Monday, November 25, 2019
Viking Age Iceland
I finally managed to get some of the Icelandic ancients from Ebenesersdóttir et al. 2018 into the Global25 datasheets (see here). Better late than never. Look for the"ISL_Viking_Age" prefix. Below is a screen cap of a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with the new samples. It was done with an online Global25 PCA runner freely available here.
The individuals classified as unadmixed Gaels and Norse by Ebenesersdóttir et al. generally also look like it based on their Global25 coordinates.
The mixture models below, using all of the populations from the Global25 "modern pop averages scaled" datasheet, were run with an online tool freely available here. Note that the ADD DIST COL option is set to 1X. This is a useful feature for modeling the fine scale ancestry of samples that are derived from very similar populations.
See also...
They came, they saw, and they mixed
Commoner or elite?
Who were the people of the Nordic Bronze Age?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
125 comments:
By the way, interesting quote from the Ebenesersdóttir et al. paper...
Table 1 shows that Y-chromosomes from the 22 ancient Icelandic males belong to haplogroups common in Norse (I1 and R1a) and in Gaels (R1b1) (11) (table S14). An association between I1/R1a status and autosomal Norse ancestry was observed in the 19 pre-Christian males (p = 0.02, one-sided t test, Fig. 2C), consistent with them dating to the first generations of settlement.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6392/1028
Do you know the subgroup of R1b they associate with Gaels?
This does seem to be overwhelmingly the case, but I suspect that the U106 and L238 R1b males were already part of the Norse as I believe they plot with the Norse group from the paper. It does lead to some interesting observations. Were the Icelandic settlers coming from further inland in Scandinavia, or did the western shores of Norway have far fewer R1b males than they have in modern day?
Shouldn't the haplogroup association be obvious more than interesting? Scandinavia is a mix of I1/R1b/R1a, but the British Isles at the time would have been dominated by R1b, so of course R1b will be associated with increased Gaelic ancestry. If anything the researchers display some ignorance and lack of nuance in that quote by failing to distinguish between Norse U106 and Gaelic P312/L21
So I take it from that grey outlier that the Viking and Norman eras had a pretty big demographic impact on Celts. Or he/she is some sort of super Celt.
’Sé do bheatha, a bhean ba léanmhar
do bé ár gcreach tú bheith i ngéibhinn
do dhúiche bhreá i seilbh meirleach
's tú díolta leis na Gallaibh.
Why is SSG-A4 way out there ?
Thanks for placing them in G25!
Most nowadays NW Europeans resemble the mixed category, some Irish etc seem (as expected) to be closer to the Gaelic results. The more Germanic ones seems to get closer to DAV-A9. This resembles Norse Viking the most. VDP-A7 seems to be more with a shot Gaelic (80% Norwegian/20% Gaelic) and therefore resemble the overall NW "mutt" the most.
It sure looks like modern Scandinavians acquired lots of "Celtic" ancestry thru the Viking invasions-- they resemble the "mixed" Vikings, the Norse ones have higher steppe than any extant Scandinavians.
Celtic ancestry mediated by female slaves?
And the Bell Beaker were also ancestral to the Norwegian Vikings. So not only Celtic influx.
@Ryan
So I take it from that grey outlier that the Viking and Norman eras had a pretty big demographic impact on Celts. Or he/she is some sort of super Celt.
SSG-A4 is definitely a super Gael in terms of genetic ancestry, but also the genotype data that I'm using for this individual are relatively poor.
The result might look a little different if I get more genotypes with less damage.
@K33,
Not necessarily. This would apparently be the case for Norwegians, knowing no other information, but not necessarily the case for Danes, or even north Germans at the time. It would be nice to have a larger sample of contemporary 'viking age' Norwegians to determine if the migrants came from further inland, or if the western frontier of Norway was also as rich in I1 and R1a-Z284
On a potentially related note, here's another interesting quote from the Ebenesersdóttir et al. paper...
This observation raises the possibility that reproductive success among the earliest Icelanders was stratified by ancestry, as genetic drift alone is unlikely to systematically alter ancestry at thousands of independent loci (fig. S10). We note that many settlers of Gaelic ancestry came to Iceland as slaves, whose survival and freedom to reproduce is likely to have been constrained (17).
@David - I hope the less damaged samples come along then. It would be great to see how much of an impact the Normans and Vikings had. Though I suppose Irish ancient DNA will give us that soon too. The super-Gael is a woman which makes sense I guess.
Interesting that they confirm YGS-B2 as intersex (XXY). Can anyone think of any other confirmed intersex remains?
Here's a breakdown of the R1b subclades:
YGS-B2 - R1b1a1a2a1a2b1a1 aka R1b-L20. Kind of an odd one for a Gael
SSG-A2 - R1b1a1a2a1a2c1 aka R1b-L21. Probably Gaelic.
TGS-A1 - R1b1a1a2a1a2d aka L238/S182. Not sure about this one?
STT-A2 - R1b1a1a2a1a2c1 aka R1b-L21 (again)
FOV-A1 - R1b1a1a2a1a2c1a1 aka ??? R1b1a1a2a1a2c1a is DF13. Seems pretty Gaelic. My distant cousin! Tiocfaidh ár lá! Tiocfaidh ár lá!
ORE-A1 - R1b1a1a2a1a - L151 - Ambiguous?
KOV-A2 - R1b1a1a2a1a - L151 - Ambiguous?
KNS-A1 - R1b1a1a2a1a2c - L21 - Gael?
VDP-A7 - R1b1a1a2a1a1b - U106+ Z18+? Seems more Germanic (at least in this era) no?
There vahaduo PCA are interesting because it looks like they purely project any samples onto the PCA formed from G25 data on subsets. (E.g. https://imgur.com/a/7fzV1CB).
If you did the same thing in PAST3, the ancient samples which are more extreme would tend to "take over" the PCA and then change its dimensions. That doesn't happen with these. They're more of a pure case of actual projection (for whatever that means!).
Samples can get "beyond" the range on the projection, but they really have to push at it - https://imgur.com/a/q1LXW5V
@ Matt
Yes, it's a projection onto predefined PCA space or rather it's applying a predefined rotation to the data. All visible samples were projected this way.
