PDA

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



Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6

Kingslav
18-07-17, 08:54
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.

Nik
18-07-17, 09:17
Even North Albanians can score more than 20% Baltic on Gedmatch K13, so Bosnia's results aren't any surprise.

Anyway, it seems logical that the ancestor of CTS10228 came to Eastern Europe from Germany of France with Celts or Germanics. It's closest cousin as far as I remember is I2a-Disles.

As for its distribution in the Balkans, personally I see the Goths are a more important contributor rather than Slavs. What comes to mind are the Thracian Goths, Moesian Goths, and Pannonian Goths which could have been later Romanized just like we find many native/Vlach tribes in Montenegro and Herzegovina belonging to I1.

Kingslav
18-07-17, 09:41
Even North Albanians can score more than 20% Baltic on Gedmatch K13, so Bosnia's results aren't any surprise. Anyway, it seems logical that the ancestor of CTS10228 came to Eastern Europe from Germany of France with Celts or Germanics. It's closest cousin as far as I remember is I2a-Disles. As for its distribution in the Balkans, personally I see the Goths are a more important contributor rather than Slavs. What comes to mind are the Thracian Goths, Moesian Goths, and Pannonian Goths which could have been later Romanized just like we find many native/Vlach tribes in Montenegro and Herzegovina belonging to I1.

It is not possible for Goths to carry I2A-DIN to Balkans, Goths at this period were still inhabiting Scandinavia.

"Sometime around the 1st century AD, Germanic peoples may have migrated from Scandinavia to Gothiscandza, in present-day Poland. Early archaeological evidence in the traditional Swedish province of Östergötland suggests a general depopulation during this period." - Goths Wikipedia

The Celts can be found in Western European DNA where R1B is peaking at over 80% or more.

Nik
18-07-17, 10:05
I didn't say Goths brought it, I said they could have contributed by absorbing many tribes and bringing them down to the Balkans. And we know that they absorbed many Getae/Dacians, Bastarnae, Roxolani, Scythians, etc.

Similarly, when we say Slavs bringing I2a-Din to the Balkans, it's highly likely that many knowledgeable members think that they contributed to its distribution by either having pushed the clade further South or absorbed it. I don't think that the majority of members believe that I2a-Din was present during the ethnogenesis of early Proto-Slavs.

Kingslav
18-07-17, 10:29
Here is about Thracians.


"It is generally proposed that a proto-Thracian people developed from a mixture of indigenous peoples and Indo-Europeans from the time of Proto-Indo-European expansion in the Early Bronze Age. Divided into separate tribes, the Thracians did not manage to form a lasting political organization until the Odrysian state was founded in the fifth century BC. A strong Dacian state appeared in the first century BC, during the reign of King Burebista. Including the Illyrians, the mountainous regions were home to various peoples regarded as warlike and ferocious Thracian tribes, while the plains peoples were apparently regarded as more peaceable. Thracians inhabited parts of the ancient provinces of Thrace, Moesia, Macedonia, Dacia, Scythia Minor, Sarmatia, Bithynia, Mysia, Pannonia, and other regions of the Balkans and Anatolia. This area extended over most of the Balkans region, and the Getae north of the Danube as far as beyond the Bug and including Panonia in the west. There were about 200 Thracian tribes."- Thracians Wikipedia

Kingslav
18-07-17, 16:26
Even North Albanians can score more than 20% Baltic on Gedmatch K13, so Bosnia's results aren't any surprise.

Anyway, it seems logical that the ancestor of CTS10228 came to Eastern Europe from Germany of France with Celts or Germanics. It's closest cousin as far as I remember is I2a-Disles.

As for its distribution in the Balkans, personally I see the Goths are a more important contributor rather than Slavs. What comes to mind are the Thracian Goths, Moesian Goths, and Pannonian Goths which could have been later Romanized just like we find many native/Vlach tribes in Montenegro and Herzegovina belonging to I1.

West Balkans is showing I1 Haplogroup 5% Kosovo, Herzegovina, and Montenegro. Goth Vikings migration? However, southwestern Ukraine, I1 haplogroup is rarely found at rate of 1.1%, so unlikely that Goths had contribution to I2A-DIN.

Here is Ukrainian averages Y-DNA Haplogroups

50% R1A1
21% I2A
8.7% E1B1B1
6.5% N1C
5.5% J2A1
3.3% G2A
2.2% R1B1B2 Celts?
1.1% Q1
1.1% H1A
1.1% I1 Goths?
0.5% T

Dumidre
18-07-17, 16:58
Hello,
I'm new in this forum and a novice when it comes to paleo-genetics... I did a DNA test with National Geographic and my regional ancestry came 53% Italy, 44% Eastern European and 3% Jewish Diaspora. My paternal line is I-L621 and my maternal line is H6A1A. I am born in Romania from parents that come from the same region (at least 4 generations). I'm looking at my 53% Italian DNA and I'm guessing is from the Roman colonization of Dacia (the percentage is quite higher than the Romanian average)... the only explanation I found is that Pons Aluti (a Roman Fort designed to protect the Dacian Malvensis border) was only 15 miles from my ancestors village, hence heavily Roman presence. What makes me wonder is the Eastern European part of my DNA. Where do we position de Dacian DNA? Is it Eastern European, is it Southern European? My Y-DNA is I-L621... is it as old as my Dacian ancestors or is it from the more recent Slavic expansion to the south? I would appreciate your level headed input. (I'm not trying to start another heated debate about the subject).
Thanks!

Nik
18-07-17, 17:44
West Balkans is showing I1 Haplogroup 5% Kosovo, Herzegovina, and Montenegro. Goth Vikings migration? However, southwestern Ukraine, I1 haplogroup is rarely found at rate of 1.1%, so unlikely that Goths had contribution to I2A-DIN.
Ukraine is in the Balkans according to you?

Kingslav
18-07-17, 18:28
Ukraine is in the Balkans according to you?

Ukraine is Eastern Europe.

Odessa, Vinnytsia, Chernivtsi, Zakarpattia Oblasts where Im from are latitudinally aligned with Zagreb, Ljubljana, Budapest places generally considered North Balkans so I will leave that for your interpretations.

I never said once Ukraine is in Balkans for record. This is irrelvant though, DNA is shared despite any border imaginations.

Azzurro
18-07-17, 18:59
here is part of cts10228 in yfull 5.04v

https://s3.postimg.org/fwsrs0c4j/i2a.jpg (https://postimg.org/image/rlwrfz333/)

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

I guess you completely misunderstood what I am saying, even in the Yfull picture you posted you see there is also one from France which I mentioned and you completely ignore. Also when the * is marked like we see in that Southern Pole and that French individual it means they share all the mutations of I-CTS10228 until 2300 ybp meaning that's when it branched off. I don't understand how I am trying to rewrite history when I am suggesting either a Scythian or Celtic origin for this subclade, maybe it is you who tries to rewrite history like saying the Albanians are descendants of Bastarnae and are not Illyrians, its very clear that I-CTS10228 suffered a bottleneck from 5300 ybp to 2300 ybp thats 3000 years.

Leka
18-07-17, 19:23
Goths were predominantly I1-Z63 but perhaps they also carried some I2a2 and R1b, which can be found in the Balkans today in small percentage. Z63 though is the line that really fits their movements best, samples found in the Balkans (Albanians, Montenegrins...etc) are closely related to Germans, some eastern Slavic groups and as west as Spaniards (where Goths actually settled). If Goths or Germanics in general had anything to do with CTS10228, we would also bee seeing similar distribution like that of Z63, and even Spaniards would be carrying it.

That's not the case now, is it?

Trojet
18-07-17, 19:57
and the slavs where not there at the time of CTS10228 ...................you are more than 1000 years difference

Sure, the Slavs just dropped out of the sky during Early Middle Ages. What you're essentially saying here is that since the Slavs were not mentioned at 300 BC, their ancestors must've not existed, LOL.

@Azzurro, it appears you ended up in Sile's bad list, just because you said Albanians are Illyrians.
And you're absolutely right that Sile is the one who constantly tries to rewrite history.

Sile
18-07-17, 20:01
I guess you completely misunderstood what I am saying, even in the Yfull picture you posted you see there is also one from France which I mentioned and you completely ignore. Also when the * is marked like we see in that Southern Pole and that French individual it means they share all the mutations of I-CTS10228 until 2300 ybp meaning that's when it branched off. I don't understand how I am trying to rewrite history when I am suggesting either a Scythian or Celtic origin for this subclade, maybe it is you who tries to rewrite history like saying the Albanians are descendants of Bastarnae and are not Illyrians, its very clear that I-CTS10228 suffered a bottleneck from 5300 ybp to 2300 ybp thats 3000 years.

I never ignore the french person, i noted in other post, that it was likely he was from South-Poland

I also am saying that the marker cannot be Scythian or sarmatian

I bastarnae are of gallic/germanic mix as per historians and cannot be albanians if bulgarian and romanaian scholars are correct in their theory that the albanians originate from a land lock people called the carpi from the carpathian mountains
The Romans held all of albania lands since 146BC and never mentioned any Albanians until 150AD , they never mentioned illyrians there either, but did mention macedonians there ( including royal tombs of macedonians in albania )

The bastarnae where eventually fully absorbed into gothic society on the vicinity of the black sea by 200AD................and we know that 200 years later the goths invaded the roman empire and settled for over 200 years in ancient illyrian plus italian lands

Sile
18-07-17, 20:04
Sure, the Slavs just dropped out of the sky during Early Middle Ages. What you're essentially saying here is that since the Slavs were not mentioned at 300 BC, their ancestors must've not existed, LOL.

@

who is talking about the middle-ages?

read what I said............the slavs where not in Poland until , at the earliest 600AD .....they where not in Poland before 600AD, I cannot make it any clearer .................you seem to think the slavs have been in poland since the bronze or iron age ...............let me know if you think this

You do not actually think that the slavs have always been where they are since time began , do you?

Nik
18-07-17, 20:23
Goths were predominantly I1-Z63 but perhaps they also carried some I2a2 and R1b, which can be found in the Balkans today in small percentage. Z63 though is the line that really fits their movements best, samples found in the Balkans (Albanians, Montenegrins...etc) are closely related to Germans, some eastern Slavic groups and as west as Spaniards (where Goths actually settled). If Goths or Germanics in general had anything to do with CTS10228, we would also bee seeing similar distribution like that of Z63, and even Spaniards would be carrying it.

That's not the case now, is it?
This was for me or what?

If yes, read again what I wrote.

Kingslav
18-07-17, 20:31
I guess you completely misunderstood what I am saying, even in the Yfull picture you posted you see there is also one from France which I mentioned and you completely ignore. Also when the * is marked like we see in that Southern Pole and that French individual it means they share all the mutations of I-CTS10228 until 2300 ybp meaning that's when it branched off. I don't understand how I am trying to rewrite history when I am suggesting either a Scythian or Celtic origin for this subclade, maybe it is you who tries to rewrite history like saying the Albanians are descendants of Bastarnae and are not Illyrians, its very clear that I-CTS10228 suffered a bottleneck from 5300 ybp to 2300 ybp thats 3000 years.

We can rule out Celtic Origin for I2A-DIN with 2.2% R1B in Ukraine and similar R1B rates all across the board in this region Eastern Europe.

Leka
18-07-17, 20:44
This was for me or what?

If yes, read again what I wrote.

My post was generally addressed to the folks who are mentioning Germanic tribes in this discussion (same applies for Celtic tribes too). Didn't read your post too closely, but if you believe Goths carried it then it was for you as well.

DuPidh
18-07-17, 21:31
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.
Balkan is also Slavic DNA. Albanians are included in Italy/Greece category

Azzurro
18-07-17, 21:41
Sure, the Slavs just dropped out of the sky during Early Middle Ages. What you're essentially saying here is that since the Slavs were not mentioned at 300 BC, their ancestors must've not existed, LOL.

@Azzurro, it appears you ended up in Sile's bad list, just because you said Albanians are Illyrians.
And you're absolutely right that Sile is the one who constantly tries to rewrite history.

For me there is undeniable evidence for an Illyrian and Albanian link whether or not he agrees, what is your opinion on the pre-origins of I-CTS10228 before the Slavic expansion, your opinion would be greatly appreciated.

Kingslav
18-07-17, 21:48
Balkan is also Slavic DNA. Albanians are included in Italy/Greece category

Yes Albanians results mostly Italy/Greece with Ancestry, and mostly Greek with the Myheritage

Azzurro
18-07-17, 21:53
I never ignore the french person, i noted in other post, that it was likely he was from South-Poland

I also am saying that the marker cannot be Scythian or sarmatian

I bastarnae are of gallic/germanic mix as per historians and cannot be albanians if bulgarian and romanaian scholars are correct in their theory that the albanians originate from a land lock people called the carpi from the carpathian mountains
The Romans held all of albania lands since 146BC and never mentioned any Albanians until 150AD , they never mentioned illyrians there either, but did mention macedonians there ( including royal tombs of macedonians in albania )

The bastarnae where eventually fully absorbed into gothic society on the vicinity of the black sea by 200AD................and we know that 200 years later the goths invaded the roman empire and settled for over 200 years in ancient illyrian plus italian lands

We don't know for sure he was from Southern Poland, but I agree we have to leave that possibility.

I disagree with you for the potential origin of I-CTS10228, I think there is a very good chance of it being Scythian and/or Sarmatian/Getae, two downstreams of I-CTS10228 which branched off earlier A2512 and SK1412 can only be from these two sources, as for the first line ended up in Greece and the other stretches all the way to the Volga two areas which the Bastarnae or any Germanic tribe ever reached and especially with those current TMRCA's. Then we get into two other branches of I-CTS10228 which are I-PH908 and I-S17250 which expanded with the Slavic migrations it very apparent with their modern distribution. To me it seems this line originally came from somewhere near where the Proto-Slavs were located, thus it spread from East to West, and the Scythian connection would make the most sense.

Azzurro
18-07-17, 21:55
We can rule out Celtic Origin for I2A-DIN with 2.2% R1B in Ukraine and similar R1B rates all across the board in this region Eastern Europe.

I only suggested it because this line appears to expand around the same time as the Scordisci Celts, but as you see I believe in a possible Scythian connection, since you belong to I-CTS10228 what is your opinion on your ancestor's origin?

Azzurro
18-07-17, 22:01
@Sile,

When it comes to Albanians you are completely wrong, how can they be from the Carpi when it has nothing to do with where they live, if they were truly landlocked peoples would it make more sense if they lived in the Albanian mountains? The modern Albanian language is probably a mixture of a couple of Illyrian dialect. Romans did mention Albanians, as their progenitors the Illyrians. You seem to be against Albanians for no reason.

Kingslav
18-07-17, 22:17
We don't know for sure he was from Southern Poland, but I agree we have to leave that possibility.

I disagree with you for the potential origin of I-CTS10228, I think there is a very good chance of it being Scythian and/or Sarmatian/Getae, two downstreams of I-CTS10228 which branched off earlier A2512 and SK1412 can only be from these two sources, as for the first line ended up in Greece and the other stretches all the way to the Volga two areas which the Bastarnae or any Germanic tribe ever reached and especially with those current TMRCA's. Then we get into two other branches of I-CTS10228 which are I-PH908 and I-S17250 which expanded with the Slavic migrations it very apparent with their modern distribution. To me it seems this line originally came from somewhere near where the Proto-Slavs were located, thus it spread from East to West, and the Scythian connection would make the most sense.

It would rather be Sarmatians who arrived at this time. The Scythians were already inhabiting coastal Black Sea Regions when the Sarmatians arrived and conquered the Scythians.


"Originating in Eastern Europe, between the Don River and the Ural Mountains, the Sarmatians started their westward migration around the 6th century BC, coming to dominate the closely related Scythians by the 2nd century BC. The Sarmatians differed from the Scythians in their veneration of the god of fire rather than god of nature, and women's prominent role in warfare, which possibly served as the inspiration for the Amazons. At their greatest reported extent, around 1st century AD, these tribes ranged from the Vistula River to the mouth of the Danube and eastward to the Volga, bordering the shores of the Black and Caspian seas as well as the Caucasus to the south. Their territory, which was known as Sarmatia to Greco-Roman ethnographers, corresponded to the western part of greater Scythia (mostly modern Ukraine and Southern Russia, also to a smaller extent north-eastern Balkans around Moldova.)" - Sarmatians Wikipedia

Kingslav
18-07-17, 22:45
I only suggested it because this line appears to expand around the same time as the Scordisci Celts, but as you see I believe in a possible Scythian connection, since you belong to I-CTS10228 what is your opinion on your ancestor's origin?

Celts have a Western European R1B Belgic origin, from Belgium. This is rather comical to consider, if you look at Ukraine population average for Haplogroups. R1B seems to not exist at 2.2% R1B population average.

Kingslav
19-07-17, 08:03
I guess you completely misunderstood what I am saying, even in the Yfull picture you posted you see there is also one from France which I mentioned and you completely ignore. Also when the * is marked like we see in that Southern Pole and that French individual it means they share all the mutations of I-CTS10228 until 2300 ybp meaning that's when it branched off. I don't understand how I am trying to rewrite history when I am suggesting either a Scythian or Celtic origin for this subclade, maybe it is you who tries to rewrite history like saying the Albanians are descendants of Bastarnae and are not Illyrians, its very clear that I-CTS10228 suffered a bottleneck from 5300 ybp to 2300 ybp thats 3000 years.

If even I-CTS10228 suffered a bottleneck as you claim and many others claiming about this specific Haplogroup, the result of this "bottleneck" is explained here.

"A population bottleneck or genetic bottleneck is a sharp reduction in the size of a population due to environmental events (such as earthquakes, floods, fires, disease, or droughts) or human activities (such as genocide). Such events can reduce the variation in the gene pool of a population; thereafter, a smaller population, with a correspondingly smaller genetic diversity, remains to pass on genes to future generations of offspring through sexual reproduction.

Alternatively, if by chance survivors of the bottleneck are the individuals with the greatest genetic fitness, the frequency of the fitter genes within the gene pool is increased, while the pool itself is reduced."

- Population Bottleneck Wikipedia

Sile
19-07-17, 08:15
@Sile,

When it comes to Albanians you are completely wrong, how can they be from the Carpi when it has nothing to do with where they live, if they were truly landlocked peoples would it make more sense if they lived in the Albanian mountains? The modern Albanian language is probably a mixture of a couple of Illyrian dialect. Romans did mention Albanians, as their progenitors the Illyrians. You seem to be against Albanians for no reason.

why do you bring up this illyrian and albanian?.............look at Roman historians...........where is Illyricum, Dalmatia, Pannonia

what was Albania called ............it was Epirus Nova

What was Montenegro called ..............look at map

https://s3.postimg.org/t47pypaab/epirus_nova.jpg (https://postimg.org/image/62r4syamn/)

do you think the Roman historians and government are wrong in who was who and where they lived

You do realise the Roman made boundaries based on language and similar ethnicity so as to target the whole area if the area rebelled against Rome

Clearly Epirus nova is modern Albania and they must have had a similar Greek type of language

Nik
19-07-17, 08:39
why do you bring up this illyrian and albanian?.............look at Roman historians...........where is Illyricum, Dalmatia, Pannonia

what was Albania called ............it was Epirus Nova

What was Montenegro called ..............look at map

https://s3.postimg.org/t47pypaab/epirus_nova.jpg (https://postimg.org/image/62r4syamn/)

do you think the Roman historians and government are wrong in who was who and where they lived

You do realise the Roman made boundaries based on language and similar ethnicity so as to target the whole area if the area rebelled against Rome

Clearly Epirus nova is modern Albania and they must have had a similar Greek type of language
Clearly you must be either one of the slowest or most anti-Albanian persons I know.

Italy as a name was confined only to Calabria initially, before it was applied to the entire peninsula. Clearly it seems you're not Italian. Same goes to Graeci being applied to all Hellenes, or even probably the Illyrians, initially a single tribe whose name was used to identify all the culturally/linguistically similar tribes. Don't forget the Greeks called themselves Romioi before 1821, therefore we can "claim" that the Greeks came from Anatolia and replaced the Romioi within a few months :P

Most importantly, why am I wasting my time with you? XD

@Leka - Read my post before including my name then. I agree with what you're saying but I mentioned that it is a possibility that the Goths 'contributed' to the dispersal, not brought CTS10228 to Eastern Europe.

Kingslav
19-07-17, 09:01
If even I-CTS10228 suffered a bottleneck as you claim and many others claiming about this specific Haplogroup, the result of this "bottleneck" is explained here.

"A population bottleneck or genetic bottleneck is a sharp reduction in the size of a population due to environmental events (such as earthquakes, floods, fires, disease, or droughts) or human activities (such as genocide). Such events can reduce the variation in the gene pool of a population; thereafter, a smaller population, with a correspondingly smaller genetic diversity, remains to pass on genes to future generations of offspring through sexual reproduction.

Alternatively, if by chance survivors of the bottleneck are the individuals with the greatest genetic fitness, the frequency of the fitter genes within the gene pool is increased, while the pool itself is reduced."

- Population Bottleneck Wikipedia

This genetic evolution caused by bottleneck is also likely reason for I2A-DIN people recorded as tallest Haplogroup originating from Balkans measuring on average 187 cm, being only closely rivaled in the world by Haplogroup I1 people of Northern Europe/Scandinavia and East/Central African Nilotic peoples from a diversity of Haplogroups. The I Haplogroup people survived Ice Age in Balkans would make them have to evolve differently and grow taller in order to preserve more energy to keep body warmer in cold conditions. All mammals have a tendancy to grow bigger in cold climate.

Interesting if you look at population IQ (intelligence quotient) averages by sample of European cities, the highest scores you will find majority of place where I1 or I2A-DIN are found.

Country City Mean IQ

Holland Amsterdam 109.4
Germany Hamburg 109.3
Poland Warsaw 108.3
Sweden Stockholm 105.8
Yugoslavia Zagreb 105.7
Italy Rome 103.8
Austria Vienna 103.5
Switzerland Zurich 102.8
Portugal Lisbon 102.6
Great Britain London 102.0
Norway Oslo 101.8
Denmark Copenhagen 100.7
Hungary Budapest 100.5
Czechoslovakia Bratislava 100.4

Possible bottleneck adaptations of I1 and I2A-DIN?

Keep in mind, famous engineer Nikola Tesla did belong to Haplogroup I2A-DIN.

Nik
19-07-17, 09:25
This genetic evolution caused by bottleneck is also likely reason for I2A-DIN people recorded as tallest Haplogroup originating from Balkans measuring on average 187 cm, being only closely rivaled in the world by Haplogroup I1 people of Northern Europe/Scandinavia and East/Central African Nilotic peoples from a diversity of Haplogroups. The I Haplogroup people survived Ice Age in Balkans would make them have to evolve differently and grow taller in order to preserve more energy to keep body warmer in cold conditions. All mammals have a tendancy to grow bigger in cold climate.

Interesting if you look at population IQ (intelligence quotient) averages by sample of European cities, the highest scores you will find majority of place where I1 or I2A-DIN are found.

Country City Mean IQ

Holland Amsterdam 109.4
Germany Hamburg 109.3
Poland Warsaw 108.3
Sweden Stockholm 105.8
Yugoslavia Zagreb 105.7
Italy Rome 103.8
Austria Vienna 103.5
Switzerland Zurich 102.8
Portugal Lisbon 102.6
Great Britain London 102.0
Norway Oslo 101.8
Denmark Copenhagen 100.7
Hungary Budapest 100.5
Czechoslovakia Bratislava 100.4

Possible bottleneck adaptations of I1 and I2A-DIN?

Keep in mind, famous engineer Nikola Tesla did belong to Haplogroup I2A-DIN.
Yeah, and Tesla's are still Vlachs.

Haplogroup I is definitely connected to larger penises too. Bring us some evidence now.

Kingslav
19-07-17, 09:36
Yeah, and Tesla's are still Vlachs.

Haplogroup I is definitely connected to larger penises too. Bring us some evidence now.

These are particular adaptions of I2A-DIN no reason get angry, you know knowledge is Power.

Nik
19-07-17, 12:00
These are particular adaptions of I2A-DIN no reason get angry, you know knowledge is Power.
Very true. Thank you for the knowledge. I already feel more powerful.

What about E-V13 living in the same area? They're not as tall as I2a-Din? And what's up with Romanians and Moldovans not showing those super genes?

Kingslav
19-07-17, 13:31
Very true. Thank you for the knowledge. I already feel more powerful.

What about E-V13 living in the same area? They're not as tall as I2a-Din? And what's up with Romanians and Moldovans not showing those super genes?

What super genes Romanians not showing? I2A-DIN? They are Romanized Slavs, Moldovian mix with Slavs, Turks and have entirely different ethnogenesis. With some your posting on here you lacking knowledge of basic history or genetic background of Eastern Europe, you should read this info than discuss.

What you want know about E-V13?

Nik
19-07-17, 14:41
What super genes Romanians not showing? I2A-DIN? They are Romanized Slavs, Moldovian mix with Slavs, Turks and have entirely different ethnogenesis. With some your posting on here you lacking knowledge of basic history or genetic background of Eastern Europe, you should read this info than discuss.

What you want know about EV-13?
So the Slavs came in the 6th and 7th century and got Romanized and not the other way around, Slavicizing the natives? Wow.

And the I2a-Din Slavs living outside of the Roman Empire and in the North-Eastern extremities of the Balkans got Romanized while those in Dalmatia didnt? Bow wow wow (yippy yo yippy yay)

U can enlighten me about E-V13 (u cant even spell that correctly) on its thread and I'll attend ur valuable lectures.

Kingslav
19-07-17, 14:59
So the Slavs came in the 6th and 7th century and got Romanized and not the other way around, Slavicizing the natives? Wow.

And the I2a-Din Slavs living outside of the Roman Empire and in the North-Eastern extremities of the Balkans got Romanized while those in Dalmatia didnt? Bow wow wow (yippy yo yippy yay)

U can enlighten me about E-V13 (u cant even spell that correctly) on its thread and I'll attend ur valuable lectures.

You are having just few spelling errors also, not to mention flip-flopping back and forth not able to decide what side of discussion you belong. What did you even say second sentence it make no sense.

LABERIA
19-07-17, 16:00
Clearly you must be either one of the slowest or most anti-Albanian persons I know.
Most importantly, why am I wasting my time with you? XD

It was time.

Dumidre
19-07-17, 19:55
After reading this thread (all 42 pages of them), I agree with the original post that started the thread: I2a-Din (L621>L147.2) matches the area that old Thracian group of people lived. When the Slavic Expansion happened, the Slavic people mixed with the Thracian people ( carriers of I2a-Din) that were at that time populating those regions. Slavic language doesn't change the DNA of the people that lived continuously for thousand of years...

Kingslav
19-07-17, 20:00
After reading this thread (all 42 pages of them), I agree with the original post that started the thread: I2a-Din (L621>L147.2) matches the area that old Thracian group of people lived. When the Slavic Expansion happened, the Slavic people mixed with the Thracian people ( carriers of I2a-Din) that were at that time populating those regions. Slavic language doesn't change the DNA of the people that lived continuously for thousand of years...

Yes you are correct, welcome to thread.

mobileacc200
19-07-17, 20:44
Anything just not Slavic lol..

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a40 using Eupedia Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

Fatherland
19-07-17, 20:46
It is Slavic, nothing else. Chop chop, move on.

Kingslav
19-07-17, 20:51
Anything just not Slavic lol..

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a40 using Eupedia Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

Why not Slavic? Is this statement fact based or storytime?

Sile
19-07-17, 21:08
Clearly you must be either one of the slowest or most anti-Albanian persons I know.

