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

[Angela]

Wonomyro: 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.

"Admitting" it makes it sound as if I previously thought otherwise. I've always thought that there was a significant migration of Slavic speaking peoples into the Balkans in the early Middle Ages. How else would they have come to speak Slavic languages after all? Linguistics, history and now genetics all agree. These people were new arrivals in the Balkans. No academic historian or researcher in the field of population genetics of any repute whatsover thinks otherwise. The fantasies taught in the Balkans dating to before the fall of the Soviet Union are to be ignored by anyone who hopes to be taken seriously outside of his own little ethnic circles.

That doesn't, however, mean that the "Southern Slavs" are all that much like Poles or Ukrainians, although it differs by "ethnicity", and there is more similarity in terms of ydna. The "Southern Slavs" are Southern Europeans genetically, as all modern genetics papers agree, although again there is a cline. Please review the links and graphs I provided upthread.

I'm not interested, nor is any one with any sense, in the bogus claims of Pan-Slavism, or the "autochthonous" theories, or the fairy tales about the Albanians arriving with the Ottomans, and Near Easterners and Slavs replacing the original "Nordic" Greeks. It's all equally nonsense. There is no longer any room for argument, not with the new ancient genetics papers and the new statistical methods being introduced by major ancient genetics labs all over the world. People post a great deal of ignorant nonsense on some of these threads.

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.

I'm very familiar with it, and have indeed posted it on the thread at least twice.

If by calling attention to it you mean to imply that it shows that Southern Slavs are the same as Poles and Ukrainians, and that this ancestry is not the minority one in these people, then you are drastically misinterpreting what it is showing.

Ralph and Coop could not go further back into history than 4300 years ago, which is about 2300 BC, yes? You have to understand the limitations of IBD analysis. That's after not only the steppe incursions but thousands of years after the arrival of the Neolithic farmers from the Near East. So, Western Southern Slavs already had all of that dna which they share with Italians, Greeks, Spaniards etc. by 2300 BC.

The migrating Slavic speakers also contained that kind of ancestry.

ADMIXTURE and formal stats, of which I gave you several examples, clearly pick up the much more ancient shared ancestry.

You really have to go to the newbies thread and read all those papers, especially the Lazaridis, Haak, and Mathiesen ones.

One more time, this is from the Haak and Lazaridis paper. It is NOT based on ADMIXTURE; it is based on the even more accurate formal stats. Look at the Southern Slav populations compared to the Belarusians and Ukrainians and then compared to the Italians and Greeks. That should tell you all you need to know. Whatever you may prefer, while there is a cline, Croatians are not "Slavs", although they have more "northern" ancestry than some other groups in the Balkans. Even then, it depends on which Croats. I know a lot of Croatians from Dalmatia and the islands, and I think they're different, although I can't get them to test. Croats are closest to Bulgarians, and Bulgarians are very much like Northern Italians.

 

[Angela]

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?



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.



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

That was an abstract, what do you expect?

I'm sorry if you find this insulting as that is not my intention, but nobody in the wider world cares enough about Balkan ethnogenesis to be playing around with these analyses because of "political correctness". There's no "politically correct" viewpoint about the Slavic migrations. Nobody much cares except Eastern Europeans and people in the Balkans. As for "political correctness", the term is used very incorrectly in these kinds of situations. It doesn't apply here as it refers to "The term political correctness (adjectivally: politically correct; commonly abbreviated to PC or P.C.) is used to describe language, policies, or measures that are intended to avoid offense or disadvantage to members of particular groups in society, almost always non-white minorities."

Even scholars like Lazaridis, who is a Greek, admit and show that there was some Slavic admixture even in mainland Greece. The only people who argue there wasn't seem to be some people from the Balkans, i.e. some Serbians etc.

I can't access your link. I'm assuming it was a PCA. PCAs only have two dimensions. They sometimes only account for about 24% of genetic variability.

Regardless, if you wanted to point out that Croatians are in between actual "Slavs" and Italians/Greeks, I've never denied it. Nor have I ever denied that Croatians are the most "northern" of the Balkan populations. You're preaching to the choir. Oh, do Croatians get a prize for that, or something?

I gave you the links not to show the "Slavic" migrations, which I think has been settled fact for a long time, but to show you the differences and similarities of the people of the Balkans versus "Northern Slavs" and Italians/Greeks through ADMIXTURE and formal stats, similarities which date to much longer ago than the 2300 BC which Ralph and Coop were able to trace.

Iberians are a great example. Iberians and Italians haven't directly shared alleles for thousands of years. That doesn't mean they aren't highly related through ancestry that dates even further back into the past. On numerous admixture analyses I am very near some Spanish populations, when I'm not near populations like Bulgarians or Albanians. In both cases, the majority of the similarity dates back to gene flows from the same sources that affected all these areas.

 

[A. Papadimitriou]

The 'Slavic admixture' in Greeks is unquantifiable and the same is true for Germans, Austrians, Hungarians, Romanians and any group of 'Slavs'.

If we had samples from Trzciniec culture (thought to have been early Balto-Slavic by many) we would be able to make a logical argument about 'early Balto-Slavic' admixture in 'Slavic' and non-Slavic groups.

But there is a premise ('Trzciniec culture is early Balto-Slavic') which is unprovable.[h=1][/h]

 

[davef]

Regardless, if you wanted to point out that Croatians are in between actual "Slavs" and Italians/Greeks, I've never denied it. Nor have I ever denied that Croatians are the most "northern" of the Balkan populations. You're preaching to the choir. Oh, do Croatians get a prize for that, or something?

Yeah, the golden Viking helmet. It should be a prize granted to any anthro forum member who scores the most Northern European in comparison to other members of his/her ethnic group or region. I can envision a winner receiving one in the mail and placing it on his desk near his Dorito bag and half eaten lo mein before returning to his 10 hr MMO session.

 

[Angela]

The 'Slavic admixture' in Greeks is unquantifiable and the same is true for Germans, Austrians, Hungarians, Romanians and any group of 'Slavs'.

If we had samples from Trzciniec culture (thought to have been early Balto-Slavic by many) we would be able to make a logical argument about 'early Balto-Slavic' admixture in 'Slavic' and non-Slavic groups.

But there is a premise ('Trzciniec culture is early Balto-Slavic') which is unprovable.

It's true that we need ancient samples which are more proximate in time and space. However, if, as stated in the Lazaridis paper, the mainland Greeks are 75% similar to the ancient Mycenaeans, and we have to account for the Celts, Germanic tribes etc. which also impacted or at least went through the area, it would be somewhere under 25% even in the most northern areas.

 

[Wonomyro]

"Admitting" it makes it sound as if I previously thought otherwise. I've always thought that there was a significant migration of Slavic speaking peoples into the Balkans in the early Middle Ages. How else would they have come to speak Slavic languages after all? Linguistics, history and now genetics all agree. These people were new arrivals in the Balkans. No one of any repute historically or in the field of population genetics thinks otherwise. The fantasies taught in the Balkans dating to before the fall of the Soviet Union are to be ignored by anyone who hopes to be taken seriously outside of his own little ethnic circles.

That doesn't, however, mean that the "Southern Slavs" are all that much like Poles or Ukrainians, although it differs by "ethnicity", and there is more similarity in terms of ydna. The "Southern Slavs" are Southern Europeans genetically, as all modern genetics papers agree, although again there is a cline. Please review the links and graphs I provided upthread.

Please define what “Southern Europeans genetically” means to you. Do you count Hungarians in that club? Croatian cluster is next to "Slavic" one, with Poles, Ukrainians and Belarusians. They overlap with Hungarians, far away from Greek, Albanians, not to mention Tuscans and Sardinians. Of course there is a cline. Nobody is talking about 100% Slavic Ancestry of Croats but neither Poles have 100% Slavic ancestry. So we can imagine original Slavs plot somewhere between present day Croats and Poles.

I'm not interested, nor is any one with any sense, in the bogus claims of Pan-Slavism, or the "autochthonous" theories, or the fairy tales about the Albanians arriving with the Ottomans, and Near Easterners and Slavs replacing the original "Nordic" Greeks. It's all equally nonsense. There is no longer any room for argument, not with the new ancient genetics papers and the new statistical methods being introduced by major ancient genetics labs all over the world. People post a great deal of ignorant nonsense on some of these threads.

What is the meaning of “bogus claims of Pan-Slavism” to you? For the rest I can agree.

I'm very familiar with it, and have indeed posted it on the thread at least twice.

If by calling attention to it you mean to imply that it shows that Southern Slavs are the same as Poles and Ukrainians, and that this ancestry is not the minority one in these people, then you are drastically misinterpreting what it is showing.

That Mr. Strowman shows, not me. Mind that the admixture with Albanians is presented on different image.

Ralph and Coop could not go further back into history than 4300 years ago, which is about 2300 BC, yes? You have to understand the limitations of IBD analysis. That's after not only the steppe incursions but thousands of years after the arrival of the Neolithic farmers from the Near East. So, Western Southern Slavs already had all of that dna which they share with Italians, Greeks, Spaniards etc.

The migrating Slavic speakers also contained that kind of ancestry.

I hope it is clear that the migration period took place in times reachable by IBD analysis. And the diagrams show it. It does not matter what happened before. Neolithic “segments” are ignored. Only lengths that fit to the period are counted.

ADMIXTURE and formal stats, of which I gave you several examples, clearly pick up the shared ancestry.

You really have to go to the newbies thread and read all those papers, especially the Lazaridis, Haak, and Mathiesen ones.

One more time, this is from the Haak and Lazaridis paper. It is NOT based on ADMIXTURE; it is based on the even more accurate formal stats. Look at the Southern Slav populations compared to the Belarusians and Ukrainians and then compared to the Italians and Greeks. That should tell you all you need to know. Whatever you may prefer, while there is a cline, Croatians are not "Slavs", although they have more "northern" ancestry than some other groups in the Balkans. Even then, it depends on which Croats. I know a lot of Croatians from Dalmatia and the islands, and I think they're different, although I can't get them to test.

One can't cherry pick Croats to prove the origin of the Croatian nation. There is statistics for that.

How can you prove or disprove historic migrations with three pre-historic components? According to the diagram Croats are closer to English than Bulgarians. Does it make any sense?

 

[Wonomyro]

That was a download link to a TIFF image. But never mind, here is the link to a whole document, it was a Figure 2 from the suplemental information section (below the text).

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0105090

 

[Wonomyro]

Even scholars like Lazaridis, who is a Greek, admit and show that there was some Slavic admixture even in mainland Greece. The only people who argue there wasn't seem to be some people from the Balkans, i.e. some Serbians etc.

Greeks have some Slavic admixture? Lucky guys! Croats don't.....:useless:... she said...

I can't access your link. I'm assuming it was a PCA. PCAs only have two dimensions. They sometimes only account for about 24% of genetic variability.

(On the previous post).

Regardless, if you wanted to point out that Croatians are in between actual "Slavs" and Italians/Greeks, I've never denied it. Nor have I ever denied that Croatians are the most "northern" of the Balkan populations. You're preaching to the choir. Oh, do Croatians get a prize for that, or something?

Present day Poles or Belarussian don't have to be more "actual" Slavs then Croats. Why people always do that logical mistake. You mentioned cline. When you see the PCA then please note the South-Slavic cline direction. One side points to European north east. That is where the South-Slavs came from. Other side points to Albanians who represent autohtonous population with whom Croats mixed. It can't be more obvious. Cline does not point to England or France nor Italy.

I gave you the links not to show the "Slavic" migrations, which I think has been settled fact for a long time, but to show you the differences and similarities of the people of the Balkans versus "Northern Slavs" and Italians/Greeks through ADMIXTURE and formal stats, similarities which date to much longer ago than the 2300 BC which Ralph and Coop were able to trace. Iberians are a great example. Iberians and Italians haven't directly shared alleles for thousands of years. That doesn't mean they aren't highly related through ancestry that dates even further back into the past. On numerous admixture analyses I am very near some Spanish populations, when I'm not near populations like Bulgarians or Albanians. In both cases, the majority of the similarity dates back to gene flows from the same sources that affected all these areas.

