When we explored models of population history that are compatible with the observations above using admixture graphs [28], we found that the IUP Bacho Kiro Cave individuals were related to populations that contributed ancestry to the Tianyuan individual in China as well as, to a lesser extent, to the GoyetQ116-1 and Ust’Ishim individuals (all |Z| < 3; Fig. 2d, Supplementary Information 6). This resolves the previously unclear relationship between the GoyetQ116-1 and Tianyuan individuals [13] without the need for gene flow between these two geographically distant individuals. ... In conclusion, the Bacho Kiro Cave genomes show that several distinct modern human populations existed during the early Upper Palaeolithic in Eurasia. Some of these populations, represented by the Oase1 and Ust’Ishim individuals, show no detectable affinities to later populations, whereas groups related to the IUP Bacho Kiro Cave individuals contributed to later populations with Asian ancestry as well as some western Eurasian humans such as the GoyetQ116-1 individual in Belgium. This is consistent with the fact that IUP archaeological assemblages are found from central and eastern Europe to present-day Mongolia [5,15,16] (Fig. 1), and a putative IUP dispersal that reached from eastern Europe to East Asia. Eventually populations related to the IUP Bacho Kiro Cave individuals disappeared in western Eurasia without leaving a detectable genetic contribution to later populations, as indicated by the fact that later individuals, including BK1653 at Bacho Kiro Cave, were closer to present-day European populations than to present-day Asian populations [29,30].Hajdinjak, M., Mafessoni, F., Skov, L. et al. Initial Upper Palaeolithic humans in Europe had recent Neanderthal ancestry. Nature 592, 253–257 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03335-3 See also... Ust'-Ishim belongs to K-M526
Wednesday, April 7, 2021
The Bacho Kiro surprise (Hajdinjak et al. 2021)
Over at Nature at this LINK. The paper focuses on Neanderthal ancestry in Initial Upper Paleolithic (IUP) humans from what is now Bulgaria. But, to me, much more interesting is the claim by its authors that present-day East Asians harbor ancient European, or, at least, European-related ancestry. From the paper, emphasis is mine:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
266 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 266 of 266@Archi
I said plausible.
@Matt
There's not a huge difference in the southern ancestry between these East Slavic-like ancient individuals and modern Slavs living north of the Carpathian Basin.
Apart from that, obviously, there are the effects of isolation-by-distance that need to be factored in when looking at the formation of modern populations in Eastern and East Central Europe.
@ambron
Your theory is dependent on these East Slavic-like samples being derived from the local, indigenous populations in their respective regions, like in Germany and Bohemia.
There is enough of a difference for the extremely north samples (POH28, POH13) for it to require strange assumptions, if they are taken to be representative of proto-slavs. If you take the overall composite of POH (with its northern samples, southern samples, central samples) its more similar of course.
Anyway, with cemeteries in the early Middle Ages, we will need to see full burial contexts to understand this; lots of these cemeteries report enrichment for far-flung ancestries, seen in Langobards who weren't native to Pannonia, Hun elites whose cemetaries weren't locally representative, Baltic Medieval town cemetaries with high numbers of Germanic townsmen, one out of one samples from Cedynia in Middle Ages Poland have a generally Frankish foreign sort of genotype, etc. (Elite / unusual cemetary sampling is a problem throughout adna attempts to answer questions about what sort of people were where at any given time). Both of these sites may not be very representative of the people who were generally about in Moravia in small villages and so on.
@Arza
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jsryk_XzkZBj0phu2veD1IyMv9ek6ie-/view?usp=sharing
@Matt
No this is different, because we're not discussing here unusual outliers from very different populations, but rather the consistent presence at early Slavic or Slavic-related sites of people who obviously came from the same type of a population.
Moreover, this population was obviously closely related to present-day East Slavs, and especially Belorussians and northern Ukrainians, who just happen to live more or less in the region that is commonly referred to as the Proto-Slavic homeland.
