PDA

View Full Version : Iron Age and Early Medieval Polish DNA



Tomenable
28-06-17, 15:04
Analysis of Iron Age and Early Medieval Polish genomes:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6522-Early-Medieval-aDNA-from-Poland-coming-soon&p=252846&viewfull=1#post252846

PCA with two Iron Age and one Early Medieval samples:

http://i.imgur.com/Kwmjsds.png

Syky
28-06-17, 15:19
So the Wielbark culture was really Germanic, Swedish-like.

Tomenable
28-06-17, 15:28
So the Wielbark culture was really Germanic, Swedish-like.

Kow_25 looks Germano-Celtic. But Kow_55 seems more mixed (at least in other analyses, I'm not sure why this cannot be seen in PCA, probably because PCA is only two-dimensional):

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6522-Early-Medieval-aDNA-from-Poland-coming-soon&p=252881&viewfull=1#post252881

Kow_25 in MDLP K11 Oracle:

Using 1 population approximation:
1 British_IronAge @ 7.434154
2 Nordic_BA @ 9.274955
3 British_Celtic @ 10.62579
4 British_AngloSaxon @ 10.796147
5 Bell_Beaker_Germany @ 11.44074
6 Hungary_BA @ 11.495719
7 Nordic_LBA @ 11.755705
8 Alberstedt_LN @ 12.342703
9 Halberstadt_LBA @ 12.429883
10 Nordic_IA @ 12.46921

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6522-Early-Medieval-aDNA-from-Poland-coming-soon&p=252862&viewfull=1#post252862

Kow_55 in nMonte restricted:

Welsh 44.80
Ukrainian_West 41.45
Pl_north 8.30
(...)

Tomenable
28-06-17, 15:31
Niem_34 (Early Medieval Poland) compared to RISE568 (Early Medieval Czechia):

RISE569 (the other Early Medieval Czech) plots close to Polish Wielbark samples.

http://i.imgur.com/r4mVqTN.png

http://i.imgur.com/r4mVqTN.png

Sile
28-06-17, 19:20
So the Wielbark culture was really Germanic, Swedish-like.

agree, if we think that gothic was only Germanic and swedish at that time or could it have some west-baltic element as well

Fire Haired14
28-06-17, 22:19
Well that's annoying. I was told Weilbark was rich in Y DNA G2/I2 and was really similar to HungaryBA. I guess you can never trust leaks. Like the leak which said Baltic HGs were basically WHG only referred to Lithuanian HGs. All other Baltic HGs, including the ones with R1b, had a huge chunk of ANE/EHG.

Angela
28-06-17, 22:33
Since the samples for which results have been posted were I1, I2, and G2a2, the "leak" would seem to have been accurate. These people were Germanic in ancestry, not Slavic.

What the other samples will show we don't know.

Tomenable
28-06-17, 23:02
K36 nMonte with use of the following ancient samples gives me ~13% of Wielbark:

IA = Iron Age
BA = Bronze Age
MA = Middle Ages

[1] "1. CLOSEST SINGLE ITEM DISTANCES"
IA_Wielbark_Kow55 IA_Sweden_RISE174 IA_Hungary_IR1
21.94205 24.22627 25.08156
IA_Gladiator_6DRIF22 MA_Slavic_RISE568 MA_Slavic_Niem34
26.65775 27.15263 29.48630
IA_Scythian_I0247 IA_British_6DRIF18
30.46349 30.81313

Tomenable

IA_Hungary_IR1 31.50
BA_Sudovia_RISE598 29.55
MA_Slavic_Niem34 13.80
IA_Wielbark_Kow55 13.15
IA_Gladiator_6DRIF22 6.20
MA_Slavic_RISE568 5.10
BA_Armenia_RISE412 0.65
HG_Ethiopia_Mota 0.05
IA_Sarmatian_I0575 0.00
IA_Gladiator_3DRIF26 0.00
IA_British_6DRIF18 0.00
IA_British_6DRIF23 0.00
IA_CelticBriton_HI1 0.00
IA_CelticBriton_HI4 0.00
IA_Wielbark_Kow25 0.00
IA_Wielbark_Mas5 0.00
MA_AngloSaxon_HS3 0.00
HG_Australia_Abo 0.00
BA_Armenia_RISE397 0.00
IA_Scythian_I0247 0.00
IA_Sweden_RISE174 0.00
MA_Iran_I1955 0.00

When I include more of Bronze Age European samples, my Wielbark share drops to ~6%, but the problem here is that we are mixing Bronze Age "ancestors" with their Iron Age "descendants" in the same comparison:

[1] "1. CLOSEST SINGLE ITEM DISTANCES"
BA_Cuiavia_PLN17 BA_Hungary_BR1 IA_Wielbark_Kow55
16.19202 17.58834 21.94205
BA_Denmark_RISE276 BA_Hungary_BR2 BA_EastGermany_I0116
21.99232 23.60180 23.68750
IA_Sweden_RISE174 IA_Hungary_IR1
24.22627 25.08156

Tomenable

BA_Sudovia_RISE598 22.10
BA_Hungary_BR2 21.00
IA_Hungary_IR1 19.20
BA_Cuiavia_PLN17 11.15
MA_Slavic_RISE568 11.00
MA_Slavic_Niem34 10.00
IA_Wielbark_Kow55 5.55
IA_Sarmatian_I0575 0.00
IA_Gladiator_3DRIF26 0.00
IA_British_6DRIF18 0.00
IA_British_6DRIF23 0.00
IA_Gladiator_6DRIF22 0.00
IA_CelticBriton_HI1 0.00
IA_CelticBriton_HI4 0.00
IA_Wielbark_Kow25 0.00
IA_Wielbark_Mas5 0.00
MA_AngloSaxon_HS3 0.00
HG_Ethiopia_Mota 0.00
HG_Australia_Abo 0.00
BB_Czechia_RISE566 0.00
BA_Silesia_RISE150 0.00
BA_Silesia_RISE154 0.00
BA_Czechia_RISE577 0.00
BA_Czechia_RISE586 0.00
BA_EastGermany_I0803 0.00
BA_EastGermany_I0099 0.00
BA_EastGermany_I0047 0.00
BA_EastGermany_I0116 0.00
BA_EastGermany_I0164 0.00
BA_Hungary_BR1 0.00
BA_Hungary_RISE373 0.00
BA_Hungary_RISE374 0.00
BA_Denmark_RISE276 0.00
BA_Armenia_RISE397 0.00
BA_Armenia_RISE412 0.00
IA_Scythian_I0247 0.00
IA_Sweden_RISE174 0.00
MA_Iran_I1955 0.00

========================

BR2 is a curious case because it always shows up for Poles in nMonte runs (as long as it is included in these runs). The original study also showed that it has the highest genetic affinity with modern Poles:

http://www.pnas.org/content/113/2/368.full

https://s10.postimg.org/dyq6cc0nt/BR2.png

But a BR2-like population does not explain the majority of ancestry of modern Poles.

Only something between less than 1/5 and ca. 1/3 (depending on region of Poland).

matbir
29-06-17, 08:11
So the Wielbark culture was really Germanic, Swedish-like.Not exactly, these are samples taken from inhumation found surrounded by wielbark stuff. Due to custom of cremation of dead among Wilebark people these are unusual cases, but the easiest to be sampled. Probably they have been immigrants.

Fire Haired14
29-06-17, 08:20
The Wielbark I1 is I1a3-Z63, the I1 clade Maciamo calls continental. A Serbian member here belongs to it.

@Tomenable,

How many SNPs do the Weilbark and Medival genomes have? If they have only like 2,000 we can't be too confident about their results. Can you run them through Dodecade K12b so we can get an idea what their EEF, WHG, Steppe numbers are?

matbir
29-06-17, 08:32
The Wielbark I1 is I1a3-Z63, the I1 clade Maciamo calls continental. A Serbian member here belongs to it. Actually it is I1a2a1a1d1a1a1b1 which according to yfull.com is found in Sweden only.

Maciamo
29-06-17, 09:20
Actually it is I1a2a1a1d1a1a1b1 which according to yfull.com is found in Sweden only.

Yfull only lists the countries for one or a few samples for each clade. It is not representative of where the clades are found, which is why I created my own (hopefully more legible) phylogenetic trees (http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/phylogenetic_trees_Y-DNA_haplogroups.shtml) where I added as many countries as possible for each clade. For I1 clades I have made the depth of the tree to represent a chronological timeline, so that people have a better idea of when a mutation appeared and how long it took for the next mutation to develop. Branches with lots of successive mutations represent larger populations (i.e. fast expanding lineages, often linked with ruling classes in the case of ancient paternal lineages).

Here is the tree for I1-Z63

http://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/I1-Z63-tree.png


However, if that sample belongs to I1a2a1a1d1a1a1b1 and it uses the ISOGG nomenclature, it is I1-S14669 downstream of Z60, Z73, L1302 and Y5448. That would be a Scandinavian lineage that expanded during the Late Iron Age, and therefore could be Gothic, Vandal or a closely related tribe.

http://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/I1-Z60-tree.png

Tomenable
29-06-17, 10:10
@Tomenable,

How many SNPs do the Weilbark and Medival genomes have? If they have only like 2,000 we can't be too confident about their results.

Yeah they don't have many SNPs. These are only "screening results", they were published as part of a study on microbes associated with ancient human DNA. So they are not final results, we still need to wait for the actual study.

I think they have only 2000 ancestry-informative markers (according to Vadim Verenich).

Tomenable
29-06-17, 10:45
Kowalewko_45 looks autosomally "Eastern" (similar to modern Western Ukrainians and Northern Poles):

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6522-Early-Medieval-aDNA-from-Poland-coming-soon&p=253369&viewfull=1#post253369

So we have autosomally Germano-Celtic and Balto-Slavo-Iranic results in the same cemetery / settlement.

One sample also looks like a 50/50 mix of those two groups.

==============

Some images from Kowalewko cemetery:

http://www.muzarp.poznan.pl/zewnetrzne/arena/kowalewko/kowalewko.html

mlukas
29-06-17, 19:19
Yeah they don't have many SNPs. These are only "screening results", they were published as part of a study on microbes associated with ancient human DNA. So they are not final results, we still need to wait for the actual study.

I think they have only 2000 ancestry-informative markers (according to Vadim Verenich).

Bullshit. In Gedmatch those genomes have about 15 000 SNP. And Markowice_7 even 26 0000 SNP...

Tomenable
29-06-17, 20:33
My K36 nMonte after adding Mar7:

1) With Bronze Age samples:

BA_Cuiavia_PLN17 22.05
LBA_Sudovia_RISE598 16.50
BA_Hungary_BR2 12.45
MA_Slavic_Niem34 10.75
IA_Wielbark_Kow55 10.30
MA_Slavic_Mar7 10.00
IA_Hungary_IR1 8.15
MA_Slavic_RISE568 8.05
BA_Hungary_RISE374 1.40
IA_Wielbark_Mas5 0.35
IA_Sarmatian_I0575 0.00
IA_Gladiator_3DRIF26 0.00
IA_British_6DRIF18 0.00
IA_British_6DRIF23 0.00
IA_Gladiator_6DRIF22 0.00
IA_CelticBriton_HI1 0.00
IA_CelticBriton_HI4 0.00
IA_Wielbark_Kow25 0.00
IA_Wielbark_Kow22 0.00
IA_Wielbark_Kow45 0.00
MA_AngloSaxon_HS3 0.00
HG_Ethiopia_Mota 0.00
HG_Australia_Abo 0.00
BB_Czechia_RISE566 0.00
BA_Silesia_RISE150 0.00
BA_Silesia_RISE154 0.00
BA_Czechia_RISE577 0.00
BA_Czechia_RISE586 0.00
BA_EastGermany_I0803 0.00
BA_EastGermany_I0099 0.00
BA_EastGermany_I0047 0.00
BA_EastGermany_I0116 0.00
BA_EastGermany_I0164 0.00
BA_Hungary_BR1 0.00
BA_Hungary_RISE373 0.00
BA_Denmark_RISE276 0.00
BA_Armenia_RISE397 0.00
BA_Armenia_RISE412 0.00
IA_Scythian_I0247 0.00
IA_Sweden_RISE174 0.00
MA_Iran_I1955 0.00

2) Without Bronze Age samples:

LBA_Sudovia_RISE598 26.35
IA_Hungary_IR1 23.55
IA_Wielbark_Kow55 19.65
MA_Slavic_Niem34 14.95
MA_Slavic_Mar7 11.65
IA_Gladiator_6DRIF22 2.00
IA_Wielbark_Mas5 1.85
IA_Sarmatian_I0575 0.00
IA_Gladiator_3DRIF26 0.00
IA_British_6DRIF18 0.00
IA_British_6DRIF23 0.00
IA_CelticBriton_HI1 0.00
IA_CelticBriton_HI4 0.00
IA_Wielbark_Kow25 0.00
IA_Wielbark_Kow45 0.00
IA_Wielbark_Kow22 0.00
MA_AngloSaxon_HS3 0.00
HG_Ethiopia_Mota 0.00
HG_Australia_Abo 0.00
BA_Armenia_RISE397 0.00
BA_Armenia_RISE412 0.00
IA_Scythian_I0247 0.00
IA_Sweden_RISE174 0.00
MA_Iran_I1955 0.00
MA_Slavic_RISE568 0.00

Maybe I will add some Iberian samples.

Tomenable
29-06-17, 20:39
RISE598 (Late Bronze Age Sudovia) is dated to 908-585 BC.

Here is the cultural situation in Eastern Europe at that time:

https://s14.postimg.org/i4ymfgafl/Eastern_and_Central_Europe_around_750_BC.png

https://s14.postimg.org/i4ymfgafl/Eastern_and_Central_Europe_around_750_BC.png

LeBrok
30-06-17, 02:43
Wielbark Culture was always suspected to belong to Goths, on their way to Black Sea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wielbark_culture

However it was said by archeologists that Wielbark contained two separate ethnicities living side by side.  It makes sense as Goths didn't have time to mix with local population on their fast pace to the Black Sea.  IIRC, they marched from Baltic to Black Sea in about 150 years.  I wonder who was the second ethnicity of Wielbark Culture.  Germanic, Baltic or Slavic?

LeBrok
30-06-17, 02:58
K36 nMonte with use of the following ancient samples gives me ~13% of Wielbark:




========================

BR2 is a curious case because it always shows up for Poles in nMonte runs (as long as it is included in these runs). The original study also showed that it has the highest genetic affinity with modern Poles:

http://www.pnas.org/content/113/2/368.full

https://s10.postimg.org/dyq6cc0nt/BR2.png

But a BR2-like population does not explain the majority of ancestry of modern Poles.

Only something between less than 1/5 and ca. 1/3 (depending on region of Poland).
It has to be more. I'm achieving the best modeled modern polish genome when using 70% BR2 and 30% Samara HG. I'm not saying this is exactly what happened, but it means major role of Hungarian Bronze, or Hungarian Bronze like population, in polish genome.

LeBrok
30-06-17, 03:08
Niem_34 (Early Medieval Poland) compared to RISE568 (Early Medieval Czechia):

RISE569 (the other Early Medieval Czech) plots close to Polish Wielbark samples.

http://i.imgur.com/r4mVqTN.png

http://i.imgur.com/r4mVqTN.png
I could see from admixtures that the Chechia sample looked slavic, close to my genome. Interesting is that these two samples are shifted more "east" on this chart than modern Slavs. Do you know who plots "South-East" from them? Hungarians, Bulgarians, BR2, or nobody? Looks like modern Slavs mixed with Central Asians and Germans and got shifted "west" on this chart.

mlukas
30-06-17, 09:47
Mar_7. At least first Slav without much doubts here.

WestMed frequency probably biased. But it doesn't change results much.

