Extensive female-biased immigration in Early Medieval Bavaria

South eastern Europeans and even Central Asian-like people is quite interesting.

Inviato dal mio SM-G531F utilizzando Tapatalk
 
I don't think that Tuscans are good representatives for South-East Europeans,maybe for Albanians or Greeks could be, but I don't think for the groups this females had their ancestry from Romanians,Bulgarians,Serbs,Croats etc the groups that we talk about here.The Ostrogoth however has zero of north/central ancestry is entirely "Tuscan" or Southern like with South Asian admixture closest to present Anatolians,no "northern" ancestry at all.

That's an obvious limitation of the particular method (like in the previous Lombard paper) as Angela mentioned and it definitely doesn't work that well (especially for some samples like KER_1).

But keep in mind that the one and only Iron Age Thracian sample we have so far was Tuscan-like but shifted towards an even more EEF direction. We need more sampling but it's a broad possibility. Balkan Slavs are 'northeast' of Tuscans so if you try to model them using Tuscan and Northern European references, you'll obviously get a good chunk of northern European ancestry.

I'm also not sure how much some of those apparently mixed from various sources migration period samples would have resembled the native central-northern Balkan average at the time. Keep in mind that they resemble modern northern Balkanites; it's quite possible that's the case precisely because the moderns are broadly a similar mix of ancient Balkans and migration-era people (and well, likely mostly Slavs at that) and so end up very similar. While distance (or a PCA with two dimensions) doesn't tell you everything, as I just wrote, the split here is interesting.

But we need more data.

On the other hand, what you wrote about the Goths, Thracians etc. is conclusively wrong. Read some Peter Heather.
 
That's an obvious limitation of the particular method (like in the previous Lombard paper) as Angela mentioned and it definitely doesn't work that well (especially for some samples like KER_1).

But keep in mind that the one and only Iron Age Thracian sample we have so far was Tuscan-like but shifted towards an even more EEF direction.
Geti (Getae) were "northern" branch of the Thracians and inhabiting the steppe including lower Danube,northern areas as far Dniester and Galicia.So you can not compare them with the Iron age Thracian sample from Bulgaria,which of course according to geographic area are more southern shifted even at present day.

As far KER_1 Ostrogoth sample from Crimea goes in such a trading center he was from in Crimea,his ancestry could be from anywhere,could be for example Anatolian "Greek" in Ostrogothic political society,when they took over.
The Gepid is different story.
We need more sampling but it's a broad possibility. Balkan Slavs are 'northeast' of Tuscans so if you try to model them using Tuscan and Northern European references, you'll obviously get a good chunk of northern European ancestry.
Well that's exactly the case.But according to present day ancestry this females with elongated skull are south-east European,Romanian,Bulgarian,Serbian etc like
I'm also not sure how much some of those apparently mixed from various sources migration period samples would have resembled the native central-northern Balkan average at the time. Keep in mind that they resemble modern northern Balkanites; it's quite possible that's the case precisely because the moderns are broadly a similar mix of ancient Balkans and migration-era people (and well, likely mostly Slavs at that) and so end up very similar. While distance (or a PCA with two dimensions) doesn't tell you everything, as I just wrote, the split here is interesting.

But we need more data.
We need much more data from various regions and periods of South-East Europe to come to your conclusion.
We will be waiting more papers,then we can say again our opinions.
 
Last edited:
Milan, I think you misunderstood some of my points but it doesn't matter since we agree on the basic thing - we'll know with more data.

I have seen your various theories in the past trying to link Thracians, Goths, Slavs etc. all together and everything else but I'm curious about your explanation on why e.g. Gheg Albanians are so much more southwestern compared to Slavic Macedonians despite not being geographically more southern (if anything the opposite on average) or the same with northern Italians and Croats? What's your current theory?
 
LATGAL,Thank you for our understandings.

There is obivous link of ancestry and gene flow between South Slavs in this case Slavic Macedonians and the north-east,i myself link this ancestry mostly with the Iron age,i think that in Iron age there was more "northern" migrations in the Balkans,and i link it with the Thraco-Cimmerian culture,that is the Thracian link with the north.
Thraco-Cimmerian.png


This will explain you why for example Romanians being maybe a bit more northern shifted than Slavic Macedonians still speak Latin but others Slavic,this ancestry links them,rather than the medieval Slavic,which according to genetics Romanians too should have spoken Slavic being same genetically with South Slavs or impacted the same way.To cut misunderstandings cause one might say that Romanians have around 20% or more Slavic words,the others however are almost free of Latin influence,plus Romanians were living under Slavic language influence for centuries,using even Old church Slavonic in churches.

The medieval migrations in this case Slavic in my opinion did not impacted that much the Balkan peninsula since in my opinion they were not coming from a far but lower Danube or Chernyakov culture zone,pretty much already similar ancestry and they were warrior groups instead "migrants" with wifes and kids.

The brown/orange zone.
300px-Origins_200_AD.png


Or the less likely will be that only the Chernyakov zone people or Sclavenes (because i associate them with this area) or with the region from "lower Danube to Dniester and east to Dnieper" contributed to this ancestry alone instead the Iron age.

and let me correct one mistake i am not linking them ancient authors does.



That is what i can say for right now,and that was and still is my opinion on this topic,we will wait more papers and see.
 
Last edited:
Cool, I thought you had something like that in mind. I don't quite agree with at least some of your associations and hypotheses (though the idea that various later Iron Age intrusions into the Balkans like e.g. the Cimmerians had genetic on top of some cultural influence doesn't seem that outrageous; that being said, the one possible Cimmerian sample we do have from Hungary doesn't seem to me to fit much of the later ancestry the Balkans has acquired perfectly well but who knows) but that sort of theory seems pretty testable with more samples.
 
LATGAL, what does your name mean?
 
Not to mention that numerous times i was writing in this forum that the Goti (Goths) are the Thracian Geti (Getae) as every ancient author tell us,yes the nomadic Thracians,the "Goths" practiced cranial deformation.The Romanticist forgery of Germanic "Scandinavian" Goths should be exposed again.The "codex argenteus" which is a Romaniticist forgery for a proof of some kind east Germanic language "Gothic".
Mostly Bulgarians Academics were writing about this.

DNA suggest interaction between the Goths and also cultural exchange with other steppe people which is normal among nomadic people.

To be precise here, are you suggesting that all Goths of History were Getae or that some of the supposed ones only were Getae, by confusion? Do you say: no gothic language? "forgery"??? mistake, bad assimilation or forgery? this last word seems to me being very in the fashion, today... History is not truth everytime but DNA seems to me confirming it, broadly said, rather than the opposite.
Thanks for your answer.
 
I red 18 deformed crania appeared among a total of 285 skulls from today Iran territory, between Late Neolithic and Middle Chalcolithic - but they don't describe the kind of deformation; elongating deformations were common among Sarmatians, but were the quasi rule among Eastern ones, the more you went East the Don (so not only a class/caste distinction) but were rare the more you went West the Don -
 
This is not about who have more "ancient" DNA in the Balkans,but about this paper and people,what I said is that without a "south east" Europe genome specifically,you can not determine the north Central European ancestry precisely,simple we see that this samples are closest to present day Bulgarians,Romanians,Serbs,especially elongated skulls,Tuscan is not good representative of the Romanians,Bulgarians,Serbs etc since this people have more "northern" ancestry than Greeks or Albanians is what I am saying,so this might decieve us to interpret some results as central/north Europe.

You 're right concerning today southern Slavic pops of today - but you and the study authors cannot be sure of any thing concerning ancient pops of the S-E Euro region (of the period in cause) because we are not even sure it was kind of a MEAN auDNA allover in it at those times. That said concerning the VIM I think the so called north-euro component is very strong for the most of ancient pops without Celtic or Germanic or north Slavic input. Hard question: if a female, this person could be of a very large spectre of origins, in a noble context.
 
All samples on Gedmatch Genesis

Genesis_kit Sample SNP_count
NW7323549 AEd 92 18044
JK5639864 aed 125 7896
GS9479405 aed 204 23187
HF6662103 aed 249 28089
SA2704259 aed 432 17217
KW3397895 aed 513 24308
ZU5881408 aed 1108 27024
GN1214883 AED 1119 15812
TR2672977 AED 1135 25580
KC8253182 ALH 2 12735
DH5014785 ALH 3 66009
HQ5037471 BIM 33 25909
MQ4450865 BIM 37 20813
MR5973774 AEH 1 19135
BG1008090 NW 54 33954
ZP2303752 NW 255 29943
TL8442777 STR 228 38005
ZX9803083 STR 241 14888
ES8752943 STR_248 20634
US3762719 STR_266 9929
GE1764760 STR_300 59815
XD9213159 STR_310 93224

WT3012896 STR_316 31994
WM9342929 STR_328 41398
RC9135299 STR_355 83285
NK9692863 STR_360 10925
LM4089536 STR_393 16945
YK7692665 STR_480 30817
HH5628988 STR_486 52102
FX9097974 STR_502 12203
CF5203169 STR_535 25734
LK8603113 AED_106 27206
XH5977271 STr_220 72150
RW7301518 ALH_10 155896
PV3449766 ALH_1 155784


FK7832621 Ker_1
MV6291819 Vim2
PY2515409 FN_2
 
Milan, I think you misunderstood some of my points but it doesn't matter since we agree on the basic thing - we'll know with more data.

I have seen your various theories in the past trying to link Thracians, Goths, Slavs etc. all together and everything else but I'm curious about your explanation on why e.g. Gheg Albanians are so much more southwestern compared to Slavic Macedonians despite not being geographically more southern (if anything the opposite on average) or the same with northern Italians and Croats? What's your current theory?

he seems to be saying that they are not the same /race/people but some of these where absorbed into certain societies......example thracian triballi with serbs, goths absorbed saramatians and thracian getae, Dorianns absorbed myceneans who previously absorbed the minoans etc
 
-----------------------------------
 
Last edited:

To be precise here, are you suggesting that all Goths of History were Getae or that some of the supposed ones only were Getae, by confusion? Do you say: no gothic language? "forgery"??? mistake, bad assimilation or forgery? this last word seems to me being very in the fashion, today... History is not truth everytime but DNA seems to me confirming it, broadly said, rather than the opposite.
Thanks for your answer.
My opinion and on some people that i follow that did some research is that "codex argenteus" is based on Langobardic documents and language work done in the XVII century and that is not a Gothic language neither Gothic alphabet.
Yes Goti (Goths) and Geti or Getae (Gets) are one and a same,just one quote from "unreliable" Historia Augusta about emperor Maximinus Thrax.
Maximinus the elder became famous in the reign of Alexander; but his service in the army began under Severus. He was born in a village in Thrace bordering on the barbarians, indeed of a barbarian father and mother, the one, men say, being of the Goths, the other of the Alani… This youth, half barbarian and scarcely yet master of the Latin tongue, speaking almost pure Thracian, publicly besought the Emperor

Actual explanation of the "confusion"

The references to his "Gothic" ancestry might refer to a Thracian Getae origin (the two populations were often confused by later writers, most notably by Jordanes in his Getica), as suggested by the paragraphs describing how "he was singularly beloved by the Getae, moreover, as if he were one of themselves" and how he spoke "almost pure Thracian"

Not to mention that every author quote them as one and same,i was disscusing this in some other threads and i will not debate that here,since the topic is huge and as well the "confusion" a big amount of time was put into.
 
Well, that fits then.
 
Not a migration, but simply exotic prestige imports.
 
My opinion and on some people that i follow that did some research is that "codex argenteus" is based on Langobardic documents and language work done in the XVII century and that is not a Gothic language neither Gothic alphabet.
Yes Goti (Goths) and Geti or Getae (Gets) are one and a same,just one quote from "unreliable" Historia Augusta about emperor Maximinus Thrax.

Hum... very astonishing aswer indeed!
Which people then wrote the 'gotic runes' found in Eastern and Southeastern Europe, of typical germanic language origin?
We can say the original religious texts adwritten in high middle ages (codex argenteus) are not too reliable concerning the primary language, but who can assure it was a longobardic language? ATW the older runes exist; and where would be come the germanic names of Ostrogoths and Wisigoths in Western Europe from?
Getae for a lot of scholars are to be put close to Dacians and Thracians for I know, beofre a newer theory (?) -
excuse me for this aspect not in the focus of the present thread...
 
All samples on Gedmatch Genesis

Genesis_kit Sample SNP_count
NW7323549 AEd 92 18044
JK5639864 aed 125 7896
GS9479405 aed 204 23187
HF6662103 aed 249 28089
SA2704259 aed 432 17217
KW3397895 aed 513 24308
ZU5881408 aed 1108 27024
GN1214883 AED 1119 15812
TR2672977 AED 1135 25580
KC8253182 ALH 2 12735
DH5014785 ALH 3 66009
HQ5037471 BIM 33 25909
MQ4450865 BIM 37 20813
MR5973774 AEH 1 19135
BG1008090 NW 54 33954
ZP2303752 NW 255 29943
TL8442777 STR 228 38005
ZX9803083 STR 241 14888
ES8752943 STR_248 20634
US3762719 STR_266 9929
GE1764760 STR_300 59815
XD9213159 STR_310 93224

WT3012896 STR_316 31994
WM9342929 STR_328 41398
RC9135299 STR_355 83285
NK9692863 STR_360 10925
LM4089536 STR_393 16945
YK7692665 STR_480 30817
HH5628988 STR_486 52102
FX9097974 STR_502 12203
CF5203169 STR_535 25734
LK8603113 AED_106 27206
XH5977271 STr_220 72150
RW7301518 ALH_10 155896
PV3449766 ALH_1 155784


FK7832621 Ker_1
MV6291819 Vim2
PY2515409 FN_2

These kits are deleted. Could anyone upload them again on gedmatch?
 

This thread has been viewed 36983 times.

Back
Top