I2a2 M423+

Picture shows possible boundaries of haplogroup I around 100 AD. I think existence of haplogroup I outside these lines is unlikely (except some I2b in Balkans, I2a2b in Britain and might be I2a2b in Balkans).
What followed in the next several centuries should probably be called "Migration of Haplogroup I".
hgi.png
757px-Roman_Empire_125.svg.png

on your figure, R1a for that time should match Venedi (and Fenni which is just a derivation from Venedi/Veni and is a part of later self-identification "(Slo)veni" ), since Venedi later moved north to fill in space left by Goths, and also towards west to fill in space vacated after movements of Germanic tribes (e.g. Suebes and Vandals to Iberian peninsula)
note that common terms used in past by Germans for Slavic people is Wends which is literally same as Veneds... (if someone is confused by dual naming Serbs/Serbi, Veneds/Venedi, Alans/Alani -s is germanic suffix for plural, while -i is Slavic suffix for plural)

and btw. R1a probably covered much larger area...
note that Venedi/Fenni have two separated settlements that match separated peaks of R1a in Poland and Russia... looking back at the historical map they were separated by passage of Goths towards the Black sea...
800px-GlobalR1a1a.png


as for I2a2, it is a mistery where to place it and to what tribe(s) is it related...
its high variance above Black sea (see figure bellow) strongly indicates that it should be placed in area above Black sea, where at that time we find Sarmatae tribes... alternatively, strong variance of I2a2 above Black sea reflects later settlement of Goths around that area... it could also reflect people assimilated by Goths and/or Sarmatians...
interesting to notice is also the peak of I2a2 variance in Noricum..
ejhg2008249f4.jpg
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v17/n6/full/ejhg2008249a.html

I think I2a2 on map of Shetop should be in areas of above Black sea and in Noricum...

its spread on Balkan can match settlements of Visigoths
450s.PNG

and kingdom of Ostrogoths
250px-Ostrogothic_Kingdom.png

with knowledge that Ostrogoths captured Byzantine lands by massive settlement in countryside
Totila's strategy was to move fast and take control of the countryside, leaving the Byzantine forces in control of well-defended cities, and especially the ports.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totila
and absence of I2a2 in Italy except in north part of it is explainable by
The Goths seem to have been thick on the ground in northern Italy; in the south they formed little more than garrisons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostrogoths


alternatively spread of I2a2 in Balkans may reflect proposed Sarmatian origin of Serbs and Croats...

tribe named Serbi is part of Asiatic Sarmatia in Caucasus imediatelly northeast of Alani tribe
800px-Map_of_Colchis%2C_Iberia%2C_Albania%2C_and_the_neighbouring_countries_ca_1770.jpg


Osetians who are iranian speaking group of Caucasus, and considered to origin from Alans, do have in their northern towns Ardon and Digora respectively 32% and 13% of haplogroup I
http://www.eva.mpg.de/genetics/pdf/Nasidze.AnHG.2004.pdf
such local peaks indicate assimilated neighbouring population living north of them... that tribe could have easily been Sarmatian Serbi that were probably speaking similar or more likely same iranian language as all Sarmatians did...


As for Croats, their link to Sarmatians is from Carpatian mountains that were settled by Sarmatians and later by similarly named Croatians...

worth noting is the presence of I2a2 in areas away from historical influence of Goths (e.g. south Poland, Czech republic, Slovakia, west Ukraine) and where Sarmatian presence is historically confirmed (e.g. in Poland)..also where are "white Croatia" and "white Serbia" states from which Croats and Serbs settled Balkan...

on the other hand strong point for Gothic origin of I2a2 is that all the rest of I haplogroup seems to be Germanic... worth nothing is that Gothic origin of Balkan I2a2 would probabbly cause usage of Gothic alike languages, while Sarmatians that came from Slavic lands did already shift from their own language to Slavic one...

it is also plausible to explain I2a2 in Balkans with autochtone people of the region
e.g. high variance of I2a2 in Noricum can represent ancient Veneti population and Noricum might have been a point where R1a and I2a2 has met creating a melting pot in which today Slavs were created..such a scenario is further backed up by practically the same names Veneti and Venedi,

