# Population Genetics > Autosomal Genetics >  How "Slavic" are South Slavs?

## Bosnian Boss

And how would it be quantified? Thanks

----------


## LeBrok

> And how would it be quantified? Thanks


Try looking for older threads on the subject. It's been discussed many times.

----------


## DuPidh

> And how would it be quantified? Thanks


I learned one day that a Russian women gave birth to something like 70 kids, with all surviving but two. She never had a single child. Maybe we need another thread but I think the reason that Slavs are so numerous is because their women are exceptionally fertile? They have of course absorbed many ethnicity's but still DNA shows that they are predominantly R1a, I2a,with N1c in minority

----------


## VMRO1893

> I learned one day that a Russian women gave birth to something like 70 kids, with all surviving but two. She never had a single child. Maybe we need another thread but I think the reason that Slavs are so numerous is because their women are exceptionally fertile? They have of course absorbed many ethnicity's but still DNA shows that they are predominantly R1a, I2a,with N1c in minority


Albanians must have caught that fertility bug from their Slavic neighbours I guess. Petty modern Slavs are not so fertile....

----------


## Bosnian Boss

I have. Nothing has been conclusive.

----------


## Tomenable

> How "Slavic" are South Slavs? And how would it be quantified? Thanks


About 40%. Just like good Vodka. But being Slavic is not about your genes bro, it's all about your car:

https://www.youtube.com/user/NocturnoPlays/videos

----------


## Tomenable

> Maybe we need another thread but I think the reason that Slavs are so numerous is because their women are exceptionally fertile?


Yes, but there are many more reasons as well - including the secrets of traditional Slavonic medicine:

----------


## Dinarid

As Slavic as they come, since Slavs are not a completely homogenous family.

----------


## A. Papadimitriou

It can't be quantified really, whatever people on the Internet say.

----------


## Tomenable

> It can't be quantified really, whatever people on the Internet say.


Not as long as there are no Proto-Slavic ancient DNA samples. But when we get such samples, it will be possible to calculate it.

----------


## Seanp

Going by genetic it's impossible to tell. First what do you consider as Slavic?
Is Slavic a language, identity or a group which has close genetic relatedness?

In my opinion Slavic as an identity exists first and foremost as there's not much in common in a Serbian and a Russian genetic vise rather cultural ties. A non Slavic Hungarian might be closer in terms of genetic to Northern Slavic speaker groups than Serbs themselves or any other South Slavic ethnicity.

----------


## gyms

Most South Slavs are separated from the rest of the Balto-Slavic populations and form a sparse group of populations with internal differentiation into western (Slovenians, Croatians and Bosnians) and eastern (Macedonians and Bulgarians) regions of the Balkan Peninsula with Serbians placed in-between (Fig 2A and 2B). The mean population pairwise genetic distances for South Slavs (DNei = 0.239 for NRY; FST = 0.0009 for autosomal data) (Tables A,B in S1 File) are comparable or higher to the ones for East Slavs despite the smaller region within the Balkan Peninsula that they occupy. Furthermore, Slovenians lie close to the non-Slavic-speaking Hungarians, whereas eastern South Slavs group is located together with non-Slavic-speaking but geographically neighboring Romanians and, to some extent, with Greeks.
Both extant Baltic-speaking populations, Latvians and Lithuanians, lie in the vicinity of Finno-Ugric-speaking Estonians according to their Y-chromosome diversity (Fig 2B), whilst in their autosomal variation they are slightly shifted towards the group of East Slavic speakers (Fig 2A). Also, one finds Volga-Finnic Mordvins close to the two Baltic-speaking populations (Fig 2A), potentially reflecting historic evidence that the Baltic-speaking tribes’ spread zone formerly reached more eastward parts of the East European Plain [49,50].

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0135820

----------


## Tomenable

South Slavs - please post your Eurogenes K15 results. I will add you to my PCA graph:

http://i.imgur.com/NU4mPiL.png

----------


## Bosnian Boss

Here are my K15 results
Population


North_Sea
17.79

Atlantic
12.84

Baltic
22.62

Eastern_Euro
16.04

West_Med
12.93

West_Asian
7.40

East_Med
7.26

Red_Sea
1.93

South_Asian
-

Southeast_Asian
0.96

Siberian
-

Amerindian
-

Oceanian
0.22

Northeast_African
-

Sub-Saharan
-

----------


## brg12007

heres mine

*Admix Results (sorted):*

*#*
*Population*
*Percent*

1
East_Med
16.41

2
North_Sea
15.22

3
Baltic
15.14

4
Atlantic
13.46

5
West_Med
13.35

6
Eastern_Euro
12.13

7
West_Asian
10.23

8
Red_Sea
2.87

9
Southeast_Asian
0.92

10
Siberian
0.28



*Single Population Sharing:*

*#*
*Population (source)*
*Distance*

1
Romanian
3.92

2
Bulgarian
4.31

3
Serbian
6.2

4
Greek_Thessaly
9.63

5
Moldavian
10.54

6
Greek
10.71

7
Croatian
12.86

8
Hungarian
13.38

9
Austrian
13.81

10
Tuscan
14.28

11
Ashkenazi
15.02

12
Italian_Abruzzo
15.11

13
Central_Greek
15.56

14
North_Italian
15.58

15
East_Sicilian
16.53

16
West_Sicilian
16.76

17
East_German
17.71

18
Ukrainian_Lviv
18.5

19
South_Polish
19.18

20
South_Italian
19.23



i'm macedonian but maybe they dont have enough single population samples

----------


## Dibran

> South Slavs - please post your Eurogenes K15 results. I will add you to my PCA graph:
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/NU4mPiL.png


Im Albanian. Thought I would post my results to see how I plot on your graph. If that's cool. 

Eurogenes EUtest V2 K15 Oracle results:

Kit M635564

Admix Results (sorted):

#	Population	Percent
1	West_Med	23.68
2	East_Med	20.92
3	North_Sea	13.76
4	Atlantic	13.17
5	West_Asian	11.34
6	Baltic	9.34
7	Eastern_Euro	6.71
8	Red_Sea	1.09

Single Population Sharing:

#	Population (source)	Distance
1	Greek_Thessaly	7.03
2	Greek	8.33
3	Tuscan	8.8
4	Central_Greek	10.5
5	Italian_Abruzzo	10.87
6	West_Sicilian	11.36
7	East_Sicilian	11.41
8	North_Italian	11.72
9	Bulgarian	12.1
10	Ashkenazi	12.66
11	South_Italian	12.81
12	Romanian	13.77
13	Serbian	16.2
14	Italian_Jewish	16.86
15	Algerian_Jewish	17.93
16	Portuguese	18.57
17	Sephardic_Jewish	18.66
18	Spanish_Galicia	18.83
19	Spanish_Extremadura	19.08
20	Spanish_Andalucia	19.42

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source)	Secondary Population (source)	Distance
1 82.1%	Greek_Thessaly	+	17.9%	Sardinian	@	3.87
2 72.9%	Greek_Thessaly	+	27.1%	North_Italian	@	5.94
3 83.8%	Greek_Thessaly	+	16.2%	Spanish_Andalucia	@	6.06
4 82.3%	Greek	+	17.7%	Sardinian	@	6.08
5 86.2%	Greek_Thessaly	+	13.8%	Spanish_Cantabria	@	6.11
6 87.1%	Greek_Thessaly	+	12.9%	Southwest_French	@	6.17
7 90.8%	Greek_Thessaly	+	9.2%	French_Basque	@	6.19
8 87.3%	Greek_Thessaly	+	12.7%	Spanish_Aragon	@	6.2
9 86.4%	Greek_Thessaly	+	13.6%	Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha	@	6.22
10 85.9%	Greek_Thessaly	+	14.1%	Spanish_Valencia	@	6.23
11 66.2%	Greek_Thessaly	+	33.8%	Tuscan	@	6.28
12 85.1%	Greek_Thessaly	+	14.9%	Portuguese	@	6.32
13 85.7%	Greek_Thessaly	+	14.3%	Spanish_Extremadura	@	6.35
14 86.5%	Greek_Thessaly	+	13.5%	Spanish_Cataluna	@	6.37
15 86.4%	Greek_Thessaly	+	13.6%	Spanish_Murcia	@	6.38
16 86.1%	Greek_Thessaly	+	13.9%	Spanish_Galicia	@	6.41
17 87.8%	Greek_Thessaly	+	12.2%	Spanish_Castilla_Y_Leon	@	6.48
18 66.7%	Greek	+	33.3%	North_Italian	@	6.84
19 72.5%	Bulgarian	+	27.5%	Sardinian	@	6.87
20 93.7%	Greek_Thessaly	+	6.3%	French	@	6.88

----------


## MaxCRO

Here are mine K15 results (I'm fully Croat with no recent foreign ancestry )
North_Sea
19.45

Atlantic
12.04

Baltic
22.73

Eastern_Euro
16.69

West_Med
11.28

West_Asian
8.04

East_Med
6.56

Red_Sea
0.87

South_Asian
1.13

Southeast_Asian
-

Siberian
1.21

Amerindian
-

Oceanian
-

Northeast_African
-

Sub-Saharan



Southern Slavs are unique mixture of ancient southestern and northeastern Europeans. Northern Slavs have less admixture than we do.

----------


## tahir0010

I would think Bosnians would be slav wouldn't they the language is from slavik roots.

----------


## stoningbull54

Hi there, I can give you some information on the topic. I took the ancestry DNA test which compares autosomal SNPs among different ethnic groups. This is different from Y or Mt-DNA comparison which uses a single chromosome or mitochondrial DNA for comparison. It used SNPs on ALL chromosomes to classify groups. My friend who is Russian also took the test so lets go and see the similarities and differences. First her Ancestry result which is from a Russian sample:
- 97% Eastern European
-3% Baltic

Now lets compare that to my Serbian sample:
-62% Eastern European
-30% Italian/Greek
-4% European Jewish
-4% Caucasian

From this comparison, we can infer that I share 2/3 of my Autosomal SNPs with the Russian sample. As such, we can infer that my Serbian sample is 2/3 Slavic and 1/3 indegenous Balkan. I was very surprised by the test as I was always told that South Slavs are not slavs when in fact, the SNP comparison clearly shows that we share 2/3 of the SNPs tested with Russians.

----------


## stoningbull54

Here's my K15 (I am Serbian)... It is very close to your Croatian Sample:
Population


North_Sea
15.95

Atlantic
12.28

Baltic
19.92

Eastern_Euro
12.74

West_Med
12.33

West_Asian
10.21

East_Med
13.65

Red_Sea
2.93

South_Asian
-

Southeast_Asian
-

Siberian
-

Amerindian
-

Oceanian
-

Northeast_African
-

Sub-Saharan
-

----------


## stoningbull54

Now I can also give you a K15 Comparison between my Serbian sample and my friend's Russian sample. First the Russian sample:

Population


North_Sea
19.14

Atlantic
17.12

Baltic
34.94

Eastern_Euro
17.87

West_Med
3.87

West_Asian
3.75

East_Med
- 

Red_Sea
0.93

South_Asian
0.72

Southeast_Asian
- 

Siberian
1.06

Amerindian
- 

Oceanian
0.59

Northeast_African
- 

Sub-Saharan
- 



Now the Serbian sample:

Population


North_Sea
15.95

Atlantic
12.28

Baltic
19.92

Eastern_Euro
12.74

West_Med
12.33

West_Asian
10.21

East_Med
13.65

Red_Sea
2.93

South_Asian
- 

Southeast_Asian
- 

Siberian
- 

Amerindian
- 

Oceanian
- 

Northeast_African
- 

Sub-Saharan
- 



In both cases, the largest part of SNPs come from the Baltic and North Sea groups. Russians have the higher percentages of the Atlantic, Eastern European, Baltic and North Sea groups while Serbs have a Mediterranean admixture. It's safe to say that South Slavs are indeed slavic with some Balkan admixture. However, the slavic genes make up the majority of their genome.

----------


## stoningbull54

Here's my Serbian K15:

Population


North_Sea
15.95

Atlantic
12.28

Baltic
19.92

Eastern_Euro
12.74

West_Med
12.33

West_Asian
10.21

East_Med
13.65

Red_Sea
2.93

South_Asian
- 

Southeast_Asian
- 

Siberian
- 

Amerindian
- 

Oceanian
- 

Northeast_African
- 

Sub-Saharan
-

----------


## Apsurdistan

1
Baltic
21.75

2
North_Sea
16.1

3
Atlantic
15.8

4
Eastern_Euro
13.84

5
West_Asian
10.79

6
East_Med
10.51

7
West_Med
9.94

8
Sub-Saharan
0.41

9
Red_Sea
0.28

10
Oceanian
0.22

11
Amerindian
0.22

12
South_Asian
0.11

13
Northeast_African
0.02



*Single Population Sharing:

#
Population (source)
Distance

1
Moldavian
4.89

2
Croatian
5.88

3
Romanian
7.4

4
Serbian
7.42

5
Hungarian
8.9

6
Bulgarian
9.17

7
Austrian
9.45

8
Ukrainian_Lviv
11.43

9
South_Polish
11.63

10
Ukrainian
12.36

11
East_German
13.53

12
Ukrainian_Belgorod
13.83

13
Russian_Smolensk
14.02

14
Polish
14.33

15
Southwest_Russian
14.61

16
Belorussian
16.45

17
Estonian_Polish
16.64

18
Greek_Thessaly
17.6

19
Greek
17.92

20
Kargopol_Russian
18.19


*

----------


## Apsurdistan

> Albanians must have caught that fertility bug from their Slavic neighbours I guess. Petty modern Slavs are not so fertile....


Neither are most modern Europeans. Especially Germans. That's why they take in so many immigrants.

----------


## stoningbull54

Your Bosnjak sample is very close to my Serbian sample, as is the Croatian sample. I have substantial ancestry originating from Herzegovina. I have a theory that this is the reason why many Serbs, Croats and Bosnjaks share a common language and genetics - much of the population right now within Bosnia, Serbia, and Croatia has its origins in East Herzegovina. They repopulated areas which were left vacant by the Turks and brought their language (East Herzegovinian Neo-Stokavian) and gene pool with them.

----------


## LeBrok

> Your Bosnjak sample is very close to my Serbian sample, as is the Croatian sample. I have substantial ancestry originating from Herzegovina. I have a theory that this is the reason why many Serbs, Croats and Bosnjaks share a common language and genetics - much of the population right now within Bosnia, Serbia, and Croatia has its origins in East Herzegovina. They repopulated areas which were left vacant by the Turks and brought their language (East Herzegovinian Neo-Stokavian) and gene pool with them.


"Of course they repopulated from your ancestral area." ;) Don't you think your assessment might be skewed by your ethnic feelings?

See, from genetic research we know that original population o Balkans was already fairly homogenous, and we have reason to suspect that invading Slavs were genetically and culturally homogenous too. It all might easily add up to big genetic and cultural similarities of this area. Farther similarities could be explained by joined history through last 1,500 years.

----------


## DuPidh

> "Of course they repopulated from your ancestral area." ;) Don't you think your assessment might be skewed by your ethnic feelings?
> 
> See, from genetic research we know that original population o Balkans was already fairly homogenous, and we have reason to suspect that invading Slavs were genetically and culturally homogenous too. It all might easily add up to big genetic and cultural similarities of this area. Farther similarities could be explained by joined history through last 1,500 years.


Slavs were nomadic at the time they invaded Balkans. As nomads crossing from south Poland to the present day Balkans could have taken more than 100 years so they mixed a lot with other people. So the homogeneity of Slavs is fairy tale. Slavs also mixed with Balkan populations. Also the genes are for the most part evolutionary, which means populations unless they live together will stay the same, if they separate, they evolutionary drift genetically. I heard a medical doctor once saying that in a generation there are about 20 to 25 mutation happening.If this is true since I don't know much about genetics it could be between 1000 to 1500 mutations that south Slavs have, but for the reason of isolation other Slavs don't, so slowly but surely south Slavs have drifted enough to be called something else. To me south Slavs are something less than 40% Slavs. What will remain Slav for the time to come is the memory and probably the culture. To me the purist Slavs should be the Poles. Russia could have pockets of pure Slavs but majority has Genghis Khan genes.

----------


## LeBrok

> Slavs were nomadic at the time they invaded Balkans. As nomads crossing from south Poland to the present day Balkans could have taken more than 100 years so they mixed a lot with other people. So the homogeneity of Slavs is fairy tale. Slavs also mixed with Balkan populations. Also the genes are for the most part evolutionary, which means populations unless they live together will stay the same, if they separate, they evolutionary drift genetically. I heard a medical doctor once saying that in a generation there are about 20 to 25 mutation happening.If this is true since I don't know much about genetics it could be between 1000 to 1500 mutations that south Slavs have, but for the reason of isolation other Slavs don't, so slowly but surely south Slavs have drifted enough to be called something else. To me south Slavs are something less than 40% Slavs. What will remain Slav for the time to come is the memory and probably the culture. To me the purist Slavs should be the Poles. Russia could have pockets of pure Slavs but majority has Genghis Khan genes.


Don't waste your time, nobody takes anything you say seriously.

----------


## DuPidh

> Don't waste your time, nobody takes anything you say seriously.


I expect non serious readers of this forum, not to take me seriously.
But the serious readers will. I have a point. I have made my point. Point is South Slavs, if we take as reference point South Poland Slavs, are less than 30% Slavs. Every other attempt, to prove otherwise is a lie.

----------


## Bosnian Boss

> I expect non serious readers of this forum, not to take me seriously.
> But the serious readers will. I have a point. I have made my point. Point is South Slavs, if we take as reference point South Poland Slavs, are less than 30% Slavs. Every other attempt, to prove otherwise is a lie.


You need to have some serious data to back up your assertions.

----------


## LABERIA

> You need to have some serious data to back up your assertions.


The only way to give an exhaustive answer to your curiosity is:
1) Decide definitely what can be considered a slavic haplogroups. 
2) Testing all the inhabitants of South slavic countries.

----------


## Angela

Good grief. Uniparental markers don't tell you the percent "Slavic" of any person or population group. That's less than 2% of your total dna. You need autosomal dna. I personally think 30% is on the low side for certain groups, i.e. Croatians, for example.

----------


## Tomenable

A lot of Poles look like South Slavs, which means that South Slavs are more Slavic than they think (or that Poles are more Balkan than they think - but it doesn't make sense, considering directions of historical migrations):

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...l=1#post517704

----------


## gyms

Negligible genetic flow in Slavic expansion to the Balcans

http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot...in-slavic.html

*The data suggest that genetic diversity of the present-day Slavs was predominantly shaped in situ, and we detect two different substrata: ‘central-east European’ for West and East Slavs, and ‘south-east European’ for South Slavs.*

----------


## Garrick

> I have. Nothing has been conclusive.


Yes you're right, and we have more knowledge now.

I-CTS10228 carriers were Mesolithic survivors.

According new data TMRCA is 3800 years!

https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-CTS10228/

We can see for Alsace man (Bas-Rhin Alsace, France is in the border with Germany).

It is clear that I-CTS10228 is not originally Slavic. 

And I-CTS10228 came to the Balkans much before Slavs.

I-A2512 found in Greece, TMRCA 2200 years, nothing to do with Slavs.

Awareness grows that Bastarnae is the best candidate for these Mesolithic survivors. And Bastarnae first time arrived to the Balkans, deep in the Thracian territory, 179 BC, 30,000 people. Later Bastarnae settled Balkans in much bigger numbers.

----------


## ihype02

In the genetic sense if one considers i2a-"din" as a slavic marker than it is roughly 40% to 65%.

----------


## ihype02

^^ Excluding Bulgarians of course.

----------


## gyms

Garrick:And I-CTS10228 came to the Balkans much before Slavs.


How do you know that?

----------


## gyms

> In the genetic sense if one considers i2a-"din" as a slavic marker than it is roughly 40% to 65%.


Which one is I2a-Din?

https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-CTS10228/

----------


## Garrick

> Garrick:And I-CTS10228 came to the Balkans much before Slavs.
> 
> 
> How do you know that?


There is theory with strong foundation that European Mesolithic survivors I-CTS10228 carriers were Bastarnae people.

If this theory be proven I-CTS10228 arrived in the Balkans first time (historical record) 179 BC.




> In short:
> 
> One of strong points are findings and proofs of Ukrainian scientists:
> 
> Zarubintsy culture is Bastarnaian dominantly.
> 
> In this way thesis of Soviet scientists that Zarubintsy culture was Slavic is rejected.
> 
> But Zarubintsy culture is predecessor of Kiev culture which was Slavic. It means Bastarnae had one of main roles in complex Slavic ethnogenesis, they became part of Slavic population.
> ...

----------


## gyms

The name of _Bastarnae_ in Ptolemy´s Geography is Poikinos/_Poikinoi_.This is the same as poika that means boy in Finnish.

----------


## Parapolitikos

If by Slavic we are talking about recent east European contribution, then roughly:
Croatians Serbs 40-50%
Bosniaks 1/3rd
Bulgarians 1/3rd
Montenegrin/Fyromians 25%


Non Slavs: 
Albanians 10-15%
Greeks <10%
Romanians 25%

----------


## ihype02

Where did you get those messy numbers?

----------


## Parapolitikos

Ancestry Dna averages i came across in different videos adjusted(speculating) to the fact that east European contribution in the Balkans isn't all recent. Fact is there is a healthy amount of eastern European contribution in regions in the east and south(and italy) that Slavs never stepped a foot.

----------


## ihype02

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/europe...logroups.shtml
R1a and I2a are common Slavic markers.

----------


## Garrick

> If by Slavic we are talking about recent east European contribution, then roughly:
> Croatians Serbs 40-50%
> Bosniaks 1/3rd
> Bulgarians 1/3rd
> Montenegrin/Fyromians 25%
> 
> 
> Non Slavs: 
> Albanians 10-15%
> ...


East European admixture

Based on scientific data.

Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, Northern Bulgaria 20-30%, Croatia, Serbia somewhere 15-20%, Southern Bulgaria 15-20%

Herzegovina even lower 10-15%

Romania 20-30%

Greece 10-15%, Northern Greece 15-20%

Albania 10-15%

Between Balkan countries plus Romania differences are not much big.

----------


## brg12007

> East European admixture
> 
> Based on scientific data.
> 
> Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, Northern Bulgaria 20-30%, Croatia, Serbia somewhere 15-20%, Southern Bulgaria 15-20%
> 
> Herzegovina even lower 10-15%
> 
> Romania 20-30%
> ...


i wouldn't say this map is accurate with regards to macedonia and bulgaria, most serbian samples shift much further north than the macedonian/bulgarian/montenegrin ones i've seen. i really doubt those parts of turkey and greece have a higher eastern euro admixture than croatia, which looks very central european to me based on the results i've seen posted.

i guess for sake of articulation, are we assuming the eastern euro component is pure slavic?

----------


## gyms

> http://www.eupedia.com/europe/europe...logroups.shtml
> R1a and I2a are common Slavic markers.


http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot...in-slavic.html
A new genetic study comes to confirm what most of us already knew: that Southern Slavs don't show any significant signature of immigration from the core Slavic area North and NE of the Carpathian Mountains that can be attributed to the so-called Slavic migrations of the Dark Age.

----------


## Angela

> http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot...in-slavic.html
> A new genetic study comes to confirm what most of us already knew: that Southern Slavs don't show any significant signature of immigration from the core Slavic area North and NE of the Carpathian Mountains that can be attributed to the so-called Slavic migrations of the Dark Age.


That is not accurate. 

See: Ralph and Coop IBD analysis
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology...l.pbio.1001555


Check out Serbia Croatia below and when the changes occurred. IBD doesn't lie, my friend...at least not when done by people of this caliber...

Attachment 9107

I think the operative time period is probably 500 BC to 500 AD.

----------


## Garrick

> That is not accurate. 
> 
> See: Ralph and Coop IBD analysis
> http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology...l.pbio.1001555
> 
> 
> Check out Serbia Croatia below and when the changes occurred. IBD doesn't lie, my friend...at least not when done by people of this caliber...
> 
> Attachment 9107
> ...


It was a lot of critiques to the methods applied by authors and it is shown different approaches are necessary.

For example Geary and Veermah, Mapping European Population Movement through Genomic Research 2016, in critique above mentioned and some other papers argue:

"Can we be so sure that if all four grandparents came from the same village, that their ancestors had been in that village since time immemorial, or at least since the Danes, Anglo-Saxons, Huns, or Slavs arrived? Over centuries and millennia, populations do not necessarily remain stable. Subsequent internal migrations, the introduction of new genetic material through intermarriage 

with other communities, the forced resettlement of slaves or dependent labor, all have the potential to change the genetic profile of a population in a very dynamic manner that cannot easily be accounted for by population genetic models.

Perhaps even more significant an obstacle to working backward from modern DNA is the problem that the modern population will represent only a portion of the historical population, that portion which for whatever reason was successful in transmitting its genetic data to the present. For presentist-minded scientists, who naturally want to understand the genetic makeup of contemporary European populations, this is unproblematic. However, it poses a serious problem for historians who want to understand not just the present but rather the alterity of the past. Thus, modern DNA is likely to represent only a portion of the genetic diversity of past populations. It is, in essence, a way to study the winners, and ignores the losers in genetic history, regardless of how important they may have been in changing history.

A few studies have highlighted how quickly genetic profiles can change because of demographic effects, underlining the lack of inferential power when relying only on modern DNA analysis for historical research. Helgason et al. have performed extensive research on both modern and ancient DNA from Iceland. Comparing Icelanders with Norwegians on the one hand, and Irish and Scots on the other, they found that roughly 75% of founding Icelandic males were of Scandinavian origin and 25% of Irish or Scots, while the majority of female lineages had Gaelic origins and only about 37% Norse. When they compared ancient DNA extracted from Viking-age burials with that of the modern population however, they found that more than 50% of the original genetic diversity in the founding medieval population was not represented in the modern Icelandic population. Genetic drift appears to have had an enormous influence on the genetic profile of modern Iceland, and thus understanding the differential contributions of Y-chromosomal and mtDNA in the migratory population needs to take into account not only contemporary populations but, when possible, ancient DNA as well.

