Page 62 of 171 FirstFirst ... 1252606162636472112162 ... LastLast
Results 611 to 620 of 1701

Thread: New Samples from Migration Era and Early Medieval Moravia

  1. #611
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,080
    Sex
    Omitted
    Y-DNA (P)
    N - Z16980

    Quote Originally Posted by Helves View Post
    Sure. But first let me make it clear that I don't think proto-Slavs or even proto-Balts were identical to Latvia_BA, I thought I made that clear in my last post that I'm only using these samples for their Balto-Slavic drift, as it can't be denied that they harbour some significant amount of Balto-Slavic admixture, they are even more drifted than modern day Balts.

     

    Latvia_BA is still strongly prefered over Lithuania_BA. But when it comes to the non-Baltic_BA source Latvians can actually be modelled successfully with just Unetice and the fit is only slightly worse without Croatia_IA. Some of the Lithuanian averages get decent fit without Croatia_IA aswell but not all.

    Target: Latvian
    Distance: 1.2732% / 0.01273199
    74.8 Baltic_LVA_BA
    16.4 CZE_Unetice_EBA
    8.0 HRV_IA
    0.8 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA
    0.0 Baltic_LTU_BA
    0.0 CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany
    0.0 DNK_Sealand_IA

    Target: Lithuanian_PA
    Distance: 1.5400% / 0.01539966
    65.0 Baltic_LVA_BA
    21.8 HRV_IA
    12.2 CZE_Unetice_EBA
    1.0 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA
    0.0 Baltic_LTU_BA
    0.0 CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany
    0.0 DNK_Sealand_IA

    Forcing out Latvia_BA fails like with Belarusians.

    Target: Latvian
    Distance: 2.7209% / 0.02720863
    89.8 Baltic_LTU_BA
    9.6 CZE_Unetice_EBA
    0.6 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA
    0.0 CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany
    0.0 DNK_Sealand_IA
    0.0 HRV_IA

    Target: Lithuanian_PA
    Distance: 2.8224% / 0.02822355
    76.2 Baltic_LTU_BA
    13.8 HRV_IA
    9.2 CZE_Unetice_EBA
    0.8 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA
    0.0 CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany
    0.0 DNK_Sealand_IA

    Taking out Hallstatt and Croatia_IA actually does not affect the fit that much for Latvians, but more so for Lit_PA

    Target: Latvian
    Distance: 1.4514% / 0.01451433
    68.6 Baltic_LVA_BA
    27.6 CZE_Unetice_EBA
    3.0 Baltic_LTU_BA
    0.8 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA
    0.0 DNK_Sealand_IA

    Target: Lithuanian_PA
    Distance: 2.4503% / 0.02450298
    53.8 Baltic_LVA_BA
    45.6 CZE_Unetice_EBA
    0.6 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA
    0.0 Baltic_LTU_BA
    0.0 DNK_Sealand_IA

    Lit_PZ and Lit_RZ do get acceptable fits without Croatia_IA/Hallstatt.

    Target: Lithuanian_PZ
    Distance: 1.7454% / 0.01745371
    59.8 Baltic_LVA_BA
    18.6 CZE_Unetice_EBA
    12.4 Baltic_LTU_BA
    9.0 DNK_Sealand_IA
    0.2 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA

    Target: Lithuanian_SZ
    Distance: 1.7607% / 0.01760735
    69.2 Baltic_LVA_BA
    30.2 CZE_Unetice_EBA
    0.4 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA
    0.2 Baltic_LTU_BA
    0.0 DNK_Sealand_IA
    Thanks! And Krasnoyarsk is there as it should be
    Btw, may I share this in other topic, re N in Balts? Because unlike previous statements this clearly shows Krasnoyarsk in Balts.

    Re extra farmer source then.
    for Balts a Central Euro source like Unetice is needed
    for Slavic a Balkan source like HRV_IA is preferred
    ?

    P.s.
    Lithuania PA is the most Southern tip of Lithuania (the one with like 60%+ R1a if I recall correct). So, perhaps more representative for South West Slavs (Yatwings).

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to parastais For This Useful Post:

     Helves (05-15-2021)

  3. #612
    Registered Users
    Posts
    594
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Assyrian
    Y-DNA (P)
    G1a
    mtDNA (M)
    I5b1

    Sweden
    Quote Originally Posted by parastais View Post
    Thanks! And Krasnoyarsk is there as it should be
    Btw, may I share this in other topic, re N in Balts? Because unlike previous statements this clearly shows Krasnoyarsk in Balts.

    Re extra farmer source then.
    for Balts a Central Euro source like Unetice is needed
    for Slavic a Balkan source like HRV_IA is preferred
    ?

    P.s.
    Lithuania PA is the most Southern tip of Lithuania (the one with like 60%+ R1a if I recall correct). So, perhaps more representative for South West Slavs (Yatwings).
    Ofc.

    It's difficult to say really, as we've mentioned it's unlikely that Latvia_BA is purely an early Balto-Slavic population although it certainly has a lot of that kind of admixture.
    Regarding the southern source in Slavs it could very well have come from say Slovakia or Western Ukraine during the Roman Iron Age, I suspect the populations there were rather southern.