Russian primary chronicle from 1113 actually claims that Slavs are people from Noricum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_Chronicle
Among these seventy-two nations, the Slavic race is derived from the line of
Japheth, since they are the Noricians, who are identical with the Slavs.
from page 2 on http://www.utoronto.ca/elul/English/218/PVL-selections.pdf


it is also possible that I2a2 did settle Balkans in several waves including autochtone inhabitants, Goths, and Sarmatian Serbs and Croats...
 
Last edited:
Well how yes no, I've spent a lot of time and energy, and I came to the conclusion shown on the map. I could approximately even tell the year I2a2a-Din moved from its homeland.

I'm aware of all this information you wrote, but it would take really a lot of time to explain my views about other possibilities and why do I think they are not correct.

I'll just say that already in 450 AD all I2a2a-Din tribes spoke Slavic language. If you know this all other things have to fit into that fact.

Recommended reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sclaveni
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balto-Slavic_languages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayan_(Avar_Khagan)
http://www.s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/10_History/Ptolemy comments by Udaltsov En.htm
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/10/1964.full
http://www.roman-glory.com/images/img050101-05.jpg

Please try to have just one theory of yours, and then it would be easier to discuss.

PS: I like your "name" :cool-v:
 
Veneti might be the (or one of the) original source(s) of I2a2
...........................................................................
Vistula Veneti might have been the original position of Veneti next to places with dominant I1 and I2a1...
they live next to Vandals (I2a1) and their shared common origin is reflected in practically shared name Vandals/Veneti
Vistula Veneti are origin of later Venedi
key to mistery:
Although Tacitus listed the Venethi as a Germanic tribe, in his Getica, Jordanes equated the Venethi with the Sclavenes and Antes. Slavists such as Pavel Josef Šafařík have criticized Tacitus for erroneously identifying the Venethi as Germanic[1], due to the similar appearance of Slavs and Germans[2].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vistula_Veneti
thus in the time of Tacitus they were still Germanic, later by living in proximity of Slavic Sclavenoi (Fenni?) and Antes they merged into them... in time of Jordanes they are completely Slavic
..................................................................................................
Adriatic Veneti are the cause of big variance in Noricum...and cause of high frequency in north Italy....
...................................................................................................
Veneti also may explain British clades
a branch of Veneti lived in Bretagne (Britanny) in France
643px-Gaul%2C_1st_century_BC.gif

from that area Britain was partly settled...
even some Scotish tribes origin from them...
and Welsh and Bretons language are considered similar..
............................................................
and I still need to explain big variance above Black sea...
could iranian Sarmatians be related to Germanic tribes?
 
Veneti might be the (or one of the) original source(s) of I2a2
...........................................................................
Vistula Veneti might have been the original position of Veneti next to places with dominant I1 and I2a1...
they live next to Vandals (I2a1) and their shared common origin is reflected in practically shared name Vandals/Veneti
Vistula Veneti are origin of later Venedi
key to mistery:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vistula_Veneti
thus in the time of Tacitus they were still Germanic, later by living in proximity of Slavic Sclavenoi (Fenni?) and Antes they merged into them... in time of Jordanes they are completely Slavic
..................................................................................................
Adriatic Veneti are the cause of big variance in Noricum...and cause of high frequency in north Italy....
...................................................................................................
Veneti also may explain British clades
a branch of Veneti lived in Bretagne (Britanny) in France
643px-Gaul%2C_1st_century_BC.gif

from that area Britain was partly settled...
even some Scotish tribes origin from them...
and Welsh and Bretons language are considered similar..
............................................................
and I still need to explain big variance above Black sea...
could iranian Sarmatians be related to Germanic tribes?


I don't see why the Veneti should explain the British I2a2 at all. Arguably, L161 I2a2b-Isles [I know you love Ken Nordtvedt's nomenclature...] was founded in northern Germany. From that geographical position there are several far more likely explanations as to how it was carried to Britain than via the Veneti.
If I2a2 is as old as Nordtvedt argues, then some could have been carried over in the early post-LGM scenario.
Bryan Sykes favours an Anglo Saxon origin for most British I2a2.
Arguably, there are other more likely possibilities too, rather than Veneti, such as La Tene Celts, Belgae etc. Maybe I2a2 came to Britain in these different 'waves'?
It is not impossible, of course, that the Veneti contributed some I2a2, but less likely I think than the other 'tribal' groups. They surely cannot have contributed it all. I2a2b [L161] has an emerging presence on the north European Plain with Germany predominating in terms of non-British and non-Irish members. So the link to the other groups seems to be more likely. In any case, would the Veneti carry L161 I2a2b, the form found in Britain? I would think it more likely that they carried I2a2a, which is absent in Britain/Ireland.
 
Veneti might be the (or one of the) original source(s) of I2a2

I thought about that but I coudn't figure out where did all R1a people (which today live in Poland, Moravia, Slovakia etc..) come from. Maybe you can be better than me in explaining that.


Adriatic Veneti are the cause of big variance in Noricum...and cause of high frequency in north Italy....

I also used to think that variance is very important clue. But look at this variance map for I2a2 (figure D): http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/10/1964/F3.large.jpg
It does not look the same as the one you were reffered to.
Also when great depopulation events happen (like in Poland or western Balkans), variance looses it's importance. But it is also possible that I'm making a mistake by disregarding it.

My main method is "going backwards through history", I see where ceratin Y-DNA is now and follow prevoius historical events, one by one, in order to get to some conclusions. This is unlike most people familiar with genetics - they find the oldest clade in some region and then set it as a place of origin. This partly worked with R1b, so now they think it will work everywhere.


Veneti also may explain British clades
Things are a bit more complicated than that. It won't work explaining everthing with common name of different tribes. Especially becuase of frequency of I2a2b, its age, current distribution etc. I simply disagree here.
 
I thought about that but I coudn't figure out where did all R1a people (which today live in Poland, Moravia, Slovakia etc..) come from. Maybe you can be better than me in explaining that.




I also used to think that variance is very important clue. But look at this variance map for I2a2 (figure D): http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/10/1964/F3.large.jpg
It does not look the same as the one you were reffered to.
Also when great depopulation events happen (like in Poland or western Balkans), variance looses it's importance. But it is also possible that I'm making a mistake by disregarding it.

My main method is "going backwards through history", I see where ceratin Y-DNA is now and follow prevoius historical events, one by one, in order to get to some conclusions. This is unlike most people familiar with genetics - they find the oldest clade in some region and then set it as a place of origin. This partly worked with R1b, so now they think it will work everywhere.



Things are a bit more complicated than that. It won't work explaining everthing with common name of different tribes. Especially becuase of frequency of I2a2b, its age, current distribution etc. I simply disagree here.

Yes. To reiterate, there are far, far more likely 'tribal' carriers of L161 I2a2b-Isles to Britain [early post-LGM settlers, later La Tene Celts, Belgae, Anglo-Saxons] than the Veneti. I am genuinely astonished that the previous poster actually thinks the Veneti could be solely responsible for the British I2a2. That is a reductionist argument if ever I heard one. If the Veneti carried I2a2, it would be more likely to be the type that is absent in Britain- I2a2a-Dinaric.
 
I thought about that but I coudn't figure out where did all R1a people (which today live in Poland, Moravia, Slovakia etc..) come from. Maybe you can be better than me in explaining that.




I also used to think that variance is very important clue. But look at this variance map for I2a2 (figure D): http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/10/1964/F3.large.jpg
It does not look the same as the one you were reffered to.
Also when great depopulation events happen (like in Poland or western Balkans), variance looses it's importance. But it is also possible that I'm making a mistake by disregarding it.

My main method is "going backwards through history", I see where ceratin Y-DNA is now and follow prevoius historical events, one by one, in order to get to some conclusions. This is unlike most people familiar with genetics - they find the oldest clade in some region and then set it as a place of origin. This partly worked with R1b, so now they think it will work everywhere.



Things are a bit more complicated than that. It won't work explaining everthing with common name of different tribes. Especially becuase of frequency of I2a2b, its age, current distribution etc. I simply disagree here.

I wonder if the previous poster who favours the Veneti realises that the branch line between I2a2b-Isles and I2a2a-Dinaric split 13,000 years ago? I2a2b is practically absent in eastern Europe and I2a2a [save for the very small I2a2a-Disles clade] is practically absent in the west.
 
Also when great depopulation events happen (like in Poland or western Balkans), variance looses it's importance. But it is also possible that I'm making a mistake by disregarding it.

Great point, we have to keep in mind that whatever Veneti contributed in Poland, was almost completely wiped out. Right after the Goths walked through to the Black Sea the are of today's Poland was depopulated. I'm guessing, It was Attila the Hun doing.

Also there could be a connection to Adriatic Veneti. I'd swear the name sounds Italian, :), were also "i" is plural. There was a big settlement of R1b in Czechs area since La Tente, or so. Maybe part of Veneti Tribe moved south, part North-East.




I like reading your post How Yes No and enjoying your talk of quick arguments/thinking, though not sure how much of it will hold water after deep scrutiny and new genetic evidence in the future. You're are jumping to conclusions much too fast for my liking. I wish I had more time these days to indulge in it.
 
Yes. To reiterate, there are far, far more likely 'tribal' carriers of L161 I2a2b-Isles to Britain [early post-LGM settlers, later La Tene Celts, Belgae, Anglo-Saxons] than the Veneti. I am genuinely astonished that the previous poster actually thinks the Veneti could be solely responsible for the British I2a2. That is a reductionist argument if ever I heard one. If the Veneti carried I2a2, it would be more likely to be the type that is absent in Britain- I2a2a-Dinaric.
I never said solely...I said they might explain I2a2 in Britain...
I wonder if the previous poster who favours the Veneti realises that the branch line between I2a2b-Isles and I2a2a-Dinaric split 13,000 years ago? I2a2b is practically absent in eastern Europe and I2a2a [save for the very small I2a2a-Disles clade] is practically absent in the west.
those time numbers are extremely rough estimations that can be several times wrong....

science today is mostly not about search for truth, it is about publishing as much as possible of scientific papers... results of such a "science" are all those popular science news that are constantly conflicting each other - e.g. about how for instance this or that type of food or mutation in this or that gene is good for this or that health issue, in next news it is bad, than it has no influence..and so on...
same is with this stuff...can't be trusted...

there was not enough time in history of genetics to even develop proper model based on measurements.... so you have combination of probably incorrect model and of ad hoc parameters....

models are based on ideas about rate of mutations and average time between generations...ask anthropologist to tell you how time between generations changed in past and they will not really know...do you think genetics know? no, they just took reasonable numbers...that is values that sounded reasonable to them... I think they even took insanely high 30 years between generations.. and second thing they assume that mutation happens with certain rate... but thing is mutation rate is not really predictable and there is no solid idea about whether they can be described...
e.g. under influence on mutagenes from environment rate of mutation can change dramatically and differ a lot from any expected statistics...

as far as we know models used by genetic scientist to "determine" "age"are pure speculation...author can assume literary any parameters for his model since it is literary impossible to verify correctnes of both the model and the parameters.... and than people like you read the numbers and take them for granted...

plus, haplogrup being old doesnot say where it has splitted from parent haplogroup.. people tend to move a lot... especially when we look movements in large time windows of several thousand years... slow changes of place might leave a trace... but fast movement to distant places will not... and than it happens that 2 subbranches of same haplogroup (e.g. I2a2) are isolated in space..

back to Veneti and I2a2, isolated development of I2a2 dinaric and I2a2Isles is main reason why we should look for its origin among groups of same people who were already separated in very long past between near Britain and east Europe... that is where Veneti fits perfectly..because we know that tribes named Veneti lived in Britanny close to Great Britain, on north Adriatic, and around Vistula river in Poland.... this makes Veneti good candidate for carriers of I2a2... that coupled with Germanic origin of other I haplogroups and with knowing of Veneti recorded in distant history as Germanic tribe and in recent past as Slavic tribe, we can conclude that Veneti are pretty good candidate for the spread of I2a2...
 
