how yes now i have a question for you.
If this link Veneti<->I2a2 is that strong, and name of the tribe is of high significance as you describe, how come not even one nation with higher I2a2 frequency has the name Veneti today? Actually name Veneti is used for naming groups of people only until 8th century or maybe even earlier.
from adriatic Veneti there was middle age Venetian republic...
they were earlier wave and were latinized and had different language than later waves of Veneti...
also from Veneti comes name Wends, which is alternative name of Sorbs
So, Sorbs still have that name, and till recently it was the name by which Germans were talking about all Slavs...
worth mentioning is that Serbs and Croats, while together might go under Sarmatians have their own ancient names... there are other I2 Sarmatians besides them... and Veneti might be one of them...
clue to that is that Vistula Veneti are first mentioned in history as Sarmatian Venedi who settled in Germania..
Roman historian Pliny the Elder in Natural History (Liber IV: 96-97) mentions a tribe called Sarmatian Venedi (Latin Sarmatae Venedi). Subsequently, Tacitus in Germania (46) mentions Venethi; when comparing these to Germani and Sarmatae, however, Tacitus associates them with the former, stating that their habits are different from those of the Sarmatae.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vistula_Veneti
Btw, I forgot to ask you in previous posts - did Slavic settlement of the Balkans actually happened and who were the tribes who settled Balkans? Where those Veneti? And if we know that some Veneti also lived in the western Balkans how come doubled name Veneti have completely gone from history? And all that having in mind significance of the tribe name you based your theory on.
tribes keep their names, but their language and culture can change
they also assimilate conquered tribes which can alter somewhat their genetical imprint...
Adriatic Veneti arrived to Europe before Vistula Veneti, and were latinized...their language and culture became alike other italics...
Vistula Veneti first were germanized than slavicized..
such changes of languages and culture are possible just by living next to some tribes since IE languages in distant past didnot differ as much as now
IE languages origin from iran where they were already spoken by haplogroups I, R1a, R1b, probably G2a as well... in fact more distant is language from the one spoken in Iran, more distant in time was the settlement of people carrying that language...
e.g. Slavic is most similar to iranian languages and is thus more recent cultural and linguistic wave... however there is R1a in Europe much older than that wave...
I am impressed by the energy with witch you are trying to resolve almost everything but there are so many details missing from your stories. I'll say again understanding what was going on in eastern Europe between 200 AD and 650 AD is answer to all of your questions. And there is so many information that you are simply disregarding. It won't work like that.
I am trying to solve puzzle by gathering pieces...if you have better clues you should share them and not just point out how you know better...
I'll shortly describe what I have found out. I could write 20 A4 pages but I don't have the time nor I'm paid to do that. This map is great to understand the situation Eastern Europe right before Huns invaded:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/East_europe_3-4cc.png
good link, very informative (if correct)
it shows that everywhere north of proto-Slavic was layer of Balts, and north of them layer of Fines, while south of them were Goths and Sarmatians,,,interestingly Sarmatians between Visigoths and Ostrogoths...
Huns cameto Pannonia around 400 and also moved North to Moravia, Bohemia and Poland. These regions were almost completely depopulated. One of the result was I2a1 moving from Central Europe through Iberia and North Africa to Sardinia. Also some I1 tribes moved west, but many I1 people were subjected to Huns (Goths) and there were those who remained to be free. Free Germanic tribes and Roman Empire eventually defeated Huns. During the period I described many I1 people settled in Pannonia and Balkans which explains I1 there.
incorrect, arrival of Huns has no direct connection with I2a1 going to Sardinia...nor did they really depopulate large areas...
in fact, Roman empire was crumbling, and Suebs, Alans and Vandals used opportunity to conquer Iberian peninsula...
The Suebic, Alan and Vandal kingdoms in Gallaecia in Iberian peninsula were established around year 410, while Huns reach Panonia only around 400 and it takes decades to spread their kingdom far away into central and north Europe..
movements of people did last for some years...
So, in fact it was opposite from what you claim..Suebs,Alans and Vandals did not move cause they were afraid of Huns, but movement of Suebs, Vandals and Alans created lot of space in central Europe and allowed Huns to easily enter and create big empire...
some of I2a1 came to Sardinia only when Vandals were pushed out of Iberian peninsula by Visigoths which was much later...other I2a1 might have been there from ancient settlement waves that in fact gave name Sardinia similar to names of other carriers of haplogroup I (Suebi, Swedes, Sarbans, Serbs..)
The Huns first appeared in Europe in the 4th century. They show up north of the Black Sea around 370. The Huns crossed the Volga river and attacked the Alans, who were then subjugated. Jordanes reports that the Huns were led at this time by Balamber while modern historians question his existence, seeing instead an invention by the Goths to explain who defeated them.[8] The Huns and Alans started plundering Greuthungic settlements.[8] The Greuthungic king, Ermanaric, committed suicide and his great-nephew, Vithimiris, took over. Vithimiris was killed during a battle against the Alans and Huns in 376. This resulted in the subjugation of most of the Ostrogoths.[8] Vithimiris' son, Viderichus, was only a child so command of the remaining Ostrogothic refugee army fell to Alatheus and Saphrax. The refugees streamed into Thervingic territory, west of the Dniester.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns
As you can see, subjected tribes were not rounded off, but became vasals that joined them in future conquests... that is how Hun empire spread until number of Huns in it became too little to maintain in charge of it...
The literary sources, Priscus and Jordanes, preserve only a few names and three words of the language of the Huns, which have been studied for more than a century and a half. Our sources do not give the meaning of any of the names, only of the three words. These words (medos, kamos, strava) do not seem to be Turkic,[25] but probably a satem Indo-European language similar to Slavic and Dacian.[26]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns
Preserved words of Huns have resemblance to Slavic and not to Turkic...
