Stolarek et al: Genetic history of East-Central Europe...

[FR9CZ6]

Radko

I've told you before that if a genome isn't in G25, it doesn't mean it isn't there at all. In general, there are a lot of Slavic genomes, also in terms of Y-DNA, from Iron Age Poland. Even in the G25 there is one. There are also many genomes with a large share of Slavic admixture.

The unfavorable ratio of non-Slavic to Slavic genomes results from the cremation rite cultivated by the Slavs in the Iron Age. Skeletons represent only a few percent of Iron Age burials, and a few percent cannot be representative of 100% of the population.

Biritual cremation-inhumation practices don’t necessarily reflect ethnic differences. Cremation was common in Jastorf culture and in Scandinavia during the iron age. 

“the presently available data do not allow to interpret the heterogeneity of the younger Pre-roman Iron age Przeworsk burial practices as an indicator of ethnic differences. the phenomenon is more likely to be associated with some ritual conditions dependant on death circumstances, as already k. Czarnecka has argued (1990, 83-91). the diversity of inhumation practices might suggest that it was the opposition cremation – inhumation which was the most important aspect of burial ritual in the eyes of Germanic Przeworsk culture societies. other aspects of funerary practices seem to have been of secondary significance. this might possibly be associated with religious beliefs characteristic of these communities. such beliefs might be reconstructed on the basis of the pagan tradition preserved in scandinavia (ellis 1943), according to which the deceased travelled either to Walhalla or to the realm of hel depending on their earthly deeds and death circumstances.”

[Orentil]

Radko

I've told you before that if a genome isn't in G25, it doesn't mean it isn't there at all. In general, there are a lot of Slavic genomes, also in terms of Y-DNA, from Iron Age Poland. Even in the G25 there is one. There are also many genomes with a large share of Slavic admixture.

The unfavorable ratio of non-Slavic to Slavic genomes results from the cremation rite cultivated by the Slavs in the Iron Age. Skeletons represent only a few percent of Iron Age burials, and a few percent cannot be representative of 100% of the population.

At least for the Wielbark culture the cremation argument does not really work. There are archaeologically no signs for different populations associated with cremation and inhumation rites. The inhumation is a phenomenon that spread in different Germanic areas during that time, also in Sweden and other parts of Scandinavia.
Nevertheless, it will be great to get samples from the Oksywie culture but I don't expect big surprises autosomally or Y-haplogroup-wise. Surely no R1a hotspot.

PS: seems that FR9CZ6 was 1 min faster with the same conclusion ;-)

[Gordius]

So the Huns on the Vistula are not a fantasy of the author of Widsith, but a historical fact.

Yes, we have a few dozens of genetic Germanics from every corner of Iron Age Poland (and more coming) and 1 Hun. And 0 genetic Slavs.

Is it related to cremations in some cultures? The available genetic samples may represent many areas - but do they represent all the archaeological cultures from those areas?

[Riverman]

“the presently available data do not allow to interpret the heterogeneity of the younger Pre-roman Iron age Przeworsk burial practices as an indicator of ethnic differences. the phenomenon is more likely to be associated with some ritual conditions dependant on death circumstances,

The correct way to say it and the better conclusion would be that Germanics simply used cremation as well. But it is still not true that this is of no significance for the ethnicity of the buried, because while Germanics did use both rites, Slavics in their ethnic communities apparently did primarily use cremations. Therefore we only get Germanics and mixed context burials with inhumations, regularly, whereas the Slavic core surely used nearly exclusively cremation.

[Orentil]

So the Huns on the Vistula are not a fantasy of the author of Widsith, but a historical fact.

Yes, we have a few dozens of genetic Germanics from every corner of Iron Age Poland (and more coming) and 1 Hun. And 0 genetic Slavs.

Is it related to cremations in some cultures? The available genetic samples may represent many areas - but do they represent all the archaeological cultures from those areas?

For the Przeworsk culture regions surely the archaeological context of the inhumations will be of much more importance then for the Wielbark culture. There we might find indeed some Celtic outliers that are not representative for the whole culture (I want to mention the Hassleben samples again), but let's see what we get before we start to dispute about potential Przeworsk results...

[Radko]

The available genetic samples may represent many areas - but do they represent all the archaeological cultures from those areas?

Yes, we will have samples representing Przeworsk, Oksywie, Wielbark and West Baltic culture populations, so all archaeological cultures of Iron Age Poland.

[FR9CZ6]

“the presently available data do not allow to interpret the heterogeneity of the younger Pre-roman Iron age Przeworsk burial practices as an indicator of ethnic differences. the phenomenon is more likely to be associated with some ritual conditions dependant on death circumstances,

The correct way to say it and the better conclusion would be that Germanics simply used cremation as well. But it is still not true that this is of no significance for the ethnicity of the buried, because while Germanics did use both rites, Slavics in their ethnic communities apparently did primarily use cremations. Therefore we only get Germanics and mixed context burials with inhumations, regularly, whereas the Slavic core surely used nearly exclusively cremation.

I agree, but I think the author’s way of wording his conclusion is also correct. It simply states that based on the available data, we can’t confirm that biritualism reflects ethnic differences. It is possible that the cremation burials hide very diverse populations, but currently we can’t really confirm it, the archaeological context rather suggests that inhumation and cremation in the region was practiced by the same people. Also, correct me if I’m wrong but as far as I know Jastorf people also primarily practiced cremation. I think the european individual’s case at Czulice double burial is also quite telling, because this individual was inhumated only by mere chance. If genetically slavic-like people constituted the overwhelming majority in the wider region at the time, the odds are very low for finding a pure germanic-like individual there instead of a slav.
It definitely doesn’t work like cremation burial=slavs as ambron suggested. I’m not an expert in the field but I believe there were plenty of different types of cremation burials and it’s really important to identify them and compare them to others from different regions and times.

[Riverman]

“the presently available data do not allow to interpret the heterogeneity of the younger Pre-roman Iron age Przeworsk burial practices as an indicator of ethnic differences. the phenomenon is more likely to be associated with some ritual conditions dependant on death circumstances,

The correct way to say it and the better conclusion would be that Germanics simply used cremation as well. But it is still not true that this is of no significance for the ethnicity of the buried, because while Germanics did use both rites, Slavics in their ethnic communities apparently did primarily use cremations. Therefore we only get Germanics and mixed context burials with inhumations, regularly, whereas the Slavic core surely used nearly exclusively cremation.

I agree, but I think the author’s way of wording his conclusion is also correct. It simply states that based on the available data, we can’t confirm that biritualism reflects ethnic differences. It is possible that the cremation burials hide very diverse populations, but currently we can’t really confirm it, the archaeological context rather suggests that inhumation and cremation in the region was practiced by the same people. Also, correct me if I’m wrong but as far as I know Jastorf people also primarily practiced cremation. I think the european individual’s case at Czulice double burial is also quite telling, because this individual was inhumated only by mere chance. If genetically slavic-like people constituted the overwhelming majority in the wider region at the time, the odds are very low for finding a pure germanic-like individual there instead of a slav.
It definitely doesn’t work like cremation burial=slavs as ambron suggested. I’m not an expert in the field but I believe there were plenty of different types of cremation burials and it’s really important to identify them and compare them to others from different regions and times.

We had three big blocks of cremating people in the region:
Baltoslavs
Germanics
Daco-Thracians

Even Celts did sometimes cremate. And yes, Jastorf did exclusively cremate their dead, which poses a similar problem to the Proto-Germanic question as to the Proto-Thracian and Proto-Slavic one. Only later the Germanics started to use inhumation as well and in the East it really varied by tribe, time and social context. Like after contacts with Northern Daco-Thracians, the frequency of cremations seems to have increased again in some areas.

So basically around Poland and the Carpathians, Slavs, Germanics, Daco-Thracians, Celts and unknown people (lilke the Lusatian remains) might all have used cremation at some point and in some contexts.

