Who, genetically, are the least Slavic of the Slavs?

It has to be one of these:

Poles
Czechs
Slovakians
Slovenes
Bulgarians
Macedonians

But which? The latter two are obviously Hellenized, and Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, and even maybe Slovenes would be influenced by Germanic people.

Dodecad says Macedonia is the least Eastern European, but there is the off chance that more Bulgarian E. European admixture is non-Slavic (predates Slavs) than that of Macedonians, with the difference being greater than that shown by dodecad as the case where the answer is Bulgaria.

Also, it's so obviously not Poland :P

Bulgarians.

Croats and Slovenes maybe

Greeks imo

Definitely Bulgarians or Macedonians. Macedonians are probably about as Slavic-admixed as Romanians, or even less.

Slovenes are likely the most Slavic of South Slavs, considering that they can score 40-50% "North Slavic" in DNA Land.

I saw one Bulgarian result and he scored 25% "North Slavic" in DNA Land. Seya (Romanian) scores 17% "North Slavic".

Please note that Proto-Slavs most likely did not score 100% "North Slavic". But we don't have Proto-Slavic aDNA.

West Slavs also have Celtic admixture (apart from Germanic).

==============================================

Northern Belarusians may actually be more Baltic than Slavic. But Balts are genetically very similar to Slavs anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by All-In

Croats and Slovenes maybe

---

These are actually the most genetically Slavic of South Slavs. The least Slavic are Bulgarians or Macedonians.

Slavic is a NOT a genetic term. It is a linguistic term only.You are slavic by virtue of speaking a Slavic language and nothing else.
The amount of disinformation you routinely spread is quite frustrating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Etain

Slavic is a NOT a genetic term. It is a linguistic term only.You are slavic by virtue of speaking a Slavic language and nothing else.
The amount of disinformation you routinely spread is quite frustrating.

---

Actually Slavic-speaking groups are more closely related to each other than Germanic-speaking groups.

So if you think that for example Germanic is a genetic term (do you?) then Slavic is a genetic term too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Etain

Slavic is a NOT a genetic term. It is a linguistic term only.You are slavic by virtue of speaking a Slavic language and nothing else.
The amount of disinformation you routinely spread is quite frustrating.

---

In Russia a lot of non-slavic eurasian people like Mordvins, Tatars, Bashkirs etc speak Russian as a native language.

Bulgarians and Macedonians probably.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Litvin

Definitely Bulgarians or Macedonians. Macedonians are probably about as Slavic-admixed as Romanians, or even less.

Slovenes are likely the most Slavic of South Slavs, considering that they can score 40-50% "North Slavic" in DNA Land.

I saw one Bulgarian result and he scored 25% "North Slavic" in DNA Land. Seya (Romanian) scores 17% "North Slavic".

Please note that Proto-Slavs most likely did not score 100% "North Slavic". But we don't have Proto-Slavic aDNA.

West Slavs also have Celtic admixture (apart from Germanic).

==============================================

Northern Belarusians may actually be more Baltic than Slavic. But Balts are genetically very similar to Slavs anyway.



These are actually the most genetically Slavic of South Slavs. The least Slavic are Bulgarians or Macedonians.

---

I was gunna say Croats are more Slavic because Slovenes have more R1b but Slovenes also have more R1a, so.

Who do you think are the most Slavic/closest to the original invaders? I wanna say SE Poland because of the high amount of R1a but even there you could have Germanic/Celtic or Baltic admixture, and I wanna say SW Russia around Belgorod for the same reason but they will have Uralic admixture and more Mongoloid would be present in other Slavs. Belarus should have too much Baltic. That's why I usually go with NW Ukrainians, less likely to have Germanic/Baltic and they also have the most amount of I2a1(of North Slavs) if you wanna believe Balkan I2a1 is from Slavs. Lots of Slavic expansion maps puts the origin of the migrations from NW Ukraine.

Maybe Sorbs in Saxony? I've seen PCA plots of them where they plot east of Poles so they shouldn't be German admixed. Also 70% R1a(but this can also happen via other means).

and yes, there are definitely "most genetically Slavic, Germanic, Celtic", etc. The people who expanded and spread the language have the closest ties to the language and the best claim on it. Pretty common sense. The most Indo-Iranian people are the Erzya/Mordvins or east Ukrainians(depends if you wanna use Altai Andronovo or Kazakh/Volga Sintashta), the most Germanic people are North Dutch or south Scandinavians, the most Celtic I have no idea but it's probably not British Isles people, Celts only went their as elites, not a mass migration.

Also, I think Montenegrins may be less Slavic than both Bulgarians and Macedonians. Less R1a.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XenophobicPrussian

if you wanna believe Balkan I2a1 is from Slavs.

---

Yeah, I2a-Din probably also came with Slavs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XenophobicPrussian

the most Celtic I have no idea but it's probably not British Isles people, Celts only went their as elites, not a mass migration.

---

So what languages were spoken there before?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Litvin

Yeah, I2a-Din probably also came with Slavs.



So what languages were spoken there before?

---

I dunno, proto-Germanic/Celtic/Italic? You know the Celts only invaded the British Isles in 500 BC right? There was no population displacement and there have been papers that claimed most of the Briton genome(this isn't including Anglo-Saxon admixture which is around 30% for English) was there from the bronze age.

Celts are from Austria/Bavaria/Switzerland, why would they be modern Irish like?

The problem with Dinaric I2a1b1 is it's supposed to be a very new haplogroup but it's found in Cardium Pottery culture in Spain and in a neolithic German.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XenophobicPrussian

Who do you think are the most Slavic/closest to the original invaders?

---

I think that Early Slavs could be a bit heterogeneous already before 500 AD.

Some of their groups were probably more similar to Balts, other groups less.

Quote:

---

most of the Briton genome (...) was there from the bronze age.

---

Is it impossible that those Bronze Age people already spoke some Proto-Celtic?

Quote:

---

You know the Celts only invaded the British Isles in 500 BC right?

---

I know that this used to be the mainstream theory, but maybe it is wrong.

Bulgarians

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Litvin

Definitely Bulgarians or Macedonians. Macedonians are probably about as Slavic-admixed as Romanians, or even less.

Slovenes are likely the most Slavic of South Slavs, considering that they can score 40-50% "North Slavic" in DNA Land.

I saw one Bulgarian result and he scored 25% "North Slavic" in DNA Land. Seya (Romanian) scores 17% "North Slavic".

Please note that Proto-Slavs most likely did not score 100% "North Slavic". But we don't have Proto-Slavic aDNA.

West Slavs also have Celtic admixture (apart from Germanic).

==============================================

Northern Belarusians may actually be more Baltic than Slavic. But Balts are genetically very similar to Slavs anyway.



These are actually the most genetically Slavic of South Slavs. The least Slavic are Bulgarians or Macedonians.

---

You seem to be very lax in your use of terms. The so called DNA Land's North Slavic component peaks in lithuanians and latvians so if anything that component should be called baltic and by your own logic north slavs are basterdized balts or lesser balts. The most appropriate term would probably be north-eastern european. Etain is right, slavic is a linguistic term not a genetic one. Slavs from Southern Europe are mix of north-easterns and balkanites (if that's an appropriate term) hence their genetic make up.
Seya is, by her own admission, part greek .. or at least that's what she had written in her profile a while a ago. That doesn't mean she's not romanian. There are 2 other romanians who took the test - myself and tschort. I score 55% of that "glorious" north slavic, tschort scores close to 50%.
As for your theories on belarussians and balts I guess it's all a matter of perspective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zmey Gorynych

You seem to be very lax in your use of terms. The so called DNA Land's North Slavic component peaks in lithuanians and latvians so if anything that component should be called baltic and by your own logic north slavs are basterdized balts or lesser balts. The most appropriate term would probably be north-eastern european. Etain is right, slavic is a linguistic term not a genetic one. Slavs from Southern Europe are mix of north-easterns and balkanites (if that's an appropriate term) hence their genetic make up.
Seya is, by her own admission, part greek .. or at least that's what she had written in her profile a while a ago. That doesn't mean she's not romanian. There are 2 other romanians who took the test - myself and tschort. I score 55% of that "glorious" north slavic, tschort scores close to 50%.
As for your theories on belarussians and balts I guess it's all a matter of perspective.

---

Tschort is not even romanian by ancestry/genetics and you are moldovan so you are slav admixed relative to romanians from Romania.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antimage

Tschort is not even romanian by ancestry/genetics and you are moldovan so you are slav admixed relative to romanians from Romania.

---

Yes, I'm from the republic but I'm a native with no slavic ancestry at least in the last couple of hundred years which is exactly the period of slavic colonization of eastern Moldova (otherwise there would've been at least one slavic surname). Sure there might be admixture older than 200 years or 500 or 1000. I've read tschort's claims of being part hutsul yet genetically he's slightly less eastern than me (someone with no north slavic ancestry). His maternal side is romanian/moldovan from Vaslui and his paternal side seems about as slavic as his maternal one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Litvin

Definitely Bulgarians or Macedonians. Macedonians are probably about as Slavic-admixed as Romanians, or even less.

Slovenes are likely the most Slavic of South Slavs, considering that they can score 40-50% "North Slavic" in DNA Land.

I saw one Bulgarian result and he scored 25% "North Slavic" in DNA Land. Seya (Romanian) scores 17% "North Slavic".

Please note that Proto-Slavs most likely did not score 100% "North Slavic". But we don't have Proto-Slavic aDNA.

West Slavs also have Celtic admixture (apart from Germanic).

==============================================

Northern Belarusians may actually be more Baltic than Slavic. But Balts are genetically very similar to Slavs anyway.



These are actually the most genetically Slavic of South Slavs. The least Slavic are Bulgarians or Macedonians.

---

DNAland is terrible. North Slavic includes Mordvins who are a Finnic group. I score 85% North Slavic however on Gedmatch my mixture tends to be 25% Slav. DNAland is not accurate to prove anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norka

DNAland is terrible. North Slavic includes Mordvins who are a Finnic group. I score 85% North Slavic however on Gedmatch my mixture tends to be 25% Slav. DNAland is not accurate to prove anything.

---

You're right DNA Land is crap which inflates scores (similar to 23&me in that respect).

I scored %25 North Slavic in Dnaland.I saw Macedonian and Bulgarians,They scored %20 or %17.I think same with Norka.

Montenegrins of course.

Macedonians Imo

either slavomacedonians or montenegrins

About the ethnogenesis of South Slavs I wrote something here:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sho...=1#post4268278

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Litvin

If we believe Max Vasmer, the association between Slavs and slaves originated during the Slavic invasion of the Balkans in the 6th century AD, when invading North Slavs enslaved a lot of native Balkanians, and Slavicized them - leading to the ethnogenesis of South Slavs. Balkan Slavs are largely descended from those subjects of the Byzantine Empire who were enslaved and Slavicized by Slavs (Emperor Maurice in his "Strategikon" wrote that Slavs did not keep slaves in perpetual slavery, but incorporated them into their own egalitarian societies).

According to Max Vasmer, the term "sclavos" meaning "slave" rather than "ethnic Slav", was for the first time used by Agathias of Myrina already in the 6th century AD.

Let's see what Byzantine authors wrote about that:

Emperor Maurice, "Strategikon", 11, 4:

"The Sclavenes and the Antes live in the same way and have the same customs. They are both independent, absolutely refusing to be enslaved or ruled by foreigners, least of all in their own land. They are populous and hardy, bearing readily heat, cold, rain, nakedness, and scarcity of provisions. They are kind and hospitable to travellers in their country and conduct them safely from one place to another, wherever they wish. (...) They [Slavs], unlike other peoples, do not keep those who are in captivity among them in perpetual slavery, but they set a definite period of time for them, after which they give them the choice: either, when they so desire, to return to their own homes if they purchase their freedom, or to stay among them as free people and friends."

So Slavs were increasing their numbers by incorporating captured slaves into their ranks, and assimilating them. Let's see what Byzantine authors wrote about Slavic slave raids:

Procopius of Caesarea, "De Bellis", VII, 13, 24:

"For a great throng of barbarians, the Slavs, had, as it happened, recently crossed the river Danube, plundered the adjoining country, and enslaved a very great number of Romans."

Procopius of Caesarea, "De Bellis", III, 3, 9-19:

"The Slavs took the city [of Toperus] in the following manner. Most of them hid themselves in hilly country opposite the walls, and a few of them, going up before the eastern gates, annoyed the Romans on the parapets. The soldiers who were on guard there, thinking that they (Slavs) were no more numerous than those whom they saw, all immediately taking up their weapons, went out against them. The barbarians retreated, giving the appearance to their pursuers that they retreated out of fear. Those in ambush came out now, behind the pursuers, no longer allowing them entry into the city. Those who appeared to be fleeing now turned about and placed the Romans in a position of double attack. Having slain all of them, the barbarians attacked the wall. The inhabitants of the city, deprived of the soldiers, were at a great loss and defended themselves against the attackers with those that remained. First, heating oil and pitch, they poured it on the besiegers and, all of them hurling stones against them, came close to repulsing the danger. But then the barbarians, having driven them back from the parapets by a multitude of arrows and having placed ladders against the wall, took the city by storm. They slew all 15,000 men, plundered all the wealth, and enslaved all the women and children."

Procopius of Caesarea, "Historia Arcana", 18, 20-21:

"Illyria and all of Thrace, that is, from the Ionian Gulf to the suburbs of Constantinople, including Greece and the Chersonese, were overrun by the Slavs, almost every year, from the time when Justinian took over the Roman Empire; and intolerable things they did to the inhabitants. For in each of these invasions, I estimate, more than two hundred thousand Romans were slain or enslaved, so that all this country became a desert like that of Scythia."

Procopius of Caesarea, "Historia Arcana", 23, 6:

"The Slavs ravaged all of Europe; captured cities were either razed to their foundations, or made to pay terrible tribute; men were carried off into slavery together with all their property, and every district was deserted by its inhabitants because of the daily raids: yet no tax was remitted, except in the case of cities that had been captured by the enemy, and then only for one year."

John of Ephesus "Historia Ecclesiastica", 6, 25:

"That same year, being the third after the death of emperor Justin, was famous also for the invasion of an accursed people, called Slavs, who overran the whole of Greece, and the lands of Thessaly, and all Thrace, and captured the cities, and took numerous forts, and devastated and burnt, and reduced the people to slavery, and made themselves masters of the whole country, and settled in it by main force, and dwelt in it as though it had been their own without fear. And four years have now elapsed, and still, because the king is engaged in the war with the Persians, and has sent all his forces to the East, they live at their ease in the land, and dwell in it, and spread themselves far and wide as far as God permits them, and ravage and burn and take captive. And to such an extent do they carry their ravages, that they have even ridden up to the outer wall of the city, and driven away all the king's herds of horses, many thousands in number, and whatever else they could find. And even to this day, being the year 584 AD, they still encamp and dwell there, and live in peace in the Roman territories, free from anxiety and fear, and lead captive and slay and burn: and they have grown rich in gold and silver, and herds of horses, and arms, and have learnt to fight better than the Romans, though at first they were but rude savages, who did not venture to shew themselves outside the woods and the coverts of the trees; and as for arms, they did not even know what they were, with the exception of two or three javelins or darts."

Menander Protector, fragments 47 and 48:

"About the fourth year of the reign of Caesar Tiberius Constantine, some hundred thousand Slavs broke into Thrace, and pillaged that and many other regions. As Greece was being laid waste by the Slavs, with trouble liable to flare up anywhere, and as Tiberius had at his disposal by no means sufficient forces to contain them, he sent a delegation to the Khagan of the Avars [to ask him for help against the Slavs]."

Archaeology also confirms those written accounts quoted above:

http://www.ascsa.edu.gr/pdf/uploads/hesperia/147272.pdf

"There is clear evidence from the excavations of the Athenian Agora that the late sixth century witnessed some interruption in the peaceful course of town life in Athens. Certain buildings, for example, are known to have been burnt and temporarily or permanently deserted at that time. Finds of coinage, evidently concealed in haste or abandoned in emergency and never recovered, allow a date to be assigned to events, for which, although they are well attested by archaeological discovery, it would otherwise be very difficult to demonstrate a particular historical context. Byzantine chroniclers tell of a Slavonic invasion of Greece which took place apparently at the end of the year 578 or early in 579, as a result of which large numbers of Slavs settled in Greece... It is virtually certain that some of the destruction in the Athenian Agora, for which a date in the years immediately following the invasion is here proposed, was the work of the Slavs... Menander Protector, in his work chronicling the period ca. 560-580, writes as follows."

Among few Greek cities which resisted enslavement by Slavs, was Thessaloniki:

http://groznijat.tripod.com/slav/vryonis.html

"The strongest hybridisation processes involved the South Slavs":

http://www.archeo.uw.edu.pl/swarch/S...B-s205-212.pdf

http://s4.postimg.org/i64k6ay25/Slavs.png

The list of primary sources which describe how Early Slavs looked like:

6th century AD:

- Procopius of Caesarea
- Theophylact Simocatta
- Theophanes the Confessor
- Emperor Maurice ("Strategikon")
- Pseudo-Caesarius of Nazianzus

7th century AD:

- Al-Ahtal
- Ibn Qutaybah

8th century AD:

- Ibn Al-Kalbi

9th century AD:

- Al-Baladhuri
- Al-Ğāhiz

10th century AD:

- Abraham ben Jacob
- Constantine Porphyrogennetos
- Al-Masudi
- Ibn al-Faqih
- Yaqut al-Hamawi*

*He lived in the 13th century but was quoting 10th century sources.

================

Carleton Stevens Coon, "The Races of Europe", page 220:

https://books.google.pl/books?id=BqC...Nordic&f=false

"(...) On the whole, the Slavic racial type, as exemplified by skeletal series from Poland, Germany, Bohemia, Austria, and Russia, was reasonably uniform ... The Slavs, like all the other Indo-European-speaking peoples whom we have been able to trace, were originally Nordic. (...)"

Anthropological studies of Early Slavs:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthre...l=1#post174129

Ilse Schwidetzky, "Rassenkunde der Altslawen":

https://ariets.files.wordpress.com/2...-altslawen.pdf

Nordic (n), Easteuropid (o), Alpinid or Lappid (a), Dinaric (d), Mediterranid (m):

https://s7.postimg.org/uql8nmaob/ant...ia_S_owian.png

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zmey Gorynych

Yes, I'm from the republic but I'm a native with no slavic ancestry at least in the last couple of hundred years which is exactly the period of slavic colonization of eastern Moldova (otherwise there would've been at least one slavic surname). Sure there might be admixture older than 200 years or 500 or 1000. I've read tschort's claims of being part hutsul yet genetically he's slightly less eastern than me (someone with no north slavic ancestry). His maternal side is romanian/moldovan from Vaslui and his paternal side seems about as slavic as his maternal one.

---

Moldovans are a entirely different thing compared to other Romanians Eurogenes K8 gives Romanians (presumably most are from the south somewhere) like 33% WHG and 13% ANE. Moldovans are 16% ANE and 40% WHG. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...XwUsAA/pubhtml
We know then that Moldovans are more "EHG"-like. Only by looking at them you can tell. BTW this doesn't need to be the Moldovans from Moldova, it can be Romanians from Maramures where they border with slavic Ukranians. The mixture of Moldovans and Slavs might be very old, you might not know of any slavs mixing in with your family in the last 100 years, but it might be much older than that you can tell just by looking at them IMO. A lot of them look like a mix of Ukrainians and south Romanians.

To answer the OP question, I'd say Macedonians and Bulgarians. They're probably genetically further from the original slavs compared to even the average Romanian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Litvin

Actually Slavic-speaking groups are more closely related to each other than Germanic-speaking groups.

So if you think that for example Germanic is a genetic term (do you?) then Slavic is a genetic term too.

---

NEITHER SLAV OR GERMANIC ARE GENETIC TERMS.

END OF STORY

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Etain

NEITHER SLAV OR GERMANIC ARE GENETIC TERMS.

END OF STORY

---

Sure fgt, but the original tribes that spoke those languages were genetically something and that something is what being genetically Slavic/ Germanic means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RN97

Moldovans are a entirely different thing compared to other Romanians Eurogenes K8 gives Romanians (presumably most are from the south somewhere) like 33% WHG and 13% ANE. Moldovans are 16% ANE and 40% WHG. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...XwUsAA/pubhtml
We know then that Moldovans are more "EHG"-like. Only by looking at them you can tell. BTW this doesn't need to be the Moldovans from Moldova, it can be Romanians from Maramures where they border with slavic Ukranians. The mixture of Moldovans and Slavs might be very old, you might not know of any slavs mixing in with your family in the last 100 years, but it might be much older than that you can tell just by looking at them IMO. A lot of them look like a mix of Ukrainians and south Romanians.

---

That's because moldavian sample is fucked up:
Population ID ANE South_Eurasian Near_Eastern East_Eurasian WHG
Moldavian moldavian_V02612 0.138436 0.01478 0.431613 0.004206 0.391307
Moldavian moldavian_V13693 0.1729 0.001728 0.358749 0.007933 0.441898 - Obvious East-Slav, rather Ukrainian.
Moldavian moldavian_V28645 0.183448 0.024508 0.369633 0.010346 0.386809 - Could be a mixed person or something, too high ANE and rather high WHG
Moldavian moldavian_V44175 0.182211 0.0125 0.316792 0.011555 0.467366 - Obvious East-Slav, rather Russian
Moldavian moldavian_V46055 0.167283 0.016704 0.41326 0.001567 0.398462
Moldavian moldavian_V48759 0.14289 0.025335 0.443036 0.004997 0.374307
Moldavian moldavian_V49937 0.130967 0.015661 0.497581 0.007296 0.342581 - Seems to be an outlier, could be a more southern Romanian or something.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...gid=1681484272

As you can see only 3 guys have results that kinda make sense, considering their ancestry, so always check your facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pelikarski

Greeks imo

---

Comments from Eurogenes blog about Slavic admixture in modern Southern Greece:

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/0...tion-bias.html

Interesting read, "The plague pandemic and Slavic expansion in the 6th-8th centuries":

http://www.antropologia.uw.edu.pl/AS/as-005.pdf

It is possible that Slavs had a higher immunity to plague than Non-Slavic populations.

Genetically, are the least Slavic of the Slavs is populations with maximum East_Central_Euro by K-36.

“Slav” is merely a linguistic identity. It’s not like “Arab” where it’s also cultural because Arabic is one language with regional dialects whereas Slavic languages are entirely different languages that happen to share a common root. Culturally there is an Eastern European identity yes, but Slavic no.

why are poles on the list? it is probably bulgarians as they have alot of E dna from what i have seen

Bulgarians, Macedonians or Montenegrins.

What he said ^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swarthy_Syndicate

“Slav” is merely a linguistic identity. It’s not like “Arab” where it’s also cultural because Arabic is one language with regional dialects whereas Slavic languages are entirely different languages that happen to share a common root. Culturally there is an Eastern European identity yes, but Slavic no.

---

There is no Slavic civilization or even culture, it is indeed just a linguistic group

Probably Macedonians.

Torbesh. Followed by Macedonians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by викторслава

why are poles on the list? it is probably bulgarians as they have alot of E dna from what i have seen

---

Because some Poles in western part of Poland have about half of their genetic being Celto-Germanic.