A paper dealing with the origin of Slavic speakers, titled
Ancient DNA connects large-scale migration with the spread of Slavs, was just published at
Nature by Gretzinger et al. (see
here).
The dataset from the paper includes eight fascinating ancient samples from Gródek upon the Bug River in Southeastern Poland. These individuals are dated to the so called Tribal Period (8th –9th centuries), and, as far as I know, they represent the earliest Slavic speakers in the ancient DNA record.
The really interesting thing about these early Slavs is that they already show some Germanic and other Western European-related ancestries.
In the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) plots below, three of them cluster near present-day Ukrainians, while the rest are shifted towards present-day Northwestern, Western and Southern Europeans. The plots were produced with the excellent
Vahaduo G25 Global Views tool using the data
here.
These results aren't exactly shocking, because the people who preceded the early Slavs in the Gródek region were Scandinavian-like and associated with the Wielbark archeological culture. In other words, they were probably Goths who also had significant contacts with the Roman Empire.
However, it's not a given that the ancestors of the Tribal Period Slavs mixed with local Goths. It's also possible that they brought the western admixture, or at least some of it, from the Slavic homeland, wherever that may have been.
That's because the early Slavs who migrated deep into what is now Russia also showed Western European-related admixture. This is what Gretzinger et al. say on page 74 of their supplementary info (emphasis is mine):
The only deviation from this pattern is observed for ancient samples from the Russian Volga-Oka region, where we measure higher genetic affinity between present-day Southern/Western Europeans and the SP population compared to the pre-SP population (Fig. S17). This agrees with the pattern observed in PCA and ADMIXTURE that, in contrast to the Northwestern Balkan, Eastern Germany, and Poland-Northwestern Ukraine, the arrival of Slavic-associated culture in Northwestern Russia was associated with a shift in PCA space to the West, a decrease of BAL [Baltic] ancestry, and the introduction of Western European ancestries such as CNE [Continental North European] and CWE [Continental Western European].
Thus, it's highly plausible that the Tribal Period Slavs from Gródek were very similar, perhaps even practically identical, to the proto-Slavs who lived in the original Slavic homeland. Hopefully we won't have to wait too long to discover whether that's true or not. More Migration period and Slavic period samples from the border regions of Belarus, Poland and Ukraine are needed to sort that out.
On the other hand, most of the post-1000 CE individuals from Gródek are shifted closer to present-day Balts. This is probably due to admixture from nearby Baltic-speaking populations. At the time, Baltic speakers still occupied much of northern and eastern Poland.
I'm still going through the Gretzinger et al. paper and I'll probably have a lot more to say about it in the near future.
However, unfortunately, I've already spotted a silly mistake in the supplementary info that will probably have some very annoying consequences for us on this blog. On page 109 the authors make the false claim that South Asian ancestry is present in a wide range of ancient Eastern European and Central Asian populations from the Bronze Age to the Scythian period.
Furthermore, Sycthian groups from Ukraine show varying fractions of South Asian ancestry (between 5% and 12%), a component present in many ancient individuals from Moldova (e.g. Moldova_IA, Moldova_LBA and Moldova_MBA), Ukraine (Ukraine_Alexandria_MBA and Ukraine_BA_Catacomb.SG), Western Russia (e.g. Russia_EarlySarmatian.SG, Russia_MLBA_Potapovka, or Russia_MLBA_Sintashta) and the Caucasus (Russia_Caucasus_LBA_Dolmen and Russia_North_Caucasus_MBA) but (nearly) absent in the SP genomes from Central and East-Central Europe (<5%) (Fig. S42b).
All ancient and present-day South Asian populations carry what is commonly known as Ancestral South Indian (ASI) ancestry, while all of the above mentioned ancient groups lack it. Ergo, it's impossible for these ancients to have actual South Asian ancestry.
What happened is that Gretzinger et al. created a genetic component in ADMIXTURE based on present-day South Asians. However, South Asians today have very complex ancestry from several different sources, including early pastoralists from the North-Pontic steppe in Eastern Europe and early farmers from Central Asia and what is now Iran. As a result, the groups that share significant amounts of alleles with South Asians via these sources also show so called South Asian ancestry in the Gretzinger et al. analysis.
Unless this problem is corrected we're likely to see some nutjobs online using this paper to claim all sorts of nonsense about the origins of ancient Eastern Europeans and Central Asians, especially the Sintashta people and Scythians.
See also...
High-resolution stuff
Leo Speidel & Pontus Skoglund
273 comments:
1 – 200 of 273 Newer› Newest»I think that paper with the Imen'kovo culture samples will be very interesting, considering that they seem to be Kiev culture migrants.
There probably is AASI ancestry in those samples...but that likely came via BMAC folks who were like 1-5% AASI based on available BMAC samples...
There's no AASI in any Europeans except those with Roma (Gypsy) ancestry.
At a quick look, the non-Baltic source of proto-Slavic ancestry stems from Germanic / Nordic & Balkan / 'Thracian' sources.
e.g. Gródek_Tribal_Period:GRK004
Bulgaria_EIA Latvia_BA Sweden_IA
29.8 47.2 23.0
As this pattern is also present in east Slavs, this must place the proto-Slavic pre-expansion homeland closer to the Carpatho-Danube region. The paper links PSl to the Kiev culture, which is unlikely to have such a profile and archaeology shows it was taken over early Slavic expansions. So a bit of a newb (GeneArchiver -level) grasp there, otherwise great paper and samples.
The Germanic + Balkan sources in Slavs could come from the one population , eg a non-eastern admixed Gepid group
The location of the proto-Slavic homeland is still far from settled, especially considering these somewhat unexpected results.
I don't know where it was exactly, but I'd love to see some samples from the Kiev culture.
Seems like something in the Przeworsk or Chernyakhov cultural zones would be the most plausible source of these types of ancestries. For what it's worth, the new Przeworsk samples include, J-L283 and E-V13, in addition to the expected I1.
@ Davidski
"What happened is that Gretzinger et al. created a genetic component in ADMIXTURE based on present-day South Asians. However, South Asians today have very complex ancestry from several different sources, including early pastoralists from the North-Pontic steppe in Eastern Europe and early farmers from Central Asia and what is now Iran. As a result, the groups that share significant amounts of alleles with South Asians via these sources also show so called South Asian ancestry in the Gretzinger et al. analysis.
Unless this problem is corrected we're likely to see some nutjobs online using this paper to claim all sorts of nonsense about the origins of ancient Eastern Europeans and Central Asians, especially the Sintashta people and Scythians".
Great work! Think what happened in many similar other cases I have been speaking about for so long. The same was clear from my little analysis about the uniparental markers. Of course the link between genetics and languages is more complex.
The Poprad Sueb also works. So in general terms, a Balkan-enriched “Germanic” group could be the source of southern ancestry (although their DATES estimate places things ~ 1000 bc, so much earlier than all such groups). Given that J2b and EV13 aren’t very relevant in proto-Slavic expansion , it might have something to do with I-CTS10228
About the origin of a people or of a Nation many scholars thought that we have to take into account the “formation” rather that an origin from an ancestor, he is Abraham or Romulus etc. I thought that the first to say that was Massimo Pallottino about the Etruskans, but already Theodor Mommsen used that about Romans in his great work. I am classified in 23andMe as 99,5% as Italian, but I know that some of my documented ancestors had a Longobard Y in the Middle Ages, even though about some R-L21 it is possible that they were “Romans” of Pannonia who entered the Longobard pool and their oldest origin might be everywhere in Central Europe before, probably North of the Alps...
@Ethan R
“For what it's worth, the new Przeworsk samples include, J-L283 and E-V13, in addition to the expected I1”.
About the presence in the paper of J-L283 we have to say that there are many samples of this haplogroup. The oldest ones came from Croatia and they are older that the Slav migration, thus they belong to an older presence up there and we don't know how old, but they are samples separated during the last phase of te LGM, and they could be very old up there as we know before. The more recent separated samples of J-L283 may have come from many places, and don't forget that J-YP51 etc could have expanded just from the Baltic and central Europe and could be old also in the Slav pool, but I have to look if there are samples here of that subclade. The same for E-V13 and also E-L618 (but I havent the data at hands, and I am using only my memory of a 77 years old and it could fail), but E-L618 is very old in Europe. The Haplogroup I1 is easier in its reading, because it is from Skandinavia or nearby, even though its oldest origin is in Iberia for what we know so far.
@Rob
“Given that J2b and EV13 aren’t very relevant in proto-Slavic expansion , it might have something to do with I-CTS10228”.
I found a little of the I-M223 subclades, thought before as the ancestors of the Balkans and Southern Slavs, and that clearly did come from the Late Palaeolithic expansion from Italy. Thus this hg I was due to its presence in Europe out of Italy and it might have come from everywhere.
So far, Gretzinger has only proven that the Slavs originated in southeastern Poland (which is consistent with onomastic data). However, a Slavic homeland further to the northeast is merely speculation and creative statistics.
I think Zarubinets culture would also be interesting, considering it was sort of sandviched between Przeworsk, Sarmatians and East Balts. Wouldn't Prague-Korchak be the most obvious candidate for proto-Slavic considering how many migrations originated from there in the archaeological record?
I agree that Rob's comment on the composition of the samples seem plausible. I used a slightly different, and more (possibly overly) complicated method and ended up with a similar result. Modelled the samples first by a model, guaranteed to fail, of Poland_Weklice_Roman+Lithuania_Marvele_Roman, and by a deep proportions analysis of steppe+HG+ENF. Then use a regression equation on how underfit the ENF proportion is by the Poland_Weklice_Roman+Lithuania_Marvele_Roman model, to find where the necessary Southern_Proxy ancestor would be inferred to sit on G25.
Doing that, I got the same kind of result where the proportions are the same sort of level (30:55:15), and the Southern_Proxy is pretty close to Bulgaria_IA / Macedonia_BA - https://imgur.com/a/TWCK2lI / https://pastebin.com/SivL4vd3 (Slight difference in Germanic related fraction may be because of slightly more geneflow in the Roman period samples I chose to use).
@ Norfern -''I think Zarubinets culture would also be interesting, considering it was sort of sandviched between Przeworsk, Sarmatians and East Balts. Wouldn't Prague-Korchak be the most obvious candidate for proto-Slavic considering how many migrations originated from there in the archaeological record?''
Prague-Korchak is shorthand for the broader horizon of "Slavic associated archaeological groups' , e.g. see map
Barring fringe theories (e.g. Slavs from Iran or the Ural mountains ) or 'nihilistic'/ pseudoscientific takes (there is no such thing as 'Slavs', Slavic is a pidgeon, Slavic spread across Europe due to Medieval Internet), the above map fairly uncontroversially depicts an already half-expanded stage of Slavic. Obviously, the Sukow and Prague subgroups are later, so the real question is on how the Korchak & Penkovka groups emerged.
A popular theory in the 20th century is that these emerged from the earlier Kiev culture, which expanded south after the Goths departed. There are other proposals, popular amongst Ukrainian scholars, that Slavs - at least in part- emerged from the Cherepin or Zubra horizons in the upper Dniester region, in the northwestern corner of the former Chernyakov culture zone; and all sorts of somethign in between. The Kiev C. in turn is said to go back to Zarubintsy culture, but this is far from clear (they look different culturally and there is quite a time gap in between).
The problem is the poor state of Slavic research in East Slav/ fmr USSR countries, which tend to focus on the steppe, Caucasus and even Uralic regions (which of course is great), but almost no modern scientific research has been afforded to the Slavic question. So we are stuck with re-runs of 1950s-style essays, with no empirical evidence and sometimes even no images. By contrast, Slavic studies in west Slav territories and parts of the Balkans is in very good form. Also Slavs cremated during their nebulous proto-period, so getting DNA from ZC would need to rely in chance inhumations or from 'admixed Sarmatians' such as the Euripioid ones from Romania & Hungary.
Overall, I have doubts about ta simple take of Kiev culture theory, even though it is fairly clear that Slavic is closest to Baltic languages and 'Baltic_BA' ancestry is a pivotal component in proto-Slavs; therefore a northern / forest origin must be at play. However, Kiev, Kolochin & Penkovka sites were overtaken, sometimes violently, by a more 'Danubian' expansion just after 600 AD, radiating in all directions. These groups were obviously involved Byzantine, Gepid and Avar operations, and were a more galvanised group. So IMO Kiev culture and its epigones are probably ''southern Baltoid'', and not proto-Slavic.
@ Gio_” I found a little of the I-M223 subclades, thought before as the ancestors of the Balkans and Southern Slavs””
The Slavic clades of CTS10228 are not under M223, but M423. So far the earliest example is the Magdalenian from Goyet. But they might all ultimately come from the Po-Adriatic refuge.
@Rob
"The Slavic clades of CTS10228 are not under M223, but M423. So far the earliest example is the Magdalenian from Goyet. But they might all ultimately come from the Po-Adriatic refuge".
I just said that I-CTS10228" doesn't belong to I-M223, for that I said that its origin is "out of Italy", because we are certain so far that only I-M223 was in Italy between 20000 and 10000 years ago, and that its origin might be everywhere in Europe. I didn't think to the Po-Adriatic, thus you a more Nationalistic "Italian" than me.
