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

View attachment 12917
View attachment 12918Looking at the clusters above, I just realized that the population is so �Roman� (mixed) that simply stating a cluster is Balkan IA will not suffice knowing the high similarities between IA Italian, Balkan, Greek, and Aegean populations.

[...]

I believe we need enough samples from the countryside of each Balkan region (NW, SW, Central, NE, SE, as well as mainland Greece) to come to relatively conclusive ideas of what IA Balkans were like, thus leading to correct estimates of Germanic, Slavic, and East-Med contributions on the modern local populations.

We've been hearing these arguments about the countryside for years, "cities are sinks", "the cosmopolitan urbanites disappeared", etc. And yet the Etruscan paper shows that modern Tuscans carry significant ancestry from those urbanites that supposedly disappeared. I'm quite sure we'll see the same scenario play out in the Balkans as well.

View attachment 12917Then we have 1 R1b-Z2103 as Balkan IA, 1 Near Eastern, and 1 Central Northern European. Granted with R1b-Z2103 he could have been of a different Anatolian branch, but still important to be aware.

Similarly, we have a 1 R1a-417>Z645 as Steppe and 1 as Central Northern European as well as 1 G2a-P15>303 being Balkan while 1 is North Western European.

Why is that strange? These are very old clades with a very wide distribution.
 
^^Yes, Razib Khan and the authors of Antonio et al are obviously secretly Italians with a hidden agenda.
 
On the right track. The Balkans was once one of the "refugia" (Italy and Iberia the others) during the last glacial maximum, and the "refugees" followed the ice to the Baltic area. (Italy-/Iberia-origin people settled more northwestern areas.)

I contend that the remnants of these people (and there definitely are) in the Balkans are contributing to this "northeastern" pull that so many people like to blather on about here.
 
Problem is that there were no WHG like people in the Balkans until you got all the way up to the Iron Gates, so it was rather a clean sweep for the Anatolian farmers, i.e. virtually no WHG like admixture.

It only returned with Steppe people, and later with Slavs.
 
On the right track. The Balkans was once one of the "refugia" (Italy and Iberia the others) during the last glacial maximum, and the "refugees" followed the ice to the Baltic area. (Italy-/Iberia-origin people settled more northwestern areas.)

I contend that the remnants of these people (and there definitely are) in the Balkans are contributing to this "northeastern" pull that so many people like to blather on about here.

That would be right my friend. Had you tested your own hypothesis and not blathered yourself.

This isn't my model, it is 23abc's. It does a good job in this case though of showing how the distance measure between some of the ancient and modern Balkan/Central European groups is only skin deep. I have read your posts, but whatever you think Baltic_BA was, it isn't found in the Avar individual or in the Helladic MBA samples (or only in small amounts.) It is found in modern Albanians, yourself, and modern Greeks.


Target: Albanian
Distance: 1.1798% / 0.01179793
51.2 Anatolia_Barcin_N
21.6 Corded_Ware_DEU
16.4 Baltic_BA
6.4 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
4.2 GEO_CHG
0.2 Levant_Natufian


Target: A0_scaled
Distance: 2.5397% / 0.02539744
47.4 Anatolia_Barcin_N
22.4 Corded_Ware_DEU
18.2 Baltic_BA
4.6 GEO_CHG
3.8 Levant_Natufian
3.6 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N


Target: Greek_Peloponnese
Distance: 1.4895% / 0.01489507
49.6 Anatolia_Barcin_N
20.0 Corded_Ware_DEU
13.2 Baltic_BA
8.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
4.8 GEO_CHG
4.4 Levant_Natufian




Target: GRC_Helladic_MBA
Distance: 2.3174% / 0.02317423
48.8 Anatolia_Barcin_N
44.4 Corded_Ware_DEU
4.8 GEO_CHG
1.2 Levant_Natufian
0.8 Baltic_BA


Target: HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ36
Distance: 2.2296% / 0.02229582
48.4 Anatolia_Barcin_N
36.8 Corded_Ware_DEU
5.8 Levant_Natufian
3.4 GEO_CHG
3.4 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
2.2 Baltic_BA

Unless this Ice Age happened in the last 3000 years that is, then surely I am the one blathering.
 
Problem is that there were no WHG like people in the Balkans until you got all the way up to the Iron Gates, so it was rather a clean sweep for the Anatolian farmers, i.e. virtually no WHG like admixture.

It only returned with Steppe people, and later with Slavs.

Angela, do you know why Tuscans score so little to none WHG?
 
Deleted -- Deleted
 
What happened Francis? will PM you.
That is not very nice what you said. No need for tears, we are who we are no matter what.
 
^^Yes, Razib Khan and the authors of Antonio et al are obviously secretly Italians with a hidden agenda.

Bryan Ward-Perkins is one of the most Italian names there can be. :rolleyes:


In fact, he was the first authors I have seen that said cities were sinks, and there were deep demographic changes after the fall of Rome. Bryan Ward-Perkins, probably some kind of Napolitano I'm sure.
 
What happened Francis? will PM you.
That is not very nice what you said. No need for tears, we are who we are no matter what.

Yea I would like it if you coudl pm the f-stats please.

It is not true that this baltic artifact doesnt appear in the paleobalkan world though.

56.jpg
 
Yea I would like it if you coudl pm the f-stats please.

It is not true that this baltic artifact doesnt appear in the paleobalkan world though.

View attachment 12938

Interestingly enough the PM I just sent before even reading this post should deal with that. I am no expert in Baltic, lets get that out as a disclaimer. But the ones that are, and have no interest in the Balkans one way or the other, members on anthro proficient both in fstats and Balto Slavic history have been going at it for the last two three days... The consensus among the more learned ones seems to be that Balt_EST_BA is a dead end... since it left no surviving lines/cultures, and was replaced by Baltic BA... Something about the WHG in it and what not. Again I am no expert. And really no point to prove. In fact your model would suit my "agenda"/pov more, if I was not duly convinced by the arguments over at anthro by people who actually focus on that part of the world.
 
I wish people would stop modeling stuff with Levant_N,

Levant_N is not a monolithic source population, and subsumes a lot of Anatolia_N, which would otherwise be assigned to that component.

ajLV5bU.png


The ancient Rome paper has a great resource for the timeline tab of this link:

Ancient Rome Data Explorer (shinyapps.io)

(Also, as a side note, someone must have made a mistake labeling, because I know for a fact that those Taforalt samples are Paleolithic, not EN. The study is listed, for anyone that wants to verify that.)

Here we have two important papers regarding the middle east.

You can see that Natufians (i.e. Levantine Farmers) have a relatively large amount of Morroccan Hunter-gatherer, and a great deal of Anatolia_N.

As far as I am concerned, the only "monolithic" ancestry sources in the Middle east are from Anatolia and Iran. Ergo, because both of those ancestries are also present in Europe, you really have to see if there is a small yet significant amount of Morroccan_HG, to determine Levantine admixture.
 
They're pure Slav because the Slav migrations south started from there, and they have very little Central European Anatolian farmer. Look them up for goodness' sakes. The area was populated by Slavic tribes. Czech Slav is obviously admixed because it does have a lot of that southern Anatolian component.

All these people either desperately wanting to have less or more "Slavic" ancestry in them seem to know next to nothing about Slavic ethnogenesis, I must say.

Plus, what is going on? I realize you didn't read the paper, or, God forbid, the more difficult Supplement, but you don't even understand the small excerpts I posted? They didn't just model with Ingrian and Mordovian; they also modeled with modern Russians and got a decent fit.

No matter how it's modeled, you're not more than 50% Slav. The maximum in the Balkans is 55% Slav. I told you years ago you'd have to accept that you're at least 50% native Balkan with its high Aegean Iron Age component.

As for they couldn't have made it to the Balkans with a lot of people not admixed, I suggest you take a look at the Langobard paper. They came all the way from now Denmark, wandered through the Balkans all the way to the Black Sea, then west to Italy, and the samples in Piedmont, far northwestern Italy are mostly still as Germanic as when they started, and they still carry one yDna haplogroup.



No matter how much you want to distort history and facts again, everything that matters has been written long ago in history and linguistics.
There is no way to make a bigger or real Slavs from the Finns, Ugrians and Turks than the original South Slavs. These are the Bulgarians according to linguistic and history records! The first Slavs are located on the Danube and not on the Baltic or Central Asia.
There are no two opinions here when it comes to the structure of archaic language, said by names in linguistics, and not funny provocateurs without education like you:
As early as 1945, Academician N.S. Derzhavin expressed the idea that the analytical type of the modern Bulgarian language is its archaic feature, and does not represent transition from synthesis to analytics: “Compared to the Russian language, the modern Bulgarian language is distinguished by the archaic nature of its lexical composition and grammatical structure ... “
Historically, it is also known who gave the Cyrillic alphabet and culturally expanded its influence over two continents, this is the Bulgarian kingdom and the far-sighted policy of the Bulgarian king. Bulgaria is the first Slavic state and while in Russia and the Baltics non-IE languages were spoken, in Bulgaria/Balkans there is no evidence of a foreign/non IE substrate. There is no change in the toponymy in the imposed 6-7 century when some Finnish-Turkish Slavs had to come from the north. In addition, we have an official treaty between the Roman Empire and notice THE state of Bulgaria at 480 AD (that is, 200 years before the supposed "Slavic sea" :) attacked us from the lands of the Turko-Finns and Ugrics), so your efforts hit a snag and so it will be as long as there is real science.
This northeastern component that you want to make Slavic by force against any scientific evidence has been present in the Balkans for a long time and it is ridiculous to associate it with Slavs as it has nothing to do with IE languages at all.
 
I wish people would stop modeling stuff with Levant_N,

Levant_N is not a monolithic source population, and subsumes a lot of Anatolia_N, which would otherwise be assigned to that component.

ajLV5bU.png


The ancient Rome paper has a great resource for the timeline tab of this link:

Ancient Rome Data Explorer (shinyapps.io)

(Also, as a side note, someone must have made a mistake labeling, because I know for a fact that those Taforalt samples are Paleolithic, not EN. The study is listed, for anyone that wants to verify that.)

Here we have two important papers regarding the middle east.

You can see that Natufians (i.e. Levantine Farmers) have a relatively large amount of Morroccan Hunter-gatherer, and a great deal of Anatolia_N.

As far as I am concerned, the only "monolithic" ancestry sources in the Middle east are from Anatolia and Iran. Ergo, because both of those ancestries are also present in Europe, you really have to see if there is a small yet significant amount of Morroccan_HG, to determine Levantine admixture.

Not directed at present company, but I think a big issue in this hobby is that there are a lot of people that want to pretend the Levant is a monolithic source, and are furious at the fact that it is distinguished by Moroccan Hunter-gatherer admixture.


Ever since the Lazaridis 2018 pre-print, it has been abundantly clear to me, that Levantine is indeed defined by Ancient North Africans, who are used to model Natufians, by about a quarter. Which the rest being Dzudzuana (Anatolian_N-like).


This is part of the reason why 23andme includes North Africa, and the Levant in one component.
 
Not directed at present company, but I think a big issue in this hobby is that there are a lot of people that want to pretend the Levant is a monolithic source, and are furious at the fact that it is distinguished by Moroccan Hunter-gatherer admixture.


Ever since the Lazaridis 2018 pre-print, it has been abundantly clear to me, that Levantine is indeed defined by Ancient North Africans, who are used to model Natufians, by about a quarter. Which the rest being Dzudzuana (Anatolian_N-like).


This is part of the reason why 23andme includes North Africa, and the Levant in one component.


Absolutely; natufian without north-african is essentially straight on a cline with Anatolian-Hunter gather ---> Iron Gates --> WHG, it just has more basal eurasian than AHG.

Now the question is though, how would extra basal eurasian compared to Anatolia_N be explained without levantine? Unless there was some proto-anatolian population that only migrated to Italy... seems unlikely.
 
Absolutely; natufian without north-african is essentially straight on a cline with Anatolian-Hunter gather ---> Iron Gates --> WHG, it just has more basal eurasian than AHG.

Now the question is though, how would extra basal eurasian compared to Anatolia_N be explained without levantine? Unless there was some proto-anatolian population that only migrated to Italy... seems unlikely.

Using the model, there is some traces of Morroccan_HG that is found in Italy. But it is also found in other parts of the where Morroccan_HG is highly unlikely; example Northern European samples. This is due to the fact that there are only 5 components being used, and it is just noise or detecting some other kind of signal. Nevertheless, if it is there in a more significant way, it is surely indicative of North African, or Levantine admixture.


Sicilians and Southern Italians seem to get it too, but I would suggest it arrived there via the Moors. Who were indeed, North Africans. Nevertheless, I think it is too little to say it arrived via some mass migration from the Levant, AND 300 years of Moorish rule. Maybe it could be both sources, but that would mean, they were negligible events, but cumulative to give them what they have now.
 
Using the model, there is some traces of Morroccan_HG that is found in Italy. But it is also found in other parts of the where Morroccan_HG is highly unlikely; example Northern European samples. This is due to the fact that there are only 5 components being used, and it is just noise or detecting some other kind of signal. Nevertheless, if it is there in a more significant way, it is surely indicative of North African, or Levantine admixture.


Sicilians and Southern Italians seem to get it too, but I would suggest it arrived there via the Moors. Who were indeed, North Africans. Nevertheless, I think it is too little to say it arrived via some mass migration from the Levant, AND 300 years of Moorish rule. Maybe it could be both sources, but that would mean, they were negligible events, but cumulative to give them what they have now.

Here is what I am talking about using this model:

Italian samples throughout history:

o7BlMZN.png


German samples throughout history:

yBKFdak.png


Israel samples throughout history:

rOSTAXS.png


Moroccan samples throughout history:

qa6P6ST.png
 
No matter how much you want to distort history and facts again, everything that matters has been written long ago in history and linguistics.
There is no way to make a bigger or real Slavs from the Finns, Ugrians and Turks than the original South Slavs. These are the Bulgarians according to linguistic and history records! The first Slavs are located on the Danube and not on the Baltic or Central Asia.
There are no two opinions here when it comes to the structure of archaic language, said by names in linguistics, and not funny provocateurs without education like you:
As early as 1945, Academician N.S. Derzhavin expressed the idea that the analytical type of the modern Bulgarian language is its archaic feature, and does not represent transition from synthesis to analytics: “Compared to the Russian language, the modern Bulgarian language is distinguished by the archaic nature of its lexical composition and grammatical structure ... “
Historically, it is also known who gave the Cyrillic alphabet and culturally expanded its influence over two continents, this is the Bulgarian kingdom and the far-sighted policy of the Bulgarian king. Bulgaria is the first Slavic state and while in Russia and the Baltics non-IE languages were spoken, in Bulgaria/Balkans there is no evidence of a foreign/non IE substrate. There is no change in the toponymy in the imposed 6-7 century when some Finnish-Turkish Slavs had to come from the north. In addition, we have an official treaty between the Roman Empire and notice THE state of Bulgaria at 480 AD (that is, 200 years before the supposed "Slavic sea" :) attacked us from the lands of the Turko-Finns and Ugrics), so your efforts hit a snag and so it will be as long as there is real science.
This northeastern component that you want to make Slavic by force against any scientific evidence has been present in the Balkans for a long time and it is ridiculous to associate it with Slavs as it has nothing to do with IE languages at all.

I guess you haven't read about all the Anatolian farmers who once lived all over Bulgaria. Their language may not have survived, but their genes certainly did.

The South Slavs ARE NOT, I repeat, not the original Slavs. Please read the paper on the Danubian Limes. There are some issues with it, but there is no arguing with the autosomal make-up of the people who lived in the Northern Balkans in the Iron Age, and that there was a change after that, whether one wants to argue about the percentages or not. The Balkan Iron Age Cluster shows the make up of the people who lived in the Balkans before the arrival of the Slavs, and they were not like even the Poles or Russians.

Tribes attested as speaking Slavic languages and worshiping Slavic gods were living in the far north on the shore of the Gulf of Finland. Other tribes, with a different autosomal signature, lived adjacent to them, but they were there.

It is what it is.
 
As early as 1945, Academician N.S. Derzhavin expressed the idea that the analytical type of the modern Bulgarian language is its archaic feature, and does not represent transition from synthesis to analytics: “Compared to the Russian language, the modern Bulgarian language is distinguished by the archaic nature of its lexical composition and grammatical structure ... “
Historically, it is also known who gave the Cyrillic alphabet and culturally expanded its influence over two continents, this is the Bulgarian kingdom and the far-sighted policy of the Bulgarian king.

Old East Slavic (древнерусский язык) was a language used during the 10th–15th centuries by East Slavs in Kievan Rus' and its successors. But medieval Russians were illiterate, while they did speak Old East Slavic or Old Russian at the time. It was not until the end of the 18th century when the Russian version of Cyrillic was adapted to write Bulgarian. Bulgarian was the first Slavic language to be written in the 9th century in the Glagolitic alphabet, which was gradually replaced by an early version of the Cyrillic alphabet over the following centuries.
 

This thread has been viewed 183134 times.

Back
Top