I2a1b2a1 (I-CTS10228) - a strong marker of Slavic expansion

I have no idea why you consider I2a slavic instead of I2a1 specifically. I2a2 for example is in no way slavic .
 
Αρθούρος said:
In the Northern Balkans, Slavic Y-DNA ranges from 41% in Bulgaria and Montenegro to around 60-70% in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, and Slovenia, with Serbia sitting around 55%, and Macedonia up to 50%. In Greece, it varies from region to region, the lowest mainland Greek regions get is 21% in combined I2a and R1a lineages (Some Central Greek regions), around 35% in the Pelo (barring Maniotes). and over 41% in Northern Greece, and aDNA is more or less the same as the Y-DNA admixture, Lazaridis' premise regarding "female-biased" is not supported by Y-DNA studies.
Click to expand...

R1a is proto Slavic, i2a-dinaric isn't. They picked it up in central Europe, and also v13 a bit later
 
Last edited:
TaktikatEMalet said:
The i2a were picked up from Germanic (Bastarnae) or Urnfield related people. Dacians also remain a possibility. We need ancient DNA from iron age, we hardly have anything for this region
Click to expand...
For now, the only possibility is that it is the White Croatian source. That it is from Bastarnae then Croats would have Germanic y branches and probably would have brought Germanic languages to the Balkans, which is not the case.
 
hrvat22 said:
For now, the only possibility is that it is the White Croatian source. That it is from Bastarnae then Croats would have Germanic y branches and probably would have brought Germanic languages to the Balkans, which is not the case.
Click to expand...
There is no chance, far too much east in origin, white croats were definitely r1a. The r1a proto Slavic majority would have assimilated the i2a Bastarnae or Dacian minority, they would speak Slavic instead of German within 2-3 generations, same case for the V13 they picked up early on and whatever they left of illyrian j2b in western Balkans - these also would have converted to Slavic within a few generations

If you look at upstream of i2a-dinaric it has only history in central and northern Europe -

I-CTS10228 YTree

www.yfull.com www.yfull.com
 
Last edited:
TaktikatEMalet said:
There is no chance, far too much east in origin, white croats were definitely r1a. The r1a proto Slavic majority would have assimilated the i2a Bastarnae or Dacian minority, they would speak Slavic instead of German within 2-3 generations, same case for the V13 they picked up early on and whatever they left of illyrian j2b in western Balkans - these also would have converted to Slavic within a few generations

If you look at upstream of i2a-dinaric it has only history in central and northern Europe -

I-CTS10228 YTree

www.yfull.com www.yfull.com
Click to expand...
"According to Pamjav et al. (2019) and Fóthi et al. (2020), the distribution of ancestral subclades like of I-CTS10228 among contemporary carriers indicates a rapid expansion from Southeastern Poland, is mainly related to the Slavs and their medieval migration, and the "largest demographic explosion occurred in the Balkans"

Therefore, we have to trust scientific papers. Exactly that area ie Southeastern Poland is place where we might expect White Croats. In that context we are talking about I-Y3120 and I-S17250 branches.
 
hrvat22 said:
"According to Pamjav et al. (2019) and Fóthi et al. (2020), the distribution of ancestral subclades like of I-CTS10228 among contemporary carriers indicates a rapid expansion from Southeastern Poland, is mainly related to the Slavs and their medieval migration, and the "largest demographic explosion occurred in the Balkans"

Therefore, we have to trust scientific papers. Exactly that area ie Southeastern Poland is place where we might expect White Croats. In that context we are talking about I-Y3120 and I-S17250 branches.
Click to expand...

