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

[okshtunas]

I think some people should completely separate autosomal and y-haplogroups or else keep silent about autochthonism.  Well, you can firmly root Z280 to the Kiev Culture but I2a and M458, not so much.  They point to the Carpathian Udolphian homeland.  But then again no one knows for sure how and when Slavic ethnogenesis happened, so perhaps discretion is the better part of valor.

For now M458 has a more eastern ancient distribution than R1a-Z280. There is for now no old Bronze Age M458 west of Eastern Poland. But we had Z280 multiple times in BA Central Europe (outliners mainly but still)

And there's for now no old Bronze Age M458 east of Eastern Poland either. 

Yet we have ancient Z280 samples popping up further  East than M458 so what's your point? 

Z280 may pop up mote frequently West, but, we haven't seen any M458 further east than Poland yet either. So your point is moot. 

I would expect M458 to show up mingled with Scytho-Sarmatians like Z280, instead of Celto-Germanics, but what we have is what we have. 

You making arguments over a lack of aDNA as if we already have the aDNA to support the claim you posit when we don't is just blowing hot air for nothing. 

Maybe learn to separate an urheimat determined based on linguistics and archeological materials from a singular Y-DNA that as a matter of fact was relatively insignificant, and who's overwhelming Slavic descendants belong almost exclusively to 2 subclades no older than 100 BCE, and with no diversity among the Baltic peoples, who's Y-DNA dominated even Belarus and Ukraine (Z280), to which we have far more diversity between Balts and Slavs.

[okshtunas]

I think admins should do something about autochtonism in this thread, because It is not really about studies and data for some individuals here. Parroting their narrative and cherry picking for their set opinion.

I know that samples are few from Belarus and northern Ukraine - the Chernobyl area. I didn't think there was any shortage of samples from Russia or western, southern and eastern Ukraine. Also, I wouldn't call the 9th-1th centuries "early Slavic."

We have no Iron Age and Medieval samples from Belarus, most of Ukraine and Western Russia, including post-Zarubintsy and Kiev culture areas (Slavic homeland according to most archeologists).

ph2ter's map...


https://genarchivist.com/showthread.php?...29#pid3629

For example, from Poland we have already well over 200 Iron Age and Medieval samples.

And here's the map with some new archaeological sites analysed by the Warsaw team (to be published).


More Iron Age sites analysed by the Poznan team (to be published).



And sites analysed by the Lodz team (to be published).


We will have over 1000 Iron Age and Medieval aDNA samples from every corner of Poland very soon.

So, we  are presented with "possibly,"  "probably," and "most likely" as evidence to be more weighted than what is "actually." As you know cousin Radko, my interest is in M458 primarily and it seems that every actual sample is considered an outlier" when weighed against what? No samples. At best that kind of thinking is a theory. At worst, it's pure speculation. How's that for "studies and data" @Bukva. Regarding M458, show me your "studies and data" then go on about doing something. You don't like debate and discussion? @Radko, your own terminal clade is situated in Poland around the first or second century CE era  by FTDNA, YFull and YSeq. Maybe future data will prove otherwise but I have been on sites like this for 13 or 14 years now seeing, "just wait."

Oh you'll keep waiting I'm afraid. Same crowd said we would never see any M458/L1029 further west than Belarus and Northern Ukraine (so specific lol) before the Slavic migration. 

And then 1 after the other came out. They even denied MX265 in Hallstatt and then that was carbon dated...Oops he's just an outlier! Doesn't even matter! 

Then I25524 from La Tene Hungary, after he's carbon datesld..we'll he's Baltic like! (Despite not being a result of or definitive proxy of autosimal Proto-Slavs).

Then I13780, 30 years war victim!! (Until someone pointed out his high IBD sharing with EMA/LA), individuals. 

All the Wielbark samples? Contaminated!!!  Are these institutions so clumsy they only contaminate with M458 samples? Lol how convenient. 

Even if we found 50 samples in Belarus, they can be low coverage, damaged, non-carbon dated, and the same individuals questioning those details will blindly accept it. 

Even if they were all under 1 subclade, they will still argue for the origin of all other singletons in Belarus and Ukraine. 

Simply because they started their position from a conclusion. I suppose those who suggest the opposite have their own conclusions. But I'm afraid your opinions don't matter unless you agree with them lol.

[leonardo]

That's why I believe, for the consideration of the Slavic ethnogenesis, which was formed by patrilineally dominated clans, y-dna can be more useful than autosomal.

And I think that we need pre-Medieval samples that will show a combination of "Balto-Slavic" autosomal profile, "Slavic" Y-DNA and IBD segments shared with later Medieval Slavs. We have none such samples from pre-Medieval Poland.

