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

[Angela]

Why would Ingrian Slav be pure and the Czech one wasn't?perhaps because won't fit in our picture?and what if the Slavs that came to Balkans were not Ingrian like?who can know that.Why is there even discussion for Mordovians they're not even Slavic and Slavic is primarily ethno-linguistic group.Mordovian can not be more Slavic in any sense than Czech or Slovak.To my knowledge no one can determine right now what is pure Slav and what not,except if we accept to choose one over another.

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.

 

[ihype02]

Ingria was not exactly Slavic. In fact "White Croats" appear in Western Ukraniane.

 

[ihype02]

They had jets and "pure" as it comes came to Balkans and elsewhere.The same like the Poles and Ukrainians landed in Peloponesus in the previous paper.

Croats are probably more Slavic than Peloponnesians are Hellenic in terms of their ancient ancestry.
Croats are pushed roughly 70% towards Poles. The Germanic admixture could've inflated that result by adding a maximum of 5% at most.

 

[Milan.M]

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.

First of all sorry to say but I care less how much Slavic ancestry I have or rather Ingrian,I can be with Chinese ancestry and will still be happy with it.We are all people and no one choose where and with which ancestry will be born.I know Slavic history that is why I asked those questions,and no historian until now postulated neither Ingrian,Mordovian or Russian homeland of Slavs.Even if Longobards came down with those haplogroups their genetic signature is very small in comparison with the one we are talking right now and by comparison Kuline sample is not Ingrian or 'pure' Slav as you said in your comparison with the langobards.You can choose Magyar migration for comparison and how 'pure' they came in Pannonia,so we need to be more cautious before stating our assumptions as facts.This were my thoughts for the paper and the discussion in the thread.Thank you

 

[Constantine]

Croats are probably more Slavic than Peloponnesians are Hellenic in terms of their ancient ancestry.
Croats are pushed roughly 70% towards Poles. The Germanic admixture could've inflated that result by adding a maximum of 5% at most.

The Slavic thing is way exaggerated, even for "South Slavs." It's akin to Arabic (and modern English) in that the language spread much farther than the original speakers. All these people on forums like this playing "find the Slav" are wasting their time. You'll never find them.

It's not rocket science. The "real" Slavs are known to have been marsh/riverine dwellers above modern Ukraine (which I believe is why samples from thereabouts were used for the recent Peloponnesian paper). To think these modest peoples had such a huge genetic impact on such a vast expanse of Continent is silly. We are just talking about mixed up and repackaged aboriginals here most of the time.

 

[Milan.M]

The Slavic thing is way exaggerated, even for "South Slavs." It's akin to Arabic (and modern English) in that the language spread much farther than the original speakers. All these people on forums like this playing "find the Slav" are wasting their time. You'll never find them.
It's not rocket science. The "real" Slavs are known to have been marsh/riverine dwellers above modern Ukraine (which I believe is why samples from thereabouts were used for the recent Peloponnesian paper). To think these modest peoples had such a huge genetic impact on such a vast expanse of Continent is silly. We are just talking about mixed up and repackaged aboriginals here most of the time.

First we need to find out whether this people landed 'pure' or in such genetic shape in Balkans or elsewhere they migrated,we need to find them in such genetic shape in the Balkans before they were supposedly admixed,7th or 8th century,then we can say and compare how much of that ancestry have modern inhabitants, otherwise is only assumption to me and that comparison for South Slavs or Peloponnesians or any other population will simply not work.

 

[ihype02]

The Slavic thing is way exaggerated, even for "South Slavs." It's akin to Arabic (and modern English) in that the language spread much farther than the original speakers. All these people on forums like this playing "find the Slav" are wasting their time. You'll never find them.

It's not rocket science. The "real" Slavs are known to have been marsh/riverine dwellers above modern Ukraine (which I believe is why samples from thereabouts were used for the recent Peloponnesian paper). To think these modest peoples had such a huge genetic impact on such a vast expanse of Continent is silly. We are just talking about mixed up and repackaged aboriginals here most of the time.

The formation of the "Slavs" occurred in late antiquity, with a largely Eastern European-like genetically uniform population.

The original number of the Slavs must've been 100,000-300,000. To say the Slavic thing is way exaggerated because Slavs did not exist in the time of Ceaser, at least not in the same quantity as they were in 5th or 6th century AD, is like saying the great American replacement was exaggerated because most modern Americans do not have English speaking ancestors from 15th century. I believe the Slavs that reached Croatia were Polish-like, but the Slavs that reached Bulgaria and Greece were somewhat more different, maybe like Slovenes.

