How did I2a-Din get to the Balkans?

How did I2a-Din get to the Balkans?


  • Total voters
    229
We are dealing with the I2a-Din haplogroup and its migration paths. Now we see another evidence that supports its origin from, or nearby, the territory of the early medieval White Croatia.

Hardly an evidence, it's only an assumption on the Chodove movement and ancestry.

Czech wiki: "Velký význam však sehrálo přijetí Nábských Srbů (Chodů) Boleslavem I. za strážce západní hranice."

I cannot find that in the Czech wiki.

It is also no accident that the primitive shapes of ear-rings with various trinkets found at Věstonice have some analogues in South Bohemia (Lékařova Lhota) and also in the southern most tip of the territory of the Serbians living along the Naab River (Matzhausen).

This is out of context. Chodove live in Western Bohemia while this quote is relating to South Moravia and South Bohemia, and dated to "the end of the Great Moravian Empire period and later".

These are all Czech sources.

I don't see anything relevant. Fringe theory is a fringe theory, no matter from where, language or reliability is the source.

Along Dalmatian coast there were Travunia, Zachumlia and Pagania. According to the first degree historical source, Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, Narentines (Pagania), Zachumlians, Travunians are explicitly of Serbian origin descending from those Serbs who settled the area in time of Heraclius.

DAI is more often a political rather than historical source. That quote is most probably a Emperor's invention because at the moment these principalities became under Serbian rule in the 10th century, due to the Serbian political expansion under Časlav who was supported by the Byzantines. If you want to consider that the source is saying the truth then population of Dioclea, for which is not mentioned such a thing, is not of Serbian origin. Also, more importantly, according to the source Serbia became completely desolated and was resettled. That was described in details so it was certainly based on archival sources, contrary to exceptional claims about something centuries ago.

The area where Portifogenitus places the settlement of Croats is of course to the West, there we see spike of R1a, especially R-Y2608 in Chakavian Croats... These facts give better insight as to what the original White Croatian haplogroup might be, R-Y2608 being the number one, but also there are some other branches such as R-Y132940 who likely migrated with them. / Now that you mention it some Serbs are R-L260 and not only that they are R-Y2905+. I took a look at Sorb R1a's and the dominant Sorb haplotype is basically certainly R-Y2905 whose TMRCA is 2000 ybp, so there might be some connection there. There is in Croats R-Y132940 cluster but they are Y2905-.

Most probably both Serbs and Croats were predominantly R1a. Good analysis of Sorb & Serb R1a. People should waste less time on PH908 and focus more on R1a.

I know it must be convenient for many Croats to lump some Narentine I-Y3120's into White Croats, but Narentines were not White Croats, and Portifogenitus, who of any sources we have is the most competent to speak about their origins because he must have gained this information first hand from their chiefs, said they were of Serb origin. But I think there likely are I-Y3120 White Croatian clades too.

Well, you're doing the same thing, lump and accept what is convenient to you from DAI, and ignoring what is not. We don't know if Narentines were or not directly and how much related to the Croats. DAI is obviously referring to the Sorbs in the centuries it was written, directly relating Sorbs and Serbs, and yet "many Serbs" tend to ignore and neglect that. The previous assumptions you made were according to the results of contemporary Croatian and Serbian population in the South, with founder effects and else, while if we want to know what was the Y-DNA haplogroup proportion in those so-called White Serbs and White Croats tribes we should analyze their ancestral & contemporary population in the North, especially if they were in isolation. Otherwise we are not proving the thing we claim to prove.

Regional study of Czechs, in Western Czech R., in Klatovy I-P37 is 14.6 %. Klatovy are one of Chodove centers.

If you put that in the context of the study of Sorbs then can be made some parallels, otherwise it is not saying anything. What is the % of Dinaric-South in Klatovy?

Sedov (and other Russian and German archeologists) Luzichani and Milchani belonged to Tornov archeological culture whereas Serbs who lived in modern Czech-German border belonged to Ryusen culture.