K36

Amerindian -
Arabian -
Armenian -
Basque -
Central_African -
Central_Euro 3.00
East_African -
East_Asian -
East_Balkan -
East_Central_Asian -
East_Central_Euro 23.43
East_Med -
Eastern_Euro 31.46
Fennoscandian 0.06
French 18.70
Iberian -
Indo-Chinese -
Italian 14.66
Malayan -
Near_Eastern -
North_African -
North_Atlantic -
North_Caucasian -
North_Sea -
Northeast_African -
Oceanian -
Omotic -
Pygmy 0.27
Siberian -
South_Asian -
South_Central_Asian -
South_Chinese -
Volga-Ural -
West_African -
West_Caucasian -
West_Med 8.38


oracle-spreadsheet

First 20 Populations distance
1 Ukrainian_North_East 80,70
2 Ukrainian_Central 85,77
3 Ukrainian_Poltava 87,88
4 Slovak 89,92
5 Russian_Kursk 91,59
6 PL_South_Poland 96,22
7 PL_Upper_Silesia 96,22
8 Russian_Oryol 96,53
9 Russian_Center 97,34
10 Carpathian_Rusyns 97,39
11 Ukrainian_West 97,68
12 PL_average 98,66
13 Russian_Smolensk 99,14
14 Ukrainian_Chernigov 100,77
15 PL_Mazovia 101,02


nMonte

restricted
Ukrainian_North_East 87
IT_Sardinia 13
Russian_Kursk 0
Ukrainian_Central 0
Moksha 0
Russian_Pskov 0

full
Ukrainian_North_East 60.85
IT_Sardinia 13.95
Moksha 11.40
Russian_Kursk 6.20
Ukrainian_Central 4.90
Russian_Pskov 1.05
Ukrainian_Poltava 0.75
Bulgaria 0.25
Erzya 0.25
Serbian 0.15
Russian_Center 0.10
Russian_Smolensk 0.10
Slovak 0.05

[1] "1. CLOSEST SINGLE ITEM DISTANCES"
Ukrainian_North_East Ukrainian_Central Ukrainian_Poltava
28.40781 29.28682 29.64486
Slovak Russian_Kursk PL_South_Poland
29.98624 30.26425 31.01948
PL_Upper_Silesia Russian_Oryol
31.01975 31.07004

Admix4

Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Ukrainian_North_East @ 28,459469
2 Ukrainian_Central @ 29,339293
3 Ukrainian_Poltava @ 29,697336
4 Slovak @ 30,038609
5 Russian_Kursk @ 30,319436
6 PL_South_Poland @ 31,071054
7 PL_Upper_Silesia @ 31,072267
8 Russian_Oryol @ 31,124764
9 Russian_Center @ 31,254703
10 Carpathian_Rusyns @ 31,257305
11 Ukrainian_West @ 31,309697
12 PL_average @ 31,462178
13 Russian_Smolensk @ 31,538691
14 Ukrainian_Chernigov @ 31,797107
15 PL_Mazovia @ 31,833941
16 Moksha @ 32,031611
17 Moldavian @ 32,036561
18 Belarusian_East @ 32,080014
19 Russian_Tambov @ 32,112993
20 Russian_Ryazan_Tula @ 32,343811
336 iterations.

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 Ukrainian_North_East+Ukrainian_North_East @ 28,459469
2 Ukrainian_Central+Ukrainian_North_East @ 28,841808
3 Slovak+Ukrainian_North_East @ 28,917943
4 Ukrainian_North_East+Ukrainian_Poltava @ 28,965726
5 Russian_Kursk+Ukrainian_North_East @ 29,250329
6 Serbian+Ukrainian_North_East @ 29,321054
7 Ukrainian_Central+Ukrainian_Central @ 29,339293
8 Moksha+Ukrainian_North_East @ 29,448796
9 Carpathian_Rusyns+Ukrainian_North_East @ 29,466548
10 Ukrainian_Central+Ukrainian_Poltava @ 29,486067
11 Croatian+Ukrainian_North_East @ 29,500402
12 Slovak+Ukrainian_Central @ 29,511642
13 PL_Upper_Silesia+Ukrainian_North_East @ 29,517055
14 PL_South_Poland+Ukrainian_North_East @ 29,524795
15 West_Serbian+Ukrainian_North_East @ 29,560489
16 Slovak+Russian_Kursk @ 29,626743
17 Ukrainian_West+Ukrainian_North_East @ 29,632265
18 Moldavian+Ukrainian_North_East @ 29,635172
19 Serbian+Russian_Pskov @ 29,656256
20 Romania_SE+Ukrainian_North_East @ 29,679025
56616 iterations.

Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Ukrainian_North_East +25% Bulgaria +25% Ukrainian_North_East @ 28,28299
2 50% Ukrainian_North_East +25% IT_Sardinia +25% Ukrainian_North_East @ 28,313821
3 50% Ukrainian_North_East +25% Serbian +25% Ukrainian_North_East @ 28,332145
4 50% Ukrainian_North_East +25% IT_Sardinia +25% Russian_Pskov @ 28,398127
5 50% Ukrainian_North_East +25% South_Romania +25% Ukrainian_North_East @ 28,398844
6 50% Ukrainian_North_East +25% Albania_Montenegro +25% Ukrainian_North_East @ 28,421643
7 50% Ukrainian_North_East +25% Montenegro +25% Ukrainian_North_East @ 28,42956
8 50% Ukrainian_North_East +25% IT_Sardinia +25% Russian_Kursk @ 28,465179
9 50% Ukrainian_North_East +25% Romania_SE +25% Ukrainian_North_East @ 28,475643
10 50% Ukrainian_North_East +25% Bosnian +25% Ukrainian_North_East @ 28,475938
11 50% Ukrainian_North_East +25% Macedonia_FYROM +25% Ukrainian_North_East @ 28,501689
12 50% Ukrainian_North_East +25% IT_Sardinia +25% Moksha @ 28,518899
13 50% Ukrainian_North_East +25% Gr_Eubea +25% Ukrainian_North_East @ 28,533272
14 50% Ukrainian_North_East +25% West_Serbian +25% Ukrainian_North_East @ 28,547913
15 50% Ukrainian_North_East +25% Bulgaria +25% Russian_Kursk @ 28,565801
16 50% Ukrainian_North_East +25% Swiss_Italian +25% Ukrainian_North_East @ 28,566788
17 50% Ukrainian_North_East +25% Bulgaria +25% Moksha @ 28,569706
18 50% Ukrainian_North_East +25% Serbian +25% Moksha @ 28,578856
19 50% Ukrainian_North_East +25% Kosovo +25% Ukrainian_North_East @ 28,59089
20 50% Ukrainian_North_East +25% Slovak +25% Ukrainian_North_East @ 28,602864
18966360 iterations.

Using 4 populations approximation:
1 Bulgaria+Ukrainian_North_East+Ukrainian_North_East +Ukrainian_North_East @ 28,28299
2 IT_Sardinia+Ukrainian_North_East+Ukrainian_North_E ast+Ukrainian_North_East @ 28,313821
3 Serbian+Ukrainian_North_East+Ukrainian_North_East+ Ukrainian_North_East @ 28,332145
4 IT_Sardinia+Russian_Pskov+Ukrainian_North_East+Ukr ainian_North_East @ 28,398127
5 South_Romania+Ukrainian_North_East+Ukrainian_North _East+Ukrainian_North_East @ 28,398844
6 Albania_Montenegro+Ukrainian_North_East+Ukrainian_ North_East+Ukrainian_North_East @ 28,421643
7 Montenegro+Ukrainian_North_East+Ukrainian_North_Ea st+Ukrainian_North_East @ 28,42956
8 Ukrainian_North_East+Ukrainian_North_East+Ukrainia n_North_East+Ukrainian_North_East @ 28,459469
9 IT_Sardinia+Russian_Kursk+Ukrainian_North_East+Ukr ainian_North_East @ 28,465179
10 Romania_SE+Ukrainian_North_East+Ukrainian_North_Ea st+Ukrainian_North_East @ 28,475643
11 Bosnian+Ukrainian_North_East+Ukrainian_North_East+ Ukrainian_North_East @ 28,475938
12 Macedonia_FYROM+Ukrainian_North_East+Ukrainian_Nor th_East+Ukrainian_North_East @ 28,501689
13 IT_Sardinia+Moksha+Ukrainian_North_East+Ukrainian_ North_East @ 28,518899
14 Gr_Eubea+Ukrainian_North_East+Ukrainian_North_East +Ukrainian_North_East @ 28,533272
15 West_Serbian+Ukrainian_North_East+Ukrainian_North_ East+Ukrainian_North_East @ 28,547913
16 Bulgaria+Russian_Kursk+Ukrainian_North_East+Ukrain ian_North_East @ 28,565801
17 Swiss_Italian+Ukrainian_North_East+Ukrainian_North _East+Ukrainian_North_East @ 28,566788
18 Bulgaria+Moksha+Ukrainian_North_East+Ukrainian_Nor th_East @ 28,569706
19 Serbian+Moksha+Ukrainian_North_East+Ukrainian_Nort h_East @ 28,578856
20 Kosovo+Ukrainian_North_East+Ukrainian_North_East+U krainian_North_East @ 28,59089
21 Slovak+Ukrainian_North_East+Ukrainian_North_East+U krainian_North_East @ 28,602864
22 Bulgaria+Ukrainian_Central+Ukrainian_North_East+Uk rainian_North_East @ 28,610697
23 Serbian+Russian_Kursk+Ukrainian_North_East+Ukraini an_North_East @ 28,623485
24 Croatian+Ukrainian_North_East+Ukrainian_North_East +Ukrainian_North_East @ 28,627597
25 IT_Sardinia+Russian_Kursk+Russian_Pskov+Ukrainian_ North_East @ 28,629755
26 Bulgaria+Russian_Pskov+Ukrainian_North_East+Ukrain ian_North_East @ 28,631981
27 Ukrainian_Central+Ukrainian_North_East+Ukrainian_N orth_East+Ukrainian_North_East @ 28,635925
28 Serbian+Ukrainian_Central+Ukrainian_North_East+Ukr ainian_North_East @ 28,641482
29 IT_Sardinia+Moksha+Russian_Pskov+Ukrainian_North_E ast @ 28,650999
30 IT_Sardinia+Latvian+Ukrainian_North_East+Ukrainian _North_East @ 28,655533
31 Albania_Montenegro+Moksha+Ukrainian_North_East+Ukr ainian_North_East @ 28,656925
32 IT_Tuscany+Ukrainian_North_East+Ukrainian_North_Ea st+Ukrainian_North_East @ 28,65738
33 Albania_Montenegro+Russian_Kursk+Ukrainian_North_E ast+Ukrainian_North_East @ 28,662756
34 Moksha+Montenegro+Ukrainian_North_East+Ukrainian_N orth_East @ 28,682945
35 Ukrainian_North_East+Ukrainian_North_East+Ukrainia n_North_East+Ukrainian_Poltava @ 28,683558
36 IT_Sardinia+Ukrainian_Central+Ukrainian_North_East +Ukrainian_North_East @ 28,686871
37 Albania_Montenegro+Russian_Pskov+Ukrainian_North_E ast+Ukrainian_North_East @ 28,687653
38 Bulgaria+Ukrainian_North_East+Ukrainian_North_East +Ukrainian_Poltava @ 28,688643
39 IT_Sardinia+Russian_Pskov+Russian_Pskov+Ukrainian_ North_East @ 28,694406
40 IT_Sardinia+Russian_Kursk+Russian_Kursk+Ukrainian_ North_East @ 28,694457
540597876 iterations.


Gaussian method.
Noise dispersion set to 0,130062

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Slovak @ 6,725254
2 Austria @ 6,858821
3 Czechs_Moravians @ 6,938283
4 Slovenian @ 7,019197
5 Ukrainian_West @ 7,085939
6 Croatian @ 7,155005
7 PL_Upper_Silesia @ 7,249587
8 Carpathian_Rusyns @ 7,262995
9 German_East @ 7,276328
10 Hungary @ 7,381625
11 West_Serbian @ 7,386223
12 Romania_NW @ 7,420296
13 Serbian @ 7,420402
14 Montenegro @ 7,531517
15 Bosnian @ 7,538772
16 PL_South_Poland @ 7,683759
17 Romania_SE @ 7,777678
18 PL_SE_Carpathia @ 7,883126
19 Macedonia_FYROM @ 7,895253
20 South_Romania @ 8,016415
336 iterations.

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 Swiss_Italian+Russian_Pskov @ 6,247863
2 France_Central+Russian_Pskov @ 6,314634
3 Swiss_Italian+Latvian @ 6,319281
4 France_Central+Latvian @ 6,370342
5 Swiss_Italian+Ukrainian_North_East @ 6,435817
6 Swiss_Italian+Russian_Kursk @ 6,466648
7 France_Central+Ukrainian_North_East @ 6,486163
8 Spain_Baleares+Russian_Pskov @ 6,494815
9 Austria_Tyrol+Russian_Pskov @ 6,498486
10 Swiss_Italian+PL_Mazovia @ 6,498604
11 France+Russian_Pskov @ 6,507121
12 Swiss_Italian+Russian_Smolensk @ 6,513487
13 France_South+Russian_Pskov @ 6,520684
14 France_Central+Russian_Kursk @ 6,559061
15 Swiss_Italian+Russian_Center @ 6,561592
16 Swiss_Italian+Lithuanian @ 6,564071
17 France_Central+Russian_Smolensk @ 6,565838
18 Austria_Tyrol+Latvian @ 6,583971
19 Spain_Valencia+Russian_Pskov @ 6,584093
20 Swiss_Italian+Russian_Ryazan_Tula @ 6,584781
56616 iterations.

Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Swiss_Italian +25% Russian_Pskov +25% Russian_Pskov @ 6,247863
2 50% Swiss_Italian +25% Latvian +25% Russian_Pskov @ 6,276589
3 50% Russian_Pskov +25% Swiss_Italian +25% Russian_Pskov @ 6,277087
4 50% Russian_Pskov +25% Swiss_Italian +25% PL_Upper_Silesia @ 6,284221
5 50% Russian_Pskov +25% Swiss_Italian +25% Austria @ 6,288985
6 50% Russian_Pskov +25% Swiss_Italian +25% Slovak @ 6,295705
7 50% Russian_Pskov +25% Swiss_Italian +25% Ukrainian_Poltava @ 6,30173
8 50% Russian_Pskov +25% Swiss_Italian +25% Ukrainian_North_East @ 6,302908
9 50% Russian_Pskov +25% Swiss_Italian +25% PL_Mazovia @ 6,307407
10 50% Russian_Pskov +25% IT_Sardinia +25% SE_England @ 6,310865
11 50% Russian_Pskov +25% IT_Sardinia +25% England_Cumberland @ 6,310865
12 50% France_Central +25% Russian_Pskov +25% Russian_Pskov @ 6,314634
13 50% Ukrainian_North_East +25% Swiss_Italian +25% Russian_Pskov @ 6,318722
14 50% Swiss_Italian +25% Latvian +25% Latvian @ 6,319281
15 50% Russian_Pskov +25% Swiss_Italian +25% France_Central @ 6,320374
16 50% PL_Upper_Silesia +25% Swiss_Italian +25% Russian_Pskov @ 6,328505
17 50% Russian_Pskov +25% Swiss_Italian +25% Ukrainian_West @ 6,328816
18 50% France_Central +25% Latvian +25% Russian_Pskov @ 6,336579
19 50% Russian_Pskov +25% Swiss_Italian +25% PL_average @ 6,337722
20 50% Russian_Pskov +25% Swis

mlukas
30-06-17, 09:48
mtDNA

Kowalewko_55 U5b2a1a
Kowalewko_49 U3
Kowalewko_23 U3a
Kowalewko_57 U4
Kowalewko_45 H1e1a
Kowalewko_28 H5a
Kowalewko_22 H1a
Kowalewko_26 K
Kowalewko_29 K
Kowalewko_51 T2b6


Maslomecz_5 H16


Niemcza_34 HV0a
Niemcza_13 J1c3e1 lub J1b1a1
Niemcza_18 L3
Niemcza_19 K2c
Niemcza_32 T2


Markowice_7 Haplogroup J1c

mlukas
30-06-17, 11:35
Okhttp://www.anthrogenica.com/images/smilies1/smile.gif I'm not specialist. I only checked Eupedia...

K - s particularly common in Northwest Europe

H16: found primarily in Germanic countries and Poland, but also in India / found in the Neolithic Rössen culutre in Germany
H5a: found in the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture
H1e: found throughout Europe, including among the Basques, and in Iran (Qashqai) / found in Neolithic Germany
H1a: found throughout Europe

HV0 - The highest percentages of haplogroup HV in Europe are observed in Calabria (10%), Sicily (5%), Tuscany (5%), Sardinia (4.5%), Bulgaria (4%), southern Belarus (4%), Croatia (3.5%), Ukraine (3.5%), Iceland (3.5%), Greece (3%), Cyprus (2.5%), and Romania (2.5%).

U5b2a: found in Epipaleolithic France and Neolithic Germany
U3 - rare in Europe, primarily a Near Eastern and Caucasian lineage
U4 - Generally speaking, U4 is more common in Baltic and Slavic countries and around the Caucasus than anywhere else.

