June 21, 2012

Ancient mtDNA from Poland

Polish Genes points me towards a doctoral thesis by a Polish researcher, which includes ancient DNA results from Poland including Roman and Medieval period samples. The thesis is in Polish, but you can probably fairly easily work through the text with the aid of Google Translate, and the data speaks for itself. Here is an unedited dump of the conclusions:


  • Populations from the Roman and medieval remains in a relatively homogeneous group of European populations (with the exception of Finland and Latvia). The relatively large genetic distance between them and the population of Polish contemporary may reflect real differences at the genetic level, or may be the result of very small population of the Roman period and Middle Ages.
  • The largest number of informative haplotypes from the Roman period was jointly shared with the population of contemporary Polish and Lithuania / Latvia, Sweden and Finland / Estonia. This may indicate that, in what is now Polish there is continuity of certain genetic lines, at least from the Roman period to the present, as well as close contacts of the population of the Roman period of Bałtami, Germans and Finnougryjskimi populations.
  • The population of the Middle Ages shared the largest number of informative haplotypes shared with the population of modern Belarus, Ukraine and Bulgaria.
  • Among the surveyed population identified haplogroup fuels such as X2, R0a or N1a, which in modern populations occur in low frequencies. Their presence in small fossil populations may be due to selection bias or a higher frequency of these haplogroups in Roman and medieval times.
  • The populations of the Roman period and Middle Ages was the presence of four unique haplotypes, including one of the Przeworsk culture, belonging probably to podhaplogrupy N1a1a2. This means that Przeworsk culture of the Roman period, considered by some archaeologists as the cradle of the Slavs, could presumably be derived from the Corded Ware culture, which is associated haplotype tested.



I also reproduce the MDS plot based on haplogroup frequencies. Note that of the two ancient populations, the "left" one is the Roman-era one, and the "right" one is from medieval times.



The first dimension contrasts modern populations with LBK Neolithic inhabitants of Germany, while in the second one, there appears to be a contrast between Northeastern Europe and the rest, represented here by Germans and Balkan Slavic populations.



Ethnogenesis ot the Slavs in the light of ancient DNA analyses

Juras, Anna

For many years the origin of the Slavs has been the subject-matter in archaeology, anthropology, history, linguistics and recently also genetics. By now there is no unambiguous answer to a question where, when and in what way the Slavs originated. For the purposes of this dissertation, the analysis of ancient human mitochondrial DNA was applied. The ancient DNA was isolated from 72 specimens which came from graveyards from the area of current Poland. Mitochondrial DNA haplogroups have been assigned for 20 medieval and 23 Iron-Age specimens. The analysis of shared haplotypes and population genetic distances illustrated by multidimentional scaling has been done. The differences on genetic level and quite high genetic distances (FST) between medieval and Iron-Age populations as well as significant number of shared informative medieval haplotypes with Belarus, Ukraine and Bulgaria may evidence genetic discontinuity between medieval and Iron-Ages. From the other side, the highest number of shared informative haplotypes between Iron-Age and extant Polish population as well as the presence of subhaplogroup N1a1a2, can confirm that some genetic lines show continuatinuity at least from Iron Age or even Neolith in the areas of modern Poland. The results obtained in this work are considered to be the first ancient contribution to building the genetic history of the Slavs.

Link

23 comments:

Jim said...

why do they refer to a "Roman" period? Poland didn't have a Roman period, anymore than Ireland did. Are they just trying to belong?

Fanty said...

@Jim:
Well, Poland hadnt a "Middle Age" period aswell, if you consider the collapse of Roman civilisation and the following backsilde of technology and knowledge as the start of the "Medieval Period".

;-)

eurologist said...

Jim,

The Roman period nevertheless is important, because its collapse (and Hun invasions) are typically cited as reasons for Slavic expansion and westward movement of Eastern Germanic peoples.

Przeworsk culture of the Roman period, considered by some archaeologists as the cradle of the Slavs

Who are those archaeologists? Seems not any one alive.

Also, I find the entire premise weird. How can you find out anything about the "origin of Slavs," if you don't even understand that modern Slavs in most Slavic countries are a mixture of people who have lived there for millennia, plus a small fraction of SE Slavs who brought the language there in very recent times?

EastPole said...

“Roman period” is a time of Roman influences, it is a term of relative chronology in archeology:
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okres_wp%C5%82yw%C3%B3w_rzymskich


This study shows that there has been continuity at least from Iron Age or even Neolith in the areas of modern Poland.
It means that Slavs have lived there for millennia. Poland and West Ukraine are areas of the most likely Slavic homeland

It agrees with Y-DNA studies, anthropology studies, linguistics, everything. Polish population is autochthonous.
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v18/n4/fig_tab/ejhg2009194f2.html#figure-title


It also mentions that discovery of mtDNA N1a1a2 and U4a2 shows a link between Slavic population in Poland with Corded Ware culture.

It is quite reasonable now to try to associate R1a Corded Ware culture with Proto-Slavs as we know that Proto-Celto-Germanics are now linked with R1b Bell Beaker culture.

Definitely links with Germans are disproved. Przeworsk and Wielbark cultures were not Germanic. It is stated there plainly. I hope all that Nazi BS will finally stop now.

Davidski said...

I've translated an important quote from the study.

"The (mtDNA) haplogroup missing from both the Iron Age and medieval samples from the territory of modern Poland was haplogroup I. In contemporary Slavic populations, this haplogroup is found at levels ranging from 1.2% in Bulgarians to 4.8% in Slovaks. It was also recorded at high levels in ancient remains from Denmark. It showed a frequency of 12.5% in an Iron Age sample, and 13.8% in a medieval sample. Melchior et al. 2008 suggest that haplogroup I might have been more common in Denmark and Northern Europe during that period. Therefore, the lack of this haplogroup in ancient DNA from the territory of modern Poland, might mean that the Przeworsk and Wielbark cultures should not be identified with Germanic populations."

eurologist said...

It means that Slavs have lived there for millennia.

EastPole,

No, it does not mean that, at all. It only means that there was continuity before Slavic language expansion. And before Slavic expansion - as we know from ancient y-DNA - there was a gradient of populations from western Germany to Eastern Poland - not some weird, imaginary, abrupt border. And in historic times, these peoples have lived together in peace in many places - so it is reasonable to assume the same happened in the past, with continuous admixture.

Most people in Slavic countries largely trace back to people who lived there 2,000 to 6,000+ years ago, but did not adopt the Slavic language until ~1500 years ago.

Likewise, there is no such thing as a common Slavic people or culture. Depending on where you are - almost everything changes: democratic history vs. none; Roman Catholic vs. atheist vs. orthodox; highly industrialized vs. agrarian, northern skin and hair complexion vs. southern black hair and Mediterranean skin; Scandinavian/ Baltic emphasis on fishing and raw milk vs. yogurt and feta cheese and olive oil, etc.

It is also very curious that you cite Nazi BS, while promulgating a completely unscientific, nationalistic story, yourself.

mikej2 said...

Do you know where the Finnish sample group is from? I wonder if it is from Lapland, because all who I know been tested at Familytreedna have matches almost exclusively only from Western Europe. I am h39.

Sturisoma said...

Przeworsk(and Wielbark) not Germanic?
Most modern Polish archaeologist will disagree with that...

Celts( and also Germanics) are solely Bell Beakers ?
The Celtic Urnfield( not exclusively celtic) and Hallstatt mainly developed from the Tumulus culture, which itself is a descendant from the Unetice culture, which is a descendant of both CW and Bell Beaker Cultures( mostly in metalworking).

Dr Rob said...

''Przeworsk(and Wielbark) not Germanic?''

WHilst often said so, there is no PROOF it was Germanic. As far as I know, we only have one artefact with some Germanic type runes on it. So we really have no idea what langauges the people between the Elbe -Oder-Vistula region spoke. It is only assumed that the Vandals "came from", however if you read Robert Burns, he points out that all these barbarian groups never came from POlads, Or Scanndinavia, etc, but had always lived at the Roman , or even within, frontier. Tales of northern homelands was a very common mythological topos.

And archaeologicallly, the Przeworsk culture has actually few if any similarities with the areas further west

Sturisoma said...

Yes it is clear that Przeworsk is not the Jastorf culture( Jastorf really is an oddball), but it developed from the Pomeranian Face Urn Culture, of course with other influences. The oldest Face urns actually are from Northern Denmark and southern Scandinavia( the Stone Cist they were placed in probably too).

Of course a Scandinavian homeland has been debunked for a lot of tribes( but not for all), but the contact between Scandinavia and the Southwestern coast of the Baltic had been pretty strong since the early Bronze Age.
Tacitus places Germanic tribes between Odra and Vistula, including the Vandals, and even wrote that the area would belong to Suebia.

And if you start to work with Hydronyms( and other Toponyms), you will either come to the conclusion that the inhabitants were either speaking a) a very archaic Germanic language or b) a language closer to Germanic than to any other known IE language.

EastPole said...

The term Germania was for Romans a geographical term and not ethnic. Romans didn’t know what ethnicities really lived east of Elbe river:
“Strabo writes that tribes beyond the Elbe River in Germany are unknown because the Romans never advanced that far (7.2.4). In the exhaustively researched geographical books of his Natural History, Pliny the Elder also implies that one cannot expect to know much about places where the Roman army has never been”
http://books.google.pl/books?id=tVHqEadNUFYC&pg=PA26&lpg=PA26&dq=strabo+elbe+river&source=bl&ots=nxIQ0oLXXc&sig=4DT_9w72KjzhMLZx1AnYU4q45_I&hl=pl&sa=X&ei=8d0BT7PZO8HO-QbewfS4AQ&sqi=2&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=strabo%20elbe%20river&f=false


There were no Germanic tribes in Poland.
There are no Germanic hydronyms or toponyms in Poland.

Wisła, Odra, Warta and other rivers are beyond any doubt Slavic. It was proved by prof. Gołąb and many others linguists. They don’t only have Slavic etymology but rivers with similar names are all over other Slavic countries.
There is now little doubt that population there was Slavic and not Germanic. Genetics, anthropology, linguistics, archeology, everything supports this.
Stop BS.
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showpost.php?p=648362&postcount=232

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showpost.php?p=648887&postcount=266

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showpost.php?p=664206&postcount=348

Sturisoma said...

Lol no Germanic hydronyms, take a look on the works of Jürgen Udolph...
sigh
Jan Długosz wrote that Vistula means "white river". The only language that that has a cognate is proto-germanic
*hwistaz which means white , the suffix -ula seems to be a diminuitive.
Take a look were most Balto-Slavic hydronyms are: east of the Vistula.

Most modern Polish archaeologist disagree with you assertion that Slavs originated in the Przeworsk Culture.

Take a look at Fig 14 in the Paper and tell me which populations are closer to Przeworsk than Poles...

The burial rites of the Face Urn Culture clearly come from Scandinavia.

During the migration age the area of the Przeworsk Culture was largely abandoned.

Do you know that the Przeworsk Culture extended into modern Hesse?

And Jastorf once extended into Poland...

Do you know why Estland(Finno-Ugric) is called Estland? And why the they ancient Aesti (Baltic) were called Aesti? Hint: it is an exonym

BTW Tacitus seems to have differentiated between different Languages?
And that the land of the Lugiones belonged to Suebia according to him?
And he doubted that the Vistulaic Veneti ( who lived east of the Vistula) were real Germanic people.

And as you come up with Goths: there language has some striking similarities with Old Gutlandic...

Yeah I should stop BS.

Dr Rob said...

Odra, Vistula do not have a unanimously accepted etymology. Neither Germanic, nor Slavic. They could be "Venetic" , even Celtic, bvut most likely "old Europan", ie proto-IE.

Sturisoma, Udolphg is a great scholar, but his opinion is just that, his opinion. And not all scholars agree that Slavic hydronyms originated east of the Vistula. Some place them in Pannonia (Trubachev), obviously some Polish scholars place them in Poland,some in the Carpathians. However, Manczak dos raise a good point. If the Slavs had learned these river names from GErmanic speakers, then would they not show signs of sound shift and Verner's law ? None do.

Clearly, hydronyms cannot tell us where people originated, especially given that 500 BC there was not pan-Germanic nor pan-Slavic unity. So to claim that the Przeworsk culture was Germanic, or Slavic, is ludicrous on both sides.


And archaeologically speaking, you're inccorect about face urns. They did not originate in Scandiavia. They were barbarian copies of facial designs first created in the Goalesca culture in nrothern Italy, they spread north by eay of the Amber route. See Kristiansen "Europe before history"

And Tacitus had no idea what language the barbarisn far beyond the limes spoke. Greaco-ROman ethnography was based on sterotypes and umbrella terms; not detailed analysis of morhpology, syntax and lexis. Get real

eurologist said...

I agree in many parts with Sturisoma, except that Jastorf is anything but an oddball. The area represents one of the clearest examples of northern (originally, proto-) Germanic continuation from Mesolithic to bronze age and to iron age and the present, and the region coincides (including adjacent areas to the east) with much of what most modern European linguist identify as one of the main centers of origin of Germanic languages.

Sturisoma said...

@ eurologist,
I did not mean that Jastorf was an oddball in the sense of being of Germanic origin, but in the sense of social stratification.

@ Dr. Rob

Just Udolphs opinion ? A lot of other scholars agree with him...
BTW I gave you a nice etymology for the Vistula. And the last time I looked at a map, the Vistula mostly lies west of the Carparthians( and I hope you do not mean the Poieneşti-Lukaševka Culture).

If you would read further literature, you would see the whole burial rite of the Face-Urn Culture comes from Scandinavia, Kristiansen work may be a nice work, but it is just one opinion. Later Przeworsk elements show the same pattern.

And atleast Tacitus seems to use Germanic as an ethno-linguistic term(or he atleast diffentiates between different languages), look what he writes about Peucini and Aesti.

He also attest several Germanic tribes that turn up later in Roman history east of the Odra.

And as I said, the Przworsk Culture also turned up in Hesse and farther south in Germany, they probablly took part in the etnogenesis of the Allemanni. And then in the 3 century th Lugiones raid on the Romans, and their leader bears a Germanic name...

And it is funny that you use the term "Venetic" in a linguistic sense, the use of it besides for proper Venetic has fallen out of favor.

BTW are you Hxseek/ Slovenski Volk?

eurologist said...

If the Slavs had learned these river names from GErmanic speakers, then would they not show signs of sound shift and Verner's law ? None do.

Dr. Rob,

Germanic started to deviate from the larger regional IE at or (IMO) earlier than 1,500 BCE. Grimm's law's dating is highly controversial, from ~1,200 BCE to a completely weltfremd century or so BCE. Dating of Verner's law is less clear, but even if it is slightly older than the first Grimm's law (likely), it is too late to affect namings of rivers etc. Toponyms evolve a bit but most commonly don't change with a series of drastic language changes, especially if the latter are so significant that a lay person without effort may no longer recognize the meaning after just a couple of handfuls of generations. So, you expect toponyms to predate the language of local populations by many, many centuries, if not several millennia. In other words, the local people living there first spoke a regional IE that slowly turned into a proto-Germanic, at which point toponyms froze in. But the people's language continued to develop into a full-fledged proto-Germanic and later regional (East-) Germanic.

Another linguistic argument can be made from very, very early Germanic loan words into Uralic, while the vast majority of Slavic loan words into German are extremely recent. That is, (proto-) Germanic tribes in what is now Poland and beyond largely bordered Uralic ones - not Slavic tribes. Conversely, the (proto-) Germanic tribes on the Southern side of this region that were close to Slavic-speaking people had zero impact on the further development of Germanic languages, because they largely adopted Slavic languages later, instead.

I did not mean that Jastorf was an oddball in the sense of being of Germanic origin, but in the sense of social stratification.


Sturisoma,

Yeah - but in conjunction with an extremely long and steady archaeological (and y-DNA) continuity that (lack of) social stratification can be used as a strong argument that (proto-) Germanic is autochthonous to that exact area.

Dr Rob said...

“Visla” etymology. Sure I guess you can connect the term Weiβ with “Visla”/ “Vistula” (can you please give the exact reference for it ? I’d like to read that article)

Briefly, what I was saying is that, both those who claim the Przeworsk culture was Slavic or Germanic are incorrect. There is simply not enough space to go into a very interesting and complex subject, however, whilst both argue for apparently opposing ideas (Slavic vs Germanic), both use the same (wrong) methodologies. Such as

• The belief that archaeological cultures are static monolithic entities which embody or represent peoples or certain linguistic groups, or certain haplogroups, etc. In fact, many Anglo-American scholars point out that Archaeologcal Cultures do not even exist, but are constructs in the eyes of archaeologists. Obviously, this is not mirrored in the works of Continental Europeans, whether Slavic, German, or Hungarian. They still abide by the old -school essentialist, culture-hsitorical approach to archaeology and history.

• However, “even if” we accept such an approach, there is nothing predominantly “Scandinavian’ or “North German” about the origins of Przeworsk culture. Yes , of course, there are fibulae forms or what-have-you which might have first appeared in Scandinavia. However, the genesis of the Przeworks culture was heterogeneous but mostly autochthonous, yet radically different to the preceding Lusatian culture, just like the jastorf culture differed from the preceding Nordic Bronze Age in terms of organization, land pattern utilization and economy. It was a result of manifold processes and not the arrival of “Jastorfians”

• Yes, the early medieval period in Poland represents an indubitable change compared to the Przeworsk culture. However, this was largely an economic and demographic crisis rather than an ethnic takeover from Urkaine, or wherever.

• This leads us to suspect any notion of ethnic continuity, given such radical change in social forms in both areas (Nth Germany, and Poland) which had occurred throughout the Bronze Age to historical Period; whatever ethnic identity actually existed there in 500 BC.

• Eurologist: your conviction about dating is too confident. Any linguist knows they can only assign relative chronology. There is no way to give absolute chronology unless hard evidence exists. Langauge can change unevenly, ie slow for very long time, then very rapid change over quick temporal space. So your discussion of stages from 1500 BC etc could have happened relatively recently in the huge social and economic changes which accompanied the collapse of la Tene central Europe – just prior to the attestation of first Germanic inscriptions.

• Same with your discussion on loans. How do you know these Germanic->Uralic loans occurred in Poland ? Give me hard evidence ? This could have occurred anywhere in the circum-Baltic region, as late as turn of the Era, as Udolph himself suggests.

Dr Rob said...

• And same with river names. They cannot be given an exact date, and many different theories exist as to where the “language urheimat” existed. Again, this notion is preposterous in itself. Languages do not just “originate” in a definable area. See what Renfrew wrote about a larger ‘linguistic area” which generates by way of interactions and convergence, not of some migration of a “Germanic Volk” from mother Scandinavia, or “Slavic Volk” from mother Russia.

• Sturisoma, no offence, but to suggest that Tacitus represents an accurate ethno-geographic account of Roman period barbaricum is very naïve. Just see any recent Anglophone anthropological work about the matter. I mean, the Spaniards and English, over 1000 years later, thought that the Native Americans were “Indians”. Do you expect Tacitus, who had never even set foot in the Vistula region, to have any real knowledge of the complex mosaic ethno-linguistic situation ? His information was drips and drabs he had heard, copied, from earlier writers, soldiers, myths, tales, etc.


All I am suggesting is, when it comes to the area in question, we know very little about what languages were spoken there, so we must be cautious from making bold unsubstantiated arguments.

Sturisoma said...

Dr. Rob, if you do not think that that Poland was heavily influenced by Scandinavia, I would advise you to read more literature. Fibulae are not the only connection. As I already said, look at the whole burial rite for example.
Also, I never advocated big Migrations, especially from Scandinavia, and before the Migration Period, as true, Just that there were a lot of cultural borrowings. This has been the case even before the arrival of IE people. And do you agree that the Face Urn Culture was at least partially the Ancestor of Przeworsk?

Concerning Tacitus, he was no modern ethnologist, but he based a lot of his writing on Pliny the Elders Bella Germaniae.
Pliny actually served in Germania, and I think he would at least know what Germanic people have for a language.
Tacitus places several tribes in the Przeworsk culture that in later
sources are clearly Germanic.
The Romans actually had interaction with them, and at least send some people to the Lugiones.
We have finds of the Elder Futhark from the Przeworsk culture.
BTW where do you think the population of Przeworsk has gone during the Migration Period?

About the Vistula, I already wrote in a comment above. And I did not think of German "weiß" but of Proto-Germanic. -ula is clearly IE and is often used as fuffix for a diminutive, for example in Gothic and Latin. A medieval source from Poland says that Vistula means "White River"... I coul
And as you accept Udolph only when it fits you( BTW, if you would have read his works(I highly recommend it) you would know that he actually strongly disagrees with a single Urheimat for Germanic people, and the early dating for Verners law indeed suggest that a lot of sound changes were),
do you atleast accept that Hydronyms tend to be consevative?
And do not forget about sound substitutions.

If you would have to use Occam´s Razor, what language would you assigh to the Przeworsk culture?
Germanic(Including archaic forms), Slavic, Baltic, or an undiscovered IE language?

And I ask you once again, are you Hxseek?

Dr Rob said...

“Dr. Rob, if you do not think that that Poland was heavily influenced by Scandinavia, I would advise you to read more literature. Fibulae are not the only connection. As I already said, look at the whole burial rite for example.”

 I never said Poland was not influenced by Scandinavia; so you are critiquing a straw man here. I was there was nothing SOLELY or PREDOMINANTLY Scandinavia here. And you’re disregarding the flow of influences in the other direction, from the mainland (as far as the Graeco-Roman world and the Black Sea) to Scandinavia. To solely concentrate on flow of influence from north to south is to miss the big picture for the sake of proving pre-concieved notions of a “Germanic homeland” in South Scandianvia, and later historical Gothic “migration”

 Like I said, there is no clear antecedent to the Przeworsk culture. What is clear is the the preceding culture collapsed and had a radically differen t organizational outlook. Upon the disintegration of the Lusatian culture, the entire Vistula-Oder region disintegrated into small regional groups. Certainly, the Pomorian variant seemed to remains stronger and influenced the entire Przeworsk culture and Oksywie culture also. However, many of the traditional La Tene era fibulae remained from older period. The Prezeowrks culture repreetned a shift to a simpler organizatiopn, but more war-lie, likely the result of deep internal crisis. The Jastorf horizon onky affected western Poland – the billendorf variant- and through this the Jastorf influences became apparent in Przeworsk. Amongst notable differences, burial forms were different between Jastorf and Przeworsk culture. So yes, Face Urn culture definitely influenced Przeworsk culture, however, the original inspiration for hous urns was northern Italy – the proto-Villanovian culture. This is not just Kristiansen’s opinion – but is fact based on established European chronological horizons.

“Concerning Tacitus, he was no modern ethnologist, but he based a lot of his writing on Pliny the Elders Bella Germaniae.
Pliny actually served in Germania, and I think he would at least know what Germanic people have for a language.
Tacitus places several tribes in the Przeworsk culture that in later
sources are clearly Germanic.
The Romans actually had interaction with them, and at least send some people to the Lugiones.

 Maybe he served in Germania ( just east of the Rhine), but never as far as the Vistula region. So he had absolutely no contact with them. The sources are not accurate in their description of distant areas. As Walter Goffart stated, all the evidence suggests that the ‘barbarians’ lived near Roman border, and not that far away; and certainly back-projections from this about the scenario hundreds of years earlier is inaccurate. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=dM3kdRzztiIC&pg=PA187&dq=none+of+them+were+germans+,+goffart&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Q3rqT-WYDO-JmQXOnJDHAg&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=none%20of%20them%20were%20germans%20%2C%20goffart&f=false

Dr Rob said...

BTW where do you think the population of Przeworsk has gone during the Migration Period?”

 I do not know. But where did all the Lusations go before that ? Where did all the 4th century Saxons go ? (and don’t say England). Where did almost all Europe go in immediate post-Roman period ? The answer is less about invading the former Roman Empire, and more about generalized crisis throughout Europe….

About the Vistula, I already wrote in a comment above. And I did not think of German "weiß" but of Proto-Germanic. -ula is clearly IE and is often used as fuffix for a diminutive, for example in Gothic and Latin. A medieval source from Poland says that Vistula means "White River"... I coul
And as you accept Udolph only when it fits you( BTW, if you would have read his works(I highly recommend it) you would know that he actually strongly disagrees with a single Urheimat for Germanic people, and the early dating for Verners law indeed suggest that a lot of sound changes were),
do you atleast accept that Hydronyms tend to be consevative?
And do not forget about sound substitutions.

 I have read his theses on Slavic , and his work in the Nordic languages book series , where he places the Germanic urheimat in highland Germany. can you direct me to his other work related to Vistula and other river names . I'd much appreciate

If you would have to use Occam´s Razor, what language would you assigh to the Przeworsk culture?
Germanic(Including archaic forms), Slavic, Baltic, or an undiscovered IE language?

 I do not know. That is my point. We have no evidence. Looking at face urns isn’t gonna tell us that, is it ? It can tell us about potential influences. Likely some unheard of language yet, one which we will never know, unless we can unlock its substratum effects in Modern Polish. All I know is, sociolinguistically, there probably were many different languages or dialects, in the absence of a centralized state or empire

And I ask you once again, are you Hxseek?
 Who is that and how is that pertinent to this discussion.

AB said...

What is this discussion all about? Discussing that fascinating results at the level of population genetics, shouldn’t one know the number of medieval samples analyzed and the details of procedure applied? Neither the number, probably playing a key role in calculation of the results, nor the methods applied, crucial in the ancient DNA studies, are known! Moreover, how is it possible that one individual with N1a1a2 (if correctly identified) can serve to judge the relationship between cultures (Przeworsk from Corded Ware Cultures?)? What would the Author say in case she found hg Z among the studied samples? What sort of continuity would it suggest?

Hal KW said...

https://rafzen.wordpress.com/2011/08/25/the-oldest-well-dated-representation-of-a-wheeled-vehicle-in-the-world/


https://rafzen.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/polish-nation-has-more-than-10-thousand-years-of-history/