I2a-Din came to the Balkans and Dinaric Alps with the Thracians, Dacians & Illyrians

[Wonomyro]

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

And yes Maciamo's picture would be different.

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

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

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

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

 

[Sile]

Would you be so kind to give us a link to the paper. Or maybe just a table with haplogroup description. Thanks!

2012 paper

 

[hrvat22]

2012 paper

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

The Illyrians are noted in historical documents in the eastern alps as far back as 1400BC

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

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

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

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

 

[Miroslav]

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

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

 

[Sile]

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

from the recent mathieson paper

The timing, location and admixtures of these samples fit with the Illyrian colonisation of the Dinaric Alps, which is thought to have taken place between 1600 and 1100 BCE. The Illyrians may have been late Steppe migrants from the Volga region that were forced out of the Steppe by the invasion of the northern R1a tribes who established the Srubna culture (from 2000 BCE).

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


Gimbutas, Marija
Bronze Age cultures in Central and Eastern Europe

 

[Wonomyro]

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

No reasonable person should ignore linguistic arguments. I do not see the reason why we should drop it in favour of "more objective sources"?

 

[davef]

^^ one more time
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30592-Balkanian-disagreements/page41?p=523781#post523781

 

[Wonomyro]

^^ one more time https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30592-Balkanian-disagreements/page41?p=523781#post523781

Is there any problem?

 

[Miroslav]

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

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

 

[hrvat22]

from the recent mathieson paper

The timing, location and admixtures of these samples fit with the Illyrian colonisation of the Dinaric Alps, which is thought to have taken place between 1600 and 1100 BCE. The Illyrians may have been late Steppe migrants from the Volga region that were forced out of the Steppe by the invasion of the northern R1a tribes who established the Srubna culture (from 2000 BCE).

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


Gimbutas, Marija
Bronze Age cultures in Central and Eastern Europe

Which haplotypes and which branches?

 

[Wonomyro]

It is actually J2b2-L283 that can be connected to Illyrians:

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

Source: eupedia

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

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

 

[Wonomyro]

I've just seen some autosomal data from Vinča culture on another forum. It is very much Italian-like.

Someone put it here: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...complex-genetic-hx-of-early-Euorpean-farmers?

 

[Dibran]

It is actually J2b2-L283 that can be connected to Illyrians:



Source: eupedia

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

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

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

 

[Angela]

I've just seen some autosomal data from Vinča culture on another forum. It is very much Italian-like.

Someone put it here: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...complex-genetic-hx-of-early-Euorpean-farmers?

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

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

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

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

 

[Wonomyro]

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

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

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

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

 

[Wonomyro]

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

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

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

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

 

[Dibran]

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

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

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

 

[Angela]

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Wonomyro]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Wonomyro]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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