I thought about that but I coudn't figure out where did all R1a people (which today live in Poland, Moravia, Slovakia etc..) come from. Maybe you can be better than me in explaining that.
I think that wave of R1a was in Europe before haplogroup I but very soon after R1b...maybe they have arrived in same wave since in Iran they were next to each other
R1b in areas of east Iran and R1a next to them more to east..
R1b could have taken the routes via Asia minor and Caucasus and R1a mostly around Caspian sea in that way R1b arrived to southern Europe and R1a to northern Europe... these arrivals might have been in nearly the same time....
see http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26060
Venedi are later wave and were probably mix of R1a and I2a2 since name Venedi is related to the name (V)Indi that is to origin of R1a from India which indicates R1a,,, while they are recorded in history first as Sarmatian tribe than as German, and few centuries later as Slavic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vistula_Veneti ) which is explainable by
Sarmatians and Germans being brothers by origin (I1 and I2) while Sarmatians probabbly have also harboured R1a and was culturally connected to it...
757px-Roman_Empire_125.svg.png

Fenni that are found around Venedi do match two peaks of R1a in Poland and Russia, and Venedi as I2a2 with some R1a are between them...

Fenni are fascinating tribe, living in touch with nature on lower level of technological development..in fact that fits well with pagan religion of Slavs that was more oriented to nature compared with religions of germanic tribes that were more about heroic deeds...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenni

800px-GlobalR1a1a.png

btw. I think R1a was a continuum from India to Poland (going around Caspian sea) until it was cut into 2 parts by carriers of haplogroup C3 which are Scythians or their ancestors ...
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26058

800px-Haplogrupo_C3_%28ADN-Y%29.PNG

I also used to think that variance is very important clue. But look at this variance map for I2a2 (figure D): http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/10/1964/F3.large.jpg
It does not look the same as the one you were reffered to.
Also when great depopulation events happen (like in Poland or western Balkans), variance looses it's importance. But it is also possible that I'm making a mistake by disregarding it.
variance is very important clue where it comes to distant past...
link that you posted was a result published few years before the one that I have posted... in meantime lot more samples were taken and graph of variance was improved...
 
Last edited:
Yes. To reiterate, there are far, far more likely 'tribal' carriers of L161 I2a2b-Isles to Britain [early post-LGM settlers, later La Tene Celts, Belgae, Anglo-Saxons] than the Veneti. I am genuinely astonished that the previous poster actually thinks the Veneti could be solely responsible for the British I2a2. That is a reductionist argument if ever I heard one. If the Veneti carried I2a2, it would be more likely to be the type that is absent in Britain- I2a2a-Dinaric.
Veneti in Britanny do enter Britain as part of the Celtic wave...

they probably arrived in Europe as a first wave of I2 (carrying both I2a1 and I2a2), in more or less same time as first R1b settlers (Basques).. and before other I haplogroups...
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26060

their origin is however the same with Sarmatian I2a1 and I2a2 carriers that came much later carrying the same tribal names - Veneti/Venedi and Vandali that settled in Germany
if you look map of haplogroup I
you may notice that M26 (I2a1) in Britanny in France matches pretty well the position of Veneti

Haplogroup_I.png

643px-Gaul%2C_1st_century_BC.gif


Veneti in Britanny were probably celticized with spread of Hallstat La-Tenne culture...

Hallstatt_LaTene.png


lack of R1a in west France indicates that the first Veneti came as I2 but without R1a
while later Sarmatian Veneti might have been mixed with R1a already before entering Europe as attested by both R1a and I2 in both areas of Adriatic and Vistula Veneti... in area of Vistula Veneti besides I2a2 was also I2a1 of Vandals that eventually moved with sarmatian Alans and germanic Suebes to Iberian peninsula where they settled south most part known today as Andalusia..
 
from Wales story
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?p=361416#post361416

image028.jpg
ironage_native_britain_tribes.gif

01: Caledones
02: Taexali
03: Carvetii
04: Venicones
05: Epidii
06: Damnonii
07: Novantae
08: Selgovae
09: Votadini
10: Brigantes
11: Parisi
12: Cornovii
13: Deceangli
14: Ordovices
15: Corieltauvi
16: Iceni
17: Demetae
18: Catuvellauni
19: Silures
20: Dubunni
21: Dumnonii
22: Durotriges
23: Belgae
24: Atrebates
25: Regni
26: Cantiaci
27: Trinovantes

It looks to me that Steven Bird have lied when he was claiming in his paper that there is no correlation between tribes and spread of E-V13, and that thus it can be explained only by settlements of retired Roman soldiers

I would say 13 (Deceangli), 12(Cornovi) and 16 (Iceni) were most E-V13, than 22(Durotriges) and 27(Trinovantes) somewhat less E-V13 and 2(Taexali),5 (Epidii), 3(Carvetii), 9(Votadini) even less...
these were probably first settlers... and in fact in this order of settlement... with Deceangli, Cornovi and Iceni being dominantly E-V13 wave, while next waves acquired E-V13 by assimilating previous inhabitants both in UK and continental Europe (before settling in UK)

I would expect that I2a2-Isles came with some of them...
My guess is Carvetti since tribal name is the same as for Croats (Hrvati in Croatian)
They might have arrive there as part of ancient Veneti that were present in Britanny..


In fact position of Carvetti matches the position of M26 (I2a1) in UK same as position of Veneti matches position of M26 in Britanny, as can be seen here:

Haplogroup_I.png
 
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.

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.

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'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 in Eastern Europe right before Huns invaded:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/East_europe_3-4cc.png

Huns came to Pannonia around 400 AD 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.

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.

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.

Around 610 AD many Sclavines from Wallachian plain move inside Balkans to Bulgaria, Macedonia and Greece.

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.

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.

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. I also recommend you do some reading about Prague-Korchak, Ipotesti-Candesti and Penkovka cultures.

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.
 
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
800px-Invasions_of_the_Roman_Empire_1.png

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
250px-Ostrogothic_Kingdom.png

ejhg2008249f4.jpg

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...
 
I'll just add to my statements about Huns and Avars:

The paths of this Great Migration of Peoples led in part through the Polish lands, and the Germanic tribes living here joined the movement themselves, with the result of an almost complete, in the course of 5th century, depopulation of Poland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland...igrations_in_Europe.2C_depopulation_of_Poland

So in 567 king Cunimund's Gepid kingdom was attacked by two directions: from the west came the Lombards, from the north, through Moravia and the Danube, the Avars. Bayan crushed Cunimond's forces and made a cup from his defeated enemy's skull as a present (and warning) for his ally Alboin (who is famously quoted as having forced Cunimond's daughter Rosamund, whom he had taken as war bride, to drink from it, sealing his own fate). Then the Avar horde marched against Sirmium, by now firmly held by Gepid remnants and a Byzantine garrison led by general Bonosus. In the meantime large numbers of Slavs settled in Pannonia in the wake of the Avars; and in 568 Alboin and his Lombards deemed it wise to move for the half-ruined but promising lands of Italy where they would establish a long-lasting kingdom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayan_I

Everything else I leave to you...
 
I think R1a was already there but not really organized...
thing is that Slavic languages are most similar to Iranian, Indian...
I explain it with idea that before Scythians split it in 2 parts there was R1a continum from India via Bactria and Sogdiana, next to Caspian lake all the way to Poland ..
this continuum kept language development synchronized with the one in India and Iran, while European R1b and I1 IE speakers developed their languages in isolation from parent iranian language...
I2 came to Europe fairly recently (in time imediatelly following Scythian expansion) as Sarmatians - Serbs, Croats, Sarmatian Vistula Veneti (there were also non I2 Sarmatians as Alans who were dominantly G2a) and they might have been not slavicized at all... perhaps they already spoke more or less same language with proto-Slavic...
that explains otherwise weird phrase that still exists in Serbia ("speak serbian so that the whole world can understand you") which perhaps indicates that the languages they met on their way to Balkan were more or less the same...
 
