How did I2a-Din get to the Balkans?

How did I2a-Din get to the Balkans?


  • Total voters
    229
Just to give some further clues and clarifications, the Albanian word - Floke - was borrowed through Vulgar Latin from Latin floccus, Not Vlachic \Aromanian...

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/flok

GetAttachmentThumbnail


GetAttachmentThumbnail


I repeat, and i challenge you, find me i single Vlach Anthroponym\Patronym\Toponym: Flok-Floka, through all the Byzantine Chronicles, Serbian Chrysobulls and Ottoman Defters !?


The Albanian ones are hundreds !!

GetAttachmentThumbnail


GetAttachmentThumbnail



GetAttachmentThumbnail
 
The Albanian Buzë\Buza\Buzi it's neither Turkish:
Buzi\Μπούζι (το) < τούρκ. buz < ποταμό Νέδα, Max Vasmer, Triph. α.α. 25
or Slavic:
- Μπούζι\Buzi ist auch der heutige Name des alten Νέδα-Flusses, der aus dem Lykaion, genauer Kerausion entspringt und ins Jonische Meer mündet. Vgl. Pape Wb, s. v. Νέδα, R II 529, Philippson, Peloponnes 331 ff. Entweder ebenfalls ein »Holunder(fluß)« slav. *bъzъ oder aus alb. buzε »Mund, Mündung«. Letzteres ist wahrscheinlicher.

- Μπούζι\Buzi is also the current name of the old Νέδα river, which rises from the Lykaion, more precisely Kerausion and flows into the Jonian Sea. Cf. Pape Wb, s. v. Νέδα, R II 529, Philippson, Peloponnes 331 ff. Either also an "elder (river)" slav. * bъzъ or from alb. buzε "mouth, mouth". The latter is more likely.

it is simply Albanian: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/buzë


GetAttachmentThumbnail
 
The Albanian\Arvanite\Arberesh: Varibobi

GetAttachmentThumbnail


The Albanian\Arvanite\Arberesh: Zapandi

GetAttachmentThumbnail



etc etc i can continue all day long!!
 
Demetrios you should be much more careful\meticulous about the comments!! Take a look again at Lisada\Lichada:

GetAttachmentThumbnail
 
@ exercitus

All I see again are 3 posts instead of 1 for the reasons of Impressions.

By impressions only ignorants you earn,
Besides I just can't see what you want to earn? by all these posts?
Posting subjects away from thread, and many times wrong, I can't understand why you doit?
except if you want to convice your shelf, but I wonder what?

for example Varibobi the job , the Slavic word for beans cooker, what Albanian you see here?

and I repeat, with all these you mainly prove that Albanian is not only heavily Aromanian population but today also you introduce Slavic.

Now plz get back to thread,
 
Stop spamming the thread with mulitple posts that don't even pertain to the topic. And to end it here, i say again that flok is also found in Aromanian and it has a Latin origin after all; there is nothing to disqualify that it wasn't loaned directly from Aromanian to Albanian. Furthermore, we actually have plenty of Aromanians having this surname, as aforementioned in Kalabaka, but also in Metsovo, Thessaloniki and other places. Probably most who have that surname in Greece identify as Vlachs/Aromanians. It's not even something that interests me in order to sit and search in medieval censuses, for which i don't even have access to most of them. From a quick search on Google though i was able to find this Vlach Evangelos Flokas who was a famous pastry chef of Thessaloniki, https://www.politismika.gr/2019/12/10/στου-φλόκα-στην-τσιμισκή-η-πιο-γλυκι/, or this other famous Vlach from Metsovo (the centre of Aromanians in Greece) Kyriakos Flokas who lived in the 1600s, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyriakos_Flokas, with his family being among the most powerful in Metsovo. Furthermore i doubt that there are censuses with hundreds of Albanians having the surname Floka, but even among the Albanians that have them, what limits them from being of Aromanian ultimate origin? After all there is a large Aromanian minority in Albania, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aromanians_in_Albania.

