PDA

View Full Version : Early Medieval Czech DNA (years 600-900 AD)



Tomenable
05-19-2017, 11:24 PM
From Eurogenes:

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/05/two-early-slavs-from-bohemia.html

"Two Bohemian Bell Beaker genomes from Allentoft et al. 2015 - RISE568 and RISE569 - are labeled as early Czech Slavs in the new Mathieson et al. 2017 preprint (see rows 148 and 149 in the spreadsheet here (http://biorxiv.org/highwire/filestream/40047/field_highwire_adjunct_files/1/135616-2.xlsx)).

Obviously these samples were initially wrongly dated to the Bronze Age and misidentified. They really date to 600-900 CE and 660-770 calCE, respectively. It's an unfortunate mistake, but also an interesting situation, because they've been analyzed in great detail in several papers and on this blog, and no one suspected that anything was wrong.

So the fact that these two Medieval Slavs from East Central Europe passed so convincingly for eastern Bell Beakers is a hint of very strong genetic continuity in the region since the Bronze Age. Indeed, they're very similar to present-day Czechs (...)

This is where RISE569, the higher coverage of the two genomes, clusters in my Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of West Eurasian populations:

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-AdFUYPgz2PI/WR6HBhQS-UI/AAAAAAAAFoA/U0RImDPLtC8iu8qBHd3BKFk1s3mxAWYEACLcB/s1600/Czech_early_Slav_RISE569.png

Unfortunately, both are females, so there's no Y-DNA data. But I suspect that if there was, we'd probably know something was wrong, because their Y-chromosome haplogroups may have turned out to be relatively young Slavic-specific subclades of R1a-M548 and/or R1a-Z280."

Brent.B
05-21-2017, 02:22 PM
If we assumed, hypothetically, that Slavs did in fact migrate from lands further to the east (Ukraine/Belarus), and that they expanded over/mixed with the native bell beaker related people living in Czech lands, then wouldn't we expect that the early Slavic samples from the Czech Republic to share similar PCA results with Bell Beaker samples?

Although... if early Slavic samples from the Czech Republic are showing similarities with Bell Beaker samples, then perhaps that means that the initial migration of people eastward (if thats how it happened), was limited compared to the entire population of the area they took over... that still would leave the possibility that M458/Z280 came from the east

Can't wait for more results with YDNA!

lgmayka
05-21-2017, 02:41 PM
If we assumed, hypothetically, that Slavs did in fact migrate from lands further to the east (Ukraine/Belarus), and that they expanded over/mixed with the native bell beaker related people living in Czech lands, then wouldn't we expect that the early Slavic samples from the Czech Republic to share similar PCA results with Bell Beaker samples?!
The usual claim from academia is that the 1st-millennium Slavic migration constituted a massive population replacement in the West Slavic countries, and that most of the R1a and I2a in those countries results from such replacement. According to Figure 2 of this research study (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v17/n6/full/ejhg2008249a.html), 75 Czech samples were found to be 41% R1a and 14% I2a. If one actually believes that half of Czechs' Y chromosomes originate in Ukraine/Belarus, such massive population replacement certainly ought to show up glaringly in the autosomal DNA--but it doesn't.

Brent.B
05-21-2017, 03:41 PM
The usual claim from academia is that the 1st-millennium Slavic migration constituted a massive population replacement in the West Slavic countries, and that most of the R1a and I2a in those countries results from such replacement. According to Figure 2 of this research study (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v17/n6/full/ejhg2008249a.html), 75 Czech samples were found to be 41% R1a and 14% I2a. If one actually believes that half of Czechs' Y chromosomes originate in Ukraine/Belarus, such massive population replacement certainly ought to show up glaringly in the autosomal DNA--but it doesn't.

Is it possible that R1a (or at least M458) and I2a was introduced by an elite group (and thus in small numbers) that managed to grow to a larger share of the population due to their social position? kind of like a founder effect?

And is this the first early Slavic autosomal DNA results available so far? are there others we can compare to?

George
05-21-2017, 05:18 PM
Is it possible that R1a (or at least M458) and I2a was introduced by an elite group (and thus in small numbers) that managed to grow to a larger share of the population due to their social position? kind of like a founder effect?

And is this the first early Slavic autosomal DNA results available so far? are there others we can compare to?

Genetics need to be coordinated with linguistics, history, and archaeology, (and don't forget common sense ;) lest it lead one to pleasant but erroneous conclusions. There was no TOTAL population replacement in Poland or Ukraine in the 5th and 6th cs. CE, but there was indeed massive change. Both history and archaeology concur here. However it is also true that substantial pockets of the older population esp. West of the Vistula, but also in Ukraine, remained, and were assimilated by the incomers. while at the same time contributing much of their material culture and genes to the emerging complex. The Dziedzitska culture of Poland for instance is proof enough. So this is an incontrovertible fact. An additional problem here is that in an earlier period there was a very substantial population movement eastward from Poland and East Germany (associated with the historical Bastarnian expansion) and these newcomers to Ukraine and Belarus also contributed much to the Zarubinian culture (for instance up to 50% or more of the ceramic forms of Zarubinia are of "Pomeranian" origin) which eventually morphed into early Slavdom. So in a sense (but only in a sense) the Slavic "return" westward in the 5th cs. ss. was partly a "reflux" phenomenon except linguistically. That's what makes everything so difficult. As is the fact that early Slavs practised cremation almost exclusively.

leonardo
05-21-2017, 06:06 PM
The usual claim from academia is that the 1st-millennium Slavic migration constituted a massive population replacement in the West Slavic countries, and that most of the R1a and I2a in those countries results from such replacement. According to Figure 2 of this research study (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v17/n6/full/ejhg2008249a.html), 75 Czech samples were found to be 41% R1a and 14% I2a. If one actually believes that half of Czechs' Y chromosomes originate in Ukraine/Belarus, such massive population replacement certainly ought to show up glaringly in the autosomal DNA--but it doesn't.



Is it possible that R1a (or at least M458) and I2a was introduced by an elite group (and thus in small numbers) that managed to grow to a larger share of the population due to their social position? kind of like a founder effect?

And is this the first early Slavic autosomal DNA results available so far? are there others we can compare to?

The only scenario that i can comprehend is one where the males were R1a and I2a dominant and the women were "indigenous" eastern Bell-Beaker types. Otherwise, it is hard to reconcile the patrilineage lines with the autosomal dna.

leonardo
05-21-2017, 06:11 PM
Genetics need to be coordinated with linguistics, history, and archaeology, (and don't forget common sense ;) lest it lead one to pleasant but erroneous conclusions. There was no TOTAL population replacement in Poland or Ukraine in the 5th and 6th cs. CE, but there was indeed massive change.

What is your understanding of "There was no TOTAL population replacement in Poland or Ukraine in the 5th and 6th cs. CE, but there was indeed massive change." How close was the "massive change" to a total population change? 50%?60%?70%? 80%? 90% or more?

lgmayka
05-21-2017, 06:32 PM
Is it possible that R1a (or at least M458) and I2a was introduced by an elite group (and thus in small numbers) that managed to grow to a larger share of the population due to their social position? kind of like a founder effect?
Some degree of elite dominance was almost ubiquitious in pre-modern society: The rich and powerful could ensure the survival to reproduction of their children, whereas the poor and oppressed had to take their chances.

In Y-haplotrees, I like to point to fan-out, the number of direct subclades and singletons a clade has. Take a look at these prolific patrilineage generators:
R-YP1337 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-YP1337/) in the M458 branch, TMRCA 1650 ybp, has 4 subclades and 7 singletons
R-L1029 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-L1029/) in the M458 branch, TMRCA 2100 ybp, has 9 subclades and 7 singletons
R-YP682 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-YP682/) in the Z280 branch, TMRCA 1750 ybp, has 5 subclades and 7 singletons
R-Y2902 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-Y2902/) in the Z280 branch, TMRCA 2500 ybp, has 8 subclades and 3 singletons
R-Y2915 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-Y2915/) in the Z280 branch, TMRCA 1950 ybp, has 1 subclade and 9 singletons
I-S17250 (https://yfull.com/tree/I-S17250/) in the CTS10228 branch, TMRCA 1850 ybp, has 4 subclades and 10 singletons
Most of the singletons in I-S17250 may actually belong to its subclade I-PH908 (https://yfull.com/tree/I-PH908/), TMRCA 1850 ybp, which has 2 subclades and 5 singletons of its own.

Of course, many other mostly-Slavic clades also expanded in this same timeframe, though not as rapidly.

The significant range in TMRCA may represent a distinction between the tribes on the "ground floor" of the expansion, as opposed to those which were incorporated into the community as it gained allies or subordinates.

George
05-21-2017, 08:24 PM
What is your understanding of "There was no TOTAL population replacement in Poland or Ukraine in the 5th and 6th cs. CE, but there was indeed massive change." How close was the "massive change" to a total population change? 50%?60%?70%? 80%? 90% or more?

My response was kept deliberately ambiguous, in that "change" referred to all factors (genetic, linguistic, cultural etc..) taken together. It's very hard to be as accurate as you would like, but my best guess is that change was greatest (with different patterns in various localities) at the linguistic and cultural levels, and certainly important though not as pervasive at the genetic level. I hope that further aDNA analysis as results roll in will provide more answers here.

Michał
05-21-2017, 09:18 PM
If one actually believes that half of Czechs' Y chromosomes originate in Ukraine/Belarus, such massive population replacement certainly ought to show up glaringly in the autosomal DNA--but it doesn't.
Well, as long as we don't have any results for the pre-Slavic (Germanic/Marcomanic) population from Bohemia (not to mention the Early Slavic population from Ukraine/Belarus), your above statement is certainly premature. This is best illustrated for Poland, where we already have an east-shifted Early Bronze Age sample from Poland (Gustorzyn), while there are rumors that the Iron Age samples do not resemble neither that Early Bronze Age sample nor the Piast period population.

Tomenable
05-22-2017, 02:20 PM
RISE569, Early Czech Slav (660-700 AD). Eurogenes K13:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Baltic 41.29
2 North_Atlantic 38.59
3 West_Med 16.76
4 West_Asian 3.36

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 East_German 10.43
2 South_Polish 10.59
3 Southwest_Finnish 10.64
4 Polish 10.66
5 North_Swedish 11.56
6 Ukrainian 12.01
7 Ukrainian_Lviv 12.35
8 Austrian 13.07
9 Estonian 13.82
10 Russian_Smolensk 13.97
11 Estonian_Polish 14.31
12 Hungarian 14.37
13 Belorussian 14.39
14 Croatian 14.39
15 Swedish 14.45
16 Finnish 14.84
17 Southwest_Russian 15.87
18 Ukrainian_Belgorod 16.25
19 North_German 16.36
20 Lithuanian 16.62

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 69.9% Lithuanian + 30.1% French_Basque @ 3.68
2 74.3% Estonian + 25.7% French_Basque @ 4.62
3 69.2% Estonian + 30.8% Southwest_French @ 5.77
4 80.8% Polish + 19.2% French_Basque @ 5.93
5 74.1% Belorussian + 25.9% French_Basque @ 5.99
6 64.6% Lithuanian + 35.4% Southwest_French @ 6.13
7 74.9% Russian_Smolensk + 25.1% French_Basque @ 6.2
8 56.4% Lithuanian + 43.6% Southwest_English @ 6.2
9 74.3% Estonian_Polish + 25.7% French_Basque @ 6.25
10 70.7% Estonian + 29.3% Spanish_Cantabria @ 6.29
11 73% Estonian + 27% Spanish_Aragon @ 6.51
12 70.1% Polish + 29.9% Southwest_English @ 6.52
13 66% Lithuanian + 34% Spanish_Cantabria @ 6.78
14 55% Lithuanian + 45% Southeast_English @ 6.79
15 61% Estonian_Polish + 39% Southwest_English @ 6.81
16 68.6% Polish + 31.4% Orcadian @ 6.82
17 72.4% Estonian + 27.6% Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha @ 6.85
18 68.5% Lithuanian + 31.5% Spanish_Aragon @ 6.85
19 70.8% Polish + 29.2% West_Scottish @ 6.86
20 69.7% Polish + 30.3% Irish @ 6.86

Tomenable
05-22-2017, 02:27 PM
It still has more of "Baltic" than of "North_Atlantic", so this sample doesn't really look Celtic.

I think that Davidski is wrong when claiming that it shows continuity since the Bronze Age.

Tomenable
05-22-2017, 02:34 PM
Here is the other individual (RISE568):

RISE568 Early Czech Slav (600-900 AD). Eurogenes K13:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Baltic 53.69
2 North_Atlantic 31.67
3 West_Med 11.82
4 East_Med 2.82

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Lithuanian 6.33
2 Belorussian 7.23
3 Estonian_Polish 7.33
4 Estonian 7.39
5 Russian_Smolensk 8.34
6 Polish 9.03
7 Southwest_Russian 10.88
8 Ukrainian 11.41
9 Finnish 11.51
10 Ukrainian_Belgorod 11.71
11 East_Finnish 12.13
12 South_Polish 12.26
13 Kargopol_Russian 12.32
14 Southwest_Finnish 13
15 Ukrainian_Lviv 13.17
16 Erzya 14.78
17 Croatian 18.6
18 La_Brana-1 19.4
19 North_Swedish 20.01
20 East_German 20.81

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 93.7% Lithuanian + 6.3% French_Basque @ 5.36
2 92.7% Lithuanian + 7.3% Southwest_French @ 5.46
3 95.2% Lithuanian + 4.8% Sardinian @ 5.53
4 93.8% Lithuanian + 6.2% Spanish_Aragon @ 5.58
5 93.3% Lithuanian + 6.7% Spanish_Cantabria @ 5.58
6 93.7% Lithuanian + 6.3% Spanish_Valencia @ 5.65
7 94% Lithuanian + 6% Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha @ 5.69
8 93.6% Lithuanian + 6.4% Spanish_Cataluna @ 5.7
9 93.8% Lithuanian + 6.2% Spanish_Castilla_Y_Leon @ 5.7
10 93.8% Lithuanian + 6.2% Spanish_Galicia @ 5.75
11 94.4% Lithuanian + 5.6% Spanish_Andalucia @ 5.75
12 94.2% Lithuanian + 5.8% Spanish_Murcia @ 5.75
13 94% Lithuanian + 6% Portuguese @ 5.78
14 94.4% Lithuanian + 5.6% Spanish_Extremadura @ 5.8
15 93.3% Lithuanian + 6.7% Southwest_English @ 5.87
16 93% Lithuanian + 7% Southeast_English @ 5.87
17 93.6% Lithuanian + 6.4% French @ 5.87
18 90% Lithuanian + 10% East_German @ 5.93
19 93.3% Lithuanian + 6.7% South_Dutch @ 5.94
20 93.4% Lithuanian + 6.6% Orcadian @ 5.95

Tomenable
05-22-2017, 02:37 PM
Now it is clear why Slavic expansion in the Balkans was "admixture from a Lithuanian-like source":

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(15)00949-5

Tomenable
05-22-2017, 03:03 PM
Rows 148 and 149: http://biorxiv.org/highwire/filestream/40047/field_highwire_adjunct_files/1/135616-2.xlsx

http://i.imgur.com/STnF3Zk.png

http://i.imgur.com/STnF3Zk.png

They are listed here as well: http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/medievaldna.shtml

Genomes are available for download here:

RISE569:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B4Ph8NJKscV6fmE2ZHgtNDE4QUZmYndWM3RxOU1kUU9TdUJ6Y kdNRXZuZWY2YURRQmtVcjQ

RISE568:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B4Ph8NJKscV6fnkwRzVhNzRVYU1TODFkYm9TTHFDUjNCTVhDc S03WllzVzdnWkZqY3Y5UUE

lgmayka
05-22-2017, 03:18 PM
Now it is clear why Slavic expansion in the Balkans was "admixture from a Lithuanian-like source":

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(15)00949-5
I still chuckle at this phrase in the paper:
---
a ‘‘Slavic’’ source (represented here by a cluster of Lithuanians...)
---

Brent.B
05-22-2017, 04:52 PM
It still has more of "Baltic" than of "North_Atlantic", so this sample doesn't really look Celtic.

I think that Davidski is wrong when claiming that it shows continuity since the Bronze Age.

I'm not very familiar with how PCA analysis works... but from my understanding these samples had been released in 2015 as part of a larger Bell Beaker set of data (by mistake). If these results are so different from Bell Beaker samples, then why didn't anybody point out sooner that they didn't "fit" in with the other samples?

As far as the amount of "North Atlantic" vs "Baltic", the are 38% to 41% repectivly. How does this compare to other Bell Beaker samples?

Tomenable
05-22-2017, 05:42 PM
Here is K36 nMonte for Early Czech Slavs (RISE568 & RISE569):

RISE569:

[1] "1. CLOSEST SINGLE ITEM DISTANCES"
German_East German_North Pl_north Czechs_Moravians
19.74568 20.28727 21.03218 21.60692
Holland South_Holland German_West PL_Wielkopolska
21.62752 22.06292 22.28825 22.51985

Population percent

Pl_north 48.70
South_Holland 21.15
Holland 19.60
GR_Thrace 7.55
PL_Sudovia 1.45
IT_Sardinia 0.55
Albania_South 0.55
Kosovo 0.30
IT_Aosta 0.10
Northern_Ireland 0.05

RISE568:

[1] "1. CLOSEST SINGLE ITEM DISTANCES"
PL_Sudovia PL_Mazovia PL_Podlasie_East_Mazovia
23.29403 25.00205 25.51190
PL_average Pl_north Belarusian_East
25.88990 25.96538 26.07690
Pl_Kashubians Russian_Smolensk
26.44736 26.55861

Population percent

PL_Sudovia 62.30
Pl_north 22.70
PL_Mazovia 9.15
Lithuanian 2.35
PL_average 1.95
PL_Podlasie_East_Mazovia 0.40
Russian_Smolensk 0.15
Ukrainian_East 0.15
Pl_Kashubians 0.15
Russian_Bryansk 0.10
Slovenian 0.05
Czechs_Moravians 0.05
Belarusian_West 0.05
Russian_Kursk 0.05
Russian_Oryol 0.05
Russian_Tambov 0.05
Russian_Voronezh 0.05
Carpathian_Rusyns 0.05
Ukrainian_Central 0.05
PL_South_Poland 0.05
PL_Upper_Silesia 0.05
Moksha 0.05

And here are their results in LukaszM's K36 Oracle:

RISE568 - https://www.sendspace.com/file/kmw1hi

RISE569 - https://www.sendspace.com/file/ddk3xe

Tomenable
05-22-2017, 06:18 PM
Their K36 admixture results are:

RISE569:

Amerindian 0
Arabian 0
Armenian 0
Basque 3.81
Central_African 0
Central_Euro 5.61
East_African 0
East_Asian 0
East_Balkan 12.1
East_Central_Asian 0
East_Central_Euro 17.69
East_Med 0
Eastern_Euro 6.8
Fennoscandian 1.04
French 3.41
Iberian 3.74
Indo-Chinese 0
Italian 6.7
Malayan 0
Near_Eastern 0
North_African 0
North_Atlantic 9.16
North_Caucasian 0
North_Sea 27.47
Northeast_African 0
Oceanian 0
Omotic 0
Pygmy 0
Siberian 0
South_Asian 0
South_Central_Asian 0
South_Chinese 0
Volga-Ural 0
West_African 0
West_Caucasian 0
West_Med 2.45

total: 99.98

RISE568:

Amerindian 0
Arabian 0
Armenian 0
Basque 0
Central_African 0
Central_Euro 24.42
East_African 0
East_Asian 0
East_Balkan 0
East_Central_Asian 0
East_Central_Euro 32.41
East_Med 0
Eastern_Euro 24.62
Fennoscandian 0
French 0
Iberian 2.11
Indo-Chinese 0
Italian 0
Malayan 0
Near_Eastern 0
North_African 0
North_Atlantic 0
North_Caucasian 0
North_Sea 16.41
Northeast_African 0
Oceanian 0
Omotic 0
Pygmy 0
Siberian 0
South_Asian 0
South_Central_Asian 0
South_Chinese 0
Volga-Ural 0
West_African 0
West_Caucasian 0
West_Med 0

total: 99.97

Tomenable
05-22-2017, 06:28 PM
As for RISE569:

With an older version of K36 spreadsheet (10.05.), nMonte also shows Celtic admixture:

[1] "1. CLOSEST SINGLE ITEM DISTANCES"
Germany_East Germany_North Pl_north German_Volga
19.74568 20.28727 21.03218 21.11258
Czechs_Moravians Holland Germany_West Denmark
21.60692 21.87546 22.28825 22.34325

Population percent

Scotland 43.90
Pl_north 29.35
PL_Sudovia 15.10
GR_Thrace 9.30
Holland 1.10
IT_Sardinia 0.55
Albania_South 0.45
Kosovo 0.15
GR_Central 0.10

But with the most recent version (last updated on 16.05.), Holland replaces Scotland.

Tomenable
05-22-2017, 06:30 PM
East Slavs are not showing up in nMonte. Why?

PL_Sudovia are samples from Suwałki, very Lithuanian/Belarusian-shifted.

Tomenable
05-22-2017, 06:55 PM
From the Comments section:

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/05/two-early-slavs-from-bohemia.html


Szkx said...
Here is a PCA based on Eurogenes K15 results with merged northeastern and northwestern components with my 28 Czech samples from GEDMatch plus some Slovaks and Rusyns. Not very scientific, but informative enough. Note RISE577, Czech sample from Unetice culture and RISE569, Czech Slav.
http://jpeg.cz/images/2017/05/19/NPeg5.png

RISE577 = Unetice culture Czech Rep.
RISE569 = Early Slavic Czech Rep.

http://i.imgur.com/xasWt29.png

http://i.imgur.com/xasWt29.png

wombatofthenorth
05-22-2017, 10:04 PM
I still chuckle at this phrase in the paper:
---
a ‘‘Slavic’’ source (represented here by a cluster of Lithuanians...)
---

Yeah just like the absurd way DNA.LAND names one of their categories "Northern Slavic" (what 23 and FTDNA call Eastern European) and it doesn't even peak in Slavic people but in Baltic people instead and they refuse to change the name and don't seem to understand the question even.

wombatofthenorth
05-22-2017, 10:06 PM
569 sure shows a lot of North Sea! Doesn't this seem almost more like some modern Czechs with lots of German mixed in?

Tomenable
05-23-2017, 08:18 AM
569 sure shows a lot of North Sea! Doesn't this seem almost more like some modern Czechs with lots of German mixed in?

RISE569 actually has more of "North Sea" in Eurogenes K36 calculator than any of modern populations. Also ancient RISE174 (Sweden 427-611 AD) and RISE276 (Denmark 794-547 BC) score less of "North Sea" than this 569.

No modern Czechs or Germans score that much of "North Sea" in K36. Just a few Scottish, Norwegian and Dutch people. But 1 out of 100 maybe.

Which explains why "Scotland" and "Holland" show up in nMonte.

Tomenable
05-23-2017, 08:31 AM
I still chuckle at this phrase in the paper:
---
a ‘‘Slavic’’ source (represented here by a cluster of Lithuanians...)
---

But nMonte prefers Poles from Suwałki over Lithuanians for RISE568. And Lithuanians are in the spreadhseet - yet nMonte did not choose them, but chose PL_Sudovia instead! So maybe Slavic admixture in the Balkans can be modelled as "a Slavic source represented here by a cluster of Poles from Suwałki"? :)

See:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10641-Early-Medieval-Czech-DNA-(years-600-900-AD)&p=237024&viewfull=1#post237024

Suwałki, Mazovia and PL_North show up. PL_North are Non-Kashubians from northern areas (including Northern Mazovia & areas more to the west).

Davidski is part of our Poland_North sample... :)

Tomenable
05-23-2017, 08:46 AM
Is RISE568 really a poor quality sample? I think it is decent:

Token File data:
Chr Token SNP Count
1 2979
2 3063
3 2390
4 2195
5 2029
6 2416
7 1843
8 1894
9 1602
10 1988
11 1968
12 1809
13 1410
14 1158
15 1095
16 1162
17 1009
18 1231
19 627
20 999
21 565
22 495
X 1057

Processed in batch 6896
Number of SNPs utilized by GEDmatch template = 36833
Warning: Kit will not be included in batch processing. It does not have enough SNPs.
Number of regular SNPs = 36984

It doesn't have enough SNPs for "One-to-many", but 37 K is not so bad. And it doesn't show any weird admixtures like Sub-Saharan etc. so it seems OK. I can add no-calls and upload it again, so it will be available for One-to-many.

==================

Where did ancestors of RISE568 live 15 K and 4,5 K years ago?:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10589-New-tool-Where-did-your-ancestors-live-15-000-or-4-500-years-ago&p=237332&viewfull=1#post237332

15,000 years ago:

Total Europe - 100%:
HG North & East - 98%
HG South - 2%

4,500 years ago:

Total Europe - 100%:
IE Expansion - 98%
Euro Farmer - 2%

Coldmountains
05-23-2017, 10:24 AM
The results look very strange. Are the genomes not of very bad quality? It is hard to believe that early Slavs in Bohemia were a mix of a Norwegian/Scottish-like and Lithuanian-like populations. I would rather expect pre-Slavs to be german or austrian-like. Modern day Czechs should not be so different from them and should rather be a bit more "western " genetically because of massive German immigration later. But maybe the very northern shifted sample represents a very early Slav who not mixed with locals yet

Tomenable
05-23-2017, 12:30 PM
It is hard to believe that early Slavs in Bohemia were a mix of a Norwegian/Scottish-like and Lithuanian-like populations. I would rather expect pre-Slavs to be german or austrian-like.

Apart from Scots, Orcadians are a good fit as well. How about checking what some actual Pre-Slavic samples get? We have Bronze Age genomes from Czech Rep., East Germany and Poland.

This is Trzciniec culture sample from Poland, Cuiavia (PL_N17, 1953-1880 BC):

Eurogenes K36:

East_Central_Euro 21.72
North_Sea 19.15
North_Atlantic 16.49
Fennoscandian 10.75
Eastern_Euro 9.29
French 6.79
North_Caucasian 5.88
Central_Euro 4.35
East_Balkan 3.31
Iberian 2.28

K36 nMonte for PL_N17 (Gustorzyn in Cuiavia, 1953-1880 BC):

[1] "1. CLOSEST SINGLE ITEM DISTANCES"
Pl_north German_East PL_Wielkopolska Pl_Kashubians
13.45552 14.85170 15.31672 15.47171
Ukrainian_West Slovak PL_Upper_Silesia Czechs_Moravians
17.02510 17.86914 18.00294 18.19015

Population percent

Orcadian 45.15
Lithuanian 39.10
Denmark 6.95
North_Dagestan 5.65
Pl_north 2.05
PL_Sudovia 0.55
Scotland 0.30
Ireland 0.10
Latvian 0.05
PL_Podlasie_East_Mazovia 0.05
Northern_Ireland 0.05

I will check what Bronze Age Unetice samples from Czech Republic get.

============================================

Too bad that so far we don't have any Iron Age samples to see what populations which lived there immediately before the Migration Period. There are only Bronze Age samples.

============================================

This is Unetice culture sample from Poland, Silesia (RISE150 1885-1693 BC):

North_Atlantic 18.25
North_Sea 17.99
Iberian 13.65
Eastern_Euro 9.68
Fennoscandian 9.51
French 8.38
Central_Euro 6.73
East_Central_Euro 5.70
East_Balkan 4.91
North_Caucasian 4.30
Basque 0.70
Italian 0.21

Different admixtures than Polish Trzciniec sample from Cuiavia.

Even though both persons lived around the same time period.

Tomenable
05-23-2017, 12:52 PM
K36 nMonte for RISE150 (Unetice culture, Silesia, Poland):

[1] "1. CLOSEST SINGLE ITEM DISTANCES"
Orcadian Ireland British_mixed Northern_Ireland
8.413541 8.531275 9.782349 10.495286
Scotland Norway England German_North
11.335971 11.604269 11.726998 12.572453

Population percent

Ireland 55.15
Orcadian 24.65
Russian_Kostroma 5.50
Norway 4.75
Erzya 3.55
Russian_Meshtchyora 2.10
FR_Bretagne 2.05
Northern_Ireland 1.15
Chechen 1.10

So... ??? The same pattern again. :) Only this time without "Lithuanian".

Very Celtic results - and Unetice was probably a Proto-Celtic culture.

"Lithuanian" was present in Trzciniec culture, but not in Unetice culture.

Tomenable
05-23-2017, 01:08 PM
Modern day Czechs should not be so different from them and should rather be a bit more "western " genetically because of massive German immigration later.

Bronze Age Czechs were much more western than modern Czechs. Just see these samples:

They were similar to RISE150, they clustered with modern Scottish / Orcadian etc. people:

RISE577 Czech Unetice - kit F999951
RISE586 Czech Unetice - kit M239638
RISE566 Czech Bell Beaker - I will upload it soon
RISE567 Czech Bell Beaker - I will upload it soon

And here Unetice samples from East Germany (also more western than modern Germans):

I0803 German Unetice - M396326
I0047 German Unetice - M370010
I0116 German Unetice - M425717
I0164 German Unetice - M588222

I0099 German Urnfield - M313201

===========================

Eurogenes K15 results of RISE586:

Kit M239638

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 North_Sea 38.01
2 Atlantic 34.91
3 West_Med 10.84
4 Eastern_Euro 8.3
5 Baltic 7.57
6 Sub-Saharan 0.36

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 West_Scottish 6.62
2 Southeast_English 6.65
3 Southwest_English 6.9
4 Irish 6.91
5 Orcadian 7.05

Eurogenes K15 results of RISE577:

Kit F999951

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Atlantic 31.7
2 North_Sea 31.08
3 West_Med 13.91
4 Baltic 11.72
5 Eastern_Euro 7.81
6 West_Asian 3.79

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Southwest_English 5.51
2 South_Dutch 6.5
3 Southeast_English 6.82
4 Irish 7.95
5 West_Scottish 8.75


I would rather expect pre-Slavs to be german or austrian-like.

Modern Austrians are heavily Slavic themselves, so why should Pre-Slavs be Austrian-like?

Pre-Slavs will be like modern Dutch, because Dutch = Germans minus Slavic admixture.

And this is what they are, they are like Dutch (Germanic) or Scottish/Irish (Celtic substrate).

And Proto-Slavs were most probably very Lithuanian-like.

So Lithuanian + Scottish/Dutch = the result of mixing of Slavs with Pre-Slavs.

Tomenable
05-23-2017, 01:35 PM
RISE566 from 2279–2033 BC (this is Czech Bell Beaker, not Unetice) in K36:

Population
Amerindian -
Arabian -
Armenian -
Basque 6.47
Central_African -
Central_Euro -
East_African -
East_Asian -
East_Balkan 3.74
East_Central_Asian -
East_Central_Euro 17.30
East_Med -
Eastern_Euro 5.06
Fennoscandian -
French 9.25
Iberian 14.84
Indo-Chinese -
Italian 0.14
Malayan -
Near_Eastern -
North_African 0.45
North_Atlantic 9.46
North_Caucasian -
North_Sea 29.69
Northeast_African -
Oceanian -
Omotic -
Pygmy -
Siberian -
South_Asian -
South_Central_Asian -
South_Chinese -
Volga-Ural -
West_African 0.78
West_Caucasian -
West_Med 2.82

Tomenable
05-23-2017, 04:37 PM
We can see this East-Central/East Euro cluster, split into 2 smaller clusters. But Silesian Unetice (RISE150) clusters with modern British people instead:

What is very interesting is that Western Ukrainians cluster with West Slavs, but North-Eastern Poles cluster with East Slavs and with Balts instead:

http://i.imgur.com/9EcJiaQ.png

http://i.imgur.com/9EcJiaQ.png

Tomenable
05-23-2017, 05:16 PM
We need Iron Age samples and Early Medieval Polish samples for comparison:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6522-Early-Medieval-aDNA-from-Poland-coming-soon&p=237536&viewfull=1#post237536

Polish Trzciniec PL_N17 is almost identical as Early Slavic Czech RISE569...

So West Trzciniec seems ancestral to West Slavs, just like Davidski claimed:

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2017/02/first-look-at-polish-early-bronze-age.html

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/01/r1a-z280-from-early-bronze-age-northern.html

Michał
05-23-2017, 06:49 PM
Polish Trzciniec PL_N17 is almost identical as Early Slavic Czech RISE569...

So West Trzciniec seems ancestral to West Slavs, just like Davidski claimed

There are some data that make your above interpretation questionable.
First, according to Generalissimo/Davidski, PL_N17 clusters with Russians and Ukrainians rather than with any modern West Slavs:
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?8066-DISCUSSION-THREAD-FOR-quot-Genetic-Genealogy-and-Ancient-DNA-in-the-News-quot&p=211138&viewfull=1#post211138
Also, PL_N17 belongs to subclade S24902>CTS6844 that has never been found among people of Slavic ancestry (neither among the Western nor Eastern Slavs). So far, it is represented only by one modern lineage of British (English) ancestry:
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?8066-DISCUSSION-THREAD-FOR-quot-Genetic-Genealogy-and-Ancient-DNA-in-the-News-quot&p=210792&viewfull=1#post210792
Together, these two findings make it rather unlikely that the population represented by PL_N17 was ancestral specifically to West Slavs.

Finally, it is not clear whether that Gustorzyn sample (PL_N17) was from Trzciniec or rather from the Iwno culture:
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?8066-DISCUSSION-THREAD-FOR-quot-Genetic-Genealogy-and-Ancient-DNA-in-the-News-quot&p=210944&viewfull=1#post210944
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?8066-DISCUSSION-THREAD-FOR-quot-Genetic-Genealogy-and-Ancient-DNA-in-the-News-quot&p=211041&viewfull=1#post211041

Brent.B
05-23-2017, 07:46 PM
There are some data that make your above interpretation questionable.
First, according to Generalissimo/Davidski, PL_N17 clusters with Russians and Ukrainians rather than with any modern West Slavs:
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?8066-DISCUSSION-THREAD-FOR-quot-Genetic-Genealogy-and-Ancient-DNA-in-the-News-quot&p=211138&viewfull=1#post211138

Do we know if the Trzciniec culture is (at least archaeologically speaking) ancestral to the Milograd culture?

Michał
05-23-2017, 09:04 PM
Do we know if the Trzciniec culture is (at least archaeologically speaking) ancestral to the Milograd culture?
We don't know it for sure, but this seems to be the most commonly accepted hypothesis. More specifically, it is frequently assumed that Milograd descends from the East Trzciniec and Sosnica cultures, both being a part of the larger Trzciniec horizon. The link between the Trzciniec horizon (19th-11th cent. BC) and the Milograd culture (7th-1st cent. BC) seems to be the Lebedevo culture (11th-8th cent. BC), considered ancestral to both Milograd and the neighboring Yukhnov culture.

Brent.B
05-23-2017, 09:57 PM
We don't know it for sure, but this seems to be the most commonly accepted hypothesis. More specifically, it is frequently assumed that Milograd descends from the East Trzciniec and Sosnica cultures, both being a part of the larger Trzciniec horizon. The link between the Trzciniec horizon (19th-11th cent. BC) and the Milograd culture (7th-1st cent. BC) seems to be the Lebedevo culture (11th-8th cent. BC), considered ancestral to both Milograd and the neighboring Yukhnov culture.

Interesting. Do we have aDNA samples for the eastern part of the Trzciniec culture?

If so, I wonder if it shows any more or less similarity to the early Slavic Czech sample.

rozenfeld
05-23-2017, 10:08 PM
Interesting. Do we have aDNA samples for the eastern part of the Trzciniec culture?

No. In fact, I don't recall any decent aDNA from Belarus, Northern Ukraine or Central Russia.

Tomenable
05-24-2017, 05:46 AM
First, according to Generalissimo/Davidski, PL_N17 clusters with Russians and Ukrainians rather than with any modern West Slavs

His statements about what clusters with whom often contradict what his own GEDmatch calculators say...

:)

========================

It is really strange that these Slavs passed for Bell Beakers.

Czech Bell Beaker RISE566 (2279–2033 BC) is different.

Here is what RISE566 gets in Eurogenes K15 calculator:

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 West_Scottish 6.93
2 Irish 7.21
3 Southeast_English 7.76
4 Orcadian 8.59
5 Danish 8.83

==================================

By comparison these are RISE568 and RISE569 in K15:

RISE568:

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Russian_Smolensk 18.3
2 Estonian_Polish 18.77
3 Belorussian 18.79
4 Polish 20.01
5 Lithuanian 20.05

RISE569:

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 East_German 9.67
2 South_Polish 11.38
3 Polish 11.67
4 Hungarian 11.74
5 Southwest_Finnish 11.88
6 Ukrainian_Lviv 12.17

Tomenable
05-24-2017, 06:29 AM
RISE577 Czech Unetice - kit F999951- is very similar to RISE566.

Bronze Age Czechs hardly score any "Baltic" in Eurogenes K15/K13.

Whereas Early Czech Slavs - RISE568 & 569 - get a lot of "Baltic".

====================

Czech Bell Beaker RISE566 gets 0% of "Central European" in Eurogenes K36.

Unetice culture samples also hardly get any "Central Euro" in K36 (up to few percent).

In K36, Central Euro, East-Central Euro & East Euro look like markers of Balto-Slavic ancestry.

Which explains why East-Central Euro peaks in modern Lithuanians & ancient Trzciniec.

Early Czech Slav RISE568 scores a really huge amount of "Central Euro" in K36.

Waldemar
05-24-2017, 09:08 AM
Also, PL_N17 belongs to subclade S24902>CTS6844 that has never been found among people of Slavic ancestry (neither among the Western nor Eastern Slavs). So far, it is represented only by one modern lineage of British (English) ancestry

S24902>YP561>YP4094>YP4078 (formed 3800 ybp, TMRCA 1100 ybp)

https://s27.postimg.org/br8uip38z/Screen_Hunter_1760_Mar._23_16.57.jpg

It would be interesting if older lineages of S24902>YP561>... will eventually pop up in Slavic populations.

It seems that western peripheries of very early Trzciniec culture (or Iwno culture as Michal suggested) were incorporated into Western European (Celto-Germanic) populations. Hopefully, we will get some samples from 1500-1300 BC when Trzciniec culture flourished.

Michał
05-24-2017, 12:26 PM
It would be interesting if older lineages of S24902>YP561>... will eventually pop up in Slavic populations.

I agree. On the other hand, we can also expect finding some new close relatives of YP4078 (ie. clades more closely related to YP4078 than the Western European clade YP4778 under YP4094) in Western Europe.
BTW, we have a first candidate for a YP4078 member found in a non-Slavic country (kit 577414 from Estonia), which slightly shifts the center of gravity for YP4078 towards the North (or towards the Baltic Sea).

Tomenable
05-24-2017, 04:04 PM
It seems that there is population continuity in North-Eastern Poland since the Bronze Age.

Here K36 nMonte results for Late Bronze Age sample RISE598 (Sudovia 908-485 BC):

[1] "1. CLOSEST SINGLE ITEM DISTANCES"
PL_Sudovia Lithuanian PL_Podlasie_East_Mazovia
22.20166 22.60709 25.38917
Latvian Russian_Bryansk Belarusian_East
26.05825 26.09645 27.00599
PL_Mazovia Russian_Novgorod_Pskov
27.49986 27.82478

Population percent

RISE598

PL_Sudovia 55.80
Lithuanian 30.85
PL_Podlasie_East_Mazovia 7.75
Latvian 2.30
Russian_Bryansk 2.25
PL_average 0.25
Belarusian_Polesye 0.20
Russian_Novgorod_Pskov 0.20
Belarusian_West 0.10
Belarusian_East 0.10
Ukrainian_East 0.10
Carpathian_Rusyns 0.05
Pl_Kashubians 0.05

=========================

RISE598 is kit number M483824.

sweuro
05-24-2017, 05:13 PM
It seems that there is population continuity in North-Eastern Poland since the Bronze Age.

Here K36 nMonte results for Late Bronze Age sample RISE598 (Sudovia 908-485 BC):

[1] "1. CLOSEST SINGLE ITEM DISTANCES"
PL_Sudovia Lithuanian PL_Podlasie_East_Mazovia
22.20166 22.60709 25.38917
Latvian Russian_Bryansk Belarusian_East
26.05825 26.09645 27.00599
PL_Mazovia Russian_Novgorod_Pskov
27.49986 27.82478

Population percent

RISE598

PL_Sudovia 55.80
Lithuanian 30.85
PL_Podlasie_East_Mazovia 7.75
Latvian 2.30
Russian_Bryansk 2.25
PL_average 0.25
Belarusian_Polesye 0.20
Russian_Novgorod_Pskov 0.20
Belarusian_West 0.10
Belarusian_East 0.10
Ukrainian_East 0.10
Carpathian_Rusyns 0.05
Pl_Kashubians 0.05

=========================

RISE598 is kit number M483824.
Isn't 908-485 BC the Iron Age ?

Tomenable
05-24-2017, 06:06 PM
Isn't 908-485 BC the Iron Age ?

Maybe not yet in this area? I remember that this sample was described as LBA.

Tomenable
06-02-2017, 09:15 AM
RISE569 (Early Czech Slav) according to DNA.Land:

50% North Slavic
41% Northwest Euro
3.6% Balkan
1.9% South/Central Euro
2.4% Sardinian
1% Ambiguous

http://i.imgur.com/yxqTtx7.png

For comparison here is my DNA.Land ancestry report:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10646-Post-your-GenePlaza-Results!&p=240562&viewfull=1#post240562

http://i.imgur.com/vbmbKgw.png

Vadim Verenich
06-02-2017, 12:14 PM
I would consider a bad habit, or a malpractice even, any attempt to impute the missing SNPs of ancient samples from the modern variation, which is captured by reference panels generated by Michigan/Sanger Imputation Servers.
I am quite convinced that DNA.land either makes an extensive use of both servers, or runs their own server based on the same methodological theory. Did it before many times, with disappointing outcomes

Tomenable
06-02-2017, 01:26 PM
When using Tolan's K36 tool:

http://gen3553.pagesperso-orange.fr/ADN/similitude.htm

RISE568 (Early Czech Slav):

http://i.imgur.com/iDZwuUX.png

RISE569 (Early Czech Slav):

http://i.imgur.com/N0hI0dw.png

Dibran
04-18-2018, 05:05 PM
The usual claim from academia is that the 1st-millennium Slavic migration constituted a massive population replacement in the West Slavic countries, and that most of the R1a and I2a in those countries results from such replacement. According to Figure 2 of this research study (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v17/n6/full/ejhg2008249a.html), 75 Czech samples were found to be 41% R1a and 14% I2a. If one actually believes that half of Czechs' Y chromosomes originate in Ukraine/Belarus, such massive population replacement certainly ought to show up glaringly in the autosomal DNA--but it doesn't.

Which furthers my point that M458 and Z280 may have already been in southern Europe before the Slavic ethnogenesis(if it was already present in central europe before the migration). Which would explain the large occurrence of R1a/I2a, and relatively little autosomal impact in comparison.

George
04-18-2018, 06:29 PM
"The usual claim from academia is that the 1st-millennium Slavic migration constituted a massive population replacement in the West Slavic countries, and that most of the R1a and I2a in those countries results from such replacement. According to Figure 2 of this research study, 75 Czech samples were found to be 41% R1a and 14% I2a. If one actually believes that half of Czechs' Y chromosomes originate in Ukraine/Belarus, such massive population replacement certainly ought to show up glaringly in the autosomal DNA--but it doesn't." (L.G. Mayka)

Could you refer me to the studies which prove that up to 1/2 of the Czech I2a-Din or (not just I2a per se) existed in Czech territory prior to the 6th c. CE? And if there is no proof of this is the "glaring" autosomal evidence you mention not an indication of precisely the reverse?

lgmayka
04-18-2018, 10:39 PM
Could you refer me to the studies which prove that up to 1/2 of the Czech I2a-Din or (not just I2a per se) existed in Czech territory prior to the 6th c. CE? And if there is no proof of this is the "glaring" autosomal evidence you mention not an indication of precisely the reverse?
You entirely miss the point of that year-old post, which relied heavily on this Eurogenes blog entry (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/05/two-early-slavs-from-bohemia.html). This is what the blog said at that time:
---
So the fact that these two Medieval Slavs from East Central Europe passed so convincingly for eastern Bell Beakers is a hint of very strong genetic continuity in the region since the Bronze Age. Indeed, they're very similar to present-day Czechs, western Poles (from Poznan), and eastern Germans, except perhaps with lower excess Western Hunter-Gatherer (WHG) ancestry and higher Yamnaya-related ancestry.
---

The point of the year-old forum post that you cite is that:
1) Academics typically claim that 50-88% of modern West Slavic DNA (all DNA, not just Y-DNA) came from Ukraine or Belarus during the Migration Period.
2) Therefore, early-medieval West Slavic DNA samples should cluster with Ukraine and Belarus.
3) According to Eurogenes, they do not, but rather cluster with Eastern Bell Beakers and with modern West Slavs and eastern Germans.

As this forum thread progressed (a year ago!), independent analysis suggested that the early-medieval West Slavic DNA samples were not uniform, but diverse--e.g., one clustering with southern Poles and eastern Germans, another clustering with northeastern Poles and Lithuanians. This suggests that the truth may be more nuanced than the old equally dogmatic Total Population Replacement and Population Continuity hypotheses. Paul M. Barford's The Early Slavs (https://www.amazon.com/Early-Slavs-Culture-Society-Medieval/dp/0801439779/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1524091483&sr=8-1) (p.46, last paragraph) explains what we don't know about the Slavic expansion. Perhaps more early-medieval DNA from the West Slavic countries will eventually clarify?

George
04-18-2018, 11:01 PM
You entirely miss the point of that year-old post, which relied heavily on this Eurogenes blog entry (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/05/two-early-slavs-from-bohemia.html). This is what the blog said at that time:
---
So the fact that these two Medieval Slavs from East Central Europe passed so convincingly for eastern Bell Beakers is a hint of very strong genetic continuity in the region since the Bronze Age. Indeed, they're very similar to present-day Czechs, western Poles (from Poznan), and eastern Germans, except perhaps with lower excess Western Hunter-Gatherer (WHG) ancestry and higher Yamnaya-related ancestry.
---

The point of the year-old forum post that you cite is that:
1) Academics typically claim that 50-88% of modern West Slavic DNA (all DNA, not just Y-DNA) came from Ukraine or Belarus during the Migration Period.
2) Therefore, early-medieval West Slavic DNA samples should cluster with Ukraine and Belarus.
3) According to Eurogenes, they do not, but rather cluster with Eastern Bell Beakers and with modern West Slavs and eastern Germans.

As this forum thread progressed (a year ago!), independent analysis suggested that the early-medieval West Slavic DNA samples were not uniform, but diverse--e.g., one clustering with southern Poles and eastern Germans, another clustering with northeastern Poles and Lithuanians. This suggests that the truth may be more nuanced than the old equally dogmatic Total Population Replacement and Population Continuity hypotheses. Paul M. Barford's The Early Slavs (https://www.amazon.com/Early-Slavs-Culture-Society-Medieval/dp/0801439779/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1524091483&sr=8-1) (p.46, last paragraph) explains what we don't know about the Slavic expansion.

Sorry about the misunderstanding. I cited a citation from "Dibran" which had no date for what it cited. It just seemed to me (and still does) that as cited it does not make its point. I accept your overall explanation (which I tend to broadly share). The new mix which resulted from the Slavic outpush south and west is indeed more complicated than a simple "population replacement". But until proof is offered that the typically Slavic Y-DNA (from both R1a and I2a) were already in situ, the "Bell Beaker" analogy does (quaintly) suggest that the paternal lines were not "local" and came from elsewhere (just as R1b basically did earlier);)

lgmayka
04-19-2018, 09:41 AM
But until proof is offered that the typically Slavic Y-DNA (from both R1a and I2a) were already in situ, the "Bell Beaker" analogy does (quaintly) suggest that the paternal lines were not "local" and came from elsewhere (just as R1b basically did earlier);)
Right now, as far as I know, not a single R-M458 or I-Y3120 from before 600 AD has been published. R-L260 might well have come from Czech lands, and I-Y3120 from southeastern Poland, for all we know so far.

But frankly, I object to your phrasing, which implies that any hypothesis other than yours must provide "proof." You have no proof either. We're all waiting for ancient and early-medieval DNA evidence to resolve the issue.

Dibran
04-19-2018, 12:29 PM
Right now, as far as I know, not a single R-M458 or I-Y3120 from before 600 AD has been published. R-L260 might well have come from Czech lands, and I-Y3120 from southeastern Poland, for all we know so far.

But frankly, I object to your phrasing, which implies that any hypothesis other than yours must provide "proof." You have no proof either. We're all waiting for ancient and early-medieval DNA evidence to resolve the issue.

Agreed. Without data, any hypothesis is as good as any.

George
04-19-2018, 01:07 PM
Right now, as far as I know, not a single R-M458 or I-Y3120 from before 600 AD has been published. R-L260 might well have come from Czech lands, and I-Y3120 from southeastern Poland, for all we know so far.

But frankly, I object to your phrasing, which implies that any hypothesis other than yours must provide "proof." You have no proof either. We're all waiting for ancient and early-medieval DNA evidence to resolve the issue.

Good luck to the Slavic version of the OIT ;)