How did I2a-Din get to the Balkans?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angela

I am going to say this as simply as possible. If you can't get this then there is no point holding intellectual discussions with you.

I have never said, nor would I ever say, that Croats don't have ancestry from the people who brought the Slavic languages to the Balkans. I think that 50% figure is about right.

The point is that there is another 50% to be accounted for...which comes from people who inhabited those lands before the migrations of the Slavic tribes in the Early Middle Ages.

Do you get it now?????

Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend when it is so blindingly obvious to anyone who has studied population genetics for fifteen minutes?

---

I agree, problem with the balkans is most people either claim to be hard core slavs or have nothing to do with them. Southern slavdom is schyzophrenic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by srdceleva

I agree, problem with the balkans is most people either claim to be hard core slavs or have nothing to do with them. Southern slavdom is schyzophrenic.

---

I can't upvote your post, but I would if I could. :)

This is the second infraction that I got for a benign reason. It is time for the owners of this forum to think about the quality of the moderation. Moderators should not use infractions as a tool to discourage members whose posts do not fit into their political agendas. Instead a culture of dialogue and tolerance towards different views should be promoted. I got this infraction because I reacted to the clearly chauvinistic series of posts of a member who is a moderator at the same time and it is the least person who should promote such a practice. At that point I do not care whether I am going to get another infraction. If I am not welcome here, there are other very good forums around. No big deal.

Quote:

---

You have received an infraction at Eupedia Forum

Dear Wonomyro,

You have received an infraction at Eupedia Forum.

Reason: Insulted or provoked a Team Member
-------
You have insulted and provoked a team member.

Keep it up and you know the consequences.
-------

This infraction is worth 4 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by srdceleva

I agree, problem with the balkans is most people either claim to be hard core slavs or have nothing to do with them. Southern slavdom is schyzophrenic.

---

For instance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wonomyro

For instance?

---

You have to admit many members of former jugoslavian countries either claim to be the original slavs or claim to be illyrians and genetically not slavic at all. Ive also seen numerous threads on forums of serbs and croatians arguing non stop about how they speak either the same or completely different languages. Im not saying there arent reasonable southern slavs but when ancestry and language comes up on a thread when dealing with croats or serbs its constantly the same arguments.

Sent from my KIW-L21 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by srdceleva

You have to admit many members of former jugoslavian countries either claim to be the original slavs or claim to be illyrians and genetically not slavic at all. Ive also seen numerous threads on forums of serbs and croatians arguing non stop about how they speak either the same or completely different languages. Im not saying there arent reasonable southern slavs but when ancestry and language comes up on a thread when dealing with croats or serbs its constantly the same arguments.

---

There are many low quality discussions around, that’s true. Some of the main reasons for the mass disagreement whether the south Slavs are (genetically) autochtonous lays in the early ideas of the origin of their dominant I2a haplotype. It was believed that the hg was Illyrian and is present in Dalmatia since Paleoloitic. In an meantime it was discovered that the South Slavic clade is too young and its origin is most probably somewhere more North and it led to a new conclusion that the hg must have came with the Slavic migrations. The knowledge in this field is changing so rapidly that not all people can follow. You can see it even in the Eupedia articles on the I2a haplogroup, only 2 or 3 years ago, the story of the origin of I2a haplogroup was completely different (and nobody, of course, should call Eupedia schizophrenic for that).

Just check the votes presented on the top of this page. It speaks for itself.

Quote:

---

Angela

---

Quote:

---

The point is that there is another 50% to be accounted for...which comes from people who inhabited those lands before the migrations of the Slavic tribes in the Early Middle Ages.

---

Who are these people through male line ie. which haplotypes ?

https://www.eupedia.com/europe/europ...logroups.shtml

I2a 37%
R1a 24%
I1 5,5%

It is 66,5% populations that have nothing to do with the Balkans or with period before two thousand years ago, since Slovenes have a strong west types of R1b it is very possible that a part of the Croatian R1b is not Balkan origin, it means that E1b and J2b types remains as Balkans origin, however in E1b haplogroups there is one branch or subclade PH1246 which probably comes with Slavs.

