PDA

View Full Version : Baltic R1a



Pages : [1] 2

parastais
03-07-2016, 06:43 PM
R1a is the most frequent haplogroup in modern Balts. While there are numerous topics of N1c1 in Balts in different websites, the Baltic R1a is not discussed nearly as much.
So, I will start here by presenting some information that can be gathered online.

1) According to study "Y Chromosome and Mitochondrial DNA Variation in Lithuanians" (D. Kasperaviciute), these are R1a figures in Lithuanians and Latvians:
44.9% of Lithuanians (roughly same for Aukštaitians and Žemaitians)
39.9% of Latvians
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1529-8817.2003.00119.x/pdf

2) According to study "Y-Chromosomal Lineages of Latvians in the Context of the Genetic Variation of the Eastern-Baltic Region" (L.Pliss), these are R1a figures in Lithuanians and Latvians:
34.1% of Lithuanians
37.7% of Latvians (from 29% in East(!) to 45% in North West)

Latvian R1a was also tested for M558 and M458. M458 and I2a and I2b were found in low numbers in East Latvia (Latgale), probably of Slavic origin. In total 3% of Latvians were under M458 and 35% under M558.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ahg.12130/suppinfo

3) Wikipedia's R1a tree
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/R1a._Info-19.05.2014.jpg

According to that tree, East Balts and East Slavs share Z92+ (would be part of M558 in this project?). Apparently M458 circled around modern Baltic lands, but did not really entered them, could be Slavic migration(?). CTS1211+ (Carpatian branch?) is present also in Balts (YP237 was marked as Lithuanian + Belorussian).


So, that is all I could find at the moment. If you have something to share, I would be thankful.

parastais
03-07-2016, 10:21 PM
Some additional quotes worth extra read from user Michal:
"Most of those Slovenian cases of CTS1211 are likely members of a very specific "Carpathian-Dalmatian" subclade Y2613 that seems to be most frequent in Western Balkans (including both Slovenia and Croatia) and in the Northern Carpathian region (including SE Poland, Slovakia and NW Ukraine), though Y2613 is also seen (at lower frequencies) in Austria, Hungary, Bohemia and Lusatia. There is also a relatively young potential Northern subclade of Y2613>Y2609 (or cluster Y2609-A), found in NE Poland/East Prussia, Lithuania and Latvia."
Relatively young but very "Baltic" geographically. Need to check more info.

"It is very hard to separate any relatively old subclades of CTS1211 (or of its sister clade Z92) that would be specifically associated with either Balts or Slavs, although its seems that YP237 (in the case of CTS1211) and YP270 (in the case of Z92) were more strongly associated with the Balts than with the Slavs (by contrast to Y33, Y2613, YP343). All this suggests that the early Balto-Slavic populations were thoroughly mixed at some early stage of their development, ie. before 1500 BC, which was most likely associated with the evolution of the Trzciniec cultural horizon."
Must. Read. Trzciniec.

Michał
03-08-2016, 08:48 PM
Must. Read. Trzciniec.
What I had in mind was actually not the Trzciniec culture itself but the much broader "Trzciniec horizon", which included Trzciniec, East Trzciniec, Sosnica, Komarov and some less studied individual sites north of those four cultures: http://www.iaepan.edu.pl/archaeologia-polona/article/240

Gravetto-Danubian
03-08-2016, 11:04 PM
After a very brief look at the great ftDNA R1a database:
Latvia: L664 1
M458 – L1029: 4
CTS1211 NFT : 2
YP1034 1
CTS3402 4
Z92 1
Z 93: 2

Lithuania: CTS YP 1034: 2
YP 493 : 1
CTS3402: 29
Z284: 1
Z93: 7

Ill look at closer detail of CTS3402 later, as well as more peri-Baltic populations (Finns, Estonians, etc)

parastais
03-08-2016, 11:19 PM
I am not so literate in R1a tree yet. So, only 1 Z92 in modern Balts so far?

Z93 are probably not ethnic Lithuanians, Latvians. 4 samples of M458 in Latvia. Hm, this is interesting, can you post a link to that database so I can check their surnames? Since that contradicts the previous study of non-existance of M458 in Latvia (4 of 13 is not 3%).

CTS3402 proportion in Lithuanian samples is crazy. It is like the 90% or so (29 of 33). I ignore Z93 since at least in Latvian project their surnames are Jewish usually.

parastais
03-09-2016, 08:53 AM
I checked Latvia project in ftdna

M458 Latvian (found only 2)
Jankel Benjaminsohn, b.c.1777, Kuldiga, Latvia
Jacob Oja b.

Z93 Latvian
Elia Trupin, b. bef. 1800, Dinaburg, Latvia
Blums c.1870
James J. Leigh (Levy)

Hmm, Blums is actually common surname in Latvia. Other folk above is not ethnic Latvian.

Z92+ there were 3 results, but one was Russian from Kirov region, Semko-Witkiewitz (not really Latvian). Maybe Makar Tschukis d. 1937 although I dont know such personal name Makar, surname though ends in -is, so might be Baltic.

Edit: cts3402+ look Latvian. Although one Finn and one possibly Lithuanian (Matas Kaubre) is in.

Edit2: has z92 really anything to do with (modern) Balts?

Gravetto-Danubian
03-09-2016, 09:28 AM
I am not so literate in R1a tree yet. So, only 1 Z92 in modern Balts so far?

Z93 are probably not ethnic Lithuanians, Latvians. 4 samples of M458 in Latvia. Hm, this is interesting, can you post a link to that database so I can check their surnames? Since that contradicts the previous study of non-existance of M458 in Latvia (4 of 13 is not 3%).

CTS3402 proportion in Lithuanian samples is crazy. It is like the 90% or so (29 of 33). I ignore Z93 since at least in Latvian project their surnames are Jewish usually.

I suspect most Z93 are Jewish gentlemen, or ? Roma ancestry. Probably as in elsewhere in modern Eastern Europe.
All the data I got is just by counting form the ftDNA R1a project.

Im also surprised by the low Z92 count. It must be a recent expansion phenomenon limited to East Slavs. So far, I've seen 5 or so cases in Balkan Slavs.

parastais
03-09-2016, 10:26 AM
Z92 bothers me a lot.
Does anyone have a map with z92 estimated frequencies?

I start to feel we dont have more Z92 than M458... to be precise we have neither of those.

Instead most (80-90%??) of our R1a comes from subbranch under cts3402, which probably have some implications on Baltic ethnogenesys.

Need to go deeper like in N1c, maybe in the end most of us (Balts) are paternal descendants of one early bce R1a guy and one early bce N1c guy :))

Michał
03-09-2016, 03:01 PM
Here are the relevant data from the R1a project:

Lithuania (n=65)
Y17491 -1
M458 - 14
Z280>CTS1211 - 24
Z280>Z92 -14
Z284 - 1
Z93 - 11

Latvia (n=14)
L664 - 1
M458 - 2
Z280>CTS1211 - 7
Z280>Z92 - 1
Z93 - 3

It seems clear that the contribution of Z92 is much stronger among the Lithuanians (and among people originating from East Prussia, NE Poland and NW Belarus, which has not been shown here) than among among the Latvians.
Among the CTS1211 subclades, the most frequent are YP951 and YP420 (both under the "Baltic" clade YP237) and, quite surprisingly, Y2902 (which is a major "Slavic" subclade under CTS1211).
I can provide a more detailed list of subclades, if required.

Importantly, nearly all cases of Z93 are either Ashkenazi Jews (from both major Ashkenazi subclades) or Lithuanian Tatars (likely over-represented here). Also, some of the M458 cases are from the Ashkenazi cluster YP1013-A (under the East Slavic clade YP417).

parastais
03-09-2016, 06:59 PM
It seems clear that the contribution of Z92 is much stronger among the Lithuanians (and among people originating from East Prussia, NE Poland and NW Belarus, which has not been shown here) than among among the Latvians.
Among the CTS1211 subclades, the most frequent are YP951 and YP420 (both under the "Baltic" clade YP237) and, quite surprisingly, Y2902 (which is a major "Slavic" subclade under CTS1211).
I can provide a more detailed list of subclades, if required.

I would love to see a more detailed list. For example if those "Slavic" subclades are more in Lithuania or Latvia or evenly. In general what kind of differences there are in Latvia vs Lithuania.

Is there a way I can find that info myself in some Excel kind of format? I want to also check the surnames to see if persons there are of Latvian/ Lithuanian origin.

parastais
03-09-2016, 10:05 PM
Checked Yfull estimates
YP237 - the "Baltic" clade - formed 4300 ybp, TMRCA 3800 ybp
-----------YP951 - formed 3800 ybp, TMRCA 2500 ybp
-----------YP420 - formed 3800 ybp, TMRCA 3600 ybp
Y2902 - the "Slavic" clade - formed 4300 ybp, TMRCA 2200 ybp. So, early AD some Slavic tribe/clan became part of Balts? Or rather not full clan, but part of Slavic clan Y2902 entered Balts. (If that was Latvian case, there are some speculations about assimilation of some Krivichi folk by Latgalians).

Z92 in Lithuanians seems quite frequent indeed 14 Z92 vs 24 CTS1211. What are the subclades there?

Also interesting how to interpret existence of Z92 in Lithuanians and former Prussian lands and not existence in Latvians. Z92 - West Balts? Or South West Balts? Or simply Latvians as very small population were prone to just losing that line.

In general a lot of R1a founding fathers for us. Not as simple as N-M2783. Formed 2600 ybp, TMRCA 2600 ybp.

Michał
03-09-2016, 10:06 PM
Is there a way I can find that info myself in some Excel kind of format?
Please send me a PM with your email address, so I will give you all the details.

parastais
03-10-2016, 06:23 PM
I checked 14 Latvian cases and applied my Latvianity radar :D

3 marked as non-Latvian, had 2 Z93, 1 M458. Paternal ancestors - Hilson, Benjaminson, Jossel Mosibovski.
5 marked as maybe. More like No, but some features might be Latvian. For example - Rick Leitt (YP237 Baltic) has Leitt as surname, possibly derived from Leitis (Latvian word that means 'Lithuanian'). August Franz Rinning (M458), possibly Baltic German. Samson Smigun (YP237 Baltic), the surname Šmiguns is not Latvian, but it is known in Baltics (Latvia, Estonia). Petris Kokorwisz b.17** (Z92) could be Latvian Pēteris with Polish surname of Kokarēvičs type. Or could be not. Last one - Gordon Kruse (YP1034 under CTS1211), might be Latvian Krūze (Cup), but might as well be Jewish Gordon.
6 marked as Latvian.
Zutis (L664),
Rosenthal/Rozentāls and Fabriciuss (both Z280>CTS1211-B>YP1019-A-x1 (YP1019,YP4969,YP4970 not tested, Big Y needed)).
Feldmanis Y2613 and Richter/Rihters Y33 (both CTS3402), but strange ones - Y33 (pre Slavs) and Y2613 (Northern Cluster). Ok, maybe Jiri Richters got some Slavic ancestry?
Blums (Z93).

Hm, so of 6 Latvians
1 Scandinavian L664
1 possibly Jewish Z93
2 CTS3402
2 CTS1211

And the 5 maybes.
2 YP237
1 M458
1 Z92
1 1034.

Not much more clarity than before :)

parastais
03-10-2016, 06:32 PM
Lithuanian Z92+ so far looks like from East Prussia or around.

Michał
03-10-2016, 06:35 PM
Z92 bothers me a lot.
Does anyone have a map with z92 estimated frequencies?
Z92 has rarely (if ever) been tested in previous research studies, so I doubt such a map exists. However, here is a map (by Igor Rozhanskii) that should help you a bit in this respect: https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?ll=52.041397%2C43.932603&spn=17.332806%2C96.840056&ptab=2&hl=en&oe=UTF8&msa=0&source=embed&ie=UTF8&mid=zCFuZT9R8rxg.kMX9UHiC_AJ4
(pink - YP569, yellow - YP270, green - CTS9551, grey - unknown/unclustered)

YP270 (including both CTS4648 and its "slightly more Eastern" brother clade YP351) seems to have been associated mostly with the ancient Yotvingians/Sudovians, although I wouldn't exclude its early presence among some other West Baltic and/or East Baltic tribes.

YP569 is commonly considered an Eastern Slavic subclade. IMO, this was likely an initially East Baltic subclade (associated with the Yukhnov culture?) that was relatively early included in the locally expanding Proto-Slavic population, thus becoming a part of the Late Zarubintsy (Pochep)->Kiev->Kolochin cultures before expanding with the Early Slavs (or more precisely with the ancestors of the Eastern Slavs), mostly northward and eastward. As for the East Baltic (Slavicized) Yukhnov culture, I would also see it as associated with some other subclades under both Z92 (like CTS9551) and YP237 (like YP578). As both Lithuanians and Latvians are commonly believed to have arrived to their today's locations from south-east, they could have also included some East Baltic subclades that were present in the neighboring Yukhnov culture, so at least a small fraction of early YP569 members could have never been Slavicized (being associated with the ancient Lithuanians and other East Balts instead). However, in such case it is difficult to explain why the frequency of YP569 among the Latvians is so low. One possible explanation is that those ancient ancestors of Latvians were initially located north (or rather north-east) of the ancestors of Lithuanians, so their contact with both Yukhnov (YP569) and the Sudovian culture (Yotvingians, YP270) was very limited.



Instead most (80-90%??) of our R1a comes from subbranch under cts3402, which probably have some implications on Baltic ethnogenesys.
CTS3402 and its parental clades Y35 and CTS1211 seem to be relatively old and associated with both Baltic and Slavic ancestry (or with the Balto-Slavs). In fact, if following the Kortland's theory, we should treat the Slavic, East Baltic and West Baltic as three nearly equally distantly related sub-branches of Balto-Slavic, in which case we could also treat Slavic as a third (or "South Baltic") sub-branch within the large Baltic branch. This, in turn, suggests that at least some sufficiently old subclades could have been shared "only" by the Slavs and East Balts (but not by the West Balts) or by the Slavs and West Balts (but not by the East Balts), although I would assume that most of these old subclades, including CTS1211, Y35 and CTS3402 were shared by all three Balto-Slavic branches.

Let me also point your attention to the four less known subclades under CTS1211 that are parallel to the major subclades Y35 and YP343. Two of them (YP1034 and YP4932) seem to be quite securely associated with deep Baltic ancestry. IMO, the same is probably true for the two remaining subclades, although I would suspect that YP1019 was partially assimilated by the Proto-Slavs (so it likely originated close to the Proto-Slavic homeland), while YP1147 seems to be associated mostly with Finnish ancestry, so one could assume that it originated close to the Northern (or North-Eastern) periphery of the ancient Baltic (Balto-Slavic) territory.


Need to go deeper like in N1c, maybe in the end most of us (Balts) are paternal descendants of one early bce R1a guy and one early bce N1c guy :))
As you well know, I suspect (quite strongly) that N1c was first introduced to the Baltic population only in the second half of the first millennium AD.

Michał
03-10-2016, 06:42 PM
Feldmanis Y2613 and Richter/Rihters Y33 (both CTS3402), but strange ones - Y33 (pre Slavs) and Y2613 (Northern Cluster).
Please check this old post of mine: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4967-The-origin-of-the-Slavs&p=127797&viewfull=1#post127797

Tomenable
03-10-2016, 07:05 PM
I suspect (quite strongly) that N1c was first introduced to the Baltic population only in the second half of the first millennium AD.

We actually have Iron Age samples of ancient DNA from cultures which are considered Baltic, and there is N1c there.

I'm talking about Chekunova 2014, sample A5 - "Devichi gory" burial - dated to 800-400 BC, Y-DNA: N1c, mtDNA: H2

Michał
03-10-2016, 07:11 PM
We actually have Iron Age samples of ancient DNA from cultures which are considered Baltic, and there is N1c there.

I'm talking about Chekunova 2014, sample A5 - "Devichi gory" burial - dated to 800-400 BC, Y-DNA: N1c, mtDNA: H2
What I had in mind was of course N1c-M2783 (a clade that contributes to the vast majority of N1c among the Balts), not the remaining subclades under N1c that are very rare in this region today (and don't show any specific association with the Balts).

Tomenable
03-10-2016, 07:19 PM
And how do you know what subclade was that A5 sample from Chekunova?

As far as I know such info has not been published yet. It could be N-M2783.

Michał
03-10-2016, 07:41 PM
And how do you know what subclade was that A5 sample from Chekunova?
As far as I know such info has not been published yet. It could be N-M2783.
Right, I cannot rule this out, yet I find it extremely unlikely, mostly because N1c-M2783 seem to have arrived to the SE Baltic region from the North (where all "brothers" and "cousins" of M2783 are seen today), and 800-400 BC is roughly when N1c-M2783 is supposed to have been born.

parastais
03-10-2016, 07:42 PM
We actually have Iron Age samples of ancient DNA from cultures which are considered Baltic, and there is N1c there.

I'm talking about Chekunova 2014, sample A5 - "Devichi gory" burial - dated to 800-400 BC, Y-DNA: N1c, mtDNA: H2
Tomenable, it is 400-800 AD...

edit: it is from I think Pskov Long Barrows, which are associated with one or all of Krivichi, Balts, Finno - Ugrians, each archaeologist has his own opinion. My feeling is that all 3 were involved in this culture in different roles.

Tomenable
03-10-2016, 08:34 PM
mostly because N1c-M2783 seem to have arrived to the SE Baltic region from the North (where all "brothers" and "cousins" of M2783 are seen today)

Maybe "brothers and cousins" came from the South to the North instead ???

Ultimately all of N1c has an Eastern origin (like generally haplogroup N).


Tomenable, it is 400-800 AD...

Oh, indeed. Thanks for noticing that mistake.

So it is even more probable, that it is M2783.

lgmayka
03-10-2016, 08:50 PM
the North (where all "brothers" and "cousins" of M2783 are seen today)
The brother of M2783 is Y4706, which is found in Polish kits 172478 and N9209.

parastais
03-10-2016, 08:51 PM
Maybe "brothers and cousins" came from the South to the North instead ???
Ultimately all of N1c has an Eastern origin (like generally haplogroup N).

Occam's razor. They came from North to South.

VL29+ most probably expanded with this culture:
http://www.sarks.fi/fa/PDF/FA13_51.pdf
Check figure 1. Area 3. 1500-1000 BCE. Then to Area 2. Somewhere in area 2 M2783+ was born, some early centuries BCE. L550+ dad of L1025 is West Finland, Central Sweden. L1025+ dad of M2783+ is West Finland and Sweddish/Finnish islands.

So, did M2783+ left his parents house before they went to West Finland/Central Sweden (that is if they went there instead of being born there) or after? We will get more info once the Finnish iron age a-dna project is done. Hopefully some results end of this year?

Michał
03-10-2016, 08:54 PM
Maybe "brothers and cousins" came from the South to the North instead ???
Possible, but this is definitely not what the phylogeny suggests as the most likely option. We have already discussed this in another thread (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1712-N1c-in-the-Balts&p=120380&viewfull=1#post120380), so let's use this thread for R1a only.

parastais
03-10-2016, 08:54 PM
Not true. The brother of M2783 is Y4706, which is found in Polish kits 172478 and N9209.
Hmm. That is interesting.
Most of Y4706 however is West Finland/Central Sweden, right? Or could it be that those areas are simply overrepresented by more people doing their dna checks?

parastais
03-10-2016, 08:58 PM
Possible, but this is definitely not what the phylogeny suggests as the most likely option. We have already discussed this in another thread (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1712-N1c-in-the-Balts&p=120380&viewfull=1#post120380), so let's use this thread for R1a only.
Agreed. Put my proposal re Net Ware Culture in relevant thread on N1c in the Balts.

parastais
03-10-2016, 09:22 PM
Lithuanian Z92+ so far looks like from East Prussia or around.
No, it is not. It is everywhere. Few cases from Kaunas and some possible hotspot(?) in NorthEast Lithuania (Selonians?). Interesting.
________
So, I marked 39 Lithuanians as ethnic Lithuanians.
8 - M458
4 - CTS1211-B
15 - CTS3402 (under CTS1211)
9 - Z92
3 - did not get them, but not of either above. (3. M420>M459>M198>M417>Z645>Z283>Z282>Y17491-A1-x (one more Big Y needed); 8. ..>Z284>S4458>S5301>S5153>L448>CTS4179>(CLFY1?)>YP704* (Big Y needed); Z2. Unassigned low resolution 12/25 STRs results [predicted or tested as M417+] (more STRs, R1a-Backbone SNP Pack or Big Y needed))

Sumary:
19 (52.8% of R1a) - CTS 1211
.......15 (41.7%) - CTS3402+
........4 (11.1%) - CTS1211-B
9 (25%) - Z92+
8 (22.2% of R1a) - M458+

parastais
03-10-2016, 09:37 PM
Among the CTS1211 subclades, the most frequent are YP951 and YP420 (both under the "Baltic" clade YP237) and, quite surprisingly, Y2902 (which is a major "Slavic" subclade under CTS1211).
There are 5 such cases:
Alexander Maslov - Russian?
Dmitri Stieben - no idea, could have some Lithuanian ancestry, is there a word like Stiebenis/Stiebenas?
Viktor Kotvicki - from Lida, Belarus
Giedrius Raguckas - Marijampole, Lithuanian
Mr. Jiri Richters - Johann Richter, d.1753, Polen-Litauen, from Latvia. I put him as Latvian but who knows :)

One of them Raguckas is clearly ethnic Lithuanian (name, surname). Rest of them are doubtful.

Gravetto-Danubian
03-10-2016, 11:50 PM
Tomenable, it is 400-800 AD...

edit: it is from I think Pskov Long Barrows, which are associated with one or all of Krivichi, Balts, Finno - Ugrians, each archaeologist has his own opinion. My feeling is that all 3 were involved in this culture in different roles.

Psekov long barrows have nothing to do with Slavs. They're Balticized Finns. Slavs did not exist in northern Russia in the 5th century !
Try 9th century

Gravetto-Danubian
03-10-2016, 11:56 PM
No, it is not. It is everywhere. Few cases from Kaunas and some possible hotspot(?) in NorthEast Lithuania (Selonians?). Interesting.
________
So, I marked 39 Lithuanians as ethnic Lithuanians.
8 - M458
4 - CTS1211-B
15 - CTS3402 (under CTS1211)
9 - Z92
3 - did not get them, but not of either above. (3. M420>M459>M198>M417>Z645>Z283>Z282>Y17491-A1-x (one more Big Y needed); 8. ..>Z284>S4458>S5301>S5153>L448>CTS4179>(CLFY1?)>YP704* (Big Y needed); Z2. Unassigned low resolution 12/25 STRs results [predicted or tested as M417+] (more STRs, R1a-Backbone SNP Pack or Big Y needed))

Sumary:
19 (52.8% of R1a) - CTS 1211
.......15 (41.7%) - CTS3402+
........4 (11.1%) - CTS1211-B
9 (25%) - Z92+
8 (22.2% of R1a) - M458+

Yes I think CTS3402 is indeed a common Balto-Slavic marker. It appears to be common in Balkans (20/104 = 19%) of R1a. - esp Croats

But the most common form in Balkans is Y33- CTS8816 (33/104 = 31%) - esp Serbs and Bosnians
Worth mentioning - almost 20% of R1a is L1029, also. (due to ? an unusually heavy representation in ftDNA Bulgarians; whilst in Underhill 2014 it wasn't too common there, but was common in Croats).

parastais
03-11-2016, 05:58 AM
Psekov long barrows have nothing to do with Slavs. They're Balticized Finns. Slavs did not exist in northern Russia in the 5th century !
Try 9th century
I wish I had your categorism. I have nothing against claiming Pskov long barrows (or about any culture on this planet) as a Baltic or Balticized culture :))
And if that N was ours (Baltic), it would be a good proof!

And also they definately had a Baltic component. And Finnic. But there still are speculations of Kriviches as pre-Slavs speaking some pre-proto-Slavic, like Early or Middle Common Slavic. Which phonetically seem to sound so Latvian (not Lithuanian !!) that I do not mind such speculation :)

Gravetto-Danubian
03-11-2016, 07:00 AM
I wish I had your categorism. I have nothing against claiming Pskov long barrows (or about any culture on this planet) as a Baltic or Balticized culture :))
And if that N was ours (Baltic), it would be a good proof!

And also they definately had a Baltic component. And Finnic. But there still are speculations of Kriviches as pre-Slavs speaking some pre-proto-Slavic, like Early or Middle Common Slavic. Which phonetically seem to sound so Latvian (not Lithuanian !!) that I do not mind such speculation :)

I think one problem is their dating, which is broad 5 - 8/9 even 10th century. IF so, then 5th century cannot be Slavic in northern Russia. Nor do the barrows have any similarities with typical Slavic burial rite of cremation in urns or flat pits. Also mitigating against their Slavic affinity is that fact they appear to have moved south from north, and the fact that contemporous & south of this culture was the Middle Tushemlja - which is Baltic

See:
* "North-western Russia before its settling by Slavs". Juskova
* "Migrants or natives? The research History of Long barros in Russia & Estonia in the 5th - 10th centuries". Andres Tvuari.
* "The Emergence of Rus" (book); Franklin & Shephard.

Belarus & northern Russia only began to be Slavonized c. 8th century, and after.

RobertCasey
03-11-2016, 07:11 AM
I have no R1a ancestry (that I know of) but due to the Terminal YSNP field of the YSTR reports, I now have to pull all R haplotypes and then expand the terminal YSNP to a meaningful string of YSNP mutations. This spreadsheet only includes 67 marker tests and the YSNP sequence is only based on the Terminal YSNP field in the YSTR reports. I am experimenting with a meaningful string of YSNPs that replace the single terminal YSNP. This report includes 4,284 R1a submissions with 67 markers and has the origins field with the following: Lithuania (72), Latvia (14) and Estonia (6). I am looking for comments on how somebody who is not familiar has sorted the YSNPs (there are some obvious errors since this work is not fine tuned to date). I thought this first pull of R1a could be useful to this thread. I do not expect to regularly pull R1a data all the time. I was very surprised to see the L21>Z253>L226 signature overlap with R1a tests - but they all have 20 + genetic distance where R1b limited pulls have no convergence into the L226 signature.

www.rcasey.net/DNA/Temp/R1a_Master_20160301B.xlsx (http://www.rcasey.net/DNA/Temp/R1a_Master_20160301B.xlsx)

parastais
03-11-2016, 07:15 AM
Thanks. I ve read those, but good list for reference to re-read when needed. But also I have read new Finnish linguists who find middle common slavic (300 - 500 AD) loanwords in Finnish and cant get their heads around it.
Their explanation is either trade contacts with Veneds or some very East (not Pskov) early pre-Slavic migration. Since those loans are more in Northern Finnish than Southern Finnish/Baltic, Pskov indeed does not work. So, I agree, does not seem Slavic.

Overall situation is very complicated. Another thing that is coming trendy is that Balts themselves expanded East to Belarus/Moscow only first centuries AD.. which is so untraditional that I cant get my own head around it :))

Gravetto-Danubian
03-11-2016, 07:48 AM
Thanks. I ve read those, but good list for reference to re-read when needed. But also I have read new Finnish linguists who find middle common slavic (300 - 500 AD) loanwords in Finnish and cant get their heads around it.
Their explanation is either trade contacts with Veneds or some very East (not Pskov) early pre-Slavic migration. Since those loans are more in Northern Finnish than Southern Finnish/Baltic, Pskov indeed does not work. So, I agree, does not seem Slavic.

Overall situation is very complicated. Another thing that is coming trendy is that Balts themselves expanded East to Belarus/Moscow only first centuries AD.. which is so untraditional that I cant get my own head around it :))

Its impossible to date loans words with absolute precision . So I'd that linguists is pulling things out of his tuhus

parastais
03-11-2016, 08:14 AM
Its impossible to date loans words with absolute precision . So I'd that linguists is pulling things out of his tuhus
You dont need absolute, but it is math and you can get quite a level of precision. Particular loanwords into Finnish are from Slavic branch before sound changes that makes Middle Common Slavic into LCS (which in turn goes into Proto-Slavic).
Here on history of Proto-Slavic
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Proto-Slavic

There were charlatan linguists with agendas that made a bad name to science, but Finns that I have read treat language pretty much algorythmically (not to say mathematically).

Since I have privilege to live in Latvia and know some languages/ dialects, I see exactly how sound changes work and how strictly they are applied: Latvian vowels into Latgalian, Lithuanian k, g palatization in Latvian into c, dz before i/e, and so on.

It follows strict logical chain.

Shaikorth
03-11-2016, 08:39 AM
Thanks. I ve read those, but good list for reference to re-read when needed. But also I have read new Finnish linguists who find middle common slavic (300 - 500 AD) loanwords in Finnish and cant get their heads around it.
Their explanation is either trade contacts with Veneds or some very East (not Pskov) early pre-Slavic migration. Since those loans are more in Northern Finnish than Southern Finnish/Baltic, Pskov indeed does not work. So, I agree, does not seem Slavic.


Were South Estonian languages (Seto, Vőro) included in these studies?

parastais
03-11-2016, 09:25 AM
Were South Estonian languages (Seto, Vőro) included in these studies?
Cant find that exact study, but I think they did. Will recheck once find.
But found this good article by Kallio:
On the Earliest Slavic Loanwords in Finnic.
Cant put it as link from mobile, but you can google it up, free article.

Shaikorth
03-11-2016, 10:19 AM
Cant find that exact study, but I think they did. Will recheck once find.
But found this good article by Kallio:
On the Earliest Slavic Loanwords in Finnic.
Cant put it as link from mobile, but you can google it up, free article.

This article makes a good point:

http://oi66.tinypic.com/23hshec.jpg

It wouldn't be too odd if there was a 5th century AD Slavic wave that gave some loanwords and then vanished before the main one from which modern Slavs of the region have linguistic continuity arrived. However it would be really odd if that early wave left loans only to northern Baltic Finnic instead of southern ones or the proto-stage, if that happened the proposed "trader" scenario is more likely. The paper proposes that the loans insofar as they exist are in Early Proto-Finnic though, and that would mean the southern languages have or had them too.

