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]

LABERIA
06-11-17, 10:50
In some Albanian chronicles, during the Ottoman Empire, Serbs and other Slavs are mentioned as Croats.

Wonomyro
06-11-17, 11:57
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 there where some who thought the morlacchi where the bosnians

The catholic "Morlacks" or Vlachs could not have been Serbs for the simple reason – they were catholics. In Dubrovnik, the term "posbliti" (to serbify) had a meaning to convert one to Serbian Orthodox faith.

Many of those people were already Orthodox when appeared in the Venice controlled territory. They arrived with their Serbian priests who were often their spokesmen. And, sometimes, all what Venetians knew about them, came from the mouths of these priests.

On the other hand, the Turkish sources of the same period call all these people just Croats ("Hırvat").

Wonomyro
06-11-17, 12:36
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

The word “uskok” in Croatian means literarily “the one who jumped in”. The name was given to those who were often crossing military borders (jumped into the enemy’s territory). Over time it also became an ethnonyme (with a capital letter).

This only shows how much trust we should put in western sources when dealing with ethnicities of Dalmatia.

hrvat22
06-11-17, 13:38
In some Albanian chronicles, during the Ottoman Empire, Serbs and other Slavs are mentioned as Croats.

That's interesting to me, so if you have concrete data link etc...I would be grateful.

Bachus
06-11-17, 13:41
That's interesting to me, so if you have concrete data link etc...I would be grateful.

Serbs were Croats only in your dreams. :beer1:

hrvat22
06-11-17, 13:51
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.

I2a in seventh century comes to Greece, Bulgaria, Albania, Macedonia. He lives there for about 900 years and then when comes Turks that I2a comes to Croatia, Bosnia, etc with Vlachs name, therefore I2a with southeast European branches are and Vlach origin, and originally were majority of them of White Croatian origin. I2a with mutation I-S17250. From these directions usually come I2a Dinaric-N types.

Bachus
06-11-17, 13:53
I2a in seventh century comes to Greece, Bulgaria, Albania, Macedonia. He lives there for about 900 years and then when comes Turks that I2a comes to Croatia, Bosnia, etc with Vlachs name, therefore I2a with southeast European branches are and Vlach origin, and originally were majority of them of White Croatian origin. I2a with mutation I-S17250. From these directions usually come I2a Dinaric-N types.

If I2a came to Croatia/BiH with Vlachs then 37% of Croats in Croatia and 71% Croats from BiH are Vlachs which came with Turks, good point. :good_job:

hrvat22
06-11-17, 13:54
Serbs were Croats only in your dreams. :beer1:

I do not know how much you know genetics but it is undeniable.

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31539-Genetics-confirm-migration-of-White-Croats-to-Croatia

Bachus
06-11-17, 13:55
I do not know how much you know genetics but it is undeniable.

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31539-Genetics-confirm-migration-of-White-Croats-to-Croatia

Your source is your own post, hahhaaa very funny. :lmao:

hrvat22
06-11-17, 13:56
If I2a came to Croatia/BiH with Vlachs then 37% of Croats in Croatia and 71% Croats from BiH are Vlachs which came with Turks, good point. :good_job:

You may not understand in genetics, types I2a that exist in Greece, Bulgaria, Albania, Macedonia..not I2a.

hrvat22
06-11-17, 13:59
Your source is your own post, hahhaaa very funny. :lmao:

Nobody has been dispute my post which means that is true, you write topic of Serbs migration to Balkans and I dispute you.

LABERIA
06-11-17, 14:02
That's interesting to me, so if you have concrete data link etc...I would be grateful.
Sure.
1638
Frang Bardhi:The Pasha of Bosnia attacks Kelmendi


Report on the arrival of the Pasha of Bosnia in Albania with 15,000 men to destroy and annihilate the people of Kelmendi, in this year of our Lord 1638, at the beginning of the month of February.

... From such words and complaints, the Sultan grew angry with the people of Kelmendi and decided to attack them. He gave orders that a letter be sent to the Pasha of Bosnia to gather his forces as quickly as possible, as many men as he could muster, and to move on Albania without delay and destroy the Kelmendi, pardoning neither sex, and putting everything to fire and sword. With the order, he sent a rope and a turban. The rope was to remind him that if he did not destroy the Kelmendi, it would be used to hang him. The turban was purple cloth, a symbol of victory and the glory of victory. When the pasha received the order and reward from his lord, he set out to execute it. He gathered 15,000 men, continental Dalmatians, Croats, Serbs, Bulgarians and mostly Bosnians. All of them were large bearded men, but were unskilled in the art of warfare.
He summoned the sanjak beys of Shkodra and Dukagjin and ordered them to muster about a thousand Albanians, both Muslims and Christians, to join his 15,000 Slavs, or Harvats [Croats] as the Albanians commonly called them.

Source:
[Extracts from the report of Frang Bardhi [Francesco Bianchi], Relatione della venuta del Bassà di Bosna in Albania con 15 m. homini per destruger, e disfare i Populi di Clementi, ò Chelmendi nel corrente anno del Sig.re 1638 al principio del mese di febraro. Archives of the Propaganda Fide, Visite e Collegi 17, p. 153- 162. Relation II/30. Reprinted in: Peter Bartl (ed.), Albania Sacra, 3 (Wiesbaden 2014), p. 137-140; and in Injac Zamputti (ed.), Dokumente për historinë e Shqipërisë (1623-1653) (Sankt Gallen & Prishtina 2015), p. 193-198. Translated from the Italian by Robert Elsie.]

Bachus
06-11-17, 14:05
You may not understand in genetics, types I2a that exist in Greece, Bulgaria, Albania, Macedonia..not I2a.

If you think that I2-CTS10228 is Vlach origin then many Vlach settled in Zagorje because I2-CTS10228 is present in Zagorje/northwestern Croatia.

I2-PH908 does not exist among Croats from northwestern Croatia only CTS10228, on the other hand CTS10228 does not exist among Croats from Herzegovina only PH908. Among Dalmatian Croats CTS10228 exist around 10% but PH908 is much stronger.

If Serbs with CTS10228 are Vlach origin then Croats with CTS10228 are also Vlach origin.

Wonomyro
06-11-17, 14:16
Serbs were Croats only in your dreams.

Technically, such scenario is not quite impossible because:


The modern identity of Serbs is rooted in Eastern Orthodoxy and traditions. In the 19th century, the Serbian national identity was manifested, with awareness of history and tradition, medieval heritage, cultural unity, despite living under different empires. Three elements, together with the legacy of the Nemanjić dynasty, were crucial in forging identity and preservation during foreign domination: the Serbian Orthodox Church, the Serbian language, and Kosovo Myth.[25] When the Principality of Serbia gained independence from the Ottoman Empire, Orthodoxy became crucial in defining the national identity, instead of language which was shared by other South Slavs (Croats and Bosniaks). (...)
The origin of the ethnonym is unclear (…)

(...)

25. Ana S. Trbovich (2008). A Legal Geography of Yugoslavia's Disintegration. Oxford University Press, USA. pp. 69–. ISBN 978-0-19-533343-5.

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

hrvat22
06-11-17, 14:18
Sure.
1638
Frang Bardhi:The Pasha of Bosnia attacks Kelmendi

Source:
[Extracts from the report of Frang Bardhi [Francesco Bianchi], Relatione della venuta del Bassà di Bosna in Albania con 15 m. homini per destruger, e disfare i Populi di Clementi, ò Chelmendi nel corrente anno del Sig.re 1638 al principio del mese di febraro. Archives of the Propaganda Fide, Visite e Collegi 17, p. 153- 162. Relation II/30. Reprinted in: Peter Bartl (ed.), Albania Sacra, 3 (Wiesbaden 2014), p. 137-140; and in Injac Zamputti (ed.), Dokumente për historinë e Shqipërisë (1623-1653) (Sankt Gallen & Prishtina 2015), p. 193-198. Translated from the Italian by Robert Elsie.]

Thanks. Here is the fact that I know.


John Skylitzes, Latinized as Ioannes Scylitzes (1040-1101)
The Bulgarians ask Mihajlo, who then was ruler of those who were called Croats, who dwelt in Kotor and Prapratnici(Montenegro), and who had no small country under them, to help them and work with them, and to give them their son, which they will proclaim as Emperor of Bulgaria"
Mihailo, in Cyrillic Mihailo, the first king in Duklia and Montenegrin history, the head of the Dukedom state from the Vojislavljević dynasty from 1046 to 1081.

hrvat22
06-11-17, 14:34
If you think that I2-CTS10228 is Vlach origin then many Vlach settled in Zagorje because I2-CTS10228 is present in Zagorje/northwestern Croatia.

I2-PH908 does not exist among Croats from northwestern Croatia only CTS10228, on the other hand CTS10228 does not exist among Croats from Herzegovina only PH908. Among Dalmatian Croats CTS10228 exist around 10% but PH908 is much stronger.

If Serbs with CTS10228 are Vlach origin then Croats with CTS10228 are also Vlach origin.

If Croats with mutation CTS10228 which has source in Greece and if this mutation comes to Croatia before 300, 200 years is indeed Vlach origin. If CTS10228 do not come with Vlachs before 300, 200 years and if it's there 1000 years then it is not Vlach origin


among Croats from northwestern Croatia

Source of Croats is in Dalmatia not in northwestern Croatia, all mutations behind https://yfull.com/tree/I-S17250/ are White Croatian origin, so is and mutation I2-PH908.

LABERIA
06-11-17, 14:35
Technically, such scenario is not quite impossible because:



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

I think you are right. Orthodoxy played an important role in the definition of some of the modern nations in Balkans. My signature is another prove.

Wonomyro
06-11-17, 16:01
Sure. 1638 Frang Bardhi:The Pasha of Bosnia attacks Kelmendi (...)

Thank you, @LABERIA, for this very useful source.


He summoned the sanjak beys of Shkodra and Dukagjin and ordered them to muster about a thousand Albanians, both Muslims and Christians, to join his 15,000 Slavs, or Harvats [Croats] as the Albanians commonly called them. Italians don’t use the form “Harvat”. It is the Croatian archaic form. That could mean that Albanians got it very likely directly from Croats in earlier times, not mediated later via Venetians. The contact most likely occurred in medieval Dioclea (present day Montenegro and Western Albania).

Garrick
06-11-17, 23:56
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.

My theory about Bastarnae nothing to do with today's nations, South Slavic, Eastern Slavic, Western Slavic, nothing to do with Poreklo and I don't know what else. I never mentioned Boii. I have no idea how people link some things.

Really member Sile introduced Bastarnae as possible carriers of I-CTS10228. Never before that I thought about Bastarnae in this direction.

I was interested if Sile is right or no and started to explore. There are a lot of interesting things, and everything what was interesting to me I put in the forum.

Unfortunately without scientific papers everything is empty story. Internet sources, genealogy sites and thoughts in forums, what member Milan noticed, are not main evidence. Yes it can be interesting but without essence.

But finally voila! I found that Ukrainian scientists, especially Pachkova, proved that Zarubintsy culture was Bastarnaian. It is very important because Zarubintsy culture was predecessor of Kiev culture which was Slavic.

If we go back before Zarubintsy we can reconstruct all Bastarnae migrations and it can be linked with I-CTS10228 carriers.

Surely this doesn't mean crown proof only findings haplogroups of Bastarnae in areas where they lived and epochas when can prove or reject this assumption. But after findings of Ukrainian scientists about Zarubintsy culture weight that Bastarnae were I-CTS10228 carriers is significantly higher.

Garrick
07-11-17, 00:44
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.

You should have more trust in scientists, scientific Institutes and science. Institute of Medieval Research, Vienna, a department of Austrian Academy of Sciences is serious scientific institution. Are you really think that some Western Balkan Institute is better?

Miroslav
07-11-17, 01:09
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...there where some who thought the Morlacchi were the Bosnians

I cannot believe it. Didn't I write to not open this pandora's box, yet even worse, you state a totally fallacious conclusion about the use of the term by Venice, although you obviously do not know anything about it, actually, you did not even dare to read the article about Morlachs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morlachs) related to Vlachs in the history of Croatia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlachs_in_the_history_of_Croatia) at Wikipedia.

Miroslav
07-11-17, 01:15
I2-PH908 does not exist among Croats from northwestern Croatia only CTS10228, on the other hand CTS10228 does not exist among Croats from Herzegovina only PH908. Among Dalmatian Croats CTS10228 exist around 10% but PH908 is much stronger.

Do you even understand what you write about? A person positive to PH908 (formed circa 1850 YBP) cannot be negative to CTS10228 (formed circa 5200 YBP) i.e. Croats from Herzegovina are CTS10228.

Miroslav
07-11-17, 01:19
If we go back before Zarubintsy we can reconstruct all Bastarnae migrations and it can be linked with I-CTS10228 carriers.

Again, do you even understand genetics and archeology? Zarubintsy culture and Bastarnae are recorded circa since 3rd century BCE, while I-CTS10228 had TMRCA circa 3800 YBP i.e. circa 1800 BCE.

Miroslav
07-11-17, 01:24
You should have more trust in scientists, scientific Institutes and science. Institute of Medieval Research, Vienna, a department of Austrian Academy of Sciences is serious scientific institution. Are you really think that some Western Balkan Institute is better?

How do you even dare to say that I do not trust scientists, institutes, and academies enough? Unlike you who don't trust some of them because of a consideration which ideologically doesn't fit your narrative? You cannot differentiate scientific opinion weight? Your argumentation is simply wrong and contradicting.

Miroslav
07-11-17, 01:26
Morlachs came from central or southern Balkans in early 14th century in northern Dalmatia.

Wrong, again another one who didn't bother to read about the history of Vlachs in Croatia.

Garrick
07-11-17, 03:04
Again, do you even understand genetics and archeology? Zarubintsy culture and Bastarnae are recorded circa since 3rd century BCE, while I-CTS10228 had TMRCA circa 3800 YBP i.e. circa 1800 BCE.

Evidence Zarubintsy culture is Bastarnatian is very important, and in previous pages there is a lot about Bastarnae, their origin and movements, I don't want repeat.

For example in #1117 is sublimated, who wants to read.

Bastarnae are strong candidate as carriers of I-CTS10228.

Garrick
07-11-17, 03:11
How do you even dare to say that I do not trust scientists, institutes, and academies enough? Unlike you who don't trust some of them because of a consideration which ideologically doesn't fit your narrative? You cannot differentiate scientific opinion weight? Your argumentation is simply wrong and contradicting.

No.

Respectable Austrian Institute and scientists of this Institute are competent, neutral (not interested party) and much more reliable source than local scientists who really are much more biased.

If you notice I very rare, almost never, use Serbian sources, not because I consider them bad, but because of criteria of neutrality.

LABERIA
07-11-17, 09:58
My theory about Bastarnae nothing to do with today's nations, South Slavic, Eastern Slavic, Western Slavic, nothing to do with Poreklo and I don't know what else. I never mentioned Boii. I have no idea how people link some things.

Really member Sile introduced Bastarnae as possible carriers of I-CTS10228. Never before that I thought about Bastarnae in this direction.

I was interested if Sile is right or no and started to explore. There are a lot of interesting things, and everything what was interesting to me I put in the forum.
Yes, here it is how Sile introduced the Bastarnae:

I have a work colleague, an Albanian heritage , who says ( was told by his gfather ) albanians originate as part the Bastanae ( mixed people ) and where part of the 80000 contingent that went from the south Carpathians mountain area to Macedonia to help Philip of Macedon defeat the advancing illyrians from the north .......I think it was about 350BC

I doubt that..........but the bastanae ....where a bastard people of different races

Sile
07-11-17, 10:10
Yes, here it is how Sile introduced the Bastarnae:
yep and he provided me with
The most enigmatic ‘barbarian’ people to appear in southeastern Europe in the late Iron Age are undoubtedly the Bastarnae (Βαστάρναι / Βαστέρναι) tribes.
While archaeological/numismatic evidence indicates that the Bastarnae tribes had reached the Danube Delta as early as the second half of the 4th c. BC, they first appear in historical sources in connection with the events of 179 BC as allies of Philip V of Macedonia in his war with Rome (Livy 40:5, 57-58), and remain a constant factor in the history of southeastern Europe for over 500 years. Due to the fact that archaeologists have failed to associate a particular archaeological culture with the Bastarnae, the ethnic origin of this people has hitherto remained shrouded in mystery, with a lack of clarity on whether they were initially of Scythian, Germanic or Celtic origin. However, as illustrated below, a chronological analysis of the ancient sources relating to the Bastarnae in general, and archaeological, numismatic and linguistic evidence from the territory of the Bastarnae Peucini tribe in particular, enables us to finally shed some light on this question.
Later authors such as Dio Cassius (3rd c. AD – Dio LI.23.3, 24.2) and Zosimus (late 5th/early 6th c. AD – Zosimus I.34) define the Bastarnae as ‘Scythians’, and to a great extent this is true. By the late Roman period the Bastarnae tribes had been living in the region vaguely referred to as ‘Scythia’ for over half a millennium, and mixing with the local tribes (‘mixed marriages are giving them to some extent the vile appearance of the Sarmatians’ – Tac. Ger. 46). Thus, they were by this stage indeed Scythians, in the same way, for example, the Celtic Scordisci in Thrace are referred to in Roman sources as ‘Thracians’, having inhabited the region of Thrace for a number of centuries. However, as with the latter case, geographical situation by no means indicates ethnic origin.
While sources such as Strabo (early 1st c. AD – see below), and Tacitus (circa 100 AD; Tac. Ger. 43), are often cited to support the view that the Bastarnae were of Germanic origin, in fact a closer analysis of the testimony of both these sources reveals that neither is certain about who the Bastarnae were. While Strabo informs us that the Bastarnae lived mixed with the Thracian and Celtic tribes in Thrace, both north and south of the river, he also admits, ‘I know neither the Bastarnae, nor the Sarmatae nor, in a word, any of the peoples who dwell above the Pontus’ (Strabo VII, 2:4). Tacitus states the following:
‘Peucini, quos quidam Bastarnas, vocunt sermon cultu, sede ac domiciliis ut Germani agunt’ (Tac. op cit.), i.e. – he informs us not that the Bastarnae were Germani, but that they were ‘similar to the Germani’. In this case one should bear in mind that many of the Celts who migrated into southeastern Europe and Asia-Minor from the end of the 4th c. BC onwards originated from the Belgae group of Celtic tribes (see also ‘Galatia’ article), who are described in ancient sources as being most like the Germani.
The other ancient authors are clear on the ethnic origin of the Bastarnae. The earliest source, Polybius (200-118 BC; XXIV 9,13) refers to them as Celtic (Galatians), while Livy (59 BC – 17 AD) tells us that they had the same customs and spoke the same language as the Celtic Scordisci, and also mentions close military and political ties between the Bastarnae and Scordisci (Livy 40:57). Plutarch (46 – 120 AD; Aem. 9.6) refers to them as ‘Gauls on the Danube who are called Bastarnae’.

THE BASTARNAE IN THRACE
It was in the wake of the aforementioned events of 179 BC that the Peucini, the southern branch of the Bastarnae, were drawn south of the Danube into Thrace. They were at this stage a powerful military and political force in southeastern Europe, which is illustrated by the enthusiasm that Philip V of Macedonia showed at the prospect of being allied to them:
‘The envoys whom he had sent to the Bastarnae to summon assistance had returned and brought back with them some young nobles, amongst them some of royal blood. One of these promised to give his sister in marriage to Philip’s son, and the king was quite elated at the prospect of an alliance with that nation’ (Livy 40:5).
Although Philip’s sudden death meant that the joint attack on Rome by the Macedonians and Bastarnae came to nothing, by this time a large group of the (Peucini) Bastarnae had already migrated into Thrace, and a group of 30,000 of them subsequently settled in Dardania; another larger group of Bastarnae returned eastwards and settled in the area of today’s eastern Bulgaria (Livy 40:58), where Bastarnae kingdoms were established in the Dobruja area. At the beginning of the 1st c. AD Strabo (VII, 3:2) mentions that the ethnic make-up of this area consisted of a complex mix of Thracians, Scythians, Celts and Bastarnae:
“the Bastarnae tribes are mingled with the Thracians, more indeed with those beyond the Ister (Danube), but also with those this side. And mingled with them are also the Celtic tribes…”.
A thriving ‘barbarian’ culture emerged in this area (southeastern Romania/northeastern Bulgaria) during the 2nd/ 1st c. BC, based on a symbiotic relationship between these various groups and the Greek Black Sea colonies – a culture which was brought to a brutal end in the mid 1st c. BC by the destructive rampage of the Getic leader Burebista, which also paved the way for the Roman conquest of the Dobruja.
A policy was implemented by the Macedonian King Philip V in 179 BC. In order to neutralize the Dardanii tribes, traditional Macedonian enemies, Philip struck a deal with the Celtic Scordisci and the Bastarnae, whereby the latter would be resettled in Dardania, thus eliminating the Dardanii threat, and ensuring Bastarnae help for Macedonia’s planned war with Rome (Livy 40:57, 41:19).
The Sevtopolis experiment failed miserably when, in the face of the Celtic advance, the Thracians simply abandoned the city and fled. Philip’s partially successful attempt to resettle the Bastarnae in Dardania produced no long term benefits for Macedonia, and following his death the Bastarnae refused to fight for Philip’s son, Perseus, in his war with Rome.
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=qpb3JdwuDQIC&pg=PA470&lpg=PA470&dq=bastarnae+and+macedonians&source=bl&ots=hEvOe8kQcZ&sig=yRV1UEHCRLBo5m4RmMJuk6OiDDQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjjifWBgKzXAhUKE7wKHdn3Ci4Q6AEIKzAB#v=on epage&q=bastarnae%20and%20macedonians&f=false
What do you mean that there where no Bastanae in the balkans?

Sile
07-11-17, 10:16
https://albanianstudies.weebly.com/dardanians.html
Even albanians sites are claiming links with the Dardanians..
..
But in my Opinion, the dardanii are the most northern genetic alignment we can see with the Albanians, .......albanians are genetically more greek than northern Balkan people

LABERIA
07-11-17, 11:13
https://albanianstudies.weebly.com/dardanians.html
Even albanians sites are claiming links with the Dardanians..
..
But in my Opinion, the dardanii are the most northern genetic alignment we can see with the Albanians, .......albanians are genetically more greek than northern Balkan people
First, we don't know if the link provided by you is Albanian or not.
Second, this "My Albanian studies" sounds ridiculous, because all these so-called studies are just a collection of pages from Wikipedia, or better from the Anonymous of Wikipedia. Can you show me a study in the link provided by you that it's not just a copy paste from Wikipedia but it's a personal contribution of the person/s behind this blog?
And third, of course we Albanians claim links with Dardanians, Epirotes and other Illyrian tribes. Some toponyms, names, etc, are preserved by Albanians from antiquity in our days. For example, the name of the most famous Dardani King, Bardhyl or the name of Pirro of Epir, the name of the Illyrian Queen Teuta in the Albanian modern name Tefta, etc, continued to be used without interruption.

hrvat22
07-11-17, 16:13
Wonomyro (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/members/53998-Wonomyro)


Do you know that many of them had Croatian ancestry only 2-3 generations back? (Check their surnames...)


I2a2 'Dinaric-S' (I-CTS10228>S20602/YP196 probably S17250+ and PH908+) we recommend Z16983 or A5913 or Big Y test
Trento Giorgio Trento 1891-1946 Umago Croatia Italy

There are more Italians under Dinaric-S and under Dinaric-N.

Sile
07-11-17, 19:14
First, we don't know if the link provided by you is Albanian or not.
Second, this "My Albanian studies" sounds ridiculous, because all these so-called studies are just a collection of pages from Wikipedia, or better from the Anonymous of Wikipedia. Can you show me a study in the link provided by you that it's not just a copy paste from Wikipedia but it's a personal contribution of the person/s behind this blog?
And third, of course we Albanians claim links with Dardanians, Epirotes and other Illyrian tribes. Some toponyms, names, etc, are preserved by Albanians from antiquity in our days. For example, the name of the most famous Dardani King, Bardhyl or the name of Pirro of Epir, the name of the Illyrian Queen Teuta in the Albanian modern name Tefta, etc, continued to be used without interruption.
You can deflect all you like about anything, but in the end we know
1 - The romans knew nothing of or wrote of any Albanians in modern Albania, Kosovo or Montenegro until 150AD.
2 - The Illyrians are noted in historical documents in the eastern alps as far back as 1400BC and not noted in Dalmatia before 600BC and not noted anywhere near Albania until 400BC
So , in the end the Albanians are assuming an ancient race to have some history for themselves. In the end you could not be in Albania in ancient times because that was only Greek-Corinthians or Epirote from before 700BC. Albanians cannot claim Illyrian because they did not arrive anywhere near Albania until the ancient macedonians noted them in 400BC . It leaves only 3 possibilities -
1 - a migration from somewhere after the Romans seized all of modern Albania and Macedonia in 138BC
2 - Albanians where only Dardanians and renamed themselves which is why the Albanian populace has always been small
3 - Albanians are a thracian tribe that split off from the thracian Moesian tribes after the celtic invasion of modern Serbia.

hrvat22
07-11-17, 19:24
Sile (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/members/29587-Sile)


The Illyrians are noted in historical documents in the eastern alps as far back as 1400BC
Which haplotypes from there come to Balkans?


Albanians cannot claim Illyrian because they did not arrive anywhere near Albania until the ancient macedonians noted them in 400BC
Which haplotypes prove this?


a migration from somewhere after the Romans seized all of modern Albania and Macedonia in 138BC

Which haplotypes prove this?


Albanians are a thracian tribe that split off from the thracian Moesian tribes after the celtic invasion of modern Serbia.

Which haplotypes prove this?


In the end you could not be in Albania in ancient times because that was only Greek-Corinthians or Epirote from before 700BC.

Which haplotypes prove this?


You just love to talk, talk, talk.

Sile
07-11-17, 19:39
Which haplotypes from there come to Balkans?
Which haplotypes prove this?
Which haplotypes prove this?
Which haplotypes prove this?
Which haplotypes prove this?
You just love to talk, talk, talk.
Compiling data samples from many papers I can conclude with my guess would be something like (see below ) ........the R1a at 15% might be a bit high but having 10% in pre-roman friuli ( early iron-age ) should be fine.
I-M253 25%
R-U106 25%
R-M417 15%
J2-M241 9%
E-M78 7%
G- 5%
T-M70 4%
L- 2%
I-S23 2%
J1-M267 2%



Aquileia, la Dalmazia e l'Illirico
Centro di antichità altoadriatiche, Casa Bertoli, Aquileia

Format Book Published
Udine : Tip. Chiandetti, 1985.
Language Italian

hrvat22
07-11-17, 19:52
Sile (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/members/29587-Sile)

I am interested in concrete branches of concrete haplotypes that prove migration from your claim i.e specific persons with those haplogroups from public database.

When I prove arrival of Croats to Balkans then I attach genetics and historical records that prove that arrival (what we have now).


The Illyrians are noted in historical documents in the eastern alps as far back as 1400BC
Which haplotypes from there come to Balkans?

Eastern alps haplotypes and Balkans haplotypes. Migration from point A to point B

Do you understand?

Wonomyro
07-11-17, 20:25
.......the R1a at 15% might be a bit high but having 10% in pre-roman friuli ( early iron-age ) should be fine. Would you be so kind to give us a link to the paper. Or maybe just a table with haplogroup description. Thanks!

Miroslav
07-11-17, 22:02
Evidence Zarubintsy culture is Bastarnatian is very important, and in previous pages there is a lot about Bastarnae, their origin and movements, I don't want repeat.

For example in #1117 is sublimated, who wants to read.

Bastarnae are strong candidate as carriers of I-CTS10228.

There's a lack of evidence, what you wrote about Bastarnae is far-fetched without any proper evidence and argumentation. There's almost anything to catch as meaningful. Considering Bastarnae as strong candidate is banging empty straw, while I-CTS10228 had TMRCA so many centuries ago before the formation of the Bastarnae that relating them i.e. using I-CTS10228 instead some other more downward and contemporary SNP branch is intentionally misleading. Trash.

LABERIA
07-11-17, 23:13
You can read this post here (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30592-Balkanian-disagreements/page41?p=523781#post523781).

Angela
07-11-17, 23:19
Please remove all posts which do not concern the movements of ancient peoples, i.e. the subject of the original post. You may repost them on the Balkanian Disagreements thread. I will wait until 8Pm EST. At that point, I will go back at least a couple of pages and remove all such posts still remaining.

Once again, stay on topic.

Anyone who continues to post off-topic material will receive an infraction.

Bachus
07-11-17, 23:23
In South Serbia the situation was a little bit different from what can you imagine.

On which situation you think?

Wonomyro
08-11-17, 00:03
Please remove all posts which do not concern the movements of ancient peoples, i.e. the subject of the original post. You may repost them on the Balkanian Disagreements thread. I will wait until 8Pm EST. At that point, I will go back at least a couple of pages and remove all such posts still remaining.

Once again, stay on topic.

Anyone who continues to post off-topic material will receive an infraction.

I agree. Thank you.

However, some of these discussions are part of a multidisciplinary approach, where linguistics, and history may help us to identify ancient ethnicities that were the initial carriers of the haplogroup I2a-Din. I would remind that the I2a haplogroup has a peak in the area where at least two present day nations claim its ancestry. That is the reason why we have a hot debate. I hope that some posts on the linguistic and history which are based on objective sources may help reader to get the clearer picture on the origin of the I2a haplogrop in Dinarides. Limiting ourselves only to genetics we will never be able to answer the question from the thread caption.

Please, keep some of these posts that may seem off topic if you believe that they are useful.

Dumidre
08-11-17, 04:02
Back to genetics please...
I2a-DIN and such...
"languages change but blood (genetics) stays"...