This means that Croats on the male line have around 25% Y haplotypes (aboriginal) from Balkans mostly assimilated from Vlah-Albanians three hundred years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by srdceleva

I agree, problem with the balkans is most people either claim to be hard core slavs or have nothing to do with them. Southern slavdom is schyzophrenic.

---

About 25% of the Croat by the male line has no connection with the Slavs (most of them assimilated before three hundred or two hundred years ago), it does not mean that I can not say that Croatians are Slavs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by srdceleva

You have to admit many members of former jugoslavian countries either claim to be the original slavs or claim to be illyrians and genetically not slavic at all. Ive also seen numerous threads on forums of serbs and croatians arguing non stop about how they speak either the same or completely different languages. Im not saying there arent reasonable southern slavs but when ancestry and language comes up on a thread when dealing with croats or serbs its constantly the same arguments.

Sent from my KIW-L21 using Tapatalk

---

Only tribe whom genetics confirmed historical record and migration to Balkans are Croats, the rest is logic (language, etc..).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hrvat22

Only tribe whom genetics confirmed historical record and migration to Balkans are Croats, the rest is logic (language, etc..).

---

Which historical record is that precisely?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hrvat22

Who are these people through male line ie. which haplotypes ?

https://www.eupedia.com/europe/europ...logroups.shtml

I2a 37%
R1a 24%
I1 5,5%

It is 66,5% populations that have nothing to do with the Balkans or with period before two thousand years ago, since Slovenes have a strong west types of R1b it is very possible that a part of the Croatian R1b is not Balkan origin, it means that E1b and J2b types remains as Balkans origin, however in E1b haplogroups there is one branch or subclade PH1246 which probably comes with Slavs.

This means that Croats on the male line have around 25% Y haplotypes (aboriginal) from Balkans mostly assimilated from Vlah-Albanians three hundred years ago.

---

I was talking about autosomal dna, not yDna. Ydna only accounts for about 2% of your total genetic make-up.

Once again, let me use an extreme example. The herders in some areas of the Cameroons almost all carry R1b. This is what they look like...
http://realhistoryww.com/world_histo...Cameroon_1.jpg

Y dna does not tell the whole story where individuals are concerned.

The fact that Croats may carry only 25% non "Slavic" y dna doesn't mean they are 75% "Slavic", or, said, another way, that they are only 25% non-Slavic.

It doesn't work that way.

Perhaps if you read this you'll understand it better...

"There are three major types of genealogical DNA tests: Autosomal and X-DNA, Y-DNA and mtDNA.

• Autosomal tests look at chromosomes 1–22 and X. The autosomes (chromosomes 1–22) are inherited from both parents and all recent ancestors. The X-chromosome follows a special inheritance pattern. Ethnicity estimates are often included with this sort of testing.
• Y-DNA looks at the Y-chromosome, which is inherited father to son, and so can only be taken by males to explore their direct paternal line.
• mtDNA looks at the mitochondria, which is inherited from mother to child and so can be used to explore one's direct maternal line.^[1]

Y-DNA and mtDNA cannot be used for ethnicity estimates, but can be used to find one's haplogroup, which is unevenly distributed geographically.^[2] Direct-to-consumer DNA test companies have often labeled haplogroups by continent or ethnicity (e.g., an "African haplogroup" or a "Viking haplogroup"), but these labels may be speculative or misleading.""

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shetop

Which historical record is that precisely?

---

The hundred times I said..!!

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...ats-to-Croatia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angela

I was talking about autosomal dna, not yDna. Ydna only accounts for about 2% of your total genetic make-up.

Once again, let me use an extreme example. The herders in some areas of the Cameroons almost all carry R1b. This is what they look like...
http://realhistoryww.com/world_histo...Cameroon_1.jpg

Y dna does not tell the whole story where individuals are concerned.

The fact that Croats may carry only 25% non "Slavic" y dna doesn't mean they are 75% "Slavic", or, said, another way, that they are only 25% non-Slavic.

It doesn't work that way.

Perhaps if you read this you'll understand it better...

"There are three major types of genealogical DNA tests: Autosomal and X-DNA, Y-DNA and mtDNA.

• Autosomal tests look at chromosomes 1–22 and X. The autosomes (chromosomes 1–22) are inherited from both parents and all recent ancestors. The X-chromosome follows a special inheritance pattern. Ethnicity estimates are often included with this sort of testing.
• Y-DNA looks at the Y-chromosome, which is inherited father to son, and so can only be taken by males to explore their direct paternal line.
• mtDNA looks at the mitochondria, which is inherited from mother to child and so can be used to explore one's direct maternal line.^[1]

Y-DNA and mtDNA cannot be used for ethnicity estimates, but can be used to find one's haplogroup, which is unevenly distributed geographically.^[2] Direct-to-consumer DNA test companies have often labeled haplogroups by continent or ethnicity (e.g., an "African haplogroup" or a "Viking haplogroup"), but these labels may be speculative or misleading.""

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

---

Let's say that Croats come from White Croatia and all the way to Turkish times have northern autosomal genetics, then come Vlachs and bring Balkan, African autosomal genetics. Which conclusions we can conclude ?, whether the Croats came from White Croatia or Africa, Greece, Albania etc.

I'm interested in migration and confirmation of historical records, this autosomal genetics does not determine.

Now the Vlachs brought AFRICAN autosomal genetics to Croatia? Where do you find African autosomal genetics in the Balkans?

There were so many Vlachs migrating into Croatia that they now account for 50% of the autosomal inheritance of Croatians?

Croatia was absolutely empty until the Slavs migrated into the area in the early Medieval period? Where do you get that?

"Remnants of several Neolithic and Chalcolithic cultures were found in all regions of the country.^[2] The largest proportion of the sites is in the northern Croatia river valleys, and the most significant cultures whose presence was discovered include Starčevo, Vučedol and Baden cultures.^[3][4] The Iron Age left traces of the early IllyrianHallstatt culture and the CelticLa Tène culture.^[5]
Much later, the region was settled by Liburnians and Illyrians, while the first Greek colonies were established on the Vis and Hvarislands.^[6]"

Sound familiar?

Were you taught they were all exterminated?

The genetics say otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hrvat22

The hundred times I said..!!https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...ats-to-Croatia

---

What I see here is you were writing about White Croatia. But in your previous post you wrote:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hrvat22

Only tribe whom genetics confirmed historical record and migration to Balkans are Croats, the rest is logic (language, etc..).

---

White Croatia is one thing and migration from White Croatia is another thing. So I have to ask again - which is the historical record which contains information about migration of Croats to the Balkans?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angela

Now the Vlachs brought AFRICAN autosomal genetics to Croatia? Where do you find African autosomal genetics in the Balkans?

There were so many Vlachs migrating into Croatia that they now account for 50% of the autosomal inheritance of Croatians?

Croatia was absolutely empty until the Slavs migrated into the area in the early Medieval period? Where do you get that?

"Remnants of several Neolithic and Chalcolithic cultures were found in all regions of the country.^[2] The largest proportion of the sites is in the northern Croatia river valleys, and the most significant cultures whose presence was discovered include Starčevo, Vučedol and Baden cultures.^[3][4] The Iron Age left traces of the early IllyrianHallstatt culture and the CelticLa Tène culture.^[5]
Much later, the region was settled by Liburnians and Illyrians, while the first Greek colonies were established on the Vis and Hvarislands.^[6]"

Sound familiar?

Were you taught they were all exterminated?

The genetics say otherwise.

---

It does not matter whether it is African or Greek, when people with E1b types come to the Balkans they probably come from Africa, autosomal genetics detected this and relatives from Africa, that's what I'm thinking. If E1b does not come from Africa to Balkans I'm wrong.

Quote:

---

There were so many Vlachs migrating into Croatia that they now account for 50% of the autosomal inheritance of Croatians?

---

Male descendants who have nothing to do with migration of Croats to Croatia(6,7 century) have about 25% today Croatian population. For mitochondrial DNA I do not know.

Since autosomal genetics can not confirm or dispute migration of peoples, I do not follow the same, sorry.

That's it. Done.

I have news for you. We all are the descendants of people who came out of Africa.

E-V13 carriers are no more "African" than I2a carriers. In fact, "E" probably formed "Out of Africa", and then returned, but see you wouldn't know that because you're afraid to study genetics for fear it will disturb your conditioning.

If you have no interest in science and genetics as a branch of science I have no idea what you're doing here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shetop

What I see here is you were writing about White Croatia. But in your previous post you wrote:



White Croatia is one thing and migration from White Croatia is another thing. So I have to ask again - which is the historical record which contains information about migration of Croats to the Balkans?

---

All proofs of White Croat migration to Croatia and wider are on that link. First post.

Hrvatt22 having that y DNA doesn't mean you're African or from there. The r1b Cameroon Angela posted isn't from Ireland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angela

That's it. Done.

I have news for you. We all are the descendants of people who came out of Africa.

E-V13 carriers are no more "African" than I2a carriers. In fact, "E" probably formed "Out of Africa", and then returned, but see you wouldn't know that because you're afraid to study genetics for fear it will disturb your conditioning.

If you have no interest in science and genetics as a branch of science I have no idea what you're doing here.

---

Autosomal genetics can not prove migration of tribe and can not confirm or deny historical records. Y haplotype can only do this, for that reason Y haplotype is essential for the history of a nations or tribes etc.

Y haplotype belongs to genetics. If we talk about history and genetics in this forum that's the only proof, at least in migration of peoples or tribes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hrvat22

Autosomal genetics can not prove migration of tribe and can not confirm or deny historical records. Y haplotype can only do this, for that reason Y haplotype is essential for the history of a nations or tribes etc.

Y haplotype belongs to genetics. If we talk about history and genetics in this forum that's the only proof, at least in migration of peoples or tribes.

---

That's absolutely incorrect. If X population has a certain autosomal make-up, and then after a change in technology, for example, as in ceramics or metallurgy, one way we can know that a migration of people caused the changes, and not just cultural diffusion, is that the autosomal make up has changed. Even if the y chromosome is damaged, and we can tell nothing from it, it would tell us that.

You are dismissing an entire and extremely important branch of population genetics because you don't want to know what it says about the ancestry of your people.

Anyone who is reading this exchange realizes that 1) you know very little about the history and archaeology of your own area; 2) you know very little about population genetics; 3) you are being dishonest and willfully blind.

Given all that, whom can you hope to convince?

I'm out. This is a waste of everyone's time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hrvat22

Let's say that Croats come from White Croatia and all the way to Turkish times have northern autosomal genetics, then come Vlachs and bring Balkan, African autosomal genetics. Which conclusions we can conclude ?, whether the Croats came from White Croatia or Africa, Greece, Albania etc.

I'm interested in migration and confirmation of historical records, this autosomal genetics does not determine.

---

It's better to look at several haplogroups in people's general make up not just one. There are varying haplogroups according to general areas because one haplogroup marks one common ancestor.

Croatia is what's known as Central Europe a ''stones throw'' away from Slovenia and Serbia, so naturally they could be both or either. Also blondism especially in the ''Balkans'' doesn't account to much, as Neolithic farmers were usually fairer skinned and lighter haired and eyed.

WHG were the darker ones, in fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dumidre

The main difference between north Slavs and south Slavs is the percentage of I2a... unless the south Slavs got the I2a from Amazon.com (they have EVERYTHING) [emoji16], they have mixed with the people that lived in the Danube area already and were I2a... so I2a is not original Slavic but it did spread with the growing Slavic presence in the Balkans.
BTY, Vlachs are Daco-Romans and not just remnants of melting pot of Roman Empire... also Moldovan people are the same as Vlachs; language is the same as proof. Moldovan tend to have more percentage of I2a BECAUSE of the Dacian substrate (after Romans took over Dacia, there were free Dacians right where Present Moldova is now).
Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum

---

Very natural,clear,positive,and I definitely say ,extremely melodic, speech,it surely sounds like ours ,from Western Wallachia.
We have preserved our genes,there's little doubt about that,here's an autosomal genetic study that leaves not much of interpretation.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/11591048/
EDIT
The sampled Romanian Aromanians were Frasherots.
https://www.google.ro/url?sa=t&sourc...H-h2Q5jUsV7ps6
EDIT
I have met Aromanians,but nobody was more close to my folks than the Stojan brothers,my friends from the university, from FYROM Macedonia,they had that spark,initiative,if you know what I mean,but especially a more elaborated extensive behaviour.
EDIT
The Aromanians cluster linguistically with the Istro-Romanians and Northern Romanians(Transylvanians and Moldavians),but the Frasherots and some of the FYROMS share the epenthesys of i with a Wallachian-Megleno-Romanian group.
Of course,the main division is ,DacoR,IstroR-Aromanianian,MeglenoR.
EDIT
I2a within the Romanian-Vlach is clearly supported by some specific autosomes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Litovoi

