PDA

View Full Version : Early Medieval aDNA from Poland coming soon



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Tomenable
02-24-2016, 02:40 PM
English translation:


966 is a special year in Polish history. The Archaeological Museum in Poznań and the Archaeological Reserve "Genius Loci" will actively participate in commemoration of the 1,050th anniversary of the Baptism of Mieszko I. We are preparing a number of attractions for the inhabitants of Poznań and for guests. (...) These will include: (...) an exposition "The oldest inhabitants of Poznań in the eyes of modern medicine". (...) Thanks to well preserved skeletal remains from the cemetery at Poznań Śródka, as the result of comprehensive research we have obtained a lot of valuable information about people living by the end of the 10th century and in the early 11th century in Poznań. Our research on skeletal remains has been interdisciplinary. We have been carrying out anthropological and identification, odontological, medical-judical, genetic and radiological examinations with use of modern methods of medical imaging (computed tomography), as well as studies in virtual engineering. Modern anthropological methods and professional identification research allows us to reconstruct faces of the past inhabitants of Poznań. In our research on skeletal material specialists from the Medical University and the University of Technology in Poznań participate. (...) Based on research done on skeletal material excavated in Poznań, a professional exposition presenting the results of medical and genetic studies on population inhabiting the Ostrów Tumski of Poznań in the 10th century will be created. This is an amazing opportunity to take a look at people living in a crucial period of Poland's history from the point of view of modern medicine.

Poznań was among the most important centers of power of Early Poland and its Piast Dynasty:

http://s7.postimg.org/6u6ao4uaz/uczniowie_na_wystawie.jpg

About Ostrów Tumski (the oldest district of Poznań):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostrów_Tumski,_Poznań#Early_history


The first known fortified settlement (gród) on Ostrów Tumski dates from the 8th or 9th century. In the 10th century the settlement on the island became one of the main political centres of the Piast domains, which in turn formed the hub of the early Polish state. Archaeological work carried out in 1999 revealed that the ducal palace stood on the site now occupied by the Church of the Virgin Mary (west of the cathedral). The palace was joined to a chapel, believed to be the first Christian temple in Poland. It was probably first used by Dobrawa, the wife of Mieszko I, and her Bohemian attendants – Mieszko himself was baptised in 966

Website of the Archaeological Reserve "Genius Loci":

http://www.muzarp.poznan.pl/en/activities/departments/archaeological-reserve-genius-loci/

Anthropological material and aDNA from 10th century and 11th century Poznań coming soon (Autumn 2016):

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xtf1/v/t1.0-9/10391837_1647326672173706_7689633467531735538_n.jp g?oh=6c57bbd534fb8d96d84e3bd77081c2a5&oe=5755794C&__gda__=1461919716_0af7764c1569ae667680ebfde39b15a 1

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xat1/v/t1.0-9/10625010_1647327142173659_5827335694365033025_n.jp g?oh=c4e425904b7cf160cb950f8db999cb37&oe=57511BA6&__gda__=1462066350_e313f19cd51215a988d3f168c24d6bf c

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xlt1/v/t1.0-9/12391770_1647327175506989_3480899200684488053_n.jp g?oh=be0d22569d3e08073160529aba3fe38d&oe=575F1C0A&__gda__=1465548078_40dbee76447bbea8753b49f87afe78c d

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xta1/v/t1.0-9/1962693_1647327195506987_3783818754199674315_n.jpg ?oh=343476e084c955f9b2bbdf281a5a9559&oe=5767C58B&__gda__=1465403650_c397e6a69c37dc4a0dd7dc7314fcc15 2

Trepanated skull:

http://chrzest966.pl/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/badania-medyczne-mieszkancow-Ostrowa-Tumskiego-z-Xw-510x510.jpg

===========

Sources:

http://www.muzarp.poznan.pl/rezerwat/jubileusz-1050-lecia-chrztu-polski/

https://www.facebook.com/1583865421853165/photos/pcb.1647327362173637/1647326672173706/?type=3&theater

http://epoznan.pl/news-news-63054-Z_kawalkow_przeszlosci_ukladamy_Ciebie_

http://chrzest966.pl/najstarsi-mieszkancy-poznania-oczami-wspolczesnej-medycyny-wystawa-w-muzeum-uniwersytetu-medycznego-w-poznaniu/

Tomenable
02-24-2016, 02:58 PM
^ Pre-Migration Period DNA will probably follow, because it seems to be part of the same research project as Early Medieval DNA:

"Dynasty and population of the Piast state in view of integrated historical, anthropological and genomic studies":

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

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

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

leonardo
02-24-2016, 03:35 PM
Great news Tomenable. Please keep us updated. That recreated facial image looks like JPII.:)

Padre Organtino
02-24-2016, 04:45 PM
Roman Era samples look the most promising. Otherwise I don't expect anything shocking. Poles of Medieval times will cluster with the modern ones)

leonardo
02-24-2016, 07:03 PM
Roman Era samples look the most promising. Otherwise I don't expect anything shocking. Poles of Medieval times will cluster with the modern ones)

Yes, the Iron Age samples could be very insightful, although I must say, I am interested in the others to the same degree.

Tomenable
02-25-2016, 01:50 AM
That recreated facial image looks like JPII.:)

Yes quite similar B), except for that very robust jaw - JPII's jaw was more gracile:

https://wycieczkinakresy.wordpress.com/2014/04/28/jak-prl-owska-sluzba-bezpieczenstwa-przechowala-nauczanie-karola-wojtyly/

Photo: http://cache2.asset-cache.net/xc/52548205-pope-john-paul-ii-then-the-young-priest-karol-wireimage.jpg?v=2&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=OCUJ5gVf7YdJQI2Xhkc2QKkC-kvUDsk1QCzd7X1fxGPJ8_EYeQg3VA5pUVhLxRvp0

Photo: http://trzesowka.org/zs_old/e107_images/custom/papiez5.jpg

In terms of jaw he is more similar to one of JPII's friends, Mieczysław Kotlarczyk:

https://wycieczkinakresy.wordpress.com/2014/08/24/22-sierpnia-1941-r-w-krakowie-zalozono-konspiracyjny-teatr-rapsodyczny/

Photo: https://wycieczkinakresy.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/mieczysc582aw-kotlarczyk.jpg

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


(...) Mieczysław Kotlarczyk (1908–1978) was a Polish actor, theatre director and literary critic. Kotlarczyk was the theatre mentor of Karol Wojtyła (future Pope John Paul II). He was active in the underground theatre in occupied Poland, and founder of the underground Teatr Rapsodyczny in Kraków. (...)

I found that photo while googling "young JPII" - someone mistakenly posted Kotlarczyk as JPII.

The reconstruction indeed looks like overall face from JPII, but jaw from Kotlarczyk.

Was it intended to look like JPII due to the 1,050th anniversary of Christianity in Poland, hmm? ;)

Remember that Kennewick Man's reconstruction which looked just like Patrick Stewart? :)

Tomenable
02-25-2016, 02:05 AM
BTW - below is the reconstruction of an Early Bronze Age man from Poland, discussed previously in this thread:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3732-Reconstruction-and-possibly-a-genetic-analysis-in-the-future-of-4-000YBP-Pole

http://naukawpolsce.pap.pl/Data/Thumbs/_plugins/information/403555/MTAyNHg3Njg,18452321_18452249.jpg

Tomenable
02-25-2016, 02:15 AM
Close ups on the Early Medieval guy:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/12391012_1647327225506984_708299993672636200_n.jpg ?oh=259e5f81b8c18df14d5455433d21a050&oe=57241594&__gda__=1466013438_dcd0daaf60206f81a177fa7b7bf9684 c

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/12360286_1647327212173652_8520652211572541011_n.jp g?oh=b5edec2fae64c4f119acfdc90bd7e903&oe=57630615&__gda__=1462095914_935f20e3c2d0eabb70bcf7d80126c1e d

Tomenable
02-25-2016, 02:50 AM
In old school anthropological typology, he would be West Baltid type (or maybe East Baltid with a robust jaw).

But anthropological typology is pretty much dead, because it proved unable to explain all of real-life diversity.

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

West Baltid type examples:

https://www.google.pl/search?q=West+Baltid&client=opera&hs=hxT&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZ-53d-ZHLAhUuSJoKHTiqA48Q_AUIBygB&biw=1366&bih=658

http://i903.photobucket.com/albums/ac236/david100_photo/pole12.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3d/Piotr_Zelt.jpg/240px-Piotr_Zelt.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/SUCdkPN.jpghttp://i.imgur.com/Ju4eReb.jpg
http://www.skene.pl/media/picture/5316/pic/101015141425.jpg
http://cs5337.userapi.com/v5337573/219/BNcT4DlZ_0c.jpg
http://www.tipologieeuropidi.altervista.org/template/files/template/part%201/15.jpg
http://www.tipologieeuropidi.altervista.org/template/files/template/part%201/10.jpg

Brent.B
02-25-2016, 03:41 AM
It's nice to see a solid timeframe for some Polish aDNA. I just hope the autumn release will include some Iron Age samples as well...

psaglav
02-25-2016, 09:30 AM
this is massive. looking forward to the results.

Saetro
02-27-2016, 01:46 AM
^ Pre-Migration Period DNA will probably follow, because it seems to be part of the same research project as Early Medieval DNA:

"Dynasty and population of the Piast state in view of integrated historical, anthropological and genomic studies":

[/IMG]

Around 1830 the province of Posen/Poznan was an amalgam of ancient Slavs and minority Wends / Sorbs together with ethnic Germans who are said to have been invited in at various times from around 1200 to fairly recently.
As this population appears to be before German immigration, it will be interesting to see what the background was like. Hope they include some ethnic Wends / Sorbs also, but with only 50 samples of common folk, this is unlikely.

Tomenable
02-27-2016, 01:58 AM
Around 1830 the province of Posen/Poznan was an amalgam of ancient Slavs and minority Wends / Sorbs together with ethnic Germans

In 1819 the population was 77,0% Polish; 17,5% German and 5,5% Jewish - according to Georg Hassel's 1823 book:

https://books.google.pl/books?id=31DMAJgQV28C&pg=PA43#v=onepage&q&f=false

Quote from the book (link above): "Nationalverschiedenheit 1819: Polen - 680,100; Deutsche - 155,000; Juden - 48,700."

http://www.anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=7998&d=1456541022

However, Germans and Poles were defined by native language in those figures (both from 1819 and other years). In reality IMO most of those German-speakers were of local Polish Slavic origin. So genetic differences between Polish-speakers and German-speakers were rather not significant (at least when it comes to those Germans living there for many generations; not recent immigrants - who could indeed be different).

But those 48,700 Jews were most certainly genetically different from the rest, because Ashkenazi genetics is different as we know.


who are said to have been invited in at various times from around 1200 to fairly recently.

In 1772-1795 Kingdom of Prussia forcibly annexed Greater Poland (which later was renamed Provinz Posen) and started bringing in German settlers there (at first during the rules of Frederick the Great the majority of them settled in the Netze River Valley, as well as in major cities). There were some Germans already before 1772 (those were invited by Polish rulers), but after the "Partitions" the number was increasing. Apart from immigration, there were policies of Germanization aimed at turning local Poles into Germans (by erasing Polish language and culture).

For example one of Angela Merkel's grandfathers was Ludwik Kaźmierczak from Poznań/Posen, who was ethnically Polish and born into a Catholic family. He changed his identity over time, emigrated to Berlin, converted to Lutheranism, and also changed his surname to Kasner:

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

Obviously he did not change his genetics, though. Generally Angela Merkel is 50% Polish-Kashubian (two Slavic grandparents).

The treatment of Poles by the Prussians/Germans in Prov. Posen was similar to the treatment of Irish by the English in Ireland.


an amalgam of ancient Slavs and minority Wends / Sorbs

Wends / Sorbs are Slavs too. And genetics of Sorbs is quite well known.

Wends were not any specific group, but a generic name for all West Slavs (and also Slovenes used to be called Wends/Winds).

But it was most often applied to Polabian Slavs, who are extinct today (except for Sorbs, if you count them as a sub-group of Polabians, and not as another group - which they technically are, because Sorbian languages are another subdivision of West Slavic languages).

The last of Polabian Wends who preserved their language, were the Drevani:

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

Polabian language is extinct: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polabian_language


and minority Wends / Sorbs

Sorbs / Wends (if you consider only Elbe Slavs as Wends) never lived as far east as the area of Provinz Posen.

The easternmost place where those groups ever lived, was the village of Chwalim, but they were immigrants there:

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

And it is not certain if inhabitants of Chwalim were of Sorbian origin, or of Slavic Lower Silesian origin. But if any Sorbs really lived in Chwalim, they were not natives to the land, but descendants of immigrants from Lusatia who came there after the Thirty Years' War.

What is certain, is that inhabitants of Chwalim were Slavic-speaking, Protestant, and called themselves "Wends".

In two neighbouring villages located near Chwalim - Stare Kramsko and Nowe Kramsko - the population called themselves "Poles":

Stare Kramsko was mixed Catholic-Protestant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_Kramsko

Nowe Kramsko was a fully Catholic village: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nowe_Kramsko

Those three villages were located at the very border between Provinz Posen and Brandenburg (also ethnic border at that time).

Tomenable
02-27-2016, 02:47 AM
As this population appears to be before German immigration, it will be interesting to see what the background was like.

Yes, the 10th - 11th centuries was long before any German immigration, and long before any Jewish immigration as well.

At that time the Germans were still busy conquering Slavic lands between the Elbe and the Oder (campaigns of Henry the Fowler and Otto the Great from 928 to 963, later the Great Slav Rising in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern in 983, which restored Slavic control over most of the area lost in 928-963 - and also Slavs captured Hamburg during that uprising; but a dozen or so years later Saxon forces manged to take it back).

There is a good book about those events: David S. Bachrach, "Warfare in Tenth-Century Germany", Boydell Press 2012:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7722/j.ctt1x7355

The first major Polish-German encounter in history was probably in year 972 - the battle of Cedynia, at the Oder River.

The Germans established their border at the Oder River (for the 2nd time after 983) only during the late 12th-early 13th centuries:

(the video below is accurate, but starts in 962; so it shows the situation after the campaigns of 928-963 mentioned above):

Of course this map doesn't show territories of the Teutonic Order (and later Prussia), because those weren't parts of the HRE - the Teutonic Order started to forge their realm in Prussia in 1228, and - with help of crusaders from all of Europe - conquered Baltic Prussians by 1283:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3it0qKZPh8

Migrations of German settlers to lands to the east of the present-day Polish-German border started in the 1200s and continued in next centuries (largest-scale immigration was in the 1300s; because after the Black Death Germany could no longer support so many settlers).

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

BTW, I have some Low German ancestors who came to the PLC in the 16th-17th centuries, but in my maternal grandfather's line.

On the other hand, in my paternal grandfather's line I'm not aware of any German ancestry, and the surname is of Polish origin.

Tomenable
03-09-2016, 02:50 AM
Here is a study about modern Y-DNA in the same region from which Early Medieval samples will be published:

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

Unfortunately, in this study (n=201), as many as 19% of all samples - 38 - were labeled as K-M9 haplogroup.

So far I have Nevgen-predicted 18 out of these 38. Here are the most likely results:

ID01 - N1c
ID33 - I2a1b2-L621
ID36 - I2a1b2-L621
ID43 - I2a1b2-L621
ID45 - I2a1b2-L621
ID51 - I1a3a2-BY351
ID60 - R1a1a1b2a-Z94
ID63 - R1a1a1b1a3a-L448
ID66 - R1a1a1b1a1-M458
ID67 - R1a1a1b1a2-Z280
ID74a - R1a1a1b1a2-Z280
ID74b - R1a1a1b1a2-Z280
ID81 - R1a1a1b1a1-M458
ID83 - R1a1a1b1a-YP694
ID87 - R1b1a1a2a1a1c2b1-L47
ID88 - R1b1a1a2a1a2e-DF19
ID89 - R1a1a1b1a1-M458
ID98 - R1a1a1b1a2-Z280

Twenty more K-M9 samples to go:

http://www.nevgen.org

ID106
ID111
ID112
ID113
ID129
ID143
ID144
ID150
ID151
ID157
ID158
ID173
ID179
ID180
ID181
ID184
ID185
ID186
ID187
ID188

Gravetto-Danubian
03-09-2016, 03:11 AM
So which area of Poland is M458 prevalent in ? (Given Artmar has informed us it is low in Kashubia)

Tomenable
03-09-2016, 10:56 AM
The remaining predictions are:

ID106 - R1b-L21
ID111 - R1b-PF7558
ID112 - R1a-Z92
ID113 - R1a-Z280
ID129 - R1a-M458
ID143 - R1a-YP694
ID144 - R1b-P312
ID150 - R1a-Y2613
ID151 - R1a-YP343
ID157 - R1a-YP4141
ID158 - I2a1b3-L621
ID173 - R1a-Y35
ID179 - R1b-DF99
ID180 - R1a-L1280
ID181 - R1a-L1280
ID184 - R1b-L47
ID185 - R1a-Z94 (probability of Z94 is 99,78% here)
ID186 - N1c
ID187 - R1a-Z284
ID188 - R1a-CTS1211

And one sample - ID109 - was classified as "unknown haplogroup" in the original study. Nevgen predicts it as:

ID109 - R1a-M458

Tomenable
03-09-2016, 12:18 PM
In the original study, they had such results (n=201):

R1a = 119 (59,2%)
K-M9 = 38 (18,9%)
R1b = 30 (14,9%)
IJ = 13 (6,5%)
N/A = 1 (0,5%)

After predicting K-M9 & N/A with Nevgen (n=201):

R1a = 119 + 24 = 143 (71,1%)
R1b = 30 + 7 = 37 (18,4%)
IJ = 13 + 6 = 19 (9,5%)
N1c = 0 + 2 = 2 (1%)

Over 70 percent of R1a, more than in Sorbs and Kashubians!

leonardo
03-09-2016, 12:25 PM
So which area of Poland is M458 prevalent in ? (Given Artmar has informed us it is low in Kashubia)

Artmar's post has to be taken in context, as things are relative. Considering the prevalence of R1a in Poland, especially other branches, M458 is relatively low in Kashubia (approximately 20%). In absolute number, this is, in my opinion, rather significant. As Michał has stated, the M458 in Kashubia is primarily L1029. While this image is rather dated, it gives a general idea of things:
8085
To my understanding, Poznan has a rather high distribution of M458, although I do not know to what degree L1029 and L260 are distributed.

jdean
03-09-2016, 12:25 PM
Tomenable >>

A predictor that claims to distinguish branches of P312 sounds like fun so I threw a few DF49s at it too see how it coped

http://www.nevgen.org

ZZ19 (DF27) > 70%
Z258 (U152) > 60%
DF21 (L21) > 70%
ZZ10 (L21) > 55%
ZZ10 (L21) > 60%
L176 (DF27) > 75%

All of these were at 67 loci and to be fair I'm quite impressed but clearly it's not exactly reliable.

The first one was me and I decided to see what it had to say at 111 loci

1 R1b L21>DF13>ZZ10 99.88%
2 R1b L21>DF13>Z39589>DF49 0.1%

I still think getting down to DF13 is pretty good though.

Michał
03-09-2016, 12:55 PM
In the original study, they had such results (n=201):

R1a = 119 (59,2%)
K-M9 = 38 (18,9%)
R1b = 30 (14,9%)
IJ = 13 (6,5%)
N/A = 1 (0,5%)

After predicting K-M9 & N/A with Nevgen (n=201):

R1a = 119 + 24 = 143 (71,1%)
R1b = 30 + 7 = 37 (18,4%)
IJ = 13 + 6 = 19 (9,5%)
N1c = 0 + 2 = 2 (1%)

Over 70 percent of R1a, more than in Sorbs and Kashubians!
The STR and SNP data from that paper are a total mess. I have once analyzed those haplotypes and found out the data are simply not reliable. I don't have my notes with me, but I will explain it in more detail as soon as I get a chance.

Michał
03-09-2016, 01:36 PM
So which area of Poland is M458 prevalent in ? (Given Artmar has informed us it is low in Kashubia)
It depends on whether you ask about modern Poland (where the population was thoroughly "homogenized" during the past century) or about the more distant past (when the regional differentiation was certainly much more apparent). In the latter case, it seems that with the exception of the Northern part of today's Poland (Pomerania and Mazury/Prussia), the frequency of M458 was very high since the Early Slavic times (and more or less uniform across the country, ie. probably 25-35%), although we don't have enough data for Silesia (where the M458 level could have dropped down following the quite intensive German colonization). Also, I suspect that the frequency of M458 in Poland is significantly higher today than it was 100-200 years ago (when both the Ashkenazi Jews and ethnic Germans constituted a substantial part of the entire population).

Tomenable
03-09-2016, 04:12 PM
where the population was thoroughly "homogenized" during the past century

The region discussed in this thread (Wielkopolska / Greater Poland) remained relatively unaffected by these movements.


when both the Ashkenazi Jews and ethnic Germans constituted a substantial part of the entire population

I have 82 samples of most distant ancestors from East Prussia here:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5203-Chekunova-2014-N1c-and-R1a-samples-of-Proto-East-Balts-(-)&p=103666&viewfull=1#post103666

I also have smaller samples for Lower Silesia, Eastern Brandenburg and Pomerania - collected from FTDNA.

My samples for these regions are smaller East Prussian, because I have not checked them as thoroughly.

Later I will probably expanded by samples for these regions by adding new kits.


Also, I suspect that the frequency of M458 in Poland is significantly higher today than it was 100-200 years ago

You will be surprised.

In my German Silesia + East Brandenburg sample, M458 numbers 15 out of 43 - so 35% of the total.

Here are the 15 samples of M458 (out of the total of 43 samples) in question:

Johann Godfried Warkus born 1801 Breslau R-M458, R-L260
Daniel Lehmann born 1785 Alt Lietzegoericke R-M458
George Zeretzke born 1734 Neutomischel R-M458, CTS11962+
Johann Christoph Schulze born Kałki (near Triebel) R-M458, R-L260
Matheus Vogt born 1841 Gruenberg, R-M458, R-L260
Paul George Schober born 1863 Altwasser R-M458, R-CTS11962
Gottfried Runge born 1720 Rawitsch R-M458, R-CTS11962
Schwabe born 1836 Militsch R-M458, R-L1029
Valentine Kruszka born 1843 Silberberg R-M458, R-L260
Stephan Pach born 1857 Laskowitz R-M458, R-L260, P Type
Johann Hannak born 1776 Falkenberg R-M458, R-L260
Gregor Freyer born 1753 Karmonke R-M458
Christian Friedrich Türk born 1690 Landsberg an der Warthe R-M458, R-L260
Thomas Sakry born 1783 Comprachtschütz R-M458, L260+, P Type
Matthias Schneider born 1830 Wilmesau R-M458, R-L260

Another Silesian sample was posted in the link below by Armtar, and M458 (especially L260) is the majority of R1a:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6315-Genetics-of-Silesians-and-Wielkopolans&p=137035&viewfull=1#post137035


The STR and SNP data from that paper are a total mess. I have once analyzed those haplotypes and found out the data are simply not reliable. I don't have my notes with me, but I will explain it in more detail as soon as I get a chance.

Does it affect only the leve of subclades, or also have impact on haplogroups?

In other words - do you think that R1a is in fact not over 70% in Wielkopolska?

leonardo
03-09-2016, 04:23 PM
It depends on whether you ask about modern Poland (where the population was thoroughly "homogenized" during the past century) or about the more distant past (when the regional differentiation was certainly much more apparent). In the latter case, it seems that with the exception of the Northern part of today's Poland (Pomerania and Mazury/Prussia), the frequency of M458 was very high since the Early Slavic times (and more or less uniform across the country, ie. probably 25-35%), although we don't have enough data for Silesia (where the M458 level could have dropped down following the quite intensive German colonization). Also, I suspect that the frequency of M458 in Poland is significantly higher today than it was 100-200 years ago (when both the Ashkenazi Jews and ethnic Germans constituted a substantial part of the entire population).

Any idea of how the numbers break down for M458 (L1029 vs. L260) within Wielkepolska?

Tomenable
03-09-2016, 04:26 PM
Any idea of how the numbers break down for M458 (L1029 vs. L260) within Wielkepolska?

You would need FTDNA data to check this, because there are no major studies on this region in existence.

Except for the one with 38 samples labeled K-M9 that I've just discussed. But it does not go into subclades.

leonardo
03-09-2016, 04:41 PM
The region discussed in this thread (Wielkopolska / Greater Poland) remained relatively unaffected by these movements.



I have 82 samples of most distant ancestors from East Prussia here:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5203-Chekunova-2014-N1c-and-R1a-samples-of-Proto-East-Balts-(-)&p=103666&viewfull=1#post103666

I also have smaller samples for Lower Silesia, Eastern Brandenburg and Pomerania - collected from FTDNA.

My samples for these regions are smaller East Prussian, because I have not checked them as thoroughly.

Later I will probably expanded by samples for these regions by adding new kits.



You will be surprised.

In my German Silesia + East Brandenburg sample, M458 numbers 15 out of 43 - so 35% of the total.

Here are the 15 samples of M458 (out of the total of 43 samples) in question:

Johann Godfried Warkus born 1801 Breslau R-M458, R-L260
Daniel Lehmann born 1785 Alt Lietzegoericke R-M458
George Zeretzke born 1734 Neutomischel R-M458, CTS11962+
Johann Christoph Schulze born Kałki (near Triebel) R-M458, R-L260
Matheus Vogt born 1841 Gruenberg, R-M458, R-L260
Paul George Schober born 1863 Altwasser R-M458, R-CTS11962
Gottfried Runge born 1720 Rawitsch R-M458, R-CTS11962
Schwabe born 1836 Militsch R-M458, R-L1029
Valentine Kruszka born 1843 Silberberg R-M458, R-L260
Stephan Pach born 1857 Laskowitz R-M458, R-L260, P Type
Johann Hannak born 1776 Falkenberg R-M458, R-L260
Gregor Freyer born 1753 Karmonke R-M458
Christian Friedrich Türk born 1690 Landsberg an der Warthe R-M458, R-L260
Thomas Sakry born 1783 Comprachtschütz R-M458, L260+, P Type
Matthias Schneider born 1830 Wilmesau R-M458, R-L260

Another Silesian sample was posted in the link below by Armtar, and M458 (especially L260) is the majority of R1a:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6315-Genetics-of-Silesians-and-Wielkopolans&p=137035&viewfull=1#post137035



Does it affect only the leve of subclades, or also have impact on haplogroups?

In other words - do you think that R1a is in fact not over 70% in Wielkopolska?

Regarding M458 within Silesia, I would imagine most of it is L260, as this seems to be the most prevalent in the southern part of Poland, perhaps as a direct result of the Prague Culture. As for L 1029, there is an ancestor of a man who has tested and is one "branch" below me who farthest ancestor was from Wroclaw. Another man's ancestry on the same (newly determined branch) as me has ancestry from Balga in what was once East Prussia. Whether these ancestral locations are ancient is unknown, but both go back until the early 19th century and demonstrate some of the presence of L1029 within what has been considered the general borders of Poland.

