I2a-Din came to the Balkans and Dinaric Alps with the Thracians, Dacians & Illyrians

Maciamo

Veteran member
Admin
Messages
10,070
Reaction score
3,474
Points
113
Location
Lothier
Ethnic group
Italo-celto-germanic
I2a-Din came to the Balkans and Dinaric Alps with the Thracians, Dacians & Illyrians

I have given more thought about the origin of I2a-Din (L621>L147.2) and came to the following conclusion.

During the Mesolithic the I2a1 (P37.2) hunter-gatherers must have occupied a vast part of western, central and eastern Europe. Central and western European I2a1 lineages only survive at low frequencies in three newly identified subclades: L1286, L1294 and L880. The south-western M26 branch was absorbed by Neolithic farmers of the Cardium Pottery culture, whose descendants are found mostly in modern Sardinians and Basques.

The eastern branch, I2a1b (M423) were hunter-gatherers from the Carpathian region and/or from further north (Poland, Belarus, western Ukraine). Those in the Carpathian basin would have mixed with Middle Eastern Neolithic farmers and founded the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture (4800-3000 BCE). The whole region from Romania to Poland would then have been absorbed by the Proto-Indo-European Corded Ware culture (2900-2400 BCE).

After being Indo-Europeanized, I2a-L621 would have become the dominant paternal lineage among southern Slavs, while R1a remained dominant among northern Slavs.

The presence of I2a-L621 in Romania and Bulgaria could be attributed to the migration of the ancient Dacians and Thracians, who emerged as a mixture of of indigenous peoples (I2a1b) and Indo-Europeans (R1a) sometime between 3000 and 1500 BCE.

The Illyrians, an IE tribe who conquered the territory of former Yugoslavia circa 1200-1000 BCE, might have been an offshoot from the Dacians or the Thracians, or a closely related tribe from the Carpathian basin.

I used to think that I2a1b in the Dinaric Alps were the remnants of the original hunter-gatherers and that only the I2a1b outside the Dinaric Alps and Balkans were integrated to the Corded Ware culture and became Proto-Slavs, then Slavs. However there is so little difference between the Dinaric and other Eastern European I2a1b, all belonging to the same deep subclade (L621>CTS4002>...>L147.2) that they must all descend from a fairly recent ancestor and have expanded no earlier than 3000 to 1500 BCE.
 
Last edited:
I don't know if people here remember my opinion on this, but for this particular issue it is not even important.

First, I have a comment about a circumstance which should not be shallowly looked into.
Unfortunately, at this moment Romania is not sampled well enough. I only know about one research which has some data for Transylvania (the one mentioning Dracula :) ), and the sample was very small, 50 men from Cluj. 6 of them were I2a. Further, Hungary has less frequent I2a than Moldavia or Wallachia (or than Western Ukraine). So my conclusion is that I2a SHOULD NOT be linked to Carpathian basin, but to the regions on the outer side of the Carpathians. Where Carpathians as important natural factor should not be forgotten.

But existing or not existing link to Carpathian basin is less important than trying to find some firmer indication why I2a-L621 (as you call it) did not come even that early (I agree it "have expanded no earlier than 3000 to 1500 BCE", but you owe us explanation why not even later?).

And I think I have found something to think about. If your scenario is correct, then majority of these 3 haplogroups would have reached Sooutheast Europe in this order of appearance:
1. I2a-L621 (with Thracians etc...)
2. R1b-U152 (Celts)
3. R1a (Slavs)
Correct me if my assumption is wrong.

But we have a lucky circumstance that R1b-U152 is well explored haplogroup and your map here shows one striking pattern: http://www.eupedia.com/europe/maps_Y-DNA_haplogroups.shtml#R1b-S28
R1b-U152 drops in those exact regions where I2a-L621 and R1a increase. And then in addition to that, R1b-U152 has an area around Greece where it is recovering.

