search this blog

Friday, November 10, 2023

Wielbark Goths were overwhelmingly of Scandinavian origin


When used properly, Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is an extraordinarily powerful tool and one of the best ways to study fine-scale genetic substructures within Europe.

The PCA plot below is based on Global25 data and focuses on the genetic relationship between Wielbark Goths and Medieval Poles, including from the Viking Age, in the context of present-day European genetic variation.


I'd say that it's a wonderfully self-explanatory plot, but here are some key observations:

- the Wielbark Goths (Poland_Wielbark_IA) and Medieval Poles (Poland_Middle_Ages) are two distinct populations

- moreover, the Wielbark Goths form a relatively compact Scandinavian-related cluster and must surely represent a homogenous population overwhelmingly of Scandinavian origin

- on the other hand, the Medieval Poles form a more extensive and heterogeneous cluster that overlaps with present-day groups all the way from Central Europe to the East Baltic, and that's because they are likely to be in large part of mixed origin

- I know for a fact that at least some of these early Poles harbor recent admixture, because their burials are similar to those of Vikings and their haplotypes have been shown to be partly of Scandinavian origin (see here)

- one of the Wielbark females is an obvious genetic outlier (Poland_Wielbark_IA_outlier), and basically looks like a first generation mixture between a Goth and a Balt.

Please note that the PCA is only based on relatively high quality genomes, so as not to confuse the picture with spurious results and noise. Also, all outliers with potentially significant ancestry from outside of Central, Eastern and Northern Europe were removed from the analysis. The relevant datasheet is available here.

However, sanity checks are always important when studying complex topics like fine-scale genetic ancestry. To that end I've prepared a graph based on f3-statistics of the form f3(X,Cameroon_SMA,Estonia_BA)/(X,Cameroon_SMA,Ireland_Megalithic), that reproduces the key features of my PCA. The relevant datasheet is available here.

Polish groups from the Middle Ages are marked with the MA suffix, while the Iron Age Wielbark Goths are marked with the IA suffix.

If you're wondering why I plotted the f3-statistics that I did, take a look at this (all groups largely of Scandinavian origin are emboldened):

f3(X,Estonia_BA,Cameroon_SMA)
Poland_Legowo_MA 0.226406
Poland_Ostrow_Lednicki_MA 0.225996
Poland_Plonsk_MA 0.225017
Poland_Trzciniec_Culture 0.224215
Poland_Lad_MA 0.224142
Poland_Viking 0.223838
Poland_Niemcza_MA 0.223659
Poland_Weklice_IA 0.223549
Poland_Kowalewko_IA 0.222584
Poland_Pruszcz_Gdanski_IA 0.222324
Sweden_Viking 0.222091
Russia_Viking 0.222042
Poland_Maslomecz_IA 0.221914
Norway_Viking 0.221825
Denmark_EarlyViking 0.221257
Denmark_Viking 0.221174
England_Viking 0.220979

f3(X,Ireland_Megalithic,Cameroon_SMA)
Poland_Maslomecz_IA 0.219816
Poland_Weklice_IA 0.219501
Denmark_Viking 0.2192
Poland_Kowalewko_IA 0.219176
Poland_Ostrow_Lednicki_MA 0.218916
Norway_Viking 0.218854
Poland_Pruszcz_Gdanski_IA 0.218684
Sweden_Viking 0.218626
Denmark_EarlyViking 0.218529
England_Viking 0.218308
Russia_Viking 0.217999
Poland_Viking 0.217914
Poland_Plonsk_MA 0.217756
Poland_Lad_MA 0.217719
Poland_Legowo_MA 0.21765
Poland_Niemcza_MA 0.217001
Poland_Trzciniec_Culture 0.216551

Interestingly, the Middle Bronze Age samples associated with the Trzciniec Culture (Poland_Trzciniec_Culture) show a closer genetic relationship to Medieval Poles than to Wielbark Goths or Northwestern Europeans. This is indeed the case both in terms of genome-wide and uniparental markers, including some very specific lineages under Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a.

