Croatian Migration Era breakdown

[Leeloo]

I would heavily disregard the "Illyro" as a prefix before the Roman because of the archaeogenetic contexts of these CE samples. Given the uniparental distribution of Croats it is rather evident that BA-IA Illyrian Y-DNA and mtDNA are very rare. Imperial Roman era ancestry, some southeast Urnfield, perhaps also some Daco-Thracian-like source pop would fit the overall picture much better.

Also, on a side note "Balkan_IA" or "Old Balkan" as toponyms are extremely generic considering the diverse genetic makeup of the Paleo-Balkans, as in there is not some sort of homogenous bunch.

No, I disagree. Illyro-Roman is used historiographic term to label Romanized population of Dalmatia and Panonnia. I used both native Balkan like samples (from Croatia only) and Roman_Anatolian like samples (also from Croatia only). Our pre-Slavic part is certainly not fitting to Imperial Roman.

Urnfield sound irrelevant to describe pre-Slavic late antiquity/early medieval population of Croatia, as does Daco-Thracian.

Label Illyro-Roman is generic and describes exatly what it states - Romanized native population. This average is most similar to Tuscans, and it makes sense since Illyrians from Croatia were North Italian like and Anatolian Romans from same area were much more southern, thus a Romanized native mix will come out central-Italian like.

That's not really a counterargument. You're again using a pretty generic term that was used in the Serbian article, you keep referencing, which is "Balkan IA". This will ultimately lead to falsehoods and erroneous conclusions.

The BA-IA Illyrian related archaeogenetic landscape in what is today Croatia is very well mapped out. The CE era samples of that study do not represent an unbroken continuation of BA-IA Illyrian samples of the same region, neither uniparentally nor autosomally.

Modern Croats, again, totally lack Illyrian Y-DNA and mtDNA, some maximum 3% here and there is incredibly rare. E1b-V13 for instance is the most common Paleo-Balkan lineage in Croats but it was absolutely irrelevant during pre-Roman times in the area. Imperial Era Middleastern uniparentals are combined also much more present.

There was not a strict in situ assimilation and non-Slavic components were also picked up along the way.

No.

There is much more Croatian IA autosomal like admixture in Croats than 3%. You are ridiculously exeggerating. Are you Albanian?

I don't intened to go into proving Croats have Illyrian autosomal admixture, because I don't see point to debate what is obvious.

Y-DNA is highly vulnerable to bottleneck and founder effects. Western Herzegovina Croats can have over 80% early Slavic male lineages and they are not 80% autosomaly Slavic. Your 3% is also incorrect claim.

E-V13 is of eastern Balkan origin and arrived here after Iron Age. As for middle eastern, you must be seriously trolling if you are implying Croats pre-Slavic parts fits to middle east. Sorry to disapoint you but it doesn't, not even close. According to last Balkan paper there was around 20% shoft towards Roman Imperial genetics in the Balkans, and nowhere close to complete or even near such turnover.

Term I am using is intentionally generic and historiographically accepted, unlike ideas you suggested which are absolutely not fitting into migration era.

Urnfield? No comment.

Illyro-Romans were not well defined homogenost population but already notably diluted Balkanites admixed with incoming Roman settlers and as such it fits well. There were no Illyrians, Dacians or Unrfielders in the Balkans when Slavs came along.

[elflock]

I would heavily disregard the "Illyro" as a prefix before the Roman because of the archaeogenetic contexts of these CE samples. Given the uniparental distribution of Croats it is rather evident that BA-IA Illyrian Y-DNA and mtDNA are very rare. Imperial Roman era ancestry, some southeast Urnfield, perhaps also some Daco-Thracian-like source pop would fit the overall picture much better.

Also, on a side note "Balkan_IA" or "Old Balkan" as toponyms are extremely generic considering the diverse genetic makeup of the Paleo-Balkans, as in there is not some sort of homogenous bunch.

No, I disagree. Illyro-Roman is used historiographic term to label Romanized population of Dalmatia and Panonnia. I used both native Balkan like samples (from Croatia only) and Roman_Anatolian like samples (also from Croatia only). Our pre-Slavic part is certainly not fitting to Imperial Roman.

Urnfield sound irrelevant to describe pre-Slavic late antiquity/early medieval population of Croatia, as does Daco-Thracian.

Label Illyro-Roman is generic and describes exatly what it states - Romanized native population. This average is most similar to Tuscans, and it makes sense since Illyrians from Croatia were North Italian like and Anatolian Romans from same area were much more southern, thus a Romanized native mix will come out central-Italian like.

That's not really a counterargument. You're again using a pretty generic term that was used in the Serbian article, you keep referencing, which is "Balkan IA". This will ultimately lead to falsehoods and erroneous conclusions.

The BA-IA Illyrian related archaeogenetic landscape in what is today Croatia is very well mapped out. The CE era samples of that study do not represent an unbroken continuation of BA-IA Illyrian samples of the same region, neither uniparentally nor autosomally.

Modern Croats, again, totally lack Illyrian Y-DNA and mtDNA, some maximum 3% here and there is incredibly rare. E1b-V13 for instance is the most common Paleo-Balkan lineage in Croats but it was absolutely irrelevant during pre-Roman times in the area. Imperial Era Middleastern uniparentals are combined also much more present.

There was not a strict in situ assimilation and non-Slavic components were also picked up along the way.

I don't intened to go into proving Croats have Illyrian autosomal admixture, because I don't see point to debate what is obvious.

We can agree to disagree. I made very clear in my two responses that I was referring to both Y-DNA and Mtdna. 

A rhetorical question: Where did all that J2b-L283 and mtDNA equivalents go if Croats are 40+ % Illyrian?

Not sure what I should respond to. The Urnfielders did reach Croatia there are archeological papers aswell as genetic data attesting them, what should I elaborate on? 

Furthermore I am also not sure what the ethnonationalist tone is for.

[Bukva_]

I would heavily disregard the "Illyro" as a prefix before the Roman because of the archaeogenetic contexts of these CE samples. Given the uniparental distribution of Croats it is rather evident that BA-IA Illyrian Y-DNA and mtDNA are very rare. Imperial Roman era ancestry, some southeast Urnfield, perhaps also some Daco-Thracian-like source pop would fit the overall picture much better.

Also, on a side note "Balkan_IA" or "Old Balkan" as toponyms are extremely generic considering the diverse genetic makeup of the Paleo-Balkans, as in there is not some sort of homogenous bunch.

No, I disagree. Illyro-Roman is used historiographic term to label Romanized population of Dalmatia and Panonnia. I used both native Balkan like samples (from Croatia only) and Roman_Anatolian like samples (also from Croatia only). Our pre-Slavic part is certainly not fitting to Imperial Roman.

Urnfield sound irrelevant to describe pre-Slavic late antiquity/early medieval population of Croatia, as does Daco-Thracian.

Label Illyro-Roman is generic and describes exatly what it states - Romanized native population. This average is most similar to Tuscans, and it makes sense since Illyrians from Croatia were North Italian like and Anatolian Romans from same area were much more southern, thus a Romanized native mix will come out central-Italian like.

That's not really a counterargument. You're again using a pretty generic term that was used in the Serbian article, you keep referencing, which is "Balkan IA". This will ultimately lead to falsehoods and erroneous conclusions.

The BA-IA Illyrian related archaeogenetic landscape in what is today Croatia is very well mapped out. The CE era samples of that study do not represent an unbroken continuation of BA-IA Illyrian samples of the same region, neither uniparentally nor autosomally.

Modern Croats, again, totally lack Illyrian Y-DNA and mtDNA, some maximum 3% here and there is incredibly rare. E1b-V13 for instance is the most common Paleo-Balkan lineage in Croats but it was absolutely irrelevant during pre-Roman times in the area. Imperial Era Middleastern uniparentals are combined also much more present.

There was not a strict in situ assimilation and non-Slavic components were also picked up along the way.

I don't intened to go into proving Croats have Illyrian autosomal admixture, because I don't see point to debate what is obvious.

We can agree to disagree. I made very clear in my two responses that I was referring to both Y-DNA and Mtdna. 

A rhetorical question: Where did all that J2b-L283 and mtDNA equivalents go if Croats are 40+ % Illyrian?

Not sure what I should respond to. The Urnfielders did reach Croatia there are archeological papers aswell as genetic data attesting them, what should I elaborate on? 

Furthermore I am also not sure what the ethnonationalist tone is for.

Can you give an urnfield sample that would fit Croatians, what do you mean by souther urnfield?

