Map of ancient Slavic

[Tora_sama]

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid...375046&z=5
Who else had autosomes in G25, then there they were checked for proximity to the general Slavic populations.
With the appearance of new samples, the map will be update. To simplify the marking of haplogroups, the same colors are used as in FTDNA, if applications with the texture of the haplogroup were found in one place, then the color of the predominant one was indicated. Places with MT haplogroups only are indicated by color.
If you want to add a sample, then you need to:
1)Place
2)Haplogroups
3)Dating
4)Link to the source
Your comments and suggestions will be accepted, so do not hesitate to write.

[Tora_sama]

The map has been updated. Finally, I added medieval Poles from summer work, but since I was sorting through all the information manually from the RAW file, it took quite a long time, and the information could change a lot in a more accurate direction. In general, if anything, write, I will change or add up-to-date information.

[Tora_sama]

A small innovation, I added locations from future works with links to the source to the map.

[Radko]

More samples from Poland - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Agbd2-f...sp=sharing

[Riverman]

More samples from Poland - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Agbd2-f...sp=sharing

How is the Lubin population to be interpreted? I'm not sure about the translation. There was yet another (presumably) E-V13 in the Lubin sample. Are these Wendish samples?

[Radko]

To be honest, I have no idea how to read these analyses. They make no sense at all.

For example: "In the case of the Shestovista site in Ukraine, from which the two Ukraine_Viking individuals analyzed in this work come from, archaeologists suggest a mixed Viking-Slavic population, in which women would form a relatively homogeneous East Slavic group (...) Based on the analysis carried out in this work, both of these individuals (incidentally XX and XY with the same mtDNA haplogroup - V) can be classified as the Slavic population because they clearly genetically refer to the "autochthonous" population represented by Polish individuals (Figure 21)."

And according to Margaryan ancestry analyses...

VK539
Swedish-like - 34.8%
Finnish-like - 33.3%
Norwegian-like - 29.9%
Polish-like - 0.9%
Danish-like - 0.6%
British-like - 0.3%
Southern European-like - 0.2%

VK540
Norwegian-like - 41%
Swedish-like - 25.3%
Finnish-like - 16.7%
Polish-like - 14%
Danish-like - 2.3%
Southern European-like - 0.6%
British-like - 0.1%

According to G25...

Distance to: UKR_Shestovitsa_VA:VK539
0.02344102 Swedish:GSM1884863
0.02596772 Swedish:GSM1884782
0.02709387 Swedish:Sweden15
0.02882424 Finnish_Southwest:HG00277
0.02961483 Swedish:GSM1884752
0.03005510 Swedish:Sweden8
0.03013257 Finnish_Southwest
0.03043960 Finnish_Southwest:HG00190
0.03051927 Swedish:GSM1884922
0.03066353 Swedish:GSM1884818
0.03071337 Swedish:GSM1884917
0.03135672 Swedish:GSM1884765
0.03144135 Swedish:GSM1884858
0.03237775 Swedish:Sweden3
0.03258541 Swedish:Sweden22
0.03333797 Finnish_Southwest:HG00337
0.03355565 Swedish:GSM1884775
0.03359966 Norwegian:GSM1550614
0.03375948 Swedish:GSM1884776
0.03385379 Finnish_Southwest:HG00310
0.03396000 Swedish:GSM1884861
0.03398625 Swedish
0.03398873 Swedish:Sweden19
0.03402991 Swedish:GSM1884785
0.03417348 Swedish:GSM1884877

Distance to: UKR_Shestovitsa_VA:VK540
0.02576870 Swedish:GSM1884775
0.02662797 Swedish:Sweden3
0.02819347 Swedish:GSM1884788
0.02828131 Swedish:GSM1884863
0.02909173 Swedish
0.02951309 Swedish:Sweden22
0.02955885 Swedish:GSM1884825
0.02976035 Swedish:GSM1884858
0.02984964 Swedish:GSM1884765
0.03001671 Swedish:GSM1884782
0.03031443 Swedish:Sweden6
0.03068384 Swedish:Sweden15
0.03096432 Swedish:GSM1884927
0.03126697 Danish:456
0.03176004 Swedish:GSM1884922
0.03183252 Swedish:GSM1884752
0.03209908 Swedish:GSM1884845
0.03216466 Danish:463
0.03217414 Swedish:Sweden8
0.03221775 Swedish:GSM1884917
0.03235347 Swedish:GSM1884785
0.03265916 Swedish:Sweden19
0.03278660 Swedish:GSM1884850
0.03284120 Swedish:GSM1884869
0.03304697 Swedish:GSM1884888

[Riverman]

That makes the interpretation especially of the Lubin samples more difficult, because they were thought to have Germanic influence as well.

[Radko]

That makes the interpretation especially of the Lubin samples more difficult, because they were thought to have Germanic influence as well.

As David wrote on his blog:
"I can't say anything about the thesis until I get the samples, because there's no guarantee that this woman can even run a basic analysis."

And he added:
"I'm not impressed.

The thesis is so confused that it's impossible to work out anything useful about those new Weklice samples.

The only thing that makes sense is that one of the males is listed in a table as belonging to Y-hg I1.

When these samples become available I'll have a look at them and then I can actually say with certainty whether they have Slavic ancestry or not."

[corrigendum]

To be honest, I have no idea how to read these analyses. They make no sense at all.

It's a study which published this statement:

Populations dating back to the Roman period from Poland represented by the Przeworsk and Wielbark cultures, i.e. the cultures most often attributed in archeology of the Germanic population (Vandals and Goths) did not differ significantly in skull morphology from the groups early medieval Western Slavs from the Oder and Vistula basin (Dąbrowski, 2007; Piontek et al., 2008). On the other hand, both of these groups turned out to be significantly different from similarly dated Iron Age population from Denmark, thus undoubtedly representing a Germanic population. These are important results which support, firstly, the continuation of the settlement of the area the Oder and Vistula basins since ancient times, and secondly, questioning the Germanic character populations forming the Przeworsk and Wielbark cultures in Poland.


...

[lukpl]

To be honest, I have no idea how to read these analyses. They make no sense at all.

It's a study which published this statement:

Populations dating back to the Roman period from Poland represented by the Przeworsk and Wielbark cultures, i.e. the cultures most often attributed in archeology of the Germanic population (Vandals and Goths) did not differ significantly in skull morphology from the groups early medieval Western Slavs from the Oder and Vistula basin (Dąbrowski, 2007; Piontek et al., 2008). On the other hand, both of these groups turned out to be significantly different from similarly dated Iron Age population from Denmark, thus undoubtedly representing a Germanic population. These are important results which support, firstly, the continuation of the settlement of the area the Oder and Vistula basins since ancient times, and secondly, questioning the Germanic character populations forming the Przeworsk and Wielbark cultures in Poland.


...

Using skull morphology when we already have plenty of Stolarek Goth genomes to say all Wielbark Goths were not Germanic is idiotic. This author is simply not very smart. We can rely on skulls when there is no genomes possible to extract but this already done.

[Tomenable]

So there are still only two Slavic samples from the oldest period 6th - 9th centuries?

What about ancient samples from Himera and Viminacium? You will not add them?

[Tomenable]

I mean samples I10943 and I10949 from Himera and I32305 and R9673 from Viminacium.

From these studies:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2205272119 - samples I10943 and I10949

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/...5.491973v2 - sample R9673

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2023.10.018 - sample I32305

=====

Distances to modern populations when using K36:

I32305 from Viminacium:

[1] "1. CLOSEST SINGLE ITEM DISTANCE%"
Europe_PL_Mazowieckie
0.5322546
Europe_BY_Mogilev
0.5893607
Europe_PL_Podlaskie
0.5896889
Europe_PL_Central-Poland
0.6048678
Europe_PL_Warmia-Masuria
0.6275500
Russia_RUS_Smolensk
0.6329265
Europe_BY_Brest-Region
0.6354888
Europe_BY_Minsk
0.6500785
(...)

R9673 from Viminacium:

[1] "1. CLOSEST SINGLE ITEM DISTANCE%"
Europe_PL_Podlaskie
0.5572441
Europe_PL_Mazowieckie
0.7211803
Europe_PL_Suwalki
0.7266010
Europe_BY_Minsk
0.7401959
Europe_UA_Chernihiv-Oblast
0.7548828
Europe_BY_Grodno
0.7614309
Europe_BY_Polesye
0.7617559
Russia_RUS_Smolensk
0.7730201
Europe_PL_Central-Poland
0.7947566
(...)

I10943 from Himera:

[1] "1. CLOSEST SINGLE ITEM DISTANCE%"
Russia_RUS_Oryol
0.8727359
Europe_PL_Mazowieckie
0.9150120
Russia_RUS_Moscow
0.9551461
Russia_RUS_Kursk
0.9589307
Russia_RUS_Smolensk
0.9782934
Russia_RUS_Voronezh
0.9806977
Europe_PL_Central-Poland
1.0135127
Europe_PL_Swietokrzyskie
1.0310218
(...)

I10949 from Himera:

[1] "1. CLOSEST SINGLE ITEM DISTANCE%"
Russia_RUS_Pskov
1.103033
Europe_BY_Brest-Region
1.152332
Europe_LT_Lithuania-Alytus
1.216744
Europe_BY_Minsk
1.217643
Russia_RUS_Moscow
1.220349
Russia_RUS_Kursk
1.223444
Russia_RUS_Smolensk
1.234075
Europe_LT_Lithuania-Utena
1.249405
Europe_BY_Mogilev
1.251838
Europe_UA_Kharkiv-Oblast
1.259941
(...)

[Gordius]

What about ancient samples from Himera and Viminacium? You will not add them?

Are they Slavs?

[Tomenable]

What about ancient samples from Himera and Viminacium? You will not add them?

Are they Slavs?

I think so, because they have Slavic-like autosomal results (see above) and also typically Slavic Y-DNA haplogroups.

[Gordius]

What about ancient samples from Himera and Viminacium? You will not add them?

Are they Slavs?

I think so, because they have Slavic-like autosomal results (see above) and also typically Slavic Y-DNA haplogroups.

They have dominating component that we call "Balto-Slavic drift", but this does not mean that they were Slavs. They could be Balts, or they could be a separate branch (both Indo-European and non-Indo-European)