Nikola
Senior Moderator
Posts: 1,835
|
Post by Nikola on Jan 5, 2010 7:10:38 GMT -5
In order to contribute, I would like to post some genetics maps I've gathered from other forums. All of the maps below, despite being from different sources, show a distinct pattern; that most people in the Balkans are indigenous and are closely related to the country they are next to (apart from a couple of cases). They also show that Greek genes do in fact extend in former Yugoslav countries but very little the other way. Greeks are also most closely related to southern Italians. The Greek samples in this first image are from northern Greece. Yugoslav people overlap with Hungarians and with northern Greeks which makes sense, really. The overlap with Greeks is most likely people from southern Macedonia in cities like Bitola and Ohrid. In my experience, the people from that region look different than the people from Skopje. Again, the sample below is from northern Greece only.
|
|
Patrinos
Amicus
Peloponnesos uber alles
Posts: 4,763
|
Post by Patrinos on Jan 5, 2010 7:28:50 GMT -5
i see the Italians have big distance between them, the bottom part which is very close to Greeks must be samples from South Italy.
|
|
Nikola
Senior Moderator
Posts: 1,835
|
Post by Nikola on Jan 5, 2010 7:58:13 GMT -5
i see the Italians have big distance between them, the bottom part which is very close to Greeks must be samples from South Italy. Yes, and it would make sense since that part of Italy was once Greek. And in terms of the missing Balkan countries in that map, it would be quite easy to guess. The Bulgarians would fit in between the Greeks and the Romanians. While the rest of the empty area from Greece to Germany would be former Yugoslav people.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Jan 5, 2010 9:21:49 GMT -5
Nikola I m sure Bulgarians and fyromians are the same. Fyromian should not be grouped with the Yugoslavs but with the Bulgarians because you speak Bulgarian dialect.
|
|
Nikola
Senior Moderator
Posts: 1,835
|
Post by Nikola on Jan 5, 2010 9:45:35 GMT -5
Nikola I m sure Bulgarians and fyromians are the same. Fyromian should not be grouped with the Yugoslavs but with the Bulgarians because you speak Bulgarian dialect. I appreciate your input but you're wrong. Sorry. And besides, what does genetics have to do with dialects?
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Jan 5, 2010 11:09:07 GMT -5
We are the same people. Everybody (who is unbiased) knows it.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Jan 5, 2010 11:11:07 GMT -5
Dialects matter because it shows we speak the same language which means we are one nation. If we are one nation, that means we have similar history, origin (which interest us) and culture. So it really matters alot.
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Jan 5, 2010 14:13:12 GMT -5
I only highlighter what I considered the most important aspects without any malice whatsoever. Macedonians are as bellow quote states most closely related to other Balkanians. The non-european inflow is present across balkans on a minor scale. Macedonians are most closely related to other Balkanians as Croats, Serbs, Greeks, Bulgarians and Romanians.[44][45][46][47] Macedonians as well as southern Balkans is clearly greek in origin more then not as bellow genetic map suggests only many of the Greeks in other regions have acquired other identities such as Serbian, Montenegrin, Albanian, Macedonian, Bulgarian or Turkish. Map clearly shows areas that were clearly and strongly influenced by Greeks (even starting what was once Daorson in NW Balkans or Hellenistic southern Thrace in NE Balkans and south Italy's formerly known Magna Graecia and not to forget Anatolian ancient Ionia) and that become hellenophone millenniums ago (which would also open doors for more mixing with Greeks). Greek genetic imprint or GENETIC GREECE
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Jan 5, 2010 14:21:20 GMT -5
Even this map is showing similar sequence in distribution of the all the elements when you compare Serbia, Albania, Greece, Bulgaria and southern Italy (Serbia being closer to Bulgaria and Albania being closer to Greece and the two regions in south Italy being closer to each other then to Balkans). I would say that it is safe to assume or suppose that if one is go some time back (even to antiquity) that Balkans would have been a similar sequence of the present genomes (certainly it would not have been uniform in any given 1 or two genomes considering Balkans was always the crossroads but it is a specific sequence distribution that appears to be followed just by viewing it).
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Jan 5, 2010 14:36:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Jan 5, 2010 16:07:46 GMT -5
In the case of Bulgaria I read something like 33% Dynaric, Danubean. Considering nothing is mentioned about Bulgars who formed my country and took major part in her genetic make-up, I assume this figure refers to them. That's cool.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Jan 5, 2010 19:16:13 GMT -5
"The origin of the Gagauzes is obscure. In the beginning of the 20th century the Bulgarian historian M.Dimitrov counts 19 different theories about their origin. A few decades later the Gagauz ethnologist M.N.Guboglo increases the number to 21." and they speak Turkish call themselves Hasli or Eski Bulgar. Ruse, they are Turkish you cannot deny this fact!. Dimitrov "It is interesting that serious scientists can't figure out their real origin with certainty but Captain Cangaroo has managed to do it just with one post. Remarkable!!!!" Its just as interesting that the Bulgar historians and scientists are downplaying their own Turkishness but elevating an Iranic origin lmao lmao lmao
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Jan 5, 2010 19:22:30 GMT -5
"Nikola I m sure Bulgarians and fyromians are the same. Fyromian should not be grouped with the Yugoslavs but with the Bulgarians because you speak Bulgarian dialect."
Genetically they are 'closest' to the serbs ;D
By the way Ioan, why do they have 3 definite articles and Bulgar only 2 if they are Bulgars from the 'eastern group'.
|
|
|
Post by PrijesDardanian on Jan 5, 2010 22:15:39 GMT -5
Everyone who know a bit little about anthro-genetic, will understand that is very joke. expect about Albania i dont know where get informaction because E-V13 is more (at least 2 study showed 40%). first of all why "E1b1b" they didnt distinct like other halpogroups? because subclades of E1b1b eacothers have at least 22.000 years distant...and in Europe mainly present is "E3b-V13", and would not called North African because this subclade in balcan is present at least 13-16.000 years and is more oldest than I2a2 (which is 3000 years thatt founded) and didnt created in Balcan but in Central Europe. In this logic they should called also R1 or N1&N2 (japan, mongrel ect) why should call germanic, celtic? why not also Mongrel? Also J2 has several subclades...J2 in Greece spit in two mayor subclades (North Greece have same as Albanians as North Italians and peak is in Kosova) while south Greeks same as Turks, south italians ect. and both sublaced of J2 has distant of arrivals from eacother at least 4000 years. (and is nonsence to put both subclades as Mesopotamian) also R1b has different subclades from diffirent europeans and is present huge in India, Pakistan, Afgakistan ect and they didnt mentioned there. here have alot misconceptions.
|
|
|
Post by Kastorianos on Jan 6, 2010 8:24:04 GMT -5
Nah not quite right what you are saying...haplogroup I2a (more exact I2a2- thats the subclade of I that occurs in the Balkans usually) is probably clearly more than 3.000 years old and it developed in the Balkans as it has its highest concentration in Bosnia and southern Croatia.
As for J2...its not that easy. There is J2a and J2b (and some J1) and no one has an affinity for a particular geographic region. Both are considered actually to have occured among ancient Greeks in high numbers as well.
R1b does not occur in South Asia as you say...you mean R1a (more exact R1a1), this one is occuring in high numbers among South Asians as well as among Europeans. R1b is constricted to Europe and the Caucasus and Central Asia. But there are also very many South Asians with J2...so haplogroups are actually not good to trace back your ethnic roots. The sublades though are a much better mean...the more individual SNP's you have which distinguish you from other people within your haplogroup the better the chances to can make such a prediction. And the informations of Aadmin's table are as well just predictions. Thats the way they should be read.
|
|
Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning
Senior Moderator
Simarik Turkish Pwincess
Know yourself...
Posts: 3,563
|
Post by Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning on Jan 6, 2010 11:49:13 GMT -5
I think that Aadmins table about haplogroups in Turkey is perhaps not accurate but has the general idea right, there is a huge mix in Turkey.
As for the Gagauz, maybe ethnically they are something other than Turks, but culturally they believe themselves to be turks decended straight from the Oguz Turks. GOk = sky (Pagan turks beleived in the sky god) Auiz = OGUZ gok oguz, = Gagauz
|
|
|
Post by dusko1 on Jan 6, 2010 16:06:06 GMT -5
These pie charts are bogus just like that chart shown in the thread titled 'Iranian Origins Of Serbs & Croats' in the Serbia forums here. How is 24% e1b1b North & East African, Near Eastern, Balkanic? What the fuck kind of category is that? What's 'balkanic" have to do with norther & eastern Africa? Then you have Balto-Slavic, Mycenean Greek, & Macedonian at 15% R1a. Why are those lumped together. Sure we're mixed people in the Balkans but not like how it's depicted in these charts. It's a joke.
|
|
|
Post by Kastorianos on Jan 6, 2010 17:06:39 GMT -5
its possible origins. These haplogroups occur among the called peoples. J2 for example is quite common among Greeks but also among people from the Levante...especially Jews and Lebanese people. And so on..
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Jan 6, 2010 17:48:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hellboy87 on Jan 7, 2010 9:31:17 GMT -5
whatever it is dy,the Gagauz are not(at least most of them) descended from Turkics but from indigenous people.Bozur posted a thread on gagauz DNA
|
|