How did I2a-Din get to the Balkans?

How did I2a-Din get to the Balkans?


  • Total voters
    230
There is no reason to think that if I-Y3120 is not found in the British isles then it can not be an indication of the Celtic movement across Europe. I-Y3130 alone indicates of a movement in an Eastern direction therefore you can't looking for it in Western Europe. However a quick check in the various projects I can see an Irishman I-CTS10228 positive. This guy most probably didn't test a single snp but SNP panel or Big-Y therefore he is probably negative to all branches downstream of I-CTS10228. The presence of I-CTS10228 alone in the British isles indicates spread of this haplogroup with the continental Celts because it's far more diverse on the continent, particularly the area of Baden-Wurtemberg which was at the hearth of the La-Tene culture. Plus in the Armenian project I can see some that are predicted I-CTS10228. It will be interesting to test these and if they turned to be basal CTS10228 or Y3120 then it might indicates a Celtic involvement, particularly because they were present in Anatolia.
As for I-Y18331, the very presence of a Jewish branch indicates that this branch was born in the Roman Empire. I have read that the conversion of Greco-Romans to Jews was particularly strong in Hellenistic and Roman times up to the Jewish-Roman wars between 66 and 135 CE when it stoped completely. The very TMRCA of the Jewish branch indicates no later conversion but before the Jewish-Roman wars. Whoever were the people who brought this mutation in the Roman Empire is a different question but as a whole I-CTS10228 and even I-Y3120 are a direct legacy of the La Tene Celtic movement across Europe and judging by its diversity in the Celtic La Tene heartland I would say a direct Celtic genetic legacy.
 
Demetrios

It's not a matter of having brought more haplotypes and trying to identify them. I-Y3120 was one that increased considerably in frequency through a founder-effect phenomenon. Now, trying to identify haplogroups that might not have had the same luck is irrelevant to me. We already know there have been historical movements of Celts and Bastarnae both towards eastern Europe and the southern Balkans. It's not something we are trying to prove through haplogroups.

Yes, and the Goths also passed through Poland, Ukraine and the Balkans. It is possible that I1 which Croats etc have is from them. And that's it, but I-Y3120 mutations have nothing to do with Celts. Whether some branch came with Bastarnae what does that have to do with I-Y3120 mutation?

I didn't write that I-Y3120 is from France/Germany. I have written already that i consider it to have formed in southern Poland, based on the available data that i can evaluate.

I know that too, but what this mutation have to do with the Celts? One son cannot be a Celt, second Slav, and third German, and they all live in the same house.

The main question is who is the most likely population that could have expanded I-Y3120 to eastern Europe and at the same time have carried it all the way to Greece, during approximately the 3rd-2nd centuries BCE?

I-Y18331 is mutation on experimental tree, and we will know the final age of that mutation when all mutations be found in that branch. Then we will also know the direction of movement, however and for that we will need archaeogenetics as a confirmation. We must not take data from YFull as final, it will be for 5-10 years. For now we know that this mutation was formed 2100 ybp and probably leaving southern Poland at that time. However, other mutations occur at this time I-Z17855, I-Y4460, I-S17250, we do not know if there are also and R1a mutations(Z280). And if someone goes from that area they probably carry and these mutations as well.

wiki
Batty argues that Greco-Roman sources of the 1st century AD locate the Bastarnae homeland on the northern side of the Northern Carpathian mountain range, encompassing south-east Poland and south-west Ukraine (i.e. the region traditionally known as Galicia)

Let’s say this is true, it is 1st century AD , but then mutation I-Y18331 exist in this area she didn't leave, however, Croats do not have this mutation and they come from the same area. The fact that Croats do not have this mutation means that this mutation does not exist 1st century AD there, and therefore neither Bastarnae could live there if mutation I-Y18331 is characteristic of Bastarnaes.

Mutation I-Y18331 probably comes from the direction of Ukraine to Greece and possibly through the Greek colonies by the Black Sea.

I still believe Celts and Bastarnae are the most probable original carriers, that were eventually assimilated by the people they travelled to.

If the migration goes from one point then all the haplotypes go together, and R1b Celtic branches and brother I-S17250 branches. A single mutation cannot be a characteristic of one tribe especially a Celtic one.


This mutation could come with anyone to Greece and the Balkans, yes, and that anyone was probably either the Celts or the Bastarnae, judging from the relevant dates, the current distribution of the samples, and the actual recorded history.

There is no evidence for this, neither archaeological, historical records, nor does genetics prove it.

How do you find it difficult then that it could have been picked up or assimilated by proto-Slavs or White Croats?

I explained above.


Bastarnae carrying I-Y3120 or I-Y18331 could have settled in Greek Macedonia after the Dardanian-Bastarnae War of 179-175 BCE, and a member of that family belonging to the second or third generation could have chosen to move back to his forefather's homeland (between the Carpathian Mountains and the river Dnieper chiefly) alone, while the rest remained in Greece. It seems very reasonable to me.

You will know this when the YFull tree finally identify all mutations in this branch, and when some archaeogenetic data come. For now we have no genetic evidence of such migrations(up and down) that is, I have not seen it yet.
 
Last edited:
There is no reason to think that if I-Y3120 is not found in the British isles then it can not be an indication of the Celtic movement across Europe. I-Y3130 alone indicates of a movement in an Eastern direction therefore you can't looking for it in Western Europe. However a quick check in the various projects I can see an Irishman I-CTS10228 positive. This guy most probably didn't test a single snp but SNP panel or Big-Y therefore he is probably negative to all branches downstream of I-CTS10228. The presence of I-CTS10228 alone in the British isles indicates spread of this haplogroup with the continental Celts because it's far more diverse on the continent, particularly the area of Baden-Wurtemberg which was at the hearth of the La-Tene culture. Plus in the Armenian project I can see some that are predicted I-CTS10228. It will be interesting to test these and if they turned to be basal CTS10228 or Y3120 then it might indicates a Celtic involvement, particularly because they were present in Anatolia.
As for I-Y18331, the very presence of a Jewish branch indicates that this branch was born in the Roman Empire. I have read that the conversion of Greco-Romans to Jews was particularly strong in Hellenistic and Roman times up to the Jewish-Roman wars between 66 and 135 CE when it stoped completely. The very TMRCA of the Jewish branch indicates no later conversion but before the Jewish-Roman wars. Whoever were the people who brought this mutation in the Roman Empire is a different question but as a whole I-CTS10228 and even I-Y3120 are a direct legacy of the La Tene Celtic movement across Europe and judging by its diversity in the Celtic La Tene heartland I would say a direct Celtic genetic legacy.
I totally agree with what you write. The I-CTS10228 Irishman you mention is something i was unfamiliar with but pleasantly come to learn. The Armenian samples are also interesting. Can't wait to learn more of them.

Also, your Jewish analysis in relation to the clade is on point. I did mention my related hypothesis in post
#1516. I believe this scenario makes sense for I-A10959 and it would explain the inclusion of all its diverse (ostensibly) members.
 
Yes, and the Goths also passed through Poland, Ukraine and the Balkans. It is possible that I1 which Croats etc have is from them. And that's it, but I-Y3120 mutations have nothing to do with Celts. Whether some branch came with Bastarnae what does that have to do with I-Y3120 mutation?

I know that too, but what this mutation have to do with the Celts? One son cannot be a Celt, second Slav, and third German, and they all live in the same house.

I-Y18331 is mutation on experimental tree, we will know the final age of that mutation when all mutations be found in that branch. Then we will also know the direction of movement, however and for that we will need archaeogenetics as a confirmation. We must not take data from YFull as final, it will be for 5-10 years. For now we know that this mutation was formed 2100 ybp and probably leaving southern Poland at that time. However, other mutations occur at this time I-Z17855, I-Y4460, I-S17250, we do not know if there are also and R1a mutations(Z280). And if someone goes from that area they probably carry and these mutations as well.

wiki

Let’s say this is true, it is 1st century AD , but then mutation I-Y18331 exist in this area she didn't leave, however, Croats do not have this mutation and they come from the same area. The fact that Croats do not have this mutation means that this mutation does not exist 1st century AD there, and therefore neither Bastarnae could live there if mutation I-Y18331 is characteristic of Bastarnaes.

Mutation I-Y18331 probably comes from the direction of Ukraine and possibly through the Greek colonies by the Black Sea.

If the migration goes from one point then all the haplotypes go together, and R1b Celtic branches and brother I-S17250 branches. A single mutation cannot be a characteristic of one tribe especially a Celtic one.

There is no evidence for this, neither archaeological, historical records, nor does genetics prove it.

I explained above.

You will know this when the YFull tree finally identify all mutations in this branch, and when some archaeogenetic data come. For now we have no genetic evidence of such migrations(up and down) that is, I have not seen it yet.
Let me ask you something. Are you aware of any Celtic community that has survived in either central or eastern Europe? No. Then how can you be treating only people from the British Isles as descendants of Celts. Obviously many Celts were assimilated in the 1st millennium CE.

You also bring the argument of Celt/Slav/German/etc.. I write again that i never wrote anything like that. I wrote of a Celtic/Bastarnae origin for the clade that was eventually assimilated. And therefore the original clade was Celtic/Bastarnae, while future generations gradually became assimilated by Slavic, Germanic, and other speakers. You don't have a Celtic son, a Slavic son, and a Germanic son all in the same household as you write. You have a Celtic/Bastarnae origin of the clade that was eventually assimilated by other people and today identify with their new identities.

I and others, don't associate only I-Y18331 with Celts/Bastarnae, but all I-Y3120 subclades. Furthermore, Bastarnae could have carried basal I-Y3120 to the southern Balkans and Greece, where it could have formed, not necessarily I-Y18331 and individual subclades of it. Hence why it is largely absent from eastern Europe (aside of the downstream Ashkenazim Jews). To me this makes more sense because if they brought I-Y18331, it would mean that it had already formed in eastern Europe, and you would need to have much more variance of I-Y18331 clades there, but you don't. This is exactly one of the reasons I-Y18331 seems to have formed in Greece, and in order for this to have happened, someone must have brought I-Y3120 with them, not I-Y18331.

If it came from Greek colonies of the Black Sea as you suggest, then it means it was already formed in Ukraine, along with its major subclades. If that was the case, you would expect to see a bigger variance of I-Y18331 in Ukraine, but you don't.

Please, forget R1b branches and review I-Y3120 alone. Just because I-Y3120 branches are today very frequent in eastern Europe through a founder-effect phenomenon, that doesn't require R1b branches related to the Celts to also be frequent.

There is no recorded history of Bastarnae being invited by Philip V of Macedon, with the plan to eventually settle them in the region as a counterweight against Roman expansion and Dardanians? Ofcourse there is. Or you question the validity of Bastarnae presence in eastern Europe? Bastarnae stayed for 4 years south of the Danube, and some could have easily settled in Macedon, which was the one that invited them after all and was their ally. And genetics do seem to favor it as well through the current distribution, since it's one of the few possible links between the proto-Slavic homeland (from where the three other main subclades of I-Y3120 expanded) and the southern Balkans (where I-Y18331 seems to have formed) during the last centuries of the 1st millennium BCE. Bastarnae arrival in the southern Balkans also better compliments the current date of I-Y18331 formation and TMRCA per YFull. It's only 44-48 years apart to be exact.

Last, do pay close attention to what @Aspar mentioned above regarding a I-CTS10228* Irish sample. I myself wasn't aware of this, but it doesn't surprise me, and of course further compliments what i and others have been writing.

In the end, we may agree to disagree mate. But just know i am not being dogmatic about any of these, simply trying to be rational.
 


Let me ask you something. Are you aware of any Celtic community that has survived in either central or eastern Europe? No. Then how can you be treating only people from the British Isles as descendants of Celts. Obviously many Celts were assimilated in the 1st millennium CE.

If they are assimilated then those who assimilated them are not Celts. If you think that they become Bastarnae after assimilation, still they should have part of Celts genetics. Assimilation may have happened but for now it has not happened in the area of the White Croats.

You also bring the argument of Celt/Slav/German/etc.. I write again that i never wrote anything like that. I wrote of a Celtic/Bastarnae origin for the clade that was eventually assimilated. And therefore the original clade was Celtic/Bastarnae, while future generations gradually became assimilated by Slavic, Germanic, and other speakers.

Cannot be assimilated because that mutation does not exist in Celts. If it had been part of the Celts, it would have developed among the Celts and it wouldn't be isolated in the Carpathians.

eupedia

Alternatively, I2-L621 lineages could have lived in relative isolation from the mainstream Proto-Indo-European society somewhere around Ukraine, Poland or Belarus,

. The minority of I2a1b-L621 individuals negative for L147.2 are all found around eastern Poland, Belarus and western Ukraine, suggesting that this is where this lineage survived since the Chalcolithic.

You don't have a Celtic son, a Slavic son, and a Germanic son all in the same household as you write. You have a Celtic/Bastarnae origin of the clade that was eventually assimilated by other people and today identify with their new identities.

I2a has nothing to do with Indo-Europeans, this mutation is in Carpatians when R1b and R1a tribes coming to that area. Celts have their language and customs, the Slavs have their language and customs. People with I-Y3120 mutation and subbranches are mixed and assimilated into the Slavs. We don't know yet when that happened. Whether I-Y3120 people before assimilation into the Slavs were assimilated Celts certainly not because they would have a lot of R1b genetics which Celts have. Same as Croats and other Slavs who have a mixture of R1a and I2a mutations. This is assimilation, in this case into Slavs.


I and others, don't associate only I-Y18331 with Celts/Bastarnae, but all I-Y3120 subclades. Furthermore, Bastarnae could have carried basal I-Y3120 to the southern Balkans and Greece, where it could have formed, not necessarily I-Y18331 and individual subclades of it

For now, there is no genetic evidence which prove that.


To me this makes more sense because if they brought I-Y18331, it would mean that it had already formed in eastern Europe, and you would need to have much more variance of I-Y18331 clades there, but you don't. This is exactly one of the reasons I-Y18331 seems to have formed in Greece, and in order for this to have happened, someone must have brought I-Y3120 with them, not I-Y18331.

