Genes don't speak languages, people do. Thus, associations between genetic markers and languages may often not be easy to discern, especially with time. This is the case when it comes to Y-chromosome haplogroup N and the Hungarian language.
I briefly discussed this problem not long ago in the context of new ancient DNA samples from medieval Hungary (see
here). Today, a detailed paper on the topic by Post et al. was published at
Scientific Reports (open access
here). It brings together evidence from modern and ancient DNA, linguistics and archeology to argue that Hungarian was introduced into the Carpathian Basin during the Middle Ages by migrants from near the Ural Mountains rich in Y-haplogroup N3a4-B539. Below is the paper abstract, emphasis is mine:
Hungarians who live in Central Europe today are one of the westernmost Uralic speakers. Despite of the proposed Volga-Ural/West Siberian roots of the Hungarian language, the present-day Hungarian gene pool is highly similar to that of the surrounding Indo-European speaking populations. However, a limited portion of specific Y-chromosomal lineages from haplogroup N, sometimes associated with the spread of Uralic languages, link modern Hungarians with populations living close to the Ural Mountain range on the border of Europe and Asia. Here we investigate the paternal genetic connection between these spatially separated populations. We reconstruct the phylogeny of N3a4-Z1936 clade by using 33 high-coverage Y-chromosomal sequences and estimate the coalescent times of its sub-clades. We genotype close to 5000 samples from 46 Eurasian populations to show the presence of N3a4-B539 lineages among Hungarians and in the populations from Ural Mountain region, including Ob-Ugric-speakers from West Siberia who are geographically distant but linguistically closest to Hungarians. This sub-clade splits from its sister-branch N3a4-B535, frequent today among Northeast European Uralic speakers, 4000–5000 ya, which is in the time-frame of the proposed divergence of Ugric languages.
Post et al.,
Y-chromosomal connection between Hungarians and geographically distant populations of the Ural Mountain region and West Siberia,
Scientific Reports 9, Article number: 7786 (2019), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-44272-6
See also...
Hungarian Conquerors were rich in Y-haplogroup N (Fóthi et al. 2020)
On the association between Uralic expansions and Y-haplogroup N
Ancient DNA confirms the link between Y-haplogroup N and Uralic expansions
"The split between of B540 and B545 subgroups within Baskhirian, Tatar and Hungarian populations started around 2700–2900 yBP (Fig. 2, Supplementary Table S2) that is in accordance with the recent linguistic data about the divergence of Ob-Ugric and Hungarian languages61."
ReplyDeleteMezhovskaya is both the right time and the right place. Assuming the existing Mezhovskaya samples are representative, this suggests a proto-Hungarian population that was dominantly European in therms of genome-wide (autosomal) ancestry. However it is likely that they received additional eastern ancestry from Turkic admixture, before moved west (and how know what else).
We have three Mezhovskaya samples, one is R1a and the other two are R1b. They probably had contact with Ugric speakers but I'm not sure they themselves nessacarily were.
ReplyDeleteThe Iron Age (5th-3rd? century BC) Sargat culture did have N1c along with R1a but we have no autosomal DNA from them. They are considered to be Proto-Hungarian.
@ Slumberry
ReplyDeleteIs the suggestion that some of the eastern admixture in F-Us is from medieval Turkics ?
@EurDNA
ReplyDeleteNo, the suggestion is that some of the eastern admixture in 900 AD Hungarians (aka "Conquerors") is Medieval Turkic. I think this specifically came from the intermingling of Hungarians and steppe Turks in the South Ural region and cannot be generalized to FU. (Notwithstanding the possibility that some modern FU groups that are adjacent to Turkic speakers might received some admixture too, but that is a different story and a lesser extent.)
@Anthony Hanken
So we have two YHg-s from Merzhovskaya and both are ones modern Baskirs and ancient Humgarians also have/had. With 2 YDNA you have a pretty big chance to miss even a haplogroup with 20-30% frequency.
