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   601 – 669 of 669
zardos said...

@Gaska: Women were not as important as men in this context because they transmitted their cultural traditions of basic farming, weaving, pottery making and the like. But the crucial change is in male lineages, ancestry, social organisation, animal husbandry and warfare etc.

So even if under strange circumstances a group dominated by male steppe lineages picked up a different language, this won't change the basics.
Not even linguistically, because like I said to Rob before, for the steppe model you have what you got, probably even with CW and Usatovo alone. But with an alternative model, you need a whole chain of elite dominance cases in a very short time. Not feasible.

Let's wait for the Balkan-Carparthian results, especially Usatovo, Cotofeni and Cernavoda. Because we must revelate the Anatolian path.
Might come from a very early, heavily mixed Cernavoda group.

Now the violent, genocidal conquest took place and thats not the dependent on the linguistic debates. It just makes a linguistic scenario more or less likely.

But it happened more than once:
- G2a dominated early farmers
- I2 Northern agro-pastoralists
- R1a Corded Ware
- R1b Bell Beakers
- N Uralics

You could extend the same pattern to the world, like lineages of e.g. of O with Chinese or E with Bantu etc.

For the European prehistoric context this is no longer even debatable. There were waves of violent, genocidal expansions, associated with fundamental changes.
It didnt even stop there, if you think e.g. about the Slavic expansion. But it was less clear afterwards because of the more diverse male lineages.

But for the early times its absolutely clear. Now you can argue that agnatic Indo-Europeans changed their language for whatever reason.

Also that there were long times of rather peaceful neighbours doesnt change anything. Many people lived side by side for long, but things could change and get violent and genocidal all the time. There just needs to be a reason and a clear superiority in war of one side.

Anonymous said...

@ǵenh

You wrote another completely meaningless message with no information. You are constantly writing loud and funny messages that contain only cry and emotions, your non-appealing delirium without even reading what I am writing. You have shown that you know absolutely nothing about any issue.


The peoples of the Sea are not one people, it is a huge number of different peoples, as indicated by ancient sources. They originally came from the Danube, Urnfield and Noua cultures in general, but they also included Teukres TJKR, that were distributed to the Ionic Sea (South Europe) Tyrsenoi TRS, Sardana SRDN, Peleset PLST (Pelasgoi on Greece).
I have written all this many times, but you deliberately lies as if I hadn't written it.

Vladimir said...

Gaska. Naturally, that G2a not present have Basques because men-warriors were R1b, and here is wife their were from LBK and TRB have which fathers were G2a, and already their children have become R1b. Language remained language mothers.

Gaska said...

@Archi

This is what I wrote-"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”

How you can talk about proportions between men and women? neither you nor the geneticists who have calculated those percentages understand what exogamy is- In an exchange of women between clans, men did NOT pass from one clan to another. Then the most logical thing is to think that the different ancestries were female mediated- But it is clear that the situation is not so simple, because there were also joint migrations of men and women and even migrations of men only-It will take a long time to understand these population movements so simplifications are very risky

Anonymous said...

@Vladimir
"As it is known, the language is transmitted by women, so the Iberian language should logically be the language of LBK and TRB happlogroup"

This is absolutely untrue, the language is transmitted by men, and wives learn the language of their husbands, especially in patrilocal societies. Other cases are very rare and relate to special living conditions such as islands and matrilinearity.

Gaska said...

@Zardos

Women were not as important as men? That is to say that now exogamy means that it was men who exchanged one clan for another? Came on Zardos this is an ancient practice since the Neolithic and makes women play an important role not only with regard to the transmission of culture but in relation to the genetic transmission of ancestry, and both the BBC,CWC and GAC are clear evidence of what I am saying

@Zardos-"So even if under strange circumstances a group dominated by male steppe lineages picked up a different language, this won't change the basics

What are these strange circumstances that caused Basques/P312 to stop speaking our IE language and adopt the Euzkera? You have some coherent explanation? I think that genetic continuity in Iberia from 2,500 BC to the Iron Age and today is proof enough to prove that neither P312 nor BB culture spoke IE. A few months ago you thought the same as me, I don't know what made you change your mind.

@Zardos-Now the violent, genocidal conquest took place and that`’s not the dependent on the linguistic debates.

I guess you will know that we Basques have 5-7% of I2a directly linked to the Mesolithic and Neolithic in Iberia, do you think R1b exterminated all I2a? - No my friend, simply we R1b-P312-Df27 have had more reproductive success




Vladimir said...

Archi. If the tribe is not large and closed in a remote place, and the men are almost constantly in military campaigns, the children, of course, will know the language of the father, but the language of the mother will know better and eventually they will move to the language of the mother. It must be borne in mind that at that time there were no state institutions, as a rule, imposing the language of male rulers. If now the child will have a French father, a Chinese mother, and they will live in Turkey, while the father will appear at home once a year for a week. The child will know well the mother's language-Chinese and the official language of the country of residence-Turkish. The language of his father, he will know, but it is bad, but if when older he will not need it, then all will be forgotten.

