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

[Radko]

^^^ Johannes Krause, Joscha Gretzinger and Zuzana Hofmanova (among others) are also involved in this project.

[Bukva_]

She didn't mention from which Croatian site samples are used, but looks like they are connected more to Moravia then those from Austria and Germany.

Any idea when will this study be published?

[ph2ter]

She didn't mention from which Croatian site samples are used, but looks like they are connected more to Moravia then those from Austria and Germany.

Any idea when will this study be published?

Yes, they look intertwined with the Moravian sites, especially with Pohansko:

[Orentil]

So, I assume the pink dots in the right upper corner labeled as Germany-Slavic are the content of the Gretzinger abstract? Looking on the Co-authors they should be from Sachsen-Anhalt. Mainly two patrilocal cemeteries plus one "pre-Slavic" (=Thuringian/Elbe-Germanic)?

[ambron]

Ornetil

So we just have to wait for Gretzinger's proof that these German Slavs came from Belarus.

[Orentil]

Ornetil

So we just have to wait for Gretzinger's proof that these German Slavs came from Belarus.

Indeed. Honestly, I have no clue how they want to proof it. If they would have samples, one would expect an Ukraine or Belorussian co-author, at least for the archaeological part, like Harald Meller for Sachsen-Anhalt. I still think - as mentioned before - that the two cemeteries could be the sites of Oechlitz (9th/10th century), Niederwünsch (11th/12th century) or Brandenburg (in the state Brandenburg, 10th/11th century).
https://archlsa.de/bodendenkmalpflege/fu...-2010.html
https://archlsa.de/bodendenkmalpflege/fu...-2010.html
https://www.rbb24.de/panorama/beitrag/20...Donnerstag.
For the pre-Slavic (Thuringian) "reference" my best guess would be Brücken, as Harald Meller mentioned that he plans to perform kinship analyses there. Based on e.g. the found brooches he already claimed far reaching mating networks (alemannic, langobardic brooches) fitting to the more diverse IBD results.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOtMYSo8ee8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0XBlhAWF2o

I can only speculate that Gretzinger will use the software LOCATOR that "uses machine learning to map individuals into geographical space
based on their genetic profiles" , he used it in the Anglo-Saxon study, but of course the question is always with what data the software is filled and how reliable the results are. E.g. in his publication the Danish isles and Skane were included in the potential Anglo-Saxon origin regions, while McColl is now claiming that the SouthScand cluster /CNE came there only after 400 AD. This shows the potential weakness of such a software.
But maybe I am wrong and he has a better and smarter approach :-)

[alexfritz]

cool
one mt H80 at Mikulcice 340/MI3016
and lots of R1a in the Moravian sites but i think there was a rumor on AG that most are more Z280 > CTS1211

sure looks like its just two sites from Germany (hoped for more) but def looking forward to that output and if the trend continues some L1029ers should be present for eGermany sites; some pre-Slavic Germany dots from the cross of the south section still connect with dots of the Slavic sites so the story of the restgermanen could be not all that false

[okshtunas]

Ornetil

So we just have to wait for Gretzinger's proof that these German Slavs came from Belarus.

Indeed. Honestly, I have no clue how they want to proof it. If they would have samples, one would expect an Ukraine or Belorussian co-author, at least for the archaeological part, like Harald Meller for Sachsen-Anhalt. I still think - as mentioned before - that the two cemeteries could be the sites of Oechlitz (9th/10th century), Niederwünsch (11th/12th century) or Brandenburg (in the state Brandenburg, 10th/11th century).
https://archlsa.de/bodendenkmalpflege/fu...-2010.html
https://archlsa.de/bodendenkmalpflege/fu...-2010.html
https://www.rbb24.de/panorama/beitrag/20...Donnerstag.
For the pre-Slavic (Thuringian) "reference" my best guess would be Brücken, as Harald Meller mentioned that he plans to perform kinship analyses there. Based on e.g. the found brooches he already claimed far reaching mating networks (alemannic, langobardic brooches) fitting to the more diverse IBD results.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOtMYSo8ee8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0XBlhAWF2o

