Why are Serbs and Bulgarians not so Central European genetically...

[RN97]

According to a Romanian user (RN97), the reason for that is because the samples used for Romanians were all from Bucharest (Southern Romania).

Serbs as a whole are probably more northern shifted (or at the same level), but I think Moldovans and maybe Northern Romanians are more northern shifted than Serbs.

IDK if you really can call me a "Romanian user", but what I wanted to note was the people usually point to one amateurishly made PCA by davidski based on muh k15 calc. It basically has little to no scientific value because the way it's made is also sketchy. Usually PCA's are made by plotting the biggest genome difference at genes where there are a big difference..... Yeah, I won't even try to explain it since I myself don't fully understand it, but what's important to note is that it's;
1. Made from a genome
2. Never accurate due to minor differences being not included
K15 PCA is sorta like plotting a genome into a ADMIXTURE-like K=15 algorithm, then placing the 15 components on a PCA (IDK how they came up with the locations for these), then you plot in a calculator the amount of all the different components and then you get the co-ordinates from the calculations. I'm not a mathematician so IDK the formula, but I think you get the gist of it.
Now, even though professionally made PCA are not perfect (Behar is infamous to Romanians for including at least two non-ethnic Romanians as "Romanians" in the genetic study), they are still far better, and let's just look at some.....



Now, yeah they are more southern plotting because their northern neighbours the magyars were shifted northeast and later northwest perhaps by magyar then germanic and west slavic admixture. I'm basically saying that if you want to cover the diversity of Romanians (all of them including Moldovans) it should be that some are even south of the Bulgarian average, some are near Croats, some are west of Serbs, some are northeast of Serbs. I'm not trying to say that some Romanians are like Hungarians or anything, but we can't really know since no one has done any real proper research on autosomal Romanian DNA. Davidski amateur calcs. don't cut if for me, those calcs. can be manipulated a lot more than you think, some Romanians get Bulgarian closest on K15, but Croats closest on k36 for example.

[Pigling]

They aren't dark, just predominatelly brunette countries with large minority of fair types. Imo everything south of Carpathians is pred. brunette.
I'm not sure about the lightness of Celts either, because parts of UK and Germany with historical Celtic influence tend to be brunette rather than blond.

This is so true.

Celts aren't Nordic such as Scandinavians.

We have intermediate pigmentation, not dark as Mediterraneans (such as Italians, Greeks, Turks, Spaniards, etc...) nor light such as Scandinavians.

[Linebacker]

Thats all the less cuck genes for us,and it shows.

Serbs and Bulgarians are the most ethnically unified and patriotic in Europe.

[ovidiu]

They aren't generally dark. I was in both Serbia and Bulgaria and people are very similar to us. Anyway, it's funny how we are even more Slavic than they are.

Lol are you kidding dude? That's not true. I've never met a single Romanian who argued that way.. why do people on forums like this think so differently? It's one thing to admit a decent amount of Slavic admixture around the country in various levels by region, but another to make a claim like that. Come on. Most people I know in real life would be pretty pissed if someone said something like that. It's not just nationalists, that's how people were educated. They'd consider it insulting since your basically saying their entire identity is a lie.

There's no way the population can be half Slavic. First of all, we don't know if I2 is necessarily only Slavic; it could just as well be a native Balkan one seeing as its much higher there than in northern Slavs, or a very ancient one from around the area of Moldova before Slavs even emerged (Cucuteni Tripolyte culture). And second, people put too much stress on haplogroups. For example, Basques are overwhelmingly R1b, supposedly (at least in Europe) an "Indo-European" originated haplogroup, yet the amount of actual Indo European in them is probably quite low. Some variants are found as far as Africa. And R1a in India and Iran... the actual Indo-European is only a small part of their ancestry autosomally. That's what matters more. There's also population bottlenecks to take into account.

Also, pretty much every autosomal map I've seen puts Serbs closer to the main "Slavic" grouping and more northeast-shifted. Not to mention Bosnians and especially Croatians and Slovenes (also Hungarians). So we're not on the same level as Croats, since someone asked that. Bulgarians on the other hand are a different story and are mainly in the same place as us, with some even more southern shifted (probably the ones near Greece). Still there's overlap between large parts of the Romanian and Serbian populations too.

Regarding samples being taken from Bucharest, that's not that big of a problem since people come there from around the country. It isn't necessarily that representative of the surrounding region of Muntenia.
And not every study had them from there; there were others done with many Transylvanians from what I've seen.

That doesn't really change anything too much. The information is essentially the same as most maps.

I found some clusters based on puntdna

SW Euro-NE Euro-W Asia Cluster
Italian Bergamo: 45% SW Euro, 31.5% NE Euro, 15% W Asian, 8.5% SW Asian
Italian Tuscan: 41.5% SW Euro, 28% NE Euro, 19% W Asian, 11% SW Asian
Albanian: 38.5% SW Euro, 27.5% NE Euro, 21% W Asian, 11% SW Asian
Kosovar: 38.5% SW Euro, 29% NE Euro, 21.5% W Asian, 10.5% SW Asian
Macedonian: 37% SW Euro, 34% NE Euro, 18.5% W Asian, 9.5% SW Asian
Bulgarian: 36% SW Euro, 33.5% NE Euro, 19.5% W Asian, 9% SW Asian

NE Euro-SW Euro-W Asia Cluster
Moldova: 44% NE Euro, 30.5% SW Euro, 15% W Asia, 7% SW Asia, 3% S Asia
Bosnia: 43% NE Euro, 33.5% SW Euro, 16% W Asia, 7.5% SW Asia
Montenegro: 37% NE Euro, 35% SW Euro, 19% W Asia, 9% SW Asia
Serbian: 39% NE Euro, 35% SW Euro, 17% W Asia, 7.5% SW Asia
Romania: 35.5% NE Euro, 33% SW Euro, 19% W Asia, 9.5% SW Asia

Moldova is way more northeast shifted because it probably always had more Slavs to begin with (there's no evidence Romans ever reached there and Romanized it directly, unlike most of what is now Romania; rather it was later colonized by some 13th or 14th century Romanians from Transylvania). Added to that is closer interaction with the Russian empire over the last 200 years and being part of the Soviet Union.

Either way, most of these peoples are still predominantly the native Balkan stock, I believe. That's what brings them together. They're clearly their own separate group from West and East Slavs (although northwest Yugoslavs begin to blend into some West Slavs and Hungarians a bit I think).

Oh and about Celts, they were all over Europe at one point in the Iron Age.



Doubt they left much of a trace in the Balkans. Maybe in northern Yugoslavia, and probably in parts of Transylvania if you count that.

[Dušan]

Serbs and Bulgarians cannot go in same sentence in term of autosomal genetics.
Serbs are way more Slavic than Bulgarians.

This is comparation of Serbs between Bulgarians and Ukrainians - how much percentage of Ukrainians - proto-Slavs should add to average Bulgarians, to get Serbian regional averages.
It is 30% - that is huge difference. In some parts in Bosnia 40%, even near borders with Bulgaria in southeast Serbia it is 20%.



Serbs are way more autosomaly Slavic than Bulgarians.

[Skiz-gaaR]

What are "Szolad" and "Collegno" samples