We are not interested in older admixture. What if Illyrians had similar component composition to Slavs? Then if there was a population replacement how wuld we know it from a diagram?

 

[Wonomyro]

Yeah, the golden Viking helmet. It should be a prize granted to any anthro forum member who scores the most Northern European in comparison to other members of his/her ethnic group or region. I can envision a winner receiving one in the mail and placing it on his desk near his Dorito bag and half eaten lo mein before returning to his 10 hr MMO session.

This is the third time that you insulted me and my people. What is your problemo?

 

[davef]

^^ I'm not aware of the first, second, or third time I've insulted you or your people. I was cracking a joke at anthro forum people who obsess over Northern European ancestry in response to Angela's "award" comment and it wasn't directed at you or Croatians in any way shape or form.

I have nothing against Croatian people and don't recall saying anything against them.

 

[Wonomyro]

^^ I'm not aware of the first, second, or third time I've insulted you or your people. I was cracking a joke at anthro forum people who obsess over Northern European ancestry in response to Angela's "award" comment and it wasn't directed at you or Croatians in any way shape or form. I have nothing against Croatian people and don't recall saying anything against them.

So please don't suggest people where they should go to discuss based on their nationality. That sounds very rude and rasistic.

 

[Fatherland]

Can we merge these threads? The discussion is the same in both.

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/26903-How-did-I2a-Din-get-to-the-Balkans/page50?p=524048&viewfull=1#post524048

 

[Angela]

@Wonomyro,

This is my last attempt:

Nowhere did I say that Croatians don't have ancestry from the migration period, i.e the Slavic migrations. Croatia is part of the Balkans, is it not? Didn't I, at quite some length, say that the Slavic migrations did impact the Balkans? Didn't I say that Croatia had more of that ancestry than the other Balkan nations? How many more ways and times can I say it?

Of course Ralph and Coop were able to reach the migration period with IBD analysis, and that analysis did show the Slavic migrations. That's why I brought it up, or did you forget that.

I corrected you because you thought that showed there was no shared ancestry with Italy or Greece etc. That shared ancestry was older, from long before 2300 BC, and so wouldn't show up in that analysis. You apparently still don't understand that.

You also don't seem to understand the ancient migration history of Europe at all. ADMIXTURE and formal stats show it through other methods. A graph like the one from Haak et al illustrates it. It was based on a comparison to ancient samples. During the Mesolithic, every sample found in Europe was "blue". Then a group arrived from Anatolia bringing agriculture and domesticated animals with them. They are represented by the "orange" component. They reached all through Southern Europe, including the Balkans, into Hungary and Germany, France, and England, and even into Sweden. They didn't penetrate into certain northern coastal areas and or into far Northeastern Europe. Then people arrived from the steppe sometime around 3000 BC who are represented by the "green" component who were themselves a mixture of hunter-gatherers and people from the Caucasus or south of it, perhaps herders.

Europeans are a mixture of these three groups, just in different proportions. In 3000 or 3500 BC, when the steppe people arrived, the Balkans, like most of the rest of Europe, was inhabited by people who were largely "orange", although they had absorbed about 25% "blue". The steppe people mixed things up. They also brought the Indo-European languages, of which Greek is one. Thousands of years later the Slavic speakers arrived, who themselves carried "farmer" ancestry, although in lower proportions.

That's a much simplified version.

Now, I'm out. Until people read the papers I provided in the newbie thread, and understand them, they will not understand the population genetics of their own area. It's also pointless to keep debating with people who haven't done so, so I'm out.

Believe what you wish, but the facts are as I've described.

 

[Milan.M]

I can bet for right now that by majority the "ethnogenesis" of South Slavs and their neighbors were done in late Bronze age and Iron age,so called migration period brought very little to no changes.
Sample from Iron age can proof this,how similar or dissimilar we are.
Same scenario happened to most Europeans,Iron age was one of the last stage of migrations and forming of classical "ethnicities" we historically know of such as Celts,Thracians,Romans including ancient Greeks (Mycenaeans are from another era).