This R1b-U152 pattern makes me conclude that both I2a-L621 and R1a did come to Southeast Europe after R1b-U152, causing a large drop in frequency not just for R1b-U152 but also for other more frequent haplogroups. And if I2a-L621 did come after R1b-U152 then... should I write further? :)
 
This is actually one of the best counterpoints to the Slavic hypothesis of I2a-Din origins in the Balkans I've read. Shetop's challenge is also excellent.

One more challenge to it:

I2a-Din can be split into two haplotypes: "North" and "South." These are misnomers because "North," the older, has its highest frequency to the East (Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus, etc.) while "South" has its highest diversity to the West (Poland especially) and only its highest frequency in the Balkans. Considering that the greatest outlier I2a-Din (neither "North" nor "South") has been found in Poland, it's looking like the ancient migration was something like Poland > Ukraine > Poland > Balkans for the Balkans group. But this doesn't really match Poland > Romania > Balkans. So either something like a pooling point is throwing us off or we need to find something that better matches Poland > Ukraine > Poland > Balkans.
 
During the Mesolithic the I2a1 (P37.2) hunter-gatherers must have occupied a vast part of western, central and eastern Europe

How do we know this is true. All we know is that tow of its sons I2a1a M26 in western Europe and I2a1b M423 in eastern Europe became very popular in at least the Neolithic age i think over 10,000ybp.

Central and western European I2a1 lineages only survive at low frequencies in three newly identified subclades: L1286, L1294 and L880.

Can u please give their full names. I2a1c L1286, I2a1e 1294, I2a1d L880. It is easier to understand what exactley u are talking about when we can see how the haplogroups are connected. I2a1a M26 probably used to be very popular in western Europe. two out of 20 Y DNA samples from 5,000 year old southwestern France two had I2a1a M26(i think it was realsed as I2a1 but i put it through hg predictors all said M26 and i saw some articles not blogs say it was M26). Also two out of two 4,725 year old y DNA samples from Megalithic western France had I2a1a M26. There is no doubt before R1b1a2a1a L11 Germanic Italo Celtic invasions starting 5,000ybp I2a1a M26 was much more popular.

And it could have been the almost only Y DNA haplogroup of Mesolithic western Europeans.

The south-western M26 branch was absorbed by Neolithic farmers of the Cardium Pottery culture, whose descendants are found mostly in modern Sardinians and Basques.

So u are saying u think I2a1a M26 was in western Europe before farming so probably also over 10,000ybp. The reason why it is most popular in Sardine is because they never became Italic till Rome i am pretty sure. So they never got invaded in a major way by R1b L11 Germanic Italo Celts like the rest of western Europe was and maybe they had a founder effect like sparkey has said. Also with Basque even though they have over 80% Italo Celtic R1b P312 since they kept their native language it would make sense that is why they kept so much native I2a1a M26. Maybe Celts won early wars established R1b P312 in them then the native people made a comeback and I2a1a M26 raised a little but they still stayed mainly R1b P312.

After being Indo-Europeanized, I2a-L621 would have become the dominant paternal lineage among southern Slavs, while R1a remained dominant among northern Slavs.

When did slavic languages migrate to Yugoslavia Bulgaria area. Because ejust 2,000ybp those areas were Illyrain, Thracen, and Dacen not Slavic. So maybe the reason is slavic languages migrated there less than 2,000ybp and did not make a big genetic impact.

The presence of I2a-L621 in Romania and Bulgaria could be attributed to the migration of the ancient Dacians and Thracians, who emerged as a mixture of of indigenous peoples (I2a1b) and Indo-Europeans (R1a) sometime between 3000 and 1500 BCE.

What subclade of R1a would they have the Corded ware Balto Slavic R1a1a1b1 Z283. And according to what u say about R1b Indo European R1b L23 conquered that area of southeast Europe about 6,000 years ago. So maybe Thracens and Dacens are just random languages that formed and indo Europeans have been there for 6,000 years. There was never a migration from some other spot in Europe besides steppes u know 6,000-7,000ybp. I still think the I2a1b3 L621 was there before inddo European languages.

I used to think that I2a1b in the Dinaric Alps were the remnants of the original hunter-gatherers and that only the I2a1b outside the Dinaric Alps and Balkans were integrated to the Corded Ware culture and became Proto-Slavs, then Slavs. However there is so little difference between the Dinaric and other Eastern European I2a1b, all belonging to the same deep subclade (L621>CTS4002>...>L147.2) that they must all descend from a fairly recent ancestor and have expanded no earlier than 3000 to 1500 BCE.
I get what u are saying it is always good too look at the subclades. If u take out all R1a looking at Eupedia Y DNa tables. In Poland and other eastern Europe countries I2a1 P37.2 almost always is over 50%. I would guess almost all their I2a1 is I2a1b M423 so it may have been dominate in all of eastern Europe before Corded ware culture so over 5,000ybp. Maybe I2a1b M423 is alot older than age estimates. Or maybe the I2a1b M423 throughout eastern Europe is under the same deep subclades I2a1b3 L621 and I2a1b3a L147.2 is because they have mixed. i dont know.
 
Sheptop R1b U152 almost deifntley came to eastern Europe with Galatian's ( La Tene Gauls who migrated into east Europe and Anatolia) invasions from i think 400-200bc.
Haplogroup-R1b-S28.gif
Hallstatt_La_Tene_map.gif


So it is really recent. I dont know about why it is 1-5% in Greece and southern tips of Yugoslavia and western tip of Anatolia. R1b U152/S28 it self was first spread in a major way by Urnfield culture. Then to Italy with italic languages and Villnoeaven culture and more in central and western Europe with Hallstat and La Tene Celtic cultures. click here
 
Sheptop R1b U152 almost deifntley came to eastern Europe with Galatian's ( La Tene Gauls who migrated into east Europe and Anatolia) invasions from i think 400-200bc.

It would be more reasonable to presume that R1b-U152 came in Eastern Europe with Romans but not Galatians. Galatians were real IE warriors that means they could not be R1b. Surely they were R1a.
 
This is actually one of the best counterpoints to the Slavic hypothesis of I2a-Din origins in the Balkans I've read. Shetop's challenge is also excellent.

One more challenge to it:

I2a-Din can be split into two haplotypes: "North" and "South." These are misnomers because "North," the older, has its highest frequency to the East (Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus, etc.) while "South" has its highest diversity to the West (Poland especially) and only its highest frequency in the Balkans. Considering that the greatest outlier I2a-Din (neither "North" nor "South") has been found in Poland, it's looking like the ancient migration was something like Poland > Ukraine > Poland > Balkans for the Balkans group. But this doesn't really match Poland > Romania > Balkans. So either something like a pooling point is throwing us off or we need to find something that better matches Poland > Ukraine > Poland > Balkans.

What are the years in question. Clearly it is not "illyrian" even though they began on the Danube. it's as i stated before and what many net sites have, Britannica etc etc, the I2a-din is from Ukraine and Crimean areas and the only people that migrated from there to Moldavia and illyrian lands where the cimmerains in around 700BC.

As per historians, thracians and cimmerains are related.

The "Thraco-Cimmerian" complex seen from the perspective of the Urnfield and Hallstatt Period in southeastern Pannonia.


Carola Metzner-Nebelsick
The "Thraco-Cimmerian" complex, made up of mainly equestrian bronzes with East European roots, has traditionally been seen as a crucial component of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age transition in Central and Southeast Europe. The study is divided into an investigation of hoard finds [1000-750 B.C.], an analytical description of the Urnfield and Hallstatt Period [1300-500 B.C.] in Southeast Pannonia, and a typological analysis of the "Thraco-Cimmerian" complex with its importance for the transition between the Urnfield and Hallstatt Period. The illustrated catalogue includes the almost complete material from the cemeteries of Batina / Kiskoszeg, Dalj / Dálya, Pécs, and Erdut / Erdöd. As a main result, the widely held postulate of a single "Thraco-Cimmerian" invasion has yielded to a subtler, more complex picture. East-west contacts are now seen as part of a complexly interwoven relationship between very different cultural groups on both sides of the Carpathian Mountains. Here, a regionally and culturally differentiated integration and indigenous adaptation of eastern forms can be shown to span several generations within the context of cultural transformation.

and
http://www.academia.edu/1899497/Occ..._and_the_Migaration_Period_Sajkaska_revisited


there is so much about this on the net.

