Genetics and Slavic migrations/ethnicity

[CiviC]

I found this map representing the frequency in Europe of haplogroup R1a.



At first look it seems very clear we can associate this haplogroup with Slavs as we can see a marked border separating the high frequencies from low frequencies from example between Russia and Finland, Poland and Germany, Czechia and Germany and Austria, also Romania shows a marked decline in frequencies compared with Ukraine and Republic of Moldavia. Republic of Moldavia was heavily colonised with Slavs strating with 1812 so this is how can be explained the high frequencies of R1a in a region that belongs historically to Romanians. The same explanation can be atributed to the high frequencies of R1a in Baltic Countries : Balts and Slavs may be related, but alos Batlic countries were colonised by Slavs many times, Lithuania by Poles and Latvia and Estonia (Estons are Finno-Ugrics) by Russians (there are 30% Russians in Estonia and about 40% in Latvia).

Some enclaves also confirm the association of R1a with Slavs : Styria in Austria shows a high frequency, or it is known that historically Styria was populated by Slavs (proto-Solvenes) but afterwards was germanised in Early Middle Ages; the same we see a high frequency in Mecklenburg a region that was Slavic in Early Middle Ages then becoming Germanised. Also all Eastern Germany shows a higher frequency being distinguished from Western Germany, being known that in Early Middle Ages lands East of Elbe were Slavic.

In South Eastern Europe the situation seems more complicated. Croatia and Slovenia have very high frequencies of this haplogroup, in contrast with Italy, but also with Serbia and the rest of Balkans. It seems Serbia and Bulgaria had little influx of this haplogroup, but this can be explained as the pre-slavic populations here were in high numbers and contributed more importantly to the formation of Serbians and Bulgarians then Slavs.

This map would show also a very important contribution of Slavs to the formation of Hungarians.

So what do you think, can be haplogroup R1a related to Slavic migration?

[Kagemusha]

I would say that R1a is lot older and instead of associating with Slavic, it should be associated with Indo iranians / Europeans, but mainly the Kurgan culture. Here is a good picture in what im basing my opinion:



From there you can see that the area with populations carrying the haplogroup in large percentages is lot larger then the area Slavic migrations effected.

[konny]

So what do you think, can be haplogroup R1a related to Slavic migration?

No, unless someone can explain why there should be more Slaves in western Scandinvia than on the Balkans.

[cegorach]

This map would show also a very important contribution of Slavs to the formation of Hungarians.

Polak, Wegier dwa bratanki. Croat and Slovak influence seems more important though.

No, unless someone can explain why there should be more Slaves in western Scandinvia than on the Balkans.

Balcans as more isolated and undert Turkish influence. Habsburg influence seems to be another factor - see Bosnia which was acquired only in 1908 as the best example.

But why Norway is notably different than Sweden I have no idea.

[konny]

PBalcans as more isolated and undert Turkish influence. Habsburg influence seems to be another factor - see Bosnia which was acquired only in 1908 as the best example.

I don't think that Turkish influence or Habsburg rule would change your genetic code.

But why Norway is notably different than Sweden I have no idea.

Seems there are no Slavs living on the Balkans but plenty of them in Norway and Island. Follows that all history books on Scandinavian, Balkan and Slavic history are an outright lie!



(otherwise we would need to assume that this genetic marker has nothing to do with Slavs)

[Kagemusha]

(otherwise we would need to assume that this genetic marker has nothing to do with Slavs)

Just like i happened to point out at the second post of this thread.

[cegorach]

I don't think that Turkish influence or Habsburg rule would change your genetic code.

We are talking about centuries of rule. Migration from and to the Ottoman Empire was less frequent than migration inside the empire.
With Habsburg influence it looks similar - there is a visable difference between Royal Hungary, Slovakia and Croatia (under the Habsburgs for 4 centuries) and Bosnia, Romania.
Of course there are post-2nd WW migration to account for some other changes, but in some areas there were no notable changes caused by this factor esp. in Croatia-Serbia.

After all Slavs dominated the entire Balcans 10 centuries ago, including Greece, but there is hardly anythng left when it comes to genetic code on this map.

Seems there are no Slavs living on the Balkans but plenty of them in Norway and Island. Follows that all history books on Scandinavian, Balkan and Slavic history are an outright lie!

I'd be more curious why Norway is more 'slavic' than Sweden. That is a weird thing and I don't know what could explain it. After all it was Swedish Vikings who migrated to ancient Rus and Norwegians had little to do with Slavs.

(otherwise we would need to assume that this genetic marker has nothing to do with Slavs)

Maybe it is not only about the Slavs? maybe has something to do with other groups as well.

[Odovacar]

Polak, Wegier dwa bratanki. Croat and Slovak influence seems more important though.

But still bratanki

The irony of history is, that most of the peoples we are genetically closely related do not like us really. Being too close for too much time is not always beneficial for friendship.

Balcans as more isolated and undert Turkish influence. Habsburg influence seems to be another factor - see Bosnia which was acquired only in 1908 as the best example.

But why Norway is notably different than Sweden I have no idea.

I think we must keep in mind that language is not the ultimate indicator of origin. I mean, in 19th century people said: "this group is slavic, that is germanic" and then the question was finished.
Panslavist for example did not think much about the differences between slavic peoples.

But today we must consider that the slavs or the germanic tribes, and every invader, including avars, magyars always settled on already inhabited lands. Even if they were densely inhabited.
Therefore a bulgarian -being a slav-is not the same genetically, can't be, as a slovakian.

[CiviC]

No, unless someone can explain why there should be more Slaves in western Scandinvia than on the Balkans.

You must go back to Viking times when there were a lot of contacts between 'Rus and Scandinavia. It's known fact Vikings brought home slaves that were treated as servants part of the family.

[Kagemusha]

You must go back to Viking times when there were a lot of contacts between 'Rus and Scandinavia. It's known fact Vikings brought home slaves that were treated as servants part of the family.

And how do you explain the large amount of the said haplogroup South East from Caspian Sea?

[Manco]

You must go back to Viking times when there were a lot of contacts between 'Rus and Scandinavia. It's known fact Vikings brought home slaves that were treated as servants part of the family.

R1a has nothing to do with that.

R1a surfaced before there was even any mention of Germanic, Slavic and what not.

How can something 10.000 years old be indicative of a population whose earliest origins are only half that time ago?

[konny]

You must go back to Viking times when there were a lot of contacts between 'Rus and Scandinavia. It's known fact Vikings brought home slaves that were treated as servants part of the family.

It is known fact that the Rus were from Sweden first of all, so how can that explain between 30% and 50% of that marker in Norway and Island? And only between 5% and 20% on the Balkans? Did the Rus sell all Balkan Slavs to Norway?

[CiviC]

It is known fact that the Rus were from Sweden first of all, so how can that explain between 30% and 50% of that marker in Norway and Island? And only between 5% and 20% on the Balkans? Did the Rus sell all Balkan Slavs to Norway?

Not all the Slavs were kidnapped by Vikings. But I supposed Vikings were very small population (as Scandinavians are even today) and any influx of foreigners would have influenced their genetics. It's possible Vikings prefered to bring home Slavic domestic slaves as they looked like them - tall, well built, blonde and with blue eyes. I explained the case of Bulgarians and Serbs as they seem to be the case more of Slavic acculturation.

Another explanation would be that R1a spread into Scandinavia as early as 3000 BC with The Corded Ware Culture, a material culture that encompassed most of continental northern Europe from the Rhine River from Volga. This don't contradicts the first map, as we can discerne that R1a arrived in Norway with Indo-Europeans before Slavs formed as a distinguished ethnic group, but then when we see the contrast in frequencies between Poland and German for example we can clearly atribute them to Slavic migration.

[Manco]

R1a probably harkens back to the Ukranian Refugium. Regardless, it's too old to be indicative of any Slavic origin.

[CiviC]

To have the complete spread of R1a here is the map of R1a1a, a subclade of this haplogroup.



As you see there are two distant regions where R1a is concentrated : Eastern Europe steppes and Northern India. They corespond maybe with the originary Indo-Europeans. The explanation would be the following, from their place of origins this population migrated one in Eastern European steppes (Ukraine) and one in Northern India - the Aryians (you can also see a high concentration in Kurdistan - a population with Indo-European language).. The population in Ukraine formed there a nucleus of population that mainly stayed there untill 1500 years ago (the ancestors of Slavs) but some groups emigrated over all Europe and spread Indo-European languages and cultures -as it is shown that in fact genetically populations in Great Britain or Spain are mostly descended from Neolithic or older populations, or that Balkan populations are in fact not Indo-European but descend from agricultural populations or older coming from Middle East and acculturated by Indo-Europeans.

Only 1500 years ago the nucleus of population in Ukrainian steppes, now with the Slavs identity, started to emigrate en masse, thus ocupating Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Croatia and other parts. It seems Slavs are genetically the most Indo-Europeans of all peoples of Europe. They are the Indo-Europeans that stayed behind, the latest Indo-Europeans arrived on the stage of history, and because these reasons preserving the "purest" Indo-European genes (GOd I hope some Russian fascist don't embrace this theory and transforms it in ideology!).

[Kagemusha]

Well now are you talking about R1a or R1a1 subclade? And if we are talking about R1a1, what is your point exactly? Are you trying to say that R1a1 is somehow a "slavic" subclade of R1a, since i have news for you: It is not. there are populations in India have as high and higher frequencies of the said subclade as Belorussians who´s population have 42% frequency of the subclade, while in Kharti-Punjab/Haryana area the fequency is 67.00%. So just forget this theory of yours my friend.

[CiviC]

Well now are you talking about R1a or R1a1 subclade? And if we are talking about R1a1, what is your point exactly? Are you trying to say that R1a1 is somehow a "slavic" subclade of R1a, since i have news for you: It is not. there are populations in India have as high and higher frequencies of the said subclade as Belorussians who´s population have 42% frequency of the subclade, while in Kharti-Punjab/Haryana area the fequency is 67.00%. So just forget this theory of yours my friend.

This just shows they have a common Indo-European origin. Read my explanation more carrefully, I also added information as it was not yet complete.
And I'm not saying that R1a1a is the Slavic subclade specifically, but in general in Europe it may be related with Slavs while outside Europe with Indo-Europeans.

[Kagemusha]

This just shows they have a common Indo-European origin. Read my explanation more carrefully, I also added information as it was not yet complete.
And I'm not saying that R1a1a is the Slavic subclade specifically, but in general in Europe it may be related with Slavs while outside Europe with Indo-Europeans.

Im sorry but it is quite hard to keep up with the evolution of your theory through later posts in the thread. As i answered to you in my original post. If there is some common thing for R1a its is that the haplogroup moved through Eurasian steppe to Europe with evidence found from the so called "Kurgan" cultures.while R1B took the mediterranian route. the subclade R1a1 is generally found most in populations carrying R1a ofcourse as its its a subclade of R1a. Thus generally most of Eastern Europeans of Indoeuropean origins carry it, while in Western Europe R1B is the dominating haplogroup. R1a1 is not dominated by Slavics, but rather it has been spread from the migrations of Indo European/ Iranian steppe people that arrived to Europe and spread their genoms to populations, far before there was such thing as Slavic cultures in Europe.

Also it should be noted that R1a and its subclade R1a1 didnt only spread to Europe but the same time the populations started moving towards Europe, other migrations aimed towards Siberia and East Asia. That is why the haplogroup is found even in frequences of 28 % in some Chinese populations.

The simple thing is that when you look at historical "nations" or "cultures" those were not homogenetic at all. We are results of migration waves after another and mixture of populations that arrived to our modern areas in a long period of time. So looking for genetic nations is something from 30´s science.

[CiviC]

Im sorry but it is quite hard to keep up with the evolution of your theory through later posts in the thread.

I'm sorry for that but my theory is not doctrinal but opened to discussion and modifications, I'm not the kind of person that formulates a theory and then can't accept any other possibilities.

As i answered to you in my original post. If there is some common thing for R1a its is that the haplogroup moved through Eurasian steppe to Europe with evidence found from the so called "Kurgan" cultures.while R1B took the mediterranian route. the subclade R1a1 is generally found most in populations carrying R1a ofcourse as its its a subclade of R1a. Thus generally most of Eastern Europeans of Indoeuropean origins carry it, while in Western Europe R1B is the dominating haplogroup. R1a1 is not dominated by Slavics, but rather it has been spread from the migrations of Indo European/ Iranian steppe people that arrived to Europe and spread their genoms to populations, far before there was such thing as Slavic cultures in Europe.

Also it should be noted that R1a and its subclade R1a1 didnt only spread to Europe but the same time the populations started moving towards Europe, other migrations aimed towards Siberia and East Asia. That is why the haplogroup is found even in frequences of 28 % in some Chinese populations.

You must missunderstood, I'm not saying R1a is exclusively "the Slavic gene". As I formulated in my recent posts it seems to be in fact the gene of original Indo-European speakers. It shows the migration of Aryans in India but also the fact the Indo-Europeanisation of most Europe was not done by massive migration but mostly by acculturation, while the main original population of Indo-Europeans remained in Ukraine. These "pure" Indo-Europeans that stayed behind became by ethnogenesis Slavs untill Late Antiquity then expanded in Early Middle Ages carrying genes different from Old Europeans. So R1a can indicate the amount of Slavic tribes that migrated in a given region.

I have another example, the I1-M253 haplogroup that seems to indicate Germanic expansion from Scandinavia.



The highest concentration is in Southern Scandinavia, Denmark and Northern Germany then gradualy fades to Central Germany and other regions. It shows a relative high concentration in East England the traditional place of colonisation of Saxons, Angles and Danes.

The simple thing is that when you look at historical "nations" or "cultures" those were not homogenetic at all. We are results of migration waves after another and mixture of populations that arrived to our modern areas in a long period of time. So looking for genetic nations is something from 30´s science.

I don't beleive in "genetic pure" nations either, but genes can indicate ancient population movements throughout history, this is my interest, not who has the most "superhuman" genes.

[Manco]

but you still haven't explained it's relevance to Slavic migration. At best one of the subclades can be used as an indicator, but certainly not the larger R1a-clade