PDA

View Full Version : Unetice culture was clearly multi-ethnic



Pages : [1] 2

Tomenable
08-29-2016, 07:30 AM
DNA Land Ancestry Reports for 3 samples of Unetice culture show stark differences between them:

By the way - RISE139 explains where did those "Polish-like" warriors in Tollense battle come from:

RISE139 (Chociwel, Western Pomerania), Unetice culture:

https://s18.postimg.io/3q6bxiovd/RISE139.png

RISE145 (Polwica, Greater Poland), Unetice culture:

https://s14.postimg.io/prqk2in1d/RISE145.jpg

RISE150 (Przeclawice, Lower Silesia), Unetice culture:

https://s18.postimg.io/4g15l24wp/Przeclawice.jpg

As you can see RISE139 and RISE145 are similar to each other, but RISE150 is totally different.

Tomenable
08-29-2016, 10:28 AM
And I0116 (Unetice sample from Esperstedt in Germany) is more similar to Przeclawice than to Chociwel and Polwica:

https://s9.postimg.org/cf2cc5ohb/John_Espe.png

Gravetto-Danubian
08-29-2016, 10:31 AM
nice work
But I think you mean to say Unetice was genetically heterogeneous. We don't know what "ethnicity(ies)" Unetice was based on autosomal DNA. That's a cultural-anthropolgy question.

Tomenable
08-29-2016, 10:40 AM
This data shows that there were two groups within Unetice culture.

Probbably one were Proto-Slavs and the other one Proto-Celts.

Gravetto-Danubian
08-29-2016, 10:45 AM
This data shows that there were two groups within Unetice culture.

Probbably one were Proto-Slavs and the other one Proto-Celts.

I guess its possible. Some Slavic linguists like Golab & Trubachev suggested that Slavic originated further west than generally appreciated.
Whilst I think something like pre-Balto-Slavic might have expanded from (east- )central Europe, Slavic itself likely expanded from further east than that.

ArmandoR1b
08-29-2016, 11:15 AM
DNA Land Ancestry Reports for 3 samples of Unetice culture show stark differences between them:

As you can see RISE139 and RISE145 are similar to each other, but RISE150 is totally different.

That is mostly because the coverage of RISE139 and RISE145 and are so poor. They only have a coverage of 0.02 which is just a tiny portion of their genome. They should have at least a coverage of 0.7. RISE150 has a coverage of 2.653.

Kit Coverage
RISE139 0.02
RISE145 0.02
RISE150 2.653

Their coverage are in one of two places. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/full/nature14507.html#supplementary-information or http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/06/16/059311.figures-only

The size of the Complete Autosomal files, which can be found by downloading them from the links from http://www.y-str.org/p/ancient-dna.html, is also a clue to how good the coverage is.

11238

Huijbregts
08-29-2016, 11:48 AM
This data shows that there were two groups within Unetice culture.

I collected Unetice, Bell Beaker and Icelandic from Davidski's Basal rich K7
11239
If this PCA suggests anything, it is that Bell_Beaker_Czech is the divergent one.

Captain Nordic
08-29-2016, 11:50 AM
This data shows that there were two groups within Unetice culture.

Probbably one were Proto-Slavs and the other one Proto-Celts.

Or maybe Proto-Balto-slavic, not just Slavs :)

Gravetto-Danubian
08-29-2016, 11:50 AM
I collected Unetice, Bell Beaker and Icelandic from Davidski's Basal rich K7
11239
If this PCA suggests anything, it is that Bell_Beaker_Czech is the divergent one.

What does that mean to you ?

Tomenable
08-29-2016, 12:01 PM
Or maybe Proto-Balto-slavic, not just Slavs :)

No, Balts are "100% North Slavic" in DNA.Land. While Proto-Slavs were probably not like that.

RISE1 - Corded Ware culture man from Obłaczkowo (Greater Poland Voivodeship) - looks like a Proto-Balto-Slav:

https://s16.postimg.io/ppg1nod1h/RISE1.jpg

RISE598 (Late Bronze Age man from Turlojiškė near Lithuanian-Polish border) - looks like modern Balts/East Slavs:

https://s13.postimg.io/c92zebbo7/RISE598_Lithuania_Bronze_Age.png

Huijbregts
08-29-2016, 12:09 PM
What does that mean to you ?
We have only a few high quality samples. Within these few the variance among the Unetice is smaller than among the Bell Beakers.
We will have to wait for more samples.

Tomenable
08-29-2016, 12:16 PM
The size of the Complete Autosomal files

DNA Land does not accept large files anyway. Anything over 50,000 KB is too large for them (probably over 20,000 KB as well).

I did not upload "Complete Autosomal" files (because they were sometimes too large) but "autosomal-o37-results.csv.gz" files.

Tomenable
08-29-2016, 12:18 PM
Within these few the variance among the Unetice is smaller than among the Bell Beakers.

Because all of them are from one region, while the division into two distinct groups is on regional - not individual - level.

ArmandoR1b
08-29-2016, 12:38 PM
DNA Land does not accept large files anyway. Anything over 50,000 KB is too large for them (probably over 20,000 KB as well).
Those large files of more than 50,000 KB are Complete Autosomal files. They are not the autosomal files with just the autosomal SNPs used by the DTC DNA companies.


I did not upload "Complete Autosomal" files (because they were sometimes too large) but "autosomal-o37-results.csv.gz" files.
You uploaded the Complete Autosomal files of RISE139 and RISE145. I have no doubt about it. Since you didn't even attempt to extract the SNPs used by the DTC DNA companies from the large Complete Autosomal files that don't already have a "autosomal-o37-results.csv.gz" file I know that you don't have the experience to extract those SNPs. Therefore, I can very easily deduce what you did and didn't do.

If you want to prove differently please post a link where you got the files from.

Tomenable
08-29-2016, 12:40 PM
I collected Unetice, Bell Beaker and Icelandic from Davidski's Basal rich K7
11239
If this PCA suggests anything, it is that Bell_Beaker_Czech is the divergent one.

Unetice_Germany I0047 also looks different than the rest of Unetice (much closer to Bell_Beaker_Czech). Can you send me this I0047? I will upload it to DNA Land and let's see what they say.

Huijbregts
08-29-2016, 01:09 PM
Unetice_Germany I0047 also looks different than the rest of Unetice (much closer to Bell_Beaker_Czech). Can you send me this I0047? I will upload it to DNA Land and let's see what they say.
I took the data from the calculator sheet, I don't have the full autosomal DNA.

sweuro
08-29-2016, 01:30 PM
Not multi-ethnic, simply genetic variation according to the geographic extenstion of the Unetice Culture, they don't cluster that much further away from each other on PCA.

MitchellSince1893
08-29-2016, 01:35 PM
IMO there is something wrong with dna land's ability to properly classify North Slavic. In my case it appears to confuse German and Scandinavian with North Slavic. I have no known Slavic ancestry going back 300 years (Not too many Slavs immigrated to the colonial america) Genealogically I'm 15% German and 3% Fenno-Scandinavian, yet dna land classifies me at 20% North Slavic :crazy:

While I do get in the 5-15% Baltic percentages on some gedmactch tools, I get no significant Slavic percentages on 23andme, FTDNA, or on gedmatch tools.

Just my two cents.

parastais
08-29-2016, 01:57 PM
IMO there is something wrong with dna land's ability to properly classify North Slavic. In my case it appears to confuse German and Scandinavian with North Slavic. I have no known Slavic ancestry going back 300 years (Not too many Slavs immigrated to the colonial america) Genealogically I'm 15% German and 3% Fenno-Scandinavian, yet dna land classifies me at 20% North Slavic :crazy:

While I do get in the 5-15% Baltic percentages on some gedmactch tools, I get no significant Slavic percentages on 23andme, FTDNA, or on gedmatch tools.

Just my two cents.
If what Tomenable says is correct, Balts score 100% in North Slavicness.
So, it is actually Baltic.

Tomenable
08-29-2016, 01:57 PM
dna land classifies me at 20% North Slavic

While I do get in the 5-15% Baltic percentages on some gedmactch tools, I get no significant Slavic percentages on 23andme, FTDNA, or on gedmatch tools.

Your Baltic from Gedmatch translates to North Slavic here - take a look at "reference populations" of North Slavic component. Lithuanians score ~95% up to ~100% North Slavic. Russian man HGDP00890 scores 100% North Slavic and Volat from our forum (who is Belarusian) also scores ~95%.

Tomenable
08-29-2016, 02:05 PM
If what Tomenable says is correct, Balts score 100% in North Slavicness.
So, it is actually Baltic.

Yes Lithuanians and Latvians score close to ~100% North Slavic.

I have uploaded some HGDP genomes to DNA Land as well, and:

Ethnic Russian HGDP00890 scored 100% North Slavic
Ethnic Kalash HGDP00302 scored 100% Kalash
Ethnic Papuan HGDP00548 scored 100% Native Oceanian

And so on, later I will give you more examples.

Shaikorth
08-29-2016, 02:13 PM
HDGP and Human Origins East Slavs and other pops mentioned in North Slavic's description from those sets will score 100% North Slavic because they are references, you'd need to look at Molgen thread for DNAland to get a sense of "regular" Russian/Ukrainian results.

Generalissimo
08-29-2016, 02:16 PM
Ethnic Russian HGDP00890 scored 100% North Slavic
Ethnic Kalash HGDP00302 scored 100% Kalash
Ethnic Papuan HGDP00548 scored 100% Native Oceanian

Overfitting.

Tomenable
08-29-2016, 02:31 PM
I have one Ancestry Report from a "regular" Western Ukrainian and he scored 64% North Slavic. It seems that Poles usually score between 50% and 75% North Slavic, depending on region. Southern Poles score high Balkan (a guy from Upper Silesia scored 19% Balkan, a guy from Lesser Poland scored 17% Balkan, two guys from Subcarpathia / South-Eastern Poland scored 31% and 40% Balkan respectively).

kingjohn
08-29-2016, 02:33 PM
correct many russian score in forum mologen
high north slavic but also 15% or more finnish
this combination also exist in loschabur and labrana :)
thats why they are so close to modern eastern europeans and baltics
because they share much more allels with them than other europeans .
regards
adam

p.s i look at forum mologen and some of them score balkan also 7-18%
the action begin here :) http://forum.molgen.org/index.php/topic,8508.330.html
page23-32
some are not russians but other groups but most east europeans

Volat
08-29-2016, 02:34 PM
If memory serves me correctly regular Russians score around 80% on molgen forum. HGDP samples are a marginal group from Kargopol (midway between Vologda and Archangel).

Volat
08-29-2016, 02:39 PM
I have one Ancestry Report from a "regular" Western Ukrainian and he scored 64% North Slavic. It seems that Poles usually score between 50% and 75% North Slavic, depending on region. Southern Poles score high Balkan (a guy from Upper Silesia scored 19% Balkan, a guy from Lesser Poland scored 17% Balkan, two guys from Subcarpathia / South-Eastern Poland scored 31% and 40% Balkan respectively).

West Ukrainians score high 'Balkan' admixture in comparison to other eastern Slavs in any runs. I share genome at 23andme with a Boyko (Rusyn living right on the border of west Ukraine and south-eastern Poland). He knows his ancestry to sixth generation. I have no Balkan admixture. Central and east Ukrainians have it around 10%. The west Ukrainian guy (Boyko) has Balkan admixture 26.3%, which is rather high for eastern Slavs.

Huijbregts
08-29-2016, 02:40 PM
I have added Latvian and Lithuanian to the PCA
11242
Now I see Unetice_Germany:I0117 is slightly separated from I0047 and I0116.
But the variance of the three Unetices is still smaller than the variance of the four Bell_Beakers.
Also the two Unetice 'sub-groups' have about the same distance distance to the Balts.

kingjohn
08-29-2016, 03:06 PM
i saw boyoko eurogenes k36 somewhere don't remember where
he scored very high italian 12% or more on contarary to north slavs
then dna land algorithem decide if it is italian or balkan since they are close components
regards
Adam
p.s i found it http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28467-K36-from-Eurogenes
midde of the page.user hawklutz

MitchellSince1893
08-29-2016, 04:12 PM
Your Baltic from Gedmatch translates to North Slavic here - take a look at "reference populations" of North Slavic component. Lithuanians score ~95% up to ~100% North Slavic. Russian man HGDP00890 scores 100% North Slavic and Volat from our forum (who is Belarusian) also scores ~95%.

That would make sense...if this is the case, IMO "North Slavic" is probably an inaccurate name.

Volat
08-29-2016, 04:36 PM
If what Tomenable says is correct, Balts score 100% in North Slavicness.
So, it is actually Baltic.

A couple of years ago I suggested to label Balts as northern Slavs. There you have it. DNA.Land classifies the admixture found in Balts as north Slavic. :)

Huijbregts
08-29-2016, 05:32 PM
I have added Polish to the PCA.
11243
It seems that the Unetice are more related to the Polish than to the Balts.

Tomenable
08-29-2016, 06:34 PM
A couple of years ago I suggested to label Balts as northern Slavs. There you have it. DNA.Land classifies the admixture found in Balts as north Slavic. :)

Or you could say that Slavs are Southern Balts. ;)

parastais
08-29-2016, 06:35 PM
I have added Latvian and Lithuanian to the PCA
11242
Now I see Unetice_Germany:I0117 is slightly separated from I0047 and I0116.
But the variance of the three Unetices is still smaller than the variance of the four Bell_Beakers.
Also the two Unetice 'sub-groups' have about the same distance distance to the Balts.
Smaller than variance in Latvians :)

vettor
08-29-2016, 06:55 PM
Or you could say that Slavs are Southern Balts. ;)

Finally :)

Volat
08-29-2016, 07:28 PM
edit.

Tomenable
08-29-2016, 09:18 PM
Ancestry Report for RISE98 (Battle Axe sample from Lilla Beddinge in southern Sweden):

https://s18.postimg.io/f8tbforpl/RISE_98.png

https://s18.postimg.io/6tvoh3wux/RISE98.png

https://s18.postimg.io/6tvoh3wux/RISE98.png

Silesian
08-29-2016, 09:19 PM
Yes Lithuanians and Latvians score close to ~100% North Slavic.

I have uploaded some HGDP genomes to DNA Land as well, and:

Ethnic Russian HGDP00890 scored 100% North Slavic
Ethnic Kalash HGDP00302 scored 100% Kalash
Ethnic Papuan HGDP00548 scored 100% Native Oceanian

And so on, later I will give you more examples.

Good catch. To further parse the data by comparing- Slaviceness/Baltics to Southern Silesians.
This group of isolated hunter gatherers of Baltic populations have higher B values.In the range of[20-30+/-%], and share blood lines, with Indian populations like the- Indo-Aryan- Brahmins.:)
http://www.staff.amu.edu.pl/~anthro/pdf/ve/vol006/03tego.pdf
The common denominator= shared blood between Northern Slavs+Baltic speakers + Indo-Aryans from India.
While Wałbrzych-Silesia, have some of the lowest B values in survey, not quite as low as Sweden or Norway or Basque[fairly equal A O values]. They are more closer to Germanic/Nordic and Celtic/Italic/ Basque in terms of B-type which of course have even lower values; speaking populations.
42%
http://precedings.nature.com/documents/5931/version/1/files/npre20115931-1.pdf

Tomenable
08-29-2016, 09:25 PM
So it seems that "North Slavic" component was quite strong in Proto-Germanic population. Assuming that RISE98 was one of PGmc-s (with 50% North-West Euro, 43% North Slavic and R1b-U106).

Gravetto-Danubian
08-29-2016, 10:27 PM
I have added Latvian and Lithuanian to the PCA
11242
Now I see Unetice_Germany:I0117 is slightly separated from I0047 and I0116.
But the variance of the three Unetices is still smaller than the variance of the four Bell Beakers.

As expected; given how widespread the BB culture was.
When we get more BB samples, they'll come even more diverse

Tomenable
08-29-2016, 10:38 PM
DNA Land Ancestry Report for I0118 from Alberstedt (Bell Beaker / CWC mix) looks interesting:

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

https://s18.postimg.io/58sy6sve1/ALB3.png

https://s17.postimg.io/dta0dx4z3/I0118.png

It shows high "Southwestern European" (which is equivalent to Iberian, Basque, South French):

https://s17.postimg.io/dta0dx4z3/I0118.png

kingjohn
08-29-2016, 11:00 PM
M107790 his eurogenes k36 Elapsed Time: 22.03 seconds


Population
Amerindian -
Arabian -
Armenian -
Basque 2.79
Central_African -
Central_Euro 2.89
East_African -
East_Asian -
East_Balkan 0.42
East_Central_Asian -
East_Central_Euro 8.94
East_Med -
Eastern_Euro 9.47
Fennoscandian 6.47
French 6.87
Iberian 15.99 significant high :) inline with your upload some people say bell beaker were originaly from iberia
the other bell beaker you uploaded I0112 BellBeaker also scored iberian.
Indo-Chinese -
Italian 7.52
Malayan -
Near_Eastern -
North_African -
North_Atlantic 15.23 high
North_Caucasian 6.27
North_Sea 17.12 high {both these components is the north west european of dna land
]
Northeast_African -
Oceanian -
Omotic -
Pygmy -
Siberian -
South_Asian -
South_Central_Asian -
South_Chinese -
Volga-Ural -
West_African -
West_Caucasian -
West_Med -

Tomenable
08-29-2016, 11:03 PM
Thank you Kingjohn! It seems that there was some movement from Iberia indeed.

MitchellSince1893
08-29-2016, 11:13 PM
Your Baltic from Gedmatch translates to North Slavic here - take a look at "reference populations" of North Slavic component. Lithuanians score ~95% up to ~100% North Slavic. Russian man HGDP00890 scores 100% North Slavic and Volat from our forum (who is Belarusian) also scores ~95%.


North Slavic [20%]
Includes: Belarusian in Belarus; Estonian in Estonia; Lithuanian in Lithuania; Mordovian and Russian in Russia and Ukrainian in (East) Ukraine
Does not include: Altaian, Kalmyk, Nganasan and Adygei in (Caucasus and 3 other sites) Russia; Turkmen in Uzbekistan; Albanian in Albania; Bulgarian in Bulgaria; Italian/Bergamo in (Bergamo) Italy; Norwegian in Norway; Ashkenazi Jew in Poland; Turkish in (Istanbul) Turkey; Finnish in Finland and Ashkenazi Jew from East Europe especially Lithuania (expat in Baltimore MD)
I have no known Belarusian, Estonian, Lithuanian, Mordovian, Russian, nor Ukrainain ancestry (Nor do I have any known Polish, Czech, Slovak, Serb, Slovenian, Montenegrin, Bulgarian, Greek ancestry). The only ancestry I have remotely close is Finnish (1% of my ancestry), and German but they are excluded from North Slavic, so again I take dna.land's ancestry composition with a grain a salt. It just isn't accurate when it come to my ancestry.

rms2
08-29-2016, 11:29 PM
I have no known Belarusian, Estonian, Lithuanian, Mordovian, Russian, nor Ukrainain ancestry (Nor do I have any known Polish, Czech, Slovak, Serb, Slovenian, Montenegrin ancestry). The only ancestry I have remotely close is Finnish (1% of my ancestry), and German but they are excluded from North Slavic, so again I take dna.land's ancestry composition with a grain a salt. It just isn't accurate when it come to my ancestry.

I think there is good reason to take all interpretations based on autosomal dna with a grain of salt (or maybe a handful of salt). Autosomal dna is a recombinant crap shoot, and understanding it is still in its infancy.

MitchellSince1893
08-29-2016, 11:34 PM
I think there is good reason to take all interpretations based on autosomal dna with a grain of salt (or maybe a handful of salt). Autosomal dna is a recombinant crap shoot, and understanding it is still in its infancy.

I'm not trying to single out dna.land. I'm sure it's very accurate for others. I think this is the case for most of us where some tools are spot on and others are out to lunch. There isn't yet an autosomal tool out there that works well for everyone. It's just in this particular case it's way off for me personally.

Eurogenes K13 and K15 work reasonably well for me and my close relatives, but I'm sure they are probably way off for others.

Out of curiosity I just uploaded my mother's data to dna.land (my father is already on there).

Tomenable
08-29-2016, 11:34 PM
and German but they are excluded from North Slavic

What do you mean excluded from North Slavic? Maybe South-Western Germans are.

But all other Germans probably have this admixture, especially Eastern Germans.


I have no known (...)

Anzick-1 also had no known Slavic ancestry (I guess!):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anzick-1

https://s18.postimg.io/z130n6sk9/Clovis_Anzick_1.png

And this is DNA Land report for Samara EHG (sample I0124); 5650-5555 BC:

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

https://s18.postimg.io/gzfabn95l/Samara_EHG.png

Tomenable
08-30-2016, 12:00 AM
DNA Land results for some ancient samples (sorted from highest to lowest "North Slavic"):

RISE598 has 100% N. Slavic, while Hinxton4 (Iron Age Briton) only 1,6% N. Slavic:

https://s18.postimg.io/n7saz3s15/Admixtures.png

https://s18.postimg.io/n7saz3s15/Admixtures.png

Tomenable
08-30-2016, 12:04 AM
Interestingly:

Corded Ware from Estonia (Sope) has just 38% North Slavic.

While Corded Ware from Poland (Obłaczkowo) has 84% of it.

Silesian
08-30-2016, 12:20 AM
DNA Land results for some ancient samples (sorted from highest to lowest "North Slavic"):

RISE598 has 100% N. Slavic, while Hinxton4 (Iron Age Briton) only 1,6% N. Slavic:

https://s18.postimg.io/n7saz3s15/Admixtures.png

https://s18.postimg.io/n7saz3s15/Admixtures.png

Isn't Samara Oblast the oldest sample[ 5650-5555 BC] with the highest "North Slavic" [69%]score?


Samara Oblast Sok River EHG (sample I0124); 5650-5555 BC:

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

https://s18.postimg.io/gzfabn95l/Samara_EHG.png


Karelian hunter I0061 with R1a:

https://s9.postimg.org/ov5ogzswf/Karelian_HG.png

Silesian
08-30-2016, 12:42 AM
DNA Land results for some ancient samples (sorted from highest to lowest "North Slavic"):

RISE598 has 100% N. Slavic, while Hinxton4 (Iron Age Briton) only 1,6% N. Slavic:

https://s18.postimg.io/n7saz3s15/Admixtures.png

https://s18.postimg.io/n7saz3s15/Admixtures.png

Also Yamnaya- Grzegorz would make top 3 of your list.:) With a decent 75% North Slavic score.

Forget about Villabruna - this is more interesting:

Khvalynsk culture, sample I0122 from the Volga Region:

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

"Ancestry Report" from DNA.Land - 75% "North Slavic" (!):

https://s10.postimg.org/ck84j9wyh/Khvalynsk_sample_I0122.png

https://s10.postimg.org/ck84j9wyh/Khvalynsk_sample_I0122.png

https://s10.postimg.org/ck84j9wyh/Khvalynsk_sample_I0122.png

MitchellSince1893
08-30-2016, 01:09 AM
What do you mean excluded from North Slavic?...

Germans weren't included in the North Slavic description so I crazily assumed they were not included. Also the map for Northwest European (area in gray on map below) encompasses most of Germany. So again I foolishly assumed most German ancestry would be included in this category. What was I thinking?

However, I concede this point to you. When you zoom in to the map for North Slavic area (in yellow) there is faint yellow color in eastern Germany as well as a more noticeable area in eastern Sweden.

11252

My known German ancestors were all from Hesse, Westphalia, Palatinate, and Baden-Württemberg areas; mostly within dna-lands Northern European area. That is they were from Western Germany near the French border (See red area on map).
The German Palatines were early 18th century emigrants from the Middle Rhine region of the Holy Roman Empire, including a minority from the Palatinate which gave its name to the entire group. Towards the end of the 17th century and into the 18th, the wealthy region was repeatedly invaded by French troops, which resulted in continuous military requisitions, widespread devastation and famine.

Thus they weren't from eastern region of Germany that is shown as being part of the "North Slavic" group. I guess it's theoretically possible all my remaining known generic German ancestry (along with a sizable unknown percentage) was 100% eastern Germans/Sorbs/Wends; but that would really be odd for a person with colonial American ancestry as I can find little evidence for any significant Sorb/Wend immigration to America in the 17th and 18th centuries (when my German ancestors arrived in America).

EDIT: My mother's results just got posted to dna land. She is 0% North Slavic. My father is 12% North Slavic. So I ended up more North Slavic (18%) than either parent which is quite common on other tools too.

In fact it's impossible for me to be 18% North Slavic if my father is 12% North Slavic and mother is 0%.

Upon further investigation, it appears dna land results are more like some gedmatch results than the results from 23andme, ancestry.com and FTDNA. IIRC FTDNA, Ancestry, and 23andme results are more recent in time, while many of the gedmatch tools appear to be more ancient in focus.

If dna land is more ancient in focus then I retract my earlier comments about dna land being inaccurate as my comments assumed a more recent/genealogical timeframe. However, there is still the problem of me having more N. Slavic than my mother and father combined

When I go back and compare some of the Gedmatch results to dna land they aren't that different. The pattern is the same of my father having the least, my mother being close to my result but often slightly less, and me having the most North Slavic/Baltic/Eastern Euro/East Central European.

My Father: DNA Land N Slavic 12%, Eurogenes K13: Baltic 21.68%. Eurogenes K15 Baltic 11.33%, Eastern Euro 7.75%, Eurogenes K36 East Cent Euro 6.3%
Me: DNA Land N Slavic 18%, Eurogenes K13, Baltic 27.25%. Eurogenes K15 Baltic 14.4%, Eastern Euro 10.89%, Eurogenes K36 East Cent Euro 12.1%
My Mother: DNA Land N Slavic 0%, Eurogenes K13, 27.57%. Eurogenes K15 Baltic 10.21%, Eastern Euro 11.93%, Eurogenes K46 East Cent Euro 7.5%

parastais
08-30-2016, 05:35 AM
Interestingly:

Corded Ware from Estonia (Sope) has just 38% North Slavic.

While Corded Ware from Poland (Obłaczkowo) has 84% of it.
East Baltic adna that is coming should confirm this finding. Apparently Baltic battle Axe might be not that "Baltic".
Perhaps it is source of irregular Satem in modern Baltic languages.

Huijbregts
08-30-2016, 11:03 AM
Tomenable

You have an interesting pet theory.
But here is the problem: If you take three people from the same population or even family, and you compare their autosomal DNA, more often than not you will find striking differences.
So if you want arguments pro or contra your theory to cut ice, you cannot avoid some degree of big data processing, cherry picking will not do.
Now you can send the samples of John_Doe01 thru John_Doe100 to DNA.Land, but it is far more convenient to study the data of a modern calculator sheet.

I have done so, see my last PCA, and my provisional conclusions are:
1. The 3 Unetices have a smaller variance than the 3 Latvians.
2. The variance of the Unetices if about the same is the variance of the 5 Polish. Actually the distribution of the Polish in this PCA cannot be distinguished from the distribution of the Unetices.

Surely, you would not endorse the conclusion that Latvians and Polish are clearly multi-ethnic?

sweuro
08-30-2016, 12:05 PM
Ancestry Report for RISE98 (Battle Axe sample from Lilla Beddinge in southern Sweden):

https://s18.postimg.io/f8tbforpl/RISE_98.png

https://s18.postimg.io/6tvoh3wux/RISE98.png

https://s18.postimg.io/6tvoh3wux/RISE98.png
LOoks similar to modern Swedes.

Volat
08-30-2016, 12:58 PM
samples of John_Doe01 thru John_Doe100 to DNA.Land, but it is far more convenient to study the data of a modern calculator sheet.

I have done so, see my last PCA, and my provisional conclusions are:
1. The 3 Unetices have a smaller variance than the 3 Latvians.
2. The variance of the Unetices if about the same is the variance of the 5 Polish. Actually the distribution of the Polish in this PCA cannot be distinguished from the distribution of the Unetices.

Surely, you would not endorse the conclusion that Latvians and Polish are clearly multi-ethnic?

The measure of variance in a population of 3, 5 or even 10 subject is statistically insignificant. One cannot draw a conclusion on the basis of this size samples about ethnic origins of populations.

Volat
08-30-2016, 12:59 PM
LOoks similar to modern Swedes.

Do modern Swedes score that much North Slavic (~43%) at DNA.Land?

parastais
08-30-2016, 01:03 PM
Tomenable

You have an interesting pet theory.
But here is the problem: If you take three people from the same population or even family, and you compare their autosomal DNA, more often than not you will find striking differences.
So if you want arguments pro or contra your theory to cut ice, you cannot avoid some degree of big data processing, cherry picking will not do.
Now you can send the samples of John_Doe01 thru John_Doe100 to DNA.Land, but it is far more convenient to study the data of a modern calculator sheet.

I have done so, see my last PCA, and my provisional conclusions are:
1. The 3 Unetices have a smaller variance than the 3 Latvians.
2. The variance of the Unetices if about the same is the variance of the 5 Polish. Actually the distribution of the Polish in this PCA cannot be distinguished from the distribution of the Unetices.

Surely, you would not endorse the conclusion that Latvians and Polish are clearly multi-ethnic?
To be fair Latvians are rather heterogenetic people..

Huijbregts
08-30-2016, 01:23 PM
The measure of variance in a population of 3, 5 or even 10 subject is statistically insignificant. One cannot draw a conclusion on the basis of this size samples about ethnic origins of populations.

You are completely right, thats why I wrote 'provisional conclusions'.
Your remarks underscore the importance of larger datasets.

Generalissimo
08-30-2016, 01:32 PM
The individuals in that spreadsheet were chosen because they were representative of larger, and sometimes much larger, cohorts.

Captain Nordic
08-30-2016, 04:10 PM
LOoks similar to modern Swedes.

How much North Slavic admixture do Swedes have on DNA.land ?

Huijbregts
08-30-2016, 05:58 PM
To be fair Latvians are rather heterogenetic people..
You are referring to the Russians in Latvia?
My argument was not about the content, but about the method. If I had missed the one Russian, the Latvians had seemed a homogenous population. With small numbers it is just a lottery.

Shaikorth
08-30-2016, 07:08 PM
Do modern Swedes score that much North Slavic (~43%) at DNA.Land?
The Iron Age RISE 174 is from Oxie, the southernmost tip of what's now Sweden. His result is 71% NW Euro 21% Finnish 5.1% North Slavic
There's one Swedish+Czech result on forumbiodiversity with 58% NW Euro 21% Balkan 13% Finnish 5.7% North Slavic rest ambigious W-Eurasian.

parastais
08-30-2016, 07:14 PM
You are referring to the Russians in Latvia?
My argument was not about the content, but about the method. If I had missed the one Russian, the Latvians had seemed a homogenous population. With small numbers it is just a lottery.
No, those guys seem all Latvians based on their position in PCA.
I did not refer to Russians in Latvia, although in 50 years or so ethnic Latvians will have even more variety :)
I was referring to Latvians. Those who call themselves ethnic Latvians.

According to anthropologists of old (Raisa Denisova, but in my very free interpretation) in Latvia there were at least 3 distinct phenotypes. In SW Latvia (South Curonia) and E Latvia (Latgale) we had Lithuanian-like Balts, massive folk. In middle Latvia we had more gracile (relatively) Semigallian and Baltic Finnic populations that (at least in my memory) was kind of BattleAxeCW-ish. And then in North East Latvia we had more Uralic-ish East Finnic-ish folk. And those are just local pre-Livonian Order varieties.

Lithuanians when compared with Latvians look like one big family, Lithuanian-like Balts of maybe 2 very similar versions.

But ok, that is off-topic. I just like to speak about Latvians :D

Generalissimo
08-30-2016, 10:00 PM
According to anthropologists of old (Raisa Denisova, but in my very free interpretation) in Latvia there were at least 3 distinct phenotypes. In SW Latvia (South Curonia) and E Latvia (Latgale) we had Lithuanian-like Balts, massive folk. In middle Latvia we had more gracile (relatively) Semigallian and Baltic Finnic populations that (at least in my memory) was kind of BattleAxeCW-ish. And then in North East Latvia we had more Uralic-ish East Finnic-ish folk. And those are just local pre-Livonian Order varieties.

Apples and oranges.

Latvians are a homogeneous bunch genetically, apart from those with recent admixture.

ArmandoR1b
08-30-2016, 11:37 PM
Those large files of more than 50,000 KB are Complete Autosomal files. They are not the autosomal files with just the autosomal SNPs used by the DTC DNA companies.


You uploaded the Complete Autosomal files of RISE139 and RISE145. I have no doubt about it. Since you didn't even attempt to extract the SNPs used by the DTC DNA companies from the large Complete Autosomal files that don't already have a "autosomal-o37-results.csv.gz" file I know that you don't have the experience to extract those SNPs. Therefore, I can very easily deduce what you did and didn't do.

If you want to prove differently please post a link where you got the files from.

Tomenable, did you ever respond to this?

You can't squeeze blood from a turnip and you can't get sufficient genomic data from a file that has coverage that is too low. RISE139 and RISE145. probably only has about 100 usable SNPs each.

I know you got the files from Felix's Google Drive (https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/0B4Ph8NJKscV6fnBqdnIxQVI4dmhYaFY3TkhLTVBmR29VdldYM VlrVlEwenN2SnZfWE9PUEE) since I was the one that explained that they can be used at DNA.Land just before you uploaded as many as you could.

RISE139 (https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/0B4Ph8NJKscV6fjhIY2FReldmNHF3Qk1aXzFCaWhYQi1TYnBMM W1uM1ItV3JGN0k3MWhTX00) does not have a "autosomal-o37-results.csv.gz" and the size of the Complete Autosomal file is a sign that the coverage is way too low causing an inaccurate ethnic result.

The same goes for RISE145 (https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/0B4Ph8NJKscV6fnc3TWtaU3NfOGNWM3hOeXFsOG5jQWJyWjFYL WxQclEzTG1EZEFuWFdTdlE)

The DoC: Average genomic depth of coverage. * Same individual for RISE139 and RISE145 is in Supplementary Table 6 (20 KB) (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/extref/nature14507-s2.xlsx) in Allentoft et al. 2015 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/full/nature14507.html#supplementary-information)

parastais
08-31-2016, 08:37 AM
Apples and oranges.

Latvians are a homogeneous bunch genetically, apart from those with recent admixture.
If we did some homogenity study I could bet Lithuanians would be more homogenous than Latvians.
On other hand perhaps it is "spliting hair" in bigger Europe context :)

Captain Nordic
08-31-2016, 08:53 AM
If we did some homogenity study I could bet Lithuanians would be more homogenous than Latvians.
On other hand perhaps it is "spliting hair" in bigger Europe context :)

Of course they would be, Latvians (especially in the NW parts of the country) have a lot of Livonian blood.

dodona
08-31-2016, 08:58 AM
that they had diverse DNA doesn't mean they were 'multiethnic'.

Generalissimo
08-31-2016, 10:31 AM
If we did some homogenity study I could bet Lithuanians would be more homogenous than Latvians.
On other hand perhaps it is "spliting hair" in bigger Europe context :)

So who looks more homogeneous here?

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0005472

parastais
08-31-2016, 11:32 AM
So who looks more homogeneous here?

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0005472
On plot Lithuanians. Latvians have population ranging from 'more extreme Lithuanians' to 'between Lithuanians and Estonians'.
Apart from that more outliers visible on plot than other populations. Could be because samples come from Riga. But! Those outliers dont look like Soviet outliers, rather Central Euro ones (Czechs, Hungarians...) or some bw Poles and Estonians :)

I am not sure which coefficient in article checks homogenity.

Generalissimo
08-31-2016, 11:40 AM
On plot Lithuanians. Latvians have population ranging from 'more extreme Lithuanians' to 'between Lithuanians and Estonians'.
Apart from that more outliers visible on plot than other populations. Could be because samples come from Riga. But! Those outliers dont look like Soviet outliers, rather Central Euro ones (Czechs, Hungarians...) or some bw Poles and Estonians :)

Latvians look more homogeneous on the MDS and PCA than even the Lithuanians, despite a few outliers who might not be ethnic Latvians.

Captain Nordic
08-31-2016, 11:57 AM
So who looks more homogeneous here?

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0005472

They look very similar...

But anyways, it's obvious that Lithuanians are more homogeneous than Latvians because Latvians have assimilated large amount of Finnic influences and even some Germanic ones while the only foreign influence in Lithuania that i can think of would be Polish influence. Even the Latvian language is significantly influenced by Livonian, for example Initial stress, a remarkable finnic feature.

parastais
08-31-2016, 12:42 PM
Latvians look more homogeneous on the MDS and PCA than even the Lithuanians, despite a few outliers who might not be ethnic Latvians.
I have no idea about Czech or Hungarian minority in Latvia. All I can imagine is they are ethnic Latvians of partial Baltic German ancestry.
The Soviet mix would not shift them so far West.
Maybe it is those outliers that make me think of Latvians as very diverse vs Lithuanians. Cause you pick up on strange face speaking perfect Latvian more than on "normal" majority.

Captain Nordic
08-31-2016, 12:51 PM
I have no idea about Czech or Hungarian minority in Latvia. All I can imagine is they are ethnic Latvians of partial Baltic German ancestry.
The Soviet mix would not shift them so far West.
Maybe it is those outliers that make me think of Latvians as very diverse vs Lithuanians. Cause you pick up on strange face speaking perfect Latvian more than on "normal" majority.

Yeah, and Northern Germans have Magyar admixture...

What this plot shows is that europeans are a really close group genetically, closer than we would like to admit.

Volat
08-31-2016, 01:04 PM
If we did some homogenity study I could bet Lithuanians would be more homogenous than Latvians.
On other hand perhaps it is "spliting hair" in bigger Europe context :)

There are no known genome-wide study in which every ethnographic region of Latvia and Lithuania are sampled. However, there is a study on Y-DNA for all ethnographic regions of Lithuania. Lithuanians were not homegeneous with southern Lithuanians have very high (62%) R1a1 frequency, while national average is round 45%.

Volat
08-31-2016, 01:06 PM
At genome-wide comparison Lithuanians and Latvians would be more homogeneous than let's say Russians, Italians, Spaniards.

Shaikorth
08-31-2016, 01:14 PM
On plot Lithuanians. Latvians have population ranging from 'more extreme Lithuanians' to 'between Lithuanians and Estonians'.
Apart from that more outliers visible on plot than other populations. Could be because samples come from Riga. But! Those outliers dont look like Soviet outliers, rather Central Euro ones (Czechs, Hungarians...) or some bw Poles and Estonians :)

I am not sure which coefficient in article checks homogenity.

Here's a Mclust analysis of East Europeans David did last year.

https://s22.postimg.io/pajdlbpht/BS12clusters.png - plotted clusters
https://www.dropbox.com/s/lm19dpae780z6db/mclustBSprobability.xls?dl=0 probability of a sample belonging to a certain cluster

Scandinavians might throw things off a bit if added but now it looks clear, Latvians have a high chance of belonging to clusters 8 and 10, while Lithuanians can be 3, 8 or 10. This suggests the Lithuanian sample is more heterogenous.

Edit. forgot to mention a caveat, a distinct set of alleles can put more heterogenous samples into one cluster, like in ADMIXTURE, so this is not an absolute guarantee and should be verified with Finestructure etc.

Captain Nordic
08-31-2016, 01:21 PM
There are no known genome-wide study in which every ethnographic region of Latvia and Lithuania are sampled. However, there is a study on Y-DNA for all ethnographic regions of Lithuania. Lithuanians were not homegeneous with southern Lithuanians have very high (62%) R1a1 frequency, while national average is round 45%.

So what?
There's a significant difference in Y dna in different Finnish regions yet Finns are usually cateogorized as quite a homogenous population genetically.

Volat
08-31-2016, 01:45 PM
So what?
There's a significant difference in Y dna in different Finnish regions yet Finns are usually cateogorized as quite a homogenous population genetically.
Southern Lithuanians are clearly more southern than northern Lithuanians at genome-wide comparison. Are southern Lithuanians and northern Lithuanians more homogeneous than southern Italians and northern Italians? Perhaps, they are. Homogeneity is a relative measure.

Shaikorth
08-31-2016, 01:46 PM
There are no known genome-wide study in which every ethnographic region of Latvia and Lithuania are sampled. However, there is a study on Y-DNA for all ethnographic regions of Lithuania. Lithuanians were not homegeneous with southern Lithuanians have very high (62%) R1a1 frequency, while national average is round 45%.

That study Generalissimo linked has Lithuanians sampled from six different ethnolinguistic subgroups, and Latvians randomly picked from the national biobank (so most likely all over the country). While there may be Y-DNA related population structure in Lithuania, autosomally doesn't look like it.

Volat
08-31-2016, 01:58 PM
That study Generalissimo linked has Lithuanians sampled from six different ethnolinguistic subgroups, and Latvians randomly picked from the national biobank (so most likely all over the country). While there may be Y-DNA related population structure in Lithuania, autosomally doesn't look like it.

The PCA plot in the referenced study is used in a wider European context. I shared genomes with Lithuanians . There are differences between southerners and northerners. Not large differences but they are visible.

Shaikorth
08-31-2016, 02:09 PM
The PCA plot in the referenced study is used in a wider European context. I shared genomes with Lithuanians . There are differences between southerners and northerners. Not large differences but they are visible.

Perhaps, but are they consistent differences and can they be shown using multiple methods - PCA, Chromopainter and so on? Eurogenes' Finestructure run with only North Europeans didn't split the cluster fully Lithuanian individuals formed. There is an upcoming study about Estonians using high coverage genomes that also compares them to their neighbours. Estonia, of course, has a regional genetic structure which is visible with even genotype sets, but maybe (if there are enough samples) the study will give a definite answer if one exists in Latvians and Lithuanians.
http://smbe-2016.p.asnevents.com.au/days/2016-07-05/abstract/35643

Hando
09-08-2016, 04:19 AM
Yeah, and Northern Germans have Magyar admixture...

What this plot shows is that europeans are a really close group genetically, closer than we would like to admit.
How much Magyar admixture do Northern Germans have? And how/when did this happen? I have never heard of this before.

Hando
09-08-2016, 04:26 AM
The Iron Age RISE 174 is from Oxie, the southernmost tip of what's now Sweden. His result is 71% NW Euro 21% Finnish 5.1% North Slavic
There's one Swedish+Czech result on forumbiodiversity with 58% NW Euro 21% Balkan 13% Finnish 5.7% North Slavic rest ambigious W-Eurasian.

But the Iron Age RISE 174 Swede and the Swedish+Czech only have about 5% North Slavic, while the Battle Axe Swede from LN Sweden has 43%. So how can this Battle Axe Swede be compared with the more modern Swedes re North Slavic admixture?

Helgenes50
09-08-2016, 07:12 AM
The Iron Age RISE 174 is from Oxie, the southernmost tip of what's now Sweden. His result is 71% NW Euro 21% Finnish 5.1% North Slavic

Shaikorth,
Do you think that it's possible to use RISE 174 to evaluate our Scandinavian (or germanic) ancestry and how ? She's probably the best fit to date.

Shaikorth
09-08-2016, 10:00 AM
Shaikorth,
Do you think that it's possible to use RISE 174 to evaluate our Scandinavian (or germanic) ancestry and how ? She's probably the best fit to date.

Perhaps, but that would be best tested with IBD. Another thing, is RISE 174 male or female? It's listed as male on Ancestral Journeys and both male and female on Allentoft et al table S1.

Helgenes50
09-08-2016, 11:20 AM
Perhaps, but that would be best tested with IBD. Another thing, is RISE 174 male or female? It's listed as male on Ancestral Journeys and both male and female on Allentoft et al table S1.

Male or female, I am not able to tell you !!! I thought it was female
To test with IBD would be interesting.
Compared to the modern Swedish, in the last David's calc ( K7) Rise 174 is slightly shifted.

Tomenable
09-16-2016, 05:11 PM
RISE139 (Chociwel, Western Pomerania), Unetice culture:

https://s18.postimg.io/3q6bxiovd/RISE139.png

RISE145 (Polwica, Greater Poland), Unetice culture:

https://s14.postimg.io/prqk2in1d/RISE145.jpg

And here is my result (I'm from Greater Poland - the same region as RISE145):

IMO my result is very similar to those two Bronze Age results (RISE139 and RISE145):

North Slavic ----------- 55%
Northwest Euro ------- 36%
Balkan ----------------- 8,2%
South/Central Euro --- 1,3%

https://s14.postimg.io/qjdyzelw1/My_results.png

Tomenable
09-16-2016, 05:17 PM
I uploaded my genome to GEDmatch and tried all calculators.

I got very interesting results with PuntDNAL K15 calculator.

I am apparently close to Poles, Swedes and Norwegians - but very far from South Germans:

Single Population Sharing:

# Population(source) Distance

1 Polish 2.06
2 Swedish 4.03
3 Norwegian 6.35
4 North_German 6.79
5 Belarusian 7.58
6 Slovenian 7.94
7 Scottish 8.18
8 Austrian 8.36
9 Orcadian 8.57
10 Irish 8.96
11 Russian 9.03
12 Hungarian 9.25
13 Mordovian 9.39
14 English 9.55
15 Karelian 10
16 Finnish 11.06
17 Lithuanian 11.07
18 Croatian 11.26
19 Utahn_White 12.85
20 South_German 13.53

I wonder if other native Wielkopolans also get similar DNA Land and GEDmatch results.

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

And my result with GEDmatch Archaic DNA matches (segments >1.0 cM & 100 SNPs):

I am most similar to BR2 from Bronze Age Hungary (Kyjatice culture, ca. 1270-1110 BC):

https://s15.postimg.io/wvrbr7de1/Matches_GEDmatch.png

https://s15.postimg.io/wvrbr7de1/Matches_GEDmatch.png

AFAIK, Davidski claimed that BR2 is similar to Przeworsk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Przeworsk_culture) / Wielbark (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wielbark_culture) and to modern Poles.

Artmar
09-17-2016, 06:45 AM
11679



AFAIK, Davidski claimed that BR2 is similar to Przeworsk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Przeworsk_culture) / Wielbark (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wielbark_culture) and to modern Poles.

How does he know? There aren't any autosomal results from Przeworsk or Wielbark I would've heard about. He has to have some unbelievable connections.

Michał
09-18-2016, 09:37 PM
AFAIK, Davidski claimed that BR2 is similar to Przeworsk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Przeworsk_culture) / Wielbark (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wielbark_culture) and to modern Poles.
Are you sure about it? This would imply that Generalissimo/Davidski has suddenly changed his mind (regarding the affinity of the Bronze Age samples from Hungary) soon after he got access to some aDNA data from Wielbark. Here is what he wrote about BR1 and BR2 earlier on (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2014/10/ancient-genomes-from-great-hungarian.html):

The two Bronze Age genomes, BR1 and BR2, look very present-day French, and probably western French at that, in both the Principal Component and Admixture analyses. Indeed, they clearly show a northern influence relative to all of the Neolithic farmers and the Iron Age IR1. And yet, BR2 belongs to Y-haplogroup J2a1, which is generally seen as a Near Eastern marker.
Since there have been some gossips that the ancient DNA samples from Wielbark don't look Slavic/Polish, I hope all above is not a desperate attempt to redirect our attention from any possible (ancient or modern) Germanic affinities found in Wielbark.

Shaikorth
09-18-2016, 09:44 PM
BR2 may look Western French on a PCA, but looks like its descendants contributed to modern Poles pretty much more than to anyone else in Europe, similarly to how Rathlin Bronze Age's closest genealogical descendants were Irish and Welsh. This was verified in Cassidy et al.

https://s22.postimg.io/5y9hc69ip/br2.jpg

Michał
09-18-2016, 10:42 PM
BR2 may look Western French on a PCA, but looks like its descendants contributed to modern Poles pretty much more than to anyone else in Europe

How would you explain this apparent "discrepancy", when knowing the differences in all three methodological approaches?

Also, how would you explain that the two other populations showing quite strong "affinity" to BR2 are from Wales and Southern Italy (according to the map posted above)? It seems hard to believe that the descendants of BR2 contributed more strongly to modern Poles, Welsh and Italians/Sicilians than to other peoples in Central or Central-Western Europe.

Shaikorth
09-18-2016, 10:59 PM
How would you explain this apparent "discrepancy", when knowing the differences in all three methodological approaches?

BR2 population's direct descendants survived better in Poland than anywhere else, but that population likely isn't the only ancestor of modern Poles. BR2's relationship to Wielbark (and if the latter could be the vector for elevated BR2-like ancestry in Poland) remains to be seen.

Shaikorth
09-18-2016, 11:14 PM
Rathlin's Middle Neolithic ancestry (more than half of its total) isn't Irish Middle Neolithic but German (at least this is what the paper proposes). BR2 could plausibly have been on the migration route from steppe to Britain, and that explains Welsh, if it's not statistical noise. Sicilians probably share a lot with the non-steppe part of BR2, considering their very high Hungarian Neolithic contribution.

Gravetto-Danubian
09-18-2016, 11:25 PM
A while ago someone called Dekaen did an interesting analysis of IBD of BR2 on Eurogenes (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2016/01/spatio-temporal-segment-sharing.html).
He found large sharing in all eastern Europe, incl Balts, with BR2 over and above Yamnaya or even Srubnaya.
On the other hand, Yamnaya peaks in some of the more far-flung Europ groups, like Irish, Finns & French.

I think the former reflects the importance of Carpathian centres (Eg "Otomani") on formation of Trziniec culture circle. (we shall soon see)

Lastly, Srubnaya peaked in eastern & Southern Ukraininas, and not surprisingly, Kalash, Tajiks, etc.

I think a user "Tolan" here found similar thing - Yamnaya ancestry preserved most in widely peripheral areas, disconnected by more recent gene flow into more central populations.

Michał
09-18-2016, 11:29 PM
BR2 population's direct descendants survived better in Poland than anywhere else, but that population likely isn't the only ancestor of modern Poles. BR2's relationship to Wielbark (and if the latter could be the vector for elevated BR2-like ancestry in Poland) remains to be seen.
So I guess this means that while the strongest "overall similarity" to BR2 can be found in modern Western France, it is modern Poland where the closest relatives of BR2 have somehow managed to survive, although they were strongly admixed with an unknown (but genetically distinct) population, thus drifting away on a PCA plot.

How reliable is such a "haplotype-based affinity" for diploid genomes? Should we also expect that only a relatively recent admixture would have preserved such a relatively strong "haplotype-based affinity" to BR2 (like it would be the case for haploid genomes)?

Michał
09-18-2016, 11:44 PM
BR2 could plausibly have been on the migration route from steppe to Britain, and that explains Welsh
But why Wales and Poland, while not England, Scotland, Netherlands and Germany, among others?


if it's not statistical noise.
I would love to see this option being ruled out.



Sicilians probably share a lot with the non-steppe part of BR2, considering their very high Hungarian Neolithic contribution.
This makes sense. Now, the question is: How do we know that the increased affinity of BR2 to modern Poles is not of the same type (ie. a shared Neolithic ancestry, including LKB, Lengyel, etc)?

Generalissimo
09-18-2016, 11:49 PM
A while ago someone called Dekaen did an interesting analysis of IBD of BR2 on Eurogenes (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2016/01/spatio-temporal-segment-sharing.html).

Too much wishful thinking in his analysis. Some of his conclusions were totally at odds with the data. This happens a lot in this scene.

Of course Trzciniec is commonly seen as a Kurgan culture derived from Corded Ware, so if Balts and Slavs are of Trzcieniec origin, then they're of Corded Ware origin.

BR2 is very northern and very likely has a lot of ancestry from the same source one way or another.


