• This topic has 5 voices and 10 replies.
Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #346930

    Anonymous

    Let me explain this theory, and perhaps someone with more knowledge can either agree or firmly put it down.

    South Slavs are overall dominant with Haplogroup I2a, which means we're most likely natives of the Balkans. However, recently some people have been saying that it is not necessarily true. They show how the largest variance of I2 is in Ukraine (Slavic homeland) and that South Slavs may have been descended from the south-most Slavic tribes in Ukraine at the time, who would have mingled with more I2a dominant people (Dacians, Thracians, Illyrians). At the time Dacians rubbed shoulders with Sarmatians around the Carpathian mountains and Ukraine/Romania.

    Now oddly enough (from what I'm aware) Albanians, self-proclaimed direct descendants of Illyrians, have a very small percentage of I2a when compared to Croats, Bosnians and Serbs. I think they're only around 20% if less, their most dominant being haplogroup E (same as in Greece). So if Albanians were true Illyrians, perhaps Illyrians were E dominant, this group even exists among South Slavs but in far lesser numbers (Serbians having the most however).

    So many believe I2a came south with the Slavic migration. However, this still wouldn't explain who the South Slavs were during Roman era as Slavs barely existed at the time, most living under the sway of Sarmatians (who are also closely related to Russians, Poles and other "northern" Slavs).

    The South Slavs would have still been distinct, and would it be probable that after the total annihilation of Dacia, and the breaking of their culture and takeover of their homes by Romans, that many Dacians intermingled with the proto-slavs? Eventually being fully swept in with their culture, and losing their "Dacian" identity (same as all the other Proto-Balkanites lost theirs) so becoming proto-south-slavs.

    So this Slavic group, bearing mostly Dacian genetics (I2a) swept south during the barbarian invasions and drove most of the Romanized Illyrians (as many historians believe it) to the southmost of their homeland (modern Albania) while the Slavs eventually formed what would be the former Yugoslav states.

    Plausible? Reasonable? Utterly at fault?

    #434522

    Anonymous

    I ain't adept on genetics, so better I would not put my hand on fire, as the old saying goes :). The question of Balkan's Slavs runs much deeper than one is inclined to believe. While the question of ethnogenesis is cloaked by modernist approaches (according to this stance ethnicity is construed on a subjective basis, thus dismantling ethnic factors), genetics as an entirely new field of inquiry is still at its beginning.  The idea of Dacians mingling with Slavs (though not unlikely) seems far too fishy to me for the following reasons: Dacian population has either dwindled away or wiped out by Trajan's expeditions. A portion of them found shelter into furthest reaches of Carpathian mountains (otherwise known as Free Dacians). so if any dacian group was left, to my way of thinking, it has little impact on Slavs if such mingling really took place. I notice that you disparage Illyrian background of Albanians by calling them "self-proclaimed direct descendants of Illyrians" ???. Let me get this straight: if Albanians ain't descendants of Illyrians, what's their origin? I keep wondering where has gone Ace Ventura, that deranged Greek member with his half-baked hypothesis of a Dacian origin of Albanian (God forbid! :-X). This ill fated hypothesis has gotten over his head to a degree he has become the most celebrated idiot performing ever on this board 8). Albanians ain't Dacian by any stretch of imagination, they stem directly from the indigenous pre-Roman populations known as Illyrians. and this is not a self-proclaimed theory of Albanians, but a widely held one by scientific community.

    #434523

    Anonymous

    Well my personal opinion via R1a* and  I2a* is very simple.

    I2 like all I lines is 'native' to Europe. R lines are not native to Europe, and R1a probably came with Indo-European steppe invaders to the Eastern Europe. Even Avars, and other Turkic tribes, their elite were rumored to be of R1a lineage. The slavs/proto-slavs had whatever their original haplogroup gradually replaced by R1a.

    So what was the original haplogroup of the slavs? Why not I2a, it's the best contender. I think in the case of the south slavs, most migrations happened from the Carpathian mountain basin, or from slavs situated in central europe (far western realms of slavic expansion). The mountain basins or the western orientation probably meant these slavs were less effected by R1a, and this is reflected in south slavic populations today.

    Overtime, due to nation-states (movements from regions, mixing) etc, I2a begin to even decline in these regions at the expense of R1a. But I have very very strong feeling if we went to Carpathian mountain villages, and tested 'old' families, we would see I2a/R1a ratio very similar to that of south slavs…..

    Anyways, even in Belorussians I2a* is approximately 20% of all male lines.

