PDA

View Full Version : Origins of I2a1b



Szigmund
07-09-2019, 11:23 AM
Hello there!

I am quite new to the genetics. As an I2a1b (I-S17250, according to LivingDNA) I am searching for infos of my Y-haplogroup. I've found an old article:
http://originsdna.blogspot.com/2012/09/vandals-dna-leaving-genetic-graffiti.html

What are your toughts on I2a1b? I've met lots of interesting ideas (Thracians, Dacians, Illyrians, Vandals, White Croats, and now Alans and Vandals, etc.), but I haven't got enough informations. What is you bet, where do we came from?

Szigmund
07-09-2019, 11:31 AM
Oh, yes, and before I forget: I know about Cucuteni - Tyrpillia Culture, I'm interested what happened next with the haplogroup.

Dibran
07-09-2019, 05:40 PM
Hello there!

I am quite new to the genetics. As an I2a1b (I-S17250, according to LivingDNA) I am searching for infos of my Y-haplogroup. I've found an old article:
http://originsdna.blogspot.com/2012/09/vandals-dna-leaving-genetic-graffiti.html

What are your toughts on I2a1b? I've met lots of interesting ideas (Thracians, Dacians, Illyrians, Vandals, White Croats, and now Alans and Vandals, etc.), but I haven't got enough informations. What is you bet, where do we came from?

The overwhelming majority of modern I2a1b belongs under CTS10228. More specifically, almost all of it falls under I-Y3120 which has a TMRCA of 2200ypb. With the exception of I-Y18331(which currently only has Greeks/East European Jews), the entirety of I2a1b belongs to far younger clades. The majority of all I2a1b seems to be linked to the Slavic migrations.

It is not yet known when I2a1b was absorbed into Slavs, however, it appears that the surviving descendant of I2a1lb had a demographic boom/expansion with the Proto-Slavic tribes in the early to late middle ages.

S17250 seems to have a common ancestor tracing back to 200AD. Majority of I2a1b are found amongst, Southern Slavs. Yet, decent percentages are found in all Slavs. The only I2a1b relate to modern clusters seems to be that of a Medieval Pole.

There was a study that found some I2a1b in elite Maqyar. However they were only positive for L621 which is ancestral to CTS10228. Until its confirmed some Magyar belong further downstream, then its likely connected to pre-Slavs, or early assimilated Proto-Slav in their case.

It is possible some descendants slipped out earlier than migration and were absorbed into other tribes. I think most likely would be Avars, Huns, Bulgars. This is assuming some joined their ranks and were assimilated prior.

As it currently stands most of the Maqyjar/Avars were Z93, N, with some Z280 and basal L621 for I2a1b.

Each clade functions as a founder. Personally I think Northern Dacians could have carried some modern I2a1lb/M458/Z280. However, regardless if that is proven; the survivor of these lines seems to participate and expand with the Slavic migrations, and possibly minimally(some clades) with Eastern Goths.

artemv
07-10-2019, 10:44 AM
Hi!
You are wellcome!
Nice to see another one S17250 guy here!

Dibran wrote you many things, and almost everything he wrote is correct.
But first of all I will send you a link to yfull, all of us here who are interested in Y-DNA use this site.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/I2/
You can find there all the branches for I2 happlogroup, and check the sub-branches(like CTS10228, Y18331 e.t.c.) Dibran mentioned.

Our understanding of Y-chromosomes has greatly improved in the recent years, so an article from 2012 is already outdated.


Oh, yes, and before I forget: I know about Cucuteni - Tyrpillia Culture, I'm interested what happened next with the haplogroup.
This is one of the old theories. Now we have ancient DNA for Cucuteni - Trypillia culture, they were of another happlogroup, G2.
Cucuteni - Trypillia are not connected to the I2 history.

I2a1b is a happlogroup that emerged during Ice Age, about 18 000 ybp(years before present), probably somewhere on Appenines. Last common direct male line ancestor of I2a1b lived about 14000 ybp. After Ice Age ended I2a1b became one of major happlogroups among West European Hunter-Gathers (WHG).
When first agriculturalist came to Europe I2a1b were incorporated into their society.
Ancient I2a1b are found in Neolithic Iberia, British Isles, Scandinavia, territories that now make Germany and France.

After Indo-Europeans settled in Europe, I2a1b became a minor happlogroup in Western Europe - majority of people were R1b.
I2a1b probably was not even present at a time in East Europe, or was a tiny small group of people here.
After that somehow I2a1b got from West to East Europe, and this happened in the first millenium BCE, it is hard to say when, because it could be a very small group of people.

I2a1b than very rapidly expanded with all the Slav migrations and became one of the most common happlogroups in East Europe - Dibran wrote you about this. The fact you are S17250 is a very clear sign of your Slavic origin by direct male line.


Majority of I2a1b are found amongst, Southern Slavs.
That is not quite true.
I2a1b is indeed very common among Southern Slavs, there are more than 50% of I2a1b in Bosnia-Hertzegovina, and about 30-40% in other former Yougoslavia countries, quite common in Bulgaria also, do not remember the estimation %. But if we count absolute numbers, there are more I2a1b people among East Slavs, than Southern Slavs. About 10% of Russians and Belorussians, combined with about 15% Ukraininans will be much more than total numbers of I2 men among Southern Slavs.

George
07-10-2019, 01:47 PM
Good posts by Dibran and Artemv. I would only say re " About 10% of Russians and Belorussians, combined with about 15% Ukrainians will be much more than total numbers of I2 men among Southern Slavs. " that I am not quite sure about the Belorussian/Russian relative and/or absolute percentages, but in the case of Ukrainians the figure is slightly higher than 15% (somewhere between 20 and 25% actually). And I think the numbers of I2a-Dins among Moldavians and Rumanians is also fairly substantial (probably representing mostly the descendants of invading Slavs eventually assimilated).

ADW_1981
07-10-2019, 07:48 PM
After that somehow I2a1b got from West to East Europe, and this happened in the first millenium BCE, it is hard to say when, because it could be a very small group of people.



I generally agree with your post but I don't think the movement was west-east, but the subset that rapidly expanded was always in the east. There is plenty of territory that is not sampled in aDNA record of Belarus or eastern Poland that may have harboured the Dinaric group of I2a1b.

A west to east movement might be demonstrated with P312+ subclades, but these branches are typically absent in modern territory where I2a1b-Dinaric peaks today. Rather R1a-M458, M558 seem to be associated to I2a1b-Dinaric branches.

Plashiputak
07-11-2019, 05:58 AM
There was a study that found some I2a1b in elite Maqyar. However they were only positive for L621 which is ancestral to CTS10228. Until its confirmed some Magyar belong further downstream, then its likely connected to pre-Slavs, or early assimilated Proto-Slav in their case.


The leader with the richest grave was I2a1b. And in that study he was tested negative for S17250. The 2 other I2a1b were also in rich graves with full Magyar custom of horse heads and sabers - exactly as the Bulgars (not avars). Here is a good description, you can translate it: https://sites.google.com/site/hagyomanyesmultidezo/nyilvanos/katalogus/ferfi-viseletek/ferfi-viseletek/hadi-viseletek/hadi-kiegeszitok/ijasz-felszerelesek/tegezek/keszenleti-ijtegez-karos-ii-temeto-52-sir

Here is a reconstruction of his skull: 31606

I want the I2a1b is slavic meme to die, but its gonna be so hard, because the definition of what Slavic is changes every time: Is it a language, is it culture, is it customs, is people, is it DNA.

Waldemar
07-11-2019, 07:52 AM
Gesta Hungarorum

The Hungarians are so called from the castle of Ung [Hungu] where the seven leading persons, having subjugated the Slavs, tarried for a time upon entering the land of Pannonia.

http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/18975/1/18975.pdf


Hg I2a1a2b-L621 was present in 5 Conqueror samples, and a 6th sample form Magyarhomorog (MH/9) most likely also belongs here, as MH/9 is a likely kin of MH/16. This Hg of European origin is most prominent in the Balkans and Eastern Europe, especially among Slavic speaking groups

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2019/04/03/597997.full.pdf

palamede
07-11-2019, 09:35 AM
A very interesting blog is http://blog.vayda.pl/en/i2a-dinaric-subclade-y3120-2/

The richest country containing all clusters is Romania (I2a1b = 28%), 28% is great if we think Romania was an alley of the invasions at all periods .
Romania with the contiguous South-West Ukrainia seems the origin of the dinaric clusters

Bosnia-Herzegovia is the peak of frequency, but a lot less rich of different clusters.

artemv
07-11-2019, 09:40 AM
I generally agree with your post but I don't think the movement was west-east, but the subset that rapidly expanded was always in the east. There is plenty of territory that is not sampled in aDNA record of Belarus or eastern Poland that may have harboured the Dinaric group of I2a1b.

A west to east movement might be demonstrated with P312+ subclades, but these branches are typically absent in modern territory where I2a1b-Dinaric peaks today. Rather R1a-M458, M558 seem to be associated to I2a1b-Dinaric branches.

All major branches of I2a1b are found in the West Europe, the only exception is Y3120. So it is very likely that Y3120 moved from West to East. It can happen that we just didn't find ancient I2a1b in the East Europe, and people carring I2a1b later moved from East to West, but this is highly unlikely.

P312+ subclades migrated West to East in the third millenia BCE, one or one and a half millenia before Y3120 migrated to the East.



I want the I2a1b is slavic meme to die, but its gonna be so hard, because the definition of what Slavic is changes every time: Is it a language, is it culture, is it customs, is people, is it DNA.

We should not forget that I2a1b is 12 000 years older than Slavs. So, no doubts, all the branches of I2a1b, other than Y3120 are not Slavic.

It is always difficult to make associations between cultural/linguistic groups and Y-chromosome branches. People change their cultural/language groups, and almost all cultural/language groups include several Y-chromosome happlgroups. But Y3120 is the best candidate to be considered Slavic happlogroup.

artemv
07-11-2019, 09:59 AM
The richest country containing all clusters is Romania (I2a1b = 28%), 28% is great if we think Romania was an alley of the invasions at all periods .
Romania with the contiguous South-West Ukrainia seems the origin of the dinaric clusters

When speaking about happlogroup origin, we should first of all think about known historical migrations, and only then - about current happlogroup distribution.

There was an attempt to locate the IE motherland based on current branches and clusters of R1a and R1b. Currently Central Asia has most diverse R1a/R1b branches, but as we know from aDNA this is not the PIE homeland. So, this method does not work.

What is currently South-West Ukraine (Odessa and neighboring districts), was territory with almost no population even at the beginning of 18th century. It was than repopulated with people, mainly Slavs, from all the parts of former Russian Empire, so, now this region has a great variety of Slavic Y-chromosomes, but this doesn't mean Slavs come from modern South-West Ukraine.

Most archeologists now agree that Prague-Korchak Culture is a definitely Slavic culture, there is no such agreement about any previous cultures. So, I2-Y3120 probably originated somewhere in territories, that now make Czech Republic, Slovakia or Southern Poland.

By the way, this is also much closer to France-Germany, territory where I2a1b was once wide-spread, than Romania.

Kanenas
07-11-2019, 10:25 AM
I believe it's wrong to give ethnic labels to haplogroups.

Either way, my view is that Avars were Ugric (an origin from somewhere near Ufa seems likely to me based on my interpretation of the sources, certainly somewhere near Volga) and Bulgars were Iranic from what is now South Russia and North Caucasus (the mainstream view is they were Turkic).

There were 'Goths' in Pannonia according to the sources before Avars, Magyars etc. The Slavic migrations happened supposedly after all these movements.

artemv
07-11-2019, 12:36 PM
I believe it's wrong to give ethnic labels to haplogroups.

We just need to understand that the fact that some early people of some happlogroup belonged to some cultural/language group does not mean that all their direct male line descendants belong to the same group. I don't see anything wrong in labeling itself.


There were 'Goths' in Pannonia according to the sources before Avars, Magyars etc. The Slavic migrations happened supposedly after all these movements.

No. Slavs invaded Byzantines Balkans before both Avars and Magyars. And Northern Slav lands, in modern Czech republic, Slovenia, Poland, North Ukraine, Belarus, and some Russian territories were outside of Avar and Magyar migrations.
If we put aside Eastern Slav colonization of territory, that now makes central Russia, major Slav migrations took place in the 5th century CE and ended before the Avar invasion into Pannonia.

Kanenas
07-11-2019, 06:01 PM
No. Slavs invaded Byzantines Balkans before both Avars and Magyars. And Northern Slav lands, in modern Czech republic, Slovenia, Poland, North Ukraine, Belarus, and some Russian territories were outside of Avar and Magyar migrations.
If we put aside Eastern Slav colonization of territory, that now makes central Russia, major Slav migrations took place in the 5th century CE and ended before the Avar invasion into Pannonia.

Well, certainly we read about raids of 'Goths' and related people, even in what is now Greece, much earlier than the 5th century. Also Bulgars seem to appear in 'Thrace' and 'Illyricum' rather early, according to the sources.

'Goths' appear to have been native in Pannonia, before the migration of the peoples called Var/Uar and Chuni, before the time of 'Great Moravia' too.

The 'history of the conquest of the Carpathian basin' is constructed relatively recently. I don't consider it factual. Either way, for me the people who brought Ugric languages in the region were those Theophylact calls Var/Uar and Chuni, much earlier than the time the Magyar migrations took place supposedly.

I am not sure what role Goths and Bulgars could have played in Slavic ethnogenesis.

ph2ter
07-17-2019, 12:11 PM
I generally agree with your post but I don't think the movement was west-east, but the subset that rapidly expanded was always in the east. There is plenty of territory that is not sampled in aDNA record of Belarus or eastern Poland that may have harboured the Dinaric group of I2a1b.

A west to east movement might be demonstrated with P312+ subclades, but these branches are typically absent in modern territory where I2a1b-Dinaric peaks today. Rather R1a-M458, M558 seem to be associated to I2a1b-Dinaric branches.
East-West migration is very improbable.
All downstream clades of L621 and majoritiy of all P37 are located in West Europe (British Isles, Germany, France, Iberian peninsula, Sardinia) . You can see that clearly on this P37 tree:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/kj9b0z8raiwf3oj/P37_V4.7a.png?dl=0

Alain
07-17-2019, 08:32 PM
I think the eastern branch R1b Z2103 begin by the early Dacians to arrived to Balkan later mixed with indigenous populations from Balkan

Alain
07-17-2019, 08:49 PM
But Z93 Z2124 is typically for the population Scythian, Magyar, Kypchaks... Other Z93 subclades early Indo-migrations. R1a Z280 Balto-slavic Branche (SLAVIC migration) by I2a have to expansion one with early Indo-European migration (Yamna) the second with Slavic and eastern Germanic groups

Alain
07-17-2019, 08:54 PM
Sorry the third I2a subclades indigenous Balkan

Bosniensis
07-23-2019, 05:44 PM
Illyrians were Proto-Slavs therefore it is reasonable to say I2a1b is Slavic.

Dibran
07-26-2019, 10:56 PM
Illyrians were Proto-Slavs therefore it is reasonable to say I2a1b is Slavic.

This really isn't the forum for your troll antics. Go to the Apricity for that nonsense. The only confirmed Proto-Illyrian is J2b-L283, with R1b/E-V13 also participating in paleo Balkans. Along with I2a2, which is a completely different branch from I2a1b. You know this already but you persist in your foolish games, either out of immaturity or lack of acceptance of reality. Slavs have a rich history, no need to cheapen that with thoughts of grandeur.

oz
07-27-2019, 03:50 AM
This really isn't the forum for your troll antics. Go to the Apricity for that nonsense. The only confirmed Proto-Illyrian is J2b-L283, with R1b/E-V13 also participating in paleo Balkans. Along with I2a2, which is a completely different branch from I2a1b. You know this already but you persist in your foolish games, either out of immaturity or lack of acceptance of reality. Slavs have a rich history, no need to cheapen that with thoughts of grandeur.

Don't disrespect my compatriot, he might be a little confused which doesn't necessarily mean he's deliberately "trolling". Having an opinion that differs from somebody else's is also a reality that people tend to have a hard time accepting. He's entitled to his opinion and you don't have some kind of absolute evidence to convince him otherwise.
Three samples don't really mean shit.

Dibran
07-27-2019, 05:35 AM
Don't disrespect my compatriot, he might be a little confused which doesn't necessarily mean he's deliberately "trolling". Having an opinion that differs from somebody else's is also a reality that people tend to have a hard time accepting. He's entitled to his opinion and you don't have some kind of absolute evidence to convince him otherwise.
Three samples don't really mean shit.

Lol he’s not worth respect. You obviously don’t know who Bosniensis is. On the apricity he is king of trolls. Go take a look before acting like someone’s being high and mighty.

It’s not opinions/viewpoints. It’s facts vs fantasy. It’s more than a few samples and it’s fully supported by evidence. This lunatic trolls the forums calling Albanians Greeks and saying Illyrians are Slavs. He ignores science and evidence to serve his agenda. Nothing convinces him. The guy posts Deretic who says God is a Serb.

Anyway trolls don’t deserve respect and that stuff doesn’t last long here.

oz
07-27-2019, 12:55 PM
:beerchug::beerchug::beerchug:

How dare you question the history of your ancestors being told to you by outsiders? Unbelievable freakin trolls.

Jovan Deretic is pretty ridiculous though you can't tell me you believe in all his Serbian nuthugging rhetoric, especially as a Bosniak.

Dibran
07-27-2019, 05:41 PM
How dare you question the history of your ancestors being told to you by outsiders? Unbelievable freakin trolls.

Jovan Deretic is pretty ridiculous though you can't tell me you believe in all his Serbian nuthugging rhetoric, especially as a Bosniak.

There is a difference between questioning and actively and knowingly ignoring all evidence(genetic and otherwise) to push false desires and fantasies. He outright said he doesn't believe in the tools of science and believes ancient Greek writers. You can't possibly take such a person seriously who speaks about genetics, whilst denying the very tools used in genetics.

Serbs have quite the reputation for denying Albanians of their origins for generations, both scholastically and politically. Now many with the advent of genetics are clinging to a Thracian connection to deny Albanians their place in the Western Balkans.. Even with genetic evidence they still claim its all lies. After a while it stops being trolling and becomes a part of character.

You say a few ancient samples connecting Albanians to Illyrians from past to present "doesn't mean shit". Yet, when there is no evidence supporting his trolling/fantasies of I2a1b-Din(a clearly Slavic marker) you say "he's just questioning". Either deal in facts and evidence or don't at all. Other members here, Slavs even, who know more about genetics than either of us, do not deny its Slavic origin, and earlier its possible West European origin prior to Proto-Slavic ethnogenesis. Paleo-Balkanic though? it's not wrong to point out that is a lie based on what is currently known.

Sure I2a1 was found in very ancient Balkan samples. It is not the same as I2a1b-CTS10228-Y3120 though, which is a long gap of time between past and present. Hell, the I2a1 in ancient Balkans predates the very ethnogenesis of Proto-Illyrians or even Illyrians which arrived from the Steppe. So whatever was there bearing I2a1 was not even indo-european. We can question alot of things. Questioning is merely guesswork and absent any evidence to support it, it crumbles like everything else. Y3120 however, spread with Proto-Slavs. Regardless where his very distant ancestor was in a time before record.

Albanians are not outsiders, their ancestors have been in the Balkans long before the Slavs showed up. Despite the active laboring of our neighbors to conceal the truth and make us seem like new arrivals.

It is like you all have some fear of admitting the ancestors of most Albanians were in the Balkans before the migration era. Puts a real damper in the Caucasian origin nonsense Yugoslavia had pushed for generations in schools.

Anthrogenica is one of the few remaining forums that deals in evidence based research with little to no trolls. We really don't need this to become another Apricity with Bosniensis antics.

oz
07-27-2019, 09:18 PM
There is a difference between questioning and actively and knowingly ignoring all evidence(genetic and otherwise) to push false desires and fantasies. He outright said he doesn't believe in the tools of science and believes ancient Greek writers. You can't possibly take such a person seriously who speaks about genetics, whilst denying the very tools used in genetics.

Serbs have quite the reputation for denying Albanians of their origins for generations, both scholastically and politically. Now many with the advent of genetics are clinging to a Thracian connection to deny Albanians their place in the Western Balkans.. Even with genetic evidence they still claim its all lies. After a while it stops being trolling and becomes a part of character.

You say a few ancient samples connecting Albanians to Illyrians from past to present "doesn't mean shit". Yet, when there is no evidence supporting his trolling/fantasies of I2a1b-Din(a clearly Slavic marker) you say "he's just questioning". Either deal in facts and evidence or don't at all. Other members here, Slavs even, who know more about genetics than either of us, do not deny its Slavic origin, and earlier its possible West European origin prior to Proto-Slavic ethnogenesis. Paleo-Balkanic though? it's not wrong to point out that is a lie based on what is currently known.

Sure I2a1 was found in very ancient Balkan samples. It is not the same as I2a1b-CTS10228-Y3120 though, which is a long gap of time between past and present. Hell, the I2a1 in ancient Balkans predates the very ethnogenesis of Proto-Illyrians or even Illyrians which arrived from the Steppe. So whatever was there bearing I2a1 was not even indo-european. We can question alot of things. Questioning is merely guesswork and absent any evidence to support it, it crumbles like everything else. Y3120 however, spread with Proto-Slavs. Regardless where his very distant ancestor was in a time before record.

Albanians are not outsiders, their ancestors have been in the Balkans long before the Slavs showed up. Despite the active laboring of our neighbors to conceal the truth and make us seem like new arrivals.

It is like you all have some fear of admitting the ancestors of most Albanians were in the Balkans before the migration era. Puts a real damper in the Caucasian origin nonsense Yugoslavia had pushed for generations in schools.

Anthrogenica is one of the few remaining forums that deals in evidence based research with little to no trolls. We really don't need this to become another Apricity with Bosniensis antics.

You don't have to explain to me about Serbian nationalists and their fanatical propaganda I probably know them better than you.
But, what do you mean Yugoslavia was preaching in schools about Albanian origin from the Caucasus? As far as I know the communists were propagating Slavic migrations from the Carpathians and that Albanians are Balkan "starosjedioci".

digital_noise
07-27-2019, 09:55 PM
jeez, this almost reads like an E-V13 thread on Eupedia :)

Dibran
07-27-2019, 11:07 PM
You don't have to explain to me about Serbian nationalists and their fanatical propaganda I probably know them better than you.
But, what do you mean Yugoslavia was preaching in schools about Albanian origin from the Caucasus? As far as I know the communists were propagating Slavic migrations from the Carpathians and that Albanians are Balkan "starosjedioci".

With the exception of Milan Šufflay most Balkan academia, be they Yugoslavian or Serbian, including Russians have almost always claimed Albanians either are not native to their lands, came from the Caucasus Albania brought by Ottomans, some nonsensical Italian/Sicilian origin, or descended from Dacians and Thracians in the Eastern Balkans, completely dissociating them with having ANYTHING to do with the West Balkans/Illyrians/Dardanians where we currently reside. For Serbia/Serbian academics to admit that the West Balkans was lived in by the Proto-Albanians would literally destroy half of the claims they make on land. Why? because they would have to admit the ancestors of Albanians occupied Kosova....something intrinsically tied to their refusal of genetics based evidence. Which is why there has never been any real honesty academically where it concerns the origin of Albanians. Only Milan Šufflay was reasonable in his research, and he ended up with his skull bashed in by political elite and his apartment raided and some belongings stolen(assumingly Codex Albanicus). Wonder why.......

So you have the gall to criticize me for pointing out factual genetics based evidence as "outsiders trying to tell you about your history" but I shouldn't suspect any bias or foul play when literally most academia jumping at the opportunity to answer "The Albanian Question" are all Serbs, and other Balkan Slavs or Russians?

I prefer science to ignorance, and right now the science shows the ancestors of a overwhelming majority of Albanians are traced to a surviving West Balkan people by the male line(likely Southern Illyrians), that would eventually mix with Greeks, Romans and incoming migration era tribes(Slavs, Germanics, Celts, Turks etc.) possibly within the Komani Culture, evolving into what would be the Albanians in the Middle Ages.

The truth doesn't cease being the truth when a collection of people prefer the comfort of lies.

Dibran
07-28-2019, 02:43 AM
You must have short term memory loss.
You don't have the right to tell us who we are, what we are, and how we should be glorifying or cheapening our history. If you said that to my face I wouldn't even argue with you I'd just slap you.
And both of you are trolls, I should have known better not to waste my time with this crap.

You can act the keyboard warrior all you want. Talk is cheap.

I exposed a well known troll that anyone who’s been on the apricity is well acquainted with, and you tried to call evidence bullshit saying a few samples supporting Albanian origins in the West Balkan “means shit”.

Then you defend a completely asinine statement such as “Illyrians are all Slavs” with no evidence, and say he has the right to question?

So I don’t have the right to call out obvious bullshit? This makes me a troll?

I may not be a specialist but I think anyone with just amateur level of history linguistics and genetics wouldn’t make such a foolish statement let alone defend it.

Coldmountains
07-28-2019, 07:25 AM
You must have short term memory loss.
You don't have the right to tell us who we are, what we are, and how we should be glorifying or cheapening our history. If you said that to my face I wouldn't even argue with you I'd just slap you.
And both of you are trolls, I should have known better not to waste my time with this crap.

An outsider can know more about the histoy of a culture and nation than some native. Just because you were born there does not mean that you read and understand more of the history of this place. Most (ancient) history we know today comes from quite recent books and studies which were often written by outsiders. It were for example british archaelogists which rediscovered ancient Indian civilization (Maurya, IVC...). Also by threatening someone you dont really win any argument.

Coldmountains
07-28-2019, 10:40 AM
This is a general warning. No ad hominem attacks or provocations. Else we will consider sanctions for the involved.

Johane Derite
07-28-2019, 11:45 AM
The slavic migrations are not a theory "imposed from outsiders". In Serbian and Croatian chronicles from 9-10th century AD they describe coming to their lands from a place further north. Viseslav describes himself as a descendant of one of the slavs invited south by Heraclius the 7th Century Byzantine commander, to serve as mercenaries.

The slav invasions are well attested, and backed up linguistically, historically, and genetically. And the "theory" is itself inherited from slavs, not something constructed by outsiders.

Proto-Slavs were not in the geographic nor linguistic vicinity of Illyrians. So I2a1b has no connection with Illyrians.

Pribislav
07-28-2019, 01:48 PM
With the exception of Milan Šufflay most Balkan academia, be they Yugoslavian or Serbian, including Russians have almost always claimed Albanians either are not native to their lands, came from the Caucasus Albania brought by Ottomans, some nonsensical Italian/Sicilian origin, or descended from Dacians and Thracians in the Eastern Balkans, completely dissociating them with having ANYTHING to do with the West Balkans/Illyrians/Dardanians where we currently reside.

I'm not sure if you're just being ignorant, or these blatant lies are part of your agenda, but what you wrote is completely false. In current history schoolbooks in Serbia Albanians are said to be descendants of Paleo-Balkan peoples, mostly Illyrians, and this was also the case 15 years ago when I was in high school. Fringe theories like the one about Caucasian origin of Albanians have never been mainstream view among the academics, and they certainly weren't promoted by the educational system in Serbia. They were promoted only by wannabe-historians like Deretić, and several others.

But it's interesting how you tried to lump Thracian/Dacian input theory together with these nonsensical theories. Just like Illyrian genetic input in Albanians can't be refuted, the same goes for Thracian/Dacian genetic input. The number of fairly young clades (TMRCAs 1200-1500 ybp) on the Ytree is shared between Albanians and Bulgarians, and among them is the "quintessential" Albanian clade R1b-BY611>Z2705. The variance of this clade is higher in the East Balkans than in the West, which points to it's most likely origin among some of the Thracian tribes. Also, language similarities between Albanian and Romanian are irrefutable, as has been already written on other topics. To cut it short, nobody is dissociating Albanians with "having ANYTHING to do with the West Balkans/Illyrians", as I said the genetic input of Illyrians is evident, but the question of Illyrian language is far from being resolved, as much as some of you are trying to convince everyone that Illyrian=(Proto)Albanian. Several words of probable Illyrian origin in Albanian may represent Illyrian substratum, and surely are not concrete evidence of linear development from Illyrian to modern Albanian. There is probably tens, if not hundreds of words of Gaulic origin in modern French, but you don't see people claiming French is Gaulish/Celtic language.

Now when your false claims about mainstream academical propaganda in Serbia against Albanians were crushed to pieces, maybe we can all go back to the origins of I2a1b?

IMO, the phylogeny of I2-L621 (and aDNA) points to it's origin in Western Europe, with clade Y3120 originating probably somewhere in the teritory of modern Germany and/or West Poland during Iron Age. It's also clear clade Y3120 spread mostly with Slavs, so the main question is when it came to Proto-Slavic homeland. I find the theory about Bastarnae, descending from Gubin group of Jastorf culture, being carriers of this clade pretty convincing. Well, at least for the time being, since we still don't have older than medieval aDNA samples belonging to this clade.

George
07-28-2019, 02:48 PM
(Re #32) "I find the theory about Bastarnae, descending from Gubin group of Jastorf culture, being carriers of this clade pretty convincing. Well, at least for the time being"
Yes that is certainly one of the possible theories. Though I rather doubt that I2a1b would have been a major clade among the Bastarnae (themselves a congeries of Germanics, Celts and "Pomeranians" who all left clear toponymical and hydronymical traces in the area of the Zarubinian cultures). Another equally possible theory is that I2a1b was already present in the Milograd culture. Until we get more useful aDNA from all these areas, we can only speculate. (As long as we don't go overboard ;)

Kelmendasi
07-28-2019, 03:46 PM
The number of fairly young clades (TMRCAs 1200-1500 ybp) on the Ytree is shared between Albanians and Bulgarians, and among them is the "quintessential" Albanian clade R1b-BY611>Z2705. The variance of this clade is higher in the East Balkans than in the West, which points to it's most likely origin among some of the Thracian tribes.
Many Albanian and Balkan clades have low TMRCA due to bottlenecks. As far as I know most evidence points towards a western origin of Z2705, most western Balkan samples show earlier splits as well as basal clades being more widespread in the west and BY611 itself seems to be of western origin based on basal clades which are mainly located in southwestern Europe. There could be a connection to Thracians but I think we need more evidence to come to a conclusion.

Pribislav
07-28-2019, 05:33 PM
Many Albanian and Balkan clades have low TMRCA due to bottlenecks. As far as I know most evidence points towards a western origin of Z2705, most western Balkan samples show earlier splits as well as basal clades being more widespread in the west and BY611 itself seems to be of western origin based on basal clades which are mainly located in southwestern Europe. There could be a connection to Thracians but I think we need more evidence to come to a conclusion.

You are right, there is also an upstream clade Y30192 with some Spanish and Italian samples, but we definitely need more samples for a conclusion. It is certainly possible that Y10789 originated in the west, and then Z2705 migrated to central and eastern Balkans, while Y30192 stayed; but the alternate version is also possible, Y10789 originating in the east, and then Y30192 and some subclades of Z2705 going west.

artemv
07-28-2019, 09:49 PM
We know that South Slavs genetically differ from East/West Slavs. There is no doubt that South Slavs also have significant Illyrian admixture (I do not doubt that there were Slavs migrations to the Balkans, and that South Slavs also derive significant admixture from those migrants).
I guess both Yugoslavians (Croatians, Serbs, Bosnians, Montenegrians) and Albanians are mixture of Slavs and Illyrians in different proportions. No doubts, Yugoslavians have more Slavic and less Illyrian admixture. But as far as we have no good proxy for Illyrians we cannot calculate the percent.



(Re #32) "I find the theory about Bastarnae, descending from Gubin group of Jastorf culture, being carriers of this clade pretty convincing. Well, at least for the time being"
Yes that is certainly one of the possible theories. Though I rather doubt that I2a1b would have been a major clade among the Bastarnae (themselves a congeries of Germanics, Celts and "Pomeranians" who all left clear toponymical and hydronymical traces in the area of the Zarubinian cultures). Another equally possible theory is that I2a1b was already present in the Milograd culture. Until we get more useful aDNA from all these areas, we can only speculate. (As long as we don't go overboard ;)

That's to Eastern: territory of modern Ukraine/Belarus.
First definitely Slav culture is Prague culture (or Prague-Korchak culture). So, I would rather expect I2-CTS10228 to show up somewhere to the West from Zarubintsy (not Zarubinian) culture, like Przeworsk culture. This is also closer to definitely Western I2-CTS10228 source.
Anyway, all Early Slav or probably proto-Early Slavs cultures practiced mostly cremations or even only cremations. This means there will be a problem to get their DNA. If someone will sequence DNA from rare cases of inhumations, there 100% will be questions like "How can you be sure that those, who cremated their dead where genetically similar to people from inhumations?" I do not know, how could it possible to get their aDNA. Maybe if someone find a milk tooth in the corresponding settlement.

George
07-28-2019, 10:34 PM
Re #36 "First definitely Slav culture is Prague culture (or Prague-Korchak culture)"

I would rather stick to the current consensus which partly agrees with this statement (with the caveat that Prague is but one of the first Slav cultures since there are at least two other contemporary cultures (Penkivka, Kolochyn) which fit the requirement) to the extent that the statement is understood of cultures defined archaeologically and which also have the first known totally reliable documentary (historical) attestations. But Prague, Penkivka, and Kolochyn are themselves viewed in archaeological terms as all descending from the earlier Kyiv culture (southern Belarus, northern Ukraine, southwesternmost Russia) of ca. 200-450 CE which is the result of complex interactions between the late Zarubinian culture and a number of other forest cultures, with minor contributions from further west (incl. some Przeworsk elements). In fact it is this Kyiv culture (for what the testimony is worth) which seems referred to by Jordanes as "Venedi" when he discusses the Hermanaric 'empire'. Everything earlier is quite Proto- (so to speak) though the existence of a certain number of early elements of later Slavdom seems indubitable (perhaps it is better to say "many elements from earlier communities which blossomed in a new synthesis when Slavdom historically emerged".) But one cannot really say where the Y-3120 "father" of the "expanding" (eventually) "Slavic" I2a-Din (maybe we should start calling it I2a-Slav?) lived. Was it Germany? Was it Poland? Was it Ukraine? Russia? Belarus? Somewhere else? We just don't know. All I would argue is that whatever element(s) (whether R1a or I2a or something else) picked up and handed on the "God" word almost certainly lived very close to the Scythians (and was thus constituting itself ca. 530-3rd c. BCE acc. to current calculators).But one should not yet call it "Slavic" in the full sense===

Trojet
07-29-2019, 03:14 PM
But it's interesting how you tried to lump Thracian/Dacian input theory together with these nonsensical theories. Just like Illyrian genetic input in Albanians can't be refuted, the same goes for Thracian/Dacian genetic input. The number of fairly young clades (TMRCAs 1200-1500 ybp) on the Ytree is shared between Albanians and Bulgarians, and among them is the "quintessential" Albanian clade R1b-BY611>Z2705. The variance of this clade is higher in the East Balkans than in the West, which points to it's most likely origin among some of the Thracian tribes.

This is absolutely false. The YTree speaks for itself: all current R-Z2705* samples, bar YF63349 who in fact has a tradition of originating from Montenegro, are from the Western Balkans.

mihaitzateo
07-29-2019, 04:45 PM
If you take the formation time of most I2-din clades,those are fitting very well the prolonged migration of the Gothic tribes, not the migration of the Slavs.
That the Goths got absorbed later into the South Slavic,Polish,Ukrainian,Russian, Romanian and Hungarian nations that is a different thing.
According to archaeological evidences, the migration of the Gothic tribes started from NW Poland and they moved slowly towards South but also, towards East.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-Y3120/
See that most clades formed either 2200 ybp or 1800 ybp. That is clearly linked to the migrations of the Gothic tribes, not of the Slavic tribes.
There are some clades that are linked to the Varangians and some linked to the Slavs.
Is obvious that those clades that appeared as a result of Slavic migration should have formed around 550-650 AD, so 1450 - 1350 ybp.
Those clades that are forming later, are related to the Varangians, the migration of this Swedish or Danish Viking tribe in Russia and also them fighting as mercenaries for the Byzantine Empire.
See that 5 persons with these basal I2-din clades found in Finland. Also, 9 in Greece from which 8 are having I2-din clades with formation time 1800 ybp - to 2200 ybp.
Clearly, from the Gothic tribes.
So Y3120 is only partially moved by the Slavs, mostly was moved by the Goths.
And the origin is NW Poland, it seems.
Most Gothic tribes, after their migration, were asimilated as Slavic ethnics, except those that lived in Romania, which were assimilated as Romanians. A minority migrated to Italy and Spain.
Goths were East Germanic speakers, which is an extinct language and it seems they had a big role in the formation of Serbian,Croatian,Bosnian,Romanian nations.
Croatians are even called "Goths" in some historic writing.

It is also interesting to know what role had the Goths in the formation of the Slavs, since is clear that Slavs and Goths lived together, at least in Poland and in Ukraine. The Serbo-Croatian language has at least some cognates to Gothic language and even more weird some cognates to Swedish.
As for example how you call chair in Swedish and Serbo-Croatian, is kind of same word.
Only the Goths or the Varangians could explain these cognates. The Varangians, should have spoken Old Norse.


Gleb Svyatoslavovich which is a descendant of Rurik is I2-din.
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?15233-News-about-Rurikid-Y-DNA-Ingegerd-cheated-on-Yaroslav-I/page4
So we can suppose mister Rurik, a Varangian, was also some I2-din.

artemv
07-29-2019, 05:12 PM
Re #36 "First definitely Slav culture is Prague culture (or Prague-Korchak culture)"

I would rather stick to the current consensus which partly agrees with this statement (with the caveat that Prague is but one of the first Slav cultures since there are at least two other contemporary cultures (Penkivka, Kolochyn) which fit the requirement) to the extent that the statement is understood of cultures defined archaeologically and which also have the first known totally reliable documentary (historical) attestations. But Prague, Penkivka, and Kolochyn are themselves viewed in archaeological terms as all descending from the earlier Kyiv culture (southern Belarus, northern Ukraine, southwesternmost Russia) of ca. 200-450 CE which is the result of complex interactions between the late Zarubinian culture and a number of other forest cultures, with minor contributions from further west (incl. some Przeworsk elements). In fact it is this Kyiv culture (for what the testimony is worth) which seems referred to by Jordanes as "Venedi" when he discusses the Hermanaric 'empire'. Everything earlier is quite Proto- (so to speak) though the existence of a certain number of early elements of later Slavdom seems indubitable (perhaps it is better to say "many elements from earlier communities which blossomed in a new synthesis when Slavdom historically emerged".) But one cannot really say where the Y-3120 "father" of the "expanding" (eventually) "Slavic" I2a-Din (maybe we should start calling it I2a-Slav?) lived. Was it Germany? Was it Poland? Was it Ukraine? Russia? Belarus? Somewhere else? We just don't know. All I would argue is that whatever element(s) (whether R1a or I2a or something else) picked up and handed on the "God" word almost certainly lived very close to the Scythians (and was thus constituting itself ca. 530-3rd c. BCE acc. to current calculators).But one should not yet call it "Slavic" in the full sense===

As far as I know, there is still no consensus about Kiev culture being Slavic. But anyway, all the settlements of this culture have been burned down by Huns (typical Hun arrowheads are found on the burned settlements).
That was not only the fate of Kiev culture. Neighboring Cheniakiv, Przeworsk (this one is definitely closely related to Kiev culture and another candidate to be a proto-Slavic culture), Moshchiny cultures' settlements follow their fate.
Time inside Hun empire was somewhat important for proto-Slavs. There must be some groups of Kiev/Przework people who survived that hard period, probably on some terms incorporated inside Hun "state". They likely closely interacted with other groups inside Hun conglomerate, including those of German and Scythian descent. During and after Hun "state" collapse, those groups formed definitely Slavic cultures and quickly expanded, filling in the vacuum.

P.S. Slavs only started building kurgans only after Hun time. In Kiev, Przeworsk, Zarubinets cultures proto-Slavs didn't build kurgans, it came from steppe. So, it could happen that proto-Slavs didn't live on the border with Scythians for many generations, several generations during Hun time was enough.

P.S.S. I2a-Slav sounds good. Actually better than I2a-Din.

artemv
07-29-2019, 06:12 PM
If you take the formation time of most I2-din clades,those are fitting very well the prolonged migration of the Gothic tribes, not the migration of the Slavs.
That the Goths got absorbed later into the South Slavic,Polish,Ukrainian,Russian, Romanian and Hungarian nations that is a different thing.
According to archaeological evidences, the migration of the Gothic tribes started from NW Poland and they moved slowly towards South but also, towards East.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-Y3120/
See that most clades formed either 2200 ybp or 1800 ybp. That is clearly linked to the migrations of the Gothic tribes, not of the Slavic tribes.
There are some clades that are linked to the Varangians and some linked to the Slavs.

Why Goths? They formed Cherniakov culture, lived in Crimea, conquered Appenines and Iberia. We have results for Cherniakov culture - no I2a-Din. Same for pre-Slavic Crimea, Appenines and Iberia.
There is a number of cultures in East Europe, candidates for proto-Slavic. Some of them were expanding about 0 CE. Then was another wave of expansion about 500 CE.
Again, we do not have aDNA from Early Slaic or proto-Slavic cultures - and will not have because of cremation tradition.
But people come to this forum and again and again place I2a-Din to cultures that have been tested for aDNA and were found negative.

We have now enough results for Varangians and for pre-Viking era Scandinavia.
No I2a-Din in pre-Viking era Scandinavia. Only 2 people who are mostly Slavic autosomally are found among Variangians.
In case if I2a-Din was common among Viking, it would have been found in modern British Isles, Normandy, Scandinavia, Ireland. But its not.

Using Okkam's razor I would suppose the following route from the East for I2a-Din: Urnfield -> Lusatian -> Zarubinets/Przeworsk/Kiev -> all the Slavs cultures



Is obvious that those clades that appeared as a result of Slavic migration should have formed around 550-650 AD, so 1450 - 1350 ybp.
Those clades that are forming later, are related to the Varangians, the migration of this Swedish or Danish Viking tribe in Russia and also them fighting as mercenaries for the Byzantine Empire.

Again, we have enough Viking DNA. But until now only 2 people of definitly Slavic descent are I2a.

Sometimes new clads are formed without mass migration or rapid expansion.
Only "star-like" expansions are formed in case of mass migration or rapid expansion.



See that 5 persons with these basal I2-din clades found in Finland. Also, 9 in Greece from which 8 are having I2-din clades with formation time 1800 ybp - to 2200 ybp.

There is nothing strange about I2a-Din in Greece. There was mass Slav migration there.
Could you please tell me more about the basal I2a-Din clade in Finland?



Clearly, from the Gothic tribes.
So Y3120 is only partially moved by the Slavs, mostly was moved by the Goths.
And the origin is NW Poland, it seems.
Most Gothic tribes, after their migration, were asimilated as Slavic ethnics, except those that lived in Romania, which were assimilated as Romanians. A minority migrated to Italy and Spain.
Goths were East Germanic speakers, which is an extinct language and it seems they had a big role in the formation of Serbian,Croatian,Bosnian,Romanian nations.
Croatians are even called "Goths" in some historic writing.

Okkam's razor, again.

George
07-29-2019, 07:04 PM
Re #40 Re Kyivan culture: " all the settlements of this culture have been burned down by Huns " This is not true at all. Some settlements suffered, but the culture continued well into the 2nd half of the 5th c. even outliving the classical Huns. In any case the Kolochin and Penkivka cultures which developed on the basis of the Kyivan culture actually began to exist under the Huns and coexisted for some time with the mother Kyivan culture which slowly transmogrified. The Chernyakhiv (Gothic) culture disappeared not so much because of the Hun onslaught per se, but because at some point in the 430's the Huns ordered most of the Ostrogoths to resettle in Pannonia. The bulk of the Przeworsk Germanics also migrated southward. You are of course correct in pointing out that the Chernyakhiv remnants were subsequently incorporated into Slavic communities and assimilated. And you are also correct in stating that the Slavs were under Hunnish domination at least until the end of the Hunnish "empire". One interesting memory of this can be found in Procopius (utilizing an earlier unnamed source) who actually labeled the Sclavini and Antes as "Hunnish" (but perhaps he also did this because they were actively occupying the earlier Hun territory ). In any event the only major archaeologist who denies the Slavic character of the Kyivan culture is Sedov. He is a very good archaeologist but on this point he is off the mark. Terpilovsky is much more authoritative on this issue. IMHO. But of course you also are perfectly entitled to your opinion.

mihaitzateo
07-29-2019, 10:02 PM
ProtoSlavs and Goths lived together and that is written at historians, is shown by common words, etc.
Goths and Slavs were Goths or Slavs by their mother tongue, not by YDNA or mtDNA or autosomal DNA.

Is quite clear Goths migrated from Poland till in Greece and Chernyakhiv culture was mostly Gothic and protoSlavs living together.
Later, Goths from this culture become also Slavizied.These people migrated South and this was the Slavic migration from 600 AD.
And is quite clear that I2-din that formed 2200 ybp or 2100 ybp or 2000 ybp or up to 1800 ybp was not spread by the Slavic migration of 600 AD but by earlier Gothic migration.

Gothic people and Dacians were either allies or even speaking very close languages, because no one knows what language Dacians spoke, if it was Balto Slavic or East Germanic or something else.

Goths and Dacians did not just vanish from Romania, but they are the ancestors of Romanians.
As for stories with "Huns onslaught", those are just stories.

Actually is quite clear Gothic people were most close to our days Poles and Romanians and Ukrainians not to Danes or Germans.
Gothic tribes were not actually protoSlavs, but not far from ProtoSlavs, either.
R1A Slavs are of Baltic origins, I2 Slavs are of mostly Gothic origins, some came from NW Poland (Goths) some came still from Poland and South Baltic, seems NE Poland and Baltic (R1A Slavs).

artemv
07-29-2019, 11:41 PM
ProtoSlavs and Goths lived together and that is written at historians, is shown by common words, etc.
Goths and Slavs were Goths or Slavs by their mother tongue, not by YDNA or mtDNA or autosomal DNA.
Goths and Slavs interacted with each other, and Cherniakhov artefacts are found in Kievan settlements (for example).
But that were two different cultures, with different burial rites, e.t.c.



Is quite clear Goths migrated from Poland till in Greece and Chernyakhiv culture was mostly Gothic and protoSlavs living together.
Later, Goths from this culture become also Slavizied. These people migrated South and this was the Slavic migration from 600 AD.
And is quite clear that I2-din that formed 2200 ybp or 2100 ybp or 2000 ybp or up to 1800 ybp was not spread by the Slavic migration of 600 AD but by earlier Gothic migration.
Once again if Goths had high percent of I2a-Din they would have brought it to Italy and Spain also.
There was a number of small scale migrations of East European cultures 200 BCE - 400 CE. Highly likely that I2-Din took part in some of them. But you just ignore all of them.



Gothic people and Dacians were either allies or even speaking very close languages, because no one knows what language Dacians spoke, if it was Balto Slavic or East Germanic or something else.

Goths and Dacians did not just vanish from Romania, but they are the ancestors of Romanians.
As for stories with "Huns onslaught", those are just stories.
What you said actually means that there were 2 groups of Goths, one merged with Romanians another merged with Proto-Slavs, both were I2a-Din. That would mean several branches in I2-Din, splitting before 500 CE. But I do not see anything like this. There are no 1500 ybp or older branches of I2-Din that are found only, or mostly in Romania.
If "Huns onslaught" is just stories, than who burned down high number of settlements and brought typical Hun arrowheads there?



Actually is quite clear Gothic people were most close to our days Poles and Romanians and Ukrainians not to Danes or Germans.
Gothic tribes were not actually protoSlavs, but not far from ProtoSlavs, either.
R1A Slavs are of Baltic origins, I2 Slavs are of mostly Gothic origins, some came from NW Poland (Goths) some came still from Poland and South Baltic, seems NE Poland and Baltic (R1A Slavs).
Poles and Ukrainians share some common component with Romanians, but they are not that close to Romanians.
By the way, at that moment Balts were already a mixture of R1a and N, but that is just details.
More important that East Europe had a number of its own archeological cultures, that were not Baltic: Lusatian, Milograd, Zarubinets, Przeworsk, Kiev that likely played major role in Slav ethnogenezis. You just ignore all this cultures and say Slavs are a mixture of Goths and Balts. Why?

Dibran
07-30-2019, 12:39 AM
Goths and Slavs interacted with each other, and Cherniakhov artefacts are found in Kievan settlements (for example).
But that were two different cultures, with different burial rites, e.t.c.


Once again if Goths had high percent of I2a-Din they would have brought it to Italy and Spain also.
There was a number of small scale migrations of East European cultures 200 BCE - 400 CE. Highly likely that I2-Din took part in some of them. But you just ignore all of them.


What you said actually means that there were 2 groups of Goths, one merged with Romanians another merged with Proto-Slavs, both were I2a-Din. That would mean several branches in I2-Din, splitting before 500 CE. But I do not see anything like this. There are no 1500 ybp or older branches of I2-Din that are found only, or mostly in Romania.
If "Huns onslaught" is just stories, than who burned down high number of settlements and brought typical Hun arrowheads there?


Poles and Ukrainians share some common component with Romanians, but they are not that close to Romanians.
By the way, at that moment Balts were already a mixture of R1a and N, but that is just details.
More important that East Europe had a number of its own archeological cultures, that were not Baltic: Lusatian, Milograd, Zarubinets, Przeworsk, Kiev that likely played major role in Slav ethnogenezis. You just ignore all this cultures and say Slavs are a mixture of Goths and Balts. Why?

Because he’s I2a-Din himself, so admitting it’s connected to Slavs/Proto-Slavs would make him feel upset and insecure rather than viewing it within its proper context. Removing I2 from the mix makes it something else, it’s the unification of these that became Slavic. Hence why he tries to claim R1a is only Slavic because if neither were where does that leave Slavs? That and he doesn’t want to admit that Romania had a huge genetic impact from Slavic tribes. I have argued this with him on Eupedia and he’s just a broken record. Even the most common variety of I2-Din in Romanians is younger than other obviously Slavic clusters. Maybe there are Romanian sub-clusters but in his mind it’s either Gothic or Dacian.

Ownstyler
07-30-2019, 05:09 AM
There was a number of small scale migrations of East European cultures 200 BCE - 400 CE. Highly likely that I2-Din took part in some of them. But you just ignore all of them.

Which ones are you referring to here?

Bosniensis
07-30-2019, 05:31 AM
Because he’s I2a-Din himself, so admitting it’s connected to Slavs/Proto-Slavs would make him feel upset and insecure rather than viewing it within its proper context. Removing I2 from the mix makes it something else, it’s the unification of these that became Slavic. Hence why he tries to claim R1a is only Slavic because if neither were where does that leave Slavs? That and he doesn’t want to admit that Romania had a huge genetic impact from Slavic tribes. I have argued this with him on Eupedia and he’s just a broken record. Even the most common variety of I2-Din in Romanians is younger than other obviously Slavic clusters. Maybe there are Romanian sub-clusters but in his mind it’s either Gothic or Dacian.

Slavic presence in Romania exist from many years ago for example:

"Zyraxes was a Getae king who ruled the northern part of what is today Dobrogea in the 1st century BC. He was mentioned in relation with the campaigns of Marcus Licinius Crassus (grandson of the triumvir). His capital, Genucla, was besieged by the Romans in 28 BC, but he managed to escape and flee to his Scythian allies."

"Earlier, Antonius Hybrida, the governor of Moesia, was defeated beneath the walls of Histria in 61 BC. The Getae under Zyraxes and the bastarnae of Scythia were allied with the Histrians, but it seems that the main victors of this conflict were the Getae, as they were the keepers of the battle trophies and brought them back to Genucla, Zyraxes' capital."

The trophies were recovered by Marcus Licinius Crassus when he attacked the Genucla fortress, situated somewhere on the bank of the Danube, in 28 BC. Zyraxes knew well enough that he could not hold on his own and retreated across the Danube to the Bastarnae (Scythians), with whom he was allied, while also taking the treasure with him. The fortress fell in his absence, after a brief but hard siege.

mihaitzateo
07-30-2019, 09:58 AM
Santana de Mures culture is identical to Cherniakov culture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sântana_de_Mureș
Also, there are Romanians scoring some NE generic admixture that is very close to Polish/Ukrainian admixture.
The racial composition of Poland:
Most people are Baltid and a significant number Dinarids.
Racial composition of ex-Yugos - 70 or 75% are Dinarids, few to none Baltids.
So we can suppose those Baltids from Poland are associated with protoSlavs and Dinarids associated to Gothic tribes that later become Slavizied.
Romania has actually up to 40% I2-din in some areas.
History mentions that Romania was called between 280 or so and 450 "Gothia" and mentions massive Gothic tribes migration and settlements in Romania but does not mentions massive Slavic migrations in Romania.

I have talked with archaelogists from Romania that are actually doing diggings in Romania and is attested that in Romania lived mostly Dacians and Goths, together.


In regards to the presence of Gothic tribes in Spain, these Gothic tribes brought R1A in Spain, because as there were Goths that become Slavs, were also lots of Slavs that become Gothic ethnics.
See for example that in Cantabria R1A is 8.5%.

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

When history and archaelogy tells without doubt that Slavs and Gothic tribes lived together and that Dacians and Gothic tribes lived together, is quite clear that Goths left a serious genetic and cultural imprint in both Romanians and Slavs.
There is some Goth sample from Crimeea that is very close to SE Europe people and history tells that Goths were allowed to settle in high numbers in Byzantine Empire.
So supposing that Goths had only 1 paternal line and very close autosomal genetics might not be what really happened.
Also, Slavs were not uniform as genetics or paternal lines, is quite clear R1A-M458 is associated with Slavs, but not only with Slavs and Slavs had also Baltic people that become Slavs, which are R1A-Z280 and fewer Finnic ethnics that become Slavs, which are N1C or I1.
There are also Vikings that joined the Slavs, should be I1 mostly but also N1C.

As for the close relations between Poles and Danes and other Vikings, there can be opened another thread about that.

mihaitzateo
07-30-2019, 10:19 AM
These views that tell that "R1A and I2-din are Slavs only" are not supported by science.
Science and common knowledge tells that the ethnicity of someone is given by his mother tongue and the family in which he was raised.
So, is very hard to notice what mother tongue some I2-din bearer spoken, is possible to see his lifestyle which is given by archaelogy not by genetic testing.
Maybe speaking a different mother tongue and having a different lifestyle produces some fine changes in the autosomal DNA and in the bones, but science is not that advanced yet to notice that.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goths#Economy

As for the living style of early Slavs, did not found an article about that.
What I found is that Early Slavs from Poland ate a lot of mushrooms (which they harvested from the woods,that is quite logical).

Dibran
07-30-2019, 04:48 PM
These views that tell that "R1A and I2-din are Slavs only" are not supported by science.
Science and common knowledge tells that the ethnicity of someone is given by his mother tongue and the family in which he was raised.
So, is very hard to notice what mother tongue some I2-din bearer spoken, is possible to see his lifestyle which is given by archaelogy not by genetic testing.
Maybe speaking a different mother tongue and having a different lifestyle produces some fine changes in the autosomal DNA and in the bones, but science is not that advanced yet to notice that.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goths#Economy

As for the living style of early Slavs, did not found an article about that.
What I found is that Early Slavs from Poland ate a lot of mushrooms (which they harvested from the woods,that is quite logical).

It is irrelevant whether or not it may or may not have been initially something else. All we can tell right now is his only surviving son participated in the ethnogenesis of and expanded with the Slavic migrations. You cannot have Slavic ethnogenesis occur without mixing all 3 predominant lines(I2a1b-Din/R1a-Z280/R1a-M458). Remove one entirely back in time, and they were not Slavs but Proto-Balto-Slavs/Balto-Slavs(or whatever they labeled themselves). L1029 for instance formed 3000-3100ypb, however his only surviving descendant is between 2000-2100ypb. Regardless what he descended from, the one man left remaining spawned all the men with this marker today. It is unavoidable and doesn't help to create false narratives. Also, whilst not indicative, Proto-Slavs cremated their dead. Sure enough, finding I2a1b/M458 before migration has been a chore. Z280 is also not entirely Baltic, as Balts, and Slavs are connected ancestrally.

I will break this down as follows(keep in mind I may be missing some clades but this is everything I could gather).

I2a1b-Din-Y3120 makes up almost 100 percent of all I2a1b modern living men today, all of which descend from ONE man around 200BC.

The 3 main branches common in Romanians(all descendants of Y3120) are Y4460, Z17855, PH908, and some minimal Y5596.

Y4460 lived sometime around 100 BC who was ONE man that all branches under him descend. Within Y4460 Romanians mostly fall under Y3118(ancestor lived in 50AD), S8201(ancestor lived in 450AD), and SK1241(mostly common in Russia and Ukraine, living in 100BC). Nearly one third of I2a1b-Din in Romania only goes back to one man living in 100BC. This applies to Slavs(who dominate these clusters any way).

Z17855(probably more common in Romanians) lived sometime around 450AD! who was ONE man that all descending clades under him descend. His descendants A1221(550AD), A16413(800AD) make up the bulk of this cluster for Romanians, and by far one of the youngest descendants of Y3120. How a "Dacian or Gothic" cluster could descend from a cluster that became near entirely Slavic makes no sense.

Third most common which is without question connected to Slavs is PH908, who was ONE man living in 200AD. His descendants A356(lived 350AD), Y6651(1750AD), A8740(350AD), A13912(400AD one Bulgarian on Yfull).

Lastly, the least common but still represented is S17250, more specifically Y5596 who was ONE man that lived in 200AD.

Based on current evidence this is the most likely probability. If neither was Slavic, where does that leave the Slavs? Yes, every people have an ancestor in the ancient past, but when a new cultural ethnogenesis forms, it should be detectable, and it is. One survivor expanded out at the same time as other clades in R1a did, and even minimal ones in other haplogroups(even paleo-balkan) that demographically boomed with the Slavic migration.

Lets entertain that Dacians at least carried I2a1b, then it would likely be an extinct variety, and it wouldn't make the survivor any less Slavic as he with his descendants participated in their ethnogenesis.

Plashiputak
07-30-2019, 04:57 PM
Z17855(probably more common in Romanians) lived sometime around 450AD! who was ONE man that all descending clades under him descend. His descendants A1221(550AD), A16413(800AD) make up the bulk of this cluster for Romanians, and by far one of the youngest descendants of Y3120. How a "Dacian or Gothic" cluster could descend from a cluster that became near entirely Slavic makes no sense.


Based Avitohol.

mihaitzateo
07-30-2019, 06:53 PM
It is irrelevant whether or not it may or may not have been initially something else. All we can tell right now is his only surviving son participated in the ethnogenesis of and expanded with the Slavic migrations. You cannot have Slavic ethnogenesis occur without mixing all 3 predominant lines(I2a1b-Din/R1a-Z280/R1a-M458). Remove one entirely back in time, and they were not Slavs but Proto-Balto-Slavs/Balto-Slavs(or whatever they labeled themselves). L1029 for instance formed 3000-3100ypb, however his only surviving descendant is between 2000-2100ypb. Regardless what he descended from, the one man left remaining spawned all the men with this marker today. It is unavoidable and doesn't help to create false narratives. Also, whilst not indicative, Proto-Slavs cremated their dead. Sure enough, finding I2a1b/M458 before migration has been a chore. Z280 is also not entirely Baltic, as Balts, and Slavs are connected ancestrally.

I will break this down as follows(keep in mind I may be missing some clades but this is everything I could gather).

I2a1b-Din-Y3120 makes up almost 100 percent of all I2a1b modern living men today, all of which descend from ONE man around 200BC.

The 3 main branches common in Romanians(all descendants of Y3120) are Y4460, Z17855, PH908, and some minimal Y5596.

Y4460 lived sometime around 100 BC who was ONE man that all branches under him descend. Within Y4460 Romanians mostly fall under Y3118(ancestor lived in 50AD), S8201(ancestor lived in 450AD), and SK1241(mostly common in Russia and Ukraine, living in 100BC). Nearly one third of I2a1b-Din in Romania only goes back to one man living in 100BC. This applies to Slavs(who dominate these clusters any way).

Z17855(probably more common in Romanians) lived sometime around 450AD! who was ONE man that all descending clades under him descend. His descendants A1221(550AD), A16413(800AD) make up the bulk of this cluster for Romanians, and by far one of the youngest descendants of Y3120. How a "Dacian or Gothic" cluster could descend from a cluster that became near entirely Slavic makes no sense.

Third most common which is without question connected to Slavs is PH908, who was ONE man living in 200AD. His descendants A356(lived 350AD), Y6651(1750AD), A8740(350AD), A13912(400AD one Bulgarian on Yfull).

Lastly, the least common but still represented is S17250, more specifically Y5596 who was ONE man that lived in 200AD.

Based on current evidence this is the most likely probability. If neither was Slavic, where does that leave the Slavs? Yes, every people have an ancestor in the ancient past, but when a new cultural ethnogenesis forms, it should be detectable, and it is. One survivor expanded out at the same time as other clades in R1a did, and even minimal ones in other haplogroups(even paleo-balkan) that demographically boomed with the Slavic migration.

Lets entertain that Dacians at least carried I2a1b, then it would likely be an extinct variety, and it wouldn't make the survivor any less Slavic as he with his descendants participated in their ethnogenesis.

Well, the table that I have posted earlier with basal I2-din shows that are 2 basal I2-din formed 2200 YBP (around 200 BC) found already in Poland, are basal clades formed 2100 YBP found in Greece etc.
Here these 2 I2-din formed 2200 YBP from Poland:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-Y3120*/
Here is someone from Greece with his I2-din formed 2100 YBP:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-Y158862/
Another 2 persons with their I2-din clade formed 2100 YBP from Greece:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-A2512/

So the theory that all persons come from a single person, that carried I2-din are quite hard to explain,if we do not take into account the migration of the Gothic tribes, how the descendants of those persons got from NW Poland to Greece in 100 years?

The earliest I2-din found is in Sweden and it would be quite hard for that person to have been Slavic or BaltoSlavic speaker, but there is a possibility that he was protoGermanic speaker. Or he was not even IE speaker, because that was 6000 BC.
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?623-Indo-European-Homeland-and-Migrations-Linguistics-Archeology-and-DNA/page4&styleid=2

Pribislav
07-30-2019, 07:29 PM
The earliest I2-din found is in Sweden and it would be quite hard for that person to have been Slavic or BaltoSlavic speaker, but there is a possibility that he was protoGermanic speaker. Or he was not even IE speaker, because that was 6000 BC.
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?623-Indo-European-Homeland-and-Migrations-Linguistics-Archeology-and-DNA/page4&styleid=2

I2-Din didn't exist 6000 BC, so it couldn't have been found in Sweden, or anywhere else for that matter.

Dibran
07-30-2019, 08:04 PM
Well, the table that I have posted earlier with basal I2-din shows that are 2 basal I2-din formed 2200 YBP (around 200 BC) found already in Poland, are basal clades formed 2100 YBP found in Greece etc.
Here these 2 I2-din formed 2200 YBP from Poland:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-Y3120*/
Here is someone from Greece with his I2-din formed 2100 YBP:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-Y158862/
Another 2 persons with their I2-din clade formed 2100 YBP from Greece:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-A2512/

So the theory that all persons come from a single person, that carried I2-din are quite hard to explain,if we do not take into account the migration of the Gothic tribes, how the descendants of those persons got from NW Poland to Greece in 100 years?

The earliest I2-din found is in Sweden and it would be quite hard for that person to have been Slavic or BaltoSlavic speaker, but there is a possibility that he was protoGermanic speaker. Or he was not even IE speaker, because that was 6000 BC.
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?623-Indo-European-Homeland-and-Migrations-Linguistics-Archeology-and-DNA/page4&styleid=2

You’re a little all over the place. You’re mentioning ancient samples which have no modern descendants. Nearly 100 percent of all I2a1b-Din comes from one survivor where the rest died out.

Those basal examples are far and inbetween. They’re also modern living men. Assuming their position based on a modern sample is not always indicative. It also doesn’t change what’s been plainly stated.

It’s not hard to explain. If you carry mutation X, your son will carry X plus their own unique mutation. His son will inherit all mutations from his father and the father before him. If there was another brother who had sons, his unique mutation would be passed to the next son but not shared with his nephew from his brother.

Every living I2a1b man today by these set of mutations all descend from that ONE man due to a line of succession and not a group of men. Those ancient samples are irrelevant because they predate the formation of the clade which EVERY I2a1b-Din mostly belongs.

Example:

Let’s treat I2a as a set of brothers. I2a1b1 and I2a1b2. They both split from their father I2a1b, yet they carry a mutation unique to them. If I2a1b1 dies and only his brother I2a1b2 has sons, none of those future descendants would be from I2a1b1 because his line died out. Regardless of them sharing the same father.

There was only ONE man carrying THIS specific clade around 200BC. All men discovered up to this point are descended from that one man whilst the rest presumably died out and were unsuccessful. Otherwise, just like I2a1b-Din has clades branching out under it, so too should there be other brothers of CTS10228 splitting as well. Yet all the descendants alive of CTS10228 so far come from one man in 200BC.

CTS4002 is the ancestor of CTS10228, his other sons are only found minimally today in northwest Europe. His son CTS10228 joined Proto Slavs likely sometime in the Iron Age when Proto Slavs were forming.

There’s really no other way around that. Even if they found another I2a1b-Din that’s separate from the survivor, modern descendants of his brother shouldn’t carry the differential SNP.

mihaitzateo
07-30-2019, 08:15 PM
Where is the proof that all I2-din males living today are the descendants of only 1 male?
We can suppose that, based on the existing data, but the existing data can be interpreted in different ways.
I find hard to believe these theories that I2-din which is spread on such large geographic area has only 1 ancestor.

So I am keeping my opinion that most of the I2-din was spread with the Gothic migrations.
Normally a part was spread by the Slavic migration from 600 AD.
To add I2a1b is not actually I2-din .I2-din is I2a1b-L621.
I2a1b have also some branch that is found in Ireland and British Isles, I2a1b-L161.1.This is also found in Germany.

mihaitzateo
07-30-2019, 08:21 PM
To answer the Original Poster question, his branch,I-S17250 have basal individuals found in:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-S17250/
Bulgaria,Hungaria,Croatia,Bosnia,Montenegro.

Formed 2200 years ago.

I2-din is also found at significant percentages in Hungarians - 16% or so.
That these people are from assimilated Slavs or Ostrogoths or Dacians or other Germanic tribes, or even Magyar ethnics that I do not know.
Magyars on their way from Urals to Hungary assimilated at least some people, on their migration road.

Trojet
07-30-2019, 08:25 PM
P.S.S. I2a-Slav sounds good. Actually better than I2a-Din.

:thumb:

artemv
07-30-2019, 10:26 PM
To answer the Original Poster question, his branch,I-S17250 have basal individuals found in:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-S17250/
Bulgaria,Hungaria,Croatia,Bosnia,Montenegro.

Formed 2200 years ago.

I2-din is also found at significant percentages in Hungarians - 16% or so.
That these people are from assimilated Slavs or Ostrogoths or Dacians or other Germanic tribes, or even Magyar ethnics that I do not know.
Magyars on their way from Urals to Hungary assimilated at least some people, on their migration road.

I have talked to moderators of I2-P37 project on FTDNA about those samples.
They told me, that first BigY tests from FTDNA actually sequensed lesser part of Y chromosome, than recent BigY-500, and that is why those people are shown as those that are not recognized to what branch of S17250 they do belong - their test results are not good enough to be assigned to a downstream branch. Some of them later took additional test and belong to known downstream branches of S17250.

If you check S17250 braches, formed before 1500 ybp you will understand how rapidly Slavs advanced. S17250 can be found in all modern Slav countries, and also in neighboring countries influenced by Slavs genetically and/or having significant Slavic minorities (Romania, Moldavia, Hungary - and laso at lower rate Greece, Germany, Albania, Baltic countries).

So, please do not talk about different Germanic tribes. Likely non of them was rich in S17250.
Modern Hungarians speak non-IE language, but genetically they are closer to West Slavs than to any Ugro-Finn speaking group. I just remind, that West Slavs lived in on the territory that later became Hungary before Madyar invasion.

ph2ter
07-30-2019, 11:03 PM
Where is the proof that all I2-din males living today are the descendants of only 1 male?
We can suppose that, based on the existing data, but the existing data can be interpreted in different ways.
I find hard to believe these theories that I2-din which is spread on such large geographic area has only 1 ancestor.

So I am keeping my opinion that most of the I2-din was spread with the Gothic migrations.
Normally a part was spread by the Slavic migration from 600 AD.
To add I2a1b is not actually I2-din .I2-din is I2a1b-L621.
I2a1b have also some branch that is found in Ireland and British Isles, I2a1b-L161.1.This is also found in Germany.

You don't understand anything. Of course that they all descend from only one man living in 200 BC.

artemv
07-30-2019, 11:20 PM
Where is the proof that all I2-din males living today are the descendants of only 1 male?
We can suppose that, based on the existing data, but the existing data can be interpreted in different ways.
I find hard to believe these theories that I2-din which is spread on such large geographic area has only 1 ancestor.

So I am keeping my opinion that most of the I2-din was spread with the Gothic migrations.
Normally a part was spread by the Slavic migration from 600 AD.

Every Y-happlogroup descendants by direct male line from just a single male. This is the definition of Y-happlogroup.
So, you do not know what is a Y-chromosome haplogroup, but argue about your theories with those, who know.
Please, read about Y-chromosome happlogroups, SNPs, recombination, TMRCA before returning with your theories.

I2-din means Y3120. It's TMRCA is 2200 ybp (ybp means years before present). This means, that there was one man, who lived approx. 2200 years ago, who is direct male line ancestor of all current I2-Y3120.


To add I2a1b is not actually I2-din .I2-din is I2a1b-L621.
I2a1b have also some branch that is found in Ireland and British Isles, I2a1b-L161.1.This is also found in Germany.