If proto-Slavic still emerged within Zarubinets or associated horizons wouldn't para-Slavic be a more likely candidate for Kiev culture rather than para-Baltic? Unless there's evidence of East Baltic influence in Kiev culture that is.
Dave - do you have G25 for the Slav & Lombard samples from Hofmanova ?
They should be here.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/0q39lrsynq7prjc7mm8gq/G25-Ancients.txt?rlkey=33i5tycf3nd6glv1w7z6dleco&e=7&dl=0
@ Norfern - ''If proto-Slavic still emerged within Zarubinets or associated horizons wouldn't para-Slavic be a more likely candidate for Kiev culture rather than para-Baltic? Unless there's evidence of East Baltic influence in Kiev culture that is.'
These details we can't yet grasp. However, lets define some basic semantics - 'proto-Slavic' is the group from which modern Slavic groups emerged, just prior to their expansion and subsequent differentiation between 600 - 1000 AD. So 'proto-Slavic' is the group & language state we are hunting for between 400 - 500 AD**.
By this definition, ZC (which existed 200 BC - 50 AD) cannot be proto-Slavic. We are not even sure its pre-proto-Slavic or early proto-Slavic. In fact, the ZC looks like the eastern-most variant of the Przeworsk - Pomoranian culture block.
Also, Baltic-like languages existed further south than their current distribution, and would have been very similar to your concept of para-Slavic. So its almost an irrelevant hair-split
**By analogy, the 'proto-Romance' idiom from which Italian, Spanish, Romanian, etc, emerged is the provincial Latin language spoken during the Roman Empire period, not the proto-Italic of 1500 BC.
A starting point for a possible Proto-Slavic sequence built from the principle the Slavic predecessor must be the southernmost member suggested by scholars to be part of a larger BS group to account for its profile:Middle Dniepr (Balto-Slavic split)>Komariv>Chernoles>Zarubintsy>Kyiv>(Slavic Split) PKPK cultures
@Synome
Middle Dniepr (Balto-Slavic split)>Komariv>Chernoles>Zarubintsy>Kyiv>(Slavic Split) PKPK cultures
In which part of this sequence did the early Slavs pick up Northwestern and Western European ancestry, and from whom?
It could have happened multiple times, Chernoles came into heavy contact with Celtic and Germanic influenced groups from around 200BCE like the Lusatian culture and early Przeworsk, Zarubintsy was adjacent to Przeworsk, and Kiev was partially overlapped by Wielbark and Cherniakhiv. Most of these were Germanic associated with evidence of Celtic substrate and influence as well.
An early medieval Russian sample is E-L618, with better coverage probably E-V13, so I wouldn't discount the trace spread of those lineages.
Another option would be the Thracian Hallstatt samples already in the NW Pontic by 800BC, but they don't actually have the same CHG-enriched profile as with classical Thracians or the Glinoe Scythians (which show up most in the author's analyses, although I don't think they had the Saag et al. samples).
@EthanR "Seems like something in the Przeworsk or Chernyakhov cultural zones would be the most plausible source of these types of ancestries. For what it's worth, the new Przeworsk samples include, J-L283 and E-V13, in addition to the expected I1."
Could Slavic I2 Y3120 be associated with the southern ancestry in early Slavs or do you all think it came from another source? Yeah Przeworsk looks like solidly Germanic culture with Celtic substrate just like archaeology hinted at. Dominated by y-HG I1 just like Wielbark culture.
@Rob What do you think a non-eastern admixed Gepid group would have looked like? Wielbark-like? Any reads on this?
Another interesting observation from the supplement is that the Przeworsk samples show primarily South Scandinavian ancestry (as in, more similar to the ancestry that arrived with West Germanics) as opposed to Wielbark, who primarily harboured North Scandinavian ancestry (as in, Zealand/Scania).
@Rob
It's sort of irrelevant to differentiate from the PoV of Slavic however from a phylogenetic sense there would be a difference, as Balts do form an actual linguistic phylum as opposed to being just anything paraphyletic to Slavic within Balto-Slavic and pre-Balto-Slavic
On the origins of the Balto-Slavic branch, and perhaps the Indo-Iranian one, we would need extensive studies, which a specialist would likely possess and be familiar with. Of course, if Common Slavic dates back only to the first half of the first millennium of the Common Era, we shouldn't be surprised that 3,500-year-old Sanskrit is so distinct from IE. If anything, it remains to be explained why Balto-Slavic and Slavic itself are so conservative.
Based on the frequency of haplogroups, it seems certain that the haplogroup of Slavic language speakers was R1a, as were the haplogroups of the Indo-Iranian language speakers, so we can also hypothesize that they stayed further east in Central Europe, where they later immigrated again. Davidski asked: where the people tested by Gretzinger et al. acquired their Western European and Nordic elements? I think precisely where they later differentiated into Balts and Slavs, probably between northern Ukraine and southern Poland. Certainly, they have few Finnish or Asian markers of their sojourn in the East. I remember some Slovenian bloggers talking about their language's similarity in some respects to the languages of India. It's also possible that a blogger was influenced by a nationalistic intent, such as claiming their presence there and not due to immigration, but it could also mean that Slovenia was not far from where Common Slavic spread. I own a book on the glorious Novij Knigij on Slavic languages (in Russian), but unfortunately I'm now too old to undertake such an adventure.
Regarding the origin of the separation between IE centum and satem languages, I remember an important essay by a citizen scientist like Houdhuizen (sadly passed away prematurely) who explained it in an unconventional way. This is where we should start to understand whether haplogroup R1a was the carrier of all or only the IE satem languages. I remain convinced that Latin was the language of the Adriatic pile-dwellers during the drying phase.
@Ambron
To the contrary, the LIA Przeworsk samples and the samples from LIA Grodek more or less rule out a homeland in Poland.
https://i.gyazo.com/6db4ec738cd46ed2f803651234035b74.png
I wonder if Chuvash, Erzya, Moksha and perhaps Mari and Udmurt could have been in contact with the Imen'kovo culture people to such a degree that a separate loanword layer would exist. I think that Erzya and Moksha would be the most promising since the Imen'kovites penetrated to Mordovian territory on the Sura. It's unclear if the Imen'kovites ever interacted with the Bulgars or if they were evicted by Novinki culture and the Hungarians.
@ rozbójnik - within the Balkan - Germanic cline, perhaps minor Balto-Slavic shift
Ethan, the samples from Grodek show that the Goths mixed with the local Slavs only to a small extent (14% of the BAL).
"The location of the proto-Slavic homeland is still far from settled, especially considering these somewhat unexpected results."
Papac's "Dynamic changes in genomic and social structures in third millennium BCE central Europe" might shed some light on this topic. Samples are from Czechia. Thoughts? Male lines include R1a, R1b and I2a (plus some others to be fair). Samples date from BCE. PCA finds nice continuity between Corded Ware, Bell Beaker and Early Bronze Age samples and modern Czechs to a very high extent. 271 samples evaluated (male + female).
And a link to the article:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abi6941
I did find this article about Baltic hydronyms on the Volga-Kama. Maybe this would indicate Imen'kovites were Baltic speakers.
https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/baltskaya-gidronimiya-volgo-kamskogo-regiona
There seem to be two layers of Baltic loanwords in Mordvinic languages, one dating to the pre-Mordvinic stage that also borrowed from Iranian languages and one on the proto-Mordvinic stage. The latter could coincide with the Imen'kovo culture since Ryazan-Oka culture of the Meschera is in the way of Mordvins and Golyad' to interact. The older layer could date to the Gorodets culture and Upper Oka culture interacting.
https://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust266/sust266_grunthal.pdf
“ Middle Dniepr (Balto-Slavic split)>Komariv>Chernoles>Zarubintsy>Kyiv>(Slavic Split) PKPK cultures”
This simple linear model was widely encountered something in General history books & Internet article 30 years ago.
Moreover, entirely unsupported, MDC is not proto- Slavic, Chernolish looks like a “Thracian-Halstatt” sintrusion from the west.
@ shomu
So-called “Kiev culture” is centred in the Desna-Seym region, already part of Russia.
Btw you’re a Muslim
@RKV
Czech Corded Ware has the wrong R1a and I2 subclades to be ancestral to Slavs.
Baltic Corded Ware is much closer in this respect, although not close enough.
@Rob
I'd be interested to see a sequence you'd consider more plausible. MDC is not proto-Slavic in this sequence because it predates the breakup of Balto-Slavic. The area of Proto-Slavic hydronyms aligns very well with the Chernoles zone, can you explain how this is a coincidence or mistaken?
Which are the Przeworsk individuals here ?
@ Synome
Yep the MDC might be more relevant to early CW than Balto-Slavic, or even Fatyanovo. The toponyms are coincidental and cannot be dated in absolute terms.
At the moment, I am leaning toward-
early Balto-Slavic : late Baltic CW + Baltic HG (Trziniec - Komarov complex)
- discontinuity in southern zone and part of the western zone (due to fragmentation & multiple foreign intrusions)
Balto-Slavic on route to PSl : Brushed pottery -> Kiev C
PSl: Kiev C + late Roman period / "Germanic" groups around the Carpatho-Danube region +/- SE Poland (->. Ipotesti-Candesti culture; falsey attributed to 'Romanized authochthons")
main PSl expansion: ~ 620s following the 'Avar Civil War'
PCA also makes the case for Yamnaya-Catacomb like steppe...Though source of R1a-M417 is hard to determine...Probably catacomb absorbed R1a men...
https://ibb.co/XrPzXnJY
I found this snippet of a blog post on Slavic chronology that indicates that by 400 AD, Slavs were already divided into at least 3 groups. If so, should the discussion focus on the period one or two hundred years earlier than 400 AD? "Years 100-270 AD = somewhere live Proto-West Slavs and in slightly different area live Proto-South East Slavs
ca. 270 AD (ca. 1750 ybp) = Proto-SouthEast Slavs split into Proto-East and Proto-South Slavs / source: Starostin 1999****
Years 270 to 300-400 AD = Slavs are already divided into at least 3 groups (and Boz is recorded as chief of the Antes ca. 340-380 AD)
ca. 300-420 AD (2100-1400 ybp) = Proto-West Slavs start to split (Y-DNA Sorbs & Kashubs separate) / source: Rebala 2012 & Starostin 1999
ca. 400-700 AD (1600-1300 ybp) = Proto-South and Proto-East Slavs begin to split & separate / source: Kushniarevich 2015
Period 300-400 AD = = final major synchronic demographic boom of R-M458, R-Z280 & I-CTS10936 male lineages (Riverman's chart @)" Source blog: https://genoplot.com/discussions/topic/29997/slavic-chronology
@ MAD
The story of Boz and the Antean vs Gothic wars were written in the Italian court of the Goths in the late 6th century. It is questionable that they are true & legitimate accounts of 4th or 5th century events, although not impossible.
The data from Rebala does not support early splits either, because it is inferencing from modern Y_STRs which are at odds with ancient DNA reality, such as the study being discussed.
Finally, estimating things from Y-DNA 'expansion times' is tentative only.
Of course, pre-expansion Slavs were not a uniform blank, i.e. they would have some diversity, but I dont see how someone (esp a linguist) decided that proto-south Slavs had already split from proto-East Slavs by 270 AD.
We should always rationalise claims first hand with direct Data sensibly
Professor Malinowski interprets the results of Gretzinger's study exactly the same way as I do on this forum, i.e. that - contrary to the final conclusions and the hype of the press headlines - it actually confirms the concept of the origin of the Slavs from Poland.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wl-x8rjkuFA
It's highly plausible that a partial Western European ancestry is inherent in all Eastern Europeans. I think even modern Balts have some, albeit not as much as the Slavs.
Asymmetrically, a partial Eastern European ancestry is not inherent in all Western Europeans, but only in some of them.
This fits with the asymmetrical demographic weight in the antique, medieval and early modern Europe between the West and the East. The combined population of the entire Eastern Europe was only a fraction of the population of the Frankish kingdom (modern day Germany & France).
So on the border of Poland and Ukraine, 400AD, only a small fraction of that ancestry can be detected, and based on the finding of R-CTS1211, very plausibly from a Baltic source.
@Rob
They are the samples with IDs PC1001, PC1002 etc. Note the PC2001 sample is from somewhat later with a different profile.
Yep, understanding demographics is vital. At present, this remains inferential from primary archaeological data (there can be some Bayesian-based modelling with interesting results e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09833-3), but should be relatively uncontroversial in well researched regions.
In the Elbe-Vistula-Oder region, some emigration began as early as 260, with the colonization of 'Alemania' after the fall of the Rhenish limes. However, things accelerated c. 400 AD, due to the tumult of the Huns (and population shifts they forced'). The old Przeworsk & Wielbark cultures dissolve, we now see a mish mash of new models, people coming and going, Sarmatians, 'Huns' , Goths, etc (all confirmed in the recent 'Hun Boy duo' paper). Then a second a final drop c. 450 AD (after the disolution of their 'Empire'). The population only grows after 600 AD.
The carpatho-danube region is different. In the Plain inside the carpathian arc - the arrival of Huns sees a meta-continuity and 'adding to' Sarmatian and Vandal populations. But to the east and south of the Arc (Wallachia, Moldova,) there is near-emptiness (occasional Hun kettles, wandering soldier burials,. etc). Obviously this poses a major problem for Romanian continuity thesis and the view that Ipotesti culture is a fusion of Slavs and Romanians. But then from 480, the population grows due to migration from the northeast and maybe northwest. Between 500 and 650 AD, this was the most populous part of Slavdom. From here, there is then a migration wave out, but without a local collapse (suggesting reproductive rates kept up with out-migration).