We clearly know this as well



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
 
I don't know if people here remember my opinion on this, but for this particular issue it is not even important.

First, I have a comment about a circumstance which should not be shallowly looked into.
Unfortunately, at this moment Romania is not sampled well enough. I only know about one research which has some data for Transylvania (the one mentioning Dracula :) ), and the sample was very small, 50 men from Cluj. 6 of them were I2a. Further, Hungary has less frequent I2a than Moldavia or Wallachia (or than Western Ukraine). So my conclusion is that I2a SHOULD NOT be linked to Carpathian basin, but to the regions on the outer side of the Carpathians. Where Carpathians as important natural factor should not be forgotten.

You are right. I should have said the Carpathian region. I have corrected it.

But existing or not existing link to Carpathian basin is less important than trying to find some firmer indication why I2a-L621 (as you call it) did not come even that early (I agree it "have expanded no earlier than 3000 to 1500 BCE", but you owe us explanation why not even later?).

I was referring to the period when I2a-Din (L147.2) people merged with the Indo-European R1a to create the new ethnic groups I mentioned (Dacians, Thracians and Illyrians). Obviously I2-L147.2 also expanded geographically later on with the Slavic migrations.

And I think I have found something to think about. If your scenario is correct, then majority of these 3 haplogroups would have reached Sooutheast Europe in this order of appearance:
1. I2a-L621 (with Thracians etc...)
2. R1b-U152 (Celts)
3. R1a (Slavs)
Correct me if my assumption is wrong.

But we have a lucky circumstance that R1b-U152 is well explored haplogroup and your map here shows one striking pattern: http://www.eupedia.com/europe/maps_Y-DNA_haplogroups.shtml#R1b-S28
R1b-U152 drops in those exact regions where I2a-L621 and R1a increase. And then in addition to that, R1b-U152 has an area around Greece where it is recovering.

This R1b-U152 pattern makes me conclude that both I2a-L621 and R1a did come to Southeast Europe after R1b-U152, causing a large drop in frequency not just for R1b-U152 but also for other more frequent haplogroups. And if I2a-L621 did come after R1b-U152 then... should I write further? :)

Actually I believe that the Dacians, Thracians and Illyrians all carried R1a lineages too, although in smaller proportion than I2a-Din. The recent study on Serbia by Regueiro et al showed that there was only 5.8% of R1a-M458 in Serbia against 14.6% of older R1a (which could be M417, S224 and/or Z283). In my opinion, the older R1a came principally with the Illyrians alongside I2a-Din.

As for R1b-U152, it is normal to find it in inverse proportions to I2a-L621 and R1a since it came with the Celtic migrations. I don't understand why you want I2a and R1a to have come after R1b-U152. It doesn't make any difference.
 
This is actually one of the best counterpoints to the Slavic hypothesis of I2a-Din origins in the Balkans I've read. Shetop's challenge is also excellent.

One more challenge to it:

I2a-Din can be split into two haplotypes: "North" and "South." These are misnomers because "North," the older, has its highest frequency to the East (Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus, etc.) while "South" has its highest diversity to the West (Poland especially) and only its highest frequency in the Balkans. Considering that the greatest outlier I2a-Din (neither "North" nor "South") has been found in Poland, it's looking like the ancient migration was something like Poland > Ukraine > Poland > Balkans for the Balkans group. But this doesn't really match Poland > Romania > Balkans. So either something like a pooling point is throwing us off or we need to find something that better matches Poland > Ukraine > Poland > Balkans.

I am not saying that the Slavs didn't invade the Dinaric Alps and Balkans and bring more I2a-Din and R1a. They surely did, but the older Illyrian/Dacian/Thracian migration would have had something like 75% of I2a for 25% of R1a, while Slavic migrations would have had roughly the inverse proportion.

It would make sense if the southern cluster coincided with the Illyrian migrations, while the northern cluster was more Slavic. Of course there could be some overlap if both "clusters" already existed in the Late Neolithic. I believe that the higher diversity of the southern cluster should ultimately be in north-east Romania and Moldova. Unfortunately these are two seriously undersampled countries, so we may not have a clear picture of I2a-Din's genetic diversity yet.
 
There is no need to guess which is the other R1a (beside M458) in the Balkans, not just in Serbia. It is clearly R1a-Z280. And if it would have come with Illyrians as you suggest it would also be in inverse proportions with the Y-DNA Slavs contributed, as are in inverse proportions the other 5 haplogroups E-V13, R1b-ht35, J2, G2a and R1b-U152. And R1a-Z280 is not in that group of haplogroups but in the one with I2a and R1a-M458.

I have written about that several times. To use your language again, there are two groups which are in the inverse proportions in the Balkans and it is an important indicator. And it is not because I want those two groups to exist, but because it can be seen after brief analysis. It looks like I have to write it - all haplogroups which were in the Balkans before Slavs came, can be placed in one of those two groups. It is THE MARK left by the last big migration. Just look at the Gheg Albanians and Herzegovain Croats. It can be seen there. It is not 100% picture of the old and the new population but I think it is more than 80% of that picture.

I don't want I2a and R1a to have come after R1b-U152, it is the conclusion I have drawn. And if I2a (all of it) and R1a (all of it), which both belong to one of the two groups from above, came after R1b-U152, it means it could not have come neither with Thracians nor with Illyrians. The reason is simple - history says Celts moved to the region later than Illyrians and Thracians.
 
I have given more thought about the origin of I2a-Din (L621>L147.2) and came to the following conclusion.

During the Mesolithic the I2a1 (P37.2) hunter-gatherers must have occupied a vast part of western, central and eastern Europe. Central and western European I2a1 lineages only survive at low frequencies in three newly identified subclades: L1286, L1294 and L880. The south-western M26 branch was absorbed by Neolithic farmers of the Cardium Pottery culture, whose descendants are found mostly in modern Sardinians and Basques.

The eastern branch, I2a1b (M423) were hunter-gatherers from the Carpathian region and/or from further north (Poland, Belarus, western Ukraine). Those in the Carpathian basin would have mixed with Middle Eastern Neolithic farmers and founded the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture (4800-3000 BCE). The whole region from Romania to Poland would then have been absorbed by the Proto-Indo-European Corded Ware culture (2900-2400 BCE).

After being Indo-Europeanized, I2a-L621 would have become the dominant paternal lineage among southern Slavs, while R1a remained dominant among northern Slavs.

The presence of I2a-L621 in Romania and Bulgaria could be attributed to the migration of the ancient Dacians and Thracians, who emerged as a mixture of of indigenous peoples (I2a1b) and Indo-Europeans (R1a) sometime between 3000 and 1500 BCE.

The Illyrians, an IE tribe who conquered the territory of former Yugoslavia circa 1200-1000 BCE, might have been an offshoot from the Dacians or the Thracians, or a closely related tribe from the Carpathian basin.

I used to think that I2a1b in the Dinaric Alps were the remnants of the original hunter-gatherers and that only the I2a1b outside the Dinaric Alps and Balkans were integrated to the Corded Ware culture and became Proto-Slavs, then Slavs. However there is so little difference between the Dinaric and other Eastern European I2a1b, all belonging to the same deep subclade (L621>CTS4002>...>L147.2) that they must all descend from a fairly recent ancestor and have expanded no earlier than 3000 to 1500 BCE.

I think this is the proper way. Recent research in Serbia (Regueiro et al., 2012) show (what I assumed) that I2a2 in Serbia can be very old.

Regueiro et al. (2012) write (quote):

"Moreover, the age of I2a2-M423 chromosomes in Serbs based on accumulated Y-STR variation, is ~9000 years ago (Table 1)"
 
I think this is the proper way. Recent research in Serbia (Regueiro et al., 2012) show (what I assumed) that I2a2 in Serbia can be very old.

Regueiro et al. (2012) write (quote):

"Moreover, the age of I2a2-M423 chromosomes in Serbs based on accumulated Y-STR variation, is ~9000 years ago (Table 1)"

That research also says that calculation is "based on 15 loci". This is enough to take calculation as wrong.

There are plenty of other calculations made by reputable researchers with results that match each other, but are very different from that single one. I have no doubt who was more accurate.
 
That research also says that calculation is "based on 15 loci". This is enough to take calculation as wrong.

There are plenty of other calculations made by reputable researchers with results that match each other, but are very different from that single one. I have no doubt who was more accurate.

I know, and I've debated with Sparkley on another topic. What is important to note here that I2a2 is older in Balkans in comparison to the arrival of the Slavs. Thracians, Dacians and Illyrians were possible the bearers of this haplogroup (of course and some other haplogroups, for example Bird claims that the highest frequency of E1b1b (E-V13) were at Thracians and Dacians) but it is possible that I2a2 was before the advent of these tribes in the Balkans.

For me now it becomes interesting one questions, which haplogroup were belonged members of culture Lepenski Vir (Lepen Whirl), originated about 9,000 years ago (7,000 BC), reaching the peak between 5,300 BC and 4,800 BC, in eastern Serbia on the banks of the Danube. I started new thread about this interesting matter.
 
Last edited:
That research also says that calculation is "based on 15 loci". This is enough to take calculation as wrong.

There are plenty of other calculations made by reputable researchers with results that match each other, but are very different from that single one. I have no doubt who was more accurate.

More importantly, they use the Zhivotovsky method, which basically recommends taking a normal age estimate and multiplying it by about 3. Reverse the Zhivotovsky adjustment, and their estimate isn't too far away from others.
 
I2a1b in Balkans is clearly of Slavic derivation and has nothing to do absolutely with indigenous Thraco Illyrians, which would have been mostly E-V13, J2 with probably a R1b elite.
 
I2a1b in Balkans is clearly of Slavic derivation and has nothing to do absolutely with indigenous Thraco Illyrians, which would have been mostly E-V13, J2 with probably a R1b elite.

which slavic tribe, can you name it?
 
More importantly, they use the Zhivotovsky method, which basically recommends taking a normal age estimate and multiplying it by about 3. Reverse the Zhivotovsky adjustment, and their estimate isn't too far away from others.

If American scientists tripled due to the method used, you indicate that I2a2 in the Balkans is about 3,000 years old, which is twice prior to the arrival of Slavs. And for R1a we agreed that is much older in Serbia and Balkans than the time of arrival of the Slavs.

Regueiro et al. claim that R1a in Serbia is Paleolithic, but if we can reduce for three times it is about 7,000-4,000 years old.

Authors write (quote):

"Three major episodes of gene flow have been described to explain the high R1a haplotype diversity in the Balkans: (1) re-colonization from the refugium in the Ukraine (early post-LGM, ~20–12 KYA) (Passarino et al., 2001; Semino et al., 2000); (2) migrations from the Pontic steppe associated with the Indo-European Kurgan culture (3000–1000 B.C.) (Rosser et al., 2000; Semino et al., 2000); and, more recently, (3) the massive Slavic migration (5th–7th centuries) (Barać et al., 2003; Peričić et al., 2005)."

It is interesting that R1a-M458 is not common in Serbia (only 5,8%). Authors explained that there were three episodes of arrival of R1a in Balkans (only the part of that in Serbia is Slavic). What is more interesting is that according to authors carriers of R1a are carriers the oldest haplogroup in the Balkans. But here is a question how long I2a2 in the Balkans can be long.
 
And for R1a we agreed that is much older in Serbia and Balkans than the time of arrival of the Slavs.

When did Europeans settle American continent and how old their genes are?
Beside that, you keep quoting Regueiro et al like it is a bible. This forum only, has several members which have much better understanding of history of Y-DNA in Europe, than authors of that document. If you want to get some real knowledge, put that document on a much lower position and find information which is relevant.
 

This thread has been viewed 575366 times.

Back
Top