Page 51 of 287 FirstFirst ... 41495051525361101151 ... LastLast
Results 501 to 510 of 2861

Thread: New Samples from Migration Era and Early Medieval Moravia

  1. #501
    Registered Users
    Posts
    570

    Quote Originally Posted by Coldmountains View Post
    This is quite a strange statement from the author because South Slavs share more ibd segments with other Slavs than with their non-Slavic neighbours with low Slavic admixture. Also we already have enough ancient dna to exclude a scenario where all of East and Southeast Europe had Slavic-like admixture before Slavs. This is a really weird conclusion in many ways.
    I believe you misinterpreted this sentence. It says that South Slavs share fewer amount of IBD segments of the length 1.5 - 3 cM with the Greeks and their immediate neighbors than with the west-east Slavs, not that they share fewer amount of IBD segments with their immediate neighbors than with west-east Slavs:


    Fig 4. Distribution of the average number of IBD segments between groups of East-West Slavs (a), South Slavs (b), and their respective geographic neighbors.

    The x-axis indicates ten classes of IBD segment length (in cM); the y-axis indicates the average number of shared IBD segments per pair of individuals within each length class.
    As can be seen by the y axes, the South Slavs share more segments with the Greeks in the length of 0 - 1.5 cM and 5 cM.
    Also, sharing more IBD segments doesn't tell much if the shared segments are mostly on a few particular segments and not across the whole chromosome.

    I have observed this with my own data where on a particular segments(2 or 3 for example with a length of 9cM for each of them, overall 27cM) I happen to have more than 50 matches of mostly Slavic origin. While on other segments with overall length of 56cM I tend to have just a few matches, less than 5 of non-Slavic origin. The first example speaks about the explosive nature of the Slavic grow in population during the early Medieval and the subsequent migrations but doesn't necessarily mean that I share more DNA with the Slavs than with other people.
    Last edited by Aspar; 05-08-2021 at 10:02 AM.
    Distance to: Aspar_scaled
    0.01995435 35.00% HUN_Avar_Szolad:Av2 + 65.00% ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR65
    0.02156914 40.60% HUN_Avar_Szolad:Av1 + 59.40% ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR65
    0.02223177 55.20% Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2:I8215 + 44.80% UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19
    0.02300447 61.80% BGR_IA:I5769 + 38.20% UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19

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

     Michał (05-08-2021),  parasar (05-08-2021)

  3. #502
    Moderator
    Posts
    2,589
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Indo-Iranian/Balto-Slavic
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1a-Z93

    Quote Originally Posted by altvred View Post
    "We apply MAPS to a European subset of POPRES [25] with 2,234 individuals and plot the inferred dispersal and population density surfaces for PSC length bins (a) >1cM (b) 5-10cM and (c) >10cM. We transform estimates of and M to estimates of and by scaling the migration rates and population sizes by the grid step-size and area (see Eqs (17) and (18)). Generally, we observe the patterns of dispersal to be relatively constant over time periods, however, we see a sharp increase in population density in the most recent time scale (>10cM). Note the wider plotting limits in inferred densities in the most recent time scale"

     


    Here are the samples placed in the Eastern Europe category in the POPRES dataset; there's one person from Ukraine and 6 from Russia. Please explain to me how you can make the logical conclusion that there was no 'there was no demographic explosion of the Slavs' based on that kind of data?



    The mtDNA is 16,569 base pairs; there are 3,088,286,401 base pairs in the whole human genome. Uniparental markers are nowhere near as informative as autosomal DNA when studying population history, your Y-DNA or mtDNA don't contain a drop of genetic material from 99.99% of your ancestors, but the autosomes do.

    A Kushniarevich 2015

    In their Y-
    chromosomal and autosomal variation, East Slavs–Russians from central-southern regions,
    Belarusians and Ukrainians– form a cluster on their own, though these populations do not
    overlap entirely with each other (Fig 2A and 2. This group is characterized by low mean val-
    ues of population pairwise genetic distances (D Nei = 0.125 for NRY; F ST = 0.0008 for autosomal
    data)
    (Tables A,B in S1 File).


