Language is not an appropriate barometer for genetic signature. That is a principle of modern genetics which it would behoove all newcomers to learn.
Look at the Etruscans and the Latins. They are very similar genetically and yet they speak wildly different languages. Or look at the Basques. Once again, you have people who are a mix of Anatolian farmer and steppe who don't speak an Indo-European language. Then there are Hungarians, who speak a language from Central Asia, the language of their conquerors, and yet there's virtually no Central Asian in them.
They too had built up a mythology based on their language, seeing themselves as descendants of the Magyars, and yet it was all disproven by dna. I don't see them crying about it, at least not here.
As for Francis Drake's implication that there were no Slavic speaking people in the far north, he's completely wrong. You don't need to do any heavy duty research in Journals to learn that. Heck, even a rudimentary knowledge of the tree of Indo-European languages would tell you that. The predecessor of the Slavic languages isn't called Balto-Slavic for nothing. Even a Wiki free of the usual tinkering would have told you that.
"The Novgorod Slavs, Slovenes or Ilmen Slavs (Russian: Ильменские слове́не, Il'menskiye slovene) were the northernmost tribe of the Early East Slavs, which inhabited the shores of Lake Ilmen and the basin of the rivers of Volkhov, Lovat, Msta, and the upper stream of the Mologa River in the 8th to 10th centuries. The Slovenes were native to the region around Novgorod.[1] There is a belief among researchers that Novgorod is one of the regions that are the original home / Urheimat of Russians and Slavic tribes.[2]Like all Eastern Slavs in Russian lands or in today's Russia the Ilmen Slavs had own characteristics. Ancestors of the Ilmen Slavs who settled in Finnic areas were coming from the Severians and the Polabian Slavs as evident by language and traditions (see old Novgorod dialect and Gostomysl for examples). They settled mostly Finnic areas in Northern Russia, moving along the major waterways, until they met the southward expansion of the Krivich in the modern-day Yaroslavl Oblast.[3] "
So, to reiterate, the authors of the paper on the Danubian Limes were NOT, repeat NOT saying that the urheimat of the Slavic peoples was on the shores of the Gulf of Finland. Slavic tribes did, however, move to those far northern areas. Nor did they say it was precisely those Slavic tribes which migrated south to settle in the Balkans. In the absence of a more proximate source which provided a reasonable fit, they chose people from those areas because they would be the most free of non-Slavic ancestry picked up en route to the Balkans. These papers have to be read carefully, including the Supplement. Of course one can disagree with their methodology or conclusions; I do it all the time. FIRST, however, you have to understand precisely what they're SAYING.
Now, people may well want to wait for a more proximate source in both space and time for the modeling of the impact of the "Slavs" or, more precisely perhaps, Slavic speakers, on the Balkans. That's fine. However, don't go making claims that the people they used to measure Slavic input are Finns. That's just blatantly false.
I really don't understand if the problem here is lack of understanding of the English language, or just lack of reading comprehension in general. Either way, if this material is too difficult for some people to understand, you'd think they'd have the self awareness to refrain from posting and demonstrating that to the whole world. Well, that was hyperbolic.Let's say they should have the self awareness to refrain from showing their inability to understand scientific papers to the entire internet pop gen community.
Russians were not even Slavic speaking but Turkic and Ugro- Finnic…so your points are not taken.
R1a and R1b are not original IE markers so get over it, that is the explanation for the Etruscans nothing else
