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

[Garrick]

Very little is certain in any aspect of genetics, but as I said before, the academicians and virtually everyone in the hobbyist community except people from the Balkans like Garrick and Miroslav believe that this particular lineage of I2a existed in more northern areas and became part of the Slavic speaking community there, only arriving in the Balkans with the Slavic migrations of early Medieval times.

It seems to an uninterested observer that people who have been pumped with "Slavic" propaganda since the 1800s and maybe even before just want to have it both ways. They want to be "Slavic", despite all the evidence that most of them are at least half and often more definitely not "Slavic", and at the same time they want to be "indigenous", so they go through these contortions trying to show that the only y marker which could possibly be "Slavic" is indigenous, which would mean that the Slavic languages are also "indigenous", which is patently absurd. For one thing, except for some ethnocentrist linguists from the Balkans who are mostly ignored, every linguist in the world knows that Slavic is a relatively recent language, and every archaeologist, anthropologist and geneticist in the world knows that there was a migration by Slavic speaking peoples into the Balkans after the fall of the Western Empire and the weakening of the Eastern Empire. It was just a slightly later later Barbarian invasion.

You can't just look at the arguments for this y lineage being "indigenous". You have to look at the whole pattern or story that is being sold. If this lineage is not "Slavic", where did all the "Slavic" ancestry come from? There's far too little R1a to account for it. So, it has to be "Slavic". It also has to be "indigenous" for some people, but that would require us to believe that it was already in the Balkans before the arrival of Slavic speaking peoples in the Middle Ages. In that case what the heck y dna did those people carry? Simple, for these type of people. We'll just pretend that all the archaeologists relying on data and all the historians relying on actual documents are wrong and that there was no "Slavic" migration.

The whole thing is utterly ridiculous. How even someone who has been brainwashed by an education system and a culture under the control of autocrats and fifty or more years behind the times can believe this illogical and a-scientific narrative is beyond me. Of course, this is the Balkans....

I very appreciate the work of the moderators of the forum that requires a lot of knowledge and a lot of concentration and congratulations.

Moderators can certainly be mistaken. First nobody can know everything which is true postulate and these are topics where there is no final answers because the situation is changing with each following findings.

What we now have from the standpoint of science are four theories:

1. Russian/Pan-Slavic theory

According this theory I-CTS10228 is Slavic marker. His presence in today's high concentration areas is consequence of Slavic expansion (5-7 century).

This theory you support.

2. Thracian theory

According this theory I-CTS10228 is Thracian marker. I-CTS10228 is present in genetic fund of Northern Black sea region/Romanian/Eastern and Central Balkan population before of a mass migration (3-7 century).

3. German/Western European theory

According this theory I-CTS10228 is German marker, the most represented among Goths and Gepids. It had more directions, coming to the Balkans in 3-4 century and spreading to the Eastern Europe where Germans and Slavs was overlapping. In these processes carriers of I-CTS10228 were Slavicized.

4. Illirian/Western Balkan theory

According this theory I-CTS10228 is Illyrian marker, indigenous to the Western Balkan.

Every of these theories has pluses and minuses.

For example one of the minuses of Russian/Pan-Slavic theory is that I-CTS10228 is founded much before Slavs entered the historical stage, Russian/Pan-Slavist scientists have no explanation for this fact. Minus Dacian/Thracian theory is that although no one can doubt that I-CTS10228 could be present in Dacian and Thracian genetic fund before 3 century issue is whether it could be present in large quantities. Minus German/Western European theory is although it can be well-adjusted with the assumption that most probably I-CTS10228 emerged in Central Europe (today's Austria, Germany, Denmark, Western France, Northern Italy, Slovenia, Czech Republic etc.) and it was presented at German people I-CTS10228 didn't spread in all areas where German tribes moved. Minus Illyrian/Western Balkan theory is that could hardly explain strongly presence I-CTS10228 in Northern and Eastern Slavic countries.

What is needed to solve which of these four theories is most appropriate. It is patience. We will see newer findings.

Personaly for me second theory (I-CTS10228 is Thracian marker) could be best adjusted with a numerous dilemmas including language and well geographically connect different areas.

But I don't advocate none of these theories as final. Therefore I have no idea where you concluded which of these four theories I prefer, I only criticized attitudes that due to insufficient evidence one of these theories is winner. No, it is not true. Practically, all of them are in playing.Another thing is how many probabilty, what is very changeable with new evidence.

 

[Balkanite]

How should I2a-Slavic ever be a Thracian or Illyrian marker? For being a marker it should at least had been a great portion of the Illyrians/Thracians who had this haplogroup, right?

How could it have been a major haplogroup among those peoples if I2a-Slavic was a haplogroup present in only one single man who lived 300 BC(as TMRCA tells us)?
The Illyrians/Thracians were hundreds of thousands and maybe millions of people at that time. In my memory i recall several battles where the Illyrians fought by the thousands and occasionally slaughtered up to 10000 Macedonians or Molossians at a time.
IF I2a-Slavic were really among those Illyrians, he would not have been representative at all, but just a slave or something captured from the central european wilderness of that time.

But what would you rather be then? A slave captured by the Illyrians in antiquity(probably some kind of proto-slav who got Illyrianized), or a real SLAV coming to the balkans in the middle ages?

Always have that in the back of your head: Illyrians and Thracians were maybe hundreds of thousands at the time that I2a-Slavic was just one little person.

 

[Balkanite]

And the most amazing part of the fairytale is: And somehow the Illyrianized Proto-slav slave from antiquity, actually began talking slavic in the middle ages, just as all other I2a-Slavic around Europe. Just by accident. He could feel in his heart that his real language was slavic, so when the other slavs appeared in the balkans a 1000 years later, all of his thousands of ancestors would agree that they should as the only haplogroup of europe, become a nearly exlusive slavic speaking haplogroup. They could just feel it in their heart. It is not just because they actually arrived in the middle ages.

 

[MarkoZ]

More interesting than the linguistic Thracians would be the pan-East-European Thraco-Cimmerian phenomenon of unknown affiliation:

After the IBD analysis of Kushnarevich (2015) I think significant gene flow into the Balkans from a Slavic source is definitely falsified. Earlier Iron Age movements on the other hand point to Romania and vicinity as an important source. IIRC that's also were I2a-din should be from based on present day hierarchical diversity.

 

[Balkanite]

You are giving them way to much credit. They are more vultures than they are hunters.
(hope people know i am joking. I love hunter gatherers. Check my posts about technology and youll see) :grin:

 

[Apsurdistan]

How should I2a-Slavic ever be a Thracian or Illyrian marker? For being a marker it should at least had been a great portion of the Illyrians/Thracians who had this haplogroup, right?

How could it have been a major haplogroup among those peoples if I2a-Slavic was a haplogroup present in only one single man who lived 300 BC(as TMRCA tells us)?
The Illyrians/Thracians were hundreds of thousands and maybe millions of people at that time. In my memory i recall several battles where the Illyrians fought by the thousands and occasionally slaughtered up to 10000 Macedonians or Molossians at a time.
IF I2a-Slavic were really among those Illyrians, he would not have been representative at all, but just a slave or something captured from the central european wilderness of that time.

But what would you rather be then? A slave captured by the Illyrians in antiquity(probably some kind of proto-slav who got Illyrianized), or a real SLAV coming to the balkans in the middle ages?

Always have that in the back of your head: Illyrians and Thracians were maybe hundreds of thousands at the time that I2a-Slavic was just one little person.

What garbage are you going on about? And stop calling I2a people slaves you friggin lunatic. Yo mods did you forget how to do your job?

 

[Balkanite]

What garbage are you going on about? And stop calling I2a people slaves you friggin lunatic. Yo mods did you forget how to do your job?

I am not claiming it was in the balkans at that time, so i don't think I2a-Slavic was a slave.