    Notably,
    genetic distances remain low after adding Poles to the Belarusians, Ukrainians and Russians
    from the central-southern regions (D Nei = 0.144 for NRY; F ST = 0.0006 for autosomal data),
    indicating thereby an extended geographic area with low genetic differentiation among the
    majority of Slavic speakers across Central-East Europe
    .


     


    How can you explain the roughly 100 million people living between Warsaw and Moscow being genetically more similar to one another than regions within the same country in Western/Southern Europe like Italy? Why are there Volga Tatars, Circassians, and Karachay who belong to subclades of M458 and L621 with a TMRCA of less than 2000 ybp along with people from Poland and Czechia on YFull?

    If you have a more plausible explanation than the archaeologically and historically well-established massive movement of Slavic tribes during the early Middle Ages then I'm all ears.
    It is similar to the argumentation that BMAC was Indo-Iranian and there was no steppe migration in South Asia but in this case it is even harder to understand because we have lot of ibd segments, super recent y-dna and drift shared between all Slavs. Also there is so much archeological and textual evidence for a massive migration what we don't have for most other historical migrations. On top of that early Slavic genomes really show that Slavs from Germany to Ukraine were quite homogenous even until the medieval period.

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

     altvred (05-08-2021),  leonardo (05-08-2021),  Michał (05-08-2021),  parastais (05-08-2021),  Waldemar (05-08-2021)

  5. #503
    Registered Users
    Posts
    230
    Sex

    @Coldmountains
    Define Proto-Slavs before starting your fantasies. Proto-Slavic, Proto-Baltic and Proto-Indo-Iranian languages originated around 2500 BC; they all came from Indo-Slavic language spoken around 3000 BC in Vistula-Dnieper area by Corded Ware Culture R1a tribes.
    Proto-Indo-Iranians went east, Proto-Balts north and Proto-Slavs remained in the original Indo-Slavic homeland which is Vistula-Dnieper. This is simple and obvious. If you have different theory, prove it.

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

     Galadhorn (05-08-2021)

  7. #504
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,070
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Coldmountains View Post
    Y3120 was already at a very early point present and significant among East Slavs hence its presence in medieval Russia/Ukraine and high frequency in Ukraine and highest absolute number in Russia. It could be that it ulimately comes from a non-Slavic group assimilated but there is for now no direct evidence that this assimilation happened in Poland or Central Europe. If anything the higher frequency of it among East and South Slavs points to Ukraine and not to Poland or Central Europe.
    That's exactly where we need the Lusatian-Eastern Urnfield group, to check whether the variants of I2 and E1b which are now widespread among Slavic speakers, among other candidates, came from these. Since all people which migrated through the Eastern Urnfield-Channeled Ware territory seem to have picked one or both of it up, we'll have to wait and see.

    One question related to this, I'm unfortunately not that well informed, but wasn't it these same people which transferred iron technology to supposedly Baltoslavic cultural groups. Because I think these cultural-technological shifts are key for major gene flow - usually. Its like it is with R1b-U106 in Germanics, when, where and how exactly it entered Germanics, just like I2 and E1b entered the early Slavic gene pool, is so far unknown. We just know its there and its possible, just possible, not necessary, that it points to some sort of fusion, especially around the LBA-EIA transition, like we have it elsewhere too.

    Important for that debate are which subclades all or at least all main groups of Slavs (like Poles, Slovaks, Belorussians, Northern Ukrainians and Russians) have in common and which not. And what distinguishes this Slavic core from the Baltic people. Like Russians have about 4-6 percent E1b in all regions, Baltics 0-1 afaik, even though they had contacts to Slavs and Germanics as well as other people. We need to play this out for every difference between core Slavic and core Baltic patrilineages to see whether Slavs got additional input in their early formation phase - plus of course, for the definite proof, more ancient DNA.

    South Slavs are easy to explain: The bulk came from Slavic male groups which took local women and the assimilation of local clans, which could retreat to the mountains in particular, where they could build up and transition themselves, unlike on the open flat grass lands, were later assimilated. These largely equal Vlachs and this could even result in the Vlachs taking over, like Romania, where the total Slavic influx was no lower than in most of Serbia for example, rather the opposite.
    Last edited by Riverman; 05-08-2021 at 11:34 AM.

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

     Brent.B (05-08-2021),  Michał (05-08-2021)

  9. #505
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,806
    Sex
    Location
    Warsaw, Poland
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1a-L1280>FGC41205
    mtDNA (M)
    H2a2(b)
    Y-DNA (M)
    R1a-L1029>YP517
    mtDNA (P)
    H5a2

    Poland European Union
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    the variants of I2 and E1b which are now widespread among Slavic speakers
    Do you know any subclades of E1b that seem to be associated specifically with modern Slavs while being present (at meaningfull frequencies) in all three major Slavic groupings (ie. among the Western, Eastern and Southern Slavs), so this would suggest that such a subclade was indeed present among the Proto-Slavs rather than having been assimilated following the Early Slavic expansion (e.g. towards the Carpathian region) or as a s result of much later small-scale migration processes, including the Vlach migrations, among others?

  10. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Michał For This Useful Post:

     Просигој (05-08-2021),  Alain (05-08-2021),  Brent.B (05-08-2021),  Coldmountains (05-08-2021),  JoeyP37 (05-08-2021),  leonardo (05-08-2021),  ph2ter (05-08-2021)

  11. #506
    Registered Users
    Posts
    406

    altvred, it was explained by Kusznierewicz a long time ago:

    "Expansion of Slavic languages took place in an area already occupied by speakers of the Baltic languages [49,50]. Despite significant linguistic divergence between extant East Baltic and Slavic languages (Fig 1) [7], Baltic populations are genetically the closest to East Slavs (Fig 2A and 2B, Table K in S1 File) [45,64–66] and here we found that they bear the highest number of shared IBD segments with the combined group of East-West Slavs (Fig 4, Table G in S1 File). The presence of a substantial “Baltic substratum” in the genomes of extant Slavs within East Europe might in part explain their genetic closeness to each other and difference from some neighboring non-Slavic groups".

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

     leonardo (05-08-2021),  Ryukendo (05-14-2021)

  13. #507
    Registered Users
    Posts
    570

    Quote Originally Posted by Michał View Post
    Do you know any subclades of E1b that seem to be associated specifically with modern Slavs while being present (at meaningfull frequencies) in all three major Slavic groupings (ie. among the Western, Eastern and Southern Slavs), so this would suggest that such a subclade was indeed present among the Proto-Slavs rather than having been assimilated following the Early Slavic expansion (e.g. towards the Carpathian region) or as a s result of much later small-scale migration processes, including the Vlach migrations, among others?
    Excuse me for taking this opportunity to answer although your question was directed to Riverman.

    From the recently published Slavic genomes it's clear E1b wasn't a lineage associated with them although a typical east-west Slavic E1b lineage (E-L540) was found in a sample from Krakauberg. I believe this same lineage was found in a Serb albeit no idea whether the individual was SNP tested or predicted.

    Nevertheless, it's not completely out of the picture that some E1b lineages were present in the proto-Slavic genepool very early on albeit these should be very minor ones. If anything, these should be some Carpathian lineages associated with the Dacian tribes and going by the archaeological record there was certainly some interaction very early on between some Dacian tribes and the proto-Slavs. As such, some E-CTS9320 lineages should be the best suspects and this one E-BY50887, is at the top. It's TMRCA also fits in this regard. 2200-2100 ybp is when we see a diversification of lineages such as R-L1029, I-Y3120, E-L540 etc.
    This should be an important indication that during the last centuries of the common era something important happened, something that gave rise to the Slavs!?!
    Distance to: Aspar_scaled
    0.01995435 35.00% HUN_Avar_Szolad:Av2 + 65.00% ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR65
    0.02156914 40.60% HUN_Avar_Szolad:Av1 + 59.40% ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR65
    0.02223177 55.20% Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2:I8215 + 44.80% UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19
    0.02300447 61.80% BGR_IA:I5769 + 38.20% UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19

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

     Alain (05-08-2021),  Brent.B (05-08-2021),  digital_noise (05-09-2021),  Michał (05-08-2021),  parastais (05-08-2021),  Riverman (05-08-2021),  Ryukendo (05-14-2021)

  15. #508
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,806
    Sex
    Location
    Warsaw, Poland
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1a-L1280>FGC41205
    mtDNA (M)
    H2a2(b)
    Y-DNA (M)
    R1a-L1029>YP517
    mtDNA (P)
    H5a2

    Poland European Union
    Quote Originally Posted by Aspar View Post
    From the recently published Slavic genomes it's clear E1b wasn't a lineage associated with them although a typical east-west Slavic E1b lineage (E-L540) was found in a sample from Krakauberg.
    Unfortunately, KRA005 (E-L540) is one of the most west-shifted of all G25 samples from Krakauer Berg, so while it seems still possible that this lineage was indeed associated with the Proto-Slavs, it seems almost equally likely that E-L540 was assimilated somewhere in the Carpathian region during the westward migration of the Early Slavs in the Early Medieval period.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aspar View Post
    I believe this same lineage was found in a Serb albeit no idea whether the individual was SNP tested or predicted.
    In case he was predicted L540+ based on STRs alone, please let me know his STR haplotype once you get your hands on it. This is one of my ancestral subclades, so I am very interested in investigating its past.

    On the other hand, there are some evidently Slavic subclades of R1a (like S18681 or L365) that are present only among the Western and Eastern Slavs while being practically absent among the Southern Slavs, so E-L540 could have been one of them, but in such case, this would strongly suggest its initial association with the most northerly located groupings within the Proto-Slavic homeland, which sounds kind od intriguing, as it would speak against any recent Dacian/Carpathian to Proto-Slavic transfer.


    Quote Originally Posted by Aspar View Post
    Nevertheless, it's not completely out of the picture that some E1b lineages were present in the proto-Slavic genepool very early on albeit these should be very minor ones. If anything, these should be some Carpathian lineages associated with the Dacian tribes and going by the archaeological record there was certainly some interaction very early on between some Dacian tribes and the proto-Slavs. As such, some E-CTS9320 lineages should be the best suspects and this one E-BY50887, is at the top. It's TMRCA also fits in this regard. 2200-2100 ybp is when we see a diversification of lineages such as R-L1029, I-Y3120, E-L540 etc.
    Yes, this is indeed another good candidate for such a minor genetic contributor among the Proto-Slavs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aspar View Post
    This should be an important indication that during the last centuries of the common era something important happened, something that gave rise to the Slavs!?!
    As you have rightly noticed, the very low frequencies of those E1b subclades point to a relatively small contribution of the original E1b-V13-rich (Dacian?) populations to the Proto-Slavic pool, which is, however, in strong contrast to I2a-Y3120, a major Proto-Slavic subclade with the strongest expansion rate among all European Y-DNA subclades dated to the same period. Additionally, just like the above-mentioned subclades of E1b, clade I2a-Y3120 doesn't seem to have any deep Balto-Slavic roots, so this is why finding the exact origin of Slavic I2a-Y3120 is so crucial for elucidating the ethnogenesis of the Slavs.