Huns might have been just another iranian tribe, as they are first recorded in area of Sarmatians...
The 5th century Armenian historian Moses of Khorene, in his "History of Armenia," introduces the Hunni near the Sarmatians and describes their capture of the city of Balkh ("Kush" in Armenian) sometime between 194 and 214, which explains why the Greeks call that city Hunuk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns
Trajectory of Huns clearly indicates they have focused on attacking Roman empire and not on killing half of north Europe as you imagine... in fact, subjugated tribes typically joined them in further conquers... why on earth would they kill all potential sources of their soldiers and completely vacate most of north Europe as you envision...
Huns were tribal union, they would include subjugated tribes in it...
Free Germanic tribes and Roman Empire eventually defeated Huns. During the period I described many I1 people settled in Pannonia and Balkans which explains I1 there.
This is correct, e.g. Goths settled east Balkan and Gepids Panonia..
In Serbia additional source of I1 can be that Serbs came to Serbia from white Serbia that is most likely area of east Germany where Sorbs still carry the name of tribal union that was established there... there Serbs might have assimilated some I1 tribes...
After collapse of the Hunnic Empire many I2a2+R1a people moved south to Romania and they came to Wallachian plain around 500 AD (Sclavines). R1a people (Veneti) which probably had previously moved from Vistula towards Northeast (escaping from Huns) came back in second part of 5th century.
you make many assumptions here......
you claim Venedes to be R1a and Sclavines to be R1a+I2a2 while I think it was in fact opposite...
Around 560 AD Avars come to Europe. They move North of Carpathians in order to enter Pannonian plain through Moravia. At this period they also push large part of I2a2 from western Ukraine to Elbe River Basin and significant part of R1a from Poland and Moravia to western Pannonia with R1a even reaching Istria.
no, they actually entered Panonia from Romania...
Bizantium bought them off, so they stopped attacking Byzantium and started a spread towards north...all the way to Baltic, than Byzantium used them against Slavs in Scythia minor...when they established empire (tribal union in which Slavic was lingua franca) helped by Byzantium, they turned against Byzantium...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Avars
Around 610 many Sclavines from Wallachian plain move inside Balkans to Bulgaria, Macedonia and Greece.
yes, because now Byzantium was weakened by attacks of Avars
In first decades of 7th century Avars experienced a great defeat from Byzantine Empire and Croats and after that Croats (I2a2) move from Northeast Bohemia to Dalmatia and part of them to South Pannonia.
Very soon after that Serbs (I2a2) move to the lands east of Croats.
This Slavic settlement but also previous invasions by Huns and Avars resulted in E-V13 moving much further southeast than they were just a couple of centuries before.
yes, that's correct... but in fact kingdom of Ostrogoths was major cause of movement of E-V13 from Dalmatia and Bosnia deeper into Byzantium
compare Ostrogoth kingdom with spread of frequence and variance of E-V13 and you will see it clearly
So Croats are today mix of I2a2 Slavs, R1a Slavs (R1a came several decades before), R1b (indigeous) and also some other Y-DNA.
Serbs are a mix of I2a2, E-V13 (indigenous), R1a Slavs and some other Y-DNA.
Croats are mix of slavicized I2a2 Croats, R1a from Iran, from Slavs and previous R1a waves in Europe, I1 from Goths, R1b from Celts...
Serbs are mix of slavicized I2a2 Serbs, E-V13 from previous inhabitants, some R1a from iran, Slavs and previous R1a waves, I1 from Goths, some assimilated in east Germany and some perhaps was carried from their iranian homeland...
where exactly are those issues strongly contradicting things that I have stated, and where can you exactly claim that my assumptions are wrong and your correct?
main difference seems that you assume Veneti as R1a, and Sclavenoi as R1a and I2a2, while I believe it was opposite...
the reason I belive opposite is that we find I2a1 on place of ancient Veneti in Britanny, because we find I2a2 in north Italy where Adriatic Veneti lived...
Additional reason for my assumption is that Veneti are recorded in early history as Sarmatian tribe... than later as Germanic one, and in the very end as Slavic one... as I have already pinpointed haplogroup I1 is related to Germanic tribes and I2 dominantly to Serbs/Croat related Sarmatian tribes... some of I2 was merged in germanic tribes upon initial settlement of Sarmatian Veneti (and probably Vandals as well) in Germany...
So it is definitely not as simple as ascribing one tribe name to I2a2 for solution. There are also many other details which I must have missed but as I said this is not my job. I just don't want some things to be shown completely wrong as they obviously do by the people with much greater influence than mine.
right..
but you made more assumptions than me and did not try to relate your assumptions to genetics and tribal name continuity...
I also recommend you do some reading about Prague-Korchak, Ipotesti-Candesti and Penkovka cultures.
those are proto-Slavs...
but in 4th century R1a and I2a2 were already mixed and most Srmatians already slavicized (which is normal since for iranian tribes from late waves, Slavic was by far most similar language)
And because my friend Yorkie would certainly react I have to say that all I2a2 I was writing about is I2a2a Dinaric. In Britain exists another variety I2a2b Isles which is several thousands years older then Dinaric and has completely different history unknown to me. Disregarding help which genetics provides to understanding history is also very wrong.
As I explained, I2 in Britain might be related to Veneti who lived in Britanny...this Veneti have arrived in previous wave of settlement... they were celticized with spread of La Tenne culture... reason to propose Veneti as source of I2 is that their historically attested location corresponds well to spread of M26 in Britanny.... similarly we have places with historically atteded Veneti name coupled with I2 north of Adriatic and around Vistula... for me this is clear indication of possible happenings...