More recently, a preliminary study by our research team led by Stephanie Vai and Silvia Ghirotto looked at the mtDNA from sixth century cemeteries in the Piedmont and compared it with contemporary samples from the same region. We found strong evidence for discontinuity with regard to matrilineal genetic diversity between the early Middle Ages and these present populations in all but one case. This, along with the studies of Iceland described above, suggests that 1,500 years of history do matter with regard to genetic diversity. Thus, while modern genetic research is significant for a spectrum of issues involving health and possibly history, assumptions about the relationship between present and past populations must be tested against ancient DNA collected from the individuals we are actually attempting to study, rather than relying automatically on modern proxies."


In essence these and other authors highlight that without ancient/historical samples (for every epoch) we can only speculate if look present day situation. Yes collecting data by epochs require enormous efforts, time and costs and therefore we will get only small portions of knowledge after every publicised ancient DNA research and so we will gradually assemble a giant puzzle with lots of empty parts.

I completely agree with you that without samples from 179 BC till 6th century in Romania, Serbia, Bulgaria and beyond we cannot know if Bastarnae have mixed in big numbers with Dacians and Thracians (subtantial proportion of Balkan population was Bastarnae origin according one author).

Also without samples in Central Europe and beyond (Western/Eastern Europe + Balkans) in different epoches since 1800 BC till 500 AD we cannot know where I-CTS10228 carriers settled and moved and if Bastarnae or any other population were carrier of this haplogroup.

But of course we can give assumptions according evidence which is avaliable.

----------


## Angela

> It was a lot of critiques to the methods applied by authors and it is shown different approaches are necessary.
> 
> For example Geary and Veermah, Mapping European Population Movement through Genomic Research 2016, in critique above mentioned and some other papers argue:
> 
> "Can we be so sure that if all four grandparents came from the same village, that their ancestors had been in that village since time immemorial, or at least since the Danes, Anglo-Saxons, Huns, or Slavs arrived? Over centuries and millennia, populations do not necessarily remain stable. Subsequent internal migrations, the introduction of new genetic material through intermarriage 
> 
> with other communities, the forced resettlement of slaves or dependent labor, all have the potential to change the genetic profile of a population in a very dynamic manner that cannot easily be accounted for by population genetic models.
> 
> Perhaps even more significant an obstacle to working backward from modern DNA is the problem that the modern population will represent only a portion of the historical population, that portion which for whatever reason was successful in transmitting its genetic data to the present. For presentist-minded scientists, who naturally want to understand the genetic makeup of contemporary European populations, this is unproblematic. However, it poses a serious problem for historians who want to understand not just the present but rather the alterity of the past. Thus, modern DNA is likely to represent only a portion of the genetic diversity of past populations. It is, in essence, a way to study the winners, and ignores the losers in genetic history, regardless of how important they may have been in changing history.
> ...


I don't see how that objection is at all apropos to the kind of analysis that was done in this paper. Actually, to be blunt, it's irrelevant, because this is a particular and different type of analysis. 

Take a careful look at the second attachment. Ralph and Coop are not talking here about IBS analysis. This is *IBD* analysis. It's like a fingerprint of gene flow. It's also *dated*. We can see the influx of Polish genes from 500 BC to 500 AD into Serbia, Croatia and Romania. It's not the majority of the genomes, but it's there.

It can't be argued away just because it's not what you want to hear. Of course, ancient dna is better, but I'll be surprised if it shows anything other than a movement of admixed people into the Balkans who have a big chunk or Polish like or Belorussian like dna.

You really should carefully read the whole Ralph and Coop paper and the methodology section.

----------


## Garrick

> I don't see how that objection is at all apropos to the kind of analysis that was done in this paper. Take a careful look at the second attachment. Ralph and Coop are not talking here about IBS analysis. This is *IBD* analysis. It's like a fingerprint of gene flow. It's also *dated*. We can see the influx of Polish genes from 500 BC to 500 AD into Serbia, Croatia and Romania. It's not the majority of the genomes, but it's there.
> 
> It can't be argued away.
> 
> You really should carefully read the whole Ralph and Coop paper and the methodology section.


I only said their method is criticized by other scientists. It does not matter what Ralph and Coop explained their method.

According present day knowledge if we want to know situation in history in any epoch we must have samples from this epoch. Geery and Veermah clearly highlight this and I gave long quote from their paper.

----------


## Angela

> I only said their method is criticized by other scientists. It does not matter what Ralph and Coop explained their method.
> 
> According present day knowledge if we want to know situation in history in any epoch we must have samples from this epoch. Geery and Veermah clearly highlight this and I gave long quote from their paper.


I read that* entire paper*, and *nowhere* do they contradict or criticize the conclusions of Ralph and Coop et al or their methodology. In fact they quote them in the context of saying that this is the direction in which the research has to go, precisely because it is picking up migrations and population discontinuity. 

"What are the implications of Novembre et al.’s research for understanding the history ofEurope’s population across centuries and even millennia? First, we need to account for certainlimitations of the underlying data: since the individuals are identified only by nationalityand language, it is not possible to know if a German was from Passau or Hamburg, or if anItalian was from Alto Adige or Naples, and thus the geographical coordinates of the individualslack resolution. Second, this is a database collected largely from people who happenedto pass through clinics in London or Lausanne and who agreed to be genotyped. Thus it isunlikely to be representative of local populations, and particularly from regions of Europefrom which few individuals travel to major cities.Nevertheless, such a map poses a fundamental challenge to the history of European demographics.We know that since first being colonized by Paleolithic hunter-gatherers around40,000 years ago, Europe underwent various periods of major population movement andreplacement during the Neolithic and Bronze Age. Recent paleogenomic studies have demonstratedthat these prehistorical events left major signatures of admixture in modern Europegenomes, with Lazaridis et al. identifying the contribution of at least three ancestralpopulations that entered the continent at slightly differing times and that formed the basis ofcontemporary European genetic variation.3Yet, nowhere in Novembre et. al.’s map can one find clear evidence of the migrations,the population exchanges, or the diffusions of more recent centuries, particularly those ofthe so-called »migration age« (fourth to ninth centuries of the Common Era) that we are accustomedto encountering in our historical texts as well as in our archaeological work."

*IN CONTRAST
*
" As a consequence, relatively few studies haveattempted to use modern genome-wide data to assess early medieval migration within theContinent. Ralph and Coop reanalyzed the POPRES data from Novembre et al. to look forspecific chromosomal regions shared between pairs of individuals from the same ancestor inthe past (known as tracts of identity-by-descent or IBD, not to be confused with isolationby-distance)12.They found that while in general pairs of individuals from the same locationshared larger IBD tracts (consistent with the interpretation of Novembre et al. of isolation--by-distance), almost all European individuals, even when separated by large geographicdistances (> 2 km), shared hundreds of ancestors within the last 3,000 years.One of the more interesting patterns was that individuals from across eastern Europeshared a significantly higher number of IBD tracts than expected, which they determinedwas consistent with increased shared ancestry of a population from 1,000-2,000 years ago.
The authors speculated that this may be the result of the expansion of Slavs during the migrationperiod, and also associated the Huns in this movement because of non-Slavic modernpopulations in Hungary and Romania also contributing to this signal. However, they notedthat »additional work and methods would be needed to verify this hypothesis.« They alsoobserved a lower rate of such shared ancestry from this point in time in France, Italy and theIberian peninsula, interpreting this as possible evidence that »Germanic migrations/invasions«involved smaller amounts of population replacement."

The authors you referenced are criticizing static depictions of genetic variations in Europe, PCAs in a lot of cases, that just show the end result of admixture, versus studies that track the admixture.

Either you totally failed to understand what the authors were saying, which I find difficult to believe, as it is crystal clear, or you deliberately attempted to mislead people.

I warn you and everyone else that we don't tolerate the latter here. Read every paper you're going to reference carefully and make sure you understand what the heck it's saying.

----------


## Garrick

Angela
Probably there is misunderstanding, I really appreciate these authors. It is very complex problem of human genealogical history. Have you noticed from 2013 to date how many other scientists have used the above mentioned method, in which papers? Why? Because the method is in infancy and unreliability is high. For applicability and interpretations of results people in field will have to lot to learn. It is normal to exists criticism, it is similar so in any science when some new method starts. It can be promising but a lot of efforts, refinements, experiments/errors, improving is needed, and many methods does not stand the test of time. For five years we can make retrospective if progress in regards this method is made, and in which direction.

----------


## gyms

List of Roman dictators

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

----------


## Angela

> List of Roman dictators
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_dictators


Do you want me to move this for you? What does it have to do with the topic? Or is this your lame attempt at humor?

WE ARE NOT AMUSED! Well, a little amused. :)

----------


## gyms

*East, West, and South Slavs*While in the global context Slavic-speaking populations are genetically relatively close to each other, we can still see some differences between the branches. Namely, the East Slavs are genetically most homogeneous, the West Slavs are a bit more differentiated, but East and West Slavs are much more similar to each other than they are to the South Slavs.
http://blog.ut.ee/what-is-the-origin-of-the-slavs/

By using this method, the researchers found that South Slavs share a similar number of genome segments with East and West Slavs as they do with their non-Slavic neighbors. Again, this indicates that the main mechanism in the spread of Slavic languages was cultural diffusion rather than replacing indigenous populations physically.

----------


## twójstary

East Slavs can't be the most homogeneous, genetically or otherwise. Russians are very mixed, Ukranians too.

----------


## Bachus

Slavic people same as Germanic, Celtic and Romance are linguistic category, Slavic, Germanic, Celtic, Turkic... genetic does not exist because that are not biological categories.

----------


## Valerius

Modern nations and people are all mixtures of different tribes who lived back in the day, and some people are still talking about pureness and stuff. A lot of people now are making big mistake to equate ancient Slavs with the modern Slavic nations. These scattered tribes took half the continent, imposed their language over other tribes and eventually mixed with them to create the modern Slavic peoples. West Slavs mixed with Germanic people who mixed with Celts beforehand, some assimilated Baltic tribes. East Slavs mixed with Finno-Ugric peoples, Steppe Turkic peoples and not to mention the old Iranic folk from Southern Russia. We, the South Slavs, became one with Thracians, Illyrians, Greeks, Goths and Steppe folk. That's pretty much the situation.

----------


## MOESAN

We can make a balance of all that?
No Slavs as others are not racially homogenous pops - but a pop doesn' t need to be homozygotous in all its genes (what doesn't exist in nature, even among well separated races of animals) to be homogenous in a geographic sense, it's to say as opposed to others pops in a well defined territory and cultural area -
Saying a pop is homogenous (at least for a time) somewhere is saying its diverse components are represented in the same %'s allover the territory considered (homogeneisation or levelling of mixtures) - 
what i think I understood is that southern Slavs are the farthest from the supposed (by me too) cradle around E-Poland/Belarus/NW Ukraina - This doesn't prove the culture and language have been transmitted uniquely through contacts acculturation, but that the tail (rather the head in fact) of the Slavic colonisers had incorporated more and more non-Slavic people as they were moving on towards South, until the place they were no more dense enough to pass their culture on*. Nothing more, nothing less IMO.

modern pops are mixed all of them, but we can see differences in the mean of their admixtures and everytime we look at the likely heart of their culturally genesis region we see a pop more differentiated from other cultures means than the lastly colonised peripheric regions, the most of the time.
Very often a new culture is born bt the mix of different cultures but it arose perceptively only after homogeneisation

----------


## MOESAN

We can make a balance of all that?
No Slavs as others are not racially homogenous pops - but a pop doesn' t need to be homozygotous in all its genes (what doesn't exist in nature, even among well separated races of animals) to be homogenous in a geographic sense, it's to say as opposed to others pops in a well defined territory and cultural area -
Saying a pop is homogenous (at least for a time) somewhere is saying its diverse components are represented in the same %'s allover the territory considered (homogeneisation or levelling of mixtures) - 
what i think I understood is that southern Slavs are the farthest from the supposed (by me too) cradle around E-Poland/Belarus/NW Ukraina - This doesn't prove the culture and language have been transmitted uniquely through contacts acculturation, but that the tail (rather the head in fact) of the Slavic colonisers had incorporated more and more non-Slavic people as they were moving on towards South, until the place they were no more dense enough to pass their culture on*. Nothing more, nothing less IMO.
*: IMO if the mixture is made very progressively, at the end of the travel it could be passed spite the ORIGINAL mixture from the cradle is become very tiny. But it's not only acculturation (like BI the latinisation of European monks in the M-A's), it needs flesh and blood though original purity is gone long ago.
In general modern pops are mixed all of them, but we can see differences in the mean of their admixtures and everytime we look at the likely heart of their culturally genesis region we see a pop more differentiated from other cultures means than the lastly colonised peripheric regions, the most of the time.
Very often a new culture is born bt the mix of different cultures but it arose perceptively only after homogeneisation. This is a rough modele, in details we can always found some exceptions linked to politics, essentially in more recent times, with colonisations made by well structured and mighty states.
Conclusion: speaking of the first genesis pop, southern Slavs are "less" Slavic than the Eastern ones and even Western ones. This doesn't mean they are less Slavic in their mind.

----------


## Wonomyro

> (...) what i think I understood is that southern Slavs are the farthest from the supposed (by me too) cradle around E-Poland/Belarus/NW Ukraina - *This doesn't prove the culture and language have been transmitted uniquely through contacts acculturation, but that the tail (rather the head in fact) of the Slavic colonisers had incorporated more and more non-Slavic people as they were moving on towards South, until the place they were no more dense enough to pass their culture on**. Nothing more, nothing less IMO.


That was a good description. The Slavic colonisers existed, they were numerous, and some of them have uninterrupted cultural continuity from the migration period.

However, we should be careful about “distances” as the Eastern European admixture which is usually regarded as “Slavic” has its peak in the Baltic area:

https://www.eupedia.com/europe/autos...stern_European

while proto-Slavs emerged much further south:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Balto-Slavic_lng.png

Morever, the EEF admixture in this Maciamo’s map shows about the same values in Croatia and in the area of proto-Slavic cradle – Western Ukraine:

https://www.eupedia.com/europe/autos...lithic_farmers

At the same time the areas of Poland, Belarus and Eastern Ukraine show slightly lower values.

I know that things are not that simple, but looking into these maps one may get the idea that Croats are more “Slavs” then most of the East and West Slavs.

----------


## DuPidh

> That was a good description. The Slavic colonisers existed, they were numerous, and some of them have uninterrupted cultural continuity from the migration period.
> 
> However, we should be careful about “distances” as the Eastern European admixture which is usually regarded as “Slavic” has its peak in the Baltic area:
> 
> https://www.eupedia.com/europe/autos...stern_European
> 
> while proto-Slavs emerged much further south:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Balto-Slavic_lng.png
> ...




If there was not WW1 and WW2 where mainly Slavs suffered great losses their combined population today would bee 900 million souls. I doubt if Balkans would exist, or Asia. Russia alone suffered 30 million victims in WW2 alone. Slavs of the North show a great degree of civilization by the way. Pollacks lead the way I think, Check people

----------


## MOESAN

> That was a good description. The Slavic colonisers existed, they were numerous, and some of them have uninterrupted cultural continuity from the migration period.
> 
> However, we should be careful about “distances” as the Eastern European admixture which is usually regarded as “Slavic” has its peak in the Baltic area:
> 
> https://www.eupedia.com/europe/autos...stern_European
> 
> while proto-Slavs emerged much further south:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Balto-Slavic_lng.png
> ...


I agree centroid pop of the Slavic cradle would have been less northeastern drifted than N Poles, Belarussians..., and evidently than Balts - I suppose it's the neolithic-WHG pre-Steppics apportion which helped to differentiate proto-Balts from proto-Slavs; that said I think still the southern Slavs are a the farthest ones from this cradle pop for auDNA - In my mind Croats and Slovenians from all the southern Slavs are the closest to W and E Slavs, spite surely a bit of Celtic input in them.

----------


## Wonomyro

This is how an artist see Slavs in 10th century AD (first from the left). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:4...f_Otto_III.jpg

----------


## Ygorcs

> If there was not WW1 and WW2 where mainly Slavs suffered great losses their combined population today would bee 900 million souls. I doubt if Balkans would exist, or Asia. Russia alone suffered 30 million victims in WW2 alone. Slavs of the North show a great degree of civilization by the way. Pollacks lead the way I think, Check people


Very unlikely. Their birth rates through the 1914-2017 period wouldn't have been enough to make such a big leap in population numbers. Also, in the WW1 the biggest casualties happened to the west of most Slavic nations, especially in France and Germany. I'd say that a combined loss of ~50-60 million people in the Slavic nations in WW1+WW2 would've meant some 150 million more people now, not much more than that. Slavic countries have been experiencing extremely low fertility rates since at least 1980.

----------


## DuPidh

> Very unlikely. Their birth rates through the 1914-2017 period wouldn't have been enough to make such a big leap in population numbers. Also, in the WW1 the biggest casualties happened to the west of most Slavic nations, especially in France and Germany. I'd say that a combined loss of ~50-60 million people in the Slavic nations in WW1+WW2 would've meant some 150 million more people now, not much more than that. Slavic countries have been experiencing extremely low fertility rates since at least 1980.


Most of casualties in WW2 were, Russians, Czechoslovak s, Polish, mainly Slavs. Germans suffered about 7 million casualties. I don't think the French had many. They were waiting for English and Americans to help. The French found out that, If having sex the German soldier would not disturb. So they(the French) got busy doing the stuff, while Germans were admiring Paris. So I would guess Around 40 millions were Slavs. Also don't forget Stalin killed a lot. Most of casualties also were males, so it could be another 20 million women never got married for lack of partner, even though they were not killed. if we take all into account, had everything being normal we would have had today extra 500 Dillon Slavs. That was a force no one could stop.

----------


## Angela

> Most of casualties in WW2 were, Russians, Czechoslovak s, Polish, mainly Slavs. Germans suffered about 7 million casualties. I don't think the French had many. They were waiting for English and Americans to help. The French found out that, If having sex the German soldier would not disturb. So they(the French) got busy doing the stuff, while Germans were admiring Paris. So I would guess Around 40 millions were Slavs. Also don't forget Stalin killed a lot. Most of casualties also were males, so it could be another 20 million women never got married for lack of partner, even though they were not killed. if we take all into account, had everything being normal we would have had today extra 500 Dillon Slavs. That was a force no one could stop.


I've told you over and over again. Disparaging other ethnic groups is not allowed here. You never learn.

----------


## Wonomyro

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

----------


## Wonomyro

Here are three Early Slav samples. "South Slavic" Croats appear among top 20 in all three cases. On the other had no other "Southern European" population shows up.

-------------------------

RISE569, Early Czech Slav (660-700 AD). Eurogenes K13:

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 East_German 10.43
2 South_Polish 10.59
3 Southwest_Finnish 10.64
4 Polish 10.66
5 North_Swedish 11.56
6 Ukrainian 12.01
7 Ukrainian_Lviv 12.35
8 Austrian 13.07
9 Estonian 13.82
10 Russian_Smolensk 13.97
11 Estonian_Polish 14.31
12 Hungarian 14.37
13 Belorussian 14.39
*14 Croatian 14.39*
15 Swedish 14.45
16 Finnish 14.84
17 Southwest_Russian 15.87
18 Ukrainian_Belgorod 16.25
19 North_German 16.36
20 Lithuanian 16.62

--------------------------

RISE568 Early Czech Slav (600-900 AD). Eurogenes K13:

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Lithuanian 6.33
2 Belorussian 7.23
3 Estonian_Polish 7.33
4 Estonian 7.39
5 Russian_Smolensk 8.34
6 Polish 9.03
7 Southwest_Russian 10.88
8 Ukrainian 11.41
9 Finnish 11.51
10 Ukrainian_Belgorod 11.71
11 East_Finnish 12.13
12 South_Polish 12.26
13 Kargopol_Russian 12.32
14 Southwest_Finnish 13
15 Ukrainian_Lviv 13.17
16 Erzya 14.78
*17 Croatian 18.6*
18 La_Brana-1 19.4
19 North_Swedish 20.01
20 East_German 20.81

--------------------------

Sunghir6 (1040-1220 AD). Eurogenes K13:

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Ukrainian 3.62
2 Polish 4.33
3 Estonian_Polish 4.6
4 Russian_Smolensk 4.72
5 Southwest_Russian 4.9
6 Ukrainian_Lviv 5.39
7 Belorussian 5.9
8 Ukrainian_Belgorod 5.92
9 South_Polish 5.99
10 Kargopol_Russian 8.67
11 Lithuanian 8.82
12 Estonian 9.47
*13 Croatian 10.93*
14 Erzya 11.03
15 Finnish 12.01
16 East_Finnish 12.5
17 Southwest_Finnish 12.82
18 Moldavian 13.9
19 Hungarian 15.11
20 East_German 16.04

--------------------------

Data from here: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...rs-600-900-AD)

There is no such a thing as "Balkan genetics", not even "South Slavic genetics". That's oversimplification.

----------


## MOESAN

> This is how an artist see Slavs in 10th century AD (first from the left). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:4...f_Otto_III.jpg


well known picture.
a bit tiny and not too reliable according to me - the features of every individual are identical, at the difference of other ancient depictations. I would not make assumption based on this lone picture.

----------


## DuPidh

> I've told you over and over again. Disparaging other ethnic groups is not allowed here. You never learn.


Excuse me!

----------


## DuPidh

> I've told you over and over again. Disparaging other ethnic groups is not allowed here. You never learn.


Whom did I offend? Obviously you don't watch the "History Channel"!?

----------


## Ygorcs

> Most of casualties in WW2 were, Russians, Czechoslovak s, Polish, mainly Slavs. Germans suffered about 7 million casualties. I don't think the French had many. They were waiting for English and Americans to help. The French found out that, If having sex the German soldier would not disturb. So they(the French) got busy doing the stuff, while Germans were admiring Paris. So I would guess Around 40 millions were Slavs. Also don't forget Stalin killed a lot. Most of casualties also were males, so it could be another 20 million women never got married for lack of partner, even though they were not killed. if we take all into account, had everything being normal we would have had today extra 500 Dillon Slavs. That was a force no one could stop.


I specifically wrote the WW1, not the 1939-45 WW2. Read more carefully. The French suffered in the WW1 more than any other European nation (I mean the war alone, not later revolutions and economic crises), and that may even explain their very cautious attitude in WW2. Also, in the case of Slavs, I'm afraid you're overestimating a lot. Other parts of Europe, especially those with poorer safety nets and less open markets attractive to immigration, have experienced the same astounding drop in fertility rates even without millions of casualties in WW2. Look at Spain or Portugal. These dynamics are much more long-term than you seem to acknowledge.

----------


## Ygorcs

> Whom did I offend? Obviously you don't watch the "History Channel"!?


HISTORY CHANNEL? If you keep getting information from that absurdly laughable channel, you'll soon write posts about the extraterrestrial masters of Ancient Egypt and their DNA contribution here. LOL

----------


## Tomenable

Try my Ancient Affinity Maps:

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...-Affinity-Maps

----------


## ihype02

Croats and Slovenes are autosomally closer to Ukrainians than to Italians despite of being gheographicaly right next to Italians.
There were also a lot of interaction between Slovenia, Croatia and Italy in the ancient times so that adds more weight to the evidence.

South Slavs are Slavs.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Croats and Slovenes are autosomally closer to Ukrainians than to Italians despite of being gheographicaly right next to Italians.
> There were also a lot of interaction between Slovenia, Croatia and Italy in the ancient times so that adds more weight to the evidence.
> 
> South Slavs are Slavs.



Croats and Slovenes are even considerably distant from Bulgarians, Macedonians, Montenegrins, and to some extent even from Serbs and Bosniaks, who are all considered South Slavic people.

Especially Slovenes are clearly not average South Slavs.

----------


## Angela

Affiliations can be manipulated by nation states. There's no need to speculate or guess. We have the data. No South Slavs plot near Russians or even Poles. Some Croatians and especially Slovenes are different, as Pax pointed out. Slovenes are in fact closer to Central Europeans.

See:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0105090

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...eway-to-Europe

[IMG][/IMG]

----------


## ihype02

> Croats and Slovenes are even considerably distant from Bulgarians, Macedonians, Montenegrins, and to some extent even from Serbs and Bosniaks, who are all considered South Slavic people.
> 
> Especially Slovenes are clearly not average South Slavs.


Yeah the southernmost were more native mixed. But they have a considerable Slavic ancestry. Also northern Slavs are not pure Slavs either because they have been mixed with other northern tribes which is also one of reasons of the genetic distance between the Slavs.

----------


## ihype02

1/3 of Slovenia was Italian in antiquity. As we can see, according to genetics it easy to see that Slavs did push the natives out, as Slovenes are genetically different from Italians, despite of being neighbors geographically, and they are much more close to central Slavs and Ukrainians. 

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...e.0105090.g003

But yes, Slovenes are not quite South Slavs.

----------


## Sile

> 1/3 of Slovenia was Italian in antiquity. As we can see, according to genetics it easy to see that Slavs did push the natives out, as Slovenes are genetically different from Italians, despite of being neighbors geographically, and they are much more close to central Slavs and Ukrainians. 
> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...e.0105090.g003
> But yes, Slovenes are not quite South Slavs.


looking at your map...it is a roman map ........................late bronze-age and early iron age would see the Histrian ( illyrians ) in control of Tergestium ( trieste ) and Aquileia ( before it was built by the Romans ) and into Venetia lands up to current town of oderzo.
The other towns in slovenia like Emona ( current capital ) was under the illyrians of Noricum
.
I have drawn a map of Illyrians tribes as per historian Strabo documents ............the Cattai tribe seems the one which some say illyrian and some say venetic

----------


## Tomenable

> (...)


Is that the study which used Estonian Polish samples to represent Poland?

----------


## Tomenable

> No South Slavs plot near Russians


Why should Russians be used as a proxy for Proto-Slavs, if Slavs were not native to Russia and did not originate from there? Slavs originated somewhere to the west of Russia and expanded into Russia during the Dark Ages. While in Russia, Slavs assimilated many Baltic and Uralic (Finno-Ugric) speakers. The same applies to North-East Poland which used to be Baltic-speaking in the Iron Age, and Slavs assimilated those Balts after expanding there.

Even Warsaw itself is a toponym of Baltic origin according to some sources.

If anything, some Ukrainians are probably a better proxy for Proto-Slavs.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> 1/3 of Slovenia was Italian in antiquity. As we can see, according to genetics it easy to see that Slavs did push the natives out, as Slovenes are genetically different from Italians, despite of being neighbors geographically, and they are much more close to central Slavs and Ukrainians. 
> 
> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...e.0105090.g003
> 
> But yes, Slovenes are not quite South Slavs.


Slovenes are between one and a half million and two million people today. 100% ethnic Slovenes are even less. A very small population compared to Italians (Italy around 1000 AD had about 7 million inhabitants). When the Slovenes arrived in the Eastern Alps after the 6th century AD they were also a lot less. They also remained isolated from other Slavic migrations in the Balkans. Even if they wanted to, they could not have influenced Italians too much genetically.

How many were the Slovenes arrived between the 6th and 9th century AD? Between 20 thousand and 50 thousand? Not many more. I don't even think that Slovenes pushed all the natives out. Many were assimilated.

----------


## Govan

> Why should Russians be used as a proxy for Proto-Slavs, if Slavs were not native to Russia and did not originate from there? Slavs originated somewhere to the west of Russia and expanded into Russia during the Dark Ages. While in Russia, Slavs assimilated many Baltic and Uralic (Finno-Ugric) speakers. The same applies to North-East Poland which used to be Baltic-speaking in the Iron Age, and Slavs assimilated those Balts after expanding there.
> 
> Even Warsaw itself is a toponym of Baltic origin according to some sources.
> 
> If anything, some Ukrainians are probably a better proxy for Proto-Slavs.


Wait. Everybody has their opinion on this. Some say Poles , some say Ukrainians , some say Bielorussian. Stop tricking us , give the reasons why and edvidence spasiba moj brat

----------


## Alexandra_K

> Im Albanian. Thought I would post my results to see how I plot on your graph. If that's cool. 
> 
> Eurogenes EUtest V2 K15 Oracle results:
> 
> Kit M635564
> 
> Admix Results (sorted):
> 
> # Population Percent
> ...



Hello Dibran,

I am Greek and I happened to notice that our results have some similarities. I come 50% from Northwestern Greece (area of Ioannina), 25% from Kephalonia and 25% from Kea. 
I am researching our origins. Our village in Ioannina was a Slavic settlement of the Middle Ages (Tserkovista). Its name changed to Greek in the 20th century. My Epirot family also has Vlach roots (from two sides) and Arvanite roots (from at least one side). Also my father's family (Kephalonia and Kea) must have some more limited Arvanite elements too (judging from his admixture and DNA relatives).
It is interesting for me to understand how genetically and culturally mixed we all are in the Balkans.

Here are my K15 results and oracle:

*Admix Results (sorted):

#
Population
Percent

1
East_Med
22.16

2
West_Med
17.68

3
Atlantic
15.18

4
West_Asian
12.27

5
Baltic
11.18

6
Eastern_Euro
9.03

7
North_Sea
7.76

8
Red_Sea
3.94




Finished reading population data. 207 populations found.
15 components mode.

--------------------------------

Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Greek @ 3.198315
2 Greek_Thessaly @ 8.312538
3 Central_Greek @ 9.702641
4 Italian_Abruzzo @ 10.250897
5 Bulgarian @ 10.376774
6 Ashkenazi @ 10.435604
7 East_Sicilian @ 10.710502
8 West_Sicilian @ 10.834771
9 Tuscan @ 11.803734
10 South_Italian @ 13.105350
11 Romanian @ 13.671769
12 North_Italian @ 16.973547
13 Italian_Jewish @ 17.570667
14 Serbian @ 17.572933
15 Sephardic_Jewish @ 17.886965
16 Algerian_Jewish @ 18.297087
17 Tunisian_Jewish @ 22.386589
18 Moldavian @ 23.262486
19 Libyan_Jewish @ 24.371212
20 Cyprian @ 24.816864

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Greek +50% Greek @ 3.198315


Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Greek +25% Greek +25% Greek @ 3.198315


Using 4 populations approximation:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++
1 Greek + Kurdish_Jewish + Sardinian + Southwest_Russian @ 3.143283
2 Greek + Kurdish_Jewish + Sardinian + Ukrainian_Belgorod @ 3.159401
3 Greek + Iranian_Jewish + Sardinian + Southwest_Russian @ 3.188573
4 Greek + Greek + Greek + Greek @ 3.198315
5 Greek + Iranian_Jewish + Sardinian + Ukrainian_Belgorod @ 3.201864
6 Greek + Kurdish_Jewish + Russian_Smolensk + Sardinian @ 3.204375
7 Assyrian + Greek + Sardinian + Southwest_Russian @ 3.288273
8 Estonian_Polish + Greek + Kurdish_Jewish + Sardinian @ 3.289652
9 Belorussian + Greek + Kurdish_Jewish + Sardinian @ 3.297223
10 Greek + Iranian_Jewish + Russian_Smolensk + Sardinian @ 3.304584
11 Assyrian + Greek + Sardinian + Ukrainian_Belgorod @ 3.363059
12 Assyrian + Greek + Russian_Smolensk + Sardinian @ 3.384019
13 Estonian_Polish + Greek + Iranian_Jewish + Sardinian @ 3.444725
14 Assyrian + Estonian_Polish + Greek + Sardinian @ 3.460693
15 Belorussian + Greek + Iranian_Jewish + Sardinian @ 3.462755
16 Assyrian + Belorussian + Greek + Sardinian @ 3.464590
17 Belorussian + Georgian_Jewish + Sardinian + West_Sicilian @ 3.594038
18 Georgian_Jewish + Sardinian + Southwest_Russian + West_Sicilian @ 3.598102
19 Assyrian + Sardinian + Southwest_Russian + West_Sicilian @ 3.609884
20 Estonian_Polish + Iranian_Jewish + Italian_Abruzzo + Sardinian @ 3.611830

Done.*

----------


## Alexandra_K

Also, my K13 results, which are a bit different:


*Admix Results (sorted):

#
Population
Percent

1
East_Med
25.18

2
West_Med
21.67

3
Baltic
18.21

4
North_Atlantic
16.97

5
West_Asian
12.62

6
Red_Sea
3.75

7
East_Asian
1.20




Finished reading population data. 204 populations found.
13 components mode.

--------------------------------

Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Greek_Thessaly @ 3.666719
2 Central_Greek @ 9.449551
3 Bulgarian @ 10.079420
4 East_Sicilian @ 10.860690
5 Italian_Abruzzo @ 11.576796
6 West_Sicilian @ 12.273549
7 Romanian @ 13.143967
8 Ashkenazi @ 13.440406
9 Tuscan @ 13.884970
10 South_Italian @ 14.375315
11 Serbian @ 18.004507
12 North_Italian @ 18.399658
13 Algerian_Jewish @ 20.174377
14 Italian_Jewish @ 20.796219
15 Sephardic_Jewish @ 21.003513
16 Moldavian @ 23.899855
17 Tunisian_Jewish @ 24.682604
18 Libyan_Jewish @ 24.937746
19 Cyprian @ 26.493221
20 Croatian @ 27.444063

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Bulgarian +50% Central_Greek @ 3.605400


Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Bulgarian +25% Central_Greek +25% East_Sicilian @ 3.551438


Using 4 populations approximation:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++
1 Ashkenazi + Georgian_Jewish + Lithuanian + Sardinian @ 2.652073
2 Ashkenazi + Assyrian + Lithuanian + Sardinian @ 2.689845
3 Ashkenazi + Belorussian + Georgian_Jewish + Sardinian @ 2.898541
4 Ashkenazi + Estonian_Polish + Georgian_Jewish + Sardinian @ 3.154184
5 Ashkenazi + Kurdish_Jewish + Lithuanian + Sardinian @ 3.164341
6 Central_Greek + Kurdish_Jewish + Lithuanian + Sardinian @ 3.260642
7 Ashkenazi + Assyrian + Belorussian + Sardinian @ 3.278632
8 Greek_Thessaly + Kurdish_Jewish + Sardinian + Ukrainian_Belgorod @ 3.278685
9 Ashkenazi + Georgian_Jewish + Russian_Smolensk + Sardinian @ 3.314328
10 Bulgarian + Lebanese_Druze + Sardinian + Ukrainian_Belgorod @ 3.320706
11 Greek_Thessaly + Kurdish_Jewish + Sardinian + Southwest_Russian @ 3.333169
12 Central_Greek + Iranian_Jewish + Lithuanian + Sardinian @ 3.342300
13 Bulgarian + Kurdish_Jewish + Sardinian + Southwest_Russian @ 3.371904
14 Bulgarian + Central_Greek + Greek_Thessaly + Greek_Thessaly @ 3.372509
15 Croatian + Cyprian + Greek_Thessaly + Greek_Thessaly @ 3.382109
16 Greek_Thessaly + Iranian_Jewish + Sardinian + Ukrainian_Belgorod @ 3.387726
17 Algerian_Jewish + Bulgarian + Bulgarian + Greek_Thessaly @ 3.395472
18 Ashkenazi + Iranian_Jewish + Lithuanian + Sardinian @ 3.397145
19 Algerian_Jewish + Central_Greek + Central_Greek + Ukrainian @ 3.414869
20 Assyrian + Central_Greek + Lithuanian + Sardinian @ 3.415889

Done.*

----------


## Tutkun Arnaut

> Also, my K13 results, which are a bit different:
> 
> 
> *Admix Results (sorted):
> 
> #
> Population
> Percent
> 
> ...


Its not clear what Greek from Thessaly is. Thessaly has an old Albanian settlement, from Byzantine times. I don't know if they call themselves Arvanites or no. But their presence was clear until 1900 at least. I don't know what the majority of that area is Greeks or Albanians and what is the degree of mixing of two populations. Albanians lived mainly in mountainous areas since they were in constant fear of Turks. My point is genetically when we say Greek from Thessaly it could be an Albanian, a real Greek or a mixed person. Thats why Albanians cluster as Greeks from Thessaly.

----------


## ihype02

> Slovenes are between one and a half million and two million people today. 100% ethnic Slovenes are even less. A very small population compared to Italians (Italy around 1000 AD had about 7 million inhabitants). When the Slovenes arrived in the Eastern Alps after the 6th century AD they were also a lot less. They also remained isolated from other Slavic migrations in the Balkans. Even if they wanted to, they could not have influenced Italians too much genetically.
> 
> How many were the Slovenes arrived between the 6th and 9th century AD? Between 20 thousand and 50 thousand? Not many more. I don't even think that Slovenes pushed all the natives out. Many were assimilated.


I never said Slovenes impacted Italy's genetics. I was saying that Italians and Slovenes are different because Italians are native and Slovenes are Slavic newcommers. Check the contrast on their Y DNA also. Yes (Slovenes) they have absorbed indigenous populace too but they are not largely Illyro-Italic as their region used to be in antiquity.

----------


## Alexandra_K

> Its not clear what Greek from Thessaly is. Thessaly has an old Albanian settlement, from Byzantine times. I don't know if they call themselves Arvanites or no. But their presence was clear until 1900 at least. I don't know what the majority of that area is Greeks or Albanians and what is the degree of mixing of two populations. Albanians lived mainly in mountainous areas since they were in constant fear of Turks. My point is genetically when we say Greek from Thessaly it could be an Albanian, a real Greek or a mixed person. Thats why Albanians cluster as Greeks from Thessaly.


In Thessaly, as well as in Epirus and Western Macedonia, there have also always been a lot of Vlachs. I would say that at least mainland Greeks are in general a mix of Greeks (Romioi), Vlachs, Arvanites and Slavs (to a lesser extent).

----------


## Yetos

Why you are mixing modern populations,
with old ones?

hen we say forexample Central Thessaly is mark that developed in Thessaly,

Not a mark developed in Albania and moved to Thessaly.

when we say Dinaric is a mark developed in dinaric alps,
not in Crete and moved in Dinaric alps,

etc

----------


## Tomenable

> Slovenes are between one and a half million and two million people today. 100% ethnic Slovenes are even less. A very small population compared to Italians (Italy around 1000 AD had about 7 million inhabitants). When the Slovenes arrived in the Eastern Alps after the 6th century AD they were also a lot less. They also remained isolated from other Slavic migrations in the Balkans. Even if they wanted to, they could not have influenced Italians too much genetically.
> 
> How many were the Slovenes arrived between the 6th and 9th century AD? Between 20 thousand and 50 thousand? Not many more. I don't even think that Slovenes pushed all the natives out. Many were assimilated.


The Slovenes originally occupied much larger territory than today, though.

This map shows the original Slovene territory in the Early Middle Ages:

http://www.gis.si/egw/ZSS_T04_P02/index.html

http://www.gis.si/egw/ZSS_T04_P02/img/karta4.jpg



^^^ 
Actually I think that they extended more to the west also in Italy. 

The peak of Slavic westward territorial expansion was in the 800s. 

At that time the western boundary of areas with majority Slavic population was as follows: starting from the north-west, westernmost ethnically Slavic areas included: the Fehrman island, Wagrien region (Wagria) in what is today Holstein - including settlement Wendtorf in Kreis Plön (54°25′N 10°0′E) - then the outskirts of Hamburg, Lauenburg region, Lüneburger Heide, Wolfsburg region, Magdeburg region. South of Magdeburg the boundary of ethnic Slavic territory can be drawn as a meridional line extending up to Erfurt and the eastern part of the Thüringer Wald - in parts of Thuringia located to the west of the Saale River, the following area was ethnically Slavic during the 9th century: lands to the east of the line extending from the southern outskirts of Magdeburg, through the area of Erfurt, and up to the Thüringer Wald. From the Thüringer Wald the boundary was a line extending in south-western direction up to the River Main and the outskirts of Bamberg. From Bamberg the 9th century Slavic-Germanic ethnic boundary sharply turned towards Austrian Linz, and then once again turned meridionally, extending up to the Alpine city of Liezen at the River Enns. *In the Alps groups of Slavs migrated through mountain valleys up to East Tirol and the Upper Drava River. Slavs settled in north-western and south-eastern parts of East Tyrol, and in Italy they reached up to Julian Alps north-west of Udine and also settled in what is now the Provincia di Gorizia up to the coast of the Marano Lagoon. The city of Matrei in Osttirol (47°0′N 12°32′E) was called Windisch [= Slavic] Matrei as late as 1335.*

First incursions of Slavs into Italy were reported already in the 590s.

Leszek Podhorodecki, "History of Ukraine", gives the following chronology for Slavic expansion:

"(...) At the turns of the 5th and the 6th centuries the Slavs, living until that time at the Dniester River, attacked the borders of the Byzantine Empire. The whole reign of Justin (518-527) and that of Justinian (527-557) were filled with combats against the Slavs pushing south across the Danube. They were especially active in period 545-557, because at that time they started to settle en masse in conquered territories [south of the Danube]. Only the incursion of the Avars into the Black Sea steppe and the lands along the Danube [years 561 - 569], hampered - for some time - the Slavic migration. After victorious wars against some of Slavic tribes, the Avars penetrated into the Pannonian Basin, and established their realm there. (...)"

The Avars showed up in the Pontic steppe around 560 and advanced westward to Pannonia along the northern bank of the Danube. Avar influence was not that unequivocally negative for Slavic settlement in the Balkans, though. Their initial attack against Slavs living north of the Danube (in Romania and southern Moldova) in the 560s drove some further Slavs - this time as refugees - south of the Danube, into the Balkans. Later there was a time when Avars were Byzantine allies against the Slavs (that was the case in years 584 - 585, for example), but in the end the Avars turned against the Byzantines and started to facilitate Slavic settlement. We can speak about two or three types of Slavic immigrants in the Balkans - those from tribes acting on their own, and those from tribes which accepted overlordship of the Avars, or signed alliances with them. The Avars also pushed Germanic tribes from Pannonia into Italy, when they defeated the Gepids (568) and forced the Langobards to emigrate (569). The disruption of the Gepids and the expulsion of the Langobards made a vacuum that West Slavs filled, migrating from Moravia into what is now Austria-Hungary-Slovenia.

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 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 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 year 599 Pope Gregory I in a letter to Exarch of Italy wrote that Slavs had already seized most of Istria, and were penetrating (invading, raiding, etc.) 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 100,000 Slavs besieged Constantinople but was repulsed by combined Byzantine-Avar forces, and later lost two more battles against Byzantine-Avar forces led by Comentiolus (the battle of Erginia River and the battle of Ansinon, near Hadrianopole). Comentiolus also pushed Slavic settlers out of the region of Astica. In 585 the Byzantines and the Avars decided to attack the original Slavic lands across the Danube - forces under command of Priscus and Gentzon crossed the river at Dorostolon (Silistra) and surprise-attacked the Slavs in their native territory (as most of their forces had long been campaigning in the Balkans). They attacked at midnight and defeated the Slavs, but Ardagast eluded the attackers and escaped.

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 one branch of the Dudlebes), and having signed alliances with other tribes. 

Other early leaders of the Slavic tribes described by Byzantine, Italian and other sources - apart from Ardagast - include figures such as Musokios, Dabragezas, Usigard, Swarunas, Mezamir, Idarizos, Kelagastos, Chatzon, Waltunc, Kocel, Sandamir, Daurentios, etc.

These early names are often cited by linguists as a proof that Late Common Slavic was still one, mutually intelligible language at that time. 6th century Common Slavic was quite different from Slavic languages in later centuries. It preceded the ard-rad shift in Slavic.

For example at that time Slavs were still pronouncing [o] as short [a] - hence in modern Romanian language the word for grave is magura, and in modern Finnic languages the word for window is akkuna - both being loanwords from Late Common Slavic.

The word gard (town, stronghold) later changed into gord; then into grod in West Slavic*, grad in South Slavic, and gorod in East Slavic), the ard-rad shift had not yet taken place (hence there was Ardagast instead of the later form Radogost), etc.

*Except for Polabian and Pomeranian which retained the older gard form.

*There were also Slavic pirates who raided the entire eastern coast of Italy, and even established some settlements along the coast.* But I don't know what happened to those strongholds later (maybe they were driven out by anti-pirate expeditions or maybe assimilated).

*"Historia Langobardorum" by Paul the Deacon describes Slavic raids into Italy and Langobard-Slavic wars.*

----------


## Alexandra_K

Hello Tomenable,
Accidentally I just posted a question indirectly concerning the Slovenians of the early middle ages in a new thread. I would like to ask you if there is a connection between them and the Vajunites? Are they the same people? Maybe you can take a look at my new thread too, if you would like. Thank you

----------


## Tomenable

> Wait. Everybody has their opinion on this. Some say Poles , some say Ukrainians , some say Bielorussian. Stop tricking us , give the reasons why and edvidence spasiba moj brat


It depends on where do you see the Proto-Slavic homeland. 

We can reasonably assume that people who live in the closest proximity to the original Slavic homeland should be the most genetically similar to Proto-Slavs, unless the area in question has been affected by significant migrations during the last centuries.

The most widely accepted theory as of now, is that the Proto-Slavic homeland was somewhere in Ukraine or Moldova.

The South Belarusian theory (Pripyat Marshes theory) has been debunked because the Marshes were uninhabited according to archaeologists. Perhaps they were under Slavic control, but the bulk of Slavic population had to live outside of that area.

Central and North Belarus was occupied by Balts according to most scholars - so areas north of Pripyat have to be excluded.

----------


## Tutkun Arnaut

> Why you are mixing modern populations,
> with old ones?
> 
> hen we say forexample Central Thessaly is mark that developed in Thessaly,
> 
> Not a mark developed in Albania and moved to Thessaly.
> 
> when we say Dinaric is a mark developed in dinaric alps,
> not in Crete and moved in Dinaric alps,
> ...


Albanians should not be close to Thessaly. Normally a Greek should be close to Greek from Thessaly. The anomaly can be only explained with Albanian presence there from early Byzantine emigrations. As for Vlahs they show to certain degree their Romanian roots. They have high haplogroup I .

----------


## ihype02

> In Thessaly, as well as in Epirus and Western Macedonia, there have also always been a lot of Vlachs. I would say that at least mainland Greeks are in general a mix of Greeks (Romioi), Vlachs, Arvanites and Slavs (to a lesser extent).


Anonymi Descriptio Europae orientalis. Imperium Constantinopolitanum, Albania, Serbia, Bulgaria, Ruthenia, Ungaria, Polonia, Bohemia. Anno MCCCVIII exarata. Cracoviae, 1916: As per the anonymous traveler of Eastern Europe from the XIV century,* it is stated that Vlachs (whom the author calls "Blasi"), are a numerous people living between Macedonia, Achaia and Salonika.*

----------


## Alexandra_K

The most characteristic locations for the Greek Vlachs are the areas on and around the Pindus Mountains, which are shared between Epirus, Thessaly and Macedonia. Of course there were further migrations but their real center has always been the Pindus area. 
My family has partly Vlach origins from Thessaly (area of Trikala) and also partly Vlach origins from Epirus (and before that probably from Albania, the area of Kolonia: Arvanitovlachi).
But definitely Epirus, Thessaly and Macedonia are the main regions for the Greek Vlachs because of the Pindus Mountains.

----------


## ihype02

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Vlachia

----------


## Alexandra_K

Yes, I know this. Thessaly still is the place of origin of many of the Greek Vlachs. So in general I do tend to think that except for the Arvanite contribution, which according to my understanding is very considerable throughout mainland Greece and some islands, especially Thessaly (accompanied by all the areas belonging to the Pindus) must all have a very characteristic Vlach genetic contribution.

----------


## Dibran

> It depends on where do you see the Proto-Slavic homeland. 
> 
> We can reasonably assume that people who live in the closest proximity to the original Slavic homeland should be the most genetically similar to Proto-Slavs, unless the area in question has been affected by significant migrations during the last centuries.
> 
> The most widely accepted theory as of now, is that the Proto-Slavic homeland was somewhere in Ukraine or Moldova.
> 
> The South Belarusian theory (Pripyat Marshes theory) has been debunked because the Marshes were uninhabited according to archaeologists. Perhaps they were under Slavic control, but the bulk of Slavic population had to live outside of that area.
> 
> Central and North Belarus was occupied by Balts according to most scholars - so areas north of Pripyat have to be excluded.


If we are to assume Proto-Slavic ethnogenesis occurred in Moldova/Ukraine, would we not assume they are descended from a combination of Dacians/Bastarnae/Sarmatians/Scythians?

Unless of course we are to presume that The Proto Slavic ancestors moved in and displaced these peoples in this area. Otherwise, if the assumption is they arose from this region, they would have had to descend from a base population, being Dacian, mixed with a combination of the other folk. Much the same as Albanian ethnogenesis occurred from a combination of Illyrians with a mixture of other peoples.

Considering the oldest M417 is in Ukraine, do you believe then, that the more recent clades descended from a hodge podge of Dacians with the other converging elements? Otherwise where did they move from initially if they arose from this area?

Some have surmised they were east of the Proto-Balts. Somewhere eastward of Poland/Belarus, which would put them in Russia.

Assuming your theory is correct, do you believe they arose from a mixture of tribes in Moldova with a Dacian base?

----------


## etrusco

Slavic has no ethnic meaning....it is just a linguistic family shared by many ethnicities. There's not a slavic race. Please read this book of florin Kurta

The making of the slavs : history and archaeology of the Lower Danube region, ca. 500-700"

This book offers a new approach to the problem of Slavic ethnicity in south eastern Europe between c. 500 and c. 700, from the perspective of current anthropological theories." "The conceptual emphasis here is on the relation between material culture and ethnicity. The author demonstrates that the history of the Sclavenes and the Antes begins only at around A.D. 500. He also points to the significance of the archaeological evidence, which suggests that specific artifacts may have been used as identity markers. This evidence also indicates the role of local leaders in building group boundaries and in leading successful raids across the Danube. The names of many powerful leaders appear in written sources, some being styled "king". Because of these military and political developments, Byzantine authors began employing names such as Sclavenes and Antes in order to make sense of the process of group identification that was taking place north of the Danube frontier. Slavic ethnicity is therefore shown to be a Byzantine invention."-

----------


## Tomenable

> Slavic has no ethnic meaning....it is just a linguistic family shared by many ethnicities.


There is more IBD segment sharing between Slavic-speaking peoples than between Germanic-speaking or Romance-speaking ones. If Slavic has no ethnic meaning then neither has Germanic, Celtic, and especially not Romance. Not to mention Uralic (Estonians and Hungarians are not so closely related in terms of genetics) or Turkic.

----------


## Tomenable

> If we are to assume Proto-Slavic ethnogenesis occurred in Moldova/Ukraine, would we not assume they are descended from a combination of Dacians/Bastarnae/Sarmatians/Scythians?


Not exactly, because there is no evidence that Proto-Slavic was a creole language that emerged from a mix of several languages, or that Proto-Slavic emerged from some other branch of Indo-European languages (rather than from its own branch which can be traced all the way back to PIE). On the other hand it is possible that early Pre-Proto-Slavic or Early Proto-Slavic speakers absorbed and assimilated some of those tribes you mentioned.




> Much the same as Albanian ethnogenesis occurred from a combination of Illyrians with a mixture of other peoples.


But Albanian is also not a creole language, or is it? Is Albanian langauge equally descended from languages of all of those peoples? Or was Proto-Albanian spoken only by one population, which later mixed with and absorbed other peoples?

The goal of the study on Slavic origins is - and has always been - to find out where did the community which spoke Proto-Slavic and Pre-Proto-Slavic languages live. It is not about finding the homelands of all the different tribes which have contributed their DNA to present-day (or even to Early Medieval) Slavic-speaking populations.




> Some have surmised they were east of the Proto-Balts. Somewhere eastward of Poland/Belarus, which would put them in Russia.


Rather to the south or south-west of them. Isn't this also implied by fact that modern Balts are genetically more north-eastern than any of modern Slavic populations (except for Northern Russians, who are heavily mixed with Finno-Ugric populations).




> Assuming your theory is correct, do you believe they arose from a mixture of tribes in Moldova with a Dacian base?


 If true, that would basically mean that Dacian language was Proto-Slavic language (these terms would be synonyms). We don't know much about Dacian language, but from what we know, I don't think we can derive such a conclusion.

Anyway, Dacians lived in what is today Romania - and not in what is now Ukraine. But modern Romanians are not descended from Dacians, but from Vlachs, who settled there during the Middle Ages, probably in the late 1100s and early 1200s.

Dacia was evacuated by Emperor Aurelian and became a deserted, uninhabited land.




> Considering the oldest M417 is in Ukraine


That is so old that it was probably before the differentiation of PIE into its descendant languages.

And remember that it was found in the Steppe zone of Ukraine, in Sredny Stog II culture.

Proto-Slavic people were not nomadic anymore, they probably lived in the Forest zone of Ukraine.

----------


## Dibran

> Not exactly, because there is no evidence that Proto-Slavic was a creole language that emerged from a mix of several languages, or that Proto-Slavic emerged from some other branch of Indo-European languages (rather than from its own branch which can be traced all the way back to PIE). On the other hand it is possible that early Pre-Proto-Slavic or Early Proto-Slavic speakers absorbed and assimilated some of those tribes you mentioned.
> 
> But Albanian is also not a creole language, or is it? Is Albanian langauge equally descended from languages of all of those peoples? Or was Proto-Albanian spoken only by one population, which later mixed with and absorbed other peoples?
> 
> The goal of the study on Slavic origins is - and has always been - to find out where did the community which spoke Proto-Slavic and Pre-Proto-Slavic languages live. It is not about finding the homelands of all the different tribes which have contributed their DNA to present-day (or even to Early Medieval) Slavic-speaking populations.
> 
> Rather to the south or south-west of them. Isn't this also implied by fact that modern Balts are genetically more north-eastern than any of modern Slavic populations (except for Northern Russians, who are heavily mixed with Finno-Ugric populations).
> 
>  If true, that would basically mean that Dacian language was Proto-Slavic language (these terms would be synonyms). We don't know much about Dacian language, but from what we know, I don't think we can derive such a conclusion.



On your first point, if Proto-Slavs developed in Romania, then who did they develop from is the question? We know it was Dacian territory. Are you suggesting an undocumented minimalist tribe living with Dacian eventually absorbed them and became the Proto-Slavs? Otherwise how does one reconcile the ethnogenesis of a people in a region occupied wholely by another people?

What I mean by combination is that modern Albanian is not completely made up of Proto-Albanian elements. There are borrowings of words from other languages due to the assimilation and integration of other peoples. The further back we track through Proto-Albanian to Proto-proto-Albanian, we would surmise it being closer to one of the Illyrian surviving dialects. 

This is what I meant by mixing of peoples. In that, Proto-Slavic occupying the Dacian territory per chance had a dialect of a Dacian tribe that could possibly be identified as Proto-Balto-Slavic, and through assimilation of other converging elements, be they Scythian, Sarmatian, Germanic etc, that this hodge podge would later develop into Proto-Slavic and again Slavic much later through integration and assimilation of others after their spread.

So in short if we assume Proto-Slavs occupied historical Dacian territory, are we under the assumption they and their language came originally from a Dacian base the further back you treck, or a loosely unrelated tribal network that may have lived in the same area and been undocumented? 

Everyone comes from somewhere. Proto Slavic ethnogenesis started as early as 500BC if I am not mistaken. If that is the case, Moldova was occupied by Dacians at this time.

----------


## Tomenable

*Dibran,*




> if Proto-Slavs developed in Romania


I did not say that Proto-Slavic developed in Romania, but in Ukraine (either Central or Western).




> We know it was Dacian territory.


Before the Roman conquest, yes. But Dacia was evacuated in 274 AD and became a deserted territory.

After 275 AD numerous tribes settled in that area, but Dacians no longer lived there. See for example:

https://i.imgur.com/dHD4Ypa.jpg






> What I mean by combination is that modern Albanian is not completely made up of Proto-Albanian elements. There are borrowings of words from other languages due to the assimilation and integration of other peoples.


Of course there are borrowings in every language. In Proto-Slavic there were also foreign borrowings.

But we can't say that it was a creole language.

And borrowings can result from assimilation of foreigners, but also simply from contacts with them.

----------


## Tomenable

> If that is the case, Moldova was occupied by Dacians at this time.


Yeah. But when Slavs were first noticed by Byzantine observers, they occupied more or less this area:

http://slavicchronicles.com/history/...g-to-jordanes/



*Quote:*

The earliest detailed description of Slavic territory as it was around year 500 AD comes from Procopius and Jordanes, but it is quite possible that they did not have full knowledge about the extent of Slavic lands – especially in the north, north-west and north-east.

However, their precise description of the extent of Slavs in the immediate borderland/neighbourhood of the Byzantine Empire is probably reliable. Procopius wrote that they lived north of the Danube, and Jordanes provided even more details, as he wrote:


"Within these rivers lies Dacia, encircled by the lofty Alps [Carpathians] as by a crown. Near their left ridge, which inclines toward the north, and beginning at the source of the Vistula, the populous race of the Venethi dwell, occupying a great expanse of land. Though their names are now dispersed amid various clans and places, yet they are chiefly called Sclaveni and Antes. The abode of the Sclaveni extends from the city of Noviodunum and the lake called Mursianus to the Danaster, and northward as far as the Vistula. (…) The Antes, (…) dwelling above the curve of the sea of Pontus, spread from the Danaster to the Danaper, rivers that are many days’ journey apart."


Lake Mursianus was in fact, according to the majority of researchers, the vast marshes at the juncture of the Drava and the Danube; the lake or marshes in question might have extended as far as to the juncture of the Tisza and the Danube. The lake’s name was derived from the town of Mursa(present-day Osijek). The Alps are what we today call the Carpathians. The source of the Vistula is located close to the present-day Bielsko-Biała. Danaster refers to Dniester, Danaper refers to present-day Dnieper. And “the curve of the sea of Pontus [Black Sea]” was the coastline (which forms a nice curve) in the region of present-day Odessa.

----------


## etrusco

I think "proto-slav" was born out of a baltoid like language spoken by dacians ( if you see the king burebista dacian empire it seems pretty well matching the future slav speaking zone) that became creolized by influence from celtic/germanic from the west and scytians from the east to become the lingua franca of the Avar empire and so imposing itself over the vast territory of central eastern europe. And after came the final seal with the pastoral action of Cyril and Methodius that reinforced this lingua franca alla over its expansion zone. 
I do not buy the thesis of a slavic horde coming out of the pripjet swamps and storming half of europe.

@tomenable

Of course you are right celtic, germanic and romance are not an ethnicity.....we romance speaking know it well....the link is cultural not genetic. So called slav speaking people were of different ethnic clans: germanic ( bastarnae and maybe goths from crimea) celtic ( many celtic tribes in eastern europe and in west ukraine too) thracian, ancient dacians, scytians even roman renegades that flee the empire because of heavy taxation ....all took part in the so called "slav ethnogenesis"

----------


## Sile

> There is more IBD segment sharing between Slavic-speaking peoples than between Germanic-speaking or Romance-speaking ones. If Slavic has no ethnic meaning then neither has Germanic, Celtic, and especially not Romance. Not to mention Uralic (Estonians and Hungarians are not so closely related in terms of genetics) or Turkic.


Depends if you think that sarmatian people have mostly slavic ethnicity.
.
The first slavs apart from ukraines and russians to head west would have entered via modern Slovakia ............but you already known this ...and you already know that the *Veleti* would also be the main slavs to push into Germany from their original homeland in upper Vistula lands
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veleti
.
do not confuse Veleti with Venedi or Veneti 
Veleti = slavs
Venedi = west Balts
Veneti = Italian

----------


## DarknessC

Depends on the population

----------


## Dibran

> Yeah. But when Slavs were first noticed by Byzantine observers, they occupied more or less this area:
> 
> http://slavicchronicles.com/history/...g-to-jordanes/
> 
> 
> 
> *Quote:*
> 
> The earliest detailed description of Slavic territory as it was around year 500 AD comes from Procopius and Jordanes, but it is quite possible that they did not have full knowledge about the extent of Slavic lands – especially in the north, north-west and north-east.
> ...


Interesting. Just saw the response now. Have you read "The Making of the Slavs"? I am just in the process of reading the book. It actually brings into question the prime authorities of Slavic tribes. Mentions a lot of inconsistencies in their accounts. Passages of time between actual events and their documentation, usually exaggerated and pulled from earlier sources. In other words, many of these accounts need to be taken with a grain of salt until actual science confirms things. Like material cultures. Time accurate accounts etc. I am very early into the book though. Its nearly 400-500 pages.

----------


## Dibran

> I think "proto-slav" was born out of a baltoid like language spoken by dacians ( if you see the king burebista dacian empire it seems pretty well matching the future slav speaking zone) that became creolized by influence from celtic/germanic from the west and scytians from the east to become the lingua franca of the Avar empire and so imposing itself over the vast territory of central eastern europe. And after came the final seal with the pastoral action of Cyril and Methodius that reinforced this lingua franca alla over its expansion zone. 
> I do not buy the thesis of a slavic horde coming out of the pripjet swamps and storming half of europe.
> 
> @tomenable
> 
> Of course you are right celtic, germanic and romance are not an ethnicity.....we romance speaking know it well....the link is cultural not genetic. So called slav speaking people were of different ethnic clans: germanic ( bastarnae and maybe goths from crimea) celtic ( many celtic tribes in eastern europe and in west ukraine too) thracian, ancient dacians, scytians even roman renegades that flee the empire because of heavy taxation ....all took part in the so called "slav ethnogenesis"


Part of what you surmise is possibly true. You should read "The Making of the Slavs".

----------


## markod

> I think "proto-slav" was born out of a baltoid like language spoken by dacians ( if you see the king burebista dacian empire it seems pretty well matching the future slav speaking zone) that became creolized by influence from celtic/germanic from the west and scytians from the east to become the lingua franca of the Avar empire and so imposing itself over the vast territory of central eastern europe. And after came the final seal with the pastoral action of Cyril and Methodius that reinforced this lingua franca alla over its expansion zone. 
> I do not buy the thesis of a slavic horde coming out of the pripjet swamps and storming half of europe.
> 
> @tomenable
> 
> Of course you are right celtic, germanic and romance are not an ethnicity.....we romance speaking know it well....the link is cultural not genetic. So called slav speaking people were of different ethnic clans: germanic ( bastarnae and maybe goths from crimea) celtic ( many celtic tribes in eastern europe and in west ukraine too) thracian, ancient dacians, scytians even roman renegades that flee the empire because of heavy taxation ....all took part in the so called "slav ethnogenesis"


Ridiculous. Slavic isn't a creole. We know that the Slavic expansion wiped out in excess of 60% of the paternal haplogroups everywhere. In some groups like Bosnian Croats that replacement was close to 100%. We're talking about something totally different from Celtic/Germanic/Latin expansions.

----------


## Tomenable

> We know that the Slavic expansion wiped out in excess of 60% of the paternal haplogroups everywhere.


A significant portion of Polish R1a-Z280 belongs to old "West Baltic" subclades, with TMRCA much, much older than the historically attested Slavic expansion. So not all of Polish R1a-Z280 originates from the Slavic expansion. In case of R1a-M458, probably all of it is Slavic though (and you can see that all of the most numerous and most widespread subclades under M458 have much more recent TMRCA, than these old subclades of Z280). As for I2a-Din, as you know it is not as common among West Slavs, as it is among East Slavs and South Slavs.

----------


## Tomenable

> In some groups like Bosnian Croats that replacement was close to 100%. We're talking about something totally different from Celtic/Germanic/Latin expansions.


How is it totally different if Weale and Capelli estimated that the Anglo-Saxon contribution to modern English Y-chromosomes is between 50% and 100% (links)?:

https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/19/7/1008/1068561

https://www.cell.com/current-biology...showall%3Dtrue

Another study estimated 50% of Germanic Y-DNA in England.

In some areas like East Anglia it is over 70%.

====

If you are talking about Germanic migrations which did not change the language in destination areas - unlike in case of England - then we can agree. But these Germanic expansions should be compared only to these Slavic expansions, which also did not permanently change the language - so for example Slavic settlement in Greece, Albania, Asia Minor and Bornholm (see Magdalena Naum's research; about 1/6 of Bornholm's population was once Slavic).

----------


## Srbadija

> Part of what you surmise is possibly true. You should read "The Making of the Slavs".


No, no, no. :) 

There is a work which debunk Florin Curta of Slovenian archaeologist. (If you want it, i can send to PM)

Slavic is not a creole ;) It developed naturally from the proto-Balto-Slavic, and there is no "agreement" which would support the Florin Curta book. This book is just horse in vacuum and nothing serious about it. :)

Curta is obsessed with Slavs since they influenced Romanians so much, so now even he wants to make theory that Slavs originate from Dachians, which is ridiculous. ;)

----------


## Srbadija

Term "proto-Slavic" have different meanings and the stages through the time. It is formed long before even "Bastarns" came in Eastern Europe.

There was proto-Slavic even in Milograd culture, perhaps even in Lusatian culture, also possible Trzciniec culture. But the latest common ancestors of modern Slavs are mixing of Trzciniec culture with Milograd culture, which gave birth to Zarubintsy culture.

----------


## Dibran

> No, no, no. :) 
> 
> There is a work which debunk Florin Curta of Slovenian archaeologist. (If you want it, i can send to PM)
> 
> Slavic is not a creole ;) It developed naturally from the proto-Balto-Slavic, and there is no "agreement" which would support the Florin Curta book. This book is just horse in vacuum and nothing serious about it. :)
> 
> Curta is obsessed with Slavs since they influenced Romanians so much, so now even he wants to make theory that Slavs originate from Dachians, which is ridiculous. ;)


I am not that far into the book so nothing I have read so far suggests what you claim. I don't think Slavs are Dacians. However, theres always a possibility South Slavs, or rather Proto-Slavs could have been related to the more wild and primitive Getae. This label was even applied to Sklavenoi in many sources. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the Getae were closest to the Proto-Slavic domain, or at least overlapped it, so perhaps there was some shared relation via ancestry. 

Additionally, I am open to reading all positions and seeing which is more logical/supported by facts and reason. You can inbox me what you read. I will still finish his book though. It is interesting so far.

----------


## 50cal

> Rather to the south or south-west of them. 
> Isn't this also implied by fact that modern Balts are genetically more north-eastern than any of modern Slavic populations (except for Northern Russians, who are heavily mixed with Finno-Ugric populations).


The modern Baltic-speaking area is a fraction of what it was when compared to around
600-800 AD. Western Russians and Belarusians are also heavily mixed with Baltic populations. The Slavic expansion and the arrival of Krivichs, Vyatichs and Radimichs essentially split the Baltic tribes in half. Most Balts were assimilated, but there was also some Baltic westwards backflow.
The entire area from Pskov in the North up until Moscow to the East, Kursk to the South and Pinsk to the West was originally inhabited by Balts.
Galindians were based around modern-day Moscow and most likely were the last East Baltic refuge after the Slavic expansion. They survived for several centuries as a cultural group and there were Russians identifying with the Golyad up until the 19th century. There's also a Russian last name relating to them.
In other words, proto-Slavs most definitely weren't East of the Balts. They came from the South.

----------


## Dianatomia

> Yes, I know this. Thessaly still is the place of origin of many of the Greek Vlachs. So in general I do tend to think that except for the Arvanite contribution, which according to my understanding is very considerable throughout mainland Greece and some islands, especially Thessaly (accompanied by all the areas belonging to the Pindus) must all have a very characteristic Vlach genetic contribution.


Vlachs throughout the Balkans genetically overlap with the native people which coinhabit their lands, rather than other Vlachs in distant area's. I.e. Greek Vlachs and Serb Vlachs do not overlap genetically. This means that Vlachs have absorbed native populations. 

As for Thessalians, they have the highest rates of E-V13 and low R1b, while Vlachs in general have high R1b and low E-V13. The Vlachs have been situated in the Pindus mountains. Not Thessaly overall. It's only the last decades where some Vlachs settled in the Thessalian plain.

That said, I think Thessaly differs somewhat from Southern Greece and Greek islanders, and these differences may very well have been present during the Bronze Age where Hellenic tribes started to migrate South from that area.

----------


## Userius

It's a difficult subject since we have few direct and mostly derived sources explaining Dacian language. The few that claim to be direct were mostly Romanian forgeries under Ceausescu that contained blatant anachronisms. I forget the name, but there was one tablet or something that was supposedly a Dacian message during the Roman wars and it mentioned Christian derived names like Maria that could not have been used in Dacia at the time, and it was also written in an obvious creole that contained modern Romanian Latinisms as well as other elements. 

However, whatever we do have shows that it was a Satem language and somewhere actually very close to the Balto-Slavic spectrum. Also interestingly, it shared some elements common in Albanians and Romanians, as well as some other Romanian influenced or derived populations. 

Geographically they spread out much farther than just Romania. The Getae themselves have been present on the southern Danubian plain, and may have extended into Bulgaria as well prior to the Celtic invasions of the 3rd century BC under Brennus (no, not the one who sacked Rome), who ruined their capital of Helis, which may have been near Sveshtari. Other Dacian tribes have been present in Ukraine and Moldova, namely the Carpi. Under Burebista there was also further expansion that led them to create loose communities farther out. Supposedly they even west as far west as the Noricum region of Slovenia. In the northern expanse, a tribe related to the Carpi seems to have created Setidava/Getidava as far north as Znin in Poland (the exact location is disputed), forming a new tribe of Costoboci. 

In general the Carpathian region seems to have been a strong domain for R1a and R1b migrations, and from my understanding of the early Indo-European migration patterns and the "Scythian" ethnographic qualities of the Dacians and in particular the Getae, they would at least have been as northern plotting as modern Slavs, if not Balts. Militarily they seem to have focused on more hit-and-run and ambush tactics, including the use of poisoned arrows as the later encroaching Slavs were reputed to do. Procopius even considered the Sklaveni as synonymous with the Getae.

As far as looks go, the busts and other shows of appearance make them look a very Yamnaya or Bell-Beaker long skulled but still broad and brachycephalic type.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...eSQQNe7UA1TgOt

https://statuidedaci.ro/images/statu...e-dac/cap1.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ans_people.JPG

Maximinus Thrax, who judging by the geopolitical playing field of his time, was likely rather Getae than "Goth", along with Alanic. He reminds me of Mariusz Pudzianowski: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...lini_MC473.jpg

So at the least, if they weren't Slavs or vice-versa, there was at the very least a close level of ethnographic kinship.

Modern Romanians do show a notable southern influence genetically, so there's that to show for a migration from the Balkans.

----------


## JajarBingan

> I am not that far into the book so nothing I have read so far suggests what you claim. I don't think Slavs are Dacians. However, theres always a possibility South Slavs, or rather Proto-Slavs could have been related to the more wild and primitive Getae. This label was even applied to Sklavenoi in many sources. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the Getae were closest to the Proto-Slavic domain, or at least overlapped it, so perhaps there was some shared relation via ancestry. 
> 
> Additionally, I am open to reading all positions and seeing which is more logical/supported by facts and reason. You can inbox me what you read. I will still finish his book though. It is interesting so far.


The proto-Slavic domain was not on the steppes, but around Kiev. That's a minimum of 1000km Northeast of the Getae.
Getae are supposed to have been a mix of steppe Scythian-like Indo-European elites and local farmers. Kind of like Dacians and Thracians too, but they weren't as organised administratively in the beginning. However, they merged with the Thracians at some point, under the rule of the Odrysian Kingdom. They are also confused or considered the same people as Dacians in ancient sources, but now it seems more likely that they were related but still distinct Thracian tribes.




> The Carpathian-Danube region in which the Romanian ethnic community evolved was settled about 2000 BCE by migratory Indo-Europeans who intermingled with native Neolithic (New Stone Age) peoples to form the Thracians. When Ionians and Dorians settled on the western shore of the Black Sea in the 7th century BCE, the Thracians’ descendants came into contact with the Greek world. The Greek historian Herodotus, writing in the 5th century BCE, called these people Getae (Getians). Together with kindred tribes, known later to the Romans as Dacians, who lived in the mountains north of the Danubian Plain and in the Transylvanian Basin, the Getae developed a distinct society and culture by the second half of the 4th century BCE.
> 
> https://www.britannica.com/place/Romania/Cultural-institutions#ref476933



We actually have samples from the Scythian confederation in Moldova, which provide a sneak peek at the Getae. 
They are diverse, but also distinguishable from Ukrainian and Russian "Scythian" nomads by increased levels of farmer admixture.

They are all more Southerly-shifted than modern Romanians and Moldovans, so there's that for the walls of text above me, which still support the revisionist Hungarian theory of migrations from the Balkans. And that makes sense, considering that Romanians are supposed to have absorbed at least some Slavs.

The only Thracian that we got shows even more farmer admix, which is also logical since they migrated and settled earlier.

Population
Region
Anatolia_N
CHG
WHG
EHG
Levant_N
Iran_N
East Asian
SSA
AASI
SUM

Thracian_Balkans_IA_I5769
Europe_Southeast
74.2%
9.2%
0.0%
13.2%
0.0%
3.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%

Scythian_Moldova_192_Getae?
Europe_Southeast
64.2%
12.0%
1.6%
18.2%
0.0%
3.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
100.0%

Scythian_Moldova_197_Getae?
Europe_Southeast
57.8%
23.2%
4.6%
13.4%
0.0%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%

Scythian_Moldova_300_Getae?
Europe_Southeast
66.2%
0.0%
0.0%
21.6%
1.8%
10.0%
0.0%
0.4%
0.0%
100.0%

Scythian_Moldova_301_Getae?
Europe_Southeast
45.6%
14.8%
2.8%
29.0%
0.4%
2.4%
5.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%

Scythian_Moldova_311_Getae?
Europe_Southeast
37.4%
19.2%
0.0%
27.0%
4.8%
0.6%
4.6%
0.0%
6.4%
100.0%

Scythian_Ukraine_009_proto-Slav?
Europe_Northeast
42.8%
8.4%
12.2%
36.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%

Scythian_Ukraine_010_Scythian?
Europe_Northeast
45.6%
11.4%
11.6%
31.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%

Scythian_Ukraine_011_Scythian?
Europe_Northeast
41.2%
16.2%
0.0%
37.8%
0.0%
0.0%
2.4%
1.2%
1.2%
100.0%

Scythian_Samara_Original Scythian
Europe_Northeast
17.6%
13.0%
0.4%
46.8%
1.8%
12.6%
7.8%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%

Cimmerian_Moldova_357
Europe_Southeast
29.6%
8.0%
0.0%
46.8%
0.0%
8.4%
7.2%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%

Cimmerian_Moldova_358
Europe_Southeast
25.6%
11.4%
0.0%
28.4%
1.0%
21.8%
11.8%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%

Cimmerian_Moldova_359
Europe_Southeast
10.4%
13.8%
0.0%
42.0%
0.0%
0.0%
33.8%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%

Albanian
Europe_Southeast
62.8%
13.0%
0.4%
22.0%
0.0%
1.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%

Bulgarian
Europe_Southeast
56.0%
12.6%
2.8%
26.8%
0.0%
1.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%

JajarBingan
Europe_Southeast
50.2%
11.2%
3.8%
32.6%
0.0%
0.0%
2.2%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%

Moldovan
Europe_Southeast
49.6%
12.6%
4.8%
33.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%

Romanian
Europe_Southeast
56.0%
12.0%
2.8%
29.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%

Ukrainian
Europe_Northeast
41.8%
9.6%
8.0%
40.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%


























Getae_Average?
Europe_Southeast
54.2%
13.8%
1.8%
21.8%
1.4%
3.5%
1.9%
0.1%
1.4%
100.0%

Getae+Thracian_1:1 AVG
Europe_Southeast
64.2%
11.5%
0.9%
17.5%
0.7%
3.5%
1.0%
0.0%
0.7%
100.0%




East Slavs resemble one of the Scythians who might be the earliest proto-Slav that we got, Scythian_Ukraine_scy009. He still needs a bit of an EHG boost, which could have come from the local populace of the area, but otherwise his admix levels are in line with those of the East Slavs.

----------


## gidai

> Slavic has no ethnic meaning....it is just a linguistic family shared by many ethnicities. There's not a slavic race. Please read this book of florin Kurta
> 
> The making of the slavs : history and archaeology of the Lower Danube region, ca. 500-700"
> 
> This book offers a new approach to the problem of Slavic ethnicity in south eastern Europe between c. 500 and c. 700, from the perspective of current anthropological theories." "The conceptual emphasis here is on the relation between material culture and ethnicity. The author demonstrates that the history of the Sclavenes and the Antes begins only at around A.D. 500. He also points to the significance of the archaeological evidence, which suggests that specific artifacts may have been used as identity markers. This evidence also indicates the role of local leaders in building group boundaries and in leading successful raids across the Danube. The names of many powerful leaders appear in written sources, some being styled "king". Because of these military and political developments, Byzantine authors began employing names such as Sclavenes and Antes in order to make sense of the process of group identification that was taking place north of the Danube frontier. Slavic ethnicity is therefore shown to be a Byzantine invention."-


I think the same.

----------


## Wonomyro

Curta's theories on Slavs are passé. Genetics improved in a meantime so we now know much more on the origin of Sout Slavs then we knew ten or fifteen years ago.

----------

