Krakauer and Berg

In this post I'll show what happens when we subtract any potential Germanic ancestry from the Krakauer Berg samples.

German LBK is being used as a source of the neolithic ancestry and any deviation from this genetic profile should trigger the inclusion of Germanic sources in the output.

Modern Norwegian, Icelandic and Danish samples are being used in the Germanic group.

As you can see below the shift can be quite substantial and almost all individuals show this potentially Germanic ancestry. "Potentially", because in fact in can come from any CWC-rich source, but we are being generous and for the sake of simplicity we assume that all of it is a recent Germanic admixture.

One thing you may notice, besides the fact that after the subtraction they became closer to the Balts, is that the cline formed by Krakauer Berg samples became parallel to the Balto-Slavic one.

The second reflection should be that there is a cline at all! Multitude of people still claim that the early Slavs came from a small, undifferentiated population and such subtraction of a "local" ancestry should reduce any Slavic population to practically a point on a PCA.

But that's not all. If you look closely, you can see that there is another not entirely expected, but also not so surprising effect of the above experiment. A large gap  appeared between two groups of the Krakauer Berg samples and now we can split them into two clusters:


One is similar to the modern Balts and another to the Slavic groups that live north of the Carpathians:

Distance to:Cluster_A
0.01660492Lithuanian_VA
0.01913823Lithuanian_RA
0.01944195Lithuanian_PA
0.02270179Lithuanian_SZ
0.02488559Belarusian

Distance to:Cluster_B
0.01583642Ukrainian
0.01662025Polish
0.01864114Belarusian
0.01866512Russian_Voronez
0.01917362Russian_Orel

As a bonus - below is a plot with RISE569 treated the same way as the Krakauer Berg.


I think it should be clear now that the migrating Slavs weren't completely homogeneous and instead of a single population, rather a part of a larger horizon has expanded. Sometimes, as in the Krakauer Berg, genetically different groups have ended in one place.

So... who can hide behind the cluster A?

Thanks to Tomenable, who posted coordinates of a Kashubian, we have the first candidates:


Comments

Arza said…
@ ambron

It seems that you were right with that Pomeranian / West Baltic connection.
ambron said…
Arza, thanks for this excellent post and nice words.

Krakauer Berg are medieval Sorbs. On the other hand, the Sorbs are Kashubians who have moved to Lusatia. We are 100% sure about this, because it is confirmed by two completely independent studies of the Sorbs and Kashubians - Rębała's and Balanowski's. At the same time, in the Budnik research, the northern Kashubians grouped with Lithuanians, while the southern - with Poles.

Therefore, it seems to me that the Kashubians themselves may suffice to explain the genetic variation of Krakauer Berg.
natsunoame said…
How do you draw conclusions about Balto-Slavic cline if you have not included Slavs here?
I have in mind the first Slavic speakers and not the huge group of Slavic speakers today, a large part of which logically have a shift in their mother language, and there are such data from linguistics.
Arza said…
@ natsunoame

Frankly speaking I have no idea what you want. A Balto-Slavic cline without the Balts and Slavs but with some mythical "first Slavs" who were different people than the Slavs on the plot, because the Slavs on the plot are not THE Slavs, but language shifters?

Who do you consider to be "the first Slavic speakers"?
EastPole said…
@natsunoame

“Who do you consider to be "the first Slavic speakers"

You cannot date Slavic languages. Oleg Nikolayevich Trubachyov wrote about it:
“However, the question now is not that the history of Slavonic may be measured by the scale of the II to III millenniums B.C. but that we can hardly date the ‘emergence’ or ‘separation’ of proto-Slavonic or proto-Slavonic dialects from Indo-European dialects because of the proper uninterrupted Indo-European origin of Slavonic.
The latter belief is in line with the Meillet’s indication that Slavic is an Indo-European language of archaic type, vocabulary and grammar of which has not experienced shocks in contrast to, for example, the Greek (vocabulary)”
So called Balto-Slavic drift has nothing to do with the origin of Baltic and Slavic languages. This is what probably happened in reality:

https://postimg.cc/s1gPDT9c

We know that some post Corded Ware Slavic tribes migrated south and formed Nitra culture. I am using a “willow-leaf” metal complex map because Nitra is a continuation of it, i.e. they have “willow leafs” and in addition there is plenty of Slavic R1a there.

https://postimg.cc/yW6K6BxG

Notice that on PCA Fuzesabony_MBA can be a mix of CWC and Mako_EBA

https://postimg.cc/LnhhdVHT

Slavs were probably the Hyperboreans who influenced Greek religion and introduced some elements similar to Vedic.
Balto-Slavic cline is the result of a long history of mixing and migrating.
There is no need for absurd theories about a small group of drifted Balto-Slavs suddenly expanding in the Middle Ages.
Arza said…
@ EastPole

You cannot date Slavic languages

Sure thing. I was just curious what natsunoame had in mind.

This is what probably happened in reality:

This wouldn't produce the cline we observe. More likely, after the initial separation, both ends of the cline homogenized around two population centers, and then Balts and Slavs came into contact once again forming the cline. Something like this:

https://i.postimg.cc/yBpxQjgb/isbspspb.jpg

Technically (depending on how exactly Balts and Slavs acquired the "drift") we can even have a trifurcation of Baltic, Slavic and Indo-Iranian with the "Balto-Slavic cline" being responsible for shared Balto-Slavic innovations.
natsunoame said…
Arza

This is exactly what I mean by what I wrote. You are not included in the PCA southern Slavs or in other words the real source of the Slavic language (according to the linguistic peculiarities of the languages ​​and historical data, officialy registred European toponyms from before Christ).
There are no two opinions as to which of the Slavic languages ​​is the most ancient/archaic in STRUCTURE/GRAMMAR. There is only one with such characteristic.
As early as 1945, N. S. Derzhavin expressed the idea that the analytical type of the modern Bulgarian language is its archaic feature, and does not represent
transition from syntheticism to analyticism: Compared to the Russian language,the modern Bulgarian language is distinguished by the archaicness of its lexical composition and grammatical structure. He does not know, for example declensions, ie changes of words by maturity, and for expression maturity relations, different prepositions are used "

There is no reason to think anything contrary to my opinion, precisely due to the fact how genetically different Slavs are today. This is an indication of only one thing- that there was a nucleus (already formed ETHNICITY) that imposed their language to non Slavic speakers. The same has happened on a larger scale with IE language group.
With the remark that IE group of languages* ​​is a fictitious union only based over group of common words, but the languages ​​within the group are not similar/they have no common origin, not at all.
To give an example with German: "Altaic-related German words represent namely substrate, i. E. Basic (not cultural) lexicon which might be inherited from 'macro-Altaic' (Y haplogroup C, longhouses) Linear Pottery culture. 'Hamitic' (non-Semitic Afro-Asiatic) -related cultural lexicon was possibly accepted from Ertebølle (fishing and swine-herding, reflected in language, while ox may be wild). Pictish as well as several pre-Proto-Germanic substrate words might be Yenisseian -related. "
So, "basic lexicon", I hope you can understand the meaing of this phrase well. It's in the logical course of things and shows exactly what I'm talking about. There is only one IE language of origin that donated words during the cultural rise of this particular ethnic group. Because only the Ethnos has the characteristic "formed language", one of the main ethnic characteristics. As much as linguists and you geneticists want to run away from this indisputable relationship -
ethnicity-language, it is stable and constant. IE is associated with a specific ethnic group and it has not disappeared if we look at the area of distribution of this language today. All other so-called branches are alive, but only the original you say must be dead. How convenient!
And this could not have been a small group of people, because they have scattered in many directions, including to Egypt / there are cultural and linguistic parallels there as well / and have mixed with local groups over time. But there has always been a nucleus that remembers its root and returns to it again. This happened to Asparuh and his people, who controlled territories 5 centuries north of the Danube before 681. Didn't they mix with the more northern peoples during that time? What would stop them to do that? Then they moved south, where their Moesian/Thracian clans are from.

natsunoame said…
I am not alone in my opinion about IE group and this person explained the problem well.
* the opinion of "Michael Minnich, worked at Linguistics"

"When you look into Indo-European it becomes quickly obvious that it does not make sense as a category. While there are some definite trends, like the numeral systems being very definitely similar, there are also definite issues, like every single European branch of IE having a completely different morpheme for ‘hand’. What turns out to be the fundamental pattern is that words for stuff that’s trade-able and was available to Bronze Age Eurasia are the words that IE languages share, while more fundamental terms like ‘dog’ and ‘tongue’ are completely unrelated across IE languages.
Further, Greek and Latin are right up against the dawn of IE, timescale wise, and yet they are incredibly different from each other, indicating an incredibly rapid divergence if they are fundamentally related languages. Meanwhile, there are words which exist across the entire Northern Hemisphere nearly unchanged in Hebrew, Chinese, Navajo and Cherokee, which wouldn’t have even had relatives in contact with each other since about 12–15 thousand years ago. So we shouldn’t really expect languages to naturally change particularly rapidly, let alone anywhere near as fast as would be required to get the difference between Latin and Greek. The simplest solution is that something from around Turkey or Syria, like… Hittite, probably… spread westward into southern Europe around the time of the Bronze Age collapse, but since people already lived in Europe and spoke languages of their own, the languages mixed.

Add into this facts like Celtic languages have a huge amount of Kartvelian vocabulary, Lithuanian and Latvian look like something completely unique with some Latin and alot of Polish and Russian influence thrown in (keep in mind the politics of Lithuania at the time IE was proposed and this makes perfect sense, even moreso because the dude who proposed Lithuanian was IE expected Lithuanian to go extinct within a generation, rendering his analysis nearly immune to scrutiny forever), and the simple observation that all claims about the Indo-European homeland are blatant ethnocentric propaganda pieces, and it becomes pretty clear that IE is not a well reasoned out category, but instead something built up out of expectation, tradition and European egotism.

Also, the entire evidence for IE is that there exist systematic sound and grammar shifts between the branches of IE. Those would occur if each branch originates from a creole, so that’s actually not evidence of IE. Further, the degree of the shifts between many of the branches is much better explained by creoles, rather than a single parent language diverging, for instance, Germanic involves a crapton of semantic shifts that make absolutely no sense if it shared ancestry with Slavic and Italic, etc. but it makes 100% sense if Germanic is originally a creole between something related to Slavic and Italic and something else, indigenous to northern Europe."
natsunoame said…
EastPole, you don't even know how to draw conclusions from what you've read because of your bias. You do not read with comprehension.
Oleg Nikolayevich Trubachyov wrote about it:
“However, the question now is not that the history of Slavonic may be measured by the scale of the II to III millenniums B.C. but that we can hardly date the ‘emergence’ or ‘separation’ of proto-Slavonic or proto-Slavonic dialects from Indo-European dialects because of the proper uninterrupted Indo-European origin of Slavonic.
The latter belief is in line with the Meillet’s indication that Slavic is an Indo-European language of archaic type, vocabulary and grammar of which has not experienced shocks in contrast to, for example, the Greek (vocabulary) ”
The main and most important of what has been wrote is that no distinction can be made between Slavyanski and IE "because of the proper uninterrupted Indo-European origin of Slavonic", NOT Baltic, but SLAVONIC. Do you notice that Baltic group is missing from the equation?! Intentionally!
It is best to finally open your eyes and understand why there are two CLEARLY EXPRESSED groups in this linguistic union. Baltic and Slavic one.

Ambron posted a comment on this in a Davidic blog:
"David, Balanowski answers your questions well:

"The article carefully assumed that the assimilated substrate could be represented mainly by the Baltic-speaking populations ..."

The Baltic group is influenced by the other Slavic one and this cultural influence is clearly in one direction.
Besides, why do you miss the very important note about the Greek language?
Greek vocabulary has undergone a HUGE change from who?! Who have been the neighbors of the Greeks for several millennia? Who has changed and influenced this non-IE language by origin? Are there any historical indications of any much more northern influence over the Greeks than the obvious?
The entry of Yamna into Europe and mixing with locals took place quite early and the assumptions of some kind of late influence from the 7th century over Balkans are phantasmagoric due to the presence of this language already not only in the Balkans and in Greece, but also in NW Anatolia.
ambron said…
Arza, what's this sensation from David? Can you reveal something?
Arza said…
Nihil novi sub sole.
Arza said…
@ natsunoame

I don't want to censor or ban anyone, but... come on...


I did include Slovenians (I hope that they count as South Slavs?) as they are at the tip of this cline. And yeah, it's much more probable that Proto-Slavs looked like them and not like Lithuanians.
ambron said…
Arza, so I understand that these revelations from David do not affect the likelihood of the origin of the Slavs from the Carpathian around.
ambron said…
Of course, clearly, thanks!
Arza said…
IMHO there is pretty high risk that it's misdated. But if true it affects this likelihood. Positively.
natsunoame said…
Arza,
The Slovenes are not South Slavs either geographically or genetically, they are on the periphery of the Slavic speakers with very much of influence from NON-Slavic speaking cultures, moreover with absolutely no role in historical and cultural plan about the origine of the Slavs. If by chance your history is lame, I note the facts.
If they are relatively in the middle of the Balts and the Slavs, then in the best cases this makes them a mix between the Balts and the Slavs, but there's no chance they could be the first Slavs. Evidently and logically for the unbiased person, the Slavs will be at the opposite end of the BS cline, against the Baltics.
I did not understand the hint of my banning? What rule have I broken?
Arza said…
@ ambron

I'm not completely sure but it seems to be this: https://iansa.eu/papers/IANSA-2011-01-nikitin.pdf
ambron said…
It is practically the Carpathians. The big distance south of the Eastern Carpathians is a slight exaggeration.
Arza said…
@ ambron

That model with Halberstadt was based on Global 10.

Here is how it looks like in G25:

Target: Polish
Distance: 1.8157% / 0.01815718
51.0 Latvian
31.4 HUN_LBA
17.6 DEU_Halberstadt_LBA

Different proportions, but it still works quite well.

Re: exaggeration

"a lot more southern from just east of the Carpathians"

"Southern" refers to auDNA.
ambron said…
"Basically a population already like a present day Slovakian or Southern Polish person."

"Yeah, something like that, but more eastern."

Arza, is it geographically (we already know that) or genetically more eastern?
Arza said…
Geographically of course.
ambron said…
Distance to: HUN_Gava_BA:I20771
0.04727892 Slovakian
0.05270727 Czech
0.05271682 Austrian
ambron said…
Arza, if I understand David correctly, the Northern Slavs inherit most of their genome from a population similar to the Slovaks, which however was formed somewhere further in the east through the absorption by the early CWC of the local EEF population with a large share of the WHG.

However, we need to see this remoteness to the east realistically. This could not take place further than on the eastern slopes of the Carpathians, because this is where the WHG range ended. Further there was only the hybrid HG, similar to the SHG.

http://darkheritage.blogspot.com/2018/09/indo-european-genetics.html
Arza said…
@ ambron

"the Baltoslavs arose where the CWC overlapped with the GAC"

It's the opposite. Any Balto-Slav, who isn't identical to Baltic_BA, needs WHG/Neolithic combination from the outside of the GAC range.
ambron said…
Arza, I know because I have of course carefully studied your post about the Slavic EEF. Rather, my point was to cut off the absurd suggestions that if the Baltoslavs were in Welzin or Halberstadt, they could not have been in the Carpathians either.
Arza said…
Posting a map of the Lusatian culture would be sufficient.
Or rather should be sufficient under normal circumstances.
ambron said…
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?23595-New-Samples-from-Migration-Era-and-Early-Medieval-Moravia&p=781454&viewfull=1#post781454
Arza said…
Thanks, I saw it already!

