search this blog

Thursday, May 9, 2019

It was always going to be this way


The native peoples of the East Baltic - Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians - are genetically alike and their paternal gene pools are dominated by the same two Y-chromosome haplogroups: R1a and N3a.

Linguistically, however, Estonians are a world apart from Latvians and Lithuanians. That's because the Estonian language belongs to the Uralic language family, which has an obvious North Eurasian character. On the other hand, Latvian and Lithuanian are both classified as Indo-European languages, along with the vast majority of other European languages.

The Uralic and Indo-European language families may or may not descend from the same ancestral tongue, but even if they do, their relationship is very distant.

So how is it that Estonians came to speak a Uralic language? As far back as I can remember, the basic explanation accepted by most people was that Uralic speech arrived in what is now Estonia and neighboring Finland during the Bronze Age with migrants, or perhaps invaders, rich in N3a from somewhere around the Ural Mountains. Conversely, Latvians and Lithuanians were generally assumed to have retained the Indo-European speech of their R1a-rich forefathers from the Pontic-Caspian steppe, who colonized much of Eastern Europe north of the steppe during the Late Neolithic.

Ancient DNA has now uncannily corroborated these theories (for instance, see Mittnik et al. 2018 and, published today, Saag et al. 2019). All it took was a handful of samples from a few relevant sites. I think that's awesome; I love it when sensible, long-standing hypotheses are validated by cutting edge science.

I'll have a lot more to say about the spread of Uralic languages and Uralian genes to the East Baltic when I get my hands on the genotype data from the new Saag et al. paper. I also have a post coming soon about the Nordic Bronze Age. Stay tuned.


Update 10/05/2019: Uralic-specific genome-wide ancestry did make a signifcant impact in the East Baltic

See also...

Late PIE ground zero now obvious; location of PIE homeland still uncertain, but...

Corded Ware people =/= Proto-Uralics (Tambets et al. 2018)

Inferring the linguistic affinity of long dead and non-literate peoples: a multidisciplinary approach

63 comments:

Andrzejewski said...

As far as I can remember Mittnik 2018 claimed that the N1a pops arrived during the Iron Age, not the Bronze Age.

Davidski said...

N3a/N1c arrived in the East Baltic during the Bronze Age-Iron Age transition.

And the reference to Mittnik et al. is in regard to the Indo-Europeanization of the East Baltic.

Andrzejewski said...

I would love to see some papers in the future regarding what kind of non-Uralic substrate in the Saami language, whether it derived from WHG/SHG or stemmed from EHG bands, and who were the Kunda and Narva groups and their role in the ethnogenesis of Latvians and Lithuanians. The latter language is as close to PIE as can be among modern languages.

Davidski said...

There's a video clip with the results from the Saag paper here...

Video Abstract

Samuel Andrews said...

There was a Russian study in 2015 that got R1a1, N1c, and mtDNA H from Mesolithic Baltic. We now know it was completely false. Modern DNA contamination.

John Thomas said...

Carlos will be having kittens :)

Kristiina said...

@ Samuel ” We now know it was completely false. Modern DNA contamination.”

How come we know that for sure? We have very little yDNA from Western Russia and Comb-Ceramic derived cultures in general. The N line that seems to have brought the Estonian language to Estonia is N-L550. It is clearly very expansive line as it spread to Sweden, as well as to Latvia and Lithuania in big numbers, and it is also the Rurikid line.

In addition to expansive Uralic IA lines, there is still some N*(xVL29, xZ1936, xB197, xB479) in Latvia and Lithuania, and one explanation is that it came before the Uralic Tarand culture.

EurDNA said...

Seems like tarand cist graves are derived from LBA stone cist graves ?

Davidski said...

Tarand graves aren't similar to stone-cist graves. They're originally structures similar to houses.

Huck Finn said...

In old sort of poetic Finnish there's an expression "mennä manan majoille" i.e. go to the Houses of Death i.e. "to die". It seems that in the West Uralic phase the burial habit was based on these house like constructions, perhaps according to family lines. My personal guess is that the later burning fields are basically imitations of the earlier paved floors of those burial houses, without the house like construction above.

The Ridala horse is BTW a pretty interesting animal, in terms of pedigree.

Davidski said...

@John Thomas

Carlos will be having kittens :)

He'll just double down, like he always does, and claim that this paper backs up his theories.

Aram said...

J2b2 y dna in medieval East Europe.

Samuel Andrews said...

I remember, some smart ass poster here last year argued the early Turks were of mostly Scythian origin & that early Uralics were of mostly Mezhovskaya (Andronovo decendant) origin. I had a debate with him, he called me an impacile idiot. Guess what he was almost completely wrong.

DamGaard 2018, samples from Eurasian Steppe, prove the Early Turks did have a lot of Scythian ancestry. But, they packed a huge chunk of Lake Baikal/Mongolian-like Asian ancestry that Scythians lacked. Which, proves the first Turks originated near Mongolia were basically East Asian. *Just look at Medieval Turkic art, they look east Asian.

Lamindas 2018, confirmed early carriers of N1c1a in Karelia were mostly a Nganassan-like/EHG mix & most similar to modern Mansi. They, fit as the main source of Asian ancestry in modern Saami. There's no indication Saami, Finns, Estonians are of largely Mezhovskaya/Andronovo origin.

Samuel Andrews said...

*Kristiina, not claiming Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov was Uralic or its N1c is ancestral to any modern N1c. I know the ethnogenesis of first Uralics could have been diverse & could have been mostly European not Siberian. Pointing, out Saami are of largely Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov-like origin & Uralics have nothing to do with Andronovo.

Davidski said...

Based on all of the latest info, including leaks about upcoming papers, it seems like early Uralic speakers were especially rich in various types of hunter-gatherer ancestry from around Northeastern Europe.

But the high ratios of European MN farmer ancestry in the Iron Age samples from this paper suggests that they also merged with some very western-like groups as they expanded. It's hard to say where and when that happened exactly at this stage.

Synome said...

If we consider Hakkinen's hypothesis that PU is derived from an interaction zone with CW derived cultures, the absorbsion of European MN ancestry may have begun very early, possibly before PU even expended.

Of course, that doesn't preclude later contributions as well since the early Uralic speakers apparently moved westwards into these likely IE speaking areas.

EastPole said...

When I look at the PCA I can see that Old Estonians (OE) were quite different from modern Estonians (E):

https://i.postimg.cc/jdVtyfh5/Estonians.png

To understand what happened we have to solve the equation:

OE + ? = E

One theory is this:
Northern tribes with poor agriculture living in forests like Finno-Ugrics, Balts and Germanics had to control their population growth by infanticide. Usually girls were the victims. But later there were not enough women for marriage and young men had to look for brides outside. Germanics were stealing their brides from Celts; Finno-Ugrics and Balts from Slavs.

Desdichado said...

Carlos will be having kittens :)

He'll just double down, like he always does, and claim that this paper backs up his theories.


He's already doing it. He's got a long post up about how this totally backs up his story and the conclusions reached by the authors is shockingly wrong.

Leron said...

I’m amazed at how the Siberian autosomal contribution was very minimal relative to that of its YDNA. I wonder how these N guys were able to breed with so many of the native Western women as a minority population and with no discernible advantage (ie. horses).

zardos said...

They seem to have introduced skilled iron work, elobarated tools and weapons, didnt they?
That would have given them a military and economic edge in the rather backward Notheast.
Also, they might have had the better strategies in a deteriorating, cooler climate.
And they didnt have to be that fast with their expansion and overtake.

Davidski said...

I'm pretty sure that early Uralic speakers had horses.

In fact, Iron Age horses from Ridala, Estonia, form a clade with Iron Age horses from the Mongolian Altai. That's probably not a coincidence.

Davidski said...

I'm looking over the genotype data now from the Saag paper.

There's a very clear shift from a Bronze Age Baltic to modern Finnic/Uralic genetic drift.

Vinitharya said...

Why wouldn't the Uralics have Sintashta horses? At least they would be at the root of their own breeds. And being that the east Baltic was at the very periphery of Corded Ware, I assume their technology may have degraded as they were farther away from the latest innovatory cultures like Unetice towards the west or the aforementioned Sintashta to the east.

Andrzejewski said...

The most stupid thing I’ve read on Carlos’ blog is that R1a1 Hap, Sredny Stog and CWC were “Uralic speakers”...

Andrzejewski said...

So where did the non-Uralic substrate in Saami came from, @Sam?

Andrzejewski said...

Aren’t modern Uralics west of the Ural Mountains 2/3 European? And who were the Budini that Herodotus was referring to and described as tall, blond hair and blue eyes? Aren’t they the Mari and Mordvins?

Arza said...

tall, blond hair and blue eyes

Here we go again. :|

Shaikorth said...

@Davidski, Vinitharya
Ridala horse is likely a part of an extinct breed that did not see major use. On a genomewide level it clades with one Pazyryk Scythian horse sample but with no other European or Asian horses including other Scythian, Karasuk and Mongol horses, and it has a Botai horse's Y-DNA which is extinct in modern horses too.

Saadjarve_Saa1, from Central Estonia, on the other hand may represent the main type of horse used by early proto-Finnic groups. In the autosomal tree it clades with modern Icelandic and Shetlandic horses, roughly like modern Finnhorse here:

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure/image?size=large&id=10.1371/journal.pone.0054997.g001

Like some of the N1c branches found in Sweden certain Scandinavian horse breeds might have a late Bronze/early Iron Age origin from the Eastern Baltic.

Huck Finn said...

According to the knowledgeable people at the National Museum of Joshkar Ola in Mari El, Akozino-Ananyino was a horse riding culture. The Ridala horse pedigree might be related to a situation, where there's an established horse herding culture but still on a sort of archaic level i.e. including horse lineages which died out during the later phases of horse breeding.

Early Baltic Finns, especially Karelians (literally "Herders"), were BTW quite capable horse breeders. There's for instance a Papal bull against Karelians for selling horses to pagans and heretics (i.e. Russians).

Mem said...

@Andrezejewski

Budini people were probably Proto Slavs.It is guessed that their home located in northwest Ukraine(pripyat marches).

Also some details about them such as high population and bordered with Galenos Greek colony in Ukraine, these make think that they are Proto Slavs.

Critias said...

Maybe Ienissean languages ? (See linguistics supplement in Sikora et al, 2018). They could have been widespread in Siberia before the expansion of Turcic and Uralic languages.

Ryukendo K said...

@ Sam

I remember well the conversation we had, which you badly misrepresent.

Here were your points:
1. Proto-Uralics were like Nganassans.
2. Hunter-gatherer Nganassan-like populations were responsible for spreading Uralic languages. European-like ancestry in them is all recent non-Uralic introgression.
3. Bolshoi Oleni Ostrov genomes, heavily ENA, likely represent Finnic or Saamic incursions.

Here were mine:
1. Proto-Uralics, ever since the beginning, likely had Steppic ancestry, at least 30%, and in addition also contained modern European-like ancestry in they sense that they contained EEF and CHG. This Europe_LNBA type ancestry in them can be represented for example by Andronovo, which taken together with excess European hunter-gatherer ancestries and ENA ancestry might look like Mezhovskaya.
2. Proto-Uralics practiced some agropastoralism, and their technologies and subsistence practices spread with each Uralic branch. In the west they may have increased ENA ancestry, but in Siberia East of the Volga and in Finland they introduced or increased modern European-like ancestry.
3. BOO genomes are pre-Uralic, Saamic genomes with more European than BOO were the first Uralics in Finland, and we will find that proto-Finnics input further increased European ancestry in Finland relative to Saami in the metal Ages. Finnish and Estonian people are not so European because of Baltic, Swedish and Slavic admixture, but because proto-Finnics were already highly European.
4. Because Saami and Finnics have different ENA than other Uralics as showed by rare alleles, the proto-Uralic population may have had low or no ENA.

Many contributed to the convo and refined my points: Kristiina, Shaikorth and Davidski's comments on uniparentals and archaeology, as well as nMonte, pointed to some Corded Ware group like Baltic_BA being a better proxy for the modern European-like ancestry in Uralics instead of Andronovo, which I picked from Europe_LNBA populations due to extensive IIr loanwords indicating population interaction between Proto-Uralics and IIrs. Instead the genetic evidence pointed to interactions between IIr speakers and Uralics prior to Andronovo-Sintashta, when these IE speakers were still in Russian Corded Ware in the Volga.

The conversation continued on Anthrogenica, where I responded to Davidski's "Estonian Tarand graves... will be heavily Siberian" comment with the prediction that Tarand grave genomes "will have less than 15% ENA, maybe even none", but quite a bit of hunter-gatherer and Europe_LNBA type ancestries.

We now see that proto-Finnic genomes, even from selected graves, are indeed highly European-like with very little ENA but substantial EEF and CHG, adding to the proto-Saami evidence from Levahnluhta.

Tambets et al, as well as this paper, produce a true "Uralic" component in ADMIXTURE that peaks in Khanties, and is poorly represented in Nganassan, who are shown to have minimal Uralic ancestry. If we use this component, then proto-Uralics would be around a third Europe_LNBA, a third West Eurasian hunter-gatherer, and a third ENA. This is strong evidence that proto-Uralics also having low or no ENA ancestry is wrong. Apart from this, all the rest of my points conform fairly well to the data, while yours are just incorrect.

Lastly, I never said that the Turks were Scythians. I did point to non-Uralic ENA input in Volga Uralics, very likely Scythian (which is now detected by the Jeong 2019 Central Asian paper by Volga Uralics being off-cline), and also said before the Karluk Turk genomes were out that proto-Turks were likely a mix of two thirds Pazyryk Scythian and one third Mongola or Baikal_EN ancestry from nMonte modelling. You must have gotten confused.

Ryukendo K said...

If it is indeed also true that EstIA differs strongly in regional dimensions of drift, resembling Uralics instead of Balts, despite being only ~5% ENA and indistinguishable using f3 and D stats from presumably Baltic speaking populations in this paper, this shows us that much Uralic-specific drift is carried by West Eurasian ancestry specific to Uralics, including their Europe_LNBA and European hunter-gatherer ancestries, instead of being determined by ENA percentages alone.

gL said...

@Leron
Strictly speaking "Western women" died out with Neanderthals. Modern women of Europe mostly are of Near East origin and have spread past Ural mountains:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Human_migrations_and_mitochondrial_haplogroups.PNG

If you have the question about N, then you should have exactly the same question about R, as both of them came into Europe from East.

Both genders provide autosomal contribution with chromosome X. Looks are combination of genes of BOTH parents.


@Vinitharya
Germany is periphery of Corded Ware. As for innovations - so far nothing points to space faring technology of ancient cultures, so hardly we are degrading that much :D

@Andrzejewski
The way I see it, it is really hard to deal with hot potato of ancient nature of Baltic and much later development of Slavic as branch of Baltic. This article does not even touch these questions and it is about very late development of Baltic. So, for Carlos who does not dwell in deeper issues of these questions, it makes perfect sense, that R1b along with ancient Spaniards spoke IE, while R1a spoke Uralic.

@Critias
So far, I understand, that it is general knowledge, that people who spoke Yenisseian languages and who had y-dna Q, populated Siberia, before the spread of N there. There is also proposal of linguistical macrofamily with Na-Dene languages, that is located in Northern America. Also, Ket(sole survivor of Yenisseian) has highest Q y-dna share in Old World - nearly 100%. R is sibling branch of Q and who knows - maybe in future there will be found links between Yenisseian and IE, too, but Yenisseian alone hardly made into Europe, because R did it instead.


Uralic and Yukaghir who spread in Siberia is another proposed macro-family, that seems to bound with N y-dna.
IE along with Basque(and some related but dead language groups) is another proposal, that is linked with R y-dna. The problem with R is that in southern part of Europe R1b is in existence for ~14 000 years, which makes it especially hard for linguistics, as even IE is not considered that old.
Anything that is related to Older Europe should also regard Ice Age and only 10 000 years ago over modern boundaries of Baltic countries were Ice lake and there existed some land bridges in seas around Europe.

Prior R, Europe seems to had y-dna of I and G, where I seems to be more widespread and it in turn is more related to J, which correlates to some ideas, that pre-IE languages, that y-dna I used, were kinda Semitic(Semitic developed much later) in nature. I'm refering to Vasconic, but it has some problems with localization, as it was not I area in general, but C, where R replaced it.

Davidski said...

@All

The following samples are now in the Global25 datasheets.

Baltic_EST_BA:0LS11_1
Baltic_EST_BA:V14_2
Baltic_EST_BA:V16_1
Baltic_EST_BA:V9_2
Baltic_EST_BA:X08_1
Baltic_EST_BA:X10_1
Baltic_EST_BA:X11_1
Baltic_EST_BA:X14_1
Baltic_EST_BA:X15_2
Baltic_EST_BA:X17_2
Baltic_EST_IA:0LS10_1
Baltic_EST_IA:V10_2
Baltic_EST_IA:V11_1
Baltic_EST_IA:V12_1
Baltic_EST_IA:VII4_1
Baltic_EST_IA:X04_1
Baltic_EST_MA:IIa_1
Baltic_EST_MA:IIf_1
Baltic_EST_MA:IIg_1
Baltic_EST_MA:IVLS09KT_1
RUS_Ingria_IA:VIII5_2
RUS_Ingria_IA:VIII9_1

The relevant links are listed in this blog post...

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/04/downloadable-genotypes-of-worlds.html

EurDNA said...

@ gL

Virtually everything you have outlined is wrong, and that's not even going into your claims about European women originally being Neanderthal, because theyre a different species
Point 1: ''Prior R, Europe seems to had y-dna of I and G''. hg R has been in Europe much longer than G
Secondly ''that pre-IE languages, that y-dna I used, were kinda Semitic(Semitic developed much later)'' - its highly unlikely that pre-IE Europe spoke much if any Semitic, given that Europe's First Farmers did not come from northeastern Africa, or the Levant, or Mesopotamia, or other likely places where A-A originated; let alone the WHG groups with which they admixed.
Lastly, by the time Basque was around, hg C (& La Brana types) had been gone for thousands of years.

Andrzejewski said...

@gL My theory is that between the Caspian and the Altai there was a population resembling Native Americans with Haplogroup Q and some ENA (Yongyuan?) admixture. The ANE eg MA1 population spread from Lake Baikal circa 24,000 years ago, one branch (AG3) 10,000 years later ultimately made it into Yamnaya and PIE groups; the other Ancient North Eurasian groups staying put them heavily admixed with East Eurasian groups. The result was a population which was almost identical to Native Americans speaking a Yenisseyan-like language, ancestral to Botai, Okunevo and Beringians. Later either Botai were wiped out or displaced by Sintashta horse riders, and Okunevo may or may not have been their descendants with their Przawelaki horses in today’s Mongolia. Genetic studies revealed that Okunevo were almost identical to American Indians, and Botai were mostly ANE with a great ENA admixture, so here’s the linkage.

Davidski said...

@gL & Leron

If you guys don't learn the basics, like, for instance, the difference between uniparental markers and genome-wide ancestry, then I'm sorry but you can't post at this blog.

I will ban you next time you post any type of nonsense here.

gL said...

@Ryukendo K

It is hard to understand what is meant by proto-Uralics. IMO, there are some problems of classification of it, but I do think that your arguments about Uralic as steppe culture has more flaws.

Baltic Finno-Ugric tribes in Baltic archaeologically are identified as Pit Comb ceramic culture. This culture goes back to Xinglongwa culture, which was located in Korea and China and that is where all of N1, N1a and N1a1(Tat) originated.

N1a1a - originated in Southern Siberia. It includes also Yukaghir and Sakhalars, who are descendants of assimilated Yukaghirs, who were living on shores of Lena river. Nowadays Yukaghirs have high percentage of C and Q, but their N part points to Southern Siberia as origin. Same with Chukchi, who has 68% N1a1.

N1a2 - also in Souther Siberia, Baikal - Shamanka archeological site. They seem like culture, that has no origins rekated to Xinglongwa culture in China. It seems, that these people mingled and replaced in their way Yenisseian, as Selkups, have very high proportion of Q y-dna - 66% - only comparable to Yenniseyans, where ket has it nearly 100%.
N1a2a - steppe N, completelly unrelated to Uralics, as none of these speak Uralic.
N1a2b - Ob-Ugric and Samoyedic people, who moved away from steppe.


So, we already have problem there. There seems to be branching of Volga basin based Uralic and Yukaghir and distinct branch of Ob-Ugric and Samoyedic people. Yukaghir is not Uralic language. Not even Finno-Yuaghir, while Ugric is Finno-Ugric.

Linguistically, I would see sense to assume, that Samoyedic people are speaking more archaic language, than rest of Uralic, due to their isolation from others, not to mention, that neighboring languages had greater impact on Yukhagir language, which has borrowed a lot from them and Volga based Uralic also have been in close proximity of other languages.