But i am just pointing out the most reasonable scenario which would fit into your "I2a-Slavic was in the Illyrian population" theory. And that is that he was one single person. How did he get there? Was he so strong and beautiful that everyone just let him settle?
Even in highland Albania of 1900 it was hard(if not impossible) to come and settle in their mountains without a fight, so let's not talk about the Illyrians and Thracians of 300 BC, when everything was more barbaric. You would be a dreamer to believe that he could just settle without being enslaved by the local chieftain. A scenario where he was taken as a slave fits more accurately with how the Balkans functioned at the time.

But again, i am not claiming I2a-Slavic was in the balkans at all at that time. I rather think he was in the proto-slavic urheimat making babies fast rate, slowly expanding, until his descendants of the middle ages would be chased all the way down to the danube by the huns or some other asian invader people.

 

[Balkanite]

What garbage are you going on about? And stop calling I2a people slaves you friggin lunatic. Yo mods did you forget how to do your job?

And i am no lunatic. You should talk with respect to me, after all I2 is just J2's retarded little brother.
Ha ha. Joke. But you shouldn't call people lunatics just for exposing sick theories like the I2a-IllyroThracoSlavian theory you guys are bringing up again and again.

 

[Garrick]

Miroslav, Garrick, Milan and Dinarid, you can down thumb me and anyone else who shows up your illogic until kingdom come. . It's just ultra-nationalistic obfuscation and everyone knows it. Who do you think you're kidding? Everyone else in the amateur community knows that this whole argument is nonsense, and as for the academics, you're not even on their radar.

You keep spamming the same distorted arguments over and over again, and harassing other members, and you're all going to get infractions. Everyone else is tired of being on this merry-go-round.

Because I criticize Russian/Pan-Slavic theory I am ultra nationalist!?

I could expect from some Russian or Serbian ultra-nationalist to ban me, at the nationalistic forum, because what I say is sacrilege for true Serbian ultra-nationalists because they worship everything Russian.

But honestly I could not even in a dream at a European forum because my European values.

It is absurdity, if any Serbian ultra-nationalist reads this he will laugh at me.

Probably Apsurdistan is right, it is a clear misunderstanding, cultures are different and moderators are humans, they can do from their perspective right but really mistaken and it is one of the options in the forum's world, however always in mind the work of moderator is hard, especially in these forums.

 

[Bergin]

i can offer you some help to understand why i2a can not be illyrian or thracian. I2a is a hunter gathers marker. According to evolution theory the savager the hunter the better chances of surviving were. So the wildest among them survived since they were able to kill without remorse anything they faced, even the infant animals or exotic animals. But on the other hand it develops a barbaric psycho on the social side. If you see the countries with more i or i2a haplogroup individuals committed more crimes against people. If you notice the two countries that have killed more people in europe are germany and serbia. They both score high in presence of haplogroup i among their people. As i said it was because of savage and killing habits among the surviving hunter gathers were more pronounced. So as you know crimes that serbs have committed in balkan are enormous and barbaric, massive graves all over bosnia, kosovo, croatia etc..,rapes and unspeakable other crimes. All this criminel side on serbs part is as result of their hunter heritage, which can be explained by high concentration of high i2a haplo. On the other hand because thracian lacked i2a they were soft people because they did not have i2a. So were illyrians. You understand now that evidence of who brought i2a is easy to understand.

you are stereotyping millions of people. You have racism problems. You should be banned.

 

[Trojet]

But again, i am not claiming I2a-Slavic was in the balkans at all at that time. I rather think he was in the proto-slavic urheimat making babies fast rate, slowly expanding, until his descendants of the middle ages would be chased all the way down to the danube by the huns or some other asian invader people.

Makes perfect sense, considering the unusual rapid expansion starting ca. 300 BC of this clade, as can be seen here <notice all these Balkan samples clustering with Eastern European samples within the last 2300 years all over these I-CTS10228 subclades.

BTW, great idea, in light of all the evidence in recent years, we should start calling it I2a-Slavic instead of I2a-Dinaric.

