Origins of I2a1: Is it Slavic?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CommonSense

It doesn't seem particularly off to me:

Target: Moldova_Ukrainian
Distance: 0.1413% / 0.14128064
88.2 Slavic
5.1 Eastern_Mediterranean
4.1 Paleo_Balkan
1.9 Germanic
0.7 Turkic

Target: Moldova_South_Gagauzia
Distance: 0.2944% / 0.29444605
45.4 Slavic
30.3 Eastern_Mediterranean
24.0 Paleo_Balkan
0.3 Turkic

Target: Moldova_South
Distance: 0.1960% / 0.19595261
53.1 Slavic
28.0 Paleo_Balkan
16.9 Eastern_Mediterranean
2.0 Turkic

Target: Moldova_North
Distance: 0.4337% / 0.43366467
67.8 Slavic
15.9 Eastern_Mediterranean
12.8 Paleo_Balkan
2.1 Germanic
1.4 Turkic

Target: Moldova_Centre
Distance: 0.1433% / 0.14329267
62.6 Slavic
19.6 Paleo_Balkan
13.9 Eastern_Mediterranean
2.7 Turkic
1.2 Germanic

Target: Moldova_average
Distance: 0.0957% / 0.09569908
62.9 Slavic
20.3 Paleo_Balkan
13.8 Eastern_Mediterranean
2.1 Turkic
0.9 Germanic

---

In the north is more East Mediterranean than Paleo Balkan, which don't make any sense. In south where live many Gagauz is more normal since they score big amount of West Asian.

For example people from Bălți city score more Paleo Balkan and are more Turkic, but people from surrounding areas score more East Mediterranean and less Turkic.

Target: Moldova_Balti_city_North
Distance: 0.1407% / 0.14066459
65.3 Slavic
21.5 Paleo_Balkan
9.8 Eastern_Mediterranean
2.8 Turkic
0.6 Germanic

Target: Moldova_Balti_North
Distance: 0.4366% / 0.43659500
65.8 Slavic
16.8 Eastern_Mediterranean
14.1 Paleo_Balkan
1.9 Turkic
1.4 Germanic

Plus this Turkic thing is dubious. For example in Bălți city live many Russians, and Russian modeled like this score big amount of Turkic, which again, don't make any sense.

Target: Russian_average
Distance: 2.4811% / 2.48110516
89.8 Slavic
10.2 Turkic

Target: Russian_Kargopol
Distance: 4.4628% / 4.46283164
84.3 Slavic
15.7 Turkic

Target: Russian_Kostroma
Distance: 4.2846% / 4.28455183
85.7 Slavic
14.3 Turkic

Target: Russian_Northern_Dvina
Distance: 6.6735% / 6.67352070
84.6 Slavic
15.4 Turkic

Target: Russian_Smolensk
Distance: 1.9616% / 1.96162070
100.0 Slavic

Target: Russian_Southwest
Distance: 1.5843% / 1.58434279
96.9 Slavic
3.1 Turkic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aspirin

In the north is more East Mediterranean than Paleo Balkan, which don't make any sense. In south where live many Gagauz is more normal since they score big amount of West Asian.

For example people from Bălți city score more Paleo Balkan and are more Turkic, but people from surrounding areas score more East Mediterranean and less Turkic.

Target: Moldova_Balti_city_North
Distance: 0.1407% / 0.14066459
65.3 Slavic
21.5 Paleo_Balkan
9.8 Eastern_Mediterranean
2.8 Turkic
0.6 Germanic

Target: Moldova_Balti_North
Distance: 0.4366% / 0.43659500
65.8 Slavic
16.8 Eastern_Mediterranean
14.1 Paleo_Balkan
1.9 Turkic
1.4 Germanic

Plus this Turkic thing is dubious. For example in Bălți city live many Russians, and Russian modeled like this score big amount of Turkic, which again, don't make any sense.

Target: Russian_average
Distance: 2.4811% / 2.48110516
89.8 Slavic
10.2 Turkic

Target: Russian_Kargopol
Distance: 4.4628% / 4.46283164
84.3 Slavic
15.7 Turkic

Target: Russian_Kostroma
Distance: 4.2846% / 4.28455183
85.7 Slavic
14.3 Turkic

Target: Russian_Northern_Dvina
Distance: 6.6735% / 6.67352070
84.6 Slavic
15.4 Turkic

Target: Russian_Smolensk
Distance: 1.9616% / 1.96162070
100.0 Slavic

Target: Russian_Southwest
Distance: 1.5843% / 1.58434279
96.9 Slavic
3.1 Turkic

---

The model was made for Balkanites, not Russians. Their Siberian admix comes from a Uralic-like source (hence the much larger distances), which is not the case for Romanians and Moldavians.
And despite the minor flaws, it's the best model we can come up with right now. Once the samples from the Viminacium paper are published, we can make an even better one using over a dozen Iron Age samples, as well as our own local 'Romans' (instead of the ones from Italy), Goths, Sarmatians and the Early Slavic samples we already posess.

Haplogroup I2a1 was represented in the territory of Latvia already 6300 YBP among Mesolithic/Neolithic hunter-gatherers.
Source here: https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._Ethnic_Groups

Catalyn is right. We need to understand what Slavic means.
I found some possible explanations in this article (i haven't checked everything yet, but sounds meaningful, just read and think):

Balto-Slavic
The late Sredny Stog Middle Dnieper Culture grew from conservative peripheral IE dialects related to Yamna Satem, with admixture of different assimilated indigenous peoples from Dnieper Donets and the Tripolye culture
of Central Europe, as well as subgroups of Centum Globular Amphora contributors (w/ TRB, BBC), and a host of others (<font size="2">re: remnant Middle Dnieper Repins,
Baden ( w/ R1a M420, M198 & M417) traders</font>). The ethnogenesis of these distinct dialects with assimilated indigenous peoples formed various diverse regional "Balto-Slavic" creole speakers, which were&nbsp; localized as&nbsp;the poly-ethnic "<i>Europeanized </i>" peripheral Satem creole dialects of Baltic and Slavic closely related to early Pit-grave Âryan, yet distinctly different even then, with diverse degrees of admixture
within regional subgroups. The Balto-Slavic type poly-ethnic Middle Dnieper culture was a fusion of diverse ethnic groups - a melting pot - so to speak, with a "retro" core of Satem creole dialects.

* TRB: Funnelbeaker culture
* BBC: Bell Beaker culture

Full source: http://suduva.com/virdainas/proto.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CommonSense

The model was made for Balkanites, not Russians.

---

Sad non-Moldovan noises

https://i.ibb.co/Dry4CgM/image.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CommonSense

The model was made for Balkanites, not Russians. Their Siberian admix comes from a Uralic-like source (hence the much larger distances), which is not the case for Romanians and Moldavians.
And despite the minor flaws, it's the best model we can come up with right now. Once the samples from the Viminacium paper are published, we can make an even better one using over a dozen Iron Age samples, as well as our own local 'Romans' (instead of the ones from Italy), Goths, Sarmatians and the Early Slavic samples we already posess.

---

In this region this model works bad. I tried same thing in Western Ukraine where people have visible Balkan influence. Same chaotic results.

Target: Ukrainian_Lvivska
Distance: 0.3154% / 0.31539606
82.2 Slavic
6.7 Eastern_Mediterranean
5.8 Germanic
5.3 Paleo_Balkan

Target: Ukrainian_Zakarpatska
Distance: 0.1466% / 0.14663590
77.9 Slavic
8.8 Paleo_Balkan
7.3 Eastern_Mediterranean
4.8 Germanic
1.2 Turkic

Target: Ukrainian_Ivano-Frankivska
Distance: 0.2594% / 0.25944292
82.8 Slavic
15.5 Paleo_Balkan
1.1 Germanic
0.6 Eastern_Mediterranean

Target: Ukrainian_Ternopilska
Distance: 0.4907% / 0.49072481
73.6 Slavic
10.9 Germanic
8.8 Eastern_Mediterranean
6.7 Paleo_Balkan

Target: Ukrainian_Chernivetska
Distance: 0.3983% / 0.39831994
70.4 Slavic
18.4 Eastern_Mediterranean
7.5 Germanic
3.2 Paleo_Balkan
0.5 Turkic

In the north MD the most Turkic is the city of Bălți, where live many Russians, rest of region score less, but more Germanic.

Target: Moldova_Edinet_North
Distance: 0.2073% / 0.20726683
66.5 Slavic
17.3 Paleo_Balkan
12.7 Eastern_Mediterranean
3.3 Germanic
0.2 Turkic

Target: Moldova_Soroca_North
Distance: 0.2631% / 0.26313591
66.2 Slavic
17.7 Eastern_Mediterranean
10.4 Paleo_Balkan
3.9 Germanic
1.8 Turkic

Target: Moldova_Balti_North
Distance: 0.4424% / 0.44239707
66.2 Slavic
17.1 Eastern_Mediterranean
13.3 Paleo_Balkan
1.9 Turkic
1.5 Germanic

Target: Moldova_Balti_city_North
Distance: 0.1349% / 0.13489970
65.4 Slavic
21.4 Paleo_Balkan
9.6 Eastern_Mediterranean
2.8 Turkic
0.8 Germanic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aspirin

In this region this model works bad. I tried same thing in Western Ukraine where people have visible Balkan influence. Same chaotic results.


Target: Moldova_Balti_North
Distance: 0.4424% / 0.44239707
66.2 Slavic
17.1 Eastern_Mediterranean
13.3 Paleo_Balkan
1.9 Turkic
1.5 Germanic

Target: Moldova_Balti_city_North
Distance: 0.1349% / 0.13489970
65.4 Slavic
21.4 Paleo_Balkan
9.6 Eastern_Mediterranean
2.8 Turkic
0.8 Germanic

---

Your nigga with the Ukrainian surname from Glodeni pushes into 8% and so do I. 2% is nothing.
But with Germanic something is dodgy. Balti city scores more NW Euro ancestry than Balti county, by a difference of 2%, probably due to admix with Ukrainians, who unlike Russians can comfortably push past 30%.
Though I removed 2 outlier samples from the city average:

<google-sheets-html-origin style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: medium;">

N_Atlantic	Baltic	West_Med	West_Asian	East_Med	Red_Sea	South_Asian	East_Asian	Siberian	Amerindian	Oceanian	NE_African	Sub-Saharan
31.58	28.15	14.20	2.22	17.21	1.23	2.15	0	1.86	0	1.40	0	0
26.54	37.53	12.93	9.52	6.52	2.11	1.42	0.52	2.04	0.89	0	0	0

</google-sheets-html-origin>
The second one reminds me of this person from Balti, who is 10/16 Ukrainian and 6/16 Moldovan/Romanian, which someone from this forum posted here:

<google-sheets-html-origin style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: medium;">

N_Atlantic	Baltic	West_Med	West_Asian	East_Med	Red_Sea	South_Asian	East_Asian	Siberian	Amerindian	Oceanian	NE_African	Sub-Saharan
27.18	36.15	11.95	9.09	9.72	2.43	0.98	0	2.06	0	0.22	0.23	0

</google-sheets-html-origin>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CommonSense

The model was made for Balkanites, not Russians. Their Siberian admix comes from a Uralic-like source (hence the much larger distances), which is not the case for Romanians and Moldavians.
And despite the minor flaws, it's the best model we can come up with right now. Once the samples from the Viminacium paper are published, we can make an even better one using over a dozen Iron Age samples, as well as our own local 'Romans' (instead of the ones from Italy), Goths, Sarmatians and the Early Slavic samples we already posess.

---

There’s sarmatian samples too? I think the Goth samples were actually Lombards, they’re Z58 from what I’ve seen. The goths from wielbark and two Crimean goths that were tested are Z63. Also no P109 which shows it clearly came later on with the Normans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dick

There’s sarmatian samples too? I think the Goth samples were actually Lombards, they’re Z58 from what I’ve seen. The goths from wielbark and two Crimean goths that were tested are Z63. Also no P109 which shows it clearly came later on with the Normans.

---

There are several samples that fall into the Central-North Euro cluster. I'm not sure if they're really all 'Goths', but I guess they would be a good proxy for what historians and other researchers call 'Eastern Germanic'. And two of the samples are clearly Central-East Euro Sarmatians:

https://i.ibb.co/KWB8Gfp/New-Project-7.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dick

There’s sarmatian samples too?

---

Sarmatians were already available from Moldova. Also Cimmerians

they are all Luthers
https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplo...#famous_people