Iron Age and Early Medieval Polish DNA

[Milan.M]

Crimean "Goths" could as well be Saxons,read about their origin,there is no real agreement on their ethnicity.Crimea prior to the Tatars was Genoese trading center.

Let's see now opinion on scholars about possible connection of Chernyakhov culture where Goths were located with Wielbark.

Guy Halsall sees no chronological development from the Wielbark to Chernyakhov culture, given that the latter stage of the Wielbark culture is synchronous with Chernyakhov, and the two regions have minimal territorial overlap. "Although it is often claimed that Cernjachov metalwork derives from Wielbark types, close examination reveals no more than a few types with general similarities to Wielbark types".[14] Michael Kulikowski also challenges the Wielbark connection, highlighting that the greatest reason for Wielbark-Chernyakhov connection derives from a "negative characteristic" (i.e., the absence of weapons in burials), which is less convincing proof than a positive one. He argues that the Chernyakhov culture could just as likely have been an indigenous development of local Pontic, Carpic or Dacian cultures, or a blended culture resulting from Przeworsk and steppe interactions. Furthermore, he altogether denies the existence of Goths prior to the 3rd century. Kulikowsky states that no Gothic people, nor even a noble kernel, migrated from Scandinavia or the Baltic. Rather, he suggests that the "Goths" formed in situ. Like the Alemanni or the Franks, the Goths were a "product of the Roman frontier"

This migration Scandinavia-Wielbark to Chernyakov is more a myth than reality.

So Tomenable please this things aren't proved,at least is good to mention that.

Ultimately as i said we need Chernyakhov culture DNA for Goths.

 

[LeBrok]

This migration Scandinavia-Wielbark to Chernyakov is more a myth than reality.

So Tomenable please this things aren't proved,at least is good to mention that.

Ultimately as i said we need Chernyakhov culture DNA for Goths.

How is it that you read one doubtful thing and the most likely hypothesis about Goths/Wielbark and Chernyakov is falling apart for you? On other hand, I'm reading about this subject for years, and all fall in one big coherent picture. Recent I1 find in Wielbark is another confirmation of most likely Gothic story in the region.
Remember that with circumstantial evidence we will never be 100% sure, but we are in a realm of probabilities and likelihoods. And so far, most clues point to Goth migration and settlements here. Which is written evidence of ancient historians, written evidence from Goths themselves, archeological evidence of their culture and movement north-south, and now genetic evidence as wall. Simply said, it looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it is a duck!

 

[Milan.M]

How is it that you read one doubtful thing and the most likely hypothesis about Goths/Wielbark and Chernyakov is falling apart for you? On other hand, I'm reading about this subject for years, and all fall in one big coherent picture. Recent I1 find in Wielbark is another confirmation of most likely Gothic story in the region.
Remember that with circumstantial evidence we will never be 100% sure, but we are in a realm of probabilities and likelihoods. And so far, most clues point to Goth migration and settlements here. Which is written evidence of ancient historians, written evidence from Goths themselves, archeological evidence of their culture and movement north-south, and now genetic evidence as wall. Simply said, it looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it is a duck!

Well is not one doubtfull thing,this people i am quoting are experts on the matter and most recent researchers about it.
No historian point to Goth migration from Poland to Black sea,their contemproraries are all "confusing" them with the Gets/Getae and we know their homeland,that is aproximately Chernyakov culture,that's where the Goths were recorded and not in Poland or Scandinavia.
Goths themselves? When,which Goths?

 

[LeBrok]

Well is not one doubtfull thing,this people i am quoting are experts on the matter and most recent researchers about it.
No historian point to Goth migration from Poland to Black sea,their contemproraries are all "confusing" them with the Gets/Getae and we know their homeland,that is aproximately Chernyakov culture,that's where the Goths were recorded and not in Poland or Scandinavia.
Goths themselves? When,which Goths?

So this is incredible that my understanding of history and archeology got confirmed now with genetic test of Wielbark and not yours. Think about this.

 

[Milan.M]

So this is incredible that my understanding of history and archeology got confirmed now with genetic test of Wielbark and not yours. Think about this.

Ok Lebrok.
I'll say again we need genetic evidence from Chernyakhov culture to confirm this.I guess i haven't said anything wrong, that's where this people were.

 

[Lukas]

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]

Niemcza in K36 is North Dutch and Germanic!

 

[Lukas]

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]

(...)

Markowice_7 in K36 are Ukrainian!

 

[I1a3_Young]

https://www.academia.edu/33791135/2...ncing_of_enriched_<br />ancient_DNA_libraries


So out of 16:

8 I1 (I-M253)
- 3 I1a3a1a1a (I-L1237)
- 1 I1a2a (I-Z59)
- 4 just I-M253

4 G2a (G-P15)

1 I2a2 (I-m436)
1 R1a M420
1 R1b1 (R-L278)
1 E1b1 (E-P2)

How we can divide them between those few places? Any opinions? If one R1a m420 was from Wielbark or rather early Polish medieval?

Is there any indication of which location and time period each particular sample is associated with?

I'm looking to add these to a spreadsheet included dates and location for each I1.


Also, Tomenable mentioned that we have an I1 in a Saxon in England, can you point me towards more info for that sample?

 

[Tomenable]

Also, Tomenable mentioned that we have an I1 in a Saxon in England, can you point me towards more info for that sample?

It is NO3423 from Northumbria (Teesside), dated to 650-910 AD:

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/medievaldna.shtml

Is there any indication of which location and time period each particular sample is associated with?

All of these samples are from 7 locations:

Late Iron Age (dates) samples:

KO = Kowalewko (100-300 AD)
MZ = Maslomecz (200-400 AD)

Early Medieval (dates) samples:

NA = Niemcza (900-1000 AD)
SI = Sowinki (1000-1100 AD)
LO = Legowo (1000-1200 AD)
GO = Gniezno (1000-1200 AD)
ME = Markowice (1000-1200 AD)

I'm not sure which samples are I1, but two, KO_55 and ME_7 are certainly I1:

KO_55, Kowalewko (100-300 AD), I1a3a1a1-Y6626
KO_45, Kowalewko (100-300 AD), I2a2a1b2a-L801
KO_22, Kowalewko (100-300 AD), G2a2b-L30
KO_57, Kowalewko (100-300 AD), G2a2b-L30

ME_7, Markowice (1000-1200 AD), I1a2a2a5-Y5384
NA_13, Niemcza, (900-1000 AD), I2a1b2-L621
NA_18, Niemcza, (900-1000 AD), J2a1a-L26

Other confirmed males (but no Y-DNA assignment) include:

Ancient group (3): KO_18, KO_36, KO_8
Medieval (7): NA_29, NA_2, NA_3, ME_4, LO_5, SI_10, SI_11

In total there must be 9 samples of I1, because ME_7 is not included here:

https://www.academia.edu/33791135/2..._sequencing_of_enriched_ancient_DNA_libraries

Only samples from Kowalewko, Maslomecz, Legowo and Niemcza are here.

So I1a2a2a5-Y5384 from Early Medieval Markowice is our 9th sample of I1:

 

[Tomenable]

That shortage of R1b and R1a makes me think that they deliberately published only Non-R1 samples.

But we shall find out later.

 

[Tomenable]

This I1a3 from Iron Age Poland (Wielbark) does not confirm Scandinavian origin of Goths:

KO_55, Poland, Wielbark culture, Kowalewko (100-300 AD), I1a3a1a1-Y6626

See below:

From Eupedia:

"(...) It corresponds to the Z63+ subclade. I1a3-Z63+ subclade is virtually absent from Nordic countries. It is most common in Central Germany, the Benelux, England, Lowland Scotland, as well as Poland. It has also been found in Russia, Ukraine, the Balkans, Italy, Spain and Portugal. Y2245.2+ makes up a big part of the Z63 in Russia, Ukraine, Poland, the Balkans, Italy and Iberia. It could have been spread by the Goths. BY351+ is a subclade found in Portugal, Spain, Italy (including Sardinia). It was probably spread by the Visigoths and Ostrogoths. (...)"

 

[Fire Haired14]

@Tomenable,

But maybe modern I1 isn't representative of I1 2,000 years ago. Maybe both L22 and Z63 originated in Scandinavia but only one remained popular there till the present day.

 

[Tomenable]

Only ancient DNA could prove that I1a3 is from Scandinavia not Poland.

What you need is Scandinavian samples of I1a3 older than Polish ones.

 

[Milan.M]

Thanks Tomenable,do you have frequencies by country of this particular clade,and what make it Germanic? The presumed Gothic connection I guess.

 

[Milan.M]

I don't know much about this haplogroup thought but amateurishly I will guess that this is it's oldest branch,since I think that this haplogroup "originated" somewhere in Danube basin,Hungary where is it's oldest find and from there migrated to Scandinavia and other places.So this clade was probably a farmer one instead Germanic,maybe it become Germanic later.

 

[Tomenable]

We already have at least 3 or 4 samples of I1a3a1a1 from Iron Age and Early Medieval Poland. Because apart from KO_55, there are also three samples identified as I1a3a1a1a by Zenczak:

http://i.imgur.com/GSuhSG5.png

Of course KO_55 can be one of them. This is why I wrote that we have either 3 or 4. In addition to that, we have two samples of I1a2a from Medieval (and Iron Age?) Poland, including ME_7.

 

[Milan.M]

Interestingly to support my hypothesis G2a farmers were among them too,who else?

 

[Tomenable]

East Germanic tribes from Poland migrated all the way to Benelux and France in the 400s:

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

31 December 406 is the often-repeated date of the crossing of the Rhine by a mixed group of barbarians that included Vandals, Alans and Suebi. The Rhine-crossing transgressed one of the Late Roman Empire's most secure limites or boundaries, and so was a climactic moment in the decline of the Empire. It initiated a wave of destruction of Roman cities and the collapse of Roman civic order in northern Gaul. That, in turn, occasioned the rise of three usurpers in succession in the province of Britannia. Therefore, the crossing of the Rhine is a marker date in the Migration Period, during which various Germanic tribes moved westward and southward (...)

Later their descendants migrated from Benelux and France to Britain, as Anglo-Saxons and Normans. They became part of the so called Anglo-Saxons (in fact those were very mixed Germanic-speaking groups - and the most numerous part were Frisians, not Saxons) and migrated to Britain during the 400s-600s. Alternatively, they could become part of the Normans and move to Britain after 1066 AD.

Only finding I1a3 in older aDNA from outside of Poland can prove that I1a3 is not East Germanic.

So far all of the oldest samples of I1a3 are from Iron Age Poland.

And it is not impossble that I1a3 migrated to Britain from Poland, because it could be carried for example by the Vandals, who came from Poland, and who invaded Northern France after 31.12.406 AD. It is estimated that 150,000 people crossed the Rhine and moved into Northern France on that day.

 

[I1a3_Young]

It's very hard to pinpoint the origination of both modern I1 (mostly defined by DF29 called I1a) and the three main branches. On the Z63 branches, we are unable to attribute any of the main branches to a single population or tribe.

For example, Z63 is found all over Britain in all the main clades such as both S2078 and BY351. S2078 is found anywhere the Anglo-Saxons and Goths went, therefore I believe we can conclude that the Z58 and Z63 were mixed in the area of both.

Here is one example downstream of S2078:

• I-S2077*
  • id:YF08037 UK
  • id:YF05438 USA [US-DE]
  • id:YF05194 NORWAY
  • id:YF03716 ENGLAND
  • id:YF03671 SERBIA
  • id:YF03661 NETHERLAND
  • id:YF02008 USA

Here is one of the BY351 branches (not under S2078)

-Y13946Y14115 * PH2195/Y14111 * PH1538/Y14110+5 SNPsformed 3500 ybp, TMRCA 2100 ybpinfo

• id:YF08475 POLAND [PL-LU]
• id:YF06323 GERMANY-PFALZ [DE-RP]
• id:YF05654 ITALY [IT-MT]
• id:YF03189 SWITZ [CH-SH]
• id:YF02452 UK [GB-SFK]

There are several examples on YFull where all ages of the Z63 clades are spread everywhere. I'm going to do a write-up in the I1 section when I get enough stuff pulled together.

Right now it's looking like the DF29 line was an explosive population with rapid expansion of many popular modern subclades.

Because the different subclades were quickly mixed as they seem to be, an isolated ancient sample will probably not hold good value for a broader conclusion. We would need a larger sample size to narrow down these mobile people.

Looking into Z58 and Z63 may hold the key to the origination of the Goths. It appears that the Goths and Anglo-Saxons shared many of the same older clades of I1 going back to 4600 ybp (2650 BC).

 

[Milan.M]

So it will appear that this Goths,Suebi,Vandals were I1a3 only, where is the typical R1b Germanic clade among them,or the original Germanic speakers in Poland were I1a3 and G2a by majority?