Page 195 of 288 FirstFirst ... 95145185193194195196197205245 ... LastLast
Results 1,941 to 1,950 of 2871

Thread: New Samples from Migration Era and Early Medieval Moravia

  1. #1941
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    464
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    R-Y33
    mtDNA (M)
    J1c2
    Y-DNA (M)
    E-Y6938
    mtDNA (P)
    G2a

    Russian Federation Russia Tatarstan Arms Russia Mordovia Timurid
    Quote Originally Posted by altvred View Post
    What's your point? I was talking about the Northern Border of Poland/Ukraine.



    Most of the Carpathian homeland talk appears to be speculation, not really backed up by solid findings. So unless they discover ancient DNA of a population living in the Carpathians that is more likely to be ancestral to Slavs than who ever lived to the South of Lithuania_BA, there really isn't much to talk about.
    Here's a very crude approximation of the region from where proto-Slavs could have originated. It probably can be lengthened further to the south but not too significantly.

    East of the Carpathians, West of the Dnieper ( with the southeastern border marked by the oldest individual with the most Balto-Slavic drift outside the Baltics, scy009 and the northern border by Lithuania_BA).

     
    YDNA (P): R-Y33
    YDNA (P, maternal line): R-Y20756
    YDNA(M): E-Y6938

  2. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to altvred For This Useful Post:

     Просигој (06-25-2021),  Coldmountains (06-25-2021),  JoeyP37 (06-25-2021),  leonardo (06-25-2021),  Riverman (06-25-2021)

  3. #1942
    Moderator
    Posts
    2,589
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Indo-Iranian/Balto-Slavic
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1a-Z93

    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    Rather we're possibly talking about what was before Baltoslavs and a common Satem-related horizon from my point of view. I think a lot of debate ends in confusion because of unclear points in time for each reference. If all Lusatians would be like the Western Lusatian, they would be closer to Centum speakers and Germanics, just like some proponents of that theory said in the past. But we don't know yet and a common paternal origin with the Eastern European IE sphere is at least an indication that this MIGHT not be the case, especially for the central and Eastern portions of that horizon. Also, if you compare the map I linked to, the Lusatians directly bordered most of the candidate regions for Proto-Baltoslavs, so they are simply the most likely vector for the transmission of advanced metallurgy and the rite of cremation, which means a whole new religion and value system. And its not like we can't observe significant shifts up to the Baltics from the LBA to IA. It all depends solely on the continuity which can be only proven or disproven with way more samples from the whole macro-region.

    I also say they didn't develop in "Balkan/Central Europe", where have I ever written anything like that? The Carpathians are not the Balkan, but at best form a border to it and Lusatians belong even less to the Balkans, though they might have had Carpatho-Balkan influences, which is however one of those time scale issues I pointed to and which might be rather irrelevant for the bigger picture of how Proto-Baltoslavs developed genetically.

    Coming back to what I actually said, how can the Proto-Baltoslavs not have been at least influenced by the Lusatian culture and its affiliates?
    https://nat.museum-digital.de/index....ekt&oges=74934

    Surely those transmitted the innovations and probably more.
    Could you specify what is the archaeological, linguistic or genetic influence from Lusatians which could be linked with Proto-Balto-Slavs (including Proto-Balts around Belarus)? Just bordering East Europe and being a potential source of technologies is not enough in my eyes to postulate any deeper linguistic connection or even origin of Balto-Slavs in Lusatia. A scenario where Proto-Balto-Slavic was spread by a predominately non-Z92 and non-cts1211 group, which they definitely were, is really hard to believe for me when both clades represent most of Balto-Slavic Y-DNA with ancient Proto-Balts likely almost entirely under both clades.

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

     Michał (06-27-2021)

  5. #1943
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,072
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Coldmountains View Post
    Could you specify what is the archaeological, linguistic or genetic influence from Lusatians which could be linked with Proto-Balto-Slavs (including Proto-Balts around Belarus)? Just bordering East Europe and being a potential source of technologies
    The issue is, if the Lusatians were not the source, who else? And its no small thing to talk about the introduction of advanced bronze and iron technology. This caused serious upheavals and shifts nearly everywhere and why should it have just been a local, indigenous adoption in a rather weakly populated and developed region of Europe? It had a tremendous impact even on the Balkans, let alone the North East was all left alone? I don't buy that, especially since the same scenario happened more than once, like with Corded Ware, and resulted in a much bigger impact and replacement rate in the North, than in the South.
    Also, the rite of cremation is not to be taken easily neither, because it means a completely different religion, value system, ideology. People usually don't change those belief-systems just like that, it almost always, especially in the times before book religions emerged, was a more ethnic and social development, and this needs not just lose, but least intensive contacts, rather demic diffusion also. The Urnfield-cremation horizon was multi-ethnic and crossed linguistic borders, that is evident, but as often it was about people being actually replaced. It depends on the overall context and the situation in the North East seems to be confusing, especially reading about the fortified Baltic settlements, there is still a lot of work to do.

