Poland, more Germanic or Slavic?

Should the article about Poland be rewritten?

  • Yes

    Votes: 10 71.4%
  • No

    Votes: 4 28.6%

  • Total voters
    14
On other hand Medieval folks are in majority H with only one W and no U. Medieval guys carry some continuity with K location Iron Age, and almost none with R, G, KA.

Medieval folks is probably a too small sample, from two places.

Moreover some scholars assume that in Ostrów Lednicki there were some foreign mercenaries (including Scandinavian ones).

So maybe those Early Medieval samples are partially from foreigners.

The area of the stars and triangle was the maximum extension of the baltic tribes in the late bronze age

Who is Gimbatas ??? Do you mean Gimbutas ???

There were no Baltic tribes in these areas of starts and triangles.

There was no even Baltic language in the Bronze Age, but Balto-Slavic language.
 
Interestingly Iron Age K location people, almost exclusively Hg H, are so different than R location, with lots of Ws and Us.

K is Kowalewko, R is Rogowo. Both of them were burials of the same Iron Age culture - Wielbark Culture.

So if you are right then this means that the Wielbark Culture was perhaps not mono-ethnic but multi-ethnic.

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

Here is German Summary of a 2009 study by prof. Janusz Piontek which compares not DNA but anthropological types:

http://www.researchgate.net/publica...ltury_pomorskiej_a_problem_pochodzenia_Sowian

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...lnk&gl=pl&lr=lang_en|lang_pl&client=firefox-a

German_Summary.png


You can contact prof. Janusz Piontek through this website: http://www.staff.amu.edu.pl/~anthro/html/indexe.html

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

Here is doctoral thesis of Anna Juras from 2012 - which used the same Ancient and Medieval samples as this new 2014 publication.

Doctoral thesis is in Polish:

https://repozytorium.amu.edu.pl/jspui/bitstream/10593/2702/1/Anna Juras Praca doktorska.pdf

On page 100 (out of 179) of this PDF above, there is this chart below:

Distances.png


Niemcy = modern Germany

Okres rzymski = Roman period Poland
Średniowiecze = Early Medieval Poland
 
Sorry double post.
 
Last edited:
As for those mercenaries:

Moreover some scholars assume that in Ostrów Lednicki there were some foreign mercenaries

For example in year 1018 there were 1000 Pecheneg, 500 Magyar and 300 Saxon mercenaries in Polish service. This is according to Thietmar. Scandinavian mercenaries are not mentioned in any written sources, but were probably also employed by Polish dukes.

If not mercenaries then Danish reinforcements could be present - Poland and Denmark were allies (see for example Thietmar).

Polish mercenaries & reinforcements supported Denmark. According to "Historia Ecclesiastica" by Orderic Vitalis, Adam of Bremen, "Chronicon Thietmari" by Thietmar, "Gesta Danorum" by Saxo, "Cnutonis regis gesta sive enconium Emmae reginae" by a monk from Saint Bertin, "Jomsvikinga Saga", and other sources, Polish reinforcements (or mercenaries) participated in Danish invasions of the British Isles. According to Orderic Vitalis the Poles (Poleni) as well as the Veleti (Veleti) participated in Svein Estridsen's invasion of England in 1069. Cnut the Great when he invaded England in 1015-1016 also had Polish reinforcements. Finally Harald Bluetooth employed Slavic mercenaries - according to "Gesta Danorum" - but Saxo doesn't mention if there were Poles among them. Also Helmold's "Chronica Slavorum" mentions Poles being used as mercenaries by other armies. In year 1000 Emperor Otto I got 300 Polish Loricati (armoured cavalry) from Boleslav I.

So I see no reason why shouldn't there be also Danish reinforcements (or mercenaries) supporting Poland in its campaigns.

Is it possible that some "exotic" haplogroups of that Medieval DNA were from Pecheneg or Magyar (or other) mercenaries?

Pechenegs: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/448299/Pechenegs

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

About Polish and Czech armies Helmold von Bosau (ca. 1120 - after 1177) wrote:

"(...) Bohemia has a king and warlike knighthood; they have a lot of churches and the people are dedicated to religious practices. Bohemia is divided into two bishoprics - Prague and Olomouc. Poland is a great country of Slavic people; it borders - as they say - with Rus. It is divided into eight bishoprics. In the past Poland had kings, but now it is ruled by dukes. The kinds of weapons and the methods of combat used by Poles are the same as those of Czechs. Called to war, Poles are brave in battle, but exceedingly cruel in their robberies and murders. They spare neither monasteries, nor churches, nor cemeteries. This is why you can only get them involved in wars conducted by others, under the condition that you allow them to plunder the property which is kept in sacred places. Due to this fact it also happens, that driven by their appetite for plunder, Poles treat their allies as if they were enemies. (...)"

Eight Polish bishoprics mentioned by Helmold were: Gniezno, Poznań, Włocławek, Płock, Cracow, Wrocław, Lubusz and Wolin.
 
Informative only means that is shared by not many modern populations, but if you look at how many of old haplos in total are represented in modern populations, then Balkan trio seems to be the leader here :)
So, if sample from Old Poland is not shared by many modern populations, then most likely it is found in Poland :)
 
Non-informative Ancient HGs also have the 2nd highest % of matches among modern Poles (out of 18 ethnic groups).

And "percent of informative among all shared lineages" is the 2nd highest among Poles too (out of these 18 nations).

We have the following data:

Sum of all shared Ancient RoIA lineages (Top 3 out of 12 sample groups; and Lithuanians-Latvians & Czechs-Slovaks):

1. Bosnians-Slovenians-Croatians - 93
2. Poles - 72
3. Germans - 61
4. Czech-Slovaks - 59
(...)
6. Lithuanians-Latvians - 55

Percent of informative among all shared RoIA lineages (Top 3 out of 12 sample groups; and Germans & Bos-Slov-Cro):

1. Lithuanians-Latvians - 14,5%
2. Poles - 12,5%
3. Czechs-Slovaks - 8,5%
(...)
6. Bosnians-Slovenians-Croatians - 3,8%
(...)
9. Germans - 1,6%

RoIA of course stands for Roman Iron Age samples from Ancient Poland (4 cemeteries of Przeworsk & Wielbark Cultures).

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

OK, so Poles do not score 1st but score 2nd in first ranking and also 2nd in second ranking.

But Poles have 2nd + 2nd place, while South Slavs (B-S-C) have 1st + 6th and Balts (L-L) have 6th + 1st.

All in all it seems that I was still correct that modern Poles match the highest % of RoIA ancestry.
 
But why have Bosnians-Slovenians-Croatians so much of ancestry from Ancient Poland ???

Anyway - their DNA is non-informative, i.e. widespread (not localized), so it could be present outside of Poland already in ancient times.

So maybe most of Bos-Slov-Cro non-informative haplos are not descendants of population of Ancient Poland.
 
So, if sample from Old Poland is not shared by many modern populations, then most likely it is found in Poland :)

So you say that informative are those which did not emigrate from ancient Poland, while some of non-informative those which emigrated?

During the Migration Period, for example.

Or maybe large part of non-informative haplos did not have to emigrate, because they were never present in Poland of the RoIA period.

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

I think that more of modern populations should be compared to these, also larger samples of aDNA available would also be nice.
 
LeBrok,

DE (present day Germans) are the closest match for Iron Age individuals. Am I reading it right?

In the Comments section someone already asked this question about Figure 4, and here is how authors replied:

http://www.plosone.org/annotation/listThread.action?root=82754

Dear Reader
We are pleased that the Researcher has commented on our paper published in the recent issue of PLoS ONE (DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0110839). In this study our aim was to demonstrate only the "hard" statistical data, thus with regard to Figure 4 we discussed only significant results. Therefore, please see Table S5, where we presented statistical significance of this analysis.

Thank you for your comment.
Authors

Here is link to Table S5: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0110839#pone.0110839.s006

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

That "someone" who asked is Grzegorz Jagodziński, a biologist, he has a website in English:

http://grzegorj.w.interia.pl/

http://grzegorj.w.interia.pl/lingwen/
 
Who is Gimbatas ??? Do you mean Gimbutas ???

There were no Baltic tribes in these areas of starts and triangles.

There was no even Baltic language in the Bronze Age, but Balto-Slavic language.

????? you never heard of Kurgan culture or Yamna
The Kurgan hypothesis was first formulated in the 1950s by Marija Gimbutas, who defined the "Kurgan culture" as composed of four successive periods, with the earliest (Kurgan I) including the Samara and Seroglazovo cultures of the Dnieper/Volga region in the Copper Age (early 4th millennium BC). The bearers of these cultures were nomadic pastoralists, who, according to the model, by the early 3rd millennium BC expanded throughout the Pontic-Caspian steppe and into Eastern Europe.[1]

Your linked paper even refers to her................or don't you read all the paper including the bottom part where they get some of there theories

I never said baltic language, I said baltic tribes...........there are no slavic tribes in the RoIA that I know only slavic language
 
So you say that informative are those which did not emigrate from ancient Poland, while some of non-informative those which emigrated?

During the Migration Period, for example.

Or maybe large part of non-informative haplos did not have to emigrate, because they were never present in Poland of the RoIA period.

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

I think that more of modern populations should be compared to these, also larger samples of aDNA available would also be nice.
No! Obviously from study there are several informatives found outside Poland. So, part of them could have emigrated as well. Maybe there were some informatives that were not found in Polish, but found in other samples.
I dont know also their definition of informative. Found in less than 3? Not found at least in one?
 
But why have Bosnians-Slovenians-Croatians so much of ancestry from Ancient Poland ???

Anyway - their DNA is non-informative, i.e. widespread (not localized), so it could be present outside of Poland already in ancient times.

So maybe most of Bos-Slov-Cro non-informative haplos are not descendants of population of Ancient Poland.

because as per the paper, the original people where not Poles but became Poles, they where a race that is now extinct and the remaining people over time became Poles or czechs or latvians or lithuanians...............which is why ancient lithuanians must have been in this area at that time, what other logical theory is there if they are more lthauanian/latvian than anything else?............was it the enslaving of the old prussians by the poles and forced resettlement in the 13th century ...i don't think so
 
????? you never heard of Kurgan culture or Yamna

I have heard about it. And I know this theory of Gimbutas. But you wrote Gimbatas and I thought it was someone else.

But the Kurgan Hypothesis has not much to do with Lithuanians specificially - it is about all Indo-Europeans.

Are you now claiming that Slavs are not Indo-Europeans or what ???

Actually the Corded Ware Culture could be Balto-Slavic speakers, according to Eupedia:

"(...) Proto-Germanic language probably developed as a blend of two branches of Indo-European languages, namely the Proto-Balto-Slavic language of the Corded-Ware culture and the later arrival of Proto-Italo-Celtic people from the Unetice culture. (...)"

which is why ancient lithuanians must have been in this area at that time, what other logical theory is there if they are more lthauanian/latvian than anything else?............was it the enslaving of the old prussians by the poles and forced resettlement in the 13th century ...i don't think so

Except that they are not "more Lithuanian/Latvian than anything else".

The sample size of modern Lithuanians/Latvians is 277, of modern Poles is 300.

Now 72 Poles (24%) and 55 Lithuanians/Latvians (18%) match the RoIA sample.

Out of Lithuanian matches, 14,5% are informative (so 8) and out of Polish matches, 12,5% are informative (so 9).

8 out of a sample of 277 is 2,89% and 9 out of a sample of 300 is 3,00%.

So as you can see Roman Era haplos from Poland are more similar to modern Poles than to modern Lithuanians/Latvians.

Both when it comes to all matches (24% for Pol / 18% for Lit-Lat) and informative matches (3,00% for Pol / 2,89% for Lit-Lat).

I never said baltic language, I said baltic tribes

Baltic is a linguistic concept - so how can there be a Baltic tribe which doesn't speak Baltic language?

there are no slavic tribes in the RoIA that I know only slavic language

So who spoke Slavic language (if it already existed at that time), if not some tribes ???
 
Maybe now someone should write a similar study about aDNA from Ancient Lithuania and Latvia. :p

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

Sile, in the link you provided there is this info:

I suspect the publication of these results at this time, so many months after they were first revealed in the aforementioned thesis, is part of an effort to drum up interest and secure funding for a new project on the genetic history of Greater Poland, which was announced late last year (see here). I say that because one of the people organizing the project, Janusz Piontek, is also listed as a co-author on this paper.

Maybe we will also learn what was the Y-DNA haplogroup of the Piast clan.

I suspect that it could be so called "type P" of R1a L260, which - according to Peter Gwozdz - is about 1100 - 2400 years old (most likely 1600 years old) and can be found among around 9% (7% to 11%) of people in Poland. L260 as such is older - between 2500 and 3100 years old - but so called "type P" (which is found in large frequencies in Poland, in one region of Slovakia near the Polish border called Zamagurie and in some parts of the Czech Republic) is younger.

In Ireland about 8% of males have
Y-DNA of the Uí Néill clan, established by Niall of the Nine Hostages (who lived by the end of the 4th century AD). His clan dominated Ireland from 5th to 10th centuries. In Northern Ireland the % of this haplotype is even higher - up to 21%.

About Niall of the Nine Hostages: http://www.irishcentral.com/roots/niall-took-no-hostages-43038522-237784201.html

The Piast clan was probably already numerous when Mieszko I lived (for example we know from sources that Mieszko had several brothers - one of them was Czcibor - brothers helped him in ruling the country; Mieszko also had several Pagan wifes before he become Christianized, he probably had sons with those wifes - they probably later became governors of provinces such as Mazovia or Pomerania, high-ranking officials, commanders of units, etc. - I think it could be a family business and strong nepotism could be the case).

If "type P" of L260 is not "Piast marker", then maybe it is "Lech marker" (maybe "Lechites" are "sons of Lech"). :)

Provided of course that Lech really existed and was really called Lech. :)

If his real name was not Lech, then maybe let's call him "Y-chromosomal Lech", like they did with Adam. :)

Here is the website of Peter Gwozdz where he discusses L260 and other clades: http://www.gwozdz.org/polishclades.html

http://www.gwozdz.org/PolishClades.html#PType

https://www.facebook.com/R1aM458/posts/152294778301448

L260 is a subclade of M458, but for example L365 is a subclade of Z280 and it also seems to be very Polish-specific:

L365 is about 2500 - 3300 years old:

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/r1a/default.aspx?section=results

Gwozdz calls it "type G": http://www.gwozdz.org/PolishClades.html#GType

typ-g.jpg


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

When it comes to Iron Age DNA, see also this link (and comments below): http://polishgenes.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/first-direct-evidence-of-genetic.html
 
So who spoke Slavic language (if it already existed at that time), if not some tribes ???

Name me these tribes and I will check them out...........I want to learn
 
Maybe now someone should write a similar study about aDNA from Ancient Lithuania and Latvia. :p

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

Sile, in the link you provided there is this info:


Maybe we will also learn what was the Y-DNA haplogroup of the Piast clan.

I suspect that it could be so called "type P" of R1a L260, which - according to Peter Gwozdz - is about 1100 - 2400 years old (most likely 1600 years old) and can be found among around 9% (7% to 11%) of people in Poland. L260 as such is older - between 2500 and 3100 years old - but so called "type P" (which is found in large frequencies in Poland, in one region of Slovakia near the Polish border called Zamagurie and in some parts of the Czech Republic) is younger.

In Ireland about 8% of males have
Y-DNA of the Uí Néill clan, established by Niall of the Nine Hostages (who lived by the end of the 4th century AD). His clan dominated Ireland from 5th to 10th centuries. In Northern Ireland the % of this haplotype is even higher - up to 21%.

About Niall of the Nine Hostages: http://www.irishcentral.com/roots/niall-took-no-hostages-43038522-237784201.html

The Piast clan was probably already numerous when Mieszko I lived (for example we know from sources that Mieszko had several brothers - one of them was Czcibor - brothers helped him in ruling the country; Mieszko also had several Pagan wifes before he become Christianized, he probably had sons with those wifes - they probably later became governors of provinces such as Mazovia or Pomerania, high-ranking officials, commanders of units, etc. - I think it could be a family business and strong nepotism could be the case).

If "type P" of L260 is not "Piast marker", then maybe it is "Lech marker" (maybe "Lechites" are "sons of Lech"). :)

Provided of course that Lech really existed and was really called Lech. :)

If his real name was not Lech, then maybe let's call him "Y-chromosomal Lech", like they did with Adam. :)

Here is the website of Peter Gwozdz where he discusses L260 and other clades: http://www.gwozdz.org/polishclades.html

http://www.gwozdz.org/PolishClades.html#PType

https://www.facebook.com/R1aM458/posts/152294778301448

L260 is a subclade of M458, but for example L365 is a subclade of Z280 and it also seems to be very Polish-specific:

L365 is about 2500 - 3300 years old:

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/r1a/default.aspx?section=results

Gwozdz calls it "type G": http://www.gwozdz.org/PolishClades.html#GType

typ-g.jpg


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

When it comes to Iron Age DNA, see also this link (and comments below): http://polishgenes.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/first-direct-evidence-of-genetic.html

maybe you need to find this form not long ago by Polish archeologist



where the Goths slowly enlarged themselves from the orange area.

The green is the annexation of the Venedae by the goths.

We can see here it matches well with your link on the coast
 
OK so now find this haplogroup in Spain (Visigoths), in Italy (Ostrogoths), etc.

It should be there if L365 was Gothic.

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

Some estimates say that the Visigoths were between 5% and 12% of the population in their Iberian Kingdom. That of course included Visigothized (assimilated) locals, I guess, but still there should be enough of "genetic Visigoths" to leave some trace of L365 there.

If it was indeed a Gothic marker back then.
 
I'm lacking time at the moment to fully enjoy this discussion. I didn't even have time to read the whole paper.

- It's great to have some ancient DNA from Poland examined finally. It is too small of a sample group to go into big conclusions. There might have been tribal period in Poland during RoIA, and during this time tribes didn't like mixing with each other too much. As I pointed out about two RoIA locations. From partial historic records we are getting idea that it was actually the case. We might have mixture of Baltic, Slavic, Germanic, Celtic tribes living around each other. It will be very important to analyze good few places to get complete picture of this region. It will be even more important once we get autosomal DNA.

- It is interesting to see connection of Medieval haplogroups with Poland, Belarusian, Ukrainian and Bulgarian. No such connection exists with RoIA samples. Obvious sign of Slavic expansion sometime between these period.

- I always believed in continuation of DNA from before migration period. I was thinking about 10-20% of locals to 80-90% newcomers ratio. Now it looks like 20% might be more valid guess.
 
Deleted. It was speculation based on misinterpretation.
 
Last edited:

This thread has been viewed 346914 times.

Back
Top