White Serb/Sorb gedmatch result!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mingle

Maybe he could model them as something like 50% Serb + 50% Latvian?

---

that model would still have 25% "Balkan" because Serbs in G25 are roughly 50% "Balkan", i believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Voight

But those slavs are obviously different genetically from Sorbs, so it doesn't make sense to equate them.

---

No.
Early Slavs were originally a very small group, and they were all genetically very similar to each other. They were like Belorusians, some groups maybe more similar to north Ukrainians, east Poles, or West Russians. but still 95% similar to each other. i'll just call it "Belarusian-like" genetics for simplicity's sake.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._centuries.png

a sample from near Moscow from 1200 ad was still 90% early Slavic, with very little local Finnic admixture.
Sorbs came to Germany around 550 AD, and brought Belarusian-like genetics. Then, around 620 AD, a part of them split and migrated to the Balkans, and also brought Belarusian-like genetics to the Balkans. They didn't have enough time to pick up any other admixture.

Those other tribes, which came to the Balkans through modern day Moldova and Romania, also brought Belarusian-like genetics with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Voight

it would explain why you can find these types in Sorbian crowds frequently: https://i.imgur.com/aaYEzPT.png

who look like they could pass as natives in Croatia

---

Austrians, Czech, South Polish, and this man i posted, are Slavs + Celts + Germans, and not much else. Hungarians and Croats(north Croats in this case) are also Slavs + Celts + Germans, and they also have some Paleo-Balkan influence on top of that, but still pretty similar to Czechs and South Polish. they are all together in a "Central European" cluster. that's why this Sorb is close to them.

https://i.imgur.com/2WlxkSE.png

-
-
-

in the end, why complicate things this much? just take a look at the results i posted in the first post:

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 59.2% Ukrainian_Belgorod + 40.8% West_German @ 2.83
2 59.5% Southwest_Russian + 40.5% West_German @ 3.28
3 61.2% Ukrainian_Belgorod + 38.8% South_Dutch @ 3.31

the genetics of this man are very simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vbnetkhio

White Serbia was "beyond Hungary (from Byzantine perspective), neighbouring White Croatia and Francia". it could be only there.
the White Croatia is obviuosly not the one in Ukraine, but the one in northern Bohemia (Charvati, Charvatci). Slavic tribes in Bohemia:

http://labphys.tf.czu.cz/CeskeKmeny.jpg

---

I'm not doubting that there was a "white serbia" nor "white croatia" during the Byzantine times; what I'm disputing is necessarily the notion that Serbs and Croats got their names from those places, rather than from an even earlier splitting off point somewhere eastern. When a tribe would have split, one would have gone west, and the other south. Then the Byzantine sources hear about the places that went "west", and then by virtue of them automatically assume that the Serbs and Croats right north of them derived from those that went west. That's the only thing that seems iffy to me, especially given that the west Sorbs had a bunch of other problems to deal with at the time, much bigger problems like the Franks.

And anyway, "Srbi" and "Hrvati" don't sound like slavic names to begin with, more like something Iranic or by extension Sarmatian, which would support the theory that they originally came from Slavicized Sarmatians.

https://youtu.be/Wg79R5jopj8

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vbnetkhio

No.
Early Slavs were originally a very small group, and they were all genetically very similar to each other. They were like Belorusians, some groups maybe more similar to north Ukrainians, east Poles, or West Russians. but still 95% similar to each other. i'll just call it "Belarusian-like" genetics for simplicity's sake.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._centuries.png

a sample from near Moscow from 1200 ad was still 90% early Slavic, with very little local Finnic admixture.
Sorbs came to Germany around 550 AD, and brought Belarusian-like genetics. Then, around 620 AD, a part of them split and migrated to the Balkans, and also brought Belarusian-like genetics to the Balkans. They didn't have enough time to pick up any other admixture.

Those other tribes, which came to the Balkans through modern day Moldova and Romania, also brought Belarusian-like genetics with them.



Austrians, Czech, South Polish, and this man i posted, are Slavs + Celts + Germans, and not much else. Hungarians and Croats(north Croats in this case) are also Slavs + Celts + Germans, and they also have some Paleo-Balkan influence on top of that, but still pretty similar to Czechs and South Polish. they are all together in a "Central European" cluster. that's why this Sorb is close to them.

---

Not all Croats have paleo-Balkan admixture though. "Greater Croatia" is made up of Dalmatia, Istra, Slavonia, Herzegovina, and Northwest Croatia. All of these subregions have more paleo-Balkan admixture, EXCEPT for Northwest Croatia, which is much more similar to west Slavs.

All I'm saying is that when given your theory, it's just as likely that "White Serbs" and "White Croats" got their namesake from a small coalition of "actual" Serbs and Croats from the south, as it is that your theory is likely. What I think though, is that neither of those theories are likelier than the theory that they split off from an eastern source.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Voight

I'm not doubting that there was a "white serbia" nor "white croatia" during the Byzantine times; what I'm disputing is necessarily the notion that Serbs and Croats got their names from those places, rather than from an even earlier splitting off point somewhere eastern. When a tribe would have split, one would have gone west, and the other south. Then the Byzantine sources hear about the places that went "west", and then by virtue of them automatically assume that the Serbs and Croats right north of them derived from those that went west. That's the only thing that seems iffy to me, especially given that the west Sorbs had a bunch of other problems to deal with at the time, much bigger problems like the Franks.

And anyway, "Srbi" and "Hrvati" don't sound like slavic names to begin with, more like something Iranic or by extension Sarmatian, which would support the theory that they originally came from Slavicized Sarmatians.

---

well yes, that makes sense. but going by historical sources only, they came from Bohemia and East Germany.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peterski

Nope, because White Serbs mixed with local Paleo-Balkan peoples when they moved to Serbia.

This model based on G25 shows that it is possible to model Serbs as Sorb + native Balkan mix:

https://i.imgur.com/7IzlwX2.png

BGR_IA = Iron Age Bulgaria
HRV_IA = Iron Age Dalmatia
MDA = Moldova Cimmerians

No more than half of Serbian ancestry comes from a Sorb-like source. The rest is native Balkan.

---

Aren't Sorbs mostly R1a-L260? Idk their Z280 levels, however, they also practically lack I2a1b-Y3120. Y3120 & Z280 are more dominant in Balkan Serbs. L260 is near insignificant. Also, Whilst L1029 is also present, I think total M458 in Serbs is like 5 percent, whilst the rest is Z280.

Voight may be right that the tribe split from a more eastern positions and not directly from Sorbia. Otherwise it doesn't look like Sorbs left much of a mark in Serbs from a YDNA perspective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MagnusDark

Aren't Sorbs mostly R1a-L260? Idk their Z280 levels, however, they also practically lack I2a1b-Y3120. Y3120 & Z280 are more dominant in Balkan Serbs. L260 is near insignificant. Also, Whilst L1029 is also present, I think total M458 in Serbs is like 5 percent, whilst the rest is Z280.

Voight may be right that the tribe split from a more eastern positions and not directly from Sorbia. Otherwise it doesn't look like Sorbs left much of a mark in Serbs from a YDNA perspective.

---

I2a was already in the Balkans via someone else there was no tribe split

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mingle

First time I've heard of the White Croatia in Bohemia. It makes more sense for White Croatia to be there. I wonder why it's always placed in Ukraine instead.

---

Because White Croats base was always western Ukraine. Part moved to Czech Republic and southern Poland later on.
Porfirogenet mentions two different locations of white Croatia, one in Bohemia and one much further east, which was frequently plundered by Pechenegs and between Baltic and Black seas.
Only relevant archeological remains of White Croats are found in Ukraine and not in Czech Republic.

Quote:

---

Sedov considered them as Southeastern neighbours of Dulebes living in the Northern and Southern area of Eastern Prykarpattia, and along B. O. Tymoshchuk argued that Slavic Gords in Bukovina were abandoned by Croats. Many other scholars also located the Croats in the territory of Galicia, and such localization is supported by DAI according to which they were plundered by the Pechenegs which would not be possible if the Croats were located further in the West like the Czech Republic. Ukrainian archaeologist and historian Orest Korchinsky attribute to White Croatia several big Gords, including Revno, Stiljsko, Zhydachiv, Kotorin complex, Klyuchi, Stuponica, Krylos, Pidhorodyshche, Terebovlia, Ganachivka, Solonsko among others.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Voight

Not all Croats have paleo-Balkan admixture though. "Greater Croatia" is made up of Dalmatia, Istra, Slavonia, Herzegovina, and Northwest Croatia. All of these subregions have more paleo-Balkan admixture, EXCEPT for Northwest Croatia, which is much more similar to west Slavs.

---

Please don't make me laugh, calling this butchered banana land ''Greater Croatia''. And Herzegovina belongs to another country.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...of_Croatia.png

Croatia at the height of its power, 1024.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdo...%E2%80%931102)