search this blog

Tuesday, June 16, 2020

Like three peas in a pod


One of the most interesting questions still waiting to be answered by ancient DNA is where exactly did the ancestors of the present-day European and South Asian bearers of Y-haplogroup R1a part their ways? Indeed, the answer to this question is likely to be informative about the place and time of the split between the Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian language families.

I was doing some reading today and discovered that the peoples associated with the Bronze Age Fatyanovo-Balanovo and Unetice archeological cultures shared strikingly similar metalwork, despite being separated by well over two thousand kilometers of forest and steppe. Apparently, this similarity is especially pronounced in the metalwork of the Unetice culture from what is now Slovakia (see Ancient Metallurgy in the USSR: The Early Metal Age, page 136).

S11953 is currently the only sample from Slovakia associated with the Unetice culture (Sirak et al. 2020). There are no Fatyanovo-Balanovo samples available yet. However, as far as I can tell, I0432 from Samara, Russia, should be a decent stand in (Mathieson et al. 2015).

Of course, both S11953 and I0432 belong to Y-haplogroup R1a. Moreover, S11953 belongs to a typically Balto-Slavic subclade of R1a, while I0432 belongs to a closely related subclade that is dominant nowadays among the Indo-Iranian speakers of Asia.

S11953 is younger than I0432, but this doesn't necessarily mean that his ancestors arrived in East Central Europe from deep in Russia during the Bronze Age. Indeed, the opposite is more likely to be true. That is, I0432 is probably the recent decedent of migrants from somewhere near the North Carpathians, because he shows elevated European Neolithic farmer ancestry compared to earlier ancients from the Samara region (see here).

Below is a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) showing how S11953 and I0432 compare to each other in the context of ancient West Eurasian genetic variation. Obviously, they're sitting in the same part of the plot, which suggests that they harbor very similar ratios of ancient genetic components and probably share relatively recent ancestry. The relevant PCA datasheet is available here.


I've also highlighted myself, Davidski, on the plot. That's because I share the same Balto-Slavic-specific subclade of R1a with S11953 and, in terms of overall ancestry, I'm similar to both S11953 and I0432. Moreover, I'm the speaker of Polish, which is a Balto-Slavic language. What are the chances that we're dealing here with a remarkable string of coincidences? Indeed, was the North Carpathian region perhaps the homeland of the language ancestral to both Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian?

However, please note that there's nothing unusual or remarkable about my ancestry. The vast majority of people of Central, Eastern and Northern European origin - that is, mostly the speakers of Balto-Slavic, Germanic and Celtic languages - would also land in this part of the plot.

See also...

On the doorstep of India

Y-haplogroup R1a and mental health

The mystery of the Sintashta people

419 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 400 of 419   Newer›   Newest»
Archi said...

Vladimir said...
"As I understand it, the EEF is greater for those groups that were located closer to Yamnaya. For example, the CWC R1b-L51 group from South-Eastern Poland has the same EEF as Yamnaya."

What's all this nonsense? You write completely incomprehensible things that are completely opposite to facts.

"Apparently migrated from the Dnieper to the don representatives of the culture Dereivka"

Who told you that they moved from Dnieper to Don? What kind of nonsense? What kind of nonsense?

Zulfiqar said...

Is there any utility to playing around with 3D PCAs vs 2D? When, if ever, should 3D visualization be preferred?

Samuel Andrews said...

Scandinavian CWC has the highest EEF out of all Corded Ware. Around 35% farmer. Two samples from a Megalithic grave in Sweden, dating to middle of Corded Ware period, are 50% Farmer.

Archi said...

Zulfiqar said...
"Is there any utility to playing around with 3D PCAs vs 2D? When, if ever, should 3D visualization be preferred?"

ЗD visualization for PCA makes no sense. You can't see anything there anyway and PCA isn't meant for that. PCA should be used for viewing on different principal components in two-dimensional form, PC1, PC2, PC3, PC4, etc.

a said...

Vladimir said...
"As I understand it, the EEF is greater for those groups that were located closer to Yamnaya. For example, the CWC R1b-L51 group from South-Eastern Poland has the same EEF as Yamnaya."

Just where do you think the three R1b peas in a pod originate? R1b L23 Yamnaya-R1b-Z2103 Yamnaya and Afanasievo-R1b L51 BB CWC and Afansievo.

Davidski said...

Vladimir doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. In reality...

- Early Corded Ware samples from the Baltics and Poland are very similar to Yamnaya samples and have very little EEF ancestry

- Polish Corded Ware samples rich in R1b-L51 are most similar to German Corded Ware samples rich in R1a

- the earliest L51 sample from Western Europe, Aesch25, is also very similar to German Corded Ware samples

- Scandinavian Corded Ware (Battle-Axe) samples have a lot of EEF ancestry and less EHG ancestry than the others.

Dmytro said...

@ Vladimir
"As far as I know, the entire CWC population has EEF, which is why they differ from the steppe eneolite population. Another question is that someone has more than someone less. As I understand it, the EEF is greater for those groups that were located closer to Yamnaya"

My understanding was that the geographical proximity of Western Yamna (and preceding steppe cultures in the area) to Farmer groups led to substantial interplay and the presence of a lot of EEF in the relevant steppe burials.
@ Davidski

"Early Corded Ware samples from the Baltics and Poland are very similar to Yamnaya samples and have very little EEF ancestry"

Would this mean that the Early CWC migrants to the West came from an area significantly removed from the Dnipro contact zone between steppe and farmers? Or at least represented groups which did not have verifiable marriage contacts with the farmers? I look forward to your analysis of Usatovo genetics. Archaeologically this is a pre-Yamna group (later fused with Yamna) which had extreme exogamous relationships with Trypilians.
"

Vladimir said...

@Archie. By all accounts, it came from the Southwest. Silicon from the Oskol river, a tributary of the Seversky Donets river. The knife is similar to the knife from Dereivka.

Burial 3 (Fig. 11). Male, over 50 years old. The backbone was in a crouched position. The buried man was lying on his right side, facing West, with his head pointing North, and his hands clasped to his chest. He carried: on the right-a horn rod with a drilled hole (Fig. 11: 3), on the left — a bone spearhead (Fig. 11: 4) and a large flint knife (Fig. 11: 5), made of black high-quality flint, similar in visual characteristics to raw materials from the deposits located on the Oskol river. Judging by a number of features, the burial belongs to The sredliy Stog culture of the Eneolithic era. The position and orientation of the buried person also do not contradict the possibility of attributing it to the Sredniy Stog culture. Funerary tools, represented by flint knives and bone tools, are also often found in burials and settlements of the Sredniy Stog culture, and the horn rod from this burial finds almost a complete analogy to the product from the settlement of Dereivka (Kotova 2013: Fig. 208: 4).
Since the burial is very rich in inventory, we can assume a high social status of this man in the group. It is also older than all those found in the burial ground. In addition, only one of them has a trace of a possible battle wound on the skull.

S. V. Vasilyev, R. V. Smolyaninov, S. B. Borutskaya, A. N. Bessudnov
Neolithic-Eneolithic Population of the Upper Don Region and its Burial Customs (by the materials of the burial ground Ksizovo 6), 2018.

Vladimir said...

@Davidski
You, of course, know best. The problem is that there are almost no samples of 4000-3000 BCE from Ukraine. What you say would ideally correspond if during this period on the Western Bank of the Dnieper lived R1a-M417, and on the Eastern Bank of the Dnieper R1b-L23, and in the steppe Z2103, and in the forest-steppe L51. What archaeological culture during this period could have brought a steppe-rich population to the right Dnieper? Lower Mikhaylovka?

Archi said...

Dmytro said...
" @ Vladimir
"As far as I know, the entire CWC population has EEF, which is why they differ from the steppe eneolite population. Another question is that someone has more than someone less. As I understand it, the EEF is greater for those groups that were located closer to Yamnaya"
My understanding was that the geographical proximity of Western Yamna (and preceding steppe cultures in the area) to Farmer groups led to substantial interplay and the presence of a lot of EEF in the relevant steppe burials."

Do not repeat nonsense after someone who knows nothing and writes nonsense.It was the exact opposite of what you wrote.

Vladimir said...
"By all accounts, it came from the Southwest. Silicon from the Oskol river, a tributary of the Seversky Donets river. The knife is similar to the knife from Dereivka."

What does this particular person have to do with it? You wrote that Dereivka culture from the Dnieper that is your personal fiction. And the Oskol river is not the Dnieper, it is the basin of the Seversky Donets river, close to the Northern Don.


Vladimir said...

Most of the Oskol river passes through the territory of the Kharkiv region of Ukraine. Deriivka located on the Dnieper river. And the Derievka culture is attributed by Kotova to the Western variant of the Sredniy Stog culture. The Oskol river is the Middle don, but not the Northern don. Northern or in other words upper don is just Ksizovo and Lipetsk region as a whole.

Dmytro said...

Wikipedia on Serednyj Stih (Sredny Stog in Russian)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sredny_Stog_culture#Genetics

Very large area. From west of Dnipro to the Siverskyj Donets.

Vladimir said...

@Davidski.

What is missing in this graph Ukr_Derievka_|_En to become a full-fledged CWC, let's say poz81, if we do not take into account the GAC admixture yet? Do I understand correctly that there is not enough CHG or more specifically there is not enough rus_progress_en population?

https://i.imgur.com/zBbNpKJ.png

Thomas Spence said...

Speaking of Proto-Slavs, what does DNA evidence suggest for the origins of Poles and West Slavs? Do they descend from a pre-Slavic population or do they descend from the invading Slavs? I know that Dudo suggested a consensus among some experts that most Slavs (except maybe east Slavs?) descend from the previous population and were Slavicized.

Samuel Andrews said...

@BCBrendan,

Davidski is not arguing European R1a carriers have a special autosomal link to European ancestors of Asian R1a which R1b carriers do not have.

I think he is saying, Asian R1a comes from a population near Carthian basin who had same basic ancestry as ancient/modern Northcentral Europeans including but not limited to R1a carriers.

And that therefore, Asian R1a Z93 separated from European R1a in Central Europe in 3rd millenium BC. Not earlier in the PC STeppe.

He brings up the link between metal work in Unetice and fatyanovo, to argue even in late 3rd millenium BC, ancestors of European R1a and Asian R1a were still in contact with each other.

Samuel Andrews said...

I haven't looked deep at West Eurasian PCA lately.

But I recall, that Northeast Europeans, especially Russians and Ukrainians, cluster significantly more east than Northwest Europeans. And therefore cluster significantly closer to Corded Ware and Sintashta (early R1a Z93).

Technically, Bell Beaker Netherlands I think clusters with modern Russians. Many people here I have mentioned this before.

So, in a sense you could say in overall ancestry Northeast Europeans closer to Sintashta than any other modern Europeans are.

But, this is not due to higher Steppe ancestry in Eastern Europe, but due to higher hunter gatherer and lower farmer. So it is a bit miss leading.

Davidski said...

@Thomas Spence

Modern Poles are overwhelmingly the descendants of early Slavs from the Slavic homeland, wherever that was exactly.

Don't worry about the "emerging consensus" that Dudo mentioned. It'll come tumbling down within a year.

Davidski said...

@Vladimir

Ukr_Derievka_|_En isn't relevant.

A population like the early Corded Ware samples and Yamnaya already existed on the steppe just east of the Dnieper around 4,000 BCE and probably even 5,000 BCE.

This population gave rise to Sredny Stog, and eventually also to early Corded Ware and Yamnaya.

Archi said...

@Vladimir
"Most of the Oskol river passes through the territory of the Kharkiv region of Ukraine. Deriivka located on the Dnieper river."

You're just playing with names, the site of Dereivka has nothing to do with this. It has nothing to do with the origin of the Dereivka culture, it's a pure coincidence that the culture was named that way. It's not the origin of that culture. The Dnieper has nothing to do with it. So all your fiction is just unscientific. The Oskol river stretches to the North Don.

Archi said...

@Sam
"He brings up the link between metal work in Unetice and fatyanovo"

The connections between Fatyanovo and the Unetice culture are minimal, they are there, but they are most likely echoes of the known connections of the Urals with the Early (Proto-) Unetice culture of Slovakia. As far back as 1965 the Ural known almost Early Unetice burial ground connecting with Slovakia.

Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

I removed your post because it was deliberately misleading.

Obviously, the frequencies of European mtDNA lineages in India don't reach the high percentages that you posted.

Don't pull this sort of crap again, or you're banned.

Davidski said...

For anyone reading these comments and thinking of actually taking anything that clown vAsiSTha says seriously, here's a very thorough paper that discusses the relatively low frequencies of European/steppe mtDNA lineages in South Asia:

A genetic chronology for the Indian Subcontinent points to heavily sex-biased dispersals

Vladimir said...

@Davidski
Ukr_Derievka_|_En isn't relevant.

A population like the early Corded Ware samples and Yamnaya already existed on the steppe just east of the Dnieper around 4,000 BCE and probably even 5,000 BCE.

This population gave rise to Sredny Stog, and eventually also to early Corded Ware and Yamnaya.”

I understand that. I can't find the 5000-4000 BCE archaeological culture that brought EEF and WHG admixtures to the East of the Dnieper and to the don. If with the emergence of there CHG there is understanding of, he apparently emerged on lower don 7000-6000BCE, then the emergence of there EEF and WHG nothing except settlement there tribes Sredniy Stog after 5000 BCE explain not can. After all EEF and WHG could come to the don only from the West of the Dnieper from the population already mixed with Tripoli

Coldmountains said...

@Samuel Andrews

There is no significant EHG ancestry from HGs in East Europe outside of North Russia and some Finno-Ugrians. There is extra SHG/Baltic-HG ancestry among Balts and some Slavs but the Balto-Slavic drift makes it looking bigger than it really is. Even most Russian are directly derived from Central-East Europe. So East Europeans are not just more eastern shifted becasue of HG ancestry but also because of higher Corded Ware-derived ancestry.

Davidski said...

@Vladimir

Ukraine Mesolithic samples from the Dnieper region are largely WHG. And there were Mesolithic foragers around the Don River with higher ratios of WHG than in the typical EHG from around the Volga.

So by at least 4,000 BCE there were people around the Don and in eastern Ukraine that were a mixture of these EHG foragers, with higher than typical ratios of WHG, and CHG-like groups from the northwest Caucasus region.

The minor EEF came later, probably around 4,000 BCE, to create the typical Yamnaya genotype, either via Sredny Stog or with migrants from Trypillian groups. This is from Mathieson et al. 2018:

Based on craniometric analysis (I. Potekhina 1999) it was suggested that the Eneolithic inhabitants of Alexandria were not homogeneous and resulted from admixture of local Neolithic hunter-gatherers and early farmers, possibly Trypillian groups.

Vladimir said...

@Davidski

Thank you, it's all clear now. It is probably easiest to track the movement of the population by domesticated animals. CHG apparently introduced domesticated small animals: goats, sheep. And from Sredniy Stog along with EEF probably came already large domestic animals, such as cows and horses, and probably initial farming skills.

ambron said...

Thomas, the Eastern Slavs is the result of the assimilation of the Balts by the Slavs. Kusznierewicz and Balanowski talk about this. Eastern Slavs look genetically like a mixture of Balts with Western Slavs. Genetics thus confirms the well-known facts from history - the Slavs conquered and assimilated the Balts. Genetically, Eastern Slavs are also Poles from the prominent area of Poland in the north-east direction. There were no Slavs in this area until the middle of the Middle Ages. These areas were inhabited by Baltic tribes. We know the conquest of the Balts by Poles and their assimilation from history. Thus, the Eastern Slavs could not be early Slavs, because they were not there at the time.

Vladimir said...

By the way, the village of Alexandria is the river Oskol Kupyansk district in Kharkiv region

ambron said...

David, do you have any your own thoughts on the subject of Slavic homeland?

I will remind my:

The area covering Slovakia, southern Poland and western Ukraine fits genetically well into the Slavonic cradle. It lies in the autosomal center of the area of Slavic genetic variation. When we mix its genome with the Baltic genome - we get the Eastern Slavs (including the north-eastern Poles), when we mix with the Cypriot genome - we get the Southern Slavs.

This also explains well why the Northern Slavs (and even the Balts) are more southern than Baltic BA, which you often mention.

Vladimir said...

@ambron

Complete agreement. Some continuity with the older population can only be traced by MtDNA. But here another question is interesting. If paleogenetics reveals that, for example, R1a-Z280 lived continuously on the territory of the Komarovo culture, then Sosnitskaya, then Milogradskaya, then Zarubinetskaya, then Kievskaya, then will the scientific consensus remain that R1a-Z280 is actually the Balts assimilated by the Slavs R1a-M458?

Rob said...

We can't extrapolate the Polish crusades on the Balts to northern Russia
Different assimilation circumstances could have existed there - e.g. the effects of urbanization and the need to learn the main (Slavic) language

Copper Axe said...

@Vladimir

"CHG apparently introduced domesticated small animals: goats, sheep."

But we see CHG-like ancestry on the steppes when both the steppes and north caucasus were hunter gatherers no?

ambron said...

Vladymir, I wrote about it before ... Around the beginning of our era, the population of the Y-DNA lines, which are today Slavic, numbered 10 million individuals (men and their women). So she couldn't be concentrated in a small homeland. Therefore, she co-created various cultural circles, including the Baltic and Slavic ones.

Rob, that's why I'm talking about conquest and assimilation. In today's Russia, Slavs invaded, for example, Galindians.

Vladimir said...

@Copper Axe

I wasn't claiming, it was more of a question. Given what Davidski said, it is possible that the Pets at Rakyshechniy Yar came from WHG, through links to the Starchevo culture. Pet bones on R. Y. were found in layers 6000-5000 BCE. And there is only a pig and a cow, there is no sheep. But at the settlement of Oroshaemoe Prikayskaya culture, where there is no WHG, bones of domestic sheep (4724-4557 cal BCE) were found, there are no other domestic animals. Given that the admixture there is obviously EHG/CHG, and in the area where the EHG lived wild sheep were clearly not found, but they were found in the area where the CHG lived, this suggests that the sheep in the steppe came directly from the Caucasus with CHG, and not from Starchevo with WHG.

Samuel Andrews said...

@ColdMountains,
"So East Europeans are not just more eastern shifted becasue of HG ancestry but also because of higher Corded Ware-derived ancestry."

I'm pretty sure it is only due to HG ancestry that makes them closest to Corded Ware in West Eurasia PCA. Because other wise it would mean the highest Steppe ancestry in Europe is decisively in Slavic groups. There are ways to test, and the results don't indicate that.

Davidski what is your opinon?

ambron said...

Sam, generally CWC had less HG than Baltic BA and contemporary Balts and Slavs. Of course, there are exceptions, such as N47 or N49, but this is already HG acquired in Central Europe.

Rob said...

@ Vladimir

“ Given that the admixture there is obviously EHG/CHG, and in the area where the EHG lived wild sheep were clearly not found, but they were found in the area where the CHG lived, this suggests that the sheep in the steppe came directly from the Caucasus with CHG, and not from Starchevo with WHG.”

Not necessarily ; it seems that CHG is just another hunter gatherer group in the Caspian steppe region

Domesticates only appear in north Caucasus with the Meshoko culture; and they tended to pigs

Given that sheep; cows and other domesticates are already found in western Ukraine (LBK/ preCUcuteni) by 5000 BC; there appearance further east a couple hundred years later is not surprising

The other possibility is them coming directly from south of the Caspian or kelteminar; as frank suggests; but there are too many unknowns in that scenario

Coldmountains said...

@Samuel Andrews

The problem is that models showing excess EHG in Central-East Europe among Slavs eating up the steppe ancestry don't match the genetic profile of Pre-Corded Ware there, which was not EHG-like in the first place. Rather it was much more shifted towards SHG/WHG so any model showing East Europeasn with 20% extra Karelian_HG can be discarded because there was not such kind of population in the region anymore in the first place. Also Corded Ware generally showed higher Ukrainian_N admix and unlike Yamnaya it is the direct ancestor of North Europeasn so models using Yamnaya instead of early Corded Ware are ahistorical too.

I am not sure if East Europeans have significantly more steppe ancestry than Northwest Europeasn but definetly not significantly less and in some cases more. This all very much depends on the exact source groups which are used and some models will show East Europeasn with more or West Europeans with more. But East Europeasn having 10-20% excess EHG is definetly ahistorical.

Archi said...

@Davidski

"Ukraine Mesolithic samples from the Dnieper region are largely WHG."
Of course, Ukraine Mesolithic samples from the Dnieper region are ЕHG. There's a little bit of WHG.

https://i.ibb.co/z8jkgQ2/image.png

@Vladimir
"And from Sredniy Stog along with EEF probably came already large domestic animals, such as cows and horses"

Well, you're a fantasist, the Tripolians didn't do horses at all, they didn't have them. The Tripolians depicted animals a lot, but they never did a horse.

"CHG apparently introduced domesticated small animals: goats, sheep."

Hunter-gatherers led pets, full of nonsense.

"But at the settlement of Oroshaemoe Prikayskaya culture, where there is no WHG,"
"Given that the admixture there is obviously EHG/CHG"

How did you know that?

"(4724-4557 cal BCE) in the area where the EHG lived wild sheep were clearly not found, but they were found in the area where the CHG lived, this suggests that the sheep in the steppe came directly from the Caucasus with CHG, and not from Starchevo with WHG."

At that time, domesticated pets in the Steppe are everywhere, but in the Caucasus there are problems with this.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Coldmountains,

I'm not arguing they have 10-20% extra EHG. In my G25 models I don't use EHG as a source of excess HG in Eastern Europe. I use Lithuania (Narva) HG and Latvia HG as hunter gatherer sources. They work fine. Which makes sense geographically.

I'm pretty sure this is what causes West/East Slavs to pull northeast closer to Corded Ware.

Coldmountains said...

@Samuel Andrews

The HGs from the Baltics and Ukraine shifted towards WHG after the Mesolithic and Corded Ware groups in Central-East Europe would mix with South Baltic HGs which were rather heavily WHG shifted. Slavs are derived from Corded Ware groups in Belarus, North Ukraine and East Poland which likely mixed with more WHG shifted HGs. So using rather EHG shifted Baltic genomes from Latvia, Estonia or the Mesolithic will create problems in my opinion.

Matt said...

When I've modelled the Baltic_BA cline using Corded_Ware_early, and Koros_Neolithic, and a mystery X HG population, the X HG population is closest to a top 10 of samples than are mainly from NE Europe(UKR_Meso:I5885, Baltic_LTU_Narva:Kretuonas1, Baltic_LTU_Narva:Kretuonas4, SWE_Motala_HG:I0011,SRB_Iron_Gates_HG:I5238,Baltic_LTU_Narva:Kretuonas2,UKR_N:I4114,SWE_Motala_HG:I0015,UKR_N:I5890,UKR_Meso:I5876). Plus some extra genetic drift specific in G25 to Baltic_BA related populations. This is using regression equations that specify Corded_Ware_Early, Koros_N and a rotating set of HG populations; it seems that doing these regressions tends to naturally "prefer" a HG of this sort.

If modelling with Corded_Ware_early, and an MN European pop, I would guess that the mystery X HG population would fall a little further east, but still be in the same ballpark. This is because the MN farmers seem to take their extra HG predominantly from the various farmers in France and Germany (and to a lesser extent Spain), and not really from the populations a bit further east, were HGs survived latter, who have more EHG.

Not straight EHG for sure, though certainly not the far end of the EHG->WHG clines (either the Iberian end that has extra Magdalenian ancestry, or the "Italian refugium" end).
Plots of this: https://imgur.com/a/DCdgH1y

This is just the genetics of Baltic_BA of course though; actually getting from this to saying anything about where Baltic and Slavic languages were developing at any given time is as difficult and uncertain as is the case in Germanic, Celtic, etc.

Vladimir said...

@Rob

I understand that Meshoko is the steppe eneolite. The earliest dates of the Nalchik burial ground are 5000 BCE. Is there a chg in the steppe before 5000 BCE? For example, is there an admixture of CHG in Samara_HG?

Coldmountains said...

@Matt
Baltic_BA having in many cases more EHG shifted HG ancestry makes sense because HG is Latvia and Estonia would be naturally more EHG shifted but HGs further south and ancestral to HG ancestry among Slavs should rather resemble Baltic_LTU_Narva based on geographic and chronological proximity. Modern day Balts are a mix of these Baltic_BA types and later Balto-Slavic migrations from the southwest which decreased HG ancestry and shifted Balts further to Central Europe.

Coldmountains said...

@Matt

Why you not used Globular_Amphora? They are the best source for EEF/HG ancestry among North Europeans including Balts. Using Globular Amphora will give you different results i think.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Vladimir,

The Ukraine hunter gatherers on Dnieper river have minor CHG ancestry. Some have more than others, some are technically close to 30% Yamnaya-like. They're the only European hunter gatherers to date who have traceable CHG ancestry.

But, chances are CHG-rich hunter gatherer pops similar to Yamnaya lived east of them in Lower Don and Lower Volga.

Proto-Indo Europeans descended from hunter gatherers from Southern part of Russia between Caspien and Black Sea. But not necessarily near the Caucasus mountains. That much is for sure.

Matt said...

Good question. For the purposes of that exercise was because I was looking for what best summarized the overall composite of HG ancestry in MN farmers, and the had a look at Baltic_BA as an outgrowth of that (rather than the detail of the process of formation stage by stage). Using GAC source seems likely to me would "push" additional HG in Baltic_BA slightly east from my estimate, as GAC's HG source should be "west" of where I estimated Baltic_BA's HG source to be.

Slavic populations today further south of Baltic look mostly clinal between SE European/Balkan populations with little HG ancestry and the Baltic_BA population further north. Genetically. It doesn't look like there's much of an independent connection to GAC type MN farmers.(Saying nothing about this says or doesn't say about language).

Rob said...

@ Vladimir

''The earliest dates of the Nalchik burial ground are 5000 BCE. Is there a chg in the steppe before 5000 BCE? For example, is there an admixture of CHG in Samara_HG?''

I don't know what Nalchik will show, but Anthony links it to the Khvalynsk - Progress network, which he essentially dates from 4500 cal BC onward; Eneolithic.
When CHG first admixed remains to be determined via acurrately dated individuals.




Coldmountains said...

@Matt
well i must disagree here. There is a lot of mtdna matches between modern day Slavs, BA Balts and GAC so it is unlikely that there is no direct dna connection. Most of Slavic EEF ancestry is from GAC or closely related groupps which populated the same regions were Slavs formed later (Poland, West Ukraine). Balkan EEFs did not exist in East Poland and north of the Carpathians at least not in pure form. Also Slavs look like they have Balkan admix compared to BA_Balts because they are more CHG and less HG shifted. This Balkan_IA-like admix shows up in such high amounts because Baltic_BA is not an optimal source group. There is probably some Carpathian admix among Slavs but the main EEF component is from Globular Amphora. We nned to wait for more appropriate BA source groups for Slavs else we are stuck with models which may have better fits but don't match the historical situation there.

Rob said...

GAC are modestly relevant for proto-Germanic, not so much for Slavic, it seems

Samuel Andrews said...

Baltic Bronze age are clearly early Baltic speakers.

Davidski said...

@Archi

Of course, Ukraine Mesolithic samples from the Dnieper region are ЕHG. There's a little bit of WHG.

It depends on the distal model that one uses to model their ancestry.

But anyway, the point I was making was that Yamnaya has a lot of this type of ancestry. That is, not just EHG, but EHG with WHG.

Coldmountains said...

Baltic_Ba could be as much as Baltic aa Bell Beakers in Ireland were Celtic. Based on the big Central-Euro/Avar_Hungary_Szolad_2 genetic shift it is unlikely that Baltic_BA spoke something directly ancestral to Balts.

Samuel Andrews said...

@ColdMountains,

It isn't right to model post-Bronze age admix in Baltic states with Slavs like Avar2, considering Slavs are largely Baltic BA-like themselves.

Latvians and select groups of Lithuanians are very similar to Baltic BA. Their southern shift can be explained by many different things. Not necessarily language change.

If you think Balto-Slavic originated outside Baltic States, you still have to admit Baltic BA is directly related to Balto-Slavs. How do you explain that relationship? And what does it say about the language Baltic BA spoke? To me it makes sense to just say they spoke Baltic.

Angantyr said...

@Coldmountains

We don't have any firmly dated late Lithuanian HG.

The Narva HGs we have, of which the youngest I can find is Kretuonas1 4460-3820 BCE, were indeed WHG heavy. But shift towards the EHG end of the scale in Estonia and Latvia happened with arrival of the Comb Ceramics later on.

And we don't have any properly C14 dated Lithuanian genomes from ~4000-3000 BCE, so we don't know if there was an EHG shift there as well or not.

ambron said...

Friends, a specific HG component, represented by Baltic BA and called the Balto-Slavic drift, is now characteristic of the Balts. Therefore, only those Slavs who in the Middle Ages assimilated the Balts (Eastern Slavs and north-eastern Poles) have elevated its level. In Western Slavs, its relatively small amount is the result of homogenization of the Central European gene pool after chalcolite and migration of the Baltic tribes in the Iron Age.

Coldmountains said...

@Samuel Andrews
Baltic_BA is based on their dna and location rather a related but basal Balto-Slavic group, which orginates from an earlier immigration from a region not so far from where later Slavs also formed.

Proto-Slavic and Proto-Baltic diverged according to many linguists around 1000 B.C and i expect that Balts and Slavs were for some centuries after this stil genetically and geographically very close to each other. So i think Proto-Balts arrived somehwere in the Iron Age with a wave from the southwest, which replaced closely related but not identical groups and was rather Avar_Hungary_Szolad-like. Most Balts including Estonians and Latvians with unlikely significant Slavic ancestry show this Avar_Hungary_Szolad_2 shift and it is also already visible in many Iron Age genomes.


