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
615 comments:
1 – 200 of 615 Newer› Newest»Davidski blasts all Harvard scientists to smithereens
If you are mailing the authors, could you perhaps also point out the mishaps in their assessment of Hungarian genetics?
Yeah, I'll pass it on in my next email.
I'll also post something about that at bioRxiv.
What do you make of the difference between the Wielbark IA and Viking samples? Didn't both ultimately originate in Scandinavia? It it based on a change in Scandinavian ancestry or the influence of then Polish ancestry?
Most of the Wielbark samples are entirely of Scandinavian origin.
The Polish Viking Age samples are mostly Slavs with significant Scandinavian ancestry.
I'm not so sure about mixture clines in qpAdm necessarily preferring distal sources (I think they might question whether that holds up in simulated data, and it may sidetrack things), but I think the point about sample representativeness with subsets of samples, and the assumptions in the model of pulse admixture (when patterns may have originated from longer standing gradual flow), are both solid hits. I think at the least they need to articulate more assumptions.
One point the Speidel team may make is that their subset of quality threshold samples is not *that* unrepresentative.
I think on a PCA you can kind of see this looking at the positions of the averages: https://imgur.com/a/oxPdN0P . The average of their six subset is clearly Baltic_BA shifted compared to the average of the full 58 that excludes the outliers (and even more so the full 67). There's also a good bit of shift between the Middle Ages non-outliers and the average of the outliers, with present-day Polish something like 33% of the way between these two averages (position of average like 66% non-outlier, 33% outlier). That might support the proposal by David that these outliers samples are representative of a set of individuals of heterogenous origin who have been absorbed into the the Polish population over time (maybe female exogamy biased perhaps).
(Pastebin for G25 comparison of these averages: https://pastebin.com/86YsJFem)
However, even if it is not that far off in position of the average, I still do think the point madea by David that the variation itself that is present in the wider set of samples from this period conveys information is important. In the general sense of these, particular averages can be pretty close, but the wider cloud of positions of samples around them conveys some meaning too, which can often be disregarded or ignored.
One point that's lacking in their study in that regard is qpWave with twigstats. That seems like a logical point for them to have explored.
The early Slavic samples from Slovakia indeed demonstrate, besides the Baltic one, a Mediterranean signal. However, the signal indeed appears to be more Central Mediterranean than Balkan.
pop1 pop2 pop3 pop4 est se z p
1 Mbuti.DG Italy_LA.SG Latvia_BA CEE_EarlyMedieval 0.000369 0.000175 2.11 0.0352
2 Mbuti.DG Turkey_Byzantine Latvia_BA CEE_EarlyMedieval 0.000359 0.000185 1.95 0.0515
3 Mbuti.DG Greek_2.DG Latvia_BA CEE_EarlyMedieval 0.000294 0.000255 1.15 0.250
Italian signal beats the rest every time -
pop1 pop2 pop3 pop4 est se z p
1 Mbuti.DG Italy_LA.SG Latvia_BA CEE_EarlyMedieval 0.000379 0.000172 2.21 0.0273
2 Mbuti.DG Bulgaria_EIA Latvia_BA CEE_EarlyMedieval 0.000254 0.000191 1.33 0.184
3 Mbuti.DG Greek_2.DG Latvia_BA CEE_EarlyMedieval 0.000288 0.000251 1.15 0.251
4 Mbuti.DG Italy_IA_Republic.SG Latvia_BA CEE_EarlyMedieval -0.0000755 0.000190 -0.397 0.692
5 Mbuti.DG Greek_1.DG Latvia_BA CEE_EarlyMedieval -0.000179 0.000247 -0.725 0.469
Baltic signal is obvious -
1 Mbuti.DG Latvia_BA Italy_LA.SG CEE_EarlyMedieval 0.00398 0.000386 10.3 7.65e-25
2 Mbuti.DG Russian.DG Italy_LA.SG CEE_EarlyMedieval 0.00242 0.000332 7.29 3.10e-13
3 Mbuti.DG Estonian.DG Italy_LA.SG CEE_EarlyMedieval 0.00237 0.000431 5.51 3.63e- 8
4 Mbuti.DG Germany_AltInden_Saxon_EMedieval Italy_LA.SG CEE_EarlyMedieval 0.00188 0.000350 5.37 7.77e- 8
5 Mbuti.DG 1CEE_EarlyMedieval Italy_LA.SG CEE_EarlyMedieval 0.00263 0.000494 5.33 9.81e- 8
6 Mbuti.DG Hungary_Transtisza_LSarmation_EHun Italy_LA.SG CEE_EarlyMedieval 0.00182 0.000376 4.84 1.29e- 6
7 Mbuti.DG Polish.DG Italy_LA.SG CEE_EarlyMedieval 0.00231 0.000489 4.72 2.34e- 6
Overall, there is a paradox among the Slavs. According to unanimous opinion, the Proto-Slavic language separated from the other Indo-European languages at least 3500 years ago. At the same time, again by unanimous consent, the Proto-Slavs emerged between the 3rd and 5th centuries AD. In other words, there is a gap of almost 2000 years during which the Slavic linguistic family existed, but not the Slavs themselves. @Davidski, how would you address this paradox? However, if the central Mediterranean signal exists in the proto-slavs (it does), its entry should be placed anywhere between 15th century BC-3rd century AD. Unless we consider proto-slavs balts that came into contact with late Roman empire and this is how they became slavs.
There is something else that is curious in the last papers. In "Steppe Ancestry in western Eurasia and the spread of the Germanic Languages", in what seems like distal modeling, they painted Caucasian component in many (ultimately Yamna derived) MA samples using two very specific probes, combined - I5608, Uzbekistan_Dzharkutan_BA and I4243, Iran_HajjiFiruz. It is an interesting choice for Caucasus (both cluster b/n Euro-and Caucasian clines...)
Can you do G25 coordinates for these two Tashtyk samples and this Mamanwa sample?
https://www.mediafire.com/file/gux6blp1g0e4vc6/Tashtyk.zip/file
https://www.mediafire.com/file/msv2bzlbcta3ub8/ID36.zip/file
@ Norfern
What paper are the tashtyk data from ?
@Matt
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/08/did-south-caspian-hunter-fishers-really.html?showComment=1565880175620#c1508598484628353588
@ Davidski
Very good analysis, but I'd invite you to reflect about what "St said... The early Slavic samples from Slovakia indeed demonstrate, besides the Baltic one, a Mediterranean signal. However, the signal indeed appears to be more Central Mediterranean than Balkan. pop1 pop2 pop3 pop4 est se z p"
I noted already many years ago the presence in Poland of Y that I thought having come from the eastern Alps and diffused above all in Italy or nearby in the aDNA, as R-PF7589, and that could give some reason to St.
@Gio
Like I already said, there's no evidence of any Central Mediterranean signal in early Slavs.
St doesn't have a clue what he's talking about because he doesn't know how to interpret formal statistics.
Formal statistics are biased towards more extreme outcomes, so it's actually likely that ancient Iberians will provide the highest Z scores for the early Slavs from Slovakia.
I didn't check this because these stats aren't useful for such fine scale analyses, but it's a likely outcome. Read this and try to understand it.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/08/did-south-caspian-hunter-fishers-really.html?showComment=1565880175620#c1508598484628353588
@ Davidski
Probably it is the old question of the origin of the Wendi/Veneti by a genetic point of view not a linguistic one because in historic times they were Slav as to their tongue. Of course this genetic intake is less evident because much older than the recent Viking one. It is the same question of the Venetians of to-day. One first cousin of mine is half Venetian and I find in 23andMe a percentage of Celto-German input, perhaps not all due to recent migrations after the iron age.
P.S. I thank you for your suggestion, but you know that I have no skill in autosome analysis, and perhaps it is late now to me, for that I am confident in your analysis.
@St
@Davidski, how would you address this paradox? However, if the central Mediterranean signal exists in the proto-slavs (it does), its entry should be placed anywhere between 15th century BC-3rd century AD.
There's no paradox and there's no central Mediterranean signal in proto-Slavs.
You don't know how to interpret formal statistics.
For one, you need significant Z scores to actually prove anything, that means Z = -/+ 3.
Then you actually have to know why you're getting significant Z scores.
The problem with formal stats is that they're biased towards more extreme outcomes, so it's likely that you'll get the highest Z scores for the early Slavs from Slovakia with the most basal and western reference populations, like something from Iberia or even Africa.
Haha.
@ Davidski
"Formal statistics are biased towards more extreme outcomes, so it's actually likely that ancient Iberians will provide the highest Z scores for the early Slavs from Slovakia".
Of course you are right in affirming that through your experience in this matter as I could give my opinion about one uniparental marker and its probably path, but I ask you if what you supposed above is verified always or the possible case of Iberians could be do to what we know now, i.e. that the link with "Etruscans", who came from the eastern Alps, is more in northern west Italy, southern France and Iberia than in me 100% Tuscan, i.e. from old Etruria. Of course a scientist has to verify a scientific rule for all the possible cases.
P.S. Iberia or Africa (if Maghreb) couldn't be right because they have the same genetic input, i.e. the mixed origin of the moriscos from the Imperial Rome Iberia (also with many Roman uniparental markers as I demonstrated just for the J-Y15222 upstream J-Y15223 etc).
How likely is it for Sredny Stog 4200-4000 BCE genetic profile to have no Trypillia? Like when did Trypillia entered Ukraine and mix with this hypotheical "Progress-like Steppe Neolithic"(50CHG_50EHG) group in Davidski's theory?
@Gabru
Some Sredny Stog samples are basically identical to Yamnaya, so they probably have the same type of farmer admixture as Yamnaya. Others might not, and if so they'll be more like Progress.
https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/sites/reich.hms.harvard.edu/files/inline-files/10.1515_pz-2022-2034.pdf
And since you already know that Sredny Stog and Trypillia date to the same period, then you can draw your own conclusions.
@ Davidski
Oldest Trypillia sample from Ukraine is 3800 BCE, so I doubt Sredny Stog region had Trypillia prior to 4000 BCE? I know ukr104 is similar to Yamnaya but it's dated to 3614 BCE :]
@Gabru
So what?
I wasn't referring to the samples that have been published to date, because they don't explain much.
I linked to this paper which mentions new samples from Sredny Stog that will be published eventually.
https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/sites/reich.hms.harvard.edu/files/inline-files/10.1515_pz-2022-2034.pdf
Target: RUS_Khvalynsk_En:I0122__BC_4838__Cov_48.69%
P-Value: 0.7
64.8(±7.9) RUS_Samara_HG
18.1(±7.6) RUS_Tyumen_HG
8.9(±4.5) GEO_Kotias_Klde_Meso
8.2(±3.7) TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
Target: RUS_Khvalynsk_En:I0433__BC_4611__Cov_36.94%
P-Value: 0.621
74.6(±8.8) RUS_Samara_HG
11.5(±8.6) RUS_Tyumen_HG
8.9(±4.7) GEO_Kotias_Klde_Meso
5.0(±3.7) TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
right = c('ETH_4500BP','RUS_MA1','TUR_Pinarbasi_HG','BEL_Magdalenian_UP','ITA_Meso','RUS_Sidelkino_HG','GEO_Satsurblia_HG','ISR_Natufian_EpiP','TUR_Boncuklu_N', 'IRN_Wezmeh_N')
By all means, have fun playing with qpAdm, but don't spam my blog with this stuff.
Does anybody have accurate right pops for Khvalynsk_En?