  16. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Michał For This Useful Post:

     Просигој (05-08-2021),  Alain (05-08-2021),  Aspar (05-08-2021),  Brent.B (05-08-2021),  leonardo (05-08-2021),  lgmayka (05-16-2021),  parasar (05-12-2021),  parastais (05-08-2021),  ph2ter (05-08-2021),  Riverman (05-08-2021),  Waldemar (05-08-2021)

  17. #509
    Registered Users
    Posts
    406

    Coldmoutains, regarding the alleged shift of Baltic BA towards Baltic HG:

    https://slavicorigins.blogspot.com/2...baltic-hg.html

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

     leonardo (05-08-2021)

  19. #510
    Registered Users
    Posts
    570

    Quote Originally Posted by Michał View Post
    Unfortunately, KRA005 (E-L540) is one of the most west-shifted of all G25 samples from Krakauer Berg, so while it seems still possible that this lineage was indeed associated with the Proto-Slavs, it seems almost equally likely that E-L540 was assimilated somewhere in the Carpathian region during the westward migration of the Early Slavs in the Early Medieval period.
    It seems there are multiple subclades under E-L540 in the West-East Slavs with TMRCA of around 2000 ybp. That makes me think these lineages couldn't have been assimilated around the Carpathians basin considering that E-L540 isn't very common outside of Northern Central Europe. The highest diversity downstream of E-L540 is found exactly in northern Central Europe and that alone gives incidence that the spreading and the diversification started around there, probably around 2000 ybp according to YFULL. Was this in the Przeworsk or Zarubintsy Culture is hard to say but I believe this lineage shows typical Slavic spread and timeframe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michał View Post
    In case he was predicted L540+ based on STRs alone, please let me know his STR haplotype once you get your hands on it. This is one of my ancestral subclades, so I am very interested in investigating its past.
    An Albanian user(Kelmendasi) was the one who spread the information about this Serb. Outside of that I have no other information. Anthrogenica is frequently visited by various Serb users and even admins of their project Poreklo so if they are willing, we can get more information from them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michał View Post
    On the other hand, there are some evidently Slavic subclades of R1a (like S18681 or L365) that are present only among the Western and Eastern Slavs while being practically absent among the Southern Slavs, so E-L540 could have been one of them, but in such case, this would strongly suggest its initial association with the most northerly located groupings within the Proto-Slavic homeland, which sounds kind od intriguing, as it would speak against any recent Dacian/Carpathian to Proto-Slavic transfer.
    Agree and would give credit to what I said earlier about E-L540.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michał View Post
    Yes, this is indeed another good candidate for such a minor genetic contributor among the Proto-Slavs.
    Agree

    Quote Originally Posted by Michał View Post
    As you have rightly noticed, the very low frequencies of those E1b subclades point to a relatively small contribution of the original E1b-V13-rich (Dacian?) populations to the Proto-Slavic pool, which is, however, in strong contrast to I2a-Y3120, a major Proto-Slavic subclade with the strongest expansion rate among all European Y-DNA subclades dated to the same period. Additionally, just like the above-mentioned subclades of E1b, clade I2a-Y3120 doesn't seem to have any deep Balto-Slavic roots, so this is why finding the exact origin of Slavic I2a-Y3120 is so crucial for elucidating the ethnogenesis of the Slavs.
    Agree although the key word here is founder effect. We don't know whether lineages such as E-L540 were part of the same population initially with I-Y3120. They very well might have been considering their similar TMRCA. It's just that I-Y3120 for some reason had more luck in having living descendants. It could be that R-L1029, I-Y3120 and E-L540 could have part of the same population around 2200 ybp. L1029 and L540 have a lot of diversity in North-Central Europe while Y3120 seem to have expanded heavily to Ukraine, perhaps in connection with the Kiev Culture.

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

     Brent.B (05-08-2021),  Michał (05-08-2021)

Page 51 of 287 FirstFirst ... 41495051525361101151 ... 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
  •