View Full Version : Haplogroup I2 in the Balkans
Then R1a is Germanic also if R1b (or R1b is Slavic:p) is since they are closer than I2 and I1 are.
R1a is found in the highest concentrations among Slavs and north Indians. But R1a is much older than that - it is Indo-European.
I1 is decidedly Germanic. Slavs don't have that. I2 is decidedly Balkan. Slavs don't have that either (only Slavicized peoples in the Balkan carry it). It means the Balkan Slavs were fucked by Illyrian males in abundance.
Peikko
06-20-2013, 02:42 PM
R1a is found in the highest concentrations among Slavs and north Indians. But R1a is much older than that - it is Indo-European.
I1 is decidedly Germanic. Slavs don't have that. I2 is decidedly Balkan. Slavs don't have that either (only Slavicized peoples in the Balkan carry it). It means the Balkan Slavs were fucked by Illyrian males in abundance.
Actually I1 isn't Germanic precisely, because it predates Indo-Europeans. It could be considered proto-Scandinavian, so in that sense it's "Germanic". But the proto-Scandinavians didn't speak Germanic language.
safinator
06-20-2013, 02:43 PM
I2 is older than the Slavic ethnogenesis ... and older than the arrival of Slavic people to the Balkans. IMO. :)
Also, I2 would have split off from a common ancestor with I1. And I1 is Germanic ...
If I2 was Slavic, then it would have been widespread among today's Poles and Russians, for example. But it's very rare among them, if not nonexistent.
So you say I2 in Balkan Slavs is indigenous since it reaches the highest frequencies right?
So you say I2 in Balkan Slavs is indigenous since it reaches the highest frequencies right?
Yes. It may not have originated there, but is certainly indigenous in the Balkan since long before the Slavs arrived.
We should actually split this off from Arberori's troll thread to discuss separately. :)
safinator
06-20-2013, 02:54 PM
Yes. It may not have originated there, but is certainly indigenous in the Balkan since long before the Slavs arrived.
Well if we follow your theory that would make E-V13 Albanian and not Greek :D
No need to split anything, i've made myself clear more than one time, not going to repeat the same mantra over and over again.
Insuperable
06-20-2013, 02:58 PM
Actually I1 isn't Germanic precisely, because it predates Indo-Europeans. It could be considered proto-Scandinavian, so in that sense it's "Germanic". But the proto-Scandinavians didn't speak Germanic language.
Yes. For Loki I1 is Germanic, but I2 is not Slavic because it predates...
By Slavic I mean that I2a1b (I2a2) was spread to Balkans durig Slavic expansion 1500 years ago - a Nordtvedt theory supported by researchers.
When I say Slavic I also mean that it originated with people similar to todays northeastern/eastern Europeans.
Yes. For Loki I1 is Germanic, but I2 is not Slavic because it predates...
By Slavic I mean that I2a1b (I2a2) was spread to Balkans durig Slavic expansion 1500 years ago - a Nordtvedt theory supported by researchers.
When I say Slavic I also mean that it originated with people similar to todays northeastern/eastern Europeans.
Nordtvedt is wrong about this.
Well if we follow your theory that would make E-V13 Albanian and not Greek :D
No, quite the opposite. E-V13 is Pelasgian/Greek/Thracian.
No need to split anything, i've made myself clear more than one time, not going to repeat the same mantra over and over again.
Not just for you, others want to discuss this topic as well :)
Insuperable
06-20-2013, 03:12 PM
Nordtvedt is wrong about this.
I never said that he is right. I am just saying that researchers support him and there are probably reasons, but you are talking about it like you already know for certain some things.
Nordtvedt located that start of I2a1b lineage around the course of the Vistula.
Example
Croats have a lot of I2a1b. Nestor the historian claimed that White Croatia was situated somewhere near Vistula.
I never said that he is right. I am just saying that researchers support him and there are probably reasons, but you are talking about it like you already know for certain some things.
Well, of course my word isn't law. It's just my opinion, but I think an informed opinion.
A good topic for discussion anyways. I am open to correction at any time if I can be convinced with facts.
Drawing-slim
06-21-2013, 12:12 AM
What's the difference from J2a1b and I2a2b?
What's the difference from J2a1b and I2a2b?
A lot. J2 is Neolithic, and also (like E-V13) linked to Ancient Greek expansion.
ChocolateFace
06-21-2013, 12:16 AM
A lot. J2 is Neolithic, and also (like E-V13) linked to Ancient paleobalkanic expansion.
I corrected it :p
Artek
06-21-2013, 08:41 AM
R1a is found in the highest concentrations among Slavs and north Indians. But R1a is much older than that - it is Indo-European.
I will add some Afghan tribes to this. But their R1a is not so much related to the Slavic one.
I1 is decidedly Germanic. Slavs don't have that.
It's not, actually. We have ancestral polish-specific clusters of I1, also there are typical finnic I1 clades (Bothnian) which predate the arise of germanic languages.
I2 is decidedly Balkan. Slavs don't have that either (only Slavicized peoples in the Balkan carry it). It means the Balkan Slavs were fucked by Illyrian males in abundance.
East Slavs and South Slavs have more I2, in Poland percentages of I1 and I2 are roughly equal, maybe with slight advantage of I2. Still, many people with I2 carried ukrainian surnames.
It's not certain whether Nordtvedt is right or not about young age of I2a1b since there is no possible way to know true age of Y-DNA line using mutation rates(mutation rate varies, obviously). So, these ages are just generalised - with possible huge margin!.
The oldest I2a1b are found in Poland but it can be due to the sampling bias.
Balkans are really undertested!
It's not certain whether Nordtvedt is right or not about young age of I2a1b since there is no possible way to know true age of Y-DNA line using mutation rates(mutation rate varies, obviously). So, these ages are just generalised - with possible huge margin!.
It is extremely unlikely that Nordtvedt's outrageous theories hold any water.
Artek
06-21-2013, 09:02 AM
It is extremely unlikely that Nordtvedt's outrageous theories hold any water.
Nordtvedt implies that I2 came to the Balkans probably only with Slavs (because of it's such young age). But what British Isles I2a1b clades are doing in England? ;D It's a huge mystery. We need pre-Slavic fossils from Balkans tested.
Nordtvedt implies that I2 came to the Balkans probably only with Slavs (because of it's such young age). But what British Isles I2a1b clades are doing in England? ;D It's a huge mystery. We need pre-Slavic fossils from Balkans tested.
His theory has so many holes I don't even know where to start.
It also seems his views are not mainstream. From 23andme:
Haplogroup I2 is most abundant in eastern Europe and on the Mediterranean island of Sardinia, where it is found in 40% of the male population. Like its brother haplogroup, I1, I2 expanded northward at the end of the Ice Age about 12,000 to 14,000 years ago. But unlike I1, which expanded from the Iberian peninsula into northwestern Europe, I2 radiated outward from the Balkans into the eastern half of the continent.
I rest my case.
Maximum Speed
06-21-2013, 09:12 AM
http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/4143/978.gif (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/163/978.gif/)
d3cimat3d
06-21-2013, 09:15 AM
Some have theorized that British Isles I2a1b came with Cimmerian elite http://i42.tinypic.com/30xftvr.png
I don't know what to think of any of the hI's. The most mysterious haplogroup IMO.
Some have theorized that British Isles I2a1b came with Cimmerian elite http://i42.tinypic.com/30xftvr.png
I don't know what to think of any of the hI's. The most mysterious haplogroup IMO.
Sounds a bit like Anglo-Israelism to me. In fact, I'm fairly certain it's from such a source.
This is the current tree of I2 as per ISOGG -2013
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/I2-tree.gif
I2 is common in British Isles, France, Germany, Holland, Sardinia, Iberia, the Balkans and Eastern Europe including Poland, Ukraine, Belarus and Russia.
Branches common in the Balkans are under I2a1b*. I2a1b* are also found in Eastern Europe and British Isles often being designated as I2a1b- Dinaric South (found in the Balkans), I2a1b-Dinaric North (found in Eastern Europe above Danube River but also in Bulgaria). I2a1b-Discles (in the British Isles). 'Discles' stand for' Dinaric and Isles' because two branches are very similar. To add more complexity to all this there are several nomenclatures being used in different sources. USOGG 2009 is used by 23andMe. FTDNA is using another nomenclature.
It is expected new SNPs will be found in the future in I2a1b*. So, don’t jump into conclusions about haplogroup origins. I2a1b* may not be native the Balkans either as it’s a young haplogroup confirmed by many people. It's known for a fact there was migration from eastern Europe to the Balkans in the last 2000 and not the other way around. Not to mention that higher diversity and greater in absolute numbers of the carriers of I2a1b* are found outside of the Balkans which points to the origins elsewhere.
What is certain at the moment is that I2 and I1 are related. Both branches are truly European not found in other continents.
http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/4143/978.gif (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/163/978.gif/)
Good map. Highest concentrations in the Balkan around Bosnia. Indigenous in the Balkan - and spread from there further east and north. Clear as daylight.
So, don’t jump into conclusions about haplogroup origins. I2a1b* may not be native the Balkans either as it’s a young haplogroup confirmed by many people.
*triple facepalm* :picard1::picard2::picard1:
Haplogroup I2 is most abundant in eastern Europe and on the Mediterranean island of Sardinia, where it is found in 40% of the male population. Like its brother haplogroup, I1, I2 expanded northward at the end of the Ice Age about 12,000 to 14,000 years ago. But unlike I1, which expanded from the Iberian peninsula into northwestern Europe, I2 radiated outward from the Balkans into the eastern half of the continent.
*triple facepalm* :picard1::picard2::picard1:
Haplogroup I2 is most abundant in eastern Europe and on the Mediterranean island of Sardinia, where it is found in 40% of the male population. Like its brother haplogroup, I1, I2 expanded northward at the end of the Ice Age about 12,000 to 14,000 years ago. But unlike I1, which expanded from the Iberian peninsula into northwestern Europe, I2 radiated outward from the Balkans into the eastern half of the continent.
I2a1b* are most abundant in eastern Europe and British Isles. See the most up to date map above. There are many branches of I2 not found in eastern Europe at all. Dated information does not provide any useful information about the distribution and origins of I2 branches as only few people were tested in the past.
I2a1b* are most abundant in eastern Europe and British Isles. See the most up to date map above. There are many branches of I2 not found in eastern Europe at all. Dated information does not provide any useful information about the distribution and origins of I2 branches as only few people were tested in the past.