    Where are these various Lithuanian averages from? I'm trying to find a connection with the modern Lithuanian regions but I can't find any.

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

     parastais (05-15-2021)

  5. #613
    Registered Users
    Posts
    313
    Sex
    Location
    Coventry, Rhode Island
    Ethnicity
    Celto-Germanic
    Nationality
    American
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1a-YP445
    mtDNA (M)
    J1c2b

    England Germany Palatinate Italy Sicily Ireland Munster Acadia Mercia
    "Regarding the southern source in Slavs it could very well have come from say Slovakia or Western Ukraine during the Roman Iron Age". And that is where our friends I2a and L1029 come in.

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to JoeyP37 For This Useful Post:

     leonardo (05-15-2021),  parastais (05-15-2021)

  7. #614
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,080
    Sex
    Omitted
    Y-DNA (P)
    N - Z16980

    Quote Originally Posted by Helves View Post
    Ofc.

    It's difficult to say really, as we've mentioned it's unlikely that Latvia_BA is purely an early Balto-Slavic population although it certainly has a lot of that kind of admixture.
    Regarding the southern source in Slavs it could very well have come from say Slovakia or Western Ukraine during the Roman Iron Age, I suspect the populations there were rather southern.

    Where are these various Lithuanian averages from? I'm trying to find a connection with the modern Lithuanian regions but I can't find any.
    Z = Žemaitija (Samogitia), NW Lithuania
    A = Aukštaitija (East Lithuania)
    P = South (Pietu)
    R = East (Rytu)
    V = West (Vakaru)

    VZ/RZ should be most Latvian like of LT samples, likely where different Latvian tribes originated before going North to Latvia. PA is very Southern Lithuania. RA/VA/PZ - Lithuanian core-ish. VZ might say something about Curonians.

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

     Helves (05-15-2021),  Tomenable (05-15-2021)

  9. #615
    Moderator
    Posts
    2,372
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Indo-Iranian/Balto-Slavic
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1a-Z93 (Indo-Aryan)
    mtDNA (M)
    H28/W(M) : H1b5
    Y-DNA (M)
    Wife (P) : R1a-Z280

    Quote Originally Posted by Helves View Post
    Ofc.

    It's difficult to say really, as we've mentioned it's unlikely that Latvia_BA is purely an early Balto-Slavic population although it certainly has a lot of that kind of admixture.
    Regarding the southern source in Slavs it could very well have come from say Slovakia or Western Ukraine during the Roman Iron Age, I suspect the populations there were rather southern.

    Where are these various Lithuanian averages from? I'm trying to find a connection with the modern Lithuanian regions but I can't find any.
    Any model using Baltic_BA samples as base ancestry for early Slavs will extremely inflate this southern ancestry so i would not interpret too much into it. Lithuanians and Balt_IA samples also show a similar shift compared to Baltic_BA and it is unlikely that they got Balkan_IA or other very southern ancestry. Many tend to exagerrate the importance and relevance of sampled groups like Balt_BA over unsampled groups like Belarus_IA and North_Ukraine_BA/IA which definetly will cluster southwest of Balt_BA even when having no foreign admixture (already Balt_LTU_BA is much more southwestern than Balt_LVA and Balt_EST)

    Based on currently published early Slavs clustering with Lithuanians and Belarusians i dont think most Proto-Slavs had significant Germanic or Balkan admixture and the Central Euro/Balkan admixture we see today among Ukrainians, Poles and other Slavs seems to be a later substrate/adstrate after the expansion of Proto-Slavs.

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

     leonardo (05-15-2021),  Michalis Moriopoulos (05-15-2021),  parastais (05-15-2021),  Riverman (05-15-2021)

  11. #616
    Registered Users
    Posts
    5,524
    Sex
    Location
    Poland
    Ethnicity
    Polish
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b-Z2552
    mtDNA (M)
    W6a

    Poland European Union Poland Pomerania
    Quote Originally Posted by Waldemar View Post
    Are these Kashubian samples?
    Polish11
    Polish18
    Polish16
    Polish29

    Check my PM.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Tomenable For This Useful Post:

     Waldemar (05-15-2021)

  13. #617
    Registered Users
    Posts
    5,524
    Sex
    Location
    Poland
    Ethnicity
    Polish
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b-Z2552
    mtDNA (M)
    W6a

    Poland European Union Poland Pomerania
    Quote Originally Posted by parastais View Post
    Z = Žemaitija (Samogitia), NW Lithuania
    A = Aukštaitija (East Lithuania)
    P = South (Pietu)
    R = East (Rytu)
    V = West (Vakaru)

    VZ/RZ should be most Latvian like of LT samples, likely where different Latvian tribes originated before going North to Latvia. PA is very Southern Lithuania. RA/VA/PZ - Lithuanian core-ish. VZ might say something about Curonians.
    Do you know if samples from VZ (West Žemaitija) are Prussian Lithuanians / natives of Memelland?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaip%C4%97da_Region



