User Tag List

Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8 9 10
Results 91 to 99 of 99

Thread: Genetic Heritage of the Balto-Slavic Speaking Populations (Kushniarevich, 2015)716 days old

  1. #91
    Established Member
    Your Friend
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2009-10-23
    Posts
    9,536
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    R1a-Z282
    mtDNA
    H7
    Metaethnos
    Slavic
    Ethnicity
    Polish
    Phenotype
    Barbarian
    Religion
    Crop Circles
    Poland

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wojewoda View Post
    Lots of possible R1a burials in them Malopolska valleys.

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Polako For This Useful Post:

    Litvin (2017-05-24), Wojewoda (2017-05-24)

  3. # ADS
    Advertisement bot
    Join Date
    2013-03-24
    Posts
    All threads
       
     

  4. #92
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist
    Last Online
    Today @ 03:10
    Join Date
    2016-12-19
    Posts
    417
    Location
    Wielkopolska
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    R1b-DF27
    mtDNA
    W6a
    Ethnicity
    Polish
    Poland European Union Lithuania Grand Duchy

    Default

    As for that dendrogram made by LukaszM, here some more clusters:







    Rugevit is right that Belarusians cluster with each other and with Russians from Smolensk:




    PL_average includes only samples with unknown or mixed regional origin.

    It is possible that some regions are overrepresented (probably Mazovians).

    Maybe people from Warsaw more often test their DNA - and that's why.

    Probably this sample should be called PL_mixed rather than PL_average.
    Last edited by Litvin; 2017-05-24 at 09:03.
    Ancient R1b-DF27 sample:
    ~2431-2150 BC, Bell Beaker, Quedlinburg
    Ancient samples of W6a:
    ~3500-2700 BC, Yamnaya, Lopatino II
    ~3260-2630 BC, Corded Ware, Plinkaigalis
    ~2566-2477 BC, Corded Ware, Esperstedt

  5. #93
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist Silesian's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2011-04-17
    Posts
    1,059
    Gender
    Canada Poland Germany Switzerland Italy Russia

    Default

    In the interest of fair and equitable treatment, dendrogram's make perfect sense for those wishing to be included in the Polish/Slavic, ethnogenesis, a really fantastic tool to treat people with dignity[In my humble opinion]. No information is required -specific ancestral snps groups/clusters; everybody is grouped by "their" ancestral paper trail combined with a snapshot of their autosomal dna. The other side of the coin -technology is advancing at a very good pace now that ancient samples can be tested for specific ancestral snp markers. TMRCA rates in a very loose sense can then be applied to paint a rough picture of those wishing to delve a little deeper into their ancestry, particularly, those who are studying paternal kinship clans of specific geographical regions..

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Silesian For This Useful Post:

    Litvin (2017-05-24)

  7. #94
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist
    Last Online
    Today @ 03:10
    Join Date
    2016-12-19
    Posts
    417
    Location
    Wielkopolska
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    R1b-DF27
    mtDNA
    W6a
    Ethnicity
    Polish
    Poland European Union Lithuania Grand Duchy

    Default Population continuity in North-Eastern Poland since the Late Bronze Age

    It seems that there is population continuity in North-Eastern Poland since the Bronze Age.

    Here K36 nMonte results for Late Bronze Age sample RISE598 (Sudovia 908-485 BC):

    [1] "1. CLOSEST SINGLE ITEM DISTANCES"
    PL_Sudovia Lithuanian PL_Podlasie_East_Mazovia
    22.20166 22.60709 25.38917
    Latvian Russian_Bryansk Belarusian_East
    26.05825 26.09645 27.00599
    PL_Mazovia Russian_Novgorod_Pskov
    27.49986 27.82478

    Population percent

    RISE598

    PL_Sudovia 55.80
    Lithuanian 30.85
    PL_Podlasie_East_Mazovia 7.75

    Latvian 2.30
    Russian_Bryansk 2.25
    PL_average 0.25
    Belarusian_Polesye 0.20
    Russian_Novgorod_Pskov 0.20
    Belarusian_West 0.10
    Belarusian_East 0.10
    Ukrainian_East 0.10
    Carpathian_Rusyns 0.05
    Pl_Kashubians 0.05

    =========================

    RISE598 is kit number M483824.
    Last edited by Litvin; 2017-05-24 at 17:06.
    Ancient R1b-DF27 sample:
    ~2431-2150 BC, Bell Beaker, Quedlinburg
    Ancient samples of W6a:
    ~3500-2700 BC, Yamnaya, Lopatino II
    ~3260-2630 BC, Corded Ware, Plinkaigalis
    ~2566-2477 BC, Corded Ware, Esperstedt

  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Litvin For This Useful Post:

    Kriptc06 (2017-05-24), Pioterus (2017-05-24), Silesian (2017-05-24)

  9. #95
    Established Member
    Evolutionary Biologist Wojewoda's Avatar
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 22:53
    Join Date
    2009-10-24
    Posts
    5,923
    Location
    Warsaw, Poland
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    I1 Z63+ S2078+ L1237-
    mtDNA
    U3a1a
    Ethnicity
    Polish
    Poland

    Default

    Before Litvin posts them:





    Are they German-admixed or non-Baltic (in contrast to the very North-Eastern Slavs)?

    Do I see it well that from this PCA by lukaszM:



    ... it looks as if Lusatian Sorbs came from Southern Poland/Western Ukraine/Carpathians?


    But the clustering algorithm has put them together with Western and Nortern Poles:




    I would think that Sorbs would cluster with Czechs like East Germans do, but they apparently don't.
    Last edited by Wojewoda; 2017-06-21 at 15:55.

  10. #96
    Established Member
    Evolutionary Biologist Wojewoda's Avatar
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 22:53
    Join Date
    2009-10-24
    Posts
    5,923
    Location
    Warsaw, Poland
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    I1 Z63+ S2078+ L1237-
    mtDNA
    U3a1a
    Ethnicity
    Polish
    Poland

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wojewoda View Post
    A new paper titled "Genetic Heritage of the Balto-Slavic Speaking Populations: A Synthesis of Autosomal, Mitochondrial and Y-Chromosomal Data" by Alena Kushniarevich et al. appeared and cointains lots of interesting data.

    I have begun to extract some of the information found there. I started with "Table I in S1 File. Matrices of geographic, lexicostatistical and genetic distances between Balto-Slavic populations used in Mantel Tests." from the Supporting information. We have there:

    a) Matrix of geographic distances between Balto-Slavic populations.
    b) Matrix of lexicostatistical distances between Balto-Slavic languages.
    c) Matrix of mean populations pairwise FST distances between Balto-Slavic populations based on autosomal data.
    d) Matrix of pairwise Nei distances (DNei)between Balto-Slavic populations based on NRY data.
    e) Matrix of pairwise Nei distances (DNei) between Balto-Slavic populations based on mtDNA data.

    I ranked the 12 Balto-Slavic populations analysed there according to their average distance from the other.

    Geographical distance:

    POL 1
    LIT 2
    SLC 3
    BEL 4
    UKR 5
    LАT 6
    CZE 7
    RUS 8
    BCS 9
    BUL 10
    MAC 11
    RUN 12

    So Poland is in the geographical center of the Balto-Slavic world and Northern Russians are furthest away.

    Now lexicoxicostatistical distances:

    BEL 1
    SLC 2
    RUS 3
    RUN 4
    UKR 5
    BCS 6
    CZE 7
    POL 8
    BUL 9
    MAC 10
    LIT 11
    LAT 12

    Here Belarusians are in the center and Latvians furthest away.

    Based on autosomal data:

    POL 1
    UKR 2
    BEL 3
    RUS 4
    CZE 5
    SLC 6
    BCS 7
    LAT 8
    LIT 9
    BUL 10
    MAC 11
    RUN 12

    ... Poles are most similar to everybody else and North Russians most divergent.

    In the ranking based of male lines:

    UKR 1
    POL 2
    SLC 3
    BEL 4
    RUS 5
    CZE 6
    LIT 7
    RUN 8
    LAT 9
    BUL 10
    BCS 11
    MAC 12

    ... Ukrainians are in the center while Macedonians furthest away.

    And finaly as far as maternal lines are concerned:

    POL 1
    SLC 2
    LIT 3
    MAC 4
    RUS 5
    UKR 6
    BUL 7
    BCS 8
    CZE 9
    BEL 10
    LAT 11
    RUN 12

    ... Poles were in the center and North Russians most disscimilar to the rest again.

    So Poles topped the ranking 3 time, Belarusians once and Ukrainians once too.

    Averaging the positions in these 5 rankings above we can create the ultimate ranking answering the eternal question who is the most Balto-Slavic of them all:

    POL 1
    SLC 2
    UKR 3
    BEL 4
    RUS 5
    LIT 6
    CZE 7
    BCS 8
    BUL 10
    LAT 10
    RUN 12
    MAC 12

    So the gold goes as usual to Poles, Slovaks win silver and Ukrainians bronze medal.

    This is the result I wanted, so I am very pleased. Thank you very much.
    Quote Originally Posted by Witold Mańczak
    Before ending my paper, I would like to say a few words about the issue of prehistoric
    migrations of the Slavs. Among all the languages of the world, Romance languages
    occupy a unique and privileged position in that we perfectly know the protolanguage from
    which the Romance languages emerged, namely Latin, while all other protolanguages, e.g.
    Proto-Slavic, Proto-Baltic, Proto-Indo-European, etc., are only linguistic reconstructions.
    As a consequence, the latter have a more or less hypothetical character. Th e same goes
    for ethnogenesis. As far as the original homeland of the Slavs or of the Indo-Europeans
    is concerned, there are innumerable hypotheses, whereas it is quite sure that Latin was
    originally used in Latium, that is to say in the region of Rome.

    Preparing a book on the classifi cation of Romance languages, I tried to resolve this
    problem with my method of comparing the vocabulary in parallel texts. It turned out that,
    in most cases, there is a correlation between the chronology of Roman conquests and the
    number of lexical convergences which particular Romance languages show in relation to
    other Romance languages:

    Language Beginning of the conquest
    Italian 7498 Italy 396 B. C.
    Portuguese 7159
    Spanish 7114 Spain 226 B. C.
    Catalan 6985
    French 6851 Gaul (125) 58 B.C.
    Provençal 6560
    Romanche 6318 Rhaetia 15 B. C.
    Sardinian 5333 Sardinia 237 B. C.
    Rumanian 3564 Dacia A. D. 101

    Th e earlier a province was conquered by the Romans, the more lexical convergences
    in relation to other Romance languages exist in a language or languages used in a given
    province. Th e earlier a province was conquered by the Romans, the more archaic is the
    vocabulary of a language or languages spoken in the given province. Italian shows the
    most archaic vocabulary and Rumanian the most innovative one because Italy was the fi rst
    province conquered by the Romans, while Dacia was the last one (Mańczak 1991).
    Th e results I obtained are noteworthy because if we knew the Romance languages only
    in their twenty-fi rst-century form, we could reconstruct, with a high degree of probability,
    the relative chronology of Roman conquests, which took place between the beginning of the
    fourth century B. C. and the beginning of the second century A. D. Th erefore, I decided to
    compare fragments of the Gospel in all modern Slavic languages in order to fi nd out how
    many lexical convergences exist between each Slavic language and all others. Here are the
    results of this comparison:

    Polish 9228 Russian 8328 Slovene 8434
    Czech 8728 Bielorussian 8251 Serbo-Croatian 8126
    Slovak 8695 Ukrainian 7710 Bulgarian 7186
    Upper Lusatian 7802
    Lower Lusatian 7514

    As far as lexical convergences with other Slavic languages are concerned, Polish
    occupies the fi rst position, which is a further proof that the original homeland of the Slavs
    was in the Oder and Vistula region.
    Moreover, in order to obtain commensurable data, I considered three languages
    from every group of Slavic languages:

    Western Eastern Southern
    Polish 7607 Russian 7131 Slovene 6856
    Czech 6756 Bielorussian 7040 Serbo-Croatian 6917
    Slovak 6734 Ukrainian 6489 Bulgarian 6150
    21097 20660 19923

    These numbers show that the Western languages are the most archaic, the Eastern
    ones are less archaic and the Southern ones are the least archaic. In other words, the migration
    moved first to East and then to South.
    "The original homeland of the Slavs", Witold Mańczak

    - - - Updated - - -

    RISE568 (Early Czech Slav):



    RISE569 (Early Czech Slav):


  11. #97
    Regular Member
    Junior Member
    Last Online
    2017-08-16 @ 20:18
    Join Date
    2016-04-06
    Posts
    82
    Gender
    Poland

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wojewoda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Witold Mańczak
    These numbers show that the Western languages are the most archaic, the Eastern ones are less archaic and the Southern ones are the least archaic. In other words, the migration moved first to East and then to South.
    Above quote materialized on this map:


    Here is how it looks like with parts of the gradient turned into flat colours:


    Apparently something caused a movement of people between Baltic and Bohemia (and even further), but this wasn't a large scale migration, as the migration rate is just slightly above the neutral.



    Hmm, what this could be? And who?
    Last edited by Panthalika; 2017-07-11 at 21:52.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Panthalika For This Useful Post:

    Wojewoda (2017-07-11)

  13. #98
    Established Member
    Evolutionary Biologist Wojewoda's Avatar
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 22:53
    Join Date
    2009-10-24
    Posts
    5,923
    Location
    Warsaw, Poland
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    I1 Z63+ S2078+ L1237-
    mtDNA
    U3a1a
    Ethnicity
    Polish
    Poland

    Default

    So we have two groups of Northern Slavs - one more connected to Balts:



    ... and one more connected to Germans:



    Are historical developments responsible for this divergence, or prehistoric-substrates - Baltic in the North-East:










    ... and (Celto-)(East-)Germanic in the South-West:






    ?

    It seems that this divergence (Baltic vs Celto-Germanic substrate?) was present already long time ago:


    RISE568 (Early Czech Slav):



    RISE569 (Early Czech Slav):





    Are there any substrate(adstrate? superstate?)-less Slavs?

    Could we link the presence of R1b as a sign of Celtic/West Germanic influence? I1 as a sign of North/East Germanic influence? N1c/R1a1x458 as sign of Baltic influence?
    Last edited by Wojewoda; 2017-07-12 at 11:36.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Wojewoda For This Useful Post:

    Cromagnorse (2017-07-12)

  15. #99
    Regular Member
    Junior Member
    Last Online
    2017-08-16 @ 20:18
    Join Date
    2016-04-06
    Posts
    82
    Gender
    Poland

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wojewoda View Post
    It seems that this divergence (Baltic vs Celto-Germanic substrate?) was present already long time ago:
    I would not call the southern one "Celto-Germanic". Remember the BR2 map.
    I wonder if some of _them_ will replace BR2 in the stats if they indeed plot like Hungary BA.

    IMHO two groups of people were fusing slowly (as the migration map showed). One of them was Baltic Bronze Age, second - CWC mixed with various "locals" (GAC in Central Poland, but something Scandinavian at the Baltic shores [post-PWC?], something Hungarian in the south).

    When it happened? Rather not so recently. Apparently there was no large scale migration between Baltics, Belarus, Poland and Czechia. And already PL_17 shows this Baltic influence in one of the Eurogenes spreadsheets.

    So on which side the source of proto-Slavic was? Hard to say, but if proto-Germanic indeed emerged in Jastorf, then we can conclude that proto-Slavic was already present at the "Czech" end. Take for example the word for "1000".
    Last edited by Panthalika; 2017-07-12 at 16:13.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Panthalika For This Useful Post:

    Wojewoda (2017-07-12)

Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8 9 10

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 2015-12-03, 14:39
  2. Reconstructing Balto-Slavic and Indo-European
    By Skomand in forum Resources Vault
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2015-04-11, 19:45
  3. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 2014-07-05, 10:10
  4. Guess 6 blonde Finnic and Balto-Slavic girls
    By Evi in forum Guess Ethnicity
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 2011-08-13, 21:54
  5. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 2011-05-03, 23:47

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
<