 

[Balkanite]

Makes perfect sense, considering the unusual rapid expansion starting ca.300 BC!

BTW, in light of all the evidence in recent years, we should start calling it I2a-Slavic instead of I2a-Dinaric.

Indeed. After all, the "I2a-Din"-label is just a misconception which stuck by. A remnant from the time before TMRCA-method.

 

[Trojet]

Indeed. After all, the "I2a-Din" is just a misconception which stuck by. A remnant from the time before TMRCA-method.

Exactly! It was labeled as "Dinaric" (North and South) based on STR clustering before we had Next Generation Sequencing and before we had a SNP designation for it (I-CTS10228), due to it being in a high concentration in western Balkans (Dinaric Alps) - the area that was hit pretty hard by Slavic migrations.

Nowadays "Dinaric South" cluster corresponds to I-CTS10228>>PH908+ which has an even younger TMRCA at only 1850 ybp, which makes up the majority of south Slavic I-CTS10228 and is also present among East and West Slavs. While the rest that are I-CTS10228+ and PH908- make up "Dinaric North" cluster.

 

[Garrick]

Makes perfect sense, considering the unusual rapid expansion starting ca. 300 BC of this clade, as can be seen here <notice all these Balkan samples clustering with Eastern European samples within the last 2300 years all over these I-CTS10228 subclades.

BTW, great idea, in light of all the evidence in recent years, we should start calling it I2a-Slavic instead of I2a-Dinaric.

You are the biggest Pan-Slavist/Russian nationalist in the forum.

First you promote pro-Russian web site, now you are spreading Pan-Slavism.

For you all Albanians, Greeks, Romanians, Hungarians, Germans etc. who have I-CTS10228 are Slavs, you increase Slavic territory and population, Albanian as secret Pan-Slavist, LOL.

 

[Angela]

T.I.B.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHsrr0JJMbY
(from blood diamonds)

Sorry for the spam but couldn't resist.

I like it. In fact I'll be using it in the future.

 

[Trojet]

The "Dinaric South" cluster corresponds to I-CTS10228>>PH908+. It has an even younger TMRCA at only 1850 years as can be seen here, which makes up the majority of South Slavic I-CTS10228 (hence "Dinaric South"), and is also present among East and West Slavs.

For example the following data is taken from FamilyTreeDNA I2a Project. And I-CTS10228>>PH908 (aka Dinaric South) TMRCA 1850 ybp, is spread throughout the Slavic countries (East, West, South) as can be seen in this pic in the red box (members last names are edited out, even though they are public):

Yeah, keep up the fairy-tales, such as "no evidence" or "Russian Propaganda", unless you believe FamilyTreeDNA is owned by the Russians...

 

[Fustan]

Good idea Trojet. I shall from now on call it I2a-Slavic as well.

 

[Angela]

That's the issue - the given "answers" which can be read on this or similar sites, at least on the topic of this haplogroup, are not based on anything relevant and confirmed about the haplogroup. There is no ancient sample, was it thousands or several centuries old, was it from e.g. Poland or Bosnia and Herzegovina (preferably both) and so on. Neutrality is not shown as is pushed a specific theory which currently has missing links and is simply too soon to throw it to people as a "fact" or "mainstream" consideration. We are at the stage of theorization, there's nothing relevant enough to snap and say "that's it!". My primary issue is the lack of neutrality, which common people do not know.



Contradictory logic and premature conclusion ignoring the fact the samples have a strongly isolated locality, period, number tendency, from which according to the I2a1-P37.2 sample list, can not be concluded anything what happened after LGM refugia migration, even that is speculative. The subclade formation age and TMRCA do not correspond with Slavic ethnogenesis formation and much later medieval migration. Its young age does not exclude it was present in the Balkan or broad region from both sides of Danube river.



That's not a strong argument considering that social-cultural-ethnic identity steadily changed. Instead of cultural, you could use geographical argument.



Ideology. The primary issue with historiography during the Yugoslavian period was in the fact the archeology research could not confirm massive Slavic migration nor that Balkan was uninhabited, while ethnography research conclusion that many Dinaric traditions among both South Slavic, or Vlachian, or Albanian populations have a non-Slavic origin, yet mostly considered Illyrian.

Oh, please, if you have no facts to proffer just charge everyone with bias. Why would I have any vested interest in whether or not this lineage came with the Slavs or was "indigenous"? Why would I care? Why would the whole amateur community care except for you guys in the Balkans? You think the the academics give a darn about this or could even comprehend giving a darn about it?

NO ONE CARES except you people. That's why we're the only ones who can be objective.

As to who ever asked which countries I've visited, in Europe I've been to Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Croatia, Romania, Hungary and Greece. That's not only for pleasure but for business, but I will concede I've never lived in these countries for long periods of time. I have, however, worked with people from these countries.

I know dozens of Croatians, as there's a big group here who run restaurants and once you know one you know all their friends too. I also know quite a few Poles, because I befriended the au pair who worked in the home next to me, and met a lot of her friends. Since I've had both Portuguese and eastern European au pairs I know a lot of people in those communities too. We have a very large Greek community and I can't count how many of them I know, many of the older generation actually from Greece. My dentist is Greek, as is one of the accountants in the firm I use. My daughter and son have lots of Greek friends.

Then, of course, there's Italy, and in the western hemisphere I have gone to both Canada and Mexico numerous times.

We don't live in the kinds of closed societies which give one tunnel vision and distrust of "the other". One thing I don't have is tunnel vision.

 

[Garrick]

What garbage are you going on about? And stop calling I2a people slaves you friggin lunatic. Yo mods did you forget how to do your job?

He understood something these four theories which scientists systematized and I only rewrote.

It doesn't matter how many TMCRA is old, it is important where clade emerged and spread.

For example if I-PH908, TMCRA=1850ybp emerged and spread among Illyrians (in today's) Bosnia, it is Illyrian marker, Illyrians lived in Bosnia in 150 AD.

Similar situation is for Thracian, they existed in 150 AD surely.

I spoke about I-CST10228 (TMCRA=250-300 BC) could be Thracian if it emerged among Thracians in that time (they lived in the wider territory from today's Ukraine to Eastern Serbia and Bulgaria).

 

[Balkanite]

You are the biggest Pan-Slavist/Russian nationalist in the forum.

First you promote pro-Russian web site, now you are spreading Pan-Slavism.

For you all Albanians, Greeks, Romanians, Hungarians, Germans etc. who have I-CTS10228 are Slavs, you increase Slavic territory and population, Albanian as secret Pan-Slavist, LOL.

Ha ha. I love when the desperation fueled by the lack of arguments, drive you guys to write nonsense like this. Please, keep it up. Let everyone see that you are nothing but a spammer.
And NO they are not slavs. Their direct ancestors probably were slavs at some point.
But they probably got absorbed by some other people due to the ever changing borders and aristocracies of the balkans.
The greeks belonging to I2a-Slavic probably were slavs who lived in modern Greece during the formation of the greek state in 1821, but soon all orthodox churches became greek in language, so practically all I2a-Slavic Orthodox's who were fast enough to reach modern Greece before 1821, became Hellenized after 1821 and today, those ex-slavs still call themselves greeks.

The I2a-Slavic in albanians, may have come during the Ottoman Empire, where there were Muslim Gorani(slavs), Muslim Bosnians(slavs) and Muslim Albanians living side by side in many instances. Sometimes an albanian J2b2 would become slavicized if living among a majority of Muslim slavs, within a matter of a generation or two. On the other hand, a muslim I2a-Slavic slav would also be albanized if living among a majority of albanians for a generation or two.

So actually written sources and population demographics of middle age and modern history fits perfectly into the theory that those people you mention actually have small percentages of assimilated slavic Y-DNA.

All of the nationalities you have mentioned above have been in contact with slavs throughout the last 1300 years.
That is well documented in historical sources.