@Davidski, Arza
Don't they have any normal name numbers? POH..., LIB...
https://i.ibb.co/JxDRNN3/Migration-PCA.png
My designations are
Moravian_Antiquity_1:LIB11,0.1161,0.142174,0.05242,0.041667,0.046162,0.010877,0.011045,0.001154,0,-0.020046,0.002111,0.001948,0.00773,0.016652,-0.0057,-0.003978,-0.004303,-0.012162,-0.003771,-0.002751,0.001622,-0.00779,0.013434,-0.002048,-0.001557
Moravian_Antiquity_2:LIB2,0.12862,0.145221,0.071653,0.063308,0.045855,0.025937,0.005875,0.005307,-0.001023,-0.005649,-0.009743,0.002548,-0.00669,-0.00812,0.013165,0,-0.001043,-0.003674,-0.008673,0.016133,0.006863,0.006925,-0.000123,0.01687,-0.010658
Moravian_Antiquity_3:LIB3,0.111547,0.147252,0.01697,-0.012274,0.042469,-0.010319,0.00517,-0.006231,0.011453,0.02934,-0.012829,0.004346,-0.014866,0.000413,0.000543,-0.013657,-0.005215,0.002534,-0.010559,-0.013381,-0.001872,-0.008285,-0.001849,0.00976,-0.001916
Moravian_EMA:POH11,0.12862,0.145221,0.067882,0.051034,0.031083,0.014223,0.0094,0.006,-0.010226,-0.006196,-0.009581,0.003297,0.009812,0.024222,-0.013301,0,0.010822,-0.005194,0.007919,0.003377,-0.014225,-0.002473,0.011955,0.004458,-0.006466
Moravian_EMA:POH36,0.12862,0.132019,0.072407,0.05491,0.055395,0.01004,0.00376,0.006692,0.005727,-0.02278,0.000812,-0.025777,0.005946,0.015138,-0.011672,0.00358,0.014864,-0.006334,0.007919,-0.001876,-0.003619,-0.000247,0.002835,0.000964,0.005389
Moravian_EMA:POH40,0.133173,0.137096,0.061094,0.056525,0.046778,0.02259,0.016216,0.004615,-0.000409,-0.023144,-0.014615,-0.002248,0.011596,0.013487,0.009229,0.009679,0.015255,0.002027,0.000126,0.007379,0.001497,-0.00272,0.003328,-0.009037,-0.011376
Moravian_EMA:POH41,0.129758,0.128972,0.074293,0.062016,0.033852,0.01757,0.014101,0.013153,0.000205,-0.01877,-0.00682,0.005545,0.013528,0.026286,-0.011129,0.012596,0.00013,-0.001014,0.004274,0.005503,0.001747,-0.001731,0.00912,-0.005543,0.014609
Moravian_EMA_1:POH3,0.127482,0.123895,0.053551,0.022933,0.038776,0.002231,0.005875,0.013615,0.002045,-0.002916,0.006496,-0.005995,0.010852,0.011285,-0.015608,-0.011535,0.013821,-0.004434,-0.013827,0.013256,-0.003244,0.003586,0.00912,-0.010122,0.002036
Moravian_EMA_1:POH27,0.126344,0.152329,0.037335,-0.001938,0.030159,-0.001116,0.004935,-0.002769,-0.008795,0.003462,0.00065,0.011989,0.002379,0.006881,-0.009093,-0.002121,0.024512,-0.000127,-0.005405,-0.006628,-0.001872,-0.011252,0.008751,0.001084,-0.002754
Moravian_EMA_2:POH13,0.127482,0.132019,0.083721,0.078489,0.050471,0.026495,0.00517,0.018922,0.004295,-0.028429,-0.004384,-0.006744,0.017988,0.043076,-0.008143,-0.011668,0.005346,0.000507,0.004022,0.012256,-0.012228,-0.008903,0.01368,-0.013496,-0.002395
Moravian_EMA_2:POH28,0.141141,0.136081,0.087492,0.081719,0.047086,0.027052,0.019976,0.023999,0.010635,-0.01385,-0.001299,-0.014537,0.027502,0.03647,-0.015065,-0.007425,-0.014473,-0.005954,-0.005531,0,-0.007237,-0.004204,0.000616,-0.00964,-0.002275
@ Davidski
Thanks. Migration:1 is POH44.
The rest has abysmal quality as they certainly don't have any Tibetan or MAR_EN admixture. And they behave very inconsistently across various dimensions in G25 and in the other PCA. In the classical WE PCA they look completely different than in G25.
These are BTW "deep sequencing" BAMs from Kowalewko.
Not so deep after all.
@Rob
The Sarmatians might not have much of actual ancestry from the Caucasus and even that is not universal among different subgroups. (Based on other runs pretty much just the Caucasus and Caspian Sarmatians have a significant such ancestry.) What is universal among all Sarmatian populations (and pretty even among the subgroups too) is South-Central Asian ancestry.
So I'd say than the genetic case for the Caucasus region formation of the Sarmatians is not strong.
