search this blog

Sunday, November 10, 2019

Etruscans, Latins, Romans and others


I've just added coordinates for more than 100 ancient genomes from the recently published Antonio et al. ancient Rome paper to the Global25 datasheets. Look for the population and individual codes listed here. Same links as always:

Global25 datasheet ancient scaled

Global25 pop averages ancient scaled

Global25 datasheet ancient

Global25 pop averages ancient

Thus far I've only managed to check a handful of the coordinates, so please let me know if you spot any issues. Below is a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) featuring the Etruscan and Italic speakers. I ran the PCA with an online tool specifically designed for Global25 coordinates freely available here.


Can we say anything useful about the origins of the Etruscan and early Italic populations thanks to these new genomes? Also, to reiterate my question from the last blog post, what are the genetic differences exactly between the Etruscans, early Latins, Romans and present-day Italians? Feel free to let me know in the comments below.

Update 13/11/2019: Here's another, similar PCA. This one, however, is based on genotype data, and it also highlights many more of the samples from the Antonio et al. paper. Considering these results, I'm tempted to say that the present-day Italian gene pool largely formed in the Iron Age, and that it was only augmented by population movements during later periods. The relevant datasheet is available here.


Update 13/11/2019: It seems to me that the two Latini-associated outliers show significant ancestry from the Levant, which possibly means that they're in part of Phoenician origin. These qpAdm models speak for themselves:

ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA_o
ITA_Proto-Villanovan 0.547±0.081
Levant_ISR_Ashkelon_IA2 0.453±0.081
chisq 7.573
tail prob 0.87027
Full output

ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA_o
ITA_Proto-Villanovan 0.679±0.068
Levant_ISR_Ashkelon_IA2 0.321±0.068
chisq 7.222
tail prob 0.89033
Full output

The Proto-Villanovan singleton is also a key part of the models. Dating to the Bronze Age/Iron Age transition, she appears to be of western Balkan origin. Moreover, her steppe ancestry is probably derived directly from the Yamnaya horizon.

ITA_Proto-Villanovan
HRV_Vucedol 0.677±0.031
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara 0.323±0.031
chisq 10.397
tail prob 0.661174
Full output

The cluster made up of four early Italic speakers can be modeled with minor Proto-Villanovan-related ancestry, but, perhaps crucially, it doesn't need to be. Indeed, judging by the qpAdm output below, it's possible that almost all of its steppe ancestry came from the Bell Beaker complex, and, thus, the Corded Ware culture complex before that.

ITA_Italic_IA
Bell_Beaker_Mittelelbe-Saale 0.480±0.055
ITA_Grotta_Continenza_CA 0.411±0.042
ITA_Proto-Villanovan 0.109±0.084
chisq 10.294
tail prob 0.590205
Full output

Two out of the three available Etruscans look very similar to the Italic speakers in the above PCA plots, and yet they show a lot more Proto-Villanovan-related ancestry in my qpAdm run. The statistical fit is also relatively poor, perhaps suggesting that something important is missing.

ITA_Etruscan
Bell_Beaker_Mittelelbe-Saale 0.186±0.081
ITA_Grotta_Continenza_CA 0.283±0.064
ITA_Proto-Villanovan 0.531±0.126
chisq 17.175
tail prob 0.143143
Full output

Interestingly, the Etruscan outlier with significant North African admixture (proxied in my run by MAR_LN) doesn't need to be modeled with any Bell Beaker ancestry.

ITA_Etruscan_o
ITA_Proto-Villanovan 0.675±0.057
MAR_LN 0.325±0.057
chisq 14.864
tail prob 0.315912
Full output

Update 17/11/2019: The spatial maps below show how three groups of ancient Romans (from the Imperial, Late Antiquity and Medieval periods) compare to present-day West Eurasian populations in terms of their Global25 coordinates. The hotter the color, the higher the similarity. More here.




See also...

Getting the most out of the Global25

669 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   401 – 600 of 669   Newer›   Newest»
Davidski said...

Yeah, I'm betting that those eastern Iron Age/Medieval Finns with "farmer" mtDNA lineages are going to show a 100% frequency of Y-hap N1c.

Chad said...

If there isn't an issue with my data, then Italy N is from a hunter gatherer population in Anatolia. They're actually similar to the EN Greeks, not Peloponnese_LN, and close to Boncuklu and Anatolia HG in relationship to other farmers.

result: Chimp Ganj_Dareh_N Italy_N Anatolia_HG -0.000894 -2.057 42164 42824 737692
result: Chimp Ganj_Dareh_N Italy_N Boncuklu_N 0.000248 0.922 51155 50937 881954
result: Chimp Levant_N Italy_N Anatolia_HG 0.000365 0.801 38470 38231 653955
result: Chimp Levant_N Italy_N Boncuklu_N 0.000306 1.149 44813 44581 760444
result: Chimp Iron_Gates Italy_N Anatolia_HG 0.001324 3.082 45801 44787 765860
result: Chimp Iron_Gates Italy_N Boncuklu_N 0.000760 3.065 55814 55103 935506

Davidski said...

This is what I'm getting with the big dataset...

Chimp IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N Anatolia_Barcin_N 0.009 5.709 904103
Chimp IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N Anatolia_Boncuklu_N 0.0011 0.435 878814
Chimp IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N Anatolia_Pinarbasi_HG -0.0092 -2.419 734947
Chimp IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N AUT_LBK_N 0.0092 4.858 889437
Chimp IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N BGR_N 0.0097 4.044 784584
Chimp IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N DEU_LBK_N 0.0086 5.344 903189
Chimp IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N GEO_CHG 0.0347 11.396 905790
Chimp IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N GRC_Peloponnese_N 0.0143 6.866 879673
Chimp IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N Iberia_N 0.0046 2.211 853046
Chimp IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N RUS_Karelia_HG 0.0011 0.326 847219

Chimp Levant_PPNB ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N Anatolia_Barcin_N 0.013 8.035 753674
Chimp Levant_PPNB ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N Anatolia_Boncuklu_N -0.0006 -0.252 739556
Chimp Levant_PPNB ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N Anatolia_Pinarbasi_HG -0.0006 -0.16 638090
Chimp Levant_PPNB ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N AUT_LBK_N 0.0151 7.668 747026
Chimp Levant_PPNB ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N BGR_N 0.0118 4.646 691549
Chimp Levant_PPNB ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N DEU_LBK_N 0.0104 6.063 753152
Chimp Levant_PPNB ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N GEO_CHG -0.0582 -18.07 754300
Chimp Levant_PPNB ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N GRC_Peloponnese_N 0.0073 3.294 743034
Chimp Levant_PPNB ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N Iberia_N 0.0082 3.877 726274
Chimp Levant_PPNB ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N RUS_Karelia_HG -0.059 -17.904 719319

Chimp IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N ITA_Ripabianca_di_Monterado_N Anatolia_Barcin_N 0.0052 2.38 833342
Chimp IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N ITA_Ripabianca_di_Monterado_N Anatolia_Boncuklu_N -0.0036 -1.288 810305
Chimp IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N ITA_Ripabianca_di_Monterado_N Anatolia_Pinarbasi_HG -0.0143 -3.405 677714
Chimp IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N ITA_Ripabianca_di_Monterado_N AUT_LBK_N 0.0051 2.165 819547
Chimp IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N ITA_Ripabianca_di_Monterado_N BGR_N 0.0069 2.41 721860
Chimp IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N ITA_Ripabianca_di_Monterado_N DEU_LBK_N 0.0044 2.007 832446
Chimp IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N ITA_Ripabianca_di_Monterado_N GEO_CHG 0.0316 9.766 834920
Chimp IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N ITA_Ripabianca_di_Monterado_N GRC_Peloponnese_N 0.0101 3.914 810856
Chimp IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N ITA_Ripabianca_di_Monterado_N Iberia_N 0.0015 0.575 785313
Chimp IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N ITA_Ripabianca_di_Monterado_N RUS_Karelia_HG -0.0039 -1.101 780326

Chimp Levant_PPNB ITA_Ripabianca_di_Monterado_N Anatolia_Barcin_N 0.0139 5.939 695054
Chimp Levant_PPNB ITA_Ripabianca_di_Monterado_N Anatolia_Boncuklu_N 0.0003 0.096 682238
Chimp Levant_PPNB ITA_Ripabianca_di_Monterado_N Anatolia_Pinarbasi_HG -0.0008 -0.184 588701
Chimp Levant_PPNB ITA_Ripabianca_di_Monterado_N AUT_LBK_N 0.0164 6.43 688802
Chimp Levant_PPNB ITA_Ripabianca_di_Monterado_N BGR_N 0.0133 4.317 636822
Chimp Levant_PPNB ITA_Ripabianca_di_Monterado_N DEU_LBK_N 0.0112 4.815 694561
Chimp Levant_PPNB ITA_Ripabianca_di_Monterado_N GEO_CHG -0.0577 -16.21 695673
Chimp Levant_PPNB ITA_Ripabianca_di_Monterado_N GRC_Peloponnese_N 0.0086 3.027 685228
Chimp Levant_PPNB ITA_Ripabianca_di_Monterado_N Iberia_N 0.0102 3.686 669173
Chimp Levant_PPNB ITA_Ripabianca_di_Monterado_N RUS_Karelia_HG -0.0585 -16.477 663042

Davidski said...

The smaller, pseudo-haploid dataset gives this...

Chimp IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N Anatolia_Barcin_N 0.0054 2.395 444928
Chimp IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N Anatolia_Boncuklu_N 0.0001 0.037 433955
Chimp IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N Anatolia_Pinarbasi_HG -0.0045 -0.943 367156
Chimp IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N AUT_LBK_N 0.0065 2.446 439609
Chimp IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N BGR_N 0.0077 2.335 396815
Chimp IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N DEU_LBK_N 0.0063 2.743 444815
Chimp IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N GEO_CHG 0.0334 8.71 445008
Chimp IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N GRC_Peloponnese_N 0.011 3.97 434775
Chimp IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N Iberia_N 0.0022 0.803 435196
Chimp IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N RUS_Karelia_HG -0.0046 -1.139 429610

Chimp Levant_PPNB ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N Anatolia_Barcin_N 0.0161 6.381 375416
Chimp Levant_PPNB ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N Anatolia_Boncuklu_N 0.0065 1.84 369033
Chimp Levant_PPNB ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N Anatolia_Pinarbasi_HG 0.0101 2.026 320468
Chimp Levant_PPNB ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N AUT_LBK_N 0.0186 6.62 373035
Chimp Levant_PPNB ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N BGR_N 0.017 4.941 349964
Chimp Levant_PPNB ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N DEU_LBK_N 0.0142 5.629 375371
Chimp Levant_PPNB ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N GEO_CHG -0.0479 -11.593 375426
Chimp Levant_PPNB ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N GRC_Peloponnese_N 0.0116 3.86 370991
Chimp Levant_PPNB ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N Iberia_N 0.0106 3.676 370265
Chimp Levant_PPNB ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N RUS_Karelia_HG -0.0579 -13.909 366059

Chimp IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N ITA_Ripabianca_di_Monterado_N Anatolia_Barcin_N 0.0009 0.34 408555
Chimp IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N ITA_Ripabianca_di_Monterado_N Anatolia_Boncuklu_N -0.0057 -1.554 398604
Chimp IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N ITA_Ripabianca_di_Monterado_N Anatolia_Pinarbasi_HG -0.0095 -1.767 337418
Chimp IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N ITA_Ripabianca_di_Monterado_N AUT_LBK_N 0.0023 0.739 403566
Chimp IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N ITA_Ripabianca_di_Monterado_N BGR_N 0.0033 0.884 363850
Chimp IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N ITA_Ripabianca_di_Monterado_N DEU_LBK_N 0.0012 0.43 408442
Chimp IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N ITA_Ripabianca_di_Monterado_N GEO_CHG 0.0291 7.166 408634
Chimp IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N ITA_Ripabianca_di_Monterado_N GRC_Peloponnese_N 0.0066 1.926 399248
Chimp IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N ITA_Ripabianca_di_Monterado_N Iberia_N -0.0022 -0.639 399416
Chimp IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N ITA_Ripabianca_di_Monterado_N RUS_Karelia_HG -0.0104 -2.448 394337

Chimp Levant_PPNB ITA_Ripabianca_di_Monterado_N Anatolia_Barcin_N 0.01 3.232 344881
Chimp Levant_PPNB ITA_Ripabianca_di_Monterado_N Anatolia_Boncuklu_N -0.0007 -0.174 339147
Chimp Levant_PPNB ITA_Ripabianca_di_Monterado_N Anatolia_Pinarbasi_HG 0.0053 0.998 294660
Chimp Levant_PPNB ITA_Ripabianca_di_Monterado_N AUT_LBK_N 0.0131 3.844 342649
Chimp Levant_PPNB ITA_Ripabianca_di_Monterado_N BGR_N 0.0123 3.013 321163
Chimp Levant_PPNB ITA_Ripabianca_di_Monterado_N DEU_LBK_N 0.0079 2.59 344837
Chimp Levant_PPNB ITA_Ripabianca_di_Monterado_N GEO_CHG -0.0557 -12.273 344898
Chimp Levant_PPNB ITA_Ripabianca_di_Monterado_N GRC_Peloponnese_N 0.0063 1.667 340813
Chimp Levant_PPNB ITA_Ripabianca_di_Monterado_N Iberia_N 0.0052 1.394 340038
Chimp Levant_PPNB ITA_Ripabianca_di_Monterado_N RUS_Karelia_HG -0.0649 -14.659 336206

Kristiina said...

@ Davidski

Here is my analysis of the haplotypes detected on the eastern Hiitola site on the Karelian Isthmus. I point out that there were no hunter haplogroups at all.

