The Slavic Migration

[Radko]

[okshtunas]

Thanks for posting Radko!

Will give it a listen here at work.

Will this be new samples and new Y-DNA? Or are they just rehashing everything we already seen?

Would be a shame if most of those 7-8 thousand are not published/sequencing for Y-DNA/mtDNA.

[Galadhorn]

Thank you, Radko! We finally have it! The IBD analysis is very interesting. I recommend watching and listening it in detail.

So, from 28:01 we have "Case Study: The Slavic Migrations" (in English; subtitles can be set). From about 47:00 it is clear that the first Slavs were genetically closer to today's Lithuanians and Latvians than to Poles. So the concept of "Slavs are corrupt Balts"? This lecture will have a great impact on our discussion about the origin of the Slavs.

[RCO]

Impressive results about the local replacement.

[Riverman]

That the Slavic period individuals are closer to Balts than modern e.g. Polish Slavs is the biggest takeaway, together with the tremendous founder event, which caused the high degere of IBD sharing across different macro-regions during the early Slavic expansion. 20-40 % Balkan-like ancestry in the formation of the Proto-/early Slavs is also in accordance what many people discussed in previous threads.
This Paleo-Balkan to Baltic cline he talks about is clearly from Eastern Urnfielders (Lusatians and North Thracians/Gáva) to the Baltics. Pretty obvious. Slavs got significant admixture from this Carpatho-Balkan sphere of the North Thracians/Dacians. He has a perfect proxy for the North Eastern component (ancient Balto-Slavic), but not for the Southern source - that will likely come when we get the Dacians sampled (e.g. the Scythian/La Tene era Carpatho-Balkan-like locals from Transylvania).

[okshtunas]

This only really settles the position from an autosomal standpoint. We need to see the Y-DNA results from Belarus and Ukraine, and how uniform they are before making sweeping claims on that front. Let's hope we see some Y-DNA from these sites.

[Riverman]

This only really settles the position from an autosomal standpoint. We need to see the Y-DNA results from Belarus and Ukraine, and how uniform they are before making sweeping claims on that front. Let's hope we see some Y-DNA from these sites.

The modern phylogeny with R-Z280 is such a clear cut case than I don't expect any surprise from that side. And I mean who really thinks that the Southern admixture was associated with R-Z280 or R-M458? R-M458 could later acquired or not, but its unlikely to be associated with the Southern gene flow. The Southern gene flow could be, in theory, associated with I-Y3120, it surely is with E-V13 (like E-L540, but also the many small Slavic branches), but will be mostly female mediated. That's my prediction. Late and mostly female mediated, with E-V13 being the main male tracer from the Dacians/Daco-Thracians. Which is, apparently, the only "Southern" branch which has multiple male lineages and appears in most early Slavic sites.

An early gene flow from say Lusatians wouldn't have caused models which prefer Balkan-like samples and estimate 20-40 % Balkan admixture to the Baltic-like early core. That much can only come from a population which is pretty much Balkan-like itself, like it was noted for the old Thracian/Dacian samples from Bronze to Iron Age Transylvania.

[okshtunas]

That the Slavic period individuals are closer to Balts than modern e.g. Polish Slavs is the biggest takeaway, together with the tremendous founder event, which caused the high degere of IBD sharing across different macro-regions during the early Slavic expansion. 20-40 % Balkan-like ancestry in the formation of the Proto-/early Slavs is also in accordance what many people discussed in previous threads.
This Paleo-Balkan to Baltic cline he talks about is clearly from Eastern Urnfielders (Lusatians and North Thracians/Gáva) to the Baltics. Pretty obvious. Slavs got significant admixture from this Carpatho-Balkan sphere of the North Thracians/Dacians. He has a perfect proxy for the North Eastern component (ancient Balto-Slavic), but not for the Southern source - that will likely come when we get the Dacians sampled (e.g. the Scythian/La Tene era Carpatho-Balkan-like locals from Transylvania).

Problem is Paleo-Balkan lines are not common or representative in Slavs. If I recall correctly from the video it says 20%, not up to 40 (which is South Slavic levels). If they/you are using Modling samples as a reference for the 40%, I wouldn't consider this group indicative of early Slavs, as they were culturally Avar and had a local admixture as well. So, it's probably closer to 20% for the original group.

This admixture likely passed by way of women, as most Paleo-Balkan related lineages in Slavs is the result of early medieval absorption. So either women, or admixture passed in the Northern Carpathians to R-M458 and I-Y3120, who then absorbed into Proto-Slavs.

This seems great for the question of the cultural or admixture origins. However, without a could amount of Y-DNA, we can't draw any conclusions on that front until we see what the aDNA records shows in that regard.

[okshtunas]

This only really settles the position from an autosomal standpoint. We need to see the Y-DNA results from Belarus and Ukraine, and how uniform they are before making sweeping claims on that front. Let's hope we see some Y-DNA from these sites.

The modern phylogeny with R-Z280 is such a clear cut case than I don't expect any surprise from that side. And I mean who really thinks that the Southern admixture was associated with R-Z280 or R-M458? R-M458 could later acquired or not, but its unlikely to be associated with the Southern gene flow. The Southern gene flow could be, in theory, associated with I-Y3120, it surely is with E-V13 (like E-L540, but also the many small Slavic branches), but will be mostly female mediated. That's my prediction. Late and mostly female mediated, with E-V13 being the main male tracer from the Dacians/Daco-Thracians. Which is, apparently, the only "Southern" branch which has multiple male lineages and appears in most early Slavic sites.

An early gene flow from say Lusatians wouldn't have caused models which prefer Balkan-like samples and estimate 20-40 % Balkan admixture to the Baltic-like early core. That much can only come from a population which is pretty much Balkan-like itself, like it was noted for the old Thracian/Dacian samples from Bronze to Iron Age Transylvania.

You're wrong on so many levels because you completely ignore the actual aDNA evidence in favor of modern phylogenetic speculation. There are multiple Iron Age R-M458 samples with Balkan-like admixture, which directly contradicts your claim that R-M458 is unlikely to be associated with some potential Southern gene flow.

We have considerable Thraco-Illyrian admixture in R-M458 Scythians from the Iron Age Medvyn, Ukraine, Illyrian and Italo-Celtic-like admixture in Hallstatt R-M458 from Singen, and Hallstatt/La Tène-like admixture in later Hungarian Sarmatian R-M458 from the Northern Carpathians. These are direct, tangible aDNA samples, not mere speculation. Given this, the idea that R-M458 couldn't have played a role in introducing this admixture is demonstrably false. In addition, we have the Slavic-Like Avars of Modling who were predominantly more Southern than their R-Z280 counterparts, and to some degree even the I-Y3120 ones. 

On the other hand, you assert that I-Y3120 could be responsible, despite a complete lack of ancient DNA evidence to support such a claim. That’s not a "prediction", it’s intellectual dishonesty. You criticize the idea of R-M458 being associated with Southern gene flow while jumping to claim that I-Y3120 "could" be, despite having zero supporting aDNA. That’s hypocrisy and confirmation bias.

The reality is that Hallstatt, La Tène, and Scythian R-M458 individuals already show clear evidence of Hallstatt/Southern/Balkan-related admixture merging to the North, West, and East of the Carpathians (Zero for I-Y3120). It's very possible that they served as an indirect transmission conduit for this admixture in Slavs, together with women, as opposed to E-V13 (most of which is not more diverse than early medieval), and I-Y3120 with no aDNA.  That’s not hypothetical, it’s genetic fact. Ignoring this while hand-waving about I-Y3120 is not just misleading, it's outright lying to any common-sense individual.

Lastly, E-L540 formed 2400 BCE, has no Paleo-Balkan or modern Balkan diversity, no Paleo-Balkan aDNA, is largely centered in Central Europe, and only has a LIA TMRCA (which should show a presense in todays Balkans beside one Slavic Serb which likely didn't acquire this line in the Balkans).  So this is a stretch on your part.

[ph2ter]

I would say that this black hole was caused by a culture that practiced cremation:



Who practiced cremation?
The Slavs.

[okshtunas]

I would say that this black hole was caused by a culture that practiced cremation:



Who practiced cremation?
The Slavs.

Didn't they claim to collect samples from that circled area though?

Of course yet to be published and determined what Y-DNA branches they carried. I thought the video mentioned samples from Belarus and Ukraine (Northern?). Lack of evidence cannot serve as evidence. 

Ambron uses the same argument for the lack of Y-DNA support for Slavs in Central Europe lol. Though, it can be a factor for sure.

[okshtunas]

Thank you, Radko! We finally have it! The IBD analysis is very interesting. I recommend watching and listening it in detail.

So, from 28:01 we have "Case Study: The Slavic Migrations" (in English; subtitles can be set). From about 47:00 it is clear that the first Slavs were genetically closer to today's Lithuanians and Latvians than to Poles. So the concept of "Slavs are corrupt Balts"? This lecture will have a great impact on our discussion about the origin of the Slavs.

Or Southern Balt offshoot? Which I suppose is the same concept lol.

Maybe it's true Slavs diverged much later. This would explain why we don't see diversity before the LIA in R-M458 and I-Y3120 for example. This Baltic-Like group moving South, mixing with R-M458 and I-Y3120 somewhere in Ukraine, could make sense.

Though if some suspect this split happened in the Bronze Age, it would create a huge issue for R-M458 and I-Y3120 which lack diversity to that point in time in any population (including Slavs).

[teftelis07]

I would say that this black hole was caused by a culture that practiced cremation:



Who practiced cremation?
The Slavs.

Slavs were not the only people not practising inhumation, Brushed Pottery culture which encompassed some of the area, has no known burial sites. It's not even entirely clear if they cremated or had some ritualistic water burials or something else.

[Mik]

Looks like one of the dominant lineages in Niederwünsch/Saale is R1a1a1b1a2b3a4a2 - R-Y2608:

[ph2ter]

I would say that this black hole was caused by a culture that practiced cremation:



Who practiced cremation?
The Slavs.

Slavs were not the only people not practising inhumation, Brushed Pottery culture which encompassed some of the area, has no known burial sites. It's not even entirely clear if they cremated or had some ritualistic water burials or something else.

So, what's the point of these remarks? The Slavs were part of the common Balto-Slavic cultural and genetic heritage.

This black hole fits the probable location of the Proto-Slavs: