A new dataset has appeared online from a yet to be published paper titled
Cosmopolitanism in the depths of Barbaricum evidenced by archaeogenomic data from the Late Iron Age Goth community of the Mas艂om臋cz group.
Most of these Gothic samples are clearly of Scandinavian origin, and very similar to present-day Swedes. Overall, however, they create a somewhat heterogeneous cluster that also overlaps with present-day Poles thanks to the presence of a few Balto-Slavic-related and possibly Roman-related individuals.
The Principal Component Analysis (PCA) plots below were produced with the excellent
Vahaduo G25 Global Views tool using the data
here.
Their Y-haplogroups more or less reflect the PCA results:
PL046 R-YP6228
PL048 I-PH833
PL049 I-A11537
PL052 R-Y48961
PL059 I-PH833
PL062 I-S15301
PL065 I-Y294193
PL066 R-FGC2555
PL067 R-S7759
PL070 I-CTS10028
PL071 I-BY316
PL076 I-S9318
PL082 I-Z2041
PL085 J-Z38241
PL086 I-FT29339
See also...
Early Slavs from Tribal Period Poland
Wielbark Goths were overwhelmingly of Scandinavian origin
High-resolution stuff
Looks like one of the R1a is broadly TCC-related (Lusatian?), while another is decidedly Baltic. The rest is Scandinavian.
ReplyDeleteDistance Poland_LIA_Maslomecz Target
ReplyDelete0,01034514 100% Polish
0,01046968 100% Czech
0,01075105 100% Slovakian
0,01228456 100% Slovenian
0,01319888 100% Ukrainian_Rivne
0,01338363 100% Belarusian
0,01470276 100% Polish_Kashubian
0,01523522 100% Ukrainian_Chernihiv
0,01530382 100% Ukrainian_Zakarpattia
0,01530959 100% Ukrainian_Sumy
0,01545688 100% Polish_Silesian
0,01598000 100% Ukrainian_Lviv
0,01644598 100% Ukrainian_Zhytomyr
0,01843887 100% Sorb_Niederlausitz
0,01943505 100% Ukrainian_Dnipro
0,01444941 100% Average
PL072 basically looks like someone from the East Baltic Bronze Age.
ReplyDeleteIt'd be interesting to find out the isotopes for this individual to try and figure out where people like this existed at the time.
Without PL072:
ReplyDeleteDistance Poland_LIA_Maslomecz Target
0,01090731 100% Slovakian
0,01181054 100% Czech
0,01190748 100% Polish
0,01374005 100% Slovenian
0,01466860 100% Ukrainian_Rivne
0,01600336 100% Polish_Kashubian
0,01608599 100% Polish_Silesian
0,01622490 100% Ukrainian_Zakarpattia
0,01660590 100% Ukrainian_Chernihiv
0,01723834 100% Belarusian
0,01766284 100% Ukrainian_Sumy
0,01772366 100% Ukrainian_Lviv
0,01893169 100% Ukrainian_Zhytomyr
0,01957597 100% Sorb_Niederlausitz
0,02066947 100% Ukrainian_Dnipro
0,01598374 100% Average
@Arza
ReplyDeleteWhich samples did you use for that?
Anyway, it might be a coincidence, because mixing Baltic, Germanic and some southern European groups often produces a very Polish-like result.
Expected.
ReplyDeleteThe Goths expanded into Southeastern Poland and further into Ukraine.
I don't think there's anything to debate about this, tbh.
Perfectly 馃憣
ReplyDeleteSome more thoughts.
ReplyDeleteThis batch of Goths to me looks, both autosomally and uniparentally, more Swedish than I remember some of the other batches appearing (usually preferring something from Denmark, including Zealand). One of the I1 (I-PH833) seems to have found its way into England with some diversity, but the rest looks more Swedish, including two I1 clades somewhat closely related to Viking-age Gotland samples, which is interesting.
The R-Z284 of course also points more to Sweden (or Norway).
Some of the previously published Gothic I1 and R-U106 seemed close to English/West Germanic branches, but I think this may be a bit of a mirage, having something to do with how Jastorf and Pomeranian/Oksywie/Wielbark each relate to the proto-Germanic homeland (a question which is still really difficult to answer with precision).
Quite a few beside PL072 are shifted beyond Nordic_IA,more toward Baltic sphere. Would be good to see C14 dates
ReplyDelete@ Ethan
ReplyDeleteFrom Jastorf we get
- 'core' stimulus for Elbe Germanic & Rhine-Weser
- groups which moved east to contribute to Przeworsk, Oksywie and Poinesti-Lukashevka-Zarubintsy group
Wielbark propper received an additional flow from Scandinavia, which might explain apparent phylogenetic links with Anglo-Saxons and the absence of a 'Celtic' substratum noted in Przeworsk, Ha脽leben, etc
There are a few autochthons from the local demographic background:
ReplyDeleteDistance to: Poland_LIA_Maslomecz:L087
0.03170600 Croatia_Mursa_Roman.SG:R3657.SG__AD_282__Cov_44.65%
0.03268665 Serbia_Roman_elite_1.SG:R9673.SG__AD_150__Cov_67.39%
0.03388802 Italy_Sicily_Himera_480BCE_NEurope.AG:I10943.AG__BC_480__Cov_58.83%
0.03610165 Ukraine_Mykolaiv_Antiquity_Greeks?_2_EIA:UKR153__BC_573__Cov_42.28%
0.03620578 Poland_Trzciniec_MBA:poz551_2__BC_1250__Cov_7.76%
0.03754714 Croatia_Mursa_Roman:OSIJ002__AD_283__Cov_60.09%
0.03931498 Italy_Sicily_Himera_480BCE_NEurope.AG:I10949.AG__BC_480__Cov_49.60%
0.04102101 Poland_Trzciniec_MBA:poz713__BC_1312__Cov_28.37%
0.04128370 Ukraine_Volyn_Lusatian_EIA:UKR168__BC_850__Cov_57.47%
Distance to: Poland_LIA_Maslomecz:PL066
0.02624164 Poland_Lublin_Gr贸dek_MigrationPeriod:GRK023__AD_323__Cov_81.36%
0.02991134 Serbia_Roman_AfricanPossible.TW:I32305.TW__AD_100__Cov_80.26%
0.03099191 Netherlands_South-Holland_Roman_IA:CGG107762__AD_100__Cov_40.17%
0.03315172 Poland_Maslomecz_Wielbark_IA.SG:PCA0103.SG__AD_194__Cov_74.66%
0.03352249 Norway_Central_Tr酶ndelag_EBA:CGG105601__AD_182__Cov_87.52%
0.03357125 Estonia_IA.SG:s19_V12_1.SG__BC_154__Cov_22.35%
0.03388145 Ukraine_Volyn_Lusatian_EIA:UKR168__BC_850__Cov_57.47%
0.03412414 Ukraine_Komar贸w_MBA:poz296_dr__BC_1531__Cov_29.07%
0.03454778 Poland_Trzciniec_MBA:poz551_2__BC_1250__Cov_7.76%
Distance to: Poland_LIA_Maslomecz:PL052
0.02759066 Denmark_Jutland_PreRoman_IA:CGG106486_CGG106491__BC_202__Cov_67.50%
0.02979833 Ukraine_Kharkiv_Scythian_SivDon_NomEl_3_EIA:UKR116__BC_645__Cov_46.54%
0.02987249 Poland_Lublin_Gr贸dek_MigrationPeriod:GRK023__AD_323__Cov_81.36%
0.03053905 Hungary_IA_LaTene_o3.AG:I25524.AG__BC_268__Cov_70.85%
0.03083091 Estonia_IA.SG:s19_X04_1.SG__BC_395__Cov_22.83%
0.03165306 Poland_Trzciniec_MBA:poz554__BC_1394__Cov_43.58%
Distance to: Poland_LIA_Maslomecz:PL067
0.02959635 Ukraine_Volyn_Lusatian_EIA:UKR168__BC_850__Cov_57.47%
0.02965264 Poland_Trzciniec_MBA:poz713__BC_1312__Cov_28.37%
0.03242659 Ukraine_Komar贸w_MBA:poz296_dr__BC_1531__Cov_29.07%
0.03337721 Croatia_Mursa_Roman:OSIJ002__AD_283__Cov_60.09%
0.03433789 Ukraine_Komar贸w_MBA:poz296__BC_1531__Cov_26.60%
0.03565059 Poland_Trzciniec_MBA:poz709__BC_1597__Cov_20.02%
0.03636569 Serbia_Roman_elite_1.SG:R9673.SG__AD_150__Cov_67.39%
0.03638296 Poland_EBA:I6579__BC_2205__Cov_94.32%
@ambron
ReplyDeleteWe'd need some isotopic results to figure out who was of local origin or at least born in the area. All of the samples you listed might be migrants.
David, I doubt it, since according to Gretzinger, the medieval population of Gr贸dek shared 80% common ancestors with the people living in the nearby area during the Bronze Age (tab. S39).
ReplyDelete@Rob
ReplyDeleteI'm in agreement with Jastorf being the source of other "East Germanic" groups (which are defined simply as being non-NW Germanic, not necessarily due to any shared innovations between them), in particular Przeworsk/Vandalic, but I'm unfamiliar of the connection with Jastorf and Oksywie, and it becomes trickier if Pomeranian is Scandinavian in origin (I'm not necessarily convinced on that point, though).
There might be some contact between Nordic groups and Pomeranian C., but I thought it’s generally seen as an Unfeldized post-Lusatian entity. Genetically a postCW - Danubian gradient
ReplyDeleteThat's what I am generally inclined to believe too, as it seems early for Germanic, but there's some people supportive of a Scandinavia->Pomeranian->Basternae chain of some sort.
ReplyDeleteI don't think there is much relevant aDNA available to be helpful, unfortunately.
The scenario is still kind of the same as far as as PGmc is concerned, however. If we assume Oksywie is (proto) Gothic:
1. It either originates from or receives a significant Jastorf-related impulse, responsible for its Germanic language (North Germany homeland)
2. Jastorf and Oksywie both originate from a separate, common source (plausibly but not necessarily a Zealand/Sweden homeland).
Option 2. seems to fit the aDNA a bit better, but also seems to result in proto-Germanic now dating to >600 BC, because it would need to precede Jastorf altogether.
A significant shift occurs in Poland after ~ 1300 BC, when the barrrow cultures of TCC end and the Urnfield tradition begins (early phase LUzatian, late phase Pomeranian) [? adoption or migration]
ReplyDeleteFrom 500 bc, the Pomeranian culture start emigrating toward southeast Poland, NW Ukraine
Then 'Germanic' groups move into the empty-ish lands in central- northern
Poland
'but I'm unfamiliar of the connection with Jastorf and Oksywie, ''
->''...in the first half of 3rd c. BC there is evidence for the first impact on eastern Pomorze and northern Wielkopolska ...not from the lower Odra Jastorf groups, .. but more distantly Jutland and present day border of Dermark & Germany'' (summarised from Past Socieites vol. 4)
There's a few other things to entangle too, such as Wielbark-like Stone Circles ending up in Finland (and the diversity of Finnish I1 suggesting an iron age arrival).
ReplyDeleteIt's more like Oksywie derives from Jastorf while Wielbark got additional Scandinavian influence, including Stone Circles
DeleteThe same issues arise. To say that the Jastorf layer's language persisted would be despite what would have been a significant shift in uniparental and autosomal ancestry. It's not impossible, but I'm not sure it's likely.
DeleteThe Pomeranian face urns come from Denmark but Pomeranian culture also had influence from far south. People who have seen pre-Wielbark samples are saying that they will mostly look the same as Wielbark. We will see if any Balto-Slavic outliers are found but inhumation burials from that time are few.
ReplyDeleteFor what it's worth, my model is that already by 600 bc, Germanic groups extend between North Germany and most of Scandinavia. The majority of attested (and all surviving) dialects derive from Jastorf. Vandalic derives from Jastorf, and its apparent linguistic outlier status is due to splintering East quite early. Northwest Germanic survives quite late, with most groups remaining in some amount of proximity. The West Germanic story is already sufficiently attested, but North Germanic arrives in the Scandinavian peninsula fairly late.
ReplyDeletePrior to N Germanic arriving there, some of the peninsular Germanic groups migrated to the continent, with the Goths being most well-attested of these groups. This explains their linguistic outlier status, and their genetic profile.
This seems to adequately synthesize the genetic, linguistic, and historic data.
Turns out there’s more to what I initially suggested. The 1300 bc shift looks like TCC folk adopting cremation, but still in barrows.
ReplyDeletePomeranian phase from 900bc is different; associated with Urnfield cemeteries & distinctive Cloche style, barrows abandoned.
PmC then expands south c 500 bc, at the same time as Jastorf expands.
Clearly some parallels there
Overall I agree with Kyu but rozbojnik & Ethan could be right
The Welzin/ Tollensee group which probably represents some Urnfield-era group south of the Nordic zone, probably NE Germany; their core can be modelled as ~ 60% CWC; 30% LN; 10% (W)HG.
ReplyDeleteNeither G25 nor qpAdm can exclude GAC against Baden for the LN component (imo).
Eitherway, this probably represents a succesful network in the Urnfield phenomenon, as it is found in Germany, Hungary and as far as forest-steppe Ukraine 'western Scythians'.
So might also be in EIA Poland ?
33% BMAC ancestry in NW Xinjiang 2300bce...and admixture for this sample is 3000-2800bce...so BMAC migrants went via IAMC up to the altai as early as EBA (3000bce) also evidenced by presence of BMAC ancestry at Chemurchek Culture.
ReplyDeleteFrom the new paper:
"BMAC-related ancestry in Bronze Age Northwestern Xinjiang
Among Bronze Age individuals, NRS_M9_4320 BP, is shifted towards BMAC populations
along principal component 3 (PC3), showing a pattern similar to that of
Chemurchek_southAltai in southern Altai mountains [14, 25] and Xinj_BA6_aBMAC (two
individuals from the Chemurchek Culture of Chananguole, Xinjiang [6]) (Fig. 2b), both of
whom are enriched in BMAC-related ancestry. The outgroup f3 (Mbuti; test population,
NRS_M9_4320 BP) indicates the genetic affinity with earlier individuals from the Narensu
site, such as NRS_M5_4925 BP and NRS_M2_4727BP (Additional file 1: Fig S9d). This
pattern suggests genetic continuity at the site during this time period. Based on the results of
the PCA and f-statistics, we applied qpAdm to perform a two-way admixture modeling test, in
which NRS_M9_4320BP was modeled as a mixture of NRS_M2_4727BP (~67%) and
Gonur1_BA (~33%) (Additional file 2: Table S5A-C). The admixture time between ANE and
BMAC ancestry is estimated to be about 4783-5003 BP (Fig. 3c; Additional file 2: Table S5D),
aligns with that of Chemurchek_southAltai [14] and Xinj_BA6_aBMAC [6].
Afanasievo/Yamnaya ancestry and BMAC ancestry appear to have arrived in northwestern
Xinjiang simultaneously (Fig. 3c). Our findings represent the first observation of
BMAC-related ancestry in the closest proximity to the IAMC in Xinjiang, which implies that
the BMAC populations might have migrated towards Xinjiang as early as in EBA period, which
was likely through IAMC given their geographic proximity. Such BMAC ancestry, also spread
further north up to the Altai Mountains, contributed to the genomic formation of Chemurchek
[14]."
https://x.com/Sulkalmakh/status/2014344733011718187?s=20
ReplyDeleteFacial reconstruction of a 5,000-year-old Yamnaya man from Samara
This individual belonged to the Yamnaya culture and carried an atypical Y-DNA lineage. Unlike the majority of Yamnaya males, who are associated with R1b-M269 > Z2103, he belonged to R1b-P297 > Y13200. Related Y-DNA lineages have previously been identified at Ekaterinovskiy Mys, a population largely of EHG ancestry. His mtDNA belonged to haplogroup T2a1b (Khokhlov et al., 2024).
An interesting model for Geoksyur
ReplyDeleteWhat is the linguistic affiliation of Caucasus eneolithic. Do you think Burushaski ancestors came via this ancestry?
— Right Populations —
Mbuti.DG
Papuan.DG
China_Xinjiang_Xiaohe_BA.AG
Armenia_MasisBlur_N.AG
Iran_Wezmeh_N.SG
Georgia_Kotias_UP.SG
Turkey_Marmara_Barcin_N.AG
Jordan_PPNB.AG
Georgia_Kotias_Mesolithic.SG
— Target Population —
Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyr.AG
— Model —
P-Value : 0.42876
Fit Quality: ✓ Good
— Weights, Standard Errors, and Z-Scores —
# A tibble: 3 × 4
Source Weight SE Z
Iran_Isfahan_GolAfshanTepe_Bakun_C.TW 62.80% 3.49% 17.99
Tajikistan_Mesolithic.AG 18.15% 1.16% 15.63
Russia_Caucasus_Eneolithic_Unakozovskaya.AG 19.05% 3.48% 5.47
Model for sarazm
ReplyDeleteBetter p but higher SE
— Right Populations —
Mbuti.DG
Papuan.DG
China_Xinjiang_Xiaohe_BA.AG
Armenia_MasisBlur_N.AG
Iran_Wezmeh_N.SG
Georgia_Kotias_UP.SG
Turkey_Marmara_Barcin_N.AG
Jordan_PPNB.AG
Georgia_Kotias_Mesolithic.SG
— Target Population —
Tajikistan_C_Sarazm.AG4290
— Model —
P-Value : 0.27592
Fit Quality: ✓ Good
— Weights, Standard Errors, and Z-Scores —
# A tibble: 3 × 4
Source Weight SE Z
Iran_Isfahan_GolAfshanTepe_Bakun_C.TW 55.31% 6.69% 8.27
Tajikistan_Mesolithic.AG 32.07% 2.21% 14.52
Russia_Caucasus_Eneolithic_Unakozovskaya.AG 12.62% 6.51% 1.94
Namazga on the other hand models better as two way between Bakun and Tutkaul...Bakun is also under the R2 y haplo which contributed 55% of R2 in India...but since bakun lacks Tutkaul which is present in IVCp...it doesn't appear as a good source of Iranian farmer alone...so it came mixed with ANE from north or there was ANE + AASI pops in india...or may be multiple streams of Iranian farmer came...as we have other 45% R2 from an earlier split which was closer to GanjDareh samples...
ReplyDelete— Right Populations —
Mbuti.DG
Israel_Natufian.AG
China_Xinjiang_Xiaohe_BA.AG
Armenia_MasisBlur_N.AG.TW
Armenia_Aknashen_N.AG.TW
Iran_TepeAbdulHosein_N.SG
Turkey_Central_Pinarbasi_Epipaleolithic.AG
Turkey_Central_Boncuklu_PPN.AG
Papuan.DG
Georgia_Satsurblia_LateUP.SG
— Target Population —
Turkmenistan_C_Namazga.SG
— Model —
P-Value : 0.63361
Fit Quality: ✓ Good
— Weights, Standard Errors, and Z-Scores —
# A tibble: 2 × 4
Source Weight SE Z
Iran_Isfahan_GolAfshanTepe_Bakun_C.TW 88.85% 1.76% 50.38
Tajikistan_Mesolithic.AG 11.15% 1.76% 6.32
IVCp medium aasi
Delete— Right Populations —
Mbuti.DG
Papuan.DG
China_Xinjiang_Xiaohe_BA.AG
Armenia_MasisBlur_N.AG
Tajikistan_C_Sarazm.AG
Iran_Wezmeh_N.SG
Georgia_Kotias_UP.SG
Turkey_Marmara_Barcin_N.AG
Jordan_PPNB.AG
Georgia_Kotias_Mesolithic.SG
— Target Population —
IVC_Medium
— Model —
P-Value : 0.26274
Fit Quality: ✓ Good
— Weights, Standard Errors, and Z-Scores —
# A tibble: 3 × 4
Source Weight SE Z
Iran_Isfahan_GolAfshanTepe_Bakun_C.TW 53.55% 1.89% 28.35
Tajikistan_Mesolithic.AG 17.24% 1.44% 11.97
Onge.DG 29.21% 1.78% 16.39
@Ash
ReplyDeleteIs this the Jeitun culture? We need paleospecimens from the same period from the southern Caspian; perhaps they don't need a Caucasian source.
No idea as of now. But Geoksyur seems to need something other than the 2 sources...also this site is heavy on J1 haplo...6/9 and 1 each is Q1b, J2a2 and R2...I am also checking if L1a2-M357 specifically came from the Caucasus as nearly all ancient sample belonging to L are from that region...and two ancient samples of L1a2-M357 from this region (Turkmenistan and Helmand) show this increased Caucasus input...
DeleteModel for Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA1 (helmand)
— Right Populations
Mbuti.DG
Papuan.DG
China_Xinjiang_Xiaohe_BA.AG
Armenia_MasisBlur_N.AG
Iran_Wezmeh_N.SG
Georgia_Kotias_UP.SG
Turkey_Marmara_Barcin_N.AG
Jordan_PPNB.AG
Georgia_Kotias_Mesolithic.SG
— Target Population
Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA1.AG
— Model
P-Value : 0.29102
Fit Quality: ✓ Good
— Weights, Standard Errors, and Z-Scores
# A tibble: 4 × 4
Source Weight SE Z
Iran_Isfahan_GolAfshanTepe_Bakun_C.TW 65.60% 5.00% 13.13
Tajikistan_Mesolithic.AG 15.64% 1.36% 11.54
Russia_Caucasus_Eneolithic_Unakozovskaya.AG 15.66% 4.29% 3.65
Onge.DG 3.10% 1.76% 1.76
@shomu
DeleteIf you are asking about this Caucasus ancestry via Unakozovskaya proxy...it is closely associated with the Darkveti-Meshoko culture.
@ Dave
ReplyDelete''It'd be interesting to find out the isotopes for this individual ''
genetics can tell us where people come from better than isotopes. sorry, but i think 'mobility signatures' are almost voodoo
@ Ash
ReplyDeleteAlso, the Shah Tepe individuals, from northeast Iran, have recent CHG ancestry;
eg Shah Tepe 12, male, Y-hg J1, 3000 BC:
Iran_N 35%
CHG 45%
Barcin_N 20%
(no need for extra TTK or steppe ancestry)
They are part of the Kura Araxes j1-Z1828 lineage, whilst the Geoksur males are a distinctive J1 lineage, more broadly 'East Anatolian'.
But they both might have arrived as some sort of 'highland Caucasus-Anatolian' movement. Although the Shah Tepe site is not culturally KAx, the same key KAx folk also extended to northern Iran.
This is the 'west Asian' ancestry which arrived in Ch-BA Turan/ north Iran, but publications seem to have not noticed the CHG contribution and focused on 'Anatolian farmers'.
I am on the same point though not sure if the movement was direct or indirect via ShahTepe_BA/TepeHissar related...So we have movement from Caucasus and thereabouts into Central asia twice...1 in Eneolithic/chalcolithic and 1 in bronze age...Interesting linguistic implications...Wonder if these were Burushaski-Caucasian movements or some kassite-Hurrian like movement under the steppe model...
DeleteMy bet as of now is ShahTepe_BA like moved into Central asia and mixed with migrants from Helmand to form BMAC culture...there is a ShahTepe_BA like sample in Helmand itself...
And this Gol afshan sample is from the pre elamite era...on paper appears as a good source of Iranian farmers who mixed with ANE...they were replaced in Iran by pastrolists who laid foundation for proto elamite stage...
This is how this Gol afshan models
— Right Populations —
Mbuti.DG
Morocco_Iberomaurusian.AG
China_Xinjiang_Xiaohe_BA.AG
Taiwan_Hanben_IA.AG
Iran_TepeAbdulHosein_N.SG
Turkey_Central_Pinarbasi_Epipaleolithic.AG
Turkey_Central_Boncuklu_PPN.AG
Papuan.DG
Georgia_Kotias_Mesolithic.SG
— Target Population —
Iran_Isfahan_GolAfshanTepe_Bakun_C.TW
— Model —
P-Value : 0.45854
Fit Quality : ✔ Good
— Weights, Standard Errors, and Z-Scores —
# A tibble: 4 × 4
Source Weight SE Z
1 Iran_Wezmeh_N.SG 73.47% 4.58% 16.04
2 Georgia_Satsurblia_LateUP.SG 10.67% 3.99% 2.68
3 Turkey_Marmara_Barcin_N.DG 12.06% 2.48% 4.86
4 Onge.DG 3.79% 1.72% 2.20
whilst we’re on random topics, this is interesting
ReplyDeleteleft pops:
Finland_Levanluhta.AG3
Sweden_IA.SG
Russia_BolshoyOleniyOstrov_MBA.AG
0.450 0.550
0.131474
Finland_Levanluhta.AG3
Sweden_IA.SG
Russia_Minino_EIA.SG
0.341 0.659
0.00331504
There wasn't a 'late (post-1500bc) arrival of Finic/west Uralic to northeast Europe'. Another Game/ Set/ Match :)
@ Ash
ReplyDeleteThey were some distal models. I will have a look at some proximal models with Geographic predecessors in there.
@ Shomu
“J1 comes from Anatoly”,
How do you manage to come up with that summary based on my preceding comment ?
@Ash
ReplyDeleteFor these samples, Namazga, Goksur, etc., the following are excellent sources: Tepe Anau NEO310, Sarazm, and Tepe Hissar
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-V1180/tree
DeleteGol afshan falls in the right subclade. All ancient samples under this are south asian heavy with IVCp like samples in BMAC and samples in Swat from ancient period.
Bakun culture is 5400 to 4100 BC and perfectly aligns with Iranian and aasi admixture date of 5500-3500bce.
So this appear to be an excellent source as of now.
As for central asian population, Turkmenistan_En 4600 bce sample has good CHG and ANE with L1a2-M357...So Tutkaul like mix happened quite early instead of later admix with sarazm like people.
TepeAnua 3500bce R2 separated early while Geoksyur R2 is of the same type as Gol Afshan, Q1 at Geoksyur is probably via Tutkaul related pops...Source of J1 is still not pinpointed but they largely descend from 4800bce pops...
These new samples don't add much for Slavic ethnogenesis
ReplyDeleteSungir_medieval
Bulgaria_EIA 15.8
Estonia_Medieval.SG 3.6
Hungary_DanubeTisza_LSarmation_EHun 28.6
Latvia_BA 52.0
Poland_LIA_Maslomecz 0
Poland_Weklice_WielbarkCulture_Roman 0
Seems like Slavs formed as a mix between Baltic-like groups and something Carpathian-Balkan
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteI started using the term "Eastern European drift" instead of "Balto-Slavic drift" for several reasons:
1). It became very certain that chronologically it predates Balto-Slavs. Even if we assume that Estonia_BA population spoke a language that would eventually evolve into Proto-Balto-Slavic, the distinctively PBS language is not that old.
2). It became widespread among Uralic-speaking populations not through an assimilation of Balto-Slavs by Uralic speakers en masse, but through a genetic inheritance from populations like Estonia_BA, Latvia_BA, Lithuania_BA or populations similar to them.
3). It's much stronger in the Balts than in the Slavs. Among modern populations it supposedly peaks among Latvians, in particular Western Latvians, and gets weaker in all directions from there. Many Uralic-speaking populations have a stronger drift than many Slavic-speaking populations, and as I've mentioned in the previous point, they did not inherit it from Proto-Balto-Slavs.
4). It's by far the most major West-East differential in a European context on PCA-based tools. Remove it and what's left is mostly a North-South cline with some caveats. So may aswell give a more grand name to the major feature that breaks into a North-South binary.
The only potential flaw is that some numbskulls may object with something like "Latvia is not Eastern Europe". But if they can't comprehend the basics of genetics that's entirely their problem.
If you agree that I made good points, I suggest you to use the term "Eastern European drift".
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@CordedSlav
ReplyDeleteYou're making a similar mistake to Speidel and Skoglund.
That is, you're ignoring an obvious proximate Germanic admixture source, both in time and space, and cancelling it out with less proximate southern/western sources.
But when you do this, you must then offer a plausible explanation why early Slavs share significant IBD with Wielbark Goths and Iron Age Scandinavians. And you also have to explain Germanic uniparental markers in Slavic populations, including I1 lineages associated with Wielbark Goths.
@ Davidski
ReplyDeleteI am not aware of any 'pan-Slavic' haplogroup I1 clades, instead there are some locallly infused I1 lineages, such as in northern Serbia from local Goths rather than Wielbark itself.
I did not ignore proximate Germanic admixture, as its in the list. So Wielbark ancestry is either missing or there is an issue with you G25
Speidel etc claimed that Slavs have 'Scythian' ancestry because they mistook Hungarian/ central European ancestry in the latter as actualy Scythians. Had they used the more appropriate, geographic term, they might have made more sense. Certainly, some input from Romanian/ east hungarian Sarmatians in early Slavs is historically possible.
@Rob
ReplyDelete"Meh, only plebs still find AW relevant"
I hope that soon genetic scientists will learn to extract the entire DNA from any ancient sample and completely sequence it, so that, based on this completely sequenced DNA, they can reconstruct the appearance of this ancient person with 100% accuracy.
I also don't like all these fantasy reconstructions based on the skull and a couple of alleles of the genome responsible for hair color, eyes, and hair growth.
@CordedSlav
ReplyDeleteI meant that admixture models that don't use precise reference populations can easily cancel out certain types of admixture. So even if you're not actually ignoring something, then it might still not show up because of overfitting.
This happens often, with qpAdm as well, so it's important not to take the results too literally and also consider IBD, Y-DNA and mtDNA.
Also, your model assumes that Sungir_medieval is an accurate stand in for proto-Slavs. But this sample might be largely of eastern Baltic origin.
A connection between Chernyakhov and Slavs seems undeniable:
ReplyDeletehttps://discover.familytreedna.com/mtdna/K1a4a1b6a/tree
The real questions involve the details: time/place, whether there were other layers of Germanic and/or Daco-Thracian admixture etc.
East Germanic I1-Z63 lines are found in many parts of Poland today.
ReplyDeleteIt'd be interesting to know if they're also found in Ukraine and Russia.
As for Germanic mtDNA in Slavs, there was a paper about that a few years ago.
https://polishgenes.blogspot.com/2022/01/population-genetics-is-state-of-mind.html
It seems like Z63 is found throughout Russia, even as far east as Tatarstan.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.yfull.com/tree/I-Z63/
Almost all ancient Z63 connections come from Poland during the Roman period:
ReplyDeletehttps://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/I-Z63/ancient
@ambron
ReplyDeleteAll of those Roman period samples from Poland with Z63 have obvious Scandinavian ancestry.
But all medieval and modern Slavs Z63 are associated with Poland of the Roman period.
ReplyDeleteYes, obviously because Scandinavians with Z63 arrived in Poland and then their Wielbark culture descendants moved into Ukraine where they created the Chernyakhov culture.
ReplyDeleteSo Z63 mainly spread with Germanic speakers from Scandinavia to Poland and then also with Germanic speakers to Ukraine, Russia, the Balkans, Spain etc.
Some Z63 probably spread with early Slavs too, because of their Scandinavian Germanic admixture, but Z63 doesn't come from Poland and it's not originally a Slavic marker.
But it is a marker (one of many) of the continuity of the Polish population and Slavic migration from Poland.
ReplyDeleteNo, it's primarily a marker of the Gothic Germanic migration from Poland to Ukraine, and then from Ukraine to the Balkans and Iberia.
ReplyDeleteAnd a marker of return migration from Ukraine to Poland? David, look at this realistically, without allochthonous prejudices.
ReplyDeletehttps://x.com/i/status/2015726610507247711
ReplyDeleteFacial reconstruction of a 5,000-year-old Yamnaya man
The individual was buried beneath the central mound of a kurgan on the left bank of the Sok River, Samara. The excavation was conducted in 1992 under the direction of P. F. Kuznetsov and A. A. Khokhlov.
The man was approximately 40–50 years old at the time of death. The burial consisted of a skeleton placed in a contracted position on the back, with the skull oriented north-north-east. The hands were positioned over the lumbar-pelvic region. The entire skeleton was heavily covered with ochre. No grave goods were present.
"Almost all ancient Z63 connections come from Poland during the Roman period"
ReplyDeleteExcept the oldest one which is from iron age scandinavia. The fact that the rest are goths doesn't exactly help your case if you're trying to argue for continuity. I-Z63 is a quintessential east germanic lineage that became assimilated into Slavs.
@ Davidski
ReplyDelete''Also, your model assumes that Sungir_medieval is an accurate stand in for proto-Slavs. But this sample might be largely of eastern Baltic origin''
Sungir medieval isn't a Balt, they have 45% southern admixture and haplogrop I2a; absent in Balts & Finns. It's just a useful example of an early Slav from all the distant northeast periphery
A lot of the I1 in early Slavs (e.g. Velim, Croatia) tends to look more West Germanic than Gothic, but interestingly some of them fall on this branch of E-V13, alongside a particularly Southern-European looking Maslomecz sample:
ReplyDeletehttps://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/E-Z16659/tree
@ambron
ReplyDeleteYou actually sound crazy at this point.
The fact is that Z63 is an East Germanic marker that spread from Scandinavia into Poland and subsequently into Ukraine and Russia.
Most of the Z63 in Poland today is likely to be from the remnants of Goths who stayed in Poland while the others moved east.
Some of the Z63 in Poland is probably from other sources, including possibly early Slavs with paternal Gothic ancestry from the proto-Slavic homeland, wherever that may have been.
@Rob
ReplyDeleteSo are you going to keep pretending that you're a Corded Ware enjoyer from Slovakia? Not really sure what the point is, but whatever.
Anyway, going back to the topic at hand, it does seem that at least some Slavic populations may have absorbed Baltic ancestry after the proto-Slavic expansion.
That's what the data from early Medieval Poland suggests, which is something that you noticed as well.
So if it happened in Poland, the chances that it happened in Belarus and Russia are ever higher.
I think most of the present-day Slavs who are shifted east closer to Lithuanians probably have Baltic ancestry, and this is actually where Sungir_medieval clusters as well.
Sunghir (Vladimir oblast) is far outside the geographic core of Proto-Slavs. You're better off searching Proto-Slavic samples in Northern Ukraine and far-Eastern parts of Poland (like Lublin).
ReplyDeleteRussian_Vladimir,0.129826,0.1117035,0.0765892,0.0689544,0.0318902,0.0229778,0.0104533,0.0142661,-0.0031046,-0.0269711,0.0020502,-0.0093059,0.0181056,0.0092322,-0.0118993,-0.0023393,0.0018657,-0.0019463,-0.0010801,-0.0008986,-0.0039902,0.0018172,0.004274,-0.0037624,-0.0008933
Distance to: Russian_Vladimir
0.02879194 Estonian
0.02987799 Polish
0.03068001 Moksha
0.03529742 Erzya
@ Davidski
ReplyDeleteIm not a corded Ware enjoyer from Slovakia, but made pretty much the same comment because its self-evident to anyone with half a brain, but removed it because I wanted to elaborate further at a later time. Maybe you're losing the plot, if you're seeing things and think Sunhir-6 is a ''Balt''.
''Anyway, going back to the topic at hand, it does seem that at least some Slavic populations may have absorbed Baltic ancestry after the proto-Slavic expansion.That's what the data from early Medieval Poland suggests, which is something that you noticed as well. So if it happened in Poland, the chances that it happened in Belarus and Russia are ever higher''
No shit, central-northern Russians are basically 'Slavicised Balts & Finns'.
@ Radiosource
''Sunghir (Vladimir oblast) is far outside the geographic core of Proto-Slavs. You're better off searching Proto-Slavic samples in Northern Ukraine and far-Eastern parts of Poland (like Lublin).''
Not even Russians think Slavs come from Russia.
However this sample is actually a good litmus test for an 'early Slavic migrant' precisely becuase he is from the extreme/ periphery of the Slavic oikumene.
So even if this individual has an additional layer of Baltic ancestry (over that which exists proto-Slavic), why would it obscure, confound or distort the southern ancestry ?
Moreover, given that I2a-CTS10228 is a key proto-Slavic lineage, its absence in the Wielbark culture is interesting, it more looks like some quasi-Dacian lineage
And as Ive pointed out before, it is actually Balts who have Gothic ancestry (look at the syncretic Oltzyn culture and mytho-historical 'Vidivarii") not proto-Slavs.
ReplyDeleteWhatever Germanic ancestry Poles & Czechs have is probably more from medieval and modern Eras than from Goths, Gepids and Vandals.
The samples PL052 and PL087 interest me the most, I have a strong reason to suspect that these samples are either proto-Slavs or have a proto-Slavic profile.
ReplyDelete1. The samples have paleo-Balkan admixture when compared against IA Balts, a strong indicator of Slavic ancestry.
2. The male proto-Slavic(?) sample (PL052) belongs to a clade of R-Z280 that is undeniably Slavic; all contemporary descendants with the same clade are Eastern Europeans. Another sample, which is likely an admixed descendant of proto-Slavs (PL066), has a sibling clade.
3. The samples plot with modern Lithuanians (specifically Western and Southern Auk拧taitija, who are the most Slavic Lithuanians), which would be expected of proto-Slavs, given they would be intermediate between Balts and medieval/contemporary Slavs.
4. The Goth site in question is extremely close to the proto-Slavic homeland, only a couple of miles away from the Milograd culture.
“ Distance to:___”
ReplyDeleteIs a bullshit test
@Rob
ReplyDeleteWell, Z63 is found throughout Poland and it's unlikely to be from German settlers.
then Z63 could represent residual 'Goths' assimilated >in Poland< by expanding proto-Slavs . But it doesn't seemed to have permeated with proto-Slavs as a whole. Next question is where and how did proto-Slavs emerge
ReplyDeleteDavid, you yourself proposed Z63, present in all Slavs, as a marker of Goth-Slavic mixing. And the Goths mixed with Slavs in Poland, as medieval Poles share over 70% of their common ancestors with the Goths and about 80% with the population of Poland during the Bronze Age. And since all medieval Slavs share common ancestrors with medieval Poles, I wrote that Z63 is a marker (one of many) of the continuity of the Polish population and the migration of Slavs from Poland.
ReplyDeleteThe theory that Proto-Slavs were a bunch of lost and confused Balts who received extra Balkan admixture would be worth considering if Slavs (outside Russia and Belarus for obvious reasons) had large proportions of haplogroup N
ReplyDeleteCan't derive from Balts without deriving their N haplo
Right now it's just a trash theory that mistakes a PCA position for a genuine admixture event
With the same logic you can argue that the English are just some lost Irish tribe who received some extra Sardinian admixture (it fits their PCA position). Paddies with one extra step
They share a northeastern European component that can be modeled as Baltic, due to a lack of samples from early proto-Slavs (such as Milograd or Zarubintsy), as well as a high similarity between the northeastern European component of Balts and Slavs. I'm not claiming that they're directly Baltic-derived, that would be nonsense.
DeleteIf you can provide an argument against it beyond "misinterpreting a PCA position" (which isn't the case, if it were, it would fail qpAdm, which it doesn't), I would be interested to hear it.
Also, Baltic Bronze Age people were entirely R1a.
There is the view that the proto-Slavic profile formed a few hundred BC, e.g. the DATES from Gretzinger. But its also possible that it formed in the century or so before they historically expanded.
ReplyDeleteTo me, the view that Slavs were in a relatively small refuge (whether Eastern Poland, Polesia, or wherever) for hundreds of years before expanding seems unlikely. So Im inclined to a form of wandering Slav scenario. But ancient humans weren't dumb, but did so on basis of risk: benefit analysis.
As for 'Y-hg N' in Balts, it looks focussed on northern East Baltic due to an arrival of from Finland or something. Probably assoc. with Estonian speakers. It doesn;t say anythign about ''SE Balts''.
Some linguists claim that the earliest Germanic loanwords in Slavic are of east Germanic origin. Makes sense to me but has anyone here looked into it? It would not have to mean that early Goths gave the Germanic ancestry to Proto-Slavs but could be some late Gepid group or mixed Gothic-Vandal group. Like Rob I believe that most Germanic ancestry in Poles is young west Germanic and from Ostsiedlung and onwards but maybe some of it is older
ReplyDeleteThe Z63 lineages in Poles aren't West Germanic. They're actually Gothic.
ReplyDeleteAlso, apparently, Gothic loanwords in Baltic languages were mediated via Slavic contacts.
@Davidski Yes I agree. I meant autosomal ancestry in Poles. Spawning from L1237 for instance I see many lines shared between Poles, Ukrainians, Swedes South Slavs, Italians. Clearly Gothic dispersal
ReplyDeleteSE Balts? That's like Belarus right?
ReplyDeleteN1c haplo is common in Belarus and proportionally increases towards the Lithuanian border, so safe to say those Balts on Belarus territory were full of N1c haplo before Slavs moved in from Northern Ukraine and diluted its frequency.
@rozb贸jnik
ReplyDeleteI think the levels of Germanic ancestry in Eastern Europe might be significantly underestimated, especially the Germanic admixture dating to the early Middle Ages.
It's likely that even Balts have non-trivial levels of Germanic autosomal ancestry, and they cluster east of Poles in intra-European PCA.
Surely you can easily check via ftDNA or YFull where Polish Z63 phylogenetically sit under.
ReplyDelete@ Radiosource
''N1c haplo is common in Belarus and proportionally increases towards the Lithuanian border, so safe to say those Balts on Belarus territory were full of N1c haplo before Slavs moved in from Northern Ukraine and diluted its frequency.''
much of that looks to be >Rus-related< arrival, under 'Fenoscandian' clades - see recent study
@Rob and David
ReplyDeleteHere's the two main Gothic I-Z63 branches:
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/I-L1237/tree
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/I-S10360/tree
Nothing overly impressive but maybe enough to posit a Slavic connection (although it's still unclear how, when, and where).
@Kurgantist
ReplyDeleteYeah, PL052 and PL087 look like proto-Slavs.
It'll be interesting to see if they're C14 dated. If they are, then almost certainly proto-Slavs were present in Poland during the Iron Age, before the main early Slavic expansion.
Then it's a question of working out how and why they ended up in the Gothic community, and if they're migrants from the east.
@Davidski
ReplyDeletePL052 is dated to 175-300 CE, with the median being 238 CE.
PL087 is dated to 280-300 CE, with the median 290 CE.
From the supplementary data of the study
Great, do we know their archeological contexts? That is, were they from elite burials or unusual burials?
ReplyDeleteI'm not too sure if the archaeological context is known or not, if it is then I haven't found any information regarding it.
ReplyDelete>Also, Baltic Bronze Age people were entirely R1a.
ReplyDeletePrecisely. Baltic_BA people are ancestors of both Balts and Slavs, but Balts are not ancestors of Slavs.
https://i.postimg.cc/hKLrhKZz/IMG-20260127-151909.jpg
When the paper is published we will know about archeological contexts and see if the Slavic outliers have unusual burials
ReplyDelete@Kurgantist & rozb贸jnik
ReplyDeleteWhat are the chances that PL052 and PL087 are the descendants of Balts with some Gothic admixture?
Where are we seeing the supplement if the Paper isn't yet out ?
ReplyDeleteFor a Balt with Gothic admixture to be a Slav, he would have to come from Belarus. If he comes from Poland, he is simply a Balt with Gothic admixture.
ReplyDeleteLast Tuesday I attended to a preliminary presentation by Peter-Andrew Schwarz and Claudia Gerling of their upcoming paper on the population history of Basel, Switzerland, from late antiquity to the EMA (4th-8th century). On the PCA, the samples are almost all over the place. I even spotted a Polish-like individual, but couldn't determine its date. The DNA analysis is being done by Gretzinger. He identified several clusters: one plotting with North Germany_IA, which dates to the EMA; one plotting with Ireland_EMA, which dates to late antiquity. (To me that's the biggest surprise of that project.) Furthermore there's a cluster plotting with France_IA (likely the Celtic locals), a cluster plotting with Italy_IA (the Romans), and a smaller cluster plotting with Anatolia_IA (the ubiquitous East Med admix of the Imperial Roman age.) They will start writing the paper this spring, but will probably publish it without the genetic data, because Gretzinger wants to publish the data first, with an own upcoming paper.
ReplyDeleteInteresting, however it is important to note that individuals plotting like Italy_IA can't be Romans, because that profile, already becoming Aegean/East med admixed during the late Iron Age, was disappeared by the 4th century, as can be seen in all the roman imperial samples from Italy.
DeleteThe individuals plotting with Italy_IA in 4th-8th century Switzerland are therefore likely: 1) local mixed with imperial Romans 2) Cisalpines 3) Other Transalpine people with a more Rhaetian-like profile, similar for example to FN2, an individual from Freiham in Bavaria, near Munich, dating to 300 AD.
The "Romans" are probably the other more southern cluster.
The Ireland_ema is not so surprising:among the Cornaux LIA samples there are already one or two plotting like Bretons. Some beaker-rich profiles also appear in other southern sites (Occitanie IA, Hungary la Tene...)and are possibly related to late la Tene movement within the Celtic world. I suspect that the region of origin of these Ireland_EMA-like individuals, rather than Ireland proper, may be the mouth of the Rhine and the Nordwestblock area. So this ancestry could have reached Switzerland moving along the Rhine.
From the study "Tracing the spread of Celtic languages using ancient genomics":
"We also in France an increase in ‘East North Sea’ ancestry going from 2800–2470 BP to 2470–2000 BP, corresponding to the Hallstatt and La T猫ne periods in France. This ancestry is Bell Beaker-related and found in high proportions throughout the Bronze and Iron Ages in the Netherlands. The increase in France thus indicates the arrival of more northern ancestry by the La T猫ne period."
"Indeed, we see a subtle shift after 2470 BP in France, in which the more northern East North Sea ancestry is present in higher proportions. This is consistent with previous studies showing the arrival of more Northern European ancestry into Central and Western Europe at this time"
馃槰Dr. Mariano Barbacid and team successfully develops a promising new triple-combination therapy that completely and permanently eliminates pancreatic tumors. With such a successful preclinical study, we hope for the best in the coming clinical|human trials.
ReplyDeletehttps://x.com/i/status/2016502528565706872
By the way, the H13a1a mtDNA lineage, which was common in the Eneolithic steppe cultures (including early Khvalynsk, Berezhnevka, and Yamnaya), is clearly of Caucasian origin and is most commonly found in NEC.
ReplyDeleteDraw your own conclusions.
https://x.com/i/status/1336143114067709954
Paper is out. No mention in the supplement about elites or status from what I could find.
ReplyDeleteNot all sites are Maslomecz, but are from eastern Poland.
The samples are also already on FTDNA: PL052 is from Grodek and is hitched to the same clade as a Baltic Barrow culture sample with a TMRCA of 159 BC.
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteAdvancing regulatory variant effect prediction with AlphaGenome
Deep learning models that predict functional genomic measurements from DNA sequences are powerful tools for deciphering the genetic regulatory code. Existing methods involve a trade-off between input sequence length and prediction resolution, limiting their scope and performance.
We present AlphaGenome, a unified DNA sequence model that takes as input 1 Mb of DNA sequence and predicts thousands of functional genomic tracks up to single-base-pair resolution across diverse modalities. These include gene expression, transcription initiation, chromatin accessibility, histone modifications, transcription factor binding, chromatin contact maps, splice site usage, as well as splice junction coordinates and strength.
Trained on human and mouse genomes, AlphaGenome matches or exceeds the strongest available external models in most evaluations of variant effect prediction. Its ability to simultaneously score variant effects across all modalities accurately recapitulates the mechanisms of clinically relevant variants near the TAL1 oncogene.
To facilitate broader use, we provide tools for making genome track and variant effect predictions directly from sequence
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-10014-0
@Davidski "What are the chances that PL052 and PL087 are the descendants of Balts with some Gothic admixture?"
ReplyDeleteIf they were then would they really have significantly more Balkan ancestry than the iron age Balts? If Kurgantist is right about that. Maybe they were Balts that have acquired that Balkan admixture in situ from within Wielbark grounds....but I doubt
Here are the new Gothic samples from Mas艂om臋cz according to The Migration Era Calculator...
ReplyDeletehttps://www.imghippo.com/i/aAVX5314SMQ.png
The direction is pretty clearly Steppe Eneolithic->Kura-Araxes, not the other way around https://discover.familytreedna.com/mtdna/H13/tree
ReplyDelete@Karl
ReplyDeleteWhat are you getting for these Grodek samples with the Migration Era Calculator?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IcEwVEvymiABXMvnV75Qs5oo6m8oeExK/view?usp=sharing
/offtopic
ReplyDeleteI hope we do get a new calculator after all. There's an Englishman who gets "Norwegian" as his closest population on G25 and a Spaniard who gets "Italian_Aosta_Valley" as his closest and while this can be explained by the relatively close genetic distances between NW Europeans, as well as the similar Steppe/ANF ratio between Iberians and far-Northern Italians near the Alps, we can do better and more refined/fine-tuned than that.
Whether it would be an additional calculator that would be used simultaneously with G25 or a full-blown replacement is irrelevant in my opinion. Both options are fine.
I don’t see any carbon dating for the samples in this study.
ReplyDeletePL072 is positioned at the periphery of the site cemetery. It could be of a later period
Shame they didn’t create a better supplement
@EthanR
ReplyDeleteExcellent, you just proved it's a Caucasian branch, because right at the H13c level there are two Mesolithic hunters from the Kotias cave, so that's CHG.
https://discover.familytreedna.com/mtdna/H13c/tree
David, MOBEST indicates local ancestral origin for individual PL087 and Lithuanian for individual PL052.
ReplyDeleteIn general, no individual has Eastern ancestry according to MOBEST.
MOBEST must be really shit then, because both of these samples obviously have "Eastern" ancestry in the sense that they have Balto-Slavic-related origins.
ReplyDeleteOnly the purely Scandinavian-like Goths can be said not to have any Eastern ancestry.
MOBEST is a good tool if you don't manipulate it like Gretzinger. What you call "eastern origin" is actually Baltic, or northern, origin.
ReplyDeleteSteppe Eneolithic has mesolithic caucasus ancestry. The clade of H13 that ends up in the the Northeast Caucasus and Kura-Araxes is from the Steppe.
ReplyDelete@ SimonW
ReplyDeleteI'd be interested in a closer look at the Baiuvarii. I know there's quite a few medieval Bavarians, but they need to sample Roman Period populations from the forts.
Some more Lusatians have been sampled from Poland and I will just say that things are not looking good for Mr. Ambron...
ReplyDeleteGRKO18 and GRK021 are part of the reference samples used for the Germanic cluster so I can't run the list with target coordinates through calculator the way it is.
ReplyDeleteI first decided to exclude GRK018 and GRK021 from the target list and then run the rest of the target coordinates through the official version of the calculator. Here are the results:
https://www.imghippo.com/i/zpL9490bps.png
I then decided to exclude GRK018 and GRK021 from the reference list and then run the entire target list through this revised version of the calculator. Here are the results:
https://www.imghippo.com/i/OQp7663aJQ.png
The Germanic cluster contains 65 Germanic samples, 63 without GRK018 and GRK021, and the calculator contains almost 300 reference samples altogether.
This is my current view on the genesis of Slavs i
ReplyDelete1) a core component of ''Baltic-BA", which were a mix of local Corded Ware and Narva rich para-Neolitihc groups. Trziniec_C belongs to the same meta-population, but it's not evident they survived beyond the LBA
2) modern Balts have 'extra EEF', as everyone has remarked. This seems to come from Wielbark, but they have a dash of somethign easwtern too. To me, it looks Sarmatian (e.g. R10830.SG F Lithuania_Marvele_Roman.SG as Latvia_BA 55% WIelbark 28% Sarmatian 7%)
3) the Moravian Slav comes out as 50 /50% Baltic / 'Thracian', as one example, although I am not sure how representative he is of other early Slavs (still yet to merge the reecent data sets). I dont think there were any 'Goths' left in Poland when Slavs were arriving, with the possible exception of SE Poland. Whatever the case, the old Germanic society in Poland was gone by 410 AD, Slavs came in 600 AD, and in between was a chaotic period with small-scale societies under Hunnic rule (as we saw with the Boy Duo burial)
According to propper definition, neither Milograd, nor Zarubincy, nor even Kiev culture qualify as *proto-Slavic.
@Rob
ReplyDeleteSlavs share uniparental markers with Goths and other Germanic groups (I1-Z63, R1b-U106 etc). Balts not so much.
This makes sense, because Goths and other Germanic groups were present not only in Poland but also deep in Ukraine.
Also, according to linguists, Gothic loanwords in Baltic were mediated via contacts with Slavs.
I don't know if that's true, but it aligns with the uniparental marker data and the fact that most Slavs are significantly more "western" than Balts in terms of autosomal genetics.
It's true that there is a paucity of U106 & I1-derived lineages in ancient & modern Balts, so the impact of Gothic groups there might have been indirect, via 'returning sons' of Baltic mercenaries in Germanic armies. Speculative, but consistent with the archaeological record.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, pan-Slavic distributions of I1 and U106 sub-clades are not immediately obvious, instead they separately link in somewhat semi-distantly to Scandinavian founders, pointing to distinctive founder events into regional Slavic populations. For ex there is a prominent Balkan lineage - FGC22046- with an 'expansion time' of 1000 AD.
So what are the alternatives ? Clearly, the presence of I2a-CTS10228 differentiates Slavs from Balts, and this lineage probably mixed into a R1a-Z280-rich Baltic core somewhere near the eastern Carpathians. CTS10228 is absent in the relatively well-sampled Wielbark & Chernyakov cultures.
The flow of loanwords is affected by stochasticity and cultural choice. The degree of Gothic loanwords in Slavic is slight (well popularised exampled being xleb, which might be a supra-cultural culinary loan), there are just as many 'Turkic' loanwards (e.g. zhupan, bojar). Either way, several 'ethnic' groups lived within the Chernyakov culture, incl ' Getae, Sarmatians, etc'. And lets remember, so far the Chernyakov samples (although highly diverse) come out prominently 'Carpatho-Danubian', and even Greek ancestry is in there (Black Sea cities), although there are surely one or two individuals with Nordic ancestry.
EthanR
ReplyDeleteDo you mean these six new Lusatian samples, five of which fall within the Slavic range of genetic variation? The genetic West Slavs in the West Slavic lands of the Iron Age are probably the Proto-Slavs.
The (presumably) Polish Lusatians resemble Carpathian IA groups.
ReplyDeleteSo soon, thanks to projects like AlphaGenome, we will be able to completely recreate the appearance of ancient people from their DNA, in the smallest detail.
ReplyDeleteI could see much of the I1 in Poles coming from goths but R-U106? I think most R-U106 is from ostsiedlung and other German settlement so medieval. Only 3 R-U106 have been found in wielbark out of what 60 or more wielbark men? Unless you have ancient matches for the wielbark clades in Poles. I have not seen it
ReplyDelete@MrShomu_antiNatuf
ReplyDelete"So soon, thanks to projects like AlphaGenome, we will be able to completely recreate the appearance of ancient people from their DNA, in the smallest detail."
Is everyone supposed to take it for granted that the people who'll operate it will be competent, or that the algorithm itself won't be wonky? I'll believe it when I see it.
EthanR
ReplyDeleteThe Polish Lusatians certainly resemble the medieval inhabitants of Santok, Krak贸w and Ob艂aczkowo:
https://ibb.co/B5bBCXQ2
Zabojecka cave (~ 600 BC) with G25 derives largely from a Tumulus-culture like population with additional 30-40 % northern ancestry, probably from a Pomeranian group (lying on a Nordic-Baltic cline)
ReplyDelete@Ambron
ReplyDeleteNobody gives a shit where they coincidentally overlap with moderns on a PCA. They are significantly different than the early Medieval Slavs already sampled, let alone proto-Slavs. Neither can be derived from Polish Lusatians.
@Davidski @Rob @EthanR
ReplyDeleteWhat is currently the most plausible model for the inception of Daco-Thracians?
@rozb贸jnik
ReplyDelete'What is currently the most plausible model for the inception of Daco-Thracians?''
That's a hard one because Dacians & Getans are a 'moving target' (regular genetic & territorial shifts in Romania, similar to Poland), and the Bulgarian 'Thracians' might be non-representative Language Shifters
However overall, I am inclined to see a catalyst coming from a Srubnaja-KMK group (meaning, at least west of the Urals, Srubnaja wasn't just 'Indo-Iranian' as vanilla-tier historians claim)
Specific models for for Dacians, Getans get even more challenging, but this year we should we'll see somne interesting samples
@ Davidski
ReplyDeleteI need to check about I1 in Czech and Slovakia
@ Rob
you upset Jaaako https://genarchivist.net/showthread.php?tid=1281&page=28
@Rob
ReplyDeleteThank you. I believe one R-Z93 was found in Bulgarian 'Thracians'. Srubnaya sourced individual? I tried reading about the archaeology but find it confusing and the theories I see online are all over the place. Do you know if any ancient dna has been extracted from the valley of the Thracian kings in kazanlak valley? Tombs exquisite
I'm not sufficiently familiar with the cultural chain that occurred in bronze-age Romania, but I suspect that is what is responsible, so I guess that leads to either KMK or some Balkan Yamnaya group.
ReplyDeleteI used to think they came from Thracian Yamnaya groups, but after seeing the Thracian Hallstatt groups lack the "Anatolian ChL/BA") ancestry that Kapitan Andreevo has, I lean against that. Thrace looks more like a sink than a source:
https://i.gyazo.com/9f849e4d94f710598bc886c3bbea4c53.png
@EthanR "Thrace looks more like a sink than a source" Very interesting. Thank you
ReplyDeleteDaco-Thracians are most likely not from MCW/Babino, the succeeding Noua-Sabatinovka-Coslogeni complex did expand into the Balkans but was replaced by Channelled and Stamped Ware, deriving from several cremating cultures around the Eastern/Southern Carpathians ultimately tracing their origins from Gornea-Orlesti in Banat, who lead to historical Daco-Thracians
ReplyDeleteThe significant presence of E-V13 in Thracians also doesn't help the MCW claim
@ Kyu
ReplyDelete''Daco-Thracians are most likely not from MCW/Babino, the succeeding Noua-Sabatinovka-Coslogeni complex did expand into the Balkans but was replaced by Channelled and Stamped Ware, deriving from several cremating cultures around the Eastern/Southern Carpathians ultimately tracing their origins from Gornea-Orlesti in Banat, who lead to historical Daco-Thracians
The significant presence of E-V13 in Thracians also doesn't help the MCW claim'
I think you;ve spent too long reading the 1000s of pages on GeneArchiver :)
The E-V13 meta-continuity theory looks more like haplo-fantasy than a convincing model for Thracian & Dacian origins
@ rozbojnik / Ethan
ReplyDeleteI hope they do get samples from the Odrysian valley. The MLBA archaeology in Bulgaria is confusing, as there is no agreed framework of 'archaeological cultures', as if every author invented their own groupings.
Still, some overarching patterns exist, notably the relative discontinuity between the various EBA groups (Yamnaya, post-Cernavoda, Ezero, Yunatsite, etc) and groups which follow. Then there is an intrusion by Noua-Sabatinivka groups, although clearly there were some Srubnaja-derived individuals much earlier (~ 2200 BC, Merichleri). There are also some central European influences, but I think the 'Anatolainizing' influences fussed over by local archaeologists has been over-estimated.
To confuse matters more, there is some backfrlow from Thrace to Dacia in the late La Tene period, . And all those 'Getan' cultures out east are rather discontinuous, e.g. between the EIA 'Thracian Halstatt' in Moldova, then the ''actual Getae'' synchronous with the classic Scythian period, then the Basternae interregnum, then alleged ''Carpian culture''. Much of what is written on the internet & in formal (Romanian-inspired) archaeology is probably wrong and in serious need of updating
@ Corded
'https://genarchivist.net/showthread.php?tid=1281&page=28'
It would be frustrating if one has spent 15 years pretending to be an expert in Uralic linguistics, but all your theories are wrong & you're still rather clueless. Molly-coddling by his peers on GA won't help
EthanR
ReplyDeleteYou're wrong! As I've just shown, Polish Lusatians are most genetically similar to medieval Slavs from Poland. The earliest early medieval Slavs (Grodek tribal period) are most genetically similar to Polish Lusatians. If we see genetically identical people in Zb贸jecka IA and in neighboring Krak贸w MA, it's no coincidence.
@ambron
ReplyDeleteIt is a coincidence.
Polish Lusatians aren't ancestral to Medieval Poles or even closely related to them.
These two populations are just genetically similar and overlap in PCA space because they have similar levels of broadly related genetic components.
David
ReplyDeleteThis is no coincidence, as also in the f4 statistics and IBS-UMAP the Polish Lusatians are most closely related to the medieval Poles:
https://slawomirambroziak.pl/forum/index.php?topic=5931.msg118418#msg118418
Peter Nimitz: the story of the Slave
ReplyDeletehttps://www.razibkhan.com/p/peter-nimitz-the-story-of-the-slavs
The Polish Lusatians have like 15-40% Baltic BA-related ancestry, whereas the early Grodek Slavic samples average 50% and the later Grodek Slavic samples closer to 60% (admittedly with some legitimate Baltic speaking contribution).
ReplyDeleteThis "Slavs hid and cremated in the countryside of Poland and waited for the Goths to come and go" theory is non-viable.
Are Lusatians a linguistic dead end?
ReplyDeleteEthanR
ReplyDeleteThe Polish Lusatians and the early Slavs of Grodek are genetic West Slavs. The later population of Grodek reflects the well-known historical process of Slavicization of the Balts in Polish lands. The Goths were biritual, while the Slavs consistently cultivated cremation. The Goths were a foreign migratory population, as confirmed by genetic studies (Stolarek, Gretzinger, Golubi艅ski). The local population of Poland was genetically Balto-Slavic, as evidenced by the Balto-Slavic genetic elements among the Goths, which increased over the time the Goths stayed in Polish lands. The Goths did not disappear, as medieval Poles share over 70% of their common ancestry (Gretzinger, table S39). After the decline of Gothic culture, the Slavs continued to cultivate cremation for another 500 years.
Can coords be made for this individual? Coords exist for the separate files already but this has higher coverage.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.mediafire.com/file/luc3fe7ihqxf713/I20762_I20784_merged.zip/file
I'm looking forward to looking a little closer at these samples when I get some time. Hopefully 2026 will be fruitful for our hobby.
ReplyDeleteAnd an off-topic shoutout to my friend Leonidas, who just published a fantastic paper in Nature on uniparental variation in Deep Mani, my ancestral homeland and one of the most famously remote areas of Greece.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-026-09597-9
I'm one of the subjects of the study and belong to subclade J-FTF91808, which is a child lineage of J-FTE86410, which is one of the J-L930 lineages spoken of in the study as localized to southwestern Mani. It's great to live in an era where personal interests can also be of scientific interest to the wider community.
I really need to finish those blog posts I've been planning.
ReplyDeleteTo that end, I have two questions:
What are all the recent papers/datasets with ancient samples from the PC steppe and Caucasus? I pretty much know what they are, but I just want to make sure I don't miss anything.
Which papers/datasets are the Polish Lusatian samples from?
@ norfern
ReplyDeleteBtw Minino IA was interesting:
3- way mix of Yakutia LN + WSHG + Baltic BA
No Andronovo/ Sintashta required.
So there is no “universal western source in Uralic speakers”, given that Baltic BA & Andronovo are quite divergent (99% of people understand this).
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteThere's a recent article about the Alans from Chechnya, but I haven't actually come across the article itself, I only saw a screenshot of a table of samples.
https://x.com/chokhhg/status/2018755299532755012?s=20
@Norfern
ReplyDeleteUnknown:I20766_I20784,0.129758,0.11577,0.044877,0.075582,0.003385,0.024263,0.004935,0.013846,-0.004704,-0.02934,-0.003897,0.001199,-0.00446,-0.023121,0.002036,0.017237,0.014212,-0.00114,-0.004651,0.016258,0.004866,0.000618,-0.002095,0.00012,-0.003592
Unknown:I20766_I20784,0.0114,0.0114,0.0119,0.0234,0.0011,0.0087,0.0021,0.006,-0.0023,-0.0161,-0.0024,0.0008,-0.003,-0.0168,0.0015,0.013,0.0109,-0.0009,-0.0037,0.013,0.0039,0.0005,-0.0017,0.0001,-0.003
Davidski, these Polish Lusatian samples come from not yet published "Reconstruction of the lifeways of Central European Late Bronze Age communities using ancient DNA, isotope and osteoarchaeological analyses" by Max Planck Institute.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB98508
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteThanks!
@Rob
What is your right list?
@ Norf
ReplyDeleteI will post the full outputs and variations when I get home in few days
@ Davidski
The 'Lusatian' sample I looked at was Zbojecka_cave_776-634. I think its from recent Gretzinger study, although from a cave burial
The presumptive Polish Lusatian samples are from the paper mentioned above, as well as PC2001 from the Gretzinger Slavs paper (more of a time and place thing than an actual cultural assignment).
ReplyDeleteThe most relevant new Steppe papers are the Ghalichi 2024 paper and the Lazaridis/Nikitin 2025 papers.
The Andreeva 2025 Scythian paper also contains a few interesting Don Yamnaya/Catacomb papers.
@Davidski
ReplyDelete"What are all the recent papers/datasets with ancient samples from the PC steppe and Caucasus?"
"A genomic history of the North Pontic Region from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age." - Nikitin
"The Genetic Origin of the Indo-Europeans" - Lazaridis
"The rise and transformation of Bronze Age pastoralists in the Caucasus" - Ghalichi
"North Pontic crossroads: Mobility in Ukraine from the Bronze Age to the early modern period" - Saag
"The genetic history of the Southern Caucasus from the Bronze Age to the Early Middle Ages: 5,000 years of genetic continuity despite high mobility" - Skourtanioti
"Human DNA from the oldest Eneolithic cemetery in Nalchik points the spread of farming from the Caucasus to the Eastern European steppes" - Zhur, though the Ghalichi paper has this same individual and one other from Nalchik
I think that's all the big ones from the last year or so.
And "Genetic history of Scythia" by Andreeva
ReplyDelete@CordedSlav
ReplyDelete@Davidski
"I did not ignore proximate Germanic admixture, as its in the list. So Wielbark ancestry is either missing or there is an issue with you G25" (CordedSlav)
"I meant that admixture models that don't use precise reference populations can easily cancel out certain types of admixture. So even if you're not actually ignoring something, then it might still not show up because of overfitting.
This happens often, with qpAdm as well, so it's important not to take the results too literally and also consider IBD, Y-DNA and mtDNA." (Davidski)
Davidski's case is actually supported by Illustrative's new spin-off coords (G25 style). For example, a simple Latvian-Moldovan model isn't enough for Belarusians, a Northwestern admixture also appears needed.
Target: Belarusian
Distance: 0.5103% / 0.00510333
64.0 Latvian
29.0 Moldovan
7.0 Danish
Happens to basically all other Slavs too.
"Radiosource said...
ReplyDeleteAre Lusatians a linguistic dead end?"
Yeah, and so are the majority of European linguistic communities before the Iron Age. The Celtic, Germanic, Imperial Roman and Slavic linguistic expansions were massive and even though they varied in terms of actual population movements/migrations, they levelled the diversity of languages spoken in Bronze Age Europe (IE and undoubtedly also some non-IE).
@Golgian and Ethan
ReplyDeleteThanks!
@Michalis Moriopoulos
ReplyDeleteI looked at your haplotype, certainly in Greece at least from 660 CE, but if you look at the bottom of the FTDNA discovery tree, there are samples which demonstrates what I have been saying for so long, i.e. the independent migration about 4200 ybp to the Levant and to Europe, thus the TMRCA of the sample downstream J-FTE92142 to Egypt and Poland with a MRCA at 1018 BCE either are wrong, also for the huge CI, or have to be explained otherwise.
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/J-FTF91808/tree
@Michalis Moriopoulos
ReplyDeleteThat is also demonstrated by other upstream branches of your haplogroup: https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/J-PF7419/tree
Upstream is only in Europe: https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/J-PF5252/tree, but the oldest demonstrated origin is so far around the Caucasus.
Facial reconstruction of a 2,000-year-old, possibly Tocharian woman from Xinjiang, China
ReplyDeletehttps://x.com/i/status/2019718464856867222
How did these Greek authors (Leonidas et al) come to the conclusion that L930 represents 'Greek Brozne Age continuity' when the lineage is not attested in Bronze or Iron Age Greece, and the nearest ancient relative is from the Caucasus.
ReplyDeleteWith an 'expansion time of ~ 600 CE', they look like Byzantine imports during the impending collapse of their eastern territories
Mind you, these are the same clowns that claim Y-hg J2b2 is from Yamnaya & Repin, so.....
Just saw the paper on Slavs and oh what a waste.
ReplyDeleteThe Slavic clades point to Belarus, Southern Poland and Western Ukraine, and they go use Lithuanians, who number 3 millions, and don't even speak Slavic LOL.
And besides that the population of Croatia could've been with replaced with something nearly identical to modern Croatians.
Why ALWAYS use distant proxies? Near complete population replacement COULD HAPPEN and did happen. The same with Poland.
''"A genomic history of the North Pontic Region from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age." - Nikitin
ReplyDelete"The Genetic Origin of the Indo-Europeans" - Lazaridis
"The rise and transformation of Bronze Age pastoralists in the Caucasus" - Ghalichi
'
Just thinking back on these studies- they couldn't even make the basic & fundamental genetic disinction between Meshoko-Unakozovskaya & Majkop, or between Yamnaya & Majkop , yet they claimed to have unlocked the intricacies of PIE origins. LOL, please get real.
@Rob
ReplyDeleteIn fact, we may say that this Greek line was born around 660 AD, but the ancestor J-Y31951 lived as to the FTDNA discovery tree 2771 BCE, thus nobody could know, without intermediate samples, where he lived. From the general tree we may suppose that he lived around the Caucasus when two lines migrated independently to the Levant and to Europe. That this Greek line had origin from someone in the Byzantine Times is reasonable, but his origin could be everywhere.
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/J-L930/tree
The YHRD's Yfiler (17 markers) gets 2 haplotypes in Europe, it seems with no indication of the country, only with DYS458=17 instead of 16 and DYS456 one with 15 and the other with 14, certainly linked to this Greek haplotype. The presence in Arab countries lets me think to a Balkanian haplotype and to Janisseries because the Arab haplotypes are recent and introgressed and not descendants of the upstream haplotypes arrived through the first migration. Thus I opt for an origin from some place of the Byzantine Empire. The closest could be this sample unfortunately only with Y12:
ReplyDelete708439 J-L930 Family Finder
12 26 14 10 13-19 11 15 12 13 11 29
It is by chance that Kit 708439 is listed in the Bazzoni Y-DNA project, which focuses on paternal lineage research for the Bazzoni surname. The surname could be Bazzone from Sicily, but I don't understand why many people hides its own identity.
An important paper re: Anatolian:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.academia.edu/164481486/Bad_Hittite_Good_Hattian_Linguistic_Interference_in_the_Old_Hittite_Oracle_KBo_18_151
"How did these Greek authors (Leonidas et al) come to the conclusion that L930 represents 'Greek Brozne Age continuity' when the lineage is not attested in Bronze or Iron Age Greece, and the nearest ancient relative is from the Caucasus.
ReplyDeleteWith an 'expansion time of ~ 600 CE', they look like Byzantine imports during the impending collapse of their eastern territories"
I don't believe they mention Bronze Age continuity for J-L930. J-FTF87157, a different J2a branch, does descend from J-PF7413, which is so far the major paternal lineage in Bronze Age Greece. Even though J-L930 is unlikely to be a BA Greek marker, I'm not sure why a scenario of "Byzantine migrants" is necessary, it's obvious that at least since the Roman period a lot of Near Eastern lineages were present in Greece.
I understand that there's some nationalistic Balkan propaganda that attributes the East Med/Anatolian ancestry in Greece to some satanic Byzantine plot to corrupt the poor Balkan peasants through mass setlement but the ancient DNA research has basically thrown this theory in the trash, since we know that Iron Age Anatolian admixture had been widespread in southern Europe since the Imperial Roman period.
@ alex
ReplyDeleteIn fact European Jews, who descend from the Imperial Rome, are: "The ancestry and origin of the Askenazi Jewish have been subject to heated debate over the last two decades. Here we mapped our Ashkenazi Jewish as primarily Italian (ITA, 68%), followed by Levantine (LEV, 16.6%), Iraqi, Iranian, Caucasian & Turkish (ICT, 7.2%), Greek & Balkan (GBK, 2.4%) and Eastern European (EAE, 1.7%) (Fig. 3b). This largely agrees with several reports based on both modern and medieval Ashkenazi Jewish DNA" (Lerga-Jaso 2025, p. 5).
@ Alex
ReplyDelete''I don't believe they mention Bronze Age continuity for J-L930. J-FTF87157, a different J2a branch, does descend from J-PF7413, which is so far the major paternal lineage in Bronze Age Greece. Even though J-L930 is unlikely to be a BA Greek marker, I'm not sure why a scenario of "Byzantine migrants" is necessary, it's obvious that at least since the Roman period a lot of Near Eastern lineages were present in Greece.
understand that there's some nationalistic Balkan propaganda that attributes the East Med/Anatolian ancestry in Greece to some satanic Byzantine plot to corrupt the poor Balkan peasants through mass setlement but the ancient DNA research has basically thrown this theory in the trash, since we know that Iron Age Anatolian admixture had been widespread in souhern Europe since the Imperial Roman period.'''
I wont speculate further about L930 for now, but just because 'additional Near Eastern ancestry' was present in Greece & Thrace since the Iron Age (in fact since the 'Copper Age' in Peloppnessus), it doesn't negate the fact that there were also movements from the Near East toward Greece during the Byzantine Era, somethign which continued on until 1922.
Surely even a passing enthusiast is aware of the marked border shifts of the Byzantine Empire, and there is a corpus of literature written about population transfers by the Byzantines such as, funnily enough, The Transfer of Population as a Policy in the Byzantine Empire by Peter Charanis .
And absolutely, this was (at least in part) aimed at breaking down the Slavonic demographic hegemony across much of northern Greece, and quite literally included importating diverse ethnic groups nominally unified by a Greek idiom from the shrinking provinces as a counter. Contrary to your claims, aDNA does not counter any of this reality, but it'll be hard to delineate given its Aegean-Anaolian stuff on top of Aegean-Anatolian-rich substrate. if one wants to discuss propaganda - one can't go past the slop about 6,000 years of genetic continuity and ''mythical origins'. So be proud of your Aegean fisheman origins, but be aware that the original protoGreeks , historic groups like the Macedonians, and even much of the mainland Byzantine population were also 'Balkan'. The same Balkan 'peasants' even fed the 'noble' Greek refugees on numerous occasions and helped liberate your country.
@ Norfern
ReplyDeleteMinino IA : Estonia_BA 45% Yakutia 45% 10% WSHG
Bolshoi: Estonia_BA 10% Yakutia 43% EHG 47%
Levanlutha:
Levanlutha_IA : Sweden _IA ~ 60% BOO ~ 40%
Estonia_IA: Estonia_BA 88% Levanlutha 12%
Interesting that Estonia_BA moved so far east, might be that the so-called Netted ware pottery horizon was a west-> east migration instead of the other way around
some quick models which I'll eventually refine after I download the new Pyanbor data, etc https://we.tl/t-8hklrLQhcb
Atm, the suggestion that Saami spread across Finland during an 'archaeological invisible period' c 300 AD sounds dumb
@Rob
ReplyDelete"Interesting that Estonia_BA moved so far east"
Considering the lack of samples on vast geographical spaces between Estonia and Minino. We don't even know the precise location of the border between Baltic_BA (drifted) and Fatyanovo (driftless) pops.
@ radiosource
ReplyDeleteThere is no border to decipher. Fatyanovo culture was long gone by the time of Minino IA. Classic Fatyanovo ends c. 2200bc, their descendants (Subnaja, “Lugovskaja”) then left by 1200 bc;
although some might have survived in admixed form in Maklasheevka, Pyanbor etc
That’s because they moved incrementally south into the steppe & further into south Central Asia, essentially leaving the forest region empty for the arrival of new groups.
@Rob
ReplyDelete@Davidski
What do you make out of this downward spiral of driftless ancestry in a Westward direction?
https://i.postimg.cc/zq8wCBLs/Fat.jpg
@Rob @EthanR Do you think some linguists are right when they group Thracian with Baltic languages? Baltic adjacent. Or is this nonsense
ReplyDeleteI don't have linguistic expertise but having read almost everything major published in the past 10 years I know of no evidence to suggest a cladal relationship.
ReplyDeleteThere could be weird substrate/contact effects involving the "Balto-Slavic drift" found in the BA Carpathian region, or Slavs themselves having Daco-Thracian ancestry, but that is just speculative.
Illyrian and Thracian have a poor attestation, and the 'conservative' character of Baltic led many to proposed wide randing affinities. Agreee with Ethan, no evidence of direct affinity between Thracian & Baltic, but given I feel that proto-Daco-Thracian was catalysed by a post-Srubnaya group in the western steppe they might have some secondary contacts with Komarovo culture and perhaps even some inherited archaic inheritences due to the 'Indo-Slavic clade' .
ReplyDeleteAs an aside, as Ive said, Fatyanovo-Abashevo was not simply protoIndo-Iranian, but groups deriving from it contributed to Thracian and Armenian as well. They only became pr-Indo-Iranian once they ventured east of the Urals and began 'drifting' (culturally, lingusitically, etc). This is yet another nail in the coffin for the dumbo-Uralic theory proposed by kallio, Lang, Jappi H. and their doggy-bots (queerQueg Finn)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAbstract about Gepids
ReplyDeleteGenetic data for the Early Medieval population history of Transylvania (4-8th centuries) The genetic investigation of the population of the Carpathian Basin during the Migration Period has advanced considerably in recent years.
In our study within the framework of ERC Histogenes project, we process the whole genome data of 116 individuals from 7 different sites in Transylvania dated to the 4-8th centuries, including cemeteries from the Gepid and Avar periods and burials belonging to the Chernyakov-Marosszentanna culture. The samples analyzed hail from Sz谩szfenes (n=75), Marosszentanna (n=11), Torda (n=1), Magyarszentp谩l (n=1), Enyedszentkir谩ly (n=14), Marosnagylak (n=11) and Vadverem (n=3) settlements.
The sample from Torda was taken from a Gepid female princely burial. At Sz谩szfenes a burial of a richly adorned female was also discovered, buried with golden objects it represents one of the richest burials in all Europe, and this individual might have belonged to the highest level of Germanic aristocracy. In two cases, signs of artificial cranial deformation were detected in the site.
A complete genome sequence was obtained using the 1240k capture panel, with an average coverage of 498k SNPs/sample.
Based on genetic sex determination, there are 58 male and 58 female individuals in the dataset, corresponding with archaeological observations.
Successful mitochondrial haplogroup determination was achieved for 112 samples.
The mitochrondrial lineages were dominated by haplogroup H, T2, J1, K and U which are widespread in Europe in our days.
The Y-haplogroup determination was succesful for 50 individuals, the most common ones were E-V13 and I1a 12-12 samples belonged to each of them. Besides these, samples belonging to haplogroup G2a, I1b, I2a, J2a, J2b, R1a and R1b were also present.
So, I don't know who made this map (scroll down to the "The Migration Map" section; there's a chronological map). Well, he also draws the center—the beginning of the migration—in the northeastern Caucasus, on the shores of the Caspian Sea.
ReplyDeletehttps://indo-european-explorer.com/
I don't know why the author chose the northern steppes, because the density there was low, compared to the mountainous and foothill areas.
The author of this site probably reads my comments on eurogens 馃槒
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete“https://indo-european-explorer.com/
ReplyDeleteI don't know why the author chose the northern steppes, because the density there was low, compared to the mountainous and foothill areas.“
Why stop at the foothills?
PIE obviously came from inside the Dagestani mountains, like Tolkien’s dwarves
In all seriousness, this website or “tool” is a Midwit effort.
The linguistic phylogenetic tree they created is also uninspiring and adds nothing to our understanding of nuanced detail.
@Rob I don't know, I'm not interested in "linguistic reconstructions" or anything like that, I'm more interested in genetic mixing and migrations.
Delete@ Shomu
ReplyDelete“ I'm not interested in "linguistic reconstructions" or anything like that, I'm more interested in genetic mixing and migrations.”
Sure, although language trees correlate with migrations.
It presents a Tree with simplistic ‘cleans splits’.
I don’t see anything novel or analytical on that website about admixture either, and I disagree with the migration map (“an Ode to the Reich Lab”). All fine, intent is to introduce and entertain, but there’s no harm in trying to be more accurate surely.
The best thing about the about it is the web page tech design.
It’s currently doing the promotional rounds via the Social Media divas
An interesting example of possible “Balto-Slavic - Thracian similarities” is an ancient Paeonian town (in modern R. Macedonia) called Bylazora. Some linguists (eg Toynbee) proposed a Slavic etymology, especially for the root biel “white”, as in Belgrad/ Belgrod seen later throughout E Europe.
ReplyDeleteCould be something, could be a fluke.
-azora might be similar to Greek (or Phrygian) -agora
@Rob 馃I see
ReplyDeleteThe paper by Olande et al. 2026 demonstrates that the male presence in the Flanders/Holland area before 2800 BC, when we find the first R-L23-L51, is almost exclusively Paleolithic I2, but the mitochondrial K1e (that of 脰tzi) and U5b3, certainly born in Italy, demonstrate exchanges with Italy, and the origin of R-L51 came from hunter-gatherers present in the Baltic and not in Flanders/Holland. We know that R-L23-Z2103 was in Yamnaya, but its origin was also from Italy if it descends from the Villabruna.
ReplyDeleteOlalde, I., Altena, E., Bourgeois, Q. et al. Lasting Lower Rhine–Meuse forager ancestry shaped Bell Beaker expansion. Nature (2026). doi.org/10.1038/s41586-026-10111-8
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-026-10111-8#MOESM1
Re. the linguistic relatedness of Baltic and Thracian: perhaps needless to say, the chances of assessing this with any degree of certainty are unlikely to ever succeed. In particular, we lack anything approaching comparable corpora for the following branches of IE
ReplyDelete* Thracian (or Thraco-Dacian);
* West Baltic (not just Old Prussian, but also, among others the even more obscure Baltic-Pomeranian);
* Illyrian (which was likely in contact with Thracian, even if the two were not part of a discrete clade within IE);
* Phrygian (ditto) and:
* Paeonian (ditto).
So little is known about the extinct West Baltic languages collectively that (e.g.) it has even been hypothesised that Proto-West-Baltic could have been as different from Proto-East-Baltic as either was from Proto-Slavic.
In addition, it's virtually accepted as a consensus now that the surviving, modern Baltic languages are the most conservative branch of IE. Hence they _appear_ closer to the other branches than the passing of time and geographical distance would normally indicate. (So that there are even unique overlaps between e.g. Celtic and Baltic.) Any such an exaggerated impression of proximity would clearly also affect comparisons of Thracian and Baltic.
Oetzi K1f*, anyway K1e is only European.
ReplyDelete@Gio
ReplyDelete"We know that R-L23-Z2103 was in Yamnaya, but its origin was also from Italy if it descends from the Villabruna."
We know that it is impossible for R-L23 to descend from the Villabruna specimen because it is ancestral for R-P297 and R-P297 has an MRCA date of 13,000 BCE and the Villabruna specimen is from 12268-11851 calBCE. That means the that Villabruna is on a branch that diverged from R-P297. R-L23 is derived for all of the R-P297 SNPs. Villabruna does not prove anything about R-L23 except that they are on different branches that diverged at least 15000 BC. It's a waste of time to obsess over Villabruna R-L761xP297
@Gio There are no R-P297 specimens anywhere until MN2003 8634-8393 BC from Russia. There are no R-M269 specimens anywhere until NV3003 3776-3652 BC from Russia. These specimens do not descend from Villabruna which is negative for R-P297. Archaeologists and geneticists need to look for multiple R-M269 specimens from between 13000-4000 BC and R-P297 specimens from 15000-13000 BC and R-L389 specimens from 15000 BC and R-L761 specimens from 17000-15000 BC in order to understand the likely region they originated in and their path from their origin to Italy. Repeatedly mentioning a single specimen in Italy does nothing without looking at the totality of the empirical evidence and what is missing and why it is missing.
ReplyDeleteHas anyone attempted to get these samples?
ReplyDeleteBioProject: PRJCA029805 Study type: Ancients or Fossils
https://ngdc.cncb.ac.cn/gsa-human/browse/HRA008463
Tracing bronze to iron age population dynamics in Northwest Xinjiang using ancient time-series genomic data. - unedited early view
Xue Zhao, Daxuan Zhang, Bing Sun, Shasha Yang, Yimeng Qi, Wulan An, Chunxiang Li, Alipujiang Niyazi, Ke Wang & Yinqiu Cui
Results
We analyze DNA from ten individuals from the Narensu site in northwestern Xinjiang spanning the Chalcolithic to the Iron Age. Our findings reveal that the earliest inhabitants of northwestern Xinjiang were formed by a genetic admixture of Ancient North Eurasians and Altai hunter-gatherers around 6000 years ago. The simultaneous arrival of ancestry related to the Bactria Margiana Archaeological Complex from Central Asia and Afanasievo-related populations from the Steppe in the early Bronze Age was detected, thereby highlighting the important role of the Inner Asian Mountain Corridor as a migration route between southern Central Asia and Xinjiang. This may also have involved the formation of the Chemurchek population in Altai, northern Xinjiang bordering Russia. Eurasian steppe ancestry identified in Narensu has changed to the late Bronze Age Sintashta populations, and eastern Eurasian ancestry from Baikal turns prominent since the Iron Age.
@Rob @EthanR @Grant Very interesting. I need to read more about Daco-Thracians
ReplyDelete@Dospaises He has invented his own out of Italy theory
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete“ We know that it is impossible for R-L23 to descend from the Villabruna specimen because it is ancestral for R-P297 and R-P297 has an MRCA date of 13,000 BCE and the Villabruna specimen is from 12268-11851 calBCE”
ReplyDeleteI think that’s reading into SNP estimates too far. As I’ve said before, there’s no reason to believe that if we were to find a similarly age sample in eastern Europe it would be positive for P297.
We’ve encountered this kind of SNP- autism before from from a certain faction of amateur DNA extremists who make all sorts of nonsensical claims about haplogroup J2b
@Rob
ReplyDelete"I think that’s reading into SNP estimates too far. As I’ve said before, there’s no reason to believe that if we were to find a similarly age sample in eastern Europe it would be positive for P297."
There is no question that somewhere in the world people that lived around 12268-11851 calBCE was derived for R-P297 and it wasn't the Villabruna specimen. Not sure why this basic concept is thought of as out of this world. It's a very simple concept. Evidence of specimen that belong to other lineages are not proof that is where the lineage lived or produced the descendants of the ancestors of that lineage. Repeating statements doesn't make them true or more important. Just like Gio repeating his statements and you repeating your statements don't make them true. Following the data is what is needed and there is no data so far as to where the R-P297 derived people lived.
Naturally, I'd be delighted to know the full names of both Dospaises and Gaska: one seems Basque, or half-Basque, while the other would still appear to be Iberian. Gaska, however, isn't prejudiced against me. He says: until a specimen older than Villabruna is found in ancient DNA, the idea of an Italian (or at least Western European) refuge remains possible. Mine is, in fact, a theory, formulated when we only had a few STRs (and on these I continue to outdo the whole world: also read my latest letters on FTDNA, which no one deletes now). I await verification from David Caramelli's Harvard laboratory on the seven markers detected by electrophoresis on Leonardo da Vinci's Y-cell.
ReplyDeleteScientific theories are proven, or at least formulated pending verification, even through complex inferences:
1) Villabruna was not an isolated individual, but belonged to a group of related individuals, and his presence in the Alpine region dates back, in my opinion, to at least 3,000 years earlier due to the autosomal recessive lineage perfectly coinciding with Tagliente 2 and its relatives.
2) I-M223 was unique to Italy between 20,000 and 10,000 years ago, then expanded throughout Europe, as well as other HGS I species, as Rob also recalled: the Po Valley, the Adriatic, and the Balkans.
3) Not only is Villabruna present, but also two specimens from Iboussi猫res, also reported in this latest essay.
4) The R1b1 subclades, not present among the hunter-gatherers of Flanders and Holland, can be assumed with many arguments to have introgressed into the Baltic, where we also find the more ancient R-M73 and others.
@Rob
ReplyDelete"We’ve encountered this kind of SNP- autism before from from a certain faction of amateur DNA extremists who make all sorts of nonsensical claims about haplogroup J2b".
You know that I wrote a lot about this haplogroup, even in hundreds of useless letters with Hunter Provyn, the creator of the Phylogeographer and who didn't know anything of genetics and history above all, and I found other enemies when I said that it expanded from central or Baltic Europe. I think having demonstrated, also against the Illyrian nationalists, that the J2b of Alberto Stasi (Garlasco case, through 23 markers), from the father from Apulia, was in Italy at least for 5000 years, but perhaps also 7000 or 9000 being a descendant of the apical SNPs.
The only way that all 6 of the ancestral R-P297 calls that Villabruna has are irrelevant is if the date estimate by FTDNA is way to old and that all 6 of them are actually younger than Villabruna. That would mean that the formed date would have to be moved down from 15000 BC to about 12000 BC because the 6 SNPs with reads are statistically unlikely to all be the youngest so the whole block has to be moved down. Even yFull has the formed date to 13650 BC if 1950 used as present. So still not young enough.
ReplyDeleteAncient specimens can only prove the minimum date of the derived SNPs found in the specimens. They can't prove the formed date but if downstream SNPs such as M269 or M73 are found in specimens older than 13000 BC then it will prove the TMRCA of R-P297 is older than 13000 BC.
N=1 is too low for proof of the source of R-M269 and R-L23. More samples need to be found for proof of the regions of existence of those haplogroups and of upstream haplogroups. We don't fully know where everyone lived. There aren't enough specimens to make truly know. These are singletons that we have so far.
@Dospaises
ReplyDelete1-I see that you don't quite understand that the oldest R1b we have is in Italy and not in your beloved steppes. Keep searching until you find an older sample. To date, the R1b-L754 marker originates in mainland Europe, not Russia or Siberia.
2-Now I understand why you mention that paper. The Kurganists think that R1b-P312 originated in China????, or that this marker was present in the Afanasievo culture?. Please don't make me laugh. I don't know if anyone has checked that bam file, but we will do so soon.
R1b1a1a1a1a3-P312???-What the hell is this? What haplogroup caller is used by the authors?
I'm sure that they're wrong. It's absolutely impossible for P312 to have appeared in China in 3000 BC. I know that all of you who have nothing but steppe in your brains would love that and have been trying for 10 years to prove it by any means possible, but I'll bet you anything you like that the Chinese are wrong. I believe that sample is PH155, like other R1b samples in China and Central Asia (Xiaohe cemetery-Xinjiang, Beifang, Taklamakan, Shirenzigou and Dzharkutan-Uzbekistan)
@Gio-The important thing about Olalde's latest work is that the R1b-L51 sample found in the CWC has hardly any steppe ancestry, which of course once again complicates the supposed Indo-Europeanization of that region thanks to mass migrations of the Yamnaya culture or the CWC.
The evidence for Phrygian is decent and it's fairly clear it has close similarities with Greek. A Greco-Phrygian clade is generally accepted but has received less 'media attention' than Greco-Armenian. The latter is linguistically equivocal, and for some reason the low-IQ consortium keep claiming there is genetic evidence for it "because both come from Catacomb culture". Perhaps they think that just because proto-Greeks migrated through Greece c. 2200 BC, this automatically correlates with Catacomb culture. But neither Greek nor Armenian derive simply from Catacomb and their population histories are in fact quite different
ReplyDeleteThe “Thracians” from Bulgaria are genetically very Mycenean (~75%), and there is an expansion outward from the Balkans c. 900 BC with outposts as far as the Dnieper. Obviously, “Geto-Thracian propper” expanded from Bulgaria, but question is how did a group rich in E-V13 from the central-southern Balkans become indoeuropeanised in the first place, and how do we explain the fact that they have little directions with the preceding early bronze age groups of that region like Ezero, Yamnaya, etc
@Gaska
ReplyDelete"@Gio-The important thing about Olalde's latest work is that the R1b-L51 sample found in the CWC has hardly any steppe ancestry, which of course once again complicates the supposed Indo-Europeanization of that region thanks to mass migrations of the Yamnaya culture or the CWC."
I thank you for that. It is fundamental. Unfortunately the paper is under a paywall and I have no Academia account. I looked only at the supplements for free, but my conclusions were the same, also against me, because I derive from Yamnaya, but I don't think I am the ancestor of all Europeans. I find my closest relatives as to the Y in the Caucasus, the Levant and Middle East, in Asia, but certainly some branches did come early to Europe as mine.
@ Dospaises
ReplyDelete''There is no question that somewhere in the world people that lived around 12268-11851 calBCE was derived for R-P297 and it wasn't the Villabruna specimen. Not sure why this basic concept is thought of as out of this world. It's a very simple concept. Evidence of specimen that belong to other lineages are not proof that is where the lineage lived or produced the descendants of the ancestors of that lineage. Repeating statements doesn't make them true or more important. Just like Gio repeating his statements and you repeating your statements don't make them true. Following the data is what is needed and there is no data so far as to where the R-P297 derived people lived.'
The estimated time of formation of P297 is 12000-13000 BC. Given that Villabruna dates to this very period, it's a hard ask to find to find a P297+ individual at this time.
But that's beside the point, because I don't believe P297 evolved from the Villabruna individual. I also know that there is no equally aged individual from, say, southern Russia or Ukraine, because for some reason there are no burials to find although we know the aforementioned regions were certainly populated.
The next piece of the puzzle is the estimated TMRCA of P297, which is ~ 11000 BC. This corresponds to the onset of the Mesolithic, when north Russia and East Baltic regions were colonised by hunter-gatherers, and also when the classic EHG complex formed. It is from this point onward when we can expect to find P297, as the population expanded, grew, and differentiated
A map of the epigravettian complex c. 12000 BC might be of help.
@Gaska
ReplyDeleteYou like to disregard Y-DNA phylogeny. The negative results for 5 reliable P297 SNPs is very important. n=1 is not a substantial specimen count especially when the radiocarbon dating is too young and R-L761xP297 is not relevant to R-L23. Only specimens with pertinent dates and results are relevant.
I actually feel sorry for you Gaska. You have my empathy. I did not ask if anyone had access to the new Afanasievo specimens because of what you think. It has been proven by FTDNA that specimen is R-M207>M173>M343>BY14355>PH155>FTB336 two days before I mentioned it on this site. I don't even think that R-P310 originated in Afanasievo even though it was found there in two different specimens with substantial coverage. We do need more specimens to prove the region of the source of R-M269 and R-L23.
@Rob
ReplyDeleteNot sure where you get your dates. https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-P297/story The estimated time of formation of P297 is 15000 BC per FTDNA. The estimated TRMCA is 13000 BC. Villabruna dates to 12268-11851 calBC which is after P297 was fully formed. Even if the dates are off there are 6 ancestral phylogenetic equivalents that prove that Villabruna does not belong to the direct lineage of R-M269 or of R-M73. All of that data as a whole is important.
You have shown a map without specimens that goes as far back as 21k. Italy is only one part of that map. There is no proof one way or the other where R-P297 specimens are found 15k-13k. Specimens with DNA results only prove where specific SNPs are found, they don't prove where they are not found unless there is a substantial number of specimens that have ancestral reads in one region and derived reads in another region. We need more specimens. It's wise to wait until more specimens are published, if they can find some, before blanket statements such as R-M269 is from Villabruna R-L761xP297