    Let's not talk about Illyrians/Dacians/Thracians, these are Greek names for people, and no one is even sure if they are good names for the people. Some people speculate that Dacian and Thracian is really the same thing. Illyrians weren't one people, and so on. The first approach is to understand these labels are artificially imposed on diverse people by the ignorant Greek scholars.

    #434524

    Anonymous

    Let's not talk about Illyrians/Dacians/Thracians, these are Greek names for people, and no one is even sure if they are good names for the people. Some people speculate that Dacian and Thracian is really the same thing. Illyrians weren't one people, and so on. The first approach is to understand these labels are artificially imposed on diverse people by the ignorant Greek scholars.

    Dacians are just one of the Thracian tribes. They surely don`t have anything with Slavs, South Slavs.
    Stefan has a good point regarding Ilyrians. All tribes from the eastern coast of Adriatic are called Ilyrians just because of the Roman province Ilyricum.
    For example:
    Približni raspored domorodačkih naroda na tlu Hrvatske
    u vrijeme uspostave rimske vlasti (otprilike početkom 1. st. po Kristu)
    i njihova etnička i/ili jezična pripadnost

    • narodi sjevernojadranske skupine: Histri (1) i Liburni (2), a možda i Japodi (3);
    • srednjodalmatinski narodi (srodni Ilirima i Panonima): Delmate (4) i Ditioni (5), a možda i
    Japodi (3);
    • Panoni: Breuci (10), Mezeji (11), Dezitijati (12), i vjerojatno snažno keltizirani
    Kolapijani (6), Iasi (9), And(r)izeti (15) i Segestani (19), a možda i Japodi (3);
    • Kelti: Latobici (7), Taurisci (8) i Skordisci (14);
    • Iliri:  Ardijej(c)i (18) i Plerej(c)i (20), a možda još i Autarijati (13), Daorsi (16)
    i Narensiji (17).

    image
    Ilyricum tribes weren`t compact and homogenous group, quite the opposite. So to talk about genetic features of these people is farfetched.
    For those who understand a Croatian language i suggest this source.  http://www.unizd.hr/povijest/Nastava/Nastavnimat/tabid/278/Default.aspx
    here you can find a fair amount of good things. This was small part of my literature during my study days (History in Zadar). Especially Antic period, because all of these profesors are accepted not only in Croatia, but In Europe and the rest of the world.
    Back on the Dacians. Rome had several campaings against thracian tribes, among them Dacians. In period BC they are all well romanized (a lot of them were killed in those roman campaigns), and it is even hard to speak about Dacians per se in that period. Romans did "pretty good job" in that area, so we today have a very little knowladge about that thracian tribes. And what is problem with Thracian tribes? they are in simmilar position like are tribes from Ilyricum. A lot of diff ethnic groups with different languages. Also like Ilyricum tribes not a homogenous group.

    #434525

    Anonymous

    One more point, Herodutus referred to Thracians as the most numerous people after the Indians. He was almost certainly lumping the entire Eastern Europe as 'Thracians' for Greeks were not that ignorant of eastern Europe (they had colonies along the Black Sea of Ukraine). With that reason, I take these terms all with grain of salt.

    For another, Greeks referred to Serbs as Triballians, Thracian tribe, merely due to Serbian geography. Again, if we follow these Greek names, we lead to many internal contradictions. The only reason we follow these names is we have nothing better, unfortunately.

    #434526

    Anonymous

    I agree. We cannot talk about Thracians and Ilyrians as single entities in this context. These names are the names of the regions only. But we can talk about every single tribe that was habitating in that areas. Ilyrians as tribe did exist, but it doesn`t mean that Japods, Delmats, Breucs etc are Ilyrians, they are something else. Same goes for the Thracians…

    #434527

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    I agree. We cannot talk about Thracians and Ilyrians as single entities in this context. These names are the names of the regions only. But we can talk about every single tribe that was habitating in that areas. Ilyrians as tribe did exist, but it doesn`t mean that Japods, Delmats, Breucs etc are Ilyrians, they are something else. Same goes for the Thracians…

    Even these tribal subdivisions are suspect. I gave one example, referring to Serbs as Triballians. But there are many others, the farther these tribes were away from the Greek world, the more the Greeks assumed, denigrated, and lumped together.

    Anyways, case in point, you called one tribe the Delmats. This is based off a toponym believed to mean sheep. What tribe of people would self respectively call themselves sheep? Or is it Greek just referring to people once again based on geography? Eg Ragusans, Rascians, and so on.

    #434528

    Anonymous

    P. Kornelije Scipion Nazika in 155. BC burned the city of Delminum, during the first Roman-delmat war…. I don`t understand what is odd to you. He even got the triumph de Dalmateis. These are the Romans with source, not the Greeks. But even Greeks know about this side of adriatic coast because they have old colonies Korkyra melaina, Pharos, Tragurium etc… Connection between delmats and sheeps is more then obvius. I don`t know if you are familliar with the terrain in which delmat tribe habitated, but you cannot find the better place to raise sheeps. Sheep in that time isn`t like sheep today. Then sheep was a very valuable animal. Just look our slavic language. The word BLAGO means two things cattle and other animals and gold, silver, coins, daimonds etc…

    #434529

    Anonymous
    Quote:

    So what was the original haplogroup of the slavs? Why not I2a, it's the best contender. I think in the case of the south slavs, most migrations happened from the Carpathian mountain basin, or from slavs situated in central europe (far western realms of slavic expansion). The mountain basins or the western orientation probably meant these slavs were less effected by R1a, and this is reflected in south slavic populations today.

    It's unlikely the community of first linguistic shifters from proto-Balto-Slavic to proto-Slavic had a single Y-DNA marker in male populations. There is no way of knowing about Y-DNA structure in proto-Slavic population until people find the ancient homeland of proto-Slavs and test their DNA. Haplogroups frequencies in modern populations could be the result of recent founder or bottle-neck effect. A lot of ordinary people in Poland, Russia, Ukraine and Belarus want to believe R1a1* is Slavic. In most recent study on R1a  haplogroup by Underhall et al., the frequency of R1a in Belarusians is 55%-60% depending on the region. Obviously, many will suggest R1a1* is Slavic forgetting about the other half of the population that doesn't have it.

    Associating haplogroups with Illyrians, Germanic, Slavic  is misleading. Scientists don't use such names in their published work. The names given to haplogroups after the region in which these haplogroups are found are a better choice in my opinion. Anyway, any European haplogroup could had been present in proto-Slavic community  and R1a1* with I2a2* are good candidates. 

    R lines are not native to Europe, and R1a probably came with Indo-European steppe invaders to the Eastern Europe. Even Avars, and other Turkic tribes, their elite were rumored to be of R1a lineage. The slavs/proto-slavs had whatever their original haplogroup gradually replaced by R1a.

    Even if R1a1* were introduced to Europe by Indo-Europeans, north-eastern European populations ( Lithuanians, Estonians, Belarusians and Russians ) are more similar to several mesolithic European hunter-gatherers on autosomal DNA, while southern Europeans who don't have R1a1* in high frequencies are more similar to Neolithic European farmers. For example, Lithuanians have 45% of R1a1*, while Estonians between 30-40% of R1a1* in their populations.

    [img width=820 height=743]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img842/5388/kudv.png” />

    #434530

    Anonymous
    Quote:

    Even if R1a1* were introduced to Europe by Indo-Europeans, north-eastern European populations ( Lithuanians, Estonians, Belarusians and Russians ) are more similar to several mesolithic European hunter-gatherers on autosomal DNA, while southern Europeans who don't have R1a1* in high frequencies are more similar to Neolithic European farmers. For example, Lithuanians have 45% of R1a1*, while Estonians between 30-40% of R1a1* in their populations.

    There isn't really "even if", R1a1a by all evidence, both genetic and linguistic, originated north of India and spread to Europe ~1500 BC. There is besides genetic evidence, a plethora of linguistic evidence of how similar languages like Lithuanian is to Sanskrit.

    Let's move on here, the invasions happened when there was no Slavic language (by most sources), after the invasions there was a proto-Baltic-Slavic language that would later differentiate into Baltic and Slavic. So in some ways, you can say R1a1a is "slavic" as it's this indoeuropean invasion that gave the language we now speak. However, when I speak, I speak to the people, not necessarily them tied to the language. Those people, prior to the Indo-European invasions, who made up the majority of slavic lines later, were almost without a doubt I2a people.

    Now let's move on, you can't compare autosomal DNA to Y-haplogroup, as autosomal DNA is made up of many lines. A Belorussian with I2a2b will have the same autosomal DNA (approximately in plotting) to a Belorussian with R1a1a. A Serb with R1a1a will have the same autosomal DNA with a Serb I2a2b. It's clear that Serbs given their position absorbed more neolithic farmers, just as the Baltics absorbed more Asiatic people from Siberia (legacy of N haplogroup in the population). 

    #434531

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    There isn't really "even if", R1a1a by all evidence, both genetic and linguistic, originated north of India and spread to Europe ~1500 BC. There is besides genetic evidence, a plethora of linguistic evidence of how similar languages like Lithuanian is to Sanskrit.

    There's no study on linguistic affinity between European languages and Sanskrit to the best of my knowledge. If 'linguistic similarity' means many cognates between Lithuanian and Sanskrit, then  yes Lithuanian and Sanskrit have many cognates. But so do Slavic languages and Sanskrit. We had a short discussion on the subject :  http://www.slavorum.com/forum/index.php?topic=5388.30

    The R1a-M417 (the European branch masking many clades of R1a1* found in Europe) originated in eastern northern Iran or eastern Anatolia as per the latest study undertaken by Underhill et al. (2014) . It wasn't northern India.

    Abstract
    Whole Y-chromosome sequence analysis of eight R1a and five R1b individuals suggests a divergence time of ~25 000 (95% CI: 21 300–29 000) years ago and a coalescence time within R1a-M417 of ~5800 (95% CI: 4800–6800) years. The spatial frequency distributions of R1a sub-haplogroups conclusively indicate two major groups, one found primarily in Europe and the other confined to Central and South Asia. Beyond the major European versus Asian dichotomy, we describe several younger sub-haplogroups. Based on spatial distributions and diversity patterns within the R1a-M420 clade, particularly rare basal branches detected primarily within Iran and eastern Turkey, we conclude that the initial episodes of haplogroup R1a diversification likely occurred in the vicinity of present-day Iran.

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/zt29le0jt35n7xa/Underhill_2014_R1a_EJHG.pdf

    Also, it's debatable if I haplogroup is native to Europe. Some people assume it originated in Europe. I haplogroup cousin is J haplogroup which likely originated in near east . Common ancestor of I and J haplogroups is IJ-M429* which was observed in Iran. It's uncertain if I haplogroup originated in Europe. However,many clades of I haplogroup originated in Europe, so as many clades of R1a-M417, N1c1* and other subgroups.

    Let's move on here, the invasions happened when there was no Slavic language (by most sources), after the invasions there was a proto-Baltic-Slavic language that would later differentiate into Baltic and Slavic. So in some ways, you can say R1a1a is "slavic" as it's this indoeuropean invasion that gave the language we now speak. However, when I speak, I speak to the people, not necessarily them tied to the language. Those people, prior to the Indo-European invasions, who made up the majority of slavic lines later, were almost without a doubt I2a people.

    The age of R1a-M417  (European branch of R1a1) mutation predates proto-Slavic, proto-Balto-Slavic and proto-Balto-Slavic-Germanic languages . R1a-M417's  age is ~5,800 ybp according to Underhill et al (2014).  This is well into proto-Indo-European period. One cannot call R1a1* Slavic based on frequency in Slavic populations alone, because it's misleading as many non Slavic populations have it in relatively high frequencies which include Estonians, Vepsi , Lithuanians, Latvians, Scandinavians. Such naming was adopted for convenience purposes in the past. See frequencies of R1a-M417 from Underhill et al study : http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/ejhg201450x5.xls

    Now let's move on, you can't compare autosomal DNA to Y-haplogroup, as autosomal DNA is made up of many lines. A Belorussian with I2a2b will have the same autosomal DNA (approximately in plotting) to a Belorussian with R1a1a. A Serb with R1a1a will have the same autosomal DNA with a Serb I2a2b. It's clear that Serbs given their position absorbed more neolithic farmers, just as the Baltics absorbed more Asiatic people from Siberia (legacy of N haplogroup in the population). 

    I know that people are genetically similar on autosomal DNA despite different Y-DNA haplogroups in the population or no Y-DNA haplogroup in case of females. You missed my point.

    Despite the fact Belarusians, Balts and Estonians have high frequencies of R1a1* , they are closer to mesolithic European hunter-gatherers, who are believed to be indigenous people of  Europe (paleo-Europeans). At the same time, many southern European populations lacking high frequencies of R1a1* are more similar to Neolithic European farmers , who are believed to be the the earliest Indo-Europeans responsible for farming and spreading of  proto-Indo-European language in Europe by many scholars. How did this happen? The frequency of a haplogroup could be a result of founder or bottle-neck effect, which is another reason why naming haplogroups such as Slavic, Germanic or Baltic is misleading. You won't find such terms in scientific articles. 

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.