I2a-Din distribution among East Slavs

" Ken Nordvedt should give I2a din more time then just 3000 years i think is more old then that,simple doesn't fit in some recent discoveries of linguistics and archeologists,plus i does not think so I2a din can be one of the most dominant haplogroup in the Balkans and some other regions in just 3000 years,"

This is absolutely impossible.Look at the TMRCAs:
http://yfull.com/tree/I-Y3111/
 
The history of the Thracians started in the early Bronze Age when archaeology shows there was a change in culture due to peoples moving in from the Steppe lands to the east. These peoples entered lands which already had more than 3000 years of civilisation; sturdy square houses, towns, art, copper technology.

http://www.eliznik.org.uk/Bulgaria/history/thracian.htm
 
To which cultures you are talking about precisely?the History of the Thracians and in case of every "barbarians" started when one wrote for them,when they formed a political ethnie,tribal organization name it however,those people surely have lived prior then that,maybe not in that form,same goes for Sclavenes (Slavs) their history doesn't start in the 6th century when Procopious of Caeserea(Palestine)name the people on the Danube by that name,surely they was arround and in Europe longer,just maybe by other names in Roman historiography.
 
Last edited:
This is absolutely impossible.Look at the TMRCAs:

I2a din couldn't be one of the dominant haplogroup in just 2500 years in the Balkan peninsula and some other regions.
 
Last edited:
Extension to South of the Proto-Slavic homeland Trubachev’s main thesis is that prehistoric Slavs occupied not only the middle area of Central Europe, but also the Danube basin. Several arguments, to be added to mine, have led him to this conclusion 1) “The version about the Slavs coming from ‘somewhere’ originated long time ago ina misunderstanding of the silence of the Greek and Roman authors about the Slavs as such” (Trubaþev 1985, 227). Trubaþev here refers to the old version of the traditional theory, according to which Slavs would have ‘arrived’ in the 6th century. 30(2) The absence of any memory of the ‘arrival’ of the Slavs in the Slavic written or oral record “may be an indication of their (and their ancestors!) original stay in Central Oriental Europe in large numbers” (idem, 206). (3) Both in the oldest, 12th century Russian chronicle (the so called “Narration of the past times”) (Conte 1990, 9), and in the oral tradition represented by Russian byliny, the permanence of Slavs on the Danube is remembered (Trubachev 1985, 204-5). “What else, if not a memory of the old stay on the Danube, appears [...] in the old songs about the Danube among the Eastern Slavs who, it should be remembered, never lived on the Danube [...] during their written history and never took part in the Balcanic invasions of the Early Middle Ages” (ibidem). More over, already B.A. Rybakov had maintained that the history of Eastern Slavs began in the South (idem, 225). The Middle Dneper area remains important, but “it is not excluded that in some previous period [...] [it] was only a [peripheral] part of a greater and otherwise shaped territory”. This would be also confirmed y the high percentage of anthropological Mediterranean types among Eastern Slavs and Poles (idem, 225, n. 20). In fact, in the middle of the first millennium the Right Bank Ukraine must already be a part of the periphery of the ancient Slavic area(idem, 242).(4) Many scholars have anticipated Trubaþev’s thesis: Budimir, supported by numerousex-Yugoslavian scholars, claimed a greater proximity of Ancient Slavs to the Balkanic region than traditionally thought; Kopitar sought the Proto-Slavic homeland on the Danube and in Pannonia; Niederle admitted the existence of Slavic enclaves in Thracia and in Illyiria already at the beginning of our era; and both Niederle and Šafárik considered as Slavic terms like Vulka, Vrbas, Tsierna e Pathissus (s. further) (idem,223, 227, 229).(5) According to Trubaþev, even the historian Jordanes’ collocation of the Veneti to the North of the Sclaveni, and Anti to their East, implies the Slavic presence in the South(idem, 228).(6) Hungarian place names, in Pannonia and on the Tisza, are Slavic, as J. Stanislav has demonstrated (idem, 228). The region’s river names, such as Tisza (Rum. Tisa, Germ.Theiss, to be compared with Plinius’ place name Pathissus, composed with the Slavic prefix po-; Maros (Rum. Mureú, in Herodotus Máris, from PIE *mori ‘sea’, but with aSlavic suffix); the suffix -s, common to river names such as Szamos (Rum. Someú) and Temes, certainly derives from a Slavic suffix -sjo- (idem, 228-9).(7) Trubaþev then underlines the importance of the contacts between common Slavic and the different IE linguistic groups, and of the respective isoglosses (often, however,without being able to exploit them owing to the traditional chronology!):(a) The Slavo-Latin isoglosses, appearing in the social sphere (Lat. hospes ~ Slav.*gospodƱ, Lat. favere ~ Slav. *govČti), in the construction terminology (Lat. struere ~Slav. *strojiti), in that of landscape (Lat. paludes ~ Slav. *pola voda); of agriculture(Lat. pomum < *po-emom ~ Slav. *pojmo (Russ. pojmo ‘handful’) (idem, 216. And seealso 217: gǎrnǎ, kladivo, molty). Within the PCT these isoglosses can be dated, at thelatest, to the beginning of Neolithic, when the contacts between the ‘Italid’ culture ofthe Cardial/Impresso Ware on the Adriatic Eastern coast and the South Slavic Starþevo culture were certainly very close.(b) The Slavo-Illyrian isoglosses (Doksy, Czech place name, Daksa, Adriatic island, andHesichius’ gloss: Epirotic dáksa; Dukla, mountain pass in the Carpatians, Duklja in Montenegro, Doklea (Ptolemy); Licicaviki, Polish tribal name, to be compared to Illyr.*Liccavici (Illyr. anthroponym Liccavus, Liccavius) and Southern Slavic place name Lika (Trubaþev 1985, 217-8).(c) Slavo-Iranian contacts, which, as we have seen, according to Trubaþev should not precede the middle of the 1st millennium (idem, 241).(8) Criticizing the excessive restriction of the earliest Slavic area Trubaþev finally recalls Brückner’s humorous warning: “Don’t do to anybody what would not please you. The German scholars would love to drown all the Slavs in the Pripet swamps, and the Slavic scholars all the Germans in the Dollart […] – a quite pointless endeavour:there would not be enough room for them; better drop the matter and don’t spare God’slight for either of them” (idem, 206).
 
N. S. Trubetskoy prolongs the late Ancient Slavic period up to the latest common Slav
innovation, namely, to the drop-out of reduced vowels (ъ, ь
), as well as links it to
vocalization. The existence of autonomous Slavic languages can be presumed after this timelimit
only.
http://doktori.btk.elte.hu/lingv/fabicstamas/thesis.pdf


Before the Settlement of the Magyars in Hungary time of which is much disputed many
nations lived on this territory for shorter or longer periods. A part of these nations spoke
Ancient Slavic dialects. Slavs lived in this area in sparse settlements; it was due to dissected
landscape and also to the varied ethnic composition of the region's population at the time.
 
N. S. Trubetskoy prolongs the late Ancient Slavic period up to the latest common Slav
innovation, namely, to the drop-out of reduced vowels (ъ, ь
), as well as links it to
vocalization. The existence of autonomous Slavic languages can be presumed after this timelimit
only.



Before the Settlement of the Magyars in Hungary time of which is much disputed many
nations lived on this territory for shorter or longer periods. A part of these nations spoke
Ancient Slavic dialects. Slavs lived in this area in sparse settlements; it was due to dissected
landscape and also to the varied ethnic composition of the region's population at the time.
Slavic enormous expansion the only evidence for a great migration of Slavs in historical times that traditional scholars can possibly claim lies in a literal reading of the mentions of medieval historians, such as the Thracian Priscus of Panion (5th century), the Greek Procopius of Cesarea (6th century) and the Goth Jordanes (6th century), or those of the Church (e.g. Conte 1990, 33-34). But it is quite evident that such mentions do not point unambiguously to an ‘invasion’ or ‘migration’ of Slavs, but can just as simply be taken as to refer to pre-existing Slavs, the presence of which even traditional scholars now admit. When, for example, John of Ephesos, bishop of Constantinopolis under Justinian (527-65) mentions the innumerable raids into the Bizantine territori by “the damned people of the Slavs” he damns them because they were still pagan, and not because they are ‘arriving’! And when, in his De rebus Gethicis Jordanes describes the location of the Venedi, and writes that they inhabited the area “From the source of the Visla river and on incommensurable expanses”, he does not give the slightest indication of a recent arrival of theirs, but simply describes a statu quo.Not only, but when earlier historians, living in the centuries preceding the supposed arrival of the Slavs, write that the population of the Carpatian Basin offered a drink called medos (Proto-Slavic medǎ ‘drink produced with honey”) the Byzantine ambassadors directed to the court of Attila (king of the Huns), and that a part of the funeral rituals for Attila’s death was called strava (medieval name of a Slavic funeral ritual), only a biased reader can find evidence in this for the “first infiltrations” of Slavs in the Carpatian area, especially as they seem to have left not trace of their coming! (Neustupný-Neustupný 1963, 196). The much simpler truth is that the Slavs were there from remote times. For, again, the first mention of peoples in writing depends on the birthday of writing, and not on the birthday of peoples! In short, if such an enormous expansion of the Slavs both to the South and to the North from their alleged homeland in Middle-Eastern Europe had really taken place, the most important evidence we should expect to find would be archaeological. Which is entirely missing.How do scholars explain the semantic development from “Slavic” to “slave” in Western sources? All historical sources irrefutably show that the Slavic area was the main reservoir of slaves in the whole period of Early Middle Ages. This preference for slaves of Slavic origin – so strong as to make Slavs the slaves by anthonomasia – has been easily explained: in that period Slavic people were the only ones who were still pagan, and this detail is most important as it explains why, by choosing them, early medieval slave traders – mostly Venetian, Genoese and Jewish – did not violate the new principles of the “Societas christiana”, introduced by Pope Gregory the Great at the end of the 6th century, according to which baptized people must be excluded from slavery. So we obtain a safe dating for the word sclavus, in the sense of “slave”. Now, as this period is precisely the one in which the supposed ‘great migration’ of the Slavs should take place, the question arises: how can huge migrating groups that were supposed to be aggressively busy occupying half of Europe, from the Arctic area to the Black Sea, submerging and extinguishing all previous populations, have at the same time been chosen as the European slaves par excellence? This would clash against all that we know – and that history abundantly shows – rather than being migrating to new territories and exterminating pre-existing people, they were known to have beeen stable in their territories...
 
Last edited:
It must be noted that TMRCA is not the same as migration time.

TMRCA shows when the number of people with a given mutation started to rise in numbers.

They could be initially increasing in numbers in one region, without migrating to other areas yet.

So claiming that I2a-Din didn't come with Slavs because it's TMRCA precedes the Slavic migration by some centuries, is erroneuous.

It actually SHOULD precede the Slavic migration. Because if it didn't, then that would mean that only ONE Slavic person with I2a-Din came.

And that was most likely not the case. I2a-Din increased in numbers to some thousands individuals, and only then started to migrate.

=======================================

BTW - check my thread on prehistoric distribution of Y-DNA haplogroups in Europe:

Page 8 (R1a versus R1b maps):

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...arly-Iron-Age-Y-DNA-landscape-of-Europe/page8

Page 1 (maps of all haplogroups):

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...thic-Early-Iron-Age-Y-DNA-landscape-of-Europe
 
"So claiming that I2a-Din didn't come with Slavs because it's TMRCA precedes the Slavic migration by some centuries, is erroneuous."
So what?Tatars comes with Mongolians but they were not Mongolians.
1)I2a-"Din" is not Dinaric! 2.)I2a is not IE! 3.I2a is not Slavic! 4.) Language and ethnicity are different things.5.) Haplogroup frequencies has nothing to do with Hg origins.
 
"So claiming that I2a-Din didn't come with Slavs because it's TMRCA precedes the Slavic migration by some centuries, is erroneuous."
So what?Tatars comes with Mongolians but they were not Mongolians.
1)I2a-"Din" is not Dinaric! 2.)I2a is not IE! 3.I2a is not Slavic! 4.) Language and ethnicity are different things.5.) Haplogroup frequencies has nothing to do with Hg origins.

Hm, maybe it is the best that I2a-Din doesn't exist?

Knowledge about I2a-Din changed completely picture about Balkans. Today people in the Internet forums, books, media think and speak total different, comparing with the time 15 years ago.


Haplogroups by country:

Dominant_YDNA.png
 
"So claiming that I2a-Din didn't come with Slavs because it's TMRCA precedes the Slavic migration by some centuries, is erroneuous."
So what?Tatars comes with Mongolians but they were not Mongolians.
1)I2a-"Din" is not Dinaric! 2.)I2a is not IE! 3.I2a is not Slavic! 4.) Language and ethnicity are different things.5.) Haplogroup frequencies has nothing to do with Hg origins.

I2a is indeed Dinaric and have it's name because of Dinaric Slavs and Dinaric Alps,that's how South Slavs are known,so what is it if it's not IE?how can you claim I2a din is not Slavic?Slavs are ethnolingustic group,and you speak as you know which haplogroups are responsible for IE Speech or like it's proven, just because you read some link on Eupedia which represent Kurgan hypothesis of IE languages,i would say Autochtonous people of Europe and the agriculture are responsible for IE languages,Kurgan cultures was Turkic and Pastoral,horse herding in it's origin,Klyosov himself claim that R1b brought Turkic or Caucasian languages in Europe,prove for this are the Etruscans and the Basques with highest R1b yet Non IE languages,Pastoral vs Agriculture:Kathrin Krell (1998) finds that the terms found in the reconstructed Indo-European language are not compatible with the cultural level of the Kurgans. Krell holds that the Indo-Europeans had agriculture whereas the Kurgan people were "just at a pastoral stage" and hence might not have had sedentary agricultural terms in their language, despite the fact that such terms are part of a Proto-Indo-European core vocabulary.
 
Last edited:
Language and ethnicity are different things.

Language and ethnicity are related.

Ethnicity is a cultural phenomenon, and language is a very important part of culture (though not the only part).

Race is genetic. And within races you have sub-races, or anthropological types.
 
the Basques with highest R1b yet Non IE languages

So what? The Basques are a similar case as the Paraguyans, the Chippewa or the Cherokee. As Maciamo explained.

The Paraguyans have mostly R1b (Spanish subclades), but they speak Guarani language and they are genetically mixed race (Mestizos).

90% of Paraguyans speak Guarani, of them majority also speak Spanish, but in rural regions 52% speak only Guarani.
 
I2a is indeed Dinaric and have it's name because of Dinaric Slavs and Dinaric Alps,that's how South Slavs are known,so what is it if it's not IE?how can you claim I2a din is not Slavic?Slavs are ethnolingustic group,and you speak as you know which haplogroups are responsible for IE Speech or like it's proven, just because you read some link on Eupedia which represent Kurgan hypothesis of IE languages,i would say Autochtonous people of Europe and the agriculture are responsible for IE languages,Kurgan cultures was Turkic and Pastoral,horse herding in it's origin,Klyosov himself claim that R1b brought Turkic or Caucasian languages in Europe,prove for this are the Etruscans and the Basques with highest R1b yet Non IE languages,Pastoral vs Agriculture:Kathrin Krell (1998) finds that the terms found in the reconstructed Indo-European language are not compatible with the cultural level of the Kurgans. Krell holds that the Indo-Europeans had agriculture whereas the Kurgan people were "just at a pastoral stage" and hence might not have had sedentary agricultural terms in their language, despite the fact that such terms are part of a Proto-Indo-European core vocabulary.

No."Dinaric" have it's name because Ken Nordtvedt gave the name "Dinaric" for this haplogroup.
"how can you claim I2a din is not Slavic?"
Do you have any ancient DNA prove to support your Slavic hypothesis?
 
Language and ethnicity are related.

Ethnicity is a cultural phenomenon, and language is a very important part of culture (though not the only part).

Race is genetic. And within races you have sub-races, or anthropological types.

It's the opposite:ethnicity is biological and language is cultural fenomenon.
 
No."Dinaric" have it's name because Ken Nordtvedt gave the name "Dinaric" for this haplogroup.
Do you have any ancient DNA prove to support your Slavic hypothesis?[/QUOTE
"how can you claim I2a din is not Slavic
For South Slavs or Dinaric Slavs since modern antropology exist,there is even sub type of Caucasian race in Europe called Dinaric race since 20th century which stretch even much further outside Dinaric Alps and Balkan peninsula,Denarius is name of Roman coins,Dinar was name of our money since 13th century,Dinar is the currency we nowadays use,don't be so smart bro it has much longer history and meaning then you think so,has nothing to do with Ken Nordvedt Lol
 
Last edited:
It's the opposite:ethnicity is biological and language is cultural fenomenon.

RACE (!) is biological. Ethnicity is cultural. Language is... linguistic, and also part of culture (but only part of it).

The reason for correlation between ethnicity and ancestry is that parents transmit culture on their children (usually).

Do you have any ancient DNA prove to support your Slavic hypothesis?

So far there is no aDNA evidence that I1 or R1b U106 are Germanic, so why do you demand aDNA proof that I2a-Din is Slavic?

Maybe this will change by 2019:

"This year [April 2014] begins a major research program, the goal of which is to examine ancient DNA from several dozen archaeological sites from the area of Poland. This project is supposed to test ancient DNA of inhabitants of Poland from pre-Roman, Roman, early Medieval and Medieval times and compare it to DNA of modern inhabitants. Research is going to last at least 5 years, its authors are - among others - prof. Hanna Koćka-Krenz and prof. Janusz Piontek."

First of all you should understand that haplogroups may not be restricted to one ethnic group, but may be shared by many.
 
The term ethnic is derived from the Greek word ἔθνος ethnos (more precisely, from the adjective ἐθνικός ethnikos,[3] which was loaned into Latin as ethnicus). The inherited English-language term for this concept is folk, used alongside the latinate people since the late Middle English period.
In Early Modern English and until the mid 19th century, ethnic was used to mean heathen or pagan (in the sense of disparate "nations" which did not yet participate in the Christian oikumene), as the Septuagint used ta ethne ("the nations") to translate the Hebrew goyim "the nations, non-Hebrews, non-Jews".[4] The Greek term in early antiquity (Homeric Greek) could refer to any large group, a host of men, a band of comrades as well as a swarm or flock of animals. In Classical Greek, the term took on a meaning comparable to the concept now expressed by "ethnic group", mostly translated as "nation, people"; only in Hellenistic Greek did the term tend to become further narrowed to refer to "foreign" or "barbarous" nations in particular (whence the later meaning "heathen, pagan").[5]
In the 19th century, the term came to be used in the sense of "peculiar to a race, people or nation", in a return to the original Greek meaning. The sense of "different cultural groups", and in US English "racial, cultural or national minority group" arises in the 1930s to 1940s,[6] serving as a replacement of the term race which had earlier taken this sense but was now becoming deprecated due to its association with ideological racism. The abstract ethnicity had been used for "paganism" in the 18th century, but now came to [be] express the meaning of an "ethnic character" (first recorded 1953). The term ethnic group was first recorded in 1935 and entered the Oxford English Dictionary in 1972.[7] The term nationality depending on context may either be used synonymously with ethnicity, or synonymously with citizenship (in a sovereign state). The process that results in the emergence of an ethnicity is called ethnogenesis, a term in use in ethnological literature since about 1950.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group
 
Since the second half of the 20th century, the associations of race with the ideologies and theories that grew out of the work of 19th-century anthropologists and physiologists has led to the use of the word race itself becoming problematic. Although still used in general contexts, race has often been replaced by other words which are less ambiguous and emotionally charged, such as populations, people(s), ethnic groups, or communities, depending on context.[18][19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification)
 

This thread has been viewed 127603 times.

Back
Top