Vandals also known as The Varangians or Varyags.

Information from Wikipedia:

History
As early as 911, Varangians are mentioned as fighting as mercenaries for the Byzantines. About 700 Varangians served along with Dalmatians as marines in Byzantine naval expeditions against the Emirate of Crete in 902 and a force of 629 returned to Crete under Constantine Porphyrogenitus in 949. A unit of 415 Varangians was involved in the Italian expedition of 936. It is also recorded that there were Varangian contingents among the forces that fought the Arabs in Syria in 955. During this period, the Varangian mercenaries were included in the Great Companions.
In 988 Basil II requested military assistance from Vladimir I of Kiev to help defend his throne. In compliance with the treaty made by his father after the Siege of Dorostolon (971), Vladimir sent 6,000 men to Basil. In exchange, Vladimir was given Basil's sister, Anna, in marriage. Vladimir also agreed to convert to Christianity and to bring his people into the Christian faith.

Function
The duties and purpose of the Varangian Guard were similar—if not identical—to the services provided by the Kievan druzhina, the Norwegian hird, and the Scandinavian and Anglo-Saxon housecarls. The Varangians served as the personal bodyguard of the emperor, swearing an oath of loyalty to him; they had ceremonial duties as retainers and acclaimers and performed some police duties, especially in cases of treason and conspiracy. They were headed by a separate officer, the akolouthos, who was usually a native Byzantine.

Norse sagas
According to the sagas, the West Norse entered the service of the Guard considerably later than the East Norse. The Laxdœla saga, informs that the Icelander Bolli Bollason, born c. 1006, was the first known Icelander or Norwegian in the Varangian Guard. Travelling to Constantinople via Denmark, he spent many years in the Varangian Guard; "and was thought to be the most valiant in all deeds that try a man, and always went next to those in the forefront."The saga also records the finery his followers received from the Emperor, and the influence he held after his return to Iceland.


From around 1540, the Swedish king had been styled, Suecorum, Gothorum et Vandalorum Rex: King of the Swedes, Goths and Vendes. Carl XVI Gustaf, dropped the title in 1973 and now styles himself simply as King of Sweden.
 
Last edited:
From Wikipedia

The European Avars, or Ancient Avars, were a highly organized nomadic confederacy of mixed origins. They were ruled by a khagan, who was surrounded by a tight-knit retinue of nomad warriors, an organization characteristic of Turkic groups. Although the name Avar first appeared in the mid fifth century, the Avars of Europe enter the historical scene in the mid sixth century A.D., when they established a pax spanning considerable areas of Central and Eastern Europe. Avar rule persisted over much of the Pannonian Plain up to the early 9th century.

The archaeologist from Republic of Macedonia Ivan Mikulčić revealed the presence not only of the Kuber group, but an entire Bulgar archaeological culture throughout Macedonia and eastern Albania. He describes the traces of Bulgars in this region, which consist of typical fortresses, burials, various products of metallurgy and pottery (including treasures with supposed Bulgar origin or ownership), lead seals, minted from Kuber, amulets, etc. However, part of this could actually represent traces of Avar presence. They are known to have raided as far south as Macedonia, and the material culture of the Avars was very similar to the Bulgars.
 
Poland was mostly depopulated because Vandals moved out to seize the opportunity to live in better land...
as for Avars it seems that you were right..
still, I fail to see relevance of the exact path that Avars took to R1a & I2a story
Oh yea, Vandals left fertile land of Poland for semi-desert south Spain? Why not closer move to Pannonia?
We need a better reason for Vandals departure.
 

This thread has been viewed 153767 times.

Back
Top