Very natural,clear,positive,and I definitely say ,extremely melodic, speech,it surely sounds like ours ,from Western Wallachia.
We have preserved our genes,there's little doubt about that,here's an autosomal genetic study that leaves not much of interpretation.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/11591048/

---

I am wondering about the ratio of South Pontids in South Eastern Europe compared to Dinarics, general Slavs etc Dinarics are Megalithic anyway

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lenab

It's better to look at several haplogroups in people's general make up not just one. There are varying haplogroups according to general areas because one haplogroup marks one common ancestor.

Croatia is what's known as Central Europe a ''stones throw'' away from Slovenia and Serbia, so naturally they could be both or either. Also blondism especially in the ''Balkans'' doesn't account to much, as Neolithic farmers were usually fairer skinned and lighter haired and eyed.

WHG were the darker ones, in fact.

---

I do not have data for other haplotypes (R1a, I1) so I'm just talking about main Croatian haplotype I2a for which I have some data, for E1b, J2b and R1b types I suppose to come from east of the Balkans because the branches which Croats have exist there (Vlachs, Albania possible Bulgaria, Greece), the only thing is possible that part of R1b types in Croatia are western branches.


As far as origin is concerned, I have said that in my opinion, looking at genetic and historical records to Roman Dalmatia only and exclusively came Croats which later divide and become these or that, I proved this on the subject

Quote:

---

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...ats-to-Croatia

---

and to this day no one refute me with historical data and genetics.

As regards hair, eyes color etc. it has nothing to do with the Y haplotype.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lenab

I am wondering about the ratio of South Pontids in South Eastern Europe compared to Dinarics, general Slavs etc Dinarics are Megalithic anyway

---

There was a Serbian guy ,from the southeastern parts,who posted his results on K
twenty - something,he turned very close with the Romanians(along with Bosnians and Croatians),especially the Wallachians and Moldavians,and clearly not that close to Ukraine-Poland, Turkey or even Bulgaria.
Coon,followed the general trend back them,the study was very biased towards the outer Carpathians(Wallachians and Moldavians),he gives as example the village Nereju Mare(Vrancea county),somewhere very close to SE Transylvania, actually,as the name shows,it comes from the Hungarian nyres,'a place with birch trees'.
Exaggerating the Pontid ratio in the Southern Carpathians,remains in the more conservative agenda of Germany,that still claims a more Ottoman influence ,actually Wallachia has fought the most against them,and,despite the position,became their latest vassals ,among the Romanian provinces,still, none of it became pashalik.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admi...ire_(1609).png
Since the Romanians were part of the Bulgarian state,there is a Slavic influence on them ,nevertheless, the more consistently Slavic-looking persons seem clearly more Dinaric- influenced than vice-versa(the number of the 'unmixed' Dinarics is larger).
If you sample from a very small region,there would be some particularities,for instance,Bucharest is somehow different from the rest of Wallachia,since in the late 18th c. some Bulgarians were settled there,the Dristor neighbourhood was initially one of their villages,we can ad Branesti,nevertheless, the people from the Capitala remain Wallachian Vlascans at their finest.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19480027/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Litovoi

There was a Serbian guy ,from the southeastern parts,who posted his results on K
twenty - something,he turned very close with the Romanians(along with Bosnians and Croatians),especially the Wallachians and Moldavians,and clearly not that close to Ukraine-Poland or Turkey
Coon,followed the general trend back them,the study was very biased towards the outer Carpathians(Wallachians and Moldavians),he gives as example the village Nereju Mare(Vrancea county),somewhere very close to SE Transylvania, actually,as the name shows,it comes from the Hungarian nyres,'a place with birch trees'.
Exaggerating the Pontid ratio in the Southern Carpathians,remains in the more conservative agenda of Germany,that still claims a more Ottoman influence ,actually Wallachia has fought the most against them,and,despite the position,became their latest vassals ,among the Romanian provinces,still, none of it became pashalik.

---

I2a1CTS10228(Bosnia) Is it Vlach?

23andme results: 84.7% Balkan, 11.7% Eastern Europe, 3.4% Broadly European
GeneCove results: 73% Eastern Mediterranean, 27% North-East Europe
Gedmatch Farmer vs Hunter Gatherer: 49.03% Med-Anatolian Farmer, 43.59% Baltic Hunter Gatherer, 5.17% ME Herder
GenePlaza K29: 24.6% Eastern Slavic, 6.5% South Slavic, 27.1% Greek, 2.8% Sicilian, 29.8% Celtic
GenePlaza Ancestry: 66.4% East Mediterranean, 25.9% North Slavic
DNA.LAND: 83% Balkan, 16% North Slavic, 1% Ambiguous
WeGene: 58,63% Hungarian?, 39,71% Balkan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lenab

It's better to look at several haplogroups in people's general make up not just one. There are varying haplogroups according to general areas because one haplogroup marks one common ancestor.

Croatia is what's known as Central Europe a ''stones throw'' away from Slovenia and Serbia, so naturally they could be both or either. Also blondism especially in the ''Balkans'' doesn't account to much, as Neolithic farmers were usually fairer skinned and lighter haired and eyed.

WHG were the darker ones, in fact.

---

Sory?
Neolithic fairer skin and lighter hair??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angela

Now the Vlachs brought AFRICAN autosomal genetics to Croatia? Where do you find African autosomal genetics in the Balkans?

There were so many Vlachs migrating into Croatia that they now account for 50% of the autosomal inheritance of Croatians?

---

50 precent ? Definitelly not, that is more realistic for Serbs or Romanians. Croats are more slavic than native autosomally, despite of significant authochtonous contribution, and likely some other minute admixtures.

Why was my comment deleted , is this civilised forum or north korea ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ziratul

I2a1CTS10228(Bosnia) Is it Vlach?
23andme results: 84.7% Balkan, 11.7% Eastern Europe, 3.4% Broadly European
GeneCove results: 73% Eastern Mediterranean, 27% North-East Europe
Gedmatch Farmer vs Hunter Gatherer: 49.03% Med-Anatolian Farmer, 43.59% Baltic Hunter Gatherer, 5.17% ME Herder
GenePlaza K29: 24.6% Eastern Slavic, 6.5% South Slavic, 27.1% Greek, 2.8% Sicilian, 29.8% Celtic
GenePlaza Ancestry: 66.4% East Mediterranean, 25.9% North Slavic
DNA.LAND: 83% Balkan, 16% North Slavic, 1% Ambiguous
WeGene: 58,63% Hungarian?, 39,71% Balkan

---

Of course it is,since regions with very high frequencies,also score very high in the autochthonous autosomes from the Praefectura Illyricum.
Was it originally Vlach?
I believe so,but we must have more concrete evidence.
Many Bosnians as well cluster with the Romanians,since there were lots of links in the past between these regions.
The Romanians-Vlachs are the Latin speakers that once lived in the Eastern Illyricum ,mostly the Diocese of Dacia,and the former Dacia Traiana,while the Serbs,Bosnians and Croats have additionally inherited genes from Western Illyricum(Dalmatia and Pannonia),where there were people that probably spoke a language similar to Dalmatian.
Linguistics have proved that the Vlachs from Serbia during the Medieval Ages were of Daco-Romanian type,these,along with their closest relatives ,the Istro-Romanians ,have pushed westwards,reaching Croatia,via Bosnia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Litovoi

Of course it is,since regions with very high frequencies,also score very high in the autochthonous autosomes from the Praefectura Illyricum.
Was it originally Vlach?
I believe so,but we must have more concrete evidence.
Many Bosnians as well cluster with the Romanians,since there were lots of links in the past between these regions.
The Romanians-Vlachs are the Latin speakers that once lived in the Eastern Illyricum ,mostly the Diocese of Dacia,and the former Dacia Traiana,while the Serbs,Bosnians and Croats have additionally inherited genes from Western Illyricum(Dalmatia and Pannonia),where there were people that probably spoke a language similar to Dalmatian.
Linguistics have proved that the Vlachs from Serbia during the Medieval Age were of Daco-Romanian type,these,along with their closest relatives ,the Istro-Romanians ,have pushed westwards,reaching Croatia,via Bosnia.

---

Iwould
like to see Romanian K29 GenePlaza, do you have one? or do you know who has those results?

Cheers.

Who were these Bosanci (Bosnians) in Bukovina?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosanci,_Suceava

Bosnians got their name after a medieval region Bosnia (initialy a circle in the middle):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:M...pansion-en.svg

A region got its name after a river:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosna_(river)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hrvat22

I do not have data for other haplotypes (R1a, I1) so I'm just talking about main Croatian haplotype I2a for which I have some data, for E1b, J2b and R1b types I suppose to come from east of the Balkans because the branches which Croats have exist there (Vlachs, Albania possible Bulgaria, Greece), the only thing is possible that part of R1b types in Croatia are western branches.


As far as origin is concerned, I have said that in my opinion, looking at genetic and historical records to Roman Dalmatia only and exclusively came Croats which later divide and become these or that, I proved this on the subject and to this day no one refute me with historical data and genetics.

As regards hair, eyes color etc. it has nothing to do with the Y haplotype.

---

Yes all true you have rep for that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yetos

Sory?
Neolithic fairer skin and lighter hair??

---

Yes Neolithic farmers were generally lighter than WHG

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Litovoi

Linguistics have proved that the Vlachs from Serbia during the Medieval Age were of Daco-Romanian type

---

That makes sense. So Romanians probably originate from romanized Moesinas and Dardanians who moved north rather then from Dacians. https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datote...nd_Thracia.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Litovoi

Linguistics have proved that the Vlachs from Serbia during the Medieval Age were of Daco-Romanian type,these,along with their closest relatives ,the Istro-Romanians ,have pushed westwards,reaching Croatia,via Bosnia.

---

Then, if the Vlachs from Serbia were "pushed westwards" to become Istro-Romanians wouldn't they also be of Daco-Romanian type? Istro-Romanians are not even a part of a Balkan Sprachbund:

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

Other Vlachs and even some Slavs indeed are. Btw. what makes you think that the Romanian speaking Vlachs were originally I2a people?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Litovoi

There was a Serbian guy ,from the southeastern parts,who posted his results on K
twenty - something,he turned very close with the Romanians(along with Bosnians and Croatians),especially the Wallachians and Moldavians,and clearly not that close to Ukraine-Poland or Turkey
Coon,followed the general trend back them,the study was very biased towards the outer Carpathians(Wallachians and Moldavians),he gives as example the village Nereju Mare(Vrancea county),somewhere very close to SE Transylvania, actually,as the name shows,it comes from the Hungarian nyres,'a place with birch trees'.
Exaggerating the Pontid ratio in the Southern Carpathians,remains in the more conservative agenda of Germany,that still claims a more Ottoman influence ,actually Wallachia has fought the most against them,and,despite the position,became their latest vassals ,among the Romanian provinces,still, none of it became pashalik.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admi...ire_(1609).png
Since the Romanians were part of the Bulgarian state,there is a Slavic influence on them ,nevertheless, the more consistently Slavic-looking persons seem clearly more Dinaric- influenced than vice-versa(the number of the 'unmixed' Dinarics is larger).
If you sample from a very small region,there would be some particularities,for instance,Bucharest is somehow different from the rest of Wallachia,since in the late 18th c. some Bulgarians were settled there,the Dristor neighbourhood was initially one of their villages,we can ad Branesti,nevertheless, the people from the Capitala remain Wallachian Vlascans at their finest.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19480027/

---

Ok cool but I wanted data on the ratio of South Pontids if anyone has it I know they exist i have already seen Bachus print out some examples

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yetos

Sory?
Neolithic fairer skin and lighter hair??

---

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2017...hic-europeans/
a subset apparently was

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alexfritz

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2017...hic-europeans/
a sub set apparently was

---

Thank you a Slovenian terrorist is now messaging me in private about it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lenab

Thank you a Slovenian terrorist is now messaging me in private about it

---

? ? ?
send my regards ... i guess

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alexfritz

? ? ?
send my regards ... i guess

---

Your reaction was my reaction :confused2:...