Except that Sedov relates Sorbs with Lusatian Slavs, and Sorbs with Serbs.
 
Well obviously genetically vast majority doesn't have such origins, nevertheless so many authors hypothesized about said origins, and it was considered preferable by many in the past and likely still to this day among Croats to have such origin.

Well I think once these "exotic" Croats pop up among commercially tested people they might sing the same tune. In fact I see the Slovenian of this cluster has already joined the Ossetian project.

So lets not pretend this is something new, it is not and still there are many Croats who would prefer this to be true, hence no need to raise your eyebrows as if I'm trying to "spoil" something. This also used to be very much mainstream among Croats.

Well it is to be expected to find such traces there considering the history etc. I didn't say I consider the Avar theory that serious but who knows.. From wiki:

Actually the Zagrebian has cousins among Tatars and Bashkirs!

Well translating those views also involves little bit work from me. Have you been there on poreklo, I saw one Croat arguing there about White Croats and I-Y3120 etc. and yes Serb admin used Chodove, I-Z16983 and other points against him.

Science is not based on anecdotes. There is a nice study on Croatian medieval skulls (M. Šlaus) that found the close relation with Poland. The same study found Iranic skulls very distant. Medieval Croats were Slavs as much as medieval Poles were.

About early Serbs, yes there aren't many early finds, but I think Jankovic and others wrote about some..

Yeah. In absence of early Serbian findings, Jankovic was looking for Serbs in the center of medieval Croatian dukedom :LOL:

I agree that Paganians were a specific population in many ways, but the Byzantine emperor/historian had his own sources, him being definitely must have helped in research.

Some scientists like Slovenian B. Grafenauer argumented that emperor did not know anything about the early Serb history so he used Croat one as a template. He analysed sentence by sentence.
 
But what quality of evidence do we have on the other side?

It doesn't matter, the thing is that's an assumption on the emergence of Chodove in the region. What's their early history, only God knows.

On Czech wiki is said that, translate, "The Chodas appeared in written sources during the 13th century and there are disputes as to whether their origin can be derived from the early medieval guards, which served here during the Přemyslid princes, or whether the population was newly settled here during the settlement processes century. Some sources also derive from the military raids of Czech princes to Poland in the 11th century, from which the Slavic population was to be moved from the Noteć and Khojja rivers near the princely Gniezno. This would also explain the ethnographic differences from the surrounding population as well as the sometimes eastward dialect".

Anyway, both theories, especially the second, don't support the fringe theory about "Nabian Serbs". Actually, the source above is really confusing, "Při stopování dávných severobavorských Slovanů (nejen tzv. Nábských Srbů) narážíme na potíže nejen v tom, že nejsme schopni říci nic o etnické příslušnosti a jazyce, jímž v okolí Řezna", because considers them as North Bavarian Slavs (are Nabian Serbs here a synonym for Sorbs?), saying that it is difficult to know the ethnicity and language of the Slavs around Regensburg (?). The whole chapter is titled and dealing with "Přednáška o starých Slovanech v Bavorsku" and is published in Lusatian Sorbs magazine Česko-lužický věstník.

Indeed, Michal Živný from the University of Ostrava in Pohřební ritus na Moravě v 11. - 15. století ve středoevropském kontextu wrote on pg. 41 "První oblast představuje přibližně jižní a střední část Německa, západní polovina Rakouska a Švýcarsko. Části tohoto území jižně od Dunaje a západně od Rýna byly od počátku doby římské součástí římského impéria a později i antické církevní organizace. Za hranicemi impéria sídlily od doby římské germánské kmeny - na jihozápadě Německa Alamani, ve střední části Frankové a na východ od nich se vytvářeli Durynkové. V době stěhování národů došlo k částečnému přerušení vývoje v bývalých římských provinciích, způsobenému invazí Alamanů do Švýcarska a Rakouska a přesídlením svévských kmenů do Bavorska. V 5. - 6. století se popisované území stalo součástí Francké říše. Je možno dodat, že nějakou dobu po porážce Durynské říše Franky roku 531 se do Durynska a do severního Bavorska přesunula či byla přesunuta část slovanských kmenů, které osídlili území až do povodí řek Naab, Regen, Regnitz a horní Mohan (tzv. nábští Srbové) (Menghin 1990, 96-9)". In other words, the "so-called nábští Srbové" were part of the Slavic tribes who settled up to the Naab, Regen, Regnitz and Upper Main river basins and after 531 partly moved to Thuringia and northern Bavaria.