Target: Latvian
Distance: 2.0388% / 0.02038802
52.0 Baltic_LTU_BA
34.8 HUN_Avar_Szolad
13.2 Baltic_EST_IA_0LS10

Target: Estonian
Distance: 1.7731% / 0.01773120
33.0 HUN_Avar_Szolad
27.6 Baltic_LTU_BA
26.0 Baltic_EST_IA_0LS10
13.4 Germanic

Target: Lithuanian_PZ
Distance: 2.0927% / 0.02092665
62.0 Baltic_LTU_BA
34.4 HUN_Avar_Szolad
2.8 Baltic_EST_IA_0LS10
0.8 Germanic

Target: Baltic_EST_IA:s19_V12_1
Distance: 2.5170% / 0.02516966
41.2 HUN_Avar_Szolad
29.4 Baltic_EST_IA_0LS10
20.6 Baltic_LTU_BA
8.8 Germanic

Target: Baltic_EST_IA:s19_V11_1
Distance: 2.9782% / 0.02978166
39.4 Baltic_EST_IA_0LS10
31.2 HUN_Avar_Szolad
29.4 Baltic_LTU_BA

Mouthful said...

@Coldmountains

>. So i think Proto-Balts arrived somehwere in the Iron Age with a wave from the southwest, which replaced closely related but not identical groups and was rather Avar_Hungary_Szolad-like.


If anything they arrived from South-East direction with Brushed Pottery culture which is associated with East Balts into Western Baltic territory which occupied most of Latvia/Lithuania except for south/eastern parts.

Archi said...

@Coldmountains
"Proto-Slavic and Proto-Baltic diverged according to many linguists around 1000 B.C"

Linguists say from 1210-1500 BC. With the end of the Trzciniec community and the beginning of the Lusatian culture it was already completely different languages. The Baltic cultures apparently have their beginning in the Sosnitsa(>Lebedevka>) culture, naturally they were not in the Baltic in the Bronze Age, the Balts in ancient times did not know the sea.

old europe said...



@Samuel

"Proto-Indo Europeans descended from hunter gatherers from Southern part of Russia between Caspien and Black Sea. But not necessarily near the Caucasus mountains. That much is for sure"

Don't you think that is more likely that PIE came out from a Neolithic like population Ukraine ( or at least the area that encompasses also the region from the Don to the Donetsk so also the westernmost part of Russia)

I think the mixed WHG/EHG of the Dneper is the source of the basic structure of PIE. Only when PIE breaks up and starts to expand the population was more progress shifted.
I think is the same thing that was detected also in Roman genetics history.
Proto latins and "first romans" were basically an italian bell beaker derived population ( roughly speaking ). But when Rome started to expand they were more similar to an eastern mediterranean population.

Matt said...

@coldmountains, re; "There is a lot of mtdna matches between modern day Slavs, BA Balts and GAC so it is unlikely that there is no direct dna connection. Most of Slavic EEF ancestry is from GAC or closely related groupps which populated the same regions were Slavs formed later (Poland, West Ukraine)", I'll just clarify - I don't really think there'd be an issue with the Baltic BA farmer ancestry being via GAC. (I re-ran my models and there's surprisingly little effect on the estimated "Baltic_BA HG" from modelling as CWC_early+GAC+X HG vs CWC_early+KorosN+X HG). That's fine.

It's more that I don't see populations to the south as being really very much clinal between Baltic_BA and then populations which are more or less like GAC+CWC_early. Although there is some variance in this - obviously more so in Czechs, Slovaks and other more central populations. It doesn't look like there is much connection to GAC that is *independent* of what is mediated by Baltic_BA type populations. Some connection that is mediated by Baltic_BA type populations is no problemo.

TLT said...

Vasista said something about a sample size of 10 or something like that. It is too small and the results aren't reliable enough with such a small sample. I don't doubt that there are outlier groups in south Asia with excessive steppe mtDNA, but these are the exception and such a characteristic is not true on the large scale for the vast majority of the population.

Slumbery said...

@coldmountains

There seem to be a clear southern admixture, but I am not sure it can be pinned down to such a specific thing as the Szólád samples. The much older Beakers from the region give a sightly better fit and I'd wager that a lot of yet to be sampled populations would work too.

In G25 nMontes (scaled, no penalty):


"sample": "Latvian:Average",
"distance": 0.8337,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 73,
"Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA": 27

"sample": "Lithuanian PZ:Average",
"distance": 1.101,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 70.5,
"Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA": 29.5

"sample": "Latvian:Average",
"distance": 0.9598,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 54.5,
"Avar_Szolad": 45.5

"sample": "Lithuanian PZ:Average",
"distance": 1.2273,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 53.5,
"Avar_Szolad": 46.5

The source is not necessarily the Carpathian Basin either. Bell Beaker from Poland works just as well.

"sample": "Latvian:Average",
"distance": 0.8336,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 71.5,
"Bell_Beaker": 28.5

"sample": "Lithuanian PZ:Average",
"distance": 0.9729,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 67.5,
"Bell_Beaker": 32.5

And it is likely that suitable sources for this kind of mix existed in an even wiser region. All we can say that there was an admixture from the South of the Baltic since the Bronze Age samples.

Coldmountains said...

@Slumbery
Proto-Balts would arrive from the southwest in the Iron Age likely from the Hatched Ware culture in Belarus, which unlikely resembled Bronze Age Bell Beakers. The problem with your model is, is that it is ignoring later Germanic admix in the region which is visible both in uniparental markers and autosomal dna. So modern day Balts got their southern shift not just from Iron Age Balto-Slavs from Belarus but also from Scandinavians. Avar_Hungary_Szolad_2 is probably not the best source group for Balts and future sampled groups from Belarus and northeast Poland should work better but for now it is helpful.

Target: Estonian
Distance: 1.1365% / 0.01136494
44.2 Baltic_LVA_BA
29.2 Germanic
22.6 HUN_Avar_Szolad
4.0 RUS_Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov

Target: Latvian
Distance: 0.7995% / 0.00799516
53.4 Baltic_LVA_BA
31.4 HUN_Avar_Szolad
14.4 Germanic
0.8 RUS_Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov

Target: Lithuanian_PZ
Distance: 0.9419% / 0.00941925
52.6 Baltic_LVA_BA
27.2 HUN_Avar_Szolad
20.2 Germanic

Archi said...

@Slumbery @Coldmountains

The problem is what you're looking for under the flashlight. That is, you use the samples you know, while to model Balts you need other populations that you do not have. You just have to take into account that the Proto-Balts lived very far from the mountains, they didn't know any mountains at all, they didn't even know this concept, that is, they lived as far away from the Carpathians and the Urals as possible in the area filled with different marshes far from the sea.

Do not forget that all Balts, Western and Eastern, have Finno-Ugric by origin haplogroup N1c in 40%-50%.

Archi said...

Coldmountains said...
"Proto-Balts would arrive from the southwest in the Iron Age likely from the Hatched Ware culture in Belarus"

Only the Brushed pottery culture (Strichkeramik-Kultur) is not southwest, but southeast.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strichkeramik-Kultur#/media/Datei:Baltic_cultures_600-200_BC_SVG.svg


Thomas Spence said...

@Davidski Thank you! If you don't mind me asking, where does the best genetic evidence place the Slavic homeland?

Davidski said...

@Thomas Spence

If you don't mind me asking, where does the best genetic evidence place the Slavic homeland?

I don't want to speculate about that until I see many more Iron Age samples from Eastern Europe.

Wastrel said...

Just want to make a small point about some of the discussions above...

When you talk about Unetice, and people living around 2000BC, and indeed for some time afterward, the thing to bear in mind is that we're not really talking about multiple ethnicities, and proto-this and proto-that.

Yes, PIE had broken up by then; it wasn't all just one language, and people from distant areas would have struggled to understand one another.

But the new languages had only been separated for a few hundred years, a thousand years at most. They would have been extremely similar, and indeed largely comprehensible to each other with some concentration and experience.

Several hundred years separate English from American English. Over a thousand years separate Spanish from Portuguese. Nearly two thousand years separate German from Dutch.

And remember also that languages don't really break into discrete daughter languages. They form continuums. It was said in the 19th century that you could walk from Paris to Lisbon without ever noticing the language you heard change - French faded into Occitan, faded into Catalan, faded into Aragonese, faded into Castilian, faded into Asturian, faded into Galician, faded into Portuguese, all the 'borders' blurred by intermediate 'dialects' (only later standardised by national school curriculums and mass media). And the IE languages of Europe in 2000BC would have been closer than the modern Romance languages. There would have been a vast continuum of dialects - most of which did not end up producing any language family that survives today. For every Latin, there's half a dozen Oscans and Faliscans and Sabines and Venetics and Messapians and so forth; and likewise, for every pre-proto-Celtic there'd have been a dozen pre-proto-Didn't-Survives.

It's a mistake to project the ethnic identities - small in number, distinct in character - of a millennium, two millennia, later back onto the much less divided, much more recently separated communities of the 2000BC era.

And so finding very similar genes, very similar inherited technologies and customs, even inherited trade routes and political alliances, should be no surprise. It's also likely from the linguistic evidence that the new languages that were developing at this time also continued to influence one another considerably, indicating a community that was still extensively communicating, even if with increasing difficulty.

Where cultural differences are seen, they should be interpreted less as already-existing ethnic distinctions, and more as experiments and innovations, or localised borrowings - things that in some cases went on to mark sharp ethnic distinctions, but wouldn't have done at that time. Don't see them as comings together of different ethnic groups (at least, speaking of IE - the integration of pre-IE local groups is of course another matter), but as a single community in the process of diversification into what would later become different ethnic groups.

[oh, and a small point: "Centum" is no longer thought of a monophyletic group, as it's simply the absence of satem. There's no reason to think Tocharian was more related to the Northwest languages than to the Southeast languages; indeed, it's usually assumed that it broke off much ealier than that bifurcation. It's also no longer assumed that the satem languages are necessarily a real clade either - it's entirely possible that the satem shift was borrowed between neighbouring languages, rather than a shared inheritance from a single development.]

Jatt_Scythian said...

I don't Balts have autosomal admixture from N1c people though do they?

Weird how so many ENA lineages made it to Europe but no autosomal admixture. I guess ydna I/C guys were wiped out?

Davidski said...

@Jatt_Scythian

Do you know what founder effects are?

FrankN said...

Sam: "Baltic Bronze age are clearly early Baltic speakers."

There was substantial population replacement/ influx between Baltic_CWC and Baltic_BA, so aDNA speaks against any kind of "organic" linguistic evolution from late/ western PIE (CWC) towards Baltic in situ.
IIRC, the original publications on Baltic_BA assessed potential admixture sources and concluded on a heavy-WHG admixed one. More specifically, they ruled out Narva, i.e. admix with local HGs, and PWC. As such, we seem to be dealing with EBA immigration from further west, either surving Kujavian GAC, or (possibly WHG-heavy) North German Single Grave. In the latter case, Baltic_BA should have rather spoken something akin to the Germanic Parent Language, than proto-Balto Slavic.
[In this context, I would be curious how the new Tangermünde_LN sample (75% WHG) incorporated in the fresh Rivollat e.a. paper fares as source for Baltic_BA. Its archeological assignment is somewhat fuzzy: It is described as "TRB from an Elbe-Havel context", which in that form doesn't make sense, as the Elbe-Havel Culture wasn't TRB, but part of GAC-West. Geographically and chronologically, the sample should represent the Walternienburg Culture. Whatever the actual assignment (cultural borders between Walternienburg, Bernburg and GAC-West were fluent, and multicultural cemeteries/ burials quite frequent), the sample suggests that we should expect a substantial WHG element in Schönfeld (post-GAC) and probably also N. German Single Grave.]

Then, there were several IA migrations towards the East Baltics. One was the Finnic (Tarand Grave) expansion, which reached at least N. Latvia and Courland, possibly even the Vistula Lagoon (c.f. Tacitus' "Aesti" there). According to Latvian archeologists/ historians, Courland was only "balticised" during the 9th c AD. From what I have understood, a good part of the difference between Lithuanian and Latvian is attributed to the fact that the latter has absorbed considerable Uralic sub-/adstrate.

From the west came the Pomeranian Culture that by ca. 300 BC expanded towards both banks of the Lower Vistula. It has clear archeological links to N. Italy, and IMO may actually represent migration from there, since there is also some linguistic and toponymic indication of Italic influence (more details on request) - as such, the presence of Veneti on the Upper Vistula might represent more than just "chance correpondence" of ethnonyms. Last but not least, there were the Goths (Wielbark Culture) settling West Prussia and also some parts of East Prussia. That doesnt't leave much (geographic) space for a Baltic languages homeland in the Baltic States. More importantly, the E. Baltics were certainly not the kind of environment where PIE features could be preserved against all kinds of innovations and external influences.

t.b.c

FrankN said...

Having said that: There are two Baltic groups that are already reported by Ptolemy in "Northern Sarmatia", and chances are good that their medieval territories are not too far from where they dwelled during Ptolemy's time. These tribes were the Galindoi = Galindians (Southern E. Prussia), and the Soudinoi, the latter commonly associated with the Sudovians aka Jatvingians between Elk, Narev and Lower Nemunas (modern NE Poland, SW Lithuania, NW Belarus). Both tribes spoke West Baltic languages similar to Old Prussian. Acc. to the early 13th cAD Historia Polonia, Polesians were also Prussians or Jatvingians (whether from antiquity, or by early medieval expansions, remains unclear). As such, the homeland of W. Baltic languages, which split during the early IA from E. Baltic, may be reasonably pinpointed down to somewhere between Olsztyn, Lublin and Gomel, which essentially overlaps with the area of the Milograd Culture, plus smaller late IA West Baltic Cultures such as the Sudovian Culture.

For E. Baltic languages (Lithuanian, Latvian), the prevailing assumption seems to be that their homeland was the Brushed Pottery Culture (E. Lithuania, N. Belarus, Smolensk area).

Interesting in this respect is that the little onomastic material available for Daco-Thracian suggests that it might be relatively closely related to Baltic (but not Slavic!) languages. Dacians were quite expansive during the late pre-Roman IA, as a/o attested by Ptolemy's recording of Setidava - a typical Dacian toponym - in Central Poland, probably near modern Konin. [Wlodava in the Polish-Belorussian-Ukrainian border triangle looks like another Dacian toponym, albeit I was unable to figure out anything about its etymology]. Might the Dacian expansion already have commenced during the early IA and contributed to the evolution of Baltic languages? Intriguing here is a/o the term "Sudovia" that appears to capture the Dacian "-dava/dova" (c.f. Moldova <- molt [many] dova).

Samuel Andrews said...

I respect your guys opinions. I'm not personally into or knowledgeable on subject of Balto-Slavic origins so not sure of my own positions.

Vladimir said...

@FrankN IIRC, the original publications on Baltic_BA assessed potential admixture sources and concluded on a heavy-WHG admixed one. More specifically, they ruled out Narva, i.e. admix with local HGs, and PWC. As such, we seem to be dealing with EBA immigration from further west, either surving Kujavian GAC, or (possibly WHG-heavy) North German Single Grave. In the latter case, Baltic_BA should have rather spoken something akin to the Germanic Parent Language, than proto-Balto Slavic.“

I doubt that there was a Germanic language-the ancestor-at the time of the North German single grave. Especially since the North German single grave is R1a-Z284 ( RISE61.SG ). There is no such haplogroup in BA Baltic, and there is no such haplogroup in Baltic and later. There is only R1a-Z280.

Rob said...

@ FrankN

''From the west came the Pomeranian Culture that by ca. 300 BC expanded towards both banks of the Lower Vistula. It has clear archeological links to N. Italy, and IMO may actually represent migration from there, since there is also some linguistic and toponymic indication of Italic influence (more details on request) - as such, the presence of Veneti on the Upper Vistula might represent more than just "chance correpondence" of ethnonym''

Definitely more than chance. BUt i don;t think its a lagre migration, either (unless we find a U152 hotspot in Iron Age south Baltic).
I suspect it has to do with Amber Route, and alliances & kinship built between distant groups

ambron said...

Frank, that's right ... Polesians were Balts until the Middle Ages. In the Middle Ages they were assimilated by the Slavs. Until the middle of the Middle Ages, Balts were also Poles from a significant area of Poland in the north-east direction. This part of Poland is genetically identical to Polesie. Therefore, the Slavs could not come to Poland from Polesie, as some German and Polish archaeologists believe. There were no Slavs in these areas before the Middle Ages.

Some linguists actually classify Dac-Thracian languages as South Baltic dialects. But they also say that Slav dialects come from this dialectal group.

ambron said...

David:

"Do you know what founder effects are?"

David, if we assume that the main Polish Y-DNA lines originate from the founder's effect, we cannot say that genetically Poles come mainly from such a founding group. One excludes the other.

Vladimir said...

@ Jatt_Scythian
don't Balts have autosomal admixture from N1c people though do they?
Weird how so many ENA lineages made it to Europe but no autosomal admixture. I guess ydna I/C guys were wiped out?"

When we get the bronze age samples from the Volga region and the forest region of Russia in General, I think we will see a lot of N1a that entered European Russia no later than 1500-2000 BCE. That is, before reaching the Baltic sea in 500 BCE, they lived for 1000-1500 years in European Russia, where they assimilated the entire population that lived there before them. And before that, it is obvious that they were still in Western Siberia and the southern Urals for about 300 - 500 years in contact with the Andronovo culture. So they lost the ENA long before they arrived in the Baltic.

Coldmountains said...

@Vladimir
How do you think were post-Fatyanovo groups in Central Russia? Because it does not seem that much of Sintashta-like dna survived in terms of Y-dna and in terms of autosomal dna probably not more than 10%. I cqn model Russians from the Region as mainly Hun_Avar_Szolad + Udmurt and in some cases something Rus_Alan/Sarmatian-like. So i expect Iron Age Uralics to be similar to Udmurts but with a shift towards Baltic_IA and Sarmatians.

Vladimir said...


@Vladimir
How do you think were post-Fatyanovo groups in Central Russia? Because it does not seem that much of Sintashta-like dna survived in terms of Y-dna and in terms of autosomal dna probably not more than 10%. I cqn model Russians from the Region as mainly Hun_Avar_Szolad + Udmurt and in some cases something Rus_Alan/Sarmatian-like. So i expect Iron Age Uralics to be similar to Udmurts but with a shift towards Baltic_IA and Sarmatians."

As far as I have read, archaeologists consider the post Fatyanovo component insignificant. They write that these were small groups of people who lived separately and did not make a significant contribution to the population of the region. The main population was post Volosovo. It was Volosovo that assimilated the population of the pit-comb pottery culture. There were, of course, separate groups of Fatyanovo-Balanovo, and there were also steppe groups such as the Pozdnyakovo culture and the Bondarikh culture. Somewhere in the North of the forest-steppe they encountered the srubnaya culture. Group N1a-L1025 I think assimilated the most Eastern Balto-Slavs. I think the textile ceramics culture is already syncretic N1a-L1025 plus R1a-Z280.

Rob said...


@ Jatt

''Weird how so many ENA lineages made it to Europe but no autosomal admixture. I guess ydna I/C guys were wiped out?''

You need to try understand the relevant time windows here
Y-DNA C is an upper paleolithic lineage. Whatever it's fate, it has little to do with N1c, for example

Archi said...

@Vladimir

"Fatyanovo I think the textile ceramics culture is already syncretic ... plus R1a-Z280."

Why would you do that? Even if the Fatyanovans were R1a-Z280, they still left before the textile ceramics came. The Fatyanoid ceramics were from the remaining women. Anyway, the Finno-Ugric has no ancient branches of R1a-Z280, although in lands like Estonia and Western Finland, where there was a CWC (not Fatyanovo), they should have been.

Vladimir said...

@ Archie "Fatyanovo I think the textile ceramics culture is already syncretic ... plus R1a-Z280."

I didn't write it. Fatyanovo, as Davidski says, is Z93. If so, they have gone to the steppes. Z280 is not from Fatyanovo, but from the Tshinetsko-Komarovskaya culture, Sosnitskaya culture, Lebedovskaya culture. I think that the Balts also went to the East. For example, modern Mordvins have 35% R1a-Z280. In General, all the Volga peoples have at least 20% R1a-Z280 and practically no R1a-M458, which, in my opinion, indicates that this is not a late Russian assimilation, but much older processes of interactions Balts and Finno-Ugric in Central Russia.

Archi said...

@Vladimir "I didn't write it."

"There were, of course, separate groups of Fatyanovo-Balanovo" June 22, 2020 at 12:42 AM

"Z280 is not from Fatyanovo, but from the Tshinetsko-Komarovskaya culture, Sosnitskaya culture, Lebedovskaya culture. I think the textile ceramics culture"

You see, this culture was not on the territory of Textile pottery culture. And there was no Textile Ceramics culture in the Tshiniec-Komarovo community. The interpenetration was already later after these cultures, in the Iron Age.

ambron said...

Vladimir, the Balts reached for the Volga. At PCA Kusznierewicz, central Russia clusters with Estonia and Mordwa lies between Lithuania/Latvia and Estonia.

Vladimir said...

@Archie/ I would not say so categorically that there is no one left from Fatyanovo-Balanovo in subsequent cultures, for example, in the culture of Netted ceramics. Many people write about the Balanovo culture that it was absorbed by the culture of Netted ceramics. Looking at the sets of haplogroups in the modern population, I see that there has never been a complete replacement. The Volga peoples have I2a, R1b-M73, R1b-Z2103,R1a-Z2124, J2a, Q1a and a lot of different haplogroups. As for the "textile ceramics" culture, Yes, I was referring to the streaked ceramics culture. I am sure that all Baltic cultures: Yukhnovskaya, Dnipro-Dvina, and streaked ceramics were very closely in contact with neighboring Fino-Ugric cultures: Gorodetskaya culture, dyakovskaya culture. Not on the topic, but a quote from Wikipedia with which I agree completely: the Milograd culture is genetically related to the sosnicka and trzyniec culture. Later it was assimilated by the podkloshevo-pomeranian tribes that came from the North-West and later formed the zarubinets culture.in the North it became part of the late streaked pottery culture. These "podkloshevo - pomeranian tribes" is the first appearance of the Slavs in Milograd culture.

Archi said...

@Vladimir said...

"As for the "textile ceramics" culture, Yes, I was referring to the streaked ceramics culture."

It's very hard to understand you. It's clear that most cultures have different parallel names, it's a norm, but you use the names of one culture for a completely different unrelated culture, which you also call unintelligible as not corresponding to any tradition.

Angantyr said...

@Vladimir

RISE61 isn't R1a-Z284 and he's from a secondary burial in a TRB passage grave in Zealand where there was no established CWC variant, so we don't know if he genetically represents Single Grave or something else (e.g. Battle Axe).

Vladimir said...

@Angantyr

maybe, but it says here that he's their Single grave
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Grave_culture

and here it is marked as Z284
https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=33f63a909cab43158d8d86b7952c0ed4

Archi said...

Corded Ware/Nordic MN Denmark Kyndelose, PMD 17, V, N chamber lower layer
[RISE61] 2650-2300 BC including reduction for high marine signal; 2851-2492 calBCE (4071±27 BP, OxA-28296) R1a1a1b1a3b1 [Reported as R1a1a1] Page7+; [*Tagankin adds: CTS8401+ , Z281+] J1c4



Angantyr said...

@Vladimir

"maybe, but it says here that he's their Single grave
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Grave_culture"

Wikipedia is not a source. It refers to Malmström 2019:

"This could possibly also extend to the Danish Single Grave Culture (SGC) [49], as RISE61 [2], a male buried in the Kyndeløse passage grave and with a radiocarbon date overlapping with the BAC/CWC/SGC time period, also displays some steppe ancestry."

Note "possibly".

As for the situation in Zealand, check https://www.academia.edu/30912826/Was_there_ever_a_Single_Grave_culture_in_East_Denmark_Traditions_and_transformations_in_the_3rd_millennium_BC

Angantyr said...

@Archi

Tagankin's analysis doesn't look reliable, see this discussion on Anthrogenica (and note the dating issue): http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4664-Request-Y-DNA-haplogroup-results-from-Allentoft-2015&p=91853&viewfull=1#post91853

Grant said...

That may be true now, but the true origin of those particular subclades of U appears to be mesolithic Central Europe, e.g. the Kunda culture. Its centre of gravity appears to have shifted eastward with the successive waves of post-PIE migration. (As it happens my mtDNA is U2e and my aDNA profile is typical of my documented British and Irish ancestry.

Archi said...

@Angantyr

"Tagankin's analysis doesn't look reliable,"

That's not true. Tagankin is YFull, and the others don't know who. But even they don't deny Z282>Z284>Z287>CTS8401>Z281(Z281+ S6752- S3238- S3225-).

Mayuresh Madhav Kelkar said...

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-66133-3

Rob said...

It's interesting, Pitted Ware culture in Scandinavia is said to be part of the Eastern sub-Neolithikum. But genomically, it's not an EHG shift, rather a southwestern shift compared to earlier Mesolithic HGs, so it seems like a cline between TRB & Motala.

Archi said...

@Mayuresh Madhav Kelkar

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-66953-3

Our comparisons with available modern and ancient DNA datasets from South Asia indicate that the Brahmin caste has higher Ancient Iranian and Steppe pastoralist contributions than the Kunbi Marathas caste. Additionally, in contrast to the two castes, tribal groups have very high Ancient Ancestral South Indian (AASI) contributions. Indo-European tribal groups tend to have higher Steppe contributions than Dravidian tribal groups, providing further support for the hypothesis that Steppe pastoralists were the source of Indo-European languages in South Asia, as well as Europe.

Mayuresh Madhav Kelkar said...


https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-66953-3


"Indo-European tribal groups tend to have higher Steppe contributions than Dravidian tribal groups, providing further support for the hypothesis that Steppe pastoralists were the source of Indo-European languages in South Asia, as well as Europe.""

I know nothing about genetics. But Indo European TRIBAL groups and Dravidian TRIBAL groups?! Oh my. Oh my.



Rob said...

the East Baltic coast seem to have undergone something of a demographic decline in the late 4th century, with remnants concentrating into different groupings (eg Curonians, Lamatians). Could partly relate to a push to the east- with emergence East Lithunian Barrow group, replaced Striated Pottery culture by 3rd cc.
A decline in Mazuria also in late 300s, then with appearance of Oltzyn cutlure by 500 ? where did they come from

In Sambia, continuity of Dolkeim-Kovorovo group, expanding southwest toward Vistula estuary (vacated by Wielbark groups), coming into Scandinavians moving south toward Pomerania to form the syncretic Elblag group.

Slumbery said...

@Coldmountains

"The problem with your model is, is that it is ignoring later Germanic admix in the region which is visible both in uniparental markers and autosomal dna."

That was not really a "problem", more like an intended simplification. Before the posted runs I did some others with multiple populations and determined that it did not matter much for the purpose of the comparison.
However it apparently did not matter only because I tried to use Bronze age sources. Indeed if I use Sigtuna as Germanic/Skandinavian, then Szólád is much better than the Beakers.


"sample": "Lithuanian PZ:Average",
"distance": 0.8132,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 53,
"Avar_Szolad": 24,
"Viking_Age_Sigtuna": 23

"sample": "Latvian:Average",
"distance": 0.6691,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 51.5,
"Avar_Szolad": 26.5,
"Viking_Age_Sigtuna": 22

"sample": "Latvian:Average",
"distance": 0.7285,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 63,
"Viking_Age_Sigtuna": 18.5,
"Bell_Beaker" (Poland): 18.5

"sample": "Lithuanian PZ:Average",
"distance": 0.9049,
"Baltic_LVA_BA": 62,
"Viking_Age_Sigtuna": 24.5,
"Bell_Beaker"(Poland): 13.5

However for example modern Ukrainans give a superior fit in the same test compared even to Szólád and I do not think they have much of Balt admixture. What we see here is either Slavic admixture into Balts or even the Balts themselves as an admixture into the Baltic BA population. And there is a very wide potential source area for that, I would not limit it into the SW direction.

"Avar_Hungary_Szolad_2 is probably not the best source group for Balts and future sampled groups from Belarus and northeast Poland should work better but for now it is helpful."

Basically I agree, except your apparent focus on the SW direction.

vAsiSTha said...

@davidski said
For anyone reading these comments and thinking of actually taking anything that clown vAsiSTha says seriously, here's a very thorough paper that discusses the relatively low frequencies of European/steppe mtDNA lineages in South Asia"

Im sure you havent even looked at the samples of the paper, you keep touting it because it suits your purposes. how many brahmin samples are there among 1400 samples they have studied?

West eurasian mtdna = european + iranian/turanian/bmac for below quotes
Uttarakhand paper 2019

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299513303_The_paternal_ancestry_of_Uttarakhand_does_not_imitate_the_classical_caste_system_of_India/link/5c909980299bf14e7e84d155/download

"When comparing with the previous analyses,43,52 our data showed significant (unpaired t-test Po0.0001) higher proportion of West Eurasian-specific lineages among traditionally higher caste (Brahmin and Kshatriya) populations for maternal lineages, although it was non-significant for the paternal ancestry (unpaired t-test P=0.5468)."

"Interestingly, the maternal structure of this region was in congruent with the classical social system, where distance from Brahmins to other groups was following a social ladder type structure (Figure 3a). However, the male line of descent did not reveal any kind of such local structure (Figure 3b)"

2015 mtdna paper https://www.academia.edu/12110338/West_Eurasian_mtDNA_lineages_in_India_an_insight_into_the_spread_of_the_Dravidian_language_and_the_origins_of_the_caste_system?auto=download

"A large proportion of the west Eurasian mtDNA haplogroups observed among the higher-ranked caste groups, their phylogenetic affinity and age estimate indicate recent Indo-Aryan migration to India from west Asia. The Indian–west Eurasian lineage diversity and frequency are highest in higher-ranked caste, implying that the west Eurasian admixture was restricted to caste rank."

2004 https://bmcgenet.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2156-5-26

"Broadly, the average proportion of mtDNAs from West Eurasia among Indian caste populations is 17% (Table 2). In the western States of India and in Pakistan their share is greater, reaching over 30% in Kashmir and Gujarat, nearly 40% in Indian Punjab, and peaking, expectedly, at approximately 50% in Pakistan"

"In comparison to an overall frequency of 17% (CR 15.1–19.3%) among the caste populations, only 7% (CR 6.2 – 9.0%) of the mtDNAs from the tribal groups show affiliation to the West Eurasian haplogroups."

Kashmir 2018
"Ancient Human Migrations to and through Jammu Kashmir- India were not of Males Exclusively"
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-18893-8

"However, all these groups taken together represented 29/83 studied samples (34.9%), thus more than a third of lineages were contributed from outside of India. Some of these HGs were mainly the West Eurasian and North-East Asian HGs, rarely have been found in India."

Bamshad 2001
"For maternally inherited mtDNA, each caste is most similar to Asians. However, 20%–30% of Indian mtDNA haplotypes belong to West Eurasian haplogroups, and the frequency of these haplotypes is proportional to caste rank, the highest frequency of West Eurasian haplotypes being found in the upper castes. In contrast, for paternally inherited Y-chromosome variation each caste is more similar to Europeans than to Asians."

These studies tell you that west eurasian (iranic + european) mtDna HG frequency can predict caste, but Y-HG frequencies cant.
This is because higher castes got preference in mate choice (this is an actual fact)

@tlt
Here are the mtDna subclades found in brahmins that are exclusively from western+eastern europe, siberia, altai as per aDna database.

H1+152,H15a1a1,H1ba,H1e+16129,H2,H2a2,H2b,H5a1,HV12a,HV6,K1a,K1b1a1+199,K2a5,N1a,T1a1,T1a1'3,T1b,T2,T2_16189,T2a1a,T2a1b,T2c1,T2d1b,U1a1,U2e,U2e1'2'3,U2e1h,U2e3,U3a,U4c1,U4d,U4d3,U5a1b,U7b,U8b1a1,V,X2b+226

Jatt_Scythian said...

If Fataynovo is Z93+ then it really can't be Baltic. I believe NE Europe still has some Z93(xZ94) so that lines up nicely.

@Rob

My basic point was that there must have been a continuum of West Eurasian C (and I?) lineages accompanied by mtDNA U from Spain to maybe where Yana was and it seems like they all got replaced by ENA males, whether y K2b or N1c. I read something similar happened to the West Eurasian male lineages in North Africa BY SSA lineages. I'm just curious why West Eurasian male lineages were not so successful to the point where most West Eurasians today are speaking ENA and SSA languages (Indo-European and Semitic respectively).

Samuel Andrews said...

@Angtyr,

Lithuania Narva dating 4500 BC is abnormally WHG shifted compared to earlier hunter gatherers from Latvia dating 6000-7000 BC. So they aren't representative of all Baltic hunter gatherers.

Comb Cermaic brought new EHG ancestry, but earlier Mesolithic Latvia hunter gatherers already had decent amount of EHG (but were mostly WHG).

@ColdMountains,

in my opinon, the hunter gatherer ancestry unique to modern Eastern Europeans is pretty EHG shifted, probably as shifted as Latvia HGs are and maybe more.

I know one can't reliably model what kind of hunter gatherer it is in modern pops.

But looking at ancient pops Hungary Bronze age I5102/I5104 and Welzin Bronze age, they chose Romania HG as their hunter gatherer ancestor who was even more EHG than Latvia HGs.

Also when I model Baltic BA with Latvia HG, Narva HG, Iron gate HG they chose mainly Latvia HG.

And, if Balto-SLavs formed in Belarus, Ukraine area the hunter gatherers there we can assume were more EHG than Latvia HGs.

So, I think by my original point that Central-East hunter gatherer ancestry shifts Eastern Europeans further east on West Eurasia PCA therefore makes them closer to Corded Ware than others.

Angantyr said...

@Archi
@Vladimir

There's still the negative SNP on Z645 that someone found. It's no in the ISOGG tree though.

And OK. ISOGG still doesn't include Z281 either, but they have include SNPs YFull list as equivalents, and YFull have adjusted their earlier time estimates for Z281 to be within possible distance from RISE61's date. From what I understand it's single SNP reads and I remain skeptic, but I have to acknowledge that it's a "maybe".

Angantyr said...

@Rob

"It's interesting, Pitted Ware culture in Scandinavia is said to be part of the Eastern sub-Neolithikum. But genomically, it's not an EHG shift, rather a southwestern shift compared to earlier Mesolithic HGs, so it seems like a cline between TRB & Motala."

Yes, it's only natural given the time and location of PWC's first attestation (east central Sweden, at the NE edge of TRB colonization, and at the same time that TRB disappears from the same area) that they're a mix of SHGs and TRB farmers. The earliest PWC pottery also show TRB influences (that wane off with time).

But now that there is quite a number of SHG genomes available, plus similar Baltic HGs, and a number of (Swedish) TRB genomes as well, it should be possible to see if PWC people show preference for any particular group(s) of HGs and farmers.

Rob said...

@ Jatt

''“My basic point was that there must have been a continuum of West Eurasian C (and I?) lineages accompanied by mtDNA U from Spain to maybe where Yana was and it seems like they all got replaced by ENA males, whether y K2b or N1
read something similar happened to the West Eurasian male lineages in North Africa BY SSA lineages. I'm just curious why West Eurasian male lineages were not so successful to the point where most West Eurasians today are speaking ENA and SSA languages (Indo-European and Semitic respectively).“

Well, all groups came to Europe from the East, as it is the western peninsular of Eurasia
But again, you're condensing 40,000 years of history into a one slice without really understanding what was occurring, orbeing aware of what region you're actually talking about. There were several swing between a more west & more eastern affinities in Eastern Europe, for ex.
And to call PIE an ENA sounds like nonsense.; Im not sure which forums youve been reading

Rob said...


From preivous post ''late 4th century, '' that is CE/ AD

For the earlier period, the main change was in LBA (after a relative dearth in settlement in the post-Corded, MBA phase), with appearance of fortified settlements and barrows all around the Baltic Sea, + intensification of agriculture around Baltic littoral. These appear to be influences from Laustitz culture and Nordic BA, but looking at Baltic LBA & Iron Age genomes (the non-east shifte ones), the main change is hunter-gatherer introgression (although ideal source is not yet sampled?)
So a significant population continuity seems apparaent in East Baltic region, and in fact, they appear to have expanded East at the expense of Fatyanovo-related groups

Lang has a good and up to date overview:
Fortified Settlements in the Eastern Baltic: From Earlier Research to New Interpretations
Valter Lang

Rob said...

@ Angantyr

Not a great fit , but something like
SWE_PWC_NHG
EST_Narva:3 38%
Motala_HG 34.8%
SWE_TRB 20.2%
Corded_Ware_Baltic 7%
d ~ 3%

The well-resolved PWC were I2a1a & I2a1b, which is not inconsistent with Narva-like groups (although I2a1 was prevalent throughout out pre-bronze Age northern Europe)
So I guess PWC were from the east, but not genetically very 'eastern'

Coldmountains said...

@Samuel Andrews

well Mesolithic source groups should not be used because they are ahistorical and you can also model extra direct EHG among Poles and Central-East Europeans but there was no EHG population in the region when Corded Ware arrived.

Anyways i don't see the high EHG ancestry in DEU_Welzin and Hungary_BA.

Target: HUN_BA
Distance: 1.9286% / 0.01928555
60.0 HUN_Tiszapolgar_ECA
27.2 Corded_Ware_DEU
12.0 POL_Globular_Amphora
0.8 ROU_Iron_Gates_HG

Target: HUN_Mako_EBA
Distance: 2.9768% / 0.02976803
45.4 HUN_Tiszapolgar_ECA
25.4 Baltic_LTU_Narva
25.2 Corded_Ware_DEU
4.0 ROU_Meso

Target: DEU_Welzin_BA
Distance: 2.7385% / 0.02738492
40.6 Corded_Ware_DEU
22.2 HUN_Tiszapolgar_ECA
15.6 POL_Globular_Amphora
12.4 ROU_Meso
9.2 Baltic_LTU_Narva


It does not seem that Rou_Meso or very EHG shifted ancestry survived long in the Balkan and Central-East Europe. The HG outliners in Rou_C and Pol_BGK look very much Baltic_LTU_Narva-like and are more WHG-shifted. Proto-Balto-Slavs forming somehwhere between Central Poland and Lithuania should rather have a Baltic_LTU_Narva-shifted HG substrate

Target: POL_BKG_N_o2
Distance: 2.5425% / 0.02542478
45.2 HUN_Tiszapolgar_ECA
17.6 Baltic_LTU_Narva
15.2 WHG
13.0 ROU_Iron_Gates_HG
9.0 POL_Globular_Amphora

Target: POL_BKG_N_o1
Distance: 2.4219% / 0.02421890
50.6 Baltic_LTU_Narva
26.2 WHG
23.2 ROU_Iron_Gates_HG

Target: ROU_C_o
Distance: 2.5094% / 0.02509368
53.8 Baltic_LTU_Narva
27.2 HUN_Tiszapolgar_ECA
16.2 POL_Globular_Amphora
2.8 ROU_Iron_Gates_HG

Davidski said...

@Jatt_Scythian

I'm just curious why West Eurasian male lineages were not so successful to the point where most West Eurasians today are speaking ENA and SSA languages (Indo-European and Semitic respectively).

I'm not aware of any serious literature that suggest Indo-European originated in East Asia or in an East Asian population.

You need to stop this, because it looks like you're trolling, so I'll have to ban you if you keep it up.

Jatt_Scythian said...

@Davidski

I meant if y K2b/P are originally East Asian then wouldn't IE have predecessors from East Asians?

THat's my last comment on the matter. I'll drop it.

Gabriel said...

@Jatt_Scythian

But that doesn’t mean PIE is an East Asian language family. You can’t just classify languages like that.

Not to mention PIE is from a West Eurasian population that lived in Europe for a while, as with Semitic in the Near East. They’re not like Uralic, which seems to be from Siberia.

Davidski said...

@Jatt_Scythian

It's likely that PIE was spoken in Eastern Europe in a population that belonged to several different Y-haplogroups.

And it's also likely that Proto-PIE and para PIE languages were spoken in Eastern Europe and maybe nearby parts of Asia in populations that belonged to several different Y-haplogroups.

There's nothing before this that matters, because there's no way you can track the development of a language from 10,000 years ago, let alone from 40,000 years ago.

That's the last that I want to see on this topic here.

Rob said...

What is peoples view on proto-Semitic ? Ive seen now a couple of rather whacky theories recently ; Jatt conveyed the SSA idea; and Bell Beaker Blogger thinks that Semitic is from WHGs.

Samuel Andrews said...

@ColdMountains,

I put in the same pops as in your fit, including many more, but get a worse and different fit for Welzin BA. I don't understand why.

3.116"

Welzin_BA_Germany

Romania_HG,31.6
CWC_Germany (excluding outliers),25.2
Hungary_MN_Sopot,24.8
Hungary_Chl_Balaton_Lasinja,11.7
Afanasievo,6.7

These are the two Hungary BAs I was referring to.....

2.9298"

Hungary_BA:I1502

Hungary_MN_Sopot,47.3
Romania_HG,26.9
Afanasievo,11.9
Narva_Lithuania,10.3
CWC_Germany (excluding outliers),3.6

2.8494"

Hungary_BA:I1504

Hungary_MN_Sopot,47.6
Afanasievo,17
Romania_HG,16.2
CWC_Germany (excluding outliers),11.8
Narva_Lithuania,6.4
Romania_Iron_Gates_HG,1

Right now, it seems Welzin BA mostly derives from a Hungary BA:I1502 population. That's where Welzin's hunter gatherer is from. And as far as my G25 runs show, I1502's hunter gatherer is as EHG shifted as RomaniaHG. Therefore, Welzin BA's hunter gatherer is significantly EHG shifted.

2.6536"

Welzin_BA_Germany

Hungary_BA:I1502,60.9
CWC_Germany (excluding outliers),25.8
Hungary_Chl_Balaton_Lasinja,6.7
Romania_Iron_Gates_HG,6.6

Samuel Andrews said...

@Rob,
"What is peoples view on proto-Semitic ?"

There's significant Levant ancestry in Iraq and Iran. That could be the result Semitic.

bellbeakerblogger thinks Cardiel spoke Semetic based on archeaologists saying they came from Syria. We have Cardiel DNA, they aren't from Levant, so that theory is wrong.

Rob said...

@ Sam

''bellbeakerblogger thinks Cardiel spoke Semetic based on archeaologists saying they came from Syria. We have Cardiel DNA, they aren't from Levant, so that theory is wrong.''

Yeah I noted you correting him. One comes across the Levant theory on Wikipedia, but specialists whove looked at the ceramics in detail, e.g. Mikaela Spattaro, point to Greece; which is consistent with aDNA.
And whatever Cardial spoke, if one looks at the British Neolithic, it is a wholescale introgression of WHG lineages. Odds are, they would have spoken a now extinct WHG language.

Vladimir said...

Rob and what do you think if R1a-M458 is bastarni?

Maybe they penetrated the Pomeranian culture of Poland, resulting in the formation of Kultura grobów (pod)kloszowych), and already it penetrated to the East, where the Baltic Milograd culture ceased to exist and the Zarubinets culture was formed.

Bastarni (Latin: Basternei, Bastarni, Greek. Βαστάρνας, Βαστάρναι, Βασττρναι, pevkiny) - people who lived from the end of the third century BC to the third century North of the lower Danube in the Eastern Carpathian region (Romania, Moldova and Ukraine). The ethnicity of the bastarnes is not definitively established, most often they are associated with the Germans, or peoples "between the Celts and the Germans".
According to written sources, the area of bastarn settlement is approximately localized in the region from the Carpathian mountains to the middle Dnieper (the area of the zarubinets culture). The Bastarnae were recorded for the first time at the end of the third century BC.Since the beginning of ad, they are considered one of the strongest peoples in Eastern Europe ("European Sarmatia"). The tribe disappears from the pages of history in 280, when part of it moved to the territory of the Roman Empire in Thrace. Another part, according to archaeological evidence, dispersed under the onslaught of the Sarmatians in the Dnieper basin and may have taken part in the ethnogenesis of the Slavs. According to the assumption of the archaeologist M. B. Shchukin, it was the bastarni who, assimilating with the local population, could play a significant role in the ethnogenesis of the Slavs, allowing the latter to stand out from the so-called Balto-Slavic community:
"Part of [bastarnov] probably remained in place and along with representatives of other" post-zarubinets " groups could then take part in the complex process of Slavic ethnogenesis, bringing to the formation of the "common Slavic" language certain "centum" elements that separate the Slavs from their Baltic or Balto-Slavic ancestors.»

Ryan said...

@Rob - " if one looks at the British Neolithic, it is a wholescale introgression of WHG lineages. Odds are, they would have spoken a now extinct WHG language."

*coughs in Basque*

Coldmountains said...

@Samuel Andrews

The models with the least distances are not always the most realistic ones. But I still get better fits by using HUN_Tiszapolgar_ECA for Hungary_BA and Hungary_Mako. Neverthless none of the late HGs or HG-shifted outliners shows such high EHG-shift like Mesolithic samples.Yes Ukraine_N is still quite EHG-shifted but it is in South Ukraine closer to the steppes and compared to Ukraine_Meso shows a strong WHG-shift so population further northwest and more relevant for Central-Europeans would show a much higher WHG what is exactly what we see in Balt_LTU_Narva and the Poland_BKG outliners. Earliest Proto-Balto-Slavs formed somehwere between Central Poland/Slovakia and Lithuania and i don't see such a high EHG-shifted population anywhere close to it and in the case of Deu_Welzin and Hungary_BA the chances for this are even much lower. Ukraine_N or rather EHG-shifted HG ancestry could arrive indirectly with some Sredny Stog/Early PIE ancestry from South Ukraine/Russia but using more relevant source groups this kind of extra-EHG is not always needed here.

ambron said...

Vladimir, why did Kossinna and Godłowski place the Slavs in the swamps of Pripyat? Because there they were to be isolated for 2,000 years, which allowed them to preserve the unity of the Proto-Slavic language. Hydronimics and genetics prove that Balts lived in these areas. The Celt-Germans (Bastarnaes) mixed with the Balts and created the Slavs ... a risky hypothesis!

Vladimir said...

ambron said...
Vladimir, why did Kossinna and Godłowski place the Slavs in the swamps of Pripyat? Because there they were to be isolated for 2,000 years, which allowed them to preserve the unity of the Proto-Slavic language. Hydronimics and genetics prove that Balts lived in these areas. The Celt-Germans (Bastarnaes) mixed with the Balts and created the Slavs ... a risky hypothesis!

As far as I know, none of the linguists so does not lengthen the proto-Slavic language, the boldest dates are just about 500 BCE, but proto-Balto-Slavic is really similar to the preserved language CWC, which was in isolation for 2000 years. But logically there should also be transitional dialects of proto-Balto-Slavic-Celtic-Germanic-Latin. The R1a-M458 is ideally suited for the role of this intermediary.

Rob said...

@ Vlad

Alas the Poiensti-Lukashevka culture (with which has been linked to Basternae) cremated their people

@ Ryan

I guess its possible that Vasconic developed from some populations in SW Europe, whether from the G2a arrivals or I2a natives. Then, for some reason, arrival BB groups marginalised them but chose to keep their language ? A trickly riddle

ambron said...

Vlad, there were of course transitional dialects, but that is why we do not have to transfer the ethnogenesis of the Slavs from Central Europe to the middle Dnieper.

Vladimir said...

Blogger ambron said...
Vlad, there were of course transitional dialects, but that is why we do not have to transfer the ethnogenesis of the Slavs from Central Europe to the middle Dnieper.

Why move it? Archaeologists see the origins of the Bastarnae in the jastorf-Pomorskie Guba group. The area between the Oder and Neiss. We don't think before the Jastorf culture tribes began to settle from Jutland, the territory between the Elbe and the Dnieper river were uninhabited.

Archi said...

Coldmountains said...
"Target: DEU_Welzin_BA"

So different people, who were different armies from different parts of Europe, to combine into one population? It's too much.

Coldmountains said...

@Archi
I not used the outliners and the main cluster of Welzin is very similar to Hungary_BA with mainly Globular_Amphora-like ancestry+ HG + local Corded Ware ancestry.

ambron said...

Vlad, I would say in general that the peoples inhabiting Central Europe before the appearance of the ethnonym "Sklawini" had Slavic Y-DNA mutations today.

Rob said...

@ ambron
How do you reconcile your view with the data from Hallstatt Bylany and Poprad ? They’re both R1b-M269; and at least the latter shows Germanic -specific drift

Archi said...

@Coldmountains
"I not used the outliners and the main cluster of Welzin"

This cluster is not one cluster, it itself consists of very different populations that are different clusters. And what you get is really unclear what.

These are different armies from different places, and they are not two, but even more, but at least two.



ambron said...

Rob, I'm not saying everyone had it. It has MX265 and DA197. Wait for more samples...

Archi said...

@Vladimir

"As far as I know, none of the linguists so does not lengthen the proto-Slavic language, the boldest dates are just about 500 BCE,"

Look carefully at https://i.ibb.co/3NQh1wX/IE-with-TMRCA.png the date (1210BC) of division of the Baltic and Slavic languages, it is the latest date all scientist linguists, the others have it earlier. So you're wrong as always.

Starostin, Porzig and so on, everyone who does not fantasize, but calculates, all talk only about the division not later than the middle of the 2nd millennium BC.

Coldmountains said...

@Archi
It is unclear what you again what to say. The point was here that Central-East Europeans got their HG ancestry rather from Neolithic HGs close to Balt_LTU_Narva and the HG ancestry visible in very WHG-shifted outliners of Rou_C, Pol_BKG an Hungary_N. Mesolithic HGs types with a big EHG shifted were either not existing in this regions in the first place or lived much further east in the late Neolithic .

Rob said...

@ Ambron
Yes we need a lot more data points

Coldmountains said...

@ambron
All Baltic_BA/Baltic_Ia show Balto-Slavic drift but none of sampled Hallstadt, Unetice, Pre-Scythian Hungarians and not even many of the medieval Hungarians. The samples with highest Balto-Slavic drift and closest to North Slavs are the Scythians from Ukraine especially MJ14. Slovakia rather looks like the southwestern periphery of the Balto-Slavc continuum with some basal Balto-Slavic y-dna infiltrating th region quite early

Vladimir said...

@ Archie But there is also a point of view:
"in recent decades, a new position has been crystallized on the nature of the oldest ties between the Baltic and Slavic. This position does not focus on the definition of the degree of proximity of these two languages, their unity, and in a certain respect reformulates the entire problem. The essence of this position (T. ler-Plavinsky, V. Pisani, L Ossovsky, V. Mazhyulis, V. V. Martynov, V. V. Ivanov, V. N. Toporov and others). others) in explaining the special proximity of the Baltic and Slavic languages by the fact that the Slavic languages represent a later development of peripheral Baltic dialects. located in the southern part of the original Baltic (or Western Baltic) area. According to V. Majulis, proto-Slavic from the twentieth to the fifth century BC represented a certain peripheral part of the Baltic dialects. Apparently, this particular time section should be correlated, in the strict sense of the word, with what is called the Balto-Slavic "proto-language", unity, epoch, etc. The prevalence of centrifugal trends, changes in historical conditions and, accordingly, relations (in particular, focus on more southern centres), accelerating language development has led to the fact that proto-Slavic (pribaltiiski peripheral dialect) develops in proto-Slavic (circa 5 century BC), which has for quite a long time keeps "balcony" shape, although it is living particularly independent life. This development scheme explains the internal nature of the oldest connections between the Baltic and Slavic languages and allows us to arrange the known facts of convergence and divergence in both time and space. As a result, the relationship between the Baltic and Slavic language types of the most ancient epoch and the epoch following it is hierarchically ordered and filled with a new historical content that has explanatory power. Finally, the presented scheme explains both many theoretical paradoxes (the structure of the "Baltic" language time, the nature of loanwords within the Balto-Slavic area, the nature of relations of linguistic succession, etc.) and a number of specific problems (the predominant proximity of Slavic to Prussian; the presence of "baltisms" in South Slavic languages; the spread of loanwords of Baltic lexemes even in those territories where the Balts as such, apparently, did not exist; the absence or fundamental non-manifestation of Baltic loanwords in proto-Slavic and proto-Slavic in Baltic, different attitude of Finno-Ugric languages to loanwords from Baltic and proto-Slavic unknown proto-Slavic hydronymic area, isochronous to Baltic, etc.). "V. N. Toporov "Baltic languages", published in the collection of the same name Moscow, Academy, 2006

Angantyr said...

@Rob

"Not a great fit , but something like
SWE_PWC_NHG
EST_Narva:3 38%
Motala_HG 34.8%
SWE_TRB 20.2%
Corded_Ware_Baltic 7%
d ~ 3%

The well-resolved PWC were I2a1a & I2a1b, which is not inconsistent with Narva-like groups (although I2a1 was prevalent throughout out pre-bronze Age northern Europe)
So I guess PWC were from the east, but not genetically very 'eastern'"

This is a rather anachronistic model though. The Narva culture had disappeared from Estonia by the time PWC appeared, and there are no indications that I am aware of that show any migration from the eastern to the western shore of the Baltic Sea at this time. (Narva survived longer further south, but that seems irrelevant to the PWC question.)

Narva had been replaced in Estonia by Comb Ceramic, which had also spread to the Åland archipelago in the immediate vicinity of PWC's birthplace. And PWC does show CCC influences. But the CCC people we know of from Estonia and Latvia were much more EHG than WHG, and carried Y-DNA R. I don't think we have any reason to believe that CCC people further north were less EHG shifted.

CWC Baltic is also anachronistic on the other end of the scale. It didn't exist 3300 BCE when PWC appeared. The PWC genomes we have are of course later and not from that area, but Coutinho et al. 2020 didn't find any genetic CWC influence on PWC.

It's a pity that we only have PWC genomes from Gotland and not from mainland Sweden. I know that there was an attempt to get at least mtDNA data from PWC burials south of Stockholm, but it failed.

But I'm interested in what happens if one replaces Motala with other SHGs, like the Norwegians or Gotlanders from Günther et al. 2018? (Or are most of them too low quality?) And can the PWCs be grouped in any meaningful way, i.e. do the earlier ones differ from the later ones?

ambron said...

Coldmoutains, the Balto-Slavic drift is characteristic of the Balts, not of the Slavs. Today, only those Slavs who assimilated the Balts in the Middle Ages - Eastern Slavs and north-eastern Poles - have a higher level of Balto-Slavic drift.

The Bronze and Iron Hungarians had relatively much Balto-Slavic drift. The most "Slavic" Scythian from Ukraine was P312 and autosomally correlated with south-eastern Poland, where Scythian Chotyniec was. So he came rather to Ukraine from the western borders of the Scythian empire.

Coldmountains said...

@ambron
Some of the Scythian_Hungarians lack Balto-Slavic-like or have just trace amount of it. Samples after and before the Scythian Hungarians in Pannonia lack it again. This shows a patchy distribution of Balto-Slavic y-dna and uniparental markers what very much speaks for an intrusive element.

Target: Scythian_HUN:DA198
Distance: 2.6489% / 0.02648861
82.0 Balkan_IA
16.4 CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany
1.6 Baltic_IA

Target: Scythian_HUN:DA197
Distance: 2.1734% / 0.02173380
41.6 Baltic_IA
39.2 Balkan_IA
19.2 CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany

You are talking about the Celtic-admixed Scythian sample, who has Balto-Slavic-like mtdna and Celtic Y-dna. Well his Celtic ancestry and low Scythian-like admix is pulling him towards West Slavs

Target: Scythian_UKR:scy009
Distance: 2.5111% / 0.02511057
59.6 Baltic_IA
30.2 CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany
9.0 Balkan_IA
1.2 RUS_Alan_MA

Target: Scythian_UKR:MJ14
Distance: 3.8881% / 0.03888083
71.6 Baltic_IA
12.8 Balkan_IA
7.6 RUS_Alan_MA
7.2 Sarmatian
0.8 Germanic

The Baltic-shifted Scythians seem to be related to the so called "Scythian Farmers" which were under Scythian rule for some time. They are probably not directly ancestral to Slavs but had much contact with Proto-Slavic groups further north i think.

Archi said...

@ Vladimir
"But there is also a point of view:"

It's a freak, he didn't count anything, he's just delusional and fantasizing about taking his opinion from the ceiling. Their opinion isn't scientific. Toporov is exaggerating, he pretends to be the opinion of others, he works in the Baltic States and received a prize from them for humiliating the Slavs. The facts of genetics destroy their delirium, all Balts have haplogroup N1c which they have received directly from Textile pottery culture between 1500-1000BC, but Slavs it at all do not have.

Thomas Spence said...

I am not very well versed on this topic, but in my opinion I think the Proto-Slavs existed with the Milograd culture around the border of Ukraine and Belarus and expanded with the Prague-Penkova-Kolochin complex and I believe the West Slavs mostly descend from the expanding Slavs in the early Medieval Ages.

TLT said...

@vasista

"Here are the mtDna subclades found in brahmins that are exclusively from western+eastern europe, siberia, altai as per aDna database."

-A whole bunch of Hs and HV12 (xHV12b) and HV6
Sure

-Ks
Sure

-N1a
No, as I have stated before, this has subclades found in pre-steppe IVC + BMAC zone. Unless you are talking about the N1a1a1a1a1.... thing which is fine but that would be super rare. Needless to say, most N1a in India and south Asia in general is non-steppe. Oh wait you are still talking about that Brahmin N1a, not nearly specific enough.

-T1a1
Maybe, but it is too widespread. Need to narrow it down. I presume you aren't referring to the T1a+152 from the Brahmin study since that is broad enough to include many more non-steppe than steppe lineages.

-T1a1'3
No, T1a3 is already found in Shahr.

-T1b
No, it is found in various parts of the middle east and even north Africa. Lots of T1b in Saudi Arabia.

-T2
No, that has been found in eneolithic central Asia with T2d and T2g. T2a can be steppe specific, T2c on the other hand is found in Tepe Abdul Hosein which were exactly like Ganj Dareh pastoralists. T2b is fine as a steppe specific lineage; you haven't mentioned it but I will list it on my own.

-U1a1
Absolutely not, found in Shahr and other non-steppe contexts

-U2es
Yes

-U3a
Needs to be more specific. U3 is originally Anatolian and we know that there was mtDNA movement from Anatolia to Iran in the late glaciation period. Not a part of the original Iranian R2 + W + U7 group but HV 14 (descended from some Anatolian HV) did make it's way into Iran in the pre-neolithic even into populations of Iran HGs who would have had the lowest amount of Anatolian autosomal ancestry in all of west Asia. So even mtDNA found in Iran which wasn't a part of the original group, basically newcomers could have entered south Asia with the very first Iran migrants into south Asia.

-U4s
Yes

-U5s
Yes

-U7 anything
LOL that is a part of the original Iran mtDNA genepool, look at the spread of U7 on a map, Gujarat has one of the global hotspots. U7b has many groupings including a specific group found in south Asia, very little of U7b is Europe specific.

-U8b1a1
Could be, it is related to K so depending on where the lineages fell it could be very distant to the Iran HG, to the point where we could rule out any implicated connections.

-V
Yes

-X2b+226
Already granted that.


Far too often you take the overlap between the middle eastern and European lineages for granted and push forward lineages which obviously aren't steppe derived. Anyway, I'll make a declaration on my end instead of just being a checker, no more than 15% steppe mtDNA in the Brahmin genepool while the steppe yDNA in the same Brahmin genepool with that much steppe mtDNA will be at least 3 x that.

Now that I think about it, the idea of Brahmins having more steppe lineages than regular castes makes sense since-
1- they have more steppe than regular castes
2- they were the apex of a system made by the very steppe migrants themselves where women could marry up, but not down

The local elite mtDNA (U2b as an example) probably didn't translate all that well into the new order so I stand corrected as far as the earlier M claim was concerned, though I already mentioned this in my previous post.

Jatt_Scythian said...

@Matt

I had a question for you regarding the Irish paper and one your comments. Can I talk to you offline? Thanks.

ambron said...

Coldmoutains

HUN_LBA:I1504
POL_Globular_Amphora 49%
Baltic_LVA_BA 28.4%
Corded_Ware_CZE 22.6%
dist 2.5075

Romulus said...

Reconstruction of Motala SHG

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/2020/06/exclusive-skull-ritual-site-motala-reconstructed/

Romulus said...

Make sure to read the whole article, slideshow of reconstructions for all of the samples is at bottom.

Jatt_Scythian said...

@TLT

That's all interesting. What would you say the migration order of various mtdnas (and their associated ydnas) into South Asia was?

Rob said...

@ Angantyr

No, the CWC is not anachronistic. If you refer COutinho et al paper's set of carbon dates, you will note that the PWC samples date to 28-2500 BC, which is contemporaneous with CWC/ BAx
In fact, that was the entire point of the study - compare to coeval groups

Similarly, Narva ancestry continues on in SE Baltic (incl successors in Neman culture), it is only in NE Baltic where CCC 'invades'

Anyhow I added Stora Forvar instead of Motala, pretty simialr result

SWE_PWC_NHG
Baltic_EST_Narva:Kivisaare3 44.6%
SWE_Meso:SF12 28.2%
SWE_TRB 20.6%
Corded_Ware_Baltic:Kunila2 6.6%
Baltic_CCC 0%

Distance 3.6041%



Dropping CWC out


SWE_Meso:SF12 43%
Baltic_EST_Narva:31.2%
SWE_TRB 25.2%
Baltic_CCC 0.6%

Distance 3.6902%

Rmoving Narva

SWE_PWC_NHG
SWE_Meso:SF12 72.6%
SWE_TRB 27.4%
Baltic_CCC 0%

Distance 3.8882%


A said...

What does anyone think of the theory that the Mycenaean rulers were not originally Greek?

They were Indo-Iranians who invaded with chariots just before the Shaft Grave period, but Greeks were already in Greece long before then.

https://www.docdroid.net/ETSYqJl/the-early-mycenaean-rulers-and-the-conte-1-pdf

Romulus said...

@A

They were Minoans. They were at a minimum 86% to a maximum 96% Minoan. They had Y chromosome J2a1 and this was continuous from the Minoan to Mycenean to the Ancient Greeks of Alexander and Phocacea.

A said...

you're basing that on one male sample from a commoner.

Romulus said...

@A

No it's based on all the genomes from the Greek Neolithic to Minoan, Aegean and Greeks Colonies.

Mayuresh Madhav Kelkar said...

"Blogger Romulus said...
@A

They were Minoans"

https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/minoan-monkey-0013011

"Experts studying ancient Minoan monkey paintings on a Greek island have made a discovery that provides new knowledge of the trade network of the archaic civilization. Analysis of a depiction of a monkey on a fresco seems to indicate that it came from Asia, thousands of miles from the Mediterranean. This find suggests that the Bronze Age civilization had links with the Indus Valley civilization, which could radically change ideas about the Minoans."

Davidski said...

Obviously, the Mycenaeans weren't Minoans, even if they were in part very similar to them genetically.

These groups had very different cultures and languages. The Mycenaean culture and language were clearly intrusive to the Aegean region.

And it's also obvious that the Minoans had nothing to do with the Indus Valley Civilization.

Romulus said...

@Davidski

If I am 85% Chinese, I'm pretty Chinese.

Davidski said...

@Romulus

The Mycenaeans were much less than 85% Minoan-like or even Aegean.

More Mycenaean samples are coming, and you'll see that a large proportions of the recent ancestors of these people were not Minoans nor even native to the Aegean region.

Romulus said...

We already know our current Mycenaean samples are representative of the total population from the Phocacean samples.

New samples will just put more nails in the coffin. Where is the evidence the shreds of chg and ehg debatably from the yamna aren't from thousands of years earlier as the Romanian MHG(EHG), Iron Gates(EHG), and Varna(Steppe & EHG) samples proved it already was in the area?

Davidski said...

Steppe ancestry isn't native to the Balkans or the Aegean.

The currently available Mycenaean samples have steppe ancestry that is missing in Minoans and all of the Balkan hunter-gatherers.

New Mycenaean samples will confirm that this steppe ancestry arrived in the Aegean from the north recently.

ambron said...

Thomas, of course everyone can believe what they want. However, we must ask ourselves a very important question: are we looking for material truth or confirmation of our beliefs? Because the truth is that in the area you indicated, there were no Slavs until the Middle Ages. And such that Western Slavs come from the Central European gene pool.

Simon_W said...

@Romulus

"https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/2020/06/exclusive-skull-ritual-site-motala-reconstructed/"

Nice reconstructions. But how cringy that they call a Bell Beaker male "part of the first wave of farmers from continental Europe that arrived in Britain". A horrendous beginner's mistake.

Simon_W said...

@ambron

More ancient DNA is needed to prove your point, e.g. from the Pomeranian culture and from the Przeworsk culture. Psychologically it's plausible that you may have a subconscious incentive to consider your DNA as Slavic as possible, which would entail that the western shift observed among Western Slavs would be originally Slavic.

ambron said...

"New Mycenaean samples will confirm that this steppe ancestry arrived in the Aegean from the north recently".

Maszkowice - Polish Mycenae. Archaeologists say they came from Hungary.

ambron said...

Simon, I'm genealogically Bałt (Prus). Genetically, I am predominantly Balt, as are Poles from a significant area of Poland in the north-east direction, Belarusians, northern Ukrainians and western Russians. We are all genetically identical in these areas.

Davidski said...

@All

Here's an interesting new paper about the reservoir effect on radiocarbon (C14) dates in human samples from the Pontic-Caspian steppe.

Continuation of fishing subsistence in the Ukrainian Neolithic: diet isotope studies at Yasinovatka, Dnieper Rapids

The maximum correction for the individuals from sites near the Dnieper River, where a lot of fish were consumed, is 470 years.

This means that the Yamnaya-like human samples from the Don and Volga regions dated to more than 5,000 BCE are likely to be much older than 4,500 BCE.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Ambron,

You are Prussian? I thought that ethnic group did not exist anymore.

Archi said...

A said...
"What does anyone think of the theory that the Mycenaean rulers were not originally Greek?
They were Indo-Iranians who invaded with chariots just before the Shaft Grave period, but Greeks were already in Greece long before then."

Total nonsense. The Mycenaean civilization is characterized by the appearance of the Greek language, there was no Iranian language, in the pre-Mycenaean Minian period there was no Greek language.

Chronology:

1. Minian Civilization (up to 1650BC) - No chariots, psalies, Achaeans - no Greek language , no Greeks there.

2. The Mycenaean civilization (after 1650BC) - There are chariots, psalies, Achaeans - there is only the Greek language of the ruling elite.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Romulus,

Thanks for the link to the Motala man reconstruction. Very interesting.

Copper Axe said...

That reconstruction is cool. A lot better than the SHG woman who was reconstructed a few years ago, who did not look like a SHG at all.

"They were Minoans. They were at a minimum 86% to a maximum 96% Minoan. They had Y chromosome J2a1 and this was continuous from the Minoan to Mycenean to the Ancient Greeks of Alexander and Phocacea."

Are you trolling or are you serious? Either this is pathetic lol, at least others here put effort in their wacky theories.

@Davidski

Do you have guesstimations when those new samples will be released, or when a new study on the Greeks is on it's way? I found Lazardis et al to be extremely lacking.






Vladimir said...

It turns out that the work will be released soon
New Evidence Supports Modern Greeks Having DNA of Ancient Mycenaeans
https://greece.greekreporter.com/2020/06/22/new-evidence-supports-modern-greeks-having-dna-of-ancient-mycenaeans/

Vladimir said...

According to Harvard population geneticist Iosif Lazaridis, any difference between the two civilizations suggests that a second wave of people came to mainland Greece from Eastern Europe, yet were unable to reach the island of Crete — and in time they became known as the Mycenaeans.

vAsiSTha said...

@tlt

-N1a
"No, as I have stated before, this has subclades found in pre-steppe IVC + BMAC zone. Unless you are talking about the N1a1a1a1a1.... thing which is fine but that would be super rare. Needless to say, most N1a in India and south Asia in general is non-steppe. Oh wait you are still talking about that Brahmin N1a, not nearly specific enough."

N1a found in Haryana Brahmin sample id BR64. Not found in BMAC, although subclades of N1a have been found
aDna – LBK, Yamnaya - sample ids FLO1, DEB3, DEB1, UWS5, ECS1

"-T1a1
Maybe, but it is too widespread. Need to narrow it down. I presume you aren't referring to the T1a+152 from the Brahmin study since that is broad enough to include many more non-steppe than steppe lineages."

No it is not too widespread. T1a1 has been found in tryphillia_late, afanasievo, corded ware bell beaker. Sintashta, zevakinskiy, molaly_lba etc. Its one of the main mtdnas of the steppe migration. 3 T1a1’s found in Loebanr _IA. 2 samples in UP brahmins from Mondal Andamanese paper.
Im not referring to T1a+152.

"-T2
No, that has been found in eneolithic central Asia with T2d and T2g. T2a can be steppe specific, T2c on the other hand is found in Tepe Abdul Hosein which were exactly like Ganj Dareh pastoralists. T2b is fine as a steppe specific lineage; you haven't mentioned it but I will list it on my own."

T2 has only been found in Europe in adna in Starcevo & LBK being earliest. And later in cwc, unetice, urnfield.
Sample ids -BAM08,Vedrovice23/75,Vedrovice15/75,I5957,FLO4,SCHWE2,SCHWE1,SCHWE5

"-U1a1
Absolutely not, found in Shahr and other non-steppe contexts"

You lie. There has been no U1a1 in south asia or iran in bronze age. Definitely not in shahr_sokhta.
Sample ids - I2176 Bulgaria_EBA

"-U3a
Needs to be more specific."

U3a found in
NE Iberia Middle Neolithic, Israel Chalcolithic, Central Iberia Middle + Late Neolithic, Salzmünde culture Germany, Iberia_chalc – descending order by age
Sample ids - Troc6, WM27, Mina1, SALZ 60, SALZ 4, Bar2

U7b
Steppe maykop – Sa6001,Sa6004. Other 2 U7b’s are in swat iron age. None in iran, turan or bmac.

U8b1a1
Found in Balkans_LCA, Unetice. Sample ids - I2755, RÖC 3, RÖC 2

Now to conclusions:
1. R1a frequency in a caste DOES NOT correlate with caste rank as per papers I have linked above.
2. West Eurasian mtdna frequency DOES CORRELATE WITH CASTE RANK.
3. You do not know whether bulk of R1a found in india is from the steppe as you do not have those subclades in Europe even though their tmrca is very early. Plus you have no aDna from india.
4. R1a is most frequent and diverse in south and east india respectively, not in N or NW.
5. Basal R1a’s has been found in indian moderns going back to R1*.
6. Swat_IA shows clearly that steppe migration was mediated by females.

Davidski said...

Basal R1a’s has been found in indian moderns going back to R1*.

Hahaha...

vAsiSTha said...

@tlt

T2+16189 - found in 1 UP brahmin from Mondal andamanese paper
aDna - LRV 151, LHHEG11 - Italy_roman and longobard_hungary

2 from Haryana brahmin paper
T2c1 LBK - germany, Hungary, maykop novosbodnaya, balkans_ca, chemurchek
T2d1b NW siberia (tyumen) - t2d1b1



EastPole said...

@Vladimir

“It turns out that the work will be released soon
New Evidence Supports Modern Greeks Having DNA of Ancient Mycenaeans
https://greece.greekreporter.com/2020/06/22/new-evidence-supports-modern-greeks-having-dna-of-ancient-mycenaeans/”


https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/greeks-really-do-have-near-mythical-origins-ancient-dna-reveals

vAsiSTha said...

@davidski said

Basal R1a’s has been found in indian moderns going back to R1*.

Hahaha...

will correct

5. Basal y-hg's have been found in india from R1*, R1a, R1a1 and so on till R-Y2, L657 and all downstreams.

Davidski said...

Obviously, all of the R1a in India is from Bronze Age Eastern Europe.

You'll have to accept this sooner or later dumbo.

rozenblatt said...

Regarding this article from greekreporter.com : it's basically about 2017 Lazaridis paper. For some reason, sometimes news websites write articles about papers from several years ago without indicating it explicitly. It's mildly infuriating, since I see such article, read it and only then realize that it's literally old news.

Samuel Andrews said...

2017 study on human skin color.

They find many common Dark skin SNPs shared between South Asians, Austro-Melasians, and Africans. And even some common light skin SNPs shared between African San and Europeans and East Asians.


CrawFord 2017
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/10/new-gene-variants-reveal-evolution-human-skin-color

This study's finds might help predict skin color in ancient pops.

Mayuresh Madhav Kelkar said...

"You'll have to accept this sooner or later dumbo."

Try to say the same thing without using the word "dumbo." I am confident that you can do it.

Archi said...

vAsiSTha said...
Hahaha...

"Basal y-hg's have been found in india from R1*, R1a, R1a1 and so on till R-Y2, L657 and all downstreams."

Yeah, and the Africans from America, look at how many Americans have basal haplogroup A, half America.


Vladimir said...
"It turns out that the work will be released soon
New Evidence Supports Modern Greeks Having DNA of Ancient Mycenaeans
https://greece.greekreporter.com/2020/06/22/new-evidence-supports-modern-greeks-having-dna-of-ancient-mycenaeans/"

Until the Achaeans and Dorians are published, this whole set of words is meaningless. Obviously, Lazaridis is in no hurry.

ambron said...

Sam, former families derived from Prussian tribes, like mine, became Polish families at the end of the Middle Ages.

vAsiSTha said...

@davidski

"Obviously, all of the R1a in India is from Bronze Age Eastern Europe.

You'll have to accept this sooner or later dumbo."

Lets raise the stakes then shall we.

If R-L657 is found anywhere in the steppe i shall never post here again. If, R1a is found in india before 1900bce, you will delete this blog.

A said...

@Archi

If the Achaeans came straight from the steppe, who were the Dorians and where did they live?

TLT said...

Part 1

@vasista

"N1a found in Haryana Brahmin sample id BR64. Not found in BMAC, although subclades of N1a have been found
aDna – LBK, Yamnaya - sample ids FLO1, DEB3, DEB1, UWS5, ECS1"

What are you saying? mtDNA I was found in Shahr and in BMAC and that too multiple subclades. You want me to list them out or something? mtDNA I1 in I8724 (Shahr), I1c1 in I12482 ad I1b in I8510. All of mtDNA I is a subclade of mtDNA N1a.

"No it is not too widespread. T1a1 has been found in tryphillia_late, afanasievo, corded ware bell beaker. Sintashta, zevakinskiy, molaly_lba etc. Its one of the main mtdnas of the steppe migration. 3 T1a1’s found in Loebanr _IA. 2 samples in UP brahmins from Mondal Andamanese paper."

Oh so this is the small sample size that David was talking about. Any study on UP Brahmins with a larger sample size? You know, for a more reliable result. It is found as far off as Mesopotamia, but I'll take T1a1 as a steppe lineage.

"T2 has only been found in Europe in adna in Starcevo & LBK being earliest. And later in cwc, unetice, urnfield."

Why are you denying the existence of Tepe Abdul Hosein T2c, it is AH4 specifically. Then there is I12487 with T2g1b and I8504 with T2d2. Plenty of T2 in non-steppe populations including the ones linked to pre-steppe south Asia.

"You lie. There has been no U1a1 in south asia or iran in bronze age. Definitely not in shahr_sokhta."

I am telling the truth, you are the liar here and that too a compulsive one. I11478 from Shahr has U1a1c1d and I4086 has U1a1d (not Shahr, eneolithic south-west of central Asia). Honestly this is like the third time you have done this in a single post. At least people reading this will know how unreliable you are for future interactions.

"U3a found in
NE Iberia Middle Neolithic, Israel Chalcolithic, Central Iberia Middle + Late Neolithic, Salzmünde culture Germany, Iberia_chalc – descending order by age"

Is it found on the steppe? U3a1 would be straightforward but if it is some other kind of U3a like the one in copper age Israel, then it could have come from Anatolia using a different route just like I1, T2, U1 and other cases. A bit of a limbo case, I would be willing to grant this point and ignore the specifics of U3 (U3a1 vs other) if I hadn't caught you three times in one post.

"Steppe maykop – Sa6001,Sa6004. Other 2 U7b’s are in swat iron age. None in iran, turan or bmac."

Those aren't the only kinds of U7bs, there are U7bs specific to south Asia and the middle east as well and the focal point of U7 is the Iran-western India zone.

"Found in Balkans_LCA, Unetice. Sample ids - I2755, RÖC 3, RÖC 2"

I am rather inclined to say that U8 is non-Iran and would have come with the K, so that can be steppe specific as well.

TLT said...

Part 2

"T2+16189 - found in 1 UP brahmin from Mondal andamanese paper
aDna - LRV 151, LHHEG11 - Italy_roman and longobard_hungary

2 from Haryana brahmin paper
T2c1 LBK - germany, Hungary, maykop novosbodnaya, balkans_ca, chemurchek
T2d1b NW siberia (tyumen) - t2d1b1"

Both T2d and T2c have been found in non-steppe populations- the Iran component and the populations descended from the Iran component so those other examples just show that this (presumably originally Anatolian) lineage spread in many directions, we already know that one group of Anatolian mtDNA would have made it's way to Iran around 14,000 years ago so it isn't a stretch to count the T2c in Iran_N as an accompanying lineage kind of like how U2e accompanied U5 eastward into Siberia during the late stone age.

The conclusion of R1a not relating to caste rank while mtDNA does would make sense if females could only up, not down and if men could marry in any direction, which would make sense, if a conqueror comes in to a place, he would have access to any kind of a mate including locals while the women of his clan would be mostly limited to the men of the clan.

Though I am unsure if any conversation with you will be fruitful, I have seen you lying three times in a post alone and one of those occasions involved you saying that I am lying by bringing up a haplogroup that was present where it was located in truth (U1a1 in Shahr).

Romulus said...

@Rozenblatt

There is a ridiculous amount of false information published about archaeogenetics online by insane people. It's effective because most people are way too lazy and dumb to read a paper.

Vladimir, you should go to Eupedia or Anthrogenicia. You'll fit right in, rather than shitting up these comments with your ignorance. Copper Axe, you are also a know nothing idiot, get lost.

Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

If R-L657 is found anywhere in the steppe i shall never post here again. If, R1a is found in india before 1900bce, you will delete this blog.

R1a might be turn up in India before 1900 BCE, but not much earlier than that.

The earliest that you're likely to see R1a in India is around 2,200 BCE. And of course you know this as well as I do.

Here's a topic that you need to become interested in and eventually seek professional help to deal with it.

Cognitive dissonance

Gabriel said...

@Romulus

It is not insane to suggest Mycenaeans had steppe ancestry, as steppe elements end up in Greece around then. It doesn’t seem like a coincidence.

Angantyr said...

@Copper Axe

"That reconstruction is cool. A lot better than the SHG woman who was reconstructed a few years ago, who did not look like a SHG at all."

The reconstruction looks like lots of people who walk the streets of Motala today. Given that he was genetically very far from contemporary Swedes, I don't think that's realistic.

What SHG woman? I don't think there's been any other SHG reconstructions done, just WHGs, like the Danish chewing gum girl.

Angantyr said...

@Rob

"No, the CWC is not anachronistic. If you refer COutinho et al paper's set of carbon dates, you will note that the PWC samples date to 28-2500 BC, which is contemporaneous with CWC/ BAx"

What I said was that CWC was anachronistic for the formation of PWC ~3300 BCE. And by the way, the oldest specimen in Coutinho 2020 is hem005 dated 3339–3024 BCE. She's quite high coverage, it's be interesting to see if she looks different.

But SWE_PWC_NHG is only ajv54, dated 2900-2680 BCE, which is quite early but it's still maybe possible that he had some BAC admix, if it was common among Gotland PWC.

And as I re-check Coutinho 2020 I see that what they're doing is excluding *additional* BAC (or German CWC) admixture compared to the ajv58 individual, dated 2880–2632 BCE. So again, *maybe* there's a little bit of CWC in the reference.

"Similarly, Narva ancestry continues on in SE Baltic (incl successors in Neman culture), it is only in NE Baltic where CCC 'invades'"

Yes, I know the Narva Culture survived further (inland!) south, but that doesn't make it plausible as a contributor to PWC. They'd have had to cross a lot of open sea and also forget their material culture on the way... What some archaeologists have believed (at least in the pre-aDNA era) is that PWC was formed by CCC hunters who went west from Åland (a significantly shorter distance across open sea) and met TRB farmers. However:

Thanks for the runs. CCC (what individuals, just I4554?) looks completely irrelevant there. And the distance doesn't change an awful lot when removing CWC and Narva. There was quite a bit of substructure among the SHGs, so what's making Narva attractive could perhaps just be a bit too high EHG and too low WHG among the samples we have (Motala2/I0012 and Motala4/I0014 seems to be the most WHG shifted ones, excluding the low quality SF11).

Rob said...

@ Angantyr
No worries
The only thing to note is that the CCC sample i used is poor coverage; and now it’s not even in the G25
Also; it’s role would not be excluded insofar that it played an indirect role via “HG chains” or networks

Not too dissimilarity; earlier SHG have eastern admixture but harbour neither y-Hg R1 nor mtDNA C or R

FrankN said...

Dave:
"And it's also obvious that the Minoans had nothing to do with the Indus Valley Civilization."
Well, they were connected by trade, e.g. Indian Carnelian finding its way to the Aegaean. The flow of Lapis Lazuli from Afghanistan to Ancient Egypt was also partly channelled via the IVC, see
https://minds.wisconsin.edu/bitstream/handle/1793/64508/Ajango_Kelsey%20_Thesis.pdf?sequence=
https://www.atlantis-press.com/proceedings/mess-18/25897831

Possibly, occasionally some exotic animals, e.g. monkeys, were traded as well, which would explain that Minoan monkey painting.

"New Mycenaean samples will confirm that this steppe ancestry arrived in the Aegean from the north recently."
The north, or rather the north-west?
By ca. 1,600 BC, which is probably the implied time scale ("recently"), Proto-Balto-Slavic was about to split into Baltic and Slavic, respectively, and should already have been satemised. As such, it can't have been instrumental to the emergence of proto-Hellenic (Centum). Therefore, any migrations from the Ukrainian forest-steppe as putative proto-Baltic homeland (see my comments above) are unlikely to have plaid any role in the establishment of Proto-Hellenic.
Daco-Thracian is more obscure in this respect. We know from ancient Greek sources that it was satemised around 500 BC, and at that time spoken in Dacia and Thrace, but their satemisation might have been a more recent phenomenon, and/or they might have arrived only during the LBA/EIA. Nevertheless, any arrival of Steppe ancestry in Mycenaeans from Thrace would still be suspicous of those newcomers speaking Satem-IE, and as such also not qualifying as source of Proto-Hellenic.

The Centum or Satem character of Illyrian is disputed, and Albanian (to the extent it represents an offspring from Illyrian) seems to be only partially satemised. So, a workable hypothesis might be that proto-Illyrian as spoken around 1,600 BC somewhere on the SW Balkans was still Centum, and could actually have provided the source of proto-Hellenic. Under such a scenario, however, Classical Greek authors should still have been able to recognise a close relationship between Illyrian and Classical Greek, which they didn't. And, in fact, those IE phylogenies that propose a Graeco-Albanian (-Illyrian) subfamily tend to place the split at ca. 3,000 BC at latest.

Western IE (post Unetice/ Pannonia)? Intriguing thought: Their business was channelling Cornish tin to the Aegean, they saw their market collapse after the Thera eruption/ Tsunami - why not move down to the Greek mainland to get the business going again? Probably only a thought experiment - I doubt that those early Myceneans will be WHG-rich enough to qualify as EBA Central Europeans (but let's wait for the data to come out).

So, that essentially leaves us with Proto-Hellenics lingering around somewhere in the SE Balkans (say Thrace), from where they move south around 1,600 BC, providing entrance options for (Daco-)Thracians (possibly related to proto-Balts, arriving from the Ukrainian forest steppe, i.e. the KMK migration to the Balkans). Problem here is that there seems to be a dearth of archeological finds from Bulgaria/ Macedonia for the period in question, i.e. ca. 2,200-1,600 BC, pointing towards rather low population density.

Or, we rather look towards the Troad, inluding Polyochni, as source of Proto-Hellenic, which of course would be more north-east than north...

A said...

" Problem here is that there seems to be a dearth of archeological finds from Bulgaria/ Macedonia for the period in question, i.e. ca. 2,200-1,600 BC, pointing towards rather low population density."

Maybe they sailed across the black sea?

CrM said...

The SHG reconstruction is pretty neat.
I shopped it a bit to make him look like how I imagine the CHG looked like.

https://i.imgur.com/Sggf9lf.png

Copper Axe said...

@Angantyr

First of all, dope name. Saga of Hervor and Heidrek?

"The reconstruction looks like lots of people who walk the streets of Motala today. Given that he was genetically very far from contemporary Swedes, I don't think that's realistic."

Well I think thats just because a lot of swedes are white guys with wide heads. From a phenotype perspective this reconstruction checks out. I guess craniometrics checks out as well. The only part which could be wrong is soft tissue, but do you have any reason to assume stuff like that should be wildly different because modern Scandinavians have little relation to this man?

You have a lot of Papuans or Adamanese who would fit in Africa yet they are not closely related to Africans at all.

"What SHG woman? I don't think there's been any other SHG reconstructions done, just WHGs, like the Danish chewing gum girl."

https://static.nationalgeographic.co.uk/files/styles/image_3200/public/01-stone-age-shaman.jpg?w=710&h=710

This one, but in retrospect this could be a WHG yeah.

vAsiSTha said...

@tlt
I don't know if you purposefully lie or are daft.

U1a1a != U1a1 there is no U1a1 in shahr
T2c1!= T2c
And so on

"I11478 from Shahr has U1a1c1d and I4086 has U1a1d (not Shahr, eneolithic south-west of central Asia)."

Yeah buddy, these are not U1a1, that's why they are not labeled as U1a1 lmao

Archi said...

vAsiSTha "Now to conclusions:
1. R1a frequency in a caste DOES NOT correlate with caste rank as per papers I have linked above.
2. West Eurasian mtdna frequency DOES CORRELATE WITH CASTE RANK.
3. You do not know whether bulk of R1a found in india is from the steppe as you do not have those subclades in Europe even though their tmrca is very early. Plus you have no aDna from india.
4. R1a is most frequent and diverse in south and east india respectively, not in N or NW.
5. Basal R1a’s has been found in indian moderns going back to R1*.
6. Swat_IA shows clearly that steppe migration was mediated by females.

7.If R-L657 is found anywhere in the steppe i shall never post here again. If, R1a is found in india before 1900bce, you will delete this blog."

1. It's your fiction, you showed nothing.
2. It's your fiction, you didn't show anything.
3. Then why isn't R1a in Swat_LBA/IA?
4. It's your fiction, it's not.
5. It's just your fiction.
6. That's just your fiction.
7. Then why isn't R1a in Swat_LBA/IA?

Here's a comparison of Guska and vAsiSTha. Guska has its own position which is based on scientific data about that in Western Europe there is R1b since Paleolithic times, but there is R1b-V88, however the base for its opinion it has, it does not lie and does not deceive and does not pry into each theme with the own views. VAsiSTha behaves in a completely different way, he writes lies in every message, he writes outright lies, all his "models" are fake for the result, he pushes into every topic with his shout that leaves an offtop.

Archi said...

@FrankN

"By ca. 1,600 BC, which is probably the implied time scale ("recently"), Proto-Balto-Slavic was about to split into Baltic and Slavic, respectively, and should already have been satemised. As such, it can't have been instrumental to the emergence of proto-Hellenic (Centum). Therefore, any migrations from the Ukrainian forest-steppe as putative proto-Baltic homeland (see my comments above) are unlikely to have plaid any role in the establishment of Proto-Hellenic."

What does Ukrainian forest steppe have to do with it? At least look where the Babino/KMK is before you write something like this, as always unjustified. Why yet would you weave Balto-Slavs that have nothing to do with the Ukrainian forest steppe!

What does Satemization have to do with it? The closest relative of the Centum Greek language from the living is Satem Armenian. Understand that they separated before 2200 BC, then at least from the beginning of Babino/KMK, and probably even earlier. The Greek and Armenian languages are part of the Greek-Armenian-Indo-Iranian language union (it's linguistic fact), but not genetic kinship. However, Proto-Greek was influenced by the Satem language because it has a palatalization reflex of the t'j > ts type.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Angantyr,

Modern Swedes aren't very distant from SHG.

You guys are about 48% EHG-WHG, so roughly half the same thing SHG was. So, I wouldn't say that's very distant. That's significantly different, but not very.

Considering, this, and considering Latvians with the highest Mesolithic ancestry in Europe are around 60% EHG/WHG, there are certainly many modern Europeans who resemble Mesolithic Europeans.

It should be expected some SHG individuals would pass as modern Europeans.

I know a pure breed indigenous South American, who people assume is Mexican by his features. This is even though most Mexicans are 40%+ Spanish.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 400 of 419   Newer› Newest»