@ Davidski
I know these samples will be published eventually :V, but I'm thinking of a scenario if 4200-4000 BCE Sredny Stog timeframe could simply be able to modelled as Progress_En + Ukraine_N, removing the need of Trypillia, just a speculation
@Norfern
Scaled
Mamanwa:ID36,-0.007968,-0.351373,-0.095034,0.026809,0.118484,-0.022869,0.000235,-0.00923,-0.0045,-0.005285,0.042871,-0.000599,-0.001635,-0.004679,0.001493,0.001326,-0.002868,0.004434,0.00176,-0.004627,0.008485,-0.02337,-0.007148,-0.008555,-0.041433
Russia_IA_Tashtyk:KE9609,0.104717,-0.003047,0.074293,0.078166,-0.006155,0.014781,0.004465,-0.011999,-0.012271,-0.02278,-0.015102,-0.00015,0.001933,-0.004817,0.030944,0.03023,-0.001304,0.006208,-0.008045,0.011756,-0.018842,0.000371,-0.013927,0.008917,0.004191
Russia_IA_Tashtyk:LC8544,0.119514,-0.010155,0.071653,0.077843,-0.005847,0.013387,0.00799,-0.001154,-0.022293,-0.034443,-0.000487,0.001199,-0.010704,-0.016928,0.027687,0.02254,0.006258,0.010642,-0.004399,0.005503,-0.017719,-0.000742,-0.011832,0.016749,0.00479
Raw
Mamanwa:ID36,-0.0007,-0.0346,-0.0252,0.0083,0.0385,-0.0082,0.0001,-0.004,-0.0022,-0.0029,0.0264,-0.0004,-0.0011,-0.0034,0.0011,0.001,-0.0022,0.0035,0.0014,-0.0037,0.0068,-0.0189,-0.0058,-0.0071,-0.0346
Russia_IA_Tashtyk:KE9609,0.0092,-0.0003,0.0197,0.0242,-0.002,0.0053,0.0019,-0.0052,-0.006,-0.0125,-0.0093,-0.0001,0.0013,-0.0035,0.0228,0.0228,-0.001,0.0049,-0.0064,0.0094,-0.0151,0.0003,-0.0113,0.0074,0.0035
Russia_IA_Tashtyk:LC8544,0.0105,-0.001,0.019,0.0241,-0.0019,0.0048,0.0034,-0.0005,-0.0109,-0.0189,-0.0003,0.0008,-0.0072,-0.0123,0.0204,0.017,0.0048,0.0084,-0.0035,0.0044,-0.0142,-0.0006,-0.0096,0.0139,0.004
@ Davidski, In the pan-European study of samples from the British biobank (300 individuals per country), based on IBD, all samples from the Slavic-speaking countries, no exceptions, exhibit a Mediterranean component, ((modeled with admixture) which is absent in the Baltic samples and is represented to a lesser extent in the German samples from the study. The Mediterranean component is clearly manifested at K=6 and K=7 and its appearance contrasts with its absence in the Baltic samples. Hyperlink to K=6/7 - https://imgur.com/a/CWCyoEa . Hyperlink to the study - https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2119281119#supplementary-materials(the table is from the supplement). Or, in other words, I sincerely hoped for a more objective consideration. Anyway, its OK, stay well.
@St
These are just genetic components that peak in Mediterranean populations and don't provide any real evidence that Slavs actually have Mediterranean admixture.
You need to work on your interpretation skills. What I said about the formal stats is absolutely true, and you should keep it in mind.
@Gabru
RUS_Samara_HG eats up CHG a little, he is probably an excellent proxy for Khvalynsk and probably participated in their ethnogenesis, but it will not be clear how many Caucasians are in Khvalynsk
for the source, take samples from Minino and Karelia
When in the middle of the Middle Ages, after three millennia of cremation, the Polish population returns to the skeletal ritual, we see essentially the same population from three thousand years ago (approx. 85%), but slightly genetically shifted towards Southern Europe.
And that's a fact. And we cannot escape from this fact. And this fact should be explained somehow.
@Арсен
Khvalynsk is mostly derived from a Progress-like steppe population that moved north to the forest steppe from the steppe between the Black and Caspian Seas.
So Samara_HG is only relevant to the admixture that this steppe population acquired up north.
The problem is that two of the Khvalynsk samples currently available are heavily admixed with this northern ancestry, and don't reflect the typical Khvalynsk genetic structure.
See here...
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2023/01/dear-david-nick-iosiflets-set-record.html
@ambron
That's not the case.
On closer inspection Bronze Age populations from Poland are very different from the Medieval Poles.
You can't just add a bit of southern ancestry and bridge that gap.
@ Ambron
be careful not to end up like Jaako Haakinen
My personal deficits (which are fact) aside, interpret this - results from f3 formal test for admixture (Latvia/EstoniaBA + Late Roman Empire). Polish samples pass it. Icelandic do not.
9 Icelandic.DG Estonia_BA.SG Italy_Imperial.SG -0.000585 0.00117 -0.499 0.618 839528
10 Icelandic.DG Latvia_BA Italy_Imperial.SG -0.000837 0.00118 -0.712 0.476 839528
11 Polish.DG Estonia_BA.SG Croatia_EIA -0.00111 0.00110 -1.01 0.313 839528
12 Polish.DG Latvia_BA Italy_LA.SG -0.00184 0.00105 -1.75 0.0804 839528
13 Polish.DG Estonia_BA.SG Italy_LA.SG -0.00194 0.00110 -1.77 0.0760 839528
14 Polish.DG Latvia_BA Italy_Imperial.SG -0.00241 0.00103 -2.34 0.0192 839528
15 Polish.DG Estonia_BA.SG Italy_Imperial.SG -0.00248 0.00108 -2.31 0.0211 839528
16 Polish.DG Estonia_BA.SG Turkey_WestByzantine -0.00314 0.00114 -2.77 0.00562 839528
The script I used (I am sure you can figure a better one) - p1 <- c("Polish.DG", "Icelandic.DG")
p2 <- c("Estonia_BA.SG", "Latvia_BA")
p3 <- c("Croatia_EIA", "Italy_LA.SG", "Turkey_WestByzantine", "Italy_Imperial.SG")
pref = "XXX1240XXXX" # (800 000 snps remained..)
f3=f3(pref, p1, p2, p3, allsnps = FALSE)
f3_result_ordered <- f3 %>% arrange(desc(est))
print(f3_result_ordered, n = nrow(f3_result_ordered))
I added a Czech sample to the Polish one, since f3 works better on 2+ samples and there is only single Polish sample in 1240k. Yet I am not saying you are wrong. It might be some drift due to isolation. I do not trust they were necessarily late-roman admixed. Perhaps something much older than that.
David
Maybe in different way...
One of the Poland MA subpopulations is essentially genetically identical to one of the Poland BA subpopulations.
These Tashtyk 'Europeans' are more 'western' than Sakae. Seem pulled toward EHG compared to their Tagar predecessors.
@St
I'm not seeing any of your f3 stats reaching significance (Z =/= 3).
So these are weak results, although broadly consistent with geography (West Slavs are East-Central Europeans while Icelanders are Northwest Europeans).
Interestingly, Turkey_WestByzantine produces the strongest signal, but it's out of the ballpark as a realistic source of gene flow into West Slavs. But this is in line with the bias towards extremes that affects f3 mixture stats.
You might get even stronger signals by using ancient samples from the Levant or Iran, but again, only because of the bias associated with formal stats.
Like I said, it's important to interpret this sort of output correctly, because this is really abstract stuff, and it provides no evidence of Slavs having ancestry from any Roman or Mediterranean groups.
@David
thanks a lot
Did I choose the right sources? can we take the steppe_en? or do we need earlier examples from the Neolithic steppe?
https://postimg.cc/56ZMzc5Z
There's something odd about weapons in steppe populations. It could probably help establish who they traded with or were influenced by based on weapons that made it to steppe.
I believe neither Khvalynsk or Progress had bow & arrow, bow & arrow appears in steppe during late Yamnaya period. It's more common in later steppe like catacomb culture.
There is also lack of swords in steppes, it was not found among Indo-Iranians according Semenenko (2019). There is lone example of copper cudgel (club) in Yamnaya but plenty of spears, knives, hammers and axes.
I mean Vonyuchka, not Khvalynsk.
@David
It’s absolutely true, the overwhelming majority of Hungarians have Slavic and Germanic autosomes and 15 percent are related to Finnish Ingrian language
Target: Hungarian
Distance: 0.4957% / 0.00495722 | R3P
51.6 Serbian
33.2 German_Hamburg
15.2 Ingrian
maybe once upon a time the Finno-Uralic language reigned in Hungary, and genes associated with Uralic speakers of languages, but new gene flows from Europe slowly turned the Hungarians into more or less Europeans genetically, the language remained Uralic, it’s like with the first settlers in the USA in the area New York and the east coast of the USA, the first were the British, but little by little new waves of migrants from all over Europe, mainly Germany, had to adapt and assimilate into the English-speaking environment, so in the USA English dominates and genetically white Americans are more Germans
@ Davidski
"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".
Good answer. Always for the truth.
@St, couple comments:
1) In my experience, using the .DG samples on 1240k works less well for identifying fine scale affinities between Europeans than using the HO Public. Although it has lower coverage, the higher sample count seems to work better at detecting substructural affinities.
Ideally we would like the high coverage of 1240k (or even better high coverage shotgun samples) with the large sample counts of HO Public, but we don't have that publicly available.
2) Some of the ADMIXTURE components can still be perilous; there is still the potential of building a component that is slightly "exaggerated" from the true population and works out by being needed to be balanced out by needing to "top up" with another component. If the algorithm generates a component which is slightly displaced away from the Near East compared to reality, it will have to "top up". The components involved are abstractions to some degree.
They may not necessary be very far wrong, but this can become a complication when we're looking at components of 1% - 3% etc.
@Matt
In regards to Admixture it's much worse than that.
Recall the nonsense from a few years ago with the so-called Gedrosia component in Northwest Europeans.
In reality, that wasn't an ancient signal of anything specific, but just a correction by Admixture because the Northern European cluster was largely based on Northeast European genetic drift.
@ Matt, I find your comments to be reasonable and have no objections. My thanks to @ Davidski as well, of course. There are few hundred early slavic samples coming from different sources this year so we might know a bit more soon.
Me finally seeing Tashtyk coordinates: What a wonderful, good person Davidski is!
Off-topic, more horses:
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB71445
"Domestic horses promoted rapid and long-distance human mobility from ~2,200 BCE - Horses revolutionized human history with fast mobility. However, the timeline between their domestication and widespread integration as a means of transportation remains contentious. Here, we assemble the largest collection of ancient horse genomes to assess the period when these animals were first reshaped by human agency in Eurasia. We find that reproductive control of the modern domestic lineage emerged ~2,200 BCE, through close kin mating and shortened generation times. It followed a severe domestication bottleneck starting not earlier than ~2,700 BCE, and coincided with a sudden expansion across Eurasia that ultimately replaced nearly every local horse lineage. This expansion marked the rise of widespread horse-based mobility in human history, which refutes the commonly-held narrative of large horse herds accompanying the massive migration of steppe peoples into Europe ~3,000 BCE and earlier. We detect significantly shortened generation times at Botai ~3,500 BCE, a settlement from Central Asia associated with corrals and a subsistence economy centered on horses. This supports local horse husbandry before the rise of modern domestic bloodlines."
@Copper Axe, watch out, that's how you make memes... ;)
Target: RUS_Tashtyk_IA:LC8544
Distance: 4.4461% / 0.04446112
60.4 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_MLBA
34.4 KAZ_Saka
5.2 MNG_Slab_Grave_EIA_1
Target: RUS_Tashtyk_IA:KE9609
Distance: 4.7706% / 0.04770649
61.2 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_MLBA
33.6 KAZ_Saka
5.2 MNG_Slab_Grave_EIA_1
=====
Target: RUS_Tashtyk_IA:LC8544
Distance: 4.3477% / 0.04347733
72.8 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_MLBA
20.6 MNG_Khovsgol_BA
6.6 KAZ_Saka
Target: RUS_Tashtyk_IA:KE9609
Distance: 4.6878% / 0.04687765
73.0 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_MLBA
20.0 MNG_Khovsgol_BA
7.0 KAZ_Saka
Are Tashtyk_IA coordinates low coverage or something?
@ Copper Axe
@All
Here are G25 coords for some new outlier Avars that resemble Balts, Slavs and/or Scandinavians.
Avars_o:RKF188.A0101.TF1,0.141141,0.126941,0.085984,0.083334,0.045855,0.034025,0.011516,0.016384,0.003068,-0.033349,0.000162,-0.008842,0.029137,0.040599,-0.014522,-0.004641,-0.01356,-0.007981,-0.003771,-0.005628,-0.00574,0.001731,0.000493,-0.009037,-0.002275
Avars_o:RKO013.A0101.TF1,0.12862,0.117801,0.080327,0.076228,0.050471,0.031794,0.011045,0.015692,-0.004909,-0.032074,-0.006983,-0.012889,0.022299,0.027937,-0.01045,-0.003713,0.007171,-0.003167,0.004022,-0.005127,-0.003494,-0.012365,0.010476,-0.017352,-0.000599
Avars_o:RKF106.A0101.TF1,0.12862,0.128972,0.07731,0.076551,0.040315,0.026774,0.012926,0.008307,0.001432,-0.030798,-0.003735,-0.01154,0.01665,0.022432,-0.016829,0.011005,0.025555,0.000887,0.008925,0.008754,-0.008984,-0.014344,0.000123,-0.005181,0.003592
Avars_o:RKO007.A0101.TF1,0.138864,0.135065,0.073161,0.065569,0.0437,0.023985,0.012456,0.018692,-0.003681,-0.015126,-0.008119,-0.004046,0.008474,0.017203,-0.008415,0.004243,0.0103,-0.001774,-0.001006,0.008504,-0.002121,-0.007914,0.002835,-0.006266,0.002634
Avars_o:RKO001.A0101.TF1,0.124067,0.135065,0.073161,0.060724,0.049548,0.02259,0.00047,0.011076,0.01084,-0.007836,-0.006171,0.004346,-0.019029,-0.014038,0.030401,-0.000398,-0.017341,0.005448,0.001006,0.007379,0.018842,0.000495,0.008627,0.011327,-0.005029
Avars_o:RKF275.A0101.TF1,0.133173,0.135065,0.064865,0.047158,0.049855,0.016176,0.008225,0.010846,-0.000818,-0.00328,-0.001786,0.003297,-0.003419,-0.011285,0.015336,0.017104,0.009909,0.000633,0.004274,0.005002,0.004617,-0.001484,0.003451,0.000482,-0.005628
Avars_o:RKO002.B0101.TF1,0.130897,0.128972,0.058454,0.04845,0.042469,0.010598,0.003055,0.00923,0.007567,-0.006196,-0.006496,0.006145,-0.005203,-0.012799,0.01045,0.009016,0.014994,0,0.012318,0.007629,0.003619,-0.002102,-0.002218,0.024582,-0.001437
Avars_o:RKC004.A0101.TF1,0.124067,0.129988,0.060716,0.049419,0.039084,0.01757,0.00987,0.011999,-0.003477,-0.021322,0.005359,-0.008992,0.006095,0.014038,-0.011265,0.016839,0.025816,-0.00076,-0.000503,0.005378,-0.009733,-0.006183,0.013434,0.002892,-0.001557
Avars_o:RKF134.A0101.TF1,0.132035,0.137096,0.054682,0.037145,0.034468,0.006414,0.00047,0.010153,-0.004295,-0.015855,0.003085,-0.004646,0.016204,0.019405,-0.015472,-0.012861,-0.002347,0.000887,0.011816,-0.000625,-0.009109,0.003462,0.008134,-0.00735,-0.00455
@Gabru
try taking Sintashta Afanasiyevo Srubnaya and something Asian, for example Mongolian Slab Grave
With G25, Tashtyk_IA seem to be 3-way mix of Andronovo 60%, Khovsgol 20%, and somethig rich in EHG ~ 20%
Which is a little odd, given their age.
Pertinent negatives; no Gonur, or Slab Grave,
Ill eventualy check with qpAdm
@ Арсен
RUS_Krasnoyarsk_MLBA is Andronovo.
@ Rob
"Kazakhstan_Central_Saka" signal ~7-14% is surely present how could you miss it? I assume Tashtyk_IA is Post-Saka site with Turkic admixtures?
=====
Target: RUS_Tashtyk_IA:KE9609
Distance: 4.6807% / 0.04680713
72.2 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_MLBA
19.4 MNG_Khovsgol_BA
7.2 KAZ_Saka
1.2 CHN_Xinjiang_Xiaohe_BA
Target: RUS_Tashtyk_IA:LC8544
Distance: 4.2792% / 0.04279178
67.4 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_MLBA
15.6 MNG_Khovsgol_BA
13.4 KAZ_Saka
3.6 CHN_Xinjiang_Xiaohe_BA
@Gabru
for exsample
Target: Russia_IA_Tashtyk:LC8544
Distance: 2.8018% / 0.02801794 | R5P
53.4 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
20.2 Mongolia_EIA_SlabGrave_1
17.2 Steppe_Pastoralist
5.4 Eastern_Hunter-Gatherer
3.8 Scandinavian_Hunter-Gatherer
Target: Russia_IA_Tashtyk:KE9609
Distance: 2.8528% / 0.02852752 | R5P
68.2 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
17.4 Mongolia_EIA_SlabGrave_1
8.6 Eastern_Hunter-Gatherer
3.4 Ancient_American
2.4 Western_Hunter-Gatherer
go in this direction, in the proxy steppe shepherds I combined Yamnaya and Avanasyevo
@ Gabru
''"Kazakhstan_Central_Saka" signal ~7-14% is surely present how could you miss it?''
I didnt miss it, I used Bronze Age and older refs.
That's why your set up doesnt make sense. hyouve mixed samples of all ages with overlapping ancestry
@Gabru
Andronovo is not suitable for her
@Gabru
correction, the Iron Age Mongolia sample Mongolia_EIA_8:I14194 is best suited as an Asian one
Davidski, do you have G25 for Avar paper RKF263? He seems to be P312>DF19, but also seem to be autosomally local to the area (he's not in your outlier group).
See, for instance, https://www.theytree.com/sample/91758b502ce59fed7d84c7ba78f46f93.html
Good to see the blog on the Speidel situation. Seems like a easy to understand and sound email to send, as well as the one on the Hungarian 'Scythian' samples as well.
@Davidski
Considering the PCA, would it be fair to assume the difference between modern West and East Slavs is higher Germanic in the former? It seems a lot of the Western shift in Poles seems to be mainly due to Germanic people. It doesn't seem Baltic groups left much either considering the lack of Baltic haplogroups. To my knowledge most of the Western Balts in Poland were either eradicated by the Teutons or assimilated into Eastern Baltic cultures, with few staying in Poland after. All considered, what would the actual makeup of the average Pole be today?
@Noble Goth
The Medieval Polish samples from Stolarek are the best guide to the genetic makeup of modern Poles.
Broadly speaking, the western genetic shift in Poles comes from people like the western outliers in the Medieval Polish sample set.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pRGg_eWekRVhbT0ihCm38xD208o6H44j/view?usp=sharing
It does appear that there are some Baltic-like or Baltic admixed outliers there as well, but I don't know if they represent actual Baltic ancestry or just an older Slavic genetic profile, or both.
@Dave
Avars_o:RKF263.A0101.TF1,0.122929,0.128972,0.021496,-0.009367,0.023389,-0.001394,0,0.005307,-0.001636,0.014214,-0.002598,0.004796,-0.009366,-0.006881,0.000814,-0.003713,0.005737,-0.00228,0.008422,-0.001751,-0.015597,0.005935,0.006902,0.008555,0.002395
Thank you!
@Davidski
I wondered about the Baltic-like profile, actually. I believe 3 or 4 samples were extremely Baltic like, although as you say it could be Slavs who were simply more Eastern genetically and thus overlapped with modern Balts. That, or they were Western Balts who didn't contribute much genetically for whatever reason, assuming that Western Balts carried N1c (which is practically absent in Poland) and (very) minor Siberian.
The only issue with Baltic influence in Poland is the lack of N1c. In the Stolarek paper, only 1 sample had N1c and clustered with the Medieval Poles, not the Baltic-like outliers. Even today, N1c has practically remained static since the Middle Ages - you'd assume if Western Balts had impacted the Polish genepool, there would be more of a trace left over. Modern Y-DNA and even in the Stolarek paper showed Germanic/ Western European haplogroups having a clear presence, with Poland today have the rest of the Y-DNA pool being R1b or I1. In every Y-DNA study of Poland, N1c is 1% or less today and could be from a variety of sources, not simply Western Balts, but Eastern or even certain Belarussians.
The other possibility, albeit more speculation, is that Western Balts carried less N1c and were more isolated from Finnic influence or had it mediated through Eastern Baltic tribes. The Old Prussian language shows no influence from Finnic to my knowledge, and if indeed those Baltic-like outliers in Stolarek are Baltic, it would make sense why none carried N1c and why there is litte Y-DNA shifts. Additionally, it's also just as likely that Western Balts simply were largely outliers and left little to no impact on most of Poland. Either way, that's simply speculation.
Regardless of that, it does seem, for whatever reason Baltic tribes both Medieval and Modern had little impact on the general Polish population, although I do think Kashubians may have absorbed Western Balts to an extent due to their settlement locations as well as their distance being closer to Balts than the average Pole is usually, albeit minor but noticeable. It seems fair however to say based on the current information, that both Medieval and Modern Poles seem to largely be a mix of Early-Slavic and Western European, specifically from Germans settling from then up to today. Ironically, my partner (who is Polish) has a well documented family tree that shows this type of mixture, largely being Polish, however with minor German as well.
In Polish historical tradition, the Vistulas and Lendians people were part of the Avar Horde, and many Avar warriors were recruited from these tribes. Therefore, the genetic similarity of Avar outliers to some medieval Poles is not surprising.
Noble Goth
Medieval Poles were simply characterized by a wider range of genetic variability than modern Poles. In the era of industrialization, the Polish genome became more homogenized due to greater people mobility.
Target: Avars_o:RKF263.A0101.TF1
Distance: 1.3178% / 0.01317850 | R3P
55.2 Early_European_Farmer
42.6 Steppe_Pastoralist
2.2 China_NEastAsia_Coastal_EN
Target: Avars_o:RKF263.A0101.TF1
Distance: 1.2176% / 0.01217569 | R4P
51.4 Early_European_Farmer
29.2 Steppe_Pastoralist
16.8 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
2.6 China_NEastAsia_Coastal_EN
Target: Avars_o:RKF263.A0101.TF1
Distance: 1.1900% / 0.01190021 | R5P
50.4 Early_European_Farmer
27.8 Steppe_Pastoralist
10.8 Czech_CordedWare
8.4 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
2.6 China_NEastAsia_Coastal_EN
@David
sample PCA0138 low covered?
I don't know. You can check the coverage in the paper.
@Matt, let's set aside the 1240K Polish.DG. The CEE_EarlyMedieval consists of six early Slavic samples from Slovakia and Northern Pannonia, currently serving as a reference for the early Slavs. You and @Davidski are correct that the Imperial_Italy affinity likely indicates the Neolithic component at the terminus of the north-south axis where the early Slavs were located, as the Anatolian Neolithics are a better fit (I've verified this). However, there is a set of samples that exceed the Anatolian (West Byzantine) samples in representing the Neolithic component in CEE (f3 formal test for admixture), namely those from the Croatian EIA. This is intriguing because these are not Neolithic samples, they don't lie at the end of any north-south axis, and there's the existing substrate of an unknown IE language in Proto-Slavic, which some linguists identify as Illyrian (see the temematic hypothesis, for example, here - https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/172848). In the CEE context, I tested numerous samples from Central European La Tène and the migration period as potential sources of the southern signal in early Slavs, but they don't match (except for Germany_AltInden_Saxon_EMedieval, which is interesting since they qualify as early Germans but also form a clade with Turkey_Byzantine...). The Croatian samples align with early Illyrians, and Southern Pannonia is relatively close to the Slovak Tatras, the origin of the CEE samples. Croatian samples however contain an early Baltic component predating the Slavs, possibly explaining their preference as a source. Nonetheless, the CEE's affinity for early Dalmatian samples might partly clarify their preference for Italy_LA. P.S. - The Cro_EIA samples don't align well with the Polish samples.
pop1 pop2 pop3 est se z p n
1 CEE_EarlyMedieval Czech_CordedWare Germany_AltInden_Saxon_EMedieval 0.00230 0.000516 4.46 8.37e- 6 822109
2 CEE_EarlyMedieval Czech_CordedWare Turkey_Byzantine 0.000892 0.000545 1.64 1.01e- 1 822109
3 CEE_EarlyMedieval Czech_CordedWare Croatia_EIA 0.000629 0.000510 1.23 2.18e- 1 822109
4 CEE_EarlyMedieval Estonia_BA.SG Germany_AltInden_Saxon_EMedieval -0.000755 0.000617 -1.22 2.21e- 1 822109
5 CEE_EarlyMedieval Latvia_BA Germany_AltInden_Saxon_EMedieval -0.00144 0.000568 -2.53 1.14e- 2 822109
6 CEE_EarlyMedieval Estonia_BA.SG Turkey_Byzantine -0.00365 0.000670 -5.45 4.92e- 8 822109
7 CEE_EarlyMedieval Latvia_BA Croatia_EIA -0.00313 0.000570 -5.49 4.03e- 8 822109
8 CEE_EarlyMedieval Latvia_BA Turkey_Byzantine -0.00407 0.000612 -6.65 2.94e-11 822109
9 CEE_EarlyMedieval Estonia_BA.SG Croatia_EIA -0.00422 0.000606 -6.96 3.29e-12 822109
Kurgan 7 thousand years old? is it possible? in the area of occupied Mariupol
https://i.postimg.cc/jS1BdpML/Screenshot-15.png
Wikipedia also states that it is 7 thousand years old (dating 5 thousand years BC)
https://uk.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BD_%D0%94%D1%96%D0%B4_(%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%96%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C)
they refer to some Mariupol newspaper published in 2009, I couldn’t find any more information
RKF263 looks like the populations the Langobards married into:
Target: Avars_o:RKF263.A0101.TF1
Distance: 1.7390% / 0.01739010
76.4 Hungary_Langobard_o1.SG
16.2 Hungary_IA_Prescythian.SG
4.6 Slovakia_Poprad.SG
1.4 England_Roman
1.4 Hungary_Hun_oEastAsian
If he's really DF19>>Z17112, I wonder how long ago his male line got to the area and how thoroughly integrated his community was.
Two of the other northern outliers mentioned above seem to prefer Poprad Vandal (the others go higher IA Scandinavian):
Target: Avars_o:RKC004.A0101.TF1
Distance: 5.2824% / 0.05282355
66.6 Slovakia_Poprad.SG
14.4 Sweden_IA.SG
12.0 England_Roman
6.6 Hungary_Hun
0.4 England_IA_Roman_oMiddleEast.SG
Target: Avars_o:RKO002.B0101.TF1
Distance: 2.3125% / 0.02312498
28.8 Italy_LA_o3CentralEuropean.SG
22.6 Hungary_Langobard.SG
21.0 Slovakia_Poprad.SG
14.4 Sweden_IA_2.SG
10.4 England_Roman
1.4 England_IA_Roman_oMiddleEast.SG
1.4 Hungary_Hun_oEastAsian
@ Davidski
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(24)00240-9
"The raw sequence data reported in this paper have been deposited in the Genome Sequence Archive in the National Genomics Data Center, China National Center for Bioinformation/Beijing Institute of Genomics, Chinese Academy of Sciences (GSA-Human, accession number: HRA006585 and HRA003872), which is publicly accessible at GSA-Human: https://ngdc.cncb.ac.cn/gsa-human."
Try generating the G25 coordinates?
@ambron
It may be possible that Medieval Poles came from various Slavic tribes that weren't very homogenous, albeit still very Eastern. It could explain the lack of Baltic ancestry seen overall in Poland or indeed there was far more diverse ethnic groups and for whatever reason, Western Balts differed from Eastern.
I don't agree on your specific framing for when the Polish genepool became homogenous, however. It very likely settled during the Medieval, with the only real shift being from Western Europeans (mainly Germans) which can be seen in not only PCA but also Y-DNA. Besides the rise in Germanic Y-DNA, Polish haplogroups have remained largely static since the Medieval period. Industrialization creating larger mobility shouldn't homogenize the genepool either, it should diverse it.
Regardless, I suspect how diverse Early Slavs were amongst themselves and if they had varying degrees of Balto-Slavic drift.
@Noble Goth
There is more than 1 sample with N1c in the Stolarek paper if you count the iron age specimen. 2 Wielbark samples have it and some of N1a in Poland today could be from those
Wielbark haplogroups
41.3% I1 M253
13% R1b
11% G2a
8.7% R1a
Etc etc
N1a= 4.3% in Wielbark
https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-023-03013-9
@szmaciarz
I meant specifically there's only 1 case of N1a amongst the Medieval Poles, not Wielbark Goths. Even then, there's again only one amongst them. Where are you seeing the second Wielbark sample with N1a exactly? Stolarek's paper only has one instance of it appearing in the Wielbark population.
I highly doubt as well that the current presence of N1a in Modern Poland is attributed to these two outliers, either. There's far too much to consider such as lines dying out, diseases, wars etc that could've of easily halted these two lines and even then, it'd be silly to claim N1a in Poland is to any real degree from the Wielbark Goths or specific outliers (who cluster with Slavs, not neighboring Balts).
The presence of N1a in Poland today could be possibly due to minor interactions with West Balts, assuming they had similar Y-DNA makeups to Eastern Balts. However it's far more likely N1a has been mediated through Lithuanians and Belarussians. I should correct my earlier statement on it only consisting 1% of the Polish Y-DNA pool - I confused the Kashubian study with the general population, which lists N1a at around 2-3%. The sample size of the latter was about 920, meaning only around 20-30 of the samples have N1a today. Regardless, Western Balts don't seem to have left a clear genetic impact on the general population, Medieval or Modern.
Still, I do wish we had specific samples from West Baltic tribes to see how unique, if they were compared to their Eastern counterparts, considering Old Prussians likely split off around the Iron Age as linguistics suggests.
@Noble Goth
Two Wielbark samples and three Medieval Poles belong to N-L550. All, except for PCA0522 (low coverage) are N-L1025. The other Wielbark sample (PCA0088) is in G25 and autosomally Swedish-like. All three Medieval Poles belong to N-Z16980, however the only sample in G25 is PCA0324, a 'Baltic outlier'.
Most population level studies indicate around 4% of modern Poles belong to N1c. Kayser et al. (2005) N = 3.7% and more recently Grochowalski et al. (2020) N = 4.29%. Obviously, it’s much more difficult to ‘disentangle’ Baltic vs. Slavic R1a subclades, but IMO it’s unlikely that the ratio of N to R1a was greater SW of the Neman than in modern Latvians/Lithuanians. I won’t throw out a number, but a non-negligible portion of Polish Y-DNA is probably 'Baltic' in origin; although the distinction might be less meaningful antecedent to the Iron Age.
There was a Russian Y-STR study published last year which included two samples from the Dolkeim-Kovrovo culture, one was R1a and the other N1c. Take those results with a grain of salt though.
Keep in mind Poland was more diverse prior to WW2. After that the population became much more homogenous, as well as there was a transfer of many from eastern lands - not currently part of Poland today into the western lands. So, this anomaly may explain why Poland, despite industrialization has become more homogenous. Also, as for Germanic Y-DNA influencing the population of medieval to modern Poland, this old study here indicates that it did not.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7783096_Significant_genetic_differentiation_between_Poland_and_Germany_follows_present-day_political_borders_as_revealed_by_Y-chromosome_analysis
If so, then the Germanic influence seen among West Slavs may need to have come from an earlier time.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X2400107X?via%3Dihub
"Double feature: First genetic evidence of a mother-daughter double burial in Roman period Austria"
"The aDNA analysis revealed mitochondrial haplogroups I2a for both individuals. In the published literature, haplogroup I2a has been found in Hungarian Scythian and Scottish Late Bronze Age individuals (Damgaard et al., 2018, Olalde et al., 2018). A principal component analysis (PCA) using modern West Eurasian populations was performed to calculate the variation axes and then projected published ancient European individuals from the Roman Imperial, Antiquity, and Medieval periods (Fig. 5). For ancestral context, we also projected ancient populations with basal ancestries observed in Europeans (top 4 populations in Fig. 5′s legend). The Ovilava individuals seem to be pulled towards populations with a more southern origin, such as part of the Spanish Visigoth individuals (Olalde et al. 2019), and some Imperial and Late Antiquity Romans (Antonio et al. 2019), or with higher affinities to European Neolithic populations (Fig. 6)."
Data - https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB72858
@sds
The paper you cited doesn't say what you claim. It doesn't even deal with the issue that you brought up.
It actually focuses on a very different topic, which is the creation of an artificial "hard" border between Germany and Poland in terms of Y-chromosome lineages after WWII.
The reason that this "hard" border was created was the transfer of most German populations from the areas that became Poland to Germany, and also the movement of ethnic Poles from the Baltic states, Belarus and Ukraine into these areas.
These German populations from former eastern Germany were very mixed, with lots of Polish and other West Slavic admixture. On the other hand, the Poles who came from the east had much less Germanic ancestry than the Poles from the pre-WWII German/Polish border areas.
So the genetic cline that once plausibly existed between eastern Germany and western Poland was replaced by the "hard" genetic border.
See that's why Germanic Y-haplogroups like R1b-U106 and I1 peak today in west-central and north-central Poland, rather than in western and northwestern Poland.
Similarly, there are now German populations in western Germany near the French border with a lot of Slavic ancestry, while most of those in eastern Germany actually have less Slavic ancestry.
@ Copper Axe
''What a wonderful, good person Davidski is!''
I prefer the Beautiful Meeester Allentoft, and his 300 authors.
@ Zelto
Any digestion on the new Iron Age ddata from East Baltic ?
@Zelto
I see, thank you for pointing that out. Regardless, it's a minority of the samples which is the primary point. I agree that South West of the Neman, N1a was likely far less common compared to the Eastern Baltics. Interestingly, the West Baltic languages seem to have split off drastically from the Eastern ones sometime around the Iron Age based on Old Prussians reconstructions. It's possible Western Balts may have had far more R1a than N1a. Indeed, Old Prussian doesn't seem to have Uralic influence either, so it could very well be Western Balts had a spot-on profile to Pre-Iron-Age Eastern Balts.
This would at least explain the lack of N1a in Modern day and Medieval Poland, assuming there was a somewhat impactful absorption of Western Balts such as Old Prussians, as their Y-DNA would be almost the same as their Slavic counterparts and any aDNA impact would likely be difficult to detect. In others words, it may be that Western Balts absorption may not be easy to weed out due to their similar profile to Bronze Age Balts and thus Early Slavs to a degree.
That, or they simply didn't leave a large impact, considering the Teutons, various plagues etc. I do suspect most of the N1a in Modern Poland to be mediated via Belarussians followed by Lithuanians, however, rather than odd West Baltic tribe. None the less, the Baltic-like outliers in Medieval Poland may very well be Western Balts, although that would need further investigating. Isn't there another paper on the Polish population meant to come out some time this year? Hopefully it can add something new - assuming it isn't a hot-mess like the Speidel analysis.
@Rob
*200
@ Arsen: it’s narrative hyperbole
@David
Out of interest, are there samples of present day German speakers in Poland from around Opole?
@Rob
There's an interesting pattern, but it could just be sampling bias. I'll disregard Kivutkalns, since the incongruous hillfort/burial is still subject to lively debate which could sway the discussion; also the late Iron Age 'Samogatian/Curonian' N-L550 fellow.
There are 6 Roman-Middle IA samples from Central/Northern Lithuania and 1 from East Lithuania. The former group is comprised of 1 G-Z31461 (IBD outlier) and 5 N-L550. Some archeologists connect all of these cultures (CLBGC, NLBC and CLBC) to migrations from the disintigrating WBBC at the beginning of the CE. The single East Lithuanian Barrows Culture sample is also the only R1a (CTS1211).
From an archaeological perspective, Podėnas' 2022 dissertation presented new C14 dates that demonstrate hillforts in the East Baltic are older along the coast, challenging previous assumptions regarding the arrival of SW-Tapiola ware as a 'catalyst' for hillfort construction. Also, new burial types arrived during the Iron Age among 'West Baltic' cultures. The WLBC specifically had close material ties to Estonia and Tarand graves, but 'Houses of the Dead' are even present in the WBBC itself, as well as the CLBGC.
I could go on, but alternative scenarios are equally plausible right now. Just some food for thought.
Note: 'West Baltic' in this context is a geographic term, essentially any culture unrelated to the BPC or ELBC. No broader linguistic connotations.
@epoch
I haven't seen any samples from the Opole Germans, but I've seen quite a few from other parts of Silesia and also from Pomerania, and they're often strongly overlapping with Poles.
Things in Europe, genetically, are pretty clinal in general and rarely that hard (even sea barriers like the English Channel, the Irish Sea or the North Sea are not super hard).
It may be that when you use EEMS (Estimated Effective Migration Surfaces) over a properly representative set of samples, the Poland-Germany border is a bit harder (lower effective migration rate) than the Germany-Netherlands border or Germany-France border or Germany-Denmark border.
But I don't think applications of the EEMS has had sufficiently representative regional samples across the whole of Europe well enough to really localise borders that tightly. (You can Google EEMS and the maps for Europe are generally a little noisy I think, as many places have only one dot per country in many implementations). It would probably take something like People of the British Isles for Europe - a People of the European Continent project - to really properly get that tight.
@Matt
Today the German/Polish border is basically the border between central Germany and eastern Poland in terms of genetics, so it'll look pretty hard no matter what.
We would need to test people with grandparents from pre-WWII eastern Germany and western Poland to see how clinal the genetic substructures were between these regions before the border changes and population transfers.
@St, could you show these relevant populations on the G25 Vahaduo? I know it's possible that the formal stats would be different in some subtle and potentially of interest ways, but it helps to form a grasp of the relevant populations.
@Davidski, interesting; maybe "ancient" dna transects through the period 700-1900 CE, will give a more direct view of changes in EEMS over time? (In an ideal world we could go further back, but we have that taphonomic bias from cremation...).
@ Zelto
''Some archeologists connect all of these cultures (CLBGC, NLBC and CLBC) to migrations from the disintigrating WBBC at the beginning of the CE''
As in the break up of the West Balt Barrow Culture ? I read that was just a 'transformation' into Bogaczewo & Dollkeim-Kovrovo culture
I know that the east Lithiuanian baarrow group are seen as migrants who imposed on The Striated Pottery culture
@Rob
Emphasis on 'some' archeologists, but yes. Particularly from Lithuania, since there may have been some substructure within the WBBC. I think the cultures SW of the Neman and in Western Lithuania had a relatively direct ethnogensis, while the Middle/North Lithuanian cultures may have absorbed a local (BPC?) substrate, although the interior lowlands they settled were sparsly inhabitanted.
Many diagnostic features suggest cultural ties to the west; ground burials for instance. At the same time, the BPC was rapidly transforming under intensive external pressure, as you mentioned. Probably from the NLBC, although numerous competing theories have been proposed.
The arrival of 'Germanic' groups from the Jastorf area did impart some sort of reaction in the West Balt circle. A no-mans land was created in the Vistula estuary, settlements shifted in topography at a micro level and there is a slight eastward shift at a macro level. A few hundreds years later, they moved as far east as northwest Russia (e.g. Pskov barrows are Baltoid imo).
The more interesting question is what catalysed the genesis of the Wet Balt circle in the first place. We have some genomes to play with, and archaeologists have suggested Lausitz, Pomeranian and Milograd culture influences.
@All
I'm working on a new blog post about the McColl Germanic paper.
But it's complicated stuff, so it might take a bit of time.
@ Davidski
Thanks 👍
I have a lot of questions after the McColl paper. They didn't include any models for the Scandinavian clusters. I want to know where the East Scandinavians came from. A guess might be that it is Western Finland but Baltic HG ancestry was already widespread in Northeastern Europe by 2000 BCE so it could not be. Also samples in closest proximity to Finland seem to be purely EHG.
There's no east Baltic migration into 2000 BC Scandinavia
left pops:
Denmark_LN_BA.SG
Estonia_CordedWare.SG
Poland_GlobularAmphora
Germany_Mesolithic
best coefficients: 0.687 0.244 0.069
std. errors: 0.057 0.050 0.022
tail prob 0.16
The Germany Mes fits with the appearance of I1
Allentoft, Kristiansen et al, continue being sub-par story-tellers
@Matt, certainly.
Target CEE_EarlyMedieval:I5026 has a distance of 1.9734% / 0.01973414, with the following composition:
- 43.2% Estonia_BA.SG
- 33.2% Latvia_BA
- 16.2% Croatia_EIA
- 4.4% Turkey_WestByzantine_o1
- 3.0% Turkey_WestByzantine
Target CEE_EarlyMedieval:I4803 has a distance of 0.7146% / 0.00714649, with the following composition:
- 49.0% Croatia_EIA
- 34.4% Latvia_BA
- 14.4% Estonia_BA.SG
- 1.2% Turkey_WestByzantine_o1
- 1.0% Turkey_Byzantine
It appears that the Early Slav samples (CEE) show a preference for Croatia_EIA over Balkan/Bizantine samples as a source of their southern component.
The G25/Vahaduo and Smartpca (which are both fine instruments) PCA plots likely confirm it - https://imgur.com/a/uj1HfEo.
It's worth noting that according to Kristiansen 2024, Croatia_EIA already had a Baltic component. This may contribute to the aesthetics of the cline formed between the Baltic BA and Croatia IA, with early Slavs from Slovakia in between. Alternatively, a group very similar to Croatia_EIA may have played a role in the genesis of the Early Slavs.
Interestingly, the plot reveals the anomalous position of Germany_AltInden_Saxon_EMedieval, which is also detectable with f3/f4. I emulated the same plot with plink/smartPCA, with coordinates calculated from 1240K files using plink, to stay closer to Olade 2023 where CEE samples come from.
Between the two plots (SmartPCA and Vahaduo), there are no significant differences. Differences that exist are probably due to the peculiarities in calculating the coordinates that I applied. However, we can note that in the SmartPCA plot, in order to fit in a north-south cline ending at CRO_EIA, CEE gives a slight preference to the Estonian BA over the Latvian BA, which was also evident in f3.
The anomalous position of some undoubtedly Germanic groups formed during the Migration Period is an interesting and rarely addressed phenomenon in interpretations.
@ Davidski
Does not I1 in Poland peak in the north? Regardless there is a lot of the East Germanic Z63 subclade in Poles which I don't think medieval Ostsiedlung Germans had as much of they probably had more of Z58
@St, thanks for putting that out there, although I don't have any thoughts to reply with.
Off topic but maybe interesting to read - https://theconversation.com/dna-says-youre-related-to-a-viking-a-medieval-german-jew-or-a-1700s-enslaved-african-what-a-genetic-match-really-means-222833
Pop science aimed article by Harald Ringbauer and Shai Carmi on segment sharing with medieval people. It's an interesting read although I think it simplifies some things by some assumptions about panmixia (in reality the "populations" are more geographically or socially structured).
@Dmitry
Compare maps of Poland before and after WWII.
I1 doesn't peak in the parts of northern Poland that were Germany before the war, but rather in those that were already Poland before the war.
That's the point I was making in my comment to sds above.
Didn’t a significant part of German settlers come from Rhineland. These were secondarily Germanised in Roman times, would be more R1b-P312 than original Germanic U106 and I1. Plus the Franks killed a lot of the old Saxons off
Most Germans and related groups that were often called Germans moved into Poland from Lower Saxony, Flanders and Holland.
There were also some groups from the Rhineland and even Bavaria, but this was the minority.
I don't know where the Germans who settled eastern Germany came from.
what a wonderful person David is )
Moderately interesting - early Slavs and early Germans may not have been so indistinguishable after all. G25 with distal populations used as a source, rest projected. https://imgur.com/uJGzavP
Is Iosif April Fooling us? -
https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis/status/1774820500751216682
"I was hoping this would come out soon. Great work!
"We assembled 137 ancient genomes from the Neolithic to the Iron Age with an emphasis on the Bronze Age period".
Ancient DNA from Belarus shows first contact between Yamnaya and Corded Ware ca. 5075 BCE
https://biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.04.01343763440v1"
Will be interesting to see the upcoming blog on the Mccoll paper. Besides the Baltic-crossing theory being a bit out of reality imo, it does propose a lot of interesting data.
Blogger Matt said...
Is Iosif April Fooling us? -
I thought 'Southern Arc' was the April Fool's
@Matt
There was supposed to be a paper in progress on Belarusian Corded Ware so I assume it's real. I assume 5075 BCE should be BP.
Also Lazaridis probably shouldn't be making jokes related to failing to release data.
@EthanR
Well, after all, in 5000 BC Yamnaya did not yet exist, but the Sredny Stog culture came into contact with corded ceramics, and Yamnaya is the eastern part of this Sredny Stog culture, and it arose later
@ Arsen
''Well, after all, in 5000 BC Yamnaya did not yet exist, but the Sredny Stog culture came into contact with corded ceramics, ''
There was no Corded Ware culture in 5000 BC
@ Davidski
Thank you Davidski for the answer. Because Poles still have some Wielbark lines maybe some left over East Germanics were assimilated into the Slavic ethnos even though the majority of Goths and such migrated away from Poland.
May I ask what is your current stance on the proto-Slavic homeland? I leave this question open because I understand it is controversial
@Dmitry
Let's see what this paper shows and then we can discuss the location of the proto-Slavic homeland.
https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis/status/1774820500751216682
If it actually shows up at bioRxiv.
is this a real article that will soon be published, or was Lazaridis joking? I'm bad with sarcasm
Arsen: "is this a real article that will soon be published, or was Lazaridis joking? I'm bad with sarcasm"
Dated the 1st of April, so apparently April fooling.
@St
All right, let's look at this another way
https://imgur.com/a/ZHY74eA
Please, can anyone help me find information about which branch Khvalyn J1a-CTS1026 belonged to? Is there a more in-depth test of his Y chromosome?
the best I've found from this guy https://andvari5.livejournal.com/131643.html
Could be real. Abstracts of the 8th Baltic Genetics Congress, March 2023 "The limited available data for Eastern Europe suggest that demographic processes here may differ substantially from the better-studied western part. To fill the existing gap in the available ancient DNA material from Eastern Europe and contribute to a better understanding of regional human history, we sequenced aDNA from people dating over a time interval of approximately 5000 years (from the first half of the eighth millennium BC to 2500 BC) from the present-day territory of Belarus. We found that the oldest sample from the territory of Belarus had an eastern HG-like (EHG) origin, while the genetic origin changes to western HG-like (WHG) or takes the intermediate form of WHG/EHG in analyzed individuals from subsequent periods (up to 3000 BC). . Individuals dating between 3000-2500 BC had ancestors typical of both Early European Farmers (EEF) and Late Neolithic European populations. Overall, our data (1) extend the spatial range of EHG ancestry westward compared to what was previously known, (2) indicate either a complex genetic structure in Late Stone Age populations in Eastern Europe or suggest multiple waves of migration that resulted in ancestral mixing, and (3) support the spread of EEF-like ancestors northeastward to present-day Belarus." - Translated with DeepL.com
GENETIC ANCESTRY DYNAMICS DURING THE LATE STONE AGE PERIOD IN THE WESTERN PART OF THE EASTERN EUROPEAN PLAIN
Alena Kushniarevich1*, Olga Utevska1, 2, Lehti Saag3, Helja Niinemäe1, Maxim Charniauski, Aliaksandr Vashanau, Mikalai Pamazanau, Martin Malve1, Irina Khrustaleva1, Aivar Kriiska1, Oleg Davydenko, Mait Metspalu1, Kristiina Tambets1
1 University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia
2 V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, Kharkiv, Ukraine
3 University College London, London, United Kingdom
* Corresponding author. Email: alenak@ut.ee
@dancingfragments, did you create this plot ((https://ibb.co/FHxmjPn) as well? When combined with the other plot, it seems to imply that the Iron Gates Hunter-Gatherers were a subset of the Baltic Hunter-Gatherers, or vice versa. While this may be the case, commenting on your plots is beyond my expertise.
@Davidski
"I don't know where the Germans who settled eastern Germany came from."
Similar. Also Frisians.
https://www.academia.edu/21275614/Germanization_of_the_Land_Between_the_Elbe_Saale_and_Oder_Rivers_Colonisation_or_assimilation
@Rob
I am also skeptical of a Maritime Baltic route for East Scandinavian. What is strange though is that we have a very dense sampling of Meso/Neolithic Scandinavia now and there is no sign of this proto-I1 population. The exception being Stora Forvar from a tiny island off Gotland, but Gotland we know was full of I2 from PWC samples.
Lazaridis tweeted: "This was an April Fool's post. Just putting it out there for the guy that discovers it two years from now and doesn't notice the date"
@Romulus
The strontium isotopic ratios apparently hints at the early East Scandi cluster samples being from eastern Scandinavia.
Maybe you're on to something with Western Finland. Or maybe it was just central eastern Sweden. With exactly 0 samples from both those areas before the Iron Age, how can anyone say for sure?
Scandinavia has no Tin so during the Nordic Bronze Age, they had to import it. The group with access to the trade network supplying Tin (and by extension Bronze) would have had a lot of influence. Seems like that issue restricted the Germanics to Scandinavia until the Iron Age. That this East Scandinavian cluster has some Baltic affinity is maybe an indication about who and where they were importing these metals from and this East Scandinavian group could have been a middle man in that process. We know that the Nordic Brozne Age had influences from as far reaching as Mycenaean Greece so it's not really a surprise.
Europe's earliest mining district appears to be located in Erzgebirge, dated to 2500 BC. From there tin was traded north to the Baltic Sea and south to the Mediterranean following the Amber Road trading route, of great importance in the Bronze Age. Tin mining knowledge spread to other European tin mining districts from Erzgebirge and evidence of tin mining begins to appear in Brittany, Devon and Cornwall, and in the Iberian Peninsula around 2000 BC.[11] These deposits saw greater exploitation when they fell under Roman control between the third century BC and the first century AD.[12] Demand for tin created a large and thriving network amongst Mediterranean cultures of Classical times.[13][14] By the Medieval period, Iberia's and Germany's deposits lost importance and were largely forgotten while Devon and Cornwall began dominating the European tin market.[12]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ore_Mountains
This Scandinavian-->Greek Bronze trade network neatly connects the Centum and Balto Slavic Languages, from there they are connected through Corded Ware groups like Fatyanovo to Indo-Iranian.
@ Romulus
''I am also skeptical of a Maritime Baltic route for East Scandinavian. What is strange though is that we have a very dense sampling of Meso/Neolithic Scandinavia now and there is no sign of this proto-I1 population. The exception being Stora Forvar from a tiny island off Gotland, but Gotland we know was full of I2 from PWC samples''
The PWC are actually the group which shows eastern trans-Baltic contacts as they have CCC admxiture
The LN-BA Scando cluster might have acquired I1 from southern trans-Baltic contacts
david could you try adding irish travellers to the official dataset? i wonder if they might retain more Bell beaker admixture than regular irish
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep42187
@Romulus
The primary issue with the paper's proposal on a Baltic crossing is the lack of any archeological evidence. Imo the Latvian_HG in their East Scandinavian model is likely just elevated EHG.
Dmitry
I don't know what David currently thinks about the location of the Slavic homeland. However, taking into account the combined linguistic and genetic data, it can with high probability place the Slavic homeland at the southern junction of the Trzciniec and Komarov cultures.
Noble Goth: "The primary issue with the paper's proposal on a Baltic crossing is the lack of any archeological evidence."
Any? From McColl et al. 2024, 34:
"No such migration has to our knowledge been identified in the archaeological record. However, the timing coincides with the introduction of a new, Late Neolithic sheep breed to Scandinavia. It also coincides with the spread of a new burial rite of gallery graves in south Sweden, the Danish islands and Norway, a new house type, the first durative bronze networks, as well as with the end of an east-west divide in Scandinavia between 4050 and 3650 BP."
Noble Goth: "Imo the Latvian_HG in their East Scandinavian model is likely just elevated EHG."
How so? According to Günther et al. 2018, there was more EHG ancestry in Stora Förvar than in Latvia.
@St "did you create this plot ((https://ibb.co/FHxmjPn) as well?"
Yes, that's right.
There is another source [i.e. the Kisapostag culture] of Balto-Slavic drift
@ Jaako
''"No such migration has to our knowledge been identified in the archaeological record. However, the timing coincides with the introduction of a new, Late Neolithic sheep breed to Scandinavia. It also coincides with the spread of a new burial rite of gallery graves in south Sweden, the Danish islands and Norway, a new house type, the first durative bronze networks, as well as with the end of an east-west divide in Scandinavia between 4050 and 3650 BP."''
And where's your proof this house type & sheep came from East Baltic or Finland ?
''Noble Goth: "Imo the Latvian_HG in their East Scandinavian model is likely just elevated EHG."
How so? According to Günther et al. 2018, there was more EHG ancestry in Stora Förvar than in Latvia.'
And what's your point ? Show me your qpAdm models
@ Heyer
''The strontium isotopic ratios apparently hints at the early East Scandi cluster samples being from eastern Scandinavia.''
Nonsense.
Allentoft, Kristiansen, et al appear to have simply lied. The paper they quote doesnt show anything of the sort.
You should understand the facts instead of blindly quoting Fake News from bootlickers from FraudArchiver
@Jaako
It's a more reasonable guess than assuming a Baltic crossing. It's a very elaborate plot that would require more evidence to suggest how these Baltic HG/ Baltic HG-like managed to transport an entire new sheep breed and building culture to Eastern Scandinavia as well as I1. The primary issue with the latter is we don't have any I1 samples amongst Baltic HG types, at least that I'm aware of.
Does anyone have a list of the oldest I1 samples, including from this Germanic paper?
Balma Guilanyà, Spain , ~ 13000 calBP
Michelsberg culture, France ~ 4500 BC
Ostorf, Germany 3200 BC
In Scandinavia:
Toftum Mose 875 (Jutland), but Falköping & Abekås (Swe) essentially contemporaneous
older DNA studies
LBK Hungary ~ 5000 bc(RFLP, not dated)
Stora Forvar ~ 5000 bc
Also notably lacking in the 'eastern' admixed Pitted Ware group
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.03.31.587466v2
btw Balma Guilanyà, Ostorf are dead ends, as extant groups all derive from the Nordic ones, but they might trace the movement of I1 toward Scandinavia in the first place.
@Davidski
You can see all those samples Rob mentioned here (except for the 4500 Michelsberg one):
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/I-Z2699/ancient
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/I-Z2699/tree
Looks like there are two pre-I1s from Iberia
-----
Balma Guilanyà 1/5 was a man who lived between 11,446 - 10,772 BCE during the Late Upper Paleolithic Age and was found in the region now known as Balma Guilanyà, Solsona, Spain.
-----
Carigüela 1 was a man who lived between 9700 - 5500 BCE during the Mesolithic Age and was found in the region now known as Cueva de la Carigüela, Piñar, Granada, Spain (Andalusia).
-----
Stora Förvar 11 was a man who lived between 7073 - 6810 BCE during the Mesolithic Age and was found in the region now known as Stora Förvar, Stora Karlsö, Gotland, Sweden.
-----
Ostorf 3 was a man who lived between 3294 - 3032 BCE during the Late Neolithic Age and was found in the region now known as Tannenwerder, Lake Ostorf, Schwerin, Germany.
He was associated with the Funnel Beaker cultural group.
-----
I never knew Ostorf 3 was a Funnel Beaker. Looking at where Ostorf is though at that time he would have been.
Ostorf 3 was something like 80%+ WHG.
The archeological supplement says the following:
"The Ostorf population was living within a spatially and temporally Funnel Beaker context and adopted some Neolithic cultural elements, but followed a subsistence strategy normally associated with a hunter-gatherer diet"
one guy, Kryz (Lezgin-speaking), from northern Azerbaijan was tested and it turned out to be I-CTS11603, I assumed that this is a descendant of the Vikings when they raided the Transcaucasus (Albanian cities), since in his branch there are only Swedes and Dutch and in the parallel branch there is an ancient Viking sample from Russia
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Viking_Expansion.svg
I1 from Eastern Funnel Beaker would explain things nicely.
https://i.imgur.com/iNTrAM6.png
This is also interesting, oldest I1 (not pre-I1) outside Scandinavia
-----
Beremiany 643 was a man who lived between 1919 - 1701 BCE during the Early Bronze Age and was found in the region now known as Beremiany, Tarnopil Province, Ukraine.
He was associated with the Komarów cultural group.
His direct maternal line belonged to mtDNA haplogroup W6a.
Reference: poz643 from Chyleński et al. 2023
-----
Interestingly compared to EBA populations, the MBA individuals were closer in the PCA space to various hunter-gatherer populations from Europe (Fig. 1D), something that previously was not detected in analyses of mitochondrial genome data alone28. Moreover, admixture analysis indicated elevated amounts of genetic components maximised in hunter-gatherers (Fig. 1C). This suggests an additional admixture event at the beginning of the MBA involving a population with relatively high proportions of this genetic component. However, there were notable deviations to this trend, with three individuals associated with TC from Pielgrzymowice site and poz643, a relatively early KC male from Beremiany, clustering closer to EBA populations in PCA space and displaying the lowest levels of shared genetic drift with both TC and hunter-gatherer populations (Supplementary Data 7).
''Carigüela 1''
Yes, another piece of evidence that I1 is from Western Europe, not Finland.
I1 in MN France :
''Cx161'' - Cugnaux 4314-4052
Chassen Culture to be specific.
I1 certainly does not originate in the Baltic or Finland, it will be interesting to ask the Copenhagians when and where they believe this lineage learned to speak Indo-European. The Spanish samples are typical Iberian Hgs (Villabruna + Goyet Q2) and the French one a typical western megalithic culture farmer.I am not sure of the dating of Stora Forvar.
BAL051 (11.020 BCE)-Balma de Guilanyá, mesolithic, Iberia-HapY-I1-Z2699-pre-I1-M253
CAR1 (7.600 BCE)-Cueva de la Carigüela, mesolithic, WHG, Iberia-HapY-I1-Z2699-pre-I1-M253
SF11 (5.375 BCE)-Stora Förvar cave, SHG, Sweden-HapY-pre-I1-Z2699-pre-I1-M253
BAB5 (5.020 BCE)-Balatonszemes-Bagódomb, LBKT, Hungary-HapY-I1-Z2699-pre-I1-M253
CX161 (4.183 BCE)-Zac Agora, Cugnaux-Chaseen culture, France-HapY-I1a2b/4-DF29>Z58>S5619
OST003 (3.183 BCE)-Ostorf, Funnelbeaker culture, Germany,-HapY-I1-Z2699-pre-I1-M253
There are no pre Iron Age Finnish DNA samples and I clades sharing mutations with I1 have been found sporadically all over Europe, what makes you so certain of the fact that I1 does not have a Finnish origin?
Davidski said in 2019
quote
'The mechanism is very simple.
A lineage that crashed in terms of diversity and frequency thousands of years ago, and almost went extinct, survives at a very low frequency across Scandinavia, or even in a small region of what is now Sweden, and then sharply rises in frequency during the Bronze Age because one local clan becomes very successsful for whatever reason, such as new social organization and/or economic stimuli being introduced from the outside.
That's basically the story of I1. You can see it by looking at its SNP structure. And I'm not saying anything new or controversial here.'
end quote
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/I-M253/ancient
Foresight.
@Ambron
Can you point me to this linguistic data? And which part of Trzciniec?
Blone Thog:
"It's a more reasonable guess than assuming a Baltic crossing. It's a very elaborate plot that would require more evidence to suggest how these Baltic HG/ Baltic HG-like managed to transport an entire new sheep breed and building culture to Eastern Scandinavia as well as I1. The primary issue with the latter is we don't have any I1 samples amongst Baltic HG types, at least that I'm aware of."
First, spreading of ancestry does not require a whole new culture in the target region.
Second, paternal lineage is independent and irrelevant question, when we consider the arrival of new autosomal ancestry component.
Relevant is only can you disprove or explain differently their results based on the IBD-clustering method? If not, there is no reason to doubt the gene flow from the east.
@Dopieass
Gaska was talking about autosomal DNA you moron.
@Dmitry
You seem to have completely disregarded the entire points of discussion to leave a useless comment in a smug retarded manner. Does the paper have too many big words for you to read so you just misunderstand the comments here and reply in low iq fashion?
The Americas time zone posters are very stupid, sucks to be among them.
@Romulus
Because I inquire Ambron about the linguistic support for his stance on the Slavic urheimat or because I agree with what David predicted about the branching of one haplogroup already years ago? Branching ≠ furthest origin. No smugness, time zone irrelevant. Do not be emotional.
@ Scott G
''There are no pre Iron Age Finnish DNA samples and I clades sharing mutations with I1 have been found sporadically all over Europe, what makes you so certain of the fact that I1 does not have a Finnish origin?''
Sure it's possible, but it's very much a western Europe distribution, with a single sample c. 2000 BC, no longer-hunter-gatherer, in Ukraine.
This doesnt make it 'all over Europe'.
We can make a guess of Finland HG Y-DNA. One can guess by inferring the archaeological cultures are associated with Mesolithic Finland. Have you looked at that ?
What about the surrounding sample list from Veretye, Butovo, Narva, Motala etc, and the more younger Pitted Ware, Baltic Corded Ware
Have you looked at that ?
But it's not for everyone. I once suggested that approach to an R1b expert from FraudArchiver, but he didnt like the idea of following evidence.
@ Jaapi
''First, spreading of ancestry does not require a whole new culture in the target region.
Second, paternal lineage is independent and irrelevant question, when we consider the arrival of new autosomal ancestry component.
Relevant is only can you disprove or explain differently their results based on the IBD-clustering method? If not, there is no reason to doubt the gene flow from the east.''
You need to try harder to be specific & pertinent instead of making generic (non-)associations between material culture, genetics, language, etc
Given that Men & Women broadly make up half of any population, Allentoft et al need to either show associated male Y-DNA arriving, and/or female-mediated mtDNA with their detected genome-shift. Genetics 101.
In fact, that is a crux of their paper - a trifecta of gene flow, Y-hg I1, and new sheep/ houses.
As for their IBD, this has been explained before:
- IBD is just one line of evidence, which needs confirmation with uniparental data and qpAdm.
- IBD hits favour capturing smaller, more inbred populations, which is precisely what GAC : a sub-population from a broader pool dominated by a single male-lineage the underwent a range expansion 3200-2700 BC.
- Their IBD methods allege that *all* the EEF/ MNE ancestry of incoming SGC derives from GAC. Ive already pointed out that this is a non-historical claim which attempts a one-answer fits all model.
- Even more glaringly, the centre-pice of their discussion - NEO792 - an EKG male- has Y-DNA that comes from local Danish TRB, not Ukrainian or Polish GAC, published on ftDNA for all to see. This is unequivocal proof of the failure of their claims.