That makes sense to what's written in the 7th century Chronicle of Fredegar. It mentions Dervan in 631, the "ruler of the people of the Surbi", as being subordinate to the Franks for a long time and then joining the Slavic union of Samo, and "Further reports of Fredegar imply that Dervan and his people lived to the east of the Saxon Saale", and "was fighting against Thuringia 631-634 and Dervan was finally defeated by duke Radulf, governor of Thuringia in 636". This is a confirmation that at least the Serbs/Sorbs were definetly not brifely in the region east of Thuringia, around the river Elbe.
 
Thats going in direction of HiveMindTerror saying Croat name "Ante" has something to do with Antes :LOL:

Hey that's something I read at some point by some historian. There are links to old Croats and Antes historically, as well as Sclavenians.
 
What are your toughts on Mygration's map? (especially to I2-L621 and I-S17250)
https://phylogeographer.com/mygrations/

Relies on modern samples. Not to be taken seriously. Their hope is to eventually become accurate with more data. Right now, just for fun. For example R1a-M417 is theoretically computed as originating in North-East Germany based on modern convergence( https://phylogeographer.com/r-m417-origin-computed-as-ne-germany/).

However, the oldest M417 discovered is from Alexandria, Ukraine.
 
Statistics! where are Slavs that haplo is present in majority! Statistics is science as far as I know!

That haplo is a majority only in Bosniaks, Montenegrins and Croats. In some extent whether in Serbs. In other nations of Slavic origin, I2a din is a minority, which is overlapped by R1a.
 
Since the idea that I2a-CTS10228>Y3120 might not be Slavic keeps coming back, I am posting a summary of what the current data tells about it's origins and arrival to the Balkans.

Ancient DNA:
1- The earliest I2a-CTS10228 found so far is a Polish 9th cent I-S17250. It's closest relative on the YFull tree is from Ukraine.
2- I2a is absent in a 5th-6th cent cemetery in Hungary. This was a Longobard cemetery in use during and after the Germanic migrations but before the Slavic ones. Small sample (21) but there were several Germanic lines, and even a few more southern ones, but no I2a.

Modern DNA:
1- SNP diversity
As can be seen on YFull. Out of 5 major I-Y3120 branches:
-2 are only found in in Eastern Europe (Y3120* & Y4460) -tmrca 2200 for Y4460
-1 is most diverse in Greece, secondly in Eastern Europe (Y18331) - tmrca 2200
-1 is pretty even in diversity between Eastern Europe & the Balkans (I-S17250) - tmrca 1800
-1 is more diverse in the Balkans, secondly in Eastern E. with MRCA equal/close to the whole branch (I-Z17855) -tmrca 1600

So Eastern Europe currently has more branches, more diversity within them, and more distant MRCAs.

2- STR diversity
It has been calculated (here, p.26) that haplotypes with:
- DYS448=19 (I2a-DinSouth) are most diverse in the Poland-Belarus area
- DYS448=20 (I2a-DinNorth) are most diverse in Ukraine


To summarize, current data suggest a huge expansion out of Eastern Europe which reached the Balkans no earlier than the 5-6th century CE.

That's pretty clear. I'm just questioning, if I2a1 spread with the early Slavs, then why it peaks in southslavs and not in east slavs or in west Slavs ?! In East and west Slavs is prevalent the R1a while at the South Slavics prevails I2a1.
 
I gave ample evidence that I-Y3120 expanded out of Eastern Europe. I was not saying that every single line was spread by Slavs, but the overwhelming majority probably was, and the great expansion experienced by this branch was first and foremost due to the Slavic expansion and migration. Not everything is already set in stone, but I presented the likeliest scenario with the current data.

You raised a lot of questions but gave no alternative explanations. Yes, the ethnic origins of Y18331 may still be debated, but it probably started in Eastern Europe too.

Why are all the Y18331 East Europeans Jewish males and not “indigenous” people? Jews migrated to East Europe./QUOTE]

If you believe that the Y18331 in Eastern Europe is due to a Jewish migration, how do you explain the absence of this branch in the Middle East, or wherever you think these Jewish people moved from? Right now, it seems more likely that Y23115 started in Eastern Europe and was then spread by the descendants of a person or family who converted to Judaism there.

That's right too. Judaism is a religion. Anyone may be converted at one point, especially now days
 
So far, it seems that the males of this culture were predominantly G-L43, though there were some other haplos such as E-M78.

aDNA from the Cucuteni-Trypillian Culture:
1) I1926 - G2a2b2a
2) I1927 - G2a2b2a1a1b1a1a1
3) I2110 - G2a2b2a
4) I3151 - E-M78

I have seen I3151 being classified as E-Z830+ though I am unsure as to how accurate this classification is. Z830 is ancestral to M123 which is primarily found in the Middle East.
 
That's pretty clear. I'm just questioning, if I2a1 spread with the early Slavs, then why it peaks in southslavs and not in east slavs or in west Slavs ?! In East and west Slavs is prevalent the R1a while at the South Slavics prevails I2a1.
This has been explained many times. I-CTS10228 in modern day South Slavic peoples went through founder effects which increased its frequency. What matters most is diversity and basal diversity, this is low in South Slavs and higher in East and West Slavs.
 
I am not even close of having formed an opinion on the origin of I2a-Din in the Balkans, but has the Celtic possibility been addressed? I don't know, i am just asking. I personally voted for "Other" in the poll above.
 
I am not even close of having formed an opinion on the origin of I2a-Din in the Balkans, but has the Celtic possibility been addressed? I don't know, i am just asking. I personally voted for "Other" in the poll above.
Many have actually theorised that I2a-CTS10228 expanded into Eastern Europe with Celtic speakers based on the fact that CTS10228* has been found in France and Germany. It was then picked up by the Proto-Slavs. However, it is certain that CTS10228>Y3120 in the Balkans only arrived during the Early Medieval. This is clearly shown through TMRCA and the fact that no CTS10228+ aDNA has been found in the region. As for where it expanded from, evidence does suggest Eastern Europe due to diversity. A study from this year suggested Southeastern Poland as the area of expansion https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12520-019-00996-0.
 
Many have actually theorised that I2a-CTS10228 expanded into Eastern Europe with Celtic speakers based on the fact that CTS10228* has been found in France and Germany. It was then picked up by the Proto-Slavs. However, it is certain that CTS10228>Y3120 in the Balkans only arrived during the Early Medieval. This is clearly shown through TMRCA and the fact that no CTS10228+ aDNA has been found in the region. As for where it expanded from, evidence does suggest Eastern Europe due to diversity. A study from this year suggested Southeastern Poland as the area of expansion https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12520-019-00996-0.
Yeah, i had a somewhat similar view, with the only difference that i hypothesize I-CTS10228 to have entered the Balkans much earlier, with Celts such as the Volcae around 280 BCE, some of which entered Greece in what became known as the Celtic invasion of Greece (they reached Delphi), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_settlement_of_Southeast_Europe#Invasions_of_Greece. TMRCA of I-Y3120's subclade, namely I-Y18331 which has the highest diversity in Greece, is placed at 100 BCE, and the only I-Y18331* is a Greek from Zakynthos. Of course the TMRCA of parent clade I-Y3120 being also 100 BCE, complicates things. But even if not 280 BCE, i still believe the entrance to be sometime in the late BCE. By the way, here is a map showing where the Celtic confederation of Volcae began from, which is very close to where the I-Y3120* Polish sample is placed.
1024px-Volcae_Arecomisci_and_Tectosages_(migrations).svg.jpg

Furthermore, what i find equally interesting is that the exonym Vlach (and cognate Wallachia) were originally used to describe romanized Celts, and its etymologically connected with the aforementioned Volcae,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlachs#Etymology_and_names.

Even the aforementioned I-Y3120* sample which is from Podkarpackie Voivodeship (southern Poland) falls within the regional expansion of the Celts. Here are a number of maps which show their expansion all the way till Ukraine, and here is some more information of Celtic presence in Poland, which begins at approximately 400 BCE,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland_in_antiquity#Celtic_peoples.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5a/fc/49/5afc49a02f13c56ac767aedd19c86480.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Celts.svg/719px-Celts.svg.png
http://www.markfisherauthor.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/map-1200bcCelts_c.jpg

Last, here is an interesting article on the subject by Željko Musović which i found interesting,
http://www.genealogywise.com/m/blogpost?id=3463583:BlogPost:752909. For example he writes, "The carriers of Y3120 subclades live all over south-eastern and north-eastern/north-western Europe. But, the south-eastern Europe (from Croatia to Greece and Bulgaria) is the only region where all I-CTS10228 subclades (from Y3120 downwards) are grouped together – it undoubtedly points to a spatial and temporal continuity of some 2200-3800 years. It is even more significant that the primary lineages of all four Y3120 subclades are found exclusively in the (south-eastern) Balkans.", among other things. I personally wouldn't be speaking of a spatial and temporal continuity of some 2200-3800 years concerning south-eastern Europe since the available samples and their TMRCA do point to a late BCE arrival (in a Balkanic context), but it does show that I-Y3120 largely evolved in the Balkans during the last 2000 years. Again, i am not not even close to having formed an opinion and mainly sharing all these for some feedback.
 
Yeah, i had a somewhat similar view, with the only difference that i hypothesize I-CTS10228 to have entered the Balkans much earlier, with Celts such as the Volcae around 280 BCE, some of which entered Greece in what became known as the Celtic invasion of Greece (they reached Delphi), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_settlement_of_Southeast_Europe#Invasions_of_Greece. TMRCA of I-Y3120's subclade, namely I-Y18331 which has the highest diversity in Greece, is placed at 100 BCE, and the only I-Y18331* is a Greek from Zakynthos. Of course the TMRCA of parent clade I-Y3120 being also 100 BCE, complicates things. But even if not 280 BCE, i still believe the entrance to be sometime in the late BCE. By the way, here is a map showing where the Celtic confederation of Volcae began from, which is very close to where the I-Y3120* Polish sample is placed.
View attachment 11758
Furthermore, what i find equally interesting is that the exonym Vlach (and cognate Wallachia) were originally used to describe romanized Celts, and its etymologically connected with the aforementioned Volcae,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlachs#Etymology_and_names.

Even the aforementioned I-Y3120* sample which is from Podkarpackie Voivodeship (southern Poland) falls within the regional expansion of the Celts. Here are a number of maps which show their expansion all the way till Ukraine, and here is some more information of Celtic presence in Poland, which begins at approximately 400 BCE,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland_in_antiquity#Celtic_peoples.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5a/fc/49/5afc49a02f13c56ac767aedd19c86480.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Celts.svg/719px-Celts.svg.png
http://www.markfisherauthor.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/map-1200bcCelts_c.jpg

Last, here is an interesting article on the subject by Željko Musović which i found interesting,
http://www.genealogywise.com/m/blogpost?id=3463583:BlogPost:752909. For example he writes, "The carriers of Y3120 subclades live all over south-eastern and north-eastern/north-western Europe. But, the south-eastern Europe (from Croatia to Greece and Bulgaria) is the only region where all I-CTS10228 subclades (from Y3120 downwards) are grouped together – it undoubtedly points to a spatial and temporal continuity of some 2200-3800 years. It is even more significant that the primary lineages of all four Y3120 subclades are found exclusively in the (south-eastern) Balkans.", among other things. I personally wouldn't be speaking of a spatial and temporal continuity of some 2200-3800 years concerning south-eastern Europe since the available samples and their TMRCA do point to a late BCE arrival (in a Balkanic context), but it does show that I-Y3120 largely evolved in the Balkans during the last 2000 years. Again, i am not not even close to having formed an opinion and mainly sharing all these for some feedback.
The origin of I-Y18331 is pretty unclear as of now, an origin from Eastern Europe has been suggested due to the fact that this branch is also present in the Chuvash and Ashkenazi Jews. And its brother clades, under Y3120, reach highest diversity in Eastern Europe. Though it's possible that this specific branch migrated to the Balkans earlier than the Y3120 clades.

Samples don't really show an arrival of Y3120 into the Balkans during the late BCEs or that Y3120 clades primarily evolved in the Balkans. As can be seen on Y-Trees, Eastern European nations show the highest basal diversity of Y3120. Poland, Ukraine and Belarus especially have high diversities. There is also the fact that the Balkan samples (South Slavs, Albanians and Greeks) share common ancestors with West and East Slavs, who lived sometime during the Early Medieval. Take the major clades of S17250 and Z17855 where every member shares a common ancestor that lived ~2,000-1,500 years ago. Then there's also the fact that so far CTS10228+ aDNA has only come from Eastern Europe.

The only branch under CTS10228>Y3120 that may represent an earlier migration into the Balkans is Y18331.
 
Surprising interpretations: sure, Celts make people to dream.
 
The origin of I-Y18331 is pretty unclear as of now, an origin from Eastern Europe has been suggested due to the fact that this branch is also present in the Chuvash and Ashkenazi Jews. And its brother clades, under Y3120, reach highest diversity in Eastern Europe. Though it's possible that this specific branch migrated to the Balkans earlier than the Y3120 clades.

Samples don't really show an arrival of Y3120 into the Balkans during the late BCEs or that Y3120 clades primarily evolved in the Balkans. As can be seen on Y-Trees, Eastern European nations show the highest basal diversity of Y3120. Poland, Ukraine and Belarus especially have high diversities. There is also the fact that the Balkan samples (South Slavs, Albanians and Greeks) share common ancestors with West and East Slavs, who lived sometime during the Early Medieval. Take the major clades of S17250 and Z17855 where every member shares a common ancestor that lived ~2,000-1,500 years ago. Then there's also the fact that so far CTS10228+ aDNA has only come from Eastern Europe.

The only branch under CTS10228>Y3120 that may represent an earlier migration into the Balkans is Y18331.
Indeed, in the case of I-Y18331 we also have that single Chuvash sample and a number of Ashkenazim Jews. Although excluding the Chuvash sample, it is known that Ashkenazim Jews do autosomally cluster very close to Greeks, therefore this might be seen as a corroboration of the clade having formed in the Greek peninsula, namely around 100 BCE. This is also implied by the "Genetic analysis of male Hungarian Conquerors: European and Asian paternal lineages of the conquering Hungarian tribes" paper you shared above. Another corroboration is that no Slavs seem to be under it, only non-Slavic populations.

As for I-Y3120*, indeed no samples except that Polish one. Regarding eastern European I-CTS10228+, are you referring to Polish samples? Probably you are right about the rest, though do take the time and read Željko's article. He does mention I-S17250 and I-Z17855 as well.
 

This thread has been viewed 1055913 times.

Back
Top