How "Slavic" are South Slavs?

[stoningbull54]

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

Population
North_Sea	19.14
Atlantic	17.12
Baltic	34.94
Eastern_Euro	17.87
West_Med	3.87
West_Asian	3.75
East_Med	-
Red_Sea	0.93
South_Asian	0.72
Southeast_Asian	-
Siberian	1.06
Amerindian	-
Oceanian	0.59
Northeast_African	-
Sub-Saharan	-

Now the Serbian sample:

Population
North_Sea	15.95
Atlantic	12.28
Baltic	19.92
Eastern_Euro	12.74
West_Med	12.33
West_Asian	10.21
East_Med	13.65
Red_Sea	2.93
South_Asian	-
Southeast_Asian	-
Siberian	-
Amerindian	-
Oceanian	-
Northeast_African	-
Sub-Saharan	-

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

 

[stoningbull54]

Here's my Serbian K15:

Population
North_Sea	15.95
Atlantic	12.28
Baltic	19.92
Eastern_Euro	12.74
West_Med	12.33
West_Asian	10.21
East_Med	13.65
Red_Sea	2.93
South_Asian	-
Southeast_Asian	-
Siberian	-
Amerindian	-
Oceanian	-
Northeast_African	-
Sub-Saharan	-

 

[Apsurdistan]

Baltic

[TD="align: center"]1[/TD]

[TD="width: 50, align: right"]21.75[/TD]

[TD="width: 30, align: center"]2[/TD]
[TD="width: 120"]North_Sea[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]16.1[/TD]

[TD="width: 30, align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD="width: 120"]Atlantic[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]15.8[/TD]

[TD="width: 30, align: center"]4[/TD]
[TD="width: 120"]Eastern_Euro[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]13.84[/TD]

[TD="width: 30, align: center"]5[/TD]
[TD="width: 120"]West_Asian[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]10.79[/TD]

[TD="width: 30, align: center"]6[/TD]
[TD="width: 120"]East_Med[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]10.51[/TD]

[TD="width: 30, align: center"]7[/TD]
[TD="width: 120"]West_Med[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]9.94[/TD]

[TD="width: 30, align: center"]8[/TD]
[TD="width: 120"]Sub-Saharan[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]0.41[/TD]

[TD="width: 30, align: center"]9[/TD]
[TD="width: 120"]Red_Sea[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]0.28[/TD]

[TD="width: 30, align: center"]10[/TD]
[TD="width: 120"]Oceanian[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]0.22[/TD]

[TD="width: 30, align: center"]11[/TD]
[TD="width: 120"]Amerindian[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]0.22[/TD]

[TD="width: 30, align: center"]12[/TD]
[TD="width: 120"]South_Asian[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]0.11[/TD]

[TD="width: 30, align: center"]13[/TD]
[TD="width: 120"]Northeast_African[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]0.02[/TD]

Single Population Sharing:

Population (source)

Moldavian

[TD="align: center"] # [/TD]

[TD="align: right"] Distance [/TD]

[TD="align: center"]1[/TD]

[TD="width: 50, align: right"]4.89[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]2[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Croatian[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]5.88[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Romanian[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]7.4[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]4[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Serbian[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]7.42[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]5[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Hungarian[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]8.9[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]6[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Bulgarian[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]9.17[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]7[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Austrian[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]9.45[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]8[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Ukrainian_Lviv[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]11.43[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]9[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]South_Polish[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]11.63[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]10[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Ukrainian[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]12.36[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]11[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]East_German[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]13.53[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]12[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Ukrainian_Belgorod[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]13.83[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]13[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Russian_Smolensk[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]14.02[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]14[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Polish[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]14.33[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]15[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Southwest_Russian[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]14.61[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]16[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Belorussian[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]16.45[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]17[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Estonian_Polish[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]16.64[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]18[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Greek_Thessaly[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]17.6[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]19[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Greek[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]17.92[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]20[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Kargopol_Russian[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]18.19
[/TD]

 

[Apsurdistan]

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

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

 

[stoningbull54]

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

 

[LeBrok]

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

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

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

 

[DuPidh]

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

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

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

 

[LeBrok]

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

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

 

[DuPidh]

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

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

 

[Bosnian Boss]

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

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

 

[LABERIA]

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

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

 

[Angela]

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

 

[Tomenable]

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

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...-Polish-people?p=517704&viewfull=1#post517704

 

[gyms]

Negligible genetic flow in Slavic expansion to the Balcans

http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.se/2015/09/negligible-genetic-flow-in-slavic.html

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

 

[Garrick]

I have. Nothing has been conclusive.

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

I-CTS10228 carriers were Mesolithic survivors.

According new data TMRCA is 3800 years!

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[D.L.M]

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

 

[D.L.M]

^^ Excluding Bulgarians of course.

 

[gyms]

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


How do you know that?

 

[gyms]

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

Which one is I2a-Din?

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

 

[Garrick]

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


How do you know that?

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

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

In short:

One of strong points are findings and proofs of Ukrainian scientists:

Zarubintsy culture is Bastarnaian dominantly.

In this way thesis of Soviet scientists that Zarubintsy culture was Slavic is rejected.

But Zarubintsy culture is predecessor of Kiev culture which was Slavic. It means Bastarnae had one of main roles in complex Slavic ethnogenesis, they became part of Slavic population.

We know movement Bastarnae people from Vistula area and surrounding to Dacian and Sarmatian borders, Bastarnae mixed with Sarmatians and Dacians.

We know that Bastarnae entered in the Romania and Balkans more times in big numbers, and mixed with local Dacian/Thracian population.

From histrorical sources we know that Bastrnae were very numerous that some authors highlight they are not tribe but people (modern term nation!).

Origin of Bastarnae is mysterious.

For most scientists they were Germans, some scientists think they were Celts, and there are more opinions.

What we know yet, they probably were nomads.

Considering the time and areas of their appearance, their movements, timely and territorial, Bastarnae are right candidate that they were dominantly I-CTS10228 carriers.

I-CTS10228 carriers were Old European Mesolitic survivors, according new findings I-CTS10228 is formed 5300 ago, and TMRCA is 3800 years.

I-CTS10228* is man from Alsace (Bas-Rhin), France.

We know that I-M423, ancestor of I-CTS10228, is found is Loschbour, Louxembourg, 8000 years old man from Mesolithic.

We can assume where in Europe Mesolitic survivors could lived and moved, probably Western/Central Europe, and beyond.

Central Europe today according the World Factbook is made up of the following countries: Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Poland.

They could have contact with proto-Celts and Celts, and Illyrians etc.

Germanic tribes had arrived from North.

When Bastarnae formed dominantly from Mesolithic survivor population I-CTS10228 carriers, they could have some Celtic elements, even Illyrian.

But probably with flow of time more German (I1), therefore it can be possible that Bastarnae mostly were mix I-CTS10228 (dominantly) and any I1 in any ratio.

What is interesting there are opinions among scientists that their name is from the word bastard.

Maybe they could look to other populations as unknown.

They probably adopted German language.

I-CTS10228 carriers could be in other tribes too (as Sciiri for example) but probably in much less numbers.

In areas where and time when they lived Mesolithic survivors didn't have contact with R1a clades who are dominant in Slavic population. How Bastarnae moved to the East they could have contact.

In 200 BC Bastarnae inhabited the region between Carpatian mountains, and to the north till river Dnieper and to the south borders of Dacia.

Balkans: I-CTS10228 since 179 BC till Slavic arriving 6th century

* Bastarnae first enterd in Balkans, area in todays Macedonia 179 BC.

* Bastarnae settled Balkans brought from the Balkan rulers (not as invaders!), some sources speak about process of "ethnic engineering" where imperial rulers did massive deportation/settling of ethnic groups as part of military/political plan.

* Bastarnae mixed with Thracians/Dacians (today's Romania, Moldavia, and Balkan countries Serbia, Bulgaria, Macedonia etc.)

* One Western source claims that substantial part of Balkan population till 5 century AD was mixed Tracian/Bastarnae!

* Plus, we can have in mind with the growth power of Goths Bastarnae became their allies, and they participated in Gothic invasions in the Balkans. It means, in Gothic invasions, I-CTS10228 arrived in the Balkans too.

Ancient Y-DNA samples in Central Europe and samples in the Romania/Balkans 200 BC-570 AD will confirm or disprove these assumptions.

An habit can be complicating because Bastarnae practiced burning process till 900 degrees Celsius.

But we can suppose scientists can find appropriate samples.

Story about Bastarnae is fascinating it is story about struggle for survival, in one period of history I-CTS10228 carriers barely survived but after that they spread in many directions.

First Homo sapiens in Europe during 45,000 to 28,000 years ago, belonged CT, C1a, C1b, F and I. I survived, developed in I1 and I2 and I-CTS10228 carriers are today more numerous I2 carriers in Europe.