How reliable is such a "haplotype-based affinity" for diploid genomes? Should we also expect that only a relatively recent admixture would have preserved such a relatively strong "haplotype-based affinity" to BR2 (like it would be the case for haploid genomes)?

BR2 is a very high quality (x22) haploid genome.

Shaikorth
09-18-2016, 11:52 PM
So I guess this means that while the strongest "overall similarity" to BR2 can be found in modern Western France, it is modern Poland where the closest relatives of BR2 have somehow managed to survive, although they were strongly admixed with an unknown (but genetically distinct) population, thus drifting away on a PCA plot.

How reliable is such a "haplotype-based affinity" for diploid genomes? Should we also expect that only a relatively recent admixture would have preserved such a relatively strong "haplotype-based affinity" to BR2 (like it would be the case for haploid genomes)?

Haplotype-based affinity is reliable but you need high coverage genomes for ancients. Preferably >10x coverage so MA-1 and the Samara samples from various periods are out for now while BR2 and Loschbour can be used. Falush & co say in their preprint about interpreting admixture plots that it's a good way to correct the flaws of ADMIXTURE/Structure-based modeling and scientists are just beginning to adopt it, in addition to Cassidy et al. there's Broushaki et al. about Iranian Neolithic and Flegontov et al. about Na-Dene, these are this year's papers.

Edit. Cassidy et al. managed to get the following number of SNP's overlapping with their dataset for CHROMOPAINTER runs with diploid genotype calling.
Ballynahatty
Irish Middle Neolithic
238762
Rathlin1
Irish Bronze Age
257516
(both about 10x coverage)

BR2 (22x)
Hungarian Bronze Age
356240

Shaikorth
09-18-2016, 11:56 PM
This makes sense. Now, the question is: How do we know that the increased affinity of BR2 to modern Poles is not of the same type (ie. a shared Neolithic ancestry, including LKB, Lengyel, etc)?

Poland is a cold spot for sharing with Hungarian Neolithic while Sicily is a hot spot.

Gravetto-Danubian
09-19-2016, 12:43 AM
Too much wishful thinking in his analysis. Some of his conclusions were totally at odds with the data. This happens a lot in this scene.

Of course Trzciniec is commonly seen as a Kurgan culture derived from Corded Ware, so if Balts and Slavs are of Trzcieniec origin, then they're of Corded Ware origin.

BR2 is very northern and very likely has a lot of ancestry from the same source one way or another.
.

Yes perhaps, but his findings do parallel the Jones paper, and Others...

Trziniec descending from CWC is self evident; but there might have been additional later influences from more central regions; as mentioned

Generalissimo
09-19-2016, 01:25 AM
Yes perhaps, but his findings do parallel the Jones paper, and Others...

Which of his findings parallel those in the Jones paper?

Gravetto-Danubian
09-19-2016, 01:27 AM
Which of his findings parallel those in the Jones paper?

Those in figure 3d

Generalissimo
09-19-2016, 01:42 AM
Those in figure 3d

No they don't. He was waffling on about some migrations from the Volga Ural to Poland well after the Corded Ware period and arguing that Poles had no or very little Corded Ware ancestry.

Totally ridiculous.

The Jones paper just shows that Northeastern Europeans have less CHG affinity, because they have more forager ancestry, and the haplotype analysis in Broushaki confirms this, with Poles showing more Loschbour related ancestry than Norwegians, but about the same amount of Kotias ancestry.

Gravetto-Danubian
09-19-2016, 01:57 AM
I thought we were talking about IBD affinities between modern EE and predecessor samples..

But Ryu also found that the highest Haplogroup sharing is with BR2 and Srubnaya, then CWC then Yamnaya. Of course this is simple chronology, but could it mean anything more ? (esp given that this is not the case with, say, Irish or Russian forests, which retain high Yamnaya ancestry), especially in light of the fact that the CWC samples thus far all or (?but one) x Z645.

Tomenable
09-19-2016, 08:44 PM
BR2 population's direct descendants survived better in Poland than anywhere else, but that population likely isn't the only ancestor of modern Poles. BR2's relationship to Wielbark (and if the latter could be the vector for elevated BR2-like ancestry in Poland) remains to be seen.

I used Felix Immanuel's "Ancient Calculator":


Ancient Calculator

Ancient Calculator will tell you how much percentage of DNA and/or compound segments is shared between an ancient DNA and the autosomal file. In other words, it tells your total percentage of shared ancestors in each others pedigree. The tool includes 59 ancient DNA which allows to compare any autosomal file with ease. It supports FTDNA, 23andMe and Ancestry files.

Here are my results for Copper-Bronze Age and younger samples (I added cultures):

Bronze Age BR2 comes first again (1/5 - 1/4 of shared ancestry):

BR2 - 22,36% - Kyjatice, Hungary
RISE98 - 15,40% - Battle Axe
RISE493 - 14,90% - Karasuk
RISE505 - 14,45% - Andronovo
RISE511 - 11,70% - Afanasievo
RISE150 - 11,49% - Unetice
RISE174 - 11,38% - Iron Age Sweden
RISE497 - 10,53% - Karasuk
RISE495 - 10,48% - Karasuk
RISE552 - 9,95% - Yamnaya
RISE523 - 9,86% - Mezhovskaya
RISE395 - 9,68% - Sintashta
RISE500 - 9,07% - Andronovo
RISE496 - 8,68% - Karasuk
RISE479 - 7,38% - Vatya
RISE548 - 6,71% - Yamnaya
RISE577 - 6,70% - Unetice
IR1 - 6,67% - Mezocsat culture
RISE499 - 6,38% - Karasuk
RISE569 - 6,33% - Bell Beaker
BR1 - 6,31% - Mako culture
RISE509 - 6,10% - Afanasievo
RISE502 - 5,87% - Karasuk
RISE503 - 5,80% - Andronovo
CO1 - 5,65% - Baden culture
RISE00 - 5,49% - CW Estonia
RISE94 - 5,46% - Battle Axe
RISE504 - 4,88% - Kytmanovo
RISE97 - 4,49% - Battle Axe
RISE601 - 3,02% - Iron Age Siberia
RISE602 - 2,91% - Iron Age Siberia

And here Neolithic and Mesolithic samples from Europe (nothing is closer than BR2):

NE1 - 20,49% - ALP culture, Hungary
LBK - 20,04% - see below*
Loschbour - 16,83% - WHG Luxembourg
Motala12 - 8,45% - SHG Sweden
KO1 - 7,38% - Hungarian HG
NE7 - 6,97% - Lengyel culture
La Brana - 6,70% - WHG Spain
NE6 - 6,47% - LBK culture
NE5 - 5,56% - Late ALP culture
Ajvide 58 - 1,83% - Pitted Ware
Gökhem 2 - 1,75% - TRB Sweden

*Is it Stuttgart, another LBK, or some composite created from several LBK samples?

Tomenable
09-19-2016, 09:24 PM
Actually, it is not certain whether RISE98 was one of Battle Axe people.

Artmar told me, that:


RISE98 wasn't buried in Battle-Axe rite - only on burial site used previously by Battle-Axe people.

As for Kyjatice culture, it seems that it had some demographic links with Lusatian culture.

I have read that Kyjatice culture developed from a mixture of Lusatian and Gava groups:

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

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

^ Too bad, that we don't have any good-quality autosomal samples from Lusatian culture.

Shaikorth,


Poland is a cold spot for sharing with Hungarian Neolithic

Depends with which cultural part of Hungarian Neolithic (at least for me):

NE1 - 20,49% - ALP culture
NE7 - 6,97% - Lengyel culture
NE6 - 6,47% - LBK culture

So I don't share much with Lengyel and Hungarian LBK, but I do with ALP.

Shaikorth
09-19-2016, 09:37 PM
Actually, it is not certain whether RISE98 was one of Battle Axe people.

Artmar told me, that:



As for Kyjatice culture, it seems that it had some demographic links with Lusatian culture.

I have read that Kyjatice culture developed from a mixture of Lusatian and Gava groups:

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

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

^ Too bad, that we don't have any good-quality autosomal samples from Lusatian culture.

Shaikorth,



Depends with which cultural part of Hungarian Neolithic (at least for me):

NE1 - 20,49% - ALP culture
NE7 - 6,97% - Lengyel culture
NE6 - 6,47% - LBK culture

So I don't share much with Lengyel and Hungarian LBK, but I do with ALP.

I'm referring to haplotype sharing with NE1 (other Hungarian Neolithics are too low coverage to be used) which was in the heatmap posted earlier. Felix's calculator seems to more show generic EEF, rather than a haplotype analysis implying direct descent. Think of what the haplotype analysis shows like this: while we know Sardinians have more generic EEF ancestry than Sicilians, the EEF ancestry Sicilians have is more similar to Hungarian Neolithic than that of Sardinians.

Pribislav
09-20-2016, 12:03 AM
*Is it Stuttgart, another LBK, or some composite created from several LBK samples?

Yes, LBK should be Stuttgart. The samples you share most DNA with are the samples with highest coverage: BR2-21.25, NE1-22.12, LBK/Stuttgart-19, Loschbour-22. Other samples have way lower coverage, I wonder what the result would be if all of them had similar coverage.

Brent.B
09-20-2016, 12:14 AM
BR2 may look Western French on a PCA, but looks like its descendants contributed to modern Poles pretty much more than to anyone else in Europe, similarly to how Rathlin Bronze Age's closest genealogical descendants were Irish and Welsh. This was verified in Cassidy et al.

https://s22.postimg.io/5y9hc69ip/br2.jpg

Wouldn't that imply population replacement in Poland did not happen? At least on a large scale?

or would it argue for it?

Gravetto-Danubian
09-20-2016, 12:42 AM
Wouldn't that imply population replacement in Poland did not happen? At least on a large scale?

or would it argue for it?

It would suggest that modern Poles at some stage moved into Poland via a region with higher BR2 ancestry than their CWC predecessors. When exactly ? 600 AD seems possible

Generalissimo
09-20-2016, 03:54 AM
It would suggest that modern Poles at some stage moved into Poland via a region with higher BR2 ancestry than their CWC predecessors.

I doubt Polish Corded Ware will show lower affinity to BR2 than modern Poles. Bout the same or higher.

Gravetto-Danubian
09-20-2016, 04:07 AM
I doubt Polish Corded Ware will show lower affinity to BR2 than modern Poles. Bout the same or higher.

Fair enough
It'll be good to see, either way

Waldemar
09-20-2016, 01:43 PM
Tomenable, not far from Ludas (where BR2 was burried) was a Polish-Hungarian border ca.2200 years later... ;)

Fragment of “Slovakia in history”:

The medieval chronicler Anonymous wrote of a Polish-Hungarian war at the beginning of the eleventh century. According to his account, Duke Boleslaw the Brave – who became the first Polish king – defeated the Hungarians “and subjugated to his rule the whole of their land as far as the Danube” [“Numquid non ipse Hungaros frequentius in certamine superavit, totamque terram eorum usque Danubium suo dominio mancipavit”]. Boguchwal and other Polish chroniclers mention various Slavic dukes who acknowledged Polish sovereignty. They also mention Duke Wladislaus (Ladislaus) from the House of Arpad and that his lands bordered the Tisa, Danube and Morava rives [“Wladislai pars Ungariae, que inter fluvios Czissam, Danubiam et Moravam constitit”]. Thus Michael’s son Ladislas the Bald inherited his father’s former duchy thanks to help from his powerful Polish cousin Boleslaw, and he had to acknowledge Boleslaw’s sovereignty.

The Hungarian-Polish chronicle describes the southern and eastern forntiers of the Duchy of Nitra during its union with Poland. The Danube formed the southern frontier as far as Esztergom. From there, the frontiers went east to the Nograd and the Buk mountains and to the bend of the Tisa. In the east the Zemplin castle and Slanske mountains formed the frontier. From there the frontier line followed the Ondava mountains to the junction of the Hungarian, Polish and Ruthenian frontiers on the main ridge of the Carpathians [“Nam termini Polonorum ad litus Danubii ad civitatem Strigoniensem terminabantur. Deinde in Agriensem civitatem ibant, demum in fluvium, qui Tizia nominator, cadentes, regirabant iuxta fluvium, qui Cepla nuncupatur usque ad castrum Salis ibique inter Ungaros, Ruthenos et Polonos finem dabant”]. Thanks to these Polish chroniclers we can delineate the historic frontiers of the Duchy of Nitra. Its territorial extent corresponded roughly to that of contemporary Slovakia.

King Stephen of Hungary (997-1038) lost control of the Duchy of Nitra soon after his coronation. According to the Hungarian-Polish chronicle, “three months after the coronation”, that is, at the end of March or beginning of April 1001, the two sides began diplomatic negotations. Boleslaw the Brave offered Stephen peace. Stephen proposed a meeting with Boleslaw on the Hungarian-Polish frontier. The king of Poland accepted the proposal:

“When his whole army was assembled, he came to meet the king before Esztergom, and here on the frontier between Poland and Hungary he established his camp … On the next day when the sun rose, they met and exchanged the kiss of peace, and with joined hands they went to the Esztergom Cathedral, which was then newly built in honour of the sainted martyr Vojtech [Adalbert] of Poland and Hungary. When all this was successfully completed, all the Polish soldiers from the greatest to the least were rewarded and the prince [Boleslaw] was given gifts. After this they separated”.

After the death of Ladislas the Bald (before 1030), his younger brother Vazul inherited the Duchy of Nitra. However, he did not enjoy his inheritance for long. In January 1030, King Mieszko II of Poland invaded Saxony. As he plundered the region, a rebellion broke out in Poland, fomented by his brothers Bezprim and Otto. Prince Jaroslav the Wise of Kiev attacked from the east and captured Belz. The power of the Polish king suddenly began to disintegrate. It was probably at this time that King Stephen of Hungary gained control of Nitra, while Duke Oldrich of Bohemia (1012-1034) took over Moravia. Mieszko II could not help the Polish garrisons in the castles of Moravia, because he was fighting at home against his brothers, and he expected further attacks by the Russians and Germans, who took further territory away from Poland in the following year, 1031.

King Stephen imprisoned Prince Vazul in Nitra Castle. Vazul’s three sons, Levente, Andrew and Bela, together with their cousin Domoslav (son of Ladislas the Bald), fled to Bohemia after Vazul was blinded in prison. At the court of Duke Oldrich of Bohemia, the four members of the House of Arpad met King Mieszko II of Poland, who also found political asylum there at the end of 1031. When Mieszko gained power in Poland for the second time (1032-1034), he received Vazul’s three sons at his court. Their older cousin Domoslav, who could rely on Czech support, remained with Prince Oldrich. The youngest, Bela, married Mieszko’s daughter Rycheza and stayed in Poland. Levente and Andrew went to Kiev.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jrC1HFgjJxsC&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=castrum+salis+polonie&source=bl&ots=JdAbQE8Pd8&sig=7C4fn84tRiLHjbeY1sPQsSvXXgk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwigo4y0_Z3PAhWGK8AKHe_5D2UQ6AEILjAC#v=on epage&q=castrum%20salis%20polonie&f=false

Tomenable
09-21-2016, 02:26 PM
My Eurogenes K13:

Baltic - 41,98
North Atlantic - 32,02
West Med - 9,48
West Asian - 7,55
East Med - 6,94
South Asian - 1,18
Siberian - 0,00
East Asian - 0,00
Amerindian - 0,48

Polish average:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dCZldTIfd-EPjDlpQiFNcHwOtZus9Qdll3pB48zdQG0/edit#gid=0

Baltic - 42,03
North Atlantic - 30,66
West Med - 11,08
West Asian - 6,56
East Med - 6,22
South Asian - 1,02
Siberian - 0,97
East Asian - 0,45
Amerindian - 0,07

Something is shifting me a bit towards the South it seems (even though all of my great-grandparents were from Wielkopolska, which is a north-central rather than southern region). Maybe this is why I'm getting "South_Polish" 1st and "Polish" 2nd in Eurogenes calculators. And in Steppe K10 I got "Czech" 1st and "Ukrainian_Lviv" 2nd (which is like "South_Polish" :P). But ancient matches in Steppe K10 are interesting:

Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Halberstadt_LBA +25% Corded_Ware_LN +25% Esperstedt_MN @ 0,476727
2 50% Halberstadt_LBA +25% Corded_Ware_LN +25% Sardinian @ 0,482259

Using 4 populations approximation:
1 Corded_Ware_LN+Esperstedt_MN+Halberstadt_LBA+Halbe rstadt_LBA @ 0,476727
2 Corded_Ware_LN+Halberstadt_LBA+Halberstadt_LBA+Sar dinian @ 0,482259

Halberstadt_LBA was R1a-Z280. And that could be a sample from Lusatian culture.

Volat
09-21-2016, 03:33 PM
My Eurogenes K13:

Baltic - 41,98
North Atlantic - 32,02
West Med - 9,48
West Asian - 7,55
East Med - 6,94
South Asian - 1,18
Siberian - 0,00
East Asian - 0,00
Amerindian - 0,48

You have low percentage in Baltic and high West Asian and West Med for a northern Slav. What's your K15 results if you don't mind me asking?

Silesian
09-21-2016, 10:05 PM
You have low percentage in Baltic and high West Asian and West Med for a northern Slav. What's your K15 results if you don't mind me asking?
Different calculators are set up different. On k13 I also score South Polish-similar to Tomenable. In K13 higher Baltic score and lower combined- West-Asian-East Med.


Polish average:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...QG0/edit#gid=0

Baltic - 42,03
North Atlantic - 30,66
West Med - 11,08
West Asian - 6,56
East Med - 6,22
South Asian - 1,02
Siberian - 0,97
East Asian - 0,45
Amerindian - 0,07


Admix Results (sorted):
K-13
# Population Percent
1 Baltic 43.00
2 North_Atlantic 30.13
3 West_Med 11.61
4 West_Asian 6.50
5 East_Med 5.05
6 South_Asian 1.85
7 Siberian 1.34
Eurogenes EUtest V2 K15 Oracle results:
# Population Percent
1 Baltic 26.94
2 North_Sea 21.24
3 Atlantic 19
4 Eastern_Euro 18.49
5 West_Med 6.7
6 West_Asian 4.69
7 South_Asian 1.57
8 East_Med 1.09
9 Oceanian 0.21
10 Siberian 0.06

Volat
09-22-2016, 12:34 AM
Different calculators are set up different. On k13 I also score South Polish-similar to Tomenable. In K13 higher Baltic score and lower combined- West-Asian-East Med.

Obviously. Tomenable has Masovian ancestry. I'd have expected to see Baltic component among Masovians around 47-48% at K13 run. I have 50%+ at k13. The highest is among Lithuanians 52-53% at k13.

Michał
09-22-2016, 09:56 AM
Obviously. Tomenable has Masovian ancestry. I'd have expected to see Baltic component among Masovians around 47-48% at K13 run. I have 50%+ at k13. The highest is among Lithuanians 52-53% at k13.
As far as I know Tomenable is of Greater Poland (not Mazovian) ancestry. My ancestry is almost exclusively Mazovian (more precisely SW Mazovian), with only a tiny fraction coming from further west, and I score 51%.

Volat
09-22-2016, 10:01 AM
As far as I know Tomenable is of Greater Poland (not Mazovian) ancestry. My ancestry is almost exclusively Mazovian (more precisely SW Mazovian), with only a tiny fraction coming from further west, and I score 51%.

That's the score I'd have expected from Poles of Mazovia. :)
PS I assumed Tomenable has Mazovian ancestry.

Volat
09-22-2016, 11:04 AM
Michał

If you don't mind can you post your results from 23andme, PuntDNAl 15, Eurogenes K13, DNA.Land? I'd like to see the results from a Pole of Mazovian ancestry.

Tomenable
09-22-2016, 11:43 AM
Tomenable has Masovian ancestry.

No, all of my great-grandparents were from Greater Poland (Wielkopolska).

My Y-DNA lineage is from Koźmin - which is southern part of Wielkopolska.

Maybe this can explain my "South_Polish", "Ukrainian_Lviv" and "Czech".

Tomenable
09-22-2016, 11:49 AM
You have low percentage in Baltic and high West Asian and West Med for a northern Slav. What's your K15 results if you don't mind me asking?

My Eurogenes EUtest V2 K15:

Baltic ------------ 25.41
Eastern Euro ---- 18.22

North Sea ------- 22.25
Atlantic ---------- 19.65

West Med ------- 5.35
East Med -------- 2.70

West Asian ------ 6.36

Volat
09-22-2016, 11:50 AM
I suspected Mazovian Poles (northern/ north-eastern Poles) are similar to Belaruaians in many ways. Most our Polish immigrants were from Mazovia.


Mazovia.



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/Mazowieckie_p%C5%82ockie_rawskie.png/300px-Mazowieckie_p%C5%82ockie_rawskie.png

Tomenable
09-22-2016, 11:55 AM
PuntDNAl 15

Here are my results:

1. NE_European ----- 63.87%
2. Mediterranean ---- 23.07%
3. Caucasian --------- 8.62%
4. SW_Asian --------- 2.75%
5. Omo_River -------- 0.51%
6. Horn_Of_Africa --- 0.42%
7. Beringian --------- 0.36%
8. S_African --------- 0.26%
9. Wht_Nile_River --- 0.11%

Volat
09-22-2016, 11:55 AM
My Eurogenes EUtest V2 K15:

Baltic ------------ 25.41
Eastern Euro ---- 18.22

North Sea ------- 22.25
Atlantic ---------- 19.65

West Med ------- 5.35
East Med -------- 2.70

West Asian ------ 6.36


I have Baltic 34.05% and Eastern European 23.02. Again you have low Baltic and East European components for northern Slavs - northern Poles, Belarusians, northern Russians. Your genetic profile is more of a central European.

Tomenable
09-22-2016, 12:00 PM
I have Baltic 34.05% and Eastern European 23.02. Again you have low Baltic and East European components for northern Slavs - northern Poles, Belarusians, northern Russians. Your genetic profile is more of a central European.

I still cluster with Slavic populations.

Here is a PCA based on Eurogenes K13 (courtesy of WojciechS from historycy.org):

Green & Pink = prevalent Baltic
Blue = prevalent North Atlantic
Beige = prevalent East Med

I'm not sure how he made it, though (if he used all of K13 components, or some):

http://s18.postimg.org/5psmrvpnt/Eurogenes_K13.png

Volat
09-22-2016, 12:06 PM
I still cluster with Slavic populations.


With southern Poles and western (Lviv) Ukrainains. Probably with Slovaks if the were on the plot.

Tomenable
09-22-2016, 12:08 PM
BTW, are Czechs and Slovaks scoring more Baltic or more North Atlantic in K13?

Tomenable
09-22-2016, 12:14 PM
With southern Poles and western (Lviv) Ukrainains. Probably with Slovaks

And here are my Eurogenes Steppe K10 results:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4402-eurogenes-steppe-k10&p=188116&viewfull=1#post188116


Using 1 population approximation:
1 Czech @ 1,852706
2 Ukrainian_Lviv @ 3,797305

Michał
09-22-2016, 07:37 PM
If you don't mind can you post your results from 23andme, PuntDNAl 15, Eurogenes K13, DNA.Land? I'd like to see the results from a Pole of Mazovian ancestry.
Unfortunately, I don't have any 23andMe results. However, I can give you the Eurogenes and PuntDNAl results for a larger group of SW Mazovian samples, which includes my own sample (shown in black), three other people from SW Mazovia (in blue) who are not related to each other (though the first two represent my maternal and paternal side, respectively), and one Pole of mixed ancestry (in green; Mazovia, Świętokrzyskie, Greater Poland and Lubelskie, approximately 1/4 each). I have also added the results for Tomenable (Greater Poland; red), Silesian (orange) and the average for Poland (from the Silesian's post, in black again).

Eurogenes K13
North_Atlantic 27.03 28.33 32.93 30.11 27.99 32.02 30.13 30.66
Baltic 51.01 52.80 47.10 48.85 45.19 41.98 43.0 42.03
West_Med 9.04 8.70 8.14 9.17 12.31 9.48 11.61 11.08
West_Asian 5.41 3.55 3.60 1.80 5.59 7.55 6.50 6.56
East_Med 5.84 4.54 4.79 5.86 5.03 6.94 5.05 6.22
Red_Sea - - 0.91 - 0.98 - - -
South_Asian 0.86 0.76 0.86 2.73 0.22 1.18 1.85 1.02
East_Asian - - - - - - - -
Siberian - 0.69 - 0.10 0.27 1.34 - 0.97
Amerindian 0.41 0.08 0.05 0.90 1.89 0.48 - 0.07
Oceanian 0.40 - 1.05 - 0.25 - - -
Northeast_African - - 0.45 0.46 - - - -
Sub-Saharan - 0.48 0.11 - 0.28 - - -

Eurogenes EUtest V2 K15
North_Sea 19.58 22.51 22.57 23.01 21.90 22.25 21.24
Atlantic 16.82 14.19 21.74 15.83 15.65 19.65 19.00
Baltic 34.31 36.69 32.10 32.31 27.27 25.41 26.94
Eastern_Euro 19.78 19.24 16.04 19.81 20.82 18.22 18.49
West_Med 4.87 4.89 3.21 4.85 7.82 5.35 6.70
West_Asian 3.52 1.75 2.23 0.06 2.61 6.36 4.69
East_Med 1.13 0.44 0.60 2.08 2.19 2.70 1.09
Red_Sea - - 0.53 - 0.65 - -
South_Asian - - - 1.58 - - 1.57
Southeast_Asian - - - - - - -
Siberian - - - - - - 0.06
Amerindian - - - 0.30 1.08 - -
Oceanian - - 0.75 - - - 0.21
Northeast_African - - 0.22 0.17 - - -
Sub-Saharan - 0.27 - - - - -

PuntDNAl 15
S_Indian - 0.40 0.22 2.20 - -
Mediterranean 18.82 19.75 19.34 18.91 22.90 23.07
Siberian - 0.18 0.84 0.39 - -
Wht_Nile_River - - - - - 0.11
Amerindian - 0.38 - 0.52 1.68 -
S_African 0.38 0.67 - - - 0.26
E_Asian - - - - - -
Caucasian 6.08 5.09 5.93 4.93 5.80 8.62
NE_European 70.74 70.43 67.93 70.52 65.10 63.87
Omo_River - 0.54 0.83 - - 0.51
W_African - - - - - -
Horn_Of_Africa - - - 0.50 0.95 0.42
Oceanian 0.73 0.07 1.00 0.06 - -
Beringian - - 0.24 - 0.26 0.36
SW_Asian 3.25 2.05 3.67 1.97 3.28 2.75

It would be nice to compare these results with those for Lesser Poland (Małopolska) and Pomerania (Pomorze).

As for my DNA.Land results, I have already posted them in another thread: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?8273-Southern-Polish-results-from-DNA-Land&p=179640&viewfull=1#post179640

Volat
09-23-2016, 12:41 PM
Unfortunately, I don't have any 23andMe results. However, I can give you the Eurogenes and PuntDNAl results for a larger group of SW Mazovian samples, which includes my own sample (shown in black), three other people from SW Mazovia (in blue) who are not related to each other (though the first two represent my maternal and paternal side, respectively), and one Pole of mixed ancestry (in green; Mazovia, Świętokrzyskie, Greater Poland and Lubelskie, approximately 1/4 each). I have also added the results for Tomenable (Greater Poland; red), Silesian (orange) and the average for Poland (from the Silesian's post, in black again).

Thanks! From the first observation the results of Mazovians similar to mine. At least the major components. Only DNA.land differ with northern Slavic 96%. But in their comparison Polish reference is not part of northern Slavic. Also, I score ~98% eastern European at 23andme.

Michał
09-23-2016, 01:00 PM
Thanks! From the first observation the results of Mazovians similar to mine. At least the major components.
I guess the similarity would be much stronger when comparing Belarus with NE Mazovia, rather than with SW Mazovia (I would love to see the results for native NE Mazovians). Could you please post your results? Are all of your known ancestors from a specific region in Belarus?

Volat
09-23-2016, 01:15 PM
I guess the similarity would be much stronger when comparing Belarus with NE Mazovia, rather than with SW Mazovia (I would love to see the results for native NE Mazovians). Could you please post your results? Are all of your known ancestors from a specific region in Belarus?

Most ancestors from north-east of Belarus. Some maybe from southern Belarus on the border with Ukraine. Many Belarusians think people of north-easter Podlaskie voivodeship are our cousins. Poles of Mazovia are genetically not different to us either.


PuntDNAL k15

S_Indian 0.53
Mediterranean 16.76
Siberian 1.31
Wht_Nile_River 0.32
Amerindian 0.38
S_African 0.11
E_Asian 0.06
Caucasian 5.66
NE_European 70.67
Omo_River 0.23
W_African -
Horn_Of_Africa 1.43
Oceanian 0.54
Beringian 0.25
SW_Asian 1.73

--

Eurogenes k13

North_Atlantic 28.29
Baltic 50.80
West_Med 8.75
West_Asian 4.45
East_Med 3.47
Red_Sea 0.18
South_Asian 1.93
East_Asian -
Siberian 0.36
Amerindian 0.35
Oceanian 0.52
Northeast_African 0.85
Sub-Saharan -

---

Euro k15 v2

North_Sea 18.42
Atlantic 16.97
Baltic 34.05
Eastern_Euro 23.02
West_Med 2.97
West_Asian 2.78
East_Med -
Red_Sea -
South_Asian 0.41
Southeast_Asian -
Siberian 0.14
Amerindian 0.07
Oceanian 0.28
Northeast_African 0.85
Sub-Saharan -

---

DNA.Land

100% West Eurasian
96% Northern Slavic
3.9 % Northwest European

---

23andme


http://s17.postimg.org/l13rr3k67/Ancestry_Composition_23and_Me_8.png

Volat
09-23-2016, 01:29 PM
It would be nice to compare these results with those for Lesser Poland (Małopolska) and Pomerania (Pomorze).

It'd be also interesting to see results of Mazurs living in Poland and Germany, if there are still unmixed Mazurs around. I'd expect them to be genetically similar to Mazovians.

Volat
09-23-2016, 01:56 PM
Tomenable is good at finding different facts about countries and regions. It'd be good if he starts a topic on Mazovian history and ethnography. I can't think of an appropritate section on this forum to start the topic. Maybe a different forum?

We've had long lasting relations with Poles. Most of those Poles were Mazovians. Some of our folks , who are distancing themselves from Poles, say those western Slavs among us were Polabian Slavs. :)

vettor
09-23-2016, 05:55 PM
It'd be also interesting to see results of Mazurs living in Poland and Germany, if there are still unmixed Mazurs around. I'd expect them to be genetically similar to Mazovians.

I thought the story of the Mazovians is they came from

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

and this , according to Russian scholars is the origins of the slavs

Mazovians IIRC are the same as Lechites .............or am I mistaken

Volat
09-23-2016, 06:11 PM
edit.

Tomenable
09-25-2016, 05:30 PM
Wouldn't that imply population replacement in Poland did not happen? At least on a large scale?

or would it argue for it?

There is a large degree of population continuity.

I became convinced about this after comparing myself with RISE150 from Przeclawice:

RISE150 is GEDmatch kit F999948 - http://www.y-str.org/p/ancient-dna.html

Calculator puntDNAL K15:

1) My result:

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Polish 2.06
2 Swedish 4.03
3 Norwegian 6.35
4 North_German 6.79
5 Belarusian 7.58
6 Slovenian 7.94

2) RISE 150:

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Swedish 5.58
2 North_German 5.95
3 Polish 6.07
4 Slovenian 6.29
5 Norwegian 6.58
6 Hungarian 7.41

The same populations as top results in population sharing - only in different order.

There is no way that this and other signals (as David says) are all "coincidences".

RISE150 was a sample of Unetice culture and she lived around 3900 years ago:

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

Tomenable
09-25-2016, 06:28 PM
Please note, that:

These GEDmatch calculators (such as puntDNAL K15 used above) are good in detecting even very old admixtures, from several thousand years ago.

On the other hand, ancestry reports from DNALand, 23andMe or FTDNA are only accurate in showing ancestry no more than up to one thousand years ago.

This is why I was suprised when puntDNAL K15 Oracle showed that I have similar admixture proportions to Swedes, even though according to FTDNA I do not have any Scandinavian admixture.

I understood what is going on only after comparing my results to those of RISE150.

These admixtures have been present here already in the Bronze Age!

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

My FTDNA report - no any Scandinavian admixture, only Eastern + Central Euro:
(but as I wrote, this report covers accurately only the last 1000 years, at best)

http://s21.postimg.org/65wpcuvgn/FTDNA_my_Origins.png

Tomenable
09-25-2016, 07:17 PM
Comparing Kit T269964 (*Tomenable) and F999948 (RISE150,Poland,3.4ky)

Minimum threshold size to be included in total = 25 SNPs
Mismatch-bunching Limit = 25 SNPs
Minimum segment cM to be included in total = 1.0 cM

Largest segment = 4.7 cM
Total of segments > 1 cM = 1,142.2 cM
701 matching segments

307164 SNPs used for this comparison.

Comparison took 0.03335 seconds.
Ver: Aug 1 2016 17:12:40

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

Comparing Kit T269964 (*Tomenable) and F999933 (BR2, Hungary, 3.2ky)

Minimum threshold size to be included in total = 25 SNPs
Mismatch-bunching Limit = 25 SNPs
Minimum segment cM to be included in total = 1.0 cM

Largest segment = 6.8 cM
Total of segments > 1 cM = 1,488.4 cM
921 matching segments

657082 SNPs used for this comparison.

Comparison took 0.04641 seconds.
Ver: Aug 1 2016 17:12:40

Tomenable
09-25-2016, 07:22 PM
So I have 701 matching segments with RISE150 and 921 with BR2, but:


Calculator puntDNAL K15:

1) My result:

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Polish 2.06
2 Swedish 4.03
3 Norwegian 6.35
4 North_German 6.79
5 Belarusian 7.58
6 Slovenian 7.94

2) RISE 150:

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Swedish 5.58
2 North_German 5.95
3 Polish 6.07
4 Slovenian 6.29
5 Norwegian 6.58
6 Hungarian 7.41

And here is BR2 in puntDNAL K15:

3) BR2 (Kyjatice culture):

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Utahn_White 4.41
2 South_German 4.52
3 French 5.02
4 English 6
5 Orcadian 6.91
6 Scottish 7.3
7 Irish 7.61

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

So in "Single Population Sharing" RISE150 has a much more similar result to mine.

However, in terms of matching segments (in 1-to-1 comparison) BR2 is a bit closer.

But in terms of "Single Population Sharing", BR2 is different than RISE150 and me.

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

BR2 has totally different populations (no Poles, no Swedes, no Slovenians, no Norwegians, etc.).

I'm not sure how to interpret this (more of matching segments, but less matching populations?).

Tomenable
09-25-2016, 08:08 PM
I carried out also a 1-to-1 with Hinxton-4 (Iron Age Briton) - just to make sure that I'm not as closely related to Ancient Britons as to RISE150 (which would imply that there is nothing special about this similarity with RISE150, and that there was no any population continuity in Poland):

Comparing Kit T269964 (*Tomenable) and F999925 (Hinxton-4, UK, 2ky):

Minimum threshold size to be included in total = 25 SNPs
Mismatch-bunching Limit = 25 SNPs
Minimum segment cM to be included in total = 1.0 cM

Largest segment = 2.7 cM
Total of segments > 1 cM = 162.9 cM
125 matching segments

575225 SNPs used for this comparison.

Comparison took 0.02972 seconds.
Ver: Aug 1 2016 17:12:40

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

Only 125 segments, much fewer than with RISE150 and BR2.

Tomenable
09-25-2016, 09:13 PM
Some more ancients in puntDNAL K15 calculator (I think that it is a very good calculator):

Iron Age Celtic Briton was most similar to modern Irish, Anglo-Saxon to modern Swedes:

Hinxton-4 (Celtic Briton, 2000 ybp):

Kit F999925. Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Irish 2.38
2 North_German 2.95
3 Orcadian 3.03
4 English 3.05
5 Scottish 3.18
6 Norwegian 4.4
7 Slovenian 4.44
8 Austrian 4.91

Hinxton-2 (Anglo-Saxon, 1300 ybp):

Kit F999921. Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Swedish 4.3
2 Norwegian 4.41
3 Scottish 5.73
4 North_German 5.87
5 Polish 6.44
6 Orcadian 6.82
7 English 7.24
8 Irish 7.93

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

It is quite surprising, that North Germans are similar both to Celtic Briton & to Anglo-Saxon.

Even more surprising, that Germans are more similar to Celtic Briton than to Saxon.

Perhaps she (Hinxton-2) was not even a Saxon, but either an Angle or a Jute.

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

Modern English are closer to Celtic Briton (distance 3.05) than to unmixed Anglo-Jute-Saxon (distance 7.24). This is in agreement with recent studies which show that the English have mostly Celtic ancestry.

"Pure Anglo-Saxon-Jutes" were Scandinavian-like rather than English-like or German-like.

This also shows why it is hard to distinguish Anglo-Saxon-Jute and Danish-Swedish Viking ancestry.

Only Norwegian Viking ancestry can be distinguished, because Norwegians are a bit different.

Tomenable
09-25-2016, 09:52 PM
I share 701 matching segments with RISE150 and 921 with BR2.

Numbers such as 701 - 921 matching segments seem to be a lot.

I made a similar comparison with ancient and modern Iranians:

Kit T637158 (Medieval Iranian) shares 758 segments with a modern Iranian.

Kit M124870 (Copper Age Iranian) shares 597 segments with a modern Iranian.

Finally, T637158 and M124870 share 380 matching segments with each other.

Criteria of comparison were the same in each case:


Minimum threshold size to be included in total = 25 SNPs
Mismatch-bunching Limit = 25 SNPs
Minimum segment cM to be included in total = 1.0 cM

kingjohn
09-25-2016, 10:07 PM
tomenable your ftdna my origins map
is close to your dna land the main components are realy close
only in ftdna you dont score balkan/ southern european
that means the balkan you score in dna land is probably eastern european snp shared with bulgarians :)
thanks for sharing:)
regards
Adam

palamede
09-26-2016, 04:26 PM
Comparing Kit T269964 (*Tomenable) and F999948 (RISE150,Poland,3.4ky)


Total of segments > 1 cM = 1,142.2 cM
701 matching segments

307164 SNPs used for this comparison.

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

Comparing Kit T269964 (*Tomenable) and F999933 (BR2, Hungary, 3.2ky)

Total of segments > 1 cM = 1,488.4 cM
921 matchng segments

657082 SNPs used for this comparison.

Ver: Aug 1 2016 17:12:40

The number of used SNPs is certainly important. Number of found segments is more important if the length of compared DNA is greater

Tomenable
09-27-2016, 08:49 PM
Comparing Kit F999948 (RISE150,Poland,3.4ky) and another Polish guy:

Minimum threshold size to be included in total = 25 SNPs
Mismatch-bunching Limit = 25 SNPs
Minimum segment cM to be included in total = 1.0 cM

Largest segment = 8.2 cM
Total of segments > 1 cM = 1,164.6 cM
749 matching segments

308097 SNPs used for this comparison.

Comparison took 0.03885 seconds.
Ver: Aug 1 2016 17:12:40

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

And the same Polish guy compared to BR2:

Largest segment = 5.3 cM
Total of segments > 1 cM = 1,417.4 cM
866 matching segments

659580 SNPs used for this comparison.

Comparison took 0.04396 seconds.
Ver: Aug 1 2016 17:12:40

Waldemar
10-06-2016, 12:47 PM
And my result with GEDmatch Archaic DNA matches (segments >1.0 cM & 100 SNPs):

I am most similar to BR2 from Bronze Age Hungary (Kyjatice culture, ca. 1270-1110 BC):

https://s15.postimg.io/wvrbr7de1/Matches_GEDmatch.png

https://s15.postimg.io/wvrbr7de1/Matches_GEDmatch.png

My results (segments >1.0 cM)...
https://s22.postimg.org/x69htryq9/archaic_T480197_EB4566.gif

https://s22.postimg.org/x69htryq9/archaic_T480197_EB4566.gif

My ancestral home is located in Lesser Poland (paternal side), however I have Mazovian and possibly marginal Baltic admixture from maternal side.

Waldemar
10-06-2016, 12:57 PM
https://s16.postimg.org/yjha8hdc5/Screen_Hunter_1508_Oct_06_13_57.jpg

https://s16.postimg.org/yjha8hdc5/Screen_Hunter_1508_Oct_06_13_57.jpg

Waldemar
10-06-2016, 01:19 PM
Calculator puntDNAL K15:

1) My result:

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Polish 2.06
2 Swedish 4.03
3 Norwegian 6.35
4 North_German 6.79
5 Belarusian 7.58
6 Slovenian 7.94

2) RISE 150:

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Swedish 5.58
2 North_German 5.95
3 Polish 6.07
4 Slovenian 6.29
5 Norwegian 6.58
6 Hungarian 7.41

The same populations as top results in population sharing - only in different order.

There is no way that this and other signals (as David says) are all "coincidences".

RISE150 was a sample of Unetice culture and she lived around 3900 years ago:

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

Calculator puntDNAL K15 Oracle

Single Population Sharing:
# Population (source) Distance
1 Polish 3.45
2 Belarusian 5.33
3 Swedish 6.63
4 Russian 8.01
5 Lithuanian 8.02
6 Mordovian 8.02
7 Norwegian 9.04

Waldemar
10-06-2016, 03:15 PM
puntDNAL K12 Ancient Oracle results:
https://s11.postimg.org/9uw3gpkir/Screen_Hunter_1509_Oct_06_16_13.jpg

https://s9.postimg.org/k69242ge7/Screen_Hunter_1510_Oct_06_16_14.jpg

Tomenable
10-10-2016, 09:44 PM
Ethnic Pole from pre-1939 North-East Kresy (now lives in Poland, family came after WW2):

PuntDNAL K15 Oracle:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 NE_European 67.9
2 Mediterranean 18.55
3 Caucasian 5.9
4 SW_Asian 4.82
5 E_Asian 1.7
6 Siberian 0.39
7 S_African 0.36
8 Oceanian 0.28
9 W_African 0.08
10 Wht_Nile_River 0.01

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Belarusian 3.01
2 Lithuanian 5.68
3 Polish 6.15
4 Mordovian 6.51
5 Russian 6.6
6 Karelian 7.45
7 Finnish 7.75
8 Swedish 9.66
9 Norwegian 12.03
10 North_German 12.93
(...)

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 90.3% Lithuanian + 9.7% Ashkenazy_Jew @ 2.11
2 90.6% Lithuanian + 9.4% Sicilian @ 2.13
3 88.4% Lithuanian + 11.6% Albanian @ 2.14
4 86% Lithuanian + 14% Montenegrin @ 2.16
5 91.1% Lithuanian + 8.9% Sephardic_Jew @ 2.18
6 72.5% Lithuanian + 27.5% Austrian @ 2.19
(...)

Eurogenes K13:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Baltic 49.96
2 North_Atlantic 25.22
3 West_Med 9.26
4 West_Asian 7.57
5 East_Med 2.44
6 Red_Sea 2.29
7 East_Asian 1.49
8 Siberian 1.14
9 Sub-Saharan 0.59
10 Amerindian 0.04

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Russian_Smolensk 4.09
2 Ukrainian_Belgorod 4.5
3 Estonian_Polish 4.92
4 Southwest_Russian 5.06
5 Belorussian 5.84
6 Lithuanian 6.58
7 Polish 6.9
8 Kargopol_Russian 7.47
9 Ukrainian 7.68
10 Erzya 8.21
11 Ukrainian_Lviv 8.46
12 Estonian 9.4
13 South_Polish 9.54
(...)

Eurogenes EUtest V2 K15:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Baltic 33.88
2 North_Sea 21.81
3 Eastern_Euro 19.86
4 Atlantic 11.08
5 West_Asian 5.2
6 West_Med 4.97
7 Red_Sea 1.87
8 Southeast_Asian 0.83
9 Sub-Saharan 0.38
10 Siberian 0.11

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Lithuanian 6.45
2 Ukrainian_Belgorod 7.04
3 Southwest_Russian 7.15
4 Belorussian 7.18
5 Ukrainian 7.64
6 Ukrainian_Lviv 7.81
7 Estonian_Polish 7.84
8 Russian_Smolensk 8.13
9 South_Polish 8.66
10 Polish 8.68
(...)

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 58.3% Lithuanian + 41.7% Ukrainian_Lviv @ 4.62
(...)

We can add him to the list: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?8408-Unetice-culture-was-clearly-multi-ethnic&p=188366&viewfull=1#post188366

Waldemar
10-13-2016, 10:10 AM
myOrigins results...
https://s12.postimg.org/eryf10xjh/Screen_Hunter_1510_Oct_13_11_06.jpg
https://s12.postimg.org/eryf10xjh/Screen_Hunter_1510_Oct_13_11_06.jpg

Tomenable
10-13-2016, 11:11 AM
puntDNAL K12 Ancient Oracle results:
(...)

My results:

https://s16.postimg.org/u0m1pqjn9/Tomenable.png

https://s14.postimg.org/hpi5k3rlt/Tomenable2.png

Also this:

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Corded_Ware_Estonia_RISE00 +50% Bell_Beaker_Germany_I1549 @ 3.245664

Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Sintashta_MBA_RISE_386 +25% Bell_Beaker_Germany_I1549 +25% Vatya_SG_RISE479 @ 2.009034

Waldemar
10-13-2016, 12:50 PM
Calculator puntDNAL K15 Oracle

Single Population Sharing:
# Population (source) Distance
1 Polish 3.45
2 Belarusian 5.33
3 Swedish 6.63
4 Russian 8.01
5 Lithuanian 8.02
6 Mordovian 8.02
7 Norwegian 9.04

My maternal side has some Lithuanian (surname Andrulewicz) ancestry, that's why I'm shifted more towards Belarusian and Lithuanian populations, when compared to Tomenable.

George
10-13-2016, 02:09 PM
Interesting stuff... For what it's worth, at 12K Ancient I get Nordic_LN_SG RISE 97 as n.1 at 3.44 and in mixed mode RISE97 51.5% + BenzigerodeHeimburg_LN 10059 48.5% at 1.75 (n. 1), and RISE97 95.2%+ Karelia_HG 10061 4.8% at 2.11 (n.2), RISE97 93.5%+ Samara HG 6.5% at 2.18 (n.3)==== K15 has no Ukrainian option, and here I have Polish 4.58 (n.1) and Swedish 5.83 (n.2). In mixed mode: 1. Polish 95.7% + Bedouin 4.3% at 2.29 2. Polish 95.3% + Saudi 4.7 % at 2.88 3. Belarusian 87.5%+ Sardinian 12.5% at 3.06 4. Lithuanian 70.2%+ Spaniard 29.8% at 3.15.

Waldemar
10-13-2016, 04:09 PM
No, Balts are "100% North Slavic" in DNA.Land. While Proto-Slavs were probably not like that.

RISE1 - Corded Ware culture man from Obłaczkowo (Greater Poland Voivodeship) - looks like a Proto-Balto-Slav:

https://s16.postimg.io/ppg1nod1h/RISE1.jpg

RISE598 (Late Bronze Age man from Turlojiškė near Lithuanian-Polish border) - looks like modern Balts/East Slavs:

https://s13.postimg.io/c92zebbo7/RISE598_Lithuania_Bronze_Age.png

My results...
https://s18.postimg.org/eafj5to6x/Screen_Hunter_1513_Oct_13_17_06.jpg

bolek
10-13-2016, 05:07 PM
Waldemar, your Eurogenes K13 results:

North_Atlantic 27.70
Baltic 47.06
West_Med 11.54
West_Asian 4.50
East_Med 5.65
Red_Sea 0.71
South_Asian 1.02
East_Asian -
Siberian 0.37
Amerindian 0.31
Oceanian 0.48
Northeast_African 0.41
Sub-Saharan 0.26

On PCA you seem to be eastern shifted towards Eastern Slavs, I am north-eastern shifted and Tomenable is typical South Pole:

http://s18.postimg.org/b98i7i3c9/screenshot_45.png (http://postimage.org/)

http://s18.postimg.org/a1z5t12ll/screenshot_46.png (http://postimage.org/)

http://postimg.org/gallery/qc84b3h6/

Tomenable
10-13-2016, 10:39 PM
Bolek, can you add also Silesian?:

Population
North_Atlantic 30.13
Baltic 43.00
West_Med 11.61
West_Asian 6.50
East_Med 5.05
Red_Sea -
South_Asian 1.85
East_Asian -
Siberian 1.34
Amerindian -
Oceanian 0.50
Northeast_African -
Sub-Saharan -

Tomenable
10-13-2016, 10:42 PM
On PCA you seem to be eastern shifted towards Eastern Slavs

Maybe due to Waldemar's one great-great-grandparent from Wigry?:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigry,_Suwałki_County


My results...
https://s18.postimg.org/eafj5to6x/Screen_Hunter_1513_Oct_13_17_06.jpg

Interesting, you got a rather large percent of "Southwestern European".

Tomenable
10-13-2016, 11:34 PM
Surnames of my great-great-grandparents are mostly Wielkopolska-specific ones:

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

These maps show the distribution of some of my ancestral surnames according to:

http://www.moikrewni.pl/mapa/

https://s11.postimg.org/g35w6m3xd/Ancestral_Surnames.png

Tomenable
10-13-2016, 11:55 PM
Figlerowicz will publish "the reference genomes of typical representatives of the Piast state society":

https://www.ncn.gov.pl/finansowanie-nauki/przyklady-projektow/figlerowicz?language=en


(ii) to construct the Piasts’ reference genome and the reference genomes of typical representatives of the Piast state society;

I hope that it will be possible to compare our DNA with those Early Piast period reference genomes.

Silesian
10-14-2016, 02:31 AM
Surnames of my great-great-grandparents are mostly Wielkopolska-specific ones:


https://s11.postimg.org/g35w6m3xd/Ancestral_Surnames.png

My paternal side is mostly in Silesia very rare maybe 1 out of 200.
http://oi64.tinypic.com/201hqt.jpg

Waldemar
10-14-2016, 09:19 AM
Maybe someday I'll convince my wife (her ancestors are mostly from Kociewie with few exceptions from Kashubia, surname of old Polish origin) to analyse DNA.

https://s13.postimg.org/f52rkkg5z/Screen_Hunter_1514_Oct_14_10_14.jpg

bolek
10-14-2016, 10:12 AM
Bolek, can you add also Silesian?:

Population
North_Atlantic 30.13
Baltic 43.00
West_Med 11.61
West_Asian 6.50
East_Med 5.05
Red_Sea -
South_Asian 1.85
East_Asian -
Siberian 1.34
Amerindian -
Oceanian 0.50
Northeast_African -
Sub-Saharan -


http://s18.postimg.org/eazr0txex/screenshot_47.png (http://postimage.org/)

http://s18.postimg.org/lfhk9v4o9/screenshot_48.png (http://postimage.org/)


http://postimg.org/gallery/wzdz0v8s/

Volat
10-14-2016, 11:57 AM
I'd like to be plotted on the PCA plot above.

North_Atlantic 28.29
Baltic 50.80
West_Med 7.75
West_Asian 5.45
East_Med 3.47
Red_Sea 0.18
South_Asian 1.93
East_Asian -
Siberian 0.36
Amerindian 0.35
Oceanian 0.52
Northeast_African 0.85
Sub-Saharan -

Volat
10-14-2016, 12:03 PM
And results of forum member Michał if he doesn't mind. He has Mazovian ancestry.

North_Atlantic 27.03
Baltic 51.01
West_Med 9.04
West_Asian 5.41
East_Med 5.84
Red_Sea -
South_Asian 0.86
East_Asian -
Siberian -
Amerindian 0.41
Oceanian 0.40
Northeast_African -
Sub-Saharan -

Volat
10-14-2016, 12:05 PM
And results of forum member Michał if he doesn't mind. He has Mazovian ancestry.