I-Y3120 mutation is characteristic of a one person somewhere in southern Poland. One person cannot be in two places at the same time. The same person cannot have three sons in Poland and one in Greece. At least not at that time.

If it came from Greek colonies of the Black Sea as you suggest, then it means it was already formed in Ukraine, along with its major subclades. If that was the case, you would expect to see a bigger variance of I-Y18331 in Ukraine, but you don't.

We don't know that yet( formed in Ukraine), this is my opinion. But diversity in Greece means nothing for now. It can also mean a Greek source, but it can also mean that people with this mutation in Greece explore their genetics better. Archaeogenetic data would be the most accurate, but we do not have them.

Please, forget R1b branches and review I-Y3120 alone. Just because I-Y3120 branches are today very frequent in eastern Europe through a founder-effect phenomenon, that doesn't require R1b branches related to the Celts to also be frequent.

This haplotype is characteristic of the Celts and must be also part of every Celtic tribe.

There is no recorded history of Bastarnae being invited by Philip V of Macedon, with the plan to eventually settle them in the region as a counterweight against Roman expansion and Dardanians? Ofcourse there is. Or you question the validity of Bastarnae presence in eastern Europe? Bastarnae stayed for 4 years south of the Danube, and some could have easily settled in Macedon, which was the one that invited them after all and was their ally.

I respect your opinion, but unfortunately we do not have genetic confirmation for that.

And genetics do seem to favor it as well through the current distribution, since it's one of the few possible links between the proto-Slavic homeland (from where the three other main subclades of I-Y3120 expanded) and the southern Balkans (where I-Y18331 seems to have formed) during the last centuries of the 1st millennium BCE.

It is possible that this mutation separated earlier and arrive to Balkans with someone but it has nothing to do with his fraternal and ancestral mutations. Those mutations are still related to
the Slavs ie White Croats.


Bastarnae arrival in the southern Balkans also better compliments the current date of I-Y18331 formation and TMRCA per YFull. It's only 44-48 years apart to be exact.

Yes, they could have come with them and they couldn’t. In any case I-Y3120(etc) are not Celtic.

Last, do pay close attention to what @Aspar mentioned above regarding a I-CTS10228* Irish sample. I myself wasn't aware of this, but it doesn't surprise me, and of course further compliments what i and others have been writing.

Some mutation in I-CTS10228 branch. If that person has no recent connection with Western Europe it is possible migration to the Britain or Ireland with Celts migration from Germany or that area. In any case it has nothing to do with I-Y3120. Otherwise between I-CTS10228 and I-Y3120 is two thousand years. So there could be a more mutations between them. YFull is experimental tree, it is not the final state.

In the end, we may agree to disagree mate. But just know i am not being dogmatic about any of these, simply trying to be rational.

That's why we are on the forum to say something. Surely one day we will know 100% exactly but unfortunately it will take a long time because things are going slowly.
 
Last edited:
I totally agree with what you write. The I-CTS10228 Irishman you mention is something i was unfamiliar with but pleasantly come to learn. The Armenian samples are also interesting. Can't wait to learn more of them.

Also, your Jewish analysis in relation to the clade is on point. I did mention my related hypothesis in post
#1516. I believe this scenario makes sense for I-A10959 and it would explain the inclusion of all its diverse (ostensibly) members.

Yes, he is snp tested and confirmed as I-CTS10228. In the dna project however the administrator predicted him further downstream to S20602/YP196 which is equivalent to Y3120 on YFULL. He is tested on 67 markers so I've used Nevgen to try predict him and the tool gives him as a basal Y3120. You can find him in the I2a project under ID: 310350. It will be interesting if this sample ever do a Big-Y test and uploads at YFULL. There are few others with such specific haplotypes along this Irishman with DYS393=14 in Western and Central Europe that are SNP tested as I-CTS10228.

I did read your post, interesting stuff. As for the sample from North Macedonia, he is a Macedonian with origins from the Western part, an ethnographic region known as "Брсјачки" which many ethnographers and historians connect with Sclavinia Berzitia known from Medieval Byzantine accounts that was supposed to be attacked by the Bulgar ruler Telerig and to transfer it's population to Bulgaria around 774 AD. As for where this 'Berzitia' might have been located it is not quite clear however some connect Berzitia with Sclavinia Belzetia known from account of Theophanes the Confessor that has been located in Thessaly and which archon Akameros made a plot with the local Hellenes from the theme of Hellas against the Byzantine Empress Irene around 799 AD. That Berzitia might actually have been initially located in Thessaly and not in modern North Macedonia could further support the archaeological work of the archaeologist Ivan Mikulcic who doesn't find any Slavic related artifacts on the territory of modern N.Macedonia up to the middle 9th century which coincides with the Bulgar invasion of the region and also by an account in the 'Miracles of Saint Demetrius' about the Bulgars of Kuber and the Sermesianoi who were permitted to settle in the Keramisian(Pelagonian) plain around 682-685 AD by the Byzantines who ordered the closest Sclavinia to them, that of Drougoubitai who lived just north of Thessaloniki, to supply them with food. That last account alone tells us that there were no Berzites in modern western N.Macedonia around the time Kuber and his people settled in Pelagonia because the closest Sclavinia was that of Drougoubitai who lived in modern Greek Macedonia. Therefore Sclavinia Berzitia and the Berzites probably lived initially in Thessaly before moving further north at some point.

So, the Macedonian from N.Macedonia positive to I-Y66192 who happened to be with origins from the heartland of Berzitia in N.Macedonia could be that link to Thessaly and the south of Greece. It's interesting that he is not that close to those guys from Greek Macedonia but is closer to people from Peloponnese. In fact, he is closest to a guy from Sterea Ellada or Central Greece who appears as his only Big-Y match however this Central Greek didn't upload his results with YFULL. The TMRCA with the Peloponnesians is about the time of the Slavic migrations in Greece which probably means that the incorporation of this y-dna line in the tribe of Berzites happened at that time.

Interesting stuff nevertheless...
 
If they are assimilated then those who assimilated them are not Celts. If you think that they become Bastarnae after assimilation, still they should have part of Celts genetics. Assimilation may have happened but for now it has not happened in the area of the White Croats.

Cannot be assimilated because that mutation does not exist in Celts. If it had been part of the Celts, it would have developed among the Celts and it wouldn't be isolated in the Carpathians.

eupedia

I2a has nothing to do with Indo-Europeans, this mutation is in Carpatians when R1b and R1a tribes coming to that area. Celts have their language and customs, the Slavs have their language and customs. People with I-Y3120 mutation and subbranches are mixed and assimilated into the Slavs. We don't know yet when that happened. Whether I-Y3120 people before assimilation into the Slavs were assimilated Celts certainly not because they would have a lot of R1b genetics which Celts have. Same as Croats and other Slavs who have a mixture of R1a and I2a mutations. This is assimilation, in this case into Slavs.

For now, there is no genetic evidence which prove that.

