Genetic Genealogy & Ancient DNA (DISCUSSION ONLY)

[Radko]

But this sample has an East Asian mitohaplogroup F1b1

https://www.yfull.com/mtree/F1b1-a3a2a/

Y-DNA has also been uploaded to YFull - https://www.yfull.com/tree/N-VL11/

[Riverman]

ASHG 2023 abstracts...

Genetic identification of Slavs in Migration Period Europe using an IBD sharing graph

Author Block:  P. Flegontov1,2, L. Viazov1, O. Flegontova1, H. Ringbauer2, D. Reich3; 1Univ. of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic, 2Dept. of Human Evolutionary Biology, Harvard Univ., Cambridge, MA, 3Harvard Univ., Boston, MA

Popular methods of genetic analysis relying on allele frequencies such as PCA, ADMIXTURE and qpAdm are not suitable for distinguishing many populations that were important historical actors in the Migration Period Europe. For instance, differentiating Slavic, Germanic, and Celtic people is very difficult relying on these methods, ...

I think this scenario really fits the history of the Zarubinets and Kiev archaeological cultures. Zarubinets was strongly related to the Pomeranian culture, but it was also influenced by the southwestern Poienesti-Lukasevka culture from Moldova, La Téne celts, the earlier Milograd group in the north and by the "scythians" who might have been just acculturated locals in the forest-steppe zone. In the late Zarubinets-Kiev phase we can also deal with the Gothic and Sarmatian presence. 

I recently read that Poienesti-Lukasevka was a mixed group with Germanic, Celtic and Dacian elements rather, probably being associated with the Bastarnae. If this population would have contributed significantly, shouldn't the early Slavs have more Germanic influence? It would fit the abstract with the Germanic influence, but isn't that true Germanic influence in Proto-Slavic rather low?

[ph2ter]

As Davidski also said on his blog, IBD method is not suitable for identification of populations.
It is only good for family genealogy.
Their method depends on the choice of reference samples which probably are of mixed origin.
If you input garbage into something, you will also as a result get the garbage.

[Norfern-Ostrobothnian]

NEV2 genotype files in plink format here
https://www.mediafire.com/file/46vjqtbd7...2.zip/file

[DNA archi]

As Davidski also said on his blog, IBD method is not suitable for identification of populations.
It is only good for family genealogy.
Their method depends on the choice of reference samples which probably are of mixed origin.
If you input garbage into something, you will also as a result  get the garbage.

In this case, Davidsky is completely mistaken. IBD just shows the origin of one population from another by the closest kinship, that is, what kind of people were the closest relatives. Other methods cannot distinguish relatives at a distance of <300-500 years or less, they can only show the total genetic kinship farther >300-500 years.

IBD is simply a more accurate method for establishing the nearest direct kinship of populations, unlike ordinary methods that cannot distinguish between close relatives, distant relatives, an ethnophone, and just garbage and garbage data, which are full at Davidsky.

Davidsky is simply very angry, and he cannot be trusted in this matter, he is biased, because his propaganda that Fatyanovo was a direct ancestor of Sintashta, as the fact that the Yamnaya the direct ancestors of the Bell Beakers were destroyed by the IBD method, and much more. Therefore, he is very angry and is completely not fair. He just does not want to be wrong as always.

I do not know what the Flegontov with the Slavs do there, maybe some kind of nonsense. But I did not hear that the Slavic burials were found, and to look for the Slavs in obviously non-Slavic burials is a completely false path in my opinion.

[Andar]

As Davidski also said on his blog, IBD method is not suitable for identification of populations.
It is only good for family genealogy.
Their method depends on the choice of reference samples which probably are of mixed origin.
If you input garbage into something, you will also as a result  get the garbage.

In this case, Davidsky is completely mistaken. IBD just shows the origin of one population from another by the closest kinship, that is, what kind of people were the closest relatives. Other methods cannot distinguish relatives at a distance of <300-500 years or less, they can only show the total genetic kinship farther >300-500 years.

IBD is simply a more accurate method for establishing the nearest direct kinship of populations, unlike ordinary methods that cannot distinguish between close relatives, distant relatives, an ethnophone, and just garbage and garbage data, which are full at Davidsky.

Davidsky is simply very angry, and he cannot be trusted in this matter, he is biased, because his propaganda that Fatyanovo was a direct ancestor of Sintashta, as the fact that the Yamnaya the direct ancestors of the Bell Beakers were destroyed by the IBD method, and much more. Therefore, he is very angry and is completely not fair. He just does not want to be wrong as always.

I do not know what the Flegontov with the Slavs do there, maybe some kind of nonsense. But I did not hear that the Slavic burials were found, and to look for the Slavs in obviously non-Slavic burials is a completely false path in my opinion.

Hmm. Who do you think was the ancestor of Sintashta than?

[ph2ter]

As Davidski also said on his blog, IBD method is not suitable for identification of populations.
It is only good for family genealogy.
Their method depends on the choice of reference samples which probably are of mixed origin.
If you input garbage into something, you will also as a result  get the garbage.

In this case, Davidsky is completely mistaken. IBD just shows the origin of one population from another by the closest kinship, that is, what kind of people were the closest relatives. Other methods cannot distinguish relatives at a distance of <300-500 years or less, they can only show the total genetic kinship farther >300-500 years.

IBD is simply a more accurate method for establishing the nearest direct kinship of populations, unlike ordinary methods that cannot distinguish between close relatives, distant relatives, an ethnophone, and just garbage and garbage data, which are full at Davidsky.

Davidsky is simply very angry, and he cannot be trusted in this matter, he is biased, because his propaganda that Fatyanovo was a direct ancestor of Sintashta, as the fact that the Yamnaya the direct ancestors of the Bell Beakers were destroyed by the IBD method, and much more. Therefore, he is very angry and is completely not fair. He just does not want to be wrong as always.

I do not know what the Flegontov with the Slavs do there, maybe some kind of nonsense. But I did not hear that the Slavic burials were found, and to look for the Slavs in obviously non-Slavic burials is a completely false path in my opinion.

What a direct kinship have with population admix? If you compare Scythians (which in Hungary, Ukraine and Moldavia are almost always of mixed ancestry) then the nearest direct kinship will show you that Slavs have Scythian blood which is nonsense.
The methods for detecting close or distant relatives are only good for genealogy.

Sintashta really looks as a direct descendant of Fatyanovo. Look at this similarity map change:



I don't understand what is destroyed about Yamnaya?

[DNA archi]

But this sample has an East Asian mitohaplogroup F1b1

https://www.yfull.com/mtree/F1b1-a/

It doesn’t matter, well, there are East Asians in Russia, but he himself looks very exotic in autosomes, completely Asian.

Therefore, I doubt very much that this is the son of Alexander Nevsky.

[Andar]

As Davidski also said on his blog, IBD method is not suitable for identification of populations.
It is only good for family genealogy.
Their method depends on the choice of reference samples which probably are of mixed origin.
If you input garbage into something, you will also as a result  get the garbage.

In this case, Davidsky is completely mistaken. IBD just shows the origin of one population from another by the closest kinship, that is, what kind of people were the closest relatives. Other methods cannot distinguish relatives at a distance of <300-500 years or less, they can only show the total genetic kinship farther >300-500 years.

IBD is simply a more accurate method for establishing the nearest direct kinship of populations, unlike ordinary methods that cannot distinguish between close relatives, distant relatives, an ethnophone, and just garbage and garbage data, which are full at Davidsky.

Davidsky is simply very angry, and he cannot be trusted in this matter, he is biased, because his propaganda that Fatyanovo was a direct ancestor of Sintashta, as the fact that the Yamnaya the direct ancestors of the Bell Beakers were destroyed by the IBD method, and much more. Therefore, he is very angry and is completely not fair. He just does not want to be wrong as always.

I do not know what the Flegontov with the Slavs do there, maybe some kind of nonsense. But I did not hear that the Slavic burials were found, and to look for the Slavs in obviously non-Slavic burials is a completely false path in my opinion.

What a direct kinship have with population admix? If you compare Scythians (which are in Hungary and Moldavia almost always of mixed ancestry) then the nearest direct kinship will show you that Slavs have Scythian blood which is nonsense.
The methods for detecting close or distant relatives are only good for genealogy.

Sintashta really looks as a direct descendant of Fatyanovo. Look at this similarity map change:



I don't understand what is destroyed about Yamnaya?

Sintashta and Fatyanovo are just 500 years apart and Z93 was born just some centuries before formation of Fatyanovo so i really have a hard time seeing another Z93 Steppe MLBA culture there. I guess he is refering to these russian scientists who claim Abashevo is from Nitra or something like that but well without Nitra Z280* mutating to R1a-Z93 i really dont see this.

[Titane]

This article published in Nature last year may help inform and broaden the discussion:

The Anglo-Saxon migration and the formation of the early English gene pool

• Joscha Gretzinger, 
  
• Duncan Sayer, and many many more...
  

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05247-2#Abs1

Not only is the paper interesting, but there is free access to a multitude of graphs and tables - enough to keep citizen scientists busy for a while.
I came across it looking for more information about the medieval site of Groningen in the Netherlands - and found it!

Trying to make a link to a different thread. It is from 2022, but since the forum was a bit in limbo then, I thought I could mention it again

[FR9CZ6]

There is most likely some kind of mistake, the fact is that Dmitry Alexandrovich was the second most senior son of Grand Duke Vladimir Yaroslavich Nevsky and his wife Alexandra, daughter of Vitebsk and Polotsk Prince Br'acheslav Vasilkovich of Polotsk, in Belarus. But this sample has an East Asian mitohaplogroup F1b1, has a large East Asian autosomal component, and was a dark-haired brown-eyed and halfdark-skinned. The wife of Alexander Yaroslavich of East Asian origin is unknown and is not mentioned naturally anywhere, in general, all his children come from Alexandra Br'acheslavna, it turns out that he should have the second wife of East Asian origin, but there was no information about such in chronicles, and he could not He has her since this son is average in his family, that is, he could not be born either before his marriage on Alexandra Br'acheslavna, neither after it. It must be recalled that that it was the son of Alexander Yaroslavich was decided only in 2020.

I think there isn’t any mistake. According to the written sources you’ve mentioned one of Dmitriy’s paternal great grandmothers was the daughter of the cuman Khan Khoten. Maria Shvarnovna, another great grandmother of Dmitriy was supposedly an alan princess.
We don’t know much about Dmitriy’s maternal ancestors but considering that the Rurikid princes frequently intermarried with the daughters of nomadic chiefs to form political alliances or to strenghten the peace treaties, it’s possible that she also had some maternal ancestry from the steppes. Mtdna is passed on matrilineally from generation to generation. Alexander Nevsky’s wife doesn’t have to be an ‘east asian’, if Alexandra Bracheslavna’s great grandmother or an even earlier matrilineal ancestor was a cuman, pecheneg or a member of whichever steppe tribe the she could still pass on this east-asian mtdna line to her son, Dmitriy.

[DNA archi]

As Davidski also said on his blog, IBD method is not suitable for identification of populations.
It is only good for family genealogy.
Their method depends on the choice of reference samples which probably are of mixed origin.
If you input garbage into something, you will also as a result  get the garbage.

In this case, Davidsky is completely mistaken. IBD just shows the origin of one population from another by the closest kinship, that is, what kind of people were the closest relatives. Other methods cannot distinguish relatives at a distance of <300-500 years or less, they can only show the total genetic kinship farther >300-500 years.

IBD is simply a more accurate method for establishing the nearest direct kinship of populations, unlike ordinary methods that cannot distinguish between close relatives, distant relatives, an ethnophone, and just garbage and garbage data, which are full at Davidsky.

Davidsky is simply very angry, and he cannot be trusted in this matter, he is biased, because his propaganda that Fatyanovo was a direct ancestor of Sintashta, as the fact that the Yamnaya the direct ancestors of the Bell Beakers were destroyed by the IBD method, and much more. Therefore, he is very angry and is completely not fair. He just does not want to be wrong as always.

I do not know what the Flegontov with the Slavs do there, maybe some kind of nonsense. But I did not hear that the Slavic burials were found, and to look for the Slavs in obviously non-Slavic burials is a completely false path in my opinion.

What a direct kinship have with population admix? If you compare Scythians (which in Hungary, Ukraine and Moldavia are almost always of mixed ancestry) then the nearest direct kinship will show you that Slavs have Scythian blood which is nonsense.
The methods for detecting close or distant relatives are only good for genealogy.

Sintashta really looks as a direct descendant of Fatyanovo. Look at this similarity map change:

The first, completely incorrect method, the distance method can completely unable to distinguish between the degree of kinship, the degree of whom comes from whom when all the cords are closest relatives, they have a common component. And in these conditions, all ordinary methods do not work at all. And the fact that Fatyanovo only has R1a-Z93*, and the Syntashta only R1a-Z94 on these map is not taken into account.

The second, you do not have those new unpublished data from the David Reich laboratory, which have been used to calculate the IBD for a year now, that is, you have not displayed them at all on your map. I inform you that even according to classical methods of analysis by distance, according to statistics and PCA, Nitra and Fuzesaboni, and so on, closer to Syntashta than Fatyanovo, you just do not have this data.

But in general, for such times, about 100 years, classical methods are very weak, they all turn out to be close relatives and overlap each other and find out from what culture a specific population comes from the classical method is impossible.

[DNA archi]

Hmm. Who do you think was the ancestor of Sintashta than?

I have already published data known for half a year https://genarchivist.com/showthread.php?...08#pid2208, look.

Video and screenshots from a video conference: “A European mark in the East European cultural generation in the second half of the 3rd millennium BC” (as a result of David Reich laboratories not yet published)

The results of the IBD analysis of European cultures are presented, the Eastern European and Central European cultures of the Middle Bronze Age are discussed in detail: Post-catacomb/Babino/multi-cordoned ware, Abashevo, Sinintashta, Fatyanovo, Catacomob, (Proto-)Unitece, Nitra, Fuzisaboni, etc. Post-catacomb, Abashevo, Sintashta have the closest relationship to (Proto-)Unitece, Nitra, Fuzisaboni, but have no closest kinship to Fatyanovo and Catacomb.


https://youtu.be/SOeiOLRLgDc?t=8560

Screenshots with IBD nets:

[Norfern-Ostrobothnian]

I don't think that graph has Fatyanovo. And it shows Nitra being closer to Bell Beakers and Unetice than Sintashta. I think if you put Fatyanovo in there they would cluster with Sintashta in IBD too.

[Andar]

As Davidski also said on his blog, IBD method is not suitable for identification of populations.
It is only good for family genealogy.
Their method depends on the choice of reference samples which probably are of mixed origin.
If you input garbage into something, you will also as a result  get the garbage.

In this case, Davidsky is completely mistaken. IBD just shows the origin of one population from another by the closest kinship, that is, what kind of people were the closest relatives. Other methods cannot distinguish relatives at a distance of <300-500 years or less, they can only show the total genetic kinship farther >300-500 years.

IBD is simply a more accurate method for establishing the nearest direct kinship of populations, unlike ordinary methods that cannot distinguish between close relatives, distant relatives, an ethnophone, and just garbage and garbage data, which are full at Davidsky.

Davidsky is simply very angry, and he cannot be trusted in this matter, he is biased, because his propaganda that Fatyanovo was a direct ancestor of Sintashta, as the fact that the Yamnaya the direct ancestors of the Bell Beakers were destroyed by the IBD method, and much more. Therefore, he is very angry and is completely not fair. He just does not want to be wrong as always.

I do not know what the Flegontov with the Slavs do there, maybe some kind of nonsense. But I did not hear that the Slavic burials were found, and to look for the Slavs in obviously non-Slavic burials is a completely false path in my opinion.

What a direct kinship have with population admix? If you compare Scythians (which in Hungary, Ukraine and Moldavia are almost always of mixed ancestry) then the nearest direct kinship will show you that Slavs have Scythian blood which is nonsense.
The methods for detecting close or distant relatives are only good for genealogy.

Sintashta really looks as a direct descendant of Fatyanovo. Look at this similarity map change:

The first, completely incorrect method, the distance method can completely unable to distinguish between the degree of kinship, the degree of whom comes from whom when all the cords are closest relatives, they have a common component. And in these conditions, all ordinary methods do not work at all. And the fact that Fatyanovo only has R1a-Z93*, and the Syntashta only R1a-Z94 on these map is not taken into account.

The second, you do not have those new unpublished data from the David Reich laboratory, which have been used to calculate the IBD for a year now, that is, you have not displayed them at all on your map. I inform you that even according to classical methods of analysis by distance, according to statistics and PCA, Nitra and Fuzesaboni, and so on, closer to Syntashta than Fatyanovo, you just do not have this data.

But in general, for such times, about 100 years, classical methods are very weak, they all turn out to be close relatives and overlap each other and find out from what culture a specific population comes from the classical method is impossible.

Fatyanovo samples are of course mostly Z93* simply because they are from around 2500 B.C when Z94 was just born so you barely will find any Z94 anywhere. We have hundreds of samples from Bronze Age to Iron Age from Nitra/Unetice + the region around and not a single one was Z93. The chance for Sintashta or Abashevo coming from Central Europe instead Fatyanovo is zero.

On top there is archaelogicol and geographic proximity between Abashevo and Fatyanovo whereas Nitra is far away with many non-Abashevo related groups in-between. There might be some indirect contacts via Middle Dnjepr zone but that's pretty much it. One of these Russian authors also thought Sintashta is R1b and the others thought Bell Beakers are related to Abashevo or Nitra Z280* can be ancestral to Abashevo Z93 (obviously just looking at M417 level without checking deeper clade) So I won't take their conclusions very serious

Also there was lot of basal Z93 in Srubnaya, Andronovo, Uzbekistan_Kashkarchi_BA and even in modern day Indo-Iranians like Wakhi/Sarikoli who are mainly basal Z93.