I2a2 lineage of Cucuteni-Tripolye Culture

gezaf

Ruthenian Bear
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Bumpass, Virginia
Ethnic group
Hungarian/Ruthenian
Y-DNA haplogroup
I2a2 North Dinaric
mtDNA haplogroup
H5a1
The following statements appears in the Origins, age, spread and etrhnic association of European Haplogroups and suclades:

The Slavic branch
The origins of the Slavs goes back to circa 3000 BCE. The Slavic branch differentiated itself when the Corded Ware culture (see Germanic branch above) absorbed the Cucuteni_Tripolye culture (5200-2600 BCE) of western Ukraine and north-eastern Romania, which appears to have been composed primarily of I2a2 lineages descended directly from Paleolithic Europeans, with a small admixture of Near-Eastern immigrants (notably E-V13 and T).

Is the statement that the Cucuteni_Tripolye culture appears to have been composed primarily of I2a2 lineage a conjecture based on the distribution of I2a2 in the Western Ukraine and north-eastern Romania, or is it based on some other factual information, such as testing of human remains?
 
As far as I know, no skeletons of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture have been tested yet, so the idea that I2a2 is associated with said culture is purely hypothetical.
 
Testing would answer "few" questions, I'm hoping scientists won't wait too long.
 
I assume that you are referring to the 'Dinaric' forms of I2a2, or employing Ken Nordtvedt's nomenclature; I2a2a-Dinaric?

There are north -west European forms of I2a2 which I doubt have anything to do with the culture you refer to. Nordtvedt's I2a2b-Isles clades [8 of them], which are positive for the snps L161, M423 and P37.2 were probably founded on the north German plain. They are found today in England, Scotland, especially Ireland and across the north European plain with most continental members in Germany. They are absent in eastern Europe. Nordtvedt has argued that I2a2b-Isles got to Britain/Ireland very early and represents a genetic echo of some of the earliest, post-LGM settlers.

Bryan Sykes remains 'yet to be convinced by substantial dates' that I2a2 dates to the Neolithic in Britain/Ireland. He has argued that this western form of I2a2 was probably brought to Britain by the Anglo Saxons.

Anatole Klyosov adopts a middle position. Whilst he considers most of this I2a2b-Isles variety to be 'ancient' in Britain/Ireland, he suggests that some may have been brought by 'the invaders'.
 
its Yamna who clashed it,not corded-ware.

Yamna is culture of Scythians(later on known as Slavs,at least partially),and the clash may produced Sarmatians,as C.T were matriarchal paleolithic Europeans,while Scythians were indo-europeans of r1a stock.

This conclusion came to me from Herodotus who wrote that Sarmatians(established ones,as name alone could come from pure Scythian tribe) were children of Scythian men and Amazons(which i take is metaphor for matriarchal society).
The "clash" was not aggressive,but the process of Indo-Europeanization was a cultural transformation. It must be understood as a military victory in terms of successfully imposing a new administrative system, language, and religion upon the indigenous groups.


I2a in Britain could have easily come from Sarmatians which were in Roman service,and that could very well explain its presence in GB but not western Europe.Some even say that Picts were partially descendant of those Sarmatians,but i dont know about that much to have an opinion.


The difference of GBs i2a2 can be explained that Sarmatians who left for GB in Roman service didn't have many,or at all close relatives/male family members left in homeland.Total estimated age of hg. cannot be used solely as argument of its origin.
For instance,all USA citizens of European descent could be explained as of neolithic origin in North America,if we didnt know their real history,but just used genetic method of total age of haplogroups.

There is also close similarity between glagolithic alphabet which was used in almost all Slavic nations,especially in Croatia(which was even modernized,and used till 19 century as secondary,church alphabet ),with old Sarmatian inscriptions




Of course this is all hypothesis,and genetic tests from C.T culture remains must be made before any real conclusions can be made on this subject.
 

