Another view of "steppe" ancestry-Pagani et al

Romanians are shifted more north than Slavic speaking Macedonians or Bulgarians not to mention Romance speaking Moldavians,just as shown by geography moving from south to north or opposite,take a brake.

^^ But Romanians are very Slavic-admixed, Hungarians even more.

Not speaking Slavic doesn't mean that you don't have Slavic ancestry.

I have seen East Germans and Austrians with very Slavic results too.

Are we even sure what were the proto Slavic levels of R1a?

There are rumours that there is no R1a and no I2a-Din in ancient DNA from Iron Age (i.e. Pre-Slavic) Poland, which is about to be published within few months from now.
So it seems that all of R1a and all of I2a-Din is from Slavic immigration. At least in case of Poland (but so far there is also no any R1a and no any I2a-Din from Iron Age Balkan samples).

It seems that before the Migration Period, Poland was dominated by R1b and I1.

Worth mentioning is R1b-U106 found in a Wielbark culture burial from Drozdowo:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drozdowo,_Płońsk_County

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

rrP1SAd.png
nF5Ny9Q.png


Note that R1a had been in Bronze Age Poland, but apparently got replaced during the Iron Age.

So it seems that there was no R1a in Iron Age Poland and it was re-inroduced by Slavs later on.

and that could signify some higher amounts of R1a in the past

I think that Slavs who migrated to the Balkans were mostly I2a-Din (followed by R1a) to begin with.

Ancient DNA will prove this, in my opinion.
 
From an interview with a Polish scientist who is researching ancient DNA from Iron Age (Pre-Slavic) Poland:

http://naukawpolsce.pap.pl/aktualno...rtret-dawnych-mieszkancow-terenow-polski.html

Translated to English:

"(...) They conducted a preliminary analysis of around 100 genomes of people, whose remains are from burial sites in Wielkopolska (Greater Poland). Data from their analyses was compared with genetic results concerning the ancient inhabitants of Western Europe. Everything indicates, that DNA of people who lived 2000 years ago in the area of present-day Poland did not differ from the genetic material of populations living at that time for example in the areas of present-day Germany, France, or Denmark. (...)"

So it seems that the impact of the Migration Period (Völkerwanderung) was huge, at least in the area of Poland.

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

Let me remind you, that Bronze & Iron Age Balkan samples generally plot with modern Spain and South France.

So it seems, that Slavic migration after the Iron Age also had a huge impact on the Balkans (shifting them east).
 
For Balkans I hno serious knowledge so I only think at loud voice: I wonder if it's not the "compartmentation" of this region in mountains which eased the Slavic language victory: billingual spotted pops (Illyrian, Venetic and other tongues speaking, weakened by partial Latin use), after loosing the Latin supported by the Empire, took on the Slavic, because I think Slavs at first occupied the big rivers network which eased communications, and the "meeting" language began the slavic? Only a try!


a 3rd, non Greek, non Latin language,
and the most common in Balkans before G-R-Empire, was Thracian,
it has to do with them.
 
Funny how archaeogenetics is gradually but mercilessly deconstructing all of the nationalistic myths, both the ones of North-Western Europeans, South-Western Europeans, North-Eastern Europeans and South-Eastern Europeans. Greeks will probably also learn that they are far from being "pure Hellenics", when the right time comes.

The English learned that they are no more than 30% Anglo-Saxon, Italians and Iberians learned that they have recent (Post-Neolithic) MENA and African admixures. Genetiker was proven wrong with his idea that R1b is an Upper Paleolithic Western European marker and already admitted it. I'm waiting until Dienekes is proven wrong.

Davidski and Maciamo also have had to swallow some bitter pills (although generally their IE theories were true).

Not to mention Goga and other Iranic and Indo-Aryan autochthonists.

MarkoZ will stop denying that Gimbutas was right, when the Bell Beaker Behemoth is published.

Facts are ruthless and don't spare any biased agendas. :grin: (y)
 

I think that Slavs who migrated to the Balkans were mostly I2a-Din (followed by R1a) to begin with.

Ancient DNA will prove this, in my opinion.

It seems like a very plausible explanation to me. AFAIK, I2a-Din-S is younger than I2a-Din-N, so it would make sense if it is Slavic and with northern origin. On the other hand, Northern Slavs most likely have absorbed some R1a people like the Sarmatians, Scythians and some Balts (which also gave them hg N) and I think that gave them boost of their R1a, in the Balkan the Slavs absorbed some southern hg and so on. Hope some new paper will shed light on the matter.
 
Funny how archaeogenetics is gradually but mercilessly deconstructing all of the nationalistic myths, both the ones of North-Western Europeans, South-Western Europeans, North-Eastern Europeans and South-Eastern Europeans. Greeks will probably also learn that they are far from being "pure Hellenics", when the right time comes.

The English learned that they are no more than 30% Anglo-Saxon, Italians and Iberians learned that they have recent (Post-Neolithic) MENA and African admixures. Genetiker was proven wrong with his idea that R1b is an Upper Paleolithic Western European marker and already admitted it. I'm waiting until Dienekes is proven wrong.

Davidski and Maciamo also have had to swallow some bitter pills (although generally their IE theories were true).

Not to mention Goga and other Iranic and Indo-Aryan autochthonists.

MarkoZ will stop denying that Gimbutas was right, when the Bell Beaker Behemoth is published.

Facts are ruthless and don't spare any biased agendas. :grin: (y)


No offense, but I really doubt your abilities as an arbiter of 'facts'.
 
Romanians are shifted more north than Slavic speaking Macedonians or Bulgarians not to mention Romance speaking Moldavians,just as shown by geography moving from south to north or opposite,take a brake.
Romanians are not less mixed with Slavs than other Slavic nations of Balkans.
 
^^ But Romanians are very Slavic-admixed, Hungarians even more.

Not speaking Slavic doesn't mean that you don't have Slavic ancestry.

I have seen East Germans and Austrians with very Slavic results too.



There are rumours that there is no R1a and no I2a-Din in ancient DNA from Iron Age (i.e. Pre-Slavic) Poland, which is about to be published within few months from now.
So it seems that all of R1a and all of I2a-Din is from Slavic immigration. At least in case of Poland (but so far there is also no any R1a and no any I2a-Din from Iron Age Balkan samples).

It seems that before the Migration Period, Poland was dominated by R1b and I1.

Worth mentioning is R1b-U106 found in a Wielbark culture burial from Drozdowo:
Now, we see the scale of population replacements going on in Central Europe through Bronze/Iron age till Slavic Expansion! It didn't expect this to be so profound, but there it is.

So, Germanic tribes in Poland in Iron Age, or still someone else like whoever Veneti were?



Note that R1a had been in Bronze Age Poland, but apparently got replaced during the Iron Age.

So it seems that there was no R1a in Iron Age Poland and it was re-inroduced by Slavs later on.
.
Reading Harappa Admixtures of Unetice dudes, I knew they didn't have much in common with modern Polish population! I'm on a record here:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...western-Europe?p=502221&viewfull=1#post502221
 
Last edited:
Funny how archaeogenetics is gradually but mercilessly deconstructing all of the nationalistic myths, both the ones of North-Western Europeans, South-Western Europeans, North-Eastern Europeans and South-Eastern Europeans. Greeks will probably also learn that they are far from being "pure Hellenics", when the right time comes.

The English learned that they are no more than 30% Anglo-Saxon, Italians and Iberians learned that they have recent (Post-Neolithic) MENA and African admixures. Genetiker was proven wrong with his idea that R1b is an Upper Paleolithic Western European marker and already admitted it. I'm waiting until Dienekes is proven wrong.

Davidski and Maciamo also have had to swallow some bitter pills (although generally their IE theories were true).

Not to mention Goga and other Iranic and Indo-Aryan autochthonists.

MarkoZ will stop denying that Gimbutas was right, when the Bell Beaker Behemoth is published.

Facts are ruthless and don't spare any biased agendas. :grin: (y)
How come I don't need to swallow anything? Where my predictions and "beliefs" right?
 
Last edited:
Now, we see the scale of population replacements going on in Central Europe through Bronze/Iron age till Slavic Expansion! It didn't expect this to be so profound, but there it is.

So, Germanic tribes in Poland in Iron Age, or still someone else like whoever Veleti were?

Wielbark culture is generally held to be Gothic. Not sure how much merit this has, but there appear to be some similarities to contemporaneous Scandinavian sites.
 
To Tomenable :
The native people of Europe were very primitive and cannibals. but later they got civilized by 'Aryan' geneflow from the Iranian Plateau.

It seems they didn't do such a great job then, considering how prevalent human sacrifice and other barbarous practices were well into historic times.
 
Wielbark culture is generally held to be Gothic. Not sure how much merit this has, but there appear to be some similarities to contemporaneous Scandinavian sites.
Yes, this was always thought as a "corridor" Goths used to go down to the Black Sea region. Supposedly they've marched for 200 years through.
 
So, Germanic tribes in Poland in Iron Age, or still someone else like whoever Veleti were?

Veleti ( ~ 600 AD ) where one of the first slavic tribe that entered the "central/eastern Europe " to be based in upper vistual lands they had arrived via modern Slovakia, they are the first and only people the Germans called Wends.
The Veleti migrated from Upper-Vistula to modern Mecklenburg and where later dispersed in the Wendish crusades ( ~1200AD )
 
Veleti ( ~ 600 AD ) where one of the first slavic tribe that entered the "central/eastern Europe " to be based in upper vistual lands they had arrived via modern Slovakia, they are the first and only people the Germans called Wends.
The Veleti migrated from Upper-Vistula to modern Mecklenburg and where later dispersed in the Wendish crusades ( ~1200AD )
Sorry, I ment Veneti around Vistula around year 0.
 
Sorry, I ment Veneti around Vistula around year 0.

The Veneti/VENEDI of the lower vistula where absorbed into gothic society as per historical scripbes and as per Polish archaeologists ....they have mapped gothic "migration" in Poland



orange = 1st part of Gothic lands

Blue , next

then yellow

and lastly the absorbing of the Venedi ( green )
 
^^ But Romanians are very Slavic-admixed, Hungarians even more.

Not speaking Slavic doesn't mean that you don't have Slavic ancestry.

I have seen East Germans and Austrians with very Slavic results too.

Romanians are not less mixed with Slavs than other Slavic nations of Balkans.
You base your admixture on what?

How are they more "Slavic admixed" than Macedonians or Bulgarians but speak Romance,weren't assimilated or their neighbors the Gagauz Turkic? all being almost identical genetically.

How are Hungarians more "Slavic admixed" but speaking Finno-Ugric language while the Balts that speak Baltic responsibe Balto-Slavic have more "Uralic" like haplogroups and even the Poles?
Also in Hungarians genetics we are chasing ghosts,labeling a almost non existent N haplogroup to have imposed a language in the Pannonian plain on numerous Slavs,Vlachs and so on.

By this conclusion we have non Slavic speaking people but genetically more Slavs vs Slavic speaking people but genetically much less Slavs.

While we can see some haplogroups and certain subclades to correlate to degree with Slavonic speaking people a language that most Eastern Europe speak,it must correlate!geography on other hand correlate much better with distribution of haplogroups if we disregard languages.


On the other hand culture,social economic factor,centralized government or empire at certain period of times can cause a language shift and perhaps many more factors,sometimes even the conquerors adopt to new language not only the conquered because it supposed to ease our lifes and every day dealings and we use it to communicate regardless of the haplogroups we carry.
That's all together historic and linguistic issue from IE (If we speak for a group that belong here to present).While genetics supposed to give us more results and help us here so far we lack data to be conclusive.Merely talking about hypothesis.
 
Last edited:
^^

It seems that before the Migration Period, Poland was dominated by R1b and I1.

Worth mentioning is R1b-U106 found in a Wielbark culture burial from Drozdowo:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drozdowo,_Płońsk_County

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

rrP1SAd.png
nF5Ny9Q.png


Note that R1a had been in Bronze Age Poland, but apparently got replaced during the Iron Age.

So it seems that there was no R1a in Iron Age Poland and it was re-inroduced by Slavs later on.



I think that Slavs who migrated to the Balkans were mostly I2a-Din (followed by R1a) to begin with.

Ancient DNA will prove this, in my opinion.

Tomenable... where did you see the U106+ Wielbark result? Is there a link to a paper?

Cheers!
 
Are we even sure what were the proto Slavic levels of R1a? We need some confirmation about that and sadly there's no bone material. I also find it very strange the Balkans don't have a lot of R1a considering the migrations of Slavs and steppe people but it seems that the levels of R1a could have been lowered when the Slavs mixed with the local people. When the Ottomans came many people sought refuge in the mountains and that produced founder effects according to some people, boosting E-V13 and I2a-Din for some reason, especially in Bosnia and Monte Negro. Here in Bulgaria many people think that we are just some Thracians with a Slavic language but that's too simplistic explanation considering the info about Slavic migrations. I think we are a good 40/40 mixture between Slavs and locals + some other peoples that ended up in the Balkans. From what I've seen in the Bulgarian results most of the people have between 30 and 55% Eastern European admixture (info from FTDNA, Geno 2.0, Ancestry) and that could signify some higher amounts of R1a in the past or maybe is something else. I wonder about the results of Serbs, Croats and other Balkans people, I would like to see some averages from them.
Geno2.0 says I have 54% east european. Ancestry DNA results 67% east european. Eastern Europe is a pretty vast area so I'm not sure what part of eastern Europe more specifically they're talking about... south east, northeast, central east.... southeast (balkans) should be significantly different than northeast. Balkans are the most mixed part of Europe.
 
You base your admixture on what?

How are they more "Slavic admixed" than Macedonians or Bulgarians but speak Romance,weren't assimilated or their neighbors the Gagauz Turkic? all being almost identical genetically.

How are Hungarians more "Slavic admixed" but speaking Finno-Ugric language while the Balts that speak Baltic responsibe Balto-Slavic have more "Uralic" like haplogroups and even the Poles?
Also in Hungarians genetics we are chasing ghosts,labeling a almost non existent N haplogroup to have imposed a language in the Pannonian plain on numerous Slavs,Vlachs and so on.

By this conclusion we have non Slavic speaking people but genetically more Slavs vs Slavic speaking people but genetically much less Slavs.

While we can see some haplogroups and certain subclades to correlate to degree with Slavonic speaking people a language that most Eastern Europe speak,it must correlate!geography on other hand correlate much better with distribution of haplogroups if we disregard languages.


On the other hand culture,social economic factor,centralized government or empire at certain period of times can cause a language shift and perhaps many more factors,sometimes even the conquerors adopt to new language not only the conquered because it supposed to ease our lifes and every day dealings and we use it to communicate regardless of the haplogroups we carry.
That's all together historic and linguistic issue from IE (If we speak for a group that belong here to present).While genetics supposed to give us more results and help us here so far we lack data to be conclusive.Merely talking about hypothesis.
Days of your fantasies are numbered.
 
Tomenable... where did you see the U106+ Wielbark result? Is there a link to a paper?

Cheers!
Not yet, but there are leaks of some info.
 

This thread has been viewed 31779 times.

Back
Top