Norwegian vikings and east-european admixture?

mihaitzateo · Jun 9, 2012

So I saw the autosomal DNA maps from this site from here:
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/autosomal_maps_dodecad.shtml

As a very curious thing,where norwegian vikings raided in UK (Scotland) there is more eastern-european admixture.
In England and Wales and Ireland is almost no eastern european admixture.
From what I know,but I might be wrong,anglo saxons came from present day Germany to England and after Y DNA it seems more paternal lines in England are from anglo-saxons.So is clear,old anglo-saxons were not bearing almost at all eastern european admixture.
There is also known that normans moved to England,but I do not know how many from normans were norwegian vikings and I also do not know how many from normans were vikings and how many normans actually mixed the population of England.
So I think is a plausible explanation that eastern european admixture from Scotland was brought by norwegian vikings.
And this is what I was thinking,that it was possible that R1A1 norse vikings,the norwegian vikings had a pretty significant percentage of eastern european admixture,beside their usual north western european admixture from which they got mostly.
As for eastern european admixture in Germany that should be from old prussians,with which old germans it seems mixed and gave today germans.
I was wondering what is the opinion of other people about this.

Jackson · Jun 10, 2012

I think it's quite an interesting question, i wouldn't be surprised at all if the extent of eastern European admixture in northern continental Europe is greater now than it was 1500 years ago, given that R1a1a must have been one of the most major components of the Slavic peoples, and their primary expansions happened at a similar time to the Germanic migrations too (I believe this is correct?).

This might indeed mean that there was less R1a1a in the historical populations of the Angles and Saxons, however i think the Faroese and the area around Trondelag in Norway are quite high in R1a1a too? This might suggest that it was either quite regional or the Nordic lands were comparatively R1a1a heavy (as they are today) compared to the Germanic lands. What would be interesting is some more regional data from Britain, the Netherlands and Scandinavia and see if any more patterns emerge.

Its interesting that if we take modern populations (which may be different from the ancient populations), with Denmark at 12% R1a1a and the Netherlands at 6% R1a1a, surely if there was an average for these people it would be at about the 8-10% mark for R1a1a. If you then look at the average for England (4.5%) then it could be something like 50% contribution on average. Assuming that R1a1a also follows the east-west cline (as well as Norwegian settlement), then places in the east would hypothetically rise above 50% contribution based on this factor, and less than 50% in more western places, which i don't think is far from comparable with other y-dna haplogroups. I believe Maciamo made a thread some time ago, and about 65% or so of Lineages were Anglo-Saxon/Danish, 11% Near Eastern and just over 30% British. I don't know whether this is still current but it seems logical, appears similar to the Weale study and (apparently) to the People of the British Isles project.

It's interesting that North and East Germany seem to be significantly more 'Slavic' (which makes sense i guess). But i guess the big difference between Nordic and Germanic populations is that Nordic populations are primarily a mix of I1/R1a/R1b, while Germanic populations have R1a1a as a more minor component, and Celtic populations it is at very low levels. It's been said a thousand times i'm sure, although i think R1a1a is probably the best y-dna marker for tracking any sort of migrations from the eastern side of the North Sea into western Europe, because the distinction between R1b/R1a is much more clear than between R1b/I1 in my opinion.

The Normans are interesting because they were not just Scandinavian, rather a mixture of Scandinavian, northern French, Breton and Flemish if you count all involved, or at least that's the impression i've received from people who know a lot about it. So i don't think it would be accurate to track their contribution by comparing it Scandinavian populations, as they were much more of a mixture.

Another thing to note i guess is that the Dutch are (apparently) significantly closer to the British/English than Scandinavians or Germans. I guess this could be due to:

1) The Dutch better represent the original Anglo-Saxons than modern day North Germans and Danes.
2) The two share ancestry from two groups (perhaps the shared Germanic and Celtic elements?)
3) The Saxons were more weighted towards what is now the Netherlands than to Denmark/Northern Germany.
4) The two areas were populated by similar source populations, and changes occurred in the source populations that didn't in the two resulting populations.

Obviously it's all hypothetical, but it's interesting - From my perspective it seems like R1a1a is really useful for looking into the ancestry of western Europeans (ironically), i don't know what the situation is like with eastern Europe and R1b though, as there seems to be more east-west movement throughout the whole history of Europe.

Someone correct me if i've made mistakes or misunderstandings - Just felt like making a comment :].