That proves the theory even more wrong.
That proves the theory even more wrong.
Which theory? There are facts about I2 frequencies in different regions of Europe and newly discovered mutations being found every year as more subjects and new technologies/methods become available. This is also true for other y-dna and mtDNA haplogroups.
Which theory? There are facts about I2 frequencies in different regions of Europe and newly discovered mutations being found every year as more subjects and new technologies/methods become available. This is also true for other y-dna and mtDNA haplogroups.
No, the theory that I2 is extremely young. Although not linear, the more mutations probably means it's older than previously thought.
Loki
The age of haplogroup is calculated using accepted methodologies. Some historians use results of earlier calculations to fulfil their agenda in regards to who were the earliest in the Balkans. The use of haplogroup to prove a point is not unique to the Balkan region. There will be new mutations found and calculations carried out and we'll have more knowledge about the age and origins of haplogroups. The current results are not final for many haplgroups. Just kieep in mind there are many branches under I2a tree. There is also a branch under I2a1b* found in British Isles being very similar to Dinaric not found in eastern Europe at all.
Branches common in the Balkans are under I2a1b*. I2a1b* are also found in Eastern Europe and British Isles often being designated as I2a1b- Dinaric South (found in the Balkans), I2a1b-Dinaric North (found in Eastern Europe above Danube River but also in Bulgaria). I2a1b-Discles (in the British Isles). 'Discles' stand for' Dinaric and Isles' because two branches are very similar.
The fact that I2 occurs in Britain could possibly refer back to Roman times - and could have arrived in the same way as E-V13 - via Roman soldiers of Balkan origin.
No, quite the opposite. E-V13 is Pelasgian/Greek/Thracian.
Loki, I tried to understand this bottle-neck idea that makes E-V13 grek, totally contradicted by its distribution, but I couldn't wrap my head around it. Can you explain in simple words what do you imagine that happened?
Loki
The age of haplogroup is calculated using accepted methodologies. Some historians use results of earlier calculations to fulfil their agenda in regards to who were the earliest in the Balkans.
But you must understand - haplogroup I2 is 12,000 to 14,000 years old. The Slavs arrived in the Balkan when? That's right, not even 2,000 years ago. They are relative newcomers to that area.
Loki
It could be but then we need to invent a new method determining the age of mutation I2a found in British Isles coinciding with Roman expansion. Branches found in the Balkans and British Isles are related but they are not the same.
I2a2b (I-38) was found in skeletons of the Lichtenstein Cave dated to 2000BC (3000 years old). : https://sites.google.com/site/haplogroupil38/summary/on-the-lichtenstein-cave
Ah, that must be earlier expansion then into there. And, yet again, proves my point that I2 is way older even than the existence of Slavic people. Older than the time before Germanics and Slavs split from each other.
CrystalMaiden
06-21-2013, 10:25 AM
Ah, that must be earlier expansion then into there. And, yet again, proves my point that I2 is way older even than the existence of Slavic people. Older than the time before Germanics and Slavs split from each other.
Now someone explain that to that Croat after he finishes his prayers at the Altar of Nordtvedt :lol:
Loki, the highest concentration of I2 is located in Herzegovina not in Bosnia :P
Loki, the highest concentration of I2 is located in Herzegovina not in Bosnia :P
Same difference lol :P
Loki, the highest concentration of I2 is located in Herzegovina not in Bosnia :P
And another good point. If it was Slavic, it probably would have had the highest concentration in Serbia.
And another good point. If it was Slavic, it probably would have had the highest concentration in Serbia.
For BiH :
http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/1193/3tabela.gif
R1a slots in at roughly 15% in the area. That's also the amount of Slavic admixture I would have expected in the region.
Ah, that must be earlier expansion then into there. And, yet again, proves my point that I2 is way older even than the existence of Slavic people. Older than the time before Germanics and Slavs split from each other.
Many branches of I2a existed in Europe before Slavs, Germans or Celts who stemmed from proto-Indo-European community arriving from the east assimilating local populations. I haplogroup is native to Europe. AFAIK 20% of European men are carrying I haplogroup. I2 branch probably originated in the Alps expanding east and west.
Slavs and eastern Europeans have I2a1b* (I-423). Brits also have it which is slightly different to Dinaric. My understanding Nordvedt is arguing I-423 branch is no older than 2,250-2,500 years old. I haven't seen anyone pointing to any inconsistencies in his calculations.
The arguments about I2a1b* - Dinaric (I-423) comes mostly from the fact that Poles, Russians, Ukrainians and Belorussians have I-423 in higher frequencies. At the same time Greeks and Albanians living on the Balkans for a long time don't have I-423 in high frequencies.
Currents arguments and theories from either side are not final. There will be new mutations found in I-423 (Dinaric) splitting the branch.
Slavs and eastern Europeans have I2a1b* (I-423). Brits also have it which is slightly different to Dinaric. My understanding Nordvedt is arguing I-423 branch is no older than 2,250-2,500 years old. I haven't seen anyone pointing to any inconsistencies in his calculations.
That's not the only branch of I2 found in the Balkans, and in any case 2,500 years (if that can be accepted as truth) is about double as old as the existence of Slavs in the Balkan. It was likely already there before the Slavs arrived.
Drawing-slim
06-21-2013, 10:54 AM
*triple facepalm* :picard1::picard2::picard1:
Haplogroup I2 is most abundant in eastern Europe and on the Mediterranean island of Sardinia, where it is found in 40% of the male population. Like its brother haplogroup, I1, I2 expanded northward at the end of the Ice Age about 12,000 to 14,000 years ago. But unlike I1, which expanded from the Iberian peninsula into northwestern Europe, I2 radiated outward from the Balkans into the eastern half of the continent.
This is exactly what I get on my paternal line!?
And what I ment to ask earlier in my question, what's the difference of my I2a2b from I2a1b, which is found more in Croatia according to solin!?
This is exactly what I get on my paternal line!?
Yes, I took it from 23andme :)
And it stressed that it expanded from the Balkans, not towards it.
Sisak
06-21-2013, 11:00 AM
In Croatia there are no more than 10 percent of haplogroup I1. Croats have haplogroup J and Phoenician haplogroup, but I forgot the percentage and letter of Phoenician haplogroup.
Drawing-slim
06-21-2013, 11:02 AM
...
safinator
06-21-2013, 11:03 AM
In Croatia there are no more than 10 percent of haplogroup I1. Croats have haplogroup J and Phoenician haplogroup, but I forgot the percentage and letter of Phoenician haplogroup.
I1 in Croatia is 5.8 %
I1 in Croatia is 5.8 %
Doesn't it (I1) peak among people from Krk? (in much higher percentage)
safinator
06-21-2013, 11:16 AM
Doesn't it (I1) peak among people from Krk? (in much higher percentage)
Not sure.
http://i.imgur.com/QLgFSmj.gif
http://i.imgur.com/Ejhb1pZ.gif
http://i.imgur.com/vVwZ1No.gif
http://i.imgur.com/NyQuqyL.gif
http://i.imgur.com/qPuMzWY.gif
http://i.imgur.com/GZOmjrP.gif
Insuperable
06-21-2013, 11:19 AM
*triple facepalm* :picard1::picard2::picard1:
Haplogroup I2 is most abundant in eastern Europe and on the Mediterranean island of Sardinia, where it is found in 40% of the male population. Like its brother haplogroup, I1, I2 expanded northward at the end of the Ice Age about 12,000 to 14,000 years ago. But unlike I1, which expanded from the Iberian peninsula into northwestern Europe, I2 radiated outward from the Balkans into the eastern half of the continent.
No, the theory that I2 is extremely young. Although not linear, the more mutations probably means it's older than previously thought.
But you must understand - haplogroup I2 is 12,000 to 14,000 years old. The Slavs arrived in the Balkan when? That's right, not even 2,000 years ago. They are relative newcomers to that area.
Ah, that must be earlier expansion then into there. And, yet again, proves my point that I2 is way older even than the existence of Slavic people. Older than the time before Germanics and Slavs split from each other.
That's not the only branch of I2 found in the Balkans, and in any case 2,500 years (if that can be accepted as truth) is about double as old as the existence of Slavs in the Balkan. It was likely already there before the Slavs arrived.
I2 is thousands years of old and probably originated somewhere in Balkans or southeast Europe, but I2a1b is 2500 years old (yes even that is before Slav as a name came to existence) and iz originated outside of Balkans because the highest diversiy is found outside Balkans, the highest concentration is irrelevant. It does not matter if something was before or after Slavs or Germanics, the point is that I2a1b (not I2 which is many thousands years old) originated in northeastern Europe and can't be Illyrian.
Example
R1b originated somewhere outside Europe, but R1b1b1axxx originated in Europe say some short time ago.
Sisak
06-21-2013, 11:21 AM
Doesn't it (I1) peak among people from Krk? (in much higher percentage)
In fact, people from the island Krk have 16 percent R1B EU18 hablogrup, it is the Basque west European haplogroup.
Insuperable
06-21-2013, 11:36 AM
Whats with 5% of H in northern Croatia? Madafckin Gypsies.
Safinator, how old is the study?
safinator
06-21-2013, 11:40 AM
Whats with 5% of H in northern Croatia? Madafckin Gypsies.
Safinator, how old is the study?
From 2011
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3118711/
the point is that I2a1b (not I2 which is many thousands years old) originated in northeastern Europe and can't be Illyrian.
That doesn't mean it can't be Illyrian - or in other words, were carried by the Illyrians. I'm a fairly logical guy but this doesn't compute. It's jumping to conclusions.
R1a slots in at roughly 15% in the area. That's also the amount of Slavic admixture I would have expected in the region.
15% is to low to assimilate rest of the population and it is impossible for a time there is no central education system and etc..
15% is to low to assimilate rest of the population and it is impossible for a time there is no central education system and etc..
Exactly. Slavs did not only carry R1a, but R1a is the main identifier of their spread and genetic heritage. Also autosomally, Balkan people are not predominantly Eastern European, but rather native Balkan.
Insuperable
06-21-2013, 12:10 PM
Exactly. Slavs did not only carry R1a, but R1a is the main identifier of their spread and genetic heritage. Also autosomally, Balkan people are not predominantly Eastern European, but rather native Balkan.
They are half-half
They are half-half
You Croats seem to be the least Slavic of the group.
Insuperable
06-21-2013, 12:19 PM
From 2011
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3118711/
It is obviously not that study, but it is not important. I found it online using image search. It is from 2012. They found haplogroup H in 5% in Northern Croatia which is weird (11 people out of 220) and overall 1.8% on about 1000 people (western, northern, eastern...part).
On Eupedia there are frequencies based also on over 1000 sample size taken from peer-review papers
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml
They probably took some Roma mixed people as a sample in that study.
Insuperable
06-21-2013, 12:23 PM
You Croats seem to be the least Slavic of the group.
It would be so if you based that on haplogroup frequencies and if you based that on the idea that I2a1b is of Balkan extraction. R1a is bigger than some other South Slavic countries.
Artek
06-21-2013, 12:36 PM
I2a1b undoubtedly played a huge role in Slavic expansion in Balkans. The thing is, how frequent (if ever) this haplogroup was in the Balkans before. As procyone said, there are currently working on the I2a1 to reveal some interesting things. Also more and more people will get tested... we will see...
I2a1b undoubtedly played a huge role in Slavic expansion in Balkans.
Yes - the Slavic expansion may have diminished its prevalence somewhat.
CrystalMaiden
06-21-2013, 12:40 PM
Yes - the Slavic expansion may have diminished its prevalence somewhat.
I doubt the Slavic expansion in the 6th century made that much of a dent, most Slavic input in Bosnia came trough slave trade.
Insuperable
06-21-2013, 12:44 PM
All South Slavs have high eastern autosomal components.
Artek
06-21-2013, 12:44 PM
Yes - the Slavic expansion may have diminished its prevalence somewhat.
You mean bad R1a-Z280/M458 guys killing poor I2a1b Balkanites? Ohh, sorry for that ;).
But really, what if such huge percentage of I2a1b in Balkans is an effect of medieval founder-effect? What if Nordtvedt is right? It would be a huge shame for the most of Balkanians to be considered I2a newcomers.
What if Nordtvedt is right? It would be a huge shame for the most of Balkanians to be considered I2a newcomers.
All pro-Slav and pan-Slav Balkanites would rejoice, since this is what they want.
Artek
06-21-2013, 12:58 PM
All pro-Slav and pan-Slav Balkanites would rejoice, since this is what they want.
Personally, I'm indifferent to that (hopefully), at least trying to be.
It would mean a huge population replacement (slaughter? overnumbering and overbreeding?) during the early medieval times and some time after. So many questions, so little answers.
It would mean a huge population replacement (slaughter? overnumbering and overbreeding?) during the early medieval times and some time after. So many questions, so little answers.
Exactly. From all our knowledge of invasions and population replacement, the fact always remains that invaders inevitably make up the smallest percentage of the total population in the aftermath. Take for example Turkey ... I think we can all agree that Anatolian Turks' primary genetic heritage is pre-Turkic Anatolian, even though they fully assimilated and identify as Turks; speak the Turkish language. More parallels can be seen in Britain (especially Wales and Scotland).
Sisak
06-21-2013, 01:14 PM
Since ancient times, the Illyrians, there is a trade relationship. Amber had a great value and is considered prestige. Illyrians traded to the Baltic countries. See my thread about illyrian tribe Japods.
Drawing-slim
06-21-2013, 01:33 PM
The true Illyrians are only today's Albanians. And more precisely, in albanian mountains. Nothing can change this fact.
Exactly. From all our knowledge of invasions and population replacement, the fact always remains that invaders inevitably make up the smallest percentage of the total population in the aftermath. Take for example Turkey ... I think we can all agree that Anatolian Turks' primary genetic heritage is pre-Turkic Anatolian, even though they fully assimilated and identify as Turks; speak the Turkish language. More parallels can be seen in Britain (especially Wales and Scotland).
So Loki, it seems the discussion came to a point I need to ask again my question:
Loki, I tried to understand this bottle-neck idea that makes E-V13 grek, totally contradicted by its distribution, but I couldn't wrap my head around it. Can you explain in simple words what do you imagine that happened?
So Loki, it seems the discussion came to a point I need to ask again my question:
Apologies, I got distracted.
I am referring to the founder effect. Meaning, a smallish amount of males move into an area, establishes themselves at top of a social hierarchy, and produce the most children with local women. These founder men's genes are then more concentrated in the male lines ... and that can further be magnified due to population bottleneck effect (relatively small amount of people who increased rapidly and are fairly "in-bred" (for lack of a better word).
The true Illyrians are only today's Albanians. And more precisely, in albanian mountains. Nothing can change this fact.
You, good Sir, are a true Illyrian. I salute you.
Apologies, I got distracted.
I am referring to the founder effect. Meaning, a smallish amount of males move into an area, establishes themselves at top of a social hierarchy, and produce the most children with local women. These founder men's genes are then more concentrated in the male lines ... and that can further be magnified due to population bottleneck effect (relatively small amount of people who increased rapidly and are fairly "in-bred" (for lack of a better word).
This contradicts with drawing live's post and your affirmation of it, because in this case present day albanians, but more so ghegs, are actually greeks and not illyrians.
This contradicts with drawing live's post and your affirmation of it, because in this case present day albanians, but more so ghegs, are actually greeks and not illyrians.
