Genetic study Ancient DNA of Roman Danubian Frontier and Slavic Migrations (Olalde 2021)

[Çerç]

???
On the Peloponnesian study it's about shared ancestry with modern populations, or at least this info is represented on the models. On this study 2-way models using ancient and or modern ones are presented...
Also, the former had Peloponnesians from each and every regional unit while this...some Peloponnesians.

What would this reject exactly ?
A reminder that the Peloponnesian study was mostly about whether or not Fallmerayer's theory had any standing, not if they had Slavic admixture or not .

That study claims Peloponnesian Greeks have 0.2-14.5% of Slavic ancestry. Yes, they claim that through modern population data, which is the main problem with it. This new study rejects that claim, since they raised that to 20-30%.

It was obvious for all that the Peloponnesian study was wrong in that claim, but now there is aDNA evidence to back it up.

 

[lacreme]

That study claims Peloponnesian Greeks have 0.2-14.5% of Slavic ancestry. Yes, they claim that through modern population data, which is the main problem with it. This new study rejects that claim, since they raised that to 20-30%.

It was obvious for all that the Peloponnesian study was wrong in that claim, but now there is aDNA evidence to back it up.

How can you say that one claim rejects the other when not only the samples for one were much more thoroughly and rigorously collected and categorized but there is also variation in the sample size ? Don't forget the natural variation too just like in all populations, depending on the samples used.
As an example, On G25 (or was it K13, can't remember) there was an old "Peloponnesian" average with an Arvanite/Epirote/Vlach shift. Naturally it had a decent amount of Slavic ancestry in line with those populations. The newest average which replaced it is more southern, less slavic influenced and more typical in general for the region.

Also, on the Peloponnesian study I distinctly remember that MANY had objections on the modern populations used as Slavic proxies ( like Russians and Ukrainians instead of more South Slavic-like ones ) . NOW the same exact populations somehow became suitable for modelling Peloponnesians ? (and the remaining Greek populations, and Albanians ... )

Anyway .. This paper is about the Roman Danubian frontier AND the impact of the slavic migrations in the Balkans, not about the Fallmerayer theory or the Peloponnesians..

 

[bigsnake49]

In my opinion we have too few samples and no published, robust ancient Greek study yet, so at this point it might be hard to say with confidence how much E-V13 ancient Greeks had. The haplogroup existed just north of Greece in ancient times, based on this study. Was there a “population wall” that was not breached until Albanians came to Greece in the Middle Ages? Were Chaonians, Molossians, Macedonians and others in the northern regions devoid of E-V13? What about population movements in Roman Greece? For me the questions are not answered until we get more samples.

Yep, let's have those Iron Age Greek samples then the classical period Greek samples then the Hellenistic age Greek samples then the Roman age Greek samples then the Byzantine age Greek samples. I also want a total effort to catalogue all deliberate population movements initiated by Roman & Byzantine Emperors and Ottoman Sultans.

 

[Archetype0ne]

As I have expressed earlier the methodology for those models, mordovian + IA Balkan, or Russian + IA Balkans is lazy, and proves nothing.
First to my fellow Albnaian members, this study proves absolutely nothing about Slavic component in Greeks. Cause if you are willing to accept that 30% Greek Slavic admixture based on such methodology, you are left with 45%-50% Albanian Slavic admixture... None of this would make sense.
Secondly, to pretty much everybody, if you have played with calculators you should have a general idea of how they work, hence why I am saying the methodology of using 2 component models, and then within them having ancient component plus modern component with an unrelated population to the area *cough* Russian, will prove nothing.
It would be like modeling modern IE derived Central Europeans with Spanish and Russian, or Gaullish and Russian. Sure you might get a good fit, since its a 2 component model, and sure you might get Germans, Austrians, French having similar breakdown, some 30% some 50% but it does not really prove or point to anything.

Just so I dont sound like a mere critic, why not take Medieval Slavic samples from the numerous recent middle age Moravian Samples and use them instead of modern Russian or Mordovian (not even Slavic) for the model if they insisted in using a two component model? Or even better make a 3,4 or even more component model, to better capture the nuances.

Hence, I would really take these models and conclusions with a grain of salt.

 

[Bill7]

Guys relax we can't be sure about anything yet because we barely have any ancient Greek genomes and the ones we had were heterogeneous from being extremely south European like clustering with sicillians to some helladic samples being thessalian Albanian tuscan like we haven't seen the full picture yet and we need many more samples

 

[blevins13]

Guys relax we can't be sure about anything yet because we barely have any ancient Greek genomes and the ones we had were heterogeneous from being extremely south European like clustering with sicillians to some helladic samples being thessalian Albanian tuscan like we haven't seen the full picture yet and we need many more samples

No one is concluding anything here, we are just speculating in what we know so far. But some things are clarifying now.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

 

[Archetype0ne]

Slavic:
https://imgur.com/RU3z2u0

Baltic:
https://imgur.com/PpypFSY

Germanic:
https://imgur.com/VjdAPdW

Pannonian Roman:
https://imgur.com/lQspeOw

We do not have the equivalent thread on Eupedia, but I feel some people would benefit and learn something on Slavs, which even a lot of Slavs do not know through this thread.

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread...dieval-Moravia&p=790982&viewfull=1#post790982

The arguments between the memebers familiar with Slavic history and some of their conclusions are mind blowing, but nothing is settled.

 

[bigsnake49]

As I have expressed earlier the methodology for those models, mordovian + IA Balkan, or Russian + IA Balkans is lazy, and proves nothing.
First to my fellow Albnaian members, this study proves absolutely nothing about Slavic component in Greeks. Cause if you are willing to accept that 30% Greek Slavic admixture based on such methodology, you are left with 45%-50% Albanian Slavic admixture... None of this would make sense.
Secondly, to pretty much everybody, if you have played with calculators you should have a general idea of how they work, hence why I am saying the methodology of using 2 component models, and then within them having ancient component plus modern component with an unrelated population to the area *cough* Russian, will prove nothing.
It would be like modeling modern IE derived Central Europeans with Spanish and Russian, or Gaullish and Russian. Sure you might get a good fit, since its a 2 component model, and sure you might get Germans, Austrians, French having similar breakdown, some 30% some 50% but it does not really prove or point to anything.

Just so I dont sound like a mere critic, why not take Medieval Slavic samples from the numerous recent middle age Moravian Samples and use them instead of modern Russian or Mordovian (not even Slavic) for the model if they insisted in using a two component model? Or even better make a 3,4 or even more component model, to better capture the nuances.

Hence, I would really take these models and conclusions with a grain of salt.

Thank you for injecting some sanity to this discussion. I totally agree with you that this study totally oversimplifies 3500 years of migrations into the Balkans into Mycenians + Eastern slavs. Meanwhile subsequent migrations of different Greek tribes are ignored that might have had progressively more steppe admix. Could it that the Modern Eastern slav component be attributed or be a proxy for more steppe admix from Thracians and other Northern migrants during the 2000 years before the slav migrations?

 

[Çerç]

How can you say that one claim rejects the other when not only the samples for one were much more thoroughly and rigorously collected and categorized but there is also variation in the sample size ? Don't forget the natural variation too just like in all populations, depending on the samples used.
As an example, On G25 (or was it K13, can't remember) there was an old "Peloponnesian" average with an Arvanite/Epirote/Vlach shift. Naturally it had a decent amount of Slavic ancestry in line with those populations. The newest average which replaced it is more southern, less slavic influenced and more typical in general for the region.

Also, on the Peloponnesian study I distinctly remember that MANY had objections on the modern populations used as Slavic proxies ( like Russians and Ukrainians instead of more South Slavic-like ones ) . NOW the same exact populations somehow became suitable for modelling Peloponnesians ? (and the remaining Greek populations, and Albanians ... )

Anyway .. This paper is about the Roman Danubian frontier AND the impact of the slavic migrations in the Balkans, not about the Fallmerayer theory or the Peloponnesians..

Very simple.

Study 1 (older):
"we find that the Slavic ancestry of Peloponnesean subpopulations ranges from 0.2 to 14.4%. Subpopulations considered by Fallmerayer to be Slavic tribes or to have Near Eastern origin, have no significant ancestry of either."

