Bosnians/ ethnic groups there

Templar said:
Bosnia was quite isolated due to its mountains. Most conquerors went around it in order to avoid having to fight through its dangerous terrain (which was also perfect for guerrilla-style tactics). The Mongols for example sent raiding parties into both Croatia and Serbia, but never to Bosnia.
Click to expand...
But you are talking about historical times. When I refer to isolation, I mean that thousands of years of acceptable preservation are required, and considering its geographical point, I find it difficult for Bosnia (and more if we check different results from Balkan samples available right now).

Not comparable to Iberia with two huge genetic barriers: the Mediterranean sea and the Pyrenees. As I said, I wouldn't bet for Bosnians to have retained the highest Paleolithic element. The answer in my opinion, must be searched in Iberia or in the Northernmost, being still Iberia the most likely option. The fact it was the main refuge during the last glacial age, speaks even more in its favour.
 
Templar said:
Are you talking about me? Because I wasn't talking about Y-DNA data, but rather autosomal data. And there are no "mythologies" about it. If you weren't talking about me, never mind then.
Click to expand...

Well then you'd better take a refresher course in genetic nomenclature. I2 et sim. are Y-DNA markers which imply nothing per se about autosomal values. Autosomal study has not yet progressed to the point of having specific markers (though various hobbyists have been using their own labels).

You're also a bit behind the latest science as concerns the historicity of the I2a-Din marker. We now have the analyses of Nordtvedt and Verenic (no one has yet come up with effective refutations) which strongly back the view that I2a-Din is very young (not earlier than the first centuries BCE), that it spread to the Balkans with the Slavic expansions of the 6th and 7th cs. (hence at that time it was definitely a "Slavic" marker), and that, independently of percentages, there are far more individuals with that marker (in terms of absolute numbers) among "northern" Slavs than among southern Slavs.
 
First of all, ditto razor. As he says, you shouldn't use "Haplogroup I" if you intend to talk about autosomal DNA, and the I2a-Din debate has been rehashed over and over, on this thread as well as others, with the best analyses still coming from Nordtvedt and Verenich. I've outlined what is necessary for the Paleolithic continuity theory to hold, and it's much less likely than what is necessary for the Slavic theory to hold.

Templar said:
Its supposed connection with Slavs is spread by slavophiles in the Balkans who are still hoping to pass as Slavs even after looking at the autosomal DNA data for their countries.
Click to expand...

You're not accusing Nordtvedt and Verenich of being Slavophiles in the Balkans, are you? They're the main ones advancing this theory, at least, the main ones with credibility.

Templar said:
How is I2a-Din correlated with slavic migrations, when the heartlands of the Slavs (Western Russia) have almost none of it.
Click to expand...

(1) Western Russia has well over 10% of it and (2) the Slavs who advanced on the Balkans probably didn't come directly from Western Russia, which obviously has a higher R1a:I2a ratio.

Templar said:
On top of this, the supposed homeland of the slavs not only lacks I2a-Din, it has relatively low levels of ANY I haplogroup.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. I2a-Din is somewhat of an outlier on the Haplogroup I tree, with its closest relative a rare British subclade, and no other major subclades anciently in the same geographic area other than maybe the very distantly related I2a-Cont3. So we don't expect, and don't find, major ancient expansions of other Haplogroup I subclades anywhere in Eastern Europe.

Templar said:
Russians, Ukrainians, and Belurussians, are as slavic as it gets and they have way lower rates of HP I than Yugoslav people.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why everybody thinks that North Slavs are the Slavs. Why can't we think of both North Slavs and South Slavs as two branches off the same trunk, like we think of the varieties of Germanic? That seems like the better default assumption. That trunk, then, would include both R1a and I2a.
 
sparkey said:
I don't understand why everybody thinks that North Slavs are the Slavs. Why can't we think of both North Slavs and South Slavs as two branches off the same trunk, like we think of the varieties of Germanic? That seems like the better default assumption. That trunk, then, would include both R1a and I2a.
Click to expand...

this is because you exclude the other markers which differ between north and south.

also why do you exclude TRobb theories on I as he and KN had discussions without conclusion
 
Sile said:
this is because you exclude the other markers which differ between north and south.
Click to expand...

Well, there are obviously markers that one possesses that the other doesn't tend to (like N in North Slavs and E in South Slavs). A lot of times these are remnants of the previous dominant population in the areas that got expanded into. I2a-Din and Slavic varieties of R1a don't seem to fit that pattern, however, hence my proposal that both were part of the Slavic trunk.

