Page 190 of 341 FirstFirst ... 90140180188189190191192200240290 ... LastLast
Results 1,891 to 1,900 of 3408

Thread: New Samples from Migration Era and Early Medieval Moravia

  1. #1891
    Registered Users
    Posts
    936
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    R-Y20359
    mtDNA (M)
    H1c9a

    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    That's a good catch. Obviously, he would be to the West of the Lusatian core region, so that he was mixed and autosomally different is no surprise. But honestly I didn't know he was R-Z280. I solely based my theory on the logic of people spreading with innovations and cultural shifts, which should be noticable. And for the North East, the rite of cremation and the spread of advanced Bronze and beginning Iron technology was probably THE most important shift since the spread of farming and Corded Ware. That he indeed ACTUALLY IS R-Z280 is like bullseye:
    https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-FT6375/

    He is not ancestral to Slavs in general, but his paternal line comes from the people which formed Baltoslavs and still survives in Slavic speaking people to this day.

    I really didn't know and missed the importance of that. Well, combining that with what David wrote, and I know he is quite focused on R1a, we have to expect those playing their part. And the Urnfield sphere is the local source region. I also think that the Urnfield and LBA-EIA influence being severely underestimated still, mainly because it didn't cause a fundamental shift in ancestral proportions. But it did influence all major IE groupings of Antiquity to this day. There is practically no major IE group, which wasn't significantly affected. But it started from distinct provinces which, by itself, were distinguished. So the Western Celtic, the Southern Daco-Thracians, were different already, before starting to move out. To assume a relation of the core region of the Lusatians with Baltoslavs is imho quite tempting. The Urnfield sphere was the most important LBA formation for IE in Europe. And, probably, it will come out they formed Baltoslavs too, not just influencing them a bit.

    I still can't believe I missed this...



    The Lusatian core expanded from what is now Poland and the Carpathian region to the West, and South, causing other, more losely related people of a similar rite and religion, like Gáva-Holigrady, to expand Southward. Which caused, in my opinion, Belegiš II – Gava and the formation of Daco-Thracians to the South East, of Proto-Celts to the West, of Italics in the South. They pushed the others both with ideas, new technology and an own impetus for conquest and colonisation. The Lusatians formed new provinces. Obviously this guy was to the West, so he is expected to have mixed with Western people, but his paternal lineage is coming from the centre of Lusatians most likely.
    Just like the expansions we know of, the rite of cremation and advanced metallurgy might have just spread, directly from the core region, to the North East as well and even causing a part-replacement.
    Your explanation of the expansion of the Lusatian core sounds like a possible explanation for the term "Venedi" being found in the Vistula, Brittany and Veneto, not that they would be the same genetically, but maybe just culturally to some degree - even if loosely.

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

     Brent.B (06-24-2021),  Riverman (06-23-2021)

  3. #1892
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,625
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by altvred View Post
    With Z280 branches that are parallel to the ones ancestral to Balto-Slavic, you also have Poland_EBA/N17 who belonged to R-S24902 and was 800 years older than I0099.

    But again, I wouldn't read too much into how relevant they were to the formation of Balto-Slavs - considering the fact that way to the east we have Spiginas2, who's older than both N17 and I0099, downstream of CTS1211 and almost definitely wasn't ancestral but represented a parallel but related branch to Balto-Slavs.

    Plus, technically in terms of Z280 phylogeny, these Z280 subclades are just as related to Balto-Slavs as the Srubnaya Z280.
    That's all true and I'm fully aware of its limitations, but whats so exciting about it is both the timing and context, as well as current distribution of this subclade.
    Its like finding a mostly dead end E-V13 from the Neolithic vs. a Middle Bronze Age one from a suspected context and with modern survivors in a presumed context as well.

    Its of course no final verdict which can be drawn from it, but it add up. And we can already, even before having actual core and Eastern Lusatian samples pop up, say with some probabilitythat Z280 was present and most likely frequent in Lusatians, one of the biggest and most influential LBA groups and quite likely the cultural missionary for the cremation rite and advanced metallurgy in the North East.
    Which also fits the Bill for what David described, with a clear Carparthian connection.
    So its no final proof for anything, but a potential game changer to look at it from this perspective.
    Very likely the ancestors of Proto-Baltoslavs rotated at least one time from the forest steppe, to the Northern Carparthians, from there to Poland and ending up close to the starting point in the EIA, from which they, just like the older CW branches, they also expanded to the Baltics, before coming to the Polish-Carparthian region back in the migration period. If they ever left it completely.
    Some Lusatian branches could have survived beside and not within Proto-Baltoslavs, but thats not decisive.
    Possibly some were picked up from a non-Slavic context by other, including Germanic people.

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

     ambron (06-24-2021),  Brent.B (06-24-2021),  eraserhead (06-24-2021),  leonardo (06-24-2021)

  5. #1893
    Registered Users
    Posts
    497

    Altvred, it's not a language barrier, it's a mental barrier. I don't quite understand what you are trying to prove.

    Today S24902 is over 1% of Poles. YP1034 (Baltic BA) is less than 2% of CTS1211. Why is the first a bad ancestor of the Balto-Slavs and the latter a good ancestor?

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

     JoeyP37 (06-24-2021)

  7. #1894
    Registered Users
    Posts
    497

    Riverman

    Target: HUN_Gava_BA:I20771
    Distance: 3.1854% / 0.03185423 | R3P
    63.6 Slovakian
    28.2 Spanish_La_Rioja
    8.2 SRB_Iron_Gates_HG

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

     eraserhead (06-24-2021),  leonardo (06-24-2021)

  9. #1895
    Moderator
    Posts
    2,650
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Pashtun/East-Slavic
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1a-Z93

    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    That's all true and I'm fully aware of its limitations, but whats so exciting about it is both the timing and context, as well as current distribution of this subclade.
    Its like finding a mostly dead end E-V13 from the Neolithic vs. a Middle Bronze Age one from a suspected context and with modern survivors in a presumed context as well.

    Its of course no final verdict which can be drawn from it, but it add up. And we can already, even before having actual core and Eastern Lusatian samples pop up, say with some probabilitythat Z280 was present and most likely frequent in Lusatians, one of the biggest and most influential LBA groups and quite likely the cultural missionary for the cremation rite and advanced metallurgy in the North East.
    Which also fits the Bill for what David described, with a clear Carparthian connection.
    So its no final proof for anything, but a potential game changer to look at it from this perspective.
    Very likely the ancestors of Proto-Baltoslavs rotated at least one time from the forest steppe, to the Northern Carparthians, from there to Poland and ending up close to the starting point in the EIA, from which they, just like the older CW branches, they also expanded to the Baltics, before coming to the Polish-Carparthian region back in the migration period. If they ever left it completely.
    Some Lusatian branches could have survived beside and not within Proto-Baltoslavs, but thats not decisive.
    Possibly some were picked up from a non-Slavic context by other, including Germanic people.
    Somehow many ignore that Srubnaya had Z280+ (older than Halberstadt actually) too what makes Srubnaya so far as much as "likely" to be Proto-Balto-Slavic as Halberstadt or SVK_EBA/Nitra with Z280 (of course neither likely at all). Z280 based on its distribution from the Urals to Slovakia 1500-2000 B.C was certainly present in Belarus and North Ukraine during this period too, which lies in the center of this distribution. And Spiginas2 carrying Z280 and unlike other Z280 of this period (SVK_EBA, Nitra, Srubnaya,..) Balto-Slavic-related Z280 clades is the only sample so far that can tell us something relevant about Balto-Slavs even if it is not directly ancestral to most Balto-Slavs (rather a Para-Balto-Slavic line)

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

     Alain (06-24-2021),  leonardo (06-24-2021),  Michał (06-27-2021),  Ryukendo (06-24-2021)

  11. #1896
    Registered Users
    Posts
    497

    Coldmoutains, YP1034 tells us as much about Balto-Slavs as S24902. He tells us that the Balto-Slavs have lived in Poland and Pribaltica at least since the Bronze Age.

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

     JoeyP37 (06-24-2021)

  13. #1897
    Moderator
    Posts
    2,650
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Pashtun/East-Slavic
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1a-Z93

    Quote Originally Posted by ambron View Post
    Coldmoutains, YP1034 tells us as much about Balto-Slavs as S24902. He tells us that the Balto-Slavs have lived in Poland and Pribaltica at least since the Bronze Age.
    For Halberstadt Z280* or SVK_EBA Z280* to be Balto-Slavic you either need to find them among ancient Balto-Slavs or in significant numbers among non-mixed modern Balto-Slavs (including Balts) or you need to show that Balto-Slavic formed around 3000 B.C when it split from these basal Z280* lineages. But I am not aware of linguistics dating the formation of Balto-Slavic this early and afaik Proto-Balto-Slavic formed around 1500 B.C if not even later (Trzciniec-Komarov culture) so even Spiginas2 would be too early most likely. Balto-Slavic drift likely formed already before Proto-Balto-Slavic and none of the Central European Z280 samples of the Bronze Age has shown any Balto-Slavic drift so they unlikely were even Para-Balto-Slavic

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

     Michał (06-27-2021),  Ryukendo (06-24-2021)

  15. #1898
    Registered Users
    Posts
    158
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    Well, you wrote e.g. about R-L1029:
    https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-YP1703/

    For R-Z280:
    https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y13891*/

    Look especially how widespread this subclade is, not just in typically Slavic areas:
    https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-YP372/

    The Sardinian sample is probably distinct or basal, but I don't know how much of this can be attributed to the samples resolution, because a lot of the Sardinian samples are rather basal. So either they came earlier and independently, in the Iron Age and early historical period, or its caused by other factors including resolution? Because if that's all correct, it looks like a fairly early spread to the island for many associated haplotypes from Central Europe.
    It's not low resolution, if that was the case, than it would be placed outside any subclade like KRA005 is here:
    https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-L540/

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

     Michał (06-27-2021),  Riverman (06-24-2021),  Ryukendo (06-24-2021)

  17. #1899
    Registered Users
    Posts
    497

    Coldmountains, biological continuity does not equate to ethnolinguistic continuity.

  18. #1900
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,625
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Coldmountains View Post
    For Halberstadt Z280* or SVK_EBA Z280* to be Balto-Slavic you either need to find them among ancient Balto-Slavs or in significant numbers among non-mixed modern Balto-Slavs (including Balts) or you need to show that Balto-Slavic formed around 3000 B.C when it split from these basal Z280* lineages. But I am not aware of linguistics dating the formation of Balto-Slavic this early and afaik Proto-Balto-Slavic formed around 1500 B.C if not even later (Trzciniec-Komarov culture) so even Spiginas2 would be too early most likely. Balto-Slavic drift likely formed already before Proto-Balto-Slavic and none of the Central European Z280 samples of the Bronze Age has shown any Balto-Slavic drift so they unlikely were even Para-Balto-Slavic
    Agreed, but we are not there yet because all the key Urnfield and especially Lusatian areas are still missing from the record.
    That individual is like a Gaelic Viking with a Scandinavian patrilineage. He is from a fringe region, not the central and Eastern areas of the grouping. That he has an at least associated haplogroup suffices and is encouraging for the theory.
    Let's wait for samples from the central and Eastern provinces, those are decisive.

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

     leonardo (06-24-2021)

Page 190 of 341 FirstFirst ... 90140180188189190191192200240290 ... 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
  •