Tomenable
03-09-2016, 04:43 PM
When it comes to Kashubians, I have just 3 x N1c in a sample of 268 (from two sources) - so only 1% frequency.

By contrast, in my East Prussian sample of 82 from FTDNA projects (see the link above), I have 20 x N1c (ca. 24%).

That N1c was both from Old Prussians and new Lithuanian settlers who settled East Prussia from the 1400s onwards.


Regarding M458 within Silesia, I would imagine most of it is L260

That's what Artmar's sample shows. And in my sample M458 is 35% of all people (not just of all R1a, but of all hgs).

Tomenable
03-09-2016, 04:51 PM
Anyway, if data from this Wielkopolska study is correct, then we have the following frequencies of R1a:

Kashubians - 63,4% (170 out of 268) ----> mostly Z280
Wielkopolans - 71,1% (143 out of 201) ----> roughly equal Z280/M458
Lusatian Sorbs - 65,0% (80 out of 123) ----> mostly M458

I'm waiting for Michał's next post to see why he thinks (if he really thinks so) that ~70% for Wielkopolska is wrong.

So far it seems that frequency of R1a in Slavic areas actually goes down as you move from west to east.

And the proportions of M458/Z280 within R1a change from north to south, with central regions like Wielkopolska having roughly equal proportions of the two major subclades. On the other hand - there are no major changes in overall R1a frequency from north to south.

Tomenable
03-09-2016, 04:59 PM
perhaps as a direct result of the Prague Culture.

It is obvious that Slavic migrations involved both Z280 and M458 and also (especially in case of South and East Slavs) I2a.

Just like it is obvious, that Celtic migrations involved not only L21, not just U152, not only various DF's - but all of P312.

Why some clades became dominant in some groups (for example L21 in Insular Celts, but not in Continental Celts) is another issue.

Tomenable
03-09-2016, 05:14 PM
Silesia (where the M458 level could have dropped down following the quite intensive German colonization).

It doesn't seem so. Y-DNA data shows, that Silesian Germans were - genetically - mostly Germanized Slavs.

This is a very similar story to how Scotland's Celts became Anglicized - check posts by Alan in this thread:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6458-How-Celtic-is-Scotland&p=141112&viewfull=1#post141112

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6458-How-Celtic-is-Scotland&p=141131&viewfull=1#post141131

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6458-How-Celtic-is-Scotland&p=141602&viewfull=1#post141602

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6458-How-Celtic-is-Scotland&p=141860&viewfull=1#post141860

In both cases (Scotland and Silesia) there was some influx of settlers, but shifts of language were cultural.

Today entire Scotland speaks English or its local dialects (Scots is a dialect of English). But DNA is Celtic.

Silesia was Germanized in the same way as Scotland was Anglicized - mostly culturall, demographic impact was smaller.

As Alan called it - "Scotland colonized itself culturally, it was an internal process". More or less the same took place in Silesia.

The story was much different in case of Pagan Polabian Slavs, who were violently conquered by the HRE and large part of them perished during the Northern Crusades. In those regions (to the west of the Oder River) the process of Germanization was not peaceful at all.

Tomenable
03-09-2016, 05:24 PM
In places such as Wrocław (Lower Silesia), Polonized East Slavic origin of many of modern residents is evident.

I have two samples from modern Wrocław, and I can see elevated frequencies of I2a and E1b1b1 haplogroups.

On the other hand, frequency of R1a in modern Lower Silesia might be even lower than in pre-1945 samples.

leonardo
03-09-2016, 06:02 PM
It doesn't seem so. Y-DNA data shows, that Silesian Germans were - genetically - mostly Germanized Slavs.

This is a very similar story to how Scotland's Celts became Anglicized - check posts by Alan in this thread:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6458-How-Celtic-is-Scotland&p=141112&viewfull=1#post141112

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6458-How-Celtic-is-Scotland&p=141131&viewfull=1#post141131

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6458-How-Celtic-is-Scotland&p=141602&viewfull=1#post141602

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6458-How-Celtic-is-Scotland&p=141860&viewfull=1#post141860

In both cases (Scotland and Silesia) there was some influx of settlers, but shifts of language were cultural.

Today entire Scotland speaks English or its local dialects (Scots is a dialect of English). But DNA is Celtic.

Silesia was Germanized in the same way as Scotland was Anglicized - mostly culturall, demographic impact was smaller.

As Alan called it - "Scotland colonized itself culturally, it was an internal process". More or less the same took place in Silesia.

The story was much different in case of Pagan Polabian Slavs, who were violently conquered by the HRE and large part of them perished during the Northern Crusades. In those regions (to the west of the Oder River) the process of Germanization was not peaceful at all.
For example, the person who sits one branch below me on the y-DNA chart at FTDNA has a German surname.

Tomenable
03-09-2016, 06:20 PM
Surnames can be good in tracing "ethnicity" up to several generations back, but in many cases probably no more than this. In the Middle Ages, in most of Europe there were generally no surnames (at least not among peasants and lower classes). In most regions of Europe surnames frequently changed or became modified until the beginning of the 19th century.

After that the habit of changing surnames also continued. Here an article (in Polish) about changing of surnames among Poles who emigrated to Ruhrgebiet in the 1800s-1900s: http://pl.polskawarmia.de/images/document/8097/EmigracjadozaglebiaRuhry.pdf?t=1276276284.32

Examples of changing surnames by Poles in Ruhrgebiet: http://s11.postimg.org/sjguikygj/Surname_Germanization.png

In the USA, many immigrants - for example of German origin - also changed their surnames to sound more English.

In some cases, when a surname was modified but its "core" wasn't changed, it is possible to establish what was the original surname like (before "Anglicization", "Germanization" or other "-zation"), but sometimes they were changing surnames totally.

Oldest surnames in Medieval Europe were used in Venice during the 9th century. From there, the law of name bearing was adopted in France and Catalonia in the 11th, and in England, and Western and Southern Germany in the 12th Century. In the North and East of Germany, however, the custom of using surnames was practised no earlier than the 15th Century and, in some rural regions, surnames became fashionable only in the 18th century, nearly 900 years after their first appearance in Europe. Check also this thread:

http://historum.com/european-history/84321-origin-surnames.html


In Britain (not sure about elsewhere), surnames emerged around the cusp of the high and late middle ages. It's quite hard to tell what's a surname and what's an occupational or territorial name, or if there's even much of a difference, so they may go back further or arise slightly later, depending on the region and whether it's an urban/rural economy. As for tracing family history, that's almost separate from surnames. It depends more on completeness of parish church and court records. You can generally follow a surname to the 1700s, a lineage to the 1600s, a fragmentary lineage to the 1500s, and names and places to just beyond if you really work at it. My own family line can be traced continuously to the late 1500s, then gets patchier and patchier until it meets Alexander de Tysoe in 1286.
Depends on the country/culture. Norway was still mostly using patronymic names into the mid 19th century (ie, Lars Gundersen was the son of Gunder Hansen, who was the son of Hans Thorsen, etc) - several of my Norwegian ancestors didn't have consistent family names until immigrating to the US in the 1840s, and then started using the name of their farm back in Norway as their surname. But as mentioned, in other places in Europe, surnames came into use much, much earlier.
Depends on the country. for example in Hungary having fixed surnames started among the aristorcracy (around 13th century?) in the middle ages and it spread down to the peasantry (majority of the population) with the development of tax administration, i would say 16th-17th century when most of the still today used Hungarian surnames were consolidated (...) it depends on country and culture. The Jews for example only adopted family names in the late 18th century, most of the Serbs even later, to the early 19th century, until then both used patronymics similarily to her Norwegian example. I don't know how far can generally orthodox christians trace back family tree, when did their church record keeping start there. Or Turks are a famous case where modern fixed family names were only adopted in the 20th century.
Surnames can still be quite fluid in the 14th century in the UK with a man being referred to by both his father's name, ie a patronymic surname such as Adams or Adamson and his occupation, Walker. In instances where they crossed from one manor to another, they might be referred to by a locational name, eg. Lindley.

In Germany I cam across an interesting example with the christening (sometime before 1300) of a 'Jacob Muffel von und zu Eschenau' whose father is given as 'Otto Der Junge Muffel', ie Otto, the young Muffel. Presumably, Muffel senior was still alive. Everyone in this particular village of Eschenau will have known who was meant by the terms younger and senior but when a third Muffel, ie Jacob appears, he is distinguished by the term Eschenau. Perhaps Otto and his father weren't from there or maybe it was just another term to differentiate.. Naming in this way can give rise to a new surname, Eschenau, whereas he really was a Muffel.

You see this in other entries such as Anna von Eschenau, no hint of another surname. Anna is christened about 1432 in Nueremberg. The LDS entries give her surname as Muffel though when she gets married in 1452. Her father is given as Nicolai Muffel. It shows how the surname and the place name can be used interchangeably.

Regarding Jewish surnames - check these sources:

UNIVERSAL DECREE:
demanding that, beginning with January 1st 1788,
each Jew should have a constant surname:

Joseph II Habsburg, Holy Roman Emperor

http://www.shoreshim.org/en/infoEmperorJoseph.asp

http://jewishcurrents.org/november-12-jews-acquire-family-names-12794

IMPERIAL DECREE OF 20 JULY, 1808, CONCERNING JEWS WITH NO FIXED FIRST OR FAMILY NAMES:
(ARTICLE BY NAPOLEON I )

http://www.napoleon.org/en/reading_room/articles/files/decree_20july_08.asp

The Emancipation of Jews 1808: https://www.marxists.org/history/france/revolution/1808/fixed-names.htm

History, Adoption, and Regulation of Jewish Surnames in the Russian Empire:

http://www.surnamedna.com/?articles=history-adoption-and-regulation-of-jewish-surnames-in-the-russian-empire

Viktor Reznov
03-09-2016, 06:29 PM
BTW - below is the reconstruction of an Early Bronze Age man from Poland, discussed previously in this thread:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3732-Reconstruction-and-possibly-a-genetic-analysis-in-the-future-of-4-000YBP-Pole

http://naukawpolsce.pap.pl/Data/Thumbs/_plugins/information/403555/MTAyNHg3Njg,18452321_18452249.jpg
That just makes total sense :lol:

Tomenable
03-09-2016, 06:33 PM
That just makes total sense :lol:

Also similar to John Paul II ??? :biggrin1:

Viktor Reznov
03-09-2016, 06:36 PM
Also similar to John Paul II ??? :biggrin1:

Woah, did'nt see that at first;)

Tomenable
03-09-2016, 07:11 PM
I just hope the autumn release will include some Iron Age samples as well...

It will (and Y-DNA will be there too).

Michał
03-09-2016, 08:37 PM
I'm waiting for Michał's next post to see why he thinks (if he really thinks so) that ~70% for Wielkopolska is wrong.

Yes, I am very strongly convinced that this number is wrong.
Firstly, let me note that there is absolutely no correlation between the SNP data provided by the authors and the STR-based haplogroup prediction for particular haplotypes (as performed by myself; I used the Whit Athey's predictor (http://www.hprg.com/hapest6/files/hapest6.htm?order=orig) in all those cases when such prediction was beyond my competence). Secondly, the STR results for DYS437 are apparently wrong for a large group of 31 samples (ID125-ID155), and since this was probably an error made when constructing the table, we cannot be sure that the remaining STR data are correct. However, when ignoring those DYS437 results, the frequencies for predicted haplogroups are as follows:

R1a - 109/201 (54.2%)

including L260 - 41/201 (20.4%)
R1b - 39/201 (19.4%)
I1 - 21/201 (10.4%)
I2 - 20/201 (10.0%)
E1b - 3/201 (1.5%)
G2a - 2/201 (1%)
J1 - 2/201 (1%)
N - 2/201 (1%)
Q - 1/201 (0.5%)
L - 1/201 (0.5%)
T - 1/201 (0.5%)

As you can see, the overall frequency of R1a is more or less what one would expect for the entire country. However, the frequencies of L260, R1b, I1 and I2 seem to be a bit higher than the average values for the entire country (though I doubt such differences are statistically significant when using samples of this size).

Michał
03-09-2016, 09:08 PM
The region discussed in this thread (Wielkopolska / Greater Poland) remained relatively unaffected by these movements.
You mean there was no significant German minority in Greater Poland before WW2 (not to mention before WW1)?




You will be surprised.

In my German Silesia + East Brandenburg sample, M458 numbers 15 out of 43 - so 35% of the total.

Well, it all depends on how you collect the samples and whether the samples are large enough to observe statistically significant differences. For example, I can assure you that you will get quite different M458 frequencies when searching for Lower Silesians in German and Polish FTDNA projects. I have once compared different projects for East Prussia, and the differences for such haplogroups like R1a, R1b and I1 were hard to be overlooked. Also, see the FTDNA project "Germany Posen-W.Prus" where the ratio of R1a to R1b samples from Greater Poland (as seen on their map) is 1 to 4.

Michał
03-09-2016, 09:17 PM
Any idea of how the numbers break down for M458 (L1029 vs. L260) within Wielkepolska?
Unfortunately, while it was quite easy to predict L260 based on those STRs, I was unable to securely recognize L1029, and I doubt this would be possible when using such a limited set of STR markers.

Michał
03-09-2016, 09:31 PM
It doesn't seem so. Y-DNA data shows, that Silesian Germans were - genetically - mostly Germanized Slavs.

This is very true, but we shouldn't neglect the presence of German newcomers from the West. It is well known that the German colonists were arriving to Western Poland (including Lower Silesia) since the Middle Age, and the proportion of German newcomers coming here in more recent times was also quite significant. Thus, the contribution of ethnic Germans was certainly large enough to significantly affect the frequencies of particular haplogroups.

Tomenable
03-09-2016, 10:19 PM
This most likely depends on which region of Silesia you choose to sample. The largest proportion of German genes had to be in the Sudetes, which were sparsely populated before the Ostsiedlung and which became the earliest region affected by German settlement:

http://s28.postimg.org/ook2xbact/Sudetes.jpghttp://marnow64.w.interiowo.pl/sudety.gif

Tomenable
03-09-2016, 10:34 PM
You mean there was no significant German minority in Greater Poland before WW2 (not to mention before WW1)?

Nobody knows how many Germans were in Greater Poland, because census data vary significantly depending on who counted.

Anyway, all pre-WW1 censuses counted "German-speakers". The first census which counted "national identity" was Polish one in 1921.

However, the earliest data that I found is from 1819, and back then Germans were (according to a German source) 17,5% of the total:

(of course this data refers to Provinz Posen - which is not exactly the whole of the historical region of Greater Poland):

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6522-Early-Medieval-aDNA-from-Poland-coming-soon&p=142856&viewfull=1#post142856

http://www.anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=7998&d=1456541022

By that year (1819) number of Germans had to be already significantly higher than before 1772, because soon after the Partitions Frederick the Great started a state-sponsored colonization (especially in the Noteć/Netze River Valley, which had been sparsely populated before 1772).

However, German settlement was heavily concentrated in western and northern fringes of the region. As well as in largest cities. The central "core" of the region had very few Germans, actually it had more Jews than Germans but only until they emigrated. During the late 18th and the 19th centuries, most of Jews from Greater Poland emigrated to other regions of Germany (huge numbers for example went to the city of Berlin, many also went to West Germany), or to the other side of the Atlantic Ocean - to America. Only relatively few stayed until the 20th century.

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

Vast majority of Germans in Greater Poland were Lutherans (but not all Lutherans identified as Germans at that time - in 1819, there were still more Poles than Catholics in Provinz Posen according to German data published by Georg Hassel). This map shows the distribution of Lutheran churches in Poland in 1772 - outside of the area of Danzig, they were concentrated in westernmost fringes of the Kingdom:

http://s2.postimg.org/phsk229nt/Lut.png

All in all, Lutheran churches were 5,61% (115) of all churches in Greater Poland as of 1772 (Roman Catholic churches were 87,66%). The highest share of Lutheran churches was in western regions: Poznan Voivodeship (13,9%) and Land of Drahim (21,4%):

The share of Jewish temples in entire region was higher than that of Lutheran - in total 128 synagogues (6,24%):

http://s30.postimg.org/mdhab51xd/Greater_Poland_temples.png

Density of Jewish temples in the Kingdom of Poland (not including the Grand Duchy of Lithuania) in 1772:

Darkest shade is one per less than 100 km2, lightest shade is one per over 1000 km2, white is none:

http://s3.postimg.org/oh3c3qlxv/Synagogues.png

Density of settlements in the Northern/North-Western part of Greater Poland in the 2nd half of the 16th century:

Each brown dot/square and green square = one settlement (Trzemeszno Lubuskie = westernmost town of the Kingdom):

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

http://forum.axishistory.com/download/file.php?id=369372&mode=view

Note the sparsely populated Valley of Noteć River, extending from the Western border all the way to the Vistula:

(after the First Partition of 1772, Frederick the Great started colonizing this area with German settlers):

http://s18.postimg.org/xd4bs4t47/Netze.png

Tomenable
03-09-2016, 11:18 PM
Well, it all depends on how you collect the samples and whether the samples are large enough to observe statistically significant differences. For example, I can assure you that you will get quite different M458 frequencies when searching for Lower Silesians in German and Polish FTDNA projects.

I don't get your point.

While collecting samples, I looked at surnames and birthplaces of most distant ancestors, not paying attention to "Project" of origin. Why should it matter if a sample is from Polish or German Project if a guy was born in, say, year 1800 in Leignitz and had a German surname (though surname doesn't really matter because of course there were plenty of people with surnames of Slavic origin living in Leignitz in 1800 as well).

Your method is biased - because if an American guy with ancestor from Breslau born in 1800 turns out to be R1b, he will most likely join the German Project. And if he turns out to be R1a, he will most likely join the Polish Project (thinking that his ancestor could be ethnically Slavic).

You should not pay attention to Project of which a kit is part, but to birthplace, year or birth, name and surname (if available).

Anyway - a lot of samples are the same in both Polish and German Projects (the same kit registered in both Projects).

My own Y-DNA kit is also registered in a few different Projects at the same time. :)

Tomenable
03-09-2016, 11:38 PM
Yes, I am very strongly convinced that this number is wrong.
Firstly, let me note that there is absolutely no correlation between the SNP data provided by the authors and the STR-based haplogroup prediction for particular haplotypes (as performed by myself; I used the Whit Athey's predictor (http://www.hprg.com/hapest6/files/hapest6.htm?order=orig) in all those cases when such prediction was beyond my competence). Secondly, the STR results for DYS437 are apparently wrong for a large group of 31 samples (ID125-ID155), and since this was probably an error made when constructing the table, we cannot be sure that the remaining STR data are correct. However, when ignoring those DYS437 results, the frequencies for predicted haplogroups are as follows:

R1a - 109/201 (54.2%)

including L260 - 41/201 (20.4%)
R1b - 39/201 (19.4%)
I1 - 21/201 (10.4%)
I2 - 20/201 (10.0%)
E1b - 3/201 (1.5%)
G2a - 2/201 (1%)
J1 - 2/201 (1%)
N - 2/201 (1%)
Q - 1/201 (0.5%)
L - 1/201 (0.5%)
T - 1/201 (0.5%)

As you can see, the overall frequency of R1a is more or less what one would expect for the entire country. However, the frequencies of L260, R1b, I1 and I2 seem to be a bit higher than the average values for the entire country (though I doubt such differences are statistically significant when using samples of this size).

Thanks. So no frequency hotspot of R1a in Greater Poland, it seems ??? :(

Michał
03-10-2016, 04:48 PM
I don't get your point.
The point is that the way you collect your samples is going to significantly affect the outcome, so you need to be aware of all limitations associated with such procedure. Also, the size of your sample is critical when trying to conclude about the significance of any observed differences.



While collecting samples, I looked at surnames and birthplaces of most distant ancestors, not paying attention to "Project" of origin.
I guess you don't have access to the Y-DNA results of all FTDNA customers, so you must rely on those customers who are members of some relatively large regional projects. In case this is only the Polish FTDNA project, your results for territories that were once a part of Germany will likely overestimate the frequency of Y-DNA lineages associated with ethnic Poles while underestimating the contribution of those lineages that are more common among the ethnic Germans.

You may of course try to overcome the above problem by using the data from as many different projects as possible (and this is indeed the best way to cope with this). However, this won't solve all your problems, as many smaller projects (including some of those associated with former German provinces in Central-Eastern Europe) do not reveal their maps, not to mention that many FTDNA customers are visible to project members only (so you won't be able to see them unless you join a given project).


Your method is biased - because if an American guy with ancestor from Breslau born in 1800 turns out to be R1b, he will most likely join the German Project. And if he turns out to be R1a, he will most likely join the Polish Project (thinking that his ancestor could be ethnically Slavic).
I am not sure which "method" you are referring to, as I haven't mentioned any in my previous post.



You should not pay attention to Project of which a kit is part, but to birthplace, year or birth, name and surname (if available).
Agreed, but the problem is that we lack access to any relatively large sample that could be treated as a randomly selected (ie. unbiased) group of Y-DNA lineages present in Lower Silesia or Greater Poland 100-200 years ago (not to mention the much earlier periods).


BTW, please take a look at this summary made by Peter Gwozdz for those members of the Polish project who show Poland as their place of origin: http://www.gwozdz.org/Results.html
Note that while the frequency of R1a (including both M458 and Z280) is probably below the average for modern Poland, the frequencies for some haplogroups, including E, J and R1a-Z93 are slightly elevated, most likely because of the contribution of those ancestral lineages that were associated with the Ashkenazi Jews.

Michał
03-10-2016, 05:08 PM
Thanks. So no frequency hotspot of R1a in Greater Poland, it seems ??? :(
Honestly speaking, I see no reason why such an R1a hotspot in Greater Poland should be expected, especially when this was a part of the Sukow-Dziedzice culture that is quite frequently suspected of including some local Pre-Slavic (Germanic?) remnants (not to mention the quite significant German presence before 1945).

Tomenable
03-10-2016, 06:53 PM
I see no reason why such an R1a hotspot in Greater Poland should be expected

Because you have over 60% frequency of R1a in other nearby groups, like Lusatians and Kashubians.


(not to mention the quite significant German presence before 1945).

Lusatian Sorbs & Kashubians have >60% of R1a despite pre-1945 neighbourhood of German-speakers.

Tomenable
03-10-2016, 06:53 PM
using the data from as many different projects as possible

This is what I did. And I had access to all of their maps and charts.

Michał
03-10-2016, 07:05 PM
Because you have over 60% of R1a in other nearby groups as Lusatians and Kashubians.
Please note that such high frequency of R1a in Lusatia and Eastern Pomerania/Kashubia is seen only if testing a specifically selected subgroup of the local people who claim deep Slavic ancestry, so you would need to get a similar group of "purely Slavic" local people originating from Greater Poland to get comparable numbers for R1a. When testing randomly selected people from modern Lusatia or Eastern Pomerania, you would get much lower frequency of R1a (especially in Lusatia).

Tomenable
03-10-2016, 07:08 PM
is seen only if testing a specifically selected subgroup of the local people who claim deep Slavic ancestry

I'm not sure what you are talking about - as far as I know, there was no such "selection" of samples...


When testing randomly selected people from modern Lusatia (...) you would get much lower frequency of R1a

I really don't think this is the case, at least as long as you are testing in ethnically Sorbian part of Lusatia.

Tomenable
03-10-2016, 07:14 PM
please take a look at this summary made by Peter Gwozdz for those members of the Polish project who show Poland as their place of origin: http://www.gwozdz.org/Results.html
Note that while the frequency of R1a (including both M458 and Z280) is probably below the average for modern Poland

The frequency of R1a is well within the average range for modern Poland, depending on study.

For example Underhill's 2014 sample had a lower frequency of R1a in Poland (46% - 50 out of 109).

Of course that one was on the low-end of frequency, but percentages vary depending on sample.

Michał
03-10-2016, 07:25 PM
I'm not sure what you are talking about - as far as I know, there was no such "selection" of samples...

Then it means you haven't read the paper by Rębała carefully enough.

Tomenable
03-10-2016, 07:28 PM
Rębała separated Kashubians from [other] Poles, not Slavs from Non-Slavs.

And you are claiming that he only picked "Deeply Slavic Kashubians".

No, that's not the case, he sampled whatever "kinds" of Kashubians he found.

Tomenable
03-10-2016, 07:30 PM
Sukow-Dziedzice culture that is quite frequently suspected of including some local Pre-Slavic (Germanic?) remnants

Those were East Germanic tribes, which could be different genetically from West Germanic peoples (such as Germans).

What Y-DNA do you expect among East Germanic tribes? This year, we will get first samples of Y-DNA from Wielbark culture.

By the way:

Sardinia was part of the Vandal-Alan North African kingdom in 456 - 534 AD, and there was some Vandal settlement there, AFAIK.

Francalacci et al. 2013, tested 1204 Sardinian males for Y-DNA, among them these 21:

- 6 samples of R1a-M458
- 5 samples of R1a-Z280
- 4 samples of R1a-Z93
- 2 samples of I2a-M423
- 2 samples of I1-M253
- 2 samples of R1b-U106

As for other types of R1b-M269 (apart from 2 samples of U106):

- 10 samples of R1b-M269*
- 9 samples of R1b-L23*
- 3 samples of R1b-L151*
- 25 samples of R1b-P312*
- 4 samples of R1b-DF27
- 2 samples of R1b-L21
- 2 samples of R1b-L513
- 128 samples of R1b-U152

In total 183 samples, including 128 of Italo-Celtic U152 (likely brought by settlers from Italy during Roman rules).

Other haplogroups in that sample of 1204 Sardinians:

I2a1a - 465
G2a - 131
E1b1b1 - 126
J2 - 98
J1c - 63
R1b1c - 29
T - 28
I2c - 11
I2a2a - 10
R2a1 - 10
L - 8
A1b1b2b - 7
F3 - 7
E1a1 - 6
Q1a3c - 1

In total exactly 1000. Plus 183 + 21 = 1204.

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

Who do you think brought R1a-M458 and R1a-Z280 to Sardinia (because R1a-Z93 can probably be attributed to Alan settlers) ???

Was there any Slavic migration to Sardinia ???

ADW_1981
03-10-2016, 07:59 PM
Who do you think brought R1a-M458 and R1a-Z280 to Sardinia (because R1a-Z93 can probably be attributed to Alan settlers) ???

Was there any Slavic migration to Sardinia ???

I think you guys are going off topic a little too much :) While the I1 and I2-M423 are quite low, but commonly found in Poland, perhaps it's just a case of "luck of the draw" here. 15 R1a haplotypes out of 1000+ isn't all that many. There is a good chance some of these haplotypes (need to look at the STR) have a recent founder which should also be examined. It need not be any kind of mass migration, but just a small handful, or even just 1 successful man.

Tomenable
03-10-2016, 08:02 PM
15 R1a haplotypes out of 1000+ isn't all that many.

