why were I2a people exterminated in Italy and not in the Balkans ?

[MOESAN]

we are lost all of us maybe: for me, i'm sure I'm lost! I'm not able to go so deeply in details with the rough material we have yet... So I'll keep myself in generalities:
about the origins of R1a and I2a1: I agree that a very high date can be retained for the introduction of Y-I in Europe and that Anatolia seams the simplest way to it coming there (in the body of men, not on itself!) -but Balkans are a wide region: these first Y-I surely followed rivers passes to reach Central Europe and North Europe - the Western part of the Balkans, say the Dinaric Alpes and Dalmatia coasts don't seam to me being the first choices for these early settlers: when you look at the maps concerning the Paleolithic from -30000 to -12000 you find nothing in the Western parts of Balkans: only in Bohem, Moravia, Hungary and eastern borders of Carpathes... archeology show us quantity and quality of settlements, not always the direction of progressions - I suppose because I don't know, that there have been movements and westwards and eastwards between old Mésolithic and the beginning of the Metals Ages: some groups of Y-R1a, even if later, could have invested East Central Europe very early too:
Y-I2a and Y-R1a can have mixed in various ways with various proportions in various regions and NOT ALL of them can have given life to the relatively late Slavic culture -
What I think is that the slavic culture is born principally on a mixture of the two between Carpathians Mountains and the western part of the steppes, at a crossing of human "floods", and that the northern tribes bore more R1a (as the first Corded culture bearers) when the southern ones bore more I2a1 - I believe in a big demographic 'boom' among historical Slavs that send a lot of I2a1 and some R1a to the Balkans in a kind of backwards movement (with few variety among I2a1) - only then became present day Croatia and Serbia and Bosnia centers of high density of I2a1-
no impossibility: as said by someones here yet, Maciamo by instance, the age of an HG tells us little about its ancient distribution...
I add that ancient forms of Y-I2 are not absent of Northeastern Italy -

 

[mihaitzateo]

Well Sardigna is not a slavic culture,but have a very high percentage of I2A,is not I2-din south,but still I2A-M26.
In Balkans only language spoken have a lot of slavic words,but culture is not slavic.
Go look a little at pictures of bulgarians and serbians and montenegrins and people from FYROM and tell if you find anyone looking slavic.

 

[Malsori]

R1a is considered as Slavic but Old European I can not be Slavic, because it is completely different.

How come R1a is Slavic?

Actually it is Proto Indo-European marker and Slavs happen to have more than other Europeans.

And agreed with the others SouthSlavs much probably were a mixture between I2a2 and R1a.

 

[MOESAN]

Well Sardigna is not a slavic culture,but have a very high percentage of I2A,is not I2-din south,but still I2A-M26.
In Balkans only language spoken have a lot of slavic words,but culture is not slavic.
Go look a little at pictures of bulgarians and serbians and montenegrins and people from FYROM and tell if you find anyone looking slavic.

I agree there are some differences phenotypically between South Slavs and North or East Slavs but so I see big enough differences between the majority of Bulgarians and other South Slavs -
2 points:
- there is a gradient between the different slavic speaking populations and it is easy enough fo find intermediary looking or "central looking" people in all the slavic speaking population: a lot of Croatians can be taken for a lot of czechs or southern Polish men or a lot of Ukrainians (as do a lot of Hungarians)... sure the East Baltic types or the Dinaric types have not the same distribution in the diverse extreme corners of the big area of the slavic languages, I agree!
- in big regions of the Balkans the percentage of I2a1a don't run higher than 40% and we can find about 20% of it in some parts of Ukraina: son' forget the other elements of population that can play a role in the phenotypes...
to conclude I repeat here that the paleolithic population was very scarce in the Balkans AND IT IS A FACT THAT CAN'T BE LEFT ASIDE SO CARELESS

 

[zanipolo]

I agree there are some differences phenotypically between South Slavs and North or East Slavs but so I see big enough differences between the majority of Bulgarians and other South Slavs -
2 points:
- there is a gradient between the different slavic speaking populations and it is easy enough fo find intermediary looking or "central looking" people in all the slavic speaking population: a lot of Croatians can be taken for a lot of czechs or southern Polish men or a lot of Ukrainians (as do a lot of Hungarians)... sure the East Baltic types or the Dinaric types have not the same distribution in the diverse extreme corners of the big area of the slavic languages, I agree!
- in big regions of the Balkans the percentage of I2a1a don't run higher than 40% and we can find about 20% of it in some parts of Ukraina: son' forget the other elements of population that can play a role in the phenotypes...
to conclude I repeat here that the paleolithic population was very scarce in the Balkans AND IT IS A FACT THAT CAN'T BE LEFT ASIDE SO CARELESS

you seem to not realise that all the slavs in the balkans are in majority not genetic slavs but only linguistic slavs.

If you read from the polish forums, they say the slavs in balkans came from slavs that entered firstly into modern poland and then some went south. The poles originated as slavs in and around modern Kiev ( ukraine).
So, we know the croatians are originally persian ( iranics), the serbians are thracian, the bulgars are turkic, the avars in northern serbia are turkic, the bosnians are illyrian, the slovenes are celtic, venetic and illyrian and montengrians are ex-serbians from thracian people.
Justinian and others later on only mentioned a total of 100000 slav warriors plus 100000 family members.

If you can understand that the russian people as noted by popultion numbers was 3M and the balkans was 3.5M in and around the year 500AD , we can see why this group of slavs was of a minor number in the balkans. The avars where the first to enter in 575AD and a century later the slavs.

The I2a1 was already in the balkans prior to the turkic Avars and also prior to the "polish" slavs

 

[pipinnacanus]

Were the Balkans so technologically advanced to resist both Middle East Neolithic farmers (J2, G...) and Indo European ?
What happened to I2A in Italy ??

The most plausible explanation is that the Balkan difficult terrain and isolation protected the aboriginal I2.

Their is no real way to explain the Romanians surrounded by slavs for a long period after the last contact with any Latins/Romans, still maintaining the latin culture and language unless a population is extant that is preserving this.

The largest pct of Romanians are I2 / aboriginal, with significant intrusions from R1a and R1b. The quarter of the population that is I2 has in my opinion been there since before the Romanization. I2 aboriginals were decimated in most places within europe by the ascent of the R1a and R1b but the difficult terrain and the well-noted tenaciousness (by romans, ottomans, russians in ww2) of the aboriginal I2 romanians allowed them to hold out in the more forbidding landscapes of the mountainous balkans better than in flat land or open agricultural areas.

 

[sparkey]

The most plausible explanation is that the Balkan difficult terrain and isolation protected the aboriginal I2.

What characteristics of the type of I2 that is present in the Balkans makes you think that it's "aboriginal" to that region? Where in Europe do you think I2 is "aboriginal" to?

 

[MOESAN]

you seem to not realise that all the slavs in the balkans are in majority not genetic slavs but only linguistic slavs.

If you read from the polish forums, they say the slavs in balkans came from slavs that entered firstly into modern poland and then some went south. The poles originated as slavs in and around modern Kiev ( ukraine).
So, we know the croatians are originally persian ( iranics), the serbians are thracian, the bulgars are turkic, the avars in northern serbia are turkic, the bosnians are illyrian, the slovenes are celtic, venetic and illyrian and montengrians are ex-serbians from thracian people.
Justinian and others later on only mentioned a total of 100000 slav warriors plus 100000 family members.

If you can understand that the russian people as noted by popultion numbers was 3M and the balkans was 3.5M in and around the year 500AD , we can see why this group of slavs was of a minor number in the balkans. The avars where the first to enter in 575AD and a century later the slavs.

The I2a1 was already in the balkans prior to the turkic Avars and also prior to the "polish" slavs

1- I never said that Southern Slavs was identical to Northern, Western or Eastern Slavs - I said they share a lot of fetaures - and I repeat Bulgarians as a whole are VERY DIFFERENT from other Southern Slavs
2- NO people is nor WAS pure at the down of our era even your Turcs or Illyrians or ...
3- the differences between Southern Slavs and other Slavs don' t find basis only to the distribution of Y-I2a1 because others autosomals and HGs are playing there
4- I agree that a part of the first Serbian or Croatioan people have surely a non-slavic origin but that don't link this foreign part to Y-I2a1
5- my affirmation that Y-I2a1b as a whole is not autochtonous to present day Dalmatia and Dinaric Alps don't signify I believe all this new stock of Y-I2a1b in Balkans is only of Slavic origin, arrived therevery late: previous peoples there (since the Neolithic) carried surely among others a lot of this HG and they there are big chances that they had contact with Slavs after contacts with other I-E folks - So my only bets are that Y-I2a1b has had a complicated enough story in all these lands and it stays always the problem of his relative poor diversity ...

