How "Slavic" are South Slavs?

We can make a balance of all that?
No Slavs as others are not racially homogenous pops - but a pop doesn' t need to be homozygotous in all its genes (what doesn't exist in nature, even among well separated races of animals) to be homogenous in a geographic sense, it's to say as opposed to others pops in a well defined territory and cultural area -
Saying a pop is homogenous (at least for a time) somewhere is saying its diverse components are represented in the same %'s allover the territory considered (homogeneisation or levelling of mixtures) -
what i think I understood is that southern Slavs are the farthest from the supposed (by me too) cradle around E-Poland/Belarus/NW Ukraina - This doesn't prove the culture and language have been transmitted uniquely through contacts acculturation, but that the tail (rather the head in fact) of the Slavic colonisers had incorporated more and more non-Slavic people as they were moving on towards South, until the place they were no more dense enough to pass their culture on*. Nothing more, nothing less IMO.

modern pops are mixed all of them, but we can see differences in the mean of their admixtures and everytime we look at the likely heart of their culturally genesis region we see a pop more differentiated from other cultures means than the lastly colonised peripheric regions, the most of the time.
Very often a new culture is born bt the mix of different cultures but it arose perceptively only after homogeneisation
 
We can make a balance of all that?
No Slavs as others are not racially homogenous pops - but a pop doesn' t need to be homozygotous in all its genes (what doesn't exist in nature, even among well separated races of animals) to be homogenous in a geographic sense, it's to say as opposed to others pops in a well defined territory and cultural area -
Saying a pop is homogenous (at least for a time) somewhere is saying its diverse components are represented in the same %'s allover the territory considered (homogeneisation or levelling of mixtures) -
what i think I understood is that southern Slavs are the farthest from the supposed (by me too) cradle around E-Poland/Belarus/NW Ukraina - This doesn't prove the culture and language have been transmitted uniquely through contacts acculturation, but that the tail (rather the head in fact) of the Slavic colonisers had incorporated more and more non-Slavic people as they were moving on towards South, until the place they were no more dense enough to pass their culture on*. Nothing more, nothing less IMO.
*: IMO if the mixture is made very progressively, at the end of the travel it could be passed spite the ORIGINAL mixture from the cradle is become very tiny. But it's not only acculturation (like BI the latinisation of European monks in the M-A's), it needs flesh and blood though original purity is gone long ago.
In general modern pops are mixed all of them, but we can see differences in the mean of their admixtures and everytime we look at the likely heart of their culturally genesis region we see a pop more differentiated from other cultures means than the lastly colonised peripheric regions, the most of the time.
Very often a new culture is born bt the mix of different cultures but it arose perceptively only after homogeneisation. This is a rough modele, in details we can always found some exceptions linked to politics, essentially in more recent times, with colonisations made by well structured and mighty states.
Conclusion: speaking of the first genesis pop, southern Slavs are "less" Slavic than the Eastern ones and even Western ones. This doesn't mean they are less Slavic in their mind.
 
(...) what i think I understood is that southern Slavs are the farthest from the supposed (by me too) cradle around E-Poland/Belarus/NW Ukraina - This doesn't prove the culture and language have been transmitted uniquely through contacts acculturation, but that the tail (rather the head in fact) of the Slavic colonisers had incorporated more and more non-Slavic people as they were moving on towards South, until the place they were no more dense enough to pass their culture on*. Nothing more, nothing less IMO.

That was a good description. The Slavic colonisers existed, they were numerous, and some of them have uninterrupted cultural continuity from the migration period.

However, we should be careful about “distances” as the Eastern European admixture which is usually regarded as “Slavic” has its peak in the Baltic area:

https://www.eupedia.com/europe/autosomal_maps_dodecad.shtml#Eastern_European

while proto-Slavs emerged much further south:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Balto-Slavic_lng.png

Morever, the EEF admixture in this Maciamo’s map shows about the same values in Croatia and in the area of proto-Slavic cradle – Western Ukraine:

https://www.eupedia.com/europe/autosomal_maps_dodecad.shtml#Neolithic_farmers

At the same time the areas of Poland, Belarus and Eastern Ukraine show slightly lower values.

I know that things are not that simple, but looking into these maps one may get the idea that Croats are more “Slavs” then most of the East and West Slavs.
 
That was a good description. The Slavic colonisers existed, they were numerous, and some of them have uninterrupted cultural continuity from the migration period.

However, we should be careful about “distances” as the Eastern European admixture which is usually regarded as “Slavic” has its peak in the Baltic area:

https://www.eupedia.com/europe/autosomal_maps_dodecad.shtml#Eastern_European

while proto-Slavs emerged much further south:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Balto-Slavic_lng.png

Morever, the EEF admixture in this Maciamo’s map shows about the same values in Croatia and in the area of proto-Slavic cradle – Western Ukraine:

https://www.eupedia.com/europe/autosomal_maps_dodecad.shtml#Neolithic_farmers

At the same time the areas of Poland, Belarus and Eastern Ukraine show slightly lower values.

I know that things are not that simple, but looking into these maps one may get the idea that Croats are more “Slavs” then most of the North and West Slavs.



If there was not WW1 and WW2 where mainly Slavs suffered great losses their combined population today would bee 900 million souls. I doubt if Balkans would exist, or Asia. Russia alone suffered 30 million victims in WW2 alone. Slavs of the North show a great degree of civilization by the way. Pollacks lead the way I think, Check people
 
That was a good description. The Slavic colonisers existed, they were numerous, and some of them have uninterrupted cultural continuity from the migration period.

However, we should be careful about “distances” as the Eastern European admixture which is usually regarded as “Slavic” has its peak in the Baltic area:

https://www.eupedia.com/europe/autosomal_maps_dodecad.shtml#Eastern_European

while proto-Slavs emerged much further south:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Balto-Slavic_lng.png

Morever, the EEF admixture in this Maciamo’s map shows about the same values in Croatia and in the area of proto-Slavic cradle – Western Ukraine:

https://www.eupedia.com/europe/autosomal_maps_dodecad.shtml#Neolithic_farmers

At the same time the areas of Poland, Belarus and Eastern Ukraine show slightly lower values.

I know that things are not that simple, but looking into these maps one may get the idea that Croats are more “Slavs” then most of the East and West Slavs.

I agree centroid pop of the Slavic cradle would have been less northeastern drifted than N Poles, Belarussians..., and evidently than Balts - I suppose it's the neolithic-WHG pre-Steppics apportion which helped to differentiate proto-Balts from proto-Slavs; that said I think still the southern Slavs are a the farthest ones from this cradle pop for auDNA - In my mind Croats and Slovenians from all the southern Slavs are the closest to W and E Slavs, spite surely a bit of Celtic input in them.
 
If there was not WW1 and WW2 where mainly Slavs suffered great losses their combined population today would bee 900 million souls. I doubt if Balkans would exist, or Asia. Russia alone suffered 30 million victims in WW2 alone. Slavs of the North show a great degree of civilization by the way. Pollacks lead the way I think, Check people
Very unlikely. Their birth rates through the 1914-2017 period wouldn't have been enough to make such a big leap in population numbers. Also, in the WW1 the biggest casualties happened to the west of most Slavic nations, especially in France and Germany. I'd say that a combined loss of ~50-60 million people in the Slavic nations in WW1+WW2 would've meant some 150 million more people now, not much more than that. Slavic countries have been experiencing extremely low fertility rates since at least 1980.
 
Very unlikely. Their birth rates through the 1914-2017 period wouldn't have been enough to make such a big leap in population numbers. Also, in the WW1 the biggest casualties happened to the west of most Slavic nations, especially in France and Germany. I'd say that a combined loss of ~50-60 million people in the Slavic nations in WW1+WW2 would've meant some 150 million more people now, not much more than that. Slavic countries have been experiencing extremely low fertility rates since at least 1980.

Most of casualties in WW2 were, Russians, Czechoslovak s, Polish, mainly Slavs. Germans suffered about 7 million casualties. I don't think the French had many. They were waiting for English and Americans to help. The French found out that, If having sex the German soldier would not disturb. So they(the French) got busy doing the stuff, while Germans were admiring Paris. So I would guess Around 40 millions were Slavs. Also don't forget Stalin killed a lot. Most of casualties also were males, so it could be another 20 million women never got married for lack of partner, even though they were not killed. if we take all into account, had everything being normal we would have had today extra 500 Dillon Slavs. That was a force no one could stop.
 
Most of casualties in WW2 were, Russians, Czechoslovak s, Polish, mainly Slavs. Germans suffered about 7 million casualties. I don't think the French had many. They were waiting for English and Americans to help. The French found out that, If having sex the German soldier would not disturb. So they(the French) got busy doing the stuff, while Germans were admiring Paris. So I would guess Around 40 millions were Slavs. Also don't forget Stalin killed a lot. Most of casualties also were males, so it could be another 20 million women never got married for lack of partner, even though they were not killed. if we take all into account, had everything being normal we would have had today extra 500 Dillon Slavs. That was a force no one could stop.

I've told you over and over again. Disparaging other ethnic groups is not allowed here. You never learn.
 
Here are three Early Slav samples. "South Slavic" Croats appear among top 20 in all three cases. On the other had no other "Southern European" population shows up.