A lot compared to 4 U106 and I1, though. Especially for a territory that was once part of an East Germanic (Vandal) kingdom.


or even just 1 successful man.

One man could not be ancestral to both M458, Z280 and Z93 at the same time. :)

Michał
03-10-2016, 08:04 PM
Rębała separated Kashubians from [other] Poles, not Slavs from Non-Slavs.

And you are claiming that he only picked "Deeply Slavic Kashubians".

No, that's not the case, he sampled whatever "kinds" of Kashubians he found.
Are you saying that Kashubians are not Slavs (and that the local Kashubian ancestry does not equal with the local Slavic ancestry in this particular case)?

All I said is that Rębała tested only those people from Kashubia and Lusatia who were able to trace their ancestry to the local Slavic population. I hope you have already found the relevant information regarding the Lusatian sample (if not, then I can of course provide the quotes that would support what I wrote above).

Tomenable
03-10-2016, 08:05 PM
Are you saying that Kashubians are not Slavs

No, I'm saying that Kashubians are Slavs and Poles are Slavs too.

Kashubians are just Slavs with higher percent of R1a than Poles.


Rębała tested only those people from Kashubia and Lusatia who were able to trace their ancestry to the local Slavic population.

No, he tested Kashubian-speakers and Sorbian-speakers, or / and people who identify as Kashubians and Sorbs.

There are no German-speakers in Eastern Pomerania today.

As for Lusatia - generally there are/were villages/towns inhabited in 95+% by Sorbs, and other German-inhabited.

For example, in the census of 1861 in the County of Königswartha 86,2 percent of the population were Sorbian-speakers.

But in the County of Görlitz only 0,5 percent of the population were Sorbian-speakers (in the same census of 1861).

So the ethno-linguistic boundaries were quite sharply delineated.

And e.g. in the County of Weißenberg 72,6 percent of the population were reported to be Sorbian-speakers in 1861.

"Personen mit sorbischer Sprache" was the census category (but obviously many German-speakers, who had already forgotten the language of their ancestors by that time, also had Sorbian ancestry - on the other hand, Germans were not learning Sorbian language).

Michał
03-10-2016, 08:28 PM
I think you guys are going off topic a little too much :) While the I1 and I2-M423 are quite low, but commonly found in Poland, perhaps it's just a case of "luck of the draw" here. 15 R1a haplotypes out of 1000+ isn't all that many. There is a good chance some of these haplotypes (need to look at the STR) have a recent founder which should also be examined. It need not be any kind of mass migration, but just a small handful, or even just 1 successful man.
You are of course right when suspecting that some of those R1a lineages are related to each other and thus likely represent a local founder effect. This seems to be the case for subclade Y1396 under Y2902 (with three related Sardinians) and subclade PF6188 under M458 (with two related Sardinians). Both these subclades have been found in Sardinia only, but it should be noted that their parental clades Y2902 and M458 are quite strongly associated with deep Slavic ancestry. In previous discussion on this forum, it has been suggested that they may represent either the Slavic mercenaries serving for the Byzantines (which seems indeed supported by some historical sources) or the Slavic slaves traded by the Arabs (which is for example consistent with finding a local (relatively young) L260 subclade in Saudi Arabia).

Tomenable
03-10-2016, 08:43 PM
By the way:

I would like to see Y-DNA samples from such parts of Germany as the island of Rügen (where 426 out of 538 settlements have names of Slavic origin), or the region of Drawehn (Hanoverian Wendland), where over 120 settlements were still Slavic-speaking as late as the 1600s.

So far I have noticed a correlation between amount of R1a and percent of Slavic toponyms for Greifswald region and Rostock region (Rostock region has much higher % of Slavic toponyms than Greifswald region, and a sample from Rostock had 1.7 times higher frequency of R1a).

Michał
03-10-2016, 08:45 PM
What Y-DNA do you expect among East Germanic tribes? This year, we will get first samples of Y-DNA from Wielbark culture.

I have already discussed it a lot, mostly with David (Generalissimo) who seems to believe this will mostly be R1a, and more specifically M458 (but it should be noted that he doesn't consider Wielbark and Przeworsk East Germanic cultures). My predictions included R1b and I1, with a possible minor contribution of R1a-Z280 (and maybe N1c, but only in Wielbark).

Tomenable
03-10-2016, 08:50 PM
R1a-M458 according to YFull formed ca. year 2700 BC and had its TMRCA also ca. year 2700 BC. Assuming that it won't show up prior to and outside of Medieval Slavdom territory is just as naive as the assumption that R1b-U106 won't show up in Pre-Anglo-Saxon Britain.

And as we know, recently two samples of R1b-U106 have indeed been found in Roman Britain.

As for R1a-Z280, a Bronze Age sample (HAL36) has already showed up in the westernmost fringe of what was the Lusatian culture. Jean M has suggested, that it could be an ethnically Baltic amber trader. But autosomally, that HAL36 was nothing like modern Balts.

Autosomally that Bronze Age R1a-Z280 from Halberstadt looked like modern East Germans, IIRC.

Or maybe like someone who could be of mixed 50% German, 50% Polish ancestry. I don't remember exactly.

Tomenable
03-10-2016, 09:11 PM
Eurogenes K12b autosomal result for that Bronze Age R1a-Z280 man (HAL36C) from Halberstadt:

• 42.57% North_European
• 36.67% Atlantic_Med
• 12.29% Gedrosia
• 7.08% Caucasus
• 1.38% Siberian
• 0.01% South_Asian
• 0.00% East_African
• 0.00% East_Asian
• 0.00% Northwest_African
• 0.00% Southeast_Asian
• 0.00% Southwest_Asian
• 0.00% Sub_Saharan

You must admit, that autosomally he does not look like a Baltic-speaker at all.

So the idea that he was not local, but came from Baltic Lands to trade amber, is rather wrong. ;)

His "Atlantic_Med" component was actually similar to this in modern Germans.

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

And Eurogenes K12b autosomal result for Corded Ware R1a-Z282 man (I0104) from Esperstedt:

• 50.54% North_European
• 21.94% Gedrosia
• 20.47% Atlantic_Med
• 6.82% Caucasus
• 0.22% South_Asian
• 0.02% Southwest_Asian
• 0.00% East_African
• 0.00% East_Asian
• 0.00% Northwest_African
• 0.00% Siberian
• 0.00% Southeast_Asian
• 0.00% Sub_Saharan

This guy's Atlantic_Med level is more similar to modern Poles:

ESP11 (sample from Esperstedt, dated 2473-2348 BC) - 20,47% "Atlantic_Med"
Sample of 18 modern Poles (from Dienekes Pontikos) - 20,9% "Atlantic_Med"

HAL36 (sample from Halberstadt, dated 1113-1021 BC) - 36,67% "Atlantic_Med"
Sample of 18 modern Germans (from Dienekes Pontikos) - 33,0% "Atlantic_Med"

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

Anyway - neither of them looks autosomally like modern Lithuanians or Latvians.

Michał
03-10-2016, 09:16 PM
R1a-M458 according to YFull formed ca. year 2700 BC and had its TMRCA also ca. year 2700 BC. Assuming that it won't show up prior to and outside of Medieval Slavdom territory is just as naive as the assumption that R1b-U106 won't show up in Pre-Anglo-Saxon Britain.
I definitely agree with this, so I wouldn't be surprised by finding M458 as a small minority subclade in some Eastern Germanic populations (especially on the Eastern periphery of Wielbark or Przeworsk). On the other hand, it is very hard to believe that M458 was a dominant subclade in any of these two cultures.

Tomenable
03-10-2016, 09:25 PM
I have already discussed it a lot, mostly with David (Generalissimo) who seems to believe this will mostly be R1a, and more specifically M458 (but it should be noted that he doesn't consider Wielbark and Przeworsk East Germanic cultures).

This might sound ridiculous at first :), but in this thread on Polish historycy.org forum (link below), user Ariolovistus claims that what the Romans knew as river "Vistulas", was in fact modern river Oder, and what is today river Vistula, was known to the Romans as river "Chronos" - and if he is right, then Goths lived much farther to the west than is commonly believed (because the Romans placed Goths at the "Vistula" river - but if they meant Oder, and not modern Vistula, then it changes everything) - BTW, nobody has managed to debunk his claim so far:

Thread in Polish: http://www.historycy.org/index.php?showtopic=138188

Google translated English version: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=pl&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.historycy.org%2Findex.php%3Fsho wtopic%3D138188

Check his calculations of geographical coordinates, as well as maps:

http://arktias.blox.pl/resource/wybrzeza4.jpg

The Romans placed "Skandia" to the north of "Vistulas" - and modern Scania is located to the north of the Oder:

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

http://arktias.blox.pl/resource/wspolrzed2.png

Tomenable
03-10-2016, 09:38 PM
By the way - river named "Oder" doesn't show up in Roman texts, AFAIK.

They knew about the existence of Elbe (Albis), and Vistula - but no Oder.

Why? How could they miss such a big river? Maybe Ariolovistus is right:

http://arktias.blox.pl/resource/wisajakochronos1.png

Michał
03-10-2016, 09:39 PM
Kashubians are just Slavs with higher percent of R1a than Poles.
Actually, Rębała showed that the Kashubians show the same frequency of R1a as the Kurpians, and in both cases this number was not significantly higher than a slightly lower frequency among the local people from Kociewie.




No, he tested Kashubian-speakers and Sorbian-speakers, or / and people who identify as Kashubians and Sorbs.

There are no German-speakers in Eastern Pomerania today.

As for Lusatia - generally there are/were villages/towns inhabited in 95+% by Sorbs, and other German-inhabited.

For example, in the census of 1861 in the County of Königswartha 86,2 percent of the population were Sorbian-speakers.

But in the County of Görlitz only 0,5 percent of the population were Sorbian-speakers (in the same census of 1861).

So the ethno-linguistic boundaries were quite sharply delineated.

And e.g. in the County of Weißenberg 72,6 percent of the population were reported to be Sorbian-speakers in 1861.

"Personen mit sorbischer Sprache" was the census category (but obviously many German-speakers, who had already forgotten the language of their ancestors by that time, also had Sorbian ancestry - on the other hand, Germans were not learning Sorbian language).
Ok, I assume all above is just a slightly weird way of admitting that Rębała did not test any randomly selected people from Lusatia and East Pomerania. Instead, he tested only those people who were able to demonstrate a local Lusatian or Kashubian ancestry (which in both cases meant local Slavic ancestry). So let me only repeat my strong disbelief that any randomly selected group of people from modern Lusatia would show an equally high frequency of R1a.

Tomenable
03-10-2016, 09:49 PM
Ok, I assume all above is just a slightly weird way of admitting that Rębała did not test any randomly selected people from Lusatia and East Pomerania. Instead, he tested only those people who were able to demonstrate a local Lusatian or Kashubian ancestry

AFAIK, he did not require anyone to "demonstrate" that he has a local ancestry. If by "demonstrating" you mean showing him a genealogical tree. He tested Kashubian-speakers, or men who identify as Kashubians. Without any detailed examination of their genealogical records.

Same for Lusatian Sorbs. He did not require people to "demonstrate" that they have only Sorbian ancestors since the Middle Ages.

He just tested people who still speak Sorbian language today, and still identify as Sorbs. Regardles of their genealogical trees.


Actually, Rębała showed that the Kashubians show the same frequency of R1a as the Kurpians

a slightly lower frequency among the local people from Kociewie.

Kurpians live in an entirely different region and have nothing to do with Kashubians. Neighbouring Kociewiaks - on the other hand - have a lower frequency of R1a, a higher frequency of R1b, and they are ethnically Greater Poles (gwara kociewska is part of Dialect Wielkopolski).


Rębała showed that the Kashubians show the same frequency of R1a as the Kurpians

There is another study on Kashubians (Wozniak 2010, sample size 64), which has 68,8% (44) of R1a among them.

If we combine both samples (64 + 204 from Rebala), then we get 170 R1a out of 268 (= 63,4%).

For Kociewiaks Rebala has 89 out of 158 being R1a, percent similar to that from your analysis of 201 Wielkopolans.

I don't remember exact figures for Kurpians, but they are from a totally different region anyway.

Tomenable
03-10-2016, 10:00 PM
And Kurpians actually have never ever lived close to German-speakers.

Their northern neighbours were Polish-speaking Lutherans (Masurians).

Michał
03-10-2016, 10:15 PM
He did not require anyone to "demonstrate" that he has a local ancestry. If by "demonstrating" you mean showing him a full genealogical tree. He simply tested Kashubian-speakers, or men who identify as Kashubians.
Not exactly true, he accepted only those Kashubian speakers "whose ancestors were born in villages and inhabiting the studied areas for at least three generations".



Same for Lusatian Sorbs. He did not require people to "demonstrate" that they have only Sorbian ancestors since the Middle Ages.
I hope you are aware that speaking Sorbian is not that common today in German Lusatia. In fact, this is exactly a very strong demonstration that such a person has a Slavic/Sorbian ancestry.

Honestly, I don't understand why you are so strongly opposing this obvious conclusion that Rębała did not test any random population from a given region, but he selected a group of people showing local (in each case Slavic) ancestry.

Tomenable
03-10-2016, 10:25 PM
"whose ancestors were born in villages and inhabiting the studied areas for at least three generations".

This measure was taken just to exclude post-1945 immigrants to the region.

Not to exclude people with some German or German-speaking ancestors.


Honestly, I don't understand why you are so strongly opposing this obvious conclusion that Rębała did not test any random population from a given region, but he selected a group of people showing local (in each case Slavic) ancestry.

OK so please tell me where are these "Kashubians with Non-Slavic ancestry" hiding, in your opinion ???

Rebala didn't test Kashubians from cities, because they can be of recently mixed Polish-Kashubian origin.

While Kashubians from villages will be pure because there was no post-1945 immigration from other regions of Poland to those villages. On the other hand, a lot of people from other regions of Poland (and from former Eastern Poland annexed by the USSR) came to cities.

I repeat, that Rebala's study was not biased against possible German ancestry - only against Polish one.


I hope you are aware that speaking Sorbian is not that common today in German Lusatia.

But was still very common just several generations ago (during the 19th century).

And basically the more you go into the past, the bigger was area with Sorbian-speaking majority:

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

♠ 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

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

Sorbian language in 1000 AD and in 1800 AD:

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

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

Sorbian lands from Early Middle Ages to now:

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

Michał
03-11-2016, 10:52 AM
This measure was taken just to exclude post-1945 immigrants to the region.

Not to exclude people with some German or German-speaking ancestors.
Actually, the procedure he used indicates very clearly that he tried to exclude both these "foreign" groupings, otherwise he wouldn't have focused on people speaking Kashubian (as testing all people with local pre-WW2 ancestors should be sufficient in such case). However, even if the main reason was to get rid of potential newcomers from other regions of Poland (which, I agree, was definitely important for this particular study), how this is inconsistent with I wrote on this subject?



OK so please tell me where are these "Kashubians with Non-Slavic ancestry" hiding, in your opinion ???
Could you please quote my post in which I have mentioned those "Kashubians with non-Slavic ancestry".
This is becoming slightly annoying, so please try to focus on the merit instead of distorting my statements in order to defend you point (which is simply indefensible).



I repeat, that Rebala's study was not biased against possible German ancestry - only against Polish one.
Nobody said the study was "biased" against possible German ancestry, but it is evident that the tested group was specifically selected to include those who show "local Kashubian" ancestry only, and since the Kashubians are the only ethnic Slavic group that is native to Kashubia this obviously meant: those with "local Slavic" ancestry.



But was still very common just several generations ago (during the 19th century).

This is a well known fact, but how does it contradict what I wrote. ie. that Rębała tested only those modern inhabitants of Lusatia who spoke Sorbian, so his results are certainly not representative for the entire population of modern German Lusatia.

Tomenable
03-11-2016, 11:01 AM
Actually, the procedure he used indicates very clearly that he tried to exclude both these "foreign" groupings, otherwise he wouldn't have focused on people speaking Kashubian (as testing all people with local pre-WW2 ancestors should be sufficient in such case)

OK but there are certain areas - "Kashubia" - where Kashubians have been the vast majority of population.

His sample is representative of these areas, known as "Kashubia". Exclusion of city-born Kashubians is not really meaningful, because Kashubians have been an overwhelmingly rural population during the 19th century and during the early 1900s. They started moving to cities recently. Cities in the region were inhabited by Germans and Poles before the WWs, and currently they are inhabited by Poles alone. While Kashubians were rural before the World Wars, and still are mostly rural (these individuals who move to cities, intermarry with Poles from other regions).

"Kashubia" =/= Eastern Pomerania, because apart from Kashubia Eastern Pomerania includes Kociewie, Krajna, Bory Tucholskie, etc. In Kociewie, Kashubians did not live in historical times - Kociewie was inhabited by speakers of Greater Polish Dialect since the Early Middle Ages.

Krajna and Bory Tucholskie were also never inhabited by Kashubians, but by other ethnographic groups (Krajniacy, Borowiacy - speakers of Greater Polish dialects; with strong Kashubian influences in case of Krajniacy). If I want to know Y-DNA in Kashubia, I sample Kashubians.

See the maps - for Kociewie, he sampled Kociewiaks, for Kashubia, he sampled Kashubians, and so on:

Krajniak dialect is intermediary between Greater Polish and Kashubian, but Borowiak and especially Kociewiak dialects do not show any significant Kashubian linguistic influences; Kociewiak territory is to the south of Gdansk/Danzig, Kashubian territory to the west of Danzig:

http://www.gwarypolskie.uw.edu.pl/mambots/content/smoothgallery/cache/images/stories/pic/537x480-M822.gif

VI = Kashubian dialects, III = Greater Polish dialects, V = mixed Greater Polish and Mazovian dialects:

http://s1.postimg.org/4djnccjhb/Wielkopolski_Dialect.png

http://s9.postimg.org/4tfvw6stb/Ka_Ko.png

Tomenable
03-11-2016, 11:17 AM
This is a well known fact, but how does it contradict what I wrote. ie. that Rębała tested only those modern inhabitants of Lusatia who spoke Sorbian, so his results are certainly not representative for the entire population of modern German Lusatia.

But can you prove that there were significant migrations of Germans from other regions into Lusatia between the 19th century and present-day ??? Because simply switching from Sorbian language to German language does not - actually - change your Y-DNA haplogroup.

Tomenable
03-11-2016, 11:36 AM
Nobody said the study was "biased" against possible German ancestry, but it is evident that the tested group was specifically selected to include those who show "local Kashubian" ancestry only

Ethnic groups in Eastern Pomerania before the WWs were not "intermingled like a salad", but clustered in separate areas.

If you check such counties as Puck (Putzig) or Kartuzy (Karthaus), then both were ca. 80% Slavic-speaking in year 1890.

Even within those counties, German-speakers clustered in their own settlements, and Slavic-speakers in their own ones.

So why do you think that Rebala's sample is not representative of Kashubian ethnic territory ???

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

Distribution of Kashubian-speakers in 1890 per Stefan Ramułt (dark colour is 100% - 80/75% of Kashubian-speakers):

http://s16.postimg.org/uv7igrtn9/Ramult_Map.png

Michał
03-11-2016, 11:39 AM
But can you prove that there were significant migrations of Germans from other regions into Lusatia between the 19th century and present-day ??? Because simply switching from Sorbian language to German language does not - actually - change your Y-DNA haplogroup.
I don't have any genetic data to support it (do you have any to reject this quite obvious assumption)?
It is actually well known that the intensive industrialization of Lusatia (starting from 1871) caused a significant influx of people from other parts of the country, and the process certainly continued after the WW2.
Also, if the Y-DNA profile of the modern Sorbian speakers was identical with that of all modern inhabitants of German Lusatia, then it wouldn't make any sense to selectively test the Sorbian speakers, so I guess Rębała et al. were perfectly aware of potential differences between the native Sorbians and the general population of German Lusatia.

Tomenable
03-11-2016, 11:44 AM
Did those industrial migrants settle in rural areas ??? I don't think so.

Some Sorbian villages were destroyed to make room for coal mines, but nobody settled there (only Sorbs were deported to other regions).

Michał
03-11-2016, 11:51 AM
So why do you think that Rebala's sample is not representative of Kashubian ethnic territory ???

This is my last warning, and I will refuse to continue any discussion with you if you don't stop distorting my statements.
Firstly, the Rębała's sample is definitely not representative for the entire population of modern Kashubia, and this is what you have already admitted (when pointing out that the post-WW2 migrants were excluded).
Secondly, this sample is also not representative for the pre-WW2 population of Kashubia, as the German-speaking minority (ie. those who either left or were expelled after WW2) is not included.
Thirdly, the sample represents mostly the local (or pre-WW2) population of Kashubian ancestry (ie. of local Slavic ancestry).

Tomenable
03-11-2016, 12:00 PM
But this seems to be a quite common procedure. POBI study (Fine-Scale Genetic Structure of the British Isles) selected people based on origin of their grandparents, and sampled only people from rural areas. The study on genetics of Basques also used the same criteria.

On the other hand, many other studies sample only people from cities, and exclude rural samples.

One study which sampled both cities and rural areas, was that one about Basque genetics - and they found out:

Rural people in Basque Land - 92,23 percent of R1b (including 71,5 percent of DF27)
Urban people in Basque Land - 69,59 percent of R1b (including 52,7 percent of DF27)

Basque surnames (rural & urban) - 92,17 percent of R1b (including 70,87 percent of DF27)
Non-Basque surnames (rural & urban) - 62,16 percent of R1b (including 47,75 percent of DF27)

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

In Poland even in urban samples you always have over 50% R1a. Maybe in rural samples, it would be much more.

This can be even more true in East Germany, where I would expect much more R1a in rural areas.

But all studies on Y-DNA in East Germany sample just cities (i.e. Rostock, Dresden, Leipzig, Halle an der Salle, etc.):

Percent of R1a in urban samples from several cities:

Graz (Austria) - 42,9%
Dresden - 32,6%
Rostock - 32,4%
Halle/Salle - 30%
Leipzig - 27,1%
Berlin - 22,3%
Magdeburg - 21%
Greifswald - 19,2%

Michał
03-11-2016, 12:04 PM
Did those industrial migrants settle in rural areas ??? I don't think so.

Some Sorbian villages were destroyed to make room for coal mines, but nobody settled there (only Sorbs were deported to other regions).
Most migrants were certainly coming to the urban centers, but even if the proportion of those who initially settled in the villages was relatively small, the overall level of migration was high enough to affect the entire population (especially when counting the impact of intermarriages in such a long time-span). BTW, do you really think that Rębała would care to apply this quite specific selection procedure (for both the Sorbs and the Kashubians) if he thought the impact of any non-local admixture was meaningless?

Michał
03-11-2016, 12:08 PM
But this seems to be a quite common procedure.

Who says it is not?

Tomenable
03-11-2016, 12:24 PM
especially when counting the impact of intermarriages in such a long time-span

Some religious/ethnic groups are very endogamous and don't intermarry with each other (see e.g. European Jews). Until recently Lutherans would generally not intermarry with Catholics, for example. Unless one spouse decided to convert to religion of the other spouse.

In Central Europe Early Farmers did not intermarry with Hunter-Gatherers for ca. 2000 years, as studies show:

http://m.phys.org/news/2013-10-european-hunter-gatherers-immigrant-farmers-side-by-side.html

I.e., they lived close to each other for 2000 years, but the gene flow from Farmers to H-Gs was very minor.

In the opposite direction (from H-Gs to Farmers) the gene flow was greater, but also slow and gradual.

Tomenable
03-11-2016, 01:08 PM
Rębała's sample is definitely not representative for the entire population of modern Kashubia

But it is representative of Kashubians and people of Kashubian descent in modern Kashubia:

http://instytutkaszubski.republika.pl/pdfy/niemiecki.pdf

http://s27.postimg.org/7jc7rxmxf/Kaschuben.png

By the way, true "Kashubia" includes rather only these four counties:

- kartuski
- pucki
- kościerski
- wejherowski

And maybe also northern parts of chojnicki.

Because this is where there was Kashubian majority in 1890.

In some other places Kashubians were re-introduced after 1945.

Brent.B
03-12-2016, 06:16 AM
Those were East Germanic tribes, which could be different genetically from West Germanic peoples (such as Germans).

What Y-DNA do you expect among East Germanic tribes? This year, we will get first samples of Y-DNA from Wielbark culture.

By the way:

Sardinia was part of the Vandal-Alan North African kingdom in 456 - 534 AD, and there was some Vandal settlement there, AFAIK.

Francalacci et al. 2013, tested 1204 Sardinian males for Y-DNA, among them these 21:

- 6 samples of R1a-M458
- 5 samples of R1a-Z280
- 4 samples of R1a-Z93
- 2 samples of I2a-M423
- 2 samples of I1-M253
- 2 samples of R1b-U106

As for other types of R1b-M269 (apart from 2 samples of U106):

- 10 samples of R1b-M269*
- 9 samples of R1b-L23*
- 3 samples of R1b-L151*
- 25 samples of R1b-P312*
- 4 samples of R1b-DF27
- 2 samples of R1b-L21
- 2 samples of R1b-L513
- 128 samples of R1b-U152

In total 183 samples, including 128 of Italo-Celtic U152 (likely brought by settlers from Italy during Roman rules).

Other haplogroups in that sample of 1204 Sardinians:

I2a1a - 465
G2a - 131
E1b1b1 - 126
J2 - 98
J1c - 63
R1b1c - 29
T - 28
I2c - 11
I2a2a - 10
R2a1 - 10
L - 8
A1b1b2b - 7
F3 - 7
E1a1 - 6
Q1a3c - 1

In total exactly 1000. Plus 183 + 21 = 1204.

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

Who do you think brought R1a-M458 and R1a-Z280 to Sardinia (because R1a-Z93 can probably be attributed to Alan settlers) ???

Was there any Slavic migration to Sardinia ???

I was very unaware that there was any M458 in Sardinia. I find it very interesting that we find more M458 in Sardinia than we do I1-M253 or R1b-U106 considering that the latter would have (I imagine) make up the bulk of "Germanic" tribes migrating into Roman territory. Perhaps M458 was indeed present among the Vandals? I suppose the aDNA later this year will tell us...

Gravetto-Danubian
03-12-2016, 06:36 AM
I was very unaware that there was any M458 in Sardinia. I find it very interesting that we find more M458 in Sardinia than we do I1-M253 or R1b-U106 considering that the latter would have (I imagine) make up the bulk of "Germanic" tribes migrating into Roman territory. Perhaps M458 was indeed present among the Vandals? I suppose the aDNA later this year will tell us...

Their full sequences IIRC are restricted, but we can ask, because it'll be interesting if those M458s are the same as these (http://yfull.com/tree/R-PF6188/)

Michał
03-12-2016, 03:57 PM
Their full sequences IIRC are restricted, but we can ask, because it'll be interesting if those M458s are the same as these (http://yfull.com/tree/R-PF6188/)
Out of six Sardinian M458 samples, five were members of that specific Sardinian subclade PF6188 that was not found elsewhere so far. Unfortunately, YFull does not provide any TMRCA age estimate for this grouping, but based on a relatively large number of shared SNPs under M458 (found in a relatively small Y-DNA region), I suspect their MRCA lived quite recently.

