"Medieval Balkan Slavs were pretty much like Serbs or Romanians" v2

[Ion Basescul]

I closed the old thread (https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?326068-quot-Medieval-Balkan-Slavs-were-pretty-much-like-Serbs-or-Romanians-quot), because some users were attacking each other instead of discussing the topic.
Let's start afresh and try not to let that happen again.

How it all started:

In June, Davidski from Eurogenes claimed that Medieval Balkan Slavs were similar to Serbs or Romanians.

https://i.postimg.cc/HL5vFJqw/image.png

He also said that the Roman era pre-Slavic inhabitants were similar to the Bulgarian Thracian I5769, but with more Steppe ancestry.

https://i.postimg.cc/MZYNWQvt/image.png

Today, he drops another hint at what's to come. He says that medieval samples from the country of North Macedonia look like Balkan Slavs and there was a huge genetic shift from the Iron Age/Hellenistic period that he attributes to the Slavic migration. He once again mentions that the Slavs that came to North Macedonia didn't look like Poles or Ukrainians, but genetically resembled Serbs, Montenegrins, Romanians, etc.

https://i.imgur.com/34uC4MJ.png

[Coastal Elite]

I closed the old thread (https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?326068-quot-Medieval-Balkan-Slavs-were-pretty-much-like-Serbs-or-Romanians-quot), because some users were attacking each other instead of discussing the topic.
Let's start afresh and try not to let that happen again.


Today, he drops another hint at what's to come. He says that medieval samples from the country of North Macedonia look like Balkan Slavs and there was a huge genetic shift from the Iron Age/Hellenistic period that he attributes to the Slavic migration. He once again mentions that the Slavs that came to North Macedonia didn't look like Poles or Ukrainians, but genetically resembled Serbs, Montenegrins, Romanians, etc.



So basically they were more Med-like in the Iron Age/Hellenistic period and were northeast shifted later on with Slavic influence?

[Ion Basescul]

So basically they were more Med-like in the Iron Age/Hellenistic period and were northeast shifted later on with Slavic influence?

Yes, but if you look at modern North Macedonians on K13, they already are pretty similar to Serbs, Montenegrins, Romanians. So what happened looks like an almost total population replacement to me.
Consider the model from below, which models North Macedonians as a sum of Serbs and the Thracian from Bulgaria that Davidski's mentioned.

https://i.imgur.com/p3z9CYQ.png

This is an anecdotal claim of course, but considering that Thracians were described as red headed and there are barely any in their region nowadays, perhaps the population replacement can explain this partially?

[Coastal Elite]

Yes, but if you look at modern North Macedonians on K13, they already are pretty similar to Serbs, Montenegrins, Romanians. So what happened looks like an almost total population replacement to me.
Consider the model from below, which models North Macedonians as a sum of Serbs and the Thracian from Bulgaria that Davidski's mentioned.

https://i.imgur.com/p3z9CYQ.png

This is an anecdotal claim of course, but considering that Thracians were described as red headed and there are barely any in their region nowadays, perhaps the population replacement can explain this partially?

The confusing thing is that these population replacements, to the degree that they did happen, seem spotty and regional throughout SE Europe. Perhaps geography, mountain ranges, and the path of least resistance played a role.

[Coolguy1]

All this shows is that the medieval samples we have from North Macedonia are south Slavic like, which shouldn't surprise anyone. They are obviously mixed with the local population, much like modern day Northern Macedonians. Im sure if you dig up more and more, you will find Avar_Szolad like samples.

[bained]

Who was repeating the "I2a1b is from slavs" meme? 101790

[ShereKhan]

Final nail in the coffin for panslavists.

[Moje ime]

Final nail in the coffin for panslavists.

In real life haplogroups are not important.

[Ion Basescul]

In real life haplogroups are not important.

Maybe in Murica, but I'd argue that in Europe where people are very similar to one another regionally, they are pretty darn important. And for history buffs like me, it's interesting to see to what culture your ancestors belonged to over time.

[Ion Basescul]

Who was repeating the "I2a1b is from slavs" meme? 101790

Since a couple of years, I2a1b refers to the Germanic branch, old I2a2.
CTS10228 is I2a1a2b1a1.

[Ford]

Vlach pride world wide

[Ion Basescul]

Vlach pride world wide

Romanians descending from the mountains to colonise the lowlands, circa 1100 AD, colorised


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ATbzxzbvTY

[bained]

Since a couple of years, I2a1b refers to the Germanic branch, old I2a2.
CTS10228 is I2a1a2b1a1.

Nice cope 101796

[ShereKhan]

This is an anecdotal claim of course, but considering that Thracians were described as red headed and there are barely any in their region nowadays, perhaps the population replacement can explain this partially?

We know that thracians belonged mostly to E-V13 and in the "Conquering Hungarian paper" only 2 graves had red hair, one of them was a 100% europid blue-eyed E-V13 individual, who seems to have been an assimilated local, what do you think of it? The medieval slavs definitely had mostly variations of brown hair, most common being dark brown, this is also how they were described by medieval authors, in contrast with paleo-balkan tribes who had important amounts of blonde and red hair, indeed it seems that slavs darkened the Balkans.

[Ion Basescul]

We know that thracians belonged mostly to E-V13 and in the "Conquering Hungarian paper" only 2 graves had red hair, one of them was a 100% europid blue-eyed E-V13 individual, who seems to have been an assimilated local, what do you think of it? The medieval slavs definitely had mostly variations of brown hair, most common being dark brown, this is also how they were described by medieval authors, in contrast with paleo-balkan tribes who had important amounts of blonde and red hair, indeed it seems that slavs darkened the Balkans.

I personally don't care about these, so I don't study them. But you can look for yourself here. It hasn't been updated since 2018, but you might find something that interests you.

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/pigmentation/

[ShereKhan]

I personally don't care about these, so I don't study them. But you can look for yourself here. It hasn't been updated since 2018, but you might find something that interests you.

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/pigmentation/

Red hair was largely spread by Bronze age tribes, Bulgarian Thracian I5769 was of Bronze age extraction, if most balkanites at that time had the same autosomal profile logically they would've had higher % of red hair than they do today.The extra steppe which in my opinion came during Iron Age would've granted them a greater chance for blonde hair too and would've made the dark brown hair ashy -> light brown hair.

[Ion Basescul]

Red hair was largely spread by Bronze age tribes, Bulgarian Thracian I5769 was of Bronze age extraction, if most balkanites at that time had the same autosomal profile logically they would've had higher % of red hair than they do today.The extra steppe which in my opinion came during Iron Age would've granted them a greater chance for blonde hair too and would've made the dark brown hair ashy -> light brown hair.

Perhaps, I don't have a horse in this debate. But modern Slavs from Eastern Europe didn't mix much after medieval ages and they are lighter on average than Balkan folk, who temselves are like half Slavic. Therefore the native half must have been darker.

[catgeorge]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Pontic_steppe_region_around_650_AD.png

[catgeorge]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Historical_map_of_the_Balkans_around_582-612_AD.jpg

[-Scar-]

All this shows is that the medieval samples we have from North Macedonia are south Slavic like, which shouldn't surprise anyone. They are obviously mixed with the local population, much like modern day Northern Macedonians. Im sure if you dig up more and more, you will find Avar_Szolad like samples.
I would not say obviously but most likely I believe that's the case.
I still think they were a little bit more southern than Avar_Szolad.

[Insuperable]

1. Medieval from 5th, 6th or 7th century or medieval from say 14th century?
2. Likewise from what medieval time are those North Macedonian samples?

If we are talking about 12th, 13th or 14th century what is so strange about that?

[Friends of Oliver Society]

I closed the old thread (https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?326068-quot-Medieval-Balkan-Slavs-were-pretty-much-like-Serbs-or-Romanians-quot), because some users were attacking each other instead of discussing the topic.
Let's start afresh and try not to let that happen again.

How it all started:

In June, Davidski from Eurogenes claimed that Medieval Balkan Slavs were similar to Serbs or Romanians.

https://i.postimg.cc/HL5vFJqw/image.png

He also said that the Roman era pre-Slavic inhabitants were similar to the Bulgarian Thracian I5769, but with more Steppe ancestry.

https://i.postimg.cc/MZYNWQvt/image.png

Today, he drops another hint at what's to come. He says that medieval samples from the country of North Macedonia look like Balkan Slavs and there was a huge genetic shift from the Iron Age/Hellenistic period that he attributes to the Slavic migration. He once again mentions that the Slavs that came to North Macedonia didn't look like Poles or Ukrainians, but genetically resembled Serbs, Montenegrins, Romanians, etc.

https://i.imgur.com/34uC4MJ.png

What forum is this on?

[ixulescu]

1. Medieval from 5th, 6th or 7th century or medieval from say 14th century?
2. Likewise from what medieval time are those North Macedonian samples?

If we are talking about 12th, 13th or 14th century what is so strange about that?

Exactly, we need to know the century of these samples, otherwise it might not be anything special.

[-Scar-]

Vlach pride world wide

It looks like the Slavic element is dominant in most of the South Slavs (expect for Bulgarians) even without including idea that they were heavily mixed and plot like Moldovans or Serbs or whatever.

[JohnnyP]

:picard1::picard2::picard1::picard2:

[Lucas]

It's getting worse. I heard rumours that Davidski thinks early Slavs in general were Balkan-like. At least some users on this Polish forum said that. https://old.histmag.org//dlugie-narodziny-polski-13140#comment-83342

[Peterski]

Medieval Balkan Slavs were similar to Serbs or Romanians.

It means they were already mixed with local Pre-Slavic population.

[-Scar-]

It means they were already mixed with local Pre-Slavic population.

They could have absorbed some non Slavic ancestry during their road towards Bulgaria before they met Thracians. But I don't think they were Serb or Romanian-like more like Slovenes. If they were Serb-like the Slavic ancestry would shoot 70% in Bulgaria similar to Croatia.

[vbnetkhio]

https://i.imgur.com/34uC4MJ.png

how did i miss this.

this changes things a lot. the area roughly corresponding to modern Macedonia was spared by the initial Slavic invasions of the 7th century. The first Slavs settled there in the 9th century from surrounding areas.

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/645771242254893077/647557740511625246/Boundaries.png
https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/645771242254893077/647559933365059640/Izrezak.PNG

[Lucas]

how did i miss this.

this changes things a lot. the area roughly corresponding to modern Macedonia was spared by the initial Slavic invasions of the 7th century. The first Slavs settled there in the 9th century from surrounding areas.



I think Davidski wasn't aware of that. Somoen could ask him.

[Bosniensis]

Now we know that 10th century South Slavs are modern South Slavs.

Is that a some kind of miracle?

We know that Nemanjić, Vlastimirović etc.. are South Slavs even without genetic material.

[Lucas]

Now we know that 10th century South Slavs are modern South Slavs.

Is that a some kind of miracle?

We know that Nemanjić, Vlastimirović etc.. are South Slavs even without genetic material.

Should be obvious. Turkish rule had minimal impact genetically on most of Balkans. So what could change them since that time.

[Bosniensis]

Should be obvious. Turkish rule had minimal impact genetically on most of Balkans. So what could change them since that time.

Biological Turks have never been on Balkans, it was Balkan people who as "Turks" ruled Balkans.

[Kaspias]

Biological Turks have never been on Balkans, it was Balkan people who as "Turks" ruled Balkans.

?

[Bosniensis]

?

We never had Central Asian people here on Western Balkans as that Pole assumes.

Armies that came with Mehmed were mostly Anatolian and Balkan muslims unlike Oghuz forces that conquered Manzikert 1071.

[Kaspias]

We never had Central Asian people here on Western Balkans as that Pole assumes.

Armies that came with Mehmed were mostly Anatolian and Balkan muslims unlike Oghuz forces that conquered Manzikert 1071.

There are around 10 million Balkan Turks, which is like 4 times more than Bosniak population. There were no Turks in Western Balkans, but in Eastern Balkans, the region covers Macedonia, Thrace and Bulgaria were predominantly Turkish before Russo-Turkish War.




Armies that came with Mehmed were mostly Anatolian and Balkan muslims unlike Oghuz forces that conquered Manzikert 1071.

See my father then:



Using 2 populations approximation
1 50% Albanian_North + 50% Turkmen_Uzbekistan @ 4,365
2 50% Albanian_Kosovo + 50% Turkmen_Uzbekistan @ 4,711
3 50% Italy_FriuliVG + 50% Turkmen_Uzbekistan @ 4,949
4 50% Macedonian + 50% Turkmen_Uzbekistan @ 5,095
5 50% Italy_Veneto + 50% Turkmen_Uzbekistan @ 5,451
6 50% Gagauz + 50% Turkmen_Uzbekistan @ 5,534
7 50% Italy_FriuliVG + 50% Turkmen_Iran @ 5,785
8 50% Pomak + 50% Turkmen_Uzbekistan @ 5,929
9 50% Turkmen_Iran + 50% Italy_Trentino @ 5,931
10 50% Italy_Piedmont + 50% Turkmen_Uzbekistan @ 6,056

[Bosniensis]

There are around 10 million Balkan Turks, which is like 4 times more than Bosniak population. There were no Turks in Western Balkans, but in Eastern Balkans, the region covers Macedonia, Thrace and Bulgaria were predominantly Turkish before Russo-Turkish War.

See my father then:



Using 2 populations approximation
1 50% Albanian_North + 50% Turkmen_Uzbekistan @ 4,365
2 50% Albanian_Kosovo + 50% Turkmen_Uzbekistan @ 4,711
3 50% Italy_FriuliVG + 50% Turkmen_Uzbekistan @ 4,949
4 50% Macedonian + 50% Turkmen_Uzbekistan @ 5,095
5 50% Italy_Veneto + 50% Turkmen_Uzbekistan @ 5,451
6 50% Gagauz + 50% Turkmen_Uzbekistan @ 5,534
7 50% Italy_FriuliVG + 50% Turkmen_Iran @ 5,785
8 50% Pomak + 50% Turkmen_Uzbekistan @ 5,929
9 50% Turkmen_Iran + 50% Italy_Trentino @ 5,931
10 50% Italy_Piedmont + 50% Turkmen_Uzbekistan @ 6,056

You do understand that your Turkic line has nothing to do with Oghuz or Ottomans right?

Dulo, Kubrat etc.. might be related to you more closely than Oghuzes and we are talking about 500 years of Ottoman invasion.

Ottoman invasion wasn't really Turkic after 14th century when millions and millions Anatolians converted to Islam.

[Kaspias]

You do understand that your Turkic line has nothing to do with Oghuz or Ottomans right?

Dulo, Kubrat etc.. might be related to you more closely than Oghuzes and we are talking about 500 years of Ottoman invasion.

Ottoman invasion wasn't really Turkic after 14th century when millions and millions Anatolians converted to Islam.

Bulgars, if they were able to preserve themselves from the assimilation under Slavs, are surely among Balkan Turks now. Eastern Bulgaria were completely Balkan Turk before resettlement of Bulgarians. So, actually even if they are assimilated among Slavs they still should be among Balkan Turks because these Slavs assimilated among Turks afterward as well. Even though we assume that's indeed the case, it is still not possible to carry their Turkic genetic heritage until today. In this sense presence of Bulgars or being Bulgar is unrelated as the source of Turkic input we see here was freshcomer Oghuz and Tatar.

Nomadic Oghuz and Tatar settlements into Balkans only before 1530: https://www.devletarsivleri.gov.tr/varliklar/dosyalar/eskisiteden/yayinlar/elektronik-yayinlar/Rumeli_eyaleti.pdf

We both born in Balkans where out of Turkish border. If you can't understand what is written here ask yourself why can't you speak Turkish, but I can. It is actually simple as that.

[Bosniensis]

Bulgars, if they were able to preserve themselves from the assimilation under Slavs, are surely among Balkan Turks now. Eastern Bulgaria were completely Balkan Turk before resettlement of Bulgarians. So, actually even if they are assimilated among Slavs they still should be among Balkan Turks because these Slavs assimilated among Turks afterward as well. Even though we assume that's indeed the case, it is still not possible to carry their Turkic genetic heritage until today. In this sense presence of Bulgars or being Bulgar is unrelated as the source of Turkic input we see here was freshcomer Oghuz and Tatar.

Nomadic Oghuz and Tatar settlements into Balkans only before 1530: https://www.devletarsivleri.gov.tr/varliklar/dosyalar/eskisiteden/yayinlar/elektronik-yayinlar/Rumeli_eyaleti.pdf

We both born in Balkans where out of Turkish border. If you can't understand what is written here ask yourself why can't you speak Turkish, but I can. It is actually simple as that.

Turkish language is measurement for nothing. I have info that my older ancestors spoke Turkish.

It is a myth created by 1930 Turkey that Turkish speaking inhabitants of Balkans and Anatolia are of Turkic origin.

Just because we have your Q Y-DNA which is Turkic same can not be said for 90% of your Turkish friends.