Check the Y-DNA lines in Croatia.

Target: Croatian Distance: 1.2059% / 0.01205875
68.0	Polish
32.0	HRV_IA

Target: Croatian Distance: 2.2924% / 0.02292367
75.0	CZE_Early_Slav
25.0	HRV_IA

 

[Archetype0ne]

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.

lol, I can not find a single slav on the whole fora I frequent that supports Ingria/Mordovia proxy for slaiv input in the Balkans...

Neither Mordovian members, neither South Slav members. So what is the point for you to defend this model so hard. Not even Davidski thinks this model makes much sense, and he is in the sources. Like its actually funny.

 

[Dushman]

South Slavs: ~40-50% Slavic Y-DNA -> ~40-50% Slavic AuDNA
Albanians: ~15% Slavic Y-DNA -> 38% Slavic AuDNA.

Super logical. Need to trust the authors blindly on this. In time this paper?s interpretations will look as stupid as E-V13 being Egyptian slaves.

Seems reasonable to me to accept that Slavs settled together with their families, thus the matching ydna-audna ratio. For that reason I bet true Slavic audna in Albania is max 15% (I think even less) and Germanic max 7%, reaching the reasonable 22% overall Northern ancestry.

We will wait and see.

 

[lacreme]

I think I recall reading a post here giving the percentage of R1b-U106 in non Slavic Balkan peoples ( Greeks, Albanians ) as an example of the very small contribution (in comparison with the Slavic) of Germanic DNA to the total northern input of them. While I agree that the contribution is probably very small, isn't R1b-U106 associated mostly with West Germanic peoples ? Wouldn't I1 be more appropriate ( still in very small percentages ) considering the fact that the most important/impactful Germanic tribes for the history of Balkans in general were the Goths and later the Varangians ?

 

[Riverman]

I think I recall reading a post here giving the percentage of R1b-U106 in non Slavic Balkan peoples ( Greeks, Albanians ) as an example of the very small contribution (in comparison with the Slavic) of Germanic DNA to the total northern input of them. While I agree that the contribution is probably very small, isn't R1b-U106 associated mostly with West Germanic peoples ? Wouldn't I1 be more appropriate ( still in very small percentages ) considering the fact that the most important/impactful Germanic tribes for the history of Balkans in general were the Goths and later the Varangians ?

In general I'd say that the combination of I1 and R-U106 is always a safe starting point for debating about Germanic contributions. If just one of those two is present in a low percentage, we might speculate about more indirect, say Celtic or Roman influences as well. Ultimately from the Northern sphere, but probably not from the main, Iron Age Germanic groups. Its possible some Northern Celts and other groups had it too. In a region in which both I1 and R-U106 appear >1 % each, we can say a true Germanic contribution is safe and it might be good to search for other haplogroups subclades too, which might be of Germanic origin. At some point we might conclude that I1+U106 at about 3 % might equal total Germanic paternal contribution of about 5-7 % or something along these lines, because most Germanic tribes wouldn't have been exclusively of these two lineages.

 

[Dushman]

View attachment 12917
View attachment 12918

Looking 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.

We can?t know for certain if the samples categorized as Balkan IA were Central or Northern Balkans, mainland Greeks, half Balkan half Aegean/Anatolian, etc.

Within a town, we can see 7 E-V13>CTS1273 being called Balkan and 2 as Near Eastern. How can we know those 4 were fully Northern Thracians/Dacians/Illyrians and not Aegean/Anatolian admixed?

Then 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.

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.

 

[Archetype0ne]

Dushman & Francis you guys might appreciate this:

After getting in touch with various people, giving them my coordinates and asking for a 2nd opinion I think I am getting a clearer view of this.

One of them replied:

"Interesting. On that very messy Ancient individual samples run, you're showing 14.2% Krakauer Berg ancestry, which is much higher than the slightly above 1% in Macedonian average. I have no idea what modern population it could stand for, although as I said it's much closer to the Baltic people than to the Slavs, especially S Slavs.

You're also showing considerably more Levantine ancestry than Macedonian average. No one would expect those two things to come together.


Target: A0_scaled
Distance: 0.1659% / 0.00165911
14.2 DEU_Krakauer_Berg_MA
12.6 TUR_Barcin_N
11.0 Levant_Ashkelon_IA1
9.0 VK2020_RUS_Gnezdovo_VA
8.4 TUR_Arslantepe_LC
8.0 Baltic_EST_BA
7.8 TUR_Tell_Kurdu_EC
7.0 RUS_Afanasievo
3.6 DEU_LBK_SMH
3.4 DEU_MA_Baiuvaric_o
3.4 SRB_N
1.8 VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA
1.6 TUR_Alalakh_MLBA
1.4 VK2020_POL_Bodzia_VA
1.2 VK2020_RUS_Pskov_VA
1.0 Levant_Beirut_ERoman
0.8 AUT_LBK_N
0.8 CHN_Balong_1500BP
0.8 Levant_PPNC
0.4 GRC_Minoan_Lassithi
0.4 VEN_Ceramic
0.4 VUT_1100BP
0.4 Yamnaya_RUS_Kalmykia
0.4 ZEM24
0.2 CHN_Upper_Yellow_River_LN
Hm. I am at a loss."

Interestingly I also found this:
https://slavicorigins.blogspot.com/2021/06/krakauer-and-berg.html

After removing Germanic component from Krakauer Berg samples, two clusters form. One apears Slavic, one Baltic.

Then this all clicked with the various models,calculations,tests I have done on my own coordinates.

Just based on the age of the samples, and the tag, the shift in my own coordinates, compared to BA/IA Balkans seems Baltic BA/Scandianavian Varangian - > Eastern European, than south Slavic.

Here is a bunch of calculations I did some days ago:
https://imgur.com/a/TXztTav

No wonder the authors were grasping at straws with Mordovians (Fino Urgis), and modern Russians (Eastern Slavic). Because if Albanians (likely even Greeks to some extend) will have anything substantially in common with South Slavs ancestors, the link will likely be BA Baltic in nature. Thus for them picking CZE Early Slav, or any sort of west Slav, from whence the South Slavic migration started, would not have supported their hypothesis.

Gotta say, kudos to them for finding a way to present the data in a way to support their hypothesis. That certainly would have taken skill.

 

[Dushman]

@Archetype0ne Great job brother and thanks for sharing.

The only problem is I have absolutely no idea how to read calculators.

Could you deduct from this information how much proper Slavic related ancestry you have?

I knew from the available data so far that something was sketchy about that paper. I?m never going to trust a paper analyzing ancient Balkans and comparing Albanians whose contributors? lastnames end in -ic and -ovic. We Balkanites haven?t reached that level of scientific integrity yet.

 

[Zell]

Focus this paper IS NOT %Slavic genes in Albanians. All data for Albanians and others Balkan peoples come from database of leading authors (Barselona, Harvard...). I do not understand comments about names and connection with scientific integrity???!!!!

 

[Archetype0ne]

Read some Noam Chomsky on intellectuals. Might contextualize what's up.

 

[Dushman]

Focus this paper IS NOT %Slavic genes in Albanians. All data for Albanians and others Balkan peoples come from database of leading authors (Barselona, Harvard...). I do not understand comments about names and connection with scientific integrity???!!!!

It?s fine, don?t beat yourself up. You?re not supposed to understand everything and that post was not directed at you.

Similarly, I for instance did not fully understand Archetype?s post with calculators. Not a big deal, we?re all here to learn through sharing and asking questions.

 

[Hawk]

Focus this paper IS NOT %Slavic genes in Albanians. All data for Albanians and others Balkan peoples come from database of leading authors (Barselona, Harvard...). I do not understand comments about names and connection with scientific integrity???!!!!

I agree with you, one of the main points which interests me from the paper is the Bronze Age to Iron Age expansion of E-V13. A lot of things discussed were spamming the thread. Ironically, the same people spamming this thread reported our posts just mentioning few times E-V13 in the Daunian paper thread.

 

[Archetype0ne]

@Archetype0ne Great job brother and thanks for sharing.

The only problem is I have absolutely no idea how to read calculators.

Could you deduct from this information how much proper Slavic related ancestry you have?

I knew from the available data so far that something was sketchy about that paper. I�m never going to trust a paper analyzing ancient Balkans and comparing Albanians whose contributors� lastnames end in -ic and -ovic. We Balkanites haven�t reached that level of scientific integrity yet.

I will explain later when I am finish some work.

But from the calculator you can not tell how much Slavic I have because we do not really know for certain where the South Slavic ancestors originated from.

A preface of my future post to explain the calculator/calculation:

Based on a probably overfit yet detailed model:

I have 15 Krakauen Berg, where half of it is Germanic half Baltic. That is 7.5% Baltic.

9% Varangian Rus Gnezdovo

8% Baltic Bronze Age

7% Afasinevo (Eastern Yamnaya Related)

Further 3% Pskov/Bodzia Viking / Varangian

Notice how 0% of that is South Slavic? or even West Slavic?
Now if we knew where the ancestral land of South Slavs was we could make assumtions how much South Slavic I have.
It is a hot debate, among amateurs and even academics, with no clear answer, was it Zarubyntsi ? Was it Kiev? Was it Prague? Which culture? These cultures are separated by like 50-200 years in-between, and span thousands of KM, certainly they are mutually exclusive to each other.

I can safely say that I have some Varangian ancestry lifting my Baltic, Germanic and Eastern Slavic component. I don't know if this predates the Ethnogenesis of the South Slavs, or post dates it. But if the current leading theory that South Slavs originated from the border between Czechia, Germany and Poland is correct, any Slavic I might have is from a totally different region, and took a totally different historical path.

Side Note: For myself it is the most surprising, and unexpected, how ancestries you do not expect to find together in people shifted in one of those ways, appear in me. Say high Baltic shift, with high Levant shift. This means on the PCA I might remain in the same region as my neighbors, but with totally different, more extreme ingredients, to say the average.

Edit: I might as well.

Those calculators, when you go AC-BC mode, tell you the difference in shift.
AC, BC being segments of certain lenght. Better yet vectors.
When you subtact those vectors, you are left with a leftover vector, with a distance and direction. This leftover vector from the starting point tells you what shift remains once you finish the calculation.

Here I wanted to find the shift needed to bring the BGR_IA sample to my present G25 coordinates.

AC-BC=
meaning My distance/vector to x sample, minus BGR_IA distance/vector to x sample, giving a C result, with a distance and direction of shift.

The results then are ascending or descending.
From the above image. The green results, shows which sample I am closer too, in relation to BGR_IA is closet too.
Meaning vector A0toVK2020_Rus_Pskov_VA - BGR_IAtoVK2020_Rus_Pskov_VA gives the greatest difference. In the green results it shows that I am the closest to VK2020Pskov in comparison to BGR_IA.

I interpret this as BGR_IA needs a shift of VK2020_Rus_Pskov_VA to bring forth my coordinates.

On the second part of the image the red results, it is similar. A0toC - BGR_IAtoC = greatest distance. Where I am furthest to C compared to BGR_IA, or BGR_IA is closest to that sample in relation to me. In this case Minoan relatively speaking is the closest population closest to BGR_IA in relation to me.

I suck at explaining I know. The best way to understand this tool is to play with it.
Go on Vahaduo. Paste 2 samples on target, then go on distance, and click the mode, from distance, till you see AC-BC mode. Then play with it, with sample you are familiar with. It will make much mroe sense.

 

[peloponnesian]

The IA Balkanians are paralel to modern Greeks overall to be honnest. Perhaps these tribes migrated South at some point or multiple points of time. I am thinking that there may have been a difference between Greeks inland and Greeks on the Southern coast and the islands. The Thessalian Greeks who had high Steppe admixture where isolated by mountainious terrain. Other than those two samples, all other samples are from Southern Coastal areas. Even the more recent Marathon sample who seems close to modern Greek islanders. Attica belonged to the South Aegean mainframe after all. I am betting that we are missing quite a lot of material when it comes to ancient Greeks. A lot of these IA Balkanians were probably also to be found in the Greek mainland, and the migrations during the iron age spread their genetic material all over the region.

Which Thessalian Greeks with "high steppe admixture" are you talking about? They may have existed at some point but we need to see them first. The theory of "rural, unadmixed, high-steppe" Greeks that survived everything and are wrongly accused of having Slavic ancestry doesn't hold, because we know for a fact that Slavic Y DNA % is significant in mainland Greece.

Another overseen factor is sexual selection. Some types with more Steppe admixture may have had more access to sex. This is mostly due to the fact Greek heroes and some Gods where sometimes described fair. Probably because this seemed exotic to the Greeks.

This is just conjecture. So far not a single Ancient Greek sample has been shown to have blonde hair or blue eyes. It's clear that the majority of these traits in modern Greece are Corded Ware-derived (as in most of Europe) and they're higher in frequency compared to Ancient Greece not because of sexual selection but because of migrations from the north. They actually appear to be stabilised (maybe even regressed) in frequency over time, I don't think there's any sign of strong selection, unlike what happened in northern Europe. You can just take a look at modern mainland Greeks, the vast majority have brown hair and brown eyes and they're not particularly pale. I imagine it's a similar situation with central and southern Italy, the G allele at rs12913832 should be around 30-50%.