As for the toponymes of Μπούζι, Βαρυμπόμπη, and Ζαπάντη that you mention, you obviously refer to the list of Messenian toponyms i shared.
First of all no, Μπούζι/Buzi certainly has a Turkish etymology via "buz" that means cold, and it is a reference to the cold waters of Neda throughout the year.
Second, Βαρυμπόμπη/Varibobi is an actual Arvanite toponyme and if you actually read better, the terminology for "oak" pertained to its other toponym of Αριά/Aria which is actually a type of "oak". The first name was Βαρυμπόμπη/Varibobi, in 1927 the village is renamed to Αριά/Aria, and some 8 months later it is again renamed to Μοναστήρι/Monastiri (meaning monastery). Anyway, there is nothing out of the ordinary for the Arvanitic etymology of Βαρυμπόμπη because it is a settlement located near of the only Arvanite region of Messenia, namely that of the aforementioned Ntredes at the north of the prefecture.
Third, no. I don't know if "Ζαπάντη" is indeed of Turkish etymology and means "shady place" as the article states, but it could very well be of Slavic "zapad" as well meaning "west", https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/zapad. Therefore "Ζαπάντη" would be at the west of a point of reference, maybe the local mountain. By the way, it doesn't exist any more. I already explained the Greek settlement of Λιχάδα/Lichada.

Last, your comments are as unrelated to the topic of this thread similar to if i were to state that the toponymes of Gjirokastër, Sarandë, Vlorë, etc. are of Greek etymology (which they are), and claimed that its modern inhabitants are of Greek origin, despite the fact that you will find Albanians, Greeks, and Aromanians throughout this region. That would be ignorant though, right? Stop spamming the thread.
 
I think its incorrect to make broad generalized statements on people's identity based on haplogroups. The more correct statement would be that I2a-Din is not Proto-Albanian or Illyrian.
It does of course get tricky pinning down a cluster that can define an Albanian identity/ancestor. Though, I2a-Din, R1a and even some other even more less common haplogroups entered between late antiquity and the early medieval and were certainly assimilated to some degree long before these migrations took place.
By the time Arvanites/Albanians were migrating to Greece, some I2a/R1a was already in the region for 500-1000 years. To assume some branches, Slavic or otherwise didn't enter the late proto Albanian phase of ethnogenesis and was somehow all "recent" as if Albanians were solely made up of 3 haplogroups is false.
The Arbereshe already had a number of invader lineages with them when they migrated. I doubt they were "slavs hitching a ride".
I2a/R1a is not well defined/sequenced amongst Albanians. The very few Albanians in I2a-Din currently on Yfull don't have any recent matches with other South Slavs for 1450-1550ybp. Until they get matches forming a cluster with Albanians or other South Slavs, it seems their common ancestors are in the early middle ages.
Most R1a/I2a in both projects are general assignments. Only WGS/SNP testing can distinguish what may he recently assimilated or distantly assimilated.
Also, we may now have one from Diber that could belong to the 'Greek' I-Y3120 cluster. Though its not certain. Even in Kosova, we have a few samples from Prizren that were from Albanian regions of Opoja that were I-Y3120.
I agree. Haplogroups (both Y-DNA and mtDNA) can assist the research for identifying historical populations and understanding their movements. On a personal level though, especially if the TMRCA pertains to many generations back, it isn't really more than genetic trivia, with Y-DNA representing some 2% of your DNA and mtDNA less than 1%. It certainly shouldn't be used for constructing a people's identity. Furthermore, atDNA (autosomal) which represents the sum of all our ancestors is more crucial in my opinion, and it is something that serves ethnic coherency better (not that genetics are exclusive for ethnic identification), especially through the phenomenon of autosomal assimilation or equalization in terms of a broader collective. Imagine that the sum of our ancestors just 10 generations back, which with an average of 30 years per generation is 300 years, we have had 1024 ancestors with a base of 512, all contributing to our autosomal DNA. Now imagine going back 2000 years or approximately 66 generations exponentially. Here is also a graphic for some of the readers to better understand the differences between the three types of ancestral DNA, https://i.ibb.co/sKGWrcY/Overview-DNA-en-DNA.png.

Anyway, back to I-Y18331. I have been contemplating more the hypothesis of @Aspar and it really tends to make the most sense. Initially I-Y18331 would be concentrated in the regions of Macedonia and Thessaly, ultimately brought there by Bastarnae who would have become Hellenized eventually. 7-8 centuries later we have the arrival of Slavs in the region and the establishment of Belzetia in Thessaly. It is attested during the late 7th and 8th century as an autonomous Slavic community under leaders such as Tihomir and Akameros. Belzetia seems to be identical with Berzitia and the early Berzites, who would later also migrate to North Macedonia in a region known as Brsjachka located in the southwestern part of the country (also complimented by the archaeological work of Ivan Mikulcic who doesn't find any Slavic related artifacts on the territory of modern North Macedonia up to the middle 9th century). Here is also a map i was able to find and edit (since it confused the colors between Brsjachka and Middle Vardar) with Brsjachka showing in orange.

Southeast-Europe-Ethnographic-Regions.jpg


Also a second alternative map with Brsjachka being the southwestern division.

%D0%95%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%84%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8_%D0%B2%D0%BE_%D0%A0%D0%B5%D0%BF%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%9C%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B0.jpg


Anyway, back to Belzetia. In 799, Akameros who was archon of the Slavs of Belzetia in eastern Thessaly was prompted by Greek conspirators from the neighboring Theme of Hellas to attempt and release Constantine V's sons from their exile in Athens (to which they had been confined by Empress Irene), and proclaim one of them Emperor. Eventually the rebels were defeated and blinded and we don't have any other historical records of them. But as @Aspar pointed out, around that time we also have a number of Slavic migrations taking place towards Peloponnese; some of them could very likely be either Berzites (as assimilated Greeks from the Theme of Hellas or even outside of it in Thessaly) or even Greeks (maybe some of the aforementioned conspirators) accompanying the Berzites Slavs. Such a migration towards Peloponnese also compliments the modern distribution of Greek I-Y18331 members being located in the southwestern part of the country and mostly in central/western Peloponnese. You see, during the 8th century the situation was as shown in the following map with Byzantines essentially holding the eastern part of the mainland and Slavs migrating and settling in the central or western part of the mainland and in our case of interest, Peloponnese. This can explain why I-Y18331 isn't found in the eastern part of the mainland, since they wouldn't be able to settle in Byzantine-controlled areas.

urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20200219051523036-0245:S0307013119000211:S0307013119000211_fig1.png


Thus, i doubt Arvanites had much to do with its expansion south for many reasons. First of all, no member of I-Y18331 identifies as such or even has memory of such an identity. Second, we haven't found any I-Y18331 in areas with dense Arvanite presence; mostly located in the eastern mainland (Attica, Boeotia, Argolid, Corinthia, etc.) or even smaller traditional Arvanite settlements throughout the country. Third, every surname of the Greek members under I-Y18331 has a Greek etymology. The only exception is the Pella family which by the way were originally slavophones (for whomever wasn't aware), and located south of that Brsjachka region. With that put aside, i do believe we will potentially find some Albanian samples belonging to I-Y18331, especially regions neighboring the aforementioned Brsjachka in North Macedonia. But i don't think it will be many, with most very likely belonging to the other branches of I-Y3120. But as you pointed out, there could be one from Diber (although uncertain for now), which regionally borders Brsjachka. Brsjachka is also where we find the North Macedonian sample of Plasnica, and also as shared in prior posts where we also find the ancient synagogue of Stobi, which might explain the Jewish members of the clade with a TMRCA of 1100 ybp (or 900 CE). In Wikipedia there is also an obscure quote saying that one part of the same tribe also settled in Brest, Belarus, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berziti, but i don't know what to make of it. This can explain the northeastern European distribution of the Jewish subclade? Don't know, just a thought.

Image-Diaspora_synagogues_in_Antiquity.png
 
The estimated 2100 ybp for the MRCA of I-Y18331 is quite likely significantly exaggerated. The YFull estimates rely on formula using calculated average mutation rates. This is generally reliable, but due to the probabilistic nature of the formula, it can be expected that sometimes lower estimates are produced for a branch than for its own subclades. In these cases YFull artificially raises the branch estimates to at least match those of its oldest subclade, likely for the tree to make more sense to users who might not have the time to learn about the formula.


This is what happened in this case. I-Y18331 MRCA is currently calculated as 1818 ybp, but YFull has changed this to 2100 to match the MRCA of its subclade I-A2512. You can read about this if you click "info", to the right of I-Y18331 on the YFull tree. So using the unchanged YFull formula, the age is actually 1818 ybp.


However, even that is likely a consequence high mutation rates in the outlier group I-Y23115. Since the time of the I-Y18331 split, samples in this subcalde have had an average of 19 mutations in comBED regions of the Y chromosome (per YFull formula, 2810 years), while all other I-Y18331 samples have had only 11.2 (1685 years). I-Y23115 samples are clearly outliers, most probably sharing a line of ancestors between the Y18331 and Y23115 levels which happened to have an accelerated mutation rate. You can even notice this on the tree, where 12 SNPs appear to have mutated between 2100 and 1100 ybp on this line, while its brotherly clade Y66192 only had 2 mutations from 2100 to 1300 ybp. Excluding Y23115 from the calculation produces an I-Y18331 MRCA of 1685 ybp, while including them grouped into one line to be averaged out with other clades produces 1699 ybp. So per YFull formula, without interferences, the MRCA should be ~1700-1800 ybp. The only way to increase reliability in this figure is to neutralize the current data skewing effect of I-Y23115, by getting more I-Y18331*, I-A2512* and I-A10959* samples on YFull. This new I-Y18331* sample is a good step towards a more balanced calculation, so the number of mutation it will have will be important.