But that's a much more complex issue that I'll leave for another time. So please stay tuned.

See also...

Slavs have little, if any, Scytho-Sarmatian ancestry

256 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 256 of 256
Davidski said...

@ambron

The Weklice genomes that have been released don't show any Slavic ancestry.

So how do you know that there are some on the way with Slavic admixture?

Or are you just hoping again?

Арсен said...

@Davidski
that is, these were not Caucasian hunters from a specific area, they were scattered and independent of each other throughout the Caucasus?
"starting at least 5,500 BCE", but there are also older samples from Ukraine and Russia, which contain components of Caucasian hunters. are these single samples?
we need more ancient samples from the Caucasus, including the paleolithic mesolithic neolithic chalcolithic

Davidski said...

@Арсен

that is, these were not Caucasian hunters from a specific area, they were scattered and independent of each other throughout the Caucasus?

Yes, I think so.

"At least 5,500 BCE" is just a very conservative time frame for when the first significant diffusion of these Caucasian alleles may have spread into the steppe and forest steppe.

Of course, there's already a Yamnaya-like population in the Middle Don forest steppe around 5,300 BCE, so a more realistic date is probably at least 6,000 BCE.

Rob said...

Dave, the actual Chernyakhov outlier (MJ-37) has “Thracian” admixture, not Balto-Slavic. The others are straight Germanics.

Davidski said...

@Rob

MJ-19 is basically 50/50 Germanic/Slavic, and similar to modern West Slavs.

Distance to: Ukraine_Chernyakhiv.SG:MJ-19_noUDG.SG
0.03739921 Slovakian
0.04221199 Polish_Silesian
0.04362945 Czech
0.04468093 Polish
0.04504425 Ukrainian_Zakarpattia
0.04560545 Sorb_Niederlausitz
0.04763502 German_Hamburg
0.04764958 Ukrainian_Rivne
0.04766981 Hungarian
0.04840504 Ukrainian_Dnipro

Rob said...

@ Davidski

Dont think so. Check in PCA, she's shifted off to an EEF-rich region, not Balto-Slavic direction, but of course Latvia_BA might not be the best representative here

Ukraine_Chernyakhiv_o.SG
Denmark_IA.SG
Bulgaria_EIA


best coefficients: 0.722 0.278
std. errors: 0.057 0.057
tail prob 0.157332


Ukraine_Chernyakhiv_o.SG
Denmark_IA.SG
Bulgaria_EIA
Latvia_BA
best coefficients: 1.433 0.105 -0.538


Ukraine_Chernyakhiv_o.SG
Denmark_IA.SG
Latvia_BA

best coefficients: 1.732 -0.732
infeasible

This is not surprising. The Ukraine Scythians have little in the way of Balto-Slavic drift -like admixture
The implication is western/southern Ukraine isnt the homeland, either.

Davidski said...

@Rob

Sounds like you have the samples mixed up.

MJ-19 clusters with Poles and Germans. MJ-37 has Balkan ancestry.

You can check here.

https://vahaduo.github.io/g25views/#Europe1

MJ-19_noUDG.SG,0.121791,0.128972,0.067505,0.052326,0.028005,0.020359,0.00517,0.012692,-0.009613,-0.024602,-0.003573,-0.001499,0.009217,-0.004679,0.000679,0.01127,0.019036,-0.007728,0.01257,-0.00025,0.00287,0.004946,0.016022,0.000361,0.009939
MJ-36_noUDG.SG,0.150247,0.105615,0.043746,0.072675,0.019388,0.043507,0.019036,-0.019153,0.011044,0.010934,0.00065,-0.024278,-0.000892,0.016652,0.014522,-0.003315,-0.011213,-0.027618,-0.023506,0.001751,0.013476,-0.021145,0.001602,0.033258,-0.018681
MJ-37_noUDG.SG,0.126344,0.136081,0.050911,0.019703,0.021235,0.008925,0.0047,-0.000692,-0.003068,0.00492,-0.006658,0.001049,-0.004757,0.004404,-0.005836,0.009812,0.020079,0.005068,-0.008422,0.017633,0.004617,0.004081,0.004807,-0.000361,0.005868

Lukaszer said...

Ambron told about mgr Borówka doctoral thesis. IT is month after it so I think no problem to publish it now. I am very interested what David will say... https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Agbd2-fXNovnsvqiREcDTqHazAfZCXLK/view?usp=sharing

BTw before I told in comment about Polish paper from completely different team and focused on pre medieval genoems, not mainly medieval like Borówka work.

Davidski said...

I can't say anything about the thesis until I get the samples, because there's no guarantee that this woman can even run a basic analysis.

Арсен said...

@Davidski
why sample MJ-36_noUDG.SG is poorly modeled by copper stone age calculators?

Davidski said...

Coverage 0.016165. No UDG treatment.

MJ-36_noUDG.SG MJ-36 50 tooth (canine) 2019 JarveCurrentBiology2019 Direct (WARNING MISSING LAB CODE): IntCal20 1628 45 247-404 calCE (1735±30 BP, Poz-) .. Ukraine_Chernyakhiv_o.SG Komariv-1, Grave 3 Ukraine 48.5351833 26.9676 Repulldown on 3.2M snpset Shotgun .. 0.016165 15714 8651 F n/a (no relatives detected) n/a (female) n/a (female) .. H1c .. .. .. ds.minus .. PASS ..

Dranoel said...

@Davidski

One more question about samples of the Wielbark culture from the area of Pruszcz Gdański. Do you find any people of mixed ancestry there, or do all the samples look Germanic?

Another issue is their origin. Are all of the above do the samples look like they come from Denmark? Do you also see other destinations like Sweden, Norway or Germany?

Have a peaceful Sunday! :)

ambron said...

David

Here is a sample of analysis conducted by "this woman":

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-33067-w

ambron said...

David

In my opinion, MJ19 is not the best candidate for the Early Slavic genome. It has a large Sarmatian admixture, which Poles and other Western Slavs lack:

Target: UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19
Distance: 2.3159% / 0.02315851 | R3P
69.0 Polish
21.8 Swedish
9.2 Tajik_Shugnan

The Proto-Slavics did not have such an admixture in their homeland, as can be seen from the Trzciniec and Komarów genomes.

Carlos Aramayo said...

@Davidski



So, what do you think of DATES estimate of Yamnaya formation around 4400-4000 BCE?

Rob said...

Im talking about MJ37_ shes ~ 40% Thracian.
Ill double check MJ19

Rob said...

MJ-19 just plots with Goths & other Germanics on your G25 PCA

Davidski said...

@Rob

MJ-19 just plots with Goths & other Germanics on your G25 PCA

That's not true.

MJ-19 plots clearly south of the main Gothic cluster at the intersection between the German and Polish clusters.

That's why in terms of overall distance this sample looks mostly West Slavic.

Distance to: Ukraine_Chernyakhiv.SG:MJ-19_noUDG.SG
0.03739921 Slovakian
0.04221199 Polish_Silesian
0.04362945 Czech
0.04468093 Polish
0.04504425 Ukrainian_Zakarpattia
0.04560545 Sorb_Niederlausitz
0.04763502 German_Hamburg
0.04764958 Ukrainian_Rivne
0.04766981 Hungarian
0.04840504 Ukrainian_Dnipro

Davidski said...

@Carlos Aramayo

So, what do you think of DATES estimate of Yamnaya formation around 4400-4000 BCE?

DATES output is difficult to interpret, but I think this date is roughly when a Progress-like population met Ukraine Neolithic foragers in Ukraine and formed Sredny Stog.

Davidski said...

@Dranoel

The Pruszcz Gdański samples generally look very Germanic, but there are also two outliers there. One that looks more Western European and another that clearly has Southern European ancestry.

The Wielbark Goths mostly resemble Iron Age Danes, but I don't know where they came from exactly. It may have been Denmark or somewhere nearby.

Davidski said...

@ambron

I'm not impressed.

The thesis is so confused that it's impossible to work out anything useful about those new Weklice samples.

The only thing that makes sense is that one of the males is listed in a table as belonging to Y-hg I1.

When these samples become available I'll have a look at them and then I can actually say with certainty whether they have Slavic ancestry or not.

Davidski said...

@Rob

I'm not sure what the problem is, but I think these two plots show that MJ-19 is not in the Wielbark Goth cluster.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uEsC6NudXlDcuY87JFFvjODg-fJDdO3K/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_MA55WXexa0Pd2kZ9FAfM4v3Od4k47wj/view?usp=sharing

Copper Axe said...

Another possibility is that some of the Wielbark samples were partially derived from the preceding Przeworsk culture, Przeworsk looks Jastorf-derived in terms of the Germanic aspect whereas Wielbark seems to have more Scandinavian connections with their stone circles and stone mounds. This could explain why some look more "continental" than others.

Арсен said...

@Davidski
Mister Davidski, I also have another question, it is known that Caucasian hunters contained ANE impurities, just as Neolithic farmers of Iran (ganji dareh) had them, when and where do you think this mixture could have occurred? in Central Asia, on the Iranian plateau or in the Caucasus? if there was mixing in Iran, could there have been additional mixing with ANE in the North Caucasus? or is the high level of ANE in North Caucasians (especially Nakh-Dagestan peoples) related to Eastern European hunters?

Davidski said...

@Арсен

Please don't refer to admixture as impurity. I know this is just an artifact when translating directly from Russian to English, but some people may not realize this and it could cause problems.

ANE is a very old component, so we don't know how and when it spread around Siberia and into Eastern Europe, Central Asia and West Asia.

It was probably a long and complex process involving at least several different Upper Paleolithic and later hunter-gatherer groups.

It seems that ANE arrived early near the Caspian Sea, and it was probably well established as a minor but significant genetic component in many populations all around the Caspian Sea and the Caucasus by at least ~20,000 years ago.

I think it'll be impossible to track in detail its spread in this area due to a lack of enough samples from the Upper Paleolithic.

Арсен said...

@Davidski
I just don’t speak English, I’m using a translator, and so you understand what I mean, here’s how Google translate translates your text - “Пожалуйста, не называйте примесь примесью” which literally in English means “Please do not call an impurity an impurity”
so again - sorry for my english)

Rob said...

@ Davidski

''I'm not sure what the problem is, but I think these two plots show that MJ-19 is not in the Wielbark Goth cluster.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uEsC6NudXlDcuY87JFFvjODg-fJDdO3K/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_MA55WXexa0Pd2kZ9FAfM4v3Od4k47wj/view?usp=sharing''


Possible some limitations of G25 based inferencing, or modern based inferencing. ?


left pops:
Ukraine_Chernyakhiv_MJ19
Denmark_IA.SG
Lithuania_Marvele_Roman.SG

infeasible


Ukraine_Chernyakhiv_MJ19
Denmark_IA.SG
Bulgaria_EIA

best coefficients: 0.899 0.101
but one way passes too
tail prob 0.121481
0.077508

Rob said...

@ Copper Axe

'Przeworsk looks Jastorf-derived in terms of the Germanic aspect whereas Wielbark seems to have more Scandinavian connections with their stone circles and stone mounds. ''


has anyone actually established the chronological anteriority of stone circles in Scandinavia ? because Oksywie is also from jastorf, and the shift from Oksywie to Wielbakr is increased ROman trade.

Davidski said...

@Rob

qpAdm can't distinguish between a Scandinavian and a sample that is 50/50 Germanic/Slavic.

It's not a very useful tool for studying fine scale European substructures.

See what happens when you try to differentiate a southern Swede from a western Pole with qpAdm.

Lucas Slawbuski said...

@galadhorn:

I don’t think you will find what you’re looking for in those maps. It is entirely possible that some Slavs came back into Poland after the Goths left but if they find Slavic haplogroups in Pomeranian cultures or lusatian it will all probably be a mishmash with each “side” here celebrating victory and yet neither entirely satisfied.

David seems to have at least accepted the possibility of “Slavic” 458/280 y-dna phylogeny being separate from “Slavdom” as in a Slavic generic profile. If that turns out right then who knows what we will end up with. And it’s entirely possible that there were some 458s and even 280s in Poland even before other (to this day hypothetical) 458s/280s came over from the east or northeast.

Rob said...

Perhaps, but we’re working on ancient samples here
Moreover, how would you explain the J2b2 in that Wielbark male from the southeast. Not very Slavic .

Davidski said...

@Rob

qpAdm sees things at a very basic, distal level. So when it shows that MJ-19 possibly has some Bulgaria EIA ancestry, that can mean something very different in reality.

In different PCA plots we can see that MJ-19 clusters strongly with north Germans/western Poles, and of course north Germans/western Poles are slightly more southeastern than Denmark IA.

So your model is essentially correct.

But your model misses the fact that MJ-19 shares strong recent drift with present-day western Slavs, because Lithuania Roman Marvele has too much hunter-gatherer ancestry to be relevant, and qpAdm doesn't pick up recent drift very well.

The issue of J2b2 in Iron Age Poland might be relevant to why north Germans/western Poles and MJ-19 are slightly more southeastern than Denmark IA.

But in any case, I can say without a doubt that MJ-19 has significant Slavic (rather than Baltic) ancestry, and looks a lot like a West Slav in fine scale analyses. There might also be some Sarmatian/East Asian input though.

Rob said...

Yeah it does seem pulled quite toward the Slav-Avar from Szolad in the context of an intra-Europe PCA, and its historically plausible. I think we need more samples, esp male samples for further clarification

ambron said...

David

And how do you propose to distinguish between Baltic and Slavic ancestry from a time perspective of 100-500 AD?

Davidski said...

@ambron

I think Slavs always had less hunter-gatherer ancestry than Balts.

In fact, maybe what distinguished Balts from Slavs at a very early time frame is some sort of Thracian or similar ancestry in Slavs? But I don't know.

In any case, I'm not claiming that MJ-19 is a proto-Slav, or even that the Slavic homeland was in central Ukraine.

The point I'm making is that MJ-19 looks like a Germanic/Slavic mix, while PCA0103 from Maslomecz looks like a Germanic/Baltic mix.

Apart from that, I'm leaving things wide open.

ambron said...

David

Based on facts alone, it looks like this:

According to Jarve, MJ-19 is evidence of the migration of Goths to Ukraine. Goths migrated to Ukraine from Poland. MJ-19 looks genetically like a modern Pole with a local Ukrainian Sarmatian admixture.

Further, of course, this matter should be left open...

ambron said...

Lucas

In subsequent posts, colleague Leonardo reposts FTDNA maps showing that M458 has an entirely central European and Polish origin. And since the patrilinear Slavs formed roughly between 300 BC and 300 AD, this is of fundamentally importance for the discussion of the location of the Slavic homeland.

ambron said...

Lucas

It is worth mentioning that, according to Rębała's study, patrilinear Slavs were formed in the West Slavic population, as a result of a high growth rate between 300 BC and 300 AD.

Davidski said...

@ambron

You have to get some reliable samples that show the presence of people who look unambiguously genetically like Slavs in Iron Age Poland. Not Balts, not Scandinavians with maybe some Baltic admixture, but Slavs.

You know, like the samples we already have that show that the Wielbark people were in large part unambiguously genetically Scandinavian.