And no with so called Slavic migrations in the Balkans,no ethnic Poles or Russians poured out in the Balkans,but people somewhat similar genetically with the said groups,they did not came from Russia but from lower Danube,every historical source is quite clear where Sclavenes were although our imagination can place them anywhere we wish.
Also i call it military conquest rather than migration,comparable to Hungarian conquest,Turkic conquest and so on.What genetic changes they brought in places they settled,even in my opinion they traveled from much further places.

 

[Milan.M]

Slavs from Balkans are much more similar with LBA Hungary than with many other Slavic samples known,except the ones from Bohemia that is EMA_Slavic_RISE568
,who are much more related but not only to Slavic speakers but to Albanians,Greeks also,the ones from Poland like EMA_Balto-Slav_Niem34
EMA_Slavic_Mar7
you can't even find on a chart,for example a calculator posted by Tomenable modeling Greeks as mixes of 250 ancient samples https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34462-Modeling-Greeks-as-mixes-of-250-ancient-samples ,you can see Slavs and their neighbors.
16. Slavs Macedonia (average):

Normal mode:

LBA_Hungary_BR2 37.30
EMA_Slavic_RISE568 14.00
BA_Mycenaean_I9006 12.05
BA_Mycenaean_I9041 9.90
EBA_Armenia_I1658 6.75
IA_LevantEgypt_3DRIF26b 6.55
EMA_Slavic_RISE569 5.15
CA_Iran_I1665b 3.00
BB_Czechia_RISE567 1.40
MBA_Armenia_RISE416 1.10
MBA_Armenia_RISE423 0.60
EMA_Slavic_Mar7 0.55
CA_Iran_I1674 0.55
Malta_Siberia 0.40
IA_ScythianPazyryk_Be9 0.35
Ancestral_North_African 0.20
IA_EastGermanic_Mas5 0.10
CCC_Estonia_MA975 0.05

24. Slavs Montenegro (average):

Normal mode:

LBA_Hungary_BR2 22.30
EMA_Slavic_RISE568 17.50
BA_Mycenaean_I9041 16.95
EMA_Slavic_RISE569 11.65
BA_Sweden_RISE210 9.35
BA_Mycenaean_I9006 9.15
EBA_Armenia_I1658 8.40
IA_Kazakhstan_Is2 1.80
LBA_Armenia_RISE397 1.20
EMA_Slavic_Mar7 0.70
EBA_Armenia_I1633 0.40
IA_ScythianPazyryk_Be9 0.40
Amerind_Mexico-Pericues 0.10
Ancestral_North_African 0.10

21. Slavs Bulgaria (average):

Normal mode:

BA_Mycenaean_I9041 21.05
EMA_Slavic_RISE568 19.65
LBA_Hungary_BR2 12.00
EBA_Armenia_I1658 10.50
BA_Mycenaean_I9006 9.10
BA_Hungary_RISE371 6.80
BA_Sweden_RISE210 6.65
BA_Levant_I1705 3.25
EMA_Slavic_Mar7 3.00
IA_Kazakhstan_Is2 2.65
IA_LevantEgypt_3DRIF26b 2.15
MBA_Armenia_RISE416 2.10
Malta_Siberia 1.00
Melanesian 0.10


15. Greeks Macedonia (average):

Normal mode:

BA_Mycenaean_I9041 23.15
EMA_Slavic_RISE569 12.40
BA_Mycenaean_I9006 11.90
BA_Sweden_RISE210 9.85
EBA_Armenia_I1658 9.10
MBA_Armenia_RISE416 6.90
EMA_Slavic_RISE568 5.95
IA_LevantEgypt_3DRIF26b 5.25
BA_Levant_I1730 4.20
BA_Hungary_RISE371 4.10
EMA_Slavic_Mar7 2.85
CA_Iran_I1674 2.80
LBA_Hungary_BR2 1.40
CA_Iran_I1665b 0.15

18. Southern Albania (average):

Normal mode:

BA_Mycenaean_I9041 39.70
EMA_Slavic_RISE569 15.10
BA_Mycenaean_I9006 14.00
IA_LevantEgypt_3DRIF26b 6.20
BA_Sweden_RISE210 4.65
IA_EastGermanic_Kow55 4.25
MBA_Armenia_RISE423 4.05
LBA_Hungary_BR2 3.30
LBA_Armenia_RISE396 3.25
MBA_Armenia_RISE416 2.15
EBA_Armenia_I1658 1.90
EMA_Slavic_RISE568 0.90
IA_LevantEgypt_3DRIF26 0.30
BA_Levant_I1730 0.20
BA_Hungary_RISE371 0.05

20. Kosovo (average):

Normal mode:

BA_Mycenaean_I9041 33.20
BA_Mycenaean_I9006 14.95
EMA_Slavic_RISE569 11.80
BA_Sweden_RISE210 8.15
EMA_Slavic_RISE568 6.45
LBA_Hungary_BR2 5.60
IA_EastGermanic_Kow55 5.55
MBA_Armenia_RISE416 4.30
CA_Iran_I1674 3.10
LBA_Armenia_RISE396 3.00
LBA_Armenia_RISE397 1.55
BA_Hungary_RISE371 1.00
BA_Levant_I1705 0.70
BA_Anatolia_Kum4 0.25
EBA_Armenia_I1658 0.25
Ancestral_North_African 0.15


The high LBA Hungary in South Slavs support my claim that ethnogenesis of South Slavs were mostly done in LBA and begining of Iron age.

 

[Wonomyro]

@Wonomyro,

This is my last attempt:

Nowhere did I say that Croatians don't have ancestry from the migration period, i.e the Slavic migrations. Croatia is part of the Balkans, is it not? Didn't I, at quite some length, say that the Slavic migrations did impact the Balkans? Didn't I say that Croatia had more of that ancestry than the other Balkan nations? How many more ways and times can I say it?

Of course Ralph and Coop were able to reach the migration period with IBD analysis, and that analysis did show the Slavic migrations. That's why I brought it up, or did you forget that.

This is what I believe caused the misunderstanding: When you say that Croats had “Slavic” ancestry, it is a contradiction, because “Croats” is the name of that ancestry.

It is just a matter how much of that ancestry left in present day population. Some here say it is just few percent, and I must disagree. The Ralph and Coop paper clearly showed that Polish-like ancestry in Croatian gene pool is far larger then any other including, with all respect, Italian. And I am not talking here about the prehistoric admixture which occurred as well, but more recent one which we can identify ONLY with IBD analysis.

I corrected you because you thought that showed there was no shared ancestry with Italy or Greece etc. That shared ancestry was older, from long before 2300 BC, and so wouldn't show up in that analysis. You apparently still don't understand that.

I understand it very well. Some Italian-like ancestry is still present in Croatian population, but is not as large as the Polish-like.

http://journals.plos.org/plosbiolog...id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001555.g003

]You also don't seem to understand the ancient migration history of Europe at all. ADMIXTURE and formal stats show it through other methods. A graph like the one from Haak et al illustrates it. It was based on a comparison to ancient samples. During the Mesolithic, every sample found in Europe was "blue". Then a group arrived from Anatolia bringing agriculture and domesticated animals with them. They are represented by the "orange" component. They reached all through Southern Europe, including the Balkans, into Hungary and Germany, France, and England, and even into Sweden. They didn't penetrate into certain northern coastal areas and or into far Northeastern Europe. Then people arrived from the steppe sometime around 3000 BC who are represented by the "green" component who were themselves a mixture of hunter-gatherers and people from the Caucasus or south of it, perhaps herders.

Europeans are a mixture of these three groups, just in different proportions. In 3000 or 3500 BC, when the steppe people arrived, the Balkans, like most of the rest of Europe, was inhabited by people who were largely "orange", although they had absorbed about 25% "blue". The steppe people mixed things up. They also brought the Indo-European languages, of which Greek is one. Thousands of years later the Slavic speakers arrived, who themselves carried "farmer" ancestry, although in lower proportions.

