How did I2a-Din get to the Balkans?

How did I2a-Din get to the Balkans?


  • Total voters
    230
No. Institute of Medieval Research, Vienna, a department of the Austrian Academy of Science should be respected. You can write what you want but laughing to scientists is wrong approach. Every amateur who underestimates scientists and experts should think about words of Bertrand Russell: "What science cannot discover, mankind cannot know. "
How much do they pay to you? Hopefully, there are other very good scientists who have more interdisciplinary approach what makes them see things much clearer then Dr. Too Often Mentioned does.
 
I'm not going to say it again. The mutations about which you argue have yet to be found in any ancient samples. Until they are this is just nationalistic chest beating and speculation.
 
I'm not going to say it again. The mutations about which you argue have yet to be found in any ancient samples. Until they are this is just nationalistic chest beating and speculation.

(My post was the last one so I assume that your comment was directed to me).

Well, I do not argue about the mutation itself (you may check my posts). I just support the theory that there was a significant depopulation in province of Dalmatia during the migration period, and that a repopulation took place afterwards, as all three earliest historical sources state.
 
(My post was the last one so I assume that your comment was directed to me).Well, I do not argue about the mutation itself (you may check my posts). I just support the theory that there was a significant depopulation in province of Dalmatia during the migration period, and that a repopulation took place afterwards, as all three earliest historical sources state.
Miroslav mentioned Tibor Zivkovic and his work about Balkan history as a true source. Tibor said that only 1-3% of nobles came during 6-7th century. As I've told before, the "great" Slavic migration to the Balkan have never happened!Mario Alinei said:"In short, if such an enormous expansion of the Slavs both to the South and to theNorth from their alleged homeland in Middle-Eastern Europe had really taken place, themost important evidence we should expect to find would be archaeological. Which isentirely missing. Just as we miss any discussion of this point in Mallory’s book –andcertainly not by accident, given the fact that Mallory is an archaeologist. I fail to see,then, how an archaeologist can advance the hypothesis of a massive expansion that involves half of Europe, and is capable of entirely changing its linguistic identity,without the slightest archaeological evidence: unless it is a curious case of underestimation of one’s own science. Another fundamental objection to this thesis lies in the fact that, following the traditional scenario, we would have to assume that this ‘great migration’ involved alsothe Southern Slavic area: an absolute impossibility, as we have just seen. If there has been a ‘migration’, it must have proceded from South northwards. A third, fundamental objection to this thesis is the contradiction between the idea of a medieval migration and the total disappearance of the presumed pre-existing languages. Not even modern mass migration and colonization, despite the enormous technological and cultural difference between the migrants and the indigenous people, have caused the total extinction of all autocthonous languages in the New World. The ideal of the extinction of all alleged pre-Indo-European languages because of a Copper Age IE migration is already hard enough to admit, given the same reason, plus the fact that research on pre-Indo-European has never produced any serious result (Alinei 1996,2000). How can we accept such an idea for the Early Middle Ages, and for the highly civilized areas of Southern Eastern prehistoric Europe? What and where would the pre Indo-European substrate be in Bulgaria, Macedonia, Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Slovenia? Unless we associate this late migration to a gigantic genocide – a phantascientific hypothesis – this hypothesis does not belong to serious scientific thinking."
 
(My post was the last one so I assume that your comment was directed to me).Well, I do not argue about the mutation itself (you may check my posts). I just support the theory that there was a significant depopulation in province of Dalmatia during the migration period, and that a repopulation took place afterwards, as all three earliest historical sources state.
Great Slavic migration have never happened. Tibor Zivkovic said that only 1-3% of the nobles came to the Balkan during the so-called the great migration. I will cite Mario Alinei:In short, if such an enormous expansion of the Slavs both to the South and to theNorth from their alleged homeland in Middle-Eastern Europe had really taken place, themost important evidence we should expect to find would be archaeological. Which isentirely missing. Just as we miss any discussion of this point in Mallory’s book –andcertainly not by accident, given the fact that Mallory is an archaeologist. I fail to see,then, how an archaeologist can advance the hypothesis of a massive expansion thatinvolves half of Europe, and is capable of entirely changing its linguistic identity,without the slightest archaeological evidence: unless it is a curious case ofunderestimation of one’s own science.Another fundamental objection to this thesis lies in the fact that, following thetraditional scenario, we would have to assume that this ‘great migration’ involved alsothe Southern Slavic area: an absolute impossibility, as we have just seen. If there hasbeen a ‘migration’, it must have proceded from South northwards. A third, fundamental objection to this thesis is the contradiction between theidea of a medieval migration and the total disappearance of the presumed pre-existinglanguages. Not even modern mass migration and colonization, despite the enormoustechnological and cultural difference between the migrants and the indigenous people,have caused the total extinction of all autocthonous languages in the New World. Theideal of the extinction of all alleged pre-Indo-European languages because of a CopperAge IE migration is already hard enough to admit, given the same reason, plus the factthat research on pre-Indo-European has never produced any serious result (Alinei 1996,2000). How can we accept such an idea for the Early Middle Ages, and for the highlycivilized areas of Southern Eastern prehistoric Europe? What and where would the preIndo-Europeansubstrate be in Bulgaria, Macedonia, Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia andSlovenia? Unless we associate this late migration to a gigantic genocide – aphantascientific hypothesis – this hypothesis does not belong to serious scientificthinking.
 
Great Slavic migration have never happened. Tibor Zivkovic said that only 1-3% of the nobles came to the Balkan during the so-called the great migration. I will cite Mario Alinei:In short, if such an enormous expansion of the Slavs both to the South and to theNorth from their alleged homeland in Middle-Eastern Europe had really taken place, themost important evidence we should expect to find would be archaeological. Which isentirely missing. Just as we miss any discussion of this point in Mallory’s book –andcertainly not by accident, given the fact that Mallory is an archaeologist. I fail to see,then, how an archaeologist can advance the hypothesis of a massive expansion thatinvolves half of Europe, and is capable of entirely changing its linguistic identity,without the slightest archaeological evidence: unless it is a curious case ofunderestimation of one’s own science.Another fundamental objection to this thesis lies in the fact that, following thetraditional scenario, we would have to assume that this ‘great migration’ involved alsothe Southern Slavic area: an absolute impossibility, as we have just seen. If there hasbeen a ‘migration’, it must have proceded from South northwards. A third, fundamental objection to this thesis is the contradiction between theidea of a medieval migration and the total disappearance of the presumed pre-existinglanguages. Not even modern mass migration and colonization, despite the enormoustechnological and cultural difference between the migrants and the indigenous people,have caused the total extinction of all autocthonous languages in the New World. Theideal of the extinction of all alleged pre-Indo-European languages because of a CopperAge IE migration is already hard enough to admit, given the same reason, plus the factthat research on pre-Indo-European has never produced any serious result (Alinei 1996,2000). How can we accept such an idea for the Early Middle Ages, and for the highlycivilized areas of Southern Eastern prehistoric Europe? What and where would the preIndo-Europeansubstrate be in Bulgaria, Macedonia, Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia andSlovenia? Unless we associate this late migration to a gigantic genocide – aphantascientific hypothesis – this hypothesis does not belong to serious scientificthinking.

Unless you can produce recent, scientific, genetic evidence this is all wild speculation and unworthy of consideration. Please google "newbies" thread and start reading.
 
Great Slavic migration have never happened. Tibor Zivkovic said that only 1-3% of the nobles came to the Balkan during the so-called the great migration. I will cite Mario Alinei:In short, if such an enormous expansion of the Slavs both to the South and to theNorth from their alleged homeland in Middle-Eastern Europe had really taken place, themost important evidence we should expect to find would be archaeological. Which isentirely missing. Just as we miss any discussion of this point in Mallory’s book –andcertainly not by accident, given the fact that Mallory is an archaeologist. I fail to see,then, how an archaeologist can advance the hypothesis of a massive expansion thatinvolves half of Europe, and is capable of entirely changing its linguistic identity,without the slightest archaeological evidence: unless it is a curious case ofunderestimation of one’s own science.Another fundamental objection to this thesis lies in the fact that, following thetraditional scenario, we would have to assume that this ‘great migration’ involved alsothe Southern Slavic area: an absolute impossibility, as we have just seen. If there hasbeen a ‘migration’, it must have proceded from South northwards. A third, fundamental objection to this thesis is the contradiction between theidea of a medieval migration and the total disappearance of the presumed pre-existinglanguages. Not even modern mass migration and colonization, despite the enormoustechnological and cultural difference between the migrants and the indigenous people,have caused the total extinction of all autocthonous languages in the New World. Theideal of the extinction of all alleged pre-Indo-European languages because of a CopperAge IE migration is already hard enough to admit, given the same reason, plus the factthat research on pre-Indo-European has never produced any serious result (Alinei 1996,2000). How can we accept such an idea for the Early Middle Ages, and for the highlycivilized areas of Southern Eastern prehistoric Europe? What and where would the preIndo-Europeansubstrate be in Bulgaria, Macedonia, Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia andSlovenia? Unless we associate this late migration to a gigantic genocide – aphantascientific hypothesis – this hypothesis does not belong to serious scientificthinking.

You have genetics and prove it, until then it's a dead letter on paper.
 
What is the final conclusion? This trainwreck of a thread has derailed far too many times.
 
Great Slavic migration have never happened. Tibor Zivkovic said that only 1-3% of the nobles came to the Balkan during the so-called the great migration. I will cite Mario Alinei:In short, if such an enormous expansion of the Slavs both to the South and to theNorth from their alleged homeland in Middle-Eastern Europe had really taken place, themost important evidence we should expect to find would be archaeological. Which isentirely missing. Just as we miss any discussion of this point in Mallory’s book –andcertainly not by accident, given the fact that Mallory is an archaeologist. I fail to see,then, how an archaeologist can advance the hypothesis of a massive expansion thatinvolves half of Europe, and is capable of entirely changing its linguistic identity,without the slightest archaeological evidence: unless it is a curious case ofunderestimation of one’s own science.Another fundamental objection to this thesis lies in the fact that, following thetraditional scenario, we would have to assume that this ‘great migration’ involved alsothe Southern Slavic area: an absolute impossibility, as we have just seen. If there hasbeen a ‘migration’, it must have proceded from South northwards. A third, fundamental objection to this thesis is the contradiction between theidea of a medieval migration and the total disappearance of the presumed pre-existinglanguages. Not even modern mass migration and colonization, despite the enormoustechnological and cultural difference between the migrants and the indigenous people,have caused the total extinction of all autocthonous languages in the New World. Theideal of the extinction of all alleged pre-Indo-European languages because of a CopperAge IE migration is already hard enough to admit, given the same reason, plus the factthat research on pre-Indo-European has never produced any serious result (Alinei 1996,2000). How can we accept such an idea for the Early Middle Ages, and for the highlycivilized areas of Southern Eastern prehistoric Europe? What and where would the preIndo-Europeansubstrate be in Bulgaria, Macedonia, Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia andSlovenia? Unless we associate this late migration to a gigantic genocide – aphantascientific hypothesis – this hypothesis does not belong to serious scientificthinking.

stopped reading here
 
stopped reading here
These hidden, spineless accounts such as the one you quoted have set their roots deeply in these foras to spread misinformation.

They must all be banished!
 
It is not about massive migration, but the massive depopulation that preceeded the migration. Then even a small number of immigrants could rule over the empty land and grow in number with time.

I found a support for that in Ralph and Coop paper:

The migration period. One of the striking patterns we see is the relatively high level of sharing of IBD between pairs of individuals across eastern Europe, as high or higher than that observed within other, much smaller populations. This is consistent with these individuals having a comparatively large proportion of ancestry drawn from a relatively small population that expanded over a large geographic area.

That one was easy...
 
We don't have any reliable way of knowing at present how much "repopulation" took place during the migration period. The only way we will know is to compare ancient samples from the Balkans from before the Migration period to after it. Anything else is just speculation and wishful thinking.

What is clear is that people from the Balkans, including Croatians, have a lot more "farmer" ancestry and ancestry from Iran/the Caucasus than people like the Ukrainians and Poles, so there was no "replacement" in the Balkans: there was admixture.
 
What is clear is that people from the Balkans, including Croatians, have a lot more "farmer" ancestry and ancestry from Iran/the Caucasus than people like the Ukrainians and Poles, so there was no "replacement" in the Balkans: there was admixture.

Founder effect and bottleneck could do a significant influence on the population ethnogenesis, however, you are right. The truth is in the middle - admixture happened. These extreme considerations, that there were massive depopulation and repopulation, or that there were no massive depopulation and repopulation, are by argumentation and conclusion more wrong than right. For example, previously in a long post (#1189), I noted that archaeologists on the territory of former Yugoslavia rather proved continuity from antique period rather than discontinuity. Hence, such extreme viewpoints represent a specific cultural-political i.e. ideological agenda (for e.g. the Yugoslavian pan-Slavic autochthonous theory, or if migration theory then "Hrabak emphasized that South Slavic scholarship and Serbian nationalists tried to neglect or minimize (making it a social term) the contribution of Vlachs in their ethnogenesis and history because the old-Balkan element insulted their idea of pure Slavs" as Vlachs were historiographically considered as a population of non-Slavic origin), rather than scientifically neutral research.

For example, according to "Standing at the Gateway to Europe - The Genetic Structure of Western Balkan Populations Based on Autosomal and Haploid Markers" (2014), the "Figure 2. ADMIXTURE analysis of autosomal SNPs of the Western Balkan region in a global context on the resolution level of 7 assumed ancestral populations" perfectly shows such admixture in Western and Eastern Balkan; from the Middle East and Caucasus (Red), South Europe (Light Blue), and East Europe (Dark Blue).
 

Attachments

  • journal.pone.0105090.g002.jpg
    journal.pone.0105090.g002.jpg
    42 KB · Views: 73
We don't have any reliable way of knowing at present how much "repopulation" took place during the migration period. The only way we will know is to compare ancient samples from the Balkans from before the Migration period to after it. Anything else is just speculation and wishful thinking.

That is one way of course. But in a meantime we have Ralph and Coop IBD analysis. The method they used takes the time parameter into account, which is not case with the methods you are suggesting. That is why we should trust R&C more then to the others.

What is clear is that people from the Balkans, including Croatians, have a lot more "farmer" ancestry and ancestry from Iran/the Caucasus than people like the Ukrainians and Poles, so there was no "replacement" in the Balkans: there was admixture.

First you should prove that the present day Poles and Ukrainians are prototypes of the early Slavs. The method that Ralph and Coop use overcomes that problem. They don’t care about the name and location of the common ancestry. They only quantify it. And their numbers clearly show that West-South-Slavs share “lot more” ancestry with present day Poles during the period of Roman Empire then with all others in a study.
 
That is one way of course. But in a meantime we have Ralph and Coop IBD analysis. The method they used takes the time parameter into account, which is not case with the methods you are suggesting. That is why we should trust R&C more then to the others.



First you should prove that the present day Poles and Ukrainians are prototypes of the early Slavs. The method that Ralph and Coop use overcomes that problem. They don’t care about the name and location of the common ancestry. They only quantify it. And their numbers clearly show that West-South-Slavs share “lot more” ancestry with present day Poles during the period of Roman Empire then with all others in a study.

Again, you are misinterpreting the Ralph and Coop study because you don't understand the difference between IBD analysis and whole genome comparisons using ADMIXTURE and formal stats, especially when used with ancient samples.

Yes, Ralph and Coop show that there is IBD sharing between the people in the Balkans and people in Poland/Ukraine, and that it increased during the Migration Period.

What it doesn't show is what percentage of the entire genome of modern Balkanites can be attributed to the pre-Slavic inhabitants of the Balkans versus the newcomers.

That has to be accomplished using other methods, and they would be the first to tell you that.

The inhabitants of the modern Balkans do not share more ancestry with Poles/Ukrainians than with any other groups. Bulgarians/Romanians, for example, are closest to Northern Italians.

Someone who can't understand the methods used by population geneticists or their findings the findings of academic papers just confuses himself and others.
 
Again, you are misinterpreting the Ralph and Coop study because you don't understand the difference between IBD analysis and whole genome comparisons using ADMIXTURE and formal stats, especially when used with ancient samples. Yes, Ralph and Coop show that there is IBD sharing between the people in the Balkans and people in Poland/Ukraine, and that it increased during the Migration Period. What it doesn't show is what percentage of the entire genome of modern Balkanites can be attributed to the pre-Slavic inhabitants of the Balkans versus the newcomers. That has to be accomplished using other methods, and they would be the first to tell you that. The inhabitants of the modern Balkans do not share more ancestry with Poles/Ukrainians than with any other groups. Bulgarians/Romanians, for example, are closest to Northern Italians. Someone who can't understand the methods used by population geneticists or their findings the findings of academic papers just confuses himself and others.

This is NOT what I said. Who speaks about "people in the Balkans" or "modern Balkanites"?

I am talking about West-South-Slavs (Croats, Serbs, Bosnians, Slovenians).

I DON'T speak about Romanians, Bulgarians, Greeks and Albanians.

Please note that and check the diagrams again.
 
This is NOT what I said. Who speaks about "people in the Balkans" or "modern Balkanites"? I am talking about West-South-Slavs (Croats, Serbs, Bosnians, Slovenians). I DON'T speak about Romanians, Bulgarians, Greeks and Albanians. Please note that and check the diagrams again.

Go on the internet and find some papers on IBD analysis. Read the Ralph and Coop paper again. Look at the graphs again. Ralph and Coop are not producing data on the total genetic similarity of people in the Balkans versus people in Poland, for example. You have to use programs like ADMIXTURE, f3 stats and even newer methods for that. Until you understand that you're going to continue to draw wrong conclusions. Unless, of course, that's what you want to do.

Then go back and read the Kovacevic paper again. Look at the admixture runs for goodness sakes'. You'd have to be blind not to see it. The differences between the people of the Balkans are minimal. There was no complete population replacement in the Balkans. Yes, the Croatians are the most "northern" of the Balkan peoples, if that's so important to you, although you have a lot of variation. However, your closest population looks like the Hungarians, a Central European population with a lot of Germanic influence, and a lot of Neolithic ancestry from the LBK all the way to the MN and LN, not Poles or Ukrainians. Propaganda has really done a number on people from the Balkans.

Click to enlarge.

View attachment 9450

No matter what you were taught or what your ideology leads you to want to believe, Croatians are not ethnic Slavs, although you have ancestry from them.
 

This thread has been viewed 1061766 times.

Back
Top