H1a2: Finnish specific (TMRCA in Finns 3500 years)
H1a7: Finnish specific
H1a8a: Finnish specific
H1b2: shared with Western Uralics
H1c9: Finnish specific; H1c could be a TRB arrival from Sweden
H10g: Finnish specific; could be related to Corded Ware
H2a2a1b: found in Finland and Sweden; could be related to Corded Ware
K1a2c: found in Finland and Sweden
H1ap1: from Scandinavia
W6: from the steppe
U1b2: ultimately from Maikop, entered via steppe to Uralics

Finnish-specific means that the haplotype is probably born within Finns, e.g. H1a2: http://www.ianlogan.co.uk/sequences_by_group/h1a2_genbank_sequences.htm

Davidski said...

@Kristiina

Thanks, so like I thought, there's probably more than one explanation for these results.

As far as I can tell, mt-haplogroup H1 seems to be mostly of Scandinavian origin in Baltic Finns.

The Caucasus and steppe lineages are somewhat of a surprise.

Kristiina said...

That is not correct, because H1a haplotypes are frequent in Uralic populations: Finns, Estonians, Karelians, Vepsans, Mordvins, Udmurts, Komi Permians, Komi Zyrians, Maris, Hungarians; and Turkic Chuvash. Germanics have their own clusters such as H1a4-H1a6. H1a3 is shared between Slavs, Uralics and Germanics. Moreover, ancient H1a samples are very few. They only appear in recent Iron Age samples. There are no H1a samples in Corded Ware or Bell Beakers. However, there are two (which is not a lot) Neolithic H1a finds: ECA Hungary Tiszapolgar_ Bodrogkeresztur Törökszentmiklós GEN67/I2793 H1a and Czech Neolithic Kolin Elbe Female1 H1a.

See https://www.familytreedna.com/public/mt-dna-haplotree/H

Davidski said...

@Kristiina

That is not correct, because H1a haplotypes are frequent in Uralic populations: Finns, Estonians, Karelians, Vepsans, Mordvins, Udmurts, Komi Permians, Komi Zyrians, Maris, Hungarians; and Turkic Chuvash.

Fascinating stuff.

So what is the ultimate source of these H1a lineages in modern Uralic speakers in your opinion?

Kristiina said...

We need to track down the trail of H1a haplogroups from Neolithic Hungary/Moravia to the Iron Age. At the moment, we lack Chalcolithic and EBA H1a.

IMO, H1a must be related to a farming population. Poland might yield some interesting ancient finds in this respect.

zardos said...

@Andre@David: I was speaking about specific finds from Western and Central Germany where this pattern was observable and Corded/Neolithic burials were often poor, the typical specimen more often wealthy.
This doesnt say anything about how BB came up in the first place. Could have been some Pannonian Yamnaya or Carparthian CW or the like. When they expanded in the Rhenish region, this pattern might be there if looking at selected burials.
For the Lech Valley we have a local elite in BB tradition within a wider bride exchange network. Unfortunately the study is behind a fairly high paywall. Will it become open access?
And also interesting, when will the unpublished family trees come out?
As I understood it, there will be more articles about the LV study.

As for complexion: CW is the closest thing to classic North European types physically at that time, but how and when depigmentation, possibly together with lactase persistence, really spread is still not fully understood. I'm actually the most interested in the reasons behind changes, because thats telling you something about human adaptation and evolution. Will be highly interesting to see what migrations and selective trends shaped populations. First results contain some expected and also rather unexpected trends, like in the recent Viking study.

In Rome it will be similar, yet with factors like Malaria you can test very specific, high impact scenarios. Malaria is particularly impactful and results in high child mortality.
So even small immunological advantages will produce high significance.

zardos said...

"IMO, H1a must be related to a farming population. Poland might yield some interesting ancient finds in this respect."

Well, if Unetice is the result of a Balkan-Carparthian-Danubian people moving up North, like I think its likely, then this might be it. I'm still thinking its possible I1 came with the very same migration first to Poland-Germany-Czechia, then Scandinavia.
If so I1 paternal and H1a maternal might have marched together from Pannonia/Carparthian region. Unetice and TC...

Kristiina said...

You can not just decide that H1a is related to Unetice. You need actually find H1a in Unetice.

The current situation:
Unetice Germany (Esperstedt, Eulau, Quedlingburg, Halberstadt-Sonntagsfeld): ten samples no H1 or H1a
Unetice Poland (Wojkowice, Przeclawice, Szczepankowice): three samples no H1 or H1a
Proto Unetice Poland (Leki Male): one sample no H1 or H1a
(Staro)Unetice Czech (Velké Přílepy, Moravská Nová Ves): six samples No H1 or H1a
I would not at all be so confident that we will see H1a in Unetice.

The connection between mtDNA H1a and yDNA I1 is a possibility. However, this population, if coming from Hungary/Moravia, must be EEF rich and not Steppe rich as Unetice.

Kristiina said...

and I want to point out that it is not a coincidence that eleven samples from ancient Finns from the Karelian Isthmus yield three different H1a haplotypes: H1a2: Finnish specific (TMRCA in Finns 3500 years)
H1a7: Finnish specific
H1a8a: Finnish specific

while all the hundreads of samples from hypothetical IE speaking populations have yielded none except for a few late samples from northern Europe.

Davidski said...

@Kristiina

But wouldn't this relatively late spread of H1a haplotypes into the Baltic region be associated with population movements from the east, rather than somewhere like Poland?

It seems to me like the early Uralics mixed with a farmer-related (but not Corded Ware-related) population somewhere in Eastern Europe, and then expanded both west and east, taking H1a to Northern Europe and Siberia.

But if so, where did they mix? Globular Amphora is about as eastern as it gets in terms of these sorts of farmer populations, and that's probably not eastern enough for what we need.

zardos said...

@Kristina: You are right, I'm just speculating. Yet some things to notice:
In the Pannonian-Carparthian regions we see rather unmixed groups and mixed groups of different affiliations. Its fairly complex at the time in question and as we saw from other cases lineages can decouple from the original ancestry rather quick.

Also Unetice is complex too, its no tribal-clan based society like GAC, CWC or BBC. Lech Valley were influenced by them btw.

So I see Unetice like having a BB base with a Corded Ware like AND Pannonian groups on top.
The CW was the dominant element in this mix, but I suspect the rather Neolithic elements too.
They might even have formed an alliance, like Usatovo and GAC might done in the Carpartho-Balkans before.
Now they could have kept their lineages separate still. Just speculating on.
What this means in any case is that Unetice needs even more testing than some other, relatively more homogeneous cultures.

And like you said yourself, we have the first hints, I might add for I1 too, from the Carpartho-Pannonian region. EBA expansion most likely in the time of Unetice.

Rob said...

@ Zardos

''So I see Unetice like having a BB base with a Corded Ware like AND Pannonian groups on top.
The CW was the dominant element in this mix''

Sounds like you're ''speculating'' again :) Although I think there is something to the finding that wherever steppe groups/ lineages mixed with MNE, we find IE; wherever they didnt (BBC) or with other groups (N1c), it's not.

@ Davidski

Sorry, what's Carlos got to do with the Finnish Battle Axe culture ?

Davidski said...

@Rob

More importantly, this eastern Finnish mtDNA gene pool has nothing much to do with the Finnish Battle-Axe culture.

And if you claim otherwise, then prove it.

Rob said...

I was speculating.

Davidski said...

@Kristiina

I meant to ask you, since there are a lot of rumors flying around about pre-publication aDNA, based on what you may or may not have heard or seen, what's your view currently about how and when Uralic-specific lineages of Y-hg N spread across Northeastern Europe?

zardos said...

@Rob: Just to be clear about what's more speculative:
- More fact based is BB substrate with CW-related on top. That's what the archaeological, physical and genetic data suggests.
- More speculative is where the CW was coming from and whether the cultural Carpathian influences were accompanied by genetic Neolithic input, especially in thecelite and regional groups. That's highly speculative at this point.

Rob said...

@ Zardos
Don’t really understanding what you’re trying to suggest
Anyhow; I’m not speculating here

Kristiina said...

@ Davidski

As for yDNA N, I do not know. We need yet to find a place /places that were rich in Uralic N clades before 2000 BC. On the basis of what I know (exclusion principle), it could be in the Taiga belt between the Urals and Scandinavia (https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boreaalinen_vy%C3%B6hyke#/media/Tiedosto:Taiga_ecoregion.png).

zardos said...

@Rob: I meant the formation of Unetice...
@David: From the Scandinavian paper we know of heavily Neolithic Scandinavians into a fairly late time. Are such rather TRB derived Neolithics completely out of question for these Finnish samples? Would much more probable in comparison to an Eastern route if they just migrated around the Baltic.

Kristiina said...

When we look at this map (https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauhkea_vy%C3%B6hyke#/media/Tiedosto:Klimagürtel-der-erde.png), we see that R haplos dominate the green belt. N haplos are probably found on the pink belt.

Angantyr said...

@Davidski, Kristiina

Fraser et al. (2018). The stone cist conundrum: A multidisciplinary approach to investigate Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age population demography on the island of Gotland reports a Bronze Age (1660–1510 cal BCE) H1a from Gotland.

(The paper is paywalled but is available for free here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326059804_The_stone_cist_conundrum_A_multidisciplinary_approach_to_investigate_Late_NeolithicEarly_Bronze_Age_population_demography_on_the_island_of_Gotland)

Kristiina said...

Thanks Angantyr! I think that I was not aware of those mtDNA results.

There is indeed one H1a on Gotland.

This is the data: Hägur, Eksta, Gotland, hgr003, 1660–1510 BC H1a

"Two sites have a spatial connection with earlier activity; the Suderkvie stone cist to a TRB site, and the Hägur stone cist to a PWC site."

"All four individuals show local childhood Sr-values for the Eksta region where this burial is situated and they do not seem to have changed residence during their lifetime"

H1a among late PWC in Hägur is probably coming from TRB.

Simon_W said...

Nice to see David could confirm with qpAdm what I had observed about the difference between Etruscans and Italics using the Global25/nMonte method.

It's clear now that the age-old theories of Etruscan origins in Greece or Lydia are as dead as it can get. They belong to the dustbin of dead theories. It's amazing how a handful of proper ancient DNA samples can change everything. Archaeologists will feel satisfied and vindicated now because it's been the mainstream view for decades that the Villanovan culture was Etruscan and that it evolved with great continuity out of the Proto-Villanovan.

Simon_W said...

The story of a Lydian origin of the ancient Etruscans may have been inspired by a false etymological connection between the Greek designation for them, Tyrrhenians, and the Lydian city of Tyrrha, modern-day Tire in western Turkey.

Simon_W said...

As for the Latin outliers, throwing a wide array of ancient East Mediterranean populations at nMonte, the outlier from Ardea does seem about as Southern Levantine as Bronze Age Anatolian, and hence indeed may be in part from somewhere inbetween, like Phoenicia:

[1] "distance%=3.2938"

ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA_o

Levant_ISR_Ashkelon_LBA,29.8
Anatolia_Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA,29.1
ITA_Etruscan,28.5
ITA_Boville_Ernica_Latini_IA,7.9
EGY_Late_Period,3.6
MAR_EN,1.1
ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA,0
ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA,0
ITA_Rome_Latini_IA,0
GRC_Mycenaean,0
Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2,0
England_Roman_Near_Eastern_o,0
MAR_LN,0
EGY_Hellenistic,0
Levant_Canaanite_MBA,0
Levant_ISR_Ashkelon_IA1,0
Levant_ISR_Ashkelon_IA2,0
Levant_ISR_MLBA,0
Levant_JOR_EBA,0

The outlier from the Prenestini less so, he looks more Anatolian than Southern Levantine:

[1] "distance%=1.9539"

ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA_o

Anatolia_Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA,43.7
ITA_Rome_Latini_IA,28.4
ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA,13
ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA,6
Levant_ISR_Ashkelon_LBA,5.1
Levant_JOR_EBA,3.8
ITA_Boville_Ernica_Latini_IA,0
ITA_Etruscan,0
GRC_Mycenaean,0
Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2,0
England_Roman_Near_Eastern_o,0
MAR_EN,0
MAR_LN,0
EGY_Hellenistic,0
EGY_Late_Period,0
Levant_Canaanite_MBA,0
Levant_ISR_Ashkelon_IA1,0
Levant_ISR_Ashkelon_IA2,0
Levant_ISR_MLBA,0

But this one is the later individual who could have lived as late as 200 BC, so he could in theory have Sicilian roots or whatnot.

Anonymous said...

@Simon_W
"Nice to see David could confirm with qpAdm what I had observed about the difference between Etruscans"

These models are very bad, they're just wrong. And the proof is the low p-values, and the fact that they do not use a sample of Villanes, and the eastern Proto-Villanes, which can not be an ancestor to the Etruscan. The Villanese specimen in general completely refutes that Etruscan were Villanovas.


So the Etruscans samples can be modeled as ~

ITA_Etruscan_o
HRV_Vucedol 0.455
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara 0.230
MAR_LN 0.325

ITA_Etruscan
HRV_Vucedol 0.360
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara 0.171
Bell_Beaker_Mittelelbe-Saale 0.186
ITA_Grotta_Continenza_CA 0.283

So the Rutuli sample can be modeled as ~

ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA_o
HRV_Vucedol 0.370
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara 0.180
Levant_ISR_Ashkelon_IA2 0.450

From the point of view of history and uniparental markers it is more correctly.

"It's clear now that the age-old theories of Etruscan origins in Greece or Lydia are as dead as it can get. They belong to the dustbin of dead theories. It's amazing how a handful of proper ancient DNA samples can change everything. Archaeologists will feel satisfied and vindicated now because it's been the mainstream view for decades that the Villanovan culture was Etruscan and that it evolved with great continuity out of the Proto-Villanovan."

