I've updated my map of pre-Corded Ware culture R1a samples with a couple of new entries from Central and South Asia (the original is still
here). However, before any of you get overly excited, please note that these samples aren't older than the Corded Ware culture. The reason I added them to my map is to counter the ongoing absurd claims online that South Asian R1a isn't derived from European R1a.
Just in case the map can't be viewed in all of its glory in some devices, here's what the fine print says:
The oldest example of R1a in ancient DNA from Central Asia is dated to 2132-1940 calBCE (ID I3770, Narasimhan 2019). Moreover, this sequence is closely related to much older R1a samples from Central, Eastern and Northern Europe, and phylogenetically nested within their diversity. Thus, it must surely represent a population expansion from Europe to Central Asia. Indeed, it's also associated with the Bronze Age Andronovo archeological culture, which is usually seen as an offshoot of the Corded Ware culture (CWC) of Late Neolithic Europe. The vast majority of present-day R1a lineages in Central Asia are closely related to that of I3770, and so must also ultimately derive from Europe.
The oldest instance of R1a in ancient DNA from South Asia is dated to just 1044-922 calBCE (ID I12457, Narasimhan 2019). This sequence, as well as the vast majority of present-day South Asian R1a lineages, are closely related to much older R1a samples from Central, Eastern and Northern Europe, and phylogenetically nested within their diversity. Thus, they must surely represent a population expansion from Europe to South Asia via Central Asia, in all likelihood during the Bronze Age. Even if R1a existed in South Asia before the Bronze Age, which is extremely unlikely, because it's found in samples from indigenous European hunter-gatherers, the vast majority of present-day R1a lineages in South Asia must be ultimately from Europe.
The idea that most, if not all, South Asian R1a is derived from European R1a seriously scares a lot of people. This is obvious in many online discussions on the topic. I suspect they're so frightened by it because, in their minds, it has the potential to encourage discrimination and even racism, perhaps by re-defining the colonization of much of the world by European nations in the recent past as the natural order of things?
In any case, clearly we're dealing with some sort of mass phobia here. I've got advice for those of you suffering from this problem: if you're honestly worried that the geographic provenance and expansion history of some Y-haplogroup is going to negatively impact on your life in any meaningful way, then it's time to find yourself a quality mental health professional. All the best with that.
See also...
The mystery of the Sintashta people
The Poltavka outlier
Yamnaya isn't from Iran just like R1a isn't from India
716 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 716 Newer› Newest»@Andre
"what happened to all the Roman times Anatolians and Near Easterners? Did they disappear?"
No, they spread out and were slowly absorbed into the population of Italy, which is why modern Italians(and especially southern Italians) have so much Iran_neo type ancestry.
@Bob Floy by Iran_Neo type ancestry do you mean “CHG” or Levant_N (3 way admixture of Natufians, ANF and Iran_Neo).
I always assumed that Italians and Greeks look the way they do (lots of them, at least) largely because of their Anatolian farmer component but also due to some minor BA CHG-rich Barcin-like admixture.
@zardos
Yeah, the abstract describes pretty well the results that I've seen from the paper.
Expect a lot of the Romans to cluster well south of the early Italic individuals, even from south central Italy (Samnites), and basically among modern Cretans, Sicilians and Cypriots. Quite a few of the Romans, especially the late ones, also cluster with Middle Eastern groups.
The one thing I don't get is why so few of the Romans overlap with Mycenaeans. Most of them are shifted east/northeast compared to Mycenaeans, and so overlap strongly with modern Greeks. But of course modern Greeks have a lot of Slavic ancestry.
I'm hoping that the paper explains this in some detail, instead of simply claiming that many Romans were of Greek descent because they cluster with modern Greeks.
I wonder where the Bronze Age cline emanates from for Italy - BB Italy; or contemporary Central Europe - which would suggest a second wave of migration
I don't know and can't tell whether the early Italic samples are basically of local Beaker origin, or they're in large part of more recent post-EBA origin from Central Europe and maybe the western Balkans.
The truth is probably somewhere in between, and hopefully this is discussed in some detail in the paper.
We have no idea how Achaeans and Dorians genetically looked. In fact, we don't have genetic portraits of the real ancient Greeks.
My guess would be that new people came after the time of BB resulting in the first Northern shift and later Celtic and Germanic slaves and other migrants might have caused it. In my opinion the low Roman birth rates were "balanced" out by migrants from two directions, with the Eastern Mediterranean being just the stronger one.
A modern comparison would be early 20th century France with low birth rates which got migrants from Maghreb, Armenia, Portugal but also Poland.
Similar situation in a way. The question would be, if all those migrants would panmix. But since most started low (a lot as slaves) and ethnic and religious differences were less important in the Roman Empire, why not?
That would be interesting, whether you find something like a Germanic-Phoenician-Greek mix in the samples.
@Zardos
To be precise, French early 20Th century birth rate was still close to 3.
It went below the replacement fertility level, after the 1975 abortion law.
@Zardos
The arrival of foreigners in the capital of the Empire was well described by Martial, the most famous of the Celtiberian poets in Rome- "To Caesar, on the concourse of strangers to Rome"-
"Whar race is so distant from us, what race so barbarous, Caesar as that from it No spectatoris present in the city. The cultivator from Rhodope (Thrace) is here from Orpheus, the Sarmatian nourished by the blood drawn from his steed is here. He too who drinks the water of the Nile where it first becomes known to us and he whose shores the surge of the remotest ocean laves. The Arabian has hastened hither, the Sabaeans have hastened and the Cilicians have here dripped with showers of their own perfume. With locks twisted into a knot are come the Sicambrians and with hair twisted in other forms the Aethiopians"
What can we expect from Rome?
By the way Martial describes Etruscan women as swarthy, because they never needed makeup, which is certainly intriguing.
I hope this paper does not disappoint us because the issue of the Greeks and the Etruscans is interesting
@J.S.: You are right, but it was in a phase of rapid economic development and France was among the first populations to go through the "Demographic transition".
In any case, some decades later it is a clear cut case demographically, but the immigration was too much on the clearly non-European side, even in comparison to ancient Rome.
However, I think its possible some Spanish villages are more ancient Roman than a lot of Italy because of these later immigrations.
When the old Romans were still strong and demographically healthy, they sent a lot of colonists and they might have preserved particularly well in Iberia and Southern France.
That will be harder to decide though, because they were similar even before the rise of Rome.
Thracians, Sicambrians (Germanic), Cilicians (Anatolia), Aethiops, Arabs, Sabaeans (South Arabia), Egyptians.
In addition Gauls, Britons, Celtiberians and of course south Italians and North Africans. A genetic shaker has to appear in the samples
The question is, do you expect to find more Etruscan-related people, in the south or north. And likewise, the original IE speaking precursors to the Romans. From what I’m seeing people think Etruscans were BB types and most Romans as Middle Eastern immigrants. Are we sure this is the correct interpretation.
Early Italic speakers were also "BB types".
Romans look mixed, because that's what they were, due to the expansion of the Roman Empire across the Mediterranean Sea.
@zardos “When the old Romans were still strong and demographically healthy, they sent a lot of colonists and they might have preserved particularly well in Iberia and Southern France.
That will be harder to decide though, because they were similar even before the rise of Rome.”
What’s the impact of Germans on Northern France (aside from Alsace Lorraine where a complete population replacement took place), especially the influence of the France (but also Allemanians, Burgundians etc)?
@Davidski “The one thing I don't get is why so few of the Romans overlap with Mycenaeans. Most of them are shifted east/northeast compared to Mycenaeans, and so overlap strongly with modern Greeks. But of course modern Greeks have a lot of Slavic ancestry.”
Wasn’t the Slavicization of the Balkans mostly due to the massive depopulation effect of the 6th century AD Justinian Plague, which wipes out 100M Roman Empire and Bizantine residents?
@Andre: I'm not competent enough to answer you that, so I hope for others, especially David to jump in.
But I can tell you there was definitely no complete population replacement in Alsace-Lorraine or Southern Germany ans Switzerland in general.
There was just a tribal takeover, whereas a lot of French speaking territories of the Frankish realm had a different history.
Northern French Celts were already closer to Germanic, so its more difficult to tell apart.
The latest French study gave us a first glimpse at hinted at very significant Germanic influences in the North of France, but we need more late Celtic and Roman age samples from the region I'd say.
But again, others might know more. As for the Roman provinces, when the empire collapsed and the legion were gone a lot of civilian Romans were helpless and their whole way of life was gone.
It was easy even for small tribal groups to take their share.
Some of the structure in Italic Bronze Age might be explained by different putative migrations
1) Cetina Phenomenon
2) Bell Beaker & post-Beaker groups via NW Italy & W Sicily
In addition to earlier Neolithic groups.
@Andrzejewski
"What’s the impact of Germans on Northern France (aside from Alsace Lorraine where a complete population replacement took place), especially the influence of the France (but also Allemanians, Burgundians etc),"
You are alway talking about replacement in Northern France. Here is what Simone Biagini has to say about German gene flow in Alsace.
Reshaping the Hexagone: the genetic landscape of modern France
"With a proportion of 12.27% from the external cluster named “Central/Eastern_Europe” (also including samples from Germany), the northeastern departments of Bas-Rhin and Moselle in our dataset recall the long history of the Alsace-Lorraine territory: a fuzzy border between France and Germany for a long time"
@Zardos
"The latest French study gave us a first glimpse at hinted at very significant Germanic influences in the North of France"
Which one?
I swear I might end up getting in trouble for these potentially off topic posts.
This one is regarding Dashtikozy BA samples (3 in number). I have tried to use global25 (poverty version to be specific) to see how they compare to other bronze age IE populations like Swedish battle axe, Bell beakers (both Czech and Bavaria) and even Corded ware. I end up getting results which indicate that they have more PIE ancestry than battle axe and bell beakers, is this true or is this just another case of not trusting global25 with modeling ancient populations (because apparently it is bad at it)?
@J.S.: The very study you quoted:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/718098v1
Obviously the study correctly separated the relevant genetic regions of France, which correspond to thoder known from physical anthropological studies for many, many decades. Like Basque, Breton, Greco-Roman Southern and Celto-
Germanic influenced Northern France.
That they largely ignored Roman while talking long about Massilia is hard to understand.
The problem with your quote is, that the whole French regional clusters show Germanic influences, like North East and Central North. The 12,5 % are of course not the total Germanic influence in Alsace-Lorraine. Alsace-Lorraine has just more of a very specific German component in their scheme.
But like I said, wait for more relevant ancient and historical samples.
@Leron
Look at the busts of ancient Roman Emperors. It's rather clear they are not Middle Eastern people on the whole, although there are some exceptions. While there is probably additional Middle Eastern ancestry (ie: EEF) which existed in Italy that wasn't as pronounced in places like Switzerland, France and southern Germany, they look similar to modern people from central Europe and especially northern Italy. A 'BB' ethnic group was likely a thing, and you can see the similarities in the modern people today. So essentially the Latins became more sophisticated/advanced and aggressive from the Etruscans and then proceeded to slaughter their cousins who lived adjacent to them. Interesting isn't it?
@AWood @Leron This is what reconstructed Proto-Indo-Europeans might’ve looked like:
https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2015/06/10/18/pg-10-bronze-age-2-v2.jpg?w768
And:
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/588212401302225072/?amp_client_id=CLIENT_ID(_)&mweb_unauth_id=d3046d1d45d1423fa45968fee1191253&simplified=true
Roman Emperors looked just like transplants from the Pontic-Caspian Steppes!
So perhaps it’s the Romans, not the Nordics, who were closest to our PIE ancestors.
@Leron @AWood “Look at the busts of ancient Roman Emperors. It's rather clear they are not Middle Eastern people on the whole, although there are some exceptions. While there is probably additional Middle Eastern ancestry (ie: EEF) which existed in Italy that wasn't as pronounced in places like Switzerland, France and southern Germany, they look similar to modern people from central Europe and especially northern Italy. ”
Read my comment above re: Roman busts and PIEs
@ Zardos
"The problem with your quote is, that the whole French regional clusters show Germanic influences, like North East and Central North."
May be tou are right, but I can't see the Germanic influences in all the other French regional clusters.
"With this analysis, each cluster is described as a composition of different proportions of haplotype sharing with other groups (both French and external ones), excluding the contribution of the group that we want to explain (no self-copying allowed). With this analysis we detected the presence of a strong French identity (all the pink shades in Figure 5) that somehow dominates the entire country."
Check the Figure 5 and tell me where are the Germanic influences. For instance, in the "North" cluster, there is no German chunk ancestry profile.
Really don't like how the word "Roman" is so cheaply thrown around in this context. Clearly, an early Republican Roman from the actual city is a much more specific thing than a post-Caracalla's Edict ""Roman"" from some harbor like Ostia, when everyone and their dog could easily call themselves such, which as far as I understand it is one of the places from which they got much of the samples.
I don't think I'm the only one who is much more interested in early Republican Romans, and doesn't care too much about the dregs that populated the ports around 100AD, but I fear that the latter will be used to draw conclusions about the former, as if there would've been many Cornelii, Scipii or Fabii just strolling around in imperial Ostia.
@J.S.: "For instance, in the "North" cluster, there is no German chunk ancestry profile."
You see, thats the problem, because in all Northern provinces of France there MUST be a significant Germanic ancestry portion. I'm not sure how much, but its absolutely impossible that there is none.
If they would have done the same ancestry proportions with ancient and historical samples, you would get it.
But since they used first internal French components and added external sources later, widespread ancestral components will just disappear within the French ones.
Especially since French and German share a lot of ancestry because of largely the same Celtic-Roman-Germanic ancestry.
I would rather rely on people using the data with ancient ancestral components. The Roman samples might be useful actually.
Concerning these, I really would stress the burials context. Ideal would be individuals with a biography and different social strata.
I doubt senators would be as mixed, even if foreign people made it to the top. Like emperors with Near Eastern and North African ancestry in the 2nd century already (Septimius Severus and his succesors).
Sometimes even, like in Western Metropoles today, the district could make a difference. So the samples have to be put into context.
Slaves and traders f.e. will be more often foreign than local gentry.
@Leron
"From what I’m seeing people think Etruscans were BB types and most Romans as Middle Eastern immigrants. Are we sure this is the correct interpretation."
Keep in mind that "Roman" samples do not necessarily represent ethnic, proper Roman DNA from the founding population. Many people fail to make the distinction between ethnic Romans and cultural, assimilated ones. It's very unlikely that ethnic Romans were Middle Eastern- like. Besides many samples were take from Ostia, the coast as far as I recall. The city Rome was the capital of the Empire that attracted and received many people from around the Mediterranean. Many sophisticated traders, merchants and labors from the East migrated there. What is more suprising is the the Etruscan result that suggest a Northern origin of the Etruscan people. However Italics appear to be basically Bell Beaker- folks.
Most interesting will be details, even the smallest difference between Etruscans, Italics, Illyrians and Celts.
Because there must be something.