That's a much simplified version.

We can’t properly describe historic migrations with prehistoric genomes. It’s too old. During the migration period both people possessed all of these components. EEF has its peak in Sardinia but that doesn’t mean that EEF component came to Croatia from Sardinia. It is about the resolution of data. To illustrate this I am attaching this simple diagram. It is clear that Croats group with French and Hungarians, not e.g. Bulgarians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Admixture.png

But even such simplified view reveals that Croats are not so “Balkan” as one might think, whatever that term means to you.

Now, I'm out. Until people read the papers I provided in the newbie thread, and understand them, they will not understand the population genetics of their own area. It's also pointless to keep debating with people who haven't done so, so I'm out.

I respect that and I am not going to continue. However it was a great pleasure to exchange thoughts with you.

 

[Wonomyro]

The high LBA Hungary in South Slavs support my claim that ethnogenesis of South Slavs were mostly done in LBA and begining of Iron age.[/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR]

Then what happened in Iron Age? https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms6257/figures/2

 

[davef]

So please don't suggest people where they should go to discuss based on their nationality. That sounds very rude and rasistic.

Oh no, failure to communicate on my part. Not to worry, I wasn't suggesting it due to your ethnicity, I would've done the same if you were any other ancestry. The thread isn't a segregational unit for Balkan members as if they're blacks living in Jim Crow south, it's just a place to post off topic arguments related to the balkans without having to start a new thread.

 

[Milan.M]

Then what happened in Iron Age? https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms6257/figures/2

I can tell you what i think it happened in Iron age,and formed one of the last stages of our genesis.
The begining of Iron age in Europe is connected with the so called "Thraco-Cimmerian" culture zone.

In the Pontic Steppe and the Caucasus region, the Iron Age begins with the Koban and the Chernogorovka and Novocherkassk cultures from c. 900 BC. By 800 BC, it was spreading to Halstatt C via the alleged "Thraco-Cimmerian" migrations.
The map above also correlates with I2a-din haplogroup and people and regions "South Slavs" are the most alike wheter connected or not,just a suggestion.
Contact with Halstatt also formed the Celts in my opinion and not earlier cultures as some people thought.Celts will settled and appear in their places.Dorians will appear in Greece,wheter inner Greek migration or not.
When discussing made "ethnicities" in the Balkans by exonyms of foreigners such as Illyrians,Thracians,Dacians.Illyria was Roman province but this archeological culture is reality.

From the paper you post it;

Our Copper Age (Baden Culture) sample shows similarity to Neolithic genomes, in accordance with archaeological continuity in the region. In contrast, the Bronze Age genomes shift towards an affinity to Central Europe, suggesting migratory influence from the North. The single pre-Scythian IR1 genome shows another shift towards migration from the East. Altogether, our results accord with archaeological perspectives that link these major transitions in European material culture to population movements rather than cultural diffusion alone.


A third genomic shift occurs around the turn of the first millennium BC. The single Iron Age genome, sampled from the pre-Scythian Mezőcsát Culture (Iron Age (IR1), 830–980 cal BC), shows a distinct shift towards Eastern Eurasian genotypes, specifically in the direction of several Caucasus population samples within the reference data set. This result, supported by mtDNA and Y-chromosome haplogroups (N and G2a1, respectively, both with Asian affinities) suggests genomic influences from the East. This is supported by the archaeological record which indicates increased technological and typological affinities with Steppe cultures at this time, including the importation of horse riding, carts, chariots and metallurgical techniques26. Modern Hungarians occupy an intermediate position between the IR1 and more Western Bronze Age genomes, most likely reflecting the continuation of admixture in the Central European gene pool since this time.

 

[Ed the Red]

It would be more reasonable to presume that R1b-U152 came in Eastern Europe with Romans but not Galatians. Galatians were real IE warriors that means they could not be R1b. Surely they were R1a.

What does that mean? You're saying R1b aren't real IE warriors haha c'mon. Celts are mostly R1b. They were Vikings before the Vikings were Vikings. They invaded all of southern Europe. Like sacking Rome in 390 B.C.