Stable population structure in Europe since the Iron Age

torzio

Regular Member
Messages
3,966
Reaction score
1,232
Points
113
Location
Eastern Australia
Ethnic group
North East Italian
Y-DNA haplogroup
T1a2 - SK1480
mtDNA haplogroup
H95a
16 May 2022

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.05.15.491973v1.full.pdf


Ancient DNA research in the past decade has revealed that European population
structure changed dramatically in the prehistoric period (14,000-3,000 years before
present, YBP), reflecting the widespread introduction of Neolithic farmer and Bronze
Age Steppe ancestries. However, little is known about how population structure
changed in the historical period onward (3,000 YBP - present). To address this, we
collected whole genomes from 204 individuals from Europe and the Mediterranean,
many of which are the first historical period genomes from their region (e.g. Armenia,
France). We found that most regions show remarkable inter-individual heterogeneity.
Around 8% of historical individuals carry ancestry uncommon in the region where they
were sampled, some indicating cross-Mediterranean contacts. Despite this high level of
mobility, overall population structure across western Eurasia is relatively stable through
the historical period up to the present, mirroring the geographic map. We show that,
under standard population genetics models with local panmixia, the observed level of
dispersal would lead to a collapse of population structure. Persistent population
structure thus suggests a lower effective migration rate than indicated by the observed
dispersal. We hypothesize that this phenomenon can be explained by extensive
transient dispersal arising from drastically improved transportation networks and the
Roman Empire’s mobilization of people for trade, labor, and military. This work highlights
the utility of ancient DNA in elucidating finer scale human population dynamics in recent History.
 
Interesting study led by Stanford geneticists and covering 204 genomes mostly from Iron Age Europe (+ Armenia, Syria, Lebanon and the Maghreb).

Here is the supplementary material.
 
Are these brand new samples?
 
both.png
 
Very undersamples timeframe for the Balkans, will shed some light into it. No samples from Albania/Greece is a bit disappointing.
 
Very undersamples timeframe for the Balkans, will shed some light into it. No samples from Albania/Greece is a bit disappointing.

There is a sample on the Albanian/Montenegrin border. Hence the "Southern Balkans". If it's dated to pre-Slavic invasions, it might be a good proxy. We just need the data.
 
Samples from Montenegro
SAMPLE DATE COVERAGE LATITUDE LONGITUDE LOCALITY COUNTRY
R3481 266 56,57% 42,466869 19,266164 Doclea_Bjelovine Montenegro
R3478 795 62,04% 42,466869 19,266164 Doclea_Bjelovine Montenegro
R9919 963 65,82% 42,466869 19,266164 Doclea_Bjelovine Montenegro
R9918 1074 56,83% 42,466869 19,266164 Doclea_Bjelovine Montenegro
R3482 1089 68,12% 42,466869 19,266164 Doclea_Bjelovine Montenegro
R9920 1102 53,04% 42,466869 19,266164 Doclea_Bjelovine Montenegro
Courtesy of Ajeje Brazof from the other forum.

266 CE and 996 CE seem to be male.
 
Samples from Montenegro
SAMPLE DATE COVERAGE LATITUDE LONGITUDE LOCALITY COUNTRY
R3481 266 56,57% 42,466869 19,266164 Doclea_Bjelovine Montenegro
R3478 795 62,04% 42,466869 19,266164 Doclea_Bjelovine Montenegro
R9919 963 65,82% 42,466869 19,266164 Doclea_Bjelovine Montenegro
R9918 1074 56,83% 42,466869 19,266164 Doclea_Bjelovine Montenegro
R3482 1089 68,12% 42,466869 19,266164 Doclea_Bjelovine Montenegro
R9920 1102 53,04% 42,466869 19,266164 Doclea_Bjelovine Montenegro
Courtesy of Ajeje Brazof from the other forum.

So dates range from 266 to 1102. This might clear some things up.

Yeah hopefully these are local. I remember some samples from Late Iron Age Croatia that were clearly Iranic (Sarmatian, Central Asian).
 
In the 4th and the 5th centuries, it was taken by the barbarian tribes and went into decline. At the beginning of the 5th century, it was attacked by the Germanic Visigoths. A severe earthquake destroyed it in 518. The South Slavs migrated into the land and proceeded to rebuild the settlement in the 7th century. The historical ruins of the town can be seen today.

Looks like only the 266 AD one might be useful.
 
All the samples at this point are useful datapoints to get a clearer picture about demographic shifts. Comparing the 266 CE with the 996 CE samples will be very interesting.
 
Will also be interesting to see how the Naissus samples turn out. Given how much that area has been discussed by fellow members.
I am not entirely sure if the Viminacium samples are the already published ones, or rather new ones?

Samples from Serbia

SAMPLEDATECOVERAGELATITUDELONGITUDELOCALITYCOUNTRY
R67697655,44%43,32668421,896187NaissusSerbia
R967413466,67%44,716721,1667ViminaciumSerbia
R967314667,16%44,716721,1667ViminaciumSerbia
R675014864,83%44,716721,1667ViminaciumSerbia
R675915062,53%44,716721,1667ViminaciumSerbia
R393118066,31%44,716721,1667ViminaciumSerbia
R675618053,79%44,716721,1667ViminaciumSerbia
R966922047,26%44,716721,1667ViminaciumSerbia
R669328440,96%45,91247719,174329Svilos_KrusevljeSerbia
R670128462,20%45,91247719,174329Svilos_KrusevljeSerbia
R676433063,28%43,32668421,896187NaissusSerbia
R668133163,93%45,12986320,069845BeskaSerbia
R668833150,63%45,12986320,069845BeskaSerbia
R673034865,22%44,96680119,609892SirmiumSerbia
R3918107146,81%44,96680119,609892SirmiumSerbia
R9662154646,50%44,96680119,609892SirmiumSerbia
R3906155746,81%44,96680119,609892SirmiumSerbia
R6737155860,56%44,96680119,609892SirmiumSerbia


 
Seems quite promising, gotta wait for the coords and Y-dna
 
Will also be interesting to see how the Naissus samples turn out. Given how much that area has been discussed by fellow members.
I am not entirely sure if the Viminacium samples are the already published ones, or rather new ones?

Samples from Serbia

SAMPLEDATECOVERAGELATITUDELONGITUDELOCALITYCOUNTRY
R67697655,44%43,32668421,896187NaissusSerbia
R967413466,67%44,716721,1667ViminaciumSerbia
R967314667,16%44,716721,1667ViminaciumSerbia
R675014864,83%44,716721,1667ViminaciumSerbia
R675915062,53%44,716721,1667ViminaciumSerbia
R393118066,31%44,716721,1667ViminaciumSerbia
R675618053,79%44,716721,1667ViminaciumSerbia
R966922047,26%44,716721,1667ViminaciumSerbia
R669328440,96%45,91247719,174329Svilos_KrusevljeSerbia
R670128462,20%45,91247719,174329Svilos_KrusevljeSerbia
R676433063,28%43,32668421,896187NaissusSerbia
R668133163,93%45,12986320,069845BeskaSerbia
R668833150,63%45,12986320,069845BeskaSerbia
R673034865,22%44,96680119,609892SirmiumSerbia
R3918107146,81%44,96680119,609892SirmiumSerbia
R9662154646,50%44,96680119,609892SirmiumSerbia
R3906155746,81%44,96680119,609892SirmiumSerbia
R6737155860,56%44,96680119,609892SirmiumSerbia

The paper claims to focus on population movements specifically during the Imperial Roman period yet has no samples from Greece, Anatolia and the Southern Balkans. A good portion of the samples from what the authors weirdly call S.E.C Europe are late Antiquity/early medieval Slavic settlers, some of them would already have formed the "South"-Slavic genetic profile e. g. Early Slav with some admixed Non-Slavic ancestry. The authors make the impression they have absolutely no clue about what happened in late antiquity/early medieval in the Balkans when they fallaciously claim genetic continuity in those areas.

Also, there is zero Iron Age samples from the Western, Central or Eastern Balkans and there are already outliers pointed out. Also cosmopolitan ports during the Imperial Roman era will most likely be multiethnic as we have seen with the Kerkouane samples.

Not really excited about this one.


As for the Viminacium samples I am not sure, I actually thought the other ones that I too heard of were just preprint results? Unless they are the same.
 
The paper claims to focus on population movements specifically during the Imperial Roman period yet has no samples from Greece, Anatolia and the Southern Balkans. A good portion of the samples from what the authors weirdly call S.E.C Europe are late Antiquity/early medieval Slavic settlers, some of them would already have formed the "South"-Slavic genetic profile e. g. Early Slav with some admixed Non-Slavic ancestry. The authors make the impression they have absolutely no clue about what happened in late antiquity/early medieval in the Balkans when they fallaciously claim genetic continuity in those areas.

Also, there is zero Iron Age samples from the Western, Central or Eastern Balkans and there are already outliers pointed out. Also cosmopolitan ports during the Imperial Roman era will most likely be multiethnic as we have seen with the Kerkouane samples.

Not really excited about this one.


As for the Viminacium samples I am not sure, I actually thought the other ones that I too heard of were just preprint results? Unless they are the same.

I mean that is one way to look at it. On the other hand having even early Balkan Slav profiles is super important to the history of the Balkans as that is more data points to make a clearer picture. I have seldom followed the Early Slav thread at the other forum and right now we really lack good proxy for early Slavs let alone early Balkan Slav populations. We have one medieval Czech, one Avar Szolad and I think that's about it. I for one welcome any data points we can get.

But yeah, I am also disappointed at the lack of Greek and Albania/Kosovë samples on this one, for a paper focusing on the Roman Era movements it sure is a detriment. But I am hoping that is because the samples for these regions will be among the Southern Arch papers.
 
Sirmium looks like it was a mixed Illyrian/Celtic settlement.

[FONT=&quot]A silent witness of this war is a rooftile, dated to 582, with a prayer inscribed on it.[/FONT]
Christ, our Lord,
help our city halt the Avars.
Protect the Roman Empire,
and he who was written this.
Amen.

[FONT=&quot]It did not help: after a siege of three years, the city was captured. Many inhabitants left for Salona. Soon after, the city burned down. Yet, it survived, and there was still a military district called "Sirmion" in the tenth-century Byzantine Empire.[/FONT]

After Avar conquest the inhabitants left for Dalmatia. Only one sample there is of particular interest, the one dated before the great migrations of Middle Ages.
 
What I find peculiar is the lack of (early) Slavic autosomal/unipaternal profiles on the Hungary / Avar / Hun paper from a while ago. Given the dates of the samples as well as the far closer localization to the supposed origin.

At least this field of study seems to have picked up steam, and we get half a dozen papers on the region per year so it might clear up in the near future.
 
Sirmium looks like it was a mixed Illyrian/Celtic settlement.



After Avar conquest the inhabitants left for Dalmatia. Only one sample there is of particular interest, the one dated before the great migrations of Middle Ages.

I doubt that after christianization there would have been any Celts, Illyrians left there. I think the biggest question regarding the replacement process of Illyrians is wether the Romans next to obviously Slavs also contributed largely to it or only partly. I would not expect minor Illyrian remnant groups to have survived in an area that is the Central Balkans also because Sirmium in itself was already a hybrid settlement. Sirmium would also fall into the category of Illyrian expansion settlements and with expansions there is quite a variety of examples that do not necessarily show a long lasting genetic impact too.
 
I mean that is one way to look at it. On the other hand having even early Balkan Slav profiles is super important to the history of the Balkans as that is more data points to make a clearer picture. I have seldom followed the Early Slav thread at the other forum and right now we really lack good proxy for early Slavs let alone early Balkan Slav populations. We have one medieval Czech, one Avar Szolad and I think that's about it. I for one welcome any data points we can get.

But yeah, I am also disappointed at the lack of Greek and Albania/Kosovë samples on this one, for a paper focusing on the Roman Era movements it sure is a detriment. But I am hoping that is because the samples for these regions will be among the Southern Arch papers.

I remember watching a news report about Iron Age settlements in Kosovo. There is so much to be discovered but unfortunately there is not the funds and archaeogenetics is neither an inland pioneer discipline nor do international institutes really care about collaborating with the local archeologists who are by the way doing the best they can.

I agree but the problem is that there is a huge gap in the Central/Eastern Balkans and the Carpathian Basin whose pre-Slavic populations would be more than necessary when comparing the clearly very Slavic genetic profile in early Slavic settlers from the Balkans and the Non-Slavic ancestry.
 

This thread has been viewed 70027 times.

Back
Top