PDA

View Full Version : Genetic Heritage of the Balto-Slavic Speaking Populations



Pages : [1] 2

parastais
09-02-2015, 09:11 PM
Have not read yet, just noticed.
Here you go:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0135820

Jean M
09-02-2015, 09:13 PM
Abstract:

The Slavic branch of the Balto-Slavic sub-family of Indo-European languages underwent rapid divergence as a result of the spatial expansion of its speakers from Central-East Europe, in early medieval times. This expansion–mainly to East Europe and the northern Balkans–resulted in the incorporation of genetic components from numerous autochthonous populations into the Slavic gene pools. Here, we characterize genetic variation in all extant ethnic groups speaking Balto-Slavic languages by analyzing mitochondrial DNA (n = 6,876), Y-chromosomes (n = 6,079) and genome-wide SNP profiles (n = 296), within the context of other European populations. We also reassess the phylogeny of Slavic languages within the Balto-Slavic branch of Indo-European. We find that genetic distances among Balto-Slavic populations, based on autosomal and Y-chromosomal loci, show a high correlation (0.9) both with each other and with geography, but a slightly lower correlation (0.7) with mitochondrial DNA and linguistic affiliation. The data suggest that genetic diversity of the present-day Slavs was predominantly shaped in situ, and we detect two different substrata: ‘central-east European’ for West and East Slavs, and ‘south-east European’ for South Slavs. A pattern of distribution of segments identical by descent between groups of East-West and South Slavs suggests shared ancestry or a modest gene flow between those two groups, which might derive from the historic spread of Slavic people.

Shaikorth
09-02-2015, 09:36 PM
I noticed that their Russian North sample is not the usual Kargopol/HGDP one that clusters with Mordovians, but four individuals from the village of Pinega, eastern Archangelsk oblast.

They aren't really like other North Russians such as the Kargopol sample, and look more like Vepsians with a bit of Komi admixture genetically. Srkz confirmed this with IBD.

http://s017.radikal.ru/i438/1508/53/7b44b4e254ad.png

parastais
09-02-2015, 09:37 PM
And now, honestly I could not understand half of what they wrote, but to begin the fun, this quote:
In contrast, a clear genetic border exists nowadays between Poles and their immediate western neighbors Germans, and even between a West-Slavic-speaking minority–Sorbs–and their German host population

Ok, and now less troll mode:
The presence of a substantial “Baltic substratum” in the genomes of extant Slavs within East Europe might in part explain their genetic closeness to each other and difference from some neighboring non-Slavic groups.

Now, I hope someone smarter than me puts kotlets to one side and insects to other :)

Generalissimo
09-02-2015, 09:41 PM
Hehe...they sampled some of the Poles in Estonia, and a few actually look...North Russian.

Tomenable
09-02-2015, 10:56 PM
As usual, they didn't take any samples from Western Poles (locations in the map below):

http://s12.postimg.org/k62yyrjdp/The_Poles.png


Hehe...they sampled some of the Poles in Estonia
I noticed that their Russian North sample is not the usual Kargopol/HGDP one that clusters with Mordovians, but four individuals from the village of Pinega, eastern Archangelsk oblast.

Where did you find this info? Which file contains info about locations of all samples? :confused:

Tomenable
09-02-2015, 11:23 PM
From the study:


(...) Expansion of Slavic languages took place in an area already occupied by speakers of the Baltic languages [49,50]. Despite significant linguistic divergence between extant East Baltic and Slavic languages (Fig 1) [7], Baltic populations are genetically the closest to East Slavs (Fig 2A and 2B, Table K in S1 File) [45,64–66] and here we found that they bear the highest number of shared IBD segments with the combined group of East-West Slavs (Fig 4, Table G in S1 File). The presence of a substantial “Baltic substratum” in the genomes of extant Slavs within East Europe might in part explain their genetic closeness to each other and difference from some neighboring non-Slavic groups. (...)

Also the presence of large ethnically Slavic minorities in Lithuania and Latvia might explain this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Latvia#Ethnic_groups

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Lithuania#After_World_War_II

After WW2 Slavic minorities have been up to 21% of population in Lithuania and up to 44% in Latvia. Before WWs 1 and 2, that was an even larger percent in case of Lithuania, but lower in case of Latvia.

So instead of an ancient "Baltic substratum", it can be a more recent "Slavic superstratum".

It can as well be a common Balto-Slavic ancestry, instead of some "Baltic substratum".

Shaikorth
09-02-2015, 11:28 PM
As usual, they didn't take any samples from Western Poles (locations in the map below):



Where did you find this info? Which file contains info about locations of all samples? :confused:

I figured out they used the four Pinega samples on their PCA's because these samples were released on Estonian Biocentre site, and from testing done by Srkz and others I knew what to expect (Veps/Komi mix with little Slavic autosomal ancestry). North Russians from Kargopol (or any Estonian Poles) do not cluster like the (Pinega) North Russians in the PCA below, but close to Mordovians as we have seen in various tests for a while.

http://s24.postimg.org/bqo2bwqno/pca.jpg

Tomenable
09-02-2015, 11:30 PM
Thanks for the info. But I can't see the PCA from the spoiler.

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

From the paper:


(...) The results of our study have shown the close genetic proximity of the majority of West and East Slavic populations inhabiting the geographic area from Poland in the west, to the Volga River in the East (Fig 2A and 2B, Tables A,B in S1 File). Some mtDNA haplotypes of hgs H5, H6, U4a were more frequent in the genomes of West and East Slavic speakers, providing thereby further evidence for the matrilineal unity of West and East Slavs [28,36] as well as continuity of mtDNA diversity in the territory of modern Poland for at least two millennia [38]. (...)

IMO this shows that this Poland-Volga unity dates back all the way to Corded Ware times.

Autosomal proximity seems to only confirm this:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5286-Autosomal-PCA-charts-of-ancient-IE-samples-compared-to-modern-populations

^ "Autosomal PCA charts of ancient IE samples compared to modern populations"

Tomenable
09-02-2015, 11:45 PM
Authors of this study do not seem to be trying to establish where was the original homeland of Slavs. They claim that South Slavs and East Slavs are admixed with pre-Slavic substrates. But they don't write, which Slavic population is NOT admixed with pre-Slavic substrate, and thus located in Proto-Slavic homeland.

But they find a sharp genetic boundary between Sorbs and Germans, which is quite telling.

Czechs show a sign of assimilating a pre-Slavic Celto-Germanic substrate, but Sorbs do not.

Was there a pre-Slavic substrate in Bohemia, but no pre-Slavic substrate in Lusatia?

Moreover, modern North-West Slavs (Sorbs, Poles, Kashubians) cluster very closely autosomally with East Slavs, as well as with ancient Corded Ware and Unetice samples from Central Europe (LINK (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5286-Autosomal-PCA-charts-of-ancient-IE-samples-compared-to-modern-populations)).

Why do North-West Slavs cluster autosomally, in terms of mtDNA, and in terms of Y-DNA (R1a*, I2a*) with Copper-Bronze Age ancient DNA samples from Central Europe, but not with modern Germans?

Is it possible that ancient East Germanic tribes did not resemble modern Germans genetically?

On the other hand, Germanic-speakers expanded into Central Europe only during the Iron Age. And all these ancient samples clustering with modern Northern Slavs are from the Copper-Bronze Ages.

*Both R1a and I2a were found in aDNA from Unetice culture. Here R1a from Early Unetice:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5237-Proto-Unetice-aDNA

I2a comes from Unetice (Esperstedt) and Urnfield (Dorste) samples from East Germany.

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

To sum up:

North-West Slavs resemble in all ways (uniparental & autosomal) Copper & Bronze Age samples from Central Europe, but don't resemble modern Germans. This applies also to Sorbs, so we can't blame post-WW2 resettlements for this, because Sorbs haven't been moving anywhere for the last 1400 years!

Generalissimo
09-02-2015, 11:51 PM
Where did you find this info? Which file contains info about locations of all samples? :confused:

The Polish samples are from Behar et al. 2014. You can see where they were sampled in the spreadsheet here.

http://evolbio.ut.ee/jew/

If you look at the ADMIXTURE graph from this new Slavic study, you'll see that some of the "Poles" are just North Russians.

I spoke to the Estonian Biocentre director a while back about this issue. This is what he said.


What we have is self identity. As you can see from Supplementary table 1 these samples have been collected in Estonia and the donors are self reported Poles.

Obviously, you can't draw any serious conclusions about the genetic structure of the people of Poland based on such poor sampling.

George
09-03-2015, 12:14 AM
Have not read yet, just noticed.
Here you go:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0135820

Useful stuff on balance. There's something to satisfy and to disappoint all round;) I suspect that those who expect the least will get the most. I think there was a paper a while back which tried to establish similar points about the distinctions between South and West/East Slavs (independently of the Baltic adjunction), but did not draw the line as radically (included some of the South Slavs into the "generic continuum". Forgot the title though.)=== Lots of interesting statistical material to munch through. No Moldavians...

Gravetto-Danubian
09-03-2015, 12:16 AM
After a brief look at this study: it looks very good. Great amount of data, despite the limitations of sampling identified by Generalissimo.

A great strength of the study is their measured conclusions - it does not claim to have found the "Slavic homeland' based on mere genetic evidence, but rather they present and analyse the data sui generis.

The structure patterns are particularly revealing and not surprising. My take is:

1) the east-west Slavic uniformity (or perhaps continuum) is due to a lack of significant substratum. Uniformity over broad geography suggests recent bottlenecks followed by expansions into sparsely populated regions. This is consistent with the archaeological evidence in the Elbe- middle Dnieper stretch in the Late Antique - early Medieval Period. The exception to this absence of substrata is

1a) The Czech region - which we know had a continuity of "Germanic" populations. Also southwestern Poland, and Baltic Poland - id presume this would have been found if they did better sampling of all Polish regions ?

1b) the well known Baltic/ Finnic adstrate in northern Russian, Belorussians, etc

2) the significant structure within south slavs - not only separating them from the rest, but their internal differentiation between East SS and West SS.

Generalissimo
09-03-2015, 12:17 AM
Useful stuff on balance. There's something to satisfy and to disappoint all round;)

Heck, since they already know where Poles cluster, which is obviously somewhere in Russia, why even sample any self-identified Poles? Just test some Russians. Good enough.

Tomenable
09-03-2015, 12:18 AM
1) the east-west Slavic uniformity (or perhaps continuum) is due to a lack of significant substratum.

They write that they found a significant Baltic substratum in East Slavs, but not in West Slavs.


Uniformity over broad geography suggests recent bottlenecks followed by expansions.

There is also such an autosomal uniformity of modern North Slavs (North-West Slavs + East Slavs) with ancient Corded Ware and Unetice. For example RISE431 sample from Greater Poland (Bruszczewo / Łęki Małe) from Early Unetice culture was autosomally just like modern North Slavs. And his Y-DNA was R1a.

So this uniformity (both autosomal and uniparental) dates back to the Bronze Age.

Gravetto-Danubian
09-03-2015, 12:25 AM
They write that they found a significant Baltic substratum in East Slavs, but not in West Slavs.

Yes, I noted that. See amended point 1b


There is also an identical autosomal uniformity of modern Northern Slavs (West Slavs + East Slavs) with ancient Corded Ware, Unetice, etc. RISE431 sample from Greater Poland (Bruszczewo / Łęki Małe) from Early Unetice culture was autosomally just like modern North Slavs. And his Y-DNA was R1a too.

yes of course, we all know that. The Slavs come from some subset of Corded Ware'ians and eastern Uneticians. But this doesn't negate the fact that there was a population drop c. 400 - 600 AD, and some die off, and expansion of specific subsets. A "secondary recolonization" its called in anthropological terms (rather than de novo, external colonization).

Tomenable
09-03-2015, 12:26 AM
The Slavs do not come from "some subset" of Corded Ware and Unetice.

They come from ALL of it - or at least from vast majority.

Bruszczewo / Łęki Małe is a sample from Greater Poland. He was identical with modern North Slavs.

Whether there were bottlenecks or not, is quite irrelevant.

There was a bottleneck in the Americas after 1492 as well, yet nobody claims that modern Native Americans come from just "some subset" of pre-1492 Native Americans. They come from all of them.

From all of them that left descendants after 1492, that is.

Gravetto-Danubian
09-03-2015, 12:37 AM
The Slavs do not come from "some subset" of Corded Ware and Unetice.

They come from ALL of it - or at least from vast majority.

Bruszczewo / Łęki Małe is a sample from Greater Poland. He was identical with modern North Slavs.

Whether there were bottlenecks or not, is quite irrelevant.

There was a bottleneck in the Americas after 1492 as well, yet nobody claims that modern Native Americans come from just "some subset" of pre-1492 Native Americans. They come from all of them.

From all of them that left descendants after 1492, that is.

Maybe Im misunderstanding you, but what your stating doesn't seem correct.

First of all, not all Bronze Age CWC survived, and the process of geneto-genesis was not a simple, linear one from CWC-> modern central- north European Slavs. On the one hand, some CWC contributed rather to Germans, Scandinavians & even Finns. On the other hand, Poles, Ukrainians absorbed other, non -CWC elements since the BA (some kind of high -WHG, MNE population groups).

So the Corded Ware substrate is but one, cumulative component of modern W-E Slavs. In fact, properly stated and analyzed, the major substratum for modern Poles (as an example) would be Roman Iron Age groups from the Baltic littoral and the Carpathian region melding in Poland itself c. 700 - 800 AD.

George
09-03-2015, 12:40 AM
"Bruszczewo / Łęki Małe is a sample from Greater Poland. He was identical with modern North Slavs."

Could you upload the results to Gedmatch to play around with? :beerchug:

Tomenable
09-03-2015, 12:50 AM
First of all, not all Bronze Age CWC survived

And how do you know this ???

Do you think that people grow like trees and cannot move when in danger?

Western CWC could as well be pushed to the east by invaders, rather than getting killed.

We actually have archaeological evidence for migrations from Poland to the east:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5203-Chekunova-2014-N1c-and-R1a-samples-of-Proto-East-Balts-(-)&p=103729&viewfull=1#post103729

"(...) Milograd culture was related to those cultures, but was quite different. Milograd people were better farmers than those living north of them, And also Milograd culture was internally differentiated. Northern Milograd were building hillforts, but Southern Milograd consisted only of open settlements without fortifications. It is also considered, that the Scythians had a cultural influence on Milograd culture, at least on its southern part. In the 2nd century BC immigration from the west from area of Wejherowo-Krotoszyn culture to Milograd culture took place, as the result of which Milograd culture started to transform into Zarubintsy culture. In some places traditional Milograd coexisted with Zarubintsy until the 1st century BC. According to Tryetyakov areas occupied by Zarubintsy culture are characterised by archaic Slavic hydronymy. According to Toporov, Slavic language emerged in western parts of Baltic (or Proto-Balto-Slavic) territories. (...)"

So people migrated from present-day Poland to the EAST - to area of Milograd culture.

And that migration from the WEST formed the Proto-Slavic Zarubintsy culture.

IMO Wejherowo-Krotoszyn already spoke some form of pre-Proto-Slavic. And Milograd people probably spoke some language more closely related to West Baltic, or another form of pre-Proto-Slavic. They mixed with each other and merged into the Zarubintsy culture, with clearly Slavic hydronymy.


On the one hand, some CWC contributed rather to Germans

Sorbs (like other North Slavs) are identical with CWC, but are sharply divided from Germans.

Which indirectly implies as well, that Germans did not absorb so much from CWC.


Could you upload the results to Gedmatch to play around with?

You must ask about this user EastPole from biodiversity forum - he posted charts showing this:

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/44375-Population-genomics-of-Bronze-Age-Eurasia?p=1197593&viewfull=1#post1197593

RISE431 - Early Unetice from Poland (Leki Male / Bruszczewo):

(this chart doesn't include Poles in the comparison, but that's not a big problem, see post #14 (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5301-Genetic-Heritage-of-the-Balto-Slavic-Speaking-Populations&p=106211&viewfull=1#post106211))

http://s22.postimg.org/xkf6f2hg1/image.png

Gravetto-Danubian
09-03-2015, 01:14 AM
And how do you know this ???

Do you think that people grow like trees and cannot move when in danger?

Western CWC could as well be pushed to the east by invaders, rather than getting killed.

We actually have archaeological evidence for migrations from Poland to the east:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5203-Chekunova-2014-N1c-and-R1a-samples-of-Proto-East-Balts-(-)&p=103729&viewfull=1#post103729

"(...) Milograd culture was related to those cultures, but was quite different. Milograd people were better farmers than those living north of them, And also Milograd culture was internally differentiated. Northern Milograd were building hillforts, but Southern Milograd consisted only of open settlements without fortifications. It is also considered, that the Scythians had a cultural influence on Milograd culture, at least on its southern part. In the 2nd century BC immigration from the west from area of Wejherowo-Krotoszyn culture to Milograd culture took place, as the result of which Milograd culture started to transform into Zarubintsy culture. In some places traditional Milograd coexisted with Zarubintsy until the 1st century BC. According to Tryetyakov areas occupied by Zarubintsy culture are characterised by archaic Slavic hydronymy. According to Toporov, Slavic language emerged in western parts of Baltic (or Proto-Balto-Slavic) territories. (...)"

So people migrated from present-day Poland to the EAST - to area of Milograd culture.

And that migration from the WEST formed the Proto-Slavic Zarubintsy culture.

IMO Wejherowo-Krotoszyn already spoke some form of pre-Proto-Slavic. And Milograd people probably spoke some language more closely related to West Baltic, or another form of pre-Proto-Slavic. They mixed with each other and merged into the Zarubintsy culture, with clearly Slavic hydronymy.



Sorbs (like other North Slavs) are identical with CWC, but are sharply divided from Germans.

Which indirectly implies as well, that Germans did not absorb so much from CWC.





I know that because I know. There was considerable flux in Poland between the Bronze Age and now. Its been known decades. Eg the Luzatian culture collapsed, then Pomorians from the coast expanded. Then there was expansion from central Europe to contribute to Przeworsk formation. Then this population had significant collapse. So yes, people can migrate/ move within reason, but prehistoric populations were liable to constant near-extinctions and population drops. This is obvious to anyone who has a clue.

And I'm not sure as to the exactness of the 'sharp divide' between Poles and Germans. I know better sampling is needed for both countries.

Maybe you shouldn't let personal bias colour your statements so much.

Tomenable
09-03-2015, 01:19 AM
Wejherowo-Krotoszyn culture = kultura pomorska from this map below:

Kultura miłogradzka = Milograd culture
Kultura łużycka = Lusatian culture (mostly intermingled with pomorska)

http://www.home.umk.pl/~jacgac/popielnicowe.jpg

http://www.home.umk.pl/~jacgac/popielnicowe.jpg

Tomenable
09-03-2015, 01:25 AM
prehistoric populations were liable to constant near-extinctions and population drops.

There were NO near-extinctions of R1a lineages, which is proven by their TMRCAs - all close to formation times.

By contrast a near-extinction was for example in case of I1, which formed 27500 ybp but had TMRCA 4700 ybp.


And I'm not sure as to the exactness of the 'sharp divide' between Poles and Germans.

This study says that there is also a sharp divide between Sorbs and Germans - which is even far more telling.

Sorbs have not been moving anywhere from their current homeland in Lusatia for the last circa 1400 years.

Gravetto-Danubian
09-03-2015, 01:56 AM
There were NO near-extinctions of R1a lineages, which is proven by their TMRCAs - all close to formation times.

By contrast a near-extinction was for example in case of I1, which formed 27500 ybp but had TMRCA 4700 ybp..

Correct - for R1a groups (although there was still some natural, 'background' extinction). What I was talking about was the residential, settlement history of the lands of what is now Poland. These are two fundamentally different concepts. Moreover, your simplistically conflating Y DNA genealogies with broader population histories and settlements patterns. Therein lies your error.

These are the facts:

* yes, Poles are by and large descended from R1a introduced duering the CWC period (duh :) )
* but they aren't linear, uninterrupted ancestors of them. Why ?
(a) Poles actually aren't autosomal exact matches for CWC people, but are considerably far more 'western'. Why - because of the WHG-containing MNE admixture I have already pointed out.

[[See https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Jy7IhA94GrhdfkBBjiPIhvpSuSD3lGeJnyv-3so4c4w=w1182-h631-no. CWC is more like some Finnic or Siberian groups (had they been included in the PCA plot) than central Europeans, incl Poles)

(b) The territory / landscape of Poland itself has seen wide fluctuations over the last 3000 years of history. A lot of to-ing and fro-ing.

* The final inescapable conclusion is that the most proximate and realistic ancestors of Poles are Roman Iron Age groups (from specific regions which were actually settled c. 400 AD), and not CWC.





This study says that there is also a sharp divide between Sorbs and Germans - which is even far more telling.

Sorbs have not been moving anywhere from their current homeland in Lusatia for the last circa 1400 years.


Perhaps. Admittedly, the divide of modern central Europeans is something I haven't studied in detail. But if it indeed exists, then it's because of the events i described in late antiquity, and not due to the lack of CWC ancestry in non-Slavic Central europeans. in fact, it confirms wholly what I've been saying.

And yes, we all know Sorbs have been in Germany for 14-1300 years.

lgmayka
09-03-2015, 03:19 AM
There were NO near-extinctions of R1a lineages, which is proven by their TMRCAs - all close to formation times.
There are indeed R1a clades which show a large time interval between formation and TMRCA. Perhaps the most spectacular examples are the two main branches of M458:
L260 - formed 4500 ybp, TMRCA 2500 ybp (http://yfull.com/tree/R-L260/)
CTS11962 - formed 4500 ybp, TMRCA 3400 ybp (http://yfull.com/tree/R-CTS11962/), giving birth to L1029 - formed 3400 ybp, TMRCA 2100 ybp (http://yfull.com/tree/R-L1029/)

Gravetto-Danubian
09-03-2015, 04:04 AM
There are indeed R1a clades which show a large time interval between formation and TMRCA. Perhaps the most spectacular examples are the two main branches of M458:
L260 - formed 4500 ybp, TMRCA 2500 ybp (http://yfull.com/tree/R-L260/)
CTS11962 - formed 4500 ybp, TMRCA 3400 ybp (http://yfull.com/tree/R-CTS11962/), giving birth to L1029 - formed 3400 ybp, TMRCA 2100 ybp (http://yfull.com/tree/R-L1029/)

What are the relative frequencies of these younger clades ?

Volat
09-03-2015, 05:16 AM
I figured out they used the four Pinega samples on their PCA's because these samples were released on Estonian Biocentre site, and from testing done by Srkz and others I knew what to expect (Veps/Komi mix with little Slavic autosomal ancestry). North Russians from Kargopol (or any Estonian Poles) do not cluster like the (Pinega) North Russians in the PCA below, but close to Mordovians as we have seen in various tests for a while.

http://s24.postimg.org/bqo2bwqno/pca.jpg

Those Russians are from Mezen district (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mezen,+Arkhangelsk+Oblast,+Russia/@65.8606395,44.2225874,5z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x44143181ad887399:0xc47b31464b1ba 6f7); they featured in some past studies. It's a very marginal group of people among the Russians.

Shaikorth
09-03-2015, 05:35 AM
Those Russians are from Mezen district (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mezen,+Arkhangelsk+Oblast,+Russia/@65.8606395,44.2225874,5z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x44143181ad887399:0xc47b31464b1ba 6f7); they featured in some past studies. It's a very marginal group of people among the Russians.

Nah, I checked and the North Russians in their autosomal PCA are just the four people from Pinega. Mezen Russian sample is larger and not in public domain, but they're probably similar to Pinega autosomally as are Pomors in general (http://s019.radikal.ru/i609/1302/98/1cf99c4ddebd.png). Verenich has access to more samples and should be able to confirm that. The majority of North Russians (like the ones from Kargopol) are different though, being closer to Lithuanians and Mordvins.

The Y-DNA and mtDNA comparisons in that study do have Mezen Russians though.

Volat
09-03-2015, 05:47 AM
Nah, I checked and the North Russians in their autosomal PCA are just the four people from Pinega. Mezen Russian sample is larger and not in public domain, but they're probably similar to Pinega autosomally as are Pomors in general (http://s019.radikal.ru/i609/1302/98/1cf99c4ddebd.png). Verenich has access to more samples and should be able to confirm that. The majority of North Russians (like the ones from Kargopol) are different though, being closer to Lithuanians and Mordvins.

The Y-DNA and mtDNA comparisons in that study do have Mezen Russians though.

Okay! Kargopol Russiand (HGDP) are different to Mezen samples too and if memory serves me Russians of Kargopol are most similar to Erzya (Mordva) people due to higher Siberian (or whatever it 's called in different tests) admixture.

Shaikorth
09-03-2015, 06:50 AM
Thanks for the info. But I can't see the PCA from the spoiler.


http://s24.postimg.org/bqo2bwqno/pca.jpg

Try this link.

By the way, the Poles used in their autosomal PCA seem to cluster with Sorbs and not really with Balts, Estonians or Mordovians. Maybe those Estonian Poles included in their other tests were dropped? They seem to use slightly different datasets in almost all tests.

Volat
09-03-2015, 06:52 AM
I could not wait to plug some data into software. PS Poles may have been shifted into eastern direction due to Polish_Estonian samples

MDS plot based on pair-wise indices (Fst) between the populations: http://postimg.org/image/ohr2mkoaf/full/

parastais
09-03-2015, 06:58 AM
To be honest I have expected for a very long time that part of ancestry which unites all Slavs and makes them different from neighbors should be pretty much Baltic.
So, I am a bit disappointed it is not the case for South Slavs.

Generalissimo
09-03-2015, 06:58 AM
http://s24.postimg.org/bqo2bwqno/pca.jpgBy the way, the Poles used in their autosomal PCA seem to cluster with Sorbs and not really with Balts, Estonians or Mordovians. Maybe those Estonian Poles included in their other tests were dropped? They seem to use slightly different datasets in almost all tests.

Poles in Estonia are mostly mixed with East Slavs, because most arrived there recently from other parts of the USSR.

Polacy w Estonii (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polacy_w_Estonii)


W czasach radzieckich wielu Polaków przybywało do Estonii z dawnych Kresów Wschodnich.

And maybe Kushniarevich et al. removed the most ridiculously admixed North Russian-like Estonian Poles from the PCA analysis.

Gravetto-Danubian
09-03-2015, 07:49 AM
To be honest I have expected for a very long time that part of ancestry which unites all Slavs and makes them different from neighbors should be pretty much Baltic.
So, I am a bit disappointed it is not the case for South Slavs.

"Baltic" itself is multicomponental- mostly various R1a clades + N1c; and the attached autosomal pattern. Some of those R1a clades are indeed common through to Greece, so it's not really missing, it's just seems minor given the complexity of south slavic genomic make up which is otherwise lacking in the Pole-Ukrainian continuum. The other major component in all slavs- apart from the "proto-Balto-Slavic" R1a - is the "Carpatho-Slavic" I2a. This is obviously the more common in South slavs, but is seen as high as 25% even in South Belorussians . Indeed, it might be the "true" Slavic superstate component , and R1a is just a Baltic substratum.(i realize its a controversial proposal :) )

Tomenable
09-03-2015, 08:59 AM
and R1a is just a Baltic substratum.(i realize its a controversial proposal)

It is a very controversial proposal because it ignores the existence of a common Balto-Slavic Indo-European language, introduced to Central and Eastern Europe by R1a. Instead this proposal tries to invent some "purely R1a" Balts, only later overran by Non-Indo-European Slavs (I2a is not originally Indo-European, just like N1c and I1). I have seen people on this forum claiming that all of R1b P312 is Celtic, even though we know that it was spreading long before the spread of Celtic languages (which expanded during the Iron Age from Hallstatt and Lata Tene cultures). In other words - Celtic genetics was spreading already in the Bronze Age, but Celtic language only in the Iron Age, without changing the already previously established Celtic genetics. The same seems to be the case with Balts and especially with Slavs, or at least it is suggested so in this paper.

IMO so called "Baltic toponyms" are in fact Balto-Slavic, and Slavic language evolved from those Balto-Slavs (not Balts!) in situ. It is hard to believe that Balts were once as numerous as Slavs are now, and Slavs were as few in numbers as Balts are now (relatively to each other). More likely something happened with certain dialects of Balto-Slavic, which caused their evolution - in situ - towards what we call Slavic.

And proper Baltic as we know it, evolved only after R1a mixed with N1c, which was either Finnic or Old European (like I2a).

Edit:


In other words - Celtic genetics was spreading already in the Bronze Age, but Celtic language only in the Iron Age, without changing the already previously established Celtic genetics. The same seems to be the case with Balts and especially with Slavs, or at least it is suggested so in this paper.

