search this blog

Thursday, March 7, 2019

A challenge


The datasheets below contain outgroup f3-statistics for a wide range of ancient and present-day populations. Five of the ancient groups and individuals are labeled "Unknown". In fact, I do know what they are, but I'd like you to try and work out whether they were the speakers of Indo-European or non-Indo-European languages by analyzing the datasheets with, say, PAST or nMonte.

f3-stats_language_challenge1.dat

f3-stats_language_challenge2.dat

I'll reveal the identities and likely languages of the mystery ancients in a couple of days. It'll be interesting to see if any of you nail this challenge. It shouldn't be too difficult, but to help things along, I color coded the populations in the datasheets (black = Indo-European, blue = Uralic, and grey = neither). If you haven't done this sort of thing before, these blog posts might be useful as background reading.

Maykop: a multi-ethnic layer cake?

D-stats/nMonte open thread

Update 09/03/2019: Samuel nailed the challenge in the first post below. And then Matt almost figured out the precise identities of the mystery ancients here. In hindsight I should've made this more difficult. Here are the answers:

Unknown1 = England_Anglo-Saxon (Indo-European) > more here
Unknown2 = Levanluhta_IA (non-Indo-European) > more here
Unknown3 = Minoan_Lasithi (non-Indo-European) > more here
Unknown4 = Slavic_Bohemia (Indo-European) > more here
Unknown5 = Turkmenistan_IA (Indo-European) > more here

235 comments:

1 – 200 of 235   Newer›   Newest»
Samuel Andrews said...

Unknown1=Indo European.
Unknown2=Non Indo European
Unknown3=Non Indo European.
Unknown4=Indo European.
Unknown5=Indo European

Ned said...

Apologies for going off-topic but I don't know hoew to leave a generic comment.
I was struck by a comp. phil. paper from Arnauld Fournet on Academia - a draft dated to 2017.
His conclusion is "It is quite clear that PIE had little to no familiarity with either wild or domesticated horses. The vocabulary used in Indo-European languages is massively borrowed from Uralo-Altaic languages, which therefore must have played an active role in domesticating horses, especially Mongolian."
It is clear from what his vocabulary tables that Late Indo-europeans (after the Anatolian group had left) did know about horses however.
The link is https://www.academia.edu/35342372/About_Indo-European_words_for_sheep_goats_and_horses

Andrzejewski said...

@Ned sounds like bullshit to me

ph2ter said...

Unknown2 = Uralic language
Unknown3 = EEF language
Unknown5 = Maybe IE
Unknown1 = IE
Unknown4 = IE

Garvan said...

1. Indo European (Scottish?)
2. Uralic
3. EEF (Sardinian)
4. Slavic
5. Persian

Sofia Aurora said...

It seems like 2019 is not so prolific in genetics and anthropology as the last 5 years were!

What's wrong?
Scientists run out of research?
I mean we are already in the third month of 2019 and nothing big yet!

Ned said...

@ Andrzejewski
It might be however as a lot of work has been done in the past on identifying the Indo-European culture through wordlists it is interesting to note that there are no Indo-European horse-words in Hittite (or none identifiable by Fournet) and that I-E words horse words shared across the other I-E tongues may be borrowings from Altaic or Uralic languages (Fournet seems still to believe in a Ural-Altaic language group).

ph2ter said...

Unknown1 is Celtic-Germanic like.

Unknown2 is Saami like.

Unknown3 is EEF language.

Unknown4 is peculiar combination of Celtic,Slavic and something Uralic.

Unknown5 is probably some combination of Steppe, Caucasus and Central Asian people. The language depends on their prevalent Y-DNA.

Andrzejewski said...

@Ned Hittie split before horses were domesticated. Same goes for Tocharian. Vocabulary rose on the Steppes. Same goes for Pontic Theory proponents like Colarusso and Nichols: PIE words were not loan words from any other languages.

There are theories that some agricultural and horticultural vocabulary was mediated via GAC or CTC in the west but there are not facts yet, only hypotheses.

JuanRivera said...

Tocharian speakers actually knew the horse.

JuanRivera said...

Also, Anatolian speakers too knew the horse. It's recorded in Hittite as 'ekkus', in Luwian as 'azzuwas', and in Lycian as 'esbe', with the catch being that the first one is only attested in sumerogram. Here is more info: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h₁éḱwos

Andrzejewski said...

The Hittite word is a loan from Indo-Iranian.

Ned said...

@JuanRiviera If Hittite 'ekkus' is only recorded as a Sumerogram how on earth can it be reconstructed as 'ekkus'? It cannot. The authors of that wiktionary page are reconstructing without evidence. Too much of that does go on on Wiktionary.

Andrzejewski said...

@JuanRivera Here is an article about Tocharian v. Saka in East Asia: http://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp259_tocharian_origins.pdf

It's amazing how Scythians, Tocharians, Wusun and Yuezhi Indo-Europeans were so extant in East Asia during classical era just as much as the Celts and the Germans in Western Europe were.

Andrzejewski said...

@Ned were do you think PIE originated?

I go with the Steppe.

JuanRivera said...

It can be said that Indo-Europeans were one of the most successful groups in history, if not the most successful.

Lee Albee said...

Ha. You can't determine language by genetics

Samuel Andrews said...

Early Indo Europeans from 4000-1500bc were for sure a incredibly powerful force in Eurasia. Also, it's really hard to measure greatness of a people group. The IEs did not build civilizations. They don't compare to the Egyptians who lasted 2,500 years. They definitely don't compare to the Romans who had the most dominate military & successful ruled most of Europe & Middle East for 500 years.

Them meee said...

Many of us are “Indo-Europeans” in some way or form, whether culturally, linguistically or genetically, or even on an ethnic level. Even the Romans (Latins) were Indo-Europeans, or at least culturally, linguistically and genetically indebted to them on a partial but large level, even if Greek and other influences are accounted for. Same goes for the Persians, Scythians, Greeks, Celts, Russians, Indians, and so on. So, it’s really hard to understate how ridiculous the Indo-Europeans’ impact on the world was.

@Lee Albee

Ha. You can't determine language by genetics

But at the very least we can say we can get a nice idea of where those languages came from. Unless Maykop culturally transmitted PIE to Yamnaya and Sredny Stog, which seems... unlikely.

So sorry anti-steppists, but there is little to deflect the fact that the steppe theory looks more and more likely thanks to data from the Caucasus.

Lee Albee said...

Steppe is definitely the source of spread later.

One cannot, at this point,discount a more southern origin of early PIE. Never will be able to do so by genetics. In fact, with anatolian being an early branch off, and yamnaya showing some level of early farmer, one cannot eliminate an anatolian source. Linguistic and genetic info could be interpreted to point that way.

So maybe a synthesis of both anatolian and kurgan hypotheses is actually in order?

Not that it really matters either way

Davidski said...

@Andrzejewski

You're getting too personal with your theories there.

Please stick to discussing the data.

Andrzejewski said...

@Lee Albee "One cannot, at this point,discount a more southern origin of early PIE. Never will be able to do so by genetics. In fact, with anatolian being an early branch off, and yamnaya showing some level of early farmer, one cannot eliminate an anatolian source. Linguistic and genetic info could be interpreted to point that way.

So maybe a synthesis of both anatolian and kurgan hypotheses is actually in order?"

Colin Renfrew has said it all before...

EEF is from GAC and/or Cucuteni Tripolye; Anatolian came to Turkey via the Balkans, first attested in Anatolia circa 3,800 ybp. Now, as for PIE not being originally from the Steppes, what evidence do you have to corroberate that?

HAUMAVARGĀ said...

If Maykop was culturally more advanced than Yamnaya to the level that it became necessary for Yamnaya culture to change and adapt, then isn't it possible that the Maykop language also was the lingua franca of their time?

And I don't understand why this haplogroup-language connection is considered like it's a certain thing. The most common haplogroup among Kurds is J2 for example but they all speak an Indo-European language. Did women change their language? Most probably no, there are other ways.

Open Genomes said...

Challenge accepted!

Eurogenes Challenge (1) Ward's distance-squared tree

But why just guess languages, when you can guess the samples?

Unknown1 = 17196 Czech Early Bronze Age / I7210 Beaker Czech / I1767 Beaker Britain
Language guess: Proto-Celtic

Unknown2 = JK1970 / DA238 / JK1968 / DA234 Levanluhta Iron Age
Language guess: Proto-Sami

Unknown3 = pretty much any Anatolian / European Neolithic Farmer, but if I had to bet here, I'd say ILK001 / ILK002 / ILK003 Globular Amphora Ukraine. Also of course I4229 / I4247 Beaker Iberia no steppe, I1392 Beaker France no steppe, and I2741 Beaker Hungary no steppe fit here just as well.
Language guess: Does anybody really know what kind of language the Early Neolithic Anatolian / European Farmers spoke?
But if I had to guess here, I'd say Tyrsenian

Unknown4 = I5584 / I5582 Ukraine Eneolithic, but this could also be any of the Kivutkalns Baltic Bronze Age samples and DA171 Baltic Iron Age
Language guess: Proto-Balto-Slavic

Unknown5 = SA6013 Steppe Maykop outlier, or KBD002 / KBD001 Late Kubano Tersk or I1917 Yamnaya Ukraine outlier, or I4243 Hajji Firuz Bronze Age
Language guess: Proto-Indo-Iranian or Proto-Iranian

Samuel Andrews said...

@HAUMAVARGĀ,
"If Maykop was culturally more advanced than Yamnaya to the level that it became necessary for Yamnaya culture to change and adapt, then isn't it possible that the Maykop language also was the lingua franca of their time? "

The thing is Corded Ware is responsible for most of the "Steppe migrations" not Yamnaya. Yamnaya never expanded west of Hungary. Corded Ware is responsible for Bell Beaker Kurgan groups & Andronovo. The common ancestor between Corded Ware & Yamnaya pre-dates Maykop. So, Maykop is too young to be the source of PIE.

Matt said...

@them meee: So, it’s really hard to understate how ridiculous the Indo-Europeans’ impact on the world was.

Hmm... Were the Indo-Europeans important in the sense that EEF, Iranian Neolithic, Levant Neolithic were; that they expanded over a large volume of territory and led to the peoples who came after them? Yes, as much as they get going a bit later and contribute a bit less to the genetics of later people. Are they important in that people widely speak IE today? Yes.

But were they important in cultural ideas that still persist today and have shaped culture and history in ways which in their broad trends would not have happened without them? I'd be Devil's Advocate and say maybe not so much. People who speak IE and their non-IE neighbours seem pretty much alike today (Kurds and Armenian and Turkish people, Basques and Spanish speakers, Hungarians and Slavic speakers, Dravidian and Hindi speakers). Against cultural IE traditions that persist today. Taking the most important determiners of modern culture (things like industrialisation, Greek philosophical thought, Hebrew / Buddhist religion) seem like even when they come from within Indo-European speakers, there's no necessary reason they had to and they are due to deeper economic trends and not any Indo-European culture. If you could take a trip to some parallel world where early IE speakers had been wiped out by some freak event (maybe their small community all got the Black Death?), you might not find it was very different at all apart from the sound of the languages. That's a debate which could run and run of course.

Davidski said...

@HAUMAVARGĀ

If Maykop was culturally more advanced than Yamnaya to the level that it became necessary for Yamnaya culture to change and adapt, then isn't it possible that the Maykop language also was the lingua franca of their time?

A lot of things are possible, but what's actually realistic here?

That Maykop and Steppe Maykop were Indo-European, and now their closest relatives are non-Indo-Europeans who just happen to live in or near former Maykop territory, or extinct populations that didn't pass their genes onto any Indo-Europeans?

Special pleading, no?

And I don't understand why this haplogroup-language connection is considered like it's a certain thing. The most common haplogroup among Kurds is J2 for example but they all speak an Indo-European language. Did women change their language? Most probably no, there are other ways.

This was a male, because he had a Y-chromosome, and it was R1a-Z93, which is also found in Kurds. Who passed on R1z-Z93 to Kurds? Women?

An early Iranian, obviously

Ned said...

@ Andrzejewski
You asked where I thought PIE originated.
I do think from the linguistic, archæological and genetic evidence it is very likely (but unprovable) that Late Indo-European (after Hittite branched off) was spoken on the steppe possibly in what's now Eastern Ukraine.
However I think the jury's still out on where early I-E (Indo-Hittite) was spoken. The profound differences between Hittite and other Indo-European languages cannot be understated. The existence of both R1A and R1B as markers of Indo-European also increases that uncertainty. Genetic information from the native (as opposed to Assyrian) population in Kanesh ca 2,000 BC might help to determine this.
Noting your responses to other commentators: suggesting that Early I-E was spoken south of the Caucasus does not corroberate Renfrew's widely discredited thesis. Renfrew's thesis is that Indo-European spread with the first farmers.

Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...


Delenda Est Yamnaya

During the last 4 years, we have seen how the famous theory of the Kurgans has been defended to the point of exhaustion by a large number of geneticists, archaeologists and linguists. Undoubtedly, it is a very popular theory, especially in America where it seems that everyone is delighted to have their origin in the oriental steppes. But the genetics continues to advance, and the attempt to link certain uniparental or autosomal markers with certain languages ​​and cultures is becoming increasingly difficult.

Gimbutas thought that the two main cultures responsible for the Indo-Europeanization of mainland Europe were Yamnaya and Maykop. Well, genetics has destroyed that possibility because in Central and Western Europe there is no sign of the uniparental markers typical of those cultures. There is no R1b-V1636, nor R1b-Z2013, nor J2a, nor L, nor Q, nor anything like it.