Yes expanded by Slavs after picking up from Bastarnae or Dacians
 
TaktikatEMalet said:
Yes expanded by Slavs after picking up from Bastarnae or Dacians
Click to expand...
Ancient authors mention Bastarne as early as the 3rd century BC. Branch I-S17250 has TMRCA 2000 ybp while I-Y3120 has TMRCA 2100 ybp. The time when Bastarne are mentioned common ancestors in those branches do not yet exist.
According to the latest research, their original seat was in Jutland, from where they migrated to the southeast through today's Kujawy. https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastarnowie
I2a branches do not have that direction of migration ie Jutland-Kujawy. According to the above Bastarne do not have anything with branches I-Y3120, I-S17250.
 
hrvat22 said:
Ancient authors mention Bastarne as early as the 3rd century BC. Branch I-S17250 has TMRCA 2000 ybp while I-Y3120 has TMRCA 2100 ybp. The time when Bastarne are mentioned common ancestors in those branches do not yet exist.
According to the latest research, their original seat was in Jutland, from where they migrated to the southeast through today's Kujawy. https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastarnowie
I2a branches do not have that direction of migration ie Jutland-Kujawy. According to the above Bastarne do not have anything with branches I-Y3120, I-S17250.
Click to expand...

Actually those TMRCAs are fairly close so Bastarnae remain a real possibility especially for I-Y3120 branch. I-S17250 branch could be the full Slavic absorption of Bastarnae, which means with this branch they weren't assimilated Bastarnae anymore but already Slavic. Don't forget that from I-CTS10228 there is a big gap to I-Y3120 because very little ancient DNA has been found - these people were constantly cremating

My point is when the Slavs formed, it was a union of R1a proto Slavs from the east assimilating i2 and later v13 further west. I2 people were never more east than R1a
 
TaktikatEMalet said:
Actually those TMRCAs are fairly close so Bastarnae remain a real possibility especially for I-Y3120 branch. I-S17250 branch could be the full Slavic absorption of Bastarnae, which means with this branch they weren't assimilated Bastarnae anymore but already Slavic. Don't forget that from I-CTS10228 there is a big gap to I-Y3120 because very little ancient DNA has been found - these people were constantly cremating

My point is when the Slavs formed, it was a union of R1a proto Slavs from the east assimilating i2 and later v13 further west. I2 people were never more east than R1a
Click to expand...
According to the ancient written sources, the Bastarnae, by the end of the third century inhabitingthe area north of the Danube confluence, first came to the Central Balkans in 179 BC.

When Bastarnae came to the Central Balkans in 179 BC, I-S17250 doesn't exist yet, but even if it exists, the source of the mentioned branch or mutation is in southeastern Poland and not in eastern Ukraine. Furthermore, most of Balkan I2a branches have TMRCA below 2000 ybp, so they are even younger. Therefore, there is no interaction between ancestors of the Croats ie White Croats and Bastarnae.
As for I-Y3120 branch, she is a little older, but she also does not exist at the time when Bastarnae came to the Central Balkans.

Otherwise if Bastarnae live in the area of eastern Ukraine, this means that they have been there for a longer time, which means that the time of their y branches living in that area is TMRCA 400, 300, 200 BC. At that time I2a branches develop and later arise in the area of southern Poland. Simply two incompatible worlds.
 
hrvat22 said:
According to the ancient written sources, the Bastarnae, by the end of the third century inhabitingthe area north of the Danube confluence, first came to the Central Balkans in 179 BC.

When Bastarnae came to the Central Balkans in 179 BC, I-S17250 doesn't exist yet, but even if it exists, the source of the mentioned branch or mutation is in southeastern Poland and not in eastern Ukraine. Furthermore, most of Balkan I2a branches have TMRCA below 2000 ybp, so they are even younger. Therefore, there is no interaction between ancestors of the Croats ie White Croats and Bastarnae.
As for I-Y3120 branch, she is a little older, but she also does not exist at the time when Bastarnae came to the Central Balkans.

Otherwise if Bastarnae live in the area of eastern Ukraine, this means that they have been there for a longer time, which means that the time of their y branches living in that area is TMRCA 400, 300, 200 BC. At that time I2a branches develop and later arise in the area of southern Poland. Simply two incompatible worlds.
Click to expand...

How is 179bc incompatible with TMRCA of 2100 or how about on FTDNA which goes back to 400bc, does that work better for you? -
discover.familytreedna.com

Welcome to FamilyTreeDNA Discover

Discover more about your paternal ancestry and join in on the research!
discover.familytreedna.com discover.familytreedna.com

I'm not talking about younger branches, those were spread by Slavs after assimilating the Bastarnae including S17250. I am talking about the original earliest branches. Also can you explain the big gap between CTS10228 and the rest downstream?

You have the location of Bastarnae wrong, they weren't in eastern Ukraine but west and further north -
"The original homeland of the Bastarnae remains uncertain. Babeş and Shchukin argue in favour of an origin in eastern Pomerania on the Baltic coast of today's north-west Poland, on the grounds of correspondences in archaeological material, e.g. a Pomeranian-style fibula found in a Poieneşti site in Moldavia,[8] although Batty considers the evidence insufficient.[9] Babeş identifies the Sidoni, a branch of the Bastarnae which Strabo places north of the Danube delta[10] with the Sidini located by Ptolemy in Pomerania.[11]

Batty argues that Greco-Roman sources of the first century AD locate the Bastarnae homeland on the northern side of the Northern Carpathian mountain range, encompassing south-east Poland and south-west Ukraine."
 
Last edited:
TaktikatEMalet said:
How is 179bc incompatible with TMRCA of 2100 or how about on FTDNA which goes back to 400bc, does that work better for you? -
discover.familytreedna.com

Welcome to FamilyTreeDNA Discover

Discover more about your paternal ancestry and join in on the research!
discover.familytreedna.com discover.familytreedna.com

I'm not talking about younger branches, those were spread by Slavs after assimilating the Bastarnae including S17250. I am talking about the original earliest branches. Also can you explain the big gap between CTS10228 and the rest downstream?

You have the location of Bastarnae wrong, they weren't in eastern Ukraine but west and further north -
"The original homeland of the Bastarnae remains uncertain. Babeş and Shchukin argue in favour of an origin in eastern Pomerania on the Baltic coast of today's north-west Poland, on the grounds of correspondences in archaeological material, e.g. a Pomeranian-style fibula found in a Poieneşti site in Moldavia,[8] although Batty considers the evidence insufficient.[9] Babeş identifies the Sidoni, a branch of the Bastarnae which Strabo places north of the Danube delta[10] with the Sidini located by Ptolemy in Pomerania.[11]

Batty argues that Greco-Roman sources of the first century AD locate the Bastarnae homeland on the northern side of the Northern Carpathian mountain range, encompassing south-east Poland and south-west Ukraine."
Click to expand...
It's one mutation(S20602) between I-Y3120 and I-Z17855. For now I-Y3120 has TMRCA 2100 ybp but also has this time (formed 3400 ybp) which means that certain mutations may be older. But for now it is one mutation which is ancestor or which is tied to the branch I-Z17855. We can talk about that when this mutation is investigated in detail. We cannot make definitive conclusions based on one unexplored mutation.

Which Bastarnae?
According to Pamjav et al. (2019) and Fóthi et al. (2020), the distribution of ancestral subclades like of I-CTS10228 among contemporary carriers indicates a rapid expansion from Southeastern Poland, is mainly related to the Slavs and their medieval migration, and the "largest demographic explosion occurred in the Balkans"

Therefore, it is the migration of Croats from southern Poland. There are none Bastarnae here. Medieval migration is 5-8 century. Bastarnae came to the Central Balkans in 179 BC.

Croats do not have those y branches with that age(179 BC) in the Balkans. The Goths also live on the Vistula, in Ukraine, they migrated in the 4th-5th century towards the Balkans and beyond, but Croats and Goths have no genetic similarities. How then will Croats have some similarities with some migrants from 179 BC? Mission Impossible.

Also relevant is the mention that these Bastarnae were very similar to the Scordisci, from whom they “differed neither in language and manners” (“[…] nec enim aut lingua autmoribus [aequales] abhorrere.. page 124
Dragoº Mãndescu The “dark” second century BC in Transylvania. In search for the missing link between the fall of the Celts and the rise of the Dacian culture
www.academia.edu

Transylvania in the "dark" 2nd c. BC. Celts and Dacians

Transylvania in the "dark" 2nd c. BC. Celts and Dacians
www.academia.edu

The Scordisci (Greek: Σκορδίσκοι) were a Celtic Iron Age cultural group.
 
Why does it has to be White Croats? Some of Y3120 branches are not related to Croats at all
 
Who Cares? said:
Why does it has to be White Croats? Some of Y3120 branches are not related to Croats at all
Click to expand...

My prediction -
CTS10228 = Urnfield
Y3120 = Bastarnae or Dacian
PH908 = only this major line has a chance of being white croats but again it also has presence in Bulgarians etc which kind of rules it out. Maybe there are a couple of lines under this that can be linked to white croats
 
Last edited:
TaktikatEMalet said:
My prediction -
CTS10228 = Urnfield
Y3120 = Bastarnae or Dacian
PH908 = only this major line has a chance of being white croats but again it also has presence in Bulgarians etc which kind of rules it out. Maybe there are a couple of lines under this that can be linked to white croats
Click to expand...
My opinion:

Bastarnae <-> Y3120 link seems too early. Y3120 almost certainly has some western Scythian-related ancestry, maybe even more than one. It could also be related to Hallstadt/La Tene culture in Slovakia, so some proto-Celts/early Celts as second possibility, that eventually got conquered by Scythians, if that makes sense? I don't know. It seems like a question for archeologist, given the age of this group.

I would link Z17855 with Getae, Dacians, or some western Sarmatian tribes, as they were nowhere to be found in Western Europe which if they were related to people living inside the Roman Empire would show somewhere else. Plus today this group is common in Bulgaria, Romania, and Macedonia.

PH908 with early Slavs from northern Carpathian range, as this group is common for all South Slavs.
 
Who Cares? said:
My opinion:

Bastarnae <-> Y3120 link seems too early. Y3120 almost certainly has some western Scythian-related ancestry, maybe even more than one. It could also be related to Hallstadt/La Tene culture in Slovakia, so some proto-Celts/early Celts as second possibility, that eventually got conquered by Scythians, if that makes sense? I don't know. It seems like a question for archeologist, given the age of this group.

I would link Z17855 with Getae, Dacians, or some western Sarmatian tribes, as they were nowhere to be found in Western Europe which if they were related to people living inside the Roman Empire would show somewhere else. Plus today this group is common in Bulgaria, Romania, and Macedonia.

PH908 with early Slavs from northern Carpathian range, as this group is common for all South Slavs.
Click to expand...

There is zero chance Sarmatians had anything to do with i2, it only had central and western Europe presence. I2 had a resurgence during Urnfield expansion as we have seen with Lichtenstein, Tollense etc. Sarmatians originated in Asia, were majority r1a
 
Last edited:
TaktikatEMalet said:
There is zero chance Sarmatians had anything to do with i2, it only had central and western Europe presence. I2 had a resurgence during Urnfield expansion as we have seen with Lichtenstein, Tollense etc
Click to expand...
I said: It could also be related to Hallstadt/La Tene culture in Slovakia, so some proto-Celts/early Celts as second possibility, that eventually got conquered by Scythians.

That would justify how it moved all around eastern Europe
 
Who Cares? said:
I said: It could also be related to Hallstadt/La Tene culture in Slovakia, so some proto-Celts/early Celts as second possibility, that eventually got conquered by Scythians.

That would justify how it moved all around eastern Europe
Click to expand...

Urnfield is enough to justify it, it was bigger than Hallstatt and La Tene in central/east Europe. If La Tene expanded from the west it is possible they reduced i2 presence. Most i2 probably survived with lusatians
 
Who Cares? said:
Why does it has to be White Croats? Some of Y3120 branches are not related to Croats at all
Click to expand...
Because the origin is not written on the haplotypes.
Haplotypes prove migration in space, and this fact can confirm or deny a primary source. In this sense, the primary sources have been proven as far as migration of Croats to the Balkans is concerned. For other groups, especially the Serbs, genetics did not prove or confirm the primary sources that talk about the migration of Serbs to the Balkans. As for migration of the I2a Balkan branches, they have their origin in one area, most likely in White Croatia, and from there they spread not only towards Croatia, but from Slovenia to Greece, from the Carpathian side and towards Romania and Bulgaria, locally towards Slovakia and the Czech Republic, and older branches towards Ukraine and Russia.

That's what genetics tells us for now. Who used to live there, lived in the neighborhood, etc., may be important for some earlier context, but for now we can speak more freely only about White Croatian source.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 72116 times.

Back
Top