In the link, user Alan posted interesting thoughts. He wrote that when those people who later became Common Celtic-speaking were spreading, they were not yet speaking Proto-Celtic proper, but some kind of pre-proto-Celtic Indo-European dialect continuum. Only later, as the result of cultural interactions, a convergence took place, and those various dialects or languages spoken over vast areas, became one, relatively uniform, Proto-Celtic language - which was according to him possible without large-scale migrations. Later, when cultural connections collapsed, and some areas became peripherial, convergence weakened, divergence started, and distinct Celtic languages started to emerge from Common Celtic:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4943-Iron-Age-and-Anglo-Saxon-genomes-from-East-England-reveal-British-migration-history&p=97233&highlight=Celtic#post97233

"(...) Its long been recognised that any Y-DNA correlation with former Celtic-speaking area really requires all three main branches of R1b P312 haplogroup to explain it. However I think its not simple. I believe when population of P312 people was spreading through future Celtic stages it was at most at the pre-proto-Celtic stage - the equivalent of the long pre-proto-Germanic phase that is usually postulated to fit in the period 2500-500 BC give or take a couple of centuries. I think people find it hard to get their heads around these pre-proto phases of languages. However, IMO the migration phases that spread most of P312 happened in the pre-proto-Celtic era and that further dialect changes that moved towards full proto-Celtic were done over a wide area of interaction almost like a lingua franca dialect rather than by migration. People got too used to nice maps with a core circled and arrows coming out of it for Celtic when its probably massively complex. The lattice of contacts seen in metalwork in the Bronze Age was complex and multi-directional. There is probably an element of dialect convergence involved. (...) we are talking about gradual linguistic shifts among already existing peoples. As I have said, proto-Celtic or any proto language is just a snapshot in time before divergence started to set in. That divergence probably started with the Bronze Age network collapse when convergence was weakened and some areas became peripheral. Proto languages are useful concepts but they are just snapshots of a constant process and we should not get hung up on it. (...)"

Some other proto-languages could also be spreading the same way as Celtic (through convergence of dialects), if Alan's model is correct. Maybe that was also the case with Slavic - which explains why Slavic genetics was established long before "proper Slavic" language.

And we don't need "Balts" to explain this, at least not Balts in the modern sense (N1c + R1a). Rather, Balto-Slavs.

Gravetto-Danubian
09-03-2015, 09:15 AM
It is a very controversial proposal because it ignores the existence of a common Balto-Slavic Indo-European language, introduced to Central and Eastern Europe by R1a. Instead this proposal tries to invent some "purely R1a" Balts, only later overran by Non-Indo-European Slavs (I2a is not originally Indo-European, just like N1c and I1). I have seen people on this forum claiming that all of R1b P312 is Celtic, even though we know that it was spreading long before the spread of Celtic languages (which expanded during the Iron Age from Hallstatt and Lata Tene cultures). In other words - Celtic genetics was spreading already in the Bronze Age, but Celtic language only in the Iron Age, without changing the already previously established Celtic genetics. The same seems to be the case with Balts and especially with Slavs, or at least it is suggested so in this paper.

IMO so called "Baltic toponyms" are in fact Balto-Slavic, and Slavic language evolved from those Balto-Slavs (not Balts!) in situ. It is hard to believe that Balts were once as numerous as Slavs are now, and Slavs were as few in numbers as Balts are now (relatively to each other). More likely something happened with certain dialects of Balto-Slavic, which caused their evolution - in situ - towards what we call Slavic.

And proper Baltic as we know it, evolved only after R1a mixed with N1c, which was either Finnic or Old European (like I2a).

Well my proposal was a bit tongue in cheek, but not wholly far off reality. What you really need to let go of is the pretense that there is any linear continuity between Bronze Age Corded ware groups and modern central european Slavs. The fact is R1a is clealry of a peri-Baltic (sensu geographically) genome, whilst slavic is a southern lingusitic phenomenon, relatively speaking. Ie it spread from the Carpathians and lower Middle Dniepr region to the north. This timing, and geography, appears to match closely with I2a expansions.

To reiterate, PIE might have entered with R1a, but the story of slavic expansion some 3000 years later is obviously a different phenomenon. But I accept that it is artificial to call one Y haplogroups something over another, because groups were very mixed already c. 500 AD- even if the relative population collapse in late antiquity allowed for some drift, bottle-necking, etc. Likely, certain R1a clades (eg those pointed out by LGMayka) co-expanded with certain I2a clades . . .

Volat
09-03-2015, 09:19 AM
"Baltic" itself is multicomponental- mostly various R1a clades + N1c; and the attached autosomal pattern. Some of those R1a clades are indeed common through to Greece, so it's not really missing, it's just seems minor given the complexity of south slavic genomic make up which is otherwise lacking in the Pole-Ukrainian continuum. The other major component in all slavs- apart from the "proto-Balto-Slavic" R1a - is the "Carpatho-Slavic" I2a. This is obviously the more common in South slavs, but is seen as high as 25% even in South Belorussians . Indeed, it might be the "true" Slavic superstate component , and R1a is just a Baltic substratum.(i realize its a controversial proposal :) )

Y-chromsome markers are just that markers in Y-chromosome. The markers can be the result of founder effects. I can assure you that Belarusians carrying I2a2 are more genetically similar to east Lithuanians carrying N1c1 than Bulgarians with I2a2 at genome-wide level (aDNA). :)

Tomenable
09-03-2015, 09:23 AM
the story of slavic expansion some 3000 years later

Written sources clearly confirm that there was a major Slavic expansion from Northern Europe into the Balkans, leading to the emergence of South Slavs. However, there is no historical confirmation of a similar Slavic expansion within Northern Europe (from one part to another).

These are only archaeological speculations, which find no confirmation in genetics at all.

Not to mention, that there are also no genetic signals of expansions of "East Germanic tribes" into North Africa, Italy, Iberia, etc.

"Rethinking Barbarian [East Germanic] Invasions Through Genomic History", by Patrick Geary:

https://video.ias.edu/node/5304

Gravetto-Danubian
09-03-2015, 09:29 AM
Written sources clearly confirm that there was a major Slavic expansion from Northern Europe into the Balkans, leading to the emergence of South Slavs. However, there is no historical confirmation of a similar Slavic expansion within Northern Europe (from one part to another).

These are only archaeological speculations, which find no confirmation in genetics at all.

Not to mention, that there are also no genetic signals of expansion of "East Germanic tribes" into North Africa, Italy, Iberia, etc.

Sorry, you must be confused. Because there is no source at all which houses the slavs in northern europe - if by northern europe you mean anything North of Southern Ukraine, Souther Poland and eastern romania . And my proposal is wholly within archaeological, linguistic and literary evidence; and it's clear enough if one actually knows the material at hand, and doesn't suffer from biased, fixed perspective.

The case of Vandals in Africa is irrelevant, and a false analogy. They were a ruling few amongst numerous romans, Berbers, etc; who eventually got killed off. The scenario in slavic europe is wholly different- again, this is obvious with the required familiarity.

Gravetto-Danubian
09-03-2015, 09:30 AM
Y-chromsome markers are just that markers in Y-chromosome. The markers can be the result of founder effects. I can assure you that Belarusians carrying I2a2 are more genetically similar to east Lithuanians carrying N1c1 than Bulgarians with I2a2 at genome-wide level (aDNA). :)

Of course they are- today, and you're correct one shouldn't make too much of Y chromosomes in isolation - I don't believe I am. But the pattern of I2a is clear enough, although what it represents is more difficult to discern.

Tomenable
09-03-2015, 09:46 AM
The case of Vandals in Africa is irrelevant, and a false analogy. They were a ruling few

Written sources describe the numbers of migrating barbarians as dozens or hundreds of thousands.

But if only "a ruling few" immigrated, then it means that a few had emigrated from their homeland as well.


Sorry, you must be confused. Because there is no source at all which houses the slavs in northern europe - if by northern europe you mean anything North of Southern Ukraine, Souther Poland and eastern romania .

Southern Ukraine is covered by the steppe, sedentary farmers-herders like Slavs couldn't live there.

Indeed - all theories place the original homeland of Slavs North of Southern Ukraine and North of Romania.

Gravetto-Danubian
09-03-2015, 09:52 AM
Written sources describe numbers of migrating barbarians as hundreds of thousands.

But if only "a ruling few" immigrated, then it means that a few had emigrated from their homeland as well.

.

Nope.
History 101: never trust Greco- Roman sources implicitly. Hyperbole ? Look it up in the dictionary.

I can guarantee you there were not hundred of thousands people in eastern europe c. 500 AD. In fact, there were low few thousands. Again, just observe the low number archaeological settlements- now dated with extreme precision- to within 25 years. And, no matter what one makes of the numbers; the slavs aren't from "northern europe ", but Swedes, Rus, Balts, Finns certainly are

And the migration of slavs wasn't a "ruling elite" affair. Seems like you pulled that out of the air. It was households, and entire villages practising mobile farming. Later, it involved active settlement of mixed groups of people speaking slavic, moved by the Avars to defend key regions.


Southern Ukraine is covered by the steppe, sedentary farmers could not live there.

My bad wording, I accept. I should say central-Western ukraine.

Tomenable
09-03-2015, 09:56 AM
Y-chromsome markers are just that markers in Y-chromosome. The markers can be the result of founder effects. I can assure you that Belarusians carrying I2a2 are more genetically similar to east Lithuanians carrying N1c1 than Bulgarians with I2a2 at genome-wide level (aDNA).

This is not really so much due to founder effects, but rather due to mtDNA similarities / uniformity between Belarusians and Lithuanians. That is, Belarusians and Bulgarians have similarities in their sets of male ancestors, but their sets of female ancestors are more distinct.

Autosomal DNA is inherited from both female and male ancestors.


I can guarantee you there were not hundred of thousands people in eastern europe c. 500 AD. In fact, there were low few thousands.

500 AD is already after the end of those Germanic migrations.

Anyway - there were hundreds of thousands people in Eastern Europe at that time.

Population density of 3 - 5 people per 1 km2 was a standard.

Some regions could be more densely populated, up to 10 people per 1 km2 or so.


Later, it involved active settlement of mixed groups of people speaking slavic, moved by the Avars to defend key regions.

The Avars never extended their influence in areas located to the north of the Carpathian-Sudetes, such as East Germany or Poland.

And Slavic migration into the Balkans across the Danube had actually started few dozen years before the arrival of the Avars.

parastais
09-03-2015, 09:57 AM
What is wrong with this proposed homeland:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Slavic_languages#/media/File:Slavic_distribution_origin.png

the dark red?

J1 DYS388=13
09-03-2015, 09:58 AM
deleted

Volat
09-03-2015, 09:58 AM
Written sources describe the numbers of migrating barbarians as dozens or hundreds of thousands.

But if only "a ruling few" immigrated, then it means that a few had emigrated from their homeland as well.



Southern Ukraine is covered by the steppe, sedentary farmers-herders like Slavs couldn't live there.

Indeed - all theories place the original homeland of Slavs North of Southern Ukraine and North of Romania.

Slavs' home-land is forest zone. North-western Ukraine-south-eastern Poland- south-western Belarus. Essentially, we all came from the east before Slavic and Baltic languages emerged.

Gravetto-Danubian
09-03-2015, 10:19 AM
Slavs' home-land is forest zone. North-western Ukraine-south-eastern Poland- south-western Belarus. Essentially, we all came from the east before Slavic and Baltic languages emerged.

Your opinion is not possible, I'm afraid. Simply: Northern ukraine, southern Belarus, etc- "the Polesie" et al, was unpopulated c. 400-600 AD. There is no debating this issue with modern dating, pollen studies, reforestation evidenc. This region was only populated from 7th century onward, from further south. :) (see Curta- MOS- where he dismantles earlier mis-datings, P Heather accepts Curta's; also see archaeologia Polona article by Barfors/ Kibylinski 1991; also the "Emergence of Rus"- Franklin/ Sheppard)

Further North, on the other hand, is northen Belarus, adjacent baltic States and central-North weatern russia were populated continuously. But these people were obviously not Slavs.

Volat
09-03-2015, 10:27 AM
Your opinion is not possible, I'm afraid. Simply: Northern ukraine, southern Belarus, etc- "the Polesie" et al, was unpopulated c. 400-600 AD. There is no debating this issue with modern dating, pollen studies, reforestation evidenc. This region was only populated from 7th century onward, from further south. :)

Further North, on the other hand, is northen Belarus, adjacent baltic States and central-North weatern russia were populated continuously. But these people were obviously not Slavs.

You think of northern Belarus and adjacent districts of western Russia as Baltic, I think of people that settled the regions in the past as proto-Balto-Slavs. Ancestors of Balts and Slavs settled the region.

Gravetto-Danubian
09-03-2015, 10:35 AM
500 AD is already after the end of those Germanic migrations.

Anyway - there were hundreds of thousands people in Eastern Europe at that time.

Population density of 3 - 5 people per 1 km2 was a standard.

Some regions could be more densely populated, up to 10 people per 1 km2 or so..

I look forward to seeing your published theories, complete with detailed excavation reports of these hundreds and thousands of settlements that actually don't exist. But you might have to create your own journal in order to publish it :)




The Avars never extended their influence in areas located to the north of the Carpathian-Sudetes, such as East Germany or Poland.

And Slavic migration into the Balkans across the Danube had actually started few dozen years before the arrival of the Avars.

1) yes they did. Avar weapons and material have been found all the way to the elbe and in southern poland.

2) slavs certainly raided the balkans from c, 500 AD. But no settlement occurred until c. 630.

Sorry, I'm going to stop tormenting you now :). But I did enjoy debating this minutii with you, and hope you've learned a few things.

parastais
09-03-2015, 10:43 AM
I think we need to have a new name for this phenomenon, rather than Balto-Slavic, since it assumes dual thingy. The truth is they were Cordedmen. And those Cordedmen in North Belarus were not linguistic ancestors of Slavs, neither of modern East Balts (although partially they might, since Lettigalians might have arrived to Latvia from Belarus). They were Cordedmen.
Some other Cordedmen in the dark red area (my post above) assimilated some folk and created dialect which turned into Proto-Slavic and replaced local speeches.
Some other Cordedmen in Baltics spoke different Cordedmen dialects, assimilated some N1c1 folk and created dialects with turned into East and West Baltic.
Some other Cordedmen did not create any surviving modern branches and got consumed by successful Slavs.

Their hydronyms are for most part are recognized as Baltic since Cordedmen phonology was rather Baltoid.

Volat
09-03-2015, 10:55 AM
I think we need to have a new name for this phenomenon, rather than Balto-Slavic, since it assumes dual thingy. The truth is they were Cordedmen. And those Cordedmen in North Belarus were not linguistic ancestors of Slavs, neither of modern East Balts (although partially they might, since Lettigalians might have arrived to Latvia from Belarus). They were Cordedmen.
Some other Cordedmen in the dark red area (my post above) assimilated some folk and created dialect which turned into Proto-Slavic and replaced local speeches.
Some other Cordedmen in Baltics spoke different Cordedmen dialects, assimilated some N1c1 folk and created dialects with turned into East and West Baltic.
Some other Cordedmen did not create any surviving modern branches and got consumed by successful Slavs.

Their hydronyms are for most part are recognized as Baltic since Cordedmen phonology was rather Baltoid.

Corded-ware people were Indo-Europeans as per general consensus. If they were not ancestors of Balts and Slavs in northern Belarus, then whose ancestors were they? Indo-Europeans came to Latvia along Daugava river. The origins of Daugava river is in northern Belarus and western Russia. The region is known to have R1a and N1c. 4,500-5,000 ybp. Go figure.

If you scratch any Slavic word (not just hydronyms) you will likely to arrive to a Baltic root. So Baltic hydronyms are just as Slavic as they are Baltic.

Tomenable
09-03-2015, 10:58 AM
2) slavs certainly raises the balkans from , 500 AD. But no settlement occurred until c. 630.

Wow, where did you take this completely false (bolded part) information from?!

Slavic settlement in the Balkans (south of the Danube) started occuring already in the 540s.

Slavs were raiding Roman lands from areas north of the Danube (now southern Romania) since around the 490s-500 AD, but they started to settle south of the Danube only later, in the 540s. First Slavic settlements from ca. 540 - 550 were established in Eastern Bosnia, Lower and Upper Moesia, and Little Scythia - including the regions of Ulmetum and Adina. Around that time (ca. 550) first Slavic settlers reached what is now Slovenia (they could be the same group which had besieged Dyrrachium in 547). Then after 568 another wave of Slavs came to Slovenia, this time from the north (most likely from Moravia). In years 577 - 588 another migrating wave of Slavs - numbering 100,000 people according to John of Ephesus and Menander Protector - settled in Thrace and in Thessaly, penetrating Byzantine lands as far the Great Walls of Constantinople. In year 580 Slavs sacked and plundered Athens, for which there is archaeological evidence. One generation later - around 610 - they reached the Peloponnese. In 599 according to Pope Gregory I, most of Istria had already been controlled by Slavs and they started raiding the Italian Peninsula. The Avars appear initially as enemies of the Slavs and allies of the Byzantines. In year 584 Slavs led by Ardagast (Radagast) and Musokios, besieged Constantinople and Byzantine Emperor Maurice sent emissaries to the Khagan of the Avars - Bayan I - asking him for help against those Slavs. Ardagast with his Slavs was repulsed from Constantinople by combined Byzantine-Avar forces, and later lost two more battles against Byzantine and Avar forces led by Comentiolus (the battle of Erginia River and the battle of Ansinon, near Hadrianopole). Comentiolus also pushed the Slavic settlers out of the region of Astica. In 585 united Byzantine-Avar forces decided to attack Slavic lands across the Danube - forces under command of Priscus and Gentzon crossed the river at Dorostolon (present-day Silistra) and surprise-attacked the Slavs in their territory (as most of their forces had long been campaigning in the Balkans). They attacked at midnight and defeated the Slavs, Ardagast fell on a tree stump and was almost captured, luckily he was near a river and eluded the attackers. Later alliances switched - the Avars abandoned their Byzantine allies and started to cooperate with the Slavs, having subordinated some of their tribes (including the southern branch of Dudlebes), and having signed alliances with others.

In the 600s Slavic colonisation of lands south of the Danube continued, this time with Avar help.


And the migration of slavs wasn't a "ruling elite" affair. Seems like you pulled that out of the air. It was households, and entire villages practising mobile farming. Later, it involved active settlement of mixed groups of people speaking slavic, moved by the Avars to defend key regions.

Nope. Contrary to what you claim above, Slavs were not a "leaderless mass", which required a foreign elite to control them. Early Slavic societies were relatively democratic, but they had their leaders and these are mentioned in written sources. Etymologies of their names are clearly Slavic in most cases. Those were chieftains such as: Ardagast, Musokios, Peiragast, Swarunas, Dauritas, Boz, Dabragezas, Kalagast, Chilbudius, Usigard, Mezamir, Idarizos, Chatzon, Waltunc, Pribina, Kocel, Daurentios, Waluk, Dervan, etc.

Most of these names are archaic Slavic ones (name Ardagast - mentioned in the 6th century - later transformed into Radogost, as there was a general ard -> rad / arda -> rada sound shift), Usigard was Usigrod and Kalagast = Całogost (there took place an a -> o sound shift, it was the same in gard -> gord; in Polish and Lusatian there is grod, in most other Slavic languages there is grad, in Russian there is gorod, while Drevano-Polabian preserved the archaic form gard). Mezamir = Miedzamir (miedza + mir). Etc., etc.

Ardagast/Radagast has a clear Slavic etymology. In East Germany there was also a Slavic town and religious center Radgosc (other names: Radegost, Riedigost, Redigast, Radigast, Radogoszcz, Rethra).

parastais
09-03-2015, 11:15 AM
Corded-ware people were Indo-Europeans as per general consensus. If they were not ancestors of Balts and Slavs in northern Belarus, then whose ancestors were they? Indo-Europeans came to Latvia along Daugava river. The origins of Daugava river is in northern Belarus and western Russia. The region is known to have R1a and N1c. 4,500-5,000 ybp. Go figure.

If you scratch any Slavic word (not just hydronyms) you will likely to arrive to a Baltic root. So Baltic hydronyms are just as Slavic as they are Baltic.
Yeah, Cordedmen maybe is not the best name :)
North Satemers? :)

They are neither Baltic or Slavic, they are North Satemer hydronyms. And North Satemers of course are ancestors of Balts and Slavs. But. Linguistically Slavic developed from one branch of North Satemers. East and West Balts from other branches.

To see my point. For example, if Latgalians get totally Russified in next century/ies, would you claim they were linguistic ancestors of then Slavic population of Latgale? I would say that genetically they are ancestors, but I would state that their language arrived from Russia and maybe have kept some substrate Latgalian terms or phonetics.

Tomenable
09-03-2015, 11:19 AM
Avar weapons and material have been found all the way to the elbe and in southern poland.

I know about some Hunnic findings from Poland - but I've not heard about Avar findings.

Can you tell me more? Or perhaps you confused Hunnic findings with Avar findings.

Here is a map showing Hunnic findings (relatively few, but still) from Poland (these are archaeological sites in Podłoziny near Poznań, Jędrzychowice near Wrocław, Jakuszowice, Przemęczany, Witów near Cracow and Świlcza near Rzeszów) - most of them are dated to the 1st half of the 5th century:

http://s10.postimg.org/56uhwljtl/Hunnic.png

http://s10.postimg.org/56uhwljtl/Hunnic.png

Now I must go to eat some strava (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunnic_language#Indo-European)! :) So I'm going to log out. See you later.

Volat
09-03-2015, 11:30 AM
Yeah, Cordedmen maybe is not the best name :)
North Satemers? :)

The common term used in literature is 'proto-Balto-Slavic' for 'north-satemers'. :)



They are neither Baltic or Slavic, they are North Satemer hydronyms. And North Satemers of course are ancestors of Balts and Slavs. But. Linguistically Slavic developed from one branch of North Satemers. East and West Balts from other branches.

If north satemers were proto-Balto-Slavs, then yes Balts and Slavs emerged from this group. Although, I read a scholarly paper in which it was suggested that eastern Balts split from one group, while western Balts and Slavs from another group.


To see my point. For example, if Latgalians get totally Russified in next century/ies, would you claim they were linguistic ancestors of then Slavic population of Latgale? I would say that genetically they are ancestors, but I would state that their language arrived from Russia and maybe have kept some substrate Latgalian terms or phonetics.

If Latgalians get culturally assimilated by the Slavs ( I hope that does not happen as Slavs have assimilated so many Balts already. I hope Latgalians remain Baltic for several thousand years and more.) I would say they are Slavs, because they identify themselves as such. But they have genetic and possibly linguistic Baltic ancestry.

Tomenable
09-03-2015, 11:36 AM
As for Avars - first Avars appeared at the Danube River in 561, around 20 years after Slavs had started to settle south of the Danube. Moreover, Avars initially directed their aggression mostly against Germanic tribes - in 567-568 they crushed Gepids, and in 568-569 they forced Langobards to emigrate to Italy.

Only later Avars waged a full-scale war against the Slavs, subordinating large part of them.

George
09-03-2015, 11:40 AM
"The Avars never extended their influence in areas located to the north of the Carpathian-Sudetes, such as East Germany or Poland."(Tomenable)
The PVL account of the Dulebians is famous. They were north of the Carpathians. And of course we know the Avars also dominated the steppe area until the Kubrat rebellion of 635. They also seem to have eliminated the "Antes" a little earlier.

Tomenable
09-03-2015, 11:44 AM
the PVL account of the Dulebians is famous. They were north of the Carpathians.

There were 3 different Slavic tribes called "Dulebians", but no of them lived north of the Carpathians. One lived in Moldova or Ukraine, east of the Carpathians. One lived in Bohemia, south of the Carpathians. Finally, there was a 3rd tribe of this name in the Balkans - a South Slavic one (south of the Carpathians).

Slavic tribes with similar names were common.

For example the case of Srbs (Sorbs/Serbs/Sarbs/Surbs).

Just to mention Balkan Srbs, Lusatian Srbs (initially "Surbi" in Latin, now Sorbs), and Pomeranian Srbs who were mentioned by English Orosius as living to the south of Bornholm, near Sarbia.

There is also Lake Srbsko in Pomerania. There are many "Srbian toponyms" in Poland.

Sarbia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbia

There are some villages called "Sarbinowo", some villages called "Serby", etc., etc.

Lake Srbsko (Polish name: Jezioro Sarbsko; Kashubian name: Jezoro Sorbsko).

parastais
09-03-2015, 11:46 AM
If Latgalians get culturally assimilated by the Slavs ( I hope that does not happen as Slavs have assimilated so many Balts already. I hope Latgalians remain Baltic for several thousand years and more.) I would say they are Slavs, because they identify themselves as such. But they have genetic and possibly linguistic Baltic ancestry.
A big, fat genetic Latgalian paļdis! :)

Volat
09-03-2015, 11:49 AM
I always associated confederations of Slavic tribes 'Dulebs' with Buznahe (settlers of western Bug river) and Volynians. The area of present-day north-western Ukraine, south-eastern Poland, strip of south-western Belarus and possible Slovakia.

Volat
09-03-2015, 11:50 AM
A big, fat genetic Latgalian paļdis! :)

Latgalians have such a history. :) They gave the name to modern -day Latvians. I like their culture. :)

Tomenable
09-03-2015, 11:54 AM
I always associated confederations of Slavic tribes 'Dulebs' with Buznahe (settlers of western Bug river) and Volynians. The area of present-day north-western Ukraine, south-eastern Poland, strip of south-western Belarus and possible Slovakia.

There were at least 3 distinct Slavic tribes of this name mentioned in various sources:

- Dulebs in Southern Bohemia
- Dulebs in Lower Pannonia
- Dulebs in South-Western Ukraine

Now be wise and tell me which of them was conquered by Avars. :) IMO Pannonian Dulebs.

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

This map shows the Southern Bohemian branch of Dulebs (Doudlebi in Latin):

http://labphys.tf.czu.cz/CeskeKmeny.jpg

http://labphys.tf.czu.cz/CeskeKmeny.jpg

And this map shows the Lower Pannonian branch of Dulebs (Dudleipa in Latin):

http://s22.postimg.org/vot7dq1ch/North.png

http://s22.postimg.org/vot7dq1ch/North.png

Who were north-eastern neighbours of Dudleipa since 568 ??? :) Avars (Awarowie).

So IMHO, the branch of Dulebs oppressed by Avars, were Pannonian Dudleipa.

Artmar
09-03-2015, 11:59 AM
Some other Cordedmen in Baltics spoke different Cordedmen dialects, assimilated some N1c1 folk and created dialects with turned into East and West Baltic.

Although N1c is now common among Baltic speakers, I think that N1c was quite marginal among the proto Baltic speakers up to the first centuries AD or few centuries before. Let's sum up few things:

- Baltic N1c has different pattern than Baltic R1a (certain Z280>CTS1211 and Z280>Z92 clades), the latter being visibly older and the former being younger, showing signs of explosion around some last centuries BC. If that was the other way around (with R1a CWC "newcomers" assimilating "indigenuous" N1c) N1c would've formed older clusters and would be more diversified. It's visible in most areas of Europe - R1 clades form relatively shallow clusters, whereas everything that was before it (G2a, I2), in most cases less numerous, make deep clusters.
Of course, there are some notable exceptions (i.e few assimilated families of I1 and I2 "Din", although certainly having longer presence than "newcomers" in their older forms, exploding in similar timeframe and even gaining the upper hand in some areas). But that's why we have ancient DNA to evaluate some more difficult scenarios and that's why I'm moving to another point.

- N1c wasn't attested in North-Eastern Europe up to 2,500 B.C.. Mesolithic Karelian was R1a-M459 (don't confuse with M458), even individual from 4000 B.C. Serteya in Smolenskaya oblast was R1a. At least for today, first N1c appears to accompany two R1a in Zhizhitskaya culture (site in Serteya as well). It's probably when the first ancestors of modern N1c started to come to those regions. Considering how young is modern Baltic N1c, they mostly didn't make it until 5th-2nd century BC. At that timeframe, Baltic countries were settled with R1a clades for hundreds of years. Even a late bronze age "Lithiuanian" from Turlojiske (RISE598), 908-485 BC was R1a, although of low coverage.
But how N1c gained upper hand in those regions? Was it some kind of conquest and if so - are there any traces of violence? Maybe there was no violence after all but there should've been a reason by which N1c (and not R1a) exploded in frequency. From archeological point of view - I have absolutely no idea. Historical sources are also quite...scarce. First sources from those regions are much younger and they consider some Baltic population that was called Aestii. Later sources (also Roman?) mention Galindians, Sudovians(?). So they don't make much use in that matter. We have to take a look at the descendants of elites. So, it makes another point.

