Sunday, December 1, 2019
Big deal of 2019: ancient DNA confirms the link between Y-haplogroup N and Uralic expansions
The academic consensus is that Indo-European languages first spread into the Baltic region from the Eastern European steppes along with the Corded Ware culture (CWC) and its people during the Late Neolithic, well before the expansion of Uralic speakers into Fennoscandia and surrounds, probably from somewhere around the Ural Mountains.
On the other hand, the views that the Uralic language family is native to Northern Europe and/or closely associated with the CWC are fringe theories usually espoused by people not familiar with the topic or, unfortunately it has to be said, mentally unstable trolls.
The likely close relationship between the CWC expansion and the early spread of Indo-European languages was discussed in several papers in recent years (for instance, see here). This year, we saw the first ancient DNA paper focusing on the transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age in the East Baltic, including the likely first arrival of Uralic speech in what is now Estonia.
Published in Current Biology courtesy of Saag et al., the paper showed that the genetic structure of present-day East Baltic populations largely formed in the Iron Age (see here). It was during this time, the authors revealed, that the region experienced a sudden influx of Y-chromosome haplogroup N, which is today common in many Uralic speaking populations and often referred to as a Proto-Uralic marker. Little wonder then that Saag et al. linked this genetic shift in the East Baltic to the westward migrations of early Uralic speakers.
The table below, based on data from the Saag et al. paper, surely doesn't leave much to the imagination about what happened.
Unfortunately, I have to say that the genome-wide analysis in the paper was less informative than it could have been. The authors focused their attention on rather broad genetic components, and, as a result, missed an interesting fine scale distinction between their Bronze Age and Iron Age samples. The spatial maps below, based on my Global25 data for most of the ancients from Saag et al., show what I mean. The hotter the color the higher the genetic similarity between them and present-day West Eurasian populations.
Note that the Bronze Age (Baltic_EST_BA) samples are most similar to the Baltic-speaking, and thus also Indo-European-speaking, Latvians and Lithuanians, rather than the Uralic-speaking Estonians, even though they're from burial sites in Estonia. On the other hand, the Iron Age (Baltic_EST_IA) samples show strong similarity to a wider range of populations, including Estonians and many other Uralic-speaking groups.
See also...
It was always going to be this way
Fresh off the sledge
More on the association between Uralic expansions and Y-haplogroup N
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
327 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 327 of 327@epoch "His line of reasoning is that a very typical Germanic sound shift, Verner's law, has a pretty exact replica in Finnish."
Werner's law certainly cannot came from the ancient substratum, because it appeared after all the Germanic movements of consonants and it is very poorly represented in the Gothic language, i.e. it is very limited in the Gothic language, it simply did not have time to spread in it, so it could not appear before the boundary of the Eras.
And in fact, it is not even common German, because it acts differently in different languages and on different consonants, it had different rules in different Germanic languages.
@Rob,
"But somehow; it seems that BAx is important for FU.
I see no need for mutual exclusivity"
"In any case; Germanic arrived late to Scandinavia"
Let me guess, you think before 500 BC, Scandinavia spoke non-IE. Just like you think before 500 BC, Western Europe spoke non-IE.
@Rob
How is BAx important for FU?
Which Finno-Ugric groups actually have above trace levels of ancestry that can be linked to the Battle-Axe population? Estonians?
Finns are basically out of the picture unless we count some ambiguous Corded Ware-related mtDNA lineages.
@ Sam
''Let me guess, you think before 500 BC, Scandinavia spoke non-IE. Just like you think before 500 BC, Western Europe spoke non-IE.''
The non-IE character of western Europe is professed by majority of scholars.
Scandinavia is more difficult, but yes, Germanic is generally posited to have been spoken after 500 BC (evoloving of course). Your (mis)understanding of genomic evidence doesn't change anything for me.
@ Davidski
''Which Finno-Ugric groups actually have above trace levels of ancestry that can be linked to the Battle-Axe population? Estonians?''
Mari, Vepsa, Udmurts, Komi all have 20-35% R1a-Z280 derived.
Is it all from Russian colonists ?
@Rob,
"Germanic is generally posited to have been spoken after 500 BC (evoloving of course). "
Yes, but it didn't appear out of nowhere. Germanic evolved in Northwestern Europe since the 3rd millenium BC. There were certainly IE languages in Northern Europe other than pre-Germanic. Also, Pre-Germanic was not the only IE language in Late Neolithic and Bronze age Northwestern Europe. The whole region had been Indo European since Corded Ware.
"The non-IE character of western Europe is professed by majority of scholars."
Well, those scholars don't know anything about ancient DNA. Those scholars thought Bell Beaker came from Spain. Those scholars thought Corded Ware was mostly derived from Funnel Beaker. They were wrong.
Now we know, Northern & Western Europe was overtaken by Kurgan/Steppe people in the 3rd millenium BC. This is a perfect explanation for the introduction of MANY IE dialects including what later became Balic, SLavic, Italic, Celtic, and Germnaic.
Rob, the only explanation for your nonsense theories about IE languages, is you are ideologically and politically opposed to the Kurgan hypothesis. It's pretty damn obvious.
The arguments you provide are incredible weak. You basically go for anything that isn't the Kurgan hypothesis.
Here's a statement Rob used to make a lot on this blog.....
“the key regions are Balkans and Caucasus which together can explain the entire diversity of BA Europe. The further pull toward the steppe was obviously due to marrying EHG women.”
Care, to provide evidence for this Rob? Try, in nMonte to do mnodels with Copper age Balkans & Caucasus to create Bell beaker. Well, You can't. You were wrong back then and you are wrong now.
You had back then and you have now, some strange phobia towards the Kurgan hypothesis. Back then, and now, you wanted IE languages to be from anywhere, anywhere but the East European Steppe. Back then you pushed for it to be from either the Balkans Or Caucasus. ANywhere but the Steppe.
Now, you say it is from WHG? WHat the heck? That doesn't make any sense. Or, maybe you say it is from Danube Farmers. Even though none of them contributed ancestry to Andronovo or Corded Ware or Bell BEaker.
Everyone here needs to know, Rob is a dishonest hack.
@ Sam
I said that hypothesis before the Wang and Mathieson data
And it seems to be doing pretty well-
1) the origin of kurgan culture is and remains to be from the Danube- Dnieper region; of WHG dominated lineages in an EEF admixed environment
2) the “magic steps signal” you monkeys go on about did come from the north Caucasus steppe Eneolithic groups; and then permeated throughout the steppe by female exogamy
My contention has always been that that the form of kurgan hypothesis you monkeys are aware is wrong. Sure, sometimes I dumb it down, but that's only to convey it to your approrpiate level. Sure, I flirted with a Caucasus scenario; but that's because one needs to be open minded, and it might still have had some impact.
And it’s not my fault you or Epoch distinguish between genomic ancestry and geography.
''Rob, the only explanation for your nonsense theories about IE languages, is you are ideologically and politically opposed to the Kurgan hypothesis.''
Pfft what poltics ? You're just too ill to understand concepts. You havent read a single thing about Europe, but are under the false belief you understand what youre talkin
“Well, those scholars don't know anything about ancient DNA. Those scholars thought Bell Beaker came from Spain. Those scholars thought Corded Ware was mostly derived from Funnel Beaker. They were wrong.''
No, you're wrong. These scholars are linguists and don’t care about TRB
It’s actually the Celtic from the West crowd who needs BB to be from Iberia; to come up with the notion that R1b “stole “ their language; or whatever Kristiansen’s silly theory is
So again; you’ve got everthing back to front; because your clinically retarded
You’re going to be a teacher ? God help America.
@Rob
R1a-Z280 isn't a Battle-Axe marker. Some of its subclades might be, but no one knows yet which ones.
The R1a-Z280 in Uralics is from Baltic BA, Balts, Srubnaya, Russians, and many other near and far related groups.
I'd put Battle-Axe somewhere at the end of that list.
@Davidski
"Do we have any indigenous East Asian foragers belonging to N? Not that I'm aware of."
Yes. There might be 2x more males at present date with y-dna N in China(Han Chinese has y-dna ranging from ~4% up to 10%) than in Siberia, Europe and Japan together. But for the expansion, that spread N into northern hemisphere, the scope is about N1a1(Tat) - it started in China/Korea and is still found around those areas.
@ Davidski
''R1a-Z280 isn't a Battle-Axe marker. Some of its subclades might be, but no one knows yet which ones.
The R1a-Z280 in Uralics is from Baltic BA, Balts, Srubnaya, Russians, and many other near and far related groups.
I'd put Battle-Axe somewhere at the end of that list.''
Okay, its still t.b.d. Let's see what shows up
@M. Myllylä
"I am not sure about the eastern/Volga route of the Baltic Finnic languages, but more northern origin through the Ladoga region is possible."
That won't happen, because Baltic y-dna N and the clades that Estonian and Finnish people share come from one source, which points that separation between them happened south of Ladoga. Part of Saami and Nenets came from north of Ladoga, but not the main bulk of y-dna N.
@M. Myllylä
"It is possible that ancient Ingrians were genetically closer Tarand Estonians"
There is higher possibility that hell will freeze over, because:
1)there has never been ancient Ingrians in Ingria, as they are not that ancient.
2) Ingrians are offshot of Karelians and they moved to Ingria from north and their move is documented in history
3)ancient inhabitants of Ingria were Votes
There is not that much of difference in time of common ancestry between Tarandian y-dna N and Baltic speaking people with y-dna N and they both moved west around the same time. Their common ancestry comes from Volga/Southern Urals - not north of Ladoga or Siberia.
R1a Z284, which is only found in Northwest Europe, is the Battle Axe R1a subclade. It has already been found in Battle Axe. Bet, it doesn't exist in Uralic spekaing places.
@Rob, "the origin of kurgan culture is and remains to be from the Danube- Dnieper region."
No its in the East European STeppe. Srendy Stog live din Dnieper-Donets not Dnieper-Danube.
I don't know why you try to derive Kurgan cultures from farmers. Farmers have never settled in the Dnieper-Donets region. Kurgan cultures & farmers lived in two SEPERATE locations. Also, it was Kurgan people who invaded farmer territory not the other way around. Kurgan influence on farmers not the other way around.
The fact is, no population from the "Danube-Dnieper" regions migrated in the places in order for them to explain the extent of IE languages. I know you are trying hard to make the illusion that the farmers were the actual PIEs, that they hopped on board with Kurgan cultures, then spread IE languages with Corded Ware & Sintashta and what not. That's really pathetic pleading.
@Rob,
Let's go back to the statement you repeated a lot back in the day....
“the key regions are Balkans and Caucasus which together can explain the entire diversity of BA Europe. The further pull toward the steppe was obviously due to marrying EHG women.”
Basically, what you were saying is Yamnaya and the Steppe signal is a product of movements from the Caucasus and Balkans into the Steppe and marrying EHG wives.
The Eneolithic Caucasus farmers, Meshvo & Maykop, DID NOT contribute ancestry to Yamnaya. DID NOT. They mostly descended from EHG-rich groups in Southern Russia. I wouldn't call it the North Caucasus because it was flat Steppe land not mountains. And, those Steppe Eneolithic samples probably live south of where Yamnaya's ancestors came from.
Back in 2017, when you said "Caucasus" you meant Caucasus farmers like for example Maykop. They clearlly DID NOT contribute ancestry to Yamnaya. You were wrong.
@Rob, Name a migration documented in ancient DNA of farmers from the Danube? Name a migration of farmers from the Balkans? You can't name any because you're full of shit. If you can't name any, you have to admit there's no genetic evidence that is where IE language came from.
The only group in 4th-3rd millenium BC Europe who was moving all over the place came from the East European Steppe.
You keep trying to exaggerate farmer influence on Kurgan groups because you will make a pathetic pleading argument that those Kurgan groups did spread IE language but they got IE language from their MINOR farmer ancestry.
@Rob, The stuff you say about Unetice is a perfect example of the kind of bull shit you pull.
Kurgan migrations of COrded Ware, Bell Beaker are a perfect explanation for the origins of most IE languages in Europe.
But, you see Unetice has some Y DNA I2c which could mean they have minor ancestry from the Danube/Balkans. Oh my goodness, therefore you conclude this tiny, almost impossible to document migration from the Danube is the origin of IE in Europe not the massive well documented migrations from the Steppe which preceded it.
I'm so tired of this bull shit.
@Rob, You're doing the exact same thing with Battle Axe as you do with Unetice. You want to link Battle Axe with Uralic language because you'll look for any evidence you can that Corded Ware wasn't IE.
It's all bogus. You never had a real theory, you just look for anything that says the Kurgan hypothesis isn't true.
@ Sam
“No its in the East European STeppe. Srendy Stog live din Dnieper-Donets not Dnieper-Danube”
Suvorovo horizon forms in the Danube -Dnieper region
You don’t know anything about Europe ; it’s subregions or ecology
“Name a migration documented in ancient DNA of farmers from the Danube? ”
You mean LBK. Have you digested anything in the last 10
“You want to link Battle Axe with Uralic language””
Please quote where I said that. ? There is a difference between that; and outlining the possibility of BAx ancestry in western FU speakers
You don’t understand basics; go take your psychiatric medications now
''But, you see Unetice has some Y DNA I2c which could mean they have minor ancestry from the Danube/Balkans. Oh my goodness, therefore you conclude this tiny, almost impossible to document migration from the Danube is the origin of IE in Europe not the massive well documented migrations from the Steppe which preceded it.''
The funny thing is that the massive steppe migration to western Europe is difficult to place as IE. Unetice is indeed a minor migration. but significant cultural shift.
I never claimed anything categorically about it, but it does mark the start of the Bronze Age in Europe, which is pretty important. All these nuances & sub-waves are critical to understanding events.
Again, you dont know this because you lack the faculties to even read up on basics.
@ Rob
How do you exclude Suvorovo from a Steppe Migration ? Do we not see Horse Headed Scepters moving from the Volga/Don into that area ?
@ Anthony
I cannot find L792 on yfull, but I understand that you mean L729.
The cultural horizon of Baikal Neolithic seems to be more or less as old as L666, so I do not see much point in claiming that it arose in Shaanxi 9000 years ago on the basis of a couple of modern individuals.
Moreover, the fact remains that Baikal samples are older than Chinese Neolithic samples, and Neolithic samples in Cui et al are N (xN1a, N1c).
In any case, Yfull N tree would look different, if it were ordered according to the oldest TMRCA. This is what ISOGG seems to follow. N1a-L729 would come first with N1a1a1-F1419. Then the branches with younger TMRCA, i.e. N1a1a3-Y23747 and N1a1a*-F1139. N1a2-L666 would come second. N1b-Z4784 would come third. N2-Y6503 would be in the end.
Half of the Estonian IA samples are R1a1 and the other half N1c:
790-430 BC V10 R1a1a1b1a2a3a1a-CTS214/S3348 7,8% Nganasan
790-430 BC V7 R1a Nganasan % NA
770-430 BC OLS10 N1a1a1a1a2a1a1-Z1926 5,6% Nganasan
760-400 BC VII4 N1a1a1a1a1a-CTS6904/VL29 4,1% Nganasan
480-360 BC X04 R1a1a1b-Z650 1,5% Nganasan
360-40 BC V12 N1a1a1a1a1a1a-L550/S431 0,0% Nganasan
We can quite safely say that V10 R1a1a1b1a2a3a1a-CTS214/S3348, OLS10 N1a1a1a1a2a1a1-Z1926 and VII4 N1a1a1a1a1a-CTS6904/VL29 are Uralic speaking new comers.
On yfull R-CTS214 (TMRCA 3400 years) looks very Uralic (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-CTS214/).
Moreover, in the Viking paper, Gotland_Frojel-03504 900-1050AD VK64 R1a1a1b1a2a-Z92 is 40-60% Finnish.
Among the Hungarian conquerors there are the following R1a1 and I2 samples:
K1/10 + K2/41 + K2/18 R1a1a1b1a2b-CTS1211
K1/3286 and K2/61 R1a1a1b2a2-Z2124
K2/16 + K2/52 + K3/18 I2a1a2b-L621 (xS17250)
The oldest CTS1211 is Late Neolithic Spiginas2 from Lithuania. It is a pity that we do not know the more specific subclade of the Hungarian CTS1211. R1a1a1b2a2-Z2124 is clearly from Central Asia where Hungarians started their journey.
It would be interesting to identify the Uralic specific subclades if we had information on R1a1 haplotypes carried by Volga Uralic and Siberia Uralic populations. At the moment, they are missing from yfull.
@Kristiina
R1a-M417 in both Uralic and Turkic groups represents Indo-European substrata at different levels, so even if there are some highly derived mutations on the M417 tree that are Uralic-specific, they ultimately come from Indo-Europeans within a fairly recent time frame anyway.
This of course leaves Y-haplogroup N, and more specifically N-L1026, as the Uralic paternal marker.
Neolithic Kitoi Russia Baikal, Shamanka II [DA245, SHA_2006.076] 6065-5916 calBCE (7123±37 BP, OxA-26456) M N1c2b2-L666
is older than a TMRCA marginal branch N-F1101. And we know that the influence of the Kitoi culture reached the coast.
The Kitoi samples are oldest of N-L666 nearest to TMRCA 8600±1000 BP.
@ Ric Hern if I'm not mistaken there is also an image of aquatic bird ( pretty commom in the volga) and a cross-shaped pommel related to the mariupol-culture in the Suvorovo area. These are clear links with the Pontic-Steppe.
@ Ric H
''How do you exclude Suvorovo from a Steppe Migration ? Do we not see Horse Headed Scepters moving from the Volga/Don into that area ?''
Not excluding it from a steppe migration ? But we don't know where those guys came from exactly, suffice to say they were probably E. European huntergatherers beloning to WHG (I2a) or EHG (R1-) lines. The formation of this culture occurred in the Danube-Dnieper region; in contact with EEF (MNE , to be specific) groups.
The classic dictum as popularised in 'Indo European studies' is that they came from the Volga, rode horses and invaded the Balkans. But this isn't looking like its panning out; because we know that the Bulgarian EBA guys are I2a2a1b, and they arrived after a 500 yearr hiatus. This means they re-populated the region from somewhere close by c 3800 BC
The R1b and R1a-M417 guys who moved through central-northern Europe did so later, and are probably more eastern/ “steppe”, due to the their higher steppe ratio. But M417 was already see in 4000 BC with significant EEF, so it could be that they secondarily become more steppe
M269 appears late, and if they are really from the forest zone, then little wonder Im not convinced if they were originally PIE.
We also now know that the “magical steppe signal” is found in kuban steppe eneolithics; but given that their male lineages aren’t relevant for IE; it means it had at least some major component of female exogamy within the steppe (exactly as I predicted)
This is what the facts state, so im not sure what is so hard to understand in this, all the obtuse misunderstanding & historionicity.
@Rob
“Suvorovo horizon forms in the Danube -Dnieper region”
So you think Suvorovo was PIE? Interesting.
You should remember however that PIE is not a real language. It has never been spoken by anybody. Therefore you cannot link it with any real population.
We can link real population of CWC with IE/PIE languages because Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian ,derived from CWC, are real, spoken languages.
It is much more complex than you think.
@ EastPole
“So you think Suvorovo was PIE? Interesting.”
I didnt explicitly state that did I ?
Suvorovo was probably pre-IE
“You should remember however that PIE is not a real language. It has never been spoken by anybody. Therefore you cannot link it with any real population.”
Yeah no shit but PIE dialects were spoken by real people
“We can link real population of CWC with IE/PIE languages because Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian ,derived from CWC, are real, spoken languages.”
Not sure about indo -Iranian being from cwc
Balto-Slavic is not directly from CWc either
“It is much more complex than you think.”
If you think it’s complex , then I’m 7D
@Rob
„Not sure about indo -Iranian being from cwc
Balto-Slavic is not directly from CWc either”
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6457/eaat7487
You should study scientific literature and accept reality. Stop reading sites run by trolls.
Suvorovo is not a culture at all, it is a group of monuments of Novodanilovsky type in the composition of Sredniy Stog culture. They are from the Lower Don and extend to the east to Kalmykia (Dzhangar). Suvorovo is just a steppe merchant who traded with the Balkans. It is impossible to attribute any importance to them, they did not live there, but passed by, they are just burials. Their center was Lower Donets, where they extracted high-quality silicon for sale in the Balkans.
It is ridiculous to attribute Suvorovo some special role in the PIE, and these people are just from Don.
@ East Pole
And what does that show ?
Balto-Slavic has its own specific drift
I don’t need to ready any “sites “ . I appraise data myself
CWC isn’t “Slavic”
@Rob
„And what does that show?”
https://i.postimg.cc/05Cnpw1Z/CWC-BS-II.jpg
@Kristiina. /It would be interesting to identify the Uralic specific subclades if we had information on R1a1 haplotypes carried by Volga Uralic and Siberia Uralic populations. At the moment, they are missing from yfull./
For the peoples of the Volga region, the structure is as follows:
Komi: R1a-CTS1211-22%, R1a-M458-4%, R1b-L51 -4%, R1b-Z2103-8%, I1 -2%, I2-2%, E-M35-4%, EM78-4%, N-TAT-30%, N-P43-20%.
Chuvash: R1a-CTS1211-20%, R1a-M458 -5%, R1a-Z2124-5%, I1-7%, I2-5%, J1-3%, J2a-9%, J2b-4%, E-M78-14%, N-TAT-19%, N-P43-9%.
Udmurt: R1a-CTS1211 -2%, R1a-M458-7%, R1b-Z2103-22%, N-TAT-64%, N-P43-5%.
Bashkirs: R1a-CTS1211-2%, R1a-Z2124- 32%, R1b-L51-2%, R1b-Z2103-35%, R1b-M73-6%, J2a-4%, N-TAT-12%, N-P43-7%.
Mari: R1a-CTS1211-18%, R1a-Z2124-3%, R1b-L51-3%, N-TAT-43%, N-P43-33%.
Mordovians: R1a-CTS1211-35%, R1a-Z2124-8%, R1a-M458-2%, R1b-Z2103-7%, R1b-L51-3%, I1-3%, I2-3%, J1-3%, J2a-10%, G-P303-4%, E-M78-10%, N-TAT-10%, C-M130-2%.
Tatars of Kazan: R1a-CTS1211-10%, R1a-M458-7%, R1a-Z2124- 4%, R1b-M73- 3%, I1-12%, I2- 2%, G-M485-2%, G-P16-5%, J2a-9%, J2b-6%, E-M35-5%, N-TAT-22%, N-P43-5%, C-M130-6%, O-M175-2%.
Besermyan: R1a-CTS1211-32%, R1b-Z2103-4%, I1-4%, I2-2%, E-M78-4%, N-TAT-41%, N-P43-13%.
Bashkir Tatars: R1a-CTS1211-8%, R1a-Z2124-7%, R1b-L51-16%, I1-8%, I2-4%, J1-2%, J2a-6%, J2b-2%, G-M201-2%, G-P16-2%, G-U1-2%, E-M78-6%, N-TAT-8%, N-P43-16%, C-M130-2%, L-M20-5%, Q-M242-2%, Q-M346-2%.
"The cultural horizon of Baikal Neolithic seems to be more or less as old as L666, so I do not see much point in claiming that it arose in Shaanxi 9000 years ago on the basis of a couple of modern individuals"
I didn't claim N-L666 arose in Shaanxi. I said there is a basel branch N-L729 from Shanxi... Like you said the subclade with the oldest TMRCA.
"Moreover, the fact remains that Baikal samples are older than Chinese Neolithic samples, and Neolithic samples in Cui et al are N (xN1a, N1c)"
There is 7420-7340ybp N1b1 (possibly N-Tat depending on nomenclature) found in the Houtaomuga site. About as old as the oldest Kitoi BHG. He apparently looked a lot like modern Tungusic speakers in the region today.
“Genomic insight into the peopling of Northeast China” (not yet released)
"In any case, Yfull N tree would look different, if it were ordered according to the oldest TMRCA. This is what ISOGG seems to follow. N1a-L729 would come first with N1a1a1-F1419. Then the branches with younger TMRCA, i.e. N1a1a3-Y23747 and N1a1a*-F1139. N1a2-L666 would come second. N1b-Z4784 would come third. N2-Y6503 would be in the end".
I know and N-L729 has its oldest branch in man from Shaanxi. The only branch that doesn't have any Chinese subclades is N-F1419. N-F2905 is completley Chinese, it may be younger than the other subclades you mentioned but only by 400 years and the other subclades, like N-L729 and N-L666 have early branches in China.
@Sam, some things pretty much do seem to being argued here to twistily shifting about of cultures being IE or not IE, depending on however much they can be fit with some sort of complicated series of shifts from a WHG/Anatolian population.
CWC was argued to not be IE, when it is argued to be derived from Yamnaya... then argued to be IE when would be argued to be derived directly from Sredny-Stog and this has culture had Anatolian+WHG ancestry and CWC was separate in genesis from Beaker Culture... then argued to be not IE, again, when an fairly strong sequence of earliest Corded Ware samples turn up that look like Yamnaya and when early CW is being proposed as being plausibly the direct origin of the Beaker Culture.
There isn't much evidence of a clear methodology and consistent line of thought over time proposing a particular genesis, and rather it shifts depending on what opportunistically can avoid connecting IE to the cultures of the Volga interfluve, despite claims to the contrary and that "Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia" and the usual insults - nothing wrong with people changing their mind of course, but acknowledge it and why.
Unless taking the piss, my views have been consistent
E.g. from way back in 2017
''My position has always been that the steppe was subject to complex set of interactions coming from west (Balkans, Baden, CT) and East. This began in the Late Neolithic and Eneolithic, but was still sporadic. Essentially, until 4000 BC, and even later, mos steppe communities were still by and large hunter-fisher-foragers.
Early S/S will be largely SHG/ UkrHG with some ANF, and the big switch happens c.3800 BC when a new impulse (EHG/CHG) becomes widespread. I have never reduced it to Majkop solely, but have always inferred a complex set of interactions including'
One must be a twisted fruit to claim that commentary into being biased, whilst pushing science fiction
Something ain't Kocher here
@Rob,"My position has always been that the steppe was subject to complex set of interactions coming from west (Balkans, Baden, CT) and East"
Have you heard about Usatovo? They date to 3500-3000 BC, lived on Dniester and Danube river in Moldova, Romania. had Kurgan burials, horse scepters, all the stuff that defines an Eneolithic Steppe culture.
They basically, conquered late Tripolye. Unpublished DNA shows suprise suprise they were "Steppe people" and also they carried R1a Z93.
Also, there's a few outliers from Chalcolithic Balkans from Mathieson 2017, including as far south as Bulgaria, with signifcant Steppe ancestry. They date 4000-5000 BC.
The point is, "Steppe people" were invading the Balkans not the other way around.
@Rob, "Balto-Slavic is not directly from CWc either"
Literally, 95% of Baltic Bronze age Y DNA samples are R1a M417 meaning derived fro CWC. 95% fricking percent! They're the main ancestors of modern Balts, contributed lots to SLavs. Yet, yo don't think Balto-Slavic is related to CWC? C'mon.
Not just that, a CWC sample from Lithuania is identical to Baltic Bronze age confirming Baltic Bronze age is a direct descendant of Corded Ware.
The only population that fits the bill in order to be the steppe source population of IE moving both west and east is Sredni Stog/ Dereivka because
It has both R1a M-417 and I2a and probably also R1bL-51 in the near by ( maybe west of the dneper maybe north of SS).
It has the autosomal profile perfectly fitting west and east ( Sintashta and German/ central european Bell Beaker ).
The only thing to remember is the more CHG shift in later steppe is due to SS absorbing people from further east ( from the Volga and from the northern Caucasus ). You can think of the relationship between SS and the Volga as the relationship between Rome and eastern mediterranean dna. Eastern mediterranean dna went to Rome but the empire remained roman.
SS was founded from a cultural and dna movement from the west.( see Kotova) All the relavent cultural package of later movement is found between Danube/ Vistula and Dneper.
PIE has agricoltural terminology. It was a settled down population. the more mobile life style is a later development ( yamnaya horizon) There is no sign of agricolture whatsoever east of the Dneper till 2000 BC.
PIE has a society structured in a tripartite way: warriors, priests and farmers. It was not a foragers population. Everything point in a direction towards the region between the Dneper and the Balkans with a time window between 4500 and 3800 BC. The agricoltural societies west of the Dneper were still too strong for not having been involved in the PIE. The bottom line is
PIE = MNE + steppe eneolithic with a chance that the PIE could be only the farmers in virtue of what we see in SS ( acculturation and language shift )
The only person that thinks of a purely caspian source for PIE seems Carlos Quiles
@ Sam
''Have you heard about Usatovo? They date to 3500-3000 BC, lived on Dniester and Danube river in Moldova, Romania. had Kurgan burials, horse scepters, all the stuff that defines an Eneolithic Steppe culture.''
No I hadn't heard of Usatavo, thanks genius. I knew this 25 years ago
''The point is, "Steppe people" were invading the Balkans not the other way around.''
No they colonized parts of the Balkans. You can't make up scenarios until you analyse the data, and see it. You have neither
'', "Balto-Slavic is not directly from CWc either"
No it has its pwn specific drift with a yet unsampled HG population + cline of admixture with an East Halstatt group.
Sam, save it. You & Matt cant't educate me because you're nothing & nobody
@Rob,
"No it has its pwn specific drift with a yet unsampled HG population "
So you think Balto-Slavic is from a HG population? Yet, earliest Balts had 95%+ Corded Ware Y DNA. They share this Y DNA with early Indo Iranians. Yet, Corded Ware isn't where they got their language. Um......
@Rob, What links these two IE-speaking Bronze age groups.....
Andronovo (Indo-Iranian) and Baltic Bronze age (Balts)?
I say R1a M417, Steppe people. What do you say?
@ Sam
“@Rob, What links these two IE-speaking Bronze age groups.....
Andronovo (Indo-Iranian) and Baltic Bronze age (Balts)?
I say R1a M417, Steppe people. What do you say?”
Yes ; but that only takes us to c. 4000 BC proto IE stage
Balto-Slavic has its own subsequent development; as does indo-Iranian in the IAMC-Turan zone
Your friend Matt’s closet view is that I-A is from Hurrian Z2103; but that’s obviously rubbish
Andronovo has its own development; distinguishable from CWC.
Hence your picture only encapsulates 10%
So you agree, Andronovo & Baltic Bronze age get their IE language from common ancestor who lived on STeppe and carryed R1a M417?
@ Mike
Yes indeed.
@ OE
“It has both R1a M-417 and I2a and probably also R1bL-51 in the near by ( maybe west of the dneper maybe north of SS).”
M269 Probably arrived later down the Don; replacing the local lineages in south Russia
So it’s late to the PIE fold. Might explain why it correlates with non-IE languages in Western Europe
As for the other EHG/ CHG from Khvalynsk and Caucasus; they’re just autosomal donors; culturally & linguistically irrelevant
This is huge
“The only person that thinks of a purely caspian source for PIE seems Carlos Quiles”
Never again will we see a bunch of Americans and west Europeans so desperate for an invasion from Russia
Lol
All Hail. The Great Adoption Theory. R1a and R1b guys must have been quite intrigued with the I2a guys...so much indeed that they adopted their language and displaced or erased them in most of their former territory.
@ Ric
Of course you’re right; from Western Europe. From whom they adopted Vasconic & Iberian
'The Great Adoption Theory' indeed ! Zing
@ Rob
Yes and last I've looked all of those so called Vasconic areas today, except the Basque speaks Indo-European...1% out of 99%...oops.
@ Ric
“Yes and last I've looked all of those so called Vasconic areas today, except the Basque speaks Indo-European...1% out of 99%...oops”
Thats rubbish. Even you know that Vasconic& Iberian were widely spoken in Western Europe; from Dooblin to Iberia
@ Rob
Yes hords of Vasconic inscriptions in Ireland...Whahahaha !!!
@ Rob
And Basque is without doubt a VSO wordorder Language. Heheheeh..
@ Rob
And many Old Irish words similarities to Sanskrit is pure wishful thinking...
@ Rob
You make a big deal about the reservoir effect accounting for 200-300 years difference in Eastern Europe but seems not to have a problem with a thousand years of no data between Bell Beakers and attested Basque...?
@Kristiina
Regarding what Vladimir wrote about Uralic people clades(thanks, I wanted those numbers of M558 in Uralic)
CTS1211 = M558 - it is nearly 100% of R1a that is present in Baltic speaking nations with originating center that seems to be located in Ukraine/Belarus(around swamps).
That is interesting haplogroup by itself - there seems to have been some more ancient SW migration into Balkans and at the same time another migration to the NE into Volga basin. The numbers that are present in Volga Finnic population seems to be fundamental - not later influx by Slavic(which are represented itself by M448).
These numbers of M558 draws some picture how far spread of M558 was among Uralic speaking people and what happened with those colonists later. Latest Baltic migration to the east happened with Galindians. So if Eskimo could migrate back and forth couple of times and gain some new clades in process, why would it be different with Baltic people?
regarding VL29:
1. Only part of VL29, that spoke Baltic language backmigrated to the west with M558 - this seems to be job for the future to distinguish M558 in Baltic to sort out how many of them arrived there after, let's say 500BC along with VL29. Some of those backmigrating Baltic speaking Latgalians were still present in what is now Russia up to Velikie Luki, when Teutonic Order took over western half of Latgola and was later iontegrated into Pskov.
2. Some of the Baltic speaking VL29, that did not backmigrated towards west were assimilated by Slavs, if not by Uralic people.
3. There existed VL29, that was not undergoing baltification and spoke Uralic. They had their own migration reasons - that doesn't exclude push to the west by Slavs from Novgorod area.
3. Expansion of VL29 into Kiev seems to have been brought by Novgorod with Slavic speaking VL29.
Apparently there existed some mix of different R1a already, which seems to have been assimilated, but for some time there existed some area, that was populated almost exclusively by VL29 and M558. So, the question is what was mix of VL29 and M558 in that area, where later Slavs rolled over? Area to the south from Votes(still VL29, but there are not many left) was inhabited by Mari-ish and Mordvin-ish population.
Mari: R1a-CTS1211-18%, N-TAT-43%
Mordovians: R1a-CTS1211-35%
This is very close to what modern Baltic population has nowadays, so if they were speaking Baltic, they would be Baltic as well.
https://i.imgur.com/rKkeK7M.jpg
VL29 is still a pretty big clade by itself and it is present also in Siberia, but only southern part of L1025 - M2783 seems to be the one that was speaking Baltic. Most of the VL29 clades were still speaking Uralic - the degree of how much they were influenced by Baltic agricultural advances is different question. However language, that was brought back to Baltic shores differed quite a lot - Latvians/Lithuanians have developed differences in language, compared to more western Baltic languages. Those differences are incorretly called historical sound changes, but those sound changes happened outside of area.
For example sound changes in the name of (Prussian)Deivs to (Latvian/Lithuanian)Dievs/Dievas.
@ Ric
Apples & oranges much ?
@ Rob
Yes 200 years vs. 1000 plus years is indeed Apples & oranges.
@Kristiina
"Moreover, the fact remains that Baikal samples are older than Chinese Neolithic samples, and Neolithic samples in Cui et al are N (xN1a, N1c)."
N2, that was found in Baikal is older than N1a1, but so is also P. Do we have any Uralic speaking people with significant share of N2?
N1a1 developed in area between Baikal and Korea.
N1a around Liao, which at that time was part of Korean(or rather - pre-Korean) culture.
N1 - ?, but it was present also in Liao
N - in southern China.
If DNA samples(or rather lack of them) can't help, then Oldest Comb Ceramic has been found in (modern)China. The same type of pottery was spread in Baikal and Siberia and Mongolia and Europe. Time distance between those pieces is measured in thousands of years. The only common thing is that the spread happened with the help of N1a1.
PS The piece that was found in China is not only oldest Comb Ceramic but also oldest ceramic on this planet.
@Rob, I don't deny you are knowledgeable in history, archaeology, geography, and what not. You also have good understanding of ancient DNA data. Therefore, your posts are worth listening to. But, you haven't offered a good alternative to the Kurgan hypothesis. You've picked holes in some of unsubstantiated ways some of us think it played out. For example, we don't yet kno wthe relationship between Corded Ware & Andronovo. But, the basic premise of the Kurgan hypothesis still makes sense. This includes the idea the 3rd millenium BC Kurgan migrations in Europe marks the main spread of IE languages.
@gl
There's no N in any Comb Ceramic samples. There's no N even in Volosovo samples.
@ gL
I am not very interested in speculations or wishful thinking.
What is that N2 you are talking about? To my knowledge, N2-Y6503 (Botai line) has not been found in the Neolithic Baikal.
To my knowledge, there is no no N2 in Uralics. However, the line is very rare, and it is found mainly in the Balkans.
This is again a very good illustration of the problems related to viewing modern frequencies as evidence of a situation thousands of years ago. Modern frequencies show that there is a hotspot of N2 in the Balkans, but who of you think that it is a Mesolithic relic?
Modern hotspots cannot be taken as any evidence of the origin of a haplogroup. Only ancient yDNA is relevant. People constantly move around.
Everything will depend on what Fatyanovo culture will show. If she will show R1a-Z280, then means these Volga CTS1211 from it, if same Fatyanovo will show R1a-Z93, then means this outcome later assimilation. Although with Fatyanovo can be and surprises. For example, all R1b-L51 living in the Volga region is U-106.
@Davidski
I don't remember reading about the Volosovo samples. Could you point me to them? Or are they unpublished?
They're not published yet. Expect the usual for that part of the world in ancient DNA, but also M269, and maybe just maybe L51.
No N.
@ Vladimir
I presume that a lot of Uralic R1a1 is from the Baltic Corded Ware and later cultures such as Trzciniec.
@Kristiina
How did the Baltic Corded Ware R1a skip Baltic BA and end up in Uralics?
Trzciniec culture as a source of Uralic R1a is about as crazy as Baltic Corded Ware, unless you count Baltic and Russian R1a as Trzciniec R1a.
Nope, Uralic R1a is mostly from Baltic BA and Balts in Estonians, while in more easterly Uralics it's mostly from eastern post-Corded Ware groups, Srubnaya, Balts and Russians.
There's an unescapepable irony here if L51 ends up originating in the Comb Ceramic horizon that was previously envisioned as the origin of N1c thanks to its connection to the Liao peninsula. People were so sure before ancient DNA.
EastPole wrote,
"The GenomeAsia 100K Project enables genetic discoveries across Asia
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1793-z#Sec6
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1793-z/figures/2"
Some of the Y-DNA results reported in this study are interesting.
Their sample of Buryats is approximately 70% Y-DNA N (probably "N3a5"), with the remainder being about 15% C2, about 10% O2, about 2.5% O1b, and about 2.5% D1. It looks like they may have sampled mostly Buryats from Mongolia rather than those from the Buryat Republic of Russia. It appears that there may be a cline within the Buryat population, with the frequency of Y-DNA N increasing toward the southeast and the frequency of C2 increasing toward the northwest.
Their sample of Koreans is substantial (n=152), although I am not sure how many of the sampled Korean individuals are male. The males in their Korean sample are approximately 55% O2, approximately 25% O1b, approximately 20% C2, and approximately 3% D1. There also appear to be a few instances of N and C1.
Many of their Totos (a tribe in Northeast India) apparently belong to Y-DNA haplogroup N.
The authors have remarked that most of their samples of Austroasiatic people from India belong to Y-DNA haplogroup H. Other studies have found O1b1 (O-M95) to be predominant among Austroasiatic-speaking populations, including those from India. Apparently, most of their sampled Birhors belong to Y-DNA haplogroup H, although O1b was also found among them. On the other hand, they did find O1b in more than half of their sample of Hill Korwas. They also found O1b in more than half of their samples of Dhurwas and Konda Reddys, who are currently speakers of Dravidian languages. However, the Dhurwas speak a Central Dravidian language that is closely related to the Ollari language spoken by some Gadabas, whereas other Gadabas speak an Austroasiatic language, so it is not very surprising that the Dhurwas may have experienced a great amount of male-mediated Austroasiatic admixture. Konda Reddys are a currently Telugu-speaking tribe in Telangana/Andhra Pradesh, but I suppose they might be descended from Bonda- or Gadaba-like tribals who have assimilated linguistically to the mainstream urban culture of the region.
Well there's definitely M269 in Eneolithic samples up there in the forest zone. As far as I know they're the oldest M269 samples yet.
@Rob
"Thats rubbish. Even you know that Vasconic& Iberian were widely spoken in Western Europe; from Dooblin to Iberia"
That is a remarkable claim, for which you should provide links. Both for Vasconic and Iberian, please.
The oldest R1a1a1b1a2b-CTS1211 (under Z282) is Spiginas 2 from the Estonian Corded Ware. There are several R1a1a1b1a2b-CTS1211 samples also in Kivutkaln Latvia BA. I presume since CTS1211 reached the Baltics during the Corded Ware, it has not stopped diffusing to the East. I recently read an article about the influence of Corded Ware further east. CTS1211 was found both in Estonians and Hungarians so it is something common to both Eastern and Western Uralics.
There's no evidence that Baltic Corded Ware expanded east. Just assumptions.
If Baltic Corded Ware-related lineages made it as far east as the Urals (and the Hungarian Corded Ware lineage isn't just West Slavic), then they got there from the Middle Dnieper Corded Ware.
@Daviski
Ah, so some of the rumored Northern Russian forest zone samples are actually from Volosovo. I see. Thank you.
I we can't find any N in Eastern Europe before Bronze Age that has implications. Especially that it is in agreement with the autosomal data, where relatively high level of East Siberian ancestry shows up in the data around 1500 BC (probably arrived earlier, but not by a wide margin.)
In General, Comb Ceramic is a combination of many cultures. Apparently it will be R1a-YP1272, R1b-M73, and possibly R1b-M269. The last probably is the culture of stroke-ornamented pottery. It was in the Dnieper-Donetsk culture, it was in the Lyalovo culture, and its beginning somewhere on the Middle Volga and in the South-Eastern Urals.
The only possible variant of the appearance of CTS1211 in the Volga region is Fatyanovo culture. If it is not confirmed by ancient DNA, it is later spread through the Baltic cultures, such as the Dnieper-Dniester and then the Kiev culture and in General, taking into account the Estonian finds of the bronze age, CTS-1211 most likely were originally Balts, not Slavs. The original Slovenes are most likely R1a-M458.
But, that most the interesting among modern Russians CTS1211 accounts for 20%, with among Volga Mordovians 35%. And the Tshinets culture is most likely the culture of the Balts, who spoke a language close to the modern Lithuanian language.
We can say for certain that N1 was common amoung men in the north Asian neolithic. Even if N-Tat is found it probably will not be the right subclade to be pre-European.
I think pre-European N was in Siberia from at least 10800ybp (N-F1419). The Baikal N was mostly N-L666 (not the pre-European subclade) and N-B187 was found in Okunevo likely originating in the Siberian HGs north of the Altai region. So it makes sense that N-L708 would have already been farther west of both, for sure by the bronze age but most likely even earlier.
It is then possible that N-L708 was common if not the dominant lineage amoung the WSHGs. If Volosovo has no N then I would suggest Garino-Bor won't have any either unless from WSHGs migrating across the Urals or from west Siberian Seima-Turbino peoples migrating around 2000BC.
Too much importance should not be placed on BOO until we have more context. The N-L1026 found there could have come from anywhere between Finland and Yakutia in the Taiga zone by 1500BC.
I hope Kristiina agrees with most of what I have just said...
@ Vladimir "And the Tshinets culture is most likely the culture of the Balts, who spoke a language close to the modern Lithuanian language."
What for? Unfounded fantasies. Anachronism.
@Anthony Hanken "N-B187 was found in Okunevo"
Did I miss something? Give us the sample numbers and/or source.
@ Anthony
On a general level, I do not disagree with your comment, but I would not downplay the signigficance of Bolshoy BA and Zhizhitskaya NE Serteya so much, as currently, they are the only earlier N1a1a1a1a-L1026 samples that we have, and rumours circulate that there is no N in Volosovo or Fatyanovo. In any case, both samples are found in a unexpectedly westerly location.
PS I know that Zhizhitskaya sample was not identified as L1026, but any sample found in this area is with a high probability L1026.
@Archi. Of course, with 100% accuracy, we probably will never know. But the data of ancient DNA confirm this long-known thesis, called by you "anachronism". Not everything is old, is unprivileged. What's your theory? Which of the modern languages or ethnic groups closest people Trinecky culture?
@Archi
https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01296484
The analysis was done by someone in the amateur community. There was a thread on Molgen a few years ago where they found it to be N-B187 based on Y-STR data IRC. In the study 3 out of 6 Okunevo samples are listed as NO(xO).
@Kristiina
I just don't think BOO spoke a Uralic language, the archealogical culture they link to BOO in the study is from Yakutia, I think you would agree that PU is highly unlikely to have originated there. This means N-L1026 was either not the original PU lineage and spread from Yakutia or BOO people picked it up somonewhere along the way to Kola from actual Uralic speakers, which I think is more likely.
Also I don't think N-L1026 is suprising in Fennoscandia that early. By 1500BC Netted Ware had already begun expanding and there are Seima-Turbino artifacts in Finland from around the same time if not earlier.
The N in Zhizhitskaya needs to be confirmed using better methods. There is a lot of speculation as you know that the sample was contaminated.
@ Anthony Hanken "The analysis was done by someone in the amateur community. There was a thread on Molgen a few years ago where they found it to be N-B187 based on Y-STR data IRC. In the study 3 out of 6 Okunevo samples are listed as NO(xO)."
It means, it's just an unreliable rumor, not a fact.
@Archi
No, it means someone looked at the data from the paper and came to the conclusion that the samples were N-B187.
Why are you here if you think amerature analysis is unreliable?
From the Molgen thread,
http://forum.molgen.org/index.php/topic,9855.0.html
"I studied the haplotypes of Okunevtsy from the haplogroup N: Kh12, Kh13, Kh15 (dated 4300-3800 years ago).
I have no doubt that this is N-B187 .
This is indicated by STR markers DYS456 = 14, DYS458 = 18, DYS19 = 15, and DYS439 = 12, which together are a unique haplotype in this branch of 203299 (Borgoyakov, Khakassia).
It turns out that modern Khakasses are direct descendants of the Okunevites. Those. all the last four thousand they live literally at the graves of their ancestors".
@ Anthony Hanken Predictions on individual STR numbers are always unreliable.
@ Anthony
Arctic waffle ware was found in only one burial, number X, and people think that this confirms that the two yDNA N males came from Yakutia as waffle pottery is found in Yakutia, among others. However, waffle ware is found in a much wider area, including Northern Scandinavia and Baikal. Moreover, the waffle pottery from Bolshoy belongs to Vardøy Ware, which was distributed over northern Norway and northern Finland. As two burials contained local Lovozero Ware, one could also claim that that pottery proves the local origin of N guys.
On the other hand, my personal presumption is that pottery making was more a female skill than male skill and it is rather an indication of the origin of the females concerned. Moreover, the site is full of influences from a wide area related, for example, to metallurgy and creamation techniques. The Ymyyakhtakh features are only a small part the burial site.
By far the most significant feature of this site is the fact that the individuals were buried in tarrred boats: ”Most of the bodies had been buried in wooden, boat-shaped, lidded caskets, which looked like small boats or traditional Sámi sledges (Russian kerezhka). It seems that the boards of the boats were made of thin wooden planks and were probably tarred”. There are no such burials nowhere in Ymyyakhtakh culture, and not in northern Scandinavia either at that time. Bolshoy site is unique in this respect. However, it reminds us of what was happening in the south: Buried individuals were provided a boat, the principal medium of transport of this population, in order to ensure the continuation of their journey in the afterlife. This ideology can be compared with the southern wagon burials.
https://www.academia.edu/31826165/Kola_Oleneostrovskiy_Grave_Field_A_Unique_Burial_S ite_in_the_European_Arctic
@Archi
Before SNP testing became popular all haplogroup assignment was done via Y-STR values. It may not be as accurate as SNP testing but should be good enough to place in general branch.
Whats more is N-B187 is the exact same branch as is found in the Khakasses people of the same area today. Pretty good evidence IMO, but make your own conclusions I guess.
@Kristiina
Yes, this was the point I was making. From what I have read the consensus does seem to place the Ymyyakhtakh culture's origin in Yakutia however, BOO seems to be a mix of different cultures which can also be seen in their genome. I personally believe N-L1026 came from a more southern population not related to the Ymyyakhtakh culture.
@Anthony & Kristiina
Arctic waffles sound delicious.
You can see how the Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov samples cluster compared to Uralic groups in three different sets of North Eurasian PCA here...
Vahaduo: Global25 Views
What do you make of that?
And if you can't find them among the other ancient samples, just paste in these coordinates into the relevant field.
RUS_Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov:BOO001,0.084229,-0.150298,0.121433,0.098515,-0.066782,-0.003347,-0.003995,-0.000923,0.002863,-0.045923,0.027119,-0.008542,0.021407,-0.052159,-0.0076,0.006232,-0.004824,0.003167,-0.000503,0.003377,-0.010981,0.007914,0.005793,-0.007591,-0.001916
RUS_Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov:BOO002,0.093335,-0.14319,0.122187,0.105945,-0.05878,0.001673,-0.00282,0.007846,-0.00859,-0.044648,0.038486,-0.010491,0.020367,-0.052572,0.002579,0.006099,-0.000913,0.004054,-0.003645,0.004377,0.001497,0.009521,0.003574,-0.008314,0.002155
RUS_Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov:BOO003,0.097888,-0.129988,0.121056,0.103683,-0.059088,-0.000837,-0.00235,0.003231,0.005727,-0.053577,0.035401,-0.01079,0.023786,-0.049544,-0.005972,0.009016,-0.003912,-0.001394,-0.004022,0.001751,0.007112,0.00643,0.006655,-0.018436,0.001557
RUS_Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov:BOO004,0.088782,-0.144205,0.112759,0.112405,-0.059703,0.000558,-0.003995,-0.005538,0.000409,-0.043372,0.026632,-0.014987,0.024826,-0.049131,-0.001493,0.009812,-0.001695,-0.002027,-0.006662,-0.005253,0.006863,0.003091,0.007641,-0.009037,0.001916
RUS_Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov:BOO005,0.092197,-0.136081,0.121433,0.114666,-0.061858,-0.001952,-0.00658,-0.005077,-0.001432,-0.040274,0.035888,-0.009142,0.021407,-0.04514,-0.002036,0.012596,-0.004303,0.004687,0,0.008254,0.005615,0.004699,0.008751,-0.022533,-0.000958
RUS_Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov_o:BOO006,0.080814,-0.207168,0.120301,0.085272,-0.076322,-0.010598,0.003055,0.001846,0.002659,-0.03991,0.042708,-0.008692,0.019772,-0.04748,-0.015065,0.001193,0.000913,0.003547,-0.00176,-5e-04,0.000374,0.009274,0.000739,-0.009399,0.003233
@ epoch
Look it up yourself. It's a better way to learn
@ Sam
“Therefore, your posts are worth listening to. But, you haven't offered a good alternative to the Kurgan hypothesis.”
You're too fixated on labels. This isn't like backing your favourite football team.
So maybe pay closer attention ? Whilst we wait for more data; study close the archaeology of relevant periods. But it takes serious effort.
New tool for reprocessing PCA data:
https://vahaduo.github.io/custompca/
Description.
@Davidski & Anthony & Kristiina
"You can see how the Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov samples cluster compared to Uralic groups in three different sets of North Eurasian PCA here...
Vahaduo: Global25 Views
What do you make of that?"
They are completely off the range of the North European PCA, but they are in the direction where the European Uralics stretch out. If I also add Saami, they are midway between BOO and genetically more European moderns, forming a cline. If I also add Mansi, they partly fill up the gap between Saami and BOO and partly overlap with BOO.
However I do not think this is more that a general Siberian pull for these populations, not very specific.
Adding BOO to North Eurasia 1 PCA that have more relevant populations, BOO006 is close to the more Siberian subset of modern Khanty and Mansi (but not quite among them), while the others seem to be on a cline between Okunev and Udmurts (but much closer to Okunev) with a visible side-pull toward BOO006.
North Eurasion PCA2 places the main group among the more European outliers of Khanti-Mansi, close to a separated subgroup of Siberian Tatars (who are probably Mansi admixed) and BOO006 is close to Nenets. In a wider range in this dimentsion the main group seems to be on a cline between modern Udmurts and the main Khanti-Mansi group with a hint of side-pull towards Okunev.
In the dimensions of North Eurasian PCA 3 all BOO are pulled out from the modern Uralic cline into the range of Siberian Tatars and Bashkirs and towards Okunev behind them. This PCA could be an argument against BOO being ancient Uralic.
@Rob
"Look it up yourself. It's a better way to learn"
No, the burden of proof is at your side. Show me links to serious papers or book or articles that make abundantly clear that "Vasconic & Iberian were widely spoken in Western Europe; from Dublin to Iberia". Also explain to me how it's made clear what was spoken in Dublin back then.
Comparison of BOO against modern populations such as Mansi is somewhat problematic as those populations themselves are in many/most/all cases an outcome of heavy mixing and therefore as such not good proxys for a ancient Uralic population. This was for instance shown by Wong et al in 2015:
https://genome.cshlp.org/content/27/1/1.short
If Mansi are based on something ANE like (EHG/WSHG?) and something Evenki like (BHG?) then which one of these two founding groups is the ancient Uralic population? I'd personally place my bet on something EHG/WSHG-like, but in order to prove that we have to find something EHG/WSHG-like in Ural are, including a suitable N1c base, if the latter is the real proof of the pudding. For very far from the Ural area the founding population can't have resided, such as somewhere in East Asia. The linguistic results are clear in that respect, there's no way to deny it. So, people betting on something Evenki like have to assume that one way or another, that Evenki like population resided in the Ural area. Maybe it did, we'll see.
@Huck Finn
"Comparison of BOO against modern populations such as Mansi is somewhat problematic as those populations themselves are in many/most/all cases an outcome of heavy mixing and therefore as such not good proxys for a ancient Uralic population."
I completely agree and I am among the people who pointed this out particularly about the Mansi multiple times. In fact some significant admixture in the Mansi is probably quite recent (Medieval, even late Medieval) and the Mansi are probably a peripheral remnant of a bigger population anyway.
Nevertheless "problematic" does not mean it is completely pointless to do. Especially when the comparison is to the entire set of Uralics. I merely reported BOO positions in various PCA-s, that is how the Mansi came up.
@vahaduo, That's an incredible tool. Thanks so much.
Proto-Uralic is older than Bolshoy. N-L1026 starts expanding ca 2700 BC which is a good match with the dates proposed by Jaakko Häkkinen for Proto-Uralic.
Considering all the modern elements of the Bolshoy site, I expect that yDNA N came to Bolshoy from the south, and, if it came from the south, it was less Siberian before it reached the Kola Peninsula. As the distance between Bolshoy samples and modern Finns is very big, Bolshoy population probably harbours very diverging Arctic/Northern Eurasian ancestry.
When we find N-CTS10760 (predecessor of VL29) and/or N-Z1936 in a culture dated to ca 2500-2000 BC we are closer to a solution on Proto-Uralic. I do not expect to find these lines along the Arctic.
When we find the predecessor of N-L1026 in a culture/ cultures that are dated to 3500-3000 BC we are close to finding out the original genetic composition of this haplotype.
@Davidski “By the way, Battle-Axe need not have been the sole precursor to Germanic to be the link between Germanic, Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian.
Its people may even have spoken a now extinct Indo-European language, but Indo-European nonetheless. A theory like this is outlined in this recent thesis“
@Davidski would you agree with me that Germanic as a descendant of Nordic BA language is a melange of IE elements (Satem, Balto-Slavic like from CWC) with Centum Italians-Celtic ones from BBC/Hallstatt/Unetice? Would you dismiss the “non-IE substrate” theory as I do?
@Huck Finn @Slumbery “If Mansi are based on something ANE like (EHG/WSHG?) and something Evenki like (BHG?) then which one of these two founding groups is the ancient Uralic population? I'd personally place my bet on something EHG/WSHG-like, but in order to prove that we have to find something EHG/WSHG-like in Ural are, including a suitable N1c base, if the latter is the real proof of the pudding. For very far from the Ural area the founding population can't have resided, such as somewhere in East Asia. The linguistic results are clear in that respect, there's no way to deny it. So, people betting on something Evenki like have to assume that one way or another, that Evenki like population resided in the Ural area. Maybe it did, we'll see.”
Isn’t it the composition of American Indians? ANE/WSHG from west of Lake Baikal with a BHG population (Ulchi, Devil’s Gate, Magadan)?
@Kristiina
Considering all the modern elements of the Bolshoy site, I expect that yDNA N came to Bolshoy from the south,...
Well, Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov is kind of the end of the world northward, so everything non-indigenous comes from South in general, but other than that how south are we talking about? BOO does not have steppe ancestry and this puts a pretty hard limit how southern any recent (and significant) admixture can be, because the East Baltic had too much steppe ancestry after Corded Ware expanded over it. So BOO definitely did not have any significant ancestry from south of Finland-Karelia in a time depth less than a millennium or so.
...and, if it came from the south, it was less Siberian before it reached the Kola Peninsula.
I see no reason to assume that more northern automatically equals more Siberian in that region, before BOO. Just because modern Saami and Finn formed a north to south cline of "Siberianness", it does not follow that such a cline existed in the Mezolithic in any form here. I'd expect the Kola Peninsula HG-s 5000 years ago had no East Siberian or WSHG-related admixture at all.
Based on G25 nMonte modelling BOO is a mixture of something like Shamanka_EBA or perhaps a more WSHG admixed sibling of Shamanka_EBA + local/regional European HG-s. No significant recent admixture from south of Finnland-Karelia and I hazard a guess that no significant admixture from NE-European (east of Karelia) EHG-s either.
The reason why I think so:
- BOO have European Farmer ancestry, but no steppe. So its EF ancestry does not come from CWC.
- BOO have European HG ancestry that shifted towards WHG (towards Motala or Narva, in fact it reacts better to Motala in G25 nMonte) compared to Karelia_HG.
My overall impression that we have a Siberian group that moved across NE-Europe in a northern path relatively quickly with low level admixture on the way and then mixed with regional HG not very far from the sample site. That not very far can be parts of Finnland or Karelia.
At any rate I doubt that any of the N lineages in BOO are from the European HG side.
@JuanRivera
Originally I did not, but I have looked at it just now. It is not better than Motala_HG.
Some example runs:
"sample": "RUS_Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov:Average",
"fit": 4.7346,
"RUS_Shamanka_EBA": 46.67,
"RUS_Karelia_HG": 38.33,
"SWE_TRB": 6.67,
"RUS_Tyumen_HG": 5.83,
"NOR_N_HG": 2.5,
"sample": "RUS_Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov:BOO005",
"fit": 4.347,
"RUS_Shamanka_EBA": 42.5,
"RUS_Karelia_HG": 27.5,
"RUS_Tyumen_HG": 12.5,
"NOR_N_HG": 11.67,
"SWE_TRB": 5.83,
(BOO005 is meant to represent the average without the outlier BOO006.)
Leaving out TRB forces more NOR_N_HG ancestry, but the fit worsens and it is already pretty bad.
A possible explanation could be an SHG group mixing with TRB then moving north-east and mixing with EHG. Or something completely different, I don't know.
@ Slumbery
I would not be so sure that they completely lack Steppe ancestry as in the admixture analysis of Lamnidis et al, BOO samples do have Yamnaya when their ancestry is distributed between WHG, Karelia HG, LBK, Yamnaya and Nganasan, and the percentages are not even insignificant.
Supplementary table 4 (file:///C:/Users/omistaja/Downloads/media-1%20(1).pdf)
I know that the analysis is not a high quality analysis, but it is also true that currently we do not have very good reference samples.
Moreover, one of the mtDNA haplogroups detected in Bolshoy is T2d1b1 (BOO003/BOO72-4), and today T2d1 is distributed as follows:
India T2d1a (16086C);
Wakhi Tajiks T2d1b (@152);
Iran persian T2d1b;
Haryana Brahmin East-Punjab T2d1b;
Mordvin T2d1b;
Khantys, Komis T2d1b1
@Slumbery
Target: RUS_Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov (no BOO006)
Distance: 4.6456% / 0.04645576
41.6 RUS_Shamanka_EBA
27.8 RUS_Tyumen_HG
17.8 NOR_N_HG
11.2 Baltic_EST_BA
1.6 SWE_TRB
Target: RUS_Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov (no BOO006)
Distance: 3.8180% / 0.03817973
39.4 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_MLBA_o
30.0 RUS_Shamanka_EBA
14.4 NOR_N_HG
12.0 RUS_Tyumen_HG
4.2 RUS_Karelia_HG
If anyone has an interest in exploring the new feature that Vahaduo has provided, to look at the affinities of the ancient Italian samples, datasheet here: https://pastebin.com/kqiQfYHB
(Based on a subset of G25 samples I selected for this purpose and analyzed with PAST, but the big advantage of Vahaduo's explorer over that is being able to easily tell more about which individual samples plot where, by hovering over them).
@ D: do I recall it right that WSHG was relabeled as RUS_Tyumen_HG?
@ Slumbery: yes and my comment was mainly kind of add-on vs. that of yours.
Another quick datasheet for Vahaduo's new mode, made for analysis of the PAK_IA samples - https://pastebin.com/RkLc8DMT
Example: https://imgur.com/a/SugMIjX.
Same sheet with Paniyas as a proxy for un-sampled ancient ASI - https://pastebin.com/pcJctQ5R
Example: https://imgur.com/a/6ehBKO0
@Huck Finn
West_Siberia_N is now Sosonivoy_HG and Tyumen_HG.
One "advantage" of the Vahaduo Custom PCA mode, is that if you've got a diverse set, but you don't want some property of some of the samples "hijacking" the whole PCA, then projection can help with that.
E.g. datasheet using ancients to form a PCA, then with all modern South Asian samples projected on it: https://imgur.com/a/S5np9iv
If all the samples had been used in the source, then the strong character of the modern day heavily East Asian samples would probably have taken over the initial dimensions of the PCA. But in this case it doesn't happen and they are only subtly positioned differently in the space, with their different character obvious in higher dimensions.
@ Slumbery
In the dimensions of North Eurasian PCA 3 all BOO are pulled out from the modern Uralic cline into the range of Siberian Tatars and Bashkirs and towards Okunev behind them. This PCA could be an argument against BOO being ancient Uralic.
I'm glad that you agree that Siberian HG weren't the source of Uralic languages:
https://i.postimg.cc/Ph5Ykf2d/Vahaduo-Global-25-North-Eurasia-3-PCA-1.png
@ Davidski
^^^
That's the reason why in qpAdm your model doesn't work with Baltic BA and barely works with Levanluhta_o. By shifting one side from something Nenets-like to BOO you're enforcing shift on the other side that prefers Levanluhta.
Thanks for the D-stats!
Chimp FIN_Levanluhta_IA FIN_Levanluhta_IA_o Baltic_EST_BA 0.0112 1.624 143054
Chimp Baltic_EST_BA FIN_Levanluhta_IA_o FIN_Levanluhta_IA -0.0146 -2.122 143054
Positive value in the first one says that FIN_Levanluhta_IA shares more drift with Baltic_EST_BA than with FIN_Levanluhta_IA_o.
Difference is not significant, but it's expected as:
a) FIN_Levanluhta_IA and Baltic_EST_BA are similar to each other,
b) admixture proportions inferred from G25 are nearly the same, as seen below.
Target: FIN_Levanluhta_IA
Distance: 2.7547% / 0.02754726
48.6 RUS_Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov
27.4 Baltic_EST_BA
24.0 FIN_Levanluhta_IA_o
If you want you can run BOO + Baltic BA + Levanluhta_o + Siberia in qpAdm. It will create on the fly a ghost population out of BOO and Siberia by subtracting the latter from the former.
@ Davidski
Distance to: Nganassan
0.61121918 FIN_Levanluhta_IA_o
0.62334685 Baltic_EST_BA
It looks like the "Balto-Slavic drift" is in opposition to East Asia. So when you feed the algorithm with something that is less Asian than it should be it will be compensated on the other side by shifting to the source closer to Asia.
Can you run this to confirm?
Chimp Nganassan Baltic_EST_BA FIN_Levanluhta_IA_o
@Arza
Positive value in the first one says that FIN_Levanluhta_IA shares more drift with Baltic_EST_BA than with FIN_Levanluhta_IA_o.
Nope. You really need a Z score of at least 2 there to contemplate anything like that, otherwise the stat is neutral.
Btw...
Chimp Nganasan Baltic_EST_BA FIN_Levanluhta_IA_o -0.0033 -0.608
@ D: thanks. Related:
"The Botai and more recent ancient genomes from Siberia show a decrease in contributions from so-called ‘ancient North Eurasian’ ancestry over time, which is detectable only in the northern-most ‘forest-tundra’ cline.
...The northernmost grouping, which they term "forest-tundra", includes Russians, all Uralic language-speakers, which includes Hungarian, Finnish and Estonian, and Yeniseian-language speakers, of which only one remains today and is spoken in central Siberia."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-019-0878-2
@ Davidski
Fine. Totally neutral stat. But now I can bite you from another side. How it is possible that this stat is neutral if almost half of the ancestry of Levanluhta_IA comes from the outlier?
Possible answers are only two. It doesn't, because Levanluhta_IA is half-way (hence neutral stat) between Baltic_BA and the outlier or alternatively, if you're right and indeed there is no Baltic_BA ancestry, the D-stat is unable to show this because it doesn't see the difference between Baltic_BA and the outlier.
This may lead to a conclusion that the rejection of Baltic_BA in qpAdm was meaningless.
All of your PCAs show that drift in Levanluhta, Chalmny-Varre and Saami and if they show it, it is certainly there. But for some reason qpAdm in this set-up sees things differently and it's worth to find out why.
Chimp Nganasan Baltic_EST_BA FIN_Levanluhta_IA_o -0.0033 -0.608
Damn. So the answer lies somewhere else.
on the Russian site molgen.org write that it was possible to type a sample of the Ukrainian Mesolithic:
I5876 Dereivka I Ukraine_Mesolithic 7040-6703 calBCE R1a
R-YP4141: YP4145+, YP4184+
R-YP5018: YP5056+ (even 2 readings), YP5022-, YP5049-, YP5054-, Y22681-
R1a>YP4141>pre-YP5018
@Rob
So you can't back up your claim that Iberian and/or Vasconic was spoken in Ireland with links. The only thing you could possibly do is link to Venneman. But then your remark that toponyms are useless is wrong.
"Toponyms are an almost useless line of evidence; long misused"
I would like remind you of two things.
First, majority of the mtDNA haplotypes of Levänluhta population belong to Finland-Saame-specific haplotypes that are not found in Corded Ware or in Scandinavia:
U5b1b1a probably Finnish Comb ceramic
U5b1b1a1 developed in Finland
U5b1b1a1a developed in Finland
U5b1b1a1b developed in Finland
U5b2a5 Blätterhöhle, no ancient finds in Scandinavia
U5a2a1 found even in Koryaks, some samples in BA Estonia and Latvia and Scythians
U5a1a1 Corded Ware and BB haplotype
K1a4a1b: probably Scandinavian Neolithic
H1+16189: geographically closest samples in Scottish Neolithic and English BA
H1c: Scandinavian Neolithic
T1a1+@152: unknown origin
With this package it is obvious that Levänluhta population harbours plenty of Finnish Comb Ceramic ancestry for which we have no reference. With this background, it is also easy to understand why Levänluhta outlier is ultra western. She harbours Scandinavian Neolithic ancestry.
Second, if you use Shamanka_EBA, you must remember that Shamanka EBA on Baikal is only yDNA Q (6 x Q1b1-L53). Nearly all EBA from Baikal is Q (+ Glazkovo, Ust Ida, Kurma). There is only one Ust Ida N1a1a2-B187 (Khakass line). Therefore, in this model Sahamanka BA represents a Siberian populaton with yDNA Q while N comes from the rest of this ancestry.
@Kristiina & Davidski
I came to the conclusion that there is no (significant) steppe ancestry in BOO, because in G25 nMonte models in refuses Okunevo ancestry, despite the apparent connection on PCA and because directly testing ancestries from greater time-depth reinforced my suspicion that the reason of this refusal is the Afanasievo ancestry of Okunevo.
The presence of that mtDNA lineage is not a strong argument against this (unless we talk about no steppe ancestry as a literal absolute, something I had no intention to do), because just one or a few picked-up Sintashta woman can do the job with not more than noise level autosomal impact.
Now, Daviski's test run with the Krasnoyarks outlier is another matter, I might have drawn a hasty conclusion. I am not sure why no steppe comes up in bigger time-depth runs like this:
"sample": "RUS_Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov:BOO005",
"fit": 4.8302,
"RUS_Shamanka_N": 35.83,
"RUS_Karelia_HG": 30.83,
"RUS_Tyumen_HG": 20.83,
"NOR_N_HG": 8.33,
"SWE_TRB": 4.17,
"Yamnaya_RUS_Samara": 0,
Krasnoyarks outlier is very Siberian, but still...
@Kristiina
Second, if you use Shamanka_EBA, you must remember that Shamanka EBA on Baikal is only yDNA Q (6 x Q1b1-L53). Nearly all EBA from Baikal is Q (+ Glazkovo, Ust Ida, Kurma). There is only one Ust Ida N1a1a2-B187 (Khakass line). Therefore, in this model Sahamanka BA represents a Siberian populaton with yDNA Q while N comes from the rest of this ancestry.
Just because I use Shamanka, it does not mean that I think it is exactly the ancestral population. It is just a stand-in reference. Therefore just because Shamanka lacks the right N lineages it does not follow that those lineages came from the European side.
The fact that we have no N lineages in the European references at all does not help that argument either.
@ epoch
Toponyms aren’t very useful in predicting 3000 years prior to any attestation
But when actually attested and within a broader framework of analysis; I see nothing wrong
Anyhow; it’s cleat you have selective recollection given that high just quoted Schrijver
https://www.academia.edu/38390118/Non-Indo-European_surviving_in_Ireland_in_the_first_millennium_AD
@ Slumbery
As I said, we do not have the right references, and therefore, the models are not reliable.
We need ca 2000 BC old N1a1a1a1a-L1026 sample from a context that can be linked with Uralic languages, and we should have a Comb Ceramic sample from Karelia.
Considering all the linguistic data that we have on Proto-Uralic, it is natural to presume that N1a1a1a1a-L1026 represents the European side.
@All
New thread...
The BOO people: earliest Uralic speakers in the ancient DNA record?
@Rob
"Anyhow; it’s cleat you have selective recollection given that high just quoted Schrijver
https://www.academia.edu/38390118/Non-Indo-European_surviving_in_Ireland_in_the_first_millennium_AD"
From that paper:
"Recently Venneman proposed to connect the name Partenkirchen with a plethora of names in Bard- and, ultimately, with Basque barta, parta `swamp'. Whether any of these can be connected with Ir part- `crab' is extremely doubtful: Pokorny's comparanda are no more than formal look-alikes, and a connection of `crab' with Basque `swamp' is semantically unconvincing. We may therefore conclude that part- `crab' has no etymologie whatsoever"
So Schrijver explains that in his view there is no connection to Basque.
Early replacement of West Eurasian male Y chromosomes from the east
"Three present-day Y lineages were carried by the initial migration: the rare haplogroup D, the moderately rare C, and the very common FT lineage which now dominates most non-African populations. We show that phylogenetic analyses of haplogroup C, D and FT sequences, including very rare deep-rooting lineages, together with phylogeographic analyses of ancient and present-day non-African Y-chromosomes, all point to East/South-east Asia as the origin 50,000-55,000 years ago of all known non-African male lineages (apart from recent migrants). This implies that the initial Y lineages in populations between Africa and eastern Asia have been entirely replaced by lineages from the east, contrasting with the expectations of the serial-founder model, and thus informing and constraining models of the initial expansion".
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/867317v1
If we follow this Southeast Asian model, we have to conclude that K2a first ventured out of SE Asia via India, as a sibling branch of Siberian K2a represented by Ust Ishim is found in Telugus in Dravidian India, while K2b ventured out of SE Asia later via China as Tianyuan is K2b and Yana is P.
Post a Comment