Around a third of the ancient individuals in my dataset associated with East Germanic-speaking cultures show obvious ancestry from Central and/or West Asia.
This shouldn't be too surprising, considering, for instance, the well documented contacts between East Germanic tribes and the Avars, Huns, Sarmatians and other nomadic groups that streamed into Europe from the Asian steppes during the Migration Period. It's a topic that I've raised before at this blog (see
here).
But the curious thing is that very little, if any, of this ancestry has percolated down to present-day Europeans.
The easiest way to show this is with a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) based on my
Global25 data. The relevant PCA datasheet can be downloaded
here. Basic details about the ancient samples in the analysis are available
here.
Some of the Northeastern European populations, particularly the Uralic speakers, appear to be attracted to the Hunnic cluster. However, this is mostly an artifact of pre-Migration Period east to west population expansions in the far north of Europe, probably including those of the Proto-Uralians (see
here).
So how is it that, despite ruling over vast areas of Europe for hundreds of years, the East Germanics appear not to have contributed significantly to the present-day European gene pool? My theory is that, much like the Avars and Huns, they were militarily and demographically overwhelmed by the ascending groups around them, such as the Slavs, and they simply went extinct.
To wrap things up, here's a basic qpAdm mixture model designed to test for Hunnic-related ancestry in a few Eastern and Northern European populations of interest. Note the significant slice of this type of ancestry in the likely early Goths of the Chernyakhiv culture. Is it real? Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments below.
UKR_Chernyakhiv
DEU_MA 0.863±0.038
Hun_Tian_Shan 0.137±0.038
chisq 12.525
tail prob 0.325466
Full output
Swedish
Baltic_EST_IA 0.126±0.078
DEU_MA 0.849±0.073
Hun_Tian_Shan 0.025±0.020
chisq 8.338
tail prob 0.595877
Full output
Ukrainian
Baltic_EST_IA 0.121±0.064
DEU_MA 0.857±0.060
Hun_Tian_Shan 0.022±0.017
chisq 11.458
tail prob 0.322956
Full output
Estonian
Baltic_EST_IA 0.597±0.069
DEU_MA 0.373±0.064
Hun_Tian_Shan 0.030±0.017
chisq 15.739
tail prob 0.107361
Full output
See also...
Conan the Barbarian probably belonged to Y-haplogroup R1a
More on the association between Uralic expansions and Y-haplogroup N
Uralic-specific genome-wide ancestry did make a signifcant impact in the East Baltic
98 comments:
David, are you referring to groups like the Ostrogoths?
I'm pretty sure that the answer to that question is in the blog post.
Either that, or they were originally relatively small and a ruling elite, quickly to be outnumbered by the surrounding populations, much like among the Bulgars over the 7 Slavic tribes.
He wrote “early Goths”, which must mean both Ostrogoths and Visigoths.
What is so outstanding about Goths is that they have incorporated so many Balkan groups not only the on their mtDNA (with a C4e outlier, probably a Hunnic Woman) but also tons of E1b1b males.
Since Chernyakhiv can be modeled as 13.2% Hun and modern Ukrainians as 2.2% Hun, could Ukrainians alternatively be modeled as 15-20% Chernyakhiv??
The Ukrainian Hun proportion is 0.022±0.017, which is basically zero.
What stupid is this? Germans Aren't asians. We are from europe.
Interestingly (to me, anyway) while the Iberian Visigoth samples do have both C4e and E1b1b, it is I12162 (who has neither of those) who still shows a hint of Hun Tian Shan in 550 AD when I look in the runner.
Oops, C4a, not C4e...
@K33
G25 doesn't like giving large amounts of Chernyakhiv to Ukrainians or to anyone else, but then again it would be best to verify it with qpAdm or even better some haplotype/rare allele-based method.
Various populations fitted with G25 nmonte3 scaled, pen=0, sources all individual samples from:
Baltic_EST_IA, DEU_MA_ACD, FIN_Levanluhta_IA, Hun_Tian_Shan, Tatar_Siberian_Zabolotniye, UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine, UKR_Chernyakhiv_Shyshaky
Ukrainian
"distance%=1.5046"
Baltic_EST_IA,66.8
DEU_MA_ACD,29.6
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine,3.6
Mordovian
"distance%=1.3798"
Baltic_EST_IA,64.8
DEU_MA_ACD,15.8
Hun_Tian_Shan,8.2
Tatar_Siberian_Zabolotniye,7.6
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine,3.6
Estonian
"distance%=1.6205"
Baltic_EST_IA,85.4
DEU_MA_ACD,5.6
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine,5.2
FIN_Levanluhta_IA,3.8
Karelian
"distance%=1.1809"
Baltic_EST_IA,59.6
FIN_Levanluhta_IA,32
DEU_MA_ACD,5.8
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine,2.6
Swedish
"distance%=1.9756"
DEU_MA_ACD,79.6
Baltic_EST_IA,16.6
FIN_Levanluhta_IA,3.8
I added Iberia Central CA to Dave's mix of Baltic, DEU and Hun in the runner (to differentiate pre-germanic west europe) and it became much freer handing out Hun to almost all the Visigoths ... but not to Poprad, 6Drif22 or STR_220.
"What is so outstanding about Goths is that they have incorporated so many Balkan "
No one incorporated nothing here, the explanation is more simply even than you are.
There is not even one old chronicler claiming Goths/Getae are german tribes. This is a manipulated and stolen history by germans. The german guy can calm down too, he is not asian.
During the Antiquity the Goths were identified with the Gets many times by authors who KNEW the Goths. This is WITNESSED by Iordanis, San Isidoro de Sevilla, Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus, Spartianus, Servius, Philostorgios, Paulus Orosius, John Lydian, Julian the Apostate and others.
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Historia_Augusta/Maximini_duo*.html
One of the first Goths mentioned by ancient writers is Maximinus TRAK. His very nickname talked about what considered to be - for Thracian, not German.
"Maximinus the elder became famous in the reign of Alexander; but his service in the army began under Severus. He was born in a village in Thrace bordering on the barbarians, INDEED of a barbarian father and mother, the one, men say, being of the Goths, the other of the Alani…" –H.A.1.5, 2.5
Davidski, could you explain here, because the auditory is not very good one with conclusions and logical thinking, that founding DNA on the territory of Germany does not make it german DNA, not at all.
