How did I2a-Din get to the Balkans?
- Thread starter sparkey
- Start date
No and nothing will. The debate reached a dead end. All the data confirms that the clade I-CTS10228 most probably originates somewhere in Central Europe before its subclade, roughly I-Y3120, moved to Eastern Europe where became an integral part of the Proto-Slavic ethnogenesis. From regions north of the Carpathians the subclades of I-Y3120 reached the Balkans. I-Y3120 with its subclades makes 99% of the today's percentage of the haplogroup I2 in the Balkans. Considering the Poll results, all the theories or opinions except "The Slavs" are completely debunked now. It is additionally supported by historical, archaeological, anthropological, atDNA and mtDNA among other facts.
Population bottleneck and founder effect, but most probably sample bias.
hrvat22
Regular Member
For now, we can say that genetics of Bosnian Croats is probably autochthonous ie from pre-Turkish period.
Croats as Catholics (main enemies of the Ottomans) were left isolated. No one at that time(under Ottomans) became a Catholic. Croats mixed with each other in that isolation. For Bosnian Serbs, things are different because they are originally Orthodox and a large number of Orthodox Vlachs coming to Bosnia from all sides and this heterogeneity is visible in their genetics. There are also conversions to Orthodoxy and Islam. Bosniaks are somewhere in between.
hrvat22
Regular Member
My opinion is that branches of I2a, more precisely behind branch https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-S17250/ originally coming with White Croatian tribe which is later divided to multiple communities.
Here is a topic where I have presented evidence and data that could support my theory. https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31539-Genetics-confirm-migration-of-White-Croats-to-Croatia
Here is a topic where I have presented evidence and data that could support my theory. https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31539-Genetics-confirm-migration-of-White-Croats-to-Croatia
Ralphie Boy
Regular member
- Messages
- 260
- Reaction score
- 129
- Points
- 43
I think it’s pretty clear it came to the Balkans with the Slavs. Dinaric should be an obsolete term. However, it appears to have first come from further west, as there are basal clades so far from France and Germany. A clade just below those was found in Hungary. The oddball is Y18331, which has very few Slavs, a good number of Jews and high diversity in Greece/south Balkans, implying a different migration pattern.
Parapolitikos
Regular Member
- Messages
- 119
- Reaction score
- 46
- Points
- 0
Parapolitikos
Regular Member
- Messages
- 119
- Reaction score
- 46
- Points
- 0
Nothing from what it is written on Yfull about Y18331 makes sense.
How in the world could all the descentands of I-Y18331 have a single ancestor going back to cople of centuries before the Slavic migrations , which person became the single father of the main lineage of Slavs and Central Europeans, spreading in all of eastern Europe and the Balkans with in 300 years(cause that's the age of the main subclasses that are ..geographically biased too)
Or we can go by the logical accam's razor and conclude:
The Adamov daiting method is way off and ages of the Haplogroups are much much older.
Of course if the dating is wrong, and the results produce either slightly younger or older profiles, then automatically all the internet genetic forums theories collapse like a Domino chain and with them many state promoting naratives, like the Slavisist replacement theory of native populations
Cause I would mean that the birth of the clades and their spread predate the recorded historical events.
The geographic spread of the downstream clades is another line of evidence that the Adamov dating formula is wrong. You can't claim A mass migration event occured when the TMRCA of the main lineages of Y18331 in a specific region alludes to 2-3 common ancestors from the 5th century based on this dating method, like in the case of Bosnia. And the paradoxes don't stop there, you have to conclude that patriarch and his ofsprinngs had some magic fertility wand (in a general era of plagues and population stagnation through out Europe)that aided them in replacing local lineages and becoming the main one overtime, or the areas were depopulated earlier.
Or the population of Bosnia in the 6th century after the massive relocation of Slavs(if we are to believe the historical records)was about 20 families of whom 10 were of
I2 patrimonial lineage.
Szigmund
Newbie
- Messages
- 49
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 0
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- I2 I-S17250
- mtDNA haplogroup
- J1c5a1
Any toughts on this entry?
https://phylogeographer.com/the-dif...f-slavic-chieftain-i2-y3120-who-lived-200-bc/
https://phylogeographer.com/the-dif...f-slavic-chieftain-i2-y3120-who-lived-200-bc/
Ghurier
Regular member
- Messages
- 177
- Reaction score
- 126
- Points
- 43
- Location
- Many
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- J-L283-->J-Z631
- mtDNA haplogroup
- U5b2b
It is a reasonable position.
I-Y3120 have all the characteristics of an haplogroup that was "slavidized".
The distribution is too far from R1a-slavic.
Old diversity clusters (in Greece) are problematic for a Slavic origin.
My own view on this clade is that they were likely in the Balkan by ~300-200 BC, and looking at the moment at which they diversifies they could have been pushed east by Romans during Illyrian wars, and later fell under slavic influence.
But I guess that a Celtic injection in Balkans and then a "slavidization" could work aswell. Going for Illyrian origin or Celtic is a that point fairly similar.
Regarding ancient DNA, some I-P37 (I-L158) are identified in Hungary and Italy by 3000 BCE which fits fairly well with the possibilities mentioned above, at least better than with a Black-Sea origin.
A I-L161 sample from Patterson et al. 2021 has been found in Serbia and dates from 1900 BCE. This is the closest cousin of the L621 above I-Y3120.
Sadly, there is no L621 from that time period to help a bit with some more recent relatives.
But during bronze-age the family of Y3120 is attested in Balkan and around the Adriatic.
The date of separation of balkanic and Ukrainian sub-clade of Y3120 is not really matching with the Slavic origin.
Whereas, balkanic R1a are diversifying at the correct moment for the Slavic invasion.
Probably, the explanation is that a R1a elite manage to take over some Y3120 populations and "Slavidized" them.
Dibran
Regular member
- Messages
- 1,113
- Reaction score
- 301
- Points
- 83
- Ethnic group
- Albanian/Gheg/Dibran/Okshtun
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R-L1029>Y133379
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H11a2b*
The highest diversity if I-Y3120 is within Ukraine/Belarus. The bear entirety of Balkan Y3120 is the result of bottlenecks and founder effects. It was likely already with the Proto-Slavs by the time of its tmrca and was probably absorbed around the North East Carpathian arch.
The Greek branch is a rare exception and shouldn't be used as some measuring stick to push its origin further south.
The explosion of Y3120 along with Z280 and some M458 branches under R1a coincides perfectly with the Slavic migrations.
Whilst it's predecessor was likely not Slavic, Y3120 was clearly more successful among Slavs than R1a was at least in regards to the South and East Slavs which arrived from around the North East Carpathian arch. Probably spreading from Polesie/Ukraine together with Z280 and R-L1029 under M458.
Ghurier
Regular member
- Messages
- 177
- Reaction score
- 126
- Points
- 43
- Location
- Many
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- J-L283-->J-Z631
- mtDNA haplogroup
- U5b2b
For sure, if we don't consider discordant elements from your theory ...
Yet, it sounds like cherry picking to me.
I don't know what estimator you use (maybe none), but mine (using FTDNA data) gives diversity centers around 200-100 BCE around Poland (East) and Greece (which have not a good coverage in this dataset, making this diversity spot very valuable) with a slightly lower diversity in between. It is not pointing toward Ukrainia/Belarus.
Therefore during its first stage of diffusion, 200 BCE, Y3120 was among a population that injected descendants around Poland and Greece.
It didn't fits well with Early-Slavs.
Yet, diversification of I-Y3120 didn't match well with the entrance of Slavs in the Balkans, which in fact invalidate a "bottle-neck --> founder effect" model, that would need the Y3120 diversification occuring later.
The early stage of Y3120 diffusion around 200 BCE didn't fit spatially with a Slavic expansion. Some branches likely joined the Slavs a bit latter, but putting them among the Slavs by 200 BCE is not realy supported by data.
Kenn Nordvedt already did his job, and estimated that the diversity of this clade is somewhere in Ukraine indeed.
Even if that I2a2 (ancestor of Dinaric or related to ancestor of Dinaric) sample was true, the sample was from a cave and that group had injuries in their head and were suffering from malnutrition, the subsequent Dalmatian Iron Age sample bear no I2a2 and they are mostly J2b2-L283, so it might mean they were enemies.
If i have to guess for I2a lines in Prehistoric Balkans, i'll go with safer bet of I2a2-M223 Yamnaya derived.
Even if that I2a2 (ancestor of Dinaric or related to ancestor of Dinaric) sample was true, the sample was from a cave and that group had injuries in their head and were suffering from malnutrition, the subsequent Dalmatian Iron Age sample bear no I2a2 and they are mostly J2b2-L283, so it might mean they were enemies.