Italy as a name was confined only to Calabria initially, before it was applied to the entire peninsula. Clearly it seems you're not Italian. Same goes to Graeci being applied to all Hellenes, or even probably the Illyrians, initially a single tribe whose name was used to identify all the culturally/linguistically similar tribes. Don't forget the Greeks called themselves Romioi before 1821, therefore we can "claim" that the Greeks came from Anatolia and replaced the Romioi within a few months :P

Most importantly, why am I wasting my time with you? XD

@Leka - Read my post before including my name then. I agree with what you're saying but I mentioned that it is a possibility that the Goths 'contributed' to the dispersal, not brought CTS10228 to Eastern Europe.

LOL, typical...deflect the ancient conversation to medieval or modern times .................that is what you normally do

Dumidre
19-07-17, 23:11
It is Slavic, nothing else. Chop chop, move on.

The main Y-DNA Haplogroup difference between North Slavs and South Slavs is the higher presence of I2a-Din in the South Slavs versus North Slavs. And the South Slavs living where the Dacian/Thracian used to be so numerous in the past, is a fact that cannot be ignored. The Dacian/Thracian people might not exist as a entity anymore but part of their DNA is still among the people of the region, and that's I2a-Din I believe...
Cheers

mobileacc200
19-07-17, 23:16
The main Y-DNA Haplogroup difference between North Slavs and South Slavs is the higher presence of I2a-Din in the South Slavs versus North Slavs. And the South Slavs living where the Dacian/Thracian used to be so numerous in the past, is a fact that cannot be ignored. The Dacian/Thracian people might not exist as a entity anymore but part of their DNA is still among the people of the region, and that's I2a-Din I believe...
Cheers
Its funny how you took their lands and now you trying to take their identity and history too, while they wanted to have nothing with you.

I2a-din will always be one of main Slavic haplogroups and one they spread to Balkan in Early Middle Ages like its recorded in all medieval documents..

Kingslav
19-07-17, 23:25
Its funny how you took their lands and now you trying to take their identity and history too, while they wanted to have nothing with you.

I2a-din will always be one of main Slavic haplogroups and one they spread to Balkan in Early Middle Ages like its recorded in all medieval documents..

I2A-DIN is Thracian/Slavic

Dumidre
19-07-17, 23:39
Its funny how you took their lands and now you trying to take their identity and history too, while they wanted to have nothing with you.
I don't quite understand what are you referring to...
Regards,

mobileacc200
19-07-17, 23:40
I2A-DIN is Thracian/Slavic
Its either Thracian or Slavic..

And with classic expansion in Slavic countries and closest relatives in Moldova, Poland, Ukraine, Slovakia, Belarus, Russia that are all related within a 2400 years it cant be anything but Slavic haplogroup with Slavic expansion but with none Slavic distant past.

If anyone help spread this haplo its Slavs, and its lack in Italy, just confirms its Slavic and not Thracian.

Thracians mixed with Illyrians and with Hellens and their genes were for sure spread to Italy and further but this is just not a case with I2a-din since its obvious Slavic marker and we know where Slavs reached, exactly where we find I2a-din, N and R1a combined today.

Kingslav
19-07-17, 23:45
Its either Thracian or Slavic..

And with classic expansion in Slavic countries and closest relatives in Moldova, Poland, Ukraine, Slovakia, Belarus, Russia that are all related within a 2400 years it cant be anything but Slavic haplogroup with Slavic expansion but with none Slavic distant past.

Thracians mixed w
If anyone help spread this haplo its Slavs, and its lack in Italy, just confirms its Slavic and not Thracian.

Thracians mixed with Illyrians and with Hellens and their genes was for sure spread to Italy and further but this is just not a case with I2a-din since its obvious Slavic marker and we know where Slavs reached, exactly where we find I2a abd R1a combined today.

Thracians mixed with Illyrians. This event was called Slavicisation of Balkans. There is no Thracians in Italia.

mobileacc200
19-07-17, 23:53
Thracians mixed with Illyrians. This event was called Slavicisation of Balkans, there is no Thracians in Italia.
Nope, Slavic language nor Slavs have nothing with Thracian language and Thracian people except that you killed and exiled them, maybe assimilated few but these are for sure not I2a-din lol.

Just accept ur a Slav and you will use to live with it after some time..

How come Thracians spread I2a-din all to Russia but there is none in Italy or West Europe lol

You are fool, im sorry to say that, but there is nothing worse when someone is ashamed of himself and who he is

Keep living in a delusion and trying hard on foruma like this, posts like this will embarass you even more in future when people will read them and how hard you trying to be something that your not.

DuPidh
20-07-17, 00:09
This genetic evolution caused by bottleneck is also likely reason for I2A-DIN people recorded as tallest Haplogroup originating from Balkans measuring on average 187 cm, being only closely rivaled in the world by Haplogroup I1 people of Northern Europe/Scandinavia and East/Central African Nilotic peoples from a diversity of Haplogroups. The I Haplogroup people survived Ice Age in Balkans would make them have to evolve differently and grow taller in order to preserve more energy to keep body warmer in cold conditions. All mammals have a tendancy to grow bigger in cold climate.

Interesting if you look at population IQ (intelligence quotient) averages by sample of European cities, the highest scores you will find majority of place where I1 or I2A-DIN are found.

Country City Mean IQ

Holland Amsterdam 109.4
Germany Hamburg 109.3
Poland Warsaw 108.3
Sweden Stockholm 105.8
Yugoslavia Zagreb 105.7
Italy Rome 103.8
Austria Vienna 103.5
Switzerland Zurich 102.8
Portugal Lisbon 102.6
Great Britain London 102.0
Norway Oslo 101.8
Denmark Copenhagen 100.7
Hungary Budapest 100.5
Czechoslovakia Bratislava 100.4

Possible bottleneck adaptations of I1 and I2A-DIN?

Keep in mind, famous engineer Nikola Tesla did belong to Haplogroup I2A-DIN.
Tesla never took pride in been Serbian. Strong indications he was Aromanian or Vlach, not Slav. He used to dress in Albanian garb though!http://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.uLAzLXE4N3ebvggfZaRmqwCPEs&w=143&h=299&c=7&qlt=90&o=4&pid=1.7

Kingslav
20-07-17, 00:13
Nope, Slavic language nor Slavs have nothing with Thracian language and Thracian people except that you killed and exiled them, maybe assimilated few but these are for sure not I2a-din lol.

Just accept ur a Slav and you will use to live with it after some time..

How come Thracians spread I2a-din all to Russia but there is none in Italy or West Europe lol

You are fool, im sorry to say that, but there is nothing worse when someone is ashamed of himself and who he is

Keep living in a delusion and trying hard on foruma like this, posts like this will embarass you even more in future when people will read them and how hard you trying to be something that your not.


Couple things to take from this.

- Illyrians are related to Fyrom. Muahahaha
- Illyrians are Albanians.
- Fyrom is not ancient Greeks.
- Fyrom is related to Illryians, Thracians.
- Thracians is I2A-DIN , Sarmatians R1A (Indo-European Invaders), and Germanics.

Kingslav
20-07-17, 00:17
Tesla never took pride in been Serbian. Strong indications he was Aromanian or Vlach, not Slav. He used to dress in Albanian garb though!http://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.uLAzLXE4N3ebvggfZaRmqwCPEs&w=143&h=299&c=7&qlt=90&o=4&pid=1.7

Go share this propaganda with Serbs and Croats, they will have something say for you. Tesla was I2A-DIN.

Kingslav
20-07-17, 00:49
Here is about King Thrax ethnic origins.

"He was born in Thrace or Moesia to a Gothic father and an Alanic mother, an Iranian people of the Scythian-Sarmatian branch; however, the supposed parentage is highly unlikely, as the presence of the Goths in the Danubian area is first attested after the beginning of the Crisis of the Third Century. British historian Ronald Syme, writing that "the word 'Gothia' should have sufficed for condemnation" of the passage in the Augustan History, felt that the burden of evidence from Herodian, Syncellus and elsewhere pointed to Maximinus having been born in Moesia. The references to his "Gothic" ancestry might refer to a Thracian Getae origin (the two populations were often confused by later writers, most notably by Jordanes in his Getica), as suggested by the paragraphs describing how "he was singularly beloved by the Getae, moreover, as if he were one of themselves" and how he spoke "almost pure Thracian"."

King Thrax was of Thracian/Getae and Sarmatian/Scythian origins, this sounds a lot like Slav ethnogenesis. Very ironic I will add.

Thrax was well over 2 meters in height. I mean look at Italy soccer team, who is close to 2 meters? Maybe the goalie how you say his name Buffon? 1 player out 25 very likely Italians are Thracians, lol, and that dude trying diss me from before I dot even remember your username or I would of tag you, just know we Thracians and I know you wish you had these genes.

DuPidh
20-07-17, 03:09
Couple things to take from this.

- Illyrians are related to Fyrom. Muahahaha
- Illyrians are Albanians.
- Fyrom is not ancient Greeks.
- Fyrom is related to Illryians, Thracians.
- Thracians is I2A-DIN , Sarmatians R1A (Indo-European Invaders), and Germanics.

One more thing: South Slavs in The Balkans are invaders. Unfortunately Albanians did not have the strengths to send them back to slavic lands. The home of south Slavs is Southern Poland.

DuPidh
20-07-17, 03:17
Go share this propaganda with Serbs and Croats, they will have something say for you. Tesla was I2A-DIN.
Propaganda! There is a picture I am showing you, where is the propaganda? His name was Nicolla not Nicolic, clearly an aromanian name. Who gives a chit what Serbs say. But I must say I am impressed by Tesla's achievements. I am jealous I am not a smart as he was. He died like a dog in a New York hotel. Clearly he did not deserve that end. Sad, but that's life.

LABERIA
20-07-17, 04:44
why do you bring up this illyrian and albanian?.............look at Roman historians...........where is Illyricum, Dalmatia, Pannonia

what was Albania called ............it was Epirus Nova

What was Montenegro called ..............look at map

https://s3.postimg.org/t47pypaab/epirus_nova.jpg (https://postimg.org/image/62r4syamn/)

do you think the Roman historians and government are wrong in who was who and where they lived

You do realise the Roman made boundaries based on language and similar ethnicity so as to target the whole area if the area rebelled against Rome

Clearly Epirus nova is modern Albania and they must have had a similar Greek type of language
Your entire post can be considered very, very interesting. But i don't have to much time. I am interested about the part underlined.
Can you be more specific about this similar Greek type language? Never heard about it before.

Kingslav
20-07-17, 08:40
One more thing: South Slavs in The Balkans are invaders. Unfortunately Albanians did not have the strengths to send them back to slavic lands. The home of south Slavs is Southern Poland.

One more thing, unfortunately for you Illyrian Albanians, you mix with Fyrom Slavs during these invasions you just referenced.

The proof is Albanian ethnogenesis with excess of double digits (10% or more) I2A-DIN (Slavic) and R1A (Slavic) of each.

LABERIA
20-07-17, 08:46
One more thing, unfortunately for you Illyrian Albanians, you mix with Fyrom Slavs during these invasions you just referenced.

The proof is Albanian ethnogenesis with excess of double digits I2A-DIN (Slavic) and R1A (Slavic) also.

And it's not true and i have the prove, my language, the Albanian language. Meanwhile you don't have a prove to support your claim.

Kingslav
20-07-17, 08:56
And it's not true and i have the prove, my language, the Albanian language. Meanwhile you don't have a prove to support your claim.

Language and genetics are not connected, Romanians speak Romance language they still had Slavs contribute to their ethnogenesis with 22.2% I2A + 20.4% R1A the two most prevalent haplogroups found in that region. Albanians, Greeks is farthest thing exists from Proto-Slavs in culture, language, religion but their exists the Slavic input into Albanians nonetheless.

LABERIA
20-07-17, 09:11
Language and genetics are not connected, Romanians speak Romance language they still had Slavs contribute to their ethnogenesis with 22.2% I2A + 20.4% R1A the two most prevalent haplogroups found in that region. Albanians, Greeks is farthest thing exists from Proto-Slavs in culture, language, religion but their exists the Slavic input into Albanians nonetheless.
Exactly what i said, you don't have a prove to support your claim.

Kingslav
20-07-17, 09:12
One more thing: South Slavs in The Balkans are invaders. Unfortunately Albanians did not have the strengths to send them back to slavic lands. The home of south Slavs is Southern Poland.

Learn the real boundaries/history of Poland before you speaking to me, I recommend this to Albanians.

Kingslav
20-07-17, 09:17
Exactly what i said, you don't have a prove to support your claim.

Exactly, Albanians are best at "deflecting" facts and questions, best in Balkans undoubtedly. Maybe even in whole world.

Kingslav
20-07-17, 09:23
Exactly what i said, you don't have a prove to support your claim.

"Around the 6th century, Slavs appeared on Byzantine borders in great numbers. The Byzantine records note that grass would not regrow in places where the Slavs had marched through, so great were their numbers. After a military movement even the Peloponnese and Asia Minor were reported to have Slavic settlements. This southern movement has traditionally been seen as an invasive expansion." - Slavs

Here is proof Laberia speaks of.

LABERIA
20-07-17, 09:23
Learn the real boundaries/history of Poland before you speaking to me, I recommend this to Albanians.
Thanks for your suggestion, (a link will be helpful). Always is interesting to read new things. But for the third time, you don't have a prove to support your claim. Let me suggest you something, an international forum is not one of your many slavic forums where every BS is accompanied by an general Amen. You have to learn to be serious first of all if you want to be credible for the members and the readers of this forum. Believe me it's very important.

Kingslav
20-07-17, 09:27
Thanks for your suggestion, (a link will be helpful). Always is interesting to read new things. But for the third time, you don't have a prove to support your claim. Let me suggest you something, an international forum is not one of your many slavic forums where every BS is accompanied by an general Amen. You have to learn to be serious first of all if you want to be credible for the members and the readers of this forum. Believe me it's very important.

^ proof can be found above post

LABERIA
20-07-17, 09:30
"Around the 6th century, Slavs appeared on Byzantine borders in great numbers. The Byzantine records note that grass would not regrow in places where the Slavs had marched through, so great were their numbers. After a military movement even the Peloponnese and Asia Minor were reported to have Slavic settlements. This southern movement has traditionally been seen as an invasive expansion." - Slavs

Here is proof Laberia speaks of.
I don't understand what are you trying to prove here. You accused me and Albanians for deflecting and i have to remember you this your post:

The proof is Albanian ethnogenesis with excess of double digits (10% or more) I2A-DIN (Slavic) and R1A (Slavic) of each.
Do you have any scientific prove to support your claim?

Kingslav
20-07-17, 09:41
I don't understand what are you trying to prove here. You accused me and Albanians for deflecting and i have to remember you this your post:

Do you have any scientific prove to support your claim?

I don't care you remember me, sure I always have scientific proof for you my friend.

Albanian Y-DNA Haplogroups by region with I2A-DIN and R1A.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_haplogroups_by_ethnic_group

Kingslav
20-07-17, 09:52
I don't care you remember me, sure I always have scientific proof for you my friend. Albanian Y-DNA Haplogroups by region with I2A-DIN and R1A. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_haplogroups_by_ethnic_group Kosovars are lacking Slavic admix with 7.9% I Haplogroup could be I1, and 4.4% R1A in Kosovars. Rest of Albanians 20-35% Slavic admixture.

Kingslav
20-07-17, 09:59
"Around the 6th century, Slavs appeared on Byzantine borders in great numbers. The Byzantine records note that grass would not regrow in places where the Slavs had marched through, so great were their numbers. After a military movement even the Peloponnese and Asia Minor were reported to have Slavic settlements. This southern movement has traditionally been seen as an invasive expansion." - Slavs

Here is proof Laberia speaks of.

^ Here is once again proof just incase you missed it.

LABERIA
20-07-17, 10:13
I don't care you remember me, sure I always have scientific proof for you my friend.

Albanian Y-DNA Haplogroups by region with I2A-DIN and R1A.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_haplogroups_by_ethnic_group

Excuse me but what you have posted here is an anonymous source. I asked you for a scientific study where i can read this your post:

The proof is Albanian ethnogenesis with excess of double digits (10% or more) I2A-DIN (Slavic) and R1A (Slavic) of each.
Let me explain, because it's evident that you don't have the slightly idea of what are you talking. In every scientific study you can find the conclusions of this study. To save my time, i am asking you the conclusion of a scientific study where we can read that this two slavic haplogroups(strange because you are trying to prove that one of this haplogroups is not slavic) in Albanian nation are found in excess of double digits (10% or more) I2A-DIN (Slavic) and R1A (Slavic) of each.
For the last time, do you understand my question? If you can quote a serious source than we can discuss. If you don't have a source to support your claims, please forget it and don't waste my time.

Kingslav
20-07-17, 11:37
Excuse me but what you have posted here is an anonymous source. I asked you for a scientific study where i can read this your post:

Let me explain, because it's evident that you don't have the slightly idea of what are you talking. In every scientific study you can find the conclusions of this study. To save my time, i am asking you the conclusion of a scientific study where we can read that this two slavic haplogroups(strange because you are trying to prove that one of this haplogroups is not slavic) in Albanian nation are found in excess of double digits (10% or more) I2A-DIN (Slavic) and R1A (Slavic) of each.
For the last time, do you understand my question? If you can quote a serious source than we can discuss. If you don't have a source to support your claims, please forget it and don't waste my time.

Sure I will provide for you second source. This study was conducted by Eupedia.com so any problems or concerns you have can be directed towards Eupedia.com. Lol

http://brilliantmaps.com/the-genetic-map-of-europe/

LABERIA
20-07-17, 11:48
Sure I will provide for you second source. This study was conducted by Eupedia.com so any problems or concerns you have can be directed towards Eupedia.com. Lol

http://brilliantmaps.com/the-genetic-map-of-europe/

Here we see I2A-DIN represented by blue color and R1A represented by yellow color, in excess of a quarter or 25% or more I2A-DIN, R1A in Albania combined.

Now I will get back to my workout.

Everyone is free to participate but i have a simple question for you. Do you have read what you have posted?

Kingslav
20-07-17, 14:43
Everyone is free to participate but i have a simple question for you. Do you have read what you have posted?

What is wrong with inheriting Slavic admix? There is over 360 million Slavic descendants in the world. We invaded into many regions East Europe with Indo-European Slavs than invaded Balkans with Thracian-Indo European Slavs. There is less than 10 million Albanians. You are neighbouring regions with slavs, and other side is mediterranean, you can imagine you are not from slav, everyone else has Slavic admix including Greeks but only Albanians are untouchable, ofcourse.

Kingslav
20-07-17, 16:57
Here is about Carpatho-Rusyn people of the Carpathian Mountains. I belong to Hutsuls and we are predominately Haplogroup I2A-DIN. Carpatho-Rusyn people are now dispersed in modern Eastern European countries Poland, Ukraine, Romania, Slovakia, Hungary, and others.

"In terms of haplogroup frequencies, the Hutsuls are more like their non-Rusyn neighbors (especially Ukrainians) than the Boykos or Lemkos. Meanwhile, Boykos and Lemkos are most like Romanians and Czechs, and Hutsuls are most like Croatian mainlanders.

The Hutsuls are the easternmost Rusyns, living in Hutsulschyna in easternmost Subcarpathian Rus' in Ukraine and in neighboring northernmost Romania.

The Lemkos are the westernmost Rusyns, living in their Lemkivschyna homelands on the north side of the Carpathians in southeastern Poland including the Podkarpackie (Subcarpathian) region and the Małopolska (Lesser Poland) region, which during the Austrian Empire's heyday were in the western part of the region called Galicia, and also south of the Polish border in neighboring areas of Slovakia including the Prešov region in eastern Slovakia.

Boykos and Dolinyans live in between the Lemkos and the Hutsuls. Boykos live in Boykivschyna in southeasternmost Podkarpackie in Poland and in northern Subcarpathian Rus' in southwestern Ukraine. Dolinyans live south of Boykos throughout most of Subcarpathian Rus' and also in easternmost Slovakia."

- Rusyn Genetics

LABERIA
20-07-17, 17:41
What is wrong with inheriting Slavic admix? There is over 360 million Slavic descendants in the world. We invaded into many regions East Europe with Indo-European Slavs than invaded Balkans with Thracian-Indo European Slavs. There is less than 10 million Albanians. You are neighbouring regions with slavs, and other side is mediterranean, you can imagine you are not from slav, everyone else has Slavic admix including Greeks but only Albanians are untouchable, ofcourse.

This is another discussion. I am not interested about what you imagine. Honestly i felt sorry to see you go alone in the forum and quoting yourself. Simply i had a question for you. It was so hard to have a response from you. Exactly for this reason do not intend to repeat the same experience. You have raised your trap, wait for the next victim. Good hunting.

Kingslav
20-07-17, 18:12
This is another discussion. I am not interested about what you imagine. Honestly i felt was sorry to see you go alone in the forum and quoting yourself. Simply i had a question for you. It was so hard to have a response from you. Exactly for this reason do not intend to repeat the same experience. You have raised your trap, wait for the next victim. Good hunting.

This is I2A-DIN discussion for people of this genetics. You Albanians need go spam your own threads with this elementary BS. I am on here posting about genetics. If you strongly hate South Slavs why are you still here in this South Slavic thread? Go trash E-V13 thread with your imaginary folktales. You all twitter thugs on net but in real world you know better not try me. Oh yeah trap I raise rofl tell me more.

Kingslav
20-07-17, 18:22
This is another discussion. I am not interested about what you imagine. Honestly i felt sorry to see you go alone in the forum and quoting yourself. Simply i had a question for you. It was so hard to have a response from you. Exactly for this reason do not intend to repeat the same experience. You have raised your trap, wait for the next victim. Good hunting.

Who is this farmer that is in your picture next your name? Just wondering

I have military picture of my uncle, he is Freemason.

You can read about him more...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walery_Sławek

LABERIA
20-07-17, 18:25
This is I2A-DIN discussion for people of this genetics. You Albanians need go spam your own threads with this elementary BS. I am on here posting about genetics. If you strongly hate South Slavs why are you still here in this South Slavic thread? Go trash E-V13 thread with your imaginary folktales. You all twitter thugs on net but in real world you know better not try me. Oh yeah trap I raise rofl tell me more.

I am not in the wrong thread, i think you are in the wrong forum.

Dumidre
20-07-17, 19:24
Language and genetics are not connected, Romanians speak Romance language they still had Slavs contribute to their ethnogenesis with 22.2% I2A + 20.4% R1A the two most prevalent haplogroups found in that region.

I have to partially disagree with you on this one. Language and genetics are indirectly somehow connected. Let's take Romania for example: in peaceful times, people from different ethnic group intermix through marriage and for a long period of time language will change towards the majority of people living on that land. If Romanians have 42.6% Slavic DNA, their language overtime will definitely become more Slavic, unless we have this ridiculous scenario that for hundreds of years the Slavic part of the family will be forbidden to speak their own language... so imho, this is one of the reasons I believe that I2a-din has Dacian origin...
Salutations,

Kingslav
20-07-17, 20:02
I have to partially disagree with you on this one. Language and genetics are indirectly somehow connected. Let's take Romania for example: in peaceful times, people from different ethnic group intermix through marriage and for a long period of time language will change towards the majority of people living on that land. If Romanians have 42.6% Slavic DNA, their language overtime will definitely become more Slavic, unless we have this ridiculous scenario that for hundreds of years the Slavic part of the family will be forbidden to speak their own language... so imho, this is one of the reasons I believe that I2a-din has Dacian origin...
Salutations,

I agree with your opinion I2A-DIN has Thracian/Dacian origins with a fraction of these ancestors migrating and populating the west Balkans (Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia, etc) during medieval period. As far the language goes it is tricky in this part of world, I will give you personal example. My grandfather was born in Bukovina, Northern Romania when this region belonged to Austro-Hungary prior to second world war, my family has deep roots in this region known as Carpatho-Rus, however his father my great grandfather was of Bulgar descent. My grandfather married into Polish family and after WW2 relocated to southern Poland and for this reason I was born citizen of Poland, adopted the language, culture, Roman Catholicism religion. In Poland less than 5-10% people carry I2A-DIN mostly this is settlers from Carpatho-Rus. The 42.6% Slavic genes in Romania certainly still exists there despite the Romanian language, but over time through mixing of genetics new phenotypes and subraces are created.

Dumidre
20-07-17, 20:48
Your example has valid points, but explains a short period of time. However, Daco-Romans, Free Dacians and Slavic people coexisted in the same geographical region since at least 6th Century CE ( most historians agree). Back then, there were no borders and people were kind of trying to understand each other with the languages they had (especially without written language, they were borrowing each other words). I see this process covering a long period of time, so the language of Romanians will have more Slavic words if the Slavic DNA (hence more participation to the gene pool from the Slavic side) will be at higher concentration.

I'm imagining the Slavic movement towards South-South West kind of like a slow river (bare with me on this one). We know that water absorbs minerals from the ground as it flows, right? And let's imagine that the original Slavic people had predominant R1A yDNA, and Dacian/Thracian people had predominant I2a-DIN. Moving south they mixed with people that they met. First, the Free Dacians (that were living outside what used to be Roman Dacia), then the Romanized Dacians( already mixed with other DNA from the Roman occupation) and then the Thracian people all the way to Serbia, Croatia and so forth. Now, based what I saw as far as the I2a-DIN map: Moldavians, have more I2a-DIN than Romanians (because of more Free Dacian contribution to their DNA, and we presupposed I2a-DIN being Dacian). Moving south-southwest mixing of the people continue over a longer period of time that we think and the predominance of R1A yDNA gets more diminished, and by the time it got to the what know is Serbia-Croatia region, I2a-DIN predominance is growing stronger (higher concentration of I2a-DIN in that region, right?).
It might be oversimplistic, but it kind of makes sense, don't you think?

Dumidre
20-07-17, 23:21
I agree with your opinion I2A-DIN has Thracian/Dacian origins with a fraction of these ancestors migrating and populating the west Balkans (Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia, etc) during medieval period. As far the language goes it is tricky in this part of world, I will give you personal example. My grandfather was born in Bukovina, Northern Romania when this region belonged to Austro-Hungary prior to second world war, my family has deep roots in this region known as Carpatho-Rus, however his father my great grandfather was of Bulgar descent. My grandfather married into Polish family and after WW2 relocated to southern Poland and for this reason I was born citizen of Poland, adopted the language, culture, Roman Catholicism religion. In Poland less than 5-10% people carry I2A-DIN mostly this is settlers from Carpatho-Rus. The 42.6% Slavic genes in Romania certainly still exists there despite the Romanian language, but over time through mixing of genetics new phenotypes and subraces are created.

Sorry that your family had to relocate...
It took around 1000 years for the Romanian language to form, and more Slavic DNA implies more Slavic people mixing with Romanians, which in result more Slavic influence in the Romanian language... Romanian language got about 20% Slavic influence.... is it a coincidence that it has in average 20% R1a? Maybe... or maybe not...
Have you thought that maybe your great grandfather had his I2a-din yDNA from Thracian descent? It's a possibility...

Kingslav
21-07-17, 10:34
Your example has valid points, but explains a short period of time. However, Daco-Romans, Free Dacians and Slavic people coexisted in the same geographical region since at least 6th Century CE ( most historians agree). Back then, there were no borders and people were kind of trying to understand each other with the languages they had (especially without written language, they were borrowing each other words). I see this process covering a long period of time, so the language of Romanians will have more Slavic words if the Slavic DNA (hence more participation to the gene pool from the Slavic side) will be at higher concentration.

I'm imagining the Slavic movement towards South-South West kind of like a slow river (bare with me on this one). We know that water absorbs minerals from the ground as it flows, right? And let's imagine that the original Slavic people had predominant R1A yDNA, and Dacian/Thracian people had predominant I2a-DIN. Moving south they mixed with people that they met. First, the Free Dacians (that were living outside what used to be Roman Dacia), then the Romanized Dacians( already mixed with other DNA from the Roman occupation) and then the Thracian people all the way to Serbia, Croatia and so forth. Now, based what I saw as far as the I2a-DIN map: Moldavians, have more I2a-DIN than Romanians (because of more Free Dacian contribution to their DNA, and we presupposed I2a-DIN being Dacian). Moving south-southwest mixing of the people continue over a longer period of time that we think and the predominance of R1A yDNA gets more diminished, and by the time it got to the what know is Serbia-Croatia region, I2a-DIN predominance is growing stronger (higher concentration of I2a-DIN in that region, right?).
It might be oversimplistic, but it kind of makes sense, don't you think?

This is good example, as those Thracians/Dacians migrated Balkans in medieval era they were likely called White Croats or Vlachs by this time and they became Illyricized in their migration. Some I2A-DIN migrated north as far as Belarussia and became Russified. My ancestors remained in Carpathians for centuries, this is where Thracians/Dacians once roamed. To answer your question I believe I2A-DIN people are descended from Thracians/Dacians. In Carpatho-Rus there wasnt much new gene flow to the mountains, allowing people to retain the I2A-DIN and R1A Slavic elements. This is evident in my Slavic admix (Europe East, North Slavic, Balkan, Hungarian, Russian, etc) being very high among commercial DNA testing companies ranging from 86.6%-99.96% Slavic admixture. It is important remember though these DNA calculators use different reference populations for their tests, I have called some of these company to discuss and they are reluctant to share all details of reference populations but assure more clarity in future regarding reference populations they are using.

One more thing has to be accounted for is that there is more diversity of I2A-DIN around Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, etc than there is around west Balkans, this is the proof I2A-DIN originated near Black Sea and than migrated. For example, there is 75% I2A-DIN in Bosnia which is country with roughly only 4 million, there is 21% I2A-DIN in Ukraine a country of 45 million, the % can be misleading in terms of exact numbers of I2A-DIN. There is more diversity I2A-DIN in Ukraine than in west Balkans and that is what some members not understanding.

Hutsuls is the group of Carpatho-Rusyns I descend from who are mostly I2A-DIN. We are now dispersed in Poland, Ukraine, Romania, Slovakia, Hungary and others. In terms of genetics and Y-DNA Haplogroups, Hutsuls are closest compared with Croatian mainlanders.

Genetics of Carpatho-Rus

"In terms of haplogroup frequencies, the Hutsuls are more like their non-Rusyn neighbors (especially Ukrainians) than the Boykos or Lemkos. Meanwhile, Boykos and Lemkos are most like Romanians and Czechs, and Hutsuls are most like Croatian mainlanders. The Hutsuls are the easternmost Rusyns, living in Hutsulschyna in easternmost Subcarpathian Rus' in Ukraine and in neighboring northernmost Romania."

Nik
21-07-17, 12:06
Unbelievable! This kid drove away all the interesting posters from this topic and spread like cancer.

Is there any rule to ban a member for being annoying? Plus I'm sure Kingslav is under 14yo.

Kingslav
21-07-17, 12:27
Nikola! It is ok your parents name you after Serbs, because you are one. How many fake account you have on here little nephew? I destroyed you many time already son, do you really want continue? Cancer not light topic to throw around, this surely indicates the great wisdom you dont have. You should read more little buddy.

Kingslav
21-07-17, 12:52
Trojet, you shouldnt expect Nik or the others to counter any facts.

The child does obviously not know what facts are. So for him countering facts is a whole new undiscovered dimension of knowlegde.
Its like schooling my 3 year old nephew. We got to start from the bottom here.
For gods sake, he is using 2010ish wikipedia articles written by serbs, to prove a point about haplogroups. It is very convinient for him though, that way he can keep his greek helmeted avatar while still being a slav.

^ I finally agree with Balkanite

Nik, some members have IQ to read all 44 pages of thread in relatively short amount of time.

LABERIA
21-07-17, 14:05
And back to topic.

It is natural that I-PH908 is represented among Ukrainians, Poles, Belarus and other Slavic people what I wanted to say (but made accidental translate language error).

Unfortunately faith of people in the Balkans was very difficult, almost unbearable, in time of Ottomans.

Due to Muslim Ottoman oppression, many people had to evade their homes, including Serbs from Kosovo and Metohija.

Great migration of Serbs

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

During the Austro-Turkish war (1683-1699) relations between Muslims and Christians in the European provinces of the Ottoman Empire were extremely radicalized, resulting in calls by Muslim religious leaders for the persecution of local Christians and Jews. As a result of oppression, Christians and their church leaders, headed by Serbian Patriarch Arsenije III Serbian sided with the Austrians in 1689. In the following campaigns, Turkish forces conducted systematic atrocities against the Christian population in Serbian regions, resulting in the Great Migration of 1690.

Sources provide different data regarding the number of people in the first migration:



37,000 families into Habsburg Monarchy, according to a manuscript at Sisatovac monastery written by monk Stefan of Ravanica 28 years after the first wave.
37,000 families, according to a book by Pavle Julinac, printed in 1765.
37,000 families led by the Patriarch, according to Jovan Rajić, published in 1794–95.
37,000 families led by the Patriarch, according to Johann Engel, published 1801.
Emile Picot concluded that it was 35,000 to 40,000 families, between 400,000 and 500,000 people. "It is a constant tradition that this population is counted by families, not by heads" also insisting that these were large extended families (see Zadruga).
The Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences, supports the figure of 37,000 families.


Only in First migration a large number of Serbs have fled, mostly from Kosovo.

It's unbelievable how you serbs still continue in the XXI century to spread and use this serb myths of the XIX century. Myths invented and used to justify the invasion of Albanian lands including Kosova and the extermination of the Albanian nation. It's not serious not only that you use an biased source like Wikipedia, but even in this case, your quote is selective, a clear tentative to falsify the reality. Let me post here what you have "forget" to post from same page, the last paragraph:

According to Noel Malcolm, data that state that 37,000 families participated in this migration derive from a single source: a Serbian monastic chronicle which was written many years after the event and contains several other errors.[15]
Yes, what's the story with this single source written many years after the so-called migration of serbs and with several errors?
The modern serb scholars, those that can be barely accepted as such (and here i am not referring to the bunch of clowns headed by the pseudo-historian Dusan Batakoviç who left this world around one month ago), don't accept anymore this ridiculous serb myth.
That some people followed the Austrian army and were allowed to settle in Hungary is a historical fact that cannot be denied. Yet no historical documents are available regarding the number of people who emigrated, nor the exact areas affected by this emigration. The figure of 37 000 families,i.e., about 350 000 people, claimed by some historians, cannot be supported by any indisputable nor plausible evidence. This figure is, as it seems, the result of the arbitrary interpretation of the word void mentioned in some church document.
The appeal to the Balkan peoples to rise against the Turks was not merely made by the Patriarch Arsenije Crnojevic, but jointly by him and the Albanian Archbishop of Shkup (Skopje), Pjetër Bogdani. According to documents, there were about 20 000 rebels, Serbs and Albanians, and only some of them(including also some Muslim Albanians, not only Christians) emigrated north of the Danube. This figure does not tally with that claimed by the Serbs. The Ottomans offered amnesty, but this amnesty was not accepted by Orthodox Serb Church, not because they had any serious problem with Ottomans, absolutely no, but because the real enemy of this Church(Serb Church), was exactly an another Orthodox Church, The Patriarchate of Istanbul. For this reason the Orthodox Serb Church decided to migrated in Austrian territory because they got from the Emperor the same position that the Patriarchate of Istanbul had in Ottoman Empire. The majority of the common people in today territory of Kosova and South Serbia accepted the amnesty and continued their life.
The historical error concerning various aspects of this emigration and the faulty interpretation of the word void used in church documents were already pointed out by a Serb himself - the well-known historian J. Tomic, in a passage which, surprisingly, has not received the attention it deserves from some western historians and the Anonymous author/s of Wikipedia, considering the fact that it dates from 1913. It is contained in:
Les Albanais en Vieille-Serbie et dans le Sandjak de Novi-bazar, Paris, Hachette, 1913.

"This retreat of the southern and south-eastern population toward the north is known in Serbian history as the emigration of the Serbian people to Hungary under the Patriarch Arsenije Crnojevic. This event has lead in some instances to a few errors which for more than a century and a half, have been repeated from one book to another. One of those errors concerns the very regions that were hit by this emigration. If one opens at random any history book of the Serbian people one never fails to read everywhere as if it were a firmly established fact that during this emigration the Serbian regions of the Southwest - i.e., the regions of Prizren, Djakovo, Ipek - were the ones that suffered the most and remained vacant. This claim is incorrect and must be amended once and forever. Indeed, when presented in this manner the facts do not correspond to the reality. If this historical error has persisted for so long it is because the question has not been sufficiently studied. One has relied on notes and chronicles written by Orthodox priests and the 'void' mentioned in them has been identified with the ruin of the Serbian people; in reality, it refers to Orthodoxy."

Indeed, it's time for you Garrick and others like you, once and forever to stop spreading this crap around the forums and other mediums.

Kingslav
21-07-17, 15:20
It's unbelievable how you serbs still continue in the XXI century to spread and use this serb myths of the XIX century. Myths invented and used to justify the invasion of Albanian lands including Kosova and the extermination of the Albanian nation. It's not serious not only that you use an biased source like Wikipedia, but even in this case, your quote is selective, a clear tentative to falsify the reality. Let me post here what you have "forget" to post from same page, the last paragraph:

Yes, what's the story with this single source written many years later the so-called migration of serbs and with several errors?
The modern serb scholars, those that can be barely accepted as such (and here i am not referring to the bunch of clowns headed by the pseudo-historian Dusan Batakoviç who left this world around one month ago), don't accept anymore this ridiculous serb myth.
That some people followed the Austrian army and were allowed to settle in Hungary is a historical fact that cannot be denied. Yet no historical documents are available regarding the number of people who emigrated, nor the exact areas affected by this emigration. The figure of 37 000 families,i.e., about 350 000 people, claimed by some historians, cannot be supported by any indisputable nor plausible evidence. This figure is, as it seems, the result of the arbitrary interpretation of the word void mentioned in some church document.
The appeal to the Balkan peoples to rise against the Turks was not merely made by the Patriarch Arsenije Crnojevic, but jointly by him and the Albanian Archbishop of Shkup (Skopje), Pjetër Bogdani. According to documents, there were about 20 000 rebels, Serbs and Albanians, and only some of them(including also some Muslim Albanians, not only Christians) emigrated north of the Danube. This figure does not tally with that claimed by the Serbs. The Ottomans offered amnesty, but this amnesty was not accepted by Orthodox Serb Church, not because they have any serious problem with Ottomans but because the real enemy of this Church(Serb Church), was exactly an another Orthodox Church, The Patriarchate of Istanbul. For this reason the Orthodox Serb Church decided to migrated in Austrian territory because they got from the Emperor the same position that the Patriarchate of Istanbul had in Ottoman Empire. The majority of the common people in today territory of Kosova and South Serbia accepted the amnesty and continued their life.
The historical error concerning various aspects of this emigration and the faulty interpretation of the word void used in church documents were already pointed out by a Serb himself - the well-known historian J. Tomic, in a passage which, surprisingly, has not received the attention it deserves from some western historians and the Anonymous author/s of Wikipedia, considering the fact that it dates from 1913. It is contained in:
Les Albanais en Vieille-Serbie et dans le Sandjak de Novi-bazar, Paris, Hachette, 1913.

"This retreat of the southern and south-eastern population toward the north is known in Serbian history as the emigration of the Serbian people to Hungary under the Patriarch Arsenije Crnojevic. This event has lead in some instances to a few errors which for more than a century and a half, have been repeated from one book to another. One of those errors concerns the very regions that were hit by this emigration. If one opens at random any history book of the Serbian people one never fails to read everywhere as if it were a firmly established fact that during this emigration the Serbian regions of the Southwest - i.e., the regions of Prizren, Djakovo, Ipek - were the ones that suffered the most and remained vacant. This claim is incorrect and must be amended once and forever. Indeed, when presented in this manner the facts do not correspond to the reality. If this historical error has persisted for so long it is because the question has not been sufficiently studied. One has relied on notes and chronicles written by Orthodox priests and the 'void' mentioned in them has been identified with the ruin of the Serbian people; in reality, it refers to Orthodoxy."

So indeed, it's time for you Garrick and others like you, once and forever to stop spreading this crap around the forums and other mediums.

What your alternate source have to do with I2A-DIN? In the region contolled by Austro-Hungary you are trying reference now topic of Serbs northern migrations, there already lived White Croats of I2A-DIN Y-DNA haplogroup for centuries in this region of Austro-Hungary, they were first mentioned in 7th century after arriving from Steppe.

"In the 7th century, some White Croats migrated from their homeland White Croatia to the territory of modern day Croatia." White Croats

Here is map of White Croats.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:East_Slavic_tribes_peoples_8th_9th_century.jp g

Dinarid
02-08-17, 23:59
I was talking about the old R1a that possibly came to the Balkans with the IE tribes and is present among Albanians and Greeks. I might be wrong, but this is what I read here in Eupedia. So please correct if I'm wrong about the R1a among Vlachs.


I used the word yet, didnt I? I'm the one saying we dont know yet and you're the one claiming that CTS10228 is definitely Slavic.



Again, I'm not trying to mislead anyone or pull a Garrick-like move with fake information, but AFAIK there has been found J2a and R1a among Thracian skeletons. You're more than welcome to correct me and I'll automatically change my views on it. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "tons" since the topic is know to be full of grammar Nazis waiting for any opportunity to roast you, but it was just a logical assumptions. In any case, I take that back. Kindly read my sentence by ignoring the word "tons".


You seem to be convinced that I'm convinced. In reality I keep mentioning in every post Dacians, Bastarnae, Scythians, Slavs, Celts.
Isn't the Slavic R1a enough evidence of ruling elite imposing their language to the rest? I believe their numbers were more than enough to gradually Slavicize tribes of shepherds over 1000 years.



Don't play dumb with me by feeding me kindergarten logic of not confusing genetics with appearance, unless you believe that Early Slavs were darker than Balkanites. Since I personally believe that they were indeed fairer (just like ancient Greeks perceived Scythians) and these I2a + R1a tribes moved to Herzegovina where they make up 90% of the yDna (and I'm counting the Slavic mtdna as 0% to make a point), then for what reasons do they end up looking the way they do? Is there any other admixture among Herzegovinians that we dont know of? Were the indigenous Herzegovinian women way darker than those in the surrounding areas?


You'd be surprised but that attitude gets you wherever you want in life. I'm actually not doing bad at all.


Accepting? Rather not giving a F of what a bunch of losers think about you. And most Albanians dont give a F either and are too damn proud in case you haven't noticed.


Fair enough. I hope you understand that I have no personal interest in making I2a Dacian or non-Slavic like some Albanians claim here. I'm just entitled to an opinion and I'm holding off until the evidence is conclusive.

With regards to phenotype, the only reason I can find is that the I2a + R1a tribes mixed a lot with Romanian-like Mediterranean natives in Eastern Balkans before moving to Illyricum. But then again, didn't the White Croats and Serbs from somewhere near Poland?

You portrayed your own people as a bunch of thugs and criminals. No, I don't think most Albanians wish to be seen that way–including the many I know personally.

JajarBingan
09-08-17, 13:11
I have to partially disagree with you on this one. Language and genetics are indirectly somehow connected. Let's take Romania for example: in peaceful times, people from different ethnic group intermix through marriage and for a long period of time language will change towards the majority of people living on that land. If Romanians have 42.6% Slavic DNA, their language overtime will definitely become more Slavic, unless we have this ridiculous scenario that for hundreds of years the Slavic part of the family will be forbidden to speak their own language... so imho, this is one of the reasons I believe that I2a-din has Dacian origin...
Salutations,

Nothing's "Dacian" about the Romanian subclade of I2.

Anyway, my answer's here:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34214-I2a-Slavic-(former-I2a-Din)-as-a-slavic-marker-present-in-non-slavic-populations?p=516824&viewfull=1#post516824

Dumidre
09-08-17, 22:07
So, if I2-Din is not Dacian in Romanians, and R1a is Slavic. Which part (if any) of Romanian DNA is Dacian? Just curious...

JajarBingan
09-08-17, 23:08
So, if I2-Din is not Dacian in Romanians, and R1a is Slavic. Which part (if any) of Romanian DNA is Dacian? Just curious...

We simply don't know. We need some Dacian samples from the Classical Antiquity period. Not to mention that Dacians were primarily residing in Transylvania, while Wallachia was primarily settled by Getae and Moldova by Carpi.
There were a lot of smaller tribes and we don't know if they were genetically related.

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

It's a guessing game right now. We need more subclade testing and at least a couple of samples from the period.



Hapogroup
Pro
Contra


R1b
Classic steppe marker
15% in Romanians, 11% Bulgarians, but only 6% in Serbs
We know that Dacians lived in Moesia Superior in current Serbia,
especially after the Roman conquest of Dacia.


E1b1b
Solid distribution across the Balkans. Also present
in isolated communities such as Bosniak Croats,
where J2 and R1b is almost absent.
Most likely a marker for a proto-Balkan population,
so the Dacians/Thracians and related Indo-Europeans
are off the radar.


J2
Assuming a connection with the steppe
Massagetae, who lived around today's
Uzbekistan, there's an elevated
presence of J2 there.
This contrasts with the neigbouring
related people such as Kyrgyz, where J2 is virtually absent.
In addition, Thyssagetae were recorded just
North of the Caspian Sea.
Non-Slavic people from around the region in
Russia, such as Kazan Tatars and Chuvash display
an increased distribution of J2 (14 and 15%),
as opposed to ~3% in Russians.
We need a deeper subclade dive.
J2 seems to be characteristic of South Balkans,
some subclades having been brought over by
Minoans/Myceneans.
A J2b was found in Early Bronze Age Croatia,
but Dacians were somewhere on the steppe back then.

Dumidre
10-08-17, 20:58
I know we don't enough data but, don't you find it odd that the main difference between the north Slavs and the south Slavs (with Romanians sandwiched in between) is the increased presence of I2a-DIN in Romanians and the south Slavs AND the higher presence of I2a-DIN matches the old Dacian/Thracian territory? Just coincidence? My intuition thinks no...

JajarBingan
10-08-17, 22:14
I know we don't enough data but, don't you find it odd that the main difference between the north Slavs and the south Slavs (with Romanians sandwiched in between) is the increased presence of I2a-DIN in Romanians and the south Slavs AND the higher presence of I2a-DIN matches the old Dacian/Thracian territory? Just coincidence? My intuition thinks no...

Our subclade of I2a split further North, around the border of Belarus/Poland and I'll let you guess who might have brought it South. There isn't any connection whatsoever with the Dacians/Thracians.
I'd like the Romanians to be special snowflakes as much as you do, but you just can't argue with the DNA evidence.

Dumidre
11-08-17, 00:34
https://vieilleeurope.wordpress.com/2014/07/27/ro-an-i2-continuity-since-the-ice-age-the-classical-dacian-culture-a-fusion-between-the-old-dacians-the-la-tene-celts/


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

JajarBingan
11-08-17, 19:00
https://vieilleeurope.wordpress.com/2014/07/27/ro-an-i2-continuity-since-the-ice-age-the-classical-dacian-culture-a-fusion-between-the-old-dacians-the-la-tene-celts/


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

Yeah, no, that's literally an old blog post. If I were to point out all the mistakes from there, I'd have enough material for a blog post too.

Dumidre
11-08-17, 19:17
Agreed. Not the best material out there. But, the point I was trying to make was that, I2a was already existing among Romanians and the Balkan Populations when the Slavs arrived... are the Slavic people carrier of I2a? No doubt!
It's one of the questions when we never have the right answer; like who came first?... the chicken or the egg...

Harald
11-08-17, 20:12
I can trace my paternal line back to 2000 years. At this time my ancestors lived on the west coast from the Cimbrian Peninsula. Later, they joined the Franks and lived in the Rhineland. In the chronicles they are called Teutones.

Sile
11-08-17, 21:10
I agree with your opinion I2A-DIN has Thracian/Dacian origins with a fraction of these ancestors migrating and populating the west Balkans (Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia, etc) during medieval period. As far the language goes it is tricky in this part of world, I will give you personal example. My grandfather was born in Bukovina, Northern Romania when this region belonged to Austro-Hungary prior to second world war, my family has deep roots in this region known as Carpatho-Rus, however his father my great grandfather was of Bulgar descent. My grandfather married into Polish family and after WW2 relocated to southern Poland and for this reason I was born citizen of Poland, adopted the language, culture, Roman Catholicism religion. In Poland less than 5-10% people carry I2A-DIN mostly this is settlers from Carpatho-Rus. The 42.6% Slavic genes in Romania certainly still exists there despite the Romanian language, but over time through mixing of genetics new phenotypes and subraces are created.

Does anyone know what the Dacians spoke before speaking latin ?
Was it thracian? ...........because Thracians south of Dacians did not change to latin, so it could be dacians spoke something completly different than thracian and so can be linguistically divided but ethnically united

JajarBingan
11-08-17, 22:33
But, the point I was trying to make was that, I2a was already existing among Romanians and the Balkan Populations when the Slavs arrived... are the Slavic people carrier of I2a? No doubt!


It would have made since if the vast majority of I2a in Romania and the Balkans wasn't I2a1b2a1 CTS5966, CTS10228, L147.2.
This one has been brought over by the Slavs.

Dumidre
12-08-17, 01:33
Yes, but Slavs are predominant R1A and when they brought all the I2-DIN in the Balkans they mixed with somebody, no? Who are these mysterious people? I see Ukraine having more I2-DIN than the rest of the "north" Slavs, and the I2-DIN is increasing southbound: Moldavia, Romania... in Serbia is even higher ("Moesia Superior" right?)... the Dacians are gone as a nation but their DNA is left through out Eastern and Southern Europe. I just don't believe in the extermination theory...
Off topic: I recently read a book written by James O.Noyes written in 1850s: "Roumania: the Border Land of the Christian and the Turk"... very interesting read, I highly recommend it. The author calls the Romanians: Daco-Romans... in 1850s! The name was preserved for 17 centuries. Now, back to genetics: The highest percentage in Romanians is I2-DIN (Slavic?), R1A (Slavic) and R1B (Italy and Western Europe). What happened with the Dacian DNA?

JajarBingan
12-08-17, 01:40
R1B (Italy and Southern Europe)

I don't even know if you are baiting at this point.

Dumidre
12-08-17, 02:19
--------------------

Dumidre
12-08-17, 02:28
I misspoke R1B: Italy and Western Europe...



Region/Haplogroup
I1
I2b1
I2*+I2b2
I2a
R1a
R1b
G
J2
J* + J1
E1b1b
T
L
Q
Total


Abruzzo
(3)
(2)
(0)
(1)
5
38
9
22
6
11
6
3
0
107



3%
2%
0%
1%
4.5%
35.5%
8.5%
21%
5.5%
10.5%
5.5%
3%
0%



Apulia
(10)
(4)
(1)
(15)
13
117
52
94
13
82
6
1
0
426



2.5%
1%
0%
3.5%
3%
27.5%
12%
22%
3%
19%
1.5%
0%
0%



Basilicata
(2)
(1)
(0)
(7)
3
29
10
17
2
23
(6)
0
0
104



2%
1%
0%
6.5%
3%
28%
9.5%
16.5%
2%
22%
6%
0%
0%



Calabria
(4)
(1)
(0)
(2)
5
48
18
54
9
30
(4)
(3)
2
182



2%
0.5%
0%
1%
2.5%
26.5%
10%
29.5%
5%
16.5%
2%
1.5%
1%



Campania
(6)
(2)
(1)
(9)
6
62
24
38
13
34
8
0
0
214



3%
1%
0.5%
4%
3%
29%
11%
18%
6%
16%
4%
0%
0%



Emilia-Romagna
9
0
0
1
2
97
17
28
3
31
2
0
0
192



5%
0%
0%
0.5%
1%
50.5%
9%
14.5%
1.5%
16%
1%
0%
0%



Friuli-Venezia Giulia
10
1
6
19
2
5
0
3
0
1
0
47



21.5%
2%
13%
40.5%
4%
10.5%
0%
6.5%
0%
2%
0%



Latium
(33)
(6)
(6)
(4)
8
112
43
72
7
63
18
0
7
386



8.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1%
2%
29%
11%
18.5%
2%
16.5%
4.5%
0%
2%



Liguria
5
0
2
3
1
60
12
12
4
22
2
1
0
125



4%
0%
1.5%
2.5%
1%
48%
9.5%
9.5%
3%
17.5%
1.5%
1%
0%



Lombardy
2
1
3
1
3
47
8
5
0
8
1
0
0
80



2.5%
1%
4%
1%
4%
59%
10%
6%
0%
10%
1%
0%
0%



Marches
(5)
(5)
(0)
(7)
8
83
19
60
16
32
6
1
0
245



2%
2%
0%
3%
3%
34%
8%
24.5%
6.5%
13%
2.5%
0.5%
0%



Molise
4
1
1
1
0
7
7
3
1
4
0
0
0
29



14%
3.5%
3.5%
3.5%
0%
24%
24%
10.5%
3.5%
14%
0%
0%
0%



Piedmont
1
0
2
0
1
16
3
2
1
2
1
0
0
30



3.5%
0%
7%
0%
3.5%
53.5%
10%
6.5%
3.5%
6.5%
3.5%
0%
0%



Sardinia
(4)
(24)
(20)
864
28
423
274
202
89
218
(40)
(7)
(3)
2293



0%
1%
1%
37.5%
1%
18.5%
12%
9%
4%
9.5%
1.5%
0.5%
0%



Sicily
(22)
(5)
(1)
(19)
29
169
54
149
33
133
25
1
7
653



3.5%
1%
0%
3%
4.5%
26%
8.5%
23%
3.5%
20.5%
4%
0%
1%



Tuscany
(14)
(6)
(4)
5
15
200
34
44
7
35
8
2
0
380



4%
1.5%
1%
1.5%
4%
52.5%
9%
11.5%
2%
9%
2%
0.5%
0%



Trentino-South Tyrol
(99)
29
267
(16)
(41)
(0)
34
18
14
-
523



21%
5.5%
47.5%
3%
8%
0%
6.5%
3.5%
2.5%
-



Umbria
1
0
1
0
0
14
6
9
2
3
0
0
0
37



2.5%
0%
2.5%
0%
0%
38%
16%
24.5%
5.5%
8%
0%
0%
0%



Veneto
8
0
1
0
2
38
5
15
1
12
2
6
0
92



8.5%
0%
1%
0%
2%
41.5%
5.5%
16.5%
1%
13%
2%
6.5%
0%

Dumidre
12-08-17, 02:36
I tried to copy and paste an link about R1B posted in this website but I don't think it will go through... It was about Italy broken down on regions and, interestingly enough R1B was the highest percentage ( that's why I placed Italy as R1B in relation with the Romanian DNA)... I should have said Italy and Western Europe...

ihype02
12-08-17, 10:26
According to the written evidence, the whole of Dalmatia was said to have been overrun by the Slavs about 641/2.
https://books.google.com/books?id=JcmwuoTsKO0C&pg=PA542&dq=slavs+overrun+dalmatia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiyy8fPotHVAhVjJJoKHUneDl8Q6AEIJjAA#v=on epage&q=slavs%20overrun%20dalmatia&f=false

Then who were these Slavs that overran Dalmatia?