Angela
08-11-17, 04:12
Well, I hope all of you are very happy now that you got infractions and one of you is banned AGAIN for accumulation of points. I specifically said no more off topic posts. A number of you went on to post about refugees, the start of WW1 and other material irrelevant to the topic and insulting one another to boot.

Are people in the Balkans incapable of following rules or just rules enforced by women? Well, no matter.

I'll now go back and remove all this distracting off topic material.

You have only yourselves to blame.

There is a thread specifically set up for you to beat your nationalistic chests on yet you refuse to use it. Why do you insist on ruining academic threads? Transfer all such discussions there.

Angela
08-11-17, 04:33
You can deflect all you like about anything, but in the end we know
1 - The romans knew nothing of or wrote of any Albanians in modern Albania, Kosovo or Montenegro until 150AD.
2 - The Illyrians are noted in historical documents in the eastern alps as far back as 1400BC and not noted in Dalmatia before 600BC and not noted anywhere near Albania until 400BC
So , in the end the Albanians are assuming an ancient race to have some history for themselves. In the end you could not be in Albania in ancient times because that was only Greek-Corinthians or Epirote from before 700BC. Albanians cannot claim Illyrian because they did not arrive anywhere near Albania until the ancient macedonians noted them in 400BC . It leaves only 3 possibilities -
1 - a migration from somewhere after the Romans seized all of modern Albania and Macedonia in 138BC
2 - Albanians where only Dardanians and renamed themselves which is why the Albanian populace has always been small
3 - Albanians are a thracian tribe that split off from the thracian Moesian tribes after the celtic invasion of modern Serbia.

You make another such disparaging comment against any ethnic group whatsoever and you'll get another infraction. Are you ready for another ban for accumulation of points?

Garrick
08-11-17, 05:07
It is unbelievable - how many times I said do not open the pandora's box, which itself is not related to the topic, but Serbs and Croats with Albanian friend, a very Balkan trio, cannot stop writing about they do not know i.e. think they do yet are recycling one and the same chauvinistic "evidence" and "reasoning" they were "educated" on the street and demagogues. I am calling the moderators to stop them before this becomes another ruined forum thread.

I agree with you, and if someone like bickering there is thread "Balkan disagreement".

Yes we don't agree about Dr Francesco Borri, and some other things but it is normal that people have opposite views in intellectual discussion.

I remember very useful discussion with you about main thing in this thread, I-CTS10228, there are four theories about this, if it is Thracian, German, Slavic or Illyrian origin.

We didn't agree but this discussion was very useful. If Bastarnae (and Scirii) were carriers of I-CTS10228 this would be German theory.

Although some scholars link Bastarnae with Celts, and for some scholars Bastarnae are only Bastarnae because they were big (numerous) people, however Bastarnae had German influence. It can be that Mesolitic survivors I-CTS10228 carriers mixed with Germans, I1 carriers, before migration toward Dacian and Sarmatian border areas.

I remember that you told me that more attention give Thracian theory. And you can see posts of member AlGreen #1122 who thinks I-CTS10228 is Thracian.

Really Thracian theory is very interesting. If tomorrow someone prove that Bastarnae theory is not plausible only possibility is that Thracian theory is plausible. No doubt that I-CTS10228 was in genetic fund of Thracians before Slavs. But it can be because of mixed Bastarnae with Thracians during long period.

Wonomyro
08-11-17, 05:17
this is empty

Wonomyro
08-11-17, 05:18
..........

davef
08-11-17, 05:40
^^ take it outside buddy ;)
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30592-Balkanian-disagreements/page41?p=523781#post523781

Garrick
08-11-17, 05:51
Do you know that the whole present day Croatia was once a part of Roman Empire? There were numerous Roman colonies in Pannonia and Dalmatia. Also in Serbia (Moesia) and Bosnia (still Dalmatia). Where is now their admixture? Do you think that these Italians who lived in the corner of Istria have anything to do with the Roman colonists during the Roman period in Panonnia and Dalmatia. Let’s imagine that the Italian refugees are still there. What would that change in our conclusion? The Italian admixture on the Maciamo’s map would be few percent bigger for all Croatia, but in that case we would know that this is due to numerous Italian presence in Istria. In case that these few municipalities with Italian majority remained in Italy, Maciamo’s map of Croatia would look the same as now because these Italians would not affect Croatian statistics. Do you understand what you're talking about? The Italian admixture is not a number of Italian humans vs. number of Croatian humans in the 20th century. It is a percentage in every tested Croat and in every tested Italian in Croatia taken together. It takes centuries for that. People get married. Genes of ancient Romans would not all escape to Istria! Something would obviously remain in Croatian people who stayed in Croatia. Please compare the map of Roman Empire with the map of Italian admixture. You will notice that the almost whole territory of the former Empire is covered with Italian-like admixture, except on the Slavic countries across the Adriatic. Do you think it is only because Yugoslav partisans expelled (part of) Italians from Istria? What is about Serbia then? Where are the Italians from Serbia that we have such small percentage of the Italian admixture there? (Should I ask instead where are 500,000 Germans from Serbia now?) Do you believe that a higher percentage of Italian admixture in Spain exists because they expelled less Italians during WWII? Did you understand all that? I could explain with a lot of data during centuries about Italians in Dalmatia, including islands, not only Italians in Istria, or speakers of some kind of Italo-Western languages during centuries. And yes Maciamo's picture would be different. But I think it is better that Italians or anything else explain, for many reasons, only my intention was reaction on the picture and nothing more.

Wonomyro
08-11-17, 06:07
..........

Wonomyro
08-11-17, 06:09
I could explain with a lot of data during centuries about Italians in Dalmatia, including islands, not only Italians in Istria, or speakers of some kind of Italo-Western languages during centuries.

And yes Maciamo's picture would be different.

But I think it is better that Italians or anything else explain, for many reasons, only my intention was reaction on the picture and nothing more.

Now I am sure that you still don't understand. I'll try to simplify as much as possible:

The map shows that the Italian-like admixture is spread all over the territory of former Roman Empire: Turkey, Spain, Greece. etc.

Who are the present carriers of the Italian-like admixture in Spain, Turkey and Grece?

Sile
08-11-17, 07:43
Would you be so kind to give us a link to the paper. Or maybe just a table with haplogroup description. Thanks!

2012 paper

hrvat22
08-11-17, 08:34
2012 paper

In English translation..you have no concrete genetic evidence for yours claims.


The Illyrians are noted in historical documents in the eastern alps as far back as 1400BC


Albanians cannot claim Illyrian because they did not arrive anywhere near Albania until the ancient macedonians noted them in 400BC


migration from somewhere after the Romans seized all of modern Albania and Macedonia in 138BC


Albanians are a thracian tribe that split off from the thracian Moesian tribes after the celtic invasion of modern Serbia.


In the end you could not be in Albania in ancient times because that was only Greek-Corinthians or Epirote from before 700BC.

Miroslav
08-11-17, 08:47
I hope that some posts on the linguistic and history which are based on objective sources may help the reader to get the clearer picture on the origin of the I2a haplogroup Dinarides. Limiting ourselves only to genetics we will never be able to answer the question from the thread caption.

The thing is it does not, it only makes things more complicated both because of members incompetence in linguistics and because the language change and the dialects in the region formed too recently compared to the formation and TMRCA of I-PH908 or Slavic migration in general. We should stick to more objective sources - genetics, archeology, historical sources.

Sile
08-11-17, 10:37
In English translation..you have no concrete genetic evidence for yours claims.

from the recent mathieson paper

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).

Illyrians = steppe people , who became lusatian people , who ended up as uterice culture ..........all fits in with the book


Gimbutas, Marija
Bronze Age cultures in Central and Eastern Europe

Wonomyro
08-11-17, 12:37
The thing is it does not, it only makes things more complicated both because of members incompetence in linguistics and because the language change and the dialects in the region formed too recently compared to the formation and TMRCA of I-PH908 or Slavic migration in general. We should stick to more objective sources - genetics, archeology, historical sources. No reasonable person should ignore linguistic arguments. I do not see the reason why we should drop it in favour of "more objective sources"?

davef
08-11-17, 12:56
^^ one more time
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30592-Balkanian-disagreements/page41?p=523781#post523781

Wonomyro
08-11-17, 13:09
^^ one more time https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30592-Balkanian-disagreements/page41?p=523781#post523781 Is there any problem?

Miroslav
08-11-17, 19:57
I remember a very useful discussion with you about the main thing in this thread, I-CTS10228, there are four theories about this, if it is the Thracian, German, Slavic or Illyrian origin.

The issue is you miss the crucial point - I discussed the I-CTS10228 and downward mutations according to the Illyrian-Thracian autochtonous model and historical sources with SNPs time of formation and TMRCA, yet there's no such model for German i.e. Bastarnae origin. You cannot relate I-CTS10228 with Bastarnae because although (doubtful) valid premises, the arguments and conclusions are not true i.e. they are false. Not only there's lack of evidence, but also lack of valid argumentation, or ignorance of other opposing evidence. Arguing I-CTS10228 and Bastarnae connection is like other false argumentations for e.g. I-M423 with Croats according to which is concluded that Croats are autochthonous to the Balkan for thousands of years, or I-S17250 with White Croats according to which is concluded that all downward SNPs among other Slavic people imply they are of White Croatian origin, or I-CTS10228 with Sorbs/Serbs although among contemporary Sorbs the SNP is almost absent and have dominance of exactly the opposite "Slavic" haplogroup, R1a.

hrvat22
08-11-17, 22:39
from the recent mathieson paper

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).

Illyrians = steppe people , who became lusatian people , who ended up as uterice culture ..........all fits in with the book


Gimbutas, Marija
Bronze Age cultures in Central and Eastern Europe


Which haplotypes and which branches?

Wonomyro
09-11-17, 00:57
It is actually J2b2-L283 that can be connected to Illyrians:


The oldest J2b2-L283 sample recovered among ancient DNA samples is a Late Bronze Age (1700-1500 BCE) individual from southern Croatia (Mathieson et al. 2017). His genome possessed about 30% of Steppe admixture and 15% of Eastern Hunter-Gatherer, which suggest a recent arrival from the Steppe. He was accompanied by a woman with similar admixtures, and both possessed typical Pontic-Caspian Steppe mtDNA (I1a1 and W3a).

Source: eupedia

J2b2 is not typical for present day Croats, who are rich with R1a, but for Albanians who have a different haplogroup “set”. Albanians are also autosomally distant from Croats.

Having that in mind, it is hard to make an assumption that the Croatian R1a is related to Illyrians.

Wonomyro
09-11-17, 18:58
I've just seen some autosomal data from Vinča culture on another forum. It is very much Italian-like.

Someone put it here: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34845-Parallel-paleogenomic-transects-reveal-complex-genetic-hx-of-early-Euorpean-farmers?

Dibran
09-11-17, 20:31
It is actually J2b2-L283 that can be connected to Illyrians:



Source: eupedia

J2b2 is not typical for present day Croats, who are rich with R1a, but for Albanians who have a different haplogroup “set”. Albanians are also autosomally distant from Croats.

Having that in mind, it is hard to make an assumption that the Croatian R1a is related to Illyrians.

Yea but that sample predates the arrival of Illyrians, and one ancient sample is not a stand in for all of history. genetics is still in its infancy. I do agree J2b2 was common in Illyrians, but based on the age of the sample, we can't be certain whether or not Proto-Illyrians assimilated it upon contact, or brought some more of it with them?

Angela
09-11-17, 20:39
I've just seen some autosomal data from Vinča culture on another forum. It is very much Italian-like.

Someone put it here: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34845-Parallel-paleogenomic-transects-reveal-complex-genetic-hx-of-early-Euorpean-farmers?

That's to be expected, is it not? Until probably sometime around 3000 BC all of the Balkans, Greece and Italy would have largely been similar, probably Central Europe to some extent as well.

It's largely about shared Neolithic farmer ancestry and probably some incursions from Asia Minor in the Early Bronze Age.

Those signatures are still present today, which is why Northern Italians are still somewhat similar to Bulgarians, Tuscans to Albanians, and Southern Italians to southern Greeks in particular.

Anyone who thinks Southern "Slavs" of any variety are "Slavs" in the same sense as Poles or Ukrainians is absolutely deluded. Slavic is a language. Different Slavic speakers have a different ethnogenesis. The ones in the Balkans are southern Europeans.

Wonomyro
09-11-17, 21:20
Yea but that sample predates the arrival of Illyrians, and one ancient sample is not a stand in for all of history. genetics is still in its infancy. I do agree J2b2 was common in Illyrians, but based on the age of the sample, we can't be certain whether or not Proto-Illyrians assimilated it upon contact, or brought some more of it with them?


That's to be expected, is it not? Until probably sometime around 3000 BC all of the Balkans, Greece and Italy would have largely been similar, probably Central Europe to some extent as well.

I agree with both. Many migrations could have occurred in a meantime.

However, it is interesting that during the same period such dramatic drop hasn’t occurred in neighbouring Italy. The gradient looks too sharp not to assume that the big change happened quite recently. We should not forget that the Roman Empire was a melting pot.

Wonomyro
09-11-17, 21:41
Anyone who thinks Southern "Slavs" of any variety are "Slavs" in the same sense as Poles or Ukrainians is absolutely deluded. Slavic is a language. Different Slavic speakers have a different ethnogenesis.

Of course, that the present day Slavic people have different histories, no reasonable person denies that. North Slavs absorbed lot of Baltic and Ugro-Finnic people. The Slavs who migrated south didn't have that chance. But one must notice that so called south Slavs form at least two autosomal clusters. The Croatian one overlaps with Hungarians.


Different Slavic speakers have a different ethnogenesis. The ones in the Balkans are southern Europeans.

Right. They are “southern Europeans”. That's where they live... :grin:

Dibran
09-11-17, 21:59
I agree with both. Many migrations could have occurred in a meantime.

However, it is interesting that during the same period such dramatic drop hasn’t occurred in neighbouring Italy. The gradient looks too sharp not to assume that the big change happened quite recently. We should not forget that the Roman Empire was a melting pot.

Very true. I read an article sometime back, that Pompei(I think) was supposedly a bigger melting pot than NYC, based on results of the remains.

Angela
09-11-17, 22:30
Of course, that the present day Slavic people have different histories, no reasonable person denies that. North Slavs absorbed lot of Baltic and Ugro-Finnic people. The Slavs who migrated south didn't have that chance. But one must notice that so called south Slavs form at least two autosomal clusters. The Croatian one overlaps with Hungarians.



Right. They are “southern Europeans”. That's where they live... :grin:

They are Southern Europeans genetically, although there is a gradient. It's time for people to stop relying on the propaganda and folklore that was dished out in elementary school and start reading academic papers. My father had me convinced that we were the "pure" descendants of Romans and Etruscans, but alas it ain't so, and we have some ancestry from those "Celtic" invaders he so disliked, who did not, apparently, all go hightailing it back to Gaul or Central Europe, and those Lombard lords he also disliked probably did make it into our bloodstream. That's the way it goes.

See:
Kovacevic et al
Standing at the Gateway to Europe:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0105090

"Contemporary inhabitants of the Balkan Peninsula belong to several ethnic groups of diverse cultural background. In this study, three ethnic groups from Bosnia and Herzegovina - Bosniacs, Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Serbs - as well as the populations of Serbians, Croatians, Macedonians from the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegrins and Kosovars have been characterized for the genetic variation of 660 000 genome-wide autosomal single nucleotide polymorphisms and for haploid markers. New autosomal data of the 70 individuals together with previously published data of 20 individuals from the populations of the Western Balkan region in a context of 695 samples of global range have been analysed. Comparison of the variation data of autosomal and haploid lineages of the studied Western Balkan populations reveals a concordance of the data in both sets and the genetic uniformity of the studied populations, especially of Western South-Slavic speakers. The genetic variation of Western Balkan populations reveals the continuity between the Middle East and Europe via the Balkan region and supports the scenario that one of the major routes of ancient gene flows and admixture went through the Balkan Peninsula."

We discussed it at length here:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30366-The-Balkans-as-the-Gateway-to-Europe

Here is a graphic:
https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/ppreviews-plos-725668748/1647215/preview.jpg

You might also want to take a look at the following, although there is only one Balkan population included. It's old, but still reasonably accurate. He was right about a great many things.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT0/TMsh0ddYFdI/AAAAAAAACys/PT47z5W_1xw/s1600/ADMIXTURE10.png

The sad fact is that people so similar to one another genetically can be so consumed by "ethnic" hatreds. I have no idea where that trait came from...

The big difference between the Balkans (including Greece) and Italy is that they experienced the Slavic migrations or invasions as you prefer. We did not, and even the Lombard invasions were limited in scope. Even in the Balkans the "Slavic" influence was not as great as the politics of the Pan-Slavic movement would have you believe. I have no personal stake in the matter. It's just that facts are facts, no matter how inconvenient they might turn out to be.

As for your conjectures about the Roman Empire, take it up with Ralph and Coop, who find no major input into Italy after about 400 BC except from the Balkans, or at least they see exchange after that period between the Balkans and Italy. If ancient dna proves them wrong, fine with me. If you're going to take over most of the known world you're going to absorb some of those peoples; if you're stuck in some out of the way, climate challenged place, not.

Ralph and Coop et al:
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001555

Wonomyro
10-11-17, 02:59
They are Southern Europeans genetically, although there is a gradient. It's time for people to stop relying on the propaganda and folklore that was dished out in elementary school and start reading academic papers. My father had me convinced that we were the "pure" descendants of Romans and Etruscans, but alas it ain't so, and we have some ancestry from those "Celtic" invaders he so disliked, who did not, apparently, all go hightailing it back to Gaul or Central Europe, and those Lombard lords he also disliked probably did make it into our bloodstream. That's the way it goes.

I have a feeling that you are not discussing with me but with a stereotyped image of me. I’ve never said anything like that people of Croatia are 100% something that arrived from Poland or Ukraine, or any other part of the world. Let’s leave that political stuff out of the discussion. Any ancestry is good. The fact that I support the migration theory is because I see data that way not because I would like to see data that way.


Kovacevic et al
Standing at the Gateway to Europe:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0105090

"Contemporary inhabitants of the Balkan Peninsula belong to several ethnic groups of diverse cultural background. In this study, three ethnic groups from Bosnia and Herzegovina - Bosniacs, Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Serbs - as well as the populations of Serbians, Croatians, Macedonians from the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegrins and Kosovars have been characterized for the genetic variation of 660 000 genome-wide autosomal single nucleotide polymorphisms and for haploid markers. New autosomal data of the 70 individuals together with previously published data of 20 individuals from the populations of the Western Balkan region in a context of 695 samples of global range have been analysed. Comparison of the variation data of autosomal and haploid lineages of the studied Western Balkan populations reveals a concordance of the data in both sets and the genetic uniformity of the studied populations, especially of Western South-Slavic speakers. The genetic variation of Western Balkan populations reveals the continuity between the Middle East and Europe via the Balkan region and supports the scenario that one of the major routes of ancient gene flows and admixture went through the Balkan Peninsula."

Please don’t take me wrong but the text you cited above is telling us nothing. Just a usual bla bla. The subject is sensitive and the accent was put on political correctness. What they say here can be applied to any part of the world. However, if one reads the text carefully she can find the following: “Western Balkan populations reveals a concordance of the data in both sets and the genetic uniformity of the studied populations, especially of Western South-Slavic speakers”.

Let’s forget that sterile language and take a look into the principal component analysis from the supporting information:

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105090.s002

Please, zoom in the European cluster in the top left segment. One should see the Ukrainian-Polish-Belarussian cluster in the top-right part of the screen. Diagonally, in the lower-left part there should be a more diverse Greek-Albanian cluster which almost touches Tuscan group. Please find Croats on the diagram and note where they are positioned relatively to the mentioned extremes?



We discussed it at length here:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...eway-to-Europe

Here is a graphic:
https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/p...15/preview.jpg

You might also want to take a look at the following, although there is only one Balkan population included. It's old, but still reasonably accurate. He was right about a great many things.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT...DMIXTURE10.png


Thank you for these images, but I can’t get much information out of them because they can't answer the question whether there was a Slavic migration or not.


The sad fact is that people so similar to one another genetically can be so consumed by "ethnic" hatreds. I have no idea where that trait came from...

I don't know either but I agree with you in that.

Wonomyro
10-11-17, 03:16
The big difference between the Balkans (including Greece) and Italy is that they experienced the Slavic migrations or invasions as you prefer. We did not, and even the Lombard invasions were limited in scope. Even in the Balkans the "Slavic" influence was not as great as the politics of the Pan-Slavic movement would have you believe. I have no personal stake in the matter. It's just that facts are facts, no matter how inconvenient they might turn out to be.

Thank you for admitting that the Slavic migration actually occurred and had a visible genetic effect, even on Greeks. You can bet how much it had on others. I also agree that the Pan-Slavic ideology changed the later perception of the ethnicities on Balkan peninsula, but the main "victim" of that ethnic "mascherade" were people called Croats, not ancient Roman Dalmatians if it was you thought. I can further elaborate that.


As for your conjectures about the Roman Empire, take it up with Ralph and Coop, who find no major input into Italy after about 400 BC except from the Balkans, or at least they see exchange after that period between the Balkans and Italy. If ancient dna proves them wrong, fine with me. If you're going to take over most of the known world you're going to absorb some of those peoples; if you're stuck in some out of the way, climate challenged place, not.

Ralph and Coop is my favourite paper! Thank you for mentioning it because I was up to do it anyway. Have you seen the image:

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001555.g005

It is called: "Estimated average total numbers of genetic common ancestors shared per pair of individuals in various pairs of populations, in roughly the time periods 0–500 ya, 500–1,500 ya, 1,500–2,500 ya, and 2,500–4,300 ya."

If one takes a look into the 3rd row (1,500–2,500 ya which is roughly a Roman Period) and 1st column (S-C, which means West-South Slavs), she may notice that S-C share almost the same number of ancestors within each other as they do with PL (Poles). At the same time the shared ancestry with all others, including Italians (IT), is insignificant.

Then if one looks at the later time period 500–1,500 ya (the chart above) which is the time when the great migration has started including the whole medieval period, she can see a significant drop of the ancestry that West South-Slavs share with Poles, where the shared ancestry among them is still high. At the same time the shared ancestry with combined Romanian-Bulgarian group gets its peak.

Then there is the last chart on the top, a period 0–500 ya, where the shared ancestry with Poles is practically absent as well as with the Romanians/Bugarians.

Ralph and Coop told us through genetics such a wonderful migration story of West-South-Slavs from the land where they lived together with Poles, but that land was not "Balkan" nor a Roman Empire. And we have historical records of that migration.

Angela
10-11-17, 03:49
Wonomyro: Thank you for admitting that the Slavic migration actually occurred and had a visible genetic effect, even on Greeks. You can bet how much it had on others. I also agree that the Pan-Slavic ideology changed the later perception of the ethnicities on Balkan peninsula, but the main "victim" of that ethnic "mascherade" were people called Croats, not ancient Roman Dalmatians if it was you thought. I can further elaborate that.

"Admitting" it makes it sound as if I previously thought otherwise. I've always thought that there was a significant migration of Slavic speaking peoples into the Balkans in the early Middle Ages. How else would they have come to speak Slavic languages after all? Linguistics, history and now genetics all agree. These people were new arrivals in the Balkans. No academic historian or researcher in the field of population genetics of any repute whatsover thinks otherwise. The fantasies taught in the Balkans dating to before the fall of the Soviet Union are to be ignored by anyone who hopes to be taken seriously outside of his own little ethnic circles.

That doesn't, however, mean that the "Southern Slavs" are all that much like Poles or Ukrainians, although it differs by "ethnicity", and there is more similarity in terms of ydna. The "Southern Slavs" are Southern Europeans genetically, as all modern genetics papers agree, although again there is a cline. Please review the links and graphs I provided upthread.

I'm not interested, nor is any one with any sense, in the bogus claims of Pan-Slavism, or the "autochthonous" theories, or the fairy tales about the Albanians arriving with the Ottomans, and Near Easterners and Slavs replacing the original "Nordic" Greeks. It's all equally nonsense. There is no longer any room for argument, not with the new ancient genetics papers and the new statistical methods being introduced by major ancient genetics labs all over the world. People post a great deal of ignorant nonsense on some of these threads.


Ralph and Coop is my favourite paper! Thank you for mentioning it because I was up to do it anyway. Have you seen the image:

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001555.g005

It is called: "Estimated average total numbers of genetic common ancestors shared per pair of individuals in various pairs of populations, in roughly the time periods 0–500 ya, 500–1,500 ya, 1,500–2,500 ya, and 2,500–4,300 ya."

If one takes a look into the 3rd row (1,500–2,500 ya which is roughly a Roman Period) and 1st column (S-C, which means West-South Slavs), she may notice that S-C share almost the same number of ancestors within each other as they do with PL (Poles). At the same time the shared ancestry with all others, including Italians (IT), is insignificant.

Then if one looks at the later time period 500–1,500 ya (the chart above) which is the time when the great migration has started including the whole medieval period, she can see a significant drop of the ancestry that West South-Slavs share with Poles, where the shared ancestry among them is still high. At the same time the shared ancestry with combined Romanian-Bulgarian group gets its peak.

Then there is the last chart on the top, a period 0–500 ya, where the shared ancestry with Poles is practically absent as well as with the Romanians/Bugarians.

Ralph and Coop told us through genetics such a wonderful migration story of West-South-Slavs from the land where they lived together with Poles, but that land was not "Balkan" nor a Roman Empire. And we have historical records of that migration.



I'm very familiar with it, and have indeed posted it on the thread at least twice.

If by calling attention to it you mean to imply that it shows that Southern Slavs are the same as Poles and Ukrainians, and that this ancestry is not the minority one in these people, then you are drastically misinterpreting what it is showing.

Ralph and Coop could not go further back into history than 4300 years ago, which is about 2300 BC, yes? You have to understand the limitations of IBD analysis. That's after not only the steppe incursions but thousands of years after the arrival of the Neolithic farmers from the Near East. So, Western Southern Slavs already had all of that dna which they share with Italians, Greeks, Spaniards etc. by 2300 BC.

The migrating Slavic speakers also contained that kind of ancestry.

ADMIXTURE and formal stats, of which I gave you several examples, clearly pick up the much more ancient shared ancestry.

You really have to go to the newbies thread and read all those papers, especially the Lazaridis, Haak, and Mathiesen ones.

One more time, this is from the Haak and Lazaridis paper. It is NOT based on ADMIXTURE; it is based on the even more accurate formal stats. Look at the Southern Slav populations compared to the Belarusians and Ukrainians and then compared to the Italians and Greeks. That should tell you all you need to know. Whatever you may prefer, while there is a cline, Croatians are not "Slavs", although they have more "northern" ancestry than some other groups in the Balkans. Even then, it depends on which Croats. I know a lot of Croatians from Dalmatia and the islands, and I think they're different, although I can't get them to test. Croats are closest to Bulgarians, and Bulgarians are very much like Northern Italians.

https://i.redd.it/zdw8ts4uh80y.png

Angela
10-11-17, 04:28
Please don’t take me wrong but the text you cited above is telling us nothing. Just a usual bla bla. The subject is sensitive and the accent was put on political correctness. What they say here can be applied to any part of the world. However, if one reads the text carefully she can find the following: “Western Balkan populations reveals a concordance of the data in both sets and the genetic uniformity of the studied populations, especially of Western South-Slavic speakers”.

Let’s forget that sterile language and take a look into the principal component analysis from the supporting information:

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105090.s002

Please, zoom in the European cluster in the top left segment. One should see the Ukrainian-Polish-Belarussian cluster in the top-right part of the screen. Diagonally, in the lower-left part there should be a more diverse Greek-Albanian cluster which almost touches Tuscan group. Please find Croats on the diagram and note where they are positioned relatively to the mentioned extremes?



Thank you for these images, but I can’t get much information out of them because they can't answer the question whether there was a Slavic migration or not.



I don't know but I agree with you in that.

That was an abstract, what do you expect?

I'm sorry if you find this insulting as that is not my intention, but nobody in the wider world cares enough about Balkan ethnogenesis to be playing around with these analyses because of "political correctness". There's no "politically correct" viewpoint about the Slavic migrations. Nobody much cares except Eastern Europeans and people in the Balkans. As for "political correctness", the term is used very incorrectly in these kinds of situations. It doesn't apply here as it refers to "The term political correctness (adjectivally: politically correct; commonly abbreviated to PC or P.C.) is used to describe language, policies, or measures that are intended to avoid offense or disadvantage to members of particular groups in society, almost always non-white minorities."

Even scholars like Lazaridis, who is a Greek, admit and show that there was some Slavic admixture even in mainland Greece. The only people who argue there wasn't seem to be some people from the Balkans, i.e. some Serbians etc.

I can't access your link. I'm assuming it was a PCA. PCAs only have two dimensions. They sometimes only account for about 24% of genetic variability.

Regardless, if you wanted to point out that Croatians are in between actual "Slavs" and Italians/Greeks, I've never denied it. Nor have I ever denied that Croatians are the most "northern" of the Balkan populations. You're preaching to the choir. Oh, do Croatians get a prize for that, or something? :)

I gave you the links not to show the "Slavic" migrations, which I think has been settled fact for a long time, but to show you the differences and similarities of the people of the Balkans versus "Northern Slavs" and Italians/Greeks through ADMIXTURE and formal stats, similarities which date to much longer ago than the 2300 BC which Ralph and Coop were able to trace.

Iberians are a great example. Iberians and Italians haven't directly shared alleles for thousands of years. That doesn't mean they aren't highly related through ancestry that dates even further back into the past. On numerous admixture analyses I am very near some Spanish populations, when I'm not near populations like Bulgarians or Albanians. In both cases, the majority of the similarity dates back to gene flows from the same sources that affected all these areas.