I2-Din is usually defined as I2-Y3120. Those who are I2a1b-L621, bur not Y3120, are usually called "Disles".
Both "Din" and "Disles" are not that good terms from my point of view, but they became common.

P.S. There is a common Russian saying "Just stop arguing about oysters' taste with those, who ate them".

Bosniensis
07-30-2019, 11:31 PM
I2-Din didn't exist 6000 BC, so it couldn't have been found in Sweden, or anywhere else for that matter.

There is no difference between I2-Din or any other I2 it's just a mutation.

The first I2-Din had a father who was not I2-Din but some other I2 branch.

artemv
07-30-2019, 11:38 PM
Where is the proof that all I2-din males living today are the descendants of only 1 male?
We can suppose that, based on the existing data, but the existing data can be interpreted in different ways.
I find hard to believe these theories that I2-din which is spread on such large geographic area has only 1 ancestor.

So I am keeping my opinion that most of the I2-din was spread with the Gothic migrations.
Normally a part was spread by the Slavic migration from 600 AD.
To add I2a1b is not actually I2-din .I2-din is I2a1b-L621.
I2a1b have also some branch that is found in Ireland and British Isles, I2a1b-L161.1.This is also found in Germany.

You don't understand anything. Of course that they all descend from only one man living in 200 BC.

You see, ph2ter, by some reason such people prefer to build their theories about our happlogroup.
:bored:

Dibran
07-30-2019, 11:52 PM
There is no difference between I2-Din or any other I2 it's just a mutation.

The first I2-Din had a father who was not I2-Din but some other I2 branch.

That’s besides the point. Something you either willingly ignore or for some mystical reason cannot comprehend. If you have 10 sons who spread to the 4 corners of the earth from Central Europe with all dying out but one in Northern Europe surviving and whose descendants would expand generations later under a different identity, you cannot possibly descend from the other brothers who participated in other cultures your actual earliest ancestor never took part in.

That’s the whole point of YDNA. Your earliest MRCA was only ONE man that lived around 200AD(PH908), and his ancestor whom ALL I2a1b-Din descend(Y3120) lived around 200BC.

Even if for the sake of argument the Thracians or Dacians carried some variety of I2a1b it is not related to Y3120. And even if Y3120 was the last of a surviving Dacian, he seemed to have joined and all HIS descendants expanded with the Slavic migrations.

Considering it’s already believed to have been nestled early on around 500BC or earlier, chances are Y3120 was already Proto-Slavic before the last remaining descendant experience a boom during the migration wave.

The idea that a clade only 2200 years old could have descendants from so many different ancient cultures makes absolutely no sense. Something coming after cannot come before it’s ancestor.

No modern culture is a direct continuation of an ancient one. Everything including ethno-genetic evolution constantly changes.

The survivors of old cultures mix and create new cultures. As a result new clusters can form, whose descendants would come from the new culture and only loosely connected to the old. Yes there is no I2a1b-Din in paleo-Balkans. Even if we do, it’s surviving descendant and all his descendants expanded with Slavs. Of course through process of cross assimilation, subclusters formed specific to some cultures than others. So there’s I2-Serb clusters and Romanian clusters etc. his earliest ancestor was still a Proto-Slav.

They were very successful with limited technologies and had early aspects of democracy without monarchy(during paganism). The Slavs have a lot to be proud of. No reason to cheapen your history with being related to tribes that did not survive outside of Albanians and Greeks.

George
07-31-2019, 02:07 PM
Language, ethnicity, statehood have absolutely nothing to do with genetics. Genetics are an interesting but (to me at least and I suspect many others) totally undefining accompaniment of the former categories. I can understand people battling about these "formers". I cannot understand (i.e. see anything rational) about people battling re genetics unless they illegitimately confuse all of these categories. Voila. Dixi. And that's it for me. :beerchug::amen::angel:

Moderator
07-31-2019, 03:24 PM
[MOD]

Multiple personalizing, inflammatory and/or OT posts deleted due to their breach of the following sections of our Terms:



3.11 Certain standards of quality control will be enforced to ensure a productive forum atmosphere. Invectives and posts devoid of substance (e.g. threads or replies consisting solely of inflammatory content or triviality) will be considered junk postings and deleted. Breaches in basic forum etiquette include (and are not limited to) cross-posting different threads, consecutive posting in existing threads and reviving old threads whose course of discussion has long since expired ("necro-bumping").
...

3.13 Anthrogenica encourages its members to participate in discussions in a topic-focused manner. Personalization of discussions is completely prohibited at all times. This includes (and is not limited to) direct personal attacks, accusations, insinuations and false disclosures. Additionally, discussions that degenerate into inconsequential flaming or inanity will be deleted without prior notice. Note that this discussion policy also applies to Anthrogenica's Private Messaging and Visitor Message functions.


Infractions will be applied to the offending users in keeping with our Infraction Protocol.

We remind members to not engage with what they deem to be "trollish" content in a tit-for-tat manner - You're setting yourself up for infractions by being complicit in the uncivil discourse.

We also remind members to report content to us rather than engaging in the above.

Thanks for your cooperation.

NOTE: One post was deleted in error and has been restored.

mihaitzateo
07-31-2019, 08:26 PM
Romanians from Muntenia plains and Oltenia plains resemble very well, from a cultural point of view,to Goths,not to Slavs.
Romanians from Moldavia and Transylvania and Muntenia and Oltenia highlands resemble better, from a cultural point of view, the Dacians.
If you would do a little research you will see that Slavs and Goths living style was different.
For example Slavs are mentioned to not eating chicken meat, because they considered it reduces their strength.
While eating chicken meat is very common in all Romania.
Also, Visigoths are mentioned to raise goats and sheeps, and raising goats is more common in Muntenia and Oltenia plains.
Slavs are not mentioned to raise goats or sheeps.
The raising of sheep at Romanians is from the Dacians.
Also, in Muntenia and Oltenia plains main cereal is Wheat while in Moldavia and Transylvania main cereal is corn.
Visigoths are mentioned to mostly raise Wheat.
Slavs has as traditional eating carp and in most Romania people do not like to eat Carp, except the people that are of part or full Slavic ancestry.
Gothic tribes are also mentioned to be very skilled in pottery.
Romania peasants had as traditional to make poterry,at home.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goths#Economy

http://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/27.html
Also, Romanians had as traditional from Dacians and Goths to wear sheep furs or clothes made of wool and also, clothes made of linen for the summer.
Slavs are mentioned to wear wild animals furs.
Romanians were not wearing wild animals furs.

mihaitzateo
07-31-2019, 08:31 PM
The genetic argument:
Is hard to have only 1 single person from which all I2-din have branched, for the simple reason that are persons with basal I2-din that originated 2200 YBP in Poland and persons with basal I2-din that originated 2100 YBP in Greece.So, my opinion is based on archaelogical,cultural,logical and even genetic data, realistic data, not suppositions as " all persons that bear I2-din are descending from a single person that lived 2200 YBP which was Slavic ethnic and all this I2-din was spread by Slavic migration from 600 AD".


The supposition that all I2-din beareres from our days are descendants from 1 single person that lived 2200 YBP and was proto-Slav and were brought by Slavic migration, is not even making sense, if we are taking the things logical and realistic.
Is not even known that Slavic language existed 2200 YBP.

The supposition " " all persons that bear I2-din are descending from a single person that lived 2200 YBP which was Slavic ethnic and all this I2-din was spread by Slavic migration from 600 AD".
is less credible, from my point of view, than the fairytales.
Is plain nonsense, from my point of view.


Is plain nonsense, from my point of view.

We can even tell that modern Slavs are descending from fairies and some I2-din mythical Slav bearer, that had the ability to teleport, from Poland, to Greece, to Russia and other places.
This mythical protoSlav bearing I2-din had children with various Fairies, which existed in Greece, Russia, Poland, Belarus and so on.

This is how is explained how various basal I2-din clades with the year of formation 2200-2100 YPB exist in such a large geographical area.

ph2ter
07-31-2019, 09:04 PM
Romanians from Muntenia plains and Oltenia plains resemble very well, from a cultural point of view,to Goths,not to Slavs.
Romanians from Moldavia and Transylvania and Muntenia and Oltenia highlands resemble better, from a cultural point of view, the Dacians.
If you would do a little research you will see that Slavs and Goths living style was different.
For example Slavs are mentioned to not eating chicken meat, because they considered it reduces their strength.
While eating chicken meat is very common in all Romania.
Also, Visigoths are mentioned to raise goats and sheeps, and raising goats is more common in Muntenia and Oltenia plains.
Slavs are not mentioned to raise goats or sheeps.
The raising of sheep at Romanians is from the Dacians.
Also, in Muntenia and Oltenia plains main cereal is Wheat while in Moldavia and Transylvania main cereal is corn.
Visigoths are mentioned to mostly raise Wheat.
Slavs has as traditional eating carp and in most Romania people do not like to eat Carp, except the people that are of part or full Slavic ancestry.
Gothic tribes are also mentioned to be very skilled in pottery.
Romania peasants had as traditional to make poterry,at home.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goths#Economy

http://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/27.html
Also, Romanians had as traditional from Dacians and Goths to wear sheep furs or clothes made of wool and also, clothes made of linen for the summer.
Slavs are mentioned to wear wild animals furs.
Romanians were not wearing wild animals furs.
Please, say me that you are just kidding. Total nonsense.

Corn is introduced to Europe after the discovery of America.

Dorkymon
07-31-2019, 09:16 PM
Romanians from Muntenia plains and Oltenia plains resemble very well, from a cultural point of view,to Goths,not to Slavs.
Romanians from Moldavia and Transylvania and Muntenia and Oltenia highlands resemble better, from a cultural point of view, the Dacians.
If you would do a little research you will see that Slavs and Goths living style was different.
For example Slavs are mentioned to not eating chicken meat, because they considered it reduces their strength.
While eating chicken meat is very common in all Romania.
Also, Visigoths are mentioned to raise goats and sheeps, and raising goats is more common in Muntenia and Oltenia plains.
Slavs are not mentioned to raise goats or sheeps.
The raising of sheep at Romanians is from the Dacians.
Also, in Muntenia and Oltenia plains main cereal is Wheat while in Moldavia and Transylvania main cereal is corn.
Visigoths are mentioned to mostly raise Wheat.
Slavs has as traditional eating carp and in most Romania people do not like to eat Carp, except the people that are of part or full Slavic ancestry.
Gothic tribes are also mentioned to be very skilled in pottery.
Romania peasants had as traditional to make poterry,at home.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goths#Economy

http://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/27.html
Also, Romanians had as traditional from Dacians and Goths to wear sheep furs or clothes made of wool and also, clothes made of linen for the summer.
Slavs are mentioned to wear wild animals furs.
Romanians were not wearing wild animals furs.

Can you take your Gothic wet dream to another thread (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/38842-The-Goths-thread) please?

JonikW
07-31-2019, 09:27 PM
Corn is introduced to Europe after the discovery of America.

I know this is a side issue and I'm not defending the usage of the word in the above post before ph2ter's, but it may be of interest to non native English speakers here. Corn in English always referred to grains in general, whether wheat, barley or whatever. That's why Americans called maize by the name corn, because it was a cereal crop and reminded them of familiar grains. When I was a kid in the UK we always called wheatfields cornfields, and you'll still see that usage in many books.

oz
07-31-2019, 09:41 PM
Can you take your Gothic wet dream to another thread (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/38842-The-Goths-thread) please?

Well it's always been a hot topic. (pun intended)

ph2ter
07-31-2019, 09:59 PM
I know this is a side issue and I'm not defending the usage of the word in the above post before ph2ter's, but it may be of interest to non native English speakers here. Corn in English always referred to grains in general, whether wheat, barley or whatever. That's why Americans called maize by the name corn, because it was a cereal crop and reminded them of familiar grains. When I was a kid in the UK we always called wheatfields cornfields, and you'll still see that usage in many books.

I know that mihaitzateo's intended meaning of corn was maize.

artemv
08-01-2019, 05:06 AM
Romanians from Muntenia plains and Oltenia plains resemble very well, from a cultural point of view,to Goths,not to Slavs.
Romanians from Moldavia and Transylvania and Muntenia and Oltenia highlands resemble better, from a cultural point of view, the Dacians.
If you would do a little research you will see that Slavs and Goths living style was different.
For example Slavs are mentioned to not eating chicken meat, because they considered it reduces their strength.
While eating chicken meat is very common in all Romania.
Also, Visigoths are mentioned to raise goats and sheeps, and raising goats is more common in Muntenia and Oltenia plains.
Slavs are not mentioned to raise goats or sheeps.
The raising of sheep at Romanians is from the Dacians.
Also, in Muntenia and Oltenia plains main cereal is Wheat while in Moldavia and Transylvania main cereal is corn.
Visigoths are mentioned to mostly raise Wheat.
Slavs has as traditional eating carp and in most Romania people do not like to eat Carp, except the people that are of part or full Slavic ancestry.
Gothic tribes are also mentioned to be very skilled in pottery.
Romania peasants had as traditional to make poterry,at home.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goths#Economy

http://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/27.html
Also, Romanians had as traditional from Dacians and Goths to wear sheep furs or clothes made of wool and also, clothes made of linen for the summer.
Slavs are mentioned to wear wild animals furs.
Romanians were not wearing wild animals furs.

This post does not contain any arguements at all.
1. None of your opponent says that medieval Vlachs had the same culture as Early Slavs - the differences were significant. Same is true about Cherniakiv culture - they had close contacts with Slavs, but were not Slavic themselves. So, even if you find correct points about Early Slav and Goth/Romanized Dacian cultural diffrences, they will change nothing - just because these cultural differences do not contradict to your opponents' point.
The point is that Slavs took some part in Romanian ethnogenesis (as well as Goths and Romanized Dacians) - and their DNA can be found in modern Romanians. Yes, including the Y3120 "I2a-Din" Slavic Y-happlogroup, which is quite common in Romania.
2. This your post contains several comparisons of Early Medieval Slavs to modern Romanians. That's not correct to make such comparisons.
3. It looks like you know very little about Early Slav culture, quite like you do not understand the very basics of genetics.
Early Slavs are rarely mentioned in writted sources, so most information we have about them is from archeology.
Goat and sheep bones are often found in Early Slav settlements and also in supposed proto-Slav cultures.
A number of Romanian words, connected to animal husbandary, have Slavic etymology. You can read this info even in wikipedia.

artemv
08-01-2019, 05:26 AM
The genetic argument:
Is hard to have only 1 single person from which all I2-din have branched, for the simple reason that are persons with basal I2-din that originated 2200 YBP in Poland and persons with basal I2-din that originated 2100 YBP in Greece.So, my opinion is based on archaelogical,cultural,logical and even genetic data, realistic data, not suppositions as " all persons that bear I2-din are descending from a single person that lived 2200 YBP which was Slavic ethnic and all this I2-din was spread by Slavic migration from 600 AD".


The supposition that all I2-din beareres from our days are descendants from 1 single person that lived 2200 YBP and was proto-Slav and were brought by Slavic migration, is not even making sense, if we are taking the things logical and realistic.
Is not even known that Slavic language existed 2200 YBP.

The supposition " " all persons that bear I2-din are descending from a single person that lived 2200 YBP which was Slavic ethnic and all this I2-din was spread by Slavic migration from 600 AD".
is less credible, from my point of view, than the fairytales.
Is plain nonsense, from my point of view.


Is plain nonsense, from my point of view.

We can even tell that modern Slavs are descending from fairies and some I2-din mythical Slav bearer, that had the ability to teleport, from Poland, to Greece, to Russia and other places.
This mythical protoSlav bearing I2-din had children with various Fairies, which existed in Greece, Russia, Poland, Belarus and so on.

This is how is explained how various basal I2-din clades with the year of formation 2200-2100 YPB exist in such a large geographical area.

Some sort of proto-Slav language existed 2200 ybp. And there is no doubt that I2a-Din was already present in some proto-Slav community at the beginning of CE - a number of people already wrote you enough arguements about this. The problem is that some basic knowledge of genetics is required to understand your opponents' arguements - and you do not even know what is a Y-chromosome happlogroup. Instead of spending some time to get some basic information on the topic before posting, you call modern genetics "a fairy tale" and "plain nonsense".

oz
08-01-2019, 08:50 AM
Slavs are mythical fairies? lol first time I've heard that one.

Plashiputak
08-01-2019, 12:56 PM
Early Slavs are rarely mentioned in writted sources, so most information we have about them is from archeology.
Goat and sheep bones are often found in Early Slav settlements and also in supposed proto-Slav cultures.


Don't you see the problem with that? Not mentioned in sources and the defining qualities is goat and sheep. No wonder everyone in eastern europe gets the "slav" label.

Let's see what some sources say:

"The Bulgar and Slavic settlements cannot be distinguished other than by the type of biritual cemeteries" - Fiedler, Uwe (2008). "Bulgars in the Lower Danube region: A survey of the archaeological evidence and of the state of current research"

And a more recent one: "The idea of a single (archaeological) culture in the steppe and forest-steppe lands north of the Black Sea is therefore not contradicted by the multiple ethnic names mentioned for this region in the 6th-century sources. Despite continuous military conflict between the Cutrigurs and the Utigurs, which may have sharpened the ethnic distinctions between the two groups, when prompted by Emperor Justinian to attack Zabergan and his Cutrigurs, the Utigur chieftain Sandilkh refused. His reason was that the Utigurs and the Cutrigurs spoke after all the same language, had the same dwellings, dressed in the same way, and lived similar lives (Menander the Guardsman, frg. 12.6, in Blockley 1985, 138-139)."
https://www.academia.edu/38961942/Ethnicity_in_the_steppe_lands_of_the_northern_Blac k_Sea_region_during_the_early_Byzantine_times?fbcl id=IwAR14vtAD8jLIp1c-mUV2JoW5KyqOvPEqRNckjX6bnCzxfIC8Gdbg9gKodh0

I'm not saying that I2a1b was spread by Bulgars, but there are far better documented candidates and people living during that time, than slavs. But, of course people can put them in the same group and call them slavs, as with the female Avar samples, the magyar conqueror samples, the moldovan Scythian samples, the alan samples.

artemv
08-01-2019, 01:50 PM
Don't you see the problem with that? Not mentioned in sources and the defining qualities is goat and sheep. No wonder everyone in eastern europe gets the "slav" label.

You probably do not understand well what I wrote.
Goat and sheep are in no way the defining qualities.
I just replied to mihaitzateo that he was wrong in his statement about Slavs who were "not mentioned" raising goats and sheep.



"The Bulgar and Slavic settlements cannot be distinguished other than by the type of biritual cemeteries" - Fiedler, Uwe (2008). "Bulgars in the Lower Danube region: A survey of the archaeological evidence and of the state of current research"

You are talking here about different time period - not about Early Slav expantions of 6th century, but about time when Bulgars (originally turkish-speaking eastern nomads) already almost finished the process of adopting Slavic culture and Slavic language.



And a more recent one: "The idea of a single (archaeological) culture in the steppe and forest-steppe lands north of the Black Sea is therefore not contradicted by the multiple ethnic names mentioned for this region in the 6th-century sources. Despite continuous military conflict between the Cutrigurs and the Utigurs, which may have sharpened the ethnic distinctions between the two groups, when prompted by Emperor Justinian to attack Zabergan and his Cutrigurs, the Utigur chieftain Sandilkh refused. His reason was that the Utigurs and the Cutrigurs spoke after all the same language, had the same dwellings, dressed in the same way, and lived similar lives (Menander the Guardsman, frg. 12.6, in Blockley 1985, 138-139)."

Cutrigurs and Utigurs were nomad tribes, of Eastern origin. Such a contrast to sedentary Slavs.
Why do you mention them?



I'm not saying that I2a1b was spread by Bulgars, but there are far better documented candidates and people living during that time, than slavs. But, of course people can put them in the same group and call them slavs, as with the female Avar samples, the magyar conqueror samples, the moldovan Scythian samples, the alan samples.

Once again, Slavs had common culture, common language (after some time after inital migtaion - group of closely related languages) and similar genetics. That woman, buried according to Avar's customs, was genetically very close to Slavs.
That is why she was called Slavic.

What are the better candidates?

Dorkymon
08-01-2019, 01:51 PM
I'm not saying that I2a1b was spread by Bulgars, but there are far better documented candidates and people living during that time, than slavs. But, of course people can put them in the same group and call them slavs, as with the female Avar samples, the magyar conqueror samples, the moldovan Scythian samples, the alan samples.

Bulgars and other medieval Turkics like the Pechenegs/Cumans would probably come mostly under J2a1 IMO.

What differentiates the Eastern side of Southeast Europe (Romania, Moldova, Bulgaria, parts of Ukraine) from the Western one (Serbs, Croats, Albania) is the dominance of J2a1 in the East as opposed to J2b's dominance in the West. J2a1 is the primary lineage among modern Central Asian Turkics, but also popular among Greeks. Being quite old, they are not necessarily connected, so we need a comprehensive picture downstream to understand what stems from Greeks and what's from Turkics.

Plashiputak
08-01-2019, 02:31 PM
Check my source, it explains the region very well:
"Obsessed with linking particular groups known from the written sources to archaeological assemblages or cultures, archaeologists have neglected the accumulation over the last few years of data on the steppe lands north of the Black Sea during the 6th and 7th centuries. Many are still guided in the interpretation of those data by an uncritical understanding of the written sources."

Cutrigurs and Utigurs lived next to to the Chernyakhov culture. Following the Antes, Penkovka culture: "In fact, given the emphasis now placed upon to the presence of “nomadic” elements on settlement sites attributed to the Pen’kivka culture, the case has been made even stronger (Приходнюк 1990; Володарець-Урбанович 2009; Kazanski 2012109). If so, how is this interpretation to be squared with the results of the analysis of the written sources?"

You can check wikipedia, if you dont want to read the source. The sedentary slavs adopted steppe metalworking and funerals, the tribes attested to be slavs were wiped out by different steppe or byzantine armies, then comes the magical expansion. Its not very convenient, if no one writes about them or there is no continuation in archeology, to put "common culture, common language".

Here, one more source: http://s3.amazonaws.com/arena-attachments/2735566/36fe75caa519b7645dd2191808522bb7.pdf?1537391013

"The making of the Slavs was less a matter of ethnogenesis and more one of invention, imagining and labeling by Byzantine authors."

"There are good reasons to believe that this identity was much more complex than the doublet “Sclavenes-Antes” imposed by the Byzantine historiography.Book iiof the Miracles of St Demetrius and Fredegar’s chronicle give us a measure of this complexity. That no “Slavs” called themselves by this name not only indicates that no group took on the label imposed by out-siders, but also suggests that this label was more a pedantic construction than the result of systematic interaction across ethnic boundaries. The Wrst clear statement that “we are Slavs” comes from the twelfth-centuryRussian Primary Chronicle.24With this chronicle, however, the making of the Slavs ends and another story begins: that of their “national” use for claims to ancestry"

George
08-01-2019, 03:35 PM
This thread might be of great interest to psychologists as offering multiple examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

digital_noise
08-01-2019, 04:00 PM
This thread might be of great interest to psychologists as offering multiple examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

Hold on,let me go read a wikipedia article and form my counter-argument

oz
08-01-2019, 04:57 PM
This thread might be of great interest to psychologists as offering multiple examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

It's also an example of why the Balkans have mostly a negative reputation in the world. Sometimes I'm actually glad that I moved out from that place even though it was because of a retarded and completely useless war.

Dorkymon
08-01-2019, 05:54 PM
Damned Balkanites, they ruined the Balkans!

mihaitzateo
08-01-2019, 06:38 PM
Well, since Romania has so much I2-din as paternal lines , 40% in some places and a lot are supporting the opinion that all that I2-din from Romania is brought by the Slavic migration from 600 AD, how is possible that I2-din is having the most diverse clades in Carpathians from Moldavia and not in some Slavic country?
How come that Romanians are speaking a Latin/Romance language and not a Slavic language?
Is well known that Dacians and Goths living on the lands of Romania got Romanized/Latinized as following:
First, the Dacians were Latinized at the partial conquest of Dacia, by Roman Empire and after, by keeping close relations to Roman Empire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Dacia
Second, when Roman Empire obtained another victory against Dacians and Goths, in 336 AD and after, Dacians and Goths from Romania become even more Latinized/Romanized by keeping even more close relations to the Roman Empire.

Romanian language has around 20% of the words that are cognates to Slavic, but , if Dacians spoke a Baltic-Slavic language, we cannot be sure that all those cognates to Slavic language are coming from Slavs that were assimilated by Romanians or by cultural influences.
As a thing, a lot of words in Romanian are ending in E which is exactly as it was in the Latin language.
Italian has a lot of words ending in A which can be a influence from the Gothic language.

Here is Y DNA of Aromanians, showing that all of them are having I2-din, but R1A in some groups is absent.
http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/eng/Aromanians

Pribislav
08-01-2019, 06:54 PM
Well, since Romania has so much I2-din as paternal lines , 40% in some places and a lot are supporting the opinion that all that I2-din from Romania is brought by the Slavic migration from 600 AD, how is possible that I2-din is having the most diverse clades in Carpathians from Moldavia and not in some Slavic country?
http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/eng/Aromanians

Haven't you learned in school where Slavs expanded from?

mihaitzateo
08-01-2019, 06:56 PM
I know that mihaitzateo's intended meaning of corn was maize.

Well, Dacians were not recorded to plant mostly wheat, but wheat, rye, millet, barley .And hops.
Dacians were eating "mamaliga" or "polenta" , not bread. So when corn was brought, the people that maintained the culture of Dacians started to eat a lot of polenta/mamaliga made from corn flour. That happens mostly in Moldavia, which is the least Latinized area of Romania.
Visigoths were planting mostly wheat.
If there was a massive Slavic migration to Romania, how come Moldavia did not started to mass eat bread, being well known that Slavs, as Gothic tribes, were eating mostly bread made of wheat flour?
Also, if a massive Slavic migration was in Romania, why in all Romania a very traditional and appreciated food is soup made of an old hen, which is something not seen at Slavs?
Also, Romania never had the Slavic tradition "Kupala Night" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kupala_Night.
And there are other common cultural things, at the Slavic speaking nations, that are not seen in Romania.
So a massive Slavic migration in Romania is not supported because Romania lacks the cultural influences from the Slavs in Romania folk culture.

mihaitzateo
08-01-2019, 07:02 PM
Haven't you learned in school where Slavs expanded from?

Well, is not yet known from where exactly the Slavs started their migration from 600 AD.
It is quite well known that the Wends are some protoPoles and they are mentioned to live in the current land of Poland, well before 600 AD.
In Gothica of Jordanes is also told about Wends (Venethi), Antes and Sclaveni that they are a common group of people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Slavs
So, surely the migration of the Slavs did not started from Carpathians from current Moldavia, Romania.
They migrated from current land of Poland and Ukraine, as it seems.
West Slavs are named Wends in different historical sources.

td120
08-05-2019, 07:55 AM
Bosniak Academy of Sciences as well as the President of Major Political Bosniak party of Bosnia openly said: "We are mix of Celts, Illyrians, Romans etc..."

Care to shed some more light on "etc..."? Thanks.

oz
08-05-2019, 09:10 AM
On etc..

Western Balkans is historically chaotic place where numerous battles, resettlements happened.

In 500 B.C. Illyrians invaded from North and took the Land from Thracians
In 0 A.D. ~ Romans came and battled then mixed Thraco-Illyrian populace
in 3nd century, Large community of Gauls and various Celts came from what is now known as France (they fled away from Franks)
in between 3rd an 5th century Avars, Goths fought Thraco-Illyrians (then Romans) and Romans from Italy and Anatolia.
in 6th "Scythian" people from Poland, Ukraine and Belarus Came.

Thing is, Thracians and Illyrians were always majority of the populace while those who came later "Slavs" and "Goths" only influenced their community.


So to say that we are "Slavs" is absolutely incorrect, because Balkan is NOT original Slavic homeland, slavs only came and integrated here

What about Hungarians what's your theory on them? And how come in Slovakia for example the toponyms are so similar to South Slavic. Not to mention Slovenians, Czechs and Slovaks are virtually the same people even though they're separated by Austria and Hungary who are also genetically very similar and pretty much indistinguishable from their northern and southern neighbors.

Pribislav
08-05-2019, 11:10 AM
No matter the Genetics "Slav" is still a Cultural thing. Nobody in my family and most of my neighbors don't feel as part of Slavic civilization and we all think it's a "Serbian Thing". People here in Bosnia predominantly don't align with Czech, Poles, Russians etc.. and we see them as "some other people".

Bosniaks in general only Identify with Balkan Muslims from Turkey and Balkans, Croats are culturally more Western etc..

You can identify with whoever you want, but the facts remain: 1) you speak Slavic language, and 2) you're even more "slavic" than Serbs, autosomally speaking


Bosniak Academy of Sciences as well as the President of Major Political Bosniak party of Bosnia openly said: "We are mix of Celts, Illyrians, Romans etc..." and we consider "Slavicization" as "Serbianization" for as I said previously we consider it part of Serbian agenda because of their Russophilia.

Well, if the president of major Bosniak political party openly said you're a mix of Celts, Illyrians and Romans, who are geneticists and linguists to say otherwise? After all, it is known politicians never lie and never have agendas.

oz
08-05-2019, 01:56 PM
You can identify with whoever you want, but the facts remain: 1) you speak Slavic language, and 2) you're even more "slavic" than Serbs, autosomally speaking



Well, if the president of major Bosniak political party openly said you're a mix of Celts, Illyrians and Romans, who are geneticists and linguists to say otherwise? After all, it is known politicians never lie and never have agendas.

Yes but unfortunately political agendas were always more important than any kind of facts. Bosniaks don't like Russians because they were never our ally in fact many of them died fighting against the Bosnian army and for the Serbian side and they deny the Srebrenica genocide. Whether you're Slavic or not becomes irrelevant when you get fucked over by your "Slavic brethren", you don't wanna have anything to do with Slavic anymore. You turn to who your allies are.

Pribislav
08-05-2019, 03:22 PM
Yes but unfortunately political agendas were always more important than any kind of facts. Bosniaks don't like Russians because they were never our ally in fact many of them died fighting against the Bosnian army and for the Serbian side and they deny the Srebrenica genocide. Whether you're Slavic or not becomes irrelevant when you get fucked over by your "Slavic brethren", you don't wanna have anything to do with Slavic anymore. You turn to who your allies are.

There are no two Slavic peoples with a more troubling history than Russians and Poles, but you don't see either of them trying to negate their affiliation with Slavs the way Bosniaks are trying to. It's ok not to like Serbs and/or Russians, but the problem begins when you start falsifying historical and scientific facts, and changing/inventing new identities on false premises just to fit your political agenda. And that's exactly what Bosniak politicians and historians are doing for the past 30 years, and what Croatian politicians and historians were doing before and during WWII, trying to prove Croatians weren't Slavs, but Goths, Sarmatians and whatnot. These types of identity crises aren't that rare when you're having neighbouring peoples which are genetically highly similar (both autosomally and uniparentally), and which speak essentially the same language. It's called the narcissism of small differences (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_of_small_differences).

oz
08-05-2019, 05:40 PM
There are no two Slavic peoples with a more troubling history than Russians and Poles, but you don't see either of them trying to negate their affiliation with Slavs the way Bosniaks are trying to. It's ok not to like Serbs and/or Russians, but the problem begins when you start falsifying historical and scientific facts, and changing/inventing new identities on false premises just to fit your political agenda. And that's exactly what Bosniak politicians and historians are doing for the past 30 years, and what Croatian politicians and historians were doing before and during WWII, trying to prove Croatians weren't Slavs, but Goths, Sarmatians and whatnot. These types of identity crises aren't that rare when you're having neighbouring peoples which are genetically highly similar (both autosomally and uniparentally), and which speak essentially the same language. It's called the narcissism of small differences (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_of_small_differences).

Yes, I get where you're coming from. I don't really back any school of thought here I'm just trying to point out certain things that get overlooked by people who don't really understand the way some other people think or the experiences they've had.
They think scientific genetic data in its pretty infantile phase too, is somehow gonna change or overshadow the way people think or interpret their own experiences and recent history which is foolishly ignorant and moronic. Sorry to burst that bubble.

As far as Poles and Russians they have their histories and Bosnians have their which is even more complex and unique. And Poles and Russians aren't Muslim either which makes you stand out like a black sheep in Europe or anywhere in the "western" world. It's like being a Jew plus a negative stereotype. I must say though Russians and Serbs don't have it much easier when it comes to negative stereotypes, what can you say, the power of mass media propaganda.

But anyway, we should get back on topic before mods start freaking out.

ph2ter
08-05-2019, 05:41 PM
No matter the Genetics "Slav" is still a Cultural thing. Nobody in my family and most of my neighbors don't feel as part of Slavic civilization and we all think it's a "Serbian Thing".
People here in Bosnia predominantly don't align with Czech, Poles, Russians etc.. and we see them as "some other people".

Bosniaks in general only Identify with Balkan Muslims from Turkey and Balkans, Croats are culturally more Western etc..

Bosniak Academy of Sciences as well as the President of Major Political Bosniak party of Bosnia openly said: "We are mix of Celts, Illyrians, Romans etc..." and we consider "Slavicization" as "Serbianization"
for as I said previously we consider it part of Serbian agenda because of their Russophilia.
Roman-Medieval calc
[1] "distance%=1.1597"


Bosniensis


SLAVIC,52
ILLYRIAN-THRACIAN,22
LEVANTINE,10.8
GRECO-ROMAN,6
BALTIC,4.2
BALTIC-INGRIA,1.8
ANATOLIAN,1.2
NORTH_AMERICAN,0.6
INGRIA,0.4
TARTESSIAN,0.4
ALANIC,0.2
OSTROGOTH,0.2
OTTOMAN,0.2


BALTO-SLAVIC = SLAVIC,52 + BALTIC,4.2 + BALTIC-INGRIA,1.8 + INGRIA,0.4 = 58.4%


Balkan calc
[1] "distance%=1.2585"


Bosniensis


SLAVIC,49.8
ILLYRIAN-THRACIAN-DACIAN,28
GRECO-ROMAN,13.2
BALTIC-INGRIA,7.6
OSTROGOTH,1.4


BALTO-SLAVIC = SLAVIC,49.8 + BALTIC-INGRIA,7.6 = 57.4%


Apparently somewhere, sometime, along the trail of history you lost the cultural connection with the majority of your ancestors...
And genetically you are more Slavic than your eastern neighbors.

mihaitzateo
08-05-2019, 07:48 PM
Roman-Medieval calc
[1] "distance%=1.1597"


Bosniensis


SLAVIC,52
ILLYRIAN-THRACIAN,22
LEVANTINE,10.8
GRECO-ROMAN,6
BALTIC,4.2
BALTIC-INGRIA,1.8
ANATOLIAN,1.2
NORTH_AMERICAN,0.6
INGRIA,0.4
TARTESSIAN,0.4
ALANIC,0.2
OSTROGOTH,0.2
OTTOMAN,0.2


BALTO-SLAVIC = SLAVIC,52 + BALTIC,4.2 + BALTIC-INGRIA,1.8 + INGRIA,0.4 = 58.4%


Balkan calc
[1] "distance%=1.2585"


Bosniensis


SLAVIC,49.8
ILLYRIAN-THRACIAN-DACIAN,28
GRECO-ROMAN,13.2
BALTIC-INGRIA,7.6
OSTROGOTH,1.4


BALTO-SLAVIC = SLAVIC,49.8 + BALTIC-INGRIA,7.6 = 57.4%


Apparently somewhere, sometime, along the trail of history you lost the cultural connection with the majority of your ancestors...
And genetically you are more Slavic than your eastern neighbors.

North American, 0.6%?
Ostrogoth, 1.4%?
No Celtic/Gaulish DNA?
Surely SE Europe Celts left DNA in ex-Yugos, not too much, but surely there is some.
I do not think this calculator is the best.


Croatians are clustering very close to Austrians, why ?
Austrians are also having a lot of Slavic blood or because Croats have very few Slavic blood?

mihaitzateo
08-05-2019, 07:53 PM
There are no two Slavic peoples with a more troubling history than Russians and Poles, but you don't see either of them trying to negate their affiliation with Slavs the way Bosniaks are trying to. It's ok not to like Serbs and/or Russians, but the problem begins when you start falsifying historical and scientific facts, and changing/inventing new identities on false premises just to fit your political agenda. And that's exactly what Bosniak politicians and historians are doing for the past 30 years, and what Croatian politicians and historians were doing before and during WWII, trying to prove Croatians weren't Slavs, but Goths, Sarmatians and whatnot. These types of identity crises aren't that rare when you're having neighbouring peoples which are genetically highly similar (both autosomally and uniparentally), and which speak essentially the same language. It's called the narcissism of small differences (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_of_small_differences).

Well, most Russians paternal lines are clustering to Baltic people, like Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians.
There is another thread on this forum which says that Czechs are Celto Germanic and W Poles, still Celto Germanic.

Austrians are there without doubt mostly Celto-Germanic people and Croatians cluster very close to Austrians, so Croatians must also be Celto-Germanic :).
Normally, Croatians are not Celto-Germanic, that is clear, but they are not Slavic either. That Croatians are not Slavic,is not that clear for most people.

I think Czechs are Slavic-Celtic-Germanic mix and is same with Croatians.
Normally, Czech or Serbo-Croatian languages are clearly Slavic.
Austrians also have some Dacian and/or Slavic DNA.
English is West Germanic-Romance language and I do not think anyone tells that Irish or Scotts are West Germanic-Romance people,because they speak English :) .
So not always the language that a nation is speaking is identical to the culture of that nation.

A thing that shows the strong cultural influence of the Celts and Germanic people at the Czechs is the fact they make and drink a lot of beer.

Bosniensis
08-05-2019, 10:27 PM
Roman-Medieval calc
[1] "distance%=1.1597"


Bosniensis


SLAVIC,52
ILLYRIAN-THRACIAN,22
LEVANTINE,10.8
GRECO-ROMAN,6
BALTIC,4.2
BALTIC-INGRIA,1.8
ANATOLIAN,1.2
NORTH_AMERICAN,0.6
INGRIA,0.4
TARTESSIAN,0.4
ALANIC,0.2
OSTROGOTH,0.2
OTTOMAN,0.2


BALTO-SLAVIC = SLAVIC,52 + BALTIC,4.2 + BALTIC-INGRIA,1.8 + INGRIA,0.4 = 58.4%


Balkan calc
[1] "distance%=1.2585"


Bosniensis


SLAVIC,49.8
ILLYRIAN-THRACIAN-DACIAN,28
GRECO-ROMAN,13.2
BALTIC-INGRIA,7.6
OSTROGOTH,1.4


BALTO-SLAVIC = SLAVIC,49.8 + BALTIC-INGRIA,7.6 = 57.4%


Apparently somewhere, sometime, along the trail of history you lost the cultural connection with the majority of your ancestors...
And genetically you are more Slavic than your eastern neighbors.

How many Non-Slavic people live among Eastern Europeans whom you have wrongly identified as Slavs.

Slavs never existed. Never documented EVER. First Appeared in 6th century.. beyond funny.

Some people who nobody knows where they lived in Iron Age.. you have managed to pick "Slavic Samples"....

Do you know that Turkish and German were the only languages in Eastern Europe up to 12th century A.D?

Ayetooey
08-05-2019, 10:38 PM
It is proto slav. It's origins before unknown; possibly Bastarnae. One member of the I2a project suggested before slavicisation that it was possibly carried by members of the Costoboci, a northern Dacian tribe situated between the carpathians and the river Dniester; same region where the clades origin supposedly is based off TMRCA's and clade diversity.

Moderator
08-06-2019, 10:47 PM
A number of posts have been removed from this thread for various reasons. We suggest everyone please refresh yourself with the Terms of Service before posting again. This thread is being monitored by the admin team. Thanks.

dink
08-06-2019, 11:59 PM
Why Goths? They formed Cherniakov culture, lived in Crimea, conquered Appenines and Iberia. We have results for Cherniakov culture - no I2a-Din. Same for pre-Slavic Crimea, Appenines and Iberia.
.

what are the Cherniakov culture haplogroups?

Ayetooey
08-07-2019, 12:07 AM
what are the Cherniakov culture haplogroups?

There's a lot of Cherniakov culture samples in this study if you can manage to access it.

https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(19)30712-2?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com %2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0960982219307122%3Fshowall%3D true

Pribislav
08-07-2019, 12:26 AM
There's a lot of Cherniakov culture samples in this study if you can manage to access it.

https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(19)30712-2?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com %2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0960982219307122%3Fshowall%3D true

There are only three Cherniakov samples analysed in that paper, and all three are females, unfortunately.

oz
08-07-2019, 12:44 AM
My new found theory is that the Bosnians are probably the purest descendants of the ones the Romans and Greeks called "Sklaveni". If the stories are true that is...
Damn it all kinda makes perfect sense now... and holy shit the way history repeats itself. Time and time again. Fascinating stuff.

Although they never called themselves "sklaveni" this word doesn't mean a single thing in our language, there isn't even a toponym by that name or anything whatsoever. Maybe the Romans were quite bitter to call them a name that would later become "slave" they adopted and perverted the word "Slava=glory" probably because they wished they were subdued and enslaved. These slaves plundered all of the Balkans and almost all of Greece for hundreds of years, and then the Romans even invited the Croats and Serbs to help defeat them. And ancestors of Bulgarians too, Antes? Sounds like they too got bribed and turned against their homies back in the day. Smh...

dink
08-07-2019, 03:03 AM
My new found theory is that the Bosnians are probably the purest descendants of the ones the Romans and Greeks called "Sklaveni". If the stories are true that is...
Damn it all kinda makes perfect sense now... and holy shit the way history repeats itself. Time and time again. Fascinating stuff.

Although they never called themselves "sklaveni" this word doesn't mean a single thing in our language, there isn't even a toponym by that name or anything whatsoever. Maybe the Romans were quite bitter to call them a name that would later become "slave" they adopted and perverted the word "Slava=glory" probably because they wished they were subdued and enslaved. These slaves plundered all of the Balkans and almost all of Greece for hundreds of years, and then the Romans even invited the Croats and Serbs to help defeat them. And ancestors of Bulgarians too, Antes? Sounds like they too got bribed and turned against their homies back in the day. Smh...

sex, drugs & rock n roll.

oz
08-07-2019, 07:29 AM
sex, drugs & rock n roll.

Haha more like rakija, sevdalinka n merak.

mihaitzateo
08-07-2019, 09:39 PM
There's a lot of Cherniakov culture samples in this study if you can manage to access it.

https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(19)30712-2?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com %2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0960982219307122%3Fshowall%3D true
I just been able to read the summary.
Any method to read all without paying :) ?

Dorkymon
08-08-2019, 11:55 AM
Why Goths? They formed Cherniakov culture, lived in Crimea, conquered Appenines and Iberia. We have results for Cherniakov culture - no I2a-Din.

On a somewhat related topic, I missed the paper on the Goths from Cherniakov. Thanks to your post I read that study and it inspired a calculator (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?17992-Eastern-Europe-G25-Iron-Age-Medieval&p=589702#post589702).
I don't think that Goths are in any way related to I2a-Din, but they did leave a mark to some extent.
Like for me, UKR_Chernyakhiv_Shyshaky:MJ37 is the closest ancient sample to date at a distance of 3.6.


I just been able to read the summary.
Any method to read all without paying :) ?

Nope (http://sci-hub.tw/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960982219307122)

artemv
08-08-2019, 02:15 PM
Why Goths? They formed Cherniakov culture, lived in Crimea, conquered Appenines and Iberia. We have results for Cherniakov culture - no I2a-Din. Same for pre-Slavic Crimea, Appenines and Iberia.

what are the Cherniakov culture haplogroups?

Sorry, that was my mistake. Human memory is not ideal.
We have actually results only for Cherniakov women.

mihaitzateo
08-09-2019, 08:44 PM
Those Goths from Cherniakov are clearly close to Eastern or Western Slavs and not to Germans or Scandos, on Autosomal DNA.

Dorkymon
08-09-2019, 09:59 PM
Those Goths from Cherniakov are clearly close to Eastern or Western Slavs and not to Germans or Scandos, on Autosomal DNA.

Not at all, MJ12 from Chernyakiv is the closest to some East and West Slavs. Chernyakiv's MJ37 is closest to some Southeast and Central Euros. That follows the observed diversity in "Goths" or rather said East Germanics. The Gepid sample from Serbia and the Ostrogoth from Crimea were even wilder. It seems like East Germanics had a talent for acculturation.




