search this blog

Saturday, May 11, 2019

Uralic-specific genome-wide ancestry did make a signifcant impact in the East Baltic


I've started analyzing the ancient genotype data from the recent Saag et al. paper on the expansion of Uralic languages and associated spread of Siberian ancestry into the East Baltic region. The paper is freely available here and the data are here.

I really like the paper, but I don't agree with the authors' claim that the appearance of Y-chromosome haplogroup N in what is now Estonia and surrounds during the Iron Age is "not matched by a clear shift in autosomal profiles". In my opinion it certainly is, and, as one would expect, it's a shift towards a genetic profile typical of western Uralic speakers.

I'd say that the easiest way to find this signal is with a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) focusing on fine scale genetic substructures within Northern Europe, like the one below. The relevant datasheet is available here.


Note that the East Baltic Iron Age samples, all from burial sites in what is now Estonia, appear to be peeling away from their Bronze Age predecessors and overlapping strongly with present-day Estonians, who are Uralic speakers. Indeed, the PCA suggests to me that the formation of the greater part of the present-day Estonian gene pool took place in the East Baltic during the transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age. That is, when Uralic languages are generally accepted to have arrived in the region from near the Ural Mountains in the east.

I was also able to closely replicate these outcomes with my Global25 data using the method described here. However, in this effort, present-day Estonians are clearly more western than the Estonian Iron Age samples (EST_IA), which might be due to the presence of low level Germanic ancestry in Estonia dating to the medieval period. The relevant datasheet is available here.


Interestingly, the Estonian Bronze Age samples (EST_BA) come from stone-cist graves which are widely hypothesized to have been introduced to the East Baltic from the Nordic Bronze Age civilization. I even recall reading a paper on the topic which claimed that the remains buried in such graves were those of Proto-Germanic-speaking Scandinavian migrants. Well, I haven't had a chance to study these samples in any great detail yet, but considering that in both of the PCA above they're overlapping strongly with Latvian Bronze Age samples (LVA_BA) and sitting far away from the nearest Scandinavians, I'd say they're probably of local stock from way back.

See also...

It was always going to be this way

On the association between Uralic expansions and Y-haplogroup N

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

121 comments:

Shaikorth said...

Modern Estonians have additional German and significant additional Finnish ancestry compared to the medieval ones in G25 (scaled, pen 0). The latter is likely from migrations dating to Swedish rule of both Finland and Estonia.

"distance%=1.5679"

Estonian

Baltic_EST_MA,68
Finnish,25.8
German,6.2

Tatar_Lipka,0

Kristiina said...

I had a look at the mtDNA data of Estonian BA samples in order to identify the areas of origin of this population.

Several samples show a connection with the surrounding area, in particular Latvia and Lithuania:

BA Estonia Rebala Harju X13 780-480 BC K1b2a,
Baltia LN Gyvakarai1 2500 BC K1b2a,
Kunda Donkalnis5 Lithuania 6000 BC K1b2,

BA Estonia Muuksi Harju X10 1220-1020 BC U5a2a1,
LBA Kivutkalns164 Latvia 500 BC U5a2a1,
BA Trzciniec Turlojiske1932 Lithuania U5a2a1,
Srubnaya MLBA Samara Spiridonovka IV Russia I0359/I0259/SVP7 U5a2a1

BA Estonia Jõelähtme Harju OLS11 1060-850 cal BC H1c,
LBA Latvia Kivutkalns215 700 BC H1c
EBA Germany Haunstetten Unterer Talweg Massy146 H1c
-> today frequent in the Baltics and Poland

BA Estonia Iru Harjunmaa X02 1090-910 cal BC T1a1b,
LBA Latvia Kivutkalns194 700 BC T1a1b
-> frequent in the Baltics and Poland

BA Estonia Rebala Harju X14 780-430 BC H1b2,
BA Estonia Väo Harju V16 730-390 BC H1b2,
LBA Latvia Kivutkalns207 500 BC H1b2
-> today frequent in Poland and Russia

In some cases the connection is less clear:

BA Estonia Vehendi Tartu X15 1210-1000 BC U5b1b1
Janislawice HG Kuyavia Poland Jan1 U5b1b1
-> today found in the Slavic area

BA Estonia Väo Harju X16 1080-910 BC J1c4,
Nordic Middle Neolithic Kyndelöse Denmark RISE61 J1c4,
Globular Amphorae GAC-Sandomierz Poland grave 8 sk 3 J1c4,
Globular Amphorae Koszyce Poland RISE1241 J1c4,
-> today found in Poland, among others

BA Estonia Napa Ida-Viru X11 1030-890 BC J1c2k
-> today found in Poland and Sweden

Some mtDNAs are rather connected with the continental Europe:

BA Estonia Muuksi Harju X05 1210-1010 BC T2a1b1a1, BA Estonia Muuksi Harju X08 930-810 BC T2a1b1a2
-> seems to be from the area of Germany

One mtDNA seems to have a connection with Sweden
BA Estonia Jõelähtme Harju V9 1220-1010 BC K1c1h
-> today found in Sweden

Some mtDNAs show a connection with more eastern cultures:

BA Estonia Muuksi Harju X09 820-770 BC J1b1a
-> from the Russian/ Kazakhstan Steppe

BA Estonia Napa Ida-Viru X12 900-790 BC W6
Volga Poltavka Podlesnyj Russia POD1 W6

BA Estonia Muuksi Harju V14 1280-1050 BC U2e2a1
LBA Armenia Lchashen-Metsamor Metsamor arm13 U2e2a1,

BA Estonia Väo Harju X18 1200-… BC U3b2a
-> from Near East, Caucasus

BA Estonia Väo Harju X17 930-810 BC U4a2b, BA Estonia Väo Harju X20 900-800 BC U4a2b
-> from the Uralic area

Summary
Surrounding area 6/18, of which ultimately steppe 4/18, ultimately Europe 2/18
Eastern Europe/ Russia/ Caucasus 6/18
Germanic area 3/18
Unspecified Europe 3/18

EurDNA said...

Has anybody had a finer look at which R1a & N clades are the Estonian BA & IA ?

@ Davidski
At first glance, Est BA & IA from the paper which you added to G25 look a bit odd to me, not quite like modern FUs, instead the main source of their East Shift is predominantly CCC in ancestry(?). The real Siberian signal appears only with modern FUs, and Oleni-Bloshoy

Davidski said...

They do have more European hunter-gatherer ancestry than any modern population, including even Latvians.

I don't know if it's specifically from CCC though.

Davidski said...

By the way, EST_IA does show a Siberian signal in the Global25, but EST_BA doesn't and isn't supposed to have any Siberian ancestry. Have a look at the ancestry estimates in the paper.

Davidski said...

Also, I'd be careful about using really low coverage samples like the two Comb_Ceramic samples from Estonia. They're likely to throw off results.

Kristiina said...

I made an analysis of the Estonian Iron Age mtDNAs as well, but it is far less clear, because the haplotype information of Uralic populations is far from complete and we lack ancient data:

IA Estonia Kunda Lääne-Viru V10 790-430 BC H1a
-> H1a shared with Finns, Estonians, Karelians, Vepsans, Mordvins, Udmurts, Komipermjaks, Komis, Maris, Hungarians, Chuvash

IA Estonia Ilmandu Harju OLS09 540-380 BC H6a1a
-> H6a* shared with Estonians, Finns, Vepsans, Komi-Permjaks, Maris, Mordvins, Besermians, Khanties, Chuvash, Bashkirs, Tatars

IA Estonia Kunda Lääne-Viru OLS10 770-430 BC H13a1a1a
-> H13a1a* shared with Finns, Maris, Mordvins, Udmurts, Chuvash, Bashkirs, Tatars

IA Estonia Kurevere Saare V11 390-200 BC W3a1d
-> shared with Hungarians and Yakuts

IA Estonia Kurevere Saare V12 360-40 BC I1a1c
-> I1a1c shared with Russians

IA Estonia Ilmandu Harju V8 730-400 BC HV0
-> HV0 shared with Hungarians and Mordvins

IA Estonia Poanse Pärnu VII3 380-180 BC U5a1d
BA Kuola Peninsula Bolshoy BOO49-1 + BOO005/BOO72-11 U5a1d
CCC Viro Tamula8 4200 BC U5a1d1
Uralic U5a1 haplotypes are not clear

IA Estonia Ilmandu Harju V7 790-430 BC T2a1b1a1
BA Estonia Muuksi Harju X05 1210-1010 BC T2a1b1a1,
-> local origin

IA Estonia Võhma Lääne-Viru VII4 760-400 BC T1a1b
BA Estonia Iru Harjunmaa X02 1090-910 cal BC T1a1b
LBA Latvia Kivutkalns194 700 BC T1a1b
-> local origin

IA Estonia Loona Saare X04 480-360 BC H1c
BA Estonia Jõelähtme Harju OLS11 H1c
LBA Latvia Kivutkalns215 700 BC H1c
-> local origin

Summary: H1a, H6a1a, H13a1a1a, W3a1d, I1a1c, HV0 and U5a1d could be of Uralic origin, while T2a1b1a1, T1a1b and H1c look like being of local origin.

Shaikorth said...

Looking at what kind of deep (Neolithic and Mesolithic) ancestry is involved in the Baltic migrations:

Global25 scaled, pen=0
Same sources for all:
RUS_West_Siberia_N
Anatolia_Barcin_N
RUS_Progress_Eneolithic:PG2004
RUS_Khvalynsk_En:I0433
RUS_Lokomotiv_N
Baltic_LTU_Mesolithic
WHG

The earliest N1c sample in the study is notable that it doesn't show any Progress_Eneolithic and indeed shows high ANE-related ancestry, probably giving a hint of what to expect in the Bronze Age forest zone. No West_Siberia_N or Lokomotiv (Baikal HG) but Khvalynsk has some WSHG ancestry and can account for it, but it would show a small amount of BOO or Levanluhta if I used that instead. The sample is from northeastern Estonia.

Baltic_EST_Early_Tarand:0LS10_1

RUS_Khvalynsk_En,57.4
Anatolia_Barcin_N,25
Baltic_LTU_Mesolithic,17.6

The average of IA Estonia shows Progress_Eneolithic and this is due to assimilation of preceding likely Indo-European groups as we see:

Baltic_EST_IA

RUS_Khvalynsk_En,41.4
Anatolia_Barcin_N,28.8
Baltic_LTU_Mesolithic,21.4
RUS_Progress_Eneolithic,8.4


Baltic_EST_BA

RUS_Khvalynsk_En,37.6
Baltic_LTU_Mesolithic,26.4
Anatolia_Barcin_N,23.4
RUS_Progress_Eneolithic,12.6

As the EST_BA results show, the Baltic region experienced a considerable dilution of CWC ancestry during the Bronze Age by something, and it affected Lithuania less.

Baltic_LTU_BA

Anatolia_Barcin_N,26.2
RUS_Khvalynsk_En,26.2
RUS_Progress_Eneolithic,24.2
Baltic_LTU_Mesolithic,23.4

Now various IE groups. Progress_Eneolithic is a major component in all of them as expected.

Corded_Ware_Baltic:Kunila2

RUS_Progress_Eneolithic,49.2
Anatolia_Barcin_N,28.6
Baltic_LTU_Mesolithic,13.4
RUS_Khvalynsk_En,8.8


RUS_Sintashta_MLBA

RUS_Progress_Eneolithic,36.2
Anatolia_Barcin_N,29.4
RUS_Khvalynsk_En,24.8
Baltic_LTU_Mesolithic,9.6

Corded_Ware_POL

RUS_Progress_Eneolithic,31.6
Anatolia_Barcin_N,29
RUS_Khvalynsk_En,19.8
Baltic_LTU_Mesolithic,19.6


SWE_Battle-Axe:RISE94

RUS_Progress_Eneolithic,47.8
Anatolia_Barcin_N,32.8
Baltic_LTU_Mesolithic,14.6
RUS_Khvalynsk_En,4.8

Finally two populations with high Siberian ancestry but one spoke Indo-European and it shows in the results, Progress_Eneolithic defines Cimmerians:

FIN_Levanluhta_IA

RUS_Khvalynsk_En,50.6
RUS_Lokomotiv_N,24.6
Anatolia_Barcin_N,16.4
Baltic_LTU_Mesolithic,8.4

MDA_Cimmerian

RUS_Progress_Eneolithic,44.4
Anatolia_Barcin_N,22
RUS_Lokomotiv_N,21.6
RUS_Khvalynsk_En,11.4
WHG,0.6

Andrzejewski said...

No! It’s because of the Teutonic Knights and the Prussian Empire. “Drang nach Osten”. German Balts like Alfred Rosenberg were a strong minority in the Baltic states pre-WWII

Nomic Belief said...

My guess is that the PCA reflects mostly that the Baltic BA individuals harbor Narva culture related ancestry from SE Coast of Litorina Sea. It was preserved until 2000 BC there, or even longer, since the Litorina sea was a treasure grove for the amber gathering seal hunters, packed with grey seals, harbor seals, harp seals and ringed seals. After climate change at that time and formation of the more brackish Baltic sea, Corded ware of the nearby areas started to assimilate this population after centuries of resistance. Nonetheless, this elevated EHG/WHG ancestry is still reflected in the present populations of the Baltic countries and Finland. Except for the ancestors of Saami people who probably came along a more northern route through the taiga belt. Anyway, this in my view best explains the positions of Baltic BA, IA and modern individuals also on this PCA.

EastPole said...

Looks like I am the Pole who is the closest to Bronze Age Latvians and Estonias.

https://i.postimg.cc/Hk8KD95s/EastPole.png

What language were those Bronze Age Latvians and Estonias speaking? They were derived from Corded Ware, so they were most likely a form of Balto-Slavs and Hyperboreans.
Need to do some reading now. Maybe somebody got some useful links?

Simon_W said...

Estonia was never part of the Prussian empire. It did belong to the state of the Teutonic order, which may perhaps explain the German presence there. In 1561 however, it was caught by the Swedes, and after that, by the Russians.

BTW, check out this nice Latvian metal by Skyforger:
https://youtu.be/UD04RxYsM54
"Nekas nav aizmirsts" means "Nothing is forgotten".

Davidski said...

Estonia became a part of the Polish Crown for a while, but the German nobles remained as the local rulers, and they were eventually Polonized.

Davidski said...

@All

I've put the "low res" suffix on these samples, because their coverage is 0.168 and 0.16, which can cause some issues in fine scale ancestry modeling.

Baltic_EST_Comb_Ceramic_low_res:Tamula1
Baltic_EST_Comb_Ceramic_low_res:Tamula3

Just to reiterate, if you base your models on a few low coverage individuals, the chances that you'll get accurate results are pretty slim. The ensure accuracy, you need relatively high coverage samples, and preferably whole sets of them.

Samuel Andrews said...

Iron age Estonia doesn't have any Mezhovskaya-like ancestry. Ryukendo predicted Mezhovskaya is similar to early uralics. Instead, the new European ancestry he brought looks like it is from deep in Europe.

1.3306"

Baltic_EST_IA

Baltic_EST_BA 49.4
Swedish 22.5
Polish 13.3
Mezhovskaya 6.6
Latvia_HG 4.4
Mansi 2.7
Latvia_MN 0.9

Ryukendo quote 2018, Anthrogencia.

"It seems to me that a part of the forest-Steppe was "Uralicised" after Andronovo and Sintashta, and this "Mezhovskaya" gene pool forms the core of the Uralics, from Saami to the Volga region, and further that this steppic population spread East before the whole horizon started pushing north into the Taiga in Siberia like parallel teeth on a comb "

Davidski said...

@Samuel Andrews

Calm down. It's not like you're always right about everything.

It seems to me like those early Finnics were a mishmash of various influences from the forest steppe and forest regions between the East Baltic and the Urals.

And it's clear now that overall they had a very low level of Siberian ancestry, despite their high frequency of Y-hg N. I was expecting them to show Nganasan-like ancestry in double figures. Whoops!

It's very difficult to work out what the early Uralics were like based on these samples. We really need samples from Volosovo and Garino-Bor sites to understand that.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Ryu,

You can't run away from the predictions you made last year. I am not "confused." You claimed, this....

Ryukendo quote 2018.
"Now, we can confirm these tendencies (Mezhovskaya looks Uralic, Pazyryk and Eastern Scythians look Turkic)"

I remember correctly. You were strongly suggesting Mezhovskaya-like pops form the foundation for Uralic pops & Eastern Scythians formed the foundation for Turks.

I've done thorough work on early Turk genomes in Tian Shan & Kazakhstan. Most have excess West Asian ancestry that can't even be modeled using Tian Shan Iranians & certainly not with Pazyrk Scythian.

1.7217"

Kazakhstan_Karluk

Scythian_AldyBel,27.1
Hun-Sarmatian:DA27 (East Asian),21.6
Iranian_Zoroastrian,16.5
Gonur1_BA,14
GoldenHordeAsian:DA28 (East Asian),11.3
XiongNu (East Asian),9.5

1.6436"

Karakalpak

Scythian_AldyBel,25.8
Hun-Sarmatian:DA27,21.1
Iranian_Zoroastrian,20.3
GoldenHordeAsian:DA28,18.5
XiongNu,10.3
Kangju:DA226 DA229 DA125 DA121 DA123,4

1.9635"

Kazakhstan_Kipchak

Iranian_Zoroastrian,25.3
Saka_Kazakh_steppe:DA16 DA10 DA11 DA13,25.2
GoldenHordeAsian:DA28,20.6
Kangju:DA226 DA229 DA125 DA121 DA123,14.5
XiongNu,7.7
Hun-Sarmatian:DA27,3.8
Scythian_AldyBel,2.9

None of them pick Pazyrk. Instead, they mostly pick Scythian_AldyBel (only 28% East Asian) or Tian Shan iranians (all around 20-30% East Asian).

Samuel Andrews said...

3.5139"

Udmurt

Srubnaya,44.4
Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov,29.6
Polish,14.8
Nganassan,9.9
Lokomotiv,1.3

2.0465"

Mezhovskaya

Karagash_MLBA,59.7
Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov,21.2
Srubnaya,14.9
Botai,2.9
Lokomotiv,1.3

3.2345"

Levanluhta_IA (Early Saami)

Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov,51
Swedish,28.3
Baltic_EST_BA,12.6
Baltic_BA:Turlojiske3,4.2
Lokomotiv,3.9

Samuel Andrews said...

@Davidski,
"It seems to me like those early Finnics were a mishmash of various influences from the forest steppe and forest regions between the East Baltic and the Urals.

And it's clear now that overall they had a very low level of Siberian ancestry, despite their high frequency of Y-hg N. I was expecting them to show Nganasan-like ancestry in double figures. Whoops!"

Fair enough. Finnish got most of their Asian admix from Saami. Then, what about Udmurt. They have a huge chunk of Mansi-like ancestry.

Davidski said...

Udmurts practically live on the border between Europe and western Siberia. Their Asian admix can be explained in all sorts of ways.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Udmurtia

Samuel Andrews said...

Probably, safe to say this model explains Finns. Saami, Scandinavian, Baltic Finnic. Estonia_IA scores Swedish as well, so Swedish could be absorbing non-Scandinavian Finnic ancestry.

1.5293"

Finnish_East

Baltic_EST_IA,48.5
Saami,29.3
Swedish,22.21

1.5365"

Finnish

Swedish,43.7
Baltic_EST_IA,36.3
Saami,20

EurDNA said...



Another PCA of Uralic groups + some relevant ancient samples (moderns in small, red; ancients in blue):


This illustrates some possible observations (verifiable with nMonte runs too)

1) Germanic speakers differ from East Baltic groups in their ''farmer'' ancestry. ~ GAC for Germanics vs one on the Carpathian-Ukrainian cline for E Baltics.

2) East Baltics have high E/WHG on the Ukraine - Narva - CCC cline.

3) The Bronze & Iron Age Estonians, are predominantly EEF enriched, post-Corded derived + high E/WHG of the type described in # 2

4) Mezhovskaya , Karasuk do not lie on the Uralic cline, but are instead form their own Sintashta/Andronovo -> Altai / Glazkovo Bronze Age cline.

5) There is a Sintashta/ Andronovo -> Siberia/ Botai cline, filled in by the Sintashta ouliers. They do not appear to have been relevant for FU cline; and given its temporal anteriority to the #4 cline, it appears to have been displaced by it.

6) Modern Fino-Ugric speakers are drifted east c.f. Iron Age; due to Glazkovo-type ancestry, which unites all F-U speakers with Samoyedic speakers.

7) What is the nature of the Glazkovo ancestry ?
There was a ''population replacement'' in the Altai Neol - BA transition, of hg N groups by hg Q1a (as there was in the Minusinsk region) (Damgaard). Therefore, the source of hg N- rich groups in FU groups must have departed from there from/ before 3000 BC. There was hg N in Botai, but this ? allegedly belongs to the archaically-separated N5 branch found in some modern individuals from Balkans; and Botai doesn't sit on the correct cline.

We would need aDNA from Russian forest zone to elucidate when it really began to expand.

Huck Finn said...

I’d guess that these two estimates of Shaik make a lot of sense in terms of describing the nature of early West Uralic speakers:

Baltic_EST_Early_Tarand:0LS10_1

RUS_Khvalynsk_En,57.4
Anatolia_Barcin_N,25
Baltic_LTU_Mesolithic,17.6

FIN_Levanluhta_IA

RUS_Khvalynsk_En,50.6
RUS_Lokomotiv_N,24.6
Anatolia_Barcin_N,16.4
Baltic_LTU_Mesolithic,8.4

Basically lots of ANE-based, archaich Khvalynsk type of stuff plus some Anatolia (this is apparently the Mansi minus Evenki of Wong et al 2017) and then also some Baltic HG and in the case of Saami quite a lot of Baikal HG, related to later influences. I’d BTW also imagine, because of Khvalynsk, that there’s some WSHG in the original package (cf. the Ridala horse with a Botai connection) and it might show up fex as BOO.

Ryukendo K said...

@ Samuel

Stop picking statements anachronistically. This was my final position in that exchange:

"When I said they were influenced by Andronovo and Sintashta pastoralists, I was not exact. I was using steppe MLBA groups as shorthand for all Eastern European cultures with aDNA samples that had both EEF and CHG ancestry (not just WHG, SHG or EHG), and were agropastoralist and not just hunter-fishers. Later archaeological cultures that have been assigned to Uralic speakers, like Cherkask'ul and Mezhovska of the forest-steppe may have been influenced by Andronovo and Sintashta to a degree, but the cultures most often assigned to proto-Uralic, the Fatyanovo-Balanovo and Abashevo complex, arose from interactions between HGs and Corded Ware in European Siberia, Coded Ware that spread from the Baltics to the Volga region. So the Y-DNA data that Davidski and Kristiina have been talking about (the R1a in Uralics being closer to those in Balts than those in Slavs and Indo-Iranians), as well as Sam's finding that the European ancestry in Uralics is somewhat WHG-rich, akin to Balts, are very interesting in this regard. Baltic-BA may well be what we need."

Notice I put "Mezhovska" in quotes in the Anthrogenica post you referenced.

Then again the Mezhovskaya and other post-Sintashta groups in the forest steppe do show attraction to Uralic groups, most strongly the Permics, in high dimensions in nMonte, and Permic groups like Udmurt and Komi are displaced toward Sintashta and Sintashta outliers in the PCA by EurDNA. Sintashta-Andronovo type ancestry may not be important for the proto-Uralics, but may well have played a role in those Uralic branches that spread East of the Volga.

Andrzejewski said...

So who was the speakers of the non-Uralic substrate in the Saami language?

Andrzejewski said...

Exactly! Volosovo was according to Wikipedia some non-IE non-Uralic substrate in Saami and/or Baltic languages. Whether or not it is true remains to be seen. Maybe it’s related to Kunda Culture of Pit Comb C?

Andrzejewski said...

Finnish and Saami both speak a Finnic language so I wonder what relationship they have based on their aDNA. And David is right, they have very few non-European WSHG ratio

Andrzejewski said...

Aren’t Baikal HG and WSHG practically almost the same? (Rich in ANE)

Andrzejewski said...

So if PU arose as an interaction between CWC and local forest zone HG then it puts to rest the putative so-called “Indo-Uralic” macrofamily theory

Davidski said...

@Andrzejewski

Finnish is a Finnic language and Saami a Samic one. I suppose you can lump them under the hypothetical Finno-Samic sub-family though.

And nope, Baikal HG and WSHG are very different. Baikal HG is very East Asian with little ANE, while WSHG has a lot of EHG input and much less East Asian ancestry.

Baikal HG is not a direct descendant of the AG3/MA1 clade, if that's what you're assuming. There was a population replacement in the Baikal area after the Upper Paleolithic, with ANE-rich populations disappearing from the region.

Davidski said...

@Andrzejewski

So if PU arose as an interaction between CWC and local forest zone HG then it puts to rest the putative so-called “Indo-Uralic” macrofamily theory.

This is just one theory, and I'm not even sure if it's a mainstream one.

Another theory is that Proto-Uralic arose in hunter-gatherer groups around the Urals, and then diversified in the west via contacts with post-CWC groups.

Slumbery said...

Indeed Baikal HG is a completely different thing than WSHG. In nMontes it actually picks 100% Tianyuan over anything ANE offered. The fit is of course horrible, because Tianyuan is ancient and probably not really the right ancestor either, but the point is that Baikal HG is absolutely not an ANE population (some admixture is likely of course).

"sample": "RUS_Lokomotiv_N:Average",
"fit": 28.1296,
"CHN_Tianyuan": 100,
"RUS_AfontovaGora3": 0,


In an earlier topic I said that BHG ancestry is a better common theme for suspected and existing Uralic groups than WSHG. Mezhovskaya is interesting, because in the existing record it is the first sample from the Ural region with BHG(-like) ancestry.
However this of course does not mean that:
- Mezhovskaya is specifically ancestral to Baltic Finns. (Could be a culturally connected cousin however. And indeed it is often associated with proto-Ugric.)
- Proto Uralic was a BHG language. (Paleo-linguistics practically crosses out any region where majority BHG populations live today or sampled from the past, as a possible formation-place for FU at least.)

BTW, we have only one Mezhovskaya sample and we do not know how representative it was.

Shaikorth said...

@Slumbery

Yeah if we use Bronze Age+MN sources with Mezhovskaya the earliest N1c tarand doesn't pick up any Mezhovskaya or late BHG (Ust-Ida), Latvia_MN covers it better.

G25 scaled, pen=0
Sources:
RUS_Okunevo_BA
RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA
GRC_Mycenaean
RUS_Ust_Ida_EBA
Corded_Ware_Baltic_early
Baltic_LVA_MN:I4435
RUS_Mezhovskaya

Baltic_EST_Early_Tarand:0LS10_1

Baltic_LVA_MN,61
GRC_Mycenaean,34.4
RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA,4.6

Kristiina said...

@ Slumbery

Are you by the way aware of the news that Tianyuan is yDNA P?

IMO, it is amateurish to argue that Proto-Uralic was a BHG language because yDNA N was frequent in the Neolithic Baikal 7000 years ago. We cannot resolve the origin of a language family using the yDNA tree and build the genealogical tree of the world language families using the yDNA phylogeny.

Kristiina said...

@ Slumbery

You could just as well argue that Proto-Indoeuropean is a WHG language because R1b-P297 was in Italy 14 000 years ago.

Dragos said...

Well it probably is ! East european WHGs
It’s certainly not from Siberia or America

Bob Floy said...

Don't be silly.
Everyone knows that PIE emerged about 7,000 years back with R1a-bearing EHGs in Karelia.

Duh.

Slumbery said...

@Kristiina said...

I am frankly perplexed what are you talking about. I think you did not understand my comment. I did not even say the things you criticize. (And the yHg of Tianyuan is especially irrelevant even considering the obvious misunderstanding.)

Kristiina said...

Sorry Slumbery. I was too hasty to read your comment and obviously understood the opposite from what you meant. So let my comment be directed to only those who think the way I understood your comment.

Slumbery said...

@Kristiina

No problem. Actually I can see that I phrased it in a way that can be easily misunderstood if somebody skips a "not" or isn't beware of the full structure of the sentence with the listing. I have to use a more clear language.

European and Siberian N lineages are ultimately from East Asia and I actually do think that it arrived with the westward flow of BHG and related populations. However it started a way before we can talk about Uralic (WSHG itself already eastern-mixed compared to older ANE), so it is not sure the main Uralic paternal N lineages arrived with the last push. But I would not cross out the possibility either. I am pretty convinced that the population that spoke proto/root Uralic was not majority Nganasan/BHG autosomally, but I am not sure about the origin of their N, at least in some time depth.

BTW
Some G25 nMontes with WSHG. "RUS_EN" is the current name of Shamanka_EN for reasons beyond me.

"sample": "RUS_West_Siberia_N:Average",
"fit": 3.8825,
"RUS_AfontovaGora3": 67.5,
"RUS_Karelia_HG": 20.83,
"RUS_EN": 11.67,

"sample": "RUS_West_Siberia_N:Average",
"fit": 6.3003,
"RUS_AfontovaGora3": 88.33,
"CHN_Tianyuan": 9.17,
"WHG": 2.5,

I included the far fetched second model to show that the apparent non-local ancestries of WSHG are not illusions created by WSHG admixture into the reference populations.

However Mezhovskaya had an additional, fresh layer of eastern ancestry.

"sample": "RUS_Mezhovskaya:Average",
"fit": 1.9634,
"RUS_Sintashta_MLBA": 65,
"RUS_EN": 15,
"RUS_West_Siberia_N": 10.83,
"RUS_Potapovka_MLBA": 9.17,

And the contrast is very visible compared to nearby Srubnaya-Alakul

"sample": "RUS_Srubnaya_Alakul_MLBA:Average",
"fit": 0.5525,
"RUS_Sintashta_MLBA": 85.83,
"RUS_Potapovka_MLBA": 12.5,
"RUS_EN": 0.83,
"RUS_West_Siberia_N": 0.83,

Anthony Hanken said...

Pretty much all of the non IE cultures of NE Europe during the Neolithic-EBA seem to be a part of the Comb Ceramic complex including Volosovo and Garino-Bor. The oldest of this pottery type being found in Northern China and then spreading to Lake Baikal and across Siberia.

Once west of the Urals this would have been a cultural not genetic exchange evident by the diversification of pottery types (although Baltic CCC does have some extra ENA ancestry?). This could be when ancestral to European N lines crossed the Urals with BHG like ancestry, maybe having picked up some ANE along the way.

Of course this is all speculation, it is also possible that Comb Ceramic pottery was a cultural exchange entirely from China to Finland. I just don't know any other connection of Volosovo/Garino-Bor to the east.

Davidski said...

Over the next few days I'm going to try to find the best dual qpAdm/Global25 models for the Estonian Iron Age samples. Could be interesting.

Shaikorth said...

Managed a two-way fit for Neolithic time depth ancestry of the early Tarand sample:

Scaled data, sources are all Latvia MN samples, all Nganassan samples, Estonian Narva samples, Mycenaeans:

"distance%=5.9566"

Baltic_EST_Early_Tarand:0LS10_1

Baltic_LVA_MN,64.8
GRC_Mycenaean,35.2


Baltic_EST_Narva,0
Nganassan,0

Slumbery said...

@Davidski

It is going to be interesting, but it touches an old (although nuance level) disagreement between us. Since the incoming Uralics had a complex ancestry from very divergent sources _and_ we do not have the right reference for them, any two way model must be taken with a huge grain of salt. This is the peril opposite to over-fitting.

I would participate, but I was still too lazy to learn to set-up the tests on my PC and the new samples are still not in the on-line nMonte runner. :(

Arza said...

@ Nomic Belief

My guess is that the PCA reflects mostly that the Baltic BA individuals harbor Narva culture related ancestry from SE Coast of Litorina Sea.

The PCA clearly shows that it's definitely not from Narva (or anything sequenced so far).

https://i.postimg.cc/s28dTmBF/Esti-BA.png

Slumbery said...

@Arza

There is a huge white spot on aDNA map that includes the entire Belarus and and even bigger part of Western Russia that is adjacent to Belarus.
Baltic BA reacts pretty well to HG rich Ukrainian references, so I think their extra "HG-pull" is from Northern-Ukraine and adjacent region.

My guess is that the source is not actually a HG group like Narva, but a very HG rich farmer group that also have ancestry similar to that of GAC. For example the descendants of the easternmost Funnel Beaker + a lot of Ukrainian/Belorussian HG.

This is largely just speculation of course.

Nomic Belief said...

@ Arza
I do not really know what to make of your analysis, can you be more specific? From what I see, the Estonian BA guy seems shifted towards Baltic HGs. Of course he must have varied other admixture from adjacent areas.

Of course I was painting with a pretty wide brush. Narva culture extended from Estonia to hybrid cultures in Lithuania (Šventoji settlement) and even Poland (Rzucewo culture) over three millennia, the latter two known producers and probably merchants of amber, seal skin and seal train oil. The general point is that people from this wide time and place are known to carry elevated remnant EHG/WHG, and thus strong suspects of dispersing this locally specific ancestry into the incoming populations. Yet, things are usually more complicated, looking forward to further analyses.

Shaikorth said...

Everything prefers Ukrainian Mesolithic as the primary HG source, dunno if this is realistic.

Sources: Loschbour, Lithuanian Mesolithic, Ukr_Meso, Karelia_HG, Kotias, Barcin_N, Lokomotiv_N, scaled pen=0

"distance%=5.1415"

Bell_Beaker_FRA_C

Anatolia_Barcin_N,48.6
UKR_Mesolithic,36
RUS_Karelia_HG,8.6
GEO_CHG,6.8

"distance%=5.6525"

IRL_BA

Anatolia_Barcin_N,38.2
UKR_Mesolithic,37.2
RUS_Karelia_HG,13.2
GEO_CHG,11.4

"distance%=9.0477"

Baltic_EST_BA

UKR_Mesolithic,70.2
Anatolia_Barcin_N,22.8
GEO_CHG,7

"distance%=5.4353"

Baltic_EST_IA

UKR_Mesolithic,62.6
Anatolia_Barcin_N,27.4
GEO_CHG,8
RUS_Karelia_HG,2

Arza said...

@ Nomic Belief

If Baltic_BA was just a recent mixture of Narva and Yamnaya/CWC it would plot between them in this PCA. It doesn't.

This holds true for every HG group sequenced till this day.

@ Slumbery

Forest zone is my guess too. It can't be too far North as this ancestry was leaking to the steppe quite early (Varna outlier has it).

Andrzejewski said...

Would Ukraine Mesolithic source be the Bug-Dniester or Dniester-Donets? And, would Ukraine Mesolithic (HG) be the base source for Sredny Stog and CWC?

Ric Hern said...

Interesting that difference between IRL_BA and Bell Beaker_FRA_C.....

Nomic Belief said...

@Arza

OK, thanks. I would not expect Baltic_BA to be just a simple mixture of the mentioned groups, though. Maybe you are onto sg at a more general level. Personally, I have been aiming only at the specific elevated EHG and especially WHG that sets Baltic and Finnish people apart from other groups. There would need to be some WHG rich and farmer scarce group in the forest in the heart of the CWC area, similar to the one in its armpit, the Litorina/Baltic Sea coast. Who knows, but as you say, it cannot be from the north. Archeology also suggests that HG people from the Baltic coast were diluted into CWC, into Pre-German people from Gotland/Sweden/Aland inhabiting the area at 1,000 BC (according to Valter Lang based largely on agricultural development), and later into those coming from the Upper and Middle Volga. I do not know if your analysis contradicts this view completely.

Andrzejewski said...

Which ones? Pit Ware? Cord Ceramic? Kunda? Narva? Bug Dnieper or Dnieper–Donets?

EurDNA said...

@ Arza
PCAs would vary with what samples are included, so with fine scale deduction we'd have to be careful. Sure, it could be a cryptic sub-Neolithic group like Zedmar or Neman culture, but they'd be on the cline between CCC & Ukraine Neo, and individually variable, so its unlikely to one special group were waiting for

As for Varna Outlier, I doubt shed be from anything too north of Ukraine, where the exchange links did not venture beyond

epoch said...

Volosovo has been connevted to proto-Uralic by Asko Parpola. That leaves the interesting fact that at least from 3200 BC onward the proposed proto-Uralics were living side by side with a PIE speaking culture for a pretty long time: The Balanovo culture, an offshoot of CWC if I recall correctly, whose realm overlapped that of Volosovo. That might account for the great similarities between PIE and PU, but also for the apparent one way loan words went, i.e. from PIE to PU.

Arza said...

@ Davidski

left pops:
Baltic_EST_IA
Baltic_EST_BA
FIN_Levanluhta_IA


If you want to have a good 2-way model for EST_IA you will need a population lying on the "not-a-cline" somewhere between EST_BA and Slavs (Early_Slav, Czechs etc.) on the one hand and a mix of Levanluhta_IA and Levanluhta_IA_o on the other.

Baltic_EST_IA
Baltic_EST_BA 56.8%
FIN_Levanluhta_IA_o 23%
CZE_Early_Slav 11.6%
FIN_Levanluhta_IA 8.6%

Distance 1.2511%

G25, reprocessed, PC1/2/3
https://i.postimg.cc/6QkRPRJm/EST-IA.gif

Davidski said...

@Arza

I'll check it out.

@All

Does anyone know what the hell these markers are exactly? I'm not familiar with this nomenclature.

Baltic_EST_IA:0LS10_1 N3a3'5

Baltic_EST_IA:V10_2 R1a1c

Baltic_EST_IA:VII4_1 N3a3a

Huck Finn said...

Baltic_EST_IA:0LS10_1 N3a3'5, apparently N1c-L392/N1c-L1026, like the BOO-samples. Maybe even Pre Savo-Karelian N1c-Z1936>>>N1c-Z1926, if Mr. Myllylä is right.

Baltic_EST_IA:VII4_1 N3a3a, Apparently N1c-VL29 based N1c-L550

PP said...

Here is a table with more informative Y-haplogroup names.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uqpreLfK-IRNQmlcKbcdunMQkzpfyENT/view?usp=sharing

Davidski said...

Right, so Baltic_EST_IA:0LS10_1 looks like the most obvious candidate for an early Uralic in both of my PCA above, and he belongs to the very Uralic N1c-L1026.

Interestingly, here's the best qpAdm model that I could find for him...

Baltic_EST_IA_0LS10_qpAdm

It brings back memories...

The mystery of the Sintashta people

Bastian Barx said...

Looking forward to that post about nordic bronze-age, it needs more attention imo. Like we sorrily miss genomes from Scandinavian funnelbeakers.

Anthony Hanken said...

All of the N samples are downstream of N-L1026. OLS10 is N3a3'5 because they could not resolve further.

Megalophias on Anthrogenica said he has 1 positive SNP for VL29 and no negatives for VL29+. He is however negative for all other main branches. In other words OLS10 very well may be N-L550 like the other two.

Shaikorth said...

@Davidski

Does Est_BA+RUS_Potapovka_MLBA:I0244 (not a typical Potapovka sample) work in qpAdm for 0LS10_1?

Arza said...

@ Davidski
Can you try RUS_Karasuk (preferably RUS_Karasuk:RISE496 alone) instead of RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o1?

Arza said...

@ Davidski

You can translate haplogroup names using this file:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fpyQ6Elb7Zh0MqtmMjUr0y38-y9TNGVm/view

But I already see that it won't be straightforward. E.g. mutations marked as R1a1c match multiple haplogroups and you need to go back to Y-DNA file from the supplement and check whether he's derived or ancestral at every position assigned to R1a1c.

Davidski said...

@Shaikorth

Does Est_BA+RUS_Potapovka_MLBA:I0244 (not a typical Potapovka sample) work in qpAdm for 0LS10_1?

Yes I0244 works, but the model has a smaller eastern signal (0.076) and the fit is worse than with RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o1.

Shaikorth said...

@Davidski,
Thanks, just throwing stuff at the wall since I figured that sample is broadly similar to Sintashta outliers.
Did you test Baltic_BA + Srubnaya outlier, or RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o1:I1007 (the most extreme of them) alone?

Davidski said...

These samples don't have enough coverage to test them properly as singleton reference samples.

JuanRivera said...

I think it would be worthwhile to differentiate between Karelia_EHG and Samara_EHG. So far, steppe is a mixture of Samara_EHG, Karelia_EHG, CHG, Ukrainian HG, WHG-rich farmer in the late cultures, and possibly WSHG (although I have no means to verify WSHG ancestry vs both Karelian and Samaran EHGs, Ukrainian HGs or CHG, given that I can't use qpAdm/qpGraph). I think that Samara_EHG would be observed to decrease (alongside the rest of the steppe autosomes) when the Uralics arrived.

JuanRivera said...

It would be not hard to conceptualize a mixed EHG+ANE+BHG spanning from the upper Kolyma across forest to the European side of the Urals.

Davidski said...

@All

I've changed some of the population codes in the Global25 datasheets, so if you can't find what you're looking for, search for the individual ID of a sample and that will reveal the new code for its population.

Andrzejewski said...

Would the "Samara Hunter Gatherer" found with Hap R-L278 be a sister clade to the M269 or would it be its direct ancestor?

Ric Hern said...

@ Andrzejewski

More like Great Grandfathers Father...Sister clad of M269 is M73...

Ric Hern said...

Sister clad of L278 is M335...

JuanRivera said...

That would put it as a derived clade of PH155.

Garvan said...

You forced me to look up what all these L278 to M335's are. Does anybody really understand all this?

From Y-Full:
R1b == L278
~R1b*
~R-L754
~~R-L754*
~~R-L389
~~~R-L389*
~~~R-P-297
~~~~R-P-297*
~~~~R-M269
~~~~~R-M269*
~~~~~R-L23
~~~~~~R-L23*
~~~~~~R-L51
~~~~R-M478 == M73
~R-PH155
~~R-PH155*
~~R-M335

So Ric was wrong (according to Y-Full) when he said "Sister clad of L278 is M335..."? Looks like a grandson to me. :)

Ric Hern said...

Could be, I just looked quickly...

Andrzejewski said...

Does it mean that all Western Europeans’ R1b ultimately came from “Samara HG”?

Slumbery said...

@Andrzejewski
"Does it mean that all Western Europeans’ R1b ultimately came from “Samara HG”?"

If we assume that it is indeed just L278 (and there are truly no downstream SNP-s that define known modern branches), then it is impossible. The Samara HG sample is way to young for that. The lineages leading to the currently dominant European R1b already had existed before it and I mean a lot before it.

I'd say it is likely that the "L278 and no further" is just a lack of test resolution. In that case it is not impossible, but there is simply no reason to assume it.

Andrzejewski said...

But we assume that Samara HG in general is the main ancestral component in PIE cultures, am I correct? Would we also be correct to presume that R1a1 came from Mesolithic Ukraine HG and it was later subsumed into Yamnaya and/or Sredny Stog? Does it have anything to do with Bug Dniester or Dnieper Donets? (Might be possible that the latter 2 are source of WHG-rich Farmer admixture in Yamnaya)?

As you can see, I’m very very curious about the exact ethnogenesis of Proto-Indo-European society and language.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Andre,
"As you can see, I’m very very curious about the exact ethnogenesis of Proto-Indo-European society and language."

Everything is possible at this point because of few samples. But, what looks most likely is...

Proto-Indo Europeans descended from hunter gatherers of southern Russia (in between Black sea & Caspien sea, just north of Caucasus mountains). If true, Samara hunter gatherers & Ukraine hunter gatherers made little impact.

But, this could easily not be true. Whatever, PIE's origin is, it can be certain their European (non CHG) ancestors were almost all EHG. Therefore closely related Ukraine Hgs are out of the picture.

Andrzejewski said...

Not sure if you’re right about the Samara HG, because of its apparent transition into Khvalynsk a few hundred years after that Samara HG sample...

Andrzejewski said...

It also reminds me of the “is PIE an R1b language or an R1b one” discussions of years back

Ric Hern said...

R1b can not be excluded since it was present in the Steppe since 8000 BCE. R1a also. So if the origin of PIE was on the Steppe then both R1b and R1a populations contributed...

Ric Hern said...

When you look at the climate and ecological changes you will see that there were most probably periodical contact between different groups throughout the Steppe since the end of the LGM...

Samuel Andrews said...

@Andre
"Not sure if you’re right about the Samara HG, because of its apparent transition into Khvalynsk a few hundred years after that Samara HG sample..."

Khvalynsk has a lot of SamaraHG in it but it also has southern ancestry from people who were probably the actual Indo Europeans. Piedmont Steppe_Eneolithic dating 4000bc isn't very different from Yamnaya. David thinks, the common ancestor lived south of Samara & north of Piedmont. Whatever the case, it looks like Proto Indo EUropean origins are in southern Russia.

Ric Hern said...

Even pasturalists will not move far from a water source. And the desert like conditions to the East of the Don/Volga to Northern Caspian I think did not support much...so in that area the Kuban River would have played a more significant role.

Andrzejewski said...

@Samuel "Khvalynsk has a lot of SamaraHG in it but it also has southern ancestry from people who were probably the actual Indo Europeans. Piedmont Steppe_Eneolithic dating 4000bc isn't very different from Yamnaya. David thinks, the common ancestor lived south of Samara & north of Piedmont. Whatever the case, it looks like Proto Indo EUropean origins are in southern Russia."

So essentially what you (and @Ric?) are trying to tell me is that a more CHG-rich population is responsible for the "Indo-Europeanization" of Samara Culture and its transformation into Khvalynsk? Therefore, the origins of PIE or an early putative stage thereof might lay with CHG-rich Piedmont populations?

old europe said...

@Andrezejewski


Either PIE is a language spoken by EEF or steppe eneolithic tribes ( if we talk about 4500/3800 BC).
Every historical IE speaking people is a combination of this two genetic markers. So PIE is EEF or R1bL-51 and R1a M417.
R1m417 was found in the Dneper while the other even tough its point of departure west has not yet been found likely was thriving somewhere west of the dneper ( roughly from the dneper and the Danube).
The cultural package of Yamna is largely Sredni Stog ( Skelya or Dereivka) derived. So every indicator points to the cultural continuum Cucuteni Tripolie-Sredni Stog as the likely PIE homeland.
The PIE knew agriculture and were a "settle down" population.
Also the CHG like signal in progress eneolithic is not really from the caucasus ( or south of it) . It is something that was in piedmont steppe since millennia.

old europe said...

in order to understand the genetic impact of the danube -dneper ( CT and SS) courtesy of this blog:


Yamnaya_Samara
Dereivka_I_I4110 0.324±0.035
Progress_Eneolithic_PG2004 0.676±0.035
chisq 6.797
tail prob 0.976979
Full output

Afanasievo
Progress_Eneolithic_PG2004 0.638±0.038
Sredny_Stog_II_I6561 0.362±0.038
chisq 10.855
tail prob 0.818366
Full output

Yamnaya_Ukraine
Progress_Eneolithic_PG2001 0.655±0.073
Sredny_Stog_II_I6561 0.345±0.073
chisq 12.676
tail prob 0.696277
Full output

Poltavka
Dereivka_I_I4110 0.324±0.038
Progress_Eneolithic_PG2004 0.676±0.038
chisq 12.895
tail prob 0.680437
Full output

Yamnaya_Caucasus
Khvalynsk_Eneolithic_I0122 0.086±0.054
Sredny_Stog_II_I6561 0.221±0.070
Vonyuchka_Eneolithic_VJ1001 0.693±0.101
chisq 13.113
tail prob 0.593562


Now all is clear......

I'm asking to model CWC using Uraine eneolithic and everything will be even more clear.......

old europe said...



For the relation between the formation of SS and agricultural societies of the balkan-carpathian region see this:


https://www.academia.edu/35556491/The_contacts_of_the_Eastern_European_steppe_people_with_the_Balkan_population_during_the_transition_period_from_Neolithic_to_Eneolithic

From the abstract.

This article is devoted to cultural contacts of steppe population and Balkan people about 5300–4800 BC. Numerous imports (adornments from copper, cornelian, marine shells, pots, plates from the bone and nacre, pendants from the teeth of red deer), radical changes in the cultural traditions (new type ornamental compositions, flexed inhumations, stone in graves and above them, pits with alcove) and imitation of pottery have been fxed for the Late Neolithic in the Eastern European steppe. Acquaintance with first metal and strong western impact caused the formation of the new Sredniy Stog culture.


Now we can outline the trail CT - SS formation of a mixed zone (EEF+Steppe eneolithic) on the Dneper and expansion from this contact zone to the east ( Volga) and to the south ( piedmont steppe) and to the west ( Suvorovo).

Samuel Andrews said...

old europe,
"I'm asking to model CWC using Uraine eneolithic and everything will be even more clear......."

The oldest Corded Ware samples are almost identical to Yamnaya. Later, Corded Ware samples are about 30% farmer. Their farmer ancestor was Globular Amphora not CT.

Andrzejewski said...

@Dragos claims that PIE is an EEF language, but I don’t think it’s C-T derived: C-T was almost completely annihilated following the Yamnaya invasion (just like Botai!) and according to NOVA it was because of the yersiia pestis that was carried by the Kurganites. Lazaridis quoted someone (Dr. Anthony?) who claimed that the plague attacked Yambaya’s females more than males and that’s why Kurganite bands were raiding their neighbors for wives. Maybe that’s how MtDNA H was retained

Andrzejewski said...

Exactly! Did CT leave ANY genetic trace?

Andrzejewski said...

I’m having a hard time locating the ancestry of Bug Dniester and Dnieper Donets, and how different were the R1a1 folks in the West v. R1b ones in the East

Andrzejewski said...

Would Piedmont Eneolithic groups then be responsible for the formation of both Khvalynsk and Sredny Stog II, by assimilating both Samara HG and Ukraine HG, so that the formation of a Yamnaya was the vector of Piedmont in both directions?

old europe said...



@samuel

The early baltic doesn't change much either

1) a SS like population lowered down its EEF level by exogamy with a rich EHG population around the baltic and belorussia or
2) a more eastern yamanaya population (which is anyway a daughter culture of the mixed zone) was the immediate source of CWC

so SS is the father or the grand father of CWC ( but given the presence of the right Y line, the corded pottery and the battle axes the former is more likely). Anyway the track is there.

The WHG enriched EEF signal in the mixed zone ( a GAC like signal) was picked up already on the steppe because as I have already said inside the big cultural complex of CT there were two different farmers population
1) the traditional balkan one and ( and this is important)
2) an introgression of farmers from the northern european plain ( Funnel Beaker and the like)

You can find on the net papers about the TRB influence on CT.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Andre,
"I’m having a hard time locating the ancestry of Bug Dniester and Dnieper Donets, and how different were the R1a1 folks in the West v. R1b ones in the East"

As far as we can tell they were the same people. Early Corded Ware R1a M417 is identical to Yamnaya R1b m269.

"@Dragos claims that PIE is an EEF language, but I don’t think it’s C-T derived: C-T was almost completely annihilated following the Yamnaya invasion"

Early on, Kurgan cultures had contact & mixed with CT. But, CT, did not play a role in the creation of Kurgan culture.

Archeaologist, seem to focus a lot on early Kurgan presence in southeast Europe. Gimbutus thought this was the begining of Indo European spread into Europe. This, leds Dragos & old europe to claim Indo European language is from the farmers they met in southeastern Europe.

But, these early Kurgan incursions in southeast Europe have nothing to do with Corded Ware or Bell beaker who were the main spreaders of Indo European language and ancestry in Europe.

Corded Ware, who probably gave birth to Kurgan Bell beaker, arrived in northern Europe later. When they arrived,they had almost 100% Kurgan ancestry and no Balkan farmer ancestry. Quickly, they mixed heavily with northern European farmers (and in Baltic states hunter gatherers).

old europe said...



The western genetic and cultural input in the formation of SS and the expansion from this mixed population ( both demic and cultural ) toward the Volga and the northern caucasus are two factors that completely change the way we interpret the history of the steppe.

On genetic forums and blogs there are many different and competing ideas ideas and pet theories about PIE ( Carlos, this blog, Anthrogenica, Eupedia adnaera ....) but all seem to be stuck in the old idea that SS is born out of Khvalynsk.....the mother of all errors....

old europe said...


@samuel

your post doesn't make much sense

we are talking about the PIE stage not about the arrival of CWC in northern europe. This is not important. What is important is to try to figure out and reconstruct what was going on in the steppe in the 4700/3500 time frame.
and Yamnaya itself has more EEF+WHG ( 18%) than the early baltic corded ware.

Bastian Barx said...

@old e
"The PIE knew agriculture and were a "settle down" population"

LOL. According to what linguist? Maybe read up on PIE vocabulary, and then Come back.

old europe said...

From Encyclopedia of IE culture:


.......From this we can see that there is no case whatsoever for assuming that the ancestors of all the Indo-European stocks did not know cereal agriculture. While there may have been speculation in the past as to whether some terms might have applied originally to the gathering and processing of wild plants, terms for the plow, cultivated field, and techniques appropriate to the processing of domesticated cereals whose home range lay outside of most of Europe, suggest that all the earliest Indo-Europeans knew
agriculture before their dispersals.

and if they knew agriculture they were a settled down population

this could be an hint.....even tough the word could be related to the clan and not to a permanent settlement it cannot be discard that weik PIE had villages:

weik- (1)
Proto-Indo-European root meaning "clan, social unit above the household."
It forms all or part of: antoecian; bailiwick; Brunswick; diocese; ecology; economy; ecumenical; metic; nasty; parish; parochial; vicinage; vicinity; viking; villa; village; villain; villanelle; -ville; villein; Warwickshire; wick (n.2) "dairy farm."

It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit visah "house," vit "dwelling, house, settlement;" Avestan vis "house, village, clan;" Old Persian vitham "house, royal house;" Greek oikos "house;" Latin villa "country house, farm," vicus "village, group of houses;" Lithuanian viešpats "master of the house;" Old Church Slavonic visi "village;" Gothic weihs "village."

Andrzejewski said...

According to @Samuel, both Khvalynsk and SS were born out of Piedmont

old europe said...


and the fact that PIE knew agricolture must be confronted with the fact that we have no signs of agricultural activity east of the Dneper till at least 2000 BC. This only reinforces the idea that if PIE was in the steppe it was in the CT/SS cultural complex.

However I think we have also another precious information. The fact that the agricultural vocabulary is an impoverished one basically means that PIE at the end cannot come from Anatolia but if it were the EEF who were the first speakers that means PIE coalesced entirely on european soil. So Renefrew is wrong anyway.
So is an "out of old europe" scenario.

Ric Hern said...

@ old europe

So when you stay in a tent across the river from a settlement with houses and sometimes trade with these people, you suddenly adopt their language as a whole ? As far as I could gather, PIEs were a pasturalist society...

Ric Hern said...

...Pastoralist...

EurDNA said...

Ric
People in the steppe didn't live in tents, or yurts.
But yes, when steppe groups adopted domesticates (in whichever limited or selective form) as well as religious concepts (e.g. monumental burials), then one can argue that a specific subset of steppe communities might have then also have adopted the language of post-LBK groups which faced them.

Bastian Barx said...

Some one clearly didn't get The basics right. Speakers of PIE knew farming because they had words for plow, grain, yoke and field - but that's it. That the PIE vocabulary that has been reconstructed, doesn't fit very well a european farmer People, is one of The oldest linguistic arguments against it being a neolthic farmer language. And nothing changed there.

Andrzejewski said...

PIE is either an EHG language, a CHG one (Piedmont, Progres?), an amalgam of both. or a completely new phylum

Dragos said...

@ Bastian

Check out any sober linguist- and nobody will claim the kind of bullcrap your stating
So why don’t you, Andrzejewski etc go learn some basics

Bastian Barx said...

@old e

About PIE words for houses and Villages: The steppe pastoralists didn't just Move around in tents All The time, they had some houses and Small Villages too. You have to prove that the reconstructed PIE vocabulary fits a european farmer culture better than a pastolarist steppe culture - which you can't, because it was always used by most linguist as an argument for the opposite. Sorry

Bastian Barx said...

Lol?

Bastian Barx said...

So where are The reconstructed PIE words for legumes, lentils, beans and other european plants and edible vegetables? I Wonder....

Dragos said...

@ Bastian
Honk honk clownland in here

old europe said...


@bastian

The PIE language we are able to reconstruct is not a complete one. Many terms and words have been completely lost. What this vocabulary tells us is a minimal platform to be able to infer what PIE were and what PIE were not. If they had vocabulary for plough, field, grain and many others agricoltural term it means that they had also the other words you are mentioning ( legumes ecc.)
The agricoltural vocabulary of the PIE is even richer than the military vocabulary. So according to your logic PIE did not know war?
Not to mention the crucial issue of the tripartite ideology . PIE were divided in three categories:

priest warriors and .....farmers....

not to mention the presence in the PIE religion of the cow worship. "Pastoralists only" can have cows but it is difficult to have pastoralists that "worship" the cow.....this is an agricolturalists stuff...

Andrzejewski said...

PIE arose on the Steppe, but we don't know for sure WHAT GROUPS were the FIRST speakers of a semblance of early PIE.

Andrzejewski said...

PS: If Vaida managed to relate Yeniseian languages e.g. Kett to the Na-Dene North American/Beringian language families, dating back probably to the days of Malta Boy (24,000 years ago!), how come we can't link PIE with either its CHG predecessor or to any of its EHG putative predecessors?

natsunoame said...

old Europe ... a sip fresh air for me
I am glad to see at least one argued position in this blog. There are people already know which ethnical group represent the PIE, I repeat ETHNICAL, not bunch of different people and if you can't understand by your own why is that no one can help you. I don't like multiculturalism and I have no worries to say or write that!! Exactly the same people reached todays India, China, Egypt and many other places, organised state entities on their path, left hundreds of toponyms and hydronyms, left their culture and BLOOD and of course their LANGUAGE. And this is evidenced by material archeological finds and historical data. As I can see here in this blog you missed the OLD historical datas. Not the new one, from lets say Romanticism period, but much much older, written by contemporaries of the events.
Andrzejewski
PIE arose on the Steppe, but we don't know for sure WHAT GROUPS were the FIRST speakers of a semblance of early PIE.
...you can't be more schizophrenic in one sentence you know...Something cant arose on the Steppe if the people gave this thing came from somewhere else /you said it by your own/. The thing is the language and it's not connected to place but to people. So...these people are not steppe people and it's about time for all of you to accept the obvious truth. Because the agriculture is spread gain by these same people all over.

https://www.academia.edu/35556491/The_contacts_of_the_Eastern_European_steppe_people_with_the_Balkan_population_during_the_transition_period_from_Neolithic_to_Eneolithic
Thanks for that information to old europe again.
The particular time of cultural influence they wrote here coincides with the already proven flood in the Black Sea. That's one of the waves and it's proven by soil layers.
Have a nice day to all good people here!!!

Bastian Barx said...

@old E

You can't argue like that, because then you could always make what ever scenario you want to be true fit the vocabulary. In reality you are turning things on their head.

It's an established fact, that the reconstructed PIE vocabulary fits better for a pastoral semi-nomadic culture living in a biome like the steppes, than it fits a central european neolithic farmer culture.

It's a fact. Live with it.

Just because you didn't know that the steppe pastoralists were also semi-sedentary and had small villages, as well as small scale farming, doesn't change this.

Bastian Barx said...

It's an established fact by many experts. David Anthony is one of them. So if you want to dispute it, you need better arguments.

You could start by reading chapter 5 in "The horse, the wheel, and language", or you could read "Talking Neolithic: Linguistic and Archaeological Perspectives on how Indo-European was Implemented in Southern Scandinavia" by Gus Kroonen and Rune Iversen, published in American journal of archeology.

You can read it here: https://static-curis.ku.dk/portal/files/184141394/AJA121_04_Iversen.pdf

Bastian Barx said...

@Dragos

How old are you? Six years? You're for sure behaving like some one in kindergarten.

"Bwwaahhaaa. Mooomaaaa. I don't liek what the maaan saaaysss, Bwahahhaaaa". Grow up for god sakes.