Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
If by Slavic we are talking about recent east European contribution, then roughly:
Croatians Serbs 40-50%
Bosniaks 1/3rd
Bulgarians 1/3rd
Montenegrin/Fyromians 25%
Non Slavs:
Albanians 10-15%
Greeks <10%
Romanians 25%
East European admixture
Based on scientific data.
Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, Northern Bulgaria 20-30%, Croatia, Serbia somewhere 15-20%, Southern Bulgaria 15-20%
Herzegovina even lower 10-15%
Romania 20-30%
Greece 10-15%, Northern Greece 15-20%
Albania 10-15%
Between Balkan countries plus Romania differences are not much big.
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml
R1a and I2a are common Slavic markers.
http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.se/2015/09/negligible-genetic-flow-in-slavic.html
A new genetic study comes to confirm what most of us already knew: that Southern Slavs don't show any significant signature of immigration from the core Slavic area North and NE of the Carpathian Mountains that can be attributed to the so-called Slavic migrations of the Dark Age.
That is not accurate.
See: Ralph and Coop IBD analysis
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001555
Check out Serbia Croatia below and when the changes occurred. IBD doesn't lie, my friend...at least not when done by people of this caliber...
View attachment 9107
I think the operative time period is probably 500 BC to 500 AD.
It was a lot of critiques to the methods applied by authors and it is shown different approaches are necessary.
For example Geary and Veermah, Mapping European Population Movement through Genomic Research 2016, in critique above mentioned and some other papers argue:
"Can we be so sure that if all four grandparents came from the same village, that their ancestors had been in that village since time immemorial, or at least since the Danes, Anglo-Saxons, Huns, or Slavs arrived? Over centuries and millennia, populations do not necessarily remain stable. Subsequent internal migrations, the introduction of new genetic material through intermarriage
with other communities, the forced resettlement of slaves or dependent labor, all have the potential to change the genetic profile of a population in a very dynamic manner that cannot easily be accounted for by population genetic models.
Perhaps even more significant an obstacle to working backward from modern DNA is the problem that the modern population will represent only a portion of the historical population, that portion which for whatever reason was successful in transmitting its genetic data to the present. For presentist-minded scientists, who naturally want to understand the genetic makeup of contemporary European populations, this is unproblematic. However, it poses a serious problem for historians who want to understand not just the present but rather the alterity of the past. Thus, modern DNA is likely to represent only a portion of the genetic diversity of past populations. It is, in essence, a way to study the winners, and ignores the losers in genetic history, regardless of how important they may have been in changing history.
A few studies have highlighted how quickly genetic profiles can change because of demographic effects, underlining the lack of inferential power when relying only on modern DNA analysis for historical research. Helgason et al. have performed extensive research on both modern and ancient DNA from Iceland. Comparing Icelanders with Norwegians on the one hand, and Irish and Scots on the other, they found that roughly 75% of founding Icelandic males were of Scandinavian origin and 25% of Irish or Scots, while the majority of female lineages had Gaelic origins and only about 37% Norse. When they compared ancient DNA extracted from Viking-age burials with that of the modern population however, they found that more than 50% of the original genetic diversity in the founding medieval population was not represented in the modern Icelandic population. Genetic drift appears to have had an enormous influence on the genetic profile of modern Iceland, and thus understanding the differential contributions of Y-chromosomal and mtDNA in the migratory population needs to take into account not only contemporary populations but, when possible, ancient DNA as well.
More recently, a preliminary study by our research team led by Stephanie Vai and Silvia Ghirotto looked at the mtDNA from sixth century cemeteries in the Piedmont and compared it with contemporary samples from the same region. We found strong evidence for discontinuity with regard to matrilineal genetic diversity between the early Middle Ages and these present populations in all but one case. This, along with the studies of Iceland described above, suggests that 1,500 years of history do matter with regard to genetic diversity. Thus, while modern genetic research is significant for a spectrum of issues involving health and possibly history, assumptions about the relationship between present and past populations must be tested against ancient DNA collected from the individuals we are actually attempting to study, rather than relying automatically on modern proxies."
In essence these and other authors highlight that without ancient/historical samples (for every epoch) we can only speculate if look present day situation. Yes collecting data by epochs require enormous efforts, time and costs and therefore we will get only small portions of knowledge after every publicised ancient DNA research and so we will gradually assemble a giant puzzle with lots of empty parts.
I completely agree with you that without samples from 179 BC till 6th century in Romania, Serbia, Bulgaria and beyond we cannot know if Bastarnae have mixed in big numbers with Dacians and Thracians (subtantial proportion of Balkan population was Bastarnae origin according one author).
Also without samples in Central Europe and beyond (Western/Eastern Europe + Balkans) in different epoches since 1800 BC till 500 AD we cannot know where I-CTS10228 carriers settled and moved and if Bastarnae or any other population were carrier of this haplogroup.
But of course we can give assumptions according evidence which is avaliable.
I don't see how that objection is at all apropos to the kind of analysis that was done in this paper. Take a careful look at the second attachment. Ralph and Coop are not talking here about IBS analysis. This is IBD analysis. It's like a fingerprint of gene flow. It's also dated. We can see the influx of Polish genes from 500 BC to 500 AD into Serbia, Croatia and Romania. It's not the majority of the genomes, but it's there.
It can't be argued away.
You really should carefully read the whole Ralph and Coop paper and the methodology section.
I only said their method is criticized by other scientists. It does not matter what Ralph and Coop explained their method.
According present day knowledge if we want to know situation in history in any epoch we must have samples from this epoch. Geery and Veermah clearly highlight this and I gave long quote from their paper.
This thread has been viewed 107433 times.