search this blog

Monday, July 27, 2020

Ancient ancestry proportions in present-day Europeans (to be continued)


This year has already been massive in all sorts of ways, including for new data and software releases. So I'm thinking it might be time to update many of the analyses that were featured at this blog a while ago.

Let's start with the classic hunter vs farmer vs herder mixture model for present-day European populations. The rules of the game are as follows:


- run the latest version of qpAdm using qpfstats output

- use transversion sites and 1240K capture data

- pick a set of diverse and chronologically sound outgroups

- for a model to be successful the p-value must reach 0.01

- tweak the left pops in models that are clearly underperforming

- follow high end scientific literature, logic and common sense


Obviously, the reason that I decided to limit my analysis to markers from transversion sites is to mitigate problems associated with modeling the ancestry of modern, high quality samples with relatively low quality ancients. One of these problems appears to be qpAdm assigning faux East Asian/Siberian admixture to present-day Europeans (for instance, see figure 4 here).

My starting reference populations and outgroups are listed below. In qpAdm terminology the former are known as the "left pops", while the latter as the "right pops". Most of these samples are freely available at the David Reich Lab website here.

left pops:
HUN_Koros_N_HG
TUR_Barcin_N
UKR_Yamnaya

right pops:
CMR_Shum_Laka_8000BP
MAR_Taforalt
Levant_Natufian
IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
Levant_PPNB
CZE_Vestonice16
BEL_GoyetQ116-1
Iberia_ElMiron
RUS_Karelia_HG
RUS_West_Siberia_HG
MNG_North_N
RUS_Ust_Kyakhta

As you can see, I picked a wide variety of right pops. But I chose most of them specifically to be able to differentiate the three streams of ancestry - from ancient hunters, farmers and herders - that are the focus of my analysis. I also intentionally avoided using samples in the right pops that may have experienced gene flow, including cryptic gene flow, from the populations in the left pops.

I somewhat speculatively earmarked HUN_Koros_N_HG, from the Early Neolithic Carpathian Basin, and UKR_Yamnaya, from the Early Bronze Age North Pontic steppe in what is now Ukraine, to represent the hunter-gatherer and pastoralist streams of ancestry, respectively.

That's because I expected HUN_Koros_N_HG to be the best proxy for the hunter-gatherer ancestry that was initially absorbed by the early farmers who fanned out from the Aegean region across much of the European continent, and of course it made sense to choose a steppe pastoralist population that was located close to Central Europe where such groups first made the biggest impact outside of the steppe.

Interestingly, HUN_Koros_N_HG and UKR_Yamnaya did prove to be among most effective choices for the types of ancestries that they represented. For instance, UKR_Yamnaya generally produced much stronger statistical fits than a very similar set of Yamnaya samples from the Caspian steppe (more precisely, from the Samara region in Russia). However, this might well be an artifact, due to very specific characteristics of these few ancient individuals. Larger sample sets would be welcome, especially from Yamnaya sites in Ukraine.

Below, dear audience, is a spreadsheet featuring the preliminary results. Click on the image to view and/or download the spreadsheet. The general rule is that the higher the tail prob, or p-value, the more likely it is that the ancestry proportions are close to the truth (a tail prob of well below 0.05 is usually a strong indication that something isn't right). For a detailed look at each of the qpAdm runs, feel free to consult the zip file here.


Note, however, that many of the European groups in my burgeoning genotype dataset are yet to make an appearance in the spreadsheet. That's because their models with the standard left pops showed p-values well under 0.01, which essentially meant that they failed, and I'm still trying to make them work.

But round one has certainly revealed some fascinating stuff. For instance, except for Hungarians and Estonians, none of the Uralic-speaking groups can be modeled successfully in the standard three-way model.

However, I managed to significantly improve the statistical fits in their models by adding a Siberian population, RUS_Baikal_BA, to the left pops. This is unlikely to be a coincidence, because the Proto-Uralic homeland was almost certainly located in or very near Siberia. Iain Mathieson please take note.

Saami
HUN_Koros_N_HG 0.134±0.043
RUS_Baikal_BA 0.270±0.015
TUR_Barcin_N 0.081±0.026
UKR_Yamnaya 0.515±0.058
chisq 19.865
tail prob 0.0108571

See also...


536 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 400 of 536   Newer›   Newest»
dsjm1 said...

Just looked at the Y-DNA for the 14 Tollense Battle warriors chose for the paper published about Lactase Persistence.

Am a bit disappointed that not one U106 appears in the table. 3 x P312 (WEZ35=R1b1a2a1a2, WEZ54=R1b1a2a1a2, WEZ59=R1b1a2a1a2), 9 x I2 (WEZ15 is listed as I2a2a1a2a1a1, the others less).

Ahh well - a long wait and a dissapointment. But it does tell us P312 & I2 were battling in the Sth Baltic near Wolin Island 1300 BCE.

AWood said...

@dsm

These also look like I2-M223 found in Neolithic Europe, rather than the Yamnaya ones. I can't be certain though, as I'm not familiar with all the branches or that nomenclature.

It sounds ludicrous but I wonder if this was a R1b vs I2 battle, considering the fact groups like Bell Beaker were so heavily shifted to a single haplogroup most of the time. 14 males and 4 females are far too few a sample to draw any conclusions. Battle wounds and autosomal results would be a welcome addition to provide more information...beyond simply the fact that lactose persistence wasn't yet selected.

Davidski said...

@G2a-M406 Anatolian Farmer

I was reading some crazy shit about Uralics and Corded on Carlos forum yesterday and i was very confused.

Ah, yes, Carlos Quiles...

Indo-European crackpottery

Simon_W said...

I computed the average coordinates of the French IA samples:

Alsace_Hallstatt,0.1236118,0.1464394,0.0540038,0.0206074,0.0409924,0.0001672,-0.00329,0.005769,0.0159526,0.0151622,-0.0027278,0.008093,-0.017869,-0.0112576,0.010885,0.0034738,-0.0015646,-0.0013174,0.002363,0.0067782,0.002296,-7.42e-05,-0.0082082,-0.0020484,-0.0003114
Alsace_La-Tene,0.1253952,0.1431898,0.04802,0.0300928,0.0376993,0.007902,0.0017237,0.0055767,0.0076697,0.0185273,-0.0007307,0.0008992,-0.013776,-0.0078672,0.0103827,-0.0034253,-0.0072797,0.0011613,0.0034148,0.001605,-0.0032443,0.0053377,-0.0001027,-0.0069488,0.0033132
Picardy_La-Tene,0.1195145,0.140143,0.0486485,0.0382755,0.042931,0.015618,-0.0045825,0.005884,0.0114535,0.0166745,-0.004628,0.006744,-0.019995,-0.00984,0.0143185,0.0019225,-0.00515,0.0087415,0.0081705,-0.003064,0.0008735,0.003957,0.0109075,0.000181,0.005389
Languedoc_La-Tene,0.1308965,0.1335425,0.057511,0.0408595,0.046624,0.018825,0.000705,-0.0020765,0.0049085,0.0064695,0.004547,0.014387,-0.014123,-0.0077065,0.022733,-0.0011935,-0.005215,0.0041805,-0.0052165,-0.001563,0.015223,0.001298,-0.0139885,0.001024,-0.004371

They're scaled, in case anyone wondered.

Using them and some other ancient samples I made some models. Here are the Swiss:

https://justpaste.it/5d9we

They are now less Germanic than in my previous models, especially the French Swiss, which makes sense. Apparently (judging from the amount of Picardy_La-Tene) the Helvetii, who settled the Swiss plateau rather than the mountain valleys, were more northern than CHE_IA, which makes sense, too, because according to historical sources they moved to Switzerland from Southern Germany.

And here is a model for the Seine_Maritime:

https://justpaste.it/8nvvu

I tried to add some Vikings, too, to account for the Norman admixture, but Danish Vikings being unavailable and Swedish or Icelandic Vikings not being a good substitute, I left them away at the end.

And there are Nord, Pas-de-Calais and Paris:

https://justpaste.it/1zm5u

Quite some Germanic (Frankish) admixture there in Nord and Pas-de-Calais, but less so in Paris.

And finally, this is Brittany, Auvergne and Alsace:

https://justpaste.it/629xd

Brittany seems to have substantial Bythonic ancestry. The Auvergne strikes as being strongly of the more southern Hallstatt blend and completely lacking Germanic admixture. Alsace on the other hand has the strongest Germanic admixture of all French regions, in spite of its already Germanic admixed La Tene population.

truth said...

I appreciate the effort and time.
But one question, Basques can also be modeled as a simple 3-way mixture (WHG, Barcin, Steppe) they don't need anything extra, could you please include them, also ?

Archi said...

@AWood
"It sounds ludicrous but I wonder if this was a R1b vs I2 battle, considering the fact groups like Bell Beaker were so heavily shifted to a single haplogroup most of the time."

Unfortunately, for the 1200-1250 BC interval it is not at all possible to say what cultures were there. If it is clear with the Nordic Bronze, this culture was, what was there from the south is completely unclear, whether there was still Tumulus culture, or whether Lusatian and Urnfield cultures already appeared, but even if Lusatian emerged, whether it spread to Tollense is completely unclear, most likely did not spread. In general, this period is so transitional that it is absolutely unclear who fought there, most likely the representatives of Tumulus culture (they write about the things of Unetice culture) with the Nordic Bronze.

Davidski said...

@Truth

Basques can't be modeled with these left pops. It's a total fail.

I'm guessing they need something more western in terms of their extra hunter-gatherer ancestry and maybe also their farmer ancestry, but I haven't got around to working on that.

The problem is that with more and higher quality right pops (outgroups) all sorts of differences are now showing themselves, so it's not just a matter of adding a bit of Near Eastern or North African admixture for Southern and Western Europeans to correct the stats.

Vladimir said...

@Archie
"most likely the representatives of Tumulus culture (they write about the things of Unetice culture) with the Nordic Bronze".


It is most likely that these are the warriors of the losing side, if their remains were found in the river. The victors would hardly have thrown their dead into the river. am I correct in assuming that this area later came under the control of the Nordic bronze culture? So the losers are the Tumulus culture and the warriors are from that culture.

J.S. said...

@Simon_W
Very interesting. Thanks a lot. I do not want to bother you but, pease, give your insight on Brunel's Fstat? How is it possible that Modern Basque share more drift with BA & IA French samples than Modern French? What does it mean?

Samuel Andrews said...

@Simon_W

Very cool.

weure said...

This 'simple' model hunter-farner-herder (based on your 'source populations' mentioned in the blog), provides a good tool for some ball park G25 figures about Europeans. Combined with historical/archeological it gives imo decent and insightful results. Even to detect regional differences!

To begin with. There are bg differences in neolithic populations. See the Funnelbeakers in Northern Europe. All based on G25 unscaled vahaduo.

Poland 20% HG/ 80% EEF
Sweden 25% HG/75% EEF
Gotland 30% HG/70%EEF
N-Germany 50% HG/50% EEF (or even in some parts 60%/40%).

Battle Axe Swede en Bell Beaker Dutch tent to have 60-66% Steppe, the difference is that HG in Battle Axe is more towards 5% and Bell Beaker 10%. I guess timing and so admixture CW/Neolithic differences.

LNBA in South Scandinavia/Northern Plain Europe until modern times gross seen a big continuity. On average HG percentage has gone down 15>10% and farmer has gone up 30>35%. The Steppe amount around 55%.

But regional/ personal difference are there due to what I guess for example the neolithic pockets. They have left their mark on the nowadays genetic profile on the Northern European Plain and in Southern Scandinavia.

So thanks for the action David, it's al rough, preliminary. But through the eye lashes the contours are visible!

Archi said...

@Vladimir

The isotope analysis showed that there are clearly at least two different populations, so the losers may have been thrown into the river, but the river contains many winners also. There is no such data that this area has since passed to the Nordic Bronze, it is simply unknown. The fact that the losers of I2a most likely follow from the disappearance of this haplogroup (and more from the dead), the fact that they probably belong to the Tumulus culture follows from the disappearance of this culture, but in this case the winners may also belong to emerging the Urnfield culture and/or the Lusatian culture.

Of course we don't know who was on whose side, now it is even more confusing to understand that we need to test representatives of all four cultures and many more samples from Tollense river, because there can be many options, for example representatives of these two different populations could really be allies, for example Tumulus could be an ally of the Nordic Bronze against proto-Urnfield and proto-Lusatian cultures, and then there can be many more losers in the river, because both populations in this case are losers.

Archi said...

@Vladimir

The isotope analysis showed that there are clearly at least two different populations, so the losers may have been thrown into the river, but the river contains many winners also. There is no such data that this area has since passed to the Nordic Bronze, it is simply unknown. The fact that the losers of I2a most likely follow from the disappearance of this haplogroup, the fact that they probably belong to the Tumulus culture follows from the disappearance of this culture, but in this case the winners may also belong to emerging the Urnfield culture or the Lusatian culture.

Of course we don't know who was on whose side, now it is even more confusing to understand that we need to test representatives of all four cultures and many more samples from Tollense river, because there can be many options, for example representatives of these two different populations could really be allies, for example Tumulus could be an ally of the Nordic Bronze against proto-Urnfield and proto-Lusatian cultures, and then there can be many more losers in the river, because both populations in this case are losers.


Of course, there may not be representatives of these four large cultures, but representatives of small local cultures of the Middle Bronze Age that are not part of these large associations, but then nothing can be said at all.

Samuel Andrews said...

I find it funny how when we dis agree with David's theories based on formal stats, we use G25 PCA as evidence that he is wrong, forgetting he created G25 PCA.

Tigran said...

@dsjm1

Seems like Germanics were first in Western Poland then.

Tigran said...

Which given the levels of R1a in Eastern Germany and presence of Obotrites and Wends in the area certainly doesn't support Gaska's imaginary R1b dominance over R1a.

weure said...

Call it coincidence but I forgot the Sweden BA Öllsjo, these are Corded Ware People that mixed with Funnelbeakers. They were even buried under a dolmen, wiki:

[QUOTE]The study also examined a female buried in a Funnelbeaker megalith in Öllsjö, Sweden c. 2860–2500 BC, during which the area was part of the Battle Axe culture. She carried the maternal haplogroup H6a1b3, and was found to be closely genetically related to other people of the Battle Axe culture. Two individuals buried in the same megalith during the Late Neolithic were likewise closely related to peoples of the Corded Ware culture.[/QUOTE]

In Funnelbeaker North Dutch this was also the case. Single grave pottery was also found along a dolmen.

And call me a mad dog, but I find this more than coincidental, because their hunter-farmer-herder components are exactly in my mother's sample range. Her sample would not stand out in between the Öllsjo samples:

https://www.mupload.nl/img/jzhu7n5s.58.34.png

Let's call it LNBA continuity.....

weure said...

The 'hybridization' of corded ware and funnelbeakers!
https://www.mupload.nl/img/yiqbo8530y.16.33.png
Ongoing theme.....

Rob said...

So those in the river were predominantly R1b-P312 (old link:Bell Beaker) & I2a2a1a (old link:Wartberg culture); along with ? the high WHG/MNE ratio points to genomically western origin of these individuals. Could be c/w Tumulus C.
The Nordic Bronze Age (BAx -> N.B.A) shows a similar western trend; but lineages R1a- Z645, I1, R1b-U106


@ Archie

I2a obviously didn’t disappear at this stage; as it did not during the Neolithic, or with the steppe migrations ; as far as areas west of the Atlantic are concerned.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Weure,

Your mom has higher Yamnaya score than what I have seen in any modern population. What ethnicity are you? You should test her Steppe score using these two Corded Ware earl samples who are our best reference than Yamnaya for Steppe ancestors of Europeans.

Her score will be higher with them. She might have higher Steppe score than any modern populations in G25 datasheet.

CWC_Baltic_early:I4629,0.132035,0.093429,0.050534,0.128878,-0.010156,0.052989,-0.003525,0.013615,-0.040291,-0.071983,-0.014777,0.005395,0.003717,-0.021607,0.027687,-0.003447,-0.011865,0.000633,0.001006,0.008379,-0.011105,-0.006183,0.010969,0.027594,-0.002874
CWC_POL_early:poz81,0.125205,0.093429,0.054682,0.114343,-0.014772,0.05271,-0.00094,-0.000462,-0.048063,-0.069432,-0.003248,-0.002847,-0.006095,-0.025047,0.038952,0.013392,-0.005476,-0.001647,0.003394,0.004377,0.003119,0.006554,-0.001602,0.020364,0.003712

weure said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Copper Axe said...

@Rob

I like that assesment of those I2 guys being from central/western Germany and being part of the Urnfield/Tumulus (and probably Lusatian) component at Tollense.

What are the subclades of their I2? Are they downstream from the middle/late neolithic Michelsberg and Wartberg culture or are they similar to the I2 we see on the Pontic-Caspian Steppe?

AWood said...

@Rob

I was very sloppy with my argument, I was referring to the Atlantic Neolithic cultures whom I believe spilled into the region and who shared some of the same I2 branches. The I2 dichotomy is actually east/west where the branches rarely overlap, except some of the Yamnaya types such as I2-L701 spilled into western Europe as far as Ireland some time after the Bell Beaker period, yet are not present in the Atlantic Neolithic.

@Tigran

I don't know if I believe in any magical dominance, but R1b is still the overwhelming majority in all parts of Germany. There are Slavic groups in Germany who have been there a long time who obviously have low rates of R1b. Even Austria was underreported in the past, but 2016 data from western Austria had 50% R1b.

Matt said...

@J.S. : Bronze and Iron French samples overlap all the modern French on Brunel's PCA . Thus, can you explain the f3 statistics, f3(Mbuti, Ancient BA/IA French, Modern French)?
https://imgur.com/a/nLbyPN1


JS, I understand the question. We do often treat the outgroup f3 statistic as meaning

"Which populations are closest in allele frequencies and form a clade in ancestry, after adjusting for drift and ancient dna damage and other artefacts?"

But this doesn't really bear out so much in the statistics themselves, using a set of examples:
https://imgur.com/a/9AXEWqA

These are all f3 statistics of the form f3(outgroup,modern,other population).

You can see from these that although there is a connection between what see in PCA results and the highest shared drift, it's not really complete at all.

1) Looking first at stats for Ukrainian_West vs Scottish (as a fairly similar pair in deep ancestry), Ukrainian_West finds that Ukrainian_East not as highest stat, but rather Latvian, as Scottish finds not Irish, but again Swedish and Latvian.
2) Turning to stats for Ashkenazi and Sicilian_West, for another pair that seem likely to have similar deep ancestry, we see this in much more exaggerated form. The highest f3 stats are again Swedish, Basques, Norwegians, North Italians... and Sicilian_East, a population from the same island as Sicilian_West, with very similar positions on PCA is waaaay down the list!
3) Also the pattern looking at Kalash and Brahui (less similar in deep ancestry than above, but the most similar in the set which I've got to hand); virtually all Europeans generate higher outgroup f3 stats for these than Brahmin....
4) Now looking at Brahmin vs Dravidian - the highest f3 stats for Dravidians are with Esat Asians, while for Brahmins, its Europeans (and a "Yaghnobi Tajik" which I suspect has some error)...
5) Even for Hungarian vs French, highest f3 stats are for Latvians and Lithuanians and Swedes and Norwegians again, not populations closer on PCA...

Basically, although outgroup f3 stats have some properties in adjusting for drift and damage and ascertainment, they are probably not really just a measure of "How much do population A and B form a clade in overall ancestry, as a population, after drift/damage/ascertainment?". Exactly why this is the case is probably a more complex subject though and I don't really have a good answer for that!

epoch said...

@weure

The largest known TRB grave field is from Dalfsen and it is mostly contemporary with SGC. There has even been found a battle axe, unfortunately in an area of the site destroyed by plowing from the Middle Ages.

Anthony Hanken said...

@Davidski

"Yes, lots of ancient samples are on the way from Siberia, especially from cultures potentially linked to the Uralic puzzle."

So we can expect lots of upcoming N1c samples coming from west Siberia? Or are you extrapolating from the known single low coverage N1c/U2e1 2000BC sample?

Davidski said...

@Anthony Hanken

N1c wasn't very common in West Siberia until the shift in the genome-wide structure of the populations there from WSHG to Nganasan-like.

We'll have to wait for the details, but the theories that N1c expanded from West Siberia and was associated with the WSHG autosomal genotype won't work out.

As far as I can see, Proto-Uralians also can't be associated with the WSHG genotype.

Archi said...

The Ural N1c comes from the area between the Ob River and Baikal, where the birthplace of the Ural-Yukagir family was, east of Baikal it is already the birthplace of the Altai language family.

Anthony Hanken said...

@Davidski

Do you think this shift from WSHG to Nganassan like and N1c rich happend with the Seima-Turbino expansion? Or was this shift the result of an earlier migration from the east?

I don't disagree, Uralic may not being related to WSHG at all. I was just trying to work out the rumors regarding these upcoming samples.

weure said...

About Welzin, excuse I used a wrong source sample, nevertheless the story doesn't change....they are a lot different from more NW European samples they have much more HG and much less Yamna and also a higher EEF. It's not very typical Scandinavian/ proto-Germanic.
https://www.mupload.nl/img/eien8n6.19.11.png

@Sam I'm from the most northern part of the Netherlands. My mother has not an exceptional Yamna (Dad and I have a higher one) it's pretty Dutch average (even somewhat lower). The HG amount of mom is more exceptional, compared to average NW Europa she has 13% average NW Europe is about 9%(line Dutch, Denmark, Norway). She is deeply rooted in the funnel beaker hotspot of the Netherlands, that was an outlier of the North German TRB. She has a typical Nordic LNBA kind of genetic profile (TRB/SGC 'hybrid' like: Rise 71 DNK LN, Öllsjo BA Sweden, BB Lech).
https://www.mupload.nl/img/rozuezz.15.15.png

mzp1 said...

Probably not a good idea to use Mbuti as an outgroup in f3 (and d-stats), as Mbuti is not equally close to ancient ancestral pops.

f3(pop, Ust_Ishim, out=Mbuti) gives different results to f3(pop, Ust_Ishim, out=Chimp.REF), probably due to the results of f3(pop, Mbuti, out=Chimp.REF)


f3(pop, Ust_Ishim, out=Mbuti)

Russia_MA1_HG.SG = 0.232
Luxembourg_Loschbour = 0.225
Sidelkino = 0.22
Anatolia HG = 0.218
Iran_GanjDareh_N = 0.211


f3(pop, Ust_Ishim, out=Chimp.REF)

Iran_GanjDareh_N = 6.53E+14
Sidelkino = 5.84E+14
Anatolia HG = 5.31E+14
Luxembourg_Loschbour = 5.30E+14
Russia_MA1_HG.SG = 5.01E+14


f3(pop, Mbuti, out=Chimp.REF)

Iran_GanjDareh_N = 5.19E+14
Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG = 5.17E+14
Sidelkino = 4.61E+14
Anatolia HG = 4.16E+14
Luxembourg_Loschbour = 4.12E+14
Russia_MA1_HG.SG = 3.86E+14

Matt, I would avoid using Brahmin in your analysis, as there is no real Brahmin genetic group, some are closer to North Indians and others to South Indians. Jatt, Ror, Gujjar and KJ are available in the Pathak dataset, in addition to Gujarati, Sindhi, Pathan, UBR, Punjabi etc available in Reich.

weure said...

@Epoch know your history archeology, you know (like every school kid in the Netherlands has learned) that Hondsrug Drenthe is the absolute funnel beaker hotspot, of the 53 known megalithic tombs 48 are still found on the Hondsrug (a small specific area).

https://www.hunebednieuwscafe.nl/2017/03/the-hondsrug-unesco-global-geopark-an-introduction/

And for a more in depth view see this free work from Karsten Wentink, a must read before you make such statements!
;)

https://www.sidestone.com/books/ceci-n-est-pas-une-hache

Archi said...

In general, before the resettlement of the Uralians in north Western Siberia there lived the people of Sihirt'a, it was a blond, light-eyed, stunted and lived in dugouts and caves, did not breed deer, owned a bronze metallurgy. These are real people, archeologists find a lot of their sites which do not belong to the Uralians. The Uralians fought with them, they had their own language that was incomprehensible to the Uralians.

Matt said...

Quick tangent on my discussion with ColdMountains above (much earlier in thread). My understanding of his model is that he thinks that the Balto-Slavic drift in G25 is due to this drift occuring in a population which was autosomally similar to Sintashta in its autosome, but split off and experienced a bit of genetic drift, and this population then mixed back into others in Europe (bearing a linguistic clade, or not).

Whether or not this is the case*, I've cooked up a quick Global25 ghost that meets that criteria (all the "Balto-Slavic drift"; same West Eurasia wide affinities as Sintashta).

Pastebin for G25 scaled coordinates here: https://pastebin.com/QnC2UcBF

Examples of plots and models using Vahaduo: https://imgur.com/a/2scLPdN

An alternative, probably more realistic version that would be more compatible with more population survival in East-Central Europe:

Pastebin: https://pastebin.com/w0FHCFxW

Examples: https://imgur.com/a/3OdLvMc

EastPole said...

@Mayuresh Madhav Kelkar

“Russian огонь (ogon), Polish "ogień"”

Old Church Slavonic огнь (ognĭ), ⱁⰳⱀⱐ (ognĭ).

In Polish‘Ogni’ is the verb form. ‘Ogień’ is a noun form of fire. ‘Ogni-ti/Ogni-ć’ means ‘to ignite fire’.

https://i.postimg.cc/d36GWQnQ/screenshot-94.png

What is the verb form of ‘Agni’ in Sanskrit? It should have a verb form if it is not a borrowed noun.


@Archi
“Are Hittite agniš and Latin ignis also from Slavic?

My questions are the smartest one, but you can't understand theirs because you don't have a mind.”

I have to admit that I don’t understand your questions, especially about Hittite ‘agniš’. In my opinion, ‘agniš’ is a Mittani i.e. Indo-Aryan word, not Hittite. Hittite does not have such a word and it is not PIE. It came from CWC IMO.

@vAsiSTha

“2. Why did cwc pass it on to slavic and not other European languages?”

CWC originated in the area which was Slavic Homeland. See the area of Slavic river names in red:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Slavs#/media/File:Slavic_distribution_origin.png

From there also CWC expansion to the East started:

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kLtueODMsOk/XwBdy5dfCGI/AAAAAAAAI_U/89OWg6Bif-k2iU66O8zmc8vAskRu0n9ugCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Saag_2020_Fig_1.jpg

So CWC was in the Slavic area from the beginning and didn’t have to pass the word to Slavic as a result of migrations as happened in the case of other languages.
Probably this happened:

https://i.postimg.cc/76tMnZL3/Ogni.jpg

Notice also that linguists who specialize in Indo-Iranian languages are aware of the closeness between Slavic and Indo-Iranian languages and that Slavs stayed in their homeland while Indo-Iranians migrated.
I have already written about T. Burrow opinion in “The Sanskrit Language”:

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/04/on-doorstep-of-india.html?showComment=1523740548383#c6191530895381495941

https://goo.gl/mBeFD8
“The large majority of special correspondences between Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian are archaisms, not innovations. This is important because it implies that a comparison of Balto-Slavic with Indo-Iranian leads to a reconstruction of an early stage of Indo-European.

http://www.baltistica.lt/index.php/baltistica/article/view/2284

Tigran said...

WSHG were probably mostly R1b and Q with minor N imo. Never made sense for them to be associated with Uralics.

dsjm1 said...

@Archie,
"Unfortunately, for the 1200-1250 BC interval it is not at all possible to say what cultures were there. If it is clear with the Nordic Bronze, this culture was, what was there from the south is completely unclear, whether there was still Tumulus culture, or whether Lusatian and Urnfield cultures already appeared, but even if Lusatian emerged, whether it spread to Tollense is completely unclear, most likely did not spread. In general, this period is so transitional that it is absolutely unclear who fought there, most likely the representatives of Tumulus culture (they write about the things of Unetice culture) with the Nordic Bronze."

Good points, some other factors that stick in my mind are 1) That right at this time (1300 BCE approx) was the beginning of the collapse of the late bronze age cultures in the Mediterranean, and 2) That the Baltic peoples were trading with the Mediterranean, and 3) That the Nordic bronze Age carried on for a few 100 more years.

I am not clear as to how the events in the Mediterranean might have created turmoil in the Baltic, but it seems possible.

LGK said...

Fatyanovo preprint should have finished the long ridiculed CWC=Uralic thesis for good. Instead we are treated to fantasy land in which it is explained away by a purpoted Uralic CWC having lots of Indo-European slaves.
There is a total inability to admit the obvious truth of association, it has to be spun in some way which puts R1a steppe-derived culture in a weakened non-agent position, supplying people to a dominant Uralic CWC through exogamy or slavery (or both).

ANI EXCAVATOR said...

@ Archi

Curious. Who are these "Sihirt'a" people, what archaeological cultures are they associated with, and whats their Russian name? Do you have any papers about them?

Are they a part of the so-called "Northern Eurasian" anthropological formation?

Mayuresh Madhav Kelkar said...

EastPole

"What is the verb form of ‘Agni’ in Sanskrit? It should have a verb form if it is not a borrowed noun."

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%97%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%BF#Declension

Samuel Andrews said...

@weure,

Can you post your family's G25 coordinates? I'm curious if you guys are even more Corded ware like than other Dutch samples.

You might cluster with Anglo Saxons samples.

Davidski said...

@Anthony Hanken

I don't have any clear ideas yet about the genetic and linguistic changes in Siberia that led to the disappearance of WSHG and the spread of Nganasan-like ancestry and Uralic languages.

I suspect that these processes were closely related and had something to do with the Seima-Turbino phenomenon and post-Seima Turbino networks and expansions.

But that's all I can say for now without blabbing out what I shouldn't here or potentially making a fool of myself when all of the new data and the new paper on this topic are released.

Tigran said...

@ANI

I think he's just making stuff up. Same when he tried to argue that ydna K2b and P are West Eurasian without any evidence. I haven't heard of blue eyed blondes from West Siberia.

Rob said...

@ Copper Axe

''What are the subclades of their I2? Are they downstream from the middle/late neolithic Michelsberg and Wartberg culture or are they similar to the I2 we see on the Pontic-Caspian Steppe?''

If Arza's calls are true, and a/p ISOGG 2016, then I2a2a1a are found in Michelsberg & Neolithic Britain. They later are found in Bronze Age Hungary sample (Vatya culture)
So this along with P312- could be consistent with some LBA culture from west Alpine region, and indeed, T.C. is generally thought to have expanded from South Germany

The 'eastern variety' of I2a2a are I2a2a1b
This includes
I2a2a1b1 - found in ALPc, Dnieper-Dontez, Yamnaya, Hungarian BB, Bulgarian Barrows
I2a2a1b2 - found in GAC/ Zlota, but also a couple of north Iberian MN_LC.

ANI EXCAVATOR said...

@ Archi
There are only 17 results on google for the English search string "people of Sihirt'a" and the same for "Sihirt'a", none relevant to the archaeology of Russia. Who are these people? I would appreciate any links or publications you can find.

vAsiSTha said...

@eastpole

"CWC originated in the area which was Slavic Homeland."

Is there agreement on this from others on the blog? afaik cwc existed in germany, denmark, netherlands, estonia and others as well.

Eastpole you still have not answered 2 of my other queries.
1. What is the date of the first attested usage of Ogni. For that matter what is the date of the first attested Slavic or proto slavic text?
2. Bengali and Oriya also use Ogni instead of Agni. Are we to consider these words ancestral to sankrit Agni?

Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

"CWC originated in the area which was Slavic Homeland." Is there agreement on this from others on the blog?

Yes, this is actually possible and even likely.

Samuel Andrews said...

@East Pole,

Northwest Europeans have just as much Corded Ware ancestry as East/West Slavs do.

Corded Ware hertage isn't a Slavic thing. It is an ancestor of most European ethnic groups, not just Slavs. Spanish, Italian also have significant Corded Ware ancestry


So basically you're arguing most Europeans are is Slavic they just don't know it.

Proto Indo European=Polish.

Mystery solved.

ambron said...

As I wrote before, according to Jarmoszko linguistic research, the Avesta language, which is most similar to the Sanskrit language, is more like living Slavic languages than living Indo-Iranian languages.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Ambron and EastPole,

I don't understand how any Indo European language could be significantly more like Proto-Indo European than another. It would be interesting if true however.

But, EastPole's opinion can't be taken seriously, because he is simply Slavocentrist who wants to make Proto-Indo Europeans and the Indo-Aryans into Slavs.

weure said...

@Sam yes we cluster very close to the old Anglo-Saxons. But especially my mother has a definitely higher HG than average Anglo-Saxon. That brings her closer to Nordic LNBA. The hybrid of Single Grave and Funnelbeaker. Mysuspicion is that because she is from a Funnelbeaker pocket that has caused a higher HG....

J.S. said...

@Matt
Thank you for your explanations...even if it still seems a bit odd.

Huck Finn said...

@ D and re: "I don't have any clear ideas yet about the genetic and linguistic changes in Siberia that led to the disappearance of WSHG and the spread of Nganasan-like ancestry and Uralic languages."

It remains to be seen if Nganasan as such is ancestral to populations of "Uralic" Forest-Tundra cline, fex cf:

"In contrast, additional EHG-related ancestry is required to explain the forest-tundra populations to the east of the Urals (Figure 5 and Table S8). Their multi-way mixture model may in fact portrait a prehistoric two-way mixture of a WSH population and a hypothetical eastern Eurasian one *that has an ANE-related contribution higher than that in Nganasans*. Botai and Okunevo individuals prove the existence of such ANE ancestry-rich populations."

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/327122v1.full

According to my understanding the whole Uralic cline is based on ancient Siberian layer of groups heavily biased towards ANE type of populations, including WSHG/Botai. That being said, later admix from an East Asian source can be seen fex in Saami, apparently based on contacts over Arctic Sea, which makes things complicated.

Davidski said...

@Huck Finn

The Uralic cline runs from Fennoscandia to the Nganasans. You can see it clearly here.

https://vahaduo.github.io/g25views/#NorthEurasia3

Botai, Okunevo and WSHG aren't part of this cline, and since modern Uralic speakers carry very little to none of this type of ancestry, then it's extremely unlikely that Proto-Uralic was spoken in such a WSHG-like population.

The paper you cited is outdated, simply because the authors didn't have access to key samples from Bronze and Iron Age Siberia, when the WSHG > Nganasan-related shift happened there.

So they're forced to use modern Nganasans in their qpAdm models, which, in hindsight, is wrong and means that their models are redundant.

ambron said...

Sam, don't take PIE too seriously, because it's just a construct of linguists using the historical-comparative method. Rather, there was actually a group of mutually intelligible dialects.

Samuel Andrews said...

@weure,

Blatterhole and Wartberg in Western Germany had lots of WHG, so it for sure probable some WHG rich groups lived in Netherlands. Bell beaker Netherlands has inflated WHG, so I see some of this could be in Dutch.

Draft Dozen said...

@ ANI EXCAVATOR

They are from Nenets myths
http://www.circumarctic.com/news/sirtya/

Ric Hern said...

There are lots of independent similarities between words in different Indo-Europeans Languages and Sanskrit and Avesta...also many Mythological similarities as far as Ireland...

weure said...

@Sam Yes indeed, it's known that about 3400 BC there was a major influx from TRB people (very high in Ertebølle HG) from Northern Germany to Northern Netherlands and especially to the region that my mother is deeply rooted in (called Hondsrug). As everywhere in Southern Scandinavia and on the Northern Plain Single Grave (or Battle Axe) mixed with Funnelbeakers in LNBA. Bell Beakers stood at the beginning of this mix. But that's not everywhere exactly the same; it's not weird to assume that in Funnelbeaker hotspots there is some more "Funnelbeaker-residu' in the current population.....

Norfern-Ostrobothnian said...

Do you think the Garino culture of Kama and the Ayat culture of east Urals played a role in the birth of Uralians? According to this webpage, the Garino people formed the ethnic basis for Bronze and Iron age Permians while getting cultural influence from the Seima-Turbino phenomenon (Turbino is within Garino territory). While Garino culture shared a cultural community with the Volosovites, they had close connections to the Ayat culture, which could have transferred the haplogroup N1c-Tat. David, are we expecting any samples from Ayat or succeeding Cherkaskul culture?
http://enc.permculture.ru/showObject.do?object=1803977705
http://uralistica.com/group/komipermians/forum/topics/2161342:Topic:193414?commentId=2161342%3AComment%3A250078&groupId=2161342%3AGroup%3A6624

Norfern-Ostrobothnian said...

@ Davidski
The Uralic cline has most likely been stretched both ways, not just west. The Nganasans have absorbed Tungusic peoples and paleo-Siberians, and they even cluster with Tungusic and Yukaghir people more than Selkups or Nenets.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4915357/
check out fig 2.

Davidski said...

@Norfern-Ostrobothnian

The Nganasans have absorbed Tungusic peoples and paleo-Siberians, and they even cluster with Tungusic and Yukaghir people more than Selkups or Nenets.

That's an artifact of them being more East Eurasian than Selkups and Nenets, but the specific type of drift they have puts them at the eastern end of the Uralic cline, while the Tungusic and Yukaghir peoples aren't really part of this cline.

Take a look again at where the Nganasans are located here.

https://vahaduo.github.io/g25views/#NorthEurasia3

Norfern-Ostrobothnian said...