Ottoman Turks surely called their language “lisan-ı Türki” or “Türkçe” i.e. the Turkish language, but after all, Americans call their language “English” and not “American”.

Poets writing in Turkish, living in Ottoman lands would call themselves şuara-yı Rûm, that is, Roman poets, or the poets of Rome.

Anatolia and the Balkans were always Diyar-ı Rum i.e. the lands of the Romans or the Roman lands or simply Rum, i.e. Rome.

That's what I was trying to explain to that Pole guy that Ottomans are not Central Asian people but a people who mixed with Turks in between 10th and 13th century where

their Central Asian impact, even if mixed with South Slavs should be 1-3% and Ottomans DID MIX with us.

[Lucas]

Before I was refering to modern situation, after resettlement of Turks 150-100 years ago.

[Kaspias]

.


Turkish language is measurement for nothing. I have info that my older ancestors spoke Turkish.

Because they had to speak it to sustain "governor" status of Western Balkans. You don't have to speak it now, and you don't speak.



It is a myth created by 1930 Turkey that Turkish speaking inhabitants of Balkans and Anatolia are of Turkic origin.

Just because we have your Q Y-DNA which is Turkic same can not be said for 90% of your Turkish friends.

I can speak only for Balkan Turks as I have no detailed information on Anatolian Turks. My recent collection on y and mt-dna of Balkan Turks indicated 15% to 25% of Y-DNA can be considered Turkic; and 25% to 35% of mt-DNA can be considered Turkic. This was what I expected considering Balkan Turks in average models like 75% Native and 25% Central Asian. Haplogroups are in the same parallel as well.

Anyway, noone denied the so called native heritage here and that's why they are called Balkan Turks.


Ottoman Turks surely called their language “lisan-ı Türki” or “Türkçe” i.e. the Turkish language, but after all, Americans call their language “English” and not “American”.

Poets writing in Turkish, living in Ottoman lands would call themselves şuara-yı Rûm, that is, Roman poets, or the poets of Rome.

Anatolia and the Balkans were always Diyar-ı Rum i.e. the lands of the Romans or the Roman lands or simply Rum, i.e. Rome.

That's what I was trying to explain to that Pole guy that Ottomans are not Central Asian people but a people who mixed with Turks in between 10th and 13th century where


Nomadic Seljuks are also called themselves Rum. Were they Greeks as well?

Using the name Rum such occassionally is a kind of respect towards Greeks. Besides personally supporting this behaviour I add again noone denies the native heritage. It is you who try to deny Turkic heritage. But yes, Ottomans were a mix of Turks and natives where they conquered. That's a correct statement.



their Central Asian impact, even if mixed with South Slavs should be 1-3% and Ottomans DID MIX with us.

Ottomans mixed with you and the child ended up as being Turk and lived in Anatolia or Istanbul. Moreover, this was not a mass movement happened between communities but only in regards of inidividuals. Today's Bosniaks who live in Bosnia has no Turkic heritage.

[-Scar-]

how did i miss this.

this changes things a lot. the area roughly corresponding to modern Macedonia was spared by the initial Slavic invasions of the 7th century. The first Slavs settled there in the 9th century from surrounding areas.

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/645771242254893077/647557740511625246/Boundaries.png
https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/645771242254893077/647559933365059640/Izrezak.PNG

The Slavic invasion is not very well documented outside of some regions. So they could have settled there too during the 7th century.

[Dušan]

Yes

https://i.imgur.com/kRezASD.png

[andrzej]

Today, he drops another hint at what's to come. He says that medieval samples from the country of North Macedonia look like Balkan Slavs and there was a huge genetic shift from the Iron Age/Hellenistic period that he attributes to the Slavic migration. He once again mentions that the Slavs that came to North Macedonia didn't look like Poles or Ukrainians, but genetically resembled Serbs, Montenegrins, Romanians, etc.

https://i.imgur.com/34uC4MJ.png
Yes, because many were tribes from Ukraine and did in fact resemble a lot of Ukrainians (so they shouldn't really be included in that). Many Slavic tribes in Ukraine clearly absorbed/assimilated predominately Mediterranean (i.e. Iranic) people. If you actually look at Ukrainians do you think many of them are that different from Balkan Slavs? Clearly not.

Slavs were already quite diverse to begin with before migrations west or south either way.