There are some maps, that show distinct groups of N1a:
https://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(16)30160-4

Now, some criticism:
1. Homeland of N1a1 Uralics originated in Southern Siberia. So far I have not heard of different points of origins of horse domestication - it has only one source. I have a question - how did proto-Uralics in their route from northern China acquired steppe ancestry and probably earlier than IE, who became Steppe culture after moving away from lake Baikal, while proto-Uralic groups moved in Baikal area? What about N1a2 - were they also steppe culture? So, if N1a1 could became steppe culture, while traveling from China, why Q did not became steppe culture? What about American Indians? Are they Steppe culture? Are Chinese Steppe culture as well?
Yes, Uralic were in close proximity of steppe(IE) culture, but assuming, that they also were steppe culture is too much. Also, what is requirement to be called Steppe culture nowadays? Just having horse should not make one - it should include lifestyle of constant travel. Proto-Uralic in Volga basin had sedentary lifestyle. And yes - there are no steppe reindeers. It might be similar lifestyle, but is it?
2. Some agropastoralism would imply, that they ploughed and had arable lands. Somehow I feel, that this is not the case and after leaving China they had to relearn how to plough lands from Baltic people. Also pastoralism... apart from herding reindeers and horses, there aren't that much choices to do pastoralism - elks are tall and aggressive. Nope. All the home animal names are somehow linked to Baltic, which means, that goats, sheeps, pigs and cows they also received through Baltic people.
3. So, how did they became highly European... if we disregard their close proximity to IE, Baltic assimilation of Oka Uralic, spread of M558 further into east in process and admixture of Baltic around Baltic Sea? Are Japanese or Koreans considered highly European now?
4. ANE - Ancient North Eurasians
There are out there other N y-dna groups, that in fact do not have ANE ancestry in them at all and they are East Asian. So, what are you saying, is that no ANE == East Asian.

Andrzejewski said...

@gL “Uralic and Yukaghir who spread in Siberia is another proposed macro-family, that seems to bound with N y-dna.“

Hogwash! Yukaghir is either an independent family maybe an offspring of some ANE language, or it has something to do with Tunguska. Uralic links are flimsy and are probably due to language contact and/or sprachbund

Kristiina said...

To my knowledge, there are two analyses on yDNA frequencies of Yukaghirs. The older is from Pakendorf et al. 2006:
1 x C3*
1 x C3c*
2 x C3c1
1 x F
4 x N1c
4 x Q1*

According to Ilumäe et al, the Yukaghir N1c is N3a2'6* (M2110, CTS10761).

In the new paper "Siberian genetic diversity reveals complex origins of the Samoyedic-speaking populations", 2018, there are 10 new samples with the following yDNA distribution:
4 x C-M325
4 x C-M86
1 x Q-L54
1 x N-L708*

The Yukaghir language could be influenced by some Uralic languages, but IMO, the core of the Yukaghiric lnaguages is most of all tied up with the history of yDNA C rich populations of the northeast Asia.

Davidski said...

By the way, the genotype data are here...

http://evolbio.ut.ee/Saag_2019/

M. Myllylä said...

Unfortunately we need a strong N1c1 population from the BA Volga region or at least a massive evidence about it from the early IA Volga region, I have seen so far only R1b, R1a and I2. I am sceptical with good reason until this happens. Science have to be based on evidences.

M. Myllylä said...

@Leron wrote

"I’m amazed at how the Siberian autosomal contribution was very minimal relative to that of its YDNA. I wonder how these N guys were able to breed with so many of the native Western women as a minority population and with no discernible advantage (ie. horses)"

Using common sense the "West European woman" came to Europe during the Neolithic era or even earlier. That even in Finland the clear cut majority of women belongs today to this group, with exception of some U haplogroups. However, the clear cut majority of men belongs to Siberian origin. This is possible due to normal populational dynamics.

M. Myllylä said...

It is pity that studies don't use up to date classifications of male haplogroups. I'll correct this using now available BAM-files. We can see who are descendants of those IA Estonian men. But it takes some time.

EurDNA said...

@ Davidski
Perhaps you migth cover it in future, but I see an ''FU cline'' -stretching from East Baltic to Mansia. None of the aDNA samples to date (apart from IA East Baltics, Oleni Ostrov, etc) sit on it, even Mezhovskaya. The Sintashta outliers instead go off onto their own cline between Sintashta & Siberia Neolithic. The cline does not quite go toward Glazkovo EBA, nor do the eastern Scythians (e.g. Pazyryk) lie on it either. So we must be missing still some relevant samples

@ Myllyla
Good luck. Its annoyng with all different nomenclature usages

Gaska said...

The issue of languages ​​spoken by different cultures only has a scientific solution that is to demonstrate without any doubt, the genetic relationship existing between current speakers of a language/or historical peoples of which we have written references to a certain prehistoric culture. Everyone has been speculating for years about the languages ​​spoken by Yamnaya, CWC, EEF, BB culture, etc ... and all the theories that have been developed have been without having an exact knowledge of what the genetic composition of these cultures is.

The situation in Iberia is one of the first controversies that seems to be clarified with the apparent dissociation of R1b-P312 from IE. In this case there is clear and irrefutable evidence that there are current (Basque) and Historical peoples (Iberians and Tartessians) who were absolutely R1b-P312 and spoke NO-IE languages. However, Spanish geneticists will soon demonstrate that genetic continuity (R1bP312/df27 and mit-groups) also existed with IE speakers in the peninsula, and then all sorts of theories began to seek explanations for the incongruity of why genetically equal populations spoke different languages.

The theories of Renfrew, Koch, Kristiansen, Klein, Carlos Quiles, fcº Villar.... on the origin and expansion of languages ​​are all very respectable. All of them know that by exposing them publicly they are subject to criticism and thanks to this confrontation of ideas we can move forward. Who will finally be right? Probably none of them. Geneticists will be able to interpret the genetic results obtained (uniparentals and autosomal markers) in one way or another, depending on the linguist/archaeologist/theory they have as reference, and surely in many cases they will also have to rectify their erroneous interpretations.

I personally think that Carlo's theory is wrong because there is no clear genetic link between the Yamnaya culture and the BB culture. In addition their conclusions on what has happened in Iberia and Estonia seem surreal to me.

I also think that Kristiansen, his colleagues and followers are aware of the impossibility of linking the CWC with IE as a whole, because of the obvious disconnection between that culture and the IE languages ​​of southern and western Europe, and because the genetic connection with Yamnaya is not scientifically proven yet.

Regarding the possibility pointed by Davidski of finding P312 in the SGC due to the obvious connection between the Dutch BBs and the British, not only will it be very difficult to prove (due to the peculiar characteristics of the Dutch deposits) but it also seems like a attempt to disassociate P312 from the danger of an Iberian or Franco-Cantabrian origin (due to the evident antiquity of that marker in the peninsula). Meanwhile, many people are desperately looking for L51 in Germany.

Davidski said...

@Gaska

There's no way that P312 is from Iberia. It arrives there suddenly along with genome-wide ancestry from outside of Iberia. Deal with it.

Gaska said...

@Davidski

Let's see what happens my friend, it is not worrying either, because our true objective is not P312. There is an interesting project about the Pre-BB Iberian chalcolithic. I have been told that there are many samples in Barcelona, Harvard and Groningen. We have just started and the genetics has begun to revolutionize archeology, linguistics and anthropology, I do not know what we are going to do when all the riddles are solved.

By the way, everyone seems to have overlooked that Olalde has only been able to model the Iberian BBs with the German Bbs (I believe that due to the scarcity of BB samples in France and Italy). The main criticism we made to Olalde in his previous paper was his hasty denial of the genetic relationship between the different European BB regions. Now (2.019)he has also verified that there is a percentage of shared mitochondrial lineages (maybe he should have done it in 2.018), which is what we have been saying for a long time. Female migrations are therefore evidence, and with respect to male migrations any possibility is open. That is, P312 migrations from France or Germany to Iberia, and evidently subsequent migrations of P312 / Df27 to other regions (Sicily etc ...). I hope that in a few years you will remember what I am saying.

Gaska said...

Can you imagine what will happen if Lord Renfrew is finally right and Yamnaya did not speak IE?

M. Myllylä said...

V12 is L550
VII4 is under work, but lacking information, something upstream
IIa is likely L550
IIf is L550
IIg is L550
0LS10 is likely Z1926

Blasonario Cremonese said...

@ Gaska

Also on Anthrogenica sensationalism and the will to have secrets that others won't know are your best weapons.

If you have informations that others haven't got, it's a choice of good taste to share them. It's easy to cast the rock and to hide the hand, like you are doing by casting the big boulder of "I have been told that there are many samples in Barcelona, Harvard and Groningen. We have just started and the genetics has begun to revolutionize archeology, linguistics and anthropology, I do not know what we are going to do when all the riddles are solved": if you know what are going to be the results, the scientists involved and the sites investigated, so share them with us all.

We all are waiting to see Samantha Brunel's thesis on France and Lara Cassidy's thesis on Ireland... but we have to wait until 2020 for Cassidy's paper.

Gaska said...

@Blasonario Cremonese

In Spain it is no secret that dozens of samples from the sites of Valencina, El Argar and Humanejos are being dated and studied in those laboratories. Neither you nor I, know the results, we have only heard rumors, for example, of the results that will be published in Italy (will they be true?)

We all expect the papers of Brunel and Cassidy, also those that have to be published from Switzerland and two interesting papers about the Neolithic and Chalcolithic in the Iberian Peninsula. We all keep moving except the Kurganists who banned me in Anthrogenica (I suppose you will be one of them), surely they continue looking for paths to bring P312 from Yamnaya and inventing theories about the steppe bells beakers and the BB culture. Surely they are very disappointed with the published results of Iberia. It's a pity they did not let me tell them to their faces.

weure said...

"I also have a post coming soon about the Nordic Bronze Age. Stay tuned."

I'm very curios. I made a short analysis with G25 web runner, with Barcin Neolithic (=ENF), Early CW Baltic (Kurganist, Steppe) and North Norway HG.

With golden oldies Nordic Rise 98 (LN-EBA) and Rise 174 (Iron Age). Some modern populations (Dutch, Norway, Sweden) and some anthrogenica members North Dutch(I'm Finn) and Radboud (he's West- Dutch).

I guess all variations on the same theme....I plot very very close to Rise 174 and to modern Swedes. But the resemblance is big.

https://www.mupload.nl/img/ancil2.31.41.png

Matt said...

@Ryu, pretty much how I remember those conversations going tbh, though I wasn't a participant in them and didn't pay a huge degree of attention. (Think they're here: http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/03/the-whiteboard.html and here: http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/03/siberian-ancestry-and-y-haplogroup-n1c.html for anyone who wants to check these directly, and then later comments by David here: https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/12/how-did-y-haplogroup-n1c-get-to-bolshoy.html).

Seems to me like proto-Uralics probably had about as much East Eurasian admixture as likely IE (proto-Indo-Iranian+other lost branches?) speakers of their same time and longitude, however much more of these trans-Siberian y-dna haplogroups? (This not a comment specifically at RK but in just thinking aloud).

@Ryu, I doubt you're going to respond given your principled stance on commenting on blogs from last year, but would note for your interest, I found interesting their comment on the decay of the signal of sex biased migration (which they first described in 2017 - https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(17)30724-8) from CWC to Middle Ages pretty interesting: “We also tested for sex biases by comparing outgroup f3 statistics calculated on autosomal (A) and X chromosomal (X) data. The high X-to-A ratio of European-early-farmer-related ancestry observed in Estonian Corded Ware Culture decreases over time and disappears by the Middle Ages (Figures S2C–S2F; Data S1).”. (Relevant figures: https://i.imgur.com/ps9Sydn.png). I've commented on why this loss of signal may be the case on GNXP - https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2019/05/09/inventing-the-whites-what-hath-fog-wrought/#comments.

The pigmentation stuff is also fairly interesting - not totally sure if this is actually going to yield predictive values on these ancient peoples, but it's nice to have a comparison to the use of this Hirisplex panel on the British Neolithic + Loschbour (where Losch, highest quality HG turned out "intermediate", e.g. Fitzpatrick scale 3, as many Europeans today), and in any case the selection on these variants needs to be explained.

Blasonario Cremonese said...

@ Gaska

"In Spain it is no secret that dozens of samples from the sites of Valencina, El Argar and Humanejos are being dated and studied in those laboratories. Neither you nor I, know the results, we have only heard rumors, for example, of the results that will be published in Italy (will they be true?)"

Ok, but not everyone here come from Spain: if those are news only for Spain, in Spanish and only on Spanish newspapers... it isn't difficult to realize that only Spanish people are updated with research progress.

And about Italy, I don't think to have heard anything about the results... Did you know or hear something we don't?


"We all expect the papers of Brunel and Cassidy, also those that have to be published from Switzerland and two interesting papers about the Neolithic and Chalcolithic in the Iberian Peninsula. We all keep moving except the Kurganists who banned me in Anthrogenica (I suppose you will be one of them), surely they continue looking for paths to bring P312 from Yamnaya and inventing theories about the steppe bells beakers and the BB culture. Surely they are very disappointed with the published results of Iberia. It's a pity they did not let me tell them to their faces."

First of all, I'm not a kurganist: my Y-DNA haplogroup, G2a, saves me from being a R1a superiority enthusiast and also from being a R1b-native supporter.

On Anthrogenica I remember the discussion between you and others: it seems that nobody was without guilt.
As for the published results from Iberia, nobody is disappointed: the R1b with steppe ancestry came from the Continent... things we've already known for at least one or two years.

Gaska said...

@Blasonario Cremonese said... "And about Italy, I don't think to have heard anything about the results... Did you know or hear something we don't?"

The rumors about Italy we have already commented on this blog, and refer to the possible appearance of L51 in the Italian Neolithic. As we are all very cautious, we are simply waiting for the results to know what is happening in your country. (I sincerely believe that it is very difficult to find L51 in Italy, but Villabruna generates doubts)

@BC said..."On Anthrogenica I remember the discussion between you and others: it seems that nobody was without guilt"

As you can see I am answering you, although I imagine who you are. You already know that I tried not to speak with you in Anthrogenica to avoid provocations and that I was banned anyway. Obviously my attitude did not work, but it does not matter because the truth is that I am not a spiteful person. I guess at some point you can apologize, because I think your behavior was unfair and you have always boasted of nobility, honesty and chivalry.

@BC said..."As for the published results from Iberia, nobody is disappointed: the R1b with steppe ancestry came from the Continent... things we've already known for at least one or two years"

Really? As I predicted before I was banned

1-Now we have the 2º oldest R1b-P312 in Europe (El Hundido-2.434 BC)
2-Olalde has shown that there was an exchange of X chromosomes between BB Germany and BB Spain. Remember what I said about the Iberian migrations?
3- R1b-P312 has been unlinked from the IE language

Nobody is dissapointed?
Do you know what is left of the Kurgans' theory? Ashes, although some of the guardians of Kurganist orthodoxy refuse to recognize it. Remember the nonsense about the steppe BBs, the origin of the BB culture, the brachycephaly of the men of the steppes, the technological superiority of the Yamnaya culture. What is left of that? R1b-Z2103, R1b V1636 and the impossible dream of being able to link the Bb culture with the Indo-European language.

The truth is that here I am very comfortable and I do not have to endure provocations. Un saludo

weure said...

I guess Davidski got a point with his 'after the SGC admixture' (with TRB and PWC/HG groups), In the previous posting I used Early Corded Ware Baltic as a proxy for SGC, now I use the Yamna Samara because early Corded has already some kind of HG and ENF mixture.

Now I used North Norway HG, Barcin N (ENF) and Yamna Samara (Steppe). The result is clear:
https://www.mupload.nl/img/0quujvs3aw.59.23.png

Blasonario Cremonese said...

