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

So how much slavic ancestry do you believe Greeks and Albanians have if we assume that modern South slavs have on average 40-55% ancestry associated with slavs?

Here is an excerpt from the pre-print, in regards to Northeast European ancestry that admixed with the Balkan_IA people (who were already modeled as Aegean_IA+Solvenian_IA):

To explore whether this Northeastern European ancestry signal persisted in present-day Balkan and Aegean populations, we attempted to model present day groups by using the same qpAdmmodel used for the Kuline individuals (Supplementary section 13). Present-day Serbs, Croats and the rest of central/northern Balkan populations yielded a similar ancestral composition as the Kuline individuals, with approximately 50% Northeastern European-related ancestry admixed with ancestry related to Iron Age native Balkan population (Figure 3), implying substantial population continuity in the region over the last 1,000 years. This ancestry signal significantly decreases in more southern groups, but it is still presents in populations from mainland Greece (~30%) and even the Aegean islands (7-20%).
 
Thanks for the explanation. I agree with you on this.

No idea what WGS is but once those North Albania results are out I'll be interested to check it for myself too.

They most likely look like the rest of the Balkans on the gradient according to their geographic position. They will probably have a bit more Northeastern European ancestry than the southern Albanians who will have more Balkan_IA.
 
They most likely look like the rest of the Balkans on the gradient according to their geographic position. They will probably have a bit more Northeastern European ancestry than the southern Albanians who will have more Balkan_IA.
Just to be clear, I was referring to what I read from forums about upcoming tests from BA or IA North Albania, not modern North Albanians.

In case you meant modern North Albanians, they (we) are way more Western shifted as well as having small percentages of R1a and I2a-Din, so I doubt that additional North-Eastern component is Slavic female mediated. Intermarriage happened, but I doubt they alone contributed to levels like 20%.

But then again, it?s just my non-scientific opinion and me finding it weird to process the scenario of medieval North Albanians highlanders massively interacting with and marrying South Slavic women.

If you meant BA/IA people of North Albania then yeah, maybe. Sounds logical that the more North you go the more IA Slovenian-like, BA Croatian-like, and generally Steppe-like the people in the Balkans were.
 
@Arch0type

These names (the authors) don't strike me as Greek or Italian, with the exception of Lazaridis.

Iñigo Olalde, Pablo Carrión, Ilija Mikić, Nadin Rohland, Shop Mallick, Iosif Lazaridis, Miomir Korać, Snežana Golubović, Sofija Petković, Nataša Miladinović-Radmilović, Dragana Vulović, Kristin Stewardson, Ann Marie Lawson, Fatma Zalzala, Kim Callan, Željko Tomanović, Dušan Keckarević, Miodrag Grbić, Carles Lalueza-Fox, David Reich

There is no conspiracy or bias, these are the results of the paper. In fact it seems very obvious to me, and has for a while. I have said before this pre-print in speculation, that Albanians were probably southern Italian-like before Slavic input. Frankly, I don't see what the big deal is. Balkan_IA is mostly Aegean_IA, plus Slovenian IA, how does that not make sense?



Neither did you get my point, neither is there a point for me to explain it again.

Guess the discourse in the US is different, modern Balkan nuances take a certain background to fully grasp.

The authors clearly made a crap model trying to paint all modern Balkans as proto Balkan + equal amounts of Slavic(while inputing a Fino Urgic source...)
That has heen a trend in recent papers coming out of former Jugo academies. And as you guys often preach, such model is incompatible with history, lingustics, archeology. As you can see the authors and their last names, probably even google them and check out where they study/work.

My point was, Italians and Greeks on anthrofora are not as concerned with such discrepencies in the model. I mean look at you. Albanians were South Italian and Slavs made them what they are. Or somrthing similar. Yeah, Slovenia IA... Both statements suffer from anachronism with the facts/historical timeline of archeological facts. Then we criticize PCAs only when we want to. But its ok to take PCAs using Southern source + Slovenia IA.

Oh wait. Am I sysiphus trying to explain again. This rock is heavy.
 
Neither did you get my point, neither is there a point for me to explain it again.

Guess the discourse in the US is different, modern Balkan nuances take a certain background to fully grasp.

The authors clearly made a crap model trying to paint all modern Balkans as proto Balkan + equal amounts of Slavic(while inputing a Fino Urgic source...)
That has heen a trend in recent papers coming out of former Jugo academies. And as you guys often preach, such model is incompatible with history, lingustics, archeology. As you can see the authors and their last names, probably even google them and check out where they study/work.

My point was, Italians and Greeks on anthrofora are not as concerned with such discrepencies in the model. I mean look at you. Albanians were South Italian and Slavs made them what they are. Or somrthing similar. Yeah, Slovenia IA... Both statements suffer from anachronism with the facts/historical timeline of archeological facts. Then we criticize PCAs only when we want to. But its ok to take PCAs using Southern source + Slovenia IA.

Oh wait. Am I sysiphus trying to explain again. This rock is heavy.

Excuse me, why are Aegean_IA and Slovenian_IA a crap model, when they are both from the same time period and totally appropriate for the geographic locations? This was what the Balkans in the Iron Age looked like. Actually, you don't have to explain anything in contradiction, because it is inconsequential. The native Balkan IA people, many of them not just from Bulgaria, plot where they are; it is what it is.


The real crap model is what you posted back thread, from the layman anthrogenica user, who didn't even use coherent sources populations for the chart.
 
Excuse me, why are Aegean_IA and Slovenian_IA a crap model, when they are both from the same time period and totally appropriate for the geographic locations? This was what the Balkans in the Iron Age looked like. Actually, you don't have to explain anything in contradiction, because it is inconsequential. The native Balkan IA people, many of them not just from Bulgaria, plot where they are; it is what it is.


The real crap model is what you posted back thread, from the layman anthrogenica user, who didn't even use coherent sources populations for the chart.

Couldn't agree more.

Now, certain mountainous regions even in mainland Greece (thinking of the Peloponnese) might have less, and the same might apply to certain areas of Albania, but we're looking at about 20-30% probably. Future papers may refine the percentages.

I realize it's difficult to let go of prior beliefs, but the facts are the facts. Looking at the data we have, the Albanians, like the rest of the people in the Balkans, are descended from an Iron Age Balkan "native" population and the late arriving Slavic speakers, although there may be some more Northwesterly influences given their location.

I'll be surprised if the Iron Age sources for the Albanians turn out to be significantly different from the Iron Age Balkan samples we already have in terms of overall autosomal signature, whatever the cultural appellation, and if they got significantly less Northeastern European input than people like the Thessalians, given how similar they are to them in overall genetic autosomal similarity.

I'm quite interested to see the upcoming paper to see if it clarifies things.

As to the paper being biased because there are scientists from the former Yugoslavia listed as authors, it just doesn't work that way. Inigo Olalde, who is Spanish btw, is the author of this paper, under the supervision of David Reich. They're not interested in Balkan squabbles. They just look at data.

Now, I do wish that instead of using a far northeastern European source for the Slavic input they had used a source more proximate in space and time, but they may not have one yet. Or, if they do, it may be similar to that. Of course, people should be aware that if they do find a source more proximate in space and time, it may already be more admixed with Anatolian Neolithic, for example, and then the admixture in the Balkans might look more like "replacement."
 
Last edited:
Couldn't agree more.

Now, certain mountainous regions even in mainland Greece (thinking of the Peloponnese) might have less, and the same might apply to certain areas of Albania, but we're looking at about 20-30% probably. Future papers may refine the percentages.

I realize it's difficult to let go of prior beliefs, but the facts are the facts. Looking at the data we have, the Albanians, like the rest of the people in the Balkans, are descended from an Iron Age Balkan "native" population and the late arriving Slavic speakers, although there may be some more Northwesterly influences given their location.

I'll be surprised if the Iron Age source for the Albanians turns out to be significantly different from the Iron Age Balkan samples we already have in terms of overall autosomal signature, whatever the cultural appellation, and if they got significantly less Northeastern European input than people like the Thessalians, given how similar they are to them in overall genetic autosomal similarity.

I'm quite interested to see the upcoming paper to see if it clarifies things.

As to the paper being biased because there are scientists from the former Yugoslavia listed as authors, it just doesn't work that way. Inigo Olalde, who is Spanish btw, is the author of this paper, under the supervision of David Reich. They're not interested in Balkan squabbles. They just look at data.

Now, I do wish that instead of using a far northeastern European source for the Slavic input they had used a source more proximate in space and time, but they may not have one yet. Or, if they do, it may be similar to that. Of course, people should be aware that if they do find a source more proximate in space and time, it may already be more admixed with Anatolian Neolithic, for example, and then the admixture in the Balkans might look more like "replacement."

Yeah, I do think the mountainous terrain, harboring pockets of different admixture rates is possible, and an important dynamic to consider. It could be that some areas may have a bit more (Northern Balkan) Slovenian_IA-like ancestry, and some could be more Aegean_IA-related; or even some more western sources. Thus it may not be a precise gradient. I think these rates can be applied broadly, but are a reasonable model for the region, nonetheless. That is until we have more information. I assume that Albanians would be similar to Mainland Greeks in terms of the Kuline component, which is around 30%.
 
.

Now, I do wish that instead of using a far northeastern European source for the Slavic input they had used a source more proximate in space and time, but they may not have one yet. Or, if they do, it may be similar to that. Of course, people should be aware that if they do find a source more proximate in space and time, it may already be more admixed with Anatolian Neolithic, for example, and then the admixture in the Balkans might look more like "replacement."
I used the Iron Age Thracian versus Mordovians to calculate the genetic makeup of the Serbians. I got 51% Mordovian and 49% Thracian, which is is not far away from, ironically, 49% Mordovian and 51% late antiquity Roman native of Serbia, the result we see in the study.

However when using Czech Avar Slavic sample you get 65% Slavic and 35% Thracian, so probably roughly 60%/40% for the Roman Period.
This Slavic sample carriers Germanic admixture, which was not widely spread in late antiquity Roman Serbia as seen in the study. So a 60% contribution from Slavs and Goths combined together seems to be the accurate percentage.

I think it's better to investigate the Germanic admixture in Tuscany and some regions in Italy (expect for some northern regions like the case of Lombardy that has significantly more Germanic input than any region of the Balkans). Because I think the Germanic input in most Balkans will be lower than the Germanic input in Tuscany, so that we might know the "maximum". Which is a helping puzzle.
 
Last edited:
Excuse me, why are Aegean_IA and Slovenian_IA a crap model, when they are both from the same time period and totally appropriate for the geographic locations? This was what the Balkans in the Iron Age looked like. Actually, you don't have to explain anything in contradiction, because it is inconsequential. The native Balkan IA people, many of them not just from Bulgaria, plot where they are; it is what it is.


The real crap model is what you posted back thread, from the layman anthrogenica user, who didn't even use coherent sources populations for the chart.

Because its Iron Age. Iron Age Slovenia. The timeline. Does. Not. Fit.
As a placeholder sure. As a scientific model. Null.
They both do not chronologically fit the autosomal makeup. That IA Balkan makeup should rather be explained by preceding sources. By the IA the Balkan makeup was already shaped.
Unless you are fine with having the hypothesis, Iron Age Slovenians went south in the Iron Age as a package and mixed into Aegean like populations in Bosnia, Montenegro and Albania. In that case. I guess the point of my previous post is quite evident.

When we even have Helladic EBA/MBA samples legit clustering around Northern Greeks and Albanians. I do not see how IA Slovenia is even needed. Or Mordovian?! C'mon now.
My YDNA, found in Maros Vojvodina EBA, Croatia MBA, Albania LBA/IA is a likely vector of such movements. Hence why as an amateur placeholder, Slovenia IA would make sense, as anything else it anachronistic...

I am not even mad. I am disappointed people have no scientific empathy to even consider such objections.

For now I am done in this thread. It is obvious there is no meaningful discussion, beyond tooting each others horn or repeating things ad nauseam.

When the upcoming papers come out I will be enjoying the spin, as per usual. Already have a checklist of the arguments I will re-read.
 
Because its Iron Age. Iron Age Slovenia. The timeline. Does. Not. Fit.
As a placeholder sure. As a scientific model. Null.
They both do not chronologically fit the autosomal makeup. That IA Balkan makeup should rather be explained by preceding sources. By the IA the Balkan makeup was already shaped.
Unless you are fine with having the hypothesis, Iron Age Slovenians went south in the Iron Age as a package and mixed into Aegean like populations in Bosnia, Montenegro and Albania. In that case. I guess the point of my previous post is quite evident.

When we even have Helladic EBA/MBA samples legit clustering around Northern Greeks and Albanians. I do not see how IA Slovenia is even needed. Or Mordovian?! C'mon now.
My YDNA, found in Maros Vojvodina EBA, Croatia MBA, Albania LBA/IA is a likely vector of such movements. Hence why as an amateur placeholder, Slovenia IA would make sense, as anything else it anachronistic...

I am not even mad. I am disappointed people have no scientific empathy to even consider such objections.

For now I am done in this thread. It is obvious there is no meaningful discussion, beyond tooting each others horn or repeating things ad nauseam.

When the upcoming papers come out I will be enjoying the spin, as per usual. Already have a checklist of the arguments I will re-read.

Be sure to quote THIS one for me:

"I realize it's difficult to let go of prior beliefs, but the facts are the facts. Looking at the data we have, the Albanians, like the rest of the people in the Balkans, are descended from an Iron Age Balkan "native" population and the late arriving Slavic speakers, although there may be some more Northwesterly influences given their location.

I'll be surprised if the Iron Age sources for the Albanians turn out to be SIGNIFICANTLY different from the Iron Age Balkan samples we already have in terms of overall autosomal signature, whatever the cultural appellation, and if they got SIGNIFICANTLY less Northeastern European input than people like the Thessalians, given how similar they are to them in overall genetic autosomal similarity."
 
Yeah, I do think the mountainous terrain, harboring pockets of different admixture rates is possible, and an important dynamic to consider. It could be that some areas may have a bit more (Northern Balkan) Slovenian_IA-like ancestry, and some could be more Aegean_IA-related; or even some more western sources. Thus it may not be a precise gradient. I think these rates can be applied broadly, but are a reasonable model for the region, nonetheless. That is until we have more information. I assume that Albanians would be similar to Mainland Greeks in terms of the Kuline component, which is around 30%.
30% Slavic component? That?s like the total average Steppe component Albanians can have.

How does a male dominated migration with ~15% Slavic y-dna representation in the country contributes with a 30% autosomal total component? What kind of Albanians did they use as proxies? Bulgarian minorities?

I expect with 30% of our DNA being Slavic we would be looking 1/3 Slavic too.
 
Be sure to quote THIS one for me:

"I realize it's difficult to let go of prior beliefs, but the facts are the facts. Looking at the data we have, the Albanians, like the rest of the people in the Balkans, are descended from an Iron Age Balkan "native" population and the late arriving Slavic speakers, although there may be some more Northwesterly influences given their location.

I'll be surprised if the Iron Age sources for the Albanians turn out to be SIGNIFICANTLY different from the Iron Age Balkan samples we already have in terms of overall autosomal signature, whatever the cultural appellation, and if they got SIGNIFICANTLY less Northeastern European input than people like the Thessalians, given how similar they are to them in overall genetic autosomal similarity."

Can you please clear some inbox space, wanted to send a PM.

Edit: Managed to get 1/2 messages sent, still no room for the 2nd. Hopefully will send it tomorrow.
 
Last edited:
Duplicate post.
 
I used the Iron Age Thracian versus Mordovians to calculate the genetic makeup of the Serbians. I got 51% Mordovian and 49% Thracian, which is is not far away from, ironically, 49% Mordovian and 51% late antiquity Roman native of Serbia, the result we see in the study.

However when using Czech Avar Slavic sample you get 65% Slavic and 35% Thracian, so probably roughly 60%/40% for the Roman Period.
This Slavic sample carriers Germanic admixture, which was not widely spread in late antiquity Roman Serbia as seen in the study. So a 60% contribution from Slavs and Goths combined together seems to be the accurate percentage.

I think it's better to investigate the Germanic admixture in Tuscany and some regions in Italy (expect for some northern regions like the case of Lombardy that has significantly more Germanic input than any region of the Balkans). Because I think the Germanic input in most Balkans will be lower than the Germanic input in Tuscany, so that we might know the "maximum". Which is a helping puzzle.

You can take a look at Maciamo's map of Germanic dna in Italy, which shows 5-10% for Toscana, and he provides the citations for the papers he used.

I'm aware there's a map floating around the internet by someone named Passa, whoever he is, and it shows about 10-12%. However, I've never seen a list of the sources so that his figures can be checked.

Given my knowledge of the castles established by the Langobards, and the relative paucity of the actual Langobards manning them once you leave the Veneto, I would think around 7% for Toscana would probably be the highest level, for the province as a whole, although that's a guess.

Given that Toscana plots west of Albania, I would think Germanic dna would only be a few percent in Albania.

We would need a lot more samples for anything approaching accuracy.

Fwiw, I have seen the results of a few 100% Tuscans, and total steppe is around 25-30%, depending on the area, with the northern areas having more. However, imo, the vast majority is "original" steppe admixed/Italic, Celtic/Gallic, and then a bit of Germanic; the latter is much less common in Toscana than in northern Italy

The following may be informed by my own subjective biases, as these kinds of statements often are, but while there is a great deal of phenotypic diversity in Italy, with some Northerners overlapping with those in other countries, and the same for Southerners, Tuscans, to me, often look "Italian", and "only" Italian. Note all the qualifiers. :)

(Sorry I didn't respond to you directly. The site is slow and kept blocking the response even though I removed the picture.)
 
Hence why as an amateur placeholder, Slovenia IA would make sense, as anything else it .

You are calling the foremost professionals in the field, amateurs? The grievances I have brought up with past papers are different from this, because I think these are sound components to use. It is not like using a minority grave yard, in a temporary period of cosmopolitanism that died away. Actually, the Stanford paper concluded that this ancestry did die away, my grievance was more with amateurs using G25, and the ill-conceived Imperial_Rome component, which makes no sense. The natives in the Balkans (Balkan_IA), like those in Italy; re-peopled the regions after the fall of Rome.

Genetic Re-N
ativeization, or something close to it, may need to become a term to understand demography in Late Antiquity.

We use proxy populations all of the time to determine ancient ancestry. That's why we use source populations from Iran, Anatolia, Volga River, etc. to determine source populations in places like Ireland, and France.


Now, if you get a population from the IA in Albanian that tells a different story, I would obviously need to defer to the new data. But I seriously doubt they will be radically different from the rest of the Balkans.
 
Last edited:
Numerous samples from IA Albania, Kosovo, Montenegro, etc. will show us an increased variation within the Balkans, like this paper?s pca showed us that some IA Balkan dots almost overlap with some modern Albanians.

But I personally believe that the real evidence will come from the post-Gothic pre-Slavic samples in Moesia, Thrace, and Pannonia (possibly even Dalmatia) where Goths were settled en masse, not excluding what could have happened in the area of Dacia before the appearance of the Slavs.

Dacians were also relocated to Illyricum en masse, so I?m also curious to see how much ?Slavic? do those pre-Slavic Dacians have, not forgetting possible earlier contribution from Scythians.

We?re all here forgetting how numerous Dacians, Goths, Bastarnae, Celts, and any unidentified tribes (like locals from Poland) lived in the Carpathians and the surrounding areas before the Slavs literally got lucky in the right place at the right time and spread their language.

In short, it takes 1 single pre-Slavic sample to show 20-30% North-Eastern admixture to put your hypotheses of 30-40% Slavic-like Albanians and Greeks to the grave.
 
Numerous samples from IA Albania, Kosovo, Montenegro, etc. will show us an increased variation within the Balkans, like this paper�s pca showed us that some IA Balkan dots almost overlap with some modern Albanians.

But I personally believe that the real evidence will come from the post-Gothic pre-Slavic samples in Moesia, Thrace, and Pannonia (possibly even Dalmatia) where Goths were settled en masse, not excluding what could have happened in the area of Dacia before the appearance of the Slavs.

Dacians were also relocated to Illyricum en masse, so I�m also curious to see how much �Slavic� do those pre-Slavic Dacians have, not forgetting possible earlier contribution from Scythians.

We�re all here forgetting how numerous Dacians, Goths, Bastarnae, Celts, and any unidentified tribes (like locals from Poland) lived in the Carpathians and the surrounding areas before the Slavs literally got lucky in the right place at the right time and spread their language.

In short, it takes 1 single pre-Slavic sample to show 20-30% North-Eastern admixture to put your hypotheses of 30-40% Slavic-like Albanians and Greeks to the grave.


Until someone states what the Dacians spoke before taking up a latin based language then we will never know ......................but since the Bastarnae are based on a Germanic-Celtic mix with later sarmatian added , my guess is Dacian language would be a branch of celtic-thracian

Goths and Bastarnae began in the same area of modern poland ....that is the goths ( gottones ) on both sides of the vistula river delta area where it meets the baltic sea and south of them on the west side of the Vistula river began the Bastarnae ( before they moved )
 
Numerous samples from IA Albania, Kosovo, Montenegro, etc. will show us an increased variation within the Balkans, like this paper�s pca showed us that some IA Balkan dots almost overlap with some modern Albanians.
But I personally believe that the real evidence will come from the post-Gothic pre-Slavic samples in Moesia, Thrace, and Pannonia (possibly even Dalmatia) where Goths were settled en masse, not excluding what could have happened in the area of Dacia before the appearance of the Slavs.
Dacians were also relocated to Illyricum en masse, so I�m also curious to see how much �Slavic� do those pre-Slavic Dacians have, not forgetting possible earlier contribution from Scythians.
We�re all here forgetting how numerous Dacians, Goths, Bastarnae, Celts, and any unidentified tribes (like locals from Poland) lived in the Carpathians and the surrounding areas before the Slavs literally got lucky in the right place at the right time and spread their language.
In short, it takes 1 single pre-Slavic sample to show 20-30% North-Eastern admixture to put your hypotheses of 30-40% Slavic-like Albanians and Greeks to the grave.
My hypothesis? I quoted the paper which you obviously didn't read; mainland Greece is 30% Northeastern European ancestry. Also, for all of the numerous samples, don't hold your breath, because it may never happen. I didn't write the paper, so if you have an issue, take it up with them. Also some of you people better start acting like normal human beings, or I going to throw you out of here.
 

This thread has been viewed 183195 times.

Back
Top