 

[Aaron1981]

They were probably never exterminated, they were probably never there. There are I2a1 haplotypes in Italy, Spain and Sardinia. That's likely as close as you will get - and the ocassional I2a2 balkan haplotype.

 

[MOESAN]

you seem to not realise that all the slavs in the balkans are in majority not genetic slavs but only linguistic slavs. If you read from the polish forums, they say the slavs in balkans came from slavs that entered firstly into modern poland and then some went south. The poles originated as slavs in and around modern Kiev ( ukraine). So, we know the croatians are originally persian ( iranics), the serbians are thracian, the bulgars are turkic, the avars in northern serbia are turkic, the bosnians are illyrian, the slovenes are celtic, venetic and illyrian and montengrians are ex-serbians from thracian people. Justinian and others later on only mentioned a total of 100000 slav warriors plus 100000 family members. If you can understand that the russian people as noted by popultion numbers was 3M and the balkans was 3.5M in and around the year 500AD , we can see why this group of slavs was of a minor number in the balkans. The avars where the first to enter in 575AD and a century later the slavs. The I2a1 was already in the balkans prior to the turkic Avars and also prior to the "polish" slavs

I KNOW southern slavic populations are not pure Slavs descendants (almost everyone knows that) if you had red my previous post you can see I consider Bulgarians as a whole as the less slavic - we are speculating about proportions - previously I believed the slavic part among them was about 10% only - I changed, not only based on genetical studies but for phenotypes - I think now that Slavs ancestors could rise to 25-30% among present Serbs and Croats (and maybe more among slavic Macedonians - I don't think any of these peoples is pure so I don't believe at all Croats are Persians (even if remote origin could have been, but they were very mixed on their way), nor Serbs are Thracians (I should think Northern Albanians and Kosovars have more thracian blood than Serbs) - Yes, Avars and previous Bulgars was of steppic turkic origin) - what I think is that Y-I as a whole is recent in Balkans, carried by more than an ethnic group - the first Y-I2a1b surely was in North Balkans for the Iron Age, I think even earlier, BUT NOT at Paleolithic times - I think it had occasions to get there from Czechoslavia (protohistory and after maybe Illyrians), Carpathian Mountains and in early Middle Ages from Ukraina and a little after (more numerous) as you said, during the Slavs descent from Czechoslovakia - I have in mind that 'dinaric' types and Y-I2a1a and some Y-I2a2 (ex I2b) are found too in present day western Ukraina, and these people are on the way of Kiev region, you put as slavic cradle (I think as you), to Central Europe & Balkans... what I should need is a very deep and well sampled survey on the Y-I2a1a 'dinaric' everywhere in Eastern & Central Europe have a good night

 

[MOESAN]

as I say in another thread, today, I did a mistake when affirmating that Illyrians could have carried a lot of Y-I2a1b and have been centered around Dalmatia (they could have some I2, but perhaps not a lot) - Illyrian genuine territory "in fine" is closer to Greece, Albania seams the center of it, a small territory indeed - illyrian language seams to the most of the linguists being linked to thracian, dacian, messapian, and albanian all satem languages after having excluded false illyrians inscriptions (and perhaps for me are they linked to Y-E1b) - the North (Slovenia) was more venetian (ancient Veneti close to Italics) - the peaks of Y-I2a1b in present day Croatia are still the problem because I don't believe in Paleolithic people there and a pure complete (& late enough) slavic origin seams exagerated - where was the deme that furnished Dalmatia-Dinaric Alps? where is the place of a possible births boom at proto-historic times? I think a possible origin in the late Neolithic Cucuteni-Tripolje region around Carpathian Mountains, in a second stage of Neolithic: what culture after that??? a secondary indo-europeanized people after exchanges with the Steppes tribes? aside the linguistic problem, the genetic one is not a problem because I suppose that the Y-I2a1b in Slavs is due for a large part to the synthesis Romania-Moldavia NeolithicSteppes peoples of Ukraina (and influences farther in Siberia!!!) AT A STAGE PRECEDING THE CENTUM>

 

[Eldritch]

What characteristics of the type of I2 that is present in the Balkans makes you think that it's "aboriginal" to that region? Where in Europe do you think I2 is "aboriginal" to?

Indeed there's no basis in Pipicannus statement.

 

[Yagi]

to many spekulations about the slavic people and the language. i don´t understand why everybody tries to link "modern" countrys like serbia and croatia to slavic or slavs or if they ever exicisted and who says that somebody had to come from the other side maybe the slavs are the I2a and never came from the east, they have to dig up more evidens it is to early to claim heritage let time past and science speak, this is beyond "modern" nations

 

[Templar]

I think a possible origin in the late Neolithic Cucuteni-Tripolje region around Carpathian Mountains, in a second stage of Neolithic: what culture after that??? a secondary indo-europeanized people after exchanges with the Steppes tribes? aside the linguistic problem, the genetic one is not a problem because I suppose that the Y-I2a1b in Slavs is due for a large part to the synthesis Romania-Moldavia NeolithicSteppes peoples of Ukraina (and influences farther in Siberia!!!) AT A STAGE PRECEDING THE CENTUM>

I think that is possible. Imagine a tribe of hunter-gatherers interacting with incoming farmers from the Near-East; trading with them and getting to know their way of life. It is likely that they adopted farming and created a large enough population, which by the time of the invasions from the steppe would have had a good chance of "surviving" (as opposed to other Haplogroup I populations which didn't adopt farming by then). The Slavs would have formed an elite class, but over time would have assimilated the population culturally (but not genetically). This would explain a lot if we could find some conclusive evidence for it. It seems much more likely than the theory that ALL Slavs had I2 from the beginning as a sizable component of their populations.

 

[adamo]

Probably haplogroup I2a never even arrived in mainland Italy. Sardinia has such high frequencies of I because a branch that proceeded from Balkans to Germany would split into two branches, one would continue north to dominate Scandinavia and one would stay in Germany. I believe the German branch split off, headed to Iberia and from Iberia ( there is 33% haplogroup I in parts of central Iberia) headed to Sardinia.... It may never have passed from Balkans to Italy to Sardinia, in my opinion

 

[adamo]

This could be confirmed by the low but much higher than italy frequencies of I2 in Spain.

 

[how yes no 3]

Probably haplogroup I2a never even arrived in mainland Italy. Sardinia has such high frequencies of I because a branch that proceeded from Balkans to Germany would split into two branches, one would continue north to dominate Scandinavia and one would stay in Germany. I believe the German branch split off, headed to Iberia and from Iberia ( there is 33% haplogroup I in parts of central Iberia) headed to Sardinia.... It may never have passed from Balkans to Italy to Sardinia, in my opinion

exactly....

i think also that north corner of Adriatic was held by R1a people...
and I2a took Danube path to central Europe....

not sure whether I2a1 and I2a2 could be split due to people of parent branch spending ice age in different refuge areas (that I2a1 came to existence in Iberia and I2a-din in Balkan and Black sea and exotic branches perhaps from people that tried to survive ice age in central Europe)....

regarding I2a-Din and Illyrians - I think at least some Illyrian tribes had it, but I also think Serbs and Croats brought it as well.... i explain this with my beliefs that Illyrians were Celtic people and also that distant ancestors of Serbs and Croats were Celtic people...

if I2a-Din was on Balkan in times of Illyrians, how can it be that it did not expand to Italy?
well, it does not makes sense... nothing to gain....Croatian coast with zillion islands is much better place to live and defend then flat line coasts of italy...

 

[zanipolo]

exactly....

i think also that north corner of Adriatic was held by R1a people...
and I2a took Danube path to central Europe....

not sure whether I2a1 and I2a2 could be split due to people of parent branch spending ice age in different refuge areas (that I2a1 came to existence in Iberia and I2a-din in Balkan and Black sea and exotic branches perhaps from people that tried to survive ice age in central Europe)....

regarding I2a-Din and Illyrians - I think at least some Illyrian tribes had it, but I also think Serbs and Croats brought it as well.... i explain this with my beliefs that Illyrians were Celtic people and also that distant ancestors of Serbs and Croats were Celtic people...

if I2a-Din was on Balkan in times of Illyrians, how can it be that it did not expand to Italy?
well, it does not makes sense... nothing to gain....Croatian coast with zillion islands is much better place to live and defend then flat line coasts of italy...