    A scenario where Proto-Balto-Slavic was spread by a predominately non-Z92 and non-cts1211 group, which they definitely were, is really hard to believe for me when both clades represent most of Balto-Slavic Y-DNA with ancient Proto-Balts likely almost entirely under both clades.
    We don't know how central and Eastern Lusatians looked like, so we don't know what lineages they carried. That's all I'm saying. If somebody knows, he has to have insider information and I probably just put too much faith into what David said, but let's see.

    Right now I went to an older thread about Lusatians and came across this:
    https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....l=1#post478148

    What happened with this study? Is it still in the pipeline? Was no aDNA retrieved? Because if there was, this could be more decisive than any other argument we can probably just repeat without more factual evidence.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Riverman For This Useful Post:

     leonardo (06-25-2021)

  7. #1944
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    464
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    R-Y33
    mtDNA (M)
    J1c2
    Y-DNA (M)
    E-Y6938
    mtDNA (P)
    G2a

    Russian Federation Russia Tatarstan Arms Russia Mordovia Timurid
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    Rather we're possibly talking about what was before Baltoslavs and a common Satem-related horizon from my point of view. I think a lot of debate ends in confusion because of unclear points in time for each reference. If all Lusatians would be like the Western Lusatian, they would be closer to Centum speakers and Germanics, just like some proponents of that theory said in the past. But we don't know yet and a common paternal origin with the Eastern European IE sphere is at least an indication that this MIGHT not be the case, especially for the central and Eastern portions of that horizon. Also, if you compare the map I linked to, the Lusatians directly bordered most of the candidate regions for Proto-Baltoslavs, so they are simply the most likely vector for the transmission of advanced metallurgy and the rite of cremation, which means a whole new religion and value system. And its not like we can't observe significant shifts up to the Baltics from the LBA to IA. It all depends solely on the continuity which can be only proven or disproven with way more samples from the whole macro-region.

    I also say they didn't develop in "Balkan/Central Europe", where have I ever written anything like that? The Carpathians are not the Balkan, but at best form a border to it and Lusatians belong even less to the Balkans, though they might have had Carpatho-Balkan influences, which is however one of those time scale issues I pointed to and which might be rather irrelevant for the bigger picture of how Proto-Baltoslavs developed genetically.

    Coming back to what I actually said, how can the Proto-Baltoslavs not have been at least influenced by the Lusatian culture and its affiliates?
    https://nat.museum-digital.de/index....ekt&oges=74934

    Surely those transmitted the innovations and probably more.
    Keywords here are 'might' and 'maybe'. It has been pointed out before that the 'Lusatian' Z280 subclades are no more related to CTS1211 and Z92 than the Z280 found in Srubnaya. They all likely hearken back to Corded Ware groups living around the Dnieper from which Balto-Slavs, Srubnaya/Indo-Iranians, and these Lusatian groups ultimately derive.

    I'm not completely ruling out Western input in the formation of Balto-Slavs and Slavs in particular but we shouldn't overplay the importance of these elements.

    Also, I will admit that my opinion on this matter is probably biased but it strikes me as a bit Western-Euro-centric to imply that the cultural horizon that gave birth to proto-Slavs could not have possibly formed without crucial influence from the technologically superior West.
    Last edited by altvred; 06-25-2021 at 11:43 AM.
    YDNA (P): R-Y33
    YDNA (P, maternal line): R-Y20756
    YDNA(M): E-Y6938

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

     Coldmountains (06-25-2021),  Michał (06-27-2021)

  9. #1945
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,072
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by altvred View Post
    Keywords here are 'might' and 'maybe'. It has been pointed out before that the 'Lusatian' Z280 subclades are no more related to CTS1211 and Z92 than the Z280 found in Srubnaya. They all likely hearken back to Corded Ware groups living around the Dnieper from which Balto-Slavs, Srubnaya/Indo-Iranians, and these Lusatian groups ultimately derive.

    I'm not completely ruling out Western input in the formation of Balto-Slavs and Slavs in particular but we shouldn't overplay the importance of these elements.
    You have to know that I try to balance things out, and I came to the conclusion that based on the right now available evidence the opinions in this thread are way too Eastern shifted. Not because its not possible that the Eastern origin story is right, but because the relatively more Western (still CEE!) origin story can't be ruled out yet and has, from my point of view, as good arguments in favour of it. Not least what David said helped me to come to this conclusion.

    Also, I will admit that my opinion on this matter is probably biased but it strikes me as a bit Western-Euro-centric to imply that the cultural horizon that gave birth to proto-Slavs could have possibly formed without crucial influence from the technologically superior West.
    That's pretty funny, because I was all the time in favour of Celts (!) emerging from further East than Western Europe (proper) and I also wrote, numerous times, that the Iron Age was introduced to Central and Eastern Europe, obviously, from the Carpathian sphere once more. The Thraco-Cimmerian horizon, with inputs from a region more East than Belorussia, probably played a highly important role in the formation of the Hallstatt culture and even, at least culturally, the Celts - even influencing, rather indirectly, Germanics and practically all of Europe.

    But those are the Cimmerians, we have finds which point to them being fairly advanced in some respects and having contacts to the South East themselve, from which they gained knowledge too. The North East of Europe, especially before the LBA-EIA transition, just plays in a different league. Even more so if comparing them with the Lusatians, which, at their best time in the LBA, were top notch in many respects on a global scale. I wouldn't call the Lusatian area (compare map linked above once more) exactly Western European at all. From my perspective they are already Eastern, but they are not North Eastern European like the region East of the Baltics. Yet those had to get their dose from the Urnfield zone, otherwise they wouldn't have adopted all the things from their package, and I doubt that was happening without a serious genetic input. I'm not saying its not possible that it was "merely a cultural shift", but I don't believe it was, based on the other examples we have, for such a transition.
    If the role of the Carpathian-Lusatian zone was big, just if, it wasn't the "technology superiour West" which formed the Slavs, but these actually were the Proto-Slavs/Baltoslavs which colonised the North East.

    But this shouldn't be an issue, because the advanced bronze and iron technologies weren't exactly invented in Western Europe as well, but brought there too, from the relative (!) East.

    This study, info first posted by Waldemar like linked above, could just decide the debate if they get the right samples:
    https://www.researchgate.net/project...23-B-HS3-00450
    Last edited by Riverman; 06-25-2021 at 12:01 PM.

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

     JoeyP37 (06-25-2021),  leonardo (06-25-2021),  VladimirTaraskin (06-25-2021)

  11. #1946
    Registered Users
    Posts
    5,267
    Sex
    Location
    Zagreb
    Ethnicity
    Kaikavian Croatian
    Nationality
    Croatian
    Y-DNA (P)
    I2a1a2b-A815
    mtDNA (M)
    HV0-T195C!

    Croatia European Union
    Probable Proto Slavic area :

     
    All simple calculations, maps and plots I make for free, but for more complicated maps and calculations I ask for a donation via Hidden Content PayPalHidden Content account

  12. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to ph2ter For This Useful Post:

     Просигој (06-25-2021),  Alain (06-25-2021),  altvred (06-25-2021),  JoeyP37 (06-25-2021),  leonardo (06-25-2021),  Michał (06-27-2021),  parastais (06-25-2021),  Riverman (06-25-2021)

  13. #1947
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,240
    Ethnicity
    Venetharum natio populosa
    Nationality
    Polish
    Y-DNA (P)
    R-L1029>YP263>Y2912*
    mtDNA (M)
    H141,U5a1b1j(W)

    Poland Poland Pomerania
    DNA was successfully isolated from some early Piasts remains - Boleslaw I the Brave, Władysław I Herman and Bolesław III Wrymouth. The paper will be published next year

  14. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Waldemar For This Useful Post:

     Просигој (06-25-2021),  altvred (06-25-2021),  ambron (06-25-2021),  JMcB (06-25-2021),  leonardo (06-25-2021),  Michał (06-27-2021),  parastais (06-25-2021),  ph2ter (06-25-2021),  Riverman (06-25-2021)

  15. #1948
    Moderator
    Posts
    2,589
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Indo-Iranian/Balto-Slavic
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1a-Z93

    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    The issue is, if the Lusatians were not the source, who else? And its no small thing to talk about the introduction of advanced bronze and iron technology. This caused serious upheavals and shifts nearly everywhere and why should it have just been a local, indigenous adoption in a rather weakly populated and developed region of Europe? It had a tremendous impact even on the Balkans, let alone the North East was all left alone? I don't buy that, especially since the same scenario happened more than once, like with Corded Ware, and resulted in a much bigger impact and replacement rate in the North, than in the South.
    Also, the rite of cremation is not to be taken easily neither, because it means a completely different religion, value system, ideology. People usually don't change those belief-systems just like that, it almost always, especially in the times before book religions emerged, was a more ethnic and social development, and this needs not just lose, but least intensive contacts, rather demic diffusion also. The Urnfield-cremation horizon was multi-ethnic and crossed linguistic borders, that is evident, but as often it was about people being actually replaced. It depends on the overall context and the situation in the North East seems to be confusing, especially reading about the fortified Baltic settlements, there is still a lot of work to do.



    We don't know how central and Eastern Lusatians looked like, so we don't know what lineages they carried. That's all I'm saying. If somebody knows, he has to have insider information and I probably just put too much faith into what David said, but let's see.

    Right now I went to an older thread about Lusatians and came across this:
    https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....l=1#post478148

    What happened with this study? Is it still in the pipeline? Was no aDNA retrieved? Because if there was, this could be more decisive than any other argument we can probably just repeat without more factual evidence.
    We have plenty of other examples where Iron Age/Bronze Age technologies were introduced without some linguistic replacement or significant migration. See Germanics who surely picked a lot of influences from Halstatt/Central Europe but are generally not seen as derived from Central Europe. Or Proto-IEs who got their agro-pastoral technologies outside the Steppes but are seen by most here as native to the Steppe and not as immigrants from the Caucasus or Balkan which likely are the ultimate sources of a lot of their technologies. Or Proto-Indo-Iranians who picked their Bronze Age Steppe package from Catacomb/Poltavka but ultimately are not derived from these earlier Steppe cultures. I don't see why the same could not happen with Proto-Balto-Slavs and early Balto-Slavs. Like mentioned before there is hardly any linguistic, genetic or archaeological data locating Proto-Balto-Slavs in Lusatia or the Carpathians and not even for Proto-Slavs who surely got influences and admixture from this direction but in terms of linguistics and archaelogy are by most experts not seen as native to these regions. So far genetics also pretty much seem to confirm these earlier conclusions based on archaelogical and linguistic data (Slavs arriving with an entirely new genetic profile, no Slavic Y-DNA in the Carpathians/Central Europe, Pre-Germanic substrate in Kowalewko not resembling Slavs,...)

  16. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Coldmountains For This Useful Post:

     altvred (06-25-2021),  JMcB (06-25-2021),  leonardo (06-25-2021),  Michał (06-27-2021),  Riverman (06-25-2021)

  17. #1949
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,072
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Coldmountains View Post
    We have plenty of other examples where Iron Age/Bronze Age technologies were introduced without some linguistic replacement or significant migration.
    Its case specific, but yes, even if there was gene flow, it was, oftentimes, happening on a rather low level.

    See Germanics who surely picked a lot of influences from Halstatt/Central Europe but are generally not seen as derived from Central Europe.
    The issue with this is we are talking about domino and founder effects. So we don't have to assume that the ultimate source of such a technological transition had to spread everywhere, but that chances are high the nearest neighbour who picked it up was advantaged. This is also true for Germanics, because even if they would primarily to solely descend from a Nordic Bronze Age population, it might be a subset which adopted iron technology from a Hallstatt influenced culture and largely replaced other NBA groups in the process, but again not necessarily all. And between Germanics and Western Hallstatt proper was again an intermediate group, which was even more Hallstatt influenced, but not part of the later Celts transitioning to La Tene, so most likely an unknown group.
    So we have a domino effect in which the nearest neighbour influences the next, oftentimes heavily, along these lines: Thraco-Cimmerian -> Illyrian -> Celtic -> Central German fortress people -> Jastorf Germanics -> Scandinavians.

    Even though the whole transmission was interconnected and potentially accompanied by in part large scale influx and replacements, especially on the paternal side, how much of the original Thraco-Cimmerian agent ended up in Scandinavia? Right, almost nothing or indeed nothing at all. Same here with Baltoslavs and Balts in particular being on the end of the transmission, which, even if it was ethnic, would have been weakest for them, but probably just slightly stronger for the Proto-Slavs.

    Or Proto-IEs who got their agro-pastoral technologies outside the Steppes but are seen by most here as native to the Steppe and not as immigrants from the Caucasus or Balkan which likely are the ultimate sources of a lot of their technologies.
    That is because the paternal local clans picked it up, including some women from those sources, and transformed it as they liked. We can see the independent line of tradition. There was gene flow, but the paternal core stayed regional, forager derived. Question is whether the same applies to Baltoslavs in the LBA-EIA, which is possible, but not proven yet. Especially since they transitioned to completely different rite, that of cremation, together with technological innovations.


    I don't see why the same could not happen with Proto-Balto-Slavs and early Balto-Slavs. Like mentioned before there is hardly any linguistic, genetic or archaeological data locating Proto-Balto-Slavs in Lusatia or the Carpathians and not even for Proto-Slavs who surely got influences and admixture from this direction but in terms of linguistics and archaelogy are by most experts not seen as native to these regions. So far genetics also pretty much seem to confirm this earlier conclusions based on archaelogical and linguistic data (Slavs arriving with an entirely new genetic profile, no Slavic Y-DNA in the Carpathians/Central Europe, Pre-Germanic substrate in Kowalewko not resembling Slavs,...)
    That are valid arguments, especially the last part I bolded. Even though that's significantly later and we don't know the regional variation earlier or further to the East. But I agree, this is probably the strongest argument against in the moment, that the Kowalewko locals are probably not similar enough to be related to a big contributor to Baltoslavs.

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

     altvred (06-25-2021),  Brent.B (06-25-2021),  Coldmountains (06-25-2021),  Michał (06-27-2021),  parastais (06-25-2021)

  19. #1950
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    464
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    R-Y33
    mtDNA (M)
    J1c2
    Y-DNA (M)
    E-Y6938
    mtDNA (P)
    G2a

    Russian Federation Russia Tatarstan Arms Russia Mordovia Timurid
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    You have to know that I try to balance things out, and I came to the conclusion that based on the right now available evidence the opinions in this thread are way too Eastern shifted. Not because its not possible that the Eastern origin story is right, but because the relatively more Western (still CEE!) origin story can't be ruled out yet and has, from my point of view, as good arguments in favour of it. Not least what David said helped me to come to this conclusion.



    That's pretty funny, because I was all the time in favour of Celts (!) emerging from further East than Western Europe (proper) and I also wrote, numerous times, that the Iron Age was introduced to Central and Eastern Europe, obviously, from the Carpathian sphere once more. The Thraco-Cimmerian horizon, with inputs from a region more East than Belorussia, probably played a highly important role in the formation of the Hallstatt culture and even, at least culturally, the Celts - even influencing, rather indirectly, Germanics and practically all of Europe.

    But those are the Cimmerians, we have finds which point to them being fairly advanced in some respects and having contacts to the South East themselve, from which they gained knowledge too. The North East of Europe, especially before the LBA-EIA transition, just plays in a different league. Even more so if comparing them with the Lusatians, which, at their best time in the LBA, were top notch in many respects on a global scale. I wouldn't call the Lusatian area (compare map linked above once more) exactly Western European at all. From my perspective they are already Eastern, but they are not North Eastern European like the region East of the Baltics. Yet those had to get their dose from the Urnfield zone, otherwise they wouldn't have adopted all the things from their package, and I doubt that was happening without a serious genetic input. I'm not saying its not possible that it was "merely a cultural shift", but I don't believe it was, based on the other examples we have, for such a transition.
    If the role of the Carpathian-Lusatian zone was big, just if, it wasn't the "technology superiour West" which formed the Slavs, but these actually were the Proto-Slavs/Baltoslavs which colonised the North East.

    But this shouldn't be an issue, because the advanced bronze and iron technologies weren't exactly invented in Western Europe as well, but brought there too, from the relative (!) East.

    This study, info first posted by Waldemar like linked above, could just decide the debate if they get the right samples:
    https://www.researchgate.net/project...23-B-HS3-00450
    Adopting a technological package by an ethnolinguistic group from its neighbors does not imply descent from them. As Coldmountains pointed out in his post, there isn't a shortage of examples of that scenario occurring.

    The Z280 branches found in BA samples from Halberstadt and Western Poland aren't ancestral to Balto-Slavs and, therefore, irrelevant to Balto-Slavic origin.
    We don't see evidence in aDNA of what you're suggesting. A technological exchange may have occurred, but the presence of parallel Z280 subclades in 'Lusatian' samples is no proof of that or any significant gene flow from these groups.

    You might also say that Srbunaya is ancestral to Balto-Slavs because of the presence of Z280, the same logic employed in that argument.
    YDNA (P): R-Y33
    YDNA (P, maternal line): R-Y20756
    YDNA(M): E-Y6938

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

     Coldmountains (06-25-2021),  JMcB (06-25-2021),  Michał (06-27-2021)

Page 195 of 288 FirstFirst ... 95145185193194195196197205245 ... 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
  •