It's like this option from smartpca:
"poplistname: If wishing to infer eigenvectors using only individuals from a
subset of populations, and then project individuals from all populations
onto those eigenvectors, "
There is no range or pushing. There are only different viewing angles and rotation around 25 dimensions. For example go to the Europe 2 PCA and start adding these populations/samples: Yamnaya, Sintashta, GAC, Pinarbasi, Loschbour, Iron Gates, Motala, Karelia HG, AG3, Iran C, Iran N, CHG. You should quickly recognize the shape of West Eurasian PCA rotated in ~3 dimensions.
Turlojiske3 is projected differently because the .dat file used as a source for this PCA contained old data (note different label).
@ Davidski
Can I embed your spreadsheets directly in my tools and de facto redistribute them? Since everything is hosted on github and works client-side I cannot "hide" anything.
If yes it would be possible to add PAST-like mode where adding new samples redefines the PCA space, distance-based warning if a sample generally doesn't belong to a given PCA, views of all dimensions and finally it will be a lot easier to update and add new PCAs.
And since Vahaduo with every update becomes more and more complicated (and there are more updates coming next month) I want to create another tool with G25 data inside and an interface similar to g25views ("paste your coordinates and click a button").
@vahaduo
Can I embed your spreadsheets directly in my tools and de facto redistribute them?
Yes, that's fine.
On a related note, I've just updated the Global25 datasheets and added ISL_Viking_Age_Norse:NNM-A1.
@vahaduo, thanks for the explanation. I tried those older ancients in Europe PC 2 - https://i.imgur.com/XjheGxY.png
Thanks for the feature as well. It's nice to have another way of looking at this data, so I think this is definitely a useful feature that (if I'm understanding right) functionally projects onto a defined space (by applying a rotation to the G25 data defined by the sets used to build the PCA), rather than doing what PAST3 does (though many would probably appreciate having an easy online interface for some to do that as well!).
(I didn't actually notice the slight differences in Turlojiske3, but that makes sense as well).
Surely Iceland was not just settled from Norway but mostly from the islands between (Faroes, Shetlands, Orkneys, Hebrides) and won't by then the Earldom of the Orkneys and the Hebrides have been a good mix of Norwegian genes from the east and Gaelic Genes from the south-west?
David, could you please add those samples (at least the Gaelic ones) to the Celtic VS Germanic PCA?
Indeed it does look like a good chunk of the Icelandic settlers did come from further inland in Scandinavia, based on the Swedish + Baltic/Finland splits.
Would be curious how the U106/L238 R1b men fall into this split. I do know that L238 is quite ubiquitous in both Norway and Sweden, but drops outside of the regions settled by the Norse, and U106 is somewhat pan-Germanic today.
@André
Celto-Germanic_PCA_ISL_Viking_Age
Celto-Germanic_PCA_ISL_Viking_Age.dat
At 1:00:15 Kristian Kristiansen explains complete dominance of Corded Ware male lines R1b and R1a:
https://www.hf.uio.no/dnir/forskning/lorange-forelesningene/
So it looks like R1b comes from Corded Ware.
@EastPole
So it looks like R1b comes from Corded Ware.
R1b-L51 does, while R1b-Z2103 is from Yamnaya.
@ East Pole
Can you back your claims with any proof ?
@Rob
“@ East Pole
Can you back your claims with any proof ?”
It is not my claim, I am only reporting what Kristian Kristiansen said in his lecture. I understood that he referred to some unpublished data.
It's funny, someone should have asked him why only R1b stole the BB package and why only R1b became masters of the sea to reach the British Isles. Surely R1a and I2a were simply more honest or did not have sufficient learning capacity- It seems that Kristiansen agrees with davidski in stating that L51 is a typical marker of the CWC - I would like to know if they refer to the Cwc in general or to any of its regional variants. At the moment the matter seems clear
BBC-R1b More than 100 samples- R1a-0 samples
CWC-R1a more than 20 samples R1b-1 doubtful case
And yet our friend Kristiansen states that R1b is a typical CWC marker, that is, or has data that only he and the Kurganists know, or have lost their minds
It reminds me of the old Kurganist theory that said- R1b-L23/Z2013 in Yamnaya ergo we will also find R1b-L51/P312 there- It is not so difficult to understand that the only thing they need to convince everyone is definitive evidence (genetic, archaeological and linguistic) and then the debate will be over-everything else is BLa Bla bLa
Well, it might turn out yet that both R1b-L51 and R1a-M417 are from Yamnaya ultimately.
But even if they're not, they're definitely from the steppe, so whatever.
@all
Looking at the scarce but real chain of Y-R1b – L23>L51>L11>P312 in Central Europe (Hungary, Slovakia, Poland) and the presence of L11>U106 + P312/L238 in Northern Europe, it seems clear to me that L51 formed somewhere between Poland-North-Carpathians or North-West Ukraine, born by some L23. The first « boom » occurred in Central Europe, with some forking of P312/L238 and U106 towards North (proto-Germanics?) and P312+ towards West and South-West (maybe re-forking between pre-DF27 passed through more southern regions (Italy > Valencia + Portugal??? not sure at all here). These last branchings were maybe linked to Celtic, Ligurian, meta-Italic groups. The second « boom » (demography but surely enough males mating-monopole) occurred between Switzerland and surroundings, France + …?). The Bell Beakers time could have been a « promotor » for Y-L11>P312 descendants in West but Bronze too.
Every kind of thing can be said : the D27 ancestors passed through Mediterranea ?, perhaps one of the first BB’s elements, perhaps not Indo-European speaker at first; in this case, we can imagine the first L23>L51 were not Indo-European speakers and had been indoeuropeanized in contact-regions N-Carpathians/N-Ukraine ? This could explain the bigger cultural dychotomy at first between northern BB’s and CWC’s spite they were surely already indo-european speakers at those times, than between the internal BB sphere of influence, spite we can imagnine they did not speak all of them an Indo-European language ? JUST A PROPOSITION OF REFLEXION
@ Moesan. Logically. As follows from the latest study on the Trypillian culture, women of the last phase " C " of this culture are very close to the autosomal culture "BB". Now it becomes clear that the actual Tripoli culture ended in the phase of Tripoli "B". Trypillya "C", which used to be called late-Trypillya cultures are in fact already a mixture of Sredniy Stog II and Trypillya. It is more clear where the relatively developed population of Sredniy Stog II went, it went to Tripoli. It remains only to decompose the various late Trypillian cultures into subclades R1a and R1b.
@Vladimir
"Trypillya "C", which used to be called late-Trypillya cultures are in fact already a mixture of Sredniy Stog II and Trypillya. It is more clear where the relatively developed population of Sredniy Stog II went, it went to Tripoli. It remains only to decompose the various late Trypillian cultures into subclades R1a and R1b."
Don't imagine, no Sredniy Stog has gone to any Tripolye.
@Archi. Bet on a bottle of whiskey that will be found in the late Tripoli cultures and R1a and R1b
I don't know what Kristiansen can tell us about that the CWC is something like the Lech Valley. The fact that in CWC there was patrilocality with long-distance transfers of wives this and so has long been clarified, but no social stratification there by definition was not.
Vladimir, you have a bad understanding of what you're writing about. Late Tripolye cultures are located outside Tripolye, even the Vykhvaten burial ground is located outside of Tripolye culture, that is conditionally speaking its expansion in later time. Usatovo is not Trypoilye culture at all. There was no migration of the Sredniy Stog to the territory of Tripolye at all, it was later Tripolye extending.
Learn archeology before you write.
Gaska, remind us again which specific Western or Central European culture L51 will be found in?
@Rocca
Richard, what a surprise!! Have you stopped looking for V-perforated buttons in the Narva culture?
When you get to Ibiza I will tell you, meanwhile you can discuss it with Mademoiselle Anglesqueville and the rest of the Kurganist tribe-Surely after the Yamnaya culture disaster you are now all CWC fans
There are people interested in knowing your expert opinions on some doubtful cases in Spain and Germany- I am sure you can explain it better than you have done in anthrogenica
@ Gaska
VPB seem to take of in Iberia during the BB period; & El Agar. So it seems to be a similar case to Pallmella points-
Iberian but not pre-Beaker
Gaska
This paper has found 3 cases of R1b in CWC.
-----
. The two males in our dataset (ber1 and poz81) belonged to Y-chromosome R1a haplogroups (table 1; electronic supplementary material, table S5), as do the majority of males (16/24) from the previously published CWC contexts (Viby in Sweden, Ardu and Kunila in Estonia, Gyvakarai and Spiginas in Lithuania, Bergrheinfeld and Esperstedt in Germany, and Brandýsek in the Czech Republic) [1,2,7,31,32,37], while a smaller fraction belonged to R1b [3/24] or I2a [3/24] lineages (Tiefbrunn and Esperstedt in Germany, Pikutkowo and Łęki Małe in Poland, and Brandýsek in the Czech Republic) [2,23,32,37].
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2019.1528
@Aram
The Tiefbrunn CWC sample belongs to R1a.
Not sure about the other two. They seem like dodgy R1b calls to me.
Davidski
Quite possible. False R1bs were frequent in academic papers recently. Let's wait for more Single Grave samples.
@ Rob-
BB culture in Iberia is very different from that of the rest of Europe, not only for its duration (around 1,000 years) but for the archaeological demonstration of the existence of a Pre-BB package and because many of its objects originated in situ (ivory buttons, Palmela spearheads Ciempozuelos style, halberds etc)-Many of these objects reached other regions through small migrations-
@Aram
The only sample of R1b in the CWC is Alt4. There is no R1b in Eulau, Esperstedt, Tiefbrunn etc. Nor is there in Poland because RISE1 is a gross mistake-One of 3/24 is Leki male, which is a very late sample in Poland related to the Unetice culture (2.167 BC).
I do not know if when Kristiansen speaks of R1b as a typical CWC marker, he refers to those samples, or they have simply found more cases in some regional variant of that culture - I have already said that this would not be strange either because there are other typical markers of European Neolithic cultures that later appear in deposits belonging to the CWC- So let's see what happens, for the moment, to say that R1b-L51 is a typical marker of the CWC is a fantasy that apparently share, all those who have had to accept that the Yamnaya culture is not the origin of R1b-L51 and R1a-M417-The CWC is a desperate attempt (or if you prefer the last hope) of the steppe theory supporters
@Gaska
L51 isn't a Central or Western European Neolithic lineage, if that's what you're claiming.
At some point you need to accept this.
@ Gaska
"BB culture in Iberia is very different from that of the rest of Europe"
So why would their Genetics be the same if like you said they were very different ?
I think Prof. Kristiansen actually explains it nicely. Adoption in order to Adapt in several areas from East to West...
And if I heard correctly he said that they have double the amount of samples compared to the Haak et al Study...so maybe they he has a better view of things than most...
Gaska, of course there are V-perforated buttons in the Narva culture, and I replied to your request previously with a study on it.
And you can make snide remarks to people that made an educated guess that L51 would be in Yamnaya and now it turns out to be be in a culture right next to it, but you yourself won't guess one specific culture? What's the matter, afraid of a little ridicule, especially when we find out that L51 was nowhere near ANY culture you've mentioned? Hypocrite.
Can anyone post some screen caps of the maps from that Kristiansen clip?
I won't be able to sit through it until the weekend.
@Davidski-"L51 isn't a Central or Western European Neolithic lineage, if that's what you're claiming-At some point you need to accept this"
I am not a fortune teller and therefore I do not know what the origin of R1b-L51 is. I only know that R1b is a typical marker of WHGs and I believe that its origin may be in German/French Neolithic cultures, in Narva culture/Scandinavia and even in the Balkans- And of course I will accept any origin if the evidence is absolutely convincing-
@Ned
Surely some moves occurred later, but J.C. COON reported that the first "Norse" settlers had been booked in some way. Results if we rely on this:
846 from Norway (461 Nordland, 95 Trönd & Möre, 128 Sogn & Fjordane, 77 Hordaland 10 Rogaland, 67 AGder + Telemark + Vestfold, 33 Eastern Valleys)
30 from Sweden
1 from Farö
126 from Britain (or British Islands, not sure but surely Ireland included)
The number from Nordland is a bit surprising but? At those times they were surely less mixed with Saami? Around 300 from Western Norway all the way.
@Rocca
I have to admit that I am only a guest in these genetic forums and that everyone sets the rules they want in their respective homes (I would do the same), but to say
Educated guess????- The stalking moderators of anthrogenica in the service of Kurganist ultra-orthodoxy have done their job well in that forum because all dissidents have been banned. I have never insulted anyone and I am the only one who cannot defend against the attacks of these cowards-Few people have dared to defend me (Thank you very much) but I have friends there, who send me the insults that your friends one year later, still dedicate to me-You must remind Mademoiselle Anglesqueville, Olalá FFoucart, John Smith Romilius, Kurgan Stevens, Borrico Ruderico.... and that band of inept and uncultured Pseudo-Kurganists around you, that everything they say or have said is recorded-It is a shame that few people in these forums are really interested in knowing the truth and that insignificant people keep hiding in anonymity to hurt others.
Regarding you Mr Rocca, You have always presumed to have an unbiased behavior and I sincerely believe that this is not true. Therefore, I hope that sometime when you come to Spain we can meet and talk quietly about genetics-You know that I have always behaved like a gentleman and that I have only used irony on some occasions to defend myself-
It's been a while since I realized that participating in these forums is a waste of time so I will use this last post to say goodbye and to thank Davidski for letting me participate in this forum-
And regarding Iberia, the Basques and the rest of the Spaniards, it is obvious that we still have a lot to say about European prehistory and genetics. Many surprises await us and not all are in the steppes-I send you a video of my village so you can listen how the BB culture sang- You are all invited to visit us
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oF13OyvBYs
@Davidski
“Can anyone post some screen caps of the maps from that Kristiansen clip?”
He didn’t present any interesting new maps. Mostly old staff or same general things which are not very informative like this:
https://i.postimg.cc/xqrhVNLn/screenshot-51.png
It looks like he links Germanic languages with Bell Beakers now.
@ EastPole
How did you come to that conclusion ? Didn't sound to me like he said or hinted anything about Germanic specifically...
EastPole is correct: there were no new facts presented in Kristiansen's presentation, it's more like his current thoughts about what happened in the Bronze Age.
@Ric Hern
“How did you come to that conclusion ? Didn't sound to me like he said or hinted anything about Germanic specifically.”
From the drawing. Indo-European languages mapped onto the Bell Beaker Phenomenon: Italo-Celtic, Celtic and Germanic.
https://i.postimg.cc/xqrhVNLn/screenshot-51.png
How do you understand this map?
@ Gaska
I think BB is from catacomb culture
And both are non -IE
@ EastPole "How do you understand this map?"
Yeah, to directly understand. Overlaying languages on a BBC map, and nothing more. No connection between IE and the BBC is shown or spoken about.
@Rob
How do you derive ALT_4 and the Dutch Beakers from Catacomb?
Very briefly; Catacomb begins c.2600 BC; and is just a late Yamnaya enclave of M269.
ALT and Dutch BB appear at least 100 years later
That's cutting it very close, especially considering that there's nothing really Catacomb-like about ALT_4 or the Dutch Beakers, genetically or culturally.
Do you have any evidence for the migration of any Catacomb groups to western Germany and the Lower Rhine region?
There are several potential clues there; for ex. the copepr daggers which appear c. 2600 BC in central Europe incl Germany. There was an interaction zone between late Yamnaya & GAC in the Dnieper-Carpathian region, so forth.
Of course, if R1b-M269 appears in early CWC burials (as you suggest); or Neolithic central-western Europe (as Gaska suggests), then obviously we can abandone that idea.
Catacombs in addition to the catacomb culture itself were also present in Zhivotilovka culture, Zlot culture, Cracow-Sandomierz culture. It says something or not is not clear.
@ Rob
And how do you know that Catacomb was Non-Indo-European ?
I think it's possible that some of these cultures were multilingual. Multiethnic coalitions on the steppe were certainly common in historic times. If the later Bell Beaker's language originated on the steppe (which is seeming more likely every day but not 100% certain), and the Basque are basically living Bell Beakers, then we have at least two language families on the steppe.
@Ryan, " If the later Bell Beaker's language originated on the steppe (which is seeming more likely every day but not 100% certain),"
Yes.
"I think it's possible that some of these cultures were multilingual."
That's probable but IE was probably spoken in most of Bell Beaker.
"and the Basque are basically living Bell Beakers, then we have at least two language families on the steppe."
Irish are the closest thing to living Beakers. Also, Italic tribes were almost as much Beaker as are Basque. But, they spoke IE.
Actually, it's a funny speculations, of course.
There is no connection between the Catacomb culture and the BBC at all. None of them can come from the other. What is the connection between the burials in the catacombs and the simple pit graves of the BBC?
Speculation about Catacombian's language is the same speculation as about Yamnian's language. Speculation about the non-IE language of the Catacombians or their multilingualism is ridiculous.
In Italy, the BBC zone was inhabited by the Ligurians, their language was not IE (although later Celt-Ligurians appeared there). Proto-Villanova was not from the Ligurians and the BBC, but from the Urnfield culture, the fact that there were people like the BB as a result of the fact that the Carpathians' BBC descendants had entered the Urnfield culture, in this place the BBC adopted a lot from the CWC, corded pottery, battle axes, i.e., they became Indo-Europeans. (Proto-)Villanova is not Etruscan.
@ Ric
Which IE groups did catacomb culture produce ?
As for BBC; the parasiminous explanation is that the original language of BBC was vasco-Iberian; and later these groups adopted IE from Central Europe; hence the long known non-IE substrate in western IE . IE arrived to Western Europe very late. Britonic Celtic is basically Gaulish .
@ Ryan
Yes, there were numerous Eneolithic groups on the steppe, with shared or converging ancestry & cultural traits. So its unlikely they all spoke the same language.
@ Vladimir
'Catacombs in addition to the catacomb culture itself were also present in Zhivotilovka culture, Zlot culture, Cracow-Sandomierz culture. It says something or not is not clear.'
Yet we know that ZLota culture is offspring of GAC.
Kracow-Sandomierz on the other hand is a real link between steppe & middle corded ware phase.
Of course, its not only the catacomb graves themselves, but the Ponto-Caucasisn metallurgy which is closely guarded male craft unlikely to simply ''diffuse'' . These new developments firsta ppear exaclt in K-S phase, then 'suddenly' appear in central Europe, but now adapting a CWC burial pose, but with orientation shifted
Of course, should L51 appear in katacomb, my 'funny speculations' will turn out to be correct.
Poking a finger in the sky and with the possibility like a flipped coin, you can either divine or not.
@Rob, The "Steppe signal" is not native to Ukraine or Samara Russia. The "Steppe signal" originated in a small area just north of the Caucasus. The "Steppe signal" wasn't native to a huge region like EHG was. EHG, was probably spoke many languages. But there's less of a chance Steppe people spoke many different languages considering they derived from a recent ancestor who lived in a small region.
Also, "Steppe ancestry" were the only people in Late Neolithic/Copper age Europe who were on the move. You can't link the spread of IE languages to any other people movements. No group of Neolithic farmers were on the move like Steppe people were.
@ Sam
We can’t talk blindly about a “steppe signal” whilst having no understanding about processes
The steppe signal is actually highest in piedmont steppe and they don't seem particularly relavant for IE groups; unless you demonstrate all the R1b- V3616. So it seems only some steppe groups are relevant; specifically those in close contact with Neolithic Europe
@Samuel Andrews "The "Steppe signal" is not native to Samara Russia. The "Steppe signal" originated in a small area just north of the Caucasus."
How do you know that? How do you know the area of spread of CHG to the north? How do you know that mixing with CHG was in a small area just north of the Caucasus? You can't know anything about this. Why do you forget the early Eneolithic Samara specimens with "Steppe signal" EHG+CHG?
You are simply mistaken.
@vahaduo
Is there any possibility to contact you? I have question about predefinied spreadsheets embedded option.
Archie - I wouldn’t hold hope for your outdated Soviet theories. PIE isn’t from samara; Mycenaeans arent from KMK. PIE is WHG/ MNE.
You should all just meditate & accept reality
Mr. Rob Mamonth hunter, your allegations are always false and misleading, pseudoscientific. They always contradict all the scientific research and you are never right, you are always wrong, but you are not able to perceive anything but your propaganda.
@Rob
“PIE is WHG/ MNE”
Interesting. Which culture and why?
@ East Pole
Western steamy stog; it has MNE-WHG cultural and genomic roots
It’s a done deal
When the data comes the only thing that’ll be left is Archie’s peasant poetry
Vahaduo is pretty cool. I used to think I don't need this stuff, because I'm intelligent enough to run nMonte in R. But it runs so much faster than nMonte in R on my sluggish laptop, it encouraged me to experiment more.
The distance feature is interesting. Some random observations:
CZE Hallstatt Bylany DA111 is closest to French Occitanie. What a surprise! I thought the Celts from Bohemia had more steppe than the Gaulish Celts. And even though Bylany isn't on a very southern latitude the Celts from there were like the Occitan French in Southern France.
The Latins from Rome are closest to the Spanish from La Rioja. Fascinating, the other Latins are very similar, but more Catalan-like.
The Hernici from Boville Ernica were closest to the Catalans from Terres de l'Ebre.
The Etruscans were closest to modern Italians from Bergamo, in contrast to the Latins who were Iberian-like, the Etruscans were truly North Italian-like.
Baltic Lithuanian BA from Turlojiske (Southwest Lithuania) were closest to Lithuanian_PZ, followed by Latvians. What is Lithuanian_PZ? In any case I'm surprised they come out this Baltic, someone said they were rather Polish-like. Obviously this isn't the case.
Baltic Lithuania Late Antiquity Low Res. (from North-central Lithuania) comes out exactly the same as Lithuanian BA, it just has larger distances. No doubt because of the low res.!
CZE Early Slav is closest to Slovaks, followed by Poles.
Hun Avar Szolad is closest to Poles, followed by Ukrainians. Obviously this one is closer to a Proto-Slav than the eary Slavs from Bohemia.
DEU MA is closest to the Dutch, followed by the Orcardians and Scots. If one of your samples resembles Orcadians or Scots it's a good idea to consider early West Germanic ancestry as well. My brother is a big fan of the Scots, yet we don't have Scottish ancestry, so here's the explanation.
The outlier from Ardea is closest to Sephardim, followed by Romaniote Jews and Italian Jews. So quite obviously a mix of Levantine Semitic and South European ancestries. Apparently, at a date this early, the exotic admixture in Italy was mostly Semitic/Orientalizing/Phoenician.
The outlier from the Prenestini is closest to Italians from Basilicata, followed by Italians from Campania. I conclude that at the beginning of the growth of the Roman empire South Italians were taken northwards.
Rome Imperial is closest to Greeks from Kos, followed by Romaniote Jews, and Greeks from Crete. On the whole the picture looks more East Mediterranean, Greek and Anatolian than during the more Levantine-like Orientalizing period and at the South Italian influenced Roman republic.
England Saxon is closest to Norwegians, followed by Icelanders. So quite Scandinavian-like these folks.
The outlier group 1 from Collegno is closest Greeks from Kos, followed by Greeks from Crete. On the whole very similar to the Imperial Romans.
The migration age individual from Slovakian Poprad is closest to the Dutch, followed by the Germans. So unlike the Baiuvarii from Bavaria this one was less Northwest European-like and more German-like, but mostly they were similar anyway.
DEU Lech EBA is closest to Belgians.
DEU Lech MBA is closest to Camp de Tarragona in Catalonia. I think it's clear that this latter individual wasn't typical for Lech Valley dwellers of the MBA. But there was a southern shift relative to the EBA, which this individual attests.
DEU Roman is closest to Catalunya central. So you might think he was of local origin, considering Lech MBA. But just as well he could have been from Italy, considering the Latin results. And I think the latter is more likely, it's hard to believe that MBA South Germans were Catalonian-like on average.
Latins from Ardea were closest to Terres de L'Ebre in Catalonia.
The Latins from Praeneste were closest to the Southern French. It doesn't surprise me, they had a bit more Steppe ancestry than the other Latins.
DEU Welzin BA is closest to Slovaks and Poles, just like the early Slavs from Bohemia, but with a considerably worse fit. So I'd say they were para-Slavic rather than Slavic.
Outlier group 2 from Welzin is closest to Lithuanian SZ followed by Latvians. Similar to the ancient samples from Lithuania, but again with a considerably worse fit. Para-Baltic?
Outlier group 3 from Welzin is closest to French Occitans, and thus similar to Hallstatt Bylany DA111. Really I wouldn't be surprised if he was from LBA Bohemia, he does look like a migrant from there.
DEU MA ACD with the artificially deformed crania is closest to Austria, followed by Romanians. Not that extremely Balkan-like, but with a certain shift into that direction.
DEU MA o, the outlier individual is closest to Italians from Lazio, and I wouldn't be surprised if he actually was from Lazio.
DEU Halberstadt LBA is closest to Norwegians, followed by the Dutch. So quite Germanic-like in spite of his LBA date and his quite southern origin in Halberstadt/Sachsen-Anhalt.
BTW, a multivariate craniometric analysis of antique South European crania showed dwellers from Latium close to antique Catalans, and Etruscans close to Greeks and also to dwellers from Ibiza. Vahaduo shows Menorca on the third place, so it's quite a triumph for craniometric analysis.
@Simon_w,
There's a growing Bronze, Iron age data set which is interesting. There's two immigrants from Western Europe in Imperial Rome.
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR37: Gaul
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR37: Iberia
Also, the samples from Greek colony in Spain are also interesting. One appears to be British and then most of the others Gaulish.
@ Simon_W
Which of the many craniometric multivariate analyses do you refer to?
@Samuel
I wondered if the British like individual (Iberia_Northeast_Empuries1:I8206) might instead represent a population from Gaul that migrated to Southern Britain and Ireland, creating the north south cline in steppe:farmer ancestry we observe on both islands, rather than being a British migrant to the Mediterranean coast.
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR37 which you listed above falls in among modern Spanish Basque and southern French. Is ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR116 the Gaul?
@Simon W "The Etruscans were closest to modern Italians from Bergamo, in contrast to the Latins who were Iberian-like, the Etruscans were truly North Italian-like." Etruscans and the Latins were genetically similar and they cluster between North Italians and Iberians like Piemontesi from northwest Italy according to the study. So why do you think that Etruscans are truely North Italian like while Latins are Iberian like? Just asking.
@Simon_W
“Obviously this one is closer to a Proto-Slav than the early Slavs from Bohemia.”
What do you mean by the term Proto-Slav? Corded Ware Culture? Tripolye? Sredny Stog II?
Are you thinking about genetic Proto-Slavs i.e. R1a or linguistic? Both are a genetic and linguistic black hole 3500 BC-500 AD from Vistula-Dnieper area:
https://postimg.cc/kD974KC0
@Rob
"When the data comes the only thing that’ll be left is Archie’s peasant poetry"
What data? We have quite a lot of data at this point, data that fits a steppe origin of PIE, so I am curious what data will contradict it.
@ Epoch
''We have quite a lot of data at this point, data that fits a steppe origin of PIE'
What I in fact wrote is PIE isn’t from samara; Mycenaeans arent from KMK. That should be basic enough to understand.
Secondly, can you inform of your qualifications on the matter ? I know you're an expert on Vasconic, of course, you were recently educating a native speaker
@Rob
I asked what data is going to refute a steppe origin. Can you answer that question?
@ Epoch
I don't understand the context of the question. I don't think you know what you're really asking.
@epoch
“I asked what data is going to refute a steppe origin.”
If lineages found in early steppe populations (like for example R1b-Z2103 in Yamnaya) cannot be correlated with IE languages then I think it will be a problem for steppe theory.
@EastPole
Yamnaya isn't necessary for the steppe hypothesis to work.
It's not like the Indo-European connection between Europe and India is Yamnaya. It's actually Sintashta, which might not even be directly related to Yamnaya.
@ East Pole
There were plenty more lineages on the steppe, esp on the relevant western side but also adjacent parts of east-central Europe
Dont worry about Epoch, he’s a bit confused today
Simon_W
Do you agree with the forum member that most of the Lech valley samples show the highest similarity with modern French?
https://zupimages.net/up/19/48/n8lz.png
https://zupimages.net/up/19/48/71op.png
@Eastpole. Sintashta R1a or Sintashta R1b-Z2103? Sintashta R1b-Z2203 is related to Afansievo R1b+Z2103 who had older strain of Yersinia Pestis than both R1a Corded Ware and R1a Sintashta.
@Rob “@ East Pole
Western steamy stog; it has MNE-WHG cultural and genomic roots
It’s a done deal”
Wait a sec here, Rob. Are you claiming that PIE is from a MNE or a WHG language?
This is baseless, lacks proof, and has no common sense at all!
@Rob “We can’t talk blindly about a “steppe signal” whilst having no understanding about processes
The steppe signal is actually highest in piedmont steppe and they don't seem particularly relavant for IE groups; unless you demonstrate all the R1b- V3616. So it seems only some steppe groups are relevant; specifically those in close contact with Neolithic Europe”
Both you and @Samuel Andrews are wrong: PIE arose north of Caucasus at Piedmont (Vonyuchka or Progress), and it spread link pincher into both Samara/Khvalynsk area by the Volga and into Sredny Stog Lower Don area.
@Rob @archi “ - I wouldn’t hold hope for your outdated Soviet theories. PIE isn’t from samara; Mycenaeans arent from KMK. PIE is WHG/ MNE.
You should all just meditate & accept reality”
Drivel. PIE is either from EHG or most likely from CHG. Anything else is hogwash
@Davidski “Do you have any evidence for the migration of any Catacomb groups to western Germany and the Lower Rhine region?”
Could Catacomb be the ancestors of the Hittites or the Armenians?
I don’t think they could be ancestral to the Thraco-Cimmerians because that would be the Srubnaya, aren’t they?
@Andrzejewski
“PIE arose north of Caucasus at Piedmont (Vonyuchka or Progress)”
Interesting. But what is the evidence?
@Rob @Ric Hern “As for BBC; the parasiminous explanation is that the original language of BBC was vasco-Iberian; and later these groups adopted IE from Central Europe; hence the long known non-IE substrate in western IE . IE arrived to Western Europe very late. Britonic Celtic is basically Gaulish.”
So Welsh = Gaulish?
What “long known non-IE substrate in Western Europe” are you referring to?!
Linguists have recently come to completely discard the notion of any non-IE hydrological terms in Western Europe, which used to be their favorite theory for decades. They found out that all riverine terms are IE derived. Likewise, on the same vein, it turns out that the eons-old hypothesis alleging a substantial non-IE substrate within Germanic languages has recently been largely debunked and chucked out, assigned to the trash bin of history when they realized that simple etymological comparison with words previously thought of as non-IE in source were discovered to have IE cognates in Anatolian, Lithuanian or Tocharian languages. The simple explanation to this quick non-IE’ization of Germanic languages stems from the difficulty to place it on the IE tree due to its conflicting and ambiguous Centum/Satem nature (note: we pronounce “cent” as “s’ent”), which is likely the outcome of an admixture of CWC speakers R1a carriers fusing with BBC like R1b Centum close to Italo-Celtic, producing the Nordic Bronze Age in the process.
@EastPole “Interesting. But what is the evidence?”
Much more reasonable than to assume or opinionate that PIE is a MNE or even a WHG language. If at all, then the large non-Uralic substrate in Saami is from WHG language (if it’s not from SHG).
@Rob
"As for BBC; the parasiminous explanation is that the original language of BBC was vasco-Iberian"
Which implies that the Iberian language is closely related to Basque. I am going to ask the same question - Mind you, a question is not lecturing and the suggestion that I "lectured" someone is odd - I asked Gaska:
What is the list of cognates between Basque and Iberian, apart from the numerical system? Mind you, the Aquitanian lexicon is about a third of the Iberian but is recognized as closely related to Basque, so this should be doable.
No, I'm not an expert. Hence the question. But since nobody manages to answer this simple question I reckon experts don't have such a list either.
@Rob
And before you go off again: I read on several occasions that Iberian and Basque are *not* considered related, while other who do think there is a relationship do not manage to create a list of cognates.
Which in my view shows that if Iberian and Basque are related they are distantly related. In such a case maybe it is the language of BBC. But one needs not to be an expert, but merely use common sense, to see that calling BBC "Vasco-Iberian" is by no means at all a done deal or even parsimonious. All you can say is, that if Iberian and Basque turn out to be related it may fit this model.
@ Andrze
“Drivel. PIE is either from EHG or most likely from CHG. Anything else is hogwash”
Lol; you take the cake
@Rob what makes you think that PIE is a WHG language?
@ epoch
Whatever the exact relationship ; BBC is the cultural progenitor to Vasconic and Iberian .
One can’t debate that and try to shift it to ghost populations from earlier ; Celtic otoh onvsiy arrived later to Iberia with the documented seriesnofnlater migrations.
I’ll let you sort out their exact affinities
@ Andrze
In jokes there’s always a truth; so maybe you can think about it as more data comes in; but it’s surprising why you don’t understand the importance of certain WHG lineages already
@Rob are you implying that PIE was the language of the GAC?
@Rob
"Whatever the exact relationship ; BBC is the cultural progenitor to Vasconic and Iberian .
One can’t debate that and try to shift it to ghost populations from earlier"
One certainly can. If Iberian and Basque aren't related you have to accept that BBC was the progenitor to two unrelated languages. If they are related but distantly you might wonder if the time span between the arrival of BBC related ancestry and the first attestation of these languages was enough for such diversity.
And then there is Tartessian, and BBC like ancestry for Italics. And BBC like ancestry for Etruscans.
@ Andrze
No.
@ epoch
Tartessian doesn’t change much
BBC like ancestry sweeps through Italy a millennium after the BBC; Italy is obviously a very different situation to Western Europe; but I'd say Im malleable on the topic
David Anthony wrote in 2019 that in his opinion PIE was mainly in its base the language of the EHG tribes with contributions from CHG and even Maykop (=NWC language’s) influences.
What do you think, @Davidski?
@ Andrzejewski
Welsh does not equal Gaulish because of Insular Celtic VSO wordorder. But VSO does not necessarily point to a non Indo-European Substrate because Basque is not a VSO Language....
We see VSO in Germanic Poetry....
@Andrzejewski
I think you should stop trying to link Indo-European to any Mesolithic hunter-gatherers because it looks really dumb.
As far as I know, Anthony linked PIE to Khvalynsk, but that won't work out, because there's no way to directly link Khvalynsk to Corded Ware.
PS I’m reading the Reich/Olalde research paper re: Beaker’s complete transformation of the UK’s genetic pool https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5973796/#!po=0.898204 and it implies that the Neolithic population was much more dark pigmented than the Beaker one. How can we explain the authors’ findings other than to conclude that MNE/LN populations throughout Europe were typically similar to Southern ones (which is not far from today’s) whereas more Northern and Northeastern populations (with much higher Steppe component ancestry percentage) had a much more light pigmented phenotype? Reich and Olalde hint that the Bell Beakers are responsible for this change in the last 3500 years because of the high Steppe admixture?
@epoch, as you know I mostly agree with your line of argument here. but ultimately these discussions in comment sections tend to have a looping character.
Ultimately proponents of the theory under discussion (roughly: Beakers as an agent bringing a shared ancestor to Basque and Iberian from the steppe or at least Central Europe in the late Copper Age, and then Celtic as an Iron Age replacement of language developing in a singular community which spread with no y haplogroups or to very little extent, through "elite mechanisms") will need to write up a paper on the topic and then direct it for the attention of the leading Celtic and Vasconic linguists (on the Celtic side, Koch and Garrett for instance) and for archaeological peers.
If they have little interest in the requirements of finding mass correspondences to establish relatedness (not 'One category of words only') or linguistic paleontology or other methods to test dates they will need to explain to peers why they believe that this is not required. Likewise if they want to discard convergence models for Celtic as impossible (and thus for a Celtic expansion to be required), with reference to earliest linguistic evidence, and also other factors such as the absence of evidence for Basque or Iberian languages spread more widely afield than Southern France and Northern and Eastern Iberia. These will all need to be resolved explicitly, not with oblique reference and pithy utterance.
Perhaps their argument will be accepted (for instance, maybe they will convince that the evidence of attestation for Iberian really is too weak for lexical mass correspondences to be found through stable vocabulary and linguists will be persuaded to disregard the comparative method), but whatever the case, there is a process which is beyond leaving large numbers of blog comments, and this theory will make no headway without going through it.
@Matt
That's just one extreme view, although possibly not as extreme as "Yamnaya people were genocidal maniacs who loved switching languages" or some stupid shit like that.
The truth must be in the middle, like, for instance, Beakers speaking an unknown language from the steppe or not, but with the Celtic and Italic expansions in large part driven by people with a lot of Beaker ancestry from former Beaker strongholds in Central Europe.
That's the view that I subscribe to for the time being as we wait for more relevant ancient data.
If Vasconic & Iberian are unrelated, then there is even more non-IE languages to account for in the BB oecumene
That Celtic LBA-IA remains the mainstay theory amongst linguists. Garrett simply ponders that *perhaps there was linguistic continuum of IE lects*, he did not cement any claims that IE arrived in x, y or z exaclty by 2500 BC, as some misrepresent.
Primitive Irish, attested in the Common Era, is extremely similar to Iron Age celtic from France. Even linguists have in the past stated this here. There is plenty to be found throughout the Webosphere written by Celticists, eg. '
'The attestation of ancient Celtic languages begins about 500 BC, in northern Italy. By about 50 BC, there is significant evidence for most of them – except the insular branches, perhaps. However, this gap can be filled in with reconstruction.
Something that is striking about the ancient Celtic languages is how evidently similar they are to each other. The internal diversity of ancient Celtic was clearly small, which is surprising considering the vast and geographically strongly structured area (much of Europe) that it was spread over, considering that this geographic pattern favours diversity. Also, Proto-Celtic reconstructions are highly similar to attested ancient Celtic material – especially the oldest material, known as Lepontic. This is significant.
Because it makes it highly unlikely that Proto-Celtic was spoken much earlier, say, around 2000 BC or even earlier.
Most scholars estimate that Proto-Celtic was spoken early in the first millennium BC, maybe around 800 BC (the beginning of the Hallstatt C culture of the Central European Iron Age, traditionally favoured as the origin of Celtic). The date could conceivably be pushed back to as early as 1300 BC, the beginning of the Canegrate culture of Northern Italy (where a Proto-Celtic identification is suggested by Peter Schrijver – note that the Central European Urnfield culture, often linked to Celtic as well, begins around the same time). But earlier dates are suspect.'
There is also new publications on Lusitanian on the Atlantic fringe: ''explaining the presence of IE traits in Lusitanian by prolonged contact with Celtiberians”, as explained by Mikhailova.
There is plenty of archaeological evidence for La Tene & Urnfield culture arriving in Iberia. For ex the Meseta & Duro-Tagus uplands, exactly where Celtic inscriptiosn appear, there is in the Iron Age a new horizon <1>the appearance of fhirst hillforts, 2) the establishment of first cremation cemeteries and 3) a whle range of new ceramics & new metallic objects). So this is not a a matter of invoking elite mimicking, but regular people movements.
Some of the comments above therefor exist in some kind of inverted reality, completely devoid of facts.
Koch’s models is problematic because he proposes the steppe ancestry arrived into Iberia from the Atlantic. Olalde data has shown the incongruency of this on several fronts (autosomal; Y-DNA L21 vs xL21). His model is more useful for the LBA
@ Rob
"Primitive Irish, attested in the Common Era, is extremely similar to Iron Age celtic from France."
Interesting. If a 1000 plus years did not make an extreme difference why would a 1000 years prior have made a big difference ?
@all
I'm still not convinced that BB is the signal of an unique ethny development so the spotty (keep this in mind: spotty) traces of BB artefacts settlements cannot be taken as the precise marker of ONE language.
Linguistics is and is not a hard science at the same time, it depends on its diverse aspects; the old question of VSO or SVO in Celtic languages is unclear; the most of scripts we have of ancient times are poetic texts, in a conventional form (maybe the same for other old languages); today Welsh and Breton, as a good bunch of current languages, have more than a syntax structure: Welsh knows sometimes VSO as Breton (this last one put with simplistic analysis among the SVO troops), and very often the structure "(inflected)to-be+Verb-ing+Object" as in modern Breton + and correct Breton order in subordonate clause is VSO! What is common in them is the huge place of the inflected forms of the verb TO BE as auxilliary verb + sometimes forms associating "to-do and a Verb. For Gaulish I don't know, but what we have for Gaulish syntax is very tiny.
Languages evolve by contacts but also by themselves and the syntaxic order of words is not always the better tool to discriminate or associate languages, when time runs.
@ Moesan
Yes even Agglutinative and Non-Agglutinative are not set in stone.
@ Ric
“Interesting. If a 1000 plus years did not make an extreme difference why would a 1000 years prior have made a big difference ?”
Because language change is not constant; but varies in pace depending on social
Dynamics; see Robert Dixon & others
Eg soon after the Ogham stone period; Irish changes rapidly, after Roman collapse and adoption of Christianity
Perhaps those upcoming genomes from immediate pre-Roman Age England will provide the subtle clues needed to detect intra-west European mobility
@ Rob
Yes maybe. I think that the Low Countries and the Isles had a close connection from the early Bronze Age till the beginning of the Iron Age. Iron Age Migrations like the Cimbri and Teutons etc. must have had some impact in Gaul...Hannibal and his campaign through Iberia and Southern Gaul also could have left some influence...if there were so many migrations in recorded history during a seemingly settled period, how many were there before recorded history ? It could even be that after +-1600 BCE there were Geneflow from the Isles to the Continent contributing to the formation of Urnfield...
@ Lukasz M
I want to keep VahaduoJS data-agnostic and I don't have any plans for any spreadsheet integration. But I have a concept of another tool that will be dedicated to G25, so swapping the data source won't be a problem then.
If you want a dedicated PCA reprocessing tool just link your spreadsheet with sample sets dedicated to different PCAs.
Post a Comment