A. Papadimitriou
10-11-17, 04:50
The 'Slavic admixture' in Greeks is unquantifiable and the same is true for Germans, Austrians, Hungarians, Romanians and any group of 'Slavs'.

If we had samples from Trzciniec culture (thought to have been early Balto-Slavic by many) we would be able to make a logical argument about 'early Balto-Slavic' admixture in 'Slavic' and non-Slavic groups.

But there is a premise ('Trzciniec culture is early Balto-Slavic') which is unprovable.

davef
10-11-17, 05:04
Regardless, if you wanted to point out that Croatians are in between actual "Slavs" and Italians/Greeks, I've never denied it. Nor have I ever denied that Croatians are the most "northern" of the Balkan populations. You're preaching to the choir. Oh, do Croatians get a prize for that, or something? :)

Yeah, the golden Viking helmet. It should be a prize granted to any anthro forum member who scores the most Northern European in comparison to other members of his/her ethnic group or region. I can envision a winner receiving one in the mail and placing it on his desk near his Dorito bag and half eaten lo mein before returning to his 10 hr MMO session.

Angela
10-11-17, 06:12
The 'Slavic admixture' in Greeks is unquantifiable and the same is true for Germans, Austrians, Hungarians, Romanians and any group of 'Slavs'.

If we had samples from Trzciniec culture (thought to have been early Balto-Slavic by many) we would be able to make a logical argument about 'early Balto-Slavic' admixture in 'Slavic' and non-Slavic groups.

But there is a premise ('Trzciniec culture is early Balto-Slavic') which is unprovable.

It's true that we need ancient samples which are more proximate in time and space. However, if, as stated in the Lazaridis paper, the mainland Greeks are 75% similar to the ancient Mycenaeans, and we have to account for the Celts, Germanic tribes etc. which also impacted or at least went through the area, it would be somewhere under 25% even in the most northern areas.

Wonomyro
10-11-17, 07:01
"Admitting" it makes it sound as if I previously thought otherwise. I've always thought that there was a significant migration of Slavic speaking peoples into the Balkans in the early Middle Ages. How else would they have come to speak Slavic languages after all? Linguistics, history and now genetics all agree. These people were new arrivals in the Balkans. No one of any repute historically or in the field of population genetics thinks otherwise. The fantasies taught in the Balkans dating to before the fall of the Soviet Union are to be ignored by anyone who hopes to be taken seriously outside of his own little ethnic circles.

That doesn't, however, mean that the "Southern Slavs" are all that much like Poles or Ukrainians, although it differs by "ethnicity", and there is more similarity in terms of ydna. The "Southern Slavs" are Southern Europeans genetically, as all modern genetics papers agree, although again there is a cline. Please review the links and graphs I provided upthread.

Please define what “Southern Europeans genetically” means to you. Do you count Hungarians in that club? Croatian cluster is next to "Slavic" one, with Poles, Ukrainians and Belarusians. They overlap with Hungarians, far away from Greek, Albanians, not to mention Tuscans and Sardinians. Of course there is a cline. Nobody is talking about 100% Slavic Ancestry of Croats but neither Poles have 100% Slavic ancestry. So we can imagine original Slavs plot somewhere between present day Croats and Poles.


I'm not interested, nor is any one with any sense, in the bogus claims of Pan-Slavism, or the "autochthonous" theories, or the fairy tales about the Albanians arriving with the Ottomans, and Near Easterners and Slavs replacing the original "Nordic" Greeks. It's all equally nonsense. There is no longer any room for argument, not with the new ancient genetics papers and the new statistical methods being introduced by major ancient genetics labs all over the world. People post a great deal of ignorant nonsense on some of these threads.

What is the meaning of “bogus claims of Pan-Slavism” to you? For the rest I can agree.


I'm very familiar with it, and have indeed posted it on the thread at least twice.

If by calling attention to it you mean to imply that it shows that Southern Slavs are the same as Poles and Ukrainians, and that this ancestry is not the minority one in these people, then you are drastically misinterpreting what it is showing.

That Mr. Strowman shows, not me. Mind that the admixture with Albanians is presented on different image.


Ralph and Coop could not go further back into history than 4300 years ago, which is about 2300 BC, yes? You have to understand the limitations of IBD analysis. That's after not only the steppe incursions but thousands of years after the arrival of the Neolithic farmers from the Near East. So, Western Southern Slavs already had all of that dna which they share with Italians, Greeks, Spaniards etc.

The migrating Slavic speakers also contained that kind of ancestry.

I hope it is clear that the migration period took place in times reachable by IBD analysis. And the diagrams show it. It does not matter what happened before. Neolithic “segments” are ignored. Only lengths that fit to the period are counted.



ADMIXTURE and formal stats, of which I gave you several examples, clearly pick up the shared ancestry.

You really have to go to the newbies thread and read all those papers, especially the Lazaridis, Haak, and Mathiesen ones.

One more time, this is from the Haak and Lazaridis paper. It is NOT based on ADMIXTURE; it is based on the even more accurate formal stats. Look at the Southern Slav populations compared to the Belarusians and Ukrainians and then compared to the Italians and Greeks. That should tell you all you need to know. Whatever you may prefer, while there is a cline, Croatians are not "Slavs", although they have more "northern" ancestry than some other groups in the Balkans. Even then, it depends on which Croats. I know a lot of Croatians from Dalmatia and the islands, and I think they're different, although I can't get them to test.

One can't cherry pick Croats to prove the origin of the Croatian nation. There is statistics for that.


https://i.redd.it/zdw8ts4uh80y.png

How can you prove or disprove historic migrations with three pre-historic components? According to the diagram Croats are closer to English than Bulgarians. Does it make any sense?

Wonomyro
10-11-17, 07:21
That was a download link to a TIFF image. But never mind, here is the link to a whole document, it was a Figure 2 from the suplemental information section (below the text).

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0105090

Wonomyro
10-11-17, 08:20
Even scholars like Lazaridis, who is a Greek, admit and show that there was some Slavic admixture even in mainland Greece. The only people who argue there wasn't seem to be some people from the Balkans, i.e. some Serbians etc. Greeks have some Slavic admixture? Lucky guys! Croats don't.....:useless:... she said...
I can't access your link. I'm assuming it was a PCA. PCAs only have two dimensions. They sometimes only account for about 24% of genetic variability. (On the previous post).
Regardless, if you wanted to point out that Croatians are in between actual "Slavs" and Italians/Greeks, I've never denied it. Nor have I ever denied that Croatians are the most "northern" of the Balkan populations. You're preaching to the choir. Oh, do Croatians get a prize for that, or something? :) Present day Poles or Belarussian don't have to be more "actual" Slavs then Croats. Why people always do that logical mistake. You mentioned cline. When you see the PCA then please note the South-Slavic cline direction. One side points to European north east. That is where the South-Slavs came from. Other side points to Albanians who represent autohtonous population with whom Croats mixed. It can't be more obvious. Cline does not point to England or France nor Italy.
I gave you the links not to show the "Slavic" migrations, which I think has been settled fact for a long time, but to show you the differences and similarities of the people of the Balkans versus "Northern Slavs" and Italians/Greeks through ADMIXTURE and formal stats, similarities which date to much longer ago than the 2300 BC which Ralph and Coop were able to trace. Iberians are a great example. Iberians and Italians haven't directly shared alleles for thousands of years. That doesn't mean they aren't highly related through ancestry that dates even further back into the past. On numerous admixture analyses I am very near some Spanish populations, when I'm not near populations like Bulgarians or Albanians. In both cases, the majority of the similarity dates back to gene flows from the same sources that affected all these areas. We are not interested in older admixture. What if Illyrians had similar component composition to Slavs? Then if there was a population replacement how wuld we know it from a diagram?

Wonomyro
10-11-17, 08:32
Yeah, the golden Viking helmet. It should be a prize granted to any anthro forum member who scores the most Northern European in comparison to other members of his/her ethnic group or region. I can envision a winner receiving one in the mail and placing it on his desk near his Dorito bag and half eaten lo mein before returning to his 10 hr MMO session.

This is the third time that you insulted me and my people. What is your problemo?

davef
10-11-17, 10:51
^^ I'm not aware of the first, second, or third time I've insulted you or your people. I was cracking a joke at anthro forum people who obsess over Northern European ancestry in response to Angela's "award" comment and it wasn't directed at you or Croatians in any way shape or form.

I have nothing against Croatian people and don't recall saying anything against them.

Wonomyro
10-11-17, 11:55
^^ I'm not aware of the first, second, or third time I've insulted you or your people. I was cracking a joke at anthro forum people who obsess over Northern European ancestry in response to Angela's "award" comment and it wasn't directed at you or Croatians in any way shape or form. I have nothing against Croatian people and don't recall saying anything against them. So please don't suggest people where they should go to discuss based on their nationality. That sounds very rude and rasistic.

Fatherland
10-11-17, 15:45
Can we merge these threads? The discussion is the same in both.

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/26903-How-did-I2a-Din-get-to-the-Balkans/page50?p=524048&viewfull=1#post524048 (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/26903-How-did-I2a-Din-get-to-the-Balkans/page50?p=524048&viewfull=1#post524048)

Angela
10-11-17, 20:27
@Wonomyro,

This is my last attempt:

Nowhere did I say that Croatians don't have ancestry from the migration period, i.e the Slavic migrations. Croatia is part of the Balkans, is it not? Didn't I, at quite some length, say that the Slavic migrations did impact the Balkans? Didn't I say that Croatia had more of that ancestry than the other Balkan nations? How many more ways and times can I say it?

Of course Ralph and Coop were able to reach the migration period with IBD analysis, and that analysis did show the Slavic migrations. That's why I brought it up, or did you forget that.

I corrected you because you thought that showed there was no shared ancestry with Italy or Greece etc. That shared ancestry was older, from long before 2300 BC, and so wouldn't show up in that analysis. You apparently still don't understand that.

You also don't seem to understand the ancient migration history of Europe at all. ADMIXTURE and formal stats show it through other methods. A graph like the one from Haak et al illustrates it. It was based on a comparison to ancient samples. During the Mesolithic, every sample found in Europe was "blue". Then a group arrived from Anatolia bringing agriculture and domesticated animals with them. They are represented by the "orange" component. They reached all through Southern Europe, including the Balkans, into Hungary and Germany, France, and England, and even into Sweden. They didn't penetrate into certain northern coastal areas and or into far Northeastern Europe. Then people arrived from the steppe sometime around 3000 BC who are represented by the "green" component who were themselves a mixture of hunter-gatherers and people from the Caucasus or south of it, perhaps herders.

Europeans are a mixture of these three groups, just in different proportions. In 3000 or 3500 BC, when the steppe people arrived, the Balkans, like most of the rest of Europe, was inhabited by people who were largely "orange", although they had absorbed about 25% "blue". The steppe people mixed things up. They also brought the Indo-European languages, of which Greek is one. Thousands of years later the Slavic speakers arrived, who themselves carried "farmer" ancestry, although in lower proportions.

That's a much simplified version.

Now, I'm out. Until people read the papers I provided in the newbie thread, and understand them, they will not understand the population genetics of their own area. It's also pointless to keep debating with people who haven't done so, so I'm out.

Believe what you wish, but the facts are as I've described.

Milan.M
10-11-17, 21:45
I can bet for right now that by majority the "ethnogenesis" of South Slavs and their neighbors were done in late Bronze age and Iron age,so called migration period brought very little to no changes.
Sample from Iron age can proof this,how similar or dissimilar we are.
Same scenario happened to most Europeans,Iron age was one of the last stage of migrations and forming of classical "ethnicities" we historically know of such as Celts,Thracians,Romans including ancient Greeks (Mycenaeans are from another era).

And no with so called Slavic migrations in the Balkans,no ethnic Poles or Russians poured out in the Balkans,but people somewhat similar genetically with the said groups,they did not came from Russia but from lower Danube,every historical source is quite clear where Sclavenes were although our imagination can place them anywhere we wish.
Also i call it military conquest rather than migration,comparable to Hungarian conquest,Turkic conquest and so on.What genetic changes they brought in places they settled,even in my opinion they traveled from much further places.

Milan.M
10-11-17, 21:53
Slavs from Balkans are much more similar with LBA Hungary than with many other Slavic samples known,except the ones from Bohemia that is EMA_Slavic_RISE568
,who are much more related but not only to Slavic speakers but to Albanians,Greeks also,the ones from Poland like EMA_Balto-Slav_Niem34
EMA_Slavic_Mar7
you can't even find on a chart,for example a calculator posted by Tomenable modeling Greeks as mixes of 250 ancient samples https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34462-Modeling-Greeks-as-mixes-of-250-ancient-samples ,you can see Slavs and their neighbors.
16. Slavs Macedonia (average):

Normal mode:

LBA_Hungary_BR2 37.30
EMA_Slavic_RISE568 14.00
BA_Mycenaean_I9006 12.05
BA_Mycenaean_I9041 9.90
EBA_Armenia_I1658 6.75
IA_LevantEgypt_3DRIF26b 6.55
EMA_Slavic_RISE569 5.15
CA_Iran_I1665b 3.00
BB_Czechia_RISE567 1.40
MBA_Armenia_RISE416 1.10
MBA_Armenia_RISE423 0.60
EMA_Slavic_Mar7 0.55
CA_Iran_I1674 0.55
Malta_Siberia 0.40
IA_ScythianPazyryk_Be9 0.35
Ancestral_North_African 0.20
IA_EastGermanic_Mas5 0.10
CCC_Estonia_MA975 0.05

24. Slavs Montenegro (average):

Normal mode:

LBA_Hungary_BR2 22.30
EMA_Slavic_RISE568 17.50
BA_Mycenaean_I9041 16.95
EMA_Slavic_RISE569 11.65
BA_Sweden_RISE210 9.35
BA_Mycenaean_I9006 9.15
EBA_Armenia_I1658 8.40
IA_Kazakhstan_Is2 1.80
LBA_Armenia_RISE397 1.20
EMA_Slavic_Mar7 0.70
EBA_Armenia_I1633 0.40
IA_ScythianPazyryk_Be9 0.40
Amerind_Mexico-Pericues 0.10
Ancestral_North_African 0.10

21. Slavs Bulgaria (average):

Normal mode:

BA_Mycenaean_I9041 21.05
EMA_Slavic_RISE568 19.65
LBA_Hungary_BR2 12.00
EBA_Armenia_I1658 10.50
BA_Mycenaean_I9006 9.10
BA_Hungary_RISE371 6.80
BA_Sweden_RISE210 6.65
BA_Levant_I1705 3.25
EMA_Slavic_Mar7 3.00
IA_Kazakhstan_Is2 2.65
IA_LevantEgypt_3DRIF26b 2.15
MBA_Armenia_RISE416 2.10
Malta_Siberia 1.00
Melanesian 0.10


15. Greeks Macedonia (average):

Normal mode:

BA_Mycenaean_I9041 23.15
EMA_Slavic_RISE569 12.40
BA_Mycenaean_I9006 11.90
BA_Sweden_RISE210 9.85
EBA_Armenia_I1658 9.10
MBA_Armenia_RISE416 6.90
EMA_Slavic_RISE568 5.95
IA_LevantEgypt_3DRIF26b 5.25
BA_Levant_I1730 4.20
BA_Hungary_RISE371 4.10
EMA_Slavic_Mar7 2.85
CA_Iran_I1674 2.80
LBA_Hungary_BR2 1.40
CA_Iran_I1665b 0.15

18. Southern Albania (average):

Normal mode:

BA_Mycenaean_I9041 39.70
EMA_Slavic_RISE569 15.10
BA_Mycenaean_I9006 14.00
IA_LevantEgypt_3DRIF26b 6.20
BA_Sweden_RISE210 4.65
IA_EastGermanic_Kow55 4.25
MBA_Armenia_RISE423 4.05
LBA_Hungary_BR2 3.30
LBA_Armenia_RISE396 3.25
MBA_Armenia_RISE416 2.15
EBA_Armenia_I1658 1.90
EMA_Slavic_RISE568 0.90
IA_LevantEgypt_3DRIF26 0.30
BA_Levant_I1730 0.20
BA_Hungary_RISE371 0.05

20. Kosovo (average):

Normal mode:

BA_Mycenaean_I9041 33.20
BA_Mycenaean_I9006 14.95
EMA_Slavic_RISE569 11.80
BA_Sweden_RISE210 8.15
EMA_Slavic_RISE568 6.45
LBA_Hungary_BR2 5.60
IA_EastGermanic_Kow55 5.55
MBA_Armenia_RISE416 4.30
CA_Iran_I1674 3.10
LBA_Armenia_RISE396 3.00
LBA_Armenia_RISE397 1.55
BA_Hungary_RISE371 1.00
BA_Levant_I1705 0.70
BA_Anatolia_Kum4 0.25
EBA_Armenia_I1658 0.25
Ancestral_North_African 0.15


The high LBA Hungary in South Slavs support my claim that ethnogenesis of South Slavs were mostly done in LBA and begining of Iron age.

Wonomyro
11-11-17, 00:08
@Wonomyro,

This is my last attempt:

Nowhere did I say that Croatians don't have ancestry from the migration period, i.e the Slavic migrations. Croatia is part of the Balkans, is it not? Didn't I, at quite some length, say that the Slavic migrations did impact the Balkans? Didn't I say that Croatia had more of that ancestry than the other Balkan nations? How many more ways and times can I say it?

Of course Ralph and Coop were able to reach the migration period with IBD analysis, and that analysis did show the Slavic migrations. That's why I brought it up, or did you forget that.

This is what I believe caused the misunderstanding: When you say that Croats had “Slavic” ancestry, it is a contradiction, because “Croats” is the name of that ancestry.

It is just a matter how much of that ancestry left in present day population. Some here say it is just few percent, and I must disagree. The Ralph and Coop paper clearly showed that Polish-like ancestry in Croatian gene pool is far larger then any other including, with all respect, Italian. And I am not talking here about the prehistoric admixture which occurred as well, but more recent one which we can identify ONLY with IBD analysis.


I corrected you because you thought that showed there was no shared ancestry with Italy or Greece etc. That shared ancestry was older, from long before 2300 BC, and so wouldn't show up in that analysis. You apparently still don't understand that.

I understand it very well. Some Italian-like ancestry is still present in Croatian population, but is not as large as the Polish-like.

http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/figure/image?size=medium&id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001555.g003


]You also don't seem to understand the ancient migration history of Europe at all. ADMIXTURE and formal stats show it through other methods. A graph like the one from Haak et al illustrates it. It was based on a comparison to ancient samples. During the Mesolithic, every sample found in Europe was "blue". Then a group arrived from Anatolia bringing agriculture and domesticated animals with them. They are represented by the "orange" component. They reached all through Southern Europe, including the Balkans, into Hungary and Germany, France, and England, and even into Sweden. They didn't penetrate into certain northern coastal areas and or into far Northeastern Europe. Then people arrived from the steppe sometime around 3000 BC who are represented by the "green" component who were themselves a mixture of hunter-gatherers and people from the Caucasus or south of it, perhaps herders.

Europeans are a mixture of these three groups, just in different proportions. In 3000 or 3500 BC, when the steppe people arrived, the Balkans, like most of the rest of Europe, was inhabited by people who were largely "orange", although they had absorbed about 25% "blue". The steppe people mixed things up. They also brought the Indo-European languages, of which Greek is one. Thousands of years later the Slavic speakers arrived, who themselves carried "farmer" ancestry, although in lower proportions.

That's a much simplified version.


We can’t properly describe historic migrations with prehistoric genomes. It’s too old. During the migration period both people possessed all of these components. EEF has its peak in Sardinia but that doesn’t mean that EEF component came to Croatia from Sardinia. It is about the resolution of data. To illustrate this I am attaching this simple diagram. It is clear that Croats group with French and Hungarians, not e.g. Bulgarians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Admixture.png

But even such simplified view reveals that Croats are not so “Balkan” as one might think, whatever that term means to you.



Now, I'm out. Until people read the papers I provided in the newbie thread, and understand them, they will not understand the population genetics of their own area. It's also pointless to keep debating with people who haven't done so, so I'm out.

I respect that and I am not going to continue. However it was a great pleasure to exchange thoughts with you.

Wonomyro
11-11-17, 01:06
The high LBA Hungary in South Slavs support my claim that ethnogenesis of South Slavs were mostly done in LBA and begining of Iron age.[/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR] Then what happened in Iron Age? https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms6257/figures/2

davef
11-11-17, 03:21
So please don't suggest people where they should go to discuss based on their nationality. That sounds very rude and rasistic.

Oh no, failure to communicate on my part. Not to worry, I wasn't suggesting it due to your ethnicity, I would've done the same if you were any other ancestry. The thread isn't a segregational unit for Balkan members as if they're blacks living in Jim Crow south, it's just a place to post off topic arguments related to the balkans without having to start a new thread.

Milan.M
11-11-17, 09:03
Then what happened in Iron Age? https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms6257/figures/2
I can tell you what i think it happened in Iron age,and formed one of the last stages of our genesis.
The begining of Iron age in Europe is connected with the so called "Thraco-Cimmerian" culture zone.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Thraco-Cimmerian.png

In the Pontic Steppe and the Caucasus region, the Iron Age begins with the Koban and the Chernogorovka and Novocherkassk cultures from c. 900 BC. By 800 BC, it was spreading to Halstatt C via the alleged "Thraco-Cimmerian" migrations.
The map above also correlates with I2a-din haplogroup and people and regions "South Slavs" are the most alike wheter connected or not,just a suggestion.
Contact with Halstatt also formed the Celts in my opinion and not earlier cultures as some people thought.Celts will settled and appear in their places.Dorians will appear in Greece,wheter inner Greek migration or not.
When discussing made "ethnicities" in the Balkans by exonyms of foreigners such as Illyrians,Thracians,Dacians.Illyria was Roman province but this archeological culture is reality.

From the paper you post it;


Our Copper Age (Baden Culture) sample shows similarity to Neolithic genomes, in accordance with archaeological continuity in the region. In contrast, the Bronze Age genomes shift towards an affinity to Central Europe, suggesting migratory influence from the North. The single pre-Scythian IR1 genome shows another shift towards migration from the East. Altogether, our results accord with archaeological perspectives that link these major transitions in European material culture to population movements rather than cultural diffusion alone.


A third genomic shift occurs around the turn of the first millennium BC. The single Iron Age genome, sampled from the pre-Scythian Mezőcsát Culture (Iron Age (IR1), 830–980 cal BC), shows a distinct shift towards Eastern Eurasian genotypes, specifically in the direction of several Caucasus population samples within the reference data set. This result, supported by mtDNA and Y-chromosome haplogroups (N and G2a1, respectively, both with Asian affinities) suggests genomic influences from the East. This is supported by the archaeological record which indicates increased technological and typological affinities with Steppe cultures at this time, including the importation of horse riding, carts, chariots and metallurgical techniques26. Modern Hungarians occupy an intermediate position between the IR1 and more Western Bronze Age genomes, most likely reflecting the continuation of admixture in the Central European gene pool since this time.

Ed the Red
11-11-17, 10:00
It would be more reasonable to presume that R1b-U152 came in Eastern Europe with Romans but not Galatians. Galatians were real IE warriors that means they could not be R1b. Surely they were R1a.

What does that mean? You're saying R1b aren't real IE warriors haha c'mon. Celts are mostly R1b. They were Vikings before the Vikings were Vikings. They invaded all of southern Europe. Like sacking Rome in 390 B.C.

Ed the Red
11-11-17, 10:06
I know I know, a topic for another thread

RaciallyUnequivocal
20-01-18, 19:12
Looking at it racially - Croats from Bosnia are the biggest group of this variant. Croats in general are highly Dinaric to Noric (the last being a Dinaric and Nordic sub variant). I would even say 60 to 70 % of all the Croats overall have this appearance or at least strong strains of such. The Noric more light variant isn’t rare at all in BiH among Muslims and Croats nor is it that type rare over the borders of Croatia itself (close to the BiH region and in Dalmatia). I had blond hair as a child and so do all 7 children of my uncle for instance (and 5 still do while or near teenage now) and all have clear Dinaric features. The rest is chiefly Alpine and on the Coast of Croatia you will usually find more (Alto)-Meds with some East-Baltics as well (rare breed but there are some of them usually more Northwest of Croatia as well) – Croats overall racially show all types of European everywhere within the general population with as such numerous sub-types, but predominantly Croats are Dinaric then Alpine plus the Med - within Bosnia usually the Dinaric-Noric to Alpine type or variant overall being dominant.

Reading some present-day anthropologists, they tend to have the consensus that the Dinaric type is a mix of Med (predominantly - thus it being a sub variant of the European med race in reality) plus one with clear and strong Alpine and Nordic strains– creating the Dinaric type. This makes sense as Croats are genetically predominantly Southern-European. As such I believe that this mutation happened when a decent portion of Nordics intermixed heavily and continually with Alpines and especially European Med people in the Balkan region thousands of years ago. The incoming tribes to the region were likely Germanic and / or Proto-Slavic plus the European tribes mentioned in the OP. Nordics were generally Germanic (to this day the more Germanic nations are more Nordic racially overall) plus various European Med and Alpine tribes – creating the dominant Dinaric type. I don’t believe initially at least the amount of Nordic blood to have been little to our region. So this mutation happened due to heavy intermixing between these tribes / races.

With Croats now being Slavic linguistically due to numerous (central) Slavic immigration in the 7th century (chiefly to the North-West region). I believe these were mostly Alpine Slavs (the region there now is still mostly Alpine). Though I don’t believe it to be the dominant Croatian core at all. I don’t believe Croats are predominately Slavic racially - if you can speak of a “Slavic race.” It’s more of a linguistic term. Slavs tend to be Alpine to Neo-Danubian (Poland) and more East-Baltic eastwards predominately with some Dinaric and Nordic Slavic variants as well. With Meds more rare among Slavs. Croats are far more Med than the other Slavic races East. Our genes are predominantly Southern European (Dinaric - Med) and then central European (Alpine – Noric). We generally cluster closer to our neighbors for this reason and not Eastern-Slavs in any case. Culturally we are also far more Med European than (Eastern) Slavic imo as well, also due to the dominant Catholic religion for ages. Serbs have similar types, also having a good portion of Dinards with some Norics in lesser amounts. Though they have intermixed substantially more with Greco-(Anatolian) East-Meds and some Romanian tribes as such having a different appearance overall and they are simply different culturally as well. Czech, Slovaks, Slovenians and then Poles are the most similar other Slavic speaking groups to Croats after Bosnian-Bosniaks and then Serbs of course.

MaxCRO
27-01-18, 14:32
Croats are genetically central European population, which means mixture of northern and southern genes.

We are not ''pred.'' southern Europeans and it wouldn't make sense if we were. However we have significant southern European admixture.

If this bothers other people, especially true southern Europeans we have no true relation with, it's their problem only.
I am personally far closer to Czechs and Slovaks autosomally, than to Bulgarians, and not to mention Italians or Greeks.

MaxCRO
27-01-18, 14:44
@Wonomyro,

This is my last attempt:

Nowhere did I say that Croatians don't have ancestry from the migration period, i.e the Slavic migrations. Croatia is part of the Balkans, is it not? Didn't I, at quite some length, say that the Slavic migrations did impact the Balkans? Didn't I say that Croatia had more of that ancestry than the other Balkan nations? How many more ways and times can I say it?

What means ''balkans'' to you ? I am well educated, and it was originaly meant to represent Ottoman possesions in south-eastern Europe after Treaty of Karlowitz.
Now, what balkans represent today is different compared to it's original and historical meaning.

I will ask you to refrain using Croatia in relation with ''balkans'' because I find it offensive and degratory. We don't identify with ''balkans'', ''balkan nations'' and so on, perhaps the Italians or other foreigners do, but now when you know it's not so well accepted among mainstream Croatian society I politely ask you to change your approach.

Angela
27-01-18, 16:54
What means ''balkans'' to you ? I am well educated, and it was originaly meant to represent Ottoman possesions in south-eastern Europe after Treaty of Karlowitz.
Now, what balkans represent today is different compared to it's original and historical meaning.

I will ask you to refrain using Croatia in relation with ''balkans'' because I find it offensive and degratory. We don't identify with ''balkans'', ''balkan nations'' and so on, perhaps the Italians or other foreigners do, but now when you know it's not so well accepted among mainstream Croatian society I politely ask you to change your approach.

Geographically, historically, politically, and in the eyes of the rest of the world Croatia is a Balkan country. As for Croatians themselves, I know quite a few and they view it similarly. Who are you to speak for a whole country?

Anyone interested in genetics knows that Croatians are less "southern" than people from some other parts of the Balkans. Only a racist like you would care.

Wonomyro
27-01-18, 17:22
Balkan is a term with plenty of meanings.

Is Croatia a Balkan country/nation?


Historically? No.

Culturally? No. (with few exceptions)

Confessionally? No.

Politically? No.

Linguistically? No.

Self-declaratively? No.

Geographically? Only partly, if we accept the strict geographical definition, which is dubious.

And the most relevant for this thread - genetically? No.