Input
Group
Name
Details
Fit


1
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Shyshaky:MJ37
Iberia_Northeast_c.6CE_PL (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Iberia_Northeast_c.6CE_PL)
I12163 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Iberia_Northeast_c.6CE_PL:I12163)
Ancient; CE:550
2.716


2
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Shyshaky:MJ37
HUN_MA_Szolad (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#HUN_MA_Szolad)
SZ5 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ5)
Ancient; CE:505
3.257


3
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Shyshaky:MJ37
Hungarian (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Hungarian)
NA15207 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Hungarian:NA15207)
Modern;
3.299


4
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Shyshaky:MJ37
Montenegrin (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Montenegrin)
Montenegro7 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Montenegrin:Montenegro7)
Modern;
3.437


5
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Shyshaky:MJ37
Serbian (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Serbian)
Serbian_Serbia5 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Serbian:Serbian_Serbia5)
Modern;
3.465


6
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Shyshaky:MJ37
Custom (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Custom)
AGUser_Dorkymon (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Custom:AGUser_Dorkymon)

3.61


7
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Shyshaky:MJ37
German (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#German)
German28 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#German:German28)
Modern;
3.715


8
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Shyshaky:MJ37
Austrian (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Austrian)
Austria7 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Austrian:Austria7)
Modern;
3.731


9
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Shyshaky:MJ37
Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA_Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA_Averaged)
Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA_Averaged)

3.783


10
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Shyshaky:MJ37
Austrian (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Austrian)
Austria13 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Austrian:Austria13)
Modern;
3.794


11
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Shyshaky:MJ37
Austrian (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Austrian)
Austria16 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Austrian:Austria16)
Modern;
3.802


12
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Shyshaky:MJ37
Montenegrin (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Montenegrin)
Montenegro1 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Montenegrin:Montenegro1)
Modern;
3.808


13
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Shyshaky:MJ37
Montenegrin_Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Montenegrin_Averaged)
Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Montenegrin_Averaged)

3.863


14
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Shyshaky:MJ37
Croatian (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Croatian)
Croatia_Cro26 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Croatian:Croatia_Cro26)
Modern;
3.87


15
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Shyshaky:MJ37
Bosnian (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Bosnian)
Bosnian_14 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Bosnian:Bosnian_14)
Modern;
3.902


16
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Shyshaky:MJ37
Romanian (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Romanian)
A306 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Romanian:A306)
Modern;
3.917


17
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Shyshaky:MJ37
Austrian_Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Austrian_Averaged)
Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Austrian_Averaged)

3.928


18
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Shyshaky:MJ37
Bosnian (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Bosnian)
Bosnian_13 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Bosnian:Bosnian_13)
Modern;
3.973


19
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Shyshaky:MJ37
Bulgarian (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Bulgarian)
BulgarianE2 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Bulgarian:BulgarianE2)
Modern;
3.983


20
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Shyshaky:MJ37
Custom (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Custom)
AGUser_Ulf (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Custom:AGUser_Ulf)

3.993







Input
Group
Name
Details
Fit


1
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19
Polish (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Polish)
Polish39 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Polish:Polish39)
Modern;
3.153


2
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19
Bell_Beaker_Bavaria (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Bell_Beaker_Bavaria)
I5531 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5531)
Ancient; BCE:2250
3.491


3
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19
Slovakian_Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Slovakian_Averaged)
Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Slovakian_Averaged)

3.566


4
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19
Ukrainian (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Ukrainian)
Ukrainian10 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Ukrainian:Ukrainian10)
Modern;
3.567


5
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19
Slovakian (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Slovakian)
Slovakia85 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Slovakian:Slovakia85)
Modern;
3.571


6
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19
Ukrainian (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Ukrainian)
UKR-2021 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Ukrainian:UKR-2021)

3.626


7
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19
SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna)
vik_urm160 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna:vik_urm160)

3.644


8
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19
SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna)
vik_grt036 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna:vik_grt036)

3.655


9
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19
Slovakian (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Slovakian)
Slovakia94 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Slovakian:Slovakia94)
Modern;
3.669


10
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19
Polish (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Polish)
Polish18 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Polish:Polish18)
Modern;
3.733


11
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19
Polish (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Polish)
Polish31 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Polish:Polish31)
Modern;
3.821


12
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19
Czech_Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Czech_Averaged)
Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Czech_Averaged)

3.824


13
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19
Ukrainian (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Ukrainian)
UKR-1291 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Ukrainian:UKR-1291)

3.837


14
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19
Polish (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Polish)
Polish15 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Polish:Polish15)
Modern;
3.877


15
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19
Polish_Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Polish_Averaged)
Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Polish_Averaged)

3.877


16
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19
Polish (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Polish)
Polish34 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Polish:Polish34)
Modern;
3.894


17
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19
Ukrainian_Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Ukrainian_Averaged)
Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Ukrainian_Averaged)

3.983


18
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19
Finnish (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Finnish)
HG00350 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Finnish:HG00350)
Modern;
4


19
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19
DEU_Unetice_EBA_Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#DEU_Unetice_EBA_Averaged)
Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#DEU_Unetice_EBA_Averaged)

4.013


20
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19
SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna_Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna_Averaged)
Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna_Averaged)

4.014







Input
Group
Name
Details
Fit


1
Gepidian_SRB_ACD:VIM_2
DEU_MA_ACD (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#DEU_MA_ACD)
AED_1108 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#DEU_MA_ACD:AED_1108)
Ancient; CE:505
5.426


2
Gepidian_SRB_ACD:VIM_2
Tatar_Lipka (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Lipka)
Tatar_Lipka2 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Lipka:Tatar_Lipka2)
Modern;
5.803


3
Gepidian_SRB_ACD:VIM_2
Tatar_Lipka (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Lipka)
Tatar_Lipka5 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Lipka:Tatar_Lipka5)
Modern;
6.01


4
Gepidian_SRB_ACD:VIM_2
Tatar_Lipka_Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Lipka_Averaged)
Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Lipka_Averaged)

6.155


5
Gepidian_SRB_ACD:VIM_2
Tatar_Lipka (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Lipka)
Tatar_Lipka3 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Lipka:Tatar_Lipka3)
Modern;
6.306


6
Gepidian_SRB_ACD:VIM_2
Tatar_Kazan (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Kazan)
TTR-249 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Kazan:TTR-249)

6.657


7
Gepidian_SRB_ACD:VIM_2
Tatar_Lipka (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Lipka)
Tatar_Lipka4 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Lipka:Tatar_Lipka4)
Modern;
6.714


8
Gepidian_SRB_ACD:VIM_2
Tatar_Lipka (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Lipka)
Tatar_Lipka6 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Lipka:Tatar_Lipka6)
Modern;
6.926


9
Gepidian_SRB_ACD:VIM_2
Tatar_Mishar (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Mishar)
TTR-356 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Mishar:TTR-356)

7.186


10
Gepidian_SRB_ACD:VIM_2
Tatar_Kazan (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Kazan)
TTR-245 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Kazan:TTR-245)

7.202


11
Gepidian_SRB_ACD:VIM_2
Tatar_Kazan (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Kazan)
TTR-201 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Kazan:TTR-201)

7.394


12
Gepidian_SRB_ACD:VIM_2
Tatar_Mishar (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Mishar)
TTR-436 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Mishar:TTR-436)

7.44


13
Gepidian_SRB_ACD:VIM_2
Tatar_Kazan_Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Kazan_Averaged)
Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Kazan_Averaged)

7.533


14
Gepidian_SRB_ACD:VIM_2
Tatar_Lipka (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Lipka)
Tatar_Lipka1 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Lipka:Tatar_Lipka1)
Modern;
7.603


15
Gepidian_SRB_ACD:VIM_2
Bashkir (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Bashkir)
BAS-094 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Bashkir:BAS-094)

7.649


16
Gepidian_SRB_ACD:VIM_2
ITA_Collegno_MA_o2_Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#ITA_Collegno_MA_o2_Averaged)
Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#ITA_Collegno_MA_o2_Averaged)

7.671


17
Gepidian_SRB_ACD:VIM_2
ITA_Collegno_MA_o2 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#ITA_Collegno_MA_o2)
CL31 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#ITA_Collegno_MA_o2:CL31)
Ancient; CE:671
7.671


18
Gepidian_SRB_ACD:VIM_2
Tatar_Kazan (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Kazan)
TTR-493 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Kazan:TTR-493)

7.719


19
Gepidian_SRB_ACD:VIM_2
Tatar_Kazan (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Kazan)
TTR-514 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Kazan:TTR-514)

7.884


20
Gepidian_SRB_ACD:VIM_2
Tatar_Kazan (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Kazan)
TTR-217 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Kazan:TTR-217)

7.951







Input
Group
Name
Details
Fit


1
Ostrogothic_Crimea_ACD:KER_1
Turkish_Istanbul_Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Turkish_Istanbul_Averaged)
Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Turkish_Istanbul_Averaged)

4.539


2
Ostrogothic_Crimea_ACD:KER_1
Levant_LBN_MA_Mixed (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Levant_LBN_MA_Mixed)
SI-53 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Levant_LBN_MA_Mixed:SI-53)

4.586


3
Ostrogothic_Crimea_ACD:KER_1
Greek_Crete (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Greek_Crete)
B_Crete-2 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Greek_Crete:B_Crete-2)
Modern;
4.588


4
Ostrogothic_Crimea_ACD:KER_1
Turkish_Kayseri (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Turkish_Kayseri)
Kayseri24402 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Turkish_Kayseri:Kayseri24402)
Modern;
4.659


5
Ostrogothic_Crimea_ACD:KER_1
ARM_Areni_C_Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#ARM_Areni_C_Averaged)
Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#ARM_Areni_C_Averaged)

4.739


6
Ostrogothic_Crimea_ACD:KER_1
Greek_Crete_Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Greek_Crete_Averaged)
Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Greek_Crete_Averaged)

4.797


7
Ostrogothic_Crimea_ACD:KER_1
Turkish_Kayseri (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Turkish_Kayseri)
Kayseri24392 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Turkish_Kayseri:Kayseri24392)
Modern;
4.836


8
Ostrogothic_Crimea_ACD:KER_1
Ashkenazi_Jew (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Ashkenazi_Jew)
ashkenazy3e (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Ashkenazi_Jew:ashkenazy3e)
Modern;
4.839


9
Ostrogothic_Crimea_ACD:KER_1
Greek_Central_Anatolia (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Greek_Central_Anatolia)
G25003 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Greek_Central_Anatolia:G25003)
Modern;
4.848


10
Ostrogothic_Crimea_ACD:KER_1
ARM_Areni_C (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#ARM_Areni_C)
I1632 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#ARM_Areni_C:I1632)
Ancient; BCE:4000
4.848


11
Ostrogothic_Crimea_ACD:KER_1
Syrian (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Syrian)
Ber7R59 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Syrian:Ber7R59)

4.973


12
Ostrogothic_Crimea_ACD:KER_1
Turkish_Kayseri (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Turkish_Kayseri)
Kayseri24075 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Turkish_Kayseri:Kayseri24075)
Modern;
5.052


13
Ostrogothic_Crimea_ACD:KER_1
Italian_South (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Italian_South)
ITS2 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Italian_South:ITS2)
Modern;
5.055


14
Ostrogothic_Crimea_ACD:KER_1
Custom (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Custom)
AGUser_Dewsloth (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Custom:AGUser_Dewsloth)

5.059


15
Ostrogothic_Crimea_ACD:KER_1
Turkish_Adana (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Turkish_Adana)
Adana23150 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Turkish_Adana:Adana23150)
Modern;
5.06


16
Ostrogothic_Crimea_ACD:KER_1
Turkish_Kayseri_Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Turkish_Kayseri_Averaged)
Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Turkish_Kayseri_Averaged)

5.102


17
Ostrogothic_Crimea_ACD:KER_1
Turkish_Kayseri (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Turkish_Kayseri)
Kayseri23271 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Turkish_Kayseri:Kayseri23271)
Modern;
5.149


18
Ostrogothic_Crimea_ACD:KER_1
Turkish_Istanbul (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Turkish_Istanbul)
Istanbul25081 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Turkish_Istanbul:Istanbul25081)
Modern;
5.151


19
Ostrogothic_Crimea_ACD:KER_1
ARM_Areni_C (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#ARM_Areni_C)
I1631 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#ARM_Areni_C:I1631)
Ancient; BCE:4000
5.158


20
Ostrogothic_Crimea_ACD:KER_1
Ashkenazi_Jew_Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Ashkenazi_Jew_Averaged)
Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Ashkenazi_Jew_Averaged)

5.158

mihaitzateo
08-10-2019, 10:13 AM
Not at all, MJ12 from Chernyakiv is the closest to some East and West Slavs. Chernyakiv's MJ37 is closest to some Southeast and Central Euros. That follows the observed diversity in "Goths" or rather said East Germanics. The Gepid sample from Serbia and the Ostrogoth from Crimea were even wilder. It seems like East Germanics had a talent for acculturation.




Input
Group
Name
Details
Fit


1
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Shyshaky:MJ37
Iberia_Northeast_c.6CE_PL (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Iberia_Northeast_c.6CE_PL)
I12163 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Iberia_Northeast_c.6CE_PL:I12163)
Ancient; CE:550
2.716


2
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Shyshaky:MJ37
HUN_MA_Szolad (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#HUN_MA_Szolad)
SZ5 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ5)
Ancient; CE:505
3.257


3
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Shyshaky:MJ37
Hungarian (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Hungarian)
NA15207 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Hungarian:NA15207)
Modern;
3.299


4
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Shyshaky:MJ37
Montenegrin (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Montenegrin)
Montenegro7 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Montenegrin:Montenegro7)
Modern;
3.437


5
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Shyshaky:MJ37
Serbian (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Serbian)
Serbian_Serbia5 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Serbian:Serbian_Serbia5)
Modern;
3.465


6
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Shyshaky:MJ37
Custom (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Custom)
AGUser_Dorkymon (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Custom:AGUser_Dorkymon)

3.61


7
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Shyshaky:MJ37
German (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#German)
German28 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#German:German28)
Modern;
3.715


8
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Shyshaky:MJ37
Austrian (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Austrian)
Austria7 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Austrian:Austria7)
Modern;
3.731


9
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Shyshaky:MJ37
Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA_Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA_Averaged)
Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA_Averaged)

3.783


10
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Shyshaky:MJ37
Austrian (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Austrian)
Austria13 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Austrian:Austria13)
Modern;
3.794


11
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Shyshaky:MJ37
Austrian (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Austrian)
Austria16 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Austrian:Austria16)
Modern;
3.802


12
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Shyshaky:MJ37
Montenegrin (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Montenegrin)
Montenegro1 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Montenegrin:Montenegro1)
Modern;
3.808


13
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Shyshaky:MJ37
Montenegrin_Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Montenegrin_Averaged)
Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Montenegrin_Averaged)

3.863


14
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Shyshaky:MJ37
Croatian (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Croatian)
Croatia_Cro26 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Croatian:Croatia_Cro26)
Modern;
3.87


15
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Shyshaky:MJ37
Bosnian (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Bosnian)
Bosnian_14 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Bosnian:Bosnian_14)
Modern;
3.902


16
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Shyshaky:MJ37
Romanian (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Romanian)
A306 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Romanian:A306)
Modern;
3.917


17
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Shyshaky:MJ37
Austrian_Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Austrian_Averaged)
Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Austrian_Averaged)

3.928


18
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Shyshaky:MJ37
Bosnian (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Bosnian)
Bosnian_13 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Bosnian:Bosnian_13)
Modern;
3.973


19
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Shyshaky:MJ37
Bulgarian (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Bulgarian)
BulgarianE2 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Bulgarian:BulgarianE2)
Modern;
3.983


20
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Shyshaky:MJ37
Custom (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Custom)
AGUser_Ulf (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Custom:AGUser_Ulf)

3.993







Input
Group
Name
Details
Fit


1
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19
Polish (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Polish)
Polish39 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Polish:Polish39)
Modern;
3.153


2
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19
Bell_Beaker_Bavaria (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Bell_Beaker_Bavaria)
I5531 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5531)
Ancient; BCE:2250
3.491


3
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19
Slovakian_Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Slovakian_Averaged)
Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Slovakian_Averaged)

3.566


4
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19
Ukrainian (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Ukrainian)
Ukrainian10 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Ukrainian:Ukrainian10)
Modern;
3.567


5
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19
Slovakian (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Slovakian)
Slovakia85 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Slovakian:Slovakia85)
Modern;
3.571


6
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19
Ukrainian (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Ukrainian)
UKR-2021 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Ukrainian:UKR-2021)

3.626


7
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19
SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna)
vik_urm160 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna:vik_urm160)

3.644


8
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19
SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna)
vik_grt036 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna:vik_grt036)

3.655


9
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19
Slovakian (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Slovakian)
Slovakia94 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Slovakian:Slovakia94)
Modern;
3.669


10
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19
Polish (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Polish)
Polish18 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Polish:Polish18)
Modern;
3.733


11
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19
Polish (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Polish)
Polish31 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Polish:Polish31)
Modern;
3.821


12
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19
Czech_Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Czech_Averaged)
Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Czech_Averaged)

3.824


13
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19
Ukrainian (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Ukrainian)
UKR-1291 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Ukrainian:UKR-1291)

3.837


14
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19
Polish (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Polish)
Polish15 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Polish:Polish15)
Modern;
3.877


15
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19
Polish_Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Polish_Averaged)
Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Polish_Averaged)

3.877


16
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19
Polish (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Polish)
Polish34 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Polish:Polish34)
Modern;
3.894


17
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19
Ukrainian_Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Ukrainian_Averaged)
Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Ukrainian_Averaged)

3.983


18
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19
Finnish (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Finnish)
HG00350 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Finnish:HG00350)
Modern;
4


19
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19
DEU_Unetice_EBA_Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#DEU_Unetice_EBA_Averaged)
Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#DEU_Unetice_EBA_Averaged)

4.013


20
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19
SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna_Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna_Averaged)
Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna_Averaged)

4.014







Input
Group
Name
Details
Fit


1
Gepidian_SRB_ACD:VIM_2
DEU_MA_ACD (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#DEU_MA_ACD)
AED_1108 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#DEU_MA_ACD:AED_1108)
Ancient; CE:505
5.426


2
Gepidian_SRB_ACD:VIM_2
Tatar_Lipka (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Lipka)
Tatar_Lipka2 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Lipka:Tatar_Lipka2)
Modern;
5.803


3
Gepidian_SRB_ACD:VIM_2
Tatar_Lipka (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Lipka)
Tatar_Lipka5 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Lipka:Tatar_Lipka5)
Modern;
6.01


4
Gepidian_SRB_ACD:VIM_2
Tatar_Lipka_Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Lipka_Averaged)
Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Lipka_Averaged)

6.155


5
Gepidian_SRB_ACD:VIM_2
Tatar_Lipka (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Lipka)
Tatar_Lipka3 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Lipka:Tatar_Lipka3)
Modern;
6.306


6
Gepidian_SRB_ACD:VIM_2
Tatar_Kazan (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Kazan)
TTR-249 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Kazan:TTR-249)

6.657


7
Gepidian_SRB_ACD:VIM_2
Tatar_Lipka (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Lipka)
Tatar_Lipka4 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Lipka:Tatar_Lipka4)
Modern;
6.714


8
Gepidian_SRB_ACD:VIM_2
Tatar_Lipka (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Lipka)
Tatar_Lipka6 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Lipka:Tatar_Lipka6)
Modern;
6.926


9
Gepidian_SRB_ACD:VIM_2
Tatar_Mishar (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Mishar)
TTR-356 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Mishar:TTR-356)

7.186


10
Gepidian_SRB_ACD:VIM_2
Tatar_Kazan (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Kazan)
TTR-245 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Kazan:TTR-245)

7.202


11
Gepidian_SRB_ACD:VIM_2
Tatar_Kazan (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Kazan)
TTR-201 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Kazan:TTR-201)

7.394


12
Gepidian_SRB_ACD:VIM_2
Tatar_Mishar (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Mishar)
TTR-436 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Mishar:TTR-436)

7.44


13
Gepidian_SRB_ACD:VIM_2
Tatar_Kazan_Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Kazan_Averaged)
Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Kazan_Averaged)

7.533


14
Gepidian_SRB_ACD:VIM_2
Tatar_Lipka (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Lipka)
Tatar_Lipka1 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Lipka:Tatar_Lipka1)
Modern;
7.603


15
Gepidian_SRB_ACD:VIM_2
Bashkir (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Bashkir)
BAS-094 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Bashkir:BAS-094)

7.649


16
Gepidian_SRB_ACD:VIM_2
ITA_Collegno_MA_o2_Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#ITA_Collegno_MA_o2_Averaged)
Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#ITA_Collegno_MA_o2_Averaged)

7.671


17
Gepidian_SRB_ACD:VIM_2
ITA_Collegno_MA_o2 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#ITA_Collegno_MA_o2)
CL31 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#ITA_Collegno_MA_o2:CL31)
Ancient; CE:671
7.671


18
Gepidian_SRB_ACD:VIM_2
Tatar_Kazan (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Kazan)
TTR-493 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Kazan:TTR-493)

7.719


19
Gepidian_SRB_ACD:VIM_2
Tatar_Kazan (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Kazan)
TTR-514 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Kazan:TTR-514)

7.884


20
Gepidian_SRB_ACD:VIM_2
Tatar_Kazan (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Kazan)
TTR-217 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Tatar_Kazan:TTR-217)

7.951







Input
Group
Name
Details
Fit


1
Ostrogothic_Crimea_ACD:KER_1
Turkish_Istanbul_Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Turkish_Istanbul_Averaged)
Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Turkish_Istanbul_Averaged)

4.539


2
Ostrogothic_Crimea_ACD:KER_1
Levant_LBN_MA_Mixed (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Levant_LBN_MA_Mixed)
SI-53 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Levant_LBN_MA_Mixed:SI-53)

4.586


3
Ostrogothic_Crimea_ACD:KER_1
Greek_Crete (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Greek_Crete)
B_Crete-2 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Greek_Crete:B_Crete-2)
Modern;
4.588


4
Ostrogothic_Crimea_ACD:KER_1
Turkish_Kayseri (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Turkish_Kayseri)
Kayseri24402 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Turkish_Kayseri:Kayseri24402)
Modern;
4.659


5
Ostrogothic_Crimea_ACD:KER_1
ARM_Areni_C_Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#ARM_Areni_C_Averaged)
Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#ARM_Areni_C_Averaged)

4.739


6
Ostrogothic_Crimea_ACD:KER_1
Greek_Crete_Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Greek_Crete_Averaged)
Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Greek_Crete_Averaged)

4.797


7
Ostrogothic_Crimea_ACD:KER_1
Turkish_Kayseri (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Turkish_Kayseri)
Kayseri24392 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Turkish_Kayseri:Kayseri24392)
Modern;
4.836


8
Ostrogothic_Crimea_ACD:KER_1
Ashkenazi_Jew (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Ashkenazi_Jew)
ashkenazy3e (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Ashkenazi_Jew:ashkenazy3e)
Modern;
4.839


9
Ostrogothic_Crimea_ACD:KER_1
Greek_Central_Anatolia (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Greek_Central_Anatolia)
G25003 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Greek_Central_Anatolia:G25003)
Modern;
4.848


10
Ostrogothic_Crimea_ACD:KER_1
ARM_Areni_C (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#ARM_Areni_C)
I1632 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#ARM_Areni_C:I1632)
Ancient; BCE:4000
4.848


11
Ostrogothic_Crimea_ACD:KER_1
Syrian (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Syrian)
Ber7R59 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Syrian:Ber7R59)

4.973


12
Ostrogothic_Crimea_ACD:KER_1
Turkish_Kayseri (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Turkish_Kayseri)
Kayseri24075 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Turkish_Kayseri:Kayseri24075)
Modern;
5.052


13
Ostrogothic_Crimea_ACD:KER_1
Italian_South (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Italian_South)
ITS2 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Italian_South:ITS2)
Modern;
5.055


14
Ostrogothic_Crimea_ACD:KER_1
Custom (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Custom)
AGUser_Dewsloth (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Custom:AGUser_Dewsloth)

5.059


15
Ostrogothic_Crimea_ACD:KER_1
Turkish_Adana (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Turkish_Adana)
Adana23150 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Turkish_Adana:Adana23150)
Modern;
5.06


16
Ostrogothic_Crimea_ACD:KER_1
Turkish_Kayseri_Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Turkish_Kayseri_Averaged)
Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Turkish_Kayseri_Averaged)

5.102


17
Ostrogothic_Crimea_ACD:KER_1
Turkish_Kayseri (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Turkish_Kayseri)
Kayseri23271 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Turkish_Kayseri:Kayseri23271)
Modern;
5.149


18
Ostrogothic_Crimea_ACD:KER_1
Turkish_Istanbul (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Turkish_Istanbul)
Istanbul25081 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Turkish_Istanbul:Istanbul25081)
Modern;
5.151


19
Ostrogothic_Crimea_ACD:KER_1
ARM_Areni_C (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#ARM_Areni_C)
I1631 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#ARM_Areni_C:I1631)
Ancient; BCE:4000
5.158


20
Ostrogothic_Crimea_ACD:KER_1
Ashkenazi_Jew_Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Ashkenazi_Jew_Averaged)
Averaged (http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html#Ashkenazi_Jew_Averaged)

5.158



Well it seems that West Slavs and East Germanic tribes were very close as genetics.
Also, these East Germanic tribes gave most DNA of the South Slavs, this is so obvious.
The Swedish Vikings from Sigtuna are rather close to North Poles, than to NW Europeans as for example our days Norwegians.
Tomenable has a thread about Viking DNA from Sigtuna.