It is not true that these models in the correct interpretation given by me completely confirm the connection with Greece, Lydia and the Balkans. And the freaks are archaeologists who claim that Etruscans is Villanova just completely disgraced. Not alternative, but modern academic archaeologists have always claimed that Villanova is not Etruscan. Otherwise, it must be stated that Etruscans lived in Latia, because Lazio is a part of Villanova, only traditionally regarded as a separate culture.


Simon_W said...

A quarter of my ancestry being entirely from the Forli-Cesena province of the Emilia-Romagna, I thought it might be worthwile sharing how I can model my own coordinates with the ancient Italian samples at hand:

[1] "distance%=1.7318"

Simon

DEU_MA,45.9
CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany:DA111,22.1
ITA_Etruscan,12.3
ITA_Boville_Ernica_Latini_IA,7.6
Levant_ISR_Ashkelon_LBA,6.2
Baltic_LTU_Late_Antiquity_low_res,5
EGY_Hellenistic,0.9

A blend of Gaulish and Etruscan strains with some probably Sabellic accretions and an amazingly strong admixture from the southern Levant, but nothing from Anatolia, Syria, Greece and surrounds.

Simon_W said...

@Archi

I'm having difficulties understanding your English. It's strenuous trying to decipher what you actually mean. Apparently you disagree completely with what I wrote. I will give it a try nonetheless, wait a minute.

Simon_W said...

@Archi


"Not alternative, but modern academic archaeologists have always claimed that Villanova is not Etruscan."

Every up-to-date book about Italian archaeology and Etruscans that I have seen (at least those written by respected experts, not amateurs) claimed that it's the new consensus that the Villanovans were Etruscans. I was surprised that the British Museum still leaves this question open. Of course archaeologists speak of the Villanovan culture and of the Etruscan culture, as if these were different things, but the consensus and mainstream view was that Villanovan = Etruscan. This may have been different in the early 20th century, but I was speaking of the last decades not centuries. The people doubting the equation between Etruscans and Villanovans were rather philologists at best, giving too much credit to certain stories.

"Otherwise, it must be stated that Etruscans lived in Latia, because Lazio is a part of Villanova, only traditionally regarded as a separate culture."

Don't tell me basics about Italy. A point to mark for you is surely: the modern region of Lazio (unfortunately also called Latium in English, but henceforth called Lazio by me) doesn't equal ancient Latium. The northern half of modern Lazio was part of ancient Etruria, only the southern half of Lazio largely overlaps with ancient Latium. So Etruscans lived in northern Lazio but not in Latium, at least not in significant numbers. It's a truism that Rome was once ruled by Etruscan kings, but Latium was mostly the land of the Latins. Latium vetus in particular, while the later added Latium adiectum also included other peoples. The Villanovan culture strongly overlaps with the later Etruscan territory. It is found in northern Lazio, but not in the south. The Latial culture may have been similar to the Villanovan, no surprise, they were neighbours and had a shared cultural background in the LBA, but still it is a distinct archaeological culture, with striking differences in the burial customs, and the first differences between Etruria and Latium already show up in the Final Bronze Age II.

You see, I don't deny a connection of the Etruscans to the Balkans at all, in fact I said in this thread that they must have an origin in the Western Balkans, but via the Proto-Villanovans, and not anything else. But I explicitly can rule out any roots in Greece or Anatolia, because that part of Southeastern Europe, and Western Asia was heavily admixed with Anatolia_BA-related ancestry. But the Etruscans completely lack this. So by no means can they be derived from Greece or Anatolia. Because of the lack of Anatolia_BA admixture.

Simon_W said...

@Archi

The Villanovan singleton may not be the best sample to prove a continuity from the Villanovans to the Etrucans, by chance that individual may be a bit off the Etruscan average, but check this out:

[1] "distance%=1.8899"

ITA_Etruscan

ITA_Proto-Villanovan,50.9
Bell_Beaker_ITA,28.5
ITA_Villanovan,20.6
GRC_Minoan_Lassithi,0
GRC_Minoan_Odigitria_low_res,0
GRC_Mycenaean,0
Anatolia_Barcin_C,0
Anatolia_Isparta_EBA,0
Anatolia_Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA,0
Anatolia_Ovaoren_EBA,0
GRC_Peloponnese_N:I3920,0
ITA_Grotta_Continenza_CA,0
ITA_Monte_San_Biagio_CA,0

That speaks volumes.

Anonymous said...

@Simon_W
"Every up-to-date book about Italian archaeology and Etruscans that I have seen (at least those written by respected experts, not amateurs) claimed that it's the new consensus that the Villanovans were Etruscans."

I don't know them, and thank God it doesn't mean anything. Every book in India from local authoritative archeologists claims that the Aryans are local, that they all happen to their Harappans and from nowhere did not come.

This is a fictitious consensus of lying freak archeologists that deliberately deceive you to deceive you. There is just a consensus that Villanova is not an Etruscan culture, and Etruscan began to influence it at the final stage of its existence.

"he modern region of Lazio"
By Lazio, I meant the Latium culture , but why did you translate the conversation about the modern region?

"But I explicitly can rule out any roots in Greece or Anatolia, because that part of Southeastern Europe, and Western Asia was heavily admixed with Anatolia_BA-related ancestry. But the Etruscans completely lack this. So by no means can they be derived from Greece or Anatolia. Because of the lack of Anatolia_BA admixture."

You are always substituting notions about the Etruscans as the inhabitants of the border of the Greek islands (Dardana)/Balkan/Anatolia, i.e. the region of Troy, to the pure Anatolians. Learn the geography of where Troy is located.
How do you know what the Trojans looked like genetically? Anatolia_BA is not about them at all, but about the Hatti.


Proto-Villanova had no influence on the Etruscans at all, there is no Villanova in the models. This is just a complete mistake by Davidsky, we are the ones who see the first models, but there is no research. The validity of the model is determined by the set of models from which the best one is chosen. There is no set of models there, so this model is erroneous.

Anonymous said...

@Simon_W Models are only subjective models, but uniparental markers are an objective fact.

The path Αἰνείας through genetics. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/eb/Aeneae_exsilia.svg/1920px-Aeneae_exsilia.svg.png

1. After leaving Troy, he arrived at Αἰνεία in Thrace. This is one starting point for the invasion of the Sea Peoples into Anatolia. By Herodotus there before the war lived Teucroi, that is Trojans.

Neolithic Bulgaria Malak Preslavets [I0700 / MP5] 1d_rel_I1108 5800-5400 calBCE M T1a1a T2e

2. After leaving Thrace, he went to Crete. From it Sea Peoples Teukroi TJKR, Tursenoi TRS, Sardana SRDN, Pelasgian PLST made attacks on Egypt and Palestine.

Bronze Canaanite Lebanon Sidon [burial 63] 1600 BC M J2b
Iron Etruscan Italy Civitavecchia, La Mattonara, T. 4 [R474] 700 - 600 BCE M J2b2a H

https://yfull.com/tree/J-M241/

After that, the Nuragic Sardinians appear J2b2a1, which was not in Sardinia before. In Sardinia there was no steppe component and Αἰνείας did not swim into it, but the Nuragic culture is close to the Etruscan culture.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d6/07/5b/d6075bd7cc5e161d907dc98c05df53d4.gif

3. Then he goes to the Ionic Sea to which the Teucroi spread before the war by Herodotus and he meets the Trojans in Ἀμβρᾰκία-Δωδώνη.

Bronze Croatia Veliki Vanik [I4331 / VV1] 1631-1521 calBCE (3305±20 BP, PSUAMS-2257) M J2b2a

In ancient times, Illyrian did not contact with the Greek language, between them there was a layer of a certain language, apparently the Luwian language of the Teucrians.

4. Then he sails to Sicily, from where he gets to Carthage because of the storm.
From where two Etruria samples have the Moroccan component.
Iron Etruscan Italy Civitavecchia, La Mattonara, T. 6A [R475] 700 - 600 BCE F T2b32


5. Arriving in Italy (Troas(>rasna) > Etruria=Turrhenia/Tursci>Tusci), he is at war with Rutuli of Ardea, Rutuli are not Latin. Interesting name of Rutulian king: Turn.

Iron Rutuli Italy Ardea, T101 II, 2.5.2018 [R850] outlier 800 - 500 BCE M T1a1a T2c1f with the high Iran component and the Maroccan and/or Levant component. He could be the Pelasgian.
https://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-T.gif


Rob said...

@ Zardos
, the cultural genesis of Unetice is fairly well understood, & the genomic data supports it

Anonymous said...

Rob said...
"the cultural genesis of Unetice is fairly well understood, & the genomic data supports it"

The cultural genesis of the Unetic culture is not clear at all and genomic data confirm that archaeologists do not understand it.

Rob said...

Yes this iron age East Med admixture in Italy it’s probably too late to be meaningful for the Genesis of Italic speakers.
Interestingly represents the counter current flow of genes admixture noted in phoenecians.

Rob said...

Archie

No it’s all perfect .

Anonymous said...

@Rob

No, there's no understanding, just general hypotheses.

Davidski said...

@Kristiina

Have you wondered how the early Uralic speakers came to posses mtDNA lineages of such diverse origins: H1a (TRB/PWC?), T2d1b1 (Turan?), U1b2 (Maykop?), W6 (Yamnaya?).

Was there a contact zone between populations of eastern, western and southern origins that resulted in the formation of the Proto-Uralic gene pool?

And if so, was this perhaps some sort of long-range trade/exchange network that facilitated the rapid movements of people across large distances from the east, west and south?

Rob said...

@!Archie
Please don’t presume to speak for me or others
Unetice is a new cultural formation; with new types of elite burials
It’s genesis is due to elites from the carpathian basin incorporating Baltic Amber trade partners; and removing BB power from ventral Europe
And this is what the data shows.
If you don’t understand this; then that’s your own limitation

Anonymous said...

@Rob

It is not necessary to expose own representations for the established fact. Such general illusory schemes are not necessary to anyone, they are equivalent to the statement that this culture is European. Every culture is an innovation that replaces the previous culture, it is just a banality.

Arza said...

The source of the "farmer" admixture in Finland was characterised already in 2018:

Genome-Wide Ancient DNA Portrays the Forming of the Finnish Population Along a 1400-Year Transect

Majander et al.

The Finnish population has long been a subject of interest for the fields of medical and population genetics, due to its isolation-affected genetic structure and the associated unique set of inherited diseases. Recent advances in ancient DNA techniques now enable the in-depth investigation of Finland's demographic past: the impact of migrations, trade and altering livelihood practices. Here we analyse genome-wide data from over 30 individuals, representing ten archaeological burial sites from southern Finland, that span from the 5th to 19th century. We find the historical individuals to differ genetically from Finns today. Comparing them with surrounding ancient and modern populations, we detect a transition from genotypes generally connected with prehistoric hunter-gatherers, and specifically resembling those of the contemporary Saami people, into a more East-Central European composition, associated with the established agricultural lifestyle. Starting from the Iron Age and continuing through the Early Medieval period, this transition dates remarkably late compared to the respective changes in most regions of Europe. Our results suggest a population shift, presumably related to Baltic and Slavic influences, also manifested in the archaeological record of the local artefacts from the late Iron Age. Our observations also agree with the archaeological models of relatively recent and gradual adoption of farming in Finland.

Davidski said...

@Arza

So the TRB, Maykop, Turan and Yamnaya related lineages in early Finns and other Uralics arrived in the north via Baltic and Slavic influences?

If so, it sounds like bullshit to me.

Rob said...

Archie
Yes it is a fact because that’s what the facts show. You’re just not very good at this- you don’t understand genomics and your history / archaeology is outdated; if it was ever present at all . Indeed most of your theories are based on your own garbled interpretations of myths and texts. You’re an armchair philosopher

zardos said...

@David: "Was there a contact zone between populations of eastern, western and southern origins that resulted in the formation of the Proto-Uralic gene pool?

And if so, was this perhaps some sort of long-range trade/exchange network that facilitated the rapid movements of people across large distances from the east, west and south?"

I think its quite obvious that a very Eastern group, the core group of the Uralics and N patrilineages rolled the Northern steppe up and gathered on the way West all kind of women at the fringes of the Indo-European habitat. There the IE groups were not too strong, nor very defensive, but probably just tried to evade the technologically advanced newcomers if possible. Yet some groups became victims on the way and the women they lost one way or another, became integrated in the Uralic ethnicity. With more samples, you will be able to associate every female group mentioned with a stage of PU migration westwards.
In this case the fringe area IE were on the run and PU on the move.

@Archi: The archaeological, physical and genetic data shows that in the Unetice core zone the BB were integrated in a new group and partly replaced. So this was a real change on every level, not just some cultural innovation or fluent transition. There were newcomers which changed the rules, a new ethnicity. From what I saw so far it seems this was more Corded Ware-related than anything else, but that's open to debate with the appearance of yDNA-I and probably additional lineages and ancestry neither from CW nor BB.

Rob said...

@ Zardo
You haven’t seen much; obviously. The elite burial style is new; not from cwc.
Present facts please. This isn’t the low-brow indoeuropean history crap you come from
You sound like a journalist

Samuel Andrews said...

@Rob,
" the cultural genesis of Unetice is fairly well understood, & the genomic data supports it"
"It’s genesis is due to elites from the carpathian basin incorporating Baltic Amber trade partners; and removing BB power from ventral Europe"

I don't understand how the genome data supports your theory. Unetice is really similar to Corded Ware. It doesn't match pops from the Carpathian Basin. If, you are basing your theory on a handful of Y DNA I2s from Unetice you shouldn't because that's too small of a sample size.

Anonymous said...

@Rob
You're making it up instead of archaeologists. You do not understand archeology at all, do not understand what is required to understand the genesis of culture. You don't know genetics, but somehow you think you do, although I can see that you don't know anything at all.

zardos said...

