Genetic study Ancient DNA of Roman Danubian Frontier and Slavic Migrations (Olalde 2021)

[SUPREEEEEME]

If I’m reading correctly, two or more of the J2a haplogroup samples are L70. That is one of my great grandfathers’ haplogroup, so if true it’s interesting on a personal level.
Here are models of modern Balkan populations when testing admixture types, from the supplementals. They look about like what other studies imply or have found.
View attachment 12887

Yes, there's one J-L70 sample. Appears to be Western Anatolian based on the "NE Cluster" he is placed in. A great find! Oldest J-L70 ancient sample to date!

 

[SUPREEEEEME]

This is from your E-V13 page on Eupedia:

"There are at least three distinct sources of E-V13 in Italy.

The first would be the Bronze Age Italic tribes from Central Europe, who in all logic would have possessed at least some E-V13 lineages before they invaded the Italian peninsula. Proto-Italics would have been a predominantly R1b-U152 tribe, but also carried a minority of E-V13, G2a-L140 (L13, L1264 and Z1816 subclades) and J2a1-L70 (PF5456 and Z2177 subclades).

Yeah, I see no reason for the Proto-Italics to have carried J-L70. It's unlikely. What is likely, however, is that we're going to see J-L70 emerge amongst an Eastern Mediterranean group like the Hittites, Hurrians, Mycenaeans or Amorites.

 

[Fustan]

Just look at all those "Balkan IA" clusters, majorly E-V13, R1b-Z2103, and J2b-L283:

just like a certain ethnicity that exists in the balkans...

 

[ihype02]

Peloponnesians are reported te be 29% shifted towards Russia in the study compared to Empuries Samples (and 36% for Macedonia). I bet they push over 30% with Poles or Ukranians.
So the non academic calculators were accurate all the time.

Also Serbs are 48% shifted towards Russians compared to natives after the Germanic and Celtic invasions. The Slavs that occupied Serbia were probably more southern than modern Russians. So their overall Slavic ancestry seem to be roughly 50%, not inflated by Germanic or Celtic invasions as some assumed.

 

[Ralphie Boy]

Yes, there's one J-L70 sample. Appears to be Western Anatolian based on the "NE Cluster" he is placed in. A great find! Oldest J-L70 ancient sample to date!

Yes, one L70 sample. I was looking at a blurry line in the article’s supplement section and mistook it for a second sample. I believe this sample was referred to as J-L24 when this paper was mentioned a while ago. Glad it turned out to L70 and older than the Rome sample. I hope one day we can get an L70 subclade out of this sample.

 

[ihype02]

Much of what this paper published has already been known or hypothesized. We just got better dates and a higher quantity of samples.
When you count in, Anatolians and Armenians that were transplanted in Thrace the estimated Slavic admixture of Bulgarians pushes from 37% to 40%.

Also this covers up the Celtic admixture that was absorbed since the samples are from the Anno Domini era.

Germanic? Does not seem so. The question is how were the Slavs that occupied Serbia like? What about those in Bulgaria and Greece?

 

[Archetype0ne]

3 L283? ... More than I thought, initially heard rumors of.

By the way for all the flack Davidski gets in this site.

Davidski/his North Europe PCA made it into the paper or at least the supplemental:

"We ran three different PCAs:
[…]
3. One for which PCs were computed using 407 present-day North-Europeans genotyped on the HO array (Figure S9). We designed this PCA to reveal more recent drift that could separate 3rd-6th centuries CE individuals from the 10th century CE individuals. These two groups of individuals yielded a similar position in the Western-Eurasian PCA (Figure1; Figure S7) but had significantly different ancestral origins when modelling using qpWave/qpAdm (Supplementary Section 11 & Supplementary Section 12). The design of this PCA was inspired by the Eurogenes blog:
(https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/...-warriors.html).


Figure S9. North European PCA with ancient samples projected."


Now, I really do not like the methodology they used of comparing modern pops with a empuries + mordovian and empuries + russian models. I feel that is just lazy.
But given the fit and assuming, this model as a basic placeholder pending more logical models. What does this mean in the Fellmayer context.
Given based on the sources, the authors read Eurogenes blog, does it mean they came up with such a model as a result.

Quite confusing.

 

[Duarte]

Figure 1. PCA of West Eurasian genetic variability showing present-day individuals as grey circles, published ancient groups as polygons and newly-reported ancient individuals from Viminacium, Timacum Minus and Mediana as colored squares, from A) 0-250 CE, B) 250-500 CE and C) 900 CE to present-day. This PCA is the zoom-in version of Figure S7.

Figure 2. Fitting qpAdm models for the different ancestry clusters.

Figure 3. Proportions of Northeastern European-related ancestry (in black) for present- day Balkans populations. 10th century CE Kuline individuals are indicated with a red outline.

Figure 4. Graphical summary of the genetic findings. A) 0-250 CE, B) 250-500 CE and C) After 550 CE

 

[SUPREEEEEME]

Yes, one L70 sample. I was looking at a blurry line in the article’s supplement section and mistook it for a second sample. I believe this sample was referred to as J-L24 when this paper was mentioned a while ago. Glad it turned out to L70 and older than the Rome sample. I hope one day we can get an L70 subclade out of this sample.

I am sure it will be uploaded to YFull.

 

[Bill7]

Much of what this paper published has already been known or hypothesized. We just got better dates and a higher quantity of samples.
When you count in, Anatolians and Armenians that were transplanted in Thrace the estimated Slavic admixture of Bulgarians pushes from 37% to 40%.

Also this covers up the Celtic admixture that was absorbed since the samples are from the Anno Domini era.

Germanic? Does not seem so. The question is how were the Slavs that occupied Serbia like? What about those in Bulgaria and Greece?

yeah but they should have used the new medieval slavic samples to calculate the slavic admixture, and to calculate the native percentage in Bulgarians they should have used thracians or dacians instead of ancient Greeks. All in all Greeks and Albanians seem to have about 20-30% slavic ancestry according to this paper

 

[Maciamo]

This is from your E-V13 page on Eupedia:

"There are at least three distinct sources of E-V13 in Italy.

The first would be the Bronze Age Italic tribes from Central Europe, who in all logic would have possessed at least some E-V13 lineages before they invaded the Italian peninsula. Proto-Italics would have been a predominantly R1b-U152 tribe, but also carried a minority of E-V13, G2a-L140 (L13, L1264 and Z1816 subclades) and J2a1-L70 (PF5456 and Z2177 subclades). The second would be the ancient Greeks, who heavily colonized southern Italy from the 9th century BCE until the Roman conquest in the 3rd century BCE. The third are the Goths. As a Germanic tribe they might have carried a small percentage of E-V13. But that percentage very certainly increased after spending several centuries in Central and Southeast Europe and assimilating Proto-Slavs and Balkanic people before invading Italy. The Goths settled over all the Italian peninsula. They would have brought typically Germanic lineages like I1 and R1b-U106, but also the Proto-Slavic R1a-CTS1211, which is now found uniformly in 1 to 2% of the population. Since R1a-CTS1211 is not originally Germanic, it is likely that the Goths also brought a small but noticeable percentage of assimilated lineages from the Balkans, including E-V13 and J2b1 (I2a1b-CTS10228 would have come later from the East Slavic migrations from Ukraine during the Early Middle Ages, hence its absence from Italy, apart from a few coastal areas facing the Adriatic Sea)."

I think now we have enough evidence for this to be updated and add balkan groups like Illyrians, Thracians, etc, to the list of E-V13 spreaders. Far more probable than Bronze Age Italic tribes and Goths and Greeks.

I still don't see the problem. What you quoted was the possible origin of E-V13 in Italy. I stated that E-V13 emerged somewhere between Germany and Ukraine in the Bronze Age. So it would have been all over the region (Balkans included) by the Iron Age and Roman time.

 

[hrvat22]

Which slavic haplotypes are after 550 CE? As far as I can see there is very little Slavic genetics(I2a-R1a) before the 10th century and the Slavs were there massively before.

So I would like someone to explain it to me, maybe I not have seen all the data?

 

[kingdavid]

I15537 Timacum Minus, Kuline Necropolis M H13a2a E-M78,E-L618,E-V13,E-Z1057,E-CTS1273,E-BY3880,E-Z5017,E-Z5016,E-Y3762 Serbia_Slavic

I15538 Timacum Minus, Kuline Necropolis M H1e1a6 R1b,R-M269,R-L23,R-L52,R-L151,R-P312,R-D99 Serbia_Slavic_o 892-989 cal CE (1115±15 BP, PSUAMS-8592)

I15539 Timacum Minus, Kuline Necropolis M H1e1a6,H1e1a6 R1b,R-M269,R-L23,R-L52,R-L151,R-P312,R-D99 Serbia_Slavic_o

I15540 Timacum Minus, Kuline Necropolis F J1b1a1 .. Serbia_Slavic

I15541 Timacum Minus, Kuline Necropolis M K1a4 I2,I-L460,I-P37,I-M423,I-Y3104,I-L621,I-CTS10936,I-S19848,I-CTS4002,I-CTS10228,I-Y3120 Serbia_Slavic