North_Atlantic 27.03
Baltic 51.01
West_Med 9.04
West_Asian 5.41
East_Med 5.84
Red_Sea -
South_Asian 0.86
East_Asian -
Siberian -
Amerindian 0.41
Oceanian 0.40
Northeast_African -
Sub-Saharan -

bolek
10-14-2016, 08:06 PM
And results of forum member Michał if he doesn't mind. He has Mazovian ancestry.

North_Atlantic 27.03
Baltic 51.01
West_Med 9.04
West_Asian 5.41
East_Med 5.84
Red_Sea -
South_Asian 0.86
East_Asian -
Siberian -
Amerindian 0.41
Oceanian 0.40
Northeast_African -
Sub-Saharan -

And results of forum member Michał if he doesn't mind. He has Mazovian ancestry.

North_Atlantic 27.03
Baltic 51.01
West_Med 9.04
West_Asian 5.41
East_Med 5.84
Red_Sea -
South_Asian 0.86
East_Asian -
Siberian -
Amerindian 0.41
Oceanian 0.40
Northeast_African -
Sub-Saharan -
http://s18.postimg.org/wmm9nlxm1/screenshot_49.png (http://postimage.org/)
http://s18.postimg.org/7umngdgfd/screenshot_50.png (http://postimage.org/)


http://postimg.org/gallery/nfx8pici/


http://s18.postimg.org/nhdwtqu7d/screenshot_51.png (http://postimage.org/)
http://s18.postimg.org/y5hnsl46h/screenshot_52.png (http://postimage.org/)
http://s18.postimg.org/asjma2o2x/screenshot_53.png (http://postimage.org/)

Volat
10-14-2016, 08:14 PM
Thanks, bolek!

Can you please share the spreadsheet for data above? I'd like to plot data to see results at greater resolution. East European populations are clattered.

bolek
10-14-2016, 08:56 PM
Thanks, bolek!

Can you please share the spreadsheet for data above? I'd like to plot data to see results at greater resolution. East European populations are clattered.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/g64vq6ryirpd364/K13_Euro.xls?dl=0

Volat
10-14-2016, 09:43 PM
In 4096x2304 : https://postimg.org/image/agirnlfoh

Tomenable
10-14-2016, 10:27 PM
Bolek, can you add also this Kashubian person to the PCA?:

Eurogenes K13 Kashubian results (courtesy of Little bit):

1) With "23andMe":

Population
North_Atlantic 33.66
Baltic 43.26
West_Med 10.21
West_Asian 5.39
East_Med 2.85
Red_Sea 0.50
South_Asian 0.60
East_Asian 0.18
Siberian 0.68
Amerindian 0.66
Oceanian 0.62
Northeast_African 0.53
Sub-Saharan 0.84

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Polish 3.7
2 South_Polish 4.42

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 82.7% Polish + 17.3% Swedish @ 1.11
2 77.6% Polish + 22.4% North_Swedish @ 1.25
3 85.2% Polish + 14.8% Norwegian @ 1.26

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% East_German +50% Lithuanian @ 1.873799

2) With "Ancestry":

Population
North_Atlantic 33.23
Baltic 43.38
West_Med 10.43
West_Asian 5.54
East_Med 2.72
Red_Sea 0.46
South_Asian 0.71
East_Asian 0.20
Siberian 0.54
Amerindian 0.75
Oceanian 0.57
Northeast_African 0.65
Sub-Saharan 0.82

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Polish 3.37
2 South_Polish 4.28

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 84.4% Polish + 15.6% Swedish @ 1.13
2 86.7% Polish + 13.3% Norwegian @ 1.25
3 88.6% Polish + 11.4% Irish @ 1.36

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% East_German +50% Lithuanian @ 1.853194

Tomenable
10-14-2016, 10:37 PM
It's the same person but you can call these results Kashubian1 and Kashubian2.

There are small differences depending on which company did someone test with.

Tomenable
10-14-2016, 10:53 PM
Let's better add her as one person based on average results:


Eurogenes K13 Kashubian results (courtesy of Little bit):

1) With "23andMe":

Population
North_Atlantic 33.66
Baltic 43.26
West_Med 10.21
West_Asian 5.39
East_Med 2.85
Red_Sea 0.50
South_Asian 0.60
East_Asian 0.18
Siberian 0.68
Amerindian 0.66
Oceanian 0.62
Northeast_African 0.53
Sub-Saharan 0.84

2) With "Ancestry":

Population
North_Atlantic 33.23
Baltic 43.38
West_Med 10.43
West_Asian 5.54
East_Med 2.72
Red_Sea 0.46
South_Asian 0.71
East_Asian 0.20
Siberian 0.54
Amerindian 0.75
Oceanian 0.57
Northeast_African 0.65
Sub-Saharan 0.82

Average of 23andMe and Ancestry:

North_Atlantic 33.445
Baltic 43.32
West_Med 10.32
West_Asian 5.465
East_Med 2.785
Red_Sea 0.48
South_Asian 0.655
East_Asian 0.19
Siberian 0.61
Amerindian 0.705
Oceanian 0.595
Northeast_African 0.59
Sub-Saharan 0.83

Tomenable
10-14-2016, 11:16 PM
BTW - there is one mistake in the data, I have 0.36 Northeast_African - not 0.

Not that it is going to change my position on the PCA, but... :P

Volat
10-15-2016, 09:10 AM
Three other Mazovians of SW Mazovia are added labeled as Mazov_1, Mazov_2, Mazov_3. Michal provided data above. They are quite spread apart for people from the same ethnographic region : In large resolution : https://postimg.org/image/njhkhalaj/

Silesian
10-15-2016, 01:28 PM
http://s18.postimg.org/7umngdgfd/screenshot_50.png (http://postimage.org/)


[/img][/url]
For fun, some bronze age k13 to compare.

Unetice samples
M370010 Unetice I0047
M425717 I0116 Unetice
M588222 I0164 Unetice
Kit M370010
1 North_Atlantic 52.53
2 Baltic 30.14
3 West_Med 10.51
4 West_Asian 6.82

Kit M425717
1 North_Atlantic 45.48
2 Baltic 34.74
3 West_Med 11.21
4 West_Asian 8.57

Kit M588222
1 North_Atlantic 50.56
2 Baltic 33.52
3 West_Asian 11.59
4 West_Med 4.33


R1a-samples
Sintashta
Kit M690970
1 North_Atlantic 47.98
2 Baltic 33.64
3 West_Asian 14.27
4 Sub-Saharan 2.67
5 West_Med 1.44

M913021 RISE00_Corded_Estonia
Kit M913021
1 North_Atlantic 54.58
2 Baltic 36.96
3 West_Asian 4.41
4 West_Med 4.04

Corded Ware
Kit M966366
# Population Percent
1 North_Atlantic 42.96
2 Baltic 25.51
3 West_Med 15.4
4 East_Med 7.67
5 West_Asian 2.63
6 Red_Sea 2.03
7 Oceanian 1.45
8 South_Asian 1.43
9 Siberian 0.93



R1b samples

Villabruna (WHG) геномы отсюдаKit M236020
1 North_Atlantic 49.35
2 Baltic 47.53
3 West_Med 2.38
4 Sub-Saharan 0.56
5 Oceanian 0.18

Samara EHG-M218547 I0124
1 Baltic 66.91
2 North_Atlantic 24.57
3 Amerindian 8.52

I0122 Khvalynsk
Kit M340431
1 Baltic 54.93
2 North_Atlantic 33.32
3 Amerindian 7.06
4 West_Asian 4.69

Yamnaya
Kit F999968
1 Baltic 45.46
2 North_Atlantic 28.56
3 West_Asian 24.46
4 Amerindian 1.52


Rathlin1
Kit M232268
1 North_Atlantic 49.94
2 Baltic 27.52
3 West_Asian 7.16
4 West_Med 6.48
5 South_Asian 3.4
6 Amerindian 2.2
7 Sub-Saharan 1.91
8 Red_Sea 1.06
9 Siberian 0.34

Artmar
10-15-2016, 04:18 PM
My result. I was born in Lublin (as well as my parents) but grandparents are from various places. I can't be used as a reference to any Polish region.

North_Atlantic 34.90
Baltic 40.18
West_Med 10.20
West_Asian 6.25
East_Med 4.36
Red_Sea -
South_Asian 1.64
East_Asian -
Siberian 2.01
Amerindian -
Oceanian 0.31
Northeast_African 0.16
Sub-Saharan -

Can I be included in a table and plot? Thanks in advance.

bolek
10-15-2016, 05:09 PM
Let's better add her as one person based on average results:



Average of 23andMe and Ancestry:

North_Atlantic 33.445
Baltic 43.32
West_Med 10.32
West_Asian 5.465
East_Med 2.785
Red_Sea 0.48
South_Asian 0.655
East_Asian 0.19
Siberian 0.61
Amerindian 0.705
Oceanian 0.595
Northeast_African 0.59
Sub-Saharan 0.83

My result. I was born in Lublin (as well as my parents) but grandparents are from various places. I can't be used as a reference to any Polish region.

North_Atlantic 34.90
Baltic 40.18
West_Med 10.20
West_Asian 6.25
East_Med 4.36
Red_Sea -
South_Asian 1.64
East_Asian -
Siberian 2.01
Amerindian -
Oceanian 0.31
Northeast_African 0.16
Sub-Saharan -

Can I be included in a table and plot? Thanks in advance.

http://s18.postimg.org/y86lcje5l/screenshot_54.png (http://postimage.org/)
http://s18.postimg.org/v2lzmbvjd/screenshot_55.png (http://postimage.org/)

http://postimg.org/gallery/36pcibb2y/

Tomenable
10-15-2016, 07:00 PM
"Top three" scores in various admixtures (I wonder where did my high % of East Med come from?):

North Atlantic:

1st Artmar, 2nd Kashubian, 3rd Tomenable

Baltic:

1st Michał, 2nd Volat, 3rd Bolek

West Med:

1st Silesian, 2nd Waldemar, 3rd Kashubian

West Asian:

1st Bolek, 2nd Tomenable, 3rd Silesian

East Med:

1st Tomenable, 2nd Michał, 3rd Waldemar

Red Sea:

1st Bolek, 2nd Waldemar, 3rd Kashubian

South Asian:

1st Volat, 2nd Silesian, 3rd Artmar

Siberian:

1st Artmar, 2nd Silesian, 3rd Bolek

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

BTW, what are your scores of Hindu Kush / Gedrosia / Kalash / Baloch etc. admixtures?

Here are mine:

Eurogenes Steppe K10 -------------- 3.32% Hindu Kush
Eurasia K14 Neolithic ----------------- 3.66% Kalash
Gedrosia K12 -------------------------- 3,7% Baloch
Eurasia K11 CHG-NAF ---------------- 3.72% Kalash
Near East Neolithic K13 -------------- 4.68% Iran Neolithic
Dodecad K12b ------------------------ 5.67% Gedrosia
Gedrosia K11 --------------- 4.55% Kalash + 2.64% Gedrosian
HarappaWorld ------------------------- 9.22% Baloch
Gedrosia K15 ------- 2.88% Kalash + 3.85% Balochi + 6.11% Burusho

In Eurogenes Steppe K10 I score more Hindu Kush than 11 Poles from this spreadsheet:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Hb0GVyrf2ztR_QvoIYcmhWtsYv0p39avjqM-G3-6Xew/edit#gid=1809893991

Average of 11 Poles (samples 10H, 11H, 12H, 13H, 14H, 15H, 16H, 6H, 7H, 8H, 9H) is 0.5%.

My score is 3.32%. Among 11 Poles from the spreadsheet, the highest scoring one has 2.16%.

Tomenable
10-15-2016, 07:20 PM
Here a Pole with ancestry partly from Cracow and partly from Eastern Poland*, he scores:

Steppe K10: Hindu Kush - 3.5%
HarappaWorld: Baloch - 7.47%

*Not sure from which region exactly.

bolek
10-16-2016, 08:07 AM
I have just done mclust run on new Eurogenes PCA data:

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2016/10/a-fresh-look-at-global-genetic-diversity.html

Algorithm generated 15 clusters.
Unietice is in clusters 5 and 9:
Cluster 5:

Alberstedt_LN:I0118 5
Belarusian 5
Bell_Beaker_Czech:RISE566 5
Bell_Beaker_Czech:RISE569 5
Bell_Beaker_Germany:I0060 5
Bell_Beaker_Germany:I0111 5
Bell_Beaker_Germany:I0112 5
Bell_Beaker_Germany:I0113 5
Bell_Beaker_Germany:I1546 5
Bell_Beaker_Germany:I1549 5
Corded_Ware_Germany:I1540 5
Czech 5
England_Roman:3DRIF-16 5
England_Roman:6DRIF-21 5
England_Roman:6DRIF-22 5
England_Roman:6DRIF-23 5
England_Roman:6DRIF-3 5
Estonian 5
Finnish 5
Halberstadt_LBA:I0099 5
Icelandic 5
Ingrian 5
Irish 5
Latvian 5
Lithuanian 5
Mordovian 5
Nordic_IA:RISE174 5
Nordic_LBA:RISE276 5
Nordic_LN:RISE71 5
Nordic_LN:RISE97 5
Nordic_LN:RISE98 5
Norwegian 5
Orcadian 5
Polish 5
Russian_Kargopol 5
Russian_Kostroma 5
Russian_Orel 5
Russian_Smolensk 5
Swedish 5
Ukrainian_East 5
Ukrainian_West 5
Unetice_EBA:I0047 5
Unetice_EBA:I0115 5
Unetice_EBA:I0116 5
Unetice_EBA:I0117 5
Unetice_EBA:I0803 5
Unetice_EBA:I0804 5
Unetice_EBA:RISE577 5
Unetice_EBA:RISE586 5
Vepsa 5



Cluster 9:

Andronovo:RISE500 9
Andronovo:RISE503 9
Andronovo:RISE505 9
BattleAxe_Sweden:RISE94 9
Bell_Beaker_Germany:I0806 9
Corded_Ware_Estonia:RISE00 9
Corded_Ware_Germany:I0049 9
Corded_Ware_Germany:I0103 9
Corded_Ware_Germany:I0104 9
Corded_Ware_Germany:I0106 9
Corded_Ware_Germany:I1532 9
Corded_Ware_Germany:I1534 9
Corded_Ware_Germany:I1536 9
Corded_Ware_Germany:I1538 9
Corded_Ware_Germany:I1539 9
Corded_Ware_Germany:I1542 9
Corded_Ware_Germany:I1544 9
Corded_Ware_Germany:RISE446 9
Nordic_MN_B:RISE61 9
Poltavka_outlier:I0432 9
Potapovka:I0419 9
Sintashta:RISE386 9
Sintashta:RISE392 9
Sintashta:RISE394 9
Sintashta:RISE395 9
Srubnaya:I0232 9
Srubnaya:I0234 9
Srubnaya:I0235 9
Srubnaya:I0358 9
Srubnaya:I0359 9
Srubnaya:I0361 9
Srubnaya:I0422 9
Srubnaya:I0424 9
Srubnaya:I0430 9
Srubnaya:I0431 9
Unetice_EBA:I0164 9
Unetice_EBA:RISE109 9
Unetice_EBA:RISE150 9
Unetice_EBA:RISE154 9

Artmar
10-16-2016, 09:32 AM
Results of "Maustan", his ancestors were living near a Vistula in familes of Olęder traditions. He holds a great DNA project concerning it: https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/otwock/about

North_Atlantic 27.76
Baltic 46.80
West_Med 9.74
West_Asian 7.16
East_Med 6.49
Red_Sea -
South_Asian 0.65
East_Asian -
Siberian -
Amerindian 0.56
Oceanian -
Northeast_African 0.79
Sub-Saharan -

bolek
10-16-2016, 10:36 AM
Results of "Maustan", his ancestors were living near a Vistula in familes of Olęder traditions. He holds a great DNA project concerning it: https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/otwock/about

North_Atlantic 27.76
Baltic 46.80
West_Med 9.74
West_Asian 7.16
East_Med 6.49
Red_Sea -
South_Asian 0.65
East_Asian -
Siberian -
Amerindian 0.56
Oceanian -
Northeast_African 0.79
Sub-Saharan -
http://s18.postimg.org/mgj88ncyx/screenshot_56.png (http://postimage.org/)
http://s18.postimg.org/a36e1qnah/screenshot_57.png (http://postimage.org/)


http://postimg.org/gallery/1fsr6cglg/

Volat
10-16-2016, 11:28 AM
...........

Data for 3 Mazovians


Mazov_1
28.33
52.8
8.7
3.55
4.54
0
0.76
0
0.69
0.08
0
0
0.48
Mazov_2
32.93
47.1
8.14
3.6
4.79
0.91
0.86
0
0
0.05
1.05
0.45
0.11
Mazov_3
30.11
48.85
9.17
1.8
5.86
0
2.73
0
0.1
0.9
0
0.46
0

bolek
10-16-2016, 12:43 PM
Data for 3 Mazovians


Mazov_1
28.33
52.8
8.7
3.55
4.54
0
0.76
0
0.69
0.08
0
0
0.48
Mazov_2
32.93
47.1
8.14
3.6
4.79
0.91
0.86
0
0
0.05
1.05
0.45
0.11
Mazov_3
30.11
48.85
9.17
1.8
5.86
0
2.73
0
0.1
0.9
0
0.46
0

http://s18.postimg.org/t3f2tb9ex/screenshot_58.png (http://postimage.org/)
http://s18.postimg.org/ey99ri0dl/screenshot_59.png (http://postimage.org/)

http://postimg.org/gallery/1likkzzf2/

Tomenable
10-16-2016, 09:27 PM
Another PCA based on those K13 results:

https://s9.postimg.org/p838fi82n/Eurogenes_K13_PCA.png

https://s9.postimg.org/p838fi82n/Eurogenes_K13_PCA.png

BTW: what exactly is "South_Polish" ???

Poles from which regions were included?

Tomenable
10-16-2016, 09:36 PM
Note how we all plot in this circular / oval area around "Polish" average:

(this is also visible on Bolek's PCA, that our samples plot around "Polish")

The only true outlier here is, surprisingly, Mazov_1 rather than Volat: :P

https://s10.postimg.org/pnyks10i1/circular_area.png

https://s10.postimg.org/pnyks10i1/circular_area.png

Tomenable
10-16-2016, 09:41 PM
Mazov_1 looks kind of Baltic-admixed (Lithuanians? Prussians? Yotvingians?).

Is this a Kurpie sample (Northern Mazovia, close to East Prussian border)?

Volat
10-16-2016, 10:01 PM
Mazov_1 looks kind of Baltic-admixed (Lithuanians? Prussians? Yotvingians?).

Is this a Kurpie sample (Northern Mazovia, close to East Prussian border)?

Michal stated all three are from SW Mazovia.

Michał
10-17-2016, 08:42 AM
Mazov_1 looks kind of Baltic-admixed (Lithuanians? Prussians? Yotvingians?).

Is this a Kurpie sample (Northern Mazovia, close to East Prussian border)?
Mazov_1 is my mother. I know all her ancestors when going back to the 18th century (with some lineages reaching 17th century). Nearly all of them were living in SW Mazovia (mostly around Skierniewice and Łowicz, within the so-called Księstwo Łowickie), and the only exception is a lineage of fresh newcomers from further west (parish Kwiatkowice in Łask county) who came to parish Skierniewice in early 1800s. Also, most of the surnames are clearly local, with no sign of Baltic or East Slavic ancestry. In fact, one lineage is apparently of Western origin (surname Fox/Foks), though by the 18th century they have already been strongly Polonized (ie. they were Polish-speaking Roman Catholics). Also, there is one ancestral lineage (surname Skręta) that is supposed to have come from Bohemia (through Silesia) in the 17th century (during the Thirty Years' War?), but this has not been confirmed yet (as I am unable to convince any Czechs with surname Škréta to do Y-DNA testing).

bolek
10-17-2016, 09:34 AM
I have heard some rumors about incoming aDNA from Poland which claim that Wielbark population was not exactly typically Polish. It looked more eastern or north-eastern. Maybe Mazovians are remnants of Wielbark?
Przeworsk culture will probably be a continuation of Unetice/Lusatian an will be more like modern central and western Poles.
I suspect that Trzciniec culture population may also be more eastern.

Michał
10-17-2016, 10:00 AM
It seems to me that the individual results are not as reliable as the average for a given region. Please take a look at my results and compare it with Mazov_1 (my mother) and Mazov_2 (my paternal side, as represented by my paternal uncle who obviously shared all ancestors with my father). My position on the above PCA plots is not even close to the position expected based on my ancestral samples.

Volat
10-17-2016, 11:27 AM
Once archaeologist Valentin Sedov stated there were two large migrations of Slavs in reference to northern Slavs and more southern Slavs (not to be confused with Slavs of the Balkans). Northern Slavs - ancestors of Poles, Belarusians, north-western Russians - migrated from west to east. From Poland across Belarus to western Russia. More southern Slavs - ancestors of Ukrainians, southern Poles, Slovaks, Czechs - migrated from east to west. From Ukraine to southern Poland, Slovakia, Czhech Rep and the Balkans.

The genetic results of Poles from different regions of Poland correspond to the hypothesis of Sedov. Mazovians, Poles of Podlaske are genetically similar to Belarusians and western Russians (see genetic results of Smolensk people), while southern Poles are similar to Ukrainians and western Ukrainians. Croats and Slovenes are not far Ukrainians of Lviv region.

Generalissimo
10-17-2016, 11:36 AM
Well, if anyone's interested, expect a lot of continuity in eastern Poland since the Bronze Age. But all bets are off for western and Central Poland; expect some pretty big shifts there. First big papers on the topic early next year.

Volat
10-17-2016, 12:20 PM
It seems to me that the individual results are not as reliable as the average for a given region. Please take a look at my results and compare it with Mazov_1 (my mother) and Mazov_2 (my paternal side, as represented by my paternal uncle who obviously shared all ancestors with my father). My position on the above PCA plots is not even close to the position expected based on my ancestral samples.

If people didn't know Mazov_1 was your Mum, they would have assumed she's genetically more similar to me than you as per the PCA plot. Of course, this is wrong because around half of the genes you inherited from your Mum.

This is a good example how PCA plots based on admixture proportions can be misleading when looking at individual results.

Michał
10-17-2016, 12:45 PM
Well, if anyone's interested, expect a lot of continuity in eastern Poland since the Bronze Age. But all bets are off for western and Central Poland; expect some pretty big shifts there. First big papers on the topic early next year.
Well, so this clearly supports an east to west movement of the Early Slavs in Poland.
BTW, I somehow doubt that this "continuity in eastern Poland since the Bronze Age" included the Wielbark culture (once it expanded over Eastern Poland), so I would rather expect that although the Trzciniec-derived Bronze Age people from Eastern Poland were most likely related to the Early Slavs, there was a period of discontinuity in this region. For example, here is what Barford et al. (http://www.iaepan.edu.pl/archaeologia-polona/article/413) write about Podlasie:

The present evidence seems to suggest that the autochthonous population did not survive in Podlasie longer than the mid 5th century, and the existence here after this of a deserted wilderness. If we assume this to be true, one can treat the material from Haćki as a result of the meeting in Podlasie at the beginning of the Early Medieval Period of two populations groups, Slavs from the east or south, and Balts from the north.

Volat
10-17-2016, 01:37 PM
I've read comments about the deserted wilderness in eastern Poland and much of Belarus in books and articles. Those were only brief comments. I am yet to find a good study on why scholars assumed there was a deserted wilderness in the region. Was it because archaeologists couldn't find many archaeological artifacts in the region dated to a certain period?

Michał

There is linguistic evidence to suggest the Novgorodian dialect was distinct to other dialects spoken by eastern Slavs. The leading authority on the Novgorodian dialect Andrei Zalizniak suggested the Novgorodian dialect shows many features found in western Slavic languages . Other linguists suggested the Novgorodian dialect could be classified as separate , fourth Slavic branch. There was a thesis published in a regional University of Russia on similarities between Novgorodians and western Slavs. The author gathered all similarities she could find between western Slavs and Novgorodians .

There appear a genetic, linguistic and cultural ties between Slavs of north-western Russia and northern Poland.

Michał
10-17-2016, 02:04 PM
Was it because archaeologists couldn't find many archaeological artifacts in the region dated to a certain period?
It seems to be more than that, as one should also take into account an apparent abandonment of previously used settlements and cemeteries. Furthermore, this can be additionally verified using palynology, although I am not sure this has been done for Podlasie.


There appear a genetic, linguistic and cultural ties between Slavs of north-western Russia and northern Poland.
I consider those linguistic and cultural ties to be much less evident than commonly assumed, although I agree that there are some genetic data indicating this kind of distant relationship. IMO, this is best explained by a common origin in the Northern periphery of the Proto-Slavic homeland, ie. somewhere in Belarus.

Volat
10-17-2016, 03:01 PM
It seems to be more than that, as one should also take into account an apparent abandonment of previously used settlements and cemeteries. Furthermore, this can be additionally verified using palynology, although I am not sure this has been done for Podlasie.

If the region of Podlasie and western Belarus was abandoned, then which people of Europe settled the region ? Ukraine, other regions of Poland and Belarus? Western Russia? Agricultural practices were introduced to north-eastern Europe late in comparison to other regions of Europe. In early Iron Age, agriculture was a supplementary activity to people of north-eastern Europe. I am not sure how palynology can verify settlements in Podlasie and western Belarus.



I consider those linguistic and cultural ties to be much less evident than commonly assumed, although I agree that there are some genetic data indicating this kind of distant relationship. IMO, this is best explained by a common origin in the Northern periphery of the Proto-Slavic homeland, ie. somewhere in Belarus.

Thanks!

I am biased in discussing ethnogenesis of Slavs of north-eastern Europe . I am speaking about north-eastern Poles, north-western Russians, Belarusians. Eastern Lithuanians and north-eastern Ukrainians (Chernihiv region) to some extent. We are essentially the same people in the context of Europeans separated by thousands years of history and politics. Don't you think?

I don't care if our original home-land is in Belarus, north-eastern Poland (including Mazovia), north-western Russia or eastern Lithuania.

Michał
10-17-2016, 04:51 PM
If the region of Podlasie and western Belarus was abandoned, then which people of Europe settled the region ?
I don't know about the Western Belarus (as I am not sure it was abandoned at that time) but, as suggested above by Barford et al., Podlasie was likely settled by "two populations groups, Slavs from the east or south, and Balts from the north".


Ukraine, other regions of Poland and Belarus? Western Russia? Agricultural practices were introduced to north-eastern Europe late in comparison to other regions of Europe. In early Iron Age, agriculture was a supplementary activity to people of north-eastern Europe.
This is not exactly true. Since the Early Bronze age, all regions in question were settled by people who were predominantly farmers or pastoralists (with both farming and pastoralism being a kind of agriculture). It was the other activity (like hunting or gathering) that has become supplementary since then.


I am not sure how palynology can verify settlements in Podlasie and western Belarus.
Palynology should definitely be able to support such a hypothesized depopulation in a region that was previously settled by farmers. One could of course argue that such a substantial decrease in crop production does not need to be associated with depopulation, as people could have simply switched back to hunting an gathering while hiding deep in the forest (and living on the trees instead of building any settlements), but even if this was indeed the case (which seems relatively unlikely), this would have to be associated with a very significant decrease in population size (just like switching from hunting and gathering to farming always correlates with population growth).



I am biased in discussing ethnogenesis of Slavs of north-eastern Europe . I am speaking about north-eastern Poles, north-western Russians, Belarusians. Eastern Lithuanians and north-eastern Ukrainians (Chernihiv region) to some extent. We are essentially the same people in the context of Europeans separated by thousands years of history and politics. Don't you think?
We are definitely very similar to each other, but there are also some differences that allow us to discriminate between a group of randomly selected Poles, Belarusians, Russians, Ukrainians or Lithuanians.


I don't care if our original home-land is in Belarus, north-eastern Poland (including Mazovia), north-western Russia or eastern Lithuania.
Well, let's say that I don't care which of these regions turns up to be the most likely homeland of the Early Slavs, but this doesn't mean that I don't want to know it.

bolek
10-17-2016, 05:17 PM
Well, if anyone's interested, expect a lot of continuity in eastern Poland since the Bronze Age. But all bets are off for western and Central Poland; expect some pretty big shifts there. First big papers on the topic early next year.

“Continuity in eastern Poland since the Bronze Age” suggests that such cultures as Lusatian and Przeworsk were Slavic. In the paper linked by Michał there are maps of eastern Poland:

Lusatian culture:

http://s18.postimg.org/9cj6cg86h/screenshot_65.png (http://postimage.org/)

Pomeranian culture:

http://s18.postimg.org/4rwzxioh5/screenshot_66.png (http://postimage.org/)

Przeworsk culture:

http://s18.postimg.org/ob1l6vn8p/screenshot_67.png (http://postimage.org/)

http://www.iaepan.edu.pl/archaeologia-polona/article/413

Pushing the beginning of proto-Slavic language to after 3000 BC as per Oleg Trubachyov, we can argue that Trzciniec and Corded Ware cultures were already proto-Slavic which would explain many similarities between Slavic and Vedic Sanskrit.

Interesting what was happening in western Poland. Maybe Slavs lost the battle at Tollense River and western hordes entered our land.

Volat
10-17-2016, 05:17 PM
I don't know about the Western Belarus (as I am not sure it was abandoned at that time) but, as suggested above by Barford et al., Podlasie was likely settled by "two populations groups, Slavs from the east or south, and Balts from the north".

I've read Bradford’s book. He presented a good summary consulting a Polish historian (whose name I can't remember) to address English speaking audience. His book is general on Slavic history. I don't think scholars in eastern Slavia, Poland or other Slavic countries will reference his book. His book is not a fundamental study on Slavic history in all due respect to Bradford.




This is not exactly true. Since the Early Bronze age, all regions in question were settled by people who were predominantly farmers or pastoralists (with both farming and pastoralism being a kind of agriculture). It was the other activity (like hunting or gathering) that has become supplementary since then.

I read about the Zhizhitskaya archaeological culture bordering present day eastern Belarus and western Russia. The culture had agricultural practices similar to those of central Europe. Most of the culture was hunter-gatherers' found in north-eastern Europe. I can cite the reference on archaeological cultures of the region dated do 4,500 years. Also, this is the earliest culture featuring R1a and N1c in eastern Europe.





Palynology should definitely be able to support such a hypothesized depopulation in a region that was previously settled by farmers. One could of course argue that such a substantial decrease in crop production does not need to be associated with depopulation, as people could have simply switched back to hunting an gathering while hiding deep in the forest (and living on the trees instead of building any settlements), but even if this was indeed the case (which seems relatively unlikely), this would have to be associated with a very significant decrease in population size (just like switching from hunting and gathering to farming always correlates with population growth).



The terrain in eastern Poland, much of Belarus , eastern Lithuania was such that it was not suitable for growing crops. Around 300-400 years ago 40% of Belarusian (probably eastern Poland and Lithuania) territory was covered with dense forests, swamps and lakes. How can a person grow anything on such terrain in early times?

We are definitely very similar to each other, but there are also some differences that allow us to discriminate between a group of randomly selected Poles, Belarusians, Russians, Ukrainians or Lithuanians. I agree with you any kind of evidence can be used to prove our history an ethnogenesis including the palynology.



Well, let's say that I don't care which of these regions turns up to be the most likely homeland of the Early Slavs, but this doesn't mean that I don't want to know it.

I am with you on this. In saying that I don't care about the original homeland of our ancestors, I'd like to know where our ancestors lived. I'd like to think they were living on territories of present day Belarus. I don't admit it on discussion forums often.

Volat
10-17-2016, 05:25 PM
bolek

Do you think ancestors of eastern Poles and eastern Slavs (on the western side) Belarusians and Ukrainians have ancestors who were proto-Slavs?

Michał
10-17-2016, 05:50 PM
“Continuity in eastern Poland since the Bronze Age” suggests that such cultures as Lusatian and Przeworsk were Slavic.
I don't think so. These were both cultures originating west of the Vistula river and then expanding eastward. And it was the Central and Western Poland where Generalissimo suggests "some pretty big shifts" (thus lack of continuity), so these two cultures could not have been Proto-Slavic (nor Pre-Proto-Slavic).

IMO, the eastern periphery of the Lusatian culture could have included some Trzciniec-derived Balto-Slavic-speaking populations, but this doesn't mean the "core" of the Lusatian culture was associated with the Slavic ethnogenesis.

As for the Przeworsk culture, I am pretty sure it was essentially Eastern Germanic, but let's wait for the aDNA results.



Pushing the beginning of proto-Slavic language to after 3000 BC as per Oleg Trubachyov, we can argue that Trzciniec and Corded Ware cultures were already proto-Slavic which would explain many similarities between Slavic and Vedic Sanskrit.
I'm afraid this doesn't make any sense from the linguistic point of view.

bolek
10-17-2016, 05:54 PM
bolek

Do you think ancestors of eastern Poles and eastern Slavs (on the western side) Belarusians and Ukrainians have ancestors who were proto-Slavs?

Yes I do, but I think also that proto-Slavic area could be even wider in the Bronze Age than Vistula-Dnieper region.
I hope genetics will determine where the populations similar to us settled in the past.

Volat
10-17-2016, 06:03 PM
edited

bolek
10-17-2016, 06:16 PM
I don't think so. These were both cultures originating west of the Vistula river and then expanding eastward. And it was the Central and Western Poland where Generalissimo suggests "some pretty big shifts" (thus lack of continuity), so these two cultures could not have been Proto-Slavic (nor Pre-Proto-Slavic).
.
If there was genetic continuity in Eastern Poland and by this I understand that on territory of Lusatian, Pomeranian and Przeworsk cultures as per above maps people genetically resembled Poles rather than Dutch than I don’t understand how you can argue they were not Slavic.




Pushing the beginning of proto-Slavic language to after 3000 BC as per Oleg Trubachyov, we can argue that Trzciniec and Corded Ware cultures were already proto-Slavic which would explain many similarities between Slavic and Vedic Sanskrit.
I'm afraid this doesn't make any sense from the linguistic point of view.

Could you explain.

Michał
10-17-2016, 06:43 PM
I've read Bradford’s book. He presented a good summary consulting a Polish historian (whose name I can't remember) to address English speaking audience. His book is general on Slavic history.
I was actually quoting his paper about the prehistory of Podlasie, not the book about the ethnogenesis of the Slavs.


I don't think scholars in eastern Slavia, Poland or other Slavic countries will reference his book.
Maybe you are right about the scholars in "eastern Slavia", especially those who are still quoting Sedov like he was an Oracle, while not noticing that majority view has changed very significantly since then (thanks to the achievements of the much younger researchers, including those from Ukraine, Russia and Belarus). As for Poland, Barford seems to be very respected here, maybe because he was living and working here for quite a long time.



His book is not a fundamental study on Slavic history in all due respect to Bradford.
I would rather say that his book is a very good summary of the current state of knowledge, while at the same time being a well-balanced attempt to present the most likely (or rather the most commonly accepted) scenarios regarding the ethnogenesis of the Early Slavs. It certainly lacks many details that some people (like myself) consider very important. Also, his work cannot be considered neither a breakthrough nor a challenge to the mainstream opinion (like it definitely was the case with the hotly discussed work of Florin Curta), but there are simply no other books on the market that would present the current state of knowledge in a more balanced way.



The terrain in eastern Poland, much of Belarus , eastern Lithuania was such that it was not suitable for growing crops. Around 300-400 years ago 40% of Belarusian (probably eastern Poland and Lithuania) territory was covered with dense forests, swamps and lakes. How can a person grow anything on such terrain in early times?
You seem to forget that the population density was much lower in those old times, so these were mostly very small enclaves where people cleared the forest and cultivated land. Yet in all such places the bones of domesticated animals are much more frequent than bones of wild animals and there are multiple evidences of quite intensive farming, which means that animal husbandry and farming were the major source of food.

Volat
10-17-2016, 07:28 PM
I was actually quoting his paper about the prehistory of Podlasie, not the book about the ethnogenesis of the Slavs.

Does Bradford have a book on prehistory of Podlasie? Please reference it.


Maybe you are right about the scholars in "eastern Slavia", especially those who are still quoting Sedov like he was an Oracle, while not noticing that majority view has changed very significantly since then (thanks to the achievements of the much younger researchers, including those from Ukraine, Russia and Belarus). As for Poland, Barford seems to be very respected here, maybe because he was living and working here for quite a long time.


Sedov and Shchukin are oracles in all Slavic countries as far as I know. If not them, then who? Ukrainian archaeologist Baran was researching in western Ukraine and eastern Poland. We don’t have modern respected young scholars in eastern Slavia. Badford summarised the knowledge in English gathered by Polish, Russian, Ukrainian, Czech, Belarusian scholars.



I would rather say that his book is a very good summary of the current state of knowledge, while at the same time being a well-balanced attempt to present the most likely (or rather the most commonly accepted) scenarios regarding the ethnogenesis of the Early Slavs. It certainly lacks many details that some people (like myself) consider very important. Also, his work cannot be considered neither a breakthrough nor a challenge to the mainstream opinion (like it definitely was the case with the hotly discussed work of Florin Curta), but there are simply no other books on the market that would present the current state of knowledge in a more balanced way.




Badford’s book is general. Florin Curta is not popular in eastern Slavia and Czech Republic. He a rediculous scholar despite writing a book and being a professor in an American university. He’s a Romanian spent his time in USA not having access to our archives, historiographies and soil. If you want to spot a clueless person about Slavic history , then he or she will be referencing Curta.





You seem to forget that the population density was much lower in those old times, so these were mostly very small enclaves where people cleared the forest and cultivated land. Yet in all such places the bones of domesticated animals are much more frequent than bones of wild animals and there are multiple evidences of quite intensive farming, which means that animal husbandry and farming were the major source of food.

Makes sense. I've read all papers published on the Zhizhitskaya culture bordering eastern Belarus and western Russia. People of the culture had agricultural practices found in central Europe. People of the Zhizhitskaya were also hunter-gatherers. Compare the culture of the Zhizhitskaya to the culture found in southern Europe or Anatolia at the sam time. The former was more hunter-gatherer's, while the later – agricultural.

George
10-17-2016, 07:42 PM
P.S. to #213== And another thing which needs to be kept in mind and somehow incorporated to our archaeological and genetic knowledge, is that Tacitus considers his "Venedi" (our early Slavs) to have been in large measure "forest nomads", comparable to the steppe nomads of his time. Which means that archaeological evidence would be a trifle skimpy, all things taken into account. Perhaps explaining the "voids" in maps for the centuries prior to the documented expansion (and also a tad later). There seem to be quite a lot of scattered ceramics in the areas affected (this was noted by Schukin citing another archaeologist whose name escapes me for the moment), not associated with clear settlements, and perhaps faint remnants of this early "nomadism".

Michał
10-17-2016, 07:57 PM
If there was genetic continuity in Eastern Poland and by this I understand that on territory of Lusatian, Pomeranian and Przeworsk cultures as per above maps people genetically resembled Poles rather than Dutch than I don’t understand how you can argue they were not Slavic.
You could equally well ask: If those people genetically resembled Dutch rather than Sardinians, how you can argue they were not Germanic? And if an avergae Chinese resembles rather a Pole than a Pygmy, how you can argue he is not a Slav?

BTW, I am not so sure about people from the Bronze Age Lusatia being more similar to modern Poles than to any other modern nation, but even if it was the case this would not make them Slavs, just like finding any modern nation (like Poles) most similar to the ancient Neanderthals won't make this nation a group of Neanderthals.

Most importantly, you should read again what I wrote about the genesis of the Lusatian and Przeworsk cultures and the genetic discontinuity in Central and Western Poland (as suggested by Generalissimo).



Could you explain.
There is not much to explain. The vast majority of linguists would very strongly oppose dating Proto-Slavic to 3000 BC, ie. to 5000 years ago (or to Corded Ware), and you are certainly aware of this. Also, the consensus view is that Slavic is more closely related to Baltic than to Indo-Iranian (which is strongly supported by genetics), so if Corded Ware was Proto-Slavic where would you place Balto-Slavic or PIE? Finally, identifying Corded Ware with people speaking both Proto-Slavic and a language ancestral to Indo-Iranian makes simply no sense, as this would make Indo-Iranian one of the Slavic languages, just like Polish, Russian or Croatian. You can equally well try to convince us that Proto-Slavic is actually equal to PIE, or maybe even to the Proto-Human language.

Michał
10-17-2016, 08:15 PM
Tacitus considers his "Venedi" (our early Slavs) to have been in large measure "forest nomads", comparable to the steppe nomads of his time. Which means that archaeological evidence would be a trifle skimpy, all things taken into account. Perhaps explaining the "voids" in maps for the centuries prior to the documented expansion (and also a tad later). There seem to be quite a lot of scattered ceramics in the areas affected (this was noted by Schukin citing another archaeologist whose name escapes me for the moment), not associated with clear settlements, and perhaps faint remnants of this early "nomadism".
I would rather disagree with this opinion. It is indeed true that Tacitus considers the Venedians to resemble Sarmatians "for they are continually traversing and infesting with robberies all the forests and mountains lying between the Peucinians and Fennians". However, he also writes that "Yet they are rather reckoned amongst the Germans, for that they have fixed houses, and carry shields, and prefer travelling on foot, and excel in swiftness. Usages these, all widely differing from those of the Sarmatians, who live on horseback and dwell in waggons."

George
10-17-2016, 08:35 PM
I would rather disagree with this opinion. It is indeed true that Tacitus considers the Venedians to resemble Sarmatians "for they are continually traversing and infesting with robberies all the forests and mountains lying between the Peucinians and Fennians". However, he also writes that "Yet they are rather reckoned amongst the Germans, for that they have fixed houses, and carry shields, and prefer travelling on foot, and excel in swiftness. Usages these, all widely differing from those of the Sarmatians, who live on horseback and dwell in waggons."

To me "fixed houses" means simply that the "houses" are not on wheels (:=) It says nothing about the quality of these (to my mind) huts. And the constant mobility and raiding proclivities of these forest nomads adequately explains the comparison. Clearly we must both have thought a lot about this passage, and its relationship to extant evidences. You see it your way. I see it mine. Nothing to be done. We move on. P.S. "fingere" is an interesting verb. No less than 10 senses (and more subsenses) in the Oxford Dictionary of Classical Latin. The translation "fixed" is a very strong interpretation of something much looser in Tacitus IMHO.

bolek
10-17-2016, 08:38 PM
There is not much to explain..
There is plenty to explain.
I will quote Oleg Trubachyov:


В настоящее время отмечается объективная тенденция углубления датировок истории древних индоевропейских диалектов, и это касается славянского как одного из индоевропейских диалектов. Однако вопрос сейчас не в том, что древняя история праславянского может измеряться масштабами II и III тыс. до н.э., а в том, что мы в принципе затрудняемся даже условно датировать "появление" или "выделение" праславянского или праславянских диалектов из индоевропейского именно ввиду собственных непрерывных индоевропейских истоков славянского. Последнее убеждение согласуется с указанием Мейе о том, что славянский - это индоевропейский язык архаического типа, словарь и грамматика которого не испытали потрясений в отличие, например, от греческого (словаря)


Currently, there is an objective tendency to deepen the dating of ancient Indo-European dialects. This also applies to Slavonic as one of the Indo-European dialects. However, the question now is not that the history of Slavonic may be measured by the scale of the II to III millenniums B.C. but that we can hardly date the ‘emergence’ or ‘separation’ of pra-Slavonic or pra-Slavonic dialects from Indo-European dialects because of the proper uninterrupted Indo-European origin of Slavonic.
The latter belief is in line with the Meillet’s indication that Slavic is an Indo-European language of archaic type, vocabulary and grammar of which has not experienced shocks in contrast to, for example, the Greek (vocabulary)

Trubačёv, O. N. 2003. Ėtnogenez i kul’tura drevnejščix slavjan: Lingvističeskie issledovanija.
Moskva: “Nauka”.

Slavic is more archaic than Greek or Sanskrit and has never really separated sharply from Proto-Indo-European and therefore by some linguists is called Late Proto-Indo-European. There is a reason for this. Slavs, as Kortland noticed, have never left Proto-Indo-European homeland.
Archaic nature of Slavic languages, correlation between R1a and Slavic languages, the dates of expansion, the area where it all happened. It all is very interesting and there is no doubt that the questions of the origin of Proto-Indo-Europeans and the origin of Proto-Slavs are closely related. Are Proto-Slavs direct descendants of Proto-Indo-Europeans and if not who is? Let’s hope incoming papers on genetics will shed some light on it.

Michał
10-17-2016, 08:50 PM
Does Bradford have a book on prehistory of Podlasie? Please reference it.
I did not say it was a book. It was an article quoted in one of my previous emails: http://www.iaepan.edu.pl/archaeologia-polona/article/413



Sedov and Shchukin are oracles in all Slavic countries as far as I know.
This may pose a problem, as their opinions regarding the Slavic identity of Przeworsk, Zarubintsy or Chernyakhov were quite different, so which oracle says the truth? :)

BTW, it's a pity that Shchukin did not write any comprehensive work on this subject, ie. a book that would touch all subjects covered by Barford while being more detailed (than Barford) regarding the hypothetical early stages of the Slavic ethnogenesis.



Badford summarised the knowledge in English gathered by Polish, Russian, Ukrainian, Czech, Belarusian scholars.
If Barford's work is not good enough, why nobody else is trying to do this much better. It doesn't need to be in English. If the book is good enough it will be quickly translated from Russian, Polish or any other Slavic language.



Florin Curta is not popular in eastern Slavia and Czech Republic. He a rediculous scholar despite writing a book and being a professor in an American university. He’s a Romanian spent his time in USA not having access to our archives, historiographies and soil. If you want to spot a clueless person about Slavic history , then he or she will be referencing Curta.
Unfortunately, I must agree with this. The only good thing about his book was that it strongly stimulated the discussion.

Volat
10-17-2016, 09:08 PM
Thanks for the article on Podlasie published by Bradford.

I will stand by words. Both Sedov and Shchukin are important scholars in eastern Slavia on early Slavs' history. Eastern Slavs are divided. Some support Schhukin hypotheses, while other support those of Sedov.

Ukrainian archaeologist Baran and others have done a significant archaeological research in western Ukraine.

Generalissimo
10-17-2016, 09:23 PM
Well, so this clearly supports an east to west movement of the Early Slavs in Poland.
BTW, I somehow doubt that this "continuity in eastern Poland since the Bronze Age" included the Wielbark culture (once it expanded over Eastern Poland), so I would rather expect that although the Trzciniec-derived Bronze Age people from Eastern Poland were most likely related to the Early Slavs, there was a period of discontinuity in this region. For example, here is what Barford et al. (http://www.iaepan.edu.pl/archaeologia-polona/article/413) write about Podlasie:

Don't know, but the Y-DNA analysis will be very deep, so there won't be much room for debates 4-5 months from now.

Tomenable
10-17-2016, 09:35 PM
Well, if anyone's interested, expect a lot of continuity in eastern Poland since the Bronze Age. But all bets are off for western and Central Poland; expect some pretty big shifts there. First big papers on the topic early next year.

But archaeology actually suggests some sort of continuity in Central and West-Central Poland:

Żychliński 2008: https://www.academia.edu/2487717/Daniel_Żychliński_2008_Giecz_i_Cieśle_-_osady_ludności_kultury_przeworskiej_z_okresu_wędr ówek_ludów_w_Wielkopolsce

Michałowski 2015: https://www.academia.edu/21961134/Przed_po_czy_pomiędzy_Czasy_wielkiej_wędrówki_ludó w_w_Wielkopolsce

Żychliński 2015: https://www.academia.edu/19604891/Daniel_Żychliński_2015_Osada_z_Beznazwy_kolejne_os iedle_ludności_kultury_przeworskiej_z_okresu_wędró wek_ludów_w_Wielkopolsce

Some C14 dates:

http://s18.postimg.org/9c4f4a5c9/Datowanie.png

Walkowo-Kurnica site in Central Poland has even later C14 dates, 430-660 AD, and palynological data suggests that area of Lake Gopło was inhabited (farming taking place) during the whole Migration Period:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopło

Info about Gopło is from:

K. Tobolski, "Przemiany osadnicze na terenie niżu polskiego podczas okresu wędrówek ludów".

Palynology also suggests continuity in North-East Poland but perhaps not in South-East Poland.

Generalissimo
10-17-2016, 09:39 PM
But archaeology actually suggests some sort of continuity in Central and West-Central Poland:

Żychliński 2008: https://www.academia.edu/2487717/Daniel_Żychliński_2008_Giecz_i_Cieśle_-_osady_ludności_kultury_przeworskiej_z_okresu_wędr ówek_ludów_w_Wielkopolsce

(Walkowo-Kurnica in Lodz voivodeship has even later C14 dates, 430-660 AD):

http://s18.postimg.org/9c4f4a5c9/Datowanie.png

Michałowski 2015: https://www.academia.edu/21961134/Przed_po_czy_pomiędzy_Czasy_wielkiej_wędrówki_ludó w_w_Wielkopolsce

Żychliński 2015: https://www.academia.edu/19604891/Daniel_Żychliński_2015_Osada_z_Beznazwy_kolejne_os iedle_ludności_kultury_przeworskiej_z_okresu_wędró wek_ludów_w_Wielkopolsce

I doubt that there were 100% population replacements in all of western and central Poland.

Michał
10-17-2016, 09:52 PM
There is plenty to explain.
I will quote Oleg Trubachyov:
[...]
Trubačёv, O. N. 2003. Ėtnogenez i kul’tura drevnejščix slavjan: Lingvističeskie issledovanija.
Moskva: “Nauka”.
Firstly, Trubachyov did not write about Proto-Slavic but about Pre-Proto-Slavic (or Pra-Slavic in your translation), which is a huge difference.
Secondly, he did not mention any specific Indo-Irano-Slavic branch that would not include Baltic.
Thirdly, I hope you are aware that this is a tiny majority view among the modern linguists. The vast majority of experts on PIE or Slavic languages consider Balto-Slavic to significantly post-date the Late PIE unity.


Slavic is more archaic than Greek or Sanskrit and has never really separated sharply from Proto-Indo-European and therefore by some linguists is called Late Proto-Indo-European.
It is not true that Slavic is "more archaic" than any other IE language. In fact, it is commonly accepted that after diverging from Baltic, the dialect ancestral to Slavic has evolved much stronger than the dialects ancestral to West Baltic and East Baltic.

Also, could you please name any respected modern linguist who would equate Slavic with Late PIE?



There is a reason for this. Slavs, as Kortland noticed, have never left Proto-Indo-European homeland.
If you know Kortland, you should also know that he considers Slavic to be just one of the three major branches within the Baltic family of languages (with East Baltic and West Baltic being the other two).

BTW, if the Slavs have never left the PIE/Slavic homeland, I wonder where would you place that homeland. In Poland? If so, why is this not supported by the recently published ancient DNA data?



correlation between R1a and Slavic languages, the dates of expansion, the area where it all happened.
There is no "general" correlation between R1a and Slavic, there is only a correlation between some specific subclades of R1a and Slavic. There are other subclades of R1a that correlate with non-Slavic people, and there are also quite many R1a subclades correlating with non-Indo-Europeans.



Are Proto-Slavs direct descendants of Proto-Indo-Europeans and if not who is?
This is like asking who of the five children of my grandfather is his direct descendant?


Let’s hope incoming papers on genetics will shed some light on it.
I am very sorry to say this but there is no logic in your above statements and questions, so I doubt any incoming papers will help you. What wonders me the most is how you can reconcile your assumption that Slavic=PIE with your support for the Satem and Balto-Slavic branches under Late PIE (as expressed in your earlier posts (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1519-Languages-and-Y-DNA-lineages&p=17647&viewfull=1#post17647)).

Gravetto-Danubian
10-18-2016, 06:21 AM
delete

Gravetto-Danubian
10-18-2016, 06:26 AM
I've read comments about the deserted wilderness in eastern Poland and much of Belarus in books and articles. Those were only brief comments. I am yet to find a good study on why scholars assumed there was a deserted wilderness in the region. Was it because archaeologists couldn't find many archaeological artifacts in the region dated to a certain period?

Michał



After ~ 100 years of research we might have to accept that regions can become de-populated, such as the Polesie between 100 & 600 AD, which shows very few finds, in stark contrast to the Zarubintsy period . So, we might have to simply accept that the proto-Slavs did not expand from there, no ?

12220

DIE RÖMISCHEN IMPORTE DES SÜDLICHEN WEISSRUSSLAND EINE UNTERSUCHUNG VOR DEM HINTERGRUND DER KULTURELLEN ENTWICKLUNGEN DES 1.-4. JAHRHUNDERTS
by Vadim Beljavec (Presumbaly a young Belarussian scholar).

But it was already known to Shchukin. He just had a brain explosion, and thought Slavs lived naked in trees and swamps. Too much Tacitus...

12221

The black inverted Triangles are Wielbark culture - which evidently disappears from Poland c. 450 AD), the bare areas centred on the Pripet, surrounded by dots is his "Blank spot' from where he imagined Slavs came. The vertical black lines are the Chernykov area in the southeast, and the unfilled circles along the middle Dnieper, Soz^ & Desna are the Kiev culture, which evolved into Kolochin, and is thus an important substratum for East Slavs. Apart from this illogicality, he was a great scholar.

In both maps, the clear 'no mans land' between what are obviously Baltic territories in northern Belarus, and the proto-Slavic zone of western Ukraine & adjacent Sub-Carpathia probably explains why Slavic went its own way c.f. Baltic languages. This was only changed quite late, if one looks at it objectively, sometime after 700 AD is when Slavs reached northern Belarus & central-north Russia. Here, we would have to disregard Sedov's flawed analyses, as he was under pressure to "prove' that Slavs have been in the north since at least 400 AD, although he often changed his mind.

Gravetto-Danubian
10-18-2016, 06:50 AM
But archaeology actually suggests some sort of continuity in Central and West-Central Poland:

Żychliński 2008: https://www.academia.edu/2487717/Daniel_Żychliński_2008_Giecz_i_Cieśle_-_osady_ludności_kultury_przeworskiej_z_okresu_wędr ówek_ludów_w_Wielkopolsce

Michałowski 2015: https://www.academia.edu/21961134/Przed_po_czy_pomiędzy_Czasy_wielkiej_wędrówki_ludó w_w_Wielkopolsce

Żychliński 2015: https://www.academia.edu/19604891/Daniel_Żychliński_2015_Osada_z_Beznazwy_kolejne_os iedle_ludności_kultury_przeworskiej_z_okresu_wędró wek_ludów_w_Wielkopolsce

Some C14 dates:

http://s18.postimg.org/9c4f4a5c9/Datowanie.png

Walkowo-Kurnica site in Central Poland has even later C14 dates, 430-660 AD, and palynological data suggests that area of Lake Gopło was inhabited (farming taking place) during the whole Migration Period:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopło

Info about Gopło is from:

K. Tobolski, "Przemiany osadnicze na terenie niżu polskiego podczas okresu wędrówek ludów".

Palynology also suggests continuity in North-East Poland but perhaps not in South-East Poland.

Yes : Northeast Poland were Balts
West-central Poland: some kind of residual Germani with obvious links to Thuringia. Probably your ancestors ;)

Michał
10-18-2016, 07:43 AM
After ~ 100 years of research we might have to accept that regions can become de-populated, such as the Polesie between 100 & 600 AD, which shows very few finds, in stark contrast to the Zarubintsy period . So, we might have to simply accept that the proto-Slavs did not expand from there, no ?

12220
How come you have not noticed that c and g on the above map are just slightly different parts of the same phenomenon (which is clearly stated in the legend), and there seems to be a common agreement that the Late Zarubintsy horizon (extending over the entire eastern half of the above-mentioned Polesie region) evolved into Kiev, a culture evidently ancestral to both Kolochin and Penkovka (two undoubtedly Slavic cultures) and at least partially to Korchak (another Early Slavic culture)?

BTW, since this map shows that your Proto-Slavic homeland in Western and Central Ukraine corresponded to Wielbark culture, does it mean that you equate Wielbark with Proto-Slavs? Also, where would you place the Goths on your map, as I recall you were strongly criticizing all those who associate Wielbark with the Goths?


12221

The black inverted Triangles are Wielbark culture - which evidently disappears from Poland c. 450 AD), the bare areas centred on the Pripet, surrounded by dots is his imaginary world of invisible people. The vertical black lines are the Chernykov area in the southeast, and the unfilled circles along the middle Dnieper, Soz^ & Desna are the Kiev culture, which evolved into Kolochin, and is thus an important substratum for East Slavs.

In both maps, the clear 'no mans land' between what are obviously Baltic territories in northern Belarus, and the proto-Slavic zone of western Ukraine & adjacent Sub-Carpathia probably explains why Slavic went its own way c.f. Baltic languages.
Would you be so kind and explain your scenario in detail? I have noticed you have just deleted your post in which you stated that the Proto-Slavic homeland included SE Poland and NE Romania, so I guess you are rather limiting it to Central and Western Ukraine. Now, which archaeological culture was that? I mean before the emergence of Korchak-Prague and Penkovka. Are you suggesting that Chernyakhov was a mixture of Eastern Germanic people (derived from Wielbark and Przeworsk?), Sarmatians (mostly in the south) and the local Pre-Proto-Slavic population (that stayed in place after the Germanic and Sarmatian groupings fled from the incoming Huns? If so, then which earlier (ie. Pre-Chernyakhov) culture in this region was the one that spoke Pre-Proto-Slavic and was the main "biological/genetic" source of the Early Slavic population (ie. rich in all those Y-DNA haplogroups/subclades that apparently expanded over half of Europe with the migrating Slavs)?

Gravetto-Danubian
10-18-2016, 09:28 AM
How come you have not noticed that c and g on the above map are just slightly different parts of the same phenomenon (which is clearly stated in the legend), and there seems to be a common agreement that the Late Zarubintsy horizon (extending over the entire eastern half of the above-mentioned Polesie region) evolved into Kiev, a culture evidently ancestral to both Kolochin and Penkovka (two undoubtedly Slavic cultures) and at least partially to Korchak (another Early Slavic culture)?

I remember we've discussed this at least twice.
The problem is that the Zarubintsy culture (ZC) did not 'evolve into Kiev" culture (KC). The ZC ends c. 50 AD, whilst the Kiev culture emerges sometime c. 3rd century, so we have a 150 year gap.
To fill the gap, some scholars (?Tretyakov) invented a new culture - the so-called 'post-Zarubintsy" phenomenon, or the Rachy-Pochep culture, which thus at least bridge partly the gap, but not fully - it ended c. 150 AD, so we have yet still at least a 50 - 100 year gap.

However, there are even more problems. Forgetting for a second the problematic links, how would scattered refugees maintain their "Slavicness": over such a broad area, in small groups, assimilating into other, larger cultural bodies (Like Balts in the Desna, or "Basternae" around the Black Sea), over 150 years (email perhaps ?). But this rhetorical question is irrelevant: the Kiev culture owes nothing of its heritage to ZC. The ZC formed under the influence of the pre-Roman Iron Age eastern European La Tene, with La Tene style fibulae, polished bowls, large unrfiled cemeteries, and even 'Illyrian' styled ornaments. The Kiev culture has nothing of this; which is characterized by tall, baggy, rather formless pots, a scarcity of ornaments, a scattered cremations, often in pits. There is no mistake, we're looking at a wholly different culture and ethnos which closely resembles the "Baltic forest cultures' further up in the Dnieper basin. Even in the Rachy-Pochep culture, "the heritage of the ZC is practically absent here".
In fact, the R-P 'culture' is not even a real entity, but at best a horizon - with no solid links or cohesiveness, but merely a limited repertoire of finds (Prussian eye fibulae, and "Pochep bowls') found in otherwise 'native' contexts - and a short phenomenon at that, lasting 50 years, and ending before the Kiev culture.

Thus we can see, there is actually no solid link between ZC and KC. Rather, th Kiev culture looks like a Forest Baltic culture which moved south, which shares no east-central European la Tene roots of the ZC.
Moreover, if you are going to see the ZC as 'Slavic', then you'd have to argue the Pomoranian culture and others in central Europe were also Slavic, but that quite obviously isn;t your viewpoint, so there is some inner-contradiction going on.


BTW, since this map shows that your Proto-Slavic homeland in Western and Central Ukraine corresponded to Wielbark culture, does it mean that you equate Wielbark with Proto-Slavs? Also, where would you place the Goths on your map, as I recall you were strongly criticizing all those who associate Wielbark with the Goths?

No, that has never been my position (that Wielbark was "Slavic'). BTW, there was no "Wielbark culture' in Ukraine, but there was Chernyakov culture .
And yes, I have criticised the idea that "The Goths" came from the Wielbark culture. aDNA might temper this desideratum, but my statement more pertained to ethnogenesis - the Goths actually formed in the Blac Sea region, without excluding the possibility, nay likelihood, of migration from northern Poland, at some point.



Would you be so kind and explain your scenario in detail? I have noticed you have just deleted your post in which you stated that the Proto-Slavic homeland included SE Poland and NE Romania, so I guess you are rather limiting it to Central and Western Ukraine.

Yes, i would include SE Poland and NE Romania. I deleted the post because I wrote a longer one later.



Now, which archaeological culture was that? I mean before the emergence of Korchak-Prague and Penkovka. Are you suggesting that Chernyakhov was a mixture of Eastern Germanic people (derived from Wielbark and Przeworsk?), Sarmatians (mostly in the south) and the local Pre-Proto-Slavic population (that stayed in place after the Germanic and Sarmatian groupings fled from the incoming Huns? If so, then which earlier (ie. Pre-Chernyakhov) culture in this region was the one that spoke Pre-Proto-Slavic and was the main "biological/genetic" source of the Early Slavic population (ie. rich in all those Y-DNA haplogroups/subclades that apparently expanded over half of Europe with the migrating Slavs)?

Yes, this is the key question. As I demonstrated above, we cannot expect to have a continuous thread from 500 BC to 500 AD, because people / groups merge, migrate, fuse, die.

Briefly, let us look at the crucial period of the second quarter of the 5th century, which is between the 'collapse' of all the old Roman Era cultures, and the appearance of the earliest Slavs, a map just prior to the battle of Nedao: (I believe I posted this diagram earlier).
12225


What we see is :

1) the survival of post-Chernyakov groups in the East Carpathian region, & Volhynia (described passim by Kazanski), inc the Volyn-Podol ("Ripniev - Cherepin group") (Kozak, Baran, Shchukin)

2) The final Mazlomecz phase in SE Poland, and a number of post-Przeworsk cultures in central and west.

4) The Kiev culture on the Dnieper, and 2 Kiev-like sites in Polesia.

Then c. 500 AD we have :

12224

The Prague culture has at its roots late Chernyakov- Carpathian groups, as well as post-Przeworsk elements.
The Penkivka culture has at its roots Chernyakovan, incl allegedly some Sarmatian roots, as well as Kiev culture.

As for the actual language : I would guess it would come from the Zubra group or Kiev groups, obviously not from the residual Goths. But again, key is aDNA . Unfortunately, the Kiev culture cremated, but we can (and will) see aDNA from the 'classic' Charnyakov culture. If it's mostly non Slavic type R1a, then we can envisage a large migration from the Dnieper. But given that several R1a subclades were involved, as well as I2a, then we potential several key zone all participated in the expansion, with Slavic becoming predominant due to acceptance, or later imposition, or due to dialect levelling.

But really, finding the Slavic group might be a difficult task in the social-political turmoil and transformations in the 5th cc, especially given that the region from Carpathians to Baltic must have seen layers upon layer of language contacts between archaic Balto-Slavic languages since the Bronze Age. Whilst we must be 'anchored' by the oft-quoted "Baltic roots of Slavic', let's not forget that linguists often highlight similarities between Baltic and 'Daco-Thracian", and that the final episode of contact was the influence of Slavic upon Baltic.

[For sources of map: PM me]

Volat
10-18-2016, 12:50 PM
linguists often highlight similarities between Baltic and 'Daco-Thracian", and that the final episode of contact was the influence of Slavic upon Baltic.

Linguists don't often highlight similarities between Baltic and Daco-Thracian languages. To the best of my knowledge only early linguists highlighted such similarities in reference to toponyms found on territories of former Dacia and Thracia. There are only few Dacio-Thracian toponyms known to scholars.

If we use linguistic analysis of toponyms comparing Baltic languages to IE languages that disappeared , we'd find Baltic languages are similar to all those IE languages including Dacian and Thracian.

Waldemar
10-18-2016, 12:57 PM
expect a lot of continuity in eastern Poland since the Bronze Age. But all bets are off for western and Central Poland; expect some pretty big shifts there (...) the Y-DNA analysis will be very deep, so there won't be much room for debates 4-5 months from now.

Exciting, at last we're getting somewhere :) Similar aDNA analysis should be carried out in Ukraine, Belarus, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Germany, etc.

Michał
10-18-2016, 01:20 PM
I remember already discussing the issues with this viewpoint with you at least twice.
This is exactly why it surprises me so much that you repeat some of your claims that have already been proven wrong in our previous discussion. This is mostly related to the putative "gaps" between Zarubintsy and the Post-Zarubintsy horizon and then between Post-Zarubintsy and Kiev.


The problem is that the Zarubintsy culture (ZC) did not 'evolve into Kiev" culture (KC). The ZC ends c. 50 AD, whilst the Kiev culture emerges sometime c. 3rd century, so we have a 150 year gap.
Aware of this major discrepancy, some scholars (?Tretyakov) thus invented a new culture - the so-called 'post-Zarubintsy" phenomenon, or the Rachy-Pochep culture, which thus at least bridge partly the gap, but not fully - it ended c. 150 AD, so we have yet still at least a 50 - 100 year gap.

Please read again what I wrote on this subject some time ago (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6611-Baltic-R1a&p=145423&viewfull=1#post145423). I hope you don't claim that Terpilovsky, Oblomsky, Pachkova and others have falsified their data in order to prove that the local Zarubintsy element was able to survive past 50 AD among the people forming the new Post-Zarubintsy horizon (where they have gradually become a minority element), even though Pachkova and others have provided an impressive documentation showing that many individual Zarubintsy sites were able to function until the end of the 2nd century when the intensive internal migrations (all within the same Post-Zarubintsy horizon, as shown by Terpilovsky and Oblomsky) led to the significant unification of different groupings and to the emergence of a unified Kiev culture. I simply see no reason to pretend that there wasn't any such new horizon that emerged as a fusion of the local Zarubintsy people and the newly arrived people coming from the North (most likely as a result of multiple migrations). Also, in case you don't believe that Kiev arose mostly as a consequence of some intensive interactions between the previously existing Post-Zarubintsy groupings (like Lyutezh, Pochep, Kartamyshevo or Ternovka) then please show me a work that proves Kiev was a completely new (or intrusive) element that either expelled or annihilated all people from the local Post-Zarubintsy groupings.


However, there are even more problems. Forgetting for a second the problematic links, how would scattered refugees maintain their "Slavicness": over such a broad area, in small groups
This is most likely why the unification of different Post-Zarubintsy groupings into one Kiev culture was required to replace those multiple dialects (mostly Baltoid, although I wouldn't rule out some Bastarnian-speaking remnants) with just one dominant Pre-Proto-Slavic dialect that was then able to expand with the emergence of the descending Early Slavic cultures (Penkovka, Kolochin and Korchak).


the Kiev culture owes nothing of its heritage to ZC. The ZC formed under the influence of the pre-Roman Iron Age eastern European La Tene, with La Tene style fibulae, polished bowls, large unrfiled cemeteries, and even 'Illyrian' styled ornaments. The Kiev culture has nothing of this; which is characterized by tall, baggy, rather formless pots, a scarcity of ornaments, a scattered cremations, often in pits. There is no mistake, we're looking at a wholly different culture and ethnos which closely resembles the "Baltic forest cultures' further up in the Dnieper basin.
Well, I would certainly agree that Kiev was formed mostly by people descending from further north, so the Zarubintsy-related ancestry was no longer dominant among those people. However, I wouldn't say Kiev did not inherit anything from Zarubintsy, so let's hope that ancient DNA data will definitely solve this question at some point.



Moreover, if you are going to see the ZC as 'Slavic', then you'd have to argue the Pomoranian culture and others in central Europe were also Slavic, but that quite obviously isn;t your viewpoint, so there is some inner-contradiction going on.
I was rather favoring a scenario in which Zarubintsy were originally a non-Slavic (Germanic/Bastarnian?) population that switched to Baltoid/Slavic only after ZC partially collapsed (in the 1st cent. AD) and was subsequently transformed (due to some significant influences/migrations from the North) first into the Post-Zarubintsy horizon and then into the Kiev culture.



No, that has never been my position (that Wielbark was "Slavic'). BTW, there was no "Wielbark culture' in Ukraine, but there was Chernyakov culture.
Which means you have wrongly chosen the map that was supposed to illustrate your claims. I guess you had no choice, as only such an incorrect map would "demonstrate" you were right. ;)



And yes, I have criticised the idea that "The Goths" came from the Wielbark culture. aDNA might temper this desideratum, but my statement more pertained to ethnogenesis - the Goths actually formed in the Blac Sea region, without excluding the possibility, nay likelihood, of migration from northern Poland, at some point.
Fair enough. ;)



Yes, i would include SE Poland and NE Romania
How is it possible when knowing that SE Poland was a part of the Przeworsk culture and you consider Przeworsk a Germanic (Thuringian-like?) culture? IIRC, you have once claimed that the Early Slavs did not enter SE Poland before 550 AD.

Also, what makes you think NE Romania was a part of the Proto-Slavic homeland? This region seems to be much more strongly connected to ancient Dacians (who seem to have expanded even further north and north-east towards the Dniester region in Ukraine), and quite strongly influenced by the Celts (before being confronted with the Germanic and Sarmatian newcomers), so I see no linguistic, archeological nor genetic data to support your view.



Yes, this is the key question. As I demonstrated above, we cannot expect to have a continuous thread from 500 BC to 500 AD, because people / groups merge, migrate, fuse, die.
Agreed.




4) The Kiev culture on the Dnieper, and 2 Kiev-like sites in Polesia.
Wow, so you actually admit there were Kiev-like groups in Polesie. :)




The Prague culture has at its roots late Chernyakov- Carpathian groups, as well as post-Przeworsk elements.

The Penkivka culture has at its roots Chernyakovan, incl allegedly some Sarmatian roots, as well as Kiev culture.

The main problem with this scenario is that it makes the Chernyakhov culture (dominated by the Goths!) to be the only link connecting Korchak-Prague and Penkovka, so how they ended up speaking the same Proto-Slavic dialect?

Without any common roots in Kiev (or at least in the Post-Zarubintsy horizon), it is simply impossible to assume that Penkovka and Prague spoke the same (non-Gothic and non-Sarmatian!) language. Also, once we admit that Kiev is the most likely source of both Slavic language (see below) and Slavic DNA in Penkovka, then we must accept that Kolochin was Slavic-speaking as well.


As for the actual language : I would guess it would come from the Zubra group or Kiev groups, obviously not from the residual Goths.
Makes sense. Zubra is believed to descend from the Pripyat group (likely a mixture of Bastarnian/Zarubintsy and Baltoid people), though some influences from Przeworsk are also reported, which together makes Kiev a slightly more likely source of the Proto-Slavic language.

Gravetto-Danubian
10-18-2016, 02:02 PM
This is exactly why it surprises me so much that you repeat some of your claims that have already been proven wrong in our previous discussion. This is mostly related to the putative "gaps" between Zarubintsy and the Post-Zarubintsy horizon and then between Post-Zarubintsy and Kiev.

I don't mind being proven wrong, but I'm not.;)



Please read again what I wrote on this subject some time ago (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6611-Baltic-R1a&p=145423&viewfull=1#post145423). I hope you don't claim that Terpilovsky, Oblomsky, Pachkova and others have falsified their data in order to prove that the local Zarubintsy element was able to survive past 50 AD among the people forming the new Post-Zarubintsy horizon (where they have gradually become a minority element), even though Pachkova and others have provided an impressive documentation showing that many individual Zarubintsy sites were able to function until the end of the 2nd century when the intensive internal migrations (all within the same Post-Zarubintsy horizon, as shown by Terpilovsky and Oblomsky) led to the significant unification of different groupings and to the emergence of a unified Kiev culture. I simply see no reason to pretend that there wasn't any such new horizon that emerged as a fusion of the local Zarubintsy people and the newly arrived people coming from the North (most likely as a result of multiple migrations). Also, in case you don't believe that Kiev arose mostly as a consequence of some intensive interactions between the previously existing Post-Zarubintsy groupings (like Lyutezh, Pochep, Kartamyshevo or Ternovka) then please show me a work that proves Kiev was a completely new (or intrusive) element that either expelled or annihilated all people from the local Post-Zarubintsy groupings.

I did not state that every person that once lived in the Zarubintsy culture disappeared. Rather, there is little linking the Zarubintsy culture and Kiev.

But as you yourself stated "Well, I would certainly agree that Kiev was formed mostly by people descending from further north, so the Zarubintsy-related ancestry was no longer dominant among those people. "

So after a lengthy rebuttal, you end up agreeing with me :beerchug:


This is most likely why the unification of different Post-Zarubintsy groupings into one Kiev culture was required to replace those multiple dialects (mostly Baltoid, although I wouldn't rule out some Bastarnian-speaking remnants) with just one dominant Pre-Proto-Slavic dialect that was then able to expand with the emergence of the descending Early Slavic cultures (Penkovka, Kolochin and Korchak)....

..

I was rather favoring a scenario in which Zarubintsy were originally a non-Slavic (Germanic/Bastarnian?) population that switched to Baltoid/Slavic only after ZC partially collapsed (in the 1st cent. AD) and was subsequently transformed (due to some significant influences/migrations from the North) first into the Post-Zarubintsy horizon and then into the Kiev culture

I wouldn't really disagree with this (I didn't think I had ?)
However, my view is that the initial Slavic unification burst occurred 450 AD, not in the Pochep horizon period, which was more an epi-phenomenon; which even if imparted linguistic impact, a later episode must have occurred.





Which means you have wrongly chosen the map that was supposed to illustrate your claims. I guess you had no choice, as only such an incorrect map would "demonstrate" you were right. ;)

No, that map by Vadim is correct. Read more carefully : it is labelled 'Wielbark-Kultur in Weißrussland." There was Wielbark culture finds in Belarus. Again what's the issue ?




How is it possible when knowing that SE Poland was a part of the Przeworsk culture and you consider Przeworsk a Germanic (Thuringian-like?) culture? IIRC, you have once claimed that the Early Slavs did not enter SE Poland before 550 AD.

Ah I see where I might have confused people.
Yes, I think SE Poland was part of the Slavic core zone in 500 AD in the demographic sense, from where it really began to expand to even further like the Elbe, or Dalmatia; but no I don't think Przeworsk was Slavic (although some easterly, cremating groups might have been something similar).
Some late Germanic groups survived in SE POland, and would have been rapidly Slavicized c. 500 AD, and then expanded with the Slavs to new lands.

Also, the Przeworsk culture is not "Thuringian". The 'classic' Przeworsk culture ends c. 450 AD at the latest, but after this, and into the 6th century in central-western Poland, settlement is evident, these groups look to have a new cultural outlook - with clear links to Thuringia.


Also, what makes you think NE Romania was a part of the Proto-Slavic homeland? This region seems to be much more strongly connected to ancient Dacians (who seem to have expanded even further north and north-east towards the Dniester region in Ukraine), and quite strongly influenced by the Celts (before being confronted with the Germanic and Sarmatian newcomers), so I see no linguistic, archeological nor genetic data to support your view.

The ancient Dacians as a people went extinct after Rome conquered them, decapitated their leaders, and assimilated the rest, with a few fleeing. The groups in the NE Carpathian outskirts were different. I know they are mostly called "Carpo-Dacians", etc, but even Romanian scholars today point to significant differences. This region has always showed linked with the middle Dnieper regions - repeatedly throughout history, from Late Neolithic, to Halstatt, the similarity of Lukashevka culture to Zarubintsy. Obviously, these are all different groups we are talking about, but the pattern is there.
And we also see it in the 5th & 6th centuries. Two distinct zones but always interacting. Probably made language spread easy, esp, if they already spoke similar languages. It's like the adoption of standard Athenian in Greece.




The main problem with this scenario is that it makes the Chernyakhov culture (dominated by the Goths!) to be the only link connecting Korchak-Prague and Penkovka, so how they ended up speaking the same Proto-Slavic dialect?

Without any common roots in Kiev (or at least in the Post-Zarubintsy horizon), it is simply impossible to assume that Penkovka and Prague spoke the same (non-Gothic and non-Sarmatian!) language. Also, once we admit that Kiev is the most likely source of both Slavic language (see below) and Slavic DNA in Penkovka, then we must accept that Kolochin was Slavic-speaking as well.

But the problem is there is virtually no evidence of Kiev culture impact in the Carpathian region, let alone the lower Danube or Balkans;whilst the Pochep horizon was a fleeting, mostly cultural, adstratum.