No it doesn't contradict him. We are mixing up male haplogroup lines with autosomal DNA again ...
In any case Albanians are not pure Illyrians. They probably have Thracian input as well, and for sure Hellenic. Just not a lot of Slavic/Eastern European.
I still don't get it. EV-13 is greek. Now it's more concetrated in albanians, but more so in ghegs, we explained how this happened (some greek males that had a lot offsprings with illyrian females). So why aren't we greeks? Our fathers are more likely greeks than illyrians, right? And greek fathers are less likely to be greek. What I'm missing here?
I still don't get it. EV-13 is greek. Now it's more concetrated in albanians, but more so in ghegs, we explained how this happened (some greek males that had a lot offsprings with illyrian females). So why aren't we greeks? Our fathers are more likely greeks than illyrians, right? And greek fathers are less likely to be greek. What I'm missing here?
The fact of the matter remains that, autosomally, Greeks and Albanians are very close ...
And yes, history is a complex thing, not always black-and-white and easy to comprehend. We get bits of information and have to make sense of all that. An intriguing problem that requires a lot of head-scratching.
The fact of the matter remains that, autosomally, Greeks and Albanians are very close ...
And yes, history is a complex thing, not always black-and-white and easy to comprehend. We get bits of information and have to make sense of all that. An intriguing problem that requires a lot of head-scratching.
So I got it right then. We are more greeks than illyrian, and we are more greek than greeks. I think there should be another explanation. It doesn't require nearly as much head-scratching, but it requires an open mind.
So I got it right then. We are more greeks than illyrian, and we are more greek than greeks. I think there should be another explanation. It doesn't require nearly as much head-scratching, but it requires an open mind.
Just don't tell the Greeks, and you'll be fine.
Artek
06-21-2013, 02:43 PM
I still don't get it. EV-13 is greek.
EV-13 found in a Merovingian skeleton is also Greek? One of the long lost Troyans?
I don't know, this is Loki's conviction.
Artek
06-21-2013, 02:46 PM
EV-13 is multi-ethnical, just like G2a among europeans. Loki wannabe-Greek, huh.
EV-13 found in a Merovingian skeleton is also Greek? One of the long lost Troyans?
It's entirely possible. However, E-V13 is older than Greeks themselves ... it is Neolithic. What is true is that the vast majority of the spread of E-V13 in Europe was due to early Greek expansion. It doesn't mean it didn't exist in smaller quantities elsewhere earlier.
Jackson
06-21-2013, 03:20 PM
Actually I1 isn't Germanic precisely, because it predates Indo-Europeans. It could be considered proto-Scandinavian, so in that sense it's "Germanic". But the proto-Scandinavians didn't speak Germanic language.
I agree, i think actually R1b-U106 fits Germanic just as well as I1, except I1 is more north Germanic and U106 more West Germanic.
Insuperable
06-21-2013, 08:08 PM
That's not the only branch of I2 found in the Balkans, and in any case 2,500 years (if that can be accepted as truth) is about double as old as the existence of Slavs in the Balkan. It was likely already there before the Slavs arrived.
Exactly. From all our knowledge of invasions and population replacement, the fact always remains that invaders inevitably make up the smallest percentage of the total population in the aftermath. Take for example Turkey ... I think we can all agree that Anatolian Turks' primary genetic heritage is pre-Turkic Anatolian, even though they fully assimilated and identify as Turks; speak the Turkish language. More parallels can be seen in Britain (especially Wales and Scotland).
At that time on the area of modern Croatia at least there weren't any native Balkanians or at least much of them (especially Illyrians since there weren't any people who called himself Illyrian at that time) since by the arrival of Croats it was the area of warfare between Byzantines, Venice, Avars and Franks. Illyrians were most probably pushed southwards and these people started to call themselves Albanians.
Later Vlachs and other latinized native Balkanians slowly assimilated into nations, but that is a little off topic.
Illyrians were most probably pushed southwards and these people started to call themselves Albanians.
It is claimed that Albanians populated present Albania from the north-east, not the north-west ... hence the suggestion that they could carry lots of Thracian ancestry. It is very plausible.
d3cimat3d
06-21-2013, 09:18 PM
http://i39.tinypic.com/21cgw9j.png
http://i42.tinypic.com/fawug1.png
http://i44.tinypic.com/2zeh3e1.png
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/15055-Was-hg-I2a2a-Thraco-Illirian
rashka
06-25-2013, 04:25 AM
I2 is NOT Slavic. I know many people have this idea, but it's very wrong. Slavic expansion can be seen through the proliferation of R1a. I2 is closer related to Germanic (I1) than it is to Slavic.
Do you think then that when we see a so called Slavic looking person from the Balkans it is related to Germans and not to ancient Slavs?
Oops, the I2 discussion was moved - can someone move this post over there? http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?84357-Haplogroup-I2-in-the-Balkans
Drawing-slim
06-25-2013, 05:02 AM
Could it be possible that those I2a2b's found in Croatia and Bosnia look Slavic only because their mothers portion DNA makeup had an effect on phenotype but still "Illyrian"bloodline.
And those that don't look Slavic are simply less mixed with mtDNA Slavic lines?
Does that even make any sense!?
ChocolateFace
06-25-2013, 05:58 AM
Could it be possible that those I2a2b's found in Croatia and Bosnia look Slavic only because their mothers portion DNA makeup had an effect on phenotype but still "Illyrian"bloodline.
And those that don't look Slavic are simply less mixed with mtDNA Slavic lines?
Does that even make any sense!?
It would be more feasible to think that invader blood would be from the Y lineage. I don't know what really happened though. Its just what I think.
Drawing-slim
06-25-2013, 06:07 AM
It would be more feasible to think that invader blood would be from the Y lineage. I don't know what really happened though. Its just what I think.
Yes, but could it be that when Slavs came simply forced the Illyrian villagers to marry their daughters and force them to have lots of kids!? That's an invasion also:D
ChocolateFace
06-25-2013, 06:08 AM
Yes, but could it be that when Slavs came simply forced the Illyrian villagers to marry their daughters and force them to have lots of kids!? That's an invasion also:D
Illyrian sex machines
Sisak
06-25-2013, 07:10 AM
People in the mountains have had a lot of children, more of 10.
Do you think then that when we see a so called Slavic looking person from the Balkans it is related to Germans and not to ancient Slavs?
Oops, the I2 discussion was moved - can someone move this post over there? http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?84357-Haplogroup-I2-in-the-Balkans
I moved your post here.
Well, that's an interesting question. Of course the Slavs had an impact, too, and some people could have their looks from Slavs. It is curious though that I2 is a relative of I1 - a phenomenon of Scandinavia ...
There are several common traits, for example both Scandinavians/North Germanics and Balkan people (I2) are the tallest in Europe. Slavs are not known to be very tall by comparison.
Artek
06-25-2013, 02:17 PM
There are several common traits, for example both Scandinavians/North Germanics and Balkan people (I2) are the tallest in Europe. Slavs are not known to be very tall by comparison.
Bollocks. Some Balkanoids are the tallest in Europe on average but Scandinavians aren't significantly taller than Slavs.
Also phenotypes are different among those two groups, so I don't see "mysterious Y-DNA I" the coorelation.
Only Balkan Borreby phenomenon is interesting and probably can be connected. But what about so many Dinaroids in Balkans?
Bollocks. Some Balkanoids are the tallest in Europe on average but Scandinavians aren't significantly taller than Slavs.
It's not bollocks. Stature in Europe is the greatest in precisely two concentrated areas: 1) Northern Europe/Scandinavia, and 2) The Balkans. Everybody knows that (except perhaps people who are biased).
Sisak
06-25-2013, 04:47 PM
According to some studies tall people are those who practiced metallurgy.
According to some studies tall people are those who practiced metallurgy.
Or maybe tall people preferred to practice metallurgy :)
Sisak
06-25-2013, 05:09 PM
In Croatia there was a noble dinasty Madi, from the house of the queen Jelena (Engl. Helen). That name sounds Albanian?
Artek
06-25-2013, 07:38 PM
It's not bollocks. Stature in Europe is the greatest in precisely two concentrated areas: 1) Northern Europe/Scandinavia, and 2) The Balkans. Everybody knows that (except perhaps people who are biased).
Norway 1.816 m (26-35y), measured (2008-2009)
Sweden 1.815 m (20-29y), measured (2008)
Denmark 1.826 m (23y), self-reported (2001)
Poland 1.785 m (18y), measured (2010)
Dinaric Alps 1.856 m (17y), measured (2005)
Note that none of the studies allows to precisely compare the male populations. But we can make some conclusions here:
- Denmark is the highest of chosen Scandinavians because of the most advantageous methodology used
- Dinaric Alps are singificantly higher that any above. Also note , that their study is the earliest and boys are not fully grown at the age of 17. Let's add 3 cm's to the mean height - it's close to the 188)
-the difference between Poles and Scandinavians is roughly like 2 cm's but considering higher social level of Scandinavians - differences are not so significant, whereas Dinarics grow even higher than Scandinavians and Poles despite many height-influencing disadvantages.
It would mean that well nourished Scandinavians and Poles are roughly on the similar level around 1,80cm , whereas people from Dinaric Alps are the tallest anyway((more than 185cm for now) and it can't be entirely explained with social-level.
Insuperable
06-25-2013, 07:42 PM
Norway 1.816 m (26-35y), measured (2008-2009)
Sweden 1.815 m (20-29y), measured (2008)
Denmark 1.826 m (23y), self-reported (2001)
Poland 1.785 m (18y), measured (2010)
Dinaric Alps 1.856 m (17y), measured (2005)
Note that none of the studies allows to precisely compare the male populations. But we can make some conclusions here:
- Denmark is the highest of chosen Scandinavians because of the most advantageous methodology used
- Dinaric Alps are singificantly higher that any above. Also note , that their study is the earliest and boys are not fully grown at the age of 17. Let's add 3 cm's to the mean height - it's close to the 188)
-the difference between Poles and Scandinavians is roughly like 2 cm's but considering higher social level of Scandinavians - differences are not so significant, whereas Dinarics grow even higher than Scandinavians and Poles despite many height-influencing disadvantages.
It would mean that well nourished Scandinavians and Poles are roughly on the similar level around 1,80cm , whereas people from Dinaric Alps are the tallest under any circumstances( more than 185cm for now).
In that study the average was 184,6 and they already added 1cm.
Artek
06-25-2013, 07:47 PM
In that study the average was 184,6 and they already added 1cm.
And they should add more or re-take the measurement with different methodology(to measure 20's)
Norway 1.816 m (26-35y), measured (2008-2009)
Sweden 1.815 m (20-29y), measured (2008)
Denmark 1.826 m (23y), self-reported (2001)
Poland 1.785 m (18y), measured (2010)
Dinaric Alps 1.856 m (17y), measured (2005)
Note that none of the studies allows to precisely compare the male populations. But we can make some conclusions here:
- Denmark is the highest of chosen Scandinavians because of the most advantageous methodology used
- Dinaric Alps are singificantly higher that any above. Also note , that their study is the earliest and boys are not fully grown at the age of 17. Let's add 3 cm's to the mean height - it's close to the 188)
-the difference between Poles and Scandinavians is roughly like 2 cm's but considering higher social level of Scandinavians - differences are not so significant, whereas Dinarics grow even higher than Scandinavians and Poles despite many height-influencing disadvantages.
It would mean that well nourished Scandinavians and Poles are roughly on the similar level around 1,80cm , whereas people from Dinaric Alps are the tallest anyway((more than 185cm for now) and it can't be entirely explained with social-level.
You forgot Netherlands.
In any case, your post doesn't disprove what I am saying. It just tries to bring a different (selective) slant to the story.
ChocolateFace
06-25-2013, 10:03 PM
In Croatia there was a noble dinasty Madi, from the house of the queen Jelena (Engl. Helen). That name sounds Albanian?
Madi does sound Albanian
ChocolateFace
06-25-2013, 10:10 PM
Bollocks. Some Balkanoids are the tallest in Europe on average but Scandinavians aren't significantly taller than Slavs.
Also phenotypes are different among those two groups, so I don't see "mysterious Y-DNA I" the coorelation.
Only Balkan Borreby phenomenon is interesting and probably can be connected. But what about so many Dinaroids in Balkans?
Slavs are known to be average height. The only non south Slavs I consider Tall are Poles and they have more Germanic blood.
Balkan Borreby is not really a phenomenon. Balkan Borreby is probably one of the most indigenous phenotype's in the balkans. The only reason why it is called Borreby is because of it's common looks with the northern type. The indigenous balkan CM type many times also looks Afalou,Faelid,Brunn like.
Artek
06-25-2013, 10:12 PM
You forgot Netherlands.
In any case, your post doesn't disprove what I am saying. It just tries to bring a different (selective) slant to the story.
Well, you can't change (for now) that Poles are slightly shorter on average. But I tried to say that Scandinavians are not exceptional in any case(definitely not taller by definition from central Europeans), whereas people from Dinaric Alps are visibly taller without high-level nourishing.
Slavs are known to be average height. The only non south Slavs I consider Tall are Poles and they have more Germanic blood.
And East Slavs can be considered shorter due to the Finno-Ugric and slight Mongoloid component.
But is it about having particular "blood" or just a selective borealisation?
Balkan Borreby is not really a phenomenon. Balkan Borreby is probably one of the most indigenous phenotype's in the balkans. The only reason why it is called Borreby is because of it's common looks with the northern type. The indigenous balkan CM type many times also looks Afalou,Faelid,Brunn like.
Well, it's either a reminescent of an older types living there(such pattern is seen all-over Europe) or a newcomer, probably both.
But I tried to say that Scandinavians are not exceptional in any case(definitely not taller by definition from central Europeans), whereas people from Dinaric Alps are visibly taller without high-level nourishing.
I really disagree there, having travelled quite a bit.
Artek
06-25-2013, 10:37 PM
I really disagree there, having travelled quite a bit.
Obviously, you've never been to Poland. But allright, continue your "Haplo I height connection" myths since you are the smartest in this matter ;]
Obviously, you've never been to Poland. But allright, continue your "Haplo I height connection" myths since you are the smartest in this matter ;]
It was just an observation, an idea thrown out there. But you seem to be very into the topic - even moreso than me. Don't I dare say Poles are not as tall as you want us to believe :picard1: :)
Everyone knows that North Europeans are taller than south and central Europeans, except for the Balkan where they have some serious competition.
Jackson
06-26-2013, 08:16 AM
Haplogroup I have 50% higher risk of heart disease too, that's more important than height.
Artek
06-26-2013, 10:09 AM
It was just an observation, an idea thrown out there. But you seem to be very into the topic - even moreso than me. Don't I dare say Poles are not as tall as you want us to believe :picard1: :)
Everyone knows that North Europeans are taller than south and central Europeans, except for the Balkan where they have some serious competition.
I don't want anyone to believe the Poles are so tall, since I gave an objective data saying that average height for polish males in age of 18 is 1.785m, therefore lower than in Scandinavia. I have no personal interest in that, since I'm tall enough myself and I feel good with it.
But the height difference is very likely to be caused by other factors in that case,"except for the Balkan where they have some serious competition". We will see in some years, if Central Euros can match the Scandinavians. Height acceleration should stop and it will be visible who is really prone to be tall by genetics., I bet Balkans are.
We will see in some years, if Central Euros can match the Scandinavians.
How were central Europeans ever malnourished, after WW2?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.