Iron Age and Early Medieval Polish DNA

G-15 (G2a SNP) telling us nothing.
 
But Wojewoda from ABF is "ancestral" to these Goths (he is I1 Z63+ S2078+ L1237-).
Maybe L1237 originated in Poland, south of the Baltic Sea, from Wojewoda's branch.

Wojewoda is an ethnic Polish user.
Wojewoda doesn't know if he should call himself Gothorum Rex or Pater:

rIi1HHn.png
 
So we can be pretty confident now I1 is infact basically Germanic. Maybe R1a Z284 and R1b U106 are non-Germanic lineages absorbed by I1 German speakers? Maybe it isn't that simple, I don't know.
 
It's interesting that lots of I1 is found alongside lots of G2a. There are many possible reasons why that is. Maybe an I1 rich Scandinavian group, mixed with a G2a rich group native to Eastern Europe. Another possibility is both the I1 and G2a came from Scandinavia and some in Iron age Scandinavia had lots of EEF.
 
Wojewoda doesn't know if he should call himself Gothorum Rex or Pater:

rIi1HHn.png


Nope.

Michał from anthrogenica

Whatever is his subclade under S2078 (do you know his specific subclade downstream of S2078?), you cannot say that his subclade is "older and ancestral" to those from the paper. These are simply two parallel subclades descending from a common S2078+ ancestor.

To be classified as S2078* one would need to be tested for all known SNPs/subclades directly under S2078, and he probably hasn't been tested for any SNPs downstream of S2078 other than L1237 (not even for S2077 or Y2245, mutations defining large clades downstream of S2078 but upstream of L1237). Even if he was indeed S2078*, this would not make his modern lineage ancestral to subclade L1237, and you need to keep in mind that the common ancestor of Wojewoda and those ancient L1237 people (ie. their most recent common paternal ancestor) was ancestral to all of them the same way. (In fact, that ancestor was more closely related to those ancient "Poles/Goths", but this is only because these are ancient samples).

If I was tested for just two mutations, let's say L1085 (from the A0-T level) and M343 (defining R1b), so my results would be L1085+ M343-, this would not make "my lineage" ancestral to all R1b people (including yourself).
wink.gif


Bear in mind, that author of this paper is Piontek. Until now greatest autochtonist in Poland.

So if he said:
I1 is the most common haplogroup in present day Scandinavia, and it is found in all places invaded by ancient Germanic tribes and Vikings."


It was probably hardest thing for him, which he said recently. So we can be 100% sure this particular I1 is Germanic. He knows better Tomenable. He is the author.
 
I1-M253 frequencies in some populations:

Kashubians -------- 13,06% (35/268)
Greater Poles ----- 10,45% (21/201)
Lusatian Sorbs ---- 9,76% (12/123)
Kociewie ----------- 8,23% (13/158)
Kurpie ------------- 6,96% (11/158)
Upper Silesians --- 6,25% (3/48)
Lesser Poles ------- 5,66% (12/212)
Mazovian nobility - 5,48% (8/146)
Wrocław ----------- 4,04% (4/99)
 
I1-M253 frequencies in some populations:

Kashubians -------- 13,06% (35/268)
Greater Poles ----- 10,45% (21/201)
Lusatian Sorbs ---- 9,76% (12/123)
Kociewie ----------- 8,23% (13/158)
Kurpie ------------- 6,96% (11/158)
Upper Silesians --- 6,25% (3/48)
Lesser Poles ------- 5,66% (12/212)
Wrocław ----------- 4,04% (4/99)

So I guess modern Poles by and large do not descend from Goths. Another big mystery is what Y DNA the proto Slavs had. How did South Slavs become I2a-Din rich, East and West Slavs R1a rich.

If Goths originated in Sweden, that would probably mean both continental I1a3-Z63 and Scandinavian I1a2-L22 originated in Scandinavia. Also it raises the possibility that there were groups in Scandinavia with 80%+ I1 that absorbed groups with R1b and R1a.
 
I also added I1-M253 for one more population:

Mazovian nobility - 5,48% (8/146)

^^^
Based on FTDNA "Mazovian Nobility Project".
 
So we have Wielbark descendants between 4-13% in Poland with south-north cline... If I can add more:)
 
Last edited:
Also more Wielbark descendants among peasants (Kashubians, Greater Poles) than nobility (Mazovia has the highest percent of nobility-descendants of all Polish regions). Something that Figlerowicz already said in one of his interviews. Population structure by region in the 16th century:

Mazovia:

Peasantry - 62,4 percent
Townsmen - 14,1 percent
Priesthood - 0,1 percent
Nobility - 23,4 percent (yes - almost 1/4 of Mazovians were nobles)

Greater Poland:

Peasantry - 68,9 percent
Townsmen - 25,2 percent
Priesthood - 0,3 percent
Nobility - 5,6 percent

Royal Prussia:

Peasantry - 59,3 percent
Townsmen - 36,5 percent
Priesthood - 1,2 percent
Nobility - 3,0 percent

Let me remind you what lgmayka wrote:

lgmayka said:
Just as remarkable as a rural southeastern Pole whose first three DNA tests on his relatives yield I2a, G2, and R1b. (That's my family.) The obvious point here is that academic sampling at the universities of big cities does not necessarily reflect local, rural variation, which may vary widely from village to village--in our day, and even more so in ancient and medieval times.

I really do understand the powerful desire to draw sweeping conclusions from a handful of ancient samples taken from a single archaeological dig--but we need to be realistic as to the limitations of that approach.

These are Wielbark-descended peasants.
 
So present day Poles by large majority are migrants in their lands?
We can exclude by this and now a Central European homeland of Slavs which was supported by some,like Bronze age Trzciniec culture where even Balto-Slavic was born? which existed in Poland and is attributed to Slavs,or the later Lusatian culture.
Completely lack of I2a din and R1a subclades that today are majority among Slavs.
 
If they replaced them,there was no Slavic DNA or Slavs in Poland in Iron age,and Slavs did not migrated from Poland to South Europe or anything like that in early medieval time.
 
L1237 is found in the UK as well, so I doubt Polish origination. Certainly Germanic but it spread around.
 
From Czekanowski, "Wstęp do historii Słowian" (he explains that in Poland serfs - unfree peasants - were called "Gocie" = "Goths", suggesting that after Slavic expansions remnants of Goths were marginalized and becamse serfs):

goto.jpg


But the Piasts were R1b, not R1a, so perhaps they were descended from those Wielbark peasants. The legendary Piast was a farmer (oracz) or a wheelwright (kołodziej), a simple peasant:

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

http://weneda.net/piast-oracz/

The legendary Popielids were perhaps R1a (assuming that Popielid chiefs existed).

The Piasts were initially low status and likely took over power from the Popielids:

Two theories explain the etymology of the word Piast. The first gives the root as piasta ("hub" in Polish), a reference to his profession. The second relates Piast to piastun ("custodian" or "keeper"). This could hint at Piast's initial position as a majordomo, or a "steward of the house", in the court of another ruler, and the subsequent takeover of power by Piast. This would parallel the development of the early medieval Frankish dynasties, when the Mayors of the Palace of the Merovingian kings gradually usurped political control.
 
L1237 is found in the UK as well, so I doubt Polish origination.

How common is it in the UK?

Some East Germanic descendants could get to the British Isles.
 
So we have Wielbark descendants between 4-13% in Poland with south-north cline... If I can add more:)
I'm not sure if these are all or mostly Wielbark descendents. Is it possible that most of polish I1 and R1b came with germanic migration during middle ages? Huge germanic population of tradesmen who started and expanded many polish cities?

Actually, a big part might be the leftovers of East Germanic tribes who left "Poland". When Slavs expanded they mixed with these few left locals.
 
I'm not sure if these are all or mostly Wielbark descendents. Is it possible that most of polish I1 and R1b came with germanic migration during middle ages? Huge germanic population of tradesmen who started and expanded many polish cities?

Partly eys, agree. to this day many Poles have German surnames. But some pattern is visible.
 
Partly eys, agree. to this day many Poles have German surnames. But some pattern is visible.
Actually, a big part might be the leftovers of East Germanic tribes. Most of them left "Poland" by 500 CE, but there were few that left. The land was depopulated but not empty. When Slavs expanded they mixed with these few left locals.

Did you notice that in "Lech, Czech and Rus" legend, Lech didn't conquered his land. There was no heroic battle to win. He just walked around and picked a spot to live on. It makes sense now.
 

This thread has been viewed 77143 times.

Back
Top