I-Y3120 mutation is characteristic of a one person somewhere in southern Poland. One person cannot be in two places at the same time. The same person cannot have three sons in Poland and one in Greece. At least not at that time.

We don't know that yet( formed in Ukraine), this is my opinion. But diversity in Greece means nothing for now. It can also mean a Greek source, but it can also mean that people with this mutation in Greece explore their genetics better. Archaeogenetic data would be the most accurate, but we do not have them.

This haplotype is characteristic of the Celts and must be also part of every Celtic tribe.

I respect your opinion, but unfortunately we do not have genetic confirmation for that.

It is possible that this mutation separated earlier and arrive to Balkans with someone but it has nothing to do with his fraternal and ancestral mutations. Those mutations are still related to
the Slavs ie White Croats.

Yes, they could have come with them and they couldn’t. In any case I-Y3120(etc) are not Celtic.

Some mutation in I-CTS10228 branch. If that person has no recent connection with Western Europe it is possible migration to the Britain or Ireland with Celts migration from Germany or that area. In any case it has nothing to do with I-Y3120. Otherwise between I-CTS10228 and I-Y3120 is two thousand years. So there could be a more mutations between them. YFull is experimental tree, it is not the final state.

That's why we are on the forum to say something. Surely one day we will know 100% exactly but unfortunately it will take a long time because things are going slowly.
Yes, those who assimilated them are not Celts obviously. But i am not referring to Bastarnae, since they were Celto-Germanic in elements. I am referring to later populations. I have already shared a quote describing the presence of Bastarnae in antiquity (which includes areas of White Croats as well). These Bastarnae (and other Celts proper that weren't mentioned), were either massacred out of existence or assimilated. I believe the second is more likely. Furthermore, you also provided a quote by Batty, stating a similar thing about their presence in southeastern Poland and southwestern Ukraine, the region traditionally known as "Galicia". Bastarnae aside, what does "Galicia" remind you of? Celtic Gauls. And supposedly that is the core region of White Croats if i have understood correctly, because there are a number of maps on the internet. Do read the history of the region in Wikipedia, where it describes Celto-Germanic and Celtic proper presence, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galicia_(Eastern_Europe)#History, "In Roman times, the region was populated by various tribes of Celto-Germanic admixture, including Celtic-based tribes – like the Galice or "Gaulics" and Bolihinii or "Volhynians" – the Lugians and Cotini of Celtic, Vandals and Goths of Germanic origins (the Przeworsk and Púchov cultures). During the Great Migration period of Europe (coinciding with the fall of the Roman Empire), a variety of nomadic groups invaded the area, but overall, the East Slavic tribes White Croats and Tivertsi dominated the area since the 6th century until were annexed to Kievan Rus' in the 10th century.". Bastarnae aren't mentioned though. I believe it is evident that the region had a Celtic presence.

You also mention again the genetics of the assimilated, presumambly referring to Celtic clades of R1b. Again, you shouldn't be absolute in this and instead focus on just I-Y3120 independently. Nonetheless, these maps showing clades such as R-S28 and R-L21 that relate to the Celts, do show the former expanded in eastern Europe, Galatia (Turkey), and elsewhere, while the latter being seemingly absent. And take note that both have similar formation dates at 500 BCE.

Haplogroup-R1b-S28.gif

Haplogroup-R1b-L21.png


Of course it could be just a mutation present in eastern Celts (who don't exist any more as an ethnic group), it doesn't require it to have been part of western Celts in order to have been Celtic. Your mistake is that you only treat as Celtic the populations of the British Isles, while it is known that most Celts were eventually assimilated and prior to that encompassed vast regions of Europe (east, central and west).

That quote from Eupedia seems outdated, because in YFull there are a number of I-L621 individuals negative for I-L147.2 (CTS10228) in central and western Europe, https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-L621/, seemingly most. Don't know if there are any additional in FTDNA.

I know that I2a is from the Palaeolithic in Europe (it formed there after all), and that I-CTS10228 was also obviously assimilated by Indo-Europeans such as the Celts. As for R1b haplogroups, again consider the founder-effect phenomenon of I-Y3120, as well as R-S28 (present) and R-L21 (absent or very minuscule) mentioned above.

There is no genetic evidence for Bastarnae bringing I-Y3120 or I-Y18331 since we lack ancient relative samples, yes, but it is suggestive and it is the scenario that makes the most sense, along with Celts proper if we account for an earlier TMRCA.

I-Y3120 is characteristic of one ancestor from the 3rd-2nd centuries BCE somewhere in southern Poland, yes, it seems so. But he could have descendants in Poland and Greece at the same time if we are to consider the Celtic proper origin of I-Y18331 in Greece and a TMRCA of the 3rd century BCE (like it used to be some years ago in YFull). He could also have descendants in the Carpathian region and the southern Balkans or Greece if we are to consider the Bastarnae origin of I-Y18331 in Greece and a TMRCA of the 2nd century BCE (like it is currently in YFull). Both of those two centuries which are associated with the TMRCA of I-Y3120 include migrations of Celtic populations to the southern Balkans and Greece as well, therefore there is nothing out of place in this scenario.

You write, "but it can also mean that people with this mutation in Greece explore their genetics better.". I highly doubt that mate. I am actually one of the few interested in the matter here in Greece. Even many Greeks who have tested themselves are from the Greek diaspora. This is probably due to lack of interest and knowledge in the matter along with the high prices of the tests, considering the average wage of approximately 650 EUR (judging from experience) per month after the crisis, ironically higher than Ukraine. Furthermore, the Ukrainian DNA project in FTDNA lists 1861 members, while the Greek one 724 members.

Archaeogenetic data would indeed be more ideal and hopefully we will see Bastarnae and eastern Celts being examined sometime soon, i hope.

I-Y3120 could be Celtic, don't be so absolute. It could just be characteristic of eastern Celts as aforementioned, who no longer exist since they have been assimilated.

TMRCA of I-CTS10228 is currently 1357 BCE to be exact. Therefore a little more than a 1000 year difference, not 2000. Other than that, we also have those French and German I-CTS10228 samples that are negative for I-Y3120 and belong to its sister clade, I-Y81696. An Irish I-CTS10228* is really unsurprising, and if he is validated as basal I-Y3120 that would be very exciting news. At the same time, the I-Y3120* Polish sample isn't basal per what @Aspurg writes. This would suggest that even though MRCA could be from the broader region between southern Poland and southwestern Ukraine, formation could be more to the west, closer to where its sister clade I-Y81696 is currently located.

I agree, for the moment these are all hypotheses. In the future we will surely know more and we will be able to draw safer conclusions.
 
Yes, he is snp tested and confirmed as I-CTS10228. In the dna project however the administrator predicted him further downstream to S20602/YP196 which is equivalent to Y3120 on YFULL. He is tested on 67 markers so I've used Nevgen to try predict him and the tool gives him as a basal Y3120. You can find him in the I2a project under ID: 310350. It will be interesting if this sample ever do a Big-Y test and uploads at YFULL. There are few others with such specific haplotypes along this Irishman with DYS393=14 in Western and Central Europe that are SNP tested as I-CTS10228.

I did read your post, interesting stuff. As for the sample from North Macedonia, he is a Macedonian with origins from the Western part, an ethnographic region known as "Брсјачки" which many ethnographers and historians connect with Sclavinia Berzitia known from Medieval Byzantine accounts that was supposed to be attacked by the Bulgar ruler Telerig and to transfer it's population to Bulgaria around 774 AD. As for where this 'Berzitia' might have been located it is not quite clear however some connect Berzitia with Sclavinia Belzetia known from account of Theophanes the Confessor that has been located in Thessaly and which archon Akameros made a plot with the local Hellenes from the theme of Hellas against the Byzantine Empress Irene around 799 AD. That Berzitia might actually have been initially located in Thessaly and not in modern North Macedonia could further support the archaeological work of the archaeologist Ivan Mikulcic who doesn't find any Slavic related artifacts on the territory of modern N.Macedonia up to the middle 9th century which coincides with the Bulgar invasion of the region and also by an account in the 'Miracles of Saint Demetrius' about the Bulgars of Kuber and the Sermesianoi who were permitted to settle in the Keramisian(Pelagonian) plain around 682-685 AD by the Byzantines who ordered the closest Sclavinia to them, that of Drougoubitai who lived just north of Thessaloniki, to supply them with food. That last account alone tells us that there were no Berzites in modern western N.Macedonia around the time Kuber and his people settled in Pelagonia because the closest Sclavinia was that of Drougoubitai who lived in modern Greek Macedonia. Therefore Sclavinia Berzitia and the Berzites probably lived initially in Thessaly before moving further north at some point.

So, the Macedonian from N.Macedonia positive to I-Y66192 who happened to be with origins from the heartland of Berzitia in N.Macedonia could be that link to Thessaly and the south of Greece. It's interesting that he is not that close to those guys from Greek Macedonia but is closer to people from Peloponnese. In fact, he is closest to a guy from Sterea Ellada or Central Greece who appears as his only Big-Y match however this Central Greek didn't upload his results with YFULL. The TMRCA with the Peloponnesians is about the time of the Slavic migrations in Greece which probably means that the incorporation of this y-dna line in the tribe of Berzites happened at that time.

Interesting stuff nevertheless...
It would be extremely interesting if that Irishman turns out basal I-Y3120 after all. The Armenian aforementioned samples are a little confusing, although they can be associated with the Celts of Galatia in central Turkey. Then again, they could likely belong to downstream clades and be of Slavic or even Greek origin, judging from some I-CTS10228 samples in the "Pontic & Anatolian Greeks DNA" project.

As for the other stuff, very interesting as well. What you describe also makes sense. I was a little confused with that North Macedonian sample because in YFull it states he is from Plasnica, which has a predominantly (97.8% per census of 2002) Turkish population. I was unaware of the historical information you shared, so thanks.
 
It would be extremely interesting if that Irishman turns out basal I-Y3120 after all. The Armenian aforementioned samples are a little confusing, although they can be associated with the Celts of Galatia in central Turkey. Then again, they could likely belong to downstream clades and be of Slavic or even Greek origin, judging from some I-CTS10228 samples in the "Pontic & Anatolian Greeks DNA" project.

As for the other stuff, very interesting as well. What you describe also makes sense. I was a little confused with that North Macedonian sample because in YFull it states he is from Plasnica, which has a predominantly (97.8% per census of 2002) Turkish population. I was unaware of the historical information you shared, so thanks.

Yes it would be, especially because all the patterns speak of a spread from west to east not the other way around therefore some crucial new samples that will bring light upon I-Y3120 might start appearing in the west. The history of I-Y3120 should really be understood much better than it is now especially because it's such an important subclade for the Balkans as we see that played a part in the history of the Balkans since the Hellenistic times as witnessed by it's predominantly Greek branch.

That village is actually a 'Torbesh', it's how the local Christian people calls the Muslms who speak the same dialect. So these people are not really Turks however there is a tendency among them to call themselves Turks although most of them don't know any Turkish but speak the local Macedonian-Bulgarian dialect. This village up to the beginning of 20th century was a mixed Christian/Muslim village with predominantly Muslim population while today there are no Christian families left in the village and it's mostly Muslim. Our testee is a Macedonian Christian and his family was one of the last Christian families in the village as told by him. He doesn't know of any family story of arrival from somewhere else plus the village of Plasnitsa is first mentioned in an Ottoman defter of 1467/68 so they are probably very old in the region. We still need lot more results however his results give a link to the hypothesis I've already explained about Bersites and their arrival from Thessaly although different scenarios might well have taken place and his lineage might have been assimilated by the Slavs on the territory of North Macedonia. However this scenario is a little doubtful because as I already explained no archaeological finds of early Slavs up till the 9th century on the territory of North Macedonia are found to date. Most artifacts up to the middle of the 9th century speak for presence of local non-Slavic populations on the territory of North Macedonia as well as finds that speak for presence of nomadic populations that the archaeologist Mikulcic connects with the Bulgars of Kuber.
 


Bastarnae aside, what does "Galicia" remind you of? Celtic Gauls. And supposedly that is the core region of White Croats if i have understood correctly, because there are a number of maps on the internet. Do read the history of the region in Wikipedia, where it describes Celto-Germanic and Celtic proper presence,

You go too wide. For now, we barely know that mutation I-S17250 is from south Poland. It is connected to Croatian ancestors. And who earlier passed there, stayed, etc is even harder to guess. Celts have influence and in that area, they also had an influence on the territory of today's Slovenia and Croatia. But very little is seen in Croatian genetics.

Bastarnae aren't mentioned though. I believe it is evident that the region had a Celtic presence.

For now Croats don't have much Celts genetic, do they have any Germanic haplotypes possible, but and this haplotypes and branches are in small percentages.

Your mistake is that you only treat as Celtic the populations of the British Isles, while it is known that most Celts were eventually assimilated and prior to that encompassed vast regions of Europe (east, central and west).

Celts are Indo-Europeans, I2a people are not Indo-Europeans. Was there any interference between these groups, possible. But you are going too far into the past. Let's say that Celts go to Britain, part of the Celts remain and they mix with I2a peoples. Again, this interference must be seen in genetics, unfortunately it can not be seen.

eupedia

Alternatively, I2-L621 lineages could have lived in relative isolation from the mainstream Proto-Indo-European society somewhere around Ukraine, Poland or Belarus, then as the centuries and millennia passed, would have blended with the predominantly R1a populations around them.

If they are assimilated by the Celts, then Celtic European R1b genetics was also isolated together with I2-L621 lineages. And R1b genetics also must be developed after Slavic assimilations. But as we know this is not the case. Croats have 6-7% of R1b, part is probably of Balkan origin and part of Western European origin. However, I don't know percentage of R1b which would come to Balkans with the White Croats. Let it be 1-2%. in Croatians. It's actually nothing, and since they (White Croats) are close to the Germanic tribes it is probably from them.

However, it is possible that Croats do not have any R1b which coming with them from White Croatia.


That quote from Eupedia seems outdated, because in YFull there are a number of I-L621 individuals negative for I-L147.2 (CTS10228) in central and western Europe, https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-L621/, seemingly most. Don't know if there are any additional in FTDNA.

This means that older mutations have a source in central and western Europe and probable from there someone coming to south Poland (5,000 ybp)


I know that I2a is from the Palaeolithic in Europe (it formed there after all), and that I-CTS10228 was also obviously assimilated by Indo-Europeans such as the Celts. As for R1b haplogroups, again consider the founder-effect phenomenon of I-Y3120, as well as R-S28 (present) and R-L21 (absent or very minuscule) mentioned above.

You go too far into the past, if there is assimilation then it must be seen in genetics. Assimilation or mixing with the Celts is not seen. If you see it, show me genetic data which prove this. Then I'll answer you.

There is no genetic evidence for Bastarnae bringing I-Y3120 or I-Y18331 since we lack ancient relative samples, yes, but it is suggestive and it is the scenario that makes the most sense, along with Celts proper if we account for an earlier TMRCA.

Unfortunately I-Y3120 or I-Y18331 has nothing to do with Celts , nor does current genetics prove this. Regarding Bastarnaes, whether they bring I-Y18331 or not to Balkans future will tell. What we know for now is South Poland as a source, later there exist White Croatia and probably from there begin Slavic migrations to the Balkans.


I-Y3120 is characteristic of one ancestor from the 3rd-2nd centuries BCE somewhere in southern Poland, yes, it seems so. But he could have descendants in Poland and Greece at the same time if we are to consider the Celtic proper origin of I-Y18331 in Greece and a TMRCA of the 3rd century BCE (like it used to be some years ago in YFull). He could also have descendants in the Carpathian region and the southern Balkans or Greece if we are to consider the Bastarnae origin of I-Y18331 in Greece and a TMRCA of the 2nd century BCE (like it is currently in YFull). Both of those two centuries which are associated with the TMRCA of I-Y3120 include migrations of Celtic populations to the southern Balkans and Greece as well, therefore there is nothing out of place in this scenario.

Do you understand that Celts have their own genetics and it is R1b. I-Y18331 mutation went somewhere, and where we don't know yet. We will know this (based on living genetics) in a couple of years. Migrations up and down make no sense.

You write, "but it can also mean that people with this mutation in Greece explore their genetics better.". I highly doubt that mate. I am actually one of the few interested in the matter here in Greece. Even many Greeks who have tested themselves are from the Greek diaspora. This is probably due to lack of interest and knowledge in the matter along with the high prices of the tests, considering the average wage of approximately 650 EUR (judging from experience) per month after the crisis, ironically higher than Ukraine. Furthermore, the Ukrainian DNA project in FTDNA lists 1861 members, while the Greek one 724 members.

Return of someone from Greece to Belarus? Therefore in the future it will be shown that Ukraine is a probable source of this mutation.


Archaeogenetic data would indeed be more ideal and hopefully we will see Bastarnae and eastern Celts being examined sometime soon, i hope.

We will see.
 
Target: Croatian
Distance: 0.8581% / 0.00858078 | ADC: 0.25x

63.4 Slavic
16.8 Balkan
10.2 Germanic
9.6 Greco-Roman

This model is mostly accurate for Croats but the Greco-Roman is ruining it for me.
IMO for Croats I think it is this way:
65%-70% Slavic
5%-10% Germanic and other northern European group
25%-30% Balkanic

I2a-Din obviously came with Slavs let it go.
 
Target: Croatian
Distance: 0.8581% / 0.00858078 | ADC: 0.25x

63.4 Slavic
16.8 Balkan
10.2 Germanic
9.6 Greco-Roman

This model is mostly accurate for Croats but the Greco-Roman is ruining it for me.
IMO for Croats I think it is this way:
65%-70% Slavic
5%-10% Germanic and other northern European group
25%-30% Balkanic

I2a-Din obviously came with Slavs let it go.

Using Croats to argue that every major Dinaric branch came from Slavs is not accurate, given current evidence. There are zero Croats and very few Slavs in Y18331. If this branch came with Slavs it should have many more Slavs in it today, like the other major Dinaric sub-branches. The MRCA estimates of major Y18331 sub-branches predate Slavic migrations to the Balkans. I agree that we need more evidence, like ancient or old samples of Y18331, to form better theories of origin. There are too many questions and contradictory evidence now to definitively ascribe Y18331’s origin in Greece and the Balkans to medieval Slavs.
 
You go too wide. For now, we barely know that mutation I-S17250 is from south Poland. It is connected to Croatian ancestors. And who earlier passed there, stayed, etc is even harder to guess. Celts have influence and in that area, they also had an influence on the territory of today's Slovenia and Croatia. But very little is seen in Croatian genetics.

For now Croats don't have much Celts genetic, do they have any Germanic haplotypes possible, but and this haplotypes and branches are in small percentages.

Celts are Indo-Europeans, I2a people are not Indo-Europeans. Was there any interference between these groups, possible. But you are going too far into the past. Let's say that Celts go to Britain, part of the Celts remain and they mix with I2a peoples. Again, this interference must be seen in genetics, unfortunately it can not be seen.

eupedia

If they are assimilated by the Celts, then Celtic European R1b genetics was also isolated together with I2-L621 lineages. And R1b genetics also must be developed after Slavic assimilations. But as we know this is not the case. Croats have 6-7% of R1b, part is probably of Balkan origin and part of Western European origin. However, I don't know percentage of R1b which would come to Balkans with the White Croats. Let it be 1-2%. in Croatians. It's actually nothing, and since they (White Croats) are close to the Germanic tribes it is probably from them.

However, it is possible that Croats do not have any R1b which coming with them from White Croatia.

This means that older mutations have a source in central and western Europe and probable from there someone coming to south Poland (5,000 ybp)

You go too far into the past, if there is assimilation then it must be seen in genetics. Assimilation or mixing with the Celts is not seen. If you see it, show me genetic data which prove this. Then I'll answer you.

Unfortunately I-Y3120 or I-Y18331 has nothing to do with Celts , nor does current genetics prove this. Regarding Bastarnaes, whether they bring I-Y18331 or not to Balkans future will tell. What we know for now is South Poland as a source, later there exist White Croatia and probably from there begin Slavic migrations to the Balkans.

Do you understand that Celts have their own genetics and it is R1b. I-Y18331 mutation went somewhere, and where we don't know yet. We will know this (based on living genetics) in a couple of years. Migrations up and down make no sense.

Return of someone from Greece to Belarus? Therefore in the future it will be shown that Ukraine is a probable source of this mutation.

We will see.
It is a mistake to be trying and merge the R1b and I2a cases in relation to Celts. Despite that, i did show you that R-S28 is present in Eastern Europe, the Balkans, and Turkey (Galatia). This alone corroborates what i have been writing. But again, this doesn't account for the founder effect phenomenon and the growth one haplogroup might have had over others. Let me give you an example described in the Eupedia article of mtDNA X, "The only anomaly is the extremely low percentage of X in Sardinia (0.4%), which has a lot of G2a and harbours the modern population genetically closest to the Neolithic European farmers. This could have been caused by a founder effect in the small group of Neolithic farmers who settled in Sardinia, who by pure chance would have lacked mtDNA X. The 0.4% today could simply be the result of later migrations.". Take note that mtDNA X is largely seen as a Neolithic line, although some little could have also been expanded with the Indo-Europeans, but you understand what i am trying to say with the quote above, in regards to the founder effect.

