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

Thracians, Dacians and Illyrians were possible the bearers of this haplogroup

No, that is not significantly possible. This is because I2a-Din came to the Balkans after Celtic R1b-U152. And it is well known that Celts moved to the region after Thracians, Dacians and Illyrians.

So clear conclusion is I2a-Din should not be connected to Thracians etc.

On the other side there is no single piece of argument which would contradict connection between ALL Balkan I2a-Din and Slavic settlement 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.

We can be conservative and ignore all new researches. We can say science no longer has anything new to say. We can stay in the belief that I2a2 and R1a came to the Balkan 1,500 years ago with Slavs and deny new findings.

But science is progressing. You can see Regueiro et al. (2012) claim about Balkan I2a2 9,000 years ago. And in the debate that I had with Sparkley we reduced for 3x claims these authors. Results is I2a2 in the Balkans is 3,000 years ago. It is much earlier than Slavic expansion.

For R1a things are more apparent. R1a in the Balkans is very very old. You know a lot of authors have claimed, not only Regueiro et al. Probably from all today's haplogroups in the Balkans R1a is the oldest. And Regueiro et al. find only 5,8% R1a-M458 among Serbs, versus older 14,8%.

You can see that R1a is very stable in the Balkans. All Balkan populations have a share R1a, in fairly equal measure. Understandably, Croats and Slovenes have the most (due to the movements of Slavs), but every Balkan population has. R1a came in three big waves in the Balkans, first wave was a long long time ago, estimates of different scientists ranging from 20,000 years to 7,000 years.

Today, who says that R1a came to the Balkans first time with Slavs in the 5th century is similar as to say that atoms are the smallest known particles, that no new elements after Mendeleyev or that planets in Solar systems are the only planets in the Universe. But science has advanced and we know that this is no longer true.

For me it is interesting to find out to which haplogroups belonged the members of old Balkan cultures, for example people who created the culture at Lepen Whirl, eastern Serbia (peak about 7,000 years ago). Skeletons of these people has been saved and probably it is possible to determine haplogroups (I started thread on it).

Also Vincha culture (Serbia, Romania) who had early period (7,500-6,800 years ago) and late period (6,800-6,200 years ago). Researches of this kind will surely be performed and we see results.
 
Last edited:
the Lugii tribe, is that who you mean?

Wikiquote:
According to the Slavonic hypotheses, the word Lugi may be a spelling for Slavonic лю΄дїе (~liudey), meaning people. In modern Serbian, the word луг (lug) means "small forest". Thus the word Lugii could indicate "forest people". Serbs have many versions of this word in use today, and all relate to forest, wood and swamp land. There is a possibility that the Lusatian Sorbs, whose land in their own language and in Polish bears the name Łużyce, adjective łużycki, are among their descendants. The term Łużyce/łużycki is possibly akin to Lugii.
 
Last edited:
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.

where did you find facts proving your affirmations here:
Galatians = "real IE warriors" ??? how and why? they were Celtic speaking tribes well linked to more Western and sedentary ones and they kept contacts with their "metropolitan tribes" even after reaching far eastern Europe (or what I red whas fairy tales) - the galatian mercenaries kept in touch until very late with their homelands -
or you have some unrevealed new facts by the hand?
xconcerning Y-R1b-U152-S28, the Romans forces apparently were stationed too in South of S-E Europe and there you do 'nt find this HG - it has some weight only in Croatia and Creta, for I know - but here too, maybe there are new data?
it is sure, the U-152 of "archaïcal zone" of Creta are a mystery
no offense!
 
Celtic language is from IE family. Do we count them as IE people or not?
 
Results is I2a2 in the Balkans is 3,000 years ago. It is much earlier than Slavic expansion.

The result you have reached does not say when did I2a2 come to the Balkans, but it is the date of the most recent common ancestor. Why would you directly relate TMRCA and settlement of a group of people?

In that sense I asked you about Europeans on American continent, but you missed it. You need to improve understanding of the concepts here. We can't talk about conclusions if your arguments are not realistic.
 
The result you have reached does not say when did I2a2 come to the Balkans, but it is the date of the most recent common ancestor. Why would you directly relate TMRCA and settlement of a group of people?

In that sense I asked you about Europeans on American continent, but you missed it. You need to improve understanding of the concepts here. We can't talk about conclusions if your arguments are not realistic.

I think you didn't understand this (no offense), maybe I was not clear.

Regueiro et al. claim that I2a2 in Serbs is 9000 years ago.

Authors write (Quote):

"The high haplotype diversity of I2a2-P37.2/M423 lineages in Serbia (0.9977±0.0094) also supports the
hypothesis that the P37.2 mutation has been present in the Balkans before the LGM (Rootsi et al., 2004; Semino et al., 2000). Moreover, the age of I2a2-M423 chromosomes in Serbs based on accumulated Y-STR variation, is ~9000 years ago (Table 1)"

Sparkley and I debated about this and reduced the number 9000 for 300%. Those result is 3000. This is not much scientific, but you agree that it may have logic.

But here I don't want to make a point if the I2a2 chromosomes in Serbs are 9000 or 3000 years old, or between or whatever. I just wanted to say how is derived number 3000.

And for paper of Regueiro et al. This paper is important (but I don't think it is bible). The paper is published in renowned journal: Gene (in 2012). In the paper participated three American and three Serbian scientists. Since this is scientific research paper it would be good that someone refutes authors arguments with another scientific paper. Opinions from the heads have a lower weight.

About Thracian haplogroups, you can see that I refer to the paper of Bird (2007) who claim that main Thracian haplogroup is E1b1b (E-V13). And probably the part of E1b1b (E-V13) in Serbs came from Thracian tribes. But I also appreciate all those who claim that Thracian haplogroups are I2a2 and R1a. There are two groups of opinions. Maybe, as Tracians were big group tribes, different tribes belonged to different haplogroups, or tribes (or some of the tribes) were mix. We trying to answer this questions bearing in the mind that it will be performed researches haplogroups of Thracians, Dacians, Illyrians etc. and we will know more about this important issues.
 
I think you didn't understand this (no offense), maybe I was not clear.

Regueiro et al. claim that I2a2 in Serbs is 9000 years ago.

Authors write (Quote):

"The high haplotype diversity of I2a2-P37.2/M423 lineages in Serbia (0.9977±0.0094) also supports the
hypothesis that the P37.2 mutation has been present in the Balkans before the LGM (Rootsi et al., 2004; Semino et al., 2000). Moreover, the age of I2a2-M423 chromosomes in Serbs based on accumulated Y-STR variation, is ~9000 years ago (Table 1)"

Sparkley and I debated about this and reduced the number 9000 for 300%. Those result is 3000. This is not much scientific, but you agree that it may have logic.

But here I don't want to make a point if the I2a2 chromosomes in Serbs are 9000 or 3000 years old, or between or whatever. I just wanted to say how is derived number 3000.

And for paper of Regueiro et al. This paper is important (but I don't think it is bible). The paper is published in renowned journal: Gene (in 2012). In the paper participated three American and three Serbian scientists. Since this is scientific research paper it would be good that someone refutes authors arguments with another scientific paper. Opinions from the heads have a lower weight.

About Thracian haplogroups, you can see that I refer to the paper of Bird (2007) who claim that main Thracian haplogroup is E1b1b (E-V13). And probably the part of E1b1b (E-V13) in Serbs came from Thracian tribes. But I also appreciate all those who claim that Thracian haplogroups are I2a2 and R1a. There are two groups of opinions. Maybe, as Tracians were big group tribes, different tribes belonged to different haplogroups, or tribes (or some of the tribes) were mix. We trying to answer this questions bearing in the mind that it will be performed researches haplogroups of Thracians, Dacians, Illyrians etc. and we will know more about this important issues.

If its 3000 years old , then its start of iron-age and as most historians known the Thracian Triballi people are part of the origins of the serbs ( and lets not go down the path that the thracian where slavic people) .

