How did I2a-Din get to the Balkans?

[Yetos]

OK, but where did all R1a go in Dinaric area? Why is there only 5-6 percent R1a in Herzegovina, and 70 percent of I2a Din? There must exist more logical explanation other than "pure coincidence".
I am not familiar with claims that it is homeland of Slavs, but it might be true. However, we don't find most of diversity there (as we should find in homeland of I2a Din). We find most diversity in Poland somewhere around course of Vistula.
Also several peoples were present on same area (both Slavic and Germanic tribes)

And about comparing skulls from "Gothic" and Medieval Slavic cultures: some of so called "Gothic cultures" were inhabited by Slavs for a great period of time. Wielbark culture existed untill end of 4th century: and by that time most of Goths already made it to the Balkans and Ukraine.

Maybe R1a is not a mark of Slavic,

that explains also the existance of high R1a in Greece in areas we know that Dorians settle.

the other explanation is Slavs that entered Balkans finally went to Greece and Dalamtia and change their language.

 

[Yetos]

Slavic is a cultural and liguistic terminology af various peoples from southern belarus and northern Ukraine, they have no ethnicity .............they emerged AFTER the end of the Roman empire, which is why I2a-Din cannot be slavic , because its older than slavic.
All these "slavs" did in the past was to take in any peoples that needed a refuge in the heavy forested area which I mentioned above.

Using the term Slavic is detrimental for finding out true genetic origins of markers

Slavic is exactly like the term Celtic .............neither have ethnicity.............I am still unsure about the term Germanic

I agree
Slavic Celtic Germanic are family of Nations with common characteristics

 

[Tomenable]

I think Slavs is just a gross forgery.

Really ??? Rather "Germanic people" is just a gross forgery - this conclusion is supported by the most recent study on Langobards, which says that they were just a bunch of completely random bandits (not even biologically related to each other, and representing completely different anthropological / racial types - as the paper explains), who gathered themselves together just in order to plunder the Roman Empire:

"Lombards on the Move – An Integrative Study of the Migration Period Cemetery at Szólád, Hungary", November 2014:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...stria-hungaria?p=449309&viewfull=1#post449309

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0110793#pone-0110793-g005

45 skeletons of adults and subadults were excavated at the Lombard period cemetery at Szólád (6th century A.D.), Hungary. Embedded into the well-recorded historical context, the article presents the results obtained by an integrative investigation including anthropological, molecular genetic and isotopic (δ15N, δ13C, 87Sr/86Sr) analyses. Skeletal stress markers as well as traces of interpersonal violence were found to occur frequently. The mitochondrial DNA profiles revealed a heterogeneous spectrum of lineages that belong to the haplogroups H, U, J, HV, T2, I, and K, which are common in present-day Europe and in the Near East, while N1a and N1b are today quite rare. Evidence of possible direct maternal kinship was identified in only three pairs of individuals. According to enamel strontium isotope ratios, at least 31% of the individuals died at a location other than their birthplace and/or had moved during childhood. Based on the peculiar 87Sr/86Sr ratio distribution between females, males, and subadults in comparison to local vegetation and soil samples, we propose a three-phase model of group movement. An initial patrilocal group with narrower male but wider female Sr isotope distribution settled at Szólád, whilst the majority of subadults represented in the cemetery yielded a distinct Sr isotope signature. Owing to the virtual absence of Szólád-born adults in the cemetery, we may conclude that the settlement was abandoned after approx. one generation. Population heterogeneity is furthermore supported by the carbon and nitrogen isotope data. They indicate that a group of high-ranking men had access to larger shares of animal-derived food whilst a few individuals consumed remarkable amounts of millet. The inferred dynamics of the burial community are in agreement with hypotheses of a highly mobile lifestyle during the Migration Period and a short-term occupation of Pannonia by Lombard settlers as conveyed by written sources.

They did not even know how to fish (which makes them the most unusual "Scandinavians" ever!):

The paper is basically a confirmation of the historical record: the Lombards were a migratory group who spent some time in Pannonia before continuing onward and eventually reaching Italy. (...) The reproduced data of 28 individuals exhibited a high variability of mitochondrial haplotypes (78.6%). Twenty-two different lineages were identified. This composition includes a large number of hgs that commonly occur in present-day European populations. There are signs of a lot of violence:

"Four skull fractures and eight traumata on the postcranial skeleton were identified in a total of eight adults and one juvenile individual (Table E in File S1). The skull injuries were exclusive to male remains and included three cases of sharp-force trauma (Ind. 4, 13, 27) as well as one case of a depressed fracture (Ind. 43). Three skull fractures bore traces of healing, whilst one had occurred around the time of death."

It's also clear that they were a heavily militarized group, with a lot of wealth, as exhibited in the grave goods. (...)Although there seems to have been malnourishment among the children and some of the adults, no attempt was made to access the fresh water fish in a near by lake. If their ultimate origin was around the Baltic Sea, doesn't that seem a little peculiar - Scandinavians who don't like fish? (...)

The biological evidence suggests that the residents of Szólád were not a close reproductive community. This is in agreement with the notion of a partnership of convenience that resembled Germanic tribe formations with people of different cultural backgrounds maintaining regular contact with other contemporary gentes. Influence from several different European regions is supported archaeologically by the grave constructions that included ledge graves and graves with straight walls, some of which were surrounded by rectangular or circular ditches. The stylistic analysis of the grave goods, such as brooches and weaponry, revealed parallels to south-western and central Germany, Moravia and the middle Danube as well as to Italy. The latter also indicates the possible presence of members of the Roman population

Let's add, that all 45 people buried there belonged to the tribal elite of Lombards (this is an elite cemetery - as the study explains). So if even Germanic elite was just a bunch of random mongrels, then how did the rest of the tribe look like ???

 

[Tomenable]

"Germanics = a gross forgery" would explain why there are NO GENETIC TRACES of Germanic migrations:

Patrick Geary, "Rethinking Barbarian Invasions through Genomic History" (video lectures):

Part 1:

http://video.ias.edu/node/5304

Part 2:

https://video.ias.edu/topology/2013/1002-PatrickGeary

In these lectures Patrick Geary shows that there is no any genetic evidence of Germanic migrations.

 

[Tomenable]

proto-Slavic (from what I understand was same language with Old Church Slavonic)

No - Old Church Slavonic was just one of many branches of languages which split from Proto-Slavic - as this graph illustrates:

http://www.linguisticsociety.org/files/news/ChangEtAlPreprint.pdf

Graph:

http://s17.postimg.org/p76vh6k8f/Slavic_split.png

And here another graph - chronological differentiation of Slavic languages (S. Starostin 2004):

Dates along the X axis represent time since Common Slavic, while dates within the tree represent years:

http://images66.fotosik.pl/696/fddec0302c0c8ab9.jpg

Serbian could as well be named Serbo-Croatian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbo-Croatian

According to this diagram, Common Slavic started to differentiate itself already between 130 AD and 270 AD. This only supports written sources (Jordanes, Procopius, etc.) which say that Slavs were divided into several branches already in the 6th century.

So Slavs were not culturally monolithic by that time, and there already existed several distinct Slavic dialects / languages.

Polish language differentiated from Czecho-Slovak already around 780 AD according to this data.

 

[Tomenable]

You claim that "Slavs are a forgery". So you are claiming that 40% of Europeans are "a forgery".

Because 40% of Europeans live in Slavic-speaking countries (where official language is Slavic):

http://s30.postimg.org/9tmeqp7tt/Countries_Europe.png

Even if you exclude Russia, then still 20% (1/5) of Europeans live in other Slavic countries:

YES - Slavs do have "mixed ancestries" - it is hard to be 40% of a continent's population and homogeneous!

But this does not make Slavs "a forgery" - at least not any more than "Germanics" and "Romances" are forgeries.

 

[Tomenable]

Thracians and Dacians could not just vanish.

Celts (map below) also could not just vanish - they just became assimilated into / absorbed by everyone else:

Today both "Slavics", "Romances" and "Germanics" have some Celtic ancestry.

Which does not make the former three "forgeries". Just like any other ancestry doesn't do this.

 

[Tomenable]

that Russians and Bellarusians and Ukrainians have again a different style.

Yes we can see this "common style" of Ukrainians and Russians today, in Donbass!:

http://aph-ukraina.deviantart.com/gallery/

 

[mihaitzateo]

Sure that Slavs as same people with same genetics is just a forgery.
I have not seen Germans pretending they have same genetics with English people,because they are speaking both West Germanic languages,neither I have seen Germans saying they are same people with Swedes,because they are both speaking Germanic languages.
Same,I do not see Spaniards pretending they all descend from same people with Italians,because they both speak Romance languages.
There are some people who come and claim that all Slavic speakers are descending from some people that were living somewhere in Ukraine/North of Ukraine and which emigrated in all Europe and multiplied so much that now are like over 200 millions.
Are you really serious?

I am not seeing English people denying that they have Celtic admixture,that they have Viking admixture,that they have Balkanic admixture,from the colonists of Roman Empire brought there and so on.
However,talking with some Slavic speakers about the lots of Feno-Ugrian paternal lines in Eastern Slavs,is angering them,talking about the fact that South Slavs are rather similar to Greeks as genetics,than to Ukrainians,is angering them again and so on.
So yes,telling that all of today Slavic speakers are same people and descend from some people that migrated from I_do_not_know_where in today Ukraine is just a gross forgery,that is not supported with any real facts,but with fairy tales.
Same about the idea that all I2-din and R1A from Balkans was brought by Slavs,that is another forgery.

 

[Yetos]

@ Tomenable,

Although I agree with you in many

I must disagree

1) in the diagram of Languages
2) in the origin of Slavs

sorry,

Slavs are after Scythian expansion to Europe, not Celtic, if they are from Celtic then their homeland should be max in Hungary and West, not East neither South of there, Slavic language are today primary in the lands of Thracians and Scythians (Scoloti)

Albanian and Greek has nothing in common, except loans.
Albanian is a lone language but from North Family
Greek is a tottaly of its own as family but comes from the same with Aryan,

OCS is not a language, that Language (OCS) is a kind of setting the foundation and cleansing so to work as a quide to grammar, alphabet, syntaxis of Slavic languages in order to have common literature and common official writting of expression, and to turn them to christianity.
it was a language needed, as Attic in Greek, as Hannover's Deutsch in German, as Latin Codexes to latino-celtic
it was mainly Great Moravia's rulers language with South Slavic elements and imports from Severi and Serbo-Croat.

 

[Tomenable]

Mihaitzateo:

As for common language,or closed languages,would anyone tell that people from South America are same race with Spaniards,or would call them Spaniards,because they are speaking Spanish?
No,is just that the conquerors were Spaniards,which imposed the language there.
See,how easy a language can be imposed to a conquered population?

Are you claiming that most of the population of South and Central Americas are unmixed "pure" Native Americans / Amerindians ???

This is wrong.

Most of the population of Spanish-speaking America are Mestizos - which means that they have mixed Spanish-Amerindian ancestry.

Most of the people there personally describe themselves as Mestizos, so they are aware that they are mixed-race people.

But even ones who describe themselves as "pure" Indians probably in most cases have at least some degree of European ancestry.

This map shows the % of people who describe themselves as Native Americans (and most of them still have some European admixture):

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...ixing-is-white-genocide&p=3449154#post3449154

The "over 85%" color is only in case of Greenland (while 4 more countries have between 39% and 55% of Native Americans):

If we include also people who describe themselves as Mestizos (mixed European-Amerindian) or Zambos (mixed African-Amerindian) then:

================================

And here by comparison the % of people of fully (or almost fully) European ancestry in the Americas:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?149362-European-populations-worldwide

North America:

It was pretty difficult to find good stats for the Dutch possessions of Eustasius, Aruba, Saba, Curacao, Sint Maarten and Bonaire so they'll have to be included in the general Dutch (European) category, but from what I read they're not exactly white enclaves or very populous, so it doesn't really matter. North America has 4 majority European independent countries - Canada, the US, Costa Rica and Cuba. Puerto Rico says it's 3/4 European but we all know they have identity issues, and genetic results seem to suggest their ethnic European provenance is lower than 75% on average. The results range from less than half a percentage point for the Commonwealth realm of Grenada to probably everyone in the French overseas department of St Pierre et Miquelon.

6,082 ~100% St. Pierre et Miquelon (French Overseas Department)
8,100 ~90% Saint Barthelemy (French, 2011 estimates)
25,186,890 76.7% Canada (2011 census). Mixed Race (Multiracial + Latin American) 553,115 1.7%
2,733,005 75.6%Puerto Rico (US, 2010 Census, 2013 US estimates). Mixed race officially 3.3%. This is considered to be overreported for cultural reasons. However European blood is 66% on average and found in 98% of Puerto Riquenses.
223,553,265 72.4% USA (2010 census). Mixed Race (Two or more races) 9,009,073 2.9%
2,831,382 65.8% Costa Rica. Mixed race (Mestizo, Mulatto) 788,709 20.37%
7,080,713 64.01% Cuba (2012 Census). Mixed race (Mestizo, Mulatto) 2,942,462 26.6
19,913 31% Bermuda (UK) (2010 census). Mixed race (Mulatto) 8,351 13%
11,346 20% Cayman Islands (UK, 2011). Mixed race (Black/White) 22,693 40%
2,845,210 18% Guatemala (2012). Mixed race (Mestizo) 6,638,80342%
1,964,810 17% Nicaragua (World Factbook, 2007). Mixed race (Mestizo) 2,915,955 69%
1,602,720 16% Dominican Republic (2012 World Factbook). Mixed raced (Mulatto) 7,312,410 72%
16,599 15.6% Virgin Islands (US, 2010 census). Mixed race (Mulatto) 2,234 2.1%
14,799,382 12.5% Mexico (average of high and low estimates from Britannica and the CIA World Factbook). Mixed race (Mestizo) 69,732,568 60%
804,202 12% El Salvador (Wikipedia). Mixed race (Mestizo) 5,221,775 86%
45,939 12% The Bahamas (2012 census). Mixed race included as blacks (85%, as in America, most blacks will be mixed race to some degree)
6,266 11% Greenland (Denmark, 2009)
27,928 9.2% Belize (2010 census, White, German Mennonite, and Other White). Mixed race (Mestizo, Creole, and Mixed) 232,925 77.7%
36,517 9% Guadeloupe (France, 2006 World Factbook estimates) Creolles counted amongst blacks, probably very high
2,520 8% Turks and Caicos (UK) 2012 Census. Mixed race: unrecorded.
2,300 7.5% Saint Martin (France, CIA world factbook, estimates) Mestizos numerous
257,460 7% Panama. Mixed race (Metizo, Mulatto) 3,054,000 80%
2,100 7% Virgin Islands (UK, 2001 and 2010 censuses). Mixed race nonspecified.
19,825 5% Martinique (French Overseas Department, 2009)
4,130 4% St Vincent & the Grenadines (2013 World Factbook). Mixed race 19,611 19%
11,283 4% Barbados (CIA World Factbook estimate). Mixed race unknown.
542 3.74% Anguilla (UK, 2001 census). Mixed race 661 4.65%
153 3% Montserrat (UK, 2001 census). Mixed race (Mulatto) 148 2.9%
1,019 2.2 St Kitts & Nevis (2001 census). Mixed race (Mulatto) 1,019 2.2%
1,652 1.9% Antigua & Barbuda (2011 census). Mixed race (Mulatto) 3,825 4.4%
34,670 1.2%Jamaica (2012 census). Mixed race: unrecorded. Mixed Jamaicans report themselves as 'black.' 92.4% of Jamaicans are 'black' but they're mostly admixed to some degree.
81,436 1% Honduras (World Factbook, 2011). Mixed race (Mestizo) 8,052,128 90%
99,9671% Haiti (2014 estimates). Mixed race (Mulatto) 999,673 10%
570 0.8% Dominica (2014 census). Mixed race (Mulatto) 13,546 19%
8,669 0.65% Trinidad & Tobago (2011 census). Mixed race (various) 302,788 22.8%
991 0.6% St Lucia (2010 census). Mixed race (Mulatto) 17,965 10.8%
413 0.4% Grenada (2001 census). Mixed race (Mulato) 8,457 8.2%