Sile said:
also why do you exclude TRobb theories on I as he and KN had discussions without conclusion
Click to expand...

What does Terry Robb have to say on I2a-Din? I've only read him on I1. I suppose, to be consistent, he would date I2a-Din as about 1.5 times as old as Nordtvedt does? It still wouldn't affect the diversity patterns we see via Verenich, though.
 
sparkey said:
Well, there are obviously markers that one possesses that the other doesn't tend to (like N in North Slavs and E in South Slavs). A lot of times these are remnants of the previous dominant population in the areas that got expanded into. I2a-Din and Slavic varieties of R1a don't seem to fit that pattern, however, hence my proposal that both were part of the Slavic trunk.



What does Terry Robb have to say on I2a-Din? I've only read him on I1. I suppose, to be consistent, he would date I2a-Din as about 1.5 times as old as Nordtvedt does? It still wouldn't affect the diversity patterns we see via Verenich, though.
Click to expand...

I meant that old yugoslav areas that neighbour Bosnia
 
Templar said:
Well the vast majority of Vlachs were Latin-speaking descendants of the native populations of the Balkans (Illyrians, Dacians, and Thracians). The vast majority of them were Orthodox and so many adopted the Serbian ethnicity in order to unite with the Serbs (who were also Orthodox) against the Ottomans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlachs

But it doesn't even matter what they considered themselves, since all that really matters is the autosomal DNA of a population. Serbs, Bosnians, Vlachs, and Croatians are all overwhelmingly I2a1b-Din in their autosomal DNA, and thats why they are all tall, strong-boned, possess wide shoulders, and above-average muscle mass. There are even theories that the Spartans were descendants of people who were also mostly I2a1b-Din, and that this explains their superior military capabilities.
Click to expand...
But Vlachs - descendants of old Balkan populations and Vlachs Turkic military order are not the same . Spartans were most probably G haplogroup like Macedonians , there are also some interesting letters from Jewish head priest to Spartans that claim common origins. I believe I2a1b is Iranic - Sarmathian and was brought on Balkans by Serbs and Croats and estimated age of I2a1b speaks against it Balkanic origins
 
Templar said:
Bosnia was an independent kingdom longer than Croatia. Croatia was always Hungary's play-toy and servant. Also, Croatian achievements are NOT your own achievements. Each individual can only take credit for his OWN inventions, ideas, and actions.
I2a2 has nothing to do with slavs btw. All I haplogroups belong to the Cro-Magnon family. Cro-Magnons were tall, dark haired/eyed, heavy-boned, and muscular and Bosnians have the highest rates of HP I in all of Europe (and therefore are the closest to the original Europeans).
Click to expand...
No Bosnia was not independent kingdom more than Croatia , Bosnia had kingdom only for 100 years ( 1377 - 1463) . Bosnians dont have highest rate of I in Europe , Herzegovina has , and Herzegovina was separate state - Hum / Helm , Travunija / Tribunia and Konavle / Canalia she was under Bosnia for only short period since king Tvrtko to fall of Bosnia ( under 100 years ) .
 
sparkey said:
First of all, ditto razor. As he says, you shouldn't use "Haplogroup I" if you intend to talk about autosomal DNA, and the I2a-Din debate has been rehashed over and over, on this thread as well as others, with the best analyses still coming from Nordtvedt and Verenich. I've outlined what is necessary for the Paleolithic continuity theory to hold, and it's much less likely than what is necessary for the Slavic theory to hold.



You're not accusing Nordtvedt and Verenich of being Slavophiles in the Balkans, are you? They're the main ones advancing this theory, at least, the main ones with credibility.



(1) Western Russia has well over 10% of it and (2) the Slavs who advanced on the Balkans probably didn't come directly from Western Russia, which obviously has a higher R1a:I2a ratio.



Irrelevant. I2a-Din is somewhat of an outlier on the Haplogroup I tree, with its closest relative a rare British subclade, and no other major subclades anciently in the same geographic area other than maybe the very distantly related I2a-Cont3. So we don't expect, and don't find, major ancient expansions of other Haplogroup I subclades anywhere in Eastern Europe.



I don't understand why everybody thinks that North Slavs are the Slavs. Why can't we think of both North Slavs and South Slavs as two branches off the same trunk, like we think of the varieties of Germanic? That seems like the better default assumption. That trunk, then, would include both R1a and I2a.
Click to expand...
But in that case they would have about same ratio betwen R1a : I2a1b and that is not the case
 
Bodin said:
But in that case they would have about same ratio betwen R1a : I2a1b and that is not the case
Click to expand...

Not necessarily; to take Germanic branches as a parallel example, the levels of R1a (and less so R1b-U106, and even less so I1 and I2a-Cont) vary drastically between the different Germanic branches, even though those combined make up the "default" Germanic Y-DNA signature.

Clearly, geographically distinct subsets of groups can have different Y-DNA frequencies, and those can be magnified during separate expansions. If I'm right about the Slavs carrying mostly I2a-Din and R1a initially, they could be an (admittedly extreme) example of this pattern.

I really think you need the same thing to happen for the Sarmatians anyway... to be a branch of Iranians that are I2a-Din dominant requires the same pattern. Again, the question isn't about the relative Y-DNA frequencies, the question is about the locations of the diversity hotspots, and what that tells us. You've yet to find anything that contradicts those that Verenich found, and those that Verenich found match Slavic expansions quite well. It could be a lack of more Eastern samples, I admit, but for the Sarmatians to "win" here, you'll need to find Eastern samples, ancient or modern, that push back the STR dating of I2a-Din as a whole. Until that happens, the Sarmatians just don't seem like a good assumption to me.
 
bosna501 said:
Bosnians are Illyrians they have 50% of I2a (Illyrian)
and the Name Bosnia is real ancient Illyrian Name BOSONA.

The Propaganda of our Neighbourgs is Fall,
we are not Serbs and not Croats we are Bosnians
and the Bosnian christians are Bosnians too but they
are victims of the centauryold Propaganda of our Neighbourgs
and the DNA Tests have shown that all Bosnians are very Similar
and more similar than with croatia or Serbia.

The Truth will EVER Win
Click to expand...

No offence but you make some basic mistakes in your approach to I2a2, yes it's true that there is 50% of I2a2 in Bosnia, (In Croatia I2a2 is 42%), but you cannot come here and name that haplogroup as "Illyrian"; because by doing that you are confusing people here and making your own theory as "valid archeology and history". First of all, I2a2 is Paleolithic european haplogroup, it's much older than Illyrians as ethnicity and others ethnicity, and you don't have any right to call it "Illyrian", it's I2a2 HG, yes it's autohtone to area of present day Croatia and Bosnia, that's it, it's autohtone.

Why do I say that you cannot name it as "Illyrian", because I2a2 doesn't go above 10% in Albanian people, their dominant haplogroup is E1b1b, and E1b1b is dominant on Epirus in last 6000 years, so it's logical to say that not all "Illyrian" tribes shared the same genetic, means Illyrian tribes on Epirus had E1b1b HG and tribes on present day Croatia and Bosnia had I2a2, they were "Illyrian" maybe by culture, and that is also questionable.

Because by calling it "Illyrian" you are making a "monopol" on that name, which is not fair and not right, not in archeological, history or genetical way, you should rather say it's autohtone haplogroup of area of Bosnia and Croatia and that is it.
 
Why do I say that you cannot name it as "Illyrian",
Click to expand...


Yeah many people don't realize that most ancient civilizations and tribal communities were already hybrids of two or more different genetic and cultural groups/clusters. Just the fact that Illyrians spoke an Indo-European language, destroys the credibility of using "Illyrian" as a genetic group. Illyrians likely had a ruling class which was of Indo-European ancestry, while the rest of the population was likely a mix of neolithic migrants and indigenous paleolithic people.

Some though claim that the Western Balkans became underpopulated after the fall of the Roman Empire, and that the modern inhabitants of it aren't reflective of its ancient ones. I myself am undecided about this, I am waiting for more autosomal testing of all of Europe; this will make things much clearer to analyse and conclude things.
 
How we can talk about some Illyrians if their hg is only 2000 y.o.?

Bearers of hg I didn't live in the region of former Yugoslavia 2000 years ago. Anything else is a story for little kids.
 
No, this is completelly different.
Name Bozna is for sure derived from Slavic word: Bog (God).

BTW, Bosnia is Din-S. There's no Din-S bearers in Romania.
 
i never heard a satisfactory explanation of origin of word Bosna...
I do not think it is Slavic word, and I also do not recall reading about it being ancient name of the region...

I think that name might be related to lot of woods...
e.g. in Dutch "Bos" = woods
in French "bois"
in Italian woods = "bosco"

a possible scenario is that Germanic Goths who rulled area before Slavs had a word for woods same as Dutch do.. "Bos"
so they would call a region that is largely woods - Bos-nia
later Slavic settlers would adopt name without knowing its meaning...

words for regions derived from "woods" are relatively common...
e.g. large area in Serbia is called "Šumadija" which is derived from Slavic word for woods (šuma)
 
how yes no 3 said:
i never heard a satisfactory explanation of origin of word Bosna...
I do not think it is Slavic word, and I also do not recall reading about it being ancient name of the region...

I think that name might be related to lot of woods...
e.g. in Dutch "Bos" = woods
in French "bois"
in Italian woods = "bosco"

a possible scenario is that Germanic Goths who rulled area before Slavs had a word for woods same as Dutch do.. "Bos"
so they would call a region that is largely woods - Bos-nia
later Slavic settlers would adopt name without knowing its meaning...

words for regions derived from "woods" are relatively common...
e.g. large area in Serbia is called "Šumadija" which is derived from Slavic word for woods (šuma)
Click to expand...

The name of the geographical region is irrelevant to the origin and/or identity of the people. I.e.
proving Bosna may have Illyrian roots does not make them Illyrian. Much less that they had an Illyrian conciousness at some time. Historical documentation can prove how the people in that region identified themselves. As such, there were times where they identified themselves as orthodox Serbs. There is no doubt about that.

Likewise, the fact that the Bosnians may have identified them as Slavs or Serbs does not mean that they don't have (at least in part) Illyrian origin. 'Serb' and 'Illyrian origin' does not have to be an oxymoron.

Finally, we do not know if I2a2 is Illyrian.
 
some say

[SIZE=+1]A Gothic tribe Besi moved to the territory of todays Bosnia 80 years before Slavs; the tribe remained after the Slav arrival from the east. The name Bosnia originated from the name of this tribe; personal name Besim is one of the oldest Bosnian names.
http://www.ex-yupress.com/ljiljan/ljiljan1.html
[/SIZE]
 
zanipolo said:
some say

[SIZE=+1]A Gothic tribe Besi moved to the territory of todays Bosnia 80 years before Slavs; the tribe remained after the Slav arrival from the east. The name Bosnia originated from the name of this tribe; personal name Besim is one of the oldest Bosnian names.
http://www.ex-yupress.com/ljiljan/ljiljan1.html
[/SIZE]
Click to expand...

Again, if at some point of time a tribe has been absorbed by the people living in the region of what is now Bosnia, that doesn't mean that they did not identify themselves as Slavs or Serbs at some later point of time. Many tribes have been absorbed by many peoples at different points of time.

If you propose this hypothesis as to find an explenation for the etymology of the name, that's much appreciated. However, if you want to prove that Bosniacs were 'always' something else rather than Slavs or Serbs (as the author tries to advocate), then for the above reason I find it rather irrelevant and pseudo-scientific.

Bosniacs today obviously do not consider them to be Serbs or Croats. That's fine and they have every right to feel as they wish, but they can not change the fact that historically they are essentially a branch of that cultural mainframe which took a different path.
 
Bosniacs today obviously do not consider them to be Serbs or Croats. That's fine and they have every right to feel as they wish, but they can not change the fact that historically they are essentially a branch of that cultural mainframe which took a different path.
Click to expand...

You are equating Balkans Slavs with Croats and Serbs. Minor Slavic tribes already existed in the Western Balkans before the arrival of the Serbs and Croats. Of-course these Slavs would find refuge in Bosnia where the terrain is very mountainous, during the Croat/Serb migrations.

As for the question of whether the inhabitants of Bosnia were really Croat or really Serb in 1180, it cannot be answered, for two reasons: first, because we lack evidence, and secondly, because the question lacks meaning. We can say that the majority of the Bosnian territory (in 1180) was probably occupied by Croats - or at least, by Slavs under Croat rule - in the seventh century; but that is a tribal label which has little or no meaning five centuries later. The Bosnians were generally closer to the Croats in their religious and political history; but to apply the modern notion of Croat identity (something constructed in recent centuries out of religion, history, and language) to anyone in this period would be an anachronism. All that one can sensibly say about the ethnic identity of the Bosnians is this: they were the Slavs who lived in Bosnia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 199546 times.

Back
Top