Genetic study A genetic history of the Balkans from Roman frontier to Slavic migrations
- Thread starter Riverman
- Start date
TetaEglantina
Regular Member
- Messages
- 822
- Reaction score
- 139
- Points
- 43
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- i2a WHG
You haven't done a deep test yet?
TetaEglantina
Regular Member
- Messages
- 822
- Reaction score
- 139
- Points
- 43
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- i2a WHG
You're not but nothing wrong with being i2 or Slavic. Slavic history may be short but i2 history is very long
Ghurier
Regular Member
- Messages
- 197
- Reaction score
- 139
- Points
- 43
- Location
- Many
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- J-L283-->J-Z631
- mtDNA haplogroup
- U5b2b
Not really.
Y-DNA and mtDNA only tells you about two specific lineages.
Except if you are on a crazily patriarcal or matriarcal society ... why would these two lineages be of specific importance ?
If you just take a snapshot around ~500 BCE you have ~10^30 ancestors (with a lot of implexes of course) ... why would two branches among 10^30 be more relevant than your whole genetic mixture ?
The Y-chr is only accounting for 1% of all your genetic material, and is only relevant for ~50% of humans (thus, it sounds a bit flawed to define "origins" using mainly this proxy).
mtDNA is relevant for all humans but only accounts for ~3 10^-4 % of your genetic material.
How would you qualify the carriers of https://www.yfull.com/tree/A-Y37658/ ?
To me, they are north Europeans.
If you look at their Y-DNA, it was likely collected in Africa during Roman-times. However, the vast majority of their ancestors ~2000 years ago, are north Europeans.
Would you feel acurate to claim that they are of "recent" (considering ~2000 years is "recent") African origin ?
Even a better exemple, when Neanderthals got their mt and Y-lineages replaced by a source very close from Sapiens ... do you consider they became ~Sapiens or did they stayed Neanderthals ?
PS: to me Sapiens and Neanderthal inter-fecondity implies that they are regional variations of the same species.
If you want your particular genetic make-up origin, look at a segment-by-segment analysis of your DNA (that will give you specific origins with a ~400 years depth at best).
Then once you identifed your modern population(s) autosomal DNA appartenance, you can study the global genetic history of this/these population(s).
Y-DNA and mtDNA are mainly "old" tools to understand human migrations. You can track down two specific lineage using these tools. But it isn't more relevant than trying to track the path of each mutation on your autosomal DNA (it is just dooable for Y and mt DNA because you can track groups of mutations at the same time).
How did you estimated this 30% Slavic origin ? This is quite important.
If this estimation comes from PCA diagnostic (like what MyHeritage or other compagnies are doing), you need to know that it is heavily biased.
Only segment-by-segment analysis gives "decent" results (ex: 23andMe) about identifying the genetic make-up of an individual. Still, it needs to be analysed carefully to contextualise the results and avoids over-interpretation of some misclassified segments.
As a Greek, you are most-likely under I-Y3120 (but if you are interested, a deeper test would be needed to confirm that). This haplogroup arrived very long ago in Greece (and technically, the modalities of this haplogroup arrival in Greece are far from being settled yet. To me, it likely arrived before the main Slavic wave in the Balkans).
There is no way an autosomal analysis would detect anything specific to you from that time (there is signal from that time in greece, but it is at a global population scale, not at an individual scale).
Either you really have Slavic recent ancestry (but with 30% look for a great-parents, or 2-4 great-great parents), or this claimed slavic ancestry is just the algorithm making pointless over-fitting when trying to invert your DNA mixture.
If all you have is a PCA disgnostic, the best thing to do is to retrieve your G25 coordinates, and compare to modern populations to see if your PCA-coordinates are consistent with what you know of your recent origins.
Autosomal tests won't tell you anything about the place of origin of your ancesters more than few-centuries ago.
If you plot nearby modern Greeks of your region, it would mean that you have no recent exotic origin, whereas if you are significantly shifted it might indicates some recent exotic DNA injection on your lineage.
PCA inversion always need to be supervised with some priors about your origins to avoid meaningless overfitting.
If your DNA is mainly "local", then your origins will be the same than all the other locals and can be inffered from population genetics.
A specific Y-DNA or mtDNA says nothing more than tracking a specific mutations, it was brought to you by a specific lineage that is only a small fraction of your ancestors once you consider historical times (for some people based on sexist reasons it can happen that Y and/or mt lineages are given a particular "emotional" importance).
When someone starts to asign you an Ethno-cultural group based on Y-DNA or mtDNA, run-away ... Such peoples are confusing many thing.
Y-DNA and mtDNA are relevant tools (because of their transmission process) to study population genetics and sex-biased migration movements. At an individual scale, they are not particularly relevant to qualify origins (neither in terms of amount of ancestry, nor in terms of amount of DNA material).
Did you read the actual paper? Or any of the numerous Balkan papers? You don't give me the impression of having read them otherwise there wouldn't be such non evidential statements based on some obscure personal bias by your side. If I'm surprisingly mistaken with my assumption please be kind and tell us which archeological complex supposedly would have yielded a major Slavic patrilineage in the Paleo-Balkans?
I-Y3120 is Slavic, it's completely absent in the prehistorical Balkan archaeogenetic record and arrived during the Slavic medieval migrations. Anyone who disputes that in near 2024 is a helpless case. The authors of this paper and other papers themselves note this.
As for all this Y-DNA doesn't equal auDNA non sense. Well wow, sherlock, I am shocked:
Last edited:
Ghurier
Regular Member
- Messages
- 197
- Reaction score
- 139
- Points
- 43
- Location
- Many
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- J-L283-->J-Z631
- mtDNA haplogroup
- U5b2b
Behave and if possible learn to read !
Yes, I read the papers. And I probably have a better understanding of the results than you.
I-Y3120 is a complex thing. Most of the subclades got assimilated by Slavic populations indeed, with an origin likely around ~Southern-Poland/Western-Bielorussia/Western-Ukrainia (it us to you to define when you start to call the population that were there Slavic ... me I just speak of geographical place and dates).
But already, we see that you are not really understanding how works DNA, as you conflates DNA and culture. This is not how it works, Y-DNA is not carrying a culture. Y-DNA is carried by humans, and humans are integrated among cultures.
You are making generalisties, when we know that haplogroup-generalisties basically never works
.What was doing Y3120 prior to ~200 BCE ? Where was he ? Good questions, we know that around ~200 BCE he was likely around southern Poland.
Who speaks about Prehistory ? Your are alone on that side. Y3120 is a ~200 BCE thing. It is not prehistoric.
Some clades might have reach Greece sooner than than ~700 CE, potential migrations around Roman times or ~400 CE are not out of the picture.
There is an interesting proxy for migrations, I call that "clade-spatial-cross-correlation". That consist at looking for clade de-coupling between distinct regions of the world to evalute when the population movement separating the two populations occured (if you don't understand ... too bad).
This is a very powerfull statistical tool, that works for nearly all documented population movement.
Two graph for Y3120 :
1) Involving the likely homeland and the Balkans :
2) And now, the likely homeland and Greece,
Interestingly, for the case of Y3120, decorrelation between ~Poland and Greece occured in multiple step :
-Around 200/300 CE with a ~25% drop in the correlation rate (this is crasy huge).
-Around ~800 CE with a ~5% drop in the correlation rate.
Whereas, for the main Balkans, we see clearly the expected 500-600 CE signal. Corresponding to the movement of the Slavic population.
The 200/300 CE signal seems to have affected the Balkans aswell but in a way less significant way.
It is possible to have what I call "diversity carriage" when you have mass migrations, meaning that somtimes you will carry a lot of slightly older diversity in the case of a mass migration.
But it rarely exceeds 200 years or at worst 300 years (as seen from historically documented movements).
And indeed, what occurs between 100 CE and 300 CE looks like a typical diversity carriage signal, of something that could have happen around ~300/400 CE, but no later than 500 CE.
This probe works for ALL historically documented migration.
Thus, I definitely have a lot of trust in this probe.
Apparently, you have some extra-knowledge about reality ... but sry, I prefer statistical estimator, they never failed me.
I wasn't speaking to you kid.
Yes, I adapt my speach to the person that I think might benificiates of some explanations that might look trivial to some people, but that aren't for others.
Luckily for them, with my past PhD students, I never started to talk with them as if they were my collegues ... I always explained them many things that were obvious for me and my collegues ... still none of my collegues never showed a strange reaction like yours !
Thanks for your "contribution", merry christmas !
My mother's family is also - I2(a1b3) PH3414 (Dinaric north). I presume you might be the same subclade.
They are Mirlovic tribe. Originally from Thessaly before Samuel moved them in Macedonia and from there this specific clan goes to Kosovo -> Herzegovina where Tvrtko I ennobled them along with few other Vlach tribes that entered in 14th century.
We know they were "romanized" before by their names since the oldest known ancestors had names like Baldwin, Kapor which looks like persisted up to 13th century - they are mentioned in Dechani Chrysobulls.
They are Mirlovic tribe. Originally from Thessaly before Samuel moved them in Macedonia and from there this specific clan goes to Kosovo -> Herzegovina where Tvrtko I ennobled them along with few other Vlach tribes that entered in 14th century.
We know they were "romanized" before by their names since the oldest known ancestors had names like Baldwin, Kapor which looks like persisted up to 13th century - they are mentioned in Dechani Chrysobulls.
Ghurier
Regular Member
- Messages
- 197
- Reaction score
- 139
- Points
- 43
- Location
- Many
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- J-L283-->J-Z631
- mtDNA haplogroup
- U5b2b
Apparently, you are emotional on the topic.
The only probe that says from where are your ancestors in general is autosomal DNA.
Albanian did mixed to some extend with Slavs ... handle it, your DNA proves it.
As I explained you, analysing autosomal DNA with PCA diagnostics ("calculators") is heavily biased.
The way to do it is segment by segment, and it will gives you a depth of ~400 years regarding your origins.
Now, for deeper origins of your population, you can look at results from population genomic papers.
As you failed to reply to my direct questions about the two cases I proposed :
1) A haplogroup in northern Europe
2) Sapiens vs Neanderthals haplogroups
I suspect that you have no response to propose.
Regarding the relevance of haplogroup for culture and language ... take L283 as an exemple ... back in 2500 BCE, it was a single tiny lonely man. Whatever is his history, we can't be sure.
Was he part of big enough population to carry his own culture with him ?
Was he nearly alone and did he get incorporated in another population with a new language for him.
What is a given is that L283 documented branches in aDNA are found :
-In Nuragic Sardinia == non-IE population
-In the Balkans for Z597 inside Cetina culture speaking an unknown language
-In the caucasus with a Kura-Araxe/Maykop profile speaking an unknown language.
Thus considering that all this cultural background are different, we know that L283 did "changed" of cultural background and language with time.
Is any of this population tracing the language and cultural of J-L283 around 4000 BCE, it is far from being a given.
@Ghurier Statistical evidence clearly refutes your non eviential claims. You haven't answered my question with regards to which archeological complex should have yielded a major Slavic patrilineage in the Paleo-Balkans. It is a paradoxon of course.
As for branch reading and its interpretation, you showcase a lack of understanding for both but this was already pointed out to you by various members before and on multiple occasions.
You also seem to have missed that the earliest sampled individual carrying I-Y3120>Y18331, which I remember was some sort of pet theory material used by you in the past for some ancient Slavic homeland in the Southern Balkans, has a clean Slavic auDNA profile. I mean one can, too, light out the modern basal Polish sample.
This is called bad ethic and a strong bias as to what you wish the results to be. Every STEM major has to become familiar with the scientific method at the beginning of their undergraduate degree.
As for branch reading and its interpretation, you showcase a lack of understanding for both but this was already pointed out to you by various members before and on multiple occasions.
You also seem to have missed that the earliest sampled individual carrying I-Y3120>Y18331, which I remember was some sort of pet theory material used by you in the past for some ancient Slavic homeland in the Southern Balkans, has a clean Slavic auDNA profile. I mean one can, too, light out the modern basal Polish sample.
This is called bad ethic and a strong bias as to what you wish the results to be. Every STEM major has to become familiar with the scientific method at the beginning of their undergraduate degree.
Archetype0ne
Regular Member
- Messages
- 1,774
- Reaction score
- 687
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Albanian
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- L283>Y21878>Y197198
Lazaridis is one of the Authors? He obviously approved his name being on the paper. But he has a hard time telling the methodology?
I found it funny but kept quiet, that he put his name on a paper that goes completely against his magnum opus. But reading this tweet it becomes absurd.
monster
Fledgling
- Messages
- 140
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 28
- Ethnic group
- Albanian
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- J-L283, E-V13
IBD sharing is what should be used and not calculators made by armchair scientists. Nowhere did I say autosomal DNA isn't important. I am talking about calculators made by armchair scientists. You have these people that create models and give people 30% Roman Imperial but where is all the mtdna and ydna to back up such admixture or even IBD sharing for that matter ? Nowhere did I say we didn't mix with Slavs, what I am saying is that I don't have such lineages within my families, at least not paternally which is actually the most important thing and consistent with the language and culture of a people since all my lineages are literally native Balkan and Albanian is believed to be native Balkan which makes your whole argument nonsensical regarding some J-L283 back in 2500 BCE. Mtdna can tell us a lot too by testing for various sides and I am sure I am Albanian on those sides too. Why shoud I as an Albanian not identity with my lineages ? I don't care about Slavs or Anatolians that were assimilated or that we absorbed, but at the end of the day , they are Albanians too today.
Last edited:
monster
Fledgling
- Messages
- 140
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 28
- Ethnic group
- Albanian
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- J-L283, E-V13
So your whole argument here is that the Albanian language is not related to people who were J2b2 and E-V13 or at least R1b despite overwhelming majority of Albos belonging to these lineages ? Since you're comparing it to some dude who lived in 2500 BCE ? Also I didn't neccessarily say autosomal isn't important, what I am talking about is calculators made by armchair scientists , maybe you don't get the difference, IBD sharing should be used is my point + mtdna + ydna . How can these calculators be taken serious ? And how on earth do they supposedly know what admixture occurred or what populations to use ? Doesn't make any sense. It's just a bunch of guess work.
Last edited:
monster
Fledgling
- Messages
- 140
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 28
- Ethnic group
- Albanian
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- J-L283, E-V13
I know Albanians show high IBD sharing with Macedonians and Greeks for example and even Italians. Maybe Albos before the Slavic incursions had higher Anatolian due to the Roman Empire, who knows, but studies suggest Albos today do not have significant IBD sharing with East Med populations. Anyway, I am not gonna argue anymore, lets agree to disagree and have a nice day.
monster
Fledgling
- Messages
- 140
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 28
- Ethnic group
- Albanian
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- J-L283, E-V13
And I agree completely with you regarding shared segments etc but I personally don't see how that is related to these calculators made by armchair scientists , in fact, IBD sharing does not even support some of the admixture that these calculators give neither does mtdna or ydna . I just think it's weird how people take these calculators serious, sometimes I am starting to wonder about people ....
Omino
Regular Member
Lazaridis commented about this map posted on twitter by a random account,it's not from the study itself.