Czechs vs Austrians: who's more Germanic genetically?

[Scandal]

title

[FergusNeil]

Austria

[Blondie]

austrians

[Lousianaboy]

austria obviously

[XenophobicPrussian]

Czechia, going off genetic data and not assumptions, unless the academic sample is unrepresentative of the whole country. Austria is most likely more Germanic than Moravia though, and the Austrian Alps are probably more Germanic than Czechia but also shifted south compared to other Austrians because of extra Italic/Roman/etc.

Levantine Jews were in Austria before any Germanics(seriously), Austria is however more NW Euro overall because of Celtic. Finland vs Scotland, Finland vs N. France, Slovenia vs Estonia or Ireland vs N. Italy would be other interesting comparisons, would have to check again for those.

Another interesting comparison would be who's more Germanic/Slavic, Austria or Bulgaria? I think most people would say Austria is more Germanic than Bulgaria is Slavic, they'd be in for a surprise but I'd still be curious in the voting results.

[Jana]

Czechs are more Germanic, and also more Slavic. Austrians are more Celtic and Roman.
comparing with medieval Germanic samples

Target: Czech
Distance: 1.4922% / 0.01492235 | ADC: 0.25x

46.4 RUS_Sunghir_MA
44.0 DEU_MA
5.4 CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany
4.2 ITA_Rome_Imperial

Target: Austrian
Distance: 1.4126% / 0.01412644 | ADC: 0.25x

40.0 DEU_MA
24.4 RUS_Sunghir_MA
22.4 CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany
13.2 ITA_Rome_Imperial

We don't know how representative these averages are though. Some of David's averages haven't been the best on Global 25.

[Aren]

Czechs are more Germanic, and also more Slavic. Austrians are more Celtic and Roman.
comparing with medieval Germanic samples

Target: Czech
Distance: 1.4922% / 0.01492235 | ADC: 0.25x

46.4 RUS_Sunghir_MA
44.0 DEU_MA
5.4 CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany
4.2 ITA_Rome_Imperial

Target: Austrian
Distance: 1.4126% / 0.01412644 | ADC: 0.25x

40.0 DEU_MA
24.4 RUS_Sunghir_MA
22.4 CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany
13.2 ITA_Rome_Imperial

We don't know how representative these averages are though. Some of David's averages haven't been the best on Global 25.

It seems like they are only Eastern Austrians. Tyroleans have basically zero Slavic admix and are closer to Frenchmen/Southern Germans than to their fellow countrymean in the East.

I think the Avar period Slavs from Hungary are better representatives of early Slavs rather than the MA sample from Russia.

But yeah, it seems like they have similar Germanic admix.

https://i.imgur.com/KdnnqXK.png

[XenophobicPrussian]

It seems like they are only Eastern Austrians. Tyroleans have basically zero Slavic admix and are closer to Frenchmen/Southern Germans than to their fellow countrymean in the East.

I think the Avar period Slavs from Hungary are better representatives of early Slavs rather than the MA sample from Russia.

But yeah, it seems like they have similar Germanic admix.

https://i.imgur.com/KdnnqXK.png
Only Av2, the other one is mixed. It's just better to use Russian_Orel though, they give around the same results anyway.


Distance to: HUN_Avar_Szolad:Av2
0.02285860 Belarusian
0.02419895 Lithuanian_PA
0.02541556 Russian_Voronez
0.02613675 Russian_Smolensk
0.02663861 Russian_Orel


Distance to: HUN_Avar_Szolad:Av1
0.01856558 Polish
0.02244656 Czech
0.02296676 Ukrainian
0.02473779 Slovakian
0.02829714 German_East
(if getting Czech and German_East that high up, definitely mixed)

[Scandal]

austria obviously

Not that obvious, read Xeno's, Feichy's, and Aren's posts below.

[JamesBond007]

Levantine Jews were in Austria before any Germanics(seriously), Austria is however more NW Euro overall because of Celtic. Finland vs Scotland, Finland vs N. France, Slovenia vs Estonia or Ireland vs N. Italy would be other interesting comparisons, would have to check again for those.



Dude, could you please start new thread or PM me the G25 coordinates you use for your various analysis of these kind of issues ? Thanks.

[Jana]

It seems like they are only Eastern Austrians. Tyroleans have basically zero Slavic admix and are closer to Frenchmen/Southern Germans than to their fellow countrymean in the East.

I think the Avar period Slavs from Hungary are better representatives of early Slavs rather than the MA sample from Russia.

It's not, Sunghir is better and purer Slavic proxy (i tested this). Minimal differences though.

[Jana]

Only Av2, the other one is mixed. It's just better to use Russian_Orel though, they give around the same results anyway.

(if getting Czech and German_East that high up, definitely mixed)

Purest Slavic modern average on G25 is Ukrainian. But even that one isn't 100% Slavic. Russian Orel isn't so pure.
Modern samples should never be used anyway when we have ancient.

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?316531-Balto-Slavic-scale

[Scandal]

I like how people rush to vote Austria without analyzing genetics of these ethnicities...

[Leto]

Austria is less Slavic than Czechia even if Czechs aren't like us.

[Kyp]

Austria

I think most areas of Austria are obviously more Germanic than Czechs. These "averages" of countries don't paint the whole picture.

[Peterski]

Czechia, going off genetic data.

You are forgeting about Tyrol, Vorarlberg, Salzburg and Upper Austria which are close to zero % Slavic (they are like Bavarians & Swabians). No such areas exist in Czechia.

