search this blog

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

Review paper: Human paleogenetics of Europe - The known knowns and the known unknowns


Many of us are waiting impatiently for the new manuscript from the Reich Lab on the genetic shifts in Central and Eastern Europe during the late Neolithic/early Bronze Age, which will apparently include genome-wide data from Bell Beaker, Corded Ware and Yamnaya remains (see here). Rumor has it that it'll appear at bioRxiv within a few weeks.

Meantime, it might be useful to check out this review paper by Guido Brandt et al. on the present state of play in European paleogenetics.

Human paleogenetics of Europe - The known knowns and the known unknowns

It's a thorough summary of almost all ancient DNA results to date from Europe, and includes some very nice maps and other figures that look like updates on the stuff from Brandt et al. 2013 (see here). However, there are a couple of major problems with this paper that drag it down a few notches in my estimation.

Firstly, the authors leave open the possibility that Indo-European languages were introduced into Europe by early Neolithic farmers from Anatolia. Maybe they're trying to be diplomatic and humor those that won't let this failed hypothesis finally die, because otherwise I have no idea why they even considered it?

There are some very good reasons now why this is indeed a failed hypothesis. For one, linguistic evidence shows that all Indo-European languages in Europe include similar loans of non-Indo-European origin associated with farming, like the words for bean, carrot, hemp, oats and pea (for instance, see here).

These words were in all likelihood borrowed by the early Indo-Europeans from someone else as they spread out across Europe well after agriculture had been established throughout much of the continent. So who was this someone else? Probably the non-Indo-European descendants of the non-Indo-European early farmers from Anatolia.

Ancient DNA shows something similar. All ancient European genomes in a farming context sequenced to date from the Neolithic to the Copper Age are clearly distinct from present-day Indo-European speaking Europeans. But they resemble very closely present-day Sardinians, whose ancestors only became Indo-European speakers during the late Iron Age.

The other serious problem with this paper is the suggestion that present-day Northeast Europeans show the highest genome-wide affinity to Pitted Ware hunter-gatherers because the eastern Baltic acted as a refugium during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). It's on page 10 of the PDF.

This must be some sort of oversight, because I refuse to believe that the authors aren't aware of the fact that the eastern Baltic was covered in a big fuck off ice sheet during the LGM. Here's a map from Mangerud et al 2004.


A much more plausible explanation why present-day Northeast Europeans show the highest genome-wide affinity to Pitted Ware hunter-gatherers, and indeed all European hunter-gatherers for whom we have data, is that their ancestors were amongst the last people in Europe to take up farming and Christianity.

Citation...

Brandt, G., et al., Human paleogenetics of Europe - The known knowns and the known unknowns, Journal of Human Evolution (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2014.06.017

84 comments:

Davidski said...

This paper is currently also available here...

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/268333605_Human_paleogenetics_of_Europe__The_known_knowns_and_the_known_unknowns

Simon_W said...

Renfrew's Anatolian farmer theory has received a lot more attention than it deserved, but afaik entirely outside the linguistic community. It was received with big enthusiasm by archeologists who were adhering to an immobilist and anti-migrationist paradigm, which was very fashionable in the last few decades. „Pots not people“ was the slogan, meaning that people stay put to the soil where they live and only cultural trends migrate. The only exception accepted by some being the demic diffusion of early farmers. Now ancient DNA has shown that there really were migrations even after the advent of farming. Main problems of the Anatolian farmer theory are that words have been reconstructed for PIE which don't fit with an early Neolithic level of culture, like wheel. Another problem is that the trajectories of the spread of Neolithization don't match with the patterns of relatedness among IE subgroups, e.g. Italic and Celtic are relatively close to each other, yet Italy and the British Isles were Neolithicized via very different paths. Another problem are the many non-IE languages in southern Europe in Antiquity which are little known, but that doesn't make them unimportant. And of course there is the problem that early European farmers were Sardinian like people, which have been overlain with several different population waves outside of Sardinia.

Simon_W said...


Other factors that fostered the acceptance of the Anatolian farmer theory were problems of the Kurgan theory: Doubtfulness or absence of evidence for early horseback riding, and the question: How should they have conquered Europe with their limited military technology, they would have needed military skills that surpassed those of the Romans? Also the limited spread of the actual Yamnaya culture westwards was a problem.

Now it seems to me that the northern wave of ANE westwards was facilitated by climatic crises and possibly the advantages of a more pastoralism based economy with small social units etc. If the Bell Beaker phenomenon was linked with some IE spread too, which is what I'm assuming, then that may have been rather ideological than due to brutal violence and linked with metal trade and the consumption of beer.

And then there were these Bayesian calculations which apparently favoured an origin of PIE more in line with the Anatolian farmer theory. But these had their problems as well, which I'm not going to recount now.

Colin Welling said...

this paper is riddled with crap. I think its the first time I've seen stuff like this coming from authors who are very up to date on ancient dna.

their explanation of r1b was horrible. i can't believe they said that r1b is concentrated in the west and hence it spread with bell beakers from the west. there are a number of issues with this.

One is that appealing to the high frequency of r1b in the west is useless since we know r1b did not originate in the west. They also piggy back r1b to western bell beakers and a western origin of mtdna H. what??? Yes, the bell beaker phenomenon may have started in the west but that doesn't mean people only moved west to east. In fact the most solid instance of BB migration we know of is that bavarian bell beakers were from the immediate east. Then, they tie r1b to western H when the only r1b found in a beaker site had no mtdna H but instead more eastern like mtdna. Finally they make the confusing claim that BB was carried by men (r1b) while claiming that BB moved H, meaning it must be women too. What they are essentially saying is that men and women moved west to east which leaves no room for ANE to move east to west.

They are basically cherry picking when and how to associate r1b with western bell beakers. They tie r1b with H then they tie ydna with BB culture but not mtdna. Its bad enough to piggy back ydna with mtdna to the exclusion of all other data but the inconsistency with which they do it is the worst.

Colin Welling said...

I think they are just trying to force a simple duality, which they pushed in a previous paper. that is, western bell beakers and eastern corded ware. it makes my head hurt to think how baseless and ultimately inconsistent their claims on r1b are.

i really thought this university would solve they r1b and IE problem but this paper and Wilde's paper are weak to sloppy.

Davidski said...

They seem surprisingly out of touch with what's going on. The fact that they're still even considering the Anatolian hypothesis is very disappointing.

You should e-mail Haaak and tell him to get with the times. But anyway, I think Reich and Laz have enough ancient European samples now to solve the R1b mystery. It's just a matter of them testing the Y-chromosomes.

bellbeakerblogger said...

Do you happen to know what Beaker cemeteries were used for the DNA, by any chance?

Thanks,

bellbeakerblogger said...

^^ (for the paper coming out in a few weeks)

Grey said...

@Simon_W

"Renfrew's Anatolian farmer theory has received a lot more attention than it deserved
...
Bayesian calculations which apparently favoured an origin of PIE more in line with the Anatolian farmer theory"

Would simply shifting the Anatolian farmers northwards to Cucuteni square the circle?

.

"problems of the Kurgan theory
...
How should they have conquered Europe with their limited military technology
...
Also the limited spread of the actual Yamnaya culture westwards was a problem.
...
the advantages of a more pastoralism based economy with small social units etc."

I think that square is circled by relatively very mobile tribes of wagon village herders raiding settled populations until they moved away or were weakened enough to invade or incorporate - so a much slower piecemeal process than a big cavalry horde all in one go and with limited settlement evidence of the progress across Europe because they didn't have permanent settlements until later.

(Although you'd think they would have created fixed religious sites as they went.)

.

"the trajectories of the spread of Neolithization don't match with the patterns of relatedness among IE subgroups, e.g. Italic and Celtic are relatively close to each other, yet Italy and the British Isles were Neolithicized via very different paths
...
Other factors that fostered the acceptance of the Anatolian farmer theory were If the Bell Beaker phenomenon was linked with some IE spread too"

What I wonder is if the source region was the same but they traveled by different routes:

1) north of the Carpathians
2) along the Danube initially then diverted into Italy and Southern France by a still strong (at that time) LBK
3) two separate groups of traders and metal workers from group (2) - river BB and maritime BB - spreading west along the trade networks.

Grey said...

@Colin Welling

If you look at a map of LBK there are obvious gaps to the west and north.

The gap is almost identical to the areas of highest lactose tolerance.

So...maybe those areas were relatively unpopulated because neolithic farming wasn't productive in those areas.

So...corded ware moving west in the area north of the Carpathians.

And maybe...a small bunch of lactose tolerant BB copper mining dudes originally from the same source region as Corded ware but via a Danube to Italy to Iberia route showing up along the Atlantic coast with their cattle intending to simply found a copper mining settlement and finding to their surprise that they have a mostly empty ecozone they are pre-adapted for leading to a dramatic and sudden population expansion from the west i.e. small population from the east becomes a big population from the west.

(If correct the mdna H would be local women.)

Grey said...

"the eastern Baltic was covered in a big fuck off sheet of ice during the LGM."

I had a thought about that.

If Eskimo can survive off seafood on the seaward edge of ice sheets maybe early humans (or not humans) survived the same way on the seaward western edge of that Scandi ice sheet.

i.e. humans (or yetis) living off seafood along the Scandi coast were pushed west out to sea on the expanding ice.

If so then might they not have floated back again the same way when the ice retreated?

So a human (or yeti) originally living on the coast of northern Norway floats out to Iceland on their ice sheet and then back again?

So some people were pushed south by the ice while some floated away to the west (and came back again)?

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Grey,
LBK broke into several smaller cultures around 4500bce.

bellbeakerblogger said...

I spit out my coffee when I read this paper includes data from the Muge and Sado shellmiddens

(Chandler, Sykes and Zilhao, 2005)

I'm going to comment, or bang my head against the wall, about the shellmiddens on the Beaker Blog.

Regardless of the haplotyping, the DNA-caper of the shellmiddens is a funny story after a few beers.


Davidski said...

Most of the samples studied by this group are from Brandt et al. 2013, so the Bell Beakers are likely to be mostly those listed in this spreadsheet...

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2013/10/10/342.6155.257.DC1/Brandt.tablesS1-S17.xls

Grey said...

Taking the population diagram from the Kostenki 14 paper

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jlF6eSOWmnk/VFwpvCk9MjI/AAAAAAAAJ1o/lkmfDp204OU/s1600/F2.large.jpg

would the following version work?

1) From a start point in the bottom center of a page an arrow branching off to the right to "Mbuti" and an arrow going directly up to "Basal".

2) An arrow from "Basal"going directly up to "ASE".

3) An arrow from "ASE" branching off diagonally to the right to "East Asian" with "+ Denisova" next to that arrow.

4) An arrow from "ASE" going directly up to "ANE" with a "+ ?" next to it.

5) Going back to "Basal" draw an arrow from "Basal" diagonally up to the left and an arrow from "ASE" directly to the left to form "WHG/EEF".

(This is the bit I think is muddy - a set of populations made up of both ASE and Basal but in varying proportions so the dividing line between them is arbitrary.)

6) An arrow from "WHG/EEF" going up diagonally to the left to "Neolithic".

7) An arrow from "WHG/EEF" going directly up and another from "ANE" going directly left to "MHG".

8) Arrows from all three of "Neolithic", "MHG" and "ANE" going to "European".

(Basal should be in the first row, WHG/EEF and ASE in the second row and Neol, MHG, ANE and East Asian in the third row. Neol in the first column, MHG and WHG/EEF in the second column, ANE, ASE and Basal in the third and East Asian in the fourth.)

bellbeakerblogger said...

It will be interesting.

The only problem is the Brandt 2013 cemeteries are along the Saale and Elbe in Sachsen-Anhalt. This is not the best location to try and unscramble the egg.

These people were probably heavily mixed with Corded Folk and some of the earliest to mix with Unetice.

I'm afraid it will all run together like different shades of grey.

Nirjhar007 said...

@David
''Baltic was covered in a big fuck off sheet of ice during the LGM''
Please clarify to me David do Slavs often use such kind of poor word selection like 'Horseshit',''F#cktard,'Shit-Load' as you often use or is it because of your Australian heritage??
Please for truths sake stop using such dirty words!
''For one, linguistic evidence shows that all Indo-European languages in Europe include similar loans of non-Indo-European origin associated with farming, like the words for bean, carrot, hemp, oats and pea (for instance''
Wrong Again! those words are not found out side Europe for example in Armenian,Aryan,Tocharian etc which suggests that when Indo-European arrived in Europe they borrowed it from a Non-IE source!BTW most of them are actually borrowed from Germanic Source.....

Chad Rohlfsen said...

bellbeakerblogger,
Don't you think that they should run together a bit? You aren't one of the R1b out of Iberia or Africa folks, are you?

Corded and Beaker are both mixed with hunters of varying types. Corded ware is more like the Bronze Age Kazakhstan, with some Neolithic, and Bell Beaker looks between Bernberg and Pitted ware. Corded Ware is closer to Unetice, but Beaker is closer to the Karelian. They only share a few haplogroups. The links from the Carpathian Basin, to Kemi Oba and Maykop and the rest of the Caucasus, with its R1b, is good enough for me.

Krefter said...

Davidski where did you hear Reich-Laz's paper should be out within a few weeks?

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Krefter,
Reich told me it would be out in a couple months. That was about 3 weeks ago.

Krefter said...

"Reich told me it would be out in a couple months. That was about 3 weeks ago."

Well, then it should be within something like 5-6 weeks. We still have to wait a very long time. I'm disappointed that the paper will be published so quickly, because there will be no more mystery as these papers keep coming out. It's much more fun to discover and makeup theories than to just be taught.

Davidski said...

It'll probably come out just before Christmas, like the last one.

But then we'll have to wait at least a few months for the genomes to be released.

Imagine having Bell Beaker, Corded Ware, Unetice and Yamnaya genomes to mess around with. That'll be great. But not for a while yet.

Davidski said...

By the way, I don't think they'll be able to solve everything with this paper, at least as far as Western Europe is concerned. We'll need a lot of Bronze and Iron Age genomes from all over Europe for that.

Grey said...

"It's much more fun to discover and makeup theories"

hehe yes

Simon_W said...

The deviation of Bell Beaker mtDNA towards the Pitted Ware is interesting, thus the link points to pure eastern hunter-gatherers rather than to the Caucasus. That might be explained by a genetic relationship with the Globular Amphora culture. The Globular Amphora migration westwards was a real one and it predated the Corded Ware. Unless Globular Amphora people were Sardinian-like EEFs they are likely to have had an interesting effect. Craniometric studies have shown that especially Globular Amphora people of eastern origin, like from Poland, Volhynia and Moldavia had (absolutely) rather broad skulls and faces and were thus very unlike pure EEFs.

Colin Welling said:
In fact the most solid instance of BB migration we know of is that bavarian bell beakers were from the immediate east.

Northeast actually, according to the paper you're drawing upon.

Bellbeakerblogger said:
The only problem is the Brandt 2013 cemeteries are along the Saale and Elbe in Sachsen-Anhalt. This is not the best location to try and unscramble the egg. 

Indeed, we definitely need some Bell Beaker DNA from France and Spain, not just those eastern admixed specimens from central Germany, and preferrably yDNA and aDNA, not just mtDNA.

Simon_W said...

Basques have received quite some ANE from their R1b ancestors, but close to zero West Asian admixture (e.g. in MDLP World-22), hence at least some R1b people in central Europe were not West Asian admixed (apart from the usual stuff from the EEF, which yields 0% in MDLP World-22).

Grey said...

"The Globular Amphora migration westwards was a real one and it predated the Corded Ware."

Yes neither Globular Amphora or Funnelbeaker seem explained yet.

Simon_W said...

Grey, Funnel Beaker = TRB = Gökhem.

There may have been some minor regional variation, especially with regards to Denmark, but on the whole Funnel Beaker were simply EEFs.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Globular amphora likely came from the west. We don't see much ANE before 3000bce.

Grey said...

"but on the whole Funnel Beaker were simply EEFs"

Well... enough arguments for one week :)

Arch Hades said...

Another problem are the many non-IE languages in southern Europe in Antiquity which are little known, but that doesn't make them unimportant.

Except none of those language have been deciphered, so whether or not they were IE or non IE remains to be seen.

Krefter said...

"Please clarify to me David do Slavs often use such kind of poor word selection like 'Horseshit',''F#cktard,'Shit-Load' as you often use or is it because of your Australian heritage??
Please for truths sake stop using such dirty words!"

A blog is a different setting than a school, or just a public atmosphere where that language would be inappropriate. This is a blog though and so people are free from those restrictions and act more like themselves in normal conversation, and when they're excited let it show in words. I think he realizes though that because he's the author and has many readers(making it very public) he has to be very well behaved and respectful, so you don't have to worry about it.

Ponto said...

It is not a good thing to use the Basques as any sort of answer to the origins of the people originally carrying R1b to Europe. The Basques and the Sardinians for that matter are highly drifted, neither is an exact copy of their EEF ancestors that colonized that part of Europe where their modern drifted descendants are now found.

Before the coming of the ANE people into Europe, and those carrying a lot of ANE like the I.E speaking invaders, Europeans, the descendants of Mesolithic Europeans and EEF farmers were genetically much further west on a MDS plot using modern Europeans and a map of Europe.

I treat both as genetic freaks or as the modern, highly drifted descendants of the pre ANE coming to Europe. I suggest you do the same.

Kes said...

"Except none of those language have been deciphered"

That's not true. In Italy, Iberia and Greece there are Etruscan, Rhaetian, Old Ligurian, North Picenean, Aquitanian, Iberian, Tartessian, Sicanian, Elymian and Lemnian, all written in relatively familiar scripts which have been transcribed and in the case of Etruscan and Iberian we even have quite a few translations for comparison, and IE-typical etyma and structure are generally not apparent. Minoan and a few others are really "undeciphered" (at least not to the satisfaction of most scholars).

Simon_W said...

@ Chad Rohlfsen

Globular Amphora from the West?? Is there any serious archeologists who has maintained that position? There are indeed cultural ties with the TRB, as mentioned in the new Brandt et al. paper, but the predominant view is an origin in the TRB east group. Your argument about the absence of strong ANE admixture before 3000 BC isn't convincing at all, because, if Globular Amphora started around 3200/3100 BC we can't expect to see strong ANE admixture in places far from its distribution area, i.e. not in Southern Sweden in 3000 BC, not in Hungary in 2800 BC and certainly not in the Alps in 3300 BC.

Mike Thomas said...

@Grey
"I think that square is circled by relatively very mobile tribes of wagon village herders raiding settled populations until they moved away or were weakened enough to invade or incorporate - so a much slower piecemeal process than a big cavalry horde all in one go and with limited settlement evidence of the progress across Europe because they didn't have permanent settlements until later."

I think you're relying on the presumption that one could only use a cart if they spoke IE; or indeed that carts were first invented in the Pontic steppe; both assumptions are either speculative or probably wrong.

Carts were used to aid subsistence not advance "piecemeal" and raid. In the BA, people warred over local resources and control points, not to take over land.

Davidski said...

Here's a new paper on the formation of GAC West.

The Western Globular Amphora Culture. A New Model for its Emergence and Expansion

http://edition-topoi.org/articles/details/the-western-globular-amphora-culture.-a-new-model-for-its-emergence-and-exp

Simon_W said...

@ Arch Hades

We have to distinguish between the ability to read a script and to know its sound qualities on the one hand and the ability to comprehend the text. If we can read the text but don't understand a single word, then it's not an undeciphered language, but an unintelligible one. Many of the languages below are rather unintelligible than undeciphered. And some, like Etruscan, are even quite well understood, although not entirely, of course.

Let's recapitulate and review the ancient European languages that were candidates for being non-IE:

Pictish (Scotland): inscriptions previously regarded as entirely unintelligible and non-Celtic have more recently been given Celtic interpretations. Moreover the inscriptions are not that ancient, so it's kind of hard to imagine that pre-Celtic people still lived in Scotland at such a late date. Also considering that genetically Scots don't differ a lot from other British Islanders.
-> probably IE

Tartessian (southwestern Iberia): has been given a Celtic interpretation recently, which however wasn't accepted by many scholars. It's still controversial. Perhaps it was descended from pre-Proto-Italo-Celtic? Just an uneducated guess.
-> perhaps IE

Basque: definitely non-IE. Aquitanian was old Basque.

Iberian (eastern Iberia): possibly related with Basque, it's controversial, but there are some commonalities – the question remains if they are not merely due to language contact.
Definitely non-IE in any case.

Ligurian (southern France, northwestern Italy): I think the predominant opinion now is to regard it as para-Celtic, like Lusitanian in Portugal, i.e. related with Celtic, but not having the crucial Celtic features.
-> IE

Elymian (westernmost Sicily): I think it's regarded as IE, it's just not quite clear how it affiliates with better known branches of IE.
-> IE

Sicanian (inner parts of western Sicily): Hardly known afaik.
-> presumably non-IE, but I wouldn't use it as evidence for a non-IE stratum in Europe

North Picene (near Pesaro in the Marche region, Italy): only one longer inscription exists and a couple of short fragments. The authenticity of the finds has been called into question, but on the other hand there is no definite proof that they are forgeries. If real, the language is completely unintelligible and probably non-IE. The geographical proximity to the Balkans and the physical similarity of the crania to EEF crania from southeastern Europe make me think it might have been a relative of the LBK language. Just from the sound of it, it appears similar to Eteocretan, imho.
-> most likely non-IE, if real

Raetic-Lemnian-Etruscan (eastern Alps, Lemnos, ancient Etruria etc): a group of related languages, definitely non-IE. How they arrived in their respecticve locations is very controversial. My guess is that these were Pelasgian languages from Greece and nearby areas. They fled from the Mycenean Greeks to Italy and into the Alps.
-> definitely non-IE

Minoan and Eteocretan: Minoan was written in Linear A. We can assume that the signs of Linear A had often similar sound qualities as the related signs in Linear B, which was used to write in Mycenean Greek. If so, Minoan is almost completely unintelligible and definitely non-IE. Eteocretan however seems to have sounded quite differently. So perhaps these were two different languages? In any case it's unintelligible and non-IE, too.
-> definitely non-IE

Eteocypriot: the pre-Greek language of Iron Age Cyprus. Unintelligible and non-IE. There are hypotheses about it's linguistic affiliations, but no consensus.
-> definitely non-IE

Simon_W said...

@ Ponto

Well, it looks very likely to me that the original R1b people in Europe had a lot of ANE, and most ANE stems from EHG. Some of it is also present in the Basques, see Laz. et al. 2014, Table S14.10. Makes sense, because the Basques have a lot of R1b. It would be odd if they had no ANE at all. Now, the other thing I noted is that Basques have almost none of the MDLP World-22 West_Asian component. Similar things have been observed in many other ADMIXTURE analyses, like Dodecad K7b, Dodecad Globe10, Dodecad Globe13, etc. So I had concluded that the ANE admixture went into the Basques without any additional West Asian admixture. You seem to suggest that they might have lost their West Asian admixture because of drift? Well, perhaps possibe? But not really plausible. Actually the West Asian admixture in non-Basque/non-Sardinian/non-Finnougrian Europeans has to be explained. That the Basques don't have it is just the natural state of affairs, as late pre-ANE farmers (NE7, CO1, Gok2) didn't have it either.

Simon_W said...

@ Davidski

Thanks, I'll read it later when I have time.

Davidski said...

I'd say the West Asian admix in Indo-European speaking Europeans is easily explained by the fact that they were the mainstream Europeans during the metal ages, and thus open to influences that spread across the continent with major trade networks of bronze and iron.

Most of the ANE found in Europe today might be from just before this time, while most of the West Asian admixture might be from as late as the Iron Age, when people like IR1, very likely with ancestry from the Kuban steppe, were moving around Europe.

Davidski said...

By the way...

NE1 - early Middle Neolithic

K15

North_Sea 2.02
Atlantic 20.82
Baltic 2.37
Eastern_Euro 0
West_Med 39.83
West_Asian 0
East_Med 31.01
Red_Sea 3.94
South_Asian 0
Southeast_Asian 0
Siberian 0
Amerindian 0
Oceanian 0
Northeast_African 0
Sub-Saharan 0

1 50% Stuttgart +25% Algerian_Jewish +25% Stuttgart @ 4.524675
2 50% Stuttgart +25% Italian_Jewish +25% Stuttgart @ 4.833057
3 50% Stuttgart +25% Stuttgart +25% Tunisian_Jewish @ 4.908978
4 50% Stuttgart +25% Libyan_Jewish +25% Stuttgart @ 4.948177
5 50% Stuttgart +25% Sephardic_Jewish +25% Stuttgart @ 5.167505


K13

North_Atlantic 18.2
Baltic 0.31
West_Med 43.74
West_Asian 0
East_Med 35.17
Red_Sea 2.59
South_Asian 0
East_Asian 0
Siberian 0
Amerindian 0
Oceanian 0
Northeast_African 0
Sub-Saharan 0

Grey said...

@Ponto

"The Basques and the Sardinians for that matter are highly drifted, neither is an exact copy of their EEF ancestors that colonized that part of Europe where their modern drifted descendants are now found
...
I treat both as genetic freaks or as the modern, highly drifted descendants of the pre ANE coming to Europe. I suggest you do the same."

I think a far simpler explanation is pretty much the exact opposite.

"EEF" isn't EEF

"EEF" is a mixture of Basal and WHG in particular proportions so what are Basal and WHG?

Either Basal is basal i.e. it refers to basal HGs who once existed as the top layer across Eurasia (or at least around the coastal rim of it) or it's some completely separate and isolated form of HG that lived in a remote oasis in a remote desert somewhere before coincidentally developing farming and spreading itself everywhere.

Once you accept that the first is much more likely than the second then it becomes clear that Basal is actually WHG 1.0 (and ENA 1.0 as well before it became ASE aka ENA 2.0).

And if Basal was actually WHG 1.0 and *already existed* all around the African Border Zone (southern and western europe, near and middle east, arabia) before the spread of farming that would imply the "WHG" in Lazaridis is actually ASE.

Which leads to

WHG 2.0 = Basal + ASE

(in varying proportions).

(As the ASE were coming from the E/SE I'd expect the mixing to have started at the borders and worked inward to the coast so I'd expect the Basal component in WHG 2.0 to be on a cline decreasing to the coast i.e. you'd expect the highest proportion of "Basal" in HGs towards the Atlantic and Med. coasts and particularly in refuge regions along the Atlantic and Med. coasts.)

"EEF" then simply references those populations of WHG 2.0 who have a high proportion of Basal in their mix - both the ones that became farmers and the ones that remained as HGs.

Which makes me think the high Basal among certain populations in refuge zones along hte coasts e.g. Basques is paleo HG being mis-labelled EEF.

.

in short

WHG 1.0 = Basal
WHG 2.0 = Basal + ASE
EEF = that part of WHG 2.0 who developed farming
MHG = that part of WHG 2.0 who didn't develop farming

In a lot of regions it won't matter because the farmer version will have mostly replaced the HG version but not in the regions unsuitable for farming imo. They will have retained a lot of the paleo HG version.

.

@Simon_W

"Now, the other thing I noted is that Basques have almost none of the MDLP World-22 West_Asian component."

This makes me wonder if the "West Asian" is part of the ASE rather than the ANE.

Do you know if the interior Sardinians are missing that component also?

Grey said...

@Mike Thomas

"I think you're relying on the presumption that one could only use a cart if they spoke IE"

I think I'm relying on the presumption that people who live in wagon villages are more mobile than people who live in houses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iY9_Z0ncfyo

.

"Carts were used to aid subsistence not advance "piecemeal" and raid."

In certain rural areas they're still used to "raid" today. Ask any rural cop in Ireland in private.

.

"In the BA, people warred over local resources and control points, not to take over land"

For herders pasturage is a resource.

Grey said...

@myself

applying the above model to Dionekes' components (IIRC - will have to go back and read them all again) implies:

Atlantic-Med (blue) = Basal
Weast Asian (gold) = ASE
North European (green) = ANE

(or the blue and gold are majority Basal vs majority ASE)

Shaikorth said...

@Grey
Usually if something that can be seen in most Europeans can't be found in Basques, Sardinians don't have it either. I think that can be considered a rule of thumb. The "West Asian" certainly has to do with isolation, Simon_W mentioned Finno-Ugrians too but it's really only the ones in Baltic region and Karelia, those in the Volga-Ural region such as Mordovians and even Komis do have it.

Grey said...

@Shaikorth

ty


@myself

"applying the above model to Dionekes' components implies:.."

Actually that was silly. Dionekes' components would represent certain *proportions* so

if Dionekes' components represented percentages of Basal/ASE/ANE then it might go

(using made up numbers just to illustrate the point)

blue: 50/25/25
gold: 25/50/25
green: 25/25/50

Arch Hades said...

Minoan and Etocretan have not been properly deciphered, it's not certain they were or were not IE. There's not any sort of consensus on their linguistic affinity as of now.


I've seen Etruscan and Lemnian postulated by linguists as IE as well.

http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/4724137/1/

Chad Rohlfsen said...

The hunter element absorbed by GAC likely had some ANE, but not in any great amount. The EEF element in GAC is from the west, not the East. They probably didn't have much more ANE than CO1.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

The paper posted by David states the same thing. A beginning in SW Poland around 3400bce.

Grey said...

Some more wild speculation on my part.

Taking a physical map of the mid and near east and assuming

1) Basal was WHG 1.0 and existed all round the African Border Zone

and

2) There was an ASE population (originally derived from Basal as well) which back-migrated from S/SE Asia and was entering the map from the direction of India along the coast

and

3) if assumption 2 is correct then ASE had back-migrated over the top of Basal all the way from its source region implying ASE had some competitive advantage over Basal

and

4) ASE's advantage might be negated by a home team terrain advantage in some regions (deserts,swamps etc)

then what route would ASE have taken?

The obvious route now - if you were HGs taking the path of least resistance - would be the fertile crescent but if you've ever worked on a farm next to a river then you'll know they turn into swamps without drainage ditches and so I think the Fertile Crescent was a giant swamp full of Basal HGs until *after* farmers started to dig drainage ditches from the edges inward.

In which case the path of least resistance for HGs coming up from India along the coast and blocked by the swampy crescent looks like it might have been along the Zagros mountains to the Kurdish area and then Transcaucasus.

Mike Thomas said...

Grey , using anachronistic modern day examples won't save yr faulty logic. There is a difference between the tethered mobility of BA pastoralists and the non specific uninformed notions of raids you talk of. Increased humidity and anthropogenic soil exhaustion certainly led to marked deforestation and a shift to a pastoralist mode of subsistence . But this was not a marked shift arriving from wagon dwellers from the east but had roots in the preexisting late Neolithic economy . Ie it represents a gradual shift along the settled/ conglomerated/ cultivation -> more mobile: dispersed / pastoral continuum.

If exogenous "inspirations" are to be looked for, then. We needn't look much further than the final stages of the Tripolye-Cuc culture; and not the steppe beyond . This much is clear from the work of polish archaeologists .

In fact I'd hazard a guess that the ANE shift genetically might have derived from C-T elements.

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Ponto
The important thing about Basque and Sardinian is that they retain a genetic connection to all Europeans, despite being quite drifted. Unlike the Kalash or Samaritan, who, if they get their own component, generally share it with no one else, any component peaking in Sardinians or Basques or both is typically well-represented throughout Europe.

This is also seen in PCA, where Kalash sometime dominate their own dimension in which there is little differentiation for everyone else. This is never the case for Sardinian and Basque.

To treat the Basque and Sardinian as a relict representative of some ancient population, and thus a 'snapshot' of some kind, is probably much more feasible than with any other isolate in Eurasia.

Mike Thomas said...

Grey , using anachronistic modern day examples won't save yr faulty logic. There is a difference between the tethered mobility of BA pastoralists and the non specific uninformed notions of raids you talk of. Increased humidity and anthropogenic soil exhaustion certainly led to marked deforestation and a shift to a pastoralist mode of subsistence . But this was not a marked shift arriving from wagon dwellers from the east but had roots in the preexisting late Neolithic economy . Ie it represents a gradual shift along the settled/ conglomerated/ cultivation -> more mobile: dispersed / pastoral continuum.

If exogenous "inspirations" are to be looked for, then we needn't look much further than the final stages of the Tripolye-Cuc culture; and not the steppe beyond . This much is clear from the work of polish archaeologists .

In fact I'd hazard a guess that the ANE shift genetically might have derived from C-T elements.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

I think that NE1 is less EEF than Stuttgart. NE1 scores lower in the ENF, and EEF calculator. They do share some common ancestors. Much more than Stuttgart shares with other farmers.

Largest segment = 8.2 cM
Total of segments > 1 cM = 86.0 cM

Simon_W said...

Grey, it's tricky. On the one hand, MA1 scores quite high on some West Asian components. On the other hand, the same components already appear in some EEFs who didn't have ANE. I'd say there must be some ANE in the West Asian components since there is ANE in modern West Asians. But the admix calculators nonetheless use the West Asian component in some cases of EEFs when the ancestry of the ancient individual cannot be expressed better without using it. I noted that especially the early EEFs, like Stuttgart and NE1, do have some West Asian admixture, whereas the later ones lack it. I think this is the consequence of increased WHG admixture in the later EEFs. It reduces the West Asianness and increases the similarity with Basques and Sardinians and hence with the West_Med or Atlantic_Med components. In their cases the latter components suffice – but this doesn't mean that these later farmers had no West Asian ancestry. No, it's simply part of the mix that constitutes the West_Med components. As for your question, Sardinians tend to have very low to zero West Asian admixture in virtually all calculators.

Simon_W said...

Arch Hades,

Eteocretan was written in a Greek alphabet, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eteocretan_language

And as for Minoan – I don't think Linear A can really be considered undeciphered. There are formal analogies between a large number of Linear A and Linear B signs. And there are instances of very similar alignments of signs that occur in both systems, e.g. su-ki-ri-te-ija in Linear A and su-ki-ri-ta in Linear B, which is probably the ancient name for Sybrita in Western Crete. The majority of the specialists agrees that we can assign the sound qualities of the Linear B signs to their formal analogs in Linear A.

And with respect to Etruscan, yes there have been tries to connect it with IE languages, but that's far from being a mainstream opinion. The overwhelming mainstream opinion is that Etruscan can only be said to be related with Lemnian and Raetic. I mean, just look at the Etruscan numerals for instance:

1 – θu(n)
2 – zal, esal
3 – ci
4 – śa
5 – maχ
6 – huθ
7 – semφ
8 – cezp
9 – nurφ
10 – śar
20 – zaθrum

Not at all similar to IE numerals, even though IE numerals are always strikingly and obviously similar in different IE languages.

Simon_W said...

A truly undeciphered script would be the Vinca script for instance. Nothing can be said about its language.

Simon_W said...

Chad,

No, the paper posted by David doesn't say anything remotely similar to what you are suggesting.

In fact, the paper says that GAC originated in what later became the central group of GAC (hence in the area of the TRB east group, as I had said before) and from there spread westwards and eastwards, with true migrants, and thus gave rise to the GAC west group and to the GAC east group.

More precisely the paper says that GAC originated in Kujavia, which is rather northern Poland, adjacent to the lower Vistula. And not that far away from Narva and Comb-Pitted people. The hunter-element that entered the GAC thus may have had lots of ANE.

The paper further says that there was a hybridization of original GAC input with substrate influence in the west group. Which is just natural, if we don't assume a genocide theory. The same hybridization can be seen in the subsequent Corded Ware.

The EEF element in GAC certainly isn't said to be from the West. The paper only says that in the West group there were local EEFs as a substrate, which you can call western, because they were in the West. But in a similar vein, local EEFs were present in the central group and in the east group, and these were not from the west.

Grey said...

@myself

"Taking a physical map of the mid and near east and assuming"

Forgot to link the map

http://www.worldmapsonline.com/images/KP/klett_extra_large_middle_east_physical_lg.jpg

If you imagine the fertile crescent at the time as a giant swamp full of Basal HGs then the most likely route of a presumed ASE migration would be diverted around the middle east in the general direction of the Caucasus.

Simon_W said...

By the way, the GAC paper also mentions climatic crises and serious decline of farming communities as factors enabling the success of the GAC which has relied on a different economic model with much more on animal husbandry and also on smaller groups, like the Corded Ware.

Grey said...

Simon_W

"Grey, it's tricky"

Sure, I'm oversimplifying it.

If there were three main components: Basal, ANE and ASE, located roughly SW, N and SE then in reality you'd have at least six components to unravel because you'd have mixed populations in the borders between the main components.

So going clockwise you might have
Basal
Basal + ANE
ANE
ANE + ASE
ASE
ASE + Basal

and a possible seventh where all three join who were:

Basal + ANE + ASE

ending up with a situation where almost all the modern pops are a bit of both, hence the possible value in looking at the pops. who are missing one of the three main components and figuring out exactly what that missing component represents e.g. in the Basque's case is their missing component ANE or ASE?

(Further complicated if ASE was originally derived from Basal and ANE was originally derived from ASE possibly with archaic admixture being involved in one or more of those derivations.)

Grey said...

@Mike Thomas

the possibilities (imo)

1) farming crisis -> switch to pastoralism

2) slow weakening of the farmers by a more mobile external pastoralist raiders followed by eventual displacement when the farmers were weakened enough (effectively a guerrilla war)

3) option 1 leads to option 2

My argument is that options (2) or (3) are possible. Your argument seems to be either (a) those options aren't possible or (b) something else happened instead.

I don't have an argument with (b) - something else may well have happened instead.

Although if the farmers were originally ydna G then if they'd switched to pastoralism because of a farming crisis then something must have happened to turn them into ydna R1.

Or a bit of both - one bunch of R1 farmers changed to pastoralism because of a farming crisis and then moved west and squashed the G farmers.

Matt said...

One reason the agricultural loans might not that strong evidence, is that it seems like it might be tough to distinguish between the loans being picked up during a pastoralist IE expansion to Europe vs being picked up from another farming group before expansion to Europe.

Kroonan's line on this is that irregularities in agricultural loanwords groups are greater than if they were borrowed at the same time, but that seems quite hard to test.

I mean, I think they probably were picked up during a pastoralist IE expansion to Europe.

On another tack, there are some other elements of Kroonan's examples seem odd like this, based on my patchy knowledge, to a lesser extent.

Why would we be surprised if early agricultural people didn't have a consistent word for oats? They didn't cultivate them, its a weed to them. Why would we be surprised if TRB's descendants didn't have a word for chickpea? Chickpeas are absent from, and peas only sketchily part of agriculture as they practiced it. Why would carrots, a crop domesticated in Central Asia at some point after the initial agricultural revolution, we think about 3000BC, be shared vocab in a Neolithic proto-Indo European language?

To quote an article on domestication (Domestication of Plants in the Old World The origin and spread of domesticated plants in Southwest Asia, Europe, and the Mediterranean Basin - E Weiss) "secondary crops", including "oat, rye ... turnip, lettuce, carrot, beet, leek and several other vegetables ... seems to have happened rather late, since definite signs of their domestication appear in Europe and west Asia only in the second and first millenia BC".

The same source states hemp, a Chinese or Central Asian plant, reached Anatolia and Europe after the 8th century BC. So why again would it be surprising if the early agriculturalists did not know about it? They were not precognitive farmers. Kroonan is asking too much if he expects them to have the gift of prophecy.

I'm somewhat sus about the idea that agricultural vocabulary can only become lost through a new pastoral people coming into place, not through a shift to pastoralism in the Early European Farmers, which we know took place in North and Central Europe, and that agricultural people could not adopt agricultural words on a large scale after the early Neolithic radiation.

The arguments based on regularity in pastoral and late agricultural terminology would be stronger than arguments based on irregularity in agricultural words, which would not be surprising since the Neolithic was heterogenous over time and place in its use of crops.

Mike Thomas said...

Grey - anything is possible, of course, and I understand what you're saying in temrs of mobile pastoralists exploiting a time of weakness in farming communities. However, I maintain ideas about some 'Drag nach western', hit and run guerilla warfare, etc, are problematically anachronistic.

There is no doubt that there was an extension of pastoral type economy and cultural aspects from the steppe to central Europe, but whether this was due to an east to west invasion of nomads, I doubt it was quite so simple.


Simon W-
"And as for Minoan – I don't think Linear A can really be considered undeciphered. "

Well, Simon, maybe you can enlighten all those specialists linguists who still do not have any consensus as to what which language the script actually represents.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Simon,
There is not much of a migration to the West, nor should there be a lot of ANE. GAC's migration was much more to the East. Especially the Southeast, in the face of advancing pastoralists from the steppes. I am not sure how you see them having a lot of ANE, when the hunters there, including the Narva, descend from the Swiderian. Considering farmers just to the West had basically no ANE, I don't see how they could have more than a minor amount. Probably in the single digits. It certainly will not be that close to the Pitted Ware hunters, who have some roots in the Comb Ceramic/Karelian area.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Matt,
Reich said that we'll have to wait for the paper. He won't comment on anything that I've asked.

Krefter said...

"A much more plausible explanation why present-day Northeast Europeans show the highest genome-wide affinity to Pitted Ware hunter-gatherers, and indeed all European hunter-gatherers for whom we have data, is that their ancestors were amongst the last people in Europe to take up farming and Christianity."

What does Christianity have to do with any of this? Were talking only 2,000-800 years ago, Christianity is a religion not an ethnicity.

You must be trying to give the impression that Balts have been isolated from movements of peoples and ideas into Europe originating in the Mediterranean and near east.

Fanty said...

"Christianity is a religion not an ethnicity."

Isolation by Culture

Possibly its an outdated claim meanwhile, maybe not.

I recall an article in a newspaper 10 or so years ago that claimed... "geneticist found that..." blabla, the most effective barriers of DNA transfer are not mountain ranges or seas, but cultur is.

In a "multicultural" society, people could literaly occupy the very same space, but would not mix, because their cultur is incompatible. And may it be "Punkers" and "Yuppies". Racial identical, but they wont mix sexually.

And so, "Christianity" has something to do with genetics aswell, as one can assume that it blocks or at least hinderes genetical transfere between Christians and Non-Christians, at least at its height.

Krefter said...

"And so, "Christianity" has something to do with genetics aswell, as one can assume that it blocks or at least hinderes genetical transfere between Christians and Non-Christians, at least at its height."

It'd be hard to prove Christianity made any type of genetic impact on Europe. If in 800AD European Christians only mixed with Christians and the same for pagans, it still probably wouldn't have made a big genetic impact, because the pageans and Christians genetically were indistinguishable from each other(if they were of the same ethnicity).

But anyways Balts high amount of Mesolithic-Euro ancestry and low near eastern ancestry, has nothing to do with Christianity. They were among the last Europeans(modern Sami, and other Finno-Urgics aren't Christian) to convert to Christianity simply because they were farthest away from the former Roman empire and its influence zone.

Krefter said...

"In a "multicultural" society, people could literaly occupy the very same space, but would not mix, because their cultur is incompatible. And may it be "Punkers" and "Yuppies". Racial identical, but they wont mix sexually."

That's a very good observation most people ignore. Differing cultures are slow to accept admixture with each other. It's a nativist attitude, and is very common at various levels(school rivalry, etc.)

In grade school were taught America's diversity doesn't(or at least isn't suppose to) have divisions and aren't willingly segregated, as if we were all thrown into America sometime in the past with no background, identity, and cultural differences which could divide us. This is a sugar-coated attempt for kids to make ignorant of divisions.

Davidski said...

Krefter,

Culture, language and religion are often significant barriers to gene flow.

Arch Hades said...

@Simon

Though Eteocretan is written in the Greek alphabet, since there only exists at the moment a very limited number of texts from them, proper classification of Eteocretan has yet happened. And yes there are linguists that have postulated it to be an Indo-European language or related to Indo-European languages...though it seems they are in a minority.


http://books.google.com/books?id=WJbd0m6YaFkC&q=Eeteocretan#v=onepage&q=Interpretation%20of%20the%20texts%20and%20identification%20of%20their%20language&f=false



So we have

Eteocretan - been proposed to be IE, been proposed to be non IE, no certainty.

Etruscan - been proposed to be IE, been proposed to be non IE, no certainty.

Lemnian - been proposed to be IE, been proposed to be non IE, no certainty.


Minoan - undeciphered.



The conclusion is none of these languages can be said to be non IE with full confidence.



I was not talking about Basque or the old Iberian language in my original post. I'm well aware these ancient SW European languages were non IE.

Simon_W said...

@ Mike Thomas

I've explained it before: We have to distinguish between the ability to transliterate a text from an exotic script into a standard phonetic alphabet and the ability to comprehend the language that was written in the exotic script. My point was always that Linear A texts can be fairly well transcribed, not that the language can be translated. I'm not a specialist for Linear A and Minoan, but I did read in a recent exhibition catalogue dealing with Minoan culture that the majority of specialists agrees that Linear A signs can be transcribed using the knowledge on the sound values of the related Linear B signs. The author of the article admitted that not all specialists would agree with this. There is a minority with some sceptic concerns. To me it seems plausible that a transliteration doesn't have to be out of reach, since Linear A and Linear B were not completely different scripts. Linear B was inspired by Linear A. It's like with the different scripts based on a Greek, or originally Phoenician alphabet. However, if Linear A texts can be transliterated and are nonetheless almost completely unintelligible, then Minoan can only be a non-IE language, because otherwise we would surely find some familiar words and structures.

Simon_W said...

@ Arch Hades

Indeed, if a language is attested in only a very small number of epigraphic finds, classification can prove to be difficult. To me it suffices to note that the majority of linguists consider Eteocretan to be non-IE. I know this isn't how scholarship works, but alas I'm not a linguist.
For Minoan see my reply to Mike Thomas.

Etruscan and Lemnian are related to each other beyond doubt, so if one of them is non-IE, the other one is non-IE as well. Splitting the question up into two makes no sense.
Again, look at the Etruscan numerals I posted, compare them to proper IE numerals, e.g.:
http://rjschellen.tripod.com/IENums.htm

Perhaps the Etruscan words for one and for seven might have some similarity to the IE forms, but in true IE languages there is much more similarity in all numbers. The similarities with a few Etruscan numerals reminds me more of the couple of similarities shared between IE and Finnougrian numerals. Perhaps Etrusco-Lemnian and PIE seperated many thousands of years before PIE started to diversify. That's something I wouldn't rule out. But this wouldn't make Etruscan an IE language.

Simon_W said...

Surely Herodotus' account of Etruscan origins in Lydia has led some linguists to look for similarities with IE Anatolian languages. But even if Herodotus' account was true this wouldn't necessarily entail that Etruscan had to be related with IE Lydian, after all Lemnian isn't related with Greek either. And Gascon isn't related with Basque, etc. Neighbouring languages don't have to be related.

Also Alinei has suggested that Etruscan was related with Hungarian. There are all kinds of weird theories out there.

Simon_W said...

Chad,

I don't know how much migration there was of early GAC people to the West. It's all relative and hard to quantify with archeological methods. Remember that some recent archeological papers have denied any large scale migration by Corded Ware groups. The paper by Woidich acknowledges some migration of smaller GAC groups – because GAC was organized in small groups. Seriously how do you want to know that GAC's migration was more to the east and the southeast? Any evidence for that adventurous claim? And why exactly should they migrate towards advancing steppe pastoralists? I would expect the opposite. As for the ANE, we don't know how much ANE the Swiderian HGs had. Might have been similar to KO1, but then again, they were not screened from the east as KO1's ancestors were by the Carpathians. The precursor of the Narva culture, the Kunda culture, had roots in the Swiderian, as you said, but also in the Maglemose, so in rather western HG groups; but both Narva and Kunda culture were located in the eastern Baltic area, I think they may easily have picked up some ANE from relatives of the Karelian HGs. But whatever, the eastern neighbours of the TRB east group were not just the Narva culture, but also, and even to a larger extent, the Comb Ceramic culture aka Pit-Comb Ware, and this must have had plenty of ANE.

Simon_W said...

Where did the Corded Ware actually originate? The latest paper that I have read suggested C14 dating was favouring Poland. Especially Lesser Poland and Kuyavia. Not the Ukraine, and not the Yamnaya culture. In Poland we can see an early Corded Ware that was still in its infancy, where only the so called A-Beaker existed (of all the items typical for the Corded Ware A-horizon). And a beaker with fishbone decoration was found in a very early grave, which occurs also early in other countries with Corded Ware. Apart from that, the early Polish Corded Ware had only local items, like a Globular Amphora of an eastern type, or a beaker showing influence from the Middle-Dnieper group.

Simon_W said...

Presumably the Corded Ware proper formed locally in Poland, but under influence from the east (GAC east group, middle Dnieper group).

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Simon,
Adventurous claim? Look at the map of GAC. It stretches down into Western Ukraine, and NE Romania. Later it has some expansion into the Steppes until 2300 BCE. It's all in that paper. The expansion was way more to the SE than it was to the West.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

As for people crossing to the West, we know that Kemi Oba ended up in Hungary by 3000BCE, so yes, people were going back and forth. The days of some ravaging, blood-thirsty men, slaughtering everyone in their path, are over. It was gradual waves of advances, not some great single movement. Most of it did happen before the Bronze Age, but it was still continuing through the Iron Age.

Simon_W said...

Some interesting stuff from Wikipedia on Etruscan grammar:

Unlike the Indo-European languages, Etruscan noun endings were more agglutinative, with some nouns bearing two or three agglutinated suffixes. For example, where Latin would have distinct nominative plural and dative plural endings, Etruscan would suffix the case ending to a plural marker: Latin nominative singular fili-us, "son", plural fili-i, dative plural fili-is, but Etruscan clan, clen-ar and clen-ar-aśi.] Moreover, Etruscan nouns could bear multiple suffixes from the case paradigm alone: that is, Etruscan exhibitedSuffixaufnahme. Pallottino calls this phenomenon "morphological redetermination", which he defines as "the typical tendency ... to redetermine the syntactical function of the form by the superposition of suffices."] His example is Uni-al-θi, "in the sanctuary of Juno", where -al is a genitive ending and -θi a locative.

No distinction is made between nominative and accusative of nouns. Common nouns use the unmarked root. 

Genitive case:
Pallottino defines two declensions based on whether the genitive ends in -s/-ś or -l. In the -s group are most noun stems ending in a vowel or a consonant: fler/fler-ś, ramtha/ramtha-ś. In the second are names of females ending in i and names of males that end s, th or n: ati/ati-al, Laris/Laris-al, Arnθ/Arnθ-al.

Dative case:
The dative ending is -si: Tita/Tita-si.

Locative case:
The locative ending is -θi: Tarχna/Tarχna-l-θi.

I don't know any IE language that has an -l ending for genitive, a -si ending for dative or a -thi ending for locative.

Simon_W said...

@ Chad

I see, you were referring to the geographical extent of the GAC expansion, yes that was stronger towards the southeast. I had been assuming you were referring to the intensity of the settlement. As for this, we see much more GAC sites in the west than in the southeast. Might be a consequence of unequal intensity of archeological digging, though, I don't know.

As for the ANE expansion into the Carpathian Basin, we know that BR1 and BR2 didn't have particularly high levels of ANE, and that Yamnaya and Kemi Oba input happened way before BR2 and slightly before BR1. From what I've read here, Corded people seem to have had more ANE. But we'll see soon.

Simon_W said...

Craniometric cluster-analyses always show a deep split between EEF groups on the one hand and hunter-gatherer and eastern pastoralist groups on the other hand. Of course that makes perfect sense from the genetic point of view.

However, it has also been repeatedly shown that Corded people from Germany, Poland and the Czech Republic cluster with the EEFs and not with the eastern pastoralist/hunter-gatherer groups. The same holds true for the Fatyanovo group in Russia, which apparently descended from western Corded people.

On the other hand the Corded people from the Baltic countries, the Battle Axe and Boat Axe people are very distinct from the western Corded people and cluster with the eastern pastoralists and hunter-gatherers.

In some way it makes sense, because in the west there was the EEF substrate, while in the Baltic region there was only a hunter-gatherer substrate.

But still it's a bit strange that the big genetic difference between EEF and western Corded people isn't reflected in a big craniometric difference. But in any case this shows that western Corded people were not simply Yamnaya people. The effect of the substrate had measurable consequences. Of course this isn't completely at odds with the ancient DNA evidence: So far we've got y-DNA from five Corded specimens, only three of them were R1a. Likewise mtDNA haplogroups of the earlier farming cultures continued to flourish in the Final Neolithic/EBA.

I think if we want to see concrete immigrants of an eastern, ANE-rich type in the west, we have to turn to the central and eastern GAC people. Cranial remains of GAC people are relatively poorly known, but the facial and cranial breadths of the specimens from the central and eastern GAC groups approach the measurements of Yamnaya people very closely, quite in contrast to the western Corded people. The GAC people of the western group were closer to TRB people, not surprisingly, given the substrate. Also specimens of definite Kurgan type have been found in the eastern GAC group.
Archeologically this isn't completely strange, since e.g. Marija Gimbutas has ascribed a prominent role to the GAC in the dissemination of Kurgan cultural elements westwards. And given the deep cultural entanglement of late GAC and early Corded Ware, and the origin of both cultures in Poland, I tend to regard them as ethnically more or less the same.