Dibran
08-13-2019, 04:08 PM
Well it seems that West Slavs and East Germanic tribes were very close as genetics.
Also, these East Germanic tribes gave most DNA of the South Slavs, this is so obvious.
The Swedish Vikings from Sigtuna are rather close to North Poles, than to NW Europeans as for example our days Norwegians.
Tomenable has a thread about Viking DNA from Sigtuna.

Vikings were not a uniform ethnic body. They weren't all Norse, but merely consisted of raiders of predominantly Scandinavian stock. There are also Finnish, Baltic and Slavic raiders who participated in Viking raids and battles(even in England). That I2a1b Sigtuna Viking is close to Poles because he probably was one. Or at least a West Slavic pirate/raider that joined the heathen armies. This was already discussed, but you apparently prefer fiction to fact.

mihaitzateo
08-13-2019, 05:40 PM
Vikings were not a uniform ethnic body. They weren't all Norse, but merely consisted of raiders of predominantly Scandinavian stock. There are also Finnish, Baltic and Slavic raiders who participated in Viking raids and battles(even in England). That I2a1b Sigtuna Viking is close to Poles because he probably was one. Or at least a West Slavic pirate/raider that joined the heathen armies. This was already discussed, but you apparently prefer fiction to fact.

East Germanic people from this Dorkymon post are most close to West Slavs,Ukrainians and ex-Yugos.
Think that is no fiction.
Add that Ex-Yugos are even called Goths, at least in one historical source.
So I have no idea to what you are referring to.

spruithean
08-13-2019, 06:24 PM
Vikings were not a uniform ethnic body. They weren't all Norse, but merely consisted of raiders of predominantly Scandinavian stock. There are also Finnish, Baltic and Slavic raiders who participated in Viking raids and battles(even in England). That I2a1b Sigtuna Viking is close to Poles because he probably was one. Or at least a West Slavic pirate/raider that joined the heathen armies. This was already discussed, but you apparently prefer fiction to fact.

Precisely. I can imagine that raiding was rather lucrative and many from a more distant location would flock to a certain leader to join in on the action. The Viking Genome paper essentially touched on this to a degree.

Dibran
08-14-2019, 01:34 PM
East Germanic people from this Dorkymon post are most close to West Slavs,Ukrainians and ex-Yugos.
Think that is no fiction.
Add that Ex-Yugos are even called Goths, at least in one historical source.
So I have no idea to what you are referring to.

That is because West Slavic Tribes(Wends) were quite the majority in Eastern Germany at one point in time. Many which were assimilated by Germans in the early middle ages. Whilst they are no less German today than West Germans, their ancestors were not German or Goth, but Balto-Slavic.

Goths may have not been purely Germanic either. Their DNA results attest to that fact. Historians had a habit of lumping unrelated folk together. It even happens today in the industrialized high tech world. You're taking historical account as gospel truth while ignoring the scientific evidence contradicting it. So I have no idea what you're going on about. All the Goths found so far were not I2a1b-Din. So whatever connection you're trying to draw is by proxy.

Dibran
08-14-2019, 01:38 PM
Precisely. I can imagine that raiding was rather lucrative and many from a more distant location would flock to a certain leader to join in on the action. The Viking Genome paper essentially touched on this to a degree.

Agreed. I think this was probably similar in some ways to the Goths. They seemed to have mixed with and acquired genes from many they fell upon, or that joined them.

artemv
08-15-2019, 12:38 PM
That is because West Slavic Tribes(Wends) were quite the majority in Eastern Germany at one point in time. Many which were assimilated by Germans in the early middle ages. Whilst they are no less German today than West Germans, their ancestors were not German or Goth, but Balto-Slavic.

Goths may have not been purely Germanic either. Their DNA results attest to that fact. Historians had a habit of lumping unrelated folk together. It even happens today in the industrialized high tech world. You're taking historical account as gospel truth while ignoring the scientific evidence contradicting it. So I have no idea what you're going on about. All the Goths found so far were not I2a1b-Din. So whatever connection you're trying to draw is by proxy.

East Germanic tribes - are a number of historic tribes, who spoke one of East Germanic languages. He wrote "East Germanics" and you answered him about "East Germans".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Germanic_languages


Well it seems that West Slavs and East Germanic tribes were very close as genetics.
Also, these East Germanic tribes gave most DNA of the South Slavs, this is so obvious.

Again you ignore facts. 2 out of 4 samples are very far away from Slavs (Gepidian_SRB_ACD and Ostrogothic_Crimea_ACD) and have ancestry Slavs definitely lack.
UKR_Chernyakhiv might have contributed to Slavs, but you again try to ignore the fact we do not have DNA from cultures, that are the best candidates for proto-Slavs and make a claim about East Germanic tribes giving most DNA of the South Slavs based on the closest modern fit of UKR_Chernyakhiv_Shyshaky:MJ37.

mihaitzateo
08-19-2019, 09:08 PM
East Germanic tribes - are a number of historic tribes, who spoke one of East Germanic languages. He wrote "East Germanics" and you answered him about "East Germans".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Germanic_languages


Again you ignore facts. 2 out of 4 samples are very far away from Slavs (Gepidian_SRB_ACD and Ostrogothic_Crimea_ACD) and have ancestry Slavs definitely lack.
UKR_Chernyakhiv might have contributed to Slavs, but you again try to ignore the fact we do not have DNA from cultures, that are the best candidates for proto-Slavs and make a claim about East Germanic tribes giving most DNA of the South Slavs based on the closest modern fit of UKR_Chernyakhiv_Shyshaky:MJ37.

Most samples are close to our day Ukrainians or Poles or South Slavs or other West Slavs. In one of the tables,from Chernyakhiv, 14 of 20 samples are close to Slavic people mentioned before.
Those samples close to Swedish Vikings from Sigtuna are also close to our day Poles.

There were multiple Slavic migrations and Slavs were not an uniform group of people, even before 600 AD.

Starting with 600 AD there is a South Slavic speakers migration, from current land of Ukraine, close to Chernyakhiv, to South.
Before, Wends were a different group of Slavs, being very likely proto-West Slavs.
And most evidences are showing protoWestSlavs closer to North Germanics and Baltic people, than to Antes/protoEast Slavs.
Is more than clear that these protoWestSlavs contributed to the apparition of South Slavs.

George
08-19-2019, 09:33 PM
Correlate a bit with this: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?18071-Which-modern-day-Slavic-group-best-proxies-the-Slavic-input-into-Greeks
post n. 4 by Michal.

Plashiputak
01-15-2020, 04:22 PM
Ahem, I have an announcement to make: "The Karos samples’ STR data are 1 genetic distance on 17 loci in the Balkans to a Bulgarian from Montana and 2 mutation steps to a Bulgarian from Sofia, a Bulgarian from Plovdiv, and a Tuscan Albanian".


https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12520-019-00996-0

Kelmendasi
01-15-2020, 04:56 PM
Ahem, I have an announcement to make: "The Karos samples’ STR data are 1 genetic distance on 17 loci in the Balkans to a Bulgarian from Montana and 2 mutation steps to a Bulgarian from Sofia, a Bulgarian from Plovdiv, and a Tuscan Albanian".


https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12520-019-00996-0
I assume it means Tosk Albanian, rather than "Tuscan Albanian".

"We looked at 16 loci from 640 I2a-L621 samples in FTDNA’s I2a project database and found that 7 individuals were 2 genetic steps away the Karos samples, of whom 1 was a Hungarian from Kunszentmárton, 2 were Ukrainians, 1 was Lithuanian, 1 was Belarusian, 1 was Russian, and 1 was a German from Poland. Based on SNP analysis, the CTS10228 group is 2200 ± 300 years old. The group’s demographic expansion may have begun in Southeast Poland around that time, as carriers of the oldest subgroup are found there today. The group cannot solely be tied to the Slavs, because the proto-Slavic period was later, around 300–500 CE. Furthermore, the A2512 subgroup is typically Mediterranean (Greek, Jewish diaspora). We compared 15 loci from our data with Rębała et al.’s (2013) samples and found that 3 Poles and 2 Slovaks are 1 genetic step away, while 2 other Poles are 2 genetic steps away. The Karos samples’ STR data are 1 genetic distance on 17 loci in the Balkans to a Bulgarian from Montana and 2 mutation steps to a Bulgarian from Sofia, a Bulgarian from Plovdiv, and a Tuscan Albanian (see Fig. 7)."

Pretty interesting info, coincides with what has been theorised prior in regards to CTS10228.

mihaitzateo
01-15-2020, 08:13 PM
Well, the question is about the origin of I2A1B.
Leaving aside the I2A1B-L621 also known as "Dinaric", there is also the I2A1B-Isles or L161.1.
This HG is found at highest frequency in Western Ireland (between 5% and 10%).
How is possible that L621 has the peak in South Eastern Europe and L161.1 has the peak in Ireland?

Ayetooey
01-15-2020, 11:26 PM
Well, the question is about the origin of I2A1B.
Leaving aside the I2A1B-L621 also known as "Dinaric", there is also the I2A1B-Isles or L161.1.
This HG is found at highest frequency in Western Ireland (between 5% and 10%).
How is possible that L621 has the peak in South Eastern Europe and L161.1 has the peak in Ireland?

"Dinaric" I2a comes from one guy; probably a celt who went east, since the ancestral clades seem to point at a west-central origin around south west Germany/East France (Hallstatt territory). Essentially I2a1b was probably a very minor HG, and one dude went along with the celtic incursions east, was very successful with the ladies, and his descendants became part of the proto slavic ethnogenesis. This seems to be the theory at least; we have a disappointing lack of ancient samples, nothing prior to 900 AD which too far beyond the migration period.

I2a1b-L161.1 is a very minor HG anyway, even in Ireland where it peaks it's only a few percent. It managed to survive there the best but it can be found all over Europe in very minor percentages, including the balkans, but mainly western europe.

artemv
01-15-2020, 11:49 PM
I assume it means Tosk Albanian, rather than "Tuscan Albanian".

"We looked at 16 loci from 640 I2a-L621 samples in FTDNA’s I2a project database and found that 7 individuals were 2 genetic steps away the Karos samples, of whom 1 was a Hungarian from Kunszentmárton, 2 were Ukrainians, 1 was Lithuanian, 1 was Belarusian, 1 was Russian, and 1 was a German from Poland. Based on SNP analysis, the CTS10228 group is 2200 ± 300 years old. The group’s demographic expansion may have begun in Southeast Poland around that time, as carriers of the oldest subgroup are found there today. The group cannot solely be tied to the Slavs, because the proto-Slavic period was later, around 300–500 CE. Furthermore, the A2512 subgroup is typically Mediterranean (Greek, Jewish diaspora). We compared 15 loci from our data with Rębała et al.’s (2013) samples and found that 3 Poles and 2 Slovaks are 1 genetic step away, while 2 other Poles are 2 genetic steps away. The Karos samples’ STR data are 1 genetic distance on 17 loci in the Balkans to a Bulgarian from Montana and 2 mutation steps to a Bulgarian from Sofia, a Bulgarian from Plovdiv, and a Tuscan Albanian (see Fig. 7)."

Pretty interesting info, coincides with what has been theorised prior in regards to CTS10228.

What we see in this quotation is also theoretization. Hungarian conqueror DNA is from 9th century, and they compare it to modern DNA.
To be 100% sure CTS10228 (Y3120 on Y-full) was present in Zarubinetz culture (and later in Kievan culture) we need aDNA from these cultures.
To be sure that people from what is now South-East Poland migrated to the East and formed Zarubinetz culture we will need to compare DNA of both groups at least automally.

artemv
01-15-2020, 11:58 PM
Well, the question is about the origin of I2A1B.
Leaving aside the I2A1B-L621 also known as "Dinaric", there is also the I2A1B-Isles or L161.1.
This HG is found at highest frequency in Western Ireland (between 5% and 10%).
How is possible that L621 has the peak in South Eastern Europe and L161.1 has the peak in Ireland?

If you talk about I-M423, this a happlogroup is from Paleolithic Europe, formed 14 000 years before present. More that 10 000 years before groups of people like Slavs, Celts, Germanics emerged.
Last common ancstor of L-621 and L161.1 lived 11300 years ago.
There is absolutely nothing strange its branches peak in different parts of Europe.

ph2ter
01-16-2020, 08:19 AM
They say:

We looked at 16 loci from 640 I2a-L621 samples in FTDNA’s I2a project database and found that 7 individuals were 2 genetic steps away the Karos samples, of whom 1 was a Hungarian from Kunszentmárton, 2 were Ukrainians, 1 was Lithuanian, 1 was Belarusian, 1 was Russian, and 1 was a German from Poland.
We determined that the Kunszentmárton Hungarian sample belongs to the A815 subgroup. This is interesting, because this subgroup is also found in Moravia, Slovakia, and Ukraine, and it has a specific North Caucasian Karachay subgroup, as well.


A815 is my subgroup.
But they didn't made SNP testing of the samples. It is only STR prediction.

They further say:

Three I2a males were present in the sample, with haplotypes I2a1-L621, CTS10228. The males from Karos II grave 52 and Karos III grave 11 were buried with artifacts suggesting they were leaders among the Hungarian Conquerors (Révész 1996 (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12520-019-00996-0#CR49)).
The SNP-based age of the Eastern European CTS10228 branch is 2200 ± 300 years old. The carriers of the most ancient subgroup live in Southeast Poland, and it is likely that the rapid demographic expansion which brought the marker to other regions in Europe began there. The largest demographic explosion occurred in the Balkans, where the subgroup is dominant in 50.5% of Croatians, 30.1% of Serbs, 31.4% of Montenegrins, and in about 20% of Albanians and Greeks. As a result, this subgroup is often called Dinaric. It is interesting that while it is dominant among modern Balkan peoples, this subgroup has not been present yet during the Roman period, as it is almost absent in Italy as well (see Online Resource 5; ESM_5 (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12520-019-00996-0#MOESM5)).
The Hungarian Conqueror tribe whose leaders were buried at Karos may be connected to an early wave of this dynamic population expansion. Their genetic haplogroup, I2a-CTS10228, is widespread among Slavs, but it is only present in 7% of Caucasian peoples, namely among the Karachay.
Although we were unable to analyze the Karos remains any deeper, we did test the closest modern Hungarian Kunszentmárton samples for further mutations. It belonged to the A815 subgroup, which is also present in the Northern Caucasian Karachays, and possibly due to historical Hungarian impact, in the Moravians in the Czech Republic, the Slovaks, and the Ukrainians.
As such, it appears that the I2a-CTS10228 haplogroup in the paternal lineage of the Karos leaders arises from a specific branch in the Northern Caucasus dating to about 400–500 CE. Its modern descendents live among the Karachay, Hungarians, and various other surrounding nationalities.

Karos-Eperjesszög II, graves 16 (KEII/16) and 52 (KEII/52); Karos-Eperjesszög III, grave 11 (KEIII/11): I2a1-L621, CTS10228
Karos-Eperjesszög I, II, III

A more detailed description of the three Karos cemeteries is also given in (Neparáczki et al., 2016). The site of Karos-Eperjesszög is located in Northeastern Hungary, in Bodrogköz (Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County). During the first half of the 10th century CE, this area served as the palatial center and burial place of the Hungarian conquerors. The three cemeteries are situated on low sandhills that are approximately 200 meters from each other.

Karos-Eperjesszög I: Contained approximately fifty burials, most of which were destroyed during agricultural works, but Tibor Horváth was able to excavate thirteen graves in 1936.

Karos-Eperjesszög II: This second cemetery was discovered on the center sandhill. A total of seventy-three graves was uncovered by László Révész between 1986 and 1988.

Karos-Eperjesszög III: This third cemetery is south of Karos-Eperjesszög II and was excavated between 1988 and 1990. A total of nineteen graves was uncovered by László Révész and Mária Wolf. Artifacts were dated using 14C, and the results showed that the coins and other artifacts from the three Karos cemeteries were used between the last decade of the 9th century CE and the mid-10th century CE. The high number of male burials, weapons, and insignias of rank indicates that the wealthiest graves must have belonged to the leaders of the princely retinue (Révész 1996a).

The archaeological remains of all three Karos cemeteries were examined and published by László Révész (1996b), and the human skeletons were studied by Ágnes Kustár (1996).

Révész L (1996a) Karos-Eperjesszög, Cemeteries I-III. In: Fodor I, Révész L, Wolf M, M. Nepper I (eds) The Ancient Hungarians. Exhibition Catalogue. Hungarian National Museum, Budapest

Révész L (1996b) A karosi honfoglalás kori temetők [Karos cemeteries from the Hungarian Conquest period]. Miskolc.

Kustár Á (1996) A karos-eperjesszögi I-II-III. honfoglalás kori temetők embertani vizsgálata [Anthropological examination of the Hungarian Conqueror cemeteries of Karos-Eperjesszög]. In: Révész L A karosi honfoglalás kori temetők [The Hungarian Conqueror cemeteries of Karos-Eperjesszög]. Miskolc, 395-456

Pribislav
01-16-2020, 09:47 AM
They say:

We looked at 16 loci from 640 I2a-L621 samples in FTDNA’s I2a project database and found that 7 individuals were 2 genetic steps away the Karos samples, of whom 1 was a Hungarian from Kunszentmárton, 2 were Ukrainians, 1 was Lithuanian, 1 was Belarusian, 1 was Russian, and 1 was a German from Poland.
We determined that the Kunszentmárton Hungarian sample belongs to the A815 subgroup. This is interesting, because this subgroup is also found in Moravia, Slovakia, and Ukraine, and it has a specific North Caucasian Karachay subgroup, as well.


A815 is my subgroup.
But they didn't made SNP testing of the samples. It is only STR prediction.

Three Conqueror samples from this paper (K2/16, K2/52, K3/11), and one from Neparaczki et al. 2016 (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00438-016-1267-z) (K3/12) have identical haplotypes with available STRs, and three of them (K2/16, K2/52 and K3/12) were SNP tested as L621+ and S17250- in Neparaczki et al. 2019 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-53105-5), so they can't belong to A815. NevGen gives highest probability to Z17855, and then to Y4460, but the fit is almost equal. Based on modern distribution I'd say Y4460 is more probable, as Z17855 is concentrated mostly in the Balkans. Y4460 has more Central/Eastern European distribution, with several modern Hungarians belonging to downstream subclades. F17741 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-F17741/) looks particularly interesting, as it contains both Hungarian and two Bashkirs, and we know Bashkirs live in the territory of former Magna Hungaria.

https://i.postimg.cc/Cx1vc63k/HQ.png

ph2ter
01-16-2020, 10:49 AM
Three Conqueror samples from this paper (K2/16, K2/52, K3/11), and one from Neparaczki et al. 2016 (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00438-016-1267-z) (K3/12) have identical haplotypes with available STRs, and three of them (K2/16, K2/52 and K3/12) were SNP tested as L621+ and S17250- in Neparaczki et al. 2019 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-53105-5), so they can't belong to A815. NevGen gives highest probability to Z17855, and then to Y4460, but the fit is almost equal. Based on modern distribution I'd say Y4460 is more probable, as Z17855 is concentrated mostly in the Balkans. Y4460 has more Central/Eastern European distribution, with several modern Hungarians belonging to downstream subclades. F17741 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-F17741/) looks particularly interesting, as it contains both Hungarian and two Bashkirs, and we know Bashkirs live in the territory of former Magna Hungaria.

https://i.postimg.cc/Cx1vc63k/HQ.png
But Z17855 is also common among Hungarians.

Plashiputak
01-16-2020, 06:13 PM
Three Conqueror samples from this paper (K2/16, K2/52, K3/11), and one from Neparaczki et al. 2016 (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00438-016-1267-z) (K3/12) have identical haplotypes with available STRs, and three of them (K2/16, K2/52 and K3/12) were SNP tested as L621+ and S17250- in Neparaczki et al. 2019 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-53105-5), so they can't belong to A815. NevGen gives highest probability to Z17855, and then to Y4460, but the fit is almost equal. Based on modern distribution I'd say Y4460 is more probable, as Z17855 is concentrated mostly in the Balkans. Y4460 has more Central/Eastern European distribution, with several modern Hungarians belonging to downstream subclades. F17741 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-F17741/) looks particularly interesting, as it contains both Hungarian and two Bashkirs, and we know Bashkirs live in the territory of former Magna Hungaria.

https://i.postimg.cc/Cx1vc63k/HQ.png

"The Karos samples’ STR data are 1 genetic distance on 17 loci in the Balkans to a Bulgarian from Montana and 2 mutation steps to a Bulgarian from Sofia, a Bulgarian from Plovdiv, and a Tuscan Albanian". Hello? Can you read?

35894

Pribislav
01-17-2020, 02:34 AM
"The Karos samples’ STR data are 1 genetic distance on 17 loci in the Balkans to a Bulgarian from Montana and 2 mutation steps to a Bulgarian from Sofia, a Bulgarian from Plovdiv, and a Tuscan Albanian". Hello? Can you read?




Hello to you too rook. Do you have a point here or you're just playing dumb?

Plashiputak
01-17-2020, 06:27 AM
Hello to you too rook. Do you have a point here or you're just playing dumb?

It literally tells you its close to Bulgarian samples and Tuscan Albanian, not Bashkirians. And your conclusion that Y4460 would be more probable is based on? A lower probability? And conclusions based on samples from a company with address: ""Sole proprietor Vadim Urasin", 105523, 16th Parkovaya st, 55-2, Moscow, Russian Federation,Phone: +79153970079 (unfortunately we don't speak English in acceptable level)"". That's a big yikes.

Pribislav
01-17-2020, 08:58 PM
Two Serbs (circled in red) from two different Y3120* clusters recently ordered BigY700, so I'm confident we'll finally get the fifth subclade below Y3120 in a couple of months.

35912

lgmayka
01-17-2020, 10:14 PM
Two Serbs (circled in red) from two different Y3120* clusters recently ordered BigY700, so I'm confident we'll finally get the fifth subclade below Y3120 in a couple of months.
Great! For me personally, the most interesting question is whether any of FTDNA's current I-S20602* (I-Y3120*) members will form a subclade with one or both of these Serbs. Right now, FTDNA's Big Y Block Tree lists three members of I-S20602*: one Polish, one German, and one Greek.

mihaitzateo
01-18-2020, 07:10 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, but a part of the Bell Beakers found somewhere in Europe (Spain) are exactly I2A1B.
This was the article, I do not have the text, but I have read about 3 samples from the study.
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(19)30145-9.pdf
The article is supposing these people have been Western Europe Hunter Gatherers.
The thread is about the origins of I2A1B, which think are neither the Slavs, neither the Gothic tribes, neither the Dacians&Thracians, neither the Celtic tribes, but European people, that were in Europe before IndoEuropean languages appeared.

SakaDo
01-18-2020, 10:20 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, but a part of the Bell Beakers found somewhere in Europe (Spain) are exactly I2A1B.
This was the article, I do not have the text, but I have read about 3 samples from the study.
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(19)30145-9.pdf
The article is supposing these people have been Western Europe Hunter Gatherers.
The thread is about the origins of I2A1B, which think are neither the Slavs, neither the Gothic tribes, neither the Dacians&Thracians, neither the Celtic tribes, but European people, that were in Europe before IndoEuropean languages appeared.

Well, in this case they must be some kind of aliens.
Very sweet multicultural conclusion but we all know that's a sweet lie.

mihaitzateo
01-19-2020, 01:16 PM
Well, in this case they must be some kind of aliens.
Very sweet multicultural conclusion but we all know that's a sweet lie.

Is not any cultural lie, but an archaeological finding.
I2A1B from Iberian peninsula is from some proto-Celtic people.
There are other places where I2A1B is found in Europe, include Loschbur in Sweden, those people where I2A1B is found being Proto-Germanic people.

Here is some text from the article:
" To the limits of our typing resolution, EN/MN individuals CHA001, CHA003, ELT002 and ELT006 share haplogroup I2a1b, which was also reported for Loschbour [73] and Motala HG [13], and other LN and Chalcolithic individuals from Iberia [7, 9], as well as Neolithic Scotland, France, England [9], and Lithuania [14]. Both C1 and I1/ I2 are considered typical European HG lineages prior to the arrival of farming.
"
Motala is in South Western Sweden, in Östergötland County, Loschbur is in Luxembourg.

Dorkymon
01-19-2020, 01:42 PM
Can you all stop calling it I2a1b, because it isn't.

Either use the short notation I-L621 or I2a1a2b (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TH2aUkqHUV8coChJOCxGeXMg6QdyRTPthWOpW8IyCJE/edit#gid=198726360), if you prefer the everchanging long one.
Nowadays I2a1b refers to I-M436/P214 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-M436/), which is the old I2a2 (https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_I2_Y-DNA.shtml#I2a2).

artemv
01-19-2020, 02:23 PM
Can you all stop calling it I2a1b, because it isn't.

Either use the short notation I-L621 or I2a1a2b (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TH2aUkqHUV8coChJOCxGeXMg6QdyRTPthWOpW8IyCJE/edit#gid=198726360), if you prefer the everchanging long one.
Nowadays I2a1b refers to I-M436/P214 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-M436/), which is the old I2a2 (https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_I2_Y-DNA.shtml#I2a2).
"Old I2a1b" was M423, not L621.
But everyone here discusses Y3120, not even L621.


Is not any cultural lie, but an archaeological finding.
I2A1B from Iberian peninsula is from some proto-Celtic people.
There are other places where I2A1B is found in Europe, include Loschbur in Sweden, those people where I2A1B is found being protoGermanic people.
I2A1B has nothing to do with protoSlavs.
Here is some text from the article:
" To the limits of our typing resolution, EN/MN individuals CHA001, CHA003, ELT002 and ELT006 share haplogroup I2a1b, which was also reported for Loschbour [73] and Motala HG [13], and other LN and Chalcolithic individuals from Iberia [7, 9], as well as Neolithic Scotland, France, England [9], and Lithuania [14]. Both C1 and I1/ I2 are considered typical European HG lineages prior to the arrival of farming.
"
Motala is in South Western Sweden, in Östergötland County, Loschbur is in Luxembourg.

Can you learn at least some basics about history and genetics before posting?
No way, hunter-gathers from Loshbour and Motala cannot be called "protoGermanic". They lived thousands of years before proto-Germanics.
Iberian Chalkolithic can not be called proto-Celtic. Iberian Chalkolithic ended about one thousand years before proto-Celtic (and likely in a different place, not where Celtic expansion started from).
Only correct statement is that I2A1B has nothing to do with proto-Slavs. "Old I2a1b", now I2a1a2 is 14 000 years old, that gives 12 000 years before proto-Slavs.

Dorkymon
01-19-2020, 03:51 PM
Romanians from Muntenia plains and Oltenia plains resemble very well, from a cultural point of view,to Goths,not to Slavs.


lo and behold, a random screenshot of placenames at the crossroads between Muntenia and Oltenia. Even after the policies of Romanising/Latinising the toponyms during communist times, I can guarantee you that half of what's on screen derives from Slavic roots. Even more than that, some of them have direct hints at ethnicities (Sarb(eni), Sarb(ii), Slav(esti), Rus(ciori), Serb(anesti) (x3), Serb(anestii) de Sus, Serb(oeni)).
The "problem" with some Romanians who deny any Slavic input in Romania and Romanians is simply ignorance, not actual ill intentions, because most of us love Bulgarians for example. If they were fluent in at least one Slavic language, then these things would have been easier to get and accept.

https://i.imgur.com/aopuWG1.png

mihaitzateo
01-19-2020, 04:25 PM
The thread is about I2A1B, not about I2A1B-Dinaric.
The article from which I have cited is from 2019 and is exactly new I2A1B which was found in the places mentioned in the article.
I2A1B-dinaric has a "sister clade" in British Isles and Ireland, with a peak in Ireland.


Those people from Spain are Bell Beakers, so they are actually ProtoCelts.
Their maternal lines are kept in our days Spain, Ireland, Scotland etc.
A very simple proof that I2A is from Western Europe is that fact that in Sardinia there is a high percentage of I2A.
No, is not I2A1B, but is closely related to I2A1B.
In France, I-P37.2 was found in some human remanants, from 3000 BC, in Treilles.
See this thread, from Anthrogenica, also.
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10676-I2a-in-Britain-which-boat-did-your-ancestor-get-on
Now , the OP have not asked about the presence of I2A1B-Dinaric in Slavic speakers and his question about I2A1B being moved by Visigoths can be very correct, I2A1B could have also been moved by Celtic tribes and Thracians and Dacians.
As a side note, how can you prove that the I2A1B-Dinaric from our days Slavic speakers are not assimilated Germanics or Celtic or Thracians/Dacians people?

Offtopic:
R1B-M269 is the Eastern European line that came from the Steppes and spread Westwards.

Pribislav
02-23-2020, 06:20 PM
Newest I2-PH908 tree:

36502

Dorkymon
02-23-2020, 07:39 PM
Newest I2-PH908 tree:

36502

Is FT169314 the same as FT168415 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LJCi30oSb1HMwwKjrQW5zupPExOD933R/view)? I was actually looking forward to the latter on YSEQ, but it never got added. FT169314 seems to be there, so I'm wondering if they mean the same thing.
I belong to DYS561=15 (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VJ1ScmfhGB_7sI42x4bXBfmjNSWLL9O5Tt3glaieUHs/edit?usp=sharing)and this is the only one that I haven't tested for yet.

Pribislav
02-23-2020, 08:31 PM
Is FT169314 the same as FT168415 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LJCi30oSb1HMwwKjrQW5zupPExOD933R/view)? I was actually looking forward to the latter on YSEQ, but it never got added. FT169314 seems to be there, so I'm wondering if they mean the same thing.
I belong to DYS561=15 (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VJ1ScmfhGB_7sI42x4bXBfmjNSWLL9O5Tt3glaieUHs/edit?usp=sharing)and this is the only one that I haven't tested for yet.

Those two are different SNPs, but they are currently at the same level, along with six other SNPs. As far as I know, this subclade is shared by two Tatars, and is only ~350 years old, so unless you have DYS389=14-33 you almost certainly don't belong to it. We have several similar cases among Serbian PH908 DYS561=15, who are negative for all known subclades, and I'm afraid the only solution might be BigY/WGS test. Although I should probably mention we have two Serbs with DYS561=15 who belong to subclade Y126296 (below DYS561=16 and FT16449), so they had a back mutation 16>15. Maybe the same thing happened in your lineage, so you should consider checking this SNP, it's available at YSEQ.

Exercitus
02-25-2020, 10:39 PM
Hello,
If i may, i need a little advice, till now this are my results, which clearly are quite 'dissapointing' because it seems leading toward a general I-PH908* ..

S17250 A+
PH908 T+
FT14506 G-
Y32084 A-
Y151633 T-
A356 T-
A13912 A-
Y126296 A-
Y81557 C-
Y103938 C-
A5913 G-
Y84307 G-
BY198275 A-
BY173304 T-
FT169314 A-
MF2888 A-

In process are also this other SNPs; FT138628 and Y99608, which i guess they will result negative also!! What other SNPs could you suggest me ?!

Pribislav
02-26-2020, 01:43 AM
Hello,
If i may, i need a little advice, till now this are my results, which clearly are quite 'dissapointing' because it seems leading toward a general I-PH908* ..

S17250 A+
PH908 T+
FT14506 G-
Y32084 A-
Y151633 T-
A356 T-
A13912 A-
Y126296 A-
Y81557 C-
Y103938 C-
A5913 G-
Y84307 G-
BY198275 A-
BY173304 T-
FT169314 A-
MF2888 A-

In process are also this other SNPs; FT138628 and Y99608, which i guess they will result negative also!! What other SNPs could you suggest me ?!

Y51673 & Y57291

Pribislav
03-19-2020, 12:50 PM
Great! For me personally, the most interesting question is whether any of FTDNA's current I-S20602* (I-Y3120*) members will form a subclade with one or both of these Serbs. Right now, FTDNA's Big Y Block Tree lists three members of I-S20602*: one Polish, one German, and one Greek.

It seems we've got the fifth subclade below I2-Y3120/YP196 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-Y3120/), as one of the Serbs shares six SNPs with the aforementioned Polish guy. We're still awaiting results for the other Serb. Congrats!

FGC12098 8293041 G>A
FGC12095 8529158 C>T
FGC12100 8850822 A>G
FT76511 13895967 T>C
FGC12103 14451508 C>A
FGC12107 16307528 G>A

Pribislav
03-20-2020, 07:47 PM
It seems we've got the fifth subclade below I2-Y3120/YP196 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-Y3120/), as one of the Serbs shares six SNPs with the aforementioned Polish guy. We're still awaiting results for the other Serb. Congrats!

FGC12098 8293041 G>A
FGC12095 8529158 C>T
FGC12100 8850822 A>G
FT76511 13895967 T>C
FGC12103 14451508 C>A
FGC12107 16307528 G>A

The other Serb also belongs to this new subclade, and he shares two additional (still unnamed) SNPs with the first Serb: 8440365 (C>G) and 8830556 (C>A). Both of them have 10+ novel variants remaining, so the MRCA probably lived in the Early Middle Ages.

mihaitzateo
05-01-2020, 04:38 PM
A little notice about I2A1B from Motala, Sweden , 7800 yrs old - it has the L621 mutation so is actually closer to I2A1B-dinaric.
I2A1B-dinaric has the mutation L621,but most of our days bearers of I2A1-L621 or Dinaric, have an additional mutation, L147.2

In regards to protoSlavs, is obvious protoSlavs and protoVikings or protoCoastal Scandos are quite related, from a cultural point of view.
ProtoSlavs appeared very, very likely on South Baltic Sea shores.

This thread is not about I2A1B-dinaric L147.2 but is actually about I2A1B and I doubt is known where exactly I2A1B originated.

And since we are talking about I2A1B I think there are some clades of I2A1b,few, that are associated with Vikings that migrated to Ukraine and Russia and appeared after the Slavic migration from 600-700 AD.
To the original poster, is hard to tell from which group of people his I2A1B have originated.

Plashiputak
05-21-2020, 04:17 PM
So many people were saying that we wont find I2a1b in the Balkans before the slavs, but in the new paper "Kinship, acquired and inherited status, and population structure at the Early Bronze Age Mokrin necropolis in northern Serbia", there is two of them since Bronze Age. What a wonderful day!

Ayetooey
05-22-2020, 08:01 PM
So many people were saying that we wont find I2a1b in the Balkans before the slavs, but in the new paper "Kinship, acquired and inherited status, and population structure at the Early Bronze Age Mokrin necropolis in northern Serbia", there is two of them since Bronze Age. What a wonderful day!

Is it even ancestral to slavic I2? I highly doubt it, since all ancient ancestral samples so far have been of west European origin.

Kelmendasi
05-25-2020, 03:28 PM
I2a-Y3120 has apparently been found in a Medieval sample from Krakauer Berg in Saxony, Germany, that dates back to 1338 CE, https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.20.106971v1.full.pdf. Interesting to see that E-V13 and J2b-Z631 also show up, odds are that the V13 is L540 given that this cluster has shown up in a Medieval sample from Czechia and the fact that it is concentrated in Eastern Europe. Z631 too has clusters that show up in Eastern Europe.

ph2ter
05-25-2020, 07:51 PM
So many people were saying that we wont find I2a1b in the Balkans before the slavs, but in the new paper "Kinship, acquired and inherited status, and population structure at the Early Bronze Age Mokrin necropolis in northern Serbia", there is two of them since Bronze Age. What a wonderful day!
I2a1b is M436, precursor of M223. This has nothing to do with M423.
I doubt that authors used old ISOGG nomenclature from 2018 in which I2a1b is M423.

Aspar
06-23-2020, 02:24 PM
I don't know if anyone is already aware of this but the bam files from "Y-chromosome haplogroups from Hun, Avar and conquering Hungarian period nomadic people of the Carpathian Basin" are already available here (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/data/view/PRJEB31764).

Although the coverage is not great, I had a look into the bam files of the two leaders positive for I-L621 and they also appear positive for some snp's at CTS10228 level:

K2/52:

8491957 I-FGC12081(Y3111/FGC12081/SK1237/V2129) C>G(2G)

K2/16:

16603287 I-CTS5996 T>C(2C)

So, the samples although initially predicted as CTS10228 on str markers, now we can confirm that they are also snp positive.
I couldn't find a positive snp downstream of CTS10228 unfortunately, mostly no reads whatsoever.
The samples however are negative for S17250 and V19 which is a baltic branch of Y3120.

As for I-CTS10228, my opinion is that it was a minor branch among people of the Urnfield culture.
Sometime in the first millennium BC this lineage whatever people was part of moved in eastern direction.
What time period was that we can only guess but looking at some Scythian IA samples from Ukraine there is one group of 'Scythians'(scy009, scy010) which is strongly distinguished by the remaining Scythians in that that they harbored very strong Urnfield influence represented by HUN_LBA:I1504 aka BR-2 and DEU_Halberstadt_LBA:

Target: Scythian_UKR:scy010
Distance: 3.3446% / 0.03344634
[B]37.8 HUN_LBA
27.8 DEU_Halberstadt_LBA[B]
26.8 Scythian_UKR
7.6 UKR_Cimmerian_o


Scy010 is radio-carbon dated to 542 bc and scy009 to 431 bc, therefore we can conclude that the Urnfield related people already reached Ukraine by the 6th century bc.
What's interesting is that scy010 doesn't show any balto-slavic related drift unlike some other scythian samples like MJ14 dated to 600 bc which shows high balto-slavic related drift and is possibly a remnant of the Chernoles culture.
Both scy009 and scy010 were found at the lower Dnieper river close to Kiev and at the periphery of what would later be Zarubintsy culture, considered significant for the development of the proto-Slavs.
My opinion is that Y3120 probably formed a little bit further west, close to the Vistula river. Otherwise how can you explain the presence of subclades typical for non-Slavs such as V19 found in Lituania and Y18331 found mostly in Greeks? It seems that from the Vistula river some clades such as V19 moved closer to Baltic, others moved in south-east direction such as Y18331. Up to this point Y3120 was probably not related to the Slavs. It was only some other clades who will be absorbed by the Zarubintsy culture that would later be associated and will be essential in the developing of the proto-Slavs.

George
06-23-2020, 04:18 PM
Are scy009 and scy010 both CTS-10228? Or not?

Aspar
06-23-2020, 05:12 PM
Are scy009 and scy010 both CTS-10228? Or not?

I haven't looked in their bam files but this is from the study:



scy009* Starosillya Scythian 770 - 415 BCE XY J2b1a6 R1b1a1a2
scy010* Starosillya Scythian 790 - 540 BCE XX N1b1a -


So it looks like scy010 is a female and scy009 is R1b-M269.

mihaitzateo
09-07-2020, 08:57 AM
A little thing about the formation of South Slav ethnics and Ostrogoths:
Around 400-500 AD,in SW Ukraine,Chernyakov are mentioned Ostrogoths,living there.
At around 600 AD from exactly same area, "Slavic people" are mass migrating South of Danube.
That I2-a-din is found in Pomerania (that was in NE Germany, before it was in NW Poland),2200 yrs ago shows the Gothic origin of I2-a-din.
In Pomerania,2200 yrs ago, were not West Slavs, but Gothic/East Germanic people. Vandals were also present in Pomerania, which were also East Germanics, not West Slavs.
Pomerania people were ethnic Germans, till 1945, not Poles.
However, the highest diversity of I2-a-din is in Carpathians from Moldavia,Romania which is very easy to explain, Gothic people mass migrated from Pomerania,to Dacia, first .
Ostrogoths were in SW Ukraine, till 450-500 AD and after, they migrate under South Baltic/Slavic rulers, to South of Danube,
mixing with locals and forming Yugoslavs and Bulgarians.
The difference between Romanian Gothic DNA and Yugoslav / Bulgarian Gothic DNA is that Romania has mostly Visigothic/West Goths DNA and Yugoslavs and Bulgarians have mostly Eastern Gothic/Ostrogoths DNA.
Romanians speak Eastern Romance, Bulgarians and Yugoslavs, South Slavic, but we are mostly Gothic people.

An extremely simple proof that Yugos descend mostly from Slavizied East Goths and not from Early West Slavs, is that in the West Slavs/East Slavs normal eating style, fish has a very important place, while in Yugos eating style, pork meat has a very important place. East Slavs even eat lots of fish, being very close to Scandos, from this point of view.
Yugos barely eat any fish, while fish was a very important food for Slavic people, early Slavic people being people that loved to live in swamps, on rivers, near waters.

Chernyakov Culture Goths remnants are scoring 90% or so genetic similarity to our days Yugos.
Poles do not score even 75% genetic similarity to our days Yugos, Poles being closest to our days Yugos, from Slavic people, as I understand.


https://theculturetrip.com/europe/serbia/articles/11-traditional-serbian-dishes-you-need-to-try/

Be fair, can average Serbian or Croat or Bosnian or Montenegrin or FYROM Macedonian eat Carp from plain lakes (not mountain lakes)?
I do not think so, because of the smell :) . While Poles, Russians,Ukrainians have Carp from lakes as a delicacy.

Dorkymon
09-07-2020, 10:28 AM
Romanians speak Eastern Romance, Bulgarians and Yugoslavs, South Slavic, but we are mostly Gothic people.

:rofl:

mihaitzateo
09-07-2020, 01:12 PM
:rofl:

Well I just seen the thread with the DNA from Morkin,Serbia dated 2000 BC and there is I2A1B there.
These Goths are a people that clearly existed, is clear that they were present in SW Ukraine, in Romania, in Yugoslavia, Bulgaria is known a part migrated to North Italy, even in France and till in Iberia but is not known exactly if they are were carrying a certain paternal line.
About the Dacians, which could also have I2A1B is also known that they existed, is known that Dacians were in Romania and remained here, is known that were also South Dacians, located South of Danube (where Yugoslavia is now) but is not known exactly if they carried mostly a single paternal line or what paternal lines were carrying.

I am supposing that in the archaeological sites you can make the difference between Dacians and Goths, based on what is found there, or who knows, is hard to make difference between Dacians and Goths.

Maciamo from Eupedia and others came with theory that I2A1B had to expand with the Slavic migration from 600 AD, but are lots of hard evidence to support that?
I am not sure.

Dr. Ken Nordtvedt ,which is a also a scientist, insists that I2A1B is a mutation that appeared because of the migration of the Goths, that migrated from South Scadinavia and that I2A1B was spread by Goths in Romania,Yugoslavia,Bulgaria etc.

What is weird is that the "sister" clade of I2A1b (Dinaric) - I2A1B-Disles has a peak in Ireland, think is 8% of the paternal lines, somewhere in Ireland.

Cucuteni–Trypillia culture people could be the source of most I2A1B-dinaric, who knows.
I found a recent study about Cucuteni-Trypillia, but they have not analysed the Y DNA of the people there.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-61190-0

ph2ter
09-10-2020, 01:36 PM
Well I just seen the thread with the DNA from Morkin,Serbia dated 2000 BC and there is I2A1B there.
These Goths are a people that clearly existed, is clear that they were present in SW Ukraine, in Romania, in Yugoslavia, Bulgaria is known a part migrated to North Italy, even in France and till in Iberia but is not known exactly if they are were carrying a certain paternal line.
About the Dacians, which could also have I2A1B is also known that they existed, is known that Dacians were in Romania and remained here, is known that were also South Dacians, located South of Danube (where Yugoslavia is now) but is not known exactly if they carried mostly a single paternal line or what paternal lines were carrying.

I am supposing that in the archaeological sites you can make the difference between Dacians and Goths, based on what is found there, or who knows, is hard to make difference between Dacians and Goths.

Maciamo from Eupedia and others came with theory that I2A1B had to expand with the Slavic migration from 600 AD, but are lots of hard evidence to support that?
I am not sure.

Dr. Ken Nordtvedt ,which is a also a scientist, insists that I2A1B is a mutation that appeared because of the migration of the Goths, that migrated from South Scadinavia and that I2A1B was spread by Goths in Romania,Yugoslavia,Bulgaria etc.

What is weird is that the "sister" clade of I2A1b (Dinaric) - I2A1B-Disles has a peak in Ireland, think is 8% of the paternal lines, somewhere in Ireland.

Cucuteni–Trypillia culture people could be the source of most I2A1B-dinaric, who knows.
I found a recent study about Cucuteni-Trypillia, but they have not analysed the Y DNA of the people there.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-61190-0
Why do you propagate here outdated and wrong conjectures?

Cucuteni-Trypillia is irrelevant to I2a1-Din. Mokrin I2a1 samples are not I2a1-Din (they are I2a1-Isles).
The Goths could possibly propagate I1, but not I2a1-Din.

DragosKorsan
09-10-2020, 09:52 PM
Well I just seen the thread with the DNA from Morkin,Serbia dated 2000 BC and there is I2A1B there.
These Goths are a people that clearly existed, is clear that they were present in SW Ukraine, in Romania, in Yugoslavia, Bulgaria is known a part migrated to North Italy, even in France and till in Iberia but is not known exactly if they are were carrying a certain paternal line.
About the Dacians, which could also have I2A1B is also known that they existed, is known that Dacians were in Romania and remained here, is known that were also South Dacians, located South of Danube (where Yugoslavia is now) but is not known exactly if they carried mostly a single paternal line or what paternal lines were carrying.

I am supposing that in the archaeological sites you can make the difference between Dacians and Goths, based on what is found there, or who knows, is hard to make difference between Dacians and Goths.

Maciamo from Eupedia and others came with theory that I2A1B had to expand with the Slavic migration from 600 AD, but are lots of hard evidence to support that?
I am not sure.

Dr. Ken Nordtvedt ,which is a also a scientist, insists that I2A1B is a mutation that appeared because of the migration of the Goths, that migrated from South Scadinavia and that I2A1B was spread by Goths in Romania,Yugoslavia,Bulgaria etc.

What is weird is that the "sister" clade of I2A1b (Dinaric) - I2A1B-Disles has a peak in Ireland, think is 8% of the paternal lines, somewhere in Ireland.

Cucuteni–Trypillia culture people could be the source of most I2A1B-dinaric, who knows.
I found a recent study about Cucuteni-Trypillia, but they have not analysed the Y DNA of the people there.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-61190-0

No, I don't believe.

jstephan
09-10-2020, 10:19 PM
These Goths are a people that clearly existed, is clear that they were present in SW Ukraine, in Romania, in Yugoslavia, Bulgaria is known a part migrated to North Italy, even in France and till in Iberia but is not known exactly if they are were carrying a certain paternal line.


That study was an amazing opportunity to learn about the DNA of the Visigoths, unfortunately it appears that they didn't extract any : https://www.archyde.com/in-toulouse-the-visigoths-emerged-from-the-shadows-and-their-graves/

Szigmund
10-27-2020, 06:52 AM
Toughts on this?

https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2018/01/18/magi-the-ancient-zoroastrian-hereditary-priesthood-and-haplogroups-i-m170-i-p215-and-haplogroup-t1a2/

Plashiputak
11-03-2020, 02:30 AM
https://proizhod.nauka.bg/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/res2.png