Modern Bosnia-Herzegovina: Y-chromosome Haplogroups in the Three Main Ethnic Groops

[Alkman]

The Peopling of Modern Bosnia-Herzegovina: Y-chromosome Haplogroups in the Three Main Ethnic Groups


D. Marjanovic, S. Fornarino, S. Montagna, D. Primorac, R. Hadziselimovic, S. Vidovic, N. Pojskic, V. Battaglia, A. Achilli, K. Drobnic, S. Andjelinovic, A. Torroni, A. S. Santachiara-Benerecettiand O. Semino



SummaryThe variation at 28 Y-chromosome biallelic markers was analysed in 256 males (90 Croats, 81 Serbs and 85 Bosniacs) from Bosnia-Herzegovina. An important shared feature between the three ethnic groups is the high frequency of the "Palaeolithic" European-specific haplogroup (Hg) I, a likely signature of a Balkan population re-expansion after the Last Glacial Maximum. This haplogroup is almost completely represented by the sub-haplogroup I-P37 whose frequency is, however, higher in the Croats (71%) than in Bosniacs (44%) and Serbs (31%). Other rather frequent haplogroups are E (15%) and J (7%), which are considered to have arrived from the Middle East in Neolithic and post-Neolithic times, and R-M17 (14%), which probably marked several arrivals, at different times, from eastern Eurasia. Hg E, almost exclusively represented by its subclade E-M78, is more common in the Serbs (20%) than in Bosniacs (13%) and Croats (9%), and Hg J, observed in only one Croat, encompasses 9% of the Serbs and 12% of the Bosniacs, where it shows its highest diversification. By contrast, Hg R-M17 displays similar frequencies in all three groups. On the whole, the three main groups of Bosnia-Herzegovina, in spite of some quantitative differences, share a large fraction of the same ancient gene pool distinctive for the Balkan area.







http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/lin...d=hVUgfCF0wdm4

[Agrippa]

The sample is really very small for to conclude something definitive. But its interesting that J is higher in Bosniacs...

[Vojvoda]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

The sample is really very small for to conclude something definitive.

True.

[White Falcon]

This genetic study suggests that Croats of Bosnia are autochthonous population of this region.

While Serb settlers are result of migration orthodox Wlachs(mainly Neolithic Hg carriers) from areas of South Serbia,
Albania and Macedonia during Ottoman invasion.

It also debunks myth how Croats of Bosnia are Catholic Serbs and that most of
Bosnians are also of Serb origin.

[Zrinski]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

The sample is really very small for to conclude something definitive. But its interesting that J is higher in Bosniacs...

Actually about 100 sample(10-15 more-less) is considered a representative sample and is quite enough to conclude.

[Awar]

Originally Posted by White Falcon

This genetic study suggests that Croats of Bosnia are autochthonous population of this region.

How?

While Serb settlers are result of migration orthodox Wlachs(mainly Neolithic Hg carriers) from areas of South Serbia,
Albania and Macedonia during Ottoman invasion.

Ridiculous. Prove that Serbs weren't a part of the population of Bosnia before the Ottoman invasion.

Also, prove that Wlachs are Neolithic hg carriers.

Besides, in Ottoman records of the time, ALL the Orthodox people
under their rule were referred to as 'Wlachs'. Prove that these 'Wlachs' weren't in fact misnamed Serbs.

It also debunks myth how Croats of Bosnia are Catholic Serbs and that most of
Bosnians are also of Serb origin.

Explain how does that 'debunk' anything.

[Zvonimir]

Originally Posted by Zrinski

Actually about 100 sample(10-15 more-less) is considered a representative sample and is quite enough to conclude.

In research "The Genetic Legacy of Paleolithic Homo sapiens sapiens in Extant Europeans" each nation was represented with 20 to 77 samples.

256 samples for three nations in Bosnia-Herzegovina sounds quite good and much above average (80 to 90 per nation) if they are divided into more or less equal groups.

[Zrinski]

Originally Posted by Awar

How?

It has been established that I haplotype is autochtonous haplotype in the Balkans and especially in Bosnia. You figure it out yourself how.

Ridiculous. Prove that Serbs weren't a part of the population of Bosnia before the Ottoman invasion.

We have clear historical documentation which shows that Serbs lived in Hum, but not in Bosnia.

Besides, in Ottoman records of the time, ALL the Orthodox people
under their rule were referred to as 'Wlachs'. Prove that these 'Wlachs' weren't in fact misnamed Serbs.

We both know this is not true.

Explain how does that 'debunk' anything.

It debunks theory that we are all "one big happy family". This study shows that even genetically as well as racially Croats are very different from Serbs.

Btw. you won't mind me answering for Falcon.

[Awar]

Originally Posted by Zrinski

It has been established that I haplotype is autochtonous haplotype in the Balkans and especially in Bosnia. You figure it out yourself how.

Nope. The population is autochtonous, not the 'Croat' ethnicity.

We have clear historical documentation which shows that Serbs lived in Hum, but not in Bosnia.

Prove it.

We both know this is not true.

Nope, because 'Wlach' was a name given by Ottomans to ALL their Orthodox subjects. Depending on the area of the Balkans, the term 'Wlach' meaning ranges from ethnic to vocation.

When in eastern Serbia you say 'Wlach', people will assume that you're thinking of Romanians who live in Serbia,
if you say 'Wlach' in Montenegro, it means 'stockherder'.

In Ottoman records, a Wlach was any Orthodox subject,
while to Germans, a Wlach would be any foreigner ( usually of Latin extraction ).

