R1a>M458>L1029

[leonardo]

This is referring to the mostly Balto Slavic M458 sample from La Tene Hungary

It seems we have more M458 and its subclades (e.g., L1029) samples in "outlier" areas than what some consider the Slavic homeland area.

[Coldmountains]

It seems we have more M458 and its subclades (e.g., L1029) samples in "outlier" areas than what some consider the Slavic homeland area.

We have also zero CTS1211, Z92 and Y3120 so far from the likely Slavic homeland before the middle ages but this is because we don't have any published samples from the region and pre-medieval period in the first place. So how we can make any claims about the absence or presence of M458 in the region based on that sample size? But we have a M458 sample with a Lithuanian_BA-like profile as outliner in Hungary_IA and he certainly was not local and from the northeast.

[leonardo]

We have also zero CTS1211, Z92 and Y3120 so far from the likely Slavic homeland before the middle ages but this is because we don't have any published samples from the region and pre-medieval period in the first place. So how we can make any claims about the absence or presence of M458 in the region based on that sample size? But we have a M458 sample with a Lithuanian_BA-like profile as outliner in Hungary_IA and he certainly was not local and from the northeast.

I guess the question then becomes "how far" northeast.

[leonardo]

We also have to take into account that this sample, Dunaalmás 25524, lived between the years 450 - 1 BCE. FTDNA lists the tine to our shared Ancestor as 2200 years ago. So, as I have posted many times, it's all about the time and place. A simplistic view sees this a linear: no matter the time, the place is the same. But we know these things are a continuum. Where this particular man lived in approximately 200 BCE may not, and is likely not, the same place as 400 BCE, or 200 or 400 CE. While this man has Balto-Slavic drift, he can hardly be called Proto Slavic, let alone Slavic, in 200 BCE.

[leonardo]

My recollection is that there are some very ancient (4000 or 4500 ybp?) samples that are ancestors to M458. So I don't think there is much doubt that these men came from areas like modern day western Russia, Latvia, Lithuania long ago. After that? Who knows. What I do believe is that we should put stock in the actual samples we have versus samples we don't have.

[ambron]

We have also zero CTS1211, Z92 and Y3120 so far from the likely Slavic homeland before the middle ages but this is because we don't have any published samples from the region and pre-medieval period in the first place. So how we can make any claims about the absence or presence of M458 in the region based on that sample size? But we have a M458 sample with a Lithuanian_BA-like profile as outliner in Hungary_IA and he certainly was not local and from the northeast.

But we also have an Iron Age sample of M458 from southern Germany with a profile similar to Serbian. Where did he come from...?

[ambron]

My recollection is that there are some very ancient (4000 or 4500 ybp?) samples that are ancestors to M458. So I don't think there is much doubt that these men came from areas like modern day western Russia, Latvia, Lithuania long ago. After that? Who knows. What I do believe is that we should put stock in the actual samples we have versus samples we don't have.

If you mean the Y2395 line from the Lithuanian and Estonian samples 4500 ybp, they only show the Z284 ancestors flow path from Poland to Scandinavia, which most likely led through the eastern Baltic. And this is because her brother line R-PF6155 currently has the largest frequency and diversity in Poland.

[leonardo]

But we also have an Iron Age sample of M458 from southern Germany with a profile similar to Serbian. Where did he come from...?

Yes, the Singen sample. And we have L1029 samples.

[Technocrat]

We also have to take into account that this sample, Dunaalmás 25524, lived between the years 450 - 1 BCE. FTDNA lists the tine to our shared Ancestor as 2200 years ago. So, as I have posted many times, it's all about the time and place. A simplistic view sees this a linear: no matter the time, the place is the same. But we know these things are a continuum. Where this particular man lived in approximately 200 BCE may not, and is likely not, the same place as 400 BCE, or 200 or 400 CE. While this man has Balto-Slavic drift, he can hardly be called Proto Slavic, let alone Slavic, in 200 BCE.

25524 from Hungary was only confirmed M458. It is unlikely you share an ancestor with him 2200 years ago. Try more like 5000 years ago. His Balto-Slavic profile is irrelevant to L1029(descended nearly 2000 years later by its formation date), or to its origin or makeup. I agree though that he cannot be called Slavic in 450 BCE. He was actually around 200 BCE based on yfull.

It's likely M458 existed near/overlapped with the Balto-Slavic sphere. However, linking Y-DNA with the origins and evolution of a language and culture is the stuff if pseudo science. Their may be major contributors to a language and the ethnogenesis that contributed to its building blocks, but this idea a bunch if Y-DNA had to follow the same origin as an autosomal genome and language reeks of an agenda.

All we can talk about are specific subclades that may be classified by Slavic based upon their microsatelite diversity and expansion events.

Anyone saying that these lines should all descend in one place is clearly trying to force an absolutist ideology.

[Technocrat]

My recollection is that there are some very ancient (4000 or 4500 ybp?) samples that are ancestors to M458. So I don't think there is much doubt that these men came from areas like modern day western Russia, Latvia, Lithuania long ago. After that? Who knows. What I do believe is that we should put stock in the actual samples we have versus samples we don't have.

I agree to an extent. There cannot be ancestors to M458 that are 4000-4500 uears old because the tmrca and formation of M458 os 5000 ybp. In order to be an ancestor of M458, it would need to be older. And the ancestor of M458 is also the ancestor of Z280 and Z284. And it looks like it was a split around the same time. So all these guys that became Scando-Germanic and Balto-Slavic were the same around the times they split.

I agree that we should put stock in what we have and not what we don't. The arguments made against its presence outside if the Balto-Slavic sphere are backwards logic, based upon no DNA evidence. We should work with evidence we have, and not with evidence we don't. While many parts of Eastern Europe remain yet unsampled, the areas that were heavily tested showed zero M458 and plenty of Z280. The proposed origin of M458 being shoehorned where it lacks diversity ir actual ancient DNA is another issue. Especially when am argument without any support of genetic evidence is used against actual genetic evidence that at least conflicts with such preconceptions.

I honestly think Slavs only diversified from Balts in the late Iron Age and antiquity. At least linguistically it seems to be the case. Diversity of M458 outside of Poles and Y3120 only stretches back in Slavs around 2100 years. Z280 goes back even further. So maybe some who claim Slavic was just a diversified Baltic offshoot are correct. These lines coalesced together in one place to start that process.