PDA

View Full Version : Extensive female-biased immigration in Early Medieval Bavaria



Angela
13-03-18, 06:17
The men seem to be quite similar to modern northern and central Europeans, but the women are quite different.

See: Krishna R. Veeramah, et al (inc. Hellenthal and Burger)
"Population genomic analysis of elongated skulls reveals extensive female-biased immigration in Early Medieval Bavaria"

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/03/06/1719880115

"Significance

"Many modern European states trace their roots back to a period known as the Migration Period that spans from Late Antiquity to the early Middle Ages. We have conducted the first population-level analysis of people from this era, generating genomic data from 41 graves from archaeological sites in present-day Bavaria in southern Germany mostly dating to around 500 AD. While they are predominantly of northern/central European ancestry, we also find significant evidence for a nonlocal genetic provenance that is highly enriched among resident Early Medieval women, demonstrating artificial skull deformation. We infer that the most likely origin of the majority of these women was southeastern Europe, resolving a debate that has lasted for more than half a century.

Abstract

Modern European genetic structure demonstrates strong correlations with geography, while genetic analysis of prehistoric humans has indicated at least two major waves of immigration from outside the continent during periods of cultural change. However, population-level genome data that could shed light on the demographic processes occurring during the intervening periods have been absent. Therefore, we generated genomic data from 41 individuals dating mostly to the late 5th/early 6th century AD from present-day Bavaria in southern Germany, including 11 whole genomes (mean depth 5.56×). In addition we developed a capture array to sequence neutral regions spanning a total of 5 Mb and 486 functional polymorphic sites to high depth (mean 72×) in all individuals. Our data indicate that while men generally had ancestry that closely resembles modern northern and central Europeans, women exhibit a very high genetic heterogeneity; this includes signals of genetic ancestry ranging from western Europe to East Asia. Particularly striking are women with artificial skull deformations; the analysis of their collective genetic ancestry suggests an origin in southeastern Europe. In addition, functional variants indicate that they also differed in visible characteristics. This example of female-biased migration indicates that complex demographic processes during the Early Medieval period may have contributed in an unexpected way to shape the modern European genetic landscape. Examination of the panel of functional loci also revealed that many alleles associated with recent positive selection were already at modern-like frequencies in European populations ∼1,500 years ago."


Anyone familiar with this cultural practice? I never heard of it. This is what the authors say about it:


As to the genetics:

"A population assignment analysis (PAA) at the level of individual modern nation states suggested greatest genetic similarity of these normal-skulled individuals with modern Germans, consistent with their sampling location (Fig. 4 A and B (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/03/06/1719880115#F4) and SI Appendix, Table S35 (http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1719880115/-/DCSupplemental)). The only exceptions to this general pattern of northern/central European ancestry were the two women, STR_300 and STR_502, which were of a more southern ancestry associated with present day Greece and Turkey, respectively (SI Appendix, Fig. S29 (http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1719880115/-/DCSupplemental))."

Lots of Tuscan like people in southeastern Europe still in the late 400s and early 500s.

Blue is normal skulls, green is intermediate, and red is elongated.

https://i.imgur.com/NlyjY7W.png

"A much more diverse ancestry was observed among the females with elongated skulls, as demonstrated by a significantly greater group-based FIS(SI Appendix, Fig. S35 (http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1719880115/-/DCSupplemental)). All these females had varying amounts of genetic ancestry found today predominantly in southern European countries [as seen by the varying amounts of ancestry inferred by model-based clustering that is representative of a sample from modern Tuscany, Italy (TSI), Fig. 3 (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/03/06/1719880115#F3)], and while the majority of samples were found to be closest to modern southeastern Europeans (Bulgaria and Romania, Fig. 4C (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/03/06/1719880115#F4)), at least one individual, AED_1108, appeared to possess ∼20% East Asian ancestry (Fig. 3 (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/03/06/1719880115#F3)), which was also evident from the high number of haplotypes within the 5-Mb neutralome that were private to modern East Asian 1000 Genomes individuals (EAS), while also demonstrating an overall ancestry profile consistent with Central Asian populations (SI Appendix, Fig. S33 (http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1719880115/-/DCSupplemental)). "

https://i.imgur.com/Kitmf39.png

https://i.imgur.com/GzORJ4s.png

"A diverse ancestry was also inferred for the two non-Bavarian samples with elongated heads. KER_1 from Ukraine possessed significant southern European ancestry as well as South Asian ancestry, with an overall profile that best matched modern Turkish individuals. The Gepid VIM_2 from Serbia demonstrated a similar Central Asian-like genetic profile to the Medieval Bavarian AED_1108 with an even larger East Asian component and number of private haplotypes but with less southern European/Middle Eastern ancestry (SI Appendix, Figs. S31 and S33 (http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1719880115/-/DCSupplemental)). The two Sarmatian individuals (PR_4 and PR_10) fitted a general eastern European/western Asian profile, but also possessed a much larger northern European component [as represented by modern Finnish individuals (FIN)] similar to modern Russians, consistent with their sampling location. As previously observed in Schiffels et al. (12 (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/03/06/1719880115#ref-12)) contemporary Anglo-Saxon samples appeared to be primarily of northern/central European ancestry, with greatest similarity overall to modern British and Scandinavian individuals (SI Appendix, Fig. S32 (http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1719880115/-/DCSupplemental))."


"It was also notable that no Bavarian individual (normal or ACD, male or female) possessed ancestry related to southwestern Europe, as represented by a sample of individuals sequenced from the Iberian population in Spain (IBS). This is in contrast to the Roman soldier dating to around 300 AD sampled from the same region, for which its largest ancestry component was IBS, with greatest genetic similarity to modern Spanish and southern French individuals (SI Appendix, Fig. S31 (http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1719880115/-/DCSupplemental)). Based on an analysis of patterns of haplotype sharing, the Roman soldier (FN_2: 11.08×) was found to have substantially more southern European, West Asian, and Middle Eastern ancestry than two normal-skulled Early Medieval Bavarians with high genomic coverage (ALH_10: 12.17×, ALH_1: 13.27×) (SI Appendix, Figs. S48 and S49 (http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1719880115/-/DCSupplemental))."

I have no idea why some people in the pop gen community are assuming that this Roman soldier from 300 AD would necessarily have been Italian of any kind. He could just as likely indeed been Iberian from what I can see. The days were long gone by 300 AD that all the Roman soldiers were from the Italian peninsula.
https://i.imgur.com/3fFpxJj.png

davef
13-03-18, 07:01
Cool, those two ladies (300 and 502) seem to plot in southern Italy. South Italian like people were still living in northern areas at that time, ill read more but it's late

Sile
13-03-18, 07:16
in other forums its stated, for some samples
PR_4 and PR_10 very precise matches to Tajikistan with high probability (p70, S31).
Most likely populations Table S35 ("A population assignment analysis (PAA) at the level of individual modern nation states") gives:
(Sample, Pop, Probability)
VIM_2 (Gepid, Serbia) - NOG (Nogai) - 0.94
PR_10 (Sarmartian) - TAJ (Tajik) - 0.96
PR_4 (Sarmartian) - TAJ (Tajik) 0.8
FN_2 (Roman Soldier, Munich ) - ITN (Italian) - 0.38
KER_1 (Crimean Goth, Ukraine) - TUS (Tuscan) - 0.29
with another IBS ( sample FN_2) being labelled as north italian, its getting tiresome when papers place IBS next to Bergamo and declare its a north-italian
The Gepid from Serbia is an interesting find with a big % of east asian

http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/suppl/2018/03/06/1719880115.DCSupplemental/pnas.1719880115.sapp.pdf

Ygorcs
13-03-18, 07:18
Southeastern European women, one of which has ~20% of East Asian ancestry, living around 500 AD in Central Europe? My bets would be on the remnants of Hun people after they lost their power, or on the incipient arrival of the Avars or Bulgars from the Eurasian steppes around the 6th century, through the usual "corridor" from Dobruja to Bulgaria and Serbia and then northwards to Central Europe.

berun
13-03-18, 08:34
Goths could explain there the presence of steppe and Balkan women and steppe practices as they settled modern Ukraine two centuries and lower Danube half century.

gyms
13-03-18, 10:37
In the Old World (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_World), Huns (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns) also are known to have practised similar cranial deformation.[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_cranial_deformation#cite_note-6) as were the people known as the Alans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alans).[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_cranial_deformation#cite_note-7) In Late Antiquity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Antiquity) (AD 300-600), the East Germanic tribes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_peoples) who were ruled by the Huns, the Gepids (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gepids), Ostrogoths (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostrogoths), Heruli (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heruli), Rugii (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugii), and Burgundians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgundians) adopted this custom.[citation needed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] In western Germanic tribes, artificial skull deformations rarely have been found.[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_cranial_deformation#cite_note-8)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_cranial_deformation#cite_note-8

Angela
13-03-18, 15:01
As to the "Roman" soldier...

In the Supplement, authors usually show all the results using numerous methods. Both the map and the Admixture chart I posted above show that this Roman soldier was majority Iberian, which is the conclusion stated in the paper. Whether the North Italian which shows up in some analyses is factually accurate, i.e. he was part Northern Italian, or whether it's an artifact of the relationship between Northern Italy and the populations running from there to southern France and on to Spain, I don't know.

People should try reading the whole paper instead of jumping to the first table they see. Of course, some of them have difficulty reading, or maybe they just prefer numbers so much that they skip over the words. Bad practice. Then there's the fact that agendas skew analysis.

Pax Augusta
13-03-18, 16:25
They continue to use the 1000 genomes dataset that has a very limited number of populations (CEU, FIN, GBR, IBS, TSI...), so the results of PAA and ADMIXTURE are not 100% accurate when it comes to the modern-day best reference population. Not to mention that TSI (Tuscany) is based on samples "from individuals who identified themselves as having at least three out of four grandparent born in Tuscany". Self-identification and three out of four native grandparent are not exactly the highest achievable accuracy.

For example in the Procrustes-transformed PCA STR_310 in the PAA has Romanian as best modern reference populaton but in the PCA is closer to Bergamo (north Italy) and Tuscans.

So we must take these results as indicative rather than literally, but definitely the women examined are genetically southern European.



https://i.imgur.com/R0GcOYO.jpg

Pax Augusta
13-03-18, 17:19
As to the "Roman" soldier... In the Supplement, authors usually show all the results using numerous methods. Both the map and the Admixture chart I posted above show that this Roman soldier was majority Iberian, which is the conclusion stated in the paper. Whether the North Italian which shows up in some analyses is factually accurate, i.e. he was part Northern Italian, or whether it's an artifact of the relationship between Northern Italy and the populations running from there to southern France and on to Spain, I don't know. People should try reading the whole paper instead of jumping to the first table they see. Of course, some of them have difficulty reading, or maybe they just prefer numbers so much that they skip over the words. Bad practice. Then there's the fact that agendas skew analysis. Of course there is no evidence either that a Roman soldier dating to around 300 AD sampled from the same region can be representative for all the ancient Romans, especially the Latin tribes who founded Rome 1000 years before him.

Angela
13-03-18, 17:28
They continue to use the 1000 genomes dataset that has a limited number of populations (CEU, FIN, GBR, IBS, TSI...), so the results of PAA are not 100% accurate when it comes to the modern-day best reference population.

For example in the Procrustes-transformed PCA STR_310 in the PAA has Romanian as best modern reference populaton but in the PCA is closer to Bergamo (north Italy) and Tuscans.

So we must take these results as indicative rather than literally, but the women examined are definitely genetically European south.



https://i.imgur.com/R0GcOYO.jpg

Yes, you're right. That's why everyone keeps coming out Tuscan: it's the closest of the 1000 genomes populations.

For those who haven't seen it, in the back of the Supplement starting on page 68 they have a map for each sample:

Neither STR 300, which looks Greek, Albanian, Southern Italian, nor STR 510 which looks like a Southern Italian/Turkish, have altered skulls. So, perhaps they arrived in Bavaria by a different route? AEF_1 by that analysis looks generally Italian, but does have the elongated skull, so things are complicated.

Most of the women look to be, however, from southeastern Europe, specifically Bulgaria and Romania.

The outliers...

https://i.imgur.com/SBSfPC4.png


Of course there is no evidence either that a Roman soldier dating to around 300 AD sampled from the same region can be representative for all the ancient Romans, especially the Latin tribes who founded Rome 1000 years before him.

Again, you're right. It's just idiocy from the usual suspects most of the time, people who don't know anything, and I mean ANYTHING about the history of this era, the Romans, the Legions, or on and on.

I also think this paper is a salutary lesson that when we get "exotic" results in ancient dna, no matter where they are found, the people represented by those samples did not necessarily make an impact on the total genomic make up of that geographic area.

Sile
13-03-18, 18:46
as some have stated,.... the roman soldier, 60 years old and mtdna H3 could have IBS due to this "iberian H3" marker ..........clearly we still have scholars pushing for IBS influences regardless .......silly people.
when will people stop using these low level old models?

davef
13-03-18, 19:49
"Again, you're right. It's just idiocy from the usual suspects most of the time, people who don't know anything, and I mean ANYTHING about the history of this era, the Romans, the Legions, or on and on."

Common sense wouldn't expect most of Rome to be Iberian either. And arguing that based on that one sample would be like using the British Roman solider (I think there was one who was actually close to Britain genetically aside from the middle eastern one) to argue that most of Rome was close to northwestern Europe.

Of course, a similar argument using the middle eastern soldier is also a bad idea.

Angela
13-03-18, 20:50
Roman Bavaria:

German Limes:
http://www.fam-oud.nl/~oof/Limes/Limes_map1.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QtSjhfJCL8c/TamEyDtkpQI/AAAAAAAABbU/Iquq4FDcq0Q/s1600/roman%2Bempire%2Bmap%2Bgermania%2Barminius.png

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3f/Romancoloniae.jpg/500px-Romancoloniae.jpg

"Augustus Caesar, whose legions pushed as far as the Elbe, establishing the provinces of Germania Inferior, Germania Superior and Rhaetia. The Romans then settled along the Rhine and Danube and erected the Limes, a nearly 500-kilometer-long system of fortifications to ward off the hostile Germanic tribes. Their rule over today's western and southern Germany lasted 450 years and left an indelible legacy.

BAVARIA The Romans were all over Bavaria. Augsburg was first founded in 15 B.C. as Augusta Vindelicorum, and grew to be the capital of Rhaetia province. Its city symbol, the Zirbelnuß, or pine cone, was Augustus' royal symbol, and serves as an ubiquitous reminder of the town's imperial past. Its Roman Museum, housed in an old church, overflows with sculpture, architectural fragments, and a wealth of artifacts. The lawn adjacent to the cathedral harbors the foundations of a Roman villa, as well as other archeological findings displayed out of doors.

Kempten, just an hour southwest of Munich, was a Celtic settlement called Cambodonum when the Romans conquered it in 15 B.C. Soon thereafter it became an important trade center. Excavations have been underway for decades, and since the 1980s there has been an archaeological park with reconstructions of the forum.

Regensburg, to the northeast of Munich, was founded in 179 A.D. as Castra Regina, the headquarters of the crack 3rd Italian Legion. The military contingent alone numbered 6,000, but with families, camp followers, craftsmen, merchants and slaves, the residents comprised a fortified town double that size. Its mint struck the last Roman coin in Germany at the beginning of the fifth century, marking the ultimate downfall of Italian hegemony north of the Alps. Though most of the recovered antiquities are in Regensburg's City Museum, sections of the Roman wall remain visible, including the massive Porta Praetoria gate.

XANTEN Xanten, downstream from Düsseldorf, was a flourishing trade and shipping center two thousand years ago.Called Colonia Ulpia Traiana, it had a population of 15,000 Roman army veterans turned merchants who thrived behind the city's extensive defensive wall. The colony's heyday ended in the fourth century when theFranks stormed it. Instead of building on top of the old outpost, the invaders erected their own settlement called Xanten several hundred yards south of the abandoned Roman city. That practice benefited later archaeologists, since the remains of the earlier settlement remained intact.

http://www.munichfound.com/archives/id/26/article/494/

From the paper:
"In the course of archeological investigations previous to construction works in the newlydeveloped Munich district “Freiham-Nord”, a previously unknown Late Roman cemeterycontaining inhumation graves was discovered in autumn 2014."

"The man was probably buried on a woodenboard (“Totenbrett”) and there were no signs of burial offerings in the drawn in head sectionof the grave cavity. Meat offerings of chicken and pork were deposited at four positions nextto the shoulders and the feet of the man.Close to his left thigh a pierced bronze sheet and a thin iron ring could be found, as well as abig iron knife with a bronze plate pommel on the right of his right knee. A crossbow broochof type 1 according to Keller/Pröttel could be recovered at the man’s right ankle (Fig. S2).Finally, a soapstone bowl with antique traces of repair and a small bowl of the form Alzey2/Chenet 320 a (Fig. S2), which probably resembles an imitation, could be recovered from thefoot section of the grave cavity that was also slightly drawn in. Bowls comparable to the smallone described here were found in Late Roman graves from Potzham, county of Munich, andGilching, county of Starnberg near Munich. The crack in the bottom of the soapstone bowlwas repaired using a riveted bronze clamp while the bowl’s rim was fixed with an iron metalsheet. This allowed for further use of the bowl, with some limitations. The bronze crossbowbrooch (Pröttel type 1) that was probably deposited in the foot section of the grave cavitytogether with an associated coat, is crucial for the dating of the burial. Similarly, cast piecescould be recovered from sites at Passau, Eining or Burghöfe where they were probably 7manufactured. It is among the oldest types of crossbow brooches, whose wearers were veryoften identified to be executives in the Late Roman military. Dating around 300 AD, grave1335 is among the oldest inhumation burials of the small cemetery at Freiham."

So, he seems to have been somehow associated with the Roman military, but not in any high position.

The Legio III Italica was formed specifically for the fighting in Germany probably in northern Italy given its name, but from 165 to 300 AD is a long time. The Legio was stationed at various times in the East although there was always a presence in Germany, but people from various areas were also incorporated. "Civilians" attached to the administration could have come from almost anywhere.

See:
http://www.livius.org/articles/legion/legio-iii-italica/

Angela
13-03-18, 22:35
As well as the genetics, I'm fascinated by the skull deformations. Where on earth do people get these ideas? They have gotten it, however, and all over the world.

"Artificial cranial deformation or modification, head flattening, or head binding is a form of body alteration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_alteration) in which the skull (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skull) of a human being is deformed intentionally. It is done by distorting the normal growth of a child's skull by applying force. Flat shapes, elongated ones (produced by binding between two pieces of wood (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood)), rounded ones (binding in cloth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloth)), and conical (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone) ones are among those chosen. Typically, it is carried out on an infant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant), as the skull is most pliable at this time. In a typical case, headbinding begins approximately a month after birth and continues for about six months."

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

"Intentional cranial deformation predates written history (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Written_history); it was practised commonly in a number of cultures that are widely separated geographically and chronologically, and still occurs today in a few places, including Vanuatu (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanuatu).The earliest suggested examples were once thought to include the Proto-Neolithic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic)Homo sapiens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens) component (ninth millennium BC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_millennium_BC)) from Shanidar Cave (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanidar_Cave) in Iraq (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq),[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_cranial_deformation#cite_note-MeiklejohnSolecki92-1)[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_cranial_deformation#cite_note-2)[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_cranial_deformation#cite_note-3) and also among Neolithic peoples in Southwest Asia.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_cranial_deformation#cite_note-MeiklejohnSolecki92-1)[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_cranial_deformation#cite_note-4)
The earliest written record of cranial deformation—by Hippocrates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocrates), of the Macrocephali (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macrocephali) or Long-heads, who were named for their practice of cranial modification—dates to 400 BC.[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_cranial_deformation#cite_note-5)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/ParacasSkullsIcaMuseum.jpg/220px-ParacasSkullsIcaMuseum.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ParacasSkullsIcaMuseum.jpg)

Paracas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracas_culture) skulls


In the Old World (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_World), Huns (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns) also are known to have practised similar cranial deformation.[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_cranial_deformation#cite_note-6) as were the people known as the Alans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alans).[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_cranial_deformation#cite_note-7) In Late Antiquity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Antiquity) (AD 300-600), the East Germanic tribes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_peoples) who were ruled by the Huns, the Gepids (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gepids), Ostrogoths (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostrogoths), Heruli (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heruli), Rugii (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugii), and Burgundians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgundians) adopted this custom.[citation needed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] In western Germanic tribes, artificial skull deformations rarely have been found.[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_cranial_deformation#cite_note-8)
The practice of cranial deformation was brought to Bactria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bactria) and Sogdiana (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sogdiana) by the tribes who created the Kushan Empire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kushan_Empire). Men with such skulls are depicted in various surviving sculptures and friezes of that time, such as the Kushan prince of Khalchayan.[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_cranial_deformation#cite_note-9)"

It doesn't look quite as bad when the person has hair, but still....

According to this site:

"The practice of intentional deformation of the skull was once widespread all over the world. According to current beliefs, this custom probably appeared independently in different regions of the world, beginning as early as the Late Paleolithic Period, but possibly even earlier. In the Carpathian Basin, elongated skulls date to the late Iron Age, known in this region as the Hun-Germanic Period (5 th – 6 th century AD), and can be observed in all the people of the Carpathian Basin equally– the Sarmatians, Alans, Gothics, Depidics, and Hun populations. More than 200 elongated skulls have been found in the Carpathian Basin to date."

It seems that it was either imposed on or copied by people of southeastern Europe.

"The Huns occupied the Carpathian Basin from the 5 th century from where they led campaigns against different regions of Europe. In 453 AD, Attila the Hun, leader of the Hunic Empire, suddenly died, whereupon many Germanic tribes, rebelled against the Huns and expelled them from the Carpathian Basin. The frequent appearance of artificial cranial deformation in Europe and the Carpathian Basin can be attributed to the movements of the Huns, who flowed into Europe in the 4 th and 5 th centuries, pushing people of different Germanic origin westward. The custom survived among the Germanic populations until the early 7 th century.
A team of researchers from the University of Debrecen and College of Nyiregyhaza in Hungary studied a subset of nine elongated skulls excavated between 1996 and 2005 from two cemeteries located 70 kilometres apart in the north-eastern part of the Great Hungarian Plain. Their aim was to shed light on the origin and historical context of the custom practiced in the Carpathian Basin.
The research revealed that the skulls belonged to both male and female adolescents and adults ranging in age from 15 to 80. All of the skulls displayed characteristics of the Europid race, which characterised the common people of both Hun and Germanic tribes on a large scale. Four main types of cranial deformation could be distinguished – tabular oblique, tabular erect, circular oblique, and circular erect – which were produced through different methods including compression of the skull by firm rigid elements, such as cradle boards or tablets, and binding the skull with more flexible tools such as bandages, bands, tapes, and headdresses. The skulls ranged from slightly deformed to heavily deformed."

In some groups it wasn't limited to females.

"The authors maintain that the custom spread from east to west in 6 phases, originating up to 4,000 years ago. Beginning in Central Asia, in the territory west of the Tien-Shan, the custom spread through the Caucasus and Kalymykia Steppe, through to the Danube Basin (present day Romania, Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Austria, Slovakia, Hungary, and Czech Republic), then split into three distinct regions – the Middle Germanic Group, in which curiously the elongated skulls were all female; South and Southwest Germanic group, known from burial sites in Bavarian and Rhenish territories; and the Rhone Group – located in the southwest of Switzerland, the east of France, and the north of Italy."

"Germanic group, VI = Rhone Group. Image source (http://thejns.org/doi/pdf/10.3171/2014.1.FOCUS13466).
The elongated skulls in the Carpathian Basin belonged to the Danube Basin group, which represented the third phase in the Eurasian expansion of the custom transmitted by the Huns from the east to the west. The study authors believe that the custom might have enhanced the social status of individuals and became of sign of ethnicity in central Europe.
“It is conceivable that the Germanic peoples adopted the habits of the Huns (including intentional cranial deformation) in the first place because they wanted to be integrated into the Hun Empire and adapt to the conquerors in the hope of subsistence and advance,” wrote the study authors."

http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/new-study-reveal-origins-elongated-skulls-carpathian-basin-001530/page/0/1

Molnar, M., Jason, I., Szucs, L. & Szathmary, L. (2014). Artificially deformed crania from the Hun-Germanic Period (5 th-6th century AD) in northeastern Hungary: historical and morphological analysis. (http://thejns.org/doi/pdf/10.3171/2014.1.FOCUS13466)
http://thejns.org/doi/abs/10.3171/2014.1.FOCUS13466

davef
13-03-18, 22:52
I wonder if that practice impacted brain development...

Angela
13-03-18, 23:22
Some examples:
https://redice.tv/a/i/n/13/27662elonreal.jpg

http://www.ancient-origins.net/sites/default/files/ElongatedGoth_0.jpg

Am I reaching here? I always found this particular Northern Europe fashion rather bizarre. Could they be trying to approximate that look by plucking the hair in front and adding the cap?

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/32/04/24/3204249092458c262dd1593a9205da0d.jpg

https://silviafini.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/ladytalbotafter1460.jpg

Well, here's where cultural relativism comes into play. I hate really low foreheads too, but I think the above skulls and even this fashion are hideous.

@Davef,
I was thinking that too. A 0-6 month old's skull is still malleable to allow for brain growth. Wouldn't that perhaps cause cognitive deficits? Maybe that's why it was often women. Dumb women would be easier to handle.

davef
13-03-18, 23:37
Angela,

Ok I'm going to sound like a jerk here :) but those first two photos are not only hideous, they're downright frightening! My spine was tingling a bit looking at them!

And your theory of deliberately making women intellectually slow through cranial manipulation is interesting, perhaps it's safer to not have an intellectually impaired male due to him being stronger and more wreckless I would guess.

Angela
14-03-18, 22:00
I think it might be good to echo Pax's point here that these "ethnic" assignments should* be taken as gospel.

Yes, the 300 AD Roman soldier looks pretty "Iberian" like in terms of modern Iberians, but there is still the chance he's just an admixed soldier who has quite a bit of "Balkan" as well. The III Italica records show they did absorb some Illyrians.

Another general fact to keep in mind is that in addition to these generally Southeastern European women with elongated heads, you have "Bavarians" who, as in the case of the Lombard settlement in Hungary, were very "southern", one almost Aegean like. The other "non modified" individuals are more "northern shifted" than the present day Bavarians, so I think that what we may be seeing is that admixture in the Migration period impacted the make up of the southern German gene pool. It was not static since the Bronze Age.

So, any similarities between southern Germans and, say, northern Italians may have something to do not only with Germanic, i.e. Gothic and Langobard migration to Italy, but "southern" ancestry in southern Germany.

I also don't think it should be a surprise that one can find people heavily admixed with Caucasus ancestry living in Ukraine at this time.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b6/Greek_colonies_of_the_Northern_Euxine_Sea_%28Black _Sea%29.svg/1200px-Greek_colonies_of_the_Northern_Euxine_Sea_%28Black _Sea%29.svg.png

Not that I mean to imply that this is the only source of this type of ancestry. I think there was also gene flow directly from the Caucasus.


My general impression has been that the southern Ukraine was depopulated by the depredations of the Huns and Mongols, and had to be repopulated from the north of the Ukraine and beyond, but perhaps someone more familiar with the history can chime in.

Ed. should NOT be taken as gospel.

davef
14-03-18, 22:24
I think it might be good to echo Pax's point here that these "ethnic" assignments should be taken as gospel.

Yes, the 300 AD Roman soldier looks pretty "Iberian" like in terms of modern Iberians, but there is still the chance he's just an admixed soldier who has quite a bit of "Balkan" as well. The III Italica records show they did absorb some Illyrians.

Another general fact to keep in mind is that in addition to these generally Southeastern European women with elongated heads, you have "Bavarians" who, as in the case of the Lombard settlement in Hungary, were very "southern", one almost Aegean like. The other "non modified" individuals are more "northern shifted" than the present day Bavarians, so I think that what we may be seeing is that admixture in the Migration period impacted the make up of the southern German gene pool. It was not static since the Bronze Age.

So, any similarities between southern Germans and, say, northern Italians may have something to do not only with Germanic, i.e. Gothic and Langobard migration to Italy, but "southern" ancestry in southern Germany.

I also don't think it should be a surprise that one can find people heavily admixed with Caucasus ancestry living in Ukraine at this time.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b6/Greek_colonies_of_the_Northern_Euxine_Sea_%28Black _Sea%29.svg/1200px-Greek_colonies_of_the_Northern_Euxine_Sea_%28Black _Sea%29.svg.png

Not that I mean to imply that this is the only source of this type of ancestry. I think there was also gene flow directly from the Caucasus.


My general impression has been that the southern Ukraine was depopulated by the depredations of the Huns and Mongols, and had to be repopulated from the north of the Ukraine and beyond, but perhaps someone more familiar with the history can chime in.

Wait, you meant they should not be taken as gospel (first sentence, I think you forgot the "not" ).

Milan.M
15-03-18, 00:09
What about the Scandinavian "Germanic" ancestry of the Ostrogoth from Crimea or the Gepid from Serbia

A diverse ancestry was also inferred for the two non-Bavarian samples with elongated heads. KER_1 from Ukraine possessed significant southern European ancestry as well as South Asian ancestry, with an overall profile that best matched modern Turkish individuals. The Gepid VIM_2 from Serbia demonstrated a similar Central Asian-like genetic profile to the Medieval Bavarian AED_1108 with an even larger East Asian component and number of private haplotypes but with less southern European/Middle Eastern ancestry (SI Appendix, Figs. S31 and S33 (http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1719880115/-/DCSupplemental)).

We certainly know that the "Gothi" practiced cranial deformation,but none of this elongated skulls either male or female had Germanic ancestry.


A much more diverse ancestry was observed among the females with elongated skulls, as demonstrated by a significantly greater group-based FIS (SI Appendix, Fig. S35 (http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1719880115/-/DCSupplemental)). All these females had varying amounts of genetic ancestry found today predominantly in southern European countries [as seen by the varying amounts of ancestry inferred by model-based clustering that is representative of a sample from modern Tuscany, Italy (TSI), Fig. 3 (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/03/06/1719880115#F3)], and while the majority of samples were found to be closest to modern southeastern Europeans (Bulgaria and Romania, Fig. 4C (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/03/06/1719880115#F4)

Angela
15-03-18, 01:16
What about the Scandinavian "Germanic" ancestry of the Ostrogoth from Crimea or the Gepid from Serbia


We certainly know that the "Gothi" practiced cranial deformation,but none of this elongated skulls either male or female had Germanic ancestry.

I'm not sure I understand. That Hunnic, East Asian admixed person is part Germanic is it not?

According to the paper to which I provided a link above, it certainly seems to have been practiced by Germanic groups even if this study didn't present any 100% Germanic sample where it was present. They say it survived among Germanic groups until the early 7th century.

They also say the following:
""The authors maintain that the custom spread from east to west in 6 phases, originating up to 4,000 years ago. Beginning in Central Asia, in the territory west of the Tien-Shan, the custom spread through the Caucasus and Kalymykia Steppe, through to the Danube Basin (present day Romania, Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Austria, Slovakia, Hungary, and Czech Republic), then split into three distinct regions – the Middle Germanic Group, in which curiously the elongated skulls were all female; South and Southwest Germanic group, known from burial sites in Bavarian and Rhenish territories; and the Rhone Group – located in the southwest of Switzerland, the east of France, and the north of Italy.""

Milan.M
15-03-18, 01:40
.....................................

Delete

davef
15-03-18, 02:14
But it survived among Germanic groups. Just because none of the samples here with deformations are fully Germanic does not mean there weren't any Germanics who had this thing done to them, and it doesn't mean it wasn't common in Germanic societies. These Southern Europeans probably adopted this practice from the Germanics they lived with

edit: oh uh sorry Angela, i think I may have repeated some of the points you made

Angela
15-03-18, 03:00
The sample with East Asian, probably actually Hunnic ancestry, or Scythian ancestry, was a Gepid, that is, Germanic. The article (and the paper to which it refers), makes it clear it was practiced in numerous Germanic groups. So, again, the fact that only a part Germanic person here had the elongation doesn't prove that Germanic people in these societies didn't have it done.

The only way we'd be absolutely sure that genetically Germanic people had it done to them is to get an autosomal analysis of the more than 200 samples from all over northern Europe which show evidence of it.

davef
15-03-18, 05:58
Ok I forgot to comment on this and I apologize if I'm straying a bit from the thread, but I agree with you Angela, I cannot for the life of me find women who have lower faces and show a lot of forehead attractive; to me they resemble overgrown newborns with hair in the back. I'll always take that lovely lady in your avatar with wavy dark brown hair over women like that!!

FIREYWOTAN
15-03-18, 11:01
The questions may have answers in a role of prestige and maybe even an honor. recent studies have show that this issue has:good_job: been a part of many studies. thank you for sharing your ideas. Hopefully this viewpoint will have so value.

Why Did These Medieval European Women Have Alien-Like Skulls?


By Laura Geggel, Senior Writer | March 13, 2018 01:41 pm ET 0 0 MORE Partner Series

The discovery of mysterious, 1,500-year-old egg-shaped skulls in Bavarian graves has stumped scientists for more than half a century, but now some genetic sleuthing has helped them crack the case: The pointy skulls likely belonged to immigrant brides who traveled to Bavaria from afar to get married, a new study explains. The finding indicates that these long-headed brides, who lived in the sixth century A.D., likely traveled great distances from southeastern Europe — an area encompassing the region around modern-day Romania, Bulgaria and Serbia — to what is now the southern part of modern Germany.
The long trek was certainly arduous, but the reward was great: Wedlock helped cement strategic alliances in medieval Europe, the researchers wrote in the study. [In Images: An Ancient Long-headed Woman Reconstructed]
Great migration When the women with the alien-like skulls were alive, Europe was undergoing profound cultural change. The Roman Empire dissolved as the "barbarians" — the Germanic peoples that include the Goths, Alemanni, Gepids and Longobards — moved in and took over the region,the researchers wrote in the study. The foreign brides were buried in the cemeteries of one of these groups — the Baiuvarii — who lived in what is now modern-day Bavaria.
Specimens with strong (left), some (middle) and no (right) skull deformation. Specimens with strong (left), some (middle) and no (right) skull deformation. Credit: State collection for Anthropology and Paleoanatomy Munich, Germany The discovery of the remains of these women perplexed archaeologists for decades. It's only possible to create pointy skulls, scientifically known as artificial cranial deformation (ACD), in early childhood, when the skull is soft and malleable. But archaeologists couldn't find any children with egg-shaped skulls in the cemetery. Moreover, the women were buried with local grave artifacts, rather than foreign ones, suggesting they had adapted to local culture.

Milan.M
15-03-18, 13:23
The sample with East Asian, probably actually Hunnic ancestry, or Scythian ancestry, was a Gepid, that is, Germanic. The article (and the paper to which it refers), makes it clear it was practiced in numerous Germanic groups. So, again, the fact that only a part Germanic person here had the elongation doesn't prove that Germanic people in these societies didn't have it done.

The only way we'd be absolutely sure that genetically Germanic people had it done to them is to get an autosomal analysis of the more than 200 samples from all over northern Europe which show evidence of it.

I'm not sure I understand. That Hunnic, East Asian admixed person is part Germanic is it not?

According to the paper to which I provided a link above, it certainly seems to have been practiced by Germanic groups even if this study didn't present any 100% Germanic sample where it was present. They say it survived among Germanic groups until the early 7th century.

They also say the following:
""The authors maintain that the custom spread from east to west in 6 phases, originating up to 4,000 years ago. Beginning in Central Asia, in the territory west of the Tien-Shan, the custom spread through the Caucasus and Kalymykia Steppe, through to the Danube Basin (present day Romania, Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Austria, Slovakia, Hungary, and Czech Republic), then split into three distinct regions – the Middle Germanic Group, in which curiously the elongated skulls were all female; South and Southwest Germanic group, known from burial sites in Bavarian and Rhenish territories; and the Rhone Group – located in the southwest of Switzerland, the east of France, and the north of Italy.""
If you are talking about the Gepid from Serbia,they just say that it had Central-Asian ancestry similar like Bavarian sample 1108 AED female with deformed skull from what i can read here http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/suppl/2018/03/06/1719880115.DCSupplemental/pnas.1719880115.sapp.pdf ,but with more east Asian ancestry,but is Central-Asian Germanic? or i am missing something.

The Gepid is VIM_2,The Ostrogoth is KER_1
https://i.imgur.com/SBSfPC4.png

However the Ostrogoth from Ukraine possessed significant southern European ancestry as well as South Asian ancestry, with an overall profile that best matched modern Turkish individuals.

No Germanic ancestry in this individuals.
No Germanic ancestry in the elongated skull woman but south-east European.

Milan.M
15-03-18, 13:26
Not to mention that numerous times i was writing in this forum that the Goti (Goths) are the Thracian Geti (Getae) as every ancient author tell us,yes the nomadic Thracians,the "Goths" practiced cranial deformation.The Romanticist forgery of Germanic "Scandinavian" Goths should be exposed again.The "codex argenteus" which is a Romaniticist forgery for a proof of some kind east Germanic language "Gothic".
Mostly Bulgarians Academics were writing about this.

DNA suggest interaction between the Goths and also cultural exchange with other steppe people which is normal among nomadic people.

Angela
15-03-18, 13:43
@Milan,
Yes, you're missing something. Please look at the admixture graph for Gepid VIM_2.

Milan.M
15-03-18, 13:46
Tell me what i am missing.

davef
15-03-18, 13:55
The men seem to be quite similar to modern northern and central Europeans, but the women are quite different.


See: Krishna R. Veeramah, et al (inc. Hellenthal and Burger)
"Population genomic analysis of elongated skulls reveals extensive female-biased immigration in Early Medieval Bavaria"

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/03/06/1719880115

"Significance

"Many modern European states trace their roots back to a period known as the Migration Period that spans from Late Antiquity to the early Middle Ages. We have conducted the first population-level analysis of people from this era, generating genomic data from 41 graves from archaeological sites in present-day Bavaria in southern Germany mostly dating to around 500 AD. While they are predominantly of northern/central European ancestry, we also find significant evidence for a nonlocal genetic provenance that is highly enriched among resident Early Medieval women, demonstrating artificial skull deformation. We infer that the most likely origin of the majority of these women was southeastern Europe, resolving a debate that has lasted for more than half a century.

Abstract

Modern European genetic structure demonstrates strong correlations with geography, while genetic analysis of prehistoric humans has indicated at least two major waves of immigration from outside the continent during periods of cultural change. However, population-level genome data that could shed light on the demographic processes occurring during the intervening periods have been absent. Therefore, we generated genomic data from 41 individuals dating mostly to the late 5th/early 6th century AD from present-day Bavaria in southern Germany, including 11 whole genomes (mean depth 5.56×). In addition we developed a capture array to sequence neutral regions spanning a total of 5 Mb and 486 functional polymorphic sites to high depth (mean 72×) in all individuals. Our data indicate that while men generally had ancestry that closely resembles modern northern and central Europeans, women exhibit a very high genetic heterogeneity; this includes signals of genetic ancestry ranging from western Europe to East Asia. Particularly striking are women with artificial skull deformations; the analysis of their collective genetic ancestry suggests an origin in southeastern Europe. In addition, functional variants indicate that they also differed in visible characteristics. This example of female-biased migration indicates that complex demographic processes during the Early Medieval period may have contributed in an unexpected way to shape the modern European genetic landscape. Examination of the panel of functional loci also revealed that many alleles associated with recent positive selection were already at modern-like frequencies in European populations ∼1,500 years ago."


Anyone familiar with this cultural practice? I never heard of it. This is what the authors say about it:


As to the genetics:

"A population assignment analysis (PAA) at the level of individual modern nation states suggested greatest genetic similarity of these normal-skulled individuals with modern Germans, consistent with their sampling location (Fig. 4 A and B (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/03/06/1719880115#F4) and SI Appendix, Table S35 (http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1719880115/-/DCSupplemental)). The only exceptions to this general pattern of northern/central European ancestry were the two women, STR_300 and STR_502, which were of a more southern ancestry associated with present day Greece and Turkey, respectively (SI Appendix, Fig. S29 (http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1719880115/-/DCSupplemental))."

Lots of Tuscan like people in southeastern Europe still in the late 400s and early 500s.

Blue is normal skulls, green is intermediate, and red is elongated.

https://i.imgur.com/NlyjY7W.png

"A much more diverse ancestry was observed among the females with elongated skulls, as demonstrated by a significantly greater group-based FIS(SI Appendix, Fig. S35 (http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1719880115/-/DCSupplemental)). All these females had varying amounts of genetic ancestry found today predominantly in southern European countries [as seen by the varying amounts of ancestry inferred by model-based clustering that is representative of a sample from modern Tuscany, Italy (TSI), Fig. 3 (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/03/06/1719880115#F3)], and while the majority of samples were found to be closest to modern southeastern Europeans (Bulgaria and Romania, Fig. 4C (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/03/06/1719880115#F4)), at least one individual, AED_1108, appeared to possess ∼20% East Asian ancestry (Fig. 3 (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/03/06/1719880115#F3)), which was also evident from the high number of haplotypes within the 5-Mb neutralome that were private to modern East Asian 1000 Genomes individuals (EAS), while also demonstrating an overall ancestry profile consistent with Central Asian populations (SI Appendix, Fig. S33 (http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1719880115/-/DCSupplemental)). "

https://i.imgur.com/Kitmf39.png

https://i.imgur.com/GzORJ4s.png

"A diverse ancestry was also inferred for the two non-Bavarian samples with elongated heads. KER_1 from Ukraine possessed significant southern European ancestry as well as South Asian ancestry, with an overall profile that best matched modern Turkish individuals. The Gepid VIM_2 from Serbia demonstrated a similar Central Asian-like genetic profile to the Medieval Bavarian AED_1108 with an even larger East Asian component and number of private haplotypes but with less southern European/Middle Eastern ancestry (SI Appendix, Figs. S31 and S33 (http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1719880115/-/DCSupplemental)). The two Sarmatian individuals (PR_4 and PR_10) fitted a general eastern European/western Asian profile, but also possessed a much larger northern European component [as represented by modern Finnish individuals (FIN)] similar to modern Russians, consistent with their sampling location. As previously observed in Schiffels et al. (12 (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/03/06/1719880115#ref-12)) contemporary Anglo-Saxon samples appeared to be primarily of northern/central European ancestry, with greatest similarity overall to modern British and Scandinavian individuals (SI Appendix, Fig. S32 (http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1719880115/-/DCSupplemental))."


"It was also notable that no Bavarian individual (normal or ACD, male or female) possessed ancestry related to southwestern Europe, as represented by a sample of individuals sequenced from the Iberian population in Spain (IBS). This is in contrast to the Roman soldier dating to around 300 AD sampled from the same region, for which its largest ancestry component was IBS, with greatest genetic similarity to modern Spanish and southern French individuals (SI Appendix, Fig. S31 (http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1719880115/-/DCSupplemental)). Based on an analysis of patterns of haplotype sharing, the Roman soldier (FN_2: 11.08×) was found to have substantially more southern European, West Asian, and Middle Eastern ancestry than two normal-skulled Early Medieval Bavarians with high genomic coverage (ALH_10: 12.17×, ALH_1: 13.27×) (SI Appendix, Figs. S48 and S49 (http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1719880115/-/DCSupplemental))."

I have no idea why some people in the pop gen community are assuming that this Roman soldier from 300 AD would necessarily have been Italian of any kind. He could just as likely indeed been Iberian from what I can see. The days were long gone by 300 AD that all the Roman soldiers were from the Italian peninsula.
https://i.imgur.com/3fFpxJj.png




Milan, see the bar chart? Look at VIM_2, the blue stuff is North Central Europe, aka Germanic.

Milan.M
15-03-18, 17:33
Milan, see the bar chart? Look at VIM_2, the blue stuff is North Central Europe, aka Germanic.

DE(Germany),SE(Sweden),NO (Norway) next and more closer to VIM_2 are BA (Bosnia) SM (Serbia and Montenegro),HR (Croatia),BG(Bulgaria),RO(Romania)

https://i.imgur.com/Kitmf39.png


Next to the Gepid like AED_513 overlap with present Bulgaria according to the authors and are female with deformed skull,AED_125 overlap Romania and Bulgaria deformed skull,AED_1108 female with deformed skull described with similar east Asian ancestry like the Gepid overlap Central Asia and so on.

Angela
15-03-18, 20:11
DE(Germany),SE(Sweden),NO (Norway) next and more closer to VIM_2 are BA (Bosnia) SM (Serbia and Montenegro),HR (Croatia),BG(Bulgaria),RO(Romania)

https://i.imgur.com/Kitmf39.png


Next to the Gepid like AED_513 overlap with present Bulgaria according to the authors and are female with deformed skull,AED_125 overlap Romania and Bulgaria deformed skull,AED_1108 female with deformed skull described with similar east Asian ancestry like the Gepid overlap Central Asia and so on.

And? About 1/3 of the ancestry of that sample is NOT North Central Euro. Why would you expect such a sample to plot with 100% North/Central Euro people?

That's not how it works. A half Japanese/half European person might plot in Tajikistan, or somewhere else in Central Asia. He'd still be half European.

Milan.M
15-03-18, 20:31
And? About 1/3 of the ancestry of that sample is NOT North Central Euro. Why would you expect such a sample to plot with 100% North/Central Euro people?

That's not how it works. A half Japanese/half European person might plot in Tajikistan, or somewhere else in Central Asia. He'd still be half European.
Then how come AED_513 is described as Bulgarian ancestry? Now Bulgarians are north-central Europe or what?
AED_125 described as Romanian,Bulg like
STR_228 Serb,Mac,Bulg etc like
STR_535 Serb,Mac,Bulg etc like
BIM_33 Rom,Ukraine,Bulg etc
Or this South-East European ancestry turns in North/Central ancestry.

Tell me where South-East European admixture?
Or the "Tuscan" ancestry is representative of this groups?

https://i.imgur.com/NlyjY7W.png

Angela
15-03-18, 20:52
Then how come AED_513 is described as Bulgarian ancestry? Now Bulgarians have north-central Europe or what?

AED_125 described as Romanian like

Or this South-East European ancestry turns in North/Central ancestry.

Tell me where South-East European admixture?
Or the "Tuscan" ancestry is represantative of this groups?

https://i.imgur.com/NlyjY7W.png

Yes of course they do. So do all Balkan people and Italian people and French people. Everyone is mixed by now.

The comparison was done using 1000 genomes samples, because they're very high coverage. However, the problem is that in 1000 genomes they don't have Southeastern European, i.e. Balkan samples. Tuscans are closest.

This Gepid sample has some "local" ancestry, as in "Tuscan like" (MN plus some Iran Chal. like ancestry), a good chunk of "East Asian", which is perhaps either from a Hunnic or Scythian ancester, mixed with the "Gepid" or Germanic ancestry.

The East Germanic tribes, the ones who didn't flee west and south to the Roman Empire, made alliances with the newcomers, perhaps marriages of alliance or bride exchange.

Now we know why certain Balkan regions get some "eastern" as in Central Asian or Siberian like ancestry.

You have to remember that PCAs are only two dimensions of ancestry. On that, some of these samples are landing in the Balkans or nearby. Different types of analyses, like formal stats, for example, would show the differences.

Milan.M
15-03-18, 21:18
I don't think that Tuscans are good representatives for South-East Europeans,maybe for Albanians or Greeks could be, but I don't think for the groups this females had their ancestry from Romanians,Bulgarians,Serbs,Croats etc the groups that we talk about here.The Ostrogoth however has zero of north/central ancestry is entirely "Tuscan" or Southern like with South Asian admixture closest to present Anatolians,no "northern" ancestry at all.

Angela
15-03-18, 21:57
I don't think that Tuscans are good representatives for South-East Europeans,maybe for Albanians or Greeks could be, but I don't think for the groups this females had their ancestry from Romanians,Bulgarians,Serbs,Croats etc the groups that we talk about here.The Ostrogoth however has zero of this ancestry is entirely "Tuscan" or Southern like with South Asian admixture closest to present Anatolians,no "northern" ancestry at all.

Who said they're the best representative for the modern day Serbs? Didn't I just say that they were the closest representative among the samples in the 1000 genomes dataset?

Plus, they're the best representative among the MODERN populations in the 1000 genomes data set for the ANCIENT MN plus some more Iran Chal/Anatolia Chal. type ancestry that existed in the Balkans before the Gothic and later the Slavic migrations, which hit the Serbian and even Bulgarian areas more than they impacted the Albanians and the Greeks.

In other words, much as some Balkan nationalists might prefer it was otherwise, the Albanians and Greeks have more of the original "Balkan" ancestry than do people like the Serbs or the Croats. After the Albanians and Greeks, it would be the Romanians, Bulgarians, and then probably the Serbs.

That's just the way it is.

The "Ostrogothic" sample is heavily mixed with heavily Caucasus ancestry, probably Anatolian Greek like. It's not a mystery. PEOPLE MIXED, especially in times when there was no strong sense of nation states.

Milan.M
15-03-18, 22:12
This is not about who have more "ancient" DNA in the Balkans,but about this paper and people,what I said is that without a "south east" Europe genome specifically,you can not determine the north Central European ancestry precisely,simple we see that this samples are closest to present day Bulgarians,Romanians,Serbs,especially elongated skulls,Tuscan is not good representative of the Romanians,Bulgarians,Serbs etc since this people have more "northern" ancestry than Greeks or Albanians is what I am saying,so this might decieve us to interpret some results as central/north Europe.

hrvclv
15-03-18, 23:23
9857

This map shows the extent of the Burgundian Kingdom after AD 443. It seems to match with the Rhone Group of elongated skulls mentioned in the posts above. The Rhone valley and Savoie (the ancient Sapaudia of Burgundian times) have 5% R1a (nowadays), while France as a whole has only 2.5%. Some of the Barbarian tribes that ravaged Gaul (Vandals, Suevi,...) simply passed through and went on to Spain and North Africa. The Burgundians established a form of peaceful coexistence with the local Gallo-Romans, and stayed.

Before they settled the Rhone valley, they were stationed at the confluence of the Main and Rhine, alternately fighting the Alamans and Alans, and making fragile alliances with them. They could have picked the elongated skull tradition from their Alan allies.

Angela
15-03-18, 23:56
9857

This map shows the extent of the Burgundian Kingdom after AD 443. It seems to match with the Rhone Group of elongated skulls mentioned in the posts above. The Rhone valley and Savoie (the ancient Sapaudia of Burgundian times) have 5% R1a (nowadays), while France as a whole has only 2.5%. Some of the Barbarian tribes that ravaged Gaul (Vandals, Suevi,...) simply passed through and went on to Spain and North Africa. The Burgundians established a form of peaceful coexistence with the local Gallo-Romans, and stayed.

Before they settled the Rhone valley, they were stationed at the confluence of the Main and Rhine, alternately fighting the Alamans and Alans, and making fragile alliances with them. They could have picked the elongated skull tradition from their Alan allies.

Yes, that's the way I see it too.

Hauteville
16-03-18, 16:35
South eastern Europeans and even Central Asian-like people is quite interesting.

Inviato dal mio SM-G531F utilizzando Tapatalk

LATGAL
16-03-18, 22:05
I don't think that Tuscans are good representatives for South-East Europeans,maybe for Albanians or Greeks could be, but I don't think for the groups this females had their ancestry from Romanians,Bulgarians,Serbs,Croats etc the groups that we talk about here.The Ostrogoth however has zero of north/central ancestry is entirely "Tuscan" or Southern like with South Asian admixture closest to present Anatolians,no "northern" ancestry at all.

That's an obvious limitation of the particular method (like in the previous Lombard paper) as Angela mentioned and it definitely doesn't work that well (especially for some samples like KER_1).

But keep in mind that the one and only Iron Age Thracian sample we have so far was Tuscan-like but shifted towards an even more EEF direction. We need more sampling but it's a broad possibility. Balkan Slavs are 'northeast' of Tuscans so if you try to model them using Tuscan and Northern European references, you'll obviously get a good chunk of northern European ancestry.

I'm also not sure how much some of those apparently mixed from various sources migration period samples would have resembled the native central-northern Balkan average at the time. Keep in mind that they resemble modern northern Balkanites; it's quite possible that's the case precisely because the moderns are broadly a similar mix of ancient Balkans and migration-era people (and well, likely mostly Slavs at that) and so end up very similar. While distance (or a PCA with two dimensions) doesn't tell you everything, as I just wrote, the split here (https://pastebin.com/raw/K8pJvh2b) is interesting.

But we need more data.

On the other hand, what you wrote about the Goths, Thracians etc. is conclusively wrong. Read some Peter Heather.

Milan.M
16-03-18, 23:04
That's an obvious limitation of the particular method (like in the previous Lombard paper) as Angela mentioned and it definitely doesn't work that well (especially for some samples like KER_1).

But keep in mind that the one and only Iron Age Thracian sample we have so far was Tuscan-like but shifted towards an even more EEF direction.
Geti (Getae) were "northern" branch of the Thracians and inhabiting the steppe including lower Danube,northern areas as far Dniester and Galicia.So you can not compare them with the Iron age Thracian sample from Bulgaria,which of course according to geographic area are more southern shifted even at present day.

As far KER_1 Ostrogoth sample from Crimea goes in such a trading center he was from in Crimea,his ancestry could be from anywhere,could be for example Anatolian "Greek" in Ostrogothic political society,when they took over.
The Gepid is different story.

We need more sampling but it's a broad possibility. Balkan Slavs are 'northeast' of Tuscans so if you try to model them using Tuscan and Northern European references, you'll obviously get a good chunk of northern European ancestry.

Well that's exactly the case.But according to present day ancestry this females with elongated skull are south-east European,Romanian,Bulgarian,Serbian etc like

I'm also not sure how much some of those apparently mixed from various sources migration period samples would have resembled the native central-northern Balkan average at the time. Keep in mind that they resemble modern northern Balkanites; it's quite possible that's the case precisely because the moderns are broadly a similar mix of ancient Balkans and migration-era people (and well, likely mostly Slavs at that) and so end up very similar. While distance (or a PCA with two dimensions) doesn't tell you everything, as I just wrote, the split here (https://pastebin.com/raw/K8pJvh2b) is interesting.

But we need more data.
We need much more data from various regions and periods of South-East Europe to come to your conclusion.
We will be waiting more papers,then we can say again our opinions.

LATGAL
17-03-18, 02:15
Milan, I think you misunderstood some of my points but it doesn't matter since we agree on the basic thing - we'll know with more data.

I have seen your various theories in the past trying to link Thracians, Goths, Slavs etc. all together and everything else but I'm curious about your explanation on why e.g. Gheg Albanians are so much more southwestern compared to Slavic Macedonians despite not being geographically more southern (if anything the opposite on average) or the same with northern Italians and Croats? What's your current theory?

Milan.M
17-03-18, 11:09
LATGAL,Thank you for our understandings.

There is obivous link of ancestry and gene flow between South Slavs in this case Slavic Macedonians and the north-east,i myself link this ancestry mostly with the Iron age,i think that in Iron age there was more "northern" migrations in the Balkans,and i link it with the Thraco-Cimmerian culture,that is the Thracian link with the north.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Thraco-Cimmerian.png

This will explain you why for example Romanians being maybe a bit more northern shifted than Slavic Macedonians still speak Latin but others Slavic,this ancestry links them,rather than the medieval Slavic,which according to genetics Romanians too should have spoken Slavic being same genetically with South Slavs or impacted the same way.To cut misunderstandings cause one might say that Romanians have around 20% or more Slavic words,the others however are almost free of Latin influence,plus Romanians were living under Slavic language influence for centuries,using even Old church Slavonic in churches.

The medieval migrations in this case Slavic in my opinion did not impacted that much the Balkan peninsula since in my opinion they were not coming from a far but lower Danube or Chernyakov culture zone,pretty much already similar ancestry and they were warrior groups instead "migrants" with wifes and kids.

The brown/orange zone.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Origins_200_AD.png/300px-Origins_200_AD.png

Or the less likely will be that only the Chernyakov zone people or Sclavenes (because i associate them with this area) or with the region from "lower Danube to Dniester and east to Dnieper" contributed to this ancestry alone instead the Iron age.

and let me correct one mistake i am not linking them ancient authors does.



That is what i can say for right now,and that was and still is my opinion on this topic,we will wait more papers and see.

LATGAL
17-03-18, 14:53
Cool, I thought you had something like that in mind. I don't quite agree with at least some of your associations and hypotheses (though the idea that various later Iron Age intrusions into the Balkans like e.g. the Cimmerians had genetic on top of some cultural influence doesn't seem that outrageous; that being said, the one possible Cimmerian sample we do have from Hungary doesn't seem to me to fit much of the later ancestry the Balkans has acquired perfectly well but who knows) but that sort of theory seems pretty testable with more samples.

davef
17-03-18, 15:16
LATGAL, what does your name mean?

MOESAN
18-03-18, 16:55
Not to mention that numerous times i was writing in this forum that the Goti (Goths) are the Thracian Geti (Getae) as every ancient author tell us,yes the nomadic Thracians,the "Goths" practiced cranial deformation.The Romanticist forgery of Germanic "Scandinavian" Goths should be exposed again.The "codex argenteus" which is a Romaniticist forgery for a proof of some kind east Germanic language "Gothic".
Mostly Bulgarians Academics were writing about this.

DNA suggest interaction between the Goths and also cultural exchange with other steppe people which is normal among nomadic people.

To be precise here, are you suggesting that all Goths of History were Getae or that some of the supposed ones only were Getae, by confusion? Do you say: no gothic language? "forgery"??? mistake, bad assimilation or forgery? this last word seems to me being very in the fashion, today... History is not truth everytime but DNA seems to me confirming it, broadly said, rather than the opposite.
Thanks for your answer.

MOESAN
18-03-18, 17:42
I red 18 deformed crania appeared among a total of 285 skulls from today Iran territory, between Late Neolithic and Middle Chalcolithic - but they don't describe the kind of deformation; elongating deformations were common among Sarmatians, but were the quasi rule among Eastern ones, the more you went East the Don (so not only a class/caste distinction) but were rare the more you went West the Don -

MOESAN
18-03-18, 17:52
This is not about who have more "ancient" DNA in the Balkans,but about this paper and people,what I said is that without a "south east" Europe genome specifically,you can not determine the north Central European ancestry precisely,simple we see that this samples are closest to present day Bulgarians,Romanians,Serbs,especially elongated skulls,Tuscan is not good representative of the Romanians,Bulgarians,Serbs etc since this people have more "northern" ancestry than Greeks or Albanians is what I am saying,so this might decieve us to interpret some results as central/north Europe.

You 're right concerning today southern Slavic pops of today - but you and the study authors cannot be sure of any thing concerning ancient pops of the S-E Euro region (of the period in cause) because we are not even sure it was kind of a MEAN auDNA allover in it at those times. That said concerning the VIM I think the so called north-euro component is very strong for the most of ancient pops without Celtic or Germanic or north Slavic input. Hard question: if a female, this person could be of a very large spectre of origins, in a noble context.

Lukas
24-03-18, 21:49
All samples on Gedmatch Genesis

Genesis_kit Sample SNP_count
NW7323549 AEd 92 18044
JK5639864 aed 125 7896
GS9479405 aed 204 23187
HF6662103 aed 249 28089
SA2704259 aed 432 17217
KW3397895 aed 513 24308
ZU5881408 aed 1108 27024
GN1214883 AED 1119 15812
TR2672977 AED 1135 25580
KC8253182 ALH 2 12735
DH5014785 ALH 3 66009
HQ5037471 BIM 33 25909
MQ4450865 BIM 37 20813
MR5973774 AEH 1 19135
BG1008090 NW 54 33954
ZP2303752 NW 255 29943
TL8442777 STR 228 38005
ZX9803083 STR 241 14888
ES8752943 STR_248 20634
US3762719 STR_266 9929
GE1764760 STR_300 59815
XD9213159 STR_310 93224
WT3012896 STR_316 31994
WM9342929 STR_328 41398
RC9135299 STR_355 83285
NK9692863 STR_360 10925
LM4089536 STR_393 16945
YK7692665 STR_480 30817
HH5628988 STR_486 52102
FX9097974 STR_502 12203
CF5203169 STR_535 25734
LK8603113 AED_106 27206
XH5977271 STr_220 72150
RW7301518 ALH_10 155896
PV3449766 ALH_1 155784

FK7832621 Ker_1
MV6291819 Vim2
PY2515409 FN_2

Sile
24-03-18, 22:00
Milan, I think you misunderstood some of my points but it doesn't matter since we agree on the basic thing - we'll know with more data.

I have seen your various theories in the past trying to link Thracians, Goths, Slavs etc. all together and everything else but I'm curious about your explanation on why e.g. Gheg Albanians are so much more southwestern compared to Slavic Macedonians despite not being geographically more southern (if anything the opposite on average) or the same with northern Italians and Croats? What's your current theory?

he seems to be saying that they are not the same /race/people but some of these where absorbed into certain societies......example thracian triballi with serbs, goths absorbed saramatians and thracian getae, Dorianns absorbed myceneans who previously absorbed the minoans etc

Carlos
24-03-18, 22:11
-----------------------------------

Milan.M
01-04-18, 11:06
To be precise here, are you suggesting that all Goths of History were Getae or that some of the supposed ones only were Getae, by confusion? Do you say: no gothic language? "forgery"??? mistake, bad assimilation or forgery? this last word seems to me being very in the fashion, today... History is not truth everytime but DNA seems to me confirming it, broadly said, rather than the opposite.
Thanks for your answer.
My opinion and on some people that i follow that did some research is that "codex argenteus" is based on Langobardic documents and language work done in the XVII century and that is not a Gothic language neither Gothic alphabet.
Yes Goti (Goths) and Geti or Getae (Gets) are one and a same,just one quote from "unreliable" Historia Augusta about emperor Maximinus Thrax.

Maximinus the elder became famous in the reign of Alexander; but his service in the army began under Severus. He was born in a village in Thrace bordering on the barbarians, indeed of a barbarian father and mother, the one, men say, being of the Goths, the other of the Alani… This youth, half barbarian and scarcely yet master of the Latin tongue, speaking almost pure Thracian, publicly besought the Emperor

Actual explanation of the "confusion"


The references to his "Gothic" ancestry might refer to a Thracian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thracians) Getae (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getae) origin (the two populations were often confused by later writers, most notably by Jordanes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordanes) in his Getica (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getica)), as suggested by the paragraphs describing how "he was singularly beloved by the Getae, moreover, as if he were one of themselves" and how he spoke "almost pure Thracian"

Not to mention that every author quote them as one and same,i was disscusing this in some other threads and i will not debate that here,since the topic is huge and as well the "confusion" a big amount of time was put into.

Regio X
17-06-18, 00:28
It seems the Roman soldier FN_2 was G-L42. He is already in YFull: https://www.yfull.com/tree/G-L42/

Angela
17-06-18, 16:27
Well, that fits then.

CrazyDonkey
17-06-18, 20:28
Not a migration, but simply exotic prestige imports.

MOESAN
17-06-18, 21:55
My opinion and on some people that i follow that did some research is that "codex argenteus" is based on Langobardic documents and language work done in the XVII century and that is not a Gothic language neither Gothic alphabet.
Yes Goti (Goths) and Geti or Getae (Gets) are one and a same,just one quote from "unreliable" Historia Augusta about emperor Maximinus Thrax.



Hum... very astonishing aswer indeed!
Which people then wrote the 'gotic runes' found in Eastern and Southeastern Europe, of typical germanic language origin?
We can say the original religious texts adwritten in high middle ages (codex argenteus) are not too reliable concerning the primary language, but who can assure it was a longobardic language? ATW the older runes exist; and where would be come the germanic names of Ostrogoths and Wisigoths in Western Europe from?
Getae for a lot of scholars are to be put close to Dacians and Thracians for I know, beofre a newer theory (?) -
excuse me for this aspect not in the focus of the present thread...

Angela
17-06-18, 23:45
Not a migration, but simply exotic prestige imports.

Who didn't migrate?

xri34
06-03-19, 01:21
All samples on Gedmatch Genesis

Genesis_kit Sample SNP_count
NW7323549 AEd 92 18044
JK5639864 aed 125 7896
GS9479405 aed 204 23187
HF6662103 aed 249 28089
SA2704259 aed 432 17217
KW3397895 aed 513 24308
ZU5881408 aed 1108 27024
GN1214883 AED 1119 15812
TR2672977 AED 1135 25580
KC8253182 ALH 2 12735
DH5014785 ALH 3 66009
HQ5037471 BIM 33 25909
MQ4450865 BIM 37 20813
MR5973774 AEH 1 19135
BG1008090 NW 54 33954
ZP2303752 NW 255 29943
TL8442777 STR 228 38005
ZX9803083 STR 241 14888
ES8752943 STR_248 20634
US3762719 STR_266 9929
GE1764760 STR_300 59815
XD9213159 STR_310 93224
WT3012896 STR_316 31994
WM9342929 STR_328 41398
RC9135299 STR_355 83285
NK9692863 STR_360 10925
LM4089536 STR_393 16945
YK7692665 STR_480 30817
HH5628988 STR_486 52102
FX9097974 STR_502 12203
CF5203169 STR_535 25734
LK8603113 AED_106 27206
XH5977271 STr_220 72150
RW7301518 ALH_10 155896
PV3449766 ALH_1 155784

FK7832621 Ker_1
MV6291819 Vim2
PY2515409 FN_2

These kits are deleted. Could anyone upload them again on gedmatch?