The crucial difference is how strict things were handled, because Jastorf Germanics, Proto-Thracians, Dacians, Baltoslavs, Proto-Slavs all did exclusively burn their dead. There might be irregular exceptions from the rule, but the rule was cremation.

[Radko]

We had three big blocks of cremating people in the region:
Baltoslavs
(...)

Interestingly, we have a lot of Iron Age genetic Balts from Baltic states despite the common practice of cremation burial. Non-Baltic-like genomes are rare there.

Also, it seems that most 5th-6th c. Imen'kovo culture samples could be "Early Slavic-like" genetically.

And we have a lot (more to come) of genetically Slavic samples from Avar period (again, despite the common practice of cremation among Slavs).

[ph2ter]

It is impossible that a community that practices cremation and coexists with other communities that do not practice cremation would not leave a mark in sporadic burials.
Uncremated burials we can expect from inter-marriages, in case of dead on the battlefields after the battles, young children, dead in the cases of massive epidemics ...

[alexfritz]

i think it is pretty safe to say from the data sofar that the proto-Slavic core must have been smwhere between the Vistula and the Volga, and in light of the early Slavs still having a strong Baltic profile and so do the early M458s (BA/IA) and L1209s (Wielbark/Tisza) and both recent papers on IBD and qpAdm highlighting Baltic groups as significant/defining for later Slavs, maybe the Venedae is back on the map !?!? and i think what we can say sofar for sure also is that the expansion to the east (Volga) occurred much later than to the west (Tisza/Danube)

eg the Volga-Oka paper revealed at hand of Puzhalova gora and GOR001 (L1029) that the Rus' expanded to the east from the west

Show Content

SpoilerPuzhalova gora is a burial ground with 105 barrows ... The burial ritual represents the common Rus’ tradition of the 12th century. The barrow cemetery at Puzhalova gora is known as one of the easternmost sites with burial mounds and marks the eastern edge of the territory where the barrow ritual of medieval Rus’ spread in the 11th–12th centuries.

the sheer fact that mound GOR001 has a cal CE of 1169±18 means that the expansion eastward to the Volga was a good 500-600 years later when Slavs (though in context of Avar mobility) like RKF106 (L1029) show up in the Tisza/Danube area, and maybe the parallel to the Huns and Goths is not far fetched who came to the Danube as Vassals of the Huns as the Slavs came as Befulci (auxiliaries / prob foot) of the Avars, and maybe there was prehand mobility from the Venedae towards the Black-sea similar to the Goths of Gothiscandza aswell

[Riverman]

And we have a lot (more to come) of genetically Slavic samples from Avar period (again, despite the common practice of cremation among Slavs).

That's a common theme for cremating people switching to other burial rites under foreign influence, even if the genetic influence is low to non-existent.

Like:
Daco-Thracians switched under Cimmerian, Scytho-Sarmatian and Celtic influence to inhumation burials
Germancis switched under Celtic, Roman and Scytho-Sarmatian influence to inhumation burials.

Probably we can add Slavs under Avar, Germanic and Roman influence?

Its therefore not uncommon and can be explained by the loss of their own traditions under foreign influence.

It is, by the way, pretty typical that all three main cremating ethnicities of Antiquity (Daco-Thracians, Germanics and Baltoslavs) did rarely if ever change from within to inhumation, but nearly always under foreign influence and the new customs, of using inhumation, spread from the fringe and foreign influenced groups to the central ones, never the opposite way around.
The contact changed their belief system, sometimes just for a limited period of time, then they switched back to cremation again, until they completely lost the old beliefs.

It is impossible that a community that practices cremation and coexists with other communities that do not practice cremation would not leave a mark in sporadic burials.
Uncremated burials we can expect from inter-marriages, in case of dead on the battlefields after the battles, young children, dead in the cases of massive epidemics ...

Impossible is too much. How many new samples do we have from the Tollense I2-dominated population so far? In any case, it needs really dense sampling to get the complete picture. Some of maps posted with upcoming samples look pretty promising, while for now we still have huge gaps in time and space.

[leonardo]

i think it is pretty safe to say from the data sofar that the proto-Slavic core must have been smwhere between the Vistula and the Voldga, and in light of the early Slavs still having a strong Baltic profile and so do the early M458s (BA/IA) and L1209s (Wielbark/Tisza) and both recent papers on IBD and qpAdm highlighting Baltic groups as significant/defining for later Slavs, maybe the Venedae is back on the map !?!? and i think what we can say sofar for sure also is that the expansion to the east (Volga) occurred much later than to the west (Tisza/Danube)

eg the Volga-Oka paper revealed at hand of Puzhalova gora and GOR001 (L1029) that the Rus' expanded to the east from the west

Show Content

SpoilerPuzhalova gora is a burial ground with 105 barrows ... The burial ritual represents the common Rus’ tradition of the 12th century. The barrow cemetery at Puzhalova gora is known as one of the easternmost sites with burial mounds and marks the eastern edge of the territory where the barrow ritual of medieval Rus’ spread in the 11th–12th centuries.

the sheer fact that mound GOR001 has a cal CE of 1169±18 means that the expansion eastward to the Volga was a good 500-600 years later when Slavs (though in context of Avar mobility) like RKF106 (L1029) show up in the Tisza/Danube area, and maybe the parallel to the Huns and Goths is not far fetched who came to the Danube as Vassals of the Huns as the Slavs came as Befulci (auxiliaries / prob foot) of the Avars, and maybe there was prehand mobility from the Venedae towards the Black-sea similar to the Goths of Gothiscandza aswell

I wonder how the Goths defeat of the Venedi plays into this theory? Could some of the defeated Venedi moved eastward with the Goths? I believe this defeat occurred just a few years before the Huns swept in.

[Rozenfeld]

Does anyone know when these new papers will be published? Can we expect anything in the next couple of months?

[alexfritz]

i think it is pretty safe to say from the data sofar that the proto-Slavic core must have been smwhere between the Vistula and the Voldga, and in light of the early Slavs still having a strong Baltic profile and so do the early M458s (BA/IA) and L1209s (Wielbark/Tisza) and both recent papers on IBD and qpAdm highlighting Baltic groups as significant/defining for later Slavs, maybe the Venedae is back on the map !?!? and i think what we can say sofar for sure also is that the expansion to the east (Volga) occurred much later than to the west (Tisza/Danube)

eg the Volga-Oka paper revealed at hand of Puzhalova gora and GOR001 (L1029) that the Rus' expanded to the east from the west

Show Content

SpoilerPuzhalova gora is a burial ground with 105 barrows ... The burial ritual represents the common Rus’ tradition of the 12th century. The barrow cemetery at Puzhalova gora is known as one of the easternmost sites with burial mounds and marks the eastern edge of the territory where the barrow ritual of medieval Rus’ spread in the 11th–12th centuries.

the sheer fact that mound GOR001 has a cal CE of 1169±18 means that the expansion eastward to the Volga was a good 500-600 years later when Slavs (though in context of Avar mobility) like RKF106 (L1029) show up in the Tisza/Danube area, and maybe the parallel to the Huns and Goths is not far fetched who came to the Danube as Vassals of the Huns as the Slavs came as Befulci (auxiliaries / prob foot) of the Avars, and maybe there was prehand mobility from the Venedae towards the Black-sea similar to the Goths of Gothiscandza aswell

I wonder how the Goths defeat of the Venedi plays into this theory? Could some of the defeated Venedi moved eastward with the Goths? I believe this defeat occurred just a few years before the Huns swept in.

this is a good point
the first Greuthung vassal (post Ermanaric's death) was called Vinitharius attesting to the conflict with the Venedi yet is said to have fought the Antes in the north Black-sea area (?a hint) his son was called Vandalarius which attests to the westward mobiity of the Huns (cf Czulice) and prob the events leading upoto 406 CE

it all sounds like stuff from the 1800s now but sofar aDNA actually confirmed more of those old narratives than disproved them
specially for the MP and also Avar period so why should it not continue with Venedi and Antes specially given the early profiles