LOL, u need to get up to date...2012 data

current DNA of the Northeast of Italy

pre-roman (%) ( 2012)
E-V13 = 2.2
E-M215 = 2.2
E-M34 = 2.1 (semitic people)
G-P15 = 4.2
I-M423 = 21.3
I-M26 = 2.1
J-M172 = 10.7
L-M317 = 2.1
R-M420 = 12.8
R-M269 = 40.4


2008 tests (%)
E-M33 = 1.5
E-V13 = 1.5
E-M123 = 1.5
G2a* = 11.9
I1* = 9.0
I2a1* = 9.4
I-M223 = 1.5
J2a* = 3.0
J2a1k = 3.0
J-M92 = 1.5
L2-M317 = 4.5
R-M420 = 10.4
R-M269 = 41.8
T-L131 = 3.0
T-P77 = 0.3

Phenotype
Central and Eastern Veneto ( with friuli)
- Type 1 : Intermediate complexion (chestnut or blonde hair, light eyes, ...), leptomorphic, rather narrow face, long and straight high-rooted nose that can get arched, close set eyes, large jaw, pointy chin
~ Dinaromorphic Nordo-Mediterranean

Western Veneto ( with Trento )
- Type 2 : Intermediate complexion, brachymorphic, round face, little and low-rooted nose that can get snub-tipped, wide set eyes
~ Alpinoid

Venetian lagoon area
- Type 3 : Intermediate complexion (from medium dark to blonde hair, blue, green or hazel eyes ...), brachymorphic, little and narrow straight nose, square-box face, broad forehead, rather wide-set eyes
~ Alpinoid/Subnordid

Venetian-Istrano
- Type 4 : Light complexion (blonde hair, green eyes, ...), leptomorphic, arched nose, large jaw, pointy chin, close-set eyes
~ Nordo-Dinarid

women , either
type that one could label, "Alpino-Med" which is very specific to Veneto : puffy and fleshy features
or
classical North Italian phenotype ( some individuals actually match neighbouring Slovenian variability), it is traditionally accompanied by a darker variant (Dinaro-Mediterranoid) which is the quintessential pan-Italian phenotype.

The only y-dna change between ancient and modern times is more G2a.
J, I and E dropped

 

[adamo]

Some Frenchmen but predominantly Iberian, especially central Spanish men, are high in percentage of Sardinian I suggesting that it moved from Balkans to Germany, Germany through France to Spain/Iberia where it stayed a while and the over to Sardinia. ( among the 10% of Spanish that are I, the predominance is the Sardinian subclade).

 

[adamo]

Phenotype a dont really mean much at all in terms of actual genetics unless we are talking about precise population features such as haplogroup I and R1b people's being very white, American Indians being olive skinned and Chinese eyed or Assyrians having jet black hair and beards with predominantly brown eyes...features such as skinny, fat or aquiline noses are found in Mesopotamian just as in Celtic, Nordic, Native American people's...for example certain I1a men have aquiline/Arabid noses but their whiter, but somewhere down the line they came from the Middle East/Anatolia as well. All that coon's plates stuff to me of alpine/Nordic race etc. is vague and not important unless for the obvious distinctions, for example negroids have flat and wide noses such as mongoloids and caucasoids have skinnier longer noses. The main distinctive categories to me make obvious sense such as negroid, mongoloid, caucasoid etc. but the rest of the subcategories are vague considering looks and certain facial features vary greatly even within populations ( oval faces, heart shaped faces, round faces, fat, skinny, big, small noses etc). Even within caucasoids or other groups, traits such as alpine-meds and puffy fleshy faces and bracylocephalic skull....it's much more vague than the story of the genetics that is pin point accurate in determining similar groups...the other methods seem outdated and can not cover the broad level of possible anthropological diversities within a population in a precise way , in my opinion.