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 ten fascinating ancient samples from Gr贸dek 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. Nine of the samples made it into my G25 analysis (see
here).
In the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) plots below, five of them cluster near present-day Ukrainians, while the rest are shifted towards present-day Northwestern and Western Europeans. The plots were produced with the excellent
Vahaduo G25 Global Views tool.
GRK015, a female belonging to Western European-specific mtDNA haplogroup H1c, shows Scandinavian ancestry. On the other hand, GRK014, a female belonging to the West Asian-specific mtDNA haplogroup U3b, probably has Southern European ancestry.
These results aren't exactly shocking, because the people who preceded the early Slavs in the Gr贸dek 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 Gr贸dek 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.
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
59 comments:
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.
Target: Russia_Potapovka_o2:I0419__BC_2050__Cov_49.86%
Distance: 1.3122% / 0.01312249
95.0 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
3.0 AASI
2.0 Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur
The sample does show AASI affinity and passes with IVCp 5% on qpadm but this could be East Eurasian affinity of AASI as well...and not someone from south.
@Ash
Target: Russia_Potapovka_o2.AG:I0419.AG__BC_2050__Cov_51.43%
Distance: 1.6545% / 0.01654537 | R3P
56.8 Czechia_BellBeaker.AG
39.2 Russia_Kalmykia_EBA_Yamnaya
4.0 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2.AG
the first two mixtures give something similar to the log crop, and the sakhr-sokhta component could have come from Kazakhstan 馃嚢馃嚳
At a quick look, the non-Baltic source of proto-Slavic ancestry stems from Germanic / Nordic & Balkan / 'Thracian' sources.
e.g. Gr贸dek_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?
@Synome
you are arguing about whether the slavs originated and came from kyiv? in any case, this is one of the main reasons why russia attacked ukraine and seized its territories. without kyiv, russia and russians have no right to the history of rus. this is an imperial war, essentially the same as what the arabs are trying to do – to restore an empire within the borders of the former arab caliphate, declaring jihad to the whole world in order to conquer all the lands once walked by arab islamists.
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.
@rob
What is your take on this sample?
Target: Israel_MLBA_o:I2200__BC_1550__Cov_53.10%
Distance: 1.7101% / 0.01710095
46.6 Israel_MLBA
30.4 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
23.0 Armenia_Berkaber_KuraAraxes_EBA
Target: Israel_MLBA_o:I2200__BC_1550__Cov_53.10%
Distance: 1.7558% / 0.01755810
53.2 Israel_MLBA
29.6 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
17.2 Uzbekistan_SappaliTepe_BA
They have same distance so hard to make if the steppe_mlba came via Caucasus or via BMAC...
@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
@Ash
Target: Israel_MLBA_o.AG:I2200.AG__BC_1550__Cov_54.59%
Distance: 1.3345% / 0.01334499 | R3P
58.4 Syria_Ebla_EMBA.AG
27.4 Russia_MLBA_Krasnoyarsk.AG
14.2 Iran_TepeHissar_C.SG
he was half Indo-Aryan and half local Arab/Jew
maybe that's why some Arabs and Jews have Z93?
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.
@ rozb贸jnik - 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 had no idea where this culture was located, but i just googled it, and i was right, it is entirely within ukraine.
Although I am a Muslim, I am against the imperials and fascists in any of their manifestations.
@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 ?
@shomu
The Steppe_MLBA model fails...
Passes with Israel_MLBA 70% and 30% catacomb with p 0.09...on rotation and 0.44 on static...
Ran by my friend....
@ 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
@Ash
Israel_MLBA_o.AG:I2200 shares IBD with Steppe_MLBA, so whether a specific qpAdm model passes or fails is irrelevant.
Funny thing is...this exact site had trade ties with South asia. Several exotic Indian goods have been found there...
"Here we report the identification of staple and exotic food remains in Bronze and Early Iron Age dental calculus from the Southern Levant. The analysis of dietary plant microremains and proteins sheds new light on consumed exotic foods from South and East Asia during the second millennium BCE. We provide the earliest direct evidence in the Mediterranean to date for the consumption of sesame, soybean, probable banana, and turmeric. The recovery and identification of diverse foodstuffs using molecular and microscopic techniques enables a new understanding of the complexity of early trade routes and nascent globalization in the ancient Near East and raises questions about the long-term maintenance and continuity of this trade system into later periods."
@ 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.
@Car
when did this putin islamize russia, when did pu destroy more than 300,000 chechens, of them 42,000 chechen children, when did pu arrange the genocide of the peoples of the caucasus under the pretext of so-called counter-terrorist operations, sending his russian head-cutters, fascists and murderers to the caucasus so they would destroy the so-called “islamists” and “terrorists” who they themselves created? when did putin drop bombs on syrian homes, on syrian civilians — literally wiping many syrian cities off the face of the earth?
and about the so-called islamization, what do you mean — i just can't understand: in russia more than 14,000,000 muslims live who are indigenous autochthonous inhabitants. they are more indigenous than the russians who came from poland to russia; on the territory of modern russia lived caucasians, muslims — bashkirs, tatars, nogais, and other peoples who are autochthonous muslims. maybe you mean central asians, you mean uzbeks and tajiks, whom russians do not consider human. in russia they are literally treated as third-class; in the usa africans were not treated like central asians are in modern russia. don't talk nonsense
Post a Comment