Anthropometric Data from the Western Balkans Reveal Extraordinary Physical Stature

Are all the Albanian guys here on some drugs or what? Or they simply don't understand a written English text? Luckily, we have been only six posts from ending this senseless debate.

You have made multiple racist remarks against Albanians since your first post. Racist remarks are not arguments.

I am leaving this to the moderators but you clearly have shown a in racism rooted bias against an entire group of people. It is 2022, rejecting scientific evidence and justifying it with racist name calling won't get you further in life and I am saying this in all honesty and with the last bit of kindness I can muster.

All the best for your journey.
 
@Moesan
I feel I should not waste my time on this subject, but here we go.
If the average height, say, from France or Italy comes from more aged individuals on average - in relation to another given area -, if there're regional variances (as Sardinia and Dinaric Alps themselves make it clear), if Somalis' are affected by a comparative bad nutrition etc., this is just secondary to the point I made, since I was not worried with the ranking per se, i.e., with the differences of male height between groups, in isolation. My point was based on differences between males and females within groups, and how these differences compare to other groups'. Overall they follow each other; the proportions are similar, and the male average heights in Balkans don't seem justifiable directly by Y-DNA biases.
In short: the average height of girls in Dinaric Alps, at ~171.x cm, is also high.

That said, I have no problem with the idea of correlations, and I think you approached well this matter in a previous post, neither I doubt genetics may play a role in height, of course. But:
- Correlation does not imply causation. This is basic. The claims are somewhat confusing in this regard, since it seems to imply correlation with Y-DNA in one moment, while in other they seem to imply causation.
- I was focused on the role of I-M170. It seems to be implied that the hg acquired mutations that favored height before 27500 years ago approximately (!), corresponding to I-M170 TMRCA.

If one suspects that certain Y haplogroup can "cause" an increase of height in relation to other hgs, no problem. However, proving an hypothetical significance would probably demand a comparison between individuals from the same group, and belonging to different hgs (there're some "paradises" of Y-DNA diversity, such as Turkey, where this sort of research could be done more easily). If this paper comes, signed by reputable authors, then we'll pay more attention.
 
I don't think that it would be so simple. Dinaric people are not any "ordinary" European group. Together with Scandinavians, they have the most pronounced phenotype in Europe, and the evolution of such physical features requires some reproductive isolation. Such a population could not develop if it was "lurking" together with Slavs somewhere around the Carpathians. It's the result of a local development in the Dinaric Alps. And the only thing that we need to know is its dating. Even if we went downward from I2a1a2-M423 to I2a1a2b1a1a1c-PH908 (which is regarded as the "purest" Dinaric lineage), its branches converge ca. 1800 years ago.

Furthermore, it is not only about physical features but even about lifestyle. I wonder if all the Albanians here realize that Dinaric people share one important dietary custom with Scandinavians: The high reliance on milk in their diet. It was an inevitable evolutionary development in the limestone desert, where you basically have nothing to eat except for the meat and milk of domesticated animals. Such a pastoral population, roaming the mountains, would be basically archaeologically invisible because bones in the limestone soil desintegrate very quickly. And again: Is it realistic to assume that Slavic-speaking groups penetrating to the mountains would adapt to such a lifestyle that was so different from their agricultural way of subsistence? And there is another interesting thing to consider: The various Aromun groups in the Balkans, who also share this pastoral lifestyle and have a relatively high frequency of I-M170 (20-40%). Do you think that so many Slavs joined the Romanized shepherds in the mountains?

So, if I understand you correctly, you don't believe that this height gene is located on the Y-chromosome and inherited together with the I haplogroup ?

And you rather argue that it's an autosomal gene of an ancient population (which also happened to be dominated by HG I) and that this gene is concentrated in modern populations which descend mostly from this ancient tribe?
 
So, if I understand you correctly, you don't believe that this height gene is located on the Y-chromosome and inherited together with the I haplogroup ?

And you rather argue that it's an autosomal gene of an ancient population (which also happened to be dominated by HG I) and that this gene is concentrated in modern populations which descend mostly from this ancient tribe?
We don’t really know what he believes in, it seems even he doesn’t know what he believes in anymore, but 1 thing is for sure, he clearly stated that “Slavs did NOT bring I-M423 to the Balkans”.

But then he goes talking about Croats and Serbs settling in the Western Balkans and replacing Avars who had previously replaced Romans.

So when I asked him if he believes that Serbs and Croats are not Slavic, he simply dodged that question.

Then, if I-M423 was already in the Balkans, does that mean that Avars didn’t replace “Romans” and in turn Serbs and Croats didn’t replace Avars+Romans? So who were the I-M423? Romans? Illyrians?

I really doubt he’s the author. Sounds more like a Serbian troll who’s pushing for an autochthonous origin of the Serbs and Croats in the Balkans. You know, theories that specific groups of people believed in 2005.
 
@Moesan
I feel I should not waste my time on this subject, but here we go.
If the average height, say, from France or Italy comes from more aged individuals on average - in relation to another given area -, if there're regional variances (as Sardinia and Dinaric Alps themselves make it clear), if Somalis' are affected by a comparative bad nutrition etc., this is just secondary to the point I made, since I was not worried with the ranking per se, i.e., with the differences of male height between groups, in isolation. My point was based on differences between males and females within groups, and how these differences compare to other groups'. Overall they follow each other; the proportions are similar, and the male average heights in Balkans don't seem justifiable directly by Y-DNA biases.
In short: the average height of girls in Dinaric Alps, at ~171.x cm, is also high.

That said, I have no problem with the idea of correlations, and I think you approached well this matter in a previous post, neither I doubt genetics may play a role in height, of course. But:
- Correlation does not imply causation. This is basic. The claims are somewhat confusing in this regard, since it seems to imply correlation with Y-DNA in one moment, while in other they seem to imply causation.
- I was focused on the role of I-M170. It seems to be implied that the hg acquired mutations that favored height before 27500 years ago approximately (!), corresponding to I-M170 TMRCA.

If one suspects that certain Y haplogroup can "cause" an increase of height in relation to other hgs, no problem. However, proving an hypothetical significance would probably demand a comparison between individuals from the same group, and belonging to different hgs (there're some "paradises" of Y-DNA diversity, such as Turkey, where this sort of research could be done more easily). If this paper comes, signed by reputable authors, then we'll pay more attention.

I think you were perfectly clear the first time around. If there is a correlation between intragroup male and female height, then naturally Y can not be the explanation for the "baseline", since obviously women lack the Y chromosome.

The real state of the art here would be, if there was to be a correlation based on Y chromosome mutations to height, or even a causation, then one could go to the oldest common ancestral mutation for I2a1-Din(the furthest upstream, basal common clade), identify the mutation, a voila! Win an award or something.


But no, these authors from the references seem to be in the field of PE, and did not even bother with a meta research of what is known so far and how deep this biological rabithole goes. Hence the title Mountains of Giants or some ish... meanwhile Dalmatians be chillin in their flat mountains. lol

No, instead we are stuck here debating a paper that is confused about what it wants to say. I just cant wait for this guy to post images, imma have a laugh.
 
The dude is fuming and will start insulting Albanians in 4, 3, 2, 1…

Or he’ll never sign in again due to some ridiculous reason such as him being above us, a scientist, a superior I2a-Din giant, or whatever he believes.
 
Dude, not only you’re childish, unprofessional, and untalented, but even your written English is embarrassing for someone who’s goal is to post scientific papers. Your paper is that of an average university student who’s planning to get a C or 7.5/10 at best.

Answer the questions and the points made and leave the insults about Albanians. It’s not 1991 when we could get triggered, we’re used to insults by now.

In 6 posts you’re probably going to post some irrelevant Google image and become laughing stock.

Get it through your brain: THE I2a-Din SAMPLE IS NOT A BRONZE AGE ONE BUT MEDIEVAL.

You wrote an entire paper and didn’t even double check your sources. In Albania we say: “they sold you soap for cheese”.


Look, you "talented" genius: I have written eight articles, whose mean Altmetric score (international response in media and social networks) is 249 points. That's the 99.5th percentile of the Altmetric distribution. My best article achieved 1043 points (which only 0.05% articles published during the last six years did.) My two articles from 2014 and 2016, where I presented the relationships between Y haplogroups and physical/physiological traits, have accumulated 135 citations so far.

What are your achievements? Do you really think that you are in a position to criticize my work? The fact that you cannot accept the reality of some biological relationships is not my fault. Apparently, your notes here on this forum testify that you have no idea what is the rationale of these findings. (No, it is not "a height gene located on the Y chromosome.") So we should clarify our positions: You are the dumb one(s) here. And in addition, instead of discussing scientific matters, I must deal with your childish nationalistic outbursts for which your region is famous in the whole of Europe (but in a negative way, unfortunately). And I repeated several times that I cannot use guesses of some people from internet message boards as a scientific source. Unless definitely proven otherwise, the sample from the Bezdanjača Cave remains the oldest case of I1a1a2-M423 in the Dinaric Alps. Do you understand? Or do I have to repeat it ten more times?
 
Apparently, your notes here on this forum testify that you have no idea what is the rationale of these findings. (No, it is not "a height gene located on the Y chromosome.

I am the one who posted that, not Dushman.

Could you explain the rationale then?
 
Look, you "talented" genius: I have written eight articles, whose mean Altmetric score (international response in media and social networks) is 249 points. That's the 99.5th percentile of the Altmetric distribution. My best article achieved 1043 points (which only 0.05% articles published during the last six years did.) My two articles from 2014 and 2016, where I presented the relationships between Y haplogroups and physical/physiological traits, have accumulated 135 citations so far.

What are your achievements? Do you really think that you are in a position to criticize my work? The fact that you cannot accept the reality of some biological relationships is not my fault. Apparently, your notes here on this forum testify that you have no idea what is the rationale of these findings. (No, it is not "a height gene located on the Y chromosome.") So we should clarify our positions: You are the dumb one(s) here. And in addition, instead of discussing scientific matters, I must deal with your childish nationalistic outbursts for which your region is famous in the whole of Europe (but in a negative way, unfortunately). And I repeated several times that I cannot use guesses of some people from internet message boards as a scientific source. Unless definitely proven otherwise, the sample from the Bezdanjača Cave remains the oldest case of I1a1a2-M423 in the Dinaric Alps. Do you understand? Or do I have to repeat it ten more times?



You continue to ignore the fact that the date on the sample is completely incorrect. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PRE-SLAVIC PERIOD.
 
That said, I have no problem with the idea of correlations, and I think you approached well this matter in a previous post, neither I doubt genetics may play a role in height, of course. But:
- Correlation does not imply causation. This is basic. The claims are somewhat confusing in this regard, since it seems to imply correlation with Y-DNA in one moment, while in other they seem to imply causation.
- I was focused on the role of I-M170. It seems to be implied that the hg acquired mutations that favored height before 27500 years ago approximately (!), corresponding to I-M170 TMRCA.

If one suspects that certain Y haplogroup can "cause" an increase of height in relation to other hgs, no problem. However, proving an hypothetical significance would probably demand a comparison between individuals from the same group, and belonging to different hgs (there're some "paradises" of Y-DNA diversity, such as Turkey, where this sort of research could be done more easily). If this paper comes, signed by reputable authors, then we'll pay more attention.

Correlation does not imply causation. But when you observe many of such correlations in many world regions, you will have to admit that there is a pattern based on biological reality. And no - I do not believe that Y haplogroups "carry" genetic predispositions for tallness. Height is a highly polygenic trait and each mutation explains only a very small percentage of individual height variation. Rather, Y haplogroups are signatures of paternal founder effects and they reflect the proportional occurrence of certain genes in a population. But I do not exclude that some "residual effect" could be detected at the Y haplogroup level even after many centuries. This would have to be tested. We prepare such a study in Montenegro but it depends on if we obtain sufficient funding.
 
You continue to ignore the fact that the date on the sample is completely incorrect. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PRE-SLAVIC PERIOD.

Can you direct me to a study, where I can find this statement? Patterson et al. state:

"Radiocarbon analysis of several wood samples from the site yielded dates of 1350–1100 BCE (Sliepčević and Srdoč 1979/1980). Recent radiocarbon dates for two individuals from Bezdanjača align with the previous radiocarbon dates from the same site. A petrous bone from one of the individuals (BzV 10a) excavated from the eastern channel yielded sample I18719 (male). This mature adult displayed possible peri-mortem trauma. Unfortunately, only the left side of the cranium is preserved."

So it cannot be due to incorrect dating. If anything, it is a contamination by modern DNA. The biggest obstacle is the old age of the supposedly young mtDNA lineage in this individual, but unless its age is verified by paleogenetic samples, it cannot be taken as a definitive proof either.
 
You wrote an entire paper and didn’t even double check your sources.

Post your sources here. I am sure that I am not the only one who is waiting for them.
 
The proper radiocarbon dating does not apply to sample I181719, it applies to a wood sample from the archeological site. The mtDNA is young as was already pointed out multiple times. The autosomal DNA is overwhelmingly Slavic and has on top of that medieval Slavic components that have not even been present in the Bronze Age. The sample's auDNA does not plot near actual radiocarbon dated Bronze Age Dalmatian samples but near modern Slavic populations.

The correct nomenclature is I-Y3120. This major Slavic lineage is absent in the ancient Balkans be it pre-Roman or Roman related. The paper "Stable population structure in Europe since the Iron age" is one of many proofs where there are a lot of ancient CE samples from the Balkans and not a single one is I-Y3120 or in other words I2a-Slav. Besides that, there are also other numerous papers by respectable Population Geneticists such as Nordvedt et. al. who have debunked this nonsense claim years ago.





 
If you guys want to read a proper study on the matter, and to compare it to this.
Found the open source article
https://www.researchgate.net/public...to_childhood_growth_and_the_timing_of_puberty

In layman terms, what it means:
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-11-scientists-brain-nutritional-state-growth.html

Try not to think too much about the contrast in methodology to the garbage we see here, or how someone trying to answer such questions should approach the inquiry.

Thank you for the links!
 
Look, you "talented" genius: I have written eight articles, whose mean Altmetric score (international response in media and social networks) is 249 points. That's the 99.5th percentile of the Altmetric distribution. My best article achieved 1043 points (which only 0.05% articles published during the last six years did.) My two articles from 2014 and 2016, where I presented the relationships between Y haplogroups and physical/physiological traits, have accumulated 135 citations so far.

What are your achievements? Do you really think that you are in a position to criticize my work? The fact that you cannot accept the reality of some biological relationships is not my fault. Apparently, your notes here on this forum testify that you have no idea what is the rationale of these findings. (No, it is not "a height gene located on the Y chromosome.") So we should clarify our positions: You are the dumb one(s) here. And in addition, instead of discussing scientific matters, I must deal with your childish nationalistic outbursts for which your region is famous in the whole of Europe (but in a negative way, unfortunately). And I repeated several times that I cannot use guesses of some people from internet message boards as a scientific source. Unless definitely proven otherwise, the sample from the Bezdanjača Cave remains the oldest case of I1a1a2-M423 in the Dinaric Alps. Do you understand? Or do I have to repeat it ten more times?
My achievements are such that I earn enough money through way more interesting ways to have a happy life and in my free time engage in genetic discussions as a hobby.

Your achievement is to beg for funding from other people.

I feel your frustration though, you did all that work and soon you’ll have to remove your “scientific conclusions” from the internet because someone will fix the dating of that I2a Medieval sample.

It must have taken you weeks not to say months to finish it and in the end you’ll be hit by an: “oops, we put Bronze Age by mistake”.

Imagine the shame that even random fora members with completely different jobs and fields of research know about the wrong dating, yet you together with an entire team did all that work for nothing.

Insults on Albanian starting again in 3, 2, 1…

P.s. Feel free to come for vacations. Lots of blonde Czech love getting tanned on the Albanian beaches and enjoy their time here. We’re very hospitable people :)

Here’s another link from the recent average height for Albanians: https://www.researchgate.net/public...m_Armspan_Measurements_in_Albanian_Youngsters

The interesting bits include the part where Albanian girls are very close to the Top 10 tallest nations on Earth, their arm-span being higher than height compared to other nations (which indicates further potential growth), and males having much higher arm-span ratio than our neighbours which again indicates potential growth with improved nutrition and lifestyle in the future.

The study included also several people in their mid to late 30s and 40s which must have slightly decreased average height (especially for men).

I hope in the future someone will conduct a proper study with thousands of samples taken from universities, preferably from those close to graduating to include possible slight increase from 18-24.
 
Last edited:
The proper radiocarbon dating does not apply to sample I181719, it applies to a wood sample from the archeological site. The mtDNA is young as was already pointed out multiple times. The autosomal DNA is overwhelmingly Slavic and has on top of that medieval Slavic components that have not even been present in the Bronze Age. The sample's auDNA does not plot near actual radiocarbon dated Bronze Age Dalmatian samples but near modern Slavic populations.

The correct nomenclature is I-Y3120. This major Slavic lineage is absent in the ancient Balkans be it pre-Roman or Roman related. The paper "Stable population structure in Europe since the Iron age" is one of many proofs where there are a lot of ancient CE samples from the Balkans and not a single one is I-Y3120 or in other words I2a-Slav. Besides that, there are also other numerous papers by respectable Population Geneticists such as Nordvedt et. al. who have debunked this nonsense claim years ago.



So much for the research in the Bezdanjača Cave, dear colleague. Although this finding still does not exclude the possibility that these samples are anachronistic (the statements of an archaeologist responsible for the sample I181719 are very confusing, with regard to its dating), it shows that internet forums cannot be regarded as a reputable scientific source. As far as I can tell from a 3-way ancestry model (WHG, Anatolian farmer, Yamnaya) in the Supplementary Table S5, I181719 does not deviate from the contemporary Bronze Age and Iron Age samples in Croatia in any way. Except that it has the highest proportion of WHG ancestry (11.7%).

And given that I have already reached my 19th post, we can soon close this senseless debate for good.

Btw, since when is I2a "a Slavic lineage"?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Lazaridis, Iosif"
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2022 17:45:59 +0000
Subject: Re: THE SAMPLE FROM THE BEZDANJAČA CAVE


Dear Pavel,

I do see another individual from this cave in the I-M423 clade but most are not.


Best, Iosif


 
Last edited:
According to Dr. Pavel from the Czech Republic the I-M423 giant men were hiding in Dalmatian caves for 2000 years until they decided to come out and mate with everyone else’s women.

So Dr. Pavel, who brought North East European auDNA in the Balkans, R1a alone?

R1a in Montenegro - 7%
R1a auDNA contribution - 40%?

The Slavs must have held some massive orgies.
 
To summarize everything regarding the misdated Slavic sample I18719:


Obvious Slavic uniparentals as already pointed out I-Y3120 and HV0a1a1b

Late formed Slavic mtDNA:

https://www.yfull.com/mtree/HV0a1a1b/

Actual dating: formed 600 ybp, TMRCA 275 ybp


The wrong non radiocarbon dating is: 2950-3450 ypb


Strong Slavic autosomal profile

Distance: I18719_Slavic1.5181% / 0.01518087 | ADC: 0.25x RC

32.6 KAZ_Golden_Horde_Euro
24.0 BGR_Beli_Breyag_EBA
20.4 SVK_Poprad_MA
11.0 Ostrogothic_Crimea_ACD
9.4 DEU_MA_o
2.6 HUN_Avar_Period

Can also be modeled as 76% Avar_Slav_Szolad and 24% Eastern Balkan Native which makes it South Slavic-like


Distance to: I18719_Slavic
0.02650526 Romanian:G408
0.02680971 Montenegrin:Montenegro6
0.02720836 Serbian:717
0.02749230 Serbian:729
0.02775372 Serbian:726
0.02815494 Montenegrin:Montenegro4


I18719_Slavic does not plot near actual radiocarbon dated Bronze Age Dalmatian samples who have a North Italian-like autosomal profile


Judging on what the authors have provided about the findings of Bezdanjaca cave, this non radiocarbon misdated Slavic sample might be as young as from World War II.




 
Bad ethic

In case some are wondering why the Slavic sample was not allowed to get radiocarbon dated but the other samples from different institutions were.

A nice and neatly presented pice of information about bad ethics in said state institution which has had a history of pseudo scientific bias and misinformation spread based on non evidential bizarre claims (© Bruzmi):

They are not just obsolete claims. They represent carefully designed misinformation from a specific state institution, which is the only one in the western Balkans which to date has systematically denied access to aDNA studies in its territory. It is also the only institution in the Balkans which promotes papers such as Haplogroup Prediction Using Y-Chromosomal Short Tandem Repeats in the General Population of Bosnia and Herzegovina

High prevalence of haplogroup I with its sublineage I2a (43.13%) was expected, when considering previously published literature (Marjanović et al., 2005; Dogan et al., 2016a). In three main ethnic groups in B&H, I2a accounted for 71% of all haplogroups in Croats, 44% in Bosniaks, and 31% in Serbs (Marjanović et al., 2005) based on Y-SNP analysis. In the previous study of Croatian and Serbian populations, sublineage I2a was also the most frequent (Barać et al., 2003; Peričić et al., 2005; Kačar et al., 2019). Paleolithic origin of this haplogroup suggests the possibility of modern population expansion from one of the post-Glacial refuges into the rest of the Balkan Peninsula (Marjanović et al., 2006). It is believed that haplogroup I arrived in the area of Balkan Peninsula around 25,000 years ago from the Middle East through Anatolia (Battaglia et al., 2009; Primorac et al., 2011). However, recent insights into this research area suggest the possibility of this haplogroup being associated with more recent population movements; however, this requires additional analyses (Marjanović et al., 2019). In comparison to other European populations, I2a could be considered a typical Southeast European haplogroup (Kushniarevich et al., 2015).

Haplogroup R, with its major sublineage R1a, was the second most abundant in the study population of B&H with frequency of 14.79%. In the previous Y-SNP-based study, the haplogroup R accounted for around 14% of all Y chromosomes with an even distribution among three ethnic groups, namely 15% in Bosniaks, 14% in Serbs, and 12% in Croats (Marjanović et al., 2005). In the total Serbian population, haplogroup R was found in a frequency of 15.9%, while it was shown to be more common in Croatia accounting for a total of 33.9% in the mainland population. In the Slovenian population, the prevalence of this haplogroup was 37% (Barać et al., 2003; Peričić et al., 2005; Kačar et al., 2019). Theories on R1a origins suggest the flow of haplogroup R from West Asia into the Balkan region as a post-Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) event, that is, during the Mesolithic time (Myres et al., 2011; Primorac et al., 2011). The connection between haplogroups I and R was described through migration and gene flow between Europe and Middle East using both autosomal and Y-chromosomal markers (Kovačević et al., 2014).


That such views get published in respectable international journals is not the fault of the institutions which sponsor such studies. They know perfectly well what they're trying to do. The blame lies exclusively in said journals which accept such papers without the required peer review.
 

This thread has been viewed 27945 times.

Back
Top