Word "slave" in English should be uprooted.

[GoodSarmatian]

Serbs actually have mostly I2a haplogroup, R1a comes second in Serbia.

Apparently I2a folks are even more concerned about themselves than R1a folks.

Don't take this the wrong way but your obsession with human genetics sometimes makes you look like a scientifically literate Hitler.

 

[Domen]

I don't claim that some haplogroups are superior to other, though.

=======================

Edit:

Slavs share R1a-Z645 haplogroup (expansion time: 5000-4900 years ago) with Indians:

http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z645/

5400 years ago (ybp) R1a-M417 branch (northern Proto-Indo-European) begot R1a-CTS4385 (north-western European) and R1a-Z645. Then 4900 ybp Z645 begot Z283 (north-eastern European) and Z93 (Indo-Iranian). No more than a few generations later (4900 ybp) Z283 begot Z282, and that 4900 ybp begot Z280 (Balto-Slavic), 4600 ybp it begot M458 (West Slavic) and 4500 ybp it begot Z284 (Scandinavian / Proto-Germanic). While 4700 ybp Z93 begot Z94 (Indo-Aryan).

There were also Tocharians (an Indo-European speaking steppe tribe which established a realm in the Tarim Basin - see Tarim Mummies).

Tocharians were R1a-M198 positive (and most certainly also M417 positive, which is directly descended from M198), but were not Z93:

Check the genealogical tree of M198 (it was M198 -> M417 -> Z645): http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-M198/

Unfortunately exact branch has not been tested yet (they were only tested for M198 - it turned out positive - and for Z93 - it turned out negative).

Z93 is a typically Indo-Iranian branch. It is found in India (Aryans), in modern Iranic-speakers, and in ancient DNA of Iranic-speaking steppe cultures:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Iranian_languages

Z93 is also found in many Turkic-speaking steppe tribes which have a history of mixing with previous Iranic-speaking steppe tribes.

It would be exciting to know whether the Tocharians belonged to some branch which is common today, or is their branch extinct now.

What if it turns out that the Tocharians had the same or similar (common anestry) branch as Balto-Slavs!?

============================

Tarim mummies from 4000 years ago (seven males out of seven were R1a haplogroup):


Link to video.

 

[Domen]

Why are Slavs so concerned about all things "Slavic?"

Not sure about other "things Slavic", but when it comes to Slavic history, the main reasons are, for example:

1) Slavic origins lie in the dark - i.e. no written sources about the earliest phase of Slavs
2) In the past Slavic history was mostly written by Non-Slavic (Western European) historians
3) Those Western European historians usually depreciated all things Slavic as much as they could

And 4) Slavic-speakers are the most numerous ethno-linguistic group in Europe: any explanations how and why?

Not once have I ever heard a Spaniard talk of a brother "Latin." The French don't give a flying crap apart from their own language. The Germans left this ideology dead and buried in the 40's. The English surely don't think of themselves some part of greater Germanic brotherhood.

I agree - they are not concerned about Romance. Germanic or Celtic languages. But they are usually concerned about Western Europe.

Basically they are "Westerners" and "the West", and they talk about it all the time. This also includes former colonies (i.e. Australia is "Western").

So this is really not much different than what Slavic people do. It just happenes so that Eastern Europe is Slavic-dominated (with just minor Baltic and Finno-Ugric speaking groups), while Western is equally divided into Romance-speakers and Germanic-speakers. Greece stands out as its own thing.

Plus you have people who embrace their Celtic heritage (the French, the Spanish, many of the British), even though they speak Romance/Germanic.

Indeed much of Western Europe used to be dominated by Celtic languages before Latin took over in the south and Germanic in the north.

Not once have I ever heard a Spaniard talk of a brother "Latin."

But "we are all Westerners from Portugal to Sweden" is quite common - isn't it ??? No difference, just a bit more language families.

I would argue that "Pan-Westernism" ideology is still more alive than "Pan-Slavism" ideology has ever been.

"Western" Europe is often being defined as a single cultural unit (even though it's really not), just like "Eastern a.k.a. Slavic" Europe.

==================================

"Pan-Westernism" is arguably even much more hilarious than Pan-Slavism has ever been.

For example, you started including Japan (!) as one of "Western" (!) countries, once it surpassed a certain threshold of GDP per capita.

But Portugal has not been excluded from the "Western club" when it went down economically.

In the USA they have "Western Civ. history course", which includes Egypt (!), Mesopotamia (!) and Greece (!), but excludes Slavs.

 

[bhavv]

Even though I studied genetics as part of my Biology degree, all that stuff that Domen wrote still looks like gibberish to me

Please stahp.

 

[Domen]

^ I will help you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_marker#Uses

(...) Genetic markers are employed in genealogical DNA testing for genetic genealogy to determine genetic distance between individuals or populations. Uniparental markers (on mitochondrial or Y chromosomal DNA) are studied for assessing maternal or paternal lineages. Autosomal markers are used for all ancestry. (...)

The stuff that I posted was about paternal uniparental markers (Y chromosomal DNA haplogroups).

 

[Leoreth]

Even though I studied genetics as part of my Biology degree, all that stuff that Domen wrote still looks like gibberish to me

That's because rigorous geneticists don't bother with pseudo-scientific mappings of ethnicity to genetic haplogroups.

 

[Domen]

^ That's what archaeogeneticists usually do.

pseudo-scientific mappings of ethnicity to genetic haplogroups.

So you say that humans did not come from Africa ???

Because only this kind of "pseudo-science" was able to prove this.

There is no other proof of modern human origins in Africa.

 

[bhavv]

Yea we didn't do anything about ethnicity mapping, mostly just hereditary disease, mutation, cancer, sexual development, psychological disease (with genetic links), evolutionary genetic links like mitochondria coming from bacteria, oh and midwifery!

I could have become a midwife lol.

 

[Leoreth]

^ That's what archaeogeneticists usually do.

So you say that humans did not come from Africa ???

Are humans an ethnicity now?

I mean I support the idea in principle.

 

[Domen]

mostly just hereditary disease, mutation, cancer, sexual development, psychological disease (with genetic links), evolutionary genetic links like mitochondria coming from bacteria, oh and midwifery!

So it had nothing to do with human migrations, or the spread of ethno-linguistic groups.

Are humans an ethnicity now?

When you look at a forest from a distance of 10 kilometers, you see it as a green blob.

But when you come closer, you distinguish different patterns of flora, eventually individual trees.

It's the same with humans isn't it? All depends on what kind of resolution you apply - higher or lower.

I mean I support the idea in principle.

Recently you have posted a map of Viking voyages - then why Viking and not "human voyages", or "African" ???

 

[bhavv]

No exactly, we did nothing on human migrations or ethnicity.

 

[Domen]

While tracing prehistoric or ancient migrations you typically use genetics, archaeology, linguistics, anthropology, etc.

You know cultures and languages - which are components of ethnicity - usually do not spread by wind, but with people.

 

[Leoreth]

When you look at a forest from a distance of 10 kilometers, you see it as a green blob.

But when you come closer, you distinguish different patterns of flora, eventually individual trees.

It's the same with humans isn't it? All depends on what kind of resolution you apply - higher or lower.

There are thousands of ways in which you can differentiate a heterogeneous set of anything. You can differentiate humans by their haplogroup. You can differentiate humans by their ethnicity. With different results.

Recently you have posted a map of Viking voyages - then why Viking and not "human voyages", or "African" ???

Did I say Vikings is not a useful category in whatever context? I just said that Vikings is not a useful category in your context.

(I did not post such a map as far as I remember.)

 

[Domen]

I just said that Vikings is not a useful category in your context.

Can you elaborate? What is "my [Domen's] context" according to you?

You can differentiate humans by their haplogroup. You can differentiate humans by their ethnicity. With different results.

Haplogroup is inherited from parents and ethnicity is typically inherited from parents too, so there will be a strong correlation and causation.

The other way of acquiring an ethnicity is getting assimilated by foreign ethnicity, which requires interaction with people of that ethnicity.

And in such case you will still find haplogroups of both the assimilated ones and the assimilating ones.

For example among ethnic Americans (if such a thing even exists!) you can find British haplogroups as well, not just Non-British haplogroups.

As we know ethnic Americans speak English, and their country was originally a British colony.

 

[bhavv]

Domen vs Leoreth, fight! Fight! FIGHT!

Taking bets, my moneys on Domen because cmon now, how is anyone supposed to beat his immense collection of maps and graphs?

But then, Leoreth wields the allmighty banhammer of doom and destruction, this battle could really go either way!

 

[Domen]

It's not a fight, it's a peaceful exchange of thoughts and ideas.

 

[Leoreth]

Don't forget maps. Still not sure if they count as either.

 

[bhavv]

But a fight is more fun

Cmon, FIGHT!!!

 

[Domen]

Well I don't know what are you arguing for.

That an Y-DNA haplogroup can randomly pop up in a population out of nowhere? No. Haplogroup is inherited from father. There is a genealogical, chronological tree of Y-DNA haplogroups. All of them eventually go back to the oldest one - "A00" - who were basically first modern humans (~236,000 years ago).

Then you can trace which haplogroup descends from which. You can estimate age of each, and time when it started expanding in numbers.

 

[Leoreth]

I don't dispute that haplogroups are inherited from parents. That is sort of their whole thing.