How did I2a-Din get to the Balkans?

How did I2a-Din get to the Balkans?


  • Total voters
    229
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 :
The map of conjectured movement of Haplogroup I clades should not be over-interpreted.This is often done on the various internet forums.
Most people here definitely fit the bill.
For now Nordvedt is confirmed.
According to Pamjav et. al. (2019) and Fóthi et al. (2020), the distribution of ancestral subclades like of I-CTS10228 among contemporary carriers indicates a rapid expansion from Southeastern Poland, is mainly related to the Slavs and their medieval migration, and the "largest demographic explosion occurred in the Balkans".
Southeastern Poland is probably the original area of the White Croats.
 
First, thanks hrvat22 for the argumented response, it gives hope to see that some peoples around can still discuss theories without going wild.

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.

This is an alternative theory, mainly a "chance" re-clustering.
Which in fact I found unlikely due to the lack of extra-lineage not being in Greece.

Later Slavic migrations also came to Greece. So to claim something on the basis of "diversity" at this point doesn’t make sense.

But if diversity is discarded for Greece, why would it be relevant for Ukrainia ?
Point is, I-Y3120 and R1a-Slavic distribution are far from fitting.
To explain such mismatch, you generally need a founder effect. Such founder effect is not observe on the Y3120 population.

Therefore, it appears that during the earlier phases of the Slavec expansion Y3120 was not travelling with R1a.
It seems hard to explain the extinction of Y3120 by genetic drift in most of the R1a area.
Whereas among the Y3120 we have few R1a diversifying at the correct moment.

Yet, I stay on my position, the diversification patern looks more like the one of a clade falling under Slavic domination than a clade conquering new territories.


[/quote]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.[/QUOTE]

Why southeastern Poland ?
Yet, the cousin clades seems to have a more western distribution !
 
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.

Yeah, it is pretty obvious that it's a Y-DNA that came with Slavs. Also just look at it's Y-FULL matches. It became numerous through a bottleneck / founder effect. According to Nordtvedt it was only a coincidence that R1a did not become as numerous in the Balkans.

There were other branches of I2a in the Balkans and they were absorbed by Illyrians and Thracians. Some might of even come with Illyrians and Thracians. Who knows.

Slavs were also one of the last Indo-European speakers to enter Europe.
 
For now Nordvedt is confirmed.Southeastern Poland is probably the original area of the White Croats.

As you can notice on my diversity map, it matches fairly well.
Then, if we start the diffusion from southeastern Poland for Y3120, we can discuss where it was "before" that.

Basically my point is that Y3120 was likely Slavidized in such area that southeastern Poland (and probably no earlier than ~0-100 CE).
What I'm not agreeing with is an earlier location in Ukrainia (which seems to be the position of some peoples around)

Commenting the map you proposed in attachment, I mostly agree, maybe I won't go for a that "north" location of the Y3120 branch.
Then this map didn't really adress the question of Y3120 prior ~200 BCE (anyway, it didn't place Y3120 clade near Azov-Sea ...).

Provyn proposed a Celtic diffusion on his blog.
I'm more aligned with peoples being pushed toward Greece/Poland by Roman attack on Balkans (mainly due to southern inclination of cousin clades, and considering diversification time that would match well with such timescale).
 
Yet, I stay on my position, the diversification patern looks more like the one of a clade falling under Slavic domination than a clade conquering new territories.

"In 2011 Nordtvedt has confirmed I-L69.2 is not older than 2,800 years. In his last comments about Haplogroup I tree and the conjectured spread map, he locates the start of the I-L69.2 lineage around the middle course of the Vistula.

So far, most or all of those who are negative for S17250 have patrilineage originating near the Carpathians, particularly southeastern Poland and extreme western Ukraine. That pattern may change with more sampling, of
course Date: 20 May 2014"

These are informations 7-10 years ago when the vast majority of today's I2a Balkan YFull mutations did not exist. Nothing has changed since then except that Southeast Poland has been scientifically confirmed through scientific papers as a source of Balkan I2a branches.

Therefore, it appears that during the earlier phases of the Slavec expansion Y3120 was not travelling with R1a.
It seems hard to explain the extinction of Y3120 by genetic drift in most of the R1a area.
Whereas among the Y3120 we have few R1a diversifying at the correct moment.

As far I know R1a Croats have the highest percentage of branch Z280. Why don't they have other R1a branches in such a percentage? Probably because in the area of their ancestral homeland with I2a peoples lived mostly R1a Z280 peoples. It is possible that they were even homogeneous neighbors there and not completely mixed.

For that answer, we need to know local Carpathian migration route of R1a peoples, but we don't know that yet. It is possible that some I2a branches lived isolated in central or eastern Ukraine and from there, as isolated groups moving and towards Greece etc.
 

As you can notice on my diversity map, it matches fairly well.
Then, if we start the diffusion from southeastern Poland for Y3120, we can discuss where it was "before" that.

Probably in the area of the French-German border.

Basically my point is that Y3120 was likely Slavidized in such area that southeastern Poland (and probably no earlier than ~0-100 CE).
What I'm not agreeing with is an earlier location in Ukrainia (which seems to be the position of some peoples around)

It is possible that part of the I2a branch left Southeast Poland before Slavization.

Commenting the map you proposed in attachment, I mostly agree, maybe I won't go for a that "north" location of the Y3120 branch.
Then this map didn't really adress the question of Y3120 prior ~200 BCE (anyway, it didn't place Y3120 clade near Azov-Sea ...).

Because it was a non-existent mutation at that time. We know the main directions from that map. But over time, some new migrations will be known as new branches and mutations are discovered, but so far new discoveries have not challenged Southeast Poland as a source. Normally all of this must ultimately be proven by archaeogenetics.


Provyn proposed a Celtic diffusion on his blog.
I'm more aligned with peoples being pushed toward Greece/Poland by Roman attack on Balkans (mainly due to southern inclination of cousin clades, and considering diversification time that would match well with such timescale).

I do not know. Concrete evidence for this theory needs to be seen.
 
"In 2011 Nordtvedt has confirmed I-L69.2 is not older than 2,800 years. In his last comments about Haplogroup I tree and the conjectured spread map, he locates the start of the I-L69.2 lineage around the middle course of the Vistula.

So far, most or all of those who are negative for S17250 have patrilineage originating near the Carpathians, particularly southeastern Poland and extreme western Ukraine. That pattern may change with more sampling, of
course Date: 20 May 2014"

These are informations 7-10 years ago when the vast majority of today's I2a Balkan YFull mutations did not exist. Nothing has changed since then except that Southeast Poland has been scientifically confirmed through scientific papers as a source of Balkan I2a branches.



As far I know R1a Croats have the highest percentage of branch Z280. Why don't they have other R1a branches in such a percentage? Probably because in the area of their ancestral homeland with I2a peoples lived mostly R1a Z280 peoples. It is possible that they were even homogeneous neighbors there and not completely mixed.

For that answer, we need to know local Carpathian migration route of R1a peoples, but we don't know that yet. It is possible that some I2a branches lived isolated in central or eastern Ukraine and from there, as isolated groups moving and towards Greece etc.

The south Balkan branch Y18331 Greeks look like they did pretty well in the Greek or Byzantine world, belonging to multiple sub-branches. They may have been in this world since at least the Slavic migration period. It looks like their ancestors did a bee-line to the south Balkans from wherever was their homeland, bypassing much of the Balkans and heading for the south.
 

As other already responded it is indeed garbage. There's nothing interesting about it. The guy is known for advancing autochtonous theory which long time ago became debunked but he is doing it by misunderstanding and misinterpreting scientific data and YFull Ytree making ridiculous false claims including about scientific papers like by Utevska that it wasn't based on any scientific evidence, data, source, study. The guy is a lunatic. Incredible nobody there removed this blog post.
 
Ahh, okay. Unfortunately I am not able to delete the post.
 
There's nothing reasonable about your position. First and foremost, Y3120's TRMCA is set in Belarus during the early Zarubintsy (read Proto-Slavic) period, and forms 99% of all modern-day I2a1b-Din lineages in Europe, especially on the peninsula. It's highest diversity of clades is located in the triangle comprised of Poland, Belarus, and Ukraine - the most proposed landmass for the Proto-Slavic homeland. It's ABSENT in Tollense peoples, it's ABSENT in Gauls and other Celtic peoples (newest study from 2022 is free to read), and even among the closest East Germanic neighbors of the Slavs. One more thing, The I2a branch among Serbs, South Slavs, and Slavs, in general, is of the Din-CTS 10228, Y3120 (and all its downstream) variety, and wasn’t present in Southeastern Europe prior to the invasion of the Slavs. Slavs have also dispersed this Y-DNA to non-Slavic peoples, and the oldest historical samples of I2a1b-Din are found overwhelmingly in West and East Slavic lands, like KRA008 from Saxony, Niem6, and Niem13 in Poland (Stolarek et al. 2018; Zenczak et al. 2017), VK542 (Gleb Sviatoslavich) in Ukraine, and VK53 in Sweden (Margaryan et al. 2019), Sunghir6 in Russia (Sikora et al. 2017), KEII/16, KEII/52, KEIII/11, K2/16, K2/52, KR/12, and MH/9, MH/15, and MH/16 in Hungary, former Great Moravia(Neperáczki et al. 2019; Fóthi et al. 2019), and the Kuline twins (Olalde et al. 2021). However, we also have Early Slavic samples like POH36, POH41 and POH44, Byz3 (Lazaridis et al. 2022 - the Turkish flag beneath the Belarusian flag on YFULL, marked as ancient DNA) and Medieval South Slavic samples like UHR3, Knyaz Batinic-Mirkovic, and Knyaz Mirko Radojevic, (Kalajdžić et al. 2019), and the sample of King Stjepan Tomas from Bosnia and Herzegovina. This is the totality of I2a1b-Din's archaeogenetic samples, all are Early and Medieval Slavs, Western, Eastern, and Southern. This is the factual reality of Y3120's origin, and till they find pre-Slavic bearers of it, you cannot "postulate" a non-Slavic origin for it.

I find it bizarre that it's not just my people, the Greeks, who deny the obvious, and even empirically proven SLAVIC* origin of I2a1b-Din, but other Europeans as well. Just for everyone's information, I2a1b-Din is found strictly in a Slavic context, and outnumbers archaeogenetic R1a-M458 and R1a-Z282 findings, which unlike the I2a1b-Din, appear in preceding, non-Slavic contexts (La Tene findings, etc). To be entirely honest, it's not R1a that binds all Slavs, because there are different clades for different groups of Slavs, but I2a1b-Din, which is universally downstream of the Proto-Slavic Y3120 mutation. The Proto-Slavic haplogroups I2a1b-Din, R1a-M458 and R1a-Z282 expanded STRICTLY with the Slavs, that's it.
 
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.

And what "is supported" by data, since as I recall, even mainstream studies denote I2a1b-Din, R1a-M458 and R1a-Z282 as Slavic haplogroups, including the totality of archaeogenetic findings? You're seriously telling us that downstreams of Y3120, which expanded strictly with the Slavs, "joined the Slavs a bit later", were they formed by telegony, therefore being in two places at the same time, and then rejoining their primary part upon contact?
 
That Polish sample is not that new. We have already touched upon it in this thread some two months ago. He could very well be descended from an Ashkenazim Jewish family for all we know, and thus be related with the hypothesized south-to-north migration of Jewish I-Y23115, though part of a different unidentified subclade of I-Y18331. If in the future we see other Polish Slavic samples sharing this subclade with him, and with an early TMRCA (very important), then it would suggest that it is indeed a local subclade and would further give credit to the hypothesis of I-Y18331 having been formed in Poland before migrating south and east, again possibly with the Celtic, Bastarnae, or Gothic migrations (depending on the actual TMRCA of I-Y18331). If on the other hand we have a good amount of Jewish samples within this subclade, it would suggest that even the supposed Slavs could likely be Slavicized Jews. It's still too early to know for sure. Τake note that Zielinski (the Polish sample's surname) is also a common surname among the Jews of Poland. Right now we only know that there appear to be four subclades under I-Y18331, two of them I-Y18331* (one from Greece, one from Poland), one largely Greek-Jewish, and one Greek-Ukrainian (1150 ybp TMRCA - making the Greek colonies of the Black Sea a highly unlikely source for the spread of the line to the southern Balkans; not only because of its TMRCA, but also due to the lack of Ukrainian samples in I-Y18331 as a whole).

The Polish sample is the upstream of the Greek ones, and is downstream of the Proto-Slavic Y3120 mutation, it's not southern in origin, unless you believe they had teleporting technology.
 
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 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.

There's nothing reasonable about it. First and foremost, Y3120's TRMCA is set in Belarus during the early Zarubintsy (read Proto-Slavic) period, and forms 99% of all modern-day I2a1b-Din lineages in Europe, especially on the peninsula. It's highest diversity of clades is located in the triangle comprised of Poland, Belarus, and Ukraine - the most proposed landmass for the Proto-Slavic homeland. It's ABSENT in Tollense peoples, it's ABSENT in Gauls and other Celtic peoples (newest study from 2022 is free to read), and even among the closest East Germanic neighbors of the Slavs. One more thing, The I2a branch among Serbs, South Slavs, and Slavs, in general, is of the Din-CTS 10228, Y3120 (and all its downstream) variety, and wasn’t present in Southeastern Europe prior to the invasion of the Slavs. Slavs have also dispersed this Y-DNA to non-Slavic peoples, and the oldest historical samples of I2a1b-Din are found overwhelmingly in West and East Slavic lands, like KRA008 from Saxony, Niem6, and Niem13 in Poland (Stolarek et al. 2018; Zenczak et al. 2017), VK542 (Gleb Sviatoslavich) in Ukraine, and VK53 in Sweden (Margaryan et al. 2019), Sunghir6 in Russia (Sikora et al. 2017), KEII/16, KEII/52, KEIII/11, K2/16, K2/52, KR/12, and MH/9, MH/15, and MH/16 in Hungary, former Great Moravia(Neperáczki et al. 2019; Fóthi et al. 2019), and the Kuline twins (Olalde et al. 2021). However, we also have Early Slavic samples like POH36, POH41 and POH44, Byz3 (Lazaridis et al. 2022 - the Turkish flag beneath the Belarusian flag on YFULL, marked as ancient DNA) and Medieval South Slavic samples like UHR3, Knyaz Batinic-Mirkovic, and Knyaz Mirko Radojevic, (Kalajdžić et al. 2019), and the sample of King Stjepan Tomas from Bosnia and Herzegovina. This is the totality of I2a1b-Din's archaeogenetic samples, all are Early and Medieval Slavs, Western, Eastern, and Southern. This is the factual reality of Y3120's origin, and till they find pre-Slavic bearers of it, you cannot "postulate" a non-Slavic origin for it.

Besides, the Bastarnae were not Celtic, but Germanic - of the Jastorf Culture. Apart from that, there's no Celtic aDNA in Greeks or Slavs, for that matter. You're very seethrough, μικρός Δημήτρης, To you, it's entirely reasonable to deconstruct Slavs and their DNA because you think that way you'll refute Fallmerayer's assertions, there's nothing "rational" about your "analysis", deconstructing a Proto-Slavic Y-DNA for very personal reasons is the opposite of rational, and is in contradiction with the totality of DNA study-related data.
 
There are 4-5 000 just from the recently excavated Salonica metro
It appears that there is a strict policy of not uncovering the DNA origins of the antique skeletons in Greece.
It is not a matter of numbers, as there might be a huge number of skeletal remains from hundreds of different spots in Greece.
The problem is that the story of the ancient samples might be completely different compared to the actual distribution of the haplogroups in Greece. The i2a-y18331 example is astonishing. Just a small slavic bunch of people migrated in 800 AD is originally the core of the almost 10% of the population of the modern Greece.
 
And what "is supported" by data, since as I recall, even mainstream studies denote I2a1b-Din, R1a-M458 and R1a-Z282 as Slavic haplogroups, including the totality of archaeogenetic findings? You're seriously telling us that downstreams of Y3120, which expanded strictly with the Slavs, "joined the Slavs a bit later", were they formed by telegony, therefore being in two places at the same time, and then rejoining their primary part upon contact?

Slight correction:

Whilst in the case of the Balkans most R-M458 is most likely a result of the Slavic migrations; All R-M458 predating the early medieval so far, is non-slavic in nature. Most likely spillover from neighboring males, however, we have 5 M458 samples or 9% in the recent Wielbark study. M458 in Late Hallstatt, R-L1029>YP263 in East La Tene (Czechia), and 1x R-L1029, 2 x R-L1029>YP6046 and 1 x R-YP13337, and 1 x CTS11962 in Wielbark Culture Goths. Of course we have a mostly Balto-Slavic like individual from Brodzica, Middle Bronze Age in East Poland, and a R-M458 from La Tene in Northern Hungary.

It is only during the medieval samples that we see M458 is almost exclusively Slavic-Like, and then some Viking related individuals (Probably Polabian and Rus).
 
Last edited:
It appears that there is a strict policy of not uncovering the DNA origins of the antique skeletons in Greece.
It is not a matter of numbers, as there might be a huge number of skeletal remains from hundreds of different spots in Greece.
The problem is that the story of the ancient samples might be completely different compared to the actual distribution of the haplogroups in Greece. The i2a-y18331 example is astonishing. Just a small slavic bunch of people migrated in 800 AD is originally the core of the almost 10% of the population of the modern Greece.

I highly doubt there is some grand conspiracy or something. Very doubtful you will find Y18331 in ancient Greeks. More likely to find some other Paleo-Balkan Y-DNA that probably occurs in neighboring groups, if not native mainland Greek lines.

Y18331 has an aDNA sample that is Slavic already (forget the study), and the most basal/oldest upstream is a Pole, and majority of the Greek samples are from Northern Greece, which saw heavy Slavic settlement.
 

This thread has been viewed 1041165 times.

Back
Top