Genetic study Ancient DNA of Roman Danubian Frontier and Slavic Migrations (Olalde 2021)

Accepting that Slavic migration might have had higher impact in Albania that initially thought is not a problem for me, this in connection with sex bias migrants, if that holds seems possible to me as a scenario.


Sent from my ****** using Eupedia Forum

Today's Albanians have about 20% of Slavic genetics. It is unlikely that women brought it to Albania. This sex bias is for one smaller locality in eastern Serbia. Although this locality was supposed to have male Slavic genetics as well, for some reason it has very little.

It will take more scientific papers for that wider area to see what this is all about.

As for the Slavic genetics in the area of Albania, when the migrations of the branches of these haplotypes are determined, then we will see when they come to Albania, from where they coming, etc. Then we will be smarter.
 
Here you have informations about Croatian genetic on islands and Croatia.

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

Intersting, the more Northern, Illyrian dominated islands show some of the highest J2a (presumably J-L283) frequency:
while J2 are higher in Croats from Croatia, peaking in Croats from Osijek (10.2%) and central islands Ugljan (10.2%) and Pa?man (16.6%) as well the northern island of Krk (10.8%) and Cres (14.1%)

Would fit as well. But the numbers for the Central and Northern region are higher. Like expected, E-V13 is higher on the Southern islands, but founder effects might be at play too:
The highest frequency in Croatian mainland has been found in ?umberak (18.2%)[8] and Osijek (10.3%),[6] in central islands Dugi Otok (15.9%) and Ugljan (13.2%), as well southern islands Vis (23.4%) and Mljet (15.4%).[8] In the northern islands of Cres (3%)[8] and Krk (6.8%) was similar to other southern islands (3.7-4.3%).
 
Other ancient samples and obviously a 3 or more -way model would be much more suitable but with this in mind it's as follows if I understood correctly your request :


Target: Greek_Peloponnese
Distance: 2.9462% / 0.02946240
77.6BGR_IA
22.4Polish

Target: Serbian
Distance: 1.2656% / 0.01265575
60.6Polish
39.4BGR_IA

and the rest of the relevant populations (rest of the Greeks, Albanians, Montenegrins )
Code:
[TABLE]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TH="class: singleheader, colspan: 2, align: left"]Target: Greek_Macedonia
Distance: 2.8483% / 0.02848349[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]68.0[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]BGR_IA[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TD="class: barchartmode1 nonselectable, colspan: 2"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]32.0[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]Polish[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[TABLE]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TH="class: singleheader, colspan: 2, align: left"]Target: Greek_Thessaly
Distance: 2.7323% / 0.02732343[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]72.6[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]BGR_IA[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TD="class: barchartmode1 nonselectable, colspan: 2"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]27.4[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]Polish[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[TABLE]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TH="class: singleheader, colspan: 2, align: left"]Target: Greek_Laconia
Distance: 3.3217% / 0.03321716[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]83.6[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]BGR_IA[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TD="class: barchartmode1 nonselectable, colspan: 2"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]16.4[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]Polish[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[TABLE]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TH="class: singleheader, colspan: 2, align: left"]Target: Greek_Izmir
Distance: 3.6081% / 0.03608104[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]84.8[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]BGR_IA[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TD="class: barchartmode1 nonselectable, colspan: 2"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]15.2[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]Polish[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[TABLE]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TH="class: singleheader, colspan: 2, align: left"]Target: Greek_Crete
Distance: 5.0301% / 0.05030105[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]92.8[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]BGR_IA[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TD="class: barchartmode1 nonselectable, colspan: 2"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]7.2[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]Polish[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
(The rest like Dodecanese and Cappadocia, 100% BGR_IA but the model obviously fails with even bigger distances )

[TABLE]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TH="class: singleheader, colspan: 2, align: left"]Target: Albanian
Distance: 2.2994% / 0.02299404[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]69.8[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]BGR_IA[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TD="class: barchartmode1 nonselectable, colspan: 2"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]30.2[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]Polish[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[TABLE]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TH="class: singleheader, colspan: 2, align: left"]Target: Bulgarian
Distance: 2.1402% / 0.02140202[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]51.2[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]BGR_IA[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TD="class: barchartmode1 nonselectable, colspan: 2"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]48.8[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]Polish[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[TABLE]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TH="class: singleheader, colspan: 2, align: left"]Target: Montenegrin
Distance: 1.5212% / 0.01521183[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]59.4[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]Polish[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TD="class: barchartmode1 nonselectable, colspan: 2"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[TD="class: singleleftcolumn, align: right"]40.6[/TD]
[TD="class: singlerightcolumn"]BGR_IA[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #555555"]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
That makes sense. Because modern Peloponnesians are roughly 14% shifted towards Russians compared to Roman Period Serbian samples who were more northern than the Iron Age Thracians. So using modern Poles and the Iron Thracian you would get roughly 23%.
Also try the Hungarian Avar sample if you can please.
 
Almost the same results with similar distances for every population


Target: Serbian
Distance: 1.6148% / 0.01614801

59.2HUN_Avar_Szolad
40.8BGR_IA


Target: Greek_Peloponnese
Distance: 2.9460% / 0.02946031

78.0BGR_IA
22.0HUN_Avar_Szolad
Target: Serbian
Distance: 1.6148% / 0.01614801

59.2HUN_Avar_Szolad
40.8BGR_IA
 
Almost the same results with similar distances for every population


Target: Serbian
Distance: 1.6148% / 0.01614801
59.2HUN_Avar_Szolad
40.8BGR_IA


Target: Greek_Peloponnese
Distance: 2.9460% / 0.02946031
78.0BGR_IA
22.0HUN_Avar_Szolad
Target: Serbian
Distance: 1.6148% / 0.01614801
59.2HUN_Avar_Szolad
40.8BGR_IA

I thought HUN_Avar was more southern shifted, it seems that it fully falls in the Polish cluster.
 
Almost the same results with similar distances for every population


Target: Serbian
Distance: 1.6148% / 0.01614801
59.2HUN_Avar_Szolad
40.8BGR_IA


Target: Greek_Peloponnese
Distance: 2.9460% / 0.02946031
78.0BGR_IA
22.0HUN_Avar_Szolad
Target: Serbian
Distance: 1.6148% / 0.01614801
59.2HUN_Avar_Szolad
40.8BGR_IA

Can you do modern Bulgarians.
Polish vs Thracian vs Armenian?
 
By the way, I found an explanation for the low level of Slovenian and West Croatian E-V13, plus additional evidence for the Gava and Basarabi-Eastern Hallstatt theory on the spread of E-V13. Because I know that the majority of the samples from Slovenia in the Iron Age can't be all Celtic, even after they came in. I looked at the local archaeological culture and its burial rite and social organisation, and its linked to Dalmatia, Southern Bosnia and Macedonia, its Illyrian derived!
The groups to the North, out of which after the fusion with Celts the Norics came about have on the other hand much more intensive contacts to Basarabi, especially their elite, like exemplified in Fr�g, which is much more Northern and Western. Actually, even the Venethi people are supposed to have been much more influenced by Eastern Hallstatt-Basarabi, than the "Hallstatt group" of Krain!
https://www.zobodat.at/pdf/Rudolfinum_2002_0035-0064.pdf

That's actually the last nail to the coffin of Illyrians being the original spreaders. Illyrians were largely Tumulus-culture remnants which moved South and mixed with locals. Eastern Hallstatt shows multiple influences, including Illyrian-related and Thraco-Cimmerian.

The frequency of E-V13 even in regions like Slovenia, Croatia, Austria and Czechia dates back to the LBA and EIA, to the expansion of Southern Urnfield and Eastern Hallstatt respectively for the most part. Even the later Scythian influences on Hallstatt and the Celts were largely transmitted by Geto-Scythians which were majority wise Daco-Thracian, related to what developed out of Basarabi under Scythian influence.

If the upcoming paper proves that the Slovenian Hallstatt province had little to no E-V13, that's key. Because the pre-Celtic, Celtic and Roman Noric people will have it, and it will be there up to Moravia and Bohemia. The find of LIB11 was not by chance and more will follow.

Oh, and Greeks might have indeed played a role in Dalmatia, because Greek and Greco-Roman settlements, as well as later resettlements and refugees from the Slavs influenced the Dalmatian islands the most! This might explain why the Illyrian mainland has so little E-V13, whereas the islands might harbour more. So Greeks could have played a role, as well as other Balkan resettlements. But this needs to be investigated with the local Dalmatian islands subclades, of which I have little knowledge.

I really think you should be more skeptical and wait, do not lump Dardanians so easily into the "Daco-Thracian" group. They are one of the earliest mentioned Balkan ethnic groups and mentioned before Thracians or Illyrians are, and in the Iliad they are already something separate from "Thracians" which also appear.

There may be a phylogenetic relationship between the two that is not known about yet, but this is highly speculative, and would not mean that Dardanian = Thracian, in the same way that English is not Swedish despite a phylogenetic relationship.

One thing that I did notice was interesting was the mentioning of burying wives with husbands. This is a feature of the Thracian culture/religion according to some ancient authors.

Derivation-languages-Germanic-Proto-Germanic.jpg


bqMOOVs.png
 
I know its linguistically more complicated, but archaeologically not, because their substrate, especially in the Eastern group, is absolutely and very clearly Gava/Daco-Thracian related. And its also possible to see how this regional elements fused. So they are in any case very different from say core Illyrian groups, of which some never fully adopted cremation, and were even less in the sphere of influence of Belegis II-Gava or its successor groups.

The death of the widows is very important, because it connects not just the Thracians in the South East, but it was also practised in Austria, in the Eastern Hallstatt culture elite with many Basarabi finds! I think it was a tradition possibly spread by the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon, when the Channelled Ware people fused with the Cimmerian-Scythian first wave steppe groups. With the 2nd some became completely "Scythianised", like some Geto-Scythian groups. This could relate this tradition of burying the wife with the dead noble man with Indo-Iranian groups to the East.
You find such elite male burials with Basarabi goods with their wives for example in Fr?g, Carinthia, Austria.
 
I know its linguistically more complicated, but archaeologically not, because their substrate, especially in the Eastern group, is absolutely and very clearly Gava/Daco-Thracian related. And its also possible to see how this regional elements fused. So they are in any case very different from say core Illyrian groups, of which some never fully adopted cremation, and were even less in the sphere of influence of Belegis II-Gava or its successor groups.

No it's not because we don't yet know the archaeological source of the Balkan Dardani. We know the region of Dardania roughly at the Roman province times, and from that it has been extrapolated up to the Dardani Kingdom times, but even that only reaches to 400BC. What if Dardani were way further south in 800BC for example? Or somewhere in Mati?

The earliest king of the Taulanti is Galabrus, which rings familiar with the Dardani tribe of the Galabri.
 
No it's not because we don't yet know the archaeological source of the Balkan Dardani. We know the region of Dardania roughly at the Roman province times, and from that it has been extrapolated up to the Dardani Kingdom times, but even that only reaches to 400BC. What if Dardani were way further south in 800BC for example? Or somewhere in Mati?

The earliest king of the Taulanti is Galabrus, which rings familiar with the Dardani tribe of the Galabri.

Agreed, there are some uncertainties. Further South is not that much of an issue, because they moved south too, depends how much to the South and especially West. But that kind of gets ridiculous, because then they would have lived in a completely different zone and there was an archaeological province which largely overlaps with the events. But yes, we don't know it for 100 %, but then there are much worse correlated ethnic-archaeological groups, which being pretty much the canon in science, despite all the "pots not people" crap, because they have to work with something.
 
THANK YOU!




Different methodologies/models...different sample sizes...different samples in general...

Also by using your logic, if the new study came first would the Stamatoyannopoulos paper reject it had it came out after it ? As we are dealing with "Peloponnesians" (can't find specific regions ) in this study VS Peloponnesians gathered from each and every regional unit of the area AND with their regional heritage verified for at least 4 generations back in the Stamatoyannopoulos paper I think the latter would totally trump it, am I right :D ? After all which study has the highest quality/accurate sampling *for Peloponnesians* is obvious...

Deleted... double post.
 
Last edited:
Different methodologies/models...different sample sizes...different samples in general...

Also by using your logic, if the new study came first would the Stamatoyannopoulos paper reject it had it came out after it ? As we are dealing with "Peloponnesians" (can't find specific regions ) in this study VS Peloponnesians gathered from each and every regional unit of the area AND with their regional heritage verified for at least 4 generations back in the Stamatoyannopoulos paper I think the latter would totally trump it, am I right :D ? After all which study has the highest quality/accurate sampling *for Peloponnesians* is obvious...

Of course different methodologies. This is how science advances. The more recent paper trumps the first, not because it is more recent, but because it uses ancient DNA data. The first paper was wrong in one of its main claims (among other faults).
 
I am very curious to see the autosomal results of these samples. (y)
 
From the research group of Viminacium:

Numerous Early Iron Age finds, which were obtained after a series of excavation
in the near past, originate from the area of Viminacium
. Those finds are primarily represented
by potsherds and metal artifacts, while remains of architecture such as economic or
residential buildings and graves, were recorded to a lesser degree. Finds belonging to the
first phase of the Early Iron Age, i.e. the transition between the 2nd and the 1st millennium
BC, are attributed to the bearers of the Channeled pottery culture (Belegi? II-Gava culture).
The finds originate from the enclosed contexts, the so-called ꞌꞌritual pitsꞌꞌ at the site
of Pećine,1 in which those were recorded together with the pottery of the Dubovac-?uto
Brdo culture. The finds attributed to the Belegi? II-Gava culture have also been recorded
at the site of Drmno-Lugovi (black-burnished and channeled pottery and one fibula of the
ꞌꞌPeschiera typeꞌꞌ).
2 Out of numerous sites in the wider area of Mlava and Danube confluence,
on which the Early Iron Age pottery was recorded, we highlight the site of Seli?te
on the right bank of the former course of Mlava River, and the site of Rudine, located in
Viminacium itself.3 These sites should be complemented with the sites of Obala Dunavca,
Čair, and Drmno-Lugovi.4 The younger phases of the Early Iron Age are registered at the
sites of Stari Kostolac-Mali Grad, Pećine and Drmno Nad Lugom.5 The collection of finds
which originate from the wider area of the Braničevo District indicate the intensification
of settlement in that area during the 1st millennium BC, and a certain cultural continuity
which is confirmed by finds from all of the phases of the Early Iron Age: the Transitional
period, the penetration of the Channeled pottery culture, early phase of the Bosut culture
(Kalakača, Basarabi)
, and the Rača-Ljuljaci cultural group, followed by the first settling of
Celtic populations during the 4th century BC.6

https://www.researchgate.net/public...IRON_AGE_HORIZON_AT_THE_SITE_OF_NAD_KLEPECKOM

This is as good as direct evidence for Channelled Ware people. These are their descendents, at least on the paternal side. Because according to the records from above, as well as the archaeological context, we know that whereever they went, they took local women as their wives, and they often had more than one per man. Those of their elite were buried in princely graves with at least one of their favoured wive (widow death). In the early phase, just like with Corded Ware or Indo-Aryans, they didn't give women rich burials or no burials at all. In my opinion, this is more common in newly founded ethnicities by male warbands, in which a lot of the women in the community were of foreign descent. This is evident from Austria (Fr?g Eastern Hallstatt, widow death in elite burials), to Dardanians (suggested widow death).
When they settled down and the differences between males and females were no more and they came under the influence of the Etruscan and Greek world, they started to give women more jewelry, there were hoards with jewelry, and also female rich, elite burials. But this just started about 150-300 years after their expansion in some regions!

After reading that article, I think its done, that's as good as having tested Belegi? II-G?va and Bosut-Basarabi itself, because these are their direct, paternal descendents.
 
Can you do modern Bulgarians.
Polish vs Thracian vs Armenian?

Using these 3 for modelling modern Bulgarians ? But what should be used for Thracians ? BGR_IA ?
If that's so then this is how can they be modeled

Target: Bulgarian
Distance: 1.2283% / 0.01228255
50.0Polish
34.2BGR_IA
15.8Armenian

Of course they are different in methodologies. That is how science advances. This recent study refutes the first, not because it is more recent, but because it uses ancient DNA.

The only model that's actually using only ancient DNA is the BGR_IA+RUS_Ingria_IA one...funnily enough in this model Peloponnesians score almost the same NE admixture as the max amount on Stamatoyannopoulos study, around 13-14%.
To get to almost 30% you have to pick the model that uses Greek_Empuries along with MODERN Russians or Mordvins but if you go there I don't see how this mixed model is less flawed than whatever Stamatoyannopoulos used (only moderns I think ? ) ...

Anyway...I don't see why this hung up about these 2-way models when we have posts like Archetype0ne's explaining very clearly their usefulness or the lack of it.
 
Using these 3 for modelling modern Bulgarians ? But what should be used for Thracians ? BGR_IA ?
If that's so then this is how can they be modeled

Target: Bulgarian
Distance: 1.2283% / 0.01228255
50.0Polish
34.2BGR_IA
15.8Armenian



The only model that's actually using only ancient DNA is the BGR_IA+RUS_Ingria_IA one...funnily enough in this model Peloponnesians score almost the same NE admixture as the max amount on Stamatoyannopoulos study, around 13-14%.
To get to almost 30% you have to pick the model that uses Greek_Empuries along with MODERN Russians or Mordvins but if you go there I don't see how this mixed model is less flawed than whatever Stamatoyannopoulos used (only moderns I think ? ) ...

Anyway...I don't see why this hung up about these 2-way models when we have posts like Archetype0ne's explaining very clearly their usefulness or the lack of it.

Why Armenian? Are Armenians a proxy for somebody. Why there was some migration into Bulgaria from Armenia during the Ottoman period Armenians and Bulgarians don't mix. Heck Armenians and Greeks did not intermix. I don't think that there is an Armenian genetic footprint in Bulgaria unless you're talking about the 6,500 Armenians still in Bulgaria.
 
When I was posting on different forums about Byzantine Chronicles regarding massive Slavic impact in Balkans (OK it was exaggerated to a certain degree) you all were screaming "use SCIENCEEE" with studies lacking ancient and medieval DNA.
See how the tables have turned now not just in Balkans but also with Italy, Iberia and Anatolia. You thought all those writers were using cheap drugs?
 
Using these 3 for modelling modern Bulgarians ? But what should be used for Thracians ? BGR_IA ?
If that's so then this is how can they be modeled

Target: Bulgarian
Distance: 1.2283% / 0.01228255
50.0Polish
34.2BGR_IA
15.8Armenian
The fit is tighter.
 
When I was posting on different forums about Byzantine Chronicles regarding massive Slavic impact in Balkans (OK it was exaggerated to a certain degree) you all were screaming "use SCIENCEEE" with studies lacking ancient and medieval DNA.
See how the tables have turned now not just in Balkans but also with Italy, Iberia and Anatolia. You thought all those writers were using cheap drugs?

Indeed, the ancient sources prove to be more reliable than many historians which came up with fancy and fashionable theories as to what "really happened". This even applies to, in many cases, the numbers of migrants or fighters in battles by the way. It became fashionable to downplay everything. But yet we have Tollense, Teleac, Medinet Habu (Sea Peoples armis, like Battle of Djahy) among others, which prove how big of an army "Barbarians" could muster, even in the Bronze Age.
 

This thread has been viewed 183191 times.

Back
Top