We have to take into account that Yamnaya (3,600-2,300 BC) and Maykop (3,700-2,500 BC) cover a transcendental period to try to know the origin of the Indo-European Language and the hypothetical steppe migrations. I mean,if we dissociate these cultures from the expansion of the Indo-European towards the West, we are destroying the theory of the Kurgans because one of the basic assumptions of this theory was the supposed technological superiority of the horsemen of the steppes (copper weapons, wagons etc.) and the conquest of the decadent cultures of European Neolithic farmers.

It is fun to see how the Kurgan's theory adapts as the genetics progresses, because now the CWC has become the last trench of the Kurganists to try to demonstrate the expansion of R1b by Western Europe which is what Sam Andrews just mentioned.

This theory is very respectable, and it may even be true, but at the moment it has two serious problems.

1- If Repin, Yamnaya, Catacomb, Maykop did not go directly to Central Europe, which steppe culture is responsible for the migrations? - Because in any case I suppose you will agree with me that it has to be a culture of the IV Millennium BC.

2.- The CWC is a culture with many regional variations, some of them belonging to the Stone Age due to the absolute absence of metallic objects in their settlements and burials. In addition, its oldest deposits are dated at 2,900 BC and it is mostly R1a, then, is it possible that it is responsible for extending R1b through Western Europe?

3 - If these answers were coherent, the explanation of the expansion of the IE would also be, meanwhile everything is speculation, and obviously being Maykop a technologically superior culture to Yamnaya, the logical thing is that the cultural influences were from the Caucasus to the steppes and never the other way around.


HAUMAVARGĀ said...

@Davidski

This was a male, because he had a Y-chromosome, and it was R1a-Z93, which is also found in Kurds. Who passed on R1z-Z93 to Kurds? Women?

I didn't mention Kurds to show that they speak Indo-European although they're not from the steppe. They have steppe admixture and I recognize the steppe as the source of late PIE. My intention was to show that there's no such a certain relationship between haplogroup and language. The most dominant Y haplogroup isn't R1a among Kurds but still they speak an Indo-European language, so it's possible for people to change their language based on effects other than male dominance. Although I see the steppe as the source of the late PIE, I'm not sure about the early PIE or so-called "Indo-Hittite".

And as you had mentioned before, Maykop could be the source of several language families.

zardos said...

For that to happen Maykop had to colonise the steppe like Romans did it in Gaul and Thracia. Even then it didnt work all the time like in Basques, Britons and Albanians.

Maykop instead tried to colonise the steppe, failed, called allied tribals from the East for dealing with their enemies on the steppe.
They equipped their allies and controlled the Southern steppe indirectly.
When their system failed their allies were finished off by people which were almost certainly early IE.
You can make a language shift with a male elite minority, especially in later times, among sedentary people and states.
But the idea of a Southern lingua franca being overtaken by the patriarchal steppe warriors, take from their enemies which annihilated some of their related tribals and seem to have been hostilities for generations, no way!
Their was technological transfer primarily and I doubt it was wanted.
Hittites tried to keep their iron a secret too, it just didnt work on the long run.

HAUMAVARGĀ said...

Ottomans and Persians were enemies, but still Persian was kind of a lingua franca in Ottoman Empire.

Davidski said...

@HAUMAVARGĀ

The most dominant Y haplogroup isn't R1a among Kurds but still they speak an Indo-European language, so it's possible for people to change their language based on effects other than male dominance.

You fail to see the important difference between Kurds and Yamnaya in this context.

Kurds do carry male lineages from the Bronze Age steppe, so it's totally fine for us to posit that they acquired their language from the steppe via male dominance.

On the other hand, neither Yamnaya, Corded Ware, eastern Beakers nor any other closely related population show any male lineages that can be associated with Maykop.

Zip. Nothing.

zardos said...

Thats a completely different context, but even then: How often did the common people adopt a lingua franca as their mother tongue without being ruled by a foreign elite?
In all of human history!
And there is no worse scenario for that to happen then on the steppe.
That the PIE did know that language? Yes.
Did they adopt some words? Probably.
Language transfer? Impossible.

Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...


@Haumavarga "My intention was to show that there's no such a certain relationship between haplogroup and language"

That is as true as the earth revolves around the sun, because from the mesolithic the migrations are frequent throughout Europe and there is no culture that is homogeneous enough to be able to link a haplogroup or an autosomal signal with a certain language. It is fun to speculate and talk about different possibilities, there are even people who link the CHG with the Indo-European language. An exception could be the CWC (R1a), but it even has I2a. You have to avoid simplistic explanations because they do not help solve the problem. At least in Western Europe (France, Italy and Spain), the expansion of the Indo-European can be considered a true failure until the Celtic and Latin appeared.

How can we explain this if these regions are mostly R1b-P312 (including northern Italy)?

Why the R1b-P312 of southern France and Iberia stopped talking PIE to adopt non-Indo-European languages? Is there any logical explanation?

Many Spanish and Portuguese geneticists say that the famous steppe signal is only clearly visible in the Iberian Bronze Age (2,000-1,000 BC), the Indo-European languages ​​(Lusitanian and Celtiberian) may have entered France and Spain at later times than everyone thinks.




Vara said...

@Saka Haumavarga

You bring up a very important point often overlooked. The lingua franca of the Caucasus for most of it's recorded history has been Indo-European. During the Iron Age it was some sort of Indo-Iranian (Cimmerian), in the Classical era they spoke Alanian, from the 6th century till the rise of Imam Shamil it was Persian and now it's Russian. So, the idea of that no-IE language was spoken in the Caucasus that is being pushed around in the blogosphere is absolute bullocks.

@zardos

"For that to happen Maykop had to colonise the steppe like Romans did it in Gaul and Thracia. Even then it didnt work all the time like in Basques, Britons and Albanians."

There were many Arabs who weren't colonised by Romans or Persians that followed the religions and cultures of those 2 empires. That often happens when you have an advanced neighbor.

I'm not sure where you came up with the rest but cool story. You can write a fantasy-historical novel.

Davidski said...

@Vara

During the Iron Age it was some sort of Indo-Iranian (Cimmerian), in the Classical era they spoke Alanian, from the 6th century till the rise of Imam Shamil it was Persian and now it's Russian. So, the idea of that no-IE language was spoken in the Caucasus that is being pushed around in the blogosphere is absolute bullocks.

All ultimately from the steppe.

LOL

HAUMAVARGĀ said...

@Davidski

OK, I see your point although I'm still not sure about the early PIE. What's your explanation for some Semitic-derived words like tauros for example? Isn't it possible that the early PIE speakers were neighbours to Semitic and Kartvelian speakers and the contact with Uralic languages is a later one.

zardos said...

@Vara: The Arabs adopted portions of those advanced culture, but they didnt changed fundamental, certainly not their language.
Arabs changed the most in the urban context at that time and the least among the pastoralist tribals. Bedouins being the best comparison for sure.

As for my interpretation of events and steppe Maykop: It has to be somewhat speculative, since we lack some data to fill the gaps, but roughly, thats just what happened looking at the archaeological and genetic record we have so far.
See any incongruencies?

Davidski said...

@HAUMAVARGĀ

The significance of the influence of Semitic on Indo-European is often exaggerated. For instance, there's actually no evidence that the Indo-European word for bull was borrowed from Semitic at the Proto-Indo-European stage, rather than much later from some geographically intermediate language family in the Caucasus.

zardos said...

"Steppe Maykop" being the result of an intrusive, diverse group of primarily male warriors, certainly from further East, conquering the Piedmont steppe, taking local women and killing or displacing the local steppe males, which were related to those further North.
Those steppe Maykop people which emerged in the aftermath of these events got sophisticated processed material goods which came from Maykop proper. There seem to have been a symbiotic economic, political, and cultural relationship between these two. To assume a relationship and Allianzen from the start is just likely and would have made the migration and conquest for the newcomers easier. Troubles of advanced sedentary people with neighbouring warlike pastoralist people is the rule and no exception. Maykop needed a buffer zone and natural resources. They got it via steppe Maykop as allies.
These steppe Maykop people got finally overrun by their Northern neighbours and were annihilated. That was the end of Maykop cultural influence on the steppe. To assume a bitter rivalry after those events is just a necessity.

Since you mentioned Arabs: Yea, they adopted cultural elements from Greeks, Romans and Persians, but may I ask you:
Which religion and language rules the Near East?
Sumerians inluenced Semitic states, Etruscans were there to given birth to Rome, but this didnt change the language of the dominant group.

epoch said...

@HAUMAVARGA

"What's your explanation for some Semitic-derived words like tauros for example? Isn't it possible that the early PIE speakers were neighbours to Semitic and Kartvelian speakers and the contact with Uralic languages is a later one."

In the case of tauros, there is also a version with an "s" (See english "steer" for bull) which might point to an intermediate language.

From what I've heard a lot of possible cognates between PIE and Proto-Semitic won't substantiate under scrutiny. But even if we allow for a most liberal interpretation we come up with some numbers, a special type of axe, donkeys, a word for paying.

Considering that Middle-Eastern long distance caravans those days were using donkeys I'd say they would point to exactly that: long distance trade relations.

The possible cognates between PU and PIE on the other hand are words like "water", "knee", about half of all the pronouns and so on.

Mouthful said...

As Davidski said some of these Semitic influences are overplayed as Agamemnon on Anthrogenica noticed.

https://postimg.cc/XZvmvJXz

Here's an image since I don't want to copy wall of text.


Dragos said...

@ Zardos
There’s no doubt there was conflict in these militarised frontiers; however I’m not sure absolutes would capture the entire character of interactions .

Ric Hern said...

At the end of the day it was much harder to colonize migratory people as King Darius found out when he tried to conquer the Scythians in Eastern Europe...

Ric Hern said...

And the Persians certainly had superior technology compared to the Scythians....

zardos said...

Even the Russians had a hard time in modern times despite having a lot of advantages ancient people never had. Before modern guns and logistics, the only hope to make it on the steppe was to have steppe allies.
Maykop got none in Southern Russia, so they called some from further East.
Thats the only parsimonious explanation.
Dont underestimate the diplomatic and organizational capabilities of Bronze Age people, just because we lack written documents.
And that the Eastern males took the steppe peacefully and cleansed it from the indigenous males with friendliness can be just a bad joke.

Grey said...

HAUMAVARGĀ said...
"What's your explanation for some Semitic-derived words like tauros for example? Isn't it possible that the early PIE speakers were neighbours to Semitic and Kartvelian speakers and the contact with Uralic languages is a later one."

traders?

iirc Maykop was particularly wealthy and if they weren't conquering and raiding then i assume it was from trade? are the possibly Semitic words trade related?

(if it is Semitic could the Bull word be connected to a religion?)

Grey said...

Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...

"if we dissociate these cultures from the expansion of the Indo-European towards the West, we are destroying the theory of the Kurgans because one of the basic assumptions of this theory was the supposed technological superiority of the horsemen of the steppes..."

no doubt it's often been couched in terms of superiority but i think people often mix up tactical superiority with strategic/operational superiority i.e. superior mobility allows an attacker to hit and run - it's always been hard for sedentary populations to defend against that.

Ric Hern said...

@ Grey

Yes I agree. The other thing is. The other thing is productivity. If one group churned out 100 Flintblades for spears in the same time as another group produce 10 Bronze tip spears, which one of these groups will have Military superiority ?

Mouthful said...

@Ric Hern

"If one group churned out 100 Flintblades for spears in the same time as another group produce 10 Bronze tip spears, which one of these groups will have Military superiority ?"

While technology and productivity gap in establishing military superiority is important, but tactics and choosing the right battlefield site is as much important, see for example Northern Crusades, when they first showed up in Lithuania, Crusaders were technologically miles ahead compared to natives, they had crossbows, better siege weapons, were better armored, had stone castles, etc, had financial backing of HRE and had seasonal knights coming over all Western Europe for campaigning. But if they were drawn out unfavorable terrain like swampy, marshy areas it would for example render their heavy cavalry useless and would often end in their defeat, and it wouldn't take long to reverse engineer their technologies with our without their help, like crossbows for example.

Lee Albee said...

@Andrzejewski
"Colin Renfrew has said it all before...

EEF is from GAC and/or Cucuteni Tripolye; Anatolian came to Turkey via the Balkans, first attested in Anatolia circa 3,800 ybp. Now, as for PIE not being originally from the Steppes, what evidence do you have to corroberate that?"

Yes, Sir Colin Renfrew does and did believe in an early origin of IE FROM mondern day Turkey. because the Depth of age estimated for the Divergance of Anatolian from other PIE languages. Not a linguist so I am not going to argue that. It is obviously not a settled argument in the field as to origin of PIE or the role of Anatolian languages--or age etcc...

Anatolian via the Balkans? The is one hypothesis-not a established fact. Anatolian, by linguistic dating is estimated to be much older than 3800 years old. When and where it was first spoken in non-verifiable.

EEF is derived from Anatolian farmers expanding into central europe during the neolithic. With some mixing with local hunter gathers. A proximate source of Farmer ancestry via a stepwise migration from Anatolia through GAC and/or Cucuteni Tripolye and into Steppe, does not disprove an Anatolian origin of PIE. Nor are GAC and/or Cucuteni Tripolye definitevly the populations that brought farmer ancestry to the Steppe. Balkans, Anatolia, and caucasus show some pretty structured population genetics in the Paleolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic. Further the population genetics of the Northern coast line of black sea is unknown. Underwater Archeology has shown numerous possible neolithic settlements in the Sea of Azov--so who knows what those populations looked like.


As far as PIE not coming from the Steppe? The burden of science is for you to prove your hypothesis in face of criticism. I fully acknowledge that IE languages probably did spread during the bronze age via Steppe people. Where PIE originated is less certain. It is not beyond reason to speculate that the bronze age IE languages-replaced and or merged with earlier IE languages that had spread during the neolithic in Europe.

The science is just not there yet to firmly establish where PIE originated. Genetics can't answer it, lingusitics has not answered it, archeology has not answered it. IF only those early PIE people had been literate and left some evidence.

Lee

Andrzejewski said...

@Lee Albee If anything then PIE originated by ANE population close to Yeniseian, Botai or Kamatchadal, and the R1a, R1b and some Q1a proved that PIE originated in Eastern HG populations via male lines. Moreover, some resemblance between Chukchi-Kamchadal and PIE lends more credence to the theory. However, until I see any tangible link to any other language macro-family, ancient or modern, I would still resign to my theory that PIE was a dialect continuum of some Language Isolate which was born sometime after the LGM on the Pontic-Caspian Steppe.

Another thing to consider: I'm not sure if PIE came with CHG or EHG components but it may just rose independently of these two branches.

Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...

@grey "no doubt it's often been couched in terms of superiority but i think people often mix up tactical superiority with strategic/operational superiority i.e. superior mobility allows an attacker to hit and run - it's always been hard for sedentary populations to defend against that"

We can all agree on military tactics, superior technology, demographic superiority, better adaptation to the environment etc..are determining factors when deciding a warlike conflict. The problem is that most people interpret history and even prehistory with 21st century military criteria. Everyone talks blithely of conquests, abductions of women, murders (no doubt thanks to the influence of the semi-epic stories of some geneticists). However, when archaeologists discover deposits none of those interpretations appear.

Sometimes there are signs of violence (arrows in the back, blows to the head), but this happens very rarely. What is found in the burials are small family groups with a chilling percentage of infant mortality, an average age of death close to 25-30 years, and a very small percentage of elderly people. Everyone should visit an archaeological site to understand what I am saying. People who suffered a lot to survive, who lost their children when they were very young, women who died during childbirth, and that they were carefully buried by their loved ones with the few valuables they had (a few buttons of ivory, a small copper dagger, necklaces with variscite beads, some ceramic vessels).The relatives sat around the deceased, prayed to the sun god, drank some beer, mead or cider and still struggled to survive.

Then, we are not talking about wars or conquests, there are no signs of destruction in the vast majority of European sites, there is only the trace left by these people when they died. And this applies to the vast majority of Neolithic and Chalcolithic cultures throughout Europe. Now we interpret everything from a warlike and violent point of view, but history is not written like that. It is written thinking that in spite of the few available resources, they built great stone monuments, they were great sailors, traveled constantly, and perhaps exchanged their women where and with whom they could.

I think they do not deserve such a simplistic view of their history.

Mouthful said...

@Diego

"Sometimes there are signs of violence (arrows in the back, blows to the head), but this happens very rarely. What is found in the burials are small family groups with a chilling percentage of infant mortality, an average age of death close to 25-30 years, and a very small percentage of elderly people."

That's because battle sites if they're were not "sieges"(I use it in broad sense as siege warfare didn't really exist that far then, or it if did certainly not in Europe) or something similar, are not usually found, dead warriors in most cases weren't brought from battlefield and buried in kurgans or by whatever burial traditions they were usually buried, they winning side would likely just loot useful equipment and leave the corpses to rot. Most of these archaeological sites that we know of are usually are indicative of some historical activity like kurgans, hillforts, traces of settlements and etc. Take for example Tollense battle site, by it's sheer size of combatants it was likely largest battle in terms of scale at the time, but the site isn't really remarkable in any way, that would draw attention from archaeologists, it's a marshy area, there's no traces of settlement or pottery found near it it was discovered by accident by some conservationist, if you go back even further in time the scale was much smaller and thus finding evidence of battles and violence becomes even lower.

Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...


@Lee

I think that trying to locate the place of origin of PIE, IE or any other language is a task practically impossible. Linguists can try to reconstruct part of that language with the Indo-European languages ​​that we know, but be able to tell where, how and who spoke for the first time Indo-European, is an impossible mission. Of course the steppes are the first candidate because it is at the center of the expansion towards the west and east, but I think that any hypothesis should not be ruled out, however absurd it may seem. Why can not IE originate in the South Caucasus or in Anatolia? Because there was no R1b during the Neolithic and the Chalcolithic? Is it that only R1b spoke PIE? There is someone who can tell us what mitochondrial haplogroups spoke it ?.

I already know that there are some people who are even able to relate a language with an autosomal sign, So if it is related to the CHG, it is obvious that the origin is in the Caucasus, right? Or maybe taking into account that EHG has a percentage of WHG, it may be that the origin of PIE is in Western hunter-gatherers.

One thing is to have imagination and another to relate a language with an autosomal component or even a uniparental marker,that is called surrealism

Ric Hern said...

@ Mouthful

Yes, Grey spoke around the same lines as you and I agreed. I just mentioned other possibilities that could have given a Not so technological advanced culture a edge over a technological advanced culture....

Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...

@Mouthful

The battle of Tollense is from the 13th century BC, that is, the Bronze Age.

The Neolithic and the Chalcolithic are totally different times, nobody says that there were no episodes of violence (robbery or harvest, murders), because human nature is violent, however large-scale confrontations require a technology that was not reached until the a- Btonze Age when we were able to manufacture tools and stronger and destructive weapons. Copper even in alloy with arsenic is not strong enough to make swords and is not abundant and accessible enough to use it for military purposes. There are large regions of Europe such as the British islands, northern France and the Netherlands where it was introduced thanks to the BBs, so the fighting could never be great. In addition, the large chalcolithic villages of southern Europe were never destroyed or burned, they were simply abandoned after exhausting natural resources.

Mouthful said...

@Diego

"The Neolithic and the Chalcolithic are totally different times, nobody says that there were no episodes of violence (robbery or harvest, murders), because human nature is violent, however large-scale confrontations require a technology that was not reached until the a- Btonze Age when we were able to manufacture tools and stronger and destructive weapons. "


Yes, but while in Tollense battle site which is as late as 13th century BC there's proof of bronze use, bronze arrowheads for example, but there were also flint arrowheads and wooden clubs found, you don't have have to be very technologically advanced to carry out deadly attacks and as I emphasized earlier it was likely on much smaller scale, so finding these sites is extremely difficult. Just my theory for example how it could have happened, imagine some farming community settlement say has a population of like 300 people, lets discount kids and women who likely wouldn't be combatants and get you get like 100~ more or less combatants, and they get a hold of information trough their neighbors or some "scouts", they see some hostile or unknown group of lets say 200-250 males as of early IE's roaming somewhere around their territory.( IE migration was heavily male based like see Familial migration of the Neolithic contrasts massive male migration during Bronze Age in Europe inferred from ancient X chromosomes), they go out to confront them get beaten up and thrown into some ditch or their corpses are let to rot, then move onto their settlement take their women and move out, as they were quite mobile groups.

Lee Albee said...

@Andrzejewski said...
"@Lee Albee If anything then PIE originated by ANE population close to Yeniseian, Botai or Kamatchadal, and the R1a, R1b and some Q1a proved that PIE originated in Eastern HG populations via male lines. Moreover, some resemblance between Chukchi-Kamchadal and PIE lends more credence to the theory. However, until I see any tangible link to any other language macro-family, ancient or modern, I would still resign to my theory that PIE was a dialect continuum of some Language Isolate which was born sometime after the LGM on the Pontic-Caspian Steppe.

Another thing to consider: I'm not sure if PIE came with CHG or EHG components but it may just rose independently of these two branches.

First you need to seperate the genetics from the linguistics. They may or may not be associated. Prior to written languages there is no sure way to know for certain. The further in the past you go the more uncertain any language association and population association is going to become and more and more uncertain until you hit near pure guesswork.

So relax, this should be fun to speculate. But becoming wedded to any particular hypothesis is foolish. The genetics are relatively less murky now than in the past. But still remember-we are only talking what ~2000 genomes over a 40,000 year time span. These genetic inferences are based on really small sample sets--even the genetic data could get overturned as sampling increases in depth.

zardos said...

@Diegeo: If a corpse was buried carefully by the relatives of the deceased, chances for archaeological survival are much higher than in the case of a massacre. Especially if mobile forces eliminated males and took with them some of the females, what do you think will be left? Even if there you see a burned horizon in the ground and destruction of buildings, when you can be almost certain a settlement was annihilated, you often find little to now physical remains of killed people.
Something like Tollense valley being a true exception and guess what, before Tollense people talked about Bronze Age warfare as if it was about small bands of individual fighters grabbing a cow. Who could believe that? Now we have the proof for huge battles with big armies and varied weaponry taken place in that region and era.

If you look at the genetic record and archaeological horizon and detect a huge change, what do you think did happen? Such changes, especially if the majority of local males was replaced, could never ever happen in a peaceful way, never! That is impossible!
In some rare instances it might have sufficed to threaten a people or excel power without mass killings, but that was reserved for later times for the most part and even then violence was usually necessary. Genocidal actions among tribal people are a completely normal thing. Before peasants were viewed as a resource for the conqueror and slavery was institutionalised on a big scale, what do you think was done with hostile males?
Give them a nice place to live while you take their land, their herd and their women? Surely not! They were a threat and additional eater, nothing else. Being merciful is at times a luxury you have to afford. Especially in times you constantly see people dying, including your own brothers, sisters and children, life was for sure not valued more than today. Even on the contrary. Life was lived for the moment and for achieving something in the short time span you got.

As for the average life expectancy: Thats a common misconception, because you have mortality peaks for the youngest and the young adults in traditional societies. Because of child mortality, war for males and pregnancies for females. If people survived these peaks, they had a good chance of getting older, just not as old as today on average.
But from all we know young adult males were particularly prone to die young, but why? Mainly because of war!

I also want to add something to farmers against herder warfare: The herder can take his food with him, can move and hide it. The sedentary crop farmer on the other hand not. The grainfield can be burned, the granary destroyed or its content easily stolen. Simple put, the farmer was weakened or dead after just one defeat, or probably even one surprise attack, raid. The pastoralist could move forward and backward as long as he suffered no decisive defeat. Thats a huge, a very big advantage even if talking about otherwise equal forces. Yamnaya with its wagons took that to a new level, with whole tribes being on the move with sufficient resources and high mobility.

Ric Hern said...

@ Lee Albee

So how did Indo-European reach India ? Is there absolutely no correlation between R1a in India and Indo-European ?

Matt said...

@Diego: "however large-scale confrontations require a technology that was not reached until the Btonze Age when we were able to manufacture tools and stronger and destructive weapons."

Taken literally that suggests both that the Aztecs and other Mesoamerican and Andean societies did not commit mass violence (and the same for pre-Columbian societies across the Americas at a smaller scale). This all seems pretty much unsupportable, really, and contradicted by the anthropological record. (Bronze / ferrous metallurgy was not a pre-requisite for large scale mass warfare).

@Grey, yes, Maykop was wealthy because of trade, it's roughly described a phenomenon were societies from Caucasus and south expanded into the steppes north of Caucasus, but only specific sites, for mining purposes, to feed into trade networks around Lake Urmia to the south.

They seem to have been involved with trade with cultures like Repin and the Don steppe where Yamnaya ultimately came from, as well as whoever the Steppe Maykop were. They didn't just interact with pre-Yamnaya cultures through being targets of warfare and raiding, or needing to defend themselves against it.

When the markets for metal that they were linked to seemed to collapse, the Maykop phenomenon ended (because no reason for them to otherwise live in the steppe, which was not a very hospitable environment for their ways of life).

This is all in David Anthony's text, and it's very approachable and easy to read.

Open Genomes said...

@David

I think this f3-stats model seems to be working pretty well.
I'd like to propose an "f3-based" calculator, where you could chose say 100 or so worldwide ancient individual samples (supplemented with modern individuals for populations not represented by ancient DNA, like the Irula for AASI). We already have the Jomon, Lapita, and Han Chinese (DA43 and DA45) ancient samples, so many ancient populations are actually covered. These individuals would have to be selected based on a cluster analysis from Global25, and not based on "populations".

You could then run the f3-stats on all 5000 or so Global25 ancient and modern samples to produce an f3 matrix. This could then be used to produce a cluster-based tree, and also nMonte runs. As I run nMonte now, the samples in the same cluster that an individual belongs to are excluded. This would also work well with the periodization that excludes more recent samples going further back in time.

This would be like a "Global100" (or even more, a "Global500") on all 1200k autosomal SNPs without the SNP selection bias that a "calculator" has. Missing SNPs would automatically be compensated for. This should produce more refined results than a calculator like Global25, and would accurately reflect formal statistics, so there would be no need to check the results against formal statistics like what is done now.

A restricted nMonte like what is done now would compensate for overfitting.

What we have here is basically a K=51, focused on West Eurasia and adjacent regions, but my rough guess is that at least double the number would work for a full Global f3 matrix. K51 here ran rather quickly, and even if each nMonte run took double the amount of time (about say 10 minutes) it would be worth it.

How about it?

Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...


@zardos said "If you look at the genetic record and archaeological horizon and detect a huge change, what do you think did happen? Such changes, especially if the majority of local males was replaced, could never ever happen in a peaceful way, never! That is impossible!"

1- In the archaeological record of Chalcolithic western Europe no huge changes are detected, neither archaeological nor genetic. The large Spanish Chalcolithic settlements (some 60 hectares in length), had populations up to 2,000-3,000 people and all of them remained uninterruptedly inhabited from 3,200-2,200 BC (4.2-kiloyear BP aridification event). No destructions, no massacres or anything like that, simply a climate change is enough to explain a great archaeological change.

2- In the vast majority of BB sites (in Spain there are thousands), BB pottery appears without significant differences in the rest of social behaviors (eating habits, tools, crops, grave goods, buildings, walls)

3-To establish theories about massacres, the first thing that must be taken into account is the demography of mainland Europe. The experts estimate 1-2 million inhabitants for the chalcolithic. Do you think that the nomadic shepherds of the steppes could conquer such a large and intensely populated territory? No way.

4- There are many ways in which male lineages become majority without resorting to massacres. For example, the experts talk about the tendency of men R1b to have male children in contrast to other lineages.A greater reproductive success is sufficient to explain a replacement of male lineages. Therefore the change was not abrupt but gradual, it was not a matter of months or years, but of hundreds and thousands of years.

@Matt

You are right- "Taken literally". Obviously weapons of "mass destruction", such as bronze swords or iron halberds, are not necessary to produce great massacres, and certainly the pre-Columbian American societies were especially violent and bloodthirsty and they only had stone axes and arrows. However, in Europe archaeologists do not find that violence in the Neolithic or Chalcolithic sites, they may have been violent on a small scale, that is why, when trade and agriculture provided an excess of wealth and food, walls and defensive bastions were built. From the year 3,200 BC many settlements are walled to protect the wealth of the community, but I repeat none of those great fortified cities was razed, destroyed or plundered.

JuanRivera said...

Nomadic steppe herders conquered Iran and the Indian Subcontinent, which are much more populated than Southern Europe. Also, changes in autosomal DNA (to say the least) can be seen in both Southern Europe (including Iberia) and South Asia in the Bronze Age, where steppe was absent before.

JuanRivera said...

Also, given that Southern Asia is way more populated than anywhere in Europe and R1a was absent there before the Bronze Age, one can reasonably imagine that the same Y-DNA replacement took place in Europe.

JuanRivera said...

In respect for R1b(xV88).

Matt said...

With the expectation of not being correct in every respect... using correspondence analysis and sheet 2 as the most simple method:

https://imgur.com/a/sv0WPgI

I'd guess:

Unknown 2 is probably Levanlutha main cluster as per Open Genomes. Seems to have much to do with Saami and to a lesser extent Baltic people and has some North Asian shift, not as much as Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov. So not IE. (I thought Chalmny-Varre, but that seems too close to the present day pops if I'm thinking of the right ones).

Unknown 1 and Unknown 4 are probably some kind of Northern European LNBA like population so probably, conventionally considered to most likely be IE speaking. 4 shows some kind of Baltic BA shift thing, so maybe so proto-Slavic related thing (Czech Bohemia early Slavic / Hungary BA?).

Unknown 3 I'd guess is Minoan; seems shifted towards CHG and not much additional HG. So that's a no again.

Unknown 5 I don't know about, perhaps a Sarmatian or some other kind of conventionally considered early Iranian thing or something like this. (If so, then conventionally IE).

Various other graphics: https://imgur.com/a/Z2yzEb2

@Diego, talking about the archaeology is one thing and yes many have the same read of that as you do. Whether it's correct I can't say. Just wanted to clear up the point about any need for particular materials vs social framework etc.

Matt said...

For more in depth on Unknown3. Here's a quick example, using datasheet 2, PCA method and Unknown3, Barcin_N, Iberia_Chl, GAC_Poland, WHG and Iron_Gates as column variables:

1: https://imgur.com/a/u6w5VYD - After PC1 which shows the general correlation between all columns, PC2 shows negative correlation emerges between on the one hand BarcinN, CHG, Unknown3 and on the other WHG and Iron_Gates. Importantly, GAC and Iberia_Chl are exactly intermediate and to the same degree, suggesting this dimension simply captures extra HG ancestry in MN Europeans. Unknown3 doesn't appear to have any of this.

2: https://imgur.com/a/p6H5qP8 - Next PC3 shows a dimension with CHG on one end and Barcin/Iberia_CHL on the other, and WHG and Iron_Gates roughly neutral. On this, Unknown3 is intermediate Barcin and CHG, suggesting that even though it does not have Euro HG input, it has CHG related input.

3: https://imgur.com/a/7fB47Nb - PC4 then shows a contrast between Iberia_Chl, GAC_Poland, CHG and WHG on one end, and Barcin_N, Iron_Gates_HG and especially Unknown3 on the other end. This is kind of hard to interpret in ancient components, but when you consider that West European rows load towards the Iberia+GAC+WHG end and East European to Barcin+Iron_Gates+Unknown3, this seems to be pointing towards a stronger ancestral relationship of Unknown3 to Eastern Europe.

All together this suggests Minoan or another Balkan group with CHG but minimal or no WHG and no Steppe ancestry.

Correspondence analysis shows a similar thing; first Unknown3 between BarcinN and Darkveti_Meshoko in Axis1+Axis2, then a specific position away from Iberia_Chl in Axis3: https://imgur.com/a/RBdyUNL

Davidski said...

@Open Genomes

Creating and then especially maintaining such a complex f3 matrix would be a big job, much bigger than running and maintaining the Global25 datasheets. I'll think about it.

Davidski said...

@All

I posted the answers in the update.

Open Genomes said...

@David, thank you.

It all depends on how many "ancient control" samples (or modern substitutes for basal populations) you need.

A problem of course arises when new ancient samples come online for critically important Mesolithic and Neolithic population isolates (e.g. India and China) so that modern substitutes have to be swapped out. The Mbuti and Irula would be good substitutes for missing high coverage ancient basal population isolate samples.

I do however think that it would be very much worth it. This would make what you're doing here fully compatible with the results from published studies, and also more complete because you'd be using a much larger set of worldwide control samples, your tables could serve as a reference for the authors of studies. It would make it much more effective in proving to these authors that certain individuals were outliers that they didn't catch, because the formal stats methodology you're using would be the same as theirs. I'm sure Nick Patterson would appreciate it.

Also, as I said, this should eliminate the need for creating "substitute" SNPs for some SNP arrays when the entire 1200K set would be used, regardless of the missing data.

It also wouldn't be hard to update the columns of the matrix with new samples, or swap out some for others, because all that would have to be updated would be the f3-stats for the new control samples (columns). The other values would remain the same, unlike for a new calculator.

Davidski said...

@Open Genomes

One of the problems is that marker and sample counts do affect the outcomes of f3-stats (to be sure of results it helps to have more than three individuals per pop and at least 200K overlapping SNPs).

I just had a brief discussion with Matt about that here...

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/03/maykop-multi-ethnic-layer-cake.html?showComment=1551988473131#c4049244033519789687

JuanRivera said...

Did some modelling on MA1 and AG3, it seems like their ENA ancestry was Onge-like, judging by models with simulated AASI and Vietnamese (who are part-Hoabinhian, which in turn is Onge-like). Strange is that the simulated AASI populations (especially Simulated_AASI_NW) displace completely any other ENA populations included in the models of ANE, even Tianyuan. Still, modeling ANE with nMonte gives amazingly low fits (21 at best, hinting at their extremely high drift), whose proportions and components are in complete contradiction with actual studies. As such, I think it's an artifact of nMonte trying to model such highly drifted populations. F3-stats and Yana RHS are needed to find the actual type and proportion of ENA in ANS-ANE.

JuanRivera said...

It's something with nMonte, not my proposition.

Matt said...

@Davidski: Ah, didn't see that. Re; other post it looks like adding more samples may have tamed some noise there, so that's a positive. There's still a bit of a small Swedish WHG enrichment, but this could be a real thing. Appreciate that it's not possible to always get large sample sizes for all populations, so I'm not going to chase after every population that's even slightly outlying in any dimension ;).

Yeah, totally I find noise from low sample size and marker overlap does become more of an issue the finer distinctions between f3 columns we try and make - e.g. like above I can get a fair signal out Barcin, Euro HG and MN Farmers, suggesting more direct contribution of MN farmers along a cline today from Iberia, but within that finer distinctions you tend to get noise. So on some dimension splitting GAC_Poland vs Iberia_CHL (after dimensions accounting for specific WHG vs Iron Gates signal, and specific MN vs Barcin+HG signal) you'll get also random Asian samples with low sample number scoring heavily on one end or another of a specific GAC_P v I_C signal, without much plausible reason why, because the noise is so prominent relative to signal.

That seems like more of an issue for f3(Outgroup,X,Y) the closer that X and Y are to SW Eurasian (Middle / Near East) as it basically seems like under those conditions X and Y coalesce more with the outgroup and that leaves fewer other markers available to build up a stat(?). (Like trying to use Swat_IA+Indus_Periphery+Sintashta to find a measure of residual relationship to Swat_IA after IP+Sintashta are accounted for doesn't yield very much; a bit of Tajik signal but also loads of noise). Not sure if IBS or pairwise similarity measures would reduce that, or be worse, or introduce other issues, or just be no different.

Them meee said...

Let’s not forget that the steppe’s population likely exploded. This may have caused groups to move in all directions, which can explain the mass exodus to Central Europe that caused Corded Ware to form.

The idea that they had an effective population size of, say, 10,000, is ridiculous. That and the possiblity that anyone who thinks this likely thinks that steppe tribes were backwards compared to other Europeans and that therefore they had lower population sizes because high population sizes were exclusive to farming cultures makes it all the worse. So let’s not underestimate how huge the steppe tribes were, especially since we see them seeping into the presumably dense Balkans as early as 4500 BC.

Grey said...

Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...
"we are not talking about wars or conquests, there are no signs of destruction in the vast majority of European sites"

i'm not suggesting conquests in the usual sense - i'm saying if a population is being constantly raided and they don't have rifles or the ability to build a giant wall then my guess at the most likely outcome would be they move away and the raiders expand into the now empty space.

if correct the evidence would then be abandoned settlements rather than burned ones and an interesting question: *if* they moved where did they go?

(by "they" i mean cucuteni)

Arza said...

Large part of the second episode of "The First Swedes" is about Tollense battle. Pre-Germanics from Scandinavia fought with Pre-Celts from Southern Germany.

Problematic isotopic, archaeological and most importantly genetic data weren't mentioned.

That's how history is made.

Arza said...

European Nucleotide Archive Bulletin:

Sequence data from "Paleo-Eskimo genetic legacy across North America" is now online:
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/data/view/PRJEB30575

ENA-FIRST-PUBLIC
2019-01-14
ENA-LAST-UPDATE
2019-01-18

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/203018v1

___

Entry for "The population history of northeastern Siberia since the Pleistocene" was published 2.5 weeks ago (no sequences for now):
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/data/view/PRJEB29700

ENA-FIRST-PUBLIC
2019-02-21
ENA-LAST-UPDATE
2018-11-13

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/448829v1

Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...

@Grey "and the raiders expand into the now empty space"

That is much more reasonable than a hypothetical violent expansion. Even if the population of mainland Europe were a million inhabitants, large unexplored territories would remain where Neolithic farmers would not have arrived. Nobody denies that in France, Italy and Spain small family groups from Central Europe could enter. What happens is that in the archaeological record there are no important developments (ceramics and metallurgy are totally autochthonous) and the change in funeral costumes is partial and very slow (it is an evolution not a substitution of customs) .. There is even evidence of domestication of the horse at least to use it as food and as a work animal.

Then is there the possibility that R1bL51/P312 could enter Italy and Iberia into small family groups from Central Europe (never from the steppes directly)? Yes, but these men were not conquerors, metal experts, or artisans, and it's obvious that if this happened, they left their customs in their place of origin and adapted to the local culture.The rest can be explained simply with greater reproductive success.

Ric Hern said...

As I see it War and Raids became an integral part of controlling the amount of Testosterone in a society...young men were and still are encouraged to do this to thin out the herd and establishing stability within the community...

zardos said...

@Ric: That's the wrong perspective on the issue. You mix up cause and effect. The cause is, that human groups compete with each other. That's the reason males act they do. Its not about dealing with a problematic evolutionary ballast to keep your society peaceful, its about using what you got to win the fight.
Therefore, its good for their males to be ready to defend or attack, keep or expand territory, resources and genes depending on circumstanes.

What we see in the archaeological record is a constant fight for women, game and herds, resources, territory and prestige. The main reason why genocidal actions decreased over time is that the conquered population was very often seen as a resource for the conqueror. They do the work, you sit on top.
But that was the development of later times, when the productivity of crop farming increased and urban, as well as protostate and state structures emerged.
That's one of the main reasons why in Southern Europe, were this turn took place earlier, much more of a Neolithic heritage survived. More people and established economic structures which could be overtaken by conquerors.

The classic conquest before those times was always about killing most of the local males and taking, depending on various factors, including the conquerors female:male ratio, the young and fertile females.

A lot of people disappeared throughout history because they were conquered. Sometimes scattered groups of refugees were integrated into newly emerging ethnic unities or they left only admixture via robbed females. That's common sight in prehistoric and historic times, but definitely more common prehistorically, because keeping hostile people under control can be a difficult job.
Just remind you on Sparta and why it became such a militarised state. It was because the conquered people almost annihilated them in the course of an uprising.

And I'm not even talking about cultural practises of headhunting, killing and mauling foes as some sort of rite of passage for young males. Killing as many enemies as possible was an achievement in most traditional, heroic societies.

That doesn't mean there wasn't trade and peaceful contacts, but from all we know, even the most peaceful contacts between two people could easily turn violent because of the smallest reasons. History teaches us a lot about that.
Some even argue that two people which trade with each other are on the long run even as or more likely to go to war, because whereever there are intensified contacts, there are more reasons to start a dispute.

Ric Hern said...

@ zardos

Ever seen how a pride of lions, gorillas etc. operates. Young Males are driven out for a reason. Same as young men that are encouraged to go to war....If they manage to be successful in conquering extra territory then good for the tribe. If not then the tribe still have less mouths to feed than before...

Ric Hern said...

@ zardos

The Father/Son relationship in Indo-European religions shows this interaction clearly. Eg. Zeus and Hercules etc.

zardos said...

That's right and there are different reasons for splitting tribal units up or sending mostly young males out. But that's the big different in humans, males work together and do so over generations. And if that's true in general, its even more true in the patriarchal and patrilinear IE. Its part of their success story to keep male relatives together, in cooperatoin and extended kinship networks.

When the tribe reached a certain size or had problems with feeding all mouths, yes, then they sent their young males out, like they did in the custom of ver sacrum. But usually, they kept contact with the father tribe, like the Greek colonies did with their mother cities.

The point is, that was done for a purpose, and the connection was kept alive, lead to a growing male lineage which displaced or annihilated others. The Indoeuropean expansion largely worked that way.

But to point it out again: That the sons of a father sticked together usually, formed a larger social unit. Male cooperation, especially in war, is the human condition and the more successful variant is the one with male relatives. IE are not just one, but THE example of this pattern. You see the agnatic, patrilinear inheritance pattern which focues on the male heroic ancestor and kept record of even the most distant male ancestors and relatives. Part of this is it makes it easier to integrate foreign females, because the female part of the ancestry being downplayed in this system.
If you have a matrilinear system and inheritance pattern, expanding is much slower and more difficult, as is the integration of robbed females and the cooperation between unrelated males. That's why matrilinear systems can work better in more complex, confederation like ethnicities like in Northern America, but not on the lower, more small scale level like it was needed on the steppe. Even then it worked not as good I'd say.

Ric Hern said...

@ zardos

Yes I agree.

In stead of getting rid of the young males totally some higher purpose was given to the young males that kept some connection with the Fathers Tribe alive in the event that the young males prosper in their endeavours. Twelve Tasks of Hercules...

Ric Hern said...

Father and Son basically fed from each others fame...

Matt said...

Still having a think about the Turan and NW Iranian Neolithic relate to Eneolithic and Chalcolithic populations (Turan and Iran). Reprocessed a cut down sample set through G25.

1: https://imgur.com/a/74MByBG - Turan Eneolithic seem to be like NW Iran Neolithic + low level West Siberia in a basic view, or Tepe_Hissar+something beyond West_Siberia_N on the EHG->West Siberia N cline. But then they look too displaced towards CHG on an Iran_N+Levant vs CHG dimension (same dimension that helps distinguish CHG ancestry in Piedmont_Steppe_En).

Adding some Indus_Periphery samples doesn't really help with that - https://imgur.com/a/s0izczk, so not explained by AASI out of South Asia somehow.

2: https://imgur.com/a/O031HVN - similarly for Seh Gabi and Tepe Hissar Chl, they appear between Iran_N and Levant_N initially... but then they're not on another dimension that breaks out Iran_N+Levant vs CHG.

I wonder if this is any indication that there is some unsampled fine structure about in the southern sphere... in Mesopotamia, pre-Eneolitihic Turan. Sister populations?

Slumbery said...

@Matt

I run some "just see what happens" nMontes with very ancient reference populations. AfontovaGora3 + Boncuklu N + MA1 + Natufian + Tianyuan + Villabruna.
EHG exclusively picks AG3 over MA1, while Iran-CHG and Turan exclusively picks MA1. There is a deep divergence between the ANE in EHG and the ANE in Iran-CHG. Now, Steppe Maykop is more mixed, but it dominantly picks MA1 over AG3, more so than it would be explained by its CHG ancestry alone. West Siberia N dominantly picks AG3. This means that Kalteminar (or whatever was the source of Siberian the Turan samples) is closer to the ANE source of Iran-CHG than to the ANE source in EHG and West Siberia N. This can explain why West Siberia N is not perfect fit for the cline's end point.

As for structure in Iran. Turan has much less Levant/Natufian/Southern affinity than Iran_ChL. In fact Turan takes less Natufian in the above test than Iran N or even Hotu HG does. Since in the same test CHG takes zero Natufian, this alone can explain the CHG pull in your analysis.
My guess is that the Iran ClH in Turan is mainly from an eastern Iranian population that was less effected by admixtures from the South and SW. The Natufian + Iran_HG + Anatolian HG triangle was probably a multi-step complex cline in the region and yes, it is not mapped very well.

Open Genomes said...

Dr. Kristan Kristansen, University of Gothenburg, at Genes, Isotopes and Artefacts Conference Vienna 13-14 December 2018

A discussion about the archaeological and genetic evidence the apparent effect of the pneumonic plague on Early Neolithic European societies, and the subsequent spread of steppe nomad pastorialist Y lineages R1a(-M417) and R1b(-M269) throughout Europe based on a model of raids, bride kidnapping, and the mass killing of native males. This is also the model for what happened in Iberia during the the Bronze Age, as well as Central Europe.

JuanRivera said...

Any info on the status of Dzudzuana and mesolithic anatolians?

Mouthful said...

Kristiansen said same as I speculated earlier, these massacres sites are usually outside normal burial sites, hence why are they hard to find, but more and more are being found according to him. But it's still hard to accept it for some people it seems.

The part about is from around 14:00 minutes in the linked video by Open Genomes.

Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...

@open genomes

Professor Kristiansen talks about the plague in the early neolithic, 3.000-4,000 years before the Bronze Age. The Bronze Age in Iberia was between (2.000-1.000 BC),

Surely the Harvard ones have been inspired by their theories (plague, raids, kidnapping, mass killing). But the theories have to be demonstrated and these gentlemen have shown absolutely nothing. They have just seen many action movies.

Kristiansen says that is what happened in Iberia and in Central Europe or is that what you think?




JuanRivera said...

There seems to be a sequence in the ENA entry about the "The population history of northeastern Siberia since the Pleistocene" paper. Ready for all those genomes. On the other hand, there isn't any entry about the "Paleolithic DNA from the Caucasus reveals core of West Eurasian ancestry" paper in ENA yet.

Arza said...

@ Davidski

You have an error in your spreadsheets. One of the samples marked as "Chl" should be described as "BA".

https://twitter.com/vagheesh/status/1103456664324395008

;)

Them meee said...

@JuanRivera

But we’re still getting out of the dark, finally. It’s been a while.

Open Genomes said...

@Diego

No, Prof. Kristansen says that the evidence shows that the pneumonic plague started in the Late Neolithic, at the end of the Cucuteni-Trypilla culture. The same subsequent Y-DNA Bronze Age lineage replacement happened in Eastern Europe, then Central Europe, then Iberia, in that order, with the arrival of people bearing steppe ancestry. Notice that he blames them for a vast deforestation of Central Europe, so they could create a steppe-like environment.

Ric Hern said...

@ Diego

What I heard was basically Plague killing of most. Then 2 earlier migrations, not directly linked to Steppe people, killing some more and finally the Steppe people were the Cherry on the Cake...

Samuel Andrews said...

The only thing, the anti-Steppe crowd holds on to is R1b-L51 isn't documented on the PC Steppe yet. This is weak argument because...
------95% of Steppe Y DNA samples is from a single Yamnaya clan who carried R1b Z2103.

A through database of DNA from Neolithic/Chl & Bell Beaker western Europe show a mostly Steppe-derived clan with R1b P312 taking over western Europe in a few hundred years. There's no disputing this.

Somehow that isn't enough to convince the anti-Steppe crowd. This is insanity.

Samuel Andrews said...

There's "cultural" uncovered by ancient DNA which the anti-Steppe crowd ignores.
----------------Extreme form of patrilinism.
----------------Extreme form of female exogamy.

These two things are what made R1b M269 & R1a M417 the most popular lineages in Europe. Some Neolithic farmers practiced patrilinism but you'd really have to do special pleading to say any of them carried R1b or R1a.

Extreme Patrlinlism.
Early Indo European clans belonged to a single male lineage.

Extreme Femal Exogamy.
Female exogamy (intermarriage with foriegn women). Because, they practised patrlinlism they shyed away from admixing with men from different clans. Most admixture with Neolithic farmers was with women.

This explains why Rhine Beaker was 40% northern farmer but had 100% Steppe Y DNA. It explains why Iberia BA was 60% Iberian farmer but had 100% Rhine Beaker Y DNA.

Ric Hern said...

I wonder if those Neolithic Male Lineages who survived were basically men who intermarried into the Steppe related clans ? Maybe mainly traders ?

Samuel Andrews said...

But, it is really interesting that Indo European language spread into Balkans, Anatolia, Greece, southern Italy without much Y DNA replacement.

Dragos said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dragos said...

“it is really interesting that Indo European language spread into Balkans, Anatolia, Greece, southern Italy without much Y DNA replacement”

zardos’s patriarchal and agnatic mighty warriors became feminists all of a sudden in SEE; and Anatolia
They also became feminists when they switched to Basque in Iberia

Davidski said...

@Dragos

Samuel doesn't really understand the genetic history of the Balkans. But so what?

Obviously, there's a lot of (Yamnaya) Z2103 there, but I2 is also very common, and most of that is from Slavic expansions from the north during the Medieval period.

These Slavs carried a lot of I2, but also a lot of steppe ancestry. There's no real conflict in that.

As for Iberia and the Basques, I'll leave that to Olalde et al. 2019, which is coming very, very soon. Diego is sure to be disappointed by its contents and conclusions, and so are you. Boohoo.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Davidski,
"Samuel doesn't really understand the genetic history of the Balkans. But so what?

Obviously, there's a lot of (Yamnaya) Z2103 there, but I2 is also very common, and most of that is from Slavic expansions from the north during the Medieval period."

I2a1b became super popular in the early Middle ages. I'm talking about the Bronze age. Nothing close to the degree of Y DNA replacement caused by Corded Ware & Bell Beaker happened there. Neither Greece or Albania Y DNA indicate Indo European lineages dominated there during Antiquity.

Also, southern Italy spoke Italic languages. But, modern Y DNA indicates a very small percentage belonged to R1b.

Dragos said...

@ Davidski

''Samuel doesn't really understand the genetic history of the Balkans. But so what?'

Relax I was making a joke
Sam's comments are always interesting.

''As for Iberia and the Basques, I'll leave that to Olalde et al. 2019, which is coming very, very soon. Diego is sure to be disappointed by its contents and conclusions, and so are you. Boohoo.''

So you keep saying, but im not sure you even grasp what my theory is, but go on & humour me?

This paper won’t clarify BB origins. But stockhammer et al will

Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...

@Open Genomes

In your first post you said Early Neolithic, and obviously this has nothing to do with Bronze Age, and also there is no evidence of the plague in Iberia.

@Sam, Ric, Davidski

We are very happy for the next publication of Olalde's paper, there are more than 150 Iberian genomes to add to our databases, there are very interesting sites, and R1b-P312 will have an antiquity in Iberia superior to any other European country (except perhaps Germany) Continue research is good to know our history and that's why we are very grateful to Reich and Olalde professors

Regarding the interpretation of the results, we already know what they are going to say - kidnappings, murders, generalized violence, absolute replacement of the male population, slavery of women, that is, all that is needed to sell many newspaper covers and appear in many news.

Evidence that all this happened ? Probably none, but apparently it does not matter because there will always be a good number of Kurganists willing to believe those theories without taking into account the evidence to the contrary.

@Dragos said- "L51 men committed ethnic cleansing in Atlantic Europe. They're your ancestors, you need to accept it"

Are you talking seriously? In any case, the Spaniards, thanks to the black legend, are accustomed to being labeled as genocidal. Ethnic cleansing is ours, first we exterminate the Jews, then the Moors, we fight with the Turks, then we exterminate the Native Americans, I do not strange, because we carry the blood of those genocidal L51.

Everything is envy

@Davidski said- "On the other hand, neither Yamnaya, Corded Ware, eastern Beakers nor any other closely related population show any male lineages that can be associated with Maykop. Zip. Nothing"

I do not understand why this statement is valid to deny the influence of Maykop in Yamnaya, and it is not valid to deny the influence of Yamnaya in Western Europe. You could have continued the phrase.

On the other hand, neither Yamnaya, Corded Ware, eastern Beakers nor any closely related population show any male lineages that can be associated with Western Bell Beakers

Zip- Nothing

As Sam says- Somehow that isn't enough to convince the Kurganists. This is insanity.

Parastais said...

Speaking of killing all males and taking all women. In sagas this was written about Vikings in East Prussia:
“Saxo ascribes the last attack on Baltic lands to Hakon, son of Harald Bluetooth, who crushed the Sembians and took over their land. In an obstinate battle, he even ordered to set his landed ships on fire, in order to stimulate his warriors to fight until the end, giving them no hope to retreat. The Danes married the wives of the perished Sembians after the victory, and stayed to live in the conquered country”
Basically whether it happened or not that way, such practice apparently was nothing strange to Saxo.

zardos said...

In Southern Europe and Anatolia two things are different:
1. The incoming IE were already heavily mixed after living for generations in areas outside their core area. Just compare Yamnaya -> Corded Ware -> Bell Beakers.
Its a constant decrease even in the North.
Yet those moving on were even more mixed.
2. IE net highly developed and productive settlements in the South which could be easily overtaken and exploited by becoming the new elite or even just merging with the old.

Thats a fundamental difference to a lot of the Northern pre-IE, because many of those could barely feed themselves under the different climatic conditions and the incoming IE were on the same or a higher cultural and productive level.

Not speaking about the fact that IE changed in meantime and became culturally more like their Southern neighbours culturally and genetically, before moving in.

In Anatolia the idea of IE mercenaries and small warbands taking local settlements seems to be very appealing to me. I read that theory decades ago and if its true, the genetic impact might have been minimal.

As for the agnatic patriarchal system: Greeks and Hittites most certainly prove the point.
That they integrated the local elite in the more populous Southern areas is obvious in India, Greece...

Obviously non-IE did the same thing like Finns. Basques are the biggest issue,but even if the CE BB would have had another tongue, Iberia would still be take by steppe related people introducing most of the IE package.

Ric Hern said...

@ Diego

"...and R1b-P312 will have an antiquity in Iberia superior to any other European country (except perhaps Germany)"

Interesting. So how, according to this statement of yours, are you sure about an Iberian origin of R1b-P312 and R1b L51 ?

Dragos said...

@ Zardos

Your theories are largely speculative, un-empirical and post hoc. In other words, approached from a personal conviction that PIE had to have originated in the Volga or Don. With such an approach, one then needs to construct a narrative of small -scale merceneries, crack commandos, etc (all very appealing of course to boyish dilettantes) to account for the modest genetic impacts. Nothing personal against you, as you’re merely echoing what every other steppe-inclined enthusiast would say.

Then there is the widely circulated perception that the Balkans had a large population density. This is false. In fact during the late Copper Age, northern Europe had a larger population (!), just as it did during the Paleo-Meso. Why ? Because the Balkans is mostly mountains, yes resource rich (ores, etc), but only the few plains (Thessaly, Macedonia, Maritsa) could sustain a large population.

Here is the thing- when steppe migrants should have been arriving, those said regions were virtually depopulated (after the 6.2 ky event). So the serial ‘’dilution scenario’’ doesn’t work.

Whats the solution ? Simply – the older diverging branch of PIH originated in an already -EEF rich environment (but not Anatolia). IEs then arrived to the far south as colonists, free men women & children, replenishing life. The case of L51/ BB is an exception; and they shouldn’t be used to gauge the rest, nor should the pseudo-sciency mythologies you & Ric construct.

Ric Hern said...

@ Dragos

When you read at the top of each new genetic paper you see dozens of Names of researchers. So should I throw all that in the wind and rather follow your singleton ideas ?

Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...

@Zardos-"Basques are the biggest issue,but even if the CE BB would have had another tongue, Iberia would still be take by steppe related people introducing most of the IE package"

Basques are not the main issue, nobody knows the origin of the Euzkera and about its antiquity there are different opinions. The real issue is that IE failed miserably in Western Europe, because large regions of France, Spain and Italy spoke non-Indo-European languages ​​at the time of the Romans, 2,500 years after the alleged Indo-European invasion, and at least France and Spain were mostly R1b-P312. Then linking a language to a certain haplogroup is still totally absurd.

Regarding the origin of the BB culture, and the so-called "BB package", only a blind person can not understand the dates on the Atlantic coast of the Iberian Peninsula from the south of Portugal to Galicia. They are 250 years before the Central European ones and absolutely all the objects related to the BB package have been documented in Iberian Pre-BBs burials.

@Ric- "Interesting. So how, according to this statement of yours, are you sure about an Iberian origin of R1b-P312 and R1b L51 ?"

There are many geneticists in Spain, Portugal and the rest of Europe who do not agree with an oriental origin of these haplogroups. It is a question of common sense, as Balanovski and others said, the oriental clades of R1b are totally different from the western clades.
and the proof is that L51/P311/P312 do NOT exist in any of the steppe cultures (5,000-2,000 BC).

I understand that for many followers of Gimbutas these results (Yamnaya, Maykop, Repin, Catacomb, Khavlynsk, Sredni Stog) has been a trauma, but sooner or later they will have to accept it. The last study carried out in Spain and France with more than 16,000 samples of P312 men showed a totally western origin of the haplogroup, more specifically in the Franco-Cantabrian region. As this is used by many Kurganists to attack the Westernists, I will tell you that the Franco Cantabrian region is a concept used by European archaeologists to refer to the region where the Magdalenian culture was fundamentally extended - that is, Asturias, Basque Country, Navarre , Alto Aragon, north of the Pyrenees, Aquitaine and Occitania (Languedoc and Rosellón).Interestingly, we do not have data on Chalcolithic sites in those regions between 3,000 and 2,500 BC, I do not know if the geneticists who have studied BB culture are interested but there are hundreds of skeletons in these regions waiting for genetic analyzes. There are already projects under way that will do so, because the world of genetics is not reduced to Reich, Harvard and its infantile interpretations of European Prehistory.

I suppose you will agree with me that we Europeans have the right to interpret our history without having to wait for anyone to tell us how to do it, we are smart enough to do it on our own.


zardos said...

@Dragos: Rather than critizising generally, point out the concrete.
Yes, the Northern European plains were easier to take and closer to the steppe environment than the mountainous terrain.
The IE tribes in the Carparthians and Balkan had to adapt.
For example large herds of cows and horses vs sheep and goat breeding. I wouldnt wonder if the "hill tribes" would have mixed more with the locals, which had a much better position, of course military as well, than pre-IE on the plain.

For the same reasons the Caucasus didnt become IE.

Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...

@Dragos "What I heard was basically Plague killing of most. Then 2 earlier migrations, not directly linked to Steppe people, killing some more and finally the Steppe people were the Cherry on the Cake"

I did not say that, Ric said.

For me Professor Kristiansen has already been sufficiently discredited with his interpretations and rectifications. Others like Heyd and Harrison have tried to give archaeological coverage to the steppe theory, but they have only managed to create more confusion.

You don't answer my previous question if you think that the BB culture originated in the Balkans or the steppes, it would be interesting to know why you think that, and also to know if you have C14 dating that could support that theory.

I believe that the Balkans are an important region to find out the origin of R1b, not only by the hunter-gatherers of Iron Gates, but also by the cases that have been found in Romania, a migration of certain clans to the steppes along with the culture of Cucuteni (or previoulsy) is a possibility that can not be ruled out. But to say that Bb culture has an oriental origin is nonsense.

Dragos said...

@ Ric

’’ When you read at the top of each new genetic paper you see dozens of Names of researchers. So should I throw all that in the wind and rather follow your singleton ideas ?’’’


Nothing I have outlined contravenes the current set of data. In fact, it goes above and beyond


@ Zardos

‘’ Rather than critizising generally, point out the concrete.’’


But I just did. Perhaps you’d benefit by going back & carefully reading what I wrote.

@ Diego

Im sorry, but I think BB culture originated in central Europe. It’s main bearers were R1b-L51 people who generations back came from the western steppe. I think its intrusive to Iberia.
I have never claimed that BB came from Balkans. Hungary isn’t the Balkans; and whether L51 passed via Hungary or not is a slightly different question.

Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...

@Dragos-"Im sorry, but I think BB culture originated in central Europe. It’s main bearers were R1b-L51 people who generations back came from the western steppe. I think its intrusive to Iberia"

You are one of the few people who think that BB culture is intrusive to Iberia, and that it originated in Central Europe (Hungary). The Bbs in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland are outliers. But if you're interested, you can check this out

Bell Beaker settlement pattern in Bohemia and Moravia- Prof.Jan Turek, Jaroslav Peska

"Decorated bell beakers and some other associated artefacts (so-called "Beaker package") were adopted by the local communities in Bohemia and Moravia in an already developed form"

Prof H. Fokkens "it may have become clear the the Lower Rhine Basin was in fact NOT the place of origin of Bell Beakers, because the delta was the traditional habitat of the Vlaardingen Culture" "This is substantiated by the fact that in other regions where the BB tradition has developed, but Single Grave Culture remains absent, the AOO Beaker is present as well".

B Cunliffe- "On the Ocean: The Mediterranean and the Atlantic from the Prehistory to AD 1.500- The distinctive Herringbone variety (MHV), originating in the Tagus area, spread along the entire Iberian coast to the Golf of Lyon. The rapidity of the spread, the highly distinctive nature of the Beaker, and the way in which local communities interpreted it within their own ceramic assemblages, suggest that the Beaker was symbolic of a new and widely accepted value system. The distribution implies movement of people, perhaps high-status specialists and Beaker period explorations is suggested by the discovery of the MHV style in West Sardinia and Western Sicily"

Rewriting the Central European Early Bronze Age Chronology: Evidence from Large-Scale Radiocarbon Dating- Philipp W. Stockhammer- "The earliest dates for graves of the BBP in the Augsburg region start with their 2σ calibrated range already in the 25th century BC–e.g. Königsbrunn, Ampack gr. 1: 2478–2339 BC (94.4% probability)-2.408 BC, Augsburg, Hugo-Eckener-Str. gr. 5: double grave, combined calibration of both burials: 2469–2310 BC (95.4% probability) 2.389 BC".

Campaniforme: chronology, pottery, and contexts of a long term phenomenon in the Portuguese Douro Basin-Maria de Jesus Sanches and Maria Helena Barbosa (diciembre 2.018)- "In summary, the 14C dates suggest that all styles are grosso modo contemporaneous – the Corded, the Maritime, the Palmela/Ciempozuelos and the imitations of forms and decorations of the Bell Beaker set – during at least the second quarter of the 3rd millennium BC "

Bell Beaker pottery continued to be used in the second half of the 3rd millennium BC in this region, making this phenomenon one of long duration. Recent studies did not find direct genetic links (“steppe ancestry”) between Chalcolithic Iberia and contemporaneous Central Europe populations (e.g. Bell Beaker users), but rather continuity/homogeneity within endogenous Chalcolithic populations. However, the authors of this paper are cautious in accepting these results and suggest that further studies focused on the comparison of individuals from the beginning and the end of the Chalcolithic period (about 3000–2200 BC) would be needed (Szécsényi-Nagy et al. 2017, 9).


It seems clear that the Bb culture was developed on the Atlantic coast of Iberia between 2,800 and 2,500 BC, I do not understand how anyone can claim that it was invented in Hungary.

zardos said...

Where ever the BBC first emerged as a cultural phenomenon, the Iberian male lineages were largely replaced by R1b males coming from North of the Pyrenees, most likely from NCE, carrying steppe DNA. The migration happened in BB times and was most likely a population shift inside of the wider BBC networks.
You agree so far or not?

Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...


@zardos "The migration happened in BB times and was most likely a population shift inside of the wider BBC networks. You agree so far or not?

I could agree, as long as the results are decisive. I mean, if you study the indicated burials between 3,000 and 2,600 in Iberia and R1b-P312 does not appear, then obviously its origin is in Central Europe (Alps, Bavaria, Alsace), or southern France, but first we have to check it because there are hundreds of deposits. We just need time and I do not think there's much hurry.

The speed with which the discoveries take place leaves the conclusions outdated in a few months.

zardos said...

Agreed, but so far as many samples as we got from Iberia resulted in sufficient data points for coming to clear conclusions anywhere else. From Neolithic to Bronze Age, male lineages seem to be mostly related and homogeneous for a given regional population.
Surprises are not impossible, but unlikely,especially with such a huge shift having taken place at some point. Its just a question of how and when exactly.

Urki said...

Los Millares culture (S.E Spain), one of the most advanced cultures in chalcolitic Europe, dissapeared violently and suddenly around 2300 b.C (almost all the settlements were burned and destroyed). Los Millares was replaced by the much more hyerarchical, warlike and warrior dominated culture of El Argar, with bronze weapons, horses, etc. It seems clear that Los Millares did not come to an end in a natural and peaceful way

Urki said...

@Diego
According t David Reich, most Spanish men were wiped out, roughly around 2500 a. C. A bit later Los Millares culture (S. E Spain), one of the most advanced cultures of chalcolithic Europe suddenly disappeared with very clear signs of violence (actually almost all the villages were burnt out and destroyed). Los Millares was replaced by El Argar culture, much more hyerarchical, with bronze swords, horses (los Millares had no horses), new settlements, etc. It was not a peaceful transition

mickeydodds1 said...

OT.

David, what do you make of the 'R1a Z93' Y DNA' supposedly found in pre-Columbus 'Brazilian' remains?

Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...

@urki

The culture of Los Millares was a hierarchical society, the main village had three lines of walls and several defensive bastions, circular houses, collective tombs, metallurgical workshops, silos of grain storage. It controlled a great territory in Andalucia, traded with the North of Africa and Asia, Only in the village that has given name to the culture have recovered more than 1.000 skeletons, none of which has been analyzed. I think there is a project underway because given the chronology it could be interesting (at least for us).
Its abandonment coincides with the 4.2-kiloyear BP aridification event. "Starting in about 2200 BC, it probably lasted the entire 22nd century BC. It has been hypothesised to have caused the collapse of the Old Kingdom in Egypt as well as the Akkadian Empire in Mesopotamia, and the Liangzhu culture in the lower Yangtze River area.The drought may also have initiated the collapse of the Indus Valley Civilisation, with some of its population moving southeastward to follow the movement of their desired habitat,as well as the migration of Indo-European speaking people into India.

Could this culture have been destroyed by the Indo-European invaders? It seems strange because they were making BB pottery for 300 years before its abandonment. Ergo his hypothetical destroyers were not Bbs.

Regarding the culture of El Argar, we know that they were mostly R1b-P312 (Olalde is going to publish some samples that I hope will help us at least to establish the origin of some subclades of Df27), that there is evidence of horseback riding in male skeletons, and that mitochondrial lineages are typically Iberian.

Davidski said...

@mickeydodds1

David, what do you make of the 'R1a Z93' Y DNA' supposedly found in pre-Columbus 'Brazilian' remains?

Sounds like an error of some sort.

Davidski said...

@Dragos

You won't be using the comments here to send out insults to people all over the net.

Dragos said...


Lol Davidski “teeny-bop Beakerologist” is hardly an insult, you’ve said worse, so go easy on the preaching.

Anyhow, as I was saying; Urki’s statement echoes what I’ve said before
“Los Millares culture (S.E Spain), one of the most advanced cultures in chalcolitic Europe, dissapeared violently and suddenly around 2300 b.C (almost all the settlements were burned and destroyed). Los Millares was replaced by the much more hyerarchical, warlike and warrior dominated culture of El Argar, with bronze weapons, horses, etc. It seems clear that Los Millares did not come to an end in a natural and peaceful way”

El agar occupied the south east and expanded along the east coast of Iberia, which where Basque and Iberian languages later emerge.
Naturally; this makes it highly unlikely that Basque was adapted from preceding groups; but must be the language of the R1b L51 conquerors

Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...



It could also be that Basques are Martians and Euzkera is an extraterrestrial language.

Look, it's not that hard to understand, we're proud of our P312 lineage, but we want to know the truth. You have found an explanation that is not reasonable for us. But if in the end it turns out that we all have origin in the steppes we will have to celebrate it in some way,
but instead of toasting with vodka, we will continue making it with Txakoli or good wine from la Rioja.

Urki said...

@Diego
The 4.2 event may or may not have played a role in the end of Los Millares, but their settlements were not simply abandoned. They were destroyed and burned and the literature is clear in this point. (by the way, no wonder Millares people made bb pottery, after all bb was Iberian before expanding)
And yes, in terms of hierarchies the difference between Los Millares and El Argar is immense, as in any other aspect. And with relation to languages we should consider different possible scenarios. Conqueror peoples not always impose their languages, sometimes it is the other way around. Medieval Normans spoke French, conquered England and replaced the ruling class, but were not able to impose their language.Actually they ended up giving up French and speaking English

Urki said...

@Diego
In the case of SE Spain there is not such soft transition and continuity you are describing. Chalcolithic Millares and bronze Argar are completely different in every aspect of life, from settlements to burials, from weapons to subsistence strategies. Archaeologists are starting to suspect that such a radical change couldn't have happened without resorting to new people. And, as I have said, conquerors not always impose their language to the conquered people. Norman francophones ended up speaking english

Dragos said...

“And, as I have said, conquerors not always impose their language to the conquered people”

As you claim, the transition is marked and abrupt, then the likelihood of language continuity is low
On the other hand, there’s good evidence for LBA movement from Central Europe to upper Duro & Ebro basins, England etc

The Normans walled themselves up in England; did not mix; and ruled from castles whilst the rural peasantry continued their own way of life
Analogies to south Iberia are therefore difficult to sustain

Of course, one can invoke my converted feminist joke to keep the party line alive

Samuel Andrews said...

Iron age languages.......

Celtic=Small-scale migration/genetic impact?
Scythian=Small-scale migration/genetic impact?
Germanic=Large-scale migration/genetic impact?
Slavic=Large-scale migration/genetic impact?
Turkic=Central Asia is confusing.
Latin=Roman empire.

Al Bundy said...

@Samuel Andrews The BB spread to Britain did not come with Celtic languages, or it came with IE languages later pushed out by Celtic?What seems to be the view on this?

Leron said...

While there's a few notable ones, substrate languages are greatly missing in IE. Meaning a lot of the later IE populations were probably already speaking a language similar to IE before major expansions from the steppe. It would be like the change in the Middle East going from an overwhelmingly Aramaic speaking population to an Arabic predominately one within a century or two although Arabic blood didn't penetrate all areas and there were many pseudo-Arabs who helped with the conquest. In fact, the expansion of IE could be similar to that of Islam. Just replace the camel with the horse. You have a technological advantage in the art of war, along with a highly innovative religion/cult. Over time, like any other religion, these diversify into various sects despite believing in the "Sky Father".

Them meee said...

Celtic=Small-scale migration/genetic impact?

The Hallstatt effect

Dragos said...

I just clarify that I’m not proposing anything like all BB= Basque ; or all R1b=Basque
But then again; it’s 2500 years between BB and the earliest attested languages in NW Europe; so it’s all a bit speculative; and substrate and topomyms studies isn’t definitive

Andrzejewski said...

@Leron "While there's a few notable ones, substrate languages are greatly missing in IE."

Not really: according to linguistics European IE languages have a strong agricultural substrate vocabulary stemming from (Tyrsenian?) languages of the Anatolian Neolithic farmers. Not sure how accurate this assessment is, but...

Dragos said...

We currently understand the big picture fairly well
The next phase is understanding how historic languages and tribal groups formed
All models so far are preliminary which will evolve with time

Andrzejewski said...

@Al Bundy @Samuel Andrews The BB spread to Britain did not come with Celtic languages, or it came with IE languages later pushed out by Celtic?What seems to be the view on this?

Yes. Bell Beaker did NOT speak Proto-Celtic. That would be the Hallstatt Culture. BB language probably vanished under a similar branch of IE.

Andrzejewski said...

@Samuel Andrews "-----95% of Steppe Y DNA samples is from a single Yamnaya clan who carried R1b Z2103."

Does it mean that most Steppe male lineages were exterminated over the course of centuries and millennia? Even those with R1a and R1b, ie. their relatives?

JuanRivera said...

Lusitanian?

Al Bundy said...

@Dragos Do you think PIH formed in the Balkans?

Dragos said...

@ AB
Not the south Balkans, but maybe in the northeast; near / in the steppe; where S.S. began to emerge

Al Bundy said...

What about S.Caucasus?

Them meee said...

@Al Bundy

Do you believe PIH emerged in the Caucasus yourself? Just asking.

@Andrzejewski

Celtic was a BB language.

JuanRivera said...

Unlikely, as impact of mixed ANF-CHG-Iran_N in the south Caucasus was low in Southern Europe and SC Asia and none whatsover in the steppe. In contrast, the increase of CHG in the steppe is a completely local phenomenon which was due to mixed CHG-EHG-ANE in the North Caucasus; and steppe always contributed more than 10% to IE speakers (with exception to Sardinians and post-1492 colonialism).

Al Bundy said...

I'm just going by what Reich and others have been hinting at.Clearly we need many more samples.

Davidski said...

I'm pretty sure Reich dropped the idea that Maykop was the Indo-Europeanizing agent on the steppe like a rock as soon as he had a good look at the Maykop and Steppe Maykop samples.

Obviously, something went horribly wrong with the preliminary analysis of these and other ancient samples from the Caucasus for him to think that Yamnaya got its southern ancestry from Maykop, and even Mesopotamian/Uruk migrants to the Caucasus.

We'll never know what happened exactly, but I suspect that the scientists at Max Planck missed the target by miles with their first look at the data from the Caucasus. The reason I say that is that the working title of the Caucasus paper was in part something like "into the great wide open", which suggests to me that they were totally convinced at one point that there were massive population movements into the steppe from the south.

But that didn't work out at all.

JuanRivera said...

What's with the ad hominems here?

JuanRivera said...

I didn't say that. It's @Them meee's comment.

Ric Hern said...

Well I think the Northwest Block spoke a Proto-Celtic-Italic-Lusitanian language and from these related dialects eventually Proto-Celtic, Proto-Italic and Proto-Lusitanian formed as people from these areas moved further apart. When looking at the Dialects of the Netherlands and Sweden we clearly see how diverse dialects can be basically flowing from one Language into the other....

With very little outside genetic impact in Ireland from the Bronze Age till the Vikings landed it is hard to imagine that Proto-Goidelic came from somewhere else. Maybe forced by isolation of trade or maybe changed by religion. That is the only other ways I can see the spread of Celtic into Ireland if Ireland was not a dialect of Proto-Celtic already.

Ric Hern said...

With Archaic features of PIE surviving in Lithuanian it is hard not to imagine that features of a Northwest Block Indo-European language did not survive in Gaelic....

Ric Hern said...

And with Irish words spelling today I think it is not far fetched to think that writing and actual pronunciation was sometimes worlds apart in ancient times as well ...Heheheeh...

Garvan said...

@Rick. The old model was that the “language which later became Irish was the first Indo-European language to be spoken in Ireland. It was introduced during the first half of the first millennium B.C. from Britain, probably by immigrant family groups.” (Gearoid Mac Eoin, 2007).

There is no sign of the wealth associated with Celts in mainland Europe, no sign of conquest, no sign of religious change (which is expected to go along with conquest), so the idea was the language was introduced by poor migrant farmers expanding into underpopulated areas.

I think the genetic data we have is still consistent with this? Yes, there is now a possibility that Celtic developed in situ, but it is still just a possibility.

Dragos said...

Gaelic & Breton might have split c. 2/100 BC ; https://www.linguisticsociety.org/sites/default/files/news/ChangEtAlPreprint.pdf
This is when there were major tumults in Western Europe. The attack of Gaul by the evil Romans (:)) caused major repercussions throughout the La Tene world

Ric Hern said...

@ Garvan

As far as I understand the data Britain and Ireland have different clusters of ancestry not overlapping with each other. Maybe this clusters within different areas formed due to relative inbreeding but at the end of the day the Britain/Ireland connection looks more Ancient to me...? Britain certainly recieved some migrations from the mainland during Iron Age and seemed more closely connected to mainland Europe during the Middle to Late Bronze Age.

Even if poor migrants entered Ireland later on it does not seem as if they had a huge effect on the Genepool. Or maybe the Northwest Block Genepool from which Bronze Age Irish and Britons originated did not change much until the Iron Age, making it more difficult to spot a migration from the Mainland....?

Ric Hern said...

@ Garvan

And Ireland did not seem poor during the Bronze Age. Only after the Bronze Age collapse it seems....Maybe this rather triggered migration out of Ireland rather than into...

Garvan said...

@Dragos, I checked the paper you referenced quickly. I don’t enjoy reading linguistic papers, I skip over all their proofs, but am always interested in their conclusions. From their graphics, Figure 2, which is a preview of their results, they show a split between Breton and Irish at about 300 BC. I understand, their analysis is rooted on known dates, so this is consistent with the first attested Breton place names names recorder Pytheas in 325 BC. I would suggest the split must be older, but I am not sure where the split took place (Briton or Ireland or ?).

I do think that Celtic refugees from Roman Europe caused rapid change in the languages spoken in Briton and Ireland.

If there is a place where they say Breton and Irish split at 2/100 BC I missed it.

@Rick, Cassidy, in recent presentations, has characterized the modern Irish as Iron Age Irish in the west (not sure if she is referring to the PCA or the map), then as you move east or right, bronze aged Irish (from the South but displaced to the center on the PCA because they have less ‘farmer’ ancestry), Iron Aged Briton and then Anglo Saxon settlers on the East coast.

So I expect Iron Age Briton ancestry is in Ireland.

Andrzejewski said...

@Them meee "Celtic was a BB language."

Why are you so sure? What language did Hallstatt speak then?

Celtic emerged 1,500 years AFTER BB

Andrzejewski said...

@Them meee Listen to what @Dragos is saying

Ric Hern said...

@ Garvan

Please do share a link to that recent presentations. I do not see anything specifically Iron Age Briton like in the 2017 paper. The only thing they mention is Northwest Frence like ancestry in both Ireland and Britain not related to the Norman invasions. This could mean many things, anything from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age, however it seems that they hint at the Rathlin samples also having some connection to present day Northwestern French...

Ric Hern said...

So maybe the Belgae, Britons and Irish were all closely related from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age. According to Julius Caesar the Belgae spoke a different language from the Gauls and Aquatani and they had clear connections to Britain.

Them meee said...

@Andrzejewski

There was no singular “BB language”, but multiple that emerged from that massive complex in Western Europe. Most of them died out, and Celtic was one of them, but was the one that replaced them. Unless you think the Celts didn’t come from Bell Beaker.

This is only true after the Beaker period though, and this is what I’m talking about: Beaker-derived languages. The earlier Beaker dialect of IE is something else.

In the same vein, Indo-Iranian was a eastern Corded Ware language.

@Ric Hern

I just linked a few comments up, replying to Samuel, David’s evidence for a later Celtic expansion into Britain.

Ric Hern said...

@ Them meee

How does the "Hallstatt Effect" compare to the "A Bell Beaker superhighway" ?

Ric Hern said...

@ Them meee

Looks to me like Dutch Beakers to Chech Bell Beakers to Hallstatt.Looks like there was continuity in the Chech Hallstatt sample since the Bronze Age....? And since it looks like continuity and Celtic evolved there after Dutch Beaker expansion it is hard not to link Bell Beaker expansion with Proto-Celtic or dialects close to it, to an expansion both up the Elbe to the Chech Republic and into Britain and Ireland. However I can be wrong...

Ric Hern said...

@ Them meee

So maybe the Hallstatt expansion only levelled out closely related dialects creating Gaulish. But Hallstatt Cultural influence was Minimal in Ireland.

What is interesting for me is Julius Caeser mentioning of Druidism which he thought originated in Britain since all in Gaul who wanted to become Druids went there for their Studies....

Andrzejewski said...

@Ric Hern @Them meee

British Celts (Welsh) may have come from NW France, but that latter population was mostly replaced with the Frankish conquest. It is a big wonder how come French people don't speak German, because close to 50% north of the Loire is heavily Germanic, let alone in Normandy, which is close to 90% Viking-derived.

In England there was an enormous replacement event, when the Julian plague hit the ancestors of the Welsh `532 half of the population died out and therefore it resulted in Anglo-Saxons advancing West at the expense of the Britons.

Andrzejewski said...

Hallstadt was Proto-Celtic. It is Beaker derived but then BB is CWC-derived which in turn is SS derived (not Yamnaya). The Celts replaced many IE languages spoken before them.

Dragos said...

@ Garvan
''I checked the paper you referenced quickly.''
I too usually just quickly check the methods and then look to the dates themselves. I dont really analyse the details of the process of linguistic dating, etc. Just an awareness of what dates are out there by various approaches .
What's more interesting to me is what the physical evidence (settlements, bodies, DNA) can tell us about how language change might have occured.

Them meee said...

@Andrzejewski

The Normans are an obviously Celto-Germanic population, which is why they’re sitting close to the Belgians and main English cluster. If they were overwhelmingly of Norse origin, they would cluster closer to the Scandinavians and the Scandinavian-like English cluster, but they don’t, which explains why they speak a Romance language.

Samuel Andrews said...

Wasn't the northern tip of Italy (north of Rubicon river) apart of Cisplane Gaul province of Roman empire? Doesn't, that mean the territory was inhabited by Celts? Wouldn't, that mean modern northern Italians should descend from Celts?

Northern Italians are distinct, defined by an local strata of Neolithic farmer-rich ancestry. They have 'farmer' ancestry as Basque do. Maybe, Celts in northern Italy for the most part were of local Italian origin?

Samuel Andrews said...

DF27 dominates Iberia. L21 dominates British Isles. Both lineages arrived in the Bell Beaker/Early Bronze age. This fact alone makes it unlikely spread of Celtic languages made a big genetic impact.

Them meee said...

But you’re assuming all of the Celts were R1b-U152.

Wouldn’t it make sense if the Celts that came to Britain had admixed with R1b-L21-rich populations in France? Though that would mean greater replacement. But who knows?

Samuel Andrews said...

I guess that's possible.

Romulus said...

Linguistics isn't a hard science. If we can't reconcile linguistics with genetic evidence, which is hard science, then the simplest and best explanation is that the linguistics is wrong, i.e. Bell Beakers in the British Isles spoke Celtic.

Garvan said...

Ric Hern said...
"Please do share a link to that recent presentations. I do not see anything specifically Iron Age Briton like in the 2017 paper."

9th October 2018 Trinity Centre for New Irish Studies (CNIS)
Dr. Lara Cassidy discussed her postdoctoral research. No recording was permitted. Reported by Heber on anthrogenica.com (see: Cassidy-s-Thesis-Implications-for-L21-DF27-etc/page6).
11) How do our Irish Bronze Age and Iron Age populations relate to modern Irish populations
12) West to East, Irish Iron Age, Irish Bronze Age, British Iron Age, Anglo Saxon

Them meee said...

@Romulus

Then why do British Iron Age samples can’t be modeled as EMBA Britons, and seem to have Hallstatt-like admixture?

I guess all I can say is, we need more samples.

Andrzejewski said...

@Samuel Andrews "Wasn't the northern tip of Italy (north of Rubicon river) apart of Cisplane Gaul province of Roman empire? Doesn't, that mean the territory was inhabited by Celts? Wouldn't, that mean modern northern Italians should descend from Celts?

Northern Italians are distinct, defined by an local strata of Neolithic farmer-rich ancestry. They have 'farmer' ancestry as Basque do. Maybe, Celts in northern Italy for the most part were of local Italian origin?"

You're kidding me, right? Northern Italians are direct descendants of the Longobards (=Lombards"). They are as German as can be.

Andrzejewski said...

@All The Justinian plague was devastating the Roman Empire 532-540. 100,000,000 people, close to half of the population of both Western and Eastern Empires died, not to mention the social upheaval and institutional and political transformation. That's what facilitated the Arab conquest of the Byzantine Empire in the Middle East and North Africa, the Germanic invasion of France, Spain, Italy etc, and the Anglo-Saxon rout of the Celtic Brythonic Welsh not long after the Battle of Baden, in which Ambrosius (="Arthur") halted the Saxon advance. (530).

That's what had happened in Northern Italy, especially with the compilation factor of the scorched earth battle between the Byzantine and the Ostrogoth.

Mike the Jedi said...

@Andrzwejewski

"You're kidding me, right? Northern Italians are direct descendants of the Longobards (=Lombards"). They are as German as can be."

Right, which is why Northern Italians cluster so closely with Germans on PCAs and admixture tests. Come on, bro, you've got to try a little harder.

Simon_W said...

Pre-Roman Northern Italy wasn't ethnically simple at all! There were Celtic tribes, yes, both Lepontic and Gaulish, but let's not forget that there were also the Ligures (IE), the Veneti (IE), the Raeti (non-IE) and the Etruscans (non-IE). The latter were subdued by Gaulish invaders, but it's an open question to what extent they mixed with the conquerors and to what they took flight. With the Roman conquest there came quite obviously also some admixture from central and southern Italy. In turn it's not clear to me to what extent the Gauls of the Emilia-Romagna survived the Roman conquest. Pliny the elder claimed in the first century that the Boii and the Senones have disappeared from the Augustean region Aemilia.

Andrzejewski said...

@Simon_W you completely, utterly and totally fail to mention the later Ostrogothic and especially Longobardi conquest which altered the gene pool substantially in Northern Italy.

Mouthful said...

@Andrzejewski

How many times do you have to get into arguments about things you're not completely versed in? Yes, North Italians very likely have some Germanic input, but they're not like Germans and claiming that they are is very stupid. Have you seen any PCA's? North Italians don't cluster anywhere near Germans or Austrians for that matter, they're all much more southern shifted compared to Germans or Austrians.

Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...

Some of you have read something in Celtiberian? it has 5-6 declensions just like the Proto-Celtic.

"Tirikantam: berkunetakam: tokoitoskue: sarnikio kue: sua: kombalkez: nelitom"

It does not sound very good right?

And Galaico-Lusitanian

OILAM TREBOPALA, INDI PORCOM LABBO, COMAIAM ICONA LOIM, INNA OILAM USSEAM, TREBARUNE INDI TAUROM IFADEM, REVE TRE

Strabo states that: "Regarding the Alps ... many tribes (éthnê) occupy these mountains, all of them Celtic (keltikà), except the Ligurians; but although these Ligurians belong to a different people (hetero-ethneis), they are still similar to the Celts in their way of life (bíois) »





Urki said...

In relation to basque, and Languages replacement in general we should be more openminded. Many outcomes are possible when people speaking different languages met. In general conquerors (even tiny minorities) impose their languages, but not always. Think of medieval Normans (francophones) who conquered England and became the new ruling class. In less than 3 centuries they ended up speaking English and giving up French. The same may have happened in some regions of other of Southern Europe in the chalcolithic/bronze age transition. However, when the Romans show up, 75% of the territory in Iberia already spoke IE (look any well informed linguistic map of preroman Iberia)

JuanRivera said...

Norman french still had a huge influence on english, to the point that ~29% of english words come from french.

Andrzejewski said...

@JuanRivera That's why I'm not sure who originated PIE - the EHG or the CHG part of its ancestry.

Ric Hern said...

@ Andrzejewski

That EHG and CHG mixture are to Ancient that I don't think that the CHG Languages in the Steppe spoke anything similar to later CHG Heavy populations in the Caucasus or South of it.

Ric Hern said...

@ Andrzejewski

Even the EHG Languages spoken before 8000 BCE will have very little in common with todays Indo-European languages. It would have been almost comparable to Hittites distance from todays Languages when compared to PIE.

Ric Hern said...

What actually make a Language fall into a specific Language family ? 10% Similarities to Structure and Vocabulary or 51% ?

Ryan said...

@Ric Hern - "What actually make a Language fall into a specific Language family ? 10% Similarities to Structure and Vocabulary or 51% ?

A language family is a group of languages related by descent from a common language. So not just a shift in vocabulary.

@Romulus - "Linguistics isn't a hard science. If we can't reconcile linguistics with genetic evidence, which is hard science, then the simplest and best explanation is that the linguistics is wrong, i.e. Bell Beakers in the British Isles spoke Celtic."

I'm R1b-M222 and I don't speak a word of Celtic. The genetics can fool you sometimes too.

With the Beakers I think the genetics can be particularly misleading, since we know the culture doesn't correspond well to genetics (the break between early and late Beakers), and that something screwy happened with the Basques.

Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...


@Urki-

I agree about open-minded, but everyone, not just us. Not only the Basques, but more than 30 Iberian pre-Roman peoples spoke 3 non-Indo-European languages, that's why here we talk about the resounding failure of the Indo-European language, but if it truly ends up showing an oriental origin of R1b-M269, then we are facing a linguistic failure, not genetic. Experts say that Basque has 40% of words of Indo-European origin (Latin French and Spanish).This also happened with the Aquitanian-Basque in France, with the Etruscan in Italy etc. The current genetic homogeneity of Western Europe is very deceptive.In addition, we must not forget the shadowy genetic continuity of the female lineages (in some cases since the Paleolithic), and the importance of women when transmitting culture to their children.

@Ryan- "something screwy happened with the Basques"- It does not have to be this way, the genetic homogeneity is a consequence of the isolation in the mountains and of the racial policy of the Spanish Catholic Monarchy.The Holy Inquisition was more effective than we thought.

"The break between early and late Bell Beakers"

I guess you mean that obviously not all the Beakers were R1b, also I2a and G2a, and not only in Spain, also in Hungary, Germany and England, and in different chronologies. Neither cultures were ever homogeneous, the demonstration is what happened in the steppes with a puzzle of uniparental haplogroups,

The factors that made Indo-European a dominant language in Western Europe, were the Latin (Spain, Portugal, France, Italy and Romania) and the Celtic (France, Alps, isles). Without the Romans (I do not think that they were an example of racial uniformity) and the Celts (someone knows for sure the male haplogroups that can be considered Celtic?) in Europe many more languages ​​and of different origins would be spoken. The current linguistic homogeneity is also deceptive and makes us think that the BBs spoke an Indo-European language and that they were responsible for its expansion.

I guess the linguists will end up solving the mystery

Ryan said...

Diego - "@Ryan- "something screwy happened with the Basques"- It does not have to be this way, the genetic homogeneity is a consequence of the isolation in the mountains and of the racial policy of the Spanish Catholic Monarchy.The Holy Inquisition was more effective than we thought."

I don't see how the Inquisition could have made the Basques have the highest frequency of R1b-M269 in continental Europe.

Dragos said...

@ Diego is correct here
People often say - oh but Basques are only 1% of the case. They’re an anomaly. Who cares ?
That’s only the modern situation- they represent an important glimpse into the pre-IE past which shouldn’t be swept under the carpet.
What if we also had inscriptions from Belgium or France before the definitive Celticization of these areas ?

Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...

@Ryan-

The Inquisition not only acted against Jews, converts and Moors. To work in the administration in the colonies, in the army, in the church, the Spaniards had to pass blood cleansing tests, and history told us that the inhabitants of northern Spain had not only resisted the Moors, but they had reconquered and then repopulated the whole territory. Therefore, Basques, Aragonese, Asturians, Cantabros and Galicians were men who were supposed to be cleansed of blood and did not have to pass the racial tests that I mentioned. The northerners did not want to lose those privileges (in Spain all those men of clean blood were called hidalgos, that is to say nobles, they did not have to pay taxes) and obviously they tried to maintain their racial purity.Result Basques absolutely R1b-M269. The Asturians, Cantabros and Galicians, only 70% R1b, because after the last rebellion of the Moors the king did not expel them but settled many families who converted to Christianity in those territories

You are M222, just like my family in Guipúzcoa, where 19% of men are L21. That is the territory where more people speak Basque, and yet where there are less Df27. The isolation is so great that not only different dialects were spoken in the different Basque provinces, there were also different dialects between regions and even between nearby valleys.

@Dragos-"What if we also had inscriptions from Belgium or France before the definitive Celticization of these areas"

The oldest inscriptions in Basque are not in Spain but in France, because in Aquitaine Basque was spoken. And Aquitaine reaches the Garonne River, that is, a good part of France did not speak Indo-European languages ​​at the arrival of the Romans. And like the Spaniards, I think that the French are mostly R1b-M269


Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...


@Dragos-I have read many theories about the origin of Basque (Anatolia, Sardinia, Neolithic), there are also people who speak of origin in the Paleolithic and others who say that it is a kind of Ancient Indo-European and even that it is a Berber language. The truth is that I do not care about the origin, the important thing is to keep it, because Spanish is a very powerful language.

Regarding the relationship with the Iberian, to me it seems obvious, but I am not an expert linguist.

IBerian-Ban- Bi-Irur-Laur-Borste-sei-sisbi-sorse (one, two, three...)
Basque-Bat-Bi-Hiru-Lao-Bost-Sei-Zazpi-Zortzi

Ric Hern said...

@ Ryan

So basically what you are saying is even if 90% of a Languages Structure and Vocabulary were from some Ancient Undetermined Language then that 10% remaining is enough to classify it under the Determined Language Family ?

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 235   Newer› Newest»