@Rob: "You haven’t seen much; obviously. The elite burial style is new; not from cwc.
Present facts please. This isn’t the low-brow indoeuropean history crap you come from
You sound like a journalist "

Don't be unfair, you just misunderstood me (intentionally?). I said some posts before the cultural influences (!) from the Carpathian region are obvious, but there is also a revival of Corded Ware traditions in part. So we a cultural mix of newcomers (CW - Carpathian) with new lineages too, but physically and genetically the predominant impression is still CW. And how much and which exact other influence came in too is no solved question.

Anonymous said...

@zardos "genetic data shows that in the Unetice core zone the BB were integrated in a new group and partly replaced."

I was the first one to write about it here, and I got a lot of screams and insults for it. But in this case, it's not even about BB at all, but about the fact that BB were not the main participants at all, they were not even there.
But the archaeological data is very contradictory, there are many hypotheses as everything happened.

Anonymous said...


The point is that from an archaeological point of view, it is not clear what proportion of the BBC, CWC, and other cultures (such as Maros, etc) were involved in the construction of the Unetic culture. Archaeologists have different opinions here. So far, it turns out that the parental participation of the first two is not manifested in genetics.

Anonymous said...

Rob simply does not understand what it is about, he posits his abstract views as archaeological facts, not understanding anything in the matter.

Arza said...

@ Davidski

Rather TRB only. I guess that Maykop, Turan and Yamnaya lineages have entered the gene-pool much earlier.

Why do you put such emphasis on those southern mtDNA? Do you expect Y-DNA N in Maykop or Yamnaya?

Davidski said...

@Arza

I see, so how is it possible for TRB-related lineages that are by and large Scandinavian and/or Finnish specific, but aren't found in Balts or Slavs, to be derived from the Baltic or Slavic gene pools?

And the reason I put so much emphasis on those unusual southern mtDNA lineages in early Uralics is because they arrived in Northeastern Europe at about the same time as Y-hg N and Uralic speech, so they probably came from the Uralic homeland, which is also likely to have been the contact zone between Uralics and Indo-Iranians.

Let's be honest, neither Balts nor Slavs have much to do with this process that probably basically just involved populations from Fennoscandia, the boreal forests and the steppes near the Urals.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Rob,
"Sam
The genetic data is in perfect acccordance actually
You guys just lack knowledge; which would be ok. But the fact that this blog is replete with bullshiy artists - from"

Ok, explain to me how Unetice's DNA suggests it has ancestry from the Carpathian Basin.......Because you haven't provided any such evidence. The fact is Unetice, fits well as being a direct descendant of Corded Ware.

Rob said...

About Unetice :


After 24/2200 BC ; the concept of final eneolithic kurgan disappeared completely. Mounds appearing in the subsequent centuries , eg with Unetice culture represent a new different tradition.
- the Past Societies vol 2

“One cardinal question, however, still remains: why do we have a much more pronounced cultural break north of the Danube River at the end of the 3rd millennium BC, with new burial customs, for example in the Unětice Culture, rejecting clear gender distinctions, and with a number of new archaeological materials and technological innovations, such as, eventually, metal-casting and tin bronzes. To a certain extent the same actually applies to major parts of Hungary (Nagyrév group)..

In giving themselves new identities, following new belief systems and introducing new technologies, these regions seem to be more progressive. Are these innovations due to a still strong, local non-Bell Beaker element, which is actually stronger than south of the Danube River? Or are they the result of a transfer of people and ideas from the Carpathian Basin..
-V Heyd

> Half the lineages seen in Unetice (I2a1a; I2c) are seen in Boleraz ; Baden etc . The other half will be post-CWC
There’s nothing to debate

Samuel Andrews said...

@Rob,
"> Half the lineages seen in Unetice (I2a1a; I2c) are seen in Boleraz ; Baden etc . The other half will be post-CWC
There’s nothing to debate"

Ok, that's evidence. But that's not substantive evidence. Genome0wide wise Unetice doesn't look like it has ancestry from Carpthaian Basin.

Was Czech Republic Unetice in the early bronze age? Because there's lots of DNA from Czech EBA. They cluster with Uneitice from Germany & Poland but carry mostly Y DNA R1b U152. If they are Unetice then....then Unetice looks like a descendant of Bell Beaker.

Rob said...

@ Sam

“Genome0wide wise Unetice doesn't look like it has ancestry from Carpthaian Basin”

That’s not corrrect Carpathian LNBA is diverse . Secondly; new shifts from the eastern CWC would alter models. Thirdly; it entailed mobility of groups of individuals; not mass migrations of hugely divergent groups

Autosomal ancestry has limitations. On its own; you get a lot of rubbish theories

Vladimir said...

@Davidski. Yes. After 2000 BC, speakers of Finno-Ugric languages began a gradual settlement to the West, reaching the modern territory of Finland by about 500 BC. their predecessors in these lands were predominantly Indo-Europeans. The spread of Uralic languages was carried out mainly through infiltration and did not lead to a physical change of population, so all modern Finno-Ugric peoples of Eastern Europe are genetically more or less Indo-Europeans.

Of the Indo-Europeans, the uralians in the early period of their history experienced the most significant linguistic influence from the Indo-Iranians and Iranians. This influence occurred for several millennia, beginning with the III Millennium BC, when its source was the great-Indo-Iranians of the Abashev culture. In the II Millennium BC, it came mainly from the carriers of the Pozdnyak culture, which was created in the Volga-Oka interfluve by immigrants from the Iranian Log culture. Pozdnyakovskaya culture, which arose around the middle of the II Millennium BC, occupied a thousand-kilometer strip in the southern zone of forests along the border with the forest-steppe. Its center was on the Upper and Middle Oka, in the North it reached the Upper Volga region, in the West-the Desna basin, in the East-the right Bank of the Middle Volga.
After 1000 BC, the Pozdnyak culture was assimilated by the Mesh pottery culture. Subsequently, for a long time the linguistic influence on the Finno-Ugric peoples had mainly nomadic Iranians of the southern Russian steppes until their disappearance under the onslaught of the Turks in the middle of the I Millennium ad. Indo-Iranian and Iranian borrowings in the Uralic languages are many dozens, and they relate to a variety of areas. Here are the most reliable and important of them.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Rob,
I just checked. The Czech EBA DNA is from Unetice. WHich makes sense cuz they cluster with Unetice from Germany & Poland.

Y DNA results are: 5/9 R1b (P312>U152), 3/9 I2 (I2c1=2, I2a1), 1/9 G2a2.

Olalde 2018.
https://media.nature.com/original/nature-assets/nature/journal/v555/n7695/extref/nature25738-s2.pdf

Czech EBA is different from Czech Bell Beaker in that it is shifted more towards Northern Europe. It doesn't have signs of Carpthian Basin ancestry (or basically Baden, Hungary farmer ancestry).

The Consistent appearance of Y DNA I2c is confirmed in Unetice since its in Czech & Germany. I see, there are three examples of I2c from Neolithic Hungary. I think your theory possible especially considering one Unetice is also G2a2.

But, if true it would have to be a minority elite from Carpthian basin who had almost no impact on genome wide ancestry. Do they define who the Unetice people were? Not, really. Seems like you were saying they CAME from the Carthian Basin when really their DNA shows they were a continuation of Corded Ware, Bell Beaker.

Arza said...

@ Davidski

OK, that wouldn't work.

What are your current models (G25 based) for BOO, Chalmny-Varre, Levanluhta, Finns and Saami? And what do you mean by "early Uralics"?

BTW this begs for a dedicated G25 Uralic PCA.

Davidski said...

@Arza

Well, there's this already...

The Uralic cline in the Global25

And at the European end of this Uralic cline is Levanluhta_IA_o, an uber-Germanic maiden...

G25 North Euro PCA + Levanluhta_IA/Saami

Samuel Andrews said...

The Medieval mtDNA in the Eastern sites in Finland is really weird. Their mtDNA is the product, I think, of natural selection. It is why over 50% belong to H1, close to 50% belong to H1a. It is not because they descend from a super H1, H1a-rich ancestor.

Natural selection in mtDNA like this makes it really difficult to know who the ancestor of the population was. It's why it was difficult to trace the origins of modern European mtDNA in ancient European mtDNA and why people made bad theories based on mtDNA about origins of modern Europeans. People looked for a population rich in mHG H. But, no population ever existed. It's popular in modern Europe because of natural selection.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Davidski,
H1a in Finland being from Scandinavia is definitely possible. But H1a also exists in Balts, Slavs, British isles. It's really up in the air where the H1a in Finland comes from because H1a exists all over Europe. H1a alone is not good evidence they have Scandinavian ancestry.

Also, I forgot to mention, Karelia has the highest frequencies of H1a in Europe at 11%. So, those eastern sites near Karelia 600-1200 AD are direct ancestors of modern Karelians.

Davidski said...

@Samuel

We weren't really discussing the high frequency of H1 in these Finns, not even because mt-hg frequencies can be skewed by natural selection, but because it's a small sample set.

The main point of discussion was the presence of some really obvious Finnish and Uralic lineages, as well as U1b2, which looks really unusual in Northern Europe.

So how about that, we have a sample set that looks fairly typically Uralic, and yet none of the lineages belong to obvious Northern European hunter-gatherer clades, but they do belong to a clade that might be ultimately from something like Maykop.

Clearly, this early Finnish mtDNA gene pool can be explained by a migration from somewhere, possibly a contact zone between early Uralics and steppe peoples with Maykop ancestry.

That's actually worth a blog post in itself, but I really wish I had the genome-wide data for these folks, otherwise I'm mostly flying in the dark.

Kristiina said...

@ "Was there a contact zone between populations of eastern, western and southern origins that resulted in the formation of the Proto-Uralic gene pool?"

Yes, that is probably what happened.

In any case, I think that it is now clear that Uralics in the core areas are not a relic hunter gatherer population (except for some Siberian groups in remote areas). Instead, Uralics developed in a dynamic process of multiple interactions, and that is visible in their languages as well.

In order to fix the process geographically, we need to track down the area of origin of expansive Uralic N lines (ca 2500-2000 BC), and specifically for Finns, we need to understand the route of expansion of I1.

zardos said...

@Sam: I still think its possible I1 too expanded with Unetice. Also, you have to distinguish early Proto-Unetice, still more BB like and the centers and high Unetice vs periphery. The peripheral zone of Straubing like Lech V. was still mostly BB.

Also, you have Yamnaya and Corded Ware related groups in the Balkan-Carparthian-Danubian area, Yamnaya in Pannonia, CW-like in Usatovo and delete probably Cotofeni.

We need to get more samples and detailed analysis ro make sure what happened, like for H1a too.
Interestingly it appears in Gotland in BA I when Unetice was collapsing and the NBA was establishing,possibility with newcomers from Unetice.
I1 might be really interesting either way. Because like E-v13 it expanded from within and with an IE ethnicity I'd say. The best timing is the transition from Unetice in Central Europe to the NBA. Unetice, which collapsed and there was a revival of classic IE ways of life with the appearance of chariots and possibly Eastern impact (like proven for L. Valley according to the article).
That's the best time for an underdog to make it to the top in a region. Both E-v13 and I1 are similar in this respect, same time and circumstances. But where they hid and how exactly it happened might be a fascinating story.

Rob said...

@ Sam

you're right. There is nothing particularly special about I2c in itself. They didn't change European genomewide ancestry (why would it ? Its not from Ecuador)
But the fact that Unetice has various lineages is whats important. The maps often composed/ used by in aDNA papers are incorrect. Here is what a correct representation looks like from Kirleis & Muller).

Note how Unetice links east & west, north & south. It's currently the most plausible explanation for the dissemination of nuclear IE in Europe. Classic early CWC was too light on the ground in central Europe, and contrary to Zardos' (as well as MPIs, Harvards, Copenhagens) claims, they did not level other groups. BB on the other hand, were too exclusionary; and neither imparted an elite conqust of the Balkans.

Aram said...

And I see mtdna H2 in Italy_N and I1 in Chl. Those mitogenomes were practically absent from Barcin/LBK.
Even if they were similar genome wide there are clear differences in haplotypes between Cardial ware and Barcin/LBK farmers. This means different origins.
H2 and I1 were also found in Armenian Neolithic.

As for HU. I never said it is from ANF. I think HU comes from ANF rich farmers like Hajji Firuz Chl. Just slightly more western than Hajji.
50-70% ANF and the rest Iran/CHG.
It is this type of population that moved to Anatolia from East and created Anatolia Bronze Age where Hurrian is attested.

Rob said...

@ Arame

''In Cardial ware and Barcin/LBK farmers. This means different origins.''

That's not quite the case.
Barcin (the Fikiretepe culture) is actually a dead end despite the fact that G25 seems to latch onto for modelling European EEF.
LBK & Cardial both come via the Greek neolithic.
Cardial set off from NW Greece; LBK via Starcevo, etc.
They have a common origin. Diferences in mtDNA are due to the fact that LBK is nore of a subset, and they encountered different forager sets along their path (e.g. in Cardial Y-DNA C1a, R1b-V88, Itaian-type I2a2; c.f. different I2a in central Europe).


About H-U, i dont know to omuch about it, suffice to say ive find Franks notions of Ice Age refuges somehow being relevant to it rather unconvincing


Aram said...

And I see linguistic theories proposing to link Minoan with Tyrsenian. But no one proposed to link Basque and Tyrsenian.
Minoans were J2 rich people.


-----
Aegean language family Edit
A larger Aegean family including Eteocretan, Minoan and Eteocypriot has been proposed by G. M. Facchetti, and is supported by S. Yatsemirsky, referring to some alleged similarities between on the one hand Etruscan and Lemnian, and on the other hand some languages such as Minoan and Eteocretan. If these languages could be shown to be related to Etruscan and Rhaetic, they would constitute a pre-Indo-European language family stretching from (at the very least) the Aegean islands and Crete across mainland Greece and the Italian peninsula to the Alps. Facchetti proposes a hypothetical language family derived from Minoan in two branches. From Minoan he proposes a Proto-Tyrrhenian from which would have come the Etruscan, Lemnian and Rhaetic languages. James Mellaart has proposed that this language family is related to the pre-Indo-European languages of Anatolia, based upon place name analysis

Anonymous said...


The cultures of Cardial ware and LBK have of course completely different origins and lifestyles. These are initially different populations, the main E-V13 populations of Cardial, which spread along the sea, but they are not classical farmers, they have become farmers in Europe, the population of LBK G2 is a purely classic farmer's distribution. These two populations came from different parts of the Near East.

Rob said...

@ Arame

''Minoans were J2 rich people.''

Minoans were J2a1; the Etruscan is J2b2a. They are very different lineages with different trajectories.
The more plausible link Im aware of is Hattic & Minoan, a/p Schriver; and I think this has a decent basis from aDNA.

Rob said...

@ Archi

''The cultures of Cardial ware and LBK have of course completely different origins and lifestyles. These are initially different populations, the main E-V13 populations of Cardial, which spread along the sea, but they are not classical farmers, they have become farmers in Europe, the population of LBK G2 is a purely classic farmer's distribution. These two populations came from different parts of the Near East.''

Complete nonsense

Anonymous said...

Rob
Complete nonsense

Learn archeology.

Rob said...

@ Archi

As per above, the Cardial-Impresso horizon of Europe set of from northwest Greece.
E-V13 is not the main lineage. There are several data from Iberia, France & italy; and overall G2a2 is the main lineage
I don't know how you manage to get everything wrong. You have quite a knack.

Anonymous said...

@Rob

You're not writing the truth, the G2 is only in EpiCardial culture, it's a completely different culture that replaces Cardial culture on the traditional farmers.

zardos said...

@Rob: First of all the predominant ancestral component in Unetice was still CW derived. We will see whether there are different elite lineages vs commoners and slaves.

However, even the Balkan-Danubian complex was dominated by steppe groups at that point in time. Some groups probably not, resulting in people like Etruscans probably, but I see no proof for the region being dominareduced by just one group.
For the East Unetice is much too late, you don’t get the chronology right. And in Central Europe Unetice was even toppled and replaced soon after.

So Unetice is, possibly related to Germanic and Illyrian, among others, but you will have a hard time for the whole rest of the IE tree.
Anatolian too was most likely the result of Cernavoda-Usatovo expansions in the Balkan-Danubian complex.
The Carpartho-Balkan influences in Unetice are most likely hybrid-like but with a strong steppe related component. Look at Pannonian Yamnaya, Cotofeni and Usatovo. Its not like the region was completely under Neolithic control. And thats what the first results suggest, a Corded Ware related ancestry with some Neolithic.
Unetice was new, but there were clear CW influences too archaeologically.

Now for you to be right the Neolithics would have needed not just one case of elite dominance with a fairly small minority, but a whole chain of it over and over again.
For the steppe component you have a chain of conquests and real demographic impacts, often with near complete replacement of the preceding males. I don’t see your scenario to pan out if you have account for the whole tree.
Like Carlos who us often right but stubborn about CW. If you take CW out of the equation, you only get troubles.
I see the great importance of the Balkan-Danubian complex, but they had steppe elites too. Not all, but more than enough.
And now we have the possibility of Etruscans being a non-IE descendent. You will find steppe ancestry in all IE speakers.
But wait for Cotofeni, Usatovo, Cernavoda and Troy. Then this can be settled.

Anonymous said...

@zardos

Most likely, CWC have left the region of the future Unetice culture, they have gone in Babino/Sintashta. CW have come, CW have gone, and Unetice though formed on the previous base of CWC/BBC however it seems not Indo-Europeans. Nothing contradicts this. Archaeologically and genetically, it while looks like non-Indo-Europeans mixed with post-Indo-Europeans.

zardos said...

What I might add is that at some point cultural changes and New lineages from within the IE network, like I1 and E-v13 wont make a big difference any more. Because the whole networks were IE already and the lineages survived in a mixed IE state. They were no longer representatives of their gggggrandfathers culture but fully IE.
On the other side the same could happen with steppe lineages, as the different languages in SW Europe prove.
But the mechanisms were quite specific.

@Archi: Yes, Unetice could have been even non-IE actually. But right now I don’t think it actually was, at least not by language. Some cultural elements and elite lineages might have been. But let's see how Unetice relates to the NBA and Proto-Germanics. IE elites could have in a mixed form easily adopt new customs for obvious reasons.

Ric Hern said...

At the end of the day R1a and R1b links Europe to Asia most consistently....

Ric Hern said...

...without having to resort to extremely weird language distribution models.

Ric Hern said...

...and dispersal models.

Vladimir said...

Kristina “ In order to fix the process geographically, we need to track down the area of origin of expansive Uralic N lines (ca 2500-2000 BC)”.
In this period, it seems, special attention should be paid to the culture of Seymino-Turbino and Concomitant cultures such as Samus and Krotovo and Rostovkino (Western Siberia), as well as the cultures of the Volga region: Garino, Bor, Chirkovo, and Kama (Khutor). All this 2500-1500 BC. These cultures will lead to the Mesh pottery culture of 1500-500 BC.

Slumbery said...

@Rob

Baden itself overlapped with the later Unetice territory in quite a wide area outside of the Carpathian Basin, in modern day Czech Republic and Poland. Even if those I2 lineages are indeed from the Carpathian Basin, you cannot confidently say that they spread with Unetice and not before, for example with Baden itself.
Putting that together with the fact that autosomally the Unetice samples have nothing in them that would suggest South-Eastern origin (as Sam mentioned), I have to say that there is no strong _genetic_ argument for your case.

This does not mean that you cannot be right, but I do not understand why are you mixing in claims like "There’s nothing to debate". Even if you are right in the final conclusion, this is a weak argument.

Anonymous said...

@Slumbery

Yes. Of course, there's a lot to discuss here. The Unetice has I2a2b, I2c, I2 - which can be any subclade. The Baden has one case of I2a1a1a, three undefined I/I2 from the same burial, the rest is all G2a2. We have two I2c in ProtoBoleráz with G2a2, but two thousand years earlier in Sweden Motala had the I2c, it was widespread up to Turkey.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Rob, "Ok. So where is the I2c and I2a1a in CWC and BB ?"

Just so you know, what you are proposing is IE language first appeared in Central Europe due to a migration of I2 from Carpthian Basin in 2000 BC that left almost no genetic impact other than a tiny Y DNA change.


Somehow, even though Corded Ware & Bell Beaker left huge lasting genetic impacts that are still strong today, they didn't speak IE. No, IE comes from a handful of elites from Carpthian Basin who left almost no genetic impact.

Somehow, even though Corded Ware & BEll Beaker are closely related to ANdronovo who spread IE into Asia And even there's no genetic connection between these Carpthian Basin people with IEs in Asia, these random I2 people decended from Neolithic farmers were the ones who spread IE (without major gene flow).

You see how fucking ridicoulous this theory of yours is.

TLT said...

@epoch

>Yep, apparently it indeed isn't. And as El Miron can be modeled as half WHG, half GoyetQ2 (roughly) it's not a good proxy for clear cut Magdalenian ancestry either.

The sources I have put El Miron at more like 3/4th GoyetQ2 with the rest being Villabruna. In a different source, El Miron is modeled as 63% GoyetQ116-1 (actual Aurignacian) and 37% Villabruna. In that case, I guess GoyetQ2 was a conservative example of a Magdalenien person with something like 80%+ GoyetQ116-1 (Aurignacian) ancestry. I suspect that Solutrians, well at least pre-late era Solutrians would end up being close to 100% Aurignacian/GoyetQ116-1 derived. What would be the proportionality of GoyetQ116-1/Aurignacian ancestry in populations today? Does anyone even get over 10%?

Regarding Villabruna- it most likely has at least some ANE as it is, so while the Villabruna cluster(without ANE ancestry) people were steadily reducing Aurignacian ancestry in western Europe, ANE was beginning to mildly enter the more eastern extent of the Villabruna cluster over 14,000 years ago. At least 2 things going on at once.

Rob said...

@sam

No that’s not correct. The proposal is not that IE is from Neolithic Hungary or anything like that

BBC , CWC , Yamnaya aren’t synonymous groups. They’re all quite distinct .
BBC is not IE
CWC was too early to be definitive
Unetice has plenty of CWC ancestry; it’s just a modified form ; and this is viable route for consolidating further IE spread
Andronovo is from Sintashta and ultimately Usatavo; which is close to carpathians & EEF Rich. It is no direct relation to BB. Your G25 models are misleading you

zardos said...

@Rob: Well if what you said boils down to CW plus Usatovo being the main vectors for IE thats right. Usatovo not alone and otheR related steppe groups were involved in the Southern spread, like Cotofeni and Cernavoda. But Usatavo is crucial.
If you now agree on Dereivka as the ultimate source we go d'accord.
But I always thought you try to say something else...

EastPole said...

@Rob

”Andronovo is from Sintashta and ultimately Usatavo”

What is the evidence for this?

May be they are just linked by common descent from SSII, but separately evolved for example:

SSII + CT/GAC/TRB –>CWC –>Sintashta

SSII+CT –> Usatovo

Rob said...

@ Slumberry

''Baden itself overlapped with the later Unetice territory in quite a wide area outside of the Carpathian Basin, in modern day Czech Republic and Poland. Even if those I2 lineages are indeed from the Carpathian Basin, you cannot confidently say that they spread with Unetice and not before, for example with Baden itself.''

Baden ended c. 2700 BC; whislt Unetice is from 24/2200 BC.
Anyhow, where is the I2a1a and I2c in BB & CWC ? Or do you think that the I2c in Unetice travelled back in time from Mesolithic Sweden or swam from Neolithic Turkey ?
No; I2c is obviously from Slovakia/ Hungary

Lets remember that for ages you were claiming that Sintashta evoleves uninterruptedly from Caspian Yamnaya & poltavka. You were wrong then as you are wrong now.

Anonymous said...

@Rob
In Unetice there was an I2a2b, Baden's I2a1a has nothing to do with it. I2c was widespread in the space from Sweden to Turkey, so it could be found in many cultures previous CWC&BBC.
---
Do not rush to attribute Usatovo to Z93.

Davidski said...

@old europe

Don't link to random garbage papers here.

Rob said...

Archi

“I2c was widespread in the space from Sweden to Turkey, so it could be fo”

Where exactly did you manage to find it exactly in the pre-Unetice period ?
Go on; give it a go

Samuel Andrews said...

@Rob,
"BBC , CWC , Yamnaya aren’t synonymous groups. They’re all quite distinct ."

Lol. No they aren't 'quite distinct'. Genetically, they all mostly derived from the exact same Eneolithic ancestor from Russian Steppe. This is a basic fact discovered way back in 2015.

R1b L51 has been found in CWC predating Bell Beaker. So, in all likely hood Bell Beaker derives from Corded Ware. If Bell Beaker is a direct decendant of Corded Ware (which makes sense looking at their genome-wide ancestry), then boom that means they have a close relationship.

Rob said...

@ Sam

You have no clue what you're talking about.

Anonymous said...

@Rob
That sample with I2c is only presumptively belong to Unetice culture.

Rob said...

@ Sam

You have no clue what you're talking about.

''R1b L51 has been found in CWC predating Bell Beaker. ''

No it has not

Anonymous said...

@Samuel Andrews

"R1b L51 has been found in CWC predating Bell Beaker. So, in all likely hood Bell Beaker derives from Corded Ware."

Well, that's not true. Found in the territory of the CWC R1b were found already after the BBC spread to neighboring territories, and were attributed to the CWC only because they were in the territory of the CWC.

Rob said...

@ Davidski

''Don't link to random garbage papers here.''

Apart from the mention of Iran_ancestry, what is your issue with that paper ?

Davidski said...

@Rob

The paper totally misses the point because the authors don't understand the data presented in Haak et al. even at the most basic level.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Rob,
"No it has not"

This study was about Early Bronze age. But, they also took DNA from Corded Ware communal burial. Only Y DNA taken belongs to R1b-L151 and the person with it has standard Corded Ware genome-wide ancestry (70% Steppe, 30% Farmer). Individual ALT_4.

Mittnik 2019. Kinship-based social inequality in Bronze Age Europe.
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-balkan-connection.html

EastPole said...

I was saying this before:

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/05/on-genetic-prehistory-of-greater.html?showComment=1526536374182#c4945358758153117098

in Nikitin et al. paper they show it:

https://i.postimg.cc/K87c7Km8/Maykop-CWC.jpg

Rob said...

@ Sam

''This study was about Early Bronze age. But, they also took DNA from Corded Ware communal burial. Only Y DNA taken belongs to R1b-L151 and the person with it has standard Corded Ware genome-wide ancestry (70% Steppe, 30% Farmer). Individual ALT_4.''

Heaven forbid, but I agree with Archie. That burial has no CWC goods.
BBC & CWC are different cultures. There is no point conflating all steppe-related groups into one people anymore than claiming that all middle Neolithic groups west of the steppe were the same. That is potentially a grave error. Steppe ancestry distributed through Europe over a 1500 year period, with several distinctive waves / groups. Given their patrilocal tribal system, they had distinctive traits or even languages

Davidski said...

@EastPole

It's bullshit.

CWC has nothing to do with Maykop.

EastPole said...

@Davidski

“CWC has nothing to do with Maykop.”

I am not saying that CWC comes from Maykop. I think it is possible that CHG component could be distributed in many different ways, not necessarily all CHG in CWC comes from Yamnaya.

Davidski said...

@EastPole

CWC has CHG ancestry from Eneolithic steppe.

It obviously doesn't have any Caucasus Eneolithic ancestry.

So what are we discussing here?

EastPole said...

@Davidski
“CWC has CHG ancestry from Eneolithic steppe.

It obviously doesn't have any Caucasus Eneolithic ancestry.
So what are we discussing here?”

I don’t think we know everything at this stage. Eneolithic steppe component is just a specific mix of EHG and CHG. But where exactly did that mix that got into CWC took place? Volga? Don? Maybe Dnieper? Notice that we still don’t have R1a in Yamnaya which originated in Volga-Don area. Just to leave open the possibility that Yamnaya was not IE.

Davidski said...

@EastPole

Eneolitic steppe is a very specific and ancient mix of CHG and EHG, and that's where CWC got all of its CHG.

Not from Maykop or anything south of the genetic steppe border (dashed line in the figure you linked to).

There are also very specific mtDNA links between CWC and Eneolithic steppe.

In a database of 1,131 ancient samples, I3a shows up in just five individuals, all of them associated with Yamnaya-related archeological cultures and populations: Poltavka (BARu), Unetice (UNC), Corded Ware (CWC), and Bell Beaker (BBC). Similarly, T2a1b shows up in just four individuals, all of them associated with Corded Ware (CWC) and Bell Beaker-derived Bronze Age Britons (BABI).

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/11/big-deal-of-2018-yamnaya-not-related-to.html

Kristiina said...

We do have one Proto-Unetice sample from Leki Male Poland with R1b1a-P297 (RISE431). I2 samples are from Germany (Esperstedt and Eulau): I have recorded one I2a2 (probably I2a2b) and one I2c and one I2 (ISOGG 2016).

I do not think that we see the full picture of Unetice yet.

Gaska said...

@Sam said- R1b L51 has been found in CWC predating Bell Beaker. So, in all likely hood Bell Beaker derives from Corded Ware. If Bell Beaker is a direct decendant of Corded Ware (which makes sense looking at their genome-wide ancestry), then boom that means they have a close relationship.

The Kurganists are so sick that they have ended up believing their own lies-
L51 was NOT found in CWC predating BBC. I guess you know that Osterhofen and Kromsdorf are much older than Alt4, and I suppose you know that both are beakers-Using ALt4 to say that the BBc derives from the CWC is a big lie, because it is obviously an outlier without grave goods and buried differently from the typical customs of the CWC. All your reasoning is wrong and you will never be able to understand the chalcolithic in Western Europe. I don't think you're interested in knowing the truth either.

You can try to kidnap the BBc but sooner or later you will have to accept that it has absolutely nothing to do with the CWC, either genetically, archaeologically or culturally And of course the Iberia data means that it is very very doubtful that the BBC/P312 spoke an IE language - you just have to read Olalde (2,019)

Regarding your conversation about Unetice, it occupied a very large territory and like all prehistoric cultures genetically it is a mixture of previous cultures, however in its most western region it is clearly a continuation of the BBC

Davidski said...

@Gaska

Enough with the nonsense.

ALT_4 is potentially the earliest sample belonging to R1b-L151, and thus L51, because his radiocarbon date puts him in the middle Corded Ware culture phase, and thus quite possibly in the pre-Beaker period in Germany.

Just because the extremes or mid points of the radiocarbon dates of the Beaker L51 individuals are slightly older doesn't mean that they actually lived before ALT_4. Radiocarbon dates are not as precise as you're pretending they are.

Moreover, ALT_4 comes from one of the most important Corded Ware burial sites in Germany, and there is no indication that he is an outlier in any way, especially not in regards to genetic ancestry.

Gaska said...

@Davidski

Nonsense?, look what Dr. Lee says-"The remarkably different genetic patterns seen at Eulau (R1a) and Kromsdorf (R1b) coincide with differences in the way the deceased were interred between each cultural group. Bell Beaker burial practices placed the dead in a flexed position facing east with a north-south orientation, and females were resting on their right side and males on their left side (Fischer, 1956). In contrast, Corded Ware groups interred bodies in a flexed position with an east-west orientation facing south, with males resting on their right side and females on their left side (Matthias, 1969; Behrens, 1973).

Grave8- Male (21/26 years)- (2.678-2.547 cal BCE)- (2.612 BC)- Haplogroup Y- R1b-M343-Mitochondrial Haplogroup- I1- Grave Goods-Cup, Flake

So, Kromsdorf and Osterhofen (BBC) are the earliest samples belonging to R1b-L51 because their radiocarbon dates puts them at the beginning of BB culture in Central Europe

It is surprising how suddenly the supporters of the steppe theory have opted for the CWC to try to continue linking R1b-L51 with the steppes- We all know that the CWC is overwhelmingly R1a, with some samples of I2a recruited in the Central-European Neolithic cultures. That is exactly what could have happened with R1b-L51 in the CWC. Who is surprised that in the contact areas some men of this lineage joined the CWC?

epoch said...

@TLT

"What would be the proportionality of GoyetQ116-1/Aurignacian ancestry in populations today? Does anyone even get over 10%?"

According to this paper Iberian Neolithics had up to 6% GoyetQ2 like ancestry. The XL sheet also modeled French and British neolithic with 3% such ancestry as well as GAC.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331750232_Survival_of_Late_Pleistocene_Hunter-Gatherer_Ancestry_in_the_Iberian_Peninsula

The Dzudzuana paper modeled EHG with some El Miron and Latvia_HG with roughly a fifth. They explicitly mention in the Sup Info that they can't model modern Europeans with a tad El Miron but state that this might be because the percentage might be too low.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/423079v1

I think it's conceivable that low amounts of Aurignacian/Magdalenian ancestry in about every other instance they model with might sweep up this ancestry.

I find this interesting as Magdalenians are very tied to Reindeer hunting and thee spread of WHG likely also was done by reindeer hunters suchg as Ahrensberg and Swiderian.

Anonymous said...

@Davidski

That's exactly what's being archeologic outlier. This is a completely unimportant site in the CWC area, it does not matter, it is not in the cemetery of CWC, it is lonely and is very far from all the burials of CWC, it is completely unrelated to the rites of CWC, nothing indicates it as a CWC. This a sample is child, so it is either a bastard or a family of outcasts not belonging to CWC. And of course, this burial took place after the BBC, the average date the BBC appeared there a century earlier than this burial.

I repeat once again, this burial is completely unimportant, it is not a CWC culture, this burial site is completely unimportant from an archaeological point of view, there is no other burial sites there, this burial site may be equally successful with the neighboring BBC, attributing it to the CWC was simply impudence.

Gaska said...


For those who have any doubts regarding the possibility that the BBc has its origin in the CWC

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

Olalde et al (2.018) Hegenheim/France-I1392/13-Grave9- (2.832-2.476 BC)- 2.654 BC. Mitochondrial Haplogroup- H1+152- ZERO Steppe Ancestry- Beaker – The decoration can be attributed to a mixed maritime style, considered to be an early stage of the BB tradition

This woman is a BB individual without steppe ancestry and it is much older than Alt4, which shows that the BBc had nothing to do with the CWC in its origin-

Gaska said...


Many people may think that we already know everything we had to know about European prehistory. However, recently the list of megalithic monuments in Spain has been updated (4,800-2,800 BC) - Geneticists have work for decades- Dolmens-2.192, Menhirs-178, Lithic Circles/Cromlech-126, Stone tombs-288, Mounds-2.340-

Main megalithic regions- Galicia, Pyrenees (Navarra, Huesca, Lérida and Gerona) , Extremadura Granada (Andalucia), Salamanca (Castilian Plateau)-

Ric Hern said...

@ Gaska

And Ballynahatty shows close links to Spain and Sardinia and no close affinity to the Rathlin samples which are closer to Kromsdorf and Quedlinburg. So what is your point ? Obviously there were people living in Western Europe during the Neolithic with very no Steppe Ancestry.

Ric Hern said...

@ Gaska

Did you consider that Hegenheim and the Rhine River in general were the Actual Border Area between Steppe and non-Steppe peoples ? So it is not surprising at all to find some Non-Steppe samples in that area. We know that Corded Ware spread all the way to the Rhine and Alps before the Bell Beakers existed. We know about cultural mixing in the Seine-Oise-Marne Culture in France...etc.

Gaska said...

@Ric

Ireland and its close relationship with Iberia is proof that these Neolithic contacts were maintained for millennia. Everyone is waiting for Cassidy's thesis that will undoubtedly clarify some aspects of the introduction of the BB culture in Ireland (that apparently had two routes - one from Britain and the other from Iberia). It remains to clarify the genetic contributions of both migrations- The Rathlin samples are very recent (Bronze Age-1.950/1.650 BC) and their female markers are a mixture of Eastern and Western lineages, the important thing is to analyze ancient genomes of the beginning of the BB culture in Ireland

@Ric Hern said-"Obviously there were people living in Western Europe during the Neolithic with very no Steppe Ancestry.

Not only during the Neolithic, also throughout the chalcolithic-My point is that the oldest BB culture has ZERO steppe ancestry so it is impossible to link it genetically to the CWC, what are some people trying to do




Gaska said...

Ric Hern said-We know that Corded Ware spread all the way to the Rhine and Alps before the Bell Beakers existed.

You have missed finishing the sentence, "before the Bell Beakers existed in Central Europe"

It is evident that there were contacts between the BBC and the CWC, it is the only explanation of steppe ancestry in Western Europe since we do not have a single one of the typical uniparental markers of Eastern Europe (R1a, V1636, Z2103 etc etc.)

Aram said...

Forcing a model with Greece N instead of Barcin
Target: ITA_Ripabianca_di_Monterado_N
Distance: 2.5617% / 0.02561650
64.6 GRC_N
25.6 Anatolia_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N
8.2 ITA_Grotta_Continenza_Meso
1.6 Anatolia_Pinarbasi_HG

Target: ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N
Distance: 2.5639% / 0.02563887
61.0 GRC_N
17.2 Anatolia_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N
16.8 Anatolia_Pinarbasi_HG
5.0 ITA_Grotta_Continenza_Meso

Ric Hern said...

@ Gaska

When precisely do you think Bell Beakers spread out of Spain into France and Germany ? Is there any evidence between 3000 and 2600 BCE that shows a spread of Culture from Spain to Germany ? Do the Seine-Oise-Marne, Horgen, or Wartburg etc. show any signs of this Bell Beaker from Spain influence? And if not, why did Bell Beakers from Spain ignore these Cultures and try to make contact with Corded Ware people specifically ?

Ric Hern said...

@ Gaska

What do you think Corded Ware had that Bell Beakers "from Spain" so desperately needed in order for them to migrate all the way to Hungary and Germany ?

Gaska said...

@Ric Hern-When precisely do you think Bell Beakers spread out of Spain into France and Germany?

Not from Spain but from the Tagus estuary (Portugal)- Galicia, Brittany (2,750-2,650 BC- By by land to the north of the Pyrenees (2,650 BC)-Hegenheim,Kromsdorf

@Ric Hern-Is there any evidence between 3000 and 2600 BCE that shows a spread of Culture from Spain to Germany?

Yes, Three of the six Kromsdorf mitochondrial lineages are exclusive to the Iberian peninsula in the Chalcolithic-

@Ric Hern-"Do the Seine-Oise-Marne, Horgen, or Wartburg etc. show any signs of this Bell Beaker from Spain influence?

I don't know any

@Ric Hern And if not, why did Bell Beakers from Spain ignore these Cultures and try to make contact with Corded Ware people specifically?

SOM culture- Northern France, southern Belgium
Horgen Culture (3.500-2.850 BC)-Switzerland
Wartburg Culture- I don`t know if you mean-Walternienburg-Bernburger Kultur (3,200-2.800BC)

Then, with respect to SOM, BB culture never reached those regions, and with respect to the next two, they are too old for the Iberian BBs to come into contact with them.

BB culture simply contacted the CWC in those regions where it arrived (Germany, Poland, Switzerland, Czech Republic)

Ric Hern-What do you think Corded Ware had that Bell Beakers "from Spain" so desperately needed in order for them to migrate all the way to Hungary and Germany ?

Absolutely NOTHING, because the CWC was in most regions a Stone Age culture. BB culture was technologically superior and it was the one that took metallurgy to northern Europe and the British Isles. Nothing could be expected technologically from the CWC, then those who desperately needed to get in touch with the BBC were the Easterners and thus try to improve their quality of life- The BB culture migrations reached Hungary and there stopped the expansion of IE

Ric Hern said...

@ Gaska

So they needed nothing and simply migrated for fun ? While Corded Ware groups desperately needed Metals which could be found in Spain...Do you see why an East to West migration makes sense and a West to East less so for an unrelated group of people ?

Ric Hern said...

@ Gaska

Western Europe = Milder Climate plus Metal. Eastern Europe = Harsh Climate, little Metal.

Ric Hern said...

@ Gaska

Are there anything produced in Central and Eastern Europe during the "Early Bell Beaker" Tagus Estuary period which reached the Iberian Peninsula that could show what Iberians needed from those people in Germany and Hungary/Poland ?

Gaska said...

It is clear that you do not understand what BB culture was. From the beginning of the chalcolithic it was traded between different regions to obtain exotic products such as amber or ivory. Iberian BBs had colonies in North Africa, Sardinia, Sicily, Liguria, Brittany and even Ireland

In addition, BB culture was a mobile culture that traveled constantly taking advantage of natural resources in different regions and different times of the year. They followed the course of the rivers for their land displacements and settled in sparsely populated places where they mixed with the locals. They also practiced exogamy in a generalized way-

The need for migration from Eastern Europe is evident, but R1a and the other steppe lineages only reached Germany and Switzerland as more western points of their expansion. And there they were not transformed by a miracle of nature in the BB culture simply because this culture existed 200 years in Western Europe. Do you get it?