@Bastian - Huns and Avars are from Asia, and eastern Germanic groups mixed with them.
@natsunoame, I am pretty sure that the Gothic bible is written in a Germanic language.
Re; East Asian shifted East Germanic speakers, whether they were militarily ever overwhelmed seems like it's impossibly lost to the mists of time. A question for the scholars of history and military history to try to reconstruct, probably in vain.
But demographically they certainly must have been small, not growing the way the populations with a good stock of local agriculturalist "peasants" probably were, and outbred that Asian ancestry into non-existence either way*, and their languages must have lost value as lingua franca over time.
They must have been big differences in our history between human migrations that were open to continually marrying in quite large population and became very diluted quickly, and those who sealed off and then grew by expanding into largely empty niches and frontiers.
*Even if they start of 50% Asian ancestry, outbreed for 5 generations (about 120-150 years), and you're down to 3%, and then 0% detectable within another 3 generations. That's Elizabeth Warren sized levels of admixture! And 50% was probably more than they started with.
@ Davidski
''Around a third of the ancient individuals in my dataset associated with East Germanic-speaking cultures show obvious ancestry from Central and/or West Asia''
Have to disagree on this Dave. In fact, I think you're way off
MJ19 might have ~5% TIan Shan admixture, tops.
Otherwise, the Chernyakov Goths are north European LBA + Balkan I.A.
“This shouldn't be too surprising, considering, for instance, the well documented contacts between East Germanic tribes and the Avars, Huns “
The chernyakov have nothing to do with Avars . They also preceded the Huns ; and would not have much hun admixture at all; although vice versa might be true (Huns would have some gothic)
Usin Germany MA is an odd choice ; but even employing them doesn’t produce much Hun admixture
@natsunoame
The Goth are the only "East GErmanic" (as that are rated: Goth, Lombards, Burgundians and Vandals) tribes that we have written record of. We dont have any Lombard, Burgundian or Lombard written record. We just know their rulers have Germanic names.
As for the Goth, we not only know that their rulers have Germanic names, but we have a bible in Goth language and that is Germanic.
@juanrivera "Any Sarmatian or Chernyakhov admixture in other iberian visigoths?"
when I was messing around with the Runner, I12163 had the most (61.67%), then I12031 (34.1%) and I12032 (29%). That's all for Chernyakhiv Shyshaky, none showed Chernyakhiv Legedzine.
In the same run, Hun Tian Shan showed in I12031 (3.33%), I12034 (5.83%) and I12162 (5%)
@Drago
I said this....
This shouldn't be too surprising, considering, for instance, the well documented contacts between East Germanic tribes and the Avars, Huns...
And then you said this...
The chernyakov have nothing to do with Avars . They also preceded the Huns.
WTF?
Using Germany MA is an odd choice ; but even employing them doesn’t produce much Hun admixture.
It's not an odd choice. It's what I have to work with. And there does appear to be an eastern signal in the Chernyakhiv samples. I don't know if it's Hunnic. I left it an open question.
Anyways, re: PCA, added a few more pops to the datasheet then looked at PC1 vs PC2 vs PC3: https://imgur.com/a/ejVob6z
Looking at the reprocessed PCA it would seem viable at first blush to place the two Chernyakhiv samples between different European pops...
But if you look at the raw G25 PC1 vs PC2, they can't really be captured by being between any extent European pops. They're pretty close though. I'd guess those two samples should have similar East Asian ancestry to Finns/Estonians/Russians today? The balance of European/West Eurasian related ancestry I can't quite place though.
@Drago
And WTF is this?
Have to disagree on this Dave. In fact, I think you're way off.
Have you actually bothered to look at the Gepidian, Ostrogothic and Bavarian samples with the cranial deformation?
Btw, most of the Bavarians with ACD (and Asian ancestry) were buried with Ostrogothic brooches.
@ Palacista, Fanty
Nearly all texts called "Prussian" are written in German, so...
When and where Gothic texts appear for the first time?
@Drago
Ever heard of Sarmatians?
@Matt
I'd guess those two samples should have similar East Asian ancestry to Finns/Estonians/Russians today?
The Chernyakhiv samples have less East Asian ancestry than Finns and Northern Russians, but that's not really the point.
As I said above, the sources of the eastern ancestries in Finnics and the East Germanics appear to be different.
Unlike the Finnics, who have ancestry from Siberia, the East Germanics have eastern ancestry from the steppe and, in at least one case, also ancestry from West Asia.
Dave
And then you said this...
The chernyakov have nothing to do with Avars . They also preceded the Huns.
WTF?
The Chernyakov culture formed c. 230 AD , this is > 100 years before the Huns arrived, and 350 years before the Avars arrived.
Huns & Avars have nothing to do with the Chernyakov culture, apart from Huns arriving at the end of its existence, & dispersing its populace
'' Have you actually bothered to look at the Gepidian, Ostrogothic and Bavarian samples with the cranial deformation? ''
Yes, but these post-Date the Chernyakov period, & belong to the Hunnic (>400) & post-Hunnic Era (> 450 AD). By this time, Hunnic admixture seems more realistic.
Modelling some individually
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19
Halberstadt_LBA:I0099 38.5%
Lithuania_BA 32.5%
Mycenaean 9.35%
Lithuania_Late_Antiquity_low_res 8.3%
Hun_Tian_Shan:DA101 5.5%
d 2.4%
-Vs-
Gepid_Serbia_ACD:VIM_2
DEU_MA 37.25%
Gunno-Sarmatian:DA27 23.9%
Mycenaean 14.1%
Balkans_IA:I5769 9.75%
Hun_Tian_Shan:DA101 7.5%
d2.25%
Quite honestly 'Chernyakov Goths = central Germany + Huns'' seems like a kind of whacky theory Arza would come up with :)
@Drago
- East Germanics obviously did have contacts with Avars, Huns and other steppe peoples, which doesn't necessarily imply that the Chernyakhiv Goths had contacts with Avars
- but the Chernyakhiv Goths did have contacts with such peoples; Sarmatians come to mind
- the point of the qpAdm models was to see if the Chernyakhiv Goths showed a clear signal of Hun-related steppe ancestry that their potential modern relatives lacked (and obviously not to see whether there was gene flow from Medieval Bavaria to the North Pontic steppe)
- the Chernyakhiv Goths do show an eastern signal that is basically missing in modern Europeans, so the qpAdm models were useful, even if very limited due to factors out of my control for the time being
- a third, or even more, of the East Germanic-associated samples in my dataset do show obvious eastern ancestry; even the Visigothic samples from Iberia show some of it.
Hope that helps.
@Davidski @Dragos did it occur to you that some of the present day German popuoation’s R1a1 y-dna arrive from oppressed Baltic Prussians and that Medieval Germans had much less R1a1 prior to the Teutonic Knights’ march towards Eastern Europe?
@Andrzejewski
Most of the R1a in Germany is from Corded Ware and West Slavs, like the Wends and also Poles.
I would think that very little of it would be from Baltic Prussians, considering that Prussia was largely re-settled by migrants from Germany.
Have a look how little N1c there is in Germany today, and that would've been a major Y-hg among Baltic Prussians.
Well; perhaps its confusing because (I) medieval bavarians aren’t usually counted as “east Germanics” (even if gothic brooches show up); (II) Hun vs Sarmartian admixture are rather different matters; & (III) the 2 chernyakov Goths lie on a north/east european -> Balkan/ Dacian cline - not central Germany -> sarmatian .
So even if Sarmatians preceded the Goths, they might not have rapidly mixed
@Drago
It shouldn't be confusing, considering that the Medieval Bavarians that I call East Germanic-associated had intentionally deformed skulls like the Ostrogoths did, and/or were buried with Ostrogothic brooches, and most of them were probably Ostrogothic women who were married off to the Bavarians for political purposes.
And no, Hun vs Sarmatian admixtures aren't necessarily different matters. In the context of this statement, they're the same matter.
This shouldn't be too surprising, considering, for instance, the well documented contacts between East Germanic tribes and the Avars, Huns and other nomadic groups that streamed into Europe from the Asian steppes during the Migration Period.
@All
I added Sarmatians to the "East Germanic" PCA. Check out their remarkable homogeneity.
As per the blog entry, the sample info is HERE.
You can run any sample you wish in that PCA following the instructions here...
Global25 workshop 1: that classic West Eurasian plot
So, speaking broadly, we had Scythians apparently drifting into early "Celts"(Hallstatt), and then, centuries later, we have something similar going on with Sarmatians and Germanic populations. Interesting.
Hey David, sorry if this is off topic, but was wondering how you catch up on the latest papers (I know you have some level of insider access, but beside this).
Do you follow anyone on Twitter that you think is worth sharing?
@Zulfiqar
Get Google Scholar alerts sent to your e-mail address. You can set that up here...
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_alerts?view_op=list_alerts&hl=en
So now gothic isn't a east germanic language according to mosouamominomi. Right, Ha ha ha. Btw, my previous post was just a bad attempt at making Fun of a particular Kind of poster in these thread. I'll concede it wasn't really funny.
David, it is a bit much to call East Germans "Asiatic." Sure, they mixed with central Asians sometimes. They may not have been mostly Germanic but they were certainly basically 100% European.
The Huns, Avars, Bulgarians, Magyr were Europeanized Asians. Every Central Asian tribe who invaded Europe was outnumbered & had to incorporate Europeans into their ranks to survive.
But Asian admix as well as multiple European sources in Goths is very significant.
Because Goths were clearly not an innocent tribe only trying to live life. They were a military union between many East German tribes created in 200ad with the sole purpose of plundering & especially plundering the Roman empire.
Therefore people from other tribes (Slavs, Dacians, Turks) joined them because they wanted to profit from the plundering too.
@Samuel Andrews
It is a bit much to call East Germans "Asiatic".
Yeah, it's an obvious click bait title, but I don't think it's way off. Some East Germanics were significantly of Asian origin, so Asiatic East Germanics did exist.
Here's the definition of Asiatic...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiatic
@Arza
“When and where Gothic texts appear for the first time?”
4th-6th-century in Southern Europe if scientists are correct in their dating.
According to prof. Kortland and other linguists Goths came from Southern Germany. They had nothing to do with Poland or Scandinavia. It was a myth.
“Witold Mańczak has argued that Gothic is closer to Upper German than to Middle German, closer to High German than to Low German, closer to German than to Scandinavian, closer to Danish than to Swedish, and that the original homeland of the Goths must therefore be located in the southernmost part of the Germanic territories, not in Scandinavia (1982, 1984, 1987a, 1987b, 1992). I think that his argument is correct and that it is time to abandon Iordanes’ classic view that the Goths came from Scandinavia. We must therefore reconsider the grounds for adopting the latter position and the reasons why it always has remained popular.”
http://www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art198e.pdf
So it looks like Goths were a "product of the Roman frontier" i.e. a mix of Western Germanic mercenaries and steppe mercenaries hired to participate in Roman wars. It fits genetics, linguistics, archeology etc.
Gothic mtDNA from Hács-Béndekpuszta (where fragment of Wulfila’s bible has been found):
https://www.yfull.com/mtree/U5a1c4a1b/
https://www.yfull.com/mtree/H1bh/
https://www.yfull.com/mtree/H39d/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41431-018-0319-8
https://www.academia.edu/30790641/A_Fifth-Century_Scriptural_Amulet_from_H%C3%A1cs-B%C3%A9ndekpuszta_in_its_Mediterranean_Context
New Theory based on mtDNA
Basal Eurasian didn't exist. Instead, Paleo MEs mostly descend from various Paleo Eurasian pops native to the Middle East who were unrelated to Paleo Europeans and also lacked something which Paleo Europeans shared with Paleo Asians.
Part 1.
mtDNA supports this because so far almost all Paleolithic Europeans belong to mHG U. They descended from a founder population who had a mHG U founder effect.
There are many mHG U clades native to the Middle East: U8b (K), U1, U2d, U3, U7, U9. This is a legacy of their Paleo-European related ancestry. But, most Middle Eastern mtDNA belongs to other mHG R/N clades: R0, JT, N1, W, X.
Therefore most of their ancestry is probably from Eurasian pops unrelated to Paleo Europeans.
Part 2.
Paleo MEs all decended from the same multiple distinct Upper Paleolithic Eurasian pops. But, they all share little common ancestry since the Upper Paleolithic.
All Paleo MEs belong to the same old mtDNA haplogroups (including U) which date 30,000-40,000 years old. The most recent common ancestor in mtDNA for Paloe MEs is usually 20,000-30,000 years old.
Two good examples are mtDNA R0 & U.
R0 was common in all Paleo MEs. But Natufians carried R0a while IranN-Anatolia carried HV/H. HV/H & R0a split 30,000 years ago. They have a connection 30,000 years ago but nothing more recent.
U was common in all Paleo MEs. Paleo North Africans carried U6. AnatoliaN carried U8b, U3. IranN carried U7. The most recent connection for all of them is U (their Paleo Euro-related common ancestor) which is 40,000 years old.
For example...
https://i.postimg.cc/VLgx1h12/Screen-Hunter-2768-Jul-16-10-25.jpg
On the other hand, H11a1a4 from Maslomecz...
https://i.postimg.cc/Y9PLZ7Ck/Screen-Hunter-2768-Jul-16-10-50.jpg
https://www.yfull.com/mtree/H11a1/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-43183-w
@All
I edited the blog entry; fixed some typos and changed a couple of paragraphs.
Hope that helps to lessen the potential for any confusion.
By the way, a new cow paper came out today. It's based on ancient DNA, but I probably won't be giving it a post because it doesn't have any samples from Yamnaya and Corded Ware cows.
Ancient cattle genomics, origins, and rapid turnover in the Fertile Crescent
The one interesting thing that it does show is that there was admixture from Indian Zebu into Near Eastern cattle starting around 2,000 BCE. But I guess that's in line with the discovery of South Asian ancestry in human BMAC populations.
Meluhhan migrants (Indus Valley) had some enclaves in southern Mesopotamia during Sumerian times. At least one of them had a name that in Sumerian translates as “man of the just cow”, that “just cow” is probably meant a zebu. Some animals were traded in this sea route from India to Sumer, in particular dogs, but cows would probably be no problem if brought in before they grew too large. Of course this interchange almost completely ends when the Harappan civilization collapsed.
@Samuel Andrews
I saw your G25 spreadsheet of West Eurasia, do you think you could do some sort of analysis with G25 to try and tease out the nature of Basal Eurasian from that angle? One population I'm very curious about is Iberomaurusians given that they seem to have a nebulous mix of Africanish and West Eurasian affinities, and how they may tie into the spread of Basal related ancestry. Hopefully the Dzudzuana genome gets released eventually, it's been nearly a year since the pre-print came out.
Speaking of Sumerians and cows, the word in Sumerian for “cow” was “gud” whereas the PIE one was “gwous”. The latter word was thought to have been borrowed and not an original PIE word. Any coincidence?
@Andrzejewski & Davidski
re: Baltic Prussians; I didn't make a representative survey, but my grandmother from northern Warmia and her purely East Prussian descended niece did some genetic testing, their Baltic admixture is about 25%. It may have been lower or higher in other parts of East Prussia, I don't know, but the point is: Only East Prussian Germans have this type of admixture, and they didn't colonise other parts of Germany (at least not till the exodus at the end of WWII). The name Prussia was adopted, or you might say stolen, by Brandenburg. The merging of Prussia and Brandenburg wasn't the result of an expansion by Prussia. And afterwards most of the "Prussians" of history were in fact from Brandenburg, the state around Berlin, where there is some Slavic admixture, but nothing Baltic.
@Bastian Barx
You're stupid yourself, ignoring the evidence presented by Davidski and believing that East Germanics were Germans. Do you seriously believe that Gothic was a German dialect? It was a distinct Germanic language, farther from German than Dutch is.
@Fanty
The Longobards were an Elbe Germanic tribe afaik, no East Germanics.
I'm glad to see that the Chernyakhiv samples are now in the Global 25, I'll use them later. So apparently they're not a source for the Proto-Slavs either, which leaves us without a decent Proto-Slavic-like sample so far.
@Samuel
R0 was common in all Paleo MEs. But Natufians carried R0a while IranN-Anatolia carried HV/H. HV/H & R0a split 30,000 years ago. They have a connection 30,000 years ago but nothing more recent.
I don't understand how your reasoning undermines the existence of Basal Eurasian. To use the example quoted above, it is completely in line with the idea that Basal met with something Villabruna-like to form something like Dzudzuana over 30,000 years ago.
@sam @PF PCA shows a clear cline between Natufians on one end and Dzudzuana/Anatolia_Paleolithic on the other. Whether it stems from that process PF just described, or from an additional Levant/Natufian ancestry into Anatolia around the time that the latter started spreading in all directions, and as part of the Neolithic Fertile Crescent Pottery B Semitic expansion touching some parts of Anatolia, or maybe even a 6,000 years ago migration from Anatolia into the Levant (Peqi’in, for instance). However, it’s clear that Anatolians and Levant were close but distinct populations at the time of the Bronze Age. Levant_N was approximately 50% Anatolian while Anatolia_N was almost 20% Natufian (and 10% CHG/Iran_N).
Simon W. Reading My posts to fast or problems With understanding? Never mind, I honestly don't care.
On a more interesting note, I agree With you, on what you are saying about The "old prussians". Genetically they must have been more similar With lithuanian, and stayed relatively unmixed some places in The countryside until moderen times, eventhough their would have been considered German. The old prussian language died out as late as The 1700's.
I actually suspect that the 15% lithuanian I get in evert test comes from my grandmother's mother. She died when My grand other was a Child, so we don't know much about her, except that her parents seem to have come from east prussia.
@Simon_W
The Hun_Avar_Szolad samples are more likely early Slavs than Avars from the steppe.
They're quite similar to modern Poles, Ukrainians, Slovaks etc. and work well when modeling Slavs. Conversely they can be fitted well as mixes of modern Slavs in scaled G25...
"distance%=1.0684"
HUN_Avar_Szolad:Av1
Polish,79.6
Ukrainian,16.8
Slovakian,3.6
@Matt
David's likely right regarding Finnic populations, where Saamis are the primary eastern substrate, but Mordovians looked like a good candidate for having Hunnic-related ancestry (on top of Siberian Tatar).
Mordovian:
"distance%=1.3798"
Baltic_EST_IA,64.8
DEU_MA_ACD,15.8
Hun_Tian_Shan,8.2
Tatar_Siberian_Zabolotniye,7.6
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine,3.6
All of these get Levanluhta_IA instead of Hunnic and Siberian Tatar:
Estonian
"distance%=1.6205"
Baltic_EST_IA,85.4
DEU_MA_ACD,5.6
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine,5.2
FIN_Levanluhta_IA,3.8
Karelian
"distance%=1.1809"
Baltic_EST_IA,59.6
FIN_Levanluhta_IA,32
DEU_MA_ACD,5.8
UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine,2.6
Swedish
"distance%=1.9756"
DEU_MA_ACD,79.6
Baltic_EST_IA,16.6
FIN_Levanluhta_IA,3.8
@Andrzejewski @Samuel
They were distinct events -- I think at least two relevant major migrations spread Basal-related ancestry. One very old one that I described, to form a Dzudzuana-like population, and of course another that added some Levant-related ancestry to Anatolia_HG to form Anatolia_N.
Btw, it's pretty cool that the G25 produces nearly the same exact model for Dzudzuana (using Anatolia_HG as a proxy) as in the Dzudzuana preprint (72.5 Villabruna / 27.5 Basal).
[1] "distance%=38.1651"
Anatolia_Pinarbasi_HG
ITA_Villabruna,74
ETH_4500BP,26
My previous snarky remark to Simon is kind of hilarious now, considering what a mess my phone made of it.
@Pf,
"I don't understand how your reasoning undermines the existence of Basal Eurasian. To use the example quoted above, it is completely in line with the idea that Basal met with something Villabruna-like to form something like Dzudzuana over 30,000 years ago."
In Basal Eurasian models, Paleo Middle East are modeled as 60-80% derived from pops related to Paleo Europeans. But, mtDNA suggests the majority of their ancestry is from pops not related to Paleo Europeans (pops who didn't carry mtDNA U). Therefore, I think Basal Eurasians represents other things which were not as Basal as we think.
@Andre,
"Whether it stems from that process PF just described, or from an additional Levant/Natufian ancestry into Anatolia around the time that the latter started spreading in all directions"
That makes sense.
It seems worth looking at mtdna in connection with Basal Eurasian and a new look at things is always good, but I am skeptical it will tell us much about the existence of Basal Eurasian.
Either the Near Eastern populations have ancestry from a population that split before "West Eurasian" and "East Eurasian", and that's Basal Eurasian, or they don't.
The mtdna doesn't seem to sort it out. It's true the ME has many distinctive clades downstream from N and R, but that suggests population structure within "West Eurasian" after the East Eurasia+West Eurasia M+N split*, it doesn't seem to provide an alternative to Basal Eurasian.
Basal Eurasian doesn't seem to be associated to any still remaining Basal Eurasian mtdna split in the Near East, this is true. Or anything discovered through the mtdna record in the Near East (which is limited and mainly Holocene). But there's no reason it would necessarily have to be.
*which are not totally to be conflated, as various GoyetQ116-1 related UP European have M see Fig 1 - http://www.roceeh.net/fileadmin/download/Publications/Posth_et_al_2016_Current_Biology26.pdf. GoyetQ116 is just the only one who made it through to autosomal dna in Fu's paper.
@Shaikorth
Thanks for the hint! I can use that…
@Bastian
So, you're probably 1/8 East Prussian, that's fine. The original Prussians aka the Old Prussians or "Prussen" in German were definitely Baltic and not at all Germans. They fought bravely against the Teutonic Order for their independence. In the current Global 25 sheet the Baltic_LTU_Late_Antiquity_low_res:DA171 works very well to represent my old Prussian ancestry. But over time they were culturally assimilated and mixed easily with the Germans, as soon as language and culture no longer made a difference between them. Hence the new German tribe called "Preussen" came into existence. They were simply Prussian-admixed Germans. But later on the name Preussen was extended to the merged state of Brandenburg-Preussen, which grew into a vast empire that extended from the Rhine to the Russian border. That's why for Austrians and Bavarians basically all Germans North of them are "Preussen". Can be confusing to non-Germans.
As for the Goths, it's quite clear that they neither came from Germany, the Chernyakhiv culture goes back to the Wielbark culture of Poland, nor were they ancestral to the Germans, except for some possible slight local admixture, and their language was distinct. And you wouldn't call the Vikings "Germans" either, would you. The comparison I made with Dutch is a bit unhandy, because I should rather compare it to Germanic languages of a similar age. As naturally the older the languages, the closer to the shared proto-language they are.
But, @Arza
That Gothic bible translation by Wulfila is the oldest known Germanic text, it dates to about 350 AD. In addition there are some notes about Crimean Gothic, written down by Busbecq around 1560. But the consensus based on this knowledge is, that Germanic is divided into three groups: Western or Southwestern Germanic, Eastern Germanic and Northern Germanic.
Modern Germans are just carolingian servants from near the rhine ; who are P312+ heavy
So they’re not real Germani
@Andrzejewski
Telling apart Germanic and non-Germanic R1a should be pretty easy: L664 and Z284 are Germanic and Corded Ware derived. M458 and Z280 mostly Slavic and Baltic, I'd guess. Mine (from Switzerland) is Germanic, a paragroup of Z284-Z287-YP402.
@Drago
Obviously towards the west and south the Celtic admixture increases, but I'd bet, for a large part of modern Germans DEU_MA still provides the much larger part of ancestry. These were no pure Proto-Germanics either, but they were highly typical for the continental, West Germanic tribes.
@ Simon
My comment was slightly tongue in cheek
But it’s actually rather accurate ; and your comment misses an important point
Ancient Germania once stretched all the way to western Ukraine
From there to the Elbe-Saale was virtually depopulated by 5ooAD
Those Germani which survived were dealt pretty harshly by Charlemagne . Eg the leading Saxon’s were decapitated and the rest enslaved
So modern “Saxons “ have little to do with ancient Saxon’s; but a construct of the Middle Age stem duchy
The demographic growth of modern Germans came from the west - the rhine area - during the colonisation and due to the larger demographic growth of western Germany
This is why P312 is over represented in Germany ; and not in real ancient Germans .
All, interesting responses on basal Eurasian. Another thing which I think others have pointed out is maybe mtdna m1/ydna E1b derive from a very basal maybe African poo who didn't contribute to all MEs but only to Natufian & Ibermaussen. This would add more complexity to exactly what Basal Eurasian is.
Cucuteni Tripolye were R0 and HV and I believe also N1
@Drago:
The "Germani" tribe from Tacitus "Germania" is even proven to be Celtic and not Germanic.
Tacitus says, the Gauls call all thew people east of the Rhine "Germans" because there once was a tribe that called itself "Germani" that migrated from Germany to Belgium.
As far as we know today, the Germani, the name giver of the Germanic people, had themselfs NOT beeing a Germanic people at all but had been continental Celtic. LOL
The anglophone world has another term, that is identical to "Germanic" but avoiding the name "Germans": Teutonic. But that term has the same funny fact: Meanwhile the idea itensifies that the "Teutons" had not been a Germanic people but extraordinary northern living (Denmark) Celts. ROFL
20 years ago, leftist historians and Archeologists even claimed, that "Germanic people" have never existed for real, but are an imaginary enemy that Ceasar invented to keep an army ready.
I recall to have read an interview with someone who claimed that. He said, there are 7 )I dont know wich ones he means) archeologigal cultures that we only agree to be the same people, because the Romans said so, but they are so extremely different, that no archeologican would ever have the idea to do so if there wouldnt be a Roman text about them. Lumping all these cultures under one umbrella term would be totaly irrational. But well, the Romans said they are one people, ok, we continue to lump them together.
With the advent of DNA testing of ancient cultures, I was under the impression, that a biological relationship was proven meanwhile.
Additional what fits the name stealing terminology:
Tacitus claims in the "Germania", that there are some tribes, that are undoubtfull Celts, that claim to be Germans because they believe that the Germans have a reputation of beeing horrific enemies and that nobody would dare tp attack them, if they can make anyone believe that they are such dangerous Germans.
So there ARE some people who adopted the name Germans, even they arent.
Regarding the name "Tian Shan Huns" – are they called this because they cluster with one or more of the various groups known historically as "Huns", because of their material culture, or some other reason?
@Grant
See here...
The Uch-Kurbu monument of the second stage of the Great Migration
Palacista and Bastian Barx
If you would of enough smart to stop in time, not to show to the world how manipulative and lower can be a nation looking for some antiquity and greatness.
For the development of the "Great german Idea" in the 17th-18th centuries, the "German" origin of the Goths and "Gothicism" was of particular importance.
If you speak about “Codex Argenteus”, it is proven to be a conscious late 17th-century counterfeit coincidental with the invention of new silver (the silver nitrate) by Johan Glauber and the Habsburgs' decision to acquire the missing "historical" evidence of the early Christianity of their people.
The counterfeiter has created his "alphabet" in langobardian manuscripts written in Greek and Latin letters. Both the tongue and the alphabet have nothing to do with the Goths one handed over by Ethicus Istrus, St. Jerome and Hraban Maurus (they even have never called it Gothic, but Getae.
"... almost everything Gothic, which has gained a clearer outline, originated in the territory of present-day Bulgaria."
"If the history of the Thracian Goths and that of the Goths in Thrace is subtracted from the Goths' common history, there will be nothing left, the result will be zero."
Prof. Dr. Herwig Wolfram, University of Vienna
…and some clergymen claiming the same, and as we know in ancient times knowledge was a privilege for a few…
"Caeperuntque se litrique populi valde inter se diligere, id est Gothi qui et Sclavi, et Vulgari, et maxime, quod ambo populi gentiles essent, et una lingua esset omnibus", Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea
"Nuncius autem, qui infidelis erat, hortatu ducis baptismum suscepit. Erant enim Sclavi adhuc gentiles quia a Gothis originem traxerant", "Andreas Dandolo/1306-1354/ und seine Geschichtswerke", H.Simonsfeld, s. 156, Munchen, 1876
Tomma Archdiocon- "Gothi a pluribus dicebantur, et nichilominus Sclaui...In tera uero Getharum (in some 14th century manuscripts. and Gothorum), que nunc Seruia sea Rasia nuncupatur, prope stagnum quoddam (Lake Skadar) ciuitatern fecit construi (Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus Augustus), quam ex suo nomine Diocliam appelavi.", Thomas archidiaconus, ed. Racki II, 26"
The "Seven Scythian Tribes" from Pannonia to the Black Sea, spoken by Herodotus, St. Jerome, called "seven Getas or Gothic tribes," "because the scientists called the Getas, Goths."
„Et certe Gothos omnes retro erudii, magis Getas ... appellare ... Hae itaque septem gentes... aquiliones partem habitant.“, St. Hieronimus
They are later called "Slavic".
In his Gothic history, "On the Origin and the Behavior of the Getae," Jordan repeatedly emphasized that the present Gothos were once the Getas.
There is continuity in old documents claiming Getas are Goths, but not even one old document mention your theories about german goths.
Far out. Honestly I can't Even care, just smile.
On the subject of Germanic speakers, this fresh paper shall needs a Eurogenes post:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/703405v1 - "Population genomics of the Viking world"
The Viking maritime expansion from Scandinavia (Denmark, Norway, and Sweden) marks one of the swiftest and most far-flung cultural transformations in global history. During this time (c. 750 to 1050 CE), the Vikings reached most of western Eurasia, Greenland, and North America, and left a cultural legacy that persists till today. To understand the genetic structure and influence of the Viking expansion, we sequenced the genomes of 442 ancient humans from across Europe and Greenland ranging from the Bronze Age (c. 2400 BC) to the early Modern period (c. 1600 CE), with particular emphasis on the Viking Age. We find that the period preceding the Viking Age was accompanied by foreign gene flow into Scandinavia from the south and east: spreading from Denmark and eastern Sweden to the rest of Scandinavia. Despite the close linguistic similarities of modern Scandinavian languages, we observe genetic structure within Scandinavia, suggesting that regional population differences were already present 1,000 years ago. We find evidence for a majority of Danish Viking presence in England, Swedish Viking presence in the Baltic, and Norwegian Viking presence in Ireland, Iceland, and Greenland. Additionally, we see substantial foreign European ancestry entering Scandinavia during the Viking Age. We also find that several of the members of the only archaeologically well-attested Viking expedition were close family members. By comparing Viking Scandinavian genomes with present-day Scandinavian genomes, we find that pigmentation-associated loci have undergone strong population differentiation during the last millennia. Finally, we are able to trace the allele frequency dynamics of positively selected loci with unprecedented detail, including the lactase persistence allele and various alleles associated with the immune response. We conclude that the Viking diaspora was characterized by substantial foreign engagement: distinct Viking populations influenced the genomic makeup of different regions of Europe, while Scandinavia also experienced increased contact with the rest of the continent.
Just from the abstract alone, foreign southern and eastern influx into Scandinavia before the Viking Age, and strong change in pigmentation locii.
(Wonder what that guy who was proposing re-branding "Germanic languages" as "Scandinavian languages" would think of that...)
Yet to read and see what all this means, and if the abstract has rather upsold things.
I have a question to a very recent paper on the haplogroup DE being of an African instead of an Asian origin.
"A 2019 study by Haber et al. supports an African origin for haplogroup DE (based in part on the proposed discovery of haplogroup D0 found in three Nigerians, according to the authors a branch of the DE lineage near the DE split but on the D branch, as well as on y-dna phylogeny, hapogroup divergence dates, and evidence for ancestral Eurasians outside Africa). The authors consider the possibility that D0 and E are part of a back-migration from Asia about 71 kya for D0 and about 59 kya for E, but conclude that an African origin for haplogroups DE, D0, and E is more supported by their study. They explain: "Considering both the Y-chromosomal phylogenetic structure incorporating the D0 lineage, and published evidence for modern humans outside Africa, the most favored model involves an origin of the DE lineage within Africa with D0 and E remaining there, and the migration out of the three lineages (C, D and FT) that now form the vast majority of non-African Y chromosomes." The authors find divergence times for DE, E, and D0, likely within a period of about 76,000-71,000 years ago, and a likely date for the exit of the ancestors of modern Eurasians out of Africa (and ensuing Neanderthal admixture) later around 49,900-59,400 years ago, which, they argue, also supports an African origin for those haplogroups."
There is another info concerning the haplogroup DE/D0.
Recently ftdna (2019) found other D0 samples in Western Asia: one found in a Syrian (the most basal sample of D0 found to date), and two samples of D0 in Saudi Arabians. According to Runfeldt and Sager, D0 is a divergent branch of D and should not be considered as more deeply rooted than D itself. According to their schematics, D0 can be grouped into an Asian cluster (West Asia) and African cluster (Nigeria). Two deeply-rooted D0 branches were confirmed: D-FT75 found in West Asia and D-FT76 found in West Asia and West Africa. The research team says they will continue to analyze additional samples."
Why do some say that the African origin of E or DE is being confirmed with the newest study from Haber or settled while others insist that the origin of both haplogroups is still uncertain? What is the reason for the different opinions? Is the new paper of Haber a good one with strong evidence for the African origin of DE or not? Can anyone explain it to me?
@ Davidski
Thanks.
@ Davidski
Stolarek et al. made a claim that mtDNA pools of Kowalewko and IA Jutland are connected. Then they concluded that this was due to movement of people from Jutland to Greater Poland.
Yet in Margaryan et al. we can read that:
Our findings also show that Vikings are not simply a direct continuation of the Scandinavian Iron Age groups. Rather than simple continuity, we observe foreign gene flow from the south and east into Scandinavia, starting in the Iron Age, and continuing throughout the duration of the Viking period from an increasing number of sources. Our findings also contradict the myth of the Vikings as peoples of pure local Scandinavian ancestry. In fact, we found many Viking Age individuals with high levels of foreign ancestry, both within and outside Scandinavia, suggesting ongoing gene flow with different peoples across Europe. Indeed, it appears that some foreign peoples contributed more genetic ancestry to Scandinavia during this period than the Vikings contributed to them which could partially be due to smaller effective population size of the VA Scandinavians as opposed to their continental and British neighbors.
What's your take on this?
^^^
Population genomics of the Viking world
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/703405v1
@arza, if you're interested in the Viking Age and Medieval samples from Poland, Russia, Ukraine and Gotland from this set, I'd think it might be worth looking at the Extended Data Fig. 3. Quite a few samples in the ancient Viking Age sets who are strongly asymmetric outliers on the direct D(YRI,ancient Y; Poland,Denmark) axis*.
*which seems largely at first glance to be not driven by ancient components, e.g. D(YRI, Medieval_Italy_Foggia; Poland,Denmark) is pretty close to 0. Although there are differences in coalescences for the mesolithic and MN groups.
@Matt, Arza
Fig. S12.6 fineStructure modeling shows the Eastern European sample composition very well.
Russian samples from Kurevanikha-2 are basically Slavs (proxied with Poles), Staraya Ladoga is Scandinavian+Finnic, Western Russian (Gnezdovo) sample mainly Slavic but with some Southern European-like ancestry proxied with Italian and surprisingly minor Danish instead of Swedish/Norwegian.
The Ukrainian samples either Slavs (Western Ukraine) or, in Chernihiv, Slavic+Scandinavian+Finnic. Estonian Vikings primarily Swedish. Polish sample looks Slavic.
Somewhat unexpected comments from this paper:
Main Text: We find that within Scandinavia, present-day populations are still structured according to the ancient Viking population groups. The component that we associated as Norwegian-like is present at 45-65% in present-day Norway. Similarly, the ancient Swedish-like ancestry is present at 15-30% within Sweden. Of the four Swedish clusters, one is more related to the ancient Finnish than the Swedish like ancestry, and a second is more related to Danes and Norwegians. Danish-like ancestry is now high across the whole region
Outside of Scandinavia, the genetic legacy of the Vikings is consistent, though limited. A small component is present in Poland (up to 5%) and the south of Europe. Within the British Isles, it is difficult to assess how much of the Danish-like ancestry is due to pre-existing Anglo-Saxon ancestry; however, the Norwegian-like ancestry is consistently around 4%. The Danish-like contribution is likely to be similar in magnitude and is certainly not larger than 16% as found in Scotland and Ireland.
The lack of strong variation in ancestry from Scandinavia makes sense if the Vikings did not maintain a diaspora identity over time but instead integrated into the respective societies in which they settled.
The genetic impacts are stronger in the other direction. The ‘British-like’ populations of Orkney became ‘Scandinavian’ culturally, whilst other British populations found themselves in Iceland and Norway, and beyond. Present-day Norwegians vary between 12 and 25% in their ‘British-like’ ancestry, whilst it is still (a more uniform) 10% in Sweden. Separating the VA signals from more recent population movements is difficult, but these numbers are consistent with our VA estimates.
In fact, we found many Viking Age individuals with high levels of foreign ancestry, both within and outside Scandinavia, suggesting ongoing gene flow with different peoples across Europe. Indeed, it appears that some foreign peoples contributed more genetic ancestry to Scandinavia during this period than the Vikings contributed to them which could partially be due to smaller effective population size of the VA Scandinavians as opposed to their continental and British neighbors
Supplement: "The within-Scandinavia results make it clear that the group called “Sweden” represents a historical population that once existed in Sweden, replaced by more southern population/s containing more continental European ancestry. Similarly, Norwegian ancestry has declined but is still higher in the North-West of Scandinavia (i.e. Norway). Italian and Danish ancestry both increase over time and are higher in the south of Scandinavia, consistent with a migration flow.
Correct or not, I don't know - the methods are pretty sophisticated to try and measure these relatively subtle population distinctions.
(Danskjävlar? ;) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYHn8H9O5Qk)
Let me put my 5 cents in. Goths themselves were not a homogeneous phenomenon anthropologically speaking. The most stereotypical Gothic type, present on the territory of Poland and Western Ukraine, was already quite different from the Medieval Germanic type which in Medieval times spanned huge distances from Scandibavia to Northern Italy. The specific recognizable Gothic type pattern includes a thin elongated face with a tall forehead and traces back its origins to the Central European Celtic substratum. The type is known as Celtic Nordid in some older anthropological classifications. If we proceed to the steppes north of the Black Sea, the Ukrainian archeologist Tetiaba Rudych defined 3 common Gothic types on that territory. One of them being the Gothic proper type described above and two others tracing their origins to: 1)Late Hellenic Scythians (a mixture between local Scythian, Thracian and Greek ekements.) and 2)Classical Scythians that show continuity with the Scythian series from 5-7c. BC. It should also be noted that 5,5% of male crania and 14% of female crania from that territory also displayed similarities with a Sarmatian anthropological type that showed a substantial Asian admixture.
Another interesting feature described by T. Rudych in her doctoral thesis was the presence of the type characteristic of the Baltic tribes on the territory of Lithuania in 2-5AD. This type was present only in the Middle Dnieper zone of Chernyakhiv culture (Cgernyakhiv Legedzine belongs to that area). The other two types present in that zone were Classical Gothic type I described in the comment section above and again the Scythian type.
@Volodymyr Lutsyk
Goths weren't related to Celts, so saying that they kind of resembled Celts in terms of their craniometric traits isn't very informative, because no one really knows what that means.
Also, keep in mind that there's a rule against discussing outdated typology here.
Personally, I was really disappointed that all the studied up-to-date Gothic samples come from the periphery, the Legedzino as well. It is the north-eastern periphery of Chernyakhiv culture. The core Gothic territory was originally the Wielbark culture of Northern Poland from where historical Goths moved south and in the process mixed with everyone. Why wouldn't the geneticists start there? Such a logical thing to do.
By the way, the combination of morphological characteristics typical for Goths did not contribute to the formation of a general homogenous Germanic type in Medieval Europe: "A dolichocephalic with a long and high skull, a small face morphopype, which dominates the male population of the Chernyakhov culture of Western Ukraine (and Poland), was widely represented in
Western and Central Europe, starting from the Bronze Age. It was registered on the burial grounds of the LBK culture of the Czech Republic, South-West and East Germany, Alsace. The same morphological forms were present at the tombs of Corded ware ceramics cultures of Bohemia, Western Poland, Central Germany, Saxo-Thuringia (Schwidetzky, Rosing 1990). It should be noted that some researchers see the origins of Celtic ethnogenesis in cultures of Corded Ware ceramics in Western and Central Europe (Philip 1956: 17). This morphological type is represented in the series of the La Tene culture of Austria, the Czech Republic and Hungary, which is associated with the Celts (Schwidetzky 1972). It retreats from the anthropological map of Europe after the Great Migration era.
However, it is important to emphasize that this morphotype did not become the basis for either the Germans or the Slavs. The bulk of the German-speaking population of Europe developed on a DIFFERENT anthropological basis and turned out (at the level of average groups) to be fairly uniform over large areas. This group consisted of: populations of Scandinavia, Saxony, a series of graves of the Franks, Alamans, Burgundians, Bavarians, LOMBARDS OF HUNGARY AND ITALY. All of them are characterized by long, but low crania and medium-wide faces" (Рудич Т. "Население черняховской культуры Дунайско-Днестровского междуречья по материалам антропологии").
I would consider the fact that two third of the eastern Germanic samples do not contain Hunnic or other Asian ancestry as a sign you can't use it as a "tracer die" as it clearly wasn't a population wide ancestry. Hence you can't use it to prove or disprove whether Eastern Germanics contributed significantly or not to current day populations.
I think the Hunnic contributions were likely due to political marriages as well as some Huns being loyal to Germanic kings. The former would lead to the idea that mostly Gothic nobility might be subject to this admixture.
The remarkable thing here is the existence of such admixture in 550 among Visgoths who escaped Hunnic rule.
@epoch
The remarkable thing here is the existence of such admixture in 550 among Visgoths who escaped Hunnic rule.
This is exactly why the Asian ancestry can be used as an East Germanic tracer dye to some extent.
@David
"This is exactly why the Asian ancestry can be used as an East Germanic tracer dye to some extent."
Do all Pla de l'Horta samples have this admixture?
I don't know, but I think the important point is that overall they do still clearly show Asian ancestry even though they probably also have a lot of Western European ancestry. This implies that they originally came from a gene pool with a lot more Asian ancestry.
@David
That paper where the Chernyakov samples were published had them show some Altain ancestry with qpAdm. However, with chromopainter it didn't show anything at all (fig 3), and the PCA (fig 2) also showed no Asian ancestry.
I'm a bit wary to this Hunnic ancestry as the Huns appear only late to the show.
Chromopainter is a dodgy way to estimate ancestry proportions much of the time.
@David
Yes I know. But from what I get a PCA is not so dodgy and the Chernyakov samples sit at exactly the same spot as modern Europeans. Not a hint of Asian admixture.
Well the PCA that I ran on the data do show an eastern shift by the Chernyakov samples compared to most Northern Europeans (those without significant Uralic ancestry). You can have a look at this using Global25 data.
Post a Comment