@ Gaska

"The rumors about Italy we have already commented on this blog, and refer to the possible appearance of L51 in the Italian Neolithic. As we are all very cautious, we are simply waiting for the results to know what is happening in your country. (I sincerely believe that it is very difficult to find L51 in Italy, but Villabruna generates doubts)"

I didn't see anything about that claim with sources in rumours. I only read that this is an old theory by Gioiello, nothing like leaks from academics. If you may point me to the comments with these rumours, I'll be glad to see them.


"As you can see I am answering you, although I imagine who you are. You already know that I tried not to speak with you in Anthrogenica to avoid provocations and that I was banned anyway. Obviously my attitude did not work, but it does not matter because the truth is that I am not a spiteful person. I guess at some point you can apologize, because I think your behavior was unfair and you have always boasted of nobility, honesty and chivalry."

I won't apologize with you for what I said or did: more than one moderator looked at our "single combat" and everyone saw you in fault. I also had to endure your provocations, but nobody saw me in fault, and I'm not a R1b-certified kurganist with the correct pedigree.


"Really? As I predicted before I was banned

1-Now we have the 2º oldest R1b-P312 in Europe (El Hundido-2.434 BC)
2-Olalde has shown that there was an exchange of X chromosomes between BB Germany and BB Spain. Remember what I said about the Iberian migrations?
3- R1b-P312 has been unlinked from the IE language

Nobody is dissapointed?
Do you know what is left of the Kurgans' theory? Ashes, although some of the guardians of Kurganist orthodoxy refuse to recognize it. Remember the nonsense about the steppe BBs, the origin of the BB culture, the brachycephaly of the men of the steppes, the technological superiority of the Yamnaya culture. What is left of that? R1b-Z2103, R1b V1636 and the impossible dream of being able to link the Bb culture with the Indo-European language.

The truth is that here I am very comfortable and I do not have to endure provocations. Un saludo"

First of all, I don't understand your way of logical thinking: for many years it was demonstrated that autosomal analysis helps to know the origins of groups. If a P312 is very ancient in Iberia, but it shows continental admixture not seen in Iberia before the date of that sample, so we don't need a Nobel prize scientist to conclude that P312 came from Continental Europe to Iberia.

Olalde showed that some mtDNA haplogroups were in common... but a tiny minority and he was clear that the real turnover was on Y-DNA haplogroups.

The only nonsense I see, is that to deny the data because it's easier to follow a biased agenda.

R1b wasn't IE? And so? Yamna wasn't IE? And so? The fact is that, as data show, non-IE and IE peoples in Iberia were similar and, probably, on paternal lines from the same area.

Of course L51 isn't native to the steppe, but it could be native of Eastern Europe or Central Europe, probably from the Renish area. The thing you seem to deny is that the closest parent of L51 was from the steppe.

Gaska said...

@BC-said....R1b wasn't IE? And so? Yamna wasn't IE? And so? The fact is that, as data show, non-IE and IE peoples in Iberia were similar and, probably, on paternal lines from the same area. Of course L51 isn't native to the steppe, but it could be native of Eastern Europe or Central Europe, probably from the Renish area. The thing you seem to deny is that the closest parent of L51 was from the steppe"

Your Kurganist friends no longer think that L51/P312 is in the Yamnaya culture ? Nor do they think that IE was spoken in the Yamnaya culture? Do not you think that R1b spoke IE? Wonderful news because then we won, I still remember them in "Oldest Steppe BBs-Saxony-Anhalt" looking for alternative routes crossing Europe until arriving in Germany. Delenda est Yamnaya

Do not lie, remember that I have always defended the same thing, that is, a western origin of P312 (Franco-Cantabrian Region). As you are an expert in geography you know that it includes the north of Spain, and the French regions of Aquitaine and Occitania

I already imagined that you were not going to be able to apologize, greet your bosses in Anthrogenica.

Ric Hern said...

There are still Huge Unsampled Areas between the Dnieper and Elbe Rivers. A migrating Clan needn't be all over the place....they could have used a specific restricted route...so until samples from those wide open areas comes to light, I personally will keep an open mind regarding R1b L51...

Blasonario Cremonese said...

@ Gaska

"Your Kurganist friends no longer think that L51/P312 is in the Yamnaya culture ? Nor do they think that IE was spoken in the Yamnaya culture? Do not you think that R1b spoke IE? Wonderful news because then we won, I still remember them in "Oldest Steppe BBs-Saxony-Anhalt" looking for alternative routes crossing Europe until arriving in Germany. Delenda est Yamnaya"

What others do or think is not what I do or think. It's not difficult to do a simple post search and see that I've always thought about a L51 origin in Central Europe and not in the steppe.


"Do not lie, remember that I have always defended the same thing, that is, a western origin of P312 (Franco-Cantabrian Region). As you are an expert in geography you know that it includes the north of Spain, and the French regions of Aquitaine and Occitania"

Excuse-me, but where did I lie in the preceeding post? I know (we all know) that you (like other Basque nationalists) have always defended the origin of P312 in the Franco-Cantabrian region... but to let other think that Aquitaine and Occitania are in Central Europe isn't really that honest.


"I already imagined that you were not going to be able to apologize, greet your bosses in Anthrogenica."

I invite you to read again your posts, even only here, and then ask yourself why you were banned while I wasnt...

Bastian Barx said...

Gaske/Diego reminds me a bit of comical Ali. Anybody remembers him.lol