[Leeloo]

I would heavily disregard the "Illyro" as a prefix before the Roman because of the archaeogenetic contexts of these CE samples. Given the uniparental distribution of Croats it is rather evident that BA-IA Illyrian Y-DNA and mtDNA are very rare. Imperial Roman era ancestry, some southeast Urnfield, perhaps also some Daco-Thracian-like source pop would fit the overall picture much better.

Also, on a side note "Balkan_IA" or "Old Balkan" as toponyms are extremely generic considering the diverse genetic makeup of the Paleo-Balkans, as in there is not some sort of homogenous bunch.

No, I disagree. Illyro-Roman is used historiographic term to label Romanized population of Dalmatia and Panonnia. I used both native Balkan like samples (from Croatia only) and Roman_Anatolian like samples (also from Croatia only). Our pre-Slavic part is certainly not fitting to Imperial Roman.

Urnfield sound irrelevant to describe pre-Slavic late antiquity/early medieval population of Croatia, as does Daco-Thracian.

Label Illyro-Roman is generic and describes exatly what it states - Romanized native population. This average is most similar to Tuscans, and it makes sense since Illyrians from Croatia were North Italian like and Anatolian Romans from same area were much more southern, thus a Romanized native mix will come out central-Italian like.

That's not really a counterargument. You're again using a pretty generic term that was used in the Serbian article, you keep referencing, which is "Balkan IA". This will ultimately lead to falsehoods and erroneous conclusions.

The BA-IA Illyrian related archaeogenetic landscape in what is today Croatia is very well mapped out. The CE era samples of that study do not represent an unbroken continuation of BA-IA Illyrian samples of the same region, neither uniparentally nor autosomally.

Modern Croats, again, totally lack Illyrian Y-DNA and mtDNA, some maximum 3% here and there is incredibly rare. E1b-V13 for instance is the most common Paleo-Balkan lineage in Croats but it was absolutely irrelevant during pre-Roman times in the area. Imperial Era Middleastern uniparentals are combined also much more present.

There was not a strict in situ assimilation and non-Slavic components were also picked up along the way.

I don't intened to go into proving Croats have Illyrian autosomal admixture, because I don't see point to debate what is obvious.

We can agree to disagree. I made very clear in my two responses that I was referring to both Y-DNA and Mtdna. 

A rhetorical question: Where did all that J2b-L283 and mtDNA equivalents go if Croats are 40+ % Illyrian?

Not sure what I should respond to. The Urnfielders did reach Croatia there are archeological papers aswell as genetic data attesting them, what should I elaborate on? 

Furthermore I am also not sure what the ethnonationalist tone is for.

40% Illyrian? Croats are not 40% Illyrian at all and nobody claimed they are. Neither are they 3% Illyrian or even close to such lower figure.

Illyro-Roman =/= Illyrian. It is mixed Balkan IA like and Imperial Roman genetics like it was in time when Slavs arrived to Balkans, and I obviously erraneously believed anyone with half wit can figure it out.

Ethno nationalist tone? You failed to answer my question are you an Albanian. I will take it as you are, and there are no more ethno nationalist oriented Illyrian gate keepers than your people around.

Unfortunately for you, your west-Balkan IA like autosomal ancestry is also smaller than expected.

Urnfielders didn't exist in Croatia in early medieval, hence I don't see what relevance they have to my models and historical reality. You are bringing BA culture into early medieval discussion. Big miss.

[Leeloo]

No, I disagree. Illyro-Roman is used historiographic term to label Romanized population of Dalmatia and Panonnia. I used both native Balkan like samples (from Croatia only) and Roman_Anatolian like samples (also from Croatia only). Our pre-Slavic part is certainly not fitting to Imperial Roman.

Urnfield sound irrelevant to describe pre-Slavic late antiquity/early medieval population of Croatia, as does Daco-Thracian.

Label Illyro-Roman is generic and describes exatly what it states - Romanized native population. This average is most similar to Tuscans, and it makes sense since Illyrians from Croatia were North Italian like and Anatolian Romans from same area were much more southern, thus a Romanized native mix will come out central-Italian like.

That's not really a counterargument. You're again using a pretty generic term that was used in the Serbian article, you keep referencing, which is "Balkan IA". This will ultimately lead to falsehoods and erroneous conclusions.

The BA-IA Illyrian related archaeogenetic landscape in what is today Croatia is very well mapped out. The CE era samples of that study do not represent an unbroken continuation of BA-IA Illyrian samples of the same region, neither uniparentally nor autosomally.

Modern Croats, again, totally lack Illyrian Y-DNA and mtDNA, some maximum 3% here and there is incredibly rare. E1b-V13 for instance is the most common Paleo-Balkan lineage in Croats but it was absolutely irrelevant during pre-Roman times in the area. Imperial Era Middleastern uniparentals are combined also much more present.

There was not a strict in situ assimilation and non-Slavic components were also picked up along the way.

I don't intened to go into proving Croats have Illyrian autosomal admixture, because I don't see point to debate what is obvious.

We can agree to disagree. I made very clear in my two responses that I was referring to both Y-DNA and Mtdna. 

A rhetorical question: Where did all that J2b-L283 and mtDNA equivalents go if Croats are 40+ % Illyrian?

Not sure what I should respond to. The Urnfielders did reach Croatia there are archeological papers aswell as genetic data attesting them, what should I elaborate on? 

Furthermore I am also not sure what the ethnonationalist tone is for.

Can you give an urnfield sample that would fit Croatians, what do you mean by souther urnfield?

He probably wants to say BA-IA natives of Croatia had Urnfield like genetic influence. However trying to make a great migration model with Urnfield is simply ridiculous.

[Bukva_]

Here is my attempt at breaking down.
I tried to separate components from Roman Era Balkan populations that fit my father. Roman Era samples that fit him the best are Bal_148, R2053 and MS-45. He has a big affinity to Bulgaria_EIA and Sicily_LBA, very high EEF component. Is that some unsampled population or Thracians in Pannonia? I have trouble interpreting it. Maybe @Riverman could help explain it.

He also has affinity for Scythian samples MJ-46 and R11558 (not pure scythian), MJ-46 is low coverage, so I don't know about that. Is that just signal for something else.

Other is Western Balkan MBA like samples + Celtic.

Roman Era
Distance: 1.0922%
27.2% Hungary_Balatonszemes_EMA:Bal_148_AD_475
9.6% Croatia_MirineFulfinum_Roman.SG:R2053.SG
63.2% Balto - Slavic

Distance: 1.0627%
15.2% Bulgaria_EIA:I20184
13.4% Macedonia_Classical_Hellenistic:I10390
8.4% England_EIA:I12787
7.2% Ukraine_IA_WesternScythian.SG:MJ-46_noUDG.SG
55.8% Balto - Slavic

So in conclusion looks like Balto-Slavic + Aegean-like population + Croatia MBA/EIA + Celtic + Scythian?

[ph2ter]

I have tried to put more regional averages on the map:

[Riverman]

The zone partially overlaps with the sphere of influence of the Eastern Frankish Empire and the Moravian Empire before the Magyar invasion:



There was some Frankish-German Early Medieval influence on the Pannonian mark. Speculating in that direction, its possible that more of this Frankish-Bavarian/German settlement survived there than in Pannonia proper even, where the Magyars had a stronger first impact. I would even speculate that the Slavo-German people of the area would have fled over the Drau South when the Hungarians came in. 
No way to tell without having samples from the Pannonian mark settlers though. But both Moravians and Frankish-Bavairan people could have tried to evade the Hungarians by moving South also.
Most of the time old migration period remains have proven to be rather low impact, therefore if its real, we have to assume some relatively more recent pulse as well, and that could be it.

[Bukva_]

The zone partially overlaps with the sphere of influence of the Eastern Frankish Empire and the Moravian Empire before the Magyar invasion:



There was some Frankish-German Early Medieval influence on the Pannonian mark. Speculating in that direction, its possible that more of this Frankish-Bavarian/German settlement survived there than in Pannonia proper even, where the Magyars had a stronger first impact. I would even speculate that the Slavo-German people of the area would have fled over the Drau South when the Hungarians came in. 
No way to tell without having samples from the Pannonian mark settlers though. But both Moravians and Frankish-Bavairan people could have tried to evade the Hungarians by moving South also.
Most of the time old migration period remains have proven to be rather low impact, therefore if its real, we have to assume some relatively more recent pulse as well, and that could be it.