But don't copy my comments there, pleaaaasseeeee >.<
ambron said…
I can see that colleagues from AG probably finally heard something from these mine words:

"As I wrote before, the high Balto-Slavic drift characterizes today's Balts. Thus, the high Balto-Slavic drift does not point to the Slavs, but to the Balts. Pre-medieval Central European samples with the Balto-Slavic drift actually have as much of this drift as the today's local Slavs."

I wonder how long it will work, because I have spoken about it once before, and they are still looking for Slavs where there is the most Baltic BA.
ambron said…
Arza, I didn't want to continue this thread on Eurogenes anymore, but maybe I will write about it here:

I wonder if the Balto Slavic drift is not just a projection of the neolithic WHG/EEF cline, transferred to the PCA center by the admixture of Yamna/early CWC?

In my opinion, it seems that the characteristic gradient we see today as the so-called The "Balto-Slavic drift" arose as early as the Neolithic and has little in common with medieval Slavic migrations.
Arza said…
@ ambron

It's definitely not just "a projection". How the hell is it supposed to work?
ambron said…
Neolithic samples form a cline defined by WHG participation in EEF, visible on WE PCA. The steppe population mingled with the neolitic population and shifted this cline to the center of the PCA, where the Balto-Slavic drift is now extending. This is how I see it.
Arza said…
@ ambron

"Balto-Slavic drift" is orthogonal to the plane defined by Yamnaya, EEF and Iron_Gates.

Balto-Slavic cline appears to be between EEF-WHG cline and Yamnaya:
https://i.postimg.cc/0P54yHS2/bsd-PC1-PC2.png

But when you rotate the graph Balto-Slavs are not between the EEF-WHG cline and Yamnaya, but they plot "below" them:
https://i.postimg.cc/jK49KrLF/bsd-PC1-PC6.png

ambron said…
So what are the conclusions of this?
Arza said…
That if you take any population from the WHG-EEF cline and add steppe the result won't be anywhere near the Balto-Slavs.
ambron said…
I meant the conclusion regarding the Balto-Slavic drift.
Arza said…
I think you need to be more specific. Unless you want me to repeat for the nth time what I keep saying for years.
ambron said…
Arza, I know - as recently on Eurogenes:

"@ VJ
Could the reason for the drift be that the balto-slavs descent from a population that went through a long period isolation in which they experienced a genetic bottle-neck, that might have been very severe (or may even be several such population reduction events)

That's exactly what has happened. That population was a WHG-rich group that survived in the vicinity of Hungary practically until the Bronze Age."

David sees it a little differently. Matt tried to reduce the problem to three hypotheses, but despite his best intentions, he made it even more complicated.

Can you make a post devoted only to your concept of Balto-Slavic drift, as David has already done twice?
Arza said…
Matt did a good job IMHO although he didn't take account of certain peculiarities of Admixtools.

I'll surely make such post, but first I want to figure out few things that I've recently stumbled upon.
ambron said…
Overall, I can see that both you and David think this is a real genetic drift. However, if I understand everything correctly, you think that this drift took place in some small group of Carpathian hunters, which mixed with farmers and shepherds only around the Bronze Age. By contrast, David believes that the drift occurred in a small population from the area south of Pribaltica, which was already a mixture of hunters, farmers and shepherds.
Suevi said…
Could you analyse this sample - https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/SAMN12369896?show=reads ?
Arza said…
@ Suevi

P1(xQ,R-M269)
Arza said…
@ ambron

ph2ter's plot with some annotations:

https://i.postimg.cc/0xpZHCRx/slavic-clades-dynamic.png
Arza said…
^^^
BTW that's expansion of these clades inside Slavic population, not expansion of Slavs.
Arza said…
https://elifesciences.org/articles/65420

Abstract

Male infertility is a prevalent condition, affecting 5–10% of men. So far, few genetic factors have been described as contributors to spermatogenic failure. Here, we report the first re-sequencing study of the Y-chromosomal Azoospermia Factor c (AZFc) region, combined with gene dosage analysis of the multicopy DAZ, BPY2, and CDYgenes and Y-haplogroup determination. In analysing 2324 Estonian men, we uncovered a novel structural variant as a high-penetrance risk factor for male infertility. The Y lineage R1a1-M458, reported at >20% frequency in several European populations, carries a fixed ~1.6 Mb r2/r3 inversion, destabilizing the AZFc region and predisposing to large recurrent microdeletions. Such complex rearrangements were significantly enriched among severe oligozoospermia cases. The carrier vs non-carrier risk for spermatogenic failure was increased 8.6-fold (p=6.0×10−4). This finding contributes to improved molecular diagnostics and clinical management of infertility. Carrier identification at young age will facilitate timely counselling and reproductive decision-making.
ambron said…
Arza, can I use this graphic on AG?
Arza said…
@ ambron

Would it be possible to post it not as a link but as an image? So they can't pretend it doesn't exist...
ambron said…
Suevi (Waldemar), can you do it for me because you are good at these things.
ambron said…
The problem is solved. Bolek posted this graphic.
Suevi said…
Could you analyse this sample from Medieval Serbia (Lepenski Vir, 1497–1794 AD) - https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/SAMEA8572019 ?
Arza said…
There is no data there. chrY BAM has 16KB (including BAM header).
Suevi said…
Oh, ok. That's a shame...:(
ambron said…
Arza, are you planning some next interesting topic?
Arza said…
It rather won't be about the drift as I found unexpected thing that I need to explain first. But the good news is that this drift certainly is not an G25 artefact.
Arza said…
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?23955-The-origin-and-legacy-of-the-Etruscans-through-a-2-000-year-archeogenomic-time-transe&p=789684&viewfull=1#post789684

TAQ020 (C14149T 90.6% -0 +5): H44a

For several years I have been waiting for this haplogroup to show up in a different ancient sample, as it's relatively young and quite rare:

https://www.yfull.com/mtree/H44a/

Until now we had only one occurrence:

https://amtdb.org/sample/RISE568

Now the question is - do the Etruscans have Slavic mtDNA? Or maybe it's the opposite - the Slavs have Etruscan mtDNA?
ambron said…
The Etruscans are said to have come from somewhere in the north.
ambron said…
"The hypothesis about Etruscan settlement in Pomerania was born among Polish linguists in the 1930s, who were struck by the similarities between some of today's Pomeranian names and the onomastics of the areas of former Etruria."

https://www.rastko.rs/cms/files/books/4ae0bf194b8cb.pdf
EastPole said…
Pomeranian culture has some links with Etruscans. For example burial urns with faces.

https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kultura_pomorska
ambron said…
So these ancient contacts between the Slavs and the Etruscans are confirmed in genetics.
Arza said…
@ ambron
That pdf is a little bit... controversial, don't you think?

Re: contacts

I don't know whether there were any direct contacts between the Slavs and the Etruscans or not, but it's fairly certain that both groups were connected to each other via Carpathian and Balkan populations.

@ EastPole
Oldeuropeanculture has a cool post about them:
https://oldeuropeanculture.blogspot.com/2019/05/northern-etruscans.html

Generally there are striking similarities between the urns of the Lusatian and Pomeranian cultures and urns of many cultures from the Carpathian Basin.
ambron said…
Arza, after all, it is a scientific work, and at the same time very solidly prepared. After all, we do not have to be ashamed of the contribution of Slavic science to the development of etruscology.
LRejman said…
You can just study my DNA. I deep dive 7 of these samples and match another 5. :)