@Davidski
Perhaps that is a remnant of an older population from Taimyr peninsula or simply genetic drift. I wouldn't put my money on them being a good proxy for Uralians anyways considering that they have the West Siberian N1a2b and have only really interacted with other Siberians and not Western people prior to Russians. However the the people who brought N1c to the west might be found in Sayan.

Norfern-Ostrobothnian said...

@Davidski
On that PCA you posted the cline 'curves' a little to further up, and it seems that the Yukagirs themselves are stretching toward there. Perhaps some Arctic group lies over there?

Davidski said...

@Norfern-Ostrobothnian

On that PCA you posted the cline 'curves' a little to further up, and it seems that the Yukagirs themselves are stretching toward there.

There are different PCA that show various characteristics of the Uralic cline and the Nganasans. For instance, this one:

https://vahaduo.github.io/g25views/#NorthEurasia2

This PCA suggests that, like you pointed out, the Nganasans are admixed, which might mean that there may have been a very eastern Uralic population without this admixture that no longer exists. A ghost, if you will, that would plausibly occupy the empty space above the Nganasans in that PCA.

Norfern-Ostrobothnian said...

@Davidski
Do you think there could be a ghost on the Volga, because the populations there pick up Levänluhta, Chalmny-Varre and Bolshoy-Oleny for example. Also fit goes never under 7% for the Mari.

Huck Finn said...

@ D and re: "Botai, Okunevo and WSHG aren't part of this cline, and since modern Uralic speakers carry very little to none of this type of ancestry, then it's extremely unlikely that Proto-Uralic was spoken in such a WSHG-like population."

Could you kindly elaborate in which way your own recent models in this thread and based on non-Baltic features of OLS_10 support this idea?

vAsiSTha said...

@ambron
"As I wrote before, according to Jarmoszko linguistic research, the Avesta language, which is most similar to the Sanskrit language, is more like living Slavic languages than living Indo-Iranian languages."

I don't know if this is true, but let's assume it is.
Do you not see any other way which this could happen? For eg. Iranian speakers spending a shitload of time in the Slavic lands and leaving behind
languages languages such as ossetian maybe?

EastPole said...

@Ric Hern

“There are lots of independent similarities between words in different Indo-Europeans Languages and Sanskrit and Avesta...also many Mythological similarities as far as Ireland...”


Yes, and their origins are probably very different. You can investigate them, explain and be proud. It is your common heritage and nobody should deny it.

I don’t understand why there is such a big fuss when linguistic and mythological similarities between Slavic and Sanskrit or Avestan are discovered and discussed.

Anthony Hanken said...

Molodin et al., published a paper in 2013. Human migrations in the southern region of the West Siberian Plain during the Bronze Age: Archaeological, palaeogenetic and anthropological data.

MtDNA from BA west Siberia was recovered and a clear shift towards eastern lineages was found to have occured. Odinovo and early Krotovo (both connected to Seima-Turbino) show an increase in eastern mtDNA lineages compared to the earlier Ust-Tartas culture.

Maybe this shift in mtDNA was accompanied by Y-hg N1c and more eastern admixture? I can't see the Uralic language itself being located much farther east than west Siberia during the bronze age.

Samuel Andrews said...

@weure,

I think what is unique about your family's North Dutch ancestry is high Steppe ancstry.

I checked the score of Europe pops using the same reference sources you did on your family. No pop scores as much Yamnaya Ukraine as your family does. The Dutch samples score in a range of 44-52%, average of 48%. Your family scores 53%. Bell Beaker Netherlands scores 57%.

If you were to model yourself with Corded Ware Early, which is best reference for Europeans' Steppe ancestry, you'd probably score 57%.

Maybe this is a fluke. Davidski do you think it is a fluke? But, it is pretty important for European genetics if there is an enclave in Northern Netherlands with high Steppe ancestry.

Foxvillager said...

Uralics,Altaic and Native Americans they all share the trait of Shamanism.Is out there any ethnic group in eurasia with non Siberian/East Asian genetics who uses shamanism...even the Sami's of EU actually showing some similar traits thought.

Davidski said...

@Huck Finn

Note that in all of the qpAdm models that I posted here for Shaikorth, 0LS10 can be modeled as part WSHG-related, but has to be modeled as part Baikal_BA for the models to pass (get a decent tail prob).

Of course, Baikal_BA is just a lousy proxy for the real source population, which isn't available yet in the ancient DNA record.

Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

For eg. Iranian speakers spending a shitload of time in the Slavic lands and leaving behind languages languages such as ossetian maybe?

Contacts between early Slavs and Iranians were sporadic, and Ossetian isn't spoken in any lands that were Slavic, or even close to Slavic before the Slavic expansions.

Balts had even fewer contacts with Iranians, and yet Baltic languages are very similar to Sanskrit.

Norfern-Ostrobothnian said...

Uralic share waterbird motifs and primordial sea in the creation of the world.

weure said...

@Sam, I took G25 unscaled and used Davidksi's source population in this posting. These are ball park figures. But as you can see the Steppe amount from someone like my mother is not exceptional. On contrary, a little below average (due to the higher HG amount).
https://www.mupload.nl/img/zklxxgohmgs.53.08.png

Archi said...

@Davidski

"Balts had even fewer contacts with Iranians, and yet Baltic languages are very similar to Sanskrit."

Those are myths.

vAsiSTha said...

@davidski said

"Contacts between early Slavs and Iranians were sporadic, and Ossetian isn't spoken in any lands that were Slavic, or even close to Slavic before the Slavic expansions."

Lol 'sporadic' is not the correct word. the iranian speakers literally ruled over the russian & ukrainian steppe region for centuries at a time. I mean the history of the region is clearly settled and greek written records exist even today, no point denying it.

You want to know the extent of iranian influence on the steppes?

According to Matasović (2008), "solving the problem of Iranian loanwords in Slavic, their distribution and relative chronology, is one of the most important tasks of modern Slavic studies".[3] Slavs in the era of the Proto-Slavic language came into contact with various Iranian tribes, namely Scythians, Sarmatians, and Alans, which were present in vast regions of eastern and southeastern Europe in the first centuries CE. The names of two large rivers in the centre of Slavic expansion, Dnieper and Dniester, are of Iranian origin, and Iranian toponyms are found as far west as modern day Romania.

below from https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=Danube

In Avestan, the earliest Iranian language we know, dānu- means "river, stream." In modern Ossetic (the language of the Ossets, descendants of the Scythians, an Iranian tribe of the Russian steppes), don means "river, stream." This word appears in the name of the Don River of Russia. Dnieper and Dniester (earlier Danapris and Danastius, respectively) come from Scythian Dānu apara and Dānu nazdya ("the river in the rear" and "the river in front," respectively).

Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

There weren't any Slavs on the steppe until the Tsarist era, when the Russian Empire cleared the Turkic tribes out of the region and replaced them with their own peasants.

You seem to think that the borders of modern-day Slavic states were drawn up in Antiquity or something. Haha.

And I'm not interested in some random fantasies about Slavs and Iranians that you happened to dig up.

The key relationship is between Balto-Slavic and Indo-Aryan, not Slavic and Iranian.

Norfern-Ostrobothnian said...

Actually there were many forts during Kievan Times to fight off Cuman-Kipchaks and Pechenegs. Oleshye and Biela Vezha for example. But again those would have left Turkic contacts.

ambron said...

Colleagues, the Avestan language has many more stems existing in the Slavic languages than in any other Iranian language, including Ossetian. Therefore, the late Slavic-Iranian language contacts could not have influenced this state of affairs.

Slavic languages are characterized by many phonological phenomena that are also characteristic of Iranian languages, but at the same time foreign to Baltic languages.

EastPole said...

@vAsiSTha

„According to Matasović (2008)”


Why are you interested in some random outdated pseudoscientific BS and not modern science:


According to Narasimhan et al. (2019)

https://i.postimg.cc/05Cnpw1Z/CWC-BS-II.jpg

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6457/eaat7487

Davidski said...

Clown vAsiSTha seems to think that the modern countries of Russia and Ukraine were invaded by Scythians.

Bahaha...

ambron said...

David, do you have any idea to explain why there is a high proportion of the Uralic component in Welzin in the Weure analysis?

Coldmountains said...

@Davidski

I agree, Scythian/Late Northeast Iranic languages had a surprisingly low impact on Balto-Slavic languages and some of the often presumed loanwords/influences from Iranic are weirdly closer to some kind of Proto-Indo-Aryan dialects (archaic para/proto-Indo-Iranian?). Most of the parallels between Balto-Slavs and Indo-Iranians are rather from the period around 2000-3000 B.C and very old and during this period Proto-Indo-Aryans (Fatyanovo>Abashevo) existed not too far from Proto-Balto-Slavs north of the Carpathians.

"The possibility of separation of Indo-Aryans and Iranians within the Central-Eastern European homeland was particularly supported by Safronov (1989). At the linguistic level this is confirmed by the unexplainable
lack of proper ‘Iranian’ influence on Slavonic: “[t]his absence of Iranian influence on Slavonic is surprising in view of the repeated incursions of Scythian tribes into Europe, and the prolonged occupation by them of extensive territories reaching to the Danube. Clearly at this later period the Slavs must have remained almost completely uninfluenced politically and culturally by the Iranians. On the other hand at a much earlier period (c. 2000 BC) before the primitive Aryans left their European homeland, Indo-Iranian and the prototypes of Baltic and Slavonic must have existed as close neighbours for a considerable period of time. Practically all the contacts which can be found between the two groups are to be referred to this period and this period alone” (Burrow 1955: 22). "

"One of the most obvious features is the change of the original I-E s, well preserved in Sanskrit, into h/x in Iranian. As the result, words as the Skr. svar ‘the sun, sunshine, light, lustre; heaven (as a paradise and as the
abode of the gods)’ became hvar-, automatically excluding any chance of explaining the prominent Eastern Slavonic supreme deity Svarog as an Iranian loan. Because of the remarkable phono-semantic affinity it would be most natural to connect Svarog with the Sanskrit svarga ‘heaven, the abode of light and of the gods’ the only obstacle being the extreme spatial gap excluding any chance of a recent direct contact. However, this problem could be resolved if we hypothesise the existence of the non-Iranian ‘Indo-Aryan
(pra-Indian) component or its relics’ on the linguistic periphery of the Slavonic world. "

" Other religious Slavonic words, commonly taken as ‘Iranisms’ e.g. rai ‘paradise’, can equally be explained from Indo-Aryan (cp. Vedic rai ‘wealth, riches’). As for the Slavonic bog ‘god’, after an in-depth assessment
Trubačёv (2004: 49–51) concluded that it was not possible to determine with certainty if it was a loan or an ancient inherited word."

Archi said...

@Davidski

"There weren't any Slavs on the steppe until the Tsarist era, when the Russian Empire cleared the Turkic tribes out of the region and replaced them with their own peasants."

Much earlier. The Russian Empire had nothing to do with this.

Eastern Slavs
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/East_Slavic_tribes_peoples_8th_9th_century.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/Slav-7-8-obrez.png

"The key relationship is between Balto-Slavic and Indo-Aryan, not Slavic and Iranian."

Before the Eastern Slavs, there were practically no contacts between the Slavs and Iranians, while the separate contact between the Balts and Iranians was quite significant.

Norfern-Ostrobothnian said...

Are there any Ayat, Krotov or Cherkaskul yDNA or autosomal samples? Are there any non-IE samples from Ingela valley anyways?

Davidski said...

@ambron

David, do you have any idea to explain why there is a high proportion of the Uralic component in Welzin in the Weure analysis?

Those samples are garbage. The new samples will be released when the paper is formally published.

Arch Hades said...

Hey, why didnt you include Southern Europeans? That's saddening for me. Could have done one for them but instead swap RUS_Baikal to CHG Kotias or something.

Foxvillager said...

@ Arch

He will need foreign components like Levant N/Iran N and even Taforalt...and not just CHG/Kotias etc.

Ryukendo K said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tigran said...

@Archi

What was the spread of Baltic languages when Eastern Europe still had Indo-Iranian languages?

Either way I'd like to thank your people for taking back the steppe.

Ric Hern said...

@ Davidski

Regarding the formation of the Proto-Indo-European package. Is it correct to say that the "Culture" spread from the Middle Dnieper River to the Lower Don River and then the "Genes" spread from the Lower Don to the Northern Carpathians ?

Davidski said...

@Ric

I'm not sure if it's correct to say that. I can't answer that question.

ambron said...

Tigran, to Moscow and Kursk in the east, and Kiev and Zhytomyr in the south.

ambron said...

As I early said, the Slavic languages are characterized by many phonological phenomena that are also characteristic of Iranian languages, but foreign to the Baltic languages. Late Baltic-Iranian contacts were longer and more lasting. So if they did not affect the Baltic languages, then even more so to the Slavic ones. These late influences are essentially limited to hydronymy only.

There is nothing strange in this, because the late Iranians no also had a biological influence on the Balts and the Slavs. After moving east, the Iranian Z93 no longer returns substantially in the vicinity of the north of the Carpathians.

Davidski said...

@ambron

After moving east, the Iranian Z93 no longer returns substantially in the vicinity of the north of the Carpathians.

This is what clown vAsiSTha doesn't understand.

The similarities between Balto-Slavic and Indo-Aryan are due to the migration of Indo-Iranians from Eastern Europe to Central Asia, not the other way around.

ambron said...

David, full agreement!

Samuel Andrews said...

@weure,

Ok. Unscaled G25 gives higher Steppe ancestry scores than scaled. That is why you score so high Steppe.

Matt said...

Eh. Some similarities are shared retentions, some fewer are shared innovations from MLBA era, some are due to the post-dispersal linguistic diffusion and contact. Linguists will disagree and it will continue to evolve.

Outside linguistics, the normal nationalist brigades will tend to chalk up any effects to each of these to support whatever history they prefer, and that's the way it (e.g. EastPole will probably reliably spout some linguistic pseudoscience / fantasy fiction that makes everything a retention from some stage that was essentially identical to Slavic, in service of his imaginary ancient Slavic neopagan religious community from which he imagines all the advanced religious philosophies of Greece and India come, etc). I would advise no one at all serious on intereted in what actually happened to actually get their idea of the linguistics from the comments here.

Davidski said...

@Matt

Most people here are arguing in favor of the mainstream Indo-Iranian model which is being soundly corroborated by ancient DNA.

So there's no need for the EastPole straw man.

vAsiSTha said...

@davidski

"
After moving east, the Iranian Z93 no longer returns substantially in the vicinity of the north of the Carpathians.

This is what clown vAsiSTha doesn't understand."

Lol davidski, I speak English and my house name and number is in English does not mean that I have English y dna and autosomal ancestry you dim person.

Z93 has absolutely no relevance to the strong data that we get from Herodotus's writings about the Iranian speaking scythianst in the steppes and their impact.

The sooner you get this in your head the better

Norfern-Ostrobothnian said...

Is ~60% a good estimate of Yamnaya+EEF ancestry among Mezhovskaya culture?

Rob said...

Early genetic affinities between Balto-Slavic and indo-Iranian; some later (relatively modest) secondary convergence between Scythians and Balto-Slavic tribes in E.E.

Rob said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Norfern-Ostrobothnian said...

Or maybe a better question is how much Sintashta/Andronovo ancestry they had, because if that was known, Cherkaskul ancestry could be simulated.

EastPole said...

@vAsiSTha

„Z93 has absolutely no relevance to the strong data that we get from Herodotus's writings about the Iranian speaking scythianst in the steppes and their impact.”

Herodotus had never mentioned that Scythians were Iranian speaking or that their language was in any way related to Persian. It is your fantasy. We know the names of their gods but they don’t seem to be related to known Vedic or Slavic religious vocabulary.
The language of Herodotus Scythians was not known. Genetics tells us that they were very mixed people and that multicultural mix of Indo-European and not-Indo-European people didn’t have to be Iranian at all.

https://borissoff.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/was-scythian-an-iranian-language/

weure said...

About Welzin, based G25 unscaled, it leaves the impression that we see the Pommerian Bronze Age culture (Plonia Group) this is bound to region towards Tollense. Basically TRB (GAC) mixed with Steppe (about 30%). The Welzin outliers have a higher Steppe amount about 40%.

Vorpommern against Pommern ;)

weure said...

And the unscaled G25 model belongs to my previous posting:
https://www.mupload.nl/img/ofytkqwdzwjsi.png

epoch said...

@David

Can I persuade you to add GoyetQ2 to the G25? Or post the scaled coordinates separately? I think this paper mentioned improving the sequencing depth of GoyetQ2.

https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(19)30145-9#secsectitle0230

Kristiina said...

Am I right that the PC map NorthEurasia3 does not explain the main variation but a minor third PC component? In any case, PC map is very interesting as it separates the Uralic populations and Yeniseian Kets from the Devil’s gate population and Baikal Neolithic (Shamanka) and modern Nivkh and Ulchi from the Amur area. Also Tundra Yukaghirs and Beringians (Koryaks, Chukchi and Eskimos) approach this Uralic cline from another direction. This ancestry component must represent some very old north Eurasian ancestry that stretches from Alaska to Fennoscandia.

However, this North Eurasian cline is not restricted to yDNA N only, as Selkups and Kets carry mostly yDNA Q and Yukaghirs carry Q, C2 and N.

Moreover, this PC map does not prove that this cline represents the origin of Uralic languages. It could equally well represent the Yeniseian languages, or an extinct language family.

Last but not least, this PC map shows that a migration from Baikal BA or from Iron Age Mongolia/ Eastern Steppe towards the west would not produce this Uralic cline. The different more southern cline starts from Tungusic populations in Amur and not from Nganasans.

Dmytro said...

One as yet not resolved issue concerning the Balto/Slavic--Indo/Iranian relationship (esp. in the light of this : "On the other hand at a much earlier period (c. 2000 BC) before the primitive Aryans left their European homeland, Indo-Iranian and the prototypes of Baltic and Slavonic must have existed as close neighbours for a considerable period of time. Practically all the contacts which can be found between the two groups are to be referred to this period and this period alone” (Burrow 1955: 22)" is this:

How long (and where) did relics of "Indic" survive north of the Black Sea?
A good argument can be made that there were still pockets of them (including important ones) in Scythian times (partly subsumed under the "Scythian" label). Trubachov did a lot of work on this (compiled in his 1999 "Indo-Arica" book). Some elements to consider.
1.Did the proto-Slavs get their "god word"("Bog" from "Bagha" with associations of wealth) from these "Indics"?
2.The Scythian Foundation myth in Herodotus names the "Ancestral Father" of the lot of 445 BCE TARGITAUS (the Scythians were just the youngest and most successful of his "sons"), which is pretty close to the Indic of the "Sindic" (note the retention of the "S" rather the expected Iranic "H") princess TIRGATAO (events of the early 4th c.BC related in Polyaenus). The "Sinds" were a Maeotian tribe. They called the Don (Tanais) "Sindhu".
3. TIRGUTAWIYA is found in a Mitanni inscription as a name.

This is just for starters. There's plenty more material to digest. Of course all of this was thoroughly swept up and "gone with the wind" by Late Roman times. But could it remain useful for historical purposes?

Simon_W said...

@J.S.

"How is it possible that Modern Basque share more drift with BA & IA French samples than Modern French?"

I'm not sure. But it reminds me somewhat of the fact that Basques are like IA Iberians (though that shows also in the G25, not just in fstats). Maybe it's because of their linguistically caused isolation, that they accumulated less gene flow from other populations.

mzp1 said...

I dont object to hearing reasonable theories about how IE could have spread from Eastern Europe to Central And South Asia. But these need to acknowledge the fact that Greek and Italic seem to converge closer to Indo-Aryan than to (Indo-)Iranian. Note the above theories do not mention Greek at all, even though Greek and Indo-Aryan are considered somewhat close and this relationship seems very independant of that between 'Indo-Iranian' and Balto-Slavic.

Eastpole is a good example of someone who ignores half the data (Greco-Aryan) to push his own pet-theory.

Most experts put Indo-Aryan as the most archaic of IE groups, followed by Greek. There is no Greco-Balto-Slavic clade in IE.

Simon_W said...

@Samuel Andrews

"A Hallstatt sample from Czech republic, also clusters squarely with modern North French. (...) Hallstatt sample DA111 perfectly fits in Northern France. I think we are seeing a pattern."

Using scaled coordinates in Vahaduo, Hallstatt Bylany DA111 is definitely closest to French_Occitanie. Only the average coordinates of DA111 + DA112 are closest to French_Nord. But since DA112 has Scythian-like Cimmerian admixture, this isn't a legit average. People like DA112 were perhaps not uncommon in the eastern Hallstatt domain, but DA111, being Occitan-like, is similar to the Alsatian Hallstatt average. The conclusion: At least the Hallstatt of west-central Europe was Occitan-like. Only with the change to the La Tene culture, there is a genomic northwards shift towards Belgians, Northern French and Bretons. This makes sense archaeologically, because the earliest La Tene occured on the northern fringe of the Hallstatt core area.

Davidski said...

@mzp1

Most experts put Indo-Aryan as the most archaic of IE groups, followed by Greek.

This hasn't been the consensus since the 18th century, if ever.

Most experts nowadays view Indo-Aryan as one of the youngest IE groups.

Davidski said...

@Kristiina

The Uralic cline shows up in dimensions 1&2, 1&3, 1&4 and others, it just looks somewhat different each time.

https://vahaduo.github.io/g25views/#NorthEurasia1

https://vahaduo.github.io/g25views/#NorthEurasia2

https://vahaduo.github.io/g25views/#NorthEurasia3

ambron said...

mzp1, experts agree rather that the most conservative language is Lithuanian and Old Church Slavonic. They retain the most essential Proto-Indo-European phonological and morphological features, and the most basic Indo-European vocabulary, compared to Greek, Latin, Gothic, Sanskrit and Avesta.

Norfern-Ostrobothnian said...

@Davidski
It seems to bend around Kets and Selkups.

vAsiSTha said...

@eastpole said
"The language of Herodotus Scythians was not known. "

Yea they spoke slavic languages only. Your language is purest and everything derives from it.

I support your quest to make up your peoples's history, I couldn't care less.

Just don't come to me tomorrow saying that F-U Orja is the ancestor to the IA word Arya because of some stupid linguistic hocus pocus. Because then I'll come to you saying that slavic Ogni is a borrowing from medieval bengali and oriya.

vAsiSTha said...

For anyone who believes that scythians did not speak an Iranian dialect.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/journals/jlr/11/1/article-p81.xml&ved=2ahUKEwjAt4z0sv3qAhWYIbcAHQniBxEQFjARegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw0KFgRdDJYBfSi54bcaCgWF
External relations of Scythian - De Gruyter

Not just the scythians, the iranian speaking sarmatians and Alans have also had their presence felt in the steppe above the black sea.

Matt said...

Possibly of interest to some. Related to main post:

Using a quick experiment, came up with a "modifier", that can be added to G25 North-Central European samples which swaps sample's positions between West European and Eastern European clines, without changing significantly position in West Eurasia PCA or at all changing modelled proportions of Yamnaya:Barcin:HG (changes are 0-0.2%). (I could go into details about the method to make up modifier, but probably not worth it).

Modifier: https://pastebin.com/wS11rJsL (+ moves samples on West European cline -> Eastern European cline; - moves samples on East European cline -> West European cline).

Examples of sample plots and proportions: https://imgur.com/a/XrVeFQL (no real shift in West Eurasia PCA, strong shift in North Europe PCA, no real change in KorosHG:Yamnaya:Barcin proportions. Obviously there is some *very* small shift in West Eurasia PCA, but I found it proved impossible to perfectly remove this without compromising the proportins...).

(As far as I can tell, modifier leaves distances to outgroups unchanged, only affects distance between European samples. E.g comparing shifted vs non-shifted population averages: https://imgur.com/a/TvkixRE).

That would suggest that, at least in models of Yamnaya:Barcin:HG, Global25 is not inflating or deflating proportions in Eastern vs Western populations, and those are pretty much the same.

Rob said...

@ Mzp1

'' Most experts put Indo-Aryan as the most archaic of IE groups, followed by Greek. There is no Greco-Balto-Slavic clade in IE.'

Why would there be ? All these languages are later, in situ formations. Their relationships stem to earlier forms, as early as PIE, not the later attested versions
The shared retentions could be variable although not entirely stochastic processes

There is a pretty good reason about the paucity of Iraninisms in Slavic - the Common Slavic expansion was much alter than the period of Scythian dominance on the steppe. By the time the former occurred, the latter had been incrementally diminished first by the Goths then the Huns.

Interestingy, Z Golab sees some of the earliest loans in Slavic to be from Italic & Celtic -like languages

Davidski said...

@Norfern-Ostrobothnian

It seems to bend around Kets and Selkups.

Yes, I noticed that.

I guess based on this bend it's tempting to assume that Proto-Uralic was spoken in a population similar to Selkups.

But the problem is that Nganasans, not Selkups, are the best proxy for an ancient Uralic-specific admixture signal.

So we need a lot of ancient DNA from Siberia to work out what these things mean.

Samuel Andrews said...

Two years ago, I was saying Nganassan is best proxy for Proto-Uralics. Almost everyone dis agreed with me.

Also, Bolshoy Oleni spoke Uralic like I said two years ago.

Bob Floy said...

@eastpole

It's pretty well established that the Scythians spoke an Iranian language.

Davidski said...

Scythians were rich in western steppe ancestry and R1a-Z93, so it shouldn't be surprising to learn that they were Iranian speaking.

But they had very little to none West Asian or South Asian ancestry.

So their linguistic relationship with Balts and Slavs must have been associated with their steppe ancestry and their R1a-Z93, which is a sister clade of the Baltic, Slavic and Germanic R1a-Z283.

The argument that the highly conservative Lithuanian and Old Church Slavic languages are closely related to Indo-Aryan languages because they're influenced by Iranian Scythians is retarded nonsense.

I'd say vAsiSTha was trolling, but he's probably stupid enough to believe what he's arguing here.

ambron said...

Colleagues, linguists have always believed that the majority of Iranian-Slavic linguistic convergences are the result of a common linguistic basis, and that late Iranian-Slavic contacts are only of marginal importance here. Now it is confirmed exactly by genetics - genetically Central European Aryan migration and the absence of a Z93 return wave in today's Central European genome. So I don't understand the point of this discussion...

Kristiina said...

I bet that PC3 represents a North Eurasian substrate influence on Uralic when a modern BA language started spreading among the populations carrying this very northern ancestry.

PC1 shows a cline from Nganasan via Baikal EBA, Selkups, Nenets and Khanty to Okunevo, Botai and Afontova Gora. There is no meaningful Uralic cline. However, PC1 shows that Uralics do not form any cline from Devils Gate.

The same goes for PC2 if the purpose is to make Nganasan the original Uralics. There is a cline from western Uralics via Udmurts and Leväluhta to Khanty, Selkup and Ket, but Nenets and Nganasan are clearly outside of this cline, and Nganasan much more so than Nenets.

Arctic element in Uralics is with all probability related to Paleo-Siberian languages.

Davidski said...

@Kristiina

There is no meaningful Uralic cline.

Here it is, in three versions:

https://vahaduo.github.io/g25views/#NorthEurasia1

https://vahaduo.github.io/g25views/#NorthEurasia2

https://vahaduo.github.io/g25views/#NorthEurasia3

So quit the trolling.

EastPole said...

@ambron
“don't take PIE too seriously, because it's just a construct of linguists using the historical-comparative method. Rather, there was actually a group of mutually intelligible dialects.”

Moreover, this construct is quite often wrong and the arguments based on it are wrong too.
The best way is to illustrate with examples.

M r Weer Rajendra Rishi, a well –known linguist of' India wrote in his book“India & Russia Linguistic & Cultural Affinity” ROMAPUBLICATIONS Chandigarh (India) 1982

“Similarly the Russian name Svyatoslav (Old Church Slav ‘Svyatoslavu’) and the Sanskrit name Svetasravah have their common origin in the Indo-European kweitoklewes. One feature of the Indo-European languages was its power to form compounds of various words.

We know that Slavic ‘l’ –> Sanskrit ‘r’ and therefore Slavic ‘Svyatoslavu’ –> Sanskrit ‘Svetasravah’.

But PIE.’kweitoklewes’ is not a real word and has never been spoken by anybody.


There is an interesting article (in Polish) by prof. Jerzy Bartmiński about using etymology in linguistic reconstructions:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314453507_Rola_etymologii_w_rekonstrukcji_jezykowego_obrazu_swiata

In the Polish language ‘svet’ means “light” and ‘kvet’ means “flower”. These words are related and in Slavic ‘s-’ and ‘k-’ interchange.

There is also a suggestion not to rely on pseudoscientific reconstructions but dig deep into history and etymology of each word:

„W referacie pt. Kognitywizm w etymologii przedstawionym przez M. Wojtyłę-Świerzowską na XII Konkresie Slawistów w Krakowie (1998) znalazły się słowa krytyki pod adresem tradycyjnych etymologów za „kurczowe trzymanie się pojęcia systemu”, a przede wszystkim za niesprawdzalność wielu hipotez, bo „rekonstrukcje wychodzące poza okres historyczny […] to byty abstrakcyjne, uzyskane przy zabiegu sztucznego skrócenia ogromnej nieraz perspektywy czasowej, semantycznie wypreparowane […] oparte nie na żywych tekstach, lecz na słownictwie zawartym w dykcjonarzach” (Wojtyła-Świerzowska, s. 18). „Próby sprowadzania za wszelką cenę etymologizowanego materiału do postaci pie przy pomocy procedury młodogramatycznostrukturalistycznej prowadzą bardzo często do akrobacji formalnych, oderwanych od realiów, nieuzasadnione materiałowo.” (s.19). Autorka postulowała wydobycie się „z zaklętego kręgu układanek i rekonstrukcji”, wykorzystywanie dorobku poprzedników, i zajęcie się ogromnym (czasowo i przestrzennie) materiałem leksykalnym poświadczonym historycznie. A więc przesunięcie zainteresowań bliżej współczesności.”

CrM said...

Regarding the Scythians, I did notice that some Ukrainian Scythians show a strong Baltic signal, especially MJ14, MJ13 and scy009.

You can argue that those were Slavs rather than Scythians since they're are genetically closest to them, but then then the other Ukrainian Scythians show a BMAC signal, which would mean that they came from the East. And if the Balto-Slavic-like "Scythians" and the BMAC-enriched Scythians coexisted, then you would see influences coming from both direction.

https://i.imgur.com/8jQoCbe.png

Davidski said...

There's no BMAC ancestry in any of the Euro Scythians. They have ancestry from the Balkans.

Rob said...

The distinguisher of Scythians is Baikal_4000 BP ancestry, aside from the pervasive Andronovo - Srubnaya
Sakae have BMAC ancestry, but it’s not much in other Scythians (eg Pazyryk; Black Sea Scythians)

Davidski said...

Yeah, like I said, the Euro Scythians don't really have any BMAC input. They have ancestry from the eastern Balkans.

On the other hand, the Euro Sarmatians have ancestry from the Caucasus. But again, no BMAC to speak of.

Norfern-Ostrobothnian said...

That bend gave me an idea of sorts.
https://ibb.co/ZTMMw9q
The Proto-Uralics would fall into the Finno-Ugric cline, Finno-Mordvinic people stretching it toward European populations, Ugric peoples stretching it to the east with Ket like populations, finally creating the possible "proto-Samoyedic" people, who then bended to their own cline while absorbing Paleo-Siberian populations of different sort.
As for N getting into the Uralic populations along with the Nganasan like ancestry, those could have been already present among proto-Uralics.

CrM said...

@Davidski

It displays Gonur input even if you include Balkan and Caucasian sources. Is it a false signal?

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

Davidski said...

That's a pretty crazy model. Try to cut things down a bit. Or a lot.

Archi said...

@EastPole

"in Slavic ‘s-’ and ‘k-’ interchange."

Absolutely not true. You don't know anything about languages.

"There is also a suggestion not to rely on pseudoscientific reconstructions"

You're doing Anti-Scientific stuff, a man who understands absolutely nothing about languages and doesn't know anything.

"Sanskrit ‘Svetasravah’"

There's no such word in Sanskrit.

@ambron
"Rather, there was actually a group of mutually intelligible dialects."

This statement is meaningless, because all living languages in the world consist of dialects, always, there is no other way, if it is not some micro language.

CrM said...

@Davidski

I wanted to check if Gonur will be absorbed by any sources that carry some ancestry from the Iran Neolithic cline.

More simplified models: https://imgur.com/a/iybiUy6

EastPole said...

@Archi
Archi please stop spamming, I am not interested in your blabbing. I showed sources and linked articles. Who is interested can read them.

Davidski said...

@CrM

I remember having a close look at this issue with formal stats not long ago.

I didn't look at each sample individually, but as populations, because some of these samples are really low quality.

There was no sign of any BMAC admix in them, so you're probably picking up noise, either because these sequences are just too low quality or there's something missing.

Kristiina said...

I see myself as a mixture of Finnic speaking Estonian Iron Age VII4 (N3a3a)(who has even less ENA than I have, as per PC1) or OLS10 N3a3′5 and the inland Saami population (similar to the mainstream Levänluhta population) with some medieval and post-medieval, mainly Germanic, admixture.

None of the modern Uralic populations represents the genetics of Proto-Uralics. I expect that it will not be possible to describe them with any current simple lable such as Shamanka NE, Baikal EBA, EHG, WSHG etc.

Davidski said...

@Kristiina

Well, you're in for a bit of a shock in that case.

The fact that Nganasan-like ancestry finally shows up near the Urals during the Late Bronze Age (Mezhovskaya culture) should be a big clue about what to expect.

And no, Mezhovskaya culture people didn't have any Arctic ancestry.

Norfern-Ostrobothnian said...

@Kristiina
I don't know, I'd place them pretty close to the Mari (maybe more eastshifted), the admixture inflow they've had created the Chuvash and even they are mostly Mari. The Mari haven't really grown fond off the Russians over the years due to religious persecution and they've had multiple uprisings since the 16th century, while Udmurts and Mordvins were more content. And the Mari samples on G25 cluster close to one another unlike many other populations.

Kristiina said...

Ancient Mezhovskaya yDNA is this:
Kapova Cave Burzyansky District of Bashkortostan RISE524 R1b1a1a2a2c1-Z2109 (under L23)
Kapova Cave Burzyansky District of Bashkortostan RISE525 R1a1a1b-Z649/CTS5508(xZ283)

I cannot see much connection between my paternal ancestry and Mezhovskaya.

I think it is better to wait for the publication of these much expected samples. However, data from the Western Uralic area and Siberian forests is much more important that any steppe data. I have lost all faith in any steppe narrative of Uralic languages.

Norfern-Ostrobothnian said...

@Davidski
Ah, speaking of the Mezhovskaya, they are a descendant mostly of Andronovo and Cherkaskul peoples correct? So I suppose Cherkaskul culture would have brought that ancestry to the region.
When looking at different PCAs, both of the Mezhovskaya samples align with Alaku Srubnaya samples, so Cherkaskul would be in the other direction right? If only we would know the proportions of Andronovo and Cherkaskul ancestry among the two samples, we would be able to construct a Cherkaskul sample.

Davidski said...

@epoch

I've added GoyetQ2 to the G25 datasheets.

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/07/getting-most-out-of-global25_12.html

Davidski said...

@Kristiina

I have lost all faith in any steppe narrative of Uralic languages.

Well, yes, as far as the Pontic-Caspian steppe and nearby forest steppe are concerned (unless of course you're Carlos Quiles).

But there's the very interesting Baraba steppe east of the Urals. Let's wait and see what mysteries it holds.

Archi said...

@EastPole

It's just your insolence, it's you spamming. You're the one with the empty chatter that's an offtopic for this blog. You always write only the untruth contrary to science. No one's buying into your deceptions, no fools.

Mayuresh Madhav Kelkar said...

FYI

Click on "English" tab to the top right.

https://caminodelasyeseras.com/

Could not find too many papers in English on the site. Here is one:

THE CAMPANIFORM SCULPTURES
OF HUMANEJOS (PARLA, MADRID)

https://www.academia.edu/18862939/2013_New_dating_of_the_Bell_Beaker_Horizon_in_the_region_of_Madrid


http://www.madrid.org/bvirtual/BVCM019726.pdf


"The book that the reader has in his hands is the result of fertile collaboration of different public institutions and private involved in conservation, research and
dissemination of the rich archaeological heritage of the Community of Madrid. Thanks to the current legal and institutional framework, it is possible to make the economic activity of a region as prosperous and dynamic as Madrid compatible. which results in numerous construction sites, with safeguarding the archaeological sites that they discover in the development of many of them. As a consequence of all this, during the last decades a multitude of unique sites have come to light importance, such as the settlement itself and necropolis of Humanejos (Parla). This extensive enclave is, without a doubt,
one of the most important to have been discovered and excavated in recent years throughout Spain, as offers an enormous wealth of housing finds and funerals about one of the most interesting periods of the recent peninsular and European Prehistory."

"The patient and meticulous work carried out by a large multidisciplinary team made up of researchers from prestigious scientific and academic institutions national and international over more than one decade, offers us with this book on the graves
bells its first great fruit."

.....

"In sum, this book is directed not only at scientific community but the interested general public in knowing the deepest roots of their own history and will surely offer data and images that they will surprise, about a distant but exciting past,
that Archeology, in its patient work, is revealing slowly."




Vladimir said...