BTW, a two ways and a three ways model in G25 nMontes:
"sample": "RUS_Mezhovskaya:Average",
"fit": 2.2763,
"RUS_Sintashta_MLBA": 80,
"RUS_EBA": 20,
"sample": "RUS_Mezhovskaya:Average",
"fit": 1.896,
"RUS_Sintashta_MLBA": 73.33,
"RUS_EBA": 18.33,
"RUS_Karelia_HG": 8.33,
RUS_EBA is surely not the right source, but the point is: that Baikal ancestry was unlikely the carrier of either R1a or R1b.
It might seems so, but Mezhovskaya as proto-Ugric is that much my pet theory. However I don't think that 0/2 yHg N is a strong argument against it.
@Slumbery
ReplyDeleteRUS_EBA has now been renamed back to its proper label.
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteThank you, a welcome change, but the online nMonte runner haven't updated the database yet and i just copied the output without. I should have changed the name manually, but well, now it stays as it is. There is a super annoying captcha when I am writing from the laptop I am using now.
"However it is likely that they received additional eastern ancestry from Turkic admixture, before moved west (and how know what else)."
ReplyDeleteI wonder whether members of the Q-BZ427 subclade of Q-L330 might also have contributed something "else" to the pre-migration Magyar population.
According to YFull, DA221 (Tian Shan Nomad_IA, 2526 +- 40 BP uncal, exhumed from grave 9 at the Kargaly-1 burial site according to Table S2 of Damgaard et al. 2018) belongs to Q-YP1695*(xBZ427). YFull estimates the TMRCA of Q-YP1695 to be 1,650 (95% CI 950 <-> 2,400) ybp. Either the radiocarbon 14C dating or YFull's TMRCA estimate (or both) must be off by some amount.
From Damgaard et al. 2018: "The Kargaly-1 monument is located 1.1 km to the north of the village of Fabrichnoye in the Zhambyl district of the Almaty region. This archaeological complex of Bronze Age and Early Iron Age monuments was discovered by the local historian V. V. Sarayev. Seven Bronze Age burials and three Early Iron Age burial mounds were investigated in 1989, 1991 and 2005, all of which were critically threatened. The monument is located on the banks of the Uzyn-Kargaly River, 0.35 km east of the current riverbed and 0.3 km north of the Almaty-Uzynagash highway."
This site seems to be located on the southwestern fringe of the Ili River basin, on the northern side of the Trans-Ili Alatau mountain range and about 40 km west of Almaty.
According to Supplementary Figure 132 of Damgaard et al. 2018, outgroup-f3 statistics for sample DA221 indicate that its genome most closely resembles a sample of some population from Western Siberia (judging from the location of the red dot on the map, probably the Kets).
Most modern Kets and Selkups belong to Q-B287/YP1102, which is another branch of Q-L330. Their MRCA with DA221 and modern Hungarian members of Q-BZ427 is estimated by YFull to be 7,700 (95% CI 6,600 <-> 8,900) ybp.
@ Slumberry
ReplyDeleteNo, the suggestion is that some of the eastern admixture in 900 AD Hungarians (aka "Conquerors") is Medieval Turkic
I think this specifically came from the intermingling of Hungarians and steppe Turks in the South Ural region''
What about within the Khazar period ? That's the most imminent origin of Conquerors.
@EurDNA
ReplyDeleteI am not sure what do you mean by Khazar period. The time when the South Ural came under Turkic influence intersects with the time of Khazar Empire, but as far as I know the South Ural was outside of their control (although probably not outside of their sphere of economic and cultural influence). When the ancient Hungarians moved to modern day Moldavia (probably around mid-9th century), they pretty much settled what was the western border zone of the Khazars at the time (Kiev was still Khazar), but I think a big part of the "intermingling" happened before that.
There is not enough data though. A lot of thing about the Khazar-Hungarian relationship is speculative and unclear.
@Slumbery
ReplyDeleteOne R1a two R1b.
