Page 165 of 292 FirstFirst ... 65115155163164165166167175215265 ... LastLast
Results 1,641 to 1,650 of 2915

Thread: New Samples from Migration Era and Early Medieval Moravia

  1. #1641
    Registered Users
    Y-DNA (P)
    N - Z16980

    Quote Originally Posted by Coldmountains View Post
    Probably some group similar to POL_EBA in the Bronze Age, which was also not Balto-Slavic for sure, but close to where Proto-Balto-Slavs formed. M458 is for sure CWC derived just like all other Balto-Slavic R1a today, what makes an origin of Balto-Slavs in BA Hungary/Balkan like some propose super unlikely in my eyes. Or there was some linguistic replacement without replacing any Y-DNA, which really is not what we see in ancient DNA of this period so far.

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to parastais For This Useful Post:

     Coldmountains (06-18-2021),  JoeyP37 (06-18-2021)

  3. #1642
    Registered Users
    NW Bulgarian
    Y-DNA (P)
    mtDNA (M)

    Bulgaria North Macedonia Greek Macedonia European Union
    While we are on the subject of Czech La Tene i would think its more likely we find pre-S20602 of course as a minor accompanying lineage to the R1b guys than some definately non Balto-Slavic R1a branches.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to vasil For This Useful Post:

     Coldmountains (06-18-2021)

  5. #1643
    Registered Users

    Quote Originally Posted by davit View Post
    Can we rule out M458 being some sort of minor Celto-Germanic lineage (which we know a lot of people are hinging their hopes on)?
    Of course not. Just like with some other lineages, there was a East -> West spread of many lineages in succession with Urnfield, Iron Age (Hallstatt, Thraco-Cimmerian horizon, Illyrian-related) and Celts. Those new lineages were not on replacement level and everywhere just contributed to the overwhelming R1b/BB heritage. But, most of these left behind some distinct subclades, distinct British subclades of E-V13, which are fairly restricted, older and have little to no overlap with anything outside of the Celtic sphere, which I know. How about R1a-M458, are there such distinct subclades?

    Just checking on YFull, this one has a good German-English distribution:

    But the TMRCA is shallow, so it could have been just an early slip through or solid Slavic origin, can't be Iron Age.

    I just know it from G2 and E-V13, which behaves differently and seem to have Celtic related founder effects in the West. I don't see that for M458, based on the currently available samples. On the other hand, who would have thought that on Sardinia exist old branches of M458? I guess nobody.

    That's just because of the large sample taken from there, especially from Cagliari, where most of the otherwise typically continental European samples came from. Just imagine that kind of testing density for the Czech Republic or Germany, what might pop up there.

    But the lack of distinct British subclades and branches so far makes me think it was in any case not an important lineage in the Iron Age and Celts or Germanics, that's excluded. Because the British testing density is quite good already and if there are such widespread branches and effects from the Iron Age and early Celts, they do show up.

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

     Brent.B (06-18-2021),  leonardo (06-18-2021),  Michał (06-18-2021)

  7. #1644
    Registered Users
    Y-DNA (P)
    mtDNA (M)

    Quote Originally Posted by ambron View Post
    Will you inform us which Krakauer Berg samples are in cluster A and which are in cluster B? And why was KRA009 not included in the analysis?

  8. #1645
    Y-DNA (P)

    Quote Originally Posted by parastais View Post
    Are there more sources about it? When searching about this theory i found this article about Pre-IE substrate words in Balto-Slavic, which is also quite interesting. It also seems to confirm that the Pre-IE substrate of Balto-Slavs was similar/related to that of Germanics and Celts (common CWC origin) but not so much to that of Albanians or Greeks.

    This paper presents an analysis of those words, attested in Balto-Slavic, that do not have a clear Indo-European etymology and that could have
    been borrowed from some substratum language. It is shown that Balto Slavic shares most of those words with other Indo-European languages of Northern and Western Europe (especially with Germanic), while
    lexical parallels in languages of Southern Europe (Greek and Albanian) are much less numerous. Georg Holzer’s “Temematic” hypothesisis also discussed, and a number of alternatives to his etymologies are
    suggested. It is argued that Balto-Slavic contains very few words borrowed from substratum languages that are not present in other branches of Indo-European.
    Firstly, Baltic and Slavic share this European vocabulary much more often with the western and northern European languages (Germanic, Italic and Celtic) than with the southern ones (Greek and Albanian), see TableI. This observation is consistent with the hypothesis, common among archaeologists, that Baltic and Slavic, together with Germanic, and possibly also Celtic and Italic, arose on the territory of the Corded Ware Horizon of the late 4th and the 3rd millennium BC (Mallory 1989, Anthony 2007:344—370). The “Northwest European” vocabulary was borrowed from substratum language(s) in the area occupied by the Corded Ware Horizon, which was Indo-European, according to the common opinion among archaeologists.

