Printable View
How are Kashubians peasants ? My grand-grand aunt was married to Kashubian nobleman but they were not Polish but German/Prussian nobles (it seems Kashubians have been Germanized).Quote:
Originally Posted by Litvin
I can post scan of his family coat of arms if you don't believe me. And hg I seems high among Kashubians.
Did they count only Polish nobility in your 16 century data ?
There are some nobles, but the vast majority of Kashubians are peasants. I have a Kashubian noble line in my family tree, but it is was an impoverished family that lost its noble status.Quote:
Originally Posted by Feiichy
Impoverished nobles were usually becoming peasants again. My Kashubian noble line were also peasants before 1300 AD. They became nobles through nobilitation in the 14th century.
So originally they were peasants, then became nobles, then lost their noble status.
Kashubian nobility is mostly R1a according to what Artek told me (families such as von Klopotek, Gostomski, Miszewski, Trawicki, Cisowski, von Wedel, von Sydow belong to R1a - mostly R1a-L365).
Here you have families of Kashubian nobility (my Kashubian line are Gliszczyński):
http://www.szlachta.org.pl/opracowan...szubskiej.html
Very interesting. Are Kashubians more Slavic or Baltic genetically ? I know they aren't Germanic despite cultural assimilation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Litvin
Way more Slavic because they almost don't have any N1c.Quote:
Originally Posted by Feiichy
Nobility (szlachta) was multiplying faster than peasants (page 21, Table 1.):
http://homoeconomicus.uwb.edu.pl/pdf...ograficzne.pdf
http://s22.postimg.org/befmubtip/Szlachta.png
An average nobleman had 2-3 sons surviving to adulthood.
A typical peasant had only 1-2 sons surviving to adulthood.
From Czekanowski, "Wstęp do historii Słowian", 1957:
https://s10.postimg.org/3n8b3eymh/goto.jpg
Wasn't that also Czekanowski who wrote that Polish nobility was darker-haired and darker-eyed than Polish peasants? I know that someone wrote that, I don't remember who. But it was the opposite pattern to that observed in places like France or Iberia, where the nobility was lighter than peasants.
Did he negate earlier or such true belivers as he any germanicQuote:
Originally Posted by mlukas
influence whatsoever? No single Goth, Vandal, Lug' or a Viking?
None? Not a single one?
You see how liberal we are?Quote:
Originally Posted by Litvin
We even admitted some I1 as honourable! :p
p.s.
Mazowian but with some mazovianized
lands including Podlachia for example.
When wielkopolish will be?Quote:
Based on FTDNA "Mazovian Nobility Project".
Did all wielkopolish szlachta extinct?
In common project there are only two or three specimens :pout:
In ZSzP is almost none from there. They cannot even formate a branch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Litvin
Maybe even less, becasue Poznań DepartmentQuote:
Greater Poland:
Nobility - 5,6 percent
of Warsaw Duchy has only 1,2%, Bydgoszcz's
Department 2,3% and Kalisz's 2,4%.
Hard to say which estimation is correct, but
I guess that percentages from 19th century
are more accurate. Some of course could
emigrate or extinct, but the difference is
quite big. The same in other parts.
It is hard to find information, which etimate was based on census.
This 19th century I took from GUS publication, so I hope it is based
on some real censuses. I don't think that commies would lie so much :)
But who knows...
It is also not known, what role they played among Goths.Quote:
These are Wielbark-descended peasants.
They also had slaves, serfs, and pre-their people.
No, totaly untrue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Litvin
To lost noble status sombody would have to absorb poddaństwo.
By whom?Quote:
They became nobles through nobilitation in the 14th century.
Becasue no Noble is identify as local.Quote:
Originally Posted by Feiichy
Szlachta is a subgroup itself, simiral to Kashubian, Goralian aso.
Mine did from two (maybe three)Quote:
Originally Posted by Litvin
guys in 1450 to around 50-60 men
in 1550. Plus women of course.
Grand Master of the Teutonic Order.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Rethel of Retheley
It depends on time and region. Szlachta was oftenQuote:
Originally Posted by Litvin
marrying peasant women, and no, they did not count
how many au who has. Certainly don't :p
Local author from Sabnie wrote, that peasants were
dark and swarthy in that area, and szlachta was fair
haired. He published around 1920.
But the Piasts were R1b, not R1a, so perhaps they were descended from those Wielbark peasants. The legendary Piast was a farmer (oracz) or a wheelwright (kołodziej), a simple peasant:Quote:
Originally Posted by Litvin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piast_the_Wheelwright
http://weneda.net/piast-oracz/
The legendary Popielids were perhaps R1a (assuming that Popielid chiefs existed).
The Piasts were initially low status and likely took over power from the Popielids:
Quote:
Two theories explain the etymology of the word Piast. The first gives the root as piasta ("hub" in Polish), a reference to his profession. The second relates Piast to piastun ("custodian" or "keeper"). This could hint at Piast's initial position as a majordomo, or a "steward of the house", in the court of another ruler, and the subsequent takeover of power by Piast. This would parallel the development of the early medieval Frankish dynasties, when the Mayors of the Palace of the Merovingian kings gradually usurped political control.
1. Popiel had 20 stryjs from which many families descendend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Litvin
2. Piast could be Popielid himself, because, he was called son
of Chościsko or Książysko, and Popiel bear the same nickname.
3. Watch this Urbańczyk's lecture about the early Christianity
in yet not Poland. Based on this, the moravian theory is quite
convicable (but I still doubt it). He is also showing eveidence,
that the first christian lived on Mazowia :p Mojmirowices btw
could be descendants of Samo, who could be certainly R1b.
Isn't the nickname Chościsko linked with Goths?
Nope. How?Quote:
Originally Posted by Litvin
But Kociewie is.
Originally Gociewie.
Nobility was - compared to peasants - darker-pigmented, more brachycephalic, more Dinarid:
https://s16.postimg.org/kke5pijjp/szl.jpg
https://s24.postimg.org/nwsl0mzlx/szil.jpg
This is about stereotypes.
To be representable, they would have
to check everywhere, not only in Płońsk.
And szlachta was not hermetic racially.
Marrying a commoner was very often,
in medieval times a normal practice,
later stopped, and again from XIXth
century became a norm, buy it did
happen often also in interperiod.
Among okoliczna's szlachta some types
could dominate localy, but if was not
because of some universal type, but
becasue of local inbreeding.
p.s. but my ancestors actually would fit with hair :p
p.s. Look how looks the Chief Prezes of polish szlachta :p
You will be surrprized :laugh:
Three Early Medieval Slavs - RISE568, Niemcza18, Markowice7 - in Eurogenes K15:
1) RISE568 (Czechia):
Admix Results (sorted):
# Population Percent
1 Baltic 36.17
2 Atlantic 34.99
3 Eastern_Euro 14.8
4 North_Sea 8.49
5 West_Med 4.15
6 West_Asian 1.4
Single Population Sharing:
# Population (source) Distance
1 Russian_Smolensk 18.3
2 Estonian_Polish 18.77
3 Belorussian 18.79
4 Polish 20.01
5 Lithuanian 20.05
6 Southwest_Russian 21.04
7 Ukrainian_Belgorod 21.22
8 South_Polish 21.33
9 Croatian 22.65
10 Austrian 23
11 Estonian 23.41
12 Ukrainian 23.41
13 Ukrainian_Lviv 23.48
14 La_Brana-1 23.74
15 Kargopol_Russian 24.98
16 Southwest_Finnish 25.7
17 East_German 25.89
18 Hungarian 26.15
19 Moldavian 26.55
20 Erzya 27.19
Mixed Mode Population Sharing:
# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 72.9% Lithuanian + 27.1% French_Basque @ 15.79
2 78.3% Belorussian + 21.7% French_Basque @ 16.43
3 79% Estonian_Polish + 21% French_Basque @ 16.62
4 81.7% Russian_Smolensk + 18.3% French_Basque @ 16.76
5 73.5% Lithuanian + 26.5% Southwest_French @ 17.4
6 76.1% Lithuanian + 23.9% Spanish_Aragon @ 17.5
7 80.9% Belorussian + 19.1% Southwest_French @ 17.63
8 76% Lithuanian + 24% Spanish_Valencia @ 17.71
9 83.3% Belorussian + 16.7% Spanish_Aragon @ 17.73
10 85.8% Russian_Smolensk + 14.2% Southwest_French @ 17.73
11 81.7% Estonian_Polish + 18.3% Southwest_French @ 17.75
12 77% Lithuanian + 23% Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha @ 17.79
13 77% Lithuanian + 23% Spanish_Andalucia @ 17.81
14 88.1% Russian_Smolensk + 11.9% Spanish_Aragon @ 17.81
15 83.9% Estonian_Polish + 16.1% Spanish_Aragon @ 17.82
16 83.7% Belorussian + 16.3% Spanish_Valencia @ 17.89
17 89% Russian_Smolensk + 11% Spanish_Valencia @ 17.93
18 84.7% Belorussian + 15.3% Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha @ 17.95
19 84.3% Estonian_Polish + 15.7% Spanish_Valencia @ 17.95
20 84.7% Belorussian + 15.3% Spanish_Andalucia @ 17.95
2) Niemcza18 (Poland):
Admix Results (sorted):
# Population Percent
1 Baltic 42.12
2 Atlantic 32.49
3 West_Asian 14.45
4 North_Sea 10.95