NB: I have noted there is some guy on GA saying vaguely similar things, but their proposals are actually quite different and ultimately flawed (some psudoscientific claim about Slavs being a product of Avars and Baltic concubines; I think he's taking Fredegar too literally)
@Davidski
Hardly samples from the Russian Volga-Oka (so-called Volga-Oka-MA2) region can be called as early Slavs. They are not even from tribal times, they are from Rostov-Suzdal Principality. GOS001 Gorokhovets Sretensky monastery 1157±51 calCE. GOS002 Gorokhovets Sretensky monastery 1111±48 calCE. GOS003 Gorokhovets Sretensky monastery 1090±41 calCE. SHE005 Shekshovo 9 1046±44 calCE. SHE007 Shekshovo 9 1125±54 calCE
Do you know something about Severyans from
Bea Szeifert's work "Analysis of genetic connections between the medieval communities of the Dniester Valley and the Carpathian Basin."?
https://agi.abtk.hu/images/isba2023/img-5514.jpg
About the Pidhirtsi. It's probably have something to do with the Plisnesk archaeological complex. They wanted to find Scandinavians, but failed There is no I1, N, R1b
@Shomu
Russians are looking for the roots of Rus in Ladoga and "proto-Novgorod".
Besides, looking at how Putin has Islamized Russia, he needs to look for rights and roots elsewhere.
@Car
I would say that Slavs dating to ~1100 CE are still early Slavs. They're only a couple hundred years older than the Tribal Period.
It's not like Western Europeans migrated to the Volga-Oka around 900 CE. Obviously, the Western European admixture that was present in the Medieval Slavs there arrived in the area with the Slavs.
Came across this video posted 6 months ago. It uses different Y and MT dna genetics to argue for complexity of modern day Slavs. Note that it is highly repetitive, so you lose little from the video's message by starting at minute 23:50. It does not, however, identify where the genetic studies are, so it would be interesting to see where this video leads.... https://www.reddit.com/r/ancienthistory/comments/1isa57a/the_hidden_secrets_of_slavic_genetics_discover/
@Rob
PC1001
PC1004
PC1005
PC1008
PC1009
PC1016
Przeworsk
Appreciate you getting back to me Davidski. I am not deep in this area.
When you say...
"Czech Corded Ware has the wrong R1a and I2 subclades to be ancestral to Slavs."
I hear you.
I get interested when I see ancient samples below R1a1a1b1a (Z282) (2800BC) in my simplistic view of this very complex (and often politicized) material. I do note that the article I mentioned has one of interest IMHO and YMMV. Not sure if you noticed (and I'm not capable of judging the data quality).
VLI051 at Vliněves labeled as "Early Bronze Age" with R1a1a1b1a2b (aka CTS1211), which sounds pretty much like "Slavic" to me, and may be of interest to you.
Just an interesting datapoint. That said, as a data guy, I'm used to much larger sample sizes (>100M records is normative in my line) than the way this is playing out.
Matt: "the Southern_Proxy is pretty close to Bulgaria_IA / Macedonia_BA" Matt - that combination "Bulgaria_IA / Macedonia_BA" represents some kind of genetic thread? Sorry if it is a dumb question -- but do those two times and locations show something in common?
@RKV
VLI051 is an extreme outlier from the Czech Unetice population, and actually very Baltic-like. This individual was probably just a migrant from the Baltic region.
Put these coords into the Vahaduo G25 Views and have a look.
https://vahaduo.github.io/g25views/#NorthEurope
Czechia_EBA_Unetice_o.AG:VLI051.AG__BC_1771__Cov_40.17%,0.130897,0.114755,0.09956,0.103683,0.048932,0.026774,0.016451,0.016845,-0.001636,-0.042643,0.000487,-0.010191,0.029881,0.035507,-0.005157,0.004906,0.001695,-0.002407,0.001383,0.012381,-0.009234,-0.009645,0.008751,-0.023377,0.008742
"[...]the arrival of Slavic-associated culture in Northwestern Russia was associated with a shift in PCA space to the West, a decrease of BAL [Baltic] ancestry, and the introduction of Western European ancestries such as CNE [Continental North European] and CWE [Continental Western European]."
The "CWE" ("Continental Western European") component mentioned by the authors is used to model Iron Age Thracians, Greeks and even Anatolians by the same Max Planck researchers (see also: Gretzinger et al 2024). So this type of ancestry in Slavs isn't really Western European, at best we could call it "broadly southern European".
Why "at best"?
How do you know that it doesn't include Celtic admixture mediated via Przeworsk?
By the way, last year I wrote this blog post in which I was sceptical about the admixture models for Medieval Poles in the Speidel/Skoglund preprint, because I knew that results in such models can change drastically depending on the base reference populations being used.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2024/03/high-resolution-stuff.html
Speidel/Skoglund claimed that there was no Scandinavian-related ancestry in the main Medieval Polish cluster, but I said that they might be wrong about that, and I was right.
Unfortunately, some people online took their preprint way too seriously. It's important to understand that these sorts of studies are often very wrong.
@ rozbójnik - Thanks.
At a glance, Przeworsk sit midway between Nordic-Germanics and Iron Age west Europeans
Another thing this & various Avar papers have shown study is that Slavs weren't subjects/ slaves of the Avars. This view stemmed from Byzntine references, but 'slave' is a hyperbole for political subordinate, as such the Avars had themselves been 'slaves' of the Gokturks.
On the contrary, most of the non-'East Asian' groups look like relocated provincials from 'south Dacia' & Moesia Superior, plus some Germanic & Caucasian admixture thrown in.
It's surprising that there is almost East Asian admixture in these Slavs (apart from a couple of individuals from Moravia iirc), which means that the reference to 'Avars wintering with Slavic women' (i think it was in Fredegar) is a trope, as the work (mostly devoted to the infidelities of the Frankish) queen) seems obssessed with cuckoldry, etc. There is one (genetically) Slavic group at Modling, but they have some Balkan admixture, not East Asian. As they were buried in Avar-style gear, they were obviously part of the broader Avar realm, and might have been those 'Slavs under the service of the khagan' mentioned by Romans, but most others were outside the realm. Then when the Avar realm weakned and sought to consolidate internally after their big defeat in 626, more Slav groups began to bypass them and settle further on their own volition.
It's surprising that there is almost ^No East Asian admixture in these Slavs
There's practically no East Asian admix in Slavs at all. Not even in Russians.
Slavs just have some very minor Siberian ancestry, probably via contacts with Uralic speakers.
See here...
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2022/06/my-take-on-erfurt-jews.html
Yeah just saying I would have expected at least a few medieval Slavs to have Avar admixture, which just got washed away with time. I think maybe some “Magyar Slavs” from 11th century might have some Siberian mix
@Davidski
, you are right about the South Asian component in Scythians not being "South Asian" at all. It is present in Yamnaya Ukraine at 22% and Bulgarian Yamnaya samples at 13%, if you look at tables 15-16 from the supplement of the study. It is an artefact of the Yamnaya component (Caucasus-Levant?). Thank me later. Regards.
I've got a new blog post on the way about the so called South Asian admixture in ancient Eastern Europe.
It's titled "Amateur hour at the MPI".
Interesting. This is the so-called Cluster 1.1 (“Slavic Period”), Supp. Fig. 29: a map highlighting IBD-sharing communities identified and turned into a network constructed from pairwise IBD-sharing similarities (Slavic period samples against every other sample). Image link: https://ibb.co/NgB1Ych5 . According to the map, the oldest samples sharing components with the early Slavs are actually from what seems to be Southern Poland/Slovakia and the northwest Balkans, from around 1000 BC. This somehow contradicts the idea of Baltic origins (like really deep origins). Pity they haven't addressed the contradiction. It could surely be sampling bias (more samples available from central Europe than the Baltics, etc.), or this could reflect earlier Baltic migrations south. Yet, there are also a few dogs that do not bark here—for example, the Carpathian region or central/southern Balkans as a source of the southern component for the early Slavs. More samples and more research needed.
That's Bohemia in Czechia, not Slovakia.
The results might be skewed by sampling bias, with comparatively few samples available from Eastern Europe.
But the somewhat unexpected western character of the early Slavs is interesting.
There is no contradiction. The samples sharing the most IBD segments with early Slavs, in liue of actual proto-slavic sampled, are going to be the early slavs.
More relevant from the IBD analysis is that early Slavs have a closer relationship with Baltic BA populations than they do with Polish Trzciniec samples.
If we combine generic, linguistic and archeological data, which eastern european region is the most suspected to be the slavic homeland?
The most common view is Polesie, but archeology shows there was a void there in the migration period. The other common suspect is the Desna valley are(Kiev culture) but maybe it is too east genetically.
What's left is basically Volhynia, Central belt of Ukraine or southern-central Belarus.
Sorry, to correct the above, it's IA/Roman period Baltic (i.e. Marvele) that shows the closest IBD relationship with early Slavs.
Among just modern populations, modern Balts also show a closer IBD relationship with ancient "Slavic Period" samples than modern Slavs do with them.
@Davidski, yes, must be Bohemia; @EthanR: "The samples sharing the most IBD segments with early Slavs, in lieu of actual proto-Slavic samples, are going to be the early Slavs." Indeed they are. However, the older the samples, the fewer segments they would share with the early Slavs, so the Bohemian/NW Balkans samples sharing fewer segments with 9th-century Slavs than younger Baltic samples (and with 1500 years younger Slavic samples, sharing segments between each-other) is exactly what would be expected, isn't it? It would be interesting to compare the shared segments length of samples from the same age distance with the early Slavs, like 1000 BC Baltic vs. 1000 BC Central Europe/NW Balkans. Which is not the case in the way they have structured the comparison. The Baltic connection is too obvious both linguistically and genetically anyway. Yet Slavs are not Balts; IBD like the above helps to speculate what extra they have and what makes them Slavs and not Balts or Germans. Looking at the IBD map, this extra thing comes from Central Europe/NW Balkans (I personally have been expecting the Western Pontic area as a secondary source, along the temematic lines, but it is w/C Europe, not EEurope..). Since it is also associated with enrichment of the Slavic EEF component, a natural candidate seems to be places where this has been preserved better than in NWestern Europe/Baltics/LBA-EIA Western Ukraine. One such place is the Hungarian Plain around IA btw.. There are, however, other places. If it comes to the Slavs from Volga-Oka MA, I think @Rob
is right, the combination of WHG + EEF is present in some of the Germanic tribes from the Migration Period, not to exclude Chernyakhov. But if this is an older story, like 1000-1500 BC, I will wait for more samples and research to become available.
It depends on what you read. Gavritukhin proposes a 'Prague 0' (as in earliest Prague culture phase) around Polesie, and then expanding out. Problem is, there's basically not a single C14 date to verify this.
Regardless, a back-flow from the Danubian-Central European region is beyond doubt, e.g. from Kazanski
''In the upper Dnieper area during the Great Migration period, there are striking traces of military action from the mid-5th to the first half of the 6th century CE. Among them are fortified settlements that perished in conflagration, supplying a big number of weapons, such as Demydivka. Simultaneously, there appeared weapons of “western” types and artifacts of the prestigious “warrior” culture of the Central European type. These testify
to some military events, most likely related to the appearance of groups of foreign warriors in this region (Kazanski 2000a; Axmedov and Kazanskij 2004). Nevertheless, according to the archaeological materials, there was no population change in the upper Dnieper area, since the core of the sites in the region remained the monuments now attributed to the Kolochin culture of the Slavs and dated to the period that lasted until the second half of the 7th century CE (Nikodimovo; Oblomskij 2016: 16).''
The issue with Kazanski's interpretation is that 'broad geographical' and even site-specific ''continuity of habitation' is not conclusive evidence of population continuity, and we've seen this demonstrated by aDNA in other regions and other periods.
P.S. - something that I have never seen being commented on - the Latvia_BA samples came from a fortification/metallurgical center that has been for a very long period of time believed by Latvian archaeologists to represent a Celtic influence (based on the fortification's material culture and metallurgical patterns) in the Baltics. It is in the supplement of the original paper that published the genomes.
@EthanR
Sorry, to correct the above, it's IA/Roman period Baltic (i.e. Marvele) that shows the closest IBD relationship with early Slavs.
Who else makes up the top 5 IBD for early Slavs?
From the supplement:
"When directly comparing the IBD-sharing patterns (> 1 cM) between the SP population of Gródek (used here as proxy for the original SP gene pool due to their old age and close geographical proximity to Belarus and Ukraine), and other Bronze Age, Iron Age and Roman Period groups in Europe, we find the highest IBD sharing with Iron Age (Barrow Culture) and Roman Period individuals from Lithuania, followed by Roman Period individuals from Croatia and Serbia, as well as as Bronze Age individuals from Ukraine (Komarów Culture) and eastern Poland (Strzyżów Culture) (Fig. S32c, Table S39). "
We could also consider a more 'out there' scenario: 'leap-migrations' from core Baltic areas toward east-central Europe & the Danube (by-passing areas in between); to form final proto-Slavic further south.