@ Davidski

Could you use this Fino-Ugric diagram to place samples from "Human auditory ossicles as an alternative optimal source of ancient DNA", https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/sites/reich.hms.harvard.edu/files/inline-files/Ossicles_Siraketal_2020_0.pdf

S14460.E1.L1 6000-3000 BCE Russia Fofonovo
S14461.E1.L1 6000-3000 BCE Russia Fofonovo

They seem to belong to the N-Y24317.

epoch said...

@Davidski

Thanks!

Anthony Hanken said...

Nganassans obviously aren't a perfect proxy for PU ancestry. The fact that they have absorbed Paleo-Siberian peoples on their way to Taymyr, as well as having later contacts with Tungusic groups is pretty well attested. Not to mention that they are extremely drifted due to their isolation.

With that being said, they may have preserved their PU ancestry better than any other modern or ancient population we have. Pretty much all Uralic groups (even ancient like OLS10) are heavily mixed with their neighbors.

Nganassans could very well be the least mixed Uralic population tested right now making them the best, albeit imperfect proxy for PU.

Anthony Hanken said...

@Davidski

"But there's the very interesting Baraba steppe east of the Urals. Let's wait and see what mysteries it holds."

My guess is an early bronze age shift from WSHGs with Y-hgs R1, Q1a and maybe N to Nganassan-like and Andronovo groups with Y-hgs N-L1026 and R1a-Z93. Does this look possible?

I would love to see something from the Rostovka site circa 2000BC.

ambron said...

David, on the basis of the genomes published so far, are you able to say whether HG Welzin is a Balto-Slavic drift or some other HG?

vAsiSTha said...

@davidski

"Yeah, like I said, the Euro Scythians don't really have any BMAC input. They have ancestry from the eastern Balkans.

On the other hand, the Euro Sarmatians have ancestry from the Caucasus. But again, no BMAC to speak of."

I smell a lot of BS above, not unexpected. Below is vahaduo run with scaled averages of populations as sources. These 3 scythians from ukraine have a lot of affinity to south central asians from turkmenistan. If someone has better models let me know. Will run qpAdm later to confirm.

Target: Scythian_UKR:MJ34
Distance: 1.8157% / 0.01815687
27.8 Bell_Beaker_HUN
27.4 TKM_IA
24.4 Corded_Ware_Baltic
16.4 RUS_Tagar
2.0 MNG_North_N
2.0 PAK_Loebanr_IA_o

Target: Scythian_UKR:MJ16
Distance: 2.9154% / 0.02915410
46.2 Corded_Ware_Baltic
28.2 PAK_Loebanr_IA_o
16.8 Bell_Beaker_HUN
6.0 MNG_North_N
1.6 RUS_Tagar
1.2 TKM_IA

Target: Scythian_UKR:MJ15
Distance: 2.8906% / 0.02890592
51.4 RUS_Tagar
15.6 TKM_IA
15.2 Corded_Ware_Baltic
12.2 PAK_Loebanr_IA_o
5.6 MNG_North_N

Now coming to euro sarmatians. This is much simpler and clear cut. Used pop averages as source as well as target.

Target: Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe
Distance: 1.5969% / 0.01596869
56.8 RUS_Tagar
29.0 TKM_IA
14.2 RUS_Kubano-Tersk

Target: Sarmatian_RUS_Pokrovka
Distance: 2.7180% / 0.02717992
48.2 RUS_Tagar
26.0 TKM_IA
25.8 RUS_Kubano-Tersk

Target: Sarmatian_RUS_Urals
Distance: 1.3643% / 0.01364295
61.2 RUS_Tagar
30.6 TKM_IA
8.2 RUS_Kubano-Tersk

Would you like to know what TKM_IA is made up of? No Bmac?

Target: TKM_IA
Distance: 2.5895% / 0.02589542
49.4 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
43.6 UZB_Bustan_BA
5.2 MNG_Chemurchek_EBA_2
1.8 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o2
0.0 KAZ_Zevakinskiy_LBA
0.0 MNG_North_N
0.0 PAK_Aligrama_IA
0.0 PAK_Loebanr_IA
0.0 PAK_Loebanr_IA_o
0.0 PAK_Saidu_Sharif_H
0.0 PAK_Saidu_Sharif_H_o
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o1
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o3

Gaska said...


Has anyone wondered why our friend Davidski cannot model Basques with Neolithic Koros, Yamnaya and Barcin?

It is not as our half-Greek-turkish friend says because we Basques have North African blood (neither do most Spaniards) but because the pops are poorly chosen and less used, and because the autosomal DNA is unique in each person and no conclusions can be drawn with the few samples we have.

And regarding our friend Tigran and his obsession with me, I only have to say that obviously R1b ​​has been, is, and will be, much superior to R1a, you just have to compare the history of the countries where each one of the lineages is majority. Maybe you can compare the history of Ukraine with Spain? or the history of Russia with the Anglos ?. I'm sorry to say it, but the history of R1a is the story of a communist failure

And David I hope you don't delete this comment because you started the controversy saying that R1a ended R1b in Eastern Europe And there are many things to discuss about it

Davidski said...

@Vladimir

You can have a look. Way off the Uralic cline. More Ulchi than Uralic.

RUS_Fofonovo_En:S14460,0.027318,-0.427538,0.087115,-0.015181,-0.083092,-0.051037,0.018096,0.019384,0.013499,0.012574,-0.018025,-0.000899,-0.002527,-0.004817,0.002579,-0.005569,-0.000782,-0.006081,0.006285,0.018259,-0.032942,0.006677,-0.008751,-0.00723,0.003353

https://vahaduo.github.io/g25views/#NorthEurasia3

EastPole said...

@Archi


"Sanskrit ‘Svetasravah’"

There's no such word in Sanskrit.”


And you are just a lazy troll who doesn’t read linked papers and knows nothing.

https://i.postimg.cc/QNYS6SHf/screenshot-95.png

http://vedic.su/Vedic/tur/IndiaRussia_Rishi_OCR.pdf

https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/shvetasrava

Rob said...

@ Vasistha

Your models dont seem to have any additional European sources, aside from CWC or Sintashta , which is why they overestimate BMAC input by a long-shot


Scythian_MDA
BGR_IA:I5769 60%
Hallstatt 15%
RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA 13.6%
Bustan 5.8%
RUS_Shamanka_EBA:DA339 4.2%
RUS_Tyumen_HG:I1960 1.4%

Distance 1.6485%


MDA_Cimmerian
RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA 57.6%
RUS_Shamanka_EBA:DA339 24.6%
Bustan 12.8%
BGR_IA:I5769 5%
RUS_Tyumen_HG:I1960 0%
Hallstatt 0%

Distance 2.3512%

And this is obviously overfitted, with formal models, BMAC is not required


@ Anthony

Yes it's hard to define Nganassan. They are probably way off the main Uralic cline, as with Yukagir_Tundra. On the other hand, the remaining Uralics & Yukagir forest are more compact around post-Andronovo/ Scythian & a heterogeneous set of unsampled west-of -Baikal groups

Foxvillager said...

I have mention it in my previous posts about his clown Gaska...he believes R1a is the evil Soviets while R1b is Franco haha.Gaska you like it or not Russia is by far a stronger state compared to Spain in almost everything.And history shows that Muslims from Africa had a genetic impact to your people.You cant call me Turk buddy.Greeks do not score East Asia/Siberia.My autosomal is mostly native anatolian-caucasian.Your people on the other hand score 5-10% Iberomaurisian admixture and many other's as well are frenquent to score even SSA.You know it right?Basques might not,but other Iberians do.I know it hurts you and this is the reason why you are so complex with Europeans from eastern europe.

Dmytro said...

How does one conclusively stop this pathology of generic racism?

Davidski said...

@Dmytro

How does one conclusively stop this pathology of generic racism?

I'm not sure if it's possible.

In quite a few Iberians and French I've come across online, it actually seems to be triggered by some sort of inferiority complex and self-doubt.

It's sad to watch.

Foxvillager said...

I used to believe eastern europeans were actually the most rascist people in Anthroforas and other genetical/anthropological websites but Iberians actually proved me wrong.Even anglo-saxons or anglo-americans are hippies compared to them.It is not only Gaska,i have meet Iberians(Spaniards mostly) IRL acting like him.Gaska my friend this is about genetics bro,not about your white-western racial superiority.We dont give a fuck about your R1b and your high WHG admixture.You forget btw that spaniards look white(meditteranid at least) due to their high ANF admixture and Steppe(EHG+CHG)also...otherwise you would have been like the Dark WHG girl from Denmark.


https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/.premium.MAGAZINE-5-700-year-old-chewing-gum-reveals-danish-woman-had-dark-skin-blue-eyes-and-stds-1.8284919

Davidski said...

@Gaska

That last comment you tried to post here was the last straw. You're banned.

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/09/banned-commentators-list.html

Piss off.

LGK said...

Imagine trying to essentialize the nature of multiple-millennia old haplogroups by the actions of some of their members in the last 100 years. Hoo boy. In the words of Archi: do not invent a clown.

Samuel Andrews said...

@dsjm1,
"Am a bit disappointed that not one U106 appears in the table. 3 x P312 (WEZ35=R1b1a2a1a2, WEZ54=R1b1a2a1a2, WEZ59=R1b1a2a1a2), 9 x I2 (WEZ15 is listed as I2a2a1a2a1a1, the others less)."

WEZ54 clusters with Bronze age Spain, he was from Spain not from main population represented in Tollense valley. No surprise he carried R1b.

WEZ35, WEZ59 were apart of the main population represented in Tollence Valley.

Samuel Andrews said...

These are the three mercenaries in Tollense valley battle.

WEZ54=Spain
WEZ57=France or Germany
WEZ56=Baltic States.

The other 5 Welzin samples in G25, form a cline together. It is a pretty big cline so there's no guarantee they came from the exact same population. They clearly come from same general "country" but may not be from same population.

It could be battle between, an R1b clan and I2a clan within same region, but you need hard proof for this.

ambron said...

A Polish friend of mine claims that low Y-DNA variability, with high mtDNA variability and high autosomal variability, proves that Welzin was a patrilocal community, practicing exogamy of women. Their women came from more eastern and south-eastern areas. The most important, however, is the conclusion of the authors of the study that in the areas from Western Pomerania to the Czech Republic and Bavaria, i.e. the historically West Slavic areas, there is a high degree of genetic continuity since the Bronze Age. David's opinion from two years ago that the warriors of Welzin are, to some level, the ancestors of the Slavs, is confirmed.

Will any of colleagues help me answer the question whether HG Welzin is a Balto-Slavic drift or some other HG?

Davidski said...

@ambron

There's no such thing as a Slavic hunter-gatherer.

The Balto-Slavic genetic drift that we see in PCA and other types of analyses that focus more on recent ancestry than formal statistics took form in a population that was already a complex mixture of foragers, farmers and herders.

So trying to explain this phenomenon with a ghost hunter-gatherer population is the wrong approach.

In regards to the Welzin warriors, since one of the samples looks like an obvious Balto-Slav, and will probably end up with R1a once the BAM files released, then the Balto-Slavic-like genetic character of some of the other individuals isn't a mystery and not particularly controversial.

Obviously, the Welzin population was in contact with Balto-Slavs, and this probably explains the results that I got with the preliminary Welzin warrior samples.

ambron said...

David, it's all clear! Thanks!

HG as the Balto-Slavic drift was just my mental shortcut.

Rob said...

@ Anthony
Actually, I take back what i said. Nganassan do form one, extreme pole of the F_U cline

Matt said...

@ambron, IMO, what David says is viable; however it is also viable that all the drift came in through a HG related source drifting separately (Arzas hypothesis I think). Points in favour of that are that:

1) In Global25, drift on the "Balto-Slavic" cline is linearly correlated with increasing HG fraction.
2) In Global25, samples shifted on the "Balto-Slavic" cline are not shifted further from outgroups (African, Papuan, etc) relative to underlying proportions of HG:steppe:Anatolian. That suggests "different" not "extra" drift. (Also seems to be the case in

Future samples will probably work things out. Samples that would break the linear correlation or samples which are identical before and after but for drift, would provide test cases.

Archi said...

--------

Davidsky, I write scientific truth, but EastPole says a disgraceful anti-scientific nonsense without understanding the texts he refers to.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9Awi%C4%99tos%C5%82aw.

Archi said...

@EastPole
" "Sanskrit ‘Svetasravah’"
There's no such word in Sanskrit.”
And you are just a lazy troll who doesn’t read linked papers and knows nothing.
https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/shvetasrava"

You can't read? What that some Rishi writes in general is a complete error, there is no Svetasravah, there is Śvetasrāva (श्वेतस्राव) "excessive white discharge", Śhveta "white".