Of course, a MRCA of 1700-1800 ybp would not change the fact that I-Y18331 is highly diverse in the southern Balkans, and relatively rare among Slavs, so we do not need to immediately equate it with other I-Y3120 lines. But it is difficult to speak of I-Y18331 BCE Balkan migrations with only one single subclade of it (ironically, the one that is not found in the Balkans) showing >1800 ybp estimates.
 
The estimated 2100 ybp for the MRCA of I-Y18331 is quite likely significantly exaggerated. The YFull estimates rely on formula using calculated average mutation rates. This is generally reliable, but due to the probabilistic nature of the formula, it can be expected that sometimes lower estimates are produced for a branch than for its own subclades. In these cases YFull artificially raises the branch estimates to at least match those of its oldest subclade, likely for the tree to make more sense to users who might not have the time to learn about the formula.


This is what happened in this case. I-Y18331 MRCA is currently calculated as 1818 ybp, but YFull has changed this to 2100 to match the MRCA of its subclade I-A2512. You can read about this if you click "info", to the right of I-Y18331 on the YFull tree. So using the unchanged YFull formula, the age is actually 1818 ybp.


However, even that is likely a consequence high mutation rates in the outlier group I-Y23115. Since the time of the I-Y18331 split, samples in this subcalde have had an average of 19 mutations in comBED regions of the Y chromosome (per YFull formula, 2810 years), while all other I-Y18331 samples have had only 11.2 (1685 years). I-Y23115 samples are clearly outliers, most probably sharing a line of ancestors between the Y18331 and Y23115 levels which happened to have an accelerated mutation rate. You can even notice this on the tree, where 12 SNPs appear to have mutated between 2100 and 1100 ybp on this line, while its brotherly clade Y66192 only had 2 mutations from 2100 to 1300 ybp. Excluding Y23115 from the calculation produces an I-Y18331 MRCA of 1685 ybp, while including them grouped into one line to be averaged out with other clades produces 1699 ybp. So per YFull formula, without interferences, the MRCA should be ~1700-1800 ybp. The only way to increase reliability in this figure is to neutralize the current data skewing effect of I-Y23115, by getting more I-Y18331*, I-A2512* and I-A10959* samples on YFull. This new I-Y18331* sample is a good step towards a more balanced calculation, so the number of mutation it will have will be important.


Of course, a MRCA of 1700-1800 ybp would not change the fact that I-Y18331 is highly diverse in the southern Balkans, and relatively rare among Slavs, so we do not need to immediately equate it with other I-Y3120 lines. But it is difficult to speak of I-Y18331 BCE Balkan migrations with only one single subclade of it (ironically, the one that is not found in the Balkans) showing >1800 ybp estimates.
I see you joined yesterday; welcome to the forum. I am aware of the varying TMRCA dates in YFull. You might have read this older post of mine where i touch upon the very same issue of YFull's age estimation but pertaining to a different context, https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/26903-How-did-I2a-Din-get-to-the-Balkans/page62?p=610430&viewfull=1#post610430. Back then I-Y3120 TMRCA had changed from 2300 to 2131 ybp. By the way, i know YFull has the "NOTE: Age estimation has been taken from downstream subclade I-A2512, its age estimation is more (2100 > 1818)" but this is due to its subclade I-A10959 which has an age of 2062 ybp (2100 ybp through YFull's rounding of numbers) while I-A2512 an age of 1984 ybp (2000 ybp through YFull's rounding of numbers), and simply treats I-A2512 through the domino effect of its I-A10959 subclade, although I-A2512 lacks the respective "NOTE".

Furthermore, i believe you got the numbers somewhat mistaken in terms of the average number of mutations because I-Y23115 has had an average of 17.98 and an age of 2656 ybp, while its sister clade I-Y66192 gives 9.75 average mutations and an age of 1468 ybp. Hence the aforementioned age of I-A10959 through (2656+1468)/2=2062 ybp. The 11.2 figure comes if we disregard the 17.98 of I-Y23115, and only count the 9.75 of I-Y66192 along with 12.66 of I-A7134 to give us (9.75+12.66)/2=11.205 and thus an age of (11.205/144.41)+60=1678.11405 (or 1700 through YFull's rounding of numbers) for I-A2512. Maybe you took another path to come to that number, which isn't that different nonetheless.

Anyway, personally i also expect TMRCA to narrow down around the 1800 mark (as it currently stands with I-Y18331), something that we can only know for sure with additional samples; but as you also point out i don't expect this to change the fact that I-Y18331 seems to have initially diversified in the southern Balkans, complimented by the formation date of 2100 ybp (that has to do with I-Y3120's TMRCA of 2101 ybp), the highest variance of subclades being observed there, and the Jews in a general context originating from the South. I believe the migration north would have happened around 900 CE, with the respective Jews being accompanied by a relatively small number of non-Jews as well belonging to other subclades of the branch, which can also explain the few instances of Slavic and Chuvash samples in northeastern Europe.
 
I see you joined yesterday; welcome to the forum. I am aware of the varying TMRCA dates in YFull. You might have read this older post of mine where i touch upon the very same issue of YFull's age estimation but pertaining to a different context. Back then I-Y3120 TMRCA had changed from 2300 to 2131 ybp. By the way, i know YFull has the "NOTE: Age estimation has been taken from downstream subclade I-A2512, its age estimation is more (2100 > 1818)" but this is due to its subclade I-A10959 which has an age of 2062 ybp (2100 ybp through YFull's rounding of numbers) while I-A2512 an age of 1984 ybp (2000 ybp through YFull's rounding of numbers), and simply treats I-A2512 through the domino effect of its I-A10959 subclade, although I-A2512 lacks the respective "NOTE".

Furthermore, i believe you got the numbers somewhat mistaken in terms of the average number of mutations because I-Y23115 has had an average of 17.98 and an age of 2656 ybp, while its sister clade I-Y66192 gives 9.75 average mutations and an age of 1468 ybp. Hence the aforementioned age of I-A10959 through (2656+1468)/2=2062 ybp. The 11.2 figure comes if we disregard the 17.98 of I-Y23115, and only count the 9.75 of I-Y66192 along with 12.66 of I-A7134 to give us (9.75+12.66)/2=11.205 and thus an age of (11.205/144.41)+60=1678.11405 (or 1700 through YFull's rounding of numbers) for I-A2512. Maybe you took another path to come to that number, which isn't that different nonetheless.

Anyway, personally i also expect TMRCA to narrow down around the 1800 mark (as it currently stands with I-Y18331), something that we can only know for sure with additional samples; but as you also point out i don't expect this to change the fact that I-Y18331 seems to have initially diversified in the southern Balkans, complimented by the formation date of 2100 ybp (that has to do with I-Y3120's TMRCA of 2101 ybp), the highest variance of subclades being observed there, and the Jews in a general context originating from the South. I believe the migration north would have happened around 900 CE, with the respective Jews being accompanied by a relatively small number of non-Jews as well belonging to other subclades of the branch, which can also explain the few instances of Slavic and Chuvash samples in northeastern Europe.

Thank you!:beer1:

My calculations were correct. I used "corrected number of mutations" rather than simply mutations, as that is what YFull does. That way, all I-Y23115- samples have a mean of 11.25 (I guess I could have rounded to 11.3 above) mutated SNPs in comBED regions and all I-Y23115 have 19.04. I agree on the currently displayed age of I-Y18331 ultimately coming form A10959 but since it is not mentioned by YFull, I did not get into it.

It makes little difference anyway. My point is that while some of the discussion above mentions even pre-Roman Balkan events, the current MRCA of I-Y18331 using the YFull formula is significantly younger, ~1700-1800 ybp. After the latest sample is included in calculation it may be reinforced. My own expectation is that in the long run it will stabilize around 1700 ybp.

As for the migration and spread, it can be interpreted in several ways. If you are implying a southward migration in the II-V cent. CE, your interpretation is possible, but I would also not discard the idea of most of the Eastern Europeans of this clade simply having remained in the same region since then.
 
I believe the migration north would have happened around 900 CE, with the respective Jews being accompanied by a relatively small number of non-Jews as well belonging to other subclades of the branch, which can also explain the few instances of Slavic and Chuvash samples in northeastern Europe.[/QUOTE]

Can you please provide us historical evidences that might corroborate and validate your proposed scenario: Jewish and non-jewish cluster I-Y23115, route toward eastern Europe, starting from Greece 900 CE (historical context & dynamic of difussion).
Also what about Zielinski's I-Y18331* presumed jewish origin, how can it fit with the I-Y23115 cluster !?
 