LeBrok
12-08-17, 16:09
According to the written evidence, the whole of Dalmatia was said to have been overrun by the Slavs about 641/2.
https://books.google.com/books?id=JcmwuoTsKO0C&pg=PA542&dq=slavs+overrun+dalmatia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiyy8fPotHVAhVjJJoKHUneDl8Q6AEIJjAA#v=on epage&q=slavs%20overrun%20dalmatia&f=false

Then who were those Slavs that overran Dalmatia?
I would explain, but I have a feeling that you know that already.

ihype02
12-08-17, 17:26
It was a rhetorical question regarding the high percentage I2a-din in Dalmatia.

Sile
12-08-17, 19:31
According to the written evidence, the whole of Dalmatia was said to have been overrun by the Slavs about 641/2.
https://books.google.com/books?id=JcmwuoTsKO0C&pg=PA542&dq=slavs+overrun+dalmatia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiyy8fPotHVAhVjJJoKHUneDl8Q6AEIJjAA#v=on epage&q=slavs%20overrun%20dalmatia&f=false

Then who were these Slavs that overran Dalmatia?

http://researchomnia.blogspot.com.au/2016/07/vlachs-in-venetian-dalmatia.html

some scholars say they where early slavs who settled in dalmatia and others who use genetics state that dalmatia was an illyrian-roman mix , before venetians or slavs arrived.

see the link ,it is interesting

ihype02
13-08-17, 08:43
http://www.archeo.uw.edu.pl/swarch/S...B-s205-212.pdf (http://www.archeo.uw.edu.pl/swarch/Swiatowit-r2001-t3_%2844%29-nB-s205-212.pdf)

Citations about Slavs migrating into the Balkans, describing their height:

1. Procopius of Caesarea:

- "(...) Nay further, they [Slavs] don't differ at all from one another in appearance. For they are all exceptionally tall and stalwart men, while their bodies and hair are neither very fair or very blonde, nor indeed do they incline entirely to the dark type, but they are slightly ruddy in color. (...)"

- "(...) Valerian chose one of the Slavs who are men of mighty stature. (...)"

2. Theophilact Simokatta

"(...) The Emperor was with great curiosity listening to stories about this tribe [Slavs], he has welcomed these newcomers from the land of barbarians, and after being amazed by their height and mighty stature, he sent these men to Heraclea. (...)"

3. Theophanes the Confessor:

"(...) The Emperor was admiring their [Slavic] beauty and their stalwart stature. (...)"

4. Caesarius of Nazianzus:

He described Slavs as "numerous and tall", if I'm not mistaken (but I don't have exact quotation at hand).

curiouscat
15-08-17, 10:26
I don't understand the point of the title as the ethnogenesis of the mentioned ethnic groups happened in the Balkans. Most of the Balkan specific I subclades seem to be there from the Mesolithic period so it's a native Balkan genetic marker and only specific to some Serbians, Northern Albanians, Croatians the most.

MOESAN
19-08-17, 23:24
Y-I2a1b-Din has is close ancestors in E-N-E Europe, not in the Balkans, if I don't mistake, spite their more remote ancestors were everywhere in Europe but for the most at low densities. The debate is about its ties with Proto-Slavs or with Thracians-Dacians or Illyrians.
My guess is it was present in N-Carpathians since a long time and knew a first "boom" as well with some Slavic tribes as with Thracians or Dacians, why not with tribes akin to Illyrians (all of them speaking satem languages, at first sight) - an other founder effect encreased recently their % in Western Balkans, as the S-Slavs colonized these lands, until Dalmatia. I wonder if their input did not help to differentiate Slavs from Balts in their genesis? Maciamo says this haplo could have been dominant among CTC (Tripolye, before Slavs rising); the Y-haplos we have todate in CTC is Y-G2a, but a handful Y-haplos can't be taken as absolute proof. Perhaps the NW parts of CTC were more I2a1 based or the I2a1 tribes had an independant culture influenced by CTC: here precise archeology is needed. But this discussion, if maybe hopeless, is not without basis.

Garrick
25-08-17, 23:53
Who are these mysterious people?

Mysterious people are Mesolithic survivors: I-CTS10228 carriers.

We can see now new data, what is written is confirmed.

TMRCA for Alsace carrier is 3800 years!

https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-CTS10228/

It corresponds our knowledge that movement of I-CTS10228 carriers was from West toward East not in opposite direction.

It is clear that I-CTS10228 is not Slavic. Therefore construction of the whole haplogroup as "I2a-Slav" is stupid.

And I-CTS10228 came to the Balkans much before Slavs.

I-A2512 found in Greece, TMRCA 2200 years, nothing to do with Slavs.

Bastarnae is the best candidate for these Mesolithic survivors. And Bastarnae first time arrived to the Balkans, deep in the Thracian territory, 179 BC, 30,000 people. Later Bastarnae settled Balkans in much bigger numbers.

Angela
26-08-17, 19:55
Mysterious people are Mesolithic survivors: I-CTS10228 carriers.

We can see now new data, what is written is confirmed.

TMRCA for Alsace carrier is 3800 years!

https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-CTS10228/

It corresponds our knowledge that movement of I-CTS10228 carriers was from West toward East not in opposite direction.

It is clear that I-CTS10228 is not Slavic. Therefore construction of the whole haplogroup as "I2a-Slav" is stupid.

And I-CTS10228 came to the Balkans much before Slavs.

I-A2512 found in Greece, TMRCA 2200 years, nothing to do with Slavs.

Bastarnae is the best candidate for these Mesolithic survivors. And Bastarnae first time arrived to the Balkans, deep in the Thracian territory, 179 BC, 30,000 people. Later Bastarnae settled Balkans in much bigger numbers.

Maybe or maybe not. There is no factual confirmation as of yet for your speculations as no ancient I-CTS10228 has yet been found in the Balkans. No one knows when it arrived. The date of its TMRCA is also not conclusive as it could have a TMRCA of 2200 years and still have arrived in the Balkans with Slavic speakers.

I realize you desperately want this to be true, Garrick, and that's fine, but newbies shouldn't be misled into thinking that there is any proof as of yet.

davef
26-08-17, 20:52
Maybe or maybe not. There is no factual confirmation as of yet for your speculations as no ancient I-CTS10228 has yet been found in the Balkans. No one knows when it arrived. The date of its TMRCA is also not conclusive as it could have a TMRCA of 2200 years and still have arrived in the Balkans with Slavic speakers.

I realize you desperately want this to be true, Garrick, and that's fine, but newbies shouldn't be misled into thinking that there is any proof as of yet.

Off topic, but I'm so glad that you're back!

ihype02
26-08-17, 21:14
Before the Slavic migration (570 AD-7th century) there have been 3 centuries of other "Barbarian
Invasions".
Reposted here:
The other thread is not getting attention.
From 250 AD on ,several waves of different people migrated West and South:
Goths (Visigoths,Ostrogoths, Vandals),Avars,Huns,Eruli,Kutriguri,Alamans etc etc etc.

The effects of invasions,destructions of cities and towns,killings and slavery were tremendous.
Northern Balkans are described by Byzantine chronographers as a deserted land.

Garrick
30-08-17, 00:45
Maybe or maybe not. There is no factual confirmation as of yet for your speculations as no ancient I-CTS10228 has yet been found in the Balkans. No one knows when it arrived. The date of its TMRCA is also not conclusive as it could have a TMRCA of 2200 years and still have arrived in the Balkans with Slavic speakers.

I realize you desperately want this to be true, Garrick, and that's fine, but newbies shouldn't be misled into thinking that there is any proof as of yet.

Yes, Angela you're right, for all newbies: it is theory.

But theory which has strong foundations and new findings in archeology, history, genetics are good correspond.

In short:

One of strong points are findings and proofs of Ukrainian scientists:

Zarubintsy culture is Bastarnaian dominantly.

In this way thesis of Soviet scientists that Zarubintsy culture was Slavic is rejected.

But Zarubintsy culture is predecessor of Kiev culture which was Slavic. It means Bastarnae had one of main roles in complex Slavic ethnogenesis, they became part of Slavic population.

We know movement Bastarnae people from Vistula area and surrounding to Dacian and Sarmatian borders, Bastarnae mixed with Sarmatians and Dacians.

We know that Bastarnae entered in the Romania and Balkans more times in big numbers, and mixed with local Dacian/Thracian population.

From histrorical sources we know that Bastrnae were very numerous that some authors highlight they are not tribe but people (modern term nation!).

Origin of Bastarnae is mysterious.

For most scientists they were Germans, some scientists think they were Celts, and there are more opinions.

What we know yet, they probably were nomads.

Considering the time and areas of their appearance, their movements, timely and territorial, Bastarnae are right candidate that they were dominantly I-CTS10228 carriers.

I-CTS10228 carriers were Old European Mesolitic survivors, according new findings I-CTS10228 is formed 5300 ago, and TMRCA is 3800 years.

I-CTS10228* is man from Alsace (Bas-Rhin), France.

We know that I-M423, ancestor of I-CTS10228, is found is Loschbour, Louxembourg, 8000 years old man from Mesolithic.

We can assume where in Europe Mesolitic survivors could lived and moved, probably Western/Central Europe, and beyond.

Central Europe today according the World Factbook is made up of the following countries: Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Poland.

They could have contact with proto-Celts and Celts, and Illyrians etc.

Germanic tribes had arrived from North.

When Bastarnae formed dominantly from Mesolithic survivor population I-CTS10228 carriers, they could have some Celtic elements, even Illyrian.

But probably with flow of time more German (I1), therefore it can be possible that Bastarnae mostly were mix I-CTS10228 (dominantly) and any I1 in any ratio.

What is interesting there are opinions among scientists that their name is from the word bastard.

Maybe they could look to other populations as unknown.

They probably adopted German language.

I-CTS10228 carriers could be in other tribes too (as Sciiri for example) but probably in much less numbers.

In areas where and time when they lived Mesolithic survivors didn't have contact with R1a clades who are dominant in Slavic population. How Bastarnae moved to the East they could have contact.

In 200 BC Bastarnae inhabited the region between Carpatian mountains, and to the north till river Dnieper and to the south borders of Dacia.

Balkans: I-CTS10228 since 179 BC till Slavic arriving 6th century

* Bastarnae first enterd in Balkans, area in todays Macedonia 179 BC.

* Bastarnae settled Balkans brought from the Balkan rulers (not as invaders!), some sources speak about process of "ethnic engineering" where imperial rulers did massive deportation/settling of ethnic groups as part of military/political plan.

* Bastarnae mixed with Thracians/Dacians (today's Romania, Moldavia, and Balkan countries Serbia, Bulgaria, Macedonia etc.)

* One Western source claims that substantial part of Balkan population till 5 century AD was mixed Tracian/Bastarnae!

* Plus, we can have in mind with the growth power of Goths Bastarnae became their allies, and they participated in Gothic invasions in the Balkans. It means, in Gothic invasions, I-CTS10228 arrived in the Balkans too.

Ancient Y-DNA samples in Central Europe and samples in the Romania/Balkans 200 BC-570 AD will confirm or disprove these assumptions.

An habit can be complicating because Bastarnae practiced burning process till 900 degrees Celsius.

But we can suppose scientists can find appropriate samples.

Story about Bastarnae is fascinating it is story about struggle for survival, in one period of history I-CTS10228 carriers barely survived but after that they spread in many directions.

First Homo sapiens in Europe during 45,000 to 28,000 years ago, belonged CT, C1a, C1b, F and I. I survived, developed in I1 and I2 and I-CTS10228 carriers are today more numerous I2 carriers in Europe.

mobileacc200
12-10-17, 05:46
Garrick, are you Slav? Yes? Do you have Slavic haplogroup? Yes? Is there anything else that you don't understand?

Sile
13-10-17, 07:24
https://s20.postimg.org/3pcoqouf1/illy_nori.jpg (https://postimages.org/)
Illyrian homeland from late bronze-age to early iron-age
The Nori are recorded as the oldest at around 1300BC
red = Illyrians and tribe names mentioned by Historians
Purple = Venetic area
Green = Rhaetic area
Blue = Gallic-Celts
..
The Delmatae moved from southern Austria to the Adriatic around the times of 500BC to 600BC, they are the Dalmatians

MOESAN
13-10-17, 22:58
Mysterious people are Mesolithic survivors: I-CTS10228 carriers.

We can see now new data, what is written is confirmed.

TMRCA for Alsace carrier is 3800 years!

https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-CTS10228/

It corresponds our knowledge that movement of I-CTS10228 carriers was from West toward East not in opposite direction.

It is clear that I-CTS10228 is not Slavic. Therefore construction of the whole haplogroup as "I2a-Slav" is stupid.

And I-CTS10228 came to the Balkans much before Slavs.

I-A2512 found in Greece, TMRCA 2200 years, nothing to do with Slavs.

Bastarnae is the best candidate for these Mesolithic survivors. And Bastarnae first time arrived to the Balkans, deep in the Thracian territory, 179 BC, 30,000 people. Later Bastarnae settled Balkans in much bigger numbers.

Y-I2a1b as other I2 is old in Europe, allover Europe or almost, since before the Neolithic, everybody knows that. We cannot be sure of the precise place of birth (development is more interesting) of the first bearers of I-CTS10228. We know (it isn't so old) Y-I2a2 was rather the denser in Central Balkans but also in some late farmers groups of N-E Hungary and even S-Ukraina and Poland. But the hilly and mountainous regions of the Carpathians (S-Poland/Slovakia/N-Romania/NW-Ukraina could have sheltered among others the ancestors of -CTS10228, in small numbers at first. Possible partial acculturation with CTC could have launched a demographic boom, later. I already wrote this. I have the impression later contacts with Y-R1a Balto-Slavic pops, themselves then sedenting could have produced a numerous mix of people, disrupting the Balto-Slavic group to create by evolution the defined Slavic group. Of course the mix was not level by force concerning proportions of DNA. At thsi stage, if true, we can say by simplification I-CTS... is a "slavic" marker, but by abuse; it was only one of the eof synthesis, and surely not all its bearers are in this case. This doesn't exclude other pops, geographically close, were rather Y-I-CTS... with few of other Y-haplos and with other languages. What name(s) they had, I don't know! BTW Your Bastarnae seem having stayed rather in EASTERN Balkans and Carpathian Bassin, not in W-Balkans. We KNOW Slavic tribes came very later to W-Balkans and that they brought R1a and I-CTS... is almost without doubt; but I don't exclude they picked other ethnies even richest than them in I-CTS on the road, or pushed them before them... We lack ancient DNA of W-Balkans, and over a long span of time, to judge.
But I have not the pretention to name these other tribes or ethnies in detail nor to affirm there had been before them numerous I-CTS... in DInaric ALps as long as I 'll not have ancient DNA to prove it.

Miroslav
15-10-17, 03:55
Illyrian homeland from late bronze-age to early iron-age...

What you wrote is the old and debunked theory about the Lusatian origin of the Illyrians, actually, you wrote some mambo jambo original research. Since the 1960s is supported the so-called "autochthonous" model.

AlGreen
24-10-17, 00:05
Genetics can verify, confirm historical, archaeological evidence and, corroborated with attested cultures, can trace the movement of populations over time.
That's why any sort of assumptions that lack scientific evidence is pure nationalistic nonsense.
As for the predominant I2a in Balkans and around the Carpathian, cannot be anything but Thracian - Getae - Dacian - Illyrian.
All areas of I2 spread were inhabited by Thracians and is also known that Illyrians are the mix of Hallstatt culture with the expending Thracian / Cimmerian, advancing on Danube, over areas of Austria today.
Not to mention that most predominantly I2a areas in Ukraine, Moldova, Romania were inhabited for hundreds of years by Thracians - Getae - Dacian tribes.
Tyragetae on Dnister - NW of Black Sea, Dacian Carpi attested to move from 4th BC from between Dniper-Dnister to Moldova and E Romania, then relocated to areas of SW Ukraine and Slovakia, NE Pannonia, then relocated around Pecs - Hungary today by 4th AD; Costoboci in S-SW Ukraine, Buri, Ratacenses in Pannonia, Byephi, Albocenses (posiblly Dacian -Illyrian that are the Albanians today) on Tysa River, Ansamenses in North Romania, Moesi, Paeoni, etc and the mix of Thracian-Illyrian, Dacian-Illyrian tribes.
Those were all indigenous carriers of predominantly I2/R1b, I2/R1a, I2/E-V13.
Which you wont find to the originally Celtic, Germanic tribes, of predominanly R1b / I1 mix.
And also the so called 'slavic' DNA R1a1 we know is only partially slavic. South Slavs, have a solid 'Ancient' R1a or from preexisting Balkans, ,Danube Carpathian cultures, mostly aquired by slavic speaking through assimilation of preexisting populations.
'Safely' called 'Slavic' DNA can be only Z280-Z282, found mostly in West-Slavs and the traces of those in South-Slavs.
As for the statement that that Norse have some Thracian DNA, it is attested that Cimbri appeared upon the arrival of Thracian / Cimmerian tribes in Jutland about 7-800 BC. They carried the I2 into N Germany and through Jutes, Cimbri into Britain. Also the I2a into Italy, Spain and Sardinia.

gyms
24-10-17, 11:31
Genetics can verify, confirm historical, archaeological evidence and, corroborated with attested cultures, can trace the movement of populations over time.
That's why any sort of assumptions that lack scientific evidence is pure nationalistic nonsense.
As for the predominant I2a in Balkans and around the Carpathian, cannot be anything but Thracian - Getae - Dacian - Illyrian.
All areas of I2 spread were inhabited by Thracians and is also known that Illyrians are the mix of Hallstatt culture with the expending Thracian / Cimmerian, advancing on Danube, over areas of Austria today.
Not to mention that most predominantly I2a areas in Ukraine, Moldova, Romania were inhabited for hundreds of years by Thracians - Getae - Dacian tribes.
Tyragetae on Dnister - NW of Black Sea, Dacian Carpi attested to move from 4th BC from between Dniper-Dnister to Moldova and E Romania, then relocated to areas of SW Ukraine and Slovakia, NE Pannonia, then relocated around Pecs - Hungary today by 4th AD; Costoboci in S-SW Ukraine, Buri, Ratacenses in Pannonia, Byephi, Albocenses (posiblly Dacian -Illyrian that are the Albanians today) on Tysa River, Ansamenses in North Romania, Moesi, Paeoni, etc and the mix of Thracian-Illyrian, Dacian-Illyrian tribes.
Those were all indigenous carriers of predominantly I2/R1b, I2/R1a, I2/E-V13.
Which you wont find to the originally Celtic, Germanic tribes, of predominanly R1b / I1 mix.
And also the so called 'slavic' DNA R1a1 is only partially slavic. South Slavs, have a solid 'Iranic' R1a or from preexisting Balkans, ,Danube Carpathian cultures, mostly aquired by slavic speaking through assimilation of preexisting populations.
'Safely' called 'Slavic' DNA can be only Z280-Z282, found mostly in West-Slavs and the traces of those in South-Slavs.
As for the statement that that Norse have some Thracian DNA, it is attested that Cimbri appeared upon the arrival of Thracian / Cimmerian tribes in Jutland about 7-800 BC. They carried the I2 into N Germany and through Jutes, Cimbri into Britain. Also the I2a into Italy, Spain and Sardinia.

I would like to see some thracian-gtae-dacian aDNA but I can't find any.
Could you please help me with that?

ihype02
24-10-17, 13:18
Who Slavicised the Dalmatians then if it is not Slavic?

Sile
24-10-17, 18:25
What you wrote is the old and debunked theory about the Lusatian origin of the Illyrians, actually, you wrote some mambo jambo original research. Since the 1960s is supported the so-called "autochthonous" model.
The timing, location and admixtures of these samples fit with the Illyrian colonisation of the Dinaric Alps, which is thought to have taken place between 1600 and 1100 BCE. The Illyrians may have been late Steppe migrants from the Volga region that were forced out of the Steppe by the invasion of the northern R1a tribes who established the Srubna culture (from 2000 BCE).
from a recent paper (above )
Gimbatus estimated it between 1500 and 1300 BC and origins in the eastern alps
Gimbatus is back in favour, she was correct about Yannaya etc etc................
you need to update yourself
regards

AlGreen
25-10-17, 20:47
I would like to see some thracian-gtae-dacian aDNA but I can't find any.Could you please help me with that?Can we find any Pelasg or Phrygyan or Dardani today? We can't because their genes are carried by those cultures that came over the areas of spread and replaced them as Greeks, Turks, Italians, etc.. What we do is associate the predominant HGs to a culture of predominant people, inhabiting an area, during a certain period of time.Obviously that is related to the time-frame a culture spreads over an area, aside of the HG. About the populations around the lower and middle Danube, in and around the Carpathian Mountain, lets not turn around the tail and place them as they have been attested for Millennia, as GETAE. Either they were MassaGetae East of Caspian, TysaGetae on Vistula, TyraGetae, SamoGetae, SarmoGetai, Daco-Getae, Daoi, Mysi, Illiry etc. they were Getae tribes. So were the later wave of Thracians that entered Balkans and advanced to central Europe on Danube. Acording to all sources Getae and Thracians spoke the same language and the Illyrians are the offsprings of Thracians arrival on Middle Danube, while the Dacians are the Gava Culture that developed, about the same time, in Transylvnia today.No matter how we take it, the age and area of spread of Getae family coincides with a high mix of I2a / R1b-L23, I2a / old R1a, I2a / E-V13.Higher E-V13 south of Danube, from first neolithic farmers and predominant I2a north of Danube, nearby its place of origin.Highest M-423 in Dalmatia shows only that slavic migration brought assimilated Getae tribes from SW Ukraine - Carpi, Costoboci, Ansamenses and Buri, Ratacensi, Albocensi, Byephi in Pannonia and Tysa, or ther Dacian-Illyrian, Thracian-Illyrian found on way.And btw, Carpi and Costoboci were also located in Moldova few hundred years, prior to Goths arrival at NV of Black Sea, then exactly in their spot at SW Ukraine appear White Croats, about the time of Avar arrival in the area.I strongly suspect that one of tribes in Avar alliance made their subjects the Dacian-Getae tribes found at SW and West Ukraine and also that Avar invasion into Pannonia and Balkans triggered mass migration of their subjects / slaves, in the areas were the Ostrogoth and Gepid Kingdoms have been destroyed. There are no 'slavs' attested to fight along Avars, but they become 'slavs' first time in history when the Byzantines mention the revolt of the 'servs', the slaves of the greedy and merciless Avars, servs led by a Samo.. to form the Serbian state. V turned B along with the introduction of old-church slavonic.Is known that introduction of Church Slavonic and slavic orthodoxy since X century was a declaration of independence from East and West Roman Empires, meant to break the spiritual and linguistic bond. Based on this indigenous Balkan populations were gradually assimilated. And the process of assimilation continues to date, while there are still pockets of Vlachs spread all over Balkans, and states like Greece don't recognize minorities and the right to study, preserve mother tongue, others like Serbs mass assimilated hundreds of thousands of Vlach even in the last century.So there are the original carriers of I2-Din, in those they found there and on way to assimilate, in the last 1,500 years or so.

AlGreen
25-10-17, 20:50
I would like to see some thracian-gtae-dacian aDNA but I can't find any.
Could you please help me with that?

I would like to see some thracian-gtae-dacian aDNA but I can't find any.
Could you please help me with that?

Can we find any Pelasg or Phrygyan or Dardani today? We can't because their genes are carried by those cultures that came over the areas of spread and replaced them as Greeks, Turks, Italians, etc..

What we do is associate the predominant HGs to a culture of predominant people, inhabiting an area, during a certain period of time.
Obviously that is related to the time-frame a culture spreads over an area, aside of the HG.

About the populations around the lower and middle Danube, in and around the Carpathian Mountain, lets not turn around the tail and place them as they have been attested for Millennia, as GETAE.
Either they were MassaGetae East of Caspian, TysaGetae on Vistula, TyraGetae, SamoGetae, SarmoGetai, Daco-Getae, Daoi, Mysi, Illiry etc. they were Getae tribes. So were the later wave of Thracians that entered Balkans and advanced to central Europe on Danube. Acording to all sources Getae and Thracians spoke the same language and the Illyrians are the offsprings of Thracians arrival on Middle Danube, while the Dacians are the Gava Culture that developed, about the same time, in Transylvnia today.

No matter how we take it, the age and area of spread of Getae family coincides with a high mix of I2a / R1b-L23, I2a / old R1a, I2a / E-V13.
Higher E-V13 south of Danube, from first neolithic farmers and predominant I2a north of Danube, nearby its place of origin.
Highest M-423 in Dalmatia shows only that slavic migration brought assimilated Getae tribes from SW Ukraine - Carpi, Costoboci, Ansamenses and Buri, Ratacensi, Albocensi, Byephi in Pannonia and Tysa, or ther Dacian-Illyrian, Thracian-Illyrian found on way.

And btw, Carpi and Costoboci were also located in Moldova few hundred years, prior to Goths arrival at NV of Black Sea, then exactly in their spot at SW Ukraine appear White Croats, about the time of Avar arrival in the area.
I strongly suspect that one of tribes in Avar alliance made their subjects the Dacian-Getae tribes found at SW and West Ukraine and also that Avar invasion into Pannonia and Balkans triggered mass migration of their subjects / slaves, in the areas were the Ostrogoth and Gepid Kingdoms have been destroyed.

There are no 'slavs' attested to fight along Avars, but they become 'slavs' first time in history when the Byzantines mention the revolt of the 'servs', the slaves of the greedy and merciless Avars, servs led by a Samo..(given the area of initial location possibly a Samo-Getae) to form the Serbian state. V turned B along with the introduction of old-church slavonic.
Is known that introduction of Church Slavonic and slavic orthodoxy since X century was a declaration of independence from East and West Roman Empires, meant to break the spiritual and linguistic bond. Based on this indigenous Balkan populations were gradually assimilated. And the process of assimilation continues to date, while there are still pockets of Vlachs spread all over Balkans, and states like G don't recognize minorities and the right to study, preserve mother tongue, others like S assimilated hundreds of thousands of V even in the last century.

So there are the original carriers of I2-Din, in those they found there and on way to assimilate, in the last 1,500 years or so.

Dumidre
25-10-17, 22:41
Makes a lot of sense to me.

gyms
25-10-17, 22:58
Nonono! I meant something like this:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10564-The-Genomic-History-of-Southeastern-Europe-Mathieson-Reich-et-al

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6563-The-Origin-of-Romanians-(Vlachs)&p=301301#post301301

hrvat22
27-10-17, 10:55
AlGreen (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/members/54645-AlGreen)


Genetics can verify, confirm historical, archaeological evidence and, corroborated with attested cultures, can trace the movement of populations over time.
That's why any sort of assumptions that lack scientific evidence is pure nationalistic nonsense.

Genetics confirm historical records only for Croat arrival to Balkans.


As for the predominant I2a in Balkans and around the Carpathian, cannot be anything but Thracian - Getae - Dacian - Illyrian.

From 5th century exclusively Croatian.


Tyragetae on Dnister - NW of Black Sea, Dacian Carpi attested to move from 4th BC from between Dniper-Dnister to Moldova and E Romania, then relocated to areas of SW

As far as I know, migration starts from White Croatia or few hundred years earlier.

http://www.waughfamily.ca/Ancient/Tree%20and%20Map%20for%20Hg%20I.pdf


Green pins belong to the Souther Carpathian branch, which is characterized by SNP Y2613. Its common ancestor is estimated as living 2300±300 years before present.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?hl=en&mid=1uIEV-Unzie9mLufrQJyWb4fD9zg

LeBrok
27-10-17, 16:30
Genetics confirm historical records only for Croat arrival to Balkans.



From 5th century exclusively Croatian.



As far as I know, migration starts from White Croatia or few hundred years earlier.

http://www.waughfamily.ca/Ancient/Tree%20and%20Map%20for%20Hg%20I.pdf


https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?hl=en&mid=1uIEV-Unzie9mLufrQJyWb4fD9zg Of course, the Croats, the cream of Slavs and the bravest. How could we think otherwise?! What surprises me is the fact that after so many years of rading and thinking on a subject you didn't notice your strong confirmation bias. The force is strong with you...
lol, By force I mean Nationalism, the blind love and believe in your Ethnic Superiority.

Or maybe I'm too harsh. Maybe you are changing your views with time. Didn't you claim before that Slavs always lived in Balkans? Or was it Milos or something like that? Pasting countless "proofs" of the only "truth".

Wonomyro
27-10-17, 16:59
What if "Croats" was just another name for the people known today as ancient Slavs? I mean the real name, not the one attached to them by Byzantines...

hrvat22
27-10-17, 18:04
LeBrok (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/members/27950-LeBrok)


Or maybe I'm too harsh. Maybe you are changing your views with time. Didn't you claim before that Slavs always lived in Balkans? Or was it Milos or something like that? Pasting countless "proofs" of the only "truth".





Hahahahhaaha.. Croats come to Balkans and do not live there before coming, this should be a logic.


Of course, the Croats, the cream of Slavs and the bravest. How could we think otherwise?! What surprises me is the fact that after so many years of rading and thinking on a subject you didn't notice your strong confirmation bias. The force is strong with you...
lol, By force I mean Nationalism, the blind love and believe in your Ethnic Superiority.


Unfortunately this is what genes says. Genes do not know about nationalism, chauvinism, etc., they simply confirm or dispute history records and draw migration of tribe, peoples etc.

hrvat22
27-10-17, 18:11
What if "Croats" was just another name for the people known today as ancient Slavs? I mean the real name, not the one attached to them by Byzantines...

Very possible, it is known that Goths called Carpathians as Croatian mountains.

don_joe
28-10-17, 12:47
I'm not that deep into history and genetics but I'm astonished about how I2a map correlates with the map of Vlachs. There are a lot of I2a carriers in Croatia and in Bosnia-Herzegovina, especially in the south. I read recently about Vlach tribe Bunjevci moving from west Herzegovina in the middle ages to Dalmatia and even before Bunjevci there were other local Vlachs mixing with the Slavic Croatian newcomers since their arrival around 7th century. The Croats kept their identity but the folks in the south were predominantly of Vlach origin. In all of the west Balkan countries we have I2a where the Vlachs are present or assimilated. In my eyes, it seems that this HG is not that "Slavic" at all.

Another question is, the Vlachs as descendants of Illyrians, Thracians and Celts have obviously in the western parts more I2a. How come Albanians, if they are directly connected to Illyrians, are much higher in E-V13 like the Romanians and Greeks where the Thracians and related peoples were present?

As I mentioned, I'm not asserting anything, I'm just interested in our origin, since in the Balkans the country borders are political boundaries where certain myths are distorting facts and the plain truth. I only want to be educated and do not want to offend anyone's beliefs. But this is a forum where we talk facts.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Eupedia Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

gyms
28-10-17, 14:21
I'm not that deep into history and genetics but I'm astonished about how I2a map correlates with the map of Vlachs. There are a lot of I2a carriers in Croatia and in Bosnia-Herzegovina, especially in the south. I read recently about Vlach tribe Bunjevci moving from west Herzegovina in the middle ages to Dalmatia and even before Bunjevci there were other local Vlachs mixing with the Slavic Croatian newcomers since their arrival around 7th century. The Croats kept their identity but the folks in the south were predominantly of Vlach origin. In all of the west Balkan countries we have I2a where the Vlachs are present or assimilated. In my eyes, it seems that this HG is not that "Slavic" at all.

Another question is, the Vlachs as descendants of Illyrians, Thracians and Celts have obviously in the western parts more I2a. How come Albanians, if they are directly connected to Illyrians, are much higher in E-V13 like the Romanians and Greeks where the Thracians and related peoples were present?

As I mentioned, I'm not asserting anything, I'm just interested in our origin, since in the Balkans the country borders are political boundaries where certain myths are distorting facts and the plain truth. I only want to be educated and do not want to offend anyone's beliefs. But this is a forum where we talk facts.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Eupedia Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

Thre is litle problem with that.
The population of Russia (without Crimea) is 144.463.451 million people.
The Y-DNA haplogroup I is found between zero and 26.8 percent among Russian men. Their average frequency is 17.6% when all regions of Russia are taken into account, but a little higher (23.5%) when the scope is limited to central and southern Russia. Some members of the "Russia-Slavic DNA Project" carry the sub-types I2a and I2a2 ( 10-15% is I2a-"Din" ).
There is 8-10 milion I2a people (at least) in Russia.Are they of vlach origin?

don_joe
28-10-17, 14:36
Thre is litle problem with that.
The population of Russia (without Crimea) is 144.463.451 million people.
The Y-DNA haplogroup I is found between zero and 26.8 percent among Russian men. Their average frequency is 17.6% when all regions of Russia are taken into account, but a little higher (23.5%) when the scope is limited to central and southern Russia. Some members of the "Russia-Slavic DNA Project" carry the sub-types I2a and I2a2 ( 10-15% is I2a-"Din" ).
There is 8-10 milion I2a people (at least) in Russia.Are they of vlach origin?
You have a point there. But they have maybe something more in common with the Vlachs than the Croat newcomers in the south. In north Croatia people are more "Slavic" with much less I2a and much more R1a. Though, I can not tell for sure with which of these two groups the I2a core is. I just see this correlation. Thanks.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Eupedia Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

Wonomyro
28-10-17, 16:24
Bunjevci are croatian subetnic group. The name "Bunjevci" is just a nickname given to a part of them. In the past some called them "Vlachs" due to their social status and way of living (transhumance), but rarely. They are most likely a mix of Croats and old Dalmatians. However, their Y-DNA and autosomal genetics are different from real Vlachs and Albanians.

don_joe
28-10-17, 18:11
Bunjevci are croatian subetnic group. The name "Bunjevci" is just a nickname given to a part of them. In the past some called them "Vlachs" due to their social status and way of living (transhumance), but rarely. They are most likely a mix of Croats and old Dalmatians. However, their Y-DNA and autosomal genetics are different from real Vlachs and Albanians.
Could you give me any link to more info? I've read a few different theories about them. It is possible, they had a few centuries of time to get mixed with "Croats" but not in large numbers and even those Croats were already mixed with locals. Thank you.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Eupedia Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

hrvat22
28-10-17, 18:42
I'm not that deep into history and genetics but I'm astonished about how I2a map correlates with the map of Vlachs. There are a lot of I2a carriers in Croatia and in Bosnia-Herzegovina, especially in the south. I read recently about Vlach tribe Bunjevci moving from west Herzegovina in the middle ages to Dalmatia and even before Bunjevci there were other local Vlachs mixing with the Slavic Croatian newcomers since their arrival around 7th century. The Croats kept their identity but the folks in the south were predominantly of Vlach origin. In all of the west Balkan countries we have I2a where the Vlachs are present or assimilated. In my eyes, it seems that this HG is not that "Slavic" at all.



As I mentioned, I'm not asserting anything, I'm just interested in our origin, since in the Balkans the country borders are political boundaries where certain myths are distorting facts and the plain truth. I only want to be educated and do not want to offend anyone's beliefs. But this is a forum where we talk facts.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Eupedia Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

Bunjevci coming from western Herzegovina, there is I2a in the epicenter up to 70% (Croatians).
Vlach genetics is not I2a , Vlach genetics is E1b, R1b, J2, I2a dinaric-N, R1a with migration from Southeast Balkans. It is interesting that Vlach groups also have I2a dinaric-N types with White Croat mutation I-S17250 which means that Croats are assimilated into Vlachs groups through 1500 years of living in Greece, Albania, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Romania.

Therefore that Bunjevci are Vlach origin they should have and other haplogroups not just one or two.

I2a that exist in western Herzegovina is precisely from migration of White Croats to Roman Dalmatia.


Another question is, the Vlachs as descendants of Illyrians, Thracians and Celts have obviously in the western parts more I2a. How come Albanians, if they are directly connected to Illyrians, are much higher in E-V13 like the Romanians and Greeks where the Thracians and related peoples were present?

Vlachs are mixture of 5.6 haplogroups, this means that they have an indigenous E1b, J2, R1b types and I2a and R1a types that comes with Slavs. Possible they have R1a and I2a types that came to Balkans before Croat and Slavs haplotypes , it will be seen in future .

hrvat22
28-10-17, 18:56
You have a point there. But they have maybe something more in common with the Vlachs than the Croat newcomers in the south. In north Croatia people are more "Slavic" with much less I2a and much more R1a. Though, I can not tell for sure with which of these two groups the I2a core is. I just see this correlation. Thanks.Sent from my SM-G900F using Eupedia Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)Croats are I2a and R1a types, I2a is stronger in the south Croatia, R1a is stronger in the north Croatia, but R1a is second haplotype in the south and I2a is second haplotype in the north. Croats are mix of R1a and I2a types. Later comes Vlach-Albanian haplogroups which are mixed with these R1a and I2a types in Croatia.

hrvat22
28-10-17, 19:20
don_joe (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/members/50420-don_joe)



This are yDNA result for Bunjevacs in total (Lika, Dalmatia, Bačka):
50.0% - R1a (most of them Z280)
29.0% - I2a Dinaric (so far PH908 is only proven subclade)
10.6% - R1b (eastern and western branches)
2.6% - I1, E1b, G2a and J1

This is what I've seen now, by this obviously migration from western Herzegovina do not exist or smaller percentage of so-called Bunjevacs comes from there. Should be seen which types of R1a they have and then will see from where they comes.

By this genetics, surely they are not Vlachs.

Dumidre
28-10-17, 20:37
Based on geography that you guys are presenting here:
free dacians (Carps and all the other tribes after Roman-Dacian wars) +slavs= white Croatians
dacians+romans= vlachs
Common denominator= dacians
I2a common on both= "you do the math"

Sile
28-10-17, 20:40
IMO, until we know what the Dacians spoke before they spoke latin , then we are fishing .................they could have spoken anything between thracian and bastanae to Sarmatian

Wonomyro
28-10-17, 21:01
don_joe, I do not know if anyone made any paper on Bunjevci genetics. We definitely need one. Thank you hrvat22 for the statistics. Where did you get it from? I was expecting to see I2a on the top but a high percentage of R1a is a quite surprise. Now we see that Bunjevci do not only speak different language then Vlachs but also have different male genetics. It would be however a good thing to inspect their maternal lines and compare them with those of Vlachs and Albanians.

Dumidre
28-10-17, 21:06
IMO, until we know what the Dacians spoke before they spoke latin , then we are fishing .................they could have spoken anything between thracian and bastanae to Sarmatian
True, but what we know is that there were numerous... enough that the Roman Empire saw them as a threat, they were hard to "domesticate" they rather wanted to die or live free... they lived around Roman Dacia as Free Dacians... so the genetical pool was definitely there...
As far as the language, I think they did what they had to do to survive...
Apparently there are some tablets out there that reflect the "Dacian language" which, if they are proven to be authentic, will reveal that Dacian Language was similar to pretty much all Indo-European languages: I see old greek, latin, Slavonic words... again, is not proven authentic yet, but it makes it more interesting :)

don_joe
28-10-17, 21:17
Thank you all for your conribution. I just want to make sure that we are not talking about the modern days Bunjevci like in present Vojvodina or nowadays Bunjevci like individuals that identify themselfs as such cause the admixure over centuries could blur the picture. If you could provide some links, I would very much appreciate it.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Eupedia Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

Miroslav
29-10-17, 00:48
Or maybe I'm too harsh...

The member Hrvat22 is a member from Croatian forum whose bored everyone with his ideological and logically false premises that I-S17250 is of White Croatian origin and all Slavs originate from them, lack of knowledge and understanding of the historiography about the White Croats and White Croatia, his consideration which haplogroups do and do not belong to specific ethnic group, especially with his false and far-fetched "proofs" for undeniable "truth" and so on. You are not too harsh at all. Practically speaking, it is nothing but chauvinistic and romanticized ideologization of population genetics similarly considered by some Serbs, and both do it as a countermeasure for their nation's political conflicts and controversy regarding ethnic origin i.e. with proclaiming that specific Y-DNA haplogroups were exclusively Croatian or Serbian they propagate Greater Croatia or Greater Serbia irredentist belief. It should not be tolerated on Eupedia.

Garrick
29-10-17, 02:16
Genetics confirm historical records only for Croat arrival to Balkans.

From 5th century exclusively Croatian.

As far as I know, migration starts from White Croatia or few hundred years earlier.

http://www.waughfamily.ca/Ancient/Tree%20and%20Map%20for%20Hg%20I.pdf

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?hl=en&mid=1uIEV-Unzie9mLufrQJyWb4fD9zg


Already I gave what Dr Francesco Borri (Institute for Medieval Research of the Austrian Academy of Science, Vienna) wrote. Younger people (in this case Croats) took legends of arrival from older people (Bulgarians, Scythians). Porfirogenit had story about Croats because he had goal, he thought they may make good allies against the Bulgars. Dr Borri claims that Croats very late formed as nation, 9-10 century (not as you claim in 5th century).

Quote:
“Who, therefore, were the Croats? At the moment this question is still difficult to answer. Milo Barada suggested that the Croats were a group formed at the edges of the Avar empire and Walter Pohl proposed the Croats to be border guards of the Avar empire, developing in an ethnic group only in the ninth century. I suggest that we should date this process even later. Constantine wrote in the DAI about a Croatian victory against the Bulgars: does this event represent the formation of a new elite on the Dalmatian edges of the Bulgar kingdom? “

“In conclusion, we can assert that the Croatian migration did not take place, but that Constantine Porphyrogenitus created it relying on the literary models traditionally applied to describe the Landnahme of Scythian Barbarians. “

What we can see, historians very appreciate Dr Borri. For example Slovakian historian Adam Mesiarkin (Comenius Unuiversity in Bratislava) writes, quote:

“We agree with the author* in the question of a „general“ construction of the mentioned parts of the text of DAI”,

*Dr Adam Mesiarkin speaks about author who is Dr Borri.

And after, Dr Mesiarkin argues, quote:

“The fact that Constantine Porphyrogenitus did not have to describe the situation from the first half of the seventh century is not important at this moment. It is important that he wrote down a myth, which lived and stood in the centre of the ethnogenesis, of the memory of the elite – which created a political-ethnic group. They maintain the myth of the arrival to the country with a permission of the emperor – for the absolute right for taking the land.“

“In spite of naming the Croats as Slavs in Latin sources, probably due to their language, Croatian identity was not Slavic. They turned away from the Slavs and Avars in their origo and the Slavic identity probably existed beside the Croatian identity. In addition, it is not the subsequent evolutional phase of the development of Illyrian (if there was something like that) identities mixed with Gothic or Slavic identity. It is something new, created at the time of the changes inside the khaganate and the transformations in the orbit of Frankish domination in Europe.”

You can see contemporary historians in scientific journals write the opposite what you write. They are PhD, experts, authorities and their papers are in world base of science. I told you more time if you want change anything you must write scientific paper and publish in relevant scientific journal otherwise as layman you have no chance, you can be on forums for years and decades and everything will be the same as today.

hrvat22
29-10-17, 08:58
don_joe, I do not know if anyone made any paper on Bunjevci genetics. We definitely need one. Thank you hrvat22 for the statistics. Where did you get it from? I was expecting to see I2a on the top but a high percentage of R1a is a quite surprise. Now we see that Bunjevci do not only speak different language then Vlachs but also have different male genetics. It would be however a good thing to inspect their maternal lines and compare them with those of Vlachs and Albanians.


http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?12109-Bunjevci-Bunjevacs-%26%231041%3B%26%231091%3B%26%231114%3B%26%231077% 3B%26%231074%3B%26%231094%3B%26%231080%3B

hrvat22
29-10-17, 09:06
The member Hrvat22 is a member from Croatian forum whose bored everyone with his ideological and logically false premises that I-S17250 is of White Croatian origin and all Slavs originate from them, lack of knowledge and understanding of the historiography about the White Croats and White Croatia, his consideration which haplogroups do and do not belong to specific ethnic group, especially with his false and far-fetched "proofs" for undeniable "truth" and so on. You are not too harsh at all. Practically speaking, it is nothing but chauvinistic and romanticized ideologization of population genetics similarly considered by some Serbs, and both do it as a countermeasure for their nation's political conflicts and controversy regarding ethnic origin i.e. with proclaiming that specific Y-DNA haplogroups were exclusively Croatian or Serbian they propagate Greater Croatia or Greater Serbia irredentist belief. It should not be tolerated on Eupedia.You can not dispute my claims in this forum or Croatian forum only you know is talk, talk, talk. That says I'm right.

If one man or tribe comes from same place, same time, at same place and that migration is confirmed only in record of Croat arrival, then from White Croatia do not come Bosnians, Dukljans, Montenegrins, Slavs, Dalmatians, Tribals, Vlachs, Zahumljans, Pagans, Serbians, Slovenes etc..this is logic and logic is stronger than yours talk, talk,talk.

gyms
29-10-17, 13:47
"...this is logic and logic is stronger than yours talk, talk,talk."
https://www.scribd.com/document/101560527/Francesco-Borri-White-Croatia-and-the-arrival-of-theCroats-an-interpretation-of-ConstantinePorphyrogenitus-on-the-oldestDalmatian-history

Wonomyro
29-10-17, 15:01
Garrick, I respect Mr. Borri, but this sentence is probably one of the funniest I've ever seen:
In spite of naming the Croats as Slavs in Latin sources, probably due to their language, Croatian identity was not Slavic. What makes Slavs as such if not the language... :lol:
In conclusion, we can assert that the Croatian migration did not take place, but that Constantine Porphyrogenitus created it relying on the literary models traditionally applied to describe the Landnahme of Scythian Barbarians. Mr. Borri might be right about Constantine Porphyrogenitus and his imagination in chapters he wrote: 29. 31-36., especially in the story about Serbs. But what about the chapter 30., "Story about the province of Dalmatia", which was obviously written by another author? In that chapter there is a slightly different, cleaner, and probably authentic version of the Croatian migration.

hrvat22
29-10-17, 15:24
"...this is logic and logic is stronger than yours talk, talk,talk."
https://www.scribd.com/document/101560527/Francesco-Borri-White-Croatia-and-the-arrival-of-theCroats-an-interpretation-of-ConstantinePorphyrogenitus-on-the-oldestDalmatian-history

Do you have genetic logic or you and your friend Francesco-Borri (https://www.scribd.com/document/101560527/Francesco-Borri-White-Croatia-and-the-arrival-of-theCroats-an-interpretation-of-ConstantinePorphyrogenitus-on-the-oldestDalmatian-history) just love talk, talk,talk.?

Quote me a history record where it is mentioned arrival of Croats to Balkan and refute it with today genetic, that would be logic and not only talk,talk,talk.

One more time, to Balkans(most to former Yugoslavia) coming only and exclusively Croats who later divide and become this or that but originally they are Croat origin, as far as I2a is concerned with mutation I-S17250, for R1a types we will see in the future and then bring conclusion. It is undeniable, finally and forever, if someone is upset about this it is his problem. Only thing that he can do is talk,talk,talk.

Wonomyro
29-10-17, 15:26
hrvat_22, thank you for the link with the statistics on "Bunjevci". Their genetics is definitely "Slavic". The dialect they use even today in Vojvodina is almost same as the language of the people in Dalmatian hinterland ("stokavian-ikavian"). The same dialect appears in many Croatian medieval texts, e.g. "Croatian Chronicle" found in 15. century in Poljice near the city of Split.

hrvat22
29-10-17, 15:35
Garrick, I respect Mr. Borri, but this sentence is probably one of the most funny I've ever seen: What makes Slavs as such if not the language... :lol: Mr. Borri might be right about Constantine Porphyrogenitus and his imagination in chapters he wrote: 29. 31-36., especially in the story about Serbs. But what about the chapter 30., "Story about the province of Dalmatia", which was obviously written by another author? In that chapter there is a slightly different, cleaner, and probably authentic version of the Croatian migration.

What Mr. Borri has with DAI and tenth century?, therefore a hundred people a hundred opinions only genetics is accurate 100%.
They do not prove its claims with genetics and original historical records they just love to talk,talk,talk. This is their only proof.

hrvat22
29-10-17, 15:50
hrvat_22, thank you for the link with the statistics on "Bunjevci". Their genetics is definitely "Slavic". The dialect they use even today in Vojvodina is almost same as the language of the people in Dalmatian hinterland ("stokavian-ikavian"). The same dialect appears in many Croatian medieval texts, e.g. "Croatian Chronicle" found in 15. century in Poljice near the city of Split.

That's why say "genetic is 100% accurate", and talk, talk, talk is just talk, talk, talk. Bunjevci are and Vlach origin(by some record) but genetic speaks differently, so we have believe what genetics talking and not talk, talk, talk. They may have called themselves Vlachs or part of them, but they are genetic originally Slavic or Croatian origin.

Garrick
29-10-17, 16:04
Garrick, I respect Mr. Barri, but this sentence is probably one of the most stupid I've ever seen: What makes Slavs as such if not the language...

What you criticize is not paper of Dr Borri but Slovakian researcher Adam Mesiarkin. I read his words again, again,... I think he considers that name Croat (Hrvat) is not Slavic and possible some non-Slavic tribe or people existed with that name in Avar khaganate who were not Slavic.


Mr. Borri might be right about Constantine Porphyrogenitus and his imagination in chapters he wrote: 29. 31-36., especially in the story about Serbs. But what about the chapter 30., "Story about the province of Dalmatia", which was obviously written by another author? In that chapter there is a slightly different, cleaner, and probably authentic version of the Croatian migration.

Dr Borri very clear says Croats as ethnic entity emerged 9-10th century (231, 232 page). Dr Borri highlights the importance of Byzantine in Croatian process creation because their emperors wanted allies against Bulgars. Narrative elements and legends of Croatian migrations are took from older Scythian and Bulgarian sources (224, 225 pages etc).

gyms
29-10-17, 17:09
Do you have genetic logic or you and your friend Francesco-Borri (https://www.scribd.com/document/101560527/Francesco-Borri-White-Croatia-and-the-arrival-of-theCroats-an-interpretation-of-ConstantinePorphyrogenitus-on-the-oldestDalmatian-history) just love talk, talk,talk.?

Quote me a history record where it is mentioned arrival of Croats to Balkan and refute it with today genetic, that would be logic and not only talk,talk,talk.

One more time, to Balkans(most to former Yugoslavia) coming only and exclusively Croats who later divide and become this or that but originally they are Croat origin, as far as I2a is concerned with mutation I-S17250, for R1a types we will see in the future and then bring conclusion. It is undeniable, finally and forever, if someone is upset about this it is his problem. Only thing that he can do is talk,talk,talk.

"Do you have genetic logic..."
Do you have Croatian aDNA?

Wonomyro
29-10-17, 17:19
What you criticize is not paper of Dr Borri but Slovakian researcher Adam Mesiarkin. I read his words again, again,... I think he considers that name Croat (Hrvat) is not Slavic and possible some non-Slavic tribe or people existed with that name in Avar khaganate who were not Slavic. It is "possible" too that they also came directly from India riding elephants. But there is no proof of that. Not a single one. I am convinced that some slavic "national" scientists are trying to invent any possible scenario to explain a high incidence of Croatian etnotoponyme all around early medieval "Slavic" world. They just don't want to accept the most obvious scenario, and that is, that the Croatian etnonyme is authentic among slavic speakers. Unfortunately, the same we can't say for the "Slavic" one.
Dr Borri very clear says Croats as ethnic entity emerged 9-10th century (231, 232 page). Dr Borri highlights the importance of Byzantine in Croatian process creation because their emperors wanted allies against Bulgars. Narrative elements and legends of Croatian migrations are took from older Scythian and Bulgarian sources (224, 225 pages etc). Yes, the name "emerged" as late as in 9-10th century but all around eastern Europe (Ukraine, Poland, Silesia, Lusatia, Bohemia, Karantania, Dalmatia, even in Greece...), not only in the contemporary sources but also in numerous toponymes? How come that? Do we know about any toponyme from the same period based on "Slavic" ethnonyme? Of course not. On the other hand, the chapter 30. describes the events from 9th century so I don't see what Mr. Borry does not understand. According to the source, Croats, as Frankish vasals, defeated Avars and after that setteld in Dalmatia, Panonia and the Iliricum. Avar Khaganate was destroyed around 800 AD which marks the beginning of 9th century, shotly after that event there are first mentions of Croatian dukes in Dalmatia who have tipical slavic names (Vladislav, Mislav, Trpimir, Držislav, Branimir, Krešimir, etc.). Where is the problem?

hrvat22
29-10-17, 18:40
"Do you have genetic logic..."
Do you have Croatian aDNA?

No. Do you have Croatian aDNA?

hrvat22
29-10-17, 18:58
Garrick (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/members/28714-Garrick)



Dr Borri very clear says Croats as ethnic entity emerged 9-10th century

If De administrando imperio says that Croats coming in 7th century to Roman Dalmatia, Ilirik and Panonia and Roman records says that Slavs coming in 6th century, where they disappeared until 9th century. Obviously Dr Borri finds Croatians in the Balkans only from first mention of Croatian name, before that there were Turkmens.

If genetics says that Croats came in 9th century to Roman Dalmatia we respect that, but this is not yet the case.

gyms
29-10-17, 19:55
No. Do you have Croatian aDNA?

How do you defeat those pesky ******? Follow our 10 ways to successfully destroy a *****!
https://www.searchenginejournal.com/10-ways-destroy-online-commenting-*****/84427/

hrvat22
29-10-17, 20:52
How do you defeat those pesky ******? Follow our 10 ways to successfully destroy a *****!
https://www.searchenginejournal.com/10-ways-destroy-online-commenting-*****/84427/

Do you have genetic and historical records that dispute my statements or just love to talk, talk, talk.

Garrick
30-10-17, 01:34
If De administrando imperio says that Croats coming in 7th century to Roman Dalmatia, Ilirik and Panonia and Roman records says that Slavs coming in 6th century, where they disappeared until 9th century. Obviously Dr Borri finds Croatians in the Balkans only from first mention of Croatian name, before that there were Turkmens.

If genetics says that Croats came in 9th century to Roman Dalmatia we respect that, but this is not yet the case.

Dr Borri is very clear:

"The migration, although becoming an important element in nationalist thought, is not confirmed by any other source, neither contemporary, nor later, being reported only by Constantine. I propose that the migration was instead a literary pattern deployed by the emperor in order to explain the complex developments which brought a new elite, called Croats, to a leading position in tenth-century Dalmatia."

Practically Dr Borri highlights that Croats emerged in 10th century what is later than his colleague from Institute for Medieval Research of Austrian Academy of Science, Dr Walter Pohl who argues that Croats emerged as ethnic group in 9th century. Croatian historian Vidovic speaks about 9th century as Dr Pohl.

And some Croats agree with Dr Borri. We can like or dislike what Dr Borri writes but he is big authority in European historian science today.

You can't understand, carriers of different haplogroups could come earlier, it is linked with Croatian identity which emerged in 10th century according to Dr Borri. In other words, if there were Slavic, Avar, Bulgarian, and other groups before the 10th century in Dalmatia and wider beyond, they didn't have Croatian identity. Again, Dr Borri is very clear. If you more likes Dr Pohl, he puts emergence of Croats in 9th century.

You can see respectable historian experts emergence of Croats put in the 9th or 10th century and your hypothesis about the 7th century (or earlier) and the mythical land of origin is rejected. If you try to oppose these historians you must write scientific paper, prove your hypothesis and publish in relevant Journal, it is only path, forums don't help.

A. Papadimitriou
30-10-17, 04:30
Dr Borri is very clear:

"The migration, although becoming an important element in nationalist thought, is not confirmed by any other source, neither contemporary, nor later, being reported only by Constantine. I propose that the migration was instead a literary pattern deployed by the emperor in order to explain the complex developments which brought a new elite, called Croats, to a leading position in tenth-century Dalmatia."

Practically Dr Borri highlights that Croats emerged in 10th century what is later than his colleague from Institute for Medieval Research of Austrian Academy of Science, Dr Walter Pohl who argues that Croats emerged as ethnic group in 9th century. Croatian historian Vidovic speaks about 9th century as Dr Pohl.

And some Croats agree with Dr Borri. We can like or dislike what Dr Borri writes but he is big authority in European historian science today.

You can't understand, carriers of different haplogroups could come earlier, it is linked with Croatian identity which emerged in 10th century according to Dr Borri. In other words, if there were Slavic, Avar, Bulgarian, and other groups before the 10th century in Dalmatia and wider beyond, they didn't have Croatian identity. Again, Dr Borri is very clear. If you more likes Dr Pohl, he puts emergence of Croats in 9th century.

You can see respectable historian experts emergence of Croats put in the 9th or 10th century and your hypothesis about the 7th century (or earlier) and the mythical land of origin is rejected. If you try to oppose these historians you must write scientific paper, prove your hypothesis and publish in relevant Journal, it is only path, forums don't help.

Have you read the text you reject with that fancy argument? I bet that scholar isn't even able to read what he rejects.

Wonomyro
30-10-17, 10:33
This is the excerpt from the De Administrando Imperio, chapter 30. "Story of the Province of Dalmatia":
Now, after the said Slavs had settled down, they took possession of all the surrounding territory of Dalmatia; but the cities of the Romani took to cultivating the islands and living off them; since, however, they were daily enslaved and destroyed by the Pagani, they deserted these islands and resolved to cultivate the mainland. But they were stopped by the Croats; for they were not yet tributary to the Croats, and used to pay to the military governor all that they now pay to the Slavs. Finding it impossible to live, they approached the glorious emperor Basil and told him all the above. And so that glorious emperor Basil ordered that all that was then paid to the military governor they should pay to the Slavs, and live at peace with them, and that some slight payment should be made to the military governor, as a simple token of submission and servitude to the emperors of the Romans and their military governor. And from that time all these cities became tributary to the Slavs, and they pay them fixed sums: the city of Spalato, 200 nomismata; the city of Tetrangourin, 100 nomismata; the city of Diadora, 110 nomismata; the city of Opsara, 100 nomismata; the city of Arbe, 100 nomismata; the city of Yekla, 100 nomismata; so that the total amounts to 710 nomismata, exclusive of wine and various other commodities, which are in excess of the payments in cash. The city of Ragusa is situated between the two countries of the Zachlumi and of Terbounia; they have their vineyards in both countries, and pay to the prince of the Zachlumi 36 nomismata, and to the prince of Terbounia 36 nomismata Does this text sound like a literary work? Even the exact amounts were specified...

hrvat22
30-10-17, 14:03
Garrick

The migration, although becoming an important element in nationalist thought, is not confirmed by any other source,

You have genetics, you do not need
any other source.


any other source is without genetic dead letter on paper.

That there is no genetics we would never know whether is DAI true or false.

Wonomyro
30-10-17, 14:28
This post is empty.

Wonomyro
30-10-17, 14:30
Dr Borri is very clear: "The migration, although becoming an important element in nationalist thought, is not confirmed by any other source, neither contemporary, nor later, being reported only by Constantine. Realy not? What about Historia Salonitana?
Historia Salonitanorum atque Spalatinorum pontificum or the History of the Bishops of Salona and Split (Croatian: Povijest biskupa Salone i Splita), commonly known simply as the Historia Salonitana, is a chronicle by Thomas the Archdeacon from the 13th century which contains significant information about the early history of the Croats. It was first published by Johannes Lucius.[1] An extended version of this work, known as the Historia Salonitana maior was published in the 16th century,[2] and critical editions of both have been republished by Nada Klaić (Belgrade: Naucno delo, 1967).[3] The chronicle gives an account of the arrival of the Croats:
From the Polish territories called Lingonia seven or eight tribal clans arrived under Totilo. When they saw that the Croatian land would be suitable for habitation because in it there were few Roman colonies, they sought and obtained for their duke...The people called Croats...Many call them Goths, and likewise Slavs, according to the particular name of those who arrived from Poland and Bohemia.

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

Not to mention Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja...

Wonomyro
30-10-17, 14:36
Dr Borri is very clear: "The migration, although becoming an important element in nationalist thought, is not confirmed by any other source, neither contemporary, nor later, being reported only by Constantine. Realy not? What about Historia Salonitana?
Historia Salonitanorum atque Spalatinorum pontificum or the History of the Bishops of Salona and Split (Croatian: Povijest biskupa Salone i Splita), commonly known simply as the Historia Salonitana, is a chronicle by Thomas the Archdeacon from the 13th century which contains significant information about the early history of the Croats. It was first published by Johannes Lucius.[1] An extended version of this work, known as the Historia Salonitana maior was published in the 16th century,[2] and critical editions of both have been republished by Nada Klaić (Belgrade: Naucno delo, 1967).[3] The chronicle gives an account of the arrival of the Croats:
From the Polish territories called Lingonia seven or eight tribal clans arrived under Totilo. When they saw that the Croatian land would be suitable for habitation because in it there were few Roman colonies, they sought and obtained for their duke...The people called Croats...Many call them Goths, and likewise Slavs, according to the particular name of those who arrived from Poland and Bohemia.

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

Not to mention Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja...

Wonomyro
30-10-17, 15:24
Here is the conclusion of the article of F. Borri:


In conclusion, we can assert that the Croatian migration did not take place, but that Constantine Porphyrogenitus created it relying on theliterary models traditionally applied to describe the Landnahme of Scyth-ian Barbarians. What instead happened is that, following their rise in the military and political context of the Balkans, new elites took a visible position in Dalmatia and, as recorded in the tenth century, were given thename Croats, a name which was also found in other areas of central and eastern Europe. Although it is still very difficult to explain how names recur in sources independent of one another and in very distant places, for reasons still unknown to us it is possible that the Dalmatian Croats referred to other groups who shared their name, as Belocroats. The many attestations of this ethnonym and place name reached Constantine Porphyrogenitus, who in order to explain this recurrence deployed the classic model of migration, a model which many authors had used to explainthe ethnic geography of the surrounding world from the beginning of historiography itself

This sentence is important:

"... it is still very difficult to explain how names recur in sources independent of one another and in very distant places, for reasons still unknown to us ".

Not "unknown", but more likely deliberately ignored.

don_joe
30-10-17, 21:35
The historical data is pretty scarce, it's an open arena for all kind of biased interpretations. I just wonder how much more will we know in 10 years from now. I have high hopes. There are many myths on all sides to be broken.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Eupedia Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

Garrick
02-11-17, 01:29
In principle it should be trust in the experts as scientists from Institute of Medieval Research, Vienna, a department of Austrian Academy of Science. People should read whole text of Dr Borri and they would understand about narrative and legendary elements in emperor’s story and his motives for alliance Byzantine with Croats against Bulgarians.

Nobody mentions Croats in Dalmatia and wider before 9th or 10th century. Dr Borri put emergence of Croatian identity in 10th century but Croatian historians think that document where is mentioned Dux Croatorum from 9th century should be valued as first document with Croatian name. Croatian historian Vidovic writes that Croatian identity was present in the middle of 9th century. Therefore question between historians about emergence of Croats is if 9th or 10th century, not before.

History is known, don’t listen nationalists who like to confuse. When Slavs arrived in the Balkans from 6th century chronicles of that time were marked them as Sclaveni (Greek Sklavenoi) and Antes. National identities emerged later.

Europe 650 AD

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Europe_around_650.jpg


Croatian ethnonym is not Slavic what Croatian scientists highlight, not only non-Croatian. There are more hypothesis if it is Avarian, Iranian, Bulgarian, Turkish, Scythian etc. I appreciate Croats and don’t want enter in speculative discussions, it question is not solved.

But in Slavic word it is almost normal that Slavic nations have non-Slavic ethnonymes. For example Bulgarian Slavs took name which is not Slavic. Slavic Macedonians too. And these days in Skopje we can hear about "White Macedonians". Why people create such constructs? To give greater importance to their nation? It is wrong approach but nationalists don’t care if someone wants to follow them.

Really only Ukrainians, Poles, Slovaks and Slovenians have undeniable Slavic ethnonym. Even for Czech people is not sure is it Slavic or no. And some small Slavic nations as Kashubians seems have no Slavic ethnonym.

Wonomyro
02-11-17, 14:40
In principle it should be trust in the experts as scientists from Institute of Medieval Research, Vienna, a department of Austrian Academy of Science. People should read whole text of Dr Borri and they would understand about narrative and legendary elements in emperor’s story and his motives for alliance Byzantine with Croats against Bulgarians. First we should distinguish what in DAI is a "emperor’s story", and what is not. Historians mostly agree that the chapter 30. does not belong to the original Constantine's work and it is probably added to it after his death. If the text was not written by Constantine, than how can we talk about "emperor's motives"?
Nobody mentions Croats in Dalmatia and wider before 9th or 10th century. They were mentioned under different names as it was clearly stated in Historia Salonitana:
"The people called Croats...Many call them Goths, and likewise Slavs..."When they appeared in Dalmatia, Croats didn’t wear T-Shirts with their etnonyme on it so everybody could know how they called themselves. In the beginning of the 9th century it wasn’t possible for them to write down their name in their own language. How could any foreigner know what a hell the word “Hrvat” (Croat) mean? What do you think how many people know even in 20th century how Finns call themselves?
Dr Borri put emergence of Croatian identity in 10th century but Croatian historians think that document where is mentioned Dux Croatorum from 9th century should be valued as first document with Croatian name. Croatian historian Vidovic writes that Croatian identity was present in the middle of 9th century. Therefore question between historians about emergence of Croats is if 9th or 10th century, not before. Here is the duke's Branimir inscription dated to 888 AD: "DVX CRVATORṼ COGIT[AVIT]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branimir_Inscription This is also worth noting:
possibly older reference to a Croatian ethnonym is attributed to a charter of duke Trpimir I of Croatia from the year 852. However, its original is lost, and only a 1568 copy is preserved, leading to doubts on the authenticity of the claim But Croatian history did not start in the year 888. Before Branimir there were other dukes. We can easily extrapolate Croatian presence back to the beginning of the 9th Century.
History is known, don’t listen nationalists who like to confuse. When Slavs arrived in the Balkans from 6th century chronicles of that time were marked them as Sclaveni (Greek Sklavenoi) and Antes. National identities emerged later. During the first decade of the century it was fashionable for historians to deny the migration. Influence of the early Y-DNA studies :D? Possible. Now it changes again and we expect new generation of historians to give us more plausible explanations. Btw. you noticed well that the ethnonyme Sklavenoi was invented by Greeks.
Croatian ethnonym is not Slavic what Croatian scientists highlight, not only non-Croatian. There are more hypothesis if it is Avarian, Iranian, Bulgarian, Turkish, Scythian etc. I appreciate Croats and don’t want enter in speculative discussions, it question is not solved. Are we talking about the origin of the word or the origin of the people? Croatian ethnonym most probably has a root in Iranian languages, but this is far from being the only Iranian loanword in early Slavic. Consider another word of Iranian origin - “bog” (god), which is present in all Slavic languages and represents one of the most basic terms of any society. Btw, as a Serb, don’t you agree that religion sometimes plays a key role in forming of nations?
But in Slavic word it is almost normal that Slavic nations have non-Slavic ethnonymes. For example Bulgarian Slavs took name which is not Slavic. Slavic Macedonians too. And these days in Skopje we can hear about "White Macedonians". Why people create such constructs? To give greater importance to their nation? It is wrong approach but nationalists don’t care if someone wants to follow them. Bulgarian case is not same as Croatian. Slavs in Bulgaria got their name after the country they lived in. Slavs outside Bulgaria never identified themselves as Bulgarians. On the other hand, Croatian ethnonyme was recorded in almost all areas where Slavs migrated: Poland, Ukraine, Czechia, Lusatia, Slovenia, Austria, Montenegro, Greece, Macedonia, Belarus, … the name they obviously brought with them from their homeland. I never heard about “White Macedonians” theory. What does it have to do with Croatian history. I don’t get the point.
Really only Ukrainians, Poles, Slovaks and Slovenians have undeniable Slavic ethnonym. Even for Czech people is not sure is it Slavic or no. And some small Slavic nations as Kashubians seems have no Slavic ethnonym. Except maybe Poles and Czechs, what do you think when those nations got their present names?

don_joe
02-11-17, 15:31
This is a very interesting discussion but I think that we've strayed into etymology. I'm personally more interested in ethnogenesis and composition of modern peoples in the Balkans. This thread is about how I2a-Din came to this area.

Milan.M
02-11-17, 18:39
"Administrando imperio" that book was originally written in Greek,the name we know today is added later.
Tibor Zivkovic after studying the book for 20 years came to conclusion that chapter 30 is added later and whatever chapters are dealing with this "stories".Also no humanist or historian knew that "story" prior Johannes Meursis publish it in Latin 16/17th century.
Prior works from Mauro Orbini who use this book as source there is no trace of this story,or priest of Dioclea who tell us different story and all other prior historians take foreigners like Dandolo.
The most funny thing for me is that Emperor Constantine himself said that the word Croat in Slavic mean "one who posses much land" and compare it with Greek word χώρα (chora).
I very much doubt the emperor was so "literate".

Bit later,Johannes Lucius a Venetian who today Croats call him "Ivan Lucic" started propagate this story and with his edition on historia Salonitana.

Wonomyro
02-11-17, 18:50
Distribution of the Italian admixture in Europe: https://www.eupedia.com/europe/autosomal_maps_dodecad.shtml#Italian

hrvat22
02-11-17, 19:57
Garrick (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/members/28714-Garrick)


Nobody mentions Croats in Dalmatia and wider before 9th or 10th century.

What this has to do with Croat arrival to the Balkans.?
Who are the Slavs in Istria and Dalmatia year 600, 640, 642.

Italians today call Croats as Slavs, it does not mean that Croats not exist.


1154 g. - The Arabic geographer, cartographer and travel writer Muhammad Al-Idrisi (1099-1164), describing Croatia (Bilad Garwasija), writes in his work "Kitab al Rudjar" the following:
"Ragusa(Dubrovnic), Ragusah is away from Ston 30 miles. (Residents) are Dalmatians who have many boats for long sailing. This is the last town in Croatia (Garwasijah)".

For some in 12th century we are Dalmatians, for others we are Chinese but we are still Croats.



Croatian ethnonym is not Slavic what Croatian scientists highlight, not only non-Croatian.

What does this have to do with arrival of Croats from White Croatia.?

Croatian ethnonym is Azerbaijani origin, and what now? what it has to do with origins of Croats.?

Croats are Slavic and Speaks Indo-European Slavic Language but their major I2a is not Indo-European origin. Therefore language, ethnonym, name, surname, music, dance, folk costume, etc.. They have nothing to do with the origin of man, tribe, people etc..except in Serbia where this is only proof of origin, genetics are not important to them.


And these days in Skopje we can hear about "White Macedonians"

Maybe they come from White Macedonia to Macedonia, what does this have to do with arrival of Croats from White Croatia.?


Really only Ukrainians, Poles, Slovaks and Slovenians have undeniable Slavic ethnonym.

When is first mentioned this ethnonym and in which area??

hrvat22
02-11-17, 20:12
Milan.M (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/members/51149-Milan-M)


The most funny thing for me is that Emperor Constantine himself said that the word Croat in Slavic mean "one who posses much land" and compare it with Greek word χώρα (chora).

I do not know what's funny for you or not, but genetics has confirmed DAI and story of Croatian arrival.
Or to translate, story of Croatian arrival writen by Konstantin VII. Porfirogenet is true (https://www.google.hr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjL4ZLVvqDXAhVCuhoKHYsGDH8QFggrMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fhr.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FKonsta ntin_VII._Porfirogenet&usg=AOvVaw2XYYjcsLYfXnssL3XSaSEa).

Wonomyro
02-11-17, 20:12
The most funny thing for me is that Emperor Constantine himself said that the word Croat in Slavic mean "one who posses much land" and compare it with Greek word χώρα (chora). I very much doubt the emperor was so "literate".

I trust more to an English translation:


‘Croats’ in the Slav tongue means ‘those who occupy much territory’

Btw. this "etimology" was probably emperor's own invention in order to aid his son, young emperor, easier memorize foreign names. :D (DAI was written for the purpose of education!). I browsed the web a little and find a topic on memory technics. There is one called "memorizing by association":


Investigate and note intuitive relationships between the elements and your own experience. This is called memorizing by association. The relationships don't need to be rational, only memorable (interesting, funny, enjoyable) and inspirational.

https://www.wikihow.com/Memorize (https://www.wikihow.com/Memorize)

Here is an example they provided:


If you're memorizing Article 1 of the US Constitution, for example, it begins, "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress...," you might imagine a congressman in a vest, with a power cord dangling out of his pocket.

It is obvious that 2 "vests" have nothing in common but the second one help us memorize the former. The same can be said about the word "chora". Imagine a conversation in Greek:

Q: What is the name of that nation who occupied much territory?
A: Let me think ... much territory...borders...chora... yes - Horvati!

Garrick
02-11-17, 23:19
Or to translate, story of Croatian arrival writen by Konstantin VII. Porfirogenet is true (https://www.google.hr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjL4ZLVvqDXAhVCuhoKHYsGDH8QFggrMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fhr.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FKonsta ntin_VII._Porfirogenet&usg=AOvVaw2XYYjcsLYfXnssL3XSaSEa).

You should read Dr Francesco Borri again, again, again, maybe you will understand.

...
hrvat22

One question.

When are you sick do you go to the doctor or witch doctor?

Doctors are experts but you're running away from the experts.

But unfortunately witch doctors will not heal you.

According historian experts, PhD scientists, Croatian identity emerged in 9th or 10th century in Dalmatia and surrounding, as we have trust in doctors who are specialists for medicine, we have trust in scientists who are experts for history.

Laymen sometimes seem to know better than experts but that's because they have touched some matter superficially and do not have enough knowledge about the subject.

For the hundredth time I tell you, write and publish scientific paper in a relevant scientific journal where you will refute with serious proofs of your hypothesis the existing science, otherwise forums can not help you.

Wonomyro
03-11-17, 00:18
Hopefully there is always second opinion:


Mayorov A.B. 2006: Great Croatia; Ethnogenesis and the early history of the Slavs. Publishing house of St. Petersburg University, 209 pages, ISBN: 5-288-03948-8

Russian scientistes are the last who could be blamed for Croatian nationalism.

Wonomyro
03-11-17, 00:39
According historian experts, PhD scientists, Croatian identity emerged in 9th or 10th century in Dalmatia and surrounding, as we have trust in doctors who are specialists for medicine, we have trust in scientists who are experts for history.

No, the Croatian state emerged in 9th century in Dalmatia, not the identity.

Garrick
03-11-17, 01:52
No, the Croatian state emerged in 9th century in Dalmatia, not the identity.

No, you know that Serbs and Croats (and Bosniacs, too) all understand each other, because language is practically same.

For example, Croatian historian Vidovic, and historian Dzino who is Croatian origin, clearly say Croatian identity "hrvatski identitet" for 9th century, it is same as Austrian scientist Dr Pohl.

Dr Dzino:

"Pojava hrvatskog identiteta u 9. stoljeću nastaje baš tu, u neksusu između globalnih promjena i tradicija lokalnoga indigenog pučanstva
koje shvaća ove promjene na svoj specifičan način i prilagođava ih svojim okolnostima i poimanju tradicije."

It can be translate as:

"The emergence of Croatian identity in the 9th century occurs precisely in the nexus between the global changes and the traditions of the local indigenous population who understands these changes in their specific way and adapts them to their circumstances and the perception of tradition. "

But according Dr Borri it is later:

"Who, therefore, were the Croats? At the moment this question is still difficult to answer. Milo Barada suggested that the Croats were a group formed at the edges of the Avar empire and Walter Pohl proposed the Croats to be border guards of the Avar empire, developing in an ethnic group only in the ninth century. I suggest that we should date this process even later."

"I propose that the migration was instead a literary pattern deployed by the emperor in order to explain the complex developments which brought a new elite, called Croats, to a leading position in tenth-century Dalmatia."

Miroslav
03-11-17, 03:51
Garrick, you are making a serious mistake. You ignore the criticism of Vidovic, Pohl, Borri, as well give their viewpoint undue weight and validity although it represents a minority viewpoint.

Wonomyro
03-11-17, 12:55
No, the Croatian state emerged in 9th century in Dalmatia, not the identity.

No, you know that Serbs and Croats (and Bosniacs, too) all understand each other, because language is practically same.

The fact that Croats and Serbs "understand each other" is due to a Serbian language reform that occured in early 19. century. I don't understand your point.

hrvat22
03-11-17, 18:57
Dr Francesco Borri is stronger than genetics, hahahaha he did not write DAI and his comment is as good as your comment.

[QUOTE]When are you sick do you go to the doctor or witch doctor?

This is penicillin for you... https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31539-Genetics-confirm-migration-of-White-Croats-to-Croatia


According historian experts, PhD scientists, Croatian identity emerged in 9th or 10th century in Dalmatia and surrounding, as we have trust in doctors who are specialists for medicine, we have trust in scientists who are experts for history.


Genetics is stronger than a psychiatrist.


For the hundredth time I tell you, write and publish scientific paper in a relevant scientific journal where you will refute with serious proofs of your hypothesis the existing science, otherwise forums can not help you.

It was in the Stone Age, today you just look at genetics and everything is clear.

hrvat22
03-11-17, 19:13
Garrick
No, you know that Serbs and Croats (and Bosniacs, too) all understand each other, because language is practically same.All time I saying that main haplotype of these people comes from White Croatia, logically they have same language when they have same common ancestor or common ancestors.
The emergence of Croatian identity in the 9th centuryWritten records indicate that Croats come from White Croatia in 7th century. It is possible that Croatian identity occurs in 19th century but Croatians still comes in the 7th century.What identity has to do with coming of the Croatians.?
developing in an ethnic group only in the ninth century. I suggest that we should date this process even later."We have Dalmatians, Istrians, Slavs, Hercegovinians, etc.. maybe Croatians do not exist at all. Twilight Zone. :confused2:

Garrick
04-11-17, 02:54
Garrick, you are making a serious mistake. You ignore the criticism of Vidovic, Pohl, Borri, as well give their viewpoint undue weight and validity although it represents a minority viewpoint.

I read critiques of them only from some Croatians, otherwise in the Europe and world they are very respectable and what is important, Institute of Medieval Research in Vienna, a department of the Austrian Academy of Science established standard. Even some Croatian historians, who are opposite side, avoid contradicting this Institute to not be shamed or dismissed as quasi scientists.

Things are clear, all chroniclers in the seventh and eighth centuries speak exclusively about the Slavs. Croatian identity emerged later.

What is origin Croatian ethnonym it is not clear, there are a lot of very different theories. But it is very important issue which can solve some dilemmas.

For example if Croatian ethnonym is Avarian than there is a high probability that Croats, or maybe better Proto-Croats, were Avarian elite surrounded by Slavs. Austrian researcher Kronsteiner highlights Croats were warrior class of Avar Khaganate, responsible for guarding the borders and controlling the Slavs, who made the defense belt of the center of Avarian state.

But I don't want speculate further about Croatian ethnomym because it is wider topic and requires new thread.

Some people think about DAI as Holy Scripture, however scientists (as Dr Borri) clearly gave essential interpretation of DAI. There will always be some worshipers of DAI who will treat it as sacred book and reject science but we see worshipers in many other things, for example people who worship earth as flat.

But fortunately, what enter in the world's knowledge base are rigorous scientific papers and books (what is basis for human progress), not illusions.

Sile
04-11-17, 03:16
Dr Dzino is under the influence of Romainan scholar F. Curta who is a famous "antimigrationist" so nobody should be surprised. In his work he completely denies any Slavic demographic influence. They interpret all available sources in a way to fit to their premises. Ten years ago they might think that genetics is on their "side", but it seems that they bet on a wrong horse...
:grin:

Be careful of migratioanalists, they are the biggest fabricators of lies on this planet.......they state anything and everything and also discard all proof of who they are.

Wonomyro
04-11-17, 11:30
"Administrando imperio" that book was originally written in Greek,the name we know today is added later.
Tibor Zivkovic after studying the book for 20 years came to conclusion that chapter 30 is added later and whatever chapters are dealing with this "stories".Also no humanist or historian knew that "story" prior Johannes Meursis publish it in Latin 16/17th century.
Prior works from Mauro Orbini who use this book as source there is no trace of this story,or priest of Dioclea who tell us different story and all other prior historians take foreigners like Dandolo.
The most funny thing for me is that Emperor Constantine himself said that the word Croat in Slavic mean "one who posses much land" and compare it with Greek word χώρα (chora).
I very much doubt the emperor was so "literate".

Bit later,Johannes Lucius a Venetian who today Croats call him "Ivan Lucic" started propagate this story and with his edition on historia Salonitana.

I think that the English translation is more accurate:


‘Croats’ in the Slav tongue means ‘those who occupy much territory’

Well, that “etymological” detail is particularly challenging. The word obviously doesn’t have such meaning in “the Slav tongue” but most probably in Greek (χώρα). It is a direct proof that Constantine was making up things, especially due to the fact that the same information does not exist in chapter 30! This is the additional reason why we should trust chapter 30 version as more truthful.

But why would Constantine do that? The reason might be very simple if we recall the purpose of the document and that is the education of the young emperor. Constantine used a memory technique called "memorizing by association" to make easier for the young emperor remember foreign peoples' names, especially to distinguish Croats from Serbs which was quite difficult task for Byzantines.

I browsed the web a little and find a topic on that technique:


Investigate and note intuitive relationships between the elements and your own experience. This is called memorizing by association. The relationships don't need to be rational, only memorable (interesting, funny, enjoyable) and inspirational.

To illustrate this, let’s imagine a conversation:
Q: What is the name of that nation who occupied much territory?
A: Let me think ... much territory...borders...chora... yes! - Chorvati!

Milan.M
04-11-17, 12:03
[email protected]
With all due respect but i trust none of those "chapters",and i believe they are later edition added by late readers,like i said there is no indication that that story was known to any historian prior the Dutch Johannes Meursis edition in Latin in the 16/17th century.
Find me any historian prior him that used this source and many did used the book.
Just a bit later like i said firstly Johannes Lucius a Venetian from Trogir will use this in his De regno Dalmatiae and Croatiae published in Amsterdam.
Any coincidences?
Why would "mythomans" from South Slavic origin tell different stories like priest of Dioclea,like Mauro Orbini and even foreign like Dandolo than a bit later Venetian from 17th century.
Political reasons might be the cause,but why i should trust them more than the said above?

And you alone can choose what the "truth" can be for you.

Garrick
04-11-17, 12:19
Written records indicate that Croats come from White Croatia in 7th century.

No, chronicles from 7th and 8th century speak only about Slavs.

First time Croatian name is mentioned in Latin charter in 9th century (Dux Chroatorum).

Scientists argue if Croatian identity in Dalmatia and surrounding emerged in 9th century or 10th century, but not before.

De Administrando Impero is not chronicle, it is written in 10th century, much after arrival of Slavs.

It is manual for the use of son of Eastern Roman Emperor Constantine VII.

Dr Francesco Borri and other experts of Institute of Medieval Research, Vienna, a department of Austrian Academy of Science, explained essence of DAI, narrative and legendary elements, and motives of Emperor to have Croats as allies against Bulgars.

Science explained but of course always will be worshipers about DAI as Holy Scripture, as there are worshipers who think that earth is flat.

Wonomyro
04-11-17, 12:21
[email protected] With all due respect but i trust none of those "chapters",and i believe they are later edition added by late readers,like i said there is no indication that that story was known to any historian prior the Dutch Johannes Meursis edition in Latin in the 16/17th century. Find me any historian prior him that used this source and many did used the book. Just a bit later like i said firstly Johannes Lucius a Venetian from Trogir will use this in his De regno Dalmatiae and Croatiae published in Amsterdam. Any coincidences? Why would "mythomans" from South Slavic origin tell different stories like priest of Dioclea,like Mauro Orbini and even foreign like Dandolo than a Venetian from 17th century. Political reasons might be the cause,but why i should trust them more than the said above? And you alone can choose what the "truth" can be for you. Why should we trust the story from the chapter 30? Because it's elements can be recognized in other sources. If you like I can list them and we can discuss them in more detail.

Garrick
04-11-17, 12:25
Dr Francesco Borri is stronger than genetics, hahahaha he did not write DAI and his comment is as good as your comment.

This is what laymen think about scientists, science is complex and complicated, laymen with much less knowledge (superficial) think that "know" more.

Dr Francesco Borri is scientist for respect, as all scientists in Institute of Medieval Research, Venna, a department of Austrian Academy of Science.

You laugh at the Austrian Academy of Sciences and you think you know more of them!?, nonsense.

It is childish, honestly if you want be in subject you must learn much more, study history and do serious scientific work, and after that you should write scientific paper and publish in reputable scientific journal, the laughing at the scientists in forum is not helpful.

Genetics doesn't say what you think, we can see some Serbs, Bosniacs and Croats have same subclade and it is what genetics say, whole construct further is your imagination.

Milan.M
04-11-17, 12:30
Why should we trust the story from the chapter 30? Because it's elements can be recognized in other sources. If you like I can list them and we can discuss them in more detail.
List that chapter and give me other source with such elements but from earlier works and not later works which can be copied or influenced from this one.
Source ealirer than Johannes Meursis edition that is 16/17th century.

Wonomyro
04-11-17, 13:02
Science explained but of course always will be worshipers about DAI as Holy Scripture, as there are worshipers who think that earth is flat.

Sadly, only you here show the “worshipper” behaviour towards the work of Dr. Borri. You are accepting whatever they claim without any criticism. I’ve already presented you at least three weak points in his work. The map of the Italian related genetics all over the Mediterranean is the most convincing one. It show that even Bulgaria has more Italian-like ancestry then the neighbouring eastern Adriatic coast. How can it be like that without a dramatic demographic change after a fall of Roman Empire. How can we completely disregard all historical sources where each of them mention some kind of mass migration that occurred in that period?

We have so far:
1. Linguistic evidence – Yes, I can almost read Polish even I've never learned that language.
2. Genetic evidence - Autosomal and Y-DNA data show the relations with the area of S-I Poland, W-Ukraine.
3. Historical sources: DAI, “Historia Salonitana”, “Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja”,…

How much more do we need? And who do you think here is a nationalist?

Wonomyro
04-11-17, 13:53
List that chapter and give me other source with such elements but from earlier works and not later works which can be copied or influenced from this one.
Source ealirer than Johannes Meursis edition that is 16/17th century.

I'll be glad to do that. This is the part of the 30. chapter:


But the Croats at that time were dwelling beyond Bavaria, where the Belocroats are now. From them split off a family of five brothers, (...), who came with their folk to Dalmatia and found the Avars in possession of that land. After they had fought one another for some years, the Croats prevailed and killed some of the Avars and the remainder they compelled to be subject to them.

The fight and win over Avars is known form Frankish sources:


The Royal Frankish Annals makes mention of a Wonomyrus Sclavus (Vojnomir the Slav) active in 795. Eric of Friuli, sent Vojnomir with his army into Pannonia, between the Danube and Tisza, where they pillaged the Avars' dominions

Wonomyrus (Vojnomir) is typical Croatian medieval name, especially due to a high occurrence of the "-mir" suffix in Croatian dukes' and kings' names: Brani-mir, Trpi-mir, Kreši-mir, Zvoni-mir, Munci-mir... Vojnomir:


...according to Francis Dvornik, he launched a joint counterattack with the help of Frankish troops under King Charlemagne in 791, successfully driving the Avars out of Croatia.

So far we can safely make a conclusion that Franks have Slav vassals before the fall of the Avar state. Let’s go back to the chapter 30:


For a number of years the Croats of Dalmatia also were subject to the Franks, as they had formerly been in their own country (…)

There is more of it of course...

Milan.M
04-11-17, 14:04
That is all good,but where you find a story similar to this one,that Belocroats dwelled beyond Bavaria? that from there came to Dalmatia,let alone fighting against Avars which can be written any time.In Frankish annals Wendish or Sclavene king Samo fought also the Avars,Sclavenes in Greek sources fought also the Avars and so on.. leave that alone.
Wonomyrus Sclavus (Slav) with Eric of Friuli can be Carantanian (ancestor of Slovenes) and that is not just Croat name.
I am interested in confirming the "emperor" story of this migration in other sources.

And who is Francis Dvornik i am asking older sources not interpretation of historians.

What was former country of the Croats? who wrote that,give me sources not interpretations.

Milan.M
04-11-17, 14:13
1. Linguistic evidence – Yes, I can almost read Polish even I've never learned that language.
2. Genetic evidence - Autosomal and Y-DNA data show the relations with the area of S-I Poland, W-Ukraine.
3. Historical sources: DAI, “Historia Salonitana”, “Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja”,…


The historic sources you listed here my friend are not at all similar to one another,as far i know in both Historia Salonitana and Chronicle of Dioclea the Slavs are Goths in reality.In real world today they aren't neither are in DAI.

I also wrote prior who edited Historia Salonitana,Venetian Johannes Lucius and published it along with the new "translation" of DAI by Johannes Meursis(perhaps to support his new theory) in the regno Dalmatiae and Croatiae,but the Goths still remained Slavs in Historia Salonitana,still much was need to be done to be changed that.

A. Papadimitriou
04-11-17, 14:41
That is all good,but where you find a story similar to this one,that Belocroats dwelled beyond Bavaria? that from there came to Dalmatia,let alone fighting against Avars which can be written any time.In Frankish annals Wendish or Sclavene king Samo fought also the Avars,Sclavenes in Greek sources fought also the Avars and so on.. leave that alone.
Wonomyrus Sclavus (Slav) with Eric of Friuli can be Carantanian (ancestor of Slovenes) and that is not just Croat name.
I am interested in confirming the "emperor" story of this migration in other sources.

And who is Francis Dvornik i am asking older sources not interpretation of historians.

What was former country of the Croats? who wrote that,give me sources not interpretations.
Actually the text doesn't say 'beyond Bavaria' but 'next to Bagibaria' (ΒΑΓΙΒΑΡΕΙΑ)

If Βαγιβαρεία is Bavaria, Croats, according to the text (which can be wrong), came from Carinthia or Bohemia.

(Btw the texts that are attributed to an emperor could have been written by multiple persons.)

Wonomyro
04-11-17, 15:29
That is all good,but where you find a story similar to this one,that Belocroats dwelled beyond Bavaria? that from there came to Dalmatia,let alone fighting against Avars which can be written any time.

We'll come back to Belocroats. Why should I "let alone fighting against Avars"? This is the key element of the story which has the confirmation in the Royal Frankish Annals. Your asked for the early source and I gave it to you.



In Frankish annals Wendish king Samo fought also the Avars,Sclavenes in Greek sources fought also the Avars and so on.. leave that alone.

It is not just fighting against Avars, but their complete defeat. That was obviously said in both sources. The land we speak about is not the Samo’s realm but Dalmatia and Panonnia, two new territories taken by the Franks after the fall of the Khaganate. It was also Franks who’s role was explicitly mentioned in both sources.


Wonomyrus Sclavus (Slav) with Eric of Friuli can be Carantanian (ancestor of Slovenes) and that is not just Croat name.

This is a childish argument. What makes you think that present day Slovenes and Croats had different ancestors in the 8th century? And give me please equally valuable argument to support your “Slovene but not Croat” origin of Wonomyro. The Croats were regulary called Slavs in western sources, and today Slovenes got that ethnic name only since 19.th century. And what makes you believe that Carantanians are direct ancestors of present day Slovenians? The territory of 8th century Carantania does not even overlap with today Slovenia...(with all respect to my dear Slovenians).


I am interested in confirming the "emperor" story of this migration in other sources.

I am first trying to show you that the chapter 30. is reliable source for the Croatian history. If enough elements of the story, by comparing it with other sources, can be confirmed as truthful, that we can accept the rest of the text as credible. For the beginning do we agree that the chapter 30. was not emperor’s work, but added later as T. Živković suggested?


And who is Francis Dvornik i am asking older sources not interpretation of historians.

Haven’t I mentioned “Royal Frankish Annals”? Isn't it old enough? A comment on the source from the expert won’t hurt:


Francis Dvornik (Chomýž, 14 August 1893 – Chomýž, 4 November 1975), in Czech František Dvorník, was a priest and academic, and one of the leading twentieth-century experts on Slavic and Byzantine history, and on relations between the churches of Rome and Constantinople.


What was former country of the Croats? who wrote that,give me sources not interpretations.

First I would like you to agree with me on obvious facts that there were other earlier source(s) (RFA) which tell us about some Slavs being Frankish ally, who fought against Avars for several years, defeated them, remained Frankish vassals after the event, and created dukedoms on the territory of the former Avar possession between Adriatic see and the Danube river.

Wonomyro
04-11-17, 15:34
That is all good,but where you find a story similar to this one,that Belocroats dwelled beyond Bavaria? that from there came to Dalmatia,let alone fighting against Avars which can be written any time.

We'll come back to Belocroats. Why should I "let alone fighting against Avars"? This is the key element of the story which has the confirmation in the Royal Frankish Annals. Your asked for the early source and I gave it to you.



In Frankish annals Wendish king Samo fought also the Avars,Sclavenes in Greek sources fought also the Avars and so on.. leave that alone.

It is not just fighting against Avars, but their complete defeat. That was obviously said in both sources. The land we speak about is not the Samo’s realm but Dalmatia and Panonnia, two new territories taken by the Franks after the fall of the Khaganate. It was also Franks who’s role was explicitly mentioned in both sources.

Wonomyro
04-11-17, 15:35
Wonomyrus Sclavus (Slav) with Eric of Friuli can be Carantanian (ancestor of Slovenes) and that is not just Croat name.

This is a childish argument. What makes you think that present day Slovenes and Croats had different ancestors in the 8th century? And give me please equally valuable argument to support your “Slovene but not Croat” origin of Wonomyro. The Croats were regulary called Slavs in western sources, and today Slovenes got that ethnic name only since 19.th century. And what makes you believe that Carantanians are direct ancestors of present day Slovenians? The territory of 8th century Carantania does not even overlap with today Slovenia...(with all respect to my dear Slovenians).


I am interested in confirming the "emperor" story of this migration in other sources.

I am first trying to show you that the chapter 30. is reliable source for the Croatian history. If enough elements of the story, by comparing it with other sources, can be confirmed as truthful, that we can accept the rest of the text as credible. For the beginning do we agree that the chapter 30. was not emperor’s work, but added later as T. Živković suggested?


And who is Francis Dvornik i am asking older sources not interpretation of historians.

Haven’t I mentioned “Royal Frankish Annals”? Isn't it old enough? A comment on the source from the expert won’t hurt:


Francis Dvornik (Chomýž, 14 August 1893 – Chomýž, 4 November 1975), in Czech František Dvorník, was a priest and academic, and one of the leading twentieth-century experts on Slavic and Byzantine history, and on relations between the churches of Rome and Constantinople.


What was former country of the Croats? who wrote that,give me sources not interpretations.

First I would like you to agree with me on obvious facts that there were other earlier source(s) (RFA) which tell us about some Slavs being Frankish ally, who fought against Avars for several years, defeated them, remained Frankish vassals after the event, and created dukedoms on the territory of the former Avar possession between Adriatic see and the Danube river.

Milan.M
04-11-17, 16:00
This is a childish argument. What makes you think that present day Slovenes and Croats had different ancestors in the 8th century? And give me please equally valuable argument to support your “Slovene but not Croat” origin of Wonomyro. The Croats were regulary called Slavs in western sources, and today Slovenes got that ethnic name only since 19.th century. And what makes you believe that Carantanians are direct ancestors of present day Slovenians? The territory of 8th century Carantania does not even overlap with today Slovenia...(with all respect to my dear Slovenians).
I am not speaking of different ancestors here,i am saying that if he had a name Wonomyros doesn't mean he was Croat.He can be anything if you want him to be Croat i am fine with that.



I am first trying to show you that the chapter 30. is reliable source for the Croatian history. If enough elements of the story, by comparing it with other sources, can be confirmed as truthful, that we can accept the rest of the text as credible. For the beginning do we agree that the chapter 30. was not emperor’s work, but added later as T. Živković suggested?

You said you can bring a source that will state the same that Croats came from beyond or near Bavaria,so where is it?
In my opinion all those chapters are added later if you read carefully you can see that.


Haven’t I mentioned “Royal Frankish Annals”? Isn't it old enough? A comment on the source from the expert won’t hurt:
Your comment from Frankish annals speak of Croats fighting against Avars,and not of what i asked from you that is the Croat migration from beyond or near Bavaria in other sources.

Document from "expert" but 100 historian 100 interpretations,so i don't ask for comments from experts,i can always bring other ones with different opinions.






First I would like you to agree with me on obvious facts that there were other earlier source(s) (RFA) which tell us about some Slavs being Frankish ally, who fought against Avars for several years, defeated them, remained Frankish vassals after the event, and created dukedoms on the territory of the former Avar possession between Adriatic see and the Danube river.
I agree that dukedoms were created,but i did not wrote about this.


For last time;
I am requisting a source that describe the same story like in the DAI,but being older than 16/17th century,not fights against Avars,but the same confirmation about the Croat migration,the chapter which you believe to be true.

Also i am not saying that Croats were border guards of the Avars like some "experts" Garrick listed and were not Slavs and for that reason you brought Slavic name like Wonomyros into question.
Also i do not care about national bickering here.

LABERIA
04-11-17, 16:06
For example if Croatian ethnonym is Avarian than there is a high probability that Croats, or maybe better Proto-Croats, were Avarian elite surrounded by Slavs. Austrian researcher Kronsteiner highlights Croats were warrior class of Avar Khaganate, responsible for guarding the borders and controlling the Slavs, who made the defense belt of the center of Avarian state.
Is this your personal theory? Do you have any source to support your claims? Because i know an other story:

"Each year the Avars came to the Serbs to spend the winter and slept with the wives and daughters of the Serbs. The Serbs tolerated other perfidies as well, and also paid tribute to the Avars. The sons, however, which the Avars had fathered with the women and daughters of Serb menfolk, would not tolerate this brutal oppression and refused to subject themselves to Avars.
The Avars humiliated the Serbs, forcing them to draw their carts like pack horses."

Source:
-From the Chronicles of Fredegarius

'Visual History of the World', by Douglas G. Brinkley


Some people think about DAI as Holy Scripture, however scientists (as Dr Borri) clearly gave essential interpretation of DAI. There will always be some worshipers of DAI who will treat it as sacred book and reject science but we see worshipers in many other things, for example people who worship earth as flat.

But fortunately, what enter in the world's knowledge base are rigorous scientific papers and books (what is basis for human progress), not illusions.
There are different reasons why you attack DAI. One of the reason is this:

But when two brothers succeeded their father in the rule of Serbia, one of them, taking one half of the folk, claimed the protection of Heraclius, the emperor of the Romans, and the same emperor Heraclius recieved him and gave him a place in the province of Thessalonica to settle in, namely Serbia, which from that time has acquired this denomination. 'Serbs' in the tongue of the Romans is the word for 'slaves', whence the colloquial 'serbula' for menial shoes, and 'tzerboulianoi' for those who wear cheap, shoddy footgear. This name the Serbs acquired from their being slaves of the emperor of the Romans.
Source:
"DE ADMINISTRANDO IMPERIO" by Constantine Porphyrogenitus, paragraph 32, written between the years AD 948-952.

Milan.M
04-11-17, 16:14
Actually the text doesn't say 'beyond Bavaria' but 'next to Bagibaria' (ΒΑΓΙΒΑΡΕΙΑ)

If Βαγιβαρεία is Bavaria, Croats, according to the text (which can be wrong), came from Carinthia or Bohemia.

(Btw the texts that are attributed to an emperor could have been written by multiple persons.)
Thanks Papadimitriou.

Wonomyro
04-11-17, 16:53
The historic sources you listed here my friend are not at all similar to one another,as far i know in both Historia Salonitana and Chronicle of Dioclea the Slavs are Goths in reality.In real world today they aren't neither are in DAI.

True, these sources are not similar to one other, and that is good news, that means that the authors didn’t copy from each other so we can compare their stories and try to find out what is true.

True again, they were named “Slavs” much later due to the ideological reasons. But that doesn’t mean that these migrants were real Goths either. When we already mention Historia Salonitana there is one crucially important sentence which gives the answer to all naming problems that we have:


The people called Croats...Many call them Goths, and likewise Slavs

They were indeed Croats. Goths and Slavs were synonyms used by others. Luckily, Thomas the Archdeacon gave us the key how to read ancient medieval texts from Dalmatia. I don’t understand why many keep trying to invent any fantastic alternative explanations including conspiracy theories.


I also wrote prior who edited Historia Salonitana,Venetian Johannes Lucius and published it along with the new "translation" of DAI by Johannes Meursis(perhaps to support his new theory) in the regno Dalmatiae and Croatiae,but the Goths still remained Slavs in Historia Salonitana,still much was need to be done to be changed that.

See above.

Wonomyro
04-11-17, 17:04
Actually the text doesn't say 'beyond Bavaria' but 'next to Bagibaria' (ΒΑΓΙΒΑΡΕΙΑ)

If Βαγιβαρεία is Bavaria, Croats, according to the text (which can be wrong), came from Carinthia or Bohemia.

(Btw the texts that are attributed to an emperor could have been written by multiple persons.)

Thank you, Papadimitriou. This map shows Bavaria in 10th century:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/Karte_Herzogtum_Bayern_im_10._Jahrhundert.png

One can see that the most eastern border of Bavaria at that times touched Morawa river, which is the present border between Czechia and Slovakia. More northern were Bohemia and Poland.


De Administrando Imperio ("On the Governance of the Empire") is the Latin title of a Greek work written by the 10th-century Eastern Roman Emperor Constantine VII.

The viewpoint might be easily in Dalmatia.

Milan.M
04-11-17, 17:38
True, these sources are not similar to one other, and that is good news, that means that the authors didn’t copy from each other so we can compare their stories and try to find out what is true.

You again seem to not understand and comprehend,if that book was available to historians since the 10th century,many other historians will have used it instead until Johannes Lucius in the 17th century for first time.
Many were dealing with origins of Slavs earlier why would they avoid it when using the same book,they will skip this chapters.

True again, they were named “Slavs” much later due to the ideological reasons. But that doesn’t mean that these migrants were real Goths either. When we already mention Historia Salonitana there is one crucially important sentence which gives the answer to all naming problems that we have:



They were indeed Croats. Goths and Slavs were synonyms used by others. Luckily, Thomas the Archdeacon gave us the key how to read ancient medieval texts from Dalmatia. I don’t understand why many keep trying to invent any fantastic alternative explanations including conspiracy theories.


Whatever they was forget it,you had no answer neither sources i was asking.

Wonomyro
04-11-17, 18:46
I am not speaking of different ancestors here,i am saying that if he had a name Wonomyros doesn't mean he was Croat.He can be anything if you want him to be Croat i am fine with that.

I do not "want" to prove anything about Vojnomir. I am proving that the elements of the story of 30th chapter of DAI are supported with older sources,like Frankish Royal Annals. I took only one sentence fom the text and found at least three good parallels that support my claim.


You said you can bring a source that will state the same that Croats came from beyond or near Bavaria,so where is it?
In my opinion all those chapters are added later if you read carefully you can see that

Please, take a look at the map that I replied to Papadimitrou. That is Bavaria in 10th century, which was at the time spreading to present day Slovakia. That is Austria today. In order to get to Czechia or Poland from Dalmatia, the easiest way is through Austria.


Your comment from Frankish annals speak of Croats fighting against Avars,and not of what i asked from you that is the Croat migration from beyond or near Bavaria in other sources.

My comment about fighting the Avars has a purpose to show that many elements of the 30th chapter of DAI regarding the early Croatian history are supported in other sources.

Is Bavaria case also closed?


Document from "expert" but 100 historian 100 interpretations,so i don't ask for comments from experts,i can always bring other ones with different opinions.

I agree that dukedoms were created,but i did not wrote about this.

Again. Information about Slavic commander Vojnomir is the original information, not anyone’s interpretation.



For last time;
I am requisting a source that describe the same story like in the DAI,but being older than 16/17th century,not fights against Avars,but the same confirmation about the Croat migration,the chapter which you believe to be true.

Do you also want a list of personal names and birthdays of all migrants? And their favourite weapons? There is no such a consistent story. We must do it harder way.



Also i am not saying that Croats were border guards of the Avars like some "experts" Garrick listed and were not Slavs and for that reason you brought Slavic name like Wonomyros into question.
Also i do not care about national bickering here.

Regarding the -mir suffix, there is something more to say on it. It probably has the same meaning as -slav, but in Germanic language. It has something to do with fame or glory. Here is what I found on Vandalic language:

*mir/mer - *mērijaz - cf. Mär(chen), Mer- (in names) - mere (famous)

-slav - slavan - famous.

Wonomyro
04-11-17, 19:01
You again seem to not understand and comprehend,if that book was available to historians since the 10th century,many other historians will have used it instead until Johannes Lucius in the 17th century for first time.
Many were dealing with origins of Slavs earlier why would they avoid it when using the same book,they will skip this chapters.


What do you mean? That the chapter 30 was written much later? I don't believe it because geography is consistent with the 10th century and earlier time.




Whatever they was forget it,you had no answer neither sources i was asking.

I've answered it already. Even if I haven't, that would not change anything. And I managed to compare just one sentence...

hrvat22
04-11-17, 19:20
No, chronicles from 7th and 8th century speak only about Slavs.

First time Croatian name is mentioned in Latin charter in 9th century (Dux Chroatorum).

Scientists argue if Croatian identity in Dalmatia and surrounding emerged in 9th century or 10th century, but not before.

De Administrando Impero is not chronicle, it is written in 10th century, much after arrival of Slavs.

It is manual for the use of son of Eastern Roman Emperor Constantine VII.

Dr Francesco Borri and other experts of Institute of Medieval Research, Vienna, a department of Austrian Academy of Science, explained essence of DAI, narrative and legendary elements, and motives of Emperor to have Croats as allies against Bulgars.

Science explained but of course always will be worshipers about DAI as Holy Scripture, as there are worshipers who think that earth is flat.

I'm telling you that Italians today Croats call as Slavs, you talking about Croatian identity.

Croatian identity was not recorded in 7th century but it not mean that Croatians was not there.

Genetics will say when exactly Croats are coming and it will be final. If genes say that Croats coming in 5th century so it will be.

hrvat22
04-11-17, 19:53
List that chapter and give me other source with such elements but from earlier works and not later works which can be copied or influenced from this one.
Source ealirer than Johannes Meursis edition that is 16/17th century.

DAI 10th century


there came from Francia (610. (https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/610.) - 641. (https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/641.)), which lies between Croatia and Venice, a man named Martin, devoted to greatest extent, and dressed in a fame dress

From file Vitae romanorum pontificum, library IX century.


This ( Pope Ivan IV 640-642) sent in his time all over Dalmatia and Istria, a holy man named Martin, to redeem captives captured by the pagans

Heraklije I (610. (https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/610.) - 641. (https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/641.)), who are these pagans from year 640-642 which Porphyrogenits called as Croatians.?

hrvat22
04-11-17, 20:04
Milan.M;.



What was former country of the Croats? who wrote that,give me sources not interpretations.



I am interested in confirming the "emperor" story of this migration in other sources.

Not all historians from 6 and 7th century in Europe writte about Croatians and their migration.

We have Historia Salonitana (https://www.google.hr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwin-pPUv6XXAhXMxqQKHdNdDQUQFggmMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fhr.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FHistor ia_Salonitana&usg=AOvVaw0kypZ8XO8v1Kp3bXSJ0jWe), De administrando imperio, Vatican documents with Slavs in Istria and Dalmatia..and genetics that confirms De administrando imperio.

What else do we need, God's Word?

hrvat22
04-11-17, 20:08
Milan.M (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/members/51149-Milan-M)

You said you can bring a source that will state the same that Croats came from beyond or near Bavaria,so where is it?
In my opinion all those chapters are added later if you read carefully you can see that.

http://www.waughfamily.ca/Ancient/Tree%20and%20Map%20for%20Hg%20I.pdf

Wonomyro
04-11-17, 21:08
OK, let's debunk another mystification. What does it mean if some text was "added later" to a document. That means just that: the text was added later. It doesn't mean that the text itself was created later nor that the version of the story was the later version of the same.

However, it is very likely that the content of the 30th chapter might represented the original version based on which Constantine created his own "more actual" histories of the "nations" in Dalmatia. Later someone decided to add it to the whole.

If anyone wants, I can demonstrate that the story of Croats in the 30th chapter is very likely the older version then the one written by Constantine.

Sile
04-11-17, 21:41
[email protected]
With all due respect but i trust none of those "chapters",and i believe they are later edition added by late readers,like i said there is no indication that that story was known to any historian prior the Dutch Johannes Meursis edition in Latin in the 16/17th century.
Find me any historian prior him that used this source and many did used the book.
Just a bit later like i said firstly Johannes Lucius a Venetian from Trogir will use this in his De regno Dalmatiae and Croatiae published in Amsterdam.
Any coincidences?
Why would "mythomans" from South Slavic origin tell different stories like priest of Dioclea,like Mauro Orbini and even foreign like Dandolo than a bit later Venetian from 17th century.
Political reasons might be the cause,but why i should trust them more than the said above?
And you alone can choose what the "truth" can be for you.
One needs to consider the works of lucius, with the earlier and later works by Andrea Navagero, Andrea Dandolo and Marcantonio Sebellico ........who where all combined in the work of Diedo and the book Illyricum Sacrum pub 1751, in which it states that the only true Illyricum was Dalmatia and nothing else and that the croats absorbed the Dalmatians ( illyrians ) into croat and hence slav society.
missing was Ragusa at this time, they avoided the early absorption of the croats

Wonomyro
05-11-17, 00:47
Now it realy looks like some conspiracy theory: we don’t know what they changed, when they did it, what motives did they have. We don't even know who they realy were...!

But we are pretty much confident that they did it, and still use it against us!

:petrified:

Garrick
05-11-17, 01:16
There are different reasons why you attack DAI.


No, you didn't read earlier pages, or didn't understand, or maybe don't want understand.

What attack (?), it is not essence, what in DAI write about Serbs is not important for this discussion, about Serbian ethnonym (probably it is an endonym) there are hundred theories and sources, this issue is not solved, and therefore everyone can think what he or she wants among many different possibilities and efforts of scholars.

What is essence for this thread scientists of Institute of Medieval Research in Vienna, a department of Austrian Academy of Science, including Dr Francesco Borri researcher of this Institute, analyzed in detail all of the relevant facts about DAI and Croats and practically set the standard, which historians high respect now.

Some Croatian historians, even if they do not agree, do not want to contradict much to experts of Institute of Medieval Research in Vienna, and it is clear, because nobody of scientists want to be "quasi" scientist.

Unfortunately, we can see here that some people (amateurs) laugh at scientists and experts, what is senseless.

Milan.M
05-11-17, 02:06
Now it realy looks like some conspiracy theory: we don’t know what they changed, when they did it, what motives did they have. We don't even know who they realy were...!

But we are pretty much confident that they did it, and still use it against us!

:petrified:
I trust more other historians than DAI,that is not a conspiracy.

Garrick
05-11-17, 02:41
Be careful of migratioanalists, they are the biggest fabricators of lies on this planet.......they state anything and everything and also discard all proof of who they are.

Right, if we consider we can speak about process not quick event.

When Slavs came to Dalmatia and surrounding there were natives who spoke some variant of Italo-Dalmatian language including Venetian (Italic people, descendants of Liburnians, and Romanized Illyrians).

It wasn't a quick process where one population has replaced another, on the contrary, the process was slow. Some people who spoke Italo-Dalmatian languages during the centuries migrated mostly to Italy, some people assimilated in Slavs, later Croats, but a part of these people lived for centuries and nurtured their languages.

Dalmatian language has long existed, during centuries, meaning that there were residents who spoke it. Dalmatian had several dialects, two most important were: Ragusian (Southern dialect) and Vegliot (Northern dialect). A lot of medieval texts of Dalmatia were written in Dalmatian.

Dalmatian existed very long, the last speaker Tuone Udaina lived 1821-1898.

Venetian was spoken in Istria, and some towns of Dalmatia and parts of Slovenia. Till late 18th century Istrian residents were linked with Italian culture via Venetian language.

Italy united 1861 and after that Italian language became dominant, speakers of Italo-Dalmatian languages during time adopted Italian.

Wonomyro
05-11-17, 03:03
I trust more other historians than DAI,that is not a conspiracy.

This is how you reacted when I cited a historian just few hours ago:


And who is Francis Dvornik i am asking older sources not interpretation of historians.

Have you changed your mind? Or you just cant find more arguments, like Garrick who mentioned Dr. Borry at least 20 times but in a meantime said nothing new. Just like Dr Borry in his text...

Garrick
05-11-17, 03:18
Distribution of the Italian admixture in Europe: https://www.eupedia.com/europe/autosomal_maps_dodecad.shtml#Italian

What do you want say with this map?

Milan.M
05-11-17, 03:19
This is how you reacted when I cited a historian just few hours ago:



Have you changed your mind? Or you just cant find more arguments, like Garrick who mentioned Dr. Borry at least 20 times but in a meantime said nothing new. Just like Dr Borry in his text...
I was refering there not to a new era historians,but medieval sources and historians.
What kind of arguments,i am not here to argue and waste my time for that.I said my opinion and that's it.

Wonomyro
05-11-17, 03:26
What do you want say with this map? This map speaks for itself more convincingly then anything I found in that political pamphlet...

Wonomyro
05-11-17, 03:37
I was refering there not to a new era historians,but medieval sources and historians. What kind of arguments,i am not here to argue and waste my time for that.I said my opinion and that's it. Fair enough, Milan, it was pleasure to discuss with you.

Garrick
05-11-17, 11:30
This map speaks for itself more convincingly then anything I found in that political pamphlet...

Unfortunately it is not good example.

Do not get me wrong, I have nothing against your logic.

A lot of people here and in other forums do same, all of them see today's situation.

But today's situation is different then yesterday's situation and day before yesterday, things are changing, it is reason why scientists say that only research of haplogroups in different epochas in any area can say what's happened and how haplogroups changed.

Italians once lived in Dalmatia and Istria in larger numbers, sources mention 230,000-350,000 Italians escaped between 1943-1960:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istrian-Dalmatian_exodus

If they remained, today Maciamo's picture about Italian admixture would be different.

Wonomyro
05-11-17, 13:03
Unfortunately it is not good example. Do not get me wrong, I have nothing against your logic. A lot of people here and in other forums do same, all of them see today's situation. But today's situation is different then yesterday's situation and day before yesterday, things are changing, it is reason why scientists say that only research of haplogroups in different epochas in any area can say what's happened and how haplogroups changed. Italians once lived in Dalmatia and Istria in larger numbers, sources mention 230,000-350,000 Italians escaped between 1943-1960: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istrian-Dalmatian_exodus If they remained, today Maciamo's picture about Italian admixture would be different.

@Garrick, with all respect to your person, I must notice that you either don't understand data you are presenting or you are trying to manipulate with them. The numbers that you are presenting are mainly from Istria, the province which is the part of Croatia (and Slovenia) only after the WWII. That has nothing to do with the medieval Croatia. Many of these people were Italians from the southern Italy who were settled there only during Mussolini times. However there were also many locals of Venetian origin. In the other parts of Croatia the Italians were living in some coastal cities, many of them were only Italicised locals, as the Italian was a prestige identity for some of them. Remnants of the old Dalmatians lived in some islands and cities but they were absorbed by the Croatian majority over time. We are happy and proud that we do not have only Slavic roots but also partly Mediterranean. I am especially happy about that. However the truth is that, except near the coastal line, the genetic impact of the indigenous population were never significant. And that is all in accordance with the chapter 30th of DAI and Histora Salonitana.

Take a look into the autosomal diagrams and ask yourself why present day Croats are located in the cluster with Hungarians, not with Italians, Albanians and Bulgarians, not even Serbs from Serbia.

Also, this is the map of Istria from the article that you linked (Istra Census 1910):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Istria_census_1910.PNG (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Istria_census_1910.PNG)(Percentages represent the Italian minority.)

Sile
05-11-17, 18:17
No, you didn't read earlier pages, or didn't understand, or maybe don't want understand.
What attack (?), it is not essence, what in DAI write about Serbs is not important for this discussion, about Serbian ethnonym (probably it is an endonym) there are hundred theories and sources, this issue is not solved, and therefore everyone can think what he or she wants among many different possibilities and efforts of scholars.
What is essence for this thread scientists of Institute of Medieval Research in Vienna, a department of Austrian Academy of Science, including Dr Francesco Borri researcher of this Institute, analyzed in detail all of the relevant facts about DAI and Croats and practically set the standard, which historians high respect now.
Some Croatian historians, even if they do not agree, do not want to contradict much to experts of Institute of Medieval Research in Vienna, and it is clear, because nobody of scientists want to be "quasi" scientist.
Unfortunately, we can see here that some people (amateurs) laugh at scientists and experts, what is senseless.
read
Venice and the Slavs: The Discovery of Dalmatia in the Age of Enlightenment
By Larry Wolff
Venetian archives state these people from the area from the time Dalmatian went under Venice ( time of Pietro Orseolo ) to 1760
Dalmatians = only original illyrians
Croati = croatians
Istri = istrians
malocchi = Serbs
Narentani = from Neretva , ( I suspect Bosnians but I am unsure )
Filip Grabovac in 1747 was the first slav to mention the word Narod to describe one people, he used it to mix the croatians and illyrians ( dalmatians ) into one nation under the slav term even though they where different people.

https://www.omniglot.com/writing/dalmatian.htm

Zanatis
05-11-17, 23:03
read
Venice and the Slavs: The Discovery of Dalmatia in the Age of Enlightenment
By Larry Wolff
Venetian archives state these people from the area from the time Dalmatian went under Venice ( time of Pietro Orseolo ) to 1760
Dalmatians = only original illyrians
Croati = croatians
Istri = istrians
malocchi = Serbs
Narentani = from Neretva , ( I suspect Bosnians but I am unsure )
Filip Grabovac in 1747 was the first slav to mention the word Narod to describe one people, he used it to mix the croatians and illyrians ( dalmatians ) into one nation under the slav term even though they where different people.

Malocchi lol

That's the Albanian word for 'mountain dweller" used nowadays as a derogatory term referring to a Gheg (North Albanian). Similarly, Serbs of Sumadija used to call the mountain dwellers Gega (Albanian name as well as meaning North Albanian).

Now you can carry on with your discussion.

Miroslav
06-11-17, 00:05
Malocchi lol

The actual word is Morlacchi in Italian, Morlaci in Croatian and Serbian, Morlachs in English. Although initially it did, later including the source, has nothing to do with ethnogenesis as with political misinterpretation of the factual reality on the field. Do not open the pandora's box.

Miroslav
06-11-17, 00:24
I read critiques of them only from some Croatians, otherwise in the Europe and world they are very respectable and what is important, Institute of Medieval Research in Vienna, a department of the Austrian Academy of Science established standard. Even some Croatian historians, who are opposite side, avoid contradicting this Institute to not be shamed or dismissed as quasi scientists.

Things are clear, all chroniclers in the seventh and eighth centuries speak exclusively about the Slavs. Croatian identity emerged later.

What is origin Croatian ethnonym it is not clear, there are a lot of very different theories. But it is very important issue which can solve some dilemmas.

For example if Croatian ethnonym is Avarian than there is a high probability that Croats, or maybe better Proto-Croats, were Avarian elite surrounded by Slavs. Austrian researcher Kronsteiner highlights Croats were warrior class of Avar Khaganate, responsible for guarding the borders and controlling the Slavs, who made the defense belt of the center of Avarian state.

But I don't want speculate further about Croatian ethnomym because it is wider topic and requires new thread.

Some people think about DAI as Holy Scripture, however scientists (as Dr Borri) clearly gave essential interpretation of DAI. There will always be some worshipers of DAI who will treat it as sacred book and reject science but we see worshipers in many other things, for example people who worship earth as flat.

But fortunately, what enter in the world's knowledge base are rigorous scientific papers and books (what is basis for human progress), not illusions.

1) You consider those scientist, working in reliable institute, consideration as the ultimate authority and truth, which is wrong and not true. Stop spreading lies that Croatian scholars avoid contradicting this consideration. Stop constantly citing their name because such viewpoint does not get any kind of legitimacy doing so, and it became repetitive and boring to read. No wonder that you from Serbia, who previously emphasized that I-PH908 is of Serbian origin, suddenly, as if never heard about this theory was stuck by thunder light with final solution to oppose other's opinion like that of Hrvat22, and propagate viewpoint according to which is negated Slavic or even ethnic origin in general to Croats. This nationalistic i.e. chauvinistic jealousy in the Balkan with which you try to exploit as much as possible for your own benefit at the expense of another ethnic group, i.e. practically speaking transforming Croatian population to one of mostly Serbian ethnic origin - it's ridiculous and sick.

2) The origin of the Croatian ethnonym became more or less clear - it is of Iranian etymological origin. A theory initially considered by many foreign and respectable scientists.

3) Kronsteiner considerations were generally wrong and dismissed:

"The theory was initially developed by Otto Kronsteiner in 1978.[23][40] He tried to prove that early Croats were an upper caste of Avar origin, which blended with Slavic nobility during the 7th and 8th century and abandoned their Avar language.[41] As arguments for his thesis he considered the Tatar-Bashkir derivation of Croatian ethnonym;[41] that Croats and Avars are almost always mentioned together;[41] distribution of Avarian type of settlements where the Croatian ethnonym was as toponym, pagus Crouuati in Carinthia and Kraubath in Styria;[41] this settlements had Avarian names with suffix *-iki (-itji);[41] the commander of those settlements was Avarian Ban which name is located in the center of those settlements, Faning/Baniče < Baniki in Carinthia, and Fahnsdorf < Bansdorf in Styria;[41] the Avarian officers titles, besides Mong.-Turk. Khagan, the Kosezes/Kasazes, Ban and Župan.[41] Previously, by some Yugoslavian historians the toponym Obrov(ac) was also considered of Avar origin,[42] and according to Kronsteiner's claims, which many Nada Klaić accepted, Klaić moved the ancient homeland of White Croats to Carantania.[41]

However, according to Peter Štih and modern scholars, Kronsteiner arguments were plain assumptions which historians can not objectively accept as evidence.[43] Actually, the etymology derivation is one of many, and is not generally accepted;[44][45] the Croats are mentioned along the Avars only in the Constantine VII's work, but always as enemies of the Avars, who destroyed and expelled their authority from Dalmatia;[46] those settlements had widespread Slavic suffix ići, the settlements do not have the semicircular Avar type arrangement, and the Ban's settlements could not be his seat as are very small and are not found on any important crossroad or geographical location;[47] the titles origin and derivation are unsolved, and they are not found among Avars and Avar language;[47][48] toponyms with root Obrov derive from South Slavic verb "obrovati" (to dig a trench) and are mostly of later date (from the 14th century).[42]"

4) You consider that Serbian historian Tibor Živković, among many others, are demagogues while interpreting DAI, and that only these few scientists like Pohl and Borri who recycle one and the same interpretation propagated within Austrian institute are not? If DAI is not such a "sacred book", you're really making a stupid comparison, then are you willing to accept that what's written in it about Serbs is also an illusion? Or is it only illusion regarding to Croats? You know your kind of writing thought has an intense hypocrisy.

Wonomyro
06-11-17, 00:50
Malocchi lol

That's the Albanian word for 'mountain dweller" used nowadays as a derogatory term referring to a Gheg (North Albanian). Similarly, Serbs of Sumadija used to call the mountain dwellers Gega (Albanian name as well as meaning North Albanian).

Now you can carry on with your discussion.

Are there Orthodox Christian Ghegs?

Garrick
06-11-17, 00:50
read
Venice and the Slavs: The Discovery of Dalmatia in the Age of Enlightenment
By Larry Wolff
Venetian archives state these people from the area from the time Dalmatian went under Venice ( time of Pietro Orseolo ) to 1760
Dalmatians = only original illyrians
Croati = croatians
Istri = istrians
malocchi = Serbs
Narentani = from Neretva , ( I suspect Bosnians but I am unsure )
Filip Grabovac in 1747 was the first slav to mention the word Narod to describe one people, he used it to mix the croatians and illyrians ( dalmatians ) into one nation under the slav term even though they where different people.

https://www.omniglot.com/writing/dalmatian.htm

It is very interesting, but one mistake what doesn't matter.

Dalmatians = Romanized Illyrians (language Dalmatian, belongs to Italo-Dalmatian)

Istrians = Italic people (language Venetian, belongs to...? thoughts are divided Gallo-Italic, Italo-Dalmatian or solo group)

Where are descendants of Liburnians?
...

Croati = Croats (Hrvati)

No Malocchi, but Morlachus or Murlacus what is from Greek Μαυροβλάχοι, Morlacus = Vlachs (Aromunians), nothing to do neither Serbian nor Albanian (Gjuha Sqipe), maybe Malocchi is mistake or too distorded Greek word.

But I know what you wanted to say, later someone abusively Serbs called Morlachus (Morlaci).

Narentines were unbaptized Serbs (Srbi), Greeks called them Poganoi (pagans).

Objectively we cannot say that continuity existed because arrival of Slavs but it was not completly discontinuity because change of population was not fast, it was very slow process.

Therefore we can say about partial continuity.

By the way what happened with Liburnians, were they speak Dalmatian, Venetian or some other Italo-Romance language.

Garrick
06-11-17, 00:56
Are there Orthodox Christian Ghegs?

Do you know what is hepo dice?

Wonomyro
06-11-17, 01:07
Narentines were unbaptized Serbs (Srbi), Greeks called them Poganoi (pagans). The information on Serbs in Pagania exists only in DAI. (However, in the chapter 30th they are just Slavs).

What would Dr. Borry say to hear this? :useless:

Zanatis
06-11-17, 01:46
Are there Orthodox Christian Ghegs?
Yes. Spread mostly around Durres, Elbasan, Dibra, Montenegro, Macedonia, and even Kosovo. There are also Orthodox Arberesh in Calabaria called Ghegi by the locals.

Zanatis
06-11-17, 01:48
The actual word is Morlacchi in Italian, Morlaci in Croatian and Serbian, Morlachs in English. Although initially it did, later including the source, has nothing to do with ethnogenesis as with political misinterpretation of the factual reality on the field. Do not open the pandora's box.
Relax, I wasn't claiming anything besides the Gega in Sumadija of course. Too many interesting coincidences.

Garrick
06-11-17, 02:43
1) No wonder that you from Serbia, who previously emphasized that I-PH908 is of Serbian origin, suddenly, as if never heard about this theory was stuck by thunder light with final solution to oppose other's opinion like that of Hrvat22, and propagate viewpoint according to which is negated Slavic or even ethnic origin in general to Croats. This nationalistic i.e. chauvinistic jealousy in the Balkan with which you try to exploit as much as possible for your own benefit at the expense of another ethnic group, i.e. practically speaking transforming Croatian population to one of mostly Serbian ethnic origin - it's ridiculous and sick.


Never emphasized that I-PH908 is of Serbian origin nor thought about it. What I wrote that I-CTS10228 can be possible Bastarnae origin. And I remember that we had polemics that it could be Thracian, but there are reasons why Bastarnae can be strong candidate.

I don't know where you could see my nationalism, you should read what I wrote in thread of Balkan bickering, once was Yugoslav (but never Pan-Slavist) now I am European. I opened 0 threads about Serbs.

And you can search that in a lot of threads I wrote good things about all ex Yugoslav people, including Croats. For me bickering between Croats and Serbs today is absurd. Yes I criticized Macedonians some short time, long time ago, but with reason, because Greek history is not their history.


2) The origin of the Croatian ethnonym became more or less clear - it is of Iranian etymological origin. A theory initially considered by many foreign and respectable scientists.

Never said it is not Iranian, or it is, only gave more possibilities including Iranian what it is in public bases and books, my opinion it is not solved, as think same for Serbian ethnonim.


3) Kronsteiner considerations were generally wrong and dismissed:

"The theory was initially developed by Otto Kronsteiner in 1978.[23][40] He tried to prove that early Croats were an upper caste of Avar origin, which blended with Slavic nobility during the 7th and 8th century and abandoned their Avar language.[41] As arguments for his thesis he considered the Tatar-Bashkir derivation of Croatian ethnonym;[41] that Croats and Avars are almost always mentioned together;[41] distribution of Avarian type of settlements where the Croatian ethnonym was as toponym, pagus Crouuati in Carinthia and Kraubath in Styria;[41] this settlements had Avarian names with suffix *-iki (-itji);[41] the commander of those settlements was Avarian Ban which name is located in the center of those settlements, Faning/Baniče < Baniki in Carinthia, and Fahnsdorf < Bansdorf in Styria;[41] the Avarian officers titles, besides Mong.-Turk. Khagan, the Kosezes/Kasazes, Ban and Župan.[41] Previously, by some Yugoslavian historians the toponym Obrov(ac) was also considered of Avar origin,[42] and according to Kronsteiner's claims, which many Nada Klaić accepted, Klaić moved the ancient homeland of White Croats to Carantania.[41]

However, according to Peter Štih and modern scholars, Kronsteiner arguments were plain assumptions which historians can not objectively accept as evidence.[43] Actually, the etymology derivation is one of many, and is not generally accepted;[44][45] the Croats are mentioned along the Avars only in the Constantine VII's work, but always as enemies of the Avars, who destroyed and expelled their authority from Dalmatia;[46] those settlements had widespread Slavic suffix ići, the settlements do not have the semicircular Avar type arrangement, and the Ban's settlements could not be his seat as are very small and are not found on any important crossroad or geographical location;[47] the titles origin and derivation are unsolved, and they are not found among Avars and Avar language;[47][48] toponyms with root Obrov derive from South Slavic verb "obrovati" (to dig a trench) and are mostly of later date (from the 14th century).[42]"

Citated Kronsteirn in context. Not spoke that his words are ultimate truth. But it is true that he is scientist, it is not disputable.


4) You consider that Serbian historian Tibor Živković, among many others, are demagogues while interpreting DAI,

Never mention. Honestly I don't know about what you say or maybe you mix me with someone else.

It is true what I say, you can check, but please, you should apologize to me. You are member for respect, but you agree that you made mistake, what it is normal, everyone in the world can make mistake. And I sometimes inadvertenly make mistake, because of my English.

Please don't do what some other members do. One of them for example speaks that I wrote something what never wrote. After that several other members speak what he wrote as my words. But I explained them that it is illusion.


and that only these few scientists like Pohl and Borri who recycle one and the same interpretation propagated within Austrian institute are not? If DAI is not such a "sacred book", you're really making a stupid comparison, then are you willing to accept that what's written in it about Serbs is also an illusion? Or is it only illusion regarding to Croats? You know your kind of writing thought has an intense hypocrisy.

This is true, I cited Dr Borri and wrote about Dr Pohl. I am not much interested what is written about Serbs unless if it some thread which is interesting to me.

What people don't understand, Dr Francesco Borri is not a lonely rider. He is scientist of Institute of Medieval Research, Vienna, a department of Austrian Academy of Science. He was participant in scientific project of this Institute and his scientific paper is product of this project. All under the leadership of director this Institute Dr Pohl. And his paper is published in world renomated scientific journal. All this gives a great deal of weight to his work, and Institute continued to deal with the topic of early and middle ages in Dalmatia and surrounding, and published several titles.

I'm sorry for all those ex Yugoslav people who don't like what scientists this respectable of Institute research and write, but they are highly respected and cannot be ignored. Even Russian authors cite Dr Borri today. Institute broke some old misconceptions, and it is essentially remarkable, through discoveries and new knowledge continues human progress. There will always be people who do not accept new knowledge but science is moving forward.

My opinion is that the advancement of science can not be hypocrisy. About thinkings that science has bad side too, not only good, another time.

Bachus
06-11-17, 05:23
I2a-Din came to the Balkans with Slavs without any doubt.

Miroslav
06-11-17, 05:32
Never emphasized that I-PH908 is of Serbian origin nor thought about it. What I wrote that I-CTS10228 can be possible Bastarnae origin. And I remember that we had polemics that it could be Thracian, but there are reasons why Bastarnae can be a strong candidate.

What you write is the same nonsense which can be found at Serbian DNA Project (here by member Shetop, #442 at "Sarmatians, Serbs, Croats and I2a2") - no mention of White Croats, although are listed tribes who lived in the same territory as them, while making a ridiculous connection with Bastarnae and Celtic tribe Boii which related to the DAI connection of the White Serbia to the land of Boiki, regardless of ambiguity of the term Boiki, the same DAI you dismiss regarding the origin of Croats, the same chapters on Croats in DAI on which was based chapter on Serbs. If anything, it is really fascinating that people like you from Serbia use the account about White Serbia, yet ignore that the people who are really related to this mythical land, Sorbs, have about 65% R1a and almost no I2a-M423.


Citated Kronsteirn in context. Not spoke that his words are ultimate truth. But it is true that he is scientist, it is not disputable...

Your argumentation is basically "they are foreign and respectable scientists from institute hence have bigger authority", nevertheless they are not an even significant minority, nevertheless the criticism of their consideration, nevertheless they are not only scientists who have some kind of consideration regarding the subject, as if being scientist is exclusive to this handful of people. It is just a minority opinion considered by scientists you can number on fingers of one hand, yet you use in a way it is a legitimate and mainstream conclusion to negate Croatian ethnic origin or historical migration. The opinion itself is not even revolutionary, it is at least from the 1970s. No wonder that Borri was supervised by Pohl when he has a social interpretation of history - differently said, it is part of the Marxism influence on historiography which emphasized social rather than the ethnic viewpoint of history.

Bachus
06-11-17, 05:37
It is very interesting, but one mistake what doesn't matter.

Dalmatians = Romanized Illyrians (language Dalmatian, belongs to Italo-Dalmatian)

Istrians = Italic people (language Venetian, belongs to...? thoughts are divided Gallo-Italic, Italo-Dalmatian or solo group)

Where are descendants of Liburnians?
...

Croati = Croats (Hrvati)

No Malocchi, but Morlachus or Murlacus what is from Greek Μαυροβλάχοι, Morlacus = Vlachs (Aromunians), nothing to do neither Serbian nor Albanian (Gjuha Sqipe), maybe Malocchi is mistake or too distorded Greek word.

But I know what you wanted to say, later someone abusively Serbs called Morlachus (Morlaci).

Narentines were unbaptized Serbs (Srbi), Greeks called them Poganoi (pagans).

Objectively we cannot say that continuity existed because arrival of Slavs but it was not completly discontinuity because change of population was not fast, it was very slow process.

Therefore we can say about partial continuity.

By the way what happened with Liburnians, were they speak Dalmatian, Venetian or some other Italo-Romance language.

Morlachs came from central or southern Balkans in early 14th century in northern Dalmatia.
In late 15th century they migrated to the Kvarner and Istria, in Istria they were known as Ćići (Istro-Romanians).
Majority of them are croatized, today there is only few Istro-Romanian and only about 20 people speak Istro-Romanian language.

Istriots were native Romance people of Istria and they are unrelated with Istro-Romanians (Ćići).
Istriot language belong to Italic branch of Romance languages and Istro-Romanian language is branch of eastern Romance language as Romanian and Aromanian.

Sile
06-11-17, 05:59
The actual word is Morlacchi in Italian, Morlaci in Croatian and Serbian, Morlachs in English. Although initially it did, later including the source, has nothing to do with ethnogenesis as with political misinterpretation of the factual reality on the field. Do not open the pandora's box.
You are correct , that it the word once I rechecked my information.................Venice used it only for the serbs and also for the serb kingdom of Zeta in modern Montenegro

https://s20.postimg.org/apgimlabh/morl.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

there where some who thought the morlacchi where the bosnians

Sile
06-11-17, 06:09
It is very interesting, but one mistake what doesn't matter.
Dalmatians = Romanized Illyrians (language Dalmatian, belongs to Italo-Dalmatian)
Istrians = Italic people (language Venetian, belongs to...? thoughts are divided Gallo-Italic, Italo-Dalmatian or solo group)
Where are descendants of Liburnians?
...
Croati = Croats (Hrvati)
No Malocchi, but Morlachus or Murlacus what is from Greek Μαυροβλάχοι, Morlacus = Vlachs (Aromunians), nothing to do neither Serbian nor Albanian (Gjuha Sqipe), maybe Malocchi is mistake or too distorded Greek word.
But I know what you wanted to say, later someone abusively Serbs called Morlachus (Morlaci).
Narentines were unbaptized Serbs (Srbi), Greeks called them Poganoi (pagans).
Objectively we cannot say that continuity existed because arrival of Slavs but it was not completly discontinuity because change of population was not fast, it was very slow process.
Therefore we can say about partial continuity.
By the way what happened with Liburnians, were they speak Dalmatian, Venetian or some other Italo-Romance language.
After Rome fell, the dalmatians where illyrian plus latin in language ..............later it became italo-dalmatian.
..
Unsure if liburnians became istrians , dalmatians or became the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uskoks

Bachus
06-11-17, 07:01
Uskoks were Serbs and Croats not Dalmatian Romance speakers.

Bachus
06-11-17, 08:20
Some people think taht I2a is conected with Vlachs, but it is just stereotype, I2a have nothing to do with Vlachs and Alanians.

Vlachs are predominantloy R1b and J2b2 and Albanians are E-V13 and J2b2.

I2a among Vlachs and Albanians is Slavic influence.

Sile
06-11-17, 08:30
Uskoks were Serbs and Croats not Dalmatian Romance speakers.

I never said about Uskok language

Bachus
06-11-17, 08:38
I never said about Uskok language

In the time of Uskoks (16th and 17th century) there was no Romance speakers in Dalmatia except in few islands.

Romance language in Dubrovnik dissapeared in 15th century.