My original post in this series of posts stated CZ, PL and HU. It's clear from the Hallstat sample in Singen, through the M458 Brodzica and Tokodaltaro and the L1029 Prague (Czechia) - not even counting the samples from Stolarek in Pomorze - that M458 and L1029 have a presence as Central European markers, not necessarily just Poland, although it seems like based upon diversity, M458 formed in or very near to Poland, like SE Poland. Also, let's keep in mind that M458 was a small clan until the late IA and the age of Roman antiquity.

[okshtunas]

If Provyn and Krahn's site is using modern samples, how do you explain Y2912 being situated where it is?

Do you believe that for example I-Y18331 under I-Y3120 was in Greece and southern Bulgaria around 1BC because FTDNA's Globetrekker estimates such location? As Andar wrote, these distribution and haplogroup migration maps are mainly based on modern-day distribution and are not taking into account population movements (including Slavic migrations), bottlenecks, etc.

Why don't you and others take your own advice (see bolded portion of your comment)?

So quick to make an argument that M458/L1029 originates from Belarus/Northern Ukraine based on autosomal aDNA being Baltic/Belarusian like for samples OUTSIDE this region, and using modern samples to do it...

Are those not modern samples? Are you not taking into account population movements? Bottlenecks? Back migrations?

Perhaps Belarusians represent Slavs who didn't experience much mixing and back migrated to a region without any genetic clashing allowing them to remain genetically conservative. 

Yes, let's make sure a Y-DNA gets shoved into the boundaries of an urheimat devised on some archaeological sites that haven't been certainly determined, and some linguistic theories which surely have nothing to do with Y-DNA, and lets not forget zero aDNA. 

There would probably be less debate and argument on this topic, if those trying to silence different opinions could produce this Pandoras Box of aDNA from Belarus already. 

Until then we have what we have.

[leonardo]

. But I'm afraid your opinions don't matter unless you agree with them lol.

As you can see, that won't happen. LOL. We will simply have to agree to disagree, unless overwhelming EVIDENCE is produced to the contrary. I haven't seen it yet.

[okshtunas]

That's why I believe, for the consideration of the Slavic ethnogenesis, which was formed by patrilineally dominated clans, y-dna can be more useful than autosomal.

And I think that we need pre-Medieval samples that will show a combination of "Balto-Slavic" autosomal profile, "Slavic" Y-DNA and IBD segments shared with later Medieval Slavs. We have none such samples from pre-Medieval Poland.

My original post in this series of posts stated CZ, PL and HU. It's clear from the Hallstat sample in Singen, through the M458 Brodzica and Tokodaltaro and the L1029 Prague (Czechia) - not even counting the samples from Stolarek in Pomorze - that M458 and L1029 have a presence as Central European markers, not necessarily just Poland, although it seems like based upon diversity, M458 formed in or very near to Poland, like SE Poland. Also, let's keep in mind that M458 was a small clan until the late IA and the age of Roman antiquity.

Pretty soon they'll use cremation (when before they denied it), to explain why M458 was so insignificant. All the clades died out! Cremated!

 That's why these champions of Balto-Slavica were just 3 or 4 guys (L1029, L260, YP515, Y1320) in 100BCE.  Plentiful Z280 were just waiting for Slavs to be born. 

I'm sure R-Z280>CTS1211 kept the clan going until his little cousins grew up.

Too bad Trziniec was mostly I2a + Z280. I guess the one guy in Eastern Poland was enough to ascribe him to them though. Not am outlier in this case...lol

[ph2ter]

It is not possible to decide the source of Slavic clades of M458, Y3210 and CTS1211 before we get Iron Age and early Medieval samples from Belarus and northern Ukraine.
No need for irony.

[ph2ter]

Many thanks, ph2ter! So, unfortunately no way to distinguish Elbe Germanic Langobards from Szolad and Mödling-Leinerinnen clearly from East Germanic Wielbark Goths autosomally in this PCA plot. But at least in this case archaeological assignments and genetics meet expectations in contrast to the Mödling-An der goldenen Stiege samples that differ genetically so strongly from Leobersdorf while being culturally/archaeologically similar. Can't wait to read the full paper.

We can roughly distinguish them:

[leonardo]

It is not possible to decide the source of Slavic clades of M458, Y3210 and CTS1211 before we get Iron Age and early Medieval samples from Belarus and northern Ukraine.
No need for irony.

A couple of thoughts: 1) then the wait may be a long time; 2) this thought needs to be understood by more than a few here; 3) irony is beget by sarcasm, insults and threats for moderators to silence. In the meantime, everybody's thoughts are theories or speculation regarding the Slavic ethnogenesis. However, prior to this ethnogenesis or formation, we can examine samples that we actually have to wonder how their journey into the Slavic ethnogenesis occurred. These clades may well have taken different journeys.

[Radko]

...

Could you add Czulice sample?

POL_Czulice_395-418_CE:czu001,0.121791,0.133034,0.075801,0.070737,0.042469,0.017012,0.00188,0.011307,0.006749,-0.002369,-0.005196,0.004946,-0.013379,-0.013762,0.021444,0.025722,0.004433,-0.003294,-0.002891,0.008754,0.013102,0.000618,-0.002095,0.019882,-0.001197

[ambron]

ph2ter

We inherit the entire set of Y chromosome mutations from one parent, who inherits the same from his father. Therefore, if we know the rate of Y chromosome mutations and their contemporary geographic distribution, we can say with a very high probability where each of our forefathers was at a given time.

And here archaeological genomes cannot change anything. If we do not find these forefathers in a given place and time, it is only due to the limitations of archaeogenomics.

[ph2ter]

It is not possible to decide the source of Slavic clades of M458, Y3210 and CTS1211 before we get Iron Age and early Medieval samples from Belarus and northern Ukraine.
No need for irony.

A couple of thoughts: 1) then the wait may be a long time; 2) this thought needs to be understood by more than a few here; 3) irony is beget by sarcasm, insults and threats for moderators to silence. In the meantime, everybody's thoughts are theories or speculation regarding the Slavic ethnogenesis. However, prior to this ethnogenesis or formation, we can examine samples that we actually have to wonder how their journey into the Slavic ethnogenesis occurred. These clades may well have taken different journeys.

Regardless of how long we need to wait, it is our only option.
From today distribution of 3 main Slavic clades it is obvious that they never have been uniformly distributed among Proto Slavs.
The CTS1211 behaved like a glue which united M458 and Y3120 under one Slavic cultural package.
And we can guess that M458 was positioned west of the Proto Slavic core and Y32120 was southwest of it.
The coalescence of these clades happened obviously very late, at the turn of the eras.

[ph2ter]

ph2ter

We inherit the entire set of Y chromosome mutations from one parent, who inherits the same from his father. Therefore, if we know the rate of Y chromosome mutations and their contemporary geographic distribution, we can say with a very high probability where each of our forefathers was at a given time.

And here archaeological genomes cannot change anything. If we do not find these forefathers in a given place and time, it is only due to the limitations of archaeogenomics.

We know the rate of mutations, but we don't know where they were located.

[Radko]

Unveiling Hunnic legacy: Decoding elite presence in Poland through a unique child’s burial with modified cranium

Highlights
• Skull deformation insights – rare Hun practices discovered in Southern Poland.
• Genetic diversity in double grave demonstrates European and Asian ancestry.
• Radiocarbon dates indicate the early presence of Huns north of the Carpathians.
• Mortuary practices reveal the different social positions of Hunnic and local children.
• Children buried in grave with a dog, cat, and crow serving as their companion animals.

Abstract
This article presents a double burial from Czulice indicating elements of the Hunnic culture. Individual I, aged 7–9, and Individual II, aged 8–9 with a skull deformation, were both genetically identified as boys. Individual II, who exhibited genetic affinity to present day Asian populations, was equipped with gold and silver items. In contrast, Individual I displayed European ancestry. The application of strontium isotope analysis shed light on the origins of the individuals. Individual I was non-local, while Individual II was identified as a local, but also falling within the range commonly associated with the Pannonian Plain. Stable isotope analysis suggested a diet consisting of inland resources. Through radiocarbon dating, this burial was determined to date back to the years 395–418 CE, making it the earliest grave of its kind discovered in Poland. The analyses have provided new insights into the nature of the relationship between the Huns and the local inhabitants.

Y-DNA:
czu001 - I1 (genetically Germanic-like)
czu002 - N (Asian Hun-like)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar...9X24001913

Czulice samples have been added to TheYtree.

czu001 - I-CTS11651, H1q
czu002 - N-F1206, U5a1b1

https://www.theytree.com/portal/index/sa...%20Cranium

[Orentil]

It is not possible to decide the source of Slavic clades of M458, Y3210 and CTS1211 before we get Iron Age and early Medieval samples from Belarus and northern Ukraine.
No need for irony.

A couple of thoughts: 1) then the wait may be a long time; 2) this thought needs to be understood by more than a few here; 3) irony is beget by sarcasm, insults and threats for moderators to silence. In the meantime, everybody's thoughts are theories or speculation regarding the Slavic ethnogenesis. However, prior to this ethnogenesis or formation, we can examine samples that we actually have to wonder how their journey into the Slavic ethnogenesis occurred. These clades may well have taken different journeys.

Regardless how long we need to wait, it is our only option.
From today distribution of 3 main Slavic clades it is obvious that they never have been uniformly distributed among Proto Slavs.
The CTS1211 behaved like a glue which united M458 and Y3120 under one Slavic cultural package.
And we can guess that M458 was positioned west of the Proto Slavic core and Y32120 was southwest of it.
The coalescence of these clades happened obviously very late, at the turn of the eras.

In a way similar to the „Germanic package“ of I1 and R1b U106. They have very different histories before in the migration period they travel together, but in different shares between east and west Germanic groups.