Bavarian & Swabian results can be seen here - https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?322130-South-German-GEDmatch-results&p=6679565&viewfull=1#post6679565

Region - population

Vorarlberg - 397,094
Tyrol - 757,852
Oberösterreich - 1,490,392
Salzburg - 558,479
=====
TOTAL - 3 million Austrians with close to non-existent Slavic input (they are very close to South Germans)

Substantial Slavic admixture starts only to the east and south of this blue dotted line ("Sprachliche Ostrgenze des Altbairischen" = pre-Ostsiedlung Slavic/German border):

https://i.imgur.com/u94qjgT.jpg

[Peterski]

There are no any Czechs that are autosomally close to Bavarians. While in Austria, perhaps 1/3 of the population is close to Bavarians.

Of course another question is how Germanic are Bavarians, they are probably more Celtic than Germanic. But also close to 0% Slavic.

Then again the same question is about Czechs. It may well be that the majority of their "western" DNA is actually Celtic not Germanic.

Bohemia is named after a Celtic tribe.

[Roy]

In theory it should be Austria but in reality it can be about the same. It is still difficult to assess what is Germanic and what is Celtic too. Those populations were likely quite heavily mixing with each other too even when 'distinct'.

[Peterski]

All the Czechs without exception are >50% Slavic (they are quite homogenous, at least based on the samples I've seen).

While in Austria, some people are very Slavic, but about 3 million people in western regions should be close to 0% Slavic.

[Jana]

In theory it should be Austria but in reality it can be about the same. It is still difficult to assess what is Germanic and what is Celtic too. Those populations were likely quite heavily mixing with each other too even when 'distinct'.

It's not difficult. Czechs western DNA is more Germanic than Celtic, simple as that.

[Peterski]

It seems like they are only Eastern Austrians.

Yes, it is about capital cities.

Academic Czechs are from Prag, academic Austrians from Vienna.

Prague is one of more German-admixed parts of Czech Republic, while Vienna is one of more Slavic-admixed parts of Austria.

Vienna even had many Czech immigrants in the 1800s (as well Slavic, Hungarian, etc. immigrants from all over the Empire).

[we92]

Czechia, going off genetic data and not assumptions, unless the academic sample is unrepresentative of the whole country. Austria is most likely more Germanic than Moravia though, and the Austrian Alps are probably more Germanic than Czechia but also shifted south compared to other Austrians because of extra Italic/Roman/etc.

Levantine Jews were in Austria before any Germanics(seriously), Austria is however more NW Euro overall because of Celtic. Finland vs Scotland, Finland vs N. France, Slovenia vs Estonia or Ireland vs N. Italy would be other interesting comparisons, would have to check again for those.

Another interesting comparison would be who's more Germanic/Slavic, Austria or Bulgaria? I think most people would say Austria is more Germanic than Bulgaria is Slavic, they'd be in for a surprise but I'd still be curious in the voting results.

Levantine Jews were in Austria before any Germanics(seriously)
How?

[TheOldNorth]

It seems like they are only Eastern Austrians. Tyroleans have basically zero Slavic admix and are closer to Frenchmen/Southern Germans than to their fellow countrymean in the East.

I think the Avar period Slavs from Hungary are better representatives of early Slavs rather than the MA sample from Russia.

But yeah, it seems like they have similar Germanic admix.

https://i.imgur.com/KdnnqXK.png

That explains why on charts they estimate me as Tyrolian, because I'm mostly central/western european, but I have a little east/west med from the jewish

[blueeyes]

Austrians

[XenophobicPrussian]

You are forgeting about Tyrol, Vorarlberg, Salzburg and Upper Austria which are close to zero % Slavic (they are like Bavarians & Swabians). No such areas exist in Czechia.

Bavarian & Swabian results can be seen here - https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?322130-South-German-GEDmatch-results&p=6679565&viewfull=1#post6679565

Region - population

Vorarlberg - 397,094
Tyrol - 757,852
Oberösterreich - 1,490,392
Salzburg - 558,479
=====
TOTAL - 3 million Austrians with close to non-existent Slavic input (they are very close to South Germans)

Substantial Slavic admixture starts only to the east and south of this blue dotted line ("Sprachliche Ostrgenze des Altbairischen" = pre-Ostsiedlung Slavic/German border):

https://i.imgur.com/u94qjgT.jpg
I'm not forgetting about anything, I'm just assuming the academic samples are country representative. If they aren't that isn't my problem. If you're indeed right that the samples are from Prague and Vienna then yes, Austria is probably more Germanic than Czechia(keep in mind non-Prague western Czech Republic is probably also more Germanic than outskirts of Vienna is to Vienna), would like to see proof though that they're actually from there though.

You're wrong on Alpine Austrians and Bavarians though, Bavarians are around 16% Slavic(Bavarians being near 0% Slavic would be impossible given how far spread Slavs were in East Germany and nearly all the Slavic in Austrians is direct, ancient Slavic because they don't score significant Balkan), Oberosterreich is also not in the Alps and definitely not near 0% Slavic. :laugh: Austrian Alps score around 6% Slavic, you don't think east Austrians moved around in Austria at all? Every part of Germany scores a bit of Slavic except a few in the west, even Alsace scores 0.5% Slavic because of HRE movements. Belgium, Netherlands, and France are where you start getting 0% Slavic. Bavaria/Czechia are also not more Celtic than Germanic, where are your models? This is all just literally your random assumptions, not based on autosomal DNA or Y-DNA.

[J. Ketch]

Austrians. If Czechs were more Germanic than Austrians they'd be German speakers. Simples.

[XenophobicPrussian]

Levantine Jews were in Austria before any Germanics(seriously)
How?
No Germanic stepped foot in present border Austria before the Teutones, Cimbri, Ambrones invaded the Romans around 100 BC, but they likely didn't leave any genetic legacy as they didn't settle there, they were moving through to get to Italy/S France. Mass Germanic settlement in Austria didn't happen before 100 AD.

Jewish immigrants from the Levant in Noricum(Austria) Roman settlements were recorded way earlier than this.

[Peterski]

Bavarians are around 16% Slavic

This is only if you include Franconians in Bavarian average. I was talking about Bavarians proper.

Run the six pure Bavarian samples which I posted through K15 as a mix of Slavic and Western.


Bavarians being near 0% Slavic would be impossible given how far spread Slavs were in East Germany

Bavaria is not in East Germany though... Oberfranken is the farthest to the south-west Slavs got.


and nearly all the Slavic in Austrians is direct, ancient Slavic because they don't score significant Balkan

Most of Slavic in Austrians is from Proto-Slovene tribes or tribes closely related to modern Slovenes.

This map shows original extent of Early Medieval Slovenes, including the Principality of Carantania:

https://gis.si/egw/ZSS_T04_P02/

https://gis.si/egw/ZSS_T04_P02/img/karta2.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carantania

[Peterski]

Bavaria/Czechia are also not more Celtic than Germanic, where are your models?

I don't have any Iron Age samples from Bavaria/Czechia. Honestly, Celts were so diverse, that we need local Celtic samples to model modern inhabitants of the same area. For example, how do you know that Celts who lived in Bohemia were not very Northern genetically, compared to Celts who lived further south? It makes no sense to use Celtic samples from somewhere else.

When we get Celtic samples from Iron Age Bohemia and Iron Age Bavaria, we will be able to tell how much of local Celtic continuity there is in these areas.

Look at Iron Age France, where some of the samples are more northern than even modern Northern French. And there is a lot of diversity in general.

[TheMaestro]

Lookwise definitelly Austria, even those villages close to Slovakia are heavilly germanic influenced, as for genetically, I’m not sure, but Czech would still have much Slavic DNA.

[XenophobicPrussian]

Run the six pure Bavarian samples which I posted through K15 as a mix of Slavic and Western.
Lmao, how on earth do you think you would be able to determine Slavic/Germanic admixture from Eurogenes K15/K13? "Eastern_Euro" or "Baltic" component increases or decreases? :picard1: You need to model them directly using samples.

Using maps of archeological cultures to determine where admixture starts or stops is silly, people move around, and the borders are not literal. For your scenario to be accurate, Slavs completely devastated the remnants of fleeing Germanics in all of East Germany, Bohemia, all the way west to Erfurt, but just stopped at prime land Bavaria(where Hunnic activity was even higher than in NE Germany, Germanics would want to abandon those areas too), no cross border interaction or wife swapping either, maybe Bavarians were too stronk? They then moved through a tiny corridor through Czech Republic, down to Austria(only east Austria!), only then to Slovenia, again, completely not touching Bavaria or western Austria. Also, no migration from Bohemians, East Germans, East Austrians happened within the Holy Roman Empire afterwards.

Unlikely.

Fyi, there's 2 Slavic samples in the Baiuvarii burials, PR_10 and PR_4, unfortunately they aren't on G25 though, probably low quality. AED 1135 and others are possible Slavic admixed already, but could also just be Hunnic admixed(not that Huns were Slavic like, but they were shifted south-east). We also do have Celtic samples from Iron Age Bohemia, lol.

[Peterski]

Just model them in K15/K13 nMonte or Vahaduo.

[XenophobicPrussian]

Just model them in K15/K13 nMonte or Vahaduo.
lol, I didn't even know Vahaduo had K15 or that there were even ancient samples converted to K15. Why would you ever use K15 over G25 for modelling Iron Age ancestry though? Not only are many ancient samples missing(not even any Baiuvarii samples, I can't even use more than 2-3 samples per ancestry because there's only 2 Germanic samples and no averages, only individuals), K15 is so much more limited and at best would be okay for modelling steppe, neolithic, etc ancestry(but is really only useful for PCA), G25 covers a lot more ethnic genetic specific drift. K36 would also be better.

Still,

K15 model:


South_Celt:Swiss_CHE_IA_SX18,16.97,26.73,9.75,5.51 ,25.84,1.92,10.67,1.91,0,0,0,0.16,0.31,0.09,0.12
North_Celt:France_IA_ATT26,37.37,21.78,13.11,1.13, 17.75,0,2.94,0,4.09,0,0,0,0,0,1.82
North_Celt:France_IA_BFM265,28.12,34.55,11.89,3.86 ,11.42,3.64,4.73,0.93,0.01,0,0,0,0.4,0.44,0
North_Celt:HallstattCelt_DA112,29.68,20.62,21.14,9 .58,13.95,0.13,2.21,0.01,0.01,0.01,0.01,1.66,1.03, 0.01,0.01
South_Celt:France_IA_COL153i,21.54,30.34,8.12,7.3, 17.4,8.39,0,0.3,0,0,1.34,0,3.32,1.94,0
South_Celt:France_IA_ERS88,29.83,18.14,1.07,7.03,1 8.8,4,17.58,2.25,0,0,0,1.01,0,0.29,0
South_Celt:HallstattCelt_DA111,27.24,37.08,11.16,2 .57,16.44,1.89,2.57,0.88,0.01,0.01,0.01,0.01,0.01, 0.01,0.01
Germanic:AngloSaxon_NO3423,46.64,23.09,10.51,12.45 ,2.93,2.18,0.01,0.25,0.01,0.01,0.01,0.01,0.19,0.78 ,0.98
Germanic:MigrationPeriod_DA119,40.10,21.12,14.48,8 .83,12.50,1.27,1.66,0.01,0.01,0.01,0.01,0.01,0.01, 0.01,0.01
Italic:IA_Ardea_R850,0.39,14.49,7.18,0.00,18.05,19 .14,29.44,9.85,0.00,0.18,0.86,0.13,0.00,0.28,0.00
Italic:IA_Boville_Ernica_R1021,19.93,27.14,5.05,0. 41,28.43,3.42,13.94,1.26,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.41, 0.00,0.00
Slavic:Sunghir6,18.96,15.20,28.11,23.84,8.77,3.46, 0.90,0.01,0.01,0.01,0.01,0.66,0.10,0.01,0.01



Target: French
Distance: 1.5600% / 1.56003863
64.4 South_Celt
21.2 Germanic
8.2 Italic
6.2 North_Celt

Target: West_German
Distance: 0.9265% / 0.92653137
54.6 Germanic
17.2 South_Celt
13.6 North_Celt
12.6 Italic
2.0 Slavic

Target: German_Bavarian
Distance: 1.3238% / 1.32378184
32.6 North_Celt
27.2 Germanic
19.4 South_Celt
11.4 Italic
9.4 Slavic

Target: Austria-Tyrol
Distance: 1.4479% / 1.44788867
38.0 South_Celt
30.8 Germanic
21.0 Italic
10.2 Slavic


Based on better models in G25, Slavic should be lower in Tirol(6%), West Germany should be 0% to noise level(like 0.2% or w/e), Bavaria should be 16%.

The Bavarians you posted:


Target: Bavarian6
Distance: 2.5908% / 2.59084283
56.6 Germanic
17.8 Italic
12.4 South_Celt
9.8 North_Celt
3.4 Slavic

Target: Bavarian5
Distance: 4.6797% / 4.67969063
45.8 Germanic
22.6 South_Celt
22.2 Italic
9.4 Slavic

Target: Bavarian4
Distance: 1.8980% / 1.89801590
49.0 Germanic
27.8 South_Celt
10.0 Italic
7.2 North_Celt
6.0 Slavic

Target: Bavarian3
Distance: 5.2802% / 5.28016809
51.6 North_Celt
21.4 South_Celt
13.0 Germanic
7.8 Slavic
6.2 Italic

Target: Bavarian2
Distance: 1.7659% / 1.76586622
50.4 North_Celt
18.0 South_Celt
12.2 Italic
11.0 Germanic
8.4 Slavic

Target: Bavarian1
Distance: 1.8890% / 1.88895469
58.0 North_Celt
12.6 South_Celt
11.6 Italic
10.8 Slavic
7.0 Germanic

All still show Slavic above noise level Slavic, and again, look how noisey they are. There's no way there are any Germans anywhere in Germany with that big of a difference in ancestry(7% for one Bavarian, 57% for another), you don't see results like this in G25, this is just the fault with using K15. Even G25 isn't going to split up really close ancestries like Celto-Slavic-Germanic to 100% accuracy, let alone K15, especially not Celtic-Germanic.

If you based your statements based on K15 models instead of just assumptions, very peculiar you would use K15. Also, we were both wrong, looks like the academic sample of "Austrians" is from Burgenland on the Hungarian border(still, the proportion of Slavic Y-DNA isn't that different from Burgenland with the rest of Austria). You said they were from Prague, I just said I assumed they were representative because I assumed academic geneticists not to be total garbage geneticists.

[XenophobicPrussian]

If you modeled them with moderns and got no Slavic, even modeling them with moderns on K15 gives Bavarians, Tyroleans Slavic:


Target: French
Distance: 2.4788% / 2.47877675
59.0 France-South
33.2 Danish
7.8 Italy_Calabria

Target: West_German
Distance: 3.2502% / 3.25021595
72.4 Danish
16.0 Italy_Calabria
11.6 France-South

Target: German_Bavarian
Distance: 2.7246% / 2.72463193
43.0 Danish
39.2 France-South
9.6 Ukrainian_Belgorod
8.2 Italy_Calabria

Target: Austria-Tyrol
Distance: 3.5031% / 3.50306571
35.4 France-South
32.6 Danish
19.4 Italy_Calabria
12.6 Ukrainian_Belgorod


The 6 "pure" Bavarians:


Target: Bavarian6
Distance: 3.5218% / 3.52179781
61.4 Danish
21.2 Italy_Calabria
15.2 France-South
2.2 Ukrainian_Belgorod

Target: Bavarian5
Distance: 6.8325% / 6.83253530
60.4 Danish
23.8 Italy_Calabria
9.8 Ukrainian_Belgorod
6.0 France-South

Target: Bavarian4
Distance: 3.6341% / 3.63411190
44.6 Danish
37.2 France-South
9.6 Ukrainian_Belgorod
8.6 Italy_Calabria

Target: Bavarian3
Distance: 7.7089% / 7.70889981
53.4 France-South
33.8 Danish
9.8 Ukrainian_Belgorod
3.0 Italy_Calabria

Target: Bavarian2
Distance: 3.9942% / 3.99416269
66.0 France-South
17.8 Danish
16.2 Ukrainian_Belgorod

Target: Bavarian1
Distance: 4.6410% / 4.64104614
52.0 France-South
27.2 Danish
11.4 Ukrainian_Belgorod
9.4 Italy_Calabria

[Peterski]

^^^
Try using my new regional French averages:

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?323241-French-Regional-Averages-by-Peterski

[Aren]

Yeah modelling with K15 is not optimal but Peterski has a point. Gedmatch kinda gives you an indication. There's a sharp genetic border between Western and Eastern Austrians and Western/Southern and Eastern Germans. There's probably noise level Slavic admix in Tyrol, Bavaria, Hesse etc but from what we can see from Gedmatch they don't have much elevated Baltic/Eastern Euro than NW Germans or Eastern French.


Only Av2, the other one is mixed. It's just better to use Russian_Orel though, they give around the same results anyway.
She is a bit atypical, but I wouldn't necessarily say that the sample is mixed because of it. I'm not expecting everyone to score 99% like how we expect it, there will be people who shift south, east, west etc and I'm not inclined to think they are mixed because of that.

[XenophobicPrussian]

Yeah modelling with K15 is not optimal but Peterski has a point. Gedmatch kinda gives you an indication. There's a sharp genetic border between Western and Eastern Austrians and Western/Southern and Eastern Germans. There's probably noise level Slavic admix in Tyrol, Bavaria, Hesse etc but from what we can see from Gedmatch they don't have much elevated Baltic/Eastern Euro than NW Germans or Eastern French.


She is a bit atypical, but I wouldn't necessarily say that the sample is mixed because of it. I'm not expecting everyone to score 99% like how we expect it, there will be people who shift south, east, west etc and I'm not inclined to think they are mixed because of that.
Given all Europeans, and ancient steppe/HG samples already had Eastern_Euro, Baltic in abundance, it's not going to need a big increase in elevated Baltic/Eastern Euro to indicate significant Slavic ancestry. 1% extra Eastern_Euro/Baltic could mean 5% Slavic for all we know. If I was just going off of amateur models, sure, don't just take them all literally, but then there's R1a, I2-Din, even 23andme's Eastern Euro admixture map reaches deep into Germany, definitely Bavaria/Tyrol. All together it has to mean something. People need to stop thinking there are 100% Iron Age holdout populations all over Europe, there aren't.

On AV2, I agree with your point and have pointed that out myself, natural variation within a population, differing steppe/AN amounts/etc don't always mean mixed. However, usually it's something like getting Swedish 1st but then North German or Icelandic as the second best distance instead of Norwegian, or natural variation would be something like one ancient clustering with Lithuanians, the other with Russians/Ukrainians, Lithuanian and then jumping all the way to Czech/East German is simply too far for natural variation within a population, imo.

[Not a Cop]

Given all Europeans, and ancient steppe/HG samples already had Eastern_Euro, Baltic in abundance, it's not going to need a big increase in elevated Baltic/Eastern Euro to indicate significant Slavic ancestry. 1% extra Eastern_Euro/Baltic could mean 5% Slavic for all we know. If I was just going off of amateur models, sure, don't just take them all literally, but then there's R1a, I2-Din, even 23andme's Eastern Euro admixture map reaches deep into Germany, definitely Bavaria/Tyrol. All together it has to mean something. People need to stop thinking there are 100% Iron Age holdout populations all over Europe, there aren't.

On AV2, I agree with your point and have pointed that out myself, natural variation within a population, differing steppe/AN amounts/etc don't always mean mixed. However, usually it's something like getting Swedish 1st but then North German or Icelandic as the second best distance instead of Norwegian, or natural variation would be something like one ancient clustering with Lithuanians, the other with Russians/Ukrainians, Lithuanian and then jumping all the way to Czech/East German is simply too far for natural variation within a population, imo.

As for Western Germany, we can't exclude Ruhr Poles who are mixed and integrated too well to separate them.

[Aren]

Given all Europeans, and ancient steppe/HG samples already had Eastern_Euro, Baltic in abundance, it's not going to need a big increase in elevated Baltic/Eastern Euro to indicate significant Slavic ancestry. 1% extra Eastern_Euro/Baltic could mean 5% Slavic for all we know. If I was just going off of amateur models, sure, don't just take them all literally, but then there's R1a, I2-Din, even 23andme's Eastern Euro admixture map reaches deep into Germany, definitely Bavaria/Tyrol. All together it has to mean something. People need to stop thinking there are 100% Iron Age holdout populations all over Europe, there aren't.

Yeah I was just about to mention it, uniparental markers are a better indication although one cannot rule out that some markers couldve spread without much admixture(ie from early Slavs to Czechia, from Germanic admixed Czechs to Sudeten Germans, from those Eastern Germans to say Thuringia, from Thuringia to Bavaria and by that point the Slavic like admix must've been quite low). If we btw go by Gedmatch again and K13, given that MA Slavs scored around 50% Baltic then 1-2% elevated Baltic indicates like I said noise level amount of admixture. Now I have a lot of Bavarian Gedmatch kits but it's been a while since I ran them through Gedmatch and I'm not really interested in Gedmatch anymore but from what I remember on average they did only score a 1-2% more Baltic/Eastern Euro than Swiss Germans or Eastern French. Maybe Peterski has more info regarding Bavarians.
And I certainly don't believe Europeans today basically derive 100% from the previous IA people of their area, on the contrary I've been vocal here about how much medieval and modern era internal migrations have affected certain countries(esp Germany).

I also included Western Euros in my previous run and exchanged Avar Slavs for Sunghir_MA. It seems like Northern French are basically as Germanic as the German sample, which seems to be quite a mixed sample. Now I didn't include the new IA samples from France since they are very low coverage, which is also why David hasn't included them in his spreadsheet so granted Gauls could be more northern shifted than the IA samples from Switzerland and thus decrease the Germanic admixture of modern day Frenchmen once the higher coverage samples are released.

https://i.imgur.com/NZdhGr5.png

[XenophobicPrussian]

Yeah I was just about to mention it, uniparental markers are a better indication although one cannot rule out that some markers couldve spread without much admixture(ie from early Slavs to Czechia, from Germanic admixed Czechs to Sudeten Germans, from those Eastern Germans to say Thuringia, from Thuringia to Bavaria and by that point the Slavic like admix must've been quite low). If we btw go by Gedmatch again and K13, given that MA Slavs scored around 50% Baltic then 1-2% elevated Baltic indicates like I said noise level amount of admixture. Now I have a lot of Bavarian Gedmatch kits but it's been a while since I ran them through Gedmatch and I'm not really interested in Gedmatch anymore but from what I remember on average they did only score a 1-2% more Baltic/Eastern Euro than Swiss Germans or Eastern French. Maybe Peterski has more info regarding Bavarians.
And I certainly don't believe Europeans today basically derive 100% from the previous IA people of their area, on the contrary I've been vocal here about how much medieval and modern era internal migrations have affected certain countries(esp Germany).

I also included Western Euros in my previous run and exchanged Avar Slavs for Sunghir_MA. It seems like Northern French are basically as Germanic as the German sample, which seems to be quite a mixed sample. Now I didn't include the new IA samples from France since they are very low coverage, which is also why David hasn't included them in his spreadsheet so granted Gauls could be more northern shifted than the IA samples from Switzerland and thus decrease the Germanic admixture of modern day Frenchmen once the higher coverage samples are released.

https://i.imgur.com/NZdhGr5.png
Yep Germanic is definitely inflated there(N. French is around 34% imo, German average a little over 50%), but Slavic seems about right. I think using the FRA_IA ones is fine(just important to split them up because they're very diverse), if you think the low coverage on the French samples is an issue, could use just DEU_Lech_EBA, 1900-1600 BC or so which is old and might miss specific recent drift but it's given me similar results to using newer samples. Hallstatt Bylany(not old and not low coverage) would also work in reducing Germanic. I'd just give you the personal model I use for Europe north of the Alps/Pyranees+Italy(works really well for every single country/region without any noisey results, and correlates with Y-DNA) but it's using individuals over averages and is "overfit", and Davidski seems to have everyone convinced this is a bad thing, lol.

[Aren]

Yep Germanic is definitely inflated there(N. French is around 34% imo, German average a little over 50%), but Slavic seems about right. I think using the FRA_IA ones is fine(just important to split them up because they're very diverse), if you think the low coverage on the French samples is an issue, could use just DEU_Lech_EBA, 1900-1600 BC or so which is old and might miss specific recent drift but it's given me similar results to using newer samples. Hallstatt Bylany(not old and not low coverage) would also work in reducing Germanic. I'd just give you the personal model I use for Europe north of the Alps/Pyranees+Italy(works really well for every single country/region without any noisey results, and correlates with Y-DNA) but it's using individuals over averages and is "overfit", and Davidski seems to have everyone convinced this is a bad thing, lol.

You don't think using the in all likelihood Celts from IA Switzerland is more appropiate than EBA samples from Germany? I did intially include Hallstatt Bylany in my run aswell, but CHE_IA was preferred by basically all groups.
Imo with the samples David has added so far my Celtic-Germanic-Slavic model is most logical for all Northern and Central Euros, minus Brits and Balts/Finns. I really don't think there is a better representation of central Euro Celts than the IA samples from Swtizerland atm.

[XenophobicPrussian]

You don't think using the in all likelihood Celts from IA Switzerland is more appropiate than EBA samples from Germany? I did intially include Hallstatt Bylany in my run aswell, but CHE_IA was preferred by basically all groups.
Imo with the samples David has added so far my Celtic-Germanic-Slavic model is most logical for all Northern and Central Euros, minus Brits and Balts/Finns. I really don't think there is a better representation of central Euro Celts than the IA samples from Swtizerland atm.
CHE_IA is one sample(not that using one sample can't be accurate, just saying they aren't the "IA samples"). DEU_Lech_EBA is from southern Bavaria so it's really the same geographic location. I do think using it is appropriate, I use all of them(again not afraid of overfitting). :p

While I do think CHE_IA is definitely an original Hallstatt Celt, the Celtic average around the Alpine area was likely South French/SW French-like over Iberian like the CHE_IA sample is. Based on both the FRA_IA samples and the BA samples from Bavaria(as well as the two Hallstatt samples), there are basically three types of samples: a) N. Iberian-like(so like CHE_IA), b) SW/S and Central French like, c) N. French/Belgium/W. German, Celts themselves by the time of the Hallstatt period were like a) or b) because the a) and b) ones kept increasing in proportion later the date of samples, and if COL = Colmar from the French paper then these Iberian-like ones were everywhere in France and likely immigrants from the core Hallstatt area.

Perhaps only using CHE_IA is fine for Austrians/Swiss, but especially N. French need a more northern source that isn't going to be Germanic, and always good to compare multiple samples vs multiple samples instead of one sample vs multiple, even if the multiple is an average.

[Peterski]

CHE_IA is one sample

And it is not even from ethnically Celtic area, but from an area that was ethnically Rhaetian in the Iron Age:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhaetian_people


From not later than ca. 500 BC, they inhabited the central parts of present-day Switzerland, Tyrol in Austria, the Alpine regions of northeastern Italy and Germany south of the Danube.

Those were Non-Indo-European speaking people.

[Peterski]

You don't think using the in all likelihood Celts from IA Switzerland is more appropiate than EBA samples from Germany? I did intially include Hallstatt Bylany in my run aswell, but CHE_IA was preferred by basically all groups.

Celts? I was told it is from Rhaetian area.

With K36 this sample is closest to Swiss Italians (78), I suppose it would be even closer to Swiss Romansh from Grisons Canton if we had such samples:

CHE_IA = SX18 (one individual):

https://i.imgur.com/0dD06bt.png

This sample has relatively low Steppe and relatively high WHG, exactly as you would expect from a Non-IE speaker (Basques have the same pattern).

[XenophobicPrussian]

And it is not even from ethnically Celtic area, but from an area that was ethnically Rhaetian in the Iron Age:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhaetian_people


From not later than ca. 500 BC, they inhabited the central parts of present-day Switzerland, Tyrol in Austria, the Alpine regions of northeastern Italy and Germany south of the Danube.

Those were Non-Indo-European speaking people.
Irrelevant given individuals like CHE_IA were present before then, not only in Switzerland but in Bavaria, and admixed with these southern shifted people Basque/SW French clustering mercenaries in Mecklenburg.

This is a distribution of Rhaetians during 600 BC:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Iron_Age_Italy.png
Switzerland is very clearly core Hallstatt and La Tene land, while Rhaetians did expand north, historical sources say Rhaetian speakers took refuge in the Alps after the Gauls conquered North Italy, which would be much later than 500 BC.

[Roy]

So Swiss are a good proxy for Celts?

[Peterski]

So Swiss are a good proxy for Celts?

It was not a Celt, clearly it was a Rhaetian (and this idea is not mine - someone told me to check this sample because "we have a Rhaetian!" - I agree).

[Roy]

It was not a Celt, clearly it was a Rhaetian (and this idea is not mine - someone told me to check this sample because "we have a Rhaetian!" - I agree).

I meant modern Swiss though as a decent proxy for ancient Celts.

[Aren]

And it is not even from ethnically Celtic area, but from an area that was ethnically Rhaetian in the Iron Age:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhaetian_people


From not later than ca. 500 BC, they inhabited the central parts of present-day Switzerland, Tyrol in Austria, the Alpine regions of northeastern Italy and Germany south of the Danube.

Those were Non-Indo-European speaking people.
I don't think it matters. We've seen now both in Italy and Spain that there wasn't any difference in Steppe admix between IE speakers and non-IE speakers in the Iron Age.


CHE_IA is one sample(not that using one sample can't be accurate, just saying they aren't the "IA samples"). DEU_Lech_EBA is from southern Bavaria so it's really the same geographic location. I do think using it is appropriate, I use all of them(again not afraid of overfitting). :p

While I do think CHE_IA is definitely an original Hallstatt Celt, the Celtic average around the Alpine area was likely South French/SW French-like over Iberian like the CHE_IA sample is. Based on both the FRA_IA samples and the BA samples from Bavaria(as well as the two Hallstatt samples), there are basically three types of samples: a) N. Iberian-like(so like CHE_IA), b) SW/S and Central French like, c) N. French/Belgium/W. German, Celts themselves by the time of the Hallstatt period were like a) or b) because the a) and b) ones kept increasing in proportion later the date of samples, and if COL = Colmar from the French paper then these Iberian-like ones were everywhere in France and likely immigrants from the core Hallstatt area.

Perhaps only using CHE_IA is fine for Austrians/Swiss, but especially N. French need a more northern source that isn't going to be Germanic, and always good to compare multiple samples vs multiple samples instead of one sample vs multiple, even if the multiple is an average.
I get your point, I agree the sample might not be representative but I still believe it's better to use rather than older ones. I also think the higher coverage samples from IA France will be more Steppe shifted, but not by much as say the English ones from the same period. The actual La Tene influence in Germany and France must be significantly higher than anywhere in Britain.

[Sebastianus Rex]

Austrians are usually annexed first than Bohemians, so Austria.

[Peterski]

I don't think it matters. We've seen now both in Italy and Spain that there wasn't any difference in Steppe admix between IE speakers and non-IE speakers in the Iron Age.

With K36 this sample is scoring strong in ITA_Sardinia and FR_Aquitaine, two important Non-IE (in recent history) areas. This is not a coincidence that there is such drift.

It is also close to Lombardy/Bergamo.

Global25 is better for prehistoric populations, but Iron Age is not that ancient, we can trust K36 in this case as modern components were already formed by the Iron Age.

=====

Also, modern Basques have less Steppe but more WHG than surrounding IE people.

[XenophobicPrussian]

So Swiss are a good proxy for Celts?
N. Iberians/SW French, even though N. Iberian ancestry is completely different. Modern Swiss are extremely mixed.

[Peterski]

N. Iberians/SW French

SW French are descended from Non-IE Aquitanians. Central French are the best proxy for Gauls.

=====

Iberians are close to Celtiberians (there are Ancient Celtiberian samples on G25), but not Gauls.

[Peterski]

OK, those SX18 results I posted above were from BAM file (which I processed to 23andMe format before official publication of the study).

Here is a new version, from officially published genotype files (not from my own processing of the BAM file) - very similar results anyway:

Rhaetian_SX18_OFFICIAL (this is the same file that was added to G25):

https://i.imgur.com/ukFYQQL.png

[Roy]

N. Iberians/SW French, even though N. Iberian ancestry is completely different. Modern Swiss are extremely mixed.

I don't know why but Swiss people, no matter which language speakers, look very alien to my Polish eyes. Their faces just seem strange and foreign to me - the vibe is often so off, much more foreign than Austrians on average. Would simple geographic distance be accountable for that or a lack of Slavic ancestors?

[Peterski]

Irrelevant given individuals like CHE_IA were present before then, not only in Switzerland but in Bavaria

You mean Lech Valley?

Individuals from Bavaria were actually more Central French, this is how their average scores (after removal of one northern-shifted outlier).

You don't remember?

I checked this specially on your request, you even selected which individuals should be checked, LOL, only the ones younger than 1800 BC:

(on the other hand, Lech_MBA is very low coverage, and just one sample in G25, so you cannot draw any conclusions based on that anyway)

https://i.imgur.com/q9aw9WV.png

^^^
By the way, none of those guys scored even close to 10% "Basque" and 10% "West_Med"... because they were not Non-IE people.

[Peterski]

If IA Gauls turn out similar to those Lech Valley samples (personally selected by XP), then this is the "Core of Gaulishness" today:

(which is exactly where I expected, to be honest / but Ancient Armoricans is another story, they could be similar to British Celts)

https://i.imgur.com/q30n4AJ.png

Ancient Belgae is another story too (they could be intermediate between Gauls and British Celts, surely more northern than Gauls).

[Mingle]

There are no any Czechs that are autosomally close to Bavarians. While in Austria, perhaps 1/3 of the population is close to Bavarians.

Of course another question is how Germanic are Bavarians, they are probably more Celtic than Germanic. But also close to 0% Slavic.

Then again the same question is about Czechs. It may well be that the majority of their "western" DNA is actually Celtic not Germanic.

Bohemia is named after a Celtic tribe.

The question isn't who's more less Slavic genetically, but who's more Germanic genetically. Does Germanic admixture increase or decrease the further you go west? Any idea by how much?

[Peterski]

The question isn't who's more less Slavic genetically, but who's more Germanic genetically.

But at this point it is hard to tell apart Germanic from Celtic because Celtic-speakers were not homogenous group.

Because some Celts remained more CWC/Beaker-descended, while other Celts mixed more with Neolithic Farmers.

=====

Anyway if your average Czech is 65-50% Slavic*, and Western Austrians are just 10% Slavic (as suggested by XP), then this leaves a lot of room for having more Germanic.

*Prague Czechs perhaps 50% (as in Global25), while Moravian and East Bohemian Czechs perhaps closer to 65%.

[SharpFork]

CLevantine Jews were in Austria before any Germanics(seriously),
The Marcomanni where no the Danube frontier in Austria in the 1st century CE. So it's hard to say.

[Leto]

I don't know why but Swiss people, no matter which language speakers, look very alien to my Polish eyes. Their faces just seem strange and foreign to me - the vibe is often so off, much more foreign than Austrians on average.
Interesting. What about Russians, I'm curious?

[Roy]

Interesting. What about Russians, I'm curious?

Much less foreign than Swiss, and plenty of familiar faces / types popping up that are virtually absent in Swiss. Albeit there are many unpassable Russians too, and they have stronger Baltid component in phenotype than Poles.

[Leto]

Much less foreign than Swiss, and plenty of familiar faces / types popping up that are virtually absent in Swiss. Albeit there are many unpassable Russians too, and they have stronger Baltid component in phenotype than Poles.
Poles are less Baltid? I think the"unpassable" Russians should be the ones with visible East Eurasian influence (they may or may not have known non-Russian ancestry).

I never thought the Swiss were somehow distinct. Switzerland is full of foreign-born people, lots of people from Germany, France and Italy (I'm not talking about non-official language communities).

[Leto]

Sorry for this offtopic questions.

[Pɪᴇᴛʀᴏ Cʜᴀʀᴅᴏɴɴᴇ]

By logic, I think it's Austrians.

[Roy]

Poles are less Baltid? I think the"unpassable" Russians should be the ones with visible East Eurasian influence (they may or may not have known non-Russian ancestry).

I never thought the Swiss were somehow distinct. Switzerland is full of foreign-born people, lots of people from Germany, France and Italy (I'm not talking about non-official language communities).

Obviously there are many fully Europid Russians that can't pass, because they look foreign or too eastern. When it comes to native Swiss people, they still make the majority in this country. And most of the time it is not difficult to check someone's likely factual ancestry.

[Leto]

You are forgeting about Tyrol, Vorarlberg, Salzburg and Upper Austria which are close to zero % Slavic (they are like Bavarians & Swabians). No such areas exist in Czechia.

Bavarian & Swabian results can be seen here - https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?322130-South-German-GEDmatch-results&p=6679565&viewfull=1#post6679565

Region - population

Vorarlberg - 397,094
Tyrol - 757,852
Oberösterreich - 1,490,392
Salzburg - 558,479
=====
TOTAL - 3 million Austrians with close to non-existent Slavic input (they are very close to South Germans)

Substantial Slavic admixture starts only to the east and south of this blue dotted line ("Sprachliche Ostrgenze des Altbairischen" = pre-Ostsiedlung Slavic/German border):



There are no any Czechs that are autosomally close to Bavarians. While in Austria, perhaps 1/3 of the population is close to Bavarians.

Of course another question is how Germanic are Bavarians, they are probably more Celtic than Germanic. But also close to 0% Slavic.

Then again the same question is about Czechs. It may well be that the majority of their "western" DNA is actually Celtic not Germanic.

Bohemia is named after a Celtic tribe.
The Austrian population by federal state before any mass immigration from Turkey and the Balkans
https://i.ibb.co/dfmgbzr/sterreich-1961.png
Do you think Styria, Upper Austria and Lower Austria are significantly different from one another? They seem like the biggest population centers apart from the capital, Vienna.

[Lucas]

Obviously there are many fully Europid Russians that can't pass, because they look foreign or too eastern. When it comes to native Swiss people, they still make the majority in this country. And most of the time it is not difficult to check someone's likely factual ancestry.

To be fair, for me also some "East Nordid like" longfaced Russians look foreign.
Besides those Siberian / Ural admixed in phenotype.

[Immanenz]

The Austrian population by federal state before any mass immigration from Turkey and the Balkans
https://i.ibb.co/dfmgbzr/sterreich-1961.png
Do you think Styria, Upper Austria and Lower Austria are significantly different from one another? They seem like the biggest population centers apart from the capital, Vienna.

we had some immigration from other parts of the monarchy and after that also from Hungary, Slovakia and Czechia before the 1960s. In Carinthia we have Slovenian, in Burgenland Croat and Hungarian minorities. there are differences as the more populated cities like Vienna, Graz and Linz/Wels certainly had more immigration than smaller cities/ villages. Family names like Svoboda, Konecny, Nowak or Horvath are pretty common in Vienna.

[Roy]

To be fair, for me also some "East Nordid like" longfaced Russians look foreign.
Besides those Siberian / Ural admixed in phenotype.

Yes, there are various kinds of Russians that look foreign. They do not have to be part-Mongoloid or something.

[Leto]

Yes, there are various kinds of Russians that look foreign. They do not have to be part-Mongoloid or something.
Well, Polish people are generally purer than us, more homogeneous and better preserved. Though I guess the difference you mean might be due to the Western (Germanic?) input in Poles which Russians lack.