    Secondly, words attested only in European branches of IE, but lacking in Anatolian, Tocharian, Indo-Iranian and (somewhat less commonly) in Armenian, are not often shared by both Baltic and Slavic groups of
    languages (see Table I). This can be explained in two ways. We might assume that substratum words from the Northwestern European substratums entered the ancestors of modern Baltic and Slavic languages after the Nalto-Slavic period, when Baltic languages and Proto-Slavic were parts of a large dialect continuum stretching over much of Central and Eastern Europe. Only the extreme parts of that continuum were
    preserved until the present: the Eastern Baltic languages, and Proto-Slavic, which is relatively shallow, since it was spoken in the 5th century AD. The subsequent expansion of the Slavs covered much of the earlier dialect continuum, erasing many idioms previously spoken between the Proto-Slavic and the Eastern Baltic areas. During the time of the borrowing of non IE loanwords, dialects belonging to different parts of this dialect continuum borrowed words from rather different substratum or adstratum languages. This would mean positing Proto-Balto-Slavic at a very early period, presumably before the Corded Ware Horizon in the third millennium BC. Considering how close the Balto-Slavic languages are from the dialectal point of view, I am inclined to believe the other possible explanation: that loanwords belonged to semantic fields in which rates of lexical replacement are very high, so that the original non-IE loanwords usually survived only in parts of the original Balto-Slavic area.

    Thirdly, the number of words that may be of substratum origin, and that are preserved only in Balto-Slavic, is very limited (perhaps as few as 14, but probably not more than 20). It is significantly smaller than the
    number of words of substratum origin that can be attributed to Proto-Celtic, or to Insular Celtic (see EDPC), and it is also much smaller than the number of substratum words in Greek, for example.18 This is probably due to the fact that, during the Balto-Slavic period, speakers of that proto-language were surrounded by speakers of other, more peripheral Indo--European dialects (especially Germanic and Celtic) that were exposed to more intensive contacts with speakers of non-IE languages. Consequently, during the period when Balto-Slavic separated from the other NW European dialects as an individual idiom, borrowing from non-IE substrata was minimal.

  9. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Coldmountains For This Useful Post:

     altvred (06-18-2021),  CopperAxe (06-18-2021),  Johane Derite (06-18-2021),  leonardo (06-18-2021),  parastais (06-18-2021),  ph2ter (06-18-2021),  Riverman (06-18-2021),  Zelto (06-18-2021)

  10. #1646
    Gold Class Member
    Y-DNA (P)
    mtDNA (M)
    Y-DNA (M)
    mtDNA (P)

    Russian Federation Russia Tatarstan Arms Russia Mordovia Timurid
    Quote Originally Posted by Coldmountains View Post
    Are there more sources about it? When searching about this theory i found this article about Pre-IE substrate words in Balto-Slavic, which is also quite interesting. It also seems to confirm that the Pre-IE substrate of Balto-Slavs was similar/related to that of Germanics and Celts (common CWC origin) but not so much to that of Albanians or Greeks.
    So presumably, that substrate is Funnelbeaker/GAC-related?
    YDNA (P): R-Y33
    YDNA (P, maternal line): R-Y20756
    YDNA(M): E-Y6938

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

     Coldmountains (06-18-2021),  parastais (06-18-2021),  Riverman (06-18-2021)

  12. #1647
    Registered Users
    Y-DNA (P)
    N - Z16980

    That was just a wild guess.

    Here is some more discussion on it:

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to parastais For This Useful Post:

     altvred (06-18-2021),  Coldmountains (06-18-2021)

  14. #1648
    Registered Users

    Quote Originally Posted by bce View Post
    I tried with all ancient populations from Germany from EBA onwards.
    It doesn't work for some reason (almost all are closer to Belarusians than to CWC_o)
    It seems here everybody got pulled towards Belarusians because they contain multiple high quality samples, while the CWC outlier is only one sample, and likely with holes in the coverage since it's an ancient sample.

    However, what if we try with samples which are all of equal quality?
    Mbuti, Norwegians and Belarusians all have around a dozen samples, 500K SNPS, and none of them are ".SG" .

    Norwegians and Belarusians have very similar admixture proportions, as shown here:

    German ancient samples sorted by affinity to Belarusians over Norwegians:
    Mbuti Germany_EarlyMedieval_Alemanic_lc Norwegian Belarusian 0.000346 0.000881 0.393 0.694
    Mbuti Germany_SouthernGermany_Singen_IA Norwegian Belarusian -0.00011 0.000323 -0.339 0.735
    Mbuti Germany_SouthernGermany_Singen_EBA_o Norwegian Belarusian -0.000253 0.000451 -0.562 0.574
    Mbuti Germany_LBA_Halberstadt_published Norwegian Belarusian -0.000313 0.00027 -1.16 0.246
    Mbuti Germany_BellBeaker_published Norwegian Belarusian -0.000338 0.000269 -1.26 0.209
    Mbuti Germany_EarlyMedieval_o2.SG Norwegian Belarusian -0.000368 0.000291 -1.26 0.207
    Mbuti Germany_BA.SG Norwegian Belarusian -0.000572 0.000433 -1.32 0.187
    Mbuti Germany_EarlyMedieval_o4.SG Norwegian Belarusian -0.000819 0.000594 -1.38 0.168
    Mbuti Germany_SouthernGermany_Anselfingen_EBA Norwegian Belarusian -0.000501 0.000347 -1.45 0.148
    Mbuti Germany_Roman.SG Norwegian Belarusian -0.000457 0.000296 -1.54 0.123
    Mbuti Germany_CordedWare_Tauber Norwegian Belarusian -0.000728 0.000459 -1.59 0.113
    Mbuti Germany_EarlyMedieval.SG Norwegian Belarusian -0.000331 0.000189 -1.75 0.0807
    Mbuti Germany_EBA_Unetice_published Norwegian Belarusian -0.000569 0.00031 -1.84 0.0664
    Mbuti Germany_Lech_MBA Norwegian Belarusian -0.000456 0.000248 -1.84 0.0656
    Mbuti Germany_EarlyMedieval_o1.SG Norwegian Belarusian -0.000418 0.000224 -1.86 0.0623
    Mbuti Germany_CordedWare.SG Norwegian Belarusian -0.000559 0.000277 -2.02 0.0436
    Mbuti Germany_EarlyMedieval_Alemanic_Lombardian Norwegian Belarusian -0.000726 0.000341 -2.13 0.0333
    Mbuti Germany_BellBeaker Norwegian Belarusian -0.000371 0.000169 -2.19 0.0283
    Mbuti Germany_EarlyMedieval_o3.SG Norwegian Belarusian -0.000534 0.000233 -2.29 0.0218
    Mbuti Germany_EBA_Unetice Norwegian Belarusian -0.000479 0.000207 -2.31 0.0206
    Mbuti Germany_Lech_BellBeaker Norwegian Belarusian -0.000455 0.000195 -2.33 0.0198
    Mbuti Germany_CordedWare Norwegian Belarusian -0.000516 0.000217 -2.37 0.0177
    Mbuti Germany_Lech_EBA Norwegian Belarusian -0.000419 0.000172 -2.44 0.0147
    Mbuti Germany_CordedWare_o Norwegian Belarusian -0.000841 0.00034 -2.47 0.0135
    Mbuti Germany_EarlyMedieval_Alemanic_Byzantine Norwegian Belarusian -0.000594 0.000215 -2.77 0.00567
    Mbuti Germany_SouthernGermany_Singen_EBA Norwegian Belarusian -0.000593 0.000195 -3.04 0.00236

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to bce For This Useful Post:

     Coldmountains (06-18-2021)

  16. #1649
    Y-DNA (P)

    Quote Originally Posted by altvred View Post
    So presumably, that substrate is Funnelbeaker/GAC-related?
    This "NW European" substrate seems to include cultural items, Flora and Fauna so looks like that of a Farmer/Agro-pastoralist group. Proto-Indo-Iranians, who are also CWC derived and have GAC/TRB ancestry not show it afaik, so it likely was picked up after early CWC from remaining Pre-IEs in North Europe. Balto-Slavs, Germanics and Bell Beakers would move into GAC/TRB territory whereas Indo-Iranians after initially picking this kind of ancestry moved in the opposite direction outside such kind of substrate

    This set of words contains many nouns referring to cultural items, flora and fauna, that are readily borrowed in situations of intensive language
    contact. Otherwise, there are very few, if any, formal features that can be gathered from this material. One thing worth mentioning is that the alternation of the suffixes *-is- and *-(e)n- can be observed in a number of items referring to plant and tree names, e.g. PSl. *bel(e)nъ ‘henbane’ and OE beolone vs. OHG bilisa, PSl. *klenъ ‘maple’ vs. OHG hulisboum, and perhaps Lith. aksnis ‘alder’ and Lat. alnus vs. PSl. *olьxa, OHG elira.

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

     CopperAxe (06-18-2021),  Michał (06-19-2021),  Riverman (06-18-2021)

  18. #1650
    Registered Users
    Venetharum natio populosa
    Y-DNA (P)
    mtDNA (M)

    Poland Poland Pomerania
    Quote Originally Posted by Waldemar View Post
    Digital sharing of biomolecular and descriptive resources of Biobank and Department of Anthropology, University of Lodz - characteristics of populations living in present-day Poland through the ages. Information platform (

    Goal: Project goals are
    1. to share:
    a) genomic data about current Polish population; about 0.5 million SNPs from microarrays from 7000 donors connected to phenotype/health/family interviews from donors
    b) genomes and 3D scans of skeletons of 200 individuals inhabited area of present day Poland from XI to XIX century.
    The data will be available for scientific research with no fees for access them.
    2. to present the data, research and analysis (in friendly way to wide audience) in form of e-museum.
    I've listed the oldest samples...Again, there will be a lot of R1a (incl. R-L1029) in males afaik.

    Last edited by Waldemar; 06-18-2021 at 11:54 AM.

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

     Brent.B (06-18-2021),  leonardo (06-18-2021),  Riverman (06-18-2021)

Page 165 of 292 FirstFirst ... 65115155163164165166167175215265 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Medieval Pashtun Samples
    By J Man in forum Central
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-28-2020, 05:37 AM
  2. G25 Distance Maps to selected Early Medieval Samples
    By ph2ter in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 05-09-2020, 02:33 PM
  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