@Davidski
The one thing I don't get is why so few of the Romans overlap with Mycenaeans. Most of them are shifted east/northeast compared to Mycenaeans, and so overlap strongly with modern Greeks. But of course modern Greeks have a lot of Slavic ancestry.
As Archi pointed out we do not have core European Greek samples from antiquity.
Sometimes populations that look very northern made into the Balkan even in the Bronze Age. For example Bulgaria EBA + Beli Breyag EBA, while had a very low (if any) Yamnaya-related ancestry, were rather northern.
It is possible that European Greeks were just as Northern as Modern ones, then this was shifted by gene flow from Asia Minor or even farther in Roman and especially in Byzantine and Ottoman times, but counter-balanced by the Slavic ancestry.
"However Italics appear to be basically Bell Beaker- folks."
Shouldn't we see more or less a repetition of what happened in Iberia, basically a cline from the local EEFs to central Euro beakers? With the difference of course that I expect Italian EEFs to be certainly less WHG shifted than Iberian ones, perhaps even LBK or Cardial like in central-south Italy.
Sort of OT: Does anyone know why is the HRV_IA sample, I3313, from G25 so very close to north Italians? Should be from 1500-900 BCE, which seems the ideal timeframe for the spread of Italics and related into Italy. The supplementary infos from the paper, GHSE 2017, don't say much.
@ Gaska
May you provide the source from Martial's description about Etruscan women?
I think I can give my two cents in the discussion about Martial, because I have a Ph.D. in classical literature and greek phylology.
First to all, it's a wrong approach to take Martial as a competent source for pigmentation about ancient peoples for many reasons:
1) he wasn't contemporary to pure Etruscans -> at his time Etruscans were already Roman citizens and latin speakers. And, of course, at Martial's time a great number of senatorial romans struggled to provide an Etruscan pedigree, because it was a way to improve their status. Think about Maecenas...
2) in late republican and principate era descriptions of foreign people was already stereotyped.
@zardos
"I now proceed to speak of the nation specially favoured by our wealthy compatriots, one that I shun above all others. I shan’t mince words. My fellow Romans, I cannot put up with a city of Greeks; yet how much of the dregs is truly Achaean? The Syrian Orontes has long been discharging into the Tiber, carrying with it its language and morals and slanting strings, complete with piper, not to speak of its native timbrels."
Exactly. I want to know who were the Romans at the start of Rome not who the Romans were during the fall of Rome (0 - 500AD).
It makes you wonder how much of the "Orientalizing period" in the Mediterranean was attribute not just through cultural diffusion but also Near East migrants settling into Greek and Italian cities after the end of the Bronze Age.
The flow of Near Eastern genes appeared very early and went from North Africa to all of Italy, as a result of the war with Carthage. All the surviving population of Carthage was moved in Italy.
In Italy the period from 1200BC-300BC is interesting, the others are uninteresting in terms of the origin of Italics and Etruscans.
@Zardos
I see your point, may be you're right, but it seems to be a bit of a circular reasoning. In all cases, always talking about "total replacement" is very cheap, spatially without any data.
@Lars
"Though, Laelia, your home is not Ephesus, or Rhodes, or Mitylene, but a house in a patrician street at Rome; and though you had a mother from the swarthy Etruscans, who never painted her face in her life, and a sturdy father from the plains of Aricia; yet you (oh shame!) a countrywoman of Hersilia and Egeria, are perpetually repeating, in voluptuous Greek phrase, "My life, my soul." Such expressions should be reserved for the couch, and not even for every couch, but only that which is prepared by a mistress for a wanton lover. You pretend forsooth a wish to know how to speak as a chaste matron, but your lascivious movements would betray you. Though you were to learn all that Corinth can teach, Laelia, and practise it, you would never become a perfect Lais"
Obviously we do not know if the Etruscans that Martial knew were the same ones that inhabited Etruria in the seventh or fifth century BC, but the truth is that he describes them as swarthy
Rumors say that there are certain differences in the lineages of the Etruscans and italics. We'll see what they are if there are any. It seems clear that the Etruscans plots near the Iberians and that should be due to a similarity of haplogroups (P312). At least one of the BBs we know in Parma (Olalde 2.018) is very Iberian just like the Sicilian BBs Df27- The linguistic implications of Etruscan genetics can be fun and interesting
@Lars-"In the abstract of the Bohemian paper the authors state that the signal is from Lithuanian Narva culture, not the Latvian one"
I saw that you made me this comment in the previous thread. Actually, that signal is common to all Baltic Countries, and the most important thing from my point of view is that in all of them there is R1b. Maybe we will find L51 in Bohemia coming not from the steppes but from the Baltic, we will know in a few months.
Donkalnis 7 Lithuania Narva 5460 BC–4940 BC R1b1a1a1~M73 calls
Kivisaare 3 Estonia Narva 4730 BC–4540 BC R1b1a1a~P297 calls
Latvia_HG2 Narva 5841 BC–5636 BC pre-R1b1a1a1-M73 calls
I know. Total replacement is definitely wrong for any Southern migration of Germanics I know of. Only on the small scale it took place quite likely, in some valleys and highly sought for places. But usually the remnants of the preceding people just moved to the next best place, became dependent and were sooner or later Germanicized. So you have some Swiss valleys f.e. which are more Germanic in ancestry than many places much further North. But you have in Switzerland German speakers which are below the German average. That's what I expect at least.
Northern French are more mixed throughly, so to differentiate there you definitely need to compare samples with the most likely ancestral components.
But we have data already, because what is the most likely cause for the separate Northern French clusters with additional Central European and GB admixture?
It can be only Celtogermanic and Germanic ancestry. Now we have to Figuren the details out.
Who were the Ligurians ?
@TLT
I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the G25 is apparently bad at modeling ancient populations, since it's actually very good at this. It only really has problems with modeling very deep ancestry, but then again so do other tools.
However, it's important to have some solid background knowledge about the ancient samples that you're attempting to model, because as they say, garbage in garbage out.
I guess if you're defining PIE as basically Yamnaya, which may or may not be the right thing to do, then this is more or less what you should be getting...
Target: TJK_Dashti_Kozy_BA
Distance: 1.7178% / 0.01717838
60.0 Yamnaya_UKR
20.2 POL_Globular_Amphora
7.8 TJK_Sarazm_En
5.4 KAZ_Mereke_MBA
5.2 UKR_N
1.4 SWE_TRB
Target: SWE_Battle-Axe
Distance: 2.8687% / 0.02868660
63.0 Yamnaya_UKR
34.6 POL_Globular_Amphora
2.2 UKR_N
0.2 SWE_TRB
Target: Corded_Ware_CZE
Distance: 1.8065% / 0.01806522
65.0 Yamnaya_UKR
28.4 POL_Globular_Amphora
6.4 UKR_N
0.2 KAZ_Mereke_MBA
Target: Bell_Beaker_Bavaria
Distance: 1.3217% / 0.01321721
52.0 POL_Globular_Amphora
45.6 Yamnaya_UKR
1.4 UKR_N
0.6 SWE_TRB
0.4 TJK_Sarazm_En
Target: Bell_Beaker_CZE
Distance: 1.4155% / 0.01415499
49.4 POL_Globular_Amphora
46.0 Yamnaya_UKR
3.6 UKR_N
0.8 SWE_TRB
0.2 TJK_Sarazm_En
So, as you can see, Dashti_Kozy_BA has about as much Yamnaya ancestry as the Corded Ware samples from Czechia and the Battle-Axe samples from Sweden, and of course Battle-Axe is the Scandinavian variant of Corded Ware. However, it has much more Yamnaya ancestry than the Bavarian and Czech Bell Beakers, despite showing some local Central Asian admixture.
Overall, these results make very good sense to me, because it's likely that Dashti_Kozy_BA ultimately came from the Fatyanovo-Balanovo population, in other words from the eastern Corded Ware people, who were probably rich in steppe ancestry.
The algorithm that I used to run my models is located here:
https://vahaduo.github.io/vahaduo/
You might also find this post useful. It's a brief guide to modeling ancient ancestry with the G25:
Modeling genetic ancestry with Davidski: step by step
@David: Thank you for the results and information. For the PIE ancestry I was using both Yamnaya and Afanasevo and I also added a Botai section just to be sure that it captured any extra WSHG ancestry that might otherwise inflate the steppe component (that is, if I could include it in one of the 4 groups in the free version of global25). Incidentally the best fit that I have so far uses Sintashta, Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk and Gonur ancestry. Is this a reasonable one?:
I recall not getting any Sarazam in it when Sarazam and Gonur were both used as inputs, so maybe all of the non-(MLBA and EMBA)IE ancestry in it could be accounted by Gonur.
"sample": "TJK_Dashti_Kozy_BA:Average",
"fit": 0.7389,
"RUS_Krasnoyarsk_MLBA": 42.5,
"RUS_Sintashta_MLBA": 36.67,
"RUS_Afanasievo": 13.33,
"TKM_Gonur1_BA": 7.5
It was pretty close to some Krasnoyarsk samples in terms of the PCA distance (under 3 for I3395).
Assuming that Afanasevo is 100% steppe eneolithic, Krasnoyarsk/Andronovo is 70% steppe eneolithic, and Sintashta is ~57% Steppe eneolithic, Dashtikozy comes out as ~64% steppe eneolithic. Though I am not sure if the steppe eneolithic numbers are completely correct, I got them from an infographic from Wang et al 2018. IDK if the values have been changed since then. All in all, it does look like a CWC with minor BMAC admixture.
I used the free version for the above: http://185.144.156.77:3000/
@TLT
Though I am not sure if the steppe eneolithic numbers are completely correct, I got them from an infographic from Wang et al 2018.
Keep in mind that this Wang et al. infographic shows an ADMIXTURE bar graph, and ADMIXTURE is not a reliable way to measure ancient ancestry.
Wang et al graph in question is qpAdm with CHG+EHG+WHG+Anatolia / Globular_Amph+Piedmont_EN+Darkveti_Meshoko, I think?
I don't know how anyone can look at Beakers as Indo-European after the last Olalde paper on Iberia. The Etruscan-Basque connection is obvious, both Agglutinative.
Not to mention the long recognised Vasconic substrate in proto-Celtic.
Shut the fuck up guys. I'm so tired of the bull shit "alternative" to Kurgan hypothesis. The kurgan hypothesis has been proven by genetics. Let's move on.
Beaker/Kurgan R1b U152+ gene flow into Italy in the Bronze age is the origin of Indo European languages in Italy most importantly Italic languages. Some native languages in Italy, like Etruscan, survived.
If Italic languages don't come from Bell beaker, please tell me where does they come from? Because, the only new gene flow into Italy during the Bronze age came from Beaker/Kurgan people.
In ancestry, what connects Iron age Italy with other parts of Iron age Europe????? Kurgan ancestry.
Let's put things into perspective....
-Pretty much all of Europe was Indo Europeanized between 2800 and 2000 BC. The Corded Ware & Bell Beaker cultures played the most important roles.
-The first written records documented languages in Western Europe date 600 BC.
Think about. 2000 BC to 600 BC. That's 1,400 years. That's a long time.
Yes, the first IE languages documented in Wester Europe date to 600 BC. But, that's only because the first written records in western Europe date to 600 BC. IE languages could have existed there much earlier.
And Yes, Celtic, the main IE language native to Western Europe, originated in only circa 800 BC. But, there's no evidence against the idea other IE languages existed in Western Europe before 800 BC (before Celtic).
Yes, not all languages in Western Europe in 600 BC were Indo European. So what. Kurgan people mixed a lot with native Neolithic farmers in western Europe. It should not be a suprise many non-IE languages survived.
Blogger Samuel Andrews said...🙄🙄🙄
@Sam Andrews
Let's put things into perspective
You may be right, Sam Andrews, but even if it were, you should go back to school to be taught manners. The more aggressive you get the more desperate you are. It is a pity that you do not have arguments, education and knowledge to discuss with you.
@Mammoth Hunter @Romulus-
There is no doubt that the genetic results of the Etruscans will be fun, you only have to see the reaction of ultrakurganist fans, even though the results have not yet been published.
@ Gaska
But there's no need for Ultra-Basquism or ultra-occidentalism either.
aDNA will sober both camps, for sure
@Mammoth H
All ultras are bad, never let you see reality and correctly interpret what you are seeing, but the truth is that in this case, the possibility of BB culture speaking IE is below zero and of course nobody is talking about a Vasconic Europe, we are satisfied that at least they let us discuss our origin without insulting us.
@Samuel Andrews
Calm yourself down.
Thousands of new ancient samples will be released soon and they'll force us all to adjust our ideas and look for new solutions to old problems.
So keep an open mind, because even if you're mostly right, you'll still be surprised sooner or later. That's just about the only thing that is guaranteed.
@Sam you forgot the Balkan component
@Romulus “The Etruscan-Basque connection is obvious, both Agglutinative.”
Prove a connection...Basque belongs to the Proto-Acqitaniam/Vasconic; Etruscan is tentatively part of the Lemnian/Tyrrhenian language family.
@Matt “Wang et al graph in question is qpAdm with CHG+EHG+WHG+Anatolia / Globular_Amph+Piedmont_EN+Darkveti_Meshoko, I think?”
Aren’t all Europeans like that?
Well, Europeans don't have Darkveti Meshoko ancestry, or anything of the kind, that's for sure, no matter what some scientists keep repeating over and over.
Andrzejewski said...
@Romulus “The Etruscan-Basque connection is obvious, both Agglutinative.”
Prove a connection...Basque belongs to the Proto-Acqitaniam/Vasconic; Etruscan is tentatively part of the Lemnian/Tyrrhenian language family.
The proof is that they are both Agglutinative languages. Are you proposing this language feature arose independently in two geographically adjacent, genetically related cultures? What a coincidence that would be.
@Sam
"Pretty much all of Europe was Indo Europeanized between 2800 and 2000 BC."
Not a certainty.
@Romulus
You do know that there are plenty of agglutinative languages, right?
@Bob Floy
Yes lets post them all here so we can all see them.
Examples of agglutinative languages include:
Indigenous languages of the Americas (Y HG Q?)
Algonquian languages
Cree (also classified as polysynthetic)
Blackfoot (partially fusional)
Siouan languages
Lakota
Yuchi
Athabaskan languages
Muskogean languages
Quechuan languages
Aymaran languages
Salishan languages
Mesoamerican languages
Nahuatl
Wasteko
Austronesian languages[3]
Tagalog
Indonesian
Javanese
Niger–Congo languages
Bantu languages
Igboid languages
Luganda
Berber languages
Dravidian languages
Tamil
Kannada
Telugu
Malayalam
Tulu
Eskimo–Aleut languages
Aleut
Inuktitut
Yupik
Kartvelian languages
Turkic languages
Turkish
Azerbaijani
Uzbek
Kazakh
Uyghur
Turkmen
Kyrgyz
Tatar
Yakut
Bashkir
Chuvash
Tungusic languages
Japanese
Korean
Mongolian
Languages of the Caucasus
Northwest Caucasian languages
Northeast Caucasian languages
Tibeto-Burman languages
Tibetan (both Classical and Standard)
Lai
Uralic languages
Sámi languages
Hungarian
Finnish
Estonian
Basque
Munda languages
Santali
Many languages spoken by Ancient Near East peoples were agglutinative:
Elamite
Gutian
Hattic
Hurrian
Kassite[4][citation needed]
Lullubi[citation needed]
Sumerian
Urartian
Some well known constructed languages are agglutinative, such as Esperanto, Klingon, Quenya and Black Speech.
@Romulus
Good work, very thorough.
I don't see Percy Greg's Martian language on there, though.
Also I think Armenian is partially agglutinative.
@Bob
Also a good read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusional_language
Fusional languages or inflected languages are a type of synthetic language, distinguished from agglutinative languages by their tendency to use a single inflectional morpheme to denote multiple grammatical, syntactic, or semantic features. For example, the Spanish verb comer ("to eat") has the first-person singular preterite tense form comà ('I ate'); the single suffix -à represents both the features of first-person singular agreement and preterite tense, instead of having a separate affix for each feature.
Examples of fusional Indo-European languages are: Kashmiri, Sanskrit, Pashto, New Indo-Aryan languages such as Punjabi, Hindustani, Bengali; Greek (classical and modern), Latin, Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian, Irish, German, Faroese, Icelandic, Albanian, all Baltic and Slavic languages. Northeast Caucasian languages are weakly fusional.
Another notable group of fusional languages is the Semitic languages group; however, Modern Hebrew is much more analytic than Classical Hebrew “both with nouns and with verbs”.[1] Colloquial varieties of Arabic are more analytic than the standard language, having lost all noun declensions, and in many cases also featuring simplified conjugation.
A high degree of fusion is also found in many Finno-Ugric, Uralic, and Samoyedic languages, like Hungarian, Estonian, Finnish, and the Sami languages, such as Skolt Sami.[citation needed] Unusually for a natively North American language, Navajo is sometimes described as fusional due to its complex and inseparable verb morphology.[2][3]
An illustration of fusionality is the Latin word bonus ("good"). The ending -us denotes masculine gender, nominative case, and singular number. Changing any one of these features requires replacing the suffix -us with a different one. In the form bonum, the ending -um denotes masculine accusative singular, neuter accusative singular, or neuter nominative singular.
\
Hi, im new here to this blog
I know this doesnt has anything to do with the topic and all, but the samples in the g25 nmonte runner like "ghaznavids from udegram" and "Kushan from tajikstan". Are these samples actually kushans and ghaznavid soldiers? Some people i know doubted their identity and i just wanted to get it clarified, if they actually were ghaznavid soldiers and kushans or not.
@jama0112
Yep, they're samples from ancient Ghaznavid and Kushan burials. From this paper...
The formation of human populations in South and Central Asia
@Samuel Andrews
"The authors should not describe the Near Eastern gene flow as unique to the city of Rome. It affected all of Italy. The impact in modern Italians like a mass movement of a single people group not a diverse array of immigrants from all over the Mediterranean.
My guess, is a region or ethnic group of mostly Anatolian/Asia Minor & some Levant origin decided to migrate en masse into Italy during the Roman imperial period."
I have to disagree here. The really curious thing is the difference between northern and central Italy with regards to ABA (Anatolia-BA-like admixture).
You know I've played around with the new samples from Raveane et al. 2019, it includes samples from all Italian regions, of which only two didn't make it into the Global25: Emilia-Romagna and Piedmont, both from the North. Still, the big picture is very clear: Umbria, the Marche and Latium have 20-25% ABA. Tuscany has 10.9% ABA. The northern regions, i.e. Aosta Valley, Lombardy, Trentino-Alto Adige, Friuli-Venezia-Giulia, the Veneto and Liguria have 0% ABA. However, Lombardy gets 0.5% Natufian admixture, and Liguria 1.1% Natufian, 1.1% Iberomaurusian and 0.4% Sub-Saharan African. And judging from my own results (I'm 1/4 from the Emilia-Romagna), there is also quite a bit of Natufian without ABA in parts of the Emilia-Romagna, even more than in Liguria.
Thus it looks like Northern Italy south of the Po (Liguria, Emilia-Romagna) does have exotic, Natufian and Northwestafrican admixture without ABA, whereas Northern Italy North of the Po largely lacks it. And central Italy also has some Natufian and Northwest African admixture, but most of all has a heap of ABA admixture. Hence it doesn't look like it was just one migrating population that affected all of Italy.
It's also interesting that Southern Italy in addition also gets some Iran-related (Ganj_Dareh_N) admixture, while central and northern Italy mostly lack this. (I see only 0.6% Ganj_Dareh_N in Latium.) It peaks in Calabria with 3.7%. This hints at different Roman era pops being involved, or perhaps different layers accumulating in Southern Italy.
BTW my own Natufian-related admixture seems to be from Egypt and the southern Levant, or maybe from a place inbetween, like the city of Pelusium.
@ Romulus
You then also know that Languages can change from mostly Agglutinative to Non-Agglutinative and back during their evolution....
@Davidski
"The one thing I don't get is why so few of the Romans overlap with Mycenaeans. Most of them are shifted east/northeast compared to Mycenaeans, and so overlap strongly with modern Greeks. But of course modern Greeks have a lot of Slavic ancestry."
Maybe they're Thracians…?
@Archi
"We have no idea how Achaeans and Dorians genetically looked. In fact, we don't have genetic portraits of the real ancient Greeks."
So what do you think Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2 are? They're extremely similar to Mycenaean Greeks and they are from a Greek colony in Iberia.
The surprise with the Etruscans will be that they were Multi-Ethnic. Actually this is no surprise since a person just have to look at their Wallpaintings to see this as clear as daylight...
Well, interesting we got ancient kushan an ghaznavid samples. Seems like as predicted, ghaznavids are basically just like afghans, but interesting kushans are like yagnobis.
Anyway, this is also out f topic, but someone from this blog(Sein) told me that AFG pashtuns can be slightly closer to iranians than to most westurasian indians/punjabis and more south asian shifted pashtun close to the same. He tried to demonstrate it through G25 nmonte runner modelling. THis is what he told me:
There are three clusters of Pashtun people:
Southwestern Pashtuns (Kandahar, Helmand, and Uruzghan in Afghanistan… and the Pashtun inhabitants of Balochistan in Pakistan). Moderately closer to even western Iranians than any West Eurasian-type Indians, significantly closer to Khorasani Iranians than any West Eurasian-type Indians. Only 25% Sintastha-related…. but lots of BMAC-related ancestry, with additional isolation-by-distance related gene-flow coming from across the Iranian plateau. Not much AASI (like 4%-5%… same as eastern Iranians, and not much higher than the 3% seen in western Iran).
there's more:
Central Pashtuns (Khost, Paktia, Paktika in Afghanistan… North Waziristan, South Waziristan, and Kurram in Pakistan). Mildly closer to western Iranians than any West Eurasian-type Indians, moderately closer to Khorasani Iranians than any West Eurasian-type Indians. Distinguished by an excess of Sintastha-related ancestry. Most analyses place them at 35%-40%, which means they are comparable to the Jatts and Ror of Haryana (but the rest of their ancestry is quite different from those people). Lots of BMAC-related ancestry. The high steppe + high BMAC combo gives them a strong affinity towards Pamiri-sprachbund speakers in Tajikistan. Their AASI is much more noticeable than with southwestern Pashtuns; the Central Pashtuns range around 7%-10%.
Eastern Pashtuns (Laghman, Kunar, and Nangarhar in Afghanistan… Bajaur, Mohmand, Dir, and much of northern KPK in Pakistan). Mildly closer to West Eurasian-type Indians than western Iranians, slightly closer to Khorasani Iranians than West Eurasian-type Indians. Very similar to southwestern Pashtuns, but with much more northwest South Asian admixture. Sort of like 70% southwestern Pashtun, 30% northwestern Indian (Punjabi, Sindhi, etc.). These Pashtuns have an equal balance of IVC- related and BMAC-related ancestry, and around 30% Sintashta-related ancestry. AASI levels vary around 7%-15%, with most being around 11%-12%.
@ Zardos
"However, I think its possible some Spanish villages are more ancient Roman than a lot of Italy because of these later immigrations.
When the old Romans were still strong and demographically healthy, they sent a lot of colonists and they might have preserved particularly well in Iberia and Southern France."
Or in the Emilia-Romagna. ;D An old pet theory of mine. There is a chain of ancient Roman colonies along the Via Aemilia, going back to the time before the civil war: Rimini, Bologna, Modena, Parma and Piacenza. And along that chain there is a somewhat lower incidence of light hair colour than in Tuscany. In particular the colony of Rimini was founded at a time when only Romans and Latins were allowed in these colonies. While later colonies also harboured socii like the Umbri, Etruscans, Samnites etc. Anyhow, I still detect a considerable Hallstatt Bylany-related component there as well, the Boii I suppose!
All three clusters are genetically closest to each other (versus neighbors). They all share substantial amounts of recent ancestry… and for the most part, they all form intersections on shared clines. All three clusters blend into each other. Ghazni Pashtuns (and most Ghilzai in fact) are transitional between Central and Southwestern Pashtuns; Afridi, Orakzai, and some Kurram Pashtuns are transitional between Northeastern and Central Pashtuns.
There are many “Pashtuns” who don’t fit into these three clusters. Examples would be a large proportion of KPK Pashtuns who are indistinguishable from Pakistani Punjabis (quite a few of the Reich lab’s “Indian cline” “Pathans” fit this bill… which is why they can use that pop average for the Indian cline). These people are Pashtunized descendants of Hindkowan, so that’s no surprise. Another example might be some Nuristani-like Pashtuns in upper Kunar (self-explanatory).
But yeah, that’s about the size of it. And if you’re curious about how Pashtuns proper (as an ethnic group) figure in a regional context, it’s like so: Pashtuns are basically genetically intermediate between Pamiri-sprachbund speakers in Tajikistan and the Persianate people of Khorasan (Iran), but with a strong skew towards northwestern India. And in terms of deep ancestry (but not too deep… just recent prehistory), Pashtuns evidence substantial ancestry related to the BMAC, to Sintashta, and to IVC. Culturally though, one could argue that steppe Iranians left the biggest imprint (since Pashtuns do see themselves as a warrior people, are organized into relatively egalitarian-yet-patriarchal tribes, and have tended towards pastoralism with long histories of nomadism)… but that’s much murkier water.
Hope this helps. If interested in actual genetic analyses, I can post.
Him again:
The idea here was to use only “Bronze Age” reference populations. The exceptions being Sarazm_Eneolithic (an exception made for the sake of the Kalasha, who need that population in their models), and the Han-like Xiong Nu samples (Pashtuns and all other southern Central Asians do often display some level of East Asian/Siberian-related admixture).
I used the most West Eurasian-shifted samples from “Indus_Periphery_West”. Theoretically, we’re talking around 10% AASI… but, I think we’ll find that this is a bloated estimate, in the near future (assuming we can get our hands on actual AASI genomes). I wouldn’t be surprised if we’re actually looking at around 2%-4% AASI.
Also, some individuals in my central Pashtun cluster would prefer that their data not be shared with others; so, I’m afraid that I won’t be showing you their results. But below, you’ll see my output for eastern and western Pashtuns.
Eastern Pashtuns (Bronze Age Modelling):
35.8% BMAC (Sappali Tepe BA)
21.1% IVC West Eurasian Migrants + 11% AASI/AHG-related (around 30%-35% total IVC-related ancestry)
27% Steppe MLBA-related (Dashti Kozy BA) + 2.1% Dali EBA (around 30% steppe-related ancestry)
2.7% Xiong Nu
Western Pashtuns (Bronze Age modelling):
35.7% BMAC (Sappali Tepe BA)
22.3% Steppe MLBA-related (Dashti Kozy BA) + 0.4% Dali EBA (around 20%-25% steppe-related ancestry)
12.8% IVC West Eurasian Migrants + 7.4% AASI/AHG-related (around 20% total IVC-related ancestry)
16% Hajji Firuz BA (ancient northwestern Iran)
5.4% Xiong Nu
Eastern Pashtuns have an almost equal balance of BMAC and IVC-related streams of ancestry (only a slight tilt towards BMAC), while western Pashtuns are heavily skewed towards BMAC. Western Pashtuns also evidence ancestry from across the other end of the Iranian plateau (Hajji Firuz BA), an element which is lacking in the ancestry of eastern Pashtuns.
For comparison, Uttar Pradesh Brahmins:
50% West Eurasian IVC Migrants + 28.5% AASI/AHG-related (around 75% indigenous, assuming both West Eurasian and ENA portions of IVC-type ancestry are “indigenous” to South Asia)
19% Steppe MLBA (Dashti Kozy BA) + 2.5% Dali EBA (around 20%-25% steppe-related ancestry)
Obviously very, very different from Pashtuns. Pashtuns are a population intermediate between Iran, Turan, and Hind, but somewhat skewed towards Turan… while north Indian Brahmins are undeniably a people of Hind. Not exactly a shocker (lol)… nor was it meant to be. Pretty obvious stuff… but sometimes, it’s important to state the plainly obvious.
But now, something much less obvious:
Jaat (Haryana)
38.7% West Eurasian IVC Migrants + 13.3% AASI/AHG-related
(50%-55% “indigenous”)
41.6% Steppe MLBA-related (Dashti Kozy BA) + 3.2% Dali EBA (around 45% steppe-related ancestry)
How are Jaats from Haryana 45% steppe!?! It’s an insane level… these people are steppe-related and IVC-related hybrids. But what does that say about the dynamics of “Aryanization” (these people are “Shudra”, right?). Also, don’t they prove that the Sintashta were swarthy? I mean, I’ve never met a Jaat irl; but pictures of them online seem to show a people totally within the northwestern Indian phenotypic range (no blondes… no one too European looking)
I dont know if he's right or not. I mean, its your program, so you would probably know better.
ALso, i have never seen any study or gedmatch calc put pashtuns little closer to west iranians than to westeurasian-shifted indians, since your g25 nmonte runner put the most west asian shifted pashtun reference little more closer to gujarat brahmins(significantly more south asian shifted than those westurasian indians) than to mazandaranis(most CHG-shifted west iraians) and specially closer to gujrat brahmins than to lurs.
I just wanted to hear your thoughts on it.
Eh, on the upthread discussion of when Indo-European or Celtic languages reached Western Europe, my opinions atm:
1) IE as a whole *could* somehow have been later in West Europe than Beaker, and IE with Celtic linguistic innovations ('Celtic') specifically could have been quite late even if IE is earlier.