The one remaining (sixth) M458 sample from Sardinia was a member of a typically Slavic subclade L1029. A couple of his singleton SNPs under L1029 are reported in the paper but they don't fit any known subclade downstream of L1029.

Tomenable
03-12-2016, 04:58 PM
And what about Sardinian R1a-Z280 and I2a-M423 ??? Which sub-branches of Z280 were those 5 samples?

BTW, it seems that some of the most basal M458 can be found in Poland today (see YFull's id:YF01919POL).

Michał
03-12-2016, 07:00 PM
And what about Sardinian R1a-Z280 and I2a-M423 ??? Which sub-branches of Z280 were those 5 samples?
I don't know about I2a-M423, but the five R1a-Z280 samples include three closely related lineages that form a very young Sardinian subclade Y1396 under a typically Slavic (or Volga-Carpathian) clade Y2902 (so this would be Z280>CTS1211>Y35>CTS3402>Y33>CTS8816>Y2902>Y1396), one lineage from a "Baltic" (Yotvingian?) subclade CTS4648 under Z92 (ie. Z280>Z92>Z685>YP270>CTS4648) and one lineage that is YP377+, so we can assume it belongs to a quite common Slavic subclade YP371 within the so-called "Carpathian" clade YP340 under CTS1211 (ie. Z280>CTS1211>YP343>YP340>YP371).


BTW, it seems that some of the most basal M458 can be found in Poland today (see YFull's id:YF01919POL).
Yes, and according to the SNP and STR results of our project members, his lineage is related to a slightly larger subclade within this hypothetical clade just under M458. This larger potential subclade includes another lineage from Poland (family Rytel), a lineage from Balkaria and a lineage from Serbia. Unfortunately, they seem to be unwilling to order Big Y.

Gravetto-Danubian
03-12-2016, 09:27 PM
And what about Sardinian (R1a-Z280 and) I2a-M423 ??? Which sub-branches of Z280 were those 5 samples?

BTW, it seems that some of the most basal M458 can be found in Poland today (see YFull's id:YF01919POL).

They're S17250, but cannot tell if they're further derived than that or
(Most likely) S1720*

Tomenable
03-12-2016, 09:43 PM
Sardinian subclade Y1396 under a typically Slavic (or Volga-Carpathian) clade Y2902

Y2902 is ca. 4300 years old according to YFull (though with a much more recent TMRCA), the age of Y1396 is not given:

http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y2898/

But we can assume, that Y1396 formed around 2200 years ago, when Y2902 had its TMRCA.


Sardinian subclade PF6188 that was not found elsewhere so far. Unfortunately, YFull does not provide any TMRCA age

YFull doesn't give TMRCA for PF6188, but it's parent clade, R-PF7521, is 4500 years old with TMRCA age also 4500 ybp:

http://www.yfull.com/arch-3.17/tree/R-PF7521/

So at least we can assume that PF6188 formed 4500 years ago (when PF7521 had its TMRCA).


They're S17250, but cannot tell if they're further derived than that

This one is much younger according to YFull, estimated formation time 2200 years ago and TMRCA ca. 1850 years ago:

http://www.yfull.com/tree/I-S17250/


The one remaining (sixth) M458 sample from Sardinia was a member of a typically Slavic subclade L1029

Formed 3300 ybp, TMRCA 2100 ybp, per YFull:

http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-L1029/


(ie. Z280>Z92>Z685>YP270>CTS4648)

Formed 3300 ybp, TMRCA 2700 ybp, per YFull:

http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-YP270/


and one lineage that is YP377+, so we can assume it belongs to a quite common Slavic subclade YP371

You mean YP340+ ???

Formed 3500 ybp, TMRCA 2800 ybp, and YP371 formed 2800 ybp, TMRCA 2200 ybp:

http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-YP343/

Tomenable
03-12-2016, 09:54 PM
All of them date back to BC times, so IMO we can't be sure that they expanded exclusively with Slavs.

Michał
03-12-2016, 10:19 PM
You mean YP340+ ???

I am wondering why you ask this question. Do you think it does matter whether this sample was tested specifically for YP340 (after being found positive for a downstream SNP)? I cannot check it right now, but I will of course do it later on (in case you consider it so important).

Tomenable
03-12-2016, 10:53 PM
I am wondering why you ask this question. Do you think it does matter whether this sample was tested specifically for YP340 (after being found positive for a downstream SNP)? I cannot check it right now, but I will of course do it later on (in case you consider it so important).

Ok, never mind, you don't need to check it: :) http://www.yfull.com/yp/snp-list/?page=5

Brent.B
03-14-2016, 09:43 AM
Out of six Sardinian M458 samples, five were members of that specific Sardinian subclade PF6188 that was not found elsewhere so far. Unfortunately, YFull does not provide any TMRCA age estimate for this grouping, but based on a relatively large number of shared SNPs under M458 (found in a relatively small Y-DNA region), I suspect their MRCA lived quite recently.

The one remaining (sixth) M458 sample from Sardinia was a member of a typically Slavic subclade L1029. A couple of his singleton SNPs under L1029 are reported in the paper but they don't fit any known subclade downstream of L1029.

Hey Michał,

I'm curious how this plays into your M458 expansion theory. If M458 (through L1029 and L260) expanded from a relatively small area in Eastern Europe in all directions, then wouldn't it be very unlikely to find PF6188 in Sardinia (and nowhere else)? I mean, if L1029/L260 were the main drivers of the Slavic expansion (and there was no/very little M458 west of the Vistula prior to 500ish AD), then we should expect L1029 and L260 to be the subclades found in Sardinia if it got there through some sort of Slav Slave trade as others have proposed?

Tomenable
03-17-2016, 12:16 PM
Exactly, this Sardinian PF6188 is one of early divergent subclades.

I think we must check what is the distribution of its parent, PF7521.

ADW_1981
03-17-2016, 12:29 PM
The Roman empire had some territory in what is now modern Poland so many some locals were absorbed. The same was likely so for west Europeans. It's not a stretch to say that from that point, a movement happened from Rome to Sardinia.

rozenfeld
03-17-2016, 12:59 PM
The Roman empire had some territory in what is now modern Poland so many some locals were absorbed.

Are you sure about that?

Tomenable
03-17-2016, 06:22 PM
The Roman empire had some territory in what is now modern Poland

Nope, it didn't - the Romans never reached as far north or east as Poland.

leonardo
03-17-2016, 06:53 PM
My understanding is that the Romans had a trading post only as far as what is now Austria for trade with the miners at Mt. Sleza and for the Amber Route trade.

ADW_1981
03-17-2016, 07:12 PM
Not even in the south west? The border on the map looks awfully close. Regardless, it could be from the NE periphery of the empire.

Tomenable
03-17-2016, 08:41 PM
Not even in the south west?

Nope, they never politically annexed / controlled any part of present-day Poland.

On the other hand, some Roman travelers & traders sometimes visited these areas.

Generalissimo
03-18-2016, 04:56 AM
Slavic mercenaries from the Balkans were used by Romans to fight the Goths and, as far as I know, also Vandals in Sardinia.

Volat
03-18-2016, 05:16 AM
Not even in the south west? The border on the map looks awfully close. Regardless, it could be from the NE periphery of the empire.

Historic borders of Roman empire are Rhine and Danube rivers with some exceptions. Dacia (present day Romania ) was further north of Danube.

Tomenable
03-18-2016, 08:45 AM
Historic borders of Roman empire are Rhine and Danube rivers with some exceptions. Dacia (present day Romania) was further north of Danube.

And Rome also conquered and occupied all lands between the Rhine and the Elbe Rivers after 13 BC. However, in 9 AD Germanic tribes rebelled, ambushed 3 Roman legions in the Teutoburg Forest, and regained independence. Later in 14 - 16 AD another 8 legions + support troops invaded Germania east of the Rhine again, and won all battles (Germanic tribes were unable to repeat the success of Teutoburg).

In 16 AD the Romans defeated Germanic tribes e.g. near modern Hanover and near modern Minden.

But in 17 AD Emperor Tiberius did not allow to continue the campaign, and ordered to establish the border at the Rhine.

Dacia (most of present-day Romania) was conquered in 101-106 AD and abandoned in 274-275 AD.

What is now Scotland (and back then Caledonia) was also briefly conquered and occupied by the Romans under Gnaeus Julius Agricola in 83-84 AD, but the Romans decided to retreat south and established their border between the Firth of Forth and the Firth of Clyde.

Later they retreated farther south and established their border along Hadrian's Wall (until 410 AD).

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

The Marcomanni and Quadi were Rome's client realms, and at their greatest extent they could control some parts of Poland:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maroboduus#Biography

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

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

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

But it would still be only the territory of Rome's client realms, not one under direct control of Rome.

leonardo
03-18-2016, 11:07 AM
My understanding is that the Romans had a trading post only as far as what is now Austria for trade with the miners at Mt. Sleza and for the Amber Route trade.

According to Frank A. Kmietowicz, in his book Ancient Slavs, there were three Roman trade routes for Amber from the Baltic. The trade towns were not situated in what is Poland today. They were: Vindobona (Vienna today), Carnuntum (Petronell today, in lower Austria) and Acquincum (near present day Budapest).

Artmar
03-18-2016, 11:27 AM
A Roman detachment (about 855 people strong) wintered in 179 AD in Trencin (Slovakia), about 88 kilometers from what is now Poland. I guess Exploratores (scouts) could've gone much closer to the border but it doesn't change much. It took place during Marcomannic Wars. There is no evidence for any Roman military force being closer than that.

Here is a rock inscription that was carved by Romans in Trencin:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/Trencin-Roman2.JPG/800px-Trencin-Roman2.JPG

leonardo
03-18-2016, 11:43 AM
According to Frank A. Kmietowicz, in his book Ancient Slavs, there were three Roman trade routes for Amber from the Baltic. The trade towns were not situated in what is Poland today. They were: Vindobona (Vienna today), Carnuntum (Petronell today, in lower Austria) and Acquincum (near present day Budapest).

In his book, Kmietowicz proposes that during the Iron Age the Amber Route was populated by Germanic tribes in the north, Slavic in the center and the remnants of Celts in the south. The common cause for cooperation was amber, which was greatly prized by the Romans and the mediterranean world.

Michał
03-18-2016, 02:09 PM
Hey Michał,

I'm curious how this plays into your M458 expansion theory. If M458 (through L1029 and L260) expanded from a relatively small area in Eastern Europe in all directions, then wouldn't it be very unlikely to find PF6188 in Sardinia (and nowhere else)? I mean, if L1029/L260 were the main drivers of the Slavic expansion (and there was no/very little M458 west of the Vistula prior to 500ish AD), then we should expect L1029 and L260 to be the subclades found in Sardinia if it got there through some sort of Slav Slave trade as others have proposed?
Actually, if not counting Z93, most of the Sardinian R1a lineages seem to be of relatively recent Slavic or Balto-Slavic origin, as strongly suggested by the presence of such well-known Slavic/Balto-Slavic subclades like L1029, Y2902, YP371 and CTS4648. Neither of those clades seems to show increased frequency in North Africa, Spain, France or Western Germany, ie. in regions associated with the well-documented presence of migrating (or temporarily settled) Vandal tribes.

As for PF6188, one important thing to note is that this is a small group of relatively closely related Sardinian lineages, all likely descending from just one Sardinian ancestor (and although we don't have any exact TMRCA age estimate for this Sardinian group, there are some SNP data indicating that this Sardinian clade is very young). In other words, this seems to be just a single (and relatively young) Sardinian lineage (found in an extremely large group of Sardinian Y-DNA samples), so it is hard to make any conclusions based on this finding alone. Since PF6188 has not been found (so far) in other regions associated with the presence of the Vandals, this cannot be used as an argument strongly supporting neither the Vandal origin of PF6188 nor the Central European (Polish-German) origin of M458. Likewise, finding a single case of M458* in Wales (#314538) is not enough to claim that M458 is much more likely to have originated in Doggerland rather than in Central-Eastern Europe, while finding a single M458* case in Balkaria (#307200) is not something that will convince all of us that M458 originated in the North Caucasian region (even though in this case this is additionally supported by both the substantial STR diversity and relatively high frequency of M458 in several Northern Caucasian populations).

Furthermore, I have never claimed that my scenario (regarding the origin and expansion of M458) assumes that not a single early separated lineage under PF6155 (including those just under M458 or PF7521) will ever be found in any location outside of the hypothetical M458 homeland, as this would be absolutely unrealistic. What my scenarios assumes is that in case such early penetration of some "basal" lineages under PF6155 to the neighboring territories took place, these lineages have never become dominant clades in any relatively large and suddenly expanding archaeological culture originating in Poland (like the Lusatian, Przeworsk or Wielbark cultures).

There is also one more thing that needs to be explained when discussing the origin of Sardinian PF6188. I have discussed this issue with Vladimir Tagankin from YFull who has admitted that the assumed negative Y2604 status for clade PF6188 needs additional confirmation, mostly because Y2604 is considered by YFull to be a low reliability SNP marker (1 in the 5 points scale) and they have only one Y2604- result (with a relatively low number of 3 reads) for the entire Sardinian clade. This is important because the official FTDNA tree suggests a reversed order of relevant SNP levels downstream of M548 (ie. M458>Y2604>PF7521 in FTDNA vs M458>PF7521>Y2604 in YFull), so there is a possibility that one of the unknown FTDNA customers was tested Y2604+ PF7521-. In such case, we cannot rule out that clade PF6188 is either identical or closely related to a small Slavic cluster under PF7521 (marked PF7521*-A in our project). This Slavic cluster PF7521*-A is attested in Poland, Belarus and Russia and has been found positive for both PF7521 and Y2604 (according to a single R1a-Backbone SNP pack result), but since neither of its three known members was tested with Big Y, there is still a small chance that this STR-defined cluster is positive for at least some of the multiple SNPs from the PF6188 level.

Tomenable
03-19-2016, 08:56 AM
expanding archaeological culture originating in Poland (like the Lusatian, Przeworsk or Wielbark cultures).

What expansions out of Poland of Lusatian and Przeworsk archaeological cultures do you mean ???


North Africa, Spain, France or Western Germany, ie. in regions associated with the well-documented presence of migrating (or temporarily settled) Vandal tribes.

Areas via which they just migrated, or where they settled only temporarily, will not have their DNA today.

Only areas where they settled permanently will have - unless there were subsequent population turnovers in those areas (as was the case in most of North Africa). So we are left with Sardinia, Corsica, Belearic Islands and Sicily as potential places where some Vandal ancestry could survive:

http://www.mpov.uw.edu.pl/en/thesaurus/tribes-and-peoples/vandals-


In the autumn of 409 the Vandals moved into Spain and settled there for a time. Their “Spanish” episode abounded in conflicts with Romans, and with other Germanic tribes (Alamanni, Suebi and →Visigoths), the result being a substantial weakening of one of their tribes – the Silingi. A memento of V. presence in that region is the name of the southern Spanish region of Andalusia. In 429, led by their king Gaiseric, the V. are seen on the move again, crossing the Strait of Gibraltar and taking control of western North Africa. They established their kingdom there, extending power over towns and the eastern area of the coastal plain formerly, the territory of Carthage and Numidia. Thanks to their powerful fleet in 440-480 the Vandals extended their control over the western Mediterranean Sea region capturing in succession, the Balearic Islands, Corsica, Sardinia and Sicily. The Vandal population of their African kingdom is estimated at around 80.000, most of this number were followers of Arianism. In 455, led by king Gaiseric, V. organised an attack on Rome and brutally sacked the city – hence the word “Vandalism”. The end to the Vandal rule in Africa was brought by Justinian I (527-565), one of the ablest Byzantine emperors. In 533 Justinian’s commander, Belisarius, crossed to Africa at the head of an army of fifteen thousand, captured Carthage and defeated king Gelimer in the decisive Battle of Tricamarum.

Tomenable
03-19-2016, 09:07 AM
And also:


offshoot of the Vandals had remained in their old homeland; this is confirmed by the narrative of →Procopius of Caesarea: during Gaiseric’s rule in 439-477 an embassy of Vandals journeyed to Africa from their ancestral abodes to assured themselves that their kinsmen did not intend to return North. An archaeological proof of these “ancestral abodes” could be the vestiges of settlement from the late →Migration Period in Kuyavia and on the Middle Prosna.

Michał
03-19-2016, 03:08 PM
What expansions out of Poland of Lusatian and Przeworsk archaeological cultures do you mean ???
If you read my post carefully, you would notice that I wasn't mentioning any expansion out of Poland. I was merely talking about those relatively large expansions that originated in Poland, and since Poland is a quite large country, this could also include some internal expansions within Poland.

Nevertheless, both the Bronze Age Lusatian culture and the Iron Age Przeworsk culture are well known to have been associated with the presence outside of the territory of modern Poland, so your triple question mark is quite surprising. In the case of the Lusatian culture, it is enough to mention that Lusatia itself is located in East Germany, and this culture is also attested in Bohemia, Moravia, Slovakia and east of the Bug river (see this map (http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/map.jpg)). As for the Przeworsk culture, it is also known to have moderately expanded westward (so some Przeworsk-derived enclaves have been found in Germany), while the Luboszyce culture in East Germany (a group that is commonly associated with the Burgundians) is also a relatively early offshoot of the Przeworsk culture (see the works by Domański). The Burgundians are first noted in Poland, and Tacitus placed them just west of the Vistula river, ie. in a territory associated with Przeworsk at that time. The subsequent expansion of Wielbark towards Greater Poland forced those Northern Przeworsk remnants to move west (or south-west), which resulted in formation of a new Luboszyce culture (see this map (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Europa_Germanen_50_n_Chr.svg)). The expansion of Przeworsk directed south-east, or more precisely towards the Upper Dniester and Upper Prut regions that were previously occupied by the Lipiţa culture (commonly associated with the Dacian tribe of Costoboci), is not only documented archaeologically but is also reflected in the Roman reports describing the invasion of the Hasdingi tribe during the Marcomannic wars. Some Przeworsk-derived artifacts from about the same time are also found in Moravia, which is sometimes attributed to the involvement of the Silingi tribe in the military operations of that period (as illustrated by this map (https://www.google.pl/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2 Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fe%2Fe6%2FMarcomannia_e_Sarm atia_171-175_dC_jpg.JPG&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F Marcomannic_Wars&docid=afAePXxUAzcJrM&tbnid=qweCJ4uP9DJXnM%3A&w=1280&h=886&ei=cDvtVoOgO6LC6QT_naX4Cg) that shows Silingi in Northern Moravia), but this is rather unlikely to have been associated with any long-term presence of Przeworsk-derived people in this region.


Areas via which they just migrated, or where they settled only temporarily, will not have their DNA today.

What makes you so strongly convinced that no Vandals-derived Y-DNA lineages are present there (even as small minority subclades)? Does it mean that in case any rare M458 lineage (including PF6188) is found there, you will treat this as a proof that this cannot be a Vandalic lineage? :)

Michał
03-21-2016, 02:20 PM
The Burgundians are first noted in Poland, and Tacitus placed them just west of the Vistula river, ie. in a territory associated with Przeworsk at that time.
I wasn't sure whether Tacitus was indeed the one who provided the above information, so I've just checked it and it turns out that my memory has failed me. It was Ptolemy who placed the early Burgundians north of the Lugians (Omanni) and west of the Vistula river.

T101
03-21-2016, 11:05 PM
I have already discussed it a lot, mostly with David (Generalissimo) who seems to believe this will mostly be R1a, and more specifically M458 (but it should be noted that he doesn't consider Wielbark and Przeworsk East Germanic cultures). My predictions included R1b and I1, with a possible minor contribution of R1a-Z280 (and maybe N1c, but only in Wielbark).

Nope both wrong as always! :)

The Wielbark Culture will be:

65% R1a-CTS1211

20% I1-Z63

10% R1b-U106

5% I2a2-L701 and I2a2-Z161


I also consider Wielbark to be an East Germanic culture with its Scandinavian burial traditions (stone circles and stelae.)

Also no N1c and a big 0% for David and M458!

Bank on it.

Tomenable
03-22-2016, 01:00 AM
I have already discussed it a lot, mostly with David (Generalissimo) who seems to believe this will mostly be R1a, and more specifically M458 (but it should be noted that he doesn't consider Wielbark and Przeworsk East Germanic cultures). My predictions included R1b and I1, with a possible minor contribution of R1a-Z280 (and maybe N1c, but only in Wielbark).
Nope both wrong as always! :)

The Wielbark Culture will be:

65% R1a-CTS1211

20% I1-Z63

10% R1b-U106

5% I2a2-L701 and I2a2-Z161


I also consider Wielbark to be an East Germanic culture with its Scandinavian burial traditions (stone circles and stelae.)

Also no N1c and a big 0% for David and M458!

Bank on it.

How about your predictions regarding Wielbark population's autosomal affinities?

Gravetto-Danubian
03-22-2016, 01:09 AM
How about your predictions regarding Wielbark population's autosomal affinities?

Sounds like there's a case of U'Luvka on it !
I don't expect that Wielbark should be homogeneous , so it depends which region they samples
But CTS1211, I1, U106 , M458 are all possible IMHO

Tomenable
04-06-2016, 11:03 AM
Large part of the population of Greater Poland region in the late 10th century could be of Pomeranian and Polabian (Veleti) origin.

Translated quote:

"(...) By the end of the first half of the 10th century (no later than ca. year 950) a rapid military expansion of the Piasts into neighbouring territories took place. As the result, the incorporation of the remaining lands of historical Greater Poland took place, preceded by the annihilation of social organization of conquered communities. In place of destroyed strongholds (horizon of catastrophes from that period has been revealed, among others, by strongholds located in south-western Greater Poland), many new small strongholds (castra) were erected, which played different roles (mainly administrative and military ones). Depopulated lands were then re-settled with use of quasi-captive population, captured and imported by the Piasts from Pagan Pomerania as well as from areas of the Veleti Union. That population was settled on peripheries of previously existing concentrations of settlement. As the result a state was organized, which included already all of Greater Poland as well as its immediate hinterlands. People of the time called that state 'the realm of Mieszko' (e.g. Abraham ben Jacob). (...)"

Source:

M. Kara, M. Makohonienko, "Wielkopolska krainą grodów - krajobraz kulturowy kolebki państwa polskiego w świetle nowych ustaleń chronologicznych" ("Greater Poland the land of strongholds - cultural landscape of the cradle of the Polish state in the light of new chronology")

English Abstract: Development of the Early Medieval stronghold settlements in Wielkopolska (Great Poland) connected with the process of Polish state formation has been outlined. The new established chronology of the strongholds based on dendrodates, showed their younger age than it was previously deduced from archaeological chronology. The stronghold architecture was the main feature of the medieval cultural landscape of the region. In the light of historical records, archaeological data and palaeobotanical reconstructions, the Early Medieval Great Poland was a land of strongholds and arable fields.

Keywords: Wielkopolska, Early Medieval period, cultural landscape, stronghold settlements, dendrochronology.

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

Map of areas where quasi-captive settlement of people captured in Pomerania and Polabia by the Piasts was taking place:

http://s30.postimg.org/6h219hz0x/Map_Piast.png

Tomenable
04-06-2016, 05:58 PM
Coming back to rare Sardinian Y-DNA lineages - I've started a thread about Sardinian R1b-U106 here:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6835-Sardinian-U106&p=149196#post149196

Brent.B
10-24-2016, 05:53 AM
Nope both wrong as always! :)

The Wielbark Culture will be:

65% R1a-CTS1211

20% I1-Z63

10% R1b-U106

5% I2a2-L701 and I2a2-Z161


I also consider Wielbark to be an East Germanic culture with its Scandinavian burial traditions (stone circles and stelae.)

Also no N1c and a big 0% for David and M458!

Bank on it.

I can't remember the exact study, but I remember reading that the Stone circles and stelae only appeared in the Wielbark culture after it had been established for some time. I've also read the the preceding Oksywie culture shows heavy influence on it.

My guess would be that is a local population that came under domination by East Germanic groups. This could also explain their use of both inhumation and cremation when burying their dead. I won't go as far as to guess the percentage of haplogroups that would be involved, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is a solid mix of R1b, I1a, and R1a (including possibly M458)


I also wonder if the use of multiple burial types would skew aDNA results? If (hypothetically) a R1b/I1a heavy outside group was responsible for the majority of inhumations, and R1a cremations, then perhaps R1a will be underrepresented if most testing is done on bodies that were inhumed.

Generalissimo
10-24-2016, 12:01 PM
There are indeed rumors that there's R1b from a couple of Wielbark sites in Poland, but there's no suggestion that this was the dominant haplogroup in Wielbark.

I personally think the R1b finds just get mentioned a lot because R1a is the main haplogroup in Poland today, but there was R1b in Poland before Wielbark. You can bank on that.

R.Rocca
10-24-2016, 12:54 PM
There are indeed rumors that there's R1b from a couple of Wielbark sites in Poland, but there's no suggestion that this was the dominant haplogroup in Wielbark.

I personally think the R1b finds just get mentioned a lot because R1a is the main haplogroup in Poland today, but there was R1b in Poland before Wielbark. You can bank on that.

The modern northern Poland R1b+ frequency is 23.5% as per Busby 2011, so I don't think it is shocking to anyone if some R1b was present in Wielbark. Still, I see no reason why R1a wouldn't be the dominant group during that period.

ADW_1981
10-24-2016, 01:58 PM
Isn't Wielbark an intrusive culture from Scandinavia rather than something originating locally?

Michał
10-24-2016, 02:13 PM
There are indeed rumors that there's R1b from a couple of Wielbark sites in Poland, but there's no suggestion that this was the dominant haplogroup in Wielbark.

I personally think the R1b finds just get mentioned a lot because R1a is the main haplogroup in Poland today, but there was R1b in Poland before Wielbark. You can bank on that.
Any rumors about the dominant position of R1a-M458 (or about any presence of R1a-M458) in Wielbark?

Michał
10-24-2016, 02:29 PM
The modern northern Poland R1b+ frequency is 23.5% as per Busby 2011, so I don't think it is shocking to anyone if some R1b was present in Wielbark. Still, I see no reason why R1a wouldn't be the dominant group during that period.
When assuming that both Wielbark and the preceding Oksywie cultures were Germanic (as suggested by both archaeology and written sources), then such a dominance of R1a is relatively unlikely. Also, in case some R1a is found in Wielbark (which probably won't surprise anybody), it is unlikely that these were the so-called Slavic subclades, like L1029, L260, YP515, Y2902, Y2613, L365, S18681, L1280, YP569, YP371 and P278, to name the most populous ones (with at least some of them strongly present in today's Northern Poland).

R.Rocca
10-24-2016, 02:56 PM
When assuming that both Wielbark and the preceding Oksywie cultures were Germanic (as suggested by both archaeology and written sources), then such a dominance of R1a is relatively unlikely. Also, in case some R1a is found in Wielbark (which probably won't surprise anybody), it is unlikely that these were the so-called Slavic subclades, like L1029, L260, YP515, Y2902, Y2613, L365, S18681, L1280, YP569, YP371 and P278, to name the most populous ones (with at least some of them strongly present in today's Northern Poland).

Best guess, what would be the percentage breakdown Germanic vs. Slavic R1a in modern northern Poland?

Michał
10-24-2016, 03:18 PM
Best guess, what would be the percentage breakdown Germanic vs. Slavic R1a in modern northern Poland?
I would guess that there will be no Slavic nor Germanic R1a in Wielbark at all. What I mean by "Germanic R1a" is either Z284 or L664 (or at least those major subclades that are not older than 3000-4000 years). So, if R1a is found in Wielbark, I would rather expect some rare but relatively old subclades, like S24902 or Y17491, plus maybe some rare "Baltic" subclades under both CTS1211 and Z92 (but not the ones that are very common among the Slavs today).

EDIT: I have just realized that you were asking about modern Northern Poland (not about Wielbark), so in such case the ratio is probably smaller than 1:100, but we need to keep in mind that many Early Slavic subclades from Northern Poland have been strongly "Germanized" at some point (this includes for example L365, S18681, L1280, YP1018 and L1029, among others), yet I count them here as "Slavic". Honestly speaking, I don't know any relatively common R1a subclade in Northern Poland that could be considered Germanic (or strongly associated with Early Germanic people).

leonardo
10-24-2016, 04:38 PM
EDIT: I have just realized that you were asking about modern Northern Poland (not about Wielbark), so in such case the ratio is probably smaller than 1:100, but we need to keep in mind that many Early Slavic subclades from Northern Poland have been strongly "Germanized" at some point (this includes for example L365, S18681, L1280, YP1018 and L1029, among others), yet I count them here as "Slavic". Honestly speaking, I don't know any relatively common R1a subclade in Northern Poland that could be considered Germanic (or strongly associated with Early Germanic people).

You took the words out of my mouth Michal. The one thing that deep clade y-DNA testing has done is to demonstrate how many patrilineage lines, which were Slavic, were Germanized over the centuries - from the Elbe to the Vistula, and even beyond.

Jean M
10-24-2016, 07:45 PM
This seems to be a recent interview (in Polish) with the lead scientist of this study, but it is not giving away a lot: http://www.naukaonline.pl/nasze-teksty/nauki-biologiczne/item/3056-tajemnice-w-zebach-skryte

bolek
10-24-2016, 08:10 PM
This seems to be a recent interview (in Polish) with the lead scientist of this study, but it is not giving away a lot: http://www.naukaonline.pl/nasze-teksty/nauki-biologiczne/item/3056-tajemnice-w-zebach-skryte
He suggests that he prefers Slavic hypothesis over Germanic i.e. that Slavic population was living west of Vistula river in Roman times and that population didn’t changed much in Early Medieval times. He has got 100 genomes from Roman times and about the same amount from Early Medieval times. It all is being verified so it is not final.

Jean M
10-24-2016, 08:42 PM
He suggests that he prefers Slavic hypothesis over Germanic i.e. that Slavic population was living west of Vistula river in Roman times and that population didn’t changed much in Early Medieval times. He has got 100 genomes from Roman times and about the same amount from Early Medieval times. It all is being verified so it is not final.

He doesn't actually say that. He says he prefers the idea that the population of Roman times mainly remained while coming under new leadership. This might be interpreted as you say. Or it might be interpreted as an incoming Slavic elite taking over a pre-existing Germanic population. He seems to be saying that there is no clear Slavic or Germanic genetic signature. Looks like we just have to wait for some actual published data.

vettor
10-24-2016, 09:01 PM
I would guess that there will be no Slavic nor Germanic R1a in Wielbark at all. What I mean by "Germanic R1a" is either Z284 or L664 (or at least those major subclades that are not older than 3000-4000 years). So, if R1a is found in Wielbark, I would rather expect some rare but relatively old subclades, like S24902 or Y17491, plus maybe some rare "Baltic" subclades under both CTS1211 and Z92 (but not the ones that are very common among the Slavs today).

EDIT: I have just realized that you were asking about modern Northern Poland (not about Wielbark), so in such case the ratio is probably smaller than 1:100, but we need to keep in mind that many Early Slavic subclades from Northern Poland have been strongly "Germanized" at some point (this includes for example L365, S18681, L1280, YP1018 and L1029, among others), yet I count them here as "Slavic". Honestly speaking, I don't know any relatively common R1a subclade in Northern Poland that could be considered Germanic (or strongly associated with Early Germanic people).

You guys keep hammering away at northern coastal Poland and claim only Germanic and Slavic only , when history and Archeology show west-Baltic flat grave site evidence. They could also be r1a r1b

bolek
10-24-2016, 09:03 PM
He doesn't actually say that. He says he prefers the idea that the population of Roman times mainly remained while coming under new leadership. This might be interpreted as you say. Or it might be interpreted as an incoming Slavic elite taking over a pre-existing Germanic population. He seems to be saying that there is no clear Slavic or Germanic genetic signature. Looks like we just have to wait for some actual published data.
There are two hypotheses mentioned:
1. Germanic tribes were living west of Vistula river and in V century they left and Slavs arrived.
2. The territory west of Vistula river was occupied all the time by the same population. There was no population exchange.
Prof. Figlerowicz says that he prefers second hypothesis. Because we know that Poles are genetically and linguistically Slavs (we don’t have not Slavic substratum in our language, and we are genetically similar to other Slavs) the only conclusion is that Slavic tribes were most likely living west of Vistula and not Germanic ones.

Volat
10-24-2016, 09:58 PM
There are two hypotheses mentioned:
1. Germanic tribes were living west of Vistula river and in V century they left and Slavs arrived.
2. The territory west of Vistula river was occupied all the time by the same population. There was no population exchange.
Prof. Figlerowicz says that he prefers second hypothesis. Because we know that Poles are genetically and linguistically Slavs (we don’t have not Slavic substratum in our language, and we are genetically similar to other Slavs) the only conclusion is that Slavic tribes were most likely living west of Vistula and not Germanic ones.

I like tfirst hypothesis.

Poles are genetically, linguistically, culturally Slavs. All Slavs know this. Slavic ancestors didn't live west of Visla. We're eastern.

Brent.B
10-24-2016, 10:31 PM
He doesn't actually say that. He says he prefers the idea that the population of Roman times mainly remained while coming under new leadership. This might be interpreted as you say. Or it might be interpreted as an incoming Slavic elite taking over a pre-existing Germanic population. He seems to be saying that there is no clear Slavic or Germanic genetic signature. Looks like we just have to wait for some actual published data.

If Germans had been taken over by Slavic elites, then that would imply that the area was not depopulated as fully as some suggest?

Jean M
10-24-2016, 10:45 PM
If Germans had been taken over by Slavic elites...

I frankly don't think that this idea holds water. I am just attempting to ferret out what Marek Figlerowicz is saying. I expect Polish speakers will understand it better than I do.

Michał
10-24-2016, 10:55 PM
There are two hypotheses mentioned:
1. Germanic tribes were living west of Vistula river and in V century they left and Slavs arrived.
2. The territory west of Vistula river was occupied all the time by the same population. There was no population exchange.
Prof. Figlerowicz says that he prefers second hypothesis. Because we know that Poles are genetically and linguistically Slavs (we don’t have not Slavic substratum in our language, and we are genetically similar to other Slavs) the only conclusion is that Slavic tribes were most likely living west of Vistula and not Germanic ones.
So why does he talk so much about the foreign elites (or foreign rulers) who during the Great Migrations period came to a new territory and imposed their rule on a local population that was supposedly hiding in the forest?

There is one thing that strikes me very strongly in his statement. He does not explicitly say that he believes that Poland (or a territory west of the Vistula river) has always been occupied by the Slavs, although he mentions both Germanic and Slavic tribes when presenting the first hypothesis, so there must be a reason why he avoids expressing it this way (which would be the most straightforward way to express any apparent continuity in Poland). Instead, he talks a lot about the elites (or about the rulers) who could have been replaced between the Roman times and the more recent period. Why does he mention this if there was such a strong continuity and there were also "no biological divisions" on this territory but only "the political ones". All this does not make much sense IMO. I just have a strong impression that he is probably well aware of some discontinuity between the Roman and Early Medieval times, but he is just trying to build a far-fetched interpretation that would explain all of this as an exchange of the elites. What he says suggests that they indeed were able to compare the Piast elites with the non-elites from the same period, though he doesn't say whether they were able to do the same for the Roman times, so we need to wait until they publish all those results.

BTW, if the Migration Period in Eastern-Central Europe was only about migrations of some small elite groups, this would not explain the very high level of genetic similarity between all modern Slavic populations (and the sudden territorial expansion of multiple Y-DNA subclades associated with relatively recent Slavic ancestry).

leonardo
10-24-2016, 11:15 PM
You guys keep hammering away at northern coastal Poland and claim only Germanic and Slavic only , when history and Archeology show west-Baltic flat grave site evidence. They could also be r1a r1b

My comment, in response to Michał's comment "modern Northern Poland ." As such, I do consider this to be as Michał said. As you know, the Vistula was the general border bewteen West Baltic and Slavs.

rozenfeld
10-24-2016, 11:21 PM
I checked whether there any available ancient full genomes that are close in time and space to the Early medieval Poland and there seems to be none. The closest one is RISE174, 427-611 AD from Southern Sweden. There are no decent aDNA from Ukraine and Belarus, the samples from Germany are too old(Bronze Age).

Michał
10-24-2016, 11:39 PM
You guys keep hammering away at northern coastal Poland and claim only Germanic and Slavic only , when history and Archeology show west-Baltic flat grave site evidence. They could also be r1a r1b
Please read carefully the very post you quoted. I have clearly stated that I don't expect finding any Slavic nor Germanic R1a in Wielbark, though I wouldn't be surprised if some rare "Baltic" subclades were found there.

BTW, could you please name any specifically Baltic subclade under R1b?

Generalissimo
10-25-2016, 12:08 AM
The reason he's saying that the general population hasn't changed much in Poland is probably because Early Bronze Age genomes from Poland are very similar to modern Poles, and just about more similar to western Poles and Sorbs than anyone else.

It's plausible then, that they represent in main part the ancestors of modern Poles, even if people buried in elite graves differed from them at various times, like the Iron Age.

Of course, even this has to be tested precisely with high resolution uniparental markers, because genome-wide similarity and mixture models can be deceptive at this sort of fine scale. And he basically says that too.

From what I know, and it isn't much yet, it looks like the modern Polish population is the result of many migration waves from both the west and east, washing over each other, rather than totally erasing each time what was there before. Luckily lots of samples have been taken, so the chance of a few odd results skewing the conclusions are slim.

Michał
10-25-2016, 12:50 AM
It's plausible then, that they represent in main part the ancestors of modern Poles, even if people buried in elite graves differed from them at various times, like the Iron Age.

Such an interpretation makes sense only if they have indeed tested many "non-elite" individuals from the Iron Age period and these results were evidently different from those received for the elite graves, while at the same time strongly resembling the modern Poles (or the Early Medieval Poles). However, in case they were just assuming that since all those Iron Age samples were so different from the results received for the Early Medieval times, Modern times and the Bronze Age samples from Eastern Poland, they must have represented a relatively small elite group that was probably different from the remaining (non-elite) population (that just happened to have not been tested here), this would be a totally unjustified conclusion. And the same should be said in case they simply assumed that all those "non-Slavic-like" results corresponded to the putative members of a foreign elite, while a couple of "Slavic-like" results from the same population were likely to represent a hypothetical "non-elite" majority.

Generalissimo
10-25-2016, 01:54 AM
Such an interpretation makes sense only if they have indeed tested many "non-elite" individuals from the Iron Age period and these results were evidently different from those received for the elite graves, while at the same time strongly resembling the modern Poles (or the Early Medieval Poles).

Maybe they did and they were?

Keep in mind that Scandinavian kings and elites often used Slavic mercenaries because they didn't trust local warriors. So if an elite burial ground from Medieval Denmark or even Norway throws up lots of West Slavic genomes, are we going to say that Scandinavians migrated to Scandinavia recently?

Wait for the data. It's coming real soon.

vettor
10-25-2016, 02:14 AM
Please read carefully the very post you quoted. I have clearly stated that I don't expect finding any Slavic nor Germanic R1a in Wielbark, though I wouldn't be surprised if some rare "Baltic" subclades were found there.

BTW, could you please name any specifically Baltic subclade under R1b?
For r1b, let us consider that the goths where on both sides of the Vistula as stated by historians, then consider that these goths absorbed some west-Balts , is it not plausible that some of these later goths had west-Balt r1b which became goth r1b by annexation. We know that the goths cannot be in majority r1a as this is not the marker that invaded the Roman Empire later on

Brent.B
10-25-2016, 03:38 AM
This seems to be a recent interview (in Polish) with the lead scientist of this study, but it is not giving away a lot: http://www.naukaonline.pl/nasze-teksty/nauki-biologiczne/item/3056-tajemnice-w-zebach-skryte

Do we know exactly where these genomes are being collected from Poland?

If it is around Poznan, then the Roman era samples should reflect the Przeworsk culture right? Does anyone think there will differences between the Wielbark and Przeworsk cultures genetically?

Michał
10-25-2016, 08:08 AM
For r1b, let us consider that the goths where on both sides of the Vistula as stated by historians, then consider that these goths absorbed some west-Balts , is it not plausible that some of these later goths had west-Balt r1b which became goth r1b by annexation. We know that the goths cannot be in majority r1a as this is not the marker that invaded the Roman Empire later on
This doesn't answer my question, so let me repeat it. Do you know any R1b subclade that is commonly considered to have been specifically associated with deep Baltic ancestry? If not, then why should we expect that any R1b found in Wielbark is of deep Baltic (rather than of deep Germanic or deep Celtic) ancestry.

Gravetto-Danubian
10-25-2016, 08:20 AM
The answer is no but (sort of) yes

Michał
10-25-2016, 08:25 AM
Do we know exactly where these genomes are being collected from Poland?
If it is around Poznan, then the Roman era samples should reflect the Przeworsk culture right? Does anyone think there will differences between the Wielbark and Przeworsk cultures genetically?
When knowing that the vast majority of previously investigated Iron Age skeletons from Poland (including those analyzed anthropologically and/or tested for mtDNA) were those from the Wielbark culture, I would expect that a similar proportion will be maintained here, which means the entire Iron Age sample will probably include very few individuals from Przeworsk (or from Oksywie). Also, I would expect that a large portion of both Wielbark and Przeworsk skeletons are from the Northern part of Greater Poland, ie. from a region that was initially occupied by Przeworsk before being taken over by the expanding Wielbark culture (and the same actually happened in Northern Mazovia).

Waldemar
10-25-2016, 08:44 AM
There was perhaps a grain of truth in Jordanes' Getica...
"After the slaughter of the Herulorum, Hermanaricus also took arms against the Venethos. This people, though despised in war, was strong in numbers and tried to resist him. But a multitude of cowards is of no avail, particularly when God permits an armed multitude to attack them. These people, as we started to say at the beginning of our account or catalogue of nations, though off-shoots from one stock, have now three names, that is, Venethi, Antes and Sclaveni. Though they now rage in war far and wide, in punishment for our sins, yet at that time they were all obedient to Hermanarici's commands. This ruler also subdued by his wisdom and might the race of the Aestorum, who dwell on the farthest shore of the Oceani Germanici, and ruled all the nations of Scythiae and Germaniae by his own prowess alone."

Ammianus Marcelinnus...
"Therefore the Huni, after having traversed the territories of the Halanorum, and especially of that tribe of them who border on the Greuthungis, and who are called Tanaitas, and having slain many of them and acquired much plunder, they made a treaty of friendship and alliance with those who remained. And when they had united them to themselves, with increased boldness they made a sudden, incursion into the extensive and fertile districts of Ermenrichi, a very warlike prince, and one whom his numerous gallant actions of every kind had rendered formidable to all the neighbouring nations."

Tomenable
10-25-2016, 08:59 AM
As Michał mentioned, there are rumours that one of Wielbark samples had Y-DNA subclade typical for modern Germans.

However, as prof. Figlerowicz explains (he apparently mentions that particular sample in the fragment quoted below ;)):


(...) Można sobie wyobrazić, że człowiek mający pełne pochodzenie germańskie jako dziecko przeniósł się na tereny zamieszkiwane przez Słowian i został wychowany w duchu słowiańskim, więc kulturowo będzie się czuł przedstawicielem plemion słowiańskich. (...)

It was apparently a cuckoo's egg found in the "Thrush's nest". ;)

Michał
10-25-2016, 09:05 AM
Maybe they did and they were?
If so, then this is indeed a very exciting discovery! However, since the previously published mtDNA results for the Iron Age and Early Medieval Poland were accompanied by a very flawed interpretation of the actual data, it makes me worry that the same may happen here (ie. the conclusions will not be supported by the data, with a very strong emphasis placed on an a priori assumed continuity), which is, unfortunately, suggested by the discussed interview.



Keep in mind that Scandinavian kings and elites often used Slavic mercenaries because they didn't trust local warriors. So if an elite burial ground from Medieval Denmark or even Norway throws up lots of West Slavic genomes, are we going to say that Scandinavians migrated to Scandinavia recently?
These two situations are very different, as there are no archaeological data strongly suggesting any predominantly Slavic origin of the Iron Age or Early Medieval Scandinavians, while the Germanic origin of both Wielbark and Przeworsk has been strongly suggested by the previously available data, so to postulate any foreign elite dominance in Iron Age Poland without testing the "commoners" would be an obvious abuse.



Wait for the data. It's coming real soon.
I hope they won't encounter any problems with the peer review system when trying to overinterpret any data, as this may delay the publication.

Tomenable
10-25-2016, 09:06 AM
This doesn't answer my question, so let me repeat it. Do you know any R1b subclade that is commonly considered to have been specifically associated with deep Baltic ancestry? (...)

I might perhaps know one such subclade but it is a secret.

However, there is also another one which can be taken into consideration, R1b-Y5587: https://yfull.com/tree/R-Y5587/

Michał
10-25-2016, 09:09 AM
As Michał mentioned, there are rumours that one of Wielbark samples had Y-DNA subclade typical for modern Germans.

Actually, I don't recall mentioning anything like this.

Tomenable
10-25-2016, 09:10 AM
I mean those rumours were about a major haplogroup / clade rather than a specific subclade.

Michał
10-25-2016, 09:23 AM
I might perhaps know one such subclade but it is a secret, it will be published as part of the "Baltic aDNA" publication.
Are you sure this is indeed about a specifically Baltic subclade and not about an R1b lineage that was found in Baltic aDNA but is a part of a clade that is much more common elsewhere?


However, there is also another one which can be taken into consideration, R1b-Y5587: https://yfull.com/tree/R-Y5587/
I am not familiar with this clade, but the YFull tree suggests that its Y5586 subclade has nothing to do with the Balts (and is found in Southern Europe, including Spain and Bulgaria), so it is either V2986 or its subclade Y14306 that might be associated with the Balts, although the YFull data are rather consistent with Slavic ancestry and these are both very young clades, so their deep Baltic origin seems relatively unlikely.

bolek
10-25-2016, 09:24 AM
As Michał mentioned, there are rumours that one of Wielbark samples had Y-DNA subclade typical for modern Germans.

However, as prof. Figlerowicz explains (he apparently mentions that particular sample in the fragment quoted below ;)):



It was apparently a cuckoo's egg found in the "Thrush's nest". ;)

Slaves were taken or bought and sometimes assimilated, mercenaries were hired, politically or business motivated marriages happened, foreign traders or craftsman settled etc…., there were plenty of opportunities for exotic genes’ introgression into Slavic gene pool. It doesn’t mean a thing until they are massive.

Gravetto-Danubian
10-25-2016, 09:24 AM
I hope they won't encounter any problems with the peer review system when trying to overinterpret any data, as this may delay the publication.

There was a very good critique of some of the Physical anthropology approaches by one of the participating authors : Antropologia Fizyczna , Archeologia , Etnogeneza Słowian by Mark Dulinicz.
He sheds interesting incites on his perception of the demographic situation in Poland in the EM period
"The facts for most of the lands today within the borders of the Polish state are as follows: in the
lifetime of a few generations (end of the 6th–8th century) the territories which until the 6th century
had an entirely different socio‑cultural system were gradually brought into the sphere of early Slav
culture. Even assuming the obvious that known traces of settlement from this period are merely
a part of the original structure, we are still forced to admit that the population groups building the
material appearance of this new culture were small at first. It is also difficult to take for granted
a demographic explosion preceding these events. The situation of the Slavs in the Danubian region
was different. The archaeological record concurs with written sources to indicate that the Slavs
were indeed numerous there."

It's a shame Dulinicz recently passed away, as he brought real science to archaeology at a time when the fundamentals in theoretical archaeology were also improving, thus moving toward a deconstruction of previously tightly held perceptions which became entrenched dogma.

I am confident in these scholars will move with the data, indeed, Poland is leading the way in researching of Iron Age and Medieval period, and has served as a model for Czech & Balkan archaeologists.

Tomenable
10-25-2016, 09:27 AM
Also, I would expect that a large portion of both Wielbark and Przeworsk skeletons are from the Northern part of Greater Poland, ie. from a region that was initially occupied by Przeworsk before being taken over by the expanding Wielbark culture (and the same actually happened in Northern Mazovia).

So in these cases probably elite graves represent Wielbark invaders and non-elite graves represent Przeworsk population.

And Figlerowicz indicated that he could observe continuity from Iron Age non-elite to Early Medieval to modern Poles, right?

Is it a hint that there is continuity from Przeworsk but not from Wielbark, and that Przeworsk was different than Wielbark?

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

BTW:

You mentioned that Wielbark replaced Przeworsk. But let's not forget that later on, Przeworsk again replaced Wielbark. According to Michałowski (2015) and Żychliński (2008 & 2015) after withdrawal of Wielbark, Przeworsk groups from Silesia again occupied Greater Poland:

https://www.academia.edu/21961134/Przed_po_czy_pomi%C4%99dzy_Czasy_wielkiej_w%C4%99d r%C3%B3wki_lud%C3%B3w_w_Wielkopolsce


Na tle dynamiki głównego nurtu wydarzeń, czytelnych wpierw na granicach, a chwilę później w granicach Cesarstwa, ziemie wielkopolskie w IV i V wieku wydają się być oazą spokoju. Wielkopolska swą rzeczywistą wędrówkę ludów ma już bowiem tak naprawdę za sobą. Wszystko wskazuje na to, iż dokonała się ona tu w wieku III wraz ze wspominanym powyżej wymarszem z północy regionu społeczności podległych władztwu gockiemu [Wielbark] i przybyciem osadników ze strefy kultury przeworskiej. W pewnym klasycznym postrzeganiu okresu wędrówek ludów teren Wielkopolski prezentowany był jako strefa niemal całkowitej pustki osadniczej (GodłoWski 1985: 114–115; Mączyńska 1998: 25). Pojawienie się na przełomie XX i XXI wieku znaczącej puli nowych materiałów zmieniło nasz obecny odbiór obrazu zasiedlenia tegoż regionu w momencie rozpoczęcia się owych wielkich przemian europejskich, którym towarzyszyły wspominane przesunięcia plemion germańskich w głąb upadającego Imperium. Znakomita większość z tych odkryć dokonana została w wyniku szerokopłaszczyznowych ratowniczych badań wykopaliskowych, jakie towarzyszyły budowie sieci dróg szybkiego ruchu w Polsce, oraz prac towarzyszących wznoszeniu wielkoprzestrzennych obiektów gospodarczych (Makiewicz, Skowron 2005: 70; Machajewski 2008: 116). Te akcje badawcze zmieniły diametralnie dotychczasowy stan wiedzy na temat wielkopolskiego osadnictwa schyłku okresów wpływów rzymskich i czasów wędrówek ludów. Pojawiły się stanowiska osadowe, najczęściej powstałych w późnym okresie wpływów rzymskich, które jednoznacznie wskazały na możliwość trwania osadnictwa kultury przeworskiej w głąb V wieku i to bynajmniej nie w formie szczątkowej. Ich badania wykazały stabilny charakter osadnictwa zamieszkujących je wspólnot.

Michał
10-25-2016, 09:38 AM
There was a very good critique of some of the Physical anthropology approaches by one of the participating authors : Antropologia Fizyczna , Archeologia , Etnogeneza Słowian by Mark Dulinicz.

Yes, he was fighting the so-called "Poznan school' of anthropology and archaeology. Importantly, the Poznan community is well known from its very conservative approach to everything related to the population continuity in Poland (and specifically in Greater Poland), as opposed to the so-called "Cracow school" that supports an Eastern origin of the Early Slavs.

Gravetto-Danubian
10-25-2016, 09:42 AM
Yes, but he was strongly criticizing the so-called "Poznan school' of anthropology and archaeology. Importantly, the Poznan community is well known from its very conservative approach to everything related to the population continuity in Poland (and specifically in Greater Poland), as opposed to the so-called "Cracow school" that supports the Eastern origin of the Early Slavs.

Yes, obviously Dulinicz has always purported Slavs coming from the East. But he also disproved Parczewski's sentinal standpoint: that Slavs begun arriving to Poland as early as the 5th century (where he linked them directly to the Kiev culture). But the reality is that colonization began to occur a century later, and thus under different historical circumstances.

Tomenable
10-25-2016, 09:46 AM
I am not familiar with this clade, but the YFull tree suggests that its Y5586 subclade has nothing to do with the Balts (and is found in Southern Europe, including Spain and Bulgaria), so it is either V2986 or its subclade Y14306 that might be associated with the Balts, although the YFull data are rather consistent with Slavic ancestry and these are both very young clades, so their deep Baltic origin seems relatively unlikely.

This is the so called "Eastern European type" from the Polish Project, I think.

Mis
10-25-2016, 10:16 AM
Probably:
1. Y-5887-> L23EE came from Hungary
2. Time to enter the Polish lands 0-300 century AD
He settled in Silesia, Wielkopolska and Przeworsk
Poland and Germany have a common CTS 9129 -> By250

Michał
10-25-2016, 10:18 AM
So in these cases probably elite graves represent Wielbark invaders and non-elite graves represent Przeworsk population.

And Figlerowicz indicated that he could observe continuity from Iron Age non-elite to Early Medieval to modern Poles, right?

Is it a hint that there is continuity from Przeworsk but not from Wielbark, and that Przeworsk was different than Wielbark?

I don't think this is suggested by any statement made by Figlerowicz in that interview. Also, I would be quite strongly surprised if the Przeworsk people from Greater Poland were showing any exceptionally strong similarity to the Early Slavs, especially when knowing that the previously published anthropological data were unable to demonstrate it, while suggesting instead that Przeworsk showed stronger affinity to all ancient Germanic populations than Wielbark.

bolek
10-25-2016, 10:48 AM
Several hypotheses have been advanced regarding the origin and early migrations of Slavs, of which two - autochthonous and allochthonous - have predominated. According to the autochthonous hypothesis, territories around Oder and Vistula rivers (in present-day Poland) were continuously inhabited by ancestors of Slavs from the Roman Iron Age (0–400 AD), or perhaps even further back in time from the Bronze Age (3200–600 BC) [7] until the Medieval Age (500–1500 AD) [8]. In contrast, the allochthonous theory suggests the discontinuity of settlements between Roman Iron Age and Medieval Age in the territory of present-day Poland. Allochthonists hypothesize that the Slavs originated in the Pripet and Middle Dnieper River basins in modern-day Ukraine, from where they migrated to the west and south of Europe in the beginning of 5th century AD and inhabited the lands of presentday Poland, which was previously occupied by Germanic tribes during the Roman Iron Age [9]. However, morphological analyses of skeletal materials from present-day Poland have suggested a continuity between Roman Iron Age (represented by Przeworsk and Wielbark cultures) and Medieval Age populations [10,11] thus providing less support to the allochthonous model.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0110839

Figlarowicz seems to confirm earlier works of anthropology and genetics. There was continuity in Poland.
There is no evidence for Germanic tribes. Kossina’s archeology is pseudoscience.

Mis
10-25-2016, 10:55 AM
The Przeworsk culture should be Y-DNA CTS9129. The chances of finding DNA will be small. It's a small group. It is the people trudniący the mining and metallurgists.
The weakness of this view is such that in the vicinity of Przeworska silent any ore.

Michał
10-25-2016, 10:58 AM
There was perhaps a grain of truth in Jordanes' Getica...
"After the slaughter of the Herulorum, Hermanaricus also took arms against the Venethos. This people, though despised in war, was strong in numbers and tried to resist him. But a multitude of cowards is of no avail, particularly when God permits an armed multitude to attack them. These people, as we started to say at the beginning of our account or catalogue of nations, though off-shoots from one stock, have now three names, that is, Venethi, Antes and Sclaveni. Though they now rage in war far and wide, in punishment for our sins, yet at that time they were all obedient to Hermanarici's commands. This ruler also subdued by his wisdom and might the race of the Aestorum, who dwell on the farthest shore of the Oceani Germanici, and ruled all the nations of Scythiae and Germaniae by his own prowess alone."

Ermanaric is believed to have been a Greuthungian Gothic King in the 4th century AD, somewhere in Ukraine. Also, he is supposed to have died around 370 AD when fighting the newly arriving Huns. Therefore, the above excerpt is definitely much more likely to describe the contacts between the Gothic Chernyakhov culture and the neighboring Kiev culture associated with the Proto-Slavs.

When looking for an excerpt from Getica that is likely to describe the discussed situation in Northern Greater Poland, I would rather point to another fragment, describing the relatively early period of the Gothic presence in Northern Poland:
"As soon as they disembarked from their ships and set foot on the land, they straightway gave their name to the place. And even to-day it is said to be called Gothiscandza. Soon they moved from here to the abodes of the Ulmerugi, who then dwelt on the shores of Ocean, where they pitched camp, joined battle with them and drove them from their homes. Then they subdued their neighbors, the Vandals, and thus added to their victories."

Jean M
10-25-2016, 11:55 AM
the Sukow-Dziedzice culture that is quite frequently suspected of including some local Pre-Slavic (Germanic?) remnants

I wonder if this might be the explanation for the curious remarks by Figlerowicz in the interview under discussion.

From the research plan helpfully posted here http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6522-Early-Medieval-aDNA-from-Poland-coming-soon&p=142472&viewfull=1#post142472 , he has tested the early medieval Piast elite groups and compared them to non-elite groups of the same period in Greater Poland. We might expect these two groups to be equally Slavic, considering the region, and any Germanic remnants to be more northerly. But could it be that he has found a Germanic signature in some of the peasants? That might explain his reference to a biologically Germanic person brought up as Slavic. But surely the entire non-elite group can't be biologically Germanic? That would be totally unexpected. They are from 10 different cemeteries.

ADW_1981
10-25-2016, 02:39 PM
As Michał mentioned, there are rumours that one of Wielbark samples had Y-DNA subclade typical for modern Germans.

However, as prof. Figlerowicz explains (he apparently mentions that particular sample in the fragment quoted below ;)):



It was apparently a cuckoo's egg found in the "Thrush's nest". ;)

That would imply the find was xR1a, otherwise he would have said typical Polish haplogroup. I suspect the find implies either I1 or R1b based on the German label.

Jean M
10-25-2016, 02:52 PM
As Michał mentioned, there are rumours that one of Wielbark samples had Y-DNA subclade typical for modern Germans. However, as prof. Figlerowicz explains (he apparently mentions that particular sample in the fragment quoted below

But Figlerowicz does not say that his hypothetical Germanic person was a Wielbark sample. Since he talks about the possibility of a biological Germanic type brought up within Slavic tribes, he is presumably talking about the period in which we know of Slavic tribes in Poland by documentary and/or archaeological evidence i.e. his early medieval samples.

Jean M
10-25-2016, 03:21 PM
I have found another press report on the views of Prof. Figlerowicz and the purpose of the study here (again in Polish), but possibly clearer (at least to Polish speakers): http://www.nto.pl/magazyn/reportaz/a/badania-dna-historie-piastow-moga-wywrocic-do-gory-nogami,9481669/

Google translate gives:


Contrary to popular belief, our knowledge of the Piast is very limited, we really about those times we do not know almost nothing - says Professor Marek Figlerowicz, director of the Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry of the Polish Academy of Sciences, who heads a research project looking Piast roots.....

That is why historians for centuries, theories multiplied. First, it seemed that the Piast are simply elite native population. Then came the hypothesis that it was the Vikings, who arrived with his team, seized the lands of the Warta River and stood at the head of the Slavs. - Still others put a very attractive hypothesis that the ancestors lives came from a Moravian, which two hundred years earlier was destroyed by invasions - said prof. Figlerowicz. - ... Looking at how little knowledge we have, for a long time we thought that there is no chance to find out the truth.....

Our project assumes that we will find answers to several questions ...There are two hypotheses: first - the land of Wielkopolska and western Poland around the first century AD, two thousand years ago, inhabited by Germanic tribes and reached to the Vistula River. Then these tribes during the migration of peoples had to go back to the west, and in their place came the Slavic tribes. Another theory is that... the same people who, in Roman times lived in areas inhabited by them as well about the tenth century, and the name changed only from the political point of view. So Germanic rulers claimed that the land inhabited by Germans and Slavic rulers, acknowledged that the Slavs, when in fact the majority of the population is not changed.

George
10-25-2016, 03:54 PM
I have found another press report on the views of Prof. Figlerowicz and the purpose of the study here (again in Polish), but possibily clearer (at least to Polish speakers): http://www.nto.pl/magazyn/reportaz/a/badania-dna-historie-piastow-moga-wywrocic-do-gory-nogami,9481669/

Google translate gives:

According to this report, there is to be pretty specific analysis of the Piast era material, focusing on possible social differences paralleling the (possible) DNA differences (or similarities). The 1rst century material however is not stated as being subjected to the same approach. Nor is there any information HERE as to the archaeocultural appurtenance of the Roman era stuff (but maybe this can be discovered from other sources?)=== Two cents from the Ukrainian documentary perspective. Also difficult to interpret decisively. At any rate, 11th century writers (including Nestor) considered their western "North of the Carpathians" Slavic neighbours to be "Lyakhs". The Polani of Wielkopolska being a subset of those. The original "Lyakhs" were allegedly those of the Cracow area. And the "Polani" "came from them". This may have been influenced by the fact that in 1038 Cracow became the capital of the Polish state. And this was retrospectively applied to earlier Piasts. But it may also be due to religious considerations (the spread of Cyrillo-Methodian Christianity). Interesting that Figlerowicz et al. don't mention the possibility (just as dubious as the others) of a Cracow area origin for the Piasts. At any rate there should be further DNA material shortly. Wonder if anybody will mention the problem of "Lusatian" DNA (or Celtic) since these cultural groups also contributed to Przeworsk (and probably to Wielbark by absorption).

Chad Rohlfsen
10-25-2016, 04:28 PM
There are Bell Beaker sites in Poland, and even into E Poland on the Belarus border. R1b can be very old and distinct here. There are some Polish Beaker samples coming soon.

epoch
10-25-2016, 05:18 PM
I wonder if this might be the explanation for the curious remarks by Figlerowicz in the interview under discussion.

From the research plan helpfully posted here http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6522-Early-Medieval-aDNA-from-Poland-coming-soon&p=142472&viewfull=1#post142472 , he has tested the early medieval Piast elite groups and compared them to non-elite groups of the same period in Greater Poland. We might expect these two groups to be equally Slavic, considering the region, and any Germanic remnants to be more northerly. But could it be that he has found a Germanic signature in some of the peasants? That might explain his reference to a biologically Germanic person brought up as Slavic. But surely the entire non-elite group can't be biologically Germanic? That would be totally unexpected. They are from 10 different cemeteries.

Samo, the first to unite some Slavic tribes - amongst which Sileasian tribes - into an union, was acccording to Fredegar, a Frank by birth [or nation] from the Senon[ag]ian province.

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

Romilius
10-25-2016, 05:59 PM
Samo, the first to unite some Slavic tribes - amongst which Sileasian tribes - into an union, was acccording to Fredegar, a Frank by birth [or nation] from the Senon[ag]ian province.

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

I also was thinking about him!

Brent.B
10-25-2016, 06:51 PM
There are Bell Beaker sites in Poland, and even into E Poland on the Belarus border. R1b can be very old and distinct here. There are some Polish Beaker samples coming soon.

Do we know of any R1b lineages that are unique to Poland? Or at least seem to originate from there?

Gravetto-Danubian
10-25-2016, 08:43 PM
Samo, the first to unite some Slavic tribes - amongst which Sileasian tribes - into an union, was acccording to Fredegar, a Frank by birth [or nation] from the Senon[ag]ian province.

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

Yes Samo is said to have been a Frank, but there weren't any 'Silesians' in existence at that time, but were simply called "Wends".'
Samo's polity is now seen to correlate with the collection of warrior graves found in northern Austria and Moravia. (AVAR CHRONOLOGY REVISITED, AND THE QUESTION OF ETHNICITY IN THE AVAR QAGANATE1)

Jean M
10-25-2016, 09:05 PM
AVAR CHRONOLOGY REVISITED, AND THE QUESTION OF ETHNICITY IN THE AVAR QAGANATE

Had this, but had not put it in the Vault. It is there now.

rozenfeld
10-26-2016, 04:30 AM
I found this announcement in Polish:

https://www.biol.uni.lodz.pl/sites/default/files/zaproszenie_warsztaty_18.11.2016.pdf

Apparently there will be at least one presentation about aDNA. Is it related to the topic? Does anyone know more details?

Tomenable
10-27-2016, 11:01 PM
Yes Samo is said to have been a Frank

Not a Gallo-Roman or a Jew (Samo is a variant of Samuel, AFAIK)?

He was also a merchant/trader or perhaps a smuggler of weapons.

Tomenable
10-27-2016, 11:06 PM
Apparently there will be at least one presentation about aDNA. Is it related to the topic?

Probably not related to the topic.

It's very general, about using aDNA in researching genetic diversity of past populations.

rozenfeld
10-27-2016, 11:28 PM
Probably not related to the topic.

It's very general, about using aDNA in researching genetic diversity of past populations.

I found an abstract of the presentation given by the same authors:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871678416320994

New Biotechnology

Volume 33, Supplement, 25 July 2016, Pages S172

Abstracts of the 17th European Congress on Biotechnology

New approach to analysis of ancient DNA samples using next generation sequencing based on neolithic individuals

Paulina Borówka1, , Dominik Strapagiel1, Daniel Fernandes2, Ron Pinhasi2, Elżbieta Żądzińska1, Ryszard Grygiel3, Wiesław Lorkiewicz1

1 University of Lodz, Poland
2 University College Dublin, Ireland
3 Museum of Archaeology and Ethnography in Łódź, Poland

Available online 29 June 2016

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2016.06.1316

The Neolithic transition was thought to be one of the most important demographic events in the peopling process of Europe. Among them, the relations between the first European farmers (of the Near East origin) and Mesolithic autochthonous populations are the main issue. For over a thousand years, during the fifth millennium BC, the Neolithic communities in Kujawy region in north central Poland constituted the border of the early farmers world in central Europe. Therefore, they can serve a model of interaction between those societies in this part of the continent. Here we investigated skeletal remains of two individuals representing the Brzesc Kujawski Group of Lengyel culture (4600–4000 BC). These specimens come from one of the largest geographically homogeneous collection of Neolithic skeletons in Central Europe (the skeletal series are part of collection of the Museum of Archaeology and Ethnography in Lódz, and they are currently on loan to the Department of Anthropology, University of Lódz). Genetic material was obtained from petrous part of temporal bone, which provide to receive high score (max – over 73%/82%) of endogenous non-clonal DNA contents per sample. Adopted procedures were developed in the laboratory of School of Archaeology and Earth Institute (University College Dublin, Ireland). Sample preparation and all stages of the genetic analysis, up to the Illumina® library amplification set-up, were carried out in dedicated ancient DNA facilities at Trinity College Dublin, Ireland and at aDNA Lab at Department of Anthropology University of Lodz, Poland.

Gravetto-Danubian
10-28-2016, 03:12 AM
Not a Gallo-Roman or a Jew (Samo is a variant of Samuel, AFAIK)?

He was also a merchant/trader or perhaps a smuggler of weapons.

If Samo is shortened Samuil/ Samuel, it points to Christianised Slavs of Eastern tradition(?)

Waldemar
10-28-2016, 08:47 AM
The Conversio Bagoariorum et Carantanorum:
"But after 377 years after the birth of the Lord and thereafter, the Huni left their seats in the desolate lands north of the Danubiam [e.g. present-day Hungary, Romania] and chased out the Romanos, Gothos and the Gepidos. Nevertheless, there live there some of the Gepidis till this day. Then, however, as the Hunos were driven out, there came the Sclavi and began to settle the different regions in the Danubii lands.

(...)

In the days of the glorious King of the Francorum Dagoberti, there lived among the Quarantanis a Sclavus by the name of Samo who was the duke of that people.

(...)

During the time of Dagoberti, the King of the Francorum, the Karentanis were ruled by duke Samo, after him Boruch, after him Karastus and after him Chenmarus after him Waltunc. Likewise there ruled under Karolo and his successors Priwizlauga, Cemicas, Zpoimar, Etgar.”

Waldemar
10-28-2016, 10:41 AM
Gallus Anonymous' Chronicle about Semovith and Semimizl:
"So when the customary feast was arranged and everything was prepared in abundance, these guests sheared the boy and gave him the name of Semovith in augury of his future fate.

About Duke Semovithaii, called Semovith, the son of Pazt.

After all this, a young Semovith, the son of Pazt Chossitconis, grew in strength and years and from day to day he progressed and grew in uprightness to such a degree that the king of kings and duke of dukes, with universal acclaim, appointed him the duke of Poloniae, and completely removed Pumpil with his progeny from the kingdom.

(...)

So Semovith, having reached the position of duke, spent his youth not in pleasures and vain entertainments, but devoting himself to persistent work and knightly service, he gained for himself the fame of uprightness and honorable glory, and he enlarged the frontiers of his dukedom farther than anybody before him. After his death, his son Lestik took his place, who equaled his father in uprightness and courage with his knightly deeds. After Lestik death came his son Semimizl, who tripled the memory of his ancestors both by his birth and dignity."

Chronicon Moissiacense about Semela:
"The emperor Karolus sent his son, king Karolum, with a great army against the Baioariis Cichu-Windones, and a second army with Adulfo and Werinario, that is to say, with Baioariis; and he dispatched a third, with Saxonibus, through the Hwerenofelda and Demelchion [the territory of the Daleminzi]. And they fought there against their king, named Semela, and defeated him; and he gave his two sons as hostages for his fidelity. And then they went on across the Fergunna. And the three armies all came to the river called the Agara and from there went to Camburg; and they besieged this and ravaged the region around, on this side of the Albiae and across the Albiae. And afterwards king Karolus returned victorious to his father in Francia. But a fourth army proceeded with ships on the Albia, came to Magedoburg, devastated the region of Genewara there and then returned home."

Annales Altahensis maiorum:
"Illuc etiam Bratizlao dux Boemorum, Kazmir Bolaniorum, Zemuzil Bomeraniorum advenerunt atque regem donis decentibus honoraverunt."

Could Semovith, Semimizl, Semela, Zemuzil and Samo names have the same origin?

Zossimus about Logiones general Semno:
"The emperor terminated several other wars, with scarcely any trouble; and fought some fierce battles, first against the Logiones, a German nation, whom he conquered, taking Semno their general, and his son, prisoners. These he pardoned upon submission, but took from them all the captives and plunder they had acquired, and dismissed, on certain terms, not only the common soldiers, but even Semno and his son."

Proto-Slavic - sěmь (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/s%C4%9Bm%D1%8C)

Jean M
10-28-2016, 11:48 PM
If Germans had been taken over by Slavic elites, then that would imply that the area was not depopulated as fully as some suggest?

I now find that I'm out of date and this is exactly the thinking from recent archaeology:

http://scienceinpoland.pap.pl/en/news/news,408499,migrations-of-the-population-1500-years-ago-influenced-the-shape-of-modern-europe.html


Polish archaeologists have long believed that there was a complete disappearance of settlements between the period of the Great Migrations and the Middle Ages - the areas in today’s Poland were supposedly abandoned, and only after some the Slavs arrived from the East. Excavations related to the extensive rescue research, carried out in recent decades, change this image, especially in the case of Wielkopolska.

The archaeologist points in particular to the discovery in Konarzewo. There, archaeologists discovered the largest ever number of pole houses in Poland, which belies the claim that these areas were abandoned or inhabited by little advanced communities. The houses were large and accompanied by a rich economic infrastructure. The structures date back to the V-VI century. They are associated with the representatives of the Przeworsk culture. "Throughout its existence, the Przeworsk culture was undoubtedly a group with Germanic cultural model, which does not mean that it had to be formed exclusively by the Germans" - noted Prof. Michalowski.

Prof. Michałowski can not give a definite answer, who lived in the settlements that flourished in Wielkopolska in the IV-VI centuries. Material culture - that is discovered products indicate a Germanic influence, "but we do not know what it actually identified with ethnically - probably they simply though of themselves as locals, born here, wanting to die here" - concluded the researcher. Slavs were to appear in what is now Polish in the 2nd half of the sixth or in the seventh century.

Prof. Michałowski’s conclusions are supported by the findings of the research project "Migration Period of Nations in the Oder and Vistula Basin" headed by Prof. Aleksander Bursche. It was found that in the area between the Oder and Vistula settlement had not completely disappeared in mid-1st millennium. According to the research team, the people of Germanic traditions, who lived in the territory of today’s Poland during the Migration Period, assimilated with the Slavs.

vettor
10-29-2016, 12:04 AM
Really ......such bad scholars when they thought the area was completely abandoned, did they think it was like north-america and the red indian tribes moving with their tepee's!....................amateur scholars knew 20 years ago this was not the case

Prof. Michałowski’s conclusions are supported by the findings of the research project "Migration Period of Nations in the Oder and Vistula Basin" headed by Prof. Aleksander Bursche. It was found that in the area between the Oder and Vistula settlement had not completely disappeared in mid-1st millennium. According to the research team, the people of Germanic traditions, who lived in the territory of today’s Poland during the Migration Period, assimilated with the Slavs.

with this......then the scenario of Goths landing on both sides of the vistula, annexing part of the Venedi, part of the Aestii, ( the dregs became the Vidivarii, on the shore of the Baltic, who later became know as old-prussian Warmians) part of the bastarnae, part of the sarmatians, before reaching the black sea.............they in turn fled from the huns

the north-germans could not penetrate into central germany , nor across the rhine due to celtic/gallic being to strong........so decided to advance via coastal poland into west-baltic people, annexing them first before any slavs got there.

Brent.B
10-29-2016, 12:32 AM
I now find that I'm out of date and this is exactly the thinking from recent archaeology:

http://scienceinpoland.pap.pl/en/news/news,408499,migrations-of-the-population-1500-years-ago-influenced-the-shape-of-modern-europe.html

If people are in agreement that Poland was not completely depopulated, then I wonder if modern Y-DNA reflects an iron age remnant of Germanic Y-DNA in modern Poland.

Are there any "Germanic" haplogroups in Poland that would fit with this? We could separate younger Germanic groups that made their way into Poland (through the ostsiedlung for example) by looking at YFull's samples perhaps?

bolek
10-29-2016, 06:19 AM
German linguist Harald Haarmann says in his 2016 book ‘In the footsteps of the Indo-Europeans’ that Lutici (West Slavic Polabian) are descendants of Slavs who created the Lusatian culture.


Der deutsche Sprachwissenschaftler Harald Haarmann behauptet in seinem Buch Auf den Spuren der Indoeuropäer von 2016, dass die Lutizen Nachkommen von Slawen sind, die die nach ihnen benannte Lausitzer Kultur begründet haben

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lausitzer_Kultur

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

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


Przeworsk culture:

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

shows continuity with the preceding Pomeranian culture:

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

and Pomeranian culture evolved from the Lusatian culture:

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

So right now not only anthropologists, geneticists and some archeologists (not following Kossinna) but also linguists talk about continuity of Slavs west of Vistula river.
I expect that not only the history of Slavs but also the history of Indo-Europeans will be greatly modified when we learn more.
Let’s wait for aDNA.

Michał
10-29-2016, 08:39 AM
Are there any "Germanic" haplogroups in Poland that would fit with this? We could separate younger Germanic groups that made their way into Poland (through the ostsiedlung for example) by looking at YFull's samples perhaps?
There certainly are many R1b, I1 and I2 lineages in Poland that could have been potentially derived from those hypothetical Germanic remnants. However, it is not always easy to discriminate between those lineages that were present in Poland before 500-600 AD and those that arrived here more recently, for example with the Medieval German settlers or even with the incoming Early Slavs (which could be the case for some subclades under R1b-Z2103). Also, at least some of those lineages could have been present in Poland since much earlier times, so in such case they could have been derived from a local IE-speaking (non-Germanic) population. The best person to answer your question is probably lgmayka, as he is the admin of the Polish project at FTDNA and has a very good knowledge of all Y-DNA clades that are significantly present in Poland.


I must admit that I haven't heard about any specifically Polish R1b clade that would be older than 1500-2000 years (I mean the TMRCA age), though one may expect that in case such clades exist (which seems quite likely), they are relatively rare and thus relatively hard to identify. Also, when suspecting that the Germanic population in Poland did not just disappear but mostly migrated either to Southern Europe (like the Goths) or towards the Rhine river and then beyond it (like the Vandals), we may expect that such hypothetical Polish-Germanic clades should be closely related to some non-Polish lineages found in very distinct locations in Europe. For example, I have once mentioned a member of my family who belongs to clade R1b-CTS2509/S1734 (under R1b-Z326). This clade is common in Central-Western Europe (with occasional presence in Italy) and its TMRCA age is estimated by YFull to be 2700 years. He actually belongs to a more downstream subclade that is defined by FGC564 (an INDEL not recognized by YFull) that is present in Germany and England, so it is really hard to determine when exactly this particular lineage arrived to Poland.

There is a small Polish subclade R1b-Y6451 (also known as Z1793) under L47 in the "Germanic" branch U106. Its TMRCA age is about 1500 years (YFull). L47 is relatively common in the Germanic-speaking populations.

Let me also mention a very intriguing and relatively large "Polish" clade I1-Y6340 (also known as Y6349) with the YFull TMRCA age of about 1550 years. This clade is related to some Scandinavian subclades under I1-S7642, with their MRCA dated to about 3300 ybp (according to YFull).

vettor
10-29-2016, 08:44 AM
German linguist Harald Haarmann says in his 2016 book ‘In the footsteps of the Indo-Europeans’ that Lutici (West Slavic Polabian) are descendants of Slavs who created the Lusatian culture.



https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lausitzer_Kultur

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

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


Przeworsk culture:

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

shows continuity with the preceding Pomeranian culture:

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

and Pomeranian culture evolved from the Lusatian culture:

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

So right now not only anthropologists, geneticists and some archeologists (not following Kossinna) but also linguists talk about continuity of Slavs west of Vistula river.
I expect that not only the history of Slavs but also the history of Indo-Europeans will be greatly modified when we learn more.
Let’s wait for aDNA.

doubt it ........... to call Polabians as Lusatian when the Polabians are the Veleti who arrived in mecklenburg in the ~6th century AD

the Lutici are the Veleti
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veleti

Who are the first and only people the germans called wends

I think when Jordanes named Antes, sclavenes and venethi , he meant Veleti ..........its the only people that fit Jordanes, Slav tribe for the upper Vistula river area.

Jean M
10-29-2016, 10:25 AM
Who are the first and only people the germans called wends

I think when Jordanes named Antes, sclavenes and venethi , he meant Veleti ..........its the only people that fit Jordanes, Slav tribe for the upper Vistula river area.

The topic of the various peoples called Veneti and Wends has been pretty thoroughly thrashed out already on this thread: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4350-The-various-uses-of-the-ethnonym-Veneti

Mis
10-29-2016, 10:50 AM
L23EE Slavic
R-V2986Y11816 * Y11817 * PH1723 / BY593 / V2986 + 19 SNPsformed 4800 YBP, YBP TMRC 1600 info

Jean M
10-29-2016, 12:45 PM
L23EE Slavic
R-V2986Y11816 * Y11817 * PH1723 / BY593 / V2986 + 19 SNPsformed 4800 YBP, YBP TMRC 1600 info

Thank you for pointing out this subclade. If I understand the codes correctly, there are Romanian Slav, Polish and Russian samples in Y-Full. So it looks very good for spread with the Slavs.

Peter Gwozdz recently identified CTS7822/Z2110 as the equivalent to L23EE in the Polish DNA project. http://www.gwozdz.org/PolishClades.html#R1bTypes . This is several levels upstream of R-V2986, and there are samples from Italy, Bulgaria and Columbia in Y-Full. Peter Gwozdz recognised some years ago that L23EE is not confined to Poland, and that type recognised in the Polish DNA project is really a Polish subtype within a larger L23EE cluster. It is good to know that Y-Full is getting us closer to understanding the subtype.

Michał
10-29-2016, 01:58 PM
L23EE Slavic
R-V2986Y11816 * Y11817 * PH1723 / BY593 / V2986 + 19 SNPsformed 4800 YBP, YBP TMRC 1600 info
Is there any thread on this forum that would be dedicated specifically to the origin of this clade (or to the origin of the so-called L23EE type)?

Silesian
10-29-2016, 03:06 PM
L23EE Slavic
R-V2986Y11816 * Y11817 * PH1723 / BY593 / V2986 + 19 SNPsformed 4800 YBP, YBP TMRC 1600 info
This one is down 1 step R-Y14306 formed 1600 ybp, TMRCA 1300 ybpinfoonly 2 samples but 100% Polish so far.
Maybe it would be better for smal to answer; since he also belongs to this clusterBY-593+TMRCA 1600YBP+/-. Anyway FWIW-R-Y5587formed 4800 ybp, TMRCA 4800 ybpinfo
Y-5592*TMRCA 4800 ybpinfo-2-samples-B68231 Carl A.... P..1873-1956 Sweden & E18969 Unknown Origin
& CTS-9219*B7954 Henry S 1816 d 1904 Switzerland & E7997 Johann J M, b. 1773, Heltersberg/Kurpfalz Germany
That would place 3 out of of 4 upstream samples between Sweden/Germany/Switzerland-1_unknown
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1bBasalSubclades?iframe=yresults
BTW[Rathna is also=Z2110*, and dates his line at 7000YBP+/-]we will see if it holds up.:)

Silesian
10-29-2016, 03:08 PM
Is there any thread on this forum that would be dedicated specifically to the origin of this clade (or to the origin of the so-called L23EE type)?
Yes I started one using only str's in june 2014:)
Thread: R1b1a2a1 (L23+) - L23EE Type, Z2103+ Predicted_ [DYS-389II 31-33][DYS-464AB[14-15]
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1834-R1b1a2a1-(L23-)-L23EE-Type-Z2103-Predicted_-DYS-389II-31-33-DYS-464AB-14-15 str
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2901-R1b-CTS9219-post-your-Autosomal-(auDNA) autosomal

Mis
10-29-2016, 03:54 PM
Na pewno jesteśmy zgodni co do tego że na ziemi Polskiej w latach 0-500 n.e. pokazało się sporo nowych kładów.
W Polsce mamy również zachodni kład (Germański) CTS9129->By250. Usytuowany z lewej strony Wisły.
Może jestem bezczelny może głupi ale kiedy zobaczyłem zrekonstruowaną twarz kobiety z Przeworska powiedziałem sobie witaj siostro.

leonardo
10-29-2016, 04:02 PM
This one is down 1 step R-Y14306 formed 1600 ybp, TMRCA 1300 ybpinfoonly 2 samples but 100% Polish so far.
Maybe it would be better for smal to answer; since he also belongs to this clusterBY-593+TMRCA 1600YBP+/-. Anyway FWIW-R-Y5587formed 4800 ybp, TMRCA 4800 ybpinfo
Y-5592*TMRCA 4800 ybpinfo-2-samples-B68231 Carl A.... P..1873-1956 Sweden & E18969 Unknown Origin
& CTS-9219*B7954 Henry S 1816 d 1904 Switzerland & E7997 Johann J M, b. 1773, Heltersberg/Kurpfalz Germany
That would place 3 out of of 4 upstream samples between Sweden/Germany/Switzerland-1_unknown
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1bBasalSubclades?iframe=yresults
BTW[Rathna is also=Z2110*, and dates his line at 7000YBP+/-]we will see if it holds up.:)

Celtic remnant do you believe? Or Germanic?

Jean M
10-29-2016, 10:32 PM
I now find that I'm out of date and this is exactly the thinking from recent archaeology: http://scienceinpoland.pap.pl/en/news/news,408499,migrations-of-the-population-1500-years-ago-influenced-the-shape-of-modern-europe.html

The actual paper (in Polish) mentioned in this press article is Andrzej Michałowski, Przed, po czy pomiędzy? Czasy wielkiej wędrówki ludów w Wielkopolsce, Studia nad dawną Polską, Volume 4 (2015), published by the Museum of the Origins of the Polish State in Gniezno, and available from academia.edu: https://www.academia.edu/21961134/Przed_po_czy_pomi%C4%99dzy_Czasy_wielkiej_w%C4%99d r%C3%B3wki_lud%C3%B3w_w_Wielkopolsce

Michał
10-30-2016, 08:12 AM
L23EE Slavic
R-V2986Y11816 * Y11817 * PH1723 / BY593 / V2986 + 19 SNPsformed 4800 YBP, YBP TMRC 1600 info
My guess would be that R1b-V2986/BY593, or actually its parental clade known as PH2302 (R1b Basal Subclades project) or PH963 (smal's diagram) or PH2147 (FTDNA haplotree) descends from the Yamna population in Ukraine but could have been relatively early isolated from the most closely related subclades under Y5587 (like Y5586) or under CTS9219 (like BY250). This separation took probably place about 4000-5000 years ago (as indicated by the TMRCA ages), so this was the time when most of the European subclades under Z2103 have migrated towards the Danubian region, with at least some of them likely contributing first to the so-called Tumulus culture and then to the Urnfield horizon that both significantly affected the populations located further north (including the Lusatian culture, among others), although they likely remained small minority haplogroups/subclades in all those populations (and this could also be the fate for the moderately expanded BY250 subclade that today seems to be associated mostly with some Germanic-derived and/or Celtic-derived populations). As for PH2302/PH963/PH2147, it is hard to point to any exact region in which it somehow managed to survive before finally expanding after more than 2000 years of such hypothetical "isolation", but this could have been somewhere in West Ukraine (or at least not far from it), so this would explain why this clade was somehow able to be incorporated into the expanding Proto-Slavic population (which probably took place between 1 and 500 AD).

If the above scenario is correct, I wouldn't expect any PH2302/PH963/PH2147 presence in Iron Age Poland (including both Przeworsk and Wielbark), but finding some rare cases of BY250 in any of those two "Germanic" cultures shouldn't be considered surprising.

Mis
10-30-2016, 08:59 AM
Będą kłopoty z ustaleniem wejściem do Polski grupy L23EE. Ja optuje za wersją Węgry-> Czechy->Morawy->Śląsk->aż po Kujawy. Część osiadła w rejonie Przeworska. Stamtąd pochodził gen. Sikorki (R1b-z2103).
Jestem PH2147+ , By593-. Mam udokumentowane około trzysta lat w Polsce. Najbardziej „podobny” jestem do Węgra.

Michał
10-30-2016, 09:33 AM
Będą kłopoty z ustaleniem wejściem do Polski grupy L23EE. Ja optuje za wersją Węgry-> Czechy->Morawy->Śląsk->aż po Kujawy.
This would make it very hard to explain why this subclade is about equally frequent among the Eastern Slavs (including Russians and Ukrainians).



Jestem PH2147+ , By593-. Mam udokumentowane około trzysta lat w Polsce. Najbardziej „podobny” jestem do Węgra.
Are you kit N128191? And if not, what is your FTDNA kit number (and who is that Hungarian who shows a similar STR haplotype)? As for N128191, his STR haplotype is very different from that of the Hungarian kit 160064 (ie. of the only other known NGS-tested case of PH2147+ BY593-), which is of course perfectly consistent with the fact that they don't share any SNPs downstream of PH2147. So one could say that #N128191 is equally distantly related to the Hungarian kit 160064 and to all members of subclade BY593 (including those from Russia and Ukraine).

Mis
10-30-2016, 09:44 AM
To nie mój numer N128191. Jestem w projekcie niewidoczny jak trzeci. ( Germany, Węgry, Polska).

Michał
10-30-2016, 09:54 AM
To nie mój numer N128191. Jestem w projekcie niewidoczny jak trzeci. ( Germany, Węgry, Polska).
Do you know the ethnic origin of #N128191? Does his surname indicate German ancestry?

Why don't you make your STR haplotype visible for non-members? This would of course make it possible to evaluate your potential relationship to #160064? Have you been tested with Big Y or your PH2147+ BY593- status is based on testing individual SNPs only?

Silesian, what is your FTDNA kit number?

Michał
10-30-2016, 10:28 AM
The actual paper (in Polish) mentioned in this press article is Andrzej Michałowski, Przed, po czy pomiędzy? Czasy wielkiej wędrówki ludów w Wielkopolsce, Studia nad dawną Polską, Volume 4 (2015), published by the Museum of the Origins of the Polish State in Gniezno, and available from academia.edu: https://www.academia.edu/21961134/Przed_po_czy_pomi%C4%99dzy_Czasy_wielkiej_w%C4%99d r%C3%B3wki_lud%C3%B3w_w_Wielkopolsce
It is actually quite unusual for a researcher/scholar from Poznan to admit (in such a very straightforward way) that both Wielbark and Przeworsk were undoubtedly Germanic cultures and that the Slavs have arrived to Greater Poland at some later point, although he rightly notices that both the Early Germanic newcomers and the more recent Early Slavic newcomers have likely assimilated some remnants from the pre-existing local populations (Post-Pomeranian in the former case and Post-Przeworsk in the latter case). I hope the upcoming aDNA data will allow us to assess the range of that local contribution in both cases, and to narrow down the spectrum of their potential ethnic affinities.

Mis
10-30-2016, 10:37 AM
Najbliższy jest mi #241746 (Węgry). Niesyty dojechał z badaniami jedynie do CTS9129.
Przynajmniej połowa z nazwisk zbioru L23EE pojawia się w starych księgach metrykalnych Wielkopolski ! .
Na razie nie mam pełnych badań

Michał
10-30-2016, 10:41 AM
Najbliższy jest mi #241746 (Węgry). Niesyty dojechał z badaniami jedynie do CTS9129.

Is there a chance that you will change your FTDNA settings to make your results visible to all of us?

Mis
10-30-2016, 11:03 AM
Na początku roku 2000 kiedy Z2103 się ujawniło było mnóstwo głupawych uwag. Więc ludzie się pochowali. Chyba Niemcy też nie wstrzymali ciśnienia.

A teras coś na wesoło z poczty „pantoflowej”
1. Część Niemieckiej szalachty i Osetyńskich klanów CTS9129 uważa się za potomków Alanów.
2. Dagoma w języku Kaukaski znaczy człowiek góra.
3. W Polskim projekcie jest Pan L23ee który twierdzi że jest potomkiem Pastów.
Koniec rozrywki.

Jean M
10-30-2016, 11:23 AM
I wonder if a moderator would kindly move this thread into International: Slavic, so that Polish members of the forum can post in Polish on this thread if they so wish, without breaking forum rule 3.6:


The primary language spoken on Anthrogenica is English. Posts written in languages other than English will be restricted to the appropriate dedicated subfora catering to those languages. The creation and organization of said language fora will be decided on an in-demand basis and at the discretion of the administration.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/faq.php

Jean M
10-30-2016, 12:06 PM
It is actually quite unusual for a researcher/scholar from Poznan to admit (in such a very straightforward way) that both Wielbark and Przeworsk were undoubtedly Germanic cultures and that the Slavs have arrived to Greater Poland at some later point.

Prof. Andrzej Michałowski seems to have an enthusiasm for the new interest in migration within European archaeology. I'm still attempting to get Google translate to make sense of his paper, but that enthusiasm comes through from the first paragraphs. He is relatively young. This may be the key. He defended his PhD thesis in 2001, which was on the Przeworsk culture settlements within Poland.

He was a co-author of The Jastorf Culture in Poland (2013). http://www.oxbowbooks.com/oxbow/the-jastorf-culture-in-poland.html

Silesian
10-30-2016, 12:13 PM
Do you know the ethnic origin of #N128191? Does his surname indicate German ancestry?

Why don't you make your STR haplotype visible for non-members? This would of course make it possible to evaluate your potential relationship to #160064? Have you been tested with Big Y or your PH2147+ BY593- status is based on testing individual SNPs only?
160064 ------ ----, b. 18.07.1683, Kecskemét Hungary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kecskem%C3%A9t
#N128191 is from "Ott," http://www.kumbarov.com/ht35/R1b-M269xP312xU106_tree_31_10_16_2016.pdf
However further upstream from mis/myself and N12891/160064 is Sweden-kit number f3a3b. R1b-Z2103 > Z2106 >Z2109 > CTS7822 > CTS7556 > Y5592 *
B68231 C. Peterson 1873-1956 Sweden R-Y5592*
/R-Y5592Y5592formed 4800 ybp, TMRCA 4800 ybpinfo
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y5592/

Silesian, what is your FTDNA kit number?
My Kit clusters with Malyshev's; but have not tested for Y14306+
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/polish?iframe=yresults
R1b-Z2103 : CTS7822+ CTS9219+ Y5587+ PH2147+ BY593+
#176123 Felix Konieczny b.1750,Glʲiˈvʲit͡sɛ Silesia/Śląsk
239214 Stiepan Ivanov Malyshev, b. 1700 and d. ? Russia Russian Federation

Gravetto-Danubian
10-30-2016, 12:18 PM
Prof. Andrzej Michałowski seems to have an enthusiasm for the new interest in migration within European archaeology. I'm still attempting to get Google translate to make sense of his paper, but that ethusiasm comes through from the first paragraphs. He is relatively young. This may be the key. He defended his PhD thesis in 2001, which was on the Przeworsk culture settlements within Poland.

He was a co-author of The Jastorf Culture in Poland (2013). http://www.oxbowbooks.com/oxbow/the-jastorf-culture-in-poland.html

It's a shame such progress doesn't extend to all countries in EE, some of which are stifled by academic stagnation, at least when it comes to Medieval archaeology, which leaves us with unequal data quality.

Jean M
10-30-2016, 12:33 PM
It's a shame such progress doesn't extend to all countries in EE, some of which are stifled by academic stagnation, at least when it comes to Medieval archaeology, which leaves us with unequal data quality.

Much of the work published in the old immobilist paradigm is full of useful data. It is just the interpretations of it that need to be viewed with caution. Barry Cunliffe would probably want me to point out that archaeology is pretty much all interpretation! :) But the whole point of careful recording is to make it possible for archaeologists to come along in the future with fresh ideas and re-evaluate the carefully recorded data.

Gravetto-Danubian
10-30-2016, 12:54 PM
Much of the work published in the old immobolist paradigm is full of useful data. It is just the interpretations of it that need to be viewed with caution. Barry Cunliffe would probably want me to point out that archaeology is pretty much all interpretation! :) But the whole point of careful recording is to make it possible for archaeologists to come along in the future with fresh ideas and re-evaluate the carefully recorded data.

Yes. On the one hand, if migration was so widespread and regular, why would some regions be immune from such processes ?
On the other hand, where a great tradition of accruing archaeological data exists, its interpretation is sometimes biased, such as claims that monuments in the upper Dnieper basin in the 4th century are "Slavic"..

Jean M
10-30-2016, 01:18 PM
Yes. On the one hand, if migration was so widespread and regular, why would some regions be immune from such processes?

I doubt if any region of the globe was immune to migration over the whole of prehistory. Regular? If you mean "at uniform intervals" I beg to differ. Migrations take place for many different reasons. Human behaviour is much less predictable than the swarming of bees. :)

Michał
10-30-2016, 01:20 PM
#N128191 is from "Ott,"
I wonder what this Ott means.



However further upstream from mis/myself and N12891/160064 is Sweden-kit number f3a3b. R1b-Z2103 > Z2106 >Z2109 > CTS7822 > CTS7556 > Y5592 *
B68231 C. Peterson 1873-1956 Sweden R-Y5592*
/R-Y5592Y5592formed 4800 ybp, TMRCA 4800 ybpinfo
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y5592/
This Swede is very distantly related to L23EE, so I strongly doubt that his lineage is more relevant to the origin of L23EE (PH2302/PH963/PH2147) than the more closely related subclade Y5586 or the above-mentioned Ossetian cluster (both under Y5587, just like L23EE).



My Kit clusters with Malyshev's; but have not tested for Y14306+
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/polish?iframe=yresults
R1b-Z2103 : CTS7822+ CTS9219+ Y5587+ PH2147+ BY593+
#176123 Felix Konieczny b.1750,Glʲiˈvʲit͡sɛ Silesia/Śląsk
239214 Stiepan Ivanov Malyshev, b. 1700 and d. ? Russia Russian Federation
Honestly, I don't think your STR haplotype indicates any specific relationship with Malyshev (other than the shared BY593 membership).

Is there any reason that you haven't joined the R1b Basal Subclades project, administered by smal? It would be useful to have all L23EE members grouped in one project (where one can compare your halpotypes with those belonging to related subclades).

Silesian
10-30-2016, 02:30 PM
I wonder what this Ott means.
I was thinking maybe short for "Ottoman"?




This Swede is very distantly related to L23EE, so I strongly doubt that his lineage is more relevant to the origin of L23EE (PH2302/PH963/PH2147) than the more closely related subclade Y5586 or the above-mentioned Ossetian cluster (both under Y5587, just like L23EE).

It is not only the Swede with R-Y5592* Also a German with R1b-CTS9219* and a Swiss with R1b-9219* These mutations[R1b-Y5592* & R1b-CTS9219*=4800YBP]cluster in the same time frame as R1a-Z283[200yrs younger]R-Z283Z283/S339/PF6217 * Z662/CTS11197/PF6225formed 5000 ybp, TMRCA 5000 ybpinfo

All the R1b-CTS9219 samples in the map below are below snp-stream carried by the Swede/German/Swiss samples[4800YBP-1600YBP].That includes the Ossetians R1b-Y5586 and Iberian and Bulgarian R1b-Y5586*
12385




Honestly, I don't think your STR haplotype indicates any specific relationship with Malyshev (other than the shared BY593 membership).
Did I ever mention how happy I was to have met another R1b poster from the Steppe[Nazarov]. Mjost did a calculation and came up with a huge difference in time frame.At the time I didn't understand how there could be such a distance between us.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?23-Introduce-Yourself!&p=12232&viewfull=1#post12232 post #95 and 97#
So R1b-BY-593 and mis/smal are a big find for me, in a relative/brotherly sense.


Is there any reason that you haven't joined the R1b Basal Subclades project, administered by smal? It would be useful to have all L23EE members grouped in one project (where one can compare your halpotypes with those belonging to related subclades).
There is no snp grouping line of descent other than R1b-Y5592/R1b-9219-R1b-BY-593-R-Y14306 [4800-1300YBP]so far only exclusive to Poland. 300-400CE+/-
R-Y14306formed 1600 ybp, TMRCA 1300 ybpinfo

Michał
10-30-2016, 02:41 PM
This Swede is very distantly related to L23EE, so I strongly doubt that his lineage is more relevant to the origin of L23EE (PH2302/PH963/PH2147) than the more closely related subclade Y5586 or the above-mentioned Ossetian cluster (both under Y5587, just like L23EE).

I have just taken a closer look at those Ossetian haplotypes and I would say that the results from the 68-111 STR panel indicate very strongly that they all are a part of clade Y5586. In fact, the 111 STRs seem to be very useful when trying to distinguish between L23EE (PH2302/PH963/PH2147) and related clades, including the most closely related clade Y5586.

In light of the above, it seems indeed quite likely that clade Y5586 is of deep Alanic ancestry, although this lineage has likely been assimilated by the Alans only after they have arrived to Europe. It is hard to say whether all this is relevant for the origin of the quite distantly related L23EE people, but one cannot rule out such possibility, especially when knowing that the Sarmatians have likely contributed to the decline of the Zarubintsy culture (and thus to the emergence of the Post-Zarubintsy horizon, ancestral to the "Proto-Slavic" Kiev culture). Finding any modern lineages more closely related to L23EE (PH2302/PH963/PH2147) than the "Alanic" clade Y5586 seems to be crucial to verify this hypothesis.

Jean M
10-30-2016, 04:46 PM
he rightly notices that both the Early Germanic newcomers and the more recent Early Slavic newcomers have likely assimilated some remnants from the pre-existing local populations (Post-Pomeranian in the former case and Post-Przeworsk in the latter case).

I think he is actually saying (please excuse Google translation with attempted clean-up by me)


Przeworsk culture throughout its existence was undoubtedly a grouping of Germanic cultural model, which does not mean that it had to be created only by the Germans themselves. The time of its formation ... developing under the influence of intensified contacts with the Celtic zone. Germanic tribes were then at the same level of social development, which passed the Celtic tribes in the fourth and third century BC (Cunliffe 2003: 286). This results in a similar expansiveness of the Germanic tribes spreading from their northern lair. They carry with them this new model of civilization. During the second century BC ... the same cultural model ...takes on large areas of land covered by settlements of "post-Hallstatt" community traditions, including Pomeranian culture.

Why Post-Hallstatt rather than La Tene, I don't know, but I can't think of any other possible translation of "posthalsztackich".

Silesian
10-30-2016, 05:31 PM
I have just taken a closer look at those Ossetian haplotypes and I would say that the results from the 68-111 STR panel indicate very strongly that they all are a part of clade Y5586. In fact, the 111 STRs seem to be very useful when trying to distinguish between L23EE (PH2302/PH963/PH2147) and related clades, including the most closely related clade Y5586.

In light of the above, it seems indeed quite likely that clade Y5586 is of deep Alanic ancestry, although this lineage has likely been assimilated by the Alans only after they have arrived to Europe. It is hard to say whether all this is relevant for the origin of the quite distantly related L23EE people, but one cannot rule out such possibility, especially when knowing that the Sarmatians have likely contributed to the decline of the Zarubintsy culture (and thus to the emergence of the Post-Zarubintsy horizon, ancestral to the "Proto-Slavic" Kiev culture). Finding any modern lineages more closely related to L23EE (PH2302/PH963/PH2147) than the "Alanic" clade Y5586 seems to be crucial to verify this hypothesis.
Then R1b-9219+ in Ossetian and R1b found 160064-[Kecskemét Hungary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kecskem%C3%A9t &#N128191
The first archeological trace of a human in the area is about five thousand years old. The Sarmatians invaded the area in the first century B.C.; should be related to the R1b found in Jaszag. https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Jaszsag/default.aspx?section=yresults in Ossetians/Jaszag/Kecskemet.

The oldest sample that is the closest to Polish R1b-EE is U98VT, 1140C.E

Michał
10-30-2016, 06:05 PM
I was thinking maybe short for "Ottoman"?
You mean the German surname Ottoman, or rather the Ottoman dynasty from Turkey?
It could be a town in Germany (like Otterberg, Otterndorf or Ottweiler), if assuming that this kit is indeed of German origin, as suggested by Mis.



It is not only the Swede with R-Y5592* Also a German with R1b-CTS9219* and a Swiss with R1b-9219* These mutations[R1b-Y5592* & R1b-CTS9219*=4800YBP]cluster in the same time frame as R1a-Z283[200yrs younger]R-Z283Z283/S339/PF6217 * Z662/CTS11197/PF6225formed 5000 ybp, TMRCA 5000 ybpinfo
Are you suggesting that clades Y5592 and CTS9219 were born somewhere in Germany (or very close to it) rather than in the North-Pontic steppe (ie. as a part of the Yamna culture)? If so, then I find it very unlikely.

Firstly, Y5592>CTS9219 shows a very wide distribution pattern in Europe, ranging from Ossetia to Spain and from Italy and Greece to Norway and Sweden, while reaching its highest frequency in Kosovo, Albania and Romania. It would be very difficult for any known ancient migration process starting in Bronze Age Germany to produce such an intriguing distribution pattern (especially when knowing that CTS9219 is not very frequent in Germany). Personally, I won't be surprised if Y5592 or CTS9219 are found in Western Yamna, so I would assume that both these clades were born in Ukraine, with the majority of the descending subclades (like BY611 and BY250, but also many minor sister clades) migrating westward, while some other subclades staying in the North Pontic region (or very close to it, for example in Moldova), as most likely happened to Y5587.

Secondly, Moldova, Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Kosovo and Albania belong to the most undertested regions in Europe, so finding some relatively rare cases of Y5592* or CTS9219* among the FTDNA customers originating from those countries is definitely less likely than among the Central Europeans (and especially among the Germans). Unfortunately, neither Y5592 nor CTS9219 were tested by Myres et al. in a study that included a relatively large sample of SE Europeans.

Thirdly, the YFull team dates both Y5592 and CTS9219 to about 4800 ybp, which suggests they expanded about 5500 years ago (when assuming that the YFull dates are underestimates by about 10-20%), which corresponds to about 3500 BC and makes these clades relatively unlikely to have been born after the Yamna expansion westward started in about 2900 BC, or after the Z2103 people reached Germany (which probably did not happened before 2600 BC).

Fourthly, such a "German scenario" would require that the ancestors of the Ossetians from clade Y5586 have migrated from the North Pontic steppe to Germany and then back to the North Pontic region (which doesn't seem very likely). Th same can be said about the required migrations from Russia/Ukraine to Kosovo/Albania going through Germany. By contrast, the alternative "Ukrainian scenario" would not require any extra migrations in addition to those that are well known to us (like the Yamna migration westward, the expansion of the Tumulus and Urnfield cultures, the migrations of the Alanic tribes, the Early Slavic expansion, etc).



All the R1b-CTS9219 samples in the map below are below snp-stream carried by the Swede/German/Swiss samples[4800YBP-1600YBP].That includes the Ossetians R1b-Y5586 and Iberian and Bulgarian R1b-Y5586*
12385
Please note that the above map includes only members of the Polish project (and only those who were tested for CTS9219 but not for the relevant SNPs downstream), so it does not tell us much about the origin of the entire clade CTS9219.

Also, no modern CTS9219* sample can be ancestral to any other modern CTS9219 member known to us, as CTS9219*is just an early diverged lineage in this case. I definitely agree that finding a large number of early diverged (independent!) CTS9219* lineages in one region would strongly suggest that this particular region is a likely homeland for CTS9219, but not in case when the regions showing the highest frequency of CTS9219 remain undertested.

Importantly, let me also mention that #B7954 from Switzerland is actually a member of a yet unnamed subclade under CTS9219>Y18959 (thus he is definitely not CTS9219*), as shown on a tree published by Atanas Kumbarov (from a link shown in one of your previous posts), so this lineage is parallel to BY611 and Y5587 but not to the the "uncle" clade BY250. Also, it seems that #E7997 from Germany has not been tested with any NGS test. I guess he was just tested with one of the SNP packs, so his CTS9219* status cannot be secure, as he lacks results for some known downstream SNPs (like Y18959) and he may also share some SNPs under CTS9219 with the known NGS-tested CTS9219* samples (in which case he could not be considered CTS9219*). This would also mean that we don't have any confirmed example of CTS9219* found in Germany, Switzerland nor Sweden.



There is no snp grouping line of descent other than R1b-Y5592/R1b-9219-R1b-BY-593-R-Y14306 [4800-1300YBP]so far only exclusive to Poland. 300-400CE+/-
R-Y14306formed 1600 ybp, TMRCA 1300 ybpinfo
If this is your answer to my question, does it mean that you are not going to join the R1b Basal Subclades project only because the relatively young subclade Y14306 (for which you haven't been tested yet) seems to encompass only people of Polish ancestry (ie. all two of them, if I am not mistaken)? I must admit I don't get it.

Joe B
10-30-2016, 06:08 PM
I wonder what this Ott means.

I was thinking maybe short for "Ottoman"?It could just as well be short for the Ottonian dynasty. Ott is a common German surname. As smal indicated, he's a lot closer to the Rhine than the Vistula.

vettor
10-30-2016, 06:23 PM
It could just as well be short for the Ottonian dynasty. Ott is a common German surname. As smal indicated, he's a lot closer to the Rhine than the Vistula.

IMO, the ottonian saxon dynasty was named after the 3 kings.....Otto 1, Otto 2, and Otto 3 ............they also ruled northern Italy

Surprising is that, the franks took over the Ottonian via the Salian dynasty

leonardo
10-30-2016, 06:27 PM
I have just taken a closer look at those Ossetian haplotypes and I would say that the results from the 68-111 STR panel indicate very strongly that they all are a part of clade Y5586. In fact, the 111 STRs seem to be very useful when trying to distinguish between L23EE (PH2302/PH963/PH2147) and related clades, including the most closely related clade Y5586.

In light of the above, it seems indeed quite likely that clade Y5586 is of deep Alanic ancestry, although this lineage has likely been assimilated by the Alans only after they have arrived to Europe. It is hard to say whether all this is relevant for the origin of the quite distantly related L23EE people, but one cannot rule out such possibility, especially when knowing that the Sarmatians have likely contributed to the decline of the Zarubintsy culture (and thus to the emergence of the Post-Zarubintsy horizon, ancestral to the "Proto-Slavic" Kiev culture). Finding any modern lineages more closely related to L23EE (PH2302/PH963/PH2147) than the "Alanic" clade Y5586 seems to be crucial to verify this hypothesis.

The Alans were likely a heterogeneous group. What is the relationship between them and the Cimmerians, and are not the Cimmerians consider a Celtic or proto-Celtic group?

Joe B
10-30-2016, 06:31 PM
L23EE Slavic
R-V2986Y11816 * Y11817 * PH1723 / BY593 / V2986 + 19 SNPsformed 4800 YBP, YBP TMRC 1600 info

Thank you for pointing out this subclade. If I understand the codes correctly, there are Romanian Slav, Polish and Russian samples in Y-Full. So it looks very good for spread with the Slavs.

Peter Gwozdz recently identified CTS7822/Z2110 as the equivalent to L23EE in the Polish DNA project. http://www.gwozdz.org/PolishClades.html#R1bTypes . This is several levels upstream of R-V2986, and there are samples from Italy, Bulgaria and Columbia in Y-Full. Peter Gwozdz recognised some years ago that L23EE is not confined to Poland, and that type recognised in the Polish DNA project is really a Polish subtype within a larger L23EE cluster. It is good to know that Y-Full is getting us closer to understanding the subtype.You may already have a L23EE in your Ancient DNA list. Just needs SNP testing.
Czech Republic Church of St.Margaret, Podlazice [HB02] M c. 1180 AD R1b* Rbv probably belongs to the L23EE cluster.
R1b-M269>L23>Z2103, Z2105>Z2106>Z2108, Z2109, Z2110>CTS9219>Y5587>PH2302>BY593

Michał
10-30-2016, 06:34 PM
You may already have a L23EE in your Ancient DNA list. Just needs SNP testing.
Czech Republic Church of St.Margaret, Podlazice [HB02] M c. 1180 AD R1b* Rbv probably belongs to the L23EE cluster.
R1b-M269>L23>Z2103, Z2105>Z2106>Z2108, Z2109, Z2110>CTS9219>Y5587>PH2302>BY593
Which STR results suggest he is BY593+ and not PH2302*?

Michał
10-30-2016, 06:50 PM
The Alans were likely a heterogeneous group. What is the relationship between them and the Cimmerians, and are not the Cimmerians consider a Celtic or proto-Celtic group?
The Alans could have assimilated some people of deep Cimmerian ancestry, though there are no data suggesting that Cimmerian was still spoken when the Alans arrived to the North-Pontic steppe. As for the Cimmerians being Proto-Celts (or closely related to the Celts), this seems to be a tiny minority view. There are some data suggesting that the Cimmerians spoke a language related to Indo-Iranian (or even specifically to Iranian). AFAIR, there were some archaeological data suggesting that some occasional Cimmerian raids directed westward have significantly contributed to the emergence of the Hallstatt culture, but I don't know if this is still considered to be sufficiently supported.

Silesian
10-30-2016, 06:57 PM
Which STR results suggest he is BY593+ and not PH2302*?
Distance is 4/26 markers compared with Malyshev. Distance of 2/26 with Czech surnames, some forensic samples.



Research Tools > Genetic Distance Report

User ID Last Name Origin Haplogroup Tested With Markers Compared Genetic Distance
U98VT skeleton HB02 Podlazice, Ceskoslovensko Unknown Other - Forensic DNA Service - -
PP4SC Kropacek Strakonice, Czech Republic R1b* Other - Forenzni DNA servis 26 2
AA7D3 Kropacek Y26 Unknown R1b* Other - Forensic DNA Service 26 2
B8632 Hrncirik Unknown R1b* Other - Forensic DNA service 26 2
EMVRN Rehacek Unknown R1b* Other - Forensic DNA Service 26 2
MNR84 Rys Unknown R1b* Other - Forensic DNA Service 26 2
NMZ4A M..... Belarus R1b1a2a* Family Tree DNA 26 4
G3W6V Polivka Unknown R1b* Other - Forensic DNA service 26 4

Jean M
10-30-2016, 07:13 PM
The Alans were likely a heterogeneous group. What is the relationship between them and the Cimmerians, and are not the Cimmerians consider a Celtic or proto-Celtic group?

The Cimmerians were the predecessors of the Scythians on the European steppe. The Alans arrived later on the European steppe. These peoples were all most probably related. The Alans appear to be a variety of Scythian. The language of the Cimmerians is unknown, apart from a few personal names, but generally presumed to be a type of Iranian, like that of the Alans and Scythians.

The Cimmerians are not considered Celtic or proto-Celtic in themselves. (Or not by modern academics.) Some of them moved from the steppe (under the pressure of incoming Scythians) up the Danube into the Carparthian Basin, where they were in contact with the Hallstatt culture, which we presume to be Celtic speaking. This may explain an Iranic feature in the Celtic language. But that's all.

Jean M
10-30-2016, 07:15 PM
AFAIR, there were some archaeological data suggesting that some occasional Cimmerian raids directed westward have significantly contributed to the emergence of the Hallstatt culture, but I don't know if this is still considered to be sufficiently supported.

Certainly is. Wagon burials and iron-working in Hallstatt coincide with the arrival of Cimmerians in the Carpathian Basin.

Joe B
10-30-2016, 07:16 PM
Which STR results suggest he is BY593+ and not PH2302*?It's simply a haplogroup guess based mostly on DYS385=11-14. Pretty weak. He does have some similarity to the Probasco and Oziemblowski groups.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1834-R1b1a2a1-(L23-)-L23EE-Type-Z2103-Predicted_-DYS-389II-31-33-DYS-464AB-14-15&p=25962&viewfull=1#post25962

Gravetto-Danubian
10-30-2016, 07:58 PM
I doubt if any region of the globe was immune to migration over the whole of prehistory. Regular? If you mean "at uniform intervals" I beg to differ. Migrations take place for many different reasons. Human behaviour is much less predictable than the swarming of bees. :)

Of course not at regular chronological intervals, but by regular "common". Were you intentionally trying to be daft ?
My point was: when it comes to Slavic studies, some regions have been codified as embryonic homelands, certain parts of EE. I think even you mentioned it, and certainly many readers here have followed similar views
However, this reasoning largely results from the poor state of (medieval) academia in Russia and Belarus, and the nationalist slant of their scholars.
Essentially, they've offered nothing new since the 1950s, and new Finds are merely slotted into the same echoes which chatacterise their writings.

Michał
10-30-2016, 08:19 PM
Distance is 4/26 markers compared with Malyshev. Distance of 2/26 with Czech surnames, some forensic samples.

It's simply a haplogroup guess based mostly on DYS385=11-14. Pretty weak.
DYS385=11-14 is modal for the entire clade R1b-M269 and found in #160064 who is PH2302*, so I guess there is nothing in his STRs that would specifically suggest he is BY593+. Thus, his BY593+ prediction is just based on the fact that BY593 seems to be by far the most common subclade under PH2302.



He does have some similarity to the Probasco and Oziemblowski groups.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1834-R1b1a2a1-(L23-)-L23EE-Type-Z2103-Predicted_-DYS-389II-31-33-DYS-464AB-14-15&p=25962&viewfull=1#post25962
Is this similarity based on sharing any common "innovations" (which would be indeed quite informative) or just on shared modal values and relatively low GD (which could be very misleading)?

As far as I can see, his only STR result that is non-modal for PH2302 is DYS446=15 (instead of 14), so this is definitely not enough to search for potential relatives. Also, the Probasco group is characterized by the coexistence of relatively rare results DYS19=15, DYS456=17 and DYS444=11, while this Czech sample shows the typical values 14, 16 and 12, instead. Similarly, the Oziemblowski group is characterized by the coexistence of non-modal results DYS391=10, DYS385b=15, DYS439>12, DYS389=13-29, DYS458>16 and DYS456=15, with all six of them missing in that Medieval sample. Finally, neither of these two groups show the above-mentioned non-modal result DYS446=15.

vettor
10-30-2016, 08:37 PM
The Cimmerians were the predecessors of the Scythians on the European steppe. The Alans arrived later on the European steppe. These peoples were all most probably related. The Alans appear to be a variety of Scythian. The language of the Cimmerians is unknown, apart from a few personal names, but generally presumed to be a type of Iranian, like that of the Alans and Scythians.

The Cimmerians are not considered Celtic or proto-Celtic in themselves. (Or not by modern academics.) Some of them moved from the steppe (under the pressure of incoming Scythians) up the Danube into the Carparthian Basin, where they were in contact with the Hallstatt culture, which we presume to be Celtic speaking. This may explain an Iranic feature in the Celtic language. But that's all.

IIRC, didn't some greek historians state the cimmerians and thracians where the same people , ethnically and linguistically?

ADW_1981
10-30-2016, 08:49 PM
The Alans could have assimilated some people of deep Cimmerian ancestry, though there are no data suggesting that Cimmerian was still spoken when the Alans arrived to the North-Pontic steppe. As for the Cimmerians being Proto-Celts (or closely related to the Celts), this seems to be a tiny minority view. There are some data suggesting that the Cimmerians spoke a language related to Indo-Iranian (or even specifically to Iranian). AFAIR, there were some archaeological data suggesting that some occasional Cimmerian raids directed westward have significantly contributed to the emergence of the Hallstatt culture, but I don't know if this is still considered to be sufficiently supported.

There are actually 2 R1b from La Tene from a German paper a few years back (along with a YSTR G of the common Euro variety) and the R1b might possibly be L2EE based on the STR.

Michał
10-30-2016, 08:52 PM
Why Post-Hallstatt rather than La Tene, I don't know, but I can't think of any other possible translation of "posthalsztackich".
I think this is because he was aware that this entire region was occupied by the Pomeranian culture that started earlier than La Tene (though there were some La Tene enclaves in Southern Poland at a later stage), so the Pomeranian culture could not be considered Post-La Tene. Of course, the Pomeranian culture was rather a Post-Lusatian culture, but I guess he assumed that the decline of the Lusatian culture and the emergence of the Pomeranian culture were somehow catalyzed by the strong Hallstatt influences.

Michał
10-30-2016, 09:04 PM
There are actually 2 R1b from La Tene from a German paper a few years back (along with a YSTR G of the common Euro variety) and the R1b might possibly be L2EE based on the STR.
Could you please provide a link to those STR results?

Michał
10-30-2016, 09:15 PM
IIRC, didn't some greek historians state the cimmerians and thracians where the same people , ethnically and linguistically?
If this was true, then I would expect those ancient Cimmerians to be mostly R1b-Z2103. On the other hand, one cannot rule out that they were some post-Yamna (hence mostly Z2103) people strongly influenced by their Indo-Iranian or Iranian neighbors, so the Cimmerian elite could either speak Iranian or at least use the Iranian names (which is what the available data suggest).

vettor
10-30-2016, 09:20 PM
If this was true, than I would expect those ancient Cimmerians to be mostly R1b-Z2103. On the other hand, one cannot rule out that they were some post-Yamna (hence mostly Z2103) people strongly influenced by their Indo-Iranian or Iranian neighbors, so the Cimmerian elite could either speak Iranian or at least use the Iranian names (which is what suggest the available data).

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

The origin of the Cimmerians is unclear. They are mostly supposed to have been related to either Iranian or Thracian speaking groups which migrated under pressure of the Scythian expansion of the 9th to 8th century BC.[2][3][4]

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/cimmerians-nomads

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thraco-Cimmerian

Jean M
10-30-2016, 09:21 PM
IIRC, didn't some greek historians state the cimmerians and thracians where the same people , ethnically and linguistically?

No. The idea of Thraco-Cimmerian is a modern one, as stated in one of the links you provide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thraco-Cimmerian

Strabo recorded that the Cimmerians made an alliance with a particular Thracian tribe. That seems to have caused the confusion.

Volat
10-30-2016, 09:21 PM
However, this reasoning largely results from the poor state of (medieval) academia in Russia and Belarus, and the nationalist slant of their scholars.
Essentially, they've offered nothing new since the 1950s, and new Finds are merely slotted into the same echoes which chatacterise their writings.


Can you name a single Belarusian historian presenting nationalistic concepts of Slavic origins in certain places of EE or a single Belarusian historian for that matter?

Scholars of countries that are neighbours to Belarus point to certain regions of original Slavic home-land in EE. To these days school and undergraduate students in Slavic countries are presented with hypotheses of Savic home-land located north-western Ukraine, south-eastern Poland, south-western Belarus. Belarus is a small state with fewer scholars in comparison to Russia, Ukraine, Poland

Most scholars of Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia acknowledge partial Baltic ancestry among Belarusians due to Slavic settlements in Baltic lands on the territory of Belarus in mid-Iron age.

Slavs are the largest group of people in EE from eastern Germany to western Russia. Slavs in the region form a genetic cluster. Southern Slavs as well as Romanians and Moldovans stand apart.

There’s been much research done in Poland, Ukraine, Czech Republic, Belarus, Russia on Slavic original homeland in the last 100 years. Czechs, Ukrainians, Poles, Russians don't differ much on Slavic original home-land. Then, we have historians such as Florence Curta, whom certain individiuals with inferiority complexes like to quote as an ultimate truth.

Reading linguists, arcaheologists, geneticists, anthropologists it makes sense to search for original Slavic home-land between Vistula and Dniepr rivers.

Joe B
10-30-2016, 10:15 PM
DYS385=11-14 is modal for the entire clade R1b-M269 and found in #160064 who is PH2302*, so I guess there is nothing in his STRs that would specifically suggest he is BY593+. Thus, his BY593+ prediction is just based on the fact that BY593 seems to be by far the most common subclade under PH2302.



Is this similarity based on sharing any common "innovations" (which would be indeed quite informative) or just on shared modal values and relatively low GD (which could be very misleading)?

As far as I can see, his only STR result that is non-modal for PH2302 is DYS446=15 (instead of 14), so this is definitely not enough to search for potential relatives. Also, the Probasco group is characterized by the coexistence of relatively rare results DYS19=15, DYS456=17 and DYS444=11, while this Czech sample shows the typical values 14, 16 and 12, instead. Similarly, the Oziemblowski group is characterized by the coexistence of non-modal results DYS391=10, DYS385b=15, DYS439>12, DYS389=13-29, DYS458>16 and DYS456=15, with all six of them missing in that Medieval sample. Finally, neither of these two groups show the above-mentioned non-modal result DYS446=15.
It certainly was a guess with a strong Sunday football distaction. Usually I use my ouija board. There is another "hidden" PH2302* with DYS385=11-14 so you are very correct. The L23EE group tends to have higher DYS449 numbers than the rest of the Z2103 haplogroups. It's just a clue. In this case, the Podlažice skeleton shares a DYS449=32 with the Probasco family and two from the Oziemblowski family. The other two have DYS449=33. We could all be wrong and he turns out to be a R1b-L21 monk from Ireland. Good candidate for NGS testing.

vettor
10-30-2016, 10:26 PM
No. The idea of Thraco-Cimmerian is a modern one, as stated in one of the links you provide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thraco-Cimmerian

Strabo recorded that the Cimmerians made an alliance with a particular Thracian tribe. That seems to have caused the confusion.

Ok...still they migrated into Anatolia through both sides of the black sea......settling into cappodacia ( east anatolia ) and in old Phyrigian ( near coastal west anatolia )

Silesian
10-30-2016, 10:32 PM
If this was true, then I would expect those ancient Cimmerians to be mostly R1b-Z2103. On the other hand, one cannot rule out that they were some post-Yamna (hence mostly Z2103) people strongly influenced by their Indo-Iranian or Iranian neighbors, so the Cimmerian elite could either speak Iranian or at least use the Iranian names (which is what the available data suggest).
I think you might have that backwards. Sintashta was influenced by Pit-Grave-R1b-2103. They built over older R1b-sites. That is why there is evidence of ceramic at Kujsac belonged to Pit-Grave.
https://www.csen.org/BAR%20Book/04%20Part%203.%20Bronze.Int.pdf page-14 of 43

Also R1b-Z2103 is SNPsformed 6300 ybp, TMRCA 6100 ybpinfo & R-Z2110Z2110/CTS7822 * TMRCA 6100 ybpinfo to which the Ossetian and EE-R1b belong, as well as R-Z2108/Z2109 TMRCA 6100 ybpinfo[Z2109-SK-2087 Pathans belong to]All three branches are older than R-Z645formed 5500 ybp, TMRCA 5000 ybpinfo by 600 years+/-.With Sintashta R1a being under R1a-93/94.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R1a/
http://www.kumbarov.com/ht35/aDNA_02_11_30_2015.png

There is also a misconception about the displacement by R1a-93/94. If you check the heart of Sintashta[Arkaim and region] region R1b still outnumbers R1a by 2/1 margin. I suspect that is why heavily fortified forts[ double walls/moats] were constructed.

KMS-75 has been in Sintashta region for 5000 years.
http://www.kumbarov.com/ht35/KMS67.png

Gravetto-Danubian
10-30-2016, 11:27 PM
Can you name a single Belarusian historian presenting nationalistic concepts of Slavic origins in certain places of EE or a single Belarusian historian for that matter?

Scholars of countries that are neighbours to Belarus point to certain regions of original Slavic home-land in EE. To these days school and undergraduate students in Slavic countries are presented with hypotheses of Savic home-land located north-western Ukraine, south-eastern Poland, south-western Belarus. Belarus is a small state with fewer scholars in comparison to Russia, Ukraine, Poland

Most scholars of Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia acknowledge partial Baltic ancestry among Belarusians due to Slavic settlements in Baltic lands on the territory of Belarus in mid-Iron age.

Slavs are the largest group of people in EE from eastern Germany to western Russia. Slavs in the region form a genetic cluster. Southern Slavs as well as Romanians and Moldovans stand apart.

Reading linguists, arcaheologists, geneticists, anthropologists it makes sense to search for original Slavic home-land between Vistula and Dniepr rivers.



Absolutely, somewhere in the vicinity you mentioned is where archaic dialects of Balto-Slavic have dwelt for millenia, but have I ever argued to the contrary ?
In acknowledging that Slavic must relate closely to Baltic, this should not exclude us from questioning some tenuous historical paradigms.

The general story speaks of Slavs forming from the middle Dnieper culture, recanting usual evolution from Chernoles to Milograd to Zarubintsy to Kiev. This is a constructs, as we very well know these cultures do not seemlessly evolve into one another, but are characterised often by demographic & cultural ruptures. Clearly, there was a process of continuing formation, de-constitution, foreign intrusion, and re-constitution.


For example, Igor Gavritukhin wishes to believe that the Slavs came from Polesie in 350 AD (ПОНЯТИЕ ПРАЖСКОЙ КУЛЬТУРЫ). Knowing full well that there are only 3 or 4 sites from his entire postulated region of origin doesnt seem to deter him from claiming that Slavs, & the Prague culture originated there. Not only is his archaeological construction flawed (those 4th century features are clearly Gotho-Gepidic, not Slavic/ 'Prague"), he offers no explanation as to how all of Slavdom emerged from these 4 pitiful sites ? Demographically impossible. And again, there is actually a little hiatus between the departure of Goth-like groups (400s) and appearance of Slavs (Late 500s, early 600s) - in south Belarus (north continued with Baltic Tushemlja culture)1 (http://harugva.narod.ru/kuharenko.html)

Then we have Omblomski,. His new finds and research is well appreciated, but his claims that the inhabitants of the middle Dnieper region in 4th century were already "Slavs" flyes in the face of the obvious Baltic hydronymy of the region, with Slavic coming rather late. It also neglects the subtle but important changes in material culture with the appearance of Luka Rajkovetska Culture & Volyntsevo Culture (new military weapons; new forms of metal ornamentation; 'more advanced', wheel -made ceramics; and new forms of cooking culture- all highly sensitive ethnic indicia) (eg 'Gaponovo Hoard and its cultural and historical Context"). And at least least as far as Khotomel (further west) is concerned, it appears to have been an aggressive take-over (as we see a destruction horizon).

Even Kazanski once claimed that Slavs arrived in Belarus & northern Russia as early as the 5th century. Although often changing his position, Sedov at least came to reality in stating that the "As for Slavicisation, it took place as
late as in IX c., marked by spread of the early Russian long barrows.". And yes, we all know that there is a massive Baltic substrate in Belarussians, and hance your connection to Balts. Makes perfect sense. The inhabitants of what is now Belarus were, after all, Balts until as late as the 800s.

I need not go on. But we should ask ourselves - if Poland had such significant demographic & cultural shifts throughout the Iron & EM Ages, what was so special about Polesia or the Dnieper basin ?
And if you think my characterisation of East Slavic scholarship wrong, please bring forth here any new papers which challenge and move beyond the same old same old we have all read from Trpilovsky. Any advances in theoretical archaeology ? Any dendrodating ? Any self reflection and internal critiques ?


Then, we have historians such as Florence Curta, whom certain individiuals with inferiority complexes like to quote as an ultimate truth.

Are you referring to me there ? If so, in what regard am I jealous of Monsieur Volat ? Your wealth, status, your 6'5" build, or your birthplace of Minsk.?
Is there any reason you move to personal attacks every time I mention the very real likelihood that Slavs did not originate in Belarus ? Do you feel i am doing this out of disrespect or mal-intention ?
And why do you continually critique one scholar in isolation, when it's clear that neither you, nor Jean, can understand what he is saying (and indeed, he's not a lone voice on the matter. Far from it).
i think it's clear why: when people lack the cognitive capacity to re-evaluate their fixed & emotionally held convictions, they resort to a base reaction: attack as defense of their platforms, ad hominens ('Mongels from Australia' ;)) and straw-man arguements (like falsely claiming that I'd ever make the ridiculous claim that Slavs came from the Balkans), and basic Fails in Geography (i.e. Galicia, Bukovina and Podolia are certainly 'between the Vistula & the Dnieper", FYI).

Michał
10-31-2016, 01:04 AM
I think you might have that backwards. Sintashta was influenced by Pit-Grave-R1b-2103. They built over older R1b-sites. That is why there is evidence of ceramic at Kujsac belonged to Pit-Grave.
https://www.csen.org/BAR%20Book/04%20Part%203.%20Bronze.Int.pdf page-14 of 43
It is quite obvious that the situation on the NPC steppe was very dynamic, so one cannot assume that since the Yamna R1b-Z2103 people were apparently a major force for most of the 3rd millennium BC, this could have not changed during the subsequent period. The aDNA results from both Sintashta and Srubna demonstrate quite clearly that R1b was loosing its dominant position, so it seems that in the 1st millennium BC (when the Cimmerians are recorded in written sources) the R1b-rich groups were no longer that strong, even though one can imagine that there certainly were some enclaves where R1b-Z2103 could have survived in a quite good shape until more recent times (or even until today).



Also R1b-Z2103 is SNPsformed 6300 ybp, TMRCA 6100 ybpinfo & R-Z2110Z2110/CTS7822 * TMRCA 6100 ybpinfo to which the Ossetian and EE-R1b belong, as well as R-Z2108/Z2109 TMRCA 6100 ybpinfo[Z2109-SK-2087 Pathans belong to]All three branches are older than R-Z645formed 5500 ybp, TMRCA 5000 ybpinfo by 600 years+/-.With Sintashta R1a being under R1a-93/94.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R1a/
http://www.kumbarov.com/ht35/aDNA_02_11_30_2015.png
As for the age of Z2103>Z2106>Z2108>Z2010, please see my post in another thread: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?8878-Ancient-DNA-amp-the-Proto-Indo-European-Homeland&p=194647&viewfull=1#post194647



There is also a misconception about the displacement by R1a-93/94. If you check the heart of Sintashta[Arkaim and region] region R1b still outnumbers R1a by 2/1 margin. I suspect that is why heavily fortified forts[ double walls/moats] were constructed.

KMS-75 has been in Sintashta region for 5000 years.
http://www.kumbarov.com/ht35/KMS67.png
So why R1b-Z2103 has not been found in any Sintashta site dated to about 4000 ybp? How do you know that Z2103 has survived in Sintashta and not in one of the neighboring regions? All we can learn from this is that after finding any haplogroup in a given region on the steppe, one cannot be sure that it was present there both in a previous period and in a more recent period.

Administrator
10-31-2016, 02:29 AM
All members are reminded to keep discussions civil. Sanctions will follow if this reminder is not heeded.

Silesian
10-31-2016, 02:37 AM
As for the age of Z2103>Z2106>Z2108>Z2010, please see my post in another thread: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthre...l=1#post194647
I like Yfull
https://www.yfull.com/tree/

Michał
10-31-2016, 06:36 AM
I like Yfull
https://www.yfull.com/tree/
I like it too. That's why I have recommended you to read one of my earlier posts. ;)

Waldemar
10-31-2016, 07:07 AM
Ermanaric is believed to have been a Greuthungian Gothic King in the 4th century AD, somewhere in Ukraine. Also, he is supposed to have died around 370 AD when fighting the newly arriving Huns. Therefore, the above excerpt is definitely much more likely to describe the contacts between the Gothic Chernyakhov culture and the neighboring Kiev culture associated with the Proto-Slavs.

Jordanes wrote "this people, though despised in war, was strong in numbers and tried to resist him". Was Kiev culture by the 300s AD very populous according to archaeological research? Do we have any demographic data on that culture?

According to the older sources Venethi lived up to the Vistula River. Is it confirmed by archaeology as well? Are there any data suggesting western incursion on Kiev culture?

Michał
10-31-2016, 07:14 AM
The L23EE group tends to have higher DYS449 numbers than the rest of the Z2103 haplogroups. It's just a clue.
This seems to make perfect sense, so I certainly agree that such a provisional prediction was justified. BTW, what is the DYS449 value for the hidden PH2302* haplotype?

I recall some posts of the L23EE members complaining that this group does not attract enough attention and thus remains understudied, but after I have noticed that some of the most active members of this group either hide their STR results or refuse to participate in appropriate haplogroup projects, I don't think this sets an example that should be followed by the remaining members of this group. Genetic genealogy is all about comparing our results, so making it more difficult (or sometimes impossible) is like trying to stop any further progress.