Then we can seriously talk about the Slavic homeland being in Poland.

ambron said...

And I understand that we are drawing symmetrical conclusions... We need to obtain reliable samples that will demonstrate the presence of people genetically unambiguously resembling the Slavs in Iron Age Ukraine or Belarus.

ph2ter said...

From this PCA is visible that MJ-19 is some form of Wielbark-Slavic-Sarmatian mix.
PCA103 could be Wielbark-Baltic mix:

https://i.imgur.com/xL1AlRJ.png

(The Sarmatian and Volga-Oka samples are only projected on the PCA because they otherwise would squeeze all European samples on one side of the plot).

Dranoel said...

@Davidski

Thanks for the answers. Could you also write what markings/numbers these two outlier samples from Pruszcz have that you mentioned?

Still sticking to the topic of Germanic tribes and the Migration Period, I would like to ask you about the sample CSONGRAD 3 (CSB-3, Hungary_Hun, 4th - 5th century). On FTDNA etc. it is listed as a "Hunian sample", but after reading the article from this study it is clear that the researchers conclude that a certain pool of samples, including CSB-3 (below Z2103-Y18959) is of Central European origin and probably is related to the migration of the Goths.
Could you take a look at her? What are your conclusions regarding this sample?

ambron said...

ph2ter

So PCA0002 looks like the most Slavic Gothic sample:

Distance is: Wielbark_culture_Kowalewko_o:PCA0002
0.03520301 Ukrainian_Volyn
0.03809343 Cossack_Ukrainian_Dnipropetrovsk
0.03881902 Russian_Lipetsk
0.03902537 Ukrainian_Donetsk
0.03950398 Ukrainians
0.04016299 Ukrainian_Crimea
0.04037858 Russian_Smolensk
0.04041922 Ukrainian_Sumy
0.04141225 Ukrainian_Poltava
0.04186307 Russian_Oryol
0.04186389 Belarusian
0.04193451 Polish

This is an M458 individual, which groups with medieval Poles.

Davidski said...

@Dranoel

Poland_Pruszcz_Gdanski_IA_oAnatolia_IA:PCA0492,0.1161,0.112724,0.036581,0.021964,0.022466,-0.010598,0.011516,0.005538,-0.003681,0.000729,0.015589,0.013338,-0.012636,-0.019542,0.000814,0.017104,0.004172,0.012289,0.002263,-0.002876,-0.011355,-0.004204,0.006286,0.008314,-0.021315
Poland_Pruszcz_Gdanski_IA_oIberianEEF:PCA0493,0.121791,0.123895,0.058077,0.040698,0.0437,0.011435,0.0047,-0.001846,0.015544,0.028247,0.002273,0.018883,-0.018583,-0.016239,0.012622,0.019888,0.024382,0.002407,-0.007793,0.011631,0.010232,-0.004451,-0.002711,0.00964,-0.004191

I'm not familiar with CSONGRAD 3.

ph2ter said...

@Davidski
The samples in your spreadsheet labelled as Croatia_Metz_GalloRoman are actually from France.
We don't have such a place in Croatia yet.

Davidski said...

@ph2ter

They're not my labels. They're from the David Reich Lab.

ph2ter said...

@Davidski
Even the best make mistakes :)

@ambron
POL_IA_Wielbark__PCA0002_200_R1a-M458
-------------- ANCESTRY BREAKDOWN: -------------
34.740% RUS_Ingria_IA__VIII9_1_130
24.831% RUS_Ingria_IA__VIII5_2_180
20.446% POL_IA_Wielbark__PCA0495_200
8.611% Serbia_Sirmium_Roman.SG__R6730.SG_403
6.715% Lithuania_Bailuliai_BarrowCulture.SG__R10840.SG_369
3.889% Serbia_SvilosKrussevlje_Roman.SG__R6701.SG_289
0.429% Peru_RioUncallane_1600BP.SG__IL7_noUDG.SG_172
0.339% Italy_Imperial.SG__R128.SG_200
------------------------------------------------
Fit error: 0.03038874412186163

He looks 20% Wielbark, 67% Baltic, 13% Balkan.
This Baltic-Balkan can represent Slavic.

Davidski said...

As far as I can tell, PCA0002 is not C14 dated. There's only an archeological date of 100AD-300AD.

PCA0002 is listed as a close relative of PCA0037, and this sample does have a C14 date, which is 85-235 AD (95.4%).

However, both samples are low coverage (0.2067 for PCA0002, and just 0.0282 for PCA0037).

So I don't know how the authors managed to tell that these samples are genuinely related based just on the 12228 SNPs that PCA0037 has to offer.

This must be some sort of joke.

ambron said...

However, PCA0002 is a decent quality sample. Its archaeological context is beyond doubt. Its molecular date is also beyond doubt - CTS11962 (TMRCA 3100 BP).

I understand David's skepticism, but I see PCA0002 as a Goth with Balto-Slavic genetics, same as PCA0103 and MJ-19.

Davidski said...

As I pointed out above, PCA0002 has a coverage of only 0.2067. That's not great.

And there's no C14 date. I'm betting that this is a Middle Ages sample.

ambron said...

If the archaeological context was questionable, Stolarek would have eliminated PCA0002 from further analysis, just as he eliminated Gąski.

Davidski said...

Yeah, because obviously Stolarek really knows what he's doing.

He's really good at running PCA, for example.

Vinitharya said...

From where I stand, there can be only two scenarios concerning the origin of Slavs. The first is with the Udolph-style Urheimat in the foothills of the northeast Carpathians, which has the advantage of being where the East and West Slavs meet and near the source of the Dniester the eastern proto-South Slavs took to the Balkans and the mountain passes the western proto-South Slavs took into Pannonia and the western Balkans. The Eastern Slavs would expand into Baltic peoples, the South Slavs into Dacian/Thracian/Illyrian/Romanized people, and the West Slavs into basically nothing, which would allow the bottlenecks and later predominance of M458 in the West Slavs. Or the Slavic homeland was further east, in what is now East Slavic territory. This would necessitate M458 being further west to explain its predominance in Western Slavic groups, because otherwise, if they were expanding from the same group, the South and East Slavs would have similar diversity or predominance. In this instance M458 clades such as YP1337, YP417, and YP263 were vagrants from the west who were among the drivers of Slavic ethnogenesis, while the other M458 clades were either incorporated into the early West Slavs or driven off, particularly into the Germans where they would have been incorporated after the migration period but before the Ostsiedlung. Anything else is just special pleading.

ambron said...

Vinitharya

As you can probably tell, I opt for the first scenario. This is primarily because it is impossible to study ethnogenesis, which is an ethnolinguistic phenomenon, in isolation from linguistic facts. And in the first case, linguistic facts are confirmed by genetic data.

And the genetic facts are that the most reliable Slavic marker is M458. As evidenced by archaeogenomic data and analyzes of modern Y-DNA, the place of genesis of M458 are Western Slavic populations and areas. Personally, I do not need more evidence that the Slavic homeland was located in the areas covering at least part of Poland within its present-day borders.

Dranoel said...

@Davidski

A bit offtopic, but I'll take advantage of the fact that the conversations on this topic have already calmed down :)

I guess you need to have accurate data to be sure, but I would like to ask you casually - what do you think about the Przeworsk culture? What do you think people from this culture will have genetically? Earlier, you mentioned East Germanic populations and mentioned the Wielbark and Chernyakhov cultures... don't you include Przeworsk among them?

And do you think that the Celts brought any visible and significant genetic/Y DNA influence to Poland?

Davidski said...

@Dranoel

Przeworsk should be mostly Northwestern European, but possibly with some Western and Southern European admixture/outliers.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 256 of 256   Newer› Newest»