Indeed, the characteristic 'Slavic fibulae' appear to derive from Mazurian proto-types
One important constraint is divergence time. I've seen that some scholars date the Slavic divergence from BS to the second millennium BCE. That is more difficult to reconcile with an Iron age or Roman era migration from the larger Baltic zone, and is one reason why I am more interested in the Komariv/Komariv culture as a candidate for the Pre-Proto-Slavic population.
It also has the mentioned IBD links and the connection to the Balkan-Carpathian zone. Other western admixture probably arrived later closer to the proto-Slavic breakup from Przeworsk, Chernyakhov etc.
A serious question regarding the f4 table in the supplement: Early Croatian Slavs (SP) share more alleles with Poland GRK MP (Migration Period Germanic) than with Polish GRK SP (the archetypal early Slavic representations, according to the authors).
Additionally, the Croatian SP samples share the most alleles with Latvia and Estonia BA populations, not with other early Slavic samples (East Germany, Poland, Ukraine). They also share more alleles with North Germany IA than with Ukraine SP (early Slavs) PDH?
Setting aside the shaky standard error bars (which could potentially reverse the results), if we take these numbers at face value, they suggest direct Baltic migration for the South Slavs. Their migration must not have occurred gradually through Central Europe, but directly from the Baltic region.
Germanic influence: There appears to be a shadow of Germanic Migration Period genetics in early Croatian Slavic genomes in the F4 resulst. Regardless of whether this is due to high standard errors, South Slavic migration appears more consistent with direct migration from the Baltics rather than a gradual, multi-step movement through Baltics → Poland/Ukraine → Croatia.
The higher allele sharing with Migration Period GRK (supposedly Germanic) compared to Slavic Period GRK suggests either a potential shortcoming in the papers' narrative they have built or something missing in the analysis/interpretation.
"When directly comparing the IBD-sharing patterns (> 1 cM) between the SP population of Gródek (used here as proxy for the original SP gene pool due to their old age and close geographical proximity to Belarus and Ukraine), and other Bronze Age, Iron Age and Roman Period groups in Europe, we find the highest IBD sharing with Iron Age (Barrow Culture) and Roman Period individuals from Lithuania, followed by Roman Period individuals from Croatia and Serbia, as well as as Bronze Age individuals from Ukraine (Komarów Culture) and eastern Poland (Strzyżów Culture) (Fig. S32c, Table S39). "
This result of the analysis of IBD segments precisely indicates the area of the Slavic homeland... Since the oldest individuals from the Slavic IBD cluster come from southeastern Poland and southwestern Ukraine, the Slavic homeland must have been located somewhere in this area, i.e. exactly where it is indicated by modern linguists - based on hydronymic data.
The point isn't that pre-proto-slavs departed from the Baltics or separated from Baltic speakers especially late, but that they have a closer relationship to them than what we have sampled from the Trzciniec Cultural circle.
I also note that it isn't completely obvious when the ancestors of modern East Baltic speakers actually arrived in the region.
@St
There are some issues with f4 and other formal stats that need to be kept in mind when analyzing such results.
One issue is indirect affinity, like when someone who is European/Sub-Saharan African shares more alleles in f4 stats with North Africans than with either Europeans or Sub-Saharan Africans.
Another issue is that formal stats are attracted to the extremes of mixture clines, so instead of pinpointing the actual sources of admixture, they pinpoint the more extreme versions of the sources of admixture. For instance, Balts are the more extreme version of Slavs.
Also, I had a look at some of those Balkan samples that share a lot of IBD with early Slavs, and at least some of them have Eastern European ancestry. This Croatian Roman actually looks more Slavic than the early Slavic Poles.
Croatia_Mursa_Roman.SG:R3657.SG__AD_282__Cov_44.65%,0.125205,0.11577,0.078818,0.078489,0.036314,0.029284,0.011281,0.017307,-0.005727,-0.031891,-0.000812,-0.012889,0.017542,0.016377,-0.009908,0.014187,0.019297,-0.004687,-0.004274,0.009254,-0.004492,-0.005193,0.002095,-0.004338,0.003712
@ Ethan
''The point isn't that pre-proto-slavs departed from the Baltics or separated from Baltic speakers especially late, but that they have a closer relationship to them than what we have sampled from the Trzciniec Cultural circle.
I also note that it isn't completely obvious when the ancestors of modern East Baltic speakers actually arrived in the region.'
East Baltic speakers arrived in the east Baltic after 1500 bc, because we know there is a large gap after 'Baltic CW', and the ''Baltic-LBA' individuals are much younger. Some have further claimed that Baltic-LBA weren;t Baltic speakers either, and there was a population turnover at somet point before antiquity, although Ive not seen any clear arguments for this.
As for when pre-proto-Slavic split from Baltic, the answer can only be determined by archaeogenetics, because soon we'll be fairly accurately able to determine when these groups physically split. Prior to this, there would have been dialectical heterogeneity within what remained of the Trziniec-Komarov sphere, but at the same time, there would still have been inter-tribal contacts which would have retarded too radical a split.
also there are now quite a few iron age and antiquity genomes from south-central Ukraine, to evaluate the Chernolis culture continuity hypothesis
'That's because the early Slavs who migrated deep into what is now Russia also showed Western European-related admixture.'
What if those slavs of the Volga-Oka regions actually came from Poland(where they picked up some little western ancestry) and not straight from the slavic homeland. It's hard to migrate through the Pripjet marshes anyways. Imo an eastern Poland-central Belarus-Upper Volga route is easier.
Btw russian chronicles mention that some of the eastern slavic tribes came from lechitic peoples(from the territory of Poland).
What do you guys think about it?
Yes, it's possible that the western admixture in Russian Slavs is from Poland or even eastern Germany.
Apparently, some of the early Slavs in Novgorod came from Pomerania.
Is there a list of early-ish Slav samples from north vs south Poland? Want to check something ..
When using K36 Tribal Period samples from Grodek (dated to between 670 and 973 AD) are closest to modern Ukrainians from Lviv Oblast. While Post-Tribal period Grodek (between 995 and 1185 AD) are closest to Medieval and modern Poles:
Distance to: Grodek_Tribal
3.18240475 Europe_UA_Lviv-Oblast
3.69383270 Europe_SK_Zemplin-Rusyns
4.66173787 Europe_SK_Slovakia
4.76123933 Europe_UA_Zakarpattia-Oblast
4.92020325 Europe_PL_Malopolskie
5.20370061 Europe_SK_Slovakia-Presov
5.40671804 Europe_PL_Podkarpackie
5.62751277 Europe_PL_Upper-Silesia
5.67713836 Europe_UA_Poltava-Oblast
5.86718842 Europe_UA_Vinnytsia-Oblast
Distance to: Grodek_Medieval
3.07475202 Europe_PL_Podlaskie
3.22035712 Europe_BY_Grodno-Region
3.55671196 Europe_PL_Wielkopolskie:Medieval
3.72808262 Europe_PL_Mazowieckie
3.99911240 Europe_UA_Kiev-Oblast
4.01248053 Europe_UA_Sumy-Oblast
4.26609892 Europe_BY_Minsk-Region
4.26626300 Russia_RUS_Smolensk
4.27031615 Europe_PL_Central-Poland
4.36467639 Europe_BY_Homyel-Region
I think that Post-Tribal period samples might represent an influx of Polish settlers and/or Polish soldiers (garrison) to the Grodek stronghold during times when this region (Grody Czerwieńske) was disputed between Poland and Kievan Rus:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherven_Cities
While Tribal Period samples probably represent Lendians:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lendians
Or maybe Buzhans:
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bu%C5%BCanie
What do you guys think?
I'm wondering if those Novgorod slavs came via land or sailed from Pomerania to the Novgorod region.
I think that the territory of Poland must have been a secondary center of the slavic expansion. They migrated there from the original homeland, strengthened in numbers due to the large and fertile territories plus assimilating some locals. And expanded from there to Eastern Germany, Czechia, Carpathian Basin, Alps, Western Balkan, Belarus, Russia.
Has anyone tried comparing the already Ukrainian like Iron Age samples from this paper to the new samples?
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adr0695
@Davidski, I did not realize they were referring to Croatia_Mursa_Roman.SG. The way they color-coded the graph (with blue representing 1000 BC) made it seem like some of the NW Balkans samples were from 1000 BC (3000 BP), which is obviously not Roman times. When I saw the graph, I thought of "Steppe ancestry in western Eurasia and the spread of the Germanic languages" (McColl 2024), where I believe their admixture breakdown claimed that the earliest Balkans samples with Baltic ancestry were from Croatia EIA, around the same time (1000 BC). So, I assumed the Max Planck team was referring to the same EIA set of samples. But I could be wrong about the latter, given that they included Mursa Roman.Regarding McColl's claim about Baltic ancestry in Balkan EIA samples (which they related to the absence of any Bell Beaker ancestry in Balkan samples from any period, suggesting migrations only from the Corded Ware zone or Yamnaya—which was something of a thesis regarding the Balkans), I remember thinking that this might be Baltic-like rather than truly Baltic. It could stem from a long-surviving WHG+EHG component originating from Iron Gates-Lepenski Vir, which contained the same components as Baltic HG but in somewhat different proportions. However, if they were right (no Bell Beaker presence in the Balkans), any Corded Ware migration would carry a Baltic-like signal into the Balkans.Regards.
Sambor
In their Subcarpathian homeland, the Slavs were in Carpathian genotype. The later Middle Ages this period of the Slavicization of the Balts in Poland, which is why the Gródek genotype shifts toward northeastern Poland.
Sadly UseGalaxy seems to be in trouble. I hope they manage to secure their funding.
@ Rob
Ethan wrote: "I also note that it isn't completely obvious when the ancestors of modern East Baltic speakers actually arrived in the region."
To which you replied:
"East Baltic speakers arrived in the east Baltic after 1500 bc, because we know there is a large gap after 'Baltic CW', and the ''Baltic-LBA' individuals are much younger."
It looks like you're missing Ethan's point: Baltic languages are structured into East Baltic (like modern Lithuanian and Latvian) and West Baltic languages (poorly known extinct languages like Old Prussian, Sudovian (if regarded as distinct from Old Prussian) or Couronian. It is thought that at some point Eastern Baltic speakers assimilated Western Baltic ones in Latvia and Lithuania, coming in from the east. But it's not exactly known when this happened.
From the supplement pg. 120 of the authors modeling sources for SP using PCA and ADMIXTURE:
Overall, these results are consistent with our previous results, indicating a majority of Baltic-derived ancestry (>50%), complemented by a major Southern European-derived ancestry component (>20%) and a minor Northwestern European-derived ancestry component (<20%) (on average 57%, 30% and 14% for the 10 best models using PCs). If the latter was acquired by all SP populations due to early contacts between the SP founding population and Germanic groups in East-Central Europe (e.g. in Poland and Ukraine) or did only enter groups that settled in regions previously inhabited by people of Northwestern European ancestry (e.g. in Eastern Germany, Poland, Czech Republic etc) due to acculturation and assimilation of the local population remains uncertain. Yet, we highlight that the earliest SP individuals from Gródek do not require such a Northwestern European component but instead feature minor proportions of Central Asian/Caucasus-related ancestry (<15%). Yet, again this signal might be related to demographic processes that postdate the initial expansion of SP groups.
Regarding the Southern European ancestry, we note that the preferred proxies are mostly located in Ukraine, Moldova, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Romania, agreeing with our qpAdm modelling und suggesting a source from East-Central Europe bordering the southern extension of the Baltic gene pool for the formation of the SP founding population.
@Synome
Yeah, I saw that part about the earliest Grodek samples.
It's idiotic.
I'm going to email them about this and their claims that there's South Asian ancestry in ancient Eastern Europe.
@All
I need some sanity checks from a couple of people.
Do the early Grodek samples lack Germanic ancestry, as per Gretzinger et al., or not?
I'm going to deep dive into this issue over the next couple of day, but yeah, I need some corroboration from others.
Dave where’s full list of labelled coords ?
The full set is here, but they're not labeled properly.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Qzqt1b43Eo9et8i858N4gdQQ-DiL9XbJ/view?usp=drive_link
https://imgur.com/a/S7W1t2n
OK, the way I see it is that there is a distinction between pre-1000 and post-1000 Grodek individuals. The earlier group have more 'Balkan' admixture, whislt the latter are more Baltic like.
These individuals are non-homogeneous, suggesting that the admixtures were still happening, in each cluster. None have east-Asian Avar admixture, but some show Sarmatian admxiture (but this could be G25 overfitting, would need formal testing when I merge the data).
Curiously, the Balts are also distinctive within themselves, with northern Latvians having Nordic admixture, as early as the LBA, whislt historic Lithuanians basically being cladal with LBA
I think you missed one from the post-1000 CE set. GRK002 clusters with Germans, and so pulls the whole cluster slightly west.
By the way, GRK011 and GRK015 seem to have some eastern admixture, possibly via Sarmatian ancestry. But it's not much.
@Davidski
From Pg68 of the supplement:
"Besides this Baltic-related ancestry, all SP groups further show minor components of Scandinavian-related ancestry (here approximated by Sweden_IA), potentially due to long-term contact and admixture with East Germanic groups in Eastern Poland (who feature highest genetic similarity to ancient and present-day Scandinavians, especially Swedes)."
and: https://i.gyazo.com/44efe009d248dd7b57d2129f3c5979e5.png
@ SimonW
“ It looks like you're missing Ethan's point: Baltic languages are structured into East Baltic (like modern Lithuanian and Latvian) and West Baltic languages (poorly known extinct languages like Old Prussian, Sudovian (if regarded as distinct from Old Prussian) or Couronian.”
Cmon Simon, everybody knows about east Baltic and west Baltic, although this is probably in itself a simplification.
It is in fact you who missed the point, because I had that mentioned in my comment- There is no evidence for a later intrusion of East Baltic speakers into the Baltic region, neither archaeological or genetic. If you look at my PCA, if anything that Latvians are shifted west toward the Nordic region.
This suggests that there is a continuity of populations, and probably speakers, in the east Baltic region since 1500 BC
Lastly, the evidence in fact suggest that west Baltic speakers are a late intrusion into the areas of the west, but this was short-lived
@Ethan
OK, but this is from page 120. So which samples are they referring to here exactly?
Yet, we highlight that the earliest SP individuals from Gródek do not require such a Northwestern European component but instead feature minor proportions of Central Asian/Caucasus-related ancestry (<15%).
I have to assume the discrepancy is because the later section is referring to only two and three-way models (both PCA outputs and ADMIXTURE).
They are being a bit strict in their wording (as in, there are successful models with and without it), because many of these models still do show Germanic admixture (although interestingly it's using North German and Przeworsk (PolishCaves) sources):
https://i.gyazo.com/ed68047a99d1299934c6f2c0041b049b.png
To be honest though, you can squeeze out the Germanic signal in the early Grodek samples in G25 pretty easily:
https://i.gyazo.com/6237f95932a1d4905c3d0fab465d3022.png
I don't think Sweden_IA is really an accurate proxy for the Germanic admix in early Slavs. It's too northern. So that will affect the model.
The results are pretty similar using Wielbark itself:
https://i.gyazo.com/43854070426e15554033870b7125aa13.png
I think it's hard to draw conclusions about the presence of Germanic speaker related ancestry or not because the two-sources in Gretzinger's model are pretty underspecified, and so in theory it seems to me like you could "smuggle" some of such ancestry into either them at a low level?
Looking close at the Grodek_Tribal_Period samples specifically, I'm pretty sure that a pretty high fitting ~50:50 two-way model for them would be proxied by a Simulated Northern Source and a Simulated Southern Source that are respectively pretty close to the above mentioned Serbia_Viminacium_Roman.SG:R6759.SG together with Serbia_ViminaciumSvetinja:I32299 and Serbia_ViminaciumSvetinja:I32300 - https://imgur.com/a/ftHWdN1
However, Serbia_ViminaciumSvetinja is firmly in the Medieval Period, so you have to go back further to Slovakia_IA_Vekerzug to find the next best proxy for Southern Source... But this is an average of a widely spaced set of samples - https://imgur.com/a/310ExDN . Some of the Slovakia_IA_Vekerzug are quite steppe-rich, but I'm not sure or not if this is specifically anything to do with Germanic groups...
What's the range of the Wielbark admix in the Tribal Period samples using the Kowalewko and Weklice Goths separately?
It increases a smidgen with Weklice:
https://i.gyazo.com/2eb83ac3c11f10fbf2891220bdaf08fc.png
I should note that replacing Thracian Hallstatt with Glinoe changes things quite a bit, but with slightly worse distance:
https://i.gyazo.com/84b30412a4c0e9c0f033b9e2483e529a.png
OK, but what about individual variation? Which of the Tribal Period individuals are the most likely to have Wielbark admix?
https://i.gyazo.com/34291c286c155f752beef0c4385d566f.png
Thanks, that's what I thought based on PCA from raw data (no projection).
There is obvious substructure in these Tribal Period samples, with at least a few showing obvious Germanic ancestry and a few practically none.
@ Davidski
''I think you missed one from the post-1000 CE set. GRK002 clusters with Germans, and so pulls the whole cluster slightly west.''
this individual is clearly an outlier. Perhaps a German colonist. I dont think they're informative about sources of 'Germanic' ancestry in early Slavs.
''By the way, GRK011 and GRK015 seem to have some eastern admixture, possibly via Sarmatian ancestry. But it's not much.'
and GRK_ 08
Grod. 4, 8, 14, 15 have highest levels of Wielbakr-type ancestry
The Germanic ancestry drops in post-1000 individuals. As does Balkan
Lithuania-BA related ancestry rises.
I think the post-1000 pattern is reflective of Baltoid tribes being assimilated into early Poles.
By contrast, Baltic-BA ancestry peaks at 50% (e.g. Grk 11, which lacks Wielbark ancestry), but has ! 50% Thracian and Sarmatian ancestry
Yes, that's more or less what I'm seeing with raw data PCA.
I'll try and write this up and then email Gretzinger.
So we had a core “Baltic BA” population moving south mixing in, variously, with Germanic, Thracian, & lesser degree Sarmatian groups. However, this could’ve occurred anywhere between south-eastern Poland, Southern Belarus, Central Ukraine and Northeast Romania. I.e. where any reasonable person would have proposed it to be in the first place 🤣 but it’s good confirmation
Next, I might look at some “Tisza Sarmatians” & iron age Ukrainian samples as possible fits
@Matt
There's no point simulating a southern admixture source for the Tribal Period Poles and running a two-way model, because you'd have to simulate at least two different types of southern sources to model these Poles accurately on an individual basis.
What this means is that there was no southern admixture source in the real world that can explain away the Germanic and also Sarmatian shifts that these Poles show.
The Germanic and Sarmatian ancestries have to be modeled separately from the real southern admixture source, and so they must represent real admixtures.
Well I threw in Chernyakov samples, and they can account for all the Germanic, Thracian and Sarmatian admixture seen in early Slavs. That’s because Ch. form a large cline within itself
So in short, Slavs = Baltic + chernyakov culture. I’ll link a PCA shortly
The only issue with Chernyakhov a source for all of their non-baltic ancestry is if this is accurate:
"Due to the lack of samples from Western Russia, Belarus and Northern Ukraine during the Middle and Late Bronze Age, we are not able to conclusively infer if this admixture process occurred in a single pulse or gradually over a prolonged period of time. Applying DATES, we calculate mean dates of this admixture event in SP individuals from Eastern Germany at 972 ± 250 BCE and in SP individuals from Poland at 906 ± 562 BCE."
@ Dave
''The full set is here, but they're not labeled properly.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Qzqt1b43Eo9et8i858N4gdQQ-DiL9XbJ/view?usp=drive_link''
It's missing samples. e.g. Zbojecka cave. Where is the full set?
The official dataset hasn't been released yet. I'll update the G25 coords and labels when it comes out.
But keep in mind that not all of the samples from the paper will make it if they don't have enough markers.
@ Ethan
I think DATES has little utility in after the Neolithic period, Ancestry is too complex for meaningful results
Anyway, the Baltic-Slavic cline 'points to' the following - Slovenia/Croatia/Slovakia IA, a section of Chernyakov, probably some northern Dacians. Even with al that added in Chernyakov is preferred with G25, but eventually we can check with formal stats. Of course, finding I-CTS10228 would be a big clue as well, my pun would be NE Romania (i.e. a late Chernyakov group)
https://imgur.com/a/OEJPACO
Btw sorry to burst some peoples bubble, but 'Farmer Scythians' are irrelevant here, obviously, as they are 800 years too early
Do you think any of the western admixture showing up in early Slavs could also reflect deeply conserved WHG segments? I’ve compared my kit against WHG genomes and see 20cM+ of matches at 3cM threshold. Curious if you think these are genuine shared blocks or just noise.
No, it's impossible for anyone to share any large IBD blocks with European hunter-gatherers.
The stuff that's showing up in these sorts of IBD tests are just IBS haplotypes that occasionally get interpreted as much bigger blocks than they really are.
I understand the IBS vs IBD distinction, but when I compare against multiple WHG genomes I’m seeing the same tracts recur at identical coordinates. For example:
• Chr 1 (10.9–12.8 Mb) in Loschbour, Cheddar Man, and La Braña (~3.1–3.3 cM)
• Chr 16 (78.9–79.4 Mb) in both Loschbour and Bichon (~3.9 cM)
Since I also show strong Balkan WHG affinity, I wonder if part of the “western admixture” signal in early Slavs might be reflecting these deeply conserved WHG tracts.
It seems clear that CGG106747 from Bornholm has southern admixture, characteristic of the Slavs. This sample should be close to the original Slavic profile. It also seems clear that it has neither Germanic nor Thracian admixture.
@Joseph
These haplotypes are probably in highly conserved parts of the genome and shared by many people and populations.
Usually, they're there due to selection over thousands of years, and not because of genealogical links.
Also, the western admixture in Slavs is linked to much more recent types of populations, like Germanic, that are composites of much more ancient ones including WHG and early Scandinavian pastoralists and farmers. So we can't say it's specifically WHG ancestry.
@dancingfragments
CGG106747 is probably a Balt of some type, like a Prussian or Lithuanian.
Currently there's no direct evidence that the earliest Slavic speakers were exactly like Lithuanians.
@Davidski
Thanks David, this gives me some ideas, appreciate your work.
''CGG106747 is probably a Balt of some type, like a Prussian or Lithuanian''
Yep, nothing like a proto-Slav, and far too early (~300 AD).
If I may, I will return once more to a sample like I5884. This person must surely be a mixture of Kisapostag and Ukrainian hunters. That is, in the Early Bronze Age there was an influx of people from Hungary into Ukraine. But when I look at the graph, I realize that people like WEZ58 and WEZ59 from the Tollense warriors must be connected with I5884. And this is despite the fact that they are widely separated in time and space. That is, not only people like Kisapostag migrated east, but people like I5884 were present in Central Europe and were quite numerous. That is, in the Middle Bronze Age there was an intense exchange of genes between Central Europe and the areas lying to the east and northeast of the Carpathians. And we are now seeing only an absurdly tiny part of this picture. Probably the invasion of the Tumulus people interrupted the existence of these communities in Central Europe. Without seeing the whole picture it is impossible to decide what kind of interactions between Central Europe and the forest zone resulted in the emergence of the historical Balto-Slavs. Gretzinger gave a date of 1000 years BC, but this is pure convention with a tolerance of plus/minus 1000. But of course, talk like "the Slavs were formed in the Early Middle Ages as a result of the mixing of Baltic_BA and Thracians" is nonsense.
CGG106747 differs from Baltic_BA and Lithuania_IA. This person is more southern, and his southern admixture is the same as that of the early Slavs. Whether to consider him a Balt or a Slav is a matter of taste, since modern Lithuanians have the same southern admixture as the Slavs.
@dancingfragments
CGG106747 is identical to modern Lithuanians, who are Baltic speakers, rather than to any modern or ancient Slavs that we know of.
So it's not just a matter of personal taste when I say that he was probably a Baltic speaker.
Lithuanians are actually East Balts, who apparently aren't native to what is now Lithuania. West Balts are said to have lived there originally.
So it might be that the East Balt homeland was close to the proto-Slavic homeland, and this might explain why CGG106747 is so similar to modern Lithuanians and Slavs.
@ dancingfragments - ''If I may, I will return once more to a sample like I5884. This person must surely be a mixture of Kisapostag and Ukrainian hunters. That is, in the Early Bronze Age there was an influx of people from Hungary into Ukraine. But when I look at the graph, I realize that people like WEZ58 and WEZ59 from the Tollense warriors must be connected with I5884. And this is despite the fact that they are widely separated in time and space. That is, not only people like Kisapostag migrated east, but people like I5884 were present in Central Europe and were quite numerous. That is, in the Middle Bronze Age there was an intense exchange of genes between Central Europe and the areas lying to the east and northeast of the Carpathians. And we are now seeing only an absurdly tiny part of this picture. Probably the invasion of the Tumulus people interrupted the existence of these communities in Central Europe. Without seeing the whole picture it is impossible to decide what kind of interactions between Central Europe and the forest zone resulted in the emergence of the historical Balto-Slavs. Gretzinger gave a date of 1000 years BC, but this is pure convention with a tolerance of plus/minus 1000. But of course, talk like "the Slavs were formed in the Early Middle Ages as a result of the mixing of Baltic_BA and Thracians" is nonsense.''
Where have you read that Slavs formed as a fusion of Thracians & Balts ? This suggests that you have failed to understand basic concepts, or dishonestly misrepresented this in desparation to prove your pet theory. On the contrary, the data suggests that proto-Slavs emerged due to a still evolving mix of Baltic-BA and various 'southern Elements', which we have labelled as 'Thracian', Germanic and Sarmatian', but these are of conventional simplifications which might have existed in mixed form in the Chernyakov culture.
Secondly, you failed to heed the caution about Gretzinger's DATES, which are probably meainigless, such calculations are non viable for complex post-Neolithic admixture events.
Our suggestion that Slavs are a recent formation of something Baltic + Chernyakov has the advantage of being lucid, accurate and something that will be proven. On the other hand, the ''pre-formed forest Slavs theory c. 1000 BC'' in vogue amongst some East Slav forums and 'academic' ciricles (e.g. the linguistics split presented by MAD above) are obviously duds.
@ Davidski
''Lithuanians are actually East Balts, who apparently aren't native to what is now Lithuania. West Balts are said to have lived there originally.''
again, where is the evidence for this claim ?
Modern Lithuanians, like CGG106747, share the Slavs' southern shift. So the question of who CGG106747 considered himself to be and what language he spoke is no longer relevant. This man was a Balto-Slav. Specifically, CGG106747 could have been a Balt, but the Slavs descend from people like him.
Rob, You are not reading carefully. I did not claim that anyone here said such things. I said that such talk is pointless. Yes, it is not about some individual graphs. There are basic facts. In the Middle Bronze Age, many communities appear whose population has a Balto-Slavic drift, and these communities must be connected to each other. Until we explain this connection, there is no point in discussing the origin of the Slavs. As far as I know, the first examples with a Balto-Slavic drift come from the Neolithic Balkans. This is the fact we need to start with.
@Rob
Lithuanians are generally linked to the Brushed Pottery Culture, which was located in what is now eastern Lithuania and Belarus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brushed_Pottery_culture
But I'm not discounting the idea that CGG106747 was a West Balt. Considering he was found in Denmark, he may have been a Pomeranian Balt.
We already have hundreds of early Slavic samples, and they are always more southern compared to Baltic_BA and Lithuania_IA. This is a fact we must take into account. We also have other samples dating back to the first centuries AD or even earlier, which already have a southern admixture, characteristic of the Slavs. These are, for example, CGG024143 or CGG106486_CGG106491. This is a fact we must take into account.
@ Dancing Fragments
''As far as I know, the first examples with a Balto-Slavic drift come from the Neolithic Balkans.''
I don't think so. People have misinterpreted Gerber's study. The 'Balto-Slavic drift' admixture occurred in ECE, and those Carpatho-Balkan individuals with vaguley similar HG ancestry are migrants from ECE to Hungary during the Late Neolithic (Boleraz, Baden) . Im pretty sure I modelled Trziniec and Baltic_LBA as CW + Narva + GAC (but would need to double check)
@ Davidski
''Lithuanians are generally linked to the Brushed Pottery Culture, which was located in what is now eastern Lithuania and Belarus.''
Sounds like old wives tales
Intensive gene exchange between the population of Central Europe and the population living east and north of the Carpathians in the Middle Bronze Age is already an established fact. Because we have samples with Balto-Slavic drift from Central Europe and identical ones from Ukraine and the Baltics. But we see only small pieces of the real picture and do not know what results these multiple interactions led to. Until we see the whole picture, we cannot speculate where the Balto-Slavs came from. But it is clear that people like Baltic_BA have a connection with Central Europe.
The oldest example with Balto-Slavic drift in Gerber is I1108. This is the deep Neolithic of the Balkans, cultures like Starčevo-Krish-Vinča. This could be considered a mistake or an accident, but I1108 has Balto-Slavic drift in G25 as well. This could also be ignored, but the MalakPreslavets group on the graph forms a cline with Kisapostag. This can no longer be attributed to any accident. Obviously, Kisapostag comes from the mixing of MalakPreslavets with local Balkan hunters, and the mixing process was accompanied by an increase in Balto-Slavic drift. You can't explain it any other way.
I think I understand what happened, at least very broadly.
Modern Lithuanians are genetically a mix of East Balts and West Balts, plus some Slavic and Scandinavian admixture. That's why they're more southern and western than the Iron Age and even Medieval Lithuanian samples that we have.
CGG106747, the Lithuanian-like sample from Denmark, was probably a West Balt from Pomerania, possibly already with some Scandinavian admixture. That's why he's so remarkably Lithuanian-like but not quite Slavic.
Slavs were originally very similar to West Balts and also very similar to CGG106747. In terms of genetics they were basically Southwest Balts.
But the main Slavic expansion didn't happen until early Slavs came into contact and mixed with the Chernyakhov Goths, who were a complex and variable mixture of Scandinavians, Thracians and also Sarmatians. That's why the early Slavs were more western and also more southern than CGG106747.
How's that?
The southern admixture of the Slavs comes from people like Kisapostag. If this happened back in the Bronze Age, IBD analysis is unlikely to show anything - it's too long ago. If it happened at the turn of the eras, the mediator must have been a yet-to-be-discovered population, and IBD analysis will again show nothing. This doesn't really mean anything.
@dancingfragments
Early Slavs have some extra southern admixture compared to CGG106747. You can see for yourself.
And this extra slice of southern admixture appears to be Balkan-related.
The early Slavs also have Wielbark and Sweden_IA in their top 10 IBD list.
So it's likely that the extra slice of southern admixture (over what CGG106747 has) came from Goths, either in Poland or Ukraine, or both.
@ DancingFragments
''The oldest example with Balto-Slavic drift in Gerber is I1108. This is the deep Neolithic of the Balkans, cultures like Starčevo-Krish-Vinča. This could be considered a mistake or an accident, but I1108 has Balto-Slavic drift in G25 as well. This could also be ignored, but the MalakPreslavets group on the graph forms a cline with Kisapostag. This can no longer be attributed to any accident. Obviously, Kisapostag comes from the mixing of MalakPreslavets with local Balkan hunters, and the mixing process was accompanied by an increase in Balto-Slavic drift. You can't explain it any other way.''
Seems that some folks are just considering any HG ancestry between the East Baltic, Ukraine and Iron Gates (which will broadly resemble each other because of the EHG-WHG mix) as 'Balto-Slavic drift.' This is the first error
The second error is not considering specific haplotypes and local demographic trajectories. That being- Iron Gates/ Lower Danube HG really didnt make a major impact across Europe, just circumscribed around Vinca, Dudesti (MalakP), etc. But they became extinct after 4500 BC.
Sanity check - these groups were heavy in R1b-V88, C1a2, etc, which are absent in Balto-Slavs.
The HG ancestry in Kispostag is non-local, but just happens to show up in a group demonated by Yhg G2a. Either way, neither Iron Gates nor Kisapostag are relevant for Balto-Slavs.
It's just an idea that some people have become fixated on and repeat ad neauseum without any basis
''The HG ancestry in Kispostag is non-local, but just happens to show up in a group demonated by Yhg G2a.''
correction - most of the Encrusted pottery + Kisapostag males are actually I2a-L1229, under M223 (it is just a small subset of Croatian group which is G2a), Males from Welzin and Knoviz are also on this branch.
Although there are a couple of late Meso Iron Gates individual under this branch, it is also found as far as France Mesolithic. Its brother clade M284 is dominant in Neolithic Britain. They must have split somewhere in the north European plain.
In McColl's study, this southern admixture in Slavs is visible as a genetic component of Balkans BA, i.e. a common IBD cluster, formed mainly by samples from the Hungarian Bronze Age, but also by Romanian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Czech, Slovenian and Mycenaean samples from that period.
It does look like the picture is beginning to come together autosomally, but dating and the possiblity of multiple admixtures is crucial. A simple Baltic-like+Chernyakhov model might work for the proto-Slavic community which is excellent. But is it possible to go deeper to earlier stages of the Slavic ethnogenesis from the time of linguistic divergence from Baltic if presumably this didn't happen in the Imperial Roman era? When was this divergence and what genetic changes if any coincided with it? The time depth might make IBD analysis unhelpful or even misleading.
@Davidski
"I think I understand what happened, at least very broadly.
Modern Lithuanians are genetically a mix of East Balts and West Balts, plus some Slavic and Scandinavian admixture. That's why they're more southern and western than the Iron Age and even Medieval Lithuanian samples that we have.
CGG106747, the Lithuanian-like sample from Denmark, was probably a West Balt from Pomerania, possibly already with some Scandinavian admixture. That's why he's so remarkably Lithuanian-like but not quite Slavic.
Slavs were originally very similar to West Balts and also very similar to CGG106747. In terms of genetics they were basically Southwest Balts.
But the main Slavic expansion didn't happen until early Slavs came into contact and mixed with the Chernyakhov Goths, who were a complex and variable mixture of Scandinavians, Thracians and also Sarmatians. That's why the early Slavs were more western and also more southern than CGG106747.
How's that?"
Maybe. But did they speak a distinctly Slavic language before the Chernyakhov events or it still was some late form of Balto-Slavic? What if those Chernyakhov events laid the foundation of a distinctly Slavic language? What we are dealing with here is a fusion of paleogenetics and paleolinguistics and we likely need paleolinguists and their expertise here.
@Radiosource
But did they speak a distinctly Slavic language before the Chernyakhov events or it still was some late form of Balto-Slavic?
That depends on one's definition of what constitutes a fully formed Slavic language.
Linguistically the first language that could be identified as Slavic of any kind would have at least one inherited feature in modern Slavic languages like a sound change that no Baltic dialect acquired, at least until a later contact event. This would be the earliest divergence between Baltic and Slavic and could be termed something like "Initial Pre-Proto-Slavic." The question of what the Slavic gene pool looked like at the time of breakup is a somewhat separate question and it looks close to being resolved. The first question is trickier and probably requires more dense sampling across time and the candidate cultures of the Pre-Proto Slavic speakers. Zarubintsy, Milograd, Chernoles in particular are of interest. Unfortunately the cremation problem does become relevant at that point.
'But did they speak a distinctly Slavic language before the Chernyakhov events or it still was some late form of Balto-Slavic?''
Somewhat semantics, but the events of mixing with a sizable Chernyakov elements, and key social shifts would have impact language. So there would have been no proto-Slavic before this, just a form of Balto-Slavic
''Linguistically the first language that could be identified as Slavic of any kind would have at least one inherited feature in modern Slavic languages like a sound change that no Baltic dialect acquired, at least until a later contact event. This would be the earliest divergence between Baltic and Slavic and could be termed something like "Initial Pre-Proto-Slavic." ''
This cannot be reconstructed by archaeogenetics. It is theoretical linguistics, and kinda irrelevant. Language change isn;t a steady, metered process, but often arythmic & punctuated.
The problems with Chernolis and ZC have been explained above already. You should look at the data from Scythia papers which has Dnieper forest-steppe genomes
In G25, the Balto-Slavic drift is shown on the graph. So it is not a question of someone's opinion, not a question of reasoning. You just need to look at the graph. Kisapostag is connected with Baltic_BA, it is a single construction, and it is a proven fact. But in this case, it is not even about the Balto-Slavic drift. The group MalakPreslavets forms a cline with Kisapostag. This is a fact, independent of whether MalakPreslavets and Kisapostag have the Balto-Slavic drift or not, independent of which group of hunters participated in the formation of this cline. We should explain this fact. You seem to suggest simply ignoring it and limiting ourselves to general discussions on the topic of which hunters could influence whom. This will not do any good.
Another fact is that all Slavic samples are more southern than Baltic_BA. The northernmost Slavs resemble CGG106747, which already has a southern admixture. It is difficult to imagine that people like Baltic_BA, having come out of the forests and swamps, immediately mixed with the Chernyakhov people so thoroughly that the original Slavic type immediately disappeared. But that's okay, let's assume. Another problem is this. The southern admixture in CGG106747 is very characteristic and is immediately visible on the graph. It is EEF with increased HG and low steppe. Its source was not the Thracians, and in general it could not have been anyone in the Chernyakhov time, because such an archaic source could hardly have survived for so long.
Of course, the Slavs have mixed many times during migrations. The task is to highlight what unites them all.
We're wandering here like blind children in a fog. Linguists have already located the Slavic homeland. According to onomastic data, it lay in southeastern Poland and southwestern Ukraine. And on this point, there is a relative consensus among mainstream academic linguists. Therefore, it's simply a matter of confirming this fact through archaeogenetics. And archaeogenetics unequivocally confirms it, as the oldest individuals from Gretzinger's Slavic IBD cluster come from the Strzyżów and Komarów populations, from southeastern Poland and southwestern Ukraine. Furthermore, essentially all the typically Slavic paternal lineages of the early Slavs from Gretzinger and Stolarek's studies are Carpathian and West Slavic.
Great to see Eurogenes back in classic form. When will "Amateur Hour at MPI" be published?
@Copper Axe
I'm going to wait for the official dataset before I post more on this paper and email the authors.
I'm seeing some very interesting results with the Grodek samples using f4 stats, but I need to make sure that I can reproduce these results with the official genotypes.
@ Dancing Fragments
'Another fact is that all Slavic samples are more southern than Baltic_BA. The northernmost Slavs resemble CGG106747, which already has a southern admixture. It is difficult to imagine that people like Baltic_BA, having come out of the forests and swamps, immediately mixed with the Chernyakhov people so thoroughly that the original Slavic type immediately disappeared. But that's okay, let's assume. Another problem is this. The southern admixture in CGG106747 is very characteristic and is immediately visible on the graph. It is EEF with increased HG and low steppe. Its source was not the Thracians, and in general it could not have been anyone in the Chernyakhov time, because such an archaic source could hardly have survived for so long''
This doesn't make sense. Is the magic forest pixie theory still popular at Molgen ?
@ Rob, The meaning here is simple: the Balto-Slavs became more southern compared to Baltic_BA already in their forest homeland. Further mixing during the migration period did not affect anything. I don't know what Molgen has to do with it and what is popular there.
