The romanians and bulgarians
analysis from EUR 179
Post from zz to 18.08.2010 15:08:28
There is no PROTO BULGARIANS!!! THIS IS RUSSIAN POLITICAL TERMIN WITH AIM TO HIDE OUR ROOT
Post from iGENEA to 27.07.2010 08:07:24
we have not calculated these numbers for a while, but i do not think the slavic influence among Romanians is smaller than in Bulgaria.
Ancient tribes can not exactly be determined by haplogroup only, but the haplogroup distribution in Romania and Bulgaria is almost the same, therefore the differences can not be that big.
You also have to keep in mind that history and culture do not always fit genetics. That means that also modern slavic nations like Bulgaria can have the same amount of slavic influence like non-slavic nations like Romania.
Post from Xs to 26.07.2010 08:07:28
I think these studies are not backed by proper scientific research and,from I've seen until now they are subjective...
A serious and corect study of history,culture combined with an extensive field trip will show what the others major DNA specialists will tell(BRIEFLY):romanians are daco-romans with minimum slavic influence whilst bulgarian are slavic with turkish and dacian influences.Amongst other insignifiant influences in both cases.
Your results seem to be out of place;combining that with lack of metodology informations of this research I can only say these is a waste of time and probably is a political propaganda!
Post from more confused :) to 29.06.2010 19:06:44
thanks for the both answers of my questions.
I wish you all the best :)
Post from iGENEA to 29.06.2010 08:06:57
There ist not one single gene for all members of an ancient tribe. We analyze lineages, pure male and pure female.
By comparison with studies we can determine (more or less precisley, depends on the dna-profile) where a lineage lived at a special point of time.
As we find different Y-DNA and mtDNA - haplogroups within every ancient tribe you can see that not every member of such a tribes shares the same genetic profile.
A test can reveal the movement of your ancestors and therefore also show which tribes they lived in at different points of time. But we only show the tribe of the Classical antiquity (about 900 BC to 900 AD) and sometimes the tribe can not be determined exactly and two or three are possible.
Post from more confused :) to 25.06.2010 11:06:18
I want to ask.
How is posible to have a gene which is helenic, gene wich is antic thracian,gene wich is slav and etc.etc.
Is there specific gene foe evryone of this etnic groops?
As I read other genetic reserches for the origin of the nations - I read that actualy if I make a genetic test for myself I will find not the etnicity of my ancestors, but I will find the movement of my ancestors.
Sorry for my English.
Post from iGENEA to 22.06.2010 08:06:58
I guess there has to be done more research about the ancient tribes in Bulgaria. But the asian influence in this country like everywhere on the Balkans can also show up haplogroups R1a and R1b, because these groups are also common with some asian tribes.
Post from confused to 18.06.2010 13:06:12
Yes OK but if we are both on the same opinion that there should be some Bulgar genes... doesn't that sort of render these results useless? Because when excavating Bulgar tombs in Bulgaria some of the skeletons found are undoubtedly of Turkic origin yet the results do not suggest anything Asian. Yet in Macedonia they have Hun genes?
Post from iGENEA to 08.06.2010 10:06:38
unfortunatly we have no data about the Proto-Bulgarsians so far. I also dont think they disappeared but we can not defferentiate them from Finno-Ugrians or Turk peoples of which they probably consisted.
Post from confused to 06.06.2010 17:06:37
Uhm... as far as I know the Bulgarian state was founded by the Bulgars ( aka Proto-Bulgarians). Their origin is not yet 100% clear but historians point out that they were most probably a mix of Hun and Iranian tribes.
So where are they on the genetic screen??? Granted, they were fewer than say the Slavs but Bulgarians undoubtedly have 100 times more in common with them than with Phoenicians! How can the Bulgars just disappear?
Post from iGENEA to 18.05.2010 11:05:08
the big haplogroups are to old to serve as a strong indication of ancient tribes like Celts or Slavs.
It is correct that R1b is more frequent in western Europa and R1a in the east. But all of these subgroups exist nearly everywhere in Europa sinc a long time.
The R1b in Bulgaria maybe came there with Indoeuropeans befor they split up into celtic, slavic and germanic tribes.
Therefore these haplogroups can not show the ethnic origin.
Post from Interested to 14.05.2010 13:05:29
Hello, I found these results regarding the genetic origin of the Bulgarians "R1b – 18%, R1a – 18%, I – 24%, J2 – 20%, E1b1b – 16%"
As, I have understood, the R1b indicates celtic origin while the R1a indicates Slavic origin. Could you please explain to me what origin the other haplogroups show?
Post from Eduard to 21.03.2010 19:03:29
Of course, we Thracians. Slavic idea was brought to Bulgaria with the Soviet Union. Communist foolish idea to make all the nations brothers. In Bulgaria there are 15% and Gypsies and 10% Turkish Gypsies. Apart and 500 years of Ottoman rule and 200 years Byzantine and impurities - then then we are not 50% but 100% Thracian people. The oldest people and state in Europe. And one day everyone will understand that.
Post from Slavic to 04.03.2010 20:03:58
Post from iGENEA to 04.03.2010 10:03:59
unfortunatly i have no data about this country at the moment.
But i know that the contration of I2a in this country is about 40% which is very high for that group and is only reached in the dinaric region. The other big Haplogroup in Moldova is R1a with about 30-40%.
If i find better data i will publish it here.
Post from Slavic to 03.03.2010 20:03:21
Is there any research about people what live in Republic of Moldova
Post from iGENEA to 29.11.2009 12:11:56
These statistics are based on
recent scientific researches and therefore would have to be adapted continuously.
But as they are not relevant for genetic genealogy and it would be a lot of work to keep the statistics up to date iGenea decided to remove this data from the website.
Post from Aleo to 29.11.2009 10:11:21
Could you please point to me the location on the IGENEA website where I can view the antic background of european people? So far I have been able to find this data only from small pieces spread through the forum and other older websites not related to IGENEA directly. The page seems to be missing. Thank you.
Post from iGENEA to 28.11.2009 14:11:23
There often are differences between paternal and maternal lineage, but at the moment i can not tell you how these differences are among the Thracians.
Post from eastara to 28.11.2009 12:11:53
European nations differ mainly on the paternal side. MtDNA haplogroups are more or less evenly distributed around Europe.
I don't know why iGenea claims to know what were the anciemt haplogroups on the Balkans. The only study, which tested old mtDna from Thracian bones is this:
However only fragments of the mtDNA sequence were extracted, not enough to determine the haplogroups and the comparison with modern European population is not serious.
"Computing the frequency of common point mutations of the present-day European
population with the Thracian population has resulted that the Italian (7.9 %), the Alban
(6.3 %) and the Greek (5.8 %) have shown a bias of closer genetic kinship with the Thracian
individuals than the Romanian and Bulgarian individuals (only 4.2%)"
Post from Aleo to 27.11.2009 23:11:33
Is it possible to determine whenever the difference is coming mainly from the paternal or the maternal line?
Post from iGENEA to 27.11.2009 14:11:19
"My concern is the discrepancy between the determined ancient tribes of the Thracians and Dacians and the background of modern bulgarians and romanians. Is there such a case and if so, is it relevant?"
As i said, only some dacians can be separated, many dacian lineages show up as thracian because there maybe was too much moving around within these tribes (see below).
Romania and Bulgaria partially share routes, but of course the influence from more southern tribes like Thracians and Hellenes is higher in Bulgaria and the influence of northern/western tribes like Finno-Ugrians and Celts is higher in Romania.
"It seems that the modern bulgarians score high for Thracian background (implicitly Dacian) yet the modern romanians do not; the romanians score high for Finno-Ugrians, Celts, etc."
The results indicate that, yes, but we would have to analyze all available data to get a clear image of the correct distribution.
"If the antic tribes of the Thracians and Dacians are supposedly similar then what are the possible causes for the discrepancy of the present?"
A tribe can only be differentiated from others when these people seperate from others for a sufficient amount of time.
When only some Dacians but not all can be
differentiated from the Thracians that could mean, that some dacian lineages did not mix up with other thracian tribes and lived only within the dacian tribe for a more or less long time. Other lineages/families maybe spread over more Thracian tribes, not only the dacian and therefore their profile is thracian.
Post from Aleo to 26.11.2009 20:11:46
Thank you for clarifying the method used by IGENEA.
My concern is the discrepancy between the determined ancient tribes of the Thracians and Dacians and the background of modern bulgarians and romanians. Is there such a case and if so, is it relevant?
It seems that the modern bulgarians score high for Thracian background (implicitly Dacian) yet the modern romanians do not; the romanians score high for Finno-Ugrians, Celts, etc.
If the antic tribes of the Thracians and Dacians are supposedly similar then what are the possible causes for the discrepancy of the present?
Post from iGENEA to 26.11.2009 20:11:01
There are some genetic profiles that are dacian and can be distinguished from Thracians. These profiles show up in the Balkans but are very rare. We can not be completely sure about that, but it indicates, that many Dacians can not be distinguished from Thracians. Which would be no big surprise, as the Dacians are considered to have been a thracian tribe.
We have not examined the locations of the different tribes.
3. Sample Size
I dont know exactly how much romanian profiles iGenea got, but the researches about ancient tribes contain data from different sources which bring up enough profiles to get reliable results.
As far as i know this company analyzes autosomal markers. An autosome is a chromosome that is not a sex chromosome, so its not X and not Y. Maybe they also analyze some markers on these two Chromosomes but in general they analyze markers all over the DNA.
iGenea only analyzes the Y-Chromosome and the mtDNA.
That means the methods and the results of DNA-Tribes can not be compared to the methods and results of iGenea at all.
iGenea decided to only analyze the Y-Chromosome and the mtDNA because these parts of the DNA are inherited in a way we can exactly trace back.
Y-Chromosome: pure male ancestral line
mtDNA: pure female ancestral line
Concerning the rest of the DNA we dont know whioch ancestral lines we got it from. 50% mother and 50% father is clear, but grandparents can have contributed totally different amounts to our DNA (0%-50% is theoretically possible for each of the four grandparents of a person).
The results of Y-Chromosome and mtDNA are more clear and can easily be used to create pedigrees of mankind.
Post from Aleo to 26.11.2009 15:11:03
In completion of what I have said, Did they just put togeder all Czechs ans Slovaks as Ashkenazic ?
Post from Aleo to 26.11.2009 14:11:59
I am not sure what method was used by DNA Tribes to determine those groups. It appears to me that they just sampled modern populations and they determine your genetic relatedness to those few modern populations. I am not aware of antic populations named "Russians", "Belgics", etc. Also they clearly pick whoever is similar to the Irish as "Celtic". How does it compare to IGENEA's method?
Post from eastara to 26.11.2009 12:11:31
DNA TRibes puts Romanians and North Bulgarians in one Tracian group.
On the map looks like the territory of the old Bulgar kingdom, which covered nowadays Moldova, East Romania and North Bulgaria. Thrace was predominantly part of the Greek world during the Middle ages until Ottomans came.
Furthermore, genetic boundaries are mainly geographical, not state or linguistic, so this map makes sense.
Post from Aleo to 25.11.2009 19:11:47
Thank you for your answer. Would you be kind to answer a couple more questions?
It is generally assumed that the Dacians (the presumed ancestors of the Romanians) are a Thracian people. Does this find infirm the theory -at least genetically if not the linguistic/cultural part?
Is the Finno-Ugric background present across the whole Romania or is geographically isolated to samples from western Romania (Transylvania)? Is the size of the sample population from Romania reasonably large?
Post from iGENEA to 25.11.2009 19:11:26
most neighboring peoples are related in some way, but we do not seperate profiles by country and compare them to each other.
The main antic tribes we find in these countries are Slavs, Thracians, Hellenes, Illyrians, Finno-Ugrians, Germanic peoples, Celts, Macedonians and Phoenicians.
While Illyrians, Finno-Ugrians, Germanic peoples and Celts are more/only in Romania and Thracians, Hellenes, Macedonians and Phoenicians are more/only in Bulgaria.
Post from Aleo to 24.11.2009 21:11:37
Are the romanians and the bulgarians similar with each other? What are the antic tribes of those two populations?