arvistro
Elite member
- Messages
- 1,004
- Reaction score
- 187
- Points
- 0
Where would they get that mass R1a from then? After Northern War? From Poland or Russia to Northern Curonia?
New dedicated page for Y-haplogroup N1c
- Thread starter Maciamo
- Start date
Source for higher N in Selonia is because of Votians, who were captured during Livonian Order wars against Novgorod, and as a 3000 POW Votians(Rüsche/Krieviņi) were settled near Bauska in 1445 in empty lands, who were ravaged by Lithuanians. Selonia is also least populated region, so that's a huge number of population for that era. 3000 is ~1% for whole population in borders of Latvia in 15th century, so in Selonia alone that % changed by 10 times more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kreevins
Entry point of Livonians to modern Latvia territory is from Saaremaa around 6-8th century.
If we compare 12. century map with major settlements, then there are ~60 Curonian and ~10 Livonian settlements of whom at least half of Livonian settlements falls in shared area with Curonians. Not to mention, that Livonians diluted their y-dna when they went through Estonia, why would anyone expect some high N in Courland? Especially, if there is idea, that Curonians inhabited Saaremaa during their maximum extent.
https://uzd-resources.azureedge.net/a8d1de7f-a318-45a0-a4e9-4e2949358a28/kar114-w1200.jpg
Curonians expelled Livonians to eastern side of Riga bay around 8th century, where Semigallians were living before.
The reason for N higher in Eastern Latvia is because of influx of Proto-Latvians-Lithuanians, who migrated towards West around 5-6th century, because of new migrant Slavic pressure and ancestors of ancient Proto-Latvians-Lithuanians were in closer proximity to Finnic for longer time, than rest of ancient Baltic tribes. That is where most of N in Lithuania and Latvia is coming from and not from Livonians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:East_europe_3-4cc.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:East_europe_5-6cc.png
There is observation of N spread in Kievan Rus from Novgorod, but it doesn't have much to do with modern Baltic people, who were not part of Kievan Rus.
arvistro
Elite member
- Messages
- 1,004
- Reaction score
- 187
- Points
- 0
Nah, not Votians... there is no reason to believe those guys had N lines under L1025, M2783 (where they come from L550 and Estonian-ish N lineages should be more common), which is what you notice in big concentrations NE Lithuania (Aukstaitija, Selonian LT part, btw ‘Saali’ in Livonian means highlanders, just like ‘Aukstaitians’ later in Lithuanian).
It is more likely proto-East Balts encountered and absorbed N from previous population (Pre-Selonians) right there in NE Lithuania.
It is more likely proto-East Balts encountered and absorbed N from previous population (Pre-Selonians) right there in NE Lithuania.
5
50cal
Guest
A Swedish naval blockade basically genocided the entire coastal Livonian population in Courland. Imagine entire communities dead, with literally no or just a few survivors. It was a huge surprise for me as I researched it, since none of this is well-known or included in school curriculums. An outbreak of plague combined with a naval blockade really changed the genetic landscape in Latvia.
These territories experienced a massive bottleneck effect. The surviving individuals were so few and far apart, they didn't represent the previous/original genetic reality. It's just a random effect, pure chance. Nothing to do with Poles or Russians.
5
50cal
Guest
Can you please elaborate your obscure theory on the emergence of Livonians? It's generally accepted they have been inhabiting Courland since the Bronze age.
Well, you are confused about these things:
It is generally accepted, that Uralics reached and inhabitated Courland in Bronze Age. And that the first Uralics in Baltic were most probably Saami people.
Livonians are not that old to be there from Bronze Age... not to mention that it would require some explanation about center of emergence of Finnish languages and Courland is far from it.
Let me repeat again:
Source for higher N in Selonia is because of Votians
Nowhere else I mentioned, that ALL of N comes from Votians.
Selonians and Aukstaitians basically ceased to exist after Letts-Leits moved in. Unlike Selonians, who have limited cultural and even linguistical differences from Letts and the main one is only name, Aukstaitians were completelly absorbed and are considered Lithuanians where Aukstaitians are synonym for Lithuanians.
There were many people who had Votian roots thorough Selonia - most prominent is Rainis. Krieviņi in Selonia were not even marginal group - it is the problem of today that population has amnesia about anything preWW2.
There was also large population of Estonians/Seto in eastern Latvia, which started to assimilate into Latvians only during first republic of Latvia. So, those N sources are different:
more recent Estonian-ish, Komi-Mari-Mordvian that were brought with Letts/Leits and the ones that absorbed in preLatvian Baltic population were probably more proto-Saamic.
Y‐Chromosomal Lineages of Latvians in the Context of the Genetic Variation of the Eastern‐Baltic Region
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ahg.12130
Last edited:
arvistro
Elite member
- Messages
- 1,004
- Reaction score
- 187
- Points
- 0
What Bronze Age?
Baltic BA samples from Kivutkalns (-1000; -200 BCE) cover several centuries and are 100% R1a and very similar to that Lithuanian BA sample that was also R1a, and looked pretty much like ancestor of modern Balts.
Later we have Baltic IA sample from North Lithuanian Barrow Culture (200-500 AD) with the correct N (L-1025) to be among direct N grandpas of modern Balts.
The Baltic IA sample autosomally looked like 3 parts Lithuanian plus 1 part FU Erzya folk. Apparently not that long time ago his grandparents arrived from around Volga.
Modern Balts autosomally look like mostly descending from Lithuanian BA sample, with some admixture from EHG and farmers.
So, in my head it goes like this until new data:
1) post CW folk similar to Kivutkalns living in East Baltic (NW IE? North Baltic? West Baltic?)
2) arrival of Ananino - Malar axes that coincides with demise of Kivutkalns center. That would be arrival of FU folk, careers of N1c L1025 among others. That is around -500;0 AD.
3) and then push North (North - West) by East Balts that were pretty much Lithuanian BA like folk. That is around 0-700 AD.
That would explain only bottleneck of Livonian population, but not influx of R1a in Livonians. Most probably R1a comes from earlier assimilation of Curonians done by Livonians. Not to mention, that part of Livonian R1a comes from venturing through Estonia, which during Livonian traversing had much more R1a and probably some of that population also was speaking Baltic. Livonians did a lot of assimilations and some of them are well documented - like it was with mixed population of Koknese. Most of assimilations done by Livonians are not documented and there is no need to assume, that Livonian spread was in empty lands or that Livonian arrival was followed with genocide of locals. Anyway - all of areas Livonians settled in Latvia was settled by someone else already.
PS If you are refering to Northern War, then the main issue was bubonic plague. Basically does not even come close to "for sure", because rest of territory in Latvia was depopulated in similar proportions - do some proper research first and you could visit something much further from coast, like castle of Dobele, that has a very nice story about owners and daughters, who were few survivors in that area. There were naval blockades in Crimean war, too and basically they did not had that devastating impact on local population you are trying to paint.
arvistro
Elite member
- Messages
- 1,004
- Reaction score
- 187
- Points
- 0
Re:
Votians
do you think they had higher percent of N than Estonians? Maybe they made percent of N lower than higher.
Repeat it again but this time if you could back it up by facts (y-dna N proportion in survives Votians population or in genetic tests for folk with Krievins surname)
Votians
do you think they had higher percent of N than Estonians? Maybe they made percent of N lower than higher.Repeat it again
but this time if you could back it up by facts (y-dna N proportion in survives Votians population or in genetic tests for folk with Krievins surname)Re:
Votians
Repeat it again
Let me use your words:
© that Votians of 13th century should have less N y-dna, than modern Latvians in those regions. And if you are asking for me to back up data, maybe you should do it first by providing data that does back up your faulty logic about Selonians.
To be fair, that research did not specify Selonia, but only Semigallia, however from coordinates given for Semigallia, it also included western part of Selonia. And Bauska and that western part of Selonia was main receiver of Votes.
Here is what you probably don't realize:
1. Livonians had much higher N share than mainland Estonia, because Livonians took Sea route, where they did not need to mingle with mainland locals with high R1a share.
Main mixing for Livonians happened in Courland.
Livonian count was smaller than Curonians.
Lots of Livonians were expelled by Curonians.
Max N that comes from Livonians(along with Southern Estonians) in Latvian is less than 20%(of all N in Latvia).
2. Western Balts(Curonians and Selonians) initially had minimal % of N. Probably none at all.
Also, Semigallia is rather bad egg, because of history that had regular expulsions of original population in 13th century. Most of central Semigallia had to be repopulated by Semigallians and Selonians of Eastern Semigallia and later there was also heavy influx of Livonians around Jelgava. Most probably before these events R1a might have been at the same high levels comparable to other Western Balts. The fact that it has such high N % nowadays is mainly because of Livonians. And settling Votes in Eastern Semigallia added more N % share as well and without them it might have been similar to Courland.
Research mentioned these N1c lineages:
15 repeat STR marker DYS19 Lithuanians 93% ; Latvians 80.6%, Estonians 25% Finns 9.3% - this variation is not coming from Estonia, but from mixed Latvian-Lithuanian ancestry
14 repeat allele Estonians 60%; Finns 86% - this variation is Finnish-Estonian-Livonian-Votian
others Estonians 15%; Finns 4% - probably Saami is main source
it doesn't mean, that all others were present in Latvia already and is not brought by those 2 biggest groups as a ride-along.
This doesn't collerate with data in paper - Lithuanian N1c have almost exclusivelly one source with 93% of that DYS19 marker and Lithuanian N1c is not from Estonia
I do not think you have actual idea, what Selonians were. They were native population of this region and could not be any source for N. All the N they had, they received from later influx of population.
Selonians + Aukstaitians = Highlanders
Semigallians + Zemaitians = Lowlanders
Lowlanders + (assimilated Daugava and Gauja Lowlanders) + Highlanders + (assimilated Daugava right bank Highlanders) + (assimilated Estonian Highlanders) = East branch of West Balts.
All their N at best might have been from Saami ancestry. And most of N of Selonians and Aukstaitians comes from later influx of Latvians-Lithuanians. And there is no better picture, than those Lithuanian 93% DYS19 among N1c, that proves that main source for N1c in Latvian and Lithuanian populations comes from arrival of Latvians-Lithuanians.
arvistro
Elite member
- Messages
- 1,004
- Reaction score
- 187
- Points
- 0
So, you don’t have data 
that is so sad.
But we have some ancient dna, so maybe we can get somewhere
First N1c of Baltic type (Baltic_IA) so far was found in Northern Lithuania 200-500 AD (NLBC culture). It had foreign autosoms, best approximated with modern populations as 3 parts modern Lithuanian and one part Erzya.
Before 0 AD (but after CW) all ancient samples from Baltics found so far were 100% R1a and pretty much modern Balts autosomally. So, some Erzya like L1025 men brought it there. Their journey must have started somewhere near Volga.
This NLBC culture participated in genesis of both later Semigalians and Selonians. Selonians initially were NE Lithuanian folk (modern Baltic N hotspot). Selonians must have been (or become) a mixed culture since their ethnonym is Finnic (highlanders), but their hillforts and leaders in historical times have already Baltic names (i.e. Selpils).
If Tarand graves (culture that is clearly Baltic Finns) new research brings up N folk that autosomally look exactly like Baltic_IA, then the case is settled.
that is so sad.But we have some ancient dna, so maybe we can get somewhere
First N1c of Baltic type (Baltic_IA) so far was found in Northern Lithuania 200-500 AD (NLBC culture). It had foreign autosoms, best approximated with modern populations as 3 parts modern Lithuanian and one part Erzya.
Before 0 AD (but after CW) all ancient samples from Baltics found so far were 100% R1a and pretty much modern Balts autosomally. So, some Erzya like L1025 men brought it there. Their journey must have started somewhere near Volga.
This NLBC culture participated in genesis of both later Semigalians and Selonians. Selonians initially were NE Lithuanian folk (modern Baltic N hotspot). Selonians must have been (or become) a mixed culture since their ethnonym is Finnic (highlanders), but their hillforts and leaders in historical times have already Baltic names (i.e. Selpils).
If Tarand graves (culture that is clearly Baltic Finns) new research brings up N folk that autosomally look exactly like Baltic_IA, then the case is settled.
MontyK is wrong there - it has nothing to do with Baltic, as Baltic actually have Finnic and Mari N1a(I'm still getting over my failure of posting wallpaper with all that information, that I tried to post earlier) and are children branches, that branched off this clades children branch along with the ones found in Chukci and Yakuts. Anyway, I am not much help there as well.
My wild guess is that it was one of truly Magyar N1a, that migrated all the way from Southern Urals to Pannonia. But I would assume, that you might have N1a1a1a1b2-A9408 or something else, as my Genographic project v2(the reason I choose it, because it offered right to delete all my data from there and anonymity) sent me, that I was N1a1-M46/Page70/Tat and in reality it is something down the line... but yeah, for me that information was all I needed anyway,as I don't have that much options to choose in the region of my ancestors anyway.
So, you don’t have data
But we have some ancient dna, so maybe we can get somewhere
First N1c of Baltic type (Baltic_IA) so far was found in Northern Lithuania 200-500 AD (NLBC culture). It had foreign autosoms, best approximated with modern populations as 3 parts modern Lithuanian and one part Erzya.
Before 0 AD (but after CW) all ancient samples from Baltics found so far were 100% R1a and pretty much modern Balts autosomally. So, some Erzya like L1025 men brought it there. Their journey must have started somewhere near Volga.
This NLBC culture participated in genesis of both later Semigalians and Selonians. Selonians initially were NE Lithuanian folk (modern Baltic N hotspot). Selonians must have been (or become) a mixed culture since their ethnonym is Finnic (highlanders), but their hillforts and leaders in historical times have already Baltic names (i.e. Selpils).
If Tarand graves (culture that is clearly Baltic Finns) new research brings up N folk that autosomally look exactly like Baltic_IA, then the case is settled.
My previous effort to post wallpaper failed, so I will be very brief(kinda).
1. Most of data was before y-dna became thing. I really need to save those links, but recently I've read paper, where Russians identified tribe, that was culturally Uralic, but spoke Baltic, so y-dna data even today can't be used to identify culture or language - it can only identify ancestry.
2. I know, that is common mistake - maybe even I made it some time ago, but looking on map helps a lot. Erzya are in blue - in East, so it is impossible, that Baltic had any parts of Erzya(this is rather naming problem and I think Mari is proper name for that):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Moksha-Erzya-Shoksha_dialects_in_Mordovia_map.svg
I don't think, that Baltic had any parts of Moksha either. I do remember that theory about Mordvian link, but for years it has irked me about Mari people how similar their ethnography was to Latvians.
3. Selonians are sibling-nation to Semigallians - depending on perspective it can be said that Selonians are eastern Semigallians. Most probably before arrival of Letts they were undistinguishable from each other. They never mixed with Finnic people - archeology does not show that. What it shows is that Selonians were influenced a lot by Letts, so their N1a comes from them. If you are interested in Selonians, there were some archeological digging done in prewar Latvia on right bank of Daugava - not to mention linguistical substrate of Selonians in Vidzeme.
3a. Also what a silly concept, that if Selonians had Livonian name, therefore they mixed with them. Same with Latvians actually - but surprise, surprise - they differ from Estonian N1a. I mean we established that already.
Curonians have Latin name(corsare - seamen), but it is known that Curonians were related to Prussians and there is no hint that they had any ties to Romanians.
4. Modern Latvians were released from serfdom only in late 19th century - that's where comes idea, that all of them lived there from immemorial times and they think, that they can trace their ancestry to ancient tribes. That is a big lie - most of modern Latvian ancestry comes from Letts, as they settled in territories of ancient tribes that were wiped out. Only Letts did not fought against Germans - Curonians were wiped out, and many of them went and created Samogitia with Zemaitians and Semigallians. Selonians were not numerous and they were already assimilated by Letts before Germans arrived. So, even if Curonians and Semigallians were mainly R1a, wars and creation of Livonia shuffled people around. By 15th century there were no more ancient tribes of previous folks, but only one - Lett tribe with dialectial variations in language, where even Latgalian "language" had this influence from Nieder-Saxons, as it has bērns - same word that Scots received as bairn from Saxons.
5. I don't think, that autosomal genes work like that... You know, for example, if you import some dude from Africa, his descendants will have same autosomal genes that other people around them have. This is the reason why Uralic people in Europe look European and not Chinese, even if they originated from China. Because very important part of autosomal genes comes from BOTH parents, so the reason why you look similar to locals is that your paternal ancestors were taking local women as wives. To be fair, it takes 3 generations at max to water out any difference in your exotic ancestry - I know from my own diverse ancestors on mother side. So, this goes both ways.
Autosomal genes work the same as mixing liquid:
1st generation has 50% of both parent genes.
2nd generation will have only 1/4 or 25% of nonlocal autosomal genes
3rd generation will have 1/8
4th will have ~6%
5th will have 3%
6th ~1.5%
7th 0.8%
8th 0.3%
I would stop at 3rd generation to allow claim native ancestry in America for non native people... even if they threaten to sue someone in court
Last edited:
arvistro
Elite member
- Messages
- 1,004
- Reaction score
- 187
- Points
- 0
1) did not get your argument
2) update yourself on autosomes. When something can be modeled as 1/4 Erzya, 3/4 Lithuanian. It is not meant to be taken literally. It just shows you direction from where part of people that were later assimilated into Semigallians arrived. Letts arrived much later.
3) you seem to miss the main point - N was found in Semigall/Selonian ancestor population. The only tested sample from them. But you keep repeating that N arrived with Letts later))
4) no, you are wrong. The myth of “wiped out” is equal to myth of “did not mix”. Of course they mixed and of course part of genes can be traced back to ancient tribes.
5) That is what I am saying, that N guy, one of ancestors of later Semigall, Samogitian, Selonian people was apparently descendant of some not yet fully diluted migrants from somewhere around Volga, perhaps Finnic speakers originally. Later his ancestry got diluted when more East Balts arrived from somewhere South East of Baltics.
2) update yourself on autosomes. When something can be modeled as 1/4 Erzya, 3/4 Lithuanian. It is not meant to be taken literally. It just shows you direction from where part of people that were later assimilated into Semigallians arrived. Letts arrived much later.
3) you seem to miss the main point - N was found in Semigall/Selonian ancestor population. The only tested sample from them. But you keep repeating that N arrived with Letts later
))4) no, you are wrong. The myth of “wiped out” is equal to myth of “did not mix”. Of course they mixed and of course part of genes can be traced back to ancient tribes.
5) That is what I am saying, that N guy, one of ancestors of later Semigall, Samogitian, Selonian people was apparently descendant of some not yet fully diluted migrants from somewhere around Volga, perhaps Finnic speakers originally. Later his ancestry got diluted when more East Balts arrived from somewhere South East of Baltics.
Ordas
Regular Member
- Messages
- 39
- Reaction score
- 7
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Austria
- Ethnic group
- Hungarian
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- N1a1a1a1a4a2 -A9416
- mtDNA haplogroup
- J1c6
Thank you Iaint, in the meantime I tested at ftDNA BigY and you are right I have down the line from A9408 final SNP is PH106 (PH1612) so it is the Yakut Soyot branch.
Sent from my SM-N950F using Eupedia Forum mobile app
1. What case?
I would not care that much about autosomal comparisions... because the main tendency is that neighbours have the same, but slightly different autosomal genes. In other words - it means nothing, compared to y-dna, besides mtdna of Baltic region is present all over Europe.
2. Yeah, I get it now - I've jumped on gun of "Erzya" without noticing "like".
3. When exactly? And at what time? What type of N? Could you cite a link, please? I'm genuinelly interested. But I don't think, that it is the case, though - more detailed explanation in 5.
The problem with Semigallians is that current history teaches, that they were moving into Latvia from Lithuania only in 5th century or so, but we can let it slide for the sake of argument, as some of the Semigallian settlements were there before that date. I understand, that so far samples from early 5th century AD were predominantly R1a and one sample, doesn't really change main direction for Semigallians/Selonians.
Anyway, I'm not here to prove my point, but learn - my real passion is to get to the root of this and if it is something, that does not corrobate with what I've constructed, I'm more than happy to adapt and change it
4. I'm sorry, but I was not really specific - by "wiped out" I meant, that their manpower(essentially also able to breed men) was not usable to make war and that big part of Curonians moved to Samogitia(and also - to be fair not all of them moved, because some parts of Samogitia consisted of Curonian and Semigallian lands), just like a big part of western Semigallians. Of course, not everyone were wiped out 100% - I'm not making THAT statement, but enough to require influx of fresh settlers from other regions, essentially making locals extinct and their distinct identity in the process.
5. Can't agree on that Semigallians and Selonians are descendants of the same group and came along the same route as Letts-Lithuanians. Nothing supports that thinking.
1) First, their cultural and liguistical commonity points to west Selonians/Semigallians are more related to Prussians, than to Latvians/Lithuanians, or actually - most probably their own center.
Historical vowel shifts in Latvian and Lithuanian languages points to Selonian as local archaical substrate, that is used as a base for modern Latvians-Lithuanians. I have no idea what language used Latvian/Lithuanian ancestors, but IT IS NOT proto-Baltic, as that seems like a construction, that is what happens when Latvian and Lithuanian is cleared of language that used Latvian and Lithuanian ancestors.
2) Then there is other problem - related to theory, of first group of Baltic people arriving from south. It has archeological findings, that points to that direction. In 90s there were publications, of findings of ancient Baltic teeth similarities to Romania region.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...svg/1015px-Map_Corded_Ware_culture-en.svg.png
Anyway, it might be possible, that ancestors of Balts initially dispersed to north from Ukraine - that includes those regions from where Latvians/Lithuanians came from, maybe there was some moving back and forth - Golads in Moscow region hardly is an exception. But looking on the dispersal map of Corded Ware culture, Baltic is like an offshot to northern region. And proving, that initial N, that is present in east would mean that it also came from south, but we see, that there are two main groups of dispersal of N in Baltic - one is from Karelia(the term, that also includes central Finland), and other that is nowadays present as a remnant of wave from east.
It would be hard to link that Latvian/Lithuanian belonged to Brushed Pottery culture, so it is belonging to Dniepr-Dvina culture. (Well... there are publications, that points to that Dniepr-Dvina culture link of Latvian/Lithuanian ancestry, but I have no link...)
It corresponds to earliest Lithuanian and Latvian settlements in Latvia and Lithuania. So, it leaves only Selonian-Semigallian group(along wih their southern variations Aukstaitian-Žemaitian) as Brushed pottery group, which was more local and indigenous, compared to Latvian/Lithuanian. It was almost near core of emergence of Balts and also R1a for that matter, too.
Also, it makes no sense to assume, that Brushed pottery came from East, and that applies also to Selonians. A couple of hundreds years without borders, visas and passport control is enough for people to mix - plenty of time for that, but even prior Latvian and Lithuanian ancestor push to west main seeping of N most probably came from ancestors of Latvians/Lithuanians.
Last edited:
It would be hard to link that Latvian/Lithuanian belonged to Brushed Pottery culture, so it is belonging to Dniepr-Dvina culture. (Well... there are publications, that points to that Dniepr-Dvina culture link of Latvian/Lithuanian ancestry, but I have no link...)
It corresponds to earliest Lithuanian and Latvian settlements in Latvia and Lithuania. So, it leaves only Selonian-Semigallian group(along wih their southern variations Aukstaitian-Žemaitian) as Brushed pottery group, which was more local and indigenous, compared to Latvian/Lithuanian. It was almost near core of emergence of Balts and also R1a for that matter, too.
You have no idea at all what are you talking about, East-Lithuanian Barrow culture dated 2nd-3rd-12th AD centuries from which Lithuanian tribe came directly stems from Brushed Pottery culture, not Dnieper-Dvina I've never seen any publications suggesting that Lithuanian or Latvian ethnos or tribes if we're going into specific formed in Dnieper-Dvina culture. Funny that you also don't have any links or references. Semigalians/Samogitians/Selonians formed on the basis of West-Baltic Barrow culture migrating from Baltic coast into and running into BPC culture and formed Barrow culture of Northern Lithuania and Southern-Latvia on which basis later Samogitians/Semigalians and Selonians tribes later differentiated. Read Tucas R, evolution of population of Lithuania territory in the 1 12 centuries AD, E. Jovaiša, Aisčiai kilmė, also works by Luchtanas and Zabiela.
It corresponds to earliest Lithuanian and Latvian settlements in Latvia and Lithuania. So, it leaves only Selonian-Semigallian group(along wih their southern variations Aukstaitian-Žemaitian) as Brushed pottery group, which was more local and indigenous, compared to Latvian/Lithuanian. It was almost near core of emergence of Balts and also R1a for that matter, too.
You have no idea at all what are you talking about, East-Lithuanian Barrow culture dated 2nd-3rd-12th AD centuries from which Lithuanian tribe came directly stems from Brushed Pottery culture, not Dnieper-Dvina I've never seen any publications suggesting that Lithuanian or Latvian ethnos or tribes if we're going into specific formed in Dnieper-Dvina culture. Funny that you also don't have any links or references. Semigalians/Samogitians/Selonians formed on the basis of West-Baltic Barrow culture migrating from Baltic coast into and running into BPC culture and formed Barrow culture of Northern Lithuania and Southern-Latvia on which basis later Samogitians/Semigalians and Selonians tribes later differentiated. Read Tucas R, evolution of population of Lithuania territory in the 1 12 centuries AD, E. Jovaiša, Aisčiai kilmė, also works by Luchtanas and Zabiela.
That's like mentioning that in 250AD ancient Romans were natives in modern France and came before Gauls, because clearly before them there was no history at all.
Lithuanian barrow culture is insignificant in current discussion trend, because it is only Lithuanian locality and can't be a source for both Latvian and Lithuanian N1a.
I have an idea - stick to the topic, please.
Lithuanian barrow culture is insignificant in current discussion trend, because it is only Lithuanian locality and can't be a source for both Latvian and Lithuanian N1a.
I have an idea - stick to the topic, please.
arvistro
Elite member
- Messages
- 1,004
- Reaction score
- 187
- Points
- 0
So, I am interested in those R1a samples of 500 AD you mentioned earlier, because I know only of this sample:
It is highly likely but not formally confirmed that n was L1025, so Baltic type. Below he found Karelia for Finnish like genes, in article it was Erzya, so something Finnish was there.
Copy from Tomenable:
“Bronze Age Balts published so far were all R1a, but Early Medieval (MA) Balt DA171 (ca. 350-650 AD) had N1c. I tried to model DA171 autosomally as a mixture of Bronze Age (BA) Balts and modern Non-Baltic populations, to check if he had any extra admixture that possibly arrived together with N1c.
Here is a rather good model that I got:
Lithuania-MA (DA171):
Latvia-BA 52.5 %
Poland_Sudovia 20.5 %
Belarus_Vitebsk 18.6 %
Finland_Karelia 8.4 %
Lithuania-BA 0%
Map showing location of DA171 burial:
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map.../54.453/28.459
=====
Before you ask, I wasn't using Global25 for this model. Is DA171 also available in Global25 spreadsheet?
It is highly likely but not formally confirmed that n was L1025, so Baltic type. Below he found Karelia for Finnish like genes, in article it was Erzya, so something Finnish was there.
Copy from Tomenable:
“Bronze Age Balts published so far were all R1a, but Early Medieval (MA) Balt DA171 (ca. 350-650 AD) had N1c. I tried to model DA171 autosomally as a mixture of Bronze Age (BA) Balts and modern Non-Baltic populations, to check if he had any extra admixture that possibly arrived together with N1c.
Here is a rather good model that I got:
Lithuania-MA (DA171):
Latvia-BA 52.5 %
Poland_Sudovia 20.5 %
Belarus_Vitebsk 18.6 %
Finland_Karelia 8.4 %
Lithuania-BA 0%
Map showing location of DA171 burial:
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map.../54.453/28.459
=====
Before you ask, I wasn't using Global25 for this model. Is DA171 also available in Global25 spreadsheet?