the 3rd century BC Celtic cauldron found at Bro and the 5th-3rd century BC Graeco-Etruscan vessels found in an NELT burial at Lango, were brought northwards.128 Remarkable also is the discovery in Negovo on the Austro-Yugoslav frontier of a collection of some 20 Etruscan Alpine and Celtic bronze helmets: one of them bears the inscription "Harigasti Teiva", which is believed to be the oldest surviving example of an ancient German language.129 But it is not clear whether this discovery can be linked directly to the Cimbri.

The absence of fixed datings for the "a", "b" and "c" phases of NELT also prevents us from determining whether the Cimbri expeditions preceded, coincided with or followed on another major movement affecting the German and non-German tribes which archaeology has revealed. This development comprises the successive waves of change which affected material culture and settlement in Europe during the middle and beginning later stages of NELT: it was probably catalysed by the westward movement of the bearers of the Przeworsk and Oksywie cultures. A historical result of this process can be seen in the appearance in 58 BC on the Rhine of the forces of Ariovistus, which had already been on a continuous campaign for 14 years.130
This movement began in the early or middle stages of NELT, sometime between the mid-2nd and mid-lst centuries BC, during the prevalence of mid-La Tène fibulae variants A, B and C and the emergence of fibulae variants K, J and G/H. The westward movement of the "east Germans" left many traces, primarily in relation to the Przeworsk and Oksywie cultures,** and is manifest in the appearance of burials with bent weapons but without urns throughout the western regions as far as the Main.131

Apart from isolated discoveries and burials of eastern type, three compact groups of inhabitants originating from East Europe have been identified.132 One was situated where the Saale flows into the Elbe, another between the Saale and Unstrut rivers, and the third still further westward in the Wetterau region on the Main.133
At the same time, the Podmokly population expanded its Czech territory, absorbed some elements of the Przeworsk culture (especially the novel facetted rims on vessels) and metamorphosed into the new Kobyly culture.134

At about the same time, the Gubin cultural group adopted a number of Przeworsk elements, but then disappeared leaving its territory vacant.135

Somewhat earlier, on the threshold of the "a" and "b" phases of NELT, a number of Jastorf burial complexes in Western Pomerania were abandoned and in their stead appeared burials of the neighbouring Oksywie culture.136 The Jastorfers were either displaced or rapidly assimilated by the Oksywie population.

It is quite possible that all these developments are links in the same chain of events, and that the appearance of Ariovistus on the Rhine was but one episode in it.

This is not meant to suggest, however, that the Suebi and Ariovistus originated from Polish territory and that the graves with Przeworsk weapons are Suebi burials. Both were part of a larger stream, and are not necessarily one and the same. These are developments can be seen through both the historical and archaeological focus.

In the north German heartland of the Jastorf culture changes were at this time less pronounced, although they are discernable. A burial ritual characterised by the presence of weapons developed here (Harsefeld near Hannover) during the later NELT phase. In some territories the late NELT is characterised by a declining number of monuments, occasionally so drastic as to indicate total depopulation. This was clearly the case in Altmark, south-western Mecklenburg, and the middle reaches of the Havel.138

The process of change in Central Europe culminated in the mid-1st century BC, concurrently with the predominance of fibula variants K, J, G/H and the emergence of arched fibulae M-N (Geschweiftfibeln); the collapse of oppida in Thuringia, Bavaria, Moravia and the Czech lands139; the abandonment of certain burial complexes in western Germany140; the disappearance of the Kobyly group in Czech lands; and in the Rhine area the intermediate population (between Germans and Celts), characterised by a highly evolved social structure as well as the production of wheel-turned pottery and coins, was displaced by the poorer and more primitive Jastorf culture.142

The unique and spectacular culture of the Grossromstedt Horizon emerged as a result. The population coalesced into large groups. The burial fields of the time were generally colossal, but were not used for very long. The burials contained many weapons. The burial ritual was apparently borrowed from the Przeworsk culture, whose bearers possibly constituted the most active part of the new population. Men and women were generally buried separately, this aspect of the ritual originating in the Elbe region.

The pottery is characterised by tall vessels which are black polished and have smoothly curved setms. This pottery is sometimes called "situlae" on the assumption that it imitates Italian bronze buckets: however, the origins of the form should be sought in northern Europe, especially in Denmark. The fibulae are mostly the late La Tene arched variant M-N and variant 0 is very common.

The population's expansion drive clearly went southward and westward. The monuments of this cultural horizon are found in Altenwald on the Main, near Bamberg, in Wetterau on the lower Main, occasionally on the left bank of the Rhine (the Landau burial), on the mid-Rhine at Gladbach, and also in southern Bavaria in the Manching region (the Kronwinkl and Uttenhof fen burials with Grossromstedt features). The main concentration of finds lies however in the mid-Elbe region, Saale and Saxony. The Tišice type monuments from the Czech lands may also be related to this horizon. The latter sites ought to represent only the late phases of the horizon, i.e. subsequent to the Marcomanni migrations of 9-6 BC.145 The dating of the sites, however, remains a subject of controversy.146

It is quite reasonable to juxtapose the Grossromstedt horizon with the Suebi tribal federation. However, the Suebi in question were probably not contemporaries of Caesar or Ariovistus. They were the Suebi of the later 1st century BC, against whom the campaigns of Domitius Ahenobarbus were directed.

The northern limits of the Grossromstedt horizon are unclear. Some elements of this entity, most probably the social rather than the ethnic, are scattered throughout Germany: these include men's burials with weapons, black-polished situlae vases, and arched fibulae. Nowhere do they display such a unity as in Thuringia and Saxony, the area of the Suebian tribe of the Hermunduri. We must remember that we are speaking here of a horizon, not an archaeological culture. Most of the bearers of the culture represented by this horizon can be assumed to have originated primarily in the Elbe region. The development of this culture also involve the "east German" bearers of the Przeworsk tradition: their role in the development of the social structure and external shaping of this culture was probably comparable to the role of the Celts in the formation of Przeworsk culture.'
 
The timeline pretty much matches, even the estimated date of I2a Dinaric (2,500 years old) fits into this timeline. In the 2nd century B.C. the Scythians are invaded by the Samaritans and eventually are defeated. The fertile lands in western Ukraine are no longer subject to steppe tribe raids. The Gubin Jastorfers(feeling pressure form the north) decide it is better to migrate East and settle in former no-mans land. In their new territory their culture fusing with local culture form Zarubintsy culture which many see as proto-Slavic. If one research this culture one will find that this new culture was later subject to raids by the new steppe bosses, the Samaritan which forces the inhabitants of this culture to migrate northward into Belarus and north-east of the Dnieper River. I explained in my earlier posts how these events and later ones lead to the merger of a R1a and I2a folks into a single cultural complex and ethnic group.
The cultures that are assigned to Slavic people in 6th century are the Prague-Korcak (I2a and R1a, decendents of Zarubintsy, the tribes known as Sklaveni), Sukow culture (R1a decendents of Przeworsk, the tribes known as Wends and Polabian Slavs), and Penkovka culture (R1a, the tribes known as the Antes). The I2a Dinaric folks were literllay a wedge in the R1a folks and were eventually assimilated by them.
 
I'm certain this study has been discussed at length:

http://dienekes.blogspot.ca/2014/10/ancient-dna-from-prehistoric.html

What has blown me away is the oldest sample:

ncomms6257-f3.jpg


The oldest neolithic sample KO1 (5650-5780) is a dark haired blue eyed man with I2a and "Armenian" mDNA R3.

Hmmm...

"Interestingly, haplogroup I reaches very high frequency in Sardinians (40.7%), specifically the I2a1a sub-haplogroup, which is virtually absent elsewhere. Haplogroup I was probably introduced there [Hungary] during the Neolithic by farmers with a Mesolithic paternal ancestry".

"All of the male neoliths (4) have either Y haplogroup I2a or C6, generally considered to be pre-neolithic."

"
What is surprising is that one KO1 Neolithic European is with the hunter-gatherers (top of the plot). At some level you would expect to find some hunter-gatherers in the earliest Neolithic communities in Europe as Europe wasn't empty land when the early farmers showed up. And KO1 appears one of those guys, "caught in the act" of first contact between the two groups."
 
So there are several threads, all recently active, where the focus of the conversation has turned to (often passionate) discussions about how I2a1b1a-Din, the most common Haplogroup I subclade in the Balkans, got to the Balkans. But we seem far from reaching consensus on this forum, so here's a poll to at least put our finger to the wind regarding the direction this forum is leaning.

I've included as options several different possibilities I've read:

Paleolithic continuity: I2a-Din has been in the Balkans since the Paleolithic, and present distribution outside of the Balkans is the result of migrations out of it. There is direct geographic continuity for this clade from Gravettian culture and/or the Balkans Ice Age refuge. Proponents point out the age of Haplogroup I and the frequency distribution of I2a-Din. I've read Maciamo articulate this view, but I'm not sure if he still holds it.

The Early Indo-Europeans: I2a-Din was brought to the Balkans by the Indo-European migrations. It was part of the "original" collection of Y-DNA of Indo-Europeans. Proponents point out that everywhere that Haplogroup I is dominant nowadays speaks an IE language. How yes no was fond of this theory for a while.

Sea Peoples: I2a-Din was brought to the Balkans by seafaring groups not otherwise mentioned in this poll. The migration happened before history or early in history. Proponents point to the frequency distribution and the lack of historical verification for later migrations. How yes no explored this idea, and recently Pyrub has advocated it.

The Sarmatians: I2a-Din was brought to the Balkans by the Sarmatians. Proponents of this view cite the STR dating estimate for the clade, the apparent Asian spillover of it, and the historical attestation to Sarmatians (but not Slavs) in the Balkans. Bodin has been the most vocal advocate of this theory here.

The Slavs: I2a-Din was brought to the Balkans by expanding Slavs in the 1st millennium CE. Proponents cite the age of the clade, expert STR diversity analysis by people like Nordtvedt and Verenich, and dispute that history doesn't verify the Slavic expansions. I have supported this view, as have a few other posters.

If you believe that multiple expansions resulted in the current I2a-Din distribution in the Balkans, indicate which you feel brought most or had the greatest impact. If you feel that the data is deficient, make your best educated guess.
I would say the Natufians. In Between Paleolithic C1 haplogroup and The Early Indo-Europeans R1 Haplogroup.
 
I'm personally somewhat wary of any attempts of racial classification (since the concept of 'race' is in itself rather flawed), but I would like to add something on the origin of the Albanian language: the first and foremost is that Albanian is obviously an Indo-European language and that today, it represents it's own branch amongst the language family. The general consensus is also that Albanian is descended from one of the so-called Paleo-Balkan languages (eg. Illyrian, Dacian, Thracian, etc.), but which of these was the ancestor of Albanian is contested. The problem is that all of these languages are rather scarcely attested, whereas Albanian literature itself is only attested from the 14th century onward. This means it's very difficult to connect Albanian with a specific Paleo Balkan language with absolute certainty.
Its hard but if you take a look at the pre indo european words we have you will be amazed of how much influence we have from proto balkans,Myself i belive we are Thracians their was tomb in bulgaria that was pulled up this year an tested the bodys.It is a possitve match with albanians their is few ev-13 mutations but this result is the same mutation of gheg albanians.The old dna sampled of the thracians tombs have revealed they have got it wrong.Anyway,I suppose dna dont lie.I belive i2a2 was bought with the mass slavnic migration an i belive it was more eastern europe than of balkan.
 
Paleolithic continuity: I2a-Din has been in the Balkans since the Paleolithic, and present distribution outside of the Balkans is the result of migrations out of it. There is direct geographic continuity for this clade from Gravettian culture and/or the Balkans Ice Age refuge. Proponents point out the age of Haplogroup I and the frequency distribution of I2a-Din. I've read Maciamo articulate this view, but I'm not sure if he still holds it.

The Early Indo-Europeans: I2a-Din was brought to the Balkans by the Indo-European migrations. It was part of the "original" collection of Y-DNA of Indo-Europeans. Proponents point out that everywhere that Haplogroup I is dominant nowadays speaks an IE language. How yes no was fond of this theory for a while.

I think it's a combination of the two factors. I2a-L621 is closely associated with Slavic speakers with R1a and it was most likely to be introduced to the Balkans by Indo-European migrants to the region. On the other hand, a 13,000-year-old Cro-Magnon from Switzerland belonged to Y-DNA Haplogroup I2a. I2 is a southern branch of Haplogroup I which was widely dispersed around Europe, while the I1 branch largely remained in Scandinavia. I2a2 is associated with the pre-Celto-Germanic people concentrated in northern Germany. The Balkans was possibly another major EHG settlement with the highest concentration of I2 in Europe (over 50%) and this demographic trend was reinforced by further IE migrations to the region. Moreover, Sardinia is an I2a refuge (41%) and mass R1b migrations to southern Europe may have pushed the I2a people downward to Sardinia.
 
Last edited:
I realize this topic has been untouch for months by now, but I have to contribute. I believe that I2a is both Slavic and indigenous Dinaric. I2a could have been that ancient Croats left the Balkans for Ukraine, and then migrated back southwest. Western Ukrainians have high frequencies of I2a, and many Ukrainian last names common in the west are supposed to be from the White Croats. Also the Cucuteni-Trypillians were I2 and located near the origin of the Slavs.

On the other hand, most of southern Europe would have been I2 before the Indo-Europeans, and it is hard to imagine what would have been there before R1a, R1b, J1, J2, E1b1b, etc. except for maybe some small amount of G in certain areas. I think we need to do more tests and research into what subclades of I2a1b came from when and just more tests for South Slavs, Vlachs, Gheg Albanians, etc. in particular.
 

This thread has been viewed 1073516 times.

Back
Top