I believe the migration north would have happened around 900 CE, with the respective Jews being accompanied by a relatively small number of non-Jews as well belonging to other subclades of the branch, which can also explain the few instances of Slavic and Chuvash samples in northeastern Europe.

Can you please provide us historical evidences that might corroborate and validate your proposed scenario: Jewish and non-jewish cluster I-Y23115, route toward eastern Europe, starting from Greece 900 CE (historical context & dynamic of difussion).
Also what about Zielinski's I-Y18331* presumed jewish origin, how can it fit with the I-Y23115 cluster !?
This 900 migrational date is just a scenario as you pointed out, not a certainty. I did provide a historical context in the prior post where i wrote, "Brsjachka is also where we find the North Macedonian sample of Plasnica, and also as shared in prior posts where we also find the ancient synagogue of Stobi, which might explain the Jewish members of the clade with a TMRCA of 1100 ybp (or 900 CE). In Wikipedia there is also an obscure quote saying that one part of the same tribe also settled in Brest, Belarus, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berziti, but i don't know what to make of it. This can explain the northeastern European distribution of the Jewish subclade? Don't know, just a thought.". The Wikipedia quote from the link above treats Berziti as beginning their migration from northeastern Europe, but the migration of Berziti is hypothesized to have taken place in the 9th century, per the archaeological work of Ivan Mikulcic who doesn't find any Slavic related artifacts on the territory of modern North Macedonia up to the middle 9th century, and it seems to have began from the Thessalian Slavs of Belzetia who are dated between the late 7th and 8th centuries CE. From Wikipedia, "The area of Belzetia, which was also located in Greece and is mentioned as the area ruled by Akameros in c. 799, most likely does not derive from the Belegezites, but rather from the related Slavic tribe of the Berzites." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belegezites). By the way, Brest is first mentioned in records in 1019 CE, which would compliment the 9th century migration of Berziti from Thessaly better than a 7th century migration to Brest and the south Balkans from northeastern Europe.

As for the Jewish context, Brest was also a famous center of Jewish scholarship, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisk_tradition_and_Soloveitchik_dynasty, and in fact in the medieval grand duchy of Lithuania, from the 14th to the 17th centuries, in particular after the union of Poland and Lithuania in 1569, it was the main center of Lithuanian Jews. Although first records of them in the city trace to 1341-1382 CE, i wouldn't exclude their presence in the region some centuries earlier. Something else that could corroborate a migration around 900 CE is also the TMRCA of Y158862 which has the two Slavic samples from Ukraine and Russia, as well as the two Pella samples in Greece, and is 1150 ybp (around 850 CE).

By the way, I-Y23115 is an exclusively Jewish branch. I already informed you of that some days ago. It seems to have some 30 samples below it, although many are still presumed Y23115 (already A10959+). In any case all are Jewish, with the exception i believe of one sample who was Slavic but had some memory of a Jewish past. I am not sure of that last one, i believe it was mentioned in this thread some months ago, maybe i am wrong.

Regarding Zielinski, we still don't know if he has Jewish background or not. He might not for all we know. It's just that Zielinski is a common Jewish surname (just like it is also Slavic) and we also have plenty of Jewish samples under I-Y18331 located in the broader region. If he is Jewish, it would suggest that we might have a new Jewish branch that accompanied I-Y23115 north. I have been trying to reach him through two FTDNA group admins, with the first not having him on record, while the second having him but hasn't replied back after two weeks of contacting him. Next step will be to reach out to Zdenko from the I2a Y-Haplogroup project. I did send him an email a little more than two weeks ago asking him whether Zielinski was indeed from Poland, but i didn't ask whether he had Jewish background or whether he could bring me in contact with him.
 
Thank you!:beer1:

My calculations were correct. I used "corrected number of mutations" rather than simply mutations, as that is what YFull does. That way, all I-Y23115- samples have a mean of 11.25 (I guess I could have rounded to 11.3 above) mutated SNPs in comBED regions and all I-Y23115 have 19.04. I agree on the currently displayed age of I-Y18331 ultimately coming form A10959 but since it is not mentioned by YFull, I did not get into it.

It makes little difference anyway. My point is that while some of the discussion above mentions even pre-Roman Balkan events, the current MRCA of I-Y18331 using the YFull formula is significantly younger, ~1700-1800 ybp. After the latest sample is included in calculation it may be reinforced. My own expectation is that in the long run it will stabilize around 1700 ybp.

As for the migration and spread, it can be interpreted in several ways. If you are implying a southward migration in the II-V cent. CE, your interpretation is possible, but I would also not discard the idea of most of the Eastern Europeans of this clade simply having remained in the same region since then.
You are welcome.

To consider a 2nd-5th century southward migration, i would need to see a much higher frequency of early non-Jewish samples in the north (as well as the TMRCA of I-Y18331 actually narrowing down to the 1700-1800 ybp). Right now such samples lack, but Zielinski could be a start. I still don't know anything about his background. If he has a Jewish background he won't mean much, but if he doesn't and especially if we find another non-Jewish sample sharing private mutations with him (and thus a new branch formed) in conjunction with an early TMRCA it can mean that their clade was always there and that the rest migrated southward. In such a case TMRCA of I-Y18331 will come into play again to try and assign a historical context behind the date. Of course there is always such a possibility, neither do i discard it, but only time will tell. A 3rd century scenario could be complimented via the Gothic invasions, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goths#3rd_century_raids_on_the_Roman_Empire. Then again, if TMRCA is indeed around the 2100 mark, it would compliment Bastarnae. There are many possibilities still in play.

Anyway, I-Y3120 TMRCA (and thus its branches' formation) and the historical context behind each date is also of importance in all of these. Hence why i have considered Celts (based on the 2300 TMRCA) and Bastarnae (based on the 2200-2100 TMRCA). Interestingly enough, the current TMRCA of I-Y3120 currently stands at 2101 ybp, and it would actually be higher if it wasn't for the unusual 1578 figure of I-Z17855. Without it and by considering just the rest of the four who are all above 2089 we would get a TMRCA (and thus formation date of the branches) of (2089+2326+2268+2248)/4=2232.75 or 2233, which would give enough time for some of the subclades to form and remain in the north, but also time to partake in the Bastarnae migration south during 179-168 BCE. The reason i like Bastarnae so much is because they participated in the Slavic ethnogenesis (in northeastern Europe) and we also have records of them migrating to the south Balkans by invitation of Macedon, therefore an ideal proxy of the clade. There are plenty of possibilities to consider but we need more data to come to safe conclusions. It goes without saying that all scenarios are on the table and we shouldn't disregard any of them.
 
Reasonably accurate MRCA estimates would help us to better deduce which population brought Y18331 into Greece/south Balkans.

Based on Y18331’s variance, it looks like the haplogroup has been in Greece for a reasonably long time.

Another study came out showing that south Balkan populations are close to Anatolian/European Neolithic farmer samples. There must have been continuous pre-existing populations into whom newcomers like Y18331 males and others assimilated, if regional Neolithic genes survived so well. Of course we have very few post-Mycenaean, pre-Medieval samples (just Empuries, to my knowledge), but it would be expected that they will also have affinity to the farmers.
69322840-6989-404D-B205-7C96E08455BB.jpg
 
I'm surprised that Paleolithic continuity is getting such a strong hearing so far. I have a strong feeling that an ancestor clade of I2a-Din passed through the Balkans or at least the Carpathian Basin, quite possibly I* or early I2* or I2a* or even IJ. But I2a-Din is waaay down the SNP tree, with none of its cousin clades having their centers of diversity in the Balkans. Looking at Nordtvedt's tree makes it clear how young the clade is. And the "S" cluster, which is more common in the Balkans than the "N" cluster, is even younger than the clade as a whole.

So Paleolithic continuity requires either: (1) The STR dating is unreliable to the point of being junk, and the date is wrong nearly tenfold. Or (2) a massive bottleneck down to clusters N and S by ca. 2500 years ago, followed by an expansion of only N outside of the Balkans, followed by another bottleneck of S, which then expanded in the Classical Age or later (maybe with the Illyrians)? (1) seems very unlikely to me and (2) doesn't seem to fit what we know about the history of the region or the other haplogroups in the region.

What migration pattern does fit the cluster dating? Well, an expansion out of a small subset of an expanding population from the North during the 1st millennium CE would fit it. Sounds like the Slavs, or at least a Southerly subset of them that mixed with I2a-Din people who could have been there well before the R1a carriers.

slavic basketball player .jpgThe Balkans by the seas have been one of the major refugia and corridors and Slavs average among the tallest in the world so yeah that could indicate some I2a continuity. Lots of Megaliths (see Black Sea Megalithic Bow) too, which as we know spread via both land and sea via I2a. Sea people, yeah they supposedly consisted at least partly of escaped slaves / maybe Slavs
 
So per YFull formula, without interferences, the MRCA should be ~1700-1800 ybp. The only way to increase reliability in this figure is to neutralize the current data skewing effect of I-Y23115, by getting more I-Y18331*, I-A2512* and I-A10959* samples on YFull. This new I-Y18331* sample is a good step towards a more balanced calculation, so the number of mutation it will have will be important.