I can only speculate that Gretzinger will use the software LOCATOR that "uses machine learning to map individuals into geographical space
based on their genetic profiles" , he used it in the Anglo-Saxon study, but of course the question is always with what data the software is filled and how reliable the results are. E.g. in his publication the Danish isles and Skane were included in the potential Anglo-Saxon origin regions, while McColl is now claiming that the SouthScand cluster /CNE came there only after 400 AD. This shows the potential weakness of such a software.
But maybe I am wrong and he has a better and smarter approach :-)

So in other words, if they don't have any actual ancient samples from Ukraine & Belarus to support the position of the study, then, what they are basically using are tools that assume an origin in Belarus/Ukraine, based on comparison to modern individuals from these regions whom are themselves the product of some migration/back-migration/mixing over the course of time since?

How can that be taken seriously?

Also, how can we say with confidence that Proto-Slavs from a genetic standpoint (not linguistic), weren't somewhat different from each other region to region?

For example, if samples are found outside Belarus/Ukraine, what is to say that Slavs didn't look different in neighboring areas, or weren't on some sort of spectrum, or that Slavs have to have looked like Belarusians and Ukrainians?

It seems to me that we are starting from an assumption this way, and only data that fits said assumption would be accepted, whereas, all else would be disregarded as singletons, and outliers.

[Orentil]

Let‘s wait and see, this was just my unqualified speculation.

[ambron]

Orentil

Many medieval and modern Poles looked and still look genetically like modern Belarusians. This, of course, does not mean that their ancestors arrived from Belarus in the Middle Ages.

The most important will be the haplotypes of the Y chromosome. If German Slavs share them with medieval and modern Poles, and not with Belarusians, as for example Krak1 and Krak3, it will mean that they came from Poland, not Belarus.

[Vinitharya]

It seems to me that we are starting from an assumption this way, and only data that fits said assumption would be accepted, whereas, all else would be disregarded as singletons, and outliers.

I know, it is like the paper was written by some guys on this site rather than actual scientists.  For instance, I think most subclades of L1029 should be assigned to an area, rather than specific cultures (save for YP417 and YP263, which are clearly pan-Slavic), and if a culture had those subclades at its forming, it means said culture was formed in that area, which for the majority of L1029 (once again, leaving out YP417 and YP263, which have far greater areas of diffusion than the others) would be the Poland-Oder/Elbe interfluve area.

[Orentil]

Ornetil

So we just have to wait for Gretzinger's proof that these German Slavs came from Belarus.

Indeed. Honestly, I have no clue how they want to proof it. If they would have samples, one would expect an Ukraine or Belorussian co-author, at least for the archaeological part, like Harald Meller for Sachsen-Anhalt. I still think - as mentioned before - that the two cemeteries could be the sites of Oechlitz (9th/10th century), Niederwünsch (11th/12th century) or Brandenburg (in the state Brandenburg, 10th/11th century).
https://archlsa.de/bodendenkmalpflege/fu...-2010.html
https://archlsa.de/bodendenkmalpflege/fu...-2010.html
https://www.rbb24.de/panorama/beitrag/20...Donnerstag.
For the pre-Slavic (Thuringian) "reference" my best guess would be Brücken, as Harald Meller mentioned that he plans to perform kinship analyses there. Based on e.g. the found brooches he already claimed far reaching mating networks (alemannic, langobardic brooches) fitting to the more diverse IBD results.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOtMYSo8ee8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0XBlhAWF2o

I can only speculate that Gretzinger will use the software LOCATOR that "uses machine learning to map individuals into geographical space
based on their genetic profiles" , he used it in the Anglo-Saxon study, but of course the question is always with what data the software is filled and how reliable the results are. E.g. in his publication the Danish isles and Skane were included in the potential Anglo-Saxon origin regions, while McColl is now claiming that the SouthScand cluster /CNE came there only after 400 AD. This shows the potential weakness of such a software.
But maybe I am wrong and he has a better and smarter approach :-)

PS: This article is the main reason that the location Brücken-Hackpfüffel in Sachsen-Anhalt is my favourite for the pre-slavic samples. The excavator has been the co-author Arnold Mühl and the article mentions explicitely: ""A complete and untouched burial place from the time of the Thuringian Kingdom has not been discovered since 40 years [ago] and offers the exceptional opportunity to accurately investigate everything with the most modern scientific methods." For example, the researchers plan to look at the DNA in these people and at the strontium isotopes." The graveyard comprises ca. 80 people (A.D. 470-540).

