PDA

View Full Version : Heatmaps for I2a1 subclades



ph2ter
06-05-2018, 02:10 PM
Heatmap map for I2a1b2<CTS10228<S17250<Y5596 (BY128):

23683

and for its subclade A815:
23684

oz
06-05-2018, 03:15 PM
Where did you find this heatmap?
Is there one for I1a3(Z63)? I can't find a frequency map of it anywhere I'd like to know where it's the most common. On Ftdna it shows the most dots in Germany-Poland region and as far east as Volga and Lebanon. I'd post the image of it but I'm using the phone.

Interesting your subclade has a dark hot spot in NW Caucasus there.

gravetti
06-05-2018, 04:07 PM
Where did you find this heatmap?
Is there one for I1a3(Z63)? I can't find a frequency map of it anywhere I'd like to know where it's the most common. On Ftdna it shows the most dots in Germany-Poland region and as far east as Volga and Lebanon. I'd post the image of it but I'm using the phone.

Interesting your subclade has a dark hot spot in NW Caucasus there.

They are the Kabaroi/Kabars/Qabars/Qavars.

http://acta.bibl.u-szeged.hu/48855/1/chronica_012_003-022.pdf

The earlier source is the Annals of Salzburg (Annales Iuvavenses Maximi), which
recorded at the year 881 an eclipse of the sun, then two wars (battles?) on the territory
of Ostmark (today: Austria) belonging to the Eastern Frankish Empire: "The
first war [was] with the Hungarians [cum Ungris] at Wenia. The second war [was]
with the Qabars [cum Cowans] at Culmite."1 This source referred to a raid of the
Hungarians (Magyars) and their ally, the Qabars/Qavars, who "fought on separate
fronts and in separate units" during the same campaign.2
The second source contains a brief and concise history "of the nation of the Kabaroi"
in chapter 39 of De administrando imperio (henceforth: DAI) compiled from
different sources around 948-952 in the name and order of Emperor Constantine
VII (944-959).3 After the compulsory preliminary notes "it is worth knowing"4 this
chapter enumerates the following data: "The so-called Kabaroi were of the race of
the Chazars.

ph2ter
06-05-2018, 05:02 PM
Where did you find this heatmap?
Is there one for I1a3(Z63)? I can't find a frequency map of it anywhere I'd like to know where it's the most common. On Ftdna it shows the most dots in Germany-Poland region and as far east as Volga and Lebanon. I'd post the image of it but I'm using the phone.

Interesting your subclade has a dark hot spot in NW Caucasus there.
I did not find it. I made it.
Hot spot in Caucasus are the Karachays, a small Turkic community. Their several clans belong to I-A815 group.

oz
06-05-2018, 06:56 PM
I did not find it. I made it.
Hot spot in Caucasus are the Karachays, a small Turkic community. Their several clans belong to I-A815 group.

Mind sharing the sources? I hope you have some interesting useful source other than Eupedia cuz that seems to be the only one. Wikipedia doesn't have much either.

ph2ter
06-05-2018, 07:33 PM
Mind sharing the sources? I hope you have some interesting useful source other than Eupedia cuz that seems to be the only one. Wikipedia doesn't have much either.
There are several resources, but unfortunately some are down like semargl.me or ysearch.com as a result of the EU General Data Protection Regulation.

https://www.yfull.com/tree/i1/
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/yDNA_I1?iframe=yresults

oz
06-05-2018, 11:14 PM
There are several resources, but unfortunately some are down like semargl.me or ysearch.com as a result of the EU General Data Protection Regulation.

https://www.yfull.com/tree/i1/
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/yDNA_I1?iframe=yresults

Thanks for posting the ftdna I1 and Z63 charts. But those don't help much in figuring out the origins of that haplogroup. As you can see people from all kinds of backgrounds and countries are in those charts. The most common ones are English or British Isles but probably because people of English background tested the most.

The one that really caught my eye is the guy from Bosnia with the name Marko Dilas and I wonder if Milovan Dilas might've been I-Z63 too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milovan_Djilas

anyways I hope I'm not being annoying knowing the topic is your subclade :)

ph2ter
06-06-2018, 06:57 AM
Thanks for posting the ftdna I1 and Z63 charts. But those don't help much in figuring out the origins of that haplogroup. As you can see people from all kinds of backgrounds and countries are in those charts. The most common ones are English or British Isles but probably because people of English background tested the most.

The one that really caught my eye is the guy from Bosnia with the name Marko Dilas and I wonder if Milovan Dilas might've been I-Z63 too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milovan_Djilas

anyways I hope I'm not being annoying knowing the topic is your subclade :)

Here is a map of your clade (only available FTDNA data):

23700

oz
06-06-2018, 10:17 AM
Here is a map of your clade (only available FTDNA data):

23700

Awesome! lol it looks like watermelons
Thanks for that man:beerchug:

And in honor of your kind effort I gotta make that my avatar.

oz
06-06-2018, 11:12 AM
Back to topic

It is puzzling there's a hot spot of I2a1b2 in NW Caucasus, could that have something to do with the Avars?

ph2ter
06-06-2018, 11:39 AM
Back to topic

It is puzzling there's a hot spot of I2a1b2 in NW Caucasus, could that have something to do with the Avars?
I think not.
One of the clans is called the Urusovs. Probably the newcomers from the Medieval Russia.

gravetti
06-06-2018, 02:12 PM
I think not.
One of the clans is called the Urusovs. Probably the newcomers from the Medieval Russia.

Urusov/Ouroussoff (Russian: Урусов) and Urusova/Ouroussoff (Russian: Урусова; feminine) is a Russian princely family of Nogai origins (from urush, "a warrior")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urusov

ph2ter
06-06-2018, 02:14 PM
Heatmaps of other I2a1 subclades (but only from FTDNA):

I2a1a1 (M26):
23706

I2a1a2 (CTS21825 (&L233)):
23707

I2a1b1 (L161):
23710

I2a1b2 Disles (xCTS10228):
23711

I2a1b2 CTS10228:
23712

ph2ter
06-06-2018, 02:18 PM
Subclades of CTS10228:

Y4460:
23713

Z17855:
23714

Y18331 (A2512):
23715

S17250<PH908:
23716

S17250<Y4882:
23717

ph2ter
06-06-2018, 02:23 PM
Urusov/Ouroussoff (Russian: Урусов) and Urusova/Ouroussoff (Russian: Урусова; feminine) is a Russian princely family of Nogai origins (from urush, "a warrior")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urusov
Yes, this is their official etymology, but...

George
06-06-2018, 03:55 PM
Urusov/Ouroussoff (Russian: Урусов) and Urusova/Ouroussoff (Russian: Урусова; feminine) is a Russian princely family of Nogai origins (from urush, "a warrior")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urusov

On the other hand, the word "urus" also stands for "Rus'" or "Russian" in Turkic, acc. to Dal and Vasmer ("тюрк. urus "русский""). I'm not quite sure what the Turkic word "oba" might stand for (a family designation?). There was a famous Cuman/Kipchak khan called "Urusoba" (early 12th c.) who was a neighbour of the Pereyaslav Principality and died in battle against its prince in 1103. Don't know if this applies at all to the Karachai clan. Maybe.

gravetti
06-06-2018, 04:18 PM
On the other hand, the word "urus" also stands for "Rus'" or "Russian" in Turkic, acc. to Dal and Vasmer ("тюрк. urus "русский""). I'm not quite sure what the Turkic word "oba" might stand for (a family designation?). There was a famous Cuman/Kipchak khan called "Urusoba" (early 12th c.) who was a neighbour of the Pereyaslav Principality and died in battle against its prince in 1103. Don't know if this applies at all to the Karachai clan. Maybe.

From the uruszág variant of uraság ‎(“squire”‎), from uru the old form of úr ‎(“master, mister, gentleman”‎) + -szág, a variant of +‎ -ság.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/orsz%C3%A1g

Orosz is a Hungarian language surname, which means "Russian", derived from the Turkish urus, which in turn derived from the Russian Rusak ("Russian").[1] Rusak originates from a Scandinavian term for "oarsman" or "rower", referring to early Russians who rowed their ships inland from the Baltic sea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orosz

George
06-06-2018, 10:20 PM
I think not.
One of the clans is called the Urusovs. Probably the newcomers from the Medieval Russia.