- Lithuanian elites were more frequent in N1c. Gediminids but also much of an aristocracy/sovereign princes (like Radvila/Radziwill and others) were N1c. I obviously don't count the case of Chartoryski family, because they descend from Gediminids.
It may be a pure lottery and also some other important families aren't tested. But I would take a closer look whether Lithuanian elites aren't overrepresented by N1c, moreso than the population of Lithuania.

All those points combined make me think that N1c is a late comer that souldn't be really considered as an element of ethnogenesis of proto-Balts(but it IS an element of ethnogenesis of Latvians and Lithuanians). But my point may very well be modified, for example by more extensive testing(of ancient DNA and Elites).

For those who may feel that I'm attacking them - my great-grandfather was N1c, I very like this result and I will soon know a subbranch. Most of matches are from Lithuania.
Nothing personal here. It's just a short summary of few facts. I just think that Baltic CWC and proto-Balts were hardly N1c.

Volat
09-03-2015, 12:01 PM
Now be wise and tell me which of them was conquered by Avars. :) IMO Pannonian Dulebs.

Most of knowledge is on eastern Slavs and Balts, so I cannot give a weighted opinion on all Dulebes. But if asked for my opinion I 'd say Avars conquered the territories of present day Slovakia, eastern Czech Republic and Hungary. So Dulebes of Pannonia and southern Bohemia.

George
09-03-2015, 12:02 PM
There were 3 different Slavic tribes called "Dulebians", but no of them lived north of the Carpathians. One lived in Moldova or Ukraine, east of the Carpathians. One lived in Bohemia, south of the Carpathians. Finally, there was a 3rd tribe of this name in the Balkans - a South Slavic one (south of the Carpathians).

Slavic tribes with similar names were common.

For example the case of Srbs (Sorbs/Serbs/Sarbs/Surbs).

Just to mention Balkan Srbs, Lusatian Srbs (initially "Surbi" in Latin, now Sorbs), and Pomeranian Srbs who were mentioned by English Orosius as living to the south of Bornholm, near Sarbia.

There is also Lake Srbsko in Pomerania. There are many "Srbian toponyms" in Poland.

Sarbia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbia

There are some villages called "Sarbinowo", some villages called "Serby", etc., etc.

Lake Srbsko (Polish name: Jezioro Sarbsko; Kashubian name: Jezoro Sorbsko).

Northeast of the Carpathians will do for the Dulebians. That's "north" enough for me... But if by "North of the Carpathians" you mean just Poland then I agree that there is little evidence of Avar domination there. Although there is a theory which suggests that the "Croats" (ALL of them from Bohemia to Western Ukraine) were initially Avar establishments (ruled by non-Slavs) set up in the 6th century as "protection" against the threat to the Avars from the Gokturks. "khorovaty se" still means "to protect one's self" in Slovak.

Tomenable
09-03-2015, 12:08 PM
Northeast of the Carpathians will do for the Dulebians.

Have you seen two maps that I posted above (the 2nd map is from Zofia Kurnatowska)?

We don't need Ukrainian Dulebians to explain that passage from the PVL. There was another tribe of Dulebians in Southern Bohemia, as well as Dulebians in Lower Pannonia, even an area with Dulebians in the Alps near Carantania (Carinthia), though that could be just an offshoot of Pannonian Dulebians.

There were Obodrites in Germany, and Obodrites in the Balkans (Abodriti) in the map above.

There were Moravians between Czechs and Slovaks, and Moravians in the Balkans (Morawianie). There were Croats in the Balkans, and Croats in West Slavic lands. Polans near Kiev, and Polans near Gniezno. Really - ethnonyms repeat again and again. There was hardly any Slavic tribe with a "unique" name. Those tribal names had to exist already when Slavs expanded - and they carried names with them. Or, alternatively, it could be just a linguistic coincidence that various distant tribes had similar names.


"khorovaty se" still means "to protect one's self" in Slovak.

Show me that it means "to protect one's self" in Avar / Turkic, and I will agree with you!

Otherwise, "Croats" is a Slavic ethnonym ("the ones who protect themselves").

Volat
09-03-2015, 12:12 PM
By the way who were the Avars ? Were they Turkic or Iranic?

parastais
09-03-2015, 12:14 PM
Although N1c is now common among Baltic speakers, I think that N1c was quite marginal among the proto Baltic speakers up to the first centuries AD or few centuries before. Let's sum up few things:

- Baltic N1c has different pattern than Baltic R1a (certain Z280>CTS1211 and Z280>Z92 clades), the latter being visibly older and the former being younger, showing signs of explosion around some last centuries BC. If that was the other way around (with R1a CWC "newcomers" assimilating "indigenuous" N1c) N1c would've formed older clusters and would be more diversified. It's visible in most areas of Europe - R1 clades form relatively shallow clusters, whereas everything that was before it (G2a, I2), in most cases less numerous, make deep clusters.
Of course, there are some notable exceptions (i.e few assimilated families of I1 and I2 "Din", although certainly having longer presence than "newcomers" in their older forms, exploding in similar timeframe and even gaining the upper hand in some areas). But that's why we have ancient DNA to evaluate some more difficult scenarios and that's why I'm moving to another point.

- N1c wasn't attested in North-Eastern Europe up to 2,500 B.C.. Mesolithic Karelian was R1a-M459 (don't confuse with M458), even individual from 4000 B.C. Serteya in Smolenskaya oblast was R1a. At least for today, first N1c appears to accompany two R1a in Zhizhitskaya culture (site in Serteya as well). It's probably when the first ancestors of modern N1c started to come to those regions. Considering how young is modern Baltic N1c, they mostly didn't make it until 5th-2nd century BC. At that timeframe, Baltic countries were settled with R1a clades for hundreds of years. Even a late bronze age "Lithiuanian" from Turlojiske (RISE598), 908-485 BC was R1a, although of low coverage.
But how N1c gained upper hand in those regions? Was it some kind of conquest and if so - are there any traces of violence? Maybe there was no violence after all but there should've been a reason by which N1c (and not R1a) exploded in frequency. From archeological point of view - I have absolutely no idea. Historical sources are also quite...scarce. First sources from those regions are much younger and they consider some Baltic population that was called Aestii. Later sources (also Roman?) mention Galindians, Sudovians(?). So they don't make much use in that matter. We have to take a look at the descendants of elites. So, it makes another point.

- Lithuanian elites were more frequent in N1c. Gediminids but also much of an aristocracy/sovereign princes (like Radvila/Radziwill and others) were N1c. I obviously don't count the case of Chartoryski family, because they descend from Gediminids.
It may be a pure lottery and also some other important families aren't tested. But I would take a closer look whether Lithuanian elites aren't overrepresented by N1c, moreso than the population of Lithuania.

All those points combined make me think that N1c is a late comer that souldn't be really considered as an element of ethnogenesis of proto-Balts(but it IS an element of ethnogenesis of Latvians and Lithuanians). But my point may very well be modified, for example by more extensive testing(of ancient DNA and Elites).

For those who may feel that I'm attacking them - my great-grandfather was N1c, I very like this result and I will soon know a subbranch. Most of matches are from Lithuania.
Nothing personal here. It's just a short summary of few facts. I just think that Baltic CWC and proto-Balts were hardly N1c.
I agree to all points.
The only thing is whether age estimates of Baltic N1c1 are true... If so, what you say is only logical.

My personal new favorite idea is beginning of metallurgy in (East) Baltic. They might have been smiths clans from South Urals or something, as smiths they would be in great value and have access to women and resources to later form a ruling class. Maybe a few integrated smiths are enough to spread like crazy until each Baltic hillfort had smith.

Tomenable
09-03-2015, 12:16 PM
By the way who were the Avars ? Were they Turkic or Iranic?

Probably a mixture of Turkic with Iranic. Most of Late Iron Age and Medieval tribes were melting pots. And we can see that most of Turkic peoples have large % of Iranic DNA which they had assimilated.

Tomenable
09-03-2015, 12:20 PM
(...) aren't from "northern europe ", but (...) Finns certainly are

Really?

West-Uralic (including Proto-Finnic) homeland was here (is this now counted as "Northern Europe"?):

http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/Suomi2.jpg

http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/Suomi2.jpg

Volat
09-03-2015, 12:23 PM
And we can see that most of Turkic peoples have large % of Iranic DNA which they had assimilated.

what dna that are you talking about? R1a in Kyrgyz who live far away from western Ukraine, Slovakia and Hanguary?

Tomenable
09-03-2015, 12:24 PM
R1a-Z93 present in Turkic-speakers is of Iranic origin, was absorbed from assimilated Iranic people. Some Turkic peoples - such as Uyghurs - even seem to be much more genetically Iranic than Turkic.

Perhaps even Proto-Turkic could emerge as a mixture of Mongolic with Indo-European.

Some Turkic-speakers also have a lot of R1b - for example Bashkirs.

Some of Bashkir R1b belongs to M478, which is certainly not originally Indo-European.

But the rest of Bashkir R1b belongs to typically Indo-European M269.

Bashkirs even have some R1b-U152, if I'm not mistaken.

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

In general there is great variation among Turkic-speakers - from Yakuts to Anatolian Turks:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakuts

parastais
09-03-2015, 12:25 PM
Really?
West-Uralic (including Proto-Finnic) homeland was here (is this now counted as "Northern Europe"?):

Just a note.
This is very possible, but only one version of many about Finnic homeland, it is several degrees more complicated question than Slavic homeland.

Volat
09-03-2015, 12:27 PM
R1a-Z93 present in Turkic-speakers is of Iranic origin, was absorbed from assimilated Iranic people. Some Turkic peoples - such as Uyghurs - even seem to be much more genetically Iranic than Turkic.

Perhaps even Proto-Turkic could emerge as a mixture of Mongolic with Indo-European.

Well, Turkic homeland is Altay mountains, which is full of R1a-Z93 among indigenous people such as Khakassisans.

Tomenable
09-03-2015, 12:31 PM
Oldest ancient samples of R1a-Z93 come from Sintashta and Andronovo cultures, which were Proto-Indo-Iranian. So that was spreading already with Indo-Iranians during the Bronze Age and during the Early Iron Age. Map of ancient R1a in Asia dates + cultures (all dates in BC, unless stated that in AD):

(Xiaohe mummies had R1a, but rather not Z93 - Sintashta had the oldest confirmed Z93 so-far):

http://s23.postimg.org/nen0yig57/R1a_Asia_dates.png

http://s23.postimg.org/nen0yig57/R1a_Asia_dates.png

Compared to modern distribution of R1a-Z93:

http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-R1a-Z93-Asia.png

http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-R1a-Z93-Asia.png


Well, Turkic homeland is Altay mountains

How do we know this?

It is possible - but rather eastern slopes of Altai Mountains (i.e. Mongolian Altai).

In Western Mongolia there was mixing of Indo-European and Mongolic lineages.

George
09-03-2015, 12:35 PM
I always associated confederations of Slavic tribes 'Dulebs' with Buznahe (settlers of western Bug river) and Volynians. The area of present-day north-western Ukraine, south-eastern Poland, strip of south-western Belarus and possible Slovakia.

They were possibly named after some extant "Gothic" (or whatever) leaders. The correct name is "Dudleib". Interestingly there are many place names after them (exactly in the area of the Buzhane and Volyniane, and beyond.) This is usually interpreted as a "foreign" presence (like Pechenizhyn or Torchesk for instance elsewhere). They are thought to have disappeared in connection with the "Avar yoke". Certainly by the time of the "Danubian reflux" and the rise of the Luka-Rajkovetska culture in the 7th century.

George
09-03-2015, 12:39 PM
There were at least 3 distinct Slavic tribes of this name mentioned in various sources:

- Dulebs in Southern Bohemia
- Dulebs in Lower Pannonia
- Dulebs in South-Western Ukraine

Now be wise and tell me which of them was conquered by Avars. :) IMO Pannonian Dulebs.

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

This map shows the Southern Bohemian branch of Dulebs (Doudlebi in Latin):

http://labphys.tf.czu.cz/CeskeKmeny.jpg

http://labphys.tf.czu.cz/CeskeKmeny.jpg

And this map shows the Lower Pannonian branch of Dulebs (Dudleipa in Latin):

http://s22.postimg.org/vot7dq1ch/North.png

http://s22.postimg.org/vot7dq1ch/North.png

Who were north-eastern neighbours of Dudleipa since 568 ??? :) Avars (Awarowie).

So IMHO, the branch of Dulebs oppressed by Avars, were Pannonian Dudleipa.

They too.;) But the archaeological evidence (destructions) in the West Ukrainian Dulibian area is incontrovertible.

Tomenable
09-03-2015, 12:40 PM
^ To those examples above let's also add Wolyn (Volhynia) and Wolin (Baltic Sea island).

These two names also have common origin. As do Wolinians and Wolynians (Volhynians).


archaeological evidence (destructions) in the West Ukrainian Dulibian area is incontrovertible.

There is much more of archaeological evidence of the Avar invasion of Pannonia, though.

Volat
09-03-2015, 12:42 PM
How do we know this?

It is possible - but rather eastern slopes of Altai Mountains (i.e. Mongolian Altai).

In Western Mongolia there was mixing of Indo-European and Mongolic lineages.

I don't. I am re-iterating what's discussed in literature.

Tomenable
09-03-2015, 12:47 PM
Czech sources mentioned under year 1259 a town called Dudleu (near České Budějovice).

In 1315 we have info about a river in Bohemia called Dudleba (ad ryvum dictum Dudleba).

There was also another town called Dudleba, and is now called Dolany (German: Dehlau):

http://www.zanikleobce.cz/index.php?detail=1136260


se vzpomíná v latinsky psané listině osada Dudleba, o které Stocklöw předpokládá, že to byly Dolany.

George
09-03-2015, 12:48 PM
Have you seen two maps that I posted above (the 2nd map is from Zofia Kurnatowska)?

We don't need Ukrainian Dulebians to explain that passage from the PVL. There was another tribe of Dulebians in Southern Bohemia, as well as Dulebians in Lower Pannonia, even an area with Dulebians in the Alps near Carantania (Carinthia), though that could be just an offshoot of Pannonian Dulebians.

There were Obodrites in Germany, and Obodrites in the Balkans (Abodriti) in the map above.

There were Moravians between Czechs and Slovaks, and Moravians in the Balkans (Morawianie). There were Croats in the Balkans, and Croats in West Slavic lands. Polans near Kiev, and Polans near Gniezno. Really - ethnonyms repeat again and again. There was hardly any Slavic tribe with a "unique" name. Those tribal names had to exist already when Slavs expanded - and they carried names with them. Or, alternatively, it could be just a linguistic coincidence that various distant tribes had similar names.



Show me that it means "to protect one's self" in Avar / Turkic, and I will agree with you!

Otherwise, "Croats" is a Slavic ethnonym ("the ones who protect themselves").

The earliest recorded "Xopoathos" is hardly Slavic. Nor are the names of the Croat leaders in De administrando Imperio Slavic.
The PVL is concerned with the area northeast of the Carpathians in the relevant passage, not with Pannonia. But it's obvious enough that the P. Dulibi were also under the Avars.
I don't think you know very much about the Kyivan "Poli/Polane". The "men if the fields" etymology is a later interpretation by Sylvester, Nestor's corrector.
Your special "needs" (as above) hardly concern me.:amen:

Tomenable
09-03-2015, 01:05 PM
According to Russian sources, "dudleba" meant "clumsy person" in a local dialect spoken near Bolkhov (Бо́лхов).

parastais
09-03-2015, 01:05 PM
The earliest recorded "Xopoathos" is hardly Slavic. Nor are the names of the Croat leaders in De administrando Imperio Slavic.
The PVL is concerned with the area northeast of the Carpathians in the relevant passage, not with Pannonia. But it's obvious enough that the P. Dulibi were also under the Avars.
I don't think you know very much about the Kyivan "Poli/Polane". The "men if the fields" etymology is a later interpretation by Sylvester, Nestor's corrector.
Your special "needs" (as above) hardly concern me.:amen:
Can you provide more details about Polans, why is "men of the fields" not good etimology?

Tomenable
09-03-2015, 01:12 PM
The earliest recorded "Xopoathos" is hardly Slavic.

Where were those Xopoathos mentioned?

As far as I know the earliest name are Horohoati / Chroates recorded in Persian and Greek/Hellenistic sources as living in Arakhosia (which is called Harahvati in the Avestan language). But obviously Medieval Croats did not come from that region. If anything, we have now learned that Sintashta descended genetically from eastern part of Corded Ware - so technically Indo-Iranians descended from Proto-Balto-Slavs, or at least both groups descended from a common Satem-speaking Balto-Slavo-Iranic population. Similarities in vocabulary or ethnonyms can be cognates, resulting from common origin, rather than loanwords. Later there were people called Choruatos - mentioned as living near Caucasus and near eastern banks of the Black Sea.

That is not the only similar case.

For instance, Ancient sources mention also a tribe of Zicchi (Zinchi / Cissi).

Ancient sources also mention a tribe called Serboi living near Caucasus.

Serboi are mentioned for example by Pliny the Elder (23 - 79 AD).

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

Slavic "Bogdan" (God-given) = Persian "Baghdad" (God-given).

Does it mean, that Baghdad was established by a Slavic guy Bogdan ??? :biggrin1: This also works the other way around, any similarity in Slavic ethonyms to Iranic doesn't mean that there was Iranic presence.

parastais
09-03-2015, 01:20 PM
Btw, do we have a first R1a m458+ already in ancient dna?

Jean M
09-03-2015, 01:48 PM
Btw, do we have a first R1a m458+ already in ancient dna?

Yes, but only from the medieval period. Specifically, it is from a suspected Slavic cemetery at Usedom, Germany, 1200 AD: http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/medievaldna.shtml

George
09-03-2015, 02:00 PM
Where were those Xopoathos mentioned?


The name was that of a denizen of the Bosporan Kingdom. A burial inscription of the 3rd c. (at the height of the so-called "Sarmatization" process there).

Don't forget that the Avars in early days dominated quite a large area, not just their Hungarian heartland. And like other steppe peoples before and after, they could draw on clients and associates from very great distances. Farzoi (45-70) the Scythian (by succession, he was actually an Aorsan Alan) Rome's greatest steppe enemy in the first c. CE had allied clans from as far away as Kazakhstan (we know this from tamga analysis), and also reinvited some of the old associates of the old "Royal Scythians" (the Aukhata more precisely) to return to their old Dnipro haunts from north of the Syr-Darya (we know this from Pliny and from burial evidence). So there is nothing surprising at all by the Avar use of "Croats" for their military needs (maybe even "Serbs" but I won't insist on this since it is much less certain).

As for the "Balto-Slav" issue. I like the old notion of Bishop Berkeley, "everything is what it is, and not another thing". Slavs are Slavs, and Balts are Balts. The former we can trace archaeologically back to the Kyivan culture, and even a little earlier on historical documentation. Period. The latter we can also trace back archaeologically to a great extent. But the world of the "Balto-Slavs" is pure speculation, some of it useful and defensible, much of it just silly. The silliest attitude is to attempt to identify the ancestors of today's "Slavs" or "Balts" as "the same thing" just a "little different". That just leads to needless:argue: and opponents quickly turn into >:( >:( Seems somewhat regrettable.

ADW_1981
09-03-2015, 02:11 PM
R1a-Z93 present in Turkic-speakers is of Iranic origin, was absorbed from assimilated Iranic people. Some Turkic peoples - such as Uyghurs - even seem to be much more genetically Iranic than Turkic.

Perhaps even Proto-Turkic could emerge as a mixture of Mongolic with Indo-European.

Some Turkic-speakers also have a lot of R1b - for example Bashkirs.

Some of Bashkir R1b belongs to M478, which is certainly not originally Indo-European.

But the rest of Bashkir R1b belongs to typically Indo-European M269.

Bashkirs even have some R1b-U152, if I'm not mistaken.

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

In general there is great variation among Turkic-speakers - from Yakuts to Anatolian Turks:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakuts

Not really a fair statement to say R1b-M478 is Turkic/non-IE and then to claim all R1a-Z93 is IE origin when the latter is clearly more common than R1b in non-IE Central Asian populations.

George
09-03-2015, 02:22 PM
Can you provide more details about Polans, why is "men of the fields" not good etimology?

It's in fact a good "popular" etymology. But based on misinterpretation of no longer well understood sources. The Kyivan "Poli/Polans" actually didn't live "in the fields" but in a nicely forested area. So the best one can make of Sylvester here is that he meant that this aristocracy "came from the fields", i.e. the steppe, and this is fair enough. Nestor also refers to them as the "Poli", which points directly to Scythian ancestry. But very mediated, and only remembered as family lore. Judging by the geography of Constantine Porphyrogenitus (ca. 952) and by the German list of Slavic 9th c. tribes composed ca. 845, the "Poli/Polani" did not exist as a tribe then, and were identical to the so-called "Ulichi" (Ultines), who were a Hunnic remnant (Altziagir), politically not ethnically. But this s a long story. The "Polani" notion was revived by Nestor as a bookish expression for the non-Scandinavian nobility of Kyiv (In his view they also became "Rus" around 944 or so and were called by that name since (probably connected to the dynastic mariage of Olga's son "Sventoslav/Svyatoslav" with a Polan princess, which legitimized the Viking raiders as rulers of Kyiv. The two Iranic idols which were part of Volodymyr's 980 pantheon (Khors, Simargl) were probably those of the pagan "Polani" (though most were already Christian by that time). Another interesting passage by Nestor about the "Poli/Polane" is the one where he says "They were called 'Polane' but their speech was Slavic". Very eloquent "BUT".

Tomenable
09-03-2015, 02:44 PM
Parastais,

Polans comes either from "men of the open fields", or "men who cut trees".

The former explanation is more common, so I will only present the latter theory below.

Acording to a late Polish Slavist, Aleksander Brückner, the term 'pole' in Old Polish meant 'open space' (hence: 'w szczerym polu' - 'in open space', 'pole bitwy' - 'battlefield', 'kwiaty polne' - 'wildflowers', etc.), while agricultural farmland was denoted by the term 'niwa'. Thus it seems intriguing why a tribe which lived in an area where ca. 90% of land was covered by forest, had a name of Polans. One theory says that their name does not come from 'pole', but from 'polano' ('log' or 'wooden pole'), because they were such fervent woodcutters. Indeed during the 940s they did cut down all the oaks in the Gniezno Plateau, constructed 3 large wooden boroughs and expanded 3 previously existing ones. Just construction of one wooden bridge connecting Ostrów Lednicki island in the middle of the Lednica Lake with mainland required cutting down ca. 3000 oaks. Indeed by the time of Mieszko's baptism in 966, there was a large area deprived of trees near Gniezno, but those forests disappeared in the 940s. "Geographus Bavarus" written in the 800s did not mention the tribe of Polans. It, however, did mention the tribe of Glopeani. According to one theory Glopeani could be distorted Slopeani, and Poleni/Polani could be from Latin translation of slop/slup, which is polus (English: pole; wooden pole).

"Geographus Bavarus" is what George mentioned above as the German list of Slavic 9th c. tribes.

It was a document of military intelligence of East Francia (Germany), listing the size or strength of known Slavic tribes. However, historians argue how far to the east did German knowledge extent at that time. It is possible, that they only had accurate information about tribes living close to their borders. In the 800s Polans would be located quite far away from German eastern border, which was along the Elbe River.

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

However - just like in cases mentioned in my last post, there is also a hypothetical Iranic connection.

Penjikent Murals: https://www.google.pl/search?q=Penjikent+Murals&client=opera&hs=VYs&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAWoVChMIlJT_9Y3bxwIVgVRyCh3AhwAF&biw=1366&bih=659

Mention that in Fergana Valley: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fergana_Valley

There existed an Indo-European (perhaps Iranic) kingdom / realm known as Polouna.

In Russian legends there is a mythical figure of "polyanitsa" / "polanica" (a female steppe warrior).

George
09-03-2015, 02:45 PM
Have not read yet, just noticed.
Here you go:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0135820

I'm looking at some of their Y-DNA statistics. Their R1a -M198 seems very basic. How much non-Baltic and non-Slavic stuff would be included there? And under the very general R1a-M458 also. Same problem with the I-P37. I would guess this would not necessarily affect their contentions per se but am curious as to numbers.

Tomenable
09-03-2015, 02:59 PM
the latter is clearly more common than R1b in non-IE Central Asian populations.

Bashkirs have actually more of R1b than R1a - and in total ca. 3/4 of Bashkirs have R1 (b or a):

http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/bashkirs.html

Z93 is common in Indo-Iranic-speaking populations, while M478 can't be found in IE populations.

Tajiks and Uyghurs are very similar genetically, even though Tajiks speak Iranic, Uyghurs not.

Hence my conclusion that Z93 was spread by Iranics and absorbed by Turkic-speakers later on.

By contrast, M478 is limited just to Turkic-speakers, it cannot be found in IE-speakers AFAIK.

DF27 in Iberia is most common in Basques and in areas historically inhabited by Non-IE speakers (Aquitanian, Iberian, Tartessian and Turdetanian) - does it mean that DF27 was not originally IE ??? DF27 is most common in exactly these regions of Iberia, in which Non-IE people lived before the Roman conquest.

Z93 in Turkic populations is a similar case as R1b-DF27 in Non-IE regions of Iberia.

What's wrong with M478 being Non-IE? Are we going to claim that all R1b is IE including V88 ??? :)

Tomenable
09-03-2015, 03:13 PM
As for the "Balto-Slav" issue. I like the old notion of Bishop Berkeley, "everything is what it is, and not another thing". Slavs are Slavs, and Balts are Balts.

Unfortunately for your notion, Balts were never called "Balts" before the 19th century.

And the name "Baltic Sea" doesn't come from Balts - it is the other way around.

The most convincing etymology of Baltic Sea is from its shape, and from a Latin term:


(...) the first to name it the Baltic Sea (Mare Balticum) was the eleventh-century German chronicler Adam of Bremen. (...) derived from Latin balteus (belt).[8] Adam of Bremen himself compared the sea with a belt, stating that it is so named because it stretches through the land as a belt (Balticus, eo quod in modum baltei longo tractu per Scithicas regiones tendatur usque in Greciam). (...)

In "Chronica Slavorum" Helmold of Bosau counted West Baltic Prussians as part of Slavs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmold

So despite certain linguistic differences, all Balto-Slavic people were considered a unity.

George
09-03-2015, 03:25 PM
Unfortunately for your notion, Balts were never called "Balts" before the 19th century.

And the name "Baltic Sea" doesn't come from Balts - it is the other way around.

The most convincing etymology of Baltic Sea is from its shape, and from a Latin term:



In "Chronica Slavorum" Helmold of Bosau counted West Baltic Prussians as part of Slavs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmold

So despite certain linguistic differences, all Balto-Slavic people were considered a unity.

That's not the point I was making. But "de gustibus non est disputandum" and useless discussions are not my glass of beer. Be happy! :beerchug:

Tomenable
09-03-2015, 03:26 PM
Maybe Slavs emerged as a mix of "Balts" (Balto-Slavs) + Pontic-Caspian Iranics, who knows.


That's not the point I was making.

Well, you wrote:


the world of the "Balto-Slavs" is pure speculation, some of it useful and defensible, much of it just silly. The silliest attitude is to attempt to identify the ancestors of today's "Slavs" or "Balts" as "the same thing" just a "little different".

I don't think anyone disputes today that Balto-Slavic was one language at some point in time. Moreover, it is now often considered that it split immediately into 3 branches (Slavic, West Baltic, East Baltic), rather than just two (Slavic + Baltic). So West Balts were no more closely related to East Balts, than to Slavs.

parastais
09-03-2015, 03:45 PM
I don't think anyone disputes today that Balto-Slavic was one language at some point in time. Moreover, it is now often considered that it split immediately into 3 branches (Slavic, West Baltic, East Baltic), rather than just two (Slavic + Baltic). So West Balts were no more closely related to East Balts, than to Slavs.

That is a bullshit. I agree that split might have happened around the same time (there is indeed such theory, that there is no Proto-Baltic and it goes back to Proto-Balto-Slavic). But West Baltic is much more closely related to East Baltic than Slavic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Prussian_language#Monuments

Tomenable
09-03-2015, 03:50 PM
The former we can trace archaeologically back to the Kyivan culture,

The Kyivan culture at the beginning of the 5th century AD covered ca. 150,000 km2. Just 300 years later, Slavic-speaking populations predominated over ca. 2,500,000 km2 of Europe. This means 17-fold expansion over just 300 years and Slavisation of nearly 8,000 km2 on average per each year. This is something so incredible that it seems impossible, especially considering how Slavs are portrayed by archaeologists.

Germans from Otto the Great's Slavic Wars to 1945 did not manage to Germanise even 350,000 km2.

Were Proto-Slavs some "terminators of expansion" ???

Did they have birth rates like rabbits + culture & language that everyone wanted to adhere to & speak?

This looks like the most amazing expansion in history.

George
09-03-2015, 04:34 PM
The Kyivan culture at the beginning of the 5th century AD covered ca. 150,000 km2. Just 300 years later, Slavic-speaking populations predominated over ca. 2,500,000 km2 of Europe. This means 17-fold expansion over just 300 years and Slavisation of nearly 8,000 km2 on average per each year. This is something so incredible that it seems impossible, especially considering how Slavs are portrayed by archaeologists.

Germans from Otto the Great's Slavic Wars to 1945 did not manage to Germanise even 350,000 km2.

Were Proto-Slavs some "terminators of expansion" ???

Did they have birth rates like rabbits + culture & language that everyone wanted to adhere to & speak?

This looks like the most amazing expansion in history.

Definitely one of the most amazing. Great birth rate, and expansion into fairly depopulated areas (a lot has been written about both factors). "Domination" did not mean "immediate acculturation". In the Balkans the interplay between Slavs and "Vlachs" is very interesting. Similar situations known elsewhere in their northern "front" (the PVL gives many examples)

Tomenable
09-03-2015, 04:42 PM
Great birth rate, and expansion into fairly depopulated areas (a lot has been written about both factors).

Great birth rates - maybe, what about death rates? Those were very high in that period.

I will give you some data on lifespans of Early Slavs, based on skeletons.

And who or what had depopulated those areas ???


The Kyivan culture at the beginning of the 5th century AD covered ca. 150,000 km2. Just 300 years later, Slavic-speaking populations predominated over ca. 2,500,000 km2 of Europe. This means 17-fold expansion over just 300 years and Slavisation of nearly 8,000 km2 on average per each year. This is something so incredible that it seems impossible, especially considering how Slavs are portrayed by archaeologists.

If including mixed areas, inhabited by Slavs + other ethnic groups, then some 2,700,000 km2:

http://s16.postimg.org/6c858un85/Slavic_expansion.png

http://s16.postimg.org/6c858un85/Slavic_expansion.png

http://s22.postimg.org/mtfqsgzj5/Slavic_lands_850.png

While Germans during 1000 years of expansion (900s - 1900s) Germanised only these lands - this is in total 300,000 km2 including over 250,000 km2 of Slavic lands and up to 40,000 km2 Baltic lands. If we add to this mixed areas (partially Germanised, but never fully), we get a bit more, up to 350,000 km2:

http://s12.postimg.org/ixxa9vu3x/Germanized.png

http://s12.postimg.org/ixxa9vu3x/Germanized.png

So Slavs during 400 years Slavicised 2,500,000 km2. Germans during 1000 years 300,000 km2.

How is this possible considering that Germans had tools of assimilation, such as "high culture".

By contrast Early Slavs during their expansion supposedly did not have anything like this.

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

Moreover, when Germans started their expansion to the east during the 900s, they had a demographical potential, they numbered several million people. How many Slavs were there in Kiev culture?

Germans already in 900 AD inhabited much larger areas, than area of Kiev culture in 400 AD.

Tomenable
09-03-2015, 04:51 PM
Great birth rates - maybe, what about death rates? Those were very high in that period.

I will give you some data on lifespans of Early Slavs, based on skeletons.

And who or what had depopulated those areas ???

Here it is - the average age at death of adult Slavic people (those after reaching 18 years of age):

All data refers to burials from period 7th - 12th centuries:

East Slavs:

1132 skeletons from 6 cemeteries, average age at death 38,5 years old (local averages from six different cemeteries between 36 years and 40 years)

West Slavs:

From area of modern Germany - 836 skeletons from 4 cemeteries, average age 34,8 years old
From area of modern Poland - 3853 skeletons from 9 cemeteries, average age 38,2 years old
From area of modern Czech Republic and Slovakia - 26 cemeteries - 42,6 years old
From area of Slovakia 7th - 8th centuries - 1652 skeletons from 4 cemeteries - 40,9 years old
From area of Slovakia 9th - 10th centuries - 328 skeletons from 5 cemeteries - 43,9 years old
From area of Slovakia 10th - 12th centuries - 552 skeletons from 7 cemeteries - 43,1 years old

Local averages for West Slavs - 32 to 41 years old, shortest lifespan for those from Germany.*

*I guess German crusaders had something to do with that shortest average lifespan.

South Slavs:

Slovenia - 870 skeletons from 6 cemeteries - 44,9 years old
Serbia - 729 skeletons from 4 cemeteries - 45,6 years old
Croatia - 869 skeletons from 4 cemeteries - 39,6 years old

Bulgaria, men - 376 skeletons from 6 cemeteries - 44,1 years old
Bulgaria, women - 376 skeletons from 6 cemeteries - 41,6 years old

Local averages for Southern Slavs between 42 and 45,5 years old

Source: "Antropologia o pochodzeniu Słowian", Poznan 2008; chart 20: "Przeciętny wiek w chwili śmierci osobnika dorosłego w populacjach wczesnośredniowiecznych Słowian wschodnich, zachodnich i południowych" ("Average age at death of adult people in Early Medieval populations of East, West and South Slavs").

People who died before reaching the age of 18 are not included in these averages above. Typically in that period some 40% (30%-50%) of children were not reaching adulthood (the age of 18), IIRC.

Silesian
09-03-2015, 05:09 PM
Bashkirs have actually more of R1b than R1a - and in total ca. 3/4 of Bashkirs have R1 (b or a):.............
R1b-m73 and R1b-Z2103 in the same region. Some time ago someone mentioned it as a red hearing? Any thoughts?


What's wrong with M478 being Non-IE? Are we going to claim that all R1b is IE including V88 ??? :)
They do like their horses.

parastais
09-03-2015, 05:17 PM
My Great Grandmother had 9 siblings...
That was early XX century but deep country side. That is like if there is enough land you can 16 times population within 2 generations.

Tomenable
09-03-2015, 05:35 PM
My Great Grandmother had 9 siblings...
That was early XX century but deep country side. That is like if there is enough land you can 16 times population within 2 generations.

But in 19th-20th centuries mortality rates vastly declined.

Slavs would have to be growing much faster than Europe on average.

Estimates on historical population growth in Europe by Egon Vielrose:

http://s8.postimg.org/71sw792qd/Growth.png

http://s8.postimg.org/71sw792qd/Growth.png

parastais
09-03-2015, 05:38 PM
if there is enough land...
If not, oldest son takes farm, others leave to work somewhere else and do not reproduce much.

parastais
09-03-2015, 06:34 PM
if there is enough land...
If not, oldest son takes farm, others leave to work somewhere else and do not reproduce much.

8000 years ago:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31447-Incredible-speed-of-colonization-by-First-Farmers-EEF

Tomenable
09-03-2015, 06:35 PM
Slavic population of Europe in years ca. 900-1000 was most likely in this range:

East Slavs - ca. 3,5-4,0 million
West Slavs - ca. 2,0-2,5 million
South Slavs - ca. 1,5-2,0 million

In total some 7,0 - 8,5 million people. These are rather moderate estimates.

This is based on estimates by H. Łowmiański, Z. Kurnatowska, Jan M. Piskorski.

East Slavs could perhaps even more than 4,0 million (up to 4,5 - ???).

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

Here is a nice calculator of population growth:

http://www.metamorphosisalpha.com/ias/population.php


8000 years ago:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31447-Incredible-speed-of-colonization-by-First-Farmers-EEF

Thanks, here more data on the spread of early farming, including some data on speed:

http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/12/106/20150166.figures-only

They were spreading fast, but Slavs had to be spreading much faster than them anyway:

http://d10k7sivr61qqr.cloudfront.net/content/royinterface/12/106/20150166/F3.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1

But there were a lot of differences between those groups.

For example early Slavs put much greater emphasis on animal herding compared to those early farmers, who did not have many animals, they were mostly growing plants. Slavs were farmer-herders.

George
09-03-2015, 06:59 PM
8000 years ago:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31447-Incredible-speed-of-colonization-by-First-Farmers-EEF

You know, while discussing this issue of Slavic expansionism, there's a few simple thoughts to keep in mind. I'm pretty convinced of the following, even if I don't have all the irrefutable evidence required. So this is what Ockham would call probable rather than demonstrative points in large part.
1. The Slavs were not a bunch of peaceful farmers. They enter history as predatory raiders. And we have plenty of stuff about their eventual dealings with Byzantium. Tough customers.
2. From the very beginning they have their "territory of raids". We could call it "osvojena teritorija". The "zone of fear". "From the Peucini to the Fenni". No evidence that anything changed in this respect. Some archaeological evidence of advancing "osvojenja" (not to be confused with assimilation).
3. These (early) "pedestrian nomads" were strong enough to push out the Polissian Bastarnians from very choice real estate in the mid-1rst c. Even the Goths could only contain them (perhaps partly associate them now and then).
4. Like many earlier or later groups (Sarmats, Alans, Huns, Goths, Bastarnians etc.Avars, Oleg's "Rus' (!!) they could have associates in their raids. By the 6th century there seems no reason not to include forest denizens from the North's "osvojeni teritoriji" in this. "Venetharum nation populosa"

Eventually all this "slavonized". Details left open.

parastais
09-03-2015, 07:54 PM
But there were a lot of differences between those groups.

For example early Slavs put much greater emphasis on animal herding compared to those early farmers, who did not have many animals, they were mostly growing plants. Slavs were farmer-herders.
So, they could sustain more growth. Raiding probably helped too. And inclusive policy.

Tomenable
09-03-2015, 08:23 PM
What do you mean by inclusive policy?

Tomenable
09-03-2015, 08:57 PM
Any ideas why do Swedes plot genetically between Czecho-Slovaks, Sorbo-Poles and Ukrainians?:

http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/previews.figshare.com/2251623/860/p_01.png

Perhaps it has something to do with this: http://polishgenes.blogspot.com/2012/04/prehistoric-scandinavians-genetically.html

parastais
09-03-2015, 09:13 PM
What do you mean by inclusive policy?
Things like this
Byzantine chroniclers also noted that Roman prisoners captured by the Sclavenes were soon able to become free members of Slav society, if they wished.

Generalissimo
09-03-2015, 09:55 PM
Any ideas why do Swedes plot genetically between Czecho-Slovaks, Sorbo-Poles and Ukrainians?:

http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/previews.figshare.com/2251623/860/p_01.png

Perhaps it has something to do with this: http://polishgenes.blogspot.com/2012/04/prehistoric-scandinavians-genetically.html

The position of the samples on that plot is dictated in large part by their levels of hunter-gatherer ancestry.

Swedes have comparable levels of hunter-gatherer ancestry to Poles.

Megalophias
09-03-2015, 10:04 PM
Any ideas why do Swedes plot genetically between Czecho-Slovaks, Sorbo-Poles and Ukrainians?
Because this PCA is full of Balts and Slavs and Uralics, so they dominate the axes. Why do Montenegrins fall between French and Spanish? Maybe they're secretly Basque?

Swedes are positioned as North Germans pulled slightly toward Finns, as can be seen on PC3 where they are nowhere near Slavs, or on a European PCA which isn't focussed on Slavs.

It isn't just hunter-gatherer ancestry, because Chuvashes are way to the right, I think PC2 it is more like European hunter-gatherer vs Siberian/Turkic, while PC1 is like Mediterranean farmer vs Uralic, not that PCA is picking up those things exactly.

Generalissimo
09-03-2015, 10:16 PM
Why do Montenegrins fall between French and Spanish? Maybe they're secretly Basque?

They have a comparable levels of hunter-gatherer ancestry.


Swedes are positioned as North Germans pulled slightly toward Finns, as can be seen on PC3 where they are nowhere near Slavs, or on a European PCA which isn't focussed on Slavs.

Swedes line up with Poles and Sorbs in dimension 1 (the most significant dimension).

Shaikorth
09-03-2015, 10:43 PM
Because this PCA is full of Balts and Slavs and Uralics, so they dominate the axes. Why do Montenegrins fall between French and Spanish? Maybe they're secretly Basque?

Swedes are positioned as North Germans pulled slightly toward Finns, as can be seen on PC3 where they are nowhere near Slavs, or on a European PCA which isn't focussed on Slavs.

It isn't just hunter-gatherer ancestry, because Chuvashes are way to the right, I think PC2 it is more like European hunter-gatherer vs Siberian/Turkic, while PC1 is like Mediterranean farmer vs Uralic, not that PCA is picking up those things exactly.

There's no way to tell what axes mean re: hunter-gatherers without putting them on the plot. In usual West Eurasian PCA's and genomewide tests Chuvashes are much closer to the HG's and Bronze Age steppe groups than some of the South European populations closer to Balts in PC2 here.

David is right about Dimension 1 being the main thing to watch here (0.53), when looking at 2 and 3 they are much closer to each other in significance (0.34 and 0.26). Often we see PCA's where 1 and 2 are very significant (like the West Eurasian PCA's containing S-C Asians in Eurogenes' newest entry) and 3 less than half of 2, but not here.

Megalophias
09-03-2015, 11:10 PM
They have a comparable levels of hunter-gatherer ancestry.I was joking.

Swedes line up with Poles and Sorbs in dimension 1 (the most significant dimension).OK. On PC1 Lithuanians are about half way between Spanish and Chuvashes. Is this an accurate measure of hunter-gatherer ancestry, in your opinion? (I don't actually know.)

ETA sorry I meant Spanish and Chuvash.

Generalissimo
09-03-2015, 11:36 PM
On PC1 [Swedes] are about half way between Spanish and Lithuanians. Is this an accurate measure of hunter-gatherer ancestry, in your opinion? (I don't actually know.)

No, it's not, because other factors come into play, but the general order is correct.

Tomenable
09-03-2015, 11:53 PM
Some of significant excerpts from this paper (maybe I will comment on them later, now I don't have time):

==========

"There is a near consensus among linguists that the Baltic and Slavic languages stem from a common root, Proto-Balto-Slavic, which separated from other Indo-European languages around 4,500–7,000 years before present (YBP) [1–8] and whose origin is mapped to Central Europe [8]. The Balto-Slavic node was recognized already in the pioneer Indo-European tree by [9]. The split between Baltic and Slavic branches has been dated to around 3,500–2,500 YBP [6–8],"

==========

"We find that genetic distances among Balto-Slavic populations, based on autosomal and Y-chromosomal loci, show a high correlation (0.9) both with each other and with geography, but a slightly lower correlation (0.7) with mitochondrial DNA and linguistic affiliation. The data suggest that genetic diversity of the present-day Slavs was predominantly shaped in situ, and we detect two different substrata: ‘central-east European’ for West and East Slavs, and ‘south-east European’ for South Slavs."

==========

"In addition, age estimates for major paternal and maternal lineages of East-Central Europe point to an expansion that pre-dates the historic spread of Slavs. For example, whilst the geographic distribution of NRY haplogroups (hg) I-P37 and R1a-Z282 overlaps with the area occupied by the present-day Slavs, coalescent times suggest that the current diversity within these hgs existed prior to the Slavic expansion [29,35]. Similarly, the phylogeography of mtDNA hgs that are more frequent in West and East Slavs–such as H5a1, U4a2, U5a2a, U5a2b1 –suggests continuity within East-Central Europe for at least two thousand years [28,36–38]."

==========

"The results of our study have shown the close genetic proximity of the majority of West and East Slavic populations inhabiting the geographic area from Poland in the west, to the Volga River in the East (Fig 2A and 2B, Tables A,B in S1 File). Some mtDNA haplotypes of hgs H5, H6, U4a were more frequent in the genomes of West and East Slavic speakers, providing thereby further evidence for the matrilineal unity of West and East Slavs [28,36] as well as continuity of mtDNA diversity in the territory of modern Poland for at least two millennia [38]."

==========

"Most West and East Slavs of Central-East Europe form genetically a compact group of populations that, as a general rule, differ from their western (German-speaking) and eastern (Finno-Ugric-speaking) neighbors (Fig 2A and 2B; Fig 4A and 4B). However, so-called ‘contact’ zones of this group with non-Slavic peoples are characterized by various patterns of genetic clines or sharp genetic borders [27,32,56–58]. For example, there is a pronounced genetic proximity between Czecho-Slovaks and their immediate Germanic neighbors in the west (Fig 2A and 2B, Fig 3) [27,58] that could be attributed to the pre-Slavic gene pool formation (...) In contrast, a clear genetic border exists (...) even between a West-Slavic-speaking minority–Sorbs–and their German host population (Fig 2B, Tables A,B in S1 File) [43,59]. It has been suggested, that this genetic boundary predates massive resettlements of people after World War II."

==========

"In the north-east, a largely autochthonous (pre-Slavic) component is detected in the gene pool of Russians from northern regions of the European part of Russia (Fig 2A, 2B and 2C, Fig 3), which agrees with previous anthropological [61,62] and genetic [32,45,56,63] studies and supports substantial admixture of expanding Slavs with indigenous populations and, perhaps, language shift in the latter."

==========

"In their Y-chromosomal and autosomal variation, East Slavs–Russians from central-southern regions, Belarusians and Ukrainians– form a cluster on their own, though these populations do not overlap entirely with each other (Fig 2A and 2B). This group is characterized by low mean values of population pairwise genetic distances (DNei = 0.125 for NRY; FST = 0.0008 for autosomal data) (Tables A,B in S1 File). In contrast, Russians from the northern region of the European part of Russia are differentiated from the rest of the East Slavs, and on genetic plots lie in the vicinity of their Finnic-speaking geographic neighbors. Accordingly, the average genetic distances between North Russians and the rest of East Slavic populations are high: DNei = 0.584; FST = 0.0081) (Tables A,B in S1 File)."

==========

"Compared to the East Slavs, the West Slavs are more differentiated. In particular, Czechs (Fig 2A and 2B) and also Slovaks (Fig 2A), are shifted towards Germans and other West Europeans, whereas Poles and Sorbs either overlap or lie close to East Slavs. Likewise, population pairwise genetic distances are as twice as high for West Slavs as for East Slavs (DNei = 0.241 for NRY; FST = 0.0014) (Tables A,B in S1 File). Notably, genetic distances remain low after adding Poles and Sorbs to the Belarusians, Ukrainians and Russians from the central-southern regions (DNei = 0.144 for NRY; FST = 0.0006 for autosomal data), indicating thereby an extended geographic area with low genetic differentiation among the majority of Slavic speakers across Central-East Europe."

==========

"Most South Slavs are separated from the rest of the Balto-Slavic populations and form a sparse group of populations with internal differentiation into western (Slovenians, Croatians and Bosnians) and eastern (Macedonians and Bulgarians) regions of the Balkan Peninsula with Serbians placed in-between (Fig 2A and 2B). The mean population pairwise genetic distances for South Slavs (DNei = 0.239 for NRY; FST = 0.0009 for autosomal data) (Tables A,B in S1 File) are comparable or higher to the ones for East Slavs despite the smaller region within the Balkan Peninsula that they occupy. Furthermore, Slovenians lie close to the non-Slavic-speaking Hungarians, whereas eastern South Slavs group is located together with non-Slavic-speaking but geographically neighboring Romanians and, to some extent, with Greeks."

==========

"Both extant Baltic-speaking populations, Latvians and Lithuanians, lie in the vicinity of Finno-Ugric-speaking Estonians according to their Y-chromosome diversity (Fig 2B), whilst in their autosomal variation they are slightly shifted towards the group of East Slavic speakers (Fig 2A). Also, one finds Volga-Finnic Mordvins close to the two Baltic-speaking populations (Fig 2A), potentially reflecting historic evidence that the Baltic-speaking tribes’ spread zone formerly reached more eastward parts of the East European Plain [49,50]."

==========

"Secondly, however, this level of within-Slavic IBD sharing is lower than among East-West Slavs and populations from north-east Europe (i.e. Baltic speakers/Estonians; Karelians/Vepsa/Russians North): East-West Slavs share twice as many IBD segments with north-east Europeans as with South Slavs (p<<0.01) (Table G in S1 File). Note that exclusion of the North Russian population from the group of north-east Europeans did not lead to a significant drop in the IBD sharing between East-West Slavs and north-east Europeans (S4 Fig). Finally, the ibd-statistics for East-West Slavs and South Slavs do not differ (p = 0.08–0.8) from that of East-West Slavs and the ‘inter-Slavic’ group of populations, i.e. Hungarians, Romanians and Gagauz (Table G in S1 File, Fig 4A)."

==========

"South Slavs in their turn share a similar number of IBD segments with East-West Slavs and with the ‘inter-Slavic’ Romanian, Hungarian and Gagauz populations (Fig 4B; Table G in S1 File). Notably, South Slavs share significantly fewer IBD segments for length classes 1.5–3 cM with their immediate geographic neighbors in south - Greeks, except Macedonian Greeks – than with the group of East-West Slavs (Fig 4B). Altogether, the analysis of IBD segment distributions revealed even patterns of IBD sharing among East-West Slavs–‘inter-Slavic’ populations (Hungarians, Romanians and Gagauz)–and South Slavs, i.e. across an area of assumed historic movements of people including Slavs."

==========

"we suggest that there is a “central-east European” genetic substratum in West and East Slavs, exemplified by NRY hgs R1a and the k3 ancestry component, and a “south-east European” one, featuring NRY hgs I2a and E plus the k2 ancestry component for South Slavs (Fig 2A and 2B, Fig 3, Table K in S1 File; Tables A,B in S1 File). Notably, the “south-east European” component does not extend to the whole Balkan Peninsula, as South Slavs are differentiated from Greek sub-populations except Macedonian Greeks (Fig 2A, Fig 4B) [55]."

==========

"The importance of these substrata in shaping the genetic diversity of the present-day Slavs is evident from the observed lower IBD relatedness between the combined group of East-West Slavs and South Slavs than with north-east Europeans, including Baltic speakers (Fig 4A). The latter reside within the East European Plain and presumably represent the “central-east European” pre-Slavic substratum (Fig 4A, Table G in S1 File). AMOVA results also support the substrata prevalence, because genetic variation among Slavic branches (which assimilated different substratum populations) strongly exceeds intra-branch variation (Table H in S1 File). The influence of geography in shaping the Slavic genetic heritage (Fig 5, Table J in S1 File) led to the same conclusion, because if substratum importance is the major factor shaping the genetic relationships among present-day Slavic-speaking populations, these will not reflect the relationship among expanding Slavic languages, but should instead reflect the relationships between pre-Slavic populations, which can be approximated by geographical distances between them."

==========

"Taken together, several mechanisms including cultural assimilation of the autochthonous populations by expanding Slavs while maintaining the pre-Slavic genetic boundaries, and in situ gene pool shaping, are needed to explain the genetic patterns observed on the eastern, north-eastern and western margins of the current ‘Slavic area’ within Central-East Europe. The presence of two distinct genetic substrata in the genomes of East-West and South Slavs would imply cultural assimilation of indigenous populations by bearers of Slavic languages as a major mechanism of the spread of Slavic (...)"

==========

"Baltic populations are genetically the closest to East Slavs (Fig 2A and 2B, Table K in S1 File) [45,64–66] and here we found that they bear the highest number of shared IBD segments with the combined group of East-West Slavs (Fig 4, Table G in S1 File). The presence of a substantial “Baltic substratum” in the genomes of extant Slavs within East Europe might in part explain their genetic closeness to each other and difference from some neighboring non-Slavic groups."

==========

Tomenable
09-04-2015, 12:03 AM
I have enough time for one comment, perhaps:


Swedes line up with Poles and Sorbs in dimension 1 (the most significant dimension).

That could be due to assimilation of East Germanic / Gothic substratum during Slavic expansion.

Now we can see that Swedes-Goths and other East Germanic tribes were not like modern Germans, but like modern Swedes and like modern Northern Slavs. On the other hand, Celtic and Germanic substrate to the south of the Sudetes-Carpathians was like modern Germans, and got absorbed by Czecho-Slovaks.

Hence modern Sorbs-Poles resemble Swedes. While Czecho-Slovaks resemble Germans.

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

As for the explanation with shared hunter-gatherer ancestry.

Not just "some random hunter-gatherer", but - specifically - Scandinavian hunter-gatherer (SHG):

http://polishgenes.blogspot.com/2012/04/prehistoric-scandinavians-genetically.html


(...) But why is it that Poles show higher similarity to these Hunter-Gatherer Scandinavians than Swedes do? Firstly, it's important to realize that the differences aren't that great. Note, for instance, that Swedes are the second most similar population to the hunter-gatherers after Poles. (...)

Poles and Swedes both share high rates of SHG ancestry. How did SHG ancestry got to the southern shore of the Baltic Sea? Well one possible explanation, is that SHG ancestry came from Gotland, with Goths.

And not just Goths, also other East Germanic tribes, who also came directly from Scandinavia.

The fact that only Poles share so much of SHG ancestry with Swedes - while other Slavs share less - also seems to suggest, that those were Goths & Vandals from Sweden, as they lived in present-day Poland.

Allele sharing between Ajvide/Ire (ancient SHG samples from the island of Gotland) and Poles:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/iGipHjgnu-arg5-44BDQb1kRq5H0YYtChprFEwe0HBDriAWITuSrhFDn3uA3PFjZc CeZwcGpNCwJvk4=w1342-h539-rw

Why do only Poles and Swedes share so much of ancestry with ancient Gotland? IMHO that could be from Goths, whose original homeland was Gotland, but they settled along the Vistula River later on.

And why do Poles share even more alleles with ancient Gotland, than random Swedes?

Well - local Swedes from Gotland probably share more than both other Swedes, and Poles.

But Goths expanded from Gotland into Poland and Ukraine - not into mainland Sweden.

Therefore mainland Swedes share slightly less of alleles with Goths, than do Poles.

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

Allele sharing with Gotland SHG (above) also correlates a bit with CCR5-Delta32 mutation:

(note the high-frequency red-coloured area in Poland - it reaches southern Poland):

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/scoeovq78ezxivjkwnay.png

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--zxcMur_z--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/e9ljg2yabixykwszjujh.png

Highest percent of this mutation is among Balts, Baltic-Finns, Poles, Swedes, and Russians.

Ashkenazi (but not Sephardi) Jews also test rather high for the Delta32 mutation.

It is possible, that Ashkenazi Jews acquired this mutation while living in Poland-Lithuania.

Gravetto-Danubian
09-04-2015, 12:43 AM
Wow, where did you take this completely false (bolded part) information from?!

Slavic settlement in the Balkans (south of the Danube) started occuring already in the 540s.

Slavs were raiding Roman lands from areas north of the Danube (now southern Romania) since around the 490s-500 AD, but they started to settle south of the Danube only later, in the 540s. First Slavic settlements from ca. 540 - 550 were established in Eastern Bosnia, Lower and Upper Moesia, and Little Scythia - including the regions of Ulmetum and Adina. Around that time (ca. 550) first Slavic settlers reached what is now Slovenia (they could be the same group which had besieged Dyrrachium in 547). Then after 568 another wave of Slavs came to Slovenia, this time from the north (most likely from Moravia). In years 577 - 588 another migrating wave of Slavs - numbering 100,000 people according to John of Ephesus and Menander Protector - settled in Thrace and in Thessaly, penetrating Byzantine lands as far the Great Walls of Constantinople. In year 580 Slavs sacked and plundered Athens, for which there is archaeological evidence. One generation later - around 610 - they reached the Peloponnese. In 599 according to Pope Gregory I, most of Istria had already been controlled by Slavs and they started raiding the Italian Peninsula. The Avars appear initially as enemies of the Slavs and allies of the Byzantines. In year 584 Slavs led by Ardagast (Radagast) and Musokios, besieged Constantinople and Byzantine Emperor Maurice sent emissaries to the Khagan of the Avars - Bayan I - asking him for help against those Slavs. Ardagast with his Slavs was repulsed from Constantinople by combined Byzantine-Avar forces, and later lost two more battles against Byzantine and Avar forces led by Comentiolus (the battle of Erginia River and the battle of Ansinon, near Hadrianopole). Comentiolus also pushed the Slavic settlers out of the region of Astica. In 585 united Byzantine-Avar forces decided to attack Slavic lands across the Danube - forces under command of Priscus and Gentzon crossed the river at Dorostolon (present-day Silistra) and surprise-attacked the Slavs in their territory (as most of their forces had long been campaigning in the Balkans). They attacked at midnight and defeated the Slavs, Ardagast fell on a tree stump and was almost captured, luckily he was near a river and eluded the attackers. Later alliances switched - the Avars abandoned their Byzantine allies and started to cooperate with the Slavs, having subordinated some of their tribes (including the southern branch of Dudlebes), and having signed alliances with others.

In the 600s Slavic colonisation of lands south of the Danube continued, this time with Avar help.



Nope. Contrary to what you claim above, Slavs were not a "leaderless mass", which required a foreign elite to control them. Early Slavic societies were relatively democratic, but they had their leaders and these are mentioned in written sources. Etymologies of their names are clearly Slavic in most cases. Those were chieftains such as: Ardagast, Musokios, Peiragast, Swarunas, Dauritas, Boz, Dabragezas, Kalagast, Chilbudius, Usigard, Mezamir, Idarizos, Chatzon, Waltunc, Pribina, Kocel, Daurentios, Waluk, Dervan, etc.

Most of these names are archaic Slavic ones (name Ardagast - mentioned in the 6th century - later transformed into Radogost, as there was a general ard -> rad / arda -> rada sound shift), Usigard was Usigrod and Kalagast = Całogost (there took place an a -> o sound shift, it was the same in gard -> gord; in Polish and Lusatian there is grod, in most other Slavic languages there is grad, in Russian there is gorod, while Drevano-Polabian preserved the archaic form gard). Mezamir = Miedzamir (miedza + mir). Etc., etc.

Ardagast/Radagast has a clear Slavic etymology. In East Germany there was also a Slavic town and religious center Radgosc (other names: Radegost, Riedigost, Redigast, Radigast, Radogoszcz, Rethra).


Nope. Sorry

Slavs raided the Balkans from early 500s. There are no settlements until 630 . That is when the Miraculi Sancti Demetri mentions Slavs as "neighbours", that is when the first archaeological traces of Slavs are seen inside the Balkans. See "The beginning of Middle Ages in the Balkans" - F Curta. and Mitko Panev - "reconstructing 7th century Macedonia". This date dovetails after the failed Avar-Slav siege of Constantinople, their rebellion, and subsequent settlement south of the Danube.

I never said Slavs were a leaderless mass, - so your argument is a straw man one. Rather, I said their settlement was not simply an elite conquest (like Goths in Italy, or Vandals in Africa), but one of major demographic impact. which is obvious

About the Avar finds - Ill get back to you later..

Also; further about eastern Europe demography; literally- between 400 - 500, and outside the Baltic coast and Baltic forests, there was literally like 20 or 30 finds !! I'm not making this up, btw :). Settlements pick up rapidly after 500 - most earliest in the central - west Ukrain - just west of the lower-middle Dnieper, and Wallachia.

Tomenable
09-04-2015, 12:48 AM
There are no settlements until 630

I've quoted written sources which mention a lot of Slavic settlement in various parts of the Balkans long before 630, already since ca. 540. Zofia Kurnatowska in book "Southern Slavdom" also confirms this and writes that there is archaeological evidence for Slavic settlement since the 540s-550s. You are citing authors who desperately try to delay Slavic settlement to fit for their theories (Florin Curta, I guess).

Gravetto-Danubian
09-04-2015, 12:50 AM
I have quoted sources which mention settlement long before 630, already since ca. 540. Zofia Kurnatowska in her book "Southern Slavdom" also confirms this and writes that there is archaeological evidence for early Slavic settlement in the 540s-550s.

You're incorrect. All archaeological traces in the Balkans up to ~ 610 are East Roman. The army was still present there. No Slavic SFBs, or fibulae, or pottery can be found inside the Balkans until sometime in the mid 7th century. Kurnatowska is wrong- and is just parroting flawed dating based on literary assumptions rather than actual evidence. Today, we have dendrodates rather than outdated speculations. And again, read the literary sources properly - they say Slavs raided Balkans, took possessions of goods "as if their own"; and even wintered in Dalmatia for two years (c. 540). But this is different to 'settlement".

No concerted settlement was possible as long as the Byzantines controlled the land- and that did not end until 620 when they transferred troops and people en masse to Anatolia to defend against the Persians and Arabs.

Just read the two (up to date) sources I pointed to you. Even if you find it difficult to interpret - just read the conclusions.

Tomenable
09-04-2015, 12:55 AM
All archaeological traces in the Balkans up to ~ 610 are East Roman.

Kurnatowska says there is evidence already in the 540s-550s, for example in parts of Bosnia.

And - by the way - John of Ephesus wrote: https://books.google.pl/books?id=gn_KualBC6AC&pg=PA181&lpg=PA181&dq=Slavs+learned+to+fight+better+than+the+Romans&source=bl&ots=yJ3V1Egkwa&sig=Dh7HkKq6XT1bvAYejc4gWG5_f_g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAGoVChMIkLCR2ZXcxwIVCANzCh0ABQyn#v=on epage&q=Slavs%20learned%20to%20fight%20better%20than%20t he%20Romans&f=false

"(...) In third year after the death of Emperor Justin, during the reign of victorious Tiberius, the damned nation of the Slavs has risen, and marching through entire Hellas, through lands of Thessaly and Thrace, captured many cities and strongholds, plundered, burned and robbed, seized the land and settled there with full ease, without fear, like in their own land. (...) they were plundering the country, burning it and robbing, as far as the Great Walls [of Constantinople], and this is how they captured many thousands of cattle, as well as many other kinds of booty. (...) Until today, that is until year 584, they still continue to live in peace in lands of the Rhomaioi, without fear and concern, plundering, enslaving and burning, getting rich and highjacking gold and silver, capturing horses and plenty of weapons; and they have learned to fight better than the Rhomaioi. (...)"

BTW:

How do you want to distinguish - in archaeological terms - East Romans, from Slavs using Roman cattle, Roman booty, Roman gold, Roman silver, Roman horses, and Roman weapons that they had captured (and perhaps they lived in formerly Roman houses)? According to John of Ephesus, Slavs captured Roman goods.

It is impossible to distinguish archaeologically a Roman from a Slav using "all-things-Roman".

Only genetic tests on ancient DNA would allow to tell the difference.

Tomenable
09-04-2015, 01:02 AM
read the literary sources properly - they say Slavs raided Balkans, took possessions of goods "as if their own"

I am. But Curta is not, it seems. John of Ephesus in that excerpt quoted above, clearly wrote:

"seized the land and settled there with full ease, without fear, like in their own land"

As well as:

"Until now, that is until year 584, they still continue to live in peace in lands of the Rhomaioi"

He could not be more clear. Should he write 10 times, that they settled? Twice not enough?

And when they took possessions of goods = they became partially "Romans" archaeologically. Because they will be found with many Roman goods. So archaeologists might think that they were Romans.

George
09-04-2015, 01:08 AM
Kurnatowska says there is evidence already in the 540s-550s, for example in parts of Bosnia.

And - by the way - John of Ephesus wrote: https://books.google.pl/books?id=gn_KualBC6AC&pg=PA181&lpg=PA181&dq=Slavs+learned+to+fight+better+than+the+Romans&source=bl&ots=yJ3V1Egkwa&sig=Dh7HkKq6XT1bvAYejc4gWG5_f_g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAGoVChMIkLCR2ZXcxwIVCANzCh0ABQyn#v=on epage&q=Slavs%20learned%20to%20fight%20better%20than%20t he%20Romans&f=false

"(...) In third year after the death of Emperor Justin, during the reign of victorious Tiberius, the damned nation of the Slavs has risen, and marching through entire Hellas, through lands of Thessaly and Thrace, captured many cities and strongholds, plundered, burned and robbed, seized the land and settled there with full ease, without fear, like in their own land. (...) they were plundering the country, burning it and robbing, as far as the Great Walls [of Constantinople], and this is how they captured many thousands of cattle, as well as many other kinds of booty. (...) Until today, that is until year 584, they still continue to live in peace in lands of the Rhomaioi, without fear and concern, plundering, enslaving and burning, getting rich and highjacking gold and silver, capturing horses and plenty of weapons; and they have learned to fight better than the Rhomaioi. (...)"

BTW:

How do you want to distinguish - in archaeological terms - East Romans, from Slavs using Roman cattle, Roman booty, Roman gold, Roman silver, Roman horses, and Roman weapons that they had captured (and perhaps they lived in formerly Roman houses)? According to John of Ephesus, Slavs captured Roman goods.

It is impossible to distinguish archaeologically a Roman from a Slav using "all-things-Roman".

Only genetic tests on ancient DNA would allow to tell the difference.

I was going to mention John, but you beat me to it B) Florin Curta is a very poor authority, except for some specifics. But on the big issues he is worthless.

Gravetto-Danubian
09-04-2015, 01:08 AM
I am. But Curta is not, it seems. John of Ephesus in that excerpt quoted above, clearly wrote:

"seized the land and settled there with full ease, without fear, like in their own land"

As well as:

"Until now, that is until year 584, they still continue to live in peace in lands of the Rhomaioi"

He could not be more clear than this.

Yes they wintered, and had temporary camps, ravaged the land, etc. But this is different to settlement. Rather than parroting literary sources, look at the evidnece for settlement - there is none. All Roman material until 610-20. So whatever John of Ephesus was describing, it wasn't a "colonization".

Again, I urge you to not take sources at face value but understand the meaning behind their works. Like today- when the news says Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, simpletons believed them- but the reality was the opposite. JoE and other roman "historians" were more like sensationalising journalists and propagandists than accurate historians and ethnographers.

Gravetto-Danubian
09-04-2015, 01:10 AM
I was going to mention John, but you beat me to it B)

I suppose you guys then think slavs slept on the trees and ran around naked. And how does stealing roman cattle and warring better equate to permanent settlement ?
And how do you explain the absence of slavic finds prior to 720, but then appears after that ?

Look up the Dunning-Kruger effect.

George
09-04-2015, 01:15 AM
I suppose you guys then think slavs slept on the trees and ran around naked. And hoe does stealing roman cattle equate to permanent settlement ?

Look up the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Too bad John of Ephesus couldn't have read Florin Curta :biggrin1:

Tomenable
09-04-2015, 01:25 AM
Like today- when the news says Iraq had weapons of mass destruction

Iraq did have them. Or maybe all those Kurds died by natural causes?:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq#Number_of_ victims

Gravetto-Danubian
09-04-2015, 03:25 AM
Too bad John of Ephesus couldn't have read Florin Curta :biggrin1:

haha. But, George, just read Mitko Panev. Do you honestly think you and Tomenable are the only guys who have heard of John of Ephesus ? And Panev and Curta never heard of him, or forgot about him, or somehow are biased ? Be serious.

{fact is, I thought exactly the same when I was first began to learn about proto-history }

But you're correct that aDNA will be interesting. But I know that until as late as 580s, etc - the Balkan populace would look Palaeo-Balkan/ Roman, and not Slavic.

Volat
09-04-2015, 03:46 AM
Some of significant excerpts from this paper (maybe I will comment on them later, now I don't have time):


The linguistic section of the paper on lexicostatistical analysis looks interesting. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/asset?unique&id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0135820.s008

Authors addressed numerous errors in the samples used in previous studies using different algorithms to construct phylogenetic networks. Interesting commentary on Slovenian language

Three networks without Slovenian (Fig. H–J in S2 File) reveal the same major clades of Balto-Slavic languages as phylogenetic trees do (Fig. B–G in S2 File) irrespective the outgroup used. Incorporation of Slovenian into network analysis reveals following: Slovenian appears to be an independent branch of Slavic languages which is nearly equally close to West and South Slavic, but distant from East Slavic (Fig. K–M in S2 File), thus supporting the putative mixed nature of Modern Slovenian.*Further lexicostatistical investigation of Slovenian dialects, such as in progress in the GLD project, are needed to elucidate the place of Slovenian among Slavic languages.



I like the section on genetics. My concerns are some of their samples. Eight Belarusians were likely from Behar et al study. There is at least one outlier in among Belarusians. 1-2 outliers among Bosniaks. Different researchers treat the outliers differently. Some keep them suggesting if people identify themselves to certain ethnic background, then they should be included. Others remove them. Vadim Verenich in his project removed the outliers ie those samples that fell 3 standard deviation from population means (averages). I also remove outliers in personal analyses .

Genetic similarities between east Slavs and Balts have been discussed to death on various discussion boards in the last 2-3 years. There isn't anything new to me except for IBD analysis.

Alyona Kushnierevich published in the past for scientific communities and for general readers. I was left with impression she was overemphasising Slavic similarities in some of her general-reader paper. Overall, it's good to see her and other authors publishing on genetics of Slavs and Balts.

Volat
09-04-2015, 04:53 AM
Authors released new data . GSE71049 @ NCBI GEO and Estonian bank holds data in plink format
Latvians, Russians from Pinega, Slovenes, Slovaks and others. Latvian and Slovak samples were not available to public. I could not find Slovakian and Latvian samples . http://evolbio.ut.ee/slavic/slavic_nomiss.fam

Shaikorth
09-04-2015, 07:00 AM
I like the section on genetics. My concerns are some of their samples. Eight Belarusians were likely from Behar et al study. There is at least one outlier in among Belarusians. 1-2 outliers among Bosniaks. Different researchers treat the outliers differently. Some keep them suggesting if people identify themselves to certain ethnic background, then they should be included. Others remove them. Vadim Verenich in his project removed the outliers ie those samples that fell 3 standard deviation from population means (averages). I also remove outliers in personal analyses .

There's eight Belarusians in that dataset they newly released, as well as six Estonians. These are newly sequenced, but there are also older samples from Raghavan et al and Behar et al. Other outliers exist, there are a few Estonian Poles with North Russian ancestry but the most divergent ones seem to be removed from PCA's. Karelian and Vepsian sets both have at least one individual with recent Russian ancestry, Finnish samples look like a mix of East Finns, West Finns and recent foreign ancestry so they're probably from Helsinki. One South German appears to be more northern than North Germans on the PCA too. But this is hardly the only study with sampling issues, rarely one comes across one with perfect sets.

Volat
09-04-2015, 07:01 AM
"Compared to the East Slavs, the West Slavs are more differentiated. In particular, Czechs (Fig 2A and 2B) and also Slovaks (Fig 2A), are shifted towards Germans and other West Europeans, whereas Poles and Sorbs either overlap or lie close to East Slavs."



V. Verenich had samples for Lusatian Sorbs in his MDLP project. They were genetically similar to Ukrainians ie more eastern than their geographic neighbours Czechs. http://postimg.org/image/motrvgm41/full/

Volat
09-04-2015, 07:40 AM
There's eight Belarusians in that dataset they newly released, as well as six Estonians. These are newly sequenced, but there are also older samples from Raghavan et al and Behar et al. Other outliers exist, there are a few Estonian Poles with North Russian ancestry but the most divergent ones seem to be removed from PCA's. Karelian and Vepsian sets both have at least one individual with recent Russian ancestry, Finnish samples look like a mix of East Finns, West Finns and recent foreign ancestry so they're probably from Helsinki. One South German appears to be more northern than North Germans on the PCA too. But this is hardly the only study with sampling issues, rarely one comes across one with perfect sets.

I hope A. Kushnierevich didn't cherry pick a new sample of Belarusians to exaggerate genetic similarities between eastern Slavs. She seemed to be so pan-Slavic in some of her publications.

parastais
09-04-2015, 07:41 AM
There's eight Belarusians in that dataset they newly released, as well as six Estonians. These are newly sequenced, but there are also older samples from Raghavan et al and Behar et al. Other outliers exist, there are a few Estonian Poles with North Russian ancestry but the most divergent ones seem to be removed from PCA's. Karelian and Vepsian sets both have at least one individual with recent Russian ancestry, Finnish samples look like a mix of East Finns, West Finns and recent foreign ancestry so they're probably from Helsinki. One South German appears to be more northern than North Germans on the PCA too. But this is hardly the only study with sampling issues, rarely one comes across one with perfect sets.
Give it another 50 years and you wont be able to get 100 samples per nation or region without at least partially other ancestry.

edit:
we have a joke, that pure Latvians are only those after sauna :)

Volat
09-04-2015, 07:47 AM
we have a joke, that pure Latvians are only those after sauna :)

All Latvian samples that I have seen in personal projects and on 23andme, and I've seen quite a few, I can say that genetically Latvians are very Baltic. :)

Shaikorth
09-04-2015, 08:06 AM
I hope A. Kushnierevich didn't cherry pick a new sample of Belarusians to exaggerate genetic similarities between eastern Slavs. She seemed to be so pan-Slavic in some of her publications.

If that was the case, she likely would not have used Pinega samples as representatives of North Russians on PCA's since the ones from Kargopol would be much closer to other East Slavs.

parastais
09-04-2015, 08:08 AM
All Latvian samples that I have seen in personal projects and on 23andme, and I've seen quite a few, I can say that genetically Latvians are very Baltic. :)
In general as a whole we can be. But what I see around me is that I can be selected to research Latgale. So, for study about Latvian regions. My son would not fit for such study, but could it make it for whole Latvia. My sister on other hand would only fit for pan-Baltic study. And so on.

Volat
09-04-2015, 08:08 AM
If that was the case, she likely would not have used Pinega samples as representatives of North Russians on PCA's since the ones from Kargopol would be much closer to other East Slavs.

But she labelled them as north Russians, while she didn't mention anything about Poles being from Estonia in genome-wide comparisons. Believe me, she is pan-Slavist. :)

Volat
09-04-2015, 08:18 AM
In general as a whole we can be. But what I see around me is that I can be selected to research Latgale. So, for study about Latvian regions. My son would not fit for such study, but could it make it for whole Latvia. My sister on other hand would only fit for pan-Baltic study. And so on.

Latgalians have some Russian old believer ancestry who came to Latgalia from northern Russia . Belarusians, Polish or Russians of Latgalia are likely to have local Latgalian ancestry. Except for people who migrated to Latvia in the last 50 years.

I know a Russian guy from Daugavpils, who was saying he has relatives in his family who are Latgalians, Belarusians, Poles, Jews -- he is the only person in his family who's Russian. :) Mostly, Latvians have local ancestry despite people identifying themselves differently in different regions of Lativa. But there is a sizeable population in Latvia from all over USSR, who are mixing with Latvians.

Tomenable
09-04-2015, 08:46 AM
V. Verenich had samples for Lusatian Sorbs in his MDLP project. They were genetically similar to Ukrainians ie more eastern than their geographic neighbours Czechs. http://postimg.org/image/motrvgm41/full/

During the Middle Ages, Sorbs were of course surrounded by other Slavic populations from all sides. Sorbs have become an isolated Slavic-speaking enclave surrounded by German-speaking populations from all sides only relatively recently - in the 18th or in the early 19th century. Until approximately the 1600s - 1700s Sorbs weren't an enclave surrounded from all side by Germans, but were connected by a strip of Slavic-speaking countryside with Polish-speaking mainland to the east (the transitional group between Sorbian-speakers and Polish-speakers were so called "Oder-Wenden", who spoke transitional Polish-Sorbian dialects, while to the east of Oder-Wenden there lived Polacy Lubuscy, as this map (LINK (http://images50.fotosik.pl/138/84867481f7fb0ac6.gif)) shows:

(Serbowie Łużyccy = Lusatian Sorbs; Polacy Lubuscy = Poles of Lubusz Land (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lubusz_Land))

blue = German-speaking areas / white and pink = Slavic-speaking areas

http://oi58.tinypic.com/25834ts.jpg

To the south, Sorbs became separated from Czechs by Sudeten Germans, I'm not sure when exactly did that happen. However, it seems that the Sudetes Mountains alone was a geographical obstacle to Sorbian-Czech gene flow, even without Germans living there.

Volat
09-04-2015, 08:48 AM
I was going to mention John, but you beat me to it B) Florin Curta is a very poor authority, except for some specifics. But on the big issues he is worthless.

Scholars deserve their works to be given some consideration. But Florin Curta on Slavic history....I cannot believe some people are referencing him.

Volat
09-04-2015, 08:52 AM
During the Middle Ages, Sorbs were of course surrounded by other Slavic populations from all sides. Sorbs have become an isolated Slavic-speaking enclave surrounded by German-speaking populations from all sides only relatively recently - in the 18th or in the early 19th century. Until approximately the 18th century Sorbs weren't an enclave surrounded from all side by Germans, but were connected by a strip of Slavic-speaking countryside with Polish-speaking mainland to the east (the transitional group between Sorbian-speakers and Polish-speakers were so called "Oder-Wenden", who spoke transitional Polish-Sorbian dialects - while to the east of Oder-Wenden there lived Polacy Lubuscy, as this map (LINK (http://images50.fotosik.pl/138/84867481f7fb0ac6.gif)) shows.

(Serbowie Łużyccy = Lusatian Sorbs; Polacy Lubuscy = Poles of Lubusz Land)

blue = German-speaking areas / white and pink = Slavic-speaking areas

http://oi58.tinypic.com/25834ts.jpg

It seems that to the south, Sorbs became separated from Czechs by Sudeten Germans. But I don't know when did that happen.

Lutheran Sorbs were assimilated into German community. The famous mathematician Leibnitz may have Sorbian ancestry, so does impress of Russia Gatherine the Great. Catholic Sorbians is an isolated Slavic community in Germany. Catholic religion kept their identity separate from the Germans.

Tomenable
09-04-2015, 09:01 AM
^ Yes but in my post above I am I saying when things happened, not how they happened.

Assimilation / extinction of Sorbs was also very gradual, with Sorbian-speaking territory shrinking over centuries:

http://s2.postimg.org/6gppe3wop/Sorbian_Lusatian.png

http://s2.postimg.org/6gppe3wop/Sorbian_Lusatian.png

Number of Sorbs in the middle of the 19th century, by county:

http://s22.postimg.org/qfuora0c1/Sorbs_1861.png

http://s22.postimg.org/qfuora0c1/Sorbs_1861.png

Number of Sorbs from 1849 to 1987:

http://s24.postimg.org/z32gzvvc5/Sorbian_speakers.png

http://s24.postimg.org/z32gzvvc5/Sorbian_speakers.png

Estimated number of Sorbs from the 16th to the 18th centuries:


(...) According to Madlena Norberg, numbers rose from around 160 000 in the early 16th century to about 250 000 in the late 18th century (Norberg 1996, op cit, p. 16) [despite the demographic losses of 1618-1648]. Throughout that period, the attitude of German feudal rulers towards their Sorbian subjects was relatively tolerant, especially as far as the Sorbian heartland (Lusatia) was concerned - Marti 1990, op cit, p. 41. (...)

My main point is:

Sorbs show only very subtle levels of genetic isolation, because they have become isolated relatively recently.

Until the 1600s - 1700s they were connected with other Slavic territories. Only then they became an enclave.

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

The decline of Sorbian-speaking territory since the 16th century to modern times:

https://journals.dartmouth.edu/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Journals.woa/xmlpage/1/article/302?htmlOnce=yes

https://journals.dartmouth.edu/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Journals.woa/xmlpage/1/article/302/01.jpg

Legend:

♠ Catholic Sorbian communities
⌧ area devastated by brown coal mining
Grey — contiguous Sorbian-speaking area at the beginning of the 16th century
Light green — areas in which the older generation still spoke Sorbian around 1789
Dark green — areas in which the rural population spoke Sorbian around 1789
Blue — areas in which the majority of the population spoke Sorbian around 1884
Red — areas in which part of the population still speaks Sorbian today

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

Sorbian language in 1000 AD, in 1800 AD, in 1960 AD, and in 2005 AD:

http://language-diversity.eu/en/knowledge/regions-of-europe/die-sorbenwenden-in-der-lausitz/

to the north: Polabisch-Pomoranische Staemme = Polabian Slavs
to the east: Polnische Staemme = Polish peoples
to the south: Tschechische Staemme = Czech peoples

http://language-diversity.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Entwicklung-des-Sprachgebietes.png
http://language-diversity.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Entwicklung-des-Sprachgebietes2.png

Artmar
09-04-2015, 09:26 AM
Catholic religion kept their identity separate from the Germans.

Yes, I think that in the past - a religion was the most significant obstacle (aside language). There is an analogy with catholic and protestant Germans in Poland - protestants were rarely assimilated, whereas catholics (Bavarians in particular) or medieval settlers (obviously, they weren't protestant yet) got integrated well.

Germans from my family tree were initially Protestant but it seems, that they were open-minded enough(or pragmatic enough) to convert to Catholic faith

Volat
09-04-2015, 09:27 AM
@Tomenable In other words, Lusatian Sorbs are hard-core Slavs. :)

Volat
09-04-2015, 09:30 AM
Yes, I think that in the past - a religion was the most significant obstacle (aside language). There is an analogy with catholic and protestant Germans in Poland - protestants were rarely assimilated, whereas catholics (Bavarians in particular) or medieval settlers (obviously, they weren't protestant yet) got integrated well.

Germans from my family tree were initially Protestant but it seems, that they were open-minded enough(or pragmatic enough) to convert to Catholic faith

Religion was an obstacle in the past. Many Masurians were Balto-Slavs by descent. But because they were protestant they leaned towards German culture. They migrated together with the east Prussians to Germany afte WWII was ended.

Tomenable
09-04-2015, 09:37 AM
@Tomenable In other words, Lusatian Sorbs are hard-core Slavs. :)

So were Dravano-Polabians (Draväno-Polaben), last remnants of the Obodrites, who lived to the WEST of the Elbe River, and spoke Slavic until ca. year 1800. Moreover - even in the census of 1890, still 585 people in that area declared Slavic (wendisch), even though they no longer spoke Slavic at that time, but a local German dialect of Plattdeutsch, with some Slavic influences (including some of their old Slavic vocabulary).

Their number in the 17th century was ca. 15,000 - 20,000 native speakers, living in 120 villages and partially in towns.

Polabian was a distinct Slavic language, not Sorbian. It has been reconstructed based on this Dravano-Polabian dialect.

Volat
09-04-2015, 09:44 AM
So were Dravano-Polabians (Draväno-Polaben), last remnants of the Obodrites, who lived to the WEST of the Elbe River, and spoke Slavic until ca. 1800. Moreover - even in the census of 1890, still 585 people in that area declared Slavic identity, even though they no longer spoke Slavic, but Plattdeutsch.

Their number in the 17th century was still over 15,000 native speakers, living in 120 villages and partially in towns.

Eastern Germany could have been Slavic today. But whatever happened is happened. Slavs themselves assimilated many peoples eliminating different cultures in the Balkans, Belarus and northern Russia.

Tomenable
09-04-2015, 09:48 AM
^ But I suggest testing DNA of descendants of those Dravano-Polabians.

Volat
09-04-2015, 09:53 AM
^ But I suggest testing DNA of descendants of those Dravano-Polabians.

The are no large representative samples for European nations tested so far, what are the chances for some marginal communities who lived in north-eastern Germany in the past? I am guessing Polabians were genecally similar to Lusatian Sorbs, who are are similar to eastern Slavs. Eastern Slavs are genetically most similar to original Slavs. :)

Tomenable
09-04-2015, 10:02 AM
As for religion:

As you probably know, in German-ruled states there was no religious tolerance at all in the 1500s and in the 1600s. Following the peace of Augsburg in year 1555, the principle "Cuius regio, eius religio" was adopted, according to which every realm had its official religion, and all subjects of a given realm had to convert to that religion, or otherwise they had to emigrate and settle elsewhere. This is why there were such sharp religious divisions - Sorbs who lived in Brandenburg were >90% Protestant, while Sorbs who lived in Saxony were mostly Catholic. That was why in Prussia-Brandenburg the population was overwhelmingly Protestant. Inhabitants were forcibly converted to Protestantism by the Hohenzollerns.

Those who did not want to convert, were being forced to emigrate to some realm which tolerated Catholics.

Jews also had no entry to Brandenburg and to Ducal (East) Prussia in the 1500s and the 1600s.

Volat
09-04-2015, 10:12 AM
Good insight on the history of Slavs in eastern Germany. Protestant Slavs of Eastern Germany were culturally assimilated into German community, while Catholic Slavs of eastern Germany kept separate identity. Slavs of eastern Germany also happened to be genetically more similar to eastern Slavs than Czech and Slovaks.

Tomenable
09-04-2015, 10:27 AM
Bell Beaker culture was present in what is now Czecho-Slovakia, south of the Sudetes-Carpathians.

On the other hand, it wasn't present in what is now East Germany and Poland, north of that line.

Corded Ware alone (without Bell Beaker) extended roughly from the Elbe to the Volga.

parastais
09-04-2015, 11:00 AM
Bell Beaker culture was present in what is now Czecho-Slovakia, south of the Sudetes-Carpathians.

On the other hand, it wasn't present in what is now East Germany and Poland, north of that line.

Corded Ware alone (without Bell Beaker) extended roughly from the Elbe to the Volga.

http://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.com/2015/08/beaker-burials-from-greater-poland.html

Tomenable
09-04-2015, 11:13 AM
BTW - I've mentioned in this thread, that no samples from Wielkopolska (Greater Poland) were used in the study.

This is perhaps the only study on Y-DNA of ethnic Poles from Wielkopolska (Polonia Maior) that I am aware of:

http://www.amsik.pl/archiwum/3_2013/3_13d.pdf

http://s17.postimg.org/5nh3mwrpb/Greater_Poland.png

Table I. (page 2) - Information about the Y-SNPs, the nucleotide polymorphism and amplicon size.

Table II. (pages 3 - 10) - 17 Y-STR haplotypes for the Greater Poland population, haplogroups and frequency.

Table III. (page 11) - Allele frequencies at 17 Y-STRs in the Greater Poland population.

Table IV. (page 12) - Haplotypes and frequencies obtained by using 8 Y-SNPs in the Greater Poland population.

Table V. (page 13) - Frequencies of the alleles and haplotype diversity/discrimination indices by using of 8 Y-SNPs in the Greater Poland population.

Table VI. (page 13) - The repeated Y-STR haplotypes (Ht); the haplotypes obtained by using the markers Y-SNPs and their frequencies in the population of the Greater Poland region.

Table VII. (page 14) - AMOVA pairwise distances based on Ost values between the East and South Croatian, Lithuania, Ukraine, Russian and Polish populations.

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

And here is the summary of results (from pages 10 and continuation on page 14):

R1a1-SRY 1532.2 (n = 119; 59%)
K-M9 (n = 38; 19%)
R1b1-M467 (n = 30; 15%)
IJ-P123, P125 (n = 8; 4%, n = 6; 3%)

K-M9 samples from this study in Table II.:

Table II. (pages 3 - 10) - 17 Y-STR haplotypes for the Greater Poland population, haplogroups and frequency.

http://s12.postimg.org/yfo6lc7wt/K_M9_samples.png

http://s12.postimg.org/yfo6lc7wt/K_M9_samples.png

George
09-04-2015, 11:52 AM
"I know that until as late as 580s, etc - the Balkan populace would look Palaeo-Balkan/ Roman, and not Slavic." (Gravetto-Danubian)

I think this is highly likely.

Tomenable
09-04-2015, 12:12 PM
135 matches for Polish individual ID43 from the list above, using this website: http://yhrd.org/search/search

"Found 1 exact match in 6,872 Haplotypes. This is approx. 1 match in 6,872 Haplotypes (95% CI: 1,234 - 271,430).
All information provided here are based on the Minimal Haplotype database. There are 135 matches in 154,329 Haplotypes":

Highest number of matches is in Croatia and Poland, highest % of matches is in Croatia, Bosnia-H. and Serbia:

http://s24.postimg.org/jsrjw4u79/ID43_matches.png

http://s24.postimg.org/jsrjw4u79/ID43_matches.png

parastais
09-04-2015, 12:15 PM
I have a feeling the big Polish project will provide more info on early Slavs than this research.
That is if they ever finish it....

http://ncn.gov.pl/finansowanie-nauki/przyklady-projektow/figlerowicz

alan
09-04-2015, 12:17 PM
Bell Beaker culture was present in what is now Czecho-Slovakia, south of the Sudetes-Carpathians.

On the other hand, it wasn't present in what is now East Germany and Poland, north of that line.

Corded Ware alone (without Bell Beaker) extended roughly from the Elbe to the Volga.

NOW Czechoslovakia? Thought they had a peaceful parting of the ways in the 90s.

Tomenable
09-04-2015, 12:20 PM
Bell Beaker culture was present in what is now Czecho-Slovakia

NOW Czechoslovakia? Thought they had a peaceful parting of the ways in the 90s.

That's why I put "-" between "Czecho" and "Slovakia". :P

There was Czechoslovakia, now there is Czecho-Slovakia. ;)


That is if they ever finish it....

http://ncn.gov.pl/finansowanie-nauki/przyklady-projektow/figlerowicz

If... :lol: BTW - here English link:

http://ncn.gov.pl/finansowanie-nauki/przyklady-projektow/figlerowicz?language=en

^ "Dynasty & population of the Piast state in view of integrated historical, anthropological & genomic studies"

Such a scheme explaining what is it about: http://s4.postimg.org/cnzq9ygcd/Piast_realm.png

http://s4.postimg.org/cnzq9ygcd/Piast_realm.png

George
09-04-2015, 12:44 PM
There was Czechoslovakia, now there is Czecho-Slovakia. ;)

I suggest Czechia-Slovakia B) One little letter makes a difference

Volat
09-04-2015, 12:56 PM
Czech Republic and Slovakia. AFAIK Czech Republic wants to rename its country to Chezhia.

parastais
09-04-2015, 01:51 PM
Btw - in that study do they have y-dna for Baltic states and how deep in subclades that goes?
(I dont have .xlsx on this laptop, so cant open that table)

How does N1c1 ratios look in those?

George
09-04-2015, 01:54 PM
Btw - in that study do they have y-dna for Baltic states and how deep in subclades that goes?
(I dont have .xlsx on this laptop, so cant open that table)

How does N1c1 ratios look in those?

Are you talking about the study you started the thread about or some other study?

parastais
09-04-2015, 01:58 PM
Are you talking about the study you started the thread about or some other study?

Yes this study of the topic. I could not find (or maybe could not open) y-dna data per country used in this study.

George
09-04-2015, 02:18 PM
Yes this study of the topic. I could not find (or maybe could not open) y-dna data per country used in this study.

They have figures for 6 Lithuanian groups (3 from Aukshtaitia and 3 from Zhemaitia). They total 301 for the 6 together. Both N1b and N1c1 were checked. The former is 0. The latter is 40.5% for all tested Lithuania (with figures for all 6 groups separately too). For Latvia there is only a single general group. 113 tested. The N1c1 result is 41.9%

Bane
09-04-2015, 02:25 PM
They have figures for 6 Lithuanian groups (3 from Aukshtaitia and 3 from Zhemaitia). They total 301 for the 6 together. Both N1b and N1c1 were checked. The former is 0. The latter is 40.5% for all tested Lithuania (with figures for all 6 groups separately too). For Latvia there is only a single general group. 113 tested. The N1c1 result is 41.9%

Is there a link to see the other results too? Are there any Y-DNA frequencies for Romania?

parastais
09-04-2015, 02:43 PM
They have figures for 6 Lithuanian groups (3 from Aukshtaitia and 3 from Zhemaitia). They total 301 for the 6 together. Both N1b and N1c1 were checked. The former is 0. The latter is 40.5% for all tested Lithuania (with figures for all 6 groups separately too). For Latvia there is only a single general group. 113 tested. The N1c1 result is 41.9%
Many thanks!
Was this from that S1 File? I guess I need to somehow get my hands on that to compare with that other Lithuanian study on y-dna. Or maybe they just took data from that study :)

Another question - what about Estonians? Are they also 40% as expected from prev studies? Or are their data absent?

George
09-04-2015, 03:03 PM
Many thanks!
Was this from that S1 File? I guess I need to somehow get my hands on that to compare with that other Lithuanian study on y-dna. Or maybe they just took data from that study :)

Another question - what about Estonians? Are they also 40% as expected from prev studies? Or are their data absent?

Yes. From tables K and L in S1. Estonians are in table N: at 33.9 for N1c1 and 37.3 for both elements of R1a surveyed. They also have a substantial I1 result: 11.9

George
09-04-2015, 03:07 PM
Is there a link to see the other results too? Are there any Y-DNA frequencies for Romania?

I see these results in "protected mode". The link would be to file S1 on the main article home page. The Romanian results are in Table N. 1698 tested. Most are I2a -- 40.7% They also have substantial J (13.5) E1b (11.2) and R1a (10.8) as well as G (8.9)

parastais
09-04-2015, 03:31 PM
Yes. From tables K and L in S1. Estonians are in table N: at 33.9 for N1c1 and 37.3 for both elements of R1a surveyed. They also have a substantial I1 result: 11.9
Thanks, this motivated me enough to find freefileconvert.com which helped me to convert file in .xls and open.

Results seem to be more or less in line with previous studies on Baltics. Estonians seem to have slightly lower N than Balts.

Tomenable
09-04-2015, 03:49 PM
Their tree of Slavic languages, excluding Slovenian (see 3.2. below):

http://s14.postimg.org/83m8f9po1/Optimal_Tree.png

http://s14.postimg.org/83m8f9po1/Optimal_Tree.png

Description:

"(...) Our consensus tree (Fig. G in S2 File) suggests the following topological and temporal reconstruction of the Balto-Slavic languages. Initial disintegration of proto-Balto-Slavic into proto-Baltic and proto-Slavic took place during the 2nd millennium BC. Proto Slavic splits into three major clades, East, West, South Slavic around year 100 AD (1900 Years Before Present). Further diversification of each clade into minor clades (i.e. proto-East Slavic: Ukrainian/Belarusian, Russian; proto-West Slavic: Czech/Slovak, proto-Sorbian, Polish/Kashubian; proto-South Slavic: Serbo-Croatian, Bulgarian, Macedonian) took place during the 5th–7th centuries AD (about 1500–1300 YPB), followed by final shaping of individual languages (1000–500 YBP). (...)"

And Slovenian is a special case:

"3.2. The case of the Slovenian language:

Modern Slovenian belongs to the South Slavic clade according to the traditional classification of Slavic languages (Sussex, Cubberley, 2006). However, significant linguistic similarities between Slovenian and West Slavic lects have been observed earlier in number of studies. See, e.g., on specific ties between Slovenian and West Slavic (e.g., Slovak) or even on support of the mixed South/West origin of Slovenian, e.g., Bezlaj, 2003, Sobolev, 2000, Bernstein, 1961, Stieber, 1972, Lekov, 1958.

Likewise, the Slovenian (Ljubljana koine and literary Slovenian) wordlist, available in our study (see sources below), possesses a substantial number of both South Slavic and West Slavic lexical matches (cf. similar observations in Novotná and Blažek, 2007: 195). Such a mix introduces enough incompatible characters into the input matrix to make the calculation of robust trees impossible. Due to this reason we have deliberately excluded Modern Slovenian from the current analysis.

We suggest that one of the possible scenarios is that Slovenian is historically a West Slavic language being influenced by neighboring Serbo-Croatian during the last millennium.

Three networks without Slovenian (Fig. H–J in S2 File) reveal the same major clades of Balto-Slavic languages as phylogenetic trees do (Fig. B–G in S2 File) irrespective the outgroup used. Incorporation of Slovenian into network analysis reveals following: Slovenian appears to be an independent branch of Slavic languages which is nearly equally close to West and South Slavic, but distant from East Slavic (Fig. K–M in S2 File), thus supporting the putative mixed nature of Modern Slovenian."

Check networks from figures H, I, J, K, L and M - this is Fig. L:

http://s7.postimg.org/aj7dn1pmz/Net.png

http://s7.postimg.org/aj7dn1pmz/Net.png

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

The study suggests that already around year 100 AD there were 3 distinct branches of Slavic.

Between 400 AD and 700 AD they only further diversificated, into a dozen or so minor branches.

George
09-04-2015, 04:11 PM
Their tree of Slavic languages, excluding Slovenian (see 3.2. below):

http://s14.postimg.org/83m8f9po1/Optimal_Tree.png

http://s14.postimg.org/83m8f9po1/Optimal_Tree.png

Description:

"(...) Our consensus tree (Fig. G in S2 File) suggests the following topological and temporal reconstruction of the Balto-Slavic languages. Initial disintegration of proto-Balto-Slavic into proto-Baltic and proto-Slavic took place during the 2nd millennium BC. Proto Slavic splits into three major clades, East, West, South Slavic around year 100 AD (1900 Years Before Present). Further diversification of each clade into minor clades (i.e. proto-East Slavic: Ukrainian/Belarusian, Russian; proto-West Slavic: Czech/Slovak, proto-Sorbian, Polish/Kashubian; proto-South Slavic: Serbo-Croatian, Bulgarian, Macedonian) took place during the 5th–7th centuries AD (about 1500–1300 YPB), followed by final shaping of individual languages (1000–500 YBP). (...)"

And Slovenian is a special case:

"3.2. The case of the Slovenian language:

Modern Slovenian belongs to the South Slavic clade according to the traditional classification of Slavic languages (Sussex, Cubberley, 2006). However, significant linguistic similarities between Slovenian and West Slavic lects have been observed earlier in number of studies. See, e.g., on specific ties between Slovenian and West Slavic (e.g., Slovak) or even on support of the mixed South/West origin of Slovenian, e.g., Bezlaj, 2003, Sobolev, 2000, Bernstein, 1961, Stieber, 1972, Lekov, 1958.

Likewise, the Slovenian (Ljubljana koine and literary Slovenian) wordlist, available in our study (see sources below), possesses a substantial number of both South Slavic and West Slavic lexical matches (cf. similar observations in Novotná and Blažek, 2007: 195). Such a mix introduces enough incompatible characters into the input matrix to make the calculation of robust trees impossible. Due to this reason we have deliberately excluded Modern Slovenian from the current analysis.

We suggest that one of the possible scenarios is that Slovenian is historically a West Slavic language being influenced by neighboring Serbo-Croatian during the last millennium.

Three networks without Slovenian (Fig. H–J in S2 File) reveal the same major clades of Balto-Slavic languages as phylogenetic trees do (Fig. B–G in S2 File) irrespective the outgroup used. Incorporation of Slovenian into network analysis reveals following: Slovenian appears to be an independent branch of Slavic languages which is nearly equally close to West and South Slavic, but distant from East Slavic (Fig. K–M in S2 File), thus supporting the putative mixed nature of Modern Slovenian."

Check networks from figures H, I, J, K, L and M - this is Fig. L:

http://s7.postimg.org/aj7dn1pmz/Net.png

http://s7.postimg.org/aj7dn1pmz/Net.png

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

The study suggests that already around year 100 AD there were 3 distinct branches of Slavic.

Between 400 AD and 700 AD they only further diversificated, into a dozen or so minor branches.

Is this in opposition to the standard view of "Common Slavic" lasting much longer than 100 AD, or can it be reconciled by seeing the three groups as something like "budding dialects" within Common Slavic? Just asking, since I am no linguist.

P.S. OK. I found a statement from the authors not included in the above initial account. " Our estimation of AD 100 does not contradict it, since lexicostatistical divergence is the first discrepancy between Swadesh wordlists of two lects, but in normal case, these lects remain fully mutually intelligible and are readily able to share various common innovations." Such as "korol, krol, kral" for "king" from Charlemagne. Very traditional.

P.P.S. I wonder to what extent their linguistic authorities have used the work of scholars such as Vladimir Dal, Jauchim Karski, and Borys Hrinchenko (a tremendous wealth of lexicographic material in all three). I suspect not too much. Pity.

Generalissimo
09-05-2015, 02:20 AM
I had a closer look at the metadata of the Polish sample in this study. It's listed in Table S1 M (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/asset?unique&id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0135820.s007).

The Poles from Behar et al. 2013, most of whom are from Estonia, were used in the ADMIXTURE, Fst, PCA and IBD analyses. But only 13 of them were used in the PCA and IBD analyses, which suggests that at least in these tests the authors removed the North Russian-like outliers from this set.

However, most Poles in Estonia are of mixed origin, so even if they're not obvious outliers they're still not representative of the Polish population.

Shaikorth
09-05-2015, 04:52 AM
So about half of the Poles on the PCA are from Warsaw sample of Lao et al 2008 (I assume the most southern ones), as it looks like there's 24 Poles there.

Generalissimo
09-05-2015, 05:25 AM
So about half of the Poles on the PCA are from Warsaw sample of Lao et al 2008 (I assume the most southern ones), as it looks like there's 24 Poles there.

I can see 23, but Table S1 M shows that in the PCA 12 Poles are from Lao et al. and 13 from Behar et al. So there should be 25.

The Warsaw Poles are indeed more likely to be more southern and western shifted. I don't know which part of Poland the non-Estonian Poles from Behar et al. are from, but they generally seem more eastern than the Poles I have in my dataset.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQc3l1eDFpOHVrYmc/view?usp=sharing

Bane
09-05-2015, 10:35 AM
I see these results in "protected mode". The link would be to file S1 on the main article home page. The Romanian results are in Table N. 1698 tested. Most are I2a -- 40.7% They also have substantial J (13.5) E1b (11.2) and R1a (10.8) as well as G (8.9)

Thank you very much.

Btw, there is some issue with the Romanian results. The sum of all the haplogroups' frequencies makes 105,7%. At first I was surprised by the high value for I2a but I guess I've found an explanation which is valid for me - results are not quite correct.

George
09-05-2015, 11:46 AM
Thank you very much.

Btw, there is some issue with the Romanian results. The sum of all the haplogroups' frequencies makes 105,7%. At first I was surprised by the high value for I2a but I guess I've found an explanation which is valid for me - results are not quite correct.

You are right about the computation errors. Apparently this is not the only case. Same issue with Swedes and Hungarians (I checked arbitrarily). I'm not too surprised by the high I2a %, given the tight relationships of Romanians with Slavs in a thousand years plus of coexistence in all areas of the Balkans. The figures are comparable for Moldavians in other surveys.

gravetti
09-05-2015, 12:34 PM
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Romania?iframe=yresults

parastais
09-05-2015, 01:41 PM
You are right about the computation errors. Apparently this is not the only case. Same issue with Swedes and Hungarians (I checked arbitrarily). I'm not too surprised by the high I2a %, given the tight relationships of Romanians with Slavs in a thousand years plus of coexistence in all areas of the Balkans. The figures are comparable for Moldavians in other surveys.
I2a in Romanians is more than I2a in neighboring Slavic folk, right?
Anyway not that it is much of surprise, yet where are Italo-Celtic y-dna markers for Romance speakers? Or who were those Romans who Romanized Romanians?

Bane
09-05-2015, 02:13 PM
You are right about the computation errors. Apparently this is not the only case. Same issue with Swedes and Hungarians (I checked arbitrarily). I'm not too surprised by the high I2a %, given the tight relationships of Romanians with Slavs in a thousand years plus of coexistence in all areas of the Balkans. The figures are comparable for Moldavians in other surveys.

I believe I'm familiar with all the numbers so far published about Romanians, that is why I wrote I was surprised. My conclusion is that I2a frequency very much depends on the region. For example, there were results from Northeast Romania which indeed reached 40%, however, regions in the West can drop to 10% (Cluj 12%). My opinion is that for the whole Romania I2a should be slightly above 25%.

George
09-05-2015, 02:26 PM
I2a in Romanians is more than I2a in neighboring Slavic folk, right?
Anyway not that it is much of surprise, yet where are Italo-Celtic y-dna markers for Romance speakers? Or who were those Romans who Romanized Romanians?

Much closer re I2a to the Croat, Serb, and Bosniak figures. Which is most interesting in the larger historical context. As to the Romance speakers: good question, though in the 2-5 cs. there was quite a pool to draw from in the Roman Empire. I suspect that even Rome by the 3rd c. might have a tremendous amount of YDNA diversity. But it's probably the period 6-10 cs. and beyond which made the big difference discernible today in the Romanians.

George
09-05-2015, 02:29 PM
I believe I'm familiar with all the numbers so far published about Romanians, that is why I wrote I was surprised. My conclusion is that I2a frequency very much depends on the region. For example, there were results from Northeast Romania which indeed reached 40%, however, regions in the West can drop to 10% (Cluj 12%). My opinion is that for the whole Romania I2a should be slightly above 25%.

Regional diversity would not at all be unusual. I am not familiar with the Romanian situation, but the figures you cite sound very plausible.

parastais
09-05-2015, 03:22 PM
Much closer re I2a to the Croat, Serb, and Bosniak figures. Which is most interesting in the larger historical context. As to the Romance speakers: good question, though in the 2-5 cs. there was quite a pool to draw from in the Roman Empire. I suspect that even Rome by the 3rd c. might have a tremendous amount of YDNA diversity. But it's probably the period 6-10 cs. and beyond which made the big difference discernible today in the Romanians.
Do you think Vlachs got their I2 from Slavs?

George
09-05-2015, 03:34 PM
Do you think Vlachs got their I2 from Slavs?

Yes. There was very intense cohabitation after the Balkans were solidly invaded. Big mixeups. Eventually the Slavs assimilated many Vlach groups and the reverse also occurred. I can't think of anything better for the high presence of I2a in Romanians. The Hungarians also assimilated a lot of Slavs. While the Bulgars were assimilated to them.

George
09-05-2015, 03:40 PM
I believe I'm familiar with all the numbers so far published about Romanians, that is why I wrote I was surprised. My conclusion is that I2a frequency very much depends on the region. For example, there were results from Northeast Romania which indeed reached 40%, however, regions in the West can drop to 10% (Cluj 12%). My opinion is that for the whole Romania I2a should be slightly above 25%.

P.S. You might also like to consult the sources they used for their figures. Maybe you've already done this? For instance here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-1809.2005.00251.x/full Acc. to this the Constanta Romanians were at 41.9% (roughly) and those of Ploesti at 38.9%

parastais
09-05-2015, 03:51 PM
Yes. There was very intense cohabitation after the Balkans were solidly invaded. Big mixeups. Eventually the Slavs assimilated many Vlach groups and the reverse also occurred. I can't think of anything better for the high presence of I2a in Romanians. The Hungarians also assimilated a lot of Slavs. While the Bulgars were assimilated to them.
I am asking because I had feel that there were I2 lines that were Slavic and as well I2 lines pre-Slavic in Balkans.
But I have not checked I2 for a long time...

George
09-05-2015, 04:13 PM
I am asking because I had feel that there were I2 lines that were Slavic and as well I2 lines pre-Slavic in Balkans.
But I have not checked I2 for a long time...

That's a very fair comment. My impression is that in their computations the I2a-Din constitutes the overwhelming majority of the I2a's. Perhaps even all of it. They do list M-223 separately. And other types are totally minimal throughout Europe anyway. So trickles would not affect the big picture.

Bane
09-05-2015, 04:50 PM
P.S. You might also like to consult the sources they used for their figures. Maybe you've already done this? For instance here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-1809.2005.00251.x/full Acc. to this the Constanta Romanians were at 41.9% (roughly) and those of Ploesti at 38.9%

Yes, that was known to me. Those numbers include both I1 and I-M223 (beside I2a) which together could make up to 10%, but most probably less than 10%.

George
09-05-2015, 05:09 PM
Yes, that was known to me. Those numbers include both I1 and I-M223 (beside I2a) which together could make up to 10%, but most probably less than 10%.

All we know from the current source is that they used figures from 1638 people divided into 9 populations. Unfortunately they don't give further specifics for Romanians (only elsewhere for Balts and Slavs, understandably, since that was the study's focus)...

gravetti
09-05-2015, 06:53 PM
Bernie Cullen:

A fourth major branch of I-CTS10228 "Dinaric" and two new SNPs available
for testing:

Almost everyone in I-CTS10228 belongs to one of three branches: I-S17250,
I-Y4460 or I-Z17855. But there are a few people who are CTS10228+ and
S17250- Y4460- Z17855-.

We now know that there is a fourth branch called I-Y2512. Two people have
done Big Ys which show that they belong to this group: kit 4605 from the
"Jewish Dinaric" cluster, and kit N80837 who has Greek ancestry and is part
of the Mediterranean Dinaric cluster. Kit 54093 has also received Y2512+
results from YSeq, he is also part of the Mediterranean Dinaric cluster and
more specifically the New Mexico Dinaric cluster. Finally there is an
anonymous sample (GS000018440-DID) from Chuvashia that was sequenced by the
Estonian Biocentre and found to belong to I-Y2512, see:
http://i2aproject.blogspot.com/2015/03/i-cts10228-dinaric-samples-in-estonian.html

Y2512 (position 13203040) is available for testing at YSeq and people who
have already received CTS10228+ and S17250- Y4460- Z17855- should test
A2512. That is a very small number of people, most Dinarics do not to to
test A2512, please ask us if you have any questions.

Another novel variant at position 9853064 is shared by kits 4605 and N80837
and by GS000018440-DID but there is no test available currently.

Finally, kit N80837 Greek ancestry shares the novel variant 18741220 with
the Chuvashia sample GS000018440-DID but the Jewish Dinaric man kit 4605
does not have this SNP. 18741220 is available for testing at YSeq, it is
called A7134 and it is recommended for the New Mexico Dinaric cluster and
other members of the Mediterranean cluster, and anyone who has already
received A2512 results.

You can see a new tree with these branches here:
http://i2aproject.blogspot.com/2015/08/august-24-2015-tree-for-i-l621.html

I apologize in advance if I have made any errors in this post.
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I/2015-08/1440780398

parastais
09-05-2015, 09:44 PM
Slight off-topic.

Based on y-dna from this project I made some very careful estimates on Livonian Order (state and later) German y-dna impact on Latvian y-dna.
Latvians have following data:
1.1% G
3.5% I1
2.7% I2a
0.9% I2b1
41.9% N1C1
30.4% R1a (xM458)
8.5% M458
9.7% R1b

The usual suspects for Teutones knights would be I1 and R1b. Lithuanian regional data will be used for comparison.
When we look at I1. All Lithuanian regions have average ~4% of I1 (except East Aukstaitija 8%, South Aukstaitija 0%), which is higher than Latvian 3%. This goes to conclusion that I1 in Latvia & Lithuania does not follow any Livonian Order pattern and possibly was acquired before. Possibly vikings or earlier.

When we look at R1b. Here Lithuanian average is 4%. North Zemaitija - 7.7% could be explained by Germans. But West Aukstaitija - 8%? Noise or some German impact? Latvian average is 9.7% (some earlier data had up to 12%). Here we could assume it is a German marker and legacy of German Livonia.
So, I would assume 6-12% of impact from German Livonia or later events (such as German colonists in Kurzeme) on modern Latvian y-dna lines.

Estonians have 4% R1b this study, but 12% I1. Apparently their I1 is not from Livonian Germans, but rather from Danish rule in North Estonia + part of it 3-4% could be older pan-Baltic-States thing. R1b in other study goes up to 8%. So, 4-8% for Estonians.

Unless there was also older pan-Baltic-states R1b thing at around 3-4%.

Unfortunately subclades are not known.

On r1a interesting that M458, whilst being low number seems to be about same ratio vs total r1a among Lithuania (9/43) and Latvia (8.5/39) and even somewhat Estonia (5.7/37).

Tomenable
09-06-2015, 12:42 AM
R1b in other study goes up to 8% (...) Unfortunately subclades are not known.

Myres 2010 gives info about subclades:

R1b in Estonia from Myres 2010 (n=210):

U106(xU198) ------------- 0,048
S116*(xM529xU152) ---- 0,014
L11*(xU106xS116) ------ 0,01
L23(xM412) -------------- 0,005
U152 ---------------------- 0,005

M269 all ------------------ 0,081 (= 8,1%)

R1b in Slovenia, the same source (n=102):

U152 ---------------------- 0,059
L23(xM412) -------------- 0,039
U106(xU198) ------------- 0,039
S116*(xM529xU152) ---- 0,02
M269(xL23) -------------- 0,01
M412(xL11) -------------- 0,01

M269 all ------------------ 0,176 (= 17,6%)

R1b in Slovakia, the same source (n=276):

S116*(xM529xU152) ---- 0,043
U106(xU198) ------------- 0,04
L23(xM412) -------------- 0,036
U152 ---------------------- 0,025
L11*(xU106xS116) ------ 0,007
M412(xL11) -------------- 0,007
M529(xM222) ------------ 0,004

M269 all ------------------ 0,163 (= 16,3%)
M343*(xM73xM269) ----- 0,007

R1b in Czech Rep., the same source (n=87):

L23(xM412) -------------- 0,057
S116*(xM529xU152) ---- 0,057
U106(xU198) ------------- 0,057
U152 ---------------------- 0,034
M529(xM222) ------------ 0,011

M269 all ------------------ 0,218 (= 21,8%)

R1b in Poland, the same source (n=202):

U106(xU198) ------------- 0,0594
L23(xM412) -------------- 0,0544
U152 ---------------------- 0,0347
S116*(xM529xU152) ---- 0,0101
M529(xM222) ------------ 0,0099
M269(xL23) -------------- 0,005
M412(xL11) -------------- 0,005
L11*(xU106xS116) ------ 0,005

M269 all ------------------ 0,1835 (= 18,35%)

More data in Supplementary Table S4:

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v19/n1/suppinfo/ejhg2010146s1.html

Tomenable
09-06-2015, 03:10 AM
Check this article, "The Phenotype of Early Slavs 6th-10th centuries AD" (with English summary):

http://www.archeo.uw.edu.pl/swarch/Swiatowit-r2001-t3_%2844%29-nB-s205-212.pdf

Citations about Slavs migrating into the Balkans, describing their height:

1. Procopius of Caesarea:

"(...) Nay further, they [Slavs] don't differ at all from one another in appearance. For they are all exceptionally tall and stalwart men, while their bodies and hair are neither very fair or very blonde, nor indeed do they incline entirely to the dark type, but they are slightly ruddy in color. (...)"

"(...) Valerian chose one of the Slavs who are men of mighty stature. (...)"

2. Theophilact Simokatta:

"(...) The Emperor was with great curiosity listening to stories about this tribe [Slavs], he has welcomed these newcomers from the land of barbarians, and after being amazed by their height and mighty stature, he sent these men to Heraclea. (...)"

3. Theophanes the Confessor:

"(...) The Emperor was admiring their [Slavic] beauty and their stalwart stature. (...)"

4. Caesarius of Nazianzus:

He described Slavs as "numerous and tall", if I'm not mistaken (but I don't have exact quotation at hand).

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

Those descriptions are in agreement with how descendants of those Slavs who settled the Balkans look like.

"Average Male Height in Europe" according to a 2014 study by P. Grasgruber:

(Grasgruber et al., "The role of nutrition and genetics as key determinants of the positive height trend"):

http://polishgenes.blogspot.com/2014/08/male-height-in-europe.html

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2nGFmvBT-Nk/VUfeL-GY_DI/AAAAAAAAD6A/LKTx9U7DzwI/s640/1-s2.0-S1570677X14000665-gr1.jpg

Especially Montenegrins (183.2 cm) and Bosnians (182.5 cm) are very tall on average. If I remember correctly, the earliest archaeological evidence of Slavic settlement in the Balkans is from Bosnia.

Gravetto-Danubian
09-06-2015, 05:17 AM
Check this article, "The Phenotype of Early Slavs 6th-10th centuries AD" (with English summary):

http://www.archeo.uw.edu.pl/swarch/Swiatowit-r2001-t3_%2844%29-nB-s205-212.pdf

Citations about Slavs migrating into the Balkans, describing their height:

1. Procopius of Caesarea:

"(...) Nay further, they [Slavs] don't differ at all from one another in appearance. For they are all exceptionally tall and stalwart men, while their bodies and hair are neither very fair or very blonde, nor indeed do they incline entirely to the dark type, but they are slightly ruddy in color. (...)"

"(...) Valerian chose one of the Slavs who are men of mighty stature. (...)"

2. Theophilact Simokatta:

"(...) The Emperor was with great curiosity listening to stories about this tribe [Slavs], he has welcomed these newcomers from the land of barbarians, and after being amazed by their height and mighty stature, he sent these men to Heraclea. (...)"

3. Theophanes the Confessor:

"(...) The Emperor was admiring their [Slavic] beauty and their stalwart stature. (...)"

4. Caesarius of Nazianzus:

He described Slavs as "numerous and tall", if I'm not mistaken (but I don't have exact quotation at hand).

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

Those descriptions are in agreement with how descendants of those Slavs who settled the Balkans look like.

"Average Male Height in Europe" according to a 2014 study by P. Grasgruber:

(Grasgruber et al., "The role of nutrition and genetics as key determinants of the positive height trend"):

http://polishgenes.blogspot.com/2014/08/male-height-in-europe.html

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2nGFmvBT-Nk/VUfeL-GY_DI/AAAAAAAAD6A/LKTx9U7DzwI/s640/1-s2.0-S1570677X14000665-gr1.jpg

Especially Montenegrins (183.2 cm) and Bosnians (182.5 cm) are very tall on average. If I remember correctly, the earliest archaeological evidence of Slavic settlement in the Balkans is from Bosnia.

The site at Muzici. Actually it's now been re-dated to something like 750 AD. So the earliest slavic sites in the balkans are in Bulgaria (Garvan-popina) and Slovenia.

The historical reports of slavs as tall and stalwart is partly stereotype about fair, handsome barbarians (indeed they wrote similar things about Keltoi, Germani, even Alans). But it cant be too far of the mark !

parastais
09-06-2015, 06:59 AM
Myres 2010 gives info about subclades:

R1b in Estonia from Myres 2010 (n=210):
Thanks, in general conclusion is despite Livonia was German dominated for 700 years, number of possible genetic German descendants is really small when compared to Central European Slavic countries.

It is significant though when compared to Russia, so Riga and/or German nobles and/or colonists had left some trace in Latvia.

Anyway, that was off topic here.

Volat
09-06-2015, 07:26 AM
Thanks, in general conclusion is despite Livonia was German dominated for 700 years, number of possible genetic German descendants is really small when compared to Central European Slavic countries.

It is significant though when compared to Russia, so Riga and/or German nobles and/or colonists had left some trace in Latvia.

Anyway, that was off topic here.

I doubt Germans left much of a genetic trace in Latvian population.

- Germans of Latvia were Germanised locals for the most part.
- Even if there were settlers from Germany they mixed with nobility only. Nobility formed a small proportion of the society.
- Most people identifying themselves Germans left Latvia in the last century.

Lithuania and Belarus have a comparable proportion of R1b as per the paper. Yet, both countries did not have any significant number of Germans present in their countries. It's reasonable to assume that R1b in Latvia is from some ancient populations.

Although I1 and R1a-Z284 may have been brought from Scandinavia.

Coldmountains
09-06-2015, 08:03 AM
I doubt Germans left much of a genetic trace in Latvian population.

- Germans of Latvia were Germanised locals for the most part.
- Even if there were settlers from Germany they mixed with nobility only. Nobility formed a small proportion of the society.
- Most people identifying themselves Germans left Latvia in the last century.

Lithuania and Belarus have a comparable proportion of R1b as per the paper. Yet, both countries did not have any significant number of Germans present in their countries. It's reasonable to assume that R1b in Latvia is from some ancient populations.

Although I1 and R1a-Z284 may have been brought from Scandinavia.

Even the Y-DNA of German Balts/East Prussians is predominantly of local origin but with more R1b and I1 when I remember it correctly.

Tomenable
09-06-2015, 10:03 AM
Even the Y-DNA of German Balts/East Prussians is predominantly of local origin

Predominantly Balto-Slavic, but not necessarily local - Polish and Lithuanian as well.

There was huge Polish and Lithuanian immigration to East Prussia in the 1400s - 1700s.

I wrote about this issue in the thread linked below (posts #10, #13, #28, #32, #34):

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5203-Chekunova-2014-N1c-and-R1a-samples-of-Proto-East-Balts-%28-%29&p=103666&viewfull=1#post103666

FTDNA genetic genealogy projects have 82 samples from East Prussia*, including 20 N (24%). Provided that this sample is more or less representative, it most probably indicates that about half of East Prussian Y-DNA could be of Baltic origin, which is in agreement with my demographical estimate for East Prussia (post #28), that there was 20-35% native Prussian ancestry and 15-20% immigrant Lithuanian ancestry.

*Those 82 samples from FTDNA include the following Y-DNA:

R1a - 36 (ca. 44%)
N - 20 (ca. 24%)
R1b - 12 (ca. 15%)
I - 10 (ca. 12%)
J, E, G, T - 1 each

All these 82 people were born in East Prussia before WW2:

Haplogroup R1a - 36:

kit 145992 Martin Kiehl born 1760 Stobbendorf R-M458, R-M512
kit 165792 Johann Michael Sommerfeld b. 1750 Tujsk R-Z280, R-L365
kit N2864 Michael Flatau b. 1800 Stary Dzierzgoń (Alt Christburg) R-M417, R-M512
kit 275076 Georg Gottlieb Gutt b. 1729 Brodnica R-Z280, R-CTS3402
kit 137403 Felyx Pruhs b. 1826 Bratjan R-M198, R-M417
kit 329192 Friedrich Mattern b. Miłakowo, d. 1717 Stockholm R-Z280, R-CTS456
kit 161829 Johann Pieczkowski b. 1824 Różnowo (Rosenau) R-Z280, R-M512
kit N1840 Mikel Bujnicki, 1844-1921, Rogajny (Rogonnen), R-M458, L260
kit E9666 Jakob Pawellek b. 1853 Szczytno (Ortelsburg) R-Z280, R-L365
kit 175710 George Glass 1810-1890 Babięty R-M417, R-Z280
kit 221446 Ludwig Ermis b. 1822 Gruenwalde (near Ortelsburg) R-Z280, R-CTS456
kit 31553 Samuel Liedtke b. 1853 Kalwagi (Kaltwangen) R-M458, R-L260
kit 71994 Franz Pallaschke b. 1883 Buddern (Budry) R-Z280, R-CTS1211
kit 162556 Otto Ernst Kloth 1702-1778, Deutsch Wilten (Ermakovo) R-Z280, R-Z92
kit 153224 Leopold Lau 1867-1931 Compehnen R-Z283
kit 200664 Simon Netke b. 1686 Koenigsberg R-Z280, R-M512
kit 85285 Fred Lichtenstein b. 1870 Koenigsberg R-Z280, R-L366
kit E4464 Carl Labinsky b. 1840 Trempen (Novostroyevo) R-Z280, R-M417
kit 275090 Martin Kurschus b. Klaipeda (Memel) R1a-M512
kit E10941 Jablonski b. Koenigsberg R1a-M198
kit N46232 Christian Nikel b. Zabrowo 1780 R1a-CTS10893
kit B14462 Karl August Rosenbaum b. 1830 Mamonovo R-M512, R-L1029
kit 316853 August Czeranna b. 1864 Gross Schoendamerau R-Z283
kit 2546 Johann Piasetzki b. 1860 Sensburg (Mrągowo), R-Z280, R-CTS3402
kit E6115 Klaus b. 1935 Königsberg R-M512
kit 200664 Simon Netke 1686 -1735 Königsberg , R-Z283
kit E2656 Michael Gruenhagen, b. 1750, Bartoszyce (Bartenstein), R-M198, R-M512
kit 330940 Friedrich Malesha ca. 1800-1866, Sołdany, R-L1280, R-Z280
kit N2278 Krystyan Lamka, 1769, Łapinóż, East Prussia, R-CTS456
kit N5198 Peter Wróblewski, b. 1830, Marienwerder (Kwidzyń), R-L1029
kit N18451 Frank J. Zalewski, 1858-1941, Goczałki, R-Z283
kit 131361 Jan Jablonowski, Prioma, R-Z283
kit 157553 Tomasz Szypulski, 1738-1826, Szypułki-Zaskórki, R-M417, R-Z283
kit E4688 Stanislaw Holynski b. 1780, Kuty (Kutten), R-Z280, R-Z92
kit 145455 Scheffrahn b. Kętrzyn (Rastenburg) R-M417
kit N43077 Panemune, East Prussia (Sovetsk, Russia), R-Z280, R-Z92

Haplogroup N - 20:

kit 217892 Johann Groening b. 1800 Krzewiny (Horsterbusch) N-L731
kit E13080 Joannes Reihs b. 1800 Bisztynek (Bischofstein), N-L550, N-L1025
kit E9638 August Darge b. 1870 Bartoszyce, N-L550, L1025+, N-M231+, N-M178
kit 202401 Jan Łozowski b. 1850 Lötzen (Giżycko) N-L550, N-L551, L1025
kit 179556 Michael Bannuscher b. 1729 Schoenfeld N-L550, N-M232
kit 193848 Jons Maczullatis b. 1745 Skaisgirren (Skajzgiry), N-L550
kit N61024 Jurgis Lunczyns b. 1715 Mosteiten, K-M9, N-L550, L1025+
kit 142919 Wilhelm Edward Spangehl b. 1819 Ragnit N-L550, L1025+
kit N42695 Julius Baltrusch b. 1874 Campinschken near Tilsit N-L550, N-M178
kit E13080 Joannes Reihs b. 1800 Bisztynek (Bischofstein) N-L1025
kit 284236 Wannagat b. 1880, Jogeln/Göritten/Stallupönen, N-M178
kit 147092 Johann Bever b. 1800, Ryabinovoye, N-M178
kit 343953 Pranciškus Lukoševičius, b. Wisztyniec, N-M232
kit B42972 Johann Kuschnereit b. 1800 Eszerischken, N-L1025
kit N58382 Dargil, b. ca. 1344, Gut Dargels near Braunsberg, N-L1025
kit 183188 Andrzej Cholewa, 1815, Belczac, N-M231, N-L1025
kit N23762 Andrzej Romanski, b. 1758, Łapka in Warmia, N-M232, N-L1025
kit 173926 Baltazar Chylinski/Hilinski, 1866-1925, Rakowo (near Tiegenhof), N-L1025
kit E2482 Martin Ossowski, b. 1729, Malbork (Marienburg), N-M232, L1025
kit E8045 Dawid Barteit, Kolonie Bismarck bei Heydekrug, N-L551, L1025

Haplogroup R1b - 12:

kit 253571 Heinrich Bartel 1766-1828 Grudziądz (Graudenz) R-M269, R-U106
kit N112758 Ignatius Reis b. 1858 Wabcz R-M269
kit E15373 Johann Voelkner b. 1748 Rodnowo (Reddenau) R-M269
kit E10648 Jacob Preuschoff b. 1575 Klejnówko (Klenau) R1b-L48
kit N69965 Otto Emil Kraft, b. 1893 Tilsit R-P312
kit 81967 Johann M. Wentzel, 1845-1923, Marienburg, R-DF13
kit 59511 Johann Schwarm, b. 1814 Kwidzyń (Marienwerder), R-M269
kit 17375 Bäsner, b. 1840, Heilsberg/Braunsberg, R-S5970
kit E4574 b. 1844 in Kallinowen, Kreis Lyck, R-M269
kit N14933 Walenty Straszewski, b. 1731, Waldowo Szlacheckie, R-L23, R-Z2103
kit 266572 Karol Zalewski, b. 1812 , Rozogi, R-U106, R-Z8
kit N43078 Koenigsberg (Kaliningrad), R-23 (Z2103 or CTS7822 or CTS9219 needed)

Haplogroup I - 10:

kit E7698 Michael Rimek b. 1723 Szczytno (Ortelsburg), I-P37, M423+
kit 125721 Gustav Schedlinski b. Jeziorowskie (Seedorf) I-M253
kit E2677 Carl L. Nath b. 1820 Osterode I-M423
kit 181479 Ludwig Muller b. 1858 Mamonovo I-Z260
kit 169101 Otto Bewer b. 1899 Groß Skaisgirren I-M253
kit 330214 Heinrich Kardell, 1841-1878, Graudenz, I-M253
kit B1542 Gottfried Golembiewski, 1790-1860, Prabuty I-P37
kit N4664 Adalbert Rutkowski, b. 1730, Gruta, I-M423
kit 164185 August Napierski 1879-1962, Sensburg (Mrągowo), I-M253, I-P109
kit 64526 Jurgis Serapins, b. 1857, Piktupenai (Picktupöhnen), I-M253

Haplogroup J - 1:

kit 173911 Wolf Zimak alias Simon Freybuschewitz b. Dąbrówno (Gilgenburg) d. 1884, J-PF5456

Haplogroup E - 1:

kit E4759 Johan Krüger 1680 Wehlau, E-V13

Haplogroup G - 1:

kit 260477 Walkau, Königsberg, G-M201

Haplogroup T - 1:

kit 96408 Michael Hohenfeld b. Tolkmicko, T-M70

Tomenable
09-06-2015, 10:42 AM
Germans of Latvia were Germanised locals for the most part.

Unlike in case of Latvia, there was significant German immigration to East Prussia (at that time simply Prussia: West Prussia did not yet exist) between years 1225 and 1409. Actually around year 1405 was the historical peak for people of German origin in East Prussia. After that (particularly since the wars of 1409-1466) percent of people of German origin among the total population was declining, until at least 1626.

From year 1405 exists quite accurate data on Old Prussian population (a count of Prussian households), see post #34:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5203-Chekunova-2014-N1c-and-R1a-samples-of-Proto-East-Balts-%28-%29&p=103767&viewfull=1#post103767

My calculations/estimates for % of Prussian ancestry in East Prussia range from low 20% to high 35%.

This graph shows the option with high % of surviving Prussian ancestry (32-33%):

http://s17.postimg.org/5z2blsm33/East_Prussians_B.png

George
09-06-2015, 11:44 AM
Even the Y-DNA of German Balts/East Prussians is predominantly of local origin but with more R1b and I1 when I remember it correctly.

Small tidbit in passing. I see that in the I2a FTDNA project one of my fellows in the new A6105 subgroup of Y4460-Din is a German(icized?) Latvian. We are (so far!) a very small group. And there is a Vepsa man in it on the Estonian data base.

Jean M
09-09-2015, 05:39 PM
Asya Pereltsvaig and Martin Lewis, Slavs and Their Languages—Reconciling Genetics and Linguistic Findings
http://www.languagesoftheworld.info/genetics/slavs-and-their-languages-reconciling-genetics-and-linguistic-findings.html


A recent article by a team of scholars led by Oleg Balanovsky, published in PLOS One and titled “Genetic Heritage of the Balto-Slavic Speaking Populations: A Synthesis of Autosomal, Mitochondrial and Y‑Chromosomal Data”, sheds new light on the emergence and dispersal of the peoples currently speaking Slavic (and Baltic) languages. While I will not comment on the methodological points of the article, I would like to reflect briefly on the conclusions... These findings accord well with existing historical and linguistic accounts, as discussed in our recent book, The Indo-European Controversy: Facts and Fallacies in Historical Linguistics. Drawing heavily on the scholarship of historian Peter Heather, we emphasize the ubiquitous nature and the importance of two key processes in the peopling of today’s Slavic-speaking zone: rapid migration (as opposed to slower demic diffusion) and language shift. Although the various chapters in the history of Slavic-speaking groups are different in details,


even the more dispersed episodes, such as that taking Slavic speakers westward to the Elbe River, cannot reasonably be modeled as a “wave-of-advance” (demic diffusion), as far too much ground (900 kilometers) was covered too quickly (150 years). And instead of advancing randomly, Heather [(2010: 422)] argues, these people seem to have sought out “wooded uplands rather than the more open plains”, owing to their swidden (“slash-and-burn”) agricultural orientation”. Such a subsistence system, moreover, pre-adapted these early Slavic-speaking peoples to migration, a process facilitated as well by their relatively simple yet highly functional material culture.
[Pereltsvaig & Lewis 2015: 129]

But migration alone is not sufficient to explain the “extraordinary scale of Slavic expansion in this period, which encompassed most of central and eastern Europe” (Pereltsvaig & Lewis 2015: 129). Language shift by pre-existing populations into Slavic is the second key piece of the puzzle. A lengthy passage from our book bearing on this issue is worth quoting here:


Most of the lands of central Europe occupied by the Slavs at this time were politically chaotic and partially depopulated, owing to the exodus of large numbers of Germanic-speaking peoples, including political leaders and the most effective military units. A similar loss of order occurred in the Balkans after the Eastern Roman Empire’s abandonment of the Danube frontier in 614 CE and the transferal of the elites to coastal enclaves and the imperial core. The Slavic groups that subsequently moved into these areas were generally quite small in scale, but they were nonetheless militarily capable, owing in part to enforced tutelage under the Avar Khanate. Such groups seem to have subjugated the disorganized remnants of the pre-existing populations, but then accepted them into their own societies after “conversion” to their Slavic language and lifeways. Owing to its relatively egalitarian nature, Slavic culture at the time had its own draw.
....

There is much interesting detail in this piece re the different Slavic languages, concluding


Thus, some of the discrepancy between a more clear-cut north-south genetic divide and the more complex linguistic picture can be accounted for by the difference in how far back the divisions emerged (pre- or post-migration), but most of the inconsistencies between the genetic and linguistic narratives are due to their differing objects of study.

ljiljanm
09-09-2015, 08:41 PM
According to serbian archeologist Zivko Mikic there is no evidence of mixing slavs with the balkan population until the end of 9th century. The most of non-slavic population moved to the south or in mountainous regions. There are evidences that non-slavs preserved their language (latin) to 12th century and their names are during the 14th century still of latin origin. The process of slavisation was very gradual and it lasted to the beginning of 15th century. Slavic newcomers called this population Vlachs. This word Slavs borrowed from Germans, who used this word to denote all latin speaking folks. Because these balkan Vlachs were forced to retreat to mountainious regions of Balkan peninsula they adopted cattle herding as the way of subsistence. Soon all cattle herding populaion was called Vlachs. The mixing between Vlachs and Slavs was most intense in 12th century. That was the time when strong feudal states emerged on Balkans and the feudal peasent population was often oppressed. At the same time Vlachs lived rather freely and had much less obligations to the feudal masters. That was the reason why many slavic peasants fled to mountains and married Vlach girls. In several hundred years Vlach population was by this way slavised. That was also genetically proven because many descendants of Vlachs carry non slavic haplogroups (E, J, G etc). Almost one half of Serbs carry non slavic haplogroups.

leonardo
09-09-2015, 10:33 PM
Asya Pereltsvaig and Martin Lewis, Slavs and Their Languages—Reconciling Genetics and Linguistic Findings
http://www.languagesoftheworld.info/genetics/slavs-and-their-languages-reconciling-genetics-and-linguistic-findings.html



There is much interesting detail in this piece re the different Slavic languages, concluding

In regard to this text, Jean:
"Most of the lands of central Europe occupied by the Slavs at this time were politically chaotic and partially depopulated, owing to the exodus of large numbers of Germanic-speaking peoples, including political leaders and the most effective military units. A similar loss of order occurred in the Balkans after the Eastern Roman Empire’s abandonment of the Danube frontier in 614 CE and the transferal of the elites to coastal enclaves and the imperial core. The Slavic groups that subsequently moved into these areas were generally quite small in scale, but they were nonetheless militarily capable, owing in part to enforced tutelage under the Avar Khanate. Such groups seem to have subjugated the disorganized remnants of the pre-existing populations, but then accepted them into their own societies after “conversion” to their Slavic language and lifeways. Owing to its relatively egalitarian nature, Slavic culture at the time had its own draw,"
This seems plausible for South Slavs, but not West Slavs. Doesn't evidence indicate that the land where the West Slavs resided was basically de-populated?

This comment from the article seems to confirm that West Slavs did not expand based upon Slavicizing "indigenous" peoples:
"Is there linguistic evidence of these early patterns of contact between Slavic invaders and subjugated pre-existing populations? Numerous lexical loans from the early period (e.g. Germanic-derived luk ‘onion’ in Russian and similar forms in other Slavic languages) provide some support for the early Germanic-Slavic contact hypothesis. However, given the nature of these early contacts, involving Slavic invaders and subjugated non-Slavic speakers, one would expect to find traces of grammatical substrate influences of the pre-existing languages on Slavic languages. Potential Finnic substrate influences in Russian have been discussed in the literature (cf. Grenoble 2010, McAnallen 2011), yet I am not aware of any convincing evidence for early Germanic or other substrate influences in any Slavic languages."

lgmayka
09-09-2015, 11:16 PM
Doesn't evidence indicate that the land where the West Slavs resided was basically de-populated?
Y-DNA results have rendered that hypothesis (the Total Population Replacement hypothesis) untenable. The only haplogroups that the hypothesized repopulation source (Ukraine or Belarus) could reasonably have supplied are (some subclades of) R1a-Z280 and N-L1025, and those two haplogroups constitute only about 30% of modern West Slavic Y-DNA.

The haplogroups most commonly associated with Slavs ("Dinaric" I2a and the two principal clades of R1a-M458) appear to have their source in (what are now) the West Slavic countries, according to YFull's current haplotree. More extensive testing in Ukraine and Belarus could modify this picture but probably not completely reverse it.

P. M. Barford writes, on page 46 of The Early Slavs:
---
It is possible that a certain degree of depopulation could lead to social and economic collapse which in turn disrupts social organization, and limits the production and acquisition of objects such as craftsman-made pottery, fine metalwork and the use of (for example) typical Germanic halls. The disappearance of these traits need not mean the disappearance of the original population from this area, simply that the material culture had changed and was no longer being used to express 'German-ness'. It is equally possible that a Germanic elite left the area, and that, for one reason or another, the population left behind preferred not to use cultural markers of Germanic type. Perhaps we are seeing an expression of a changed world outlook on the collapse of the old social order, in which the Germanic-style zone with its extensive use of prestige goods and competitiveness was replaced by a styleless and more egalitarian material culture.
---

leonardo
09-09-2015, 11:25 PM
Y-DNA results have rendered that hypothesis (the Total Population Replacement hypothesis) untenable. The only haplogroups that the hypothesized repopulation source (Ukraine or Belarus) could reasonably have supplied are (some subclades of) R1a-Z280 and N-L1025, and those two haplogroups constitute only about 30% of modern West Slavic Y-DNA.

The haplogroups most commonly associated with Slavs ("Dinaric" I2a and the two principal clades of R1a-M458) appear to have their source in (what are now) the West Slavic countries, according to YFull's haplotree.

Thanks Igmayka. I should have written, de-populated by the Germanic tribes.

R.Rocca
09-09-2015, 11:27 PM
Y-DNA results have rendered that hypothesis (the Total Population Replacement hypothesis) untenable. The only haplogroups that the hypothesized repopulation source (Ukraine or Belarus) could reasonably have supplied are (some subclades of) R1a-Z280 and N-L1025, and those two haplogroups constitute only about 30% of modern West Slavic Y-DNA.

The haplogroups most commonly associated with Slavs ("Dinaric" I2a and the two principal clades of R1a-M458) appear to have their source in (what are now) the West Slavic countries, according to YFull's haplotree.

I forget the reference, but I believe that it was a Roman source that stated that the land of the Boii (Bohemia) was practically deserted. Without ancient DNA, I guess it is impossible to say, but is it possible based on the very large amount of Bell Beaker material recovered there? Thanks.

lgmayka
09-09-2015, 11:38 PM
I forget the reference, but I believe that it was a Roman source that stated that the land of the Boii (Bohemia) was practically deserted. Without ancient DNA, I guess it is impossible to say, but is it possible based on the very large amount of Bell Beaker material recovered there?
Because of their Y-DNA similarities (particularly R-L260), one could hypothesize a rather local de- and re-population among (what is now) southern Poland, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia. In other words, one could hypothesize that one of the three became depopulated, and was repopulated by the other two. But modern Y-DNA alone suggests merely an expansion.

George
09-10-2015, 02:02 AM
"Y-DNA results have rendered that hypothesis (the Total Population Replacement hypothesis) untenable" (L.Mayka, post # 207)

That [TPR] is an extreme version of what is meant by de-population. I really doubt anyone held this exact view, since it conflicts with both archaeology and extant historical documentation. But less extreme views (like substantial, or "very significant" or "areal" de-population) are still very tenable. The evidence for that is there, both in Ukraine and in Poland. I really don't see how genetic analysis can counter it. Simply because I don't see how genetic data obtained in the 21rst century can demonstrate on its own the locus habitandi of today's carriers 2,000 years ago. For instance, what is the genetic proof of Slavic beginnings in the West Slavic countries? And how can further genetic data either confirm this or change it?

Generalissimo
09-10-2015, 03:22 AM
For instance, what is the genetic proof of Slavic beginnings in the West Slavic countries? And how can further genetic data either confirm this or change it?

Okay, how did East Slavs become more similar to North-Central, or even Northwest Europeans, than to the Yamnaya nomads who once lived in their backyard? For instance...

Yoruba Icelandic Ukrainian_East Yamnaya_Rostov -0.0080 -3.282

Why are eastern Ukrainians from Belgorod so similar to Icelanders and so different from Yamnaya from Rostov? Rus Vikings? I doubt it. Obviously there were other population movements from North-Central Europe to the east. Slavic expansions might be one of them.

Ancient DNA samples from the right sites and periods will solve this sooner rather than later.

George
09-10-2015, 03:27 AM
I'm sure ancient DNA samples will be most useful, in conjunction with other data. As well as interesting in their own right.

Gravetto-Danubian
09-10-2015, 03:44 AM
Okay, how did East Slavs become more similar to North-Central, or even Northwest Europeans, than to the Yamnaya nomads who once lived in their backyard? For instance...

Yoruba Icelandic Ukrainian_East Yamnaya_Rostov -0.0080 -3.282

Why are eastern Ukrainians from Belgorod so similar to Icelanders and so different from Yamnaya from Rostov? Rus Vikings? I doubt it. Obviously there were other population movements from North-Central Europe to the east. Slavic expansions might be one of them.

Ancient DNA samples from the right sites and periods will solve this sooner rather than later.

Fair enough. But theoretically that could have happened back in the Bronze Age or Iron Age. But I agree a North-Eastern origin - in terms of a "forest birth" - is not consistent with evidence..

lgmayka
09-10-2015, 10:24 AM
Simply because I don't see how genetic data obtained in the 21rst century can demonstrate on its own the locus habitandi of today's carriers 2,000 years ago.
Y-DNA found in the poor people of rural and mountainous areas is highly informative.


For instance, what is the genetic proof of Slavic beginnings in the West Slavic countries? And how can further genetic data either confirm this or change it?
"Proof" will never come, this side of heaven; only evidence, to which we must then apply Occam's razor. And you need to define what you mean by "Slavic beginnings," because there is a great difference between the source of a culture and the source of a large population. A culture can have its beginnings among a small band, but a nation of millions cannot grow from such a small band within a single century--the starting population must have been much larger, even if they were united and activated by an initial small band.

R-L260 is clearly centered on the West Slavic countries, both in frequency and in haplotree (http://yfull.com/tree/R-L260/).
R-L1029 appears also centered on the West Slavic countries in frequency and haplotree (http://yfull.com/tree/R-L1029/), though with much greater spillover in all directions.
I-CTS10228 (http://yfull.com/tree/I-CTS10228/) has exactly one singleton besides its subclades, and that singleton is from southeastern Poland.

Gravetto-Danubian
09-10-2015, 10:35 AM
"Y-DNA results have rendered that hypothesis (the Total Population Replacement hypothesis) untenable" (L.Mayka, post # 207)

That [TPR] is an extreme version of what is meant by de-population. I really doubt anyone held this exact view, since it conflicts with both archaeology and extant historical documentation. But less extreme views (like substantial, or "very significant" or "areal" de-population) are still very tenable. The evidence for that is there, both in Ukraine and in Poland. I really don't see how genetic analysis can counter it. Simply because I don't see how genetic data obtained in the 21rst century can demonstrate on its own the locus habitandi of today's carriers 2,000 years ago. For instance, what is the genetic proof of Slavic beginnings in the West Slavic countries? And how can further genetic data either confirm this or change it?

I agree with Georgi on this, becuase its what ive stated. There is no clear thread of continuity anywhere. The period 400 - 600 saw relative depopulation everywhere in the band of territory from the Elbe to the middle Dnieper to the lower Danube region. Only the Carpathian basin boasted healthy demography- but these groups were "Germanic", Huns, and 'residual Roman", etc. So what we had left elsewhere were smaller bands of peoples - even individual households left. These then repopulated eastern Europe (that part outside the "Baltic forests") and 'fused' somehow along the way.

But where was the greatest early growth from (ie late 5th century to 6th) ? That area was left bank forest-steppe Ukraine and eastern Romania ... Regrowth in Poland came a bit later, as did the Slavic colonization of the forest zones of Belarus, northern Ukraine and Russia.

So SLavs might look 'western' rather than eastern, but that doesn't exclude western Ukraine.

Gravetto-Danubian
09-10-2015, 10:39 AM
I forget the reference, but I believe that it was a Roman source that stated that the land of the Boii (Bohemia) was practically deserted. Without ancient DNA, I guess it is impossible to say, but is it possible based on the very large amount of Bell Beaker material recovered there? Thanks.

That was Pliny the Elder, referring to Boihaemium deserta. This was early Roman period, thus not relevant to Slavic questions.
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=B_9RAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT520&dq=pannonia,+mocsy&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=desert&f=false

George
09-10-2015, 11:09 AM
"I-CTS10228 has exactly one singleton besides its subclades, and that singleton is from southeastern Poland." (L.Mayka # 215)

How does genetics tell you when that singleton's ancestors arrived there?

"Y-DNA found in the poor people of rural and mountainous areas is highly informative."

The only information it gives is that it is there at the time of the sampling. If you're lucky you can go back a few generations. But you can never know WHEN and from WHERE the ancestors arrived, with either demonstrative or probable power, unless you have solid documentation. (And these fyi are the only relevant elements of "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem") Mere possibility does not take one very far. There are many "possibilities".

As for aDNA: some would indeed be helpful. And some additional archaeology also. You are of course quite right as to the difference between "culture" and "population size". One would add language also. Genetics on its own is rather helpless to settle all relevant issues. That's why one has to take the witness of reliable old sources seriously (Besides the razor, there's another useful Ockhamist dictum here: "ex paucis multa elicere", but the "pauca" must be carefully selected and adjudged!) So when Procopius writes that the Heruls in 512AD crossed the area "of all the Slavs" (i.e. the Sclavini versus Antes of course) and then continued their route through empty spaces, until nearly to the Baltic, one takes this seriously, and does not invent "hidden masses", unseen, unnoticed, hiding behind trees and/or bushes etc.. This is not serious at all, I'm sorry to say. More ideological than scientific.

lgmayka
09-10-2015, 03:05 PM
But where was the greatest early growth from (ie late 5th century to 6th) ? That area was left bank forest-steppe Ukraine and eastern Romania ... Regrowth in Poland came a bit later, as did the Slavic colonization of the forest zones of Belarus, northern Ukraine and Russia.

So SLavs might look 'western' rather than eastern, but that doesn't exclude western Ukraine.
So far, Y-DNA evidence does not agree with you. Most (though not all) of the clades showing strong growth during that general time period appear to be rooted in or near Poland. But we certainly need more Big Y testing from western Ukraine, western Belarus, and northern Romania--they are exactly what I meant when I wrote that future data might modify (but not completely reverse) the picture.

But you seem to miss my point anyway. You are referring to the precise chronology of population growth, which might be useful if we were looking for the specific small tribe whose dialect became the lingua franca of the region. I am emphasizing the fact that the resulting people--the Slavs--must have expanded their population and territory from a fairly large base.

lgmayka
09-10-2015, 03:17 PM
How does genetics tell you when that singleton's ancestors arrived there?
Ceteris paribus, singletons are much more likely to represent the remnants that did not migrate and expand. Thus, singletons are more likely to tell us the geographical origin of an expansion.


But you can never know WHEN and from WHERE the ancestors arrived, with either demonstrative or probable power, unless you have solid documentation.
Those who wait around for absolute certainty will be waiting a long, long time. The rest of us must act on probability.

George
09-10-2015, 03:38 PM
Ceteris paribus, singletons are much more likely to represent the remnants that did not migrate and expand. Thus, singletons are more likely to tell us the geographical origin of an expansion.

Those who wait around for absolute certainty will be waiting a long, long time. The rest of us must act on probability.

OK, no need to discuss further. Your position is clear. I think it's possible, not probable (a long way from probable in fact:amen: , never mind demonstrated). And the "caetera" are never "para", not if you ignore historical documents and archaeology etc., and place all your bets exclusively on genetics. Live long and be happy!;)

parastais
09-20-2015, 08:45 AM
New study on admixture in last 1500 years is not shy at all:
"As previously reported [11], the formation of the Slavic people at around 1000 CE had a significant impact on the populations of Northern and Eastern Europe, a result that is supported by an analysis of identity by descent segments in European populations [10]. Here, despite characterizing populations by genetic similarity rather than geographic labels, we infer the same events involving a “Slavic” source (represented here by a cluster of Lithuanians; lithu11 and colored light blue) across all Balkan groups in the analysis (Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, and Hungary) as well as in a large cluster of Germanic origin (germa36) and a composite cluster of eastern European individuals (ukrai48; Figures 4A and 4B )."

A Slavic source...represented here by a cluster of Lithuanians...:)

Baltic substrate? Common Balto-Slavic ancestry ~ Lithuanians?

lgmayka
09-20-2015, 09:13 AM
"Here, despite characterizing populations by genetic similarity rather than geographic labels, we infer the same events involving a “Slavic” source (represented here by a cluster of Lithuanians; lithu11 and colored light blue) across all Balkan groups in the analysis (Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, and Hungary) as well as in a large cluster of Germanic origin (germa36) and a composite cluster of eastern European individuals (ukrai48; Figures 4A and 4B )."

A Slavic source...represented here by a cluster of Lithuanians...:)

Baltic substrate? Common Balto-Slavic ancestry ~ Lithuanians?
I don't have access to the study myself, but your quote seems to imply that the authors had a cluster of Slavic samples (ukrai48), but they were not the genetic source of the "Slavic" signal. Instead, Lithuanians (lithu11) appear to be genetically closest to the hypothetical source. (The implication is that the study did not include samples from Poland, Belarus, the Czech Republic, or Slovakia.)

Your quote could indeed be interpreted as evidence that the Slavs descended from a Balto-Slavic Continuum, as is often hypothesized; but frankly, the argument is extremely weak if the study did not include samples from the West Slavic countries or Belarus.

Megalophias
09-20-2015, 09:37 AM
I don't have access to the study myself, but your quote seems to imply that the authors had a cluster of Slavic samples (ukrai48), but they were not the genetic source of the "Slavic" signal. Instead, Lithuanians (lithu11) appear to be genetically closest to the hypothetical source. (The implication is that the study did not include samples from Poland, Belarus, the Czech Republic, or Slovakia.)

Your quote could indeed be interpreted as evidence that the Slavs descended from a Balto-Slavic Continuum, as is often hypothesized; but frankly, the argument is extremely weak if the study did not include samples from the West Slavic countries or Belarus.

The study is open access.

It included Poles as well as Belorussians, Ukrainians, and Russians (but no Czechs or Slovaks). The lithu11 cluster included 1 Pole and 1 Belorussian as well as 9 Lithuanians. The remainder of the Poles and Belorussians, as well as one Lithuanian, fell into the ukrai48 cluster.

Tomenable
09-20-2015, 11:33 AM
A Slavic source...represented here by a cluster of Lithuanians...

Not to mention this excerpt:

"As previously reported [11], the formation of the Slavic people at around 1000 CE [???] had a significant impact on the populations of Northern and Eastern Europe"

Some five centuries too late.

lgmayka
09-20-2015, 11:52 AM
The study is open access.
Ah! You mean this study (http://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(15)00949-5.pdf).


It included Poles as well as Belorussians, Ukrainians, and Russians (but no Czechs or Slovaks). The lithu11 cluster included 1 Pole and 1 Belorussian as well as 9 Lithuanians. The remainder of the Poles and Belorussians, as well as one Lithuanian, fell into the ukrai48 cluster.
So the study asserts that Lithuanian-like people were a genetic source for both Germans and northern Slavs, roughly 1000 years ago (?). That is indeed very significant, but I don't see how to directly connect it to the primary Slavic expansion, which was somewhat earlier and did not (principally) involve specifically Baltic people.

I suspect that the missing link here is the population of southern Poland, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic--the descendants of the Prague and Mogiła cultures (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Slavs#Archaeology). On the one hand, N-M2783 (http://yfull.com/tree/N-M2783/) (presumably of Baltic origin) is found in Slovakia; but on the other hand, R-L1029 (http://yfull.com/tree/R-L1029/) (usually attributed to Slavic origin) occurs in Lithuania.

George
09-20-2015, 12:08 PM
Great! Please provide the citation.

So the study asserts that Lithuanian-like people were a genetic source for both Germans and northern Slavs, roughly 1000 years ago (?). That is indeed very significant, but I don't see how to directly connect it to the primary Slavic expansion, which was somewhat earlier and did not (principally) involve specifically Baltic people.

I suspect that the missing link here is the population of southern Poland, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic--the descendants of the Prague and Mogiła cultures (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Slavs#Archaeology). On the one hand, N-M2783 (http://yfull.com/tree/N-M2783/) (presumably of Baltic origin) is found in Slovakia; but on the other hand, R-L1029 (presumably of Slavic origin) occurs in Lithuania.

Are we talking about the study which initiated this thread, or about some other study not yet referenced here?

Tomenable
09-20-2015, 12:22 PM
George - we are talking about some other study - this one:

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

Can somebody explain Figure 3., what is "Iran+Armenia"?

It seems that Slavic migration was spreading "Iran+Armenia" admixture in South-Eastern Europe...

Does this make any sense?


So the study asserts that Lithuanian-like people were a genetic source for both Germans and northern Slavs

The study asserts that Slavs who expanded from 469 CE to 1150 CE were "Lithuanian-like".

See Figure 4. C below:

http://s24.postimg.org/5g0g9xwqd/Lithu11.png

There was also a lot of "Iran+Armenia" admixture in the Balkans during that period.

Actually more of "Iran+Armenia" than of "Lithuanian" admixture, if we believe Figure 3. B.

lgmayka
09-20-2015, 02:33 PM
It seems that Slavic migration was spreading "Iran+Armenia" admixture in South-Eastern Europe...

Does this make any sense?
Part of the confusion is that the paper's text does not entirely correspond with its figures. Figure 1B clearly shows that the authors have defined NEEurope to include all of the following:
Mordovins
Russians
Finns
Ukrainians
Lithuanians
Croatians
Hungarians

But in the text, they apparently assert that Lithuanians are more Slavic than Ukrainians:
---
Here, despite characterizing populations by genetic similarity rather than geographic labels, we infer the same events involving a ‘‘Slavic’’ source (represented here by a cluster of Lithuanians; lithu11 and colored light blue) across all Balkan groups in the analysis (Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, and Hungary) as well as in a large cluster of Germanic origin (germa36) and a composite cluster of eastern European individuals (ukrai48; Figures 4A and 4B ).
---

parastais
09-20-2015, 03:38 PM
The initial study of this topic found Baltic substrate in North Slavs (West + East), the new study goes more brave by finding "Slavic source represented by Lithuanians" into Balkans, East Slavs and "large cluster of German origin".

Iran + Armenian = proxy for assimilated Sarmat blood?

Tomenable
09-20-2015, 03:50 PM
I also wonder what is this "SCEurope" admixture, it coincides in time with the German Ostsiedlung.

But South-Central Europeans are Italians and so on in this paper, not Germans...


Iran + Armenian = proxy for assimilated Sarmat blood?

There is a new aDNA paper with some Sarmatian and Alan samples, but no autosomal data so far:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5383-Saltovo-Mayaki-Results

In Russian: https://www.academia.edu/15713987/Афанасьев_Г.Е._Ван_Л._Вень_Ш._Вэй_Л._Добровольская _М.В._Коробов_Д.С._Решетова_И.К._Ли_Х._Тун_С._Хаза рские_конфедераты_в_бассейне_Дона_Тезисы_докладов_ на_Всероссийской_научной_конференции_Естественнона учные_методы_исследования_и_парадигма_современной_ археологии_._М._ИА_РАН._2015

Volat
09-21-2015, 11:03 AM
Not trying to undermine Balts' integrity and identity but we can safely assume Balts are cousins of the Slavs given linguistic, cultural and now genetic evidence.

parastais
09-21-2015, 08:36 PM
Not trying to undermine Slavs' integrity and identity but we can safely assume Slavs are cousins of the Balts given linguistic, cultural and now genetic evidence.
I like it better this way :)

Shaikorth
09-22-2015, 07:20 AM
Part of the confusion is that the paper's text does not entirely correspond with its figures. Figure 1B clearly shows that the authors have defined NEEurope to include all of the following:
Mordovins
Russians
Finns
Ukrainians
Lithuanians
Croatians
Hungarians

But in the text, they apparently assert that Lithuanians are more Slavic than Ukrainians:
---
Here, despite characterizing populations by genetic similarity rather than geographic labels, we infer the same events involving a ‘‘Slavic’’ source (represented here by a cluster of Lithuanians; lithu11 and colored light blue) across all Balkan groups in the analysis (Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, and Hungary) as well as in a large cluster of Germanic origin (germa36) and a composite cluster of eastern European individuals (ukrai48; Figures 4A and 4B ).
---

All their GLOBETROTTER test results are here:

http://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/2036746823/2051577501/mmc2.xlsx

So, the tests also produced mixture events from the Ukrainian (which is more Slavic than Baltic) cluster to Balkans which corresponds better with history. Their tools have some difficulty differentiating between various European populations compared to the global clusters. Every time they got a Siberian-related result for Norway or Finland it was North Siberian, while in turn it was always Mongolian for North Russians, Chuvash and Mordovians (they rightly note that the "Mongolian" is likely something else in this case though). But when measuring East European geneflow to the Balkans, we have 6 "Ukrainian" instances, 3 "Mordovian" instances and just 2 "Lithuanian" instances across their tests. A non-Slavic related case: Orkney gets more northern events from not just Norway, but also Finland and Mordovia not to mention other Orcadian isolate clusters.

You're correct in that there's a discrepancy between the text and data, the latter doesn't really indicate Lithuanians are better proxies for Slavic expansion into the Balkans than the Slavs themselves if we consider how many times their tests produced an "Ukrainian" admixture event in the Balkans instead of a "Lithuanian" or "Mordovian" one.

lgmayka
09-22-2015, 07:57 PM
So, the tests also produced mixture events from the Ukrainian (which is more Slavic than Baltic) cluster to Balkans which corresponds better with history.
...
But when measuring East European geneflow to the Balkans, we have 6 "Ukrainian" instances, 3 "Mordovian" instances and just 2 "Lithuanian" instances across their tests.
...
You're correct in that there's a discrepancy between the text and data, the latter doesn't really indicate Lithuanians are better proxies for Slavic expansion into the Balkans than the Slavs themselves if we consider how many times their tests produced an "Ukrainian" admixture event in the Balkans instead of a "Lithuanian" or "Mordovian" one.
We must also emphasize that the so-called Ukrainian cluster is actually a North Slavic cluster including Poles and Belarusians as well as Ukrainians. The authors made no attempt to distinguish between the three (or perhaps the data could not distinguish among them).

Shaikorth
09-22-2015, 08:25 PM
We must also emphasize that the so-called Ukrainian cluster is actually a North Slavic cluster including Poles and Belarusians as well as Ukrainians. The authors made no attempt to distinguish between the three (or perhaps the data could not distinguish among them).

That's not pre-assigned, most Poles, Belorussians and Ukrainians are in a single cluster because they're similar enough that Finestructure tends assign them that way unsupervised, especially with a global dataset. It's possible for the Finestructure program to separate (West) Ukrainians and Poles from East Slavs (demonstrated in some runs by Davidski and Anders Pĺlsen) but I'm pretty sure that requires an European-only dataset because the difference is very fine-scale. Consider those British Isles clusters from the POBI project, a global dataset won't produce a Northumbrian cluster.

Tomenable
09-25-2015, 04:38 PM
most Poles, Belorussians and Ukrainians are in a single cluster

I wonder how much of it is due to "prehistoric" heritage, and how much due to intermarriages in historical times (Polish-Lithuanian realm)? Maybe there was enough mixing between distinct regional populations living within the PLC that it led to some kind of genetic convergence?

Are Western Belorussians and Western + West-Central Ukrainians genetically closer to Poles than to Russians?

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmG9ZvbnIvg


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmG9ZvbnIvg

Coldmountains
09-25-2015, 04:59 PM
I wonder how much of it is due to "prehistoric" heritage, and how much due to intermarriages in historical times (Polish-Lithuanian realm)? Maybe there was enough mixing between distinct regional populations living within the PLC that it led to some kind of genetic convergence?

Are Western Belorussians and Western + West-Central Ukrainians genetically closer to Poles than to Russians?

Yes they are certainly closer genetically to Poles than to North, Uralic or many Central-eastern Russians. But Russians from places like Smolensk (similar to Belarusians) or South Russia (similar to Ukrainians) are close to both groups if not closer than Poles. The main reasons for that is the lack of significant Uralic ancestry and more Central Euro-like ancestry among Belarusians and Ukrainians. But many Ukrainians or Belarusians are mixed with Russians and many Russians have Ukrainian or Belarusian ancestry. So many Russians will get Polish/Ukrainian/Belarusian as first populations in various oracles and in real life the genetic differences are smaller than in genetic studies which pick unmixed individuals.

The Russians which differ most from Ukrainians/Belarusians are also the same one which are lowest in R1a/I2 among ethnic Russians and relatively high in West Siberian/Uralic ancestry but also highest in ANE/Yamnaya-like ancestry. So the main reason why they don't cluster here with other East Slavs is their Uralic substrate. Some regions of pre-Slavic Russia were also populated by Balts and some regions in central-western Russia have probably also a genetically significant Baltic substrate. Proto-Slavs certainly belonged to this Polish/Belarusian/Ukrainian cluster and early Slavic migrations to Russia shifted Russians slightly southwestern genetically but increased R1a and I2.

Tomenable
09-25-2015, 08:13 PM
When it comes to this study:

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

I'm bothered by their "Iran+Armenia" and "Turkey" admixtures. It looks like Slavic migrations were spreading a lot of "Iran+Armenia" admixture, which kind of makes no sense unless we don't know something about genetics of Proto-Slavic-speakers.

And if you look at Figure 2. then there is also some kind of "SCEurope" admixture in North-Eastern Europe in times when the German "Ostsiedlung" was supposedly talking place. But "South-Central Europe" is actually associated with Italians in this study - so how on Earth did German-speaking immigrants from the HRE manage to spread Italian-like admixture instead of "NWEurope" admixture ???

Check Figure 2 B - e.g. "Iran+Armenia" admixture in North-Eastern Europe and in South-Eastern Europe was in period 500 - 1500 AD:

Their Figures (charts / graphs) contradict what they write in actual text, because they don't even explain this "Iran+Armenia" thing:

http://s16.postimg.org/n21kalef9/Figure_2_B.png

http://s16.postimg.org/n21kalef9/Figure_2_B.png

If their dates are correct "Iran+Armenia" admixture occured in both South-Eastern and North-Eastern Europe during the Slavic expansion.

And "SCEurope" admixture occured in North-Eastern Europe during the German High-Late Medieval expansion (so-called "Ostsiedlung").

So something is strange here, why were Slavs spreading "Iran+Armenia" and Germans "South-Central Europe" admixtures ???

When you take a look at their Supplementary materials, you can see that South-Central Europeans = Italians, not Germans.

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

On the other hand, this constant stream of "NWEurope" (dark blue) admixture in North-Eastern Europe, which - as can be seen - starts already some time Before Christ, and which continues until roughly 500 AD, is consistent with expansions of Proto-Germanic-speakers from Scandinavia:

http://s28.postimg.org/b5t5czg25/Expansions.png

http://s28.postimg.org/b5t5czg25/Expansions.png

"NWEurope" admixture makes sense for Celts and East Germanic tribes.

But do "Iran+Armenia" and "Turkey" make sense for Slavic expansion?

And does "SCEurope" make sense for German Medieval "Ostsiedlung"?

Tomenable
09-25-2015, 08:28 PM
Even Figure 4. contradicts with Figure 2., as it shows that speakers of Proto-Slavic were genetically like Lithuanians and Ukrainians:

Is "Lithuanian-like" admixture consistent with a sum of "Iran+Armenia" plus "Turkey" plus "NEEurope" admixtures ???:

It shows that genetically "Lithuanian-like" speakers of Proto-Slavic language were expanding from 469 CE to 1150 CE:

http://s24.postimg.org/5g0g9xwqd/Lithu11.png

http://s24.postimg.org/5g0g9xwqd/Lithu11.png

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

If gene flow from Iran/Armenia-like source was larger than from Lithuania/Ukraine-like source, why do they speak Slavic?:

http://s23.postimg.org/45k60rs4b/Slavicisation.png

http://s23.postimg.org/45k60rs4b/Slavicisation.png

parastais
09-25-2015, 09:14 PM
Do you know how they define those clusters? NE Europe and SE Europe?
I noticed in few posts above Hungarians were part of "NE Europe", which could explain appearance of Turkic genes in "NE European" cluster ca 700-1000 AD.

Volat
09-25-2015, 09:54 PM
Do you know how they define those clusters? NE Europe and SE Europe?
I noticed in few posts above Hungarians were part of "NE Europe", which could explain appearance of Turkic genes in "NE European" cluster ca 700-1000 AD.

There are different methods in defining clusters. There is a theoretical framework behind these methods documented in research papers. The methods are implemented in various software described in documentation . But no method is perfect. I believe fineSTRUCTURE sofware was used in defining aforementioned clusters.

Tomenable
09-26-2015, 04:49 PM
Maju posted this on his blog: http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.fr/2015/09/negligible-genetic-flow-in-slavic.html

He titled his article: "Negligible genetic flow in Slavic expansion to the Balcans".

But is this "negligible" actually a legitimate conclusion from these publications ???:

http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001555

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0135820

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

All of these publications found noticeable traces of Slavic migrations to the Balkans.

By contrast, NO of these 3 publications found traces of Germanic migrations to Roman lands.

Neither did Patrick Geary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HilECKqdte8

So if Slavic genetic flow was "negligible", then what was Germanic? - "totally minuscule" ???

Bane
09-26-2015, 05:12 PM
Maju posted this on his blog: http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.fr/2015/09/negligible-genetic-flow-in-slavic.html

I don't care how he interprets the paper. I just know that this is utterly wrong:

A new genetic study comes to confirm what most of us already knew: that Southern Slavs don't show any significant signature of immigration from the core Slavic area North and NE of the Carpathian Mountains that can be attributed to the so-called Slavic migrations of the Dark Age.

I believe the case is opposite - most of us think that Southern Slavs show very significant signature of immigration from the core Slavic area. Therefore his first sentence is enough for me to neglect the whole post.

Brent.B
09-26-2015, 05:55 PM
http://s23.postimg.org/45k60rs4b/Slavicisation.png

So this map shows almost no genetic influence of Germans in Poland? Considering that we already have ancient mtDNA showing continuity (at least some) in parts of Poland, then doesn't that rule out The Germanic identity of Iron Age Poland?

Tomenable
09-26-2015, 06:43 PM
So this map shows almost no genetic influence of Germans in Poland? (...) doesn't that rule out The Germanic identity of Iron Age Poland?

Well, Germanic is a language, it certainly is not any kind of German-like genetic influence.

Afro-Americans speak a Germanic language known as AAVE (Afro-American Vernacular English). Many Ashkenazi Jews also spoke a language classified as Germanic, known as Yiddish. So Germanic-speakers are not all genetically similar to Germans.

Perhaps East Germanics in Iron Age Poland were, simply, not genetically similar to modern Germans.

Actually the homeland of Proto-Germanic speakers was Scandinavia including Southern Sweden, not Germany.

And Scandinavians - such as Swedish people - are genetically different from German people.

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


Afro-Americans speak a Germanic language known as AAVE (Afro-American Vernacular English)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkzVOXKXfQk


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkzVOXKXfQk

Tomenable
09-26-2015, 07:06 PM
My point with Jews and Afro-Americans is that language can sometimes spread from one group to another without any or much admixture. Also check my previous posts in this thread when I noticed that Lusatian Sorbs seem to be more genetically similar to Swedes than to Germans. So perhaps East Germanic substrate (Goths, Vandals, etc.) absorbed by North-West Slavs was genetically Swedish-like, not German-like.

BTW - check what Angela from Eupedia wrote about this paper:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31580-Role-of-recent-admixture-in-last-1500-years?p=467559&viewfull=1#post467559


My general feeling about this paper is that the authors may be picking up signals of ancient admixture, or long term continuing admixture, and attributing all of it to the most recent and not necessarily the strongest migrations.

What migration into these areas around this time would bring Caucasus like/Iranian like/Armenian like admixture? Some of the Hunnic tribes, perhaps? Scythian like tribes? I find it hard to credit the effect was this large, and that prior admixtures weren't more important.

I feel the same way about the proposed signal of Greek admixture into Sicily during the Byzantine era. I'm sure there was some, but there's no sign of the undoubtedly much larger one created as the result of the establishment of so many Greek city states in southern Italy in the first millennium BC, so large that it was known as Greater Greece (Magna Graecia)? I find that hard to credit as well.

Ed. This conflating of the last signal of admixture with prior similar gene flows is a well known problem with Roll Off. They may not have solved this problem.

vettor
09-26-2015, 07:39 PM
I don't care how he interprets the paper. I just know that this is utterly wrong:


I believe the case is opposite - most of us think that Southern Slavs show very significant signature of immigration from the core Slavic area. Therefore his first sentence is enough for me to neglect the whole post.

I disagree, IMO, south Slavic never came from the core slavic area of the polesine in modern nations Belarus, and Ukraine, the south slavs came from southern Ukraine or near volga river delta area

vettor
09-26-2015, 07:43 PM
http://s23.postimg.org/45k60rs4b/Slavicisation.png

So this map shows almost no genetic influence of Germans in Poland? Considering that we already have ancient mtDNA showing continuity (at least some) in parts of Poland, then doesn't that rule out The Germanic identity of Iron Age Poland?

yes the baltic tribes where initially in coastal modern Poland and where replaced /annexed by the migrating germans from the west over time...........we see this with polish archeology stating that west-baltic culture tribes where there in late bronze-age period

Brent.B
09-27-2015, 05:09 PM
yes the baltic tribes where initially in coastal modern Poland and where replaced /annexed by the migrating germans from the west over time...........we see this with polish archeology stating that west-baltic culture tribes where there in late bronze-age period

But if Germanic tribes inhabited the area, wouldn't there be a genetic fingerprint left? We can't say they all got up and left (mtDNA shows at least some continuity through the Iron Age). So if there is no Germanic DNA, then the Germans could have never been in Poland (in large numbers).