Kind Regards,
Sam Jackson

zanipolo · Jun 10, 2012

Jackson said:
I think it's quite an interesting question, i wouldn't be surprised at all if the extent of eastern European admixture in northern continental Europe is greater now than it was 1500 years ago, given that R1a1a must have been one of the most major components of the Slavic peoples, and their primary expansions happened at a similar time to the Germanic migrations too (I believe this is correct?).

This might indeed mean that there was less R1a1a in the historical populations of the Angles and Saxons, however i think the Faroese and the area around Trondelag in Norway are quite high in R1a1a too? This might suggest that it was either quite regional or the Nordic lands were comparatively R1a1a heavy (as they are today) compared to the Germanic lands. What would be interesting is some more regional data from Britain, the Netherlands and Scandinavia and see if any more patterns emerge.

Its interesting that if we take modern populations (which may be different from the ancient populations), with Denmark at 12% R1a1a and the Netherlands at 6% R1a1a, surely if there was an average for these people it would be at about the 8-10% mark for R1a1a. If you then look at the average for England (4.5%) then it could be something like 50% contribution on average. Assuming that R1a1a also follows the east-west cline (as well as Norwegian settlement), then places in the east would hypothetically rise above 50% contribution based on this factor, and less than 50% in more western places, which i don't think is far from comparable with other y-dna haplogroups. I believe Maciamo made a thread some time ago, and about 65% or so of Lineages were Anglo-Saxon/Danish, 11% Near Eastern and just over 30% British. I don't know whether this is still current but it seems logical, appears similar to the Weale study and (apparently) to the People of the British Isles project.

It's interesting that North and East Germany seem to be significantly more 'Slavic' (which makes sense i guess). But i guess the big difference between Nordic and Germanic populations is that Nordic populations are primarily a mix of I1/R1a/R1b, while Germanic populations have R1a1a as a more minor component, and Celtic populations it is at very low levels. It's been said a thousand times i'm sure, although i think R1a1a is probably the best y-dna marker for tracking any sort of migrations from the eastern side of the North Sea into western Europe, because the distinction between R1b/R1a is much more clear than between R1b/I1 in my opinion.

The Normans are interesting because they were not just Scandinavian, rather a mixture of Scandinavian, northern French, Breton and Flemish if you count all involved, or at least that's the impression i've received from people who know a lot about it. So i don't think it would be accurate to track their contribution by comparing it Scandinavian populations, as they were much more of a mixture.

Another thing to note i guess is that the Dutch are (apparently) significantly closer to the British/English than Scandinavians or Germans. I guess this could be due to:

1) The Dutch better represent the original Anglo-Saxons than modern day North Germans and Danes.
2) The two share ancestry from two groups (perhaps the shared Germanic and Celtic elements?)
3) The Saxons were more weighted towards what is now the Netherlands than to Denmark/Northern Germany.
4) The two areas were populated by similar source populations, and changes occurred in the source populations that didn't in the two resulting populations.

Obviously it's all hypothetical, but it's interesting - From my perspective it seems like R1a1a is really useful for looking into the ancestry of western Europeans (ironically), i don't know what the situation is like with eastern Europe and R1b though, as there seems to be more east-west movement throughout the whole history of Europe.

Someone correct me if i've made mistakes or misunderstandings - Just felt like making a comment :].

Kind Regards,
Sam Jackson

do you have the right marker as the only R1a1a in scandinavia by Ftdna does not have any slavic

7.B1. Young Scandinavian (Type "M"/part of "YS")
M417+, Z283+, Z284+, L448+
R1a1a1g3a

7.B2-A. 'Scottish' subcluster in Young Scandinavian Line
M417+, Z283+, Z284+, L448+, L176-
R1a1a1g3a
7.B2-B. 'Scottish' subcluster in Young Scandinavian Line
M417+, Z283+, Z284+, L448+, L176+
R1a1a1g3a1

Jackson · Jun 10, 2012

Sorry, my bad - I used the 'Slavic' because i didn't know the distribution of the specific groups of R1a1a, i should have said 'R1a1a' instead. That's a really good map - Never seen that before.

Do you know what the prediction is for the time at which the Scottish groups split off from the main groups?

Kind Regards,
Sam Jackson

ElHorsto · Jun 10, 2012

Jackson said:
I think it's quite an interesting question, i wouldn't be surprised at all if the extent of eastern European admixture in northern continental Europe is greater now than it was 1500 years ago, given that R1a1a must have been one of the most major components of the Slavic peoples, and their primary expansions happened at a similar time to the Germanic migrations too (I believe this is correct?).

This might indeed mean that there was less R1a1a in the historical populations of the Angles and Saxons, however i think the Faroese and the area around Trondelag in Norway are quite high in R1a1a too? This might suggest that it was either quite regional or the Nordic lands were comparatively R1a1a heavy (as they are today) compared to the Germanic lands. What would be interesting is some more regional data from Britain, the Netherlands and Scandinavia and see if any more patterns emerge.

Its interesting that if we take modern populations (which may be different from the ancient populations), with Denmark at 12% R1a1a and the Netherlands at 6% R1a1a, surely if there was an average for these people it would be at about the 8-10% mark for R1a1a. If you then look at the average for England (4.5%) then it could be something like 50% contribution on average. Assuming that R1a1a also follows the east-west cline (as well as Norwegian settlement), then places in the east would hypothetically rise above 50% contribution based on this factor, and less than 50% in more western places, which i don't think is far from comparable with other y-dna haplogroups. I believe Maciamo made a thread some time ago, and about 65% or so of Lineages were Anglo-Saxon/Danish, 11% Near Eastern and just over 30% British. I don't know whether this is still current but it seems logical, appears similar to the Weale study and (apparently) to the People of the British Isles project.

It's interesting that North and East Germany seem to be significantly more 'Slavic' (which makes sense i guess). But i guess the big difference between Nordic and Germanic populations is that Nordic populations are primarily a mix of I1/R1a/R1b, while Germanic populations have R1a1a as a more minor component, and Celtic populations it is at very low levels. It's been said a thousand times i'm sure, although i think R1a1a is probably the best y-dna marker for tracking any sort of migrations from the eastern side of the North Sea into western Europe, because the distinction between R1b/R1a is much more clear than between R1b/I1 in my opinion.

The Normans are interesting because they were not just Scandinavian, rather a mixture of Scandinavian, northern French, Breton and Flemish if you count all involved, or at least that's the impression i've received from people who know a lot about it. So i don't think it would be accurate to track their contribution by comparing it Scandinavian populations, as they were much more of a mixture.

Another thing to note i guess is that the Dutch are (apparently) significantly closer to the British/English than Scandinavians or Germans. I guess this could be due to:

1) The Dutch better represent the original Anglo-Saxons than modern day North Germans and Danes.
2) The two share ancestry from two groups (perhaps the shared Germanic and Celtic elements?)
3) The Saxons were more weighted towards what is now the Netherlands than to Denmark/Northern Germany.
4) The two areas were populated by similar source populations, and changes occurred in the source populations that didn't in the two resulting populations.

Obviously it's all hypothetical, but it's interesting - From my perspective it seems like R1a1a is really useful for looking into the ancestry of western Europeans (ironically), i don't know what the situation is like with eastern Europe and R1b though, as there seems to be more east-west movement throughout the whole history of Europe.

Someone correct me if i've made mistakes or misunderstandings - Just felt like making a comment :].

Kind Regards,
Sam Jackson

It could be that those Dutch-Anglo-Saxons you refer to represent the North-West-Block (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordwestblock), which are considered only partially as germanic. The Scandinavians with their elevated R1a and eastern component would then represent the true original germanic population. There are a few satem influences in germanic languages too. It is also interesting that East-Germanic is extinct, such that there is only north germanic and west germanic left today. The latter might have been the not so germanic north-west-block dialect (gemanized celts?). German language of today Germany also belongs to the west germanic dialect, and the R1a here could indeed stem partially from recent slavic or baltic sources, but I don't think this is the case for scandinavia (north germanic dialects).

Jackson · Jun 10, 2012

Yes i think you are right there - I've heard of this North-West-Block before, and that area corresponds quite strongly with the Germanic place-name connections between England and the continent, while there is some connection with southern Denmark and Northern Germany, the is also a large connection with Northwest Germany, the Netherlands and all the way down to Belgium at the southern extent of the North-West-Block. This is just similar naming conventions but it it does seem to fit in with the genetic data too, in any sense if there is a connection between England and the continent then it is strongest with the North-West-Block it seems.

That's interesting about East Germanic dying out, looking at that map of R1a1a posted above it seems that it was a major component of the Nordic Bronze Age (presumably?), and some of it south of Scandinavia is later Slavic expansion, although i would have thought that on Germany's Baltic coasts it would be more Baltic contribution?

I think it's a funny argument in regards to defining what is 'Germanic', because surely the Germanic language was forged from the mixing of Nordic and Celtic populations - So i would have thought that by definition Germanic peoples are a mixture of Nordic and Celtic, with the modern Nordic peoples being primarily made up of the 'source population', and with modern West Germanic peoples being the product of this mixing of Nordic and Celtic populations in varying degrees. Although i would then suppose that migrations out of the historical Germanic areas would have been more like secondary migrations of Celticised Nordic peoples, (or Nordicised Celtic peoples?).

Of course if you use modern Nordic populations as the original Germanic population, then West Germanic peoples are indeed more Celtic than Germanic genetically broadly speaking, but i suppose is difficult as to where to draw the line - As in that scenario most of the Germans that f.e the Romans encountered were just Germanicised (don't think that is actually a word) Celts with a chip on their shoulder from that perspective. In any case it looks like a rather messy continuum, but there is a relatively clear distinction between North Germanic and West Germanic peoples, and between Germanic and Celtic peoples, i guess someone could draw up 'zones' and see how they correlate geographically and linguistically.

Interesting stuff!

Kind Regards,
Sam Jackson

ElHorsto · Jun 10, 2012

Jackson said:
That's interesting about East Germanic dying out, looking at that map of R1a1a posted above it seems that it was a major component of the Nordic Bronze Age (presumably?), and some of it south of Scandinavia is later Slavic expansion, although i would have thought that on Germany's Baltic coasts it would be more Baltic contribution?

According to history and any other evidence, north-eastern Germany was inhabited by Slavs, i.e. Obotrites, Polabians, Pommeranians. By looking at the map of Mecklenburg-Pomerania one can find 80% of place names being slavic (for instance Kritzmow, Schwerin, Barth, Lübeck, Rostock, Lüchow, Cottbus, Priwall). That stretches over to Lower-Saxony and Schleswig-Holstein. Or take Kramnitse as an example for Denmark. The river Elbe was the border in today northern Germany between old Germany and slavic lands. Magdeburg was a border town. Note, I'm skipping the south-german history here.
There is a vital slavic minority called Sorbs in today Germany, close to the czech and polish border. They are catholic, while the neighbouring germans are protestants. The region around Lüchow-Dannenberg in eastern Lower-Saxony was presumably polabian slavic speaking until 18th or 19th century.

The Baltic component should be not relevant, since original Prussians lived in north-eastern Poland and Lithuania. Although there have been recent post WWII refugees from Estonia and Königsberg (East-Prussia, today Kaliningrad, Russian enclave), who might have brought some Y-HG N to Germany.

Superficially, the slavic history could perfectly explain R1a and easterm components in west-germanic speaking northern Germany, while the north-germanic R1a has been shown to be related to central asia, and not to eastern europe. This is somewhat mysterious, however I still think that Corded-Ware people have brought it to scandinavia. I personally believe that Corded-Ware people were crucial for germanic ethnogenesis, and that they were predominantly R1a Indo-Europeans.
Still I can't understand why there is no significant genetic difference then between north-west and north-east germany, both having very typical germanic Y-lineages, similar to Norway (approx. 33% of each, R1b, I1, R1a, resp.). Further, the Y-lineage composition differs strongly from the slavic Poles and Sorbs, who have much more R1a. I did not expect such a strong genetic border.
Actually I'm missing information about the specific R1a lineages of northern Germany. If anyone can help me out here, that would be nice. If they turn out to be slavic, then the north-west german R1a still remains unexplained.

I think it's a funny argument in regards to defining what is 'Germanic', because surely the Germanic language was forged from the mixing of Nordic and Celtic populations - So i would have thought that by definition Germanic peoples are a mixture of Nordic and Celtic, with the modern Nordic peoples being primarily made up of the 'source population',

Well, what is actually Nordic? I agree that I1 corresponds very well with today Scandinavians, but I still would bet its origin is from palaeolitic mediterranean-atlantic folks (Atlantic_med component) which came here either during the neolithic (TRB culture) or brought by second hand from travellers like the Samii or such. The original "Nordic" hunter-gatherer population was probably more related to R1a and N in my opinion.
The East European admixture map shows the K7 analysis, which I think is less meaningful than to K12. The K7 East European component peaks in the Baltic, exactly where North-European component peaks in K12. I think K7 East European is strongly overlapping with K12 North-European. Maybe it is merely a recent branch. To put it short: The various North-East-European admixture components look like a continuum.

and with modern West Germanic peoples being the product of this mixing of Nordic and Celtic populations in varying degrees. Although i would then suppose that migrations out of the historical Germanic areas would have been more like secondary migrations of Celticised Nordic peoples, (or Nordicised Celtic peoples?).

That is also my impression.

Of course if you use modern Nordic populations as the original Germanic population, then West Germanic peoples are indeed more Celtic than Germanic genetically broadly speaking, but i suppose is difficult as to where to draw the line - As in that scenario most of the Germans that f.e the Romans encountered were just Germanicised (don't think that is actually a word) Celts with a chip on their shoulder from that perspective. In any case it looks like a rather messy continuum, but there is a relatively clear distinction between North Germanic and West Germanic peoples, and between Germanic and Celtic peoples, i guess someone could draw up 'zones' and see how they correlate geographically and linguistically.

I also think that Southern Germany is more Celtic than northern Germany.

zanipolo · Jun 10, 2012

IMO, below is the old east-germanic marker ( goths, vandals, bastanae, heruli etc, etc) because I do not beleive that 100% of peoples migrated, I think a portion always remained back to secure a base.

5.M6. Northern; sub-cluster 'B' (Type "Ib"/part of "WEA")
M417+, Z283+, Z280+
R1a1a1g2
This is a moderately common cluster with members widely spread over a large portion of continental Europe, ranging from Western Germany to Russia, and from Denmark to Italy and Greece, although it seems to be most frequent in Poland, Eastern Germany, Ukraine and Slovakia.

The M6 cluster is also known as type Ib in the classification by P. Gwozdz and L. Mayka. It corresponds roughly to the Western Eurasian branch 3 (red pins, A. Klyosov and I. Rozhanskii) and Vyatichi-East (Molgen.org).
The STR markers that distinguish this cluster from other sub-clusters within the broad category M are:
DYS390>24, DYS19>16, DYS385b=13, DYS439=11, DYS458=15, DYS576=17, DYS570>18, DYS578=8, DYS520=20, DYS463=25, DYS643=9 and DYS461=12.

The M6 cluster is negative for the L784 SNP marker.

5.MX.Close to Northern
M417+, Z283+, Z280+
R1a1a1g2
This is a group of haplotypes that basically resemble other haplotypes from the category M, although they don't fit any well-defined cluster.

The geographical distribution of the well-defined clusters M5 and M6, together with the less specific MX grouping, is shown below:

And below I beleive are the "pure" slavic areas, as south slavs and russians are not IMO pure slavs

5.O. Carpathian II (Type "B"/ "WEA-2")
M417+, Z283+, Z280+
R1a1a1g2

The map fits the so called slavic migration to the west as per polish historians

zanipolo · Jun 10, 2012

ElHorsto said:
It could be that those Dutch-Anglo-Saxons you refer to represent the North-West-Block (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordwestblock), which are considered only partially as germanic. The Scandinavians with their elevated R1a and eastern component would then represent the true original germanic population. There are a few satem influences in germanic languages too. It is also interesting that East-Germanic is extinct, such that there is only north germanic and west germanic left today. The latter might have been the not so germanic north-west-block dialect (gemanized celts?). German language of today Germany also belongs to the west germanic dialect, and the R1a here could indeed stem partially from recent slavic or baltic sources, but I don't think this is the case for scandinavia (north germanic dialects).

I agree with you that the germanic people moved from north to south making "high German" a "dialect" of western german. So areas of southern germany and austria would fall under this dialect

ElHorsto · Jun 10, 2012

Thanks, interesting maps. "Northern" cluster representing old east germanic makes some sense, but I think it also must represent some slavic. Else I can not explain the lack of "Carpatian II" at baltic shores of germany and poland, if only Carpathian would represent slavs. Interesting how much there is in non-slavic speaking Romania, while it is lacking in slavic-speaking Bulgaria and Serbia.

zanipolo · Jun 10, 2012

ElHorsto said:
Thanks, interesting maps. "Northern" cluster representing old east germanic makes some sense, but I think it also must represent some slavic. Else I can not explain the lack of "Carpatian II" at baltic shores of germany and poland, if only Carpathian would represent slavs. Interesting how much there is in non-slavic speaking Romania, while it is lacking in slavic-speaking Bulgaria and Serbia.

well the baltic shores are classified as pommeranian-prussian , which comprise of the old rugii, legii, gepid, venedi, aestii people and baltic prussians

5.J1. Pomeranian-Prussian; sub-cluster 'A' (Type "J"/part of "BC")
M417+, Z283+, Z280+
R1a1a1g2
5.J2. Pomeranian-Prussian; sub-cluster 'B' (Type "J"/part of "BC")
M417+, Z283+, Z280+
R1a1a1g2

5.J3. Prussian (Type "Kw"/part of "CEA")
M417+, Z283+, Z280+, L366+
R1a1a1g2c

5.J4. Austro-Hungarian cluster (- / part of "BC")
M417+, Z283+, Z280+
R1a1a1g2

5.JX. Close to Pomeranian-Prussian (Type "J"/part of "BC")
M417+, Z283+, Z280+
R1a1a1g2

5.K. Pomeranian (Type "G"/"NE")
M417+, Z283+, Z280+, L365+
R1a1a1g2b

This clade is relatively common on the South Baltic coast, especially in the Pomerania region. Most clade members live today in Poland or Germany (frequently bearing Slavic surnames).
Its most recent common ancestor could have lived 2900±400 years ago (as calculated by I. Rozhanskii).
The clade is also known as type G (by. P. Gwozdz) or Northern European branch (by A. Klyosov, I. Rozhanskii), while in the classification of Molgen.org it is also named Pomeranian (Forum.Molgen.org)

Among the characteristic values of Y-STR markers are:
DYS458>16, DYS464=13-15-15-16, DYS413=21-22, DYS557>15, DYS446>12.

The clade has its own SNP mutation called L365.
The geographical distribution of L365+ is shown below:

The austro-hungarin cluster on the first map are said to be the ancient Rugii

ElHorsto · Jun 10, 2012

zanipolo said:
well the baltic shores are classified as pommeranian-prussian , which comprise of the old rugii, legii, gepid, venedi, aestii people and baltic prussians

But the evidence of slavic toponyms in Mecklenburg-Pomerania is overwhelming. It is hard to find any non-slavic toponym there. Further, the Pomeranian-Prussian cluster in the map does not reach Mecklenburg and Schleswig-Holstein. It barely reaches west pomerania, if I understand the map correctly.

ElHorsto · Jun 10, 2012

mihaitzateo said:
So I saw the autosomal DNA maps from this site from here:
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/autosomal_maps_dodecad.shtml

View attachment 5664

As a very curious thing,where norwegian vikings raided in UK (Scotland) there is more eastern-european admixture.
In England and Wales and Ireland is almost no eastern european admixture.
From what I know,but I might be wrong,anglo saxons came from present day Germany to England and after Y DNA it seems more paternal lines in England are from anglo-saxons.So is clear,old anglo-saxons were not bearing almost at all eastern european admixture.
There is also known that normans moved to England,but I do not know how many from normans were norwegian vikings and I also do not know how many from normans were vikings and how many normans actually mixed the population of England.
So I think is a plausible explanation that eastern european admixture from Scotland was brought by norwegian vikings.
And this is what I was thinking,that it was possible that R1A1 norse vikings,the norwegian vikings had a pretty significant percentage of eastern european admixture,beside their usual north western european admixture from which they got mostly.
As for eastern european admixture in Germany that should be from old prussians,with which old germans it seems mixed and gave today germans.
I was wondering what is the opinion of other people about this.

The newer K12b analysis provides a completely different picture than these maps, which makes much more sense to me. In K12b, the "West_euro" component disappears and instead a new "Atlantic_Med" pops up with a peak in Basque country. The "East_european" component changes to "North_european", which stretches much more to the west than in this map, while still preserving its previous peak in fenno-balticum.

To put it short: I think both, the West and East european admixtures are no true components. According to K12b instead:

West_euro = Atlantic_med + North_euro + Gedrosian
East_euro = North_euro + Caucasus

That means in some places like north Germany and Britain the yellow color in the map disappears too quickly because of the changing Caucasus and Gedrosian admixtures, which make up both a minority. But the North_euro part, which makes 80% of "East_european" is still present in NW-europe and represents a large overlap with east europeans.
In other places like south Germany and northern Balkans OTH, there might be too much yellow because of high Caucasus component. The problem here is that the Caucasus component probably is unrelated to eastern europeans there, but instead came from neolithic farmers which eventually met North_euro folks. This may create a false "East_european" yellow color there.
One speculative theory could be that Caucasus component (8%) got into eastern europe later and introduced satem language, while in Scandinavia and Atlantic coasts the Gedrosian (8%) component predominates instead.

zanipolo · Jun 10, 2012

ElHorsto said:
But the evidence of slavic toponyms in Mecklenburg-Pomerania is overwhelming. It is hard to find any non-slavic toponym there. Further, the Pomeranian-Prussian cluster in the map does not reach Mecklenburg and Schleswig-Holstein. It barely reaches west pomerania, if I understand the map correctly.

but names of places change over time, what was the mecklenburg names in roman times, i bet they where not slavic.

like danzig became gdansk...what was it in roman times?

the only "slavic" cluster for mecklenburg of R1a1 is

And again, claiming slavic due to linguistic reasons ruins the true genetic history

maybe this is not even mecklenburg!!

zanipolo · Jun 11, 2012

As genetics gets deeper and deeper into the genetic trail, then claims of R1a or R1a1 being this or that become less significant

ElHorsto · Jun 11, 2012

zanipolo said:
but names of places change over time, what was the mecklenburg names in roman times, i bet they where not slavic.

like danzig became gdansk...what was it in roman times?

the only "slavic" cluster for mecklenburg of R1a1 is

And again, claiming slavic due to linguistic reasons ruins the true genetic history

maybe this is not even mecklenburg!!

The point is that history of "Ostkolonisation" of the Slavs by the Saxon Ottones is well documented. So I'd expect considerable genetic traces. Perhaps this map may show what I was looking for. And you think this is not from slavs but from balts?

zanipolo · Jun 11, 2012

ElHorsto said:
The point is that history of "Ostkolonisation" of the Slavs by the Saxon Ottones is well documented. So I'd expect considerable genetic traces. Perhaps this map may show what I was looking for. And you think this is not from slavs but from balts?

what I am saying is that as these genetic trails deepen , then original names of ancient peoples should be revealed and not the linguistic names of tribes of people that medieval or ancient historians say they where.

So, was there slavic people, then which tribes where they?...there names!!!
maybe in mecklenburg where roxlani or alans ( sarmatian people). They could have been called slavs because they spoke a slavic dialect, only time will tell.
What is clear is the slavic claim that all the east europe was slavic is being diluted as time advances.

same with germany, being germanic in this forum says nothing, where you are macromanni or boii or osi, these are the questions you need to ask.
again, gallic...what is it?.....saying you are unelli person, will say you are from normandy, saying you are gallic tells me nothing.

This is how I see the picture here

ElHorsto · Jun 11, 2012

zanipolo said:
what I am saying is that as these genetic trails deepen , then original names of ancient peoples should be revealed and not the linguistic names of tribes of people that medieval or ancient historians say they where.

So, was there slavic people, then which tribes where they?...there names!!!

The most prominent tribe was Obotrites http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obotrites, I'm refering to Wikipedia since it is undisputed fact.
They were allies of Charlemagne against Saxons. Later they got integrated by the Saxons etc. There you can read the very detailed history.

maybe in mecklenburg where roxlani or alans ( sarmatian people). They could have been called slavs because they spoke a slavic dialect, only time will tell.
What is clear is the slavic claim that all the east europe was slavic is being diluted as time advances.
same with germany, being germanic in this forum says nothing, where you are macromanni or boii or osi, these are the questions you need to ask.
again, gallic...what is it?.....saying you are unelli person, will say you are from normandy, saying you are gallic tells me nothing.

So you mean that Obotrites were not slavic by origin? That's interesting and would be a new discovery.

zanipolo · Jun 11, 2012

ElHorsto said:
[/B]
The most prominent tribe was Obotrites http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obotrites, I'm refering to Wikipedia since it is undisputed fact.
They were allies of Charlemagne against Saxons. Later they got integrated by the Saxons etc. There you can read the very detailed history.

So you mean that Obotrites were not slavic by origin? That's interesting and would be a new discovery.

there is the Wehli also spelt as per below
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warini
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suardones

mihaitzateo · Jun 11, 2012

So actually north-western european admixture is pretty same with eastern european admixture?
Except northwestern european admixture is northern european admixture + few gedrosia while eastern european admixture is northern european admixture + some caucasian admixture?

Norwegian vikings and east-european admixture?

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Regular Member