# Population Genetics > Y-DNA Haplogroups >  Major new paper on Bulgarian Y-chromosomal haplogroups.

## Maciamo

PLOS ONE just released  Y-Chromosome Diversity in Modern Bulgarians: New Clues about Their Ancestry by Karachanak et al. Bulgaria was relatively undersampled to this day. This study, sampling 808 lineages from each of the 9 Bulgarian provinces, will provide valuable new insight, especially since it is the first research to look into the deep subclades of haplogroups G (10 subclades tested !), J2, Q, and R1b (8 subclades). It is a major improvement from the Bulgarian study by the same team five years ago, which didn't even differentiate the three main branches of I (I1, I2-M223 and I2-M423). Haplogroups non-listed in the table (C, H, L, R2) decrease by 0.7%.

Compared to the data I had computed on the Y-DNA tables (which I will update soon), this study shows a slightly higher frequency for haplogroups R1a (+2.5%), E1b1b (+2.1%), R1b (+2%) J1 (+1.5%), T (+1%), I1 (+0.8%), G (+0.8%), and N (+0.5%), but a lower percentage for J2 (-5%) and I2-M423 (-2%). The remaining I2-M223 and Q have virtually unchanged frequencies.

G-P303 (G2a1c2a in the present ISOGG nomenclature) is the dominant branch of *G2a* in Bulgaria, amounting to 3.1% of all paternal lineages. Two of its subclades are well represented : L497 (1.9%) and U1 (0.5%). Other forms of G2a only have trace frequencies, but nevertheless show a remarkable diversity. There were even samples of G2a* (P15).

In the Kurgan hypothesis, the scenario I favour for the spread of Indo-European people and languages, I postulated that *R1b* migrated from Anatolia to the Pontic Steppe in the Neolithic, then invaded the Danube basin from the late Chalcolithic and early Bronze Age, starting by roughly 5500 ybp. To confirm that hypothesis, R1b subclades should show some kind a gradient in time from east to west. In other words older subclades like *L23* should be most common in Southeast Europe, then decrease in frequency towards Western Europe, where newer subclades arose. This is exactly what we observe here, as the main Bulgarian subclade of R1b is L23, which makes up half of all R1b lineages. Most of the other R1b lineages are later Celtic, Roman or Germanic arrivals, or even older subclades (1% of M269).

The Celtic *R1b-S116* only makes up 0.7% of the Bulgarian gene pool, while the Celto-Roman *R1b-U152* is at 2.2%, a frequency in line with those observed in other parts of the Roman Empire outside the U152 homeland (Italy + Alps), be it Iberia, North Africa or Anatolia.

It's always interesting to try to find traces of *Germanic* lineages in southern Europe. In this case, it is the Goths who settled in the region in the 3rd century. Typical Germanic haplogroups include I1 (4.3%), I2a2 (former I2b, 1.7%) and R1b-U106 (1.2%). This would appear to confirm my previous estimate that the Goths carried far more I1 and I2b lineages than R1b. Unfortunately no R1a subclades were tested aside from M458, which is a Slavic branch. The Germanic subclade of interest for the Goths is Z284.

I wish I could comment on the *regional variations*, but only Sofia and Plovdiv have over 100 samples (the very minimum to be relevant), and some provinces have ridiculous sample sizes (e.g. n=15 for Varna and n=21 for Razgrad).


The authors of the paper make some bizarre assumptions, on which I will comment below.




> We found that the Y-chromosome gene pool in modern Bulgarians is primarily represented by Western Eurasian haplogroups with ~ 40% belonging to haplogroups E-V13 and I-M423, and 20% to R-M17. Haplogroups common in the Middle East (J and G) and in South Western Asia (R-L23*) occur at frequencies of 19% and 5%, respectively.


Why on earth would they classify E-V13 as Western Eurasian and not Middle Eastern or North African ? There is enough evidence (its presence across the Middle East, North Africa and Iberia) now to be confident that E-V13 did not originate in the Balkans, but probably in Northeast Africa like all other main subclades of E1b1b.

Note that Karanachak et al. already claimed in their 2008 Bulgarian study that E-V13 reached the Balkans 17,000 years ago and expanded from their in Neolithic times. They haven't learned anything in five years.




> The lineage analysis provided the following interesting results: (i) R-L23* is present in Eastern Bulgaria since the post glacial period; (ii) haplogroup E-V13 has a Mesolithic age in Bulgaria from where it expanded after the arrival of farming; (iii) haplogroup J-M241 probably reflects the Neolithic westward expansion of farmers from the earliest sites along the Black Sea.


In other words they are saying that R1b-L23 and E-V13 were already in Europe before the Neolithic. This is highly unlikely. That is a good example of why one shouldn't assume anything based on the age estimates using STR loci, which have proved unreliable many times before.

----------


## kamani

> It's always interesting to try to find traces of *Germanic* lineages in southern Europe. In this case, it is the Goths who settled in the region in the 3rd century. Typical Germanic haplogroups include I1 (4.3%), I2a2 (former I2b, 1.7%) and R1b-U106 (1.2%). This would appear to confirm my previous estimate that the Goths carried far more I1 and I2b lineages than R1b.


That I1 percentage seems too large to be the Goths, have you considered it being the Thracian elite that brought the thracian IE language in the Bronze Age?

----------


## Maciamo

I have now updated the Y-DNA frequencies for Bulgaria. I have made the total of this study, Rosser et al. (2000) and the latest data from the FTDNA Bulgaria Project (counting only those with the most remote patrilineal ancestor born in Bulgaria).

EDIT : I also updated the frequencies for Macedonia, adding the Trivodalieva (2010) study to the Pericic (2005) and Bosch (2006) that were used so far. It corrected the extravagant figure of 10% of I1 to a mere 3%. R1b and E1b1b were also reduced by 3% each, while I2-M423 increased significantly (+9%).

----------


## Maciamo

> That I1 percentage seems too large to be the Goths, have you considered it being the Thracian elite that brought the thracian IE language in the Bronze Age?


I really don't see where the Thracians would have got their I1 from. They were not of Nordic or Germanic origin.

Besides, the percentage of I1 is completely in line with that of neighbouring regions: 

- Serbia = 6% of I1
- Northern Greece = 5.5%
- Macedonia = 3% 
- Romania = 2%
- Albania = 2%

----------


## nordicwarrior

Regarding the claim that E-V13 is Western Eurasian, maybe the thought process was that if it was in the Balkans 17,000 years ago-- the amount of time out of Africa is reaching the span that some of the other non-African hg's have under their belt. 

Agree on the STR loci being unreliable. Too many variables, too much work needs to be done before these can be counted as a proper source.

In reference to the I1 in Thracians-- the artwork is vivid enough from this time period to get an idea of autosomal contents. If you carefully study the Thracian and Dacian statues it becomes more apparent who might belong to a group from the East, and who might belong to a group from the North. 

I don't know that we can say that there is no genetic Germanic or Nordic influence on Thracians or Dacians.

Edit-- the E-V13 Western Eurasian claim is somewhat odd... no doubt about it. Maybe authors of these papers should self-identify hg membership at the front of their work. There isn't a field more prone to ego bias than y-haplogroup genetic study afterall.

----------


## Maciamo

> Regarding the claim that E-V13 is Western Eurasian, maybe the thought process was that if it was in the Balkans 17,000 years ago-- the amount of time out of Africa is reaching the span that some of the other non-African hg's have under their belt.


If E-V13 indeed arrived in the Balkans 17,000 years ago, then yes, it could be called Western Eurasian. But the odds are far higher that it came from the Levant with Neolithic farmers and reached Bulgaria around 7,000 years ago.

----------


## Wilhelm

Maciamo, there was an E-V13 sample found from the Mesolithic in the Balkans, so it was definately there before neolithic.

----------


## Anthro-inclined

> Maciamo, there was an E-V13 sample found from the Mesolithic in the Balkans, so it was definately there before neolithic.


Are you talking about the find from spain, because that was neolithic, or was it another. Can you provide a link to site with info on it.

----------


## ElHorsto

> That I1 percentage seems too large to be the Goths, have you considered it being the Thracian elite that brought the thracian IE language in the Bronze Age?


Not Thracian, but part of I1 in the Balkans could be slavic. North slavs have slightly more I1.

----------


## Eldritch

> Not Thracian, but part of I1 in the Balkans could be slavic. North slavs have slightly more I1.


Higly Unlikely, Goths and other tribes are a plausible explanation.
Also Saxon Miners in Middle Ages.

----------


## Maciamo

> Not Thracian, but part of I1 in the Balkans could be slavic. North slavs have slightly more I1.


That's twisting history. Slavic I1 are also leftovers from Germanic tribes, either those that lived in Poland before the Slavic migrations in the late Antiquity, those who migrated to Eastern Europe during the Roman period (notably the Goths), Viking settlements in Eastern Europe (especially in Russia), or later German colonisation of Central and Eastern Europe (Poland, Bohemia, Hungary, Romania...). Since the Slavs who settled in Bulgaria didn't come from Poland or Bohemia, they shouldn't have had any I1.

----------


## Maciamo

> Maciamo, there was an E-V13 sample found from the Mesolithic in the Balkans, so it was definately there before neolithic.


Never heard of that. Please provide your sources.

----------


## Templar

Were any Mongoloid haplogroups present? The original Bulgars were Turkic people, so it wouldn't surprise if that was the case.

----------


## Yaan

> Never heard of that. Please provide your sources.


Please stop spreading rumors that the hard core European E-V13 is North African or Middle Eastern.If this is the truth then R1b is Anatolian and R1a is Central Asian. U always say how R1b is European coz the sublclades are European, well E-V13 is hard core European show me prove of E-V13 more then 3% anywhere in the world beside Europe and Druze are kinda suspicious. How can u say E-V13 is North African, if this is the truth ur favorite R1b is from Cameron. For the rest thank u for u work and thank u for finally posting real results for Bulgaria, now one of the few countries in the world with real results because samples bellow 500 are joke and combined samples also. I hope u will stop being so offensive and stop believing R1b is the only European haplogorup. Regards

----------


## Yaan

Of course not, and the original Bulgars were not Turkic,now also proved by genetics.read it and cry  :Rolleyes:

----------


## Templar

> Of course not, and the original Bulgars were not Turkic,now also proved by genetics.read it and cry


I wasn't trying to *****, you are being too emotional and defensive. Also read this:

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

----------


## Anthro-inclined

> Were any Mongoloid haplogroups present? The original Bulgars were Turkic people, so it wouldn't surprise if that was the case.


Read the study, it goes into extensive detail about the original Bulgars, The study says that less than 1.5% of the Bulgarian gene pool can be attributed to central Asian invaders, meaning Haplogroup C and Q. But this is just a segment of what was mentioned , read the study its very interesting.

----------


## Templar

> Read the study, it goes into extensive detail about the original Bulgars, The study says that less than 1.5% of the Bulgarian gene pool can be attributed to central Asian invaders, meaning Haplogroup C and Q. But this is just a segment of what was mentioned , read the study its very interesting.


I was feeling too lazy to read all of it, but I guess I should. Might have some other useful info hidden in there somewhere.

----------


## Yaan

Do not give we wikipedia as example, genetics,looks and language prove u wrong,so stop with the insults. Maybe the idiot Tito wanted us to be Tatars, but not so in the face of all Yugos! U have something from the Turks the religion,we do not so stop with insults

----------


## Templar

> Do not give we wikipedia as example, genetics,looks and language prove u wrong,so stop with the insults. Maybe the idiot Tito wanted us to be Tatars, but not so in the face of all Yugos! U have something from the Turks the religion,we do not so stop with insults


I wasn't trying to insult you. Most people believe that the Bulgars were a Turkic tribe (all my American history books do). Also don't use the word "Turks" to encompass both nomadic Turkic groups and the Ottoman Turks; they are completely different in many many ways. Oh and I was born after/during the fall of Yugoslavia so I don't know what you are talking about. This is a intellectual discussion, not a childish nationalist emotion-led flamewar. Chill brah.

----------


## Yaan

Show me one proof genetic or linguistic of ur insulting claim and since u were born after the fall of Yugoslavia do not talk to be about facts.Be proud of what u are offspring of the Muslims Ottomans !

----------


## Yaan

Read the paper!

----------


## Templar

> Read the paper!


There is a difference between the group called the Bulgars and moderm-day Bulgarians. Bulgars were a Turkic-Iranic nomadic group. Modern Bulgarians are a mix of Bulgars, Slavs, and the native population.

----------


## Templar

> Show me one proof genetic or linguistic of ur insulting claim and since u were born after the fall of Yugoslavia do not talk to be about facts.Be proud of what u are offspring of the Muslims Ottomans !


That is just uncalled for.

Just read this:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/84067/Bulgar

"*Bulgar**,* also called *Bulgarian* , member of a people known in eastern European history during the Middle Ages. A branch of this people was one of the primary three ethnic ancestors of modern Bulgarians (the other two were Thracians and Slavs).Many scholars posit the origins of the Bulgars as a Turkic tribe of Central Asia (perhaps with Iranian elements) and suggest that they arrived in the European steppe west of the Volga River with the Huns about 370 ce. Retreating with the Huns, they resettled about 460 in an arc of country north and east of the Sea of Azov. Hired by the Byzantines in 480 to fight against the Ostrogoths, the Bulgars subsequently became attracted by the wealth of the Byzantine Empire. In the 6th century the Bulgars continually attacked the Danubian provinces of the Byzantine Empire until, in the 560s, they were themselves threatened by the Avars, who were then advancing from Asia into central Europe. The Avars destroyed one Bulgar tribe, but the rest saved themselves by submitting, for two decades, to another horde of Turkic newcomers, most of whom then retreated back into Asia."

Pwned.

----------


## Yaan

If u have anything to say on the paper,please do so for the rest it is kinda boring and unpleasant what u r doing!

----------


## ElHorsto

> That's twisting history. Slavic I1 are also leftovers from Germanic tribes, either those that lived in Poland before the Slavic migrations in the late Antiquity, those who migrated to Eastern Europe during the Roman period (notably the Goths),


I don't understand. First you deny my claim that there was I1 in Slavs, but in the next sentence you even provide one explanation for how slavs earned I1 lineages: from east Germanic tribes. However, my point was not the origin of I1, but only who brought it to the balkans.It is very unlikely that slavs accidentally lost their just aquired I1 lineages after migrating to the balkans.




> Viking settlements in Eastern Europe (especially in Russia), or later German colonisation of Central and Eastern Europe (Poland, Bohemia, Hungary, Romania...). Since the Slavs who settled in Bulgaria didn't come from Poland or Bohemia, they shouldn't have had any I1.


Maybe not the bulgarian slavs (first wave), but probably Serbs and Croats (second wave). There are rumours about a moravia or bohemia connection, namely White Serbs (Sorbs?) or white Croats. They have considerably more I1 than Bulgarians.
Also there settled so many german miners in Romania that even today some still speak german there. But Romania has much less I1, similar to Albania. Coincidentally these are non-slavic nations.

To put it short, germanics or germans probably are responsible for some balkanic I1, but probably not entirely. Slavs are alternative candidates.

----------


## Yaan

How can u speak on Albanians,Serbians and Croats they do not have a sample of at least 500 so it is all fairy tale. lets speak on real samples. Bulgarian here on the site were presented in the beginning as almost no G,no it is close to 5, J2 was ranging between 15 and 30,now it is 10, R1b was first about 20,now it is about 10,etc,etc.So things for Serbs,Croats and Albanians would also change after they have a real sample. E-V13,I2a and R1a on the other side were OK.

----------


## Maciamo

> I don't understand. First you deny my claim that there was I1 in Slavs, but in the next sentence you even provide one explanation for how slavs earned I1 lineages: from east Germanic tribes. However, my point was not the origin of I1, but only who brought it to the balkans.It is very unlikely that slavs accidentally lost their just aquired I1 lineages after migrating to the balkans.


What you don't understand is the timeline. It is undeniable that _all_ modern Slavs, and indeed almost all modern Europeans (except Sardinians, Cypriots and a few isolated Iberian populations) have some I1 lineages. But the original Slavs, before the 5th century expansion from their homeland in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, almost certainly didn't have any I1. I was just explaining when Germanic people migrated to areas that are _now_ Slavic.

The only way you could consider that I1 came to Bulgaria with the Slavs, is if "leftover" Goths (those that didn't migrate to the Roman Empire) from the Dniester region were assimilated by the Slavs from Ukraine before they arrived in Bulgaria in the 6th century. But these people were still ultimately ethnic Goths at the time. I also don't see why these Goths would move with the Slavs. They were more likely displaced to Crimea by the Slavs around that time.





> Maybe not the bulgarian slavs (first wave), but probably Serbs and Croats (second wave). There are rumours about a moravia or bohemia connection, namely White Serbs (Sorbs?) or white Croats. They have considerably more I1 than Bulgarians.
> Also there settled so many german miners in Romania that even today some still speak german there. But Romania has much less I1, similar to Albania. Coincidentally these are non-slavic nations.


I am not aware of any major Serbian, Croatian, Czech or Sorbian migration to Bulgaria. Would you care to provide more information ? When did that happen ?

----------


## Maciamo

> How can u speak on Albanians,Serbians and Croats they do not have a sample of at least 500 so it is all fairy tale. lets speak on real samples. Bulgarian here on the site were presented in the beginning as almost no G,no it is close to 5, J2 was ranging between 15 and 30,now it is 10, R1b was first about 20,now it is about 10,etc,etc.So things for Serbs,Croats and Albanians would also change after they have a real sample. E-V13,I2a and R1a on the other side were OK.


Actually my previous calculations based on approximately 150 Bulgarians were pretty close to the new study, as I explained in the OP. Only J2 was off by more than 2.5%. A difference of 1% is nothing. Take 1000 samples from a country and a different set of 1000 samples, and there will surely be variations of 0.5 or 1% for many haplogroups. The frequencies on Eupedia for Albania, Serbia and Croatia are all based on sample sizes ranging from 300 to 500, which is not _that_ different from 800.

----------


## Yaan

> Actually my previous calculations based on approximately 150 Bulgarians were pretty close to the new study, as I explained in the OP. Only J2 was off by more than 2.5%. A difference of 1% is nothing. Take 1000 samples from a country and a different set of 1000 samples, and there will surely be variations of 0.5 or 1% for many haplogroups. The frequencies on Eupedia for Albania, Serbia and Croatia are all based on sample sizes ranging from 300 to 500, which is not _that_ different from 800.


Thanks for the info but I have never heard of Albanians and Serbs sampaled more then 150 or something, combined samples I do not think are good, and I think u r doing a pretty good job, it is just that for u R1b is everything and there are no samples on Albanians they have a bunch of 30-120 or samples. :)

----------


## Maciamo

> Read the study, it goes into extensive detail about the original Bulgars, The study says that less than 1.5% of the Bulgarian gene pool can be attributed to central Asian invaders, meaning Haplogroup C and Q. But this is just a segment of what was mentioned , read the study its very interesting.


Except that the "original Bulgars" were probably a predominantly R1a people, like most pre-Mongol Central Asians. In fact, it is just as likely that C and Q came with such people as the Huns and the Mongols as with the Bulgars. The best proof is that C and Q are found all over Eastern Europe, and not just in Bulgaria.

----------


## Yaan

> I am not aware of any major Serbian, Croatian, Czech or Sorbian migration to Bulgaria. Would you care to provide more information ? When did that happen ?


There is no Serbian or Croat migration to Bulgaria, in Bulgaria there are more Swedish or American people than Serb and Croat, it is a Yugo dream, please do not pay attention to this mambo jambo

----------


## Pillar_of_Fire

> Of course not, and the original Bulgars were not Turkic,now also proved by genetics.read it and cry


Turkic - Тюрки is quite different from Turkish - Турци. The English does not help in this case. 

This study is trying to prove that the proto-Bulgarians are having different origin not from Altai, but from Pamir.  :Thinking:

----------


## Yaan

It is rather then that making us one of the best represented people in Europe.Nobody cares about Pamir,it is just I am so happy some pathetic people that hate Bulgaria now also have the genetics in their face. I know that Turkic is different then Turks of course.The Turkic people were a lot R1a with some Q,J2,N

----------


## Yetos

> Maciamo, there was an E-V13 sample found from the Mesolithic in the Balkans, so it was definately there before neolithic.




the oldest in Europe is in Iberia Mesolithic-Neolithic, 
the most close to Hemos peninsula is at Konya, modern Turkey about 2000 BC

among the Iberian and minor asian there are enough 'empty' spaces,
except if an independent 'maritime' neolithic entrance happened to balkans,

Yet the thing I excpect most is a genetical data on Varna Necropolis,
it would solve many questions,
Varna Necropolis for me is oyster that hides the 'pearl'.

----------


## ElHorsto

> What you don't understand is the timeline. It is undeniable that _all_ modern Slavs, and indeed almost all modern Europeans (except Sardinians, Cypriots and a few isolated Iberian populations) have some I1 lineages. But the original Slavs, before the 5th century expansion from their homeland in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, almost certainly didn't have any I1. I was just explaining when Germanic people migrated to areas that are _now_ Slavic.
> 
> The only way you could consider that I1 came to Bulgaria with the Slavs, is if "leftover" Goths (those that didn't migrate to the Roman Empire) from the Dniester region were assimilated by the Slavs from Ukraine before they arrived in Bulgaria in the 6th century. But these people were still ultimately ethnic Goths at the time. I also don't see why these Goths would move with the Slavs. They were more likely displaced to Crimea by the Slavs around that time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not aware of any major Serbian, Croatian, Czech or Sorbian migration to Bulgaria. Would you care to provide more information ? When did that happen ?


Serbia and Croatia have more I1 than Bulgaria, hence it a minor problem to explain bulgarian I1: by neighbourhood diffusion. For instance the Serbs were part of the first Bulgarian empire in 900 CE. It would be interesting to know wether I1 is more concentrated in western Bulgaria.

It is more interesting to explain the higher I1 in Croats and Serbs. Here are the mentionend rumours:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Serbs

I remember this topic was discussed frequently in this forum, but more in connection to I2.

(I wanted to post some maps, but for some reason I can't post anymore even the tinyest pictures due to "quota reasons")

----------


## Yaan

Check the table it is more in Varna and Plovdiv, but both have a lot of Bulgarians from the regions of Macedonia and Thrace, also how do u know what Croats and Serbs have they do not have a sample above 500 :)

----------


## Maciamo

> Please stop spreading rumors that the hard core European E-V13 is North African or Middle Eastern.If this is the truth then R1b is Anatolian and R1a is Central Asian. U always say how R1b is European coz the sublclades are European, well E-V13 is hard core European show me prove of E-V13 more then 3% anywhere in the world beside Europe and Druze are kinda suspicious. How can u say E-V13 is North African, if this is the truth ur favorite R1b is from Cameron. For the rest thank u for u work and thank u for finally posting real results for Bulgaria, now one of the few countries in the world with real results because samples bellow 500 are joke and combined samples also. I hope u will stop being so offensive and stop believing R1b is the only European haplogorup. Regards


I have always said that haplogroup R1* was Central Asian. R1a* came from the Eurasian steppe, even if it isn't clear where exactly. R1b* probably arose in Central or South Asia, then moved to the Middle East, where it became R1b1* (P25). R1b-M269 arose either in Anatolia or in the Pontic Steppes. Only subclades downstream of L11 can be considered "native European", but will always keep their Middle Eastern and Central Asian ancestry as part of the R1b family. Apparently you didn't read anything in my R1b history.

E-V13 simply couldn't have originated in the Balkans because it is found all the way from Egypt eastwards to Morocco and westwards to the Arabian peninsula, Anatolia, Azerbaijan, Iran, and perhaps even in Pakistan and India, in addition to Europe. But don't forget that E-V13 is an old haplogroup (like R1b1*) with plenty of subclades, and many of them did arise in the Balkans. But E-V13 didn't. It could not have spread throughout West Asia, South Asia and North Africa if it had originated in the Balkans.

You can check these papers if you doubt my word : 

- E-V13 in North Africa and the Middle East : Tracing Past Human Male Movements in Northern/Eastern Africa and Western Eurasia

- E-V13 in Iran : Ancient Migratory Events in the Middle East: New Clues from the Y-Chromosome Variation of Modern Iranians

----------


## DejaVu

Modern Bulgarians are not the original Bulgarians (Bulgars)? Who are you then? A mix of different people? Why do your history connect you with the original bulgars? Your language is not Bulgar but slavic. Fabrication of historical facts and false claims.

----------


## Yetos

*for info about Slavic and Bulgarian migrations*

Bulgarians or Bal+gur (5 clans)were a Turkic tribe (not Turkish-Ottoman),
they enter from Ucraine to Romania to East parts of modern Bulgaria (Asparuch)
Balgur always travel with Slavic tribes of Severi (seven tribes) which also came same time from Ucraine through ROmania,
they settled west of Veliko Tyrnovo and Ryce (Rouse) around Phillipopolis to Sofia,
the unification among Severi, Balgur and older population created modern Bulgarian Ethnicity.

on the other part, 
Serbs are mentioned to enter from North parts of Great Moravia, among Poland Germany and Czechia
Croats are mention to enter from Eastern parts, somewhere around Routhinia-Ucraine-Lithuania

----------


## Pillar_of_Fire

I am wondering why they did not contact FTDNA (requested permission, etc, etc) and included as additional group the testees there, allocating the most distant parental ancestor to the respective region? There is a total of 133 testees (excluding the visitors and the Bulgarian muslims).

----------


## ElHorsto

> Modern Bulgarians are not the original Bulgarians (Bulgars)? Who are you then? A mix of different people? Why do your history connect you with the original bulgars? Fabrication of false historical facts and claims.


Look at the history of the many Bulgar empires and you will see than dozens of other people could claim to be bulgars the same way:
Tadjiks, Tatars, Chuvashs, Balkhars, Moldavians, Mordvins, Utmurts.... Whis one is the right "Bulgaria"? They all were once members of a constantly moving and reshaping Bulgarian state. Heck, half of Russia was once Bulgar. Modern Bulgaria is just a name. France coincidentally kept the name from the germanic Franks, but not germanic Germany .