Attachments

  • Bascanska_ploca.jpg
    Bascanska_ploca.jpg
    135.5 KB · Views: 214
  • Samaritan_inscription.jpg
    Samaritan_inscription.jpg
    59.4 KB · Views: 192
its Yamna who clashed it,not corded-ware.

Yamna is culture of Scythians(later on known as Slavs,at least partially),and the clash may produced Sarmatians,as C.T were matriarchal paleolithic Europeans,while Scythians were indo-europeans of r1a stock.

This conclusion came to me from Herodotus who wrote that Sarmatians(established ones,as name alone could come from pure Scythian tribe) were children of Scythian men and Amazons(which i take is metaphor for matriarchal society).
The "clash" was not aggressive,but the process of Indo-Europeanization was a cultural transformation. It must be understood as a military victory in terms of successfully imposing a new administrative system, language, and religion upon the indigenous groups.


I2a in Britain could have easily come from Sarmatians which were in Roman service,and that could very well explain its presence in GB but not western Europe.Some even say that Picts were partially descendant of those Sarmatians,but i dont know about that much to have an opinion.


The difference of GBs i2a2 can be explained that Sarmatians who left for GB in Roman service didn't have many,or at all close relatives/male family members left in homeland.Total estimated age of hg. cannot be used solely as argument of its origin.
For instance,all USA citizens of European descent could be explained as of neolithic origin in North America,if we didnt know their real history,but just used genetic method of total age of haplogroups.

There is also close similarity between glagolithic alphabet which was used in almost all Slavic nations,especially in Croatia(which was even modernized,and used till 19 century as secondary,church alphabet ),with old Sarmatian inscriptions




Of course this is all hypothesis,and genetic tests from C.T culture remains must be made before any real conclusions can be made on this subject.

Regarding the [admittedly interesting and attractive] idea that some I2a2 could have come from Roman auxiliaries including Sarmations: I personally doubt this. So, incidentally, does Ken Nordtvedt who 'discovered' the I2a2b-Isles variety that can be found in Ireland, England and Scotland.

The reason I say this is because the I2a2a-Dinaric type found in eastern Europe and the Balkans is absent in Britain. One would expect to find it there if the Sarmations/Roman auxiliaries had brought it. The actual 'hotspot' for I2a2b-Isles is in Ireland, where the Romans never established a presence. Clearly, the continental distribution of I2a2b-Isles is across the north European plain, with Germany having most members as one might expect. There are, admittedly, a handful of Polish I2a2b-Isles members but they appear to hail from the former German territories of Pomerania, Danzig [now Gdansk] etc.
 
Regarding the [admittedly interesting and attractive] idea that some I2a2 could have come from Roman auxiliaries including Sarmations: I personally doubt this. So, incidentally, does Ken Nordtvedt who 'discovered' the I2a2b-Isles variety that can be found in Ireland, England and Scotland.

The reason I say this is because the I2a2a-Dinaric type found in eastern Europe and the Balkans is absent in Britain. One would expect to find it there if the Sarmations/Roman auxiliaries had brought it. The actual 'hotspot' for I2a2b-Isles is in Ireland, where the Romans never established a presence. Clearly, the continental distribution of I2a2b-Isles is across the north European plain, with Germany having most members as one might expect. There are, admittedly, a handful of Polish I2a2b-Isles members but they appear to hail from the former German territories of Pomerania, Danzig [now Gdansk] etc.


Problem lies in the fact that I haplogroups are of paleolitic European origin,and that means(unless proven otherwise) they came from paleolithic cultures of old Europe.

Type of i2a isles you state,are nothing but proof of split marked to show specific genetic line found in GB and Ireland.The fact that Ireland and Britain share the same type states it was from same origin.
There were no paleolithic cultures tied with Britain and England,and that only shows that I2a haplogroup came there after the indo-europeans,so unless there were some secret migrations,it came with Romans as most probable as they employed barbarian soldiers from all over the empire to fight for them.

As for isles type found in north Germany/Poland,i am not familiar with that,so can u give me some resources(frequency and variance),but to remember is that Romans also fought Germanic tribes compared to Britain and Ireland.

The difference between Isles type,and eastern/dinaric type is only by family lines(named differently for easier designation),since both of them came from same paleolithic culture in Europe.


As for Irish,they were called Gaelic in pre-Roman times and after,and if i am not mistaken,they held part of Britain just between Pict's,and Angles,then united with Picts made Scots,and after that chased away by Anglo-Saxons.

I did some research and British history is very hazy,with lots of conquers from all sides,and lots of myths,so basically its all speculation.

There is also lots of unknowns,like what really drew Romans away,would barbaric soldiers under Rome,have a change of heart and switched sides...etc some things that can never be discovered.

Anyways it is interesting subject.
 
Problem lies in the fact that I haplogroups are of paleolitic European origin,and that means(unless proven otherwise) they came from paleolithic cultures of old Europe.

Type of i2a isles you state,are nothing but proof of split marked to show specific genetic line found in GB and Ireland.The fact that Ireland and Britain share the same type states it was from same origin.
There were no paleolithic cultures tied with Britain and England,and that only shows that I2a haplogroup came there after the indo-europeans,so unless there were some secret migrations,it came with Romans as most probable as they employed barbarian soldiers from all over the empire to fight for them.

As for isles type found in north Germany/Poland,i am not familiar with that,so can u give me some resources(frequency and variance),but to remember is that Romans also fought Germanic tribes compared to Britain and Ireland.

The difference between Isles type,and eastern/dinaric type is only by family lines(named differently for easier designation),since both of them came from same paleolithic culture in Europe.


As for Irish,they were called Gaelic in pre-Roman times and after,and if i am not mistaken,they held part of Britain just between Pict's,and Angles,then united with Picts made Scots,and after that chased away by Anglo-Saxons.

I did some research and British history is very hazy,with lots of conquers from all sides,and lots of myths,so basically its all speculation.

There is also lots of unknowns,like what really drew Romans away,would barbaric soldiers under Rome,have a change of heart and switched sides...etc some things that can never be discovered.

Anyways it is interesting subject.

Dalmat,
You are correct, my friend, when it comes down to it, it is all 'speculation'. However, I am going by Ken Nordtvedt's dating of I2a2b-Isles, which places the clade in the Neolithic. The split between I2a2b-Isles and I2a2a-Dinaric is around 12,000 years, I believe. Try googling 'Index of Nordtvedt' and his spreadsheets are available. Both varieties undeniably shared a common ancestor at one point.

Remember though that Bryan Sykes sees the I2a2b-Isles clades as having been brought by the Anglo Saxons as he does most I2a2 found in Britain.So some disagree with Nordtvedt about I2a2b-Isles' age.

The clades C and D of I2a2b-Isles have a hotspot around Rathcroghan in County Roscommon, Ireland [as well as being found in England, Scotland and on the continent]. This hotspot is particularly intriguing because there was a Cruthin [Pictish?] settlement there in ancient times. In Ireland, I2a2b-Isles seems to feature more in the refuge areas of the south west, Connaught and parts of Ulster. Whether this indicates pre-Gaelic, Cruthin connections, I do not know.

Perhaps, as I suggested before, Angles and Saxons brought some of the English and lowland Scots I2a2b-Isles.

As Anatole Klyosov told me, haplogroups don't sit still in one place for a millenia..
 
Last edited:
Mhhhhh, considering that Nordvetd said I2a1b expanded from the present day zone of Cucuteni-Tripolye culture it wouldn't be far fetched to say they could have been pred. I2a1b but until further testing we can't know.
 
Just for the add: 9 years later of the last entry we don't have I2a from Cucuteni-Tripillia, as far as I know. Altough the CT culture I2a sounds logic, it's highly doubtful.
 
Mhhhhh, considering that Nordvetd said I2a1b expanded from the present day zone of Cucuteni-Tripolye culture it wouldn't be far fetched to say they could have been pred. I2a1b but until further testing we can't know.

No it didnt, cucuteni were one of the first peoples that were completely outnumbered and destroyed by the steppe invaders. I2a did not expand out of cucuteni, best to look in scandinavian regions for survivors
 
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-11117-8#MOESM2
There was some ancient I2a in Cucuteni Trypillians in this recent study.
Yes not surprising, i2a was present everywhere in europe before the steppe invasion. The question is, did these i2a cucuteni survive the invasion.

Anyway looks like cucuteni were mostly g2a EEF people, it is likely they were responsible for this culture after invading the region which would have been all i2a + maybe i1. Cucuteni formed around the same time that g2a EEFs invaded south europe and moved into central europe (5,500BC). They outnumbered/wiped out WHG i2a - but good to see some i2a survived the g2a invasion in that particular region
 
I assume that you are referring to the 'Dinaric' forms of I2a2, or employing Ken Nordtvedt's nomenclature; I2a2a-Dinaric?

There are north -west European forms of I2a2 which I doubt have anything to do with the culture you refer to. Nordtvedt's I2a2b-Isles clades [8 of them], which are positive for the snps L161, M423 and P37.2 were probably founded on the north German plain. They are found today in England, Scotland, especially Ireland and across the north European plain with most continental members in Germany. They are absent in eastern Europe. Nordtvedt has argued that I2a2b-Isles got to Britain/Ireland very early and represents a genetic echo of some of the earliest, post-LGM settlers.

Bryan Sykes remains 'yet to be convinced by substantial dates' that I2a2 dates to the Neolithic in Britain/Ireland. He has argued that this western form of I2a2 was probably brought to Britain by the Anglo Saxons.

Anatole Klyosov adopts a middle position. Whilst he considers most of this I2a2b-Isles variety to be 'ancient' in Britain/Ireland, he suggests that some may have been brought by 'the invaders'.

I-P214, according to FTDNA's Discover Tool, "represents a man who is estimated to have been born around 17,000 years ago...about 15,000 BCE with a 95% probability he was born between 16,993 and 12,551 BCE." According to Maciamo, 90% became M223 (I2a2a or I2a1b), while 10% became S2599 (L38/S154). 15,000 BCE roughly corresponds to the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), with I-P214's home likely to have been in the Epigravettian Refugium:

From a population perspective, we performed a MDS analysis based on outgroup f3 distances and found the sample to fall within the broader European Western Hunter Gatherer (WHG) genetic variation, pointing to an affinity to the previously described Villabruna Cluster, known to have largely replaced previous European Hunter Gatherer populations at least ~14 ky ago.

Tagliente2 therefore provides evidence that the major migrations which strongly affected the genetic background of all Europeans, started considerably earlier in Southern Europe than previously reported, and in this region they do not seem to be limited to favourable, warmer periods (e.g. Greenland Interstadial 1, ~14.7-13ka ago). Our results rather show that population movements were already in place during the cold phase immediately following the LGM peak. At this stage, Italy, the Balkans, and Eastern Europe/Western Asia were already connected into the same network of potential LGM refugia, and exchanged both genes and cultural information.

Tagliente2, therefore, suggests that cumulative cultural change observed in Southern Europe from the end of LGM to the end of the Younger Dryas (~11.7 ka ago) was at least in part triggered by gene flow from eastern refugia into Northeastern Italy and that this process, in its early stage, was independent of warming events, and contributed to the gradual replacement of pre-LGM ancestry across the Italian peninsula.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.10.241430v1

As the ice sheets retreated, humans would have dispersed from the refugia into Europe along whichever paths were open to them. Where they are now, of course, may or may not correspond to where they were then. See Maciamo's distribution maps for I-P37.2 and I-P214/M223.
 

This thread has been viewed 19008 times.

Back
Top