I15542 Timacum Minus, Kuline Necropolis M H9a I2,I-L460,I-P37,I-M423,I-Y3104,I-L621,I-CTS10936,I-S19848,I-CTS4002,I-CTS10228,I-Y3120 Serbia_Slavic 897-1021 cal CE (1075±15 BP, PSUAMS-8555)

I15543 Timacum Minus, Kuline Necropolis M H1f+16093 J2,J-M410,J-PF4610,J-L26,J-Z6064,J-Z6055,J-Z6057,J-Y7013,J-Y7010 Serbia_Slavic

 

[hrvat22]

I15537 Timacum Minus, Kuline Necropolis M H13a2a E-M78,E-L618,E-V13,E-Z1057,E-CTS1273,E-BY3880,E-Z5017,E-Z5016,E-Y3762 Serbia_Slavic
I15538 Timacum Minus, Kuline Necropolis M H1e1a6 R1b,R-M269,R-L23,R-L52,R-L151,R-P312,R-D99 Serbia_Slavic_o 892-989 cal CE (1115±15 BP, PSUAMS-8592)
I15539 Timacum Minus, Kuline Necropolis M H1e1a6,H1e1a6 R1b,R-M269,R-L23,R-L52,R-L151,R-P312,R-D99 Serbia_Slavic_o
I15540 Timacum Minus, Kuline Necropolis F J1b1a1 .. Serbia_Slavic
I15541 Timacum Minus, Kuline Necropolis M K1a4 I2,I-L460,I-P37,I-M423,I-Y3104,I-L621,I-CTS10936,I-S19848,I-CTS4002,I-CTS10228,I-Y3120 Serbia_Slavic
I15542 Timacum Minus, Kuline Necropolis M H9a I2,I-L460,I-P37,I-M423,I-Y3104,I-L621,I-CTS10936,I-S19848,I-CTS4002,I-CTS10228,I-Y3120 Serbia_Slavic 897-1021 cal CE (1075±15 BP, PSUAMS-8555)
I15543 Timacum Minus, Kuline Necropolis M H1f+16093 J2,J-M410,J-PF4610,J-L26,J-Z6064,J-Z6055,J-Z6057,J-Y7013,J-Y7010 Serbia_Slavic

A characteristic genetics of southern Slavs are branches of I2a and R1a. I don't know what J2 haplotype, branch J-Y7010 has to do with slavs? Has the migration of that branch from Carpathian region been established somewhere? Or for E-V13 E-Y3762?

It is the 10th century. Where are the haplotypes of the Slavs from the seventh or ninth century?

 

[lacreme]

Peloponnesians are reported te be 29% shifted towards Russia in the study compared to Empuries Samples (and 36% for Macedonia). I bet they push over 30% with Poles or Ukranians.
So the non academic calculators were accurate all the time.

Well yes... obviously using populations like Poles and Ukrainians harboring additional admixture (celtic+germanic and possibly others too ? ) that can also be found in varying proportions in the Balkans that's currently not represented by the models used will definitely inflate the percentage.
In addition to the Slavs, Celtic, Germanic and other tribes would have bigger impact the further north you go thus using these (modern) populations the Slavic component in Albanians and Greek Macedonians (basically the same ancestral proportions in the published 2-way model) will shot up even more, not only quintatively but also proportionally* . You can see it for yourself using the G25 coords for the respective populations.

* 6% increase in Peloponnesians using Polish instead of Ingria_IA , around 8% increase in Albanians+Greek Macedonians.

 

[blevins13]

A characteristic genetics of southern Slavs are branches of I2a and R1a. I don't know what J2 haplotype, branch J-Y7010 has to do with slavs? Has the migration of that branch from Carpathian region been established somewhere? Or for E-V13 E-Y3762?

It is the 10th century. Where are the haplotypes of the Slavs from the seventh or ninth century?

It says that Slavic migration was gender biased, no man only women.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

 

[Johane Derite]

I still don't see the problem. What you quoted was the possible origin of E-V13 in Italy. I stated that E-V13 emerged somewhere between Germany and Ukraine in the Bronze Age. So it would have been all over the region (Balkans included) by the Iron Age and Roman time.

I think there is enough evidence now to consider Illyrian, Messapians, as a more probable spreader of E-V13 in Italy than at the least the Goths.
The words llyrian, Messapian, Thracian, do not appear even once in the E-V13 article. I think there has been enougy evidence for a while to see that this is an oversight.

 

[hrvat22]

It says that Slavic migration was gender biased, no man only women.


Sent from my ****** using Eupedia Forum

That's what I assumed. This is a big information established by scientific work. This actually means that there is no male Slavic genetics in that area until the 10th century. It is eastern Serbia, western Bulgaria, which is very surprising.

Who are Timočani then or Slavs from that area?

The Timočani (also Timochani, or Timochans; Serbian and Bulgarian: Тимочани) were a medieval South Slavic tribe that lived in the territory of present-day eastern Serbia, west of the Timok River, as well as in the regions of Banat, Syrmia and Moesia Superior.

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

 

[Riverman]

Authors are indirectly assuming that Roman time Viminacium population was 47% E-V13, that means that Early to Late Iron Age population there was more than ~80% E-V13 since the remaining ~40% are Eastern Mediterranean comers. And there is absolutely nothing less to assume that they were the Gava-Urnfield/Channeled-Ware people coming down from Carpathian/Beskidy mountains during Late Bronze Age to Iron Age transition.

Actually the early samples being underestimated for E-V13, because a large portion of the locals seems to have sticked to their old tradition of cremating their dead. If you consider that the towns and cities were filled with migrants, soldiers etc. from the Empire and still, with these migrants and the large number of cremations, the percentage is that high, you can easily imagine that even at that time of the Roman era, E-V13 was totally dominant in the region. Therefore it shouldn't wonder Danubian Serbia is to this day one of the spaces with the highest and probably also most diverse E-V13 frequencies.

The main spreading events for E-V13 being clearly linked to two archaeological grouping:
- G?va-Holigrady culture producing the Channelled Ware horizon which can be identified with Proto-Thracian and Daco-Thracian respectively
- Bosut-Basarabi (Northern Daco-Thracian) with a Western hub in the Eastern Hallstatt sphere, especially around Fr?g culture. From there it could have spread to early Celts and into Northern Italy, but that needs to be proven

The connection of Bosut-Basarabi to the West was directly through the Pannonian-Illyrian groups, largely along the Danube. In this process with the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and Eastern Hallstatt, also other, local haplogroups were taken to the West. This includes in particular some branches of J-L283. They came with Pannonian-Illyrian -> transformed into Eastern Hallstatt.

That's why I expect E-V13 and J-L283 being quite strictly separated for a fairly long time in the Central Balkans, then mixing, but in Central Europe and the West oftentimes appearing together, because they spread together through the Eastern Hallstatt hub to the West. This includes regons like Southern Germany, France and Northern Italy.

As for the Near Eastern urban inhabitants and soldiers, they were simply restricted to some central places, rather than spread out, like in some other regions of the Empire. And this study also shows how important the archaeological context is, to properly define and categorise samples. Many of the Near Easterners were Roman administrators, officers, merchants and the East African was an auxiliary. That's something you can't tell from the genetic profile alone, for that you need the context of the burial.

 

[Riverman]

I think there is enough evidence now to consider Illyrian, Messapians, as a more probable spreader of E-V13 in Italy than at the least the Goths.
The words llyrian, Messapian, Thracian, do not appear even once in the E-V13 article. I think there has been enougy evidence for a while to see that this is an oversight.

Not really, because the Goths not just moved through E-V13 heavy Daco-Thracian territory, they also lived among them for long and mixed with local Daco-Thracians and Scythians, so definitely picking it up, not just in the servant class, in which they had even more of it.

But the ultimate source is without a doubt Daco-Thracian. Its just that Daco-Thracians were quite dispersed, absolutely not restricted to just Bulgaria, to sum it up. They were present from Poland to Anatolia, from Austria to the Ukraine. And since they influenced the Eastern Hallstatt culture heavily, indirectly also Western Hallstatt, there was a secondary low level spread with Celts and Northern Italian Hallstatt groups, imho.
But all of this doesn't change the fact that Goths might have brought more E-V13 to some regions than any other group. But we don't know for sure without a lot of samples with terminal clades. I mean how can you tell whether an E-V13 in Northern Spain is even a Neolithic survivor, an early iron smith from Channelled Ware on the move, a Greek colonist, a Celtic tribe, Roman soldier or Goth? Its impossible to tell without having the terminal clades and proper matches for a reference to compare with. But we do know that especially the Goths carried E-V13 people, they had them in their ranks and its unlikely they all just disappeared.
For areas like Iberia, a Gothic transmission is just as likely as a direct Thracian one. For Bulgaria things are different of course