Page 247 of 353 FirstFirst ... 147197237245246247248249257297347 ... LastLast
Results 2,461 to 2,470 of 3522

Thread: New Samples from Migration Era and Early Medieval Moravia

  1. #2461
    Registered Users
    Posts
    909

    Granary, I have written about it many times. The sudden increase in certain paternal lines is caused by the domination of the elite, in which members of the elite clan gain unlimited access to procreation and procreate many sons with many wives and concubines.

  2. #2462
    Registered Users
    Posts
    875
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by ambron View Post
    Granary, I have written about it many times. The sudden increase in certain paternal lines is caused by the domination of the elite, in which members of the elite clan gain unlimited access to procreation and procreate many sons with many wives and concubines.
    Any elite that is so demographically dominant that it takes over the Y-DNA of an entire population should stop being just an elite within centuries and should have assimilated most of their subjects through intermixing.
    If this is you argument, shouldn't this mean that Germanic Y-DNA should have been dominant in Poland before the migration era?

  3. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Granary For This Useful Post:

     Michał (07-16-2021),  parastais (07-16-2021),  Tomenable (07-16-2021)

  4. #2463
    Registered Users
    Posts
    875
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by ph2ter View Post
    Graphs
    How do you create this stuff?

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Granary For This Useful Post:

     parastais (07-16-2021)

  6. #2464
    Registered Users
    Posts
    5,406
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by ph2ter View Post

    The E-V13 is a clear case, pointing to my theory about the Channelled Ware and very Early Iron Age expansion with Urnfield related groups in Central and South Eastern Europe. Most subclades are around the timing of Gáva-Holigrady (at least culturally a major impulse), Belegiš-Gáva and Incrusted Ware, at the time when major fortresses of the early Iron working complex were destroyed in the Carpathians, like Teleac. The niveau remains high, with Thraco-Cimmerian and Hallstatt related expansions throughout Europe, but goes down with the Scythians and La Tene, when the pressure began to come from the West (Celts) and South (Romans). The Dacian Wars (101–102, 105–106), when Rome conquered the Balkans and Carpathians, coincide with steep decline, so does the Slavic expansion after a mild recovery in between. Interesting also the Middle Bronze Age singular peak, followed by a contraction, so a very short lived, rather limited (also geographically) expansive phase, followed by the massive success in the early Iron Age.
    If you put the comparisons of E-V13 and R-M458 side by side, you clearly see that these two were competing on a grand scale for much of Eastern to South Eastern Europe, which just fits well into what we know about it. Here too, just like the Germanics later, they were broken before (by successive conquests) and then easier prey, but had the numbers and stamina to stand their ground as minority element and probably even took part, with some lineages, in the Slavic expansions themselves.

    So I think your graphs really can point to something, and if anything, one just has to compare E-V13 with R-M458, they mirror each other, quite well, with E-V13 having started to get bigger much earlier, becoming way more diversified and widespread, but later losing ground against the new competitors, especially the Slavic core groups.

    R-U106 seems to have had a more stable development overall, but one can see two peaks, one possible related to Unetice or the Nordic Bronze Age directly, the second with the early and pre-Roman Iron Age, which fits well with it being a good Germanic marker imho.

    Nothing new but a great, impressive illustration of the extremely expansive character of Protoslavs from small beginnings. Comparing the situation with E-V13 and R-U106 makes its just the more obvious, because they have a completely different background and timings.
    Last edited by Riverman; 07-16-2021 at 04:44 PM.

  7. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Riverman For This Useful Post:

     leonardo (07-16-2021),  mha (07-17-2021),  parastais (07-16-2021),  ph2ter (07-16-2021),  Tomenable (07-16-2021)

  8. #2465
    Registered Users
    Posts
    875
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    Nothing new but a great, impressive illustration of the extremely expansive character of Protoslavs from small beginnings. Comparing the situation with E-V13 and R-U106 makes its just the more obvious, because they have a completely different background and timings.
    I hope I read those graphs correctly, but does this mean that most of the originally Slavic y-dna originates from an handful of men that lived around 2500-3000 BP?
    Or let's formulate the question differently: How many individual male ancestors that lived around the the early pre-Roman iron age(2500-3000 BP) does one need to compromise >50% of pan-Slavic Y-DNA?
    Last edited by Granary; 07-16-2021 at 05:13 PM.

  9. #2466
    Moderator
    Posts
    2,954
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Afghan/Russian
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1a-Z93 (Indo-Aryan)

    Quote Originally Posted by etrusco View Post
    Yamnaya can’t be less succesful than CW simply because CW IS from Yamnaya. Cw is a living witness of the success of Yamnaya.
    CW is basically a transplant of Yamnaya in the central and eastern part of Northern Europe
    It is off-topic but CWC and Yamnaya besides the different uniparental markers differ in many archaeological aspects. Actually, the lack of clear Yamnaya elements (different burial rites, different pottery, different metallugrical technologies,...) . was one of the main arguments of anti-migrationists in the past. Some transitional stage is needed to explain early CWC and Yamnaya is simply to late to include Proto-CWC people, which before moving into Central Europe would need some time to transform their steppe cultural package into a package more adapted to forest/forest steppe regions.

  10. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Coldmountains For This Useful Post:

     Alain (07-16-2021),  leonardo (07-16-2021),  Michał (07-16-2021),  Riverman (07-16-2021)

  11. #2467
    Registered Users
    Posts
    6,356
    Sex
    Location
    Zagreb
    Ethnicity
    Kaikavian Croatian
    Nationality
    Croatian
    aDNA Match (1st)
    Viking Denmark: VK274
    aDNA Match (2nd)
    Avar time Slav: Av1
    aDNA Match (3rd)
    La Tene Celt: I20752
    Y-DNA (P)
    I2a1a2-A815-FGC92673
    mtDNA (M)
    HV0-T195C!

    Croatia European Union
    Quote Originally Posted by parastais View Post
    N-L550, N-L1925 too
    ... for perspective
    I don't know what is L1925.

     
    Some simple calculations, maps and plots I make for free, but for more complicated maps, plots and calculations I ask for a donation of $3 per map/plot via Hidden Content PayPalHidden Content account.
    Every fourth map is free. Admix decomposition is $7.

  12. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ph2ter For This Useful Post:

     leonardo (07-16-2021),  parastais (07-16-2021),  Tomenable (07-16-2021)

  13. #2468
    Registered Users
    Posts
    5,406
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Granary View Post
    I hope I read those graphs correctly, but does this mean that most of the originally Slavic y-dna originates from an handful of men that lived around 2500-3000 BP?
    Or let's formulate the question differently: How many individual male ancestors that lived around the the early pre-Roman iron age(2500-3000 BP) does one need to compromise >50% of pan-Slavic Y-DNA?
    Let's go through it in detail:
    I-CTS10228:
    [FONT="][/FONT]

    Did not exist as a significant factor at all at a time E-V13 and R-U106 were big players on the pan-European sphere. That it existed at all is just visible in the developed Iron Age, so it could, in theory, even have travelled with Celts or at least Celtic innovations, even Germanics going by that alone. You see it developed well, in later Roman times, already before the migration period. Falling even somewhat back before the big leap forward with the Slavs happened. So it could have been assimilated by Proto-Slavs, in Roman times, experienced a contraction, but then moved together with the Slavs to their big success. Another option is that the declining phase was caused by the Germanic expansions and the Slavs barely survived as a whole, but this needs to be checked with the others.

    R1a-M458:

    [FONT="][/FONT]

    At least this haplogroups shows it was alive before, M458 had a life before the Slavs, even if it was a very modest one. The success story begins somewhat earlier than for I-CTS10228, but a short, small decline around the Germanic expansions is visible as well. Looks like it joined the Pre-/Proto-Slavs earlier, but was together with their I2 brethren then. The growth starts around the developed Iron Age, La Tene period, before the decline around the time of the Germanic expansions.

    R1a-Z280:



    Way more diverse and stable than the other two, but that's to be expected, considering its age and position, widespread character. The real growth starts of all 3 the earliest, but still concentrates in the La Tene period, here as well, the decline around the Germanic expansions is non-existent, probably with the stable Northern groups not suffering as much as the more Southern positioned lineages (Celtic and Lusatian?).

    Would be my interpretation. Before the Iron Age, only R-Z280 was a significant player, but all were fairly small in the European context. Coming not even close to Bell Beaker R1b for example, which is a high threshold though, granted. At the LBA-EIA transition, E-V13 was bigger than all three taken together and the Iron Age progression began really, really slow, even for the much more important (of the three) R-Z280. So they could profit from the beginning Iron Age in the North, but only very moderately. Which means to me it would be wrong to speak of anything truly Proto-Slavic before the Iron Age, they were born in the Iron period, like most other ethnicities of Europe we know historically about, from actual written records, too.

    What's interesting about R-Z280 is a truly huge leap forward for its clades around 300 AD and no significant decline with the Germanic expansion. Probably it was like with the fortress people in Central Germany, which were partitioned between Germanics and Celts. Probably here too, some people in between got partitioned between Germanics and R-Z280 Baltoslavs? Just a wild guess being thrown in. This would explain why not that much of the other two survived, but I-CTS10228 and R-M458 were assimlated, and those lineages of them which survived, profited big time from the Proto-Slavic expansion. They could have transfered more advanced knowledge and techniques to the Pre-Slavs from the woods, and this mixture and connection would have created real Proto-Slavs in the first place? Just a wild guess scenario

  14. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Riverman For This Useful Post:

     Просигој (07-16-2021),  JoeyP37 (07-16-2021),  leonardo (07-16-2021),  mha (07-17-2021),  Michał (07-16-2021),  ph2ter (07-16-2021),  Tomenable (07-16-2021)

  15. #2469
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,598
    Sex
    Omitted
    Y-DNA (P)
    N - Z16980

    Quote Originally Posted by ph2ter View Post
    I don't know what is L1925.

    L1925 is my mistake )))))
    L1025 of course, the “Baltic” N, dad of 40% Baltic boys. But also a son of L550.

    Edit: so if I read it right: initial expansion around 400-500 BCE (likely Baltic Sea region), then plain survival in small numbers until early BCE/AD, and then growth and multiple consecutive expansions early centuries AD (likely within Balts - Stone encircled barrows culture started around that time in Baltic Sea coast).
    Then some Teuton destruction ca 1300. And regrowth spike within GDL.

    Quite fantastic method.
    Last edited by parastais; 07-16-2021 at 05:53 PM.

  16. #2470
    Registered Users
    Posts
    6,356
    Sex
    Location
    Zagreb
    Ethnicity
    Kaikavian Croatian
    Nationality
    Croatian
    aDNA Match (1st)
    Viking Denmark: VK274
    aDNA Match (2nd)
    Avar time Slav: Av1
    aDNA Match (3rd)
    La Tene Celt: I20752
    Y-DNA (P)
    I2a1a2-A815-FGC92673
    mtDNA (M)
    HV0-T195C!

    Croatia European Union
    Quote Originally Posted by MitchellSince1893 View Post
    Request U152 and DF27 graphs please

     
    Some simple calculations, maps and plots I make for free, but for more complicated maps, plots and calculations I ask for a donation of $3 per map/plot via Hidden Content PayPalHidden Content account.
    Every fourth map is free. Admix decomposition is $7.

  17. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to ph2ter For This Useful Post:

     JoeyP37 (07-16-2021),  Michał (07-16-2021),  MitchellSince1893 (07-16-2021),  Riverman (07-16-2021),  Tomenable (07-16-2021)

Page 247 of 353 FirstFirst ... 147197237245246247248249257297347 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. G25 Distance Maps to selected Early Medieval Samples
    By ph2ter in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 81
    Last Post: 09-19-2021, 10:48 AM
  2. Medieval Pashtun Samples
    By J Man in forum Central
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-28-2020, 05:37 AM
  3. Early Medieval Czech DNA (years 600-900 AD)
    By Tomenable in forum Central
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 04-19-2018, 01:07 PM
  4. Early Medieval Germanic barrow burials
    By JonikW in forum History (Medieval)
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-31-2018, 12:34 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-27-2016, 06:50 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •