• Don't want to see ads? Install an adblocker like uBlock Origin or use a Europe-based privacy-friendly browser like Vivaldi or Mullvad.

101 Ancient Eurasian Genomes Available Online

Actually Czechs are "more Nordic" than the Nordic Bronze Age itself, which is located to the left of the Czechs, and above Hungarians. ^^
 
So, 75% of R1a1 of CW are germans
Click to expand...

Germanic tribes expanded from Scandinavia southward only during the Iron Age, staring from the 4th century BC onwards.

These are Copper-Bronze Age East-Central European samples which are a few thousands of years older than Germanic migrations.

And they show the greatest similarity to modern Czechs, Croats, Bulgarians and Poles plus Hungarians. Not Germanic groups.

Czechs and Hungarians also show the greatest (greater than any modern Germanic group) similarity to Nordic Bronze Age (baSca). LOL.

So probably Proto-Germanic was Iron Age Jastorf culture, not the Nordic Bronze Age.

It also shows that Proto-Indo-Iranians originated from the very same population as West Slavs and White Croats / Croats.

South Slavs are shifted genetically towards Greeks-Albanians and East Slavs towards Finns, Mordvins and Estonians. Quite obvious.
 
Tomenable said:
And they show the greatest similarity to modern Czechs, Croats, Bulgarians and Poles plus Hungarians. Not Germanic groups.

Czechs and Hungarians also show the greatest (greater than any modern Germanic group) similarity to Nordic Bronze Age (baSca). LOL.

So probably Proto-Germanic was Iron Age Jastorf culture, not the Nordic Bronze Age.
Click to expand...


Where are you getting this information? Allentoft's ADMIXTURE and PCA? If so, that isn't enough. No one has thoroughly analysed the Allentoft genomes. Even if Nordic Bronze age people were not most similar to modern people there, that doesn't mean Germanic language's ancestor wasn't there. How do you explain the I1 in Nordic LN and BA? Germanic language may be young, but its language evolved in that region for some 2,000 years and the genes of its first speakers mostly arrived in that region in the Late Neolithic and Bronze age from Central and East Europe. Slavic is even younger than Germanic, but we can see the ancestors of the first Slavic speakers in Corded Ware and Neolithic groups some 3,000 years before the language spread.

In Allentoft's admixture Nordic LN is similar to Corded Ware and Bronze age LN to Bell Beaker. Overall what we're seeing is a replacement of most of the previous Gok-2(Funnel beaker) gene pool, by Corded Ware and Bell beaker-types. The Late Neolithic Scandinavians are R1a1a1 and I1. The Bronze age ones are R1b1a2 and I1. We're watching the current paternal gene pool form.

Considering there is a Scandinavian-specific branch of R1a1a1b1-Z283 that certainly arrived with Corded Ware, that I1 is popular in LN/BA Swedes, and the R1b -L11 clades specific to Germanic peoples, it's safe to say early Germans were mostly a mix of Corded Ware, Bell beaker, etc. types who arrived in Scandinavia(and near by areas) in the Late Neolithic and Bronze age.
 
Tomenable said:
Germanic tribes expanded from Scandinavia southward only during the Iron Age, staring from the 4th century BC onwards.

These are Copper-Bronze Age East-Central European samples which are a few thousands of years older than Germanic migrations.

And they show the greatest similarity to modern Czechs, Croats, Bulgarians and Poles plus Hungarians. Not Germanic groups.

Czechs and Hungarians also show the greatest (greater than any modern Germanic group) similarity to Nordic Bronze Age (baSca). LOL.

So probably Proto-Germanic was Iron Age Jastorf culture, not the Nordic Bronze Age.

It also shows that Proto-Indo-Iranians originated from the very same population as West Slavs and White Croats / Croats.

South Slavs are shifted genetically towards Greeks-Albanians and East Slavs towards Finns, Mordvins and Estonians. Quite obvious.
Click to expand...

I do not know what you are talking about.....I said germans to represent germanic tribes..............in regards to your bulgars, they did not enter Europe until 700AD, the hungarians 400AD, the croats 600AD.
I do not know how they are related to hungarians.

All I see is CW being people who became germanic first, later changes do not count.
 
Vukodav said:
You are mixing stuff. Patrick Geary's claim is from 2013, well before Iron Age Briton samples became available.

Modern Britons are much less Northern shifted than Iron Age Britons, so we must assume that the "Germanic" ancestry has actually decreased in the last 2000 years or so in the British isles.



Modern Armenians are not native of Armenia. They are mostly Indo Europeized Mesopotamians who were pushed North by the Arabic and Turkic expansions. Hence their hight SWA for Caucasian levels.
Click to expand...


Alternatively

1) The Iron age Britons from the east of England were more Germanic while the west of England stayed mostly Celtic with a Saxon elite (which is what all the writers closest to the time say is what happened) and then the east and west halves of the country mixed later.

2) Modern Armenians are the result of an original mixture of an indigenous mountain population and intrusive copper age miners from the steppe which mixture was then further battered down the centuries from the west (Hittites) and later the south (Arabs and Turks).
 
Greying Wanderer said:
1) The Iron age Britons from the east of England were more Germanic while the west of England stayed mostly Celtic with a Saxon elite (which is what all the writers closest to the time say is what happened) and then the east and west halves of the country mixed later.
Click to expand...

But Iron age Britain is pre-germanic invasions.
 
in regards to your bulgars, they did not enter Europe until 700AD, the hungarians 400AD, the croats 600AD.
Click to expand...

Modern Bulgarians have not much to do with Proto-Bulgars and modern Hungarians not much to do with Magyars genetically. Croats and their ancestors always (at least since Corded Ware) lived in Europe, and entered the Balkans around 600 AD. They came to the Balkans from White Croatia, which was located to the north of the Carpathians Mountains.

Original Hungarian-speakers were of N1c haplogroup (Y-DNA) and Tat C haplogroup (mtDNA).

Here you can see their DNA:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-1809.2008.00440.x/abstract

High-status Magyar burial from Szabadkigyos-Palliget ca. 950 AD = N1c and Tat C.

High-status Magyar burial from Ormenykut ca. year 950 AD = again N1c and Tat C.

By contrast modern sample of 197 Hungarians = only one person with Tat C.

Magyars were a small group who imposed their language on much larger Indo-European local population.
 
All I see is CW being people who became germanic first
Click to expand...

Only CW in Scandinavia - R1a Z284 and R1a L664 - became Germanic, and that only under R1b influence.

All other CW and its subclades of R1a became Balto-Slavic-Indo-Iranian (+ maybe some extinct IE branches).

This study says that Indo-Iranians emerged from eastward migration of CW. As for J2 in Iranians - look at Gworys et al. samples from Jagodno, there was one J there, it was impossible to test it further downstream though:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...no-(SW-Poland)?p=404421&viewfull=1#post404421

Eastern and East-Central Europe as a bifurcation hotspot for R1a:

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2015/02/eastern-europe-as-bifurcation-hotspot.html
 
epoch said:
But Iron age Britain is pre-germanic invasions.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

According to Julius Caesar Britain was a hodge-podge of Britons, Gauls (don't confuse with Gaels), Belgians, and Picts.

Of course most of Gauls and Belgians were in what is now England, Picts in Scotland, Britons in England and Wales.

There were also those mysterious swarthy-pigmented Silures in one part of Wales, who were the strongest of Welsh tribes. That was a Celtic-speaking tribe but probably immigrants from Iberia, or with high local Neolithic ancestry.

Gaels originally lived only in Ireland - Scottish Gaelic emerged when Irish Gaels invaded and mixed with Picts.

Hallstatt Nordid anthropological type is named after the proto-homeland of the Celts.

Keltic Nordid is named after other groups of Celts, who lived later than Hallstatt proto-Celts.

So because Iron Age Celts in Britain were "more Nordic" than modern English, doesn't mean that they were Germanic.

It only means that some of Celtic tribes were more Nordic genetically than some of Germanic tribes.
 
Last edited:
Tomenable said:
Actually Czechs are "more Nordic" than the Nordic Bronze Age itself, which is located to the left of the Czechs, and above Hungarians. ^^
Click to expand...

The Scandinavians seem to be pulled towards HGs (Los in the PCS) compared to Czechs and BaSca . But the Scandinavians in that PCA are Icelandic and Norwegian who have more HG than Swedes and Danes *at this moment*. So I think you compare BaSca with the wrong Scandinavians.
 
So I think you compare BaSca with the wrong Scandinavians.
Click to expand...

Oh, OK - thank you, this explains everything. :) Anyway my point with that was that Czechs are not so similar to ancient samples of Sintashta, Polish-Czech Unetice and Polish-German Corded Ware only because they are shifted more towards Nordic Bronze Age. Bulgarians are shifted towards Greeks-Albanians. Ukrainians, Belarusians, Lithuanians, Estonians are shifted towards Finns, Russians and Mordvins (Ukrainians more to Mordvins and Russians, the other three more towards Finns and northern Russians). But Croats are the most similar to all those ancient samples. And Poles were unfortunately not even included in the comparison, but they are not as close to Greeks as Bulgarians, not as close to Russians-Finns-Mordvins as East Slavs and Balts, not as close to Scandinavian Bronze Age as Czechs and Hungarians (both of whom have more R1b than Poles, and Czechs also more I1) - which implies in what part of the graph would Poles most likely plot. :)

There is a 2009 anthropological-genetic study which compared Croats to Poles, and says that they are similar:

https://ariets.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/15311416.pdf

"(...) Our results showed marked craniometrical similarities between early medieval Croat and medieval Polish series. Among all of the 39 analyzed European sites, the two exhibiting the greatest similarities were Nin, a site representing the nucleus of the early medieval Croat state (72), and Cedynia, a Polish early medieval site located approximately 75 km south of the Baltic Sea. (...) These results suggest that early medieval Croats were of Slavic ancestry, and that early medieval Croats and Poles at one time shared a common homeland. Recent genetic analyses of the nonrecombining Y chromosome from 25 extant European and Middle Eastern populations support the Slavic affiliation of the Croats, and also indicate significant genetic similarities between modern Croats and Poles (1). (...)"

So Croats came to the Balkans from White Croatia, which was located somewhere near the Carpathian Mountains.

Croats are also descended from the same group of Old Slavic-speakers as Poles, and presumably Czechs.
 
When I asked similar question re PCA and modern popukation, I was told it was distorted scale and ancients/modern could not be comparable that way. I read similar note by Davitsky.
 
Tomenable said:
It also shows that Proto-Indo-Iranians originated from the very same population as West Slavs and White Croats / Croats.
Click to expand...

Tomenable said:
So Croats came to the Balkans from White Croatia, which was located somewhere near the Carpathian Mountains.
Click to expand...


Only clarification, because sometimes is hard to split myths and facts.

Because White Croatia is myth. Of course and White Serbia is myth.

Someone can read serious scientists, for example: Becoming Slav, Becoming Croats, by Daniel Dzino:

Danijel Dzino is Australian scientist, Macquarie University. He is Croatian origin.

page 112

The story of the arrival of the Croats and Serbs from 'White Croatia' and 'White Serbia' is nothing more than away to explain and rationalise the social and cultural change through a misinterpretation of the events from Late Antiquity. The narrative is no different from too obviously fictive story that Diocletian founded Diocleia, or that he instigated the Roman colonisation of Dalmatia, which was the origo gentis of the Dalmatian Romani. If Constantine indeed used the existing origo gentis of the Croats in chapter 30, we cannot see it is realistic, or even original, especially because an almost identical myth of the arrival of Bulgars was mentoined in Theopanes the Confessor, as well as the patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople.

page 114

Therefore, if the story of the arrival of the Croats in the DAI is indeed part of the Croat oral discourse, then we can see it as politically and ideologically motivated myth that legitimated the existing situation and the political domination the group over Dalmatia and Pannonia through common ancestors: the imaginary brothers and sisters mentoined in the DAI.

DAI = De Administrando Imperio
 
Your Daniel Dzino is exactly the same sort of a scholar as Stephen Oppenheimer.

And Dzino's "Becoming Slav, Becoming Croats" is simiar to Oppenheimer's "The Origins of the British".

They are both denying all kinds of migrations and claiming Paleolithic continuity for Croats and for English people.

In other words - nutters. Croat and Serb/Sorb migrations are NOT mythical, just like Celtic and Anglo-Saxon, etc.
 
especially because an almost identical myth of the arrival of Bulgars
Click to expand...

Except that the arrival of Bulgars (as well as of Bulgarian Slavic tribes) is also not a myth...
 
I added Allentoft's and Geneticker's analysis to my spreadsheet.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HuNPykGuq2PbHkUOL5dCiwrveIy-OGO2qOklwfsayW8/edit#gid=1630708280
 
Tomenable said:
Your Daniel Dzino is exactly the same sort of a scholar as Stephen Oppenheimer.

And Dzino's "Becoming Slav, Becoming Croats" is simiar to Oppenheimer's "The Origins of the British".

They are both denying all kinds of migrations and claiming Paleolithic continuity for Croats and for English people.

In other words - nutters. Croat and Serb/Sorb migrations are NOT mythical, just like Celtic and Anglo-Saxon, etc.
Click to expand...

Tomenable said:
Except that the arrival of Bulgars (as well as of Bulgarian Slavic tribes) is also not a myth...
Click to expand...

Sorry Tomenable. It wasn't offense. Yes, they probably came from somewhere. But with the passage of time there was a need for mythical countries of origin.

Every South Slavic nation has own myths, and unfortunately they do not correspond to the truth.

Yet, the facts are not in accordance with myths. All these researches may just help us to come to more objective pictures of the past.
 
Tomenable said:
Exactly.

According to Julius Caesar Britain was a hodge-podge of Britons, Gauls (don't confuse with Gaels), Belgians, and Picts.

Of course most of Gauls and Belgians were in what is now England, Picts in Scotland, Britons in England and Wales.

There were also those mysterious swarthy-pigmented Silures in one part of Wales, who were the strongest of Welsh tribes. That was a Celtic-speaking tribe but probably immigrants from Iberia, or with high local Neolithic ancestry.

Gaels originally lived only in Ireland - Scottish Gaelic emerged when Irish Gaels invaded and mixed with Picts.

Hallstatt Nordid anthropological type is named after the proto-homeland of the Celts.

Keltic Nordid is named after other groups of Celts, who lived later than Hallstatt proto-Celts.

So because Iron Age Celts in Britain were "more Nordic" than modern English, doesn't mean that they were Germanic.

It only means that some of Celtic tribes were more Nordic genetically than some of Germanic tribes.
Click to expand...

IMO Britons, Picts and Gaels were Goidels who spoke Goidelic and entered the British Isles 3000 years ago. They were certain subclades of R1b-L21.
Belgians and Gauls where iron-age LaTene Celts.

Problem with those anhropological types is they are zombies made by mixing some genomes and after creation they try to stick a label on them to express what they are supposed to represent.
In reality they represent nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top