Here's an abstract of a new study from the David Reich Lab about ancient Slavs, titled "Genetic identification of Slavs in Migration Period Europe using an IBD sharing graph". Emphasis is mine:
Popular methods of genetic analysis relying on allele frequencies such as PCA, ADMIXTURE and qpAdm are not suitable for distinguishing many populations that were important historical actors in the Migration Period Europe. For instance, differentiating Slavic, Germanic, and Celtic people is very difficult relying on these methods, but very helpful for archaeologists given a large proportion of graves with no inventory and frequent adoption of a different culture. To overcome these problems, we applied a method based on autosomal haplotypes. Imputation of missing genotypes and phasing was performed according to a protocol by Rubinacci et al. (2021), and IBD inference was done for ancient Eurasian individuals with data available at >600,000 1240K sites. IBD links for a subset of these individuals were represented as a graph, visualized with a force-directed layout algorithm, and clusters in this graph are inferred with the Leiden algorithm. One of the clusters in the IBD graph emerged that includes nearly all individuals in the dataset annotated archaeologically as “Slavic”. According to PCA a hypothesis for the origin of this population can be proposed: it was formed by admixture of a Baltic-related group with East Germanic people and Sarmatians or Scythians. The individuals belonging to the “Slavic” IBD sharing cluster form a chronological gradient on the PCA plot, with the earliest samples close to the Baltic LBA/EIA group. Later “Slavic” individuals are shifted to the right, closer to Central and Southern Europeans and probably reflecting further admixture of Slavs with local populations during the Migration Period.
Apparently this abstract is causing a bit of confusion online because of the mention of possible Sarmatian or Scythian ancestry in Slavs.
However, it's important to understand that the authors are referring to certain Slavic or even just Slavic-related individuals, usually from culturally heterogeneous frontier settlements deep in what is now Russia.
So yes, it's possible that some of these individuals carry Sarmatian, Scythian or other exotic eastern ancestry. But even if this is true, then obviously we can't extend this inference to all ancient and modern-day Slavs.
Indeed, below is a G25/Vahaduo Principal Component Analysis (PCA) that shows why modern-day Slavic speakers can't be linked genetically to Sarmatians or Scythians. To experience a more detailed version of the PCA paste the data
here into the relevant field
here.
As you can see, dear reader, most of the Slavs (Belarusians, Poles, Ukrainians and many Russians) cluster with the Irish near the western end of the plot.
Some Russians are shifted significantly east of them along the "Uralic cline" and, as a result, they cluster with various Uralic speakers such as Mordovians. That's because when Slavs migrated deep into what is now northern Russia they mixed with Uralic speakers who were there before them.
Most of the Sarmatians and Scythians form a cluster southeast of the Slavs and Irish because they carry significant levels of East Asian ancestry. This type of eastern ancestry is basically missing in modern-day Slavs (see
here).
Several of the Scythians cluster among the Slavs and Irish, but that's because they're genetic outliers, whose existence, if anything, suggests that some Scythians had significant Slavic-related and/or Irish-related ancestry.
Now, even though most of the Slavs do cluster with the Irish in the above PCA plot, I strongly disagree with the authors of the abstract when they claim that "differentiating Slavic, Germanic, and Celtic people is very difficult" with PCA. It's actually pretty damn easy and I've been doing it successfully for many years. For instance, see
here.
See also...
Wielbark Goths were overwhelmingly of Scandinavian origin
The Caucasus is a semipermeable barrier to gene flow
I suspect there's some wishful thinking among the Russian authors of this preprint that they have Scythian ancestry.
ReplyDeleteBut Russians quite obviously have Uralic ancestry, not any type of steppe nomad ancestry, because they show Siberian admixture not East Asian admixture. And this is in line with uniparental markers and historical sources.
Splitting Siberian and East Asian admixture is easy if you know how to do it.
This view is probably a vestige of theories of Slavs being 'Scythians Farmers" from the forest-steppe - a view which is increasingly difficult to sustain.
ReplyDeleteSergei made a tree showing Z2110(in relation to Yamnaya) about 8 years ago show 9219 and 5587.
ReplyDeletehttps://2.bp.blogspot.com/-03MZqCfIa38/W8J-7VqwI8I/AAAAAAAASCs/Eu55EhAbQwsXnV-eYG_2lSr8lZKzXuEVgCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/R1b-RZ2109%2BHaplogroup%2BMapping%2BaDNA_02_11_30_2015.jpg
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-FGC43622/story
But the story does not end here! Find out which of the 82 R-FGC43622 branches and 28 countries that
Ossetian DNA Project - Y-DNA Classic Chart
R1b1a2a2c1 Z2105+, CTS9219+, Y5586+, and DYS389a=12, DYS520=22
CTS 1450 found in Mordovians.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.yfull.com/tree/R-CTS1450/
What the authors wanted to show isn't clear. That the Slavs don't exist, it's a Sarmato-Germano-Baltic mixture? What East Germans? What Sarmatians? I don't think there are Russian authors involved here, I mean, it's their main idea. More likely not Russian.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I don't think they meant about "Scythian farmers", their theory can archeologically fits with the interaction of Zarubintsy culture and Sarmatians.
Considering the many yellow circles in Hungary, maybe they meant something related to HUN_Sarmatian_Late_Danube-Tisza?
From the summary
".... in the Late Roman time in the Lower Tisa region two ethnically different groups of population lived parallel with each other: reigning, Sarmatians-nomads, who correspond with inhumation, and Sarmatians-Limigantes - sedentary population in settlements. The so-called culture of Limigantes is not connected with previous local finds and appears to be new in the archaeology of Tisa region.....Analogies for the early hand-built ceramics, constructions and basis of the objects (buildings) researchers find in the sites of Kievan, Chernyakhov and Przeworsk cultures. As a result derives the conclusion that population of the settlements in the Late Roman period was Slavic in its core, without excluding presence of the local Illyrian. Dacian and Sarmatian elements."
https://psv4.userapi.com/c537232/u191837136/docs/d42/68e4d27a44c8/Arkheologicheskaya_kultura_sarmat_-_vid_s_vostoka.pdf?extra=OgUIrUD_BRI3_MRlZzhoaMO4lj1sARW2h2u5zmCmJyhpZ3xABGXfQlSX5hmtmDTbuzYV7dSqnDxVXuFzPWf-3MjeHLu3trZV0cJn2fU595N8x2xLl4Azw09qz0NWIcJT8nZfLONSPVDAkw
"The individuals belonging to the “Slavic” IBD sharing cluster form a chronological gradient on the PCA plot, with the earliest samples close to the Baltic LBA/EIA group."
So, real Slavs are Latvian-like people?
The lead authors are Russian.
ReplyDeleteEarly Slavs were more like Belarusians, not exactly like Latvians.
ReplyDeleteAnd East Germanics are Chernyakhov and Wielbark culture people.
But I reckon most of the Germanic ancestry in Slavs is from later groups, like the Mennonites from the Low Countries.
There were Mennonite villages in my part of Poland.
The Germanic Teutonics also held the coastal northern Poland and the Baltics during the 1200s-1400s. I'd imagine any IBD sharing from those areas would also show higher East Germanic.
ReplyDeleteThis would imply there were no Slav like individuals before (at least) the migration of the Goths, which we know is untrue because we have BA samples which are Slav-like.
ReplyDeleteThe mixing of the East Germans, i.e. genetic Scandinavians, with the genetically Baltic-like population is clearly visible in Poland in the Roman period in the last work of Stolarek. Such a population has inhabited Poland since the times of the Trzciniec culture, as shown by Chyleński's work.
ReplyDeleteAnd David must have lost interest in the biological history of the Polish population, because he ignored the two most important studies on this history that have been published so far - Chyleński's and Stolarek's.
Thanks for elaborating on this, curious to see their actual results when the paper or pre-print is posted because yeah not much is clear from it based on the poster.
ReplyDelete"Scythian farmers" is probably a reference to sites such as Belsk (Ukraine)?
ReplyDeletehttps://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0245996
@Michael
ReplyDelete“What the authors wanted to show isn't clear. That the Slavs don't exist, it's a Sarmato-Germano-Baltic mixture?”
I really don’t know what they are trying to say. Look at their poster:
https://i.postimg.cc/N0JM0gKY/screenshot-354.png
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F9-0XHuWYAAFCuw?format=jpg&name=4096x4096
‘self-identity=/=language=/=material culture=/=genetic ancestry’
Why do they put it in such bold letters?
We are looking for ethnoses with the help of genetics. We assume that in the past genetic ancestry and languages correlated. Material cultures change in time and space and can be common to different ethnoses or can be different within one ethnos, so they are not so important.
Why do they bring self-identity?
Do they suggest that even if you find people who had Slavic genetic ancestry and spoke Slavic languages they were not Slavs, because one cannot prove that they self-identified as Slavs? Do they suggest that IBD can tell us something about self-identity?
How do they define Slavs?
In my opinion from the genetic and linguistic data that we have the most probable is Slavic continuity within following cultures::
Mierzanowice/Strzyżów/Iwno –>Trzciniec/Komarów–> Lusatian/Chernoles–>Przeworsk/ Zarubintsy–>Western/Eastern Slavs
But aren't the Scythians partially descended from Corded Ware groups?
ReplyDeleteThen, surely, the Scythians were a distant cousin population to the early Slavs?
@John Thomas
ReplyDeleteBut aren't the Scythians partially descended from Corded Ware groups?
Then, surely, the Scythians were a distant cousin population to the early Slavs?
Yes, but the point is that once the different Corded Ware lines became Slavs and Scythians they didn't mix with each other very often.
@ambron
ReplyDeleteSometimes it's better not to say anything at all.
For instance, have a look at the main PCA in one of those Polish papers you mentioned.
The Iron Age and Middle Age Polish samples form their own cluster, which is impossible, and it even contradicts the other results in the paper.
It's not a good advertisement for Polish science, that's all I'll say.
@Davidski
ReplyDelete“The Iron Age and Middle Age Polish samples form their own cluster, which is impossible, and it even contradicts the other results in the paper”.
Why is it impossible? There were two different populations during the Iron Age in Poland: Germanic which didn’t cremate (minority burials) and Slavic which did cremate (majority burials). Most of the samples from the Iron Age were Germanic, with some Slavic contamination and few outliers. Germanics left Poland and from the Middle Age we have only a pure Slavic population.
On PCA you see Germanic cluster from IA and Slavic from MA. They are different. But from outliers and contaminations they concluded that Slavic population was present in Poland during the Iron Age, and probably it was that population which cremated. It fits the results from Trzciniec and Lusatian cultures where we have Slavic R1a and Balto-Slavic drift.
@EastPole
ReplyDeleteWhy is it impossible?
The samples have been released, and they don't cluster together.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pRGg_eWekRVhbT0ihCm38xD208o6H44j/view?usp=sharing
The Iron Age samples are Scandinavian-like while the Middle Age samples are Belarusian-like.
They're two different populations.
How is it that after many months you haven't noticed this yet?
@ Dave
ReplyDeleteIsnt there some kind of Y-DNA continuity between Iron Age and medieval Poland based on R1a-M458 lineages ? (Although many seem undated)
There were two IA outliers which looked Slavic:
ReplyDeletePoland_Maslomecz_IA_oEastEurope:PCA0103,0.129758,0.129988,0.076933,0.073321,0.041238,0.020638,0.00846,0.014307,0.007772,-0.019864,-0.001786,-0.003897,0.010852,0.017478,-0.006107,-0.010209,-0.014994,-0.008108,0.005782,0.007629,0.003743,0.002102,0.002342,-0.010604,-0.00455
PCA0002:PCA0002,0.122929,0.126941,0.07731,0.055233,0.041546,0.017012,0.00517,0.001615,-0.009408,-0.010752,-0.002598,-0.005695,0.021407,0.037296,-0.007193,-0.008618,-0.01356,0.00266,-0.005279,-0.016008,-0.006364,-0.010881,0.001725,-0.014942,0.008622
https://i.postimg.cc/d3vn5hGk/screenshot-335.png
@Rob
ReplyDeleteThose results are somewhat controversial. Might be contamination.
@EastPole
ReplyDeleteI wasn't referring to outliers. Do they even have C14 dates?
I was making the point that the PCA in question was total garbage and probably suffers from a serious technical problem.
That's because it shows the Iron Age and Middle Age samples in the same cluster to the exclusion of modern Europeans.
Can you explain to me how that's possible, because I can't reproduce the result no matter what. Can you?
@ Dave
ReplyDeleteSuspected as such. There’s still to contend the 200 year gap between Wielbark and Early Slav period; not to mention the idea the existence of a cryptic cremating-only population seems like special pleading
ReplyDeleteSorry, I misunderstood you. So you are questioning this strange PCA:
https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-023-03013-9/figures/1
and not the possibility of two different populations living in Poland in the Iron Age?
It would be more accurate to say that "the most of Russians" are Slavs than "many Russians"
ReplyDelete@Dave
ReplyDeleteCan you elaborate also on their qpdam graphs? There seem strange too.
Addition to previous comment:
ReplyDeletei mean especially the selection of pops to use.
David, we can't blame the authors for how they allocate points on PCA by unsupervised Admixture, because that's not their decision. Therefore, Amixture is always the autors carried out additionally in supervised mode. And here PCA clearly separates the populations:
ReplyDeletehttps://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-023-03013-9/figures/2
@ambron
ReplyDeleteYou don't have a clue what you're talking about.
The Admixture and PCA tests were done separately with different programs.
You should at least check the methods properly before commenting.
@Lukaszer
ReplyDeleteThey fumbled around and got what they wanted. That's all I can say without getting into more details.
In fact, PCA was performed using Eigensoft. Sorry! I didn't pay attention to it.
ReplyDeleteThus, the second PCA separates the populations better because it is limited to north-western and central-eastern Europe, while the first covers all European genetic variability. Well, this is normal for every PCA. In PCA with G25 it is the same.
I spent hundreds of hours discussing Stolarek's work. On my forum, a thread devoted to this work attracted 58,000 readers. But Arza best summarized Stolarek's results in one sentence, writing something like this:
ReplyDeleteThe Wielbark population has a very large Balto-Slavic admixture from the local population of Poland, and the Slavic paternal lines indicate the nature of this local population.
@ambron
ReplyDeleteWhat the fuck are you babbling about now?
The G25 always separates the IA and MA samples into Scandinavian and East Slavic clusters.
There's no reason why these two populations should cluster together to the exclusion of everyone else in Europe, unless there's a technical problem.
And the authors are wrong when they claim that the MA population has ancestry from the IA population.
David, I'm sorry, but now I don't understand what you're talking about. After all, for example, NE G25 PCA limits the populations to north-western and central-eastern Europe, and WE G25 PCA covers the entire European genetic variability. At WE G25 PCA, Polish IA and MA samples will also overlap.
ReplyDeleteI don't know on what basis you claim that the authors are wrong about the ancestors of IA in MA?
I'm talking about Figure 1 C. The European PCA.
ReplyDeleteNot only do the IA and MA samples overlap, even though they shouldn't, but the MA samples cluster in Western Europe.
There's no way in the world that the MA samples will cluster with Western Europeans in the G25 unless you zoom out and focus on broad West Eurasian ancestry.
Genetically, the IA samples are Scandinavians while the MA samples are early Slavs without Scandinavian ancestry, and that's exactly what the G25 shows.
So stop acting dumb and being dishonest.
@Davidski
ReplyDelete“And the authors are wrong when they claim that the MA population has ancestry from the IA population.”
I don’t agree with you. I think that the probability that the MA population has ancestry from the local IA non-Germanic population is quite high.
It is derived from Trzciniec–>Lusatian–>Przeworsk.
Y-DNA and mt-DNA and some autosomal data support it.
https://postlmg.cc/Mv0X6gc1
Just show me a better Bronze Age and early Iron Age source of MA Polish populations than Trzciniec/Lusatian.
@EastPole
ReplyDeleteYep, the Wielbark IA population is obviously Germanic and shows no relation to the Baltic-like MA population.
At least you got that right, so you're ahead of ambron.
Davidski @
ReplyDeleteThe Celto-Germanic admixture of today's Poles is ambiguously due to residual Germanic peoples of antiquity such as Goths, Vandals and Celtic Boians. However, most Germanic groups migrated to Pannonia, Hispania, North Africa and the Crimea.
2. from German settlers from the Middle Ages (German East Settlement) such as the Forest Germans, the new settlers come from Brandenburg, Saxony and also many from the Rhineland, Hessen, Swabia, Flanders... but also a third smaller aspect, German ones Second World War in the People's Republic of Poland and were assimilated (citizenship, marriage with Poles...)
Davidski@
ReplyDeleteyou can also see it in the Y-DNA, Scytho-Sarmatian Y-DNA like R1a Z93 - Z2124 -Z2125 - Z2123 are not present in the Poles at all but in the Lipka-Tatars, at an autosmal level some Poles have an Alanic admixture ( Part tribe of the Sarmatians) from the migration period (migration period) by Goths/Ostrogoths in some regions like the Carpathian Basin but the Romanians have autosomal more of it and of course the Lipka Tatars. Typical Polish R1a clade are Z283-Z282-M458 (Slavic origin) or absorbed by Balts Z280 (Balto-Slavs)
@ steppe
ReplyDeletein reality, there might be more actual Gothic ancestry in modern Serbs (who have ~ 10% I1) than Poles, whose Germanic ancestry is mostly from medieval German colonists.
@EastPole
ReplyDelete"Look at their poster"
Oh my, I didn't notice... this... never mind.
If a boy identifies himself as a girl, then he is a girl :D
@Davidski
ReplyDelete"The lead authors are Russian"
Who both live in Czech Rep. and work in University of Ostrava, If I'm not mistaken.
"And East Germanics are Chernyakhov and Wielbark culture people."
But Chernyakhov culture isn't homogeneous, your post "Asiatic East Germanics"
"But I reckon most of the Germanic ancestry in Slavs is from later groups, like the Mennonites from the Low Countries."
I don't think it's the case. There were also many German colonists among Eastern Slavs, and Turkic speakers, like Tatars.
They apparently were talking about the early Slavs, that they mixture of Bronze Age Baltic inhabitants + Germans + Sarmatians. But it's impossible with the classical Sarmatians and Scythians. Only if the Baltic LBA/EIA groups + Corded + something southern. The Balts and Slavs differs in the level of the southern component, not Germanic or Sarmatian.
By the way, looks like they confirmed the "Slavicness" of the Imenkovo culture. It's attribution has been disputable. Probably, the Republic of Tatarstan is in a bad mood right now.
@Steppe
ReplyDeleteSince both are connected Z93 and Slavic Z283 .
Are you saying ancient samples of R1a-Z93 in Corded Ware, Bell Beaker, Savic-Irish, are very low or they don't exist ?
What about ancient samples of Z283-Z282-M458 (Slavic origin) -Balts Z280 being found in Fatyanovo, Abashievo, Sintashta?
a@
ReplyDeleteThey are basal Z280 that were found in the Srubnaya culture, for example, of CWC descent but not yet of Baltic origin
@Michael
ReplyDeleteThis paper refers to ancient samples from Russia that fall in the Slavic cluster based on an Identity-by-Descent (IBD) genealogical analysis.
This doesn't mean that they're all Slavs, but they must be closely related to Slavs if they're in the Slavic IBD cluster.
The authors point out that based on a PCA analysis these samples can be described as a Baltic-related population that acquired some Germanic and Sarmatian admixture.
So this doesn't mean they're Balts or that they even came from near the Baltic. It just means that they're similar to Balts, like Belorussians are similar to Balts.
Ergo, no one is claiming that Slavs didn't really exist until some Balts mixed with some Eastern Germanics and Sarmatians.
The point being made is that early Slavs were Baltic-like, and they gradually changed over time due to admixture to what they are today.
The reason I said that Slavs didn't get most of their Germanic admixture from Goths, but rather from later Germanic groups, is because Middle Age Polish samples are still very Baltic-like and very similar to Belorussians.
Modern Poles are more western than them due to admixture that must have arrived in Poland during the Middle Ages or later.
And it's not true that there's substantial Tatar ancestry in Russians, because Tatars have significant East Asian admixture, while Russians lack this type of admixture. Russians have Uralic/Siberian ancestry instead.
@Steppe said...
ReplyDeleteThey are basal Z280 that were found in the Srubnaya(1900-1200 BC) culture, for example, of CWC descent but not yet of Baltic origin
Compare CWC-Srubnaya Z280 with Z93 and L51.
R1b-L51 is found in Poland and Czech- CWC
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-L51/
id:PCW070POL [PL-18]
It is also found in Afanasievo, Bell Beaker, and ancient Irish compared to R1a-Z280.
Yet no R1a-Z280, and or R1b- L51 have been found in ancient Fatyanovo, Abashievo, Sintashta-- is that correct?
a@
ReplyDeleteThe Srubnaya culture is autosomal similar to the Sintashta / Abashevo Culture but both descended from CWC, the Middle Dnieper culture, the Afansievo Culture is an extension of the Yamnaya Culture, the Bell Beaker from the CWC (certain group), there may be some Z280 in the Sintashta culture appears but basal clades and R1b L51 is certainly from Bell beaker groups.
@Davidski
ReplyDelete"I suspect there's some wishful thinking among the Russian authors of this preprint that they have Scythian ancestry."
Please avoid this kind of offensive language since I am ethnically Ukrainian/Mordvin and a Czech citizen.
"According to PCA a hypothesis for the origin of this population can be proposed: it was formed by admixture of a Baltic-related group with East Germanic people and Sarmatians or Scythians."
This phrase in the abstract is outdated, please look at the poster available at my Twitter account. Our current understanding is that the earliest Slavs lay on an isolation-by-distance (genetic and probably linguistic) cline: Germanic, Baltic, Slavic speakers, and Scythian/Sarmatians. Some genetic interactions between the earliest Slavs in the 2nd-3rd cc. CE and the Steppe groups are detected with IBD sharing, however indeed the genetic profile of the earliest Slavs is overwhelmingly "northern".
"I strongly disagree with the authors of the abstract when they claim that "differentiating Slavic, Germanic, and Celtic people is very difficult" with PCA. It's actually pretty damn easy and I've been doing it successfully for many years."
Some tailored PCA setups can distinguish these groups indeed, but our claim is that PCA has deep interpretability problems (effects of oversampling in certain groups, cryptic Lissajous curves resulting from smooth isolation-by-distance gradients), and it's best to combine PCA, ADMIXTURE, and IBD-sharing network graphs for the historical period.
@Davidski
ReplyDelete“The point being made is that early Slavs were Baltic-like, and they gradually changed over time due to admixture to what they are today.
The reason I said that Slavs didn't get most of their Germanic admixture from Goths, but rather from later Germanic groups, is because Middle Age Polish samples are still very Baltic-like and very similar to Belorussians”
Middle Age Polish samples look very similar to modern Poles:
https://postimg.cc/6TBm12zF
The reason for this is that they are derived from Trzciniec/Lusatian populations not from Baltic.
https://postlmg.cc/Mv0X6gc1
@Richard Rocca
ReplyDelete"The Germanic Teutonics also held the coastal northern Poland and the Baltics during the 1200s-1400s. I'd imagine any IBD sharing from those areas would also show higher East Germanic."
What are you talking about? The Teutonic knights were simply Germans, western Germans, because eastern Germans didn't exist yet. The label "Teutonic" is only used in English. In German they are called "Deutscher Orden". Moreover they were actually some sort of war monks, son they were not allowed to marry or to have sex.
Davidski: "Of course, we would need to do a detailed Russian-wide genetic survey to see what the situation is in reality when corrected for population densities across Russia."
ReplyDeleteThis paper on Russia was interesting in that light, although it did only sample Moscow and St Petersburg - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.11.02.21265801v2.full
"In contrast to all previous genomic studies (Zhernakova et al. 2020; Barbitoff et al. 2019; Ramensky et al. 2021), our analysis includes a diverse set of admixed samples that can allow us to investigate the fine structure of the present-day Russian population. Indeed, principal component analysis of the individual genotypes identified several distinct clusters of samples. Presence of these clusters could not be explained by place of sample collection (Figure 2a), sequencing platform, disease status, or exome kit (Supplementary Figures S3-S5). Given this observation, we went on to group the individuals into three clusters using the unsupervised k-means algorithm. The three clusters significantly differed in size and shape. The first cluster that was dubbed “heel” was the densest and contained 5,472 (84.1%) samples. The second cluster (“ankle”) was more sparse and smaller in size, containing 729 (11.2%) samples. Finally, the third cluster (“toes”) was the smallest and the most heterogeneous, spreading over the first principal component axis (Figure 2b), and comprising 300 (4.6%) individuals."
Heel, ankle and toes describes how the triangle of the Russian ancestry appeared on PCA (like a foot-shape). Note these clusters have no gap between them and are smoothly clinal.
"Given these observations, we conclude that the first cluster represents the individuals of European ancestry, i.e., native residents of the Central and Northwest Russia; the second cluster represents Southern Russia and Northern Caucasus populations, while the third cluster corresponds to patients originating from the Siberian regions and/or Asian republics of the former USSR. "
The main cluster ("heel") showed higher allele frequency correlation with non-Finnish Europeans than with Finns; although there may be some element that this is driven by the Finnish bottleneck. The allele frequency correlation with East Asians for "heel" (cluster 1) was 0.9 vs non-Finnish Europeans (NFE) 0.89 and Finns at 0.9 as well (but this is a little bit of a crude measure as it could be that "heel" and NFE were more similar in their correlation with East Asia and rounding was different).
@Steppe
ReplyDelete"from German settlers from the Middle Ages (German East Settlement) such as the Forest Germans, the new settlers come from Brandenburg, Saxony and also many from the Rhineland, Hessen, Swabia, Flanders..."
One of my father's first cousins, fully East Prussian from the Northern Ermland / Northern Warmia, scored on 23andme these German regions:
1. Hamburg
2. Bavaria (What's probably meant is Eastern Franconia, the northernmost part of Bavaria)
3. Hesse (Linguists have noticed striking similarities between dialects of Hesse and the High Prussian dialect)
4. Schleswig-Holstein
5. Lower Saxony
6. North-Rhine West-Phalia
I've decided to test my East Prussian grandma on 23andme too, to see if she also has this Bavarian/Hessian High Prussian ancestry. Judging from G25 modelling, her German ancestry is very northern, but it's possible that in the 13th/14th century those middle and south German regions were genetically still more northern than today, while having genetic signals that make them identifiable to 23andme.
@Pavel Flegontov
ReplyDeleteSome genetic interactions between the earliest Slavs in the 2nd-3rd cc. CE and the Steppe groups are detected with IBD sharing, however indeed the genetic profile of the earliest Slavs is overwhelmingly "northern".
I don't doubt that there was some mixing between early Slavs and steppe nomads, usually deep in Russia.
But the point I'm making is that these Slavic groups with significant nomad ancestry were dead ends that didn't contribute any significant ancestry to modern-day Slavs. That is, they weren't proto-Slavs.
This inference isn't only based on PCA and Admixture, but also on uniparental markers, especially Y-chromosomes.
I think this is an important point and it should be underlined, otherwise you'll have all sorts of people running around claiming that Slavs are part Scythian.
Some tailored PCA setups can distinguish these groups indeed, but our claim is that PCA has deep interpretability problems (effects of oversampling in certain groups, cryptic Lissajous curves resulting from smooth isolation-by-distance gradients), and it's best to combine PCA, ADMIXTURE, and IBD-sharing network graphs for the historical period.
There are always some interpretability problems, including with IBD graphs.
It's always best to combine different methods to get the most accurate picture.
Uniparental markers are also very important. In particular, Y-chromosomes are vital to understanding language expansions.
Simon W@
ReplyDeleteI'm glad, the Germans of East Prussia also have a Baltic/Prussian admixture that they assimilated in the Middle Ages, some surnames indicate this or even place and water names, for example: Kurschat, Naujok...or the city of Danzig / Gydadanyze and refers to the Prussian "gudûne" place where there is forest (another theory the name of the city is derived from the Gothic), Tilsit (Schlauen), Krockow (Pomerania) This place name, like Krakaw and Krakow, is based on the Prussian "Kracco" Schwarzpecht , Parsęta River…, the
Krakow is a Slavic name.
ReplyDeleteThere are many place names in Poland with the root "krak", because "krak" in Old Polish means "fork of the river".
ReplyDelete@Davidski
ReplyDelete“Uniparental markers are also very important. In particular, Y-chromosomes are vital to understanding language expansions”.
Yes, that’s why I think that Mierzanowice/Strzyżów/Iwno –>Trzciniec/Komarów–> Lusatian/Chernoles–>Przeworsk/ Zarubintsy–>Western/Eastern Slavs is the most likely path for the development of the Slavic language.
Also don’t exaggerate with medieval German colonists. Germans were settling mostly in cities and the population of the cities was less than 5% of the total population, and was subject to many plagues etc.
Later German colonization also didn’t influence the Polish population much. Germans lived in German villages separate from Polish villages and didn’t mix much. Much more Poles were Germanized than Germans Polonized. After WWII the all German-speaking population was expelled.
ambron @
ReplyDeleteIs it true that Krakow is of Slavic origin (Wiślane), however there are many Baltic references in northeastern Poland, but some say the city of Krakow was founded on a Celtic hill?
David, on NE G25 PCA also is some MA samples grouped with Scandinavians, but I don't want to argue about that.
ReplyDeleteThe Wielbark skeletal population is not a Scandinavian population, because the native Scandinavians did not have a 20-100% Eastern European admixture and Slavic paternal uniparental markers. This is clearly a mixed Scandinavian-Balto-Slavic population.
And I still don't understand why the medieval Polish population couldn't have had ancestors in the Wielbark population? If you are not convinced by the qpAdm Stolarka models, there is another work on the way proving this using other research methods.
I think things can get murky when IBD results are used to guide autosomal input. Recently another abstract about the Bulan Koba culture (Pazyryk remnants in first centuries AD) and their input in Turkic peoples.
ReplyDeleteUndoubtedly it is the case that Bulan Koba was significantly ancestral to Turkic speaking groups such as the Huns, but they then also use this reference to model the scythian inout in Turks. This is a bit troubling because at the Berel site we can see that the eastern Kok-Pash people the Bulan-Koba mixed with themselves already had considerable scythian input, we see this during the Xiongnu period as well, and the Bulan-Koba is post-Xiongnu. This ancestry would then come from Sagly-Uyuk and Pazyryk peoples.
I imagine what happened here is that since the Bulan-Koba were a small population and somewhat genetically isolated (relative to earlier iron age peoples) there is a strong IBD signal that then is also present in Turkic peoples, but tuis shouldn't be interpreted as Bulan-Koba being the sole or primary source of Scytho-Siberian ancestry in Turkic peoples.
@ambron
ReplyDeleteThe Wielbark population is obviously Scandinavian by and large.
These Wielbark samples have the same "Baltic" component that the ancient Germanics from Scandinavia have, which effectively means they don't actually have any real Baltic ancestry. It's just northern ancestry.
You don't need any new methods to work this out. You just need to be objective.
Eastpole @
ReplyDeleteNo, not all Germans, my two grandmas married Poles (one grandma also has Romanian ancestors), a grandpa was of Polish/Lithuanian origin, so not all Germans were expelled but were assimilated into the People's Republic of Poland and some mixed marriages arose, my dear
David, that's right, we have to stay objective. Objectivity and consistency! After all, it is the "Baltic" component, which is non present in the native Scandinavians, that distinguishes in first the Scandinavians from the Balto-Slavics.
ReplyDelete@EastPole
ReplyDeleteThis PCA tells us most of what we need to know about the formation of the modern Polish gene pool, and this process happened during and after the Middle Ages.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UOJdQQu_JB3sakruo0jNzU5OcLvJauN6/view?usp=sharing
The Polish MA samples cluster strongly with modern Belorussians, but what is really interesting is that a good number of the Polish MA samples are more eastern than the modern Belorussians.
This suggests that proto-Slavs may have been genetically more eastern than modern Belorussians.
So it'll be interesting to see Pavel's early Slavic samples, and also which of these samples are the first to show the East Germanic IBD links.
@ Copper Axe
ReplyDeleteYes I saw that, agree with your comments
One avid fan of IBD was making problematic claims about the Deep history of East Asia, based on alleged observations of IBD. Sounded like hogwish tbh, which goes agains all the emerging data.
@Davidski
ReplyDelete“The PCA you posted shows that both the MA Poles and modern Poles form an elongated east to west cluster.
https://postimg.cc/6TBm12zF
This cluster didn't exist until the Middle Ages. And there's a good reason for that.
Also, the Slavic IBD cluster shows the strongest links to the Germanic cluster.
Get over it”
First, you don’t know what Slavic cluster looked like before the Middle Ages, because Slavs cremated.
In my opinion, both the MA Poles and modern Poles form an elongated east to west cluster because their ancestors from Trzciniec/Lusatian cultures formed an elongated east to west cluster. And the reason for this is that post-Corded Ware Proto-Slavic populations from Mierzanowice/Strzyżów/Iwno cultures mixed with farmers who had more Balto-Slavic drift in the East and farmers who had less Balto-Slavic drift in the west. That elongation is caused by the level of Balto-Slavic drift. I thought you understood this.
https://postlmg.cc/Mv0X6gc1
There are rumors that Lusatian culture was full of Slavic R1a and most similar to Poles.
The Germanic IBD cluster shows the strongest links to the Slavic cluster because Germans assimilated a lot of Slavs. Half of East Germany is Slavic. Germans from Pomerania, Silesia etc. are mostly Germanized Slavs.
The theory that Slavs are mixed Balts and Germans is nonsense. Get over it.
@EastPole
ReplyDeleteLuckily, we can test these sorts of things.
If the more western shifted MA and modern Poles show higher IBD sharing with Germanic samples and more I1 and U106, then you're wrong.
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteDavid, look at what was the situation in Poland when Mierzanowice/Strzyżów/Iwno (one population with Slavic Y-DNA) started to mix with farmers. Globular Amphora without BS drift in the west and Strzyżów outlier with BS drift in the east:
https://postlmg.cc/yJRSY80b
https://postlmg.cc/Z9L4ckmq
This explains the elongation east to west of the Slavic cluster. Trzciniec, Lusatian were very populous cultures full of Slavic Y-DNA. They didn’t evaporate.
@EastPole
ReplyDeleteWe're not too far off from getting a detailed genetic transect of time from Poland.
I can assure you that the earliest Polish Slavs will be Baltic-like, and more eastern than Belorussians.
Then things will change rapidly into a more elongated east > west cluster, and we'll see a good correlation with a changing Y-chromosome gene pool with a lot more R1b appearing.
Simon_W said...The label "Teutonic" is only used in English. In German they are called "Deutscher Orden".
ReplyDeleteLast I checked, this is an English speaking site, so called them what 100% of English speakers know them of. If you are insulted, maybe you should just do all your replies in German so nobody will know what on Earth YOU are talking about.
IBD is tricky. All it really shows is that there is gene flow between two populations, but the nature of how this gene flow occured, and what overall effect it had on populations, and how many parties were involved is up for anyone's guess. That's why you need a comprehensive analysis that includes uniparental, autosomal, IBD, with support from linguistics/archeology where available.
ReplyDeleteIf group A shares IBD with group B, and then group B goes and shares IBD with group C, then through some pseudo-transitive property (don't know what else to call it), then A and C will show as sharing IBD, even though A and C may have had 0 contact.
These IBD graphs are cool and all, but we need much more in-depth analysis including how strong these IBD relations (in terms of length).
As for early Slavs being Baltic-like, or at the very least early Balts and Slavs looking similar, is a given given the Balto-Slavic population was 1 group of people ~ 3000 to 3500 BC.
ReplyDelete@ DragonHermit:
ReplyDeletethe statement to talk about Balto-Slavs 3500 - 3000 BC is too early, we are only talking about CWC groups that migrated from the Pontic-Caspian steppe, the emergence of the Balto-Slavs can certainly be found in the eastern Trzciniec - Komarov culture
Very Baltic genomes among medieval Polish Slavs who stopped burning their dead is not surprising, considering the genetically very Baltic character of the late Trzciniec population. In general, medieval populations are characterized by small intergroup differences with high intragroup diversity. Therefore, more important than PCA are methods to determine whether such very Baltic individuals share more origin with autochthonous Polish groups or with external groups. In other words - whether they are local or whether they came from Latvia or Russia.
ReplyDeleteUniparental markers are also important, as David points out, because the patrilineal Slavs were formed only between 300 BC and 300 AD. And this happened in the West Slavic population:
„BATWING of the Slavic populations of Kaszuby and Lusatia provided convergent MCMC chains with unimodal distribution and revealed that their divergence took place 1.7 kya (95% confidence intervals: 1.4–2.1 kya) and was preceded by 0.6 ky of demographic expansion with a 4.2% growth rate (Table 4).”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3598329/
Western Slavs could not have lived far from Poland at that time, as most of the archaeological M458 comes from Poland or its surrounding area:
https://slawomirambroziak.pl/forum/index.php?topic=5742.msg110336#msg110336
@ambron
ReplyDeleteIn other words - whether they are local or whether they came from Latvia or Russia.
They're not from Latvia or even Lithuania, because their Y-chromosomes obviously aren't from there.
Balts have a lot of Y-HG N, so do Russians, and this isn't a recent development.
They might be from Belarus or nearby parts of Ukraine, but why would there be so many East Slavs throughout Poland at the time? Wouldn't this be historically documented?
Be careful ambron, or you'll end up in a situation where you're arguing that Poles went extinct during the Iron Age, just to put the Slavic homeland in Poland.
ambron@
ReplyDelete: the Slavic tribes in today's southern Belarus and northern Ukraine separated into Western and Eastern Slavs in the early Middle Ages and a later division emerged in the Balkans "South Slavs" (who also absorbed some previous population groups), the Western Slavs (especially Poles) have also absorbed remaining Germans, Celts and Balts and additionally received input from German settlers in the High Middle Ages. The Czechs certainly have more of the remaining Germans and the Celtic heritage and some regions also have some genetic Dacians and a small proportion of Alans, for example the area around Bratislava belonged to the Celtic Boii and was then taken by the Dacians.
@DragonHermit, also it's tricky to develop the directions of flow, as hard to assign segments to an actual population, which is probably partly the problem of these "GlobeTrotter" analyses. The problem you describe with three groups ABC would be a problem also if you had an unsampled population C - obviously this wouldn't be a problem if you actually had samples of C, because you'd see that A and B have higher density of IBD with C than with each other and that the overall maths would favour links being most likely through that population (even if the exact same segment wasn't represented in C).
ReplyDeletePCA have problems as well; I guess I would have been myself less concerned about effects of oversampling that PF seems, but as you get into fine-dimensions that could more of be an issue? But mainly for ancient dna, whether the projection process (that we must use) is accurate. I'm pretty sure Davidski's projection method (which I've always assumed works by using a set of reference samples, for which position isn't given and which also includes a few high quality ancients, then projecting everybody else) works much better than the simple method used in most academic papers. But whether it actually converges entirely on ground truth may be a problem where subtle differences matter when dealing with very small dimensions and fine-scale ancestry I guess. Even though theoretically these populations should be closer to the present day ancestries represented in the populations used to form the PCA, and so less subject to compression. That's another question that again simulated data might address but sadly the PCA based methods of ancestry using ancient dna (the PCA+Vahaduo type solution) are still almost completely outside academia so no one is in a position to really try and quantify it.
David, there is absolutely nothing to indicate that Slavs come from Belarus. Here the problem boils down primarily to linguistic facts. According to most modern linguists, Slavs come from the Polish-Ukrainian border. However, Kortlandt talks about the early (around the turn of the eras) shift of the Lechite tribes towards the north-west. And this concept is closest to me, because it is confirmed by both linguistic facts and genetic data.
ReplyDeleteand if Davidski already explains that the early West Slavs of Poland are more easterly than today's Belarusians then they cannot have originated in today's Poland, how is that supposed to work? Ambron they are starting to think of it as very autochthonous and certainly the Lustian culture was not Slavic.
ReplyDelete@Dave
ReplyDelete@ambron
Ambron is trying to prove that during several hundred years of the reign of the Wielbark Goths, a huge population of Slavs hid among them and, of course, cremated themselves. The problem is that they must have had exactly the same culture as the Goths from Wielbark, except for one exception, probably quite important, a funeral ritual that concerned only those with the Slavic genome, they probably had genetic tests performed on them before death to select them:) I'm surprised that David he has so much patience to explain it over and over again to Ambron and EastPole.
@DragonHermit
ReplyDelete"If group A shares IBD with group B, and then group B goes and shares IBD with group C, then through some pseudo-transitive property (don't know what else to call it), then A and C will show as sharing IBD, even though A and C may have had 0 contact.
You've just described isolation by distance approximated by a stepping-stone model - a very hot topic in my group now. Isolation by distance (another IBD!) affects not only IBD sharing, but f-statistics and all other metrics too. Stay tuned for 2-3 preprints from our team early next year.
"These IBD graphs are cool and all, but we need much more in-depth analysis including how strong these IBD relations (in terms of length)."
Sure, IBD-sharing graphs have major problems (sampling should ideally be dense in space/time and adjusted by effective population size), but these problems are different from those of PCA/ADMIXTURE, which makes a combination of these methods robust.
@ Ambron
ReplyDeleteThere's not much to salvage from Kortland. He believes proto-Slavic dates to 3000 BC, he believes the Goths came from western Germany, and that Indo-Uralic is a thing
If they had so strong cultural ties to follow burial ritual since centuries, it must be also visible in some other aspects of culture, if they theoretically lived during this time near Goths. If they lived apart of them in some isolated forests it is impossible to explain they had identical culture like Goths. But only such isolation could explain Goths wouldn't mix with them heavily. It was no Internet and TV in this time to globalize European tribes. In short we don't have any Slavic cultural artifacts except V/VI century in Poland. Or simply different then Wielbark but connected to cremated burials.
ReplyDeleteOh and if theoretical hidden creamting Slavs livinh in what is now Poland had the same culture like Wielbark or Przeworsk why after emigration of Goths and Vandals they forgot everything from it and must start from the scratch?
ReplyDeleteWe can explain this in case of Slavs migrating to thee south or east as during migration they followed "easier way" of living but come on, in Poland they were already present and therotically stayed at home. No one attacked territory which was later Poland in this time to destroy those culture. So what the heck?:)
Everything point to conclusion those cultures vanished becasue they members emigrated. So why Slavs living in territory of later Poland which therotically didn't have any other culture wouldn't follow it? And degraded to primitive Prague culture?
@Lukaszer
ReplyDelete“Ambron is trying to prove that during several hundred years of the reign of the Wielbark Goths, a huge population of Slavs hid among them and, of course, cremated themselves. The problem is that they must have had exactly the same culture as the Goths from Wielbark, except for one exception, probably quite important, a funeral ritual that concerned only those with the Slavic genome, they probably had genetic tests performed on them before death to select them:) I'm surprised that David he has so much patience to explain it over and over again to Ambron and EastPole”.
You don’t understand what culture is. And what cultural genetic barriers are and why they can exist for a very long time. The most important elements of culture are religion and language, not material culture. Actually religion is the most important. You have Jews and Muslims in America, they speak the same language, drive the same cars, and they don’t mix. Why?
Slavs are the largest and the oldest Indo-European ethnos which never left their homeland and preserved their culture for millennia. Still Slavic folk culture has elements which help us in understanding some verses in Rigveda and Hyperborean derived Hellenic cults. Bronze Age migrations to India and Greece explain why.
We have Slavic Y-DNA in Mierzanowice/Strzyżów/Iwno–>Trzciniec/Komarów–>Lusatian and then cremation started. Your theory that people who were cremated were some migrants from Scandinavia who completely replaced Slavs and then Slavs miraculously reappeared in the Middle Ages when cremation stopped because all Germanics left is pseudoscience, you can never prove it.
@Lukaszer
ReplyDelete„Everything point to conclusion those cultures vanished becasue they members emigrated. So why Slavs living in territory of later Poland which therotically didn't have any other culture wouldn't follow it? And degraded to primitive Prague culture?”
You know very well that there was a huge catastrophe in Europe at that time. Some volcano exploded and ashes covered the sky and there were bad crops or no crops for many years in Northern Europe. There were plagues and wars etc.
@ EastPole
ReplyDeleteI think they are completely off track, all Slavic groups have absorbed the local population of the respective areas on their way, regardless of whether they are West, East or South Slavs, this is also shown by the genetics, but they were successful in dominating their language, with small exceptions like Romania and Hungary. What is the problem that some Germanic cultures such as Przeworsk and Wielbark emerged in Poland, clearly not all Germanic groups were in large numbers but the local population of today's Poland in the Bronze and Iron Ages were not Slavs.
@EastPole
ReplyDelete" You have Jews and Muslims in America, they speak the same language, drive the same cars, and they don’t mix. Why?"
I knew you will use exactly this argument and it is funny to you use it against you:)
If Slavs and Goths would have the same Wielbark culture, why after Goth migration they stopped to use it in the same area and theoretically with part of this culture members already there?
If religion forbade Slavs to continue it and ordered first to not use ceramic, jewllery and tools at all and then start to use primitve Prague version of it? But why?:) Just because Goths migrated?
Or maybe Slavs living in what is now Poland didn't have any material culture and lives in hunter-gatherers stage? You postulate maybe this situation?:)
Any plague wouldn't destroy everyone capable of continue Wielbark/Przeworsk material culture in whole Poland territory but it seems you must postulate such unprobable situation to defend your position that muh Slavs lived there since begining of time.
Adding to last phrase from previous comment.
ReplyDeleteOn the contrary I believe that during plague/natural catastrophe guys who were tool/ceramic makers resisted better then average peasant, becasue they were more intelligent and have more resources to live on.
Rob
ReplyDeleteSince all early Germanic loanwords in the Baltic languages are mediated by the Slavic language, Kortlandt believed that the Lechites separated the Goths from the Balts. He did not know that the Goths were simply a mixed Germanic-Slavic people, because it turned out only in Stolarek's research.
It’s fascinating how people build their theories based on a few samples. As far as I can tell there is nothing in the record that disproves the presence of Slavs and their leading haplogroups in Poland prior to the Iron Age. Goths very likely were not autochthonous to Poland and so when their war bands arrived it’s likely they either exterminated, drove out or subjugated whoever was living there. And when they left some of those people that they drove out may have returned. I don’t think it’s sensible to question that the majority of those Wielbark samples appear Scandinavian. They tested a few samples from, what people suspected was a Gothic village or two and, surprise, surprise, found a majority of Scandinavians (though with some Slavic like individuals). The whole Polish autochthonous theory can’t be predicated on Poles having occupied every part of present Polish territory continuously since when? Out of Africa? Even Kostrzewski argued that proto-Poles were found in Trzciniec and or Lusatian cultures but not predominantly in Wielbark. So they’d still be there ahead of Germanics but with some back and forth.
ReplyDeleteNot sure what “more Eastern ”than Belorussians means but would not be surprising to see Slavs originate 2k-3k BC somewhere in the further NE. Maybe the Balts drove them out or maybe Ugros and maybe the ones who remained became Balts.
.
@EastPole
ReplyDelete@Davidsky
Wait, so Balto-Slavic drift originated among Pre-IE Farmers? I had always assumed that Balto-Slavs just mixed with some WHG rich population in the Baltic area or the Carpathians.
ReplyDelete“ Goths very likely were not autochthonous to Poland and so when their war bands arrived it’s likely they either exterminated,”
Where did you see this crazy cartoon from. ?
What occurred was folk migrations- houses and clans - moving from Jutland and the lower Elbe toward eastern parts of Pomorania, which had been largely devoid of settlement (as the Pomeranian culture had emigrated away).
This movement formed the Oksywie culture. Next phase was Wielbark culture-cultural and settlement continuity but with an upturn in Roman influences on local culture coincident with their continued movement toward southeast & consequent back flow of returning mercenaries and “Roman ideas”. These ideas were further propagated toward Scania, Gotland etc, and hence the “Goth tradition” was born in Scandinavia
There is the possibility of post-Lausits / late Pomoranian survivors further south in Poland but that needs C14 and diligent dna interpretation
@WSH
ReplyDeleteNo idea what you're talking about, but obviously Balto-Slavic drift in its true sense came about from all of the different types of genetic components that were present in the ancestral Balto-Slavic population.
@ambron
ReplyDeleteAre you trolling?
The Wielbark samples from Poland aren't mixed. They're 100% Scandinavian.
And there are only a couple of Balto-Slavic outliers among them. They're marked as outliers for a good reason.
I don't know what these people represent. They might be non-Wielbark locals, migrants from east of Poland, or wrongly dated samples.
@Lucas Slawbuski
ReplyDeleteIt's always good to have more samples, but if you take a look at what we've already got from Bronze Age, Iron Age and Medieval Poland, it's enough to come to some obvious conclusions.
One of these obvious conclusions is that there's no close relationship between the Trzciniec, Wielbark and Middle Age Polish samples.
These are three different groups. So different, in fact, that we can confidently say that there was an almost 100% population replacement from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age and from the Iron Age to the Middle Ages.
And even if we take the Wielbark people out of this equation, because they were migrants from Scandinavia, then we still have a ~100% population replacement from Trzciniec to the Middle Ages.
That is, currently there's no obvious source population for the Middle Age Poles in ancient Poland.
See that's why we're now seeing all sorts of special pleading from a variety of people online, like the claim that the Middle Age Poles are just Trzciniec people with some admixture from Southern Europe, or that the Wielbark Goths have a Balto-Slavic genetic component.
Obviously, there's no evidence of any massive migration from the south that would turn the Trzciniec people into the Middle Age Poles. And despite what ambron keeps repeating here, the Wielbark Goths are just Scandinavians genetically.
So let's accept the fact that the genetic shifts in Poland from Trzciniec to Wielbark to the Middle Ages were profound and in likeness almost total.
Once you accept this fact, then you can start thinking objectively about the origins of the Middle Age Poles.
I don't know if a more thorough survey of ancient Polish remains will uncover a pre-Wielbark or Wielbark era Polish population that is ancestral to the Middle Age Poles.
I'm guessing that you're confident that it will, but if so, I have no idea where this confidence is coming from.
@Rob
ReplyDeleteFirst, thanks for describing what occurred in a very impressive level of detail. Sounds like you were there.
Second, so “clans” (really?) came from Jutland which would make them… not autochthonous to Poland.
Third, thanks for bringing up that “Pomeranian culture” - any DNA from that? I wonder.
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteThanks. I am curious though - what is your explanation for the various 458s and 280s (down to 1211) being found in Trzciniec, etc? I understand the downclade resolution isn’t definitive here but you’d have to postulate a replacement of those 458s/280s with subsequently migrating 458s/280s which is not exactly the obvious explanation.
To your question, I am not certain of course but I am relatively confident that we will find “portions” of Poles in either Poland (I don’t think much has been done with Przeworsk for obvious reasons) or south or west/southwest of it (even if some may have come west from around the present Kiev at a later time).
@ Lucas Slawbuski said...
ReplyDelete''First, thanks for describing what occurred in a very impressive level of detail. Sounds like you were there.''
Yes it's amazing what being educated & objective does. You might luck in a next life Otherwise, we'd be making comedy like your ''proto-Poles from Trzciniec..
@Lucas Slawbuski
ReplyDeleteI am curious though - what is your explanation for the various 458s and 280s (down to 1211) being found in Trzciniec, etc? I understand the downclade resolution isn’t definitive here but you’d have to postulate a replacement of those 458s/280s with subsequently migrating 458s/280s which is not exactly the obvious explanation.
Can you list these samples here along with their C14 dates?
From “Patrilocality and hunter-gatherer-related ancestry of populations in East-Central Europe during the Middle Bronze Age“:
ReplyDeletePoz107536 (1495BC-1294BC) from Brodzica (Trzciniec culture), Poz142720 (1921BC-1697BC) from Raciborowice (Strzyżów culture), Poz104939 (1531BC-1412BC) from Pielgrzymowice (Trzciniec culture).
I have no idea whether the dating is correct though assume they did not entirely f that up.
@Rob
ReplyDeleteI’m sure your mom is very proud (though probably not with your spelling).
@ Lucas Slawbuski . Thanks she is, and so is yours
ReplyDelete@Lucas Slawbuski
ReplyDeleteThese three samples form an outlier cluster on the eastern edge of the Trzciniec cluster. But they look similar to Balts, especially Latvians, rather than the Middle Age Poles, even the most extreme ones.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mxYOVTi6D9mqCtD7eFwyrxNNQ4BSDlBH/view?usp=sharing
So it's an interesting question what they represent, but I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that they're a native Polish population that was directly ancestral to Middle Age and modern-day Poles.
There are other potential explanations, like, for instance, that they're the result of high mobility within the Trzciniec culture, which stretched outside of the present-day Polish border.
But yes, they do clearly come from a group of people who were either closely related to or even a part of the proto-Balto-Slavic population, so that's very interesting.
The R1a in Wielbark/ Iron Age contexts from Stolarek are :
ReplyDeletePCA0002: undated. mt Contam rate 0.12 (high). 0.20 x coverage
PCA0038: undated contam rate 0.01 (low). 2K SNP. 0.006x low coverage
PCA0040: C14 85-235 AD (95.4%). contam 0.01 (low). 0.25 x . Is actually G2a
PCA0457: undated. 0.22 contamination rate (high). 0.008 x under R-L1029 in ftDNA
David
ReplyDeleteThe Wielbark population contains a large Balto-Slavic admixture, absent among the native Scandinavians. In G25 her can be modeled using Baltic BA, i.e. it is the so-called Balto-Slavic drift. And you yourself wrote something to the effect that if someone has a high Balto-Slavic drift, he or she has recent Balto-Slavic origins.
Stolarak writes clearly that there are no outliers in the population of Wielbark. Just look at the f4 statistics, where most Wielbark individuals share a similar amount of origin with the northern Western and Eastern European populations. And individuals with greater Western European origin and Slavic Y chromosome haplotype prove even more clearly the mixing of two genetically different populations. In upcoming research, such "outliers" appear in large numbers at all Wielbark sites and share origin with both the Lusatian population and medieval Poles.
You can call it trolling, but I will repeat once again that the Goths were genetically Scandinavian-Slavic hybrids, because I know what I'm talking about.
Łukasz
ReplyDeleteAfter the fall of Rome, the decline of material culture covered all of Europe, including Polish lands, whose population largely based its economy on trade with Roman provinces. Therefore, the degree of advancement of material culture is not important, only its continuity on Polish lands from Roman times to the Middle Ages.
Ambron@
ReplyDeleteAmbron please turn on your brain, in ancient times there were neither Polish nor German countries, and besides, the best time for the Slavs to expand was the early Middle Ages, which is partly due to the arrival of the Avars but not in the Iron Age with the Goths!
I must warn everyone that Ambron will repeat what he repeats no matter what David tells him. It is waste of time to discuss with him, he just "know" Goths were Slavic hybrids, deal with it haha
ReplyDeleteSteppe
ReplyDeleteIt's definitely worth turning on your brain!
The history of the Slavs is 3,500 years old, neither the Middle Ages nor even the Iron Age.
@ambron
ReplyDeleteThe Wielbark population contains a large Balto-Slavic admixture, absent among the native Scandinavians.
This is impossible because the Wielbark population clusters very strongly with ancient Scandinavians that lack Baltic or Finnish admixture.
If it were true, then we would see the Wielbark population cluster somewhere between the ancient Scandinavians and Balto-Slavs.
So the Wielbark population is totally Scandinavian, and you have to learn to accept this fact.
"In upcoming research, such "outliers" appear in large numbers at all Wielbark sites and share origin with both the Lusatian population and medieval Poles."
ReplyDeleteOf course, that is another ambron's lie. I've seen some preliminary auDNA results from Wielbark (and some Przeworsk) culture populations from more than a dozen of Polish sites (from nearly every corner of Poland) and they differ significantly from Medieval Polish Slavs.
@ Ambron
ReplyDeleteSorry, before 3500 BC you can't even talk about Slavs, let alone the corded ware peoples of Central Eastern Europe
@Davidski
ReplyDelete“obviously Balto-Slavic drift in its true sense came about from all of the different types of genetic components that were present in the ancestral Balto-Slavic population.”
I don’t understand that statement at all. The ancestral Balto-Slavic population, if such existed, was Corded Ware, and it didn’t have any Balto-Slavic drift.
Fatyanovo population which originated from Indo-Slavic Corded Ware split didn’t have any BS drift. Therefore the early Balto-Slavic Corded Ware population (or early Baltic and Slavic Corded Ware populations) which also originated from this split didn't have this drift.
Early Corded Ware Balts gradually started to acquire that drift by mixing with some drifted farmers as we see in Spiginas2.
Early post-Corded Ware Slavs didn’t have BS drift as we see in Mierzanowice/Strzyżów/Iwno cultures and gradually started to acquire it by mixing with some drifted farmers as we see in Strzyzow_Culture_oBS:poz794.
Even in Slavic Trzciniec culture we see gradual mixing and spreading of BS drift, as many samples don’t have that drift or have very little of it.
BS drift has nothing to do with the origin of Balts and Slavs and even some farmers in Hungary have it. It originated from some HG who mixed with EEF. I suspect it came from Dnieper-Bug HG who early switched to farming and then mixed with Tripolye farmers. But we have to wait for aDNA to be sure.
Turbolechites are living in an alternate reality. They have difficulties in accepting facts.
ReplyDeleteDavid
ReplyDeleteI always accept the facts. However, I'm afraid you have a problem with this. PCA clearly shows the mixed Scandinavian-Slavic genetic character of the Wielbark population:
https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-023-03013-9/figures/2
@EastPole
ReplyDeleteCorded Ware samples from northern Poland have some Balto-Slavic drift, and they're dated to earlier than Spiginas2.
I don't want to get too theoretical about this, but genuine Balto-Slavic drift is something that developed in the proto-Balto-Slavic population.
However, samples older than the proto-Balto-Slavs will show some Balto-Slavic drift if they donated ancestry to Balto-Slavs, or they're closely related to such groups.
That's because Balto-Slavic drift will be projected back in time when Balto-Slavs are used as reference populations in various analyses, like the G25.
Steppe
ReplyDelete3500 BP, no BC
@ambron
ReplyDeleteI've got the ancient data from Stolarek's paper and the Wielbark population is purely Scandinavian.
You can't change this fact by citing someone's wrong or imprecise analyses.
@Matt
ReplyDeleteCan you think of any simple formal stats that will show decisively that the Wielbark samples are unmixed Scandinavians?
I was talking about different studies than what Suevi had seen. But I do not believe that they will not include individuals with a large share of Balto-Slavic genetics, because it will be suspicious (in all other authors there are, but in theirs it is not...).
ReplyDeleteDavid, with all due respect, if we're talking about facts, for me, fact is what has been determined by scientists and published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
ReplyDelete@ambron
ReplyDeleteEmail Stolarek and tell him that I said that the Wielbark population is purely Scandinavian, apart from some outliers that are either contaminated or wrongly dated, and that this can be proven without any trouble.
Let us know what he says.
Of course, no problem, I can send him such an email. I just want to see this evidences first.
ReplyDelete@Davidski
ReplyDeleteVatya_o:RISE479 sample shows a huge chunk of Balto-Slavic drift and almost nothing of CW heritage. It is dated to 1750 BC.
What about it?
Vatya_o:RISE479 might have some of that eastern HG ancestry that looks sort of Balto-Slavic.
ReplyDeleteAmbron should be banned here because he is clearly lying and misleading others.
ReplyDeleteThis is a perfidious lie: "In upcoming research, such "outliers" appear in large numbers at all Wielbark sites and share origin with both the Lusatian population and medieval Poles."
@Davidski:
ReplyDeleteWell, agree that it’s interesting. At present it seems that when we look for 458/280 we find it primarily in Poland, Hungary, Baltics. In the paper mentioned above the R1a samples (not resolved down to above clades so unclear if 458/280) represent a bit less than 33% of all the males (with others mostly I2 which, coincidentally, makes up the largest Y haplo of today’s Serbs and Croats). All of that at roughly 1500BC. if we are willing to put aside adna differences for the moment and just ask, based on this data and other BA data from other geographies, where do we think Grandpa lived, what can be our best guess?
A few years ago someone on this forum (I believe) was arguing that an R1a 24902 found in Poland (I think) was really exclusively Western European based on present day test results. Well, more tests were done and now we have samples from Poland, Czechia, Ukraine, Belarus and Hungary (and, yes, also some more from Western Europe as well). As far as I know there aren’t thousands or even hundreds of BA samples from Germany, Austria or Hungary so maybe let’s wait and see on all of this.
I am under the impression that some people out there want to find ancestral Slavs arise in the upper Dniester and stay cooked in there for a few thousand years until about 500AD where they meekly peeked out of the trees and finding everyone else gone, dared to venture out. Since we do not have extensive data from Belarus, this, of course, is entirely possible but it’s strange to argue for that given the data we have already.
galadhorn
ReplyDeleteDavidski:
"There are some results, but they're patchy and it's hard to know what to make of them. Apparently, the current thinking is something like this:
- Bronze Age Poles are very similar to modern-day Poles
- During the Iron Age there's a genetic shift, with some of the Wielbark sites producing somewhat unexpected results
- However, some Wielbark and Przeworsk samples show continuity with the Bronze Age and later Medieval samples..."
Is David lying too?
A slightly higher coverage version of AG2
ReplyDeletehttps://www.mediafire.com/file/0mx03476q8j9eem/AG2.zip/file
@ambron
ReplyDeleteThat's what I heard about the Chylenski and Stolarek papers before they were published.
It didn't turn out to be exactly right after I had a chance to look at all the data myself.
@Lucas Slawbuski
ReplyDeleteYeah, the Trzciniec population is in part closely related do Balts and Slavs.
And there is indeed some very specific Y-chromosome continuity from Bronze Age to Medieval and modern Poland.
@ Daviski
ReplyDeleteSlawbuski is wrong again, the Y-DNA I2a in Trziniec is ~ L1285 (hence Romulus' new epithet), not the L621-CTS10228 found in modern Slavs.
These findings were undoubtedly a shock for autochthonists, who kept chiming about how Trziniec will be proto-Polish. But as they say, ignorance is a good Cope.
Btw the true slavic spelling of Pomerania is Pomorania.
@Rob
ReplyDeleteWe're referring to the R1a lines in Trzciniec.
Scaled
ReplyDeleteRussia_Afontova_Gora_LUP:AG2,0.104717,0.026404,0.076555,0.154718,-0.0437,0.0251,-0.044182,-0.041075,-0.021066,-0.059227,0.030691,-0.01079,0.019177,-0.02257,0.018458,0.002121,-0.0103,-0.006968,0.001257,0.013131,-0.019216,0.00507,0.019596,0.020123,0.000479
Raw
Russia_Afontova_Gora_LUP:AG2,0.0092,0.0026,0.0203,0.0479,-0.0142,0.009,-0.0188,-0.0178,-0.0103,-0.0325,0.0189,-0.0072,0.0129,-0.0164,0.0136,0.0016,-0.0079,-0.0055,0.001,0.0105,-0.0154,0.0041,0.0159,0.0167,0.0004
@ Davidski
ReplyDeletea minority number of samples with outlier status isn't a strong case of continuity, esp. when those lineages might have disappeared in the intervening periods.
The comment was made that the I2a in the mentioned Trziniec paper are nowadays common in SouthSlavs, but they are not as the belong to different subclades.
This once again points to significant flux between Trziniec & modern Slavs, although I agree they might have been part of a common broader population which experienced lineage pruning.
As an additional side point, the data reneged ideas that Trziniec culture formed due to new migrations from the steppe, which was a commonly expressed view amongst scholars.
“Might have disappeared”
ReplyDeleteSure, lots of things might have happened and might still happen. Jutland might quantum leap into Poland, you might learn how to spell Trzciniec or what “renege” means and Pomorania might actually one day become a Slavic word.
In the meantime - champ - you do you and demand a second by second accounting all the way to tomorrow to prove there was no such disappearance.
Or you can point to any 1500BC Slavic clades from Belarus, Kiev, Uzbekistan or wherever else outside of CEU you’ve found them.
@ Slobowsky
ReplyDeleteI dont have to point out anything in Belarus, or Uzbekistan. We are working with what we currently have
The migration of Germani to Poland from Jutland & other parts of Nordic zone is now beyond doubt.
Cope harder & try to be less of a whiny bitch
@Rob:
ReplyDeleteSure, champ. You don’t have to do anything - the world will take your word for it.
There were many migrations of “Germani” to Poland. Most recently in 1939. But the topic was who lived in Poland before these migrations. Your Tourette’s is interfering with your focus.
@ slobowsky - again you’re showing how clueless you are, the German invasion of Poland in WW2 was not a migration, but nice projection of your own PTSD.
ReplyDeleteThe people before Goths were non-Poles. They disappeared- twice over
Proto-Poles arrived c 600 AD
Deal with it
ReplyDeleteambron’s idea that barbarian culture disappeared because Rome got sacked is also nonsense. They were never reliant on it , so it didn’t impact them apart from the odd elite. Why do the Saxon Urnfields continue until 550AD but those of Poland disappear in 400 ?
The autochthonist clowns would have Slavs as invisible primitives under the rule of Goths rather than seeing the truth. They’re almost as funny as Romanian protochthonists who like to imagine that their “Bronze Age dacians” learned Latin after 20 years of Dacian rule in the far southwest of their region, and then went hid in the mountains until 1200 AD.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10963-022-09164-0
ReplyDeleteAs many spoke about Italy often without knowing its history, perhaps this paper is useful to understand this history between BA and IA and its genetics too.
@Rob:
ReplyDeleteYeah…so now that you’ve established that “the German invasion of Poland in WW2 was not a migration” (though some Baltic Germans might beg to differ), maybe you can fetch us those Slavic BA haplogroups.
Or you can read a bit about the cultural collapse in portions of Roman borderlands (inside and outside) after the empire’s demise, take some copium and beg ambron to accept your apology.
Or you can go on being a spiteful little fart.
I’m no Nostradamus but… (cue Urnfield Rob 😂).
As Suevi/Radko could assure soon will be released Polish paper with Roman period genomes not only from Wielkopolska but nearly every region of Poland and guess what autosomally will be those samples? I leave autochtonists with uncertainty haha
ReplyDeleteLucas
ReplyDeleteI don't pay much attention to Rob's comments because he deletes them as soon as he changes his medication or puts down his glass.
@ Suevi & Lukaszer.
ReplyDeleteI hope there’s more potentially Przeworsk-related data.
@ Ambron
ReplyDeleteI havent deleted anything, nor changed my mind. I’ve explored your position, but it doesn’t align
The irony is that you’re obviously the one whose on meds, and you have the impertinence to insult people with mental illness.
The web is full of internet charletons, you’re just particularly persistent.
David, we are discussing Stolarek's work, but I don't know why you were disappointed with Chyleński's work? It is enough to analyze the Trzciniec genomes. I have an analysis (probably by Tmenable) which shows that modern Poles may derive up to almost 90% of their origin from the Trzciniec population. And the Slavic haplotypes of the Y chromosome in Trzciniec population...
ReplyDeleteLukaszer
ReplyDeleteThe Y-DNA from this work published so far shows that there should be a lot individuals with a high share of Balto-Slavic genetics.
@ambron
ReplyDelete“David, we are discussing Stolarek's work, but I don't know why you were disappointed with Chyleński's work? It is enough to analyze the Trzciniec genomes. I have an analysis (probably by Tmenable) which shows that modern Poles may derive up to almost 90% of their origin from the Trzciniec population. And the Slavic haplotypes of the Y chromosome in Trzciniec population... ”
For example:
Target: Polish:Polish32
Distance: 2.1317% / 0.02131680
35.2 Poland_Trzciniec_Culture:poz663
30.6 Poland_Trzciniec_Culture:poz545_2
30.2 Hungary_LBA_Kyjatice.SG:BR2_noUDG.SG
2.6 Poland_Trzciniec_Culture:poz554
1.4 Poland_Trzciniec_Culture:poz711
Kyjatice BR2 was shown to share most haplotypes with the Polish population.
Could somebody show me Bronze Age populations with Slavic Y-DNA and autosomal which make a better model then Trzciniec.
@All
ReplyDeleteOK, as it turns out it's pretty easy to show with f3 stats that the Wielbark groups from Kowalewko, Maslomecz and Weklice are North Germanic.
I'll demonstrate this tomorrow with a short blog post.
One question though, is the Pruszcz Gdanski IA sample set also Wielbark?
I won't discuss Trzciniec in my new blog post. That's a more complex issue for another time.
@EastPole " I have an analysis (probably by Tmenable) which shows that modern Poles may derive up to almost 90% of their origin from the Trzciniec population. "
ReplyDeleteIt is hardly almost 90%, more closer to 33%:
-------------- ANCESTRY BREAKDOWN for Polish32: -------------
30.726% POL_Trzciniec_MBA__poz663_-1500
23.482% Baltic_EST_BA__s19_X15_2_-1100
15.884% CZE_EBA_Unetice__I14192_-1900
12.903% MKD_BA__I7231_-1219
4.852% NLD_MBA__I26831_-1450
3.418% POL_Trzciniec_MBA__poz650_-1543
2.729% DNK_Vasagard_EBA__NEO815_-1524
1.830% MNE_LBA__I14501_-1225
1.664% Baltic_EST_BA__s19_V16_1_-1110
1.548% RUS_North_Caucasus_MBA__KDC001_-1873
0.965% MNG_UUS001__UUS001_-1300
------------------------------------------------
Fit error: 0.009201364678990305
I agree with Davidski. This is my analysis G25 where Wielbark IA is Germanic Scandinavian and Polish MA is separated - Slavic:
ReplyDeletehttps://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhu2ujC8K0KZBM7hK2re1EgTFhryfBepVdTzTmD9XhnB5cfbufFOoBig_4WGyh17perj2hFdSPN-Pey8haF4IzCOenNd1bRlRgsduTylzbWuyOgmZ1XsmK0UN3naYj-zO3oyzFiw0LM2wXhvXaPAF_XV5LwESOHxdBn0WByJ_oHC1wBvegHYWnHq6KwJHn/s1162/PCA_Figlerowicz.jpg
The outliers can be outliers or contamination of the DNA.
As for Trzciniec etc. see my theory:
"The culture of the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in Polish lands is probably largely Proto-Balto-Slavic. Perhaps this is when the ethnic name Veneti is born.
The sequel will probably take place in the mysterious Pomeranian culture. Greater dialectal diversity.
A certain population with Balto-Slavic dialects migrates under the influence of the pressing East Germanics (the Vandals, Goths, Burgundians and others derive from these Germans) from the Vistula to the Middle Dnieper, and there the Proto-Slavic language is separated (the share of Iranian and East Germanic languages). At this time, on the Oder and Vistula, the Germanics assimilate the local Balto-Slavic population (in Silesia, Pomerania) or create only a thin layer of tribal aristocracy ruling the Veneti, various groups of people descended from the Proto-Balto-Slavics (however, Roman geographers notice only this Germanic aristocracy, not their subjects). In terms of Y-DNA, there is a huge difference between the Bronze Age (dominance of R1a branches, which have little continuation today) and the Iron Age (disappearance of R1a lines, Germanic Y-DNA lines dominate)."
Source: http://aldrajch.blogspot.com/2020/05/zeslawizowani-wenetowie-jak-pogodzic.html
Davidski @
ReplyDeleteThe Pruszcz Gdanski sample as I remember it was similar to Przeworsk with Celtic input
@Steppe & @Davidski
ReplyDeletePruszcz Gdanski is Wielbark Culture
@Galadhorn:
ReplyDeleteThat is not a bad theory (though my guess is that this is even more complicated).
The early Balkan Slavs from Olade 2021 were best modeled using Russia Ingria IA samples (along with Balkan IA). This would imply they did in fact come from Belarus or somewhere to the East. The models prefered Russia Ingria IA over Czech samples from 600-700AD.
ReplyDelete@ galadhorn
ReplyDelete''At this time, on the Oder and Vistula, the Germanics assimilate the local Balto-Slavic population (in Silesia, Pomerania) or create only a thin layer of tribal aristocracy ruling the Veneti, various groups of people descended from the Proto-Balto-Slavics (however, Roman geographers notice only this Germanic aristocracy, not their subjects). In terms of Y-DNA, there is a huge difference between the Bronze Age (dominance of R1a branches, which have little continuation today) and the Iron Age (disappearance of R1a lines, Germanic Y-DNA lines dominate)."''
But this is just an Ambron (false) narrative, and your own statement on YDNA do not support it.
It was not a thin tribal aristocracy nor assimilation, but a wholescale turnover probably with a chronological hiatus between the Pomeranian culture and new Jastorf migrants.
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteCould you run those two last samples from Allentoft?
https://ufile.io/0eflftnc
Thanks!
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteeasy to show with f3 stats
Don't forget to publish the dataset, the software and its version, as well as the exact commands used.
@crashdoc
ReplyDeletehttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1-pHAqMPIRgfdXJuf9B4ZChOcJlBLhFe-/view?usp=sharing
@Arza
ReplyDeleteA reasonably motivated 12 year old can demonstrate that the Wielbark samples are unmixed Scandinavians, so I have no idea why this has become controversial.
Target: Poland_Kowalewko_IA:PCA0052
ReplyDeleteDistance: 2.8904% / 0.02890378
20.2 Poland_Kowalewko_IA:PCA0059
16.8 Poland_Kowalewko_IA:PCA0044
14.4 Poland_Pruszcz_Gdanski_IA:PCA0498
11.4 Poland_Maslomecz_IA:PCA0094
10.2 Poland_Poznan_Middle_Age:PCA0549
8.2 Poland_Kowalewko_IA:PCA0007
6.2 Poland_Niemcza_Middle_Age:PCA0127
5.4 Poland_Markowice_Middle_Age:PCA0158
3.4 Poland_Lad_Middle_Age:PCA0198
3.4 Poland_Niemcza_Middle_Age_oBalkans:PCA0126
0.4 Poland_Kowalewko_IA:PCA0051
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteThanks!
@Anyone
ReplyDeleteWhat's the deal with Poland_Maslomecz_IA_oEastEurope?
This looks like the only Wielbark sample with Balto-Slavic ancestry.
Is there a C14 date, and what's the contamination level?
@ Dave
ReplyDeleteWhich specific sample ID is that ?
The ID is PCA0103.
ReplyDelete@Steppe
ReplyDeleteSorry, I meant 3000 to 3500 YEARS AGO, not BC. Obviously, 3500 BC is too early to be talking about Balto-Slavs.
@Pavel Flegontov
ReplyDelete"You've just described isolation by distance approximated by a stepping-stone model - a very hot topic in my group now. Isolation by distance (another IBD!) affects not only IBD sharing, but f-statistics and all other metrics too. Stay tuned for 2-3 preprints from our team early next year."
Cool! I didn't know there was a term for this.
What about these two Northwestern Europeans in the Polish Middle Ages set? What do they represent?
ReplyDeletePoland_Lad_Middle_Ages_oWestEurope:PCA0193
Poland_Lad_Middle_Ages_oWestEurope:PCA0201
PCA0193 - https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-FTE67170/tree
DeleteDavid
ReplyDeleteMake sure you have all the Wielbark samples from the Stolarek's work. G25 has high requirements for SNPs, so not all samples were included in G25. Nevertheless, their coordinators are somewhere.
And I understand that you will include all Wielbark samples in the average test population, not only the purely Scandinavian ones, or you will pretest each sample separately. I also understand that for comparisons you will use chronological populations/samples of native Scandinavian origin, without any Balto-Slavic admixture. Because today's Scandinavians, especially Swedes and Danes, have a large Balto-Slavic admixture, inherited from the late Iron Age and early Middle Ages (Margaryan, Athanasiadis).
I understand Arza, because f3 statistics can always be designed to achieve what you want to prove.
PCA 0103. Female; Great coverage (>1.0 x), C14 : 129-260 AD (83.0%), low contamination
ReplyDeletePCA0193. decent cov, high contamination
PCA0201. decent cov, containation rate not reported, sex "spuriuous"
perhaps best ignore Lad_Middle_Ages_oWestEurope
@ambron
ReplyDeleteThere's no point including the low coverage samples because such samples produce spurious results and create noise.
But obviously, there's no reason why the high coverage Wielbark samples would be exclusively of Scandinavian origin if the Wielbark population was of mixed origin.
If you can't prove what you want to prove with the relatively good quality samples, then you can't prove it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@davidski/ambron
ReplyDeleteAs regards Wielbark, obviously Scandinavian dna - like Volvos - is of high quality and just keeps persisting through time delivering high quality samples. The Slavic dna not so much. There is the solution.😅
@Lucas
ReplyDeleteI realize there are other explanations/founder effects, etc., but they require additional events or for something to give here, don’t you think?
Modern DNA is very deceptive. Just ask some of our Indian friends who still think that R1a moved from India to Poland.
Dave
ReplyDeleteyou could try things like
f4 Mbuti Trzciniec Wielbark SWE_IA
f4 Mbuti Wielbark Trzciniec Latvia__LBA
f4 Mbuti Poland_MA Trzciniec Latvia_LBA
f4 Mbuti Latvia_LBA Wielbark SWE_IA
I havent merged the new data yet
David
ReplyDeleteThe quality of biological material is a fundamental problem and limitation of archaeogenomics. Imputation is problematic (it has as many supporters as opponents) because it complements modern genetic variants (bases of archaeological variants are only being created). Therefore, lower quality samples are equally important for archaeogenomic research.
@ambron
ReplyDeleteThere's a good number of good quality Wielbark samples available, and there's no reason why the low coverage samples should be the ones with Slavic admixture.
So I don't have to rely on poor quality data in this case.
Ah, interesting, the PCA0103 sample dated to 129-260 AD looks like a 50/50 mix between a Goth and a Balt.
ReplyDeletemtDNA - https://www.yfull.com/mtree/H2a1a-a8/ (PCA0103 = MH492653)
ReplyDeleteAnd apparently there will be a cultural Balt from Grodek (also Maslomecz group) who belongs to R-YP4258 (https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-YP4258/tree).
ReplyDeleteWe already have one ancient R-YP4258 sample - R10840 (262-415 CE) from Bailuliai, Lithuania.
Target: Poland_Maslomecz_IA_oEastEurope:PCA0103
ReplyDeleteDistance: 1.5490% / 0.01548971
20.0 Poland_Niemcza_Middle_Age
16.0 Poland_Lad_Middle_Age
13.4 Lithuania_Marvele_Roman.SG
13.0 Poland_Maslomecz_IA
11.6 Sweden_IA.SG
9.8 Poland_Kowalewko_IA
8.6 Poland_Rumin_Middle_Age
4.8 Poland_Santok_Middle_Age
2.8 Poland_Ostrow_Lednicki_Middle_Age
Target: Poland_Maslomecz_IA_oEastEurope:PCA0103
Distance: 1.0536% / 0.01053584
27.6 Poland_Trzciniec_Culture
16.4 Poland_Santok_Middle_Age
15.8 Poland_Kowalewko_IA
12.0 Lithuania_Marvele_Roman.SG
6.4 Poland_Iwno_Culture_B_EEF
5.6 Poland_Niemcza_Middle_Age
5.4 Poland_Lad_Middle_Age
3.4 Sweden_IA.SG
3.0 Poland_Oblaczkowo_Middle_Age
2.2 Poland_Markowice_Middle_Age
1.2 Poland_Maslomecz_IA
1.0 Poland_Mierzanowice_Culture
Which is the source pure proto-Germanic population before they started to mix with Celts, Slavs, Balts, Finns?
ReplyDeletePCA0103 looks 1/2 Balt + 1/4 Wielbark + 1/4 Celt with some Italic connections:
ReplyDelete-------------- ANCESTRY BREAKDOWN: -------------
25.205% ITA_Tarquinia_IA__R10342_-100
16.617% Baltic_LVA_BA__Kivutkalns153_-500
13.562% POL_IA_Wielbark__PCA0102_300
11.707% Baltic_LVA_BA__Kivutkalns42_-500
7.516% POL_IA_Wielbark__PCA0056_156
7.328% Baltic_LVA_BA__Kivutkalns215_-500
4.480% RUS_Ingria_IA__VIII5_2_180
2.834% Baltic_EST_BA__s19_V14_2_-560
2.541% SVN_EIA__I22937_-496
2.512% Baltic_LVA_BA__Kivutkalns209_-500
1.874% HUN_IA_La_Tene_o3__I25524_-225
1.225% HUN_IA_La_Tene__I25508_-260
0.975% RUS_VolgaOka_IA__BOL004_263
0.915% RUS_VolgaOka_IA__BOL001_294
0.709% ITA_Sicily_Himera_480BCE_1__I10945_-540
------------------------------------------------
Fit error: 0.009694464493341907
We should go back & take a look at the Chernyakovians from Jarve in light of new data
ReplyDelete@ east pole
ReplyDeleteDo you think it’s a good idea to model Iron Age people with middle age references ?
Of course it's not a good idea, but he thinks that Poles have never mixed with anyone even remotely related to Germans.
ReplyDelete@Rob
ReplyDelete“Do you think it’s a good idea to model Iron Age people with middle age references ?”
No it is not a good idea, but what do you do when Iron Age Slavs are cremated? Either Trzciniec and Lusatian Slavs or Middle Age Slavs as a proxy, or you will end up with a theory, that David believes, that Slavs disappeared completely and then as a result of mixing of Balts and Germanics a very similar population was recreated.
Fixed the dating:
ReplyDelete@Davidski:
If you look at a Slavic clade like 18681 it was supposedly formed about 550BC (as per FTDNA). If so, and if this is a late migrant to say Poland (around 550AD so roughly 1100 years later), you would expect there to exist significant related downclades located in the area in which this clade first arose. In other words if Slavs existed in Ukraine, Russia and Belarus but nowhere else until around 550AD then you would think that there would be a significant downclade remnant in those countries (or Kyrgyzstan or wherever East). But as per FTDNA you get 57 in PL, 12 in DE and 9 in Russia. It is not until you get to R-Y2898 formed about 1750BC that Russian and Ukrainian downclades begin to outnumber Poland. I realize this is highly imperfect and their data is likely skewed in a number of ways and Belarus is tabula rasa but - putting this aside for the moment and taking the data on its face - the simplest explanation is that Slavs (in a yDNA sense) started to migrate to Poland from the East around 1750BC.
Of course, you could say they all left in 550BC but then you would have to postulate a post 550AD return migration back East and this would be a highly selective migration based apparently on DNA… Alternatively, maybe some left for Poland but others stayed but, again, they would have had to have somehow separated themselves based on DNA so that’s again not likely. I realize there are other explanations/founder effects, etc., but they require additional events or for something to give here, don’t you think?
@Davidski:
ReplyDelete“Modern DNA is very deceptive. Just ask some of our Indian friends who still think that R1a moved from India to Poland.”
Ok, but do you have any guesses as to why these Polish clades do not seem to have common ancestors with Russians or Ukrainians until we go back to 1750BC?
@Lucas
ReplyDeleteOk, but do you have any guesses as to why these Polish clades do not seem to have common ancestors with Russians or Ukrainians until we go back to 1750BC?
I'd say this is solely a question of Y-chromosome phylogeny and nothing to do with how closely Poles are related to East Slavs.
Apples and oranges.
Ok I guess I am more interested in oranges
ReplyDelete"Several of the Scythians cluster among the Slavs and Irish, but that's because they're genetic outliers, whose existence, if anything, suggests that some Scythians had significant Slavic-related and/or Irish-related ancestry."
ReplyDeleteAlmost enough vagueness there for some loon to reboot the old absurd Scot came from Scyth nonsense lol
Western Scythians had almost no East Asian ancestry, didn't they? Couldn't they have contributed to the ethnogenesis of the Slavs?
ReplyDeleteWestern Scythians did have East Asian ancestry.
ReplyDeleteThere are some Scythian era samples from Hungary and Ukraine that have been labeled Scythians and they don't have any East Asian ancestry. But that's probably because they're not really Scythians.
And there's no evidence that even these Scythian era samples have anything to do with Slavs.
What study showed that Western Scythians had significant East Asian ancestry? My understanding was that Western Scythians had very little East Asian ancestry while Eastern Scythians already had significant amounts and that only in late Antiquity did significant East Asian ancestry appear in the western steppe.
DeleteAs has often been mentioned, the Scythians emerged in the Andronovo-Karasuk cultural complex with an East Asian input and later they migrated to the Black Sea coast, the Carpathian Basin and the Pannonian Plain where they were partly assimilated by the local population, for example by Celts in Hungary or Dacians/Geten in Romania and Moldova and in later times Alans of Goths/Ostrogoths, although this culture can be viewed as heterogeneous, the origin in Siberia/Altai region is evident, which is also shown by archeology and genetics. But from the La Téne period onwards, the Scythians quickly lost dominance in Hungary.
ReplyDeleteThe so called western Scythian samples from studies that have been published are just Scythian era samples.
ReplyDeleteBut there are samples from actual Scythian burials coming soon from the western Black Sea coast and they all have East Asian ancestry, and also all sorts of other admixtures from the Caucasus and Central Asia.
They're actually very similar to eastern Scythians.