Printable View
Pre-Slavic population of Herzegovina, Bosnia, Montenegro and west Serbia was firmly Illyrian. Croatian early IA sample is from deep Dalmatian hinterland, right on border with Herzegovina if I am not mistaken.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dušan
More samples are needed (especially from late IA and antiquity) but so far there is no reason to assume these people suddenly became heavily East Med.
Especially not in dinaric wastelands where hardly any Romans went.
Border of Illyrian and Thracian tribes went trough Morava river valley and trough Kosovo most likely.
Genetic research of Kashubians. I think you will be interested. But you must having this translate.Quote:
Originally Posted by rothaer
http://www.tropie.tarnow.opoka.org.pl/pol_regiony.htm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stearsolina
And how do you know that the Illyrians are genetically/ethnically homogeneous from the northwest in Slovenia, Croatia, to the southeast in Serbia, Montenegro and Albania?
Especially when it was recorded that they were fighting with each other.
Most likely Illyrians is a collective name given to a diverse group of tribes and tribal alliances of the Thracian-Illyrian branch of the Indo-European ethno-linguistic family, once inhabited in areas from the Pannonian Plain to the Adriatic coast.
I added all the early and medieval Slavic samples here, and highlighted what I think were 3 groups of unmixed Early Slavs. An Ukrainian-like, Lithuanian-like and intermediary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stearsolina
https://i.imgur.com/macUcRd.png
Slavs from Krakauer Berg and Viking age Denmark are a mix of the intermedieary group and Germanics. AV2 is also there. The Polish sample from Cedynia is probably an unmixed representative of this group.
Samples from northern Poland and Sweden are the "Lithuanian" group + Germanic.
Most Pohansko Samples, Early Czech Slav, Av1, and one Polish sample are a mix of the "Ukrainian" group and Germanic.
Medieaval East Slavs are unmixed Ukrainian-like.
Why do you assume there is mix with Germanics for Lithuanian like samples though? I would expect slight SW shift from Lithuanians to be exactly what proto Slavs should have (connected to I2-din)
Just because some early Slavs plot like Lithuanians with shift towards Goths, it does not mean they are mixed with them.
Lithuanians are N1c heavy and have little I2-din, they should be even more radically northeastern than proto Slavs.
They are probably not. But BA samples from east Slavonia and Dalmatian hinterland were homogenous, and that tells something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dušan
More samples are needed. Maybe southern Illyrians in MNE/ALB were more Thracian like, or maybe they weren't. None knows. But they couldn't have been like Greek Islanders.
Yes. And northern Illyrians had large contacts and influences from Celts and Veneti. Some even say Liburnians weren't even Illyrians but Venetic tribes.Quote:
Most likely Illyrians is a collective name given to a diverse group of tribes and tribal alliances of the Thracian-Illyrian branch of the Indo-European ethno-linguistic family, once inhabited in areas from the Pannonian Plain to the Adriatic coast.
Very little is known about them.
What I think tho, is that these models heavily exegerate Roman genetic influence.
We will see when paper comes out. I heard they have Serbian (Moesian) IA samples, Croatian (Illyrian) and Slovenian (Illyrian-Keltic) IA as well.
It's an interesting theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by vbnetkhio
But your assumed proto Slavs would plot like a banana on the PCA (your three black circles) which is per se unlikeley. A "normal" heterogeneity would go in all directions and just make the a basically "round" area on the plot bigger. At least in tendency.
Doubtless a number of individuals that you add to the assumed by others as proto Slav groups are mixed. Individuals like Av1 and RISE569 (Early Czech) can be completely discarded as proto Slav references. Arbitrary slavic-like individuals from Scandinavia as well. There is also no serious cause for assuming all Krakauer Berg individuals (they are very late) to be proto Slavic in genetics, just the moste extreme ones could be thought of. So these individuals could be thought of to be proto Slavic:
Av2
KRA001
KRA009
KRA011
POH13
POH28
Likely also
VK2020 (Zehden, East Brandenburg)
Sunghir6 (may be questioned depending on whether Stearsolina's objections are applicable or not)
We will then have abt. that area that I circled in red here as proto Slavic. And it has some heterogeneity.
https://i.imgur.com/Nebb4hJ.jpg
Your left black circle I assume are southern admixed proto Slavs and the green area are people that are not just admixed with Germanics like from Kovalevko, but also a lot with all that indigenous (likely Germanisised in 600 AD) pre Germanic people that lived in Bohemia and Pannonia. Consider that all that dark admixture in Bohemians, Upper Saxons, Thuringians and Southern Saxony-Anhaltians very likely is neither from early Celts, nor from early Germanics, nor from proto Slavs, but from the prior LBK-influenced population. This easily explains why that admixture resulting in the green area from a proto Slav perspective - as circled in red above - is not just in the direction of Kovalevko Goths (or Burgundians). Because of the obvious prior population in these areas that were not that early Germanic-like as Kovalevko Goths your left black circle is even disproved to be proto Slavic. Why? Because from that position the green field just shows an admixture in the direction of Kovalevko Goths.
My conclusion: I agree to your middle and right black circle to be proto Slavic and I add abt. half of your red area to that, resulting in my red circle. I reject your left black cirlce as part of proto Slavs with the aforementioned motivation. The various admixture directions of the Proto slavs, resulting in the various known samples, are marked with red arrows. (Note that I do basically agree to your center and right black line as an admixture direction, just not to the left one.)
Is that a reasonable point of view?
You mean the samples between AV2 and Pohansko_o2?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stearsolina
Krakauer samples are from deep in Germanic territory, and they have some local y-dna from Germany. They also have lowered Balto-Slavic drift, compared to medieval East Slavs and samples like Cedynia, which have the highest Balto-Slavic drift of all Slavic samples (Balto-Slavic drift pulls south on this PCA).
By the time N1c reached Latvia and Lithuania, it's autosomal was probably like Iron age Estonians (Balts with Germanic and minor Siberian amdixture) so it would pull Latvians and Lithuanians slightly to the south.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stearsolina
But I think neither I2-din nor N1c left any autosomal influence. They are both a result of recent founder effects, and both Balts and Slavs kept their pre-I2/N1c autosomal.
Problem is the samples like Lutsk and Chernigov. They are both from Polesye, which is often considered as the proto-Slavic homeland. To get Lutsk/Chernigov from Pohansko_o2, something super southern from the Balkans is needed. That is possible of course, but many modern Ukrainians, South Russians and Poles are similar to them, and there is no explanation how all these areas received significant Balkan admixture.Quote:
Originally Posted by rothaer
One of the Iron Age Ukrainian Scythians is also similar to Lutsk/Chernigov, indiciating that this is something which existed in Polesye for a long time. There are rumors that a Bronze age Ukrainian similar to them will also be published.
So this type of autosomal is IMO something which existed in the proto-Slavic homeland for a long time, and later was spread by Slavs in their expansion.