So are which chasing a single, common thread which does not exist ? Slavic was probably widely spoken already within the core zone i have outlined by 450 AD. Communities, or at least individuals within them, were multilingual. The reason Slavic became the dominant & near-exclusive language was a complex process - which I will outline some other time. But i will point out (again), there is no evidence of any dominant group in the region, nor of any wholescale migration from one distinct zone to another, until the the 6th, and probably 7th centuries. Thus we need to formulate a list of several scenarios to account for such details.

Ultimately, I don;t see any reason why Slavic didn't spread from further south toward the Carpathians than further north.
We might know very soon, if the common thread for West Slavs and East Slavs is actually a slight southward shift compared to preceding groups (i.e Wielbark), at a genome-wide level. The preliminary mtDNA already hinted at that.

Michał
10-18-2016, 03:29 PM
However, my view is that the initial Slavic unification burst occurred 450 AD, not in the Pochep horizon period, which was more an epi-phenomenon; which even if imparted linguistic impact, a later episode must have occurred.
So this is definitely not how I see it. Once we have two separate populations/cultures (Korchak-Prague and Penkovka), it is hard to imagine any reason that would make them unify their distinct languages so quickly. Instead they were much more likely to descend from a common ancestral culture that already used such an unified language.



No, that map by Vadim is correct. Read more carefully : it is labelled 'Wielbark-Kultur in Weißrussland." There was Wielbark culture finds in Belarus. Again what's the issue ?
Watch carefully. It is labbelled "Wielbark-Kultur in Weißrussland" but is shown mostly in Ukraine. Also, the small Wielbark enclave shown in the Middle Pripyat region is an extension of the Ukrainian population, so one would need to assume that these were some Wielbark people who left Poland and moved to Ukraine (where they became Chernyakhov) before moving north towards Belarus and becoming Wielbark again. ;)



Ah I see where I might have confused people.
Yes, I think SE Poland was part of the Slavic core zone in 500 AD in the demographic sense, from where it really began to expand to even further like the Elbe, or Dalmatia; but no I don't think Przeworsk was Slavic (although some easterly, cremating groups might have been something similar).
Some late Germanic groups survived in SE POland, and would have been rapidly Slavicized c. 500 AD, and then expanded with the Slavs to new lands.
So I conclude that you no longer consider SE Poland to be a part of the Proto-Slavic homeland.



The ancient Dacians as a people went extinct after Rome conquered them, decapitated their leaders, and assimilated the rest, with a few fleeing. The groups in the NE Carpathian outskirts were different. I know they are mostly called "Carpo-Dacians", etc, but even Romanian scholars today point to significant differences.
Wait a moment. So are you assuming that those Carpo-Dacians (from Moldova) and Costoboci (from the Lipitsa culture on the Upper Dniester) were not Dacian-speaking but rather Proto-Slavic-speaking (or rather Pre-Proto-Slavic speaking)? If not, then including NE Romania into the Proto-Slavic homeland doesn't make much sense IMO. Also, that hypothetical distant (linguistic) relationship between the Daco-Thracians and Balto-Slavs (which is not supported by genetics, or at least not by the Y-DNA haplogroups) is not relevant here (as it has nothing to do with the Proto-Slavs).



But the problem is there is virtually no evidence of Kiev culture impact in the Carpathian region, let alone the lower Danube or Balkans;
This is indeed a problem, but (as you rightly notice) not limited to this particular situation, as we see similar problems everywhere where a given population/culture expands into a region that is already occupied by some other people (like in the Balkans or in NW Poland). And since we know that the earlier Cherepin group did not disappear following the collapse of Chernyakhov but somehow evolved into the Ripniev group, we might suspect that this happened as a result of some influences from the Kiev-derived groupings (and we indeed see Kiev expanding westward along the Pripyat river or south of it).



Ultimately, I don;t see any reason why Slavic didn't spread from further south toward the Carpathians than further north.

I would say that the very close relationship with the Balts is crucial here, and this includes both language and (Y-)DNA. There are also not many ancient cultures that would fit such alternative scenario.

Gravetto-Danubian
10-19-2016, 12:03 AM
So this is definitely not how I see it. Once we have two separate populations/cultures (Korchak-Prague and Penkovka), it is hard to imagine any reason that would make them unify their distinct languages so quickly. Instead they were much more likely to descend from a common ancestral culture that already used such an unified language.

I believe I have already explained that. I see no reason to rest the final unification into proto-Slavic propper with your "Pochep-Rachy" phase. Afterall: Holzer , Matasovic, Birnbaum and Anderson place proto-Slavic to 500 AD, not 100 AD. Maybe we should stop focussing on the individual genetic descent of the Korchak and Penkovka cultures, and be aware that language expansion occurs through multitude of mechanisms apart from everyone coming from the same pot, pardon the pun. You're taking culture - history to fanatical new heights :)
But I do include your hypothesis as one of my 5, or one pre-stage prior the final.




Watch carefully. It is labbelled "Wielbark-Kultur in Weißrussland" but is shown mostly in Ukraine. Also, the small Wielbark enclave shown in the Middle Pripyat region is an extension of the Ukrainian population, so one would need to assume that these were some Wielbark people who left Poland and moved to Ukraine (where they became Chernyakhov) before moving north towards Belarus and becoming Wielbark again

Whatever. The key issue in that map is settlement finds, or the lack thereof in Polesie. But your focus appears to be trying to detract the overall excellence of the article by focussing on one labelling issue ..



So I conclude that you no longer consider SE Poland to be a part of the Proto-Slavic homeland.

I include, to reiterate, SE Poland as part of the proto-Slavic homeland, as it was integral to the cultural and linguistic levelling process which occurred c. 450 AD, , because for me, this is when proto-Slavic reached its final stage. Before this, there was no proto-Slavic, but pre-Slavic, para-Slavic. It certainly had more direct relevance than Polesia. But I admit I have a somewhat different approach to how I define 'homeland'.



Wait a moment. So are you assuming that those Carpo-Dacians (from Moldova) and Costoboci (from the Lipitsa culture on the Upper Dniester) were not Dacian-speaking but rather Proto-Slavic-speaking (or rather Pre-Proto-Slavic speaking)? If not, then including NE Romania into the Proto-Slavic homeland doesn't make much sense IMO. Also, that hypothetical distant (linguistic) relationship between the Daco-Thracians and Balto-Slavs (which is not supported by genetics, or at least not by the Y-DNA haplogroups) is not relevant here (as it has nothing to do with the Proto-Slavs).
As stated, I acknowledge that these groups are commonly seen as "Dacian".
But can you prove to me what language they spoke, and what haplogroups they were ?
Or in other words, can you prove that there weren't already any para-Slavic groups in Moldavia ?




This is indeed a problem, but (as you rightly notice) not limited to this particular situation, as we see similar problems everywhere where a given population/culture expands into a region that is already occupied by some other people (like in the Balkans or in NW Poland). And since we know that the earlier Cherepin group did not disappear following the collapse of Chernyakhov but somehow evolved into the Ripniev group, we might suspect that this happened as a result of some influences from the Kiev-derived groupings (and we indeed see Kiev expanding westward along the Pripyat river or south of it).


Not true. Migrations leave trails at least when we are talking about a 50-100 year time span. CWC migrated through North European, which was populated by other groups (GAC , TRB) and it left a clear trail, as did they ;)

The Yamnaya migration into Hungary left trails, as did the other cultures with which it coexisted ...

The only "trail" we have is the destruction phase seen in Kolochin culture, potentially marking a conquest of the forest groups ("Baltoid") by more militarily advanced groups of the Carpathian region (= the Slavs), with typical Danubian styles pottery and fibulae. Thus, the only convincing evidence we have is actually movements opposite to that which is oft echoed


I would say that the very close relationship with the Balts is crucial here, and this includes both language and (Y-)DNA. There are also not many ancient cultures that would fit such alternative scenario.

yes. But we have between 2500 BC and 400 AD to work with, so I feel no need to straightjacket my analysis .

Gravetto-Danubian
10-19-2016, 12:03 AM
Delet

Tomenable
10-19-2016, 05:57 AM
Some ancient Polish/Lithuanian samples on Gedmatch:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?8672-List-of-ancient-samples-on-GEDmatch&p=192965&viewfull=1#post192965

Eurogenes K15 results:

RISE1, Obłaczkowo, Corded Ware culture (2865-2578 BC):

Gedmatch kit: M669778

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 North_Sea 43.56
2 Baltic 21.21
3 Atlantic 20.54
4 Sub-Saharan 6.73
5 West_Asian 5.99
6 Eastern_Euro 1.98

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Swedish 13.84
2 West_Norwegian 15.28
3 Norwegian 15.5
4 North_Dutch 16.23
5 North_Swedish 16.97

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 94.5% Swedish + 5.5% Yoruban @ 12.11
2 94.3% Swedish + 5.7% Mandenka @ 12.17
3 94.3% Swedish + 5.7% Bantu_S.W. @ 12.21
4 94.2% Swedish + 5.8% Bantu_S.E. @ 12.23
5 94.1% Swedish + 5.9% Biaka_Pygmy @ 12.31
6 94.1% Swedish + 5.9% Luhya @ 12.43
7 94.1% Swedish + 5.9% Bantu_N.E. @ 12.45
8 94.1% Swedish + 5.9% Mbuti_Pygmy @ 12.55
9 94.5% Swedish + 5.5% San @ 12.84
10 93.7% West_Norwegian + 6.3% Yoruban @ 13.12

RISE145, Polwica, Unetice culture (2188-1958 BC):

Gedmatch kit: M069028

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Baltic 47.53
2 West_Med 19.03
3 North_Sea 15.8
4 Eastern_Euro 9.5
5 Northeast_African 7.19
6 Sub-Saharan 0.63
7 Atlantic 0.32

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Lithuanian 25.78
2 Ukrainian_Lviv 26.65
3 Ukrainian 26.93
4 Belorussian 27.89
5 Estonian_Polish 28.09

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 85% Lithuanian + 15% Sardinian @ 24.33

RISE139, Chociwel, Unetice culture (2135-1923 BC):

Gedmatch kit: M484113

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 North_Sea 26.37
2 Atlantic 22.94
3 Baltic 21.22
4 Eastern_Euro 17.08
5 West_Med 5.74
6 West_Asian 4.15
7 Sub-Saharan 2.51

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Southwest_Finnish 6.79
2 East_German 7.28
3 Polish 9.03
4 South_Polish 9.15
5 Finnish 9.51
6 Austrian 9.99
7 Hungarian 10.1
8 Ukrainian 10.82
9 Ukrainian_Lviv 11.12

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 58.4% Estonian_Polish + 41.6% Orcadian @ 3.47
2 68.6% Polish + 31.4% Orcadian @ 3.47
3 61% Russian_Smolensk + 39% Orcadian @ 3.5
4 66.3% Polish + 33.7% West_Scottish @ 3.53
5 65.7% Polish + 34.3% Irish @ 3.61
6 58.2% Polish + 41.8% North_German @ 3.64
7 62.7% Polish + 37.3% Danish @ 3.64
8 55.7% Southwest_Russian + 44.3% West_Scottish @ 3.71
9 52.9% North_German + 47.1% Estonian_Polish @ 3.71
10 55.8% Estonian_Polish + 44.2% West_Scottish @ 3.71
11 66.1% Polish + 33.9% Southeast_English @ 3.72

RISE598, Turlojiske, Late Bronze Age (908-485 BC):

Numer id na Gedmatchu: M483824

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Baltic 47.6
2 Eastern_Euro 22.95
3 West_Med 13.17
4 Red_Sea 9.91
5 North_Sea 6.37

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Lithuanian 24.39
2 Estonian_Polish 26.02
3 Ukrainian_Belgorod 26.35
4 Belorussian 26.37

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 92.6% Lithuanian + 7.4% Saudi @ 23.92
2 91.6% Lithuanian + 8.4% Moroccan @ 23.98
3 93% Lithuanian + 7% Mozabite_Berber @ 24.1
4 94.5% Lithuanian + 5.5% Yemenite_Jewish @ 24.11

Waldemar
10-19-2016, 09:11 AM
Hope that upcoming papers will unveil archaeological cultures/populations clearly close to West Slavs/East Slavs, therefore ancestral to them vel proto-Slavic. Perhaps such a culture was so-called Trzciniec horizon. Neither Corded Ware, nor Unetice cultures point evidently to a single population, however they seem to be Balto-Slavic shifted.

Michał
10-19-2016, 11:18 AM
I don't mind being proven wrong, but I'm not.;)
You are/were apparently wrong when claiming that there were huge "gaps" first between Zarubintsy and the Post-Zarubintsy horizon and then between Post-Zarubintsy and Kiev. Let me show again a diagram that proves you were wrong:
12243



I've already explained that. There is no reason that it wasn't unified later than your "Pochep-Rachy" phase.
Please read again what I wrote. I was clearly talking about the Kiev culture as a unifying stage. Where did you get that Pochep-Rachny from?



Maybe we should stop focussing on the individual genetic descent of the Korchak and Penkovka cultures, and be aware that language expansion occurs through multitude of mechanisms apart from everyone coming from the same pot, pardon the pun.
It is hard to avoid the question of origin of Korchak and Penkovka when these are the only cultures of that time that are almost unanimously considered to represent the Early Slavs. So since your hypothesis does not explain why these people spoke the same language (which is a commonly accepted assumption), it is of not much use when trying to reconstruct the earliest stages of Slavic ethnogenesis.



You're taking culture - history to fanatical new heights :)
If you really think my approach is fanatical (and yours is not), you should stop discussing this with me long time ago. :)



Whatever. The key issue in that map is settlement finds, or the lack thereof in Polesie.
It looks like you still haven't noticed that "your" map shows such settlements in Polesie. Apart from the Kiev culture that occupies the entire eastern part of Polesie, it also shows a category labelled "Post-Zarubincy-/Früh-Kiever Kultur in Weißrussland" that extends as far west as Podlasie in Eastern Poland.



But your focus appears to be trying to detract the overall excellence of the article by focussing on one labelling issue ..
No, I'm just trying to point out all inconsistencies and flaws in your hypothesis, hoping that we ultimately reach an agreement regarding the most likely scenario that is consistent with all available data.



I include, to reiterate, SE Poland as part of the proto-Slavic homeland, as it was integral to the cultural and linguistic levelling process which occurred c. 450 AD, , because for me, this is when proto-Slavic reached its final stage. Before this, there was no proto-Slavic, but pre-Slavic, para-Slavic. It certainly had more direct relevance than Polesia.
I have huge problems with understanding your above explanation. Does it mean that you no longer agree with the quite commonly accepted assumption that there were no Slavic-speaking people in SE Poland c. 450 AD (nor during the earlier Przeworsk period)? Otherwise, it is hard to understand why SE Poland should be considered a part of the Proto-Slavic homeland (if it wasn't settled by people speaking Proto-Slavic). BTW, we both know that there were some Korchak settlements in the Pripyat region at about that time (or even a couple of decades earlier, like those around Pinsk), so your last remark seems to be totally unjustified. Korchak itself is located not so far from both Pripyat and Kiev.



As stated, I acknowledge that these groups are commonly seen as "Dacian".
But can you prove to me what language they spoke, and what haplogroups they were ?
Or in other words, can you prove that groups in Moldavia didn't speak Slavic ?
No, I cannot prove it, just like I cannot prove that Przeworsk, Wielbark, Jastorf, Oksywie, Poienesti-Lukashevka, Zarubintsy and many other archaeological cultures included people speaking Proto-Slavic or Pre-Proto-Slavic. However, it would be unwise to suggest a scenario that is not supported by any data (while being contradicted by many facts we know about the history and material culture of a given ancient population). It is not without a reason that the the Lipitsa culture in the Upper Dniester region is commonly considered to represent a Dacian-speaking population. This is strongly suggested by both their material culture (pointing to a close relationship to those populations in the neighboring Carpathian Basin that are securely considered to speak Dacian (based on written sources)) and by some historical records (like that about an "invasion" of the Vandalic Asdingi tribe around 170-180-AD, which is indeed reflected in the archaeological findings and allows us to suspect that the Lipitsa culture should be assigned to a Dacian tribe of Costoboci).



Not true. Migrations leave trails at least when we are talking about a 50-100 year time span. CWC migrated through North European, which was populated by other groups (GAC , TRB) and it left a clear trail, as did they ;)
You are talking here about a culture that is a result of such a migration (not a source), as we both know that the "source population" that produced the sudden emergence of the CWC people remains unknown. Also, we don't know what their rate of interbreeding with the locals was, though when judging from the apparent similarity of all CWC (or CWC-related) people found in very distinct locations (like Germany, Sweden, Lithuania and Sintashta), they were initially avoiding mixing with locals (so this also explains why their material culture did not change much for at least a half millennium).


The Yamnaya migration into Hungary left trails, as did the other cultures with which it coexisted ...
Agreed, but this is most likely because of two factors that were likely missing in the discussed example of Kiev and Korchak-Prague. These important factors are that 1) Yamna was very different from those local Hungarian cultures (which cannot be said about Kiev and Korchak-Prague), and, more importantly, 2) the Yamna people were initially unlikely to "merge" with the local population, so they remained distinct entities for at least a couple of centuries, though as soon as this has changed (and the Yamna-derived people "merged" with the locals), we see no traces of Yamna anymore.

Also, a much better example is that of the Slavic expansion south of the Danube, as this is where we see almost no traces of Korchak-Prague nor Penkovka (nor any other "Slavic culture"), so if not the written sources and the presence of modern Slavic-speaking people (showing genetic relationship with the remaining Slavs), we would probably be unable to admit that there were any massive migrations of Slavic-speaking people to Bosnia, Serbia, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Greece, etc. (which is actually what Florin Curta claims).


The only "trail" we have is the destruction phase seen in Kolocuin culture, marking a conquest of the forest groups ("Baltoid") by more militarily advanced groups of the Carpathian region (= the Slavs), with typical Danubian styles pottery and fibulae.
Could you please show me your references for this?



Thus, the only convincing evidnece we have is actually movements opposite to that which is oft echoed
You are forgetting about the genesis of Penkovka, which is commonly linked to Kiev, and not to the Carpathian region.



yes. But we have between 25000 BC and 400 AD to work with, so I feel no need to straightjacket my analysis .
If you suggest that Slavic and Baltic diverged as early as 2500 BC (or 4500 years ago), then this is certainly not what the vast majority of linguists suggest. The most commonly accepted time frame is 1500-500 BC, so I wonder which "Southern" cultures between about 1000 BC and 400 AD are your candidates for the Pre-Proto-Slavs.

Michał
10-19-2016, 11:31 AM
Hope that upcoming papers will unveil archaeological cultures/populations clearly close to West Slavs/East Slavs, therefore ancestral to them vel proto-Slavic. Perhaps such a culture was so-called Trzciniec horizon. Neither Corded Ware, nor Unetice cultures point evidently to a single population, however they seem to be Balto-Slavic shifted.
Trzciniec-Sosnica-Komarov horizon is much more likely to represent the Balto-Slavic stage.
Corded Ware or their direct (and still unknown) ancestors are more likely to represent a "Satem" branch (ie. a branch ancestral to both Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian).
Unetice seems to be of non-Balto-Slavic origin (though its expansion eastward could have resulted in assimilating some para-Balto-Slavic populations, as suggested by the data presented here by Tomenable), so it likely represents an extinct IE lineage (perhaps distantly related to Balto-Slavic, Celtic or Germanic).
The Proto-Slavic-speaking community cannot be dated to any period BC, as this is what linguistics suggests very strongly.

Waldemar
10-19-2016, 11:45 AM
The latest major paper on Indo-European languages (I'm aware of) suggests that Proto-Slavic existed since ca. 600 BC - http://www.linguisticsociety.org/sites/default/files/news/ChangEtAlPreprint.pdf

Linguists did not reach an agreement on Proto-Slavic dating. Some suggest even earlier date, e.g. Atkinson and Gray ca. 1400 BC.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v426/n6965/images/nature02029-f1.2.jpg

Michał
10-19-2016, 11:54 AM
The latest major paper on Indo-European languages (I'm aware of) suggests that Proto-Slavic existed since ca. 600 BC - http://www.linguisticsociety.org/sites/default/files/news/ChangEtAlPreprint.pdf

Linguists did not reach an agreement on Proto-Slavic dating.
You are confusing Proto-Slavic with Pre-Proto-Slavic. I don't know any respected linguist who would suggest that the most recent dialect ancestral to all known/modern Slavic languages was spoken as early as 600 BC.
BTW, you should abstain from distorting my statements when quoting them.

EDIT: The dates you show (600 BC and 1400 BC) are for separating the Baltic and Slavic branches, which corresponds to Proto-Balto-Slavic (not to Proto-Slavic). Proto-Balto-Slavic is indeed commonly believed to have been spoken at some date between 1500 BC and 500 BC.

Volat
10-19-2016, 12:24 PM
Some suggest even earlier date, e.g. Atkinson and Gray ca. 1400 BC.

There has been much criticism from linguists about two articles published by Atkinson and Gray. The are from Psychology department of a New Zealand University? Linguists don't agree on the date of divergence of Slavic and Baltic languages. Most linguists have agreedthat

Slavic is a daughter language in relation to Baltic.
Slavic languages are more innovative than Baltic.
Slavic and Baltic languages diverged between 3,500 to 2,000 years ago. Earlier period is unlikely as we are stepping on the period of IE stage. Atkinson and Gray are not linguists, so I won't be given much consideration to their model.

---

Here's a young Lithuanian woman from eastern Lithuania speaking in standard Lithuanian. To an outsider English or Spaniard she may sound Slavic. Even to me it feels like she speaks a related language and if I listened to her carefully I'd begin to understand her. But I can't. Begin listening at 6:20 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzVTkouynI8

Waldemar
10-19-2016, 12:39 PM
dialect ancestral to all known/modern Slavic languages

Dialect ancestral to all known/modern Slavic languages was probably spoken in a population (single cultural horizon?) which will show significant number of major Y-DNA "Slavic" clades and autosomally not very different from modern East/West Slavs.

George
10-19-2016, 04:18 PM
There has been much criticism from linguists about two articles published by Atkinson and Gray. The are from Psychology department of a New Zealand University? Linguists don't agree on the date of divergence of Slavic and Baltic languages. Most linguists have agreedthat

Slavic is a daughter language in relation to Baltic.
Slavic languages are more innovative than Baltic.
Slavic and Baltic languages diverged between 3,500 to 2,000 years ago. Earlier period is unlikely as we are stepping on the period of IE stage. Atkinson and Gray are not linguists, so I won't be given much consideration to their model.

---

Here's a young Lithuanian woman from eastern Lithuania speaking in standard Lithuanian. To an outsider English or Spaniard she may sound Slavic. Even to me it feels like she speaks a related language and if I listened to her carefully I'd begin to understand her. But I can't. Begin listening at 6:20 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzVTkouynI8

Listening to this lady reminded me of a utube clip I saw some months ago (unfortunately I didn't note down the address) in which a group of Mordovian women sang Mordovian folksongs. The commentator noted that the rhythm and melody types were practically identical to those of Russian folksongs of the old Merya and Muroma areas.

Here's something similar: https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=mordovian+folk+songs&qpvt=mordovian+folk+songs&view=detail&mid=66E62033E7027D7DB0E966E62033E7027D7DB0E9&FORM=VRDGAR

Volat
10-19-2016, 10:20 PM
Listening to this lady reminded me of a utube clip I saw some months ago (unfortunately I didn't note down the address) in which a group of Mordovian women sang Mordovian folksongs. The commentator noted that the rhythm and melody types were practically identical to those of Russian folksongs of the old Merya and Muroma areas.

Here's something similar: https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=mordovian+folk+songs&qpvt=mordovian+folk+songs&view=detail&mid=66E62033E7027D7DB0E966E62033E7027D7DB0E9&FORM=VRDGAR
Patriarch Kirill of all Rus (Ukraine, Belarus, Russia) has Erzya ancestry. Erzya and Moksha (Mordva) have been russified by the Russians. Most Finno-Ugric minorities of Russia speak as if they are native Russians speaking in foreign languages. Finno-Ugric languages of Russia are officially endangered.

Lithuanians kept their separate identity from the Slavs. Their literary language is based on dialects spoken in Suvalkija and Lithuania Minor which is former Prussian territory

Some Latvians say Lithuanian language has been influenced by Slavic. Linguists studying Baltic languages are saying Latvian language was influenced by Finnic, while Lithuanian retains ancient Baltic features which makes the language to be more similar to Slavic than Latvian.


Eastern Lithuanians are similar to Belarusians in many ways. The only difference between us is the language. Eastern Lithuanian dialect similar to our language despite we can't understand each other.

When Michal says original homeland of Slavs has to be not far from the land of the Balts he has a point.

George
10-20-2016, 12:50 AM
"Patriarch Kirill of all Rus (Ukraine, Belarus, Russia) has Erzya ancestry. Erzya and Moksha (Mordva) have been russified by the Russians. Most Finno-Ugric minorities of Russia speak as if they are native Russians speaking in foreign languages. Finno-Ugric languages of Russia are officially endangered." (#247)
Gundyayev may have Mordovian ancestry. But I think the point about the musical folk culture is that the territorial Russians of historical Russia (or more properly Muscovy) were largely of Merya et al. descent and were "russified" (both ecclesiastical and political administrative pressure) by the 16th c. But linguistic slavonization (with the Galindian "akannya" tossed in) did not significantly affect the basics of their folk music, hence the similarity maintained with today's extant Ugro-Finns of the area.

Volat
10-20-2016, 01:11 AM
George


Russians are diverse. Some Russians are similar to Finns. Some to Ukrainians (Kuban region), some to Belarusians (Smolensk and Pskov regions). Some Russians are similar to Uralic. Russians of the far east of Russia are 80% Ukrainians. So are Russians of northern Kazakhstan.

George
10-20-2016, 02:19 AM
George


Russians are diverse. Some Russians are similar to Finns. Some to Ukrainians (Kuban region), some to Belarusians (Smolensk and Pskov regions). Some Russians are similar to Uralic. Russians of the far east of Russia are 80% Ukrainians. So are Russians of northern Kazakhstan.

A fascinating graveyard indeed.