(Remember Celtic at this stage is thought in the mainstream, however questionable that is, to be roughly as separate in time from other IE dialects as two Romance languages, and possibly less so with other IE dialects specifically of Central Europe - a Celtization of Western European under a model of pre-Celtic IE in Western Europe then is going to be something like early Anglo-Saxons switching to Danish or Italian dialect speakers switching to standard Italian. Similar time depth, in theory.).
but...
2) Postulating some kind of Vasco-Iberian-Etruscan family that is in some sense linked to Yamnaya or to the Central European Copper Age, and was spread by the Beaker culture is virtually linguistic pseudo-science cobbling together a family out of languages without demonstrating family unity using the comparative method.
Even if these languages are somehow related, there is no evidence to suggest that they expanded together at the Chalcolithic (and in many ways this would not be our expectation given lack of success thus far in reconstructing any family relationship - suggesting it must be deep and old, if present).
3) A "Corded Ware Only" theory of Indo-European where IE was lurking confined in NE-Central Europe until MLBA and Iron Age expansions almost certainly seems wrong in terms of explaining the depth and structure of IE according to the best models that seem to be about, and almost certainly does not well explain Anatolian languages or early (pre-Indo Iranian) loanword contacts that seem to be present in attested Near Eastern languages.
4) Proto-Italo-Celtic or proto-Celtic themselves as a subgroupings and proto-language are quite questionable on the grounds that all the higher order subgroupings in these trees are generally all questionable as phylogenetic groupings, being supported by few features which often can spread areally, and on the grounds of specifically for Celtic inconsistency with evidence of parallel / homoplastic or areal emergence of features cited by Garrett here http://www.linguistics.berkeley.edu/~garrett/BLS1999.pdf.
There may never have been an Italo-Celtic people who expanded from anywhere and the languages simply emerge as an areal process from earlier spreading IE dialects.
@ Matt
“Postulating some kind of Vasco-Iberian-Etruscan family that is in some sense linked to Yamnaya or to the Central European Copper Age, and was spread by the Beaker culture is virtually linguistic pseudo-science cobbling together a family out of languages without demonstrating family unity using the comparative method.”
What’s the odd fascination with this straw man argument ?
@Andrzejewski
"What’s the impact of Germans on Northern France (aside from Alsace Lorraine where a complete population replacement took place), especially the influence of the France (but also Allemanians, Burgundians etc)?"
Not easy to say for sure due to the lack of a northern French sample in the Global25. However, not even the German speaking part of Switzerland experienced a complete population replacement! Judging from my calculations the German Swiss are only about 50% Germanic on average. The French_East sample comes out very similar in my models. I don't know where exactly it comes from, but I would guess from Alsace. And I expect that those Northern French who had always been Romance speaking have even less Germanic admixture than the German speaking Swiss or the formerly (and partly still) German speaking Alsatians.
@ Zardos
"Northern French Celts were already closer to Germanic, so its more difficult to tell apart."
That's your gut feeling, we don't have Celtic samples from anywhere in France. ;-) My guess: The Celts east of the Rhine were more like Hallstatt_Bylany:DA111. (Meaning more steppe ancestry in particular.) The Celts west of the Rhine had more French Beaker ancestry. (Meaning lower steppe ancestry.) But possibly the Belgae were originally from east of the Rhine. This would make them more similar to the Bohemian Hallstatt sample, but not clearly DEU_MA-like.
@Matt: Corded Ware is key to everything and the only reasons we still have to discuss it are:
1. Corded Ware didnt come out of nowhere, so which group was crucial for its formation as the IE cradle.
2. Anatolian languages might be the only branch which timing might not fit.
For both points I came to the provisional conclusion, and it would be great to discuss this in detail or get corrected, that everything might go back to Sredny Stog.
Actually I think that Yamnaya is responsible for the spread of IE, but in another way than originally assumed. They might have pushed and cut their Western neighbours to fully adapt to the forest steppe on the one hand (= CWC) while pushing a second branch South, to the Balkans.
The Northern branch became all IE except Anatolians, the Southern Anatolians.
Even if true this could still mean Yamnaya was related, in a way a PPIE branch, but
A) Not the direct ancestor and vector
B) They dont have to be and could be something completely different.
Bell Beakers are a sideshow in any case, because they postdate the formation and first major spread of IE.
However, they could be completely non-IE or part IE/non-IE. But whatever the case, Celts dont come from early BB, thats impossible.
Italics are key because if they show additional Central European ancestry coming in after the first Beakers, that would be interesting.
But we also should not forget than in full Bronze and Iron Age we face elite and mass phenomenons in which much smaller genetic contributions might have resulted in a language shift than in Neolithic and early Copper Age.
But there must be "something" nevertheless.
It's not proven but based on assumptions:
Northern France had more of a Celtic impact and was less influenced by non-IE, by Greeks and Romans than the South. The Belgae were near certainty closer to Germanics and even at the time of Caesar Germanic influences West of the Rhine were huge.
So even before the Franks came, before the migration period, Northern France had to be closer to Germanics. Everything else would be unlogical and would need a huge migration of very different people which didnt affect the French South.
50 percent is quite a lot by the way and like I said before, complete replacement was always out of question. Just have to check Flurnanen and local continuity.
But Switzerland is a good example for huge differences inside of the now Germanic speakers.
And of course the Germanic influences are not restricted to German speakers.
@AWood
"Look at the busts of ancient Roman Emperors. It's rather clear they are not Middle Eastern people on the whole, although there are some exceptions. While there is probably additional Middle Eastern ancestry (ie: EEF) which existed in Italy that wasn't as pronounced in places like Switzerland, France and southern Germany, they look similar to modern people from central Europe and especially northern Italy."
There is a huge, very huge, I'd even say silly, mistake in what you wrote. The additional Middle Eastern ancestry we're discussing with regards to Italy has nothing whatsoever to do with the EEF!!!!! EEF is Barcin_N, often with a small pinch of WHG admixture. This Barcin_N ancestry is best preserved in modern Sardinians (they're more than 80% Barcin_N) and it's stronger in Northern Italy than in Southern or central Italy! Lombardy is 60% Barcin_N, Latium is 42% Barcin_N and Campania is 32% Barcin_N. You wouldn't call Sardinians Middle Easterners, would you? What we're dealing with when speaking about Middle Eastern admixture in Italy is most of all Bronze Age Anatolian-related stuff, that is, Barcin_N with a strong eastern shift towards CHG/Iran. But there's also some Natufian-related, that is, Levantine admixture, and to a lesser degree Iranian- and North African-related influence. Of course Anatolia_BA + Natufian could be from somewhere in Syria, the CHG-related shift expanded far down the Levant.
As for the looks of ancient Roman busts, here it's getting more subjective and hard to prove, but overall they strike me as rather rugged looking, more so than my modern Swiss countrymen. And they often strike me as brachycephalic and convex nosed like Bell Beaker crania, but not unlike many modern Syrians either.
BTW some Roman emperors had Middle Eastern ancestry. Septimius Severus was half Punic. His son Caracalla was half Arabic, and a quarter Punic. Elagabalus was a Syrian...
@zardos
I think you're sort of on the right track there, although who knows what curve balls the data will throw at us soon?
Your hunch that Sredny Stog is important is correct. One way or another, it's very important.
More samples from around the Black Sea will clarify.
@claravallensis
"Does anyone know why is the HRV_IA sample, I3313, from G25 so very close to north Italians? Should be from 1500-900 BCE, which seems the ideal timeframe for the spread of Italics and related into Italy. The supplementary infos from the paper, GHSE 2017, don't say much."
Yeah, I noticed this too. He has similar proportions of Barcin_N, Yamnaya and WHG as modern North Italians, Lombards in particular. Judging from the time and place he lived he could be a Liburnian. I guess it may be coincidental, a similar mix of WHG-poor EEF with about 1/3 steppe - there are no direct archaeological links between Dalmatia and Northern Italy in this time frame. Quite in contrast to east central Italy, where the Liburnians even settled according to Pliny. Moreover the known prehistory of Northern Italy involved other players like Celtic tribes and the Etruscans. BTW the Croatia_MBA sample isn't that different either.
@ zardos
I rather think the Belgae were closer to Insular Celts with some Germanic admixture.
@ Zardos & Davidski
The Celticization of Europe will be quite fascinating.
Apparent contradictions might be resolved; and it will become apparent how a young / recently expanding lineage could relate to a series of unrelated languages (Celtic/ Lusatian, Vasconic, Etruascan, etc)
I think the handful of us who are familiar with the nuts n bolts of culture-history can already envisage it
@Zardos
"So you have some Swiss valleys f.e. which are more Germanic in ancestry than many places much further North."
Yeah, well observed. There is, or used to be until recently, quite some small scale regional structure. For example, this is what I get for my father:
"distance%=2.073"
DEU_MA, 67.1
Baltic_LTU_Late_Antiquity_low_res, 14.3
CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany:DA111, 12
ITA_Collegno_MA:CL36, 6.6
Bell_Beaker_FRA, 0
ITA_Collegno_MA:CL121, 0
Well, his maternal ancestry is East Prussian German which explains the Baltic admixture, but his paternal side is entirely from both sides of the Rhine valley just east of Basel, yet the Gallo-Roman ancestry looks rather low. There's some Hallstatt Bylany that the average German Swiss and Western Germans don't get, while the Eastern Germans do get it - which is strange. A wild guess: It might be from Thuringian vassals of the Franks; maybe the Thuringi had some old Hallstatt Celtic admixture from central Germany.
@davidski
So....do you mind answering my questions?
@jama0112
I can't answer your questions because that would require discussions about a couple of different topics, and I can't do that right now.
You might want to try your luck here...
https://anthrogenica.com/forumdisplay.php?164-Southern
@ Zardos & Ric Hern re: the Belgae
Archaeologically during most of the pre-Roman Iron Age the Rhine wasn't a cultural border; the Hallstatt and later the La Tène culture were firmly present on both sides, from France to Bohemia and further east. I expect some ethnic and linguistic uniformity in line with this, and I ascribe this to the Celtic ethnos, which makes much more sense than to expect some Germanic tribes in there. And genetically it makes most sense to expect that these people were most similar to Hallstatt_Bylany from Bohemia, in particular to DA111 who lacked Scythian admixture.
On the other hand, the best proxy for the continental West Germanic tribes are of course the DEU_MA, from the proven ethno-linguistically Germanic tribe of the Baiuvarii.
In my view the Urheimat of the Germanic language family has to be sought further North, North of Hallstatt and La Tène, because, how else should Scandinavia have become Germanic?
And indeed, the DEU_MA sample can be modelled as 65.4% Nordic_BA + 34.6% Hallstatt_Bylany:DA111. A clear hint at a northern origin of the Germanics. And at the difference between Hallstatt_Bylany and DEU_MA.
Indeed the Belgae claimed an origin east of the Rhine and reportedly they even claimed to be of Germanic descent. But the crucial question is: Does their language show any affinity to the Germanic languages or does it look rather Celtic? Because, as I said, there were Celts on both sides of the Rhine. And the little we know, especially their names, is clearly Celtic and un-Germanic, afaik. The same holds true for the so called "Germani Cisrhenani", there is no sign of Germanic affiliation in what we know about their language.
Maybe there was still some vagueness about the meaning of the name Germani at the time of Caesar, because it was a name of recent origin, going back to one of the tribes near the Rhine. The Scandinavians didn't call themselves Germani, and the older truly (pan-)Germanic self-designation is related to Thiudisk or something like that, IIRC.
Sure at the time of Caesar there were the Suevi under Ariovist attacking in Gaul, clearly a Germanic tribe, but they hadn't been around for that long, and prior to them the Cimbri and Teutones from Denmark had migrated in to the light of history.
@Simon: I know recent scholars always question the ancient sources too much and of course nothing they wrote should be taken for granted, but especially Caesar was spot on most of the time and to suspect political manipulations in his ethnography is for sure less based on facts than his descriptions.
At the time of Caesar whole tribes, clans and mercenary armies went over the Rhine while Celts were on the other side.
There were both Germanic and mixed Celtic-Germanic tribal unions on the left side. Celts fled to the right side as well, especially those which had alliances on the other side.
So basically the border between Germanic and Celtic was quite clear for the pure areas further away, but there was a huge blurred zone of interaction along the expansion of Germanics into former only Celtic territory.
And of course a similar situation is to be expected for the time of Celtic dominance, with influences going in the opposite direction.
The most obvious difference between the two is that the Celts has towns, their oppida could have an urban character, they were more settled down, sedentary, less pastoralist, used money, had a priest caste, clear elite, a large portion of the population were bondslaves and so on.
So they were on a cultural stage between Romans and Germanics (in their own style though), with the latter being comparatively more tribal and egalitarian at this time.
So beside language, much more important than language, was the difference in culture and customs. But it seems, also from archaeology, that Celts were just more settled, urban and stratified. Thats the culture we see, what historical continental Celts were. Celts spread a civilisation, just less complete than Romans.
I wouldnt wonder if the Celts first assimilated Germanics among other people too. Just like early Neolithics, they were halted at the Northern border where they influenced, probably even genetically, but couldnt do the full overtake. Thats were iron age Germanic came up with the Jastorf culture.
@Zardos-
"At least in Sredni Stog (4,500-3,500 BC) you have R1a, and continuity with CWC can be easily defended and understood. Now, there is a small problem of dates-Between 3,500-2,900 where was R1a?. Of course not in mainland europe because geneticists have insisted that the steppe signal has not been located there before 2,900 BC (CWC). Regarding the BBc, its relationship with IE has long been complicated, the key to the dispersion of IE in Western Europe, including Italy is the Iron Age.
@Gaska: What do you mean with mainland Europe? In my book places like Ukraine, White Russia, Moldova and Romania are part of mainland Europe.
And we have R1a there too.
So there is cultural and genetic continuity from Sredny Stog groups to CWC. And with Cernavoda we have an early expansion to the Balkans, separately from CW tradition, a different branch avoiding Yamnaya pressure in the opposite direction which could account at least for Anatolian.
We just need more samples to close the gaps.
I have a strong suspicion that the sample from Alexandria has erroneous radiocarbon dating, of course, the Sredniy Stog II culture it does not belong. It happens, errors in radiocarbon dating even up to 2000 years are.
@Archi
What about the very similar I4110 from nearby Dereivka I dated to 3634-3377 calBCE?
By the way, M417 in Sredny Stog II actually makes good sense. But we'll talk about why at some point soon.
We need many more samples from around the area of early CW. But the longer I think about it, the more unlikely it becomes that Sredny Stog, probably even just local units of that horizon, were not the formative and decisive element in the spread of IE.
Yamnaya just doesnt fit in. At best only as an influence working on the shape of the all important SS group.
Its all there what lacks in the alternatives.
And the pressure from Yamnaya is a perfect Impulse for the movements and adaptations observable.