Need I remind you of the autochtonous Latin populations in what today is Croatia.

It debunks theory that we are all "one big happy family". This study shows that even genetically as well as racially Croats are very different from Serbs.

It means that the frequency of certain markers varies, and that's not strange, since the peoples mentioned don't all live in one location.

If you took samples of Croats from southern Dalmatia versus
samples of Croats from northern Croatia, you'd usually get different haplogroups, and different frequencies...

That's why haplogroups aren't used to determine ethnicity, but
relation to ancient populations ( and their migrations, settlement etc. ).

Btw. you won't mind me answering for Falcon.

If he doesn't

[White Falcon]

Originally Posted by Awar

How?

Originally Posted by Awar

If we agree that Hg I is autochthonous to this area,
and that modern day Bosnian Croats show extremely higher percentage of this Hg in respect to others.
That's how.

Originally Posted by Awar

Ridiculous. Prove that Serbs weren't a part of the population of Bosnia before the Ottoman invasion.

I’ve never said this, Serbs were a part of Bosnia population before Ottomans.
But rapid expansion of Serbian population and their lands in Bosnia
is result of more recent Orthodox Wlach(from modern day Albania, North Greece, Macedonia areas)migration under Ottomans,
with very important work of Serbian Orthodox Church for their admission to Serbdom.
These are the facts.

Originally Posted by Awar

Also, prove that Wlachs are Neolithic hg carriers..

I can't directly , but some points lead to it.
(and with this I don't claim that Wlach were exclusively 100% Hg Neolithic, not even close)
1.I believe that Bosnia, due to hard accessible rugged mountain terrain
didn't had any major Neolithic influence 8000 years ago.
(Study of Croatian islands who were and are very accessible showed minimal or none influence of Neolithic Hg's)
And since these new Bosnian results show Neolithic Hg's influence ,
I can only connect it to large and well recorded migrations of these Wlachs
who settled these areas during Ottoman rule.
2.Modern day nations from which areas these Wlachs came into Bosnia
(like Albania , Macedonia and Greece) show considerable results on Neolithic markers tests.

Originally Posted by Awar

Besides, in Ottoman records of the time, ALL the Orthodox people
under their rule were referred to as 'Wlachs'. Prove that these 'Wlachs' weren't in fact misnamed Serbs.

As you said , Ottoman records call these people Wlach,
on other side all Austrian sources also call these people Wlachs, such is Statuta Valachorum.
So we have two main factors on Balkans and their records both are using
same designation, no Serbs mentioned.
Like I said , only much later with work of Serbian Orthodox Church
these people are incorporated in Serbdom.

Originally Posted by Awar

Explain how does that 'debunk' anything.

It debunks alleged ties and similarity between modern day Croats , and modern day Serbs,
as explained in my reply.

[Zrinski]

Originally Posted by Awar

Nope. The population is autochtonous, not the 'Croat' ethnicity.

And the popultion is Croatian. Which part don't you understand?

Prove it.

I already did. Search my older posts.

Nope, because 'Wlach' was a name given by Ottomans to ALL their Orthodox subjects. Depending on the area of the Balkans, the term 'Wlach' meaning ranges from ethnic to vocation.

Vlach was and is a term that refers to Latin populations. The Vlachs that settled in Bosnia and Croatia(that are now Serbs) were in fact Aromanians from Northern Greece.

In Ottoman records, a Wlach was any Orthodox subject,
while to Germans, a Wlach would be any foreigner ( usually of Latin extraction ).

Yes and Germans(Austrians) refered to "Serbs" in Croatia as Vlachs.

Need I remind you of the autochtonous Latin populations in what today is Croatia.

Like?

It means that the frequency of certain markers varies, and that's not strange, since the peoples mentioned don't all live in one location.

It means that Croats and Serbs are genetically different people.

If you took samples of Croats from southern Dalmatia versus
samples of Croats from northern Croatia, you'd usually get different haplogroups, and different frequencies...

There would be some deviations since Northern Croatia has larger influx of R1a and R1b markers, but still Northern Croatia has more than 1/3 of I haplotypes which shows consistency.

That's why haplogroups aren't used to determine ethnicity, but
relation to ancient populations ( and their migrations, settlement etc. ).

No one said they determine ethnicity, but it does debunks theory of how Croats and Serbs are the same people.....genetics showed not even close.

[Vojvoda]

Originally Posted by Zrinski

Vlach was and is a term that refers to Latin populations.

Exactly. Serbians used to call Italians Vlachs, even some Slavic
folk, probably because of Latin names that they used such as "Mario" "Dino" "Toni" etc.

[Agrippa]

genetics showed not even close.

Thats something rather relative since even if differences exist, which is quite likely, the populations are still rather closely related, though not the same if itsa bout frequencies and certain phenotypes either.

[Zrinski]

Originally Posted by Vojvoda

Exactly. Serbians used to call Italians Vlachs, even some Slavic
folk, probably because of Latin names that they used such as "Mario" "Dino" "Toni" etc.

And this has to do with? We are talking of Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia who were not refered by Serbs until "wide scale operations" of Serbian Orthodox Church...

[Zrinski]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

Thats something rather relative since even if differences exist, which is quite likely, the populations are still rather closely related, though not the same if itsa bout frequencies and certain phenotypes either.

If we would go by such logic then we can confidently say that all European populations are still rather closely related. The thing is here that the genetic research showed that even genetically Croats and Serbs are two different things. Thats the whole point.

[Awar]

Quote: