Which country of those has higher percent of Y-DNA haplogroup I2a?

[motatalea]

Which country of those has higher percent of Y-DNA haplogroup I2a Bosnia or Croatia?and which tribes in history were associated by haplogroup I2a ,Illyrians arenot they?

 

[Maciamo]

Bosnia has the highest percentage of I2a, but inboth Croatia and Bosnia it is mostly I2a2, not I2a*.

I2a appeared in southern Europe during the Ice Age. It is associated with native Europeans before the spread of agriculture. Because it is very widespread, in ancient times it could be Greek, Dalmatian, Dacian, Illyrian, Roman or even Celtic.

I2a1 is the Western version (Italy, France, Iberia), while I2a2 is Eastern (Balkans, Greece, Poland, Russia). But many people are just I2a. It is possible to know if a regular I2a is more Eastern or Western by comparing STR markers.

Check your STR results for DYS390. If the value is 23 you are likely a Western I2a or I2a1. If it is 24 or 25 you are surely I2a2 or Eastern I2a.

At DYS389-II, if your value is 28 you are probably I2a1. If it is 29 or 30 you could be anything. If it is 31 or 32 you are surely I2a2.

There are other way of knowing, but it would be easier if I could see your results.

 

[motatalea]

Bosnia has the highest percentage of I2a, but inboth Croatia and Bosnia it is mostly I2a2, not I2a*.

I2a appeared in southern Europe during the Ice Age. It is associated with native Europeans before the spread of agriculture. Because it is very widespread, in ancient times it could be Greek, Dalmatian, Dacian, Illyrian, Roman or even Celtic.

I2a1 is the Western version (Italy, France, Iberia), while I2a2 is Eastern (Balkans, Greece, Poland, Russia). But many people are just I2a. It is possible to know if a regular I2a is more Eastern or Western by comparing STR markers.

Check your STR results for DYS390. If the value is 23 you are likely a Western I2a or I2a1. If it is 24 or 25 you are surely I2a2 or Eastern I2a.

At DYS389-II, if your value is 28 you are probably I2a1. If it is 29 or 30 you could be anything. If it is 31 or 32 you are surely I2a2.

There are other way of knowing, but it would be easier if I could see your results.

That is my DYS 12 markers result:
Locus

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12​

DYS#

393
390
19*
391
385a
385b
426
388
439
389-1
392
389-2​

Alleles

13
24
15
11
14
15
11
13
13
12
11
30​

 

[Maciamo]

This looks clearly like a Dinaric I2a2 to me. Dinaric means from ex-Yugoslavia, or what was called Illyria in Greco-Roman times.

 

[motatalea]

This looks clearly like a Dinaric I2a2 to me. Dinaric means from ex-Yugoslavia, or what was called Illyria in Greco-Roman times.

so do you advise me to make deep clade test to know if iam I2a2 or I2a1 or i donnot have to do that?

and finally I have read this Haplogroup I linked to higher incidence of AIDS in HIV patients

here you can find the details http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2009/01/haplogroup-i-linked-to-higher-incidence.html

now my question is Does that mean Mr Maciam that iam very linked to aids?:grin:

 

[Maciamo]

so do you advise me to make deep clade test to know if iam I2a2 or I2a1 or i donnot have to do that?

No, I don't recommend you to take a deep clade test. It is 99% sure that you are I2a2. It would be wasted money.

and finally I have read this Haplogroup I linked to higher incidence of AIDS in HIV patients
here you can find the details http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2009/01/haplogroup-i-linked-to-higher-incidence.html
now my question is Does that mean Mr Maciam that iam very linked to aids?:grin:

It only means that people of haplogroup I have a higher chance of being infected by the HIV virus if they have unprotected sex with someone who has HIV. Contrarily to what many people think, having sex once with someone who has HIV/AIDS does not result in contamination in 100% of the time. The mtDNA haplogroup can also play a role, but the most important protections come from autosomal mutations such as the CCR5 mutation (most common in North-East Europe, with a peak in Finland).

 

[Marianne]

...the most important protections come from autosomal mutations such as the CCR5 mutation (most common in North-East Europe, with a peak in Finland).

Are people with this mutation 100% safe from the virus or they just have a smaller chance to contract it? Is it also linked with the mutation that makes people develop AIDS slower after they are infected with HIV?

 

[Maciamo]

Are people with this mutation 100% safe from the virus or they just have a smaller chance to contract it? Is it also linked with the mutation that makes people develop AIDS slower after they are infected with HIV?

From what I have read, homozygous carriers of the CCR5-delta32 mutation (i.e. inherited from both parents) are 100% immune to AIDS. Heterozygous carriers (only one allele out of two) have much less chance of getting HIV, and if they do HIV will take longer to mutate into AIDS.

The CCR5 mutation is only found among people of European descent. It's frequency is about 5% from Anatolia to the Balkans, 10% in Western Europe, and 15% in North-East Europe.

 

[Jordan N.]

I2a or I2a2 ???

Check your STR results for DYS390. If the value is 23 you are likely a Western I2a or I2a1. If it is 24 or 25 you are surely I2a2 or Eastern I2a.

At DYS389-II, if your value is 28 you are probably I2a1. If it is 29 or 30 you could be anything. If it is 31 or 32 you are surely I2a2.

There are other way of knowing, but it would be easier if I could see your results.

I have 23 at DYS390, but 31 at DYS389-2

Here are my results:
Locus 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
DYS# 393 390 19 391 385a 385b 426 388 439 389-1 392 389-2
Alleles 13 23 17 10 14 16 11 13 13 13 11 31

 

[Jordan N.]

Maciamo,
There are two ways to display the result of the second test on marker 389. In both cases, the name for the marker is 389-2. The first way to display the result is by showing the result from the original test, which is the total for the entire 389 marker, including the first section. This is how Family Tree DNA displays the result.
The second way is to show the result only for the second section that is tested by subtracting the 389-1 score from the original second test score. This is how the Genographic Project displays the result.
You mentioned that 31 or 32 at 389-2 indicates I2a2. Is it basesd on Family Tree DNA or Genographic Project? Also, could you please comment my results?
Thank you!

 

[Maciamo]

I have 23 at DYS390, but 31 at DYS389-2

Here are my results:
Locus 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
DYS# 393 390 19 391 385a 385b 426 388 439 389-1 392 389-2
Alleles 13 23 17 10 14 16 11 13 13 13 11 31

Sorry, I seem to have missed that post 3 days ago.

I can say for sure here that you are not I2a1. It's either I2a or I2a2. Considering your 31 at DYS389-2, it is more likely that you are I2a2. This is not based on FTDNA or the Genographic Project. Both tend to be late when it comes to determining haplogroups (or haplogroup history for that matter). It is based on the haplotype table for haplogroup I created by Ken Nordtvedt, professor emeritus in the Physics Department at Montana State University (who also advises on haplotypes for FTDNA).

 

[Maciamo]

Haganus, I have split your post and my reply to it into a new topic of its own.

 

[Joro]

Highest percentages have the Croats,it is maybe not suitable to say 'which country' because in Bosnia there are 3 ethnicities which,according to Y-DNA studies,differ significantly and have a complex historical background.
Bosnian Croats-73%,Bosniaks-43%,Bosnian Serbs-35%(?)
Probably majority of today's Bosniaks descend from islamized populations from Croatia(more) and Serbia(less) and other countries,Hungary for example.

 

[Jordan N.]

The highest percentage of I2a (probably I2a2) is found in Dalmatia and Herzegovina. Dalmatia is part of Croatia, and Herzegovina is part of Bosnia (actually, the name of country is Bosnia and Herzegovina). Both regions are mostly populated by the same ethnic group – Croats. The border between Dalmatia and Herzegovina is just a political one, there is no natural border and you'll find the same people at both sides.

 

[how yes no 2]

worth observg is that I2a2 in Croatia is much much less frequent in west and north parts of the country ... it looks as pretty much restricted to areas of pre-Croat Dalmatae tribe and Slavic non-Croat Narentani (Pagani) tribes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalmatae
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagania

Eupedia states for Croatia forged 42% of I2a2 - obtained from work of croatian "scientists" who came up with 42% by taking around half samples from 3 scarcely populated islands in south Croatia (where all together like 40 thousand people live and where I2a2 is over 55%) together with half of samples from the rest of Croatia (where more than 4 milion people live)... comparable fraud would be e.g. to chose half samples from Sardinia and half samples from rest of Europe, and say that Europe has 25% I2a1... or to take samples for Europe half from Sweden and half from rest of Europe and conclude 30% of Europe is I1...


http://cmj.hr/2005/46/4/16100752.pdf
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v11/n7/full/5200992a.html

btw. all the 3 islands in south Croatia (Hvar, Korcula , Brac) with over 55% I2a2 were part of Pagania, as was the area around Neretva river in Hercegovina from where samples for Bosnian Croats mostly come from...

http://www.euratlas.net/history/europe/800/entity_1812.html

in 900 AD Narentanians are neignours of Croats
http://www.euratlas.net/history/europe/900/entity_1812.html
http://www.euratlas.net/history/europe/800/entity_1523.html

in 1000 AD they are still separate nation
http://www.euratlas.net/history/europe/1000/entity_1812.html

in 1100 AD their area is counted as Croatia
http://www.euratlas.net/history/europe/1100/entity_1523.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagania

according to only historic source talking about origin of people from Pagania, Narentani (also called Pagani) were Serbs and not Croats...

Byzantine emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus stresses that "Pagani are descended from the unbaptized Serbs" and that "The Pagani are so called because they did not accept baptism at the time when all the Serbs were baptized." [1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagania
http://books.google.com/books?id=3al15wpFWiMC&lpg=PP1&hl=de&pg=PA165#v=onepage&q&f=false

actually, it is very logical that Pagania has higher percentages of I2a2 than the rest... by refusing for longer time to change from Pagan religion to Christianity they were not prone to mix with Christian populations, and as such were genetic isolate... later they were converted to catholics while the rest of the Serbs became ortodox... today, key difference between Serbs and Croats is that Serbs are ortodox and Croats catholics...


anyway, back to forged 42% of I2a2 in Croatia:
also for the mainland Croatia (without those 3 south most islands) mix included samples from several towns without telling which number of samples came from which town... however by comparing provided map of I2a2 spread and locations where sampling is done, we can see that among towns around half are I2a2 hotspots (Dubrovnik, Osijek, Zagreb) and other 3 (from west and north Croatia: Delnice, Zabok and Pazin) are more or less lacking I2a2...

Dubrovnik is town very close to the 3 islands and hotspot in Hercegovina....Zagreb is an island of I2a2 in north Croatia due to lot of migration from south areas to capital (looking at the map provided in article above and comparing it with locations of sampling.....north Croatia with exception of Zagreb has I2a2 close to zero), they have also chosen to represent Slavonia with Osijek that is in east Slavonia near borders with Serbia and follows spread trends present there, while other parts of Slavonia are likely to follow lack of I2a2 trend of north and west Croatia...

taking into account number of people living in Dalmatia, north west Croatia and Slavonia, even 20-25% of I2a2 is too much for Croatia in total...


for Serbia all sampling was done in Belgrade, which is typical mix for Serbia as it is very centralized country with people from all parts of Serbia intensively migrating to Belgrade (Belgrade is estimated to have around 1.7 milion people, while Serbia (without Kosovo) has 7.3 milion people)...

the only testing for Serbia done on larger number of samples and that was not done by Croatian scientist is this one:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.21235/suppinfo

it shows following results for Serbia and Montenegro

haplogroup_____Serbia____Montenegro
I1_____________7.8%_____6.2%
I2b1___________1.67%___1.73%
I2a2 __________38.5% ___29.2%
E1b1b _________ 17.3%___27.0%
R1a____________14.5%____7.4%
R1b____________ 4.5%____9.4%
J1______________0.6% ___0.5%
J2a ____________3.3%____4.7%
J2b ____________1.7% ___4.5%
G2a____________2.2%____2.5%
N ______________3.3% ___1.5%
Q _____________1.7%____2.0%
H______________2.2% ___1.5%
L_______________0.6%____1.2%

worth nothing is that some Byzantine sources use name Sarbans for Balkan Serbs (e.g. above mentioned Byzantine emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus in his work "De Administrando Imperia") ... which is identical to name of Pashtun Sarbans in Asia

looking at I2* and I1 projects on family tree dna web site, I think that most of haplogroup I in Asia is likely to be I2

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/yDNA_I1/default.aspx?section=ymap
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/I2nosubcladeM170P215/default.aspx?section=ymap

we can also easily observe the perfectly clear correlation between haplogroup I spread in Bactria and position of Pashtun Sarbans (green areas on map of Afghanistan and Pakistan)...

we can also note peculiar tribal names similarity

Swedes - I1
germanic Suebi - I1 (clear from their impact in Iberian peninsula)
Serbs (Srbi in serbian language) - I2a2
Sardinia - I2a1
Sarbans - probably I2*
Serica - I2* area in north-west China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serica )

 

[how yes no 2]

from thread about G haplogroup

....
Now let's visit small peak in what is now Croatia...
this peak is related to Liburnians

I think that Liburnians are also Hittite in origin...
why? their name is the same as of legendary king of Hittite empire, who spread borders of the empire far away into lands near the sea...
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labarna_I

Actually, G spreads much deeper in mainland than Liburnians on this map...
In fact it does match better original settlement of proto-Croats..

http://www.euratlas.net/history/europe/700/entity_1523.html

proto-Croats are likely to have been Sarmatians in origin...

in fact personal names Alan and Ante (matching tribal names of Sarmatian Alans and Antes) are common among Croats while not among Serbs... which may indicate that among Croats were people originating from Alans and Antes... it is more or less accepted that Alans were dominantly carriers of G haplogroup...


Croats came to Balkan from large Slavic area of white Croatia

when they arrived to Balkan they settled among Liburnians and brought abundance of of R1a haplogroup from white Croatia....

it is not clear whether I2a2 was originally present in proto-Croats, or was it acquired in white Croatia, or in Balkan (from Dalmatae and Narentani).... to clarify that knowing the haplogroups for area of their original setlement would be beneficial...all testings of Croats that I have seen seems to skip that area.... so I wonder where did Maciamo get data (as depicted in figure) about increased percentage of G haplogroup exactly in that area...

original proto-Croats might as well have been G haplogroup elite of Slavic white Croatia...

on other hand, I think that proto-Croats might have been one of subtribes of Veneti... that would make them origin from I2a2...and G haplogroup could be admixture of Alans...

there is also one thing about Pashtun Sarbans and haplogroup I spread in Afganistan...
the spread of Sarbans matches closely haplogroup I, but haplogroup I is considerably thicker on south than spread of Sarbans, as if parallel with them, just south of them was another tribe with same haplogroup I

In fact, the area just bellow Sarbans is area of Helmand river system or Sarasvati

Sarasvatī is cognate to Avestan *Haraxwaitī, which has been speculated[8] to refer to Arədvī Sūrā Anāhitā, the Avestan mythological world river, which would point to an already Proto-Indo-Iranian myth of a cosmic or mystical *Sáras-vn̥t-iH River. In the younger Avesta, Haraxvaitī is identified with a region described to be rich in rivers, and the Old Persian cognate Hara[h]uvatiš was the name of the Helmand river system, the origin of the Greek name Arachosia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarasvati_River

Helmand river system on map of Afganistan

so, I allow for possibility that haplogroup I (possibly I2*) just south of Sarbans in area of Sarasvati/Haraxvaitī is in fact related to proto-Croat related tribe (Croats in Serbo-Croatian is Hrvati)... this could indicate that proto-Serb and proto-Croat tribes share I2a2 origin (and perhaps language) but have separate self-identity long time back in history...Croats in that area might be related to "Arattas" of the Mahabharata...

of course this does not necessarily mean that Balkan Serbs and Croats came from Afganistan, direction of migration could have gone in opposite direction (as I have suggested in "sea peoples" thread) or it might have been from third location (e.g. Asia minor and Eneti tribe to both locations)

 

[iapodos]

Actually, G spreads much deeper in mainland than Liburnians on this map...
In fact it does match better original settlement of proto-Croats..

One simple question:
What scientific study proves your statement that "G spreads much deeper in mainland"?
Is there any proof of higher percent of G among so called Proto-Croats or even in region where they have been in past times?

proto-Croats are likely to have been Sarmatians in origin...
in fact personal names Alan and Ante (matching tribal names of Sarmatian Alans and Antes) are common among Croats while not among Serbs... which may indicate that among Croats were people originating from Alans and Antes... it is more or less accepted that Alans were dominantly carriers of G haplogroup...

So your deduction is:
1. Alan and Ante are common personal names among Croats
2. Alans and Antes are Sarmatian people
3. Alans were predominantly G carriers
Conclusion: Croats are Sarmatians and carriers of G haplogroup.
First of your statement, especially that part about name Ante is one of the most stupidous thing I have read on this forum. For the people which are not from Croatia, I would said that name Ante is just short from the name Anton or Anthony and have nothing in common with the people called Antes.