If i have to guess for I2a lines in Prehistoric Balkans, i'll go with safer bet of I2a2-M223 Yamnaya derived.
Ghurier
Regular member
- Messages
- 177
- Reaction score
- 126
- Points
- 43
- Location
- Many
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- J-L283-->J-Z631
- mtDNA haplogroup
- U5b2b
If you can summarizes the arguments and methodology here it would be helpfull.
Of course if it is a work associated with a peer reviewed paper, the link to it will be helpfull (I'm too lazy, and not carring at that point, to look for it right now).
Mainly, how does he handle the Greek diversity ? Did he at least adressed it ? If not, it is a big flaw in his conclusion, as it is the main issue yet for a Slavic origin.
A key question is also to look at when, and with which dataset he estimated diversity.
Thus, maybe the guy did his job, and likely he did it well, but here is not the question.
A discussion should always be about the arguments. Many published paper with outdated data are just arriving to conclusion that we know can easily identify as incorrect. That's why science is not done in a "fix" setting, but that arguments always need to be discussed and re-assessed .
Anyway, just as a comment, the way you present this is an "authority argument". You don't provide the elements to reach a conclusion, you provide a "name" and hiis "conclusion" (without even a link presenting the concerned work). It is not a valid scientific demonstration.
I'm not saying this guy is wrong or right, but i want to see the arguments
.PS : for the discussion, here is my own diversity map build using FTDNA data (it has been build over a 200 years time window after TMRCA ... I don't explain methodology in details unless some questions will be asked, because likely people here don't really care) :
I think you speak of the Patterson et al. 2021 sample ?
We can agree that it is misdated looking at its mtDNA, there is no point to bring back this sample in the discussion.
This is a long shot.
I explain: when you sample a population, this population have a given diversity, let assume you want to sample a population with ~100 different haplogroups ... if you just take ~10 samples there is no way you'll probe all the diversity, even if you take ~100 samples.
Therefore, when an haplogroup is not found somewhere, the correct and scientific way of speaking of its absence is by :
1- Quoting its presence in a completely unrelated cultural and geographical context (yet there is no ~2000 ybp Y3120 ancient samples).
2- Giving an exclusion level at which we can exclude it a given location (not even from a culture, just from a given location)
For instance, let assume an haplogroup carried by ~5% of a given population.
How many sample do you need to expect to see one ? Obvious answear : ~20 samples.
But then you have statistical fluctuations, meaning that after finding 20 undependent samples you might be lucky and have several of those guys, or unlucky and have none of them.
To be able to claim a 3-sigma exclusion of the presence of an haplogroup (with a 5% occurance) you need roughly ~150 uncorrelated samples at a given location.
We are very far from such statistical depth (I know it is not easy to understand for people not habituated to play with undersampled data).
Ancient DNA have not the statistical depth to probe rare clades, for rare clades it rely on luck.
I2 is mainly paleolithic lineage, we know I2-P37 family is all over south Europe, this lineage is carried by surviving branches that got incorporated in susequent cultures.
There is no reasons to think that such process didn't hapened in the Balkans, we have not enough sample to say so.
It would be an amazing surprises if there is no I2 and no G2a in EIA Balkans (at least, ancient DNA is not even close to be able to prove such thing, if we stay on a scientific discussion).
The Adriatic coast in western Balkan seems to be J-L283 dominated, what is the status of more inland populations ? We don't know yet.
reasoning by saying "Itested culture X at one location then all location are likely the same." is very dangerous. Just look at IE cultures ... playing that game you'll conclude that R1b is the IE tracers if you just look western Europe, or that it is R1a if you look in the East. And then, we see that these culture have a diversity older than the beginning of their cultures.
And nearly all culture where the same, they were having a mix of very diverse haplogroups.
There is a lot of Balkanic old samples for I2a ... under I-P37 in northern Balkan by 3000 BCE. Not really a bet when you have samples.
There is also M223 branche well documented in the lower Danube bassin.
hrvat22
Regular Member
If you can summarizes the arguments and methodology here it would be helpfull.
Of course if it is a work associated with a peer reviewed paper, the link to it will be helpfull (I'm too lazy, and not carring at that point, to look for it right now).
Mainly, how does he handle the Greek diversity ? Did he at least adressed it ? If not, it is a big flaw in his conclusion, as it is the main issue yet for a Slavic origin.
