Iron Age and Early Medieval Polish DNA

[Tomenable]

I don't know LeBrok. Do you have a German surname? I have a typically Polish/Slavic surname. My mother has a German-sounding maiden surname, but obviously my R1b-DF27 haplogroup is not from her. Not to mention that my particular subclade of R1b is hardly even present in Germany (it is less common in Germany than in Poland). On the other hand, there seems to be some Ancient Celtic connection with my subclade. But mostly Insular Celtic (judging by its present-day distribution - however my branch is most likely "basal / ancestral" to the British branch).

 

[LeBrok]

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.

Keep in mind that, I, the Polish Slav, was always ok with Iron Age Poland being Germanic and partially Celtic. I never had a problem with Slavic homeland in Belarus or Ukraine. If I was right here, looking at the problem with my objective eye, it is very likely that I'm right saying that South Slavs also expended to Balkas from other location. Probably from Ukraine.

I know that you saying this to get even with some Slavs, who didn't agree with you in the past. From the vengines. But it doesn't make you right in your hypothesis about continuity of Slavs in Balkans. You are wrong the way they were. Hyper nationalism, patriotic emotions, make people blind and mud understanding of the world.

 

[LeBrok]

I don't know LeBrok. Do you have a German surname? I have a typically Polish/Slavic surname. My mother has a German-sounding maiden surname, but obviously my R1b-DF27 haplogroup is not from her. Not to mention that my particular subclade of R1b is hardly even present in Germany (it is less common in Germany than in Poland). On the other hand, there seems to be some Ancient Celtic connection with my subclade. But mostly Insular Celtic (judging by the present-day distribution - however my branch is most likely "basal" to the British branch).

After good few hundred years, surnames might not be the best way to go. Will see in the future how did it go. Now we can only speculate.
I see two main sources, one is left over of East Germanics and Celts (in SW Poland), and German Immigration during middle ages.

 

[Tomenable]

When Slavs expanded they mixed with these few left locals.

There were only few locals left, but AFAIK immigrants were also far from being numerous. So hard to say what exactly were the proportions / ratio between newcomers and locals.

 

[LeBrok]

There were only few locals left, but AFAIK immigrants were also far from being numerous. So hard to say what exactly were the proportions / ratio between newcomers and locals.

I know that archaeologist said that local (East germanic) fell about ten fold, but they never said how many Slavs showed up.

 

[Milan.M]

Keep in mind that, I, the Polish Slav, was always ok with Iron Age Poland being Germanic and partially Celtic. I never had a problem with Slavic homeland in Belarus or Ukraine. If I was right here, looking at the problem with my objective eye, it is very likely that I'm right saying that South Slavs also expended to Balkas from other location. Probably from Ukraine.

I know that you saying this to get even with some Slavs, who didn't agree with you in the past. From the vengines. But it doesn't make you right in your hypothesis about continuity of Slavs in Balkans. You are wrong the way they were. Hyper nationalism, patriotic emotions, make people blind and mud understanding of the world.

Not a continuity,we might never understood eachother,there was military conquest and not "migration",lets compare it with Turkic conquest of Anatolia for example.The contribution of the "conquerors" can not be estimated in the gene pool of present day South-Slavs or Balkans for sure with the present day knowledge we have.I mean exactly from that period of time,since the attacks of Sclaveni happened.

Also i myself think that the "conquerors" were genetically similar with the "conquered".Because they did not came from very far.Since i think that the Slavs that came in Balkans or formed the South-Slavs were from Danube basin up to river Dniester/Galicia,old Getic homeland.I will keep this opinion until i will be proofed wrong.

 

[Tomenable]

The contribution of the "conquerors" can not be estimated in the gene pool of present day South-Slavs or Balkans for sure.

So what makes me more genetically similar to Balkan Slavs than to Greeks and Albanians, if not our shared Slavic ancestry (my Slavic ancestry and Slavic ancestry of South Slavs - that is less present in Albanians and Greeks?).

The genetic division of Europe based on my own results:

http://gen3553.pagesperso-orange.fr/ADN/similitude2.htm

Compare with the map of European languages in 1100 AD:

Grover S. Krantz (Professor of Anthropology), "Geographical Development Of European Languages", American University Studies, Series XI, Anthropology and Sociology, Vol. 26:

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/tur...nzG1988GeogrDevelopmOfEurLanguagesCh6-8En.htm

And the maximum extent of Slavic expansion (800s AD):

 

[Tomenable]

Genetic similarity rates between me and South Slavic populations in Eurogenes K36:

Slovenes - 80%
Croats - 70%
Serbs - 67%
Montenegrins - 62%
Macedonians - 56%
Bulgarians - 54%
============
North-East Italians - 53%
Mainland Greeks - 49-39%
Albanians - 39%

The pattern is clear.

Especially the difference between Slovenes and North-East Italians is very sharp.

 

[Milan.M]

Tomenable@ I really do not know why people always bring Albanians or Greeks who are also almost same genetically and might have similar bronze/iron age ancestry,only some region overlap with South-Slavs or their neighbors,as if they are role model of old balkan population,when in fact Greek migration is spoken by Greeks themselves,there is Vlachs,Romanians,Turkic speaking Gagauz,they all overlap with South Slavs and beyond.

I tell you what Thracians extended as far Southern Poland,they also mixed with their neighbors and might even had same or similar language with some of them.

 

[Tomenable]

They are role models of East Balkan populations. In my K36 Ancient Oracle (which is based on Bronze Age and Iron Age samples), Albanians are modeled as a mixture of these three ancient samples, with some other minor admixtures:

Some examples of Albanian results in my K36 Ancient nMonte:

Albanian user Ylla:

Albanian user Era:

Albanian user Dibran:

LateBronzeAge_Hungary_BR2 42.60
CopperAge_MarmaraSea_I1584 29.35
CopperAge_Italy_RISE489 18.10
LateBronzeAge_Armenia_RISE412 6.90
EarlyMedieval_Slavic_Mar7 1.65
BronzeAge_Levant_I1705 1.40

Interestingly, Dibran has R1a-Z283 haplogroup.

And my nMonte detected some Slavic admixture.

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

For comparison here is Greek user Raine:

Greeks have more Slavic than Albanians.

 

[Milan.M]

They are role models of East Balkan populations. In my K36 Ancient Oracle (which is based on Bronze Age and Iron Age samples), Albanians are modeled as a mixture of these three ancient samples, with some other minor admixtures:

Some examples of Albanian results in my K36 Ancient nMonte:

Albanian user Ylla:

Albanian user Era:

Albanian user Dibran:

LateBronzeAge_Hungary_BR2 42.60
CopperAge_MarmaraSea_I1584 29.35
CopperAge_Italy_RISE489 18.10
LateBronzeAge_Armenia_RISE412 6.90
EarlyMedieval_Slavic_Mar7 1.65
BronzeAge_Levant_I1705 1.40

Interestingly, Dibran has R1a-Z283 haplogroup.

And my nMonte detected some Slavic admixture.

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

For comparison here is Greek user Raine:

Greeks have more Slavic than Albanians.

Here is that East Balkan admixture you are speaking for if im not mistaken,again why it overlap with Slavic lands also,ok being the highest in Albania,Kosovo and R.Macedonia(Slavic) then Thesally etc.

 

[Tomenable]

The only way to find out the truth is to get ancient DNA samples from the Balkans. But I think that Balkan nations are very reluctant to research aDNA from their areas, due to nationalism. This applies also to Greeks. They are scared that they are not genetically the same as ancient Greeks, so they don't want to research ancient DNA.

 

[Milan.M]

The only way to find out the truth is to get ancient DNA samples from the Balkans. But I think that Balkan nations are very reluctant to research aDNA from their areas, due to nationalism. This applies also to Greeks. They are scared that they are not genetically the same as ancient Greeks, so they don't want to research ancient DNA.

I agree here 100% 5 more thumbs up haha

 

[Dagne]

I remember reading in one study of 2015 ( http://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(15)00949-5.pdf)
that "slavic source" of around 1000AD most closely resemble modern Lithuanians. This sounds a bit strange, as it would mean that slavic were like current baltic when they admixed with local populations in the Balkans, Greece, Germany, Hungary, etc.


" ...the formation of the Slavic people at around 1000 CE had a significant impact on the populations of Northern and Eastern Europe, a result that is supported by an analysis of identity by descent segments in European populations [10]. Here, despite characterizing populations by genetic similarity rather than geographic labels, we infer the same events involving a “Slavic” source (represented here by a cluster of Lithuanians; lithu11 and colored light blue) across all Balkan groups in the analysis (Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, and Hungary) as well as in a large cluster of Germanic origin (germa36) and a composite cluster of eastern European individuals (ukrai48; Figures 4A and 4B )."

 

[Tomenable]

that "slavic source" most closely resemble modern Lithuanians. This sounds a bit strange, as it would mean that slavic were like current baltic when they admixed with local populations in the Balkans, Greece, Germany, Hungary, etc.

We already have some Early Slavic samples and they indeed look genetically similar to Lithuanians (assumig that these results are reliable). Markowice7 (Early Medieval Poland) in Eurogenes K15:

There is no doubt, that Mar7 was Slavic (not Baltic). But look at this:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Baltic 39.91
2 Eastern_Euro 24
3 Atlantic 17.33
4 North_Sea 12.2
5 West_Med 5.54
6 Sub-Saharan 1.02 --> probably ancient DNA damage

Single Population Sharing:

#	Population (source)	Distance
1	Lithuanian	8.65
2	Estonian_Polish	9.75
3	Belorussian	10.16
4	Russian_Smolensk	11.46
5	Southwest_Russian	11.89
6	Ukrainian_Belgorod	12.24
7	Polish	14.05
8	Erzya	15.43
9	South_Polish	15.64
10	Estonian	15.67
11	Kargopol_Russian	15.69
12	Ukrainian	15.77
13	Ukrainian_Lviv	16.54
14	Croatian	19.8
15	East_Finnish	21.12
16	Moldavian	22.09
17	La_Brana-1	22.75
18	Finnish	22.94
19	Southwest_Finnish	23.77
20	Hungarian	23.97

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

#		Distance
1		98%	Lithuanian	+	2%	Sardinian	@	8.58
2		83%	Lithuanian	+	17%	Estonian_Polish	@	8.6

[TD="colspan: 3"]Primary Population (source)[/TD]
[TD="colspan: 3"]Secondary Population (source)[/TD]

(...)

 

[I1a3_Young]

The I1 tree on this site shows the locations of some branches. I'm hoping to find some free time and compile a lot of I1 data. Nordvedt may already have it but I'll have to locate it.

The Germanic I1a branches were mixed about a long time ago and spread to the winds so it's difficult to untangle the truth. There is both S2078/L1237 and Z63 negative for S2078 in the UK.

From a high view, there are the Nordic braches (above L22 though it's most common), the West German branch (Z58/59), and East German branch (Z63).

This Polish data looks expected for finding I1. More of the easterly type but still some of the West. I think it was the same for the Anglo-Saxon migrations to England, mostly western but a small amount of eastern. The UK probably picked up the Nordic branch from ~990 AD Vikings if there weren't already small amounts present.

The three geographical splits occurring almost simultaneously with the DF29 genesis leads me to believe DF29 may have developed in Denmark or a kingdom centered in Denmark. All of those branches are estimated 4600ybp.

The Z58 and Z63 (with subclades) were probably mixed around a bit after 2k years.

I would love some hard numbers of analysis of the three main I1 clades.

 

[Tomenable]

Another Early Slavic sample - RISE568 from Czech Republic - in Eurogenes K15:

This one looks a bit less Lithuanian, but Lithuanians still show up in Mixed Mode:

Admix Results (sorted):

#	Population	Percent
1	Baltic	36.17
2	Atlantic	34.99
3	Eastern_Euro	14.8
4	North_Sea	8.49
5	West_Med	4.15
6	West_Asian	1.4

Single Population Sharing:

#	Population (source)	Distance
1	Russian_Smolensk	18.3
2	Estonian_Polish	18.77
3	Belorussian	18.79
4	Polish	20.01
5	Lithuanian	20.05
6	Southwest_Russian	21.04
7	Ukrainian_Belgorod	21.22
8	South_Polish	21.33
9	Croatian	22.65
10	Austrian	23
11	Estonian	23.41
12	Ukrainian	23.41
13	Ukrainian_Lviv	23.48
14	La_Brana-1	23.74
15	Kargopol_Russian	24.98
16	Southwest_Finnish	25.7
17	East_German	25.89
18	Hungarian	26.15
19	Moldavian	26.55
20	Erzya	27.19

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

#		Distance
1		72.9%	Lithuanian	+	27.1%	French_Basque	@	15.79
2		78.3%	Belorussian	+	21.7%	French_Basque	@	16.43
3		79%	Estonian_Polish	+	21%	French_Basque	@	16.62
4		81.7%	Russian_Smolensk	+	18.3%	French_Basque	@	16.76
5		73.5%	Lithuanian	+	26.5%	Southwest_French	@	17.4
6		76.1%	Lithuanian	+	23.9%	Spanish_Aragon	@	17.5
7		80.9%	Belorussian	+	19.1%	Southwest_French	@	17.63
8		76%	Lithuanian	+	24%	Spanish_Valencia	@	17.71
9		83.3%	Belorussian	+	16.7%	Spanish_Aragon	@	17.73
10		85.8%	Russian_Smolensk	+	14.2%	Southwest_French	@	17.73
11		81.7%	Estonian_Polish	+	18.3%	Southwest_French	@	17.75
12		77%	Lithuanian	+	23%	Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha	@	17.79
13		77%	Lithuanian	+	23%	Spanish_Andalucia	@	17.81
14		88.1%	Russian_Smolensk	+	11.9%	Spanish_Aragon	@	17.81
15		83.9%	Estonian_Polish	+	16.1%	Spanish_Aragon	@	17.82
16		83.7%	Belorussian	+	16.3%	Spanish_Valencia	@	17.89
17		89%	Russian_Smolensk	+	11%	Spanish_Valencia	@	17.93
18		84.7%	Belorussian	+	15.3%	Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha	@	17.95
19		84.3%	Estonian_Polish	+	15.7%	Spanish_Valencia	@	17.95
20		84.7%	Belorussian	+	15.3%	Spanish_Andalucia	@	17.95

[TD="colspan: 3"]Primary Population (source)[/TD]
[TD="colspan: 3"]Secondary Population (source)[/TD]

 

[Tomenable]

And yet another one - Niemcza18 (Early Medieval Poland) - in Eurogenes K15:

Admix Results (sorted):

#	Population	Percent
1	Baltic	42.12
2	Atlantic	32.49
3	West_Asian	14.45
4	North_Sea	10.95

Single Population Sharing:

#	Population (source)	Distance
1	Russian_Smolensk	26.33
2	Belorussian	27.06
3	Lithuanian	27.21
4	South_Polish	27.9
5	Estonian_Polish	28.01
6	Polish	28.1
7	Ukrainian_Belgorod	28.18
8	Croatian	28.57
9	Southwest_Russian	28.65
10	Ukrainian_Lviv	28.89
11	Austrian	29.08
12	La_Brana-1	29.82
13	Ukrainian	29.9
14	Estonian	30.48
15	Hungarian	30.82
16	Moldavian	31.25
17	East_German	31.5
18	Southwest_Finnish	32.89
19	Romanian	33.03
20	Bulgarian	33.59

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

#		Distance
1		77.4%	Lithuanian	+	22.6%	French_Basque	@	25.17
2		80.8%	Lithuanian	+	19.2%	North_Ossetian	@	25.18
3		84.8%	Lithuanian	+	15.2%	Abhkasian	@	25.48
4		84.4%	Lithuanian	+	15.6%	Georgian	@	25.55
5		82.7%	Lithuanian	+	17.3%	Adygei	@	25.63
6		87.9%	Russian_Smolensk	+	12.1%	North_Ossetian	@	25.65
7		82.7%	Lithuanian	+	17.3%	Balkar	@	25.7
8		83.9%	Lithuanian	+	16.1%	Ossetian	@	25.7
9		82.3%	Lithuanian	+	17.7%	Kabardin	@	25.71
10		83.7%	Belorussian	+	16.3%	North_Ossetian	@	25.73
11		86.8%	Russian_Smolensk	+	13.2%	French_Basque	@	25.79
12		91.4%	Russian_Smolensk	+	8.6%	Abhkasian	@	25.85
13		79.3%	Lithuanian	+	20.7%	Spanish_Aragon	@	25.86
14		79%	Lithuanian	+	21%	Spanish_Andalucia	@	25.87
15		91.4%	Russian_Smolensk	+	8.6%	Georgian	@	25.9
16		78.7%	Lithuanian	+	21.3%	Spanish_Valencia	@	25.91
17		83.6%	Lithuanian	+	16.4%	Chechen	@	25.93
18		78.1%	Lithuanian	+	21.9%	Southwest_French	@	25.93
19		90.6%	Russian_Smolensk	+	9.4%	Adygei	@	25.94
20		79.6%	Lithuanian	+	20.4%	Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha	@	25.94

[TD="colspan: 3"]Primary Population (source)[/TD]
[TD="colspan: 3"]Secondary Population (source)[/TD]

 

[Tomenable]

^ Now it makes sense why Slavic admixture was represented by a "Lithuanian-like source".

Early Slavs (500-1000 AD) were apparently very Lithuanian-like in terms of autosomal DNA:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4714572/

As previously reported [11], the formation of the Slavic people (...) had a significant impact on the populations of Northern and Eastern Europe, a result that is supported by an analysis of identity by descent segments in European populations [10]. Here, despite characterizing populations by genetic similarity rather than geographic labels, we infer the same events involving a “Slavic” source (represented here by a cluster of Lithuanians; lithu11 and colored light blue) across all Balkan groups in the analysis (Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, and Hungary) as well as in a large cluster of Germanic origin (germa36) and a composite cluster of eastern European individuals (ukrai48; Figures 4A and 4B).

 

[Tomenable]

Crimean Goths were I1-M253 as well (just like Wielbark):

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php?t=48332&page=2&p=1304256&viewfull=1#post1304256

(...) Our project tested two people who are descendants of the Crimean Goths, this kit № 228539 Afenko and kit № 228541 Aslanov. Their haplogroup (I1-M253) was determined in the course of scientific research laboratory Balanovsky. (...)