But in Slavic there are no whites at all. Slavic. Sventoslavu (Σφενδοσθλάβος) "holy glorious" should have given Sanskrit. śhvāntaśhravasya "holy glorious", but not any **Svetasravah.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9Awi%C4%99tos%C5%82aw.

Śhvetasrāva could not have come out of Slavic. Sventoslav never, and Svetasravah just doesn't exist.

You don't even know Sanskrit phonetics.

vAsiSTha said...

@rob
@ Vasistha

Your models dont seem to have any additional European sources, aside from CWC or Sintashta , which is why they overestimate BMAC input by a long-shot


Scythian_MDA
BGR_IA:I5769 60%
Hallstatt 15%
RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA 13.6%
Bustan 5.8%
RUS_Shamanka_EBA:DA339 4.2%
RUS_Tyumen_HG:I1960 1.4%

Distance 1.6485%

What sorcery is this? Why are you using scythians found in modern moldova to rebut my analysis which is on samples from eastern ukraine? The more western scythians have more western ancestry and their eastern component has been diluted.

I specifically used MJ34, MJ15 & MJ16 (Jarve et al) because they have clear ancestry from somewhere in the IAMC region (saka region) connecting SC Asia and altai.

vAsiSTha said...

@eastpole @archi

shveta-srava or shveta-sraava are legitimate words with shveta being adjective (bright/white) and srava/sraava bein a noun (leakage/discharge/waterfall etc.)

EastPole said...

@Davidski

„@Archi

No more insults from you.”


Very good, we should shut that troll up.
Because of him, a very important issue was missed.

“Similarly the Russian name Svyatoslav (Old Church Slav ‘Svyatoslavu’) and the Sanskrit name Svetasravah have their common origin in the Indo-European kweitoklewes.”

I have already written about similar issues:

https://i.postimg.cc/SRCmzFM6/Lakha.jpg

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/06/like-three-peas-in-pod.html?showComment=1592389569906#c7288375413598633563

The example given above was posted to illustrate how, whenever we can show some linguistic or cultural influence of Slavic on other languages and cultures, there are people who invent some pseudoscientific PIE reconstructions to explain this influence in another way. Using this method invented by proto-Nazi Prussians and perfected by German Nazis, and still used by neo-Nazis in the USA and Western Europe, Slavs can be effectively eliminated from history.

There is no evidence that ‘kweitoklewes’ ever existed, that it was the real spoken word and the source for Slavic ‘Svyatoslav’ and Sanskrit ‘Svetasravah’.

I am sure that Indian linguist Mr. Weer Rajendra Rishi was not a racist, but he could study at some English university or read English books, and those English racists polluted the whole world with German propaganda.

There are many interesting links between the Orphic-Pythagorean religion and Vedic religion which are best explained by Slavic linguistic and cultural influences. For example, Solar cult and the arrival of God in Spring with the Swans, breaking the ice and letting the rivers flow, etc. Apollo riding a chariot driven by swans is a reflex of it. That cult didn’t arrive in Greece from Egypt, but from the Northern Vistula-Dnieper area from which migration to India started. This theory best explains various similarities and it has nothing to do with R1b, so Matt will never understand it.

e-Antique.eu said...

Relationship betwen the Xiongnu and the Turul dynasty(Árpád the hungarian royal family)and conquering Hungarians. Please publish this paper on your blog.

Published: 30 July 2020

Genetic evidence suggests a sense of family, parity and conquest in the Xiongnu Iron Age nomads of Mongolia

Christine Keyser, Vincent Zvénigorosky, Angéla Gonzalez, Jean-Luc Fausser, Florence Jagorel, Patrice Gérard, Turbat Tsagaan, Sylvie Duchesne, Eric Crubézy & Bertrand Ludes
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00439-020-02209-4

Rob said...

@ Vasistha

'' What sorcery is this? Why are you using scythians found in modern moldova to rebut my analysis which is on samples from eastern ukraine?''

Because even western Scythians demonstrate what defines the Scythian complex : post-Andronovo + Altai/Bakial ancestry. The Early Scythians ("Cimmerians") have significant amounts of Baikal-related ancestry.
It is a well known theory that Scythian culture had a formative influences from Arzhan, Tuva, etc. A decent introduction on Scythian origins can be found on Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythians#Origins


Looking at Altai Scythians:

Scythian_Aldy_Bel
RUS_Shamanka_EBA: 59.6%
RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA 32.4%
Bustan 4.4%
Hallstatt 3.6%
RUS_Tyumen_HG:I1960 0%



Copper Axe said...

@Rob

There is an interesting archaeological report on the dating of the Arzhan kurgans here:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352226717300600

The archaeologist (Caspari) has a pretty interesting instagram account with images of digs in those regions and the Tarim Basin.

Copper Axe said...

@e-Antique.eu

I don't think that the relation implied in that article has been uncovered yet, since those y-dna markers were quite widespread on the steppes and easily could've come from a more western location.

Mayuresh Madhav Kelkar said...

From the link posted by Rob

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythians#/media/File:Saka_warrior_Termez_Achaeological_Museum.jpg

Davidski!

Norfern-Ostrobothnian said...

Could RISE524 (Mezhovskaya) be added to the G25 ancients? The other two Mezhovskaya samples are already in there. It's present on Dodecad K12b.

ambron said...

Matt, in a word - in explaining the phenomenon of Balto-Slavic drift, everything is still ahead of us.

Anthony Hanken said...

@Rob

Yes, Nganassans do share ancestry with other Uralics. Like I said I think they may have preserved PU ancestry better than other modern Uralic speakers.

With that being said, they have almost certainly recieved admixture from non-Uralic far eastern groups.

It makes sense then that PU speakers would have been Nganassan-like but more western which is what Davidski said.

Kristiina said...

Fofonovo sample from Baikal was defined as N1a1a2-pre-B187 on Anthrogenica. N-B187 is xL780, i.e. a non-Uralic line. It was formed 10 700 years ago. Today this same line is still found in Khakass in the same area.

weure said...

@Samuel

'WEZ54=Spain
WEZ57=France or Germany
WEZ56=Baltic States.'

Besides that Davidski thinks these samples are cripple isn't he labeling Spain, France, Germany pretty anachronistic?

vAsiSTha said...

@rob

I dont know what you are pushing for with these aldy bel samples, but your previous Moldova/western scythians are irrelevant. I dont even know why you brought them up. That region is what Herodotus called Scythia minor, and was clearly differentiated from the more eastern scythians which he placed in what is now eastern ukraine.

"Because even western Scythians demonstrate what defines the Scythian complex : post-Andronovo + Altai/Bakial ancestry. The Early Scythians ("Cimmerians") have significant amounts of Baikal-related ancestry."

No, western scythians (ie west/sw of ukraine) do not define scythians genetically. In fact scythian genes vary greatly depending on region, as they seem to have taken local women in many regions.

eg this paper https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00439-019-02002-y lays out how different the mtdna pool of scytho-siberians and scythians from ukraine was ( and y-hgs as well)

The problem with you and many here is they just cannot fathom that a culture loosely termed as 'scythian' can have samples which show a huge amount of variability and diversity. you just want to box it into some compartment or the other, This is also what gives rise to the stupid phenomenon of one to one mapping of y haplogroups with language spoken.

I am commenting mainly about ukrainian scythian samples because
1. We know from literature that the PC scythians spoke an iranian dialect
2. We are told by ancient literature that their likely place of origin was east of the source of the syr-darya river (Ptolemy) ie tian shan mountain region. herodotus says they come from near the Jaxartes (again, syr-darya river) east of the aral sea.

Archi said...

@vAsiSTha"@eastpole
shveta-srava or shveta-sraava are legitimate words with shveta being adjective (bright/white) and srava/sraava bein a noun (leakage/discharge/waterfall etc.)"

@EastPole "should shut that troll up."

eastpole is lying. No "Svetasravah" in Sanskrit! eastpole just tricks everyone, shvetasrava is not **svetasravah.

Svetasravah has nothing to do with Sventoslav. The fantastic non-existent Svetasravah cannot come from Sventoslav, because there in the Slavic language is n.

There is no "Old Church Slav 'Svyatoslavu'", it's a later Russian form! Slavic name goes back to k'wento-k'lo:wos, not some Rishi's **kweitoklewes!
There's no Svetasravah in science, science doesn't know it. It's ridiculous when shameful ignorant amateurs start writing books and fantasizing without knowing anything in linguistics.

Weer Rajendra Rishi is not a linguist, he's a pure translator. Naturally, none of the linguists even noticed his amateur nonsense.

Davidski said...

@All

I'm banning all discussions about the meaning of the Rigveda.

You'll have to go and discuss this somewhere else.

Anyone who breaks this rule will get one warning, and then a ban.

ambron said...

Archi, and going back to our earlier conversation ... Dialectal stratification is important because it shows that there has never been any proto-language and that all proto-languages are only constructs of linguists using the historical-comparative method.

Samuel Andrews said...

@ambron,

I'm interested how you think language families diversify into multiple branches if proto-languages don't exist. I can't wrap my head around that works.

Archi said...

ambron, Of course there were proto-languages, otherwise it is impossible. Linguistics reconstructs the words of the proto-language with dialectal variations where they are.
The goal of linguistics is to learn everything about the language, not just individual reconstructions.

EastPole said...

@ambron
„Dialectal stratification is important because it shows that there has never been any proto-language and that all proto-languages are only constructs of linguists using the historical-comparative method.”

Dialectal stratification was possible within similar groups like Indo-Balto-Slavo-Thracians….etc.
There is no R1a in Bell Beaker. This suggests a very strong genetic barrier. But there are no mountains, no seas between CWC and BB groups. So the genetic barrier has to be cultural, very different religions for example, and different languages, no continuity.

Proto-languages are only constructs of linguists using the historical-comparative method and it is a pseudo-science. You will never know which reconstruction is correct and real and which isn’t. Linguists will never agree on it.
Etymological method is much more valuable. Study real languages, real words, how they evolved etc. As in the example given above ‘svet-’ means “light” and ‘kvet-‘ means “flower”. Etymologists say ‘svet-‘ –> ‘kvet-‘ and reconstructions are wrong. There are many words like that.

Rob said...

@ Vasistha

''I dont know what you are pushing for with these aldy bel samples,''

Aldy-Bel are yet more Scythians , this time from the Altai, one of the key regions.

'' but your previous Moldova/western scythians are irrelevant. I dont even know why you brought them up.''

But aren’t they the key link between what you deam “real Scythians” and the Balto-Slavs which they imparted influences on?
And the Altai Scythians are also irrelevant, despite being at the cultural core ?


''That region is what Herodotus called Scythia minor,''

No, the term Scythia Minor was used by Strabo centuries later in a very different context, for the region corresponding to Dobrudja ; not western Ukraine or Moldavia



''The problem with you and many here is they just cannot fathom that a culture loosely termed as 'scythian' can have samples which show a huge amount of variability and diversity. you just want to box it into some compartment or the other,''


Ok lets take a look

Saka_Tian_Shan
Srubnaya_MLBA 49.4%
Shamanka_EBA:DA339 27.8%
Bustan 21.4%
RUS_Tyumen_HG:I1960 1.4%

Saka_Kazakh_steppe
Shamanka_EBA:DA339 46%
Srubnaya_MLBA 42.2%
Bustan 8.8%


Scythian_Aldy_Bel
Shamanka_EBA: 59.6%
Srubnaya_MLBA 32.4%
Bustan 4.4%
Hallstatt 3.6%
RUS_Tyumen_HG:I1960 0%


MDA_Cimmerian
Srubnaya_MLBA 57.6%
RUS_Shamanka_EBA:DA339 24.6%
Bustan 12.8%
BGR_IA:I5769 5%


You see Vasistha, all these diverse Scythians share a same set of features

Ric Hern said...

How can you have a Dialect of a Language without a core language or core similarities to compare it to ?

ambron said...

Samuel, the language tree model is just one of the linguistic models. This model requires distant migration and long separation from the native language area. This model sometimes works, for example on the Indo-Iranian branch. In most cases, however, the wave model is more realistic.

Archi, the historical-comparative method requires the without exception of the voice rights, and explains the exceptions by dialectal differentiation. So it is contradictory in itself. This has already been pointed out by neolinguists. Either there was one language or groups of similar dialects. You have to decide on something. If there were groups of dialects, then there is no need for a proto-language divergence, since the convergence of distant dialects is equally likely.

EastPole, ultimately the point is not to look for one paternal line that speaks a uniform proto-language, but many rhodiums whose dialects have converged as a result of common interests.

ambron said...

Ric, today you have basic (national) languages, which are usually the result of the convergence of numerous dialects for the sake of a common state interest.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 400 of 536   Newer› Newest»