    Or maybe have you ever seen a Prussian Lithuanian (from "Klein Litauen") result on GEDmatch?:

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

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

     Alain (05-15-2021),  parastais (05-15-2021)

  15. #618
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,080
    Sex
    Omitted
    Y-DNA (P)
    N - Z16980

    Quote Originally Posted by Tomenable View Post
    Do you know if samples from VZ (West Žemaitija) are Prussian Lithuanians / natives of Memelland?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaip%C4%97da_Region



    Or maybe have you ever seen a Prussian Lithuanian (from "Klein Litauen") result on GEDmatch?:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuania_Minor
    Unfortunately I don’t know more that from this article, which I think did not specify exactly:
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45746-3

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

     Alain (05-15-2021),  Tomenable (05-15-2021)

  17. #619
    Registered Users
    Posts
    594
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Assyrian
    Y-DNA (P)
    G1a
    mtDNA (M)
    I5b1

    Sweden
    Quote Originally Posted by Coldmountains View Post
    Any model using Baltic_BA samples as base ancestry for early Slavs will extremely inflate this southern ancestry so i would not interpret too much into it. Lithuanians and Balt_IA samples also show a similar shift compared to Baltic_BA and it is unlikely that they got Balkan_IA or other very southern ancestry. Many tend to exagerrate the importance and relevance of sampled groups like Balt_BA over unsampled groups like Belarus_IA and North_Ukraine_BA/IA which definetly will cluster southwest of Balt_BA even when having no foreign admixture (already Balt_LTU_BA is much more southwestern than Balt_LVA and Balt_EST)

    Based on currently published early Slavs clustering with Lithuanians and Belarusians i dont think most Proto-Slavs had significant Germanic or Balkan admixture and the Central Euro/Balkan admixture we see today among Ukrainians, Poles and other Slavs seems to be a later substrate/adstrate after the expansion of Proto-Slavs.
    I'll repeat it again I guess... These models don't really represent actual admixture events(IMO), but rather roughly where each population emerged and how the proto-population looked like(assuming Belarusians are very close to the original Slavs). The question then is why the fit is so bad with Unetice or even the Hallstatt sample. Both these two samples are clearly more southern/ANF-rich yet the fit improves so much more with Croatia_IA(very low WHG, moderate to low Steppe, very ANF-rich and some Aegan/Anatolia_BA). I suspect the reason for that is that Unetice has too much Steppe and the Hallstatt sample has too much WHG. With that in mind, proto-Slavs might've been similar in Steppe to Latvia_BA, maybe a bit lower but with significantly less HG(and that HG source looks to have been less WHG-shifted) and significantly more ANF.

    Lithuania_IA looks to me very similar to Latvia_BA and more northern than Lithuania_BA. But it's a low resolution sample, so not much can be concluded from it.

     

    Target: Baltic_LTU_Late_Antiquity_low_res
    Distance: 4.3691% / 0.04369072
    54.8 Corded_Ware_Baltic_early
    31.6 Baltic_HG
    13.6 HUN_LBK

    Target: Baltic_LTU_BA
    Distance: 3.1371% / 0.03137130
    56.8 Corded_Ware_Baltic_early
    25.2 Baltic_HG
    18.0 HUN_LBK

    Target: Baltic_LVA_BA
    Distance: 1.9654% / 0.01965425
    52.2 Corded_Ware_Baltic_early
    33.6 Baltic_HG
    14.2 HUN_LBK

  18. #620
    Registered Users
    Posts
    242

    Parastais

    “Irregular” Sound Substitutions in the Substrate Toponymy. New Constribution to the Chronology and Processing of the Linguistic Slavicization of the Historical Slavia Orientalis.

    The paper deals with the problem of unexpected phonemic sequences encountered sometimes in East Slavic toponyms suspected of being borrowed from the extinct autochthonous Pre-Slavic languages of the Pripet and Upper Dnieper basins (and their vicinities), supposedly related to Balto-Slavic. These instances can be considered as exceptions to several Late Common Slavic sound laws (hushing spirants continuing IE palatovelars, as in Lithuanian, instead of whistling ones; the second palatalization of velars instead of the expected first one; velars not changed to affricates and / or spirants before the reflexes of the vocalisms *e, *ě or *ь), suggesting that the respective names were borrowed into East Slavic from local linguistic substrates after the sound laws in question had been completed. The most controversial issue are the apparently non-monophthongized diphthongs of various types (on, o etc. occurring before consonants), which do posit certain phonotactic problems.

    The results obtained in the paper support the view, expressed by some archaeologists, that the linguistic Slavicization of these areas (including Volhynia), earlier considered as the geographical point of departure of Slavic even by some linguists, was a long and continuous process which was not completed before the end of the 1st millennium AD.

    https://www.ejournals.eu/PKKS/2019/Vol-XV/art/15244/

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

     leonardo (05-15-2021),  Megalophias (05-15-2021)

Page 62 of 171 FirstFirst ... 1252606162636472112162 ... 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
  •