MaxCRO
27-01-18, 17:27
Geographically, historically, politically, and in the eyes of the rest of the world Croatia is a Balkan country. As for Croatians themselves, I know quite a few and they view it similarly. Who are you to speak for a whole country? Anyone interested in genetics knows that Croatians are less "southern" than people from some other parts of the Balkans. Only a racist like you would care.Balkan is not a historically geographic term. Geograpically, Croatia is crossroads of central and southeastern Europe.However southestern Europe is not synonomous with balkans. Greece is best example for that. And even geographically cca. 45% of Croatia lies in southeastern Europe, the rest being central.Romania lies almost completely outside of southeastern Europe, however people usually refer to it as balkan country, because it was primarly geopolitical concept related with Ottoman occupation.Historically, Croatia became part of balkan geopolitically in 1918. However, so did Slovenia. I am not ignoring that part of history ofcourse, but since it was one unsucessful and painful episode we prefer to put emphasis on almost 1000 years before that. You must understand, our genetically related southern slavic neighbours have very different history, religion and culture than we do. Therefore, balkan identity is something very foreign to most of us.I have no idea what kind of Croats you met, but only Bosnian-Herzegovian Croats are balkan people, with balkan culture and history related with that part of the world.They are our link with that region. And not less Croat, nevertheless. Equally worthy, but simply very different as other balkan people are.I am absolutely anti-racist. Just don't want to be said what I am by foreigners with their prejudices and lack of knowledge. Croatian history and identity is quite complex topic.To say we are not genetically southern European people is not racism but simple fact. Europe is not split in north and south only, but there are many populations who fluctuate between the two, like Croats do, or like French do.

And genetics doesn't relate with culture and regional belonging. Some of closest people to Croats genetically are Bosniak muslims, who are as foreign as they can be culturally, historically and politically from us. Hope I made quality point.

Angela
27-01-18, 17:50
Well, well, Davef, didn't you just post that you don't believe in signalling disagreement by giving downvotes, and believe disagreement should be posted so as to be direct and not passive aggressive? Guess you changed your mind?

I actually think you were originally correct. I give a lot of up votes, but I only down vote a post if it has the hallmarks of agenda, dishonesty, racism, or a blatant disregard for not only forum, but civilized conventions. Well, I also do it when someone is using them for a personal reason. Otherwise, I just argue the point as civilly as possible. Anything else smacks of passive aggression to me, as well as an acknowledgement that you can't win the debate.

Too bad you changed your stance. I actually respected it.

davef
27-01-18, 17:58
.....Wait!!! I had to scroll back to find the post I downvoted (you can tell you voted on one if you can't vote it again) because I was unaware that I did, I may have accidentally tapped it on my phone as I was scrolling or (less likely) triggered it after putting it down face down. Ill just give you an upvote to cancel it out.

Very sorry for the mistake, let me know if this happens again :)

MOESAN
27-01-18, 18:11
War again? Croatia is commonly packed along with Balkans (geographically spite unperfectly) by Western Europeans because of its ancient appartenance to old Yougoslavia, without being attached too tightly to a specific vision of culture/race etc... and its Dalmatian part is very much in the Wester Balkans geographic area, I think.
otherwise, Croatians on PCA's based on autosomes are almost everytime close to Hungarians, more Central Europe and less Southeastern Europe than Romanians, Bulgarians or Albanians, by instance, and it is not disputed, I believe. Their phenotypes as a whole evocate also more Central Europe than Southern Europe, this last term being very unprecise in itself concerning phenotypes.
But I find a bit too sensitive the reactions of someones as if to be "Balkan" would be kind f insult. Everyone with a little bit of culture knows that the region shelters a lot of different people which share nevertheless common parts of ancestry and of history (including numerous wars where they were sometimes on the same side, sometimes in the opposite ones), what does not mean they can be "reduced' to a signle pop.
So everyone can make some precisions without it would be obliged to turn into a verbal war.

MaxCRO
27-01-18, 18:22
War again? Croatia is commonly packed along with Balkans (geographically spite unperfectly) by Western Europeans because of its ancient appartenance to old Yougoslavia, without being attached too tightly to a specific vision of culture/race etc... and its Dalmatian part is very much in the Wester Balkans geographic area, I think.
otherwise, Croatians on PCA's based on autosomes are almost everytime close to Hungarians, more Central Europe and less Southeastern Europe than Romanians, Bulgarians or Albanians, by instance, and it is not disputed, I believe. Their phenotypes as a whole evocate also more Central Europe than Southern Europe, this last term being very unprecise in itself concerning phenotypes.
But I find a bit too sensitive the reactions of someones as if to be "Balkan" would be kind f insult. Everyone with a little bit of culture knows that the region shelters a lot of different people which share nevertheless common parts of ancestry and of history (including numerous wars where they were sometimes on the same side, sometimes in the opposite ones), what does not mean they can be "reduced' to a signle pop.
So everyone can make some precisions without it would be obliged to turn into a verbal war.

Dalmatia lies completely in southeastern Europe. However ''western balkans'' is post-2000 geopolitical term for countries of ex-Yugoslavia + Albania, which still did not join euro-atlantic integrations. It has little historical value. Otherwise, there would exist ''northern'', ''eastern'' and ''southern'' Balkans as well, which of course does not.

don_joe
27-01-18, 18:25
I am a Croat and I don't feel offended when people in Switzerland, here where I live call Croatia a Balkan country. What does it mean at all? Geographically? Yes, Balkan starts somewhere in the North-West. So where is the border? There are a few definitions but let's say it's the river Sava. Myself, I'm from northern Croatia, so techically I'm not even from Balkan. But many of my fellow countrymen are from the other side, I certainly have some ancestry from there too. What is so bad about being from Balkan? Are you a better person if you're from central Europe and not from Balkan? In the historical and cultural sense, Croatia is a part of Balkan (as well as of central Europe), at least a good part of it. Being Catholic and not Orthodox or Muslim doesn't make the difference, religion isn't the criteria here. I would recommend you to embrace this fact, to live with it in peace. Don't show yourself better than it is, there's no need for it. And if you doubt that Croatia is a Balkan country, just look at it's government.

Sile
27-01-18, 18:25
Balkan is not a historically geographic term. Geograpically, Croatia is crossroads of central and southeastern Europe.However southestern Europe is not synonomous with balkans. Greece is best example for that. And even geographically cca. 45% of Croatia lies in southeastern Europe, the rest being central.Romania lies almost completely outside of southeastern Europe, however people usually refer to it as balkan country, because it was primarly geopolitical concept related with Ottoman occupation.Historically, Croatia became part of balkan geopolitically in 1918. However, so did Slovenia. I am not ignoring that part of history ofcourse, but since it was one unsucessful and painful episode we prefer to put emphasis on almost 1000 years before that. You must understand, our genetically related southern slavic neighbours have very different history, religion and culture than we do. Therefore, balkan identity is something very foreign to most of us.I have no idea what kind of Croats you met, but only Bosnian-Herzegovian Croats are balkan people, with balkan culture and history related with that part of the world.They are our link with that region. And not less Croat, nevertheless. Equally worthy, but simply very different as other balkan people are.I am absolutely anti-racist. Just don't want to be said what I am by foreigners with their prejudices and lack of knowledge. Croatian history and identity is quite complex topic.To say we are not genetically southern European people is not racism but simple fact. Europe is not split in north and south only, but there are many populations who fluctuate between the two, like Croats do, or like French do.

And genetics doesn't relate with culture and regional belonging. Some of closest people to Croats genetically are Bosniak muslims, who are as foreign as they can be culturally, historically and politically from us. Hope I made quality point.

Why is istria part of the balkans when it has part of the alps ......julian alps which slovenia has as well .................clearly the term balkans is based on national borders ( wrong system ) and not geography .
some also have Romania as part of the balkans and other do not

Clearly there are too many sensitive people who decide what is what based on if it will effect others feelings and not based on fact

MaxCRO
27-01-18, 18:36
. And if you doubt that Croatia is a Balkan country, just look at it's government.This is final proof of your own ignorance, because by implications Croatian government is ''bad'' you imply it's connection with balkan, which seem to you be negative.While I do not identify with balkan identity, I wouldn't be so foolish to imply balkan means everything negative. Italy is quite famous for it's unstable governments, does it sudenly makes it balkan country ? Can you elaborate us what is balkan about Croatian culture and history ? And the geographical definition by sava river does not hold any value, because quite a lot of territory south of sava belongs to panonnian plain, same unit as teritories north of it. From pure geographical pow, transition from central to southeastern Europe begins with dinaric mountain range.

Wonomyro
27-01-18, 18:36
What is so bad about being from Balkan?

It is factually wrong, to start with. It is, however, your right to call yourself whatever you like, listen to music you like,...

MaxCRO
27-01-18, 18:42
It is factually wrong, to start with. It is, however, your right to call yourself whatever you like, listen to music you like,...

For them, being less affluent and more corrupted than let say Switzerland, makes it balkan country, ignoring the fact, if Albania or Bulgaria suddenly become most developed countries in Europe, they would still remain balkan countries, because their identity is such.

Problem is this people who push balkan identity actually do not respect it like I do.
I do not consider central europe to be any better than balkan is, but simply that region is what I'm familiar with.
German or Czech criminal and rapist is still central european, and Albanian or Bosnian doctor or architect is still a balkan person.

Balkans does not equal povetry and wars, actually there were more wars in western Europe compared to Balkans in last 1000 years.
Balkan has spacific history and culture, which Croatia doesn't really belongs to, but not because it's ''better'' than it, but because it has simply very different cultural/historical development.

Wonomyro
27-01-18, 18:43
This is final proof of your own ignorance, because by implications Croatian government is ''bad'' you imply it's connection with balkan, which seem to you be negative.

:laughing:

Well noticed! He unintentionally made the point more convincing that we would do!

Johane Derite
27-01-18, 18:46
This is the only true and valid balkan litmus test:

https://i.pinimg.com/474x/91/01/10/9101102dbaf5883e89c58d481c9c64c0--albania.jpg

MaxCRO
27-01-18, 18:49
This is the only true and valid balkan litmus test:

https://i.pinimg.com/474x/91/01/10/9101102dbaf5883e89c58d481c9c64c0--albania.jpg

Ćevapčići is bosnian dish, you can find them native in Serbia and few other countries too. In Croatia this food is not part of our traditional cusine.

Wonomyro
27-01-18, 18:57
, I think. otherwise, Croatians on PCA's based on autosomes are almost everytime close to Hungarians, more Central Europe and less Southeastern Europe

When we are already comparing Croatia to Hungary as “indisputably Central European”, then look at some interesting facts about the capitals:


The Ottomans conquered Buda in 1526, as well in 1529, and finally occupied it in 1541.[79] The Turkish Rule lasted for more than 140 years.

Zagreb, Croatian capital, never fell under the Turkish Rule...

don_joe
27-01-18, 19:04
Where did I write something negative about Balkan? That about the goverment was to emphasise that it has more similarities with other Balkan governments than with the most of other European ones. I don't need to go into further detail. Let me see, where do you have your definition of Balkan and Balkan culture and history? Maybe you could teach me something. Clear the difference for me please, why is Croatian cultural background different than that of the Balkans?

MaxCRO
27-01-18, 19:14
Where did I write something negative about Balkan? That about the goverment was to emphasise that it has more similarities with other Balkan governments than with the most of other European ones.what are those similarities ? Croatia has quite decent government as of now, and moderate economic growth. I'm not their voter, but I don't think you as person living in diaspora has enough insight in it.What are the differences of ''other european governments'' compared to Croatian one, and to ''other balkan governments'' ? I didn't quite understand your point.
I don't need to go into further detail. Let me see, where do you have your definition of Balkan and Balkan culture and history? Maybe you could teach me something. Clear the difference for me please, why is Croatian cultural background different than that of the Balkans?Yes, you do. Rules of debate put burden of proof on you, since you are one to claim croatia is historically and culturally part of balkan world. You cannot simply say something, and than request other side to prove why it is not so. But since I'm polite, I will add main difference between Croatia and ''balkans'' doesn't lie in Ottoman occupation, but quite preceeds it, when medieval Europe was split in western (Frankish) and eastern (Byzantine) realm, with completely different societal, political and philosophical development and idea of state. No need to say, Croatia followed Frankish one.

Wonomyro
27-01-18, 19:14
Where did I write something negative about Balkan? That about the goverment was to emphasise that it has more similarities with other Balkan governments than with the most of other European ones.

Could you pls. elaborate what you meant by similarities between governments?

Angela
27-01-18, 19:31
If you two racists don't stop this provocative t-rolling, you're out of here. You destroy every thread you join and do your best to make this site a laughing stock or a duplicate of some racist, anthroforum. You also make Croatians look awful, and they don't deserve it, most of whom, and certainly the ones I've met and am honored to call friends, are wonderful people.

One way or another it's going to stop.

@Moesan, Don Joe,
Thank you for interjecting some sanity into the discussion.

don_joe
27-01-18, 19:35
High degree of corruption, nationalism, the state holding a major part of economy causing the constant growth of national debth and unemployment rate and people leaving the country to survive, etc. Oh, I have some insight, I have family there. So, the same like Serbia, Kosovo, Greece, Romania and other Balkan countries. Thank you for being polite but is the Frankish area of influence the official definition or your own?

Wonomyro
27-01-18, 20:17
High degree of corruption, nationalism, the state holding a major part of economy causing the constant growth of national debth and unemployment rate and people leaving the country to survive, etc. Oh, I have some insight, I have family there. So, the same like Serbia, Kosovo, Greece, Romania and other Balkan countries. Thank you for being polite but is the Frankish area of influence the official definition or your own?

We should not rely on impressions but to stick to the facts instead. In order to interjecting some sanity into the discussion, I am linking a map of countries rated by Social Progress Index, which is, I think, the most objective and relevant measure for this discussion:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/2017_Social_Progress_Index_map.svg
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/2017_Social_Progress_Index_map.svg)
More information here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Progress_Index#Rankings_and_scores_by_count ry


The SPI measures the well-being of a society by observing social and environmental outcomes directly rather than the economic factors. The social and environmental factors include wellness (including health, shelter and sanitation), equality, inclusion, sustainability and personal freedom and safety

blevins13
27-01-18, 20:44
Ćevapčići is bosnian dish, you can find them native in Serbia and few other countries too. In Croatia this food is not part of our traditional cusine.

Look at the map and the definition of peninsula https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkans#/media/File%3ABalkan_peninsula_line.jpg


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

MaxCRO
27-01-18, 20:58
If you two racists don't stop this provocative t-rolling, you're out of here. You destroy every thread you join and do your best to make this site a laughing stock or a duplicate of some racist, anthroforum. You also make Croatians look awful, and they don't deserve it, most of whom, and certainly the ones I've met and am honored to call friends, are wonderful people.

One way or another it's going to stop.

@Moesan, Don Joe,
Thank you for interjecting some sanity into the discussion.

@Angela, would you stop calling us racist , or I will be forced to report you to another moderator ? Before you ban us who you disagree with, could you please show any evidence of racist and hateful posts written by me or another Croat member ? Thank you.

I could write you make Italians look awful, for simple disagreeing with you, but that would be quite primitive, wouldn't it ?

Angela
27-01-18, 21:02
^^International norms don't matter, geography doesn't matter, history doesn't matter, nothing matters to these two jokers except the fact that Croatians have a little less West Asian and Mediterranean, and a little more steppe, which they don't realize is itself 40% Iran CHG like/CHG like, than the rest of you.

They obviously don't want to be associated in any way with the rest of you because they're "superior" on account of these differences. If it wasn't so humorous in a black humor sort of way, it would be pathetic.

No amount of logic or reasoning will work with people like this. They're a hopeless case.

MaxCRO
27-01-18, 21:06
High degree of corruption, nationalism, the state holding a major part of economy causing the constant growth of national debth and unemployment rate and people leaving the country to survive, etc. Oh, I have some insight, I have family there. So, the same like Serbia, Kosovo, Greece, Romania and other Balkan countries. Thank you for being polite but is the Frankish area of influence the official definition or your own?

That's quite terrible argumentation. High degree of corruption is problem of all post-socialist countries, from Russia to Albania, and absolutely not related with being balkan or not.
As for nationalism, are Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, and lately Austria part of balkan too ? Because their governments are several degrees more nationalist than current croatian is (please check their offical stance towards non-European immigration and compare it with Croatian). If you aren't aware, current centre-right government of Croatia formed coalition with left-liberals, who are complete opposite of nationalist.

Leaving the country to survive ? Oh, I see, than million of Spaniards, southern Italians and Poles are balkanites too, aren't they ? Social problems you are talking about have no relation with cultral and historical belonging to balkans, which you again reduce to povertry and backwardness.

Quite prejudiced, I'd say.

For your last sentence, have you learned history ? For you understand fundamental differences between Byzantine and Frankish state concents ? Are you aware, Croats grew from former Frankish vassals to their indipendent Kingdom ? Do you understand, our state and political traditions differ radicaly from, Serbian or Bulgarian ones ?

I need to know do you posses basic historical knowldge before continuing debate with you.

Angela
27-01-18, 21:17
@Angela, would you stop calling us racist , or I will be forced to report you to another moderator ? Before you ban us who you disagree with, could you please show any evidence of racist and hateful posts written by me or another Croat member ? Thank you.

I could write you make Italians look awful, for simple disagreeing with you, but that would be quite primitive, wouldn't it ?

Every time you post something trying to disassociate yourself and your countrymen from the rest of the Balkans, mainly based on the fact that you have a little less West Asian and Mediterranean than they do, you are revealing your ultra-nationalism and racism.

These are the kind of attitudes which led to the Balkan Wars and the atrocities that were committed.

I have never given a single infraction to someone for disagreement over the facts. I give them for racism, t-rolling, dishonestly, denigration of other ethnic groups, violations of forum rules, and violations of standards of decent, civilized human contact.

When I see posts like that, which bring this site into disrepute, the person responsible gets an infraction. It's as simple as that.

I'm sorry if you can't understand that.

davef
27-01-18, 22:12
Though Angela gave you the axe (or another mod) here's evidence in case you come back or choose to lurk, maxcro:
"I will ask you to refrain using Croatia in relation with ''balkans'' because I find it offensive and degratory. We don't identify with ''balkans'', ''balkan nations'' and so on, perhaps the Italians or other foreigners do, but now when you know it's not so well accepted among mainstream Croatian society I politely ask you to change your approach."

You come off as saying that it's offensive to associate Croatians with Albanians, Romanians, Bulgarians, Serbians etc as if you're having any closeness with them genetic or culturally is something undesirable.

Angela
27-01-18, 22:27
^^He didn't come off as saying that: he was saying that. Alex Fritz apparently agrees with him and his racist world view.

I always knew he was a phony and probably from the Balkans. Another fake part Italian. Now he can go back to moribund anthrogenica and post his incomprehensible, loaded with irrelevant facts content, and whine about me and this site like the little baby he is...If I weren't a lady there are other words I could have used.

Maybe he can use the extra time to ask his mother where the hell his "Italian" ancestors came from, and whether his father's family came from East Germany. :) These kinds of people would last a flat minute, no more, on any operation. How incredibly lame.

davef
27-01-18, 23:07
^^He didn't come off as saying that: he was saying that. Alex Fritz apparently agrees with him and his racist world view.

I always knew he was a phony and probably from the Balkans. Another fake part Italian. Now he can go back to moribund anthrogenica and post his incomprehensible, loaded with irrelevant facts content, and whine about me and this site like the little baby he is...If I weren't a lady there are other words I could have used.

Maybe he can use the extra time to ask his mother where the hell his "Italian" ancestors came from, and whether his father's family came from East Germany. :) These kinds of people would last a flat minute, no more, on any operation. How incredibly lame.
:laughing: I love how you get back at these t-rolls, it's always entertaining to read your posts describing them or exploiting their bad arguments; they're real witty and not something you'd want to be on the receiving end of :), I swear you can make a big grown man feel minuscule with your words when he asks for it.

Anthrogenica is badly infected but it's not all bad. Yes there's still sikeliot and his infinitely ongoing Sicilian /Southern Italian obsession (is he ever going to STOP??) , horrible calculators and other forms of discrimination that's ignored by the lazy moderators but Kurd still posts there as well as some of the better members here.

don_joe
28-01-18, 03:37
That's quite terrible argumentation. High degree of corruption is problem of all post-socialist countries, from Russia to Albania, and absolutely not related with being balkan or not.
As for nationalism, are Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, and lately Austria part of balkan too ? Because their governments are several degrees more nationalist than current croatian is (please check their offical stance towards non-European immigration and compare it with Croatian). If you aren't aware, current centre-right government of Croatia formed coalition with left-liberals, who are complete opposite of nationalist.

Leaving the country to survive ? Oh, I see, than million of Spaniards, southern Italians and Poles are balkanites too, aren't they ? Social problems you are talking about have no relation with cultral and historical belonging to balkans, which you again reduce to povertry and backwardness.

Quite prejudiced, I'd say.

For your last sentence, have you learned history ? For you understand fundamental differences between Byzantine and Frankish state concents ? Are you aware, Croats grew from former Frankish vassals to their indipendent Kingdom ? Do you understand, our state and political traditions differ radicaly from, Serbian or Bulgarian ones ?

I need to know do you posses basic historical knowldge before continuing debate with you.

Even if I prove to you that I indeed have some basic historical knowledge, you would twist it again to try to prove your point, involving everybody from Attila the Hun to Merovingian dynasty. The manner how you do it is far from polite. I'm not going to insult. One should only read your posts and compare that what you assert to the facts which are available in internet. Just look at the map of Balkan Peninsula. Hello...what Franks and their vassals are you talking about?

Here I have something for you:

Corruption perceptions index

http://emerging-europe.com/voices/voices-economy/the-fight-against-corruption-in-europes-emerging-economies/

European competitiveness index

http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Europe/competitiveness

Did you find Croatia? Where did you start your search, on the top or on the bottom? What success are you talking about? Just click through a few informative pages before you come here and spread fake news and alternative history of civilisations.

Dumidre
30-01-18, 02:36
Balkan is a term with plenty of meanings.

Is Croatia a Balkan country/nation?


Historically? No.

Culturally? No. (with few exceptions)

Confessionally? No.

Politically? No.

Linguistically? No.

Self-declaratively? No.

Geographically? Only partly, if we accept the strict geographical definition, which is dubious.

And the most relevant for this thread - genetically?



So, Croatia is not part of the Balkans, I get it. Let's move on...
The thread is about how I2-Din was brought to the Balkans...

ihype02
04-02-18, 22:15
Honestly even though I do not like the idea but South Slavs look very different from the northern ones.

hrvat22
04-02-18, 22:40
Honestly even though I do not like the idea but South Slavs look very different from the northern ones.

We are mixed with Albanians and Vlachs and that's why we are different.

Blood of Prosara
21-10-18, 21:16
Where did I write something negative about Balkan? That about the goverment was to emphasise that it has more similarities with other Balkan governments than with the most of other European ones. I don't need to go into further detail. Let me see, where do you have your definition of Balkan and Balkan culture and history? Maybe you could teach me something. Clear the difference for me please, why is Croatian cultural background different than that of the Balkans?

I can teach you something. There is an older name for Balkan and that is Helm. Which name foreigners use for it isn't of too much importance to us. We are used to nice foreign words like sciavo, slave, serf, and such.

don_joe
21-10-18, 21:33
I can teach you something. There is an older name for Balkan and that is Helm. Which name foreigners use for it isn't of too much importance to us. We are used to nice foreign words like sciavo, slave, serf, and such.Sorry, I don't understand you. Slav is an indigenous slavic word. It comes from "sloviti" or to talk, so did the Slavs call themselves. It's the opposite of "Nijemci", which means mute, like he or she doesn't speak our language and which is even today a slavic word for Germans. Helm is a btw a german word for a helmet. I've never heard it being used for the Balkans. But maybe you can teach me.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Eupedia Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

gidai
26-10-18, 21:08
Yes. My Hg is G2a - Z29424 negativ to all subgroups TMRCA 3200 years - paleo-balkanic origin. (...)
:smile: We are on the same path. I am G2a - P303 but very likely L13. I do not know beyond that. My grandparents are from the south. Is it not believed that the Cucutenians had a strong G2 component besides I2? It would not be surprising that the Dacians had also a significant proportion of G2a. Bigger that it is here today.

gidai
27-10-18, 23:49
I see that too much discussions focus on the spread of haplogroups, but this represent very little of the human genome. I think this haplogroups are losing on the road very quickly and making room for others who thrive on the same genetic background.
Probably the most important are the autosomal variations?

Bimi
30-10-19, 02:05
How did an I2a3* alpine (L233-) man end up in the Pisa region of Tuscany, any suggestions or info on this branch would be much appreciated. Which migrations could have brought it and where is it most frequent?

I belong to I2a3* Alpine, what is his family name, is he of arberesh (medieval albanian) origin?

Dibran
30-10-19, 16:13
delete............................................ .......

Szigmund
27-01-20, 10:40
I have given more thought about the origin of I2a-Din (L621>L147.2) and came to the following conclusion.

During the Mesolithic the I2a1 (P37.2) hunter-gatherers must have occupied a vast part of western, central and eastern Europe. Central and western European I2a1 lineages only survive at low frequencies in three newly identified subclades: L1286, L1294 and L880. The south-western M26 branch was absorbed by Neolithic farmers of the Cardium Pottery culture, whose descendants are found mostly in modern Sardinians and Basques.

The eastern branch, I2a1b (M423) were hunter-gatherers from the Carpathian region and/or from further north (Poland, Belarus, western Ukraine). Those in the Carpathian basin would have mixed with Middle Eastern Neolithic farmers and founded the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture (4800-3000 BCE). The whole region from Romania to Poland would then have been absorbed by the Proto-Indo-European Corded Ware culture (2900-2400 BCE).

After being Indo-Europeanized, I2a-L621 would have become the dominant paternal lineage among southern Slavs, while R1a remained dominant among northern Slavs.

The presence of I2a-L621 in Romania and Bulgaria could be attributed to the migration of the ancient Dacians and Thracians, who emerged as a mixture of of indigenous peoples (I2a1b) and Indo-Europeans (R1a) sometime between 3000 and 1500 BCE.

The Illyrians, an IE tribe who conquered the territory of former Yugoslavia circa 1200-1000 BCE, might have been an offshoot from the Dacians or the Thracians, or a closely related tribe from the Carpathian basin.

I used to think that I2a1b in the Dinaric Alps were the remnants of the original hunter-gatherers and that only the I2a1b outside the Dinaric Alps and Balkans were integrated to the Corded Ware culture and became Proto-Slavs, then Slavs. However there is so little difference between the Dinaric and other Eastern European I2a1b, all belonging to the same deep subclade (L621>CTS4002>...>L147.2) that they must all descend from a fairly recent ancestor and have expanded no earlier than 3000 to 1500 BCE.

And what are your toughts now, 7 years later, and 2 years later of the Eupedia I2 site upload?

MOESAN
31-01-20, 19:31
I see that too much discussions focus on the spread of haplogroups, but this represent very little of the human genome. I think this haplogroups are losing on the road very quickly and making room for others who thrive on the same genetic background.
Probably the most important are the autosomal variations?

I don't agree.
Uniparental markers, and even more the males ones (Y haplogroups at first place) are of worth, these last ones because a lot of our old societies have been patriarcal and patrilocal during a long enough time: they don't illustrate our total genetic composition but tell a lot about some important actors of our history, good or bad ones. It depends on what you want to know...

Szigmund
28-10-20, 14:41
So... Are the I2-Din guys are Illyrian descendants, or Bastarnae, or Thracian...?

invictus
28-10-20, 15:02
So... Are the I2-Din guys are Illyrian descendants, or Bastarnae, or Thracian...?


I2a1-CTS10228 (Dinarid) arrived in Balkans with 7th century Slavic migrations across the Carpathian mountains. However their further origin is from East Europe being native hunter-gatherers there since Paleolitik.
They were ultimately slavicised around Ukraine/Poland/BelaRus by their conquerors R1a - original Slavic language carriers regarding East Europe.

gyms
30-10-20, 07:46
Dinarid? What do you mean?
http://humanphenotypes.net/basic/Dinarid.html

Szigmund
30-10-20, 11:33
The TMRCA 1850 ybp of S17250 (according to https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-S17250/ ) is very interesting, because the first sources of the Slavs are from 6th century, so app. 350 years later (for sure it's not means that Slavs didn't existed before 500 AD). I am really curious who were the I-S17250 people (and maybe I-Y3120 and I-CTS10228) people before the R1a Slav migration and conquer.
Which is the most up-to-date map of the wandering of I2 people, or particularly I-S17250?

Ralphie Boy
31-10-20, 05:45
The TMRCA 1850 ybp of S17250 (according to https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-S17250/ ) is very interesting, because the first sources of the Slavs are from 6th century, so app. 350 years later (for sure it's not means that Slavs didn't existed before 500 AD). I am really curious who were the I-S17250 people (and maybe I-Y3120 and I-CTS10228) people before the R1a Slav migration and conquer.
Which is the most up-to-date map of the wandering of I2 people, or particularly I-S17250?

Per FTDNA a new major CTS10228 subbranch was found: FT80992. The two samples in this subbranch are from Hungary and Germany. It looks like CTS10228 came from western locations prior to arriving in east Europe, as basal branches have been found in two males, of French and German descent. An “ancient” Y3120 sample from an estimated 1,000 or so years ago was posted in YFull, from Ukraine.

invictus
31-10-20, 17:37
Dinarid? What do you mean?



Maybe i should have said Dinaric. In either case its geographical term, i guess they nicknamed I2a-CTS10228 "Dinaric" because of its high presence around Dinaric Alps reaching percentages as high as 70 % among Catholics from Bosnia and Hercegovina. But also in similar high but somewhat lower percentages can be found among Muslims in Bosnia.

Denis87
18-01-21, 11:47
We are mixed with Albanians and Vlachs and that's why we are different.

With Vlachs certainly but with Albanians (I don't know about Macedonia) I doubt there was much mixing except in rare cases, genetic studies results I've seen say there is no such evidence. My personal result said 0% Albanian even though I expected at least some distant Albanian relative due to geographical proximity and they've found in my genes Sibirian and north Afrikan DNA 0.1% and 0.3% respectively. Where would for example Someone from Slavonia or Dolenjska have met an Albanian to mix with ?