Genetics confirm migration of White Croats to Croatia

It's just part

http://www.kapitaltrade.hr/otvoreni-pecati/3-naslov/vii-dio/

While in Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland there are so many place names that are identical or nearly identical to today's place names in Medjimurje, Zagorje, Slavonia, Lika, Dalmatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and elsewhere, that it took more than 17 pages of the book to get them all cited...
Of course it will be identical,they are find among Slavic countries,what about the very pre Roman names that are identical?such is Dukla,Sava,Drava,Ibar,Timok,Timachus,Timava, Tergeste or Trgoviste,i need more then 17 pages Safarik did good job on ancient toponyms,find his work and are from Illyrian,Moesian,Macedonian lands,found north?as Trubachev long ago noted,the most homogenous toponyms are the one recently colonized,not in the ancient lands.
 
Genetics show that Croats coming from White Croatia..

No it doesn't. It comes from what you suspect was White Croatia some 1500 years ago.

Do you have any 10th century samples from Libice?
"For a time it was also a center of White Croatia until around 995 A.D. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libice_nad_Cidlinou


You should look for White Croats genetics there better:
https://glosbe.com/sh/en/hrbat


Bile Karpaty.jpg
 
http://news-bar.rtl.hr/vijesti/regija/lingvisti-sloni-hrvati-i-srbi-govore-istim-jezikom-makedonskim
Linguists agree: Croats and Serbs speak the same language - Macedonian!

After their colleagues from other scientific fields published an amazing discovery, and linguists from the Institute "Franjo Arapovic" finally completed extensive research on the languages ​​of the South Slavs. And their findings deny even Miroslav Krleza.

- Croatian and Serbian are two separate languages, they are only dialects of the original language spoken by the South Slavs. Nearest the original South Slav Macedonians language so we can say that the Macedonian language is spoken in Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia, but in these countries only use a slightly different dialects. Just all these nations developed their little fun dialects - explained linguists in the conclusion of scientific work.

In the study by experts from the Institute "Franjo Arapovic" carefully examined the development of words paying special attention to the words that are not the same in Macedonia and one of the later formed dialects. A notable example of the word "ubavo", which, for example, Croats and Serbs took the word "good" in most of the Croatian or "good" in a large part of Serbia and Zagorje. At the same time the Macedonian words "beautiful" have given a new, completely opposite meaning by adding the letter G in front of it.

- Our research has no errors. I used to think that the Serbian and Croatian two separate languages, but I was wrong. This study and its conclusions are irrefutable. Serbs and Croats speak the same language - Macedonian - briefly commented linguist Sanda Ham.

Renowned linguists add an amendment regarding scientific article. They found that the Bulgarian language is not the same as Macedonian. With the help of historians have discovered that, for the dissemination of the old Slavic tribes Macedonians in Bulgaria probably gone and one Macedonian speech impairments so they Slavicized Bulgarians accepted fact Macedonian with a speech impediment, which today mostly in only slightly modified version.

How are the results of this research persuasive, and it shows as numerous universities worldwide, but the day after the publication was renamed the Department of South Slavic languages ​​at the Department of Macedonian language.
 
hrvat22 said:
The Sorbs also showed evidence of subtle levels of genetic isolation in comparison with samples from non-isolated European populations

Lusatian Sorbs are because of Germanic tribes that surrounded them

^ We are talking about modern times, when "tribes" have no longer existed.

During the Middle Ages, Sorbs were of course surrounded by other Slavic tribes from all sides.

Sorbs have become an isolated Slavic-speaking enclave surrounded by German-speaking populations from all sides only relatively recently - in the late 18th or in the 19th century. Until approximately the 18th century Sorbs weren't an enclave surrounded from all side by Germans, but were connected by a strip of Slavic-speaking countryside with Polish-speaking mainland (the transitional group between Sorbian-speakers and Polish-speakers were so called "Oder-Wenden", who spoke transitional Polish-Sorbian dialects - while to the east of Oder-Wenden there lived Polacy Lubuscy, as this map (LINK) shows. So in 1700 you could still ride all the way from Cottbus, via Zielona Gora and Poznan, to Moscow, without even leaving Slavic-speaking territories - below such a map:

(Serbowie Łużyccy = Lusatian Sorbs; Polacy Lubuscy = Poles of Lubusz Land)

blue = German-speaking areas / white and pink = Slavic-speaking areas

25834ts.jpg


So until the late 1700s or even the 1800s there was no any linguistic barrier preventing Sorbs from mixing with their eastern neighbours, as they also spoke Slavic back then. Even later Sorbs mixed with Polish immigrants coming to their land.

There was a fairly recent Polish immigration to Sorbian territory. For example according to the German census of year 1900, monolingual Polish-speakers (without including Polish-German or Polish-Sorbian bilinguals) were 5,5% of population of Kreis Kalau in Provinz Brandenburg, in Sorbian lands. Monolingual Poles were 4,334 out of 78,804 inhabitants of that county.
 
Lusatian Sorbs have main R1a type M458, Serbs have R1a Z280

This is not true, Sorbs have both types.

Ca. 37% of Lusatian Sorbs have M458, and ca. 28% of Lusatian Sorbs have Z280.

In total around 65% of Sorbs have R1a.

Serbs also have both these subclades - ca. 10% have Z280 and ca. 4% have M458.

In total around 15% of Serbs have R1a.

Of course you can find also different percenages depending on study and samples.

For example Bosnian Serbs have different frequencies than Serbs from Serbia.

Does it mean that Bosnian Serbs are not descended from Serbs from Serbia?

It is simply the case, that when just part of a tribe migrates, they are usually not perfectly representative of the total population. It will always be a lottery. For example there could be 100 Proto-Serbs, 50 with R1a and 50 with I2a. Of them, 50 migrated to Germany and 50 to the Balkans, but among those who migrated to Germany there could be 35 with R1a and 15 with I2a, while in the other group there could be 35 with I2a and 15 with R1a. For example. After migrating, various lineages could procreate at different rates (i.e. John with R1a could have 10 sons and 2 daughters, Jacob with I2a could have 1 son and 7 daughters - for example), leading to changes in frequencies. They also mixed with different groups of locals in both places - Serbs in the Balkans mixed with local Non-Serbs.

I inserted "John" and "Jacob" as examples (I know these aren't Slavic names). :grin:
 
https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/balticsea/about/news
SNP S17250 divide I-L621 L147.2 (CTS5966) Dinarics subclade

In 2014 results of BigY Survey Program give us a new portion of knowledge about a big and not structured up till now part of Slavic languages people I-L621 L147.2 CTS5966+ which are a remains of Venedi Peoples from Roman Empire period (see the location of the Venedi in the upper Vistula region and south of Polesian Lowland in times of the Roman empire under Hadrian (ruled 117-138), source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vistula_Veneti (see map below)


The current state of knowledge about the diversity within the group I-L621 L147.2 CTS5966+ is shown in ISOGG phylotree: http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpI.html
It is divided between two or tree subclades: S17250 - majority of tested, and Y4460 possible a remnant of the Baltic Veneti, and maybe Z17855

S17250 is divided further into at least three subclades, maybe represented 3 area of settlement/3 tribes groups:

  • Z16971 (probably White Croats descendants),
  • Y4882 (probably a Drevlyans and Dregoviches descendants),
  • A356/Z16983 (probably Moravians descendants).

Y4460 is divided further into two subclades:


  • Z16973 with subbranch Y3118 and
  • S8201 & Y8942
    second one with a subclade:
  • Y13498
Lack of geographical separation of Venedes caused mixed population and we are not able to predict on STR basis real SNP subclades.
But only inside of those subclades an STR analysis is valuable. So it is strong recommendation for testing, S17250 at first.


 
DejaVu said:
In 2014 results of BigY Survey Program give us a new portion of knowledge about a big and not structured up till now part of Slavic languages people I-L621 L147.2 CTS5966+ which are a remains of Venedi Peoples from Roman Empire period (see the location of the Venedi in the upper Vistula region and south of Polesian Lowland in times of the Roman empire under Hadrian (ruled 117-138), sourcehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vistula_Veneti (see map below)

It is total speculation, since we do not have any ancient DNA samples from the upper Vistula region from period 117 - 138 AD. So we have no idea, what DNA did those people (or any other people from this region) have during the 2nd century AD.

So far - when it comes to area of Poland - we have Y-DNA only from the Copper Age and Bronze Age.

From the Iron Age and from Roman times, we have no aDNA except for some mtDNA samples.

This might change within several years from now, when (and if) this project is completed:

http://ncn.gov.pl/finansowanie-nauki/przyklady-projektow/figlerowicz?language=en

^ "Dynasty & population of the Piast state in view of integrated historical, anthropological & genomic studies"

Such a scheme explaining what is it about: http://s4.postimg.org/cnzq9ygcd/Piast_realm.png

Piast_realm.png


This is a huge project - hopefully they will finish this and publish their results before 2020...
 
This is not true, Sorbs have both types.

Ca. 37% of Lusatian Sorbs have M458, and ca. 28% of Lusatian Sorbs have Z280.

In total around 65% of Sorbs have R1a.



Serbs also have both these subclades - ca. 10% have Z280 and ca. 4% have M458.

In total around 15% of Serbs have R1a.

Of course you can find also different percenages depending on study and samples.

For example Bosnian Serbs have different frequencies than Serbs from Serbia.

Does it mean that Bosnian Serbs are not descended from Serbs from Serbia?

It is simply the case, that when just part of a tribe migrates, they are usually not perfectly representative of the total population. It will always be a lottery. For example there could be 100 Proto-Serbs, 50 with R1a and 50 with I2a. Of them, 50 migrated to Germany and 50 to the Balkans, but among those who migrated to Germany there could be 35 with R1a and 15 with I2a, while in the other group there could be 35 with I2a and 15 with R1a. For example. After migrating, various lineages could procreate at different rates (i.e. John with R1a could have 10 sons and 2 daughters, Jacob with I2a could have 1 son and 7 daughters - for example), leading to changes in frequencies. They also mixed with different groups of locals in both places - Serbs in the Balkans mixed with local Non-Serbs.

I inserted "John" and "Jacob" as examples (I know these aren't Slavic names). :grin:


Which type M458 and Z280...?
 
https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/balticsea/about/news
SNP S17250 divide I-L621 L147.2 (CTS5966) Dinarics subclade

In 2014 results of BigY Survey Program give us a new portion of knowledge about a big and not structured up till now part of Slavic languages people I-L621 L147.2 CTS5966+ which are a remains of Venedi Peoples from Roman Empire period (see the location of the Venedi in the upper Vistula region and south of Polesian Lowland in times of the Roman empire under Hadrian (ruled 117-138), source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vistula_Veneti (see map below)


The current state of knowledge about the diversity within the group I-L621 L147.2 CTS5966+ is shown in ISOGG phylotree: http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpI.html
It is divided between two or tree subclades: S17250 - majority of tested, and Y4460 possible a remnant of the Baltic Veneti, and maybe Z17855

S17250 is divided further into at least three subclades, maybe represented 3 area of settlement/3 tribes groups:

  • Z16971 (probably White Croats descendants),
  • Y4882 (probably a Drevlyans and Dregoviches descendants),
  • A356/Z16983 (probably Moravians descendants).

Y4460 is divided further into two subclades:


  • Z16973 with subbranch Y3118 and
  • S8201 & Y8942
    second one with a subclade:
  • Y13498
Lack of geographical separation of Venedes caused mixed population and we are not able to predict on STR basis real SNP subclades.
But only inside of those subclades an STR analysis is valuable. So it is strong recommendation for testing, S17250 at first.



Even though there are not so many results for the new SNPs for people from Croatia and Serbia, many of these people belong to the "Dinaric-South" group as defined by STRs and I think most of "Dinaric-South" will belong to what our project calls the I-Z16983/A356 group.


Ancestor of haplotype I2a1b2a1a3 A356 / 16983 is mutation I-Y3548

http://yfull.com/tree/I-Y3548/

That White Croatian mutation is ancestor of haplotype I2a1b2a1a2 Y4882, I2a1b2a1a1 Z16971. Therefore they can not be Drevlyans, Dregoviches or Moravians...Only after breakup of White Croats...
 
Such a 2013 study on Y-DNA haplogroups of ethnic Poles from the region of Wielkopolska (Polonia Maior).

http://www.amsik.pl/archiwum/3_2013/3_13d.pdf

Table II. (pages 3 - 10) - 17 Y-STR haplotypes for the Greater Poland population, haplogroups and frequency.

I compared some (until now just a few) Polish haplotypes from that study, with this database:

http://yhrd.org/search/search

For example Polish individual ID43 had 135 matches including 1 exact match in their database:

"Found 1 exact match in 6,872 Haplotypes. This is approx. 1 match in 6,872 Haplotypes (95% CI: 1,234 - 271,430).
All information provided here are based on the Minimal Haplotype database. There are 135 matches in 154,329 Haplotypes":

http://s24.postimg.org/jsrjw4u79/ID43_matches.png

ID43_matches.png







 
hrvat

The recent study on Slavic people shows that the differences between Serbs, Croats and Bosniacs are very small not to say non-existant. The small difference is only the slight increase of EEF when going to South and that has much to do with geography than other issues.


Fig-32.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ike
hrvat

The recent study on Slavic people shows that the differences between Serbs, Croats and Bosniacs are very small not to say non-existant. The small difference is only the slight increase of EEF when going to South and that has much to do with geography than other issues.
I has to do with local autochthonous population who lived there before Slavs came, and with whom Slavs mixed after arrival.
 
Arame,

That is K6, so it is very low-resolution. Most of Europeans score k3 (dark blue) and k2 (light blue) components. But this study says many interesting things - for example it suggests that not just South Slavs but all groups of Slavs during their expansion absorbed and mixed with pre-Slavic substrates - in case of South Slavs those were previous Balkanian populations, in case of East Slavs mostly Baltic and Ugro-Finnic peoples, in case of Poles and Sorbs apparently mostly some "Swedish-like" population, while in case of Czechs and Slovaks apparently some Celtic and "German-like" populations.

When it comes to linguistic aspects, the study also says, that:

1) Slavic branch split from Proto-Balto-Slavic language already in the 2nd millennium BC,
2) Slavic split into 3 groups (ancestral to West, South, East Slavic) already ca. 100 AD,
3) Those 3 main groups started to split further into more groups in 400 AD - 700 AD,
4) Slovenian is probably a West Slavic language, rather than a South Slavic language.

See here: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/asset?unique&id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0135820.s008



 
1) Western group (Slovenians, Croatians, Bosnians)
2) Central group (Serbs - perhaps also Montenegrins)
3) Eastern group (Macedonians, Bulgarians)

Macedonians and Bulgarians share genetic similarities with Romanians and Greeks - especially Macedonian Greeks.



If Croats have split from Slavs from Poland, shouldn't Croats speak West Slavic language?
 
LeBrok

Yes of course the more southern they moved then more denser was the native population. Also it seems that Carpathes (Romania) served as a refugium for EEF.

Tomenable

It would be interesting to look at a K20 admixture run where Serbs and Bosniacs are present. But I doubt that this will change much.

BTW David criticized the Polish sampling.
 
LeBrok

Yes of course the more southern they moved then more denser was the native population. Also it seems that Carpathes (Romania) served as a refugium for EEF.
The farther south you go the more EEF there is. It means the farther south the denser ethnic population of EEF was, not just Romania/Carpathes.
I noticed that too. The unusual spikes/differences between polish samplings. There are two explanations. Either unusual and coincidental samplings were present or polish population is not very well mixed. According to David is the former, claimed to be Estonians, but when I checked, even Estonians don't have such long yellow spikes.
 

This thread has been viewed 100369 times.

Back
Top