T2- Haplogroup T2 peaks among the Udmurts (24%) and the Chechen-Ingush of Daghestan (12.5%). After that T2 is most frequently encountered in the Netherlands (12%), Sardinia (10%), Iceland (10%), Switzerland (9.5%), Hungary (8.5%) and Ukraine (8.5%), as well as among many ethnic groups around the Caucasus such as the Kumyks (10%), Azeri (9.5%) and Georgians (9%).
T2b - found at high frequencies throughout Europe (especially around the Alps) and at lower frequencies in North Asia, Central Asia and the Middle East

J1c3e : found in central and north-eastern Europe
J1b1a1 : found in western Europe

Rethel
30-06-17, 13:21
Goths didn't have time to mix with local population on their fast pace to the Black Sea.  IIRC, they marched from Baltic to Black Sea in about 150 years.

Very fast... you just get the proof that you have no idea about time.
Nothing strange, that you, and people similar to you couldn't understand
how much it is hundreds of thousands or millions of years, becasue you
all do not understand even how much it is 150 years.

LeBrok
30-06-17, 15:09
Not exactly, these are samples taken from inhumation found surrounded by wielbark stuff. Due to custom of cremation of dead among Wilebark people these are unusual cases, but the easiest to be sampled. Probably they have been immigrants. If this sample was buried, instead of cremated as local people did, and plotting with northern Germanics, it should mean that it was from migrating population of Goths.

Milan.M
30-06-17, 15:32
For the "Goths" we need samples from Chernyakov culture where this people were recorded.Wielbark can be atributed to any people,it's free choice.Who recorded a Gothic migration from Wielbark to Chernyakov,let alone Scandinavia.Beatiful imagination but the Gothi/Getae were living in Chernyakov culture zone since written history exist.

mlukas
30-06-17, 17:08
For the "Goths" we need samples from Chernyakov culture where this people were recorded.Wielbark can be atributed to any people,it's free choice.Who recorded a Gothic migration from Wielbark to Chernyakov,let alone Scandinavia.Beatiful imagination but the Gothi/Getae were living in Chernyakov culture zone since written history exist.


The Getae are sometimes confused with the Goths (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goths) in works of early medieval authors

Time to learn something new...

Milan.M
30-06-17, 17:27
Actually I know this period very well and they weren't confused by their contemporaries,they precisely knew this people Gothi or Getae.The myth was maded by Romanticists that they were distinct and even Germanic instead Thracian, there is books also on the matter instead only wiki.

Rethel
01-07-17, 00:35
Time to learn something new...

Not necessarly, becasue at the time Goths arrived, Gets were vanished.
And depending on the dialect, Goths were spelling differently, in some
pronounciaction like Geats (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geats), what probably influenced Jordanian Getica.
He surely did not write about Gets, especially, that at his times Goths
were living since almost 200 years on the ex roman territory.

The vowel was very diverse: e, ea, au, ö, u, o etc.

It is also not exclude, that scandinavian and wielbark Goths
were not a part of some old Indoeuropean tribe, which splitted
across indoeuropean world, before division unto Germans and
the rest. We have such entites like: Getae in Romania, Mssageta
in Central Asia, Gutium in ancient Mesopotiamia with IE traces,
Tyssagetae in volgian Russia, some researchers also claim, that
Goths from Poland who later invaded Roman Enpire, has nthing to
do withn those from Scandia, and which are divaded themselves
on three separated groups.

Similar transIE situation has palce with other tribal entities - similar
to some celtic, germanic or slavic tribes which were present in totally
different places of slavic, germanic or celtic world at the same time
after they did spread across Europe. Similarly could be with IEs.

mlukas
01-07-17, 17:23
Similar transIE situation has palce with other tribal entities - similar
to some celtic, germanic or slavic tribes which were present in totally
different places of slavic, germanic or celtic world at the same time
after they did spread across Europe. Similarly could be with IEs.

I can agree that some IE ethnonyms were strangely popular and occured far away from each other.

Let's see:

1. Cimmerians from south Ukraine (Krym maybe after them), Cimbrians from Jutland, Sicambri (mythological Frankish ancestors), Cymru (Wales). Maybe biblical Gomer. Gimri in modern Georgian means hero.
I have read (forgot where) about theory that Cimmerians were pushed byt invading Scythians to Central Europe and carried Iron technology into what was later Hallstat Culture. They imposed themsleves as elite over those people. Some of them were Celts, some Germans later. And nobody knows who exactly were Cimmerians (proto-Thracians, Indo-Aryans?)

2. Venedians in Poland, in what is now Latvia, in Armorica, in what is now Switzerland (Vindelics), Asia Minor (Enetoi), in NE-Italy. Vendsysell in Jutland and Vandals also are included???

3. Some say Scots and Scythians are also similar.

Milan.M
01-07-17, 19:23
..............

A. Papadimitriou
01-07-17, 19:45
I can agree that some IE ethnonyms were strangely popular and occured far away from each other.

Let's see:

1. Cimmerians from south Ukraine (Krym maybe after them), Cimbrians from Jutland, Sicambri (mythological Frankish ancestors), Cymru (Wales). Maybe biblical Gomer. Gimri in modern Georgian means hero.
I have read (forgot where) about theory that Cimmerians were pushed byt invading Scythians to Central Europe and carried Iron technology into what was later Hallstat Culture. They imposed themsleves as elite over those people. Some of them were Celts, some Germans later. And nobody knows who exactly were Cimmerians (proto-Thracians, Indo-Aryans?)

2. Venedians in Poland, in what is now Latvia, in Armorica, in what is now Switzerland (Vindelics), Asia Minor (Enetoi), in NE-Italy. Vendsysell in Jutland and Vandals also are included???

3. Some say Scots and Scythians are also similar.

Also Danes and Danaans but there's also the tribe Dan of Israel, so chance similarities may exist.

The thing with the Getae that makes it different for me is that they appear in the same regions and that various authors 'confuse' one for another quite often.
Also, 19th century German historians claimed everything they could have as 'Germanic' and we have inherited that tradition.
Basically questioning their germanicness isn't that important for me, but questioning the migration model is quite important because it isn't supported by anything.

Rethel
01-07-17, 20:41
I can agree that some IE ethnonyms were strangely popular and occured far away from each other.

Let's see:

1. Cimmerians from south Ukraine (Krym maybe after them), Cimbrians from Jutland, Sicambri (mythological Frankish ancestors), Cymru (Wales). Maybe biblical Gomer. Gimri in modern Georgian means hero.
I have read (forgot where) about theory that Cimmerians were pushed byt invading Scythians to Central Europe and carried Iron technology into what was later Hallstat Culture. They imposed themsleves as elite over those people. Some of them were Celts, some Germans later. And nobody knows who exactly were Cimmerians (proto-Thracians, Indo-Aryans?)

Yes, it is the most logical and coherent theory.
In that case they would be just proto R1b.


2. Venedians in Poland, in what is now Latvia, in Armorica, in what is now Switzerland (Vindelics), Asia Minor (Enetoi), in NE-Italy. Vendsysell in Jutland and Vandals also are included???

And probably Wyatycze (from Wętycze <= Wentycze)
maybe even some less recognizable forms like Vieleci
(Velety from venet?). Who knows. I wouldb't be surrprize
if it would be one of possible original IE names, or maybe
even the name created form the name of the patriarch.


3. Some say Scots and Scythians are also similar.

And Skolots, Scandia, Askanians (the ancient ones), Ask (first man in Norse mythology) Sk-l-av-in-s and similar.
Such names can be derived from the common patriarch, Askenaz (whi surely gave the name to the
Skythinas according to assyrian cunie tablets.

Rethel
01-07-17, 21:00
Also Danes and Danaans but there's also the tribe Dan of Israel, so chance similarities may exist.

The tribe of Dan certainly not, cause have surely different origin.

Danaans - all what is known about them is this, that they
were from Egypt, so even in the myth they were not IEs,
and according to the same story, died out in first generation.

If nordic Danes could be connected to anything,
then it is Tuatha de Dannan from Ireland.

A. Papadimitriou
01-07-17, 23:03
The tribe of Dan certainly not, cause have surely different origin.

Danaans - all what is known about them is this, that they
were from Egypt, so even in the myth they were not IEs,
and according to the same story, died out in first generation.

If nordic Danes could be connected to anything,
then it is Tuatha de Dannan from Ireland.

Well, they say that there is a 'PIE' root *dan which means water or something, so theoretically one could use that to support an etymological relationship. In general etymologies of ethnonyms are quite often obscure, even the more accepted ones can be contested.
The point is chance similarities really exist but each case is different.

mlukas
02-07-17, 14:16
Proof that my mtDNA analysis using BAM Tool was good....

Here http://www.academia.edu/31963766/Han...%C3%B3w_1_.pdf (http://www.academia.edu/31963766/Handschuh_L._...Piontek_J._..2016_W_poszukiwaniu_P iast%C3%B3w_1_.pdf)
on page 70 Kowalewko_23 (PCA0028) has mtDNA U3a1a. In my analysis U3a... So it was only more detailed.

I really didn't know this sample was analyzed before!

So from Piontek I can add:

Markowice_1 (PCA0152) - U5a2b1c
Niemcza__28 (PCA0142) - T2b


Kowalewko
Kow_55 is I1
possible mtdna U5b2a1a

Kow_22 - G-P303
possible mtdna H1a

Kow_57 - G-L30
possible mtdna U4

Kow_45 - I2, I2: Z2631/PF3623+ Z2673/CTS12003/PF3846+,I-M436: L35/S150/PF3862+ S5818/FGC3530+I-L801: S12350/FGC3570+
possible mtdna H1e1a

possible females:
Kowalewko_49 U3
Kowalewko_23 U3a1a
Kowalewko_28 H5a
Kowalewko_26 K
Kowalewko_29 K
Kowalewko_51 T2b6

Markowice
Mar_7 - I1, probably I-Y3603
possible mtdna J1c

Masłomęcz
female probably:
Mas_5 H16

Niemcza
possible male:
Niemcza_13 J1c3e1 lub J1b1a1

possible females:
Niemcza_34 HV0a
Niemcza_19 K2c
Niemcza_32 T2

Legnica
possibly male:
H1b2 or H5a1c1

Syky
02-07-17, 14:50
Did anyone upload the new samples on GEDMatch?

mlukas
02-07-17, 15:39
M070872 Kowalewko_22 looks reasonable
M218986 Kowalewsko_51 looks partly biased

M279138 Niemcza_18 ???

M518184 Mas_5 rather ok

T533353 mar7 looks very NE-Euro, rather ok?

T855386 Kow_26, biased but trend is very NW-Euro

Syky
02-07-17, 18:30
M070872 Kowalewko_22 looks reasonable
M218986 Kowalewsko_51 looks partly biased

M279138 Niemcza_18 ???

M518184 Mas_5 rather ok

T533353 mar7 looks very NE-Euro, rather ok?

T855386 Kow_26, biased but trend is very NW-Euro

Thanks! But all of them look unreliable with so few SNPs... only rough estimate.

LeBrok
02-07-17, 19:33
Thanks! But all of them look unreliable with so few SNPs... only rough estimate. I agree. Rather poor quality samples. They roughly look Northern European but it is hard to say anything much precisely.

MOESAN
02-07-17, 23:36
I can agree that some IE ethnonyms were strangely popular and occured far away from each other.

Let's see:

1. Cimmerians from south Ukraine (Krym maybe after them), Cimbrians from Jutland, Sicambri (mythological Frankish ancestors), Cymru (Wales). Maybe biblical Gomer. Gimri in modern Georgian means hero.
I have read (forgot where) about theory that Cimmerians were pushed byt invading Scythians to Central Europe and carried Iron technology into what was later Hallstat Culture. They imposed themsleves as elite over those people. Some of them were Celts, some Germans later. And nobody knows who exactly were Cimmerians (proto-Thracians, Indo-Aryans?)

2. Venedians in Poland, in what is now Latvia, in Armorica, in what is now Switzerland (Vindelics), Asia Minor (Enetoi), in NE-Italy. Vendsysell in Jutland and Vandals also are included???

3. Some say Scots and Scythians are also similar.

I recall Cymru/ "Kymbri" came from celtic *com-brog- ("same-land" or "sharing same-country", nothing else, cf 'britt- 'brog', gaël- 'mruc', germ- 'mark', perhaps lat- 'marg-'), apparently well distinct of Cimmerians and maybe from Cimbri - concerning Sicambri I don't know the syllabing of the word and maybe others don't know more than I do...
Taranis could help?
That 's not to deny some I-E tribes names could have survived later divisions.

mlukas
03-07-17, 10:33
I agree. Rather poor quality samples. They roughly look Northern European but it is hard to say anything much precisely.

Generally those results are of course from smaller number of snps. And in such case minor regional components are usually lacking. But those which stayed show obvious trends in specific genomes. If somebody was mostly NW-Euro he has elevated to enormous level North Sea frequency for example, but I'm sure with bigger number of snps he would be still NW-Euro but more averaged.

I will made experiment with my genome:) I will cut every Chr to level similar to to those genomes and we will see if I will have for example 40% Central-East Euro and 35% East-Euro in K36. Or 70% Baltic in K13...

LeBrok
03-07-17, 16:02
Generally those results are of course from smaller number of snps. And in such case minor regional components are usually lacking. But those which stayed show obvious trends in specific genomes. If somebody was mostly NW-Euro he has elevated to enormous level North Sea frequency for example, but I'm sure with bigger number of snps he would be still NW-Euro but more averaged.With bigger number of snps we can pinpoint it regional location or ethnic group. With smaller number it is much harder and could be inconclusive.


I will made experiment with my genome:) I will cut every Chr to level similar to to those genomes and we will see if I will have for example 40% Central-East Euro and 35% East-Euro in K36. Or 70% Baltic in K13...I like your experiment. From my understanding, if you cut to the similar level as these samples are, you will see the admixtures ratios screwed up.

Rethel
03-07-17, 17:03
I recall Cymru/ "Kymbri" came from celtic *com-brog- ("same-land" or "sharing same-country", nothing else, cf 'britt- 'brog', gaël- 'mruc', germ- 'mark', perhaps lat- 'marg-'), apparently well distinct of Cimmerians and maybe from Cimbri - concerning Sicambri I don't know the syllabing of the word and maybe others don't know more than I do...
Taranis could help?
That 's not to deny some I-E tribes names could have survived later divisions.

But modern etymology can be, and mostly
is misguiding, if the word has ancient origin.

Milan.M
04-07-17, 09:07
.............................

Tomenable
05-07-17, 05:06
Sample Niemcza_13 from Early Medieval Poland belongs to I2a-Din:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6522-Early-Medieval-aDNA-from-Poland-coming-soon&p=255823&viewfull=1#post255823

So far none of Iron Age Polish samples belongs to I2a-Din or R1a.

This is now one of the oldest I2a-Din samples in ancient DNA, right?:

Niemcza_13 (900-1000 AD), I2a1b2-L621+, mtDNA J1c3e1

Location of Niemcza (to the west of Krosno):

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

http://chrzest966.pl/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/mapa-Millenium-Plus-Hanna-Kocka-ryc1.bmp

Tomenable
05-07-17, 15:23
Niemcza_18, 900-1000 AD, Y-DNA: J2a1a-L26+ (exact subclade under L26 uncertain).

This SNP - L26 - links Early Medieval Pole Niemcza_18 with Bronze Age Hungarian BR2:

https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Y17946*/

http://i.imgur.com/T5OZYzB.png

Both Niemcza_18 and BR2 were J2a1, M410+ and L26+.

================

And autosomal similarity of BR2 to modern populations:

http://s10.postimg.org/dyq6cc0nt/BR2.png

LeBrok
05-07-17, 16:45
Niemcza_18, 900-1000 AD, Y-DNA: J2a1a-L26+ (exact subclade under L26 uncertain).

This SNP - L26 - links Early Medieval Pole Niemcza_18 with Bronze Age Hungarian BR2:

https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Y17946*/

http://i.imgur.com/T5OZYzB.png

Both Niemcza_18 and BR2 were J2a1, M410+ and L26+.

================

And autosomal similarity of BR2 to modern populations:

http://s10.postimg.org/dyq6cc0nt/BR2.png In agreement with my modeled Polish genome. First 3 columns are the sources for the 4th column, which is the product. Mine/Polish genome is in fifth to check validity of the model. Right upper corner shows ratios. Polish genome can be composed from 70% BR2 and 30%EHG.



Rise150
0

BR2, J-M67
0.7

I0124
0.3








F999948
Poland, late Unetice, 1750BC
F999933
Hungarian Bronze/Badden
M218547
EHG

My modeled





Poland, slask 3.75 kya
3.5kya

Hungary, Ludas-Varjú-dűlő,
3.3kya

Samara HG
7.6 kya

Composition

Mine



Run time
8.44

Run time
15.13

Run time
5.57

Run time


Run time
20.5


S-Indian
0

S-Indian
0

S-Indian
0

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
0.62


Baloch
14.65

Baloch
3.15

Baloch
14.33

Baloch
6.50

Baloch
7.47


Caucasian
2.73

Caucasian
14.73

Caucasian
0

Caucasian
10.31

Caucasian
10.05


NE-Euro
53.54

NE-Euro
46.18

NE-Euro
75.62

NE-Euro
55.01

NE-Euro
57.28


SE-Asian
0

SE-Asian
0.2

SE-Asian
0

SE-Asian
0.14

SE-Asian
0.54


Siberian
0

Siberian
0

Siberian
0

Siberian
-

Siberian
1.22


NE-Asian
0

NE-Asian
0

NE-Asian
0

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
0.35


Papuan
0.48

Papuan
0.18

Papuan
0

Papuan
0.13

Papuan
-


American
0.22

American
0

American
9.62

American
2.89

American
-


Beringian
0.49

Beringian
0

Beringian
0.15

Beringian
0.05

Beringian
0.07


Mediterranean
27.12

Mediterranean
31.73

Mediterranean
0

Mediterranean
22.21

Mediterranean
21.53


SW-Asian
0

SW-Asian
3.33

SW-Asian
0

SW-Asian
2.33

SW-Asian
0.86


San
0

San
0

San
0

San
-

San
-


E-African
0.34

E-African
0

E-African
0

E-African
-

E-African
-


Pygmy
0

Pygmy
0

Pygmy
0

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-


W-African
0.42

W-African
0.48

W-African
0.2

W-African
0.40

W-African
-



In reality Polish genome will come from more complicated sources than I showed but the main point is that modern Polish peole have bigger roots in Hungarian Bronze than with Unetice Culture (the Bronze Culture which existed in Polish territory).

Tomenable
05-07-17, 17:00
Modeling Poles as a mix of Late Bronze Age BR2 and Mesolithic EHG is not a good idea IMHO. Because EHG is much older than BR2, and EHG no longer existed in the Bronze Age. We should use only samples from Late Bronze Age and Iron Age - because people who lived at that time were "direct ancestors" of Early Medieval people.


Unetice Culture (the Bronze Culture which existed in Polish territory)

Unetice culture covered only one part of Polish territory - in South-Western Poland.

BTW have you tried this?: http://gen3553.pagesperso-orange.fr/ADN/ancient.htm

LeBrok
05-07-17, 17:32
Modeling Poles as a mix of Late Bronze Age BR2 and Mesolithic EHG is not a good idea IMHO. Because EHG is much older than BR2, and EHG no longer existed in the Bronze Age. We should use only samples from Late Bronze Age and Iron Age - because people who lived at that time were "direct ancestors" of Early Medieval people.



Unetice culture covered only one part of Polish territory - in South-Western Poland.

BTW have you tried this?: http://gen3553.pagesperso-orange.fr/ADN/ancient.htm I know, I just didn't have time to refine it. I'll try to fix it tonight. However, EHG is dominant in Yamnaya anyway, so technically lots of it will be used in the model just under different name. I'm sure RB2 will still dominate anyway, too many models and research are in agreement.

mlukas
05-07-17, 20:30
Delete above maps with Niemcza (because there are two same towns). Officialy this is legit:)

link to PDF (https://oup.silverchair-cdn.com/oup/backfile/Content_public/Journal/gigascience/PAP/10.1093_gigascience_gix044/2/gix044.pdf?Expires=1499371833&Signature=TSwtQM8dFG9wNIYWUVX-HFd1QEBAXuRK6wDC1rcL8snD-0CMVA1s~hOms7uyZZEN5JrmN03zIckxAth3EvQaSdjLmhYnhvm lVt3qnHoL9-Hx0m57wBRCwojidi5iJDfZQJM00O~LjsGY~1PoXzq2TQOst~mJ GqRNbMDPI25fY6l9EN1oGcXHDS~2NETsDP5mH~eqAdJU1SDBsB xx42ieBK3gVrc7ro3JUGMl6vPfbZ7l2mQSry2sOrdHm4CWswyA mI-Oj-xd8rbhftwM0APVbWTYOOzYnZX14aGGwIVtkVUgOJT06gecaEAi IgC6kxUmicd51pVr7pZzXpy87LsDzw__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIUCZBIA4LVPAVW3Q)

https://s4.postimg.org/3n9kl6d5p/mapa.jpg

MOESAN
06-07-17, 00:15
But modern etymology can be, and mostly
is misguiding, if the word has ancient origin.


I'm not a two weeks old rabbit, please - 'Combrog' is based on solid ground and modern 'Cymru' (breton 'Kembre') is for the land, the other form, for the people, 'Cymro' is selfspeaking - by the way a Gaulish celtic tribe was named 'Combrog(es)' "compatriotes"-
-
serious etymology is a science, and based upon chains of attested old forms so "modern etymology" is not so modern! - reconstructions are based upon statistical evolutions and corpus of forms tending to converge as we go back in time with older ones (so sometimes unsure, spite guessed by scientists), and guesses and bets by forumers or sellers of pseudo-scientific bestsellers based upon only some hazardous ressemblances is another thing and I agree I red some beautiful pieces of this last sort in fora (here and elsewhere) -

MOESAN
06-07-17, 00:23
I can agree that some IE ethnonyms were strangely popular and occured far away from each other.

Let's see:

1. Cimmerians from south Ukraine (Krym maybe after them), Cimbrians from Jutland, Sicambri (mythological Frankish ancestors), Cymru (Wales). Maybe biblical Gomer. Gimri in modern Georgian means hero.
I have read (forgot where) about theory that Cimmerians were pushed byt invading Scythians to Central Europe and carried Iron technology into what was later Hallstat Culture. They imposed themsleves as elite over those people. Some of them were Celts, some Germans later. And nobody knows who exactly were Cimmerians (proto-Thracians, Indo-Aryans?)

2. Venedians in Poland, in what is now Latvia, in Armorica, in what is now Switzerland (Vindelics), Asia Minor (Enetoi), in NE-Italy. Vendsysell in Jutland and Vandals also are included???

3. Some say Scots and Scythians are also similar.

Proofs of links between these old names??? (possible for some ones, surely not for all of them): we are approaching magic wild etymology and it's not without importance for History - I already answered for Cymru - Sicambri have more chances to be broken in 'sic-ambr' than 'si-cambr-' I think - and for the possible cognate words, a PIE ancient name can have produced more than one tribe name in diverse places without recent links ; caution! -

LeBrok
06-07-17, 00:43
Modeling Poles as a mix of Late Bronze Age BR2 and Mesolithic EHG is not a good idea IMHO. Because EHG is much older than BR2, and EHG no longer existed in the Bronze Age. We should use only samples from Late Bronze Age and Iron Age - because people who lived at that time were "direct ancestors" of Early Medieval people.



Unetice culture covered only one part of Polish territory - in South-Western Poland.

BTW have you tried this?: http://gen3553.pagesperso-orange.fr/ADN/ancient.htm
Again, the Hungary Bronze Age 1,500 BC - Hungary (Vatya) - Rise479 is first with 76% (BR2 - 66%), second 3,000 BC - Sweden - Ajvide58 at 71% which is WHG/SHG with a bit of EEF, and third at 68% is Iron Age Czech 0 BC - Czech R. - Rise569. The two Unetice samples are at 54.

LeBrok
06-07-17, 04:03
Modeling Poles as a mix of Late Bronze Age BR2 and Mesolithic EHG is not a good idea IMHO. Because EHG is much older than BR2, and EHG no longer existed in the Bronze Age. We should use only samples from Late Bronze Age and Iron Age - because people who lived at that time were "direct ancestors" of Early Medieval people.



Unetice culture covered only one part of Polish territory - in South-Western Poland.

BTW have you tried this?: http://gen3553.pagesperso-orange.fr/ADN/ancient.htm Here I modeled modern Polish on 3 roughly contemporary to each other sources. First one is 20 % WHG, which still was lurking in not too far Latvia and maybe Belarus, 60% Hungarian Bronze, and 20% Yamnaya.




0.2


0.6


0.2








M325047
KO1, I-L68

F999933
Hungarian Bronze/Badden
M828815
Rise552

Modeled


Modern



Hungarian, Tiszaszőlős-Domaháza
7.7 kya

Hungary, Ludas-Varjú-dűlő,
3.3kya

Ulan iV, Yamnaya
4.5 kya

Polish


Polish



Run time
9.43

Run time
15.13

Run time
9.08

Run time


Run time
20.5


S-Indian
0

S-Indian
0

S-Indian
0

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
0.62


Baloch
0

Baloch
3.15

Baloch
33.24

Baloch
8.54

Baloch
7.47


Caucasian
0

Caucasian
14.73

Caucasian
6.58

Caucasian
10.15

Caucasian
10.05


NE-Euro
80.37

NE-Euro
46.18

NE-Euro
56.02

NE-Euro
54.99

NE-Euro
57.28


SE-Asian
0

SE-Asian
0.2

SE-Asian
0

SE-Asian
0.12

SE-Asian
0.54


Siberian
0

Siberian
0

Siberian
0

Siberian
-

Siberian
1.22


NE-Asian
0

NE-Asian
0

NE-Asian
0

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
0.35


Papuan
0.53

Papuan
0.18

Papuan
0

Papuan
0.21

Papuan
-


American
0

American
0

American
2.46

American
0.49

American
-


Beringian
0

Beringian
0

Beringian
0.75

Beringian
0.15

Beringian
0.07


Mediterranean
18.59

Mediterranean
31.73

Mediterranean
0

Mediterranean
22.76

Mediterranean
21.53


SW-Asian
0

SW-Asian
3.33

SW-Asian
0

SW-Asian
2.00

SW-Asian
0.86


San
0

San
0

San
0

San
-

San
-


E-African
0

E-African
0

E-African
0

E-African
-

E-African
-


Pygmy
0

Pygmy
0

Pygmy
0

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-


W-African
0.5

W-African
0.48

W-African
0.95

W-African
0.58

W-African
-




I should mention that BA Hungarian is modeled by me as 40% EEF, 50% WHG and 10% Armenia Bronze. Armenia Bronze could be substituted by 20% Anatolia Chalcolithic/BA. There is a room for a bit of Yamnaya in Hungarian BA but probably not much.

mlukas
07-07-17, 11:15
https://www.academia.edu/33791135/2017_Zenczak_.....Piontek_..._Y-%20chromosome_haplogroup_assignment_through_next_g eneration_sequencing_of_enriched_%3Cbr%20/%3Eancient_DNA_libraries

Here, we present the analysis of Y-chromosome obtained from seventeen, not yet reported, ancient male samples excavated from different burial sites in Poland: Kowalewko (Roman Iron Age), Maslomecz (Roman Iron Age), Legowo (early Middle Ages) and Niemcza (early Middle Ages).

We successfully assigned haplogroups to sixteen individuals. Eight belonged to haplogroup I1 (I-M253). Three of them belonged to the sub-branch I1a3a1a1a (I-L1237) and one to I1a2a (I-Z59). I1 is the most common haplogroup in present day Scandinavia, and it is found in all places invaded by ancient Germanic tribes and Vikings. Four samples belonged to haplogroup G2a (G-P15) which is spread uniformly throughout Europe. Other individuals were assigned to I2a2 (I-M436), R1a (R-M420), R1bl (R-L278), E1b1 (E-P2). The next portion of samples is under investigation. With this study we hope to shed new light into the genetic structure of populations inhabiting lands of contemporary Poland during the Roman Iron Age and the Middle Ages.


So out of 16:

8 I1 (I-M253)
- 3 I1a3a1a1a (I-L1237)
- 1 I1a2a (I-Z59)
- 4 just I-M253

4 G2a (G-P15)

1 I2a2 (I-m436)
1 R1a M420
1 R1b1 (R-L278)
1 E1b1 (E-P2)

How we can divide them between those few places? Any opinions? If one R1a m420 was from Wielbark or rather early Polish medieval?

Tomenable
07-07-17, 11:22
Mlukas was faster. :)

So 50% (!) of I1-M253...

Compare with 12 samples from Görzig (Saxony-Anhalt) dated to 300-400s AD:

I1 --------------------------------------------------------- 7 (~58%)
I (likely I2 but can be some Russian clade of I1) ---- 1 (~8%)
R1b ------------------------------------------------------- 1 (~8%)
R1 (most likely R1a, or some eastern R1b) ----------- 1 (~8%)
R1 (likely R1b but can be R1a-Z284 or L664) -------- 2 (~17%)

Source (see Table 3. on page 6 out of 7):

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282540455_Geschlechterverteilung_eines_Grabungsfun ds_aus_der_romischen_Kaiser-_und_Volkerwanderungszeit

Location of Görzig:

http://www.postleitzahl.org/sachsen_anhalt/images/karte_g%C3%B6rzig.png

Check my older thread about it, link:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32226-Y-DNA-from-Germany-in-the-300s-400s-AD-shows-58-frequency-of-I1-and-not-much-R1b?p=478699&viewfull=1#post478699

Tomenable
07-07-17, 12:10
Three of them belonged to the sub-branch I1a3a1a1a (I-L1237)

Subclade I-L1237 on YFull: https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-L1237/

The basal lineage of this subclade, I-L1237*, can be found here:

http://i.imgur.com/bncBRqP.png

So Jordanes was right - the Goths had originated from Sweden?

Tomenable
07-07-17, 12:27
But Wojewoda from ABF is "ancestral" to these Goths (he is I1 Z63+ S2078+ L1237-).

Maybe L1237 originated in Poland, south of the Baltic Sea, from Wojewoda's branch.

Wojewoda is an ethnic Polish user.

I1a3_Young
07-07-17, 12:32
I thought all of the I1a3 (Z63) branches were relatively rare in Sweden/Norway/Finland. Z59 is also a more continental branch.

Atlantische
07-07-17, 12:34
G-15 (G2a SNP) telling us nothing.

Tomenable
07-07-17, 12:40
But Wojewoda from ABF is "ancestral" to these Goths (he is I1 Z63+ S2078+ L1237-).

Maybe L1237 originated in Poland, south of the Baltic Sea, from Wojewoda's branch.

Wojewoda is an ethnic Polish user.Wojewoda doesn't know if he should call himself Gothorum Rex or Pater:

http://i.imgur.com/rIi1HHn.png

Fire Haired14
07-07-17, 13:10
So we can be pretty confident now I1 is infact basically Germanic. Maybe R1a Z284 and R1b U106 are non-Germanic lineages absorbed by I1 German speakers? Maybe it isn't that simple, I don't know.

Fire Haired14
07-07-17, 13:22
It's interesting that lots of I1 is found alongside lots of G2a. There are many possible reasons why that is. Maybe an I1 rich Scandinavian group, mixed with a G2a rich group native to Eastern Europe. Another possibility is both the I1 and G2a came from Scandinavia and some in Iron age Scandinavia had lots of EEF.

mlukas
07-07-17, 13:44
[FONT=Verdana]Wojewoda doesn't know if he should call himself Gothorum Rex or Pater:

http://i.imgur.com/rIi1HHn.png

Nope.

Michał from anthrogenica


Whatever is his subclade under S2078 (do you know his specific subclade downstream of S2078?), you cannot say that his subclade is "older and ancestral" to those from the paper. These are simply two parallel subclades descending from a common S2078+ ancestor.


To be classified as S2078* one would need to be tested for all known SNPs/subclades directly under S2078, and he probably hasn't been tested for any SNPs downstream of S2078 other than L1237 (not even for S2077 or Y2245, mutations defining large clades downstream of S2078 but upstream of L1237). Even if he was indeed S2078*, this would not make his modern lineage ancestral to subclade L1237, and you need to keep in mind that the common ancestor of Wojewoda and those ancient L1237 people (ie. their most recent common paternal ancestor) was ancestral to all of them the same way. (In fact, that ancestor was more closely related to those ancient "Poles/Goths", but this is only because these are ancient samples).

If I was tested for just two mutations, let's say L1085 (from the A0-T level) and M343 (defining R1b), so my results would be L1085+ M343-, this would not make "my lineage" ancestral to all R1b people (including yourself). http://www.anthrogenica.com/images/smilies1/wink.gif


Bear in mind, that author of this paper is Piontek. Until now greatest autochtonist in Poland.

So if he said:

I1 is the most common haplogroup in present day Scandinavia, and it is found in all places invaded by ancient Germanic tribes and Vikings."


It was probably hardest thing for him, which he said recently. So we can be 100% sure this particular I1 is Germanic. He knows better Tomenable. He is the author.

Tomenable
07-07-17, 14:01
I1-M253 frequencies in some populations:

Kashubians -------- 13,06% (35/268)
Greater Poles ----- 10,45% (21/201)
Lusatian Sorbs ---- 9,76% (12/123)
Kociewie ----------- 8,23% (13/158)
Kurpie ------------- 6,96% (11/158)
Upper Silesians --- 6,25% (3/48)
Lesser Poles ------- 5,66% (12/212)
Mazovian nobility - 5,48% (8/146)
Wrocław ----------- 4,04% (4/99)

Fire Haired14
07-07-17, 14:08
I1-M253 frequencies in some populations:

Kashubians -------- 13,06% (35/268)
Greater Poles ----- 10,45% (21/201)
Lusatian Sorbs ---- 9,76% (12/123)
Kociewie ----------- 8,23% (13/158)
Kurpie ------------- 6,96% (11/158)
Upper Silesians --- 6,25% (3/48)
Lesser Poles ------- 5,66% (12/212)
Wrocław ----------- 4,04% (4/99)

So I guess modern Poles by and large do not descend from Goths. Another big mystery is what Y DNA the proto Slavs had. How did South Slavs become I2a-Din rich, East and West Slavs R1a rich.

If Goths originated in Sweden, that would probably mean both continental I1a3-Z63 and Scandinavian I1a2-L22 originated in Scandinavia. Also it raises the possibility that there were groups in Scandinavia with 80%+ I1 that absorbed groups with R1b and R1a.

Tomenable
07-07-17, 14:13
I also added I1-M253 for one more population:

Mazovian nobility - 5,48% (8/146)

^^^
Based on FTDNA "Mazovian Nobility Project".

mlukas
07-07-17, 14:21
So we have Wielbark descendants between 4-13% in Poland with south-north cline... If I can add more:)

Tomenable
07-07-17, 14:35
Also more Wielbark descendants among peasants (Kashubians, Greater Poles) than nobility (Mazovia has the highest percent of nobility-descendants of all Polish regions). Something that Figlerowicz already said in one of his interviews. Population structure by region in the 16th century:

Mazovia:

Peasantry - 62,4 percent
Townsmen - 14,1 percent
Priesthood - 0,1 percent
Nobility - 23,4 percent (yes - almost 1/4 of Mazovians were nobles)

Greater Poland:

Peasantry - 68,9 percent
Townsmen - 25,2 percent
Priesthood - 0,3 percent
Nobility - 5,6 percent

Royal Prussia:

Peasantry - 59,3 percent
Townsmen - 36,5 percent
Priesthood - 1,2 percent
Nobility - 3,0 percent

Let me remind you what lgmayka wrote:


Just as remarkable as a rural southeastern Pole whose first three DNA tests on his relatives yield I2a, G2, and R1b. (That's my family.) The obvious point here is that academic sampling at the universities of big cities does not necessarily reflect local, rural variation, which may vary widely from village to village--in our day, and even more so in ancient and medieval times.

I really do understand the powerful desire to draw sweeping conclusions from a handful of ancient samples taken from a single archaeological dig--but we need to be realistic as to the limitations of that approach.

These are Wielbark-descended peasants.

Milan.M
07-07-17, 14:35
So present day Poles by large majority are migrants in their lands?
We can exclude by this and now a Central European homeland of Slavs which was supported by some,like Bronze age Trzciniec culture where even Balto-Slavic was born? which existed in Poland and is attributed to Slavs,or the later Lusatian culture.
Completely lack of I2a din and R1a subclades that today are majority among Slavs.

Tomenable
07-07-17, 14:38
Trzciniec culture was R1a, we have one sample from Trzciniec (from Gustorzyn):

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/01/r1a-z280-from-early-bronze-age-northern.html

Wielbark people came to Poland in the Iron Age, and replaced Trzciniec population.

There was a series of many population replacements (at least in terms of Y-DNA).

Milan.M
07-07-17, 14:42
If they replaced them,there was no Slavic DNA or Slavs in Poland in Iron age,and Slavs did not migrated from Poland to South Europe or anything like that in early medieval time.

Tomenable
07-07-17, 15:01
Nobility (szlachta) was multiplying faster than peasants (page 21, Table 1.):

http://homoeconomicus.uwb.edu.pl/pdf/Struktury_demograficzne.pdf

http://s22.postimg.org/befmubtip/Szlachta.png

An average nobleman had 2-3 sons surviving to adulthood.

A typical peasant had only 1-2 sons surviving to adulthood.

I1a3_Young
07-07-17, 15:14
L1237 is found in the UK as well, so I doubt Polish origination. Certainly Germanic but it spread around.

Tomenable
07-07-17, 16:01
From Czekanowski, "Wstęp do historii Słowian" (he explains that in Poland serfs - unfree peasants - were called "Gocie" = "Goths", suggesting that after Slavic expansions remnants of Goths were marginalized and becamse serfs):

https://s10.postimg.org/3n8b3eymh/goto.jpg

But the Piasts were R1b, not R1a, so perhaps they were descended from those Wielbark peasants. The legendary Piast was a farmer (oracz) or a wheelwright (kołodziej), a simple peasant:

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

http://weneda.net/piast-oracz/

The legendary Popielids were perhaps R1a (assuming that Popielid chiefs existed).

The Piasts were initially low status and likely took over power from the Popielids:


Two theories explain the etymology of the word Piast. The first gives the root as piasta ("hub" in Polish), a reference to his profession. The second relates Piast to piastun ("custodian" or "keeper"). This could hint at Piast's initial position as a majordomo, or a "steward of the house", in the court of another ruler, and the subsequent takeover of power by Piast. This would parallel the development of the early medieval Frankish dynasties, when the Mayors of the Palace of the Merovingian kings gradually usurped political control.

Tomenable
07-07-17, 16:08
L1237 is found in the UK as well, so I doubt Polish origination.

How common is it in the UK?

Some East Germanic descendants could get to the British Isles.

LeBrok
07-07-17, 16:23
So we have Wielbark descendants between 4-13% in Poland with south-north cline... If I can add more:)I'm not sure if these are all or mostly Wielbark descendents. Is it possible that most of polish I1 and R1b came with germanic migration during middle ages? Huge germanic population of tradesmen who started and expanded many polish cities?

Actually, a big part might be the leftovers of East Germanic tribes who left "Poland". When Slavs expanded they mixed with these few left locals.

mlukas
07-07-17, 16:44
I'm not sure if these are all or mostly Wielbark descendents. Is it possible that most of polish I1 and R1b came with germanic migration during middle ages? Huge germanic population of tradesmen who started and expanded many polish cities?

Partly eys, agree. to this day many Poles have German surnames. But some pattern is visible.

LeBrok
07-07-17, 16:48
Partly eys, agree. to this day many Poles have German surnames. But some pattern is visible.
Actually, a big part might be the leftovers of East Germanic tribes. Most of them left "Poland" by 500 CE, but there were few that left. The land was depopulated but not empty. When Slavs expanded they mixed with these few left locals.

Did you notice that in "Lech, Czech and Rus" legend, Lech didn't conquered his land. There was no heroic battle to win. He just walked around and picked a spot to live on. It makes sense now.

Tomenable
07-07-17, 16:55
I don't know LeBrok. Do you have a German surname? I have a typically Polish/Slavic surname. My mother has a German-sounding maiden surname, but obviously my R1b-DF27 haplogroup is not from her. Not to mention that my particular subclade of R1b is hardly even present in Germany (it is less common in Germany than in Poland). On the other hand, there seems to be some Ancient Celtic connection with my subclade. But mostly Insular Celtic (judging by its present-day distribution - however my branch is most likely "basal / ancestral" to the British branch).

LeBrok
07-07-17, 17:02
So present day Poles by large majority are migrants in their lands?
We can exclude by this and now a Central European homeland of Slavs which was supported by some,like Bronze age Trzciniec culture where even Balto-Slavic was born? which existed in Poland and is attributed to Slavs,or the later Lusatian culture.
Completely lack of I2a din and R1a subclades that today are majority among Slavs.
Keep in mind that, I, the Polish Slav, was always ok with Iron Age Poland being Germanic and partially Celtic. I never had a problem with Slavic homeland in Belarus or Ukraine. If I was right here, looking at the problem with my objective eye, it is very likely that I'm right saying that South Slavs also expended to Balkas from other location. Probably from Ukraine.

I know that you saying this to get even with some Slavs, who didn't agree with you in the past. From the vengines. But it doesn't make you right in your hypothesis about continuity of Slavs in Balkans. You are wrong the way they were. Hyper nationalism, patriotic emotions, make people blind and mud understanding of the world.

LeBrok
07-07-17, 17:05
I don't know LeBrok. Do you have a German surname? I have a typically Polish/Slavic surname. My mother has a German-sounding maiden surname, but obviously my R1b-DF27 haplogroup is not from her. Not to mention that my particular subclade of R1b is hardly even present in Germany (it is less common in Germany than in Poland). On the other hand, there seems to be some Ancient Celtic connection with my subclade. But mostly Insular Celtic (judging by the present-day distribution - however my branch is most likely "basal" to the British branch).After good few hundred years, surnames might not be the best way to go. Will see in the future how did it go. Now we can only speculate.
I see two main sources, one is left over of East Germanics and Celts (in SW Poland), and German Immigration during middle ages.

Tomenable
07-07-17, 17:05
When Slavs expanded they mixed with these few left locals.

There were only few locals left, but AFAIK immigrants were also far from being numerous. So hard to say what exactly were the proportions / ratio between newcomers and locals.

LeBrok
07-07-17, 17:10
There were only few locals left, but AFAIK immigrants were also far from being numerous. So hard to say what exactly were the proportions / ratio between newcomers and locals. I know that archaeologist said that local (East germanic) fell about ten fold, but they never said how many Slavs showed up.

Milan.M
07-07-17, 17:11
Keep in mind that, I, the Polish Slav, was always ok with Iron Age Poland being Germanic and partially Celtic. I never had a problem with Slavic homeland in Belarus or Ukraine. If I was right here, looking at the problem with my objective eye, it is very likely that I'm right saying that South Slavs also expended to Balkas from other location. Probably from Ukraine.

I know that you saying this to get even with some Slavs, who didn't agree with you in the past. From the vengines. But it doesn't make you right in your hypothesis about continuity of Slavs in Balkans. You are wrong the way they were. Hyper nationalism, patriotic emotions, make people blind and mud understanding of the world.
Not a continuity,we might never understood eachother,there was military conquest and not "migration",lets compare it with Turkic conquest of Anatolia for example.The contribution of the "conquerors" can not be estimated in the gene pool of present day South-Slavs or Balkans for sure with the present day knowledge we have.I mean exactly from that period of time,since the attacks of Sclaveni happened.

Also i myself think that the "conquerors" were genetically similar with the "conquered".Because they did not came from very far.Since i think that the Slavs that came in Balkans or formed the South-Slavs were from Danube basin up to river Dniester/Galicia,old Getic homeland.I will keep this opinion until i will be proofed wrong.

Tomenable
07-07-17, 17:16
The contribution of the "conquerors" can not be estimated in the gene pool of present day South-Slavs or Balkans for sure.

So what makes me more genetically similar to Balkan Slavs than to Greeks and Albanians, if not our shared Slavic ancestry (my Slavic ancestry and Slavic ancestry of South Slavs - that is less present in Albanians and Greeks?).

The genetic division of Europe based on my own results: :)

http://gen3553.pagesperso-orange.fr/ADN/similitude2.htm

http://i.imgur.com/y9qh0t2.png

Compare with the map of European languages in 1100 AD:

Grover S. Krantz (Professor of Anthropology), "Geographical Development Of European Languages", American University Studies, Series XI, Anthropology and Sociology, Vol. 26:

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/40_Language/KranzG1988GeogrDevelopmOfEurLanguages/KranzG1988GeogrDevelopmOfEurLanguagesCh6-8En.htm

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/40_Language/KranzG1988GeogrDevelopmOfEurLanguages/KrantzGCh7Fig26.jpg

And the maximum extent of Slavic expansion (800s AD):

http://s16.postimg.org/6c858un85/Slavic_expansion.png

Tomenable
07-07-17, 17:20
Genetic similarity rates between me and South Slavic populations in Eurogenes K36:

Slovenes - 80%
Croats - 70%
Serbs - 67%
Montenegrins - 62%
Macedonians - 56%
Bulgarians - 54%
============
North-East Italians - 53%
Mainland Greeks - 49-39%
Albanians - 39%

The pattern is clear.

Especially the difference between Slovenes and North-East Italians is very sharp.

Milan.M
07-07-17, 17:21
[email protected] I really do not know why people always bring Albanians or Greeks who are also almost same genetically and might have similar bronze/iron age ancestry,only some region overlap with South-Slavs or their neighbors,as if they are role model of old balkan population,when in fact Greek migration is spoken by Greeks themselves,there is Vlachs,Romanians,Turkic speaking Gagauz,they all overlap with South Slavs and beyond.

I tell you what Thracians extended as far Southern Poland,they also mixed with their neighbors and might even had same or similar language with some of them.

Tomenable
07-07-17, 17:25
They are role models of East Balkan populations. In my K36 Ancient Oracle (which is based on Bronze Age and Iron Age samples), Albanians are modeled as a mixture of these three ancient samples, with some other minor admixtures:

http://i.imgur.com/OLB7Ogr.png

Some examples of Albanian results in my K36 Ancient nMonte:

Albanian user Ylla:

http://i.imgur.com/rmBr8Vp.png

Albanian user Era:

http://i.imgur.com/mjuZt00.png

Albanian user Dibran:

LateBronzeAge_Hungary_BR2 42.60
CopperAge_MarmaraSea_I1584 29.35
CopperAge_Italy_RISE489 18.10
LateBronzeAge_Armenia_RISE412 6.90
EarlyMedieval_Slavic_Mar7 1.65
BronzeAge_Levant_I1705 1.40

Interestingly, Dibran has R1a-Z283 haplogroup.

And my nMonte detected some Slavic admixture.

======================

For comparison here is Greek user Raine:

http://i.imgur.com/lD734Fb.png

Greeks have more Slavic than Albanians.

Milan.M
07-07-17, 17:29
They are role models of East Balkan populations. In my K36 Ancient Oracle (which is based on Bronze Age and Iron Age samples), Albanians are modeled as a mixture of these three ancient samples, with some other minor admixtures:

http://i.imgur.com/OLB7Ogr.png

Some examples of Albanian results in my K36 Ancient nMonte:

Albanian user Ylla:

http://i.imgur.com/rmBr8Vp.png

Albanian user Era:

http://i.imgur.com/mjuZt00.png

Albanian user Dibran:

LateBronzeAge_Hungary_BR2 42.60
CopperAge_MarmaraSea_I1584 29.35
CopperAge_Italy_RISE489 18.10
LateBronzeAge_Armenia_RISE412 6.90
EarlyMedieval_Slavic_Mar7 1.65
BronzeAge_Levant_I1705 1.40

Interestingly, Dibran has R1a-Z283 haplogroup.

And my nMonte detected some Slavic admixture.

======================

For comparison here is Greek user Raine:

http://i.imgur.com/lD734Fb.png

Greeks have more Slavic than Albanians.
Here is that East Balkan admixture you are speaking for if im not mistaken,again why it overlap with Slavic lands also,ok being the highest in Albania,Kosovo and R.Macedonia(Slavic) then Thesally etc.

http://i63.tinypic.com/33c9qtl.jpg

Tomenable
07-07-17, 17:34
The only way to find out the truth is to get ancient DNA samples from the Balkans. But I think that Balkan nations are very reluctant to research aDNA from their areas, due to nationalism. This applies also to Greeks. They are scared that they are not genetically the same as ancient Greeks, so they don't want to research ancient DNA.

Milan.M
07-07-17, 17:35
The only way to find out the truth is to get ancient DNA samples from the Balkans. But I think that Balkan nations are very reluctant to research aDNA from their areas, due to nationalism. This applies also to Greeks. They are scared that they are not genetically the same as ancient Greeks, so they don't want to research ancient DNA.
I agree here 100% 5 more thumbs up haha

Dagne
07-07-17, 18:30
I remember reading in one study of 2015 ( http://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(15)00949-5.pdf)
that "slavic source" of around 1000AD most closely resemble modern Lithuanians. This sounds a bit strange, as it would mean that slavic were like current baltic when they admixed with local populations in the Balkans, Greece, Germany, Hungary, etc.


" ...the formation of the Slavic people at around 1000 CE had a significant impact on the populations of Northern and Eastern Europe, a result that is supported by an analysis of identity by descent segments in European populations [10]. Here, despite characterizing populations by genetic similarity rather than geographic labels, we infer the same events involving a “Slavic” source (represented here by a cluster of Lithuanians; lithu11 and colored light blue) across all Balkan groups in the analysis (Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, and Hungary) as well as in a large cluster of Germanic origin (germa36) and a composite cluster of eastern European individuals (ukrai48; Figures 4A and 4B )."

Tomenable
07-07-17, 18:35
that "slavic source" most closely resemble modern Lithuanians. This sounds a bit strange, as it would mean that slavic were like current baltic when they admixed with local populations in the Balkans, Greece, Germany, Hungary, etc.

We already have some Early Slavic samples and they indeed look genetically similar to Lithuanians (assumig that these results are reliable). Markowice7 (Early Medieval Poland) in Eurogenes K15:

There is no doubt, that Mar7 was Slavic (not Baltic). But look at this:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Baltic 39.91
2 Eastern_Euro 24
3 Atlantic 17.33
4 North_Sea 12.2
5 West_Med 5.54
6 Sub-Saharan 1.02 --> probably ancient DNA damage

Single Population Sharing:



#
Population (source)
Distance


1
Lithuanian
8.65


2
Estonian_Polish
9.75


3
Belorussian
10.16


4
Russian_Smolensk
11.46


5
Southwest_Russian
11.89


6
Ukrainian_Belgorod
12.24


7
Polish
14.05


8
Erzya
15.43


9
South_Polish
15.64


10
Estonian
15.67


11
Kargopol_Russian
15.69


12
Ukrainian
15.77


13
Ukrainian_Lviv
16.54


14
Croatian
19.8


15
East_Finnish
21.12


16
Moldavian
22.09


17
La_Brana-1
22.75


18
Finnish
22.94


19
Southwest_Finnish
23.77


20
Hungarian
23.97



Mixed Mode Population Sharing:



#

Primary Population (source)
Secondary Population (source)
Distance


1

98%
Lithuanian
+
2%
Sardinian
@
8.58


2

83%
Lithuanian
+
17%
Estonian_Polish
@
8.6


(...)

I1a3_Young
07-07-17, 18:35
The I1 tree on this site shows the locations of some branches. I'm hoping to find some free time and compile a lot of I1 data. Nordvedt may already have it but I'll have to locate it.

The Germanic I1a branches were mixed about a long time ago and spread to the winds so it's difficult to untangle the truth. There is both S2078/L1237 and Z63 negative for S2078 in the UK.

From a high view, there are the Nordic braches (above L22 though it's most common), the West German branch (Z58/59), and East German branch (Z63).

This Polish data looks expected for finding I1. More of the easterly type but still some of the West. I think it was the same for the Anglo-Saxon migrations to England, mostly western but a small amount of eastern. The UK probably picked up the Nordic branch from ~990 AD Vikings if there weren't already small amounts present.

The three geographical splits occurring almost simultaneously with the DF29 genesis leads me to believe DF29 may have developed in Denmark or a kingdom centered in Denmark. All of those branches are estimated 4600ybp.

The Z58 and Z63 (with subclades) were probably mixed around a bit after 2k years.

I would love some hard numbers of analysis of the three main I1 clades.

Tomenable
07-07-17, 18:37
Another Early Slavic sample - RISE568 from Czech Republic - in Eurogenes K15:

This one looks a bit less Lithuanian, but Lithuanians still show up in Mixed Mode:

Admix Results (sorted):



#
Population
Percent


1
Baltic
36.17


2
Atlantic
34.99


3
Eastern_Euro
14.8


4
North_Sea
8.49


5
West_Med
4.15


6
West_Asian
1.4





Single Population Sharing:



#
Population (source)
Distance


1
Russian_Smolensk
18.3


2
Estonian_Polish
18.77


3
Belorussian
18.79


4
Polish
20.01


5
Lithuanian
20.05


6
Southwest_Russian
21.04


7
Ukrainian_Belgorod
21.22


8
South_Polish
21.33


9
Croatian
22.65


10
Austrian
23


11
Estonian
23.41


12
Ukrainian
23.41


13
Ukrainian_Lviv
23.48


14
La_Brana-1
23.74


15
Kargopol_Russian
24.98


16
Southwest_Finnish
25.7


17
East_German
25.89


18
Hungarian
26.15


19
Moldavian
26.55


20
Erzya
27.19



Mixed Mode Population Sharing:



#

Primary Population (source)
Secondary Population (source)
Distance


1

72.9%
Lithuanian
+
27.1%
French_Basque
@
15.79


2

78.3%
Belorussian
+
21.7%
French_Basque
@
16.43


3

79%
Estonian_Polish
+
21%
French_Basque
@
16.62


4

81.7%
Russian_Smolensk
+
18.3%
French_Basque
@
16.76


5

73.5%
Lithuanian
+
26.5%
Southwest_French
@
17.4


6

76.1%
Lithuanian
+
23.9%
Spanish_Aragon
@
17.5


7

80.9%
Belorussian
+
19.1%
Southwest_French
@
17.63


8

76%
Lithuanian
+
24%
Spanish_Valencia
@
17.71


9

83.3%
Belorussian
+
16.7%
Spanish_Aragon
@
17.73


10

85.8%
Russian_Smolensk
+
14.2%
Southwest_French
@
17.73


11

81.7%
Estonian_Polish
+
18.3%
Southwest_French
@
17.75


12

77%
Lithuanian
+
23%
Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha
@
17.79


13

77%
Lithuanian
+
23%
Spanish_Andalucia
@
17.81


14

88.1%
Russian_Smolensk
+
11.9%
Spanish_Aragon
@
17.81


15

83.9%
Estonian_Polish
+
16.1%
Spanish_Aragon
@
17.82


16

83.7%
Belorussian
+
16.3%
Spanish_Valencia
@
17.89


17

89%
Russian_Smolensk
+
11%
Spanish_Valencia
@
17.93


18

84.7%
Belorussian
+
15.3%
Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha
@
17.95


19

84.3%
Estonian_Polish
+
15.7%
Spanish_Valencia
@
17.95


20

84.7%
Belorussian
+
15.3%
Spanish_Andalucia
@
17.95

Tomenable
07-07-17, 18:42
And yet another one - Niemcza18 (Early Medieval Poland) - in Eurogenes K15:

Admix Results (sorted):



#
Population
Percent


1
Baltic
42.12


2
Atlantic
32.49


3
West_Asian
14.45


4
North_Sea
10.95



Single Population Sharing:



#
Population (source)
Distance


1
Russian_Smolensk
26.33


2
Belorussian
27.06


3
Lithuanian
27.21


4
South_Polish
27.9


5
Estonian_Polish
28.01


6
Polish
28.1


7
Ukrainian_Belgorod
28.18


8
Croatian
28.57


9
Southwest_Russian
28.65


10
Ukrainian_Lviv
28.89


11
Austrian
29.08


12
La_Brana-1
29.82


13
Ukrainian
29.9


14
Estonian
30.48


15
Hungarian
30.82


16
Moldavian
31.25


17
East_German
31.5


18
Southwest_Finnish
32.89


19
Romanian
33.03


20
Bulgarian
33.59



Mixed Mode Population Sharing:



#

Primary Population (source)
Secondary Population (source)
Distance


1

77.4%
Lithuanian
+
22.6%
French_Basque
@
25.17


2

80.8%
Lithuanian
+
19.2%
North_Ossetian
@
25.18


3

84.8%
Lithuanian
+
15.2%
Abhkasian
@
25.48


4

84.4%
Lithuanian
+
15.6%
Georgian
@
25.55


5

82.7%
Lithuanian
+
17.3%
Adygei
@
25.63


6

87.9%
Russian_Smolensk
+
12.1%
North_Ossetian
@
25.65


7

82.7%
Lithuanian
+
17.3%
Balkar
@
25.7


8

83.9%
Lithuanian
+
16.1%
Ossetian
@
25.7


9

82.3%
Lithuanian
+
17.7%
Kabardin
@
25.71


10

83.7%
Belorussian
+
16.3%
North_Ossetian
@
25.73


11

86.8%
Russian_Smolensk
+
13.2%
French_Basque
@
25.79


12

91.4%
Russian_Smolensk
+
8.6%
Abhkasian
@
25.85


13

79.3%
Lithuanian
+
20.7%
Spanish_Aragon
@
25.86


14

79%
Lithuanian
+
21%
Spanish_Andalucia
@
25.87


15

91.4%
Russian_Smolensk
+
8.6%
Georgian
@
25.9


16

78.7%
Lithuanian
+
21.3%
Spanish_Valencia
@
25.91


17

83.6%
Lithuanian
+
16.4%
Chechen
@
25.93


18

78.1%
Lithuanian
+
21.9%
Southwest_French
@
25.93


19

90.6%
Russian_Smolensk
+
9.4%
Adygei
@
25.94


20

79.6%
Lithuanian
+
20.4%
Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha
@
25.94

Tomenable
07-07-17, 18:46
^ Now it makes sense why Slavic admixture was represented by a "Lithuanian-like source".

Early Slavs (500-1000 AD) were apparently very Lithuanian-like in terms of autosomal DNA:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4714572/


As previously reported [11], the formation of the Slavic people (...) had a significant impact on the populations of Northern and Eastern Europe, a result that is supported by an analysis of identity by descent segments in European populations [10]. Here, despite characterizing populations by genetic similarity rather than geographic labels, we infer the same events involving a “Slavic” source (represented here by a cluster of Lithuanians; lithu11 and colored light blue) across all Balkan groups in the analysis (Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, and Hungary) as well as in a large cluster of Germanic origin (germa36) and a composite cluster of eastern European individuals (ukrai48; Figures 4A and 4B).

Tomenable
08-07-17, 13:52
Crimean Goths were I1-M253 as well (just like Wielbark):

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php?t=48332&page=2&p=1304256&viewfull=1#post1304256


(...) Our project tested two people who are descendants of the Crimean Goths, this kit № 228539 Afenko and kit № 228541 Aslanov. Their haplogroup (I1-M253) was determined in the course of scientific research laboratory Balanovsky. (...)

Milan.M
08-07-17, 16:52
Crimean "Goths" could as well be Saxons,read about their origin,there is no real agreement on their ethnicity.Crimea prior to the Tatars was Genoese trading center.

Let's see now opinion on scholars about possible connection of Chernyakhov culture where Goths were located with Wielbark.


Guy Halsall (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Halsall) sees no chronological development from the Wielbark to Chernyakhov culture, given that the latter stage of the Wielbark culture is synchronous with Chernyakhov, and the two regions have minimal territorial overlap. "Although it is often claimed that Cernjachov metalwork derives from Wielbark types, close examination reveals no more than a few types with general similarities to Wielbark types".[14] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernyakhov_culture#cite_note-14) Michael Kulikowski also challenges the Wielbark connection, highlighting that the greatest reason for Wielbark-Chernyakhov connection derives from a "negative characteristic" (i.e., the absence of weapons in burials), which is less convincing proof than a positive one. He argues that the Chernyakhov culture could just as likely have been an indigenous development of local Pontic, Carpic or Dacian cultures, or a blended culture resulting from Przeworsk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Przeworsk_culture) and steppe interactions. Furthermore, he altogether denies the existence of Goths prior to the 3rd century. Kulikowsky states that no Gothic people, nor even a noble kernel, migrated from Scandinavia or the Baltic. Rather, he suggests that the "Goths" formed in situ. Like the Alemanni or the Franks, the Goths were a "product of the Roman frontier"

This migration Scandinavia-Wielbark to Chernyakov is more a myth than reality.

So Tomenable please this things aren't proved,at least is good to mention that.

Ultimately as i said we need Chernyakhov culture DNA for Goths.

LeBrok
08-07-17, 18:29
This migration Scandinavia-Wielbark to Chernyakov is more a myth than reality.

So Tomenable please this things aren't proved,at least is good to mention that.

Ultimately as i said we need Chernyakhov culture DNA for Goths.
How is it that you read one doubtful thing and the most likely hypothesis about Goths/Wielbark and Chernyakov is falling apart for you? On other hand, I'm reading about this subject for years, and all fall in one big coherent picture. Recent I1 find in Wielbark is another confirmation of most likely Gothic story in the region.
Remember that with circumstantial evidence we will never be 100% sure, but we are in a realm of probabilities and likelihoods. And so far, most clues point to Goth migration and settlements here. Which is written evidence of ancient historians, written evidence from Goths themselves, archeological evidence of their culture and movement north-south, and now genetic evidence as wall. Simply said, it looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it is a duck!

Milan.M
08-07-17, 18:59
How is it that you read one doubtful thing and the most likely hypothesis about Goths/Wielbark and Chernyakov is falling apart for you? On other hand, I'm reading about this subject for years, and all fall in one big coherent picture. Recent I1 find in Wielbark is another confirmation of most likely Gothic story in the region.
Remember that with circumstantial evidence we will never be 100% sure, but we are in a realm of probabilities and likelihoods. And so far, most clues point to Goth migration and settlements here. Which is written evidence of ancient historians, written evidence from Goths themselves, archeological evidence of their culture and movement north-south, and now genetic evidence as wall. Simply said, it looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it is a duck!
Well is not one doubtfull thing,this people i am quoting are experts on the matter and most recent researchers about it.
No historian point to Goth migration from Poland to Black sea,their contemproraries are all "confusing" them with the Gets/Getae and we know their homeland,that is aproximately Chernyakov culture,that's where the Goths were recorded and not in Poland or Scandinavia.
Goths themselves? When,which Goths?

LeBrok
08-07-17, 19:13
Well is not one doubtfull thing,this people i am quoting are experts on the matter and most recent researchers about it.
No historian point to Goth migration from Poland to Black sea,their contemproraries are all "confusing" them with the Gets/Getae and we know their homeland,that is aproximately Chernyakov culture,that's where the Goths were recorded and not in Poland or Scandinavia.
Goths themselves? When,which Goths?So this is incredible that my understanding of history and archeology got confirmed now with genetic test of Wielbark and not yours. Think about this.

Milan.M
08-07-17, 19:15
So this is incredible that my understanding of history and archeology got confirmed now with genetic test of Wielbark and not yours. Think about this.
Ok Lebrok.
I'll say again we need genetic evidence from Chernyakhov culture to confirm this.I guess i haven't said anything wrong, that's where this people were.

mlukas
08-07-17, 20:04
And yet another one - Niemcza18 (Early Medieval Poland) - in Eurogenes K15:

Admix Results (sorted):



#
Population
Percent


1
Baltic
42.12


2
Atlantic
32.49


3
West_Asian
14.45


4
North_Sea
10.95



Single Population Sharing:



#
Population (source)
Distance


1
Russian_Smolensk
26.33


2
Belorussian
27.06


3
Lithuanian
27.21


4
South_Polish
27.9


5
Estonian_Polish
28.01


6
Polish
28.1


7
Ukrainian_Belgorod
28.18


8
Croatian
28.57


9
Southwest_Russian
28.65


10
Ukrainian_Lviv
28.89


11
Austrian
29.08


12
La_Brana-1
29.82


13
Ukrainian
29.9


14
Estonian
30.48


15
Hungarian
30.82


16
Moldavian
31.25


17
East_German
31.5


18
Southwest_Finnish
32.89


19
Romanian
33.03


20
Bulgarian
33.59



Mixed Mode Population Sharing:



#

Primary Population (source)
Secondary Population (source)
Distance


1

77.4%
Lithuanian
+
22.6%
French_Basque
@
25.17


2

80.8%
Lithuanian
+
19.2%
North_Ossetian
@
25.18


3

84.8%
Lithuanian
+
15.2%
Abhkasian
@
25.48


4

84.4%
Lithuanian
+
15.6%
Georgian
@
25.55


5

82.7%
Lithuanian
+
17.3%
Adygei
@
25.63


6

87.9%
Russian_Smolensk
+
12.1%
North_Ossetian
@
25.65


7

82.7%
Lithuanian
+
17.3%
Balkar
@
25.7


8

83.9%
Lithuanian
+
16.1%
Ossetian
@
25.7


9

82.3%
Lithuanian
+
17.7%
Kabardin
@
25.71


10

83.7%
Belorussian
+
16.3%
North_Ossetian
@
25.73


11

86.8%
Russian_Smolensk
+
13.2%
French_Basque
@
25.79


12

91.4%
Russian_Smolensk
+
8.6%
Abhkasian
@
25.85


13

79.3%
Lithuanian
+
20.7%
Spanish_Aragon
@
25.86


14

79%
Lithuanian
+
21%
Spanish_Andalucia
@
25.87


15

91.4%
Russian_Smolensk
+
8.6%
Georgian
@
25.9


16

78.7%
Lithuanian
+
21.3%
Spanish_Valencia
@
25.91


17

83.6%
Lithuanian
+
16.4%
Chechen
@
25.93


18

78.1%
Lithuanian
+
21.9%
Southwest_French
@
25.93


19

90.6%
Russian_Smolensk
+
9.4%
Adygei
@
25.94


20

79.6%
Lithuanian
+
20.4%
Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha
@
25.94





Niemcza in K36 is North Dutch and Germanic!

mlukas
08-07-17, 20:05
We already have some Early Slavic samples and they indeed look genetically similar to Lithuanians (assumig that these results are reliable). Markowice7 (Early Medieval Poland) in Eurogenes K15:

There is no doubt, that Mar7 was Slavic (not Baltic). But look at this:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Baltic 39.91
2 Eastern_Euro 24
3 Atlantic 17.33
4 North_Sea 12.2
5 West_Med 5.54
6 Sub-Saharan 1.02 --> probably ancient DNA damage

Single Population Sharing:



#
Population (source)
Distance


1
Lithuanian
8.65


2
Estonian_Polish
9.75


3
Belorussian
10.16


4
Russian_Smolensk
11.46


5
Southwest_Russian
11.89


6
Ukrainian_Belgorod
12.24


7
Polish
14.05


8
Erzya
15.43


9
South_Polish
15.64


10
Estonian
15.67


11
Kargopol_Russian
15.69


12
Ukrainian
15.77


13
Ukrainian_Lviv
16.54


14
Croatian
19.8


15
East_Finnish
21.12


16
Moldavian
22.09


17
La_Brana-1
22.75


18
Finnish
22.94


19
Southwest_Finnish
23.77


20
Hungarian
23.97



Mixed Mode Population Sharing:



#

Primary Population (source)
Secondary Population (source)
Distance


1

98%
Lithuanian
+
2%
Sardinian
@
8.58


2

83%
Lithuanian
+
17%
Estonian_Polish
@
8.6


(...)


Markowice_7 in K36 are Ukrainian!

I1a3_Young
08-07-17, 22:02
https://www.academia.edu/33791135/2017_Zenczak_.....Piontek_..._Y-%20chromosome_haplogroup_assignment_through_next_g eneration_sequencing_of_enriched_%3Cbr%20/%3Eancient_DNA_libraries


So out of 16:

8 I1 (I-M253)
- 3 I1a3a1a1a (I-L1237)
- 1 I1a2a (I-Z59)
- 4 just I-M253

4 G2a (G-P15)

1 I2a2 (I-m436)
1 R1a M420
1 R1b1 (R-L278)
1 E1b1 (E-P2)

How we can divide them between those few places? Any opinions? If one R1a m420 was from Wielbark or rather early Polish medieval?

Is there any indication of which location and time period each particular sample is associated with?

I'm looking to add these to a spreadsheet included dates and location for each I1.


Also, Tomenable mentioned that we have an I1 in a Saxon in England, can you point me towards more info for that sample?

Tomenable
09-07-17, 12:42
Also, Tomenable mentioned that we have an I1 in a Saxon in England, can you point me towards more info for that sample?

It is NO3423 from Northumbria (Teesside), dated to 650-910 AD:

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/medievaldna.shtml


Is there any indication of which location and time period each particular sample is associated with?All of these samples are from 7 locations:

Late Iron Age (dates) samples:

KO = Kowalewko (100-300 AD)
MZ = Maslomecz (200-400 AD)

Early Medieval (dates) samples:

NA = Niemcza (900-1000 AD)
SI = Sowinki (1000-1100 AD)
LO = Legowo (1000-1200 AD)
GO = Gniezno (1000-1200 AD)
ME = Markowice (1000-1200 AD)

https://s4.postimg.org/3n9kl6d5p/mapa.jpg

I'm not sure which samples are I1, but two, KO_55 and ME_7 are certainly I1:

KO_55, Kowalewko (100-300 AD), I1a3a1a1-Y6626
KO_45, Kowalewko (100-300 AD), I2a2a1b2a-L801
KO_22, Kowalewko (100-300 AD), G2a2b-L30
KO_57, Kowalewko (100-300 AD), G2a2b-L30

ME_7, Markowice (1000-1200 AD), I1a2a2a5-Y5384
NA_13, Niemcza, (900-1000 AD), I2a1b2-L621
NA_18, Niemcza, (900-1000 AD), J2a1a-L26

Other confirmed males (but no Y-DNA assignment) include:

Ancient group (3): KO_18, KO_36, KO_8
Medieval (7): NA_29, NA_2, NA_3, ME_4, LO_5, SI_10, SI_11

In total there must be 9 samples of I1, because ME_7 is not included here:

https://www.academia.edu/33791135/2017_Zenczak_.....Piontek_..._Y-chromosome_haplogroup_assignment_through_next_gene ration_sequencing_of_enriched_ancient_DNA_librarie s

Only samples from Kowalewko, Maslomecz, Legowo and Niemcza are here.

So I1a2a2a5-Y5384 from Early Medieval Markowice is our 9th sample of I1:

http://i.imgur.com/GSuhSG5.png

Tomenable
09-07-17, 13:55
That shortage of R1b and R1a makes me think that they deliberately published only Non-R1 samples.

But we shall find out later.

Tomenable
09-07-17, 14:12
This I1a3 from Iron Age Poland (Wielbark) does not confirm Scandinavian origin of Goths:

KO_55, Poland, Wielbark culture, Kowalewko (100-300 AD), I1a3a1a1-Y6626

See below:

https://aleximreh.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/goth1.png?w=768

From Eupedia:

"(...) It corresponds to the Z63+ subclade. I1a3-Z63+ subclade is virtually absent from Nordic countries. It is most common in Central Germany, the Benelux, England, Lowland Scotland, as well as Poland. It has also been found in Russia, Ukraine, the Balkans, Italy, Spain and Portugal. Y2245.2+ makes up a big part of the Z63 in Russia, Ukraine, Poland, the Balkans, Italy and Iberia. It could have been spread by the Goths. BY351+ is a subclade found in Portugal, Spain, Italy (including Sardinia). It was probably spread by the Visigoths and Ostrogoths. (...)"

Fire Haired14
09-07-17, 15:09
@Tomenable,

But maybe modern I1 isn't representative of I1 2,000 years ago. Maybe both L22 and Z63 originated in Scandinavia but only one remained popular there till the present day.

Tomenable
09-07-17, 15:16
Only ancient DNA could prove that I1a3 is from Scandinavia not Poland.

What you need is Scandinavian samples of I1a3 older than Polish ones.

Milan.M
09-07-17, 15:31
Thanks Tomenable,do you have frequencies by country of this particular clade,and what make it Germanic? The presumed Gothic connection I guess.

Milan.M
09-07-17, 15:41
I don't know much about this haplogroup thought but amateurishly I will guess that this is it's oldest branch,since I think that this haplogroup "originated" somewhere in Danube basin,Hungary where is it's oldest find and from there migrated to Scandinavia and other places.So this clade was probably a farmer one instead Germanic,maybe it become Germanic later.

Tomenable
09-07-17, 15:44
We already have at least 3 or 4 samples of I1a3a1a1 from Iron Age and Early Medieval Poland. Because apart from KO_55, there are also three samples identified as I1a3a1a1a by Zenczak:

http://i.imgur.com/GSuhSG5.png

Of course KO_55 can be one of them. This is why I wrote that we have either 3 or 4. In addition to that, we have two samples of I1a2a from Medieval (and Iron Age?) Poland, including ME_7.

Milan.M
09-07-17, 15:48
Interestingly to support my hypothesis G2a farmers were among them too,who else?

Tomenable
09-07-17, 16:07
East Germanic tribes from Poland migrated all the way to Benelux and France in the 400s:

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


31 December 406 is the often-repeated date of the crossing of the Rhine by a mixed group of barbarians that included Vandals, Alans and Suebi. The Rhine-crossing transgressed one of the Late Roman Empire's most secure limites or boundaries, and so was a climactic moment in the decline of the Empire. It initiated a wave of destruction of Roman cities and the collapse of Roman civic order in northern Gaul. That, in turn, occasioned the rise of three usurpers in succession in the province of Britannia. Therefore, the crossing of the Rhine is a marker date in the Migration Period, during which various Germanic tribes moved westward and southward (...)

Later their descendants migrated from Benelux and France to Britain, as Anglo-Saxons and Normans. They became part of the so called Anglo-Saxons (in fact those were very mixed Germanic-speaking groups - and the most numerous part were Frisians, not Saxons) and migrated to Britain during the 400s-600s. Alternatively, they could become part of the Normans and move to Britain after 1066 AD.

Only finding I1a3 in older aDNA from outside of Poland can prove that I1a3 is not East Germanic.

So far all of the oldest samples of I1a3 are from Iron Age Poland.

And it is not impossble that I1a3 migrated to Britain from Poland, because it could be carried for example by the Vandals, who came from Poland, and who invaded Northern France after 31.12.406 AD. It is estimated that 150,000 people crossed the Rhine and moved into Northern France on that day.

I1a3_Young
09-07-17, 16:10
It's very hard to pinpoint the origination of both modern I1 (mostly defined by DF29 called I1a) and the three main branches. On the Z63 branches, we are unable to attribute any of the main branches to a single population or tribe.

For example, Z63 is found all over Britain in all the main clades such as both S2078 and BY351. S2078 is found anywhere the Anglo-Saxons and Goths went, therefore I believe we can conclude that the Z58 and Z63 were mixed in the area of both.

Here is one example downstream of S2078:


I-S2077* (https://yfull.com/tree/I-S2077*/)

id:YF08037 UK
id:YF05438 USA [US-DE]
id:YF05194 NORWAY
id:YF03716 ENGLAND
id:YF03671 SERBIA
id:YF03661 NETHERLAND
id:YF02008 USA




Here is one of the BY351 branches (not under S2078)

-Y13946 (https://yfull.com/tree/I-Y13946/)Y14115 * PH2195/Y14111 * PH1538/Y14110+5 SNPsformed 3500 ybp, TMRCA 2100 ybpinfo (https://yfull.com/branch-info/I-Y13946/)

id:YF08475 POLAND [PL-LU]
id:YF06323 GERMANY-PFALZ [DE-RP]
id:YF05654 ITALY [IT-MT]
id:YF03189 SWITZ [CH-SH]
id:YF02452 UK [GB-SFK]


There are several examples on YFull where all ages of the Z63 clades are spread everywhere. I'm going to do a write-up in the I1 section when I get enough stuff pulled together.

Right now it's looking like the DF29 line was an explosive population with rapid expansion of many popular modern subclades.

Because the different subclades were quickly mixed as they seem to be, an isolated ancient sample will probably not hold good value for a broader conclusion. We would need a larger sample size to narrow down these mobile people.

Looking into Z58 and Z63 may hold the key to the origination of the Goths. It appears that the Goths and Anglo-Saxons shared many of the same older clades of I1 going back to 4600 ybp (2650 BC).

Milan.M
09-07-17, 16:20
So it will appear that this Goths,Suebi,Vandals were I1a3 only, where is the typical R1b Germanic clade among them,or the original Germanic speakers in Poland were I1a3 and G2a by majority?

I1a3_Young
09-07-17, 16:56
So it will appear that this Goths,Suebi,Vandals were I1a3 only, where is the typical R1b Germanic clade among them,or the original Germanic speakers in Poland were I1a3 and G2a by majority?

Remember these Polish samples had a Z58>Z59 and also one R1b and one R1a.

In these areas of Europe it appears the R1b and R1a expansion was mostly at the expense of G2a and I2. The I1 flourished alongside the R's (and were just about the only hg to do so) but were rare before DF29 genesis.

Milan.M
09-07-17, 17:22
Remember these Polish samples had a Z58>Z59 and also one R1b and one R1a.

In these areas of Europe it appears the R1b and R1a expansion was mostly at the expense of G2a and I2. The I1 flourished alongside the R's (and were just about the only hg to do so) but were rare before DF29 genesis.

I am speaking about Iron age and presumably Goths,Vandals,not later dates or present day.Thanks on your information's anyway.They were overwhelmed in that area later on or emigrated but are still to be found.

Tomenable
09-07-17, 17:37
where is the typical R1b Germanic clade among them

Wielbark sample from Drozdowo is said to be R1b-U106 but it has not been published yet.

LeBrok
09-07-17, 20:15
This I1a3 from Iron Age Poland (Wielbark) does not confirm Scandinavian origin of Goths:

KO_55, Poland, Wielbark culture, Kowalewko (100-300 AD), I1a3a1a1-Y6626

See below:

Interesting, so either Goths were from Pomerania no Scandinavia, or this I1a3 was from local East Germanics who, I guess, expanded as far as Bug River? Of course one sample is enough to draw exact conclusions about everything. Goths easily could have picked this one up on their way through East Germanic lands. Many East Germanics could have easily joined Goths, who spoke almost same language and probably believed in same gods.

I1a3_Young
10-07-17, 00:14
East Germanic tribes from Poland migrated all the way to Benelux and France in the 400s:

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



Later their descendants migrated from Benelux and France to Britain, as Anglo-Saxons and Normans. They became part of the so called Anglo-Saxons (in fact those were very mixed Germanic-speaking groups - and the most numerous part were Frisians, not Saxons) and migrated to Britain during the 400s-600s. Alternatively, they could become part of the Normans and move to Britain after 1066 AD.

Only finding I1a3 in older aDNA from outside of Poland can prove that I1a3 is not East Germanic.

So far all of the oldest samples of I1a3 are from Iron Age Poland.

And it is not impossble that I1a3 migrated to Britain from Poland, because it could be carried for example by the Vandals, who came from Poland, and who invaded Northern France after 31.12.406 AD. It is estimated that 150,000 people crossed the Rhine and moved into Northern France on that day.

That is very interesting. So it could be that the Z63 movement into England with the Anglo-Saxons was not within the Anglo-Saxons but accompanying Eastern tribes that took a roundabout route.

The Normans had an estimated 1% genetic impact on the UK and the Saxons had 20-30% so it's more likely to have come in with the latter.

Thanks for posting the individual details. This batch of Polish samples is very interesting indeed!

Ukko
10-07-17, 01:24
This I1a3 from Iron Age Poland (Wielbark) does not confirm Scandinavian origin of Goths:

KO_55, Poland, Wielbark culture, Kowalewko (100-300 AD), I1a3a1a1-Y6626

See below:

https://aleximreh.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/goth1.png?w=768

From Eupedia:

"(...) It corresponds to the Z63+ subclade. I1a3-Z63+ subclade is virtually absent from Nordic countries. It is most common in Central Germany, the Benelux, England, Lowland Scotland, as well as Poland. It has also been found in Russia, Ukraine, the Balkans, Italy, Spain and Portugal. Y2245.2+ makes up a big part of the Z63 in Russia, Ukraine, Poland, the Balkans, Italy and Iberia. It could have been spread by the Goths. BY351+ is a subclade found in Portugal, Spain, Italy (including Sardinia). It was probably spread by the Visigoths and Ostrogoths. (...)"


Finland also has many clades above and below DF29, not to mention the linquistic and archeological proof.
Claiming a non Nordic origin of Germanic I1 is a fantasy.

I1a3_Young
10-07-17, 01:45
Non-DF29 I1 can be found in many places. There was a large spread of pre-DF29 I1 as evidenced by the LBKT BAB5 sample in Hungary and the Stora Forvar 11 in Gotland at approximately the same time. That is a large geographic area and those samples are very different ethnically. BAB5 was 90% EEF and SF11 was 8% EEF.

Non-DF29 known locations:

Russia
Finland
Netherlands
England
Poland
Germany-Sachsen
France
Denmark

Ukko
10-07-17, 01:58
Non-DF29 I1 can be found in many places. There was a large spread of pre-DF29 I1 as evidenced by the LBKT BAB5 sample in Hungary and the Stora Forvar 11 in Gotland at approximately the same time. That is a large geographic area and those samples are very different ethnically. BAB5 was 90% EEF and SF11 was 8% EEF.

Non-DF29 known locations:

Russia
Finland
Netherlands
England
Poland
Germany-Sachsen
France
Denmark

Same continues below DF29


https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-DF29/

Ukko
10-07-17, 02:04
Wielbark Culture was always suspected to belong to Goths, on their way to Black Sea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wielbark_culture

However it was said by archeologists that Wielbark contained two separate ethnicities living side by side. &nbsp;It makes sense as Goths didn't have time to mix with local population on their fast pace to the Black Sea. &nbsp;IIRC, they marched from Baltic to Black Sea in about 150 years. &nbsp;I wonder who was the second ethnicity of Wielbark Culture. &nbsp;Germanic, Baltic or Slavic?


The cremations would most likely have N1c included in them, Siberian tribes?

Ukko
10-07-17, 02:12
Are we having fun?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0w0629SlC8

Milan.M
10-07-17, 07:57
Finland also has many clades above and below DF29, not to mention the linquistic and archeological proof.
Claiming a non Nordic origin of Germanic I1 is a fantasy.
If I1-Z63 formation is going back to 4600 ybp (2650 BC),what makes it Germanic in that particular period,you want to say that in those times there was Germanics?
Please elaborate where was this clade and how it become Germanic then.
And if this clade is absent from Scandinavia,what makes it Nordic in origin?
Plus the oldest finding of I1 haplogroup is Hungary,along side farmers.

LeBrok
10-07-17, 16:51
If I1-Z63 formation is going back to 4600 ybp (2650 BC),what makes it Germanic in that particular period,you want to say that in those times there was Germanics?
Please elaborate where was this clade and how it become Germanic then.
And if this clade is absent from Scandinavia,what makes it Nordic in origin?
Plus the oldest finding of I1 haplogroup is Hungary,along side farmers. Good point. At it's conception it wasn't a germanic haplogroup. Secondly, I1 or certain subclades of it could have gotten to Scandinavia with farmers from Central Europe or Balkans. It is still a possibility.

I1a3_Young
10-07-17, 17:07
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34307-Revisiting-Stora-F%C3%B6rvar-11-from-Gotland

I started that thread for SF11 sample which has I1 calls in Gotland at the same time as the BAB5 sample from Hungary (M253).

Tomenable
10-07-17, 18:48
ME_7, Markowice (1000-1200 AD), I1a2a2a5-Y5384

He is one of these peasant skeletons shown here:

http://strzelno3.bloog.pl/id,342547295,title,Odkrycia-archeologiczne-w-Markowicach,index.html?smoybbtticaid=6197b0


Leżące na najżyźniejszych glebach naszej gminy Markowice, zdają się swymi korzeniami sięgać bardzo odległych wieków. Bliskość Niemojewka i związane z tą miejscowością znaleziska, upewniają nas, że u zarania państwowości polskiej Markowice stanowić mogły wykształconą już osadę. Dotychczasowe znalezisko zdaje się utwierdzić moje domysły zawarte w tejże książce, że początki Markowic, jako wykształconej wsi i to dużej wsi sięgają początków chrześcijaństwa na tym terenie. Jednakże dopiero końcowe wyniki badań pozwolą na pełniejszy wgląd w pozostałości po pradziejowym osadnictwie na tym obszarze.

http://pu.i.wp.pl/bloog/94156279/48363111/DSC_0543_VH_big.jpg

An Early Medieval I2a-Din peasant (?) was also found:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6522-Early-Medieval-aDNA-from-Poland-coming-soon&p=257687&viewfull=1#post257687

NA_13, Niemcza, (900-1000 AD), I2a1b2-L621

=======================

Markowice are Group NE (rural settlements), as for Niemcza I'm not sure if they are NE or E:

http://s4.postimg.org/cnzq9ygcd/Piast_realm.png

I've heard rumours / leaks about 2 samples from Group E (Elites) who are R1a.

Including one R1a-M458>L260 and one undetermined branch of R1a.

Meanwhile, Markowice I1-M253 is Non-Elites for sure, and Niemcza probably too.

The Piasts are confirmed R1b.

So far we have R1b Royalty > R1a Elites > other haplogroups in rural settlements.

One R1a is from a high-ranking aristocrat associated with the Komes of Wrocław:

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

This R1a is not from the Komes himself, but from one of his high-ranking nobiles.

As for the Komes himself, I don't know what was his Y-DNA but he was also tested.

LeBrok
10-07-17, 19:50
ME_7, Markowice (1000-1200 AD), I1a2a2a5-Y5384
This one is weird. It has West Germanic haplogroup, according to Maciamo's chart. In Harappa run it shows some Siberian admixture and higher Baloch and Med. It is closer to what Unetice and Northern Corded Ware represented than Slavic. Perhaps it was a leftover from Germanic tribes from this area, or beginning of medieval germanic migration to Poland?



The Piasts are confirmed R1b.

So far we have R1b Royalty > R1a Elites > other haplogroups in rural settlements.

I wouldn't have it any other way. ;)
Seriously, I never gave a squat myself, but it is going to hurt the anti R1b crowd, lol.

I1a3_Young
10-07-17, 20:21
Great stuff Tomenable. This yet another example of the fluidity of Europeans. If there is a thousand year gap, we could be missing big changes such as this.

Did the Gothic tribes leave due to weather/famine/curiosity or were they pushed by the R1 people? We know they moved all around Europe so it could have created a vacuum for the later medieval inhabitants to fill once conditions improved (if that is why the Gothic tribes left).

So the Z58 was a peasant with a more western brand of I1. Maybe he was a Gothic remnant or maybe he moved into the area after they left?

LeBrok
10-07-17, 21:30
Great stuff Tomenable. This yet another example of the fluidity of Europeans. If there is a thousand year gap, we could be missing big changes such as this.

Did the Gothic tribes leave due to weather/famine/curiosity or were they pushed by the R1 people? We know they moved all around Europe so it could have created a vacuum for the later medieval inhabitants to fill once conditions improved (if that is why the Gothic tribes left).

So the Z58 was a peasant with a more western brand of I1. Maybe he was a Gothic remnant or maybe he moved into the area after they left? Goths were in the way of Central Asiatic/Hunic migration to Europe. They could stop few I guess, but eventually they were too many to stop. Roman Empire was fairly weak to stop big invasions, so it couldn't stop Goths, being pushed West.
Mid first millennium climate sucked big time. It was cold and crops kept failing. This helped East Germanic and Slavic tribes to make their minds to migrate South and West. After couple of centuries of Hunic invasions, failed corps, plagues (Justinian), famin, Roman Empire was too depopulated, poor and weak to keep any status quo in Europe.
It got even worse in next couple of centuries when Europe tumbled into Dark Ages.

PS.
And it all happened 100 years after Christianity became official religion of Empire. This early form of Christianity could have changed Roman's culture and mindset, which maybe wasn't in agreement with running an empire, helping its demise. So we can blame Christianity too. ;)

aNtol
11-07-17, 01:57
The cremations would most likely have N1c included in them, Siberian tribes?

What evidence is there that they would be N1c? Also I highly doubt they were Siberian. As far as I'm aware Siberians have never reached anywhere near Poland.

Tomenable
12-07-17, 19:22
About Vandals who stayed in Poland (probably the same applied to Goths):

From Procopius, History of the Wars, III, xxii, 13-16:

"(...) Now as for those Vandals who remained in their native land, neither remembrance nor any name of them has been preserved to my time. (...) they were either overpowered by the neighbouring barbarians or they were mingled with them [Slavs] not at all unwillingly and their name gave way to that of their conquerors. Indeed, when the Vandals were conquered at that time by Belisarius, no thought occurred to them to go from there to their ancestral homes. For they were not able to convey themselves suddenly from Libya to Europe, especially as they had no ships at hand, but paid the penalty [2] there for all the wrongs they had done the Romans and especially the Zacynthians. (...)"

[2] In Arcana, 18, 5 ff., Procopius estimates the number of the Vandals in Africa, at the time of Belisarius, at 80,000 males, and intimates that practically all perished.

Tomenable
13-07-17, 03:04
"Archaeology of Early Medieval Poland" by Andrzej Buko (English edition):

https://brego-weard.com/lib/ns/The_Archaeology_of_Early_Medieval_Poland_Discov.pd f

https://books.google.pl/books?id=i6A3Q1WQIroC&pg=PA195&lpg=PA195&dq=Vladimir+went+to+Lachs+981&source=bl&ots=yLsVDe3ADn&sig=UcFvganPG-vlrKDE0FeCA2ECakw&hl=pl&sa=X&ei=G1KkU9epGe-h7AaA7IH4Dw&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Vladimir%20went%20to%20Lachs%20981&f=false

Angela
13-07-17, 17:17
It's time to accept the facts. Davidski and everyone else who insisted that Slavic ethnogenesis took place in Poland were wrong. It was probably, as most people, including Jean Manco, insisted, somewhere in western Ukraine and Belarus.

Sile
13-07-17, 19:21
It's time to accept the facts. Davidski and everyone else who insisted that Slavic ethnogenesis took place in Poland were wrong. It was probably, as most people, including Jean Manco, insisted, somewhere in western Ukraine and Belarus.

was there ever any doubt about this!............the russian scholars have been saying this since 2002

Tomenable
13-07-17, 20:16
It's time to accept the facts. Davidski and everyone else who insisted that Slavic ethnogenesis took place in Poland were wrong. It was probably, as most people, including Jean Manco, insisted, somewhere in western Ukraine and Belarus.

I wouldn't exclude South-Eastern Poland from possible locations though. Anyway it seems that Proto-Slavs looked like a mix of Hungarian Bronze Age with Baltic Bronze Age populations. Question is where did that population - which looked like such a mix - live. It could be in North-Western Ukraine, South-Eastern Poland, both, or elsewhere.

mlukas
13-07-17, 21:14
Regarding south eastern Poland, you mean not Subcarpathia but rather Lubelskie?

Tomenable
14-07-17, 00:26
Regarding south eastern Poland, you mean not Subcarpathia but rather Lubelskie?

Maybe Lubelskie, or both regions.

Rethel
15-07-17, 00:06
Quite interesting lecture about the cementary in Bodzia from
the period 965-1035 where were find people from everywhere,
and they were quite rich. Franks, Moravians, Rusins, Northmen,
maybe also Chazars migriting to Kuyavia. It would be interesting
to test them to see, what DNA they brought here. Russkie was I1.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGq3tF4Xt5g

LeBrok
15-07-17, 18:43
Quite interesting lecture about the cementary in Bodzia from
the period 965-1035 where were find people from everywhere,
and they were quite rich. Franks, Moravians, Rusins, Northmen,
maybe also Chazars migriting to Kuyavia. It would be interesting
to test them to see, what DNA they brought here. Russkie was I1.

Very interesting lecture. Too bad it is not in English. The whole world could enjoy this interesting lecture.

Pay attention that C14 dating was very precise and in agreement with written historical events and dating by buried coins. Now, exactly the same C14 dating technique is used of dating bones of Kostenki or Mal'ta guys and in agreement with archeology, material culture, fauna, geology and dated at 40 and 20 kya respectively.

Rethel
15-07-17, 21:17
Pay attention that C14 dating was very precise and in agreement with written historical events and dating by buried coins. Now, exactly the same C14 dating technique is used of dating bones of Kostenki or Mal'ta guys and in agreement with archeology, material culture, fauna, geology and dated at 40 and 20 kya respectively.

Nope.
Guy from before 1000 years did live in similar circumstances as we, so the results were correct.
But in the deep past circumstances on the planet were different, and the basic amount of C14
was different than is today. And there is no way to say, what was the amount when someone
was alive becasue firstly it has to be known not only how much of C14 was in the atmosphere,
but also when did such organism lived - co the circle is closed. Especially in creasionistic model
it is the necessary condition, which - when you reject flood and aso - will misslead you totally.

If the method would be correct always and everywhere, then two different parts of one animal
would not have different ages, different on thousadns of years. When I find it I will post it here.

But it is nothing, comnparing with the problem, that C14 is still there where he phisically cannot
be - not only in the remains of animals supposedly living hundrets of millions years ago like the
dinosaurs, but also in coal. There should be none of C14 - should be degradeted long ago. But
is - and it means, that this organisms and the coal is not older than 50k+ some years - as the
period of total destruction of C14 is long if I remember correctly. Dinosaurs are dated by this
method between 20,000 and 40,000 years. So, if you belive in Malta boy being 22,000 years
old, and Kostienki being 40,000 years old, then you have to also belive in such old dinosaurs,
because the method is the same and the result is similar.

Rethel
15-07-17, 21:22
Here is about it:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgM_p9UfOeI

I1a3_Young
17-07-17, 16:28
After looking over the I1 trees more carefully, it appears that Z58, while being more popular in german tribes that migrated to the UK, does have significant branches that are "Nordic."

The Z59 branch, which is a large component of Z58, has many Nordic subclades including Z382 which is upstream of what was found in one of these Poland samples.

matbir
17-07-17, 22:53
After looking over the I1 trees more carefully, it appears that Z58, while being more popular in german tribes that migrated to the UK, does have significant branches that are "Nordic."

The Z59 branch, which is a large component of Z58, has many Nordic subclades including Z382 which is upstream of what was found in one of these Poland samples. Well, actually Those Nordic branches could have originated from Jutland, so it could be the case for other clades that are spread in the eastern and southern part of Europe. Under Z59 is I1-FGC24357 clade which has TMRCA at 1750 ybp and it descendants live today in Sardinia, Stockholm and England. Another subclade Y3560 that has TMRCA at 2300 ybp is found in Bulgaria and Slovenia. By now it looks like signatures of Goths and Vandals.

Edit:
The other cade L1237 under Z63 has TMRCA at 2900 ybp it is spread from Russia to Italy and Great Britain it corresponds with spread of Pomeranian culture in Poland. It actually supports theory that Germanic folks settled in Poland way before emergence of Wielbark culture.

I1a3_Young
18-07-17, 02:26
Well, actually Those Nordic branches could have originated from Jutland, so it could be the case for other clades that are spread in the eastern and southern part of Europe. Under Z59 is I1-FGC24357 clade which has TMRCA at 1750 ybp and it descendants live today in Sardinia, Stockholm and England. Another subclade Y3560 that has TMRCA at 2300 ybp is found in Bulgaria and Slovenia. By now it looks like signatures of Goths and Vandals.

Edit:
The other cade L1237 under Z63 has TMRCA at 2900 ybp it is spread from Russia to Italy and Great Britain it corresponds with spread of Pomeranian culture in Poland. It actually supports theory that Germanic folks settled in Poland way before emergence of Wielbark culture.
Sorry, I used the word Nordic instead of Scandinavian. I certainly think that it's a strong possibility that Z58 appeared first in Denmark or south Sweden and had major branches in both directions.

Z63 branches of all types were spread by the eastern wandering Gothic tribes and also the western migrators to the British Isles.

I know we call the Gothics German but is that completely accurate? How about the Angles/Saxons/Jutes? Are the Danes the official border of Scandinavians despite the proximity and similarity of the aforementioned "Germanic" tribes?

We know a Germanic people were in Wielbark at a specific time but that part of Europe was highly volatile regarding populations. That is the fun of European history. If the mysteries we're all solved then we would be out of a hobby.

Kingslav
18-07-17, 10:14
Analysis of Iron Age and Early Medieval Polish genomes:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6522-Early-Medieval-aDNA-from-Poland-coming-soon&p=252846&viewfull=1#post252846

PCA with two Iron Age and one Early Medieval samples:

http://i.imgur.com/Kwmjsds.png

Interesting how Carpathian-Rusyns plot on this chart, in comparison to other Poles. Thanks for sharing

I1a3_Young
18-07-17, 13:35
KO25 and 55 plot perfect for Z63 zone, straddling the German/Scandinavian border.

Sent from my XT1080 using Eupedia Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

LeBrok
18-07-17, 17:01
KO25 and 55 plot perfect for Z63 zone, straddling the German/Scandinavian border.

Sent from my XT1080 using Eupedia Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)Yep, quite few clues now point to Scandinavian origin of Wielbark, at least one of populations of Wielbark.

Ukko
22-07-17, 23:55
Comparing Kit xxxxxxx and M070872 (Kowalewko_22)

Largest segment = 31.8 cM
Total of segments > 7 cM = 77.7 cM
3 matching segments

9626 SNPs used for this comparison.

Comparison took 0.39881 seconds.

Ukko
23-07-17, 00:04
Comparing Kit xxxxxxx and M518184 (Mas_5)

Largest segment = 21.9 cM
Total of segments > 7 cM = 21.9 cM
1 matching segments

10519 SNPs used for this comparison.

Comparison took 0.23592 seconds.

Ukko
23-07-17, 00:05
Comparing Kit xxxxxxx and T533353 (mar7)

Largest segment = 14.6 cM
Total of segments > 7 cM = 82.4 cM
7 matching segments

18745 SNPs used for this comparison.

Comparison took 0.25097 seconds.

Ukko
23-07-17, 00:07
Comparing Kit xxxxxxx and T855386 (Kow_26)


​Largest segment = 47.0 cM
Total of segments > 7 cM = 47.0 cM
1 matching segments

6382 SNPs used for this comparison.

Comparison took 0.30252 seconds.