- Same with the case of the I1- Scando cluster. Where is the I1 in the East Baltic region ? East Balt, pre-Corded Males belong to R1b-P297, I2a-L460, even Q1. Maybe it will be found in Finland, but so far there is no convincing support for this suggestion. Esp given that we have pre-I1 once again in a nearby TRB individual from northern Germany.
- moreover, the isotopic paper they quote analysed samples several hundreds of years after their alleged migration, as initially pointed out by Copper Axe. That's if we even take strontium isotopic data seriously.
Dmitry
I had in mind the outstanding contemporary linguists quoted here many times - Udolph, Pronk, Kortladt, who, based on the oldest layer of Slavic hydronyms, locate the primary Slavic homeland between the upper Vistula and the middle Dniester.
Some researchers found connection of EastScandinavian cluster with IronGatesHG who may be the distinct group of non WHG non WHG origin and who could survive moving to the North (bearing known I1 subclade)
@All
Does anybody have the listed Y-DNA lineages of the possible Baltic outliers in the Stolarek et al. 2023 paper? Plonsk_Middle_Ages_oBaltic Ostrow_Lednicki_Middle_Ages_oBaltic and Legowo_Middle_Ages_oBaltic specifically. They could very well be Old Prussians based on their sample areas, with one possibly being a Galindian.
Based off what I've read so far in regards to West Baltic culture and linguistics, it does seem they are quite different from their Eastern counterparts on that front. I suspect their autosomal DNA to be largely similar overall, but their Y-DNA might be largely different, with Western Balts being largely R1a and (possibly?) I1, as there does seem to be Gothic influences both in Old Prussian and even in Sudovian burials. I suspect N1 would have been far less dominant and unlike their Eastern kin was not a founding lineage.
Additionally, more specifically for the Polish population, it may be well worth investigating Kashubians as they seem to have Old Prussian influences in their language and, interestingly, having little to no N1. Although I'm unaware how frequent the LWb allele is in Kashubs.
I'm a bit late to the discussion of East German origins because I've crashed my laptop and was unable to sign in with the Samsung browser on my phone. I forgot there is also Chrome on it! I have posted a map before, showing the movements of the German Ostsiedlung as evidenced by dialect features that I would post again now, if I had access to it. Basically it showed that the migrations eastwards stayed approximately around the same latitudes, i.e. North Germans settled the Northeast, middle Germans the middle parts of the East and Bavarians settled Austria and the southern parts of Bohemia and Moravia. The only exception being a secondary Silesian, i.e. middle German, migration to central East Prussia. As for the German ancestry in what is now Eastern Germany: Those in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern are most of all a mix of Northern Low Germans and West Phalians. Those in Saxony are a mix of Thuringians, Main Franks and southern Saxons. The dialect in Brandenburg is mostly Low German too, i.e. derived from Old Saxon, but with an appreciable Dutch influence. The Dutch influence is strongest in Brandenburg and middle Pomerania. But Dutch and Flemish settlers were involved elsewhere too, they just left less traces in the local dialect. According to Helmold von Bosau, Eastern Holstein was settled by Saxons from western Holstein, West Phalians, Frisians and Dutch people. According to Lucas David, a historiographer of the 16th century who may have had access to sources that no longer exist, the northern Ermland (northern Warmia) was settled by Saxons and by people from Holland and Jülich (on the lower Rhine), and this is confirmed by my East Prussian grandma's DNA, according to 23andme. In contrast, according to the same historiographer, several thousands of peasants from Meissen (modern Saxony) settled the central part of the Ermland.
My grandmother from the northern Ermland (I'm using the German term, because it's not exactly coinciding with what is now northern Warmia) has 25.9% East European ancestry according to 23andme, and one of her nieces, whose parents were from the same area, has 33.8%. That's of course only representative for the northern Ermland, not for East Prussia as a whole. I've invited a nephew of my grandma, whose father was from Königsberg, to discuss about history and DNA testing, but that arse preferred to ignore my email.
@ George
''Some researchers found connection of EastScandinavian cluster with IronGatesHG who may be the distinct group of non WHG non WHG origin and who could survive moving to the North (bearing known I1 subclade)''
Which researchers found that and what is the nature of connnection ? (e.g. could be presence of EHG in both, or certain deeper connections)
But the origins of the classic 'SHG' hasn't much changed since before aDNA - they are known as Fosna-Hensbacka groups which colonized central-west Scandinavia from the noth European lowlands at the start of the Mesolithic, derivatives of Final Paleolithic Ahrensburgian/ Tanged Point people, reindeer hunters of the North. What DNA has changed is the exclusive focus on northwest Europe as their source as East-Central Europe played a large role in colonizing northern Europe
Finland featured groups called Suomujarvi-Askola culture in traditional archaeological schema. Sometimes it's seen as an eastern offshot of F-H, but others (e.g. S. Kozlowski) link it to the Desna group from Desna-upper Volga. Either way, it could be rich in EHG and feature R1b-p297 or even Q for example.
As a side point, generally, the implications of aDNA have had a slow uptake by archaeologists studying northeastern Europe. They still talk of nonsensical 'post-Swiderian' groups whilst the leading role of Siberian-derived groups remains underappreciated.
@George
By the way, yes, Baltic hunter-gatherers would turn out if people from the Iron Gate Balkans mixed there, picking up a little WHG and Russian EHG along the way
https://i.postimg.cc/4ydVGxRq/Screenshot-18.png
all these Latvian hunters belong to R1b-P297, and are also a mixture of iron gate and mesolithic northern Russia, and they do not have CHG, interesting, I thought that the person with the mutation, R1b-P297 was already mixed with the Caucasus
https://i.postimg.cc/ZqS6BV0h/Screenshot-19.png
so when did they mix?
https://andvari5.livejournal.com/185540.html about EastScandinavian resembling IronGatesHG
That would be great but leave question where this cryptoI1eastScandi group hide. May be in Masurian or Polessye marshes?
@George
This guy is just an amateur geneticist like most people here. It's unlikely he qualifies as someone with expert opinion
Saw Vladimir shared this presentation on YouTube on 'Archivist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGmSY_Ie0Sc - "Geography and Chronology of Slavic Dispersal"
Since I don't speak Russian all I can do is look at the pretty pictures, which I have excerpted and put here in case you wish to quickly flick through them: https://imgur.com/a/LJuLgYT
@ Jaakko
What do you think about WSHG instead of ESHG being Proto-Uralic
About mc Coll (2024):
"In contrast to previous studies, which relied on Scandinavian samples postdating the Migration Period 47, we can now reject the Danish Isles and Sweden as a source area for the Anglo-Saxons in Britain, as these were dominated by Eastern Scandinavian ancestry prior to the Viking Age (Figure 6)."
We can put big question marks behind the last statement. There is literally stated we can reject the Danish Isles ancestry (= the one previous 400 AD!) because they were dominated by eastern Scandinavian ancestry prior to the Viking age.
The claim is that we see only Southern Scandic ancestry in EMA English and Frisians. In the case Southern Scandic ancestry is seen as from Northern Germany (Mecklenburg) and from Southern Jutland.
Why is this not valid?
- samples from Midlum Friesland (EMA) and Groningen (EMA) show in G25 no unsino preference for Southern Scandic ancestry as transmitted by Northern Germans (Häven, Mecklenburg) many 'prefer' Danish Isles IA (Mc Coll: 80% Eastern Scandic).
- the Saxon ancestry in the form of modern North Dutch population (in casu my family from Groningen en Drenthe/ North Dutch) are according to a Qpadm "pure Danish Isles IA" and show also a 70 vs 30 % preference (in Qpadm) between Danish Isles IA and Hidestorf EMA (North Germany) or Danish Isles IA and Schleswig(North Germany)EMA.
- the timing is perfect: the disappearance of the Danish Isles IA ancestry about 400 AD> correspondences perfect with a Saxon appearance around the North Sea.
- after the migration period there is no major influx of people with a big East Scandic cluster component, along the continental North Sea Coast, so it must be brought in during migration time.
Tentative conclusion: the paper has needles written off Danish Isles IA ancestry as a source for the Anglo-Saxons around the North Sea.
Kristian Kristiansen (2023) on Yamnaya and North Caucasus trade and influence.
"In the North Caucasus Mountains, bordering the steppes to
the south, the EBA begins with the mid-fourth-millennium
BCE appearance of the Maikop culture and its impressive
arsenical bronze metallurgy, the central culture of Chernykh’s
Circumpontic Metallurgical Province (Chernykh 1992:
67–83), in which Yamnaya was included. Maikop was the
extreme northwestern frontier of sites displaying material and
technological links with the “Uruk expansion” trade network
of the West Asian EBA/Late Chalcolithic (Kohl 2007; Kohl
and Trifonov 2014). Korenevskii (2016, 2020) has argued that
Mesopotamian/Iranian symbols such as the goat on the tree of
life (a cosmological symbol with deep roots in Mesopotamia/
Iran) and paired bull-and-lion images (icons of Mesopotamian/
Iranian kingship, displayed in a region without lions) found in
the monumental kurgan graves of the Maikop elite indicate
that Mesopotamian socio-religious ideologies were introduced
to the North Caucasus piedmont and perhaps to the steppes by
Maikop warrior-chiefs; their elevation was linked with those
ideologies as well as with the gold, silver, carnelian, and
turquoise ornaments and bronze weapons they displayed.
According to Wang et al. (2019), the Maikop elite and ordinary
people were genetically alike: local descendants of the
Neolithic population that had migrated into the North
Caucasus from Georgia about 4800 to 4700 BCE and
remained connected genetically to Southern Caucasus/East
Anatolian populations. Early Maikop material culture (ceramics, lithics,
clay andirons) was deposited in two stratified
Eneolithic settlements in the steppes of the lower Don River
(Konstantinovka and Razdorskoe level VI), mixed with the
late Sredni Stog material culture of the main occupation,
probably in the mid-fourth millennium BCE. These sites testify to
the occasional visits of early Maikop expeditions (in
wagons?) as far north as the lower Don – without the luxury
goods that distinguished Maikop chiefs. Maikop technologies,
perhaps including wheeled vehicles (Reinhold et al. 2017),
were then copied and diffused across the steppes, and these
innovations were fundamental parts of the Yamnaya revolution.
However, Maikop and Yamnaya mates were rarely
exchanged, as these two populations, so deeply entangled in
other ways, seemed to remain genetically largely apart (Wang
et al. 2019)."
"Early Maikop, around 3700 to 3300 BCE, was pre-Yamnaya, but late Maikop,
including the weapon-rich graves at Nalchik (Belinsky et al. 2017) and
Klady (Wang et al. 2019), was contemporary with early Yamnaya, about 3300 to
3000 BCE. Yamnaya metalsmiths copied late Maikop bivalvemold casting
methods, their preference for arsenical bronze,
and their weapon types, including cast-tanged daggers, flat
axes with expanding blade edges, and single-bladed sleeved
shaft-hole axes – new types that partly define the EBA in the
steppes (Korenevskii 1980; Nechitailo 1991; Morgunova
2014; Ryndina and Degtyareva 2018; Klochko 2019).
Metallurgical links to Maikop explain why Yamnaya is
assigned to the EBA, and why the EBA begins in the steppes
more than a millennium before the EBA in central and western
Europe: The Bronze Age chronology of the Pontic–Caspian
steppes was linked to the Bronze Age chronology of southwestern Asia
(Anthony 2021), not to Europe. Consequently,
Yamnaya migrants might begin their journey in the EBA, but
as they moved west, they entered regions where their graves
are assigned to the Late Eneolithic (in the Carpathian Basin)
or the Late Neolithic (north of the Carpathians), a problem
well reviewed by Heyd (2013)."
"Early Yamnaya material culture, as known primarily from
graves, included wheeled vehicles, tanged daggers, sleeved
axes cast in bivalve molds, and silver or copper hair rings, all
of which might have been copied from late Maikop models.
There were also triangular flint projectile points with a concave
base (dominant form, with several minor types), canine-tooth
pendants, stone end-pestles, bone pins (several types), and a
diverse range of late-fourth-millennium ceramics. Kurgan
graves with elements of this package – classically with the
dead in the “Yamnaya position” (supine with raised knees),
but occasionally contracted on the side, and strewn with red
ochre – began to appear across the Pontic–Caspian steppes
about 3300 to 3200 BCE. The average Yamnaya grave was
poor in material wealth, but the average Yamnaya kurgan was a
large mound often made of turfs, 30 to 40 m in diameter, and it
usually covered a single (occasionally double) central grave
that contained an adult male in 70 to 80 percent of cases (the
percentage of males varied regionally but was the majority
everywhere)"
I hope some samples from Berezhnovka II are on the way? oldest Yamnaya phase that was contemporary with eneolithic Khvalysnsk.
