I just emailed this to the authors of
High-resolution genomic ancestry reveals mobility in early medieval Europe, a new preprint at
bioRxiv [
LINK].
I appreciate that Polish population history is not the main focus of your preprint, and also that you're constrained by the lack of relevant and suitably high quality ancient genomes from East-Central and Eastern Europe. However, I must say that your analysis of the Medieval Polish population and resulting conclusions about Polish population history don't reflect reality.
Your Poland_Middle_Ages genomic cluster is made up of just six samples that don't fully represent the genetic complexity of the core population of Medieval Poland.
As a result, you classified PCA0148 as one of the Poland_Middle_Ages outliers, even though this sample isn't an outlier when analyzed within the context of the full set of published Polish Medieval genomes.
Moreover, PCA0148 is very similar to several Polish Viking Age samples that show Scandinavian-specific genome-wide and Y-chromosome haplotypes, and probably likewise shows some Scandinavian-related ancestry.
This is important to note when attempting to recapitulate Polish population history, because it suggests that Scandinavian-related ancestry played a formative role in the shaping of the core Polish Medieval genetic cluster.
Thus, you might be correct when you claim that the six samples in your Poland_Middle_Ages cluster don't show any "detectable" Scandinavian-related ancestry, but this doesn't necessarily mean that this type of ancestry isn't a key part of the post-Iron Age Polish population history.
Below is a self-explanatory Principal Component Analysis (PCA) plot that illustrates my points. Interestingly, Figure 3c in your preprint shows very similar outcomes in regards to the post-Iron Age Polish population history. But the style and scale of your figure makes it difficult to spot the subtle but likely genuine Northwest European-related genetic shifts shown by PCA0148, the Viking context samples and present-day Poles relative to the Poland_Middle_Ages cluster.
However, I'm also skeptical that your Poland_Middle_Ages cluster doesn't carry any detectable or even significant Scandinavian-related ancestry. That's because I suspect that there might be some technical issues with your analysis that are masking this type of ancestry in the Polish samples.
Your top mixture model for the Poland_Middle_Ages cluster is, in all likelihood, an extreme statistical abstraction of reality, rather than a close reflection of it. That's because, due to a combination of historical, geographical and genetic factors, neither Italy.Imperial(I).SG nor Lithuania.IronRoman.SG are realistic formative source populations for the Medieval Polish gene pool.
One of the reasons why you ended up with such a surprising result is probably the lack of suitable samples from East-Central and Eastern Europe, especially those associated with plausibly the earliest Slavic-speaking populations.
It's also possible that basing your mixture model on formal statistics played a key part.
Formal statistics-based mixture models are known to be biased towards outcomes involving mixture sources from the extremes of mixture clines. If your analysis is affected by this problem, then this would help to explain why you characterized the Poland_Middle_Ages cluster as simply a two-way mixture between a Middle Eastern-related group from Imperial Rome and a Baltic population with a very high cut of European hunter-gatherer ancestry.
I do note that on page 6 of your manuscript you consider the possibility that the Southern European-related signal in the Poland_Middle_Ages cluster might only be very distantly related to Italy.Imperial(I).SG, and that it may even have spread across Poland with early Slavic speakers. This is a great point, and I think it should be emphasized and expanded upon, because I suspect that the problem runs deeper than this.
For instance, if the early Slavic ancestors of Poles carried substantially more Southern European-related ancestry than Lithuania.IronRoman.SG, and this ancestry was, say, more Balkan-related than Italian-related, then this might radically change your modeling of the Poland_Middle_Ages cluster. That's because these early Slavs would be positioned in a very different genetic space than Lithuania.IronRoman.SG, which could potentially require a significant signal of Scandinavian-related ancestry to get a robust mixture model.
Finally, it might be useful to consider Isolation-by-Distance as a partial vector for the Italy.Imperial(I).SG-related signal in Medieval Poland.
The full set of published Polish Medieval genomes includes a number of outliers with obvious ancestry from Western Europe and the Balkans. These people probably don't represent any large-scale migrations into Poland, but rather the movements of individuals and small groups. Over time, such small-scale mobility may have had a fairly significant impact on the genetic character of the Polish population.
Update 26/03/2024: I sent another email to Speidel et al., this time in regards to their analysis of present-day Hungarians.
Your preprint also claims that present-day Hungarians are genetically similar to Scythians, and that this is consistent with the arrival of Magyars, Avars and other eastern groups in this part of Europe.
However, present-day Hungarians are overwhelmingly derived from Slavic and German peasants from near Hungary. This is not a controversial claim on my part; it's backed up by historical sources and a wide range of genetic analyses.
Hungarians still show some minor ancestry from Hungarian Conquerors (early Magyars), but this signal only reliably shows up in large surveys of Y-chromosome samples.
The Scythians that you used to model the ancestry of present-day Hungarians are of local, Pannonian origin, and they don't show any eastern nomad ancestry. So they're either acculturated Scythians, or, more likely, wrongly classified as Scythians by archeologists.
And since these so-called Scythians lack eastern nomad ancestry, the similarity between them and present-day Hungarians is not a sign of the impact from Avars, Hungarian Conquerors and the like, but rather a lack of significant input from such groups in present-day Hungarians.
Citation...
Speidel et al.,
High-resolution genomic ancestry reveals mobility in early medieval Europe,
bioRxiv, Posted March 19, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.15.585102
See also...
Wielbark Goths were overwhelmingly of Scandinavian origin
613 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 613 of 613@Häkkinen,
The only one who is like the emperor's new clothes is you.
Who pretends to be a historical linguist has to follow the one and only basic rule for historians: you have to have sources (records in the case of language) to give your narrative a fundament.
Prehistoric (what's in a name)- proto- languages are reconstructed languages based on later on spoken languages. We don't know if this reconstruction is accurat, we don't know if this was spoken in some time or place. We can only assume. But we have no single evidence (records in time and place). The pretension that this is certain are the emperors new clothes, so naked, no proof.
But Häkkinen is obviously barer of the stone of knowledge that ignores this all, and stays in his own created absolute autistic groove....
@ gaska
Close attention to subclade is required.
In your example
I14798 (2.500 BCE)-Oylum Höyük, Kilis_EBA, Anatolia-HapY-J1a2a/1a2-P58>Z1853>Z1865>ZS2652
NST001 (2.487 BCE)-Nea Styra, early Helladic, Euboea island-HapY-J1a-P58>ZS12519-
These are different sibc;ades of P58
Nea Styra falls with Gulemnitsa & Vasilyevskiy kordon
Olym Hoyuk falls under the LEvantine branch
Hagios Charalambos does indeed align with Arslantepe, thus testifyin to recent Aegean - Anatolian movement networks.
But Kazanlak forms a specific clade with Chalcolithic (~ 3000 BCE) samples from Italy & Prague_jinonice, having split of earlier from a Caucasian branch
So the Kazanlak branch isn't a recent migrant from Anatolia, rather from central Europe.
This is consistent with a lack of extra Anatolia_CHl adncestry in the Tell Kran group.
Therefore, as Ive said before, the Y-DNA evidence for West Asian migrations is rather limited. We cannot just coop all J into one group.
Weure, there are several books titled "An Introduction to Historical Linguistics", just pick one and read it with a thought. You will do yourself a great favor. Unfortunately your ignorance is now instantly perceivable. Lack of knowledge cannot change into knowledge, no matter how much you repeat it. If you have some specific questions about the method, I will be happy to answer.
@Häkkinen get to the point I don't need a bibliography, thanks!
Hi Rob,
"Just a gentle reminder
- PIE isnt from Shuvaleri -Shomu
- BB didnt come from northern Africa"
Let me give 3 not so gentle reminders:
1-Focusing on what you perceive I did get wrong does not obfuscate what I did get spot on, even by the tiniest details (Like the Kum6 girl, or Kuban rive movements), right! . Having said that, PIE IS SHULAVERI , golly what do you think Harvard is saying in that paper?? – Just look at the life style of Shulaveri, their inventions and where they live. How can you not see it?!
2-How do you know BB didn’t come from Northern Africa?? BB is not the genetic admixture we now call BB is it not? BB was still a culture born out of Lisbon area. Did anyone tested the “copos” culture, Zambujal etc? – Yes BB genetics spread in Europe might not be BB culture original people but you never know – Note: I do not believe it these day other way! Its just too murky, I don’t care.
3-So, I did told you all along, with you all laughing, that the onset of the Shulaveri with those fleeing up Kuban river to the north Caucasus were the ethnogenesis of the Yamnaya, I told you that the Shulaveri fleeing to eastern turkey was the Ethnogenesis of Hitites (wink wink, PIE!) … and I wont bother people with the rest, but just wait and see! Just wait and see (Tel tsaf, Merimbe (maybe), etc)
final note: Understand I do need to argue anything else! I just need to wait, from being laugh at to... Here, here we are now. Just having a ball!
@ Olympus
“I told you that the Shulaveri fleeing to eastern turkey was the Ethnogenesis of Hitites (wink wink, PIE!)”
yes I recall they were fleeing the snake people
@Romolus
This can only be Usatove
I am pretty sure they do not think so, as they claim Usatove and Corded Ware had completely different ancestries from multiple sides (different source for EF ancestry, and different source for Caucasus ancestry too.)
@Olympus Mons
Probably, Shuvaleri-Shomu were the proto-Kura Araksians, and were the root for the languages of the Abkhazo-Adyghe Nakh-Dagestanian and Kartvelian language families of the Vohmozhno and Hurrito-Urartian, because in all these samples of the Neolithic Armenian Georgian Azerbaijan (at least after 6-5 thousand years BC ) a fairly high Neolithic component in the mixture, and the steppe Proto-Indo-Europeans, especially the Volga wedge(cline), did not contain anything Anatolian but were a mixture of (ANE-EHG) + (IRAN-CHG)
but take my opinion as the opinion of a delitian, I am not a linguist, not a geneticist, not a historian, not an archaeologist
@Slumbery
Explain to me what other culture is
-it must have certainly been to the west of the Core Yamnaya
-and at the same time the geographic neighbor of the Yamnaya.
Rob,
"yes I recall they were fleeing the snake people"
Yes. Ubaid/uruk (Snake people). What confused you?
@ OM
''Yes. Ubaid/uruk (Snake people). What confused you?''
Im playing with you. Your theory doesnt make sense
For a start, the uruk people date to 3500 BC, so Shuvaleri cant be fleeing people who didnt exist in 5500 BC
And PIE is not from Armania N
Rob,
always this endless mind tricks. - Uruk was 3500BC but derive from UBAID which was 5500BC, as I said. - So what confuses you?
@Romulus
'-it must have certainly been to the west of the Core Yamnaya
-and at the same time the geographic neighbor of the Yamnaya.'
I hear that, though Slumbery has a point that, per this upcoming paper, is Usatovo not something like 50% CLV, 50% EEF, without Ukraine_N stuff, unless I'm misunderstanding. Meanwhile, "proto-CWC" (by which I mean the cluster at the eastern tip of the early CWC cline, represented by PNL001 and a few others like him) is essentially 100% Yamnaya-like, but with slightly less CLV and slightly more Ukraine_N. Autosomally, Usatovo just doesn't fit, on that basis. But I hear that we're missing a culture. Frankly, I expect that simply is the case. Think about how insanely unsampled Belarus is; are we just missing a relatively small (sub)-group of steppe herders ca. 3300 BCE from slightly north and west of Yamnaya, that we haven't even really looked for properly?
Post a Comment