Ford's (Bosnian Serb) autosomal results

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pribislav

I'm defending Romanian interests. :)
I see Moldavians (Latin speaking) as Romanians in denial. You guys remind me on Montenegrins, who are Serbs in denial.

---

Nah man, you just consider Romanians subhumans, I know your animalic hate especially to Vlachs, and the fear to not be related to them. And Moldavians since are more North shifted, of course don't fit you agenda of average nigger subhumans like you consider Romanians. This is the short explanation of your defending.

And Moldavian identity is older than today Romanian, which is very politized. Majority of Moldavians in RM did not identify themselves as Romanians, is a XIXth century concept under influence of French Revolution ideas. Today Romanian identity is just Wallachian one, in mentality, language and many others aspects. Even the name Romania was applied before 1859 only to Wallachia.

The majority of old timers I've spoken with say they could never quite place Tito's accent..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IncelSlayer

There's a shit ton more russians/ukraineans in R.Moldova than 11% but just like gypsies they declare themselves under this new "moldovan" banner.
Around a quarter are rus/ukr and from the rest of romanians there most have atleast one rus/ukr relative down the line.

---

You mean Romanians in denial from Moldova so called national Moldavians trying to moldavized Russians, Ukrainians, Gagauz, Gypsies, Bulgarians... who are Moldavian citizens.

In Montenegro anti-Serbian national Montentenegins are brainwashed Serbs. They trying to montenegrized rest of Serbs in Montenegro who are still Serbs, and Muslims/Bosniaks, Gypsies and Croatians. Only Albanians are untouched with montenegrization.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El_Moldovano

Nah man, you just consider Romanians subhumans, I know your animalic hate especially to Vlachs, and the fear to not be related to them. And Moldavians since are more North shifted, of course don't fit you agenda of average nigger subhumans like you consider Romanians. This is the short explanation of your defending.

And Moldavian identity is older than today Romanian, which is very politized. Majority of Moldavians in RM did not identify themselves as Romanians, is a XIXth century concept under influence of French Revolution ideas. Today Romanian identity is just Wallachian one, in mentality, language and many others aspects. Even the name Romania was applied before 1859 only to Wallachia.

---

Wrong.
Romanians and Serbs are very friendly nations.

Modern Romania was created in 1859, so what? Have you ever heard for Ţara Românească?

Why Vlachs from eastern Serbia called themselves Rumani much before 1859?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IncelSlayer

There's a shit ton more russians/ukraineans in R.Moldova than 11% but just like gypsies they declare themselves under this new "moldovan" banner.
Around a quarter are rus/ukr and from the rest of romanians there most have atleast one rus/ukr relative down the line.

---

In Moldova about 80% of kids go to Romanian-medium schools. I really doubt Russians would send their kids to non-Russian schools. There was a mass outflow of Russians and Russian speakers from the newly independent republics after 1991. Hell, even a lot of ethnic Moldovans keep going to Russia for work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pribislav

Wrong.
I consider Romanians for very friendly nation towards the Serbs.

Modern Romania was created in 1859, so what? Have you ever heard for Ţara Românească?

Why Vlachs from eastern Serbia called themselves Rumani much before 1859?

---

Modern Romania is just Wallachia (Romania) who profited from terriotial losses of Moldova, and anexed this Principality. The people who made this was leftist subhumans, pro-Gypsy rights, who studied in French universities, from where they brought all this leftist degeneracy full of French Revolution ideas. This creation was made in blood, since in Moldova was a strong anti-Unionist movement, some Moldavians was killed by Wallachians and local Unionists. Today Moldavians from Romania are considered second class citizens, and Moldova is a periferic province without any investitions. We from RM was already part of Romania from 1918 to 1940, and Romanains traited us like properly subhumans, most of the elders who lived in that period, majority of them hate Romanians, and I understand why.

Vlachs from Eastern Serbia are bordering with Wallachia, this is the answer. In Wallachia "Rumun" was term for Serfs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pribislav

Tuđman was s Jew. Tito was of unknown origin.

---

Lmao Tuđman was not a Jew. Tito origin is well known, he was half Croat half Slovene like me, only difference his father was Croat and mother Slovenian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El_Moldovano

Modern Romania is just Wallachia (Romania) who profited from terriotial losses of Moldova, and anexed this Principality. The people who made this was leftist subhumans, pro-Gypsy rights, who studied in French universities, from where they brought all this leftist degeneracy full of French Revolution ideas. This creation was made in blood, since in Moldova was a strong anti-Unionist movement, some Moldavians was killed by Wallachians and local Unionists. Today Moldavians from Romania are considered second class citizens, and Moldova is a periferic province without any investitions. We from RM was already part of Romania from 1918 to 1940, and Romanains traited us like properly subhumans, most of the elders who lived in that period, majority of them hate Romanians, and I understand why.

---

Moldova had no options 150 years ago. It was to become either a poor peripheral gubernia in the Russian empire or part of Romania.

There was some political opposition to the Union in Moldova, because Russia and Austro-Hungary financed it.
Of course Russia and Austro-Hungary were against the union, both had territories claimed by Romania.

Regular folk in Moldova were enthusiastic unionists, this is why the integration of the two countries worked flawlessly. Moldova was by no means the poor sister in the old Romania. This is a phenomenon of the last 30 years, where most investment was made either in Transylvania or in the capital. Today, except for the capital, Wallachia is just as poor as Moldova.

And btw, the harshness of the interwar Romanian rule is Soviet propagandistic nonsense. If Romanians were so harsh with the Moldovans, Moldovans would not have fled in the hundreds of thousands to Romania when the Soviets came in. Spare me of that bullshit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El_Moldovano

This creation was made in blood, since in Moldova was a strong anti-Unionist movement, some Moldavians was killed by Wallachians and local Unionists.

---

Same thing happened with Montenegro man, which was forcefully united with Serbia and occupied. Montenegrins consider themself Serbs and they are, but their country has very old tradition as indipendent realm and much of their elite was killed by pro-Serbian elements, as well as local Montenegrin dynasty Petrović was forced to abdicate after Montenegro was annexed by Serbia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El_Moldovano

Modern Romania is just Wallachia (Romania) who profited from terriotial losses of Moldova, and anexed this Principality. The people who made this was leftist subhumans, pro-Gypsy rights, who studied in French universities, from where they brought all this leftist degeneracy full of French Revolution ideas. This creation was made in blood, since in Moldova was a strong anti-Unionist movement, some Moldavians was killed by Wallachians and local Unionists. Today Moldavians from Romania are considered second class citizens, and Moldova is a periferic province without any investitions. We from RM was already part of Romania from 1918 to 1940, and Romanains traited us like properly subhumans, most of the elders who lived in that period, majority of them hate Romanians, and I understand why.

Vlachs from Eastern Serbia are bordering with Wallachia, this is the answer. In Wallachia "Rumun" was term for Serfs.

---

Vlachs from eastern Serbian are settlers from Banat (around Timisoara) and Oltenia in period 1718-1739. They brought own original name Rumani 140 years before unification of Wallachia and Moldova in Romania.
Serbs call them Vlachs, and that does not exist on their language. Vlachs (Rumani) from eastern Serbia say for themselves on their language: "Eu sunt Rumân."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pribislav

Vlachs from eastern Serbian are settlers from Banat (around Timisoara) and Oltenia in period 1718-1739. They brought own original name Rumani 140 years before unification of Wallachia and Moldova in Romania.
Serbs call them Vlachs, and that does not exist on their language. Vlachs (Rumani) from eastern Serbia say for themselves on their language: "Eu sunt Rumân."

---

But they don't think of themselves as Romanians or Romanian-Serbians or Serbians of Romanian descent..

I post this for nuance's sake..

Some hunnic magyar ancestry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nato

Same thing happened with Montenegro man, which was forcefully united with Serbia and occupied. Montenegrins consider themself Serbs and they are, but their country has very old tradition as indipendent realm and much of their elite was killed by pro-Serbian elements, as well as local Montenegrin dynasty Petrović was forced to abdicate after Montenegro was annexed by Serbia.

---

Idiot!
Parlament in Podgorica proclaimed unification of Montenegro with kingdom of Serbia in 1918. There was no any Serbian occupation. How Serb can occupy themselves? Montenegro was more Serbian state than Serbia in that time.
King Nikola was removed by local Serbs from Montenegro, not by Belgrade. In that time he was refugee in France. He escaped from Montenegro in 1916 when AU occupied Montenegro.
It was normal that king Petar Karađorđević became ruler of new state because Serbia defeated AU and king Petsr was in the battles. On the other hand Montenegro was not defeated AU, and Nikola escaped as coward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pribislav

Idiot!
Parlament in Podgorica proclaimed unification of Montenegro with kingdom of Serbia in 1918. There was no any Serbian occupation. How Serb can occupy themselves? Montenegro was more Serbian state than Serbia in that time.
King Nikola was removed by local Serbs from Montenegro, not by Belgrade. In that time he was refugee in France. He escaped from Montenegro in 1916 when AU occupied Montenegro.
It was normal that king Petar Karađorđević became ruler of new state because Serbia defeated AU and king Petsr was in the battles. On the other hand Montenegro was not defeated AU, and Nikola escaped as coward.

---

Don't make us laugh. Serbia didn't defeat anyone, you were defeated and moved remnants of your army to Corfu. It was your allies that defeated Austro-Hungary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nato

Don't make us laugh. Serbia didn't defeat anyone, you signed capitaluation and moved remnants of your army to Corfu. It was your allies that defeated Austro-Hungary.

---

Serbia gave significant contribution in this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonian_Front

When Serbia broke backbone of Bulgarian army in 1918 German kaiser was very angry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kaymakchalan

Don't forget how Serbia humiliated AU on Cer and Kolubara!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pribislav

Serbia gave significant contribution in this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonian_Front

When Serbia broke bsckbonr of Bulgarian army in 1918 German kaiser was very angry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kaymakchalan

Don't forget how Serbia humiliated AU on Cer and Kolubara!

---

Serbs fought honorably in WW1 mate. Nobody disputed that. It's just Serbia was too small to defeat Austro-Hungary on it's own. I'm not trying to undermine bravery of Serbian army.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nato

Serbs fought honorably in WW1 mate. Nobody disputed that. It's just Serbia was too small to defeat Austro-Hungary on it's own. I'm not trying to undermine bravery of Serbian army.

---

These are the best warriors in WW1!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Živojin_Mišić

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepa_Stepanović

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY3Zubdkw7A

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nato

Serbs fought honorably in WW1 mate. Nobody disputed that. It's just Serbia was too small to defeat Austro-Hungary on it's own. I'm not trying to undermine bravery of Serbian army.

---

You are undermining Serbia's effort, even it it's not your intention. Serbia could very well have defeated AU on its own if it wasn't for German (and later Bulgarian) support. The initial invasion of Serbia by AU was a total fiasco which is probably one of the reasons they took out their frustrations on civilians during the Serbian retreat. The allies didn't win the war for Serbia, Serbia won it together with their allies (without Serbs the Thessaloniki front maybe would have never been broken), just as AU together with her allies defeated Serbia in 1915.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ford

Eurogenes K36
Population
Armenian 1.45
Central_Euro 10.04
East_Balkan 7.76
East_Central_Euro 15.39
Eastern_Euro 9.59
Fennoscandian 8.79
French 3.84
Iberian 7.41
Italian 10.28
Near_Eastern 5.85
North_Atlantic 4.20
North_Caucasian 3.85
North_Sea 6.19
West_Med 5.35

https://i.imgur.com/r7O44wt.png

---

You are closer to Swedes and Russians than to Albanians. :thumb001:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ford

You are undermining Serbia's effort, even it it's not your intention. Serbia could very well have defeated AU on its own if it wasn't for German (and later Bulgarian) support. The initial invasion of Serbia by AU was a total fiasco which is probably one of the reasons they took out their frustrations on civilians during the Serbian retreat. The allies didn't win the war for Serbia, Serbia won it together with their allies (without Serbs the Thessaloniki front maybe would have never been broken), just as AU together with her allies defeated Serbia in 1915.

---

Serbia wouldn't stand much chance if Austro-Hungarian command didn't arrogantly underestimated them. Not because Serb soldiers were inferior (actually they had edge due to defending their homeland and having previous battle experience from Balkan wars) but simply because Serbia couldn't match Austro-Hungary in man power and industrial output (weapons productions etc). Austro-Hungarian army was not modernized but it still had superior logistics and technology compared to Serbia. Also larger pool of men and reserves to draft for war.

Most Serbs do agree without allied help to transport their troops to Corfu they would have even bigger losses. Serbs lost most men during retreat trough Albania, thousands of captured Austro-Hungarian soldiers and officers that were retreating with them also left their bones there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nato

Serbia wouldn't stand much chance if Austro-Hungarian command didn't arrogantly underestimated them. Not because Serb soldiers were inferior (actually they had edge due to defending their homeland and having previous battle experience from Balkan wars) but simply because Serbia couldn't match Austro-Hungary in man power and industrial output (weapons productions etc). Austro-Hungarian army was not modernized but it still had superior logistics and technology compared to Serbia. Also larger pool of men and reserves to draft for war.

---

Fair enough, although the fact still is that the situation would have been dramatically different if they weren't fortified by Germans and later the Bulgarian offensive from behind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nato

Most Serbs do agree without allied help to transport their troops to Corfu they would have even bigger losses. Serbs lost most men during retreat trough Albania, thousands of captured Austro-Hungarian soldiers and officers that were retreating with them also left their bones there.

---

I do not deny this, we have many thanks to give to our allies at that time, but say to that our allies won the war for us is quite the claim. They played without a doubt a central part, but you made it sound as if Serbia was sitting idly on its ass for France and Britain to win the war, when the winning offensive was carried out by Serbia and its allies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ford

Fair enough, although the fact still is that the situation would have been dramatically different if they weren't fortified by Germans and later the Bulgarian offensive from behind.


I do not deny this, we have many thanks to give to our allies at that time, but say to that our allies won the war for us is quite the claim. They played without a doubt a central part, but you made it sound as if Serbia was sitting idly on its ass for France and Britain to win the war, when the winning offensive was carried out by Serbia and its allies.

---

Perhaps I put the words wrongly. Serbs played important part in winning coalition, but it's biggest players that played biggest roles. In my opinion without US involvement Central Powers (where German Empire was by far strongest player) could have ended on winning side.

Question for all the "experts", do you consider Bogomils European?

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 South_and_West_European 42.85
2 North_and_East_European 31.83
3 Middle_East 14.27
4 Caucaus_Parsia 9.76
5 Mesoamerican 1.01
6 Paleo_African 0.28

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Macedonian 5.31
2 Montenegrin 6.5
3 Serbian 6.51
4 Bulgarian 6.72
5 Bosnian 7.86
6 Gagauz 8.73
7 Croatian 9.45
8 Swiss 9.51
9 Provancal 10.66
10 German-South 10.94
11 Hungarian 11.08
12 Italian_North 11.15
13 Romania 11.61
14 Austrian 11.99
15 Croatian_V 12.53
16 Slovenian 12.74
17 German_V 13.13
18 Ashkenazim_V 13.23
19 French 13.41
20 Portugese 14.18

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 81% British + 19% Jew_Yemen @ 1.45
2 80.2% Orcadian + 19.8% Jew_Yemen @ 1.55
3 57.8% Swedish_V + 42.2% Jew_France @ 1.94
4 65.8% Czech + 34.2% Jew_France @ 2.09
5 69.3% Czech + 30.7% Jew_Morocco @ 2.11
6 67.2% German-North + 32.8% Jew_Morocco @ 2.13
7 60.2% Swedish_V + 39.8% Sephardim @ 2.16
8 64% Slovakian + 36% Jew_France @ 2.17
9 58.3% Swedish_V + 41.7% Jew_Italia @ 2.17
10 68.1% Czech + 31.9% Sephardim @ 2.23
11 66.4% Czech + 33.6% Jew_Italia @ 2.23
12 78.4% Croatian + 21.6% Jew_Morocco @ 2.25
13 74.1% Slovenian + 25.9% Jew_Libya @ 2.27
14 81.4% CEU + 18.6% Jew_Yemen @ 2.27
15 64.9% Swedish + 35.1% Jew_Tunisia @ 2.32
16 79.7% Croatian + 20.3% Jew_Libya @ 2.32
17 65.4% Croatian_V + 34.6% Sicilian @ 2.33
18 81.3% British + 18.7% Saudi @ 2.34
19 64.2% Swedish + 35.8% Jew_Morocco @ 2.35
20 61.6% Swedish_V + 38.4% Jew_Morocco @ 2.36

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nato

Lmao, Tuđman and Tito were both northwest Croats. You can't have sucessful nation if it's led by people from most backward and ottoman influenced parts.
These people care for their kin only , are highly corrupted and have more of tribal than national well-being in mind.

---

Cool story. Not everyone had the privilege of being Austrian stable boys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Insuperable

Cool story. Not everyone had the privilege of being Austrian stable boys.

---

Austrians were better masters than Turks, I assure you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nato

Austrians were better masters than Turks, I assure you.

---

I didn't say otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pribislav

As you can see all Serbs from TA which tested are more northern shifted than average for country Serbia, even Moje ime and CommonSense who have some Romanian/Vlach ancestors from eastern Serbia shifted more northern than average for multi-culti country Serbia. Ford, Dick and Tschkaikisten who are full Serbs are more northern than Moje ime and CS.

---

A Serb (female) that is close to the K13 reference

Eurogenes K13 Oracle results:
K13 Oracle ref data revised 21 Nov 2013

Kit M650062

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Baltic 28.95
2 North_Atlantic 27.71
3 West_Med 17.05
4 East_Med 13.31
5 West_Asian 9.5
6 Red_Sea 1.17
7 South_Asian 0.85
8 East_Asian 0.49
9 Northeast_African 0.47
10 Amerindian 0.47
11 Sub-Saharan 0.02

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Serbian 3.24
2 Moldavian 6.14
3 Romanian 6.68
4 Hungarian 7.02
5 Croatian 7.67
6 Bulgarian 9.26
7 Austrian 9.84
8 East_German 11.25
9 Ukrainian_Lviv 14.37
10 South_Polish 14.66
11 West_German 15.47
12 Ukrainian 15.57
13 South_Dutch 16.94
14 French 17.3
15 Greek_Thessaly 17.57
16 Polish 18.31
17 North_Italian 18.37
18 Southwest_Russian 19.35
19 Ukrainian_Belgorod 19.54
20 North_German 19.71

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 73.3% Croatian + 26.7% Tuscan @ 1.75
2 55% Bulgarian + 45% East_German @ 1.8
3 51.6% North_Italian + 48.4% Ukrainian_Belgorod @ 2.03
4 71.3% Croatian + 28.7% North_Italian @ 2.21
5 75.8% Serbian + 24.2% Croatian @ 2.24
6 76.2% Moldavian + 23.8% North_Italian @ 2.27
7 75.9% Croatian + 24.1% Italian_Abruzzo @ 2.29
8 63.7% Romanian + 36.3% East_German @ 2.31
9 57% Ukrainian + 43% Tuscan @ 2.38
10 77.1% Croatian + 22.9% West_Sicilian @ 2.42
11 83.7% Serbian + 16.3% East_German @ 2.44
12 57.6% Hungarian + 42.4% Bulgarian @ 2.45
13 87.9% Serbian + 12.1% Ukrainian @ 2.46
14 89.7% Serbian + 10.3% Polish @ 2.49
15 73% Serbian + 27% Moldavian @ 2.49
16 87.5% Serbian + 12.5% South_Polish @ 2.5
17 87.4% Serbian + 12.6% Ukrainian_Lviv @ 2.52
18 53.9% Romanian + 46.1% Croatian @ 2.52
19 59% Ukrainian_Lviv + 41% Tuscan @ 2.56
20 51.4% Romanian + 48.6% Hungarian @ 2.57

Leto, he's troilling. All these north shifted Serbs come from Bosnia and Croatia lmao. Serbs from Serbia and Montenegro are much more southern shifted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nato

Leto, he's troilling. All these north shifted Serbs come from Bosnia and Croatia lmao. Serbs from Serbia and Montenegro are much more southern shifted.

---

I am not more northern than the average for Serbia, in fact in that regard I'm completely normal. I only shift towards the east, that's why I plot close to Moldovans on some calculators. Only a quarter of my ancestry is from Serbia proper and I have some Croatian blood too. Decius who is 7/8 Croatian Serb + 1/8 Croat plots very similar to me on most calculators. Not all Serbs from Bosnia and Croatia have the same results, but those from Montenegro and eastern and southern Serbia certainly have less Slavic genetic components.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CommonSense

I am not more northern than the average for Serbia, in fact in that regard I'm completely normal. I only shift towards the east, that's why I plot close to Moldovans on some calculators. Only a quarter of my ancestry is from Serbia proper and I have some Croatian blood too. Decius who is 7/8 Croatian Serb + 1/8 Croat plots very similar to me on most calculators. Not all Serbs from Bosnia and Croatia have the same results, but those from Montenegro and eastern and southern Serbia certainly have less Slavic genetic components.

---

Remember Bosniensis too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leto

Remember Bosniensis too.

---

He has partial Gorani ancestry that's pulling him towards the southeast. But you're generally right because even without it he would be very close to our average.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ixulescu

That's normal.
Bulgarians are the only Slavs that crossed Romania during migration.
The others went round it.

Western Balkan Slavs migrated around the Northern Carpathians, and entered Pannonia in Slovakia (like the Mongols did).
That's why they're closer to (South) Western Slavs, but also have some similarities with the Moldovans.

---

Before hungarians and romanians the complete Carpathian Basin and Romania was full slavic land.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ixulescu

That's normal.
Bulgarians are the only Slavs that crossed Romania during migration.
The others went round it.

Western Balkan Slavs migrated around the Northern Carpathians, and entered Pannonia in Slovakia (like the Mongols did).
That's why they're closer to (South) Western Slavs, but also have some similarities with the Moldovans.

---

Autosomaly romanians are closer to bulgarians, macedonians, serbs:

http://greek-dna-sub-saharan-myth.or...mbre-fig1a.png

This is a complete balkanite population.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mingle

I would replace Illyrian with "Southern European/Balkan", North Croat with "Northwest Croat" (Slavonians are mostly of Bosnian origin if I'm not mistaken), and add Hungarians to that first row. Otherwise, it seems accurate.

I don't think Poles are "strongly Germanic". They're still easily closer to East Slavs than to the easternmost Germans. Maybe some southern Poles are an exception to this.

---

Poles almost pure slavs:

https://www.eupedia.com/images/conte...t_European.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kis_Kócos

Poles almost pure slavs:

https://www.eupedia.com/images/conte...t_European.png

---

Balts purest Slavs ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ixulescu

Dude, you have no idea what you talking about.
Y chromosome is the only part of the DNA that gets passed fully from the male parent to the male child. All the rest of the DNA is a mishmash from both parents. This is the reason why we can build extremely precise phylogenetic trees on Y-DNA, and we cannot do the same with autosomal DNA.

Clusterings you get with autosomal DNA are a shit method for studying ancestry, compared to the clades of the phylogenetic tree. Autosomal DNA can only tell whether populations have acquired similar mutations. That's it. No deep ancestry can be assessed with it.

---

Y dna means nothing just the ancestry of male population. The autosomaly genetic is much better, because based on the complete population.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nato

Balts purest Slavs ?

---

Balts and slavs originated from same population: balto-slavic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kis_Kócos

Balts and slavs originated from same population: balto-slavic.

---

Slavs were probably more southern shifted though. East Euro peaks more north from Slavic urheimat that's the thing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kis_Kócos

Before hungarians and romanians the complete Carpathian Basin and Romania was full slavic land.

---

Probably. I2a-Dinaric north is carpathian i think

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pribislav

Tuđman was s Jew. Tito was of unknown origin.

Croatian Dinaric Talibans: Ante Starčević, Ante Pavelić, Maks Luburić, don Ivan Šarić, Mile Budak, Krunoslav Draganović, Tomislav Filipović ("fra satan"), Andrija Artuković, Jure Francetić, Gojko Šušak, Ante Gotovina, Mate Boban, Blaž Kraljević, Ante Trumbić, Milka Planinc, Ivan Meštrović, Mate Granić, Miljenko Hrkač, Zdravko Mamić, Milan Bandić, Ivica Todorić, Ivo Josipović, Stipe Mesić, Zoran Milanović, Marko Perković Tompson...

There is no Zagorci in Croatian political and economic elite, and very few in intelectual elite.

---

Tito was clearly croat.