Study 2 (recent):
"Our results point to a strong demographic impact of Eastern European groups in the Balkans during the Medieval period, likely associated to the arrival of Slavic-speaking populations... ...This ancestry signal significantly decreases in more southern groups, but it is still presents in populations from mainland Greece (~30%) and even the Aegean islands (7-20%)"

These are two contradictory statements. The second rejects the first.

 

[Archetype0ne]

Thank you for injecting some sanity to this discussion. I totally agree with you that this study totally oversimplifies 3500 years of migrations into the Balkans into Mycenians + Eastern slavs. Meanwhile subsequent migrations of different Greek tribes are ignored that might have had progressively more steppe admix. Could it that the Modern Eastern slav component be attributed or be a proxy for more steppe admix from Thracians and other Northern migrants during the 2000 years before the slav migrations?

It is possible, if one bases it on the difference of Islanders to Mainland from this study 10-20% to 30%. But then the difference between Albanian and Greek would not make sense, since the steppe component, along with any other component should be almost equal.

Hence I doubt we can make any use of these two models in the paper, since it sounds like just an exercise to fill the paper with the least amount of effort possible. Something I would have done during my bachelors. Comparatively speaking it is weak.

But I would not speculate either way right now until we have the BAM files and can play around in calculators to perceive any nuances.

 

[lacreme]

As I have expressed earlier the methodology for those models, mordovian + IA Balkan, or Russian + IA Balkans is lazy, and proves nothing.
First to my fellow Albnaian members, this study proves absolutely nothing about Slavic component in Greeks. Cause if you are willing to accept that 30% Greek Slavic admixture based on such methodology, you are left with 45%-50% Albanian Slavic admixture... None of this would make sense.
Secondly, to pretty much everybody, if you have played with calculators you should have a general idea of how they work, hence why I am saying the methodology of using 2 component models, and then within them having ancient component plus modern component with an unrelated population to the area *cough* Russian, will prove nothing.
It would be like modeling modern IE derived Central Europeans with Spanish and Russian, or Gaullish and Russian. Sure you might get a good fit, since its a 2 component model, and sure you might get Germans, Austrians, French having similar breakdown, some 30% some 50% but it does not really prove or point to anything.

Just so I dont sound like a mere critic, why not take Medieval Slavic samples from the numerous recent middle age Moravian Samples and use them instead of modern Russian or Mordovian (not even Slavic) for the model if they insisted in using a two component model? Or even better make a 3,4 or even more component model, to better capture the nuances.

Hence, I would really take these models and conclusions with a grain of salt.

THANK YOU!

Very simple.

Study 1 (older):
"we find that the Slavic ancestry of Peloponnesean subpopulations ranges from 0.2 to 14.4%. Subpopulations considered by Fallmerayer to be Slavic tribes or to have Near Eastern origin, have no significant ancestry of either."

Study 2 (recent):
"Our results point to a strong demographic impact of Eastern European groups in the Balkans during the Medieval period, likely associated to the arrival of Slavic-speaking populations... ...This ancestry signal significantly decreases in more southern groups, but it is still presents in populations from mainland Greece (~30%) and even the Aegean islands (7-20%)"

These are two contradictory statements. The second rejects the first.

Different methodologies/models...different sample sizes...different samples in general...

Also by using your logic, if the new study came first would the Stamatoyannopoulos paper reject it had it came out after it ? As we are dealing with "Peloponnesians" (can't find specific regions ) in this study VS Peloponnesians gathered from each and every regional unit of the area AND with their regional heritage verified for at least 4 generations back in the Stamatoyannopoulos paper I think the latter would totally trump it, am I right ? After all which study has the highest quality/accurate sampling *for Peloponnesians* is obvious...

 

[blevins13]

As I have expressed earlier the methodology for those models, mordovian + IA Balkan, or Russian + IA Balkans is lazy, and proves nothing.
First to my fellow Albnaian members, this study proves absolutely nothing about Slavic component in Greeks. Cause if you are willing to accept that 30% Greek Slavic admixture based on such methodology, you are left with 45%-50% Albanian Slavic admixture... None of this would make sense.
Secondly, to pretty much everybody, if you have played with calculators you should have a general idea of how they work, hence why I am saying the methodology of using 2 component models, and then within them having ancient component plus modern component with an unrelated population to the area *cough* Russian, will prove nothing.
It would be like modeling modern IE derived Central Europeans with Spanish and Russian, or Gaullish and Russian. Sure you might get a good fit, since its a 2 component model, and sure you might get Germans, Austrians, French having similar breakdown, some 30% some 50% but it does not really prove or point to anything.

Just so I dont sound like a mere critic, why not take Medieval Slavic samples from the numerous recent middle age Moravian Samples and use them instead of modern Russian or Mordovian (not even Slavic) for the model if they insisted in using a two component model? Or even better make a 3,4 or even more component model, to better capture the nuances.

Hence, I would really take these models and conclusions with a grain of salt.

Accepting that Slavic migration might have had higher impact in Albania that initially thought is not a problem for me, this in connection with sex bias migrants, if that holds seems possible to me as a scenario.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

 

[ihype02]

this I ydna marker was already in croatia and italy in the iron-age

I-Y3670 Z2093 * S25360 * Z2057+29 SNPsformed 10200 ybp, TMRCA 8700 ybp

is this your I2a ?


.......................................

below is also found in ironage italy and croatia

I-M223 DFZ77/Z77 * L34/S151/PF3857 * CTS11545+33 SNPsformed 17300 ybp, TMRCA 14600 ybp

Modern Serbs are closer to Poles and Ukrainians than they are to post-Christ era Roman inhabitants of Serbia. Get over it. It's over.

 

[Archetype0ne]

Accepting that Slavic migration might have had higher impact in Albania that initially thought is not a problem for me, this in connection with sex bias migrants, if that holds seems possible to me as a scenario.


Sent from my ****** using Eupedia Forum

That's not the point Blevins. You know on other arguments I have had your back, and being an Albanian there is no way I have an anti Albanian bias on this.

I would try to put it in words but I would not be able to do it better than Brumzi did on another forum.

I apologize for digressing for a moment from the main topic of the thread.


There is a growing trend in all studies coming from ex-Yugoslavia, often with the support of official institutions, to present South Slavs as little Slavic as possible and present Slavic admixture in non-Slavs in the Balkans as higher than it actually is in order to then claim that "everything in the Balkans is the same since antiquity except for the secondary inclusion of some Slavic admixture".


Examples:


Reconstructing genetic histories and social organisation in Neolithic and Bronze Age Croatia (2021):


We then tested population continuity with qpWave, and found Croatia_RomanP was consistent with forming a genetic clade with present-day Croatians, as well as Bulgarians or Hungarians (p = 0.78 respectively) (Supplementary Table S4). Although based on a single individual who may or may not be representative for the wider population in that time period, this data point indicates that a broadly present-day genetic signature had already formed by Roman times, and any further population turnovers were not as significant as previous ones.




Apparently, no important demographic event occurred in Croatia since the "Roman times" according to this study.


And my favorite:


Haplogroup Prediction Using Y-Chromosomal Short Tandem Repeats in the General Population of Bosnia and Herzegovina (2021):

Numerous archeological artifacts are proving that the territory of modern B&H has been inhabited since the Neolithic era (Malcolm, 1996). Interestingly, some of them imply that the first inhabitants settled in the area as late as the Paleolithic era (Marjanović et al., 2005). Later, during the Early Bronze Age, different Illyrians populations had settled in the various B&H region (Wilkes, 1995), and the Romans governed those tribes for more than 5 centuries (Klaić, 1990). As a result, a significant number of Roman soldiers have settled down in the area (Malcolm, 1996). After the fall of the Roman Empire, as the borderline between the Eastern and Western empires, this region was massively invaded by various tribes, such as the Goths Avar, the Slavs, and others. Additionally, expansion of the Ottoman Empire into this part of the Balkans in the fifteenth century left important cultural but also demographical impact on the modern B&H (Pirić et al., 2020). All these historical episodes created a fascinating genetic diversity within the modern multiethnic and multi-religious B&H society.


I2a was also the most frequent (Barać et al., 2003; Peričić et al., 2005; Kačar et al., 2019). Paleolithic origin of this haplogroup suggests the possibility of modern population expansion from one of the post-Glacial refuges into the rest of the Balkan Peninsula (Marjanović et al., 2006). It is believed that haplogroup I arrived in the area of Balkan Peninsula around 25,000 years ago from the Middle East through Anatolia (Battaglia et al., 2009; Primorac et al., 2011). However, recent insights into this research area suggest the possibility of this haplogroup being associated with more recent population movements; however, this requires additional analyses (Marjanović et al., 2019). In comparison to other European populations, I2a could be considered a typical Southeast European haplogroup (Kushniarevich et al., 2015).


In the Slovenian population, the prevalence of this haplogroup was 37% (Barać et al., 2003; Peričić et al., 2005; Kačar et al., 2019). Theories on R1a origins suggest the flow of haplogroup R from West Asia into the Balkan region as a post-Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) event, that is, during the Mesolithic time (Myres et al., 2011; Primorac et al., 2011).


Apparently, how I2a lineages among Bosniaks got to the Balkans "requires additional analyses". It's fascinating that for a population which is irrefutably Slavic and there's nothing at all that is wrong with that, the study doesn't even mention R1a/I2a in the context of Slavic migrations and it just acknowledges the arrival of the Slavs as one of the many demographics events in Bosnia. In fact, there's a whole sentence dedicated to Illyrians and another to ... Ottomans, but Slavs just get a passing mention.

Once you take into account who funds and directs these studies, which state institutions are involved, and which academies give such researchers tenure in the future, it is easy to account for bias.

Some Slavic members with vast knowledge and research in the history of the Slavs even criticize the methodology for the same reasons we do.

So as you can see the complaint of them not using the countless medieval Slav samples, is not just mine, and this one above was made after I did but pretty much shares the same concerns.

Brumzi in the quote above summarized what I think is the issue.

Edit: PS the 3d flag on the 2nd poster is "Russia Mordovia". So makes one think.

 

[ihype02]

I used the respective averages from G25 (Greek Peloponnese, Greek Macedonia, Albania, Polish, BGR_IA, Ingria_IA) and made a 2-way model like the paper but changing between Ingria_IA and Polish -> BGR_IA+Ingria_IA, BGR_IA+Polish.
If you run these models you will see that while in any case (and for the rest of the Slavic impacted Greek pops too ) the "Slavic" increases by using Polish, the percentage increases by that much for the Greek Macedonia, Thessaly and Albanian averages only (Albanian from 22% Ingrian_IA and the rest BGR_IA to 30.2% Polish for example, an increase of 8.2%) . The increase is less severe for the Peloponnesian average and then less than 5% for the rest of the Greek pops (Greek Izmir from 11% Ingrian_IA to 15.2% Polish, an increase of 4.2% etc... ). Not huge differences between them proportionally but I was wondering if this more "dramatic" ? increase of Polish percentage in the Albanians and Northern Greeks is due to extra central/northern european influence on them (celtic, germanic) which the Polish pops should already have in their ancestral composition which the Ingria_IA average lacks.

TLDR; Polish increases the "Slavic" component on the non-Slavic populations when used and not only that but it improves the fits on a 2-way model. This increase is more dramatic on the northernmost non-Slavic Balkan populations. Could one of the reasons be, in addition to the Slavic influence, a possibly increased amount of central/northern european influence on them better captured by the Polish average ?

BUL_IA is not exactly the same as those samples in Serbia. The Roman Age Serbian samples are more northern shifted for obvious reasons.
How shifted are Serbs and Peloponnesians from BUL_IA compared to Poles?

 

[blevins13]

That's not the point Blevins. You know on other arguments I have had your back, and being an Albanian there is no way I have an anti Albanian bias on this.

I would try to put it in words but I would not be able to do it better than Brumzi did on another forum.



Once you take into account who funds and directs these studies, which state institutions are involved, and which academies give such researchers tenure in the future, it is easy to account for bias.

Some Slavic members with vast knowledge and research in the history of the Slavs even criticize the methodology for the same reasons we do.

So as you can see the complaint of them not using the countless medieval Slav samples, is not just mine, and this one above was made after I did but pretty much shares the same concerns.

Brumzi in the quote above summarized what I think is the issue.

Edit: PS the 3d flag on the 2nd poster is "Russia Mordovia". So makes one think.

Arche my compatriot, I have no argument with you. Just letting you know where I stand at this moment, also taking into consideration all you said.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

 

[Archetype0ne]

Arche my compatriot, I have no argument with you. Just letting you know where I stand at this moment, also taking into consideration all you said.


Sent from my ****** using Eupedia Forum

:cool-v:

 

[Riverman]

By the way, I found an explanation for the low level of Slovenian and West Croatian E-V13, plus additional evidence for the Gava and Basarabi-Eastern Hallstatt theory on the spread of E-V13. Because I know that the majority of the samples from Slovenia in the Iron Age can't be all Celtic, even after they came in. I looked at the local archaeological culture and its burial rite and social organisation, and its linked to Dalmatia, Southern Bosnia and Macedonia, its Illyrian derived!
The groups to the North, out of which after the fusion with Celts the Norics came about have on the other hand much more intensive contacts to Basarabi, especially their elite, like exemplified in Fr?g, which is much more Northern and Western. Actually, even the Venethi people are supposed to have been much more influenced by Eastern Hallstatt-Basarabi, than the "Hallstatt group" of Krain!
https://www.zobodat.at/pdf/Rudolfinum_2002_0035-0064.pdf

That's actually the last nail to the coffin of Illyrians being the original spreaders. Illyrians were largely Tumulus-culture remnants which moved South and mixed with locals. Eastern Hallstatt shows multiple influences, including Illyrian-related and Thraco-Cimmerian.

The frequency of E-V13 even in regions like Slovenia, Croatia, Austria and Czechia dates back to the LBA and EIA, to the expansion of Southern Urnfield and Eastern Hallstatt respectively for the most part. Even the later Scythian influences on Hallstatt and the Celts were largely transmitted by Geto-Scythians which were majority wise Daco-Thracian, related to what developed out of Basarabi under Scythian influence.

If the upcoming paper proves that the Slovenian Hallstatt province had little to no E-V13, that's key. Because the pre-Celtic, Celtic and Roman Noric people will have it, and it will be there up to Moravia and Bohemia. The find of LIB11 was not by chance and more will follow.

Oh, and Greeks might have indeed played a role in Dalmatia, because Greek and Greco-Roman settlements, as well as later resettlements and refugees from the Slavs influenced the Dalmatian islands the most! This might explain why the Illyrian mainland has so little E-V13, whereas the islands might harbour more. So Greeks could have played a role, as well as other Balkan resettlements. But this needs to be investigated with the local Dalmatian islands subclades, of which I have little knowledge.

 

[hrvat22]

By the way, I found an explanation for the low level of Slovenian and West Croatian E-V13, plus additional evidence for the Gava and Basarabi-Eastern Hallstatt theory on the spread of E-V13. Because I know that the majority of the samples from Slovenia in the Iron Age can't be all Celtic, even after they came in. I looked at the local archaeological culture and its burial rite and social organisation, and its linked to Dalmatia, Southern Bosnia and Macedonia, its Illyrian derived!
The groups to the North, out of which after the fusion with Celts the Norics came about have on the other hand much more intensive contacts to Basarabi, especially their elite, like exemplified in Fr�g, which is much more Northern and Western. Actually, even the Venethi people are supposed to have been much more influenced by Eastern Hallstatt-Basarabi, than the "Hallstatt group" of Krain!
https://www.zobodat.at/pdf/Rudolfinum_2002_0035-0064.pdf

That's actually the last nail to the coffin of Illyrians being the original spreaders. Illyrians were largely Tumulus-culture remnants which moved South and mixed with locals. Eastern Hallstatt shows multiple influences, including Illyrian-related and Thraco-Cimmerian.

The frequency of E-V13 even in regions like Slovenia, Croatia, Austria and Czechia dates back to the LBA and EIA, to the expansion of Southern Urnfield and Eastern Hallstatt respectively for the most part. Even the later Scythian influences on Hallstatt and the Celts were largely transmitted by Geto-Scythians which were majority wise Daco-Thracian, related to what developed out of Basarabi under Scythian influence.

If the upcoming paper proves that the Slovenian Hallstatt province had little to no E-V13, that's key. Because the pre-Celtic, Celtic and Roman Noric people will have it, and it will be there up to Moravia and Bohemia. The find of LIB11 was not by chance and more will follow.

Oh, and Greeks might have indeed played a role in Dalmatia, because Greek and Greco-Roman settlements, as well as later resettlements and refugees from the Slavs influenced the Dalmatian islands the most! This might explain why the Illyrian mainland has so little E-V13, whereas the islands might harbour more. So Greeks could have played a role, as well as other Balkan resettlements. But this needs to be investigated with the local Dalmatian islands subclades, of which I have little knowledge.

Here you have informations about Croatian genetic on islands and Croatia.

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

 

[lacreme]

BUL_IA is not exactly the same as those samples in Serbia. The Roman Age Serbian samples are more northern shifted for obvious reasons.
How shifted are Serbs and Peloponnesians from BUL_IA compared to Poles?

Other ancient samples and obviously a 3 or more -way model would be much more suitable but with this in mind it's as follows if I understood correctly your request :

Target: Greek_Peloponnese Distance: 2.9462% / 0.02946240
77.6	BGR_IA
22.4	Polish

Target: Serbian Distance: 1.2656% / 0.01265575
60.6	Polish
39.4	BGR_IA

and the rest of the relevant populations (rest of the Greeks, Albanians, Montenegrins )

[TABLE]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TH="class: singleheader, colspan: 2, align: left"]Target: Greek_Macedonia
Distance: 2.8483% / 0.02848349[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]68.0[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]BGR_IA[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TD="class: barchartmode1 nonselectable, colspan: 2"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]32.0[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]Polish[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[TABLE]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TH="class: singleheader, colspan: 2, align: left"]Target: Greek_Thessaly
Distance: 2.7323% / 0.02732343[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]72.6[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]BGR_IA[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TD="class: barchartmode1 nonselectable, colspan: 2"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]27.4[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]Polish[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[TABLE]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TH="class: singleheader, colspan: 2, align: left"]Target: Greek_Laconia
Distance: 3.3217% / 0.03321716[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]83.6[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]BGR_IA[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TD="class: barchartmode1 nonselectable, colspan: 2"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]16.4[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]Polish[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[TABLE]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TH="class: singleheader, colspan: 2, align: left"]Target: Greek_Izmir
Distance: 3.6081% / 0.03608104[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]84.8[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]BGR_IA[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TD="class: barchartmode1 nonselectable, colspan: 2"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]15.2[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]Polish[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[TABLE]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TH="class: singleheader, colspan: 2, align: left"]Target: Greek_Crete
Distance: 5.0301% / 0.05030105[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]92.8[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]BGR_IA[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TD="class: barchartmode1 nonselectable, colspan: 2"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]7.2[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]Polish[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
(The rest like Dodecanese and Cappadocia, 100% BGR_IA but the model obviously fails with even bigger distances )

[TABLE]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TH="class: singleheader, colspan: 2, align: left"]Target: Albanian
Distance: 2.2994% / 0.02299404[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]69.8[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]BGR_IA[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TD="class: barchartmode1 nonselectable, colspan: 2"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]30.2[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]Polish[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[TABLE]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TH="class: singleheader, colspan: 2, align: left"]Target: Bulgarian
Distance: 2.1402% / 0.02140202[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]51.2[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]BGR_IA[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TD="class: barchartmode1 nonselectable, colspan: 2"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]48.8[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]Polish[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[TABLE]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TH="class: singleheader, colspan: 2, align: left"]Target: Montenegrin
Distance: 1.5212% / 0.01521183[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]59.4[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]Polish[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TD="class: barchartmode1 nonselectable, colspan: 2"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]40.6[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]BGR_IA[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]