-------------------------

RISE569, Early Czech Slav (660-700 AD). Eurogenes K13:

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 East_German 10.43
2 South_Polish 10.59
3 Southwest_Finnish 10.64
4 Polish 10.66
5 North_Swedish 11.56
6 Ukrainian 12.01
7 Ukrainian_Lviv 12.35
8 Austrian 13.07
9 Estonian 13.82
10 Russian_Smolensk 13.97
11 Estonian_Polish 14.31
12 Hungarian 14.37
13 Belorussian 14.39
14 Croatian 14.39
15 Swedish 14.45
16 Finnish 14.84
17 Southwest_Russian 15.87
18 Ukrainian_Belgorod 16.25
19 North_German 16.36
20 Lithuanian 16.62

--------------------------

RISE568 Early Czech Slav (600-900 AD). Eurogenes K13:

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Lithuanian 6.33
2 Belorussian 7.23
3 Estonian_Polish 7.33
4 Estonian 7.39
5 Russian_Smolensk 8.34
6 Polish 9.03
7 Southwest_Russian 10.88
8 Ukrainian 11.41
9 Finnish 11.51
10 Ukrainian_Belgorod 11.71
11 East_Finnish 12.13
12 South_Polish 12.26
13 Kargopol_Russian 12.32
14 Southwest_Finnish 13
15 Ukrainian_Lviv 13.17
16 Erzya 14.78
17 Croatian 18.6
18 La_Brana-1 19.4
19 North_Swedish 20.01
20 East_German 20.81

--------------------------

Sunghir6 (1040-1220 AD). Eurogenes K13:

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Ukrainian 3.62
2 Polish 4.33
3 Estonian_Polish 4.6
4 Russian_Smolensk 4.72
5 Southwest_Russian 4.9
6 Ukrainian_Lviv 5.39
7 Belorussian 5.9
8 Ukrainian_Belgorod 5.92
9 South_Polish 5.99
10 Kargopol_Russian 8.67
11 Lithuanian 8.82
12 Estonian 9.47
13 Croatian 10.93
14 Erzya 11.03
15 Finnish 12.01
16 East_Finnish 12.5
17 Southwest_Finnish 12.82
18 Moldavian 13.9
19 Hungarian 15.11
20 East_German 16.04

--------------------------

Data from here: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34097-Early-Medieval-Slavic-DNA-(years-600-900-AD)

There is no such a thing as "Balkan genetics", not even "South Slavic genetics". That's oversimplification.
 
Most of casualties in WW2 were, Russians, Czechoslovak s, Polish, mainly Slavs. Germans suffered about 7 million casualties. I don't think the French had many. They were waiting for English and Americans to help. The French found out that, If having sex the German soldier would not disturb. So they(the French) got busy doing the stuff, while Germans were admiring Paris. So I would guess Around 40 millions were Slavs. Also don't forget Stalin killed a lot. Most of casualties also were males, so it could be another 20 million women never got married for lack of partner, even though they were not killed. if we take all into account, had everything being normal we would have had today extra 500 Dillon Slavs. That was a force no one could stop.

I specifically wrote the WW1, not the 1939-45 WW2. Read more carefully. The French suffered in the WW1 more than any other European nation (I mean the war alone, not later revolutions and economic crises), and that may even explain their very cautious attitude in WW2. Also, in the case of Slavs, I'm afraid you're overestimating a lot. Other parts of Europe, especially those with poorer safety nets and less open markets attractive to immigration, have experienced the same astounding drop in fertility rates even without millions of casualties in WW2. Look at Spain or Portugal. These dynamics are much more long-term than you seem to acknowledge.
 
Last edited:
Whom did I offend? Obviously you don't watch the "History Channel"!?

HISTORY CHANNEL? If you keep getting information from that absurdly laughable channel, you'll soon write posts about the extraterrestrial masters of Ancient Egypt and their DNA contribution here. LOL
 
Croats and Slovenes are autosomally closer to Ukrainians than to Italians despite of being gheographicaly right next to Italians.
There were also a lot of interaction between Slovenia, Croatia and Italy in the ancient times so that adds more weight to the evidence.

South Slavs are Slavs.
 
Croats and Slovenes are autosomally closer to Ukrainians than to Italians despite of being gheographicaly right next to Italians.
There were also a lot of interaction between Slovenia, Croatia and Italy in the ancient times so that adds more weight to the evidence.

South Slavs are Slavs.


Croats and Slovenes are even considerably distant from Bulgarians, Macedonians, Montenegrins, and to some extent even from Serbs and Bosniaks, who are all considered South Slavic people.

Especially Slovenes are clearly not average South Slavs.
 
Affiliations can be manipulated by nation states. There's no need to speculate or guess. We have the data. No South Slavs plot near Russians or even Poles. Some Croatians and especially Slovenes are different, as Pax pointed out. Slovenes are in fact closer to Central Europeans.

See:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0105090

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30366-The-Balkans-as-the-Gateway-to-Europe

apu4QRE.png
[/IMG]
 

This thread has been viewed 106533 times.

Back
Top