"Three individuals (RISE523, RISE524, RISE525) of the Mezhovskaya in Southern Ural from 1400 BC to 1000 BC were studied.[5] Extractions of Y-DNA from one individual was determined to belong to the Western Asian haplogroup R1a1a1 (kit RISE525: Meshovskaya, SNPs: Z645, Z283(-? false negative)>Z282>Z280>CTS1211>YP343>YP340>YP371>Y11162 (Y11175 level Y11162), Y11175+ Y11171-[6]), while the other extractions were determined to belong to R1b (kit RISE524: Meshovskaya, SNPs: R1b1a2-PF6494)"
A few hundred years later the Sargat Kurgans were half N1c half R1a.
Definitely not enough to disprove your theory but something to consider as I would think Proto-Ugric would have a higher frequency of N than the later more mixed Proto-Hungarians.
What happened to the Hungarians? Were they numerically small from the get-go, even in their homeland, or is it still possible that they were decimated due to invasions and were further reduced by Magyarized immigrants, as some have proposed?
ReplyDelete@ Slumberry
ReplyDeleteThat Khazar period is x. 650 - 850, when they ruled the steppe lands of Europe.
It is said that the Magyars, and 3 rebel Turkic groups (the Kabars) rebelled against the Khazars & fled west.
This seems to be a pretty parsiminous spot for Turkic admixture.
@ Anthony Hanken
ReplyDeleteYou have some good points, however there could be still a regional variation of paternal groups within Mezhovskaya. As far as I know RISE523, RISE524, RISE525 are all from the same site. The presence of Baikal autosomal ancestry makes the presence of some connected paternal lineage plausible, without that the Mezhovskaya = Ugric theory would not have a leg to stand on (from the genetic side at least).
@Gabriel
Both. The conquerors were a minority group in the Carpathian Basin to begin with, however there was population replacement too.
We can only speculate about the Mongolian/Tatar invasion in the mid 13th century, but we have detailed data on the Ottoman Wars that hit core Hungarian speaking areas disproportionately and were followed up by large scale organized immigration and some level of assimilation.
Hungarian assimilation was successful even in regions were they became downright minority for two reasons:
- Bigger settlements had a better survival rate, so even some immigrant dominated regions ended up with a grid of Hungarian speaking centers that had big assimilation power in the 19th century.
- The immigrant groups were themselves mixed, so Hungarian could become a common language (de big settlement effect helped to catalyze this).
This did not work everywhere, particularly in the Southern Great Plain region (modern Northern Serbia and SW Romania) that was hit by a ~90% population loss, there was not enough remaining Hungarian to assimilate.
@EurDNA
The problem with this scholarly theory that archaeology could not find any trace of Hungarians within the actual Khazar empire in the 650-850 AD period. As I told you the South Ural was outside of the empire technically (notwithstanding significant influences) and the traditionally proposed intermediate homeland around the Don was not verified by archaeology. This intermediate homeland is part of the old canon (It was taught to me in school), but was recently challenged by archaeologists.
BTW, this does not make it impossible or even unlikely that some former Khazar vassal Turkic tribes joined in and there was rebellion involved, but the 650-850 Khazar-(core)Hungarian relation is unclear and speculative as I said.
Note: a prominent of the archaeologists challenging the old canon is listed as an author in Post et al., as well as a linguist who promoted the idea before, so it is not surprising that the article goes with this version (both the map and the text).
@Slumbery, Anthony Hanken
ReplyDeleteMezhovskaya might have been a part of proto-Ugrics but with current data too early say if it was a major component, for example the best Global25 fits for modern Ob-Ugrics Khanties involve Sintashta outliers+their neighbours Komi and Evenk (Baikal EBA works to replace Evenk but the fit is worse and Evenk uniparentals fit better too).
Speaking of Sintashta outliers, the early Tarand N1c sample OLS10
got an excellent statistical qpAdm fit done from anglesqueville on Anthrogenica
Baltic_BA 0.807
Sintashta_o 0.193
tail_prob = 0.895, best fitting model so far
@Shaikoth
ReplyDeleteThis actually touches a topic that led to somewhat heated debates here in the past. The thing is, modern Khanti and Mansi are small, very drifted populations that cannot be modelled with aDNA references with reasonable fit + they pretty likely received a lot of additional Siberian admixture after the assumed Ugric "union" had dissolved. The latter is especially apparent among the Mansi who have the cultural memory of descending from two different tribes, one with a religious horse cult (so obviously from the South) and another presumably local Boreal with a bear cult.
They are still somewhat better proxies to understand the probable genetics of ancient Ugric people than Hungarians, but a lot of care is necessary, they are definitely not Ugric remnant groups frozen in time.
According to their own version of the history during the 20th century, the hungerian historians I have read, said that Magyars tribes arriving during the 9th century, were a mixed stock between a Turquid horse riding aristocracy that had enslaved pastoral Ugric people for centuries. And this combination gave origin to the Magyar language, where you could see the words related to the conquerers riding culture aside with the words of the pastoralists. A little bit like in English, where the word "hog" or "pig" is used by the ones who raise them, the Saxons and "porc" coming from French is used by the ones who eat them, the Normans. Perheps "hog" and "pig" represents and older layer.
ReplyDeleteMagyar groups arrived together with a lot of other groups derived from the Khasar falling khanate, including a Jewish tribe that must have had a khasaric origin.
The Magyars imposed themselves over the other people, and magyarized Avars, Slavs that lived in the danubian basin.
They also brought an enormeous quantity of medieval inmigrants from France, Greece Italy, Serbia and Germany together with their germanic western wives to replace lost population in wars and bring the western culture in order to be accepted as a cristian kingdom.
This inmigrants lived in the cities and apparently seldom mixed with peasants and a few times with the aristocrats, creating a very stratified society that mostly used german as a language of business and culture but boasted of its Magyar origin
In the 19th century last names were magyarizided and hungarian was imposed in order to satisfy the nationalist cause in a Eastern European conglomerate of ethnic multiplicity, named Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Directly under the hungarian rule were the Croats, Slovacs, Romanian and sometimes some Polish and Ukrainians, besides some Serbs, and Gipsies.
@olga
ReplyDeleteI do not know what you read, but this is the first time I heard the version were the Ugric people were enslaved for centuries by the Turkic side. I can believe that this story existed, because there are much weirder stories out in the wild, but I am pretty sure it was never a canon or consensus, because if nothing else, I would have been taught so in school. (Instead I was pretty much taught that the Turkic tribes were sidekicks used for perimeter guarding, but that is also a simplification.)
As for your linguistic paralel with horse culture and English-Normann immediately fails with the very first keyword, because the Hungarian word for horse is an Ugric word that is unique to the Ugric languages and there is no Turkic version for it in the Hungarian language in any related meaning. There is no trace of English-French like double words in the wider horse-vocabulary either.
The exact nature of the Turkic-Ugric interaction in the "confederation" is debated, but given that lot of group and personal names connected to the 900 AD elite were already Ugric, a Turkic slavers + Uralic slaves version is implausible.
Also you say:
"creating a very stratified society that mostly used german as a language of business and culture but boasted of its Magyar origin"
I really do not know where the hell you are mining baseless things like this. There is absolutely no trace that German was used as a language of business and culture in Medieval Hungary. At any rate, the language of culture was Latin. German was even less used in culture and official texts than Hungarian. And at any rate, Southern Transylvania was the only region of Hungary with significant German community at the time, the massive German immigration into various other regions happened only after the Ottoman Wars.
At this point I also doubt that your sources are Hungarian. Most of what you wrote is typically something a Slavic nationalist would write.
A/ On Medieval Hungary
ReplyDelete@Slumbery
There is absolutely no trace that German was used as a language of business and culture in Medieval Hungary. At any rate, the language of culture was Latin. German was even less used in culture and official texts than Hungarian.
This is not true. Upper Hungarian cities (now Slovakia) was clearly based on german laws, german architecture and in many cases german language (because of medieval german settlers). Look at medieval Zilina City books written mostly in Latin, followed German and Slovak. And this is not exception, on the contrary (Kremnitz, Schemnitz, Pressburg, all Zipser Gebiet etc...).
B/ MAP - FIGURE 3 in the text.
Look at the picture d) - N3a4 subclades defined by B535 and B539. It is a very interesting that high geographic frequency is in todays Drava river / Pecs region and Burgenland / Carinthia, very low in Central Hungary and again rising on the border of HU / Romania and very high in Szekely region (Transylvania). Why it is so? especially westernmost distribution of N3a4 clades are striking and posing the questions about the article results.
There is something that both Olga and Ebizur touched upon, which I'd like to expand further: The invading Magyars were 7 Ugric tribes with 3 Khazar tribes (="Kabar") joining them following a rebellion on the Khazar Khaganate. There were elite burial tombs with Star of David sign on them, attributed to the conversion to Judaism of the Khazarian elite. Would these 3 Kabar tribes the source of Turkic lexicon in the Hungarian language? Or maybe it's more likely the invasion of Pecheneg, Kumans etc which did it?
ReplyDeleteHungarians like to refer to themselves as the heirs of the Huns. We know so far that the Huns are largely descended from the Xungu, which was a multiethnic confederation with many Yeniseian tribes such as the Jie. Would Ebizur's "the Q-BZ427 subclade of Q-L330" come from the Huns, more precisely from the Jie and other Yeniseian tribes?
Olga claims that the Turquid (sic) aristocracy held sway over the Ugric peasants; some of it rings true if we consider that the Arpad dynasty names were mostly Turkic in origin, stretching all the way to "Kalman" in the 13th century. Might it be the Kabar/Khazarian Jewish influence? (The first Jews in Hungary came with the Magyars; it was said that they later on were assimilated into the "Ashkenazi" ethnic group which came from Germany in the 14th century).
Last but not least: when we look at the vocabulary of the Hungarian language, 20%-25% originated in various branches of IE languages, 12% is Turkic and twice as many are Uralic (25%, same ratio as Indo-European ones). However, the LARGEST CATEGORY of words in Hungarians is from "Unknown" sources. Could it be Yeniseian?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_language#Vocabulary
ReplyDeleteOrigin of word roots in modern Hungarian[49]
Uncertain
30%
Uralic
21%
Slavic
20%
German
11%
Turkic
9.5%
Latin and Greek
6%
Romance
2.5%
Other known
1%
_______________________
Might be Yeniseian?
My mistake: judging by arithmetics, IE languages contributed at least 50/100 to Hungarian, and not as previously stated.
ReplyDeletePlease, I don´t claim anything and of course, hungarian have many theories about their origin, true or myth. Most of them were inspire by politics, according to whom was ruling the country or by social class.
ReplyDeleteMy hungarian friends and family by marriage usually fought in 3 or 4 languages. They mostly used magyar and german to do it.
Here we are trying to disentangle this very complicated society
and a little bit of history showing the diversity of the population through ages, will do no harm.
There was even a linguistic current that connected magyar a sumerian language.
Of course Latin was spoken as a Lingua Franca in the medieval universities all over Europe. And of course, German should have been an important language of de bourgeois, because they were surrounded by the Sacred Empire,and German Universities and merchants and French was important in diplomacy. All of these facts made city Hungarians masters of different languages at least until the World War II.
Yes, of course. And it may be that the "Conqueror" Magyars were outnumbered by German and Slav neighbors OVER TIME, and not by some presumed Avar/Slav/Hunnic/Pannonian substrate population. 50% of the lexicon of the Hungarian language is IE (latin, Slav, German, Greek), 12% Turkic and only 21% Uralic, but 31% of the vocabulary is of UNCERTAIN derivation. Could be it Yeniseian as a legacy of the Hunnic confederation?
ReplyDelete@M
ReplyDeleteOK, I accept the correction. The Northern mining region's cities also had significant German influence and population early on, not only the similar region in Transylvania. However that is still does not justify Olga's generalization. Especially that some of those cities are in regions were the base population was not Hungarian speaking to begin with.
@Olga
Sorry if I got you wrong, but you said dubious things in a rather matter of the fact tone and used some terminology from the playbook of some Slovak chauvinists (probably inadvertently).
In a calmer tone: the Old English vs. Frech kind of vocabulary hierarchy is not present in Hungarian in the Uralic-Turkic relation. There is no sign that a drastic stratification existed between them, definitely not for elongated time.
Latin was not simply a Lingua Franca between universities here, it was the only official language of Hungary until the 19th century. Even 18th century German rulers still gave out regulations/laws in Latin here.
Also in your first post you conflated Medieval Hungary with Habsburg Hungary. Some things you wrote are true for the latter, but not for the former.
@Andrzejewski
We would know if they would be recent (early Medieval) Yeniseian. They are absolutely not.
Most likely is that most of them:
- Internally created words that are too old to be transparent.
- Uralic and other ancient words that became unrecognizable by time.
- Borrowings from dead and forgotten languages.
- Borrowed words that died out or changed to be unrecognizable in their source language or inherited Uralic or Ugric words that died out or changed too much in other Uralic languages.
It is a combination of all of these.
Please be very careful when speculate based on pure vocabulary percentages, because you do not know the type of words coming from each source, neither the time of borrowing (based on how they changed regularly) and both are important.
And I assure you again that linguist would have picked up something as big as 30% of the Hungarian vocabulary being recent Yeniseian borrowing.
BTW, I am personally not a big fan of the Hun theory, not in a literal sense anyway.
@M
ReplyDelete"Look at the picture d) - N3a4 subclades defined by B535 and B539. It is a very interesting that high geographic frequency is in todays Drava river / Pecs region and Burgenland / Carinthia, very low in Central Hungary and again rising on the border of HU / Romania and very high in Szekely region (Transylvania). Why it is so? especially westernmost distribution of N3a4 clades are striking and posing the questions about the article results."
1. SW Hungary is known to be special guard zone with a specific guard population (similar to the Székely-s in Transylvania). The part of the region even called Őrség (őr = guard) and it is speculated that it was established in the same process/time as the Székely settlements.
2. The pattern is also consistent with Ottoman War population lost. Central Hungary and significant parts of modern Eastern Hungary were particularly badly depopulated, while most of the regions now richer in N3a4 fared much better (exception is Pécs region, that was also badly hit, but it is a small anomaly in this picture with many possible explanations).
3. there is less good information, but the mountainous parts of Transylvania and SW Hungary/Burgenland were also regions that survived the 13th century Tatar invasion _relatively_ well.
It is OT. There is a new paper on Africa by Reich et al.:
ReplyDeletehttps://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-019-1679-2
Fig. 2 shows phylogenetic relationship of 44 African and 32 west Eurasian populations:
It interesting that Finno-Ugric Estonians, Finns and Hungarians, Germanic English, Islandic and Orcadian group together with Slavic Russians, Poles and Czechs:
https://i.postimg.cc/bwDQk0np/screenshot-499.png
In case when populations speaking different languages cluster together on phylogenetic tree they suggest language replacement, like in case of Fulani.
So in case of our example from Europe the possible explanation would be that populations grouped together with Slavs on phylogenetic tree are derived from Balto-Slavic Corded Ware and experienced language shift in history. Any other explanations?
@EastPole
ReplyDeleteSo in case of our example from Europe the possible explanation would be that populations grouped together with Slavs on phylogenetic tree are derived from Balto-Slavic Corded Ware and experienced language shift in history. Any other explanations?
Not just Corded Ware but all sorts of populations native to Northern and Eastern Europe, including Corded Ware, in varying degrees.
For instance, Finns, Estonians and many Russian groups share a lot of Finno-Ugric ancestry that isn't derived from Corded Ware, but rather from forager groups from near the Urals, but Poles have very little if any of this ancestry.
Also, that tree isn't designed to accurately describe fine scale relationships between Eastern and Northern Europeans. You'd need a tree based on haplotype or rare allele data and probably one that shows admixture edges to do that.
BTW, this man is Rinat Akhmetov, a Ukrainian of Volga Tatar descent:
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rinat_Akhmetov#/media/File:Akhmetov_Rinat_Leonidovich.jpg
He looks almost indistinguishable from any other Ukrainian or Russian.
Volga Tatars must have had lots of Scythian and Sintashta blood, in addition to some recent Eastern Slav one as well.
@Andrzejewski
ReplyDeleteThe other day, you made a comment about attested Tocharian speakers carrying R1b. Could you elaborate on that?
@Bob Floy
ReplyDeleteAgain, like I said on the previous thread, Andrzejewski probably heard all the fuss about “Central Asian Celts” and concluded that Tocharians were R1b.
By the way, wouldn’t Volga Tatars be more Finnic-derived than, say, Sintashta-derived?
Yeah, I know.
ReplyDeleteI'm hoping he'll answer, maybe he knows something groundbreaking that we all missed.
@Bob Floy Maybe my source is outdated: https://familypedia.wikia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1b
ReplyDelete"There also exists a haplotype of R1b with the DYS393=12 which is known in the literature as Haplotype 35, or ht35, as opposed to the AMH which is known as haplotype 15. They can be found in high numbers in Southeastern Europe and Western Asia. The members of this haplotype are thought to be descended from early R1b's who found shelter in Anatolia. They can be found in high numbers in the Armenian Highland and Armenia with smaller numbers throughout the Middle East, in Jewish populations, in Southeastern Europe, and in the Caucasus Mountains. There is also a sizable pocket of ht35 in Uyghur populations in western China, which is thought to be a remnant of the Tocharians, an Indo-European speaking people that inhabited the Tarim Basin in Central Asia until they were later absorbed by various Turkic peoples."
If this source is to be believed, then we found not only R1b in Tocharians but also the R1b in Anatolian speakers (what Reich thought was missing) and in Armenians. What I don't agree with the source is the dating, i.e. the R1b in Anatolians and Armenians did not descend from "an early R1b who found shelter in Anatolia" but with the Pontic-Steppe IE speakers of Anatolian languages who imposed their genes and languages on Kura-Araxes-like populations of earlier Anatolians.
It's definitely outdated, because they're talking about that Bryan Sykes book, but the real problem is that Y-DNA from attested Tocharians hasn't been published yet. This business of trying to infer Tocharian Y-DNA by looking at Uyghurs was always kind of goofy.
ReplyDeleteTo date, there is no Tocharian Y-DNA for us to talk about, although hopefully that's going to change soon. Thanks for sharing, though.
@Gabriel
See? Good things come to those who wait.
There are already first conclusions from the research of the team from the Biobank Laboratory and the Chair of Anthropology. The researchers suppose that in the case of the population living in Kujawy there was a surprisingly strong genetic continuity, dating back to the time of the first farmers from before 7.5 thousand years.
ReplyDelete"It seems that we are dealing with an interesting genetic continuation of the population living in Kujawy from the early Middle Ages to the nineteenth century. These populations as if their roots probably reach the Neolithic and even Mesolithic" - suggests the scientist.
http://naukawpolsce.pap.pl/aktualnosci/news%2C77226%2Cskany-3d-czaszek-i-zbior-starozytnego-dna-trafia-na-informacyjna-platforme-e?fbclid=IwAR3qHULHUQwZcsWQ-NUIJWaA2q0S-ynAzneagHSHaNBxoi_SlCg5V7o4TKo
Anyone have access to this?
ReplyDeleteArchaeogentics and Palaeogenetics of the British Isles
Katharina Dulias, 2019
http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/34890/
It seems that not all English BBs are Dutch, there are also Africans
ReplyDelete