Local migrations of Y haplotypes (subclades) in the Balkans

eastara said:
Well, genetics clearly shows the so called Danube Vlachs, who used to live in former Wallachia are very close to Bulgarians and Serbians(from Eastern Serbia).
Click to expand...

Where is that genetic evidence? Can you provide a reference?
 
Last edited:
Ownstyler said:
Where is that genetic evidence? Can you provide a reference?
Click to expand...


She also said Albanians never occupied their current lands before 300 years. Coping.
 
Dibran said:
She also said Albanians never occupied their current lands before 300 years. Coping.
Click to expand...

She said few centuries:
Most lowlands along the Danube were almost completely deserted by the old population, and later repopulated either by new migrants from the North and NorthEast or with highlanders who came down later. In the case with the Albanians and Vlach Aromuns it was only in the last few centuries.
Click to expand...
You said:
Albanians spread out from the Alps in the earlier middle ages, as early as 1000-1100 becoming a majority in the low lands between then and 1400.
Click to expand...
We don`t know what she understand with few centuries and if she can support her claim quoting serious sources. Let`s hope that she will find some time to elaborate all this, it`s the best way for her to give credibility to her words. But basically a couple of centuries divide you from her.
 
Unfortunately this forum has always been prone to nationalistic propaganda, and although I have been long time a member, avoided posting here not keen to receive abuse.
However it was again hijacked by some Balkan members, after the Serb/Croat and Greek/Macedonian conflicts subsided a little. Just to remind you, that the official history in most countries is edited due to political correctness, you have to read between the lines.
Useful information can be found on Anthogenica Balkan forum, I will not move more in circles here.
https://anthrogenica.com/forumdisplay.php?184-Balkan
 
eastara said:
Unfortunately this forum has always been prone to nationalistic propaganda, and although I have been long time a member, avoided posting here not keen to receive abuse.
However it was again hijacked by some Balkan members, after the Serb/Croat and Greek/Macedonian conflicts subsided a little. Just to remind you, that the official history in most countries is edited due to political correctness, you have to read between the lines.
Useful information can be found on Anthogenica Balkan forum, I will not move more in circles here.
https://anthrogenica.com/forumdisplay.php?184-Balkan
Click to expand...
Since you have changed your mind and you are again back, i take this opportunity to ask you to explain the underlined part:
Most lowlands along the Danube were almost completely deserted by the old population, and later repopulated either by new migrants from the North and NorthEast or with highlanders who came down later. In the case with the Albanians andVlach Aromuns it was only in the last few centuries.
Click to expand...
I hope that you will quote some credible sources to support your claim.
 
eastara said:
Unfortunately this forum has always been prone to nationalistic propaganda, and although I have been long time a member, avoided posting here not keen to receive abuse.
However it was again hijacked by some Balkan members, after the Serb/Croat and Greek/Macedonian conflicts subsided a little. Just to remind you, that the official history in most countries is edited due to political correctness, you have to read between the lines.
Useful information can be found on Anthogenica Balkan forum, I will not move more in circles here.
https://anthrogenica.com/forumdisplay.php?184-Balkan
Click to expand...
Excuse me but i insist in my question:
LABERIA said:
Since you have changed your mind and you are again back, i take this opportunity to ask you to explain the underlined part:
Most lowlands along the Danube were almost completely deserted by the old population, and later repopulated either by new migrants from the North and NorthEast or with highlanders who came down later. In the case with the Albanians andVlach Aromuns it was only in the last few centuries.
Click to expand...
I hope that you will quote some credible sources to support your claim.
Click to expand...
 
eastara said:
You can read this study by a professional Bulgarian historian - "Albanians in the Eastern Balkans". It describes the initial settlements of Albanians around their current territory and South to Greece, and later migrations after 16c. Eastwards. Hope Google translate will help.
http://bulgari-istoria-2010.com/booksBG/B_Gjuzelev_Albanci_v_iztochnite_balkani.pdf
Click to expand...
I asked your opinion, not the opinion of this Gjuzelev. Of course, quoting scholars in order to support your opinion it`s something normal in a discussion. Anyway, thanks for the link. It`s hard but i will try to read it with the help of Gg translator. I have read from an Bulgarian scholar a study, Albanian Identities of Antonina Zhelyazkova and i find a very interesting study. Of course, you can not find in this world two persons who share the same opinion about everything but the study of Zhelyazkova is a serious study. I hope that this study that you suggested me is at the same level. Because recently we read around stories about Udi, Azerbaijan, basically the old story of Caucasus Albania, etc. But we have never worshipped gods like Tengra, never lived in yurts or we have never used as drink fermented horse milk like Airag.
 
Well, you asked for "some credible sources to support your claim.
l have already posted my opinion on different forums but was attacked even by fellow Bulgarians. The truth is that most Bulgarians also inhabited the lowland of Thrace and Eastern Bulgaria only in the last few centuries. Yes, most South Balkanians are recent descendants from highlanders, living predominantly in the mountainous areas of the South Western Balkan, This has been a refuge during many invasions, the last being the Turks. They occupied the cities and the most fertile plains, while Christian Bulgarians were left only in mountain and semi mountain areas. Eastern Bulgaria and Thrace were subjected to deliberate colonisation from Anatolia and Tartar lands, those locals who stayed had to convert and assimilate.
However the Ottomans found the mountains around Albania, Northern Greece, Macedonia, Western Rhodopes, etc, unattractive and they were mostly left with the original population.
Those highlanders had their big opportunity in 17th century, when several big epidemics of plague, cholera, etc. affected most the lowlands and the cities, where the Turks lived. However the Sultan needed more farmers and tax payers and the Ottoman allowed and even actively transported people from the mountains to the depopulated areas.
One more thing was the increased activities first by the Vlachs, who emerged as the major trade and merchant force in the European part of the Ottoman Empire. These activities attracted also other locals like Greeks, Bulgarians and Albanians. The migration of many Albanian merchants East were connected to cattle and sheep trades.
 
eastara said:
Well, you asked for "some credible sources to support your claim.l have already posted my opinion on different forums but was attacked even by fellow Bulgarians. The truth is that most Bulgarians also inhabited the lowland of Thrace and Eastern Bulgaria only in the last few centuries. Yes, most South Balkanians are recent descendants from highlanders, living predominantly in the mountainous areas of the South Western Balkan, This has been a refuge during many invasions, the last being the Turks. They occupied the cities and the most fertile plains, while Christian Bulgarians were left only in mountain and semi mountain areas. Eastern Bulgaria and Thrace were subjected to deliberate colonisation from Anatolia and Tartar lands, those locals who stayed had to convert and assimilate.
However the Ottomans found the mountains around Albania, Northern Greece, Macedonia, Western Rhodopes, etc, unattractive and they were mostly left with the original population.
Those highlanders had their big opportunity in 17th century, when several big epidemics of plague, cholera, etc. affected most the lowlands and the cities, where the Turks lived. However the Sultan needed more farmers and tax payers and the Ottoman allowed and even actively transported people from the mountains to the depopulated areas.
One more thing was the increased activities first by the Vlachs, who emerged as the major trade and merchant force in the European part of the Ottoman Empire. These activities attracted also other locals like Greeks, Bulgarians and Albanians. The migration of many Albanian merchants East were connected to cattle and sheep trades.
Click to expand...

What you are saying is only true in the sense that many lowland people of today are descendants of the highlanders of the 17th and 18th centuries. But those highlanders didn't move into Turkic or Latin speaking lowlands. When the Ottomans arrived to the Balkans, they already called the countries they invaded Greece, Albania, Serbia, etc. And remember that these "countries" were divided into many kingdoms and principalities. Still the Ottomans had one name for each. So even if most Greek, Bulgarian or Albanian lowlanders come from highlanders, the people living there before these newcomers were speakers of the same languages.

If you want to see linguistic differences between low and highlands you should go back at least to the Slavic migrations period.
 
Ownstyler said:
What you are saying is only true in the sense that many lowland people of today are descendants of the highlanders of the 17th and 18th centuries. But those highlanders didn't move into Turkic or Latin speaking lowlands. When the Ottomans arrived to the Balkans, they already called the countries they invaded Greece, Albania, Serbia, etc. And remember that these "countries" were divided into many kingdoms and principalities. Still the Ottomans had one name for each. So even if most Greek, Bulgarian or Albanian lowlanders come from highlanders, the people living there before these newcomers were speakers of the same languages.

If you want to see linguistic differences between low and highlands you should go back at least to the Slavic migrations period.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is correct in most cases, the highlanders were originally the same(seeking refuge) or identical to people living the nearby lowlands before Ottoman times.
However there are cases when people claim ownership on the basis of a few new settler villages during Ottoman times. This is the case with some Albanians claiming they lived in eastern Bulgaria and Moldova since ancient times. Here is to say that some Bulgarians are guilty of same. There was some migration of Slav Bulgarians to Anatolia, and they came to the idea they are remnants of an old Bulgarian state there. However most old people in those villages still remembered where in Europe they came from probably in 18 c.
 
eastara said:
Yes, this is correct in most cases, the highlanders were originally the same(seeking refuge) or identical to people living the nearby lowlands before Ottoman times.
However there are cases when people claim ownership on the basis of a few new settler villages during Ottoman times. This is the case with some Albanians claiming they lived in eastern Bulgaria and Moldova since ancient times. Here is to say that some Bulgarians are guilty of same. There was some migration of Slav Bulgarians to Anatolia, and they came to the idea they are remnants of an old Bulgarian state there. However most old people in those villages still remembered where in Europe they came from probably in 18 c.
Click to expand...

Then we agree: not all Balkan peoples in the early Middle Ages were Vlachs although many spoke Latin too, and most lowlands occupied today by non-Turkish, non-Latin speaking ethnicities already had similar ethnic compositions during Ottoman times, of course with a few exceptions.
 
To Hrvt22's point at the beginning of this discussion, why are national Y-DNA projects in some Europe nation projects closed to the public and in other are open? If your ancestors came from hills or lowlands, what is there to hide with Y-DNA on these national level projects?

Wouldn't this lead toward a better understanding of history and diversity in Balkan Peninsula and neighboring nations? Would that help people overcome nationalistic animosity and mistrust ... maybe I am too naive? I understand that most of you would like to be part of one EU ... don't you?
 
Zvrk9 said:
To Hrvt22's point at the beginning of this discussion, why are national Y-DNA projects in some Europe nation projects closed to the public and in other are open? If your ancestors came from hills or lowlands, what is there to hide with Y-DNA on these national level projects?

Wouldn't this lead toward a better understanding of history and diversity in Balkan Peninsula and neighboring nations? Would that help people overcome nationalistic animosity and mistrust ... maybe I am too naive? I understand that most of you would like to be part of one EU ... don't you?
Click to expand...

The balkans is the place where you get put on kill lists for trying to study the past. For example:

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...lay-was-assassinated?highlight=milan+einstein
 
In this forum participant “eastara” already provided the link to the public Balkans Y-DNA group at FTDNA. There are Albanian, Croatian, Bulgarian, Bosnian, Serbian, Greek … people listing Y-DNA data and nobody is putting them on some type of “kill list”. Why would they? As pointed by Angela and others, Y-DNA, formed some 4000 years ago, has nothing to do with someone’s divisive ethnic or nationalistic feelings. Ethnicities and nationalities are very mixed for most of the Y-DNA in Europe. As I am looking this Balkan group, and some other FTDNA groups, I see several Balkan nation combinations sharing the same haplogroup. Yes, Johane Derite, some Albanian-Serbian combinations too, sharing the same Big-Y results.

I believe that many people participating in this forum would see in their Autosomal DNA (last 6 generations), several distant relative matches of ethnic groups that they would not expect to see. Maybe you are not so Albanian, Serbian, Croatian, Greek … or Romanian, Hungarian, Austrian, Italian as you may think you are. It will help you put your Y-DNA believes and ethnic claims in more realistic perspective and become more considerate ... more open-minded with others. It may also help you learn more about potential health problems (Promethease - SNPedia) down on the road. We will all agree that health is much more important to us and our families than some ethnic self-proclamation or related agenda.
 
Zvrk9 said:
In this forum participant “eastara” already provided the link to the public Balkans Y-DNA group at FTDNA. There are Albanian, Croatian, Bulgarian, Bosnian, Serbian, Greek … people listing Y-DNA data and nobody is putting them on some type of “kill list”. Why would they? As pointed by Angela and others, Y-DNA, formed some 4000 years ago, has nothing to do with someone’s divisive ethnic or nationalistic feelings. Ethnicities and nationalities are very mixed for most of the Y-DNA in Europe. As I am looking this Balkan group, and some other FTDNA groups, I see several Balkan nation combinations sharing the same haplogroup. Yes, Johane Derite, some Albanian-Serbian combinations too, sharing the same Big-Y results.

I believe that many people participating in this forum would see in their Autosomal DNA (last 6 generations), several distant relative matches of ethnic groups that they would not expect to see. Maybe you are not so Albanian, Serbian, Croatian, Greek … or Romanian, Hungarian, Austrian, Italian as you may think you are. It will help you put your Y-DNA believes and ethnic claims in more realistic perspective and become more considerate ... more open-minded with others. It may also help you learn more about potential health problems (Promethease - SNPedia) down on the road. We will all agree that health is much more important to us and our families than some ethnic self-proclamation or related agenda.
Click to expand...

You clearly missed the point of what I was saying.

Albanian bloodlines project has their results out in the open. The other balkan ones are the ones that are making theirs private. If you don't understand who the people
that are obstructing research in the region are then you should begin by at least researching the history of the last 2 centuries here.

If you don't understand the geopolitical context here and what the governments around these parts operate like then dont know what to say other than, adios.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 15676 times.

Back
Top