Surely in a short time the supporters of the steppe theory will try to show that L51 learned to navigate the Volga River and that when they arrived in Western Europe they taught their methods to the poor Neolithic farmers of Ireland, France and Spain- Ha Ha ha


TLT said...

@epoch
It is surprising to see how effective the Villabruna(xANE) expansion was at first diluting and then nearly wiping out the Aurignacian/Solutrian ancestry in Europe. Similarly, both of the known Aurignacian/Solutrian derived paternal (C1a2) and maternal (certain U8 subclades + U2 subclades) have nearly disappeared as well. I suspect that the U2e that still exists comes from ANE meanwhile the European proper U2 probably no longer exists. U5 on the other hand was a success story from the European LGM and post LGM point of view.


Speaking of these groups, the source that puts El Miron as 37% Villabruna + 63% Aurignacian also models Vestonice as 10% Villabruna-like + 90% Kostenki-like. What happened to the Vestonice people? Some of the first mtDNA U5 and yDNA I come from their samples and yet this Kostenki ancestry is apparently replaced by Villabruna as well. I used to think that Villabruna is just Kostenki that got bottlenecked to hell and back. Was the Kostenki/Vestonice population component really replaced or did it just get bottlenecked to result in the much later Villabruna(xANE) population? If it was replaced then that gives us 3 players in pre-EHG European stone age- the autosomal impact of 2 of those barely existed by the time ANE really began to pour into eastern Europe to form EHG. Otherwise its just a very extended Goyet and Kostenki/Vestonice thing going on until ANE got involved.

Ric Hern said...

@ Gaska

I think Steppe Theorists are not that stupid. They know Britain and Ireland were already reached during the Neolithic. So basically nobody said that Steppe people introduced boats to Western Europe. What you are basically saying is that the Bell Beaker Culturr had more to do with Culture than Genes...

Gaska said...

@Ric

Nobody has called them stupid, quite the opposite, they are intelligent enough to search and find those arguments they need to prove a certain theory by discarding or ignoring the evidence to the contrary. Ireland and Iberia so far, share all the uniparental markers during the Neolithic (Ballinahatty, but also Primrose and other megaliths), nobody can deny this evidence even if it is amazing that in the Neolithic the techniques for sailing on the high seas were known- What makes you think that these routes stopped being used in the chalcolithic? - It makes no sense because many Irish archaeologists agree to continue linking Ireland and Iberia in that period-

Do you think the CWC men knew those routes?

But don't worry, I'm not saying that P312 in Ireland has its origin in Iberia, probably not, but in a few months we will know for sure-Everything will depend on the dates of the arrival of the BBc to the island

postneo said...

@David"ALT_4 is potentially the earliest sample belonging to R1b-L151, and thus L51, because his radiocarbon date puts him in the middle Corded Ware culture phase, and thus quite possibly in the pre-Beaker period in Germany."

but Germany is not in the Steppes or Eastern Europe. Perhaps the autosome is CWC like but the uni-parental marker is not from the Steppe.

Rob said...

@ Kristiina

''We do have one Proto-Unetice sample from Leki Male Poland with R1b1a-P297 (RISE431). I2 samples are from Germany (Esperstedt and Eulau): I have recorded one I2a2 (probably I2a2b) and one I2c and one I2 (ISOGG 2016).''

Also G2a2 from Moravska Nova Ves; further I2c & a R1b-U106 from Jinonice
The origin of Unetice is no great mystery. In fact, it's bread n butter analysis

Rob said...

@ TLT

''It is surprising to see how effective the Villabruna(xANE) expansion was at first diluting and then nearly wiping out the Aurignacian/Solutrian ancestry in Europe. Similarly, both of the known Aurignacian/Solutrian derived paternal (C1a2) and maternal (certain U8 subclades + U2 subclades) have nearly disappeared as well. '

On this occasion, it was more a function of ''climate change''; the shift from the Bolling-Allerod to the Late Glacial period, with final extinction of ice-age-like cliamte, & expansion of forests and warmer weather biomass.
C1a survives in southern refuges - Iberia, Anatolia, Adriatic. In the balkans, C1a is still seen in Copper Age ! Some thousands of Europeans still have this lineage.

TLT said...

@Rob
Sure C1a still 'survives' in Europe but it is barely holding on when you compare it to the number of I carriers. A few thousand vs several millions. Also, aren't there 2 kinds of C1a2- one being C1a2a and the other being C1a2b. I have heard that C1a2a is the European variety while C1a2b is the Anatolian variety. How much of the modern European C1a2 comes from Aurignacians/Solutrians and how much of it comes from Anatolian HGs?

Speaking of Solutrians, I would be very interested in knowing whether they really were close to 100% Aurignacian derived or if they had some Villabruna cluster(xANE) ancestry. Any news on possible Solutrian era samples being studied as of now?

Grant said...

Almost none of that is accurate.

In fact, the consensus among linguists is that Italo-Celtic and Germanic were separate branches, which separated from Core PIE at different stages. Others have referred above to the ongoing quantitative research by Ringe & Warnow, which has demonstrated this. They also believe that it was probably a "Germano-Albanic" clade, initially, although these siblings apparently became separated geographically at an early stage.

There is also a wider consensus that Proto-Germanic was a product, or at least a part of, a prolonged, geographically expansive areal exchange with Italo-Celtic and its descendant languages. (As a result of these contacts, it seems "satemisation" in "Germano-Albanic" was partly halted, and even partly reversed. This is probably why, for instance, the word for hundred in modern Albanian, a satem language, is _qind_ and, conversely, even though English is a centum language, the equivalent is not something like "kundred".)

Samuel Andrews said...

@Grant, Is there evidence of word borrowing in Germanic from an ancient Celtic-related language that wasn't exactly Celtic yet? That would make a lot sense if it is assumed Bell Beaker and all successive R1b P312+ rich cultures spoke Italo-Celtic related languages.

Tesmos said...

@Rob

There is no U106 from Jinonice. The kit you are talking has particularly bad coverage and could not be confirmed as U106.

Rob said...

@ TLT

Solutrean is just the West European Late Gravettian. So itll be similar to to Goyet Gravettians, but with a bit more of that ''Villabruna-related'' ancestry, but not as much as El Miron.

@ Tesmos

72K SNPs isn;t exactly bad coverage.
Yes, Tesmos you keep saying theres no U106 in C.E.. We'll see how your predictions pan out

Tesmos said...

@Rob,

My bad, I mixed up I7288, the Bell Beaker sample, from Radovesice, Czech Republic with the confirmed Unetice U106 (deeper subclade is probably DF98>S1911(1 read)>S1894(1 read)) sample from Jinonice.

Rob said...

@ Tesmos
All good. But as to its deeper origin, still a mystery

Aram said...

Rob

What we know about the trajectory of J2b2a? There was a theory that it came from Steppe. But now this theory is in disfavor. We can't rule out it completely, but now we have an alternative possibility that J2b2a came with Cardial ware.
And later in Bronze Age had successful expansion.

Anonymous said...

Rob "Also G2a2 from Moravska Nova Ves" is not described as Unetice.

Anonymous said...

@Aram "now we have an alternative possibility that J2b2a came with Cardial ware."

It is impossible, TMRCA of this haplogroup much later, after 3400BC, that is, this is the Bronze Age of the Near East. There is only one possibility, it is the one described by the ancient authors (Herodotus, Aeneaida) and whose stories are confirmed.

Aram said...

Davidski

I was trying to figure out what is the best source of steppe ancestry in NWC people I got Scythian Ukr. Plus some Pazyrik like thing most probably introduced there by Turks. The only thing I didn't like was that I used Kudachurt MBA as a reference because Dolmen LBA is not available in G25.
Can You add Dolmen LBA in G25 if it is possible off course.
Thanks in advance.

Rob said...

@ Aram

''What we know about the trajectory of J2b2a?''

We know that it didnt come in the Neolithic, thats for sure.

Rob said...

@ Archie


'' "Also G2a2 from Moravska Nova Ves" is not described as Unetice.''

Of course it was. There is documented BB, proto-Unetice & Unetice period sites from the site, its been biologically studied since 2000s (Smrčka, Price, Olalde). The individuals were all dated & in context.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/oa.1152

Anonymous said...

Rob "Of course it was. Olalde.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/oa.1152"

This is not true in any of the sources presented by Moravská Nová Ves, gr. 81 [I5043, RISE585, F0593] G2a2 is not described as Unetice.

old europe said...


A contribution about post unetice central northern europe



From urnfield period and in the same area of previous unetice culture the results of Lichstenstein cave:


Both mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome DNA tests were conducted on the skeletons and published by the University of Göttingen. Mitochondrial haplogroups found included 17 from H, 5 from T2, 9 from U5b and 5 from J*. Out of the 19 males represented in the cave, 15 yielded the full 12 tested STR values, with twelve showing haplotypes related to I2b2 (at least four lineages), two to R1a (probably one lineage), and one to R1b predicted haplogroups. Y-STR results are given in the table below:

Romulus the I2a L233+ Proto Balto-Slav, layer of Corded Ware Women said...

I think the R1b from the Lichtenstein cave was U106.

Vladimir said...

@Davidski. “ Clearly, this early Finnish mtDNA gene pool can be explained by a migration from somewhere, possibly a contact zone between early Uralics and steppe peoples with Maykop ancestry.

That's actually worth a blog post in itself, but I really wish I had the genome-wide data for these folks, otherwise I'm mostly flying in the dark.”
Apparently this is due to the migration of North Caucasian pastoral tribes during the period of powerful aridization of the second half of the 3rd Millennium BC from the North Caucasian steppes to the North in the forest-steppe zone ( this is the Lola culture radiocarbon dates 2400-1800 BC). This culture was absorbed by the Pokrovka-Sintashta culture, which in turn actively interacted with the Seimino-Turbino culture, obviously proto-Fino-Ugric. Apparently, the de the most North Caucasian component must be present in Sintashta and then at the North of the Indian tribes.

Rob said...

@ old Europe

Yes I think a case can be made that PIE is an MNE langauge
We know the gimbutas; Mallory ; Anthony theory doesn’t pan out
It’s great times !

Davidski said...

@Vladimir

There's no Maykop or North Caucasian ancestry in Sintashta. Zero.

Anonymous said...

Rob said...

"Yes I think a case can be made that PIE is an MNE langauge
We know the gimbutas; Mallory ; Anthony theory doesn’t pan out "

LOL, bullshit.

@Vladimir "the Seimino-Turbino culture, obviously proto-Fino-Ugric"

There is no evidence that the Seimino-Turbino phenomenon was a Proto-Fino-Ugric.


Anonymous said...

Rob You're always lying under different nicknames.

Rob said...

@ Archie
Mr ‘Super Nordic’ (more overcompensating? )- i don’t know who you are; and i don’t care. But youre obviously irrelevant
The facts will speak for themselves. Just enjoy the ride

Anonymous said...

Rob mr. mamonth hunter, your style never changes: sit and watch, dumbass.

Arza said...

Mr ‘Super Nordic’ (more overcompensating? )

supernord

It's Hyperborea, not overcompensation.

Rob said...

@ Archi
Yes let’s watch for your KMK’ans in Mycenaean shaft graves
If you’re wrong; banish yourself
Deal ?

old europe said...

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/849422v1


Alexander Immel, Stanislav Terna, Angela Simalcsik, Julian Susat, Oleg Sarov, Ghenadie Sirbu, Robert Hofmann, Johannes Mueller, Almut Nebel, Ben Krause-Kyora

he Cucuteni-Trypillia complex (CTC) flourished in eastern Europe for over two millennia (5100-2800 BCE) from the end of the Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age. Its vast distribution area encompassed modern-day eastern Romania, Moldova and western/central Ukraine. Due to a lack of existing burials throughout most of this time, only little is known about of the people associated with this complex and their genetic composition. Here, we present genome-wide data generated from the skeletal remains of four females that were excavated from two Late CTC sites in Moldova (3500-3100 BCE). All individuals carried a large Neolithicderived ancestry component and were genetically more closely related to Linear Pottery than to Anatolian farmers. Three of the specimens also showed considerable amounts of stepperelated ancestry, suggesting influx into the CTC gene-pool from people affiliated with, for instance, the Ukraine Mesolithic. The latter scenario is supported by archaeological evidence. Taken together, our results confirm that the steppe component had arrived in eastern Europe farming communities maybe as early as 3500 BCE. In addition, they are in agreement with the hypothesis of ongoing contacts and gradual admixture between incoming steppe and local western populations.


LONG STANDING CONTACTS.......GRADUAL ADMIXTURE ...........

Arza said...

@ Rob
You both are like Indra and Vrtra. There is nothing more Indo-European on this blog than your epic battle. :)

Yes I think a case can be made that PIE is an MNE langauge

Draw a line from WHG trough the most extreme Baltic_BA individuals and further. They were almost as far from MNE, as possible.

Gaska said...

"However, this hypothesis challenges a previously published scenario of Yamnaya horsemen massively migrating in war into central Europe"

Haak, Harvard and company have to be very happy

Davidski said...

That new TC preprint doesn't challenge anything serious that has been published in the last five years.

There was a migration from the steppe that resulted in the formation of the Corded Ware culture in Central and Northern Europe, and there was also a migration of Yamnaya into the Carpathian Basin.

The fact that there were also earlier migrations from the steppe into the Balkans doesn't contradict this.

Gaska said...


Well it says very interesting things

1- Steppe ancestry in Cucuteni with mitochondrial lineages typical of the European Neolithic (Garmany, Hungary, even British Isles)
2- Migrations or contacts prior to the Yamnaya culture
3- No mass migrations, no conquests or plague
4- Transmission of steppe ancestry in Europe without the need for CWC participation
5- The theory of IE expansion through massive migrations totally debunked

Davidski said...