Note this does not mean that the Sarmatians formed in the BMAC region. The is kind of ancestry was all over the Central Asian steppe by the Bronze Age. Sarmatians have elevated "BMAC-related" ancestry and elevated East Asian ancestry compared to Srubnaya and Sintashta and both admixture could very well came from the same source.
I made some overcomplicated models. The point is not to make a literal direct ancestry composition for Sarmatians, but to demonstrate that:
When other options for similar ancestry presented, the actual Caucasus ancestry is low (except in the vicinity of the Caucasus).
Populations that could source this kind of admixture (and additionally the East Asian and WSHG one too) existed all over the wider region. But we do not have a good single proxy for them.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oGcuVudOHIURtooyYsaHzfVP_COrIwcc/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N7P6Cj5CKb2s3z5EJ9JZX39dHeAckIxI/view?usp=sharing
So I am not sure Sarmatians were "born" around the Caucasus. I am not sure about this of course, after all nMontes just balances coordinates and can be misleading.
Also I admit I know nothing about the Iron Age archeology of the region and can be the tool to make a choice between two similar genetic models.
Anybody has any idea where Kostenki 14 like European ancestry originated? Apparently not is SE-Europe. Let's assume Zlaty Kun is a Bohunician, so that culture appears not the involved either.
Second wave from the Middle-East?
@ambron
"and at the same time live in the area of compact old Slavic toponymy, located closest to Moravia, Hungary or Polabia,"
How old? I do not think they are older than the commonly assumed time of Slavic expansion. There is no sign of that. You might say that "compact" means old presence, but some areas around there went through quick population replacements at the time and that can explain smaller areas without pre-Slavic toponymic substrate.
Also the migration and admixture assumptions behind this theory seem to be rather convoluted.
@Arza
Do you know the SampleID of the new Global25 samples?
Migration Antiquity having Scandinavian ancestry could be Langobards, Rugians, Herules, they all inhabited there in the 5th-6th centuries.
Has any of “Baltic” like samples yielded N1c so far?
What are the odds they would? ;-)
A user on anthro mentioned one those “Baltic” POHs got Z92 of specific “Slavic” variety, most closely related to Czech or Slovak -ish clades. So, we should now submit Z92 to Balts.
Some point after similar faith shall await CTS and L1029. In the end we may accidentally find that all major Slavic male lines originate from assimilated Balts probably kidnapped near Lithuania :-)
Dawid, we are talking here about the linguistic homeland, and therefore about the Slavic innovation center. Such a center could not be located in an area that had not been reached by the Slavic isoglosses before the migration period, even if today's population of such an area is genetically similar to the early Slavs.
Dawid, now I will ask a question... If not the historically well confirmed Slavization of the Balts, what other process created the East Slavic genome, which lies centrally between the Balts and the Poles?
Between Eastern Celts, Dacians, Scythians and Baltoslavs is something like a dark spot and this refers to the former centre of Urnfield and especially the Lusatian culture. How much do we know about it and its genetic profile or descendants? I think its quite likely that a cline from Baltic -> Proto-Slavic -> Lusatian -> Daco-Thracian -> Greek existed.
So a gene flow from and to the Proto-Slavs, as well as older relationships between these people, especially in the pre-Slavic area of Poland-Czech R.-Slovakia are to be expected.
HI Arza do you link this study
POH27 from my branch 😂😂😂😂
@ambron @Davidski
How does this sound?
The Lithuanian/East Slavic-like samples are probably Kiev culture->Prague culture people. Making these cultures proto-slavic and the samples themselves early slavs.
LIB11 (the part of it that looks Slavic and German) might be typical for Przeworsk type people that where in the area/to the north around that time. A mix of Germans and Slavs (and probably others too). IIRC towards the end of the Przeworsk culture, it's people started moving south...
Kiev culture was heavily influenced by Zarubintsy culture. Both Przeworsk and Zarubintsy cultures derive from Pomeranian culture.
Making Pomeranian culture the shared source between these two populations/explains why LIB11 looks slavic. And making PC pre-proto-Slavic (or something). Certain yDNA typically associated with the Slavs may have spread into central as early as this time, explaining the occasional finds of them in aDNA record.
@ Epoch
''Second wave from the Middle-East?''
That is my thinking, as I said earlier. Coincident with spread AMHs into Zagros, central Asia, the Caucasus and second wave into Europe & Siberia.
OT Khvalynsk and Sredny Stog were similar in their ethnic composition and their ethnogenesis, except for the former’s WSHG (Kelteminer, Botai or Steppe Maykop) minor outlier contribution and the latter’s strong EEF admixture. Yamnaya and CWC clearly descended from Sredny Stog. I just can’t wrap my head around how come Yamnaya was exclusively R1b while CWC was R1a1, and how come SGC within Corded horizon was pretty-eminently R1b like Yamnaya.
FEVH, when the locals stopped burning due to the change of the funeral rite, their paternal lineages appeared massively in their medieval burials.
It appears that some Polish Goths had local roots in one of their parents or grandparents:
KKO10
East Central Euro 9.3
KKO4
East Central Euro 11.93
KKO6
East Central Euro 7.24
KKO9
East Central Euro 14.93
For comparison - an early Slav from Moravia:
POH44
East Central Euro 20.20
@ Gaetuli
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5965364/
@ Coldmountains
Unfortunately these coordinates are unusable in G25 and now I'm trying to figure it out why. Low SNP number doesn't help but I think that the reason may lay elsewhere.
For example "Migration:9" in the West Eurasian PCA lands close to Belarusians, Lithuanians and that "Scythian" with Y-DNA I1. I've also made a dedicated PCA similar to "Europe 1" with SNPs restricted to the ones present in that sample. Here it landed near Czechs, Hungarians and West Ukrainians.
So the bad news is that we rather need to wait for better sequences, and the good news is that since yesterday few people showed their real faces.
@FEVH
"Kiev culture->Prague culture people"
No. Kiev culture->Penkovka culture. The Penkovka culture is definitely not like the Prague one. This is manifested in the nature of the house-building, the composition of the decorations and in the ceramic complex.
"Kiev culture was heavily influenced by Zarubintsy culture"
Kiev culture arose on the Post-Zarubintsy antiquities. Some archaeologists considered the bearers of this culture (Kiev culture) were Balts.
@Andrzejewski:
Its simple, they all will derive most of their ancestry from the Lower Don culture and early Sredny Stog. Khvalynsk was also the same, until they moved up the Volga and mixed with the people living in their new expansion territory. Khvalynsk was simply a dead end branching event, successful for a comparatively short time at the Eastern territories outside of the steppe core territory.
Yamnaya and Corded Ware are siblings, they both can be derived from the same LDC-SSC root and separated finally only shortly before becoming independent archaeological groupings, with later gene flow not even excluded.
As they were just a subset of the LDC-SSC variation, they also just had a subset of paternal lineages, all descending from a more closely related founder group of males in a clan network.
The full variation of the LDC-SSC we don't even know, but for all we know I'm pretty sure it contained R1a, R1b and J, possibly also Q and I, potentially even others as well. In the competition of the steppe clans which emerged, for different regions and branches, different lineages became founders and dominated the repsective (sub-) populations which might become, over time, fully fledged independent people.
We have currently exactly nothing from the LDC and early SSC. But we know that SSC and Yamnaya, as long as they were unmixed with local people at its borders, were the same. Also decisive for how Corded Ware came up will be how Dereivka proper (!) will pan out. In my opinion they should be just the same as SSC-Yamnaya, but we'll see.
@ Zardos
“ Between Eastern Celts, Dacians, Scythians and Baltoslavs is something like a dark spot and this refers to the former centre of Urnfield and especially the Lusatian culture. How much do we know about it and its genetic profile or descendants? I think its quite likely that a cline from Baltic -> Proto-Slavic -> Lusatian -> Daco-Thracian -> Greek existed. ”
There is no smooth cline; but constant reformulations which truncate and abort previous clines and form new ones
The Dacian group emerged from Thracians in the south; slavs from Balts in the north. Those in between are mostly gone
I've made another PCA, with a different SNPs set and now it plots near the Swedes. Or rather between British, Slavic and Finnish clusters. It's all over the place in different PCAs.
@ D.D.
''Kiev culture arose on the Post-Zarubintsy antiquities''
This is a common perspective, but tenuous.
The Z & K cultures are quite different and separated by 200 years. The 'post-Zarubintsy' groups dispersed across different areas, so would not have maintained any cohesion or continuity into the early middle Ages
The Z. were La Tene & Pomoranian influenced groups, with low bowels on wheel, fibulae, and larger cremation fields. The Kiev culture has the constitution of a boreal Baltic culture, preceded by the Grini-Vovki horizon, which is distantly related to Dnieper-Dvina & hatched Pottery groups.
@Arza
These Wielbark samples come out rather Germanic in the Global25.
Isn't that the expected result that was suggested by uniparental markers?
@ Davidski
G25 probably had higher coverage. Although even if they are like Swedes they're admixed anyway.
Speaking of Y-DNA:
M:2 Kow_22 PCA0027 ~ 80-110/120 AD M CTS35 G2a2b2a1a1b1a1a2 https://www.yfull.com/tree/G-Z726/
M:3 Kow_24 PCA0029 ~ 10-375 AD unknown I1 or female
M:4 Kow_25 PCA0030 ~ 110/120-160 AD F
M:5 Kow_26 PCA0031 ~ 10-375 AD F
M:6 Kow_29 PCA0034 ~ 80-260 AD F
M:7 Kow_31 PCA0036 ~ 80-260 AD M FGC8303 G2a2b2a1a1b1a1a2a1b1 https://www.yfull.com/tree/G-Y3101/
M:8 Kow_35 PCA0040 ~ 80-260 AD M CTS12891 G2a2b2a1, conflicting downstream mutations https://www.yfull.com/tree/G-CTS796/
M:9 Kow_41 PCA0046 ~ 110/120-160 AD M S12223 I1a3a1a2a1a~ https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-S11991/
M:10 Kow_48 PCA0053 ~ 80-260 AD F
M:11 Kow_54 PCA0059 ~ 110/120-160 AD F
M:12 Kow_57 PCA0062 ~ 80-260 AD M PF3331 G2a2b2a1 https://www.yfull.com/tree/G-CTS796/
@Arza and all: Such a high frequency of G2 is remarkable. Do we know whether these individuals were closely related?
@ Davidski
''These Wielbark samples come out rather Germanic in the Global25.''
Which ones ?
You guys have Goth ancient DNA now!
I expected them to have lots of Tollense-like ancestry from pre-Germanic people in Central Europe.
But you guys say they are very Germanic. This is a surprise. But let's see.
According to Arza
https://i.ibb.co/BGNRv34/Migration-PCA.png
Can we model modern populations as descendants of these samples? Or is it pointless because they're not archaic enough?
I'd be curious to know how much of a genetic print the Goths made.
Good work boys. So then I’m not sure what the issue is. Seems like a significant turnover in Central Europe between 400 and 600 AD.
The Moravtsi sit in the Balto-Balkan (Slavic) cline
Kow_31 has 2 y dna matches in the Roman samples, the older one from 400-600 AD . Wow. These must have been Ostrogoths?
Arza:
"Although even if they are like Swedes they're admixed anyway".
You haven't finished what admixture you mean, but every analysis shows that it is a mainly Slavic admixture.
Swedes in northern and central parts of Sweden have Finnish and Saami admixture, and perhaps some Baltic admixture in the south and east.
There's no Slavic admixture there that I'm aware of, and the Baltic input, if real, is surely super minor.
Danes, in particular eastern Danes, have more Balto-Slavic admix than Swedes.
David, if I understood Arza correctly, he meant an admixture at Goths, not the Swedes.
It's too bad they don't have Richard the 3rd's Y Chr on Y Full. Wonder if he was part of this Germanic G2a group.
I assumed that the dark age village in Sweden with the mass burial (I forget the name) which reported several G2 a year or so back arrived with Christianity, but it seems G2 was already here a bit earlier. I wonder if these are just a relic of some TRB or earlier settled Neolithic group in northern Europe. Most of the living descendants in related branches are from southern Europe, or at least considerably further south. Who really can determine the dynamic of these ancient people. Maybe they were pushed out from another group. Most Swedes today belong to either I1/R1a/R1b, so it's unrealistic to suggest or assume the Geats or Goths were mostly G2. We've seen enough aDNA from far northern Europe to suggest otherwise.
@ AWood
'' wonder if these are just a relic of some TRB or earlier settled Neolithic group in northern Europe. ''
Relict Neolithic groups in the Roman Iron Age ? In any case, northern TRB are virtually all I2a. Could be some central European group, perhaps Italy/Alpine -> northern Europe via the Amber road.
@ Slumberry
''So I'd say than the genetic case for the Caucasus region formation of the Sarmatians is not strong.''
That's because you're using K-A.
https://ibb.co/HBv6bD0
This parallels the CHG issue, but for the Iron Age
'' both admixture could very well came from the same source''
Could do but we also know that these ancestries weren’t cosynchronous
The Goths are 16 Y Chr samples
I1-8
G2a-4
I2a2-1
R1b-1
R1a-1
E1b-1
Romulus, if these are samples from the Dubrovnik poster, some are Slavic. It's just that it is not known which.
We will stop being surprised by the strange Y-DNA finds once we remember Ringbauer's words:
"However, there is also evidence that preindustrial individual human migrations over large distances are rare, but occur at a significant rate".
https://www.genetics.org/content/205/3/1335
@Ambron The R1a and E1b1 are from Niemcza.
Heyerdahl, do you have more information on the Y-DNA markings of this research team?
Maybe Kowalewko is the Wielbark culture, but it is not a fact that the buried are Goths. The burial site itself is biritual, there are both inhumations and cremations, and according to the Jordan there were also the Gepids, and in fact anyone else.
@ambron
From what I've seen so far, most of the strange Ydna finds (with a few exceptions, as to be expected) from ancient samples so far, do make sense considering the history.
Especially post the Bronze and Iron Age, where human mobility was accelerated. That being said, I wonder sometimes if IBD papers are prone to false positives, but I can really judge so likely they are not.
Furthermore, one thing that surprises me is where did Ydna Q come from in Khvalynsk and other palces, is that evidence of WSHG ancestry?
gamerz_J said...
"Furthermore, one thing that surprises me is where did Ydna Q come from in Khvalynsk and other palces, is that evidence of WSHG ancestry?"
I have written many times before, Q came from Siberia in the Early Neolithic and it was she who first brought the Pottery Neolithic with it.
About the origins of Slavs,
The similarity between Russians & Sorbs (Slavs in E. Germany) is too high, for Slavic expansion to not have had a huge demographic impact.
With quick glances on G25 PCA, the variation between W. Russia Ukraine Poland is less than the variation which exists in Germany or France by themselves.
A Belarussian type people found in Hungary 500 AD.
And people don't think they were Slavic? What?
They come from Avar burials, Avars were in alliances with Slavs.
@gamer_J
Y-DNA Q1a2 has not only been found in Eneolithic Khvalynsk, but also in Mesolithic Latvia and Volosovo. It is quite clearly an ANE derived, EHG lineage. I could be mistaken, but I believe it was determined that one of the Afontova Gora samples belonged to Q1a, though I can’t find anything officially confirming that assignment. Either way, it has nothing to do with WSHGs like Tyumen, who have East Asian admixture. Khvalynsk doesn’t have East Asian admixture, and neither do the Q1a bearing samples from Latvia or Volosovo. Q like R and P, are ANE/ANS lineages.
@Genos Historia
"Avars were in alliances with Slavs."
According to the German wikipedia, the term Avar was only in the beginning an ethnonym, later on it became a marker of social status, for the warriors of high status, rather than an ethnic marker. That means Slavs could be Avars too.
Isn't there some G2a in the Avars aDNA?
@Simon_W, Thanks for tibit. Avars didn't believe in nepotism I see.
@Simon: That is the opinion of a very specific strand of academics, its not based on reality. Its also an interpretation going against the historical sources, which authenticity these scholars deny, and the actual course of events during and after the Avar rule. These are the same people which deny an actual Lombard or Gothic tribal migration, against the new evidence we're just talking about.
The Avar elite was staying significantly East Asian shifted and a people apart, with mixture taking place, but on a comparatively low rate, considering the circumstances. The uniparentals make the even more clear than the autosomal comparison.
Which is also one of the main reasons why after their downfall on the battlefield they quickly evaporated without having any base or root in the wider population. Independent Slavic elites were eager to take them down together with the Franks.
Basically there was an Avar tribal elite and a variety of people, among which Slavs became the dominant force, under their rule. The Avar elites tested are pretty much straightforward and distinct from the common populace.
@ Simon_W, GH
The Avar core was northeast Asian. I doubt it incorporated Slavs or Germans. Rather, non-Avars were incoporated into their system, but remained distinctive (as common knowledge).
The entry of German Wikipedia, although good, is coloured by the 'Austrian shool's'' idea of Tranditionskern. It's a bit hit & miss.
Hungarian genomes from the times of the Huns, Avars and Magyars are now available:
http://www.historycy.org/index.php?showtopic=164942&st=1170
And here:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?23649-Huns-Avars-and-Hungarian-Conquerors
How do the Neanderthals plot in G25?
With Pygmies.
There is a new Royal Society paper which makes the case that the supposed Neanderthal and Denisovan introgression into modern humans is a phantom, an artifact of higher mutation rates in SSA populations. What do you make of that? https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.201229
Post a Comment