Single Population Sharing:
# Population (source) Distance
1 Russian_Smolensk 26.33
2 Belorussian 27.06
3 Lithuanian 27.21
4 South_Polish 27.9
5 Estonian_Polish 28.01
6 Polish 28.1
7 Ukrainian_Belgorod 28.18
8 Croatian 28.57
9 Southwest_Russian 28.65
10 Ukrainian_Lviv 28.89
11 Austrian 29.08
12 La_Brana-1 29.82
13 Ukrainian 29.9
14 Estonian 30.48
15 Hungarian 30.82
16 Moldavian 31.25
17 East_German 31.5
18 Southwest_Finnish 32.89
19 Romanian 33.03
20 Bulgarian 33.59
Mixed Mode Population Sharing:
# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 77.4% Lithuanian + 22.6% French_Basque @ 25.17
2 80.8% Lithuanian + 19.2% North_Ossetian @ 25.18
3 84.8% Lithuanian + 15.2% Abhkasian @ 25.48
4 84.4% Lithuanian + 15.6% Georgian @ 25.55
5 82.7% Lithuanian + 17.3% Adygei @ 25.63
6 87.9% Russian_Smolensk + 12.1% North_Ossetian @ 25.65
7 82.7% Lithuanian + 17.3% Balkar @ 25.7
8 83.9% Lithuanian + 16.1% Ossetian @ 25.7
9 82.3% Lithuanian + 17.7% Kabardin @ 25.71
10 83.7% Belorussian + 16.3% North_Ossetian @ 25.73
11 86.8% Russian_Smolensk + 13.2% French_Basque @ 25.79
12 91.4% Russian_Smolensk + 8.6% Abhkasian @ 25.85
13 79.3% Lithuanian + 20.7% Spanish_Aragon @ 25.86
14 79% Lithuanian + 21% Spanish_Andalucia @ 25.87
15 91.4% Russian_Smolensk + 8.6% Georgian @ 25.9
16 78.7% Lithuanian + 21.3% Spanish_Valencia @ 25.91
17 83.6% Lithuanian + 16.4% Chechen @ 25.93
18 78.1% Lithuanian + 21.9% Southwest_French @ 25.93
19 90.6% Russian_Smolensk + 9.4% Adygei @ 25.94
20 79.6% Lithuanian + 20.4% Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha @ 25.94
3) Markowice7 (Poland):
Admix Results (sorted):
# Population Percent
1 Baltic 39.91
2 Eastern_Euro 24
3 Atlantic 17.33
4 North_Sea 12.2
5 West_Med 5.54
6 Sub-Saharan 1.02 --> probably ancient DNA damage
Single Population Sharing:
# Population (source) Distance
1 Lithuanian 8.65
2 Estonian_Polish 9.75
3 Belorussian 10.16
4 Russian_Smolensk 11.46
5 Southwest_Russian 11.89
6 Ukrainian_Belgorod 12.24
7 Polish 14.05
8 Erzya 15.43
9 South_Polish 15.64
10 Estonian 15.67
11 Kargopol_Russian 15.69
12 Ukrainian 15.77
13 Ukrainian_Lviv 16.54
14 Croatian 19.8
15 East_Finnish 21.12
16 Moldavian 22.09
17 La_Brana-1 22.75
18 Finnish 22.94
19 Southwest_Finnish 23.77
20 Hungarian 23.97
Mixed Mode Population Sharing:
# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 98% Lithuanian + 2% Sardinian @ 8.58
2 83% Lithuanian + 17% Estonian_Polish @ 8.6
(...)
^^^
Now it makes sense why Slavic admixture was represented by a "Lithuanian-like source":
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4714572/
Quote:
"As previously reported [11], the formation of the Slavic people (...) had a significant impact on the populations of Northern and Eastern Europe, a result that is supported by an analysis of identity by descent segments in European populations [10]. Here, despite characterizing populations by genetic similarity rather than geographic labels, we infer the same events involving a “Slavic” source (represented here by a cluster of Lithuanians; lithu11 and colored light blue) across all Balkan groups in the analysis (Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, and Hungary) as well as in a large cluster of Germanic origin (germa36) and a composite cluster of eastern European individuals (ukrai48; Figures 4A and 4B )."
Interesting how Niemcza has much higher west asian than modern Poles and no any east med admixture (Czech sample too). They also lack any Siberian.
I wonder why are those medieval samples so far from modern Slavs, it was not so long ago but their genetics was different.
Modern Poles also lack any Siberian. At least I don't score any in K15.Quote:
Originally Posted by Feiichy
Yes, I know that. East Slavs do score it though, many people expected proto-Slavs to have some Siberian but they obviously don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Litvin
Still, how do you explain their different autosomal make up, since it was already middle ages ?
I expected medieval Poles and Czechs to be the same as modern but seems not.
Becasue they are not representative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Feiichy
Niemcza was settled by captives.
That high amount of West Asian and no East Med is simply a result of low coverage. It still shows up where it should be on a PCA or oracle because the inflated Baltic/European, etc(the pop with the most is Lithuanians with 36%).Quote:
Originally Posted by Feiichy
On K15 runs that show 80k+ SNPs or more, you don't see weird results like this.
I agree, I dont think these samples yet are the best representatives of the original slavs, I mean none of these three ancient slavs were even R1a.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Rethel of Retheley
http://www.gifimagesdownload.com/wp-...gh-gif-886.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Sir Rethel of Retheley
http://files.gamebanana.com/img/ico/...035abd8db7.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Sir Rethel of Retheley
Because your countryman Davidski made the calculator that way on purpose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Litvin
Interesting that when long-established specialists (people who create GEDmatch calculators) converted ancient Egyptian genomes from BAM files to GEDmatch format, they had a small amount of SNPs after conversion. But when Mlukas did it, these genomes have much more SNPs:Quote:
Originally Posted by XenophobicPrussian
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sho...=1#post4498564
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sho...=1#post4499947
Also their results from files processed by Mlukas make more sense than before.
I found many individual Lithuanians on GEDmatch who score way more Baltic.Quote:
Originally Posted by XenophobicPrussian
By the way, it is high time that you recognize the superiority of K36 over K15:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sho...=1#post4497313
That could be genetic drift. Maybe they belonged to several distinct, isolated tribes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Feiichy
Later those tribes mixed with each other, creating a more homogeneous population.
Why do you think so, why exactly should (or must) Early Slavs have any East Med?Quote:
Originally Posted by XenophobicPrussian
:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick
It isn't strange if early Slavs completely lacked east med, but the fact that modern Poles score some of it, where does it comes from ?
In case of south slavs it's easy- we mixed with indigenious Illyrian-Thracian tribes, but in case of ''northern'' Slavs it seems to be a mystery.
As well as west asian scores reducing significantly in modern Polish population.
According to Maciamo the original slavs must have had traces of J2 and E1b as it's present in small amounts in all modern Slavic populations. I would also expect them to have traces of east med.Quote:
Originally Posted by Litvin;4500017.
because every single population in Europe except Finnish Sami have it(even Finns/Estonians). It was in Bell Beakers, the highest coverage Anglo-Saxons/Britons, in all neolithic farmers(although if you don't have atleast a 2:1 West Med to East Med ratio you likely have post-neolithic MENA ancestry). You can't be admixed with neolithic farmers if you don't have East Med(of course, there are samples known to have neolithic farmer admixture without East Med, but again this is due to low SNP coverage).Quote:
Originally Posted by Litvin
Also no, I'm not accepting K36 to be superiour. :icon_lol: The PCA has too many errors(S. Dutch too far northern, SW Finnish too far eastern, Volga-Uralic groups and Tatars way close too Slavs, only thing the K36 PCA seems to get right over K15 is the position of Austria, but K13 also gets Austria correct) and the admixture results don't even show how much Middle-Eastern someone has because it's hidden in the "Italian" or w/e component. The component maps you made also seem to be all over the place.
They are not errors, just imperfections of a two-dimensional PCA.Quote:
Originally Posted by XenophobicPrussian
Only three-dimensional PCAs can accurately show all of variation.
In Eurogenes K36, East_Med admixture is much less widespread.Quote:
Originally Posted by XenophobicPrussian
These samples are dated to 600 AD - 1200 AD, maybe at that time mixing between Slavs and Pre-Slavic inhabitants was still not completed, and therefore people with very different genetic backgrounds will be found (some with much more Slavic ancestry, others with much more Pre-Slavic ancestry).Quote:
Originally Posted by Feiichy
Another issue is that these are "screening results", which is why they are low coverage.
The actual paper will be published soon, and it will include better quality genomes. So maybe when we upload to GEDmatch these higher coverage genomes (of the same people), their results will be slightly different. We will see. But low coverage does not mean that the results must be wrong.
Crimean Goths were I1-M253 as well (just like Wielbark):
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/sho...=1#post1304256
Quote:
(...) Our project tested two people who are descendants of the Crimean Goths, this kit № 228539 Afenko and kit № 228541 Aslanov. Their haplogroup (I1-M253) was determined in the course of scientific research laboratory Balanovsky. (...)
Jews. In Xth century they were not here. In XXthQuote:
Originally Posted by Feiichy
century they were 11% in population Poles+Jews.
...many his claims were debunked, and he had to rewtite hisQuote:
Originally Posted by karol.klacansky
stories and repainted maps... sometimes trice or four times.
Yes I don't always agree with Maciamo on everything , but still the fact that east med type haplogroups are present in all Slavic populations, I would expect them to also have some East med admixtureQuote:
Originally Posted by Sir Rethel of Retheley