284,089,969

This is about 54% of the population of North America but bear in mind most of the rest are part-European, including most African-Americans and Afro-Caribbeans, which is serious population displacement for a continent that was 0% European in 1492.

South America:

There's a general perception that Argentines like to overstate their European blood. This perception is pretty accurate as Argentines think they're 97% European when the average Argentine is only 79% European by blood (though of course most Argentines are European, it's just definitely not as high as 97%). A similar phenomenon is true for Uruguay. On the other hand, in Brazil and Venezuela and other places, people seem to be pretty honest, even a bit strict (some Brazilian pardos are 90%+ European and the average is in the 70s) about declaring themselves to be European.

2,962 ~100% Falkland Islands (2012 census, World Factbook) though many will have minor Amerind admix from Chilean ancestors, also South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands/British Antarctic Territory
39,919,640 97% Argentina (2010 census, World Factbook but the average Argentine is only 79% European so this should be taken with a pinch of salt)
3,055,683 90.7% Uruguay (2011 census). Mixed race 202,140 6%
91,051,646 47.73% Brazil (2010 census). Mixed race (pardo) 82,277,333 43.13%
12,620,500 43.6% Venezuela (2011 census). Mixed race (Mestizo) 14,936,188 51.6%. Unlike Puerto Rico, European genes are much higher than reported ancestry at around 60.6%.
17,703,079 37% Colombia (2005 census). Mixed race (Mestizo) 23,444,618 49%. Average European blood: 65%
4,534,931 30% Chile (University of Chile estimates, self-reporting is much higher). Mixed race (Mestizo) 9,825,683 65%
537,245 18.5% Peru (Universia, Poblacion de Peru). Mixed race (Mestizo) 13,666,190 47%
1,583,415 15% Bolivia (2010, World Factbook CIA). Mixed race (Mestizo) 3,166,831 30%
35,003 14% French Guinea (France, estimates). Mixed race 175,013 70%
928,644 6.1% Ecuador (2010 census). Mixed race (Mestizo) 10,945,826 71/9%
193,350 3% Paraguay (2011 world factbook - other estimates as high as 20%). Mixed race (mestizo) 6,122,750 95%
2,264 0.5% Suriname (2004 census). Mixed race (maroons, creolle, mixed) 274,850 50.8%
1,974 0.3% Guyana (2002 census). Mixed race 125,727 16.7%

172,170,336

This is about 44% of the continent but again, there are very few people without at least some European ancestry.

===============
===============

Anyway,the language I think have few in common with paternal lines,to impose a language to a conquered people,is enough to have the ruling class speaking that language.
It is very possible that R1A bearers brought Slavic language to South Slavs,they were just the ruling elite.

It is possible - but there is no single rule. Sometimes language is inherited from maternal lines, not from paternal lines. This depends on culture.

Here is an example from South America - from Paraguay:

http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~munia/475/Presentations/Argentinabrief_history.pdf

Info about the beginnings of Paraguay from this book in the link above:

Only one beleaguered indigenous group found it expeditious to help the Spaniards.
After losing a battle against another small Spanish party from Buenos
Aires, the agricultural Guaraní of what is now Paraguay accepted the
Spaniards as great warriors and allies in their own struggles with the
surrounding bands. The Guaraní assisted the Spaniards of the Mendoza
expedition in founding Asunción in 1537. It was to be the first perma-
nent Spanish settlement in the Río de la Plata, as within four years, the
remaining 350 inhabitants of Buenos Aires abandoned the settlement
and moved to Asunción. Since there were only four Spanish women
in Asunción, the Spanish men emulated the native leaders and took
Guaraní women to serve them as concubines, servants, and food suppli-
ers. Guaraní chieftains were made to offer their daughters to Spaniards
in exchange for a military alliance against native enemies.

Having found no gold, the Spaniards adopted the native custom and
acquired the work of the indigenous women as a sign of wealth. “It is
the women who sow and reap the crop,” one Spaniard observed (Service
1954, 35). Their children were mestizo (of mixed Native American and
European ancestry) and grew up speaking Guaraní rather than Spanish;
however, these first-generation mestizos came to see themselves as
European and remained loyal to the king of Spain. Eventually, the
first- and second-generation mestizos became the gentry of Paraguay,
and in the decades following the abandonment of Buenos Aires, they
provided the leadership for the numerous military expeditions against
neighboring Indian groups, gaining greater wealth and status with the
number of Indian slaves captured in battle.

Settler Politics and Society
Pedro de Mendoza died on his return voyage to Spain, and in his place
the king dispatched Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca to govern the small landlocked
colony of Paraguay. Paraguay originally referred to the Spanish-held area around Asunción.
In the following centuries the term was extended to encompass territories to the
north and at various times included regions beyond the boundaries of the modern-day
nation of the same name.) Cabeza de Vaca was famous for his earlier
adventures as one of only three survivors of Juan Ponce de León’s
expedition to Florida and the Mississippi River; after being stranded in
a shipwreck in the Gulf of Mexico, Cabeza de Vaca had walked across
Texas and Mexico all the way to Mexico City.

Cabeza de Vaca brought more European settlers, all male. Together
the Spaniards and Guaraní warriors subdued rival tribes in the sur-
rounding territory, but in an attempt to cross the Chaco region, Cabeza
de Vaca nearly exhausted the resources of Asunción. Meanwhile, the
settlers belatedly learned that Pizarro had already claimed the wealth
of the Inca. Subsequently, because it was a land with no gold, Paraguay
lost its attractiveness for Spanish immigration, and few additional
Europeans arrived to challenge the influence of the original settlers.
Dissension nonetheless broke out among members of the Spanish
and mestizo community, many of whom disliked Governor Cabeza de
Vaca. At issue was the division of the dwindling number of Guaraní.

Soon after the Europeans arrived, diseases previously unknown to the
American natives ravaged the indigenous population. Mestizos gained
the immunities to European diseases from their fathers, and their
population in Paraguay expanded as the number of Guaraní women
and servants declined precipitously. In the semitropical environment of
Paraguay, the native death rates from successive epidemics of smallpox,
influenza, and other diseases rose to 40 percent within just one decade.
For this very reason slaving expeditions were sent out to replenish the
numbers of indigenous servants and concubines of the Spaniards and
later of the mestizo gentry.

The economic crisis caused by the decline of the Guaraní population
and the unpopularity of Governor Cabeza de Vaca spurred a faction of
Spanish settlers to mount the first coup d’état in the Río de la Plata.
The victorious faction returned Cabeza de Vaca to Spain in chains. A
veteran of the original Mendoza expedition, Domingo de Irala became
governor. The Guaraní too had grown desperate by their situation, rav-
aged by disease and the excessive Spanish demands for Indian servants,
female labor, and foodstuffs. A number of Guaraní rebelled against the
Spaniards in 1545, but the settler community put down the uprising
with the aid of “loyal” Indians.

In the relative poverty of Paraguay, the settlers enjoyed political
autonomy from Spain and freely established a social system to their
own liking. Governor Irala divided the Guaraní into
encomiendas (grants of Indian labor and tribute) among the individual Spanish set-
tlers. These encomiendas became a kind of permanent serfdom for the
indigenous peoples under Spanish rule. Spaniards in Asunción passed
these grants on to their mestizo sons.

Succeeding generations of mestizos moved from Asunción to establish other towns and other
encomiendas on the frontiers of Paraguay. Decline of the Guaraní population,
however, reduced the original size of the encomiendas, and by 1600, a mere 3,000 Indians
remained in Asunción. The encomiendas tended therefore to involve personal labor
more than tribute, giving the settlers in Paraguay a reputation for laziness.
“Having plenty of all things good to eat and drink,” one observer said with some exaggeration,
“they give themselves up to ease and idleness, and don’t much trouble themselves
with trading at all” (du Biscay 1968, 11).

The Paraguayan settlers nonetheless desired the European goods
symbolic of their rank and sought to reestablish the river link to the
estuary of the Río de la Plata. The mestizo citizens of Asunción took
it upon themselves to establish the river port of Santa Fe in 1573,
and in 1580, they went downriver again to the estuary of the Río de
la Plata. Mestizos of relatively high social status in Paraguay figured
prominently among the 75 founders of the second permanent settle-
ment of Buenos Aires. They were led by Juan de Garay, a Paraguayan
descendant of one of the original members of Mendoza’s expedition
of 44 years before.

 

[mihaitzateo]

I do not know how many Amerindians are in South America.
For example 95% of the population of Paraguay are Metizos (which are mixed,European with Amerindians)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraguay
But they are speaking Spanish language.
On the other hand,90% of the people from Uruguay are claming European ancestry.
And the origin of their European genetics is not only from Spain,but from other countries too.
No one knows the history of migrations of some people speaking proto-slavic,about 600 AD.
Some group of these people were allied to Avars,some were not.

 

[Tomenable]

You have your chronology wrong. Slavs are first mentioned at the Danube River not in ca. 600 AD but in ca. 490 AD.

And Slavs start colonizing the Balkans not after ca. 600 AD but in ca. 545 AD (they were raiding the Balkans already before 545 AD).

The Avars appear for the first time when Slavs already colonize the Balkans - and the Avars were initially Byzantine allies.

Here is the story (I'm not sure if I posted it already before or not):

Slavs were raiding Roman lands from their homeland north of the Danube river in what is now southern Romania since around the 490s, but they started to settle south of the Danube (in Balkans "proper") only since around 545. First settlements from ca. 545 - 550 were established in eastern Bosnia, Lower and Upper Moesia, and Little Scythia - including the regions of Ulmetum and Adina. Around the same time (ca. 550) first Slavic immigrants probably reached what is now Slovenia (they could be the same tribe which had besieged Durazzo in 547). Second wave of Slavs came to Slovenia after 568 (this time from the north, most probably from Moravia). According to John of Ephesus and Menander Protector another major wave of Slavs (Menander wrote that their strength was 100,000 but he didn't specify whether that included only warriors or all people) broke into Thrace and Thessaly as far as the Great Walls of Constantinople in period 577 - 580, and settled in vast areas. Sources mention that those Slavs were led by a war chief named Ardagast or Radogost (Ардагаст), and a king named Musokios. They could also reach as far as Greece "proper" already by ca. 580, when they sacked Athens, for which there is archaeological evidence (other sources indicate that Slavs started to settle in Attica and the Peloponnese only later, around 610). In 599 Pope Gregory I in a letter to Exarch of Italy wrote that Slavs had already seized most of Istria, and were penetrating into the Italian Peninsula. After mentioned invasions by Slavs, in 584 AD Byzantine Emperor Maurice sent emissaries to the Khagan of the Avars - Bayan I -, asking him for help against Slavs. The Avars initially worked as Byzantine allies against the Slavs. In 584 Ardagast with his Slavs besieged Constantinople but was repulsed by combined Byzantine-Avar forces, and later lost two more battles against Byzantine and Avar forces led by certain Comentiolus (the battle of Erginia River and the battle of Ansinon, near Hadrianopole). Comentiolus also pushed the Slavic settlers out of the region of Astica. In 585 the Byzantines-Avars decided to attack the original South Slavic lands across the Danube - forces under command of Priscus and Gentzon crossed the river at Dorostolon (present-day Silistra) and surprise-attacked the Slavs in their native territory (as most of their forces had long been campaigning in the Byzantine part of Balkans). They attacked at midnight and defeated the Slavs, Ardagast fell on a tree stump and was almost captured, luckily he was near a river and eluded the attackers. But later alliances switched - the Avars abandoned their Byzantine allies and instead started to cooperate with the Slavs, having subordinated some of their tribes (most notably the southern branch of Dudlebes), and having signed alliances with other tribes. So the conquest and colonization of most of the Balkans by the Slavs could be completed with Avar help in the early 600s. Avars were not very numerous but they were excellent horsemen, while Slavs comprised all of the infantry and crews of the navy, as well as some of the horsemen too.

But despite repeated attempts the Slavs-Avars never managed to capture two heavily fortified coastal cities - Constantinople and Thessalonica.

Croats and Serbs is another story. They came to the Balkans much later, in the 2nd half of the 7th century, invited by the Byzantines to fight against Avars and South Slavic tribes (ancestors of modern Bosniaks, Herzegovinians, Montenegrins, Macedonians, Bulgarians) in Dalmatia. Croats and Serbs were originally West Slavs. Slovenes emerged from two waves of Slavic immigration - one from the east (South Slavs) and one West Slavic - from the north - but which came earlier than Serbo-Croatian speakers.

Before coming to the Balkans, Croats had established their tribal state somewhere around the Carpathian Mountains. It was called White Croatia.

Ancestors of Serbs on the other hand, migrated in two directions - one wave settled in Germany (those became Sorbs), one in the Balkans.

 

[Tomenable]

As you can see we even know the names of Slavic leaders who were their commanders during the invasion of the Balkans.

Main Slavic commander was named Ardagast / Radogost (Ардагаст) - even English wikipedia has an article about him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardagast

Ardagast or Radogost[1] (Cyrillic: Ардагаст ; fl. 584-597[2]) was a 6th-century South Slavic chieftain under King Musokios.

The etymology of the name may derive from Slavic "rada" - council and "gościć", "hostit" - to host, meaning the one who hosts the council. It could have been a personal name, or an acquired title, synonymous with council, assembly, or veche, leader or chieftain.

Menander Protector writes about Ardagast in his works, and he is mentioned in the Strategicon of Maurice.[1]

The Slavs who plundered Greece in 577 may have been under Ardagast leadership.[2]

After a treaty was concluded in 584 between Bayan I and Emperor Maurice, Ardagast raided Thrace penetrating as far as the Long Wall, the Slavs suffered defeats only twice, at Erginia river and Ansinon neighbourhood of Hadrianople by Comentiolus. The Slavs were later driven out of the Astica region.[3]

The raid in Thrace in 585[4] prompted Emperor Maurice to deal with the Slavs - sending an army with commander-in-chief Priscus and infantry commander Gentzon to cross the Danube at Dorostolon (present-day Silistra) and surprise attack the Slavs in their own territory (as the Slavs had long been pillaging the Byzantine Empire).[5] The Army arrived at the Slavic camp at midnight, surprising the Slavs who fled in confusion, Ardagast fell on a tree stump and was almost captured, but luckily he was near a river and eluded the attackers.[5]

Priscus sent his lieutenant Alexander across the Helibakion (Ialomiţa River) to find Slavs who were hiding in the woods and swamps, they failed to burn out the people hiding, but a Gepid Christian who was associated with the Slavs deserted and showed a secret passage after which the army easily captured the Slavs, who according to the Gepid, were spies sent by King Musokios that just heard about the attack on Ardagast.[6]

 

[Tomenable]

So I repeat once again: the Slavs enter the Balkans on their own, 40 years (two generations) before the Avars show up.

When the Avars show up in the area, the Slavs are already colonizing the Balkans for 40 years on their own.

The Avars first show up as Byzantine allies against the Slavs. They defeat and subjugate several Slavic tribes (not all of them!).

But later the Avars betray the Byzantine Empire, and instead start to help the Slavs in finishing their colonization of the Balkans.

What exactly was the relationship between the Slavs and the Avars is uncertain. The Slavs were not a monolith so the Avars had different relations with each tribe (the often quoted except which says that the Avars were persecuting Slavs refers only to one tribe - the Dudlebes - and this is explicitly mentioned in that text, which says that the Avars were persecuting the "Dutleipa" and their women).

Moreover, we do not know for sure which Dudlebes did that text mention - because there were as many as 3 tribes of this name:

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dulebowie

Actually those three tribes had slightly different names (one was Dulebes, second one Dudlebes, and last one Dutleipa).

The Avars were most likely persecuting the last of those tribes - Dutleipa - who lived in Lower Pannonia.

The other two lived respectively in Volhynia (Dulebes) and in Bohemia (Dudlebes).

So one of those tribes was West Slavic, one East Slavic and one South Slavic - yet all three had similar names.

Maybe they had a common ancestral tribe, which split into three groups. Or it could be just a coincidence.

 

[Tomenable]

For example 95% of the population of Paraguay are Metizos (which are mixed,European with Amerindians)

If you check haplogroups - probably great majority of their Y-DNA is European and great majority of their mtDNA is Amerindian.

 

[Yetos]

You have your chronology wrong. Slavs are first mentioned at the Danube River not in ca. 600 AD but in ca. 490 AD.

And Slavs start colonizing the Balkans not after ca. 600 AD but in ca. 545 AD (they were raiding the Balkans already before 545 AD).

The Avars appear for the first time when Slavs already colonize the Balkans - and the Avars were initially Byzantine allies.

Here is the story (I'm not sure if I posted it already before or not):

Slavs were raiding Roman lands from their homeland north of the Danube river in what is now southern Romania since around the 490s, but they started to settle south of the Danube (in Balkans "proper") only since around 545. First settlements from ca. 545 - 550 were established in eastern Bosnia, Lower and Upper Moesia, and Little Scythia - including the regions of Ulmetum and Adina. Around the same time (ca. 550) first Slavic immigrants probably reached what is now Slovenia (they could be the same tribe which had besieged Durazzo in 547). Second wave of Slavs came to Slovenia after 568 (this time from the north, most probably from Moravia). According to John of Ephesus and Menander Protector another major wave of Slavs (Menander wrote that their strength was 100,000 but he didn't specify whether that included only warriors or all people) broke into Thrace and Thessaly as far as the Great Walls of Constantinople in period 577 - 580, and settled in vast areas. Sources mention that those Slavs were led by a war chief named Ardagast or Radogost (Ардагаст), and a king named Musokios. They could also reach as far as Greece "proper" already by ca. 580, when they sacked Athens, for which there is archaeological evidence (other sources indicate that Slavs started to settle in Attica and the Peloponnese only later, around 610). In 599 Pope Gregory I in a letter to Exarch of Italy wrote that Slavs had already seized most of Istria, and were penetrating into the Italian Peninsula. After mentioned invasions by Slavs, in 584 AD Byzantine Emperor Maurice sent emissaries to the Khagan of the Avars - Bayan I -, asking him for help against Slavs. The Avars initially worked as Byzantine allies against the Slavs. In 584 Ardagast with his Slavs besieged Constantinople but was repulsed by combined Byzantine-Avar forces, and later lost two more battles against Byzantine and Avar forces led by certain Comentiolus (the battle of Erginia River and the battle of Ansinon, near Hadrianopole). Comentiolus also pushed the Slavic settlers out of the region of Astica. In 585 the Byzantines-Avars decided to attack the original South Slavic lands across the Danube - forces under command of Priscus and Gentzon crossed the river at Dorostolon (present-day Silistra) and surprise-attacked the Slavs in their native territory (as most of their forces had long been campaigning in the Byzantine part of Balkans). They attacked at midnight and defeated the Slavs, Ardagast fell on a tree stump and was almost captured, luckily he was near a river and eluded the attackers. But later alliances switched - the Avars abandoned their Byzantine allies and instead started to cooperate with the Slavs, having subordinated some of their tribes (most notably the southern branch of Dudlebes), and having signed alliances with other tribes. So the conquest and colonization of most of the Balkans by the Slavs could be completed with Avar help in the early 600s. Avars were not very numerous but they were excellent horsemen, while Slavs comprised all of the infantry and crews of the navy, as well as some of the horsemen too.

But despite repeated attempts the Slavs-Avars never managed to capture two heavily fortified coastal cities - Constantinople and Thessalonica.

Croats and Serbs is another story. They came to the Balkans much later, in the 2nd half of the 7th century, invited by the Byzantines to fight against Avars and South Slavic tribes (ancestors of modern Bosniaks, Herzegovinians, Montenegrins, Macedonians, Bulgarians) in Dalmatia. Croats and Serbs were originally West Slavs. Slovenes emerged from two waves of Slavic immigration - one from the east (South Slavs) and one West Slavic - from the north - but which came earlier than Serbo-Croatian speakers.

Before coming to the Balkans, Croats had established their tribal state somewhere around the Carpathian Mountains. It was called White Croatia.

Ancestors of Serbs on the other hand, migrated in two directions - one wave settled in Germany (those became Sorbs), one in the Balkans.

Even your chronology shows them after Scythian entrance, not after Celtic

 

[Diurpaneus]

Slavic is a cultural and liguistic terminology af various peoples from southern belarus and northern Ukraine, they have no ethnicity .............they emerged AFTER the end of the Roman empire, which is why I2a-Din cannot be slavic , because its older than slavic.
All these "slavs" did in the past was to take in any peoples that needed a refuge in the heavy forested area which I mentioned above.

Using the term Slavic is detrimental for finding out true genetic origins of markers

Slavic is exactly like the term Celtic .............neither have ethnicity.............I am still unsure about the term Germanic

He's just playing.I mean, mihaitzateo/gyms...
Tormenable could be a 3rd clone, he seems to follow the same line.
The man has countless clones on the Romanian forum and he's been banned over and over again.

You must've noticed that some threads got diverted.

I don't know what the heck went wrong...
It probably has to do with the internet addiction.
These guys should have had their best time,chasing girls and so on,cause it won't happen twice.

 

[hrvat22]

Tomenable

Croats and Serbs is another story. They came to the Balkans much later, in the 2nd half of the 7th century, invited by the Byzantines to fight against Avars

There is no record stating that Serbs are fighting with the Avars ... only Croats are mentioned as warriors against the Avars...

South Slavic tribes (ancestors of modern Bosniaks, Herzegovinians, Montenegrins, Macedonians, Bulgarians)

Ancestors of Bosniaks, Herzegovinians, Montenegrins, Serbs and Croats are coming from White Croatia as Croats who later divided on these so-called nations....

but which came earlier than Serbo-Croatian speakers.

Genetically these are same people wich come from White Croatia and it is logical that this is one original Croatian language...

Ancestors of Serbs on the other hand, migrated in two directions - one wave settled in Germany (those became Sorbs), one in the Balkans.

Vast majority of Serbs have genes that come from White Croatia and is logical that they were Croatian origin....Serbs from Germany do not have genetic similarities with the Balkan Serbs which is logical since they are Croatian genetic origin...


Once again to understand .....I2a1b2a1a3A356/Z16983 has source in the White Croatia not in the Lusatian Serbs or East Germany and Boyko people....Therefore on Balkan arrives only Croats...




It is not possible that Croat from western Herzegovina, western Dalmatia or Croatian islands has the same genes as the Serb from eastern Herzegovina or Montenegro and that their ancestors have come from the same place to the same place at the same time ... They came from White Croatia as Croats which have through history converted to Orthodox Christianity and Islam and became Serbs or Bosniaks but genetically they are Croats.

 

[doku]

Ancestors of Bosniaks, Herzegovinians, Montenegrins, Serbs and Croats are coming from White Croatia as Croats who later divided on these so-called nations....

Why this respectable forum tolerate this chauvinistic idiot?