"The variant in the lower Volga steppes (I) typified
at Berezhnovka II represented his oldest Yamnaya phase, and
later regional variants represented expansion to the west and
south. His Berezhnovka II “early Yamnaya” graves have since
been shown by radiocarbon dates to be Eneolithic, contemporary
with Khvalynsk, a millennium before Yamnaya. Merpert’s intuition,
before Khvalynsk was discovered, that they were typologically
archaic was correct, but his date estimate was late"
@ Arsen
“ I thought that the person with the mutation, R1b-P297 was already mixed with the Caucasus
https://i.postimg.cc/ZqS6BV0h/Screenshot-19.png
so when did they mix?”
For most of P297 - never
But one group of P297 -M269 were somehow on the steppe and acquired CHG/ Meshoko/ Nalchik from the Progress/ Vonuchjka/ Berezhnovka cluster
@Rob
for some reason I also thought about this, that part of P297 went north, and part went south, most likely going down the Volga to the Caspian lowland
@Rob
Most likely, R-L389>>V1636 went south, along with R-L389>>P297>>M269.
And so, this tracker misled me about P297 migrations
http://scaledinnovation.com/gg/snpTracker.html
Diffusion of wagons in steppe
"Early Maikop material culture (ceramics, lithics,
clay andirons) was deposited in two stratified
Eneolithic settlements in the steppes of the lower Don River
(Konstantinovka and Razdorskoe level VI), mixed with the
late Sredni Stog material culture of the main occupation,
probably in the mid-fourth millennium BCE. These sites testify to
the occasional visits of early Maikop expeditions (in
wagons?) as far north as the lower Don – without the luxury
goods that distinguished Maikop chiefs. Maikop technologies,
perhaps including wheeled vehicles (Reinhold et al. 2017),
were then copied and diffused across the steppes, and these
innovations were fundamental parts of the Yamnaya revolution.
However, Maikop and Yamnaya mates were rarely
exchanged, as these two populations, so deeply entangled in
other ways, seemed to remain genetically largely apart (Wang
et al. 2019)."
Im not sure the suggestions of the shared quote are correct.
As with any aspect of evidence, the contextual detail is important. So, wagons/ wheels in Majkop burials are deposited in a ceremonial/ ritualised context. In the Yamnaya burials, they seem to be mundane deposits, as if wagons were just another part of daily life.
This doesnt lend support that Yamnaya adopted Wagons from Majkop, in fact it suggests the oposite.
Matt
Vyazov:
"Locating the Slavic homeland proves challenging with the current sampling that mostly consist of cultural and genetic outliers since regions populated by Early Miedieval Slavs remain unsampled due to widespread cremations, but it likely in proximity to the Baltic region, where populations from the first millennium BCE exhibit the closest resemblance to the earliest members of the putatively Slavic IBD-sharing community."
@Арсен
"Most likely, R-L389>>V1636 went south, along with R-L389>>P297>>M269."
With that estimated formation time and TMRCA R1b-P297 is very likely from the Balkan or a Balkan-adjacent area originally. You should not forget that all of these Baltic HG samples are very young compared to the age and original dispersion of P297. For example Latvia was still under ice when P297 first branched out / spread.
Vyazov and Flegontov's report on the Slavs centers on the Imenkovo Culture, whose genomes are crucial to their theory. Vyazov claims that this culture is "unquestionably Slavic," as evidenced by its artifacts. Yet, the typical Slavic custom of cremating the dead, which hinders genome identification, is not found in this culture. This raises questions:
1. If Imenkovians are typical Slavs, why do they not cremate their dead?
2. What was a significant Proto-Slavic group doing in the Middle Volga region in the 2nd century AD?
Assuming these were Slavs, they might have migrated from the middle Dnieper under Gothic pressure. However, the presence of an early Slavic culture in the Volga-Ural steppe and forest-steppe zone from the 2nd to 6th centuries contrasts with the "later" Slavs' locations in the northern Carpathians, Prague-Korchak, etc., during the 4th-6th centuries.
The depiction of the Imenkovo culture as "proto-Slavic" is contested among archaeologists. Using Imenkovian samples to represent early Slavic genomes is contentious, as it might conflate the proto-Slavic element with an Imenkovian one. The authors gauge the proximity of Early Slavic genomes to Proto-Slavs by their closeness to the Imenkovo people, who may be Slavs, Ugrians, Finns, Balts, or even Sarmatians, depending on the source. This casts doubt on the Slavic nature of the reference genomes.
Vyazov's controversial claim links the earliest Slavs with the "Ests" cited in ancient chronicles. Observations from the presentation indicated that archaeologists were skeptical of this connection, as well as the proposed significant role of the Imenkovo culture in the identification of early Slavs. I would rise the questions why choosing "Ests" over Ptolemy's "Stavanoi," which are mentioned in a similar geographical context as Imenkovo. Additionally, inquiries about the fate of the Imenkovo culture post-6th century AD remained unanswered by Vyasov. The disappearance of Imenkovo and its people in 6th century, and the reasons behind it add additional layers of complexity in understanding if they played any role (and what role) in the Slavic formation.
It wasn't Slavs just preSlavs very close to Balts. They moved to Estonia under pressure of Wielbark
and Chernyahov cultures to the North (Finnish Estland)
You can turn on subtitles and then autotranslate to English on YouTube. They call Imenkovo as ParaSlavs not Slavs and point to Imenkovo-Hun coexistence which led to noncremating burial of some individuals (women and metis children)
@George, "You can turn on subtitles and then auto-translate to English on YouTube," - I don't need to. Vyasov's method is intriguing. However, the archaeologists at the meeting appeared to respond with skepticism. Perhaps some of his claims deviate from the paradigm. He did not (or could not?) address many of their questions at the end of presentation... Anyway, best of good luck to him in his research on the early Slavs..
Imenkovo culture being Slavs is obviously non feasible, but it is a prominent pet theory amongst Russian archaeologists. Same with Pskov barrows i northern Russia, these are clearly Baltic traditions. In fact, there were no 'Slavs' in Russia, Belarus or northern-eastern Ukraine until ~ 630 AD.
The expansion of The Slavs is clear in the archaeological record - demise of the Penkovka & Kolochin cultures, destruction of the great fort at Pestyrke, hoarding, etc; probably due to advancing Bulgars.
Then we see emergence of typical Slavic cluture with huts in corner oven, elite barrow cremation burials sometimes with horse gear, and 'Danubian pottery', expanding from the Carpathians to the northeast. These were prominent warriors who were galvanised in various campaigns against Avars & Byzantines. etc, bearing names ending in -mir and -slav. They originally could have come from any part of northeast Europe rather than one specific region.
Well, so you require strong correspondence between linguistic historical Slavs who acquired and integrated elements of provincial Roman culture and I2 bearers at Danube and deny any preSlavs who was closer to Balts and farther from Pannonia. I wish you same severeness with Germanic line tracing Oksywie, Wielbark and Gothic culture. Seems you diminish migrations and corresponding acculturation in wide BaltopreSlavic continuum (or even wider and more ancient East and central Europe baltothracian continuum)
@ George
''Well, so you require strong correspondence between linguistic historical Slavs who acquired and integrated elements of provincial Roman culture and I2 bearers at Danube and deny any preSlavs who was closer to Balts and farther from Pannonia....Seems you diminish migrations and corresponding acculturation in wide BaltopreSlavic continuum (or even wider and more ancient East and central Europe baltothracian continuum)''
yes I recall you & Volat always used get upset when presented with these facts.
But the problem is your own misudnerstanding of the nuances within my summaries, although they are in fact clearly enunciated.
To repeat, in point form this time
- ''pre-Slavs'' migrated from a wider catchment of northeast Europe to areas closer to the Carpathian basin
- ethnic galvanisation & dialect levelling
- outward expansion (or reflux) of late Common Slavic after the crisis of the 1st Avar khanate and collapse of Byzantine limes.
You are free to disagree, but it's folly to do so given my knowlegde of detail & synthetic capabilities.
''I wish you same severeness with Germanic line tracing Oksywie, Wielbark and Gothic culture. ''
Not sure what that even means
R1a1a1b1a1b1
@George - "historical Slavs who acquired and integrated.. I2 bearers at Danube" - they would not have to go to Danube to find I2a bearers. Imenkovo must have already had them. I2a1b2a1 (L-621?), R1a1a1b1a2a, E1b1b1a1b1, G2a2b1a, R1a1a, I2a2.... https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(22)01826-7. Make what you wish from this...
I read through the transcript and it's kind of absurd to reach that conclusion as a geneticist in light of the type of ancestry that had been reaching the Volga since the bronze age.
and I think the Proto-Slavs originated somewhere in the south of Belarus and the north of Ukraine, this is an area, well, I’ll be honest, I’ve never been interested in this issue)
This guy, whoever he is, is making some BS claims
E.g. the 5th century person from out East, with Y-hg N and Finnic autosomic affinities, calls hime a 'Slav'.
About as real as Dravidians coming from Europe
In fact, at the moment, determining the location of the Slavic homeland is very simple... Since the first Slavic innovations date back to approximately 1300 BC, it is enough to check where the Slavic genomes appear at that time, i.e. the most similar to the genomes of the medieval Slavs, who after 2.5 thousand years of cremation, they returned to the skeletal rite.
This is, of course, the Polish Trzciniec culture.
@Davidski
Do the Mesolithic samples of Ukraine(Vasilyevka and other samples older than 9-10 thousand years)compared to the Russian EHG, have admixture from the Caucasus and Anatolia in small proportions? or is it noise
Ambron:
"In fact, at the moment, determining the location of the Slavic homeland is very simple... Since the first Slavic innovations date back to approximately 1300 BC, it is enough to check where the Slavic genomes appear at that time"
How do you define the Slavic genome? How can you decide which genetic root of later Slavs is the one which followed the Slavic language lineage? Can you see the language from the nucleotides? How?
@ Rob
There is a theory that WSHG instead of ESHG could be Proto-Uralic.
why if in the ethnogenesis of Iranian peoples, such as the Persians, Kurds, Lurians, Farsi, Tats, Mazenderans, and others, Indo-Iranian tribes like Sintashta Srubnoy Andronovo participated, they are not suitable as a proxy at all, but again the same Afanasyevskaya is more suitable, why Afanasievites are so versatile, have they succeeded everywhere?)
@ Gabru
''There is a theory that WSHG instead of ESHG could be Proto-Uralic.''
I've not heard of any such theory being made by anyone relevant this side of 2015
@ Arsen
''why if in the ethnogenesis of Iranian peoples, such as the Persians, Kurds, Lurians, Farsi, Tats, Mazenderans, and others, Indo-Iranian tribes like Sintashta Srubnoy Andronovo participated, they are not suitable as a proxy at all, but again the same Afanasyevskaya is more suitable, why Afanasievites are so versatile, have they succeeded everywhere?)''
Because you're probably doing something wrong &/or misinterpreting things
@Арсен
R1b-Z2109 is found in Yamnaya - Afanasievo - Pepkino-Pepkinsky(large scale warfare burial mound)- Sintashta.
The same R1b-Z2109 were early carriers of an early strain of Yersinia pestis. They did not originate many items listed below, but used unique items- in homogenous R1b-Z2109-kurgan burials( beside ceremonial ochre).
1-Pottery--
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287799741_Pottery_from_the_Volga_area_in_the_Samara_and_South_Urals_region_from_Eneolithic_to_Early_Bronze_Age
The study of the Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age ceramics in the Volga and the Urals areas is of great importance. The typological and technological analysis of pottery found at a number of sites related to the Samara and Khvalynsk cultures, on the one hand, and the early (Repin) stage of the Yamnaya culture,on the other, made it possible to show continuity in the production of pottery from the Eneolithic periodto the Early Bronze Age, which means that an autochthonous line of development prevailed in the region. The studies were supported by radio carbon dates
2-Bivalve molds- (Kargaly early copper mining)
Yamnaya metalsmiths copied late Maikop bivalvemold casting
methods, their preference for arsenical bronze,
and their weapon types, including cast-tanged daggers, flat
axes with expanding blade edges, and single-bladed sleeved
shaft-hole axes – new types that partly define the EBA in the
steppes (Korenevskii 1980; Nechitailo 1991; Morgunova
2014; Ryndina and Degtyareva 2018; Klochko 2019).
Metallurgical links to Maikop explain why Yamnaya is
assigned to the EBA, and why the EBA begins in the steppes
3-Iron (Utensil, jewellery, weapon) used in burials.
4-Wagons pulled by oxen, built for long distance travel(used in burials).
5-Dom2 horse(Turganik) / and or dairy-milk consumption.
Post a Comment