----------


## Yaan

Get a life *****!Why are Russians called after Scandinavians and the French after Germanic u seem really uninformed I would not be surprised if u are Yugoslav or Albanian, ha ha ha ha, I smell u from miles guys

----------


## Yaan

I am referring to the hater Deje vu above

----------


## Yaan

> I have always said that haplogroup R1* was Central Asian. R1a* came from the Eurasian steppe, even if it isn't clear where exactly. R1b* probably arose in Central or South Asia, then moved to the Middle East, where it became R1b1* (P25). R1b-M269 arose either in Anatolia or in the Pontic Steppes. Only subclades downstream of L11 can be considered "native European", but will always keep their Middle Eastern and Central Asian ancestry as part of the R1b family. Apparently you didn't read anything in my R1b history.
> 
> E-V13 simply couldn't have originated in the Balkans because it is found all the way from Egypt eastwards to Morocco and westwards to the Arabian peninsula, Anatolia, Azerbaijan, Iran, Pakistan and India, in addition to Europe. But don't forget that E-V13 is an old haplogroup (like R1b1*) with plenty of subclades, and many of them did arise in the Balkans. But E-V13 didn't. It could not have spread throughout West Asia, South Asia and North Africa if it had originated in the Balkans.
> 
> You can check these papers if you doubt my word : 
> 
> - E-V13 in North Africa and the Middle East : Tracing Past Human Male Movements in Northern/Eastern Africa and Western Eurasia
> 
> - E-V13 in Iran : Ancient Migratory Events in the Middle East: New Clues from the Y-Chromosome Variation of Modern Iranians


Yes yes and any sample above 2-3% no, it is because of Ancient Balkan people going to this places. Plain and simple.

----------


## Yaan

> Look at the history of the many Bulgar empires and you will see than dozens of other people could claim to be bulgars the same way:
> Tadjiks, Tatars, Chuvashs, Balkhars, Moldavians, Mordvins, Utmurts.... Whis one is the right "Bulgaria"? They all were once members of a constantly moving and reshaping Bulgarian state. Heck, half of Russia was once Bulgar. Modern Bulgaria is just a name. France coincidentally kept the name from the germanic Franks, but not germanic Germany .


Now that is a good post, not a post of people unfamiliar that do not understand and come here to make themselves better about their inferiority complex.Cheers

----------


## DejaVu

> I am referring to the hater Deje vu above


Who is hater? You should know your history. Where is the bulgars in bulgaria? If there is no bulgars there should be no reason for the country Bulgaria to be be named Bulgaria. Claim of the identity of all original bulgars. Dont you think this is wrong (The name and the claim) ?

----------


## kamani

> I really don't see where the Thracians would have got their I1 from. They were not of Nordic or Germanic origin.
> 
> Besides, the percentage of I1 is completely in line with that of neighbouring regions: 
> 
> - Serbia = 6% of I1
> - Northern Greece = 5.5%
> - Macedonia = 3% 
> - Romania = 2%
> - Albania = 2%


The goths have been in the area for hundreds of years, right before the fall of the roman empire, so it is hard to say it is not them, but where is the gothic R1a?

----------


## nordicwarrior

What's interesting to me is the amount of buzz this thread has generated. Maciamo's earlier post moving haplogroup A back to 338,000 B.C. made not much more than a small splash, and this post (which doesn't have THAT much new information really) ignitates some intense debate.

We are an entertaining species, although one that's not so easy to predict.

----------


## Yaan

> Who is hater? You should know your history. Where is the bulgars in bulgaria? If there is no bulgars there should be no reason for the country Bulgaria to be be named Bulgaria. Claim of the identity of all original bulgars. Dont you think this is wrong (The name and the claim) ?


Just be a man and tell r u Yugoslav,Albanian,Gypsy or Turk :Bored:

----------


## ElHorsto

> Who is hater? You should know your history. Where is the bulgars in bulgaria? If there is no bulgars there should be no reason for the country Bulgaria to be be named Bulgaria. Claim of the identity of all original bulgars. Dont you think this is wrong (The name and the claim) ?


The name Bulgaria just happen to be the legacy of the last state in this territory. Before there was Byzantinum, Rome, Thrace. There is no reason to assume that the population corresponds to the ancestry of the last state founders. It is a political designation.

It is amazing how a simple label can change the feelings and destiny of a whole nation and its perception from outside. 
Today there are people from Tatarstan who read in wikipedia that their territory once belonged to Wolga-Bulgaria until 1200 CE and seek citizenship in modern Bulgaria. Their Bulgaria ceased to exist, so they spot an alternative country with the same name in the Balkans and they start inventing mythical ancestries. Also Hungarians were perceived as plain asians, which turned out to be 99% false.

----------


## zanipolo

There where no Goths in mainland sweden, so they cannot have had I1, although they could have carried it , with migrations of geats to the vistula.

Lets not confuse these peoples........
Goths = Germanic or Baltic people who most likely where R1a, lived on the south baltic coast. Old Prussian lands.
Geats = lived in south sweden, most likely I1 , no relation to goths.
Gutes = gotland island, ancient migrations from east baltic lands , over 4000 year sold.
Gepids = germanic people in modern Polish lands, not near the coast - said to be related to Goths, most likely R1a
Getae = thracians mixed with sarmatians roxalani tribe


check site below on the Bulgarians and there take on it.

http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com.au/

On a side note I was also curious on the map of R1b....check the all green circle for austria and north-east Italy

----------


## Maciamo

> The name Bulgaria just happen to be the legacy of the last state in this territory. Before there was Byzantinum, Rome, Thrace. There is no reason to assume that the population corresponds to the ancestry of the last state founders. It is a political designation.
> 
> It is amazing how a simple label can change the feelings and destiny of a whole nation and its perception from outside. 
> Today there are people from Tatarstan who read in wikipedia that their territory once belonged to Wolga-Bulgaria until 1200 CE and seek citizenship in modern Bulgaria. Their Bulgaria ceased to exist, so they spot an alternative country with the same name in the Balkans and they start inventing mythical ancestries. Also Hungarians were perceived as plain asians, which turned out to be 99% false.


I completely agree with you.  :Wink:

----------


## Maciamo

> There where no Goths in mainland sweden, so they cannot have had I1, although they could have carried it , with migrations of geats to the vistula.
> 
> Lets not confuse these peoples........
> Goths = Germanic or Baltic people who most likely where R1a, lived on the south baltic coast. Old Prussian lands.
> Geats = lived in south sweden, most likely I1 , no relation to goths.
> Gutes = gotland island, ancient migrations from east baltic lands , over 4000 year sold.
> Gepids = germanic people in modern Polish lands, not near the coast - said to be related to Goths, most likely R1a
> Getae = thracians mixed with sarmatians roxalani tribe


I don't know where you get the idea that the Goths who invaded the Roman Empire were not related to the Goths from Sweden, but I can only disagree. All the Germanic people you list are descended from Scandinavians, for the simple reason that all Germanic tribes have Scandinavian ancestry. Germanic people, culture and language originated in the Nordic Bronze Age. Only in the Iron Age did they expand south to Germany and Poland. If tribes like the Goths, Gutes and Getae have similar names, it is most probably because they were originally the same tribe that split. The same thing happened with Celtic tribes too.

----------


## Jackson

> There where no Goths in mainland sweden, so they cannot have had I1, although they could have carried it , with migrations of geats to the vistula.
> 
> Lets not confuse these peoples........
> Goths = Germanic or Baltic people who most likely where R1a, lived on the south baltic coast. Old Prussian lands.
> Geats = lived in south sweden, most likely I1 , no relation to goths.
> Gutes = gotland island, ancient migrations from east baltic lands , over 4000 year sold.
> Gepids = germanic people in modern Polish lands, not near the coast - said to be related to Goths, most likely R1a
> Getae = thracians mixed with sarmatians roxalani tribe
> 
> ...


And also it's extremely unlikely the Goths or Gepids would have been entirely R1a or the Geats entirely I1. The Irish are some of the most R1b people you can get and they still only reach 98% in more remote areas.

----------


## nordicwarrior

> I don't know where you get the idea that the Goths who invaded the Roman Empire were not related to the Goths from Sweden, but I can only disagree. All the Germanic people you list are descended from Scandinavians, for the simple reason that all Germanic tribes have Scandinavian ancestry... If tribes like the Goths, Gutes and Getae have similar names, it is most probably because they were originally the same tribe that split. The same thing happened with Celtic tribes too.


100% in agreement.

----------


## zanipolo

> And also it's extremely unlikely the Goths or Gepids would have been entirely R1a or the Geats entirely I1. The Irish are some of the most R1b people you can get and they still only reach 98% in more remote areas.


- There's a lack of Scandinavian-specific R1a-Z284 in Continental Europe. So, basically the only marker would be I .
There is minimal I1 in goth areas on the continent.


below -goths movements
a (orange) - *Zone A* (200 BC - and of 4th century AC)
b (blue) - *Zone B* (150 BC - 200 AC)
c (yellow) - *Zone CN* "Gothiskandza" (abt. 70-200 AC)
d (light yellow) - *Zone CS* (abt. 80-200 AC)
e (green) - *Zone D* (abt. 100-350 AC)

----------


## zanipolo

> I don't know where you get the idea that the Goths who invaded the Roman Empire were not related to the Goths from Sweden, but I can only disagree. All the Germanic people you list are descended from Scandinavians, for the simple reason that all Germanic tribes have Scandinavian ancestry. Germanic people, culture and language originated in the Nordic Bronze Age. Only in the Iron Age did they expand south to Germany and Poland. If tribes like the Goths, Gutes and Getae have similar names, it is most probably because they were originally the same tribe that split. The same thing happened with Celtic tribes too.



since there is no swedish R1a in goth areas on the mainland, we are left with I1 , maybe some Q and N.
Tell me what are the "swedish" goth markers in the areas between poland and the black sea.

The GEATS are south swedish people who are confused with the GOTHS. There are accounts of invasions to the vistula delta and also Geats invasion against the jutes of jutland and the 4 invasion of frisian lands.

same names rarely mean same people....this has been proven time and time again by historians

The only reason the swedes claim GOTH homeland is to claim a history they do not have ........a history for the royal family , exactly the same as when they also say they are kings of the wends.
Never believe the stories of any monarchy , it all distortion of truths

Also Roman and Greek historians have only goths on the mainland

(a) Ptolomaeus (A.D. 161-182), the famous ancient geographer, mathematician and astronomer, in his treatise Geogr. lib. 3. cap. 5. writes:

Elattova de eunh vemetai Saomatian, paoa men ton Ouistoulan potamon. Upo touj Ouenedaj, Guuwnej. Eita Finnoi. 

This, when translated into English, means: "The less significant people abide in Sarmatia, near the mouth of the Vistula river. Beyond the Venedi are Guthones. Then the Finns.

Pytheas before at around 320BC .....goths only on the continent picking up amber from the sea-shore.

Pytheas credidit Guttonibus Germaniae genti, accoli Aestuarium oceani, MENTO NOMON nomine, spatio stadiorum sex millium. Ab hoc die navigatione
insulam abesse Abalum. Illo vero fluctibus advehi et esse concreti maris purgamentum.

as translated -"Pytheas believed that the Guttones were of German race, but was unsure, living by the Aestuarian sea (Baltic sea), at the mouth of the river named NOMON, at the stretch of 6,000 stadii. Sailing a day. Pytheus never knew of baltic people, so called all people germanics, but the river Nomon is stated.
native land of the Goths was by the Aestuarian sea (by the Baltic sea), exactly where the Aestians (Aestii = Lithuanian ancestors) lived. And in the original Greek manuscript would be Men to Nouon. Hence the word "MENTO" equals the Greek people, to which means "MOUTH of the RIVER"; --- and the word "NOMON" means "NEMON" (= Niemen).

----------


## nordicwarrior

[QUOTE=zanipolo;404872]- There's a lack of Scandinavian-specific R1a-Z284 in Continental Europe. So, basically the only marker would be I .
There is minimal I1 in goth areas on the continent.[QUOTE]

Not quite, the major groups in Scandinavia are I1, R1a, and R1b. You're overlooking R1b.

----------


## zanipolo

[QUOTE=nordicfoyer;404874][QUOTE=zanipolo;404872]- There's a lack of Scandinavian-specific R1a-Z284 in Continental Europe. So, basically the only marker would be I .
There is minimal I1 in goth areas on the continent.


> Not quite, the major groups in Scandinavia are I1, R1a, and R1b. You're overlooking R1b.


Advise me on which R1b marker


EDIT - I will help you.

of the 39 samples in southern sweden , Geats area i.e scandia. The R1b is made up of
75% U106
13% M167
12% S116

----------


## nordicwarrior

[QUOTE=zanipolo;404875][QUOTE=nordicfoyer;404874]


> - There's a lack of Scandinavian-specific R1a-Z284 in Continental Europe. So, basically the only marker would be I .
> There is minimal I1 in goth areas on the continent.
> 
> Advise me on which R1b marker
> 
> 
> EDIT - I will help you.
> 
> of the 39 samples in southern sweden , Geats area i.e scandia. The R1b is made up of
> ...


Zanipolo, I may be missing something, but for R1b in Southern Sweden wouldn't you want to consider RS21(U106), S28(U-152), and L21(S145)? I'm going off of Maciamo's updated maps for the area. The different naming systems of FTDNA and the International group have me all confused... are we talking about the same three branches?

----------


## zanipolo

[QUOTE=nordicfoyer;404892][QUOTE=zanipolo;404875]


> Zanipolo, I may be missing something, but for R1b in Southern Sweden wouldn't you want to consider RS21(U106), S28(U-152), and L21(S145)? I'm going off of Maciamo's updated maps for the area. The different naming systems of FTDNA and the International group have me all confused... are we talking about the same three branches?


Although U106 is there now , it was not in sweden at the time of the goths, U106 came from the continent, so you are left with the others

----------


## nordicwarrior

Well the main point is that R1b makes up the lion share of Goths, regardless of which branch. And I have Goths spending quite some time in Scandinavia and also have I1 as a minor Goth contributor, with their percentages even lower today because of daughtering out. 

The heavy I1 line (Swedes) did drive the Goths South out of Scandinavia. So maybe that accounts for what we see in Bulgaria today.

----------


## OMG

> How can u speak on Albanians,Serbians and Croats they do not have a sample of at least 500 so it is all fairy tale.


Croats do have a sample of at least 500. More precisely, they have a sample of 1100.

I would have provided you with a link but since I am not allowed to post links until I collect 10 posts, you might want to search google for an article called "Croatian national reference Y-STR haplotype database".

Cheers.

----------


## Yaan

> Croats do have a sample of at least 500. More precisely, they have a sample of 1100.
> 
> I would have provided you with a link but since I am not allowed to post links until I collect 10 posts, you might want to search google for an article called "Croatian national reference Y-STR haplotype database".
> 
> Cheers.


Really interesting!Thanks, but I could not find the results, if u can not post, just write the % for the different groups. Thank u! Cheers! :)

----------


## zanipolo

> Well the main point is that R1b makes up the lion share of Goths, regardless of which branch. And I have Goths spending quite some time in Scandinavia and also have I1 as a minor Goth contributor, with their percentages even lower today because of daughtering out. 
> 
> The heavy I1 line (Swedes) did drive the Goths South out of Scandinavia. So maybe that accounts for what we see in Bulgaria today.


Doubt that very much.

Scholars are split 50-50 in regards to even having any goths in Sweden....the "goths" in Sweden are the GEATS. Are Geats similar to goths, or the Gutes, are they similar with the goths. 

There is a far greater percentage that original goths where R1a

----------


## DejaVu

Are the Bulgarians the descendants of Bulgars or not? If not who are they?

----------


## Yaan

> Are the Bulgarians the descendents of Bulgars or not? If not who are they?


Bulgarians are descendants of Bulgars,Thrchians and Slavs!

----------


## Yaan

Would i guys stop speaking about Vikings,Germanics etc in topic about Bulgarians! :)

----------


## DejaVu

Which haplogroups are connected to the Bulgars, Thracians and Slavs? How many percentage for each in Bulgaria?

----------


## Yaan

> Which haplogroups are connected to the Bulgars, Thracians and Slavs? How many percentage for each in Bulgaria?


Genetics does not works like this. MT DNA is uber important as well. 
Bulgars were R1a(some subtype),J2(some subtype),G2a(some subtype)
Thrachians were E-V13,G2a(some subtype)J2(some subtype),R1b(some subtype)
Slavs ere R1a(somesubtype),I2a,but E-V13,I1,N(some subtype) were also present
But this is just for u,but u need to understand that genetics does not work like this. 
The things that Bulgarians and Volga Tatars share is J2b,I1,R1a so lets be playfull and say these were the Bulgar things but it does not work like this. Also why all this questions about Bulgars in a study about Bulgarians. If the research was about remains of Bulgars,Thrchians or Slavs OK, but it is about the Bulgarians ,who have the blood of all three

----------


## Mikewww

> ....
> In other words they are saying that R1b-L23 and E-V13 were already in Europe before the Neolithic. This is highly unlikely. That is a good example of why one shouldn't assume anything based on the age estimates using STR loci, which have proved unreliable many times before.


I think STR diversity is highly useful, but using a handful or two of STRs is not enough. It is also important to discern potential launch points versus crossroads which could have deceptively high diversity because mixing. Another problem is that many of these studies use evolutionary mutation rates.

Below are the R1b by clade age estimates that I pulled out Marko Heinila's analysis in 2011 along with Anatole Klyosov's summary estimates in his 2012 paper. Heinila has a different method. It's based on STRs still, but uses the "maximum likelihood" method rather than a pure variance based approach. Klyosov does do some checking to see if he feels he has a representative sample. Both were using long haplotypes and doing some STR selection/deselection based on linearity. You can see they are not that much different.

K years before present

Marko Heinila _ Anatole Klyosov

M343_ 14.0 __ 14.0

V88__ _9.5 __ _6.9
v88__ ____ __ _4.3 (Africa)
V69__ ____ __ _4.3

M73__ _7.2 __ _8.0

M269_ _5.7 __ _7.0
L23__ _5.7 __ _6.2
L51__ _4.9 __ _4.9
L11__ _4.8 __ _4.6
U106_ _4.5 __ _4.2
P312_ _4.2 __ _4.2
U152_ _4.2 
L2___ _4.2
L21__ _4.2

The above are all based on germ-line mutation rates, but they seem to fit in with the Karafet 2008 SNP counting method of 18.5 k ybp estimate for R1.

Caveat: These are not precise estimates.

----------


## Maciamo

> I think STR diversity is highly useful, but using a handful or two of STRs is not enough. It is also important to discern potential launch points versus crossroads which could have deceptively high diversity because mixing. Another problem is that many of these studies use evolutionary mutation rates.
> 
> Below are the R1b by clade age estimates that I pulled out Marko Heinila's analysis in 2011 along with Anatole Klyosov's summary estimates in his 2012 paper. Heinila has a different method. It's based on STRs still, but uses the "maximum likelihood" method rather than a pure variance based approach. Klyosov does do some checking to see if he feels he has a representative sample. Both were using long haplotypes and doing some STR selection/deselection based on linearity. You can see they are not that much different.
> 
> K years before present
> 
> Marko Heinila _ Anatole Klyosov
> 
> M343_ 14.0 __ 14.0
> ...


These estimates match almost completely my timeline of R1b history and my proposed migration map, except that I have considerably older ages for M343 (25k ybp) and a slightly older one for V88 (12k ybp). 

After that, the age estimates are basically the same. I postulated that R1b-M269 and R1b-M73 moved from Anatolia to the North Caucasus and the Pontic-Caspian Steppe circa 7000 ybp. The first invasion of "Old Europe" would have started with the Usatovo Culture (around Moldavia) circa 5500 ybp, which matches the age of L23. R1b would then have taken approx. 1000 years to spread to Central Europe from the Balkans, under the form of L11. The arrival of the Bronze Age in Western Europe from 4500 to 4000 ybp matches exactly the age Western European lineages : S106 and P312.

----------


## nordicwarrior

> Would i guys stop speaking about Vikings,Germanics etc in topic about Bulgarians! :)


Yaan, that's what we were trying to do. Putting the pieces together sometimes requires working further back in time-- and also the study of neighboring areas.

Mikewww, nice read on the timeline. You have a good eye for genetic developments.

----------


## zanipolo

> Yaan, that's what we were trying to do. Putting the pieces together sometimes requires working further back in time-- and also the study of neighboring areas.
> 
> Mikewww, nice read on the timeline. You have a good eye for genetic developments.


would these be inaccurate from 2 year sago

http://mtdna.gentis.ru/hg/ages.htm

----------


## kokki

Relationship History-haplogroup is tempting, but still unreliable . However, apparently the modern Bulgarians are more than 50% of the population before 3500 years .There is no other explanation for the presence of E1b1b1a and J2b2 in all Balkan peoples. Apparently Slavs are predominantly I2a1b. Do not forget that haplogroup accompanying at least 20-30 percent of the above. This leaves little to the proto-Bulgarians / Iranian customs, but turkski language /. .In 681 years have been a mixture R1b1a2 / mostly /, R1a1, J2 and J1 certain and rare haplogroup / G, Q, N, C, /.

----------


## kokki

For me it was shocking closeness between Bulgarians and Romanians autosomal DNA / DNA even Y / . Cause disbelief when I mention in front of friends. How misleads language!!!

----------


## ElHorsto

> Relationship History-haplogroup is tempting, but still unreliable . However, apparently the modern Bulgarians are more than 50% of the population before 3500 years .There is no other explanation for the presence of E1b1b1a and J2b2 in all Balkan peoples. Apparently Slavs are predominantly I2a1b. Do not forget that haplogroup accompanying at least 20-30 percent of the above. This leaves little to the proto-Bulgarians / Iranian customs, but turkski language /. .In 681 years have been a mixture R1b1a2 / mostly /, R1a1, J2 and J1 certain and rare haplogroup / G, Q, N, C, /.


Can you tell from where you know the ancient turkic haplogroups? Thanks.

Otherwise I agree with you, and might add some comments:
By autosomal analysis bulgarians and romanians are basically identical. They are basically like Tuscans with less Atlantic_med and more North_euro instead. Look at K12b (my favourite) for instance (1st row - Tuscan, 2nd - Bulgarians, 3rd - Romanians):

*Gedrosia*
*Siberian*
*Northwest_African*
*Southeast_Asian*
*Atlantic_Med*
*North_European*
*South_Asian*
*East_African*
*Southwest_Asian*
*East_Asian*
*Caucasus*
*Sub_Saharan*




4.8
0
0
0
37.9
18.7
0.5
0
7.2
0.5
30.5
0


3.3
0.3
0.5
0
23.7
34.8
0.5
0
6.4
0.4
30.1
0


3
0.3
0
0
24.6
36
1.5
0
5.9
0.3
28.4
0



The autosomals (coincidentally?) match well the Y-HG. There is no autosomal component where asian proto-bulgarians could hide.
So either Romanians and Bulgarians both descent from Bulgars, or none of them.
There is one small possibility that proto-Bulgarians where purely west-asian (iranians from the caucasus, Balkharia?). They could "hide" inside the Caucasus component, but then again, why do Romanians and Tuscans have exactly the same percentage? 

Second, assuming proto-bulgarians were more like Tatars then we should see a distinct asian signal and more north_european. But there is no asian, only increased North_euro, which makes more sense for slavs rather than bulgars. But again the question, why Romanians and Bulgarians have the same North_euro percentage if Bulgars were north_european and ancestors of Bulgarians only?
So far there is no trace of proto-bulgarians, which surprises me also.

----------


## ElHorsto

> For me it was shocking closeness between Bulgarians and Romanians autosomal DNA / DNA even Y / . Cause disbelief when I mention in front of friends. How misleads language!!!


Oh, it seems our posts crossed  :Wink:

----------


## Eldritch

Romanians are heavily Slavic shifted as far as i know.

----------


## ElHorsto

> Romanians are heavily Slavic shifted as far as i know.


Correct. Then the comparison of Romanians with Bulgarians is even more significant.

EDIT: my estimate is max. 30% Slavic ancestry in Romanians/Bulgarians.

----------


## ElHorsto

The 30% slavs would also perfectly explain not only the elevated North_euro but also the reduced Atlantic_med compared to Tuscans (or central Italians).

----------


## brendo

> Romanians are heavily Slavic shifted as far as i know.


More shifted to Hungarians. But Bulgarians, altought we are Southern Slavs cluster with them. img546.imageshack.us/img546/693/webga101.png 



> EDIT: my estimate is max. 30% Slavic ancestry in Romanians/Bulgarians.


North Atlantic + Baltic 
Bulgarians 7.31% + 34.91%
Romanians 9.8% + 34.65%
docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AkbFGFGkvhh9dF9Va3ZpU3VnRVBTb1ZJckJBYWhGc mc&output=html
Imo the rest of Med + West Asian comes from the local Balkan tribes eg. Thracians, Ilyrians, Dacians etc.

----------


## nordicwarrior

I see we are incorporating autosomal results in with y-DNA findings. That should move things further along and improve the accuracy of settlement populations.

----------


## ElHorsto

> More shifted to Hungarians. But Bulgarians, altought we are Southern Slavs cluster with them. img546.imageshack.us/img546/693/webga101.png 
> 
> North Atlantic + Baltic 
> Bulgarians 7.31% + 34.91%
> Romanians 9.8% + 34.65%
> docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AkbFGFGkvhh9dF9Va3ZpU3VnRVBTb1ZJckJBYWhGc mc&output=html
> Imo the rest of Med + West Asian comes from the local Balkan tribes eg. Thracians, Ilyrians, Dacians etc.


These are very interesting correlation tables, thanks!

One little comment to admixtures:
Imo, separating North_atlantic and Baltic is problematic, since they have much more overlap than differences, as one also might expect from their geographic proximity. That's why I trust K12b much more. North_atlantic merely reflects North_euro+Atlantic_med+Gedrosia (K12b), whereas Baltic is North_euro+Caucasus (K12b). K12b shows that the small percentages of Gedrosia and Caucasus admixture are the main reason why these regions become so much separated in other runs.

----------


## zanipolo

> For me it was shocking closeness between Bulgarians and Romanians autosomal DNA / DNA even Y / . Cause disbelief when I mention in front of friends. How misleads language!!!


Realise that the ancient people of both Bulgaria and Romania are the same , that is THRACIAN

----------


## Goga

According to mean ancient Bulgarian tribes were Iranic originally from Kurdistan. Those NOMADIC Aryan tribes left the Iranian palteau and went to the steppes and Central Asia.

There is lots of Y-DNA hg. J2a in Bulgaria, Ukraine etc. Also Zoroastrianism (/Magianism) and more preciselyZurvanism connects Bulgaria with Kurdistan.

Biggest Bulgarian feast nowadays is SURVA. Surva is derived form an Kurdish Aryan (Magian) God Zurvan. Zurvan is relaed to a Sanscrit word for sun god - SURYA.

Zurvan is the supreme GOD of Time, Space, Life etc. and he is the father of Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu.

Before Islamisation Kurds were the 'SUN' and 'fire' worshippers. There's still a native Kurdish religion called the Yezidisme where the SUN symbolises the supreme being (GOD). I'm anYezidi Kurd by myself.
Zoroastrianismwas an official religion of the Medes and Magi (who prophesied the birth of Jesus Christ according to the Bible) were Iranic Kurds from Kurdistan.


http://ianf.hyperboards.com/action/v...c/topic_id/841

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

----------


## Goga

Kurdish God Zurvan:




Bulgarian fire worshipping during the feast called Surva



Kurdish fireworshipping during Kurdish Iranic new year, NewRoz





Yezidi Kurdish black snake in Lalish (South Kurdistan):




North Kurdistan Colemêrg (Kurgan) stelae, 1500 B.C.

----------


## Pillar_of_Fire

> For me it was shocking closeness between Bulgarians and Romanians autosomal DNA / DNA even Y / . Cause disbelief when I mention in front of friends. How misleads language!!!


Let's not forget that the pro-Bulgarians first settled on the north bank of the Danube, they build fortresses there (now on Romanian territory). That is were Asparuh claimed victory over Romans. Look at the map of Bulgaria during the reign of Tzar Simeon, modern day territory of Romania is part of Bulgaria. So lets say for 4 centuries the majority of the land with the tribes was part of Bulgaria.

----------


## Eldritch

> For me it was shocking closeness between Bulgarians and Romanians autosomal DNA / DNA even Y / . Cause disbelief when I mention in front of friends. How misleads language!!!


Well bordering countries without natural barriers, nothing very surprising there.

----------


## Yaan

I see some difference between the data of the major new study, which should be taken until new better study come as the data for Bulgarians and the data in Eupedia
first numbers bellow would represents % in Eupedia,second number the good number from the study:
OK lets go 
I1- 4.5/4.3 here everything is OK 0.2 is nothing 
_I2 + I2a- 19.5/20.6, here is a problem 1.1 % difference_ 
I2b- 1.5/1.7 OK 0.2 
_R1a-17/17.7 here is a problem either 17.5 or better 18_ 
R1b- 10.5/10.5 perfect 
G2a-5/4.8 OK 
_J2- 11/10.5 better to write 10.5_ 
_J1-3/3.4 better to write 3.4 or 3.5_ 
*E1b1b- 24/22.1 here is a problem should be written 22%* 
T-1.5/1.6 here is OK 
Q-0.5/0.4 here is OK 
N-0.5/0.5 here is perfect 
So can the % please be changed, small differences do not matter but I2+I2a,R1a,E1b1b,J2 and J1 should be changed!Thanks!

----------


## albanopolis

> PLOS ONE just released  Y-Chromosome Diversity in Modern Bulgarians: New Clues about Their Ancestry by Karachanak et al. Bulgaria was relatively undersampled to this day. This study, sampling 808 lineages from each of the 9 Bulgarian provinces, will provide valuable new insight, especially since it is the first research to look into the deep subclades of haplogroups G (10 subclades tested !), J2, Q, and R1b (8 subclades). It is a major improvement from the Bulgarian study by the same team five years ago, which didn't even differentiate the three main branches of I (I1, I2-M223 and I2-M423). Haplogroups non-listed in the table (C, H, L, R2) decrease by 0.7%.
> 
> Compared to the data I had computed on the Y-DNA tables (which I will update soon), this study shows a slightly higher frequency for haplogroups R1a (+2.5%), E1b1b (+2.1%), R1b (+2%) J1 (+1.5%), T (+1%), I1 (+0.8%), G (+0.8%), and N (+0.5%), but a lower percentage for J2 (-5%) and I2-M423 (-2%). The remaining I2-M223 and Q have virtually unchanged frequencies.
> 
> G-P303 (G2a1c2a in the present ISOGG nomenclature) is the dominant branch of *G2a* in Bulgaria, amounting to 3.1% of all paternal lineages. Two of its subclades are well represented : L497 (1.9%) and U1 (0.5%). Other forms of G2a only have trace frequencies, but nevertheless show a remarkable diversity. There were even samples of G2a* (P15).
> 
> In the Kurgan hypothesis, the scenario I favour for the spread of Indo-European people and languages, I postulated that *R1b* migrated from Anatolia to the Pontic Steppe in the Neolithic, then invaded the Danube basin from the late Chalcolithic and early Bronze Age, starting by roughly 5500 ybp. To confirm that hypothesis, R1b subclades should show some kind a gradient in time from east to west. In other words older subclades like *L23* should be most common in Southeast Europe, then decrease in frequency towards Western Europe, where newer subclades arose. This is exactly what we observe here, as the main Bulgarian subclade of R1b is L23, which makes up half of all R1b lineages. Most of the other R1b lineages are later Celtic, Roman or Germanic arrivals, or even older subclades (1% of M269).
> 
> The Celtic *R1b-S116* only makes up 0.7% of the Bulgarian gene pool, while the Celto-Roman *R1b-U152* is at 2.2%, a frequency in line with those observed in other parts of the Roman Empire outside the U152 homeland (Italy + Alps), be it Iberia, North Africa or Anatolia.
> ...


My view is that Karachanak may be somebody who is a professional genetist. I would be no surprised if he has a PHD in Genetics. That means he knows what he is talking about. Large presence of E in North Africa not necessarily means that E was born there. It could have been born where Karanchak says and for thousand of years they reconquered North Africa. What the surprise here? I suppose that Karanchak knows that he has an international audience for his work and any blunder will discredit his work. So there is a possibility that he is right and everyone else wrong. If its true that E is Eurasian marker it does not make it any better if E was born in Africa.

----------


## Yetos

@ Goga 

the fire worship you mention is clear a Thracian custom named as nestenaria and bad translation in Greek as anastenaria,
it means Nest or ΕΣΤΙΑ a word that we find also in toponymes of villages and small dwellings from Greece to Romania (Παρανεστι Ploesti ) it is consider an old Thracian custom that pass to minor Asia with Brygians

the winter time nestnaria ritual
before the dance upon firecoals with barefeet




the May ritual

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0M7YiR3J0U

as you can hear the music althought sounds anatolian it is not, it is pure Thracian lost in some mountain areas and came known after 1912 and 1960 
I think the connection of the dance with Brygian/Thracian dance ZEIBEK zeybek is obvious
besides Zeybek comes from deity Zeus and surely it is not Turkish but Thracian in Origin, the dance of the eagle when hunts and feed him shelf (Zey +bek(os)

the fire must turn off by dancing on it at night before the morning so Deity of sun must not see it.

the same ritual in Bulgaria

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXylP8MyRG0

----------


## Eldritch

> Really interesting!Thanks, but I could not find the results, if u can not post, just write the % for the different groups. Thank u! Cheers! :)


Here you go:

----------


## Eldritch



----------


## Fire Haired

> I have now updated the Y-DNA frequencies for Bulgaria. I have made the total of this study, Rosser et al. (2000) and the latest data from the FTDNA Bulgaria Project (counting only those with the most remote patrilineal ancestor born in Bulgaria).
> 
> EDIT : I also updated the frequencies for Macedonia, adding the Trivodalieva (2010) study to the Pericic (2005) and Bosch (2006) that were used so far. It corrected the extravagant figure of 10% of I1 to a mere 3%. R1b and E1b1b were also reduced by 3% each, while I2-M423 increased significantly (+9%).


how come Y DNA I1 is spread out in all of Europe there is no Y DNA haplogroup like that and besides I M170 y DNa I1 is the oldest Y DNa haplogroup in Europe maybe it is so spread out not because of Germans but because it was already there over 10,000ybp that is what i think because Y DNA I1 literally exists in every spot n Europe unlike any other Y DNA haplogroup maybe some come from the Germans but most don't and did they test for y DNA I1 subclades if there is just plain I1 not a I1 subclade then that is evidence it was not spread bu Germans

----------


## adamo

i1 was spread by scandinavians (swedes,norwegians) not "germans", although germans also have i1 at 25-30%. as for bulgarians , they are much like romanians, a paternal amalgamy of 20% e3b, i2a, r1a,r1b and j2.

----------


## sparkey

> how come Y DNA I1 is spread out in all of Europe there is no Y DNA haplogroup like that and besides I M170 y DNa I1 is the oldest Y DNa haplogroup in Europe maybe it is so spread out not because of Germans but because it was already there over 10,000ybp that is what i think because Y DNA I1 literally exists in every spot n Europe unlike any other Y DNA haplogroup maybe some come from the Germans but most don't and did they test for y DNA I1 subclades if there is just plain I1 not a I1 subclade then that is evidence it was not spread bu Germans


There are some areas where I1 is effectively absent, namely Sardinia, and other places where it is quite uncommon, like certain areas of Spain. In addition, there are other haplogroups that are at least as omnipresent in Europe as I1, namely R1b (reaches low frequencies in a few places like Bosnia but never really lower than 1%) and R1a (which has very similar patterns as I1 in Western Europe, and a more significant presence in Eastern Europe). It's also a bit odd to call I1 the "oldest Y-DNA haplogroup in Europe" considering that STR dating gives an estimate of only ~4500 years old for it. I suppose its branching date with I2 is quite ancient indeed, and that likely happened in Europe, but that certainly doesn't explain its current distribution. At ~4500 years old (so far corroborated by [lack of] ancient DNA evidence), we have to reach for something more recent. Since the highest diversity of its major branches are near the Germanic core area, and most of the highest frequency areas are Germanic or historically Germanic areas, a largely Germanic spread of I1 makes the most sense.

That doesn't mean that I1 was originally Germanic, or that all of its branches have been Germanic. But its current distribution must be largely due to the historic spread of Germanic peoples.




> i1 was spread by scandinavians (swedes,norwegians) not "germans", although germans also have i1 at 25-30%.


If Germans also have a lot of I1, why do you think it was spread exclusively by Scandinavians?

----------


## nordicwarrior

[QUOTE=Fire Haired;410940] ...how come Y DNA I1 is spread out in all of Europe there is no Y DNA haplogroup like that... [QUOTE]

Sparkey you beat me to it. R1b is also spread out all over Europe essentially.

----------


## adamo

Because Scandinavians spread it to Germans first.

----------


## sparkey

> Because Scandinavians spread it to Germans first.


Why do you think that? Germans have a little more I1 diversity than Scandinavians... just walk down the I1 tree and notice that the outliers are more likely to be typically German than typically Scandinavian.

----------


## Ike

I always thought that name Bulgars stands for Volgars -tribes from river Volga? Just a classic cyrillic/latinic misinterpretation of letter B.

----------


## LeBrok

> I always thought that name Bulgars stands for Volgars -tribes from river Volga? Just a classic cyrillic/latinic misinterpretation of letter B.


Very interesting, Volgars=Bolgars

----------


## Fire Haired

> I really don't see where the Thracians would have got their I1 from. They were not of Nordic or Germanic origin.
> 
> Besides, the percentage of I1 is completely in line with that of neighbouring regions: 
> 
> - Serbia = 6% of I1
> - Northern Greece = 5.5%
> - Macedonia = 3% 
> - Romania = 2%
> - Albania = 2%


i wrote a thread about how most I1 in Europe probably is not from Germans or Scandinavianshttp://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...397#post411397.

If many Germanic Scandinavians descended from the Nordic bronze age culture migrated through modern day Germany just 2,700-2,000ybp like history tells us. Modern Germans and the Germanic tribes should have had Scandinavian I1a2 but from what i have read they dont. They have mainly I1a1, I1a3, I1a4, and I1b so what this means is the I1 in Germany cant come from a recent migration from Denmark or Scandinavia. Also if the I1 throughout Europe 1-5% came from migrating Germanic tribes why isn't R1b U106 spread across Europe that was the main Germanic haplogroup. We know for a fact the Germanic Anglo Saxons conquered England that is why Germanic R1b U106 is the most popular Y DNA haplogroup in England today at the same rate as it is in Germany and the I1 in England is mainly from Vikings that is why it is I1a2 but some is also I1a1, I1a3, I1a4, I1b. The Anglo Saxons migrating around the same time those Germans migrated to eastern Europe and the Anglo Saxons came from a similar source as those Germans then why dont we find R1b U106 with I1 in eastern Europe and since I1 is so spread out in Europe and that the subclades in most of Europe are not the Scandinavian I1a2 all of this means is it did not come from Scandinavians or Germans and that I1 is a very ancient European haplogroup probably from the Paloithic age and that is why ll modern Europeans have at least a little bit. Also that Scandinavians where probably founded by just one of many I1 people and their sucblade is I1a2 and since I1 is so popular iN Germany but from what i have read they don't have the Scandinavian I1a2 subclades then that means Germans in the Neolithic, Mesolithic, and maybe Paloithic age had mainly I1. also that the first Scandinavians who probably had I1a or I1a2 migrating from Germany and Denmark at least 10,000ybp

----------


## TomAC

Interesting

----------


## LeBrok

> i wrote a thread about how most I1 in Europe probably is not from Germans or Scandinavianshttp://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...397#post411397.
> 
> If many Germanic Scandinavians descended from the Nordic bronze age culture migrated through modern day Germany just 2,700-2,000ybp like history tells us. Modern Germans and the Germanic tribes should have had Scandinavian I1a2 but from what i have read they dont. They have mainly I1a1, I1a3, I1a4, and I1b so what this means is the I1 in Germany cant come from a recent migration from Denmark or Scandinavia. Also if the I1 throughout Europe 1-5% came from migrating Germanic tribes why isn't R1b U106 spread across Europe that was the main Germanic haplogroup. We know for a fact the Germanic Anglo Saxons conquered England that is why Germanic R1b U106 is the most popular Y DNA haplogroup in England today at the same rate as it is in Germany and the I1 in England is mainly from Vikings that is why it is I1a2 but some is also I1a1, I1a3, I1a4, I1b. The Anglo Saxons migrating around the same time those Germans migrated to eastern Europe and the Anglo Saxons came from a similar source as those Germans then why dont we find R1b U106 with I1 in eastern Europe and since I1 is so spread out in Europe and that the subclades in most of Europe are not the Scandinavian I1a2 all of this means is it did not come from Scandinavians or Germans and that I1 is a very ancient European haplogroup probably from the Paloithic age and that is why ll modern Europeans have at least a little bit. Also that Scandinavians where probably founded by just one of many I1 people and their sucblade is I1a2 and since I1 is so popular iN Germany but from what i have read they don't have the Scandinavian I1a2 subclades then that means Germans in the Neolithic, Mesolithic, and maybe Paloithic age had mainly I1. also that the first Scandinavians who probably had I1a or I1a2 migrating from Germany and Denmark at least 10,000ybp


Exactly, deciphering migration of Germanic tribes by their DNA is not that easy. Many people struggle to figure out genetic markers of East germans with Goths included. Where they so different genetically from Scandinavians and West Germans?

----------


## Fire Haired

> Exactly, deciphering migration of Germanic tribes by their DNA is not that easy. Many people struggle to figure out genetic markers of East germans with Goths included. Where they so different genetically from Scandinavians and West Germans?


we know the goths and east germans came from the same german roo as west germans they would have had Mainly R1b s21 also alot of I1a1, I1a3, and I1a4 but mainly R1b s21. I dont see R1b s21 with I1 in most of Europe so i dont think it is from Germans

----------


## GloomyGonzales

> we know the goths and east germans came from the same german roo as west germans they would have had Mainly R1b s21 also alot of I1a1, I1a3, and I1a4 but mainly R1b s21. I dont see R1b s21 with I1 in most of Europe so i dont think it is from Germans


You are wrong there are no any proves that East and West Germanic people came from the same root. Furthermore, there are many reasons to believe that R1b-U106 folks have not been authentic Germanic people but were Germanized by R1a and I1 and I2 folks.

Concerning the origion of East Germanic people here's a piece from HISTORY OF THE WARS, III. (PEOCOPIUS OF CAESAREA)


There were many Gothic nations in earlier times, just as also at the present, but the greatest and most important of all are the Goths, 
Vandals, Visigoths, and Gepaedes. In ancient times, 
however, they were named Sauromatae and Melan- 
chlaeni ; and there were some too who called these 
nations Getic. All these, while they are distinguished 
from one another by their names, as has been said, 
do not differ in anything else at all. For they all 
have white bodies and fair hair, and are tall and 
handsome to look upon, and they use the same laws 
and practise a common religion. (For they are all 
of the Arian faith, and have one language called 
Gothic ; and, as it seems to me, they all came origin- 
ally from one tribe, and were distinguished later by 
the names of those who led each group. This 
people used to dwell *above the Ister River* from of 
old. Later on the Gepaedes got possession of the 
country about Singidunum 2 and Sirmium, 3 on both 
sides of the Ister River, where they have remained, 
settled even down to my time.

----------