The term "Triballians" appears frequently in Byzantine and other European works of the Middle Ages, referring exclusively to Serbs.[13][14][15][16][17] Some of these authors clearly explain that "Triballian" is synonym to "Serbian".[18][19][20][21][22] For example, Niketas Choniates (or Acominatus, 1155–1215 or-16) in his history about Emperor Ioannes Komnenos: "... Shortly after this, he campaigned against the nation of Triballians (whom someone may call Serbians as well) ..."[23] or the much later Demetrios Chalkondyles (1423–1511), referring to an Islamized Christian noble: "... This Mahmud, son of Michael, is Triballian, which means Serbian, by his mother, and Greek by his father."[24] or Mehmed the Conqueror when referring to the plundering of Serbia.[25]

Much of the territory occupied by the Celts in the area of todays’ Serbia / northern Bulgaria had previously been controlled by the Thracian Triballi tribe. Of all the Thracians, the Triballi had been most affected by the Celtic migrations of the 4th / 3rd c. BC. This tribe had previously inhabited an area which extended from the Morava river in the west, where Herodotus located the Triballian plain, to the Oescus (Iskar) river in the east.

The celts where the scordisci who destroyed the triballi ...............maybe why the existing triballians chose a new name ...servians which became seerbian
 
If its 3000 years old , then its start of iron-age and as most historians known the Thracian Triballi people are part of the origins of the serbs ( and lets not go down the path that the thracian where slavic people) .

The term "Triballians" appears frequently in Byzantine and other European works of the Middle Ages, referring exclusively to Serbs.[13][14][15][16][17] Some of these authors clearly explain that "Triballian" is synonym to "Serbian".[18][19][20][21][22] For example, Niketas Choniates (or Acominatus, 1155–1215 or-16) in his history about Emperor Ioannes Komnenos: "... Shortly after this, he campaigned against the nation of Triballians (whom someone may call Serbians as well) ..."[23] or the much later Demetrios Chalkondyles (1423–1511), referring to an Islamized Christian noble: "... This Mahmud, son of Michael, is Triballian, which means Serbian, by his mother, and Greek by his father."[24] or Mehmed the Conqueror when referring to the plundering of Serbia.[25]

Much of the territory occupied by the Celts in the area of todays’ Serbia / northern Bulgaria had previously been controlled by the Thracian Triballi tribe. Of all the Thracians, the Triballi had been most affected by the Celtic migrations of the 4th / 3rd c. BC. This tribe had previously inhabited an area which extended from the Morava river in the west, where Herodotus located the Triballian plain, to the Oescus (Iskar) river in the east.

The celts where the scordisci who destroyed the triballi ...............maybe why the existing triballians chose a new name ...servians which became seerbian

I know that Thracian tribes were Serbs (Triballi and other), but here is main question about their haplogroups: I2a2, R1a, E1b1b (E-V13), or mix?
 
where did you find facts proving your affirmations here:
Galatians = "real IE warriors" ??? how and why? they were Celtic speaking tribes well linked to more Western and sedentary ones and they kept contacts with their "metropolitan tribes" even after reaching far eastern Europe (or what I red whas fairy tales) - the galatian mercenaries kept in touch until very late with their homelands -
or you have some unrevealed new facts by the hand?
xconcerning Y-R1b-U152-S28, the Romans forces apparently were stationed too in South of S-E Europe and there you do 'nt find this HG - it has some weight only in Croatia and Creta, for I know - but here too, maybe there are new data?
it is sure, the U-152 of "archaïcal zone" of Creta are a mystery
no offense!
It is 2.1% in Bulgaria and the second biggest kind of R1b after R1b-HT35(L23). It is observed mostly in South Central and South East of Bulgaria :)
 
On topic majority of Bulgaria I2a is I2a Din N, we also have some I2a Din S. Thrchains I connected with E-V13, J2b2 and R1b Ht35 :)
I2a is clearly one of the 3 Slavic markers together with R1a-Z280 and R1a-M458 as if it was carried by Thrchians I strongly doubt that.:) But without ancient samples we can say nothing. Bulgarian Muslims are said to be direct link to Thrachians, there are only a few tested( in Greece take make a big research but hide results) the one that we know of are R1b-HT35/L23 and E-V13 there is one R1a, not sure which subgroup :)
 
Wikiquote:
According to the Slavonic hypotheses, the word Lugi may be a spelling for Slavonic лю΄дїе (~liudey), meaning people. In modern Serbian, the word луг (lug) means "small forest". Thus the word Lugii could indicate "forest people". Serbs have many versions of this word in use today, and all relate to forest, wood and swamp land. There is a possibility that the Lusatian Sorbs, whose land in their own language and in Polish bears the name Łużyce, adjective łużycki, are among their descendants. The term Łużyce/łużycki is possibly akin to Lugii.
Very interesting, although this region is considered to belong to Celtic influence in iron age till Slavic Expansion, even by polish archaeologists.
 
Well, according to R1a and R1b maps it seems both cultures reached the central Europe around 2500 BC. I have to believe archaeologists, but I'm eagerly wondering what will DNA analysis say.
 
Here you'll fiind many interesting articles about Thracians, some of them regarding the north-pontic region:




Battle Chariots, "Mycenaean" Ornaments.

Spread of Tin Bronze and the Rise of
Sabatinovka-Coslogeni-Noua Cultural Unit




Thracian, Baltic and Indo-Aryan hydronyms

of North Pontic area




About the character of the Scythian-Thracian contacts
in the Lower Danube in the 4th c. B.C.



https://archive.org/stream/Thracian...thInternational/bulgaria_thracology7_djvu.txt
 
Very interesting, although this region is considered to belong to Celtic influence in iron age till Slavic Expansion, even by polish archaeologists.

the Lugi / Liuday (slavic) links seems to me very improbable on the phonetic aspect -
the celtic or more egnerally a kentum pertainance seems to me more likely (°lug = "light", breton 'luc'h', latine 'lux') - in a satem language I would be expecting something based on ?** luz- ??? - the Celts were known for their love for magnifying personal and tribal names - only speculation of my part, it 's true
 
It is 2.1% in Bulgaria and the second biggest kind of R1b after R1b-HT35(L23). It is observed mostly in South Central and South East of Bulgaria :)

I never said it was absent from all the Balkans (Maciamo maps by instance) but I said its centers of gravity were not in the more romanized areas - no offense -
concerning it presence in the most archaic zone of Creta I 'll look at this island history: had the Urnfields people some influence there?

happy and active new year
 
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.
Is there any Thracian Y aDNA?
 
Is there any Thracian Y aDNA?

We know one is R1b 100% as the area was a stopping spot for R1b.

I2a* is another as this is with the related cimmerains.

E is a strong choice for number 3

and some G2a, J, T as well
 
Why do so many want or only can imagine/understand Haplogroup sub-clades as "identifiable" with or assigned to some known ethnicities of the last thousands years, or those that appear from the shadows into the extant written records of the Mediterranean Ancient Classic historical times? With all the changes in ethnic-identities even within a couple centuries, or one millenia -if to stretch it- as with transformations WITHIN an ethnicity or a morphed complex of many Y-dna/mt-dna combos.....WHY so many still want to identify as "themselves & un-changed" even the Myrmidons of Achiles or the Romans of Marcus Aurelius days.... to his modern city or county neighborhood residents? As if XV or XXV centuries and multiple immigrants waves haven't passed into their mix to become else new and ever more complex?Or as if we could identify modern results in % among haplogroups within a local segment of a modern population..... with whatever it WAS the average percents in any given portion of time in History?.... as if no populations tumbling and changes happened (and we know CHANGES DID and continue happening)?
 
Why do so many want or only can imagine/understand Haplogroup sub-clades as "identifiable" with or assigned to some known ethnicities of the last thousands years, or those that appear from the shadows into the extant written records of the Mediterranean Ancient Classic historical times? With all the changes in ethnic-identities even within a couple centuries, or one millenia -if to stretch it- as with transformations WITHIN an ethnicity or a morphed complex of many Y-dna/mt-dna combos.....WHY so many still want to identify as "themselves & un-changed" even the Myrmidons of Achiles or the Romans of Marcus Aurelius days.... to his modern city or county neighborhood residents? As if XV or XXV centuries and multiple immigrants waves haven't passed into their mix to become else new and ever more complex?Or as if we could identify modern results in % among haplogroups within a local segment of a modern population..... with whatever it WAS the average percents in any given portion of time in History?.... as if no populations tumbling and changes happened (and we know CHANGES DID and continue happening)?
Good question. I'll give it a try.
It is all because of human social nature. We all want to belong to a group, and if we find a continuity with a strong historic group then even better. Also in men there is a romantic warrior aspect. It feels good to identify yourself with brave warriors, strong armies, superheroes. These are very emotionally positives for our psyche.

Welcome to Eupedia Beavrrit.
 

This thread has been viewed 582994 times.

Back
Top