Germanic lord buried with a harem of 6? Not quite, but the real story is fascinating. | Live Science

[leonardo]

It seems to me that we are starting from an assumption this way, and only data that fits said assumption would be accepted, whereas, all else would be disregarded as singletons, and outliers.

I know, it is like the paper was written by some guys on this site rather than actual scientists.  For instance, I think most subclades of L1029 should be assigned to an area, rather than specific cultures (save for YP417 and YP263, which are clearly pan-Slavic), and if a culture had those subclades at its forming, it means said culture was formed in that area, which for the majority of L1029 (once again, leaving out YP417 and YP263, which have far greater areas of diffusion than the others) would be the Poland-Oder/Elbe interfluve area.

Regarding YP263, while more diffused, it is still primarily within the triad of what is now Germany, Poland and Czechia. I think most outliers to the north can be attributed to the Polabians.
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna...view=table
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-YP263/tree

[alexfritz]

since the last slide of the slideshow incl the HistoGenes stamp of approval i reckon it could therefor also deal with sites of said project

Show Content

Spoiler Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften

the two sites that fall into the Slavic age 8th-10th c. fall into the area between Unstrut and Saale and across the Saale (north of the wElster); the first location could fit both Niederwünsch and Oechlitz but the second location fits neither, thus it could deal with a yet unknown site; there are also actually several sites from the pre-Slavic age 1st-5th c. and one of the slides did use the plural "Pre-Slavic German sites are spread"

specially 74 is interesting as that loc would coincide with the Werenofeld of the Warnen/Warini, and who knows maybe site 35 was also incl in the slides though on which side of the ages is smwhat difficult to say

thats my speculation, cant wait til the data comes out

[Orentil]

since the last slide of the slideshow incl the HistoGenes stamp of approval i reckon it could therefor also deal with sites of said project

Show Content

Spoiler Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften

the two sites that fall into the Slavic age 8th-10th c. fall into the area between Unstrut and Saale and across the Saale (north of the wElster); the first location could fit both Niederwünsch and Oechlitz but the second location fits neither, thus it could deal with a yet unknown site; there are also actually several sites from the pre-Slavic age 1st-5th c. and one of the slides did use the plural "Pre-Slavic German sites are spread"

specially 74 is interesting as that loc would coincide with the Werenofeld of the Warnen/Warini, and who knows maybe site 35 was also incl in the slides though on which side of the ages is smwhat difficult to say

thats my speculation, cant wait til the data comes out

Thanks for reminding me of the map, Alex. I forgot about it but now remember that we discussed dot 35 before I still hope it is Westheim) Dot 30 (the yellow one) is at the river mouth of the Unstrut into the Saale, this can only be Kleinjena (Naumburg) and 74 is for sure Stößen, linked by Harald Meller to King Berthachar, the brother of the last Thuringian king Herminafried, that's exciting!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_tkbS3jk8s&t=45s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM8yHKfB2BE&t=12s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcwNCHzJYjk&t=168s
Dot 14 seems to point to the river moth of the Weisse Elster into the Saale, i.e. Halle and there is the cemetery of Reideburg.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArOH7p5YQ8k&t=59s
As you say, dot 11 would fit to both Niederwünsch and Oechlitz, they are just 7 km apart from each other.
Dot 59, north of the Bode, east of the Oker, could be the cemetery of Deersheim.
As mentioned, I would have expected Brücken and Großörner, but this is not really supported by the remaining dots but the question is of course how accurate they were set.