You write, "This means that older mutations have a source in central and western Europe and probable from there someone coming to south Poland (5,000 ybp)".
I believe the TMRCA of I-CTS10228 is more telling in terms of when I-Y3120 might have formed/expanded to eastern Europe because as aforementioned its sister clade I-Y81696 has basal samples from the region of northeastern France and southwestern Germany. Their current TMRCA per YFull is 1357 BCE, which coincides with the formation of the Lusatian culture (beginning at approximately 1300 BCE), located in most of modern Poland and parts of the Czech Republic, Slovakia, eastern Germany and western Ukraine. The Lusatian culture developed as a result of incoming influences from central Europe (Tumulus culture and Urnfield tradition) upon the Trzciniec culture, as well as its contemporary Hallstatt culture. Both of these influencing cultures are associated with Italo-Celts and proto-Celts respectively.

I write again, that I-Y3120 or I-Y18331 might not have been proven as Celtic or Bastarnae yet, but its surely suggested by the available evidence. And no, we don't know for sure that southern Poland was the source of it, as aforementioned it is suggestive, just like what i aforementioned above in relation to the Tumulus culture. These are still suggestions due to the lack of acnient relative samples as you have yourself confirmed in a prior comment.

You write, "Do you understand that Celts have their own genetics and it is R1b. I-Y18331 mutation went somewhere, and where we don't know yet. We will know this (based on living genetics) in a couple of years. Migrations up and down make no sense.".
I am not going to repeat myself with the R1b, please re-read what i wrote above. We know where I-Y18331 has the greatest variance, and this is Greece (southwestern Greece to be exact). Also, the aforementioned migrations happened, they are historically recorded; why don't they make sense? It's not like i am making them up. Go read Polybius, Pausanias, and other ancient authors.

You also write, "Return of someone from Greece to Belarus? Therefore in the future it will be shown that Ukraine is a probable source of this mutation.".
Those Belarusian and eastern European samples under I-Y23115 are not Slavic, not one of them, they are all Ashkenazim Jews and they belong to downstream clades. Also, their TMRCA is 900 CE. Furthermore, Ashkenazim Jews cluster autosomally with populations such as southern Italians and Greek islanders, which further shows that there was a south-to-north migration, not the opposite.
 
Yes it would be, especially because all the patterns speak of a spread from west to east not the other way around therefore some crucial new samples that will bring light upon I-Y3120 might start appearing in the west. The history of I-Y3120 should really be understood much better than it is now especially because it's such an important subclade for the Balkans as we see that played a part in the history of the Balkans since the Hellenistic times as witnessed by it's predominantly Greek branch.

That village is actually a 'Torbesh', it's how the local Christian people calls the Muslms who speak the same dialect. So these people are not really Turks however there is a tendency among them to call themselves Turks although most of them don't know any Turkish but speak the local Macedonian-Bulgarian dialect. This village up to the beginning of 20th century was a mixed Christian/Muslim village with predominantly Muslim population while today there are no Christian families left in the village and it's mostly Muslim. Our testee is a Macedonian Christian and his family was one of the last Christian families in the village as told by him. He doesn't know of any family story of arrival from somewhere else plus the village of Plasnitsa is first mentioned in an Ottoman defter of 1467/68 so they are probably very old in the region. We still need lot more results however his results give a link to the hypothesis I've already explained about Bersites and their arrival from Thessaly although different scenarios might well have taken place and his lineage might have been assimilated by the Slavs on the territory of North Macedonia. However this scenario is a little doubtful because as I already explained no archaeological finds of early Slavs up till the 9th century on the territory of North Macedonia are found to date. Most artifacts up to the middle of the 9th century speak for presence of local non-Slavic populations on the territory of North Macedonia as well as finds that speak for presence of nomadic populations that the archaeologist Mikulcic connects with the Bulgars of Kuber.
Thanks for the clarifications. I know of the Torbesh, bus was unaware of the tendecy towards Turkic identification that you wrote of. Something similar is observed with a minority of the Muslim Pomaks (bulgarophones) and Roma (Gypsies) in Thrace, but most are against that stance. Other than that we also have a Turkish-speaking presence as well there, along the Pomaks and Roma.
 
In terms of its spread as far as Greece, south Albania, Bulgaria, Turkey etc some of that could be from ottoman settlement. They took young kids from various balkan countries and brought them up to fight for them, could be that some i2a and other balkan subclades of the time (e-v13, r1b, j2b l283, r1a, i1) were spread through ottoman. Of course a lot of i2a was spread with Slavic invasion but this could have been another way it spread later on at a smaller rate
 
Last edited:
Using Croats to argue that every major Dinaric branch came from Slavs is not accurate, given current evidence. There are zero Croats and very few Slavs in Y18331. If this branch came with Slavs it should have many more Slavs in it today, like the other major Dinaric sub-branches. The MRCA estimates of major Y18331 sub-branches predate Slavic migrations to the Balkans. I agree that we need more evidence, like ancient or old samples of Y18331, to form better theories of origin. There are too many questions and contradictory evidence now to definitively ascribe Y18331’s origin in Greece and the Balkans to medieval Slavs.
The genetic impact of Venetians, Westerns and Goths all combined in mainland Greece is insignificant to have made a major shift in the northeastern direction. Not to mention that Venetians for example are in fact closer to Mainlanders, genetically, than the Early Slavs are.
Mainland Greeks one averange can be modelled as 67% Myceanean + 33% Early Pagan Slavic (Poles are more northern as they have absorbed Baltic and Germanic admixture). Given the fact that early Slavs were largely R1a+I2a (and many are to this day like Poles, Croats, Bosnians, Ukrainians etc.) it is highly unlikely that I2a-din is not related with Slavs in Greece but I am sceptical about everything, since the Y-DNA does not match the autosomal impact (10-17% R1a).
 
The genetic impact of Venetians, Westerns and Goths all combined in mainland Greece is insignificant to have made a major shift in the northeastern direction. Not to mention that Venetians for example are in fact closer to Mainlanders, genetically, than the Early Slavs are.
Mainland Greeks one averange can be modelled as 67% Myceanean + 33% Early Pagan Slavic (Poles are more northern as they have absorbed Baltic and Germanic admixture). Given the fact that early Slavs were largely R1a+I2a (and many are to this day like Poles, Croats, Bosnians, Ukrainians etc.) it is highly unlikely that I2a-din is not related with Slavs in Greece but I am sceptical about everything, since the Y-DNA does not match the autosomal impact (10-17% R1a).
But he didn't write of I2a-Din in Greece in a general manner, he wrote specifically of I-Y18331. You should also consider the following. We have no records of Celts or Bastarnae settling in Greece, only for their migrations, which suggests that whoever it was that settled (as the evidence suggests), he must have been part of an insignificant population in terms of size (maybe a single family or a few families). In that case, intermingling with the indigenous population would begin from early, in which case the autosomal impact of that community would have been small and autosomal assimilation of them rather quick. It's not like the Slavs who made mass migrations throughout the Balkans for centuries, and this is known from the historical records, but is also evident in both Y-DNA (probably mtDNA as well, although i am unfamiliar with it in this case) and atDNA (autosomal), as well as surviving toponyms.

In the case of the Celts that invaded Greece between 279-277 BCE,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_settlement_of_Southeast_Europe#Invasions_of_Greece, they were driven out and were obviously unwanted and seen as enemies, hence why we only have records of settlements in Thrace and Turkey/Anatolia (Galatia). So, if someone or some settled, they would be part of isolated and unrecorded cases.

As for the case of Bastarnae, who were invited to the Balkans by Philip V of Macedon and stayed below the Danube between 179-175 BCE,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastarnae#Allies_of_Philip_of_Macedon_(179%E2%80%938_BC), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dardanian-Bastarnae_war, we can hypothesize that some would have settled again in small numbers close to their ally (and the one who invited them), either as a small community or even as ambassadors of the Bastarnae in Pella (capital of Macedon). 4 years is not a small period after all. You should also take note that half (approximately 30,000) of the original Bastarnae mass returned back home after the incident in Thrace, and most of them had perished by the end of the Dardanian-Bastarnae War. So, we are talking about a few survivors that could have stayed, not a lot of them.

Early Slavs were largely R1a + I2a, yes, but the I2a that entered Greece via early Slavs seems to have been exclusively I-Z17855, I-Y4460, and I-S17250, which we do have in Greece as well. I-Y18331 though is a totally different case, and it is obviously not related with the Slavic migrations of the medieval era (beginning from the 6th century CE). If as you suggest I-Y18331 had come with the early Slavs, that means, due to their TMRCA, that it would have more than 600 years to grow and diversify within the broader proto-Slavic homeland, just like its relative clades. But, the fact that we only have three Slavic samples (who by the way all share their clades with Greeks), along with the fact that the greatest variance of the branch is observed in Greece, and the current TMRCA of I-Y3120 is 131 BCE, points to an earlier migration than that of the early Slavs. As aforementioned in another comment, very interestingly that TMRCA coincides with the historical arrival of Bastarnae to the south (only 44-48 years difference), therefore i believe they were the most likely proxy of the line.

Then, as @Aspar also pointed out, you also have the case of Jews in the clade, which points to the Hellenistic and early Imperial Roman eras, in terms of Greco-Roman conversion.

Last, you should consider southern Greece in terms of R1a frequency (approximately 10.5%), since this is where the largest variance of I-Y18331 is observed, not northern Greece. Autosomally Peloponnese seems to have 0.2%-14.4% of ultimate Slavic admixture (not accounting for intermixed Slavs that could have also migrated later). Also, i assume that the frequency of I-Y18331 in Greece is probably around half of the total I-CTS10228, which would mean around 4.5% for southern Greece. Therefore, regardless of the autosomal influence (significant or insignificant) from the original settlers (2100 years ago), we can see that this clade is not even very frequent within the broader Greek population (or the southern Greek population). That last point is also one additional reason why autosomal influence of the assumed original settlers might be small.
 
^^^
Even if Slavs were mixed by the time they arrived in Peloponnese (I don't think they were that much mixed) that figure 0.2% to 14% is a joke. (I don't mean to start a war or provoke anyone)
One recent study (done after the paper on Peloponnese) on Crete concludes the percentage of Slavic ancestry in Crete is 17% to 28% using northern Slavs (which I think it's really higher that it should be), I guess we must accept that too or we can accept only what we like.

Ashkenazi Jews clearly have substantial Slavic ancestry though (15%-25%) so that clade in them might have came with Slavs.
 
^^^
Even if Slavs were mixed by the time they arrived in Peloponnese (I don't think they were that much mixed) that figure 0.2% to 14% is a joke. (I don't mean to start a war or provoke anyone)
One recent study (done after the paper on Peloponnese) on Crete concludes the percentage of Slavic ancestry in Crete is 17% to 28% using northern Slavs (which I think it's really higher that it should be), I guess we must accept that too or we can accept only what we like.

Ashkenazi Jews clearly have substantial Slavic ancestry though (15%-25%) so that clade in them might have came with Slavs.
Take note that 0.2% is only observed at south Tsakonia, which is part of its lower average, namely 0.2%-0.9%. The actual average among individuals outside Mani and Tsakonia is 4.4%-14.4%, again for ultimate Slavic admixture, not intermixed cases. The sample size of the paper which includes these numbers is 241, therefore not small. By the way, i am not provoked. Autosomal DNA aside, i believe we should pay closer attention to the small frequency of I-Y18331 in Greece by its own.

Can you cite the other paper, i would like to go over it.

The Ashkenazim Jewish clade, namely I-Y23115, doesn't have any Slavic samples from the best of my knowledge, and even if it did have one i am unfamiliar with, that doesn't suggest that there was a Slavic proxy, rather the opposite (Jewish proxy). Also, the TMRCA of I-Y23115 is 900 CE. Last, frequency of I clades in Ashkenazim Jews is 4%, while they also have 10% R1a, and possibly other clades that could be of Slavic origin, which would explain their Slavic admixture. I am using Eupedia as reference,
https://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml.
 
Take note that 0.2% is only observed at south Tsakonia, which is part of its lower average, namely 0.2%-0.9%. The actual average among individuals outside Mani and Tsakonia is 4.4%-14.4%, again for ultimate Slavic admixture, not intermixed cases. The sample size of the paper which includes these numbers is 241, therefore not small. By the way, i am not provoked. Autosomal DNA aside, i believe we should pay closer attention to the small frequency of I-Y18331 in Greece by its own.

Can you cite the other paper, i would like to go over it.

The Ashkenazim Jewish clade, namely I-Y23115, doesn't have any Slavic samples from the best of my knowledge, and even if it did have one i am unfamiliar with, that doesn't suggest that there was a Slavic proxy, rather the opposite (Jewish proxy). Also, the TMRCA of I-Y23115 is 900 CE. Last, frequency of I clades in Ashkenazim Jews is 4%, while they also have 10% R1a, and possibly other clades that could be of Slavic origin, which would explain their Slavic admixture. I am using Eupedia as reference,
https://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml.

''In Table S5, we list the source populations that provided the strongest evidence of admixture (exponential amplitude and decay more than four standard errors higher than zero). A series of populations from western (CEU), northern (CEU, Estonian), and Eastern (Ukrainian, Russian) Europe produce admixture estimates of approximately 17%–28% dating to the medieval period.''
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ahg.12328

No one knows for sure if that clade is Slavic but if it is not, then the fact that it is in Ashkanazi Jews is probably a coincidence. Sorry I don't believe in mass conversion hypothesis of old Greeks into Judaism that Anthrogenica members are promoting.
 

This thread has been viewed 1073504 times.

Back
Top