@Zardos-
Technically those regions are Eastern Europe, when I say mainland Europe I mean Central and Western Europe. There the geneticists have insisted on saying that there is no steppe signal until the arrival of the CWC. R1a never arrived in France, Italy, Spain or the British Isles, that is, it did not abandon its CWC culture. in the same way, R1b never participated in the CWC as ancient DNA has shown. Even if an isolated case of L51 appeared in Bohemia or the Netherlands (SGC), nobody could explain why it never appears again in sites related to that culture. They are brother lineages with very different stories and basically your thinking about R1a is the same as mine.
There are some archeological aspects in Bohemia and Moravia that link the CWC and the BBC especially certain pottery styles and decorations. That is the key to the question to understand the relationship between these two great cultures. We all repeat the same, we need more ancient genomes but I think we are close to solving the issue. The case of Italy is fascinating, we will have to see what role other lineages like J2 played in the expansion of IE in the Italian peninsula. The solution is probably in the Balkans.
@Davidski
"What about the very similar I4110 from nearby Dereivka I dated to 3634-3377 calBCE?"
Burials are made at any time, burials in Dereivka I dated to 3634-3377 calBCE do not belong to the Sredniy Stog II culture, it seems they belong to the Piwicha culture.
"By the way, M417 in Sredny Stog II actually makes good sense."
I do not argue.
@zardos
Yeah, the R1a-M417 in Sredny Stog II surely will be corroborated by other results.
But I'm not sure pressure from Yamnaya explains much. It seems to me that R1a-M417 largely vacated the steppes before Yamnaya formed.
@Andrzejewski
That guy looks like a Native American. In fact if the steppe hypo is correct Pie came from EHG and EHG look quite East Asian like.
@Simon_W
So what do you think Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2 are? They're extremely similar to Mycenaean Greeks and they are from a Greek colony in Iberia.
It was a colony of an Anatolian city. Derivate of a derivate.
It is very possible of course that these people who look like modern Greeks on the plot were actually not Greeks, but something else. However I would not cross out the possibility just yet. Especially if we do not limit Greeks to the classic cities and let "Greater Greece" (Macedonia, etc.) to count as Greek.
@Mammoth_Hunter: "What’s the odd fascination with this straw man argument ?"
Because it's not actually a straw man argument but what more or less - in the form of Vasco-Iberian at least - what has actually been proposed in relation to the Bell Beakers on this very comment thread multiple times.
I would suggest that you ask Drago, for ex, about that, but as your and his presence on the comments on this blog seem exactly discontinuous, for some reason, so that may prove difficult.
@zardos: Italics are key because if they show additional Central European ancestry coming in after the first Beakers, that would be interesting.
It seems almost difficult to imagine that they won't. Even in Iberia there is a progressive increase in Central European ancestry through Bronze to Iron Age, over time, and structured by geography more so in the north.
So the chances this is not the case in Italy seem rather low.
I mean, in this comment thread, there is a suggestion of a relationship between Iberian+Basque+Etruscan on the basis they are both agglutinative.
This was perhaps intended as a sarcastic comment on the tendencies to try and glom Iberian+Basque into a single copper age family, but if so you may be best placed to discuss strawmen with the person who made that comment...
@Davidski
Dereivka I4110 is a very interesting and possibly important sample. You noted recently the apparent genetic connection of Baltic_BA and Slavs. One thing that seems to set apart Baltic Corded Ware from the Central European CWC samples is the elevated Dereivka-related ancestry of CWC Baltic and that is even more increased in Baltic BA. Also I have the impression that Central Europe has much more Dereivka-related ancestry today than in the terminal Neolithic and in the Bronze Age and that could be partly the effect of Slavs.
Also notable that Sintashta does not show this elevated Dereivka-related ancestry (and it also reacts relatively badly in Montes to CWC Baltic as a source population), suggesting that the linguistic connection between Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian is due to Geography (Cultural connection) and not due to particularly close genetic ties (within the context of CWC of course, in terms of one step deeper ancestry they had a lot to do with each other).
It is always possible that I just created a mirage with my choice of reference pops thought. (Among other things I tried to test the change of this ancestry in Czechia and the drop of North European farmer ancestry to zero in Czechia a vote for the mirage...)
"sample": "Corded_Ware_CZE:Average",
"fit": 0.8244,
"Yamnaya_RUS_Kalmykia": 67.5,
"POL_Globular_Amphora": 19.17,
"DEU_Blatterhohle_MN": 7.5,
"UKR_Dereivka_I_En2": 3.33,
"HUN_Baden_LCA": 2.5,
"sample": "Bell_Beaker_CZE:Average",
"fit": 0.8458,
"Yamnaya_RUS_Kalmykia": 42.5,
"POL_Globular_Amphora": 41.67,
"UKR_Dereivka_I_En2": 10.83,
"HUN_Baden_LCA": 3.33,
"DEU_Blatterhohle_MN": 1.67,
"sample": "CZE_Unetice_EBA:Average",
"fit": 2.0834,
"Yamnaya_RUS_Kalmykia": 47.5,
"POL_Globular_Amphora": 25,
"UKR_Dereivka_I_En2": 10.83,
"HUN_Baden_LCA": 10,
"DEU_Blatterhohle_MN": 6.67,
"sample": "CZE_EBA:Average",
"fit": 1.2854,
"Yamnaya_RUS_Kalmykia": 56.67,
"POL_Globular_Amphora": 30,
"DEU_Blatterhohle_MN": 7.5,
"UKR_Dereivka_I_En2": 5.83,
"HUN_Baden_LCA": 0,
"sample": "CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany:Average",
"fit": 2.5122,
"POL_Globular_Amphora": 46.67,
"Yamnaya_RUS_Kalmykia": 24.17,
"UKR_Dereivka_I_En2": 21.67,
"HUN_Baden_LCA": 5,
"DEU_Blatterhohle_MN": 2.5,
"sample": "CZE_Early_Slav:Average",
"fit": 3.28,
"Yamnaya_RUS_Kalmykia": 37.5,
"HUN_Baden_LCA": 32.5,
"UKR_Dereivka_I_En2": 24.17,
"DEU_Blatterhohle_MN": 5.83,
"POL_Globular_Amphora": 0,
"sample": "Czech:Average",
"fit": 2.9198,
"UKR_Dereivka_I_En2": 42.5,
"HUN_Baden_LCA": 30.83,
"Yamnaya_RUS_Kalmykia": 26.67,
"DEU_Blatterhohle_MN": 0,
"POL_Globular_Amphora": 0,
@Matt
Word - Etruscan - Basque - Hungarian
Father - Apa - Aita - Apa
Mother - Ati - Ama - Anya
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_theories_of_the_Hungarian_language_relations#Etruscan-Hungarian_language_relation
Slumbery
Can you make a model of Dereivka I4110?
@Matt: What I should have added is relative to the other people of Italy, f.e. Etruscans, Ligurians, Raeti and Illyrians. If there would be difference at all in the CE ancestry, it might be no big help.
@Old Europe
It is getting late here, so I won't test out many possibilities, but if I remember correctly it is something along the line of Central European (-related) farmers + something that is close to Ukraine Neolithic (local HG), but EHG and CHG shifted. I try a few runs with this concept, just to get a starting picture.
"sample": "UKR_Dereivka_I_En2:Average",
"fit": 3.7689,
"POL_TRB": 38.33,
"UKR_N": 28.33,
"RUS_Samara_HG": 24.17,
"GEO_CHG": 9.17,
"sample": "UKR_Dereivka_I_En2:Average",
"fit": 3.2118,
"UKR_N": 36.67,
"POL_TRB": 35.83,
"RUS_Progress_En": 27.5,
"sample": "UKR_Dereivka_I_En2:Average",
"fit": 3.2416,
"UKR_Sredny_Stog_II_En": 43.33,
"UKR_N": 35.83,
"POL_TRB": 20.83,
"sample": "UKR_Dereivka_I_En2:Average",
"fit": 2.9407,
"UKR_N": 45.83,
"HUN_Lengyel_LN": 32.5,
"RUS_Progress_En": 21.67,
Note that Trypilia does not really work as a farmer source, neither Khvalinsk as a source of extra EHG and CHG. Unless I missed something critical, it seem to be a tree way mix of late Neolithic farmers from the west, local HG and a mainly CHG+EHG group probably from the south-east (the tree way mixing was probably not happened in the same time).
@Old Europe
One last thing before I go to sleep. I did not try Yamnaya, because it younger than Dereivka and I dislike modelling older test pops with younger references unless there is no other way. However one of Yamnaya's ancestors (possibly the main one) is Repin and it was possibly already very Yamnaya-like genetically. So I tried it too.
"sample": "UKR_Dereivka_I_En2:Average",
"fit": 2.7979,
"UKR_N": 43.33,
"HUN_Lengyel_LN": 30,
"Yamnaya_RUS_Samara": 26.67,
A better fit could be probably acquired with more reference populations, but I was criticized in the past for over-fitting my models, so I am trying to avoid that now. :/
What are the proportions of EHG : CHG : LBK?
To Davidski’s defense he never said he knew all the right answers, only that he has a certain working model that changes as new evidence comes in.
@ Matt
''Because it's not actually a straw man argument but what more or less - in the form of Vasco-Iberian at least - ''
This has been proposed by a linguist''“Abstract: In this work we examine the implications of the existence of a great coincidence between the Iberian lexical numerals and the Basque ones, thus applying this proposal to the Iberian lead of Ensérune, where we can observe that the possible lexical and morphological coincidences between both languages are not limited to the numeral system. Besides, some possible loan words from Greek to Iberian are proposed, and some aspects of the structure of the Iberian numeral system are revised''. it just seems you don't like the idea that BB wasn't Italo-Celtic. But of course, maybe you've got training in Basque linguistics ?
In either case, it doesn't matter what the exact relationship is, because the case for BB being non-IE seems pretty obvious. If you disagree then that's all good; but I would make a point of you really trying to understand historical processes.
BBs definitely had some relationship to IE, in which manner exactly it's up for debate. Some ascribe the BBs as authentic IEs, others see them as unrelated and eventually conquered by true IEs. I take the middle approach and see them as multi-lingual. Perhaps the most eastern of them near the Danube were the first to start the western spread of IE or were infiltrated by the actual IEs.
@ Old Europe
Check this
Left pops:
Andronovo
Progress_Eneolithic
Ukraine_N
Trypillia
Okunevo
right pops:
Chimp
Ust_Ishim
Tianyuan
Brazil_LapaDoSanto_9600BP
IBM
Onge
Iron_Gates
Kostenki14
EHG
West_Siberia_N
Levant_N
Anatolia_N
Ganj_Dareh_N
CHG
numsnps used: 152588
best coefficients: 0.350 0.136 0.385 0.129
std. errors: 0.035 0.016 0.017 0.022
fixed pat wt dof chisq tail prob
0000 0 10 11.689 0.306415 0.350 0.136 0.385 0.129
Mammoth_Hunter said...
“eventually conquered by true IEs”
Nope. They weren’t really conquered ; apart from any Rome; but that’s different
How would you explain the spread of Celtic language and culture into the British Isles and Iberia outside of conquest? They certainly were violent.
@ Romulus
My arguement is the in becoming 'the Celtic marker', L51 groups weren;t themselves conquered, but in fact conquered the former haltatt centres, became increasingly Celtic & in turn became the major & final vector of Celticization in Western Europe.
1.
2
Just have to say, I once read Leron suggesting that Basques are like 'the Jews of Europe'.
That has to be one of the sillyiest things Ive ever read. Its a theory made from air
@All
In regards to the above discussions about where Andronovo may have ultimately come from, I'd like to point everyone to my map from this blog post from back in 2016...
The Poltavka outlier
I'm still waiting for the relevant samples from the northwest coast of the Black Sea to see if they're possibly paternally ancestral to Poltavka outlier, Sintashta, Andronovo, etc.
@Mammoth_Hunter
You might be reading that qpAdm output too literally.
It's often possible to use one reference source in qpAdm as a proxy for gene flow from many similar groups, and produce very good fits too.
So the model you showed doesn't necessarily mean that Andronovo has anywhere near 38% ancestry from Trypillian farmers.
In reality, it might have more of such ancestry from Globular Amphora or TRB, it's just that this mishmash of farmer ancestry that has accumulated since the Corded Ware times looks more or less like it could all be from Trypillians.
That's the one major draw back of qpAdm. It's not exactly a tool made for fine scale ancestry analysis, but rather for deeper ancestry.
I don’t think TRB had much to do with the formation of Sintashta-Andronovo’s ancestors
Maybe not much, but my point was that the Trypillian ratio in your model might be in part made up of TRB-derived ancestry.
Why not? After all, Corded Ware groups practiced long range female exogamy and Fatyanovo-Balanovo probably contributed significant ancestry to Andronovo groups.
Which are closer to Italic Languages ? Goidelic or Brittonic ? If Goidelic is closer then how can it be seeing that there is Minimal influence from the Roman Empire in Ireland and a huge gap filled by Brittonic, Gaulish etc. between Ireland and Italy ? Which of these two are closer to PIE when comparing words ?
If Indo-European in Western Europe only spread during the Proposed Celtic expansion around the 1st Millennium, shouldn't all possible Indo-European Languages more strongly hint at Celtic Influence ?
TRB/GA was just as close geographically as CT and statistical models often prefer it over CT.
BTW I would not be very surprised if in the mirror of more samples the currently available CT sample would become an outlier.
@davidski
If you wont answer my earlier question, im just asking this instead:
I mean, nobody are really 100% right about everything they do and all. Even yourself have flaws(everyone do, i guess) with genetics and stuff.
But just asking: Is Sein very good at his stuff? Or does he has a lot to learn? He was the one who did the G25 modelling with the pashtuns and had the thought that pashtuns were slightly shifted from south asians.
SO i just want to hear it from your point of view.
@jama0112
Keep in mind that things change as new ancient samples come in, so if you're looking at some of the analyses in the comments here from a year or two ago, they might no longer be as relevant as they were back then.
Sein seemed very knowledgeable and was up to date in regards to Central and South Asian genetics when he was posting here, but he hasn't been here in a while, so I don't know what the situation is now.
Like I said, if you're wanting some very specific and up to date information about South Asian population genetics then you have to go to this place and ask...
https://anthrogenica.com/forumdisplay.php?164-Southern
@Mammoth, I do not have training in Basque linguistics, but don't think I would need it specifically (nor am I going to try and countercite what seems to be a more common opinion among those that do have this!). What historical linguistics work I have read suggests that numeral classifiers, and perhaps a few bits of morphology(?) are not sufficient to establish a genetic family relationship, since both can be borrowed. The roots of establishing genetic family relatedness must be deeper and wider than this and systematically demonstrated as practically only explicable through family relationship.
And I would guess that, even if taken as a signal of family relatedness, most historical linguistics would generally see two languages linked only by numeral classifiers, and perhaps a few bits of morphology, more or less everything else being eroded, as likely to be far more deeply divergent than Indo-European, and probably than Afro-Asiatic and Sino-Tibetan (established as unlikely to be diverging with the sort of recency of the Bell Beaker phenomenon).
But there's not much point rehashing this - like I say, I and Epoch discussed this at length with folk like Drago, who has unfortunately disappeared at exactly the same time you have arrived, and so if you are interested in the arguments, you would be perhaps better placed to go over the comment threads here and at Alberto's blog, perhaps CTRL+F for "numeral" (or use Google to achieve the same ends).
@Matt
Iberia in many ways is a closed case, you just have to take a look at the PCA of ancient west eurasian genetic variation. I have already sent many times evidence of the genetic continuity between 2,500 and the Roman conquest, this means that Iberians Tartesians and Basques are the direct paternal descendants of Iberian Beakers. The linguistic implications are obvious, our P312 ancestors did not speak IE, and it will be very difficult for someone to present convincing evidence against this statement.
As I am not a fortune teller, I do not dare to say what happened in the rest of Western Europe because we do not have enough data from France and Italy, but the Etruscans can be very helpful in trying to draw conclusions. I am also clear that the BBs are not Proto-Celts and that the expansion of IE occurred in the Iron Age thanks to the Celts both in the British Isles and in Iberia and probably also in Italy.
Then for us the BB culture is currently NO-IE and the CWC is IE, language changes could occur perfectly in the contact areas between the two cultures (Bohemia, Bavaria, Saxony, Silesia, the Netherlands)
@Matt
Basque-Iberism is an old theory in Spain that began when someone realized the similarity between the old name of the city of Granada (Andalucia) that was a Bastetan city named Iliberri, and the word Hiri-berri which means new city in Euzkera. Since then, there are many linguists who are still looking for evidence of this relationship, but this is a not very important linguistic debate, because the really decisive thing is that the Iberians and the Basques are genetically indistinguishable between them and their BBs ancestors, with which they could speak dialects different but the origin would be the same. And this obviously affects the rest of BBs in Western Europe and generates doubts about the language spoken by this culture (in fact Olalde mentioned it expressly in his last work).
It is amazing that you think that BB culture speaks IE, when there is no cultural, linguistic, archaeological or genetic relationship (at least in uniparental markers) between BBc and Yamnaya. Yamnaya is not the source, it is the sink
@Gaska
I honestly don't know what language the Bell Beakers spoke. I've seen some persuasive arguments and data that it may have been something related to Celtic, but I don't have any sort of investment in this issue, and I'm just as fine in believing that they didn't speak an Indo-European language, or that they were mutes.
However, I have to tell you that your hopes and dreams that L51 or even P312 are native to so called mainland Europe are going to be brutally crushed at some point soon.
These lineages are indeed recent arrivals from Eastern Europe, probably deep in Eastern Europe, and there's nothing that can be done about it.
You don't have to believe me, but surely you can see that I'm not an idiot, and that I actually do have a clue about what's going on and what's coming up, so at the very least, I hope that these comments make you wary about being so dogmatic in regards to this issue.
The Bell Beakers certainly didn't speak IE. Non-Indo-European languages recorded where they lived before the arrival of the Indo-Europeans, in particular written recorded Iberian, Basco-Aquitaine, Pictish.
I would recommend something like Western-Central Europe or something along those lines, rather than mainland Europe, which I and many others use in a different way, corresponding to continental Europe.
If Western R1b came from the East, the remaining question would be, whether the clans took the Northern CW or the Southern, Cernavoda and Yamnaya route.
When reading the archaeological papers, its clear that the Sredny Stog phase was not that homogeneous. And the samples so far show that.
Like in other cases, it might be one particular subgroup, originally rather small even, which might have started the colonisation of the forest steppe and was just that successful that they expanded really fast.
They were definitely not technologically superiour to Yamnaya at this point, but to everything North.
Did anyone check inbreeding signs like ROH on the very early CW samples? Just wondered.
Cant recall it from the papers.
@Archi: Agreed with one exception: Where is there a writing of a non-IE "Pictish" language?
@Davidski
My hopes and my wishes have been fulfilled a long time ago-Iberian migrations related to BB culture and genetic continuity in Iberia have been demonstrated. Regarding R1b-P312, I've always said it's western and I don't think you or anyone can prove otherwise. Do you really think that P312 has its origin in Eastern Europe?
For me, only the origin of L51 remains pending. I have always believed that it is Central-Western European due to the geographical situation of P312 and U106. I suppose that to speak like this (brutally crushed, recent arrivals, probably deep in Eastern Europe) you will have some kind of information that we lack, if so, and L51 has its origin in the steppes, I will have to publicly acknowledge that I was wrong. Of course arrogance is not one of my sins.
I guess you can also explain Vk531, the Baltic hunter-gatherers, and all the R1b found in the WHGs, and I hope those explanations are convincing. If so, don't doubt that I will recognize my mistake
@zardos
My opinion right now, based on everything that I've seen, which is admittedly still incomplete but more than is officially available, is that the Bell Beakers expanded from within the Corded Ware complex.
Let's see how that pans out.
The fact is that the division into Western and Eastern Europe does not make sense from the point of view of natural geography, it is purely arithmetical. While the division into Western, Central, Eastern Europe has a natural geographical sense. The border of Eastern Europe has always passed or the Dniester or the southern bug and further North through Polesie. At this boundary a very large geographical sense, there are a sharp change of the natural area, it was always inhabited by different human populations with different histories and vectors of relations, different archaeological culture. In general, it's a sharp natural border like between Europe and Siberia in the Ural mountains. The Rhine and the Alps are also the natural border between Western and Central Europe, though not sharp.
@Gaska
Do you really think that P312 has its origin in Eastern Europe?
Yes, and you'll have to accept that at some point.
Influence the Corded Ware on the BB was even archaeologically, but origins the second from the first it is doubtful. For example, the BB's "halberds" clearly have origins in fishing pike poles unknown to the CWC.
I don't think that the ancestors of the Bell Beakers were initially part of the Corded Ware complex, but that they got swept into it and the Bell Beakers then expanded out of it.
More ancient data from Eastern and Central Europe will clarify what I mean.
@Davidski
"I don't think that the ancestors of the Bell Beakers were initially part of the Corded Ware complex, but that they got swept into it and the Bell Beakers then expanded out of it."
That is interesting. Care to elaborate on this?
Mind, there are Dutch papers stating that AOC and Protruding Foot Beakers coexisted.
I see that a lot of people think the case against BB being IE is pretty solid:
"the possibility of BB culture speaking IE is below zero"
"However, they could be completely non-IE or part IE/non-IE."
and
"In either case, it doesn't matter what the exact relationship is, because the case for BB being non-IE seems pretty obvious"
First a definition: With BB I mean steppe admixted R1b L51 carrying BB.
The fact that R1b L51 is so massively represented in this culture tells us that it originated from one "ethnicity". From that we can make the safe assumption that the original BB's spoke one language. If migration of this culture resulted in cultures associated with such divers languages as Iberian, Vasconian, Tartessian, Etruscan and Italic, and there are good reasons to think BB originated in CWC or the steppe, that basically makes the case against BB being non-IE. Because the languages of that list are not related, at least some must have been adapted.
@Archi
“The fact is that the division into Western and Eastern Europe does not make sense from the point of view of natural geography, it is purely arithmetical.”
Even crows know that division into Western and Eastern Europe makes sense. Eastern European crows are different from Western European crows:
https://i.postimg.cc/4nC0Dc1Q/screenshot-13.png
“The genomic landscape underlying phenotypic integrity in the face of gene flow in crows”
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/344/6190/1410.long
@epoch
Iberian, Vasconian, Etruscan these are not Indo-European languages. Italics and Lusitanian (with may be Tartessian) come from the Urnfield culture (Italics is the Villanovan culture part of the Urnfield culture).
@epoch "Even crows know that" I'm a man, but not a crow.
@Davidski
Awesome!! Even the most ultra-Kurganists I know, have not been able to say that P312 has its origin in Eastern Europe, but in any case it is what we have been asking for years- Convincing evidence that cannot be discussed. As I see that you are very confident in your statements I hope you can tell me in which culture or cultures have you (or they) found R1b-P312? or by P312 origin you mean L51 origin? because obviously they can have different geographical origins
If I have not misunderstood your words, the ancestors of the BBs (I suppose you will refer to L51, because the BBs were P312), were not initially part of the CWC complex, but they got swept into it and the Bell Beakers then expanded out of it- Ok that's what we have been discussing for months and even years, but you don't provide any solution-The questions remain the same
1-If L51 was not initially part of the CWC, where did it come from? - In your words from Eastern Europe, but what culture are we talking about? What dates are you driving?
2-You know on what date L51 got swept into CWC? Because if it was not initially part of the CWC, this could not happen in the steppes. So where did it happen in Bohemia? Did L51 then follow a different path from R1a from the steppes and did they meet in Central-Europe? I guess that is what you are thinking because you have categorically stated that L51 and P312 have their origin in the steppes.
3- Can we then forget about the Central European Neolithic cultures and the Baltic/Scandinavian hunter-gatherers as the point of origin of L51?
4-That P312 expanded with BB culture is obvious, because most of the BBc belongs to this lineage-But not only did it extend from Central Europe or the Neherlands, it also did it from the Iberian Peninsula to many other regions, including the Atlantic façade, Ireland, Liguria, southern France, northern Morocco, Sardinia, Sicily and Hungary. 500 years are many years
In any case I must admit that you have aroused my curiosity. You know things that others don't know and I hope you share them with us.
@epoch: "If migration of this culture resulted in cultures associated with such divers languages as Iberian, Vasconian, Tartessian, Etruscan and Italic"
That's the point, that exactly.
There is only direct continuity for Basque and other non-IE languages, whereas all the IE people could have been the result of post-BB influences working on them.
The only candidate left is Italic and those can be related to later cultural phenomenons which incorporated BB ancestry and traditions, but were, unlike Basque and pre-Celtic Western Europe, in no way a direct continuation of BB.
Instead they were further influenced by more Corded Ware related groups.
So yes, BB could have been originally IE speakers, adapting non-IE tongue while expanding and being dominant in their territory, or they could have been originally non-IE speakers which adopted IE tongues when their networks collapsed, their power was broken and foreign elites and cultural movements (like Urnfield) swept over their rather fragmented and smaller scaled cultural remnants in Central Europe.
Both is possible, but the clear continuity of non-IE speaking ethnicities and the course of events make an adaptation of IE more likely than an IE origin imho.
But nobody can really say of course and Italics might be key.
Because if they come from a mostly BB source from lets say Southern Germany, but with more Northern-Eastern elements on top, that should be visible.
Then Etruscans can be the first BB wave with more local influences and Italics can be still largely BB but with "added Northern" ingredients.
Lets see.
@All
The following samples are now in the Global25 datasheets. Same links as always here.
French_Corsica:Corsica03708
French_Corsica:corsica11908
French_Corsica:corsica1308
French_Corsica:Corsica14708
French_Corsica:Corsica19508
French_Corsica:Corsica24508
French_Corsica:corsica29008
French_Corsica:Corsica29708
French_Corsica:CorsicaS00708
French_Corsica:CorsicaS03308
French_Corsica:CorsicaS04208
French_Corsica:CorsicaS10208
French_Corsica:CorsicaS13808
French_Corsica:CorsicaS29908
French_Corsica_o:CorsicaS15608
French_Provence:provance2508
French_Provence:provance2708
French_Provence:provance4109
French_Provence:provance4409
French_Provence:provance4509
Italian_Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont119
Italian_Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont127
Italian_Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont136
Italian_Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont145
Italian_Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont149
Italian_Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont43
Italian_Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont52
Italian_Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont63
Italian_Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont98
Italian_Piedmont:Piedmont154
Italian_Piedmont:Piedmont61
Italian_Tuscany:Tuscany27
Italian_Tuscany:Tuscany38
Italian_Tuscany:Tuscany54
Italian_Tuscany:Tuscany65
Italian_Tuscany:Tuscany74
Italian_Tuscany:Tuscany93
Italian_Tuscany:Tuscany98
Portuguese:EBC_Portugal1
Portuguese:EBC_Portugal10
Portuguese:EBC_Portugal11
Portuguese:EBC_Portugal12
Portuguese:EBC_Portugal13
Portuguese:EBC_Portugal2
Portuguese:EBC_Portugal3
Portuguese:EBC_Portugal6
Portuguese:EBC_Portugal7
Portuguese:EBC_Portugal9
@Zardos-
I would add that the key may be the uniparental markers of the Etruscans and the Italics. We will see if they are different or they are not, and we will also see what is the source of that steppe ancestry of the Italics. Because we only have three cases of Bbs in northern Italy (Olalde 2.018) and they have very little sign of the steppes (one of them is basically Iberian). This means that their descendants in northern and central Italy would have even less steppe ancestry than they do, and yet everyone says that the Italics have lots of steppe ancestry. Where that ancestry came from? Probably the solution is the J2a and J2b markers frequent in the Balkans (Dalmatia et..). They were able to bring more steppe ancestry to Italy in the Bronze Age or the Iron Age, and why not, new Indo-European languages
As you say Lets see
Yes, uniparentals are very important, but you need large samples for a case of elite dominance.
If the Etruscans are just an earlier non-IE, and Italics a later IE BB-RELATED wave with added CNE or SEE ancestry, mostly in the elite, the majority could be the same R1b folks.
Like you have Basque and "former Basque" people which now speak French or Spanish, but have still the same marker.
So Basques could become French speakers by an invasion of related former Basques so to say.
Thats what I propose for Italic and Celtic. Both have should have added CEE influences in comparison to the first BB wave, but it wont be any sort of replacement. Not in the uniparentals. Early elites are more important, but since we deal with at least 3 major movements after the end of BB and before Italic, even that is relatively uncertain, because BB lineages could easily be on top too.
@zardos
"So yes, BB could have been originally IE speakers, adapting non-IE tongue while expanding and being dominant in their territory, or they could have been originally non-IE speakers which adopted IE tongues when their networks collapsed, their power was broken and foreign elites and cultural movements (like Urnfield) swept over their rather fragmented and smaller scaled cultural remnants in Central Europe."
But whichever language you choose from this list of unrelated languages [1], you immediately have to accept that all the others on the list are adopted languages. Unless off course you intent to make BB a very divers multi-ethnic cluster of cultures. But then you'd see a far more divers set of uniparentals. At the very least I'd say it's not very parsimonious.
So to me the language diversity shows that BB took up local languages once it reached Southern Europe.
[1] There is a chance that Iberian and Vasconian languages are related, but you understand the idea I put forth.
@epoch
It seems to me that you are not sure what the uniparental markers of BBc are, because, although it is clear that it is mainly P312, the truth is that there is also an abundance of I2a (England, Hungary, Spain), H2 (Hungary), G2a (Germany , Hungary). Of course, it wasn't a genetically uniform culture either.
Regarding languages, your assumptions are inconsequential because the fact that the different non-European languages of Western Europe were related or not, only means that different languages were spoken in different regions. The obsession of linking languages with certain lineages as the only ones responsible for their expansion is absurd.
Regarding Tartesian, you just has to read Strabo, who said that had laws and verses from 6,000 years ago. It was never an IE language.
Let's see whether
- Etruscans show the same near total replacement of male lineages in a LARGE sample like Iberia and Britain, what I doubt.
- what kind of difference Italics, Illyrians and Celts show to BB, Iberians and Etruscans respectively.
@Davidski
If I may ask, where do the new samples come from? What academic study?
@ Davidski
"...they got swept into it and the Bell Beakers then expanded out of it."
Does this mean that they were in the way of expanding Corded Ware and got swept up after Corded Ware formation ? So where were they swept up from ?
@ Davidski
"I don't think that the ancestors of the Bell Beakers were initially part of the Corded Ware complex"
Does this mean in Poland or in Ukraine(Sredny Stog II ) ?
So if Corded Wares initially came from Ukraine then the Ancestors of Bell Beakers lived somewhere between the Baltics and Carpathians ?
@Ric Hern
In my opinion, it is a very important statement, because that means that someone has found L51/P312 in Eastern Europe, but that region is very large (from the Baltic countries to Greece including Russia and Ukraine). Maybe it has something to do with the papers that are going to be published about Bohemia and the Narva culture. If this were so, the Kurgan Theory would be absolutely debunked and Yamnaya would be absolutely disconnected from R1a, R1b-L51 and the IE language. Then, I guess the Kurganists will be looking for solutions or interpretations for certain aspects of the expansion of R1a and R1b (CWC etc).
If, on the contrary, Davidski when mentioning Eastern Europe refers to the fact that they have found L51 and P312 in the steppes (Ukraine, Russia) then that would be an absolute surprise. To convince us all they have to do is show the evidence they have. We have been waiting for years and it would be great news because we would have discovered the origin of our ancestors
@Gaska: Corded Ware is in any case a very close relative, culturally and genetically, of Yamnaya.
Even if they would have spoken different languages from the start, they both came from the same larger region and milieu. They just took different paths and adaptive strategies and CW got more of Western farmer influences early on.
But its more like a deeper separation inside of the steppe-related cultures rather than a failure of the Kurgan theory.
You might say its the success of a different son and student, but its still the same mobile, warlike, patriarchal, pastoralist, horse breeding family with steppe ancestry. The best early family members long time success was just rather limited in comparison to the CW tremendous long term impact.
@Davidski
Thanks again for the new samples, just one thing, Italian_Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont52 plots like a southern outlier, should probably be removed, likely a recent migrant.
Also, would it be possible to get some samples from Emilia Romagna?
@Ric Hern
So if Corded Wares initially came from Ukraine then the Ancestors of Bell Beakers lived somewhere between the Baltics and Carpathians ?
That would make Poland a rather cramped place. There we have a good TRB -> Globular Amphora continuity and neither of them show Yamnaya-related admixture, while BB had a lot of it (less than CWC, but still a lot).
So far there is no aDNA sample west of the Eastern Carpathians that significantly pre-dates the formation of CWC and the expansion of actual Yamnaya in the south and has this ancestry important to Northern (and late Iberian) BB folks.
@Gaska
It seems to me that you are not sure what the uniparental markers of BBc are, because, although it is clear that it is mainly P312, the truth is that there is also an abundance of I2a (England, Hungary, Spain), H2 (Hungary), G2a (Germany , Hungary).
We have one H2, that is hardly an abundance. But of course they were not entirely monolithic in paternal lineages. That would be weird and implausible with that Geographical range.
Polada -> Italics
Urnfield -> Celtic
Nordic Bronze Age -> Germanics
@Romulus No.
@ Slumbery
I'm starting to think that Northeastern Poland, East of the Vistula River had something to do with this...maybe even a Maritime expansion from there...
@Ric Hern
“I'm starting to think that Northeastern Poland, East of the Vistula River had something to do with this...maybe even a Maritime expansion from there..”
CWC in Poland like Rzucewo culture of the Baltic coast was most likely R1a because it expanded east and there is no R1b in the east.:
Corded ware, Fatyanovo and abashevo Culture sites on the Flood-plain oF the Moskva river
“The rim of pot No 2 has parallel horizontal cord imprints with short loops below. There are no parallels for this decoration in the pottery from FatyanovoBalanovo culture graves (amongst a sample of about 1000 known vessels).
…
More profitable to my mind is to look for analogies amongst the cord and epicorded ceramic cultures of the Baltic coast, Belarus and South Poland, where analogies are plentiful. The loops are typical in decoration styles of late cord ceramic cultures of South Poland and West Ukraine (Bunyatyan and Pozikhovskyin 2011; Kadrow and Machnik 1997). Sometimes similar loops are found in the Rzucewo culture of the Baltic coast (Kilian 1955; Rimantienë 1989; Zal’cman, 2010).
The rims of pots No 3 and №4 have horizontal bands with small pits, and a decorative wave above the band made with the same instrument as the pits. There are many analogies amongst the Rzucewo culture, for example, at the Nida settlement (Rimantienë 1989). These analogies also apply to the decoration of pot No 6.”
http://rcin.org.pl/Content/54752/WA308_74904_P244_Corded-ware-Fatyanov_I.pdf
@Ric Hern
I am almost compelled to offer you a bet that it is not the case. I do not know what movements went trough there during the CWC period, but I am pretty sure that before that we won't find an ultimate homeland of the ancestors of the northern BB folks in Northeastern Poland. That is partly TRB territory from very early (in fact the Poland-TRB samples of the Global 25 are pretty much right from the Vistula, although the left bank) and what is behind them is Narva culture, Hunter-Gatherer land until CWC-times (and even after in pockets).
This is an unlikely "hiding place" for the steppe-related ancestry of the Northern Beaker people. (They also have a lot of TRB related ancestry however...)
@ EastPole
Maybe. Only time will tell...
I'm not necessarily so opposed to the idea that Bell Beaker culture(s) may have spoken non-IE languages.... only that the evidence that these were responsible for the ultimate spread of a common ancestor of either Basque or Iberian in the Copper Age seems slight and not really credible IMO (and then you need at least some language switching and that undermines the case that either is associated to Beaker, as epoch already describes, so no need to say that again).
There's enough time before languages are attested that other things are possible than Bell Beaker necessarily speaking IE, even if there seems nothing that makes it particularly necessary for them to have done so.
But considering this it does strike me that it is an potentially inconsistent stance to claim there are a list of features associated to steppe cultures and which are also associated through "linguistic paleontology*" to the proto-Indo Europeans - single burial and warlike identities and the importance of cattle and horses and so on - then it is difficult to say, "Oh, but that parallel only applies to the Corded Ware/Yamnaya/etc.! (Delete as appropriate). Not Bell Beaker.".
Of course, that's no problem if you, like former poster Rob (apparently) and some others, believe the linguistic paleontology approach of Anthony et al to reconstruct a pIE culture through language is absolute utter fantastic tosh, but it seems fairly inconsistent if you actually buy into this stuff.
Certain Kurganist theories always seemed like one extreme, with the other being Anatolian/Transcaucasus theories. I also take the middle approach to both, somewhere in the middle is more likely to find the real IE source. (OIT isn't even a theory, just a fairytale).
@Matt: I don't see the contradiction because it doesn't say that other's couldn't take the same cultural and adaptive path, but that the PIE population MUST HAVE clearly taken it. So if a people doesn't show those cultural markers, they are out.
If they show it, they are in, but they could still very well have spoken a different language.
Another issue is, once more, that we deal in Iberia and Britain with a Near total male lineage replacement. That's "very special" to say the least. Basques show the greatest continuity without external influences of significance for all BB descendent people and cultures.
All the others have had experienced significant later gene flow and cultural "overforming".
It should be absolutely clear by now that Celts came in later, from Central Europe and the spread of Celtic language had nothing to do with the first wave of BB. So there is simply no need for BB to have spoken Celtic, but there is a need for a significant proportion of them to have spoken non-IE tongues.
And how often are they supposed to have changed language and why? The more often it happened, while they exterminated the vast majority of the preceding male population, the more absurd it becomes. Should they have followed a strange cult of "killing the males but letting the conquered females rule"?
Thats idiotic.
Bell Beakers copied the and even developed the steppe package, after all they were skilled and aggressive bowmen, used copper, husbandry and horses excessively. Of course they were culturally "steppified" to a certain degree.
Originally "steppe-BB" might have very well been IE speakers, we don't know for sure, but they don't have to be by the evidence found so far, but they spoke or adopted a variety of non-IE languages instead.
Its for more evidence to help to decide how things went on in the Copper Age, but even if they would have been IE speakers, they would have, most likely, used a tongue which died out. Because like I said, its later movements from Central Europe which spread Celtic and Italic.
Funny that just non-IE tongues survived in BB territories, isn't it.
Another aspect is I have to stress once more: Elite dominance is feasable in full Bronze Age and beyond in Central Europe, but it can't be seen before. The later groups are much more mixed on the patrilinear side, on average, than all populations were before. So you can explain a language shift by a mostly cultural wave with little genetic impact.
Neolithic and Chalcolithic cultures were not like that, as we all can see. And the least "integrative" and assimilating culture was BB, which erradicated (almost) all foreign males in Britain and Iberia. Why is there no surviving IE language anywhere in sight, just non-IE?
But ok, Italic is not fully out of question right now, wait and see...
@ zardos
Ever heard of Fosterage ?
"How are Jaats from Haryana 45% steppe!?! It’s an insane level… these people are steppe-related and IVC-related hybrids. But what does that say about the dynamics of “Aryanization” (these people are “Shudra”, right?). Also, don’t they prove that the Sintashta were swarthy? I mean, I’ve never met a Jaat irl; but pictures of them online seem to show a people totally within the northwestern Indian phenotypic range (no blondes… no one too European looking)"
@Jama your hunch is right. Steppe ancestry has nothing to do with 'aryanization' of India. It's the same story with Rors and gujjars.
@Ric: Of course, but how's that supposed to explain scenarios like in Iberia and Britain? Like the Basque continuity? Something is just wrong about it, unless we see a difference in ancestry proportions and uniparentals which might explain the variety of languages found among BB and their descendents. And this is even more likely as there were dramatic cultural breaks and changes after BBC. Its not like they colonised and nothing happened afterwards. The BB-related lineages just managed to survive the later cultural movements somehow-someway and the most likely explanation is a cultural wave which, at the fringes, didn't turn things upside down but build upon locals, unlike BB before.
@zardo said "Funny that just non-IE tongues survived in BB territories, isn't it."
Really? Britain, Low Countries, France, Switzerland, Germany west of the Rhine, 80% of Italy and 50% of Iberia all spoke IE languages and all Bell Beaker territories. The only place where some non-IE languages appear later is in areas where steppe ancestry became heavily diluted. Coincidence? I think not.
@ Gaska
"Though, Laelia, your home is not Ephesus, or Rhodes, or Mitylene, but a house in a patrician street at Rome; and though you had a mother from the swarthy Etruscans, who never painted her face in her life, and a sturdy father from the plains of Aricia; yet you (oh shame!) a countrywoman of Hersilia and Egeria, are perpetually repeating, in voluptuous Greek phrase, "
What you posted is a translation from an 1897 book (Bohn's Classical Library, 1897). In Latin Martial uses the word coloratis which has no meaning of "swarthy" in the modern sense of the term. Coloratis means ruddy/sunburnt.
"Although your home is not Ephesus or Rhodes or Mitylene but in Patrician Row, Laelia, and although your mother, who used no make-up, was a daughter of the sunburnt Etruscans and your dour father came from the district of Aricia, you are always piling on the Greek—“my lord, my honey, my soul”—shame on you, a countrywoman of Hersilia and Egeria! Let the bed hear such expressions, and not every bed at that, but one made for a gamesome gentleman by his lady-friend. Do you wish to know how you talk, you, a respectable married woman? Could a waggle-bottom be more blandishing? You may learn all Corinth by heart and reproduce it, but, Laelia, you will not be altogether Lais"
https://www.loebclassics.com/view/martial-epigrams/1993/pb_LCL095.379.xml
@ Richard Rocca
With a few previous exceptions (Mycenaean, Minoan), the alphabet in Europe has only spread since the 8th century BC. It is not possible to know how many non-IE languages were spoken until before the arrival of the scripts. Considering then that even despite the arrival of the alphabet not all peoples have adopted it and some have not left us inscriptions.
@Vadja, the Romans wrote about the tribes and chiefs of a lot of the areas I mentioned. They also have Celtic place names. No need to have inscriptions written by the Celts themselves to know where they lived.
45% Sintashta fro Jatts? That doesn't sound right at all.
@Vadja
The important thing about Martial's is not if the Etruscans were swarthy or turned red with the sun, but that in the first century they still existed as a people differentiated from the Romans/Latins, so there is the possibility of finding out their DNA.
@Rocca said Really? Britain, Low Countries, France, Switzerland, Germany west of the Rhine, 80% of Italy and 50% of Iberia all spoke IE languages and all Bell Beaker territories. The only place where some non-IE languages appear later is in areas where steppe ancestry became heavily diluted. Coincidence? I think not.
You have forgotten to say that all of southern France to the Garona river and the Rhone river, that is Aquitaine and Occitania (more than 100.000 km2-a territory much larger than the Netherlands, Switzerland etc) spoke Aquitanian and Iberian until the arrival of the Romans. And the only place where some NON-IE languages appear later is in areas where the R1b-P312 lineage is currently more abundant. Coincidence? I think not
@ Gaska
No, it's not the proof that Etruscans existed as an ethnicity differenciated.
In the age of Martial there was the taste for antiquities. Also to quote ancient people or very exotic (for Roman tastes) was a fashion in literature. Probably, you have at first to study Latin literature and Latin language: to take the literature of Principate, and, above all, the non-technical literature as a source for ethnography is an error that only people who don't know a single grammar rule of latin can do.
The Emperor Claudius was a researcher and scholar on Etruscan topics, because at his time Etruscans were considered a too ancient and far-in-time people. At the time of Martial, indeed, and also at the time of the very first Principality, with Augustus, many patrician families showed out their Etruscan origins, because it was their best business card. Many patrician families also invented Phoenician or Etruscan origins only to be better considered. In fact, in ancient cultures, the most ancient is the people/the founder/the ancestor, the most important is the descendant, the city founded, et cetera... Don't forget that the Greek city of Thebes was proud of its myth of foundation, by a non-IE person coming from a Semithic-speaking world. And Athens was very proud to spread the myth of being the most Pelasgian city in Greece.
And about the sunburt Etruscans, Vadja is correct: coloratus, -a, -um means to be burnt by the sun, not to be dark skinned.
When we look at Etruscan Wallpaintings we clearly see light and darker skinned individuals with Black Curly Hair and others Redheads....etc. My bet is on Multi-Ethnic.
@zardos
"Another issue is, once more, that we deal in Iberia and Britain with a Near total male lineage replacement."
Iberia and Britain are completely different as British BB's did not show a lot of admixture. I am pretty sure that means the BB's didn't conquer and kill the originals because they would have shown an uptick in Neolithic admixture. Rather they would have settled in lands that were depopulated. The difference between Iberia and Britain would be like the difference between New Spain and the North-American colonists.
"Should they have followed a strange cult of "killing the males but letting the conquered females rule"?
Thats idiotic."
The coexistence in Iberia was 6 centuries. There are many possibilities for all kind of scenario's and dynamics. For instance, a man carrying R1b L51 could have taken a position of this prince - buried with 20 wives - and have many, many sons talking local languages.
https://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.com/2018/05/a-prince-and-his-twenty-wives-garcia.html
Don't forget that the South-European late Middle Neolithic saw the rise of a warrior cult prior to the arrival of steppe people.
@Lars Ulthes
Do you remember how this conversation started? Gaska said-"By the way, Martial describes Etruscan women as swarthy, because they never needed makeup, which is certainly intriguing", and I used the word "swarthy" because it's the one that appears in the translation (Bohn's Classical Library, 1897).
Apparently you didn't know the epigram I was referring to, and you may have noticed that I said it seemed intriguing. Why? Because the origin of the Etruscans has been debated in thousands of pages by archaeologists and historians from all over the world and both they and the origin of their language remains to some extent a mystery. Now the rumors say that we have ancient Etruscan genomes and that they are R1b-M269, 1 sample of U152 and one sample of I1. This would clarify their origin because they are probably direct descendants of the BBs who entered Italy in the Bronze Age (linguistically it would mean that we have other direct descendants of the BBs who did not speak an IE language) and maybe thanks to those genomes, we can check if they really have their origin in the Vilanovan culture.It will be interesting to compare their genomes with Latins etc.., to understand what kinship they had and if they shared uniparental markers.
Therefore it makes no sense to qualify them as swarthy, because they obviously would not have their origin in the Levant, Anatolia or North Africa as much people have speculated, and its uniparental markers would also eliminate Greece as a possible origin of this people, so that Dionysius of Halicarnassus would be right saying that the Etruscans were an indigenous people who had always lived in Etruria.
Regarding wether the Etruscans existed as an ethnicity differenciated, you seem very sure in stating that it was not so, well I think quite the opposite
@epoch-"The coexistence in Iberia was 6 centuries. There are many possibilities for all kind of scenario's and dynamics. For instance, a man carrying R1b L51 could have taken a position of this prince - buried with 20 wives - and have many, many sons talking local languages"
You can look for any kind of explanation to try to explain why P312 stopped speaking its IE language in Iberia, but none of them is consistent and credible. If you knew the sites of the BB culture in Iberia, both settlements and graves, would realize that P312 was nothing special. Men P312 and I2a are buried in contemporary graves and both have the same type of grave goods (wristguards, palmela points, axes, even halberds). P312 was not an elite (at least in Iberia) and nothing suggests that they had more women than the rest of men with whom they shared settlements or graves. I honestly think that if P312 was not at home, the only coherent explanation for losing his original language is that they would enter into small isolated groups of men who quickly assimilated into local societies. That immediate integration would also explain the differences between pottery styles (Ciempozuelos) with the rest of Europe, and the number of unique objects in the Iberian BB culture (Palmela points, halberds ..)
@ Gaska
I remember how it started.And I don't know what does matter the beginning with your last statements.
Even if you are trying to change argument or to take it from another side, you are wrong in your last statements: you said Martial gave proof of Etruscan as a differentiated ethnicity in his age and that's not true. I don't know the game you are playing, but I feel that's impossible to reason with you: when you make a mistake, as far as I know for low knowledge of classical literature (and note: not the translated one, but the one in original language), you slide away in one way or another. I answered to your last post on Martial, I didn't say anything of Etruscan actual origins... but you did, even if my answer didn't deal with it.
Ar Martial time there were many hypothesis about Etruscan origins, and intellectuals and scholars chose their preferred one...Nothing difficult to understand. I don't understand why you want to make me believe that this is the proof of whatever.
@zardos: Eh, where I differ from you here perhaps is that learning to speak a particular language isn't necessarily about being "ruled" by someone else. Maybe they mastered and claimed (or "appropriated") other languages, and thought nothing much of it because it was a simply a means to ends of communication with women and others, for them, then these shifted to become the main lect because they were the most useful in their circumstances. It seems dubious that the initial expanding groups, mostly male, would necessarily have thought in terms that they had to "impose" a language on women and the children they had with them.
One clear cut example of how skewed sex-bias did not result in language change, for'ex, is here - https://www.shh.mpg.de/851473/genetic-replacement-despite-language-continuity-in-the-South-Pacific. The claim is that this is due to slow admixture over time, but it's not like they have a transect to actually test this over a pulse model.
A scatter of other comments:
- It seems not so funny that non-IE tongues would survive best furthest away from the point of eastern expansion (wherever this was) - that's exactly what you'd expect from a wave of advance.
- Autosomally and y-dna wise, Basques today would seem show not much more (or less) genetic continuity than Irish, I'd note. Spanish Basques seem to overlap in steppe ancestry more with late Iron Age samples than with even the average of late Copper Age Iberian Beakers, and French Basques have more than Spanish Basques. Not a genetic fossil from the Beaker period. Not sure if this is what you meant to imply.
- Re; Celtic and Italic, as I've said, there is reason to be skeptical in Garret's work that the model that works best for these is expansion from a particular place at a particular time rather than some areal model between IE speaking regions by punctuated exchange and mergers between dialect groups. It's not really a choice between saying all the innovations that define Celtic must have happened by BB or that they must have spread from all developing in some particular people that then somehow imposed a language as an elite, while some pre-Celtic dialect either died out or never existed.
(And of course, while Celtic spread overland into Iberia from Central Europe is the most popular view, I think, still, it is odd to explain why the areas closest to Central Europe and with the most obvious influences from Central Europe did not speak Celtic, while the west of the Iberian peninsula did. You can explain these by shuffling people about around the NE of Iberia I suppose, but it doesn't seem particularly simple)
- Talking of BB as being generically integrative or non-integrative doesn't make a lot of sense, in any case either, as there are different scenarios in every region (in Iberia lots of females, possibly some males but wiped out by R1b founder effects if so; in Britain not much of anyone, male or female; in Central Europe, quite a few of both male and female and not much sign of sex bias).
Even in Iberia though, while I would try not to put it as bluntly as epoch, I would note we still see males with haplogroup I2 up until 1800 BCE, well after or late into the Beaker period in Olalde's Fig 2. In the period when steppe ancestry begins appearing in Iberia, there are certainly I2a males at the same sites as R1b-M269 males and at the same dates, the interesting thing is that the I2a males seem to not have any steppe ancestry, with the R1b-M269 males certainly have local ancestry.
Though there, many of the samples in Olalde in this crucial period of 2300 BCE to 1800 BCE when steppe ancestry emerges are low quality. I actually think they may be missing very low end steppe ancestry potentially in some samples males. I am skeptical of their gulf where samples in this period have 100-25% of Central European Beaker ancestry or 0%, but none have, say 12%, even though Davidski's PCA show that if I recall correctly, an I2a/non-R1b male in this period actually has the right PCA position for a person with perhaps 12% or so Central European Beaker ancestry. Their model seems to be either 25% or greater, or nothing.
But anyway, perhaps I am picking hairs, this is not exactly the same as a kind of "complete extermination; zero integration and interaction" scenario that you seem to be describing.
Maybe Fosterage was the mechanism. Children raised by family members other than their parents. This is a known Celtic practice. Eg. Steppe guy on the right bank of the Rhine sees Farmer girl on the left bank. Gathers cattle and go strike a deal with the Farmer Parents. Farmer Grandparents and or family help raise kids by means of fosterage. Kids grow up bilingual or with Farmer Language. Sons choose Farmer girls with which they grew up with to marry... etc.
@samuel andrews said
"45% Sintashta fro Jatts? That doesn't sound right at all."
from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929718303987
The Genetic Ancestry of Modern Indus Valley Populations from Northwest India, Pathak et al, 2018
The Ror and Jat peoples stand out for having the highest proportion of Steppe_MLBA ancestry (∼63%). The proportion of Steppe ancestry in the Ror is similar to that observed in present-day Northern Europeans.
@Richard: Celts spread much, much later, after at least there major upheavals in their proposed core area and earlist with the Urnfield culture.
The Atlantic Bronze Age is the closest you get to BB continuity North of the Pyrenees and there is little support for it having spoken Celtic. In fact we dont know anything.
If there would proofs for a wide variety of IE languages, it would be a better argument for you. But only Celtic with a most likely substrate of non-IE is irrelevant. That's like using Anglo-Saxon for proving Germanics in early Iron Age Britain. It has nothing to do with the time period in question.
@Samuel Andrews
"45% Sintashta fro Jatts? That doesn't sound right at all."
Why not, they are Kshatriyas, such they were and consider themselves, but because of their change of religion in the 15th century from Brahman to Sikhism, their Rajputs hated and began to be called Shudras.
@Jama "(these people are "Sudra" right?)"
No, these people are Kshatriyas. Your inner clarification of the relationship "you are a Shudra, no, you are a Shudra" is just a personal confrontation.
@vAsiSTha
The ancient ancestry proportions in that paper are way off, because it was written up before any ancient DNA was available from South Asia and surrounds.
It reminds of my efforts from years ago, when I was fumbling around in the dark with TreeMix.
Children of the Divine Twins
@davidski
Oh yeah, the paper also gives UP brahmins as 51% steppe_mlba. too high.
But the paper is of 2018, how is this allowed?
The Celtic expansion follows a pattern of weak opponents, favourable environment and natural resources.
Where they had a strong opponent and little to gain, they would not expanded to.
Most steppe people tried to move and conquer West and South for the same reasons. CW/Sintashta is one of the few, but very important exceptions, because they were so superiour with their tactics on the steppe that it was easy.
The data we have from Iberia points to a fairly rapid and complete exchange of the male population. If they letzten one knowledgeable smith or miners alive, thats fine, but hardly any continuity.
And some I-carriers might even come from elsewhere too. The countries with the highest R1b of early BB spoke all, proven, non-IE languages.
All the later attested IE languages can be explained by later cultural formations. Irish show significant later influences, including on the male side and they are, partially the result of recent (re-) expansions of a few male lineages.
We need more ancient DNA but so far there is no need nor proof for BB being IE, even on the contrary.
We have Iberians, Basques and Aquitanians. Now probably Etruscans and only later IE, after a lot happened in between.
Also, a language shift among early expanding Beakers would also be strange since they kept their trans-regional networks and communication alive.
They seem to have been in constant contact with each other and moved between the centers. All males with the same R1b largely. Does that look like they adopted local identities, even language?
Rather not. No place with clear continuity shows proof of IE.
Physically there is a difference though, because the cranial, not facial features of the core group seem to subdominant. This results in the typical Basque-type with Neolithics. While in Central Europe, as long as the BB dominance is intact,you always find tge corresponding specimen. Always. That has to mean there was a trans-regional Beaker caste which largely married pure. The mixed and deviating ones are usually not the rich and typical burials and females are less often typical, but often enough. So the core group stayed endogamous for quite long,which is why in a lot of places, after the networks collapsed, the cranial variant became almost instantly less common. Not just because of replacement, but also the end of inbreeding.
Iberia was not in this network of the typical caste as much, because of the high proportion of local females and the lack of "pure lines". But they wete part of BB interactions and influx nevertheless. There is no hint for reasons for a language shift. But yes, they are different from the core.
@archi said "@Jama "(these people are "Sudra" right?)"
No, these people are Kshatriyas. Your inner clarification of the relationship "you are a Shudra, no, you are a Shudra" is just a personal confrontation."
you have no idea about this. better stfu. The oldest recorded memories of the community is that Jats were neither brahmins, nor kshatriyas, but pastoralists & cattle herders.
'Among the more acceptable formulations regarding the Jats is the 7th century account of Hiuen Tsang. Describing an unnamed pastoral population in Sin-Tu (Sind).It may be noted that Hiuen Tsang did not mention the name of this pastoral population of Sind. Here, circumstantial evidence may provide important clues in identification of this pastoralist population. However, the Chachnama describes a people in Sind with similar kind of characteristics whom he clearly refers as Jatts. On this basis, the cattle-herders of Sind may also be regarded as pastoral people mentioned by Hiuen Tsang as the Jats of Sind."
I would submit that the Jat origin question is unclear. But pushing them as former kshatriyas has 0 evidence. Also read this great writeup by historian Irfan Habib on Jat origins http://apnaorg.com/prose-content/english-articles/page-100/article-5/index.html
@ Matt
" (And of course, while Celtic spread overland into Iberia from Central Europe is the most popular view, I think, still, it is odd to explain why the areas closest to Central Europe and with the most obvious influences from Central Europe did not speak Celtic, while the west of the Iberian peninsula did. You can explain these people about by shuffling around the NE of Iberia I suppose, but it doesn't seem particularly simple)"
In Central Europe was the mass of Indo-European languages - Germanic, Slavic, Venetic, Illyrian, etc., which replaced the Celtic, but the Boyi and Cotini persisted for a long time. In Western Europe, the alien Celts had no competition until the Romans and Germans appeared.
The migration of the Celts can be traced by the fact that the subclades of R1a of CWC in the Czech Republic from the last paper is only in Britain.
@zardos
"Also, a language shift among early expanding Beakers would also be strange since they kept their trans-regional networks and communication alive.
They seem to have been in constant contact with each other and moved between the centers. All males with the same R1b largely. Does that look like they adopted local identities, even language?"
Then why did they ended up speaking many different unrelated languages?
@vAsiSTha There is no evidence in your texts that the Jats were not Kshatriyas. Learn to Read and does not reprint unsubstantiated text.
They consider themselves Kshatriyas, nothing else matters.
Do all linguists agree on rather relationship of Basque, Iberian and Aquitanian?
The IE came with Eastern (relative) new elites in the full Bronze Age and Iron Age. Central Europe is key.
The Atlantic Bronze Age was no independent surviving unit to the historical period.
Italics are the only chance left for an BB IE group. Even small other influence could point to the real vector for the language though.
@zardos
"Do all linguists agree on rather relationship of Basque, Iberian and Aquitanian?"
Basque and Aquitanian - Yes. Iberian is discussed.
"Italics are the only chance left BB for an IE group."
There before the Italics lived a variety of Ligurians, the BB can only be associated with Ligurians.
Well, we have Ligurian, Etruscan, Italic and Celtic in the North of Italy, with Illyrian, Greek and Phoenician being in the South as well.
Its about the differences the show and what the IE have in common.
So far it seems BB makes no difference, so it should be something else. Either pulling the IE away or the various non-IE, but regardless of how small the differences, they cant be the same.
N-ITALY is interesting because so many quite different ethnolinguistic groups, of which some are recent newcomers most likely (IE), lived at the same time in the same region with a similar substrate.
@zardos
You missed Tartessian. And rumour has it Etruscan are also related to BB.
Post a Comment