Nordtvedt determined possible direction of I2a migration towards Romania, Bulgaria and Greece is behind them.
http://www.waughfamily.ca/Ancient/Tree and Map for Hg I.pdf
The Greeks had their colonies around Azov and from these sides some I2a branches could come. Also, these branches could later be brought by first Slavs from the Ukrainian territory, so this "diversity" may be of artificial origin. Later Slavic migrations also came to Greece. So to claim something on the basis of "diversity" at this point doesn’t make sense.
What we know for know about the I-CTS10228 is that he has a source probably in southeastern Poland. Belarus "diversity" also doesn't tell us much for now.
If you can summarizes the arguments and methodology here it would be helpfull.
Of course if it is a work associated with a peer reviewed paper, the link to it will be helpfull (I'm too lazy, and not carring at that point, to look for it right now).
Mainly, how does he handle the Greek diversity ? Did he at least adressed it ? If not, it is a big flaw in his conclusion, as it is the main issue yet for a Slavic origin.
A key question is also to look at when, and with which dataset he estimated diversity.
Thus, maybe the guy did his job, and likely he did it well, but here is not the question.
A discussion should always be about the arguments. Many published paper with outdated data are just arriving to conclusion that we know can easily identify as incorrect. That's why science is not done in a "fix" setting, but that arguments always need to be discussed and re-assessed .
Anyway, just as a comment, the way you present this is an "authority argument". You don't provide the elements to reach a conclusion, you provide a "name" and hiis "conclusion" (without even a link presenting the concerned work). It is not a valid scientific demonstration.
I'm not saying this guy is wrong or right, but i want to see the arguments
PS : for the discussion, here is my own diversity map build using FTDNA data (it has been build over a 200 years time window after TMRCA ... I don't explain methodology in details unless some questions will be asked, because likely people here don't really care) :
I think you speak of the Patterson et al. 2021 sample ?
We can agree that it is misdated looking at its mtDNA, there is no point to bring back this sample in the discussion.
This is a long shot.
I explain: when you sample a population, this population have a given diversity, let assume you want to sample a population with ~100 different haplogroups ... if you just take ~10 samples there is no way you'll probe all the diversity, even if you take ~100 samples.
Therefore, when an haplogroup is not found somewhere, the correct and scientific way of speaking of its absence is by :
1- Quoting its presence in a completely unrelated cultural and geographical context (yet there is no ~2000 ybp Y3120 ancient samples).
2- Giving an exclusion level at which we can exclude it a given location (not even from a culture, just from a given location)
For instance, let assume an haplogroup carried by ~5% of a given population.
How many sample do you need to expect to see one ? Obvious answear : ~20 samples.
But then you have statistical fluctuations, meaning that after finding 20 undependent samples you might be lucky and have several of those guys, or unlucky and have none of them.
To be able to claim a 3-sigma exclusion of the presence of an haplogroup (with a 5% occurance) you need roughly ~150 uncorrelated samples at a given location.
We are very far from such statistical depth (I know it is not easy to understand for people not habituated to play with undersampled data).
Ancient DNA have not the statistical depth to probe rare clades, for rare clades it rely on luck.
I2 is mainly paleolithic lineage, we know I2-P37 family is all over south Europe, this lineage is carried by surviving branches that got incorporated in susequent cultures.
There is no reasons to think that such process didn't hapened in the Balkans, we have not enough sample to say so.
It would be an amazing surprises if there is no I2 and no G2a in EIA Balkans (at least, ancient DNA is not even close to be able to prove such thing, if we stay on a scientific discussion).
The Adriatic coast in western Balkan seems to be J-L283 dominated, what is the status of more inland populations ? We don't know yet.
reasoning by saying "Itested culture X at one location then all location are likely the same." is very dangerous. Just look at IE cultures ... playing that game you'll conclude that R1b is the IE tracers if you just look western Europe, or that it is R1a if you look in the East. And then, we see that these culture have a diversity older than the beginning of their cultures.
And nearly all culture where the same, they were having a mix of very diverse haplogroups.
There is a lot of Balkanic old samples for I2a ... under I-P37 in northern Balkan by 3000 BCE. Not really a bet when you have samples.
There is also M223 branche well documented in the lower Danube bassin.
There is no need for such a long answer for such an easy task. The I2a2-Dinaric hotspot today is Croatia/Bosnia and then Serbia in Balkans, the Viminacium paper showed us Pre-Slavic Y-DNA, and Post-Slavic where I2a2-Dinaric shows itself. All match, the artifical Greek diversity is simply not possible in reality.
Worthless arguing with someone who bases his "theories" on modern distribution and repeatedly confuses TMRCA estimates with actual migrations, while also ignoring ancient DNA. He does the same thing with his J2b-L283 "theories" and long walls.
Ghurier
Regular member
- Messages
- 177
- Reaction score
- 126
- Points
- 43
- Location
- Many
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- J-L283-->J-Z631
- mtDNA haplogroup
- U5b2b
Yes, that's what I noticed here, people don't feel the utility of argumenting ... I will just quote something from http://www.waughfamily.ca/Ancient/Tree and Map for Hg I.pdf :
Most people here definitely fit the bill.
Diversification require conditions to occure.
For instance intense diversification cannot occur without a given level of migration/expansion (because of competition beween lineages). This is well known, apparently not on forums.
Yes, TMRCA matches very well with expansion/migration times. Just look at major well documented haplogroups, R1b for instance.
It works perfectly well.
Major cultural event induce diversification event because it produce population displacement (look at the ~3200 ybp event).
Apparently you don't understand the basics of haplogroup diversification mecanisms. Which is very funny considering your recurrent attempts to make authority arguments.
Expansion/migration produces isolation of descendants and then diversification (claiming otherwise would imply a total ignorance of what is diversification). This is a well known fact, again.
By the way, you can look at R1a diversification too, it match perfectly invasion times.
I don't expect you to admit the fact, because it will challenge too much your belief.
But then you are just ignoring a probe because you don't understand it and because it didn't imply what you want.
If this probe was going in your direction, you would welcome it so hard ! You are blinded by the conclusion you want, to a point that you barely try to understand the data.
I never ignored ancient DNA, in fact my models are always cross-checked with ancient DNA. I suspect that you don't really place ancient DNA in their context.
In fact both my I-Y3120 and J-L283 models are consistent with known ancient DNA (considering the current coverage).
Contrary to your J-L283 theories (you ignore some anoying samples).
From my past interaction with you, you were ignoring current coverage to make some fallacious claims, and you went as far as using automal DNA of a 400 CE sample above the autosomal DNA of a 100 CE sample ... That was very funny by the way (because it finished to show me that you was not even trying to pretend to do science, you just went full-ideology).
Clearly, you went "wild" when on another forum I shared a diffusion model that was not fitting your ideology.
Please handle it, and try to discuss the arguments (i have no hope at that point, you didn't discuss argument, you just put DNA samples on a google map ... not even understanding the importance of having a coverage map to interpret the sample distribution).
Anyway, as I was saying, I-Y3120 is likely a clade integrated among Slaves in northern Balkans during the slavic expansion.
It fit most of the data ... stopping here, no-one here want/can speak of the arguments.
On your side, you apprently think that some Early Slavs entered Greece in 200 BCE (it sounds fringe theory to me, but you look confident) ... I'm waiting so hard for the publication
.
Fustan
Banned
- Messages
- 297
- Reaction score
- 111
- Points
- 43
- Ethnic group
- Albanian
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- J-L283
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H12
Only 39% voted through Slavs, and this thread was made in 2011. This shows you what a total clown circus the theories on the Y-DNA in modern Balkan countries were. A haplogroup that is so obviously linked to the Slavic expansion in the Balkans, dictated by simple common sense, was voted to be Paleolithic. And it's so funny to see this French guy continue on with the same idiotic theory, and posting his walls of text that nobody will read. Not surprising since he really cannot fathom that there are such things as ancient DNA samples.
You see it today with all the stupid theories on E-V13 and even the "Sardinian origin" of J2-L283 up until recently. People really love to overcomplicate things when in reality it's quite simple.
You see it today with all the stupid theories on E-V13 and even the "Sardinian origin" of J2-L283 up until recently. People really love to overcomplicate things when in reality it's quite simple.
Ghurier
Regular member
- Messages
- 177
- Reaction score
- 126
- Points
- 43
- Location
- Many
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- J-L283-->J-Z631
- mtDNA haplogroup
- U5b2b
No other arguments than "it is obvious" have been noted.
In science, you should always be suspicious about peoples proposing an "obvious" truth ...
Especially when they are unable to propose arguments in favor of this "truth" ....
Btw, my "idiotic" theories ... especially for J-L283, when some places will get ancient DNA coverage you might have some hard times !!!