@ Dancing fragments - are you abandoning your initial position about the Prussian Bornholmer being a Slav? If so, it would be clearer if you accepted your error and signposted the shift in your focus.
You are now instead suggesting that extant Balto-Slavs (as a whole) are somewhat more southern than their BA predecessors (or grand-Uncles), not due to relatively recent events, but due to mystery migrations from the Kisapostag culture ?
Well, i havent really looked into modern Balts in great detail, but we know several things
- Baltic _LBA date after 1500, and predominantly after 1200 BC, whilst Kisapostag dates to 2000 bc.
- Further, the BarrowCulture individual dates to ~ 300 AD. How do you resolve these chronological discrepancies ?
-modern East Balts have a sizabe portion of Y-hg N in their male gene pool, and this might fit under Scandinavian founders. How is this anything other than a migration or ''Roman era'' impact ?
But the main topic we are talking about is final proto-Slavic. Check for yourself with G25/Vahaduo, and if you have the capability with 'formal methods' - early Slavs from Tribal Poland and Szolad, for example, can be modelled as a mix of Baltic_BA + Chernyakov. This is clearly supported by archaeology (I wont even bother elaborating) + the introgression zone for lineages such as I2a-CTS10228 is unlikely to be in Polesia, but instead close to the Carpathians.
All things together, this suggests that historical Slavs, and foundational core of modern Slavic languages, expanded from near the Carpathian mountains, and took over regions to the north, such as Belarus and NW Russia, and even much of what is now Ukraine.
The reference to Molgen is because we'd expect to hear precisely these sorts of shadow theories about Slavs emerging from the forests, e,g, your compatriot Rezius on GA. Now a certain Balt (also on GA) is attempting to discuss historical linguistics, but aside from having a habit of treating Kortlandt's problematic renditions as lore, fails to understand that the Pskov barrows date c. 800 AD
@ Rob
I don't know what language CGG106747 spoke. He could have spoken Baltic, or he could have spoken Slavic. I don't see a difference, because Lithuanians and Latvians share the southern shift with the Slavs. It's safe to say that CGG106747 was a Balto-Slav. In my first post, I said that CGG106747 has an additional southern admixture compared to Baltic_BA, and this admixture is the same as that of modern Balto-Slavs. I don't see how my position has changed. But I don't know exactly when people like CGG106747 appeared. It could have been the result of migrations as early as the Bronze Age, but it could also have been the result of much later events, such as the migration of people of the Zarubintsy culture into the forest zone, given that the Zarubintsy culture belonged to, say, someone like the Geto-Dacians. I'm not going to insist on a specific scenario.
I think the BarrowCulture people have nothing to do with the ethnogenesis of the Slavs. Among the early Slavic samples, there's not a single one similar to the BarrowCulture people. Where do you see a discrepancy, and with what? The BarrowCulture people don't have the southern admixture characteristic of the Balto-Slavs, but they do have admixture from people like I20509. They are included in the Finno-Ugric cline. For this reason, their lack of Asian admixture is irrelevant. They could have spoken Finno-Ugric, or some extinct isolate, conditionally Paleo-European. These people interbred with the Balto-Slavs like CGG106747, and that's how modern Lithuanians and Latvians emerged. Roughly speaking.
Well, yes, the Baltic language should have spread into the forest zone in the Iron Age from somewhere in the Carpathians. Let's assume the Zarubintsy culture belonged to people with a southern European profile, like the Geto-Dacians, but who spoke a Baltic language. Let's assume these people spread widely across the forest zone in the Iron Age and, interbred with local inhabitants, gave rise to the modern Balto-Slavs. It sounds very unorthodox, but it makes the most sense given the available data.
I'm open to all theories, both the Polesie theory and its alternatives, and I'm ready to discuss them calmly and respectfully. Unfortunately, among my compatriots, there are freaks and provocateurs who are not interested in facts and the search for truth, but in proving their own rightness at any cost, and these lunatics are very vocal.
That's why I'm not reading Molgen right now, and I haven't read what Rezus writes on GA either, although he may be a conscientious person. I don't know him. Parastais seems like an honest researcher to me, but I haven't delved into his linguistic arguments. It's too complex a topic for me.
@dancingfragments
Balto-Slavic ultimately derives from the Corded Ware culture, just like its closest cousins Indo-Iranian and Germanic. So there's no way that Balto-Slavic came from a people with a Southern European genetic profile.
And there's no reason to assume that the extra southern ancestry in Balto-Slavs relative to Baltic_BA was due to a migration from the south.
In all likeliness it's due to the fact that the Balto-Slavic homeland was located south of Baltic_BA territory, and so the original Balto-Slavs were genetically more southern because they were more exposed to the gradual diffusion of southern ancestry for many centuries.
This is called isolation-by-distance. It's a well-known concept in population genetics.
@ Davidski
I finally understood why you have always been opposed to any of my references to a distant common origin of the Nostratic languages when, through Finngreek's essay on the alleged relationships between Ancient Greek and Uralic languages, I was able to see Valentyn Stetsyuk's essay "The Names of Metals in the Turkic, Indo-European, and Finno-Ugric Languages" in Academia, where he writes: "Indo-European, Turkic, and Finno-Ugric languages belong to the large macrofamily of Nostratic languages. They were formed in Transcaucasia and later migrated to Eastern Europe." But this is not the theory of Nostratic languages inaugurated by the great Russian linguist Illich-Svitych, this is a theory of illiterate Turkish nationalists, and perhaps you will now understand my old battle against the alleged Ex Oriente lux and biblical fundamentalism, whose tragic consequences we are now seeing, and it is tragic that similar theories now guide the politics and claims of entire ethnic groups. In their eyes, Quiles, with whom I know you disagreed, but I couldn't understand why in detail, was a great scholar according to the most proven science. One can discuss anything, but not with these people whom you rightly call "morons."
@Davidski
People like Spiginas2 appear to be the primary ancestors of Baltic_BA. They came to the Baltics, absorbed the remnants of the Baltic Corded Ware people, and thus formed the Baltic_BA people. If this is indeed the case, the Baltic_BA people must have formed directly in the Baltics and then spread south along with the Brushed Pottery people.
We should probably consider the facts established by archaeology. As far as I understand, the widespread distribution of the Zarubintsy culture throughout the forest zone has been reliably established by archaeology. Such a widespread migration must have left strong traces in the local forest populations. What else could this influence be associated with, if not southern admixture among the Slavs? Germanic admixture? But many early Slavic samples show no Germanic admixture.
The Baltic languages must have been borrowed by the ancestors of the Balto-Slavs from the Corded Ware people, one way or another. The question is, under what circumstances did this happen? And where, in the Baltics or in the Carpathians? Is there evidence that the speakers of the Baltic Corded Ware group spoke Proto-Baltic?
Balto-Slavs didn't borrow their language from the Corded Ware people. They are the descendants of the Corded Ware people both linguistically and genetically.
This is obvious, because Balto-Slavic paternal ancestry is largely derived from Corded Ware, and it's shared with the speakers of Indo-Iranian and also Germanic via Y-hg R1a-Z645.
By the way, Spiginas2 is still Corded Ware. This sample just represents a migration from one part of the Corded Ware horizon to another.
@Davidski
I have to study all the matter, but already Mario Alinei linked the Etruscan Language to Hungarian, thus I have to read this paper of Peter Z. Revesz, pp. 109-127, and don't forget that I am closely linked at the IBD level to the Minoans of 4000 Years ago: https://www.academia.edu/127125343/Best_IDEAS_International_Database_Engineered_Applications_Symposium
Revesz isn't a "Citizen linguist", but an academic, and we have to take him into account very seriously.
@ Dancing fragments
''Let's assume the Zarubintsy culture belonged to people with a southern European profile, like the Geto-Dacians, but who spoke a Baltic language. Let's assume these people spread widely across the forest zone in the Iron Age and, interbred with local inhabitants, gave rise to the modern Balto-Slavs. It sounds very unorthodox, but it makes the most sense given the available data.'''
- Im not familiar with this form of reasoning, as it violates scientific equipoise : because we have data providing a good fit for the southern admixture in proto-Slavs, via groups like Chernyakov culture (but not ncessarily limited to or exclusively). But it seems you are asking ask to ignore that and instead reach for the Zarubintsy culture for which we have no data and the archaeological evidence shows it essentialy became extinct. Some claim it continued on and evoloved into Prague culture, but that is not the case. Big time separation, different culture
- secondly, why would ZC be 'Geto-Dacian'? ZC is the easternmost expansion of the Pomeranian - Gubin-Jastorf expansion. So if you want to guess what it'll be like, look at the few Prezeork genomes ....
- ''I think the BarrowCulture people have nothing to do with the ethnogenesis of the Slavs.''
Obviously the Lithianian Barrow Culture people aren;t Slavs :)
But what we do see is that Baltic-BA fits the best profile for the 'northern half' of proto-Slavs, even with all the Iron Age Ukraine, Vysoko, Trziniec, Lusatian culture samples. At least acc. to G25 so far.
Is your point that proto-Slavs already had some southern admixture before moving into W Ukraine ? Maybe they did. But there's no arguement against them acquiring more southern admixture between 250 & 500 AD.
- ''Parastais seems like an honest researcher to me, but I haven't delved into his linguistic arguments. It's too complex a topic for me.''
yes, but my point is we cannot reconstruct prehistory via a handful of loanwords. As explained above, this shows that there was dialectical and cultural differences within the broader Balto-Slavic community, and proto-Slavs diverged more rapidly just prior to 500 AD. It wasn;t a nice, lineaer, step-qise evolution though Komarov, Chernolis, ZC. Such scenarios might work for other cases, but I dont think it encapsulates the Slavs.
@All
I updated and corrected the blog post above. I also changed the datasheet with the Grodek samples.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IcEwVEvymiABXMvnV75Qs5oo6m8oeExK/view?usp=sharing
But I've got a new blog post coming this weekend about these Grodek Slavs with some very interesting f4 stats and graphs.
@ Davidski
As far as I know, R1a is also found among Ukrainian hunters. Is there evidence that the Balto-Slavic subclades of R1a originate from the Corded Ware people and not directly from Ukrainian hunters? In McColl's IBD clustering, Spiginas2 does not fall into the Corded Ware people, and its steppe genetic source may be different. In any case, it is a highly hunting-oriented sample with a relatively low level of steppe admixture.
So you actually believe there's a realistic chance that Balto-Slavs got their R1a and steppe ancestry from Ukrainian hunter-gatherers, and somehow managed not to inherit R1a and steppe ancestry from Corded Ware, even though Ukrainian hunter-gatherers went extinct before Corded Ware, and the core Balto-Slavic homeland is in former Corded Ware territory? Haha.
Unfortunately, your reasoning and logic are not of the highest order if you do.
To answer your question, yeah, Balto-Slavic R1a subclades are definitely from Corded Ware. So are Indo-Iranian and Germanic R1a subclades. They fall under M417 and Z645.
R1a-M417 and R1a-Z645 date to the Late Neolithic, and they definitely expanded with Corded Ware after Ukrainian hunter-gatherers went extinct.
@ Rob
I trust what I see on the graph. On the graph, the Balto-Slavs form a cline with modern Greeks. Is the Chernyakhov sample part of this cline? No. Only two samples fit into it: UKR047 and UKR049. Only they could theoretically be the source of southern admixture among the Slavs, not the entire Chernyakhov sample. If you'd like, we can discuss in more detail why UKR047 and UKR049 also don't work. And let me remind you that the necessary southern admixture is already present in samples from the early Common Era, such as CGG024143 or CGG106486_CGG106491. They clearly have no relation to the Chernyakhov people. Based on this, I would suggest that modeling the Slavs using the Chernyakhov people contains some kind of error.
@ Davidski
This isn't a matter of faith. I see a specimen like I5884, who, in my opinion, traces half of his ancestry to Ukrainian hunters and has no steppe admixture. This specimen, if I'm not mistaken, dates to the Early Bronze Age. If my interpretation of I5884's origin is correct, then people similar to Ukrainian hunters still existed in the Early Bronze Age. So, are there any Corded Ware people with Balto-Slavic subclades?
Where could have the Baltic BA related ancestry in Semiluki come from?
@dancingfragments
So, are there any Corded Ware people with Balto-Slavic subclades?
This is a stupid question.
Specifically Balto-Slavic subclades of R1a are younger than Corded Ware, so we'll never find any Corded Ware people with these subclades. But they derive from R1a-Z645, which obviously expanded with the Corded Ware people.
So Corded Ware R1a is ancestral to Balto-Slavic R1a, and Balto-Slavs inherited both their R1a and Balto-Slavic languages from the Corded Ware people.
There is no evidence of R1a-Z645 in late Ukrainian hunter-gatherers, and it doesn't make sense to suggest that Balto-Slavs inherited their language from Corded Ware while they inherited R1a-Z645 from some hidden late hunter-gatherer population. This would be an exceptionally idiotic hypothesis.
I5884 is not a hunter-gatherer and doesn't even provide any evidence that hunter-gatherers still existed during the Early Bronze Age in Ukraine. This is just a sample that can be modeled with a high ratio of Ukrainian hunter-gatherer derived ancestry.
Moreover, this sample doesn't belong to R1a-Z645 or even R1a, and doesn't provide any evidence that Balto-Slavic R1a subclades derive from a population like this, as opposed to being the result of the Corded Ware expansion.
@ Rob
This is the first time I've heard that the Zarubintsy culture is extinct. I know something else: the Zarubintsy culture didn't die out; on the contrary, it spread widely throughout the forest zone. For example, the Pochep culture, which spread along the Desna and further up to the Oka, is considered an offshoot of the Zarubintsy culture. The Kiev culture, which many consider Slavic, descends from the Zarubintsy culture, as far as I know. You're right that the Zarubintsy culture is attributed to the Bastarnae or Pomeranian culture, but the genetic data doesn't support this. We don't see a strong Germanic or Lusatian influence among the early Slavs. However, almost all of them have a characteristic southern admixture. Yes, they mixed again later, but that's irrelevant.
@dancingfragments
"You're right that the Zarubintsy culture is attributed to the Bastarnae or Pomeranian culture"
I barely found articles on the issue.
https://www.academia.edu/103335615/Zarubintsy_Culture_and_Bastarnae
also his
https://docs.yandex.ru/docs/view?url=ya-disk-public%3A%2F%2Fnd6335DeQL8FsV%2FKc%2FLA%2BXr3Bw7lLWGtkDWi5f484zY%3D&name=Зарубинецкая%20культура%20и%20культура%20Ясторф.pdf&nosw=1
@Davidski
Wait, wait, isn't Spiginas2 a Corded Ware person? Doesn't he have the Balto-Slavic subclade R1a-CTS1211, and doesn't that prove that the R1a-CTS1211 subclade already existed during the Corded Ware period? The same goes for poz794. I don't know, maybe these samples are misdated, or their cultural attribution is incorrect?
What exactly are you proving about I5884? I believe one of this person's parents, likely his mother, belonged to a population similar to Ukrainian hunter-gatherers. This proves that people genetically related to Ukrainian hunter-gatherers still lived in Ukraine in the Early Bronze Age. You disagree? Fine. Then what, in your opinion, is the origin of I5884? How did this person get such a high admixture of Ukrainian hunter-gatherers if they were already extinct by that time?
The IBD research by Ringbauer and McColl explains everything. The Polish CWC population is composed of Polish GAC (derived from Polish TRB) plus Ukrainian Yamnaya. Spiginas and Fatyanovo is Polish CWC. Thus, the northeastern migration of the Polish CWC resulted in the separation of the Slavic, Baltic, and Iranian linguistic branches. Today's Poles inherit, on average, about 75% of their genome from the Polish CWC. The remainder is a small amount of EEF admixture from a source unrelated to the GAC, but above all, a large amount of WHG admixture from a source associated with populations appearing in archaeological samples over the millennia between the Danube and the Baltic.
@ Dancigfragments
'' know something else: the Zarubintsy culture didn't die out; on the contrary, it spread widely throughout the forest zone. For example, the Pochep culture, which spread along the Desna and further up to the Oka, is considered an offshoot of the Zarubintsy culture. The Kiev culture, which many consider Slavic, descends from the Zarubintsy culture, as far as I know. ''
I know these fairy tales - that's why I stated ''ZC became extinct but Some claim it continued on and evoloved into Prague culture'' , the Pochep being an alleged link. But it's nonsense. There is no chronological or typolotical link, it's an invention.
The ZC is a NELT culture, and Kiev culture is completely different.The Pochep culture doesn't bridge anything.
''but the genetic data doesn't support this. We don't see a strong Germanic or Lusatian influence among the early Slavs.'
This is a hallucination
'' On the graph, the Balto-Slavs form a cline with modern Greeks. Is the Chernyakhov sample part of this cline? ''
Why are you using modern Greeks as a reference for ancient sample clines ? It's misleading, and PCAs are preliminary inferences only
'' Only two samples fit into it: UKR047 and UKR049. Only they could theoretically be the source of southern admixture among the Slavs, not the entire Chernyakhov sample''
This is whay it all FITS the evidence. By 400 AD, the Chernyakov culture was colapsing, and only some parts of it survived - the part likely where I2a-CTS10228 remained and linked it with Balto-Slavic R1a-CTS1121
DF, there's little point debating further, as there is a big cognitive gulf. Intelligent people can learn from what I say, the rest can keep reciting C-grade theories from yesteryear
@dancingfragments
R1a-CTS1211 is also found in Germanic and Uralic populations, but yeah, it's mostly Baltic so you can call it a Corded Ware and Baltic marker if you like.
I5884 is actually dated to 2785 BCE, and people like this don't appear in the Eastern European ancient DNA record after this period, probably because they were wiped out or absorbed by the Yamnaya and Corded Ware expansions.
So I5884 is just an interesting sample, but nothing more.
And the fact that you can model I5884 as 50% hunter-gatherer doesn't mean that one of his parents was of 100% hunter-gatherer ancestry. That's not how things work.
It's much more likely that there was a population in that part of Ukraine just before the Yamnaya expansion that was on average 50% hunter-gatherer-like.
You'd probably have to go back 1000 years or more to find people of 100% hunter-gatherer ancestry in that region.
@Davidski
R1a-CTS1211 in Germanic and Uralic peoples belongs to a different era, I think. For now, we're interested in whether R1a-CTS1211 is found in Corded Ware people. The answer is no, as far as I understand. However, Spiginas2, a sample with an abnormally high level of Ukrainian hunter admixture (around 50%+) and no Corded Ware admixture, belongs to R1a-CTS1211. His steppe admixture likely stems from high-steppe Ukrainian hunters and mixed populations in Central Europe. Where did R1a-CTS1211 come from in Spiginas2, if not from Ukrainian hunters?
Even if I5884 belonged to an already mixed population, it's not of great significance, since what's important is that populations with a high Ukrainian hunter component continued to exist in Ukraine during the Early Bronze Age. And I5884 isn't an isolated example. Spiginas2 is the same on a larger scale.
@Car
Yes, Drobushevski criticizes the theory that the Zarubintsy culture belonged to the Bastarnae, but in his opinion, the Zarubintsy culture belonged to the Pomeranian culture, which is essentially the same thing. Both the Bastarnae and the Pomeranian culture belonged to the Northern European populations, but we need someone from the south.
@dancingfragments
You're obviously confused about Spiginas2, probably because you desperately want this sample to confirm whatever you want to believe.
The fact is that Spiginas2 is classified as a Corded Ware sample. See here:
https://amtdb.org/sample/Spiginas2
He's actually a very late Corded Ware sample, and so his mixed and diluted ancestry makes perfect sense, because the Corded Ware people became increasingly mixed with surrounding populations over time.
But it's obvious that this sample also has typical Corded Ware and steppe ancestry. There's no evidence to support your claim that he has a different type of steppe ancestry than the Corded Ware and Yamnaya populations. This is just your own imagination and nothing more.
The fact that Spiginas2 belongs to an R1a subclade derived from the Corded Ware R1a-Z645 further supports the archeological classification that this is a Corded Ware individual.
And I just told you that I5884 is dated to 2785 BCE, so your point that people like this survived in Ukraine into the Early Bronze Age isn't important, because 2785 BCE is before the Yamnaya expansion into this part of Ukraine. After the Yamnaya expansion people exactly like I5884 are no longer around.
But what is possible is that admixture from such people may have survived in Yamnaya and Corded Ware populations, and this is what you're probably seeing in Spiginas2.
However, you're misinterpreting the fact that Spiginas2 is mixed to claim that he basically represents a whole other race of people who have nothing to do with Yamnaya and Corded Ware and somehow just ended up borrowing the Balto-Slavic language from Corded Ware.
I have to say that unfortunately you sound kind of crazy. But maybe that's just because you're new to population genetics and ancient DNA, so you don't know how to interpret the data objectively yet.
Spiginas2 shares the largest number of longest IBD segments with the Polish CWC, so there is no doubt that it originates from this population.
@Davidski
Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say. You previously claimed that Balto-Slavic R1a subclades didn't yet exist during the Corded Ware era. Now you're saying that Spiginas2 is a Corded Ware individual and has a Balto-Slavic R1a subclade. Even if it's a late sample, that's irrelevant. So what are you trying to prove? In your opinion, did Balto-Slavic R1a subclades already exist during the Corded Ware era or not?
In McCall's IBD clustering, Spiginas2 doesn't fall into the Corded Ware cluster. It seems to me that this individual has strong ties to Central European cultures and is a migrant to the Baltics. Corded Ware admixture is at best unclear and requires proof. But okay, let's say I'm a newbie and I'm simply misinterpreting that sample, and let's say you're right, and he does have some Corded Ware admixture. This doesn't change the fact that Spiginas2 has an off-the-charts level of Ukrainian hunters. This is clearly evident from his position on the graph. Spiginas2's level of Ukrainian hunters is quite comparable to that of I5884. This is difficult to reconcile with the assertion that Spiginas2 has only a small admixture of I5884, and that overall Spiginas2 is more or less a typical Corded Ware individual, just a little mixed, if that's what you're trying to say. Although I'm not sure I understand you correctly.
If possible, let's clarify. Are you claiming that Spiginas2 is more or less a typical Corded Ware individual with only a small admixture of hunters, and that McColl's IBD clustering is an error? Are you claiming that Spiginas2 has no connections to Central Europe, and that his steppe admixture has a profile characteristic of Corded Ware people, not Bell Beaker people? Am I interpreting your position correctly?
I have a question. Suppose there is an ancient sample with very good coverage, let's say hypothetically 100%, and this same ancient sample was previously sequenced by us, first at 20%, then 40%, then 60%. My question is the following: how much will the distance differ from the original 100% sequenced DNA to the previously obtained coordinates at 20%, 40%, and 60%, respectively?
Why am I asking this? We have a sample, Tutkaul from Tajikistan, which has about 21% coverage. If we manage to obtain higher quality coverage, how much will the true coordinates differ from the previously obtained ones at 21% coverage?
dancingfragments
Check the IBD cluster again, where Spigins2 is located, because you're making something up. You'll find samples of the Polish Corded Ware culture population, the Polish Iwno culture population, and the Polish Únětice culture population there.
@dancingfragments
Balto-Slavic R1a subclades, like CTS1211, developed from Corded Ware R1a-Z645 during the Corded Ware and post-Corded Ware expansions of Indo-European speakers.
So, they were either very rare during the Corded Ware period or only appeared after the Corded Ware period.
As a result, we can't expect them to be found in ancient DNA until they became reasonably common, which means that when we do find them they're likely to be in late Corded Ware samples or in Corded Ware-derived populations leading up to the Balto-Slavs.
And I didn't say that Spiginas2 was genetically a typical Corded Ware sample. I actually made the point that he was atypical because he was a late Corded Ware sample and clearly of mixed origin. But nevertheless, Spiginas2 is a Corded Ware sample.
I don't know where Spiginas2 got his elevated hunter-gatherer-related admixture from, but Ukraine is probably not the most likely source. I'd say that it was probably Poland or Belarus.
I haven't looked at the IBD results for Spiginas2, but since he's a late Corded Ware sample and obviously of mixed origin then that would explain why he doesn't cluster with the older Corded Ware samples.
By the way, ambron just pointed out that Spiginas2 shares IBD with Polish Corded Ware, which would make sense because some of the Corded Ware samples from northern Poland also have a lot of hunter-gatherer-related admixture. But I don't know if that's correct, and I don't really care because it doesn't change anything.
@Davidski
What’s the degree of East Asian admixture in modern Southeastern and Central-Eastern Europeans? Do all Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, and Hungarians have it (which seems to be the case for Bulgarians, Ukrainians, Russians and Romanians)? Or is it only present in specific sub-populations of the aforementioned, like SSA/Amerindian admixture in Old Stock Americans/European Americans?
There's no East Asian admixture in East-Central Europe. There's some minor Siberian ancestry from Uralic expansions and maybe from Sarmatians.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2022/06/my-take-on-erfurt-jews.html
There's some minor East Asian admixture in Southeastern Europe from Turkic expansions, but not all populations have it.
I don't know anything about old stock Americans and I'm not interested in them.
@Davidski
Seen in this way, a Siberian admixture is an East Asian component that is present in Uralic speakers and to a lesser extent in Central Eastern Europeans was mediated by Baltic groups and from the migration period of horse nomads such as Sarmatians, Alans and Scythians, partly mediated by Ostrogoths and also from the early Iron Age in the Pannonian Plain Celtic - Steppe cultural zone
Speaking from (direct) observations, very little. It happens all the time (multiple sequencings of the same sample). Each sequencing creates a "library" and at the end, libraries are merged. On a PCA plot, libraries would be very close to each other. There are, however, exceptions from time to time, which make keeping the results of each sequencing attempt valuable; sometimes they would tell a story that the other attempts would not. Most of the time, deviations on the PCA plot are up to 5%-7%.
@St September thanks for the answer
@ Rob
what is NELT ?
@ Rob
I agree that there's no point in arguing when the positions are already clear. But I'll clarify a couple of points.
I'm not saying that Pochep is an intermediate link between the Zarubintsy and the Slavs. I don't know that. I simply cited this as an example of how widely the Zarubintsy spread throughout the forest zone.
Why did I mention modern Greeks? Simply as a reference point. Modern Greeks are more southern than the Thracians, and the Balto-Slavs need a similar source of southern admixture, shifted to Anatolia.
Post a Comment