From Budak: Hrvatska povijest od 550. do 1100.:

After they settled in the Pannonian Plain (895), the emperor handed over the former Pribina and Kocel properties around Balaton to Braslav in order to organize the defense against the new enemy. Within a short time, Pannonia north and south of the Drava were thus united under his rule, but Braslav is no longer mentioned. His principality collapsed under the onslaught of the Hungarians who conquered at least its parts north of Drava. The Hungarian conquest of Svatopluk's principality, and then the destruction of Braslav's, brought great changes in the relations of forces between Sava and Drava. Konstantin reports that before the Hungarian conquests, fugitives from Moravia also fled to Croatia, which would confirm that the two countries bordered.

I agree with you. I also think that when Hungarians came, a lot of Slavic population moved from Transdanubia to south of Drava. That area was sparsely populated and not organized until 11th cenuty. Todays profile of kajkavian Croats is that of Pannonian Slavs, like Gomolava sample. German influence could also come through Caranthania. Histogenes sample will give us answers.

[ph2ter]

The similar we can say about Y-DNA. The two Great Moravian samples from Pohansko are I2a-A815. I am A815 and the heatmap of modern distribution has the highest concentration in the territory of Great Moravian state:

[AimSmall]

This thread is being monitored for uncivil responses.

Please refrain from personalizing responses and attacking other members.

[duke]

I would heavily disregard the "Illyro" as a prefix before the Roman because of the archaeogenetic contexts of these CE samples. Given the uniparental distribution of Croats it is rather evident that BA-IA Illyrian Y-DNA and mtDNA are very rare. Imperial Roman era ancestry, some southeast Urnfield, perhaps also some Daco-Thracian-like source pop would fit the overall picture much better.

Also, on a side note "Balkan_IA" or "Old Balkan" as toponyms are extremely generic considering the diverse genetic makeup of the Paleo-Balkans, as in there is not some sort of homogenous bunch.

No, I disagree. Illyro-Roman is used historiographic term to label Romanized population of Dalmatia and Panonnia. I used both native Balkan like samples (from Croatia only) and Roman_Anatolian like samples (also from Croatia only). Our pre-Slavic part is certainly not fitting to Imperial Roman.

Urnfield sound irrelevant to describe pre-Slavic late antiquity/early medieval population of Croatia, as does Daco-Thracian.

Label Illyro-Roman is generic and describes exatly what it states - Romanized native population. This average is most similar to Tuscans, and it makes sense since Illyrians from Croatia were North Italian like and Anatolian Romans from same area were much more southern, thus a Romanized native mix will come out central-Italian like.

That's not really a counterargument. You're again using a pretty generic term that was used in the Serbian article, you keep referencing, which is "Balkan IA". This will ultimately lead to falsehoods and erroneous conclusions.

The BA-IA Illyrian related archaeogenetic landscape in what is today Croatia is very well mapped out. The CE era samples of that study do not represent an unbroken continuation of BA-IA Illyrian samples of the same region, neither uniparentally nor autosomally.

Modern Croats, again, totally lack Illyrian Y-DNA and mtDNA, some maximum 3% here and there is incredibly rare. E1b-V13 for instance is the most common Paleo-Balkan lineage in Croats but it was absolutely irrelevant during pre-Roman times in the area. Imperial Era Middleastern uniparentals are combined also much more present.

There was not a strict in situ assimilation and non-Slavic components were also picked up along the way.

I don't intened to go into proving Croats have Illyrian autosomal admixture, because I don't see point to debate what is obvious.

We can agree to disagree. I made very clear in my two responses that I was referring to both Y-DNA and Mtdna. 

A rhetorical question: Where did all that J2b-L283 and mtDNA equivalents go if Croats are 40+ % Illyrian?

Not sure what I should respond to. The Urnfielders did reach Croatia there are archeological papers aswell as genetic data attesting them, what should I elaborate on? 

Furthermore I am also not sure what the ethnonationalist tone is for.

who says that  J2b-L283 is Illyrian, it was found there but it maches greek islanders, my guess is they are greek colonists that were present there

[Leeloo]

Again this dictatorial censoring like on dead anthrogenica? Out of here. Bye-bye.

[Bukva_]

The similar we can say about Y-DNA. The two Great Moravian samples from Pohansko are I2a-A815. I am A815 and the heatmap of modern distribution has the highest concentration in the territory of Great Moravian state:

Could you make one for R-Y2608?

[ph2ter]

The similar we can say about Y-DNA. The two Great Moravian samples from Pohansko are I2a-A815. I am A815 and the heatmap of modern distribution has the highest concentration in the territory of Great Moravian state:

Could you make one for R-Y2608?

R1a-Y2609: