The Illyrians

[Sovius]

I cannot let this go.

I can think of something else you can't seem to let go of.


You know, it's interesting, I simply gave you a brief rundown of Klyosov's work, yet you weren't even able to process the information or how it pertains to your questions. I gave you a hypothetical example that would be readily understood by any microbiologist worth his or her salt and you couldn't even fathom the significance of the information and how it applied to your primitive understanding of all these studies you've supposedly been studying. Looking at the effect without looking at the cause is like driving on the wrong side of the road. What do you do? Why, you move to England and everything is just fine. This is a huge problem with Eupediots. Slav away. Do your little Kolo dance and disengage yourself from what has been staring you in the face this whole thread until everything is as it was before. Macedonian culture is purely Macedonian. Sarmatian culture is purely Sarmatian. There has never truly been a Slavic culture because this is an artificial construct born of the Modern Age, therefore, it is an anachronistic political construct. This thread is about Illyrians and Thracians, not a mythical people who came to be referred to as "The Slavs", therefore, your intentions must be political in nature. The Slav term has no concrete value. We are discussing scientific evidence, not 19th Century Russian Megalomania.

You want respect? Provide evidence that is truly relevant to your argument. Give me the same courtesy that I have given you.

[George S.]

Nik who decides what is pure slav.what makes something pure?
What is pure macedonian?

[Nikolaj]

This statement needs clarification. There is still the problem of a common language between all these people.



Under the traditional theory, it is fairly easy to understand. Slavic migrants migrated south. This would explain the diminishing R1a levels in the Balkans and the common language spoken between these peoples.

The traditional theory, however, is not without its own problems.

The problem we have with Alinei's theory, however, is that he believes if there was a migration of Slavs, it was from the south to the north. From a genetic analysis, this is problematic. If R1a entered Europe from the north east and the south east, this would solve the genetic complications. However, it still does not solve how all these people speak the same language.

There must have been some migration of either the language or the people at some point in time.

Does anyone not see the problems with these theories?

Constellation I do see your perspective. But Sovius has clearly clarified your question that it is based on copulatory efficiency. The fact that R1a is stronger up north doesn't necessarily mean it came from there. From what i've understood so far, it doesn't necessarily mean they migrated from South to North either, but his emphasising they're both equal interpretations of the data.

[Constellation]

"I understand you make statements based on empirical evidence and thus your answer is incomplete."

I cannot let this go.

First, learn how to use the "quote" feature of the forum.

Second, that statement was made based on the fact that you did not want to speculate on how R1a increased from the Balkans to northern Europe. You did not want to speculate because you have no plausible answer or answer based on empirical data. Therefore, you stated that you avoid stating beliefs and prefer to stick to the empirical data.

This response is incomplete on the surface, but it should address most of what your questions entail. I do not typically state beliefs, whether personal or otherwise; I only make statements based on empirical evidence or, at least, put forth my best effort to do so. It would be against my professional training to do otherwise.

To characterize your statement as "incomplete on the surface" is a hyperbole at best, and an embarrassment to yourself at worst. None of your answer addressed "most of what your questions entail", and it is absurd to even make such a statement.

Why not do all of us a favor Sovius. Why not contact real scholars with your absurd empirical interpretations and let us know how it goes.

You're a joke.

[Constellation]

See this thread.

http://macedoniantruth.org/forum/sho...113#post155113

Thanks mate. It is consistent with the available scientific data.

[Philosopher]

No serious geneticist believes the genetic data supports your position.

See this thread.

http://macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?p=155113#post155113

[Sovius]

Never a man wrote so much about nothing. Your comments reflect an insecure mind and a lack of intellectual curiosity to address serious questions. No serious geneticist believes the genetic data supports your position. Instead of addressing the obvious R1a aberration, you resort to personal attacks and mindless bloviating. You should learn some class.

We're finished Sovius.

No, I broke up with you first. Now, you're just copying me like you always do.

Intriguing! Except for the part about the personal attacks and mindless bloviating, I was just about to suggest the same thing about you word for word. I have provided evidence to defend Vinko Pribojevic's work and you have only provided insinuations. You still have yet to provide any evidence to support your assumed period of "Slavic" cultural transference in the region of Macedonia, or Serbia for that matter. You clearly have not read any of the provided studies or you would've responded quite differently, whether you agreed with them or not. You are an unworthy opponent.

"I understand you make statements based on empirical evidence and thus your answer is incomplete."

The only real evidence that you have provided throughout this entire thread is that English is not your primary language, yet you're an American? I recall once reading a thesis written by a lobotomized Bulgarian nationalist ethnographer who also argued that answers are actually incomplete when they are based on empirical evidence. Needless to say, he was a big hit over in Greece.

I still can't figure out how you can type so accurately without actually being able to see the keyboard.

[Constellation]

To say that they didn't influence or contribute to the success of these civilizations because there's not as many of their descendents around today as people from other haplogroups is very naïve and would reflect your lack of reasoning.

Again, I am not making an argument or proposing a theory. I am simply explaining pre-history according to what our genes continue to tell us. Your ancestors did not "sire" my ancestors; your ancestors were my ancestors. There's a number of well written books available that might help you pull your head out of your ass. Doctor Spencer Wells is always a good place to start, but it wouldn’t be a good idea to stop there. If a good book or two won't do, there's always the jaws of life.

Never a man wrote so much about nothing. Your comments reflect an insecure mind and a lack of intellectual curiosity to address serious questions. No serious geneticist believes the genetic data supports your position. Instead of addressing the obvious R1a aberration, you resort to personal attacks and mindless bloviating. You should learn some class.

We're finished Sovius.

[Sovius]

Thank you Sovius for your thoughtful response. However, I do not find your argument convincing. I understand you make statements based on empirical evidence and thus your answer is incomplete. The problem we have is that the empirical evidence does not support the migration of Macedonians or other southern Balkan people to the north and siring your ancestors.

The problem is not the argument that R1a was introduced from the Middle East. This is plausible. The problem is in explaining the increase in R1a. Under the traditional theory, Slavs with high R1a migrated south and intermixed with the local people. R1a diffused. This would explain why R1a levels decreased from north to south.

Your argument, however, is that R1a was introduced in the Balkans from the Middle East and that it spread north. This would mean that R1a was not present in Europe prior to this. And as Balkan people migrated north, they intermixed with the indigenous people of the north. However, under this theory, R1a increases, not decreases. This is not plausible. The empirical evidence does not support it.

This can be explained if R1a was introduced into Europe from central Asia and the Middle East. In other words, R1a entered from two different sources: north eastern Europe and the Balkans. We know, for example, that R1a is common in Lebanon and Syria. The origin of this R1a is probably in Iran or elsewhere in the Middle East. So if this R1a subclade entered the Balkans, it appears to be different in origin than the R1a in northern and central European Slavs.

The point of this analysis is to show there are problems with this theory.

Haplogroup frequency among contemporary populations is simply a matter of copulatory efficiency, the good fortune of fertility and avoiding getting wiped off the face of the earth. What would Poland's haplogroup frequencies look like if the Nazi Holocaust never took place?

Here's a hypothetical example:

One male parent, who belongs to a particular haplogroup, has five male offspring who each go on to have five sons of their own. They all continue living in the same neighborhood in abject poverty. Another male parent on the same street, same ethnicity as the previous male parent, but originating from a completely different haplogroup, has two boys and only one boy produces another son. They move into a shed behind the second father's house, because they both chose liberal arts majors. The oldest known subclades of the first parent's haplogroup were determined to come from Puerto Rico 3,000 years ago. The oldest known subclades of the second parent's haplogroup were determined to have originated across the street from the second male parent 5,000 years ago. The neighborhood where they live is not in Puerto Rico, across the Atlantic, but in Morocco.

Scientists at your institute would likely conclude that parent one's population, because they are quite large in number are the original inhabitants of the neighborhood because there's so many of them running around, while Parent two must have migrated there because there's not as many of them.

M198 through M458 have been in existence in Europe and generally existing where they have since before written history in a collective sense. Southeastern European populations are typically upstream of other European populations because people were able to survive there before other areas in Europe to the North thawed out. Macedonian M198 is upstream from Northwestern European M198. That means populations carrying M198 migrated to Northwestern Europe. They also migrated to Central Europe and wherever else they could find food and shelter, though their frequencies are much lower in this region now due to mutations that did not occur in Northwest Europe . One of them mutated into a carrier of M417 and M417 people mutated into Z283 people over time, but they all owed their existence to their M198 ancestors.

R1a frequency is greater to the north of Southeastern Europe because there were fewer people defined by haplotypes like I2a in these areas as the Last Glacial Maxim started to wane. R1a simply became more prominent than I2a and G. Males carrying haplogroup G were present in Europe during the hay day of Corded Ware culture, as well. To say that they didn't influence or contribute to the success of these civilizations because there's not as many of their descendents around today as people from other haplogroups is very naïve and would reflect your lack of reasoning.

Again, I am not making an argument or proposing a theory. I am simply explaining pre-history according to what our genes continue to tell us. Your ancestors did not "sire" my ancestors; your ancestors were my ancestors. There's a number of well written books available that might help you pull your head out of your ass. Doctor Spencer Wells is always a good place to start, but it wouldn’t be a good idea to stop there. If a good book or two won't do, there's always the jaws of life.

[George S.]

The sampling methods have allways been a problem.There is no known accurate means.

[Constellation]

The problem we have is that the empirical evidence does not support the migration of Macedonians or other southern Balkan people to the north and siring your ancestors.

This statement needs clarification. There is still the problem of a common language between all these people.

This can be explained if R1a was introduced into Europe from central Asia and the Middle East. In other words, R1a entered from two different sources: north eastern Europe and the Balkans. We know, for example, that R1a is common in Lebanon and Syria. The origin of this R1a is probably in Iran or elsewhere in the Middle East. So if this R1a subclade entered the Balkans, it appears to be different in origin than the R1a in northern and central European Slavs.

Under the traditional theory, it is fairly easy to understand. Slavic migrants migrated south. This would explain the diminishing R1a levels in the Balkans and the common language spoken between these peoples.

The traditional theory, however, is not without its own problems.

The problem we have with Alinei's theory, however, is that he believes if there was a migration of Slavs, it was from the south to the north. From a genetic analysis, this is problematic. If R1a entered Europe from the north east and the south east, this would solve the genetic complications. However, it still does not solve how all these people speak the same language.

There must have been some migration of either the language or the people at some point in time.

Does anyone not see the problems with these theories?

[George S.]

con it all depends on your theory of how much mixing took place.Also when and where it took place.From where i read did the original people came that became slavs.?? from Mesopotamia.Isn't that the middle east??It all depends how far you want to go.?

[Constellation]

This response is incomplete on the surface, but it should address most of what your questions entail. I do not typically state beliefs, whether personal or otherwise; I only make statements based on empirical evidence or, at least, put forth my best effort to do so. It would be against my professional training to do otherwise.

Thank you Sovius for your thoughtful response. However, I do not find your argument convincing. I understand you make statements based on empirical evidence and thus your answer is incomplete. The problem we have is that the empirical evidence does not support the migration of Macedonians or other southern Balkan people to the north and siring your ancestors.

The problem is not the argument that R1a was introduced from the Middle East. This is plausible. The problem is in explaining the increase in R1a. Under the traditional theory, Slavs with high R1a migrated south and intermixed with the local people. R1a diffused. This would explain why R1a levels decreased from north to south.

Your argument, however, is that R1a was introduced in the Balkans from the Middle East and that it spread north. This would mean that R1a was not present in Europe prior to this. And as Balkan people migrated north, they intermixed with the indigenous people of the north. However, under this theory, R1a increases, not decreases. This is not plausible. The empirical evidence does not support it.

This can be explained if R1a was introduced into Europe from central Asia and the Middle East. In other words, R1a entered from two different sources: north eastern Europe and the Balkans. We know, for example, that R1a is common in Lebanon and Syria. The origin of this R1a is probably in Iran or elsewhere in the Middle East. So if this R1a subclade entered the Balkans, it appears to be different in origin than the R1a in northern and central European Slavs.

The point of this analysis is to show there are problems with this theory.

[Sovius]

sovius thats good article that.

Glad you enjoyed it George. Hope you're doing well.

[Sovius]

I do not wish to restart this thread, but I would like some clarification from you Sovius. Say R1a entered the Balkans from the Middle East. How do you explain the upstream of R1a when the R1a in the south is low and yet the R1a is so high up north?

Let me explain. Under the traditional theory, Slavic migrants expanded southward into the Balkans. As the Slavs migrated these regions, they intermixed with the indigenous peoples. This downward expansion of the Slavs is apparently documented from the diminishing R1a levels. The further south the Slavs migrated, the less R1a is present. The Slavs of the north have high R1a (50% or so) and as they migrated south, the R1a decreased to under 20%.

Under the theory that R1a was brought to the Balkans from the Middle East, what explains the low levels of R1a in Albania, Macedonia, and Greece, and the increase of R1a in populations further north? Where did this extra R1a originate?

If Balkan people have under 20% R1a, and these people migrated north, what explains the origin of the high R1a in Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Ukraine, Russia, etc?

Where did this extra R1a come from? You believe the people of the south migrated north and that these people are your ancestors. But I am puzzled how the low levels of R1a in the south greatly increased as the southern migrants migrated north.

This would indicate that there must be another source for the R1a in northern countries.

Before a bird was a bird, it was a dinosaur. The first dinosaur became many different kinds of dinosaurs through the phenomenon of genetic mutation, but all dinosaurs were related to the first dinosaur. R1a is simply a simple way to group a number of different, but related, mutations into a single group for simplicity's sake. We're obviously talking about extremely minor, but still, very discernible mutations, night and day to a molecular biologist. Within R1a there is a hierarchy of ancestry. The earliest known R1a mutation was M198, though relic mutations are also thought to exist. Regardless of how pre-historic populations carrying M198 migrated to the Balkans or if the mutation first occurred in the Balkans and expanded in to the Middle East, it is simply the original subclade that all other subclades or groups that continue to make up European R1a developed out of.

Many of these people are still found in Northwestern Europe and share a common ancestry with Macedonians carrying the M198 marker. This marker is less common in Central Europe than Macedonia now because, for whatever reason, they got outbred by populations carrying other markers, including R1a markers descended from M198. Populations carrying Z283 mutated out of populations carrying M417, which developed out of populations carrying M198, as well. Wherever you find Z283, whether in Scandinavia, Germany, Russia or France, you find toponyms that can be squarely associated with the Slavic languages. In fact, comparative analysis conducted a couple of decades ago showed that Slavic had more in common with Bretonic "Celtic" than Baltic, which was supposedly in Europe before "Slavic". Sadly, for R1a exclusivists, populations carrying I2a in Iberia, like the Basques, also continue to preserve "Slavic" words in their languages. They are descended in part from Southeastern European populations who would go on, later on in time, to be referred to as Illyrians in the ancient creole language of the Mediterranean. So, what we have been taught to think of as Slavic is actually a group of languages, not a people. It came to be dreamt of as a tribal group by migrationist theorists during various periods in history.

Because M458 developed in Central Europe out of people carrying Z283, Z283 populations had to have already been present in the area. Regardless of the exact area where Z283 developed, M417 populations had to have been present during the rise of Z283, as well. Populations carrying Z283 in Scandinavia migrated there from Central Europe as demonstrated by populations who continue to be defined by Z283 in Central Europe. I2a populations went right along with them for the journey across the Venetic Gulf, after there became a gulf and not a frozen desert, where pioneers inevitably died. Their descendents simply fared better than families carrying M198 in the area and other haplogroups, so there is now a greater frequency of M458 in Poland and Z283.

M458 is a Sarmatian marker. If you place a M458 frequency map transparency over the two Sarmatias (Europa and Asia), you'll see that I am discussing a biologically and historically defined set of populations and not an apparition born out of the misuse of a term. The Sarmatian languages came to be referred to as the Slavic languages over time and were also grouped with the Illyrian languages before being re-classified as Slavic. Please remember it was the Swiss who grouped these languages together during the Renaissance Period, not me pulling things out of that place of which we do not speak.

To summarize: a population possessing people defined by a number of different haplogroups lived in Southeastern Europe during the Last Glacial Maximum and then they simply followed the receding ice sheets North and West. R1b appears to be a late entry at this point, but basically people went where they could and got smacked down hard by Mother Nature when they made poor choices or suffered the fate of bad luck, despite their capabilities. The Slavic languages simply preserve the characteristics of languages spoken by people in the region prior to advent of the Mediterranean hybrids that continue to convolute traditional Indo European historical linguistics. They also greatly contrast the Indo-Europeanized" languages of Western Europe like Gaelic and what has come to be referred to as Germanic due to a lack of frequency in contacts.

This response is incomplete on the surface, but it should address most of what your questions entail. I do not typically state beliefs, whether personal or otherwise; I only make statements based on empirical evidence or, at least, put forth my best effort to do so. It would be against my professional training to do otherwise.