Croats came to Balkan from large Slavic area of white Croatia
when they arrived to Balkan they settled among Liburnians and brought abundance of of R1a haplogroup from white Croatia....
it is not clear whether I2a2 was originally present in proto-Croats, or was it acquired in white Croatia, or in Balkan (from Dalmatae and Narentani).... to clarify that knowing the haplogroups for area of their original setlement would be beneficial...all testings of Croats that I have seen seems to skip that area.... so I wonder where did Maciamo get data (as depicted in figure) about increased percentage of G haplogroup exactly in that area...
original proto-Croats might as well have been G haplogroup elite of Slavic white Croatia...
on other hand, I think that proto-Croats might have been one of subtribes of Veneti... that would make them origin from I2a2...and G haplogroup could be admixture of Alans...

Lot of words, nothing said. I know that the game of possibilities is extremely interesting, but this is really too much. Are they Veneti, Alans, Slavs, Dalmats, Liburnians? Are they G, I2a2, R1a or something third?

there is also one thing about Pashtun Sarbans and haplogroup I spread in Afganistan...

Where is that study about haplogroup I and its spreading in Afghanistan? I really would like to see it.

the spread of Sarbans matches closely haplogroup I, but haplogroup I is considerably thicker on south than spread of Sarbans, as if parallel with them, just south of them was another tribe with same haplogroup I
In fact, the area just bellow Sarbans is area of Helmand river system or Sarasvati
so, I allow for possibility that haplogroup I (possibly I2*) just south of Sarbans in area of Sarasvati/Haraxvaitī is in fact related to proto-Croat related tribe (Croats in Serbo-Croatian is Hrvati)... this could indicate that proto-Serb and proto-Croat tribes share I2a2 origin (and perhaps language) but have separate self-identity long time back in history...Croats in that area might be related to "Arattas" of the Mahabharata...

Oh, so, that's it. Croats are actually Pashtuns. What happened with all previous theories (Alans, Sarmatians, Liburnians, Veneti)...

of course this does not necessarily mean that Balkan Serbs and Croats came from Afganistan, direction of migration could have gone in opposite direction (as I have suggested in "sea peoples" thread) or it might have been from third location (e.g. Asia minor and Eneti tribe to both locations)

Now I get it, wherever you go, Serbs and Croats appearing. Not only that they traveled by the sea( Sea peoples) but they reached also the highest mountains in Hindukush and they somehow handle to ride horses in Black Sea steppe. Really splendid nations. I am proud to be one of those.
Btw. with all respect for your entusiasm, I think that almost everything you wrote on this forum is just endless and exhausting trolling. We can not produce unexisting facts just to be fitted in our story. I already once before said on the forum that we all here talking about probabilities and hypothesis, but there should be some level of common sense when we are talking about things. I really don't see common sense in your writing.

 

[how yes no 2]

One simple question:
What scientific study proves your statement that "G spreads much deeper in mainland"?
Is there any proof of higher percent of G among so called Proto-Croats or even in region where they have been in past times?

There is no scientific study that I am aware of that show that there is elevated G at all in the area...that is why I asked Maciamo in post above to tell based on what is the drawing made... by reading his posts I assume he is serious and does not make up data...

So your deduction is:
1. Alan and Ante are common personal names among Croats
2. Alans and Antes are Sarmatian people
3. Alans were predominantly G carriers
Conclusion: Croats are Sarmatians and carriers of G haplogroup.

No, conclusion from the deduction was that there might have been Alans among proto-Croats, which is very likely, as Alans did contribute to much of haplogroup G found today throughout Europe.... learn to read what is written and not what is association triggered in your mind by what you read...

Thing about Croats being Sarmatians comes from my claim in other threads that Croats, Serbs and other Slavs probably are Sarmatians/Veneti/Pannonians in origin ... I have backed up that claim in other threads with statements of historian Jordanes about populous Veneti race that in his time is made of many tribes but chiefly Sclaveni and Antes... read threads about Sarmatians and Veneti... I did also show that Pannonian Illyrian tribes of Ozeriates were likely pre-Slavic and indicated that Veneti, Pannonians and Sarmatians are likely same pre-Slavic folk...and that Sarmatia and Scythia were names related to culture of nomad living and not to particular nations, same as Germania was related to settlement in houses.... I showed that only two samples of I2a* we find exactly in positions of Adriatic and Celtic Veneti ... I have found zillion small indications of correctness of my theories...

First of your statement, especially that part about name Ante is one of the most stupidous thing I have read on this forum. For the people which are not from Croatia, I would said that name Ante is just short from the name Anton or Anthony and have nothing in common with the people called Antes.

it's not completely stupid idea as we have two related people with somewhat different set of first names... it's an idea that may or may not be related to reality...I would say it was pretty wild guess, but it makes some sense... besides according to my theory Antes (or Anti)/Eneti/Veneti are same tribal name, and name Anthony may as well be derived from the same source, as Celtic Veneti lived in Brittany...

it was quite common to give people last or first name according to their tribe of origin...
look at all Horvats in Hungary and Slovakia...
later first names were just used without relating them anymore to original meaning...

btw. among Serbs you will find name Obren and among Croats not...
Obren likely comes from Obri which was Slavic name for Avars...
in Serbia there is around 1.7% of Q that likely origin from Avars...
while in Croatia Q is large only on Hvar and Korcula which are essentially parts of lands of Pagania that was originally inhabited by Serbs according to historical source from Byzantium...

Lot of words, nothing said. I know that the game of possibilities is extremely interesting, but this is really too much. Are they Veneti, Alans, Slavs, Dalmats, Liburnians? Are they G, I2a2, R1a or something third?
Where is that study about haplogroup I and its spreading in Afghanistan? I really would like to see it.

I did never say they are Alans... I said there might have been Alans among them...

Liburnians and Dalmats are previous inhabitants of Croatia, different from proto-Croats... but today Croatians do origin from Dalmats and Liburnians and proto-Croats...
in my opinion, Veneti, Sarmatians and Pannonians (or Pannonian Illyrian tribes), are same pre-Slavic folk... Scythians are related pre-Slavic folk but with more R1a and less I2a2...

I do think that Dalmats, Scordisci and some other Balkan tribes classified in same time as Illyrian, Celtic.... were in fact Pannonians or pre-Slavic people... some of them were Celticized or partly celticized in some point of time, as Celtic cultural influence was strong everywhere in Europe ... but I just do not believe that Celtic tribes were key previous inhabitants in areas with least R1b... e.g. if you look at Scordisci their tribal name resembles I haplogroup pattern (Scordisci = Sordisci same as Sclaveni = Slaveni = Slavs) in areas where they lived R1b is like 5% E-V13 like 20% and I2a2 like 40%... but we know they were celtic speaking as in area some place names do have Celtic meaning... so they were likely to have been culturally Celtic but not Celtic by origin... for Dalmats it is thought that they have been Illyrians who are celticized.. but I bet they were Pannonians... and relating their tribal name to albanian word for sheep is pure nonsense... their tribal name is same as for Zazaki/Dimli/Daylami people... If I remember it correct it meant warrior or something like that.... what tribe would call themselves sheeps... it's pure non-sense...


besides why is it so strange to find pre-Slavic people in east Europe...
Slavs, Balts and Albanians are only satem speaking Europeans...
and we know that much of east Europe was satem speaking in past as well...
so why would I believe in fairy tales that Slavs arrived out of nowhere in 6th century....

they just changed their name that's all...
like there were in some times of history Soviets and in other Russians, Ukrainians...
or in one times of history there were Yugoslavs and in other times Serbs, Croats...
tribes change names when they make new tribal unions..

why would it be so strange that pre-Slavic people were in east Europe long time ago... as Sarmatians, Veneti, Pannonians, Scythians, Thrachans....

and why is it so strange to find Slavic related people in Afganistan?
area was heavily settled by Scythians who were pre-slavic as well...
so why on earth would it be so strange that there are same tribal names in multiple distant areas of pre-Slavic influence?

Oh, so, that's it. Croats are actually Pashtuns. What happened with all previous theories (Alans, Sarmatians, Liburnians, Veneti)...

they are not Pasthuns as Serbs are not Pashtuns...
but they might be distantly related to some of the people from south Afganistan same as Serbs might be distantly related to Sarbans...

note that people in Afganistan are likely to have I2* which is several thousand years away from I2a2...

Now I get it, wherever you go, Serbs and Croats appearing. Not only that they traveled by the sea( Sea peoples) but they reached also the highest mountains in Hindukush and they somehow handle to ride horses in Black Sea steppe. Really splendid nations. I am proud to be one of those.

some tribal names tend to last over long periods of time and give birth to different people... Serbs are carrying such a tribal name... that is likely to be derivation of tribal name for initial haplogroup I carriers...

Suebi, Sardinia, Swedes, Sarbans, Serica....are all related by similar tribal name and by same haplogroup I...it makes plausible idea that their tribal names origin from same source...

it's not that Serbs of today were everywhere...but more you go in past more different haplogroup I carriers did carry similar names...

I am focused on proto-Serbs and proto-Croats, through last tens of thousand years, they were wandering around as all other people.... so it's no wonder that we may find people related to them in Afganistan and Iberia... or you are ashame of possibility that some Pasthuns might be related to you? Do you think Pasthuns are lower worth people than you?

If I am some kind of looney I would claim proto-Serbs are Aryans.. but that is not what I see in data.... I see that Aryans were J2, Scythians were R1a...

but I see that Pastun Sarbans might be distantly related to Serbs, so what is wrong with that? And why would it be strange if Croats are related to people who lived just south of Sarbans in area of Haraxvatti...
haplogroup I matches, tribal/area name match...
so it is quite valid proposition....


It's nothing spectacular... I do not say when possible split happened...it could have been 10000 years ago...especially if Afghan people are I2* and not I2a2 Dinaric...

Btw. with all respect for your entusiasm, I think that almost everything you wrote on this forum is just endless and exhausting trolling. We can not produce unexisting facts just to be fitted in our story. I already once before said on the forum that we all here talking about probabilities and hypothesis, but there should be some level of common sense when we are talking about things. I really don't see common sense in your writing.

so, what you propose me to stop writing cause you do not like what you read... cause you hate idea that you might be distantly related to some Pashtun? do not forget that all people came from Africa and have common origin...just people are shaped by circumstances and some tribes had more luck in course of history, some less...

everyone has his own style of thinking and writing...

I for instance almost fail to see anything worth reading in your writings.. nothing new, no ideas, nothing...it's very easy to participate in forum without making theories, or by just applauding to Maciamo, or by just baldly spitting on theories of people who dare to propose different or original theories.....

 

[iapodos]

I am focused on proto-Serbs and proto-Croats, through last tens of thousand years, they were wandering around as all other people.... so it's no wonder that we may find people related to them in Afganistan and Iberia... or you are ashame of possibility that some Pasthuns might be related to you? Do you think Pasthuns are lower worth people than you?
so, what you propose me to stop writing cause you do not like what you read... cause you hate idea that you might be distantly related to some Pashtun? do not forget that all people came from Africa and have common origin...just people are shaped by circumstances and some tribes had more luck in course of history, some less...

It is really not correct from you to try to input me some racism against Pashtuns, only because I stated that you write nonsenses. I have never said nowhere that I have any bad thaught on any nation or race. On the contrary, I highly respect Pashtuns because they are one of the rare nations which dare to stand against agressive Western imperialism.

I for instance almost fail to see anything worth reading in your writings.. nothing new, no ideas, nothing...it's very easy to participate in forum without making theories, or by just applauding to Maciamo, or by just baldly spitting on theories of people who dare to propose different or original theories.....

If you really read what I wrote, you could very easily see that I never applouded nor to Maciamo, nor to anyone else...Putting everything what comes on your mind directly on forum is not discussing or posting "original theories". With such kind of writing, you are disqualifing your own ideas by yourself. Try to think twice before you publish something...That example of Ante and Antes is just obvious example. I would be "original" and try to connect your Ante and Antes, with english word ants. So maybe Serbs means those who live like ants or a numerous as ants...Is it enough "original theory" for you?

 

[how yes no 2]

It is really not correct from you to try to input me some racism against Pashtuns, only because I stated that you write nonsenses. I have never said nowhere that I have any bad thaught on any nation or race. On the contrary, I highly respect Pashtuns because they are one of the rare nations which dare to stand against agressive Western imperialism.

ok, glad to hear that you respect Pasthuns...
does that freedom or death approach remind you on some other nation?

If you really read what I wrote, you could very easily see that I never applouded nor to Maciamo, nor to anyone else...

again read carefully, instead of reading associations that come to your mind while reading...
did I say that you were aplauding?
after stating that I do not value your posts either (thus it's mutual), I said "it's very easy to participate in forum without making theories, or by just applauding to Maciamo, or by just baldly spitting on theories of people who dare to propose different or original theories....."" but that was not necessarily all about you... no need to take everything so personal....

Putting everything what comes on your mind directly on forum is not discussing or posting "original theories". With such kind of writing, you are disqualifing your own ideas by yourself. Try to think twice before you publish something...

I think while I write... writing on forum is for me like a place where to think about those theories...I get ideas while writing and check sources while writing... I do not think about them when I am not writing on forum....that is my way of doing this... I am not writing a PhD on this topic, I am just writing on a forum... so my writing does not really need to be perfectly logical all the time... sometimes underlying logic is clear only to me... sometimes it is flawed...but often I manage to find interesting links....

That example of Ante and Antes is just obvious example. I would be "original" and try to connect your Ante and Antes, with english word ants. So maybe Serbs means those who live like ants or a numerous as ants...Is it enough "original theory" for you?

hm, dunno about that... first I would not put equality between proto-Serbs and Antes.... both belonged to same proto-Slavic substratum, but were probably not the same....

tribal name Antes/Anti comes from Veneti and earlier Eneti... Serbs tribal name is more likely to be related to tribal name of Cimmerians who are related to Veneti but not the same...in fact, Paphlagonia Eneti were pushed out from Asia minor after indulging in expedition against neighbours together with Cimmerians.... this happened after fall of Troy, which in fact according to currently accepted chronology seems to coincides with expedition of "sea people"....

...at the present time, they say, there are no Eneti to be seen in Paphlagonia, though some say that there is a village12 on the Aegialus13 ten schoeni14 distant from Amastris. But Zenodotus writes "from Enete,"15 and says that Homer clearly indicates the Amisus of today. And others say that a tribe called Eneti, bordering on the Cappadocians, made an expedition with the Cimmerians and then were driven out to the Adriatic Sea.16 But the thing upon which there is general agreement is, that the Eneti, to whom Pylaemenes belonged, were the most notable tribe of the Paphlagonians, and that, furthermore, these made the expedition with him in very great numbers, but, losing their leader, crossed over to Thrace after the capture of Troy, and on their wanderings went to the Enetian country,17 as it is now called. According to some writers, Antenor and his children took part in this expedition and settled at the recess of the Adriatic, as mentioned by me in my account of Italy.18 It is therefore reasonable to suppose that it was on this account that the Eneti disappeared and are not to be seen in Paphlagonia. [9]

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper...98:book=12:chapter=3&highlight=thracian,eneti

I think that both Cimmerians and Veneti were I2a folk... while Scythians were R1a folk...

Cimmerians lived in Ukraine where hotspot of variance of I2a2 is... I would dare to propose that from Cimmerians came later Sarmatians... their key settlement is on same place, they have similar tribal names, Sarmatians appear on historical scene imediatelly after Cimmerians are gone from it....

both Cimmerians and Sarmatians also fit into haplogroup I pattern of tribal names: Swedes, Suebi, Srbi, Sarbans, Sardinia, Serica...

Cimmerians are in origin germanic... let me try to give some explanation for this idea...

The Cimmerians are believed to have been Indo-European. Their language is regarded as related to Iranian[6] or Thracian. They appeared to have had an Iranian ruling class.[7]
Although the 2006 Encyclopædia Britannica reflects Herodotus, stating, "They [the Cimmerians] probably did live in the area north of the Black Sea, but attempts to define their original homeland more precisely by archaeological means, or even to fix the date of their expulsion from their country by the Scythians, have not so far been completely successful."[7]

area above Black sea is hotspot of variance (and frequency) of I2a2...indicating very long settlement of people harbouring that haplogroup in that area... thus Cimmerians might have been original source of it...

After their conquests of Colchis and Iberia in the First Millennium BC, the Cimmerians also came to be known as Gimirri in Georgian. According to Georgian historians[8], the Cimmerians played an influential role in the development of both the Colchian and Iberian cultures. The modern-day Georgian word for hero, გმირი, gmiri, is derived from the word Gimirri. This refers to the Cimmerians who settled in the area after the initial conquests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cimmerians

Cimmerians are also known as Khumri and Gimmri... which means "hero"
related to word Gimmri is also word Germania/Kermania/Žermanya with identical meaning - bravery and combat (you see unlike what it appears to you, in my theories it is not just about match in linguistic form of two words, but a match in both linguistic form and meaning, or match in both linguistic form and genetics)

Historical documents refer to Kerman as "Karmania", "Kermania", "Germania" and "Žermanya", which means bravery and combat. Geographers have recorded Kerman's ancient name as "Go'asheer" (Bardesheer).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerman_province