I2a-Din came to the Balkans and Dinaric Alps with the Thracians, Dacians & Illyrians

[Sile]

Nobody discussed about Dorians and Spartians.

If you like there are another threads.

What some Serbs write you can discuss with them.

Here we discuss about origin of I-CTS10228, Bastarnae and their path to the Balkans.

Thracians mixed with Bastarnae, what is logical because Bastarnae migrated to the Getae-Dacian terittory and Bastarne were in today's areas Romania and Balkans.

scholars know that the bastarnae spoke a form of germanic, but they are not sure....................other scholars state the bastarnae are gallic-celts mixing with sarmatians

https://www.academia.edu/4835555/Gallo-Scythians

but , for this thread , the marker is still not a slavic marker


The Peucini were the southern branch of the Bastarnae tribal confederation, initially settled in the Lower Danube region, specifically around the island of Peuce, from which they took their name – ‘while those who took possession of Peuce, the island in the Ister, are called Peucini’ (Strabo Vii, 3,17).

From the end of the 3rd/beginning of the 2nd c. BC (coinciding chronologically with the collapse of the Celtic Tyle state in eastern Thrace) the Peucini began to expand southwards into sub-Danubian Thrace, where they are referred to variously as ‘Galatians’, ‘Bastarnae’ or ‘Gauls’. In 179 BC they first appear in historical sources as allies of the Scordisci and the Macedonian king Philip V, who intended to send them against Rome. The geo-political significance of the Peucini at this stage is noted by ancient authors. Livy informs us that:

‘The envoys whom he had sent to the Bastarnae to summon assistance had returned and brought back with them some young nobles, amongst them some of royal blood. One of these promised to give his sister in marriage to Philip’s son, and the king was quite elated at the prospect of an alliance with that nation’ (Livy. History of Rome. Book 40:5).

 

[Garrick]

Common sense! I2a people traveled with their women. It was not males only. It means if there are 50% I2a men in Bosnia who came let say From a German tribe, with them traveled almost as many females of the same ethnicity .So the population should have a significant amount of genes of that tribe. Bosnian's in our case don't. So that means they come from where most of their genes are. And most are from East, as I said your map is profoundly wrong. the real figure is 65%

You should carefully what is written. If you want trivialize it does not help.

 

[Leka]

No. Your conclusion is completely wrong. You can read admixtures of nations, you are confuse.

And it will not help you to show that I-CTS10228 emerged among Slavs who didn't exist in upper Vistula area 300 BC.

Back to topic.

But CTS10228 was in Vistula area, confirmed by aDNA? Obviosly CTS10228 moved west and south with Slavs.

 

[Garrick]

scholars know that the bastarnae spoke a form of germanic, but they are not sure....................other scholars state the bastarnae are gallic-celts mixing with sarmatians

https://www.academia.edu/4835555/Gallo-Scythians

but , for this thread , the marker is still not a slavic marker


The Peucini were the southern branch of the Bastarnae tribal confederation, initially settled in the Lower Danube region, specifically around the island of Peuce, from which they took their name – ‘while those who took possession of Peuce, the island in the Ister, are called Peucini’ (Strabo Vii, 3,17).

From the end of the 3rd/beginning of the 2nd c. BC (coinciding chronologically with the collapse of the Celtic Tyle state in eastern Thrace) the Peucini began to expand southwards into sub-Danubian Thrace, where they are referred to variously as ‘Galatians’, ‘Bastarnae’ or ‘Gauls’. In 179 BC they first appear in historical sources as allies of the Scordisci and the Macedonian king Philip V, who intended to send them against Rome. The geo-political significance of the Peucini at this stage is noted by ancient authors. Livy informs us that:

‘The envoys whom he had sent to the Bastarnae to summon assistance had returned and brought back with them some young nobles, amongst them some of royal blood. One of these promised to give his sister in marriage to Philip’s son, and the king was quite elated at the prospect of an alliance with that nation’ (Livy. History of Rome. Book 40:5).

Reputation.

Yes, scholars didn't sure if this is German tribe, or Celtic tribe or mixed German/Celtic tribe, although with new knowledge German view is closer.

Pan-Slavist scientists don't like speak about Bastarnae origin, because they loved that Zarubintsy culture was proto-Slavic, and they say Bastarnae were Bastarnae people, avoid mention their German/Celtic roots, but no Zarubintsy culture was not proto-Slavic it was mostly Bastarnaian, including influence Celts, Sarmatians etc., and Zarubintsy culture had high amount of I-CTS10228 carriers.

Yes, we talk about all time, Bastarnae were in today's Romania and Balkans, and they mixed with Thracians/Dacians.

Even an author writes that after 2nd century AD big parts of Balkans were Bastarnae origin.

 

[Sile]

But CTS10228 was in Vistula area, confirmed by aDNA? Obviosly CTS10228 moved west and south with Slavs.

and the slavs where not there at the time of CTS10228 ...................you are more than 1000 years difference

 

[Garrick]

But CTS10228 was in Vistula area, confirmed by aDNA? Obviosly CTS10228 moved west and south with Slavs.

Secretly, nobody could know, proto-Slav strategists installed in the third century BC in the upper/middle course of the Vistula special agents.

The Bastarnae and surrounding tribes thought they were members of their people, but they were not, they were trained Slavic agents.

They secretly were carrying the I-CTS10228 all the way to sixth century AD, it was one of the most successful strategic endeavors in history.

 

[Leka]

and the slavs where not there at the time of CTS10228 ...................you are more than 1000 years difference

That's another hunch of yours right? I don't see how your response answers my question, though. When aDNA confirms that perhaps CTS10228 was in Poland around 300 BC we can come back to your "1000 years of difference" comment (assuming that's what it implies).

 

[Azzurro]

Do you really believe it is a celtic marker?

https://www.academia.edu/31354293/T...ements_and_Fortifications_on_the_Lower_Danube

I believe it could be, the Scordisci Tribe moved in during this time and there's a I-CTS10228* in France, though my first choice would have be that it is a Scythian marker well in terms of I-CTS10228 itself, two branches of I-CTS10228 which would be A2512 and SK1241 show a pre-Slavic disposition of this subclade which matches Scythian routes and territory it is the most sensible explanation, and it makes sense for a Slavic origin as well as S17250 and PH908 would have been amongst the progenitors of Slavs, Slavs do have Scythian-Samarritan roots as well.

 

[Sile]

That's another hunch of yours right? I don't see how your response answers my question, though. When aDNA confirms that perhaps CTS10228 was in Poland around 300 BC we can come back to your "1000 years of difference" comment (assuming that's what it implies).

You do realise that there where no slavs in poland around 300BC, ...........lets hope you understand now

 

[Sile]

I believe it could be, the Scordisci Tribe moved in during this time and there's a I-CTS10228* in France, though my first choice would have be that it is a Scythian marker well in terms of I-CTS10228 itself, two branches of I-CTS10228 which would be A2512 and SK1241 show a pre-Slavic disposition of this subclade which matches Scythian routes and territory it is the most sensible explanation, and it makes sense for a Slavic origin as well as S17250 and PH908 would have been amongst the progenitors of Slavs, Slavs do have Scythian-Samarritan roots as well.

to find where a subclade that is positive comes from, you need to find the same subclade which is negative, ............negative are far older in time than postive ones.............the negative from yfull is roughhly in the same area...see map



btw, many nations in europe have scythian and sarmatians genes .................what's your point?

 

[Azzurro]

to find where a subclade that is positive comes from, you need to find the same subclade which is negative, ............negative are far older in time than postive ones.............the negative from yfull is roughhly in the same area...see map



btw, many nations in europe have scythian and sarmatians genes .................what's your point?

I personally do not believe that, there is also one in France. People migrate, all this tells me is that I-CTS10228 came from the East, to me theres two strong indicators of origin of a subclade who is the highest frequency today (if not born there, a specific migration had to have brought i.e. R1b and Indo-Europeans Westward migration) and the TMRCA to see what was going on during this time period to see what possible connections can be made. The absolute best way would always be ancient dna, btw a good example would be E-V13 many people think it would have been born in the Balkans yet the oldest E-V13 was found in Spain.

For the ethnogenesis of Slavs, Scythian and Sarmatians played a huge role thus it makes it important to this discussion.

 

[Garrick]

I personally do not believe that, there is also one in France. People migrate, all this tells me is that I-CTS10228 came from the East, to me theres two strong indicators of origin of a subclade who is the highest frequency today (if not born there, a specific migration had to have brought i.e. R1b and Indo-Europeans Westward migration) and the TMRCA to see what was going on during this time period to see what possible connections can be made. The absolute best way would always be ancient dna, btw a good example would be E-V13 many people think it would have been born in the Balkans yet the oldest E-V13 was found in Spain.

For the ethnogenesis of Slavs, Scythian and Sarmatians played a huge role thus it makes it important to this discussion.

Scythians and Sarmatians are important for ethnogenesis of Slavs but not for I-CTS10228. Although they could get it because of mix with Bastarnae.

Upper-middle course of Vistula is not randomly selected. Nordvedt investigated and determined TMRCA and territory of this haplogroup, and where it could emerge after bottleneck.

We can debate if Bastarnae were Celtic or German tribe, and probably they could be German/Celtic. There are authors who say first they Celtic and gradually became German. Today German view is closer. But they migrated and arrived to territory of Getae-Dacians and Sarmatians and they mixed with both. Poinesti Lukasevka culture is mostly Bastarnaian. And they arrived and and settled to the areas present day Romania, Serbia, Bulgaria etc.

Key is Zarubintsy culture, because I-CTS10228 was probably one of main haplogroup.

Zarubintsy culture, red.

Pan Slavist scientists spoke it is proto-Slavic. It is rejected.

Some scientists thought it is Sarmatian or Scythian. Some scientists argued it is Celtic. And they can be right. Because all of mentioned had influence.

But developed Zarubintsy culture was mostly Bastarnaian with Scirii. Scientists detailed investigated (archeology, pottery, fibula, etc.), and determined.

 

[Sile]

I personally do not believe that, there is also one in France. People migrate, all this tells me is that I-CTS10228 came from the East, to me theres two strong indicators of origin of a subclade who is the highest frequency today (if not born there, a specific migration had to have brought i.e. R1b and Indo-Europeans Westward migration) and the TMRCA to see what was going on during this time period to see what possible connections can be made. The absolute best way would always be ancient dna, btw a good example would be E-V13 many people think it would have been born in the Balkans yet the oldest E-V13 was found in Spain.

For the ethnogenesis of Slavs, Scythian and Sarmatians played a huge role thus it makes it important to this discussion.

you do not believe what?

as an example, for me ( in yfull ) I have a negative marker which is 500 years older than the first person with that as a positive marker ( for same subclade) and as per yfull written notes to me , the negative is always older

 

[Leka]

and the slavs where not there at the time of CTS10228 ...................you are more than 1000 years difference

You do realise that there where no slavs in poland around 300BC, ...........lets hope you understand now

And your point is? You keep repeating it like a parrot.

 

[Sile]

And your point is? You keep repeating it like a parrot.

my point is that the marker cannot be slavic if it originates in areas where slavs where not there at that point in time .............is that easy for you to understand.

 

[Azzurro]

you do not believe what?

as an example, for me ( in yfull ) I have a negative marker which is 500 years older than the first person with that as a positive marker ( for same subclade) and as per yfull written notes to me , the negative is always older

That the negative is necessarily the origin of a subclade. And the TMRCA's in my opinion are not set in stone some might be older and some younger, I think each haplogroup has its own snp mutation rate. It could even turn out if I2 would mutate faster than CTS10228 being Slavic would be 100% if its older than it could be 100% Getae, I am sure as the years go by it will be more precise.

Even in your example how about if a BigY result turns out to be in the same negative as you, and transfers to Yfull and is listed at the same position but this persons country of origin is Egypt or Russia so now where would you think your subclade was born? Is it Italy or Egypt/Russia? That's why ancient dna is the absolute best solution because that will tell you where your clade was born.

 

[Sile]

That the negative is necessarily the origin of a subclade. And the TMRCA's in my opinion are not set in stone some might be older and some younger, I think each haplogroup has its own snp mutation rate. It could even turn out if I2 would mutate faster than CTS10228 being Slavic would be 100% if its older than it could be 100% Getae, I am sure as the years go by it will be more precise.

Even in your example how about if a BigY result turns out to be in the same negative as you, and transfers to Yfull and is listed at the same position but this persons country of origin is Egypt or Russia so now where would you think your subclade was born? Is it Italy or Egypt/Russia? That's why ancient dna is the absolute best solution because that will tell you where your clade was born.

here is part of cts10228 in yfull 5.04v



its age is 5300ybp

ybp is set at = 1950 AD

so age of CTS10228 is 1950-5300 = 3350BC ............that is the age of the first positive CTS10228 .................who do you think was around in south Poland in 3350BC ?


then we have TMRCA
(TMRCA) estimates can be given based on DNA test results and established mutation rates as practiced in genetic genealogy,

so that result is 1950-2300 = 350BC ..............again who was in south Poland at the time of 350BC .................we all know it was not slavic or are you trying to rewrite history ?

............................

CTS10228 came from

I-CTS4002SK1240/YP198/S23503 * CTS10936 * YP195/S24427+6 SNPsformed 6600 ybp, TMRCA 5300 ybp info

so it's negative ( if it is found ) would be 1300 older than 3350BC

 

[Kingslav]

Do you really believe it is a celtic marker? https://www.academia.edu/31354293/T...ements_and_Fortifications_on_the_Lower_Danube

http://www.eliznik.org.uk/EastEurope/History/balkans-map/late-eneolithic.htm

^ in the link maps of Balkans with detailed history and summary 3500 BC and other maps included.

I2A-DIN originated in the region south of Carpathians due to mixing of Early Neolithic European Farmers, and Indo-European Pontic Steppe Invaders. In this region were Thracians, Dacians, Bastarnae and Steppe Invaders were mostly Sarmatians, Scythians. The Carpathian Mountains were a forested refuge during last Ice Age which thrived human survival. Other parts of Europe were covered by Tundra or Glaciers.

Celts had short period occupying around Hungarian Plain during Iron Age, later migrating. They could not carry the marker I-CTS10228.

 

[Kingslav]

Everyone can see this chart.

I2a-Din has peak in Herzegovina and East-European admixture there is very low.

In most parts of Serbia, Croatia and northern Bosnia East European admixture is similar as Eastern Germany, Eastern Austria, Hungary and Romania and much smaller than in Eastern Poland, Balarus or Western Russia. Maciamo wrote: "Note the resemblance with the distribution of Y-DNA haplogroup R1a.."

This is good proof. When you look closely at map bulk of R1A admixture is located Northeastern Poland, Belarussia, Lithuania, Southern Latvia, Western Russia, Northern Ukraine but at that point where Carpathian Mountains begin there is a shift from R1A dominant to I2A dominant and this trend continues into Balkans where I2A found highest concentration in Bosnia 75%.

 

[Kingslav]

On Ancestry Bosnian's score above 65% Eastern European. The rest is Southern European and other minor lineages. Clearly the map has Garric introduced has major mistakes but I did accept it since was from the same source I got mine.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qfyAkkBR46k

I score 99.5% Eastern European with Ancestry DNA, this does not imply my ancestry is 99.5% Indo-European. There is many groups incorporated into Slavic ethnogenesis that you will not find with Ancestry DNA. You are better off looking at Gedmatch ancient calculators. On youtube there is example of Bosnian score 79% East Europe with Ancestry DNA. The link above is example Bosnian 23andme, 65.6% Balkan, 21.4% Eastern European.

Skip to 2:50-3:30 important info for I2A-DIN thread.