Of course, a MRCA of 1700-1800 ybp would not change the fact that I-Y18331 is highly diverse in the southern Balkans, and relatively rare among Slavs, so we do not need to immediately equate it with other I-Y3120 lines. But it is difficult to speak of I-Y18331 BCE Balkan migrations with only one single subclade of it (ironically, the one that is not found in the Balkans) showing >1800 ybp estimates.

It seems that you were right Çerç.
With the last update, I-Y3120 TMRCA decreased to 1800 ybp.
It might the result of a change in the computation method since several other subclades seem also concerned.
 
It seems that you were right Çerç.
With the last update, I-Y3120 TMRCA decreased to 1800 ybp.
It might the result of a change in the computation method since several other subclades seem also concerned.
Updated formula for I-Y3120 is (2029+1220+1819+2072+1934)/5=1814.8 ybp, which goes on to show the floating nature of YFull's age estimation. If this holds in the future as well, it would compliment the Gothic invasion of the 3rd century CE, in regards to I-Y18331.

By the way, it doesn't look like their age estimation methodology was altered. Last update in the relevant page was on September 20th 2019, https://www.yfull.com/faq/what-yfulls-age-estimation-methodology/. The formula looks the same to me.
 


By the way, it doesn't look like their age estimation methodology was altered. Last update in the relevant page was on September 20th 2019, https://www.yfull.com/faq/what-yfulls-age-estimation-methodology/. The formula looks the same to me.

I know that nothing was published about it on their site.
I wrote that because the decrease affected many other subclades (under R1a and R1b as well). I do not think that only newly added samples justify such a generalized decrease. If you look at R-L1029 its forming age dropped by 600 years and the TMRCA by 300. Looking at my own subclade, I noticed that two novel snps are not taken into account now for the age estimation (while they previously were). The general method might remain the same, the recent change hardly seems due to adding new samples only.
 
Last edited:
I know that nothing was published about it on their site.
I wrote that because the decrease affected many other subclades (under R1a and R1b as well). I do not think that only newly added samples justify such a generalized decrease. If you look at R-L1029 its forming age dropped by 600 years and the TMRCA by 300. Looking at my own subclade, I noticed that two novel snps are not taken into account now for the age estimation (while they previously were). The general method might remain the same, the recent change hardly seems due to adding new samples only.
The YFull age estimation formula for some reason didn't include all of the samples even before the new dates were published. It always seemed strange to me. There seems to have been a specific choice of samples in clades with multiple samples. I don't know why or how the rest were being filtered out. But other than that, it does seem like new samples were added on the tree. For example, the medieval sample of Gleb Svyatoslavich (Rurikid prince), used to be at the top of I-Y3120 (calculation was still going on), but has since been moved under I-Y3120 > Y4460 > Y3106 > Y91535. I assume the same is true for many others as well under a number of subclades, though i am not sure because i didn't have my eye on them. I also noticed that the position of the clades and subclades changed. The same happened about a month ago, and then changed back to normal.
 
The YFull age estimation formula for some reason didn't include all of the samples even before the new dates were published. It always seemed strange to me. There seems to have been a specific choice of samples in clades with multiple samples. I don't know why or how the rest were being filtered out. But other than that, it does seem like new samples were added on the tree. For example, the medieval sample of Gleb Svyatoslavich (Rurikid prince), used to be at the top of I-Y3120 (calculation was still going on), but has since been moved under I-Y3120 > Y4460 > Y3106 > Y91535. I assume the same is true for many others as well under a number of subclades, though i am not sure because i didn't have my eye on them. I also noticed that the position of the clades and subclades changed. The same happened about a month ago, and then changed back to normal.

For what I know, the non included samples are those for which the age estimation was not finished when the last update (8.09) was completed. Those which are now ready will be included with the current update and will get their final position on the tree. Most of the new samples added during the last two months are "ancient" samples from scientific studies (like the rurikid prince you mention). As sich, they are not included in yfull's calculations relate to age (the age buton refers to the age mentionned in the scientific papers). In one or two cases the age of the ancient sample is older than the age estimation of the subclade (based on member's samples).

The update process causes the change of position of the subclades and once it is finished all will be reversed and they will get at their initial position (but with the new age estimates).
 

This thread has been viewed 1055777 times.

Back
Top