Volat
03-11-2016, 10:42 AM
As you well know, I suspect (quite strongly) that N1c was first introduced to the Baltic population only in the second half of the first millennium AD.

N1c was found in western Smolensk and southern Pskov dated to around 4,500 ybp. The region is upper western Dvina (Daugava) being the same archaeological complex to northern Belarus and eastern Latvia. Historically, this is Baltic speaking region.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQMlJFLUlUb3hkb2M/view

Volat
03-11-2016, 10:57 AM
Thanks. I ve read those, but good list for reference to re-read when needed. But also I have read new Finnish linguists who find middle common slavic (300 - 500 AD) loanwords in Finnish and cant get their heads around it.
Their explanation is either trade contacts with Veneds or some very East (not Pskov) early pre-Slavic migration. Since those loans are more in Northern Finnish than Southern Finnish/Baltic, Pskov indeed does not work. So, I agree, does not seem Slavic.

Overall situation is very complicated. Another thing that is coming trendy is that Balts themselves expanded East to Belarus/Moscow only first centuries AD.. which is so untraditional that I cant get my own head around it :))


There were two groups of Kriviches. Those living in the north – Pskov next to Estonia. And those living in Smolensk and large part of Belarus.

The first group had Baltic Finnic component, possibly Baltic. The second group had plenty of Baltic ancestry.

Kriviches ancestry is subject of a debate. If anyone states Smolensk Kriviches were Balts then he or she is effectively implying that Belarusians are more Balts than Slavs. We should not get carried away with Kriviches having plenty non-Slavic anestry. Afterall Kriviches spoke Slavic language, while their neighbours Latgalians spoke Baltic.

PS I saw genetic profile of a 100% Pskovian. Genetically , he was identical to me. I know for a fact I am not a Finn.

Michał
03-11-2016, 11:17 AM
N1c was found in western Smolensk and southern Pskov dated to around 4,500 ybp.
The Balts did not exist yet in 2500 BC (and the Baltic clade N1c-M2783 is about 2000 years younger).

Volat
03-11-2016, 11:26 AM
The Balts did not exist yet in 2500 BC (and the Baltic clade N1c-M2783 is about 2000 years younger).

The Balts fell from the skies at some point in time? The term 'Balt' as metaethnicity is 19th century invention by a German scholar. Of course, Balts did not exist back then, but their ancestors were around in the aforementioned region.

Gravetto-Danubian
03-11-2016, 11:33 AM
You dont need absolute, but it is math and you can get quite a level of precision. Particular loanwords into Finnish are from Slavic branch before sound changes that makes Middle Common Slavic into LCS (which in turn goes into Proto-Slavic).
Here on history of Proto-Slavic
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Proto-Slavic

There were charlatan linguists with agendas that made a bad name to science, but Finns that I have read treat language pretty much algorythmically (not to say mathematically).

Since I have privilege to live in Latvia and know some languages/ dialects, I see exactly how sound changes work and how strictly they are applied: Latvian vowels into Latgalian, Lithuanian k, g palatization in Latvian into c, dz before i/e, and so on.

It follows strict logical chain.

Ok. Kallio is a good linguist, as is his mentor, the great Kortlandt.
But here is the thing:

- But we can only estimate absolute chronology. Although their relative chronology is, needless to say, spot on.

- I can give at least 2 examples why Kortland dates Common Slavic too early, IMO:

(1) Kortland gives a dates for the metathasis of the liquids to the the very period you allude to - his "Common Slavic" (300 - 600 AD). But 8th and 9th century seals from Greece, of Slavic archontes have names like Dargaskavos, removing the Greek distortion (-> Dargaslav) and invoking the metathasis would give Dragoslav (a name we would all now recognise). Moreover, 6th and 7th century Byzantine texts speak of Perbundos -> Perdud -> ? Prebud / Prvibud. So, quite clearly this was still occurring in the 6-9th century, and had not finished by then (He notes that , but concludes that is simply a case of Bulgaro-Macedonian lagging behind on this innovation, which is not based on solid evidence.

(2) He assumes that language change was 'steady as she goes'. Instead, language change occurs in bursts, is unequal in pace. Given the upheavels of 400 - 600 AD in EE that period would have been one of marked change compared to preceding hundreds of years.

(3) Bjornflanten dates the earliest Slavic - Baltic loans to c 750 - 850 AD (based on two cases of preserved liquid diphthongs).

(4) Interestingly, it is sometimes argued that the earliest Slavic loans into Finnic are from West Slavic, not East Slavic

But really, language evidence has to be consistent with what is possible - and i think the archaeological evidence for Slavs in the northern areas is transparently lacking before the 8th / 9th century.
Even allowing for earlier contacts than that, it doesn't imply actual colonization. All the was required was some contact, somewhere.

Gravetto-Danubian
03-11-2016, 11:38 AM
The Balts did not exist yet in 2500 BC (and the Baltic clade N1c-M2783 is about 2000 years younger).


The Balts fell from the skies at some point in time? The term 'Balt' as metaethnicity is 19th century invention by a German scholar. Of course, Balts did not exist back then, but their ancestors were around in the aforementioned region.

I don;t think a Baltic langauge existed in 2500 BC. Back then, we are still dealing with some common northern Indo-European spoken by Corded Ware groups.

Shaikorth
03-11-2016, 11:46 AM
I don;t think a Baltic langauge existed in 2500 BC. Back then, we are still dealing with some common northern Indo-European spoken by Corded Ware groups.

There is also the question of whether any of modern northwestern IE branches, be they Germanic, Balto-slavic etc. are derived from Corded Ware of that particular region.

Gravetto-Danubian
03-11-2016, 11:56 AM
There is also the question of whether any of modern northwestern IE branches, be they Germanic, Balto-slavic etc. are derived from Corded Ware of that particular region.

IMO, distantly related, but not directly descended. There have been several bottleneck- expansion cycles since the Bronze Age - which accounts for the now domination of northern Europe by 2 major families - Germanic and Balto-Slavic.

Shaikorth
03-11-2016, 12:06 PM
IMO, distantly related, but not directly descended. There have been several bottleneck- expansion cycles since the Bronze Age - which accounts for the now domination of northern Europe by 2 major families - Germanic and Balto-Slavic.

Agreed. I think the direct ancestor was located further to the south.

Volat
03-11-2016, 12:28 PM
There is also the question of whether any of modern northwestern IE branches, be they Germanic, Balto-slavic etc. are derived from Corded Ware of that particular region.

I think there maybe. There hasn't enough ancient DNA tested to confirm it. Sintashta individiuals are genetically related to many modern day Slavs. Sintasasta (southern Ural) is related to Abashevo (East European plain) culture. Abashevo culture is related to Fatyanovo which is an eastern extension of Corded Ware. If we test Abashevo and Fatyanovo (eastern Corded Ware) I suspect they will be close matches to modern people. Of course, modern day populations are a mixtures of many populations and different migrations of the last 4,000 years.

parastais
03-11-2016, 12:59 PM
(4) Interestingly, it is sometimes argued that the earliest Slavic loans into Finnic are from West Slavic, not East Slavic

Even allowing for earlier contacts than that, it doesn't imply actual colonization. All the was required was some contact, somewhere.
I agree to those points of your statement where I have some knowledge and not gonna argue the others, i.e. whether Kortlandt was right or wrong in his assessments. Arguments you presented sound valid.

I specifically quoted this point 4, since in that article (that I still cant find), it was specifically mentioned as most likely explanation. It being (trade) contacts with Vends from modern Poland territory.

Volat
03-11-2016, 01:48 PM
(4) Interestingly, it is sometimes argued that the earliest Slavic loans into Finnic are from West Slavic, not East Slavic

The Novgorodian dialect (north-western Russia closest to Finns) is enigma to us. Some linguists (Zalizniak) stated Novgorodian was most similar to west Slavic language, while other linguists suggested it was a separate branch of the Slavic languages.

Shaikorth
03-11-2016, 02:01 PM
The Novgorodian dialect (north-western Russia closest to Finns) is enigma to us. Some linguists (Zalizniak) stated Novgorodian was most similar to west Slavic language, while other linguists suggested was a separate branch of Slavic language.

Apparently he groups Novgorodian with Pskovian. Still it would be hard to say whether early Proto-Finnic, around Lake Pskov, would have received West Slavic or pseudo-West Slavic loans from an actual migration or just from some travelling merchant from Poland.

"Zaliznyak divides the East Slavic area into two dialectal groupings: Proto-Novgorodian-Pskovian on one side, singled out chiefly on the basis of two instances lacking second palatalization of velars and the ending -e in nominative singular of masculine o-stems, and all the remaining East Slavic dialects on the other."

Volat
03-11-2016, 02:29 PM
Apparently he groups Novgorodian with Pskovian. Still it would be hard to say whether early Proto-Finnic, around Lake Pskov, would have received West Slavic or pseudo-West Slavic loans from an actual migration or just from some travelling merchant from Poland.

"Zaliznyak divides the East Slavic area into two dialectal groupings: Proto-Novgorodian-Pskovian on one side, singled out chiefly on the basis of two instances lacking second palatalization of velars and the ending -e in nominative singular of masculine o-stems, and all the remaining East Slavic dialects on the other."



As a someone who speaks and understands three east Slavic languages and west Slavic language Polish I can say that the Novgorodian dialect attested on birch barks is unique. I cannot understand Novgorodian without interpretation. I can point you to a thesis of a girl who stated that the Novgorodian dialect is most similar to west Slavic languages.

Pskovians being linguistically and culturally similar to Novgordians make sense. I am talking about northern Pskovians, because southern Pskovians were similar to people of Smolensk and Belarus.


PS Kriviches of Pskov , Smolensk and Belarus are my ancestors. I can speak about them forever.

parastais
03-11-2016, 08:09 PM
Z92 has rarely (if ever) been tested in previous research studies, so I doubt such a map exists. However, here is a map (by Igor Rozhanskii) that should help you a bit in this respect: https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?ll=52.041397%2C43.932603&spn=17.332806%2C96.840056&ptab=2&hl=en&oe=UTF8&msa=0&source=embed&ie=UTF8&mid=zCFuZT9R8rxg.kMX9UHiC_AJ4
(pink - YP569, yellow - YP270, green - CTS9551, grey - unknown/unclustered)

YP270 (including both CTS4648 and its "slightly more Eastern" brother clade YP351) seems to have been associated mostly with the ancient Yotvingians/Sudovians, although I wouldn't exclude its early presence among some other West Baltic and/or East Baltic tribes.
I agree with this theory regarding Yotvingians (Sudinoi). There is nothing to dispute. Only possible question is why there are no Yotvingians from East Prussia. There was a Sudovian corner in East Prussia settled by Yotvingians if I recall it right. Possibly one can find reasons for it.



YP569 is commonly considered an Eastern Slavic subclade. IMO, this was likely an initially East Baltic subclade (associated with the Yukhnov culture?) that was relatively early included in the locally expanding Proto-Slavic population, thus becoming a part of the Late Zarubintsy (Pochep)->Kiev->Kolochin cultures before expanding with the Early Slavs (or more precisely with the ancestors of the Eastern Slavs), mostly northward and eastward. As for the East Baltic (Slavicized) Yukhnov culture, I would also see it as associated with some other subclades under both Z92 (like CTS9551) and YP237 (like YP578). As both Lithuanians and Latvians are commonly believed to have arrived to their today's locations from south-east, they could have also included some East Baltic subclades that were present in the neighboring Yukhnov culture, so at least a small fraction of early YP569 members could have never been Slavicized (being associated with the ancient Lithuanians and other East Balts instead). However, in such case it is difficult to explain why the frequency of YP569 among the Latvians is so low. One possible explanation is that those ancient ancestors of Latvians were initially located north (or rather north-east) of the ancestors of Lithuanians, so their contact with both Yukhnov (YP569) and the Sudovian culture (Yotvingians, YP270) was very limited.
Pink guys might as well have been Galindians. They possibly left their corner in Prussia to go East and become Golyads of Russian Chronicles. I think Baltic hydronims there are (also?) of West Baltic character (must, check, Toropov, again), so they could easily form a substrate for Vyatiches and what not.
It would make some sense that clans of both geographically and I think ethnically close Sudinoi and Galindoi were both different subclades of Z92.
Only issue is same as with Sudovians, no sample from East Prussia...



CTS3402 and its parental clades Y35 and CTS1211 seem to be relatively old and associated with both Baltic and Slavic ancestry (or with the Balto-Slavs). In fact, if following the Kortland's theory, we should treat the Slavic, East Baltic and West Baltic as three nearly equally distantly related sub-branches of Balto-Slavic, in which case we could also treat Slavic as a third (or "South Baltic") sub-branch within the large Baltic branch. This, in turn, suggests that at least some sufficiently old subclades could have been shared "only" by the Slavs and East Balts (but not by the West Balts) or by the Slavs and West Balts (but not by the East Balts), although I would assume that most of these old subclades, including CTS1211, Y35 and CTS3402 were shared by all three Balto-Slavic branches.

Let me also point your attention to the four less known subclades under CTS1211 that are parallel to the major subclades Y35 and CTS343. Two of them (YP1034 and YP4932) seem to be quite securely associated with deep Baltic ancestry. IMO, the same is probably true for the two remaining subclades, although I would suspect that YP1019 was partially assimilated by the Proto-Slavs (so it likely originated close to the Proto-Slavic homeland), while YP1147 seems to be associated mostly with Finnish ancestry, so one could assume that it originated close to the Northern (or North-Eastern) periphery of the ancient Baltic (Balto-Slavic) territory.

Distribution for those clades can be seen from same source as your Z92 link?

parastais
03-11-2016, 08:46 PM
Ok, checked quickly (with ctrl+F relevant subclade+) in ftdna East Prussia project.
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Ostpreussen_East_Prussia?iframe=ysnp
cts1211+ - 13 guys
Z92+ - 1 guy YP270+, the Yotwingian from Sudovian corner? - (188911 Ludwig Ermis (J), 1822-1911, East Prussia)
M458+ - 1 guy

Hmm, reminds of Latvian R1a distribution results.

Some more interesting folk. R1a CTS1211*
71994 Franz Pallaschke, b.1883, Buddern (Budry/Poland). Comes from Poland, but surname is clearly Baltic.

And a guy L1025+, but M2782- and Y4706- (!!)
435081 Yakov Bulaveshka (Beloveshkin) b.1786 N-FGC13372. This is interesting case, L1025*. Name surname is Slavic no doubt.

Michał
03-12-2016, 12:54 AM
I agree with this theory regarding Yotvingians (Sudinoi). There is nothing to dispute. Only possible question is why there are no Yotvingians from East Prussia. There was a Sudovian corner in East Prussia settled by Yotvingians if I recall it right. Possibly one can find reasons for it.
It seems that a large proportion of the Yotvingians has left East Prussia when fleeing from the Teutonic Order (mostly heading towards Poland and Belarus/Lithuania). Many of those who stayed home were soon resettled, for example to Sambia (where the Ermis lineage is from). There is also a relatively young hypothetical subclade under YP270>CTS4686 (marked as CTS4648-B in our project) that includes o couple of related German families from Pomerania, so it seems likely that they were resettled to East Pomerania following its capture by the Teutonic Order (just a couple of decades after Yotvingia was conquered).

I had once a theory suggesting that the Yotvingias were a kind of a "hybrid" Baltic population, with the original West Baltic (Galindian-related) CTS1211-rich grouping called Sudovians (hence the Yotvingians were called Sudovians by the Old Prussians and Germans, but not by their remaining neighbors). This population was likely represented by the so-called Sudovian culture, descending (in part?) from the neighboring Bogaczewo culture (commonly attributed to the Galindians). Later on, there was a significant influx of the East Baltic people (a group likely dominated by YP270), which corresponded to some changes in the burial rite (including the introduction of the Eastern kurgans, IIRC). This group of newcomers could have been named Dainuviais, which is how the East Balts (Lithuanians) have frequently called their Yotvingian neighbors. The resulting hybrid population could have used a slightly modified Sudovian (ie. West Baltic) language with a substantial number of borrowings from East Baltic. The final stage of the Yotvingian ethnogenesis (according to this very hypothetical scenario) was the arrival of some relatively small N1c-M2783-rich groupings of warriors of Scandinavian origin (between 500 and 700 AD) who became a ruling class, while the Old Norse name of their "king" (Játvígr) could have been used since then as a name of the entire tribe (which is indeed an etymology suggested by some linguists).



Pink guys might as well have been Galindians. They possibly left their corner in Prussia to go East and become Golyads of Russian Chronicles. I think Baltic hydronims there are (also?) of West Baltic character (must, check, Toropov, again), so they could easily form a substrate for Vyatiches and what not.
This seems relatively unlikely to me, mostly because YP569 is in fact a huge clade, very common among all Eastern Slavs (Belarusians, Russians and Ukrainians), with the frequency probably exceeding 10% (or at least closely approaching this number) in all these populations. Therefore, it is hard to believe that a relatively small Galindian tribe could have contributed so much to the entire East Slavic Y-DNA pool. This is also one of the main reasons why I suspect that clade YP569 was relatively early included in the Early Slavic (or Proto-Slavic) community, so it became one of the dominant Y-DNA clades in the Eastern part of the Proto-Slavic population (together with I2a-Din, R1a-L1029>YP417 and R1a-Y2902>Y2910).



Only issue is same as with Sudovians, no sample from East Prussia...
Galindia has been actually reported as a totally deserted territory after the conquest by the Teutonic Order was finally completed.



Distribution for those clades can be seen from same source as your Z92 link?
Yes, here is a link to all maps made by Igor: http://r1a.org/3.htm#6. However, you need to be aware that some of those maps include only a small fraction of all known members of a given clade. Also, these were initially maps based on STR-defined clusters, and since not all these clusters have been confirmed as encompassing closely related SNP-defined subclades, the names used by Igor for certain "higher order" groupings can be a bit misleading.

Michał
03-12-2016, 01:01 AM
Some more interesting folk. R1a CTS1211*
71994 Franz Pallaschke, b.1883, Buddern (Budry/Poland). Comes from Poland, but surname is clearly Baltic.
Actually, he is a member of clade YP1034, one of the "Baltic" subclades directly under CTS1211 that were mentioned in one of my previous posts. More specifically, he belongs to a downstream subclade YP4258 (CTS1211>YP1034>YP4258) that also includes a number of Lithuanians.

Gravetto-Danubian
03-12-2016, 01:29 AM
Actually, he is a member of clade YP1034, one of the "Baltic" subclades directly under YP1211 that were mentioned in one of my previous posts. More specifically, he belongs to a downstream subclade YP4258 (CTS1211>YP1034>YP4258) that also includes a number of Lithuanians.

Probably wrong thread to ask on, but do you see any evidence of a Scandinavian founder effect in Poland c. 500 AD ? becuase, in Pomerania at this time, one sees a cluster of Scandinavian graves appearing in otherwsie 'deserted' surroundings

Michał
03-12-2016, 01:57 AM
Probably wrong thread to ask on, but do you see any evidence of a Scandinavian founder effect in Poland c. 500 AD ? becuase, in Pomerania at this time, one sees a cluster of Scandinavian graves appearing in otherwsie 'deserted' surroundings
There is practically no R1a-Z284 in Poland, so the only group of such Polish-Scandinavian subclades I can think about could have been from haplogroup I1 (and maybe N1c). There is at least one relatively young Polish subclade under I1, but I am not an expert in the I1 field, so maybe lgmayka will help you with this, as he knows all Polish subclades from different haplogroups.

Gravetto-Danubian
03-12-2016, 02:23 AM
There is practically no R1a-Z284 in Poland, so the only group of such Polish-Scandinavian subclades I can think about could have been from haplogroup I1 (and maybe N1c). There is at least one relatively young Polish subclade under I1, but I am not an expert in the I1 field, so maybe lgmayka will help you with this, as he knows all Polish subclades from different haplogroups.

Thanks.
What is your impression about the differential patterning of R1a in modern Slavs ? Do envisage a more or less mixed 'core group' with subsequent local 'founder effects' to account for domination of certain subclades incertain areas ?

Gravetto-Danubian
03-12-2016, 02:31 AM
As a someone who speaks and understands three east Slavic languages and west Slavic language Polish I can say that the Novgorodian dialect attested on birch barks is unique. I cannot understand Novgorodian without interpretation. I can point you to a thesis of a girl who stated that the Novgorodian dialect is most similar to west Slavic languages.


'Unique' as in more archaic, or more innovative, or simply unclassifiable in terms of East - West- South Slavic scheme ?

Maybe the earliest proto-Slavic which reached northern Russia was different to later, fully-formed East Slavic .
The former may be linked with 6th century complexes of what I'd call the Szeligi-Khotomel-Kachi-Chelmo horizon which is a distinct group in eastern Poland and south Belarus, or possibly Kolochin culture although IMO the latter is still a 'Balto-Slavic' succesor of Kiev monuments). The true East Slavs, IMO, arrived later, with spread of Romny-Borshevo and Luka-Rajkovsa cultre (?)

http://www.anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8106&d=1457750033
(from Rudnicki; Контакты между западными балтами и славянами в VI—VII вв.: археологические данные)

yes, please share that thesis you alluded to.


I think there maybe. There hasn't enough ancient DNA tested to confirm it. Sintashta individiuals are genetically related to many modern day Slavs. Sintasasta (southern Ural) is related to Abashevo (East European plain) culture. Abashevo culture is related to Fatyanovo which is an eastern extension of Corded Ware. If we test Abashevo and Fatyanovo (eastern Corded Ware) I suspect they will be close matches to modern people. Of course, modern day populations are a mixtures of many populations and different migrations of the last 4,000 years.

Of course there is genetic continuity. But we have continuity even with Palaeolithic and neolithic. Language can change or greatly modify independently of genes

Volat
03-12-2016, 02:56 AM
'Unique' as in more archaic, or more innovative, or simply unclassifiable in terms of East - West- South Slavic scheme ?

Maybe the earliest proto-Slavic which reached northern Russia was different to later, fully-formed East Slavic .
The former may be linked with 6th century complexes of what I'd call the Szeligi-Khotomel-Kachi-Chelmo horizon which is a distinct group in eastern Poland and south Belarus, or possibly Kolochin culture although IMO the latter is still a 'Balto-Slavic' succesor of Kiev monuments). The true East Slavs, IMO, arrived later, with spread of Romny-Borshevo and Luka-Rajkovsa cultre (?)


I would describe it better if I was a linguist. Novgorodian ldialect looks different to other Slavic languages. Some linguists classified it as separate (fourth) branch of Slavic languages. Zalizniak (authority on Novgorodian texts recorded on birch barks) maintains that Novgorodian is most similar to west Slavic languages.

I can read the original text written by monk Nestor (The Tale of Bygone years) in Kiev around 1113. But I have difficulties with understanding the original text written in Novgorodian dialect. These are bichbarks from Novgorod: http://gramoty.ru

Among east Slavic languages Belarusian has more tendencies to west Slavic languages in comparison to Russian and Ukrainian. There could be Slavic migration out of Poland through Belarus into north-western Russia as per Sedov. Galindians were known to have settled in north-eastern Poland in 2AD. East Slavic chronicles recorded Galiandian (Golyad') settlement in western Moscow in 11-12th century.

Back to the Novgorodian dialect - I'd say it's not classifiable at this stage.

lgmayka
03-12-2016, 03:17 AM
And a guy L1025+, but M2782- and Y4706- (!!)
435081 Yakov Bulaveshka (Beloveshkin) b.1786 N-FGC13372. This is interesting case, L1025*. Name surname is Slavic no doubt.
The M2783- is incorrect. His personal account correctly shows that he got a no-call or heterozygous call at M2783. M2783 has not worked well in the SNP pack, possibly because FTDNA was not told that M2783 is the middle of a 3-SNP set.

He actually belongs to N-FGC13372, also known as N-Z16975 (http://yfull.com/tree/N-Z16975/).

Volat
03-12-2016, 03:17 AM
The true East Slavs, IMO, arrived later, with spread of Romny-Borshevo and Luka-Rajkovsa cultre (?)


The true east Slavs who are Belarusians (also some Ukrainians and some Russians) did not arrive from anywhere. They lived where they always have lived. I am not kidding or trolling. :)

lgmayka
03-12-2016, 03:44 AM
Some linguists (Zalizniak) stated Novgorodian was most similar to west Slavic language
This research paper (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0135820) found that of 114 men in Pinega (Arkhangelsk region), 31.6% belonged to R-M458. The Arkhangelsk region was reportedly colonized by the Novgorod Republic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkhangelsk_Oblast#History).

parastais
03-12-2016, 10:01 AM
Michal, thanks a lot for very useful information on R1a subclades. It helps me to better understand situation.

Now a question - based on your input re Yatwingians and Z92 in general, I see that you connect Z92 to East Balts. Which does make sense, 10% of Y dna you mention among East Slavs can descend from East Balts or East Baltic clade that entered East Slavic community early. Who not? It is not like 50% or 75%.

But - we see from relevant Lithuanian and especially Latvian projects that The Very East Balts lack Z92 in any significant portion. LT has it like 25% of R1a (25% of 40% = 10% of total, which is like estimated for East Slavic), LV even less, maybe 4-5% of East Baltic.

That presents an enigma. And at the same time it brings me to yet another quick conclusion (I am known for throwing out wild intuitive speculations, that is mostly wrong than not but are meant to provoke thoughts).

So, how about these few scenarious?
1)
Z92 - initial Fatyanovo clade
CTS1211 - initial Lusatian.

Lusatian would then hold the craddle of Balto-Slavic. Z92 territory (para Baltic, or para Balto- Slavic originally) would become Baltic after CTS1211 expanded/ retreated East when disturbed by Goths. In the process of Z92/CTS1211 interaction that was dominated by CTS1211, East Baltic speeches from proto-Balt(o-Slav)ic (Cts1211) got derived and para- dialects (z92) dissappeared for good.

edit: in this case we can even find a name for Z92+ original folk- they are Neuroi. And apparently the common Z280 dialect would be something like Neuro-Balto-Slavic :))

Michał
03-12-2016, 10:06 AM
This research paper (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0135820) found that of 114 men in Pinega (Arkhangelsk region), 31.6% belonged to R-M458. The Arkhangelsk region was reportedly colonized by the Novgorod Republic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkhangelsk_Oblast#History).
It should be noted that this paper includes three different "East Slavic" samples from the Arkhangelsk region, an only one ("upper Pinega river") shows such an elevated level of M458. The two remaining samples, from Mezen River(n=54) and Krasnoborsk & Lensk districts (n=91), show only 3.7% and 7.7% of M458, respectively. All this suggests quite strongly that what we see in the upper Pinega river sample is a result of a founder effect.

parastais
03-12-2016, 10:18 AM
2) Linguistic approach looking for Slavic being closer to West Baltic than East Baltic.
Z280 - proto-Balto-Slavic
.......CTS1211 - West Baltic and Slavic (when interacted with M458, para-Balto-Slavic folk)
.......Z92 - East Baltic.

East Baltic Z92 got dominated by N1c1 folks who replaced most of original Ys creating East Baltic during that interaction, before arriving to their current (originally West Baltic CTS1211) lands.
Latvians would then be children of East Baltic population X where N1c1 completely had replaced original Z92 fathers. Then X arrived into Latvia and mixed with CTS1211 Balts who lived there before. Therefore our paternal lines are a mix of CTS1211 and N1c1.

parastais
03-12-2016, 01:17 PM
Cant find that exact study, but I think they did. Will recheck once find.
But found this good article by Kallio:
On the Earliest Slavic Loanwords in Finnic.
Cant put it as link from mobile, but you can google it up, free article.
Found it - https://www.academia.edu/20252178/The_Language_Contact_Situation_in_Prehistoric_Nort heastern_Europe
And couple of quotes:
"Similarly, the main Indo-European language in Northeastern Europe, Russian, has largely spread during the historical era, although the earliest Slavic expansion to the Pskov-Novgorod area may aer all date as early as the mid-first millennium AD (see e.g. Kallio 2006a)."

"e fact that there are several times more Baltic loanwords in Finn-ic (Suhonen 1988; Vaba 1990) and even in Saami (Sammallahti 1998: 127) than in Mordvin (Pareren 2008) strongly suggests that Baltic was primarily spoken in the East Baltic region and only secondarily in the Volga-Oka re-gion. As a matter of fact, the Baltic expansion from the former to the latter can have taken place as recently as 200–600 AD (cf. Carpelan 2006: 87)"
....Ok, now I am going into hunting for Carpelan 2006.

"Suffice it to conclude that the easternmost Corded Ware variant known as the Fatyanovo culture (ca. 2800–1900 BC) was not Baltic but Northwest Indo-European, whose speakers sooner or later became linguistically assim-ilated to the local Uralians."

"However, the loanword evidence simultaneously supports the existence of an extinct North Baltic language that used to be spoken north of today’s Baltic-speaking area (see e.g. Kallio 2008). is seemingly contradictory conclusion is due to the fact that appellatives simply last longer than proper names and that the loanword evidence therefore reveals deeper time depths than the onomastic evidence. As the North Baltic loanwords were borrowed into the Early and Middle Proto-Finnic stages, they must be dated to the first millennium BC. North Baltic then became extinct due to the Finnic south-ward expansion during the first centuries AD,14 aer which the Finnic-speak-ing area was at its widest extent in the south, covering much of today’s Latvia."
.....To add, Kuronian seems to be very close to that North Baltic language. I will check Estonian R1a clades.

Exciting article with a lot of new stuff, which though is more of compilation of different earlier (but still rather new) ideas and works.

Ok, read it through, and realized it is another Kallio work worth reading, but not exactly the one :D

Will keep looking.

parastais
03-12-2016, 01:37 PM
"e fact that there are several times more Baltic loanwords in Finn-ic (Suhonen 1988; Vaba 1990) and even in Saami (Sammallahti 1998: 127) than in Mordvin (Pareren 2008) strongly suggests that Baltic was primarily spoken in the East Baltic region and only secondarily in the Volga-Oka re-gion. As a matter of fact, the Baltic expansion from the former to the latter can have taken place as recently as 200–600 AD (cf. Carpelan 2006: 87)"
....Ok, now I am going into hunting for Carpelan 2006.

Ok, that Carpelan disappointed me. Some outdated interpretations (Finns in Finland 3600 BCE???, when all Uralic has PII loanwords?) in article and the piece of quote for Balts expansion is just one sentence:
"During the third and final period (AD 200–600), D’jakovo had connections with the Balts in the west and southwest and it has been claimed that some Baltic immigration would have taken place (Krasnov 1974)."

Now what - Krasnov 1974? :)

Shaikorth
03-12-2016, 01:43 PM
2) Linguistic approach looking for Slavic being closer to West Baltic than East Baltic.
Z280 - proto-Balto-Slavic
.......CTS1211 - West Baltic and Slavic (when interacted with M458, para-Balto-Slavic folk)
.......Z92 - East Baltic.

East Baltic Z92 got dominated by N1c1 folks who replaced most of original Ys creating East Baltic during that interaction, before arriving to their current (originally West Baltic CTS1211) lands.
Latvians would then be children of East Baltic population X where N1c1 completely had replaced original Z92 fathers. Then X arrived into Latvia and mixed with CTS1211 Balts who lived there before. Therefore our paternal lines are a mix of CTS1211 and N1c1.

If M2783 is the product of an elite dominance, there probably never was a 100% N1c1 East Baltic population. I would be surprised if one would be found from some ancient culture associated with Balts.

Re: M458 in Russia, the only areas with over 20% among over a dozen northern, central/western and southern regions sampled were Pinega, Vologda and Kursk, and the Kursk sample was much smaller than the others (45).

Shaikorth
03-12-2016, 01:48 PM
Ok, that Carpelan disappointed me. Some outdated interpretations (Finns in Finland 3600 BCE???, when all Uralic has PII loanwords?) in article and the piece of quote for Balts expansion is just one sentence:
"During the third and final period (AD 200–600), D’jakovo had connections with the Balts in the west and southwest and it has been claimed that some Baltic immigration would have taken place (Krasnov 1974)."

Now what - Krasnov 1974? :)

I'm very sceptical of the claim that Mordvin has less Baltic loanwords than Saami. The language relationship is understudied (and many studies are very old) and there is considerably more archaeological evidence of Baltic-Mordvin contact than any direct contacts between Balts and Saami. Google reveals something but not enough.


Bernhard Wälchli

Mordwinisch und ältere baltische Wortsemantik

Archeological and toponymical investigations have shown that a contact area between Baltic and Mordvinian peoples has probably existed over a long period of time in the upper region of the river Oka. However, the number of evident Baltic loan-words in Mordvinian, most of them known since Thomsen (1890), is not very large. In this paper two Baltic loans in Mordvinian, kardas '(cattle) yard' (Thomsen 1890) and mala- 'near' (Nuutinen 1987), are discussed, whose Baltic equivalents are of a residuary character. Beyond this, some other Mordvinian words are examined in their syntagmatic and semantic environment, as far as they shed light on additional Baltic structures.

parastais
03-12-2016, 02:01 PM
I will check Estonian R1a clades.
8 of them under R1a project.
2 of them L1029+ (under M458, Slavic?)
3 of them Z280>CTS1211>Y35>CTS3402>Y33 (Slavic?)
2 of them Z92>Z685>YP270 (Yatwingians??)
1 of them CTS1211-B>YP1034>Y13467>YP997-A (one more Big Y needed) (no idea?)

All of them can be ethnic Estonians by name, surname.

And just to be on a safe side, did same for Finland (101 observations):
24 - M458. (13 L260, 11 L1029)
5 - L664
30 - CTS1211
...16 CTS3402 (4 Y33, 12 YP237)
....8 YP1147
....3 YP343
....3 other
10 - Z92 (but with some roots in Rus, Poland, and alike)
28 - Z284
4 - OTHER

Not sure yet what to understand from above. Will do some compare vs Lat/Lit.

parastais
03-12-2016, 02:10 PM
I'm very sceptical of the claim that Mordvin has less Baltic loanwords than Saami. The language relationship is understudied (and many studies are very old) and there is considerably more archaeological evidence of Baltic-Mordvin contact than any direct contacts between Balts and Saami. Google reveals something but not enough.
I agree. I am not a fan of arithmetical counting of loanwords. Especially when language material in Finnish is much larger than Mordvin. I always roll my eyes, when someone states that these or those loanwords are more numerous in East Baltic languages than in West Baltic for this reason :))) When we have 2 living languages vs 1 dead with little actual content.

parastais
03-12-2016, 03:16 PM
I'm very sceptical of the claim that Mordvin has less Baltic loanwords than Saami. The language relationship is understudied (and many studies are very old) and there is considerably more archaeological evidence of Baltic-Mordvin contact than any direct contacts between Balts and Saami. Google reveals something but not enough.

It was Bjornflaten's
Chronologies of the Slavicization of Northern Russia Mirrored by Slavic Loanwords in Finnic and Baltic.

Michał
03-12-2016, 04:41 PM
There could be Slavic migration out of Poland through Belarus into north-western Russia as per Sedov.
When do you think this could have happened?
Personally, I am very skeptical about this frequently discussed hypothesis. There is no sign of Slavs in Poland prior to the 6th century, and it would be very strange for an Early Slavic population that has just entered the Polish territory to go back east and then far north-east in any time period between 600 and 1200 AD (at least I don't know any archaeological findings that would support this).

All this reminds me of an equally unlikely hypothesis that a large portion of Late Medieval Belarusians were descendants of the Polabian Slavs who migrated from East Germany to Belarus when fleeing from the expanding Germans/Saxons.



Galindians were known to have settled in north-eastern Poland in 2AD.
This is when they are first reported (by Ptolemy), not when they have settled there. If one believes that the Bogaczewo culture indeed corresponds to those Galindians (which seems very likely, IMO), then they were present in this territory since at least 450 BC.


East Slavic chronicles recorded Galiandian (Golyad') settlement in western Moscow in 11-12th century.

I was once searching for the genetic (Y-DNA) data supporting this "Galindian connection" but found nothing that would strongly favor this scenario. Also, besides the similarity of the name itself, there is nothing in the archaeological record that would suggest these two Baltic groups are closely related to each other. And since the most commonly accepted etymology of this name indicates it was used for populations living on the periphery (ie. on the Baltic periphery), which indeed fits the location of both the Western Galindians and the Eastern Galindians (Golyad'), it seems most likely that these two Baltic subgroupings were never a part of any common ancestral Proto-Galindian population.

Tomenable
03-12-2016, 05:24 PM
All this reminds me of an equally unlikely hypothesis that a large portion of Late Medieval Belarusians were descendants of the Polabian Slavs who migrated from East Germany to Belarus when fleeing from the expanding Germans/Saxons.

Where did you find this hypothesis?

Michał
03-12-2016, 05:58 PM
Now a question - based on your input re Yatwingians and Z92 in general, I see that you connect Z92 to East Balts.
I wouldn't express it this way. It seems indeed that the CTS1211/Z92 ratio among the Eastern and Western Balts could have been quite different, but I wouldn't be surprised if this was not a general rule (and the Latvian case is a good example of this). We simply don't have enough data for a sufficient number of well-studied West-Baltic and East-Baltic tribes, so making any strong conclusions based on just few examples does not seem to be justified. Also, both CTS1211 and Z92 are probably much older then the hypothetical Proto-Balto-Slavic community (not to mention the Proto-Baltic community, if it was indeed different from the Proto-Balto-Slavic one), and since there is certainly no clear division between the Slavic, East Baltic and West Baltic subclades under Z280, it seems that we should approach this question with much more caution. Finally, I am strongly convinced that there were some additional Baltic (or Para-Baltic) groupings (like some unknown North Baltic tribes, discussed in this thread) that either got extinct or merged at some point with their Pre-East Baltic or Pre-West Baltic neighbors, and it will be very difficult to reconstruct the genetic contribution of those additional groupings to the ethnogenesis of both the Slavs and those Baltic-speaking populations that survived till historical times.



10% of Y dna you mention among East Slavs can descend from East Balts or East Baltic clade that entered East Slavic community early. Who not? It is not like 50% or 75%.
About 10% (or even more, as I don't have any precise estimates) in all modern Eastern Slavic populations would likely correspond to about 20-30% in a hypothetical Proto-East-Slavic population. Also, please note that the Eastern Galindians were still an independent Baltic population in the 11th-12th centuries, and since there was practically no chance for the Western Galindians to significantly contribute to the Eastern Slavs, it seems very unlikely that the relatively late conquest of Golyad' could have resulted in such a widespread distribution (and relatively high frequency) of YP569 in all East Slavic populations.




Z92 - initial Fatyanovo clade
CTS1211 - initial Lusatian.

Lusatian would then hold the craddle of Balto-Slavic. Z92 territory (para Baltic, or para Balto- Slavic originally) would become Baltic after CTS1211 expanded/ retreated East when disturbed by Goths. In the process of Z92/CTS1211 interaction that was dominated by CTS1211, East Baltic speeches from proto-Balt(o-Slav)ic (Cts1211) got derived and para- dialects (z92) dissappeared for good.
I can see a couple of problems with this hypothetical scenario. First, the Lusatian culture has never expanded that far east to make it responsible for assimilating all those Z92 people (for example those from post-East Trzciniec, post-Sosnica and post-Komarov groupings, if identifying the entire Trzciniec-Komarov-Sosnica horizon with Z92, which seems inevitable in this case). Secondly, I don't know any data suggesting that the center of the initial expansion of CTS1211 was located so far west, ie. in Western Poland/Eastern Germany from where the Pre-Lusatian culture expanded (not to mention that this Pre-Lusatian culture is commonly considered to have been derived from the Tumulus culture in the Danubian region, thus from a territory that never was a CWC stronghold and thus it is unlikely to have been associated mostly with R1a). In my opinion, the homeland of CTS1211 was most likely located in a region encompassing Belarus and some neighboring territories (which was more or less where Z92 expanded as well, although I would certainly agree with you that the Z92 expansion center was likely located slightly east to the CTS1211 expansion center), and thus I would rather associate the demographic and territorial expansion of both CTS1211 and Z92 with a birth and expansion of the "Proto-Balto-Slavic" Trzciniec-Komarov-Sosnica complex. Please note that we have some subclades dirrectly under CTS1211 that are seen in Finland/Karelia or in Eastern Europe only, while I am not aware of any such subclade just under CTS1211 that would be specific for Central-Western Europe only (which is inconsistent with your scenario when taking into account a relatively early TMRCA age for CTS1211). Thirdly, associating Fatyanovo-Balanovo (which is a part of the Corded Ware horizon) with Z92 and Para-Baltic (or rather with Para-Balto-Slavic) would make no room for associating Z93 with any CWC-related archaeological culture) which poses some significant problems when suspecting that not only R1a-Z645 but also the entire R1a-M417 clade (including CTS4385* and L664) was somehow associated with CWC and when knowing that Sintashta (and most likely Abashevo) were autosomally identical with the CWC people from Germany (while Eastern Yamna included no R1a-Z93).

Michał
03-12-2016, 06:00 PM
Where did you find this hypothesis?
Please see this discussion on the Molgen forum: http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1116&start=10

Michał
03-12-2016, 06:34 PM
3 of them Z280>CTS1211>Y35>CTS3402>Y33 (Slavic?)
Although all three major subclades under Y33 are indeed strongly associated with the Slavs, this is not always the case for the remaining (ie. less common) subclades. I suspect there is even a correlation between the size and the association with the Slavic ethnogenesis. Let me quote what I wrote on this in another thread: "Most of the remaining subclades/subclusters under Y33 (all being negative for a downstream SNP CTS8816, encompassing S18681, Y2902 and L1280) seem to have either stayed in the "Baltic" sphere of influence (north or north-east of the Slavic homeland, like YP968>YP969-A, Y33*-A or Y33*-B ) or were included in the westward migration at a very late stage (Y33*-C and YP969>YP4335), so they had not enough time (or opportunity) to significantly expand during the Early Slavic period."

As for cluster Y33>YP968>YP969-A (which includes an Estonian sublineage YP969-A1), it seems definitely most likely that it has deep Baltic roots.



1 of them CTS1211-B>YP1034>Y13467>YP997-A (one more Big Y needed) (no idea?)

As mentioned elsewhere, clade YP1034 seems to be of Baltic origin. Intriguingly, it could have been associated with the Northern Baltic periphery, thus likely being a part a hypothetical (extinct?) "North Baltic" grouping (that perhaps included the Finnish clade YP1147, as well). Many remnants of this "North-Baltic tribe" were likely assimilated by the Finns and Estonians, but some of them could also have become a part of the incoming East Baltic (Latvian and Lithuanian) populations.

parastais
03-12-2016, 07:14 PM
When do you think this could have happened?
Personally, I am very skeptical about this frequently discussed hypothesis. There is no sign of Slavs in Poland prior to the 6th century, and it would be very strange for an Early Slavic population that has just entered the Polish territory to go back east and then far north-east in any time period between 600 and 1200 AD (at least I don't know any archaeological findings that would support this).

Just so I know - which Slavic homeland theory do you think is the most likely?

Michał
03-12-2016, 07:18 PM
Just so I know - which Slavic homeland theory do you think is the most likely?
The one that identifies it either with the Late Zarubintsy (or Post-Zarubintsy) hroizon or with the descending Kiev culture.

Volat
03-12-2016, 08:27 PM
When do you think this could have happened?
Personally, I am very skeptical about this frequently discussed hypothesis. There is no sign of Slavs in Poland prior to the 6th century, and it would be very strange for an Early Slavic population that has just entered the Polish territory to go back east and then far north-east in any time period between 600 and 1200 AD (at least I don't know any archaeological findings that would support this).


If it happened then it was prior to 8AD. People migrated around Europe many times that it would not surprise me of another migration into Russia. Sedov argues that around that time people of Belarus and western Russia (Balts) began to build fortifications in their towns. Something happened to their societies and he suggested a new group of people arrived. Sedov's concept is such that he places lost settlements of proto Slavs of early Iron age in what's today south-eastern Poland. Valentin Sedov was an important archaeologist and historian. He is quoted often.



All this reminds me of an equally unlikely hypothesis that a large portion of Late Medieval Belarusians were descendants of the Polabian Slavs who migrated from East Germany to Belarus when fleeing from the expanding Germans/Saxons.

Such hypothesis exists. The arguments to support this hypothesis are not strong.





I was once searching for the genetic (Y-DNA) data supporting this "Galindian connection" but found nothing that would strongly favor this scenario. Also, besides the similarity of the name itself, there is nothing in the archaeological record that would suggest these two Baltic groups are closely related to each other. And since the most commonly accepted etymology of this name indicates it was used for populations living on the periphery (ie. on the Baltic periphery), which indeed fits the location of both the Western Galindians and the Eastern Galindians (Golyad'), it seems most likely that these two Baltic subgroupings were never a part of any common ancestral Proto-Galindian population.
The reason might be that male population of Golyad' was killed in large numbers. For some reason Slavs weren't fond of Golyad' in comparison to Finno-Ugric living Novgorod and upper Volga. The battles against them were recorded in chronicles. The difference in time frame between Galindians (Ptolemy 2AD) and Golyad' (east Slavic chronicle 12th centurу) is 1,000 years. I don't expect archaeological continuity as material cultures change over time.

Volat
03-12-2016, 08:33 PM
Where did you find this hypothesis?

I. E. Kusherevich – she is the scholar out of Belarus that does writes on population genetics of Belarusians – stated there was a western migration in Belarus/ Velentin Sedov was another prominent scholar who stated there was a migration in Belarus from Poland's direction.

They did not state those people were Polabian Slavs.

Tomenable
03-12-2016, 08:40 PM
But in which period was that migration, did they figure it out ???

Because if it was recently, then probably those were ethnic Poles.

Volat
03-12-2016, 08:50 PM
Michał


You raise good questions. I agree with you that Ptolemy's Galindians and Golyad' on Protva river in western Moscow may not be the same group. They were not the same groups because there is 1,000 years between them.

Volat
03-12-2016, 08:55 PM
But in which period was that migration, did they figure it out ???

Because if it was recently, then probably those were ethnic Poles.
They were not discussing recent migrations. Sedov's argued for migration during Iron Age prior to 8AD. I felt he needed to justify his concept of placing proto-Slavs in eastern Poland. If proto-Slavs were in Poland, of course they moved out of Poland into Belarus which he baltified prior to Slavic settlements. Kushnerivich was discussing ancient migration along Pripyat' (from the direction of Podlaske) and Neman (what's today western Lithuania/east Prussia) rivers.

Volat
03-12-2016, 09:07 PM
There was also Polish (Mazovian) migration into Belarus in later period. Maybe some Belarusians don't want to admit Polish migration suggesting those were Polabian Slavs.

parastais
03-12-2016, 09:12 PM
I can see a couple of problems with this hypothetical scenario.
First, the Lusatian culture has never expanded that far east to make it responsible for assimilating all those Z92 people (for example those from post-East Trzciniec, post-Sosnica and post-Komarov groupings, if identifying the entire Trzciniec-Komarov-Sosnica horizon with Z92, which seems inevitable in this case).
In the picture below from wikipedia where and in what proportions would you locate CTS1211, Z92 and M458? Just as a speculation.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Eastern_and_Central_Europe_around_750_BC.png



Secondly, I don't know any data suggesting that the center of the initial expansion of CTS1211 was located so far west, ie. in Western Poland/Eastern Germany from where the Pre-Lusatian culture expanded (not to mention that this Pre-Lusatian culture is commonly considered to have been derived from the Tumulus culture in the Danubian region, thus from a territory that never was a CWC stronghold and thus it is unlikely to have been associated mostly with R1a). In my opinion, the homeland of CTS1211 was most likely located in a region encompassing Belarus and some neighboring territories (which was more or less where Z92 expanded as well, although I would certainly agree with you that the Z92 expansion center was likely located slightly east to the CTS1211 expansion center), and thus I would rather associate the demographic and territorial expansion of both CTS1211 and Z92 with a birth and expansion of the "Proto-Balto-Slavic" Trzciniec-Komarov-Sosnica complex. Please note that we have some subclades dirrectly under CTS1211 that are seen in Finland/Karelia or in Eastern Europe only, while I am not aware of any such subclade just under CTS1211 that would be specific for Central-Western Europe only (which is inconsistent with your scenario when taking into account a relatively early TMRCA age for CTS1211).
Those are some good points.



Thirdly, associating Fatyanovo-Balanovo (which is a part of the Corded Ware horizon) with Z92 and Para-Baltic (or rather with Para-Balto-Slavic) would make no room for associating Z93 with any CWC-related archaeological culture) which poses some significant problems when suspecting that not only R1a-Z645 but also the entire R1a-M417 clade (including CTS4385* and L664) was somehow associated with CWC and when knowing that Sintashta (and most likely Abashevo) were autosomally identical with the CWC people from Germany (while Eastern Yamna included no R1a-Z93).
That is very unorthodox to think of Fatyanovo as Indo-Iranians. Not sure of Balanovo. That Sintashta had some impulse from Central Europe is genetically and even I think there was some archeo link too, but Fatyanovo is not Central Europe.

Volat
03-12-2016, 09:24 PM
The connection between Polabian Slavs and Belarusians I know is linguistic. It has been shown in a good study (thesis) that Belarusian language shows more tendencies towards Kashubian, Slovincian, upper Lusatian, lower Lusatian as well as Polabian in comparison to other east Slavic languages ( Ukrainian and Russian). On the other hand Polish, Czech and Slovak have more linguistic similarities with the aforementioned west Slavic languages.

Gravetto-Danubian
03-12-2016, 10:02 PM
The one that identifies it either with the Late Zarubintsy (or Post-Zarubintsy) hroizon or with the descending Kiev culture.

Michal

I know we've discussed this before, but how do you bridge the problem that the Kiev culture ends in 410 AD, and otherwise shows no signs of penetrating anything west of the Dnieper ?

(Similarly, the post -Z horizon ends in the third centuries CE)

Gravetto-Danubian
03-12-2016, 10:36 PM
Ok, that Carpelan disappointed me. Some outdated interpretations (Finns in Finland 3600 BCE???, when all Uralic has PII loanwords?) in article and the piece of quote for Balts expansion is just one sentence:
"During the third and final period (AD 200–600), D’jakovo had connections with the Balts in the west and southwest and it has been claimed that some Baltic immigration would have taken place (Krasnov 1974)."

Now what - Krasnov 1974? :)

I actually thought that paper was excellent. Far better than most linguists which still live in the 1960s

Tomenable
03-13-2016, 02:33 AM
There was also Polish (Mazovian) migration into Belarus in later period. Maybe some Belarusians don't want to admit Polish migration suggesting those were Polabian Slavs.

Indeed there historically was, and actually still is, a substantial ethnic Polish minority in Belarus. Of course during and after WW2 (roughly in 1944-1958) over half a million ethnic Poles emigrated from Belarus to Poland (within its post-WW2 borders), but hundreds of thousands still remained in Belarus. According to the Soviet census of 1959 (so already after the end of population transfers), there were officially still 538,881 Poles in Belarus (unofficial estimates put the number of Poles even higher). The majority of them were concentrated in 17 north-western districts*, where they actually formed the plurality of population (those 17 districts had - according to the official Soviet census of 1959 - in total 713,988 inhabitants, including 351,305 ethnic Poles, 275,275 ethnic Belarusians, 66,537 ethnic Russians and 20,871 people of other ethnicities).

*Those 17 districts with combined population of 713,988 were: Radun (87.4% of population were Poles in 1959), Voranava (86.8%), Ivyanets (75.6%), Svir (72.0%), Astravyets (65.5%), Lida (55.1%), Vidzy (51.2%), Shchuchyn (50.4%), Vasilishki (49.9%), Pastavy (43.3%), Braslaw (40.6%), Dunilovichi (47.0%), Ivye (41.5%), Grodno (38.1%), Valozhyn (37.8%), Vawkavysk (35.4%) and Zelva (29.1%).

There are also two recent studies (from 2000 and 2003) investigating identities of Roman Catholics in Belarus, carried out mostly by researchers from the University of Grodno. This survey from year 2000 established that as many as 95% of all Roman Catholics who live in the Grodno Oblast declare/admit that they have either fully Polish or mixed Polish-Belarusian ancestry, and 83.3% identify as Poles alone:

http://forum.axishistory.com/download/file.php?id=341472&t=1

The other survey - from 2003 - established that 82% of Roman Catholics in entire Belarus as a whole declare that they have Polish ancestry, including 66% declaring fully Polish ancestry and 16% declaring mixed Polish-Belarusian ancestry. Of them 63% identify as Poles alone.

There are some regional differences, though. In the westernmost Diocese of Grodno 95% of Catholics declare Polish ancestry, and 80% identify as Poles alone (a figure remarkably close to 83,3% from the older 2000 study). In the easternmost Archdiocese of Minsk-Mogilev, which comprises Eastern Belarus, still ca. 73% declare that they have Polish ancestry (alone or mixed), but only 35% identify as fully Polish.

In other areas % of Roman Catholics who identify as fully Polish are 70% in the Diocese of Pinsk and 57% in the Diocese of Vitebsk.

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

The official stance of Soviet/Belarusian governments since 17.09.1939 is that Poles in Belarus are all native Polonized Belarusians, who adopted Polish culture, identity, language and religion over the centuries when the Polish-Lithuanian Union existed. However, I have spoken with one Ukrainian guy who said: "A true East Slav would never ever convert to Roman Catholicism, they must be of immigrant origin". :) On the other hand, today ethnic Poles are the last "Bastion" of truly Belarusian culture in Belarus, because ethnic Belausians have been Russified.

According to 1959 census, 93% of ethnic Belarusians spoke Belarusian, 7% spoke Russian, 0% other languages.

And just 50 years later... :

According to 2009 census, 26% of ethnic Belarusians speak Belarusian, 70% speak Russian, 4% other languages.

Today, Belarusian language is more popular among ethnic Poles in Belarus, than among ethnic Belarusians.

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

According to the Soviet census of 1959, languages of some minority groups in Belarus were:

Poles - 49% spoke Polish, 47% spoke Belarusian, 4% spoke Russian
Jews - 22% spoke Jewish (Yiddish or Hebrew), 76% spoke Russian
Ukrainians - 47% spoke Ukrainian, 8% Belarusian and 45% Russian
Russians - 100% of ethnic Russians in Belarus in 1959 spoke Russian :)

Volat
03-13-2016, 03:35 AM
Indeed there historically was, and actually still is, a substantial ethnic Polish minority in Belarus.


I told on many occasions that the figures of Poles were deliberately inflated in Belarus and Lithuania. In those days governments were inflating figures to justify territorial claims. Polish government official (I forgot his name) who was reponsible for administrating census admitted that census documents were tampered with.

To these day ethnographic Belarusians speaking Belarusian natively are identifying themselves as Poles. Polish government has misled you.

Jankowiak: „Mowa prosta” jest dla mnie synonimem gwary białoruskiej
Na Wileńszczyźnie wiele osób rozmawiało ze mną „po prostemu”, ale prawie wszyscy deklarowali narodowość polską – powiedział w rozmowie z zw.lt Mirosław Jankowiak, polonista, białorutenista, pracownik naukowy Instytutu Slawistyki PAN.
http://zw.lt/opinie/jankowiak-mowa-prosta-jest-dla-mnie-synonimem-gwary-bialoruskiej/

Volat
03-13-2016, 05:51 AM
More than 3000 extended haplotypes of R1a1 are collected in IRAKAZ database http://www.r1a.org/irakaz-v03.xls


Abbrevation such as CE stand for different names of the branches. The diagram of the branches is below.
Z93 had most Jewish of Lithuania. There were two Lithuanian individuals who had this marker. One person had Z284. 18 Lithuanians had Z92+ marker labelled as (NEA1 & NEA2).


Lithuania

M458 CE 3
M458 CE1 2
M458 CE2 4
M458 WS 3


Z280 CEA1 1
Z280 CEA2 5
Z280 L784 2
Z280 EC 4
Z280 NC2 1
Z280 BC 3
Z280 BC1 5
Z280 BC2 3
Z280 BC3 2
Z280 NEA1 5
Z280 NEA2 13

Z284 YS1 1
Z93 AJ 2


Very few Latvians in this database. One person had Z92+ marker too.

Z280 L784 1
Z280 EC 1
Z280 BC1 1
Z280 NEA1 1
Z93 AJ 1



http://www.r1a.org/img/r1a1_720.jpg

parastais
03-13-2016, 07:32 AM
Thanks!
So, 24 Lithuanian samples CTS1211 and 18 Z92 and 12 M458. 1 z284 and 2 Ashkenazi. I take 2 Ashkenazi out from calculations as before. Also z284, so that I have nice 54.
18/54 = 33% of R1a are Z92+. In R1a project it was 25%.
24/54 = 46% CTS1211
12/54 = 22% M458

Probably they duplicate bw R1a ftdna project and irakaz db. Also there is a problem I dont see surnames in irakaz.

Volat
03-13-2016, 07:36 AM
Thanks!
So, 24 Lithuanian samples CTS1211 and 18 Z92 and 12 M458. 1 z284 and 2 Ashkenazi. I take 2 Ashkenazi out from calculations as before. Also z284, so that I have nice 54.
18/54 = 33% of R1a are Z92+. In R1a project it was 25%.
24/54 = 46% CTS1211
12/54 = 22% M458

Probably they duplicate bw R1a ftdna project and irakaz db. Also there is a problem I dont see surnames in irakaz.


I think FDTDNA would be the main source. But it could also be not the only sources. Surnames are not displayed for privacy reasons probably. If anyone is non Lithuanian surnames would have shown.

Tomenable
03-13-2016, 10:56 AM
I told on many occasions that the figures of Poles were deliberately inflated in Belarus and Lithuania.

As far as Non-Catholic Poles are concerned, you are right.

But that was before WW2 (and in my post above, I posted Soviet and Belarusian data from years 1959 and 2000-2003). As for Polish pre-war data, in North-Eastern Poland (now Belarus and Lithuania) the ethno-religious structure in 1931 was reported as:

Roman Catholic Poles + Non-Catholic Poles + Non-Polish Roman Catholics + Non-Polish Non-Catholics:

Vilno Voivodeship ------------------- 559,269 + 73,827 + 112,216 + 335,557
Vilno City ----------------------------- 123,571 + 5,057 + 2,428 + 64,015
Navahrudak Voivodeship ---------- 397,365 + 156,494 + 27,184 + 476,104
Grodno & Vawkavysk counties ----- 155,041 + 29,159 + 10,454 + 189,778
Polesia Voivodeship ------------------ 122,784 + 41,322 + 2,167 + 965,666

Total for North-Eastern Kresy (areas 1a and 1b in the map above) according to 1931 census:

Roman Catholic Poles ----------------------------- 1,358,030
Jewish Poles ----------------------------------------- 9,011
Other Non-Catholic Poles --------------------------- 296,848
Roman Catholic Non-Poles ------------------------- 154,449
Jewish Non-Poles (ethnic Jews) -------------------- 347,621
Other Non-Poles ------------------------------------ 1,683,499

Grand Total population ----------------------------- 3,849,458

Note that in Nowogródek Voivodeship the number of Non-Catholic Poles was reported as 156,494.

Most of that number - 147,236 - were Orthodox Christians who were counted in the census as Poles.

Probably this particular figure is inflated and the real number of Orthodox Poles was much smaller.

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

In addition to those figures, there were also 202,026 Poles in pre-war Lithuania in year 1923. Most of them in Kaunas Region.

And there were also 97,498 Poles in pre-1939 Soviet Belarus (Eastern Belarus) according to the Soviet census of year 1926.

And there were also 59,374 Poles in Latvia (mostly in southern corner, between Lithuania & Belarus) according to 1930 data.

Legend:

Figures for North-Eastern Poland in 1931 = 1a + 1b
Figures for pre-war Lithuania in year 1923 = 1.3
Figures for pre-war Soviet Belarus in 1926 = 1.2

http://s1.postimg.org/c0z5vvxjj/Kresy.png

Volat
03-13-2016, 11:05 AM
Not again. Big facepalm.

Tomenable
03-13-2016, 11:08 AM
Sure it is better to ignore facts and claim that Belarus was colonized by "Polabian Slavs" (as genetic data shows) instead of Poles. :lol:

BTW - if Polabian Slavs moved towards Belarus, it means that they also settled also Poland on their way (and Poles have their DNA too).


To these day ethnographic Belarusians speaking Belarusian natively are identifying themselves as Poles.

So they are genetically "Polabian Slavs" :), identify as Poles, and have been forced by Soviet / post-Soviet regimes to speak Belarusian.

OK, everything's clear. Minority rights in Belarus fully protected! :lol:

Volat
03-13-2016, 11:20 AM
Sure it is better to ignore facts and claim that Belarus was colonized by "Polabian Slavs" instead of Poles. :lol:

BTW - if Polabians Slavs moved towards Belarus, then it means that they also colonized Poland on their way.

There is no scholar whose work will be published states there was a Polabian Slavs into Belarus. I stated there was a migration from Mazovia into Belarus. This fact is verifiable. You constantly posting figures showing exaggerated number of Poles in Belarus and Lithuania out of the blue is becoming nuisance. We were discussing west Slavs in context of migration into eastern territoriies. Poles of Belarus and Lithuania have local ancestry for the most part. There is a sample on Poles of Estonia circulating in some published studies and personal projects. Genetic difference between Poles of Estonia and Poles of Poland is apparent.

Tomenable
03-13-2016, 11:23 AM
I posted 1959 Soviet figures, and 2000-2003 Belarusian figures - and you still claim, that they are exaggerated. Sure, Belarusian scholars are exaggerating minorities... :) - as if Belarus was as "minority-friendly" as Sweden... :lol: Your country expelled/deported approximately half a million Poles after WW2 (1944-1958), and then started denying that the remaining over half a million (as of 1959) were "true Poles".

This is sad and it just shows, how "democratic" is modern Belarus under Lukashenko's regime...

Tomenable
03-13-2016, 11:29 AM
Poles of Belarus and Lithuania have local ancestry for the most part.

Local with some "Polabian Slavic" admixture, but absolutely no "Polish"... :lol:

Polabian Slavs magically flew over the territory of Poland, landing in Belarus. In a spaceship. ;)

Shaikorth
03-13-2016, 11:32 AM
There is no scholar whose work will be published states there was a Polabian Slavs into Belarus. I stated there was a migration from Mazovia into Belarus. This fact is verifiable. You constantly posting figures showing exaggerated number of Poles in Belarus and Lithuania out of the blue is becoming nuisance. We were discussing west Slavs in context of migration into eastern territoriies. Poles of Belarus and Lithuania have local ancestry for the most part. There is a sample on Poles of Estonia circulating in some published studies and personal projects. Genetic difference between Poles of Estonia and Poles of Poland is apparent.

The Estonian poles are pretty heterogenous. Some were like the main group of Northern Slavs, one had lots of Estonian admixture and one had lots of North Russian or Mordvin admixture. The Belarusian Poles might have a similar situation going on, they'd need to be individually tested to see whether they are more like Belarusians or Poles of Poland.

Volat
03-13-2016, 11:41 AM
The Estonian poles are pretty heterogenous. Some were like the main group of Northern Slavs, one had lots of Estonian admixture and one had lots of North Russian or Mordvin admixture. The Belarusian Poles might have a similar situation going on, they'd need to be individually tested to see whether they are more like Belarusians or Poles of Poland.

I'd say Poles of Belarus will be similar to Belarusians. It's well known that people accepted Polish identity for different reasons. It is not disputed in historeography. The situation as you describe maybe similar with people of north-eastern Poland today. It was formerly settled by east Slavs Dregoviches and Yotvingians . Both ancestors of western Belarusians. Later, the region was part of the Grand Duchy. It was in the same administrative division with western Belarus during Tsarist rule. But there was also a large migration of Poles into north-eastern Poland in the last 100 years.


Edit. I share genome with one Pole from Belarus. He's similar to other Belarusians.

Tomenable
03-13-2016, 11:44 AM
Well, Northern Belarusians are mostly Belarusianized (Slavicized) Balts to begin with, rather than "true Belarusians". Only Southern Belarusians are the "true Belarusians" = genetically Slavs. Therefore Poles in Northern Belarus are not "Polonized Belarusians", but rather "Polonized Belarusianized Lithuanians". So ultimately, genetically they are mostly Lithuanians/Balts. ;)

Thus if you want to mix genetics into the issue of national/ethnic identity, or who has right to preserve their culture, then you end up with Northern Belarus given to Lithuania/Latvia. If you deny cultural autonomy to Belarusian Poles, then you should also deny it to Northern Belarusians because they are also of mostly local Slavicized Baltic (Lithuanian/Latvian) blood.

It's not the issue of borders because nobody disputes borders here (except for Mr. Putin in Ukraine).

Poles don't want it back, just like Germans don't want Stettin, etc. back anymore.

Though I would like Belarus to join the European Union, to be honest.

Tomenable
03-13-2016, 12:01 PM
I'd say Poles of Belarus will be similar to Belarusians. It's well known that people accepted Polish identity for different reasons. It is not disputed in historeography.

They are likely a mix of local people and "proper Polish" immigrants considering that there is "Polabian Slavic admixture" there (as you wrote).

This "Polabian Slavic" genetic signal was most likely mediated through Polish migrants (mostly from Mazovia, as you wrote).

Unless it can be proven that this admixture occured much earlier (e.g. during the Migration Period / Early Middle Ages), I would say it's Polish.

Tomenable
03-13-2016, 12:57 PM
It was formerly settled by east Slavs Dregoviches and Yotvingians

AFAIK - all of what is now North-Eastern Poland (Podlachia and Suwalki Region) was originally settled by West Balts, Yotvingians. Westernmost towns / strongholds of East Slavic Dregoviches around year 1200 AD were Grodno and Vawkavysk; to the west of them, in Bialystok Region, there was Yotvingian land, but highly forested and sparsely populated (the "core" of Yotvingian lands was more to the north):

http://s18.postimg.org/ugrj31r1l/Prussians.png

Volat
03-13-2016, 01:37 PM
AFAIK - all of what is now North-Eastern Poland (Podlachia and Suwalki Region) was originally settled by West Balts, Yotvingians. Westernmost towns / strongholds of East Slavic Dregoviches around year 1200 AD were Grodno and Vawkavysk; to the west of them, in Bialystok Region, there was Yotvingian land, but highly forested and sparsely populated (the "core" of Yotvingian lands was more to the north):

Much of Belarus was Baltic settlement originally. Slavs expanded into Baltic territories including north-eastern Poland. That region was also settled by Dregoviches as per archaeological evidence. Dregoviches' settlement was as far as eastern Mazovia. Dregoviches' material culture is well studied. Dregoviches and Yotvingians took part in ethnogenesis of Slavs that lived in north-eastern Poland.

Source:
Eastern Slavs in 6th-13th centuries. Valentin Sedov : https://app.box.com/s/j5b27k8cvr4l415qcokb



http://oi65.tinypic.com/2mper8w.jpg





Mazovia region





https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/Mazowieckie_p%C5%82ockie_rawskie.png/1024px-Mazowieckie_p%C5%82ockie_rawskie.png

Tomenable
03-13-2016, 02:13 PM
Dregoviches' settlement was as far as eastern Mazovia.

Only after the conquest/destruction of Yotvingians (unless you are talking about south-eastern borderland of Mazovia - i.e. area of Brest-Litovsk). As for the eastern border of Mazovia - that was quite fluent in the Early Middle Ages (as was border between Poland and Kievan Rus).

Volat
03-13-2016, 02:37 PM
Only after the conquest/destruction of Yotvingians (unless you are talking about south-eastern borderland of Mazovia - i.e. area of Brest-Litovsk). As for the eastern border of Mazovia - that was quite fluent in the Early Middle Ages (as was border between Poland and Kievan Rus).

Coexistence between Balts and eastern Slavs of Belarus was mostly peaceful. Kriviches were a Balto-Slavic community. Latgalians had Slavs living among them. Kriviches also settled in eastern Lithuania among original Lithuanians. Slavic language prevailed in Belarus and western Russia, while Baltic prevailed in eastern Latvia (Latgale) and eastern Lithuania.

Slavs and Yotvingians fought occasionally. Not Slavs fought them. Dregoviches could be those Slavs who were accept in Neman and Narew basins, while Volynians and some western Slavs fought both Yotvingians and other western Balts. All western Belarus was by Yotvingians.

Volat
03-13-2016, 03:15 PM
unless you are talking about south-eastern borderland of Mazovia - i.e. area of Brest-Litovsk).


Archaeological sites near Tykocin (around Bialystok) and further west.

parastais
03-13-2016, 03:42 PM
Slavs and Yotvingians fought occasionally.
Neman trade route' gang ruled by Jatwingr's descendants fought with Kiev's grupirovka ruled by Rurikr's.
Kiev won.

Tomenable
03-13-2016, 03:48 PM
Slavs and Yotvingians fought occasionally. Not Slavs fought them.

At that time it was Pagans versus Christians, not Balts versus Slavs.

In the 1200s Yotvingians were under attack from 3 sides: Teutonic Knights, Poland and Kievan Rus.

In 1282 Polish army defeated Yotvingians in two battles at the Narew River and of Rowiny.

In 1283 the last independent chieftain of Yotvingians surrendered to the Teutonic Order.

In 1422 former Yotvingian lands were partitioned between Teutonic Order, Poland and Lithuania.

Volat
03-13-2016, 04:02 PM
Neman trade route' gang ruled by Jatwingr's descendants fought with Kiev's grupirovka ruled by Rurikr's.
Kiev won.

I know Kiev fought Yotvingians. Yotvingian settlement were all over western Belarus survived till later times. Several cities in western Belarus were mentioned in early 11th century. Maybe there were conflicts between Drogiviches and Balts. But they are not recorded.

Volat
03-13-2016, 04:07 PM
At that time it was Pagans versus Christians, not Balts versus Slavs.

In the 1200s Yotvingians were under attack from 3 sides: Teutonic Knights, Poland and Kievan Rus.

In 1282 Polish army defeated Yotvingians in two battles at the Narew River and of Rowiny.

In 1283 the last independent chieftain of Yotvingians surrendered to the Teutonic Order.

In 1422 former Yotvingian lands were partitioned between Teutonic Order, Poland and Lithuania.

Christians on territories of Belarus did not fight the pagan. Common folks continued practising pagan traditions . After accepting Christianity it took 2 centuries before burial culture of common people become Christian. Kiev sent troops against Yotvingians. Volynians also fought Yotvingians. Dregoviches didn't. I don't know any records.

Michał
03-14-2016, 03:55 PM
Michal

I know we've discussed this before, but how do you bridge the problem that the Kiev culture ends in 410 AD, and otherwise shows no signs of penetrating anything west of the Dnieper ?

(Similarly, the post -Z horizon ends in the third centuries CE)
The data I know do not confirm your claims that there was a kind of long-term hiatus first between Zarubintsy and Late/Post-Zarubintsy (you have once mentioned a 150 years hiatus between PZ and Kiev, IIRC, which is something one can hardly consider a serious statement) and then between Post-Zarubintsy and Kiev. See for example this figure from Terpilovsky (2004):

8144

As for the putative lack of continuity between Kiev and the three cultures commonly suspected of representing the Early Slavic populations (Korchak-Prague, Penkovka and Kolochin), this is certainly not true for Kolochin (and I don’t think anybody would argue with this), although I am aware that this is exactly why you consider both Kiev and Kolochin to be non-Slavic (or Baltic) cultures. As for Penkovka, this culture has been indeed quite frequently regarded in the past as descending from Chernyakhov, which was mostly a view of those who considered Chernyakhov a predominantly Slavic culture (while today the predominant Gothic contribution to Chernyakhov is rarely questioned), see for example Rusanova and Sedov, although Sedov has subsequently changed his mind by admitting a significant contribution of people migrating from north (thus from the Kiev culture) to the genesis of Penkovka. Today, deriving Penkovka from Chernyakov seems to find no support among the majority of modern scholars who point to both an apparent similarity between Penkovka and the neighboring (Kiev-derived) Kolochin culture and some Penkovka-specific traits that can be traced back to the Kiev culture. Let me quote what Terpilovsky (2004) writes about it:


The Penkovka sites of the Left Dnieper Region like Khitsy in the creek of the Udai River and Riabovka 3 on the Vorsklitsa, which are very close in territory and chronology to the Kiev sites, are the most suitable examples for comparison with Kiev culture.
[…]
Sites with distinctive Penkovka features of the Right Bank of the Kiev Region, like dwelling 4 of the site Obukhov 2, dwelling 20 of the site Obukhov 2, dwelling 20 of the site Obukhov 7 or welling Motovilovskaia Slobodka 4 near Fastov, make up the other group, which in territory and chronology is the closest to Kiev materials.

Given the main features of the Late Kiev sites and the Penkovka culture are similar or very close, especially at the early stages of the Penkovka culture development, maximal similarity is observed between the Desna sites of Roische type and sites of the Middle Dnieper Region of the Khlopkov type. These materials could, with good reason, be considered as the Proto-Penkovka findings, because some distinctive features of pottery type, its proportion and design, etc. bear strong resemblance to the respective Penkovka elements. First of all, the matter concerns the the biconical, relatively squat pots and large earthenware pots with a modelled strip under the rim.

Importantly, Chernyakhov did not survive Kiev, so it definitely does not provide any better alternative for a culture ancestral to Penkovka, and there is simply no other culture (than Kiev) in the entire region that could provide a more reasonable solution for this question.

While deriving both Penkovka and Kolochin from Kiev seems to be the most likely option at the moment, the situation with Korchak-Prague is much more complicated, as is commonly admitted by all researchers studying this subject. Here is, for example, how Kazanski summarizes this question:


No written sources account for the territory occupied by the Kalochyn culture (on which see now Обломский, in print) and its attribution remains uncertain. Archaeologically, however, it is so similar to the Pen’kivka—both going back to the Kiev culture—that the two must be very close (Третьяков 1970, 52–92; Вернер 1972; Godłowski 1979; review in Kazanski 1999a, 21–50). The antiquities of the Prague culture belong to the same circle, even though they are of a different origin, going back to sites either of the Ostrov type in Polesia, of unknown origin, or of the Bovshiv – Ripniv type on the upper Dniester (and of similar Zlechow type in the Carpathians?)

In short, the whole problem boils down to the question whether Korchak-Prague originated mostly from 1) the descendants of the Cherepin group in the Upper Dniester region or from 2) the more northerly located groupings in the Pripyat region (like Ostrov and other similar sites near Pinsk) or from 3) the westernmost Kiev sites located on the right bank of the Dnieper. Intriguingly, it seems perfectly possible that all three groupings could have contributed to the genesis of Korchak-Prague, which seems not so unlikely when realizing that all three of them could have been most likely derived from the Post-Zarubintsy horizon, so all these people could have shared common (and not so distant) ancestry.

All this has been already discussed on this forum in the past, so unless you know some new data that would shed more light on this question, there seems to be no need to go again through all of this (or at least not in this thread that is devoted to Baltic R1a).

Michał
03-14-2016, 03:58 PM
If it happened then it was prior to 8AD.
Well, in such case this could not have anything to do with the Western Slavs.

Michał
03-14-2016, 03:59 PM
I. E. Kusherevich – she is the scholar out of Belarus that does writes on population genetics of Belarusians – stated there was a western migration in Belarus/ Velentin Sedov was another prominent scholar who stated there was a migration in Belarus from Poland's direction.

They did not state those people were Polabian Slavs.
Actually, Kushnerevich specifically mentioned the Polabian Slavs as the “likely” source of R1a-M458 in Belarus, which just doesn’t make any sense IMO.

Michał
03-14-2016, 04:05 PM
In the picture below from wikipedia where and in what proportions would you locate CTS1211, Z92 and M458? Just as a speculation.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Eastern_and_Central_Europe_around_750_BC.png
I don’t think this map is showing the spread of particular cultures precisely enough, but my guess would be that CTS1211 was present in a significant part of the Lusatian culture (mostly in those Eastern subgroupings of the Lusatian horizon that were previously occupied by Trzciniec and related cultures) and in all cultures located east of it (including Milograd, Yukhnov, Dnieper-Dvina, Brushed Pottery and some less known cultures north of them) , Z92 was probably less common in Milograd while showing significant frequencies in some neighboring cultures not shown on this map (including Yukhnov to the east, Brushed Pottery to the north, and maybe also Dnieper-Dvina to the north-east), M458 was most likely present in Milograd, although the exact location of the M458 homeland is very hard to guess.



That is very unorthodox to think of Fatyanovo as Indo-Iranians.
Agreed. However, the recently published aDNA results for Sintashta, Andronovo and CWC and the quite commonly accepted connection between Fatyanovo-Balanovo and Abashevo make the Fatyanovo-Balanovo the most likely source of the Pre-Proto-Indo-Iranians at the moment.



That Sintashta had some impulse from Central Europe is genetically and even I think there was some archeo link too, but Fatyanovo is not Central Europe.
So do you consider it more likely that the ancestors of the Indo-Iranians came to Abshevo->Sintashta from Central European CWC rather than from the more closely related Eastern European Fatyanovo-Balanovo culture? Personally, I find all such hypotheses assuming that those Early R1a-Z93 people migrated first west to Central Europe before migrating back towards the Ural mountains extremely unlikely. Placing the common expansion center for all R1a-M417 people in the Middle Dnieper region (or somewhere between the Ural and Central Europe) with particular subgroupings subsequently migrating in different directions (not only west, north and east but also south, thus contributing to the decline of Yamna) seems to make much more sense.

Volat
03-14-2016, 04:27 PM
Actually, Kushnerevich specifically mentioned the Polabian Slavs as the “likely” source of R1a-M458 in Belarus, which just doesn’t make any sense IMO.

She's likely wrong. M458 was expanding into much of Ukraine, Russia, Czech republic , Polabia around the same time during great Slavic expansion. Maybe earlier too. Finno-Ugric in northern Russia appear to have plenty of M458. I think I found the source where it was first claimed that Polabian Slavs migrated into Belarus. An early Slovak historian Pavel Jozef Šafárik who lived in the first half the 19th century stated that large Polabian tribe Lutici (aka Veleti) migrated to Litva. During his time (1800-1850) Litva was what is present day much of Belarus and Aukstaitia. The claim is probably based on similarity of ethnonym (Lutici) and the country name (Litva). He stated it during romantic times of pan Slavic movement in Bohemia.

Volat
03-14-2016, 04:32 PM
So do you consider it more likely that the ancestors of the Indo-Iranians came to Abshevo->Sintashta from Central European CWC rather than from the more closely related Eastern European Fatyanovo-Balanovo culture?

David Anthony in his book The Horse, The Wheel, and Language stated that Sintashta had also connection to Poltavka which is an eastern extension of Yamna. Poltavka could be the source of Sintashta's z93 markers.

PS Poltavka was tested recently. Does anyone know Y-chromosome markers from this culture?

Volat
03-14-2016, 04:42 PM
PS Poltavka was tested recently. Does anyone know Y-chromosome markers from this culture?

Found some information in Eurogene's blog. Poltavka was Z93 too.




X marks the spot of the burial site of Poltavka sample I0432 from the Mathieson et al. 2015 dataset. This individual belongs to Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a-Z93(Z94+), which today accounts for well over 90% of the R1a lineages in Asia and peaks in frequency at over 60% in the northern parts of South Asia.

Moreover, the dating of his burial site, 2925-2536 calBCE, suggests that he lived not long after the Z93 and Z94 mutations came into existence. That's because Z93 doesn't appear to be much older than 5,000 years based on full Y-chromosome sequence data (see here and here, including the comments).

So I0432 could well turn out to be a crucial piece in the puzzle of the peopling of South Asia.

nterestingly, this individual was flagged as an outlier in the Poltavka sample set by Mathieson et al., hence his other moniker: the Poltavka outlier. However, this wasn't because of any ancestry from South or even Central Asia. In fact, it was because he was too western.

Principal Component Analyses (PCA) featuring a wide range of present-day and ancient samples from Europe and Asia, like the one below, show that Poltavka outlier clusters further west than most Corded Ware individuals from Germany. Right click and open in a new tab to view full size.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-poltavka-outlier.html

Tomenable
03-14-2016, 04:55 PM
But that R1a-Z93 was Poltavka outlier, IIRC (so probably just an intruder, not part of main Poltavka pipulation).

Most of Poltavka was R1b, IIRC - so couldn't be ancestors of R1a Potapovka, Sintashta, Srubna, Andronovo, etc.

Tomenable
03-14-2016, 04:59 PM
When it comes to Potapovka, Sintashta, Srubna, Andronovo - we have 14 Y-DNA samples, of which 13 R1a and 1 C.

Or 12 R1a, one C and one P1 (but according to SNP calls from Genetiker's blog, that P1 was in fact R1a as well).

Tomenable
03-14-2016, 05:06 PM
David Anthony in his book The Horse, The Wheel, and Language stated that Sintashta had also connection to Poltavka

In terms of Y-DNA there is no connection but discontinuity between Poltavka and Sintashta. So Anthony was probably wrong.

On the other hand, there is Y-DNA continuity between Poltavka outlier - as well as Potapovka culture - and Sintashta:

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sintashta_culture#Genetics

There is also evidence of a Rig Veda myth in one of kurgan burials of Potapovka culture:

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-aryan-trail-3500-1500-bc.html


The inhumations are in kurgans (tumuli). Smaller less important graves surround the original tumulus. Animals, either whole or in parts, were among the grave offerings (cattle, sheep, goats, dogs). One burial has the corpse's head replaced with that of a horse,

reminiscent of the Vedic account of how the Asvíns replace the head of the priest Dadhyańc Artharvana with that of a horse so that he could reveal the secret of the sacred drink. —EIEC "Potapovka Culture"
Excavations conducted from 1985-1988 in Potapovka exposed 4 burial mounds, or kurgans, dated between 2200-2000 BC. Beneath kurgan 3 the central grave pit had remains of a man buried with at least two horse heads and the head of a sheep, in addition to pottery vessels and weapons. After the grave pit was filled, a human male was decapitated, his head was replaced with the head of a horse, and he was laid down over the filled grave shaft. This unique ritual provides a convincing antecedent for the Rig Vedic myth of Dadhyac Atharvan who knows the secret of making Soma juice, the nectar of immortality. The Asvins insists that Dadhyac tell them the secret. He refuses. They cut off his head and replace it with the head of a horse, through which he becomes an oracle and tells them the secret.

I wonder what was Y-DNA of that guy buried in the central grave pit beneath kurgan 3 - do we have this sample ???

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

As for that sample called "Poltavka outlier" - he was classified as Poltavka culture, but his burial site was Potapovka.

"Poltavka outlier" is dated to 2925-2536 BC, buried near the town of Potapovka. Later Potapovka culture existed there.

Volat
03-14-2016, 05:10 PM
But that R1a-Z93 was Poltavka outlier, IIRC (so probably just an intruder, not part of main Poltavka pipulation).

Most of Poltavka was R1b, IIRC - so couldn't be ancestors of R1a Potapovka, Sintashta, Srubna, Andronovo, etc.

Two males and one female were tested. Both males were likely Z93 as per your wikipedia source. Sintashta are related to both Poltavka and Abashevo. Abashevo in turn was related to Fatyanovo - east Corded Ware.

Tomenable
03-14-2016, 05:16 PM
Two males and one female were tested. Both males were likely Z93 as per your wikipedia source.

These 2 males are samples from Potapovka culture, dated to 2469-1900 BC.

"Poltavka outlier" with R1a-Z93 is a distinct sample, dated to 2925-2536 BC.

From Poltavka culture there are 5 Y-DNA samples - 4 R1b and 1 R1a ("outlier").

That outlier was also autosomally different from the other four guys, IIRC.

Potapovka culture replaced Poltavka culture in the same area later on.

It looks like R1a-Z93 invaded R1b and replaced them / took over that area.

Michał
03-14-2016, 05:19 PM
Two males and one female were tested. Both males were likely Z93 as per your wikipedia source.
Your wikipedia source is simply wrong. Check this site for much more reliable data: http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ancientdna.shtml Also, read the above post by Tomenable.

Tomenable
03-14-2016, 05:25 PM
Check this site for much more reliable data

IIRC Jean M has favoured Mathieson's Y-DNA data over Allentoft.

Some samples were determined by Allentoft to be R1a or R1b, but Mathieson published the same samples as - for example - CT or P1.

And Jean had those samples listed as R1a or R1b until Mathieson's study was published, and then reverted them back to CT or P1.

I'm not sure why because Allentoft's designations were reliable.


Your wikipedia source is simply wrong.

What is wrong about it ???

Volat
03-14-2016, 05:25 PM
These 2 males are samples from Potapovka culture, dated to 2469-1900 BC.

"Poltavka outlier" with R1a-Z93 is a distinct sample, dated to 2925-2536 BC.

From Poltavka culture there are 5 Y-DNA samples - 4 R1b and 1 R1a ("outlier").

That outlier was also autosomally different from the other four guys, IIRC.

Potapovka culture replaced Poltavka culture in the same area later on.

It looks like R1a-Z93 invaded R1b and replaced them / took over that area.


You referenced Potapovka in the context of Poltavka discussion. Both names are similar. That's where is the confusion. David Anthony was not the only person who linked Sintashta to Poltavka. Two Russian archaeologists from Ural region are also stating Sintashta is related to Yamna. Many scholars also state that Abashevo is related to Sintashta. Origins of Sintashta was controversial among archaeologists.

Volat
03-14-2016, 05:26 PM
Your wikipedia source is simply wrong. Check this site for much more reliable data: http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ancientdna.shtml Also, read the above post by Tomenable.

It's not my wikipedia source. It's Tomenable's wikipedia source.

Tomenable
03-14-2016, 05:27 PM
You referenced Potapovka in the context of Poltavka discussion. Both names are similar.

Look, Potapovka is a village / archaeological site, and a culture.

Sample "Poltavka outlier" was dated to times of Poltavka culture, but was buried near site Potapovka.

Potapovka culture was also centered in the same region, as its name shows. But it existed later on.

Tomenable
03-14-2016, 05:28 PM
It's not my wikipedia source. It's Tomenable's wikipedia source.

And it is not wrong (contrary to what Michal claims). It is about Potapovka culture, not Poltavka culture.

"Poltavka outlier" was found near village Potapovka, but in times when Poltavka culture existed there.

Tomenable
03-14-2016, 05:30 PM
Both names are similar. David Anthony was not the only person who linked Sintashta to Poltavka. Two Russian archaeologists from Ural region are also stating Sintashta is related to Yamna. Many scholars also state that Abashevo is related to Sintashta. Origins of Sintashta was controversial among archaeologists.

Sintashta is related to "Poltavka outlier", not to "Poltavka mainstream". Both in Y-DNA and autosomal terms.

Potapovka culture - which succeeded Poltavka - was genetically closer to Sintashta than "Poltavka mainstream".

Poltavka outlier & Sintashta look genetically like an eastward expansion from Corded Ware into the Steppe.

Abashevo was the easternmost group of Corded Ware, and probably those were ancestors of Sintashta.

"Poltavka outlier" was different - both in autosomal and Y-DNA terms - than the remaining 4 Poltavka samples.

On the other hand, Potapovka and Sintashta samples were just like "Poltavka outlier", and unlike the other 4.

Tomenable
03-14-2016, 05:39 PM
Check this site for much more reliable data: http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ancientdna.shtml

This site has for example sample RISE436 listed as haplogroup CT - because this is how Mathieson 2015 listed it in his study.

However, Allentoft 2015 had determined before Mathieson, that this sample is actually R1a. So why should we stick to CT ???

There are several more similar cases on that site, RISE436 (which is not CT but R1a1a1-M417+) is not the only one.

Michał
03-14-2016, 05:41 PM
It's not my wikipedia source. It's Tomenable's wikipedia source.
Ok, so his wikipedia source about Potapovka was right, but you have wrongly placed this information under his quote that referred to a different culture (Poltavka), thus causing this confusion. :)

Tomenable
03-14-2016, 05:44 PM
Yes. :)

Confusion is caused by fact that R1a "Poltavka outlier" is Poltavka culture (at least the authors classified him so), but buried at Potapovka.

We have four more samples from Poltavka culture - buried at Grachevka, Kutuluk, Nikolaevka and Lopatino sites. They are R1b.

And then we have two R1a samples of Potapovka culture, which are not from Potapovka itself, but from Utyevka site.

Michał
03-14-2016, 05:47 PM
This site has for example sample RISE436 listed as haplogroup CT - because this is how Mathieson 2015 listed it in his study.

However, Allentoft 2015 had determined before Mathieson, that this sample is actually R1a. So why should we stick to CT ???

There are several more similar cases on that site, RISE436 (which is not CT but R1a1a1-M417+) is not the only one.
Ok, I agree with you. I wasn't aware that Jean has modified some of those earlier entries this way. At the same time, she reports RISE1 as R1b without any comments that this is one of the least reliable samples from that very study.

parastais
03-14-2016, 10:14 PM
First wanted to thank you for reply. I find some satisfaction in exchanging thoughts relating different subjects. I agree on all points regarding cultures in the picture including that M458 is a mystery.
What I still want to discuss further is Fatyanovo.


I don’t think this map is showing the spread of particular cultures precisely enough, but my guess would be that CTS1211 was present in a significant part of the Lusatian culture (mostly in those Eastern subgroupings of the Lusatian horizon that were previously occupied by Trzciniec and related cultures) and in all cultures located east of it (including Milograd, Yukhnov, Dnieper-Dvina, Brushed Pottery and some less known cultures north of them) , Z92 was probably less common in Milograd while showing significant frequencies in some neighboring cultures not shown on this map (including Yukhnov to the east, Brushed Pottery to the north, and maybe also Dnieper-Dvina to the north-east), M458 was most likely present in Milograd, although the exact location of the M458 homeland is very hard to guess.
But
a) is not Yukhnov, Brushed Pottery and maybe Dnieper-Dvina considered post-Fatyanovo cultures? Therefore Fatyanovo side of Fatyanovo-Balanovo would be Z92+?
b) if Fatyanovo Western part was Z93+, where is that seen today?



So do you consider it more likely that the ancestors of the Indo-Iranians came to Abshevo->Sintashta from Central European CWC rather than from the more closely related Eastern European Fatyanovo-Balanovo culture? Personally, I find all such hypotheses assuming that those Early R1a-Z93 people migrated first west to Central Europe before migrating back towards the Ural mountains extremely unlikely. Placing the common expansion center for all R1a-M417 people in the Middle Dnieper region (or somewhere between the Ural and Central Europe) with particular subgroupings subsequently migrating in different directions (not only west, north and east but also south, thus contributing to the decline of Yamna) seems to make much more sense.
That - Middle Dnieper region - makes sense for R1a-M417 people. But is the only way for Z93 to migrate from Middle Dnieper to Shintashta via Fatyanovo route? Is not it like going to Moscow from Riga via Helsinki? Also do we consider Fatyanovo-Balanovo one culture? Or 2, in which case (North West side) Fatyanovo would be Z92 and Balanovo Z93?

Tomenable
03-15-2016, 12:16 AM
The connection between Polabian Slavs and Belarusians I know is linguistic. It has been shown in a good study (thesis) that Belarusian language shows more tendencies towards Kashubian, Slovincian, upper Lusatian, lower Lusatian as well as Polabian in comparison to other east Slavic languages ( Ukrainian and Russian). On the other hand Polish, Czech and Slovak have more linguistic similarities with the aforementioned west Slavic languages.

Did linguist Andrei Zaliznyak write anything about this ??? (as Tomatoes claimed here):

http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1116&start=10

Gravetto-Danubian
03-15-2016, 12:41 AM
M458 was most likely present in Milograd, although the exact location of the M458 homeland is very hard to guess.

Yes the earliest 'homeland' is difficult to guess, although we might find out some day.

But given how 'slender' the M458 tree looks compared to Z280, I think we can safely assume it was to the west of Z280. I.e.: given the evident bottle-necking (young TMRCA of L1029 and L260), most of M458 must have been located (during the Iron Age) where there is the greatest evidence for a 'population crash' in the subsequent Late Roman & (early phase of) the Migration Eras - that being Poland and central - south Belarus.

If so, then using the guidance from archaeology we posit the bulk of M458 expanding up the Vistula from NW Ukraine with the classic 'Prague type culture'?
However, we might also point to direct 'Kolochin culture' type connections between the middle Dnieper - Belarus and Poland (this appears to have been earlier in SE poland than Prague type by some 50-100 years).

What's your present opinion ?

(NB: I view the Kolochin culture and its Kievan predecessor as para-Slavic, pre-Slavic, SE Baltoid, or whichever term we prefer, i.e. not representative of The Slavic material culture characterised by SFBs with corner ovens and pottery with double-wavy lines whose origins lies in Podolia/ Galicia/ Bukovina/ Moldavia; rather its houses lacked ovens, had a central support beam, and the pottery is wholly different ).

8152
Kolochin house outline (from Mallory EIEC)

8153
Dwellings of Prague-type (from Barford; Slavs)

Tomenable
03-15-2016, 12:41 AM
Coming back to that supposed eastward migration / flight of Polabian Slavs reaching even as far east as Belarus:

According to the PVL chronicle, the Viatychs and the Radimichs were not "native East Slavs", but were of Lechitic origin:

Lechitic origin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lechites#Lechitic_group

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


According to Nestor the Chronicler, the tribe of Radimichs were Lachy (Lechitic) ... Due to some foreign invasion they moved to the East. (Original Russian text "радимичи же и вятичи — от рода ляхов. Были ведь два брата у ляхов — Радим, а другой — Вятко; и пришли и сели: Радим на Соже, и от него прозвались радимичи, а Вятко сел с родом своим по Оке, от него получили свое название вятичи.")

And the Viatychs (Viatyches) were also of western origin.

So early "back-migrations" from West Slavic to East Slavic lands indeed find confirmation, even in written sources too.

Volat
03-15-2016, 12:56 AM
Did linguist Andrei Zaliznyak write anything about this ??? (as Tomatoes claimed here):

http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1116&start=10

As far as I know Zalizniak mentioned possible west Slavic connection to the Novgorodian dialect. West Slavic tendencies of the Belarusian comes from Zhuravlyov's monograph in which he obtained large samples around 2,000-3,000 for modern Slavic languages. His area of interest is comparative linguistics. Monograph : http://www.inslav.ru/images/stories/pdf/1994_Zhuravlev.pdf

Volat
03-15-2016, 01:05 AM
Coming back to that supposed eastward migration / flight of Polabian Slavs reaching even as far east as Belarus:

According to the PVL chronicle, the Viatychs and the Radimichs were not "native East Slavs", but were of Lechitic origin:

Lechitic origin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lechites#Lechitic_group

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



And the Viatychs (Viatyches) were also of western origin.

So early "back-migrations" from West Slavic to East Slavic lands indeed find confirmation, even in written sources too.

Monk Nestor may not have known about origins of Radimiches and Vyatiches who settled on Sozh and Oka rivers 300 years prior he wrote PVL chronicle. Some parts of PVL text were legends rather historic facts.

George
03-15-2016, 02:37 AM
Monk Nestor may not have known about origins of Radimiches and Vyatiches who settled on Sozh and Oka rivers 300 years prior he wrote PVL chronicle. Some parts of PVL text were legends rather historic facts.

Constantine Porphyrogenitus mentioned "Lendzaninoi" among the Dnipro river route Slavic tributaries to the Rus of Kyiv, locating them between the Krivichi and Siveriani. He does not yet speak of Radimichi, but that's the correct area for them... DAI discusses the situation of ca. 952 CE. Perhaps only the ruling class was of West Slavic origin. The areal archaeology does not point in that direction.

Waldemar
03-15-2016, 12:00 PM
Primary Chronicle:
"For the Slavic race in Rus' includes only the Polyanians, the Derevlians, the people of Novgorod, the Polotians, the Dregovichians, the Severians, and the Buzhians, who live along the river Bug and were later called Volhynians. The following are other tribes which pay tribute to Rus': Chud, Merya, Ves', Muroma, Cheremis', Mordva, Perm', Pechera, Yam,' Litva, Zimegola, Kors', Narva, and Liv'. These tribes have their own languages and belong to the race of Japheth, which inhabits the lands of the north. Now while the Slavs dwelt along the Danube, as we have said, there came from among the Scythians, that is, from the Khazars, a people called Bulgars who settled on the Danube and oppressed the Slavs. Afterward came the White Ugrians, who inherited the Slavic country. These Ugrians appeared under the Emperor Heraclius, warring on Chosroes, King of Persia. The Avars, who attacked Heraclius the Emperor, nearly capturing him, also lived at this time. They made war upon the Slavs, and harassed the Dulebians, who were themselves Slavs. They even did violence to the Dulebian women. When an Avar made a journey, he did not cause either a horse or a steer to be harnessed, but gave command instead that three of four or five women should be yoked to his cart and be made to draw him. Even thus they harassed the Dulebians. The Avars were large of stature and proud of spirit, and God destroyed them. They all perished, and not one Avar survived. There is to this day a proverb in Rus' which runs, “They perished like the Avars.” Neither race nor heir of them remains. The Pechenegs came after them, and the Magyars passed by Kyiv later during the time of Oleg.
Thus the Polyanians, who belonged to the Slavic race, lived apart, as we have said, and called themselves Polyanians. The Derevlians, who are likewise Slavs, lived by themselves and adopted this tribal name. But the Radimichians and the Vyatichians sprang from the Lyakhs. There were in fact among the Lyakhs two brothers, one named Radim and other Vyatko. Radim settled on the Sozh', where the people are known as Radimichians, and Vyatko with his family settled on the Oka. The people there were named Vyatichians after him. Thus the Polyanians, the Derevlians, the Severians, the Radimichians, and the Croats lived at peace. The Dulebians dwelt along the Bug, where the Volhynians now are found, but the Ulichians and the Tivercians lived by the Dniester, and extended as far as the Danube. There was a multitude of them, for they inhabited the banks of the Dniester almost down to the east, and to this day there are cities in that locality which still belong to them. Hence they are called Great Scythia by the Greeks.
These Slavic tribes preserved their own customs, the law of their forefathers, and their traditions, each observing its own usages. For the Polyanians retained the mild and peaceful customs of their ancestors, and showed respect for their daughters-in-law and their sisters, as well as for their mothers and fathers. For their mothers-in-law and their brothers-in-law they also entertained great reverence. They observed a fixed custom, under which the groom’s brother did not fetch the bride, but she was brought to the bridegroom in the evening, and on the next morning her dowry was turned over.
The Derevlians, on the other hand, existed in bestial fashion, and lived like cattle. They killed one another, ate every impure thing, and there was no marriage among them, but instead they seized upon maidens by capture. The Radimichians, the Vyatichians, and the Severians had the same customs. They lived in the forest like any wild beast, and ate every unclean thing. They spoke obscenely before their fathers and their daughters-in-law. There were no marriages among them, but simply festivals among the villages. When the people gathered together for games, for dancing, and for all other devilish amusements, the men on these occasions carried off wives for themselves, and each took any woman with whom he had arrived at an understanding. In fact, they even had two or three wives apiece. Whenever a death occurred, a feast was held over the corpse, and then a great pyre was constructed, on which the deceased was laid and burned. After the bones were collected, they were placed in a small urn and set upon a post by the roadside, even as the Vyatichians do to this day. Such customs were observed by the Krivichians and the other pagans, since they did not know the law of God, but made a law unto themselves.
(...)
[885 AD]. Oleg sent messengers to the Radimichians to inquire to whom they paid tribute. Upon their reply that they paid tribute to the Khazars, he directed them to render it to himself instead, and they accordingly paid him a shilling apiece, the same amount that they had paid the Khazars. Thus Oleg established his authority over the Polyanians, the Derevlians, the Severians, and the Radimichians, but he waged war with the Ulichians and the Tivercians.
(...)
[956-964 AD]. When Prince Svyatoslav had grown up and matured, he began to collect a numerous and valiant army. Stepping light as a leopard, he undertook many campaigns. Upon his expeditions he carried with him neither wagons nor kettles, and boiled no meat, but cut off small strips of horseflesh, game, or beef, and ate it after roasting it on the coals. Nor did he have a tent, but he spread out a horse-blanket under him, and set his saddle under his head; and all his retinue did likewise. He sent messengers to the other lands announcing his intention to attack them. He went to the Oka and the Volga, and on coming in contact with the Vyatichians, he inquired of them to whom they paid tribute. They made answer that they paid a silver-piece per ploughshare to the Khazars.
(...)
[982 AD]. The Vyatichians went to war, but Vladimir attacked them and conquered them a second time.
(...)
[984 AD]. Vladimir attacked the Radimichians. His general was named Wolf's Tail, and Vladimir sent him on ahead. He met the Radimichians by the river Pishchan', and overcame them. Therefore the Russes ridiculed the Radimichians, saying that the men on the Pishchan' fled in the presence of a wolf's tail. Now the Radimichians belong to the race of the Lyakhs. They had come and settled in these regions, and pay tribute to the Russes, an obligation which they maintain to the present day.
(...)
Then Svyatoslav sent me to Poland; after going beyond Glogau to the Bohemian forest, I traveled four months in that country. In this year, my oldest child was born in Novgorod. Thence I went to Turov, in the spring to Pereyaslavl' again, and then back to Turqv. Svyatoslav then died, and I again went to Smolensk, and thence during the same winter to Novgorod, and in the spring to help Gleb. In the summer, I went with my father to Polotsk, and in the next winter with Svyatopolk to Polotsk again, and the city was burned. He then went to Novgorod, while I, supported by Polovcians, marched against Odresk, carrying on constant warfare, and thence traveled to Chernigov.
Then on my return from Smolensk, I rejoined my father in Chernigov a second time. Then Oleg arrived after his expulsion from Vladimir, and I invited him to dinner with my father at tbe Red Palace in Chernigov, and I gave my father three hundred grivny of gold. Upon leaving Smolensk, I fought my way through the Polovcian forces, and arrived at Pereyaslavl', where I found my father newly arrived from a raid. Then I rode with my father and Izyaslav to Chernigov to fight with Boris, and we conquered Boris and Oleg. Then we went to Pereyaslavl', and remained in Obrov. Vseslav at that juncture fired Smolensk. I set forth with men from Chernigov with a spare horse each, but we did not catch him at Smolensk. On this pursuit of Vseslav, I burned the countryside and ravaged as far as Lukoml' and Logozhsk, then attacked Dryutesk, and returned to Chernigov. In the winter of that year, the Polovcians devastated the whole of Starodub. I marched with men of Chernigov against the Polovcians. At the Desna, we seized the princes Asaduk and Sauk, and killed their followers. The next day, behind Novgorod, we scattered the powerful force of Belkatgin, and took their swords and all their booty. We then went for two winters among the Vyatichians to attack Khodota and his son. The first winter, I went to Kordna and then to Mikulin in pursuit of the sons of Izyaslav, whom we did not catch. In that spring we joined with Yaropolk at Brody."

http://www.mgh-bibliothek.de/dokumente/a/a011458.pdf

Volat
03-15-2016, 12:52 PM
Monk Nestor beastified some east Slavic tribes as they continued practising pagan traditions long after Rus' was officially baptised.

Michał
03-15-2016, 04:00 PM
a) is not Yukhnov, Brushed Pottery and maybe Dnieper-Dvina considered post-Fatyanovo cultures? Therefore Fatyanovo side of Fatyanovo-Balanovo would be Z92+?
The major problem with deriving these three "Baltic" or "East Baltic" cultures from Fatyanovo is that there is a huge time gap (more than a millennium?) between the disappearance of Fatyanovo and the formation of any undoubtedly Baltic culture in this territory. In the meantime, there was an expansion of the Trzciniec horizon, with both Sosnica and East Trzciniec likely contributing to the spread of the common "Balto-Slavic" Y-DNA subclades (ie. CTS1211 and Z92) northward and eastward. Also, we don't know any sufficiently old subclades under Z92 that would be specifically associated with the easternmost or northernmost range of the Baltic hydronymy, which is what one should expect if Z92 was initially associated with Fatyanovo.


b) if Fatyanovo Western part was Z93+, where is that seen today?
Please see this thread: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4211-Russian-and-Polish-R1a-Z93*

I must admit that your above argument is exactly what made me initially think that Fatyanovo-Balanovo could not have been associated with Z93, as in such case I would expect to see some rare Z93 subclades associated with the Finno-Ugric population of North-Eastern Europe. However, except for the very young Finnish-Karelian subclade YP1147 under CTS1211 (expanding only about 1500 years ago, thus likely associated with a relatively recent Slavic or Baltic admixture), we don't have any sufficiently old subclades under Z280 that would demonstrate (or at least strongly suggest) the association of Fatyanovo-Balanovo with Z280.



That - Middle Dnieper region - makes sense for R1a-M417 people. But is the only way for Z93 to migrate from Middle Dnieper to Shintashta via Fatyanovo route? Is not it like going to Moscow from Riga via Helsinki?
It is exactly on the contrary. Fatyanovo-Balanovo seems to be the most straightforward connection between Middle Dnieper and Southern Ural (Sintashta). Please see for example this map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fatyanovo-culture.jpg.

Actually, this Fatyanovo-Balanovo link seems to be the only possible connection between Middle Dnieper/Corded Ware and Sintashta after the aDNA data showed us that both Eastern Yamna and the descending Poltavka cultures can be safely ruled out as major contributors to Sintashta (not only because of Z93 but also because both Yamna and Poltavka lack the important autosomal component (EEF) that is shared by Corded Ware and Sintashta). So once we take a look at a map showing the distribution of Corded Ware and Yamna horizons in Eastern Europe (like this one: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8d/Map_Corded_Ware_culture-en.svg/2000px-Map_Corded_Ware_culture-en.svg.png), we realize that the Easternmost extension of the Corded Ware horizon (ie. Fatyanovo-Balanovo) is definitely the most likely source of Z93.

Furthermore, it is the long-postulated close association of the Abashevo culture with both the "ancestral" Fatyanovo-Balanovo culture and the "descending" Sintashta culture that makes this scenario definitely the most likely option at the moment. Please see this map by Anthony that demonstrates how crucial the position of Abashevo in this hypothesis is: http://i50.tinypic.com/ou1j13.png.



Also do we consider Fatyanovo-Balanovo one culture? Or 2, in which case (North West side) Fatyanovo would be Z92 and Balanovo Z93?
These were two closely related cultures that differed mostly by using slightly different burial rites. And I absolutely agree that there is certainly a possibility that the Fatyanovo-Balanovo complex included at least two different subpopulations, each associated with different haplogroup. However, if this was the case, there is nothing strongly indicating that this non-Z93 clade was Z92 (for the reasons mentioned above). Personally, I would be slightly more willing to believe that this was a rare subclade of CTS1211 or even some Z280* or Z282*/Z283* species that are nearly extinct today.

Michał
03-15-2016, 05:36 PM
Yes the earliest 'homeland' is difficult to guess, although we might find out some day.

But given how 'slender' the M458 tree looks compared to Z280, I think we can safely assume it was to the west of Z280. I.e.: given the evident bottle-necking (young TMRCA of L1029 and L260), most of M458 must have been located (during the Iron Age) where there is the greatest evidence for a 'population crash' in the subsequent Late Roman & (early phase of) the Migration Eras - that being Poland and central - south Belarus.

If so, then using the guidance from archaeology we posit the bulk of M458 expanding up the Vistula from NW Ukraine with the classic 'Prague type culture'?
However, we might also point to direct 'Kolochin culture' type connections between the middle Dnieper - Belarus and Poland (this appears to have been earlier in SE poland than Prague type by some 50-100 years).

What's your present opinion ?
If I had to guess, I would place the origin of M458 (and the initial expansion of PF7521) in the Upper Dnieper and Berezina region (or somewhere between the Pripyat and Sozh rivers), although I definitely admit that other "homelands" are perfectly possible. While you seem to explain the characteristic structure of the M458 tree by suggesting its initial association with a territory that underwent a "population crash", I would be more willing to assume that it was rather located in a region that was relatively isolated from all neighbors, thus protected both from significant population influxes and from any involvement in sudden population expansions. Also, I would assume that the local environment did not facilitate any significant population growth. Only after the relatively late contacts with some more "advanced" (in this case "Latenized") population of the Zarubintsy culture, and after subsequent participation in the formation of the Late Zarubintsy groupings (together with some "neighboring" Balto-Slavic subclades under Z280 and with the Zarubintsy-derived I2a lineages) the subsequent expansion became possible, which was greatly facilitated by the very favorable political (and demographic) situation (first in Ukraine and then further west and south-west).

Unfortunately, the information we have about the "basal" lineages related to both major Slavic clades CTS11962 and L260 are not very helpful when trying to identify the homeland of M458, as these early separated subclades are not only very rare but also found in many different locations, including not only Poland, Belarus and Russia, but also Caucasus (Balkaria), Italy (including Sardinia) and Wales.



(NB: I view the Kolochin culture and its Kievan predecessor as para-Slavic, pre-Slavic, SE Baltoid, or whichever term we prefer, i.e. not representative of The Slavic material culture characterised by SFBs with corner ovens and pottery with double-wavy lines whose origins lies in Podolia/ Galicia/ Bukovina/ Moldavia; rather its houses lacked ovens, had a central support beam, and the pottery is wholly different ).

8152
Kolochin house outline (from Mallory EIEC)

8153
Dwellings of Prague-type (from Barford; Slavs)
It is worth noting that the dwellings used in the Kiev (ie. Pre-Kolochin) culture represented many different forms of semi-subterranean structures, which also included the square sunken-floored huts with an oven in a corner, a variant that seemed to be most common in the Middle Dnieper Group (as per Terpilovsky), ie. in the south-westernmost region associated with Kiev culture that is most strongly suspected of being associated with the expansion of the post-Kiev groupings both south (thus contributing to the emergence of the Penkovka culture) and west, ie. towards the Pripyat and Korchak regions. Also, as you well know after reading the Barford's work, "the Penkovka group on the left bank of the Dniepr is distinguished from that on the right bank in that there are no huts with corner ovens, but only free-standing hearths like those of the forest zone in the fifth century. Possibly this area was settled by population movements from the regions of the upper Dniepr", which might correspond to the above-expressed suspicion that different subgroupings derived from the ancestral Kiev culture were associated with spreading slightly different elements of the Kiev material culture. Having said that, I consider it equally likely that many such features that are seen today as most strongly (or even specifically) associated with Korchak-Prague could have rather resulted from merging with the local Upper Dniester (or post-Cherep) population which resulted in taking over the local traditions, of course when assuming that any Kiev-derived population movement towards Western Ukraine took place in the late 4th or 5th century.

parastais
03-15-2016, 10:10 PM
Adding to our discussion on Fatyanovo. Fatyanovo and its neighbor cultures (sorry for Russian):
8160
(from user eugene-march from Balto-Slavica forum).

edit:
http://i047.radikal.ru/1203/9e/b2e28bddc92a.jpg

Here - South Middle Dnieper, North Fatyanovo. I just can't imagine Indo-Iranians up there. On other hand, hm, that reminds of Arctic theory for Vedas?

George
03-15-2016, 11:44 PM
"the Zarubintsy-derived I2a lineages" (#151) I agree that as of current evidence this is a very plausible theory as to the origin of I2a -Din. Its closest relatives ("Disles" and "Isles") are quite clearly "Western". I would suppose that a "Zarubinia" derivation would more likely be Pomeranian than Jastorf though either is conceivable . But at this stage of the investigative game one cannot yet rule out a more eastern origin for Din. In this second scenario the localization of the Din patriarch could be quite elusive.

Gravetto-Danubian
03-16-2016, 04:26 AM
If I had to guess, I would place the origin of M458 (and the initial expansion of PF7521) in the Upper Dnieper and Berezina region (or somewhere between the Pripyat and Sozh rivers), although I definitely admit that other "homelands" are perfectly possible. While you seem to explain the characteristic structure of the M458 tree by suggesting its initial association with a territory that underwent a "population crash", I would be more willing to assume that it was rather located in a region that was relatively isolated from all neighbors, thus protected both from significant population influxes and from any involvement in sudden population expansions. Also, I would assume that the local environment did not facilitate any significant population growth. Only after the relatively late contacts with some more "advanced" (in this case "Latenized") population of the Zarubintsy culture, and after subsequent participation in the formation of the Late Zarubintsy groupings (together with some "neighboring" Balto-Slavic subclades under Z280 and with the Zarubintsy-derived I2a lineages) the subsequent expansion became possible, which was greatly facilitated by the very favorable political (and demographic) situation (first in Ukraine and then further west and south-west).

Unfortunately, the information we have about the "basal" lineages related to both major Slavic clades CTS11962 and L260 are not very helpful when trying to identify the homeland of M458, as these early separated subclades are not only very rare but also found in many different locations, including not only Poland, Belarus and Russia, but also Caucasus (Balkaria), Italy (including Sardinia) and Wales.

Thanks Michal
Although if the "time of formation" of M458 is 2700 BC, and TMRCA or L1029 is 100 BC, we can maybe postulate some bottlenecking somewhere, but I have no convictions for anything
(But it sounds like you are leaning toward no M458 in Wielbark and Przeworsk remains?)





It is worth noting that the dwellings used in the Kiev (ie. Pre-Kolochin) culture represented many different forms of semi-subterranean structures, which also included the square sunken-floored huts with an oven in a corner, a variant that seemed to be most common in the Middle Dnieper Group (as per Terpilovsky), ie. in the south-westernmost region associated with Kiev culture that is most strongly suspected of being associated with the expansion of the post-Kiev groupings both south (thus contributing to the emergence of the Penkovka culture) and west, ie. towards the Pripyat and Korchak regions. Also, as you well know after reading the Barford's work, "the Penkovka group on the left bank of the Dniepr is distinguished from that on the right bank in that there are no huts with corner ovens, but only free-standing hearths like those of the forest zone in the fifth century. Possibly this area was settled by population movements from the regions of the upper Dniepr", which might correspond to the above-expressed suspicion that different subgroupings derived from the ancestral Kiev culture were associated with spreading slightly different elements of the Kiev material culture. Having said that, I consider it equally likely that many such features that are seen today as most strongly (or even specifically) associated with Korchak-Prague could have rather resulted from merging with the local Upper Dniester (or post-Cherep) population which resulted in taking over the local traditions, of course when assuming that any Kiev-derived population movement towards Western Ukraine took place in the late 4th or 5th century.

Yes I have Terpilovsky's book, which is very thorough. Whilst there's variation to be encountered, I've not come across any stone oven features in Kiev dwellings in the entirety of his illustrations. It was a later development c. 5th century, and appears just on the periphery of former Chernyakov culture territory - both north (around Kiev) and west (Podolia, Bukovina).

So whilst I can certainly agree that there is scope to see Kiev -> some left bank Penkovka culture movements, I think for the Prague areas the evidence of intrusion is lacking. Rather, I'm inclined to see development here from Zubra culture & Podol (Ripnev) variant of Chernyakov culture, as you described in your second scenario. But there's always going to be debate- maybe one day we can obtain aDNA from cremation burials .

Waldemar
03-16-2016, 08:41 AM
If I had to guess, I would place the origin of M458 (and the initial expansion of PF7521) in the Upper Dnieper and Berezina region (or somewhere between the Pripyat and Sozh rivers), although I definitely admit that other "homelands" are perfectly possible.

I hope that we will find my ancestors' homeland soon, but at the moment I lean toward more western origin of M458 rather than Michal's allochthonous predictions.

The location of the Upper Dnieper, Berezina, Pripyat and Sozh rivers (mentioned by Michal)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/Belarus_Dnieper-River_Pripyat-River_Sosh-River.png

These rivers are located from 500 to over 1000 km to the east of my earliest known ancestral home, the settlement which was founded in 1129 AD (or earlier), and 600+ km to the east of my family name hot spot.

parastais
03-16-2016, 04:05 PM
Re placing M458 there (Upper Dnieper - Berezina). Hm, how does that fit with Baltic folk origins. Did not East Balts arrive from somewhere there in the neighborhood? If so, how come M458 is largely missing in Latvians and is very little in Lithuanians (also don't know if Lithuanian clades arrived before Slavs or already as Slavs).

Re: "I lean toward more western origin of M458 rather than Michal's allochthonous predictions."
A little more Western than that goes directly to the East Balt possible Motherland?
So it must be far more Western or more Southern or both.

Michał
03-16-2016, 07:47 PM
Thanks Michal
Although if the "time of formation" of M458 is 2700 BC, and TMRCA or L1029 is 100 BC, we can maybe postulate some bottlenecking somewhere, but I have no convictions for anything
For this kind of a bottleneck effect to happen, you will first need such a clade (like M458) to show a relatively high frequency and wide distribution, for which we have no evidence so far (although I admit that the relevant regions were not tested yet, so everything is possible). An alternative scenario is that this clade had simply not enough opportunities to significantly expand, so no bottleneck was needed to reduce its diversity. In relatively small populations, the well known mechanism of genetic drift is able to restrain the production of multiple descending sublineages very efficiently.



(But it sounds like you are leaning toward no M458 in Wielbark and Przeworsk remains?)
As I wrote elsewhere, I cannot rule out that M458 will occasionally be found in both Wielbark and Przeworsk (especially in territories on their eastern periphery, ie. east of the Vistula river), but I will be very surprised in case M458 turns out to be one of the dominant Y-DNA haplogroups in any of these two cultures (or if M458 is found west of the Vistula river prior to the Early Slavic expansion in the 5th-7th centuries).




Yes I have Terpilovsky's book, which is very thorough. Whilst there's variation to be encountered, I've not come across any stone oven features in Kiev dwellings in the entirety of his illustrations. It was a later development c. 5th century, and appears just on the periphery of former Chernyakov culture territory - both north (around Kiev) and west (Podolia, Bukovina).
This is not exactly true. Firstly, the Kiev region was a territory were both Kiev and Chernyakhov strongly influenced each other, so you would first need to demonstrate that any such square sunken-floored huts with an oven in a corner were specifically associated with Chernyakov (and I have never come across such information). Secondly, although Terpilovsky has indeed not shown any such dwellings in his illustrations, he has specifically mentioned such examples, providing references to the original reports. Here is what he writes in an English summary:

Semi-subterranean dwellings with a central pilar as well as the constructions with an oven in the corner were found in the Middle Dnieper Region.

And here is a fragment of a relevant section in Russian:

Вместе с тем, иногда использовались и печи, прямым потверждением чего является печь-каменка из Гудка, а косвенным следы стенок вокруг подов (Максимов. Орлов 1974, 18-20; Кравченко 1979, 83-84).

Michał
03-16-2016, 09:01 PM
Re placing M458 there (Upper Dnieper - Berezina). Hm, how does that fit with Baltic folk origins. Did not East Balts arrive from somewhere there in the neighborhood? If so, how come M458 is largely missing in Latvians and is very little in Lithuanians
The region I'm talking about corresponds to SE Belarus (which includes the Gorshkov-Chaplin and Kisteni-Chechersk groups within the Late Zarubintsy horizon, and the Upper Dnieper group within the Kiev culture, although I suspect that in the latter case both L1029 and L260 have already migrated south, so the incoming Baltic-derived Z280 species (mostly under YP237) were accompanied in this region by YP515 mostly), while I would place the origin of the Eastern Balts (ie. Lithuanians and Latvians) in territories located further north and north-east (or where the centers of the Brushed Pottery and Dnieper-Dvina cultures are commonly located). Please see Map I in this paper by Oblomski et al. (https://www.google.pl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjLr_7NgsbLAhWFNpoKHeu0Be8QFggcMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iaepan.edu.pl%2Farchaeologia-polona%2Fobject%2F575&usg=AFQjCNHgYNtpoiezB_a2VEIvG2-Ij9E4Kg&sig2=vzYj5O4oPZbVjgtv3BBbpA) for better illustration. More specifically, I would associate the initial expansion of M458 (mostly L1029) with the so-called Grini-Vovky type that seems to have originated in the Upper Dnieper region and played a significant role in the formation/transformation of the Late Zarubintsy horizon (as suggested by its spread to all major Post-Zarubintsy groupings that were subsequently involved in creation of the Kiev culture).

The above scenario is also consistent with the modern distribution of those subclades under Y33 that probably were not a major part of the Proto-Slavic community. While it seems almost certain that CTS8816 (including Y2902, L1280 and S18681) were present among the Early Poroto-Slavs and thus migrated with them in nearly all directions (hence their original location could not have been far from the location of M458), the less common subclades under Y33 are not as strongly associated with the Slavic ancestry, showing frequently either mixed (Balto-Slavic) or Baltic roots. At the moment, we know at least six such relatively rare sublineages parallel to CTS8816 and these are:

Y33>YP968 (Poland, Germany, Ukraine, Belarus, Estonia, Finland, Russia)
Y33*-A (Russia, Belarus)
Y33*-B (Russia)
Y33*-C (Poland, Slovakia, Germany, Russia)
Y33*-D (Lithuania, Poland)
Y33*-x? (YP968 not tested) (Estonia)

Please note that neither of those lineages is found among the Southern Slavs or south of the Carpathian range (and the same is actually true for S18681), which indicates that the Proto-Slavic clades under Y33 likely originated in the Northern part of the Proto-Slavic homeland (or in South-Central Belarus, if my scenario is correct).



(also don't know if Lithuanian clades arrived before Slavs or already as Slavs).
I am not sure which Lithuanian clades you have in mind. Anyway, although I would assume that the vast majority of Lithuanian M458 is of Slavic origin, there is also a small chance that some modern subclades under M458 penetrated the neighboring Baltic territories before the Early Slavic expansion started.

George
03-16-2016, 09:16 PM
"the Kiev region was a territory were both Kiev and Chernyakhov strongly influenced each other, so you would first need to demonstrate that any such square sunken-floored huts with an oven in a corner were specifically associated with Chernyakov (and I have never come across such information)." (#157) Another point to keep in mind is that (in my "alternate scenario view" at any rate, pure speculation I grant, though not wholly devoid of indicators) the ancestors of the later "Sclavini" were "pedestrian nomads" inhabiting the (current) archaeological blank spot to the west of the Kyiv culture. I see them as a mixture of dispossessed Milograd'Pidhirtsi individuals who switched "way of life" after the Bastarnian onslaught and tightly associated with earlier "forest wanderers" (the former mostly R1a and the latter I2a), borrowing elements of nearby cultures, and producing the basis of the later "Slavic" as a deflection of Baltic. We don't know what kind of houses they put up in this "nomadic" period (I take Tacitus' analogy to the Sarmatians seriously), but they could have been rather miserable short used hovels which left no archaeological trace (or none found yet). So here they later borrowed either from the Kyivans (as Michal suggests) or from the upper Dnister folks (as Baran more than strenuously argued-- to be precise he made these Dnister Chernyakhovians into the original Slavs). Assez pour l'instant ;)

Gravetto-Danubian
03-16-2016, 11:02 PM
For this kind of a bottleneck effect to happen, you will first need such a clade (like M458) to show a relatively high frequency and wide distribution, for which we have no evidence so far (although I admit that the relevant regions were not tested yet, so everything is possible). An alternative scenario is that this clade had simply not enough opportunities to significantly expand, so no bottleneck was needed to reduce its diversity. In relatively small populations, the well known mechanism of genetic drift is able to restrain the production of multiple descending sublineages very efficiently.



As I wrote elsewhere, I cannot rule out that M458 will occasionally be found in both Wielbark and Przeworsk (especially in territories on their eastern periphery, ie. east of the Vistula river), but I will be very surprised in case M458 turns out to be one of the dominant Y-DNA haplogroups in any of these two cultures (or if M458 is found west of the Vistula river prior to the Early Slavic expansion in the 5th-7th centuries).

Thanks. It makes sense.




This is not exactly true. Firstly, the Kiev region was a territory were both Kiev and Chernyakhov strongly influenced each other, so you would first need to demonstrate that any such square sunken-floored huts with an oven in a corner were specifically associated with Chernyakov (and I have never come across such information). Secondly, although Terpilovsky has indeed not shown any such dwellings in his illustrations, he has specifically mentioned such examples, providing references to the original reports. Here is what he writes in an English summary:


And here is a fragment of a relevant section in Russian:

That was what I was trying to get at. The Slavic cultural model did not originate in 'classic Chernyakov', but in the post-Chernyakov phase, and toward its former peripheries: north (where it interacted with Kiev elements at the middle Dnieper region) and the west (sub-Carpathian zone of Baran). Of course, I wasn't suggesting sorting out Slavic origins is as simple as tracing out the spread of SBFs with ovens in the corner :)


Please note that neither of those lineages is found among the Southern Slavs or south of the Carpathian range (and the same is actually true for S18681), which indicates that the Proto-Slavic clades under Y33 likely originated in the Northern part of the Proto-Slavic homeland (or in South-Central Belarus, if my scenario is correct).

Indeed, if not already obvious, and even if southern Slavs are under sampled, that SS R1a is a small subset of extant, east European R1a is abundantly clear.

Gravetto-Danubian
03-16-2016, 11:18 PM
The region I'm talking about corresponds to SE Belarus (which includes the Gorshkov-Chaplin and Kisteni-Chechersk groups within the Late Zarubintsy horizon, and the Upper Dnieper group within the Kiev culture, although I suspect that in the latter case both L1029 and L260 have already migrated south, so the incoming Baltic-derived Z280 species (mostly under YP237) were accompanied in this region by YP515 mostly), while I would place the origin of the Eastern Balts (ie. Lithuanians and Latvians) in territories located further north and north-east (or where the centers of the Brushed Pottery and Dnieper-Dvina cultures are commonly located). Please see Map I in this paper by Oblomski et al. (https://www.google.pl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjLr_7NgsbLAhWFNpoKHeu0Be8QFggcMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iaepan.edu.pl%2Farchaeologia-polona%2Fobject%2F575&usg=AFQjCNHgYNtpoiezB_a2VEIvG2-Ij9E4Kg&sig2=vzYj5O4oPZbVjgtv3BBbpA) for better illustration. More specifically, I would associate the initial expansion of M458 (mostly L1029) with the so-called Grini-Vovky type that seems to have originated in the Upper Dnieper region and played a significant role in the formation/transformation of the Late Zarubintsy horizon (as suggested by its spread to all major Post-Zarubintsy groupings that were subsequently involved in creation of the Kiev culture).
.

I know we are in the realm of hypotheses here, but then how & when would you connect the movement of M458 (esp L1029, and L260) from south Belarus to the rest of Europe ?

Volat
03-16-2016, 11:41 PM
while I would place the origin of the Eastern Balts (ie. Lithuanians and Latvians) in territories located further north and north-east (or where the centers of the Brushed Pottery and Dnieper-Dvina cultures are commonly located).


Maybe Lithuanians' and Latvians' ancestry were further north in Brushed Pottery and Dnieper-Dvina cultures. There is also plenty of archaeological and linguistic evidence of Baltic presence in south-eastern Belarus. South-eastern Belarus is commonly associated with east Slavic tribe Radimiches. Radimiches' settlement was between upper Dniepr and Desna rivers. A number of chronologists stated Lendian ancestry of Radimiches. However, archaeologists have not able to find similarities in material cultures of Radimiches and western Slavs. Instead, archaeologists found abundance of jewelleries similar to those found in Latvia and not worn by other east Slavic tribes of Ukraine. Also Radimiches burial practises resembled those of Baltic.

In addition, linguists Trubachev and Toporov analysed hydronyms in the basin of upper Dniepr river . 84% of analysed hydronyms (around 1,100 in total) were found to be Baltic. Sozh river (historic settlement of Radimiches) has the highest concentration of Baltic hydronyms. In saying this , ancient Balts settling vast territories did not have to be homogeneous in terms ofy-dna structures of their populations.


Radimiches settlement based on archaeological evidence.




http://vseogomele.net/constructor/img/maps/region/oldmaps/radzim.jpg

Gravetto-Danubian
03-17-2016, 12:10 AM
Maybe Lithuanians' and Latvians' ancestry were further north in Brushed Pottery and Dnieper-Dvina cultures. There is also plenty of archaeological and linguistic evidence of Baltic presence in south-eastern Belarus. South-eastern Belarus is commonly associated with east Slavic tribe Radimiches. Radimiches' settlement was between upper Dniepr and Desna rivers. A number of chronologists stated Lendian ancestry of Radimiches. However, archaeologists have not able to find similarities in material cultures of Radimiches and western Slavs. Instead, archaeologists found abundance of jewelleries similar to those found in Latvia and not worn by other east Slavic tribes of Ukraine. Also Radimiches burial practises resembled those of Baltic.

In addition, linguists Trubachev and Toporov analysed hydronyms in the basin of upper Dniepr river . 84% of analysed hydronyms (around 1,100 in total) were found to be Baltic. Sozh river (historic settlement of Radimiches) has the highest concentration of Baltic hydronyms. In saying this , ancient Balts settling vast territories did not have to be homogeneous in terms ofy-dna structures of their populations.


Radimiches settlement based on archaeological evidence.




http://vseogomele.net/constructor/img/maps/region/oldmaps/radzim.jpg

I'd agree. I think the vast expanses from east of the Dnieper (Kiev culture) to the north of -and including Polesia - and to the Baltic coasts was all Baltoid.
(or ancient north Balto-Slavic, as Volat might term it)

Volat
03-17-2016, 12:17 AM
M458 is a Slavic marker in present day. The marker predates modern day metaethnicities and it was likely present in communities who are common ancestors to present day ethnicities. The marker in non-Slavic ethnicities could partly be influence of the Slavs of recent time.

M458 in some east European population as per Underhill et al.


Estonians 5.1%
Vepsas 15.4%
Karelians 13.6%
Tatars 4.5%
Southern Komis 3.8



----


Lithuanians have 45% of R1a1 as per D. Kasperaviciute's study. Around 20%-25% of R1a (by my estimate based on FTDNA) is M458. So, 9%-11% of M458 is in Lithuanian population.

Gravetto-Danubian
03-17-2016, 12:56 AM
M458 is a Slavic marker in present day. The marker predates modern day metaethnicities and it was likely present in communities who are common ancestors to present day ethnicities. The marker in non-Slavic ethnicities could partly be influence of the Slavs of recent time.

M458 in some east European population as per Underhill et al.


Estonians 5.1%
Vepsas 15.4%
Karelians 13.6%
Tatars 4.5%
Southern Komis 3.8



----


Lithuanians have 45% of R1a1 as per D. Kasperaviciute's study. Around 20%-25% of R1a (by my estimate based on FTDNA) is M458. So, 9%-11% of M458 is in Lithuanian population.

I don't doubt that when M458 first arose, it was before "Slavic" ethnicity was formed. But the present day distribution of its major clades, and it's age, cannot be separated from the recent Slavic expansion

Tomenable
03-17-2016, 02:50 AM
According to Underhill 2014, Ukrainians from Cherkassy have a very high frequency of M458.

Sample size was 114, of whom 49 had R1a, of whom 26 had M458 (= 53,1 percent of all R1a).

At the same time, they also had a low frequency of M558 (12 people, or 24,5% of all R1a).

Both maps below are based solely on frequencies reported in samples of Underhill 2014:

http://s2.postimg.org/y56xlyfex/M458.png

http://s4.postimg.org/4ftg39xjh/M558.png

Which Early Medieval Slavic tribes are ancestors of modern Ukrainians from Cherkassy ???

Tomenable
03-17-2016, 02:55 AM
^ I should update this map using frequencies of M458 reported for Belarus by Alina Kushniarevich et al. 2012.

Underhill 2014 had only one sample for Belarus Brest-Litovsk, and one sample for Belarus as a whole.

So don't pay attention to frequencies in Belarus. I need to make a new map for Belarus using Kushniarevich.

Tomenable
03-17-2016, 02:58 AM
Regarding those Polabian Slavs.

Here is the exact quote from A. I. Kushniarevich (Russian Journal of Genetics: Applied Research, 2012, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 114-121):

"The migration processes of the later period could enhance the regional differences in the distribution of the studied molecular marker [subclade M458 of R1a] in the population of modern Belarusians. In particular, a significantly high frequency of the R1a-M458 haplogroup in Ponemanye and Eastern Polesie regions of Belarus can reflect a movement of the tribal communities with genetic characteristics close to those in the local population into the Neman River and Pripiat River basins. Such communities could be for example Polabian Slavs, who left the territory between Elbe River and Oder River at the end of the First and beginning of the Second Millennia under the influence of the expansion of Germanic tribes [Saxons, etc.]. Toponymic parallels, as well as previous results of studies of linguistic and archaeological science, indicate the relationship between the Polabian Slavs and the population of modern Belarus (Jezowa M., 1962; Sedov, 1982; Perkhavko, 1983)."

BTW - while Polish (Mazovian etc.) immigration could explain higher levels of M458 in Ponemanye (= Grodno Region), we cannot say the same thing about Eastern Polesie, which never had any significant Polish population. But the Radimiches lived in that region - am I right?

Volat
03-17-2016, 03:00 AM
Which Early Medieval Slavic tribes are ancestors of modern Ukrainians from Cherkassy ???

East Polians I'd say.

Tomenable
03-17-2016, 03:01 AM
Do other studies (apart from Underhill 2014) confirm a sharp difference in M458/M558 frequencies between Slovenia and Croatia?


East Polians I'd say.

Not also Severians? On the other hand, I have seen a theory, that Kievan Polianians were just a unique sub-branch of Severians:

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polans_(eastern)

Volat
03-17-2016, 03:04 AM
Regarding those Polabian Slavs.

Here is the exact quote from A. I. Kushniarevich (Russian Journal of Genetics: Applied Research, 2012, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 114-121):

"The migration processes of the later period could enhance the regional differences in the distribution of the studied molecular marker [subclade M458 of R1a] in the population of modern Belarusians. In particular, a significantly high frequency of the R1a-M458 haplogroup in Ponemanye and Eastern Polesie regions of Belarus can reflect a movement of the tribal communities with genetic characteristics close to those in the local population into the Neman River and Pripiat River basins. Such communities could be for example Polabian Slavs, who left the territory between Elbe River and Oder River at the end of the First and beginning of the Second Millennia under the influence of the expansion of Germanic tribes [Saxons, etc.]. Toponymic parallels, as well as previous results of studies of linguistic and archaeological science, indicate the relationship between the Polabian Slavs and the population of modern Belarus (Jezowa M., 1962; Sedov, 1982; Perkhavko, 1983)."

BTW - while Polish (Mazovian etc.) immigration could explain higher levels of M458 in Ponemanye (= Grodno Region), we cannot say the same thing about Eastern Polesie, which never had any significant Polish population. But the Radimiches lived in that region - am I right?

Basin of Sozh river is not eastern Polesia, although western part of modern day of Homiel region is in eastern Polesia. I'd say part of most eastern Polesia was on periphery of Radimiches settlement.

Volat
03-17-2016, 03:10 AM
Toponymic parallels, as well as previous results of studies of linguistic and archaeological science, indicate the relationship between the Polabian Slavs and the population of modern Belarus (Jezowa M., 1962; Sedov, 1982; Perkhavko, 1983).[/B]"

With all due respect to Kushniarevich this is exaggeration. What archaeological parallels of eastern Polesia and Slavic Polabia are there? I cannot remember Sedov stating Polabian Slavs migrated in Belarus. He proposed a concept of the centre of Slavic settlement in east of Vistula (Poland). Out of that region Slavs migrated west and east through Belarus and western Russian splitting autochthonous population of Belarus.

Gravetto-Danubian
03-17-2016, 04:07 AM
Do other studies (apart from Underhill 2014) confirm a sharp difference in M458/M558 frequencies between Slovenia and Croatia?


I don't understand the rest of your question, but no, because no other studies have been done on Croats since the Underhill one (which first separated an M458).
But the ftDNA data hasn't reproduced the high M458 they got. So I wonder if the Underhill study simply sample a village of related men, who just happened to be M458.
In fact, in the R1a project, it is now showing that it is Bulgarians who have the higher M458 frequencies of South Slavs.
Clearly, we're seeing the effects of sampling bias, and need many more numbers.

Tomenable
03-17-2016, 10:41 AM
But the ftDNA data hasn't reproduced the high M458 they got.

According to FTDNA data, approximately what percent of all Croatian R1a is M458?

In my opinion Underhill's data showing high % of M458 makes sense, because it is believed that Croats came from White Croatia - located somewhere along the Sudetes or Carpathians - where M458 is high today (Czechia, Southern Poland, Slovakia, West Ukraine).

The distribution of typically Croatian I2a subclades also suggest, that they could indeed come to Croatia from the north.

Anthropological investigations also confirm that Croats came from these regions:

https://ariets.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/15311416.pdf

"(...) Our results showed marked craniometrical similarities between early medieval Croat and medieval Polish series. Among all of the 39 analyzed European sites, the two exhibiting the greatest similarities were Nin, a site representing the nucleus of the early medieval Croat state (72), and Cedynia, a Polish early medieval site located approximately 75 km south of the Baltic Sea. (...) These results suggest that early medieval Croats were of Slavic ancestry, and that early medieval Croats and Poles at one time shared a common homeland. Recent genetic analyses of the nonrecombining Y chromosome from 25 extant European and Middle Eastern populations support the Slavic affiliation of the Croats, and also indicate significant genetic similarities between modern Croats and Poles (1). (...)"

On the other hand, R1a-CTS3402 (downstream of Z280) also has high frequencies both in Croatia and Southern Poland.

Gravetto-Danubian
03-17-2016, 10:52 AM
According to FTDNA data, approximately what percent of all Croatian R1a is M458?

Can't say samples aren't enough, if I recall 13 out of 16 were under CTS1211


In my opinion Underhill's data showing high % of M458 makes sense, because it is believed that Croats came from White Croatia - located somewhere along the Sudetes or Carpathians - where M458 is high today (Czechia, Southern Poland, Slovakia, West Ukraine).


Its possible, but of course not demonstrable at present to prove a distinct connection with a specific locale. Indeed, the data show several interesting patterns. Why is M458 the Croats ? Im not sure that's what will show up when we get aDNA from Dalmatian warrior graves



The distribution of I2a-Y4882 also confirms, that it came to Croatia from the north.

I really haven't got the impression that Y4882 is that common in Croatia.




Anthropological investigations also confirm that Croats came from these regions:

https://ariets.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/15311416.pdf



Yes I know the study.
Again, it might mean that, but really, I'm not sure we can prove that on the basis of skull shapes, especially when one might be looking at the data within a pre-chosen hypothesis, which ultimately derives from literary data written hundreds of years after the fact, especially more acute when the Byzantines had essentially >lost contact< with the central & northern regions of the Balkans for 200 years.


I'd imagine people migrated into Croatia from several regions, but the major source was the Carpathian basin. The Croats then appear in the late 8th century, and this the earliest reference to Croats are in Dalmatia itself, not Poland, Czech lands, or Ukraine, with no evidence of any new migrations from anywhere; but a politogenesis in Dalmatia.

You also have to be aware that not many people were living in Poland c. 500- 600 AD. Rather, Poland appears to have been an area of significant colonization from c. 600 AD, as is eastern Germany, Slovakia, much of the Balkans,

Tomenable
03-17-2016, 10:57 AM
Croats didn't come to the Balkans in 500-600 AD, but only long after 600 AD.


But i really haven't got the impression that Y4882 is that common in Croatia.

Sorry, I rather meant some upstream clades of Y4882, which link the two areas.

West Ukraine could also be the source (generally Sudetes-Carpathians region).

Tomenable
03-17-2016, 11:03 AM
Ethnonym "Croats" shows up in several places between West Ukraine, South Poland, Bohemia-Moravia.

So they could come to the Balkans from any of those places.

Tomenable
03-17-2016, 11:07 AM
"8" and "9" represent Croat tribes in Bohemia (apart from them, ethnonym Croats shows up also in Southern Poland and West Ukraine):

http://www.moraviamagna.cz/mapky/m_ckmenu.htm

http://www.moraviamagna.cz/mapky/images/map_kmeny.gif

http://labphys.tf.czu.cz/czechtribes.htm

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

Tomenable
03-17-2016, 11:09 AM
There are also links with Slovakia - "Croat" (Horvat / Horvath) is the most common surname in Croatia and in... Slovakia:

http://images.mentalfloss.com/sites/default/files/styles/insert_main_wide_image/public/most-popular-surnames-by-country-europe_0.png

Gravetto-Danubian
03-17-2016, 11:10 AM
Ethnonym "Croats" shows up in several places between West Ukraine, South Poland, Bohemia-Moravia.

So they could come to the Balkans from any of those places.


Do you think I'm not aware that "Croat' appears elsewhere ?
Please read more carefully, and stop missing the point when it is being spelled out for you out of courtesy

I said the earliest reference to Croats is in Dalmatia. They appear after that (10th century) in the north Carpathian region, and later still elsewhere.

Tomenable
03-17-2016, 11:24 AM
There were also some Croats (Chrouati) living in Polish part of Upper Silesia.

According to Wojtek K. from historycy.org, those Chrouati could be the same tribe also known under the name of Opolans:

http://www.historycy.org/index.php?showtopic=42263&view=findpost&p=1211822

http://www.historycy.org/index.php?showtopic=128793&st=45&p=1467240&#entry1467240


said the earliest reference to Croats is in Dalmatia

And that reference specifically says that they came to Dalmatia from the north.

The earliest reference to Slavs is on the Danube - does it mean that Slavs originated in the Balkans?


They appear after that (10th century) in the north Carpathian region

Are you suggesting that they actually migrated from Dalmatia to the north Carpathian region? :?

Even though sources specifically say that it was the other way around.

Tomenable
03-17-2016, 11:32 AM
Poland appears to have been an area of significant colonization from c. 600 AD, as is eastern Germany, Slovakia, much of the Balkans,

Sure, but Balkans were clearly colonized in more than just one wave.

The earliest wave of Slavs moving to the Balkans was from Moldova-Ukraine.

But later another wave (including Croats) came from West Slavic lands.

Gravetto-Danubian
03-17-2016, 11:37 AM
There were also some Croats (Chrouati) living in Polish part of Upper Silesia.

According to Wojtek K. from historycy.org, those Chrouati could be the same tribe also known under the name of Opolans:

http://www.historycy.org/index.php?showtopic=42263&view=findpost&p=1211822

http://www.historycy.org/index.php?showtopic=128793&st=45&p=1467240&#entry1467240



And that reference specifically says that they came to Dalmatia from the north.

The earliest reference to Slavs is on the Danube - does it mean that Slavs originated in the Balkans?

The two are obviously different matters.
The problem is yoi analyse data simplistically and uncritically. Your "source" is a narrative myth, a legend. I'm not saying it's wrong, or should be thrown out, but it doesn't mean what you think it means. The DAI claims that the Croats came from somewhere near eastern Germany or central Poland c. 610 AD.
The problem is- there was no Croatl, or in fact anyone there at that time
I've repeated it several times, because I know . But you appear to lack ability to digest verifiable and facts widely known.



Are you suggesting that they actually migrated from Dalmatia to the north Carpathian region? :?


No I'm not - that's the thing
Clearly, the widespread use of terms like Croat means something; but it's not the single picture which you envisage.

Gravetto-Danubian
03-17-2016, 11:38 AM
Sure, but Balkans were clearly colonized in more than just one wave.

The earliest wave of Slavs moving to the Balkans was from Moldova-Ukraine.

But later another wave (including Croats) came from West Slavic lands.



The wave into the west wasn't later than that into Bulgaria. In fact the earliest Slavic settlement is from Slovenia

Tomenable
03-17-2016, 11:44 AM
Can't say samples aren't enough, if I recall 13 out of 16 were under CTS1211

Only 16 samples of R1a from Croatia in total in FTDNA? So Underhill is more reliable in this case, he has a larger sample.

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

Croats appear in written sources for the first time in the Balkans, for the same reason, why Slavs first appear on the Danube.

Northern regions were beyond the scope of literate civilizations (e,g. the Byzantines).


In fact the earliest Slavic settlement is from Slovenia

I am not talking about settlements, but about invasions, which occured already in the early 500s.

As for settlement - in the 540s there was settlement in Lower Bosnia, Moesia and Little Scythia.

In the 550s we have first Slavic settlement in Slovenia, so a decade later than in areas farther east.

BTW - Slovene language cannot be classified as South Slavic, but as a South-West Slavic hybrid. I have been discussing this subject with a Slovene, and he said there are linguistic links to West Slavic, Slovak & Moravian dialects, apart from links to other South Slavic languages.

Gravetto-Danubian
03-17-2016, 11:51 AM
Only 16 samples of R1a from Croatia in total in FTDNA? So Underhill is more reliable in this case, he has a larger sample.

Probably. It would make sense geographically.


Croats appear in written sources for the first time in the Balkans, for the same reasons, why Slavs appear on the Danube.

Northern regions were beyond the scope of literate civilizations (e,g. the Byzantines).

Nope. Apples and oranges.
I can assure you that the earliest social elite and polity to go by the name of Croats formed in Dalmatia, just as the "Slavs" first appear in the Danube- but for different reasons

I could explain to you why, but it'd be lost on you

Tomenable
03-17-2016, 11:57 AM
BTW, Byzantine sources seem to indicate, that Slavs who moved into the Balkans sometimes expelled native inhabitants and settled in their houses. Maybe this is why we don't see Slavic settlements in archaeology in some regions - maybe they just moved into existing settlements?


the earliest social elite and polity to go by the name of Croats formed in Dalmatia

So you don't believe that White Croatia had existed in the north before that?

Gravetto-Danubian
03-17-2016, 12:17 PM
So you don't believe that White Croatia had existed in the north before that?

Yes that's what Im saying. There was no "White Croatia" in Poland in 610 AD or 640 AD, or indeed any part of the 7th century, or ever. White Croatia is a mythological entity
In 610 AD, people weren't emigrating from Poland to Dalmatia, they were moving into Poland.

Tomenable
03-17-2016, 12:20 PM
1) I didn't claim White Croats already existed in the 600s (that could be in the 700s - and would still be earlier than Croats in the Balkans),

2) I didn't claim White Croats came necessarily from Poland; but that they came from West Ukraine, South Poland, Czechia, or Slovakia.

Tomenable
03-17-2016, 12:23 PM
they were moving into Poland.

They were also moving across / through Poland.

Gravetto-Danubian
03-17-2016, 12:34 PM
1) I didn't claim White Croats already existed in the 600s (that could be in the 700s - and would still be earlier than Croats in the Balkans),

2) I didn't claim White Croats came necessarily from Poland; but that they came from West Ukraine, South Poland, Czechia, or Slovakia.

Yes they could, but the earliest Croat dukes seem to owe their start, or success, in no small part to the Franks. They appear to have been local potentates for the Carolingian empire as it had begun to expand into the East Adriatic in the late 8th cc, primarily to rebel against Avar rule. These dukes and their close circle - 'the Croats' - were but one of several in Dalmatia - we hear of Guduscani, Pagani/ Arenti, Liutevid of Pannonia, Serbs, etc. All this took place c. 790s - 810 AD (as well documented), not 610 AD.

Yes, Croats dukes could have ancestors from Ukraine or Poland, current family relations, obtained warrior groups from there, heck they could themselves have recently arrived from Poland.
But all we do know is the support base and rise, was nothing but local, and from groups of Slavs which began to arrive into Dalmatia c. 650 - 700 AD (which is also the time when Slavs first appear in Poland beyond its far southeast). Now, the Slavs which arrived to Croatia, indeed, Bosnia and Serbia, broadly speaking, most likely moved in from Hungary, by and large, which is the obvious launching point into Croatia, not Poland, or Czechzia. Nor did not succeed or displace earlier Slavs, becuase there were no earlier Slavs there.

The next question you have to ask is why, then "Croats" also appear in Czech areas, Galicia, Poland, etc from th 10th century? That's straying too far off 'Balts and R1a', but a question for which some very good literature has been advanced in recent years., and is likely right near the mark.

Waldemar
03-18-2016, 09:41 AM
De Administrando Imperio:
"The Croats who now live in the region of Dalmatia are descended from the unbaptized Croats, also called ‘white’, who live beyond Turkey [Hungary] and next to Francia, and have for Slav neighbours the unbaptized Serbs. ‘Croats’ in the Slav tongue means ‘those who occupy much territory’. These same Croats arrived to claim the protection of the emperor of the Romans Heraclius [reign 610-641 AD] before the Serbs claimed the protection of the same emperor Heraclius, at that time when the Avars had fought and expelled from those parts the Romani whom the emperor Diocletian had brought from Rome and settled there, and who were therefore called ‘Romani’ from their having been translated from Rome to those countries, I mean, to those now called Croatia and Serbia.
(...)
But the Croats at that time were dwelling beyond Bavaria, where the Belocroats are now. From them split off a family of five brothers, Kloukas and Lobelos and Kosentzis and Mouchlo and Chrobatos, and two sisters, Touga and Bouga, who came with their folk to Dalmatia and found the Avars in possession of that land. After they had fought one another for some years, the Croats prevailed and killed some of the Avars and the remainder they compelled to be subject to them. And so from that time this land was possessed by the Croats, and there are still in Croatia some who are of Avar descent and are recognized as Avars. The rest of the Croats stayed over against Francia, and are now called Belocroats, that is, White Croats, and have their own prince; they are subject to Otto, the great king of Francia, or Saxony, and are unbaptized, and intermarry and are friendly with the Turks [Hungarians]."
Source (http://www.jassa.org/?p=4918)

Dark green line - borders of Bavaria in 788 AD
http://www.gen.heinz-wember.de/karten/Bayern10Jht.jpg

Frankish Annals (about Guduscani):
"[810 AD] On July 8 there was an eclipse of the sun. The emperor returned to Aachen by way of Rouen, Amiens, and Cambrai to spend the winter there. When he came to Herstal, he met the envoys of duke Sigo of the Beneventans, who brought gifts and justified the duke with regard to the murder of Duke Grimoald, his predecessor. The envoys of other peoples were also there, that is, of the Obodrites, of Borna, duke of the Guduscani, and of the Timociani, who had recently revolted against the Bulgars and come over to our side; also of Ljudovit, duke of lower Pannonia, a schemer and agitator, who tree to accuse Count Cadolah, commander of the March of the Friuli, of brutality and arrogance. When these had been heard and dismissed, the emperor went to Aachen to spend the winter there.

[819 AD] When the army returned from Pannonia, Cadolah, duke of Friuli, died of fever in this march. Baldrich succeeded him. When he entered Carinthia, which was under his command, he came upon Ljudovit’s host. With a handful of men, he attacked it on the march along the river Drave, destroyed a good many of the enemy, routed his host, and drove it out of that province. With a large body of men, Borna, the duke of Dalmatia, came upon Ljudovit, who had been advancing against him. on the River Kulpa. At the first encounter the Guduscani deserted Borna, but he escaped under the cover of his bodyguard. In this battle Ljudovit’s father-in-law, Dragomosus, perished. He had deserted his son-in-law and joined Borna when his rebellion began. After the Guduscani returned home, they were again conquered by Borna. But Ljudovit seized the opportunity and with a strong force invade Dalmatia in December, ravaging the whole land with fire and sword. When Borna saw that he was no match for Ljudovit, he stored all he could in his castles, and attacked Ljudovit’s army with crack troops. Hampering him now in the rear and now on the flank, he wore him down day and night and would not let him stay unpunished in his [Borna’s] province [of Dalmatia]. In the end he forced Ljudovit to retreat from his territory after suffering heavy losses. Three thousand men of Ljudovit’s army were killed, more than three hundred horses captured, and baggage and all sorts of spoils seized. Borna took care to inform the emperor through his envoys how this was done."
Source (http://www.jassa.org/?page_id=4070)

Gravetto-Danubian
03-18-2016, 10:07 AM
De Administrando Imperio:
"The Croats who now live in the region of Dalmatia are descended from the unbaptized Croats, also called ‘white’, who live beyond Turkey [Hungary] and next to Francia, and have for Slav neighbours the unbaptized Serbs. ‘Croats’ in the Slav tongue means ‘those who occupy much territory’. These same Croats arrived to claim the protection of the emperor of the Romans Heraclius [reign 610-641 AD] before the Serbs claimed the protection of the same emperor Heraclius, at that time when the Avars had fought and expelled from those parts the Romani whom the emperor Diocletian had brought from Rome and settled there, and who were therefore called ‘Romani’ from their having been translated from Rome to those countries, I mean, to those now called Croatia and Serbia.
(...)
But the Croats at that time were dwelling beyond Bavaria, where the Belocroats are now. From them split off a family of five brothers, Kloukas and Lobelos and Kosentzis and Mouchlo and Chrobatos, and two sisters, Touga and Bouga, who came with their folk to Dalmatia and found the Avars in possession of that land. After they had fought one another for some years, the Croats prevailed and killed some of the Avars and the remainder they compelled to be subject to them. And so from that time this land was possessed by the Croats, and there are still in Croatia some who are of Avar descent and are recognized as Avars. The rest of the Croats stayed over against Francia, and are now called Belocroats, that is, White Croats, and have their own prince; they are subject to Otto, the great king of Francia, or Saxony, and are unbaptized, and intermarry and are friendly with the Turks [Hungarians]."
Source (http://www.jassa.org/?p=4918)

Dark green line - borders of Bavaria in 788 AD
http://www.gen.heinz-wember.de/karten/Bayern10Jht.jpg

Oh I see. There is something called De Administrando Imperio.
Thanks Waldemar.

Now, try reading these couple of articles.

https://www.academia.edu/1246700/White_Croatia_and_the_arrival_of_the_Croats_an_int erpretation_of_Constantine_Porphyrogenitus_on_the_ oldest_Dalmatian_history_in_Early_Medieval_Europe_ 19_2011_204-31

[https://www.academia.edu/229393/Becoming_Slav_Becoming_Croat_New_approaches_in_res earch_of_identities_in_post-Roman_Illyricum]

[https://www.academia.edu/9292992/Local_knowledge_and_wider_contexts_stories_of_the_ arrival_of_the_Croats_in_De_Administrando_Imperio_ in_the_past_and_present]


They explain the difficulties in taking at face value Roman sources. Given that they often wrote hundreds of years after events, one would have thought a pause is common sense. I'd start with the first one as it goes into considerable discussion about the Croat ethonym

Michał
03-18-2016, 04:21 PM
There is also plenty of archaeological and linguistic evidence of Baltic presence in south-eastern Belarus.
[...]
In addition, linguists Trubachev and Toporov analysed hydronyms in the basin of upper Dniepr river . 84% of analysed hydronyms (around 1,100 in total) were found to be Baltic. Sozh river (historic settlement of Radimiches) has the highest concentration of Baltic hydronyms. In saying this , ancient Balts settling vast territories did not have to be homogeneous in terms ofy-dna structures of their populations.
I would like to make a couple of comments regarding the above information:

1) There is no common agreement among the linguists regarding he most likely "Slavic homeland" (or a region showing predominantly Slavic hydronymy).

2) Many renowned linguists have maintained that the Pripyat and Upper Dnieper regions are exactly the territories where the evidently Slavic hydronymy predominates (see Vasmer and Arumaa, for example). The work of Vasmer seems to be of special importance, as he also investigated the hypothetical direction of the Slavic migrations (by studying such Slavic toponyms like Zarec'e, Zacholm'e, etc) and came to the conclusion that they indicate the Pripyat region as the most likely center of Early Slavic expansion.

3) It is hard to trust the results of the Trubachev's work when knowing that his linguistic studies lead him to a surprising conclusion that the Early Slavic homeland was located in the Middle Danube region, which is so strongly contradicted by the available historical sources (not to mention the archaeological and genetic data).

4) Slavic is closely related to Baltic. In fact, it is quite commonly assumed that Slavic represents just one of several distantly related Baltic languages, so one could call Slavic either a Baltic (South Baltic) or "Baltoid" language. Furthermore, we don't know how exactly Pre-Proto-Slavic looked like in the 1st century AD, ie. when according to my scenario the M458-rich population left the Upper Dnieper Region and blended with the I2a-rich Zarubintsy-derived groupings. This was nearly a millennium before the first continuous Slavic texts known to us were written, so we can safely assume that many of the linguistic processes that are now considered Slavic-specific have not been completed yet at this relatively early stage of Proto-Slavic development. In other words, it seems perfectly possible that this Pre-Proto-Slavic dialect resembled the Baltic languages much more strongly than it was the case for the Late Proto-Slavic language from the second half of the first millennium AD. Also, I would assume that the later stage of Proto-Slavic development was taking place mostly in a region located south of my hypothetical M458 homeland, while the Upper Dnieper region was penetrated by the Baltic-speaking groupings (mostly some subclades under YP237), which obviously could favor the maintenance of the Early Proto-Slavic (thus more "Baltoid") hydronyms in the Northern periphery of the Early Slavic homeland. Finally, when assuming that the territory associated with the latest stage of Proto-Slavic development was shifted south-west when compared to the "original" Proto-Slavic homeland, it is important to note that the three most commonly accepted groupings of purely Slavic hydronyms correspond quite clearly to the three following subregions that seem to be strongly associated with different ancient populations showing Late Zarubintsy ancestry: the Pripyat Region, the Middle Dnieper Region and the Upper Dniester Region (as illustrated by the red dots shown on this map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Balto-Slavic_lng.png).


A number of chronologists stated Lendian ancestry of Radimiches.
AFAIK, there is only one such source (Nestor). Apart from the fact that this legend doesn't seem to be supported by the archaeology (as you have rightly noticed), the Nestor's report about two Lendian brothers (Radim and Vyatko) who supposedly were the founders of Radimiches and Vyatiches suggests that it might have had something to do with the foreign (Lendian?) rulers/dynasties rather than with the Western (Lendian) origin of the entire populations. Alternatively, there could have been two independent Slavic tribes named Lendians (which is suggested by the earlier report of Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos), just like it was probably the case for the Polans or Sorbs/Serbs.

Michał
03-18-2016, 05:09 PM
According to FTDNA data, approximately what percent of all Croatian R1a is M458?

Please see this post of mine: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4967-The-origin-of-the-Slavs&p=127333&viewfull=1#post127333


Only 16 samples of R1a from Croatia in total in FTDNA? So Underhill is more reliable in this case, he has a larger sample.

Whichever set of data is better reflecting the true frequency of M458 in Croatia, it seems that the difference between the M458/R1a ratios as provided by Underhill (21/31) and the R1a project (1/15) is statistically significant. Importantly, it should be noted that the Underhill's sample is described as "Croatia mainland" (which is something you don't see for his remaining Balkan samples), which suggests quite strongly that he was aware that this sample may not be representative for the entire country (thus supporting the suspicion that was expressed above by Gravetto-Danubian). Importantly, the STR results provided by Underhill seem to be consistent with his SNP data, so it seems unlikely that all this is just an error in SNP testing.

@Gravetto-Danubian
While I agree with you that the known Medieval sources cannot be treated as definitely demonstrating the Northern (or "White Croatian) origin of the Croats, it is hard to ignore the Y-DNA data that very strongly support the Northern/North-Eastern (or Northern Carpathian) origin of a substantial part of the West Balkan population (which includes both the Croats and the Slovenes). The distribution of such R1a subclades like the "Carpathian-Dalmatian" clade Y2613, the Carpathian (Y3219) part of the "Volga-Carpathian" clade Y2902, and the so-called "Old Carpathian" clade YP340 are the best evidence that the earlier hypotheses deriving the very significant part of the Western Balkan population from the Northern Carpathian region (including a region called "White Croatia") were not unreasonable. Please see this post by Semargl who shows the distribution of clade Y2902: http://forum.molgen.org/index.php/topic,1258.msg332900.html#msg332900. The distribution of the Carpathian-Dalmatian clade Y2613 is even more convincing in this respect:http://www.semargl.me/haplogroups/maps/2/.

BTW, it seems that the North-Eastern part of Croatia (including Slavonija) is not associated with the elevated frequencies of Y2613 or Y2902, so this is probably the very part of Croatia that shows high frequency of M458 (as discussed above). It would be interesting to correlate these apparent differences with the ethnic history of all these subregions in Western Balkans. I would love to know the opinions of both GT and Tomenable.

Volat
03-18-2016, 05:48 PM
I would like to make a couple of comments regarding the above information:

1) There is no common agreement among the linguists regarding he most likely "Slavic homeland" (or a region showing predominantly Slavic hydronymy).

2) Many renowned linguists have maintained that the Pripyat and Upper Dnieper regions are exactly the territories where the evidently Slavic hydronymy predominates (see Vasmer and Arumaa, for example). The work of Vasmer seems to be of special importance, as he also investigated the hypothetical direction of the Slavic migrations (by studying such Slavic toponyms like Zarec'e, Zacholm'e, etc) and came to the conclusion that they indicate the Pripyat region as the most likely center of Early Slavic expansion.

3) It is hard to trust the results of the Trubachev's work when knowing that his linguistic studies lead him to a surprising conclusion that the Early Slavic homeland was located in the Middle Danube region, which is so strongly contradicted by the available historical sources (not to mention the archaeological and genetic data).


The fundamental study on hydronyms of upper Dnieper basin is that of Toporov and Trubachev. Both are renowned linguists – Baltist and Slavist respectively. Most historians and archaeologists will quote their monograph discussing upper Dnieper region. I don't think you realise the importance the monograph which has been an obstacle for many historians and archaeologists. Slavic homeland of early Iron age would have been placed in this culture a long time ago but for numerous Baltic hydronyms. The Dnieper-Dvina culture is quite similar to Prague-Korchak in so many ways. Mark Shchukin – another known archaeologist from St-Petersburg from a cometing school of thought to that of Moscow and Sedov - has an good article "The birth of Slavs" published in Russian in which he discussed the issue.

We can doubt Trubachev's hypothesis of Slavic homeland in Danube. However, few will doubt Trubachev's expertise on Slavistics. Toporov area of expertise is Baltistics. On the other hand works of Vasmer on etymology is a bit dated and often criticised. I don't think Vasmer did an extensive analysis on upper Dnieper hydronyms. Not of the same magnitude.

Toporov's and Trubachev's monograph : http://www.inslav.ru/resursy/elektronnaya-biblioteka/2144-1962toporovtrubachev



AFAIK, there is only one such source (Nestor). Apart from the fact that this legend doesn't seem to be supported by the archaeology (as you have rightly noticed), the Nestor's report about two Lendian brothers (Radim and Vyatko) who supposedly were the founders of Radimiches and Vyatiches suggests that it might have had something to do with the foreign (Lendian?) rulers/dynasties rather than with the Western (Lendian) origin of the entire populations. Alternatively, there could have been two independent Slavic tribes named Lendians (which is suggested by the earlier report of Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos), just like it was probably the case for the Polans or Sorbs/Serbs.


Forum member George wrote above:

“Constantine Porphyrogenitus mentioned "Lendzaninoi" among the Dnipro river route Slavic tributaries to the Rus of Kyiv, locating them between the Krivichi and Siveriani. He does not yet speak of Radimichi, but that's the correct area for them... DAI discusses the situation of ca. 952 CE. Perhaps only the ruling class was of West Slavic origin. The areal archaeology does not point in that direction. “


Polish chroniclers Matej Stryjkovsky and Jan Długosz also stated Radimiches had ancestry of Lendians. They likely reiterated monk Nestor.

Volat
03-18-2016, 06:07 PM
Michał

These exerpts are from Shyukin article "The birth of Slavs" (1997). This is an excellent article if you can read Russian.

--

Archaeologist Werner (1971) noted that the appearance and structure of the early Slavic archaeological cultures are closest to the archaeological cultures of forest zones of eastern Europe. The early Slavic archaeological cultures were closest to stroked-ceramic archaeological culture [eastern Lithuania & Belarus], Dniepr-Dvinsk archaeological culture [northern Belarus and surrounding regions] and Tushimlinsk archaeological cultures [Smolensk region, western Russia]. As in early Slavic archaeological cultures, the aforementioned cultures feature roughly molded jar-shaped pots and the objects made of metal were rare in the settlements. In everyday life, people of the forest zone [upper Dniepr], as Slavs, were clearly unpretentious which highlights the similarity in the mentality of the two group, while being different from other peoples surrounding them.


Archaeologist Shyukin (1997) and others stated that people of Stroked-ceramic, Dniepr-Dvinsk and Tushimlinsk archaeological cultures were some other Balts differing in psychologically and culture from their western relatives [who were Balts of Lithuania represented by eastern Lithuanian Kurgan culture]. Therefore, there’s a tendency to name these people the Dniepr Balts , who were a special group. Could that group be the Balto-Slavic rather than Baltic - Shuykin asks?


In relation to hydronyms of the upper Dniepr basin [the settlement of the Dniepr Balts] compariative linguist H. Birnbaum and others proposed a hypothesis that the Dniepr Balts were the Balto-Slavic group speaking a transitional dialect.


-----


A number of archaeologist noted that Stroked-ceramic, Dnieper-Dvinsk and Tushemlinsk cultures of early Iron age were more similar to the earliest known Slavic archaeologic cultures than the Przeworsk culture. The only problem with placing Slavs of early Iron age in Belarus and western Russia is numerous Baltic hydronyms. There are too many Baltic hydronyms to ignore them. Linguist linguist H. Birnbaum a nice proposal calling those people Balto-Slavs. :)

Michał
03-18-2016, 08:32 PM
Michał
These exerpts are from Shyukin article "The birth of Slavs" (1997).
Thanks, I have already read this. :)

Gravetto-Danubian
03-19-2016, 12:45 AM
@Gravetto-Danubian
While I agree with you that the known Medieval sources cannot be treated as definitely demonstrating the Northern (or "White Croatian) origin of the Croats, it is hard to ignore the Y-DNA data that very strongly support the Northern/North-Eastern (or Northern Carpathian) origin of a substantial part of the West Balkan population (which includes both the Croats and the Slovenes). The distribution of such R1a subclades like the "Carpathian-Dalmatian" clade Y2613, the Carpathian (Y3219) part of the "Volga-Carpathian" clade Y2902, and the so-called "Old Carpathian" clade YP340 are the best evidence that the earlier hypotheses deriving the very significant part of the Western Balkan population from the Northern Carpathian region (including a region called "White Croatia") were not unreasonable. Please see this post by Semargl who shows the distribution of clade Y2902: http://forum.molgen.org/index.php/topic,1258.msg332900.html#msg332900. The distribution of the Carpathian-Dalmatian clade Y2613 is even more convincing in this respect:http://www.semargl.me/haplogroups/maps/2/.

BTW, it seems that the North-Eastern part of Croatia (including Slavonija) is not associated with the elevated frequencies of Y2613 or Y2902, so this is probably the very part of Croatia that shows high frequency of M458 (as discussed above). It would be interesting to correlate these apparent differences with the ethnic history of all these subregions in Western Balkans. I would love to know the opinions of both GT and Tomenable.

Michal,

It appears people are not quite understanding what I am saying.
I wholeheartedly agree that Slavs from NW Balkans (I'd call us "Dinaric Slavs') came from an 'original homeland' ultimately located c. the NE Carpathian region, and this has been postulated long before modern genetic techniques.
But I am stating is that the story told in the DAI is just that a story - albeit with some grain of truth. Rather, I am outlining a more detailed and accurate picture which incorporates several categorical levels: (1) the Demographic - genetic- migratory (2) the Political (3) the 'ethic' - regional and supra-regional. These are all different 'arms' of analysis, but people incorrectly lump them all together.

To summarise a long story short, this is what appears to have happened (sticking to Croats, given that this is what we are talking about)

1) Demographic:

- Slavs moved into the west Balkans only from c. 610 AD. This is supported by several strands of evidence - (i) increasing amounts of carbon & dendrodates and (ii) the obvious fact that this is when the Byzantine administration collapsed and pulled out of the Balkans. Anything earlier than this was raiding, winter quartering, wandering mercenaries, but not actual >settlement<.

- the route of this migration is east to west, not north to south. That is, they arrived from East Carpathian region, then Wallachia or Transylvania, then Carpathian basin, then Sirmium- Slavonia & Dalmatia. This means they did not come from the north, whether Bavaria, Bohemia , western Poland or eastern Germany. There is a very good reason for this; apart from positive evidence which shows without a shadow of doubt that west Balkan Slavs came from the Avar milieu, there is negative evidence from Poland and East Germany - which really lack the demographic potential or political infrastructure at this time to have been a launching point for anything. Instead, at this time Poland appears to have been just beginning to be recolonized (up the Visla from Halicia/ Podol and possibly also directly from due east via the mid Dnieper - Polesie - Podlasia route) after what is without doubt a catastrophic population collapse after 450 AD (but beginning earlier, c. 400 AD). Same goes for east Germany, whilst northern Bohemia was still "Germanic" Thuringo-Lombard territory as late as 620s AD. These finds are all very clear with little room for doubt (although I know there are still some scholars in Poland who argue to continuity back to the Iron Age without a scrap of evidence or reasonable thought process).

- there was no "second Slavic wave' to the Balkans - the famous story of White Croats and White Serbs in DAI. The DAI is accurate for events around the time of Constantius (950s AD), but not for 610 AD - the said migration (quite obviously). As seen above 610 AD is when the earliest Slavs began to arrive, so it cannot be the second wave of Serbs and Croats. I will return to this later Whilst Slavs could naturally have continued to trickle in, and mobility was probably ongoing, there is no evidence written or archaeological to posit a later, large-scale migration from any distinct "White Croatia" separate to any generic Slav migrations in the 7th and 8th centuries.

(2) Political
If there was no separate migration of Serbs and Croats - how did the Croat duchy begin ? This was simply an act of local politogenesis (just like we may envisage the rise of the "Piasts") I can't do a batter job, so I'll simply quote D Dzino


It will place the formation of the earliest Croat identity in the context of regional political and social transformation. It will also link this new identity with major political events of the period, such as the expansion of the ideologically charged western Christianity and the interaction of regional political structures with more complex contemporary political institutions, such as the Carolingian Empire and the recovered Byzantine Empire, which encouraged the appearance of new political identities and new ideological discourses. These global changes enabled the population to ‘become Croats’, to accept the identity of the elite from the Ravni Kotari region and to construct a new identity, which unifed the existing identities of the arrivals and the indigenous population

(3) Ethnic

The Croats were a ruling elite in Dalmatia, which formed in Dalmatia and spread their identity unto others, just like the Piasts rose in Poland, and spread their version of Pole-hood to surrounding tribes.
So why are there other "Croats" also outside the Balkans. it's difficult to say. it could be ancient connections, but more likely more contemporary connections, alliances, marriages, family-kin groups, warrior groups (so Walter Pohl) etc, If anything, this radiated from Dalmatia, given that in the 10th century, it was a powerful Duchy sanctioned by both Frankish & Byzantine Emperors.

Borri;


In conclusion, we can assert that the Croatian migration did not take place, but that Constantine Porphyrogenitus created it relying on the literary models traditionally applied to describe the Landnahme
of Scythian Barbarians. What instead happened is that, following their rise in the military and political context of the Balkans, new elites took a visible position in Dalmatia and, as recorded in the tenth century, were given the name Croats, a name which was also found in other areas of central and eastern Europe. Although it is still very difficult to explain how names recur in sources independent of one another and in very distant places, for reasons still unknown to us it is possible that the Dalmatian Croats referred to other groups who shared their name, as Belocroats. The many attestations of this ethnonym and place name reached Constantine Porphyrogenitus, who in order to explain this recurrence deployed the classic model of migration, a model which many authors had used to explain the ethnic geography of the surrounding world from the beginning of historiography itself

parastais
03-19-2016, 08:46 AM
for reasons still unknown to us it is possible that the Dalmatian Croats referred to other groups who shared their name, as Belocroats

Not your quote, but Borri's. Yet there is nothing mysterious. Color white was used for North in Slavic I think. So, those were Croats doing their stuff up there North, Northern Croats.

Gravetto-Danubian
03-19-2016, 09:30 AM
Not your quote, but Borri's. Yet there is nothing mysterious. Color white was used for North in Slavic I think. So, those were Croats doing their stuff up there North, Northern Croats.

Yes, of course. There were Croats throughout middle Ages E-C Europe. But who is to say which was the earliest / original ? Certainly, the Dalmatian one appears earliest, and is the most prominent. Of course, 'Croat' could have been a later identity formation, after all the (most of the) migrations had already occurred; just like there were no Polonians or Ulichians in 600s, but there were in the 9th and 10th centuries. due to 'internal processes'.

lgmayka
03-19-2016, 09:47 AM
So why are there other "Croats" also outside the Balkans. it's difficult to say.
So after all that, you have absolutely no explanation for the fact that even in the 20th century, many people from the Kraków area were still calling themselves Bielochrovat (https://archive.org/stream/dictionaryofrace00unitrich#page/n57/mode/2up) on American immigration forms? (About 100,000 of them, according to this source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian_Americans#Immigration_from_Krakow).) Are you asserting that the people of early Kraków chose that name out of thin air, and continued to apply it to themselves for 1000 years, for no reason at all?

Gravetto-Danubian
03-19-2016, 09:49 AM
So after all that, you have absolutely no explanation for the fact that even in the 20th century, many people from the Kraków area were still calling themselves Bielochrovat (https://archive.org/stream/dictionaryofrace00unitrich#page/n57/mode/2up) on immigration forms?

Didn't' you read carefully ?
I wrote "it could be ancient connections, but more likely more contemporary connections, alliances, marriages, family-kin groups, warrior groups (so Walter Pohl) etc, If anything, this ["Croat"] radiated from Dalmatia'

But my main point was not that there was no movement from- say southern Poland - to Croatia (but this movement would have been reciprocal, and the major movement was from Ukraine -> Romania -> Hungary -> Croatia, not via Poland-> Slovakia-> Croatia as traditionally (mis)understood); but that DIA is incorrect in that there were not '2 migrations waves' to the Balkans.

parastais
03-19-2016, 10:32 AM
Well if Croats in North were first, then they would be called simply Croats and Dalmatian Croats would be called as derivative Black (Southern) Croats.
And vice versa, I think I am with Gravetto on this one, just based on the naming alone.

Gravetto-Danubian
03-19-2016, 10:37 AM
Well if Croats in North were first, then they would be called simply Croats and Dalmatian Croats would be called as derivative Black (Southern) Croats.
And vice versa, I think I am with Gravetto on this one, just based on the naming alone.

Thanks . But I'm not proposing a migration from Dalmatia to Poland or back to Ukraine, although the Slavs maintained contacts long after the "Migration Period" ended, such as seen by the Bjelo Brdo horizon which stretched from Macedonia to southern Poland
Rather, we are dealing here with identities and ethonyms, which can spread in multiple ways and directions, instead of simple A -> B

parastais
03-19-2016, 10:52 AM
Thanks . But I'm not proposing a migration from Dalmatia to Poland or back to Ukraine, although the Slavs maintained contacts long after the "Migration Period" ended, such as seen by the Bjelo Brdo horizon which stretched from Macedonia to southern Poland
Rather, we are dealing here with identities and ethonyms, which can spread in multiple ways and directions, instead of simple A -> B
You don't need mass migration. A proud mercenary band should be able to start their own village(s) and keep their initial ethnonym.

George
03-19-2016, 11:32 AM
Not your quote, but Borri's. Yet there is nothing mysterious. Color white was used for North in Slavic I think. So, those were Croats doing their stuff up there North, Northern Croats.

Slavs borrowed the steppic colour "geography": White was "West" not North. North was "Black" South was "Red". NB: "Blue" was East and "Golden" (or "Yellow") was Central (whence the other directions.

parastais
03-19-2016, 12:05 PM
Slavs borrowed the steppic colour "geography": White was "West" not North. North was "Black" South was "Red". NB: "Blue" was East and "Golden" (or "Yellow") was Central (whence the other directions.
Thanks. So, there are two ideas:
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_direction#Cardinal_directions_in_world_cu ltures
based on Ukrainian Soviet Encyclopedic dictionary, Kiev, 1987. It has White as North.
2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Croats#Origin
This has White as West.

So, where is the truth?

George
03-19-2016, 12:26 PM
Thanks. So, there are two ideas:
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_direction#Cardinal_directions_in_world_cu ltures
based on Ukrainian Soviet Encyclopedic dictionary, Kiev, 1987. It has White as North.
2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Croats#Origin
This has White as West.

So, where is the truth?

In this case, not in Soviet Kyiv ;) But in Nestor's time the "White Croats" were those of the Danubian region. Those of southern Galicia were plain "Croats". As far as the name itself is concerned, and its application to populations, our best bet is to search in the history of the Avar realm. Possibly originally mercenaries imported to guard ("protect") its frontiers. The names of the DAI Croat leaders are not Slavic.

Waldemar
03-19-2016, 05:13 PM
http://s22.postimg.org/6ehoxfhrz/image.png
http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/indo-european-phylogeny-y-dna-r.html

parastais
03-19-2016, 06:10 PM
In this case, not in Soviet Kyiv ;) But in Nestor's time the "White Croats" were those of the Danubian region. Those of southern Galicia were plain "Croats". As far as the name itself is concerned, and its application to populations, our best bet is to search in the history of the Avar realm. Possibly originally mercenaries imported to guard ("protect") its frontiers. The names of the DAI Croat leaders are not Slavic.
Speaking of Horovathos, do Ossetin people have M458 and what subclades?
In light of Michal's note on other thread about North Caucasus as most diversity - how about M458 as (one of?) Sarmatian marker?

Gravetto-Danubian
03-19-2016, 08:59 PM
Speaking of Horovathos, do Ossetin people have M458 and what subclades?
In light of Michal's note on other thread about North Caucasus as most diversity - how about M458 as (one of?) Sarmatian marker?

They've got a couple of late Roman & medieval "Alan" samples. They're Z93, J and G2

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5383-Saltovo-Mayaki-Results

That invalidates the Sarmatian origin of Serbs, Croats and Antes (which again proves that many etymological based hypotheses are exercises in philological folly).

parastais
03-19-2016, 10:13 PM
They've got a couple of late Roman & medieval "Alan" samples. They're Z93, J and G2

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5383-Saltovo-Mayaki-Results

That invalidates the Sarmatian origin of Serbs, Croats and Antes (which again proves that many etymological based hypotheses are exercises in philological folly).
Yeah, and Hungarians are till today in philological folly...
Probably not more than 1% of their y-dna has anything to do with Magyars.

Shaikorth
03-19-2016, 10:23 PM
Yeah, and Hungarians are till today in philological folly...
Probably not more than 1% of their y-dna has anything to do with Magyars.

Perhaps if Magyars were 100% N-L1034, but they probably weren't.

parastais
03-19-2016, 10:44 PM
Perhaps if Magyars were 100% N-L1034, but they probably weren't.
Perhaps if Horovathos were 100% Z93, but they probably weren't...

Shaikorth
03-19-2016, 10:55 PM
Perhaps if Horovathos were 100% Z93, but they probably weren't...

They could have been 100% Z93 though, with little difference. Croatians descend from the same bunch of South Slavs as all the rest of the Balkan Slavs.

The Peninsular Iberians aren't Georgians either.

parastais
03-19-2016, 11:22 PM
They could have been 100% Z93 though, with little difference. Croatians descend from the same bunch of South Slavs as all the rest of the Balkan Slavs.

The Peninsular Iberians aren't Georgians either.
Do Magyars have much of different blood from their neighbors or Bulgars?
Actually I dont know about Bulgars, it is more or less mainstream that their "ethnonymic" ancestors were Turkic speakers, but I dont know if they have much Turkish blood from pre-Ottoman period (from their ethnonymic ancestors) in them.
Also I am not sure how much Rus Y-dna blood there is in Russians either.


I guess I am more against categorical form Gravetto's statement re no link of Croats to Iranic ethnonym than against statement itself.

Gravetto-Danubian
03-20-2016, 12:03 AM
Yeah, and Hungarians are till today in philological folly...
Probably not more than 1% of their y-dna has anything to do with Magyars.


Well, you're just assuming that just because Magyars are a linguistically 'different' i.e. Uralic, they should somehow be alien in DNA.
But Uralic is now thought to have developed in the Volga-kama region Bronze Age. Then, the pre-Magyars probably lived in north Black Sea region for hundreds of years
.
So why would they be any different to other eastern Europeans ? To be sure, we'd expect more N1c, but first, lets see what the Magyar founder's graves in Hungary show.

(in fact, I think I can detect some differences in Hungarians c.f. Croats, Serbs and Bulgarians, but its not what people would normally assume).



I guess I am more against categorical form Gravetto's statement re no link of Croats to Iranic ethnonym than against statement itself.

Yes I am categorical

The very linguistic link itself is tenuous at best. That is, who is to say the personal name seen in the Bosoprus - Horouathon - even has anything to do with Croat (attested some 700 years later). It just "looks similar". That's hardly solid evidence to fabricate an entire history upon.
many such theories were formed in the 20th century, when there was little science in history. Archaeology was just incipient, no radiocarbon dating, or other scientific auxiliary disciplines, no genetics. So scholars had to rely on scraps of evidence by parousing through old documents looking for any possible link between medieval groups with much older ones, no matter how tenuous the said link

Even if there is some linguistic link, what does this tell us about specific circumstance of politogenesis in the 800s ? nothing. The Sarmatians in SEE were long gone by 800 AD.
At the end of the day, one can just look at the hard evidence itself. I bet when we get Scythian and Sarmatian aDNA - itll be Z93 plus other central Aisa/ Cuacasian haplogroups.

parastais
03-20-2016, 08:06 AM
Do you think Sarmats, Scythians did not live North Black Sea region for hundreds of years? :)
You apply different approach to Magyars ("why they should be different to East Europeans") and Sarmats, Alans, who for some unknown reason should be more different to East Europeans than Magyars of their age.
There were many Iranic groups in East Europe before Magyars even appeared close (Btw, I think their studied elite was indeed N? ) and some of those groups kept their identity long (Alans).

As to linguistic I think there were also terms like Zupan and names of first leaders that were not Slavic but could be explained by Iranic.

Shaikorth
03-20-2016, 08:26 AM
Do you think Sarmats, Scythians did not live North Black Sea region for hundreds of years? :)
You apply different approach to Magyars ("why they should be different to East Europeans") and Sarmats, Alans, who for some unknown reason should be more different to East Europeans than Magyars of their age.
There were many Iranic groups in East Europe before Magyars even appeared close (Btw, I think their studied elite was indeed N? ) and some of those groups kept their identity long (Alans).

As to linguistic I think there were also terms like Zupan and names of first leaders that were not Slavic but could be explained by Iranic.


Apparently there is no consensus for Župan's origin (Slavic, old I-E, Illyrian and Avar origins have been suggested besides Iranic).

Volat
03-20-2016, 09:01 AM
As far as I know Magyars also llived in the steppes of southern Russia and south-eastern Ukraine in confederation with some Turkic tribes such as Khazars. The settlement is a fair distance away from any known Slavic settlement.

Scythian and Sarmatian were umbrella terms for different peoples often not related to each other. Italian traveller Alessandro Guagnini living in Vitsebsk (northern Belarus) wrote Sarmatiae Europeae descriptio (Description of European Sarmatia) in reference to Belarus, western Russia, Lithuania, Poland in the 1570s . Scythians of Potic steppes and forest steppes zones were heterogeneous people as per craniometric analysis done by anthropologist Kozintsev. He argues Schythians from different zones had different ancestries. Scythians from forest steppes zone were authohonous, while Scythians of steppes gravited to central Asians. Also to people of Tuva. http://www.archaeology.nsc.ru/ru/publish/journal/doc/2007/324/13.pdf

parastais
03-20-2016, 10:11 AM
Apparently there is no consensus for Župan's origin (Slavic, old I-E, Illyrian and Avar origins have been suggested besides Iranic).
That is what I am saying. I see no reason to exclude Iranic connection yet.

I do not see why some Iranic (Sarmat, Scythian, Alanic, Yaziges...whatever) derived ethnonyms could not survive into modern Croat, Czech and/or Serb names.
We have genetically different people using Russian, French (Franks), Magyar, Lombardian (as place name) ethnonyms.

Also I think Sarmatian influence in Zarubinets (post-Zarubinets) is a consensus thing?

Shaikorth
03-20-2016, 10:20 AM
That is what I am saying. I see no reason to exclude Iranic connection yet.

I do not see why some Iranic (Sarmat, Scythian, Alanic, Yaziges...whatever) derived ethnonyms could not survive into modern Croat, Czech and/or Serb names.
We have genetically different people using Russian, French (Franks), Magyar, Lombardian (as place name) ethnonyms.


Yeah, Iranian is not excluded but neither is plain old Slavic or even Turkic.

Gravetto-Danubian
03-20-2016, 10:25 AM
That is what I am saying. I see no reason to exclude Iranic connection yet.

I do not see why some Iranic (Sarmat, Scythian, Alanic, Yaziges...whatever) derived ethnonyms could not survive into modern Croat, Czech and/or Serb names.
We have genetically different people using Russian, French (Franks), Magyar, Lombardian (as place name) ethnonyms.

Also I think Sarmatian influence in Zarubinets (post-Zarubinets) is a consensus thing?

It is possible, but it's best to work with what we know based on provable fact
As I said, such names could be argued to be Iranic, but really this is not proven (propper nouns are not able to be subjected to etymologyzation), and ultimately, a 2nd century name from the Don sheds no light about ethno-political events in the 8th century. We no longer need to clutch at straws, we can should work like scientists now

The immediately preceding stage connecting with Slavic expansion was Avars, not Scythians. But this is not to say there weren't some Iranic speaking groups still. In fact, many scholars - usually from Bulgaria- argue that Avars and Bulgars were Iranic, not Turkic (although modern sentiments undoubtedly colour this perception, even if only slightly ).

Tomenable
03-20-2016, 08:59 PM
Perhaps some ethnonyms date back to Corded Ware period, before Balto-Slavo-Indo-Iranic branches split.

After all, both Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranic likely originated from Central and Eastern Corded Ware groups.

parastais
03-20-2016, 09:25 PM
Going back to Baltic r1a subject I am now digging up for archeogical father cultures of modern Balts.
One interesting idea I found was the stone encircled barrows (BARROW CEMETERIES WITH STONE CIRCLE). Basically early 1-2 Centuries AD in North Lithuania, South Latvia new burial tradition appears. This tradition is linked to later Semigallians, Zemaitians, Selonians and Lettigalians. They arrived on places before sparcely populated by "related culturally" (Baltoid?) Stroked Pottery.

There are two potential sources for this 'culture': SE Lithuania with almost exact paralels (but earliest stone circle barrows there appear only 3-4 centuries AD) OR West Latvian/ Lithuanian cultures that had similar but bit different burials bce.

Now this culture + Curonians (still debated West, East or North Balts) + Livonians is the local source of Latvian population clades.

That should explain lack of Z92 in Latvians. If the source indeed was in West Lat/ Lit.

Also (not under this topic, but this circle I would assign to CTS8173+ subclade of Baltic N). If it was already injected.

Gravetto-Danubian
03-20-2016, 10:25 PM
Going back to Baltic r1a subject I am now digging up for archeogical father cultures of modern Balts.
One interesting idea I found was the stone encircled barrows (BARROW CEMETERIES WITH STONE CIRCLE). Basically early 1-2 Centuries AD in North Lithuania, South Latvia new burial tradition appears. This tradition is linked to later Semigallians, Zemaitians, Selonians and Lettigalians. They arrived on places before sparcely populated by "related culturally" (Baltoid?) Stroked Pottery.

There are two potential sources for this 'culture': SE Lithuania with almost exact paralels (but earliest stone circle barrows there appear only 3-4 centuries AD) OR West Latvian/ Lithuanian cultures that had similar but bit different burials bce.

Now this culture + Curonians (still debated West, East or North Balts) + Livonians is the local source of Latvian population clades.

That should explain lack of Z92 in Latvians. If the source indeed was in West Lat/ Lit.

Also (not under this topic, but this circle I would assign to CTS8173+ subclade of Baltic N). If it was already injected.

This is very important.
Can you see if you can dig up any recent papers (ie not Marija Gimbutas) about the question of the transition from Bronze to Iron Age in Baltic (which was late ~ turn of common Era). ?

Are you able to summarize the breakdown of all Y haplogroup lineages (& their subtypes for modern Balts) ?

Gravetto-Danubian
03-21-2016, 11:26 AM
If I were to hazard a guess, I'd suggest that the ancestors of the Balts arrived to the Baltic in the Late Bronze Age, supplemented with further arrivals in the Iron Age.
The LBA arrivals (1300 BC) were essentially central Europeans (probably older Z 280 groups), via the Vistula, then Sambia and Warmia-Mazuria and further east & north.
Iron Age (600 BC) influences came from the upper Dnieper (Milograd culture, etc), as well as continuing from Central Europe.
This takes us to the last couple of centuries BC and the formation of the West Balt Tumulus and Striated Pottery complexes, (broadly thought to be early West & East Balts, resp)

This is supported by the fact that modern Balts are very WHG-shifted compared to CWC groups, suggesting a derivation from later north-central Europe groups rather than Bronze Age north-eastern ones.

Volat
03-21-2016, 11:51 AM
If Balts' migrations were from central Europe and Milograd culture then one needs to explain the existence of early Baltic loan-words in "Common Finnic" languages (Finnish, Karelian, Veps, Votic, Estonian, Livonian). Late Baltic loan-words (Latvian) are distinguished from early Baltic loan-words. The early Baltic loan-words go back to proto-Finnic stage.

Finnish scholars suggest that proto-Finnic language existed 3,000 ybp that was spread in the direction of Estonia from Volga-Ural region.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40997507?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Gravetto-Danubian
03-21-2016, 11:55 AM
If Balts' migrations were from central Europe and Milograd culture then one needs to explain the existence of early Baltic loan-words in "Common Finnic" languages (Finnish, Karelian, Veps, Votic, Estonian, Livonian). Late Baltic loan-words (Latvian) are distinguished from early Baltic loan-words. The early Baltic loan-words go back to proto-Finnic stage.

Finnish scholars suggest that proto-Finnic language existed 3,000 ybp that was spread in the direction of Estonia from Volga-Ural region.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40997507?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents


What you say only confirms what I have stated

proto-Finnic expanded 3000 y BP, which is 1000 BC, which is the Late Bronze Age, and the earliest detectable proto-baltic loans, as this is when the 2 linguo-groups met.

Although, Volat, I know your view would see Balts and Belorussians living in their lands since 45 kya :)

Volat
03-21-2016, 12:07 PM
What you say only confirms what I have stated

proto-Finnic expanded 3000 y BP, which is 1000 BC, which is the Late Bronze Age, and the earliest detectable proto-baltic loans, as this is when the 2 linguo-groups met.
Although, Volat, I know your view would see Balts and Belorussians living in their lands since 45 kya :)

Are you suggesting there were at least three migrations into east Baltic: from east European plain in late bronze age or 3,000 ybp; from central Europe 3,300 ybp (or 1300BC as you stated) and from upper Dniepr 2,600 ybp? Central Europe and east European plain are quite a distance apart for a common settlement of proto-Baltic speakers.


PS East Baltic and Belarus regions were under ice during last glacial maximum. So Belts and Belarusians ancestors are from much later periods of time.

Gravetto-Danubian
03-21-2016, 12:21 PM
Are you suggesting there were at least three migrations into east Baltic: from east European plain in late bronze age or 3,000 ybp; from central Europe 3,300 ybp (or 1300BC as you stated) and from upper Dniepr 2,600 ybp? Central Europe and east European plain are quite a distance apart for a common settlement of proto-Baltic speakers.

Naturally, exact details cannot be proven without aDNA, but yes, i wouldn't be surprised for at least a couple of turnovers in the Baltic. Firstly, the CWC gradually supplanted local fisher-foragers, which introduced early primitive agriculture and herding. However, this was not permanent, as ultimately, economy shifted back to long-held fisher-foraging. It was not until after 1300 BC, that more permanent settlements again appear. These have clear north Polish origin, in turn part of the LBA Central European koinon. The cultural similarities are undeniable, and there is clear shift in settlements, settling distinct areas.

Newer influences, from both northern Poland and Upper Dnieper again appear in the mature Iron Age. Maybe some further / new admixture.
Again, just look at the genetic evidence. Pre-Corded Ware was R1a*, then CWC was R1a1 xZ645, and yet modern Balts fall mostly under Z280 (barring M458 which is presumably more recent still- Slavic)– which is attested in BA central Europe (and probably will be also in EE plain). And modern Balts are west-shifted compared to what would be there CWC finds. It’s difficult to dismiss this evidence, but I'm not suggesting my scenario must be what happened. But I don't think it's too off the mark


Central Europe and east European plain are quite a distance apart for a common settlement of proto-Baltic speakers. Im not quite sure what you’re trying to say, but yes, they don’t need to be close. Regions can experiences influences from more than one area, mediated via different routes.


PS East Baltic and Belarus region were under ice during last glacial maximum.
I’m glad you know that.

Volat
03-21-2016, 12:38 PM
Again, just look at the genetic evidence. Pre-Corded Ware was R1a*, then CWC was R1a1 xM417, and yet modern Balts fall mostly under Z280 – which is attested in BA central Europe (and probably will be also in EE plain). And modern Balts are west-shifted compared to what would be there CWC finds. It’s difficult to dismiss this evidence, unless one simply suspends reality

R1a1 and N1c1 markers were found on the border of Russia and Belarus near upper western Dvina river (Daugava river in Latvian language which runs across Latvia into gulf of Riga) between 4,000-5,000 ybp. It's along this river that ancient migrations into Latvia took place. Balts also have plenty of N1c1 markers in their gene pools eg Lithuanians, Latvians and Prussians. Both R1a1 and N1c1 could have been brought into east Baltic from the east only, while N1c1 and R1a1 could not have been brought from central Europe. Only R1a1 marker.

http://s020.radikal.ru/i704/1502/be/a19103cc4d67.png



Im not quite sure what you’re trying to say, but yes, they don’t need to be close. Regions can experiences influences from more than one area, mediated via different routes. Common proto-language could emerge from a single region iin which speakers could comnunicate. The regions don't need to be close for separate languages to emerge from a common proto-language.

Gravetto-Danubian
03-21-2016, 12:47 PM
. R1a1 and N1c1 markers were found on the border of Russia and Belarus near upper western Dvina river (Daugava river in Latvian language which runs across Latvia into gulf of Riga) between 4,000-5,000 ybp. It's along this river that ancient migrations into Latvia took place Balts also have plenty of N1c1 markers in their gene pools eg Lithuanians, Latvians and Prussians. Both R1a1 and N1c1 could have been brought into east Baltic from the east only, while N1c1 and R1a1 could not have been brought from central Europe. Only R1a1 marker.

http://s020.radikal.ru/i704/1502/be/a19103cc4d67.png
can you tell me which specific subclade of R1a that was ? I bet it's not modern ones
and your suggestion that R1a could only reach the Baltic via the east is absurd , because R1a groups existed further west since 2500 BC. And Poland might be where some of the late Bronze Age clades of R1a under Z280 arrived to Baltic


Common proto-language could emerge from a single region iin which speakers could comnunicate. The regions don't need to be close for separate languages to emerge from a common proto-language.
No they don't actually, and a language can have a couple of formative core zones.-especially if those zones are already similar

I feel we're discuss needless basics here

Volat
03-21-2016, 12:49 PM
There could had been a migration in Lithuania from Scandinavia during Neolithic period before Indo-European expansion.

Lithuanian anthropologist Gintautas Chesnis suggested that the first known Baltic person lived 4,000 years found in archaelogical complex Duonkalnis (Samogitia, north-western Lithuania). How he determined she was a first Baltic person is unknown to me. Probably she was one of the first people whom Chesnis considers a Balt.

https://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duonkalnis

Gravetto-Danubian
03-21-2016, 01:00 PM
There could had been a migration in Lithuania from Scandinavia during Neolithic period before Indo-European expansion.

Lithuanian anthropologist Gintautas Chesnis suggested that the first known Baltic person lived 4,000 years found in archaelogical complex Duonkalnis (Samogitia, north-western Lithuania). How he determined she was a first Baltic person is unknown to me. Probably she was one of the first people whom Chesnis considers a Balt.

https://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duonkalnis

Fascinating but that doesn't prove much at all

Going back through here, I see Michal suggested a similar thing (if I've understood)- many modern Baltic and Slavic R1a ultimately hark back to Sosnica-Trziniec-Komarov culture, whose influences are felt further north toward the tail end of its period (13-1200 BC). The west Balt coast has clearer north European influences, via Sambia

Volat
03-21-2016, 01:15 PM
can you tell me which specific subclade of R1a that was ? I bet it's not modern ones
and your suggestion that R1a could only reach the Baltic via the east is absurd , because R1a groups existed further west since 2500 BC. And Poland might be where some of the late Bronze Age clades of R1a under Z280 arrived to Baltic

I don't know what are the markers down the tree. How is it absurd if R1* marker originated in the east spreading westward? R1a was found in mesolithic Karelia.



No they don't actually, and a language can have a couple of formative core zones.-especially if those zones are already similar

I feel we're discuss needless basics here

A single proto-language can only evolve in one region in which speakers can communicate with each other. If one group of the speakers leave the region, then another language may evolove in a matter several hundreds years. That's the basics.

Volat
03-21-2016, 01:32 PM
The only evidence for migration into east Baltic from central Europe that I came across is from old school dentology. Luthianians have teeth type similar to that of central Europe, while Latvians don't. There is also influence of archaeological culture of western Balts in Sambia from northern Poland (west of Vistula).

Most evidence supports eastern origins of the Balts. N1c1 marker, early Baltic loan-words in common Finnic, numerous Baltic hydronyms in western Russia. Presence of N1c1 and R1a1 in Zhizhitskya culture (upper western Dvina river). Even present day Balts genetically are more east shifted than present day Poles of Poland.

Z280 and M458 mutations originated in central Europe is a guess. We haven't tested ancient DNA from Belarus, western Russia and east Baltics. N1c1 & R1a were present in Zhizhitskaya but mutations further down the tree are unknown.

Shaikorth
03-21-2016, 01:45 PM
The only evidence for migration into east Baltic from central Europe that I came across is from old school dentology. Luthianians have teeth type similar to that of central Europe, while Latvians don't. There is also influence of archaeological culture of western Balts in Sambia from northern Poland (west of Vistula).

Most evidence supports eastern origins of the Balts. N1c1 marker, early Baltic loan-words in common Finnic, numerous Baltic hydronyms in western Russia. Presence of N1c1 and R1a1 in Zhizhitskya culture (upper western Dvina river). Even present day Balts genetically are more east shifted than present day Poles of Poland.

Z280 and M458 mutations originated in central Europe is a guess. We haven't tested ancient DNA from Belarus, western Russia and east Baltics. N1c1 & R1a were present in Zhizhitskaya but mutations further down the tree are unknown.

It could be that Zhizhitskya doesn't represent the paternal ancestors of the Balts however. If N1c1 in the Southern Baltic is a recent, like late Bronze Age, introgression (since all Balt N1c is M2782) the Zhizhitskya N1c could be an extinct branch or ancestral to all these groups:
http://oi66.tinypic.com/2mglag9.jpg
Y-Full's dating suggests it's old enough for that, in which case it's not specifically Baltic but ancestral to various groups from East Europe to the Pacific.

Volat
03-21-2016, 01:48 PM
It could be that Zhizhitskya doesn't represent the paternal ancestors of the Balts however. If N1c1 in the Southern Baltic is a recent, like late Bronze Age, introgression (since all Balt N1c is M2782) the Zhizhitskya N1c could be an extinct branch or ancestral to all these groups:
Y-Full's dating suggests it's old enough for that, in which case it's not specifically Baltic but ancestral to various groups from East Europe to the Pacific.

It could be and you could be right. I don't which clades down the tree people of Zhizhitskaya had. The point was that both R1a and N1c were spread from the east. The way I see N1c carriers took northern direction, while R1a took southern direction. N1c folks hit east Baltic, while R1a folks went further west.

Also, Z280 is 5,000 ybp, M458 is 4,500 ybp. There is no reason why any of these markers could not be present in Zhizhitskaya culture (upper western Dvina region).

George
03-21-2016, 02:06 PM
The only evidence for migration into east Baltic from central Europe that I came across is from old school dentology. Luthianians have teeth type similar to that of central Europe, while Latvians don't. There is also influence of archaeological culture of western Balts in Sambia from northern Poland (west of Vistula).

Most evidence supports eastern origins of the Balts. N1c1 marker, early Baltic loan-words in common Finnic, numerous Baltic hydronyms in western Russia. Presence of N1c1 and R1a1 in Zhizhitskya culture (upper western Dvina river). Even present day Balts genetically are more east shifted than present day Poles of Poland.

Z280 and M458 mutations originated in central Europe is a guess. We haven't tested ancient DNA from Belarus, western Russia and east Baltics. N1c1 & R1a were present in Zhizhitskaya but mutations further down the tree are unknown.

I think this final paragraph should be a useful caveat. I don't expect it to stop idle speculators.

Shaikorth
03-21-2016, 02:13 PM
It could be and you could be right. I don't which clades down the tree people of Zhizhitskaya had. The point was that both R1a and N1c were spread from the east. The way I see N1c carriers took northern direction, while R1a took southern direction. N1c folks hit east Baltic, while R1a folks went further west.

Also, Z280 is 5,000 ybp, M458 is 4,500 ybp. There is no reason why any of these markers could not be present in Zhizhitskaya culture (upper western Dvina region).

Yes, but we know there was a large R1a migration back to the east (Z93), quite possibly there was one for N1c as well (B197 in the tree). Given that, having Z280 go north or northeast after originating in Ukraine or Poland isn't a scenario that can be ruled out.

parastais
03-21-2016, 05:45 PM
One thing must be made clear re Balts. And that is who are we speaking about?
Are we talking about people speaking Baltoid language(s)? If so, Balts are best described by Marija Gimbutas in her "The Balts". All those similar cultures over enormous territory during BA.

Or, are we talking of Balts as people speaking proto-East-Baltic and their direct ancestors? Now this is where it gets tricky. Is it known whether toponyms in Russia, Belarus are of clearly defined "East Baltic" character or of undefined "Baltoid"? Same for toponyms in as far as Nieder Saxony.

I would like to discuss the origins of modern Balts here. So, it leaves us with those guys speaking languages descended from proto-East-Baltic. To me, it seems already we are discussing two different groups of people there (Zemaitians, Semigallians, Latgalians, Selonians; CTS8173+ subclade of Baltic N; -s people) and (Lithuanians, hypothetical Eastern Latgalians - Grand Lithuanian subclades of Baltic N; -as people). Just intuitive feeling.

Will try to look for "Vihod Venetov na avanscenu" material. It had some interesting ideas, author - Belarussian archeologyst claimed there were no Balts in Belarus before AD, but those guys were "common substrate" for Belarussians and (East) Balts, who expanded West just shortly before Slavs. Or that was how I read into it :)

parastais
03-21-2016, 05:58 PM
Затем Тацит возвращает описание на южное побережье Балтики, которую на сей раз называет Свебским морем. Направо (на восток) от ругиев и лемовиев он размещает эстиев, в стране которых добывают янтарь. В отличие от своего предшественника Плиния Тацит владеет про эти места уже не мифической, а вполне определенной информацией. Он даже знает, что язык эстиев отличен от германского (Тацит считает его похожим на язык бриттов, т.е. одной из групп кельтов).

Археологически территория эстиев соответствует самбийской (богачевской) культуре, возникшей в І в. н.э. на части территории предшествующей культуры западнобалтийских курганов.[9]В других частях последней, в низовьях Немана и на куршском побережье, одновременно формируются две группы грунтовых погребений, из которых куршская отличается наличием каменных венцов вокруг могил. Далее на восток, в западной части ареала штрихованной керамики, распространяется культура курганов с такими же каменными венцами, в некоторых чертах похожих на западнобалтские. Все они в дальнейшем имели характерную ошершавленную керамику, которую можно считать «визитной карточкой» ранних балтов.

Носители этих культур либо не были известны Тациту, либо охватывались объединяющим именем эстиев, которое в таком случае соответствует общему названию прабалтов, как раз в это время начавших подразделяться на две языковые ветви. Причиной деления балтов на западных и восточных, видимо, стало смешение последних с субстратным населением культуры штрихованной керамики. От него был заимствован лексический пласт, отличающий восточнобалтские языки от позднее вымершего прусского (о котором, впрочем, известно не очень много).
(Выход венетов на авансцену, В. Носевич).

parastais
03-21-2016, 07:26 PM
Затем Тацит возвращает описание на южное побережье Балтики, которую на сей раз называет Свебским морем. Направо (на восток) от ругиев и лемовиев он размещает эстиев, в стране которых добывают янтарь. В отличие от своего предшественника Плиния Тацит владеет про эти места уже не мифической, а вполне определенной информацией. Он даже знает, что язык эстиев отличен от германского (Тацит считает его похожим на язык бриттов, т.е. одной из групп кельтов).

Археологически территория эстиев соответствует самбийской (богачевской) культуре, возникшей в І в. н.э. на части территории предшествующей культуры западнобалтийских курганов.[9]В других частях последней, в низовьях Немана и на куршском побережье, одновременно формируются две группы грунтовых погребений, из которых куршская отличается наличием каменных венцов вокруг могил. Далее на восток, в западной части ареала штрихованной керамики, распространяется культура курганов с такими же каменными венцами, в некоторых чертах похожих на западнобалтские. Все они в дальнейшем имели характерную ошершавленную керамику, которую можно считать «визитной карточкой» ранних балтов.

Носители этих культур либо не были известны Тациту, либо охватывались объединяющим именем эстиев, которое в таком случае соответствует общему названию прабалтов, как раз в это время начавших подразделяться на две языковые ветви. Причиной деления балтов на западных и восточных, видимо, стало смешение последних с субстратным населением культуры штрихованной керамики. От него был заимствован лексический пласт, отличающий восточнобалтские языки от позднее вымершего прусского (о котором, впрочем, известно не очень много).
(Выход венетов на авансцену, В. Носевич).
On other hand I read some more of that guy, he seems to speak too strict about versions (usually non-academical feature) and seem to pick what sticks to his own thoughts. In general though this continues the new trend of Balts expanding from West to East during early AD.
Unfortunately it is hard to find good compilations on this subject online.

Gravetto-Danubian
03-21-2016, 08:14 PM
I think this final paragraph should be a useful caveat. I don't expect it to stop idle speculators.

Nor has the fact that it's 2016 stopped some members in regards to regurgitating the same tired old antiquated and ideologically driven material theyve been reading from 1955

Gravetto-Danubian
03-21-2016, 08:29 PM
I don't know what are the markers down the tree. How is it absurd if R1* marker originated in the east spreading westward? R1a was found in mesolithic Karelia.


My question was rhetorical because downstream markers weren't tested, but I'd bet they're not Z280!

And I am not claiming that R1a1* or Z280 originated in Central Europe, and you know it. Rather as outlined by Shaikorth it is possible that some Z280 branches migrated back north-east from more central European parts, most proximate of which is Poland.

And this is supported by clear and indisputable archaeological evidence, pertaining to West Balts. I'm not talking about the southeast Balts of the Kiev culture, Kolochyn culture, and their predecessors, and such.

And you're still ignoring the autosomal evidence. Why are modern Balts the most WHG of all Europeans ?



A single proto-language can only evolve in one region in which speakers can communicate with each other. If one group of the speakers leave the region, then another language may evolove in a matter several hundreds years. That's the basics.

No that's not correct. You need to brush up contact linguistics, urgently

Volat
03-21-2016, 09:42 PM
My question was rhetorical because downstream markers weren't tested, but I'd bet they're not Z280!

If not Z280 then what is it? Z282? A dead branch of R1a?


And I am not claiming that R1a1* or Z280 originated in Central Europe, and you know it. Rather as outlined by Shaikorth it is possible that some Z280 branches migrated back north-east from more central European parts, most proximate of which is Poland.

The spread of Z280 along Dniepr from Ukraine into Belarus and further north is possible. Ukraine is not a central Europe.


And you're still ignoring the autosomal evidence. Why are modern Balts the most WHG of all Europeans ?

Modern day Balts are a mixture of paleo Europeans and Indo-Europeans. East Baltic is an isolated region in which people mixed the least in comparison to other Europeans, so they have most WHG.



No that's not correct. You need to brush up contact linguistics, urgently

I am right on this one. The same proto-language emerges in the same region and not 3,000 km apart.

Volat
03-21-2016, 09:47 PM
Nor has the fact that it's 2016 stopped some members in regards to regurgitating the same tired old antiquated and ideologically driven material theyve been reading from 1955

Old does not always mean obsolete. Gimbutas' Kurgan hypothesis is very much relevant to this day. What old antiquated and ideologically driven material has anyone referenced in this discussion?

parastais
03-21-2016, 10:02 PM
Old does not always mean obsolete. Gimbutas' Kurgan hypothesis is very much relevant to this day. What old antiquated and ideologically driven material has anyone referenced in this discussion?
Not necessarily re quote above:
What do you think of Nosevich? Is he regarded good in Belarus? He seems to promote West to East direction for modern Balts.