Rob said...

@ Vlad
There was no TRB or LBK in Iberia or SW France.

What can you tell us about the G2a in Neolithic west Europe & Abkhazian clades ?

Vladimir said...

@Rob If the autosomal analysis shows that BB Iberia are close LBK and TRB, then they have met somewhere. Either LBK and TRB were in BB Iberia territory, or BB Iberia were in LBK territory and TRB took wives there. I think it's more of the latter.

Anonymous said...

@Vladimir

What does that have to do with the languages of the state? The language of the family is the language of the husband, and the language of the husband is the language of society, men never live in isolation from society, and women are mostly limited to the family, which is the normal state of affairs. Therefore, the statement that the language is transmitted through women is fundamentally incorrect, and your fiction that it is known to someone other than you. You just made up your statement without knowing anything about it.

Gaska said...

Obviusly BB Iberia were in LBK territory

Vladimir said...

@Rob Analysis of the Abkhazian Y chromosomes showed similar results to the previous conclusion: haplogroup G2a >50% (G2a1a: 12%, G2a*: 24%, G2a3b1 (G2a1c2a): 21%) and haplogroup J2a ~20% (J2*: 5%, J2a4b*: 7%, J2a4b1: 2%)

Vladimir said...

@Archi. I'm not the only. Here writes Oleg Balanovsky: "This is the first time this result allows us to draw two important conclusions:
1) Europe is not homogeneous in mtDNA: within it there are genetic clusters.
2) these clusters are formed by peoples similar in language, that is, the mitochondrial gene pool of Europe is ordered according to the linguistic principle."
http://xn--c1acc6aafa1c.xn--p1ai/?page_id=6381

zardos said...

@Gaska: Females were highly important for the development of the agro-pastoralists cultures imho, but that was when they were still "under construction" from the forager cultural base. Then the females braucht a lot of innovations most likely, regardless of how they entered the clans.

But they rather contributed in an evolutionary, not a revolutionary way. Slow change by women, sometimes even after a conquest, fast changes by expansions an conquests by men.

"What are these strange circumstances that caused Basques/P312 to stop speaking our IE language and adopt the Euzkera? You have some coherent explanation? I think that genetic continuity in Iberia from 2,500 BC to the Iron Age and today is proof enough to prove that neither P312 nor BB culture spoke IE. A few months ago you thought the same as me, I don't know what made you change your mind."

I still think the BB never spoke IE, but now I see different alternative scenarios because of possible direct continuity from CW, like suggested by David at some point or the fact that even if they spoke Basque, were are still left with too many other languages in their territory. Still Proto-Basque is to me the single most likely language original BB spoke, yet some of them had to give up their speech in any case, be it because of a slave revolt in the caste system, minority elite dominance not clearly shown in the samples we have so far or changes in Central Europe which caused it, but brought a similar genetic profile and BB lineages South the changes not withstanding.

"I guess you will know that we Basques have 5-7% of I2a directly linked to the Mesolithic and Neolithic in Iberia, do you think R1b exterminated all I2a? - No my friend, simply we R1b-P312-Df27 have had more reproductive success"

I did not say they exterminated all. I mean if you leave some alive, some specialists, collaborateurs, slaves, whatever, this doesn't change the fact of a violent to genocidal takeover. And the pace it was taking place, the results we see speak a clear language for all the shifts I listed, there is simply no other reasonable explanation.
Also, while the Basque come closest to direct male descendents of the BB, there was at least SOME gene flow afterwards. So you have to prove that these 5-7% of I2a are from local Iberians, not from other places in let's say Southern France or simply other places in Iberia.

Reproductive success...no. That's ridiculous. Do you really want to suggest that all the shifts I mentioned, I could double the list by the way, are the cause of "male attractiveness" like one researcher put or "social status". Not that way, not that fast, not so complete, surely not everywhere. Makes no sense at all. They killed or enslaved, or at least displaced the locals. Probably they starved in a corner and the females pleaded for being taken into the BB group, no idea how it happened in detail, but there was violence and war and results had a genocidal character. Look at how truly huge the space is which changed with every shift. And the clear signs of conquest in every case with a rapid change.

Anonymous said...

@ Vladimir

Don't lie, Balanovsky never wrote that languages are transmitted through women.
He says only that mitoDNA is ordered by linguistic feature, and not languages are ordered by mitoDNA. That is, populations are related to languages, that is, the clusters were formed based on languages.

Gaska said...

@Zardos-

To be totally honest with you, the truth is that in Iberia there are certain archaeological evidences of a violent expansion related to the BB culture- I mean the appearance of copper halberds- The halberd is one of the first true or specialised weapons manufactured in Western Europe, a function which links it closely with the emergence of new forms of combat, physical violence and with the imposition and safeguarding of unprecedented social hierarchies.

We have dozens of these weapons in the culture of El Argar (2,200-1,600 BC) so it was always considered that this was a hierarchical and warrior society- It has always been believed that they had Atlantic origin (Ireland), or that they were related to the influence from Unetice and other Bronze Age cultures- However, metallic halberds of Atlantic typology are detected in the Castilian Plateau. In Humanejos' tomb UE1853 (2.409 BC) one of these weapons was found next to two Palmela points, a tanged dagger and other typical objects of the later Bell Beaker (decorated pottery, ivory buttons, stone wrist guards). Other halberds of the Middle Tagus basin are typologically related to that of Humanejos, such as those of Villamiel, Manzanares, Finca de la Paloma, and Torre Benzalá, what seems to demonstrate the warrior character of certain elites within the BB culture- It is very likely that these Marauder Mesetans ended up with Los Millares (2,200 BC) and created the culture of El Argar continuing the tradition of the manufacture of copper halberds

These findings also question the Atlantic origin of these weapons because the Iberian halberds are older than the Irish and Welsh (Treecastell) and now appear linked to the BB culture (Szigetszentmiklós-2,350 BC). In any case in Central Europe they are very scarce (Poland, Germany) until the Bronze Age which seems to indicate an Iberian origin-


epoch said...

@Zardos

"Because we must revelate the Anatolian path.
Might come from a very early, heavily mixed Cernavoda group."

Kumtepe 4 is a very poor sample from a layer in Kumtepe which is thought to be a break with the previous layers, if I understand it correctly. It is dated 3700 BC. The sample is far to low res to be decisive or anything, but from what tests have been done it might have pretty much steppe related ancestry.

I maybe it's an extension of the Suvorovo expansion. In that scenario the separation was really early, which is necessary to explain some features in Anatolian.

Samuel Andrews said...

"Anatolia_Chalcolithic" has EHG ancestry! I think Harvard has forgotten about it because assumed it got there through the Caucasus. But, I think it makes more sense it got it from Balkans and that this represents spread of IE into Anatolia.

Vladimir said...

@Archi. It's an argument about whether there was a chicken or an egg first. Clusters of mtDNA, determine linguistic similarity, or Vice versa. Balanovsky simply does not have a clear answer

EastPole said...

Another paper from Alexander Immel et al.:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/851188v1?rss=1

Anonymous said...

Vladimir said...
"@Archi. It's an argument about whether there was a chicken or an egg first. Clusters of mtDNA, determine linguistic similarity, or Vice versa. Balanovsky simply does not have a clear answer"

Don't be ridiculous, you've attributed your opinion to Balanovsky, but now he "does not have a clear answer". He has everything clearly written, and it's completely opposite to your words. Do you have any idea what a population is and how it is formed?
So nothing will save your lies. All the more, that there the as times speech goes about well known since the Roman, German, Slavic migration (clusters), where clearly known that no amount women not transferred languages, all women have gone on languages conquerors.

zardos said...

@Gaska: Thanks for the information. My approach is however, that a lot of the material was organic and or falsely reconstructed before. Like the findings of Tollense, I'm always coming back to this, are really extraordinary. I mean how often did you find such specialised wooden weapons? Yet I'm pretty sure even the early farmers had specialised weaponry they used against the foragers when moving forward. The pattern of LBK in particular are sometimes like what Europeans would have done in America, if being under the threat of "wildling" Indians around them.

They really pushed to the HG population to the fringes, this is why the drastic increase in the later Neolithic phases with Northern agro-pastoralism is so important. That there was a complete change of male lineages then just seals the deal.

Quite often in European prehistory it was "wild fringe groups" which kept their more primordial strength in genes and tribal culture, which when adopting the technology of their neighbours became superiour. This is no one time phenomenon, it happened all the time and not just in Europe actually, at least in the temperate zone. Until the developed cultures reached a level of development and numbers which wildlings could no longer top. The steppe shows a chain of successions by wilder tribes replacing the more cultured ones.

In the case of Northern and Eastern agro-pastoralists, the long term contact in a position of demographic strength allowed the foragers (fisher-hunters) to do innovation and develop their own higher cultural profile.

I even saw a reconstruction of Corded Ware battle axes applied to a stick like the later halberds. Don't know how realistic that is, don't think its proven in any way and rather unlikely, but its interesting to try such a reconstructions anyway and the archaeologists and illustrators might have had their reasons.. Also, in the North they often had a lack of resources, especially in Copper and early Bronze Age. You have always consider the possibility of rotten organic material, we are rarely as lucky as in Tollense and for burials the most basic problem is: What if they didn't put all the weapons in the grave? What if they didn't made the weapons such important goods for afterlife? Some symbolic weapon was put in the grave, but the bread and butter weapon, like a base ball bat like simple wooden weapon, not.

There is so much we might overlook as long as we don't have lucky findings like Tollense.


Anonymous said...

@zardos "Yet I'm pretty sure even the early farmers had specialised weaponry they used against the foragers when moving forward."

Which one? What do you mean specialized? Did they have swords? And arrows, spears, knives, darts, that for hunting, that for collisions are the same thing. No specialized weapons for war were found in the Neolithic. The only thing that appeared in Mesolithic/Neolithic is the shields.

Rob said...

@ Zardos

“They really pushed to the HG population to the fringes, this is why the drastic increase in the later Neolithic phases with Northern agro-pastoralism is so importan”

I think they were often entering virgin land. There were not many HGs in the loess belt zone. They had already moved north toward Atlantic and Baltic seas ; where game was good. In south Central Europe; they concentrated in few spots; E.g. iron gates; Istria, few caves in Bohemia

zardos said...

@Archi: You think they had e.g. no clubs? I think you're wrong. In the early phase they pushed towards the NW they seem to have settled rather close, defensively, with more "militarised" frontier zones.

@Rob: It depends on the region, like you said, but there were quite obviously clashes and problems during the colonisation with the "natives".

First of all, the LBK did hunt a lot too, so there was competition for game and territory in this respect as well, secondly the foragers surely will have tried to plunder and rob from the farmers, that's inevitable if they see a herd of sheeps or the like.

But its wrong to make generalisations for the whole of Europe, it was different from place to place. In Northern Europe and on the steppe the farmers tried to colonise, but failed, left the foragers with new technologies and genes behind. This improved their developmental potential and they developed the aggressive agro-pastoralism we see later.


Anonymous said...

@zardos "You think they had e.g. no clubs? I think you're wrong. In the early phase they pushed towards the NW they seem to have settled rather close, defensively, with more "militarised" frontier zones."

What does that have to do with clubs? This is a common hunting weapon, just a stick that everyone has, nothing specialized in it.

There were no specialized weapons at farmers or foragers, except for common shields. Farmers took only by numbers, there were just a lot more of them foragers, many people were needed for agriculture, so farmers gave birth to a lot, even though they were starving. The main factor of the farmers' displacement of the foragers was simply the fact that the farmers cut down forests for sowing cereals and pastures, thus the hunters had no place to hunt, the beast disappeared. The only factor contributing to the spread of farmers was the fact that in primitive farming, the land quickly became unusable, and farmers had to go to new lands and cut down new forests.

zardos said...

@Archi: Obviously the main advantage of the farmers were their numbers, but the crucial point to me is, that living side by side seems to have been rather problematic and the HG did really decrease and being pushed aside. Its not like you have the Neolithics coming in and the foragers keeping the population level they had in the areas suitable for their lifestyle but with beginning settlement of the newcomers. There was actual competition taking place. As for what are specialised weapons and not, how the results are conclusive, that's a quite a specific debate.
And from what we can see the Neolithics seem to have been fairly organised, moving in larger groups, forming networks, planning new settlements etc. So this was a real colonisation taking place and my position on the issue, that local threats by hostile foragers was part of the equation. So they had to develop strategies to deal with this threat to their colonisation efforts.

Davidski said...

@All

I've made some serious updates to my PCA of ancient West Eurasian genetic variation...

West Eurasia PCA plot

West Eurasia PCA datasheet

end said...

from the study of the late neholitic individuals

"Interestingly, we did not observe any pathogens. This observation is consistent with aDNAbased findings describing only relatively few sporadic cases of infectious diseases for the
Neolithic periodd. Noteworthy is the absence of Yersinia pestis, as lineages of this
bacterium have already been postulated for the Late Neolithic and are reported in a
Scandinavian case dated to 2900 cal. BCE45. If it were present, we would have expected to
detect the pathogen, given the good preservation of endogenous DNA in the samples"


the conquest of steppe people as the result of pestis in the neholitic group can now be discarded .

Angantyr said...

@end

"the conquest of steppe people as the result of pestis in the neholitic group can now be discarded ."

Funny. To me, further evidence that Yersinia pestis was NOT endemic in (Middle) Neolithic Central/Western Europe but spread right before the migrations from steppe instead strengthens the hypothesis that it did indeed pave the way for these migrations.

end said...

they dont have found a single mutation of the y pestist in steppe groups either only sporadic outbreak in the neholitic groups

Davidski said...

@end

Y. pestis was found in the following steppe samples...

Afanasievo RISE509
Afanasievo RISE511
Andronovo RISE505
Sintashta RISE386
Yamnaya_Caucasus RK1001

Ric Hern said...

Was there not climate change and significant deforestation ?

EastPole said...

David, you are being quoted in some discusions on languages and genes in scientific literature:

https://i.postimg.cc/g2xFm530/screenshot-49.png

http://etnografia.kunstkamera.ru/en/archive/2019_3/kozincev_a_g_novye_leksikostatisticheskie_dannye_o_yuzhnom_adstrate_v_praindoevropejskom_yazyke

Davidski said...

What does it say?

EastPole said...



@Davidski
"What does it say?"

From the abstract:
The first Indo-Hittite migration route evidently passed across northern Iran toward Anatolia. Three secondary northward migration routes can be reconstructed: the first, along the western Caspian coast toward the Volga (Khvalynsk ancestors), the second, related to the Darkveti-Meshoko culture, along the eastern Black Sea coast to northwestern Caucasus (both in the fifth millennium BC), and a later migration, Leilatepe-Maykop, in the early fourth millennium, from Iranian Azerbaijan along the Kura valley to north central Caucasus. While all the three northward migrations contributed to the dispersal of IE dialects to the steppe, only the first one appears to have been accompanied by gene flow.

Illustration:

https://i.postimg.cc/cLfCMXLX/screenshot-50.png


Google translated:

D. Vesolovsky, based on his own calculations, believes that the CHG component has been present in the steppe since ancient times. “The people of the main culture received CHG from an older population that lived in the steppe during the Meshoko period, and possibly much earlier ... maybe from the Mesolithic” (D. Vesolovsky, personal communication).
[...]
O. P. Balanovsky claims that CHG was brought into the steppe from the Caucasus no later than the middle of the fifth millennium BC. e. So, the source was the population of Darkveti Meshoko, and the recipient was a certain (not yet established) steppe Eneolithic group, akin to the ancestors of the pits. The spread of the late-great-IE dialect into the steppe occurred in IV millennium BC e., but without confusion; this event would naturally be associated with the expansion of the Maykop culture to the north (Balanovsky 2019).
The author does not address the reasons for the mysterious disappearance of the southern species of the AF component in the steppe.

Davidski said...

Well, just to clarify, D. Vesolovsky is still pretty sure that the ancestors of the Hittites came from the steppe and moved into Anatolia via the Balkans, probably during the Early Bronze Age.

Anonymous said...

EastPole said...
" http://etnografia.kunstkamera.ru/en/archive/2019_3/kozincev_a_g_novye_leksikostatisticheskie_dannye_o_yuzhnom_adstrate_v_praindoevropejskom_yazyke"

This article is full of nonsense. It has no scientific methodology. It has been criticized until it is completely destroyed.

a said...

@End

Evolutionary mutations in Steppe Yersinia pestis, is very specific to only certain groups.
Using the:
Maximum-Likelihood Tree and Percent Coverage Plot of Virulence Factors of Yersinia pestis. The Steppe branch of Yersinia pestis can be dated and put into groups.

For example, note the following clusters among steppe groups.
RK1001 North Caucasus+ Rise 509(Afansievo)
Gyvakarai1(Corded Ware)+ Gen72 (Vucedol)
Kunilall(Corded Ware)+1343Un Tal85(Bell Beaker)+6Post(Bell Beaker)+Rise 505 (Afanasievo)

EastPole said...

@Archi
“This article is full of nonsense. It has no scientific methodology. It has been criticized until it is completely destroyed.”

I do not support the opinions presented in this article. I agree with David. CHG was spread in the steppe very early probably in Mesolithic. One thing I am not sure is how it happened.
One view is that Caucasus HG mixed with EHG on the Piedmont steppe then started to grow and move north to Khvalynsk etc.
I think that it is also possible that rivers were used as a method of transportation of CGH wives to EHG husbands and as a result several EHG-CHG mixed populations originated.

https://postlmg.cc/LhgqHYfr

Which one was PIE depends on Y-DNA. I think it was R1a.
It is of course speculation on my side.

Arza said...

@ Davidski
I've made some serious updates to my PCA of ancient West Eurasian genetic variation...

I see that coordinates have changed slightly. Any chances for re-running Welzin or should they be compatible anyway? And since you have Saami in this PCA it would be good to see also the Saami-like Levanluhta and Chalmny-Varre. Big plus for bringing back RISE568 and for the new Italian mesolithic.


BTW how you would explain this (top 10, full spreadsheet):

Distance to: England_CA_EBA:I2464
0.01598186 Polish:Polish16H
0.01668502 CZE_Early_Slav:RISE569
0.01852188 Ukrainian:UKR-1909
0.01907616 Polish:GS000015869
0.01946227 Croatian:Croatia_Cro432
0.01950026 Ukrainian:UCH945_ukrainian_Tsherk
0.01951051 Lithuanian_PA:LTG-793
0.01962142 Ukrainian:UKR-1283
0.01978080 Ukrainian:UKR-1399
0.01987863 KAZ_Lisakovskiy_MLBA_Alakul:I6788

Distance to: CZE_Protounetice_EBA:I5037
0.02613618 England_CA_EBA:I2464
0.03056959 Lithuanian_RA:LTG-193
0.03114065 Polish:Polish16H
0.03231780 Ukrainian:UKR-1909
0.03238024 Ukrainian:UCH945_ukrainian_Tsherk
0.03265854 Lithuanian_PA:LTG-167
0.03278368 CZE_Early_Slav:RISE569
0.03286731 Polish:Polish7H
0.03323793 Lithuanian_PZ:LTG-1177
0.03344637 Ukrainian_North:GS000013755

Distance to: Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5655
0.02581840 Slovakian:Slovakia96
0.02648792 Slovakian:Slovakia150
0.02811210 Belarusian:bela29zp
0.02831696 Ukrainian_Poltava:Uk94
0.02842481 Bosnian:GSM1424655
0.02845365 Bosnian:GSM1424663
0.02894063 Croatian:Croatia_Cro26
0.02996782 Ukrainian:UKR-1903
0.03021142 Slovakian:Slovakia474
0.03032952 Croatian:Croatia_Cro133

?

Angantyr said...

@Ric Hern

"Was there not climate change and significant deforestation ?"

Yes, those have been the main proposed reasons for the Neolithic decline. Deforestation and drought would probably have been more relevant for e.g. Cucuteni-Trypillia than for Northern/North Central Europe though.

Arza said...

Target: Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5655
Distance: 0.2351% / 0.00235090
25.4 Lithuanian_SZ:LTG-645
20.6 Baltic_LVA_BA:Kivutkalns194
18.6 Levant_Natufian:I1690
10.0 CZE_Early_Slav:RISE568
7.0 HRV_Starcevo_N:I4167
5.8 Baltic_LTU_BA:Turlojiske1932
4.6 Levant_PPNB:I1707
2.6 Bell_Beaker_Sicily:I4936
2.6 Levant_Natufian:I1685
1.6 Levant_PPNB:I1701
1.2 Bell_Beaker_Iberia_C:I0456

Target: CZE_Protounetice_EBA:I5037
Distance: 1.1122% / 0.01112160
63.2 CZE_Early_Slav:RISE568
11.8 Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I6482
8.4 GEO_CHG:KK1
7.8 HUN_Koros_N:I2374
5.0 Bell_Beaker_Sicily:I4933
3.8 Levant_PPNB:I1701

Target: England_CA_EBA:I2464
Distance: 0.0013% / 0.00001306
30.0 CZE_Early_Slav:RISE568
10.6 Iberia_Northeast_Empuries1:I8212
9.2 UKR_N:I5873
6.8 Lithuanian_PA:LTG-829
6.2 Bell_Beaker_Sicily:I4936
5.8 Iberia_Central_BA:I12855
4.8 Abkhasian:abh45
4.8 Iberia_East_IA:I12642
3.4 Lithuanian_RA:LTG-717
3.4 Bell_Beaker_Sicily:I4933
2.8 Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I6482
2.4 England_N:I0520
1.6 GEO_CHG:KK1
1.4 Lithuanian_RA:LTG-702
1.0 Baltic_EST_BA:X11_1
0.8 Lithuanian_PA:LTG-810
0.8 Lithuanian_PZ:LTG-577
0.8 Lithuanian_RA:LTG-91
0.8 Baltic_EST_BA:X10_1
0.8 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I6476
0.4 Lithuanian_SZ:LTG-1383
0.2 German:Germany10
0.2 Lithuanian_PZ:LTG-1177
0.2 Lithuanian_SZ:LTG-1221
0.2 Lithuanian_VA:LTG-445
0.2 HUN_Lengyel_LN:I1900
0.2 GRC_Crete_Armenoi:I9123
0.2 Iberia_Northeast_Empuries1:I8344

Ric Hern said...

@ Angantyr

Indeed so there is still good reasons out there for Neolithic decline without including plagues. My vegetable patch told me that it needed just the right temperature in order for certain vegetables to germinate. Just a few degrees Celsius below the target and absolutely nothing happened. Plants do not need an Ice Age to stay dormant...Heheheeh.

Ric Hern said...

@ Angantyr

And even if enough rain fall and temperatures is right for germination, but came later than usual it can cause seeds/fruit etc. not to ripen before the growing season ends. This will mean that the next season you will not have viable seeds to plant...

Matt said...

@Arza, for all the comparable samples I could cross-check against previous versions, the co-ordinates are the same?

@Davidski, it seems like there are quite a few duplicate rows in the datasheet. It might be a bit more lightweight if there were removed?

Nice update for modern samples (all the ancients seem the same as in previous versions that I've downloaded and merged, although possibly some were taken out and then re-introduced). Particularly modern France.

Visualization of modern samples only:

Without re-processing: https://imgur.com/a/DyGoivC
With re-processing in PAST3: https://imgur.com/a/RIpyiaC

Arza said...

@ Matt
Maybe this change happened earlier. Here is an old KK1 compared to the current one:
Kotias:KK1,0.0287,0.0511,-0.054,0.0316,-0.0065,-0.0306,-0.0048,0.0053,0.0094
GEO_CHG:KK1,0.0287,0.0506,-0.0528,0.0294,-0.007,-0.0317,-0.009,0.0025,0.0154

Matt said...

I think so, the oldest merged data in the sheets I've been looking at goes back to Feb 2019.

Davidski said...

@Matt

Can you list the duplicates you're seeing?

Arza said...

@ Davidski

https://pastebin.com/K5cgkG4M

First occurrence in the spreadsheet is being kept. Line numbers are shifted by 1.

Reto said...

I believe the text below was deleted because I posted it (unintentionally) as "Unknown". Let's try again.

@old europe
"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:"

@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."

Rob is right. FTDNA itself does predictions based on Y12 only, such as R-M269. It's possible to predict not only macro-haplogroups based on 12 STR markers, but also much younger subgroups.

Aram and old europe, here are another 12 STR markers from one more ancient (sample HÜ-I/8, in an equipped and rich burial), now from Hallstatt period, 700 BCE, in Austria:
http://sonius.at/pdf/Sonius_07_WEB.pdf
He was a G-PF3345 with "99%" of confidence.

Davidski said...

@Arza

The coordinates for the ancient samples were updated soon after the release of this...

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

Rob said...

@ Agantyr
The evidence for plague brought forward isn’t very strong
There was no “Neolithic decline” . The population decline in parts of Europe are new population checkpoints after the founding boom and
Migrations elsewhere within Europe .

Davidski said...

@Arza & Matt

I've added the following samples to the West Eurasian PCA. What can you say about the formation of the present-day Uralian gene pool with their help?

Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov:BOO001
Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov:BOO002
Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov:BOO003
Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov:BOO004
Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov:BOO005
Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov:BOO006
Chalmny-Varre:CHV001
Chalmny-Varre:CHV002
Levanluhta_IA:JK1968
Levanluhta_IA:JK1970
Levanluhta_IA_o:JK2065

West Eurasia PCA datasheet

zardos said...

@Reto: "Aram and old europe, here are another 12 STR markers from one more ancient (sample HÜ-I/8, in an equipped and rich burial), now from Hallstatt period, 700 BCE, in Austria:
http://sonius.at/pdf/Sonius_07_WEB.pdf
He was a G-PF3345 with "99%" of confidence."

That's quite interesting. The burial is rather Eastern, but Hallstatt elite most definitely. The distribution of the descendents of G-PF3345 is also quite interesting and it seems fairly widespread with significant impact in Scandinavia. So we have a proven G elite Hallstatt from the core zone between East and West, while rather Eastern in this phase.

zardos said...

I looked at Mitterkirchen again and some seem to put it into the Western rathern than the Eastern sphere, but that's debatable. Like the most Eastern burial field which can be still, even though transitional, being put rather in the Western sphere. It was in between in any case and we deal with a wealthy elite of the earlier Ha phase.

Reto said...

@zardos
Thanks. 
It's really interesting. Hope this sample is tested deeper in the future.
Still according to the STR markers, the odds are he belonged to G-L497, which is now a "Central European" subclade, basically, probably gravitating towards the Alps when it comes to both frequency and diversity. Its distribution doesn't perfectly mirror R-U152's, but somewhat resembles it.
My particular speculation is that most of it reached North Europe more recently, perhaps related to the expansion of Celtic speaking people and even Romans, which naturally doesn't imply discarding a possible parallel association with both Etruscan and Rhaetian speaking groups too.

@Aram
As a side note regarding Y12, I'm not suggesting FTDNA always predict an actual R-M269 based just on them, but it's done several times. I'd say "bottlenecks" may facilitate it sometimes. R-M269, for instance, would have formed in 11300 BCE, more or less, but its most recent common ancestor would have lived in abt. 4400 BCE, resulting in more than one hundred (M269) equivalents. "Gaps" are not the only variable involved, but in this case ~7000 years must have helped.
As another example, I mention the very G-L497 (defined by more than 50 SNPs). It can be predicted based on FTDNA Y12 with over 95% of confidence.

zardos said...

@Reto: We might even see Hallstatt influences in Jastorf in particular, so it might have been related to an Iron Age expansion too imho. I always thought about such an IA expansion reaching Scandinavia from Hallstatt. If it would be possible to trace the migration of this subclade and it fits, it would be a clear proof.

Later Celtic and Roman, or even more recent influences are always possible, but if its present, probably even strong in Hallstatt, then this is the most likely path. The Iron Age reached the North with people too, even if it was no replacement for sure.

Reto said...

@zardos
Yes, that's my impression.
Concerning this subclade, I've seen some interesting connections poping up little by little, hence my speculation, but I'll wait more data. Let's see if bigger evidences show up.
Btw, I referred to N. Europe in broader sense, which would also include UK, for example.

Simon_W said...

I think it would certainly be helpful and important to eventually have more Proto-Villanovan samples, because the only Proto-Villanovan individual in this paper is from the middle Adriatic region, from northern Abruzzo, where the western Balkans are not far away, just on the other side of the Adriatic. So the Western Balkan-like genetic structure of this individual might be rather a consequence of this middle Adriatic origin than a trait common to all Proto-Villanovans. I think that's an open question and needs to be investigated.

What's clearly striking about the Etruscans compared to the Italics, is their lower WHG and somewhat higher Steppe. The Italics have 10.6% (in Rome) to 13.7% WHG, the Etruscans only 8.4%. And the Villanovan individual is with her 12.9% WHG rather in the upper range of the Italics than anywhere close to Etruscans. So could it be possible that an influx of Epirote Pelasgians like Dionysius of Halicarnassus recounted is responsible for the reduction of WHG in the Etruscans? So far there is no ancient DNA from northwestern Greece and Albania available. But we have to see, Anatolia_BA ancestry reached the Peloponnese by 4000 BC, it reached Southern Bulgaria by 3000 BC and it reached Sicily by the Beaker Age, it's very unlikely that it evaded Northwestern Greece even down to the Iron Age.

Davidski said...

@Simon

If what I posted about the higher cut of Balkan-related ancestry in Etruscans turns out to be correct, then that'll be a very important discovery.

But yeah, we need more samples to confirm that this isn't just an artifact of poor sampling.

We definitely need more than one Proto-Villanovan, and from a couple of different sites too.

Anonymous said...


It should be noted that Proto-Villanovan culture used cremation, but this sample of Protovillanova was buried by inhumation, it is not an accident. Therefore, it is not typical already due to the burial ceremony only.

Leron said...

@Simon: You have any thoughts on Steppe + higher WHG ratios being a general marker for early IE speakers?

Rob said...

@ SimonW

''Anatolia_BA ancestry reached the Peloponnese by 4000 BC,''

A minor but important point - Anatolia BA influence only reaches Greece c. 2500 BC; the extra CHG in Peloponessus LN is probably due to an older Neolithic cline

FTC said...

@ Simon_W

Proto-Etruscans are formed during the Proto-Villanovan culture, as is known the Proto-Villanovan material culture has influences from Urnfield cultures, and within the Urnfield cultures there are ramifications further south to almost the Balkans, and that the Balkans may have played an intermediary role in the exchange networks between Central Europe (Urnfield culture) and the Mediterranean world has been investigated by archaeology since years. But I think there are too few samples for this kind of speculation and even 2-3% less WHG is too little to talk about Balkan migrations. Moreover, this specific Proto-Villanovan sample from the Adriatic is very unlikely to be an ancestor of the Etruscans (and of course of the Latins as well). This is the territory of the Picentes, in the formation of the Picentes an archaeological contribution from the Balkans is attested. Once again, we need more samples, Bronze age samples from Italy and the Balkans, as well as the Sabines, the Picentes, the Samnites and so on, and Bronze and Iron age samples from northern Italy, including the Alps, would not be bad, and southern Italy.

When did Dionysius of Halicarnassus talk about Epirote Pelasgians? Dionysius speaks only of autochthony and antiquity for the Etruscans in Italy, perhaps another Greek author. Greek sources when they speak of the Pelasgians in Italy do not refer only to the Etruscans.

Vadjzna said...

All samples from the recently published Antonio et al. ancient Rome paper

Eurogenes K15 PCA

https://i.imgur.com/jt9HfCu.jpg


https://i.imgur.com/a7Sm6ns.jpg

Vadjzna said...

Iron Age Italy (Etruscans, Latins, Proto-Villanovan, Antonio et al. ancient Rome paper)

Eurogenes K15 PCA

https://i.imgur.com/6NG9Lm5.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/FJ1K6hQ.jpg

Open Genomes said...

Here are the Global25 nMonte cluster analyses for the Villanovan and the three Etruscans. All have some interesting unique admixture:

First, as everyone has seen, RMPR475b has North African ancestry.

RMPR475b is 9.0% MAR_Iberomaurusian:

Global25 ancient nMonte cluster analysis for RMPR475b Population: ITA_Etruscan_o Iron Age Europe

However, the other three also have "exotic" admixture:

RMPR473 is 5.6% GRC_Mycenaean:

Global25 ancient nMonte cluster analysis for RMPR473 Population: ITA_Etruscan Iron Age Europe

RMPR474b is 5.6% Anatolia_Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA_low_res and 1.8% TKM_Geoksyur_Eneolithic:

Global25 ancient nMonte cluster analysis for RMPR474b Population: ITA_Etruscan Iron Age Europe

The Iron Age Villanovan RMPR1015 is 7.8% Levant_PPNB:
Global25 ancient nMonte cluster analysis for RMPR1015 Population: ITA_Villanovan Iron Age Europe

This last one is perhaps especially surprising since it seems that the Phoenicians had direct relations with the Etruscans as early as the Villanovan period.

We don't see anything specifically Anatolian in general about the Etruscans (only one individual has some Anatolian Bronze Age ancestry) but the Etruscans in general seem to have been a group with wide-ranging cosmopolitan ancestry, seemingly because of their trade relations. The Etruscans also have substantial Steppe ancestry, but not as much as other contemporary peoples. They are a mix of European Neolithic and Steppe.

By contrast, the Iron Age Latin RMPR1021 is much less admixed:

Global25 ancient nMonte cluster analysis for RMPR1021 Population: ITA_Boville_Ernica_IA Iron Age Europe

Vadjzna said...

@ Open Genomes

Using hundreds and hundreds of ancient samples as a model to see what happens doesn't make much sense. All seem to have some interesting unique admixture because you've used too many ancient samples, many of which have no historical basis. Those "exotic" admixtures are all small percentages that disappear in less unfounded models, using wrong models you can get exotic results out of many ancient samples that have nothing exotic in their genome. How can GRC_Mycenaean be considered something exotic?

«Oldest ‹Older   601 – 669 of 669   Newer› Newest»