There were contacts between steppe people and farmers on the western edge of the steppe already during the Eneolithic. We knew that; see Mathieson et al. 2018.

How does that debunk the fact that there were mass migrations from the steppe?

Ric Hern said...

@ Samuel

I think the events during the 1940s shaped Linguistics as well. People of the Celtic world mostly try to distance themselves as much as possible from anything related to German....sometimes using the most absurd reasoning just for this end.

I have seen many very obvious word connections between Celtic and Germanic especially in Gaelic that do not need extreme mental gymnastics..., even some West Germanic and Russian... But yes, it keep on being hammered down...

Romulus the I2a L233+ Proto Balto-Slav, layer of Corded Ware Women said...

Archeogenetic evidence points towards the expansion of the major sub-branches of haplogroup H such as the H1 mtDNA lineage from western Europe during the second half of the Neolithic, thus not being directly associated with the initial spread of farming in Europe, but, instead, being connected to the spread of the Beaker groups across the subcontinent [22,43]. The frequency of haplogroup H and the presence of H1 in mtDNA lineages found in TC population at Verteba further strengthen the genetic connection between TC and populations of the Beaker cultural complex.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/02/trypillian-mtdna-hints-of-things-to-come.html

Romulus the I2a L233+ Proto Balto-Slav, layer of Corded Ware Women said...

These CT samples overlap exactly with German Beakers and 1 Hungarian Beaker.

Ric Hern said...

@ Samuel

It is difficult to spot such ancient similarities between Celtic and Germanic because all that is left today is the VSO shifted Insular Celtic Languages which went on their own path of evolution because of this shift. We know that Gaulish and Celtiberian were not so strictly VSO however most inscriptions of Continental Celtic are Southern and thus potentially were already significantly distanced from Germanic and possible connections, not to mention later Roman Italic impact in Gaul.

I personally believe that some Western Germanic dialects (Lowland Germanic) could hold clues to the Ancient connection to Insular Celtic. Germanic is not strange to VSO wordorder especially in Poetry...Etc. So sorry I do not have a definite answer to your question and I doubt anybody else will have because there are all kinds of things at play when it comes to Linguists and Consensus...

So the best thing in my mind is to look at Genetic evidence and draw your own conclusions for the time being...

rozenblatt said...

@Romulus You mean figure 2 with PCA? It seems that these CT guys cluster with outliers in Bell Beakers. Most of German and Hungarian Bell Beakers on the pic are further left.

Romulus the I2a L233+ Proto Balto-Slav, layer of Corded Ware Women said...

All 6 German Beakers they cluster with are outliers?

Romulus the I2a L233+ Proto Balto-Slav, layer of Corded Ware Women said...

These samples will replace GAC as the best source of Farmer ancestry in Beaker populations.
P312 Forest Steppe Neolithic + CT Farmers -> Beakers

Vladimir said...

It turns out that the steppe shepherds tore Tripoli culture apart. South, off the coast of the Black sea, captured Z2103 culture Chernovode, further North part captured Z93, Usatovo culture, then the center of Tripoli captured L51, future BB, the North of Tripoli filled up L664, future CWC. The northernmost around the Baltic received Z283.

Davidski said...

Well there's definitely R1a-Z93 in remains from Usatovo kurgans in Ukraine and Bulgaria.

Not sure about the rest of those claims though. Are there any Y-haplogroup results in this Immel et al. preprint?

Arza said...

@ Davidski

In case if you're looking for a next topic to work on - Imperial Romans seem to be a perfect proxy for pre-Slavic Balkans:

https://i.postimg.cc/rmC7X0fB/Imperial-Balkans.png

They are newcomers mixed with beakerish northerners which probably mimics Celtic and Germanic migrations into the Balkans. Which in turns means that pre-Slavic, pre-Germanic, pre-Celtic Balkans and especially Greece were very Levant-like. It means also that Imperial Romans weren't migrants from across the Mediterranean, but rather from across the Adriatic (Greeks? Illyrians?).

Davidski said...

@Arza

How is it possible for ancient Greeks to have been very Levant-like considering the Mycenaean and Greek Empuries samples that we have available? They don't have much Levant admixture.

Also, the Imperial Roman samples show obvious genetic heterogeneity, with a good number of them looking like unadmixed Middle Easterners.

So it's unlikely that we're looking at a European population that was just Levant-like, but one that was made up of people from various parts of southern Europe, Anatolia and the Levant, as well as their mixed descendants.

Rob said...

@ Vlad

It is also GAC's expansion which contributed, which might explain why BB & CWC apparently fit with GAC admixture
I would be surpised if Cernavoda is Z2013

@ Arza

'' Imperial Romans seem to be a perfect proxy for pre-Slavic Balkans:''

Maybe some cities in Thrace & Greece; otherwise unlikely

zardos said...

Cernavoda was the first big impact from the steppe people on the Balkans, but it might have been a fusion. This means there could be steppe and non-steppe lineages side by side.
From Cernavoda to Cotofeni to Usatovo I expect an increase of steppe ancestry, but all should have significant amounts.
And Usatovo-Cernavoda produced the Anatolian languages present in Troy.

Gaska said...

@Davidski-How does that debunk the fact that there were mass migrations from the steppe?

Because both Mathieson and this paper demonstrate that the spread of steppe ancestry was gradual and not sudden or violent

In addition, everyone knows the close relationship between CT and LBK, and it also turns out that the German BBs samples (which in part of their uniparental markers are descendants of the LBK) overlap exactly with CT women- This paper confirms that the spread of the steppe signal to Central Europe

1- It did not originate in Yamnaya, with which 90% of the genetic papers published in the last 5 years are wrong in the use of that culture as an explanation of the genetic changes produced in Europe during the Neolithic and Chalcolithic

2-It was not produced exclusively through the CWC because the women of the CT were also able to travel in Europe (exogamy)-In fact those CT mitochondrial lineages have been found in other contemporary Neolithic European cultures

zardos said...

@Gaska: The steppe people had wide reaching bride exchange networks, thats a proven fact for all of them. So if one group made an agreement or robbed females from one group, they would have migrated from one clan in the network to the next eventually.
They might spread some knowledge and especially pottery. But as long as there are no accompanying male lineages, this is just the classic steppe story.
The female Neolithic lineages change nothing because thats what everybody said.
If Unetice shows a sudden increase in I2 male lineages, that makes a real difference, especially together with cultural changes.

Aram said...

Rob

You are definitely not in a constructive mood. We have just 2 haplotypes from Italian Neolithic and they are completly new haplotypes never seen in other parts of Europe. So why J2b2a can't be the third is beyond my understanding.
No need to reply to this comment.

Aram said...

Old Europe

If those supposedly urnfieldian y DNA are based just on 12 STRs without any tested SNP then You can forget them. Because it is obsolete and unreliable.

Rob said...

@ Aram

''If those supposedly urnfieldian y DNA are based just on 12 STRs without any tested SNP then You can forget them. Because it is obsolete and unreliable.''

You can discern something down to I2b with 12 STRs quite easily. Many of STR-based older aDNA studies results remain correct when re-tested. E.g. in the Altai all but 2. Many is Spain & France have also been confirmed.

Gaska said...


@Zardos

You have to look carefully at Fig2- German BBs overlap exactly with CT samples, Iberian and French BBs overlap with TRB/LBK, while the rest of Bbs (England, Poland, the Netherlands) overlap with CWC and Yamnaya- What do you think about these autosomal differences between BBs?

Anonymous said...

@Aram
"You are definitely not in a constructive mood. We have just 2 haplotypes from Italian Neolithic and they are completly new haplotypes never seen in other parts of Europe. So why J2b2a can't be the third is beyond my understanding."

Because it was not in Neolithic/Eneolithic in Europe at all, nowhere, and could not be. It is clearly connected with the spread of Sea Peoples such as Sardinians, Etruscans, Teukres.

---

Yes, because the Babino is a post-CWC from Central Europe, it is proven genetically, not only anthropologically and archaeologically, it means that the Achaeans also came from the Black Sea region from the Babino. But in Greece before that lived Luwians, among other peoples.

zardos said...

@Gaska: I always pointed out that preceding the conquest, there was a peaceful exchange of TCC and Western steppe groups. Even of women, which was apparent even from earlier Neolithic contacts at the Lower Don and is the reason for the minor Neolithic in all steppe people.

Now concerning BB many things are possible and I adapt my position to the data and arguments delivered.

I always thought a Carparthian route to be most likely, be it an early CW group, something like (!) Cotofeni or even Yamnaya for the male core group introducing BB proper. Lets see what comes next.
That they mixed with locals initially was also known, but we still have to deine the real source group for the culture, lineages and physical characteristics.

Gaska said...


@Zardos

The interesting thing is to verify that women were as capable as men of extending the steppe ancestry- You just have to check the amount of CWC mitochondrial lineages that passed to the BBC in Central Europe- But this signal could also be extended hundreds of years before through women (and men) of both the CTC and the LBK- The idea of a sudden and male mediated expansion has become totally obsolete”

Anonymous said...

@Gaska "The idea of a sudden and male mediated expansion has become totally obsolete”

LOL. R1a and R1b with a steppe component in Europe obviously arisen from the air, bullshit.

zardos said...

@Gaska: We don’t even have the corresponding males by the way, which is a biggy. Because you don’t even know whether it was "just" female mediated or do you? Like Germanic warlords under Roman rule still, in Roman gear, living in a Villa. They were already there, began to take control, but did not destroy Roman ways.
Now something like that might have happened in Late TCC and in the transition to Cernavoda too.
Not saying it was, but with a female only sample you don’t know all too much about what happened. Where steppe or GAC males there, even in charge already? Can you say for sure?

Yet with phenomenons like Corded Ware and Usatovo things are clear. Also its always important who was of which sex.
How many of the low steppe BB were male R1b?

Gaska said...

@Archi

Calm yourself down, lately I see you very nervous and insulting everyone. You should apologize for always using offensive expressions -

Do you think the expansion of steppe ancestry occurred only through men?

How would you explain that in some cases there will be increases in that ancestry when obviously they would always have to decrease if it was only men who had steppe ancestry?

Do you know the typical mitochondrial lineages of the BBC in Central Europe, do you know its origin?

Where do you think is the origin of the steppe ancestry that appears on the BBC?-
CWC, Yamnaya, Usatovo, Repin, Khvalynsk, Eneolithic, Maykop, Cucuteni, LBK, Balkan Neolithic, All together?

Do not mix R1b with R1a in this process, or at least point out that certain subclades of R1b such as Z2103 are those that could be related to this process-Whatever happened in the contact areas between the CWC and the BBC, the truth is that either R1b-L51 exterminated the CWC-R1a men (so that they never joined the BBC or reached Western Europe) or simply those men were not able to reproduce outside Eastern Europe-

Why did R1b-L51 abandon his R1a relatives and not let them join the BBC? - Do you have any coherent explanation?

Vladimir said...

Gaska. "You have to look carefully at Fig2- German BBs overlap exactly with CT samples, Iberian and French BBs overlap with TRB/LBK, while the rest of Bbs (England, Poland, the Netherlands) overlap with CWC and Yamnaya- What do you think about these autosomal differences between BBs?"

In my opinion this shows that the Iberian Peninsula is inhabited by R1B males while retaining LBK and TRB females. As it is known, the language is transmitted by women, so the Iberian language should logically be the language of LBK and TRB happlogroup G2a. " the Presence of Basque-Caucasian language Parallels was noted in the works of R. Lafon, K. Bauda, A. Trombetti, J. Dumezil and others. In the work Of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1985, correspondences between the Basque and Abkhaz language are given. The main haplogroup of Abkhazians is G2a.
http://apsnyteka.org/file/Chirikba_Basksky_i_severokavkazskie_jazyki_Drevnja_Anatolia_1985.pdf

ǵenh said...

@ Archi

Totally blinded as you are by your own personal agenda, you've turned the whole discussion to yet another joke. Now of course you're bringing up the less archaeologically attested topic of Sea Peoples to pull the wool over people's eyes.

You also allow yourself to offend the many users who disagree with you.

On the Sea Peoples there is also the hypothesis that they came from southern Europe. The analyses of the Philistines have confirmed this.

Your archaeological, historical and linguistic knowledge is very old and outdated.

Even your knowledge of genetics is only aimed at supporting a personal agenda.

Gaska said...

@Zardos

You have to reread my comments, no one has said that it was exclusively female mediated, but according to my opinion, women were as important as men, and exogamy is the most obvious proof of what I am saying. This makes the interpretation that five years ago, supporters of the steppe theory tried to impose absolutely obsolete

You have always defended the violent conquests and the total extermination of the Neolithic farmers and for me, this idea dont have much sense-

Anonymous said...

@Gaska

Do not distort. You wrote that there was no expansion of any males, not "only male".
Further, nobody ever claimed that only male migrated, it was claimed that there were fewer women than men, at times: <2, 2, 5, 10 in different ways. But there were more men than women in any case. Therefore, it is a direct lie that "male mediated expansion has become totally obsolete".

Gaska said...

@Vladimir

I don't quite understand what you mean- In any case, TRB and LBK never arrived in Iberia, but it is true that all European Neolithic cultures are very similar genetically speaking both in terms of their autosomal composition and their uniparental markers- Olalde modeled the Iberian BBs with the Germans and these are very similar to the samples analyzed in Cucuteni- I think that steppe ancestry in mainland Europe reached the LBK long before the CWC arrived and long before the BBC existed- Regarding what you say about Basque and G2a, I do not understand the relationship because that lineage is practically non-existent in the Basques

«Oldest ‹Older   401 – 600 of 669   Newer› Newest»