The Russian Wikipedia has a segment on Karachay genetics: cf. here --- https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Карачаевцы scroll to "genofond". They say that the most widespread Y-DNA haplogroups are R1a and G2a (together nearly 70%) I2a (I2a1b2 not specified) accounts for some 4% of the Karachays.

oz
06-07-2018, 02:13 AM
And the Swedish Vikings Varangians or Varyags in Slavonic were known as the "Rus" and some scholars mostly westerners suggest they were the Kievan Rus elite and that Rurik was of that origin. Which the Russian historians probably disagree with.

ph2ter
06-07-2018, 06:32 AM
The Russian Wikipedia has a segment on Karachay genetics: cf. here --- https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Карачаевцы scroll to "genofond". They say that the most widespread Y-DNA haplogroups are R1a and G2a (together nearly 70%) I2a (I2a1b2 not specified) accounts for some 4% of the Karachays.

http://urus-planet.ru/geneology/dna/gaplogroup/

oz
06-07-2018, 06:52 AM
http://urus-planet.ru/geneology/dna/gaplogroup/

To me it looks like what Gravettian suggested could be onto something. I think your subclade could have come with the Magyar or Avar conquests, maybe a couple of thousand warriors probably not some mass migration, and could even be the original "Croats". Just a theory though.

ph2ter
06-07-2018, 11:55 AM
To me it looks like what Gravettian suggested could be onto something. I think your subclade could have come with the Magyar or Avar conquests, maybe a couple of thousand warriors probably not some mass migration, and could even be the original "Croats". Just a theory though.
Individuals with I2a1b2 haplo today in majority belong to the Slavs (except Y18331 (A2512) who are mainly the Greeks, the Jews, and except Disles who mainly live on the British Isles).
Original Avars probably had some Asiatic haplogroups. Some Hungarians in 10th century really were I2a1b2, but this hardly was the Hungarian original haplo.
Majority of A815 is on the territory of the Great Moravia.

P.S.
Your avatar is too stretched, and it looks unnatural. Try keep the original format.

oz
06-07-2018, 02:31 PM
Individuals with I2a1b2 haplo today in majority belong to the Slavs (except Y18331 (A2512) who are mainly the Greeks, the Jews, and except Disles who mainly live on the British Isles).
Original Avars probably had some Asiatic haplogroups. Some Hungarians in 10th century really were I2a1b2, but this hardly was the Hungarian original haplo.
Majority of A815 is on the territory of the Great Moravia.

P.S.
Your avatar is too stretched, and it looks unnatural. Try keep the original format.

I didn't mean it's the original Hungarian haplo I said probably part of the original Croats haplo, the White Croats.

You mean my av looks too stretched height-wise? Doesn't really make much difference to me but I'll try and adjust it.

George
06-07-2018, 03:42 PM
Individuals with I2a1b2 haplo today in majority belong to the Slavs (except Y18331 (A2512) who are mainly the Greeks, the Jews, and except Disles who mainly live on the British Isles).
Original Avars probably had some Asiatic haplogroups. Some Hungarians in 10th century really were I2a1b2, but this hardly was the Hungarian original haplo.
Majority of A815 is on the territory of the Great Moravia.


I notice from Yfull that the Karachay group (3 are listed) all belong to the Y31204 subgroup of A815. This subgroup was "born" around 900 CE (or very slightly earlier). To hypothesize their history it would be interesting to know (1) Are there Karachay individuals (Urusov or not) who belong to other subgroups of A815? (2) Are there Slavs (or others) who belong to this Y31204 subgroup? All sorts of possibilities could exist. IF (a big IF) ONLY the Urusov Karachays have Y31204 then they may perhaps descend from a single individual born around 900 CE. And we can only imagine where that individual may have been located at that time. But it depends on the answer to questions (1) and (2)

ph2ter
06-07-2018, 06:44 PM
I didn't mean it's the original Hungarian haplo I said probably part of the original Croats haplo, the White Croats.

You mean my av looks too stretched height-wise? Doesn't really make much difference to me but I'll try and adjust it.
Yes, who knows, maybe this was the original haplogroup of medieval Croats (as far as I know at least one person descending from the Croatian low nobility belongs to this haplogroup). Also some alleged descendants of famous Šubić noble family belong to I2a1-Din (but I dobt that there are any living descendants of this family today).

Yes, your avatar looks much better now.

ph2ter
06-07-2018, 06:51 PM
I notice from Yfull that the Karachay group (3 are listed) all belong to the Y31204 subgroup of A815. This subgroup was "born" around 900 CE (or very slightly earlier). To hypothesize their history it would be interesting to know (1) Are there Karachay individuals (Urusov or not) who belong to other subgroups of A815? (2) Are there Slavs (or others) who belong to this Y31204 subgroup? All sorts of possibilities could exist. IF (a big IF) ONLY the Urusov Karachays have Y31204 then they may perhaps descend from a single individual born around 900 CE. And we can only imagine where that individual may have been located at that time. But it depends on the answer to questions (1) and (2)
1. They all belong to A815>A5875>A14798 (which is equivalent to I-Y31024)
2. No, there is not one.

From 1 and 2 follows that they all descend from one individual living about 900 AD. This is the time of Kievan Rus and Pechenegs.

gravetti
06-07-2018, 07:09 PM
Individuals with I2a1b2 haplo today in majority belong to the Slavs (except Y18331 (A2512) who are mainly the Greeks, the Jews, and except Disles who mainly live on the British Isles).
Original Avars probably had some Asiatic haplogroups. Some Hungarians in 10th century really were I2a1b2, but this hardly was the Hungarian original haplo.
Majority of A815 is on the territory of the Great Moravia.

P.S.
Your avatar is too stretched, and it looks unnatural. Try keep the original format.

"Some Hungarians in 10th century really were I2a1b2, but this hardly was the Hungarian original haplo."

Two out of four samples are I2a1b.One is "Din-N" the other is "Din-S". Both belonged to the elite.

oz
06-08-2018, 02:56 AM
Isn't Horvat one of the most common Hungarian surnames? And also Rac or Raci is common and is old Hungarian name for Serb. We also know that Avars and Slavs were allies, but the Croats also fought the Avars and defeated them.

ph2ter
06-08-2018, 07:20 AM
Isn't Horvat one of the most common Hungarian surnames? And also Rac or Raci is common and is old Hungarian name for Serb. We also know that Avars and Slavs were allies, but the Croats also fought the Avars and defeated them.
Surnames are in history recent events (among the commoners from 15th to 19th century). Do not mean much, only that many Croats and Serbs migrated into Hungary.
Probably the Avars and Slavs in the 8th and 9th century were genetically indistinguishable.

Idwaajeden
06-08-2018, 07:35 AM
I have a lot of matches from South Slavic lands.

ph2ter
06-08-2018, 10:24 AM
I have a lot of matches from South Slavic lands.
And your Y-DNA subclade of I2 is?

Dorkymon
06-08-2018, 11:08 AM
Individuals with I2a1b2 haplo today in majority belong to the Slavs (except Y18331 (A2512) who are mainly the Greeks, the Jews, and except Disles who mainly live on the British Isles).
Original Avars probably had some Asiatic haplogroups. Some Hungarians in 10th century really were I2a1b2, but this hardly was the Hungarian original haplo.
Majority of A815 is on the territory of the Great Moravia.

P.S.
Your avatar is too stretched, and it looks unnatural. Try keep the original format.

I'd like to mention also that there are hardly any people from Romania and Moldova in the sources that you are using. So these maps, while useful, are not really representative of the actual distribution.
I mean Romania is quite well covered in academic journals and there are close to 1000 samples on Eupedia. You'd expect a denser distribution of I2 for a country where 28% of the Y-DNA belongs to this haplo.

ph2ter
06-08-2018, 12:22 PM
I'd like to mention also that there are hardly any people from Romania and Moldova in the sources that you are using. So these maps, while useful, are not really representative of the actual distribution.
I mean Romania is quite well covered in academic journals and there are close to 1000 samples on Eupedia. You'd expect a denser distribution of I2 for a country where 28% of the Y-DNA belongs to this haplo.
I know that. Maps are according to FTDNA data.
General I2a1-Din map looks like this:
23790

George
06-08-2018, 01:05 PM
I know that. Maps are according to FTDNA data.
General I2a1-Din map looks like this:
23790

One paradox to keep in mind. "Heat maps" do not necessarily correlate with absolute numbers. They primarily indicate relative local percentages. You may have a higher "heat number" which in fact represents less (sometimes many less) individuals as such than a lower (sometimes much lower) "heat number".

Idwaajeden
06-08-2018, 01:29 PM
And your Y-DNA subclade of I2 is?

MorleyDNA.com and Wegene.com this is using AncestryDNA file

ph2ter
06-08-2018, 07:17 PM
MorleyDNA.com and Wegene.com this is using AncestryDNA file
You actually don't know. Some clade of CTS10228.

ph2ter
06-08-2018, 07:21 PM
One paradox to keep in mind. "Heat maps" do not necessarily correlate with absolute numbers. They primarily indicate relative local percentages. You may have a higher "heat number" which in fact represents less (sometimes many less) individuals as such than a lower (sometimes much lower) "heat number".
OK, but this one is not heat map. It was done according to data from scientific articles.

oz
06-09-2018, 02:08 AM
Ftdna data maps is based on their customers who tested for those markers and posted their names and background on those charts right?

oz
06-09-2018, 02:21 AM
I know that. Maps are according to FTDNA data.
General I2a1-Din map looks like this:
23790

Looks quite right. Except I didn't know that I2a1Din goes as low as 28% in Northern Bosnia. Compared with up to 70 in Bosnian Croats. I knew the percentages are higher in South Bosnia than North but not this much.

ph2ter
06-09-2018, 07:45 AM
Looks quite right. Except I didn't know that I2a1Din goes as low as 28% in Northern Bosnia. Compared with up to 70 in Bosnian Croats. I knew the percentages are higher in South Bosnia than North but not this much.
Interpolation algorithm made this depression in Northern Bosnia. The Serbs in that area have higher percentage of E, J, R1b, R1a, I1 and other groups which they were taken from their original homeland in Montenegro, South Serbia and Eastern Herzegovina I think.

ph2ter
06-09-2018, 07:51 AM
Ftdna data maps is based on their customers who tested for those markers and posted their names and background on those charts right?
Yes, every dot represents a tested individual at FTDNA.

Idwaajeden
06-09-2018, 08:10 AM
You actually don't know. Some clade of CTS10228.

I talk with administrator from I2 FTDNA project told me there is some people with my surname in there already tested from same location, my surname is not common surname so when I do Y testing I will know more but next time will be good sale I order

I get matches who have 90-100% on their estimate Balkan, is this from my direct paternal line or some ancestors from my mother family I don‘t have answer

ph2ter
06-09-2018, 02:05 PM
I talk with administrator from I2 FTDNA project told me there is some people with my surname in there already tested from same location, my surname is not common surname so when I do Y testing I will know more but next time will be good sale I order

I get matches who have 90-100% on their estimate Balkan, is this from my direct paternal line or some ancestors from my mother family I don‘t have answer
Did the administrator of I2a1 told you the haplogroup of those people with the same surname who have already been tested?

Idwaajeden
06-09-2018, 02:12 PM
Did the administrator of I2a1 told you the haplogroup of those people with the same surname who have already been tested?

No he didn't give details, he said recognized surname and is already people with it who joined project

oz
06-09-2018, 09:10 PM
This is the Ftdna SNP map I was talking about earlier. And I'm not sure what it means what exactly it's based on. It's not including every user that tested for the marker and posted their info cuz there would be a lot more dots. Maybe it's an old map and they don't update this stuff, I dunno. 23838

Agamemnon
06-15-2018, 12:56 AM
Subclades of CTS10228:

Y4460:
23713

This is George's branch, correct? Very interesting distribution, especially around Latvia and (Greek) Macedonia, this fits very neatly with the early Slavic dispersals, there's no reason to doubt CTS10228 was a major marker among the Proto-Slavs.

ph2ter
06-15-2018, 06:49 AM
This is George's branch, correct? Very interesting distribution, especially around Latvia and (Greek) Macedonia, this fits very neatly with the early Slavic dispersals, there's no reason to doubt CTS10228 was a major marker among the Proto-Slavs.
Some diagrams and trees which I made a half year ago (a little outdated):

24002

and another one:

24001

ph2ter
09-22-2018, 10:30 AM
Updated P37 'tree' with all subclades in the shape of a tree with branches (combination of FTDNA and yfull data):

https://www.dropbox.com/s/lq890vq0nen6kr9/P37_V4.1.png?dl=0

artemv
09-29-2018, 02:04 AM
1. They all belong to A815>A5875>A14798 (which is equivalent to I-Y31024)
2. No, there is not one.

From 1 and 2 follows that they all descend from one individual living about 900 AD. This is the time of Kievan Rus and Pechenegs.

In 900 AD a citadel and tradetown of Tmutarakan, that is located in the region, was controlled by Kyev rulers.
I guess there is good chance that the individual you are talking about lived there.
P.S. Now Karachaevans live about 400 km from Tmutarakan, but before 1820 closely related tribes lived close to the territory where Tmutarakan was located.

Judith
01-05-2019, 10:17 PM
Updated P37 'tree' with all subclades in the shape of a tree with branches (combination of FTDNA and yfull data):

https://www.dropbox.com/s/lq890vq0nen6kr9/P37_V4.1.png?dl=0

I loved your tree and migration map. Do you have a similar one in detail for I2a2? And are any of the tree branches the GAC ancient DNA samples from Mathieson ,2017/2018? Which were I2a2 I believe?
Plus are any of the twigs on your I2a1 tree and migration ancient DNA samples?

ph2ter
01-06-2019, 05:31 PM
I loved your tree and migration map. Do you have a similar one in detail for I2a2? And are any of the tree branches the GAC ancient DNA samples from Mathieson ,2017/2018? Which were I2a2 I believe?
Plus are any of the twigs on your I2a1 tree and migration ancient DNA samples?

I have this old tree for I2:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/440qkubzu9dwh4w/I2aTreepng_3501548_28426779.png?dl=0

Ancient DNA samples usually belong to the extinct branches. One Motala sample and Loschbour belog to M423>Y3104. Some Scotland Neolithic samples belong to L161. I think that one ancient sample from Portugal belong to L621. Some Spain Chalcolithic, Hungary Medieval Szolad, Scotland N and BA, Beaker, CWC, even Yamnaya, Ukraine Neolithic.... samples belong to I2a2.

ph2ter
11-06-2019, 09:48 PM
In FTDNA database beside Sauppe from Alsace-Lorraine (France-Germany border area) appeared also the other CTS10228* member negative for all downstream clades.
His ancestry is German-Dutch-British with no known Slavic ancestors. His paternal family migrated to America between 1730~1775, before the American Revolutionary War.

JMcB
11-06-2019, 10:09 PM
I have this old tree for I2:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/440qkubzu9dwh4w/I2aTreepng_3501548_28426779.png?dl=0

Ancient DNA samples usually belong to the extinct branches. One Motala sample and Loschbour belog to M423>Y3104. Some Scotland Neolithic samples belong to L161. I think that one ancient sample from Portugal belong to L621. Some Spain Chalcolithic, Hungary Medieval Szolad, Scotland N and BA, Beaker, CWC, even Yamnaya, Ukraine Neolithic.... samples belong to I2a2.

Very nice and aesthetically pleasing, too!

ph2ter
11-06-2019, 10:20 PM
Very nice and aesthetically pleasing, too!
Thank you I1 brother. This tree was never finished.

Ayetooey
11-07-2019, 01:09 AM
Nice maps! My likely deepest subclade under ph908 is I-PH1012 but will have to wait for my big Y results to find out :).

ph2ter
11-07-2019, 10:11 AM
In FTDNA database beside Sauppe from Alsace-Lorraine (France-Germany border area) appeared also the other CTS10228* member negative for all downstream clades.
His ancestry is German-Dutch-British with no known Slavic ancestors. His paternal family migrated to America between 1730~1775, before the American Revolutionary War.

His paternal line is predominately German. His (gg?)grandfather came from Baden-Wurttemberg before he migrated to the USA. It turns out that his distant cousins still live in the region.

For now it looks that Alsace-Lorraine and Baden-Wurttemberg - upper Rhine valley are the best candidates for the place of origin for CTS10228.

ph2ter
11-07-2019, 12:50 PM
From all the available informations it seems to me that Slavic branch L621>CTS10228>Y3120 began its expansion about in 3rd century BC, being part of the Celtic expansion from the core of Hallstatt teritory towards Bohemia and Carpathians (TMRCA of Y3120 is 2200 years, -> 200BC)
(At the same time Disles branches may have been pushed to British Isles if not already in the times of Bell Beakers about 2200 BC - TMRCA of the British Disles branch FGC20479 is about 2100 BC):

https://i.imgur.com/9SyZBFt.png

https://i.imgur.com/QnROIUu.png

artemv
11-11-2019, 12:36 AM
From all the available informations it seems to me that Slavic branch L621>CTS10228>Y3120 began its expansion about in 3rd century BC, being part of the Celtic expansion from the core of Hallstatt teritory towards Bohemia and Carpathians (TMRCA of Y3120 is 2200 years, -> 200BC)
(At the same time Disles branches may have been pushed to British Isles if not already in the times of Bell Beakers about 2200 BC - TMRCA of the British Disles branch FGC20479 is about 2100 BC):


I do not understand, why do you consider Celtic expansion.
As for me, it looks like Y3120 was present in Zarubinetz culture already. Three of Y3120 branches(except Y18331, mostly Greek with one case in Shuvashia) stayed in post-Zarubinetz groups, later in Kievan culture, and later expanded with Slavs.

It is very important, that Y3120 branches with early TMRCA (again, lets put aside Y18331) are present in several major Slav groups (like both East Slavs and West Slavs, or East Slavs and South Slavs) - this means, those branches expanded with Slavs, but were not part of pre-Slavic population later incorporated into Slav society.

If you think that Y3120 got to Balkans with Celts, then how do you think, when and how did Y3120 get to modern East Slavic countries, Russia/Ukraine/Belarus?

Michał
11-11-2019, 06:54 AM
@artemv

While I agree with you that it seems unlikely for the expanding I-Y3120 group to be still a part of any Celtic population in the 3rd century BC, we cannot exclude that the ancestors of that group (ie. those from a slightly earlier period) had come to Eastern Europe (or to the East Carpathian region) with the Celts. Since the most common ancestors of the parental clade I-CTS10228 are dated by YFull to about 1800 BC, the migration from west to east could have taken place any time between 1800 BC and 300 BC, so we can still consider many different options, including the eastward migrations of the Lusatian>Pomeranian populations, the Celtic expansion, and the Early Germanic migrations (including the Scirri and the Bastarnae).

ph2ter
11-11-2019, 07:40 AM
I do not understand, why do you consider Celtic expansion.
As for me, it looks like Y3120 was present in Zarubinetz culture already. Three of Y3120 branches(except Y18331, mostly Greek with one case in Shuvashia) stayed in post-Zarubinetz groups, later in Kievan culture, and later expanded with Slavs.

It is very important, that Y3120 branches with early TMRCA (again, lets put aside Y18331) are present in several major Slav groups (like both East Slavs and West Slavs, or East Slavs and South Slavs) - this means, those branches expanded with Slavs, but were not part of pre-Slavic population later incorporated into Slav society.

If you think that Y3120 got to Balkans with Celts, then how do you think, when and how did Y3120 get to modern East Slavic countries, Russia/Ukraine/Belarus?
In turn, I do not understand why do you think that I think that Y3120 got to the Balkans with the Celts. Of course not.
In the time of Celtic expansion, about 200 BC, there in the world existed only 1 (one) human carrying Y3120 mutation. That human according to my current reasoning came close to Carpathians in time of Celtic expansion together with the Celts.

Coldmountains
11-11-2019, 07:50 AM
How is the I2a1 in the Narva culture related to modern day Slavic clades?

Coldmountains
11-11-2019, 07:55 AM
Generally i find it very hard to pinpoint the origin of I2a-Din . It could orginate from everywhere between the Atlantic and Ural. Without more ancient dna it is impossible to say. I2a1 looks more frequent in Neolithic West than East Europe but this does mean it came from there. It is possible that I2a-Din is derived from a rare I2-lineage in East Europe related to the I2a1 in the Narva culture.

ph2ter
11-11-2019, 08:31 AM
Generally i find it very hard to pinpoint the origin of I2a-Din . It could orginate from everywhere between the Atlantic and Ural. Without more ancient dna it is impossible to say. I2a1 looks more frequent in Neolithic West than East Europe but this does mean it came from there. It is possible that I2a-Din is derived from a rare I2-lineage in East Europe related to the I2a1 in the Narva culture.
And how do you explain then that all Disles samples (these are L621 which are negative for Y3120 (I2a1-Din)) are today located in West Europe and British Isles? And L161 being almost exclusively in the British Isles?

Coldmountains
11-11-2019, 08:38 AM
And how do you explain then that all Disles samples (these are L621 which are negative for Y3120 (I2a1-Din)) are today located in West Europe and British Isles? And L161 being almost exclusively in the British Isles?

Modern day frequencies are not really telling much abut ancient distribution. I2a2 is today also more frquent in West Europe than East Europe but was the dominant I2a marker in GAC, Yamnaya and SHGs. The ancient samples published untill yet can not definetly pinpoint the orgin of I2a-Din. Maybe it came from a place not expected by most here. We just dont know.

ph2ter
11-11-2019, 08:46 AM
Modern day frequencies are not really telling much abut ancient distribution. I2a2 is today also more frquent in West Europe than East Europe but was the dominant I2a marker in GAC, Yamnaya and SHGs. The ancient samples published untill yet can not definetly pinpoint the orgin of I2a-Din. Maybe it came from a place not expected by most here. We just dont know.
I2a2 has many subclades, and I2a1 has many subclades. For this particular clade, I2a-Din, and L621 in general stemming from Narva culture is very improbable.
Modern day frequencies are telling much to me.

Coldmountains
11-11-2019, 08:50 AM
I2a2 has many subclades, and I2a1 has many subclades. For this particular clade, I2a-Din, and L621 in general stemming from Narva culture is very improbable.
Modern day frequencies are telling much to me.

We had I2a1a1a and I2a1b in Narva which are very distant related so even if the I2a1b in Narva turns out to be I2a1b1 and not directly related to I2a-Din there is a possbility that I2a1b12 clades related to I2a-Din existed in the Narva or nearby cultures. I am not saying that I2a-Din is from the Narva culture i am just pointing to the existence of I2a1 in East Europe and the possibilty of finding more of it in ancient samples there.

ph2ter
11-11-2019, 08:58 AM
We had I2a1a1a and I2a1b in Narva which are very distant related so even if the I2a1b in Narva turns out to be I2a1b1 and not directly related to I2a-Din there is a possbility that I2a1b12 clades related to I2a-Din existed in the Narva or nearby cultures. I am not saying that I2a-Din is from the Narva culture i am just pointing to the existence of I2a1 in East Europe and the possibilty of finding more of it in ancient samples there.
But then you must explain how all I2a1 Narva descendants who are not I2a-Din (which is very young clade exploding in last 2000 years) are today located in West Europe.

Michał
11-11-2019, 09:12 AM
Unfortunately, I don't know whether the Narva-Kretuonas2 sample was negative or simply not tested for any known SNPs downstream of M423 (I2a1b). However, this sample is dated to 5500-3100 BC, and since the "Western" paragroups related to I-Y3120, like CTS4002(xCTS10228) and CTS10228(xY3120) descend from MRCAs dated by YFull to 3100 BC and 1800 BC, respectively, it seems unlikely that any I2a1b (I-M423) lineages found in Narva were ancestral to I-Y3120 (through CTS4002 and CTS10228). In other words, the origin of not only M423 and L621 but also CTS4002 and CTS10228 in any region east of Germany/Poland (not to mention the above-mentioned Ural mountains) seems very unlikely at the moment. It seems that I2a1b found in Narva represented an early offshot of clade I-M423 (strongly associated with the Mesolithic expansion of WHG, see the famous Loschbour sample) that became extinct or nearly extinct following the collapse of the Narva culture.

Coldmountains
11-11-2019, 09:38 AM
Unfortunately, I don't know whether the Narva-Kretuonas2 sample was negative or simply not tested for any known SNPs downstream of M423 (I2a1b). However, this sample is dated to 5500-3100 BC, and since the "Western" paragroups related to I-Y3120, like CTS4002(xCTS10228) and CTS10228(xY3120) descend from MRCAs dated by YFull to 3100 BC and 1800 BC, respectively, it seems unlikely that any I2a1b (I-M423) lineages found in Narva were ancestral to I-Y3120 (through CTS4002 and CTS10228). In other words, the origin of not only M423 and L621 but also CTS4002 and CTS10228 in any region east of Germany/Poland (not to mention the above-mentioned Ural mountains) seems very unlikely at the moment. It seems that I2a1b found in Narva represented an early offshot of clade I-M423 (strongly associated with the Mesolithic expansion of WHG, see the famous Loschbour sample) that became extinct or nearly extinct following the collapse of the Narva culture.

Well Yfull is generally underestimating many clades and their ages (10-15%). Also we dont have many genomes from HGs in Poland and especially Belarus. I was not saying that i believe that I2a-Din is from Narva ultimately but it could orginate from a place between Narva and Central/West Europe. Using modern samples to pinpoint the origin of a clade often turned out to be far from accurate so i am open for other theories.

artemv
11-11-2019, 05:20 PM
Modern day frequencies are not really telling much abut ancient distribution. I2a2 is today also more frquent in West Europe than East Europe but was the dominant I2a marker in GAC, Yamnaya and SHGs. The ancient samples published untill yet can not definetly pinpoint the orgin of I2a-Din. Maybe it came from a place not expected by most here. We just dont know.

Modern day frequencies can tell us much, if we check distribution of branches of right age, but not overall frequencies.

I2a-P37 can be called very common in East Europe only if we check overall frequency. But most P37 branches can be found in the West and are not present in the East. Only a few young branches are present in the East, and all Neolithic-Age old branches are present on the West.
Same is true if we check for M423 subbranch.

Now about anothe I2 major branch, I2-M436 (formerly I2a2). Yes, it was present in the East Europe during neolithic, but it was also quite common in the West Europe, from mesolithic hunter-gathers up to the moment of Indo-European takeover. Many M436 samples from the Westernmost parts of Europe, Neolithic British Isles/Neolithic Iberia. I'm not so sure M436 was less common in West Europe in general comparing to P37.

Pribislav
11-11-2019, 05:53 PM
By the way, Narva sample Kretuonas 2 is L161.1, so not ancestral to I2a-Din.

Plashiputak
11-12-2019, 04:46 PM
Y-chromosome haplogroups from Hun, Avar and conquering Hungarian period nomadic people of the Carpathian Basin




https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-53105-5

Data available:

https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/data/view/PRJEB31764

Is there autosomal DNA here? Maybe it will solve the mystery, since the time period is close to the formation of the clades.

Ayetooey
11-12-2019, 08:18 PM
Is there autosomal DNA here? Maybe it will solve the mystery, since the time period is close to the formation of the clades.

There isn't an autosomal breakdown, but there is physical "classifications" here.


Phenotypes and genetic origin of Conqueror period individuals. mtDNA Hg-s were taken from10, all markings are identical to that of Fig. 3.
https://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41598-019-53105-5/MediaObjects/41598_2019_53105_Fig4_HTML.png?as=webp

oz
11-13-2019, 12:31 AM
Is there autosomal DNA here? Maybe it will solve the mystery, since the time period is close to the formation of the clades.

This was probably the most interesting study by far given the time period and the area for us Balkanites, and these samples never ended up in the global 25 or gedmatch or nothing. Disappointing to say the least.

spruithean
11-13-2019, 01:17 AM
This was probably the most interesting study by far given the time period and the area for us Balkanites, and these samples never ended up in the global 25 or gedmatch or nothing. Disappointing to say the least.

This definitely was one of the most interesting papers for me too, and it is quite disappointing that I've not seen these samples on gedmatch or G25 (though maybe they are there, but under different IDs?)

Perhaps in time they will get more attention, once all the intense debate creating papers lose some steam.

oz
11-13-2019, 04:12 AM
This definitely was one of the most interesting papers for me too, and it is quite disappointing that I've not seen these samples on gedmatch or G25 (though maybe they are there, but under different IDs?)

Perhaps in time they will get more attention, once all the intense debate creating papers lose some steam.

I don't know if they're anywhere, I haven't seen them. I'm sure puter would put them on his plots and calculators.

I'll make a little correction/clarification of my previous post, I meant Balkanites AND East and Central Euros as well.

deadly77
11-13-2019, 10:35 AM
This definitely was one of the most interesting papers for me too, and it is quite disappointing that I've not seen these samples on gedmatch or G25 (though maybe they are there, but under different IDs?)

Perhaps in time they will get more attention, once all the intense debate creating papers lose some steam.

The reason may be there's not enough autosomal data for meaningful comparison with other samples. There are quite a few references of modern and ancients, and the majority of papers usually involve a cluster comparison of the new samples against these references, so to not see one in this paper, it's a bit conspicuous by it's absence.

When I took a look at the BAM files for Y-DNA, after this study and raw data was released as a preprint back in April, there's a lot of missing coverage on the Y chromosome. I speculated at the time that this was due to the enrichment assay that the researchers used prior to sequencing. From the preprint: "We selected 168 phylogenetically informative Y chromosome SNP-s defining all major Hg-s and the most frequent Eurasian sub-Hg-s" - basically they went for major haplogroups and high level subclades. If you're looking for one of these 168 Y-SNPs, great - you have a high chance of getting a result. If your looking for a different Y-SNP outside of the 168 listed in Supplementary Table 1, you're likely to be disappointed because it was washed out doing the enrichment assay and there's nothing for the sequencer to read, so no result. You might get lucky if a SNP that you're interested in is close by to one of the 168, and captured, but in most cases you're SOL.

Looking at what they say about the autosomal DNA, I believe it's a similar thing - from the preprint, the enrichment assay targetted: "the following 61 autosomal SNP-s: 25 HirisPlex markers suitable for eye and hair color prediction, two SNP-s linked to adult lactase persistence and 34 ancestry informative markers (AIMs)... listed in Supplementary Table S2". I'm guessing that only 61 autosomal SNPs isn't going to be viable enough to make valid comparisons to other samples. Not sure if anyone has tried to make a gedmatch compatible file from the raw data. I imagine there's not enough unless you just make up the gaps with imputation (but then what's the point?). Bear in mind that the more well-known direct to consumer tests cover between 630,132 and 702,442 autosomal SNPs on their chip.

Overall, it seems like a bit of a waste to go to all the effort of destructively sampling ancient remains and then shorting the enrichment assay for such a limited amount of information. It would have been more useful to do shotgun sequencing or even the 1240k SNP capture, and then dig out the things that they are interested in for this paper (Y-SNPs; autosomal SNPs for eye and hair colour, lactase persistence, etc.). Perhaps they really needed to save money on the sequencing. But it's disappointing that we could have had a lot more data from this.

oz
11-13-2019, 01:03 PM
Well it was just a bunch of Asiatic conquerors and elites as the paper suggests and as we've been told. What more do you need to know? There's not enough funds so nobody cares.

ph2ter
12-21-2019, 11:53 PM
Another individual appeared who has paternal ancestry from southwestern Germany and who is CTS10228*. He shares several similarities with Sauppe kit who is American with paternal ancestry from Alsace-Lorraine, France (near the border with southwestern Germany).

artemv
12-22-2019, 01:02 AM
Another individual appeared who has paternal ancestry from southwestern Germany and who is CTS10228*. He shares several similarities with Sauppe kit who is American with paternal ancestry from Alsace-Lorraine, France (near the border with southwestern Germany).

So we already have 2 CTS10228* from more or less the same region? and even with similarities. I guess they likely form a single relatively young clade, several hundred years old probably. This doesn't give us any significant additional info.

ph2ter
12-22-2019, 10:55 AM
So we already have 2 CTS10228* from more or less the same region? and even with similarities. I guess they likely form a single relatively young clade, several hundred years old probably. This doesn't give us any significant additional info.
This is actually the kit which we mentioned here before, only now BIG Y-700 is finished.

And these two kits form a clade which is not very young because:

Kit Som. has 18 variants/SNPs that haven't been reported in previous I-P37 Big Y results. 13 of these variants occur in regions that weren't sampled by the Big Y-500 test and maybe Sauppe kit shares some of these variants. But kit Som. and Sauppe kit aren't closely related, they are a Genetic Distance=13 when Y111 markers are compared.

ph2ter
04-10-2020, 07:10 PM
Map of ancient I-P37 samples:

https://i.imgur.com/wHN6yuR.png

ph2ter
04-11-2020, 06:07 PM
With terminal SNP:

https://i.imgur.com/8T2ZU6H.png

ph2ter
08-27-2020, 12:50 PM
New P37 tree:

https://i.imgur.com/gvKGK8t.jpg

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1A2ZKJn_YAaWt5jh8ccmRtKKEuskL9nA3/view
It is based on FTDNA data and supplemented with tmrca from yfull.

Original image: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1A2ZKJn_YAaWt5jh8ccmRtKKEuskL9nA3/view?usp=sharing

ph2ter
08-28-2020, 01:15 PM
For now the CTS10228 migration paths look something like this:

https://i.imgur.com/0Q3k7IE.png

Aspar
08-28-2020, 02:28 PM
If we take in consideration the modern distribution of some subclades, it gets really temptatious to connect PH908 with the Prague-Korchak culture and the Sclavenes from the historical sources while Z17855 with the Penkovka culture and the Antes.
https://i.postimg.cc/q74b3Zn3/Slavic-archaeological-cultures-beginning-of-7th-century.png (https://postimages.org/)
Also the Sclavenes and the Antes as per Jordanes:
https://i.postimg.cc/yxRbHBWY/mapa.png (https://postimages.org/)
What's interesting is that the people from the Penkovka culture already had some steppe derived elements in their culture which probably mirrors their name Antes which some linguists attributed it to an Iranic connection. So although clearly linguistically still connected to the Prague-Korchak culture of the Sclavenes, the Antes of the Penkovka culture were distinct from them in many aspects. The first Slavic intrusions along the Eastern Carpathian and into South Romania were probably made by these Antes from Penkovka culture however immediately afterwards there are intrusions from the Prague-Korchak culture as well. This fusion of Prague-Korchak and Penkovka culture elements is what gave birth to Ipotesti-Candesti culture most probably. However by historical accounts we know that not everything was that smooth and the Antes and the Sclavenes often attacked each other. Such an attack by the Antes was an excuse by the Sclavenes's allies the Avars to attack the Antes. After this we no longer hear about the Antes however the people themselves seem to have been assimilated into two groups, one was the Sclavenes and the other were the Bulgars. I find it unlikely that the Bulgars were pure Tutkic group ever since Old Great Bulgaria. They must have assimilated the remaining Antes who dwelled in around the same places as the Bulgars. By chance, Z17855 is probably the most frequent and diverse subclade of I-Y3120 in both Bulgarians and Macedonians.

JMcB
08-28-2020, 02:56 PM
New P37 tree:

https://i.imgur.com/gvKGK8t.jpg

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1A2ZKJn_YAaWt5jh8ccmRtKKEuskL9nA3/view
It is based on FTDNA data and supplemented with tmrca from yfull.

Original image: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1A2ZKJn_YAaWt5jh8ccmRtKKEuskL9nA3/view?usp=sharing

As usual, an artistic representation!

DgidguBidgu
08-28-2020, 05:27 PM
If we take in consideration the modern distribution of some subclades, it gets really temptatious to connect PH908 with the Prague-Korchak culture and the Sclavenes from the historical sources while Z17855 with the Penkovka culture and the Antes.
https://i.postimg.cc/q74b3Zn3/Slavic-archaeological-cultures-beginning-of-7th-century.png (https://postimages.org/)
Also the Sclavenes and the Antes as per Jordanes:
https://i.postimg.cc/yxRbHBWY/mapa.png (https://postimages.org/)
What's interesting is that the people from the Penkovka culture already had some steppe derived elements in their culture which probably mirrors their name Antes which some linguists attributed it to an Iranic connection. So although clearly linguistically still connected to the Prague-Korchak culture of the Sclavenes, the Antes of the Penkovka culture were distinct from them in many aspects. The first Slavic intrusions along the Eastern Carpathian and into South Romania were probably made by these Antes from Penkovka culture however immediately afterwards there are intrusions from the Prague-Korchak culture as well. This fusion of Prague-Korchak and Penkovka culture elements is what gave birth to Ipotesti-Candesti culture most probably. However by historical accounts we know that not everything was that smooth and the Antes and the Sclavenes often attacked each other. Such an attack by the Antes was an excuse by the Sclavenes's allies the Avars to attack the Antes. After this we no longer hear about the Antes however the people themselves seem to have been assimilated into two groups, one was the Sclavenes and the other were the Bulgars. I find it unlikely that the Bulgars were pure Tutkic group ever since Old Great Bulgaria. They must have assimilated the remaining Antes who dwelled in around the same places as the Bulgars. By chance, Z17855 is probably the most frequent and diverse subclade of I-Y3120 in both Bulgarians and Macedonians.


What makes you think that the Slavic language is intrusive along the Eastern Carpathian and into South Romania and not local? what language did people spoke back then before Slavic?

DgidguBidgu
08-28-2020, 05:29 PM
If we take in consideration the modern distribution of some subclades, it gets really temptatious to connect PH908 with the Prague-Korchak culture and the Sclavenes from the historical sources while Z17855 with the Penkovka culture and the Antes.
https://i.postimg.cc/q74b3Zn3/Slavic-archaeological-cultures-beginning-of-7th-century.png (https://postimages.org/)
Also the Sclavenes and the Antes as per Jordanes:
https://i.postimg.cc/yxRbHBWY/mapa.png (https://postimages.org/)
What's interesting is that the people from the Penkovka culture already had some steppe derived elements in their culture which probably mirrors their name Antes which some linguists attributed it to an Iranic connection. So although clearly linguistically still connected to the Prague-Korchak culture of the Sclavenes, the Antes of the Penkovka culture were distinct from them in many aspects. The first Slavic intrusions along the Eastern Carpathian and into South Romania were probably made by these Antes from Penkovka culture however immediately afterwards there are intrusions from the Prague-Korchak culture as well. This fusion of Prague-Korchak and Penkovka culture elements is what gave birth to Ipotesti-Candesti culture most probably. However by historical accounts we know that not everything was that smooth and the Antes and the Sclavenes often attacked each other. Such an attack by the Antes was an excuse by the Sclavenes's allies the Avars to attack the Antes. After this we no longer hear about the Antes however the people themselves seem to have been assimilated into two groups, one was the Sclavenes and the other were the Bulgars. I find it unlikely that the Bulgars were pure Tutkic group ever since Old Great Bulgaria. They must have assimilated the remaining Antes who dwelled in around the same places as the Bulgars. By chance, Z17855 is probably the most frequent and diverse subclade of I-Y3120 in both Bulgarians and Macedonians.



What make you think Bulgarians ever were or had something Turkic at all? Is there any significant difference from other local European populations that we need to know about? Do you know when a Turkish ethnic group appeared and formed at all so that you could try to connect it with the Bulgarians?
Won't it be very difficult for you to make that connection considering the time horizons and the very different places of formation?

Aspar
08-28-2020, 10:45 PM
What makes you think that the Slavic language is intrusive along the Eastern Carpathian and into South Romania and not local? what language did people spoke back then before Slavic?

Well, the modern languages that are considered to be Slavic are all fairly recently derived from the ones Common Slavic or proto-Slavic. This is not something I made it up but it's confirmed by most linguists today. That means these languages just recently had a common ancestor and split around the Early Medieval.
That is only one argument, the second one being that the spread of the proto-Slavic people can be tracked archaeologically as well, having spread from a source in modern Western Ukraine where the Kiev culture was located. Out of this source the proto-Slavs spread and it was here that the proto-Slavs formed. It was here as well when the Germanic superstratum was incorporated in the proto-Slavic language mostly mediated through the Goths of the Chernyakhov culture.
It's pretty simple, a language that is basically Baltic related with additional Germanic or Iranic derived layers on top of it's base can't have been spoken in South Romania during Roman times without having any stronger Latin influence as it's the case with Albanian.
I don't know why is difficult to accept by many people in the Balkans. That doesn't mean we are newcomers. In fact many of us are strongly native and it's already proven by DNA. Languages come and go, the language spoken on the territory of modern Bulgaria during BA was probably something between proto-Greek and proto-Anatolian if the Reich team are correct in their assumptions that the proto-Greeks and proto-Anatolians formed on the territory of modern Bulgaria as per Stamov in the recent video that circulated around here. Then probably starting with EIA the Thracian became dominant up until Hellenistic and Roman period when the Greek and the Latin language largely replaced the Thracian. And then the Slavic language appeared on the scene. Does that mean that the native element was replaced by the newcomers? Of course not, it's still here but in a different form...


What make you think Bulgarians ever were or had something Turkic at all? Is there any significant difference from other local European populations that we need to know about? Do you know when a Turkish ethnic group appeared and formed at all so that you could try to connect it with the Bulgarians?
Won't it be very difficult for you to make that connection considering the time horizons and the very different places of formation?

I said the Bulgars, not the Bulgarians. And the Turks or the Turkish have nothing to do with this. I said Turkic. There are plenty of arguments that the Bulgars were originally Turkic, both linguistic and cultural. However I will just direct you towards the reconstructed face of the Bulgar nobleman Mostic made by Bulgarians. I think that will be enough to prove that the Bulgars were at least partially Turkic. If that's not enough, aDna will prove it, if not already, having haplogroup Q popping up from the tested remains of the Bulgars...

DgidguBidgu
08-29-2020, 02:05 PM
Well, the modern languages that are considered to be Slavic are all fairly recently derived from the ones Common Slavic or proto-Slavic. This is not something I made it up but it's confirmed by most linguists today. That means these languages just recently had a common ancestor and split around the Early Medieval.
That is only one argument, the second one being that the spread of the proto-Slavic people can be tracked archaeologically as well, having spread from a source in modern Western Ukraine where the Kiev culture was located. Out of this source the proto-Slavs spread and it was here that the proto-Slavs formed. It was here as well when the Germanic superstratum was incorporated in the proto-Slavic language mostly mediated through the Goths of the Chernyakhov culture.
It's pretty simple, a language that is basically Baltic related with additional Germanic or Iranic derived layers on top of it's base can't have been spoken in South Romania during Roman times without having any stronger Latin influence as it's the case with Albanian.
I don't know why is difficult to accept by many people in the Balkans. That doesn't mean we are newcomers. In fact many of us are strongly native and it's already proven by DNA. Languages come and go, the language spoken on the territory of modern Bulgaria during BA was probably something between proto-Greek and proto-Anatolian if the Reich team are correct in their assumptions that the proto-Greeks and proto-Anatolians formed on the territory of modern Bulgaria as per Stamov in the recent video that circulated around here. Then probably starting with EIA the Thracian became dominant up until Hellenistic and Roman period when the Greek and the Latin language largely replaced the Thracian. And then the Slavic language appeared on the scene. Does that mean that the native element was replaced by the newcomers? Of course not, it's still here but in a different form...



I said the Bulgars, not the Bulgarians. And the Turks or the Turkish have nothing to do with this. I said Turkic. There are plenty of arguments that the Bulgars were originally Turkic, both linguistic and cultural. However I will just direct you towards the reconstructed face of the Bulgar nobleman Mostic made by Bulgarians. I think that will be enough to prove that the Bulgars were at least partially Turkic. If that's not enough, aDna will prove it, if not already, having haplogroup Q popping up from the tested remains of the Bulgars...


Everything I read from your answer is in the realm of general talk. Nothing concrete and no proof or quote only speculations and your future personal expectations.
Who are these linguists claiming a connection between Turks and Bulgarians and do they have grounds for such claims? Let's not forget that all this could be again in the realm of speculations, otherwise it would not be called a theory.
The terms pan-Slavism and pan-Germanism would not have existed since the time this "story" was written if the scholars in question did not serve to political interests.


How new or old is a language is a matter of interpretations by some gentlemen called scientists, whose theories often change in a very short time. I will add only that the Sanskrit Slavic connection is hardly accidental.
I do not know about the "Proto-Slavic" language, but I know that Bulgarian is the basis of the Church Slavonic language, as well as the corresponding literature, as well as the corresponding alphabet, including the church iconography. Here we already are talking about historical facts, not speculations.


Aspar :"I said the Bulgars, not the Bulgarians."
I'm not sure why you think "Bulgars" is different from "Bulgarian", since the root and origin of this endonym is the same. Maybe you think first one sounds more Turkish ?!
In fact, you change nothing but the suffix of the word. The change comes from the difference in the language in which it is pronounced, but it is the same and naturally most precise to the language from which it comes, the Bulgarian one. The etymology is not Turkish and the name first appears and is registered not in Asia but in Europe.


Aspar :"There are plenty of arguments that the Bulgars were originally Turkic, both linguistic and cultural." Samples of this culture please?
This is how myths and lies are built on the basis of a single reconstructed face and your subjective personal opinion.
On one side we have a "reconstructed face of the Bulgar nobleman Mostic", in a communist country at the time under the boot of Russia (a source of pan-slavic push) and on the other we have live 7 million Bulgarians visually with no indication of such a relationship, as and large-scale scientific anthropological studies (1938, 1959 and 1971) concluded:
“The anthropological types that are part of the modern Bulgarian people belong entirely to the European race. According to the detailed data from our research, the Pontic or Black Sea type occupies the first place among these anthropological types in terms of distribution. ”
"… From a biological point of view, the role of the Thracians in the formation of the Bulgarian nation is unquestionable."
D. Angelov, Education of the Bulgarian Nation, Science and Art, Sofia, 1971, p.190.
I think these correspond well with the DNA studies of local people done so far.


What to believe: our eyes and all the scientific evidence so far or a single reconstructed face and your confidence and future expectations that Bulgarians are Asians?


By the way, the theory of the local origin of the Slavs is the older one, before Jireček, who, if I'm not mistaken at 22, without a work on the spot, has concocted the local history " very well".


Aspar: "If that's not enough (one reconstructed Mongolian head you have in mind), aDna will prove it, if not already, having haplogroup Q popping up from the tested remains of the Bulgars ..."


Stamov has been caught manipulating information and is not a specialist in any field other than the "MA master of arts", which I do not know how will help him here.
We are still waiting, of course, but the large-scale studies so far have concluded something very different from your expectations:
"Bulgarians are distant from Turks (despite geographical proximity), Arabic and Caucasus populations"


Do you deny the formation of the Bulgarian ethnic group and language at Europe and the Balkans?
What do you think one sample will change? The history of a nation depends on one sample and one reconstructed head?
If this is science for you, for me it is a hoax with the science and the historical truth.

Aspar
08-29-2020, 11:00 PM
Everything I read from your answer is in the realm of general talk. Nothing concrete and no proof or quote only speculations and your future personal expectations.
Who are these linguists claiming a connection between Turks and Bulgarians and do they have grounds for such claims? Let's not forget that all this could be again in the realm of speculations, otherwise it would not be called a theory.
The terms pan-Slavism and pan-Germanism would not have existed since the time this "story" was written if the scholars in question did not serve to political interests.


How new or old is a language is a matter of interpretations by some gentlemen called scientists, whose theories often change in a very short time. I will add only that the Sanskrit Slavic connection is hardly accidental.
I do not know about the "Proto-Slavic" language, but I know that Bulgarian is the basis of the Church Slavonic language, as well as the corresponding literature, as well as the corresponding alphabet, including the church iconography. Here we already are talking about historical facts, not speculations.


Aspar :"I said the Bulgars, not the Bulgarians."
I'm not sure why you think "Bulgars" is different from "Bulgarian", since the root and origin of this endonym is the same. Maybe you think first one sounds more Turkish ?!
In fact, you change nothing but the suffix of the word. The change comes from the difference in the language in which it is pronounced, but it is the same and naturally most precise to the language from which it comes, the Bulgarian one. The etymology is not Turkish and the name first appears and is registered not in Asia but in Europe.


Aspar :"There are plenty of arguments that the Bulgars were originally Turkic, both linguistic and cultural." Samples of this culture please?
This is how myths and lies are built on the basis of a single reconstructed face and your subjective personal opinion.
On one side we have a "reconstructed face of the Bulgar nobleman Mostic", in a communist country at the time under the boot of Russia (a source of pan-slavic push) and on the other we have live 7 million Bulgarians visually with no indication of such a relationship, as and large-scale scientific anthropological studies (1938, 1959 and 1971) concluded:
“The anthropological types that are part of the modern Bulgarian people belong entirely to the European race. According to the detailed data from our research, the Pontic or Black Sea type occupies the first place among these anthropological types in terms of distribution. ”
"… From a biological point of view, the role of the Thracians in the formation of the Bulgarian nation is unquestionable."
D. Angelov, Education of the Bulgarian Nation, Science and Art, Sofia, 1971, p.190.
I think these correspond well with the DNA studies of local people done so far.


What to believe: our eyes and all the scientific evidence so far or a single reconstructed face and your confidence and future expectations that Bulgarians are Asians?


By the way, the theory of the local origin of the Slavs is the older one, before Jireček, who, if I'm not mistaken at 22, without a work on the spot, has concocted the local history " very well".


Aspar: "If that's not enough (one reconstructed Mongolian head you have in mind), aDna will prove it, if not already, having haplogroup Q popping up from the tested remains of the Bulgars ..."


Stamov has been caught manipulating information and is not a specialist in any field other than the "MA master of arts", which I do not know how will help him here.
We are still waiting, of course, but the large-scale studies so far have concluded something very different from your expectations:
"Bulgarians are distant from Turks (despite geographical proximity), Arabic and Caucasus populations"


Do you deny the formation of the Bulgarian ethnic group and language at Europe and the Balkans?
What do you think one sample will change? The history of a nation depends on one sample and one reconstructed head?
If this is science for you, for me it is a hoax with the science and the historical truth.

It's really pointless to argue on this one honestly.
It's not that I couldn't bring any citations but if you will then I will bring them. However doing so, I will ask you to the same and bring arguments against the Turkic origin of the Bulgars and to be more precise at what you consider they were?

As for the Turkic origin there are literally many sources, infact most of them speak about that. I am sure you already know this but as it happens often in the Balkans, the emotions seem to overpower the logic.

As it's pointless to write about all the sources, I will bring on the table only one, for now...
And this one is a Bulgarian one, not a foreign source. It's a work (http://www.kroraina.com/bulgar/rashev.html) of the Bulgarian archaeologist and scholar Rasho Rashev.

Some of the key points in the work:



So, the question is: were the Proto-Bulgarians Türks? Were the people, led by Asparukh to the Lower Danube, Turkic-speaking? All modern scholars answer positively [2].

The Turkic anthropological type and the Turkicness of the Proto-Bulgarians have not been questioned. The linguistic data in the Namelist of the Bulgarian rulers, in the Byzantine written sources as well as the Proto-Bulgarian stone inscriptions are given as an irrefutable evidence to that. The Turkic names, phrases and words they contain, leave little room for discussion.

A number of Middle Asian elements in the material culture of the First Bulgarian kingdom, such as the 12-year cyclic animal calendar, the cult of Tangra, etc., all with undeniable analogies in the culture of the Turkic khaganate, are also brought forward [3].


However Rashev expresses doubt as to what language the ordinary people spoke, not the ruling class:


An important point, which has evaded attention so far and which was the main reason for the imposition of the Turkic theory about the origin of the Proto-Bulgarians, has to be mentioned from the start. It is that the Turkic linguistic remains and elements of material culture represent exclusively the language and the culture of the Proto-Bulgarian military-administrative and clan leadership. It concerns the khan, its family and court, but not the ordinary population. The available data has been generalised and mechanically transferred not only to the whole aristocracy but also to the rest of the population, designated as Proto-Bulgarian. We have no direct evidence about the language and origin of the latter. There is no evidence of a widespread worship of Tangra, the Turkic god of the sky. On the contrary, we have quite definitive evidence which leaves the Turkic theory in doubt. For example, the anthropological data portray the Proto-Bulgarians as Europeids with weak Mongoloid influences. The attested practice of artificial skull deformation was characteristic not for the Türks, but for the old population of the European steppes – the Sarmatians [4]. Especially indicative is the evidence regarding the old Turkic remains in the Bulgarian language. In the Old Bulgarian literary language they are represented solely by the words kumir(idol) and kapishte (heathen shrine). Some 15 other words resurface in the modern Bulgarian language [5]. Recently, the total number of Turkic words reached 40, but with the significant stipulation that they cannot be proven to be old-Turkic, i.e. pre-Ottoman and pre-Pechenego-Kumanic in origin [6]. In comparison, some 300 words of old-Turkic origin in the Hungarian language are said to be a Proto-Bulgarian legacy. Taking into account the widely held view about the Turkicness of the Proto-Bulgarians, the situation in the Bulgarian language appears strange. The linguist St. Mladenov tended to explain this phenomenon by the small number of Proto-Bulgarians, calling them in this connection “a Turanian band of people” (Turanski narodec). The question about the numbers of the Proto-Bulgarians has been studied too generally, relying mainly on one’s intuition rather than more definite data. This way, they were estimated from 30,000 (by V. Zlatarski, in the first quarter of the XX c.) to some 300,000 by some modern scholars. The only objective criterion is the data from the necropolises. They indeed offer a temporary but, nevertheless, objective picture, which will vary quantitatively in the future. As for now, the inhumations, which are the most reliable sign of Proto-Bulgarian ethnic affiliation, constitute 29 % of all graves in the pagan necropolises of north-eastern Bulgaria. The figure will increase by 2-3 % if we add the inhumations from the necropolises yet to be published and it will come to represent a third of all graves. This is not a negligible share. Therefore, not the alleged small numbers of Proto-Bulgarians is the explanation for the lack of old Turkic linguistic remains in the Bulgarian language. The conclusion may be unexpected, but looks completely natural – the majority of Proto-Bulgarians have not spoken a Turkic language.

Now we can argue about the second part however it's important to note that the Bulgars as people of the steppe did what the steppe people do. They incorporated many other unrelated tribes in their ranks, enlarging their confederation overtime. However, these ordinary people even though acted under the banner of the Bulgars, they were not the ones who spread the Bulgar name and influence initially. There is no doubt even from Rashev who quotes other scholars that the ruling class, the ones who spread the Bulgar name and influence initially, the original Bulgars, were Turkic.

As for the rest, I never said that the Bulgarians as a people didn't form in the Balkans. What means to be Bulgarians, was formed after the arrival of the Bulgars and their confederation in the Balkans.
And Bulgarian is hardly the basis for Old Church Slavonic. Old Church Slavonic is based on the sppeach of the Slavs around Solun. Yes these Slavs were incorporated in the Bulgarian state and became the foundation of the Bulgarian language and people but nevertheless these people were Slavs, not Bulgars. Hence, why do you think St. Pasius of Hilendar spoke of 'Istoriya Slavyanobolgarskaya'?

But the ethnogenesis of the Bulgarian people doesn't end up there. Tell me, why the modern Bulgarian language is so different than the Old Church Slavonic? Where are those cases that are present in all other Slavic languages except Bulgarian? And where all those 'Balkanisms' came from? The answer is simple, and it's historically observable as well. Otherwise all those Medieval Vlachs who happened to be rulers even, such as Kalos Ioan or Dobromir Chrys didn't disappear in the thin air. But both Bulgarian and Macedonian historians, linguists and scholars are having hard time to even mention about this matter let alone to elaborate about it.

ph2ter
12-09-2020, 03:20 PM
I-P37 heatmap

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fqjf92Cy2An0QPYs8f-h9C_csU49S3gk/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fqjf92Cy2An0QPYs8f-h9C_csU49S3gk/view?usp=sharing)

https://i.imgur.com/LFn7Gx9.png

ph2ter
12-10-2020, 09:08 AM
Y3120 subclades:
https://i.imgur.com/MfhEl7y.png
https://i.imgur.com/ipKwUBS.png
https://i.imgur.com/vkywlMI.png
https://i.imgur.com/m4MohXz.png
https://i.imgur.com/lCrUTOh.png
https://i.imgur.com/msjSPdR.png

ph2ter
12-10-2020, 02:25 PM
https://i.imgur.com/OrkoHqs.png