The historical Scythians and Sarmatians are said to have disappeared centuries before Russia (Rurikid) was founded in the 9th century. They are mostly ancient history, not medieval.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stearsolina
Printable View
The historical Scythians and Sarmatians are said to have disappeared centuries before Russia (Rurikid) was founded in the 9th century. They are mostly ancient history, not medieval.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stearsolina
Slavs who invaded Balkans? Well, no idea, just speculating. Maybe they were pure unaltered Slavs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leto
Latvians? Def. not. Nobody mentions Latvians here.
double
Sungir6 is good sample, not only for some N.Macedonians, but for other too. I cant be modeled without it, to get close distance.Quote:
Originally Posted by rothaer
I dont care about fairytales about Lithuanian-like early Slavs.
It sounds like a fairy tale to me. Dissapeared to where, thin air?Quote:
Originally Posted by Leto
Illyrians and Thracians were long gone when Slavs settled Balkans too, but their DNA was not.
Assimilated by Proto-Slavs before any historical Slavic state was founded (Russia, Bulgaria, Serbia, etc). They were mostly gone by 500 AD according to Wikipedia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stearsolina
No, Sunghir6 looks like a light mongrel and unaltered ancient Slavic samples from 3 different countries plot differently. Facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dušan
Your modeling of yourself with ancient Greeks and similar type of stuff is laughable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stearsolina
Greece was swamped by Slavic-speaking Lithuanians in the 6th century :swlQuote:
Originally Posted by Dušan
Well, Slavs from Moravia, east Germany and Hungary lack such type of input, in fact they shift towards Balticum and as we know no migrations of Balts were ever recorded there. That's interesting at least.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leto
Dušan hates Lithuanians, he is probably jelly they are closer to early Slavs than he is xDQuote:
Originally Posted by Leto
Bulgarians
Well, what I'm going to say is that he will never celebrate a Croat or Bosniak, even if he scored like a Pole. See his conspicuous silence on the recent Croat results as well as the Bosniak with 37% Baltic that I found.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stearsolina
He hate us yes. It seems Bosnian muslims from central-northeast Bosnia are among most Slavic out of all south Slavs, from what I saw.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leto
And that is fascinating considering their religion (let's be honest Islam, albeit not a race, is a largely "brown" thing). Many people assume they are part Turkish or something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stearsolina
Early Medieval cranial series from Slavic centers of Croatia looked exactly like early Slavic skulls from eastern Poland and the least admixed series of Wendish skulls. I doubt they were admixed to any significant degree, but not sure about the Slavs further south.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stearsolina
True.Quote:
Originally Posted by Token
Two Krakauer samples with the least Germanic and highest Balto Slavic drift are in fact KRA006 and KRA009. One is more Ukrainian-like and the other more Belarusian.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stearsolina
Some of those you used as Balto-Slavic are in fact Lithuanian-like+ a bit of Germanic.
To me it looks like the tribe which spread R-L260 was Baltic-like, and the other Slavic tribes were Ukrainian-like. The correlation seems pretty strong actually.
Most Slavs have ancestry from both groups, but for example Kashubians look Lithuanian+Scandinavian without any Ukraininian-like, se they are probably the purest descendants of the "R-l260 tribe".
And what abut pre-Slavic Balkan? Reich paper says Roman admixture was not very relevant in the Balkans (there were Roman, Sarmatian, Germanic soldiers there but their DNA did not spread much apparently). They model south Slavs as Slav proxy + Balkan IA.Quote:
Originally Posted by vbnetkhio
I know here is now a fight going on so maybe not the best situation for coming with a factual try. But nevertheless:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dušan
The question whether one can be modeled with a good fit or not is not descisive for the question whether that modellling is applicable or not. It can therefore also not be of relevance for the question whether Sunghir6 should be used or not for such modelling. I myself considered Sunghir6 suitable, but the only valid point is if Sunghir6 can be considered a good proxy for proto Slavs. On the G25 North Europe PCA it plots perfect, but there might be other differing traits that are not visible on that particular PCA. If Sunghir6 has something that the other unquestionable proto Slav references do not have, that Sunghir6 from the logic can not represent proto Slavs (only).
The paradoxon is: the more you are right that you need Sunghir6 for a good fit modelling, i. e. it makes a difference, the more questionalbe Sunghir6 gets as an applicable reference for proto Slavs. Because for an applicable reference for proto Slavs it should not make a notable difference if you remove it or not.
You could theoretically still be right, but only if you make plausible that all the other proto Slav references are mistaken. I guess this can not be done.
:rotflQuote:
Originally Posted by Leto
I dont have Nordo-Baltic fetishism at all. You confused me with someone.
In fact, I am proud to my Mediterranean component as same as for proto-Slavic.
And Vbn, even if we ignore Krakauer Berg, Moravian samples and Avar 2 are still Lithuanian and Belorussian like.
It's hard to believe that Slavs who settled in the Balkans in late 6th and first half of 7th century were like modern Lithuanians. They were probably most similar to modern Ukrainians and Poles. Part of the Slavs before crossed Danube river lived 100 years or more in Pannonia and present day Romania roughly since 500 AD, their further origin is from Ukrainian areas. Other part of Slavic settlers in the Balkans arrived from west Slavic regions (Czechia, Lusatia, Poland). There is no connection with Lithuania.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dušan
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._the_Serbs.png
You sure? I used Kra 001,011 and 009. They don't look Germanic at all to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by vbnetkhio
Target: (Balto-)Slavic:DEU_Krakauer_Berg_MA_KRA011
Distance: 2.0951% / 0.02095059 | R3P
63.0 Belarusian
30.8 Lithuanian_VZ
6.2 Spanish_Pais_Vasco
Target: (Balto-)Slavic:DEU_Krakauer_Berg_MA_KRA009
Distance: 1.9297% / 0.01929686 | R3P
65.2 Lithuanian_RA
32.2 Slovakian
2.6 Eritrean
Target: (Balto-)Slavic:DEU_Krakauer_Berg_MA_KRA001
Distance: 2.0746% / 0.02074608 | R3P
45.8 Slovakian
42.4 Lithuanian_SZ
11.8 Cossack_Kuban
Bad analogy. Just because early Slavs could have been like between Belarus and Litwa genetically does not mean they originate from such area.Quote:
Originally Posted by Varda
Neither are modern Poles and Ukrainians unchanged from ancient times.
Slavic samples from Moravia and Hungary (which is not very northern location) were also more like Lithuanians than like Ukrainians.
We Bulgarians and glory to God
Put them all on a PCA, you'll see that as a group, they are like Belarusians with a slight Germanic admixture. The same goes for AV2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stearsolina
Slavs who lived in Pannonia and modern Romania over 100 years before they settled in the Balkans (mostly under the Avar rule) probably got some local admixture and when they settled in the Balkans they were different from East Slavic tribes (ancestors of Russians and Belorussians).Quote:
Originally Posted by Stearsolina
The answer is quite simple - Bulgarians (+Macedonians).
The Southern-most Slavic countries who border non-Slavs mostly. The only Slavic nation they border are the Serbs who are also not predominantly Slavic anyway. Historically we also had the least connection with Serbs out of all other neighbours.
And among them there are also samples whose Slavic part is Ukrainian-like, like AV1, Czech early Slav and most of the Pohansko samples.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stearsolina
In Krakauer Berg that ancestry is lacking, Kra006 is the most Ukrainian-like, but still more Belarusian shifted than most of the forementioned samples.
Some people are so desperate to prove they have northern blood. The obsession with what percentage of 'Slavic genes' someone has is tied up with the obsession with how 'northern' someone is.
Russians prefer to be associated with Lithuanians who hate them rather than with dark Serbs. Croats want to be Central Europeans and Serbs want to prove how they are different from Albanians.
There is nothing special about being Slavic. yet everyone wants to be nordic looking...
Sikeliot, you are banned but if you still follow here, my answer is Macedonians for your original question.
I'll look into it.Quote:
Originally Posted by vbnetkhio
Northern Croats are central Europeans. I don't see how a Balkanite like you should be bothered by that.Quote:
Originally Posted by ooops
Bulgarians/Macedonians
Macedonians imho.
Sungir6 is good sample of ancient Slavic population. Deal with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stearsolina
Nothing laughable, I indeed have partly pre-Slavic component that is simmilar to ancient Greek, and it is higher than Illyrian Iron Age. :)
This is from Commonsense's calculator.
Target: Dušan
Distance: 1.4077% / 1.40772730
36.6 Slavic:Sungir6_Early_Medieval_Russian_I2a_I2a_
20.6 Paleo_Balkan:MJ12_Thraco_Kimmerian_
17.5 Slavic:Ukraine_Lutsk_Medieval_VK541
10.3 Slavic:Viking_Sweden_Gotland_VK454
8.4 Paleo_Balkan:I9006_Greece_Mycenaean_3287_ybp
6.6 Paleo_Balkan:I4332_Croatia_MBA_3516_ybp
There was no Greek like population in northern Balkans (or Thracian in Herzegovina for that matter). Your model looks like an unrealistic overfit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dušan
Pointless because these people were not present in the region at all.
The Serbian that resembles you, as you say, gets high Slavic here:Quote:
Originally Posted by vbnetkhio
Target: Serbian:725
Distance: 2.4620% / 0.02461956
57.6 (Balto-)Slavic
28.4 Balkan
12.6 Graeco-Roman
1.4 Turkic
The Macedonian average out of 24 is like this and thus lower than the Bulgarian one:
Target: Macedonia
Distance: 0.4391% / 0.00439142
36.8 (Balto-)Slavic
32.4 Graeco-Roman
30.8 Balkan
Your theory with such a heterogeneity has to be thought of.Quote:
Originally Posted by vbnetkhio
You use "Scandinavian" instead of "Germanic" regarding Kashubs, and the reason why you at all say something else than "Germanic" is that Kashubs plot different to an only Germanic admixture and this is true. It even looks like they would be somewhat Finnish shifted. This is hard to understand. But even harder to understand is that KRA003 plots Kashub-like on the G25 North Europe PCA. Do you have any explanation for that